HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - February 15, 1984* . •:F, ... : •. "., ,...Y Wil.
rb:1
�. i 1'�.r,r
CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
r FEBRUARY 15 1984.
P[BLIC HEARINCS Notice thereof having been published in accordance with law
and affidavit of publication being on file in the office of
the City Clerk, Mayor Olson called for the Public Hearing to
consider THE APPEAL OF Wilbert Ruhl, 3933 Almond Drive, Lodi
of the Lodi Planning Commission's approval of the Tentative
Map of Noma Ranch at its January 9, 1984 meetiniz.
The matter was introduced by C Tniun i t y Deve 1 opment Director
Schroeder who presented a history of the subject and
diagrams of the subject area.
A verbatim transcript of the Public Bearing was made and
will be attached as Exhibit "A" to these minutes.
Following Staff's presentation, public testimony, and
discussion, Coun.; i I, on mot ion of Mayor Pro Tempo re Snider,
Reid second, denied the appeal of Wilbert Ruhl, 3933 Almond
Drive, Lodi, of the Lodi Planning Commission's approval of
the Tentative flap of Noma Ranch at its January 9, 1984
meeting with conditions which included amending the buffer
zone to include the installation of a 7 fort fence on the
conmon property line; a 20 foot set back from the comnon
property line which will be landscaped to the approval of
the Public Wo3rks Director: and the notification of future
property owners by the developer that they will be living
adjacent to a farming operation. The action also included
the reiterating of findings and conditions by the Planning
Comission and the findings as established by the Council at
its 1/4/84 Council meeting. The motion: carried by unanimous
vote of the Council.
T
f tib- � � � •..
;a?r
2 r
.t�i!'y..:l x cj
!
A •L
t �� C. l��h•�C7�4ti1�� 1�,.
A
0
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF LODI TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL
OF WILBERT RUHL, 3933 ALMOND DRIVE, LODI, OF
THE LODI PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF
THE TENTATIVE MAP OF NOMA RANCH AT ITS
JANUARY 9, 1984 MEETING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, February 15, 1984 at the
hour of 8:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the
Lodi City Council will conduct a public hearing in the Council Chambers,
City Hall, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California, to consider the appeal
of Wilbert Ruhl, 3933 Almond Drive, Lodi, of the Lodi Planning Commission's
approval of the Tentative Map of Noma Ranch at its January 9, 1984 meeting.
Information regarding this item may be obtained in the office of
the Community Development Director at 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California.
All interested persons are invited to present their views either for or
against the above proposal. Written statements may be filed with the City
Clerk at any time prior to the hearing scheduled herein and oral statements
may be made at said hearing.
Dated: February 1, 1984
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Alice M. Reimche
City Clerk
ERWIN B. E®r
Asnocuvu+A. co....I++.o..a+
,a Lee or ..a.sMTo A rtAnu+a•
."-A♦ o0»Two♦
JOSEPH F. SILVA
,OUT As+ICulIu+AJ COrr,+s.ora+
01
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
E)
OFFICE OF THE
AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER
POST OFFICE BOX 1809
STOCKTON. CALIFORNIA 95201
PHONE 1209) 944-2225
Februa: y 14, 1984
To: John Giannoni, Jr.
From: San Joaquin County Agricultural Commissioner
Subject: Pesticide Application Adjacent to Noma Ranch
Subdivision Proposal
Dear Sir:
MA1 M OrrIC[ - sTOCIITO'
I8468 E. MA2ELTON AVE
Loo/ OrrIC[
2101 N. SAC1aAMENT0 ST
MANTCCA 0/r10E
a02 S. h4WrATT SLV0.
►---TSAer Orr,CE
~1J-..4sCAW M a('I�A10E
__i,��„' J�AO Atso •[V yT ST.
z 1- -, cry
-7..:MC
s C-0
cn
cro
This letter is in response to your question as to whit degree
the Noma Subdivision would affect farming operations with respect
to the future applications of pesticides to vineyards adjacent to
the.proposed Noma Ranch Subdivision,
Section 12972 of the Food and Agricultural Code provides that
pesticides shall be applied in such a manner to prevent substantial
drift to non target areas. "Substantial drift" is that amount
which may cause damage to property, crops or livestock. Any detec-
table amount of contaminations onto people not connected with the
pesticide application is substantial drift and considered a vio-
lation.
An applicator when applying pesticides will often leave a
buffer around a property to prevent substantial drift. A "buffer"
is a non treated area between the treatment area and non target
area that aids in the prevention of a substantial drift. Whether
or not a buffer is necessary and if so, the distance of that buf-
fer depends on many different factors. These include (1) the na-
ture of the surrounding property, (2) formulation, of the pesticide,
(3) toxicity of the pesticide, (4) method of application and (5)
weather conditions.
