HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - May 15, 1991CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF LODI
CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET
WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 1991
7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL Present: Council Members - Pennino, Pinkerton,
Sieglock, Snider, and Hinchman (Mayor)
Absent: Council Members - None
Also Present: City Manager Peterson, Assistant City
Manager Glenn, Community Development
Director Schroeder, Assistant City Engineer
Prima, City Attorney McNatt, and City Clerk
Reimche
INVOCATION The invocation was given by Assistant City Manager Glenn.
PLEDGE OF The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Hinchman.
ALLEGIANCE
PRESENTATIONS
LODI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
STRING QUARTET PERFORMS
The Lodi Unified School District String Quartet performed
under the direction of David Collum.
PRESENTATION BY LODI SISTER
CITY COMMITTEE
A presentation was made by Naomi McCallum Carey, President
of the Lodi Sister City Committee acknowledging current and
former City Council participation.
PROCLAMATIONS
CC -37 Mayor Hinchman presented the following proclamations:
a) "Walk for the Health of It";
b) "National Public Works Week"; and
c) "National Safe Boating Week".
CONSENT CALENDAR In accordance with report and recommendation of the City
Manager, Council, on motion of Council Member Snider,
Pennino second, approved the following items hereinafter
set forth.
CLAIMS CC -21(a) Claims were approved in the amount of $2,978,353.09.
1
150
I Continued May 15, 1991
MINUTES No minutes were presented for City Council approval.
REPORT ON SALE OF CITY
PROPERTY
CC -20 The City Council was informed that the following items of
CC -47 surplus City property have been sold within the last thirty
days, generating a total revenue of $4,746.00.
1. Seven vehicles, unsaleable to the general
public due to damage or for safety
considerations, were offered in informal
bids and sold as scrap to Charter Way Auto
Recyclers of Stockton for the amount of
$1,471.00.
2. One lot of scrap wire, metal, and
transformer casings was bid informally and
sold to the sole bidder, Sunshine Steel
Enterprises of Sacramento, for $3,275.00.
This sale was approved by the City Council
on March 20, 1991.
This report is made to the City Council in compliance with
Lodi Municipal Code Section 2.12.120.
SPECIFICATIONS APPROVED FOR
WATTHOUR METERS
CC -12.1(b) The City Council approved the specifications and authorized
advertisement for bids for the purchase of 672 electric
watthour meters.
The Electric Utility Department's Metering Division has
requested that 672 single-phase watthour meters be
purchased to maintain an inventory for installation of
meters at new developments, and for replacement of obsolete
and deteriorated meters located during meter testing.
The bid opening has been scheduled for Tuesday, June 4,
1991.
The estimated cost of this purchase is $23,500, with
funding available in the Electric Utility Department's
Operating Fund.
BIDS REJECTED FOR 12 -KV
POWER REGULATOR
RESOLUTION NO. 91-83
CC -12(b) The City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-83 rejecting the
CC -300 bids for one 12 -KV Power Regulator.
2
Continued May 15, 1991
On March 6, 1991, the City Council approved specifications
and authorized advertisement for (re)bids on one 12 -KV
Power Regulator. Bids were opened on April 2, 1991, with
the following results:
Supplier Price incl. tax Life cycle cost
Cooper Power Systems $226,149.85 $260,149.85
Burlingame, CA
Delta Star $219,212.15 $410,812.15
Belmont, CA
Siemens* $124,177.94 $264,177.94
Jackson, MS
*Does not meet specifications
This unit was bid earlier; one bid was received and it was
rejected at the February 6, 1991, City Council meeting
based on the sole bid being 54.1% in excess of budgeted
funds. It was subsequently learned that with minor
technical changes to the specifications, additional
suppliers would be bidding in a rebid situation and that
the bid price could be expected to be approximately
$140,000, the engineers estimate for this purchase.
Rebidding this unit did not improve the City's position, in
fact the low bid is now 55.9% above budgeted funds for this
purchase. Based on the results of the rebid other more
economically advantageous options are available thus the
recommendation to reject all bids.
TREE WORK AT LODI LAKE PARK
RESOLUTION NO. 91-84
CC -12.1(c) The City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-84 rejecting the
CC -12(b) bids for tree work at Lodi Lake park, approved amending
CC -300 specifications for a tree trimming contract for Lodi Lake
park, and authorized advertisement for bids thereon. The
bid opening date has been set for May 28, 1991.
The Parks and Recreation Department requested that the City
Council reject bids for tree trimming due to confusion
among the bidders regarding the size of crew and a
discrepancy between the bid proposal and the contract
document. Staff has prepared amended specifications and
asks that these be approved so that we can move forward
with our tree contract. Staff is asking for approval to
utilize a tree trimming contractor for the removal of any
weak or cracked limbs, lighten over burdened limbs, and
inspect all crotches for splits or rotten areas in trees.
The trees affected will be the poplars at Lodi Lake park.
152
iI Continued May 15, 1991
CONTRACT AWARD FOR WOOD POLE
TESTING PROGRAM FOR THE ELECTRIC
UTILITY DEPARTMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 91-85
CC -12(a) The City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-86 awarding the
CC -300 contract for Wood Pole Testing Program for the Electric
Utility Department to the sole bidder Osmose Wood
Preserving, Inc., Gresham, Oregon in the amount of
$14,884.44.
The Electric Utility Department has conducted a sample
testing of its wood pole population and found a significant
number of poles in a deteriorated condition. In order to
classify the level of deterioration and determine
replacement priorities, the above recommendation has been
made.
It is anticipated that this testing will be performed in
stages with the first stage being the 60-kv transmission
system followed by age declining sections of the
distribution system.
Plans and specifications for this project were approved on
March 20, 1991. Only one bid was received. However, since
the estimated cost of the project was $22,000, the bid
received is very advantageous to the City and thus warrants
the recommended action.
CONTRACT AWARD FOR SACRAMENTO STREET
OVERLAY, LOCKEFORD STREET TO TURNER ROAD
RESOLUTION NO. 91-86
CC -12(a) The City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-86 awarding the
CC -300 contract for the Sacramento Street Overlay, Lockeford
Street to Turner Road to Teichert Construction in the
amount of $230,084.25 (Base Bid + Alternate A + Alternate
C), and appropriate $24,000 from the Sewer Utility Fund.
This project consists of constructing an asphalt overlay,
replacement of various sections of curb and gutter, and
removal of the buried and deteriorated railroad tracks and
ties that run down the center of the roadway. This project
will also replace 760 linear feet of bad sanitary sewer
pipe.
Sacramento Street will be closed for two days during the
paving operation.
The bid proposal included three alternates. The items in
Alternate A covered the installation of sidewalk in front
of 400 North Sacramento Street. Alternate B was a price
4
Continued May 15, 1991
for abandoning the 6" sanitary sewer
Alternate C was a price for abandoning
sewer by grouting it in place.
*3
by removal and
the 6" sanitary
The quote for grouting the sewer line in place is half the
cost of having it removed. The owner of 400 North
Sacramento Street has agreed to pay the City for the
installation of sidewalk across his frontage.
Staff is therefore recommending that the City Council award
the base bid contract plus Alternates A and C to Teichert
Construction and appropriate $24,000 from the Sewer Utility
Fund.
