Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - May 2, 2007 K-02AGENDA ITEM VY41*'6 CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION TM AGENDA TITLE: Progress Report on City of Lodi General Plan Update MEETING DATE: May 2,2007 PREPARED BY: Community Development Department RECOMMENDED ACTION: Progress Report on City of Lodi General Plan Update BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Early in 2006, the City Council directed the community Development Department to begin the process for updating the City of Lodi General Plan. The existing General Plan was adopted in 1991 and was designed to accommodate the City's development through the year 2007. On May 17, 2006, the City Council entered into a contract with the consulting firm of Dyett & Bhatia for contract services related to the update of the General Plan. Dyett & Bhatia has been working with their consulting team and with City staff to gather as much information as they can regarding the City of Lodi and the issues that will be addressed in the General Plan Update. At the request of the City, Dyett & Bhatia has prepared the following progress report regarding the General Plan Update process. Stakeholder Interviews Interviews with previously identified stakeholders were conducted in early March. A total of 58 stakeholders were interviewed in group sessions, most of which lasted about one hour. Meetings were conducted by General Plan consultant and Lodi planning staff. These sessions were free form—stakeholders were given the opportunity to layout, in their points of view, issues of significance and general aspects of Lodi's future and other planning concerns. The consultants are currently writing the report to summarize the issues identified by these stakeholders. The Draft Stakeholder Summary Report will be sent to City Staff for review by early April. Working Papers Four working papers, which aim to diagnose the major opportunities and challenges Lodi is facing, are underway. The outlines for these papers have been prepared, and the consultants are currently conducting analysis and writing the drafts on the various topics. These working papers will be reviewed and discussed at the first community workshop in late mid to late June. APPROVED:' it , City Manager Working Paper#l: Greenbelt Conservation This paper focuses on the issues specific to the greater Lodi -Woodbridge area. Successful strategies that have worked elsewhere in the state in the context of wine production will be presented (such as conservation easements, transfer of development rights, and zoning techniques specific to agriculture/viticulture in Sonoma, Napa, South Livermore. and elsewhere in San Joaquin County). Also, this paperwill examine the kinds of uses permitted in agricultural areas in these places. The consultants met with City, planning staff in late January to discuss the proposed greenbelt issue and current developments, and has since collected significant soil, geological, water, and other land data. An outline of the paper has been prepared. A draft will be sent to City staff for review around late April. Working Paper #2: Land Use, Transportation, and Environmental Resources This report will provide a descriptive profile of the City's existing conditions—land use, transportation, parks and open space, agricultural and soil resources, biological resources, cultural resources, energy and mineral resources, hydrology and water quality, air quality, natural hazards, hazardous materials, and noise. This report will contribute to the framework of critical issues and challenges impacting the city to be addressed by the updated General Plan. The paper is in the process of being compiled, textually described, mapped, and analyzed. A draft will be sent to City staff for review around mid April. Working Paper #3: Growth and Economic Development Strategy This working paperwill present growth trends, likely demand for various land uses (including retail demand by segment), and opportunities, challenges, and possibilities for their future arrangement in Lodi, market conditions, and taxable sales performance of retail shopping establishments. The strategies will examine the demand for neighborhood -oriented retail uses, and possibilities for dispersing them (while recognizing the need for a critical mass of uses in a given location) to enable neighborhood walkability. Itwill examine issues related to jobs/employment skills and housing match and the potential role tourism can play, and how land use policies can support that vision. Topics covered include population and demographics, existing business and employment characteristics and trends, retail and visitor services, existing economic development programs, and potential growth and development strategies. The consultants provided a summary of findings to stakeholders during the interviews, and a final draft is well underway. A draft will be sent to City staff for review around late April. Working Paper #r4: Urban Design and Livability This fourth working paper will diagnose and address the urban design and livability conditions in Lodi. Topics to be examined include the City's accessibility and connections, community and neighborhood design, streetscapes, urban form, city evolution, densities and intensities on the lot, neighborhood, and city scales. It will also evaluate the design and development standards, draft zoning ordinance, and existing subdivision plans. The consultants will conduct a community-based livability assessment as well. This working paper will follow the other three; an outline will be prepared and submitted to City staff for review in early April. First Newsletter, Citywide Survey, and Website The newsletterwill be sent out to all Lodi residences in mid to late May, along with the survey on planning issues, along with an invitation for the upcoming public workshop. It will help ensure that citizens are informed about how and when to be involved. While the text has been written for the newsletter—that describes the objectives of the General Plan Update process, key issues to be addressed, and opportunities for public participation—the survey will include questions that will result from analysis in the working papers, and must thus wait their completion. The consultants will derive questions and submit them to City staff for review before finalizing the survey. The General Plan Update Website continues to be update by the consultant with the most current public information available. The link is on the Lodi.gov Home Page. Community Workshop #1 The first community visioning workshop to be held in mid to late June is a citywide event held to further assist the team in "scoping" issues for the General Plan. The intent is to ensure that issues significant to the public are not ignored in the General Plan Update process. The consultants, working with staff, will prepare all materials for the workshops, conduct the meeting, and summarize the findings. Planning Area A Planning Area has been determined for the General Plan Update, and confirmed both by the Planning Commission and the City Council. It extends to Interstate 5 (including White Slough) to the west, Acampo Road to the north, Tretheway Road and Highway 88 to the east, and south as far as the horizontal extension of Live Oak Road to the south, encompassing Mettler Road and Micke Grove Regional Park (see attached map). Schedule The schedule for the General Plan Update has been revised. The final process will still take place over two years, but we have stretched out the second and third phases (Issues/Visioning and Opportunities/Challenge) to allow for more public input. A more detailed timeline of the above subjects is included as attachments for your information. The upcoming key dates are: • Working Papers—Drafts submitted to the City from mid April to late May • Survey and Newsletter—Sentto residences in mid to late May • Community Workshop#1—mid to late June FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. FUNDINGAVAILABLE: The cost of the above work is included in the contract for the General Plan Update authorized previously by t e City Council. rk Evans, Budget Manager w Peter Pirnejad fzandyKatch Planning Manager Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Outline cf Working Papers #1, #2 and #3 2. A revised proposed schedule forthe General Plan Update and EIR 3. Planning Area Map Opportunities and Challenges Assessment Working Paper # 1: Strategies for Protection of Farmland/ Establishment of a Community Separator Date: March 26, 2007 1 Introduction 1.1 General Plan Update 1.2 Planning Area 1.3 Greenbelt as a General Plan Component 1.3.1 What is a greenbelt? 1.3.2 Planning for a greenbelt 1.3.3 Greenbelts in the General Plan 1.4 Approach and Organization of This Paper 1.5 Next Steps 2 Lodi and the Greenbelt Concept 2.1 Overview of Greenbelt Consideration in Lodi 2.1.1 Recent history of greenbelt consideration in Lodi Lower Lodi Agricultural Land Conservation Program (LLALCP) 2x2x2 Greenbelt Committee Community Separator Study Stockton General Plan City of Lodi Greenbelt Task Force 2.1.2 Status of greenbelt -related activity in Lodi Property owners' proposal City initiation of General Plan and SOI amendments Analysis of greenbelt concepts by consultants to the Greenbelt Task Force What happened next, between December 2006 and now? 2.2 Potential Rationales for a Greenbelt South of Lodi 2.2.1 Functions of a greenbelt I Economic Visual Community character and identity 2.2.2 What to call a "greenbelt"? 2.2.3 Target area for establishment of greenbelt 3 Greenbelt Target Area 3.1 South Area 3. 1.1 Physical and resource characteristics Soils, slopes and drainage Water availability 3.1.2 Other characteristics Appearance: topography, vegetation, scale/pattern of existing development Land characteristics: parcel size, ownership, and use Public services (roads, water, sewer, other) — existing and potential 3.1.2 Planning considerations Suitability for greenbelt designation Desirable greenbelt scale Time frame 3.2 West Area same subheadings as for South Area 3.3 East Area 3.4 North Area East and North Areas to be discussed more generally. 4 Designating a Lodi Greenbelt: The Regulatory and Planning Context 4.1 San Joaquin County 4.1.1 Regulatory considerations 4.1.2 Policy considerations 2 4.1.3 Uncertainties (LAFCo?) 4.2 Lodi 4.2.1 Regulatory considerations General Plan Zoning Right -to -Farm ordinance 4.2.2 Policy considerations 4.2.3 Uncertainties 4.3 Stockton 4.3.1 Regulatory considerations 4.3.2 Policy considerations 4.3.3 Uncertainties 5 Strategies for Creating and Preserving a Greenbelt Chapter 5 reviews strategies for creating and preserving a greenbelt, focusing on those that appear most relevant to Lodi. 5.1 Establishing a Greenbelt 5.1.1 The basics Scale, applicable economic resources, sound legal footing, public support 5.1.2 Institutional framework Public: who plans? who zones? Multi -jurisdictional collaboration Non-public: role of land trusts 5.2 A Greenbelt Toolbox 5.2.1 Regulation 5.2.2 Voluntary, compensated Purchase: fee simple, development rights Fund sources 5.2.3 Voluntary, not compensated 3 Donations 5.2.4 Mixed systems Incentivized zoning (clustering of development) Sale/transfer of development rights 5.2.5 Monitoring and updating 5.3 Summary Case Studies (provisional) 5.3.1 County -based: Sonoma Marin Napa 5.3.2 City -based: Yuba City Visalia 5.3.3 City/County collaborations Alameda and Livermore Yolo and Davis Chapter 6 Recommendations for Lodi 6.1 Stakeholders County 6.1.1 Property owners (map showing ownerships for South Area would be useful) 6.1.2 City: Why City is interested: community identity, local economy, public opinion 6.1.3 County: History of/prospects for agriculture's planning/zoning status under 6.1.4 Stockton 6.2 Prospects for Common Direction 6.2.1 Collaboration? 6.2.2 Independent tracks with mutually consistent results? 6.2.3 Lodi's "position" on County and Stockton planning policy 6.3 Opportunities 4 6.3.1 Agricultural mitigation fees 6.3.2 Conservation easements 6.3.3 Other? 6.4 Framework for a Program LODI GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Opportunities and Challenges Assessment Working Paper #2: Land Use, Transportation, Environmental Resources, and Infra- structure Assessment DRAFT OUTLINE December 6, 2006 Each section of the report will include: • Background data and information; • Analysis of the information for its pertinence to the General Plan Update; and • Policy implications of the analysis and resulting issues. 