HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - September 20, 1989CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF LODI
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1989
7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL Present: Council Members - Hinchman, Olson, Reid,
Pinkerton and Snider (Mayor)
Absent: Council Members - None
Also Present: City Manager Peterson, Assistant City
Manager Glenn, Public Works Director Ronsko,
City Attorney McNatt, and City Clerk Reimche
INVOCATION The invocation was given by Pastor John Cockram, St.
Paul's American Lutheran Church.
PLEDGE OF The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Snider.
ALLEGIANCE
PRESENTATIONS
FIELD AND FAIR DAY,
1989 UPDATE
CC -27(e) Community Center Director Charlene Lange gave an update
regarding Field and Fair Day, 1989.
PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Snider presented the following proclamations:
CC -37 a) "Conservation Day"
b) "National Emblem Club Week"
c) "Rideshare Week"
CONSENT CALENDAR In accordance with report and recommendation of the City
Manager, Council, on motion of Council Member Reid,
Pinkerton second, approved the following items hereinafter
set forth.
Mayor Snider abstained from voting because of a possible
conflict of interest on Agenda item No. E-12 - "Final Map
and Subdivision Agreement for Sunwest Unit No. 10, bounded
by Lower Sacramento Road on the west, St. Moritz Drive on
the south, Interlaken Drive on the east, and undeveloped
land on the north".
CLAIMS CC -21 (a) Claims were approved in the amount of $851,181.63.
MINUTES The minutes of August 16, 1989 and August 30, 1989 were
approved as written.
1
Continued September 20, 1989
DESTRUCTION OF
RECORDS APPROVED
RES. NO. 89-122 The City Council adopted Resolution No. 89-122 approving
the destruction of budget records retained by the City
CC -6 Manager's Office in accordance with State of California
CC -300 Government Code No. 34090.
SPECIFICATIONS AND
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
TO PURCHASE VACUUM
CIRCUIT BREAKERS,
INSTRUMENT VOLTAGE
TRANSFORMERS, DISCONNECT
SWITCHES, STATION BATTERIES
AND BATTERY CHARGERS,
AND 60 -KV INSTRUMENT
SWITCHBOARDS
CC -12.1(b) The City Council approved the specifications- for the
purchase of 8 - 15-kv Vacuum Circuit Breakers, 2 -
12-kv Instrument Voltage Transformers, 155 - 15-kv
Disconnect Switches, Batteries and 2 Battery Chargers,
60-kv Instrument Switchboards and authorized
advertisement for bids thereon. The bid opening date has
been set for Tuesday, October 17, 1989.
The City Council was advised that the above equipment will
be installed at the new Industrial Substation. This group
of materials is being bid at this time based on anticipated
delivery time in order to be available for the scheduled
construction of the station in early 1990. The estimated
cost of this purchase is $140,000, $2,500, $95,000, $23,000
and $260,000 respectively, for a total of $520,500.
Funding for this purchase is available within the overall
funding for the Industrial Substation project.
PURCHASE OF STATION
AND LINE INSULATORS
RES. NO. 89-123
CC -20 The City Council adopted Resolution No. 89-123 awarding the
CC -47 bid for the purchase of 477 station and line insulators to
CC -300 Western States Electric, Inc. of Portland, Oregon in the
amount of $46,207.52.
The City Council was advised that the insulators will be
installed at the new Industrial Substation 12-kv and
69-kv bus structures and on three new 69-kv overhead �-
lines connecting the new substation to the existing system.
2
3
Continued September 20, 1989
Due to the fact that the Industrial Substation is needed
for service by June 1, 1990, and indications at time of bid
preparation that porcelain insulators would not be
available in time for construction to meet this date, bids
were requested for both porcelain and polymer -type
insulators. The polymer insulator would be considered as
an acceptable alternate to porcelain in the event porcelain
could not be obtained within the time constraint.
Porcelain is the preferred insulator; it is a time -proven
insulating material and is highly recommended by the City's
consultant (Power Engineers, Inc.), as well as the
Department's engineering staff, for this location and
application. Porcelain insulators were utilized by PG&E
in the recent construction of transmission lines leading to
this substation.
Evaluating the received bids, including the quoted lead
times, and based on the above endorsement of porcelain
insulators, it was recommended that this bid be awarded
utilizing porcelain as the insulating media. It was
further recommended that Item 1 (69-kv station post) and
Item 3 (69-kv vertical post) be awarded to the next
lowest bidder based on the 6 and 14 weeks, respectively,
improvement in lead time with this bidder. The additional
31r cost to the City is $570.66 or 2.4%. The construction
schedules for the substation and the transmission lines
require that insulators be available by March 1, 1990, a
date not achievable with the lead time of the low bidder on
these two items.