To determine if a buffer is needed, an applicator must first
evaluate what is surrounding the property to be treated. With the
Noma Ranch proposal there will be a houseing development adjacent
to a vineyard. Any application to that vineyard will have to take
into account the potential hazard to people, pets and property of
the houseing developement.
The toxicity of a pesticide is a large consideration when
evaluating conditions to determine the distance of a buffer. A
highly toxic pesticide will require a greoter buffer than a low
toxic pesticide because of the potential hazard. If there i s a lot
of foot traffic around the vineyard, than any amount of buffer for
the highly toxic pesticides may not be adequate. The use of these
materials may be denied.
Whether a pesticide is a liquid, wettable powder, dust, gran-
ule, bait or fumigant greatly influences the amount of buffer that
is needed to prevent substantial drift. Pesticides in bait or
granular formulation may not require as great a buffer as those in
liquid and dust formulation. This is because their greater mass is
not influenced as much by wind conditions so there is less drift.
In the same respect, liquid formulations may not require as great a
buffer as those in dust formulations. Fumigants are applied subsoil
or tarped, so if applied properly there is no hazard from drift.
The method by which the pesticide is applied will often time
determine the buffer that is needed. The same material that is app-
lied by air may require a greater buffer than if applied by ground.
In fact, some pesticides may be restricted to ground application only
because of the hazard of drift from an air application. Those pesti-
cides that are applied by a speed sprayer (many folier sprays and
dead arm sprays) may require a greater buffer than those that are
applied directly to the ground (weed sprays) because the pesticide
is sprayed upwards as well as downwards causing it to become more In-
fluenced by wind conditions.
The distance of a buffer can change with weather conditions.
The wind direction may determine if a buffer is needed at all. If
the wind direction is from the vineyard to the houseing development
a buffer may be needed but if it is from the houseing development to
the vineyard the hazard of drift may be such that a buffer is not
necessary. The wind speed, of course, will influence the amount of
buffer needed to prevent substantial drift. In a moderate wind a
greater buffer is going to be needed to prevent substantial drift
than in a light breeze.
From the above discussion it is seen that the requirement for
and distance of a buffer depends on many different factors. Un-
fortunatly it is impossible to give a required distance for a buf-
fer when pesticides are applied for vinevards adjacent to a house-
ing development because of the may variables that determine a buf-
fer. If an inspector from the Agriculture Commissioner's office
feels that a restricted material may be applied safely next to a
housing development when a buffer is used, he will condition the per-
mit as such. The amount of buffer is up to the applicator. It is
the applicator's job to evaluate the previously mentioned factors
and determine an adequate buffer to prevent substantial drift.
h ell
If the inspector determines that the hazard of a pesticide is
such that no amount of buffer is adequate and that nothing else
can be done to mitigate the hazard, the use of that pesticide on
the property in question will be denied.
Since ly,
Scott Hudson
Senior Agriculture Inspector
SH/ec
C f'
My. name is 5teve�ca , I am employed by G b S Farm Supply•
I am the manager. I am,,a�li4tjnsed pest control advisor and
4'
operator. T�i�ave also firmed myself. I have had my license
since 1978 and tt$ir�� tirovd extensively in the Lodi area.
I don't service either Noma or Hie adjoining landowners.
I physically inspected the property proposed to be developed
and the adjoining land.
In my professional opinion that development of Noma Ranch
will not materially alter farming; practices on the adjoining
lands. The range of available pesticides ensures that successful
farming can co -exist with residential development.
I have other farming clients who presently farm in subdivided
areas. One client Mike Manna farms the Lobough property which
is neat to Lakeshore Village. lie has not encountered any
substantial difficul[ivs despite farming 90 acres surrounded
on two sides by subdivisions.
Although I am a supporter of Greenbelt initiative I feel
that the development of Noma Ranch is appropriate and will
not increase the difficulty of farming the few remaining open
parcels in the area.
I am competent to testify to the above facts on my own
personal knowledge.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
is true and correct. j
___________
February 15, 1984 signed o___.____-_ — - _
OAF
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY '
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING INSPECTrI4
1810 E. HAZELTON AVE.. STOCKTON. CA 9520Y.IMUE, CHET DAVISSON
PLANNING PHONE: 209/944.3722j� Dkedw
BUILDING PHONE: 209/944.3701 0-E. F E 0 i S JERRY HERZIC!(
Dap" I*N ter
A L CE I ►. 1111 C, E LOU THANAS
February 15 , 1984 r' 1 T Y `; E RK apvY Dk*ctK
Cavellero, Bray, Geiger & Redquist
311 East Main Street
Stockton, California
Attn: Don Geiger
Dear Mr. Geiger:
The parcel we discussed on Almond Drive, adjacent to the Lodi City Limits
is in the unincorporated area of the County. The parcel is zoned R-2
(ResidentiAl) and is designated on the County General Plan as residential,
low-density.
