Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - February 11, 2009 B-01 PH/SMAGENDA ITEM go' 1 CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION TM AGENDA TITLE: Receive Report and Recommendation on the Preferred General Plan Alternative MEETING DATE: February 11,2009 PREPARED BY: Community Development Department RECOMMENDEDACTION: Receive report and recommendation on the Preferred General Plan Alternative. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached report provides an overview of the Draft Preferred Plan. This plan reflects the concepts of the various alternatives that have been discussed and presented to date. The plan is the Draft as recommended by the Planning Commission at it's December 18, 2008 meeting. Staff is now suggesting that the City Council receive additional input from the public as well as discuss any issues as you see fit. While this plan is an important milestone as it will provide the basis for development of the Draft General Plan and Environmental Impact Report, it is not the final document. It will likely see additional changes along the process of preparing the final documents, including changes based on this discussion. As noted in the report, this plan builds from some of the concepts of Alternative "C" Sketch Plan which was one of three alternatives presented in May. The plan emphasizes an infill and revitalization approach to future development. The plan demonstrates a mid-range scenario that is consistent with past practice and City policy. Even though the focus is on the utilization of existing properties, additional growth areas are being proposed. To the south, development is shown consistent with the southern boundary of the Reynolds Ranch project. The area to the south reflects the ongoing discussions of creating a County - based plan that we refer to as the Armstrong Road Agricultural/Cluster Study Area. Additional development is also shown to the west of the current General Plan boundary. These two growth areas are anchored by mixed-use centers that will contain housing, commercial. and public spaces. The southeast area of Lodi will grow east of Highway 99. This area is well-suited for businesslernployment expansion. Finally, we are proposing an Urban Reserve on both the west and east sides of the General Plan boundary. The west reserve is necessary in order to ensure that the City conforms to the Growth Management Ordinance which allows for two percent population growth annually. The east reserve is contemplated for industrial land uses that may take advantage of Central California Traction rail access. At the November 12, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission had two main questions/comments that staff provided follow up information at the December 18, 2008 meeting. The questions related to the City of Stockton's General Plan and, in particular, the Agriculture/Open Space designation and the LAFCO definition of an Area of Interest. The public comment on the Draft Preferred Plan at the initial meeting was centered on three areas: Delta College, Armstrong Road property owner interests and the Chamber of Commerce concerns. In terms of the staffs perspective on the Delta College area, we are not proposing to designate the area within the preferred plan. We believe that it is premature to designate the College area since the most APPROVED: 1316irAng, City Manager recent public statements contradict this from moving forward. Additionally, it is important to state that in staffs opinion, any development in that area is contingent upon a College project. We would not be discussing this as an alternative were it not for the College's previous interest. Staff is committed to providing as much flexibility in the future. As such, we are recommending that one of the Environmental Impact Report alternatives include the College site and ancillary development. This way if there is a change in the College's direction between now and the adoption of the Final General Plan, the City Council could include the area at that time. For the Armstrong Road property owners, the Planning Commission action reflects the boundaries of the Agriculture/Cluster designation. This plan is to include all of the property east/west between Highway 99 and 1-6, and one-half mile north and south of Armstrong Road. The second request expressed by the Attorney representing the property owners in that area was to designate the half -mile stretch north of Armstrong Road as Planned Residential Reserve (PRR) as it is designated within the current General Plan. Staff is of the opinion that this is not consistent with the direction the City has been heading with regard to development south of Harney Lane. Further, we feel this designation contradicts the success achieved to date with regard to funding a Specific Plan. That said, it is reasonable to study the PRR designation as one of the alternatives for the Environmental Impact Report. This would provide the same flexibility to the City Council in the future if an issue arises during the preparation of the aforementioned Specific Plan. The Chamber of Commerce and Mike Carouba raised concerns about the lack of industrially designated property and the growth area to the west. Staff has spent a fair amount of time looking at the industrial designation issue. We do feel there is merit to providing a specific designation as reflected in the plan proposed. The Planning Commission recommended map before you indicates this area east of Wells Avenue to the Central California Traction (CCT) line. Further, we have reviewed the property ownership pattern and parcel sizes for this area and find that they are large enough to accommodate the types of land uses that are most likely to locate in this designation. The second area of concern expressed by Mr. Patrick relates to the growth area to the west of the current General Plan boundary. This is shown in order to provide enough land use alternatives over the course of this 20 -year plan. The Chamber has suggested that the area be designated Urban Reserve. We do not support this change. One of the intents of a General Plan is to provide direction to interested parties concerning the City's future growth. We have attempted to be practical in this approach while being cognizant of the City's existing policies. One of the implementation actions that this new General Plan will require is the designation of priority areas within the Growth Management Plan. As the Commission is aware, the process of receiving allocations occurs from a scoring of points based on a variety of subject matters. A focus of the system is the phasing of development. At this point I see the new priority areas falling into three categories: Priority Area One would include the properties that are in the existing General Plan. These areas are generally located one-half mile west of Lower Sacramento Road to the existing General Plan boundary; Priority Area Two would include the property south of Harney Lane; and Priority Area Three would include the western growth area as designated. The final change, which occurred to the proposed plan from the first Planning Commission meeting to the December meeting, was a result of discussions with the Lodi Unified School District (LUSD). The District confirmed the need for two K-8 schools south of Harney Lane. LUSD wanted one moved to the east side of the Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) canal. Both of these schools are planned to be on 14 acres. Another change is the school that was shown in the northwest quadrant. This school is now located closer to Kettleman Lane. The result of these changes did modify locations of certain other land uses. The final request from the School District is the designation of a new elementary (K-6) grade school on the east side of Lodi. LUSD does not have a particularsite in mind; however it should be located north of Kettleman Lane and south of Lodi Avenue. We have shown a placeholder marker at the intersection of Central Avenue and Poplar Street for this purpose. This is not meant to designate a specific property, but rather to make the need clear. The ultimate location of a school will be determined by the District. Again, staffs desire at this meeting is to open a dialogue between the Planning Commission and City Council while receiving additional public comment. Ultimately we are looking for a Plan that reflects the community's vision for the future. The City Council will be asked to provide their opinions culminating in an action that we can then use as the basis for drafting the policy document as well as the environmental impact report. The action could take place at this meeting, or should the Council desire, it could be placed on an upcoming agenda for further input. FISCAL IMPACT: NIA FUNDING AVAILABLE: NIA Konradt Bartlam Interim Community Development Director Attachment: 1. Drafl Preferred Plan Report dated February. 2009 2. Minutes from Planning Commission Meetings 11-12-088 12-18-08 Draft Preferred Plan PREPARED BY DYETT & BHATIA Urban and Regional Planners Table of Contents Introduction............................................................................................. Purposeand Process................................................................................................................ ProjectBackground.................................................................................................................. WorkCompleted..................................................................................................................... PublicInput.................................................................................................................................2 ReportOrganization................................................................................................................2 2 Preferred Plan.......................................................................................... 3 OverallPlanning Concepts.....................................................................................................3 Draft Land Use Classification System..................................................................................4 Citywide General Plan Land Use Framework....................................................................5 Buildout.....................................................................................................................................5 3 Next Steps................................................................................................ 9 City of Lodi General Plan Update Introduction PURPOSE AND PROCESS The Lodi Preferred Plan has been prepared to provide the basis for development of the new General Plan. Decision -maker review and endorsement of the Preferred Plan will provide di- rection for development of detailed proposals and policies. In May 2008, a report on Sketch Plans—which included three land use alternatives for future development and their transportation, infrastructure, and fiscal impacts—was prepared. The alternatives presented a range of options to guide future development and intensification in Lodi, addressed goals for conservation, economic development, and walkable livable neighbor- hoods, and analyzed relative impacts on traffic and infrastructure. The alternatives were reviewed in a Community Open House/Planning Commission meeting on May 10, 2008, and in numerous small -group meetings held by City staff and consultants. The Preferred Plan also builds on existing conditions, opportunities and challenges assessment, and input from the community and decision -makers through workshops, meetings, and the citywide survey. PROJECT BACKGROUND Lodi's current General Plan was adopted in 1991. Although many of its policies are still rele- vant, the city has undergone changes during this period. Since 1990, the population has grown by 23 percent—from 51,900 to 63,400. Despite the recent slowdown in housing demand, growth pressures continue to be felt from within and outside the City limits. Since the adoption of the current General Plan, new ideas have emerged. For example, the City sees its future in- creasingly tied to the wine industry, with the surrounding vineyards providing economic sus- tenance and distinctive character. The new General Plan will establish a long-range vision for the city. Policies concerning physi- cal growth and development management; the Armstrong Road Agricultural/Cluster Study Area; urban design; and growth of the wine industry and tourism, will all be addressed in the Plan. Eight chapters or elements will likely comprise the new General Plan: Land Use, Growth Management, Community Design and Livability, Circulation, Parks/Recreation, Conservation, Noise, and Safety. Sustainability policies will be incorporated throughout the General Plan. The Housing Element was prepared in 2004 and is being updated separately from this effort. WORK COMPLETED As part of the General Plan Update process, four working papers documenting existing condi- tions, trends, planning issues, and implications have been prepared, as well as a report on Sketch Plans: • Working Paper #1: Land Use, Transportation, Environment, and Infrastructure; • Working Paper #2: Urban Design and Livability; • Working Paper #3: Growth and Economic Development Strategy; Draft Preferred Plan Concepts • Working Paper #4: Greenbelt Conservation Strategies; and • Sketch Plan Report, which presented alternative land use scenarios for development. PUBLIC INPUT Public participation lies at the heart of the Lodi General Plan Update. Community members and stakeholders are being asked for ideas and input through: • Public workshops and meetings; • Workshops with the City Council and Planning Commission; • Stakeholder interviews and neighborhood meetings; • Presentations to service clubs and neighborhood groups; • Newsletters; • A mail -in survey sent to all residential addresses in the city; • Comments via e-mail; and • A project website (www.lodi.gov/community—development/general—plan). Reports on stakeholder meetings, the citywide survey, and community and decision -maker meetings are available on the project website. Together, the community and decision -makers will provide direction toward the next step in the process: the General Plan Update. REPORT ORGANIZATION Following this introduction, the report presents the Preferred Plan in Chapter 2, which de- scribes overall planning concepts, the land use diagram and classification, potential buildout in 2030. Next steps are described in Chapter 3. 