Listed below are the subject bid evaluators:
Bidders Location Item No. Amount
Western States Electric Portland 1 $22,323.60
2 $ 5,694.85
3 $ 1,856.27
Maydwell & Hartzell, Inc. Brisbane 1 $21,779.29
2 $ 6,223.90
3 $ 1,829.92
General Electric Emeryville 1 $24,115.00
2 $ 8,087.80
3 $ 2,425.28
El
Continued September 20, 1989
PURCHASE OF INSTRUMENT
VOLTAGE TRANSFORMERS
RES. NO. 89-124
CC -20 The City Council adopted Resolution No. 89-124 awarding the
CC -47 bid for 15 - 60-kv instrument voltage transformers to the
CC -300 low bidder Sierra Sales Engineering of Pleasanton,
California in the amount of $66,423.84.
Listed below is the subject bid evaluation. This equipment
will be installed on the 60-kv bus at the new Industrial
Substation.
BID EVALUATION - EUD-89-6
60 -KV INSTRUMENT VOLTAGE TRANSFORMERS
Price Delivery
Supplier w/tax (weeks) Manufacturer
Sierra Sales Engineering Associated Engineering
Pleasanton, CA $66,423.84 12-16 Co., Matthews, NC
Westinghouse Elec. Supply Co. Westinghouse ABB
Concord, CA 71,922.06 12-18 Pittsburg, PA
Square D Company Square D Company
Clearwater, FL 74,571.00 18-22 Clearwater, FL
General Electric Supply Co. General Electric Co.
Emeryville, CA 124,656.00 7-12 Schenectady, NY
PURCHASE OF 69 -KV
DISCONNECT SWITCHES
RES. NO. 89-125
CC -20 The City Council adopted Resolution No. 89-125 awarding the
CC -47 bid for the purchase of 31 (total) 69-kv Disconnect
CC -300 Switches, arranged in three groups, to the low bidder in
each group as follows:
Group 1 and 2:
Maydwell & Hartzell, Inc.
Brisbane, CA $102,797.74
4
Continued September 20, 1989
Group 3:
Sierra Sales Engineering
Pleasanton, CA
17,335.24
5
This equipment will be installed on the 60-kv bus at the
new Industrial Substation.
PURCHASE OF 54 -KV
SURGE ARRESTERS
RES. NO. 89-126
CC -20 The City Council adopted Resolution No. 89-126 awarding the
CC -47 bid for the purchase of 15 - 54-kv Station Class Surge
CC -300 Arresters to the second low bidder, General Electric Supply
Company, in the amount of $16,854.
This equipment will be installed on the high voltage bus at
Industrial Substation. The apparent low bidder
(Bowthorpe EMP, Ltd., England) submitted a very vague
proposal without any specific electrical characteristics
for evaluation purposes. This bidder, upon request of a
users list, was not able to demonstrate performance with
this equipment on any United States electric utility
system, nor does any support (service) facility exist, at
present, in the U.S. In addition, the equipment does not
have the standard U.S. mounting configuration and would
require modification to the support structures in the event
a replacement from another source would be necessary.
Therefore, based on the above, it was recommended by the
City's consultant as well as City staff that the City does
not take the risk associated with this bidder's equipment
in a substation installation of this importance to the
City's system, but award the bid to the next lowest bidder,
a proven U.S. manufacturer.
67
Delivery
Bidder Group
No. Amount
(Weeks)
Manufacturer
Maydwell & Hartzell
1
$ 95,733.90
20-26
Kearney
Brisbane, CA
2
$ 7,063.84
Atlanta, GA
3
NO BID
Howard A. Dunn Co.
1
$104,463.00
22-30
Siemens Energy &
San Mateo, CA
2
$ 8,162.00
Automation, Inc.
3
$ 17,596.00
Richland, MS
Sierra Sales Engineering
1
$156,408.30
22-24
USCO Power Equip.
Pleasanton, CA
2
$ 12,115.80
Birmingham, AL
3
$ 17,335.24
PURCHASE OF 54 -KV
SURGE ARRESTERS
RES. NO. 89-126
CC -20 The City Council adopted Resolution No. 89-126 awarding the
CC -47 bid for the purchase of 15 - 54-kv Station Class Surge
CC -300 Arresters to the second low bidder, General Electric Supply
Company, in the amount of $16,854.
This equipment will be installed on the high voltage bus at
Industrial Substation. The apparent low bidder
(Bowthorpe EMP, Ltd., England) submitted a very vague
proposal without any specific electrical characteristics
for evaluation purposes. This bidder, upon request of a
users list, was not able to demonstrate performance with
this equipment on any United States electric utility
system, nor does any support (service) facility exist, at
present, in the U.S. In addition, the equipment does not
have the standard U.S. mounting configuration and would
require modification to the support structures in the event
a replacement from another source would be necessary.