1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE [D&B] 1.1 Purpose of the General Plan Update 1.2 Regional Location and Planning Boundaries 1.3 Key Objectives and Community Issues 1.4 Report Organization 1.5 Next Steps 2. LAND USE [D&B] 2.1 Current Land Use Pattern Current Land Use Pattern Magnitude and Distribution of Uses 2.2 Development Trends and Major Development Projects Residential Nonresidential 2.3 Densities and Intensities 2.4 Existing Plans Lodi plans (including area plans and specific plans) Key adjacent plans • Stockton • Woodbridge Community 2.5 Planning Issues and Implications 1 LODI GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Opportunities and Challenges Assessment Working Paper #2: Land Use, Transportation, Environmental Resources, and Infrastructure DRAFT OUTLINE December 6, 2006 3. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS AND CIRCULATION [F&P] Each section will have its own Planning Issues and Implications 3.1 Automobiles and Traffic Circulation 3.2 Truck Circulation 3.3 Public Transit/Commuter Rail 3.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Movement 4. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE [D&B] 4.1 Existing Facilities and Planned Improvements 4.2 Standards 4.3 Deficiencies and Planned Improvements/Match with Community Needs 4.4 Planning Isssues and Implications 5. AGRICULTURAL AND SOIL RESOURCES [ESA] 5.1 FARMLAND Including Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Williamson Act lands 5.2 SOILS 6. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CHALLENGES [ESA] 6.1 Biological Resources (and related Waterways) 6.2 Cultural Resources Archaeological Resources Historic Resources 6.3 Energy and Mineral Resources 6.4 Hydrology and Water Quality 6.5 Flooding 6.6 Air Quality 6.7 Hazardous and Toxic Materials 6.8 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity 6.9 Noise 6.10 Planning Issues and Implications 7. PUBLIC FACILITIES [D&B or ESA?] 7.1 Schools 2 LODI GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Opportunities and Challenges Assessment Working Paper #2: Land Use, Transportation, Environmental Resources, and Infrastructure DRAFT OUTLINE December 6, 2006 7.2 Libraries 7.3 Planning Issues and Implications 8. INFRASTRUCTURE [WYA] 8.1 Water 8.2 Sanitary Sewer 8.3 Reclaimed Water 8.4 Stormwater Drainage 8.5 Planning Issues and Implications LODI GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Opportunities and Challenges Assessment Working Paper #3: Growth and Economic Development Strategy DRAFT OUTLINE December 20, 2006 1 Introduction and Purpose 2 Population and Demographics 2.1 Population growth Past trends (based on census and DOF data) Projections (from SJCOG); extended five years to 2030 (reflecting Lodi's two per- cent growth rate limitation) 2.2 Population characteristics (likely to be drawn primarily from the US Census) Age Race/ethnicity Educational attainment 2.3 Projected Population Growth 3 Housing and households (likely to be drawn primarily from the US Census) 3.1 Housing stock Types of structures Number of bedrooms Age Tenure Occupancy rate Current housing prices 3.2 Households Household size Household composition Household income 4 Economic Characteristics 4.1 Business Characteristics (primarily from Economic Census, Chamber of Commerce, and California Employment Development Department) Major Businesses, by industry sector Sizes of businesses Geographic clusters Recent business locations/relocations Sectors of particular growth/decline at present Relative strengths and weaknesses of Lodi 4.2 Employment Characteristics (from 2000 Census, California EDD, and SJCOG) Labor force Employment and unemployment Industry and Occupation of Employed Residents Number of jobs in Lodi Types of jobs (occupation and industry, as available) Draft — Not for Distribution 1 3/30/07 Typical wages for Lodi jobs (from EDD sources) Journey to Work (work location of employed Lodi residents and residence location of Lodi workers, based on 2000 US Census Jobs/housing balance (jobs per employed resident) 4.3 Retail sales Citywide trends in sales by store category (total and per capita) Distribution of sales within the City (depends on City's ability to provide data by geographic subarea) Downtown Corridors (Kettleman, Cherokee, Lodi) Scattered strip commercial locations and neighborhood centers Historical sales per capita Retail gaps (based on location quotient approach) Additional retail space supported by future households and businesses Regional retail geography Locations outside of Lodi that compete for purchases by City residents Retail sectors in which Lodi attracts purchases from people who live outside the City Existing Economic Development Programs (based on consultation with Community Development staff) 5.1 Programs to improve jobs/housing balance 5.2 Programs to diversify the local economy 6 Tourism Potential 7 General Plan Implications 7.1 Population and Housing Growth Projected population and household growth (compared to two percent limit; may conform) Household incomes and housing prices 7.2 Employment Growth Workers and jobs match (implications for types of jobs that should be sought) 7.3 Projected demand for residential and nonresidential development in the General Plan Housing (units and types) Hotel/motels/hospitality services (including restaurants) Retail (by type, and potentially location) Office/Medical Industrial Others? 7.4 Candidate economic development programs not currently in use by the City 8 Policy choices for growth and development 8.1 Types of jobs and businesses to be pursued 8.2 Types of housing development to be permitted/encouraged (focus on density; frame this discussion in light of household incomes, sizes, and types) 8.3 Locations for retail development (downtown vs. other) 8.4 Locations for non -retail nonresidential development (downtown vs. other) Draft — Not for Distribution 2 3/30/07 Proposed Schedule for the City of Lodi General Plan Update and EIR Background Studies & Issues Choices Draft Products Final Products TASKS 2007 zoos SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP I. Reconnaissance, Organization, & Public Participation Program Stakeholders Survey .•I 2. Issues and Visioning ? 3. Strategy Paper OnAre A g working Paper: \ Greetibelti Greenbelt Conservation; Planning Area Definition Working Papers 4. Opportunities & Challenges Alternative Plans DRAFT', W ' kbook & Maps S. Sketch Plans ] Q 411 P'refeired plat% & 6. Preferred Plan Selection & DRdfi ICey Goals Refinement General PUn Hear DRAing Draft {i�,�,�,�, DRUB=FT GPU 7. Draft General Plan Draft Ei t Scoping Meeting �■r■■�-� �'' ^ DRAFT EI Q ''',-R 8. Draft EIR FINAL 9. Public Review/Final EIR 10. Adopted General Plan Q PLAN Consultant Effort Hearing Interim Product Pte" Final Product � Newsletter i©i Stakeholder Interviews DYETT & BHATIA Urban and Regional Planners It Public Workshop Planning Commission/City Council Meeting O Other (as noted) March I, 2007 T RD White` Slough Lodi General Plan Update Proposed Planning Area ACAMPO RD 7 70\ an z \ 1 I 1 JII��!1—.iii■■ 100. > .11 5; IN — X110===ON ISO= nag LIVE OAK RD r ��! Existing City Limits 0 0.5 1 2 ® Existing Lodi SOI Miles QProposed Planning Area Existing Stockton SOI D Y E T T& B H AT I A ® Proposed Annexation Stockon SOI Urban and Regional Planners .%lucTy 24, 2007 Lodi General Plan Update Lodi General Plan Update R.epor-t on Stakeholder I n t e r v i e w s CITY OF LODI April 2007 Prepared By DYETT & BHATIA Urban and Regional Planners TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION....................................................................................... 1.1 Stakeholder Interviews.................................................................................................... 1 12 Lodi General Plan Update............................................................................................... 1 1.3 General Plan Update Objectives.................................................................................... 3 4 Public InvolvementAnd Participation........................................................................... 4 15 Report Organization......................................................................................................... 4 2 MAJORISSUES............................................................................................ 5 2.1 Major Issues........................................................................................................................ 6 2.2 other Issues........................................................................................................................ 9 3 ISSUE DISCUSSION................................................................................. 11 3.1 Compact Growth And Small -Town Character........................................................ 11 32 Agriculture And The Greenbelt/ Community -Separator ..... ....... _..... _..... _..... 14 3.3 the Wine IndustryAnd Tourism................................................................................. 19 3.4 Downtown........................................................................................................................ 21 3.5 Easuide Neighborhood.................................................................................................. 23 3.6 Economic Development................................................................................................ 25 3.7 Housing.............................................................................................................................. 28 3.8 Parks, Recreation, And Open Space........................................................................... 30 3.9 Circulation, Transportation, And Transit.................................................................. 33 3.10 Provision Of Public Services And Amenities............................................................ 34 3.I 1 Urban Design.................................................................................................................... 36 3.12 Infrastructure................................................................................................................... 37 4 N EXT STEPS............................................................................................. 39 APPENDIX...................................................................................................... 41 List of Stakeholders Interviewed............................................................................................ 41 This page intentionally left blank. INTRODUCTION 1.1 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS The Lodi General Plan Update work program is designed to identify issues, opportunities, and challenges early on in the planning process, to enable the planning team to reflect these issues in the preparation of alternatives. In addition to the input gathered during the initial joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting, the forthcoming mail -in survey, and the initial community workshop, interviews were conducted with a cross-section of Lodi stakeholders, representing residents, business owners and employers, decision -makers, developers, community groups, and service providers. These interviews were conducted in early March 2007. A total of 59 stakeholders were interviewed in group sessions, most of which lasted about an hour. Interviews were conducted by General Plan consultant and Lodi planning staff, and were free form—stakeholders were given the opportunity to layout, in their points of view, issues of significance, visions for Lodi's future, general planning concerns, and other topics of specific interest. 