Plans and specifications
April 3, 1991. The City
for this project:
Bidder
x Engineer's Estimate
Teichert Construction
Claude C. Wood Co.
Granite Construction
Location
Stockton
Lodi
Watsonville
CONTRACT AWARD FOR HUTCHINS
STREET IMPROVEMENTS, PINE STREET
TO LOCKEFORD STREET
RESOLUTION NO. 91-87
for this project were approved on
received the following three bids
Base Bid + Alternate A
+ Alternate C
$274,808.15
$230,084.25
$266,299.65
$299,063.60
CC -12(a) The City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-87 awarding the
CC -300 contract for Hutchins Street Improvements, Pine Street to
Lockeford Street to Claude C. Wood Company in the amount of
$121,875.70.
This project will install a 30" storm drain pipe in
Hutchins Street from Pine Street to Elm Street, place a
pavement reinforcing fabric and an asphalt concrete overlay
on Hutchins Street from Pine Street to Lockeford Street,
install six wheelchair ramps, and other miscellaneous and
related works. The storm drain installation and the paving
operation for this project will require that Hutchins
Street be closed from Pine Street to Lockeford Street.
Plans and specifications
April 17, 1991. The City
for this project:
5
for this project were approved on
received the following three bids
154
Continued May 15, 1991
Bidder
Engineer's Estimate
Claude C. Wood Company
Teichert Construction
Granite Construction
Location Bid
$154,717.00
Lodi $121,875.70
Stockton $139,922.00
Stockton $193,641.00
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER - ZUPO FIELD
BACKSTOP AND FENCING, 350
WASHINGTON STREET
CC -90 The City Council was given information regarding a Contract
Change Order for Zupo Field Backstop and Fencing, 350 North
Washington Street in accordance with the Contract Change
Order policy approved by Resolution No. 85-72.
The subject contract change order, approved by the City
Manager, was in the amount of $8,556.00, which is 24% of
the contract. The work includes redesign of the fence to
provide 4 1/2" outside diameter posts instead of 6 5/8"
outside diameter. Re-engineering, restocking charge, lost
time/additional work, and Contractor markup are included in
the price.
The time of completion was extended seven working days by
this change order.
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER -
GUILD AVENUE (LODI AVENUE
TO PINE STREET), LODI AVENUE
(680 FEET EAST OF CLUFF AVENUE
TO GUILD AVENUE) STREET IMPROVEMENTS
CC -90 The City Council was given information regarding a Contract
Change Order for Guild Avenue (Lodi Avenue to Pine Street),
Lodi Avenue (680 feet east of Cluff Avenue to Guild Avenue)
Street Improvements
The subject contract change order, approved by the City
Manager, was in the amount of $4,042.55, which is 3.6% of
the contract. The total of the two contract change orders
for this project is now $25,990.51. This contract change
order covers an increase in asphalt concrete price and cost
to repair and replace fence along the east side of Guild
Avenue.
The time of completion was not affected by this change
order.
R
Continued May 15, 1991 1�5 5
PURCHASE OF SEWER RODDING
MACHINE FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 91-88
CC -12(d) The City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-88 awarding the
CC -300 purchase of the sewer rodding machine to WECO Industries of
Vallejo, California in the amount of $27,351.30 and
approved an additional $1,591.30 over the budgeted funds of
$25,760.00.
Funds to purchase a sewer rodding machine for the
Water/Wastewater Division were approved in the 1989-90
operating budget and specifications were approved by the
City Council on January 2, 1991. (A special allocation
request was approved on July 17, 1990 to carry over the
funds to the 1990-91 fiscal year.) Two bids were received
and opened on April 17, 1991.
The low bidder, WECO Industries met the specifications.
The low bid exceeds the budgeted $25,760.00 by $1,591.30.
r This increase is mainly due to inflation and the added cost
of painting the existing truck on which the rodding machine
will be mounted.
The following is a recap of the bids:
WECO Industries, Inc. $27,351.30
3-T Equipment Company $28,342.37
SOLE SUPPLIER OF MATERIALS,
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR
INSTALLATION FOR KOFU PARK
SPORTS LIGHTING, 1145 SOUTH
HAM LANE APPROVED
RESOLUTION NO. 91-89
CC -6 The City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-89 designating
CC -12.1(c) Musco Lighting, Inc. as sole supplier and approving the
CC -300 purchase of equipment; and approved the plans and
specifications for installation for Kofu Park Sports
Lighting, 1145 South Ham Lane and authorized advertising
for bids.
This project is the installation of a new sports lighting
system at Kofu Park as authorized by the City Council in
the 1990/91 Capital Improvement Program. The Boosters of
Boys and Girls Sports organization is also contributing
$10,000 toward the cost of the project which includes new
wiring, poles, service panel, and switching for "soccer" or
"baseball " lighting.
L 5b
Continued May 15, 1991
The project was budgeted earlier but bids received in 1989
were substantially above the amount appropriated. The
project has been slightly revised to reduce costs and
additional funds have been appropriated. During the
intervening time, the sports lighting firm, Musco Lighting,
Inc., has developed a new lighting, pole and foundation
system that is very cost-effective. The system includes
steel poles and a relatively easy to install precast
concrete foundation with a cost comparable to that for wood
poles. In the long run, the City will benefit. Lamps and
wood poles require periodic re -aiming due to pole twist
and, of course, pole replacement will be needed sooner than
galvanized steel poles. In reviewing their product, the
Electric Utility Department wrote to the Parks and
Recreation Department:
"After reviewing the video tape and the
literature on the 'Musco Sportspole', it is
apparent that Musco has developed a lighting
system that is very 'user friendly' as it
relates to installation. The sportspole
concept, combined with the Musco luminaire
with which the City already has favorable
experience, yields a very clean, efficient
and effective alternative to sports facility
illumination."
The bids received in 1989 included a requirement for
control of light "spill" onto adjacent property. Musco was
the only supplier able to meet that criteria.
Based on the above and the attached descriptive material
received, staff recommended that the Council find, under
Section 3.20.070, that it is in the City's best interests
that Musco Lighting, Inc. be named as a sole supplier for
sports lighting equipment.
Musco has provided an engineered design for the system and
a price including materials, guarantee and construction
assistance services. Their delivered price is $55,835.00
plus tax.
The plans and specifications cover installation of the
City -furnished Musco equipment. The time frame specified
construction is August 25, 1991 through September 30, 1991
to avoid park scheduling conflicts.
Continued May 15, 1991 157
PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT TO LOCAL
AGENCY -STATE AGREEMENT FOR
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT KETTLEMAN
LANE/MILLS AVENUE, HUTCHINS/VINE
STREET, AND CHURCH STREET,
LODI AVENUE TO LOCKEFORD STREET
RESOLUTION NO. 91-90
CC -7(f) The City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-90 approving
CC -300 Program Supplement #033 to the Local Agency -State Agreement
and authorized the City Manager and City Clerk to execute
the agreement on behalf of the City.
This agreement covers the use of Federal -Aid Urban (FAU)
funds in the Combined Road Plan for the installation of
traffic signals at Kettleman Lane and Mills Avenue,
Hutchins Street and Vine Street, and the update of the
signals on Church Street between Lodi Avenue and Lockeford
Street. This project will use all of the FAU funds in the
City's account.