2 City of Lodi General Plan Update 2 Preferred Plan OVERALL PLANNING CONCEPTS The Preferred Plan is illustrated in Figure 2-1 (Concept Plan) and Figure 2-2 (Draft Preferred Plan). The Plan depicts ten central concepts, highlighted during the visioning phase and devel- oped through discussions with stakeholders and community members: 1. Compact Urban Form. The Preferred Plan maintains and enhances Lodi's compact urban form, promoting infill development Downtown and along key corridors, while also outlining growth possibilities directly adjacent to the existing urban edge. The City's overally form will be squarish, reinforcing Downtown as the heart of the community, with virtually all new development located within three miles from it. 2. Preservation of Existing Neighborhoods. Exsiting development in a vast majority of the Planning Area is proposed to remain as is, in terms of land use and density. Lodi residents are proud of their existing vibrant neighborhoods. They enjoy the small-town character of the city and would like to ensure that Lodi's high quality -of -life is enhanced as the city grows. 3. Study Area Along Southern Boundary. In order to preserve agriculture and maintain a clear distinction between Lodi and Stockton, the Plan acknowledges the Armstrong Road Agricultural/Cluster Study Area along the south edge of Lodi, from I-5 to just east of SR -99, and south to Stockton's Planning Area boundary. 4. Enhanced Mixed -Use Centers. The Plan shows a Mixed -Use overlay Downtown and along the city's major commercial corridors. This delineation permits continued investment in these areas and enhancement through the development of vacant and underutilized parcels. The Plan also describes new neighborhoods organized around mixed-use centers, which provide retail services and office development, as well as housing. 5. Employment -Focused Development in the Southeast. The area east of SR -99 toward the south is shown as a growth area for office/business park uses and some commercial use. This area has excellent regional access, and is adjacent to existing urbanized areas. 6. Street Connectivity and Urban Design. A theme that emerged from community dialogue in the early stages of the planning process is the desire to see greater connections, mixing of uses, and diversity of building types in new neighborhoods. The updated General Plan will include a more complete discussion and plan for improving street connectivity, particularly in terms of access to Downtown, neighborhoods, jobs, and shopping. 7. Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections. Lodi already has an expansive bicycle network and good pedestrian facilities, including sidewalks, signals, landscaping and street furniture—particularly Downtown. Improvements to pedestrian and bicycle pathways in new and existing neighborhoods will be identified in the General Plan Update. 8. Recreation Path along Irrigation Canal Right -of -Way. The Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) Canal runs through the city, passing through residential neighborhoods. A public recreation trail is envisioned in the Preferred Plan, creating an amenity for walking, jogging and biking. 3 Draft Preferred Plan Concepts 9. Phasing Future Development. The Plan identifies urban reserve area along the west and east edges of the city to provide additional area for development, if needed. These urban reserve areas ensure that the city conforms to its Growth Management Ordinance and grows at a reasonable rate. 10. Mokelumne River as the City's Northern Edge. The Lodi community has expressed a desire to see the river remain as the City's northern edge. The southern bank of the river (within the City) is occupied by residential uses and streets do not reach the river. Therefore, connectivity across the river to knit the urban fabric would be challenging if growth were to extend northward. DRAFT LAND USE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM The classifications in this section will represent adopted policy, once finalized and approved. They are meant to be broad enough to provide flexibility in implementation, but clear enough to provide sufficient direction to carry out the General Plan. These definitions may be elabo- rated upon as the General Plan is developed. Residential • Low -Density Residential: Detached single-family dwellings ranging from two to eight units per acre. An average density of 6.5 units per acre is assumed for buildout projections. • Medium -Density Residential: Detached or attached (townhomes) single-family, duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes, ranging from eight to 20 units per acre. An average density of 12 units per acre is assumed for buildout projections. • High -Density Residential: Townhomes and stacked multifamily housing ranging from 15 to 35 units per acre. An average density of 22 units per acre is assumed for buildout projec- tions. Commercial, Office, and Industrial • General Commercial: Retail uses, including citywide shopping centers with off-street park- ing and neighborhood shopping with clusters of street -front stores; also includes hotels. An average Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.3 is assumed for buildout projections. • Business Park/Office: Clusters of office activities that generate high employment yield per acre and smaller -scale professional, medical, and other support services. An average FAR of 0.35 is assumed for buildout projections. • Industrial: Mix of manufacturing, production, warehousing, general service, storage, and distribution activities. An average FAR of 0.3 is assumed for buildout projections. Mixed -Use • Downtown Mixed Use: Variety of commercial and office uses, and medium- and high- density residential development and mixed-use development on infill sites. An average FAR of 1.0 is assumed for buildout projections. • Mixed Use Corridor: Variety of low-, medium-, and high-density residential, office and general commercial uses, along the city's major corridors. An average FAR of 0.45 is as- sumed for buildout projections. 4 City of Lodi General Plan Update • Mixed Use Center: New mixed-use neighborhood centers; variety of medium- and high- density residential, office and neighborhood commercial uses. An average FAR of 0.5 is as- sumed for buildout projections. Public and Open Space • Public/Quasi-Public: Government facilities, public and private schools, and libraries. • Parks/Open Space: Parks, recreation complexes, trails, and drainage basins. CITYWIDE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE FRAMEWORK Integrating the Preferred Plan concepts and planning areas with existing development in the city results in a compact and coherent land use framework, as shown in Figure 2-3. This draft land use framework will inform the land use diagram in the General Plan Update. The frame- work highlights a mixed-use Downtown, major commercial and mixed-use corridors, and of- fice and industrial development east of SR -99. Residential development continues to comprise the majority of the city, with a range of densities. Most residential development continues to be low-density single-family attached and detached homes, although medium- and some high- density housing is planned for highly accessible areas—near transit, commercial corridors, and Downtown, and in and near mixed-use centers. Parks, schools, and other public facilities are dispersed throughout the city to ensure a high level of accessibility to public services. BUILDOUT Full development potential is referred to as "buildout." It is calculated based on the assump- tions of new housing and new commercial and residential development that could be built un- der the Preferred Plan. The buildout gives a theoretical indication of potential population and employment trends and allows the City to plan for growth accordingly. Residential Based on average buildout densities (described in the classification section above), the Pre- ferred Plan accommodates approximately 6,300 housing units, as shown in Table 2-1. Low- density or single-family detached units would be the most prevalent housing type with 49 per- cent of the total. Units that are part of medium -density units constitute 25 percent of housing development, in the Preferred Plan; mixed-use developments represent 21 percent; and high- density units represent five percent. The Urban Reserve area along the western side of the city accommodates an additional 3,900 housing units, allowing up to 10,200 new units by 2030. In sum, existing housing units, ap- proved development projects, and the Preferred Plan would result in more than 37,000 housing units by 2030 (see Chart 2-1). 5 Draft Preferred Plan Concepts Table 2-1: Preferred Plan Housing Units, by Density and Type Number of housing units is rounded to the nearest hundred. Source: City of Lodi, 2008, California Department of Finance 2008, Dyett & Bhatia, 2008. Population The Preferred Plan would add 16,100 new residents to Lodi by 2030. Accounting for the cur- rent population as well as new residents anticipated from recently approved projects, the popu- lation at buildout could result in nearly 90,000 residents, representing an annual growth rate of 1.5 percent (see Table 2-2). Since the City's Growth Management Ordinance allows for annual growth up to two percent, the Preferred Plan proposes an urban reserve area that delineates appropriate areas for further growth, up to the two percent threshold. If the market could bear this growth rate, the population could increase to nearly 99,500 at buildout in 2030 (Total, with Urban Reserve). Table 2-2: Summary of Projected Population at Buildout Population Type Number of Percent Residential Density/Type Housing Units' Share Low -Density 3,100 49% Medium -Density 1,600 25% High -Density 300 5% Mixed -Use 1,300 21% Subtotal Preferred Plan 6,300 100% Urban Reserve 3,900 Total Preferred Plan 10,200 Number of housing units is rounded to the nearest hundred. Source: City of Lodi, 2008, California Department of Finance 2008, Dyett & Bhatia, 2008. Population The Preferred Plan would add 16,100 new residents to Lodi by 2030. Accounting for the cur- rent population as well as new residents anticipated from recently approved projects, the popu- lation at buildout could result in nearly 90,000 residents, representing an annual growth rate of 1.5 percent (see Table 2-2). Since the City's Growth Management Ordinance allows for annual growth up to two percent, the Preferred Plan proposes an urban reserve area that delineates appropriate areas for further growth, up to the two percent threshold. If the market could bear this growth rate, the population could increase to nearly 99,500 at buildout in 2030 (Total, with Urban Reserve). Table 2-2: Summary of Projected Population at Buildout Population Type Number Annual Growth Rate Preferred Plan"' Recently Approved Projects Existing (2008) 16,100 9,865 63,362 Subtotal Preferred Plan 89,327 1.5% Urban Reserve 10,100 Total Preferred Plan 99,427 2.0% .. Preferred Plan population rounded to the nearest hundred. 2. Population assumed average household size of 2.75. Source: City of Lodi, 2008, California Department of Finance 2008, Dyett & Bhatia, 2008. Non -Residential Table 2-3 summarizes net new development, by land use. Business Park/Office and Industrial represent the largest non-residential land use, with proposed development concentrated on the eastern portion of the city. Areas identified for mixed-use development on the Preferred Plan map are broken down and reflected in the General Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial and Business Park/Office designations in the table below. Parks and detention basins total 130 acres under the Preferred Plan, resulting in a combined ratio of eight acres of open space per 0 City of Lodi General Plan Update 1,000 new residents. This ratio is consistent with the standard set in the 1991 General Plan and the 1994 Parks Master Plan. Acreage for Public/Schools totals to 37 acres, allowing for three schools serving Kindergarten through eighth grade and other public facilities. A placeholder for an additional school site is shown near Central Avenue and East Poplar Street, but is not re- flected in the buildout acreage. Table 2-3: Preferred Plan Buildout, by Non -Residential Land Use Land Use Buildout' General Commercial (SF) 3,323,000 Neighborhood Commercial (SF) 201,000 Business Park/Office (SF) 5,170,000 Industrial (SF) 5,120,000 Park/Detention Basin (Acres) 130 Public/Schools (Acres) 37 Buildout square footages are rounded to the nearest thousand. Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 2008. Employment The total additional employment accommodated in the Preferred Plan by new commercial, office, and industrial land designations would allow for 33,800 new jobs in Lodi, as shown in Table 2-4. Development within the Urban Reserve would create another 6,100 jobs. Additional jobs would be created by new schools, public facilities, and construction needs. Recently ap- proved or "pipeline" projects (such as the Blue Shield call center and retail sector jobs as part of the Reynolds Ranch development) are expected to produce an additional 3,000 jobs. In sum, Lodi could expect over 70,000 jobs by 2030 (see Chart 2-1). Table 2-4: Preferred Plan jobs, by Sector Sector Number o f Jobs' Commercial Office Industrial 10,100 15,900 7,800 Subtotal Preferred Plan 33,800 Urban Reserve 6,100 Total Preferred Plan 39,900 Number of jobs rounded to the nearest hundred. Source: City of Lodi, 2008, California Department of Finance 2008, Dyett & Bhatia, 2008. In 2000, Lodi had a jobs/employed residents ratio of 0.89, meaning that the city did not have quite enough jobs for all the working people who lived there, even if the match between job skills required and job skills offered had been perfect. The Preferred Plan provides opportunity 7 Draft Preferred Plan Concepts for substantial employment growth should opportunities exist, resulting in a jobs/employed residents' ratio of 1.3 in 2030, both with and without the Urban Reserve.' Chart 2-I: Population, Housing Units, and Employment at Buildout 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Population Housing Units jobs ■ Urban Reserve ■ Preferred Plan ■ Approved ■ Existing Source: City of Lodi, California Department of Finance, Dyett & Bhatia, 2008, California Employment Development Department, 2006. 'The jobs/employed residents ratio for 2030 uses the same proportion of employed residents in the total pop- ulation from 2000 (57 percent) to estimate the potential workforce. City of Lodi General Plan Update 3 Next Steps The Planning Commission and the City Council will review and endorse the Preferred Plan. The Plan will then be used as the basis for crafting detailed General Plan policies. An Environ- mental Impact Report on the Plan will also be prepared. The Draft General Plan and the Draft EIR will be subject to community review and public hearings by the Planning Commission and the City Council prior to adoption. 0 Figure 2-1 Concept Plan New neighborhood centers are located near major corridors, creating connections to Downtown and existing neighborhoods. These mixed-use centers will contain housing, parks, schools, shops, and other public services. U The Armstrong Road Agricultural/ Cluster Study Area delineates the boundary between urban development in Lodi and the border of Stockton, just to the south. The city's thriving Downtown will be enhanced through redevelopment of vacant and underutilized sites and complemented by the intensification of mixed-use corridors along some of the city's major streets. U n �� W1MM�IMOMINNI Nr�mu i:a Residents will enjoy easy access to neighborhood and commercial centers, shown here as 1/4 -mile radius walking distances. Business park, office, and commercial development capitalize on convenient highway and thoroughfare access. z TU z L�fa� W. ' D LU W s V) LU 0 0 m 12 z m m N 1—i BLVD z J N W z J o E. 0 .i E. CLARKSBURG RD E E. ORCHARD RD 0 z F- D D Z v 3 0 N f z Figure 2-2: Draft Preferred Plan 0 Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Commercial Downtown Mixed Use Mixed Use Corridor Mixed Use Center 0 Business Park/Office Public/Quasi-Public Industrial Open Space Armstrong Road Agricultural/Cluster Study Area ® Approved Projects ......•••••• Urban Reserve •K-6 Elementary School (Placeholder) ......... Sphere of Influence (2008) —•— City Limits (2008) Existing Land Use Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Commercial Office Public/Civic/Institutional Industrial Open Space/Recreation Parking Utilities Agriculture Vacant P14. acres 0 res 0 1/2 1 2 MILES o�c E.REALTY RD > j m o oc z W W W J v OJC W z a V1 j H Z = Q LU } Z z m � V z E. KETTLEMAN LN z M oc a Z z f z Figure 2-2: Draft Preferred Plan 0 Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Commercial Downtown Mixed Use Mixed Use Corridor Mixed Use Center 0 Business Park/Office Public/Quasi-Public Industrial Open Space Armstrong Road Agricultural/Cluster Study Area ® Approved Projects ......•••••• Urban Reserve •K-6 Elementary School (Placeholder) ......... Sphere of Influence (2008) —•— City Limits (2008) Existing Land Use Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Commercial Office Public/Civic/Institutional Industrial Open Space/Recreation Parking Utilities Agriculture Vacant P14. acres 0 res 0 1/2 1 2 MILES © i I • • - 4 -ITE ,E. CLARKS13URG RD CE: am[ - MEP - �� �� '��� ■BC- JIM K&E amL- 06 11111 ■E: ■.� �o SII .. ■ � nnnr�lN� ���� ��TH�jRIVI,�N ST OUL �� LT.■r■� ' 1INDL i■1 'I ; ; I I ■. ' .1 11111Sr70 ■� �`' ��� ��i i� �■ l�- ----------- --------_ OEM FIT. �owl 0 owl �■■`ill■� - � _ .� � . LODI PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2008 1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL The Regular Planning Commission meeting of November 12, 2008, was called to order by Chair Kiser at 7:00 p.m. Present: Planning Commissioners — Cummins, Heinitz, Hennecke, Kirsten, Mattheis, Olson, and Chair Kiser Absent: Planning Commissioners — None Also Present: Interim Community Development Director Konradt Bartlam, Deputy City Attorney Janice Magdich, Consultant Rajeev Bhatia, and Administrative Secretary Kari Chadwick 2. MINUTES "October 8, 2008" MOTION /VOTE: The Planning Commission, on motion of Vice Chair Cummins, Heinitz second, approved the Minutes of October 8, 2008 as written. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Notice thereof having been published according to law, an affidavit of which publication is on file in the Community Development Department, Chair Kiser called for the public hearing to consider and recommend to the City Council the Draft Preferred Plan Alternative and report for the General Plan Update. Interim Director Konradt Bartlam gave a brief introduction for the project and then introduced Rajeev Bhatia from the consulting firm Dyett and Bhatia to give the presentation. Rajeev Bhatia gave a brief PowerPoint presentation based on the Lodi General Plan Update (GPU), Draft Preferred Plan (DPP) report. Mr. Bhatia stated that once the DPP has been solidified then the work on the other elements that will go into the GPU can be started. The DPP is keeping the compact shape that Lodi currently has. There has been some community center areas incorporated into the plan with residential within a half mile radius, promoting walk -ability. There will be policies within the General Plan to avoid development jumping into the Urban Reserve areas creating pockets of development. The population for this plan is estimated to be at 89,800 and if the entire Urban Reserve area is developed it will be approximately 99,900. The City currently has 27,500 jobs and this plan allows for 72,000 plus another 6,000 in the Urban Reserve area. This would make the job/house ratio for the City about 1.4:1, that ratio is currently 0.88:1. Commissioner Olson asked if an economic analysis was done concurrently with this report. Mr. Bhatia stated that many aspects of the City's elements were looked at and analyzed. Once the Preferred Plan is chosen there will be another analysis done to be more specific to that plan. Olson asked if the industrial areas were left out due to some of the information gathered. Mr. Bartlam stated that the term Business Park is being used as an all encompassing term for Light Industrial, Heavy Industrial, and Office use. Olson stated that it would be a shame to not give companies that are currently here that would like to grow no place to go. Mr. Bartlam stated that there will be some specific planning done from a Utility Master Plan bases. The plan generates a direction and then policies will generate a direction for the Utility Master Plan. Olson asked about the job balancing ratio. Mr. Bhatia stated that typically there are 1.2 jobs needed per household and when that is in perfect balance with the jobs offered you will have the same number on both sides. Mr. Bartlam Continued stated that just because it is being shown on the map doesn't mean it will happen. The notion of full build -out is basically a theoretical idea. The plan allows for the best case ideals. Commissioner Heinitz asked if it wouldn't be prudent to include the Delta College site in the plan. Mr. Bartlam stated that once staff understood that the project was not moving forward then the area was removed from the plan, but just because it is shown or not shown in the plan doesn't mean it will or won't happen. Commissioner Heinitz stated that the General Plan can be amended. Mr. Bartlam stated that is correct, four times a year. Vice Chair Cummins asked for the definition of Urban Reserve. Mr. Bhatia stated that the Urban Reserve area is used when and if all the urban areas have been developed. Cummins asked about the Mixed Use Centers specifically the area along HWY 12 as you enter the City from the west. Mr. Bhatia stated that the intention there is to have not only commercial uses, but also office and hotels. Mr. Bartlam stated that the mixed use could be horizontal and/or vertical. The center is meant to identify areas. Cummins asked if this is economically viable. Mr. Bartlam stated that yes it can work, for instance; Salisbury Market with Wine and Roses at the corner of Turner Road and Lower Sacramento Road. Cummins asked about the walking path along the irrigation canal. Mr. Bartlam stated that the first time this idea was presented years ago it was not very popular with the residences in the area, but he feels that it is worth looking at it again. Commissioner Hennecke asked about the area south of the city being designated a Study Area. Mr. Bartlam stated that it is being called a study area because that is exactly what it is. There is an item going before Council that could potentially put the area 'h mile north and south of Armstrong from Hwy 99 to 1-5 into a study area and hopefully by the time the General Plan is near completion that study will be further along. Hennecke asked if the area could be considered an Area of Interest and placed in the General Plan. Mr. Bartlam stated that it can be, but it still isn't something that LAFCO has embraced. Hennecke asked about the area to the north and why there isn't any growth being shown there. Mr. Bhatia stated that developing on both sides of the river has a lot of challenges and will be a tough area to develop. Hennecke stated that this could be an area that we could try to lock up in an Area of Interest. Mr. Bartlam stated that the County is also going through their General Plan Update and this is a good time to give them our input for future uses. Commissioner Mattheis asked if the policies will outline the use of the Urban Reserve areas; east vs west. Mr. Bartlam stated that yes there will be policies that outline the eastern area and a separate policy for the western area. Mattheis asked why leave the urban reserve area uses blank if the City is concerned with providing for the connectivity. Mr. Bartlam stated that by designating land uses within the urban reserve areas gives the wrong impression of growth. The Growth Management policies have priority areas and that would be used to grow into the urban reserve area. Mattheis wanted to clarify if when the City opens up the Urban Reserve areas for development it will create a trigger to open discussions up to the public again. Mr. Bartlam stated that is correct. Mattheis asked what the benefit is to putting the Study Area to the south into the General Plan. Mr. Bartlam stated that by giving the area a designation puts a stamp on it. Mattheis asked about city services going into the area. Mr. Bartlam stated that from a staff perspective it is possible, but there are a lot of players involved. Mattheis asked if services are being contemplated for the area why not bring it into the Sphere of Influence. Mr. Bartlam stated that there is a planning process in the works by the County that is outside the County's General Plan and will be an independent document specific for that area. Mattheis asked about the medium density residential on the eastside and how it effects the density in the area. Mr. Bhatia stated that this could potentially increase the density for the area. Mr. Bartlam stated that implementation of the policies are going to be the heart of the plan. Mattheis asked about the transition from mixed use centers to residential areas and creating more of a step down effect. Mr. Bhatia stated that the intention is to have a step down from the center, commercial/office uses to the residential areas and that will be describe more clearly in the polices. Mattheis asked about the over building of more retail/industrial and how people commuting into the area to work effects the global warming issue and the problem that could be faced with CEQA. Mr. Bhatia stated that will be a consideration when creating the environmental document. Mattheis stated that he thinks that the City may be over reaching a bit in this area. Mr. Bartlam stated that the environmental document will need to address these issues. 