1,2 LODI GENERAL PLAN UPDATE What will Lodi be like in the next 20 years? When the community last gathered to create a new vision for the city in 1991, a plan was adopted to create the "Livable, Lovable Lodi" that we know today. These efforts have helped preserve the city's small town charm, revitalize the now vibrant historic downtown, build new neighborhoods and parks, and attract new businesses and industries, while maintaining a compact urban form surrounded by agricultural uses. Much has changed since 1991 when the existing General Plan was written. Lodi has grown about 20 percent—from a population of 51,847 in 1990to 62,817 in 2006. Development pressures can be felt both from within and outside the City limits. Perhaps even more critically, new ideas have emerged—the city sees its future increasingly tied to the wine industry, with the surrounding vineyards key to providing economic sustenance and a distinctive character. The new General Plan provides an opportunity to shape the city's future, define the role of tourism and the city's relation to agricultural/viticulture lands and adjacent communities, identify what the City can do to create walkable neighborhoods, foster a strong downtown, and ensure continued economic vitality and a strong sense of place for the community. Report on Stakeholder Interviews SCOPE AN D REQUIREMENTS The General Plan is a document adopted by the City Council to guide development and conservation. The General Plan can be described as the constitution for conservation and development—the framework within which decisions on how to grow, provide public services and facilities, and protect and enhance the community must be made. The General Plan also expresses broad community values and goals, gives a picture of how the city should look in the future, and outlines steps to get there. The General Plan will: • Establish a long-range vision for the city, and outline implementing actions to achieve this vision. • Establish long-range development policies that guide Planning Commission and City Council decision-making. • Provide a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects are in harmony with Plan policies. • Allow City departments, other public agencies, and private developers to design projects that will enhance the character of the community. Topics in the General Plan W11 include: • Land Use • Circulation • Urban Design • Parks/Recreation • Conservation • Safety • Noise • Sustainability State law requires that the General Plan should be: • Long Range The General Plan must be a long-range document addressing future development within the community. Most general plans have a 20 -year horizon. • Comprehensive. The General Plan must encompass the entire Planning Area, and address the full range of issues associated with the city's physical development. • Internally Consistent Mandatory and optional elements must be consistent with one another, and ail elements have equal legal 2 status. Additionally, principles, goals, objectives, policies, and plan proposals set forth in an area, community, or specific plan, and all capital improvements must be consistent with the overall General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT A comprehensive Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will also be prepared along with the General Plan, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIR will evaluate impacts the new Plan on the environment, and will be prepared concurrently with the General Plan so that any necessary mitigation can be folded into Plan policies. 1.3 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE OBJECTIVES The new General Plan will manage Lodi's growth into a vibrant 21' century town, with livable neighborhoods, smart economic development, and preservation of agricultural assets. The General Plan will create a vision defining: ■ Lodi's place in the region; ■ The city's identity; ■ How neighborhoods and districts are structured: ■ Physical growth and development management; ■ Growth of the wine industry and tourism; • Greenbelt I community separator; • Economic and development strategy; ■ Downtown, neighborhood, and key corridor revitalization; • Quality of life; and • Housing options. By establishing policies for future growth and development, the General Plan will help manage Lodi's ongoing transformation and Insure its continued growth and vitality. 1: Introduction 3 Report on Stakeholder Interviews 1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND PARTICIPATION The General Plan is a policy document that implements the vision of the community. Therefore, public participation is an important part of the process of shaping the Plan. Opportunities for public input have been designed to allow the planning team to learn directly from city residents, business and property owners, and other community members about their needs and values, as well as to allow the public to provide feedback throughout the phases of the planning process. Community members and interested parties are invited to participate and stay informed in many ways, including: • Newsletters; • Community workshops; • City Council and Planning Commission meetings; • Mail -in survey to be sent to all residential addresses in the city; • Stakeholder interviews; • Comments via e-mail; and • Website atwww.lodi.govlcommunity_development/general plan. 1.5 REPORT ORGANIZATION This report provides a summary of the issues and ideas that arose during stakeholder interviews. Chapter 2 identifies major issues identified by a wide cross-section of stakeholders. Chapter 3 contains an expanded discussion of the issues, with a full listing of issues by topic. The report concludes with information about how this input will be used during the next steps of the planning process. It is important to recognize that the issues presented in this paper may not necessarily be representative of the community at large, or a comprehensive assessment of opportunities and challenges. While the stakeholders represent a diverse spectrum of the Lodi community, no sampling techniques were employed in selecting the stakeholders, and consequently, the results cannot be generalized as the sentiments of the population at large. It is also important to recognize that information presented by the stakeholders reflects their perceptions, some of which may not necessarily be grounded in facts. Nonetheless, the valuable insight shared by the stakeholders who participated in the interview greatly informs the planning process for the General Plan. 4 2 MAJORISSUES During the stakeholder interviews, several issues were repeatedly identified. Major issues contributed by multiple stakeholders are summarized below for quick reference. Subsequent sections of the report provide the varying perspectives of different stakeholders on these topics, as well as additional explanations. These issues should be seen together with Lodi perceived strengths: a small town ambiance despite growth, a lively downtown, livable neighborhoods, and an emerging wine industry. The most salient issues identified by stakeholders were: • Compact growth and small town character; • Agricultural preservation and the greenbelticommunity-separator; • The wine industry and tourism; • Continued downtown development; • Eastside neighborhood revitalization; • Economic development and job creation; • Housing; and • Parks, recreation, and open space. Other recurring issues included: • Circulation, transportation, and transit; • Provision of public services and amenities; • Urban design; and • Infrastructure. These issues are summarized in the following pages. A more detailed discussionwith quotes can be found in Chapter 3. Report on Stakeholder Interviews 2.1 MAJOR ISSUES COMPACT GROWTH AND SMALLTOWN CHARACTER Lodi's growth was addressed in almost all stakeholder meetings, indicating that the issue is not only a concern for decision makers and real estate brokers, but also for residents, community groups, and local businesses. Stakeholders were almost universally appreciative of Lodi's "small town" feel, unique character, rural beauty and landscapes, and high quality of life. Preserving Lodi's small-town feel and scale, and neighborhood livability as the city grows were seen as major issues. The City's compact form, walkable neighborhoods, and good connections to commercial and recreation nodes were seen as desirable concepts for Lodi's growth. While several people voiced support for infill development as a more desirable strategy than greenfield expansion, others expressed challenges of infill development—lack of desirable sites, high property prices, and inability to command a premium for infill developments. Several areas were mentioned as having potential for infill/revitalization, with Main Street referred multiple times. Stakeholders also discussed the merits of city expansion in various directions; however, no particular areas of consensus emerged. Some stakeholders discussed the infrastructural limitations of expansion in certain areas, as well as different strategic parcel sizes for efficient service provision and compact growth. There was general support for the city's two percent residential growth cap; however, the business and the development community felt that this cap is restrictive and does not enjoy overwhelming community support. AGRICULTURE AND GREENBELT/ COMMUNITY - SEPARATOR Almost all stakeholders expressed appreciation for the agricultural industry that has provided sustenance to Lodi for generations, as well as the emerging wine industry. Most residents also support the idea of keeping Stockton and Lodi visually separate; however, the proposed greenbelt between the two communities (or separator) was a heated topic in the stakeholder interviews—while residents are supportive of the separator, property owners would like to be either compensated for lost development potential, or otherwise allowed to subdivide. Various parcel size ideas in the Lodi/Stockton separator area were advanced, with five acres being the most popular. However, several people were skeptical of the agricultural viability of five -acre lots, while service providers were concerned about the deleterious effect of large lot (three - or five -acre) zoning—they would like the land to be either subdivided to much smaller (for example, one -acre parcels that can be municipally 6 2: Major Issues served) or left in larger agricultural holdings. Almost everyone emphasized the need for cooperation between Stockton, Lodi, and the County. Land uses other than agriculture (wineries, churches, other low - intensity uses) in the separator were also offered as options by some. Mechanisms to preserve agriculture in the other directions (west, north, and south) did not draw much discussion, as perhaps these areas were not seen as in immediate danger of large-scale urbanization. WINE INDUSTRYAND TOURISM Expansion of tourist amenities in conjunction with the wine industry was much discussed. Hotels were the most common desired amenity, with a new hotel in downtown or near Hutchins Street Square most frequently mentioned. A number of people proposed another luxury boutique hotel along the lines of Wine & Roses, but others felt that a mid -price range hotel would be most suitable because that is the largest untapped market now. However, business interests and developers see the seasonality and weekend nature of the wine visitors as challenging for hotel feasibility. Developing a hotel in downtown was also seen as difficult because of higher development costs. "White -linen" restaurants, wine tasting, and more activities in downtown were also desired. Some stakeholders would like to see a network of trails and bikeways that knit together the wineries, Lodi Lake, and downtown. CONTINUED DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT Although downtown is already a thriving district, a significant number of people voiced their desire to enhance downtown with a wider array of stores and amenities, as well as other uses. Stakeholders suggested housing, offices, hotels, restaurants, and wine -tasting rooms to activate downtown, but several real estate developers cautioned about the difficulty of financing such projects, particularly given higher development costs and lack of premium compared to peripheral locations. Several people emphasized a desire for senior housing in or near downtown, given its access to amenities and transit; however, developers perceive the lack of available large sites as a major impediment to downtown senior housing development. EASTSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION The blighted condition of the Eastside neighborhood, located east of the railroad corridor, was a recurring theme in many stakeholder meetings. In the past, this area had been subdivided from single-family residential lots to multifamily ones, often with substandard development and without the adequate infrastructural improvements to support the increase in population. Some stakeholders described the area as blighted, with Report on Stakeholder Interviews unkempt homes and unmaintained streets, homeless people, and gang related activities. Many also said that it was perceived as unsafe. Community groups complained about the lack of public interest and investment, mentioning the lack of any police facility or library, and a lack of maintenance for parks and streets in general. Suggestions for revitalization included installing a new community center or focal point, park maintenance, street cleaning, crackdown on crime and gang activities, infrastructural and streetscape improvements, and educational and incentive programs for homeowners to fix up their homes. Others suggested that the Delta College campus locate in or near the Eastside neighborhood to benefit the community who now has to travel to the Stockton campus. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND JOB CREATION Economic development strategies were well supported in the community. Some stakeholders suggested that commercial and economic development have not kept pace with housing growth. There was a general perception that a lot of sales tax is lost to Stockton, and even to Elk Grove. Costco, Trader Joe's and a department store were the most -often mentioned desirable new establishments. For business owners and large employers, there was a concern about the high costs of doing businesses in Lodi, as well as the difficulty of finding skilled workers specific to their needs. Some were also concerned that there were not enough offices to attract professional businesses. Expansion of the Lodi Memorial Hospital was seen positively, but the lack of medical offices was cited as an issue. HOUSING The issue of housing appeared repeatedly in the interviews. While there did not seem W be a zealous concern about sprawl, three topics were frequently mentioned (1) General lack of affordable housing for working residents—nurses, teachers, and young families; (2) Lack of housing options for the growing senior population, with both limited availability and long waiting lists for existing centers, and less -than -ideal peripheral locations of new housing, such as Kettleman Lane, which are removed from stores, transit, and/or services; and (3) Housing types, but with mixed opinions—some favored some additional higher density and downtown housing, while others favored single family or potentially medium density housing. 8 PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE Parks came up for discussion in a number of stakeholder interviews, although opinions and preferences differed significantly. Some— including developers —preferred small parks for their intimate scale and easy access, while others preferred large parks or sports complexes because of their ease of maintenance. Issues regarding the city's dependence on basin parks, safety, access, financing, and implementation strategies also surfaced. The city's changing demographics also posed demand for new and revised programs and facilities, such as a cricket field for the growing Pakistani population, and redevelopment of the substandard and underutilized Grape Bowl stadium into a more accessible/integrated facility/park. 2.2 OTHER ISSUES In addition to the above major issues, several other topics were raised frequently: CIRCULATION, TRANSPORTATION, AND TRANSIT Transportation was a common topic amongst resident, community group, and transit expert stakeholders. Stakeholders discussed their desires for better connections, more frequent and reliable transit options to accessjobs and services within Lodi and in adjacent communities, and establishment of bikeways. The City did not provide transit until 1994, and to date, still has many deficiencies, including limited number of routes and capacity. PROVISION OF PUBLIC SERVICES AN D AMENITIES A significant number of stakeholders were concerned with the provision of services, amenities, and infrastructure in the city. While many were proud of the services and amenities already provided to the community, they also felt the pressure of limited funding and restricted expansion options. Developers complained about rising costs of development in the city, and the lack of maintenance of parks and public facilities under special assessment. URBAN DESIGN Several stakeholders would like to see better urban design incorporated into the city's development. This includes better architecture and design standards for businesses and new homes, streetscape improvements, walkability, and good pedestrian connections. 2: Major Issues 9 Report on Stakeholder Interviews INFRASTRUCTURE Stakeholders familiar with the city's infrastructure expressed their concerns for water supply, treatment, and drainage, and how these would affect the city's expansion options. They also discussed capacities and constraints for roads. In general, stakeholders addressed the need to consider infrastructural constraints and strategies to accommodate Lodi`s growth. Parcel sizes also need to be arranged to efficiently provide infrastructural services as the city expands. to 3 ISSUE DISCUSSION This chapter provides an expanded discussion of the issues raised by stakeholders. Each section draws out themes repeated in stakeholder interviews, followed by a bulleted list of all issues, ideas, and/or suggestions offered. Stakeholders' perspectives on some issues conflict in some instances, reflecting their diverse backgrounds and experiences. Thus, the following discussion outlines points of agreement and of conflict as well. 3.1 COMPACT GROWTH AND SMALL-TOWN CHARACTER Although the city's growth was an omnipresent topic in the meetings, many stakeholders emphasized the small-town character of Lodi, and their desire to preserve this unique quality. For current residents, this small-town ,quality has made them appreciate Lodi; for real estate developers, the city's charm has helped attract investors and home— seekers. Overall, stakeholders seemed to be very proud of their small city, and felt that it is a much better alternative to the sprawling model of other cities in the county. Lodi's growth was addressed in all stakeholder meetings, indicating that the issue is not only a concern for decision makers and real estate brokers, but also for residents, community groups, and local businesses. Some sensed that the small-town feeling was dissipating, and that the town no longer provides the services and amenities it needs, while others thought there is not enough land to accommodate the whole community and economy. Overall, stakeholders seemed to have accepted the inevitability of growth, and the discussions revolved around how and where Lodi should grow in the future. In terms of location, many stakeholders know that existing growth is heading south and west, as indicated by the future annexation areas. One stakeholder suggested growth along SR -12 between 1-5 and the City limits were a good destination for development. Others found opportunities north of the proposed greenbelt. Some recognized the development opportunities east of State Road 99 (SR -99), especially for industrial uses, while others said there is not enough land to attract potential industrial tenants. Areas north of the river were only mentioned by a few stakeholders, but with differing opinions. On one hand, it would be a nice area for parks and recreation, on the other hand, the flood plains and water drainage would pose a problem for more urban developments there. Members of the County and the Local Agency Formation Commission Report on Stakeholder Interviews (LAFCO) also warned about the infrastructural restrictions of expansion (see Infrastructure section below). Several voiced their support for infill development as a more desirable strategy than greenfield expansion. They suggested Main Street between Locust Street and Lodi Avenue as a target infill area, especially for housing or mixed-use development. But others with expertise in Lodi's real estate market revealed the difficulty of developing within the city due to extended and costly documentation processes, and high property prices, especially in the downtown area. Some stakeholders, including realtors with industrial user clients and the Islamic and Pakistani community, find a lack of affordable options within the City limits, and resort to areas outside the boundary for expansion, even for community centers that should otherwise be closer to people. There was also a debate about industrial lands. Some stakeholders thought industrial lands were underutilized and should be considered for other uses, while others did not see enough remaining large parcels to attract new industrial businesses. Regarding the pace of growth, several people mentioned that they approve of the two percent growth cap, while others said that the cap restricted Lodi's growth and is not supported by the whole community. Overall, most stakeholders advocated a high-quality and compact growth over sprawl. Several stakeholders mentioned smart growth, walkable neighborhoods, and good connections to commercial and recreation nodes as desirable concepts for Lodi's growth. Comments offered on this topic were: • We want to maintain family values. • We do not want to see sprawl. We do not want to be like other cities. • Lodi is a wonderful town that offers a lot. • I love Lodi. It is a nice small community. • Many real estate customers like Lodi more than other towns. It has a nice downtown and wineries. • A smaller community means that it is safer, and allows us to keep children in check. We need to keep the norms of the community. • We want to keep the small-town feel, but not at the expense of growth. We can keep the small town feel even if Lodi grows. It can be a small community even if it is a big town. 12 ■ We want slow growth. ■ I am not concerned that Lodi stays the same; Lodi will change. I am concerned that Lodi is not using the land like it can. • We do not want to see sprawl • Growth should not get out of hand. • We like the two percent growth cap. • Bigger is not better; the city may inherit more problems. • The city is sprawling the way housing is going. • The town will grow naturally. Somebody needs to bring in infrastructure. • Growth is a positive thing for communities. There needs to be balance. Make growth as compact as possible. ■ There is a dearth of land available right now, and prices are artificially high. • The inventory of land around Lodi is substantial. • Urban development is not allowed in un -incorporated areas • Development on the north side may he an instigator for more sprawl. We need to allocate and save green spaces or else development will eat it all up. ■ We need more industrial land because we have run out. Vacant parcels are small. Lodi had the vision of having an industrial park. Companies have not come here looking for land, because they know it does not exist. Some companies have gone to Elk Grove, and some around the airport area in Stockton. ■ The industrial area on the east side is pretty much gone. Vacant parcels owned by unmotivated sellers. Can see expansion to the north and also to the east of SR -99. ■ There are not enough large industrial parcels. • The city should consider developing along the Mokelumne River corridor. Lodi Lake is one of the prettiest spots in the area. • We do not like the idea of expanding to the north side of the river because we have to get the wastewater across the bay. A lot of that land is riparian land and irrigated land. South and west are considered the best areas. The further east you go, the less desirable agricultural land it gets. South and west would also help commuters who are going in those directions. 3. Issue Discussion 13 Repon on Stakeholder Interviews ■ Water and infrastructure are major concerns for future development. ■ Environmental documentation for a 34 lot of infill development delayed it by six to nine months, and added to the costs of infill development. ■ The City of Lodi owns a lot of land that has been left undeveloped for many years. One example is the major corner of Lodi Avenue and Cherokee Lane. ■ We should make highway 12 a big development because that is where businesses will go for the next 30 years. The city can allow development to the east and west—that is the natural development. • I-5 is a good area for industrial growth ■ We do not want to fill up all the area between Lodi and I-5 like Stockton. ■ Developers want to develop between 1-5 and the City of Lodi. It's not a bad idea because there's not much area there anyway. • We should put industry in the south. ■ There is lots of interest south of Harney because the greenbelt is not there. ■ More freeway oriented development should go around SR -99. 