Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - January 17, 1990 (55)C v U N C I L C0MMUNICA*ION m: THE CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL MEETING DATE: JANUARY 17, 1990 FROM: THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE SUBJECT: ANNEXATION POLICY INDICATED ACTION: The City Council should consider adopting an annexatioc policy a on the lines of the discussion at the Shirt Sleeve Session of Tuesday, January 9, 1990. ]J;ES B. SCHRO ER W ty.Development Director CC90/3/TXTD.0IC January 10, 1990 RTC-F-IVED MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Public Works Department .10! U Cott« ct;ttr DEVEI9MIMT T0: Community Development Director 1 0 DErARM"Fur FROM: Fubl is Works Director DATE: January 8, 1990 SUBJECT- Annexation Policy Vii have reviewed the draft policy dated December 13, 1989. It is a good review of the subject; however, Ae have a few cofrnents Ae feel should be considered by the Council. 1) The categories described all assume the annexations are for essentially undeveloped land for which the land use will change. However, a significant portion of the unincorporated land within the General Plan boundaries i s already developed. W may see separate requests for these parcels, or they say be joined with other larger parcels to prevent creation of islands or pockets. There are a rnmba of implications we may want to consider, mainly in the area of public improvements and fees. Peach and Willow Streets are good examples of what could happen. What do vie require if all of Woodbridge wants to annex? 2) It was mentioned that 5 residential projects subject to the 2% growth limit have all the necessary eny i ronmental approval. W question the validity of the EIRs given their age and changed conditions in Lodi. W also assume they will .be changed to meet the new General Plan designations (such as only 65% singl e -family) and other requirements necessary to pass through an allocation system. 3) All impact fees will not necessarily be tied to building occupancy. Since vc will have an adopted capital improvement program, vie can collect fees at final map filing. One advantage in collecting various fees at different stages of develop -s r. t is that the cost i s spread to different segments of the developer: industry. Also, earlier collection will help discourage pre-::ure land development. LL ack - Ronsko ubli Works Director \1-/ JLR/P,CP/m!t cc: City Manager City Attorney Assistant City Engineer MCDD9001/TXTW.02M RESOLUTION NO. 90-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE CITY OF LODI ANNEXATION POLICY ====aa===a==caa=a===caaoa=aaca====c=a==aa===antic==aoo=aaaaaa==aaaaaaaaa RESOLVED, that the Lodi City Council hereby adopts the City of Lodi Annexation Policy dated December 13, 1989, attached hereto as Exhibit A Dated: January 17, 1990 ------------------------------------ I hereby certify that Resolution No. 90-09 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi i n a regular meeting held January 17, 1990 by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members Noes: Council Members - Absent: Council Members - Alice M. Reimche City Clerk 90-09 RES9009/TXTA.OIV w December 13, 1989 AUNEXAT ION POLICY Background E9 \I1 11;11: i ' M At a recent Shirt Sleeve Session the City Council indicated that it wanted to establish a policy for reviewing the various annexation requests which have been presented since the Appeals Court ruled that Measure "A" interfered with the State's annexation laws. Before developing a policy, it seemed reasonable to review the kinds of projects which would be presented and how they differed from one another. Types of Annexation 1. Public - City Ownad a. Contiguous annexation would include the two parcels added to C -Basin (Pixley Park) south of Vine Street, east of Beckman Road, and the proposed site for the Industrial Substation south of East Lodi Avenue. b. Non-contiguous annexations would include City -owned property which did not abut a municipal boundary such as White Slough Water Pollution Control Plant. 2. All commercial or industrial projects. "s. Senior citizens housing projects. 4. Mixed Use Project - Senior housing projects with commercial or professional. 5. Residential - Subject to the 2% growth limit. 6. Nixed Use Project - Residentizl with commercial or professional with residential subject to 2% growth limit. 7. Mixed Use Project - Residential with senior housing with residential subject to 2b growth limit. Items 1 through 4 above are not subject to the proposed 2% growth rate and could be annexed at the City Council's discretion. Of the fourteen proposed annexations presented to the City Council, six are commercial, industrial or public. One, the Pixley Park -C Basin Addition, was initiated by the City Council a t its December 6, 1989 meeting. Two, Kettleman Properties and Sunwest Plaza, have environmental certification, General Plan conformity and prezoning. The final three are proposed industrial sites and require environmental documentation and prezoning. Of the remaining proposed additions, five (Johnson Ranch : i , Century Meadov.s, Batch ProPerty, Towne Ranch and Brideetowne Esta-z�es) were defeated 4 at Measure "A" elections and all have the necessary environmental approval and prezoning. However, they are all residential projects and would be subject to the proposed 2% Growth Management Review. The last three proposed annexations, Sasaki, Geweke and