2 Continued Commissioner Kirsten asked if the designation Ag/Open Space placed in Stockton's General Plan is a valid designation in LAFCO's eyes. Mr. Bartlam stated that he is familiar with the designation, but not familiar with Stockton's General Plan Policies that implement that designation. Kirsten stated that he would be interested in knowing the definition and whether or not the designation is binding. Mr. Bartlam stated that he would hesitate to recommend an area as Open Space. He stated that there are several property owners in the Armstrong area that would not appreciate an Open Space designation with out some concessions. Kirsten asked if the Delta College development comes back to the table what about the leap frog policy that will be preventing that development. Mr. Bhatia stated that there can be language added to allow or not allow this type of development. Kirsten asked about the passive park area in regards to the proposed Delta College Site. Mr. Bartlam stated that the language can be written either way. Worst case scenario full blown land use that takes a look at the leap frog aspect and best case scenario decisions are made to accommodate this project within this General Plan. Mr. Bhatia stated that language should be added to plan for not only the college but for the surrounding areas also. Chair Kiser asked if the area could be put into the Urban Reserve designation. Mr. Bhatia stated that the Urban Reserve area is meant to be contiguous with the area around it. Putting the Delta College campus out on Hwy 12 creates a totally different infrastructure for the area. Mr. Bartlam stated that the decision that staff made to leave it out was based on the decision made by the College Board. The only interest that the City had in that area was the College. Kiser asked to have the difference between a Sphere of Influence and Urban Reserve explained. Mr. Bartlam stated that a Sphere of Influence is an area that the City wishes to designate for future growth and LAFCO must concur. The Urban Reserve is similar, but does not require LAFCO to agree. The reserve states that the City has a desire and interest if the need arises to grow in that area. Commissioner Hennecke asked if the terminology that the city uses should match LAFCO's. Mr. Bartlam stated that the definitions are different. What the city wants to designate as Urban Reserve will not have the same definition and implementation polices as the Area of Interest that LAFCO uses. Hennecke stated that LAFCO has hinted at the idea that if one entity designating an Area of Interest it would preclude another party from taking possession. Mr. Bartlam stated that he does not have the level of detail about the intent of that definition, but it is a LAFCO definition not a universal definition like Sphere of Influence. Hennecke asked about the Sphere of Influence encompassing Woodbridge. Mr. Bartlam stated there is no intention of annexing land from Woodbridge, but has been a part of the Sphere of Influence since before the current General Plan. As an example, Woodbridge School could not have been annexed if the area had not been in the Sphere, but there is not any intention of annexing any more land in the Woodbridge area. Hennecke stated that the Mountain House Delta College project has not been done well and would not like to see that happen to Lodi. Vice Chair Cummins asked if the area on Cochran Road has been annexed into the City. Mr. Bartlam stated that Cochran Road is completely a part of the City. There is an area west of Lower Sacramento Road along Taylor Road that has not been annexed. Cummins stated that that is the area he meant and asked if that area is planned to be annexed. Mr. Bartlam stated that yes it is a part of the current General Plan as Planned Residential, but the area getting annexed is in the hands of the property owners. Chair Kiser called for a five minute recess (8:29) Chair Kiser called the meeting back to order (8:39) Hearing Opened to the Public • Patrick McCuen, developer working on the Delta College Lodi site, came forward to support the addition of the site into the General Plan. Mr. McCuen stated that there is reason to believe that the new board for the College is in favor of pursuing this growth site. He handed in a letter (attached) for the Commission to consider. Continued Commissioner Kirsten ask if there is a designation placed in the General Plan for the College what is the likelihood that the College would be inclined to go forward. Mr. McCuen stated that the college got frustrated with the General Plan Amendment process. They would be more inclined to focus on an area that is already designated for them. Kirsten asked if the City were to designate this area for the College would it encourage the Board to move forward with the project. Mr. McCuen stated that it would be considered a generous invitation and would be well received. • Commissioner Mattheis asked about the land uses used in the sketch plan (attached). Mr. McCuen stated that the colors represent the designations from sketch plan C. Mattheis asked if there would be any reservations of designating the area a mixed use center. Mr. McCuen stated that there would not be any reservations to that suggestion. Pat Patrick, Chamber of Commerce, came forward to encourage the Commission to not send the plan on to the City Council with a recommendation. Mr. Patrick stated his reservation of how the designations are defined and how the areas are presented. He would like to see a plan that is geared more toward the encouragement of the wine industry. He agrees with Commissioner Hennecke in regards to the terminology used by the City and how it relates to LAFCO's terminology. What is the likelihood of Lodi growing out to the full growth area as presented in this plan? Mr. Patrick does not think it is likely to happen. The first time that the path along the Woodbridge Irrigation Canal was brought forward the homeowners whose backyards abut it were strongly against the idea and Mr. Patrick does not think that sentiment has changed. He would like to see more consistency with the designations in the plan. Commissioner Kirsten asked for clarification on the area in the SE corner of the plan. What would the Chamber like to see for that area? Mr. Patrick stated that the Chamber would like to see the area on the west side of the CCT line be designated as industrial. Kirsten asked if the market recovered and there was a drive to use the land as designated on this plan would the Chamber support that growth. Mr. Patrick stated that the Chamber would support it if it was being market driven, but the odds of that happening based on past experiences in Lodi isn't good. Commissioner Hennecke asked if the industrial area along the traction line were to be placed in the plan as the Chamber is suggesting then wouldn't that drive the residential to the west. Mr. Patrick stated that that is only one ingredient in the mix. The City has been operating on little, if no, available industrial property for the last couple of years. Hennecke asked if the chamber has looked at the area north of the Mockelumne River and the Goehring Meat property. Mr. Patrick stated that they have talked with Delta College and Blue Shield, but the infrastructure is difficult and the history of the property is a bit tainted. Mike Carouba, Lodi, came forward to present the ideas that the Chamber has come up with. Mr. Carouba handed the Commission a land use map that express the ideas of the Chamber (attached). The Chamber is not recommending the urban growth to the west because of the areas that are already in the process and will probably extend out the growth to the 20 years considering the slow start that the economy is giving us. The Chamber's White papers suggested that there be a new land use that would encourage high density commercial/industrial job sites and in response city staff came up with the Business Park/Office which combines this new land use idea with the M-1 & M-2 designations. This isn't exactly what the Chamber wanted. The Chamber wants a new designation over and above the M-1 & M-2, not a combination of all three into one. New Urbanism is a new concept and the growth of the city should reflect this new concept; for instance the Downtown Mixed Use and the Mixed Use Corridor areas are definitely worth a try; however the Mixed Use Centers placed in the growth areas are not economically viable. Mr. Carouba continued with his comments using the two, Chamber's & Draft Preferred Plan, land use maps to point out the positives and negatives of the Preferred Plan. • Commissioner Hennecke asked about the proposed development for Delta College. Mr. Carouba stated that the Chamber was not aware of the new interest and the site was not able to be included in the Chamber's plan, but the Chamber is in full support of the idea. Continued • Commissioner Olson asked about the removal of the Medium Density area to the south in the Chamber's plan. Mr. Carouba stated that there was no intention of removing any of the Medium Density areas to the south; only the Mixed Use Centers. • Chair Kiser asked about the types of industrial users that the Chamber sees in the area adjacent to the traction line. Mr. Carouba stated that food processors, distribution centers and heavy industrial type businesses that have the need for rail uses. Steve Herum, Herum & Crabtree, Attorney representing the Armstrong property owners south of the City and the Fry, Fink and Costa families, came forward to express their concerns. The property owners in the Harney Lane and Armstrong area are afraid that the hard work that they put in 20 years ago to get the PRR designation in the 1991 General Plan will all go to waste. They don't want to come away with less than they currently have. The failure to put a definition to the designation for the area south of Lodi is troubling. The Armstrong Road Agricultural/Cluster Study Area designation is new to the plan and people have not had enough time to digest it. What happens if the County does not adopt the designation that the City is proposing? Mr. Herum would like to see a time out taken to provide more meat to the bones and see of the policies for the more unique designation in more detail. He handed the Commission a copy of the current General Plan with the PRR area south of the City outlined and a sample definition for the new Armstrong Road Agricultural/Cluster Study Area (both attached). The Stockton General Plan had several of the mix use centers in their plan and the same arguments that are being heard here were heard there. • Commissioner Kirsten asked about the Ag/Open Space designation that is in the Stockton General Plan. Mr. Herum stated that the focus should be more toward the Sphere of Influence area which is where the growth will be. Kirsten asked again if the Ag/Open Space is a binding designation. Mr. Herum stated that like any General Plan designation it can be changed. The area north with the Ag/Open Space designation was done with that property owner's consent. Commissioner Hennecke asked about Mr. Herum's take on LAFCO's Area of Interest designation. Mr. Herum stated that that is all it is, a statement that shows interest. Pat Stocker came forward to comment on the plan. He stated his objection of this map moving forward to the City Council based on the comments heard here tonight. The area that he would like to focus on is the buffer area. Mr. Stocker stated that he prefers the term Study Area for the south side, because that is what it should be considered. Going east of Hwy 99 was not in the original plan for the Study Area nor is it in the County's RFP. He feels it is premature to include the commercial area that is on the south east corner of Hwy 99 and Harney Lane. Mr. Stocker would like to see the City take an interest in the area north of the Mokelumne River. The same idea for the southern edge of the city should be put toward the northern edge. He would like to see the Urban Reserve area to the east moved back to the southern edge of the city because he does not feel that this area would be conducive for residential. Mr. Stocker would like to have a little more time to process this before it is sent on to the City Council. • Commissioner Kirsten asked Mr. Stocker to point out the area of his property east of Hwy 99 that is zoned AL5 along Hogan Lane. Mr. Stocker with the use of a laser pointer complied. The property has been zoned AL5 since the 1990 when the County's General Plan was adopted. • Bruce Fry, Lodi, came forward to encourage the Commission not to pass this plan on to the City Council until people have a chance to digest the new designations that have been added. Mr. Fry stated that he agrees with the comments that have been made so far. He would have liked to have seen the current General Plan map made available for comparison purposes when the alternative plans where being discussed. • Jim Migliori, Petrovich Development, came forward to support the area designation in the SE corner of Harney Lane and Hwy 99 which he has an interest in. 5 Continued Anne Cerney came forward to make comments. Ms. Cerney stated that she lives in Lodi and will not benefit from the growth of Lodi. The comments that have been made here tonight have been very one sided and they have been made by people that will benefit by the growth of Lodi. There is going to be an item going before the City Council in the near future that consists of the County asking for money to fund an environmental document that will effect the Ag designation south of the City of Lodi which will in turn benefit some of the people that have spoken here tonight. Ms. Cerney stated that elections have consequences referring to the City of Stockton's Council election and the effect it will have on the concept of the greenbelt between our two Cities. Public Portion of Hearing Closed Chair Kiser called for a five minute break (10:14). Chair Kiser called the meeting back to order (10:18) • Commissioner Heinitz asked what the procedure should be from here regarding more time. Mr. Bartlam stated that it is up to the Commission at this point. Commissioner Heinitz would like to see more time for the public to digest this plan and consider the Delta College site. • Commissioner Olson stated that she would like to see the Industrial area placed alongside the traction line vs the Business Park/Office. • Commissioner Kirsten agreed with Commissioner Olson regarding the area along the traction line. Kirsten stated that there are four new people on the Delta College Board and would like to see if there really is any interest in the Lodi site. He would like to see the site placed back on the map if there is interest. • Commissioner Hennecke stated that he would also be in favor of placing the Delta College site back on the map if there could be some kind of confirmation directly from the College Board. He would like to see the Industrial designation used along the traction line. He would also like to get in alignment with LAFCO in regards to the designations. • Commissioner Mattheis stated support for the plan. He would like to see encouragement for infill projects. He likes the mixed use centers and is looking forward to seeing the policies that will go along with those designations. He feels the Urban Reserve areas are responsible planning and would like to see them stay in the plan. Mattheis agrees with the other Commissioners in regards to the corridor along the traction line, but from what staff has stated the Business Park/Office designation will allow for that flexibility. He would like to see a detailed market analysis regarding the large chunk of Commercial on the SE corner of Hwy 99 and Kettleman Lane. The AL5 designation, what happens if that designation goes away? Mr. Bartlam stated that he will address that at the next meeting. Mattheis is not in favor of adding the Delta College site with just the hope that they will come and fill it. The main concern is that once there is residential designated for that area there could be a push to grow east with more residential when the time comes for the next General Plan. Mattheis suggested putting the area for the college into a Urban Reserve designation. • Vice Chair Cummins would like to see the new plan put into the news paper and placed on the City's website to help encourage more comments. MOTION /VOTE: The Planning Commission, on motion of Commissioner Heinitz, Cummins second, tabled the request of the Planning Commission to consider and recommend to the City Council the Draft Preferred Plan Alternative and report for the General Plan Update. IN Continued Ayes: Commissioners — Cummins, Heinitz, Hennecke, Kirsten, Olson, Mattheis, and Chair Kiser Noes: Commissioners — None 4. PLANNING MATTERS/FOLLOW-UP ITEMS None 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE None 6. ACTIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Summary Memo Attached 7. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE/DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE Mr. Bartlam brought up some calendar items that are ready to be brought before the Commission before the end of the year and with the City Council using the December 10th meeting to hear the Lodi Shopping Center Appeals. December 18th was discussed as a possible special meeting for the Commission. 8. ACTIONS OF THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE None 9. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Kirsten stated that there was a meeting, but because to the late hour will bring everyone up to date at the next meeting. 10. COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC None 11. COMMENTS BY STAFF AND COMMISSIONERS None 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. ATTEST: Konradt Bartlam Interim Community Development Director 7 LODI PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2008 1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL The Regular Planning Commission meeting of December 18, 2008, was called to order by Chair Kiser at 7:00 p.m. Present: Planning Commissioners — Cummins, Hennecke, Kirsten, Mattheis, Olson, and Chair Kiser Absent: Planning Commissioners — Heinitz Also Present: Interim Community Development Director Konradt Bartlam, Assistant Planner Immanuel Bereket, Deputy City Attorney Janice Magdich, Consultant Rajeev Bhatia, and Administrative Secretary Kari Chadwick 2. MINUTES "November 12, 2008" MOTION /VOTE: The Planning Commission, on motion of Commissioner Kirsten, Cummins second, approved the Minutes of November 12, 2008 as written. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Notice thereof having been published according to law, an affidavit of which publication is on file in the Community Development Department, Chair Kiser called for the public hearing to consider request for Certification of the proposed Negative Declaration as an adequate environmental documentation for the proposed Tentative Parcel Map; and Request for approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to divide Two Parcels into Seven Lots at 1235 E. Kettleman Lane and 1150 Beckman Road. (Applicant: Geweke Construction & Development, File #'s: 08 -ND -03 & 08-P-06). Assistant Planner Immanuel Bereket gave a brief PowerPoint presentation based on the staff report. Mr. Bereket went through the amendments in the resolution for this project as shown on the Blue Sheeted version presented to the Commission. Hearing Opened to the Public • John Farris, Geweke Construction, came forward to answer questions. Public Portion of Hearing Closed • Commissioner Kirsten stated his support of the project. • Chair Kiser stated his support for the project. MOTION /VOTE: The Planning Commission, on motion of Commissioner Olson, Kirsten second, approved the request for Certification of the proposed Negative Declaration as adequate environmental documentation for the proposed Tentative Parcel Map subject to the conditions in the Resolution. The motion carried by the following vote: Continued Ayes: Commissioners — Cummins, Hennecke, Kirsten, Olson, Mattheis, and Chair Kiser Noes: Commissioners — None Absent: Commissioners — Heinitz MOTION /VOTE: The Planning Commission, on motion of Commissioner Hennecke, Olson second, approved the request for approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to divide Two Parcels into Seven Lots at 1235 E. Kettleman Lane and 1150 Beckman Road subject to the conditions in the Resolution. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners — Cummins, Hennecke, Kirsten, Olson, Mattheis, and Chair Kiser Noes: Commissioners — None Absent: Commissioners — Heinitz b) Notice thereof having been published according to law, an affidavit of which publication is on file in the Community Development Department, Chair Kiser called for the public hearing to consider and recommend to the City Council the Draft Preferred Plan Alternative and report for the General Plan Update. Interim Director Konradt Bartlam gave a brief presentation based on the staff report, which included a summary of the changes made to the plan based on comments made at the last meeting. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the Draft Preferred Plan that is being presented tonight. The Plan puts emphasis on infill growth with the Mixed Use Corridor areas. It is important for the plan to be in line with the City's policies. The City is split into three priority areas for the Growth Management Process; area one being worth the most points and area three being worth the least. This was done to control the way the City should grow and it has worked very well. Staff will be recommending that this policy stay in place with the area west of Lower Sacramento Road being a priority area one, the area south of Harney Lane being priority area two and the area west of the existing city boundary be priority area three. Since the last meeting the Lodi Unified School District has fine tuned their needs for school areas which are reflected in this new plan. Commissioner Hennecke asked about the Urban Reserve area on the east side of the City being part of the 2% growth calculation. Mr. Bartlam stated that it is not part of that 2% because it is intended to be used as Industrial reserve, not residential. Hennecke asked why it is necessary to designate reserve areas at all. Mr. Bartlam stated that there are several reasons for the designation. One of which is to avoid a costly revision to the General Plan at a later date and another is to meet State requirements for housing for this area which is the purpose of the west reserve area. The State frowns on the City's Growth Management Program because of the limited growth potential it provides. Commissioner Mattheis asked about the deletion or shifting of the high density area that was in the western growth area. Mr. Bartlam stated that when the school site was moved further south it made sense to add a basin/park area adjacent to it shrinking the very large park area at the north end of the area. Mattheis asked about the shrinking of the Mixed Use area in the southern part of the plan. Mr. Bartlam stated that staff went back and took a closer look at the scale of the area and found that this ten acre area is sufficient. Staff feels that it is still enough to create an anchor for the neighborhood. Mr. Bhatia added that the mixed use areas will be encouraging high density residential. Mattheis stated his preference for the position of the Mixed Use Center in the southern area and wanted to know why it wasn't placed in a more central location to be in a position to accommodate the Urban Reserve to the west. Mr. Bartlam stated that the positioning of the designation on Mills Avenue made the most sense and when the School District moved the school site the designation was moved to the opposite side of Mills to accommodate the change. Mattheis asked about the High Density area near the Downtown. Mr. Bartlam stated that that area has remained the same from the previous plan, but is intended to reflect what is currently there and provide some flexibility for re -use. Commissioner Mattheis disclosed that he met with representatives from Capital Avenue Development regarding the plans for the Delta College site. 2 Continued Commissioner Mattheis asked about the Delta College site and shouldn't there be some discussion on what the Land Uses will be if it is going to be included in some of the alternatives late on. Mr. Bartlam stated that there are a couple of different options that can be taken regarding this site. One is to include it and the detailed Land Uses in the Plan and another is to include the area in the plan as an Urban Reserve area. Commissioner Mattheis stated that he would like to have some discussion on the alternatives so that the Commission can give their input and some direction. Mattheis asked about the infill areas and new uses and what is included in those areas. Mr. Bartlam stated that the policies for these areas will be development along with the environmental document. The Mixed Use Centers and the Downtown Mixed Use are intended to give broad policy and then through the Development Code be able to drill down and give a more refined definition of the best uses (i.e. having High Density or Office use directly adjacent to a Retail Center). Commissioner Olson asked about the process behind the Growth Management process. Mr. Bartlam stated that the Growth Management Program was implemented in 1991. The residential projects that apply for growth management get scored on a variety of levels. The projects that fall in the priority area one or two will get higher points than a project that is in priority area three. Infrastructure and School proximity are also considered in the scoring process. Olson asked if development or impact fees play a part in what is developed. Mr. Bartlam stated that development fees are not a part of the current process. The entire area including the Urban Reserve will need to be a part of the Master Planned for infrastructure purposes. Chair Kiser asked about an underpass on Century Blvd. Mr. Bartlam stated that the current General Plan does have an underpass on Century as part of the plan. He is also aware that in recent history the City has been thinking of selling their right-of-way adjacent to the rail line. Kiser stated that when the City brought that before the Commission it was the Commissions recommendation not to sell the property. He feels that this is an ideal location for an underpass and would like to see it kept in the new General Plan. Mr. Bartlam stated that it is an appropriate recommendation for the Commission to make. Commissioner Hennecke asked as follow-up from the last meeting about the Woodbridge area being in the Sphere of Influence. Mr. Bartlam stated that the area has been in the Sphere since before the current General Plan, but the City has no intention of annexing the area. Chair Kiser called for a brief recess (8:12pm) Chair Kiser called the meeting back to order (8:19pm) Hearing Opened to the Public Pat Stocker, property owner along Hogan Lane, came forward to comment. Mr. Stocker stated that the Planned Residential Reserve (PRR) designation should be considered as a viable designation for the southern edge of the City. He would like to see a growth management process put in place for the way the retail grows as well. He is concerned that the area on the south east corner of Hwy 99 and Harney Lane will get developed before other areas that have been approved are fully developed. He expressed his concerns for the park area that follows the Woodbridge Irrigation Canal and just how well that has been thought out and how much input the property owners adjacent to it have been given. Pat Patrick, CEO Chamber of Commerce, came forward to comment. Mr. Patrick stated that there are three areas of concern; first, the statement by city staff within the plan regarding the wine industry being a focus of growth, the industrial area should be just as much of a focus; and second, the urban growth area to the west should be turned into Urban Reserve because the City has several areas currently on the map in the red hash marks which represents approximately 2500 homes that have already been approved and have no set date for ground breaking; third, the plan seems to be over saturated with retail/commercial areas and he believes in what Mr. Stocker stated regarding some phasing process being implemented for this use also. • Commissioner Mattheis asked how far out should the area of interest go to the west. Mr. Patrick stated that ideally all the way to 1-5, but looking at an area of interest that goes to the RR tracks should be considered. Continued Commissioner Kirsten asked about the Chamber's vision for growth in 