3.2 AGRICULTURE AND THE GREENBELT I COMMUNITY -SEPARATOR Almost all stakeholders expressed appreciation for the agricultural industry that has provided sustenance to Lodi for generations, as well as the emerging wine industry. Many also liked the idea of keeping Stockton and Lodi visually separate; however, the proposed greenbelt between the two communities (or separator) was a heated topic in the stakeholder interviews. There were strong differences of opinion relating to the specifics of the Lodi/Stockton separator and its implementation. Almost all stakeholders who commented on the issue were aware of the disproportional burden placed on property owners located in the proposed greenbelt area, and agreed that they should be fairly compensated if a greenbelt is indeed established. While Lodi residents were supportive of the separator, greenbelt area property owners expressed a strong desire to subdivide or do as they please without pressure from the City. These property owners felt f4 3. Issue Discussion threatened by the City and do not believe the City wiII be able to bring any compensation to the discussion. Moreover, some voiced their concern that Lodi was the only one putting efforts into the greenbelt, and more cooperation with Stockton and the County is needed. Several property owners and farming interests mentioned a five -acre zoning plan has been prepared and will be presented to the City. Property owners believe five acres is a viable farm size -especially in Lodi where the soil is extremely fertile—but still gives farmers the option of subdividing their parcels for development. These stakeholders held that 40 -acre zoning is not fair for property owners because of the lost speculative property values. Furthermore, farmers do not want to lock themselves in agriculture because farming is highly regulated in California, and there is no guarantee that farming will be viable in the future. Others expressed skepticism about agricultural viability of five -acre parcels. Service providers would like the land to be either subdivided into much smaller area (for example, one -acre parcels that can be municipally served) or left in larger agricultural lots. In addition to five -acre zoning, other suggestions include a transfer of development rights program (TDR) that would allow property owners to develop in other designated developable areas, or impact fees that would raise funds to compensate property owners in the greenbelt. Details of these financing programs would need careful calculations to ensure that property owners are justly compensated and enough acreage of land be preserved to form an actual greenbelt. A few stakeholders offered other possible uses in the separator that are "green"—parks, recreational uses, golf courses, and community or rural residential uses to define the separator between the two cities. Mechanisms to preserve agriculture in the other directions (west, north, and south) did not draw much discussion, as perhaps these areas were not seen as in immediate danger of large-scale urbanization. Suggestionsand comments include: • Want to keep Lodi and Stockton separate. • Urban development is not allowed in un -incorporated areas. • The SOI is the ultimate boundary of how large a citywi I I grow and can provide services for. Spheres are not supposed to be used for controlling land uses. • When you annex areas, you convert farmlands. • We want to see the greenbelt in the General Plan. Report on Stakeholder interviews • Want a community separator. • We need a mediating underlying motivation to get the greenbelt done. ■ The greenbelt would be good. A limitation of the amount of growth in Lodi. It's a good thing to limit growth. It sets Lodi apart from other growing cities. ■ We need to preserve prime agriculture around Lodi. ■ The greenbelt will not happen. We should give up because it is too late. The burden has always been on Lodi, not Stockton. More resources should be spent on Campaign for Common Ground, a countywide smart -growth program. People never really believed in the greenbelt. The city does not really believe that the greenbelt will happen. • There is huge support for the greenbelt in the simplistic term. ■ A west side greenbelt may be possible, but that area is fast growing. ■ Want to preserve agricultural land for the future. All around the west, south, and north of Lodi City limits. • Do not like TDR credits for two- to five -acre parcels because it is bad planning, inefficient for any use. ■ Knows a lot of people do not want to be tied to greenbelt on their properties. They want choice. • The greenbelt needs to be productive. • The greenbelt issue is very simplistic to articulate and take an emotional view on, but is much more difficult to deal with in actuality. Lodi is better than other communities, but it's not that simple. People act emotionally on the issue. I am troubled by the fact that there is no agreement by Stockton or Lodi. It would be best done by agreement on both sides—a settlement. • We want to preserve agricultural land. The wine industry is very important to Lodi. The 1-5 area should not be industrial, but preserved as agricultural land. However, some wineries will go out of business. The wine industry has taken a hit in the past few years. ■ Land development is the largest economic force in the Central Valley. It is difficult to fight throughout the whole valley. I want to show people that they do not have to accept selling out to development. I want to preserve resources, food resources, soils, and water. I'm not against growth, but against growth that does not consider the resources in the valley. San Joaquin Valley is one 16 of the richest food resources in the world. Once we urbanize, we cannot go back. • We are losing grapevines in the area. Grapevines will grow anywhere, so our future is uncertain. Lodi may or may not be a wine growing region. We do not want people to have the illusion that wine industries can replace other industries. It depends on the price and profitability of grapes. • Greenbelt property owners will not let people tell them what to do. The Cities use to talk around them. • People in the greenbeltwant to be in the Countyjurisdiction. • Stockton does not want a greenbelt. It wants to expand north. • Some things can go in the greenbelt that still makes it green. Parks, golf courses, for example. • If greenbelt goes from Eight Mile Road to Harney Lane, where does the money come from? I would rather have a little greenbelt and have it good instead of wanting a lot and not getting anything. • I'm willing to pay. A hundred dollars a year is not enough. Only 70% of population will be willing to pay $100 per year. • I like the TDR proposal. • We should find out how critical the greenbelt is to the community, then everybody should pay, not just the new people. There is a lot of talk about it, but we do not know how critical it is. • There are some uses that fit with agriculture. • We can fit a senior community in the greenbelt area. • The greenbelt has no recreation element in it. • Stockton has not gotten far enough in their General Plan project to talk about a greenbelt. They have discussed a 200 -foot buffer and a fee agreement of $9,600 per acre or land easements, but they do not know if that is enough for a greenbelt. • There is not enough concern about the greenbelt in Stockton. If the city is supportive of the greenbelt concept, they still will not pay for it themselves. They would probably make developers pay for it. • When development occurs against this ultimate city boundary, we should see five -acre or larger parcels. If it comes at a dollar amount, they have to make it whole. We need urban design, site planning features on individual lots that will create some semblance of a greenbelt. People want to be able to point to a separator; the next best thing is a visible boundary. Farmers are in agreement for Eve -acre lots. 3: Issue Discussion 17 Report on Stakeholderinterviews • Everybody wants the greenbelt, but nobody wants to pay for it. Why not do it through zoning and a tripartite agreement? • City needs to back off. Let the property owners and ag interests come up with a plan. 179 property owners have come up with this plan. City has lost its credibility with farm interests. We have the impression that the city has threatened our property rights and not bring anything to the table. • If Lodi wants to create a greenbelt, it needs to come up with the money. This issue has created a wedge between the City and the agricultural community. • The greenbelt is not hard to do. It's not fair to land owners in the greenbelt area. We need to pay for development rights on the greenbelt. • Five acres is a viable farm size. The ground in Lodi can grow anything. It may take 50 years for the five -acre parcels to develop. • Regarding 40 -acre zoning—The city will have to pay ag property owners for the lost speculative value of properties. California has the most highly regulated farming. What if agriculture in California is not viable in the future? • Five -acre ranchettes may be as close as we can get if we do not have enough money to buy out the land. • TDR is very supportable because the value of development is so high. There is no price for the valuable agricultural land. People would love to develop on receiving lands. Developers should not be allowed to go beyond urban surface without election. We need to calculate areas and land prices to make TDR work. • Can see a tax being made, but question whether that is a real attempt for a solution. • Feels okay with paying more for the greenbelt, but how much more? That is the real question, especially for retired people. A $100 parcel tax may not be too much for me, but may be too much for other people. • Lodi and Stockton are not friends, and have not worked well together in the past. The cities cannot express such feelings in public, but is a real part of the greenbelt -community separator problem. We need to compromise the mindsets as well. It is an underlying problem. 18 3.3 THE WINE INDUSTRY AND TOURISM A number stakeholder groups discussed the issue of Lodi's wine industry, and the necessary factors to develop a parallel tourism industry. In general, these stakeholders were supportive of the concept of establishing the tourism industry that is closely related to the wineries in the region, which have been gaining reputation in recent years. Hotels were the most common desired amenity. Many stakeholders suggested a new hotel in downtown or near Hutchins Street Square. A number of people proposed another luxury boutique hotel along the lines of Wine & Roses, but others felt that a mid -price range hotel would be most suitable because that is the largest untapped market now. According to one stakeholder, most hotels in Lodi, excluding Wine & Roses, are substandard, at least on the exterior. Mainly located on Cherokee Lane, these older budget motels do not attract the visitors needed to foster a tourism industry. Another idea was to become a destination for conferences. However, a hotel would need to have many rooms to serve conference attendees, and Lodi currently does not have a hotel of that size. Wine & Roses has too few rooms. Some stakeholders were wary of the seasonality of visitors and the competition with other locations such as SR -99 and Flag City. Restaurants and shopping were two other factors that could be developed with tourism. Some stakeholders were aware that the City was trying to encourage wine -tasting rooms in downtown. Downtown itself should be a tourist attraction (see Downtown section below). The difficulty of developing in downtown is high costs of property and fees. Some stakeholders worried about the instability of the wine and grape industry on the macro -scale. The prices for grapes have fallen in recent years, coupled with the flexibility of grapes to grow in many environments, caused some stakeholders to question whether the Lodi region w i I I remain a grape growing region in perpetuity. Some representative comments were: • We need hotels. There is no place to stay for wine -tasting. It would be great to have a hotel across from Hutchins Street Square. The banquet rooms there are not used much during the week. • We are getting a lot of boutique wineries, so if we had a conference facility, organizations would come. • We want the whole block from Walnut to Lodi Avenue to knock out everything and build a hotel. 3: Issue Discussion Tj Report on Stakeholder Interviews • Unless there is a significant weekday demand, hotels are at a disadvantage to a freeway location. Why not duplicate Wine & Roses? It's not economically viability because you'll be paying for existing structures. • The problem with Lodi is that there are hotel rooms, but they are not in a quality and location where people want to stay. There are only four real hotels with 200 to 250 rooms. The other ones, on Cherokee Lane, for example, have permanent residents. • The biggest challenge is the lack of demand. If there is demand, it is likely to be on the 99 corridor or Flag City. Downtown hotel will come at some point, but it's not economically viable right now. It would need a minimum of no land rent for five to seven years, plus forgiveness of fees, etc. • We need more lodging facilities and restaurants. • Tourism can become a boost between local economies. There should be more tourism investments, such as white -linen restaurants and hotels. • 90% of hotels are on Cherokee, but the area is decaying and failing. People do not want to stay in existing hotels. • There is a new hotel by G -REM on Beckman and Kettleman on the east side of SR -99, which is supposed to be open by this year, but it has not broken ground yet. • Cherokee Lane is the gateway to the city, but it is gross. • Hotel owners put money in the interiors, but not in the exteriors, and that turns off visitors. • There is very minimal conference activity. There are two facilities that would work for conferences—Wine & Rises, which has too few rooms, and Hutchins Street Square. People want places to eat, shop, and walk around. You need many rooms for a conference hotel. • I do not think we need another Wine & Roses boutique hotel. We can add another luxury boutique hotel, but that will not attract more tourism. A greater market would be served by in-between priced hotels. Downtown would be a great location because there is dining and shopping. • Some wine industries will go out of business. The wine industry has taken a hit in the past few years. • Lodi should expand downtown with more shopping and eateries. We should distinguish from other towns, make it more unique. How about a bed -and -breakfast in downtown? There should be 20 transportation to help people get around downtown and the wineries. • A specialty hotel should be nice but affordable. • Flag City has a transient occupancy tax (TOT) of $151,000. The Microtel and Best Western are taking business from motels in Lodi because they are better quality. • We are losing grapevines in the area. Grapevines will grow anywhere, and the future is uncertain for Lodi. It may or nay not be a wine -growing region. • We do not want people to have the illusion that wine -industries can replace other industries. If prices go any lower on grapes, it may put vineyards out of businesses. The wine industry depends on the prices and profitability of grapes. We do not want to put all eggs in the tourism basket. 