If you need any further information please contact me.
Very ruly yrs,
HARRY 8. RIDDLE
Senior Planner
�:..t 4L. : I.
January 20, 1984
Mrs. Alice M. Reimche
City Clerk
City Hall
221 West Pine Street
Lodi, California 95240
Re: Noma Ranch
Dear !yrs. Reimche :
I hereby ap Feal the decision of the Lodi Planning
Commission approving the tentative map for the
Noma Ranch, which decision was voted on at the
Planning Commission's January 9, 1984 meeting.
very truly yours,
WILBERT RUHL
3933 Almond Drive
Lodi, California 95240
ORDINANCE NO. 1237
1
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
CITY GENERAL PLAN AS ADOPTED OCTOBER 5, 1955:.
REMOVING FROM THE LAND USE ELEMENT ANY AREA NOT
*"
WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY ON THE
DATE OF THE ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE AND WILL
�s
REQUIRE A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE TO AGAIN INCLUDE
THIS AREA IN THE LAND USE ELEMENT
The people of the City of Lodi do ordain as follows:
1. It shall be the policy of the City of Lodi to protect
is
land in the Green Belt area in order to preserve and protect
_.
agricultural land, preserve the scenic value of the area, protect
wildlife habitat and natural resources and to protect the small
city character of Lodi.
i<
2. The Green Belt area shall be designated as the area
between the outer limits of the incorporated city and the outer
limits of the adopted sphere of influence at the adoption of this
ordinance.
3. To affect the policy of the City of Lodi to protect
i=
land in the Green Belt area, non-agricultural development in the
City of Lodi which lies adjacent to the Green Belt area shall be
permitted only after a finding by the City Council that such non-
agricultural development will not interfere with the continued
productive use of agricultural land in the Green Belt area or that
an adequate buffer or mitigation zone exists to assure continued
productive use of agricultural land in the Green Belt area.
4. At the time of adoption of this ordinance, the Green
Belt area shall be removed from the existing Land Use Element of
the General Plan of the City of Lodi.
5. Before land in the Green Belt area can be annexed by
the City if Lodi, an amendment to the City's Land Use Element of
f
the General Plan must be made and approved by a majority of the
1 s
people voting in a city-wide election.
6. Before any annexation proposal can be approved, the t
is
City Council must make the finding that the proposed annexation is ME
contiguous to existing city boundaries and the projected demand
from the proposed development in the area to be annexed will not
eyceed the service capacity of existing municipal utilities and ser -
1237
-1-
vices, the school district, and existing roadways.
7. Water, sewer, and electrical facilities shall not be
expanded or extended until the City Council maker the finding
that a proposed expansion or extension is consistent with the goals,
policies and land use designations of the General Plan and this
ordinance.
8. The City of Lodi may hold elections in consolidation with
other scheduled elections in the City for the purpose of allowing
voters to voice their opinions on amendments to the City's Land Use
Element of the General Plan.
9. If any portion of this ordinance is hereafter determined
to be invalid, all remaining portions of this ordinance shall
remain in force and effect and to this extent the provisions of
this ordinance are separable.
Section 2. - This ordinance was brought to a vote of the
voters at a Special Initiative Election held in the City of Lodi
on August 25, 1981 and as a majority of the voters voted in its
favor, the ordinance is a valid and binding ordinance of the City of
Lodi.
Section 3. - This ordinance shall be considered as adopted
upon the date that the vote is declared by the legislative body
(Tuesday, September 1, 1981) and shall be in effect 10 days after
that date.
Section 4. - All ordinances and parts of ordinances in con-
flict herewith are repealed insofar as such conflict may exist.
Section 5. - Pursuant to Section 4013 of the State of
California this ordinance shall not be repealed or amended except
by a vote of the people.
State of California
County of San Joaquin, ss.
I, Alice M. Reimche, City Clerk of the City of Lodi, do
hereby certify that Ordinance No. 1237 was brought to a
vote of the voters at a Special Initiative Election held
in the City of Lodi on August 25, 1981 and as a majority
of the voters voted in its favor, the ordinance is a valid
and binding ordinance of the City of Lodi. This ordinance
shall be considered as adopted upon the date that the vote
was declared by the legislative body (Tuesday, September 1,
x
1981) and shall be in effect 10 days after that date.
ALICE M. R 4&CHE
City Clerk
1237
February 21, 1984
Mr. Wilbert Ruhl
3933 Almond Drive
Lodi, CA 95240
Dear Mr. Ruhl:
i
HENRY A. CLAVES, Jr.