20, 30, or 40 years. Mr. Patrick stated that infill should be made a priority if the priority is to have a focus on the Wine Industry. Kirsten stated that based on Mr. Patrick's comments the Chamber doesn't want to see the City grow to the west or south. Mr. Patrick stated that if market forces are driving the building then he can see the necessity, but he doesn't believe that it will happen in this plans time. Kirsten stated that if it isn't planned for and the market starts to drive it then what. Mr. Patrick stated that he is a believer in market forces, but this just seems like a lot. Jim Migliori, commercial developer for the area in the SE corner of Hwy 99 and Harney Lane, came forward to express his dislike of the phasing idea for commercial. Commissioner Kirsten asked what is the down side of phasing commercial areas. Mr. Migliori stated that the market drives the building and placement of the centers. The proximity to Hwy 99 makes the area a desirable area for tenants and with the highway overpass improvements scheduled to be made it just makes sense to do the improvements on both sides of the highway at the same time. Mike Carouba came forward make comments. Mr. Carouba pointed out the letter sent in by Mr. Costa which was blue sheeted for the Commission. He stated that the meeting that Mr. Bartlam had with interested property owners that had concerns with the Mixed Use Centers must have worked because those people are not in attendance tonight. He would like to see the PRR Designation on the southern edge from the current General Plan kept in place with the new Plan. He would like to see the growth area on the western edge changed to Urban Reserve. He is concerned with the narrow strip of commercial property on the south west corner of Vine Street and Lower Sacramento Road. He would like to see some of the commercial growth areas placed in a Commercial Reserve Designation. Public Portion of Hearing Closed • Commissioner Kirsten asked about the Commercial designation on Vine and Lower Sac. Mr. Bartlam stated that the request came from the property owner. It is on a signalized intersection and warrants the designation. Commissioner Hennecke asked about the Open Space designation along the Irrigation Canal regarding discussion with property owners along the area. Mr. Bartlam stated that during the stakeholder meetings the Woodbridge Irrigation District stated that they would be open to more discussion on the idea. Hennecke stated that he would like to see all canal areas in the city limits have that designation or none of them. Hennecke asked if the City has ever used it's entire 2% residential growth allocations. Mr. Bartlam stated that if you were to look back you may find one or two years where the City met it's 2% allocation limit. He also reminded the Commission that the residential growth areas designated on the plan only represent 1.5% residential growth including the pipeline project as identified. Vice Chair Cummins asked about the Mixed Use Designation definition that Mr. Costa refers to in his email letter. Mr. Bartlam stated that Mr. Costa was a part of the meeting he held and he is correct with his statement. Cummins asked if there is a standard number of years for a General Plan to span (Stockton has chosen 25). Mr. Bartlam stated that it is historically a 20 year horizon. Cummins asked about the Delta College site and what would be the process in the future if it isn't included in this plan. Mr. Bartlam stated that there has to be some sort of linkage to allow for infrastructure. The question will be what that linkage will look like. If during this next year, the College Board changes its mind about the site, it could be included in the Final Plan. Commissioner Mattheis stated that he is not sure the plan is ready to be approved tonight. He prefers to leave the urban growth and Urban Reserve areas to the west in the plan. He does not feel there needs to be a phasing process placed on the Commercial/Retail areas; the market should take care of the need for growth there. The PRR should not be included to the south because that along with the Urban Reserve area would put the City over it's 2% potential growth per year for a 20 year plan. A Greenbelt Designation is the direction that we need to be looking in if the City is truly interested in protecting the buffer areas Continued around the City. The Century Blvd. underpass is a viable solution for traffic in that area and warrants more discussion. When the Alternatives for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) come forward for discussion, Commissioner Mattheis would like to see a more detailed discussion regarding the Delta College site and how it will work in the future plans for the City. Mr. Bartlam requested a brief recess. Chair Kiser called for a brief recess (9:10pm) Chair Kiser called the meeting back to order (9:13pm) • Chair Kiser stated that he appreciates all the work that has gone into the plan. He would like to see the Delta College site incorporated somehow. The Century Blvd underpass should be left open for discussion. • Commissioner Hennecke stated his appreciation for the changes in plan and does not see the Delta site as something to hold the plan up for. He believes that if the City Policies call for a 2% growth the General Plan should take that into consideration even if that goal is not met. • Mr. Bartlam stated that Staff will bring the Alternatives for the EIR that Staff is looking at back to the Commission at a future date for further discussion. • Commissioner Kirsten asked where the communication stands with the Delta Board. Mr. Bartlam stated that the City Manager has been in discussions with Dr. Rodriguez. Dr. Rodriguez does not want to assume what the new board will want to do and with the main supporter of the project resigning from the board it is a wait and see situation. City Staff has been in support of a possible College site and if we can assist that process by being flexible with our plan it may help. • Chair Kiser asked what action should be taken at this point. • Mr. Bartam stated that based on the Commissions comments he would suggest passing this document on to the Council with the Commissions recommendation. • Commissioner Mattheis asked about the Alternatives being a part of that recommendation before forwarding it on to the City Council. Mr. Bartlam stated that staff is suggesting that the Delta site and the PRR designation to the south be studied as alternatives in the Environmental Document. The alternatives can't be studied until the Preferred Plan is in place. MOTION /VOTE: The Planning Commission, on motion of Commissioner Mattheis, Hennecke second, approved the request to consider and recommend to the City Council the Draft Preferred Plan Alternative and report for the General Plan Update. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners — Cummins, Hennecke, Kirsten, Olson, Mattheis, and Chair Kiser Noes: Commissioners — None Absent: Commissioners — Heinitz 4. PLANNING MATTERS/FOLLOW-UP ITEMS None 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE Mr. Bartlam stated that the Lodi Shopping Center Item will be back before the Commission on January 14, 2009 and the hearing will be held in the Theatre at Hutchins Street Square. Commissioner Cummins stated that he will not be able to attend the meeting and with Commissioner Mattheis needing to recuse himself Chair Kiser asked if any of the other Commissioners would be 5 Continued unable to make the meeting for quorum purposes. The other Commissioners stated that they would be able to attend. 6. ACTIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Summary Memo Attached 7. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE/DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE Mr. Bartlam stated that he recommended to the City Manager that the Development Code should follow the General Plan. 8. ACTIONS OF THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE None 9. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Kirsten stated that he would give an update at the next meeting. 10. COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC None 11. COMMENTS BY STAFF AND COMMISSIONERS None 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:28p.m. ATTEST: Konradt Bartlam Interim Community Development Director IN Lodi General Plan Update Agenda ■ General Plan Update Process ■ Sketch Plans Public Outreach ■ Preferred Plan • Key Concepts • Citywide Land Use Framework • Buildout • Next Steps DYETT& EHATlA UrMn 3-1 RrxIom i 7-1—n— Lodi General Plan Update General Plan Update Process ■ Existing Conditions, Trends, Planning Issues • #1: Land Use, Transportation, Environment and Infrastructure • #2: Urban Design and Livability • #3: Growth and Economic Development Strategy • #4: Greenbelt Conservation Strategies • Sketch Plans • Preferred Plan • General Plan ■ Environmental Impact Report (EIR) DYETT & EHATlA LJ, ". ,ny Rrxjan I Fi3., - Lodi General Plan Update Sketch Plans Public Outreach ■ Planning Commission Open House (May 10tH) • Approx. 50 community members attended • Preference for Sketch Pans 8 and C ■ Outreach to Community Groups • Meetings with 20+ groups • Preference for Sketch Plan C (with elements of A and 8) DYETT& BHAYIA Nmmmmoll �I L - Cr _ f.4Rd41Rp i �� woo ftft �I Compact T -*1111b 4e, x.}74'- �.. E -0P _ ` EWOCW�IQtlCGf AO Urban =r�_ Form - � y + E {L�i3AlXl�i nil _ 1 - I� I I I i 1 RD MEALTY W. "I I 2 6 KEf1unw LN a CO _ IT � I IEvo _ — II .1_ — / ' — E HAMEY LN i 4) L GRCFMED I Preservation of WDOWAMG no- £ *00MIAC aa. Existing4 �Y x ETfi4 FRY HQ Nei hborhoods ��y � � - = ECL4RS3WJRG RU .'�•�}J -- g F �~ 7., 99 w: rdr E 4Y. P EST � :L € w T po- [SaRNT p6 - •� E1+�J R4KM h . i ERE.LLTY RD RST E ST Le DL W 2 4 x E KFnUMAM LN —T� w C FIY FLV6 rn CEN17 i E HARVEY LN 50, /' f / Al; 'if; ;'!...;i/ ' . }, •'.. iii. .SmF+4+�i[ {99 ' } tom+? jIP,R'RQ. 7{{ _l }.+ _ •J {{ E: +�10'�54rYG RO '4 E QIP - EWOOMDGf RD 25 T- S .r -- Fp. � F113 c _ J t rJ1 I W. E3ii 4 - � �F I I I aNnurt RD m IA. Mm NT na �' i -.flea 1= — i `exburr W. - 1- I Ag/Cluster IT11 c Study Area r co along Z. Southern Boundar y 44<00 "+ 4) ♦' Mixed -Use Centers/ r'':-� Corridors Et t_�LAR�Rkyftn TFD 1! L Downtown 11116 7 111,; 771 E Ti 42. i �� ��i, ILI ir ji: F-W-00HRIMA 9B ,I zl Employment- E WOODI]RIDGE W 'f Focused rt Development I-�'ti =-.; I� _ - I I I I �=-=1 I =� �� �__ ,{ nthhe N PIR AD _ __ } A!_ Southeast J1 F -1 71Z'i T T; F 1. r ""r ENT RD M -L6.jAr EMR RD Ttfr l W1 > +1 14 E KFnLGW N C3 8 MMD 7 F- HAWM LN LONCHAR0 I r Street Connectivity and Urban Design; Enhanced Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections; Recreation Path along the Irrigation Canal ROW TURN En Rp _ }.. - " 31 iz '- W. mSr a -- V.P EST G- dA HT Ru I s E.REALLW RD - 7r'41N� ST • � Y E Sr � � W r: T"m Z NETTLEIMM Lt J xl LRT aan [9iYuAr WEY ` .a N d E E HAA4FY LN 7 s IRM - on ��� JAI �i � F-W-00HRIMA MD RD E.REhM M Phased Future Development 1F Mr Igx" X IRM - on ��� JAI �i � F-W-00HRIMA MD RD E.REhM M Mokelumne+ E WO-009PIEWE %, 5 River as F WjNE9Vl4D f ti .. � ��-�- f� �� ���= . _..,, , = F- c LARKmupc RGthe City's -� Northern 1 Edge 5 . W. MST, LJL F -VUL-1 M H IN. YP E ST P rpo Jk JMV -AL I&" ' BUST rAW- ET V E w $T cffiywpf WO ,A 11 L APMSTRONC., RD LOMHARD I ir X., RD E.RWTY F13 9 2 E. ORCKNRD I til E. WOODBRIDGE RD E_WOODRRIDGE RD �( & WINERY ID E. CLARICS BURG RD jr TURNER RD - - - - - ... IAUVR NWU�o a I&V IF. a 3 W, 91 E!ST. i-. pr it sr 4 "WE SARGENT RD E.REALTY RD lIj LULU z Ij Pl. Lu lAj z., a 62 zj EAUTLEMAN LN Wild W. E.HARNEY LN Lodi General Plan Update Buildout: Population, Housing, Jobs 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Population Housing Units Jobs ■ Urban Reserve ■ Preferred Plan ■ Approved ■ Existing DYETT &SHATIA Wr"n 1-4 h*xiona I rl�anwr: Lodi General Plan Update Buildout: Jobs/Employed Residents 70,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Existing (2007) Buildout (2030) ■ ,bbs ■ Employed Residents DYETT & BHATIA Lodi General Plan Update Next Steps ■ Decision -Maker Review of Preferred Plan ■ Development of Key Policies ■ Draft General Plan • Draft EIR • Community Input (Ongoing) DYETT& EHATlA Ur"3a 1 RrxIom i T-1—n— Fre FK CTM77—Fal 0 U FaTiM I reqrs Ft.. Lodi General Plan Update Preferred Plan vs. Sketch Plans 12,000 10,000 111 . 111 111 2,000 COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDOUT Sketch Plan A Sketch Plan B Sketch Plan C Preferred Plan O Rural Residential D Low -Density ■ Mediurr�Density ■ High -Density ■ Mixed -Use Residential ■ Urban Reserve DYETT& EHATlA ylrign .nn Rrl19n.1 rim—rc Lodi General Plan Update Population Growth Projections 100,000 Lodi Population Growth Projections 20,000 U 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 —Population (With Urban Reserve) —Population DYETT A EHATIA UrWn 1-4 A*xia-o I rhenwr: Page 1 of 1 Randi Johl (3 ev From: Brett S. Jolley [BJolley@herumcrabtree.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 11,2009 2:39 PM To: Randi Johl Cc: SteveSchwabauer; Bruce Fry;jerryfry@mohrfry.com Subject: Letter and enclosures re tonight's General Plan meeting Attachments: 89331.pdf; 89338.pdf; Armstrong Letterto CC and PC re Gen Plari Dear Randi: Attached please find a 4 -page letter and two enclosures for tonight'sjoint City Council and Planning Commission meeting. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. 