FINAL MAP FOR PIONEER PLACE,
A SIX -LOT CONDOMINIUM,
505 PIONEER DRIVE
CC -46 The City Council approved the final map for Pioneer Place,
a six -lot condominium, and directed the City Manager and
City Clerk to execute the map on behalf of the City.
This is an existing lot containing 120 apartment units. The
map is being filed to change the parcel to a six -lot
condominium. The parcel is being split to allow the
condominium conversions to take place in phases. A common
homeowners' association will be formed to cover all six
lots to insure timely repair and maintenance of all shared
facilities. Required easements not shown on the map will
be dedicated by separate instrument. All public
improvements have been installed and all fees are paid.
COMMENTS BY CITY
COUNCIL MEMBERS The following comments were received under the "Comments by
City Council Members" segment of the agenda:
DUI CHECK POINT OPERATION
APPLAUDED
Council Member Pennino congratulated the Lodi Police
Department on its recent D.U.I. Check Point Operation.
E
158
Continued May 15, 1991
IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM FOR
CHILDREN ANNOUNCED
Council Member Snider reminded the community that on May
21, 1991 from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. at Heritage School,
509 East Eden Street, Lodi, the San Joaquin County Public
Health Department in cooperation with the Rotary Club will
be conducting an immunization program for children of this
area.
REPORT ON TOUR OF NEW LIFE MISSION
Mayor Hinchman reported on a recent tour he had of the New
Life Mission, indicating that it is a "fantastic" facility
and asked if staff could look in to what could be done
about two structures in the immediate area which are in
very bad disrepair.
SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM
KICKOFF UPDATE
Mayor Hinchman reported on the Summer Youth Employment
Program Kickoff he recently attended and talked about many
of the problems being faced by young people at this time
such as the recession, crime, drug problems, etc. Mayor
Hinchman urged all citizens to report to the police any
suspicious activities they may observe.
COMMENTS BY THE
PUBLIC ON NON
AGENDA ITEMS The following comments were received under the "Comments by
the public on non -agenda items" segment of the agenda:
OPPOSITION VOICED REGARDING THE
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT PROPOSED ON
4 -ACRE PARCEL ADJOINING LODI
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL WEST BETWEEN
COCHRAN ROAD AND WEST VINE STREET
CC -16 Attorney -at -Law, Ron Stein representing Hilda Sanguinetti,
CC -53(a) addressed the City Council regarding a 4 -acre parcel
adjoining Lodi Memorial Hospital West between Cochran Road
and West Vine Street expressing opposition to the
residential project being proposed for the area. A letter
had been received from Ronald B. Thomas, indicating that
they have not completed their plans nor have they purchased
the subject property and that they are attempting to find
"common ground" with neighbors in the area. It is their
concern that if they do not conclude their purchase, a
premature action to reduce the present landowners'
development rights through a rezoning would not be fair to
them. The matter was referred to staff.
10
Continued May 15, 1991 159
TRIBUTE TO ARMED FORCES BEING
HELD AT MCCLELLAN AIR FORCE BASE
Ms. Jane Bilello, 12651 Clay Station Road, Herald, CA 95638
invited the City Council and citizens of this community to
attend a tribute to our armed forces being held at
McClellan Air Force Base on Saturday, May 25, 1991 starting
at 9:00 a.m.
RESIDENTS EXPRESS CONCERNS
REGARDING 300 WEST ELM STREET AREA
CC -16 Virginia Lahr, 311 West Elm Street, Lodi together with
other residents of the area once again voiced concerns
regarding their neighborhood.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE
APPEALS RECEIVED REGARDING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONDITIONAL
e APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST OF WENELL,
MATTHEIS, BOWE, INC., ON BEHALF OF
TWIN ARBORS ATHLETICS CLUB FOR A USE
PERMIT TO EXPAND AND REMODEL AN EXISTING
SPORTS CLUB AT 2040 COCHRAN ROAD DENIED
CC -53(b) Notice thereof having been published according to law, an
affidavit of which publication is on file in the office of
the City Clerk, Mayor Hinchman called for the Public
Hearing to consider the appeals received from Bruce
Schweigerdt, 747 South Mills Avenue, Lodi and Ron Hilder,
808 Tilden Drive, Lodi regarding the Planning Commission's
conditional approval of the request of Wenell, Mattheis,
Bowe, Inc., on behalf of Twin Arbors Athletics Club for a
Use Permit to expand and remodel an existing sports club at
2040 Cochran Road, the City Council denied the appeal
including the findings that the exercise equipment
constitutes an accessary use and that the existing
facilities are a conforming use in R-1 zoning.
Council Member Snider abstained from discussion and voting
on the matter because of a conflict of interest in the
matter. Council Member Snider then left his seat at the
Council table.
The matter was introduced by staff, who advised the City
Council that at its meeting of Monday, April 8, 1991 the
Planning Commission conditionally approved the above
described Use Permit. This action was taken after (1)
three public hearings covering approximately ten hours of
discussion; (2) three meetings between the developers and
the neighbors; (3) the preparation of a traffic study and a
11
160 Continued May 15, 1991
later addendum to it; and (4) major modifications to both
the site plan and the proposed size and locations of the
new facilities.
The Planning Commission originally considered this matter
on January 28, 1991 and continued the matter (1) so that
the developers and the neighbors could reach a compromise;
and (2) so that a traffic study could be prepared.
The major concerns expressed at the first hearing were
noise to the surrounding neighborhood, additional traffic,
the expansion of a non-residential use in a single-family
area and concern about children walking to Vinewood School
and the park, especially along Peach Street which has no
curbs, gutters or sidewalks.
The Planning Commission's second hearing on March 11, 1991
was continued because the traffic study had been conducted
on a date when school was not in session because of an "In
Service Day." The Planning Commission again asked that the
two sides meet to work out mutually agreeable solutions.
1. The letter of approval which outlines the
conditions with the approved site plan and
approved square footage to be added.
2. Correspondence from Tim Mattheis, Wenell,
Mattheis, Bowe, Inc. outlining the results
of two neighborhood meetings conducted on
March 26, and April 2, 1991.
3. The addendum to the traffic study dated
April 2, 1991.
4. Correspondence from Tim Mattheis, Wenell,
Mattheis, Bowe, Inc. discussing the
neighborhood meeting of February 21, 1991
with the first revised site plan and
comments.
5. Memorandum from the City Attorney dated
March 7, 1991 discussing the Twin Arbors
application.
6. The original Traffic and Parking Study for
Twin Arbors Athletic Club dated March 1991.
7. A letter from the Community Development
Director dated January 22, 1991 outlining
the staff's original conditions for approval
with the first site plan attached.
12
Continued May 15, 1991
8. Background data which outlines the history
of Sunwest Tennis and Swim Club (i.e. Twin
Arbors Athletic Club).
The following letter was read into the record at the
request of Dr. Ron Hilder.
Let the record of this meeting note the fact that on May 1,
1991, in public session, I requested that the matter of
this appeal be delayed until July in order that I might be
present to share my concerns in person. My request was
denied and as a result I am submitting this document in my
absence, to be read in the hearing.