Therefore, based on the above, it was recommended by the
City's consultant as well as City staff that the City does
not take the risk associated with this bidder's equipment
in a substation installation of this importance to the
City's system, but award the bid to the next lowest bidder,
a proven U.S. manufacturer.
67
'•i
Continued September 20, 1989
The subject bid evaluation is listed below:
BID EVALUATION - EUD-89-8
STATIN—CLASS SURGE ARRESTERS
RES. NO. 89-127
CC -20
CC -47
CC -300
The City Council adopted Resolution No. 89-127 awarding the
bid for the purchase of various substation steel structures
and a tubular steel transmission pole to the low bidder in
each category as follows:
Substation Steel Structures:
Dis-Tran Products, Inc.
Alexandria, LA $167,519.22
Tubular Steel Transmission Pole:
Power Structures, Inc.
Belle Chasse, LA $ 6,938.76
This equipment will be installed to support the Industrial
Substation 60-kv bus structure and a transmission line
entering the station.
D
Price
Delivery
Supplier
w/tax
(weeks)
Manufacturer
General Electric Supply Co.
General Electric Co.
Emeryville, CA
$16,854.00
10-12
Westinghouse Elec. Supply Co.
Concord, CA
18,762.00
10
Westinghouse
Western States Electric
McGraw Edison
Portland, OR
19,906.80
--
Cooper Power Systems
McGraw Edison
Burlingame, CA
22,371.30
--
Geo. E. Honn Co.
Bowthorpe EMP, Ltd.
Emeryville, CA
10,473.60
8
England
Power Com
Orinda, CA
No Bid
PURCHASE OF SUBSTATION
60 -KV STEEL STRUCTURES
RES. NO. 89-127
CC -20
CC -47
CC -300
The City Council adopted Resolution No. 89-127 awarding the
bid for the purchase of various substation steel structures
and a tubular steel transmission pole to the low bidder in
each category as follows:
Substation Steel Structures:
Dis-Tran Products, Inc.
Alexandria, LA $167,519.22
Tubular Steel Transmission Pole:
Power Structures, Inc.
Belle Chasse, LA $ 6,938.76
This equipment will be installed to support the Industrial
Substation 60-kv bus structure and a transmission line
entering the station.
D
Continued September 20, 1989 7
The subject bid evaluation is listed below:
BID EVALUATION EUD-89-9
SUBSTATION 60 -KV STEEL STRUCTURES
Price Including Tax
Tubular Steel
Supplier
Substation Transmission Delivery
Structures Pole (Weeks) Manufacturer
Dis-Tran
Products, Inc.
Dis-Tran Products
Alexandria, LA $167,519.22 No Bid 20-26
Alexandria, LA
Power Structures, Inc.
Power Structures
Belle Chasse, LA 220,840.40 $6,938.76 18-26
Belle Chasse, LA
PURCHASE
OF
ELECTRICAL LINE HARDWARE
RES. NO.
89-128
CC -20
The City Council adopted Resolution
No. 89-128 awarding
CC -47
the bids for the purchase of Items 1,
3, and 4 of electrical
CC -300
line hardware to the low bidders
in each category, as
listed below. The low bidder for
Item 2, G.E. Supply,
qualified their bid with an "award
all or none"
stipulation; therefore it was recommended that Item 2 be
awarded to the second -lowest bidder,
General Pacific. Item
5 was not awarded at this time, pending Engineering review,
as recommended by staff.
Item No.
Bidder Amount
Manufacturer
1
General Pacific, Inc. $1,667.59
Joslyn Corporation
Portland, OR
Chicago, IL
2
General Pacific, Inc. $2,425.55
Joslyn Corporation
3
Wesco Utilities $1,553.11
Florida Wire & Cable
Concord, CA
Jacksonville, FL
4
General Pacific, Inc. $ 699.90
Preformed Line Prod.
Cleveland, OH
The City Council was apprised that
the Electric Utility
Department has requested that line
materials be purchased
for use in construction of three
69-kv overhead lines
connecting the new Industrial Substation to the City's
existing system.
7
tj
Continued September 20, 1989
The City Council approved" specifications on August 16,
1989, and bids were opened on September 6. Bid results are
shown on Attachment 1.
Total cost of Items 1-4 is $6,346.15, funding `+?r which is
available in the Industrial Substation budget. Upon
completion of Engineering review of Item 5, requests for
quotation will be issued and materials will be purchased
from the lowest responsible bidder, using the informal bid
procedure. Total cost for Item 5 is not expected to exceed
$2,500.
FINAL MAP AND SUBDIVISION
AGREEMENT FOR SUNWEST
UNIT NO. 9 APPROVED
CC -46 The City.Council approved the final map for Tract No. 2112,
Sunwest Unit No. 9, and directed the City Manager and City
Clerk to execute the subdivision agreement and map on
behalf of the City.