Kattakian, are mixed use with some possible residential. These three would be required to go through the entire development process as well as the 2% rating. Local Agency Formation Commission Policy Since the City has had only four contiguous and four non-contiguous annexations since Measure 'A" was enacted in 1981, it appeared prudent for the Community Development Director to review LAFCO policies and practices with that agency's Executive Director. At present the Commission has no limitation on the years of growth a City may annex, however, ten years growth or more must be justified and may not be approved. With a 2% annual residential growth rate, it will be easy to determine the number of years of residential growth that are in the City. Commercial and industrial growth rates will have to be compared with historic data. Even though the White Slough Water Pollution Control Plant is impacted, LAFCO will permit annexations if the City can demonstrate that sewer service will be available in a reasonable time period. An agreement between the developer and the City indicating when the project would require and receive sewer service would be more than adequate for LAFCO purposes. San Joaquin LAFCO still requires that the City be the Lead Agency for CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) purposes and that all annexation proposals be preroned before being submitted to the Commission. Proposed Annexation Policy Since the seven types of annexations fall into three categories (i.e. publicly owned; outside the 2a growth rate and within the 2% growth rate) it appears that different procedures are needed for each category. Public Owned Properties As in the past the City Council should continue to annex all publicly owned property, either contiguous or non-contiguous, upon acquisition by the City. By doing this the City avoids paying property taxes on the land. It also assures that the property will be totally under the City's jurisdiction. Projects Outside the 2* Growth Limit The City Council should consider of commercial, industrial, senior and senior housing. Ci;ri'� ­­­ r- adopting a pclicy for projects consisting citizens housing or a mix, of commercial Besides conforming to the development process requirements, environmental documentation and prezoning, the developers/owners of projects in this category should enter into an agreement with the City which indicates (1) that sewer service will not be requested until the.CiV indicates it, is available; and (2) that all impaction fees will be paid before building occupancy. Projects Inside the 2% Growth Limit The City Council should consider adopting a policfor residential projects which will have housing allocations based on the L growth rate as described in the Growth Management Program. In addition to the normal development, CEQA and annexation processes, the developers/owners of projects in this category should enter into an agreement which states (1) that the project is within the Growth Management Program and annexation does not give the project a vesting to develop or acquire Building Permits; (2) that sewer service will not be requested until the City indicates it is available; and (3) that all impaction fees will be paid before building occupancy. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REQUESTED DEPARTMENT ' ANNEXATIONS I 7 Jan 90 January 17, 1990 (Revised) ANNEXAT SON POLICY Background At a recent Shirt Sleeve Session the City Council indicated that it wanted to establish a policy for reviewing the various annexation requests which have been presented since the Appeals Court ruled that Measure "A" interfered with the State's annexation laws. Before developing a policy, it seemed reasonable to review the kinds of projects which would be presented and how they differed from one another. Types of Annexation 1. Public - City Owned a Contiguous annexation would include the two parcels added to C -Basin (Pixley Park) south of Vine Street, east of Beckman Road, and the proposed site for the Industrial Substation south of East Lodi Avenue. h Non-contiguous annexations would include City -owned property which did not abut a municipal boundary such as White Slough Water Pollution Control Plant. 2. All commercial or industrial projects. 3. Senior cititens housing projects. 4. Mixed Use Project - Senior housing projects with commercial or professional. 5. Project which exists in the County (Single-family dwelling, Woodbridge School, winery). 6. Residential - Subject to the 2% growth limit. 7. Mixed Use Project - Residential with commercial or professional with residential subject to 2% growth limit. 8. Mixed Use Project - Residential with senior housing with residential subject to 2% growth limit. Items 1 through 5 above are not subject to the proposed 2% growth rate and could be annexed at the City Council's discretion. Of the eighteen proposed annexations presented to the City Council, nine are commercial, industrial or public. One, the Pixley Park -C Basin Addition, was initiated by the City Council at its December 6, 1989 meeting. Two, Kettleman Properties and Sunwest Plaza, have environmental certification, General Plan conformity and prezoning. One is the site for the Industrial Substation and the final four are proposed industrial sites and require environmental documentation and prezoning. Of the remaining proposed additions, five (Johnson Ranch 11, Century Meadows, Batch Property, Towne Ranch and