I also take careful note of the statement included in the
Notice of Public Hearing, namely:
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 Public Hearing.
Any member of the Council who has a business or other
vested interest in this matter should consider removing
themselves from this proceeding to prevent a conflict of
interest. Any member of the Council who is a member of the
Twin Arbors Athletics Club should also consider whether
their part in these proceedings is proper.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I have filed this appeal on five grounds, as follows:
1. The legality of the proposal;
2. The absence of an environmental impact
statement;
3. The hours and manner of operations of the
club;
4. Traffic safety; and
5. History of poor planning.
A detailed discussion of each of these points follows, and
I would suggest that the Council consider each concern
separately in order to facilitate comment, discussion, and
an orderly process.
13
162 Continued May 15, 1991
THE LEGALITY OF THE PROPOSAL
On March 7, 1991, City Attorney Bob McNatt issued a memo on
the subject of the application of Twin Arbors Tennis Club,
the result of a request by City staff. I believe that this
request was initiated due to neighbor concerns as to the
legality of the new and expanded club to exist within an
R-1 zoned area.
Mr. McNatt's memo unfortunately is limited in scope and
only addresses "...whether exercise machines constitute an
accessory use to the general classification of
'recreational facility'".
It is true that the neighbors were concerned about this
facet of club operation; however, the overriding issue was
the legality of permitting a commercial enterprise of this
nature to operate within an R-1 zoned area. This is
clearly evident in the petition submitted by neighbors
which was presented to the Planning Commission prior to the
March memo:
We the undersigned are concerned that Twin
Arbors Athletic Club's remodel and expansion
be in accordance within residential use and
zoning of our neighborhood. That this
unprecedented expansion of a commercial
entity in a purely single-family residential
area be weighed heavily toward the
preservation of our neighborhood, the
protection of our property values and the
safety of our children. We cannot express
strongly enough that this is a residential
neighborhood zoned R-1 single-family. The
property owners in those single-family homes
should be the singularly most important
consideration of your action. (29
signatures representing 17 neighboring
households.)
In his memo Mr. McNatt cites the relevant section of the
Zoning Ordinance (17.09.030-G), but ends his reference by
failing to include the most germane point of the section,
to wit:
"The following uses are permitted in the
R-1 district subject to securing a use
permit: ...(G). Golf course (excluding
miniature golf course) and similar
recreational uses of a noncommercial
nature " (emphasis added).
There is simply no disputing the fact that the proponents
of this development, a Sacramento -based corporation, are
14
Continued May 15, 1991
seeking to expand a presently non -conforming facility into
a full-blown commercial enterprise. The tremendous capital
investment that they are making is predicated on a
cost -benefit ratio of 3 times current membership.
Spare -Time Inc. seeks to "serve" its present customers by
increasing demand and usage by 3 -fold. There has been no
responsible accounting on the part of the developer as to
the impact such an increase will have on the surrounding
neighborhood; and their assertion that any negative impact
will be "mitigated" through the use of shrubbery and a
block wall on the north-west corner of the property, and
some trees on the north-east corner is plainly ludicrous.
The original Sun West facility was established as a private
tennis and swim club. The 8/16/71 application for a county
Use Permit, and the subsequent hearing clearly document
this intent of the original developers.
When the facility was annexed by the City in April 1972, it
existed as a private tennis and swim club. Over the years
the club as evolved (illegally) into a "tennis, swim, and
fitness club (emphasis added, Use Permit Application
12/11/91). There is nothing in the records to show that a
Use Permit was sought by the owners prior to expanding the
club's operation to a fitness center." In fact, the
conversion of the then existing and approved handball court
into a weight room was declared by City inspection to be an
"illegal conversion" (4/8/91 letter).
It has been argued that the facility represents a
nonconforming use as defined in section 17.03.390 of the
Zoning Ordinance. This may very well be true; however, it
is my position that in its original use as a tennis and
swim club the facility was a nonconforming use when annexed
to the City. But in its present form, as a tennis, swim,
and fitness center it is an illegal usage; one that was
never reviewed and approved by City officials.
It has been argued that the fitness services offered by the
facility are an accessory use as defined in section
17.03.030 of the Zoning Ordinance, a use which is only
incidental to those of the general use of the facility.
However, after listening to the proponents of the new and
expanded club it is clear that the fitness services that
the club plans to offer represent a substantial component
of the clubs program. It is highly questionable that
fitness services are currently an accessory use in light of
the fact that the applicants themselves have included the
designation as a "Tennis, swim and fitness club" on their
12/90 application for the Use Permit in answer to the
question, "Present Land Use".
Furthermore, when architect Tim Mattheis submitted figures
for calculating the parking spaces required for the project
15
1 6.4 Continued May 15, 1991
he foresaw this usage: Pool, 20 spaces; Tennis Courts, 26
spaces; Exercise services, 31 spaces. Clearly the
proponents are seeking to develop more than a tennis and
swim club. The City of Lodi is being asked to legitimate a
commercial enterprise which has illegally evolved over the
years.
There are other pertinent definitions found within the
Zoning Ordinance which need to be considered by the
Council. The first deals with the term club found in
section 17.03.190. "'Club' means an association of persons
for some common nonprofit purpose, but not including
groups, organized primarily to render a service which is
customarily carried on as a business". Technically it is
questionable if this facility was ever a "club". Presently
to refer to Twin Arbors as a "club" is euphemistic at best,
and fictitious at worst.
The other definition appearing within the Zoning Ordinance
which the Council needs to consider is that of business or
commerce (17.03.170): "'Business' or 'commerce' means the
purchase, sale or other transaction involving the
...disposition of any—service for profit or livelihood,
including office buildings, offices, recreational or
amusement enterprises".
Clearly, this proposed commercial facility, which will
employ 10 - 12 persons during peak usage hours, if allowed
to exist within an R-1 zoned area, renders meaningless the
Zoning Ordinance of the City.
If I understand the Zoning Ordinance correctly, realizing
the nature of this proposal, the appropriate zoned district
for the project is that of P -D (Planned Development) which
is "...designed to accommodate various types of
development... which can be made appropriately a part of a
planned development (17.33.020)... In a P -D zone any and all
uses are permitted: provided that such use or uses are
shown in the development plan for the particular P -D zone
as approved by the City Council (17.33.030)".
NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
As part of their application for a use permit, the
proponents are required to file for an Environmental
Assessment. This was done; however, City staff determined
that the project was categorically exempt from a formal
assessment. It is my view that this exemption was granted
erroneously.
The California Environmental Quality Act does provide for
categorical exemptions; however, this project does not meet
the criteria for exemption. When it addresses existing
facilities (article 19, section 15301-e) the allowance for
16
y
Continued May 15, 1991
exemption only applies if the addition to the existing
facility is no more than 50 percent of the floor area of
the structure before the addition, or 2,500 square feet,
whichever is less; or 10,000 square feet or less if the
area in which the project is located is not environmentally
sensitive.
The Use Permit Application which accompanied the request
for environmental assessment is clear in stating that the
plan calls for a continued present use, "...with remodel of
4,500 sf of clubhouse with 10,300 sf of
additional... facilities". These numbers simply do not
allow for an exemption, and one should not have been
declared.