The City Council was apprised that Chris R. Keszler, et
al., the developers of this subdivision, have furnished
the City with the improvement plans, the necessary
agreements, guarantees, insurance certificates, and fees
for the proposed subdivision.
The subdivision is located at the southeast corner of Lower
Sacramento Road and St. Moritz Drive and contains a total
of 12 single-family lots.
FINAL MAP AND
SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
FOR SUNWEST UNIT
NO. 10 APPROVED
CC -46 Because of a possible conflict of interest, Mayor Snider
abstained from discussion and voting on this matter.
The City Council approved the final map for Tract No. 2274,
Sunwest Unit No. 10, and directed the City Manager and City
Clerk to execute the subdivision agreement and map on
behalf of the City.
The City Council was advised that Chris R. Keszler, et
al., the developers of this subdivision, have furnished
the City with the improvement plans, the necessary
agreements, guarantees, insurance certificates, and fees
for the proposed subdivision.
The subdivision is located at the northeast corner of Lower
Sacramento Road and St. Moritz Drive and contains a total
of 24 sincle-family lots.
p
y
Continued September 20, 1989
ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS
IN MOKELUMNE VILLAGE
EAST LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF
TURNER ROAD AND HIGHWAY 99
RESOLUTION NO. 89-129
CC -46 The City Council adopted Resolution No. 89-129 accepting
CC -300 the development improvements for Mokelumne Village East,
Tract No. 2182.
Improvements at Mokelumne Village East have been completed
in substantial conformance with the requirements of the
Development Agreement between the City of Lodi and FHA
Properties dated August 12, 1988, and as specifically set
forth in the plans and specifications approved by the City
Council.
The streets to be accepted are as follows:
Streets Length in Miles
Yokuts Drive 0.19
Yokuts Court 0.04
TOTAL NEW MILES OF CITY STREETS 0.23
"NO PARKING ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF OAK
STREET, WEST OF
CHEROKEE LANE
RES. NO. 89-130
CC -45(i) The City Council adopted Resolution No. 89-130 approving
CC -48(e) the installation of 40 feet of "no parking" on the north
CC -300 side of Oak Street, west of Cherokee Lane.
The City Council was advised that at the August 2, 1989
City Council meeting, Mr. Bullard, a resident on Oak
Street, stated that it is difficult to enter westbound Oak
Street from Cherokee Lane when vehicles are parked on both
sides of Oak Street.
Oak Street is only a 30 -foot roadway. Due to narrow street
width, there is a problem created at the intersection when
parking exists on both sides of Oak. There have been no
accidents due to parked vehicles in the past 3-1/2 years.
Staff feels that 40 feet of "no parking" on the north side
would eliminate this problem without creating a hardship
for vehicles parking in the area.
V
10
Continued September 20, 1989
"NO PARKING" ON
CHEROKEE LANE AT
VICTOR ROAD
RES. NO. 89-131
CC -45(i) The City Council adopted Resolution No. 89-131 approving
CC -48(e) the installation of 78 feet of "no parking" between the
CC -300 crosswalks on the west side of Cherokee Lane at Victor Road.
The City Council was advised that the Public Works
Department staff had received a complaint that trucks
parking between the crosswalks on the west side of Cherokee
Lane at Victor Road are blocking the view of two traffic
signals and two warning signs. These traffic control
devices regulate the movement of westbound traffic. We
have verified the problem; a parked truck completely blocks
the view of the signals.
Parking is currently allo+-.ed at this location and the truck
drivers may not be aware that they are creating a problem.
Staff felt that "no parking" should be installed in this
area.
INTENTION TO VACATE
A PORTION OF THE
PUBLIC UTILITY
EASEMENT AT 210 SOUTH
SCHOOL STREET
RES. NO. 89-132
CC -52(b) The City Council adopted Resolution No. 89-132 a Resolution
CC -300 of Intention to abandon a portion of the public utility
easement at 210 South School Street, referred the matter to
the Planning Commission; and set it for public hearing at
the regular Council meeting of November 1, 1989.
This public utility easement abandonment has been requested
by the owner of 210 South School Street so that an addition
can be made on his retail building.
The oviner is aware that the relocation of all utilities in
this public utility easement will be done at his expense.
He has also agreed to dedicate any new public utility
easements needed for the relocation of these utilities.
The owners have paid the required fees to process this
abandonment. Pacific Bell, PG&E, King Videocable
Company, and City utilities have been notified of this
proposed abandonment and their approval will be secured
prior to the final action.