3.4 DOWNTOWN Approximately half of the stakeholder groups mentioned downtown as one of their main concerns for the future. While the present state of downtown is very pleasant and lively due to the City's past efforts, many stakeholders voiced their desire for downtown to be intensified and further revitalized with more residential uses, night -life, and infill development. As mentioned in the section above, downtown was also suggested as a destination for hotel and tourist attractions, such as wine - tasting rooms. The major obstacle of downtown development perceived by several real estate developers is the high costs and limited space. However, there are options to intensify the upper floors of existing buildings with residential or office uses. Real estate developers were, however, skeptical of the demand for apartments and offices in downtown. Several people emphasized a desire for senior housing in or near downtown, given its access to amenities and transit; however, developers perceive the lack of available large sites as a major impediment to downtown senior housing development. Comments are listed below: Downtown housing projects would have to be constrained to smaller projects. Not sure anything beyond three stories is marketable currently. • Nothing pencils down in downtown. Developers cannot afford the land. 3: blue Discussion 21 Report on Stakeholder Interviews • Downtown needs to be revitalized, especially around Main and Sacramento Streets. People want to live in downtown, but the City needs to make it better. ■ Downtown had a ribbon -cutting in 2001. Only recently have boutique shops popped up in downtown. • Everything is closed on Sundays and Mondays. • The City owns land on Main Street—the ex -Fire House. • Downtown can accommodate places to eat, drink, and entertain, but we do not see that coming in. ■ Want more residences in downtown, including apartment buildings, condos, or affordable housing. • We need life after dark. • Something to stimulate living in downtown. • Businesses are moving away from downtown. • Want to see older buildings converted into flats on the second and third floors. ■ Main Street is all commercial right now, but there can he senior housing on top floors with shops on the ground floor, and parking under. ■ Parking is an issue in downtown. ■ We are getting some new restaurants in downtown, but it still needs stimulus. • Need to bring more people to downtown. ■ We should intensify uses in downtown with retail on the first floor and more upstairs residential. ■ Lodi and Sacramento Street need development and restoration. ■ The new garage was good because it had a place for retail, but the retail is empty now. Sacramento Street has a bad reputation; people feel unsafe and do not want to park at the garage. ■ When Lodi redeveloped downtown, there was a group on Sacramento and Main Street that did not want the same assessment as downtown. That was a bad decision. Originally, the city wanted to assess downtown all the way to Cherokee Lane. ■ Downtown is a key asset. Downtown itself can be an attraction for others in the Valley—"Escape Stockton for a Day." 22 3.5 EASTSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD Many community and city representative stakeholders voiced their concerns about the Eastside neighborhood, located east of the railroad tracks to Cherokee Lane. In the past, this area had been subdivided from single-family residences to multifamily, often with substandard development and without the adequate infrastructural improvements to support the increase in population. Some stakeholders described the area as blighted, with unkempt homes and unmaintained streets, homeless people, and gang related activities. Many also said that it was perceived as unsafe. Despite the negative perceptions, the Eastside neighborhood area is home to a large population, especially the Hispanic community. There is currently a Boys and Girls Club, some "nice parks," and a few newly initiated infrastructural improvement projects. However, stakeholders felt that is not enough. Community groups complained about the lack of public interest and investment, mentioning the lack of any police facility or library, and a lack of maintenance for parks and streets in general. One member of the Lodi Improvement Committee said that no clean-up trucks go over on "that side of the tracks." Stakeholders would like to revitalize the Eastside. Suggestions include installing a new community center or focal point, park maintenance, street cleaning, crackdown on crime and gang activities, infrastructural and streetscape improvements, and educational and incentive programs for homeowners to fixup their homes. A few stakeholders also suggested that the Eastside has plenty of space to accommodate the future Delta College. This area, compared with the planned location further east along the Mokelumne River, could serve the Eastside neighborhood and make a significant positive impact. Many residents of the Hispanic and Pakistani community living on the Eastside, who already attend the Delta College in Stockton, would benefit from a community college with vocational training courses closer to home. Issues and suggestion include: • The Eastside is blighted. • A majority of Hispanic population lives on the Eastside. • Some of the homes on the Eastside need to be cleaned up. • The eastside of the railroad has no police facility, no library. It needs a focal point besides the Boys and Girls Club. It needs another public facility. • Homelessness is an issue on the Eastside. 3: Issue Discussion 23 Report on Stakeholder Interviews • There are lots of substandard multifamily and single-family dwellingunits that need to be addressed. • There are new infrastructural (water and sewer) improvements on the Eastside, but they are currently put on hold. We want the city to make sure that the improvements will be complete. • The eastside groups do not have outlets to express concerns. There are many professionals on the eastside, but we do not hear from them. • Infrastructure in the aging part of town is in need. • There needs to be better maintenance on the Eastside. There are no clean-up trucks. This is the old part of town and tricks do not go over on that side of the tracks. • Want to see immediate changes in the corridors, sidewalks, sewer, etc. • Two-thirds of the population lives between Ham and Cherokee Lane ----crammed people in a small space. The area was infilled without upgrading the infrastructure. • There are lots of areas on the Eastside to accommodate for the Delta College. • There are nice parks on the Eastside, which will take development to a certain point, but will not ensure safety. It is not good for children. There are gang activities. • We want to see some entity come into the Eastside as an anchor for future development. • The eastside is getting gentrified with forward-looking people. • The east side may be a good a good location (for the Delta College),It can be an anchor for future development. The area has significant problems, but portions of the Delta College can revitalize the area. If programs and vocational training programs re in the Eastside, the Delta College would he perfect. • We want academic buildings, hospitals and clinics, and shopping that the community can walk to. 24 3.6 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Stakeholders discussed various aspects of economic development, ranging from business development opportunities to real estate markets, tax revenues, and job creation. Some stakeholders suggested that commercial and economic development have not kept pace with housing growth. A few stakeholders emphasized that they would like to see more big -box retailers, especially Costco, to bring in tax revenues. Others saw the opportunity for more high-end shopping amenities and grocery chains, such as Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, and Nordstrom's. There was a general perception that a lot of sales tEx is lost to Stockton and even to Elk Grove. For business owners and large employers, there was a concern about the high costs of doing businesses in Lodi, as well as the difficulty of finding skilled workers specific to their needs. Some were also concerned that there is a lack of offices to attract professional businesses, such as law firms and other professional services, even though there are new office developments along Kettleman Lane. The expansion of the Lodi Memorial Hospital was seen positively, but the lack of medical offices was cited as an issue. In terms of the real estate market, some experts felt that the residential market has softened—the demand is the same while the inventory of houses has grown. The commercial real estate is still doing well, and demand is outpacing supply. There seems to be a lack of vacant industrial land, with available sites for expansion but not for new industries to come into Lodi. Furthermore, Stockton seems to be better located for industrial and distribution centers. The following comments summarize the economic development discussions: • We need to increase the wage base in the city through economic development. Increase revenues to the city. Bring people here so they would buy our wines or dine at our restaurants. • Economic sustainability is the driver for the next 20 to 25 years. We should protect the tax base and find new sources. We are lucky we have the wine industry. • We need more big -box, more taxes, and more businesses in town. The city needs money to do projects and make things happen. 3: Issue Discussion 25 Report on Stakeholder Interviews ■ I fear that General Mills will leave, which means Lodi will lose jobs and have an ugly empty plant. We should make General Mills feel like part of the city and the family. Wal-Mart, Lowes, Osh, Ace Hardware should be included, make sure they stay. If we do not have foresight, they w i I I leave. ■ The town will grow naturally. We need to bring in businesses if bring in houses. Somebody needs to bring in infrastructure. • Not sure if big -box is a good thing. ■ Commercial development still pays the rent. The population will grow for sure, but we need some space for commercial uses. ■ Lodi is very tough on jobs; it is not good for the economy. We lost the bookstore at Vintner's Square because of a delay resulting from a lawsuit. • The cost of doing business in California is expensive. Electricity cost increased by 4.8 million (89%) one year ago. • The greatest issue in hiring is technical proficiency. We would like to develop our own people, but we can't train all our people. It would be good to have a vocational training school. The Delta College Xn have a vocational technical component. ■ We do not know if offices are the answer. From 1995 to 2005, there were no large office developments at all. In the past two to five years, new large offices have located on Kettleman—title companies, banks, and medical offices. • The population is too small for companies. • The demographics are changing. • There are not enough offices for doctors. ■ Most of the heavy lifting professional offices, like attorneys, are outside of town. • There are some new offices on Kettleman Lane, but they were sold immediately. There is very little empty land. • We need more industrial land, because we have run out. Vacant parcels are small. Lodi had the vision of having an industrial park (high class, electronic companies, etc. Nicely landscaped, etc). Companies have not come here looking for land, because they know it does not exist. Some companies have gone to Elk Grove, and some around the airport area in Stockton. Stockton is better positioned for distribution than Lodi. ■ The industrial area on the east side is pretty much gone. The vacant parcels owned by unmotivated sellers. 