The developers have repeatedly been asked to provide their
assessment as to the impact their club, slated to increase
3 -fold, will have on the neighborhood. They have either
been unwilling or unable to respond to this reasonable
request. Their assertion that an expanded facility would
enhance the values of neighboring properties has
consistently been met with scorn by the neighbors
themselves. Because the City has exempted the developers
from an EIS there is no one who can provide an objective
report as to the project's environmental impact.
HOURS OF OPERATION
The statement of use which the proponents filed with their
application stated that...Hours of operation will be from
5:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. (section entitled "Proposed Land
Use)". A legitimate concern on the part of the developers
for the R-1 zoned area would have revealed that the current
Use Permit was amended in 1979, ..to include the
condition that the club not operate before 7:00 a.m. for
the months of June, July and August and 8:00 a.m. the
remainder of the year...," the result of neighbor concerns.
At the February 21, 1991 meeting between the proponents and
neighbors, Mr. Mattheis clearly stated that "The club hours
will not permit outdoor recreation activity - swimming,
tennis, or basketball - before 8:00 a.m. all year." This
statement was also issued in writing and submitted to the
Planning Commission as such (letter of 3/7/91, addressed to
Jim Schroeder).
The matter of closing hours has also generated much
confusion. Because of neighbor concerns the proponents
stated at the March 11 meeting that the club would close by
10:00 p.m.; however, it is obvious now that this promise
never materialized in written form. In granting the Use
Permit the Planning Commission granted the hours that the
proponents wished: 7:00 a.m. - 11:00 p.m., May through
August; 8:00 a.m. - 11:00 p.m., the remainder of the year.
17
166
Continued May 15, 1991
How could these closing hours possibly fit into an R-1
zoned district? The Noise Regulation Ordinance (No. 1449)
of the City of Lodi, enacted in 1989, states that, "The
standards which shall be considered in determining whether
a violation of this section (public nuisance noise) exists
shall included, ...whether the nature of the noise is usual
or unusual for the area and hour (emphasis added). Also
considered in this section is the ..proximity of the
noise to residential sleeping facilities; the nature and
the zoning of the area within which the noise emanates,
etc. (section 9.20.020).
In a later sectio
establishes 10:00 p.m.
be generated. What i
ordinance calling fo
elimination when the
Permit to a facility,
area, which allows for
TRAFFIC SAFETY
n (9.20.030) the noise ordinance
as the hour when noise can no longer
s the purpose of a city-wide noise
r a 10:00 p.m. standard for noise
Planning Commission grants a Use
located in the heart of a residential
operation until 11:00 p.m.?
Although my residence is not located on one of the streets
which will be adversely affected by this development, I
have a great deal of sympathy for the concerns of those
neighbors.
The Council may, or may not be aware, that the final
proposal by the developers called for a 3 -way stop corner
at Peach and Cochran streets. The Planning Commission
discussed this, however, deferred to the Council for action
sometime this summer, and proceeded to approve the permit
anyway.
HISTORY OF POOR PLANNING
In March of 1981 the Council was confronted with another
situation related to the sister facility of Twin Arbors.
The problem centered around the lack of proper parking
spaces for the Lodi Sports Center, located on South
Hutchins. One man who testified before the Council called
the parking problem the biggest snafu every committed by
the City's Planning Commission.
Mayor Walter Katnich was especially disturbed by the
developments stating that "Word does get around that the
said proprietors of the club are having a good laugh... that
it's the City's problem...I don't really appreciate the
fact that they think they pulled a fast one on us".
The reporter covering the meeting noted that when Mr.
Schroeder was asked to explain the snafu in planning he
said that his department and the Planning Commission had
In
Continued May 15, 1991 f 1
little previous experience on parking requirements of such
clubs when the proposal came before them.
"We had never dealt with a racquetball club
before," he said. "The assumption was that
the people building the racquetball club
know more than we did. Obviously, none of
us knew anything." ("Council stymied by
club parking woes", Lodi News -Sentinel,
March 19, 1981)
There has been a long history of problems with these
clubs. Over the past six years since Spare -Time has owned
the Cochran Road facility, it has steadily deteriorated in
appearance, function and use. They now hope to renovate
the facility and turn it into a profit-making venture.
There is no doubt in my mind that if successful in this
regard, that profit will come at the expense of the
residential neighborhood. We do not want the south
Hutchins Street problems transferred to Cochran Road.
r We have a Zoning Ordinance, designed to establish districts
within the community where appropriate development can
occur. There is simply no way that a permit should be
granted for a facility of this nature to be built in the
middle of an R-1 zoned area. To allow the granting of this
use permit would establish a very troubling precedent.
Bruce Schweigerdt, MA
Speaking on behalf of his appeal was Dr. Ron Hilder, 808
Tilden Way, Lodi.
Addressing the City Council in opposition to the appeal
were the following persons:
a) Carolyn Vocker, 433 Ciowe Court, Lodi;
b) Christy Savage, Attorney -at -Law, Hefner,
Stark, Marios, 2710 Gateway Oaks,
Sacramento, representing Spare Time, Inc.;
c) Tim Mattheis, Wenell, Mattheis, Bowe, Inc.,
222 West Lockeford Street, Lodi;
d) Alan Goldberg, 912 Evert Court, Lodi;
e) Joseph Velasquez, 1519 Amber Leaf Way, Lodi;
f) Greg Hennefer, 500 Evergreen Drive, Lodi;
g) Lou Wallman, 773 Rivera Court, Woodbridge;
h) Robert Riggle, 712 North Cross Street, Lodi;
19
Continued May 15, 1991
1
i) Jan Dobler, 2216 West Cochran Road, Lodi;
j) Barbara Berris, 2138 West Vine Street, Lodi;
Q Cheryl Marini, 840 Tilden Drive, Lodi; and
1) David Holmes, 1080 Port Chelsea Circle, Lodi.
Dr. Ron Hilder again addressed the City Council presenting
rebuttal to arguments given by persons opposing the appeal.
There being no other persons in the audience wishing to
speak on the matter, the public portion of the hearing was
closed.
On motion of Council Member Sieglock, Hinchman second, the
City Council denied the appeals of Dr. Ronald R. Hilder and
Mr. Bruce Schweigerdt of the Lodi City Planning
Commission's conditional approval of the request of Tim
Mattheis, Wenell, Mattheis, Bowe, Inc., on behalf of Twin
Arbors Athletic Club for a Use Permit to expand and remodel
an existing facility (i.e. Sunwest Tennis and Swim Club) at
2040 Cochran Road in an area zoned R-1, Single -Family
Residential and made the following findings relating to the
matter:
1) that the existing facilities at 2040
Cochran Road are a conforming use in an
R-1, Single -Family Residential zone;
and
(2) that the exercise equipment and related
facilities constitute an accessory use.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members - Pennino, Pinkerton, Sieglock,
and Hinchman
Noes: Council Members - None
Abstain: Council Members - Snider
Absent: Council Members - None
Council Member Snider returned to his place at the Council
table.
RECESS Mayor Hinchman declared a five -minutes recess and the City
Council meeting reconvened at approximately 9:55 p.m.