10
11
Continued September 20, 1989
CLASS SPECIFICATIONS
FOR PARKING ENFORCEMENT
ASSISTANT AND POLICE
SERGEANT AMENDED
RES. NO. 89-133
CC -34 The City Council adopted Resolution No. 89-133 amending the
CC -300 Class Specifications for Parking Enforcement Assistant and
Police Sergeant. The City Council was advised that these
amendments were proposed in order to accurately maintain
the City of Lodi's current classification plan.
These are routine updates of existing classifications.
The Finance and the Police Department have worked with the
Personnel Department and concur with these changes.
PUBLIC HEARING SET
TO CONSIDER THE
INTRODUCTION OF AN
ORDINANCE SETTING AND
ESTABLISHING INCREASED
PATES FOR SEWER
SERVICE AND CONNECTION
FEES
CC -56 The City Council set a public hearing for Wednesday,
October 4, 1989 at the hour of 7:30 p.m. to receive public
input regarding consideration of the introduction of an
ordinance setting and establishing increased rates for
sewer service and connection fees.
This action sets the matter for public hearing as required
by law. The proposed ordinance is for the usual and
current expenses of the City and if approved, would be
adopted pursuant to Government Code § 36937(d). This would
require a second reading at the regular Council meeting of
October 4, 1989. If approved, the new fee schedule for
sewer service and connection fees would become effective
immediately, and would be shown on sewer service .bills
prepared on or after November 1, 1989.
SET PUBLIC HEAPING
TO CONSIDER ELECTRIC
RATE INCREASED
CC -6 The City Council set a public hearing for Wednesday, CC -56
October 4, 1989 at the hour of 7:30 p.m. to receive public
input regarding consideration of the introduction of an
ordinance setting and establishing increased rates for
electric utility service.
11
12
Continued September 20, 1989
This action sets the matter for public hearing as required
by law. The proposed ordinance is for the usual and
current expenses of the City and if approved, would be
adopted pursuant to Government Code § 36937(d). This would
require a second reading at the regular Council meeting of
October 4, 1989. If approved, the new rate structure would
be effective immediately, and the increase would appear on
utility bills prepared on or after November 1, 1989.
COMMENTS BY CITY
COUNCIL MEMBERS The following comments were received under the "Comments by
City Council Members" segment of the agenda:
REPORT ON RECENT
CONFERENCE OF MAYORS
NATIONAL MEETING ON
CRIME AND DRUGS
ATTENDED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER PINKERTON
CC -7(r) Council Member Pinkerton gave a report on the United States
CC -24(b) Conference of Mayors National Meeting on Crime and Drugs he
recently attended in Washington D. C.
LODI GRAPE AND
WINE FESTIVAL
Council Member Olson thanked the community for its support
of this years Lodi Grape and Wine Festival.
COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC
ON NON AGENDA ITEMS
UNITED WAY LODI
CAMPAIGN
The following comments were received under the "Comments by
the public on non -agenda items" segment of the agenda:
Mr. Phil Pennino, United Way Lodi Campaign Chairman,
addressed the City Council regarding this year's United Way
Campaign.
FUNDING FOR LODI
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
CC -7(e) Mr. David Worfolk, 430 Eureka Street, Lodi addressed the
CC -43 City Council asking that in view of the defeat of Measure
F, what can the City Council do to assist the school
district in acquiring the needed funding for schools.
12
r
13
Continued September 20, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no public hearings scheduled for this meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION City Manager Peterson presented the following Planning
REPORT Commission Report of the Planning Commission Meeting of
September 11, 1989:
CC -35 The Planning Commission -
FOR ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
1. Recommended the approval of the request of
Dillon Engineering on behalf of Dave
Vaccarezza to rezone a portion of the parcel
at 1333 East Turner Road (APN's 049-020-17
and 20) from F -P, Flood Plain to M-2, Heavy
Industrial to allow construction of a
caretaker's/owner's residence on a lot which
will be raised above the 100 year flood
plain elevation.
2. Recommended certification of a Negative
Declaration as filed by the Community
Development Director as adequate
environmental documentation on the above
project.
On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Hinchman, Reid second, the
City Council set the heretofore listed matters for public
hearing on October 18, 1989.
Further, the Planning Commission
OF INTEREST TO THE CITY COUNCIL
1. Conditionally approved the request of
Dillon Engineering on behalf of Dave
Vaccarezza for a Tentative Parcel Map to (1)
divide APN 049-020-19 into two parts; (2)
join portions of APN 049-020-17 and 20; and
(3) create a parcel which will be the site
for a single-family residence.
2. Continued consideration of the following
items until 7:30 p.m., Monday, September 25,
1989:
a. Request of Roxanne Marie Hess for a
Use Permit to conduct a licensed day
care center for 12 children at 1127
Dover Drive in an area zoned R-2,
Single -Family Residential;
13
14
Continued September 20, 1989
b. Request, of Mr. Trucker Inc. for a Use
Permit to install a temporary office
trailer at 1533 South Stockton Street
in an area zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial.