Bridgetowne Estates) were defeated at Measure "A" elections and all have the necessary environmental approval and pretoning, However, they are all residential projects and would be subject to the proposed 2% Growth Management Review. The last four proposed annexations, Sasaki, Geweke, Katzakian and Thomas -Colvin, are mixed use with some possible residential or residential, These four would be required to go through the entire development process as well as the 2% rating. Local Agency Formation Commission Pol icy Since the City has had only four contiguous and four non-contiguous annexations since Measure A" was enacted in 1981, it appeared prudent for the Community Development Director to review LAFCO policies and practices with that agency's Executive Director. At present the Commission has no limitation on the years of growth a City may annex, however, ten years growth or more must be justified and may not be approved. With a 2% annual residential growth rate, it will be easy to determine the number of years of residential growth that are in the City. Commercial and industrial growth rates will have to be compared with historic data. Even though the White Slough Water Pollution Control Plant is impacted, LAFCO will permit annexations if the City can demonstrate that sewer service will be available in a reasonable time period. An agreement between the developer and the City indicating when the project would require and receive sewer service would be more than adequate for LAFCO purposes. San Joaquin LAFCO still requires that the City be the Lead Agency for CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) purposes and that all annexation proposals be prezoned before being submitted to the Commission. Propo tion Policy Since the eight types of annexation fall into four categories (i.e. publicly owned, outside the 2% growth rate, within the 2% growth rate or existing developed property), it appears that different procedures are needed for each category. Public Owned Properties As in the past the City Council should continue to annex all publicly owned property, either cont'guous or non-contiguous, upon acquisition by the City. By doing this the City avoids paying property taxes on the land. It also assures that the property will be totally under the City's jurisdiction. ANNE Y;;'X?n.nir Proiects Outside the 2%Growth Limit The City Council should consider adopting a policy for projects consisting of commercial, industrial, senior citizens housing or a mix of commercial and senior housing. Besides conforming to the development process requirements, environmental documentation and prezoning, the developers/owners of projects in this category should enter into an agreement with the City which indicates (1) that sewer service will not be requested until the City indicates it is available; and (2) that all impaction fees will be paid before building occupancy. Projects Inside the 2%Growth Limit The City Council should consider adopting a policy for residential projects which will have housing allocations based on the 2%growth rate as described in the Growth Management Program. In addition to the normal development, CEQA and annexation processes, the developers/owners of projects in this category should enter into an agreement which states (1) that the project is within the Growth Management Program and annexation does not give the project a vesting to develop or acquire Building Permits; (2) that sewer service will not be requested until the City indicztes it is available; and (3) that all impaction fees will be paid before building occupancy. Projects Which Exist in the County The City Council should consider adopting a policy for parcels already developed in the County. Owners of projects in this group should enter into an agreement which states (1) that sewer service will not be requested until the City indicates it is available; (2) that all applicable impaction fees will be paid; and (3) that a standard deferral agreement will be signed indicating that the property will be brought to City Standards (curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lights, etc.) when the City requires the improvements. J ANNF>" /7YTn nir ANNEXATIONS REQUESTED Batch Bridgetown Estates CUM" Meadows c" Of Lodi Geweice .lolnson Ranch I Katzakian Kettimnan Properties Lodi Memo" Cemetery Sasaki Suess Sunwest Plaza Towne Ranch Khan Thomas-Cohrin Wada at al Wine and Roses ACRES 100 62 160 23 39 31 .8 41 8 s0 S 23 79 40 12 55 2 LAND USE RESIDENTIAL UNITS Residential 1 444 acres Commercial / Industrial 1 66 acres j Industrial 106 acres Public 23 acres Mixed 90 acres 316 SF + 246 Seniors 225 SF 806 SF 145 SF 397 SF 17 Jan 90 i� 4 February 2, MO ANNEXATIM. POLIC !EE At its meeting of Wednesday, January 17, 1990 the Lodi City Council adopted the following Annexation Policies. Publicly Owned Properties As in the past the City Council shall continue to annex all publicly owned property. either contiguous or non-contiguous. upon acqui � i ti on by the City. By doing this the City avoids paying property taxes on the land and assures the property will be totally under the City's j uri sdicti on. Projects Outside the 2`,:; Growth Limits Besides conforming to the development process requirements, environmental documentation and prezoning, the developer/owner of projects in this category shall enter into agreement with the City which indicates (1) that sewer service will not be requested until