26 • There is a lot of sales tax leakage. A lot of shopping goes outside of town. Everybody goes to Stockton for shopping —any hardware or clothing stores. A lot of people go out of town for dinner for quality restaurants and entertainment. • We want a mutual flow of sales tax revenue between Lodi and Stockton. Maybe there can be a tax -sharing agreement? However, state law says that sales tax cannot be distributed, but taken at the location of sales. • . People want Trader Joe's. • Lodi is very underserved by commercial establishments. • We need more commercial. Not big -box, but more upscale stores like Barnes &Noble, Pottery Barn, etc. • Currently the higher end of retail is Mervyn's, Target, and the like. We want Dillard's, Macy's Trader Joe's, and Saks, • We want more upscale shopping. We may or may not want a big shopping mall in Lodi, but somewhere with upscale shopping would be nice. More healthy/upscale grocery store like Whole Foods or Trader Joe's. Right now we have to go to Stockton, Elk Grove, or even Sacramento for grocery shopping. • Right now the residential real estate market has some first time homebuyers. There is a pretty good mix of clients. The market is changing significantly. There is more inventory since the last year and a half. Before, there was very little inventory and homes sold fast. Now there are more homes for sale. There is probably the same number of buyers, but more inventory. Prices have retained a little stronger than some surrounding areas. Some clients are relocating from Stockton. ■ The commercial real estate market is stronger than residential. ■ The industrial real estate market has a supply of buildings for lease. Most clients are looking to expand. • Want an economic development element in the General Plan. • The economy right now is really bad. When the Bay Area market changes, Lodi also changes. 3: Issue Discussion 27 ReUort on Stakeholder Interview 3.7 HOUSING The issue of housing appeared repeatedly in the interviews. While there did not seem to be a zealous concern about sprawl, most likely due to the two percent growth cap, many stakeholders commented on how the housing stock can be improved. There was considerable discussion regarding the housing mix in Lodi. When asked about the desired density ranges, some wanted to see higher density and clustered housing, while others said that it is not realistic in Lodi, where people move to find single-family houses, cul-de-sacs, and a suburban/rural lifestyle. Some stakeholders claimed there is no demand for apartments, but medium density housing would be viable. One stakeholder even said that it might take 50 years before the city has a demand for apartment complexes. Many suggested affordable housing, in particular for seniors. The lack of affordable senior housing was a problem for the aging population. Stakeholders claimed that the population is aging proportionately with the growth, and there are more seniors in Lodi who need convenient and safe housing. Many discussed the possibility of having senior housing in or near downtown so seniors can have easy access to groceries and other services. The existing senior homes on Kettleman are not only expensive, but also difficult to access—Kettleman is difficult to cross and the medical facilities are far away. Stakeholders also described desirable design elements of senior housing, including single -story units and wider hallways. On the same note, the lack of affordable housing in general is a concern for many stakeholders. Since housing prices are high in Lodi, many working residents need affordable housing, including entry level nurses, teachers, and young families. Comments on housing include: • The city is sprawling the way housing is going. • We 1 i e the two percent growth cap, but it has been opposed by some chamber members, city staff, and other groups. • People do not want new urbanism in Lodi. They do not want 10- 12 units per acre; they want seven units per acre. • Medium -density is good to have because of costs. Medium- density—seven to 20 units per acre—works because it is affordable. 28 High-density in the Central Valley does not make sense it does not pencil out. Medium density -7 to 20 du/ac—works because it is affordable. • People are not used to grids. They want cul-de-sacs and suburbia. • Market rate housing is the best the city can provide right now. • Overall, the housing stock needs rejuvenation. • We want multifamily housing. 1989 was the last time an apartment complex was built in Lodi. Lots of people would want to live in apartments, but it is more profitable to build single- family homes. • Lodi will not have a market for five -story apartment complexes in the next 50 years. • What would it take for downtown? Prices, fees, and buyers. There is no demand in Lodi. Clustered housing is now viable, but the demand for loft -like buildings is very limited. It is hard to be a pioneer. ■ The growth management system systematically slowed the process. Approvals happened once a year. Could have had much higher development than two percent in many years. • The middle market can pay more and has more elasticity, so that is where they have focused. • Affordable senior housing is an issue. We have not built senior apartments since 1989 and skilled nursing facilities for 20 years. Seniors do not need single-familyhouses. A lot of seniors live in their single-family homes because there is no place for them to move to. • A senior complex is what we need. • Good places for senior housing would be closer to downtown because they will have access to both senior centers and to Albertson and Smart & Final. However, there are no sites out there. Vintage (existing senior complex with long waitlist) is closer to Wal-Mart and Target, but they are far from the hospital and senior facilities. ■ Reynolds Ranch has conventional single-family homes, apartments, and is now working to incorporate senior housing, graduated care, etc. It wn cater to the super senior market: average age of high 60's to early 70's. • Senior housing is not part of the two percent growth cap. • Lodi needs affordable housing. Where? We need a variety of sizes. 3: Issue Discussion tIV1 Roort on Stakeholder Interview ■ We lack safe, descent, and affordable senior housing. The population is growing and will continue to grow. 16 units of affordable housing for units. ■ There are 10,000 seniors in Lodi right now; 14.7 percent of the population is over 65 in 2000, and has grown since then. More and more people are coming to the senior center. By figure, Lodi is growing proportionately in age. • Lack of low-income housing for entry level nurses, teachers, etc. ■ Lodi should mimic Sacramento and include inclusionary zoning, and have a certain percentage for affordable housing. ■ Senior housing should have wide entries and good sidewalks, access to good public transit, local park areas, and senior facilities, and shopping. ■ Senior homes on Kettleman Lane are expensive and hard to access. ■ Want affordable housing. ■ Affordable housing needs to proceed. We should bring in developers and offer them something. No inclusionary units; they will be opposed by developers and the Council. 3.8 PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE The discussion on parks, recreation, and open space brought in a wide variety of comments and ideas. Overall, stakeholders would like to see more parks in the city. A number of stakeholders would like to see more small neighborhood or pocket parks, which create a more intimate scale and easy access. Others wanted a big community park, which would be easier to maintain. A few suggested access to the Mokelumne River, perhaps on the north bank where there is currently no development. A number of people also mentioned cricket fields as a needed recreation amenity due to LodPs changing demographics and cultural preferences to accommodate the growing Pakistani community. A number of stakeholders mentioned the Grape Bowl as a wasted site that can be redeveloped as a more accessible and integrated park or facility. It is currently only used for high school graduations and homecoming football games. The facility is effectively a berm, with substandard construction. The biggest challenge to developing and redeveloping parks is the lack of funding. Some suggestions to improve the parks and recreation system and the financing situation included creating more partnerships, 30 establishing more league programs and facilities to bring in other teams and visitors, and consolidate different departments to save on staff. The issue of parks dual -functioning as retention basins was also brought up. However, that did not seem to be a serious problem because the outdoor field sports are not suitable for all seasons in any case. Comments regarding parks include: • We want access to the river, but have no means to buy properties. • People who do not have private backyards need parks. • Want areas in parks to play bridge. ■ There is a lack of parks, lack of maintenance, lack of sports facilities, and a lack of funding. • The biggest need is sports fields and functional parks. • The park system addresses recreation very well, but is limited by facilities. The multi -use facility needs indoor basketball. ■ In the future, we should have fewer and larger parks. It is easier to maintain. • Should invest in more sporting venues. Have not heard any concerns with light from stadiums. • The north side is probably the only viable option without dealing with each property on the south side of the river. People will support the idea because it would provide more parks. However, it may also be an instigator for more sprawl. We need to allocate and save green spaces OK else development will eat it all up. • Parks on the river are desirable. There are generous water access park grants available. ■ Ball fields should add lighting. • Recreation and sports can be a revenue generator if we add more visitor related programs. • We should bring in tournaments. ■ We should consolidate different departments —save on staff. ■ We need recreational programs. We have enough land. ■ Turnkey parks are a good strategy. • Need more partnerships. ■ Basin parks are okay. 3: Issue Discussion 31 Report on Stakeholder Interviews • I would rather see the Delta College on SR -12 and open space by the river. • Lodi use to have Legion Park with a community area. • Some parks do not have community buildings • There are nice parks on the Eastside, but will not enforce safety. It is not good for children. There is gang activity. ■ Parks are safer on the West side. Maybe because they are smaller and more manageable; neighbors can see what is going on. They can have tennis courts, playgrounds, and basketball courts, but not big fields. We have big fields everywhere, sometimes there are perverts there at night. • The Grape bowl was built with WPA funds in WWII. It is now underutilized except by high school graduations and football games. It is unkempt and unmentioned. People will not support taking the Grape Bowl down. • Parking takes up the whole neighborhood. ■ For the overall community, the Grape Bowl is not a good fit anymore. It is only good for 25,000 people. There are now 65,000 people. It is also a very sensitive issue because it has historical and emotional value. Swapping it into a basic park will take lots of opposition. ■ We can make the Grape Bowl a good park to serve the population. People will not approve the exorbitant amount to rehabilitate or convert it. It needs a lot of work, but the city has not invested any money. Parking is also a problem because residents also park on the street. ■ We can make the Grape Bowl a venue for other events like outdoor performances. We can remove the berm to get more access. There is potential to widen the area. It is too narrow right now to play soccer. It is also not ADA approved. We want to use it, have the demand, but cannot use it. • We should tie the facilities around the Grape Bowl, softball complex, and seniors field together. • Most of the new immigrants play different sports, in particular, cricket and soccer. We want to see a full size cricket stadium—it may be multipurpose —because northern California has seen an increase in the cricket sport. There are other teams in other areas. ■ We looked at cricket fields. Most fields are already used for softball, soccer, football—all funded and occupied as organized 32 leagues, City, or non-profit organizations. Cricket is not funded so it cannot kick off a funded team. • Lodi needs huge impact fees. • Pixley Park may have been originally a regional park. But there is no money to develop it. • The City and school district has a joint agreement, but it is not enough. • Most of the larger and regional parks are basin parks, ■ Basin parks are not useable for less than three months a year. Detention basins hold water until they can be released into the WID canal. They have not been impacted that much because the sports placed on the basin parks are not so suitable for all seasons anyway. • The West Bank Lodi Lake Park has plans for an RV campground, joint nth other organizations, but still depends on funding. 