City Manager
ALICE M. REIMCHE
City Clerk
RONALD M STEIN
City Attorney
This letter will confirm the action taken by the City Council at its
regular meeting of February 15, 1984 whereby, following a Public Hearing
on the matter, Council denied the appeal of Wilbert Ruhl, 3933 Almond
Drive, Lodi, of the Lodi Planning Commission's approval of the Tentative
Map of Noma Ranch at its January 9, 1984 meeting with conditions which
included amending the buffer zone to include the installation of a 7
foot fence on the common property line; a 20 foot set back from the
common property line which will be landscaped to the approval of the
Public Works Director; and the notification of future property owners
by the developer that they will be living adjacent to a farming
operation. The action also included the reiterating of findings and
conditions by the Planning Commission and the findings as established
by the Council at its January 4, 1984 Council meeting.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not
hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
Alice M. Reimche
City Clerk
AMR:jj
CITY COUNCIL
E VE LYN M- OLSON. Mayor
T O D T
T T OF
Y CITY
JOHN R. (Randy) SNIDER
v i 1 1 �.� 1
Mayor Pro Tempore
CITY HAIL, 221 WEST PINE STREET
ROBERT G. MURPHY
POST OFFICE BOX 320
JAMES W. PINKERTON. It,
LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241
FRED M REID
(209) 334-5634
February 21, 1984
Mr. Wilbert Ruhl
3933 Almond Drive
Lodi, CA 95240
Dear Mr. Ruhl:
i
HENRY A. CLAVES, Jr.
City Manager
ALICE M. REIMCHE
City Clerk
RONALD M STEIN
City Attorney
This letter will confirm the action taken by the City Council at its
regular meeting of February 15, 1984 whereby, following a Public Hearing
on the matter, Council denied the appeal of Wilbert Ruhl, 3933 Almond
Drive, Lodi, of the Lodi Planning Commission's approval of the Tentative
Map of Noma Ranch at its January 9, 1984 meeting with conditions which
included amending the buffer zone to include the installation of a 7
foot fence on the common property line; a 20 foot set back from the
common property line which will be landscaped to the approval of the
Public Works Director; and the notification of future property owners
by the developer that they will be living adjacent to a farming
operation. The action also included the reiterating of findings and
conditions by the Planning Commission and the findings as established
by the Council at its January 4, 1984 Council meeting.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not
hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
Alice M. Reimche
City Clerk
AMR:jj
February 21, 1984
Baumback b Piazza
323 West Elm Street
Lodi, CA 95240
Gentlemen:
This letter will confirm the action taken by the City Council at its
regular meeting of February 15, 1984 whereby, following a Public Nearing
on the matter, Council denied the appeal of Wilbert Ruhl, 3933 Almond
Drive, Lodi, of the Lodi Planning Commission's approval of the Tentative
Map of Noma Ranch at its January 9, 1984 meeting with conditions which
included amending the buffer zone to include the installation of a 7
foot fence on the common property line; a 20 foot set back from the
common property line which will be landscaped to the approval of the
Public Works Director; and the notification of future property owners
by the developer that they will be living adjacent to a farming
Operation. The action, also included the reiterating of findings and
conditions by the Planning Commission and the findings as established
by the Council at its January 4, 1984 Council meeting.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not
hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
(rte, A - &&W -A'
Alice M. Reimche
City Clerk
AMR:jj
CITY COUNCIL
`^
HENRY A. GLAVES, Jr.
E VE LYN M. OISON, Maya
CITY OF L O D I
City Manager
JOHN R. (Randy) SNIDER
ALICE M. RE C E
Mayor Pro Tempore
CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET
City Clerk
ROBERT C. MURPHY
POST OFFICE BOX 320
RONALD M STEIN
JAMES W. PINKERTON. Jr.
LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241
City Attorney
FRED M. REID
(209) 334-5634
February 21, 1984
Baumback b Piazza
323 West Elm Street
Lodi, CA 95240
Gentlemen:
This letter will confirm the action taken by the City Council at its
regular meeting of February 15, 1984 whereby, following a Public Nearing
on the matter, Council denied the appeal of Wilbert Ruhl, 3933 Almond
Drive, Lodi, of the Lodi Planning Commission's approval of the Tentative
Map of Noma Ranch at its January 9, 1984 meeting with conditions which
included amending the buffer zone to include the installation of a 7
foot fence on the common property line; a 20 foot set back from the
common property line which will be landscaped to the approval of the
Public Works Director; and the notification of future property owners
by the developer that they will be living adjacent to a farming
Operation. The action, also included the reiterating of findings and
conditions by the Planning Commission and the findings as established
by the Council at its January 4, 1984 Council meeting.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not
hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
(rte, A - &&W -A'
Alice M. Reimche
City Clerk
AMR:jj