HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - January 13, 1988TO :
FROM
SUBJECT:
CO N C I L COM11111 ICAT_0Y
THE CITY COUNCIL
THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
JW -1W 13, 1988
PRESENTATION BY RON BASS, PROJECT MANAGER, JONES AND STOKES ASSOCIATES, INC.,
REGARDING THE FINAL RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAYOR'S TASK FORCE ON MEASURE A AND
THE PROPOSED GROWTH_ MANAGEMENT PLAN
In July 1987 the Mayor's Task Force on Measure "A",
recommended that the updated Lodi General Plan contain a
Ron Bass, Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc., who served as
Force., :.will present the Committees recommendation.
` The Planning Commission and City Council are requested to
how to prc,ceed with the reummendet1on,
the "Green Belt Initiative",
Growth Management Program. IS&..
the Project Manager for the Task
n
provide the,: _Staff direction o
ii t
NOTICE OF ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL
AND THE LODI PLANNING CCMMISSION
TO REVIEW THE FINAL RECOMMEMDATION
OF THE
MAYOR'S TASK FORCE ON MEASURE A
INCLUDING A PROPOSED GRGWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Lodi City Council and the todi Planning Commission will hold an
�rlin»rncri .Tnin+- Maatinn nn hiatinacriav .iamenvry ?Z 1Goo in *hn rn»nniI
City Clerk . 4
f:'
. __ _ � ��.
1 ".
� Ate...®� ..
m
A GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR LODI
FIGURE 1. AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THELODI VICINITY
15
Source: State Department of Water Resources
I
the scenic resources of the area, grotect wildlife habitats and
natural resources, and to maintain the small -city character of
Lodi within the designated Greenbelt.
The boundaries of the Greenbelt lie between the outer
limits of the incorporated city and the outer limits of the
adopted sphere of influence. See Figure 2.
Measure A includes the following restrictions = Nonagricul-
tural development lying immediately adjacent to the designated
Greenbelt area is permitted oniy after the City Council has
determined that such development would not interfere with pro-
ductive agricultural activities or that an adequate buffer zone
is implemented to ensure productive use of agricultural land.
In addition, no land within the Greenbelt can be annexed to the
city without an amendment to the city's Land Use Element of the
General Plan and approval by the majority of the people voting
in a city-wide election.
Baru Use Decisions Under Measure A
-LEGEND-
ImAREA REMOVED FROM THE LODI GENERAL PLAN (8125181)
DUE TO THE ADOPTION OF MEASURE A
I
C.ITY LIMITS
��BBilllill!!f�!}�rii
#o
-
�
A
ll
I
Year
Table 1. Annual Annexations to Lodi Since 1970
Number of
Annexations
Total Acres
Annexed
1970 6 154.05
1971
2
80.25
1972
5
73.61 .
1973
7
58.54 .
1974
6
151.34..
_ 1975
4 .
107-2-
07.2_1976
1976
2.
54.8
1977.
7061
1978
•2
98.9
1979
_. 3.
15.2.38
1980.
5 .:
225 44 # •:
4) k MF] £F'
-y, N" - 'a'K.d.'tt 1 A,��Fi �'('.. �,35�J ,j "^a{vi•rt
63 �tt
7
1w,
.. ... a
Measure
A.Enacted:
•
1982
0-
0 r
1963.
0
198.4
1985
2
83.76
1986
I
r
2
"1987•;
,.
2
67 9
T� al
r
_6 ti
Table 2. Election Results Under Measure A
Election
Year
Project
Primacy Proposed
Land Use
Acres
Results of
Election
1982
No prcposed
19t$5 Batch/Mills '
-
120.0
annexations
--
--
--
1983
Batch
Single-family
100.0
Disapproved.
Wine & Poses,
Bed. and
residential
Approved
Country Inn
breakfast inr
Sunwes t
Single-family
54.65
Disapproved ,.
37.6
Disapproved
residential
Single-family
100.0
1984
Batch/Mills
Single --family
120.0
Disapproved:.,'
residential
Sunwest
Single-family
54.65
Approved
residential
19t$5 Batch/Mills '
Single-family
120.0
Disapproved
residential
Wine & Poses,
Bed. and
2.196
Approved
Country Inn
breakfast inr
Maggio
Industrial
37.6
Disapproved
19$6 Batch
Single-family
100.0
Disa ;;--
resid ential .