C. Consider recommending to the City
Council the certification of the Final
Environmental Impact Report for Sunwest
Plaza Shopping Center, a 23.68 acre
commercial project proposed for the
southeast corner of West Kettleman Lane
and Lower Sacramento Road.
d. Consider recommending to the City
Council that Sunwest Plaza Shopping
Center, a 23.68 acre project proposed
for the southeast corner of West
Kettleman Lane and Lower Sacramento
Road be prezoned C -S, Commercial
Shopping Center.
e. Consider recommending to the City
Council the certification of the Final
Environmental Impact Report for
Kettleman Properties, a 51 acre
commercial/industrial project located
at the northeast corner of East
Kettleman Lane and Beckman Road.
f. Consider recommending to the City
Council that Kettleman Properties, a 51
acre project located at the northeast
corner of East Kettleman Lane and
Beckman Road be prezoned M-1, Light
Industrial.
COMMUNICATIONS
(CITY CLERK)
CLAIMS CC -4(c)
On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Hinchman, Olson second, the
City Council denied the following claim and referred it
back to ADJUSTCO, the City's Contract Administrator.
a) Grace S. Alcorn, Date of loss, 3/22/89
ABC LICENSE
APPLICATION
CC -7(f) City Clerk P,eimche presented the following application for
Alcoholic Beverage License which had been received:
14
Continued September 20, 1989
15
Roger S. and Tamara E. Patching, Video Fun, 2525 S.
Hutchins Street, #9, Lodi, On Sale Beer and Wine Eating
Place, new license.
KING VIDEOCABLE COMPANY
RATE ADJUSTMENT
CC -22(c) City Clerk Reimche presented a letter from Deanna Enright,
General Manager, King Videocable Company, advising of a
rate adjustment effective October 1, 1989.
REQUEST FOR FUNDS
RECEIVED FROM
STOCKTON EAST WATER
DISTRICT
CC -6 Following receipt of a letter from Edward M. Steffani,
General Manager of Stockton East Water District requesting
that the City of Lodi, along with other entities, share the
costs of Phase 2 of the Stockton East Water District Ground
Water Quality Study, the Mayor referred the matter to staff.
LETTER OF APPRECIATION
RECEIVED FOR SANITARY
CITY DISPOSAL COMPANY
CC -9 The City Council received a letter from John Kindseth
CC -22(b) thanking Sanitary City Disposal Company for their recent
assistance and complimenting their operation.
RECESS
Mayor Snider declared a five-minute recess, and the City
Council reconvened at 8:30 p.m.
REGULAR CALENDAR
REPORT CONCERNI14G
RECENT STATE OF
CALIFORNIA THIRD
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
DECISION REGARDING MEASURE A
CC -4(a) The following report regarding the recent State of
CC -6 California Third District Court of Appeal Decision
CC -30 regarding Measure A was given by City Attorney McNatt:
BACKGROUND
Measure A, the City's growth control measure, was adopted
by voters as an initiative ordinance on August 25, 1981.
In August 1984, the ordinance was challenged by Lodians
In Favor Of Free Enterprise (L.I.F.E.) which sought to have
Measure A declared invalid upon several grounds. In
15
16
Continued September 20, 1989
November 1985, the San Joaquin County Superior Court -
granted Summary Judgment in L.I.F.E.'s favor, and on
February 20, 1986, a Peremptory Writ of Mandate was issued,
prohibiting enforcement of Measure A. An appeal by the
City followed, and after extensive briefing, the matter was
submitted to the Third District Court of Appeal in April
1988. The Court's decision, affirming the trial court, was
handed down September 6, 1989.
TRIAL COURT DECISION
In November 1985, Summary Judgment by the Court found (as
to Count I of the Petition) that Measure A impermissibly
interfered with the State provisions for annexation by
adding a separate requirement of voter approval before
annexation could occur. The Court relied on a case
entitled Ferrini v. City of San Luis Obispo (1983)
150 C.A.3d 238, choosing to view the Measure as something
other than just a zoning ordinance, as the City had
argued. Since the Measure was invalidated on that ground
alone, other issues raised were not addressed by the Court.
Although the Court acknowledged the broad power of the
City's voters to pass or repeal ordinances affecting the
City itself, it also pointed out that where the Legislature
has adopted comprehensive legislation on a certain topic of
statewide concern, local government cannot adopt
inconsistent or additional requirements. Annexation,
according to the Court, is a matter of statewide concern,
and thus local regulation is preempted.
THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OPINION
The District Court of Appeal (DCA), in a 16 -page opinion,
upheld the trial court's action, also relying on the
Ferrini case, above. Specifically, Paragraph 5 of
Measure A was singled out as being inconsistent with
State law because it said "Before land in the Green Belt
area can be annexed by the City if (sic) Lodi, an
amendment to the City's Land Use Element of the General
Plan must be made and approved by a majority of the people
voting in a city-wide election."
Paragraph 5 is the only part of Measure A specifically
ruled invalid by the DCA (Decision, Footnote 2). The
Court made no findings on the balance of the ordinance, but
acknowledged Paragraph 9, a severability clause which says
if any part of the Measure is found invalid, the balance
shall remain in effect. However, the remainder of Measure
A appears moot without Paragraph 5. This was apparently
why the City took an "all or nothing" position early in the
litigation (Decision, Footnote 2).
16
Continued September 20, 1989 17
ANALYSIS
As noted, only Paragraph 5 was overturned. An examination
of the rest of Measure A is necessary. The other
provisions of Measure A do the following:
Paragraphs 1 and 2:
These established the policy of a "green belt" around Lodi.
Paragraph 3:
Requires a City Council finding that development in the
"green belt" will not interfere with productive use of
agricultural land, or that a buffer exists for the
agricultural land.
Paragraph 4:
Removes the "green belt" area from the General Plan.
Paragraph 6:
Requires City Council findings before annexation that the
area to be annexed is contiguous, and that the City
services are available. (Similar language exists in State
law; see e.g., Government Code §56841, 56031.)
Paragraph 7:
Allows no expansion or extension of facilities without City
Council findings of consistency with policy.
Paragraph 8:
Allows consolidation of Measure A elections with other
elections.
Paragraph 9:
The severability clause.
The first critical question is, what, if anything, is left
of Measure A which might be enforceable? It appeared to
the City Attorney that Paragraph 5 was the heart of Measure
A. This is the provision that purportedly placed in the
hands of the voters the controls on growth. Without this
paragraph, the balance of Measure A is simply a statement
embodying the philosophy that the agricultural nature of
the areas around Lodi should be retained to the extent
possible. This conclusion is based on several factors,
including the arguments of proponents in the election
material.
17
w
Continued September 20, 1989
It has been held that where the invalid parts of a law are
inseparable from the main body, the whole statute fails
(County of Orange v. Harris (1893) 32 P. 594;
Rittenband v. or 198 05 Cal.Rptr. 576)) This
rue of construction applies to city ordinances as well
(Ex parte Christiansen (1890) 24 P. 747). If it is
concluded that Measure A is thus entirely invalid, general
State law would again apply, leaving the responsibility for
land use planning with the City Council.
If it should be assumed
in effect, what result?
lands from the General
there is no way provided
in. This being so,
possibilities; first, el
the Council would then hi
Plan (Government Code
possibility is, that sir
the voters exclusive autl
Plan boundaries, and the
General Plan (voter a
General Plan boundaries
changed at all. While
growth limitation propo
fail legally.
that the rest of Measure A remains
Paragraph 4 removes the green belt
Plan, but with Paragraph 5 gone,
by the Measure to bring land back
there are only two apparent
ther general law would apply and
ive authority to modify the General
§65350 et seq.) or the second
ce Measure A was intended to give
iority to change the City's General
method to bring land back into the
)proval) has been stricken, the
would be fixed and could not be
this theory might appeal to some
lents, it almost certainly would
Measure A is or was a part of the City's General Plan,
limiting growth. While growth control measures have been
held to be within the police power of cities (Construction
Industry Assn., Inc. v. City of Petaluma 1975 522
F.2d 897; cert. denied 424 U.S. 934), these measures must
still meet certain standards.
In Associated Homebuilders, Inc. v. City of Livermore
(1976 18 Cal. 3d 582, the California Supreme Court said
growth control measures must satisfy a three-part test.
Those criteria are:
a. What is the probable effect and
duration of the ordinance?
b. What are the competing interests
affected by the ordinance (for example,
environmental protection versus the
opportunity of people to settle where
they choose)?
C. Does the ordinance, in light of its
probable impact, represent a reasonable
accommodation of the competing
interests?
19
Continued September 20, 1989
19
The City Attorney stated he, believed an attempt to freeze
Lodi's boundaries by applying the rest of Measure A, with
no way remaining in the Measure to return land to the
General Plan, would fail all three parts of this test.
This means Lodi's General Plan would be inadequate. In
addition, an attempt to freeze the boundaries for an
unstated period of time would probably fail under
Government Code §65302.8, which requires cities to explain
or justify reduction in housing opportunities.