the City indicates it is available; and (2) that all impaction fees will be paid before building occupancy. Projects Within the 2% Growth Limit In addition to the normal development, CEQA and annexation processes, the developer/owners in this category shall enter into an agreement with the City which states (:) that the prcject is within the Growth Management Program and annexation does not give the project a vesting to develop or acquire Buildino Permits; (2) that sewer service will not be requested until the Cite indicates it is available; and (3) that all impaction fees will be paid before building occupancy. Projects Which Exist in the County Owners of parcels already developed in the County shall ecter into ar agreement which states (2) that sewer service will not be requested until the City indicates it is available; (2) that all applicable impaction fees will he pa'd; and (3) that ,a standard deferral agreement shall be signed indicating that the property will be brought to City standards (i .e. curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lights, etc.) wher the City requires the improverien's . Background Informatior, The folloaeinc intormatior v. -as reviev.ec by the Ci Council in formula inq the above Annexa-,ic,. Policies. Types of Annexation 1. Public - City Owned a. Contiguous annexation would include the two parcels added to C -Basin (Pixley Park) south of Vine Street, east of Reckman Road, and the proposed site for the Industrial Substation south of East todi Ave,.ue. b. Non-contiguous annexations would include City -owned property which did not abut a municipal boundary such as White Slough Water Pollution Controi Plant. 2. All commercial or industrial projects. 3. Senior citizens housing projects. 4. Mixed Use Project - Senior housing projects with commercial or professional. 5. Project which exists in the County (Single-family dwelling, Woodbridge School, winery) - when property owner requests. 6. Residential - Subject to the 2% growth limit. 7. Mixed Use Project - Residential with commercial or professional with residential subject to 2100' growth limit. 8. Mixed Use Project - Residential with senior housing with residential subject to 2% growth limit. Items i through 5 above are not subject to the proposed 20% growth rate and could he annexed it the City Council's discretion. Of the eighteen proposed annexations presented to the City Council, nine are commercial, industrial or public. One, the Pixley Park -C Basin Addition, was initiated by the City Council at its December 6, 1989 meeting. Two, Kettleman Properties and Sunwest Plaza, have environmental certification, General Plan conformity and prezoning. One is the site for the Industrial Substation and the final four are proposed industrial sites and require environmental documentation and prezoning. Of the remaining proposed aaditicns Five (Johnson Ranch 11, Century Meadows. Batch Property: Towne Ranch and Bridgetowne Estates) were defeated at Keasure "A" elections. Rlthough These properties have environmental approval and prezoning, the EIR must be reviewed and updated. They are ell residential projects and would be subject to the proposed 2*4 Growth Management Pe%• i ew. The last four proposed annex:et.ions . Sasaki, Geweke, Katze4:ier. and Thomas -Colvin, are mixed use v:4 *-h some possible res4dertial or residential. These four V.-OUld be required to go through the entire development process as well as the L rating. i 4 Local Aaencv Formation Commissior Polic Since the City has had only four contiguous and four non-contiguous annexations since Measure "A" was enected in 1961, the LAFCO policies and practices were reviewed with that agency's Executive Director. At present the Commission has no limitation on the years of growth a City may annex, however, ten years growth or more must be justified and may not be approved. With a 2119 annual residentizl growth rate, it will be easy to determine the number of years of residential growth that are in the City. Commercial and industrial growth rates will have to be compared with historic data. Even though the White Slough Water Pollution Control Plant is impacted, LAFCO will permit annexations if the City can demonstrate that sewer service will be available in a reasonable time period. An agreement between the developer and the City indicating when the project would require and receive sewer service would be more than adequate for LAFCO purposes. San Joaquin LAFCO still requires that the City be the Lead Agency for CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) purposes and that all annexation proposals be prezoned before being submitted to the Commission. I / rl 1 Ct V 4 RESOLUTION NO. 90-09 ---------------------- ---------------------- A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE CITY OF LORI ANNEXATION POLICY _____________ ___________sss==o==s===osssssasssssassssassssasaassssas RESOLVED, that the Lodi City Council hereby adopts the City of Lodi Annexation Policy dated December 13, 1989, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Dated: January 17, 1990 I hereby certify that Resolution No. 90-09 was passed and adopted by the City Cou,%:il of the City of Ledi in a regular meeting held January 17, 1:'90 by the following vote: Ayes : Council Members - Olson, Pinkerton and Reid Noes : Ccuncil Members - Hinchman Absent: Council Members - Done Abstain: Council Members - Snider (Mayor) Alice N. Reimche City Clerk