Parkview'Terrace
Senior/adult
20.0
Approved
(Mills)
hcvsing
Maggio.:-,
- -., gg
" Industrial
37 6
;
Approved
Towne Ranch
Single-family
78.3
Disapproved
;. K.
' -residential
ON R�ncii' , h f Sinn e -family
30.6.
Disappsnved 5 `
residential
f;
.IziP0.m'v..�+„.!'a�`�',..
The Superior Court of California held that a city and its
voters cannot interfere with the annexation process, which had
been preempted by state law. The Court, therefore, crdered the
city to terminate the administration and enforcement of Mea-
sure A.
The city is currently appealing the Superior Court's deci-
51Q I. Measure A i s sti? 1 in ezLecc, however, and w i l l be en-
fcrced by the city until the appeal is decided.
Creation of Task Force and Its Role
Stable Growth Rate
Goal. Lodi shall maintain a stable growth rate that enables
it to sustain the small-town quality of life that is charac-
terized bv:
o an agricultural economic base;
o cohesive, well-maintained residential neighborhoods;
o the ability of residents to live close to their places
of work;
o ability of residents to travel from one side of town to
the other without experiencing serious traffic con-
gestion; and
o ability of public services to adequately serve.,, new.
development.
Policy. It is the policy of the City of Lodi to grow a- -.,a
rate not exceedins 2 percent per year. This Growth rate will
imp lemented through a residential development allocation system
-- whereby a specified number of units of single-family and ,.:mn1-
ti. -family, development is allocated each year.
T1.....1 . l .: ...� w % T ........ l 1. .�.. l ... _
Implementation Program
Limitation on the Approval of New Development
Residential development projects of 5 units or greater,
with the excepticn of senior citizen housing projects, shall be
subject to the Lodi growth control program, under which a limited
number of housing allocations shall, be approved each year. The
number of housing units approved shall be determined in accor-
dance with Table 3. Every year on June 1 the planning staff,
with the approval of the Planning Coaranission, shall reevaluate
and revise Table 1 to reflect current demographic assumptions
based on state Department of Finance annual population statis-
tics.
The city council shall only approve residential development
projects for any fiscal year (July 1 - June 30) sufficient to
accommodate the number of units in columns 6 and 8 of Table 3.
Single-family and multi -family units shall be considered sepa-
rately. Applications for approval and allocation of residential
development projects shall be received between July 1 and Octo-
ber 1 each year. Projects shall be considered and allocations
awarded by the council between July 1 and October I of the
following year. The submittal of applications and review and
consideration of projects shall be in accordance with the sched-
3---- - -5- ----6-----------------8----------9----------10-----------`-----------12------------13---11
l I i
TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SINGLE- MUI•Ti- 11,011M, MULTI- TOTAL I
1 TOTAL SINGLE SINGLE=
FAMILY ACRES ACREAGE
NEEDED/YEAR NEEOEO
10 5i
11 115
11 175
11 236
11 298
12 361
12 425
12 491
12 558
13 626
13 696
13 767
839
13
913 II
14
989 1
14
14 1,066
14 1,144 1
15 1,229 1
15 1,306 1
1 2007 1' 68,04? 22,253 _ 8,727 5,672 i-30 31054. j1r 14134 141 255 15 1,389 1
r 1 - ---- - - --- ---- -- ----- ------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
w...
a"Assumes. 2.55 persons .per unit (Sta.tc Department of Finance January 1987 estimates).
b`,6a3ed',on 65 Qercent'split.
c`Based 'on 35 percent split:
`< d: Based on 5 dvelling units per acre.
;, a Based on 12 duelling units per acre.
H
t
W
POPULATION
POPULATION
TOTAL
UNITS/
FAMILY
FAMILY
FAMILY
MULTI-
FAMILY
FAMILY
ACRES
TOTAL SINGLE-
FAMILY ACRES
FAMILY
ACRES
:.
I ,YEAR:'1..2t
1------i-----
GR0'JTH
--=---
DIFFERENCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------
.UNITS/a
YEAR
UNITS/b
UNITS/YEAR
UNITS/c
UNITS/YEAR
DEEDED/d
NEEDED/YEAR
NEEDED/e
1 :1987' I
45,794..
.
1 1988 I.