20
Continued May 15, 1991 169
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING
ENGINEERING FEES UPDATE
RESOLUTION NO. 91-91 ADOPTED
CC -56 Notice thereof having been published according to law, an
CC -300 affidavit of which publication is on file in the City
Clerk's office, Mayor Hinchman called for the public
hearing regarding engineering fees update.
The matter was introduced by Assistant City Engineer
Richard Prima who advised the City Council that on July 21,
1976, the City Council passed Resolution No. 4236 which
established an engineering fee on new subdivisions and
developments. That fee amounted to 3% of the off-site
improvement cost estimate used to determine the project's
improvement security. The purpose of this engineering fee
was to cover the City's cost of processing and checking
improvement plans and maps, and construction inspection.
It did not include clerical or management costs such as the
Public Works Director, City Attorney, etc.
Until four years ago, there was a fairly close balance
between revenue collected from the engineering fee and
expenses charged to the subdivision engineering account.
In total, since 1976, expenses have exceeded revenues by
$312,000. However, since 1986/87, the revenue from the
engineering fee only covered one half of the expenses for
subdivision engineering. Annual expenses and revenue were
presented for City Council review. Both have fluctuated
with development activity.
A major reason for the growing difference between revenue
and expenditures is two different types of development in
the City. The first is "in -fill" projects in which most
off-site improvements are already existing. These
typically require minor off-site modifications. The work
involved in field reviewing and designing new work to match
existing improvements is disproportionately higher than
just new work. The fee collected is lower because it is
based solely on a percentage of the cost for installing
publicly -maintained facilities. There should be fewer of
these projects in the future.
The second type of project includes those with private
streets and utilities. These types of projects typically
have a homeowners' association to maintain the streets,
sanitary sewer, and storm drain systems. The on-site water
systems through these developments are publicly owned and
maintained and are reviewed by the Public Works
Department. Again, these projects require nearly as much
effort as a standard subdivision. An engineering fee is
paid for the review of the public water system and for any
other publicly -maintained street improvements. Because the
21
O Continued May 15, 1991
interior streets, storm drain, and sanitary sewer systems
are privately maintained, their improvement costs are not;
included in the calculation of the engineering fee. This
type of project will continue to be developed under the new
General Plan.
There are also some projects which include subdivision or
parcel maps. No map processing or review fee is presently
charged. San Joaquin County provides technical review of
final maps. The City checks parcel maps and does easement
and other checking on all maps.
A new method of collecting the plan check fee would also
alleviate another existing problem. No fees are collected
until the improvement plans and maps have been reviewed and
the developer is ready to start construction. Staff has
spent considerable time reviewing some projects that are
never constructed or are redesigned before construction and
therefore no fees were collected.
Other reasons for increased expenses include the
following. The only administrative time charged to the
Y subdivision engineering account is a portion of the
Assistant City Engineer's time. At the inception of the
fee, this portion was 30%; however, a few years ago it was
increased to 40% based on an updated time analysis. Also,
the Senior Civil Engineer (who charges time by time card)
now supervises the inspectors; thus, some engineering time:
is now charged as part of inspection that was not done
earlier.
Comparison With Other Cities
San Joaquin County and the cities of Stockton, Tracy, Galt,
and Manteca were contacted to see how their engineering
fees were collected. The rates vary, although a sliding
scale is common, as well as separate fees for maps.
Fee Increase
If the City is to attempt to cover most of its costs in
processing new developments, an increase in the fee is
needed. Exhibits presented indicate recent historical data
and estimates of future expenses. Based on estimates of
future expenses, a 41% increase is needed, assuming fees
already cover costs. However, this is not the case. Based
on three recent years, a 117% increase would have been
necessary to break even.
Since much of new development will not have the same
characteristics as recent development and the updated
design standards will place some of the City's past work
onto development, staff has developed the recommended fee
schedule to provide an average increase of 80%. The exact
22
Continued May 15, 1991
revenue increase will depend on the size mix of
developments due to the sliding scale. An analysis based
on three recent years was presented. This recommended fee
represents a 10% reduction from that presented at the
shirtsleeve meeting on April 9. A subsequent public
meeting with local engineers and developers was scheduled
for 2:00 p.m., April 26, at the Carnegie Forum. Notices
were sent to 11 local design professionals and developers.
No one attended the meeting.
Recommendations
Based on the above discussion and that from the shirtsleeve
meeting of April 9, the following revisions are recommended
for collecting a Public Works engineering fee.
1. Charge a sliding scale fee for reviewing and
processing improvement plans. The fee would
be 4.5% of the engineer's estimate for the
first $50,000 worth of off-site
improvements, 2.5% of the engineer's
estimate for the next $200,000 worth of
off-site improvements, and 1.5% of the
engineer's estimate for the cost of all
off-site improvements above $250,000.
2. Collect a "deposit" on the improvement plan
check fee with the first submittal of a set
of improvement plans. This non-refundable,
initial plan check fee would be $750 per
sheet, or the engineer may submit a
preliminary cost estimate with a submittal
fee based on that estimate and the above fee
schedule. The plan check submittal deposit
would be credited toward the engineering fee
collected prior to signing the improvement
plans provided this takes place within one
year. of submittal or there are no
substantial revisions to the plans. Plans
submitted 12 months after the initial plan
submittal would pay another initial plan
check fee.
3. Charge a $200 fee for processing subdivision
final maps. This non-refundable fee would
be due upon map submittal.
4. Charge a fee of $250 plus $10 per lot for
checking and processing parcel maps. This
non-refundable fee would be due upon map
submittal.
23
172
Continued May 15, 1991
5. Collect an inspection fee of 2.5% of the
engineer's estimate for off-site
improvements.
6. Rescind Resolution No. 4236 and adopt a new
fee resolution implementing the above
items. (Reference Lodi Municipal Code
§§12.04.150, 15.44.090 and 16.20.020.)
Addressing the City Council regarding the matter was Steven
Pechin, Baumbach and Piazza, 323 West Elm Street, Lodi who
requested that the fees be reviewed on an annual basis.
There being no other persons in the audience wishing to
speak on the matter, the public portion of the hearing was
closed.
On motion of Council Member Pennino, Snider second, the
City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-91 entitled, "A
Resolution of the Lodi City Council Amending the City's
Engineering Fees and Related Procedures, and Rescinding
Resolution No. 4236 Pertaining Thereto".
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT DESIGN STANDARDS
RESOLUTION NO. 91-92 ADOPTED
CC -6 Notice thereof having been published according to law, an
CC -158 affidavit of which publication is on file in the City
CC -300 Clerk's office, Mayor David Hinchman called for the public
hearing regarding Public Improvement Design Standards.
The matter was introduced by Assistant City Engineer
Richard Prima who advised the City Council that on February
21, 1991, draft design standards for public improvements
were sent out for comment to nearly 50 engineers and
developers plus the City Council and Planning Commission.
This draft is a complete rewrite of the standards adopted
in 1976. The Introduction, Storm Drainage and
Miscellaneous sections were written by City staff. The
Water section was written by City staff based on
information supplied in the Water Master Plan by Psomas &
Associates. TJKM (streets) and Black & Veatch (wastewater)
prepared recommended design standards as part of their work
on the respective Master Plans. Their work was somewhat
revised and edited by City staff to conform to the
organization of the other sections.