1.L RUM CR BT REE BRETT S. JOLLEY 1 , G 472.7700 F: 209.472.7986 101ieydher utncraNre .,c.om. 2 -, 'NFS] MARCH LANE, Suite H100 3TOt'K MN CA 95207 �er;�trtcra�tree.cc�rn ONFlt]FNT=At_ITY NOTICE, This comnrunic%ation and ally accompanying attachment(s) are confidential and privileged. They are intended for the N ;;d,irec�sar„e. It receive this Irarismission in error, you are advised that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action i,ew ihr-, r:oirariurricatirn� or accompanying document(s) is strictly prohibited, and the message should be immediately deleted with any hlorec,vfn anv ^,ur.h inadvertent disclosure shall not compromise or waive the attorney-client privilege or confidentiality as to Mrs u i:atic i or oti r: is If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender vninediately by return electronic mail o Thaii�, you_ 02111/2009 HERUM CRABTREE Brett S. Jolley bjolley@hervmcrobtree.com February 11, 2009 VIA E-MAIL: CITYCLERK@LODI.GOV Mayor Larry Hansen And Honorable Members of the Lodi City Council C/O Randi Johl, City Clerk City of Lodi City Hall 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95241-1910 Chair Wendell Kiser And Members of the Lodi Planning Commission C/O Randi Johl, City Clerk City of Lodi City Hall 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95241-1910 Re: Armstronci Road Property Owners' Comments on Proposed Preferred Plan Dear Mayor Hansen, Chair Kiser. and members of the City Council and Planning Commission: This office represents the Armstrong Road Property Owners group ("Armstrong Group"), My clients object to the Preferred Plan presented to you this evening because it removes and replaces the existing "Planned Residential Reserve" ("PRR") designation from properties north of Armstrong Road with an "Armstrong Road Agricultural/Cluster Study Area" ["Study Area") designation. These properties should maintain the PRR designation with a Study Area overlay. As background, the 1991 General Plan describes the PRR designation as follows: A, > , P.1!"�( I i i f,N( 11 1-;: P II T.o';KT(A, CA 952W FH C .77? 7700, MODESTO PH 209 52- 8444 FX 209.47" 708E APC Mayor Larry Hansen Chairman Weldell Kiser Member of the City Council and Planning Commission February 11, 2009 Page 2 of 2 PRR Planned Residential Reserve This designation is applied to areas between Harney Lane and Armstrong Road, west of State Route (SR) 99, which are well-suited for residential development, but are not expected to develop within the time frame of the GP 2007. Until these areas are redesignated with a nonreserve GP land use designation, allowed uses and development standards shall be the same as those of the agricultural designation. While the PRR designation applies the areas "well-suited for [future] residential development," the Study Area designation, which replaces the PRR designation in the proposed Preferred Plan is not described in the Land Use Classification System (seep. 4). However the staff report states: The area to the south reflects the ongoing discussions of creating a County -based plan that we refer to as the Armstrong Road Agricultural/Cluster Study Areas. The Armstrong Group submits that these designations are not mutually exclusive and the General Plan should continue to designate this area as PRR with a Study Area overlay. Including only a Study Area designation (which is not even described in the Plan's Land Use Classification System) without any underlying planning designation effectively surrenders Lodi's planning control over the Armstrong Road corridor: unlike future buildout under the PRR or other zone, any "cluster' development would fall under the County's land use jurisdiction. Stated slightly differently, future "cluster" development is ultimately contingent upon the Son Joaquin County Board of Supervisors - rather than the Lodi City Council - approving cluster zoning in the Armstrong Road corridor. Although the Armstrong Group and other landowners in the area support the cluster zone proposal and see such land use as the preferred form of development of their properties, if the County does not enact cluster zoning legislation, the Study Area designation is meaningless from Lodi and the Armstrong Group's perspectives. To put a finer point on it. what meaning does the Study Area designation carry if the County does not enact cluster zoning legislation? Keeping the PRR designation in place plans for the future and prevents the area from falling into any sort of planning purgatory. Second, repealing the PRR designation effectively shrinks Lodi's future planning area; an unusual if not unprecedented planning concept. Indeed. in 1991 the City identified this area as "well-suited for residential development" after 2007. Since that time, Lodi's population has increased by nearly one quarter (see Draft Preferred Plan at 1). Moreover, with the approval of Reynolds Ranch in 2006, Lodi saw development begin "? MA t I i'lN, 'a .l K I oN Ch 9'5.T? PH : 09 4?? 7700 MODF:TO PH 209 _.25.+344=4 FX 20S, 47.' 798C, APC Mayor Larry Hansen Chairman Weldeli Kiser Member of the City Council and Planning Commission February 1 1,2009 Page 3 of 3 to migrate south of Harney Lane. Considering these facts, removing that PRR designation from the Armstrong corridor properties nearly 20 years later would be both counterproductive and counterintuitive. The General Plan's land use element "functions as a guide to planners, the general public, and decisionmakers as to the ultimate pattern of development for the city or county at build -out.. The land use element has a pivotal role in zoning, subdivision, and public works decisions. The element's objectives and policies provide a long-range context for those short term actions." State cf California General Plan Guidelines [Governor's Office of Planning and Research, 2003) at 49. Thus, just as the City used the PRR designation in its long-term plan for development between Armstrong and Harney in 1991, at a minimum the City should keep that designation in place for the next cycle of the General Plan. Failing to do so because of pending County legislation or the absence of immediate need does not provide "a long-range context for those short term actions." Nor would keeping the PRR designation in this area with a Study Area overlay "contradict[] the success achieved to date with regard to funding a [cluster] specific plan" as stated in the Staff Report. Indeed, this conclusion assumes the City must choose between either the PRR designation or the Study Area designation. However, the City can satisfy both objectives by keeping the PRR designation with a Study Area overlay. Indeed, the current PRR designation without a "Study Area" designation has not prevented Lodi from moving forward with supporting the cluster zone concept, so there 's no reason to conclude that keeping this designation and adding a "Study Area" overlay would impede any success in such planning. In the end, keeping the PRR designation benefits the City and allows it to tier from its long term planning envisioned in 1991 while at the same time providing avenues for alternative use for the area such as cluster development. Repealing the PRR designation also violates certain property rights of landowners in the area, including Armstrong Group members. In 1992, relying on the PRR designation, Mirian Fry, Felix Costa, Carl Fink, Vera Perrin, William Beckman, and Charles Beckman ("Owners") entered an agreement with the City in which the Owners agreed to dedicate real property for public use, fund costs of designing and oversizing infrastructure improvements including sewer lines and lift station (approximately $170,000 in 1992 dollars), and shouldering any "cost to modify the lift station as needed to later serve the area south of Harney Lane at the time of development." (See Enclosure) The Owners specifically entered into and complied with the terms of this agreement because the General Plan planned for and assumed growth would ultimately occur in the PRR area. The undersigned is informed and believes that this infrastructure facilitated development of and serves the Reynolds Ranch/Blue Shield project. i 1,1Af.,. � I t T N; � . i7;[ {; l:)u `,M( KT('.' CA `.l>?fl7 P}..� =G j. S7� ??00 1hODE.SF,s Pk ?0°3 ��' S 8444 FX 2C7ts.47?. T9$6 PPC Mayor Larry Hansen Chairman Weldell Kiser Member of the City Council and Planning Commission February 1 1, 2009 Page 4 cf 4 Moreover, in a 1997 letter to Steve Herum demanding further payment from Owners, the Lodi City Attorney noted, 'The City entered into an agreement because of a request made by your clients who were seeking to protect and possibly advance the development potential of their property." [See Enclosure) "Failure on the part of the Owners to perform as requested in my judgment puts your clients in breach of the agreement," the City Attorney continued, 'Your current clients ... have a beneficial interest in the improvements..." The Owners ultimately complied with this demand, investing additional capital into the infrastructure improvements designed to serve properties in the PRR designated area. Thus, in reliance on the PRR designation, Owners spent sufficient capital to vest both common law and contractual property rights in the PRR designation. Revoking this designation after acknowledging Owners' beneficial interest in the improvements runs afoul of protecting property rights. This conclusion also coheres to the Planning Director's statements at the November 12, 2008 hearing that designating the Armstrong area as open space would not be appropriate without "some concessions." Accordingly, in order to provide planning flexibility, protect property rights, and facilitate the County adopting cluster zoning legislation, the Armstrong Group requests that the Preferred Plan include and describe a PRR designation as reflected in the 1991 General Plan, as well as a Study Area overlay to facilitate proceeding with clusterzone. Very truly yours, 34/� e2�� -- BRETT S. ,JOLLEY Attorney -at -Law Enclosures: 1992 Agreement between City and Owners 1997 Letter from City Attorney cc: clients Steve Schwabauer, City Attorney 1 `.➢:x;'27 PH I(Y) 17:' 7700 MODESIO PH 2019-525.8444 FX 209.47:' N86 APC CITY BALs. 221 WEST PIM STREET P 0. BOX 3006 LOOI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 (209) 3336701 (209) 333-6807 FAX July 11, 1997 CITY OF LOM CITY Ai*IUMEY' S OFFICE Mr. StevenA Herum Attorney at Law P. O. Box 20 Stockton, CA 95201-3020 Jul i !'.° RANDALL A. BAYS City A10my FOR" M. LUMERtKE Deputy City M10VI 7 Re: Agreement Between City of Lodi & Fry, link Costa. Perrin and Backman Dear Mr. Hmm: We are in receipt of your letter of June 10, IOU. The mkier ha baen referred is this office. hl order to property respond I have metwith Rlchard Prima wtw was involved in the matteroriginalfy, I also reviewed the matter from a planningpampec%e with our Planning and Community Development Director. Rad Bartram. Additionally, i have reviewed the South Rods Sanitary Sewer study for the Hamey Lift Station Service Area prepared byNeldsen-Sinnock & Associates, Ina The cover df that report indicates that it was prepared for your clients Jeryl Fry, Felix Costa. Cad Fink, Vera Perrh>, William Backman and Ctafts Beckman. This Is the same group of people designated as Owners in the agreement. I have addition ally rid correspondence from your office authored by yourself and Mr. Thomas H. Terpstra. Review was as well made of City Council minutes and related staff documents. Coples of the draft agreement and the executed agreementwere also reviewed. This reviow demonstrated one thing. very clearly.. The City entered 'mtn art agreement because of a request made by your clients who were seeking to protect and possibly advance the developmentpotential of their property. ThIs request Is clearty articulated In a MW from Mr. Thomas H Terra dated September2g, 1992. A copy of that kdw Is attached as Exhibit to flits letter. Based upon that letter, negotiations were undertaken which resulted in the agreement which yvvr then clients designated as "Owners' entered Into with the City. in furtherance of that agreement your clients haw made at least two payments totaling $55,084.90 for lire oversizing. Recently, In furtherance of the agreement, City Fmoneer Richard Prima requested tlW your clients perform pursuant to paragraph 3 of the agreement, see Exhibit B. Your a', \ia tney.4W ..+..