46,710
916
359
;359'
233
'233"':
126
126
47
47
10
1 1989 1
41,644
'366,
472
238'
259
128
19
48
21
1 1990 I
48,597
2,803
1,099
`374;
714
12 3
385
131193
99
J2
I'2941 1
49,569
3,775
1,480
E381
962
248
518
133;
192
50
43
1i
1 .1992 .I
50,560
1,766
1,869389
1,215
,
253
654
136
243
51
55
1.1993 (
51,571
5,777
2,266
,3931
1,973
r3o�,
793
13y1
295
52
56
1'1994 1
52,603
6,809
2,670
'404;
1,736
1263+1
935
142'
397
53
78
11995 1
53;655
7,861
3,083}3
2,004
268;
1,079
1{4i
401
54
90
c
i 1996 I
54,728
8,934
3,504
121'
2,277
271;
1,226
14
455
55
IU2
:.1.1997
i
55,823
- 10,029
3,933
439.
�
2,556
x219
1,376
150
511
56
115
1.. 1
{ 1998 !
56,939
11,145
4,3711381
2,0{1
385,
1,530
153
568
51
127
",
1 1999 1
58,078
i2 18�
4 61747
r
3,131290
1 686
,
56
626
58
141
1.1000
59,239.
<4
.
I
13,445
5,273
56+
3,127
296="
1,845
!�a459
605
59
154
�S
X30;:
1 2001 1
60,424,
..14,630
"..: 5,73?..
1651
3,'?29
'
2,008
}1¢3
146
60
167
! 2002 I
41,fi33`
15,839
6,211:
4,037
308�.
2,174
166
1 2003 1
62,865
ffmii
6,695
}1x91
ff183,
4,352
31i.i'
2,343
1169
807
870
62
63
181
195
2004,1
64,123
.. 18,329
7,188
f493
4,672
3201:
2,516
-173
939
69
210
i I
12005 1"
65,405
19,613L
7,691
+
5013;
.:.4,999
327!
2,692.
j76
1,000
65
224
1.-2006 1
66,713
20,919
8,204
s s "•`
113°
t'.
5,332
3 33 ,
2,071
80
X . ,
1,066
67
239
FAMILY ACRES ACREAGE
NEEDED/YEAR NEEOEO
10 5i
11 115
11 175
11 236
11 298
12 361
12 425
12 491
12 558
13 626
13 696
13 767
839
13
913 II
14
989 1
14
14 1,066
14 1,144 1
15 1,229 1
15 1,306 1
1 2007 1' 68,04? 22,253 _ 8,727 5,672 i-30 31054. j1r 14134 141 255 15 1,389 1
r 1 - ---- - - --- ---- -- ----- ------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
w...
a"Assumes. 2.55 persons .per unit (Sta.tc Department of Finance January 1987 estimates).
b`,6a3ed',on 65 Qercent'split.
c`Based 'on 35 percent split:
`< d: Based on 5 dvelling units per acre.
;, a Based on 12 duelling units per acre.
H
t
W
f '1 J1
f,: P
P
r eri a�Rj
1
FIGURE 3. SCIIFDULE FOR PROCESSING R.SIDEtrrIAL EL
DEYOPMEtrr ALLOCATIONS
APPLICATION RESIDENTIAL APPLICATION DETERMINATION CEM DRAFT PUBLIC FINAL P(JtItrI1+G CITY CITY I.AICO FINAL
WINDOW DEVELOPMENT WINDOW OF INITIAL. LIR REVIEW EJN cONMtsSI01 CDUNCtL COUNCIL iCTI0i1 MAP
OPENS APPLICATION CLOSES CCMPLETEIIISS STUDY COMPLETEL PERIOD FRtPARk3t IGARtNG BORING Rt5tDLYrrJAL _____
�. ,,..
SUBNITTM COMPLETED ENDS At10 AND
GLYEIAItiOIT NkCF SAkY
':-........._ REVIEW NI'VIEM ALIACATIDI6 SPAX
PRELIMINARY GRANTED mI}:W
POINT
EVACUATION
�� .�, AN -07 _OCP 1 NOY 1 DEC 1 MARCH 1 APRIL 15 NAY I MAY -JUNE Julie -JULY JULY -13131T
- fire protection.
o "''That` Traffic``and Circulation System is Adequate to Serve
the Proposed Project. The City of Lodi shall maintain
adequate traffic glow and circulation of the city road-
way network. Level of Service C or above shall be
considered adequate ;see Appendix A for definitions of
the level of service C) .