Major changes from the 1976 standards were outlined. Some
changes were made in the draft since February 21, partly
based on comments received at a public meeting held March
12 at which one engineer and two developers attended. No
24
Continued May 15, 1991
other comments were received. A few errors have been
corrected.
The standards were reviewed at a Council "shirtsleeve"
meeting on April 9 where an additional change regarding
sight distance and right-of-way fences was described.
The standards do not include the following items which the
Council may wish to direct staff for future action:
Fences and Landscaping - The Standards were silent as to
criteria for landscaping and reverse frontage fences
whether publicly or privately owned and maintained. Staff
feels that this should be specifically addressed in the
project approval stage. If written minimum requirements
are desired, they should be developed with SPARC and/or the
Planning Commission and added to the Standards at a later
date. The fact that these issues are not included was
specifically added to Section 1.301, General Design.
Parkways - A standard street section incorporating trees
and a landscaped parkway between the curb and sidewalk in
new subdivisions has been discussed. Such a standard would
either:
° Require substantially more right-of-way, thereby
increasing the cost of new homes; or
° Require a change in the zoning code to provide for
reduced front yard setbacks (except for garages). Staff
feels this should be addressed by the Planning
Commission.
Addressing the City Council regarding the matter was:
a) Melissa Harmuth Joshi, State of California,
Department of Transportation.
There being no other persons wishing to address the City
Council regarding the matter, the public portion of the
hearing was closed.
On motion of Council Member Sieglock, Pinkerton second, the
City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-92 entitled, "A
Resolution of the Lodi City Council Adopting Design
Standards for Public Improvements".
25
174
E Continued May 15, 1991
APPEAL OF J.J.S. WAREHOUSE TO
THE NOTICE OF FIRE HAZARD AND
ORDER TO ABATE ISSUED BY THE LODI
FIRE DEPARTMENT ON SEPTEMBER 28, 1990
DENIED
CC -24(b) Notice thereof having been published according to law, an
affidavit of which publication is on file in the office of
the City Clerk, Mayor Hinchman called for the continued
public hearing to consider the appeal of J.J.S. Warehouse
to the Notice of Fire Hazard and Order to Abate issued by
the Lodi Fire Department on September 28, 1990.
Fire Chief Larry Hughes advised the City Council that the
subject appeal was to be heard at the regular City Council
meeting of December 19, 1991. It was continued to allow
for the Fire Department and the appellant, Mr. Anton Sitter
to meet and discuss the requirements placed on his
business. It was the intent of both parties to attempt to
reach a solution to the concern about the Fire Department's
interpretation of the Uniform Fire Code. After several
meetings, written correspondence, and an additional delay
in holding the Public Hearing, the Fire Department is
prepared to proceed with the public hearing.
The Fire Department believes that its interpretation of the
Uniform Fire Code is correct. We have conferred with the
Uniform Fire Code Coordinator from the International
Conference of Building Officials for input on our
interpretation. We have met with Mr. Sitter and his
attorney to further clarify the requirements. We have
toured his facility and written several letters in which we
have defined the Code requirements. To date I am unsure of
Mr. Sitter's intent regarding compliance with the
requirements as I have had no written or verbal response to
my final letter. Should I receive a response I will share
it with the Council.
The Fire Department is comfortable with the requirements as
stated in our final letter to Mr. Sitter and we are hopeful
that he will agree to make the needed alterations to his
facility. We are also open to granting him time to
complete the work required.
Included in the Council packets were copies of the most
recent letters which were mailed to Mr. Sitter. These
letters include the Fire Department's requirements which
are issued under the authority of the Uniform Fire Code and
the Lodi Municipal Code. Staff feels that these minimum
nationally recognized standards provide the City with good
fire protection and should be enforced to insure a
reasonable degree of fire and life safety in our
community.
26
Continued May 15, 1991
17,5
Copies of the following documents were included in the
Council packets as background information for the City
Council:
* July 31, 1989 Letter regarding original fire
inspection of facility.
* September 12, 1989 Letter responding to Mr. Sitter's
questions regarding original
inspection.
* January 22, 1990 Letter of response from Western
Fire Chiefs.
* September 28, 1990 Letter responding to questions
raised by Mr. Sitter at meeting of
September 27, 1990 and further
clarification of issues.
* September 28, 1990 Notice of Fire Hazard and Order
to Abate.
* October 24, 1990 Notice of Appeal filed by Mr.
Sitter.
* March 6, 1991 Letter outlining agreements and
addressing questions from March 4,
1991 meeting.
* March 27, 1991 Letter addressing further
questions from Mr. Sitter which
were delivered to Chief Hughes at
a meeting with Attorney H.
Horstmann.
* April 11, 1991 Final letter addressing questions
raised by Mr. Sitter during a tour
of the facility on April 9, 1991.
Mr. Anton Sitter, J.J.S. Warehouse, 23 Maxwell Street, #C,
Lodi addressed the City Council indicating he wished to
withdraw his appeal and asked that he be granted a period
of time to bring his operation into compliance with the
Uniform Fire Code.
There being no other persons wishing to address the City
Council regarding the matter, the public portion of the
hearing was closed.
Following discussion with questions being directed to the
Fire Chief and to Mr. Sitter, the City Council on motion of
Council Member Snider, Pinkerton second, denied the appeal
and allowed the owner Anton Sitter until January 31, 1992
to bring his operation into compliance with the Uniform
27
176
Continued May 15, 1991
F
Fire Code. The motion carried by a unanimous vote of the
City Council.
PLANNING COMMISSION City Manager Peterson advised the City Council that the
Planning Commission had not met since the City Council
received its last report.
COMMUNICATIONS
(CITY CLERK)
CLAIMS CC -4(c)
On recommendation of the City Attorney and Insurance
Consulting Associates, Inc., the City's Contract
Administrator, the City Council on motion of Council Member
Snider, Pennino second, denied the following claims and
referred them back to the City's Contract Administrator:
a) Julie Cofer, Date of loss 2/11/91;
b) C. Nicholas Hansen, Date of loss 11/15/90;
c) Randy S. Kiriu, Date of loss 3/19/91; and
d) Harold G. Moore, Date of loss 9/15/90.
ABC LICENSE
APPLICATIONS
CC -7(f) City Clerk Reimche presented an application for Alcoholic
Beverage Control License which had been received for
Ernestine and Joe Esparza and Gloria Gomez, Espargo, 212
South School Street, Lodi, Small Beer Manufacturers,
Original License.
OVERHEAD DOOR CORPORATION,
1220 VICTOR ROAD, LODI
NOTIFIES CITY OF ITS CLOSING
City Clerk Reimche presented a letter which had been
received from Overhead Door Corporation, 1220 Victor Road,
Lodi, notifying the City of Lodi that pursuant to the
provisions of the Federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act it will be closing permanently.
PETITION REGARDING SAFETY
PROBLEM BEING ENCOUNTERED
ON BOTH SIDES OF LOCKEFORD
STREET BETWEEN CHURCH AND
HUTCHINS STREET
CC -16 City Clerk Reimche presented a petition submitted by Alice
CC -24(b) M. Stover regarding a safety problem being encountered on
both sides of Lockeford Street between Church and Hutchins
NA
Continued May 15, 1991 1 % 7
f
J
Street asking that semi -truck parking be limited to
two-hour parking, including evenings and weekends.