3.9 CIRCULATION, TRANSPORTATION, AND TRANSIT The lack of public transportation options was a common concern from stakeholders. The public transit program—Buses and Dial -a-Fide—only started in 1994, and is not included in the existing General Plan. However, stakeholders familiar with the situation confirmed that there have been improvements over the years, with new bus stops, signs, easements, and routes. The City has also discussed the possibility of installing a new commuter rail station in the long term. The common complaint was that the bus routes do not serve the people in need, and do not cover an adequate area, even though there is service seven days a week. Several stakeholders also mentioned the need to raise the frequency and reliability of transportation to Stockton from Lodi for various service centers, including the State -funded work placement programs. Some members also discussed the need to have reliable public transit and safe bicycle paths to the future Delta College site. Bicycle trails were also requested a few times as a desirable amenity for both transportation and recreation purposes. The following are representative comments o n the topic: • Transportation for seniors is new. Seniors do not use public transportation because they are not use to it. 3: Issue Discussion 33 Report on Stakeholder Interviews • Lodi did not start with transit until 1994. Transit is currently not in the General Plan. We are working with development by development—bus stop signs, easements, accessibilities, and shelters. As we grow, we need fixed route requirements for ADAIParatransit. • We have a multimodal station. We are involved with people in getting transit -oriented development in downtown. We are trying to get rail through Lodi. We have services with various forms of transit to many surrounding communities. Our issue is access and pre-emptive signals. Reynolds Ranch will be doing a transit studying. It is currently not serving south of Century Boulevard. • We do not get involved with carpooling or express routes, which are conducted though county and regional systems. • There is an Amtrak bus connecting to Stockton. Six San Joaquin trains a day in each direction. • ACE originates in Stockton. If it extends to Sacramento, we hope it sticks to the 99 corridor and stops in Lodi. The issue is the railroad wants to run on the westerly line because the 99 corridor is more critical for freight. It is a possibility to trade the two corridors. • One major concern is the lack of transportation. Many of our clients away from the bus routes and it takes them a long time to get to the destination. There are buses, but they are not timely. We got a van that can seat 15 people only to alleviate the transportation problem. Not enough attention has been given to the transportation problem. • The City needs to expand transit service area. It only goes within the Lodi City Limits. We need to increase transit services and allow people to travel across boundaries. • I want to see bicycle trails. 3.10 PROVISION OF PUBLIC SERVICES AND AMENITIES Many stakeholders commented on the public services and amenities provided by the city. Stakeholders representing community groups were both proud of the services they provided, and at the same time frustrated by various constraints. Some comments included lack of transportation options for people to access public services and community centers— both within and outside the city—and a lack of affordable options fox physical expansion within the City, which has led some community groups to look outside City limits in areas far away from the target 34 community. Some also felt that there was difficulty in reaching out to the community. On the funding side of the matter, several stakeholders representing developers and investors expressed concerns about Lodi's development fee program. According to property developers, fees have increased dramatically in the city, while the certainty of successful projects has decreased due to the proposed Greenbelt and changing political processes. These stakeholders feel that newcomers are obliged to fix all of the city's deficiencies, while the money collected is not being used appropriately, and the City is perceived as not receiving enough fees. If Lodi continues to require more funding and provision of public amenities, developers maintain that they will eventually stop investing in Lodi. Comments from stakeholders regarding the provision public amenities and services include: ■ We need a community center that would serve the needs of all the people for the regular needs: weddings, funerals, etc. It would serve both the Stockton and Lodi area. All the organizations existing right now are religion based. ■ We cannot afford a community center inside the city. But we want to be incorporated by Lodi. • The fact is when the city grows, it will affect the Fire District at some point and its capacity to serve. When the revenues dwindle, the level of service cannot be compromised. ■ Hutchins Street square attracts people from surrounding areas like Sacramento. It is more affordable than events in bigger cities like San Josh. Sometimes we only make enough money to pay the stars. We depend all on voluntary workers. ■ There is a lack of services for homeless people. ■ There are many Spanish speaking clients. • Crime is a concern. ■ The City does not have funding for historical preservation. ■ We are very concerned about the direction the city is taking with development fees. But, I have seen development agreements inked recently—for $60,000 per lot even before you put a spade in. Cities see a pot of gold. In the case of FCB Homes (Frontier Community Builders), the city wanted a fire engine, a park, etc— it is going to come to a screeching halt. Also, it is not conducive to affordable housing. ■ We use to feel that one of the unique things about Lodi was the phasing of implementation. We would receive points if we were 3: Issue Discussion 35 Report on StakeholderliAetviews closer to infrastructure. The pattern of growth area was predictable. For a lot of reasons, the system went haywire two or three years ago with collection of fees and infrastructure development. ■ The program was meant to be reviewed annually, but that did not happen. ■ We need certainty regarding process and direction. ■ Fees for infrastructure are not being applied to infrastructure. The sense is that we did not collecting enough—parks were not improved, infrastructure not created. Everything happened in a period of high growth, so the new people are paying for the shortfall. • Fees have really doubled—including development and infrastructure fees. ■ There is a notion that redevelopment has to pay for everything. Community wide benefits—for example the greenbelt—who should pay for it? There should be a nexus. ■ Provide new services in conjunction with new services. 3.1 1 URBAN DESIGN A number of stakeholders commented that they would like to see better urban design incorporated into the city's development. This includes better architecture and design standards for businesses and new homes, as well as streetscape improvements. Walkability and open connections were important aspects of urban design. The following summarizes the various views on these issues: • We want smart growth with higher density, safety, and walkability. • Add green and plantings on streets. • I like Lodi's walkability. • Want to see development efforts go vertically rather than horizontally. Should have allowance for high buildings. The current restriction is three floors. The biggest issue is parking, but those can be part of structures. • Do not want huge backyards. Want compactness, walkability, and places of enjoyment. a Want safer bike lanes, walking trails, etc. A bridge over the lake so yon could walk all the way around the lake. 36 • The abandoned rail line can make a trail. • There is no place to go w a k in Lodi unless you are on the city sidewalk. • Want to see true new -urbanism in new neighborhoods, with good neighborhood form, wakability, and no gated communities. • Tend to do reverse lots where you have the automobiles, fences, and everybody outside of the tunnel. We want to see more appeal to the streets. No walls on the street, houses should face the street. We want more than cookie -cutter construction. • The City should have design guidelines for big companies like Safeway. The City is too concerned about getting companies into the city for tax revenues, but there should be architectural and design guidelines. • Lodi has not looked at the design aspects, even though citizens are concerned, • Design guidelines should not make development difficult. 3.12 INFRASTRUCTURE A few stakeholder groups voiced their concerns over the infrastructural capacities and services. In general, water seems to be the highest priority issue—Lodi needs to recharge its groundwater. Expansion and annexation will also imply water supply and treatment for those areas, and the city should consider how to expand efficiently and sustainably. For example, stakeholders would not recommend developing north of the river because it would be difficult to get wastewater across. Lodi's growth also begs the City to consider waste treatment, drainage, and road capacities. In terms of infrastructure, south and west seem to be the best options for expansion. Stakeholders from the County claimed that five acres is the minimum to have a septic tank, and that clustering is not an option. Members from LAFCO mentioned that the Cities cannot serve outlying areas unless they are in the respective SOIs and Urban Service Boundaries (USB), Comments follow: • The City is pushing now towards new technologies: pervious surfaces, turf stones in places. We see a much bigger push. • Water is the biggest infrastructural constraint, as is groundwater recharge. They can probably solve the problem with treated water. 3: Issue Discussion 37 Report on Stakeholderinterviews ■ Do not like the idea of expanding to the north side of the river because we got to get the wastewater across the bay. A lot of that land is riparian and irrigated land. South and west are considered the best areas. The further east you go the less desirable ag land it gets around Lockford. South and west also helps commuters who are going in that direction. ■ In an annexation, you have to consider who's providing services to it. The county has a two -acre minimum to do water. One acre lots would require public water or public drainage and septic systems. Either do one -acre lots and provide services, or do two - acre lots and not provide services. Small systems are unviable and uneconomical. ■ We need to look at Peltier Road to the north. There is a real long term demand for a corridor in the County. Lower Sacramento Road should be an issue. ■ Turner Road has plans for improvement. Something needs to be done—it has two lanes and no shoulder. The County plan shows it as a four -lane road. • Highway 12 is a killer. Kettleman should become a new Highway 12. • There is a solid waste transfer facility on Harney Lane six miles east of town. We need to understand how Lodi's growth affects this. ■ Groundwater is an issue—there is a need to restore it. It is a countywide issue. • Parcels have to be a minimum of five acres to have a septic tank. • Clustering is not an option. • Cities cannot serve outlying areas unless they are in their SOIs or USBs. 4 NEXTSTEPS The input gathered during the stakeholder interviews will inform the subsequent phases of the General Plan Update process. The first-hand knowledge and experiences of the stakeholders will be invaluable in creating a new Plan that reflects the community's collective goals and visions. After carefully reviewing direction given by the stakeholders, assessment of opportunities and challenges, as well as public input from community workshops, surveys, and City Council and Planning Commission meetings, the planning team will prepare land use and transportation alternatives and review them with the community. This will be followed by draft planning documents which will also be subject to community review. Report on Stakeholder interviews TMspage intmtiamlly left blank. 40 Appendix: List of Stakeholders Interviewed Marilyn Storey Lodi Chamber of Commerce, Director of 43 Operations Bob Takeuchi Lodi Improvement Committee JimVerseput Commercial Realtor and Property Manager Sharon Welch City of Lodi, Senior Civil Engineer Dennis White Planning Commissioner Terry Whitmeir Senior Commissioner Ron Williamson Lodi Tokay Rotary Club Tracy Williamson Lodi Elderly (LO FL) JosephWood Lodi Community Improvement, Director Gary Yokum Lodi Unified School District Facilities Planning Manager 43 Report on Stakeholder Interview Thispage intentionally left blank. 44