MultiLle Year Aoolications
Applicants shall specify in their application(s) for res-
idential
es-
idential development project approval. the year (s) for which they
are seeking allocation. The City Council may grant up to three
future year allocations as a part of a single project. Those
future allocations shall, however, be subtracted from the number
of allocations available to applicants in applicable future
years.
III. Project Evaluation and Scorinq
Criteria
(The evaluation criteria listed below have been developed
to be consistent with current city policies and state laws.)
Cr-nra
A. Agricultural Sand Conflicts
.. Project does not require conversion of
agricultural land 1-0
2. Project is adjacent to agricultural land
on one side 7
3. :'roject is adjacent to agricultural land
on two sides 5
4. Project is adjacent to agricultural land
on three sides 3
5. Project is surrounded by agricultural land U
B. Onsite Agricultural Land Mitigation
1. Project needs no agricultural land mitigation 10
2. Adequate onsite buffer has been provided as
a part or site layout for a 11 adjacent
agricultural land 7
3. Onsite buffer provided as a part of site
layout for only part of project 5
4. No buffer between project and adjacent
agricultural land 0
C.
Relationship to Public Service
-1, Geiu--al �a-Uon
a. Project abuts
existing
development ort
four sides
10
b. Project abuts
existing
development On
three sides
7
c. Project abuts
existing
development,. On
two sides
.5:
d. Project abuts
existing
development on
one- side
:s
t .
13 .;
s
:. - '. S. '.. ..
i ' ..rte.
,....
w.o.�Y
..... .• ... .... .,._u.n .. .._...... .. sv...a„S.>e-... n.s.. .. .... .... ..:..
e. Project is surrounded by undeveloped
land 0
2. Sewer
a. Project is located adjacent to existing
cite sewer main trunk line 10
b. Project is within 0.25 -mile of existing
city sewer main trunk line 5
C. Project is more than 0.25 -mile from
existing city sewer main trunk line 0
3. Water
a. Project is located aajacent to existing
city water mains 10
b. Project is located within 0.25 -mile of
existing city water mains 5
C. Project is located more than 0.25 -mile
from existing city water mains 0
4. Drainage
Project owner shall submit an analysis of
the percentage of impervious surface of
the site
Traffic and Circulation: Level. of Service
Points will be awarded depending on the
10
level of service on major thoroughfares serving
the project as computed during weekday peak
hour. Comoutatior. shall include traffic
resulting `rom the project
7
All thoroughfares operating at LOS A
10
All thoroughfares operating at LOS B
or better
8
A 1 1 thoroughfares operating at LOS C
5
or better
6
All thoroughfares operating at LOS D
or better
a
A 1 1 thoroughfares operating at LOS E
or better
2
A 1 1 thoroughfares operating at LOS F
0
F. Traffic and Circulation: Improvements
1. Project can be served by the existing street
system and will not contribute to the need for
any offsite improvements within 0.25 mi 1 e of
its boundaries.
10
2. Project w i 11 contribute to the need fox minor
offsite improvements (less than $50,000)
to mitigatepotential impacts to a less -than -
significant level.
7
3. Project will contribute to the need for major
offsite improvements (greater than $50,000)
to mitigate potential impacts to a less -than -
significant level.
5
4. No offsite improvements are available to
mitigate impacts to less than significant
levels.
0
G. Housing
1. Low and Moderate Income Housing. A`point credit
will be awarded in accordance with the following.
schedule:
25% or more of units low and moderate 10
20s-24% 8
15$-i9% 6
10%-14% 3
59-94 2
Less than 5% low and moderate or
no low and rr.oderate housing propcsed 0
H. site Plan and Project Design—Bonus Points (These
criteria shall only apply to mu -ti -family projects).
1. Landscaping. (SPABC Committee shall evaluate
and provide between 10 and 0 points.) 10
2. Architectural Design. (SPARC Committee shall
evaluate and provide between 10 and 0 points)
(These criteria shall only apply to multi-
family projects) 10
Findings Required Prior to Adoption of This Element
Prior to adoption of this Growth Management Element and any
implementing ordinances, the city council must make the findings
required by the following provisions of state law:
o Government Code 65302,8
REQUIRED FINDINGS
GOVERNMENT CODE § 65863.6. Ilmitationonconstruction ofhousing units; coasid.
erasion; findings
In carrying out :he provisions of this chapter. each county and
city shall consider the effect of ordinances adopted pursuant to LhLs
chapter on the housing nerds of the region in which the local juris-
diction is situated and balance these needs against the public service
needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental re-
sources. Any ordinance adopted pursuant to this chapter which. by
its terms. limits the number of housing units which may be con.
structed on an annual basis shail contain findings as to the public
health. safety. and welfare o: the city or county to be promotcd by the
adoption d the ordinance w,n„ch justify reducing the housing oppor-
tunities of the region.