Addressing the City Council regarding the matter were:
a) Ray Schatz, 412 Gerard, Lodi;
b) Carol Willmett, 709 Olive Court, Lodi; and
c) Richard Ebstine, 709 Olive Court, Lodi.
On motion of Council Member Snider, Pinkerton second, the
City Council referred the matter to staff for review and
recommendation.
REGULAR CALENDAR
TURNER ROAD - LODI LAKE PARK
TRAFFIC STUDY
RESOLUTION NO. 91-94
CC -48(a) The City Council was advised that as requested by City
CC -300 Council at the March 6 meeting, Public Works staff has
performed a speed zone survey on Turner Road at Lodi Lake
Park and prepared a plan and cost estimate for an overhead
flashing beacon at the crosswalk in front of Lodi Lake
Park. The March 6 Council Communication text is attached
as additional information.
The 145' "No Parking" zone west of the park exit (for added
visibility) was installed as requested by Council at the
March 6 meeting.
Presented for City Council review was a speed zone survey
for Turner Road from the west City limits to Ham Lane.
Staff's recommendation is to reduce the existing speed
limit between Mills Avenue and Ham Lane from 40 mph to 35
mph. The reason for this speed limit reduction is because
the accident rate in this segment has nearly doubled from
2.30 to 4.10 ACC/MVM since the 1989 speed survey. This
rise in accident rate is not apparent to drivers and is
therefore a valid reason to reduce the speed limit. The
narrative attached to the speed zone survey provides
additional information regarding this survey.
The plan for the overhead flashing beacon was presented for
Council review. The flashing beacons would be mounted on a
mast arm extending over Turner Road. Mounted on this
overhead mast arm will be one pedestrian crossing sign and
one flashing beacon for each direction of traffic. The
easterly crosswalk will also be removed to channelize
pedestrians to the crosswalk with the flashing beacon.
This is the crosswalk that met flashing beacon warrants.
29
178 Continued May 15, 1991
C
The visibility of this crosswalk will be improved by adding
diagonal striping through the crosswalk. The westbound
post -mounted pedestrian sign and pavement legend will be
relocated to the remaining crosswalk. Visibility of the
overhead flashing beacon at the proposed location appears
to be adequate; however, upon installation staff will
determine if some tree trimming will be necessary. The
cost estimate for this installation is approximately $5,000.
The future traffic signal at Turner Road and Mills Avenue,
is planned for installation under the railroad crossing
improvement program. While funding is available, the
schedule will depend on the Southern Pacific railroad doing
their portion of the work. This signal will assist in
providing gaps in traffic for pedestrian activity across
Turner Road at Lodi Lake.
In addition to the information requested by Council, staff
has contacted the Parks and Recreation Department to
determine if a visibility screen can be added to the 500'
of chain link fence along the beach area. The visibility
of sun bathers in the upper beach area is a distraction and
could be related to accidents in the area, especially
rear -end accidents. The Parks Department has reviewed this
suggestion and agrees that a visibility screen is
reasonable. However, the shallow footing of the fence
posts and the post thickness is not adequate to handle the
additional wind load created by full screening. The Parks
Department will install some test sections of alternating
slats to see if something short of full screening will be
adequate in the hopes of avoiding replacing the entire
fence. Council will be kept abreast of this situation.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the approval of the
Turner Road speed survey and the flashing beacon
installation. Upon approval, staff will expedite the speed
limit signing and flashing beacon installation as the beach
area is scheduled to open on Memorial Day weekend (May 25).
Addressing the City Council regarding the matter was Ms.
Michelle Lowery, 1210 West Turner Road, Lodi.
Following discussion, on motion of Council Member Hinchman,
Snider second, the City Council adopted Resolution No.
91-94 amending the Traffic Resolution No. 87-163 to approve
the Turner Road speed zone survey from the west City limits
to Ham Lane and approved the installation of a flashing
beacon at a cost of $5,000 which funds are to be allocated
from Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds. The Parks
and Recreation Department was directed to look at possible
ways to screen the "rise" area south of the beach area
adjacent to Turner Road.
30
Continued May 15, 1991 1 9
_ GRANT APPLICATION FOR LODI
LAKE PARK IMPROVEMENTS APPROVED
CC -175 The City Council was advised that Staff has been in
_contact with the National Grant Services, a small
California firm in the business of obtaining State grant
funding for local public agencies for parks and recreation
facilities construction and improvements. The two
principals in the firm have had considerable experience in
developing public sector park and recreation facilities and
in so doing have developed key contacts with various State
offices in Sacramento. Parks and Recreation Director Ron
Williamson, Parks Superintendent Scott Essin and the City
Manager have met with the principals and now feel confident
of the firm's ability to deliver some grant funding.
Specifically, the discussions have centered on the
availability of a grant in the amount of $300,000 from the
State's Department of Boating and Waterways (Boating
Facilities) for the construction on the west side of Lodi
Lake of a boat launching ramp, restrooms and parking
facilities. The City's only commitment at this time is a
retainer of $3,000. If the firm is successful in obtaining
this grant for the City, the fee would be 10% of the first
$100,000, and 8% of the next $200,000. This is a total of
$26,000, a substantial portion of which could be financed
with grant fund proceeds. The retainer of $3,000 would
apply to the total fee charged. The risk is minimal; the
potential benefits are substantial. The proposed
improvements are substantially in conformance with the Lodi
Lake Park Master Plan.
Addressing the City Council regarding the matter and
responding to questions was Parks and Recreation Director
Ron Williamson.
On motion of Council Member Snider, Pinkerton second, the
City Council approved retaining the firm National Grant
Services to pursue the filing of a grant application with
the State of California for certain improvements at Lodi
Lake Park and authorized the allocation of $3,000 from the
Contingent Fund.
CITY SPONSORSHIP OF COUNTY
CONSERVATION FAIR APPROVED
CC -6 The City Council was advised that the annual County
Conservation Fair at Micke Grove has grown to a significant
community event. The City of Lodi has been a participant
in the past, but to date has not been a sponsor. This year
the City is being asked not only to take part as an
exhibitor, but as a sponsor as well. The Conservation Fair
focuses on the conservation of natural resources. The City
Council received a copy of a letter received from Mr.
31
180
f Continued May 15, 1991
f
Kenneth Nieland, Micke Grove Zoo Director, who is
coordinating this year's event.
The Conservation Fair is seeking to develop a budget of
$10,000. Commitments have already been received from
California Waste Removal Systems, McDonald's, Pacific Gas &
Electric Co., and Sunrise Sanitation Service, Inc., of
Stockton.
On motion of Council Member Hinchman, Snider second, the
City Council approved the participation of the City of
Lodi as a sponsor of the annual County Conservation Fair at
a cost of $1,000 which funds are to be allocated from the
Water Fund Operating Reserve.
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the
City Council, Mayor Hinchman adjourned the meeting at
approximately 11:20 p.m. to Tuesday, May 28, 1991 at 7:00
a.m.
ATTEST:
a&e& A
Alice M. Reimche
City Clerk
32