- . vv. -w-... s.1 mean -W# -fa r7YO July 11, 1997 Re: Agreement Between Clty of Lodi & Fry, Fink, Costa, Perrin & Beckman Page 2 clients who are called out as "Owmm In the agreement have failed to perform as requested. The City made its demand for performance at this time since based upon the terms eE the signed agreement we were constrained in making such a request until construction of the improvements listed in the agreement was to cornmenca (purple solved). An early draft cf the agreement would have had the "Ownere providing the required property upon execution cf the agreement However, at the insistence of Mr. Terpstra, the provisionwas modified, See ExhibitQ McNatt letter. Failure on the part cP the Owner to perform as requested In my judgment puts your clients In breach of the agreement. Under the terms cf the agreement the City has no obllgatlon to do anyl[Wng other than request your client's performance. That has been done. Your current clients (Owners minus one) have a benellciai Interest In the Improvements which they may wish to save by seeking specific performance on their own behalf. The siig and location of the improvements is directly for the benefit of your current ctients, not for the 0enefit of the City, We can accommodate the ctty's needs and tate needs of others without these improvements. Much as ft Owners did not bargain for sewer and water tines north of Harney Lam the City did not bargain for a comlemnation atWn either. The Owners are thwarting performance underthe agreement by the City. The Owners should cure the problem. The Owners cannot be h the position of blacking the City's performance while at the same time demanding that the Cby undertake the expenditure of thousands cf dollars far their benefit. In fact, at the tiim the City has suffered damage because of the Owners non-performance. Tl>s damage Is in the form of oontract engineering costs expended fordesign servieesfor a liftstation and sewerllnes which cannot now be built. Expenditures in the range of $20,040.00 have been made for those services. ContlnQed: non-performance on the part of the Owners may result in the City looldng to them for recovery of those expenditures. Ifyouwth to discuss following yaurreview of this letter, please call. RAHft n Co: Dixon Flynn Richard Prima Red 8artiam Robert Sternfels AI Lwiac ".doc 140OVooe 5P AOR,ZR ,fRNT a�xxsassm�zamxx asst aes a¢��s��a��ma�aaca s�assaaxxs==sxsa :sxcaxamsts 7FIDxmxasaxasa�aaumc�mecs THIS AGREEMENT, is made this day of November, 1992 by and between MARIAN M. FRY, FELIX COSTA, C.RL FINX, VERA PERRIN, WILLIAM BECYI.AN and CHARLES BECK ^ (hereinaftercoll.ectivelY referred to as 1101,nPr8') and the CITY OF LODI, a political subdivision of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as "City") W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, Owners have submitted to City a South Lodi Sanitary Sewer Study of the Harney Lane Lift Station Area (hereinafter referred to as "Study"), prepared by Kjeldsen—Sinnoc}; & Associates, Inc., Civil Engineers (Exhibit A). The Study evaluated the feasibility of extending the Harney Lane Lift Station Service Area to serve the area south of Harney Lane; WHEREAS, the Lodi City Council, relying on the accuracy of the Study has accepted the technical of the Study and the City staff report presented at the City Council meeting of October 21, 1992; NOW. THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. rrnrs shall pay the following: (a) Costs of design and oversizing of a twenty-four inch (24") sewer main within the limits of the Century Meadows Subdivision, as sPt forth in Alternative 4 of the Study identified above, in amounts to be agreed-upon with and paid directly to the Century Meadows developers. (b) Costs of preparing plans to City specifications for the above and payment of appropriate engineering and other fees in accordance with City of Lodi written policies and requirements. -1- (c) Costs of oversizing the lift station, force main, and collector lines entering the lift station, as identified in Exhibit s hereto, payable at the time of approval of construction plans. it is understood that the present cost estimate of oversizing the lift station and force main is approximately One Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($"1.'1,000), and the cost of oversizing the collector lines entering the lift station is approximately Sixty Thousand Dollars ($60,000), per Bxhibit B. (d) Cost to modify the I. ft station as needed to later serve the area south of Harney Lane at the time of development. 2. Owners will ind,6mniff, defend and hold ha.rml"ass from and against any and all liability or actions accruing as a result of the City's decision to install such oversized facilities as referred to above, where such action or px:=>ceeding arises out of the City's approval of a negative declaration for saidacaliis. 3. Owners shall, at such time as City is prepared to commence construction of the above-described projects, dedicate to City: (a) The lift station site, Mills Avenue, and adjacent construction easement on the south side of Harney Lane, east of the west section line of Section 23 T3N R69, MD84.M, as shown in Exhibit C hereto. (b) Twenty-two feet (22' ) of street right-of-way plus cat-aer cut-offs per City Standards and construction easement on the south side of Harney Lane from Mills Avenue to the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, as shown in Exhibit Z) hereto. (c) Owners acknowledge that such offer of dedication is necessary concurrently with execution of this agreement since construction of the facilities must occur before development south of Harney Lane in order to serve areas north of Harney Lane which at present have priority under the City's Growth Management Plan. 41, Owners may, at &n appropriate future date, apply to City for a reimbursement agreement in scnordance with Lodi Municipal Code Chapter 16.4.0, but nothing herein shall be deemed to obligate the City to approve such reimbursement agreement. 5. Owners acknowledge that because of engineering concerns arising from such oversizing, the trunk sewer line in Harney Lane will require special construction due to its depth and that the number and location of future connections will be limited. Special manholes and/or parallel lines may be needed r o serve adjacent property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands the day and year first hereinabove mentioned. "CITY" "OWNERS" CITY OF M D 1, a political subdivision of the State of California 7"HC iA S A. PETERSON City Manager A.77F$T : ALICE M. REIMCKE City Clerk Approved As To Form: BOBBY W. 'victZAT T' City Attorney (2) AssRS EWE R/TXTA . 01V FELIX COSTA rs CW -FINK VERA PERRIN � 14em WILLIAM BECKKAN CHARLES BZCXMM -3- South Lodi Sanitary Sewer Analysis Existing Master Plan Area served: 292 acres North of Harney Ln. Lift Sta. Location: Lower Sac. N/Harney Lift Sta. Cost: $280,000 Oversize Main Cost: $67,000 Total Cost: $347,000 1 Cost above Ex. Plan/Alt. 1 4 to develop area north Harney: Cost per acre: $1,200 South Lodi Sar Alt. 1 1 Alt. 2 244 acres North of Harney Ln. Lower Sac. @ Harney $285,000 $70,000 $355,000 $1,500 Mills Ave. @ Harney I $298,000 I $470,000 $92,000 $227,000 $390,000 $705,000 $39,000 Harney Ln. $7,60d $1,300 $433,000 $211,000 $644,000 2 Notes: 1 Coils pear Molts Development Impact Fee Study. ENR updated to July 1992 2 Costs perKjol isen-5innock Study, July 1992 3 First phase of lift station estimated by City at 90% of total cost 4 Ex. Master Plan & Alt. 1 assumed to be equivalent at nvarnp® cost of 1351,000 $1,200 Exhibit B Phased Construction Alt 4-1 Alt. 4-2 244 acres 302 acres North of South of Harney Ln. Harney Ln. Mills Ave. @ Harney $390,000 $127,000 $517,000 $166,000 $2,100 $43,000 s $84,000 2 $127,000 $400 1 FINK SS.xt.S ExIt jbit EX RAV 14 15 22 23 w HARVEY LN. ........... ............ 115' CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT Exh(bit D W FUTURE MULLS AVE. -_ �ti,l� Its il�rl� I';r SOUTHERN PACIFIC ROAD --4 - NO SCALE ARMSTRONG ROAD AGRICULTURAL,/CLUSTER STUDYAREA The Armstrong Road Agricultural/Cluster Study Area General Plan designation replacesthe current PRR general plan designationthat was adopted bythe City in 1991. At that time the PRR represented the City's "Urban Reserve" designation. The Armstrong Road Agricultural/Cluster Study Area general plan designation is Intended to be equivalent to the Urban Reserve general plan designation but acknowledges that the City of Lodi and County of San Joaquin are presently studying a proposal by local landowners to create an agricultural zone that provides the landowners with an option to cluster building rights (one building unit for each five acres of land owned by the property owner) in exchange for retaining the remainder of the property for agricultural uses as defined by the proposed ordinance. It is intended that property designated Armstrong Road Agricultural/Cluster Study Area will have the same rights or status as the new Urban Reserve designation and at least as many rights or the status of the former PRR general plan designation. If the County ultimately does not adopt the proposed land use regulation for the area which is generally defined as one half mile north and one half mile south of Armstrong Road between Interstate Highway 5 and State Highway 99, then this designation shall be treated, interpreted and administered as being equivalent to the Urban Reserve designation. SUBJECT PUBLISH DATE Please immediately confirm receipt q1thin fax Py eallin 333-6702 CITY OF LODI P. O BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 ADVERTISING INSTRUCTIONS PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON THE PREFERRED GENERAL PLAN ALTERNATIVE SATURDAY, JANUARY 24,2009 TEAR SHEETS WANTED: Three (3) please SEND AFFIDAVIT AND BILL TO: RANDI JOHL, CITY CLERK City of Lodi P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241 -1 91 0 DATED: THURSDAY, JANUARY 22,2009 ORDERED BY: RANDI JOHL CITY CLERK NIFER II PERRIN, CMC ASIS CITY CLERK MARIA BECERRA ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK Faxed to the Sentinel at 369-1084 at "'Il � ��` a .. ilii ( 111414diq (date) (pages) LNS Phoned to confirm receipt of all pages at (ti e) CF MB JMP (initials) foffnAadvins doc DECLARATION OF POSTING PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE REPORTAND RECOMMENDATION ON THE PREFERRED GENERAL PLAN ALTERNATIVE On Friday, January 23, 2009, in the Notice of Public Hearing to Receive General Plan Alternative (attached following locations: Lodi Public Library Lodi City Clerk's Office Lodi City Hall Lobby Lodi Carnegie Forum City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, a Report and Recommendation on the Preferred and marked as Exhibit A), was posted at the declare under penalty of perjurythat the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 23, 2009, at Lodi, California. J IFER kt PERRIN, CMC ASSISTANT CITY CLERK N:1Administration\CLERKTorms\DECPOST.DOC ORDERED BY: RANDIJOHL CITY CLERK MARIA BECERRA ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK DECLARATION OF MAILING PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON THE PREFERRED GENERAL PLAN ALTERNATIVE On Friday, January 23, 2009, in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, I deposited in the United States mail, envelopes with first-class postage prepaid thereon, containing a Notice of Public Hearing to receive report and recommendation on the preferred General Plan alternative, attached hereto marked Exhibit A. The mailing list for said matter is attached hereto marked Exhibit B, There is a regular daily communication by mail between the City of Lodi, California, and the places to which said envelopes were addressed. I declare under penalty of perjurythat the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 23, 2009, at Lodi, California. 0- JEpd IFER M. ERRIN, CMC ASSISTANT CrTY CLERK Forms/decmail.doc ORDERED BY: RANDIJOHL CITY CLERK, CITY OF LODI MARIA BECERRA ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK CITY OF LODI Carnegie Forum 305 West Pine Street, Lodi NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Date: February 11,2009 Time: 6:30 p.m. For information regarding this notice please contact: Randi Johl City Clerk Telephone: (209) 333-6702 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (Special Joint Meeting of Lodi City Council and Lodi Planning Commission) EX H iB I T n NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, February 11, 2009, at the hour of 6:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council and the Lodi Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing at the Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, to consider the following item: a) Receive Report and Recommendation on the Preferred General Plan Alternative. Information regarding this item may be obtained in the Community Development Department, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, (209) 333-6711. All interested persons are invited to present their views and comments on this matter. Written statements may be filed with the City Clerk, City Hall, 221 West Pine Street, 2r Floor, Lodi, 95240, at any time prior to the hearing scheduled herein, and oral statements may be made at said hearing. If you challenge the subject matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk, 221 West Pine Street, at or prior to the close of the public hearing. By of the Lodi City Council: Dated: January7,2009 D. Stephen Schwabauer City Attorney CLERK\PUBHEARV40TICESMTr-DDjdnbr4DOC IMM General Plan Update — mailing list EXHIBIT B JXommunity DevelopmentiPlanninglL.istslAgenda Mailing Gsts\General Plan Update Mailing UstDOC Page I 01/13/2009 Company FirstName LastName Addressl City State Postal Code i. d. Manassero 2171 E. Armstrong Rd. Lodi CA 95242 2. Denis Silber 1050 Port Chelsea Cr. Lodi CA 95240 3. Calif. Valley Silvia Burley, 10601 Escondido Place Stockton CA 95212 Miwok Tribe Chairperson 4. Ione Band of Matthew Franklin, P.O. Box 1190 lone CA 95640 Miwok Indians Chairperson 5. North Valley Katherine Perez P.O. Box 717 Linden CA 95236 Yokuts Tribe Erohnda 6. Southern Sierra Anthony Brochini, P.O. Box 1200 Mariposa CA 95338 Miwuk Nation Chairperson 7. Wilton Mary Daniels- 7916 Farnell Way Sacrame CA 95823 Rancheria Tarango, nto Chairperson 8. Brookfield Douglas Brewer 500 La Gonda Way, Suite Danville CA 94526 Homes 100 JXommunity DevelopmentiPlanninglL.istslAgenda Mailing Gsts\General Plan Update Mailing UstDOC Page I 01/13/2009 Kari Chadwick Distribution List Name: General Plan Updates Members Brett Jolley BJolley@herumcrabtree.com Crystal Kirst ckirst@grnail.com Dale Gillespie dale@rpmcompany.net Daniel Thigpen dthigpen@recordnet.com Denis Silber dsilber@lodiusd.net Douglas Brewer Dbrewer@brookfiieldhomes.com EJC eic enterprise@verizon.net Frederick Addison frederick@uborainc.com Greg Costa fcands@lodinet.com Greg Costa costasquad@verizon.net Jeff Traverso j.traverso@sbcglobal.net Jennifer Alves jalves@neumiller.com Jeremy Price jprice@neumiller.com Joe Joeo1212@yahoo.com John Beckman johnb@biadelta.org Jon Schrader JonSchrader@FMBonline.com Kate Hart khart@aklandlaw.com Kelly Stump kelkel38@aol.com Kevin Dougherty kdougherty@fcrei.com Marty Willett mwillett@g-rem.com Mary Jackson info@ldgga.org Matt Dobbins mjdobbins22@msn.com Michael Caruba Michael@Duncanda.com Rick Gerlack makualike@comcast.net Rod Attebery rattebery@neumiller.com Rosemary Atkinson rosymoonatk@comcast.net Russ Munson Russ@winerose.com Warmerdam warmerdam7@sbcglobal.net �' GO �erfi e -n 61 +4ca+zvft -tb -YA&s e -�A 1►a'If*- Kari Chadwick Distribution List Name: General Plan Update (2) Members: Dale C. Prohaska turner610@soflwm.net Dale Gillespie dale@rpmcompany.net Matt Dobbins mjdobbins22@msn.com Virginia Snyder virginia2830@att.com