(Formerly § 65663.5. added by StaU.1979, c. 947, p. 3269. 1 1. Amended by
StalrAW. c 823, p. 2:91, 1 2. Renumbered § 65863.6 and amended by
Stncs.1981, c. 714, § 193.)
GOVERNMENT CODE 65302.55. Adoption or amendment of general plan element op-
erating to Breit number of housing units; findings
If a county or city, including a charter city, adopts or amends a
mandatory general plan element which operates to limit the numtkr
of housing units which may be constructed on an annual basis, such
adoption or amendment shall contain findings which justify reducing
the housing opportunities of the xegicn. The findings shall Include
all of the following:
(a) A description of the city's or county's appropriate stare of
the regional need for housing.
(b) A description of the specific housing programs and activities
being undertaken by the local jurisdiction to fulfill the requirements
o7 subdivision (c) of Section 6&W2..
(c) A descrlption of how the public health. safety, and welfare
would be promoted by such adoption or amendment.
(d) The fiacal and environmental resources available to the local
jurisdiction.
EVIDENCE CODE 669.5. Ordinnnces limiting building permits or devttopment of buildable lots for residential
purposes: impact on supply of residential units: actions challenging validity
(a) Any ordinance enacted by the governing body of a city, county, or city and county which
directly limits, by number. (1) the building permits that may be issued for residential construction or
(2) the buildable lots which may be developed for residential purposes. is presumed to have an impact
on the supply of residential units availablein an area which includes territory outside theiurisdiedon
of such eiV, county, or city and county.
(b) With respect to any action which challenges the validity of such an ordinance. the city. C=ty.
or city and county enacting such ordinance shall bear the burden of proof that such otrdinamce is
necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, or welfare of the population of such city,
county, or city and county.
(c) This section does not apply to ordinances which (1) impose a moratorium, to protect the public
health and safety, on residential construction for a specified period of time, if under the terms of the
ordinance. the moratorium will cease when the public health or safety is no longer jeopardized by
such construction. or (2) create agricultural preserves under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section
51200) of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 3 of the Government Cotte, or (3) restrict the number of
buildable parcels by limiting the minimum size of buildable parcels within a zone or by designatiog
lands within a zone, for nonresidential uses.
(d) This section shalt not apply to a voter approved ordinance adopted by referendum or initiative
prior to the effective date of this section which (1) requires the city, county. or city and county to
establish a population growth limit which represents its fair share of each year's st.ateaide
population growth. or (2) which sets a growth rate of no more than the average population growth
rata experienced by the state as a whole_
17
LLYLL
SERVICE
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
Uncongested operations, all
Little or no delay.
queues clear in a single -
signal cycle.
"B'
Uncongested operations, all
Short traffic delays.
queues clear in a single
cycle.
"C"
Light congestion, occasional
Average traffic delays.
backups on critical --approaches:
"D"
Significant congestion of
tong traffic delays.
critical approaches but
intersection - functional.
Cars required to wait through
more than one cycle' -during
short peaks. lib longqueues
formed.
Severe congestion :with some
Very long traffic delays,
long standing queues .on
failure, extreme congestion.
critical approaches Block-
age of intersection may
F
occur if traffic .signal
does not provide
tected turning njiBVemg{1t5.
Traffic Queue may block
nearby. intersections}
upstream: of critical
approach(es). .
"F"
Total breakdown, s'p and-
Intersection blocked by
go operation.
external causes.
47.
1,9 i'h OYpW:iNYPoi.q.Ny.»yq. �� . :ef.AYi�hdYY�G�py'I'+�'�`+
{
c..r,,, c : n r a we.a,• .
.,.., vS..1d ..< .... ...... ... .. ... ... ..........xa, .:,.._ :..w,.�... L.... -u. ,....... , . ... ,.. .... ..:....w. .... ter. . ..... _.m....... .. _, ., .. .. ._ ._�. so,.. ,.. ...,. .,a..c.._.+a+.:.. ..,s,....,s:!:.c .awe'4✓A..�awtitvw''�:,