Without Paragraph 5, it appears logical to conclude that
there is nothing left of Measure A. This was the position
taken by the City through the trial and on appeal, as noted
in Footnote 2 of the DCA decision. Even if the balance
of Measure A was assumed to remain in effect, the authority
to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan would
probably still be with the City Council. This would defeat
the purpose for which it is assumed that Measure A was
adopted initially.
FURTHER ACTION/APPEAL BY THE CITY
It has already been suggested by Measure A supporters that
the City Council consider appeal of the DCA decision.
That is a matter for Council discretion. While there is
case law referring to the City's duty to defend an
initiative ordinance (Building Industr , Inc. v. City of
Camarillo (1986) 226 Ca .Rptr. 81), dust howfar'
that duty goes is unclear. The City Attorney believes the
City Council has done all that is legally required in
defending the ordinance through the DCA. Although the
Council could seek appeal with the Supreme Court, the City
Attorney finds nothing which requires further appeal,
viewed in light of the analysis above.
Dan Selmi and Mark Weinberger, the attorneys who
represented the City throughout the litigation have
concurred with this position in a telephone conference.
Both agreed that there appeared to be little hope that the
Supreme Court would agree to hear an appeal. It is the
consensus that while the DCA's language may be broader
than necessary on some points, there is no apparent ground,
procedural or substantive, which would be likely to cause
the California Supreme Court to accept the case. No new
questions or points of law are raised by the DCA's
opinion, which were not already addressed in the Ferrini
v. San Luis Obispo decision (above).
CONCLUSIONS
This report should not be viewed as passing judgment on the
philosophy embodied in Measure A. How much and in what
19
20
e
Continued September 20, 1989
fashion Lodi should grow is'a question that should properly
be left to the elected policy makers or the people of
Lodi.
However, the City Attorney indicated he does not believe it
best to appeal Measure A, because of the delay and expense
involved, and the likelihood of being turned down by the
Supreme Court. Rather, he believes the City should proceed
with all due diligence in adopting a new General Plan which
will address growth issues. In his opinion, the DCA
accurately identified flaws in the methods of Measure A's
operation, and an attempt to appeal would only leave Lodi
vulnerable to numerous other problems, because we would
remain without an operational General Plan during the
appeal period.
Even if the Supreme Court took the case and reversed the
DCA (which he believes is unlikely), there is another
problem with Measure A which has not heretofore been
addressed, but which could provide separate grounds for
overturning the ordinance.
Evidence Code §669.5(a) says:
"Any ordinance enacted by the governing body
of a city, county, ... which (1) directly
limits, by number, the building permits that
may be issued for residential construction
or the buildable lots which may be
developed for residential purposes, or (2)
changes the standards of residential
development on vacant land so that the
governing body's zoning is rendered in
violation of Section 65913.1 of the
Government Code, is presumed to have an
impact on the supply of residential units
available in an area which includes
territory outside the jurisdiction of the
city, county, or city and county.
(b) With respect to any action which
challenges the validity of an ordinance
specified in subdivision (a) the city ...
enacting the ordinance shall bear the burden
of proof that the ordinance is necessary for
the protection of the public health, safety
or welfare of the population of the city
This sets up a presumption of a flaw in the general plan
if certain findings cannot be shown. It applies to
ordinances enacted by either the council or the voters
(Building Industry Assn. v. City of Camarillo,
20
Continued September 20, 1989
21
supra; Lee v. City of Monterey Park (1985) 219
Cal..Rptr.
Based on the Measure A ordinance itself and the history of
its impact on the supply of residential units available,
the City Attorney believes Lodi would find it difficult to
rebut the presumption found in this section if challenged.
It should also be remembered that the trial court found it
unnecessary to consider other grounds for challenge. We
would still face those challenges even if the DCA was
reversed on the annexation issue.
A more practical approach may be to adopt as soon as
possible, an updated General Plan with growth control
provisions included if desired. If the Council wishes to
embody the 2% growth cap or some other figure, it will be
necessary to make findings at the time of adoption,
justifying such limitation as required by Evidence Code
§669.5.
Assuming that a growth limitation such as 2% is adopted, it
will also be necessary for the Council to establish the
criteria under which the specified number of building
permits to be issued shall be allocated among applicants.
Based on past history and the number of inquiries received,
competition for the permits will likely be intense.
If desired, it is also possible to include a
"right -to -farm" element in the General Plan, as some other
cities have done. This type of provision is intended to
help preserve agricultural uses in "green belt" areas of a
city. The City Attorney believes that the City of Manteca
is presently in the process of developing such an
ordinance. The City Attorney has no prior experience with
this type of provision, but would be happy to explore
further if the Council directs.
Should the Council decide to appeal, the decision to
proceed must be made no later than September 20, 1989.
Under Rules of Court, the Petition for Rehearing must be
filed not later than 15 days after the DCA's decision
became final. Since that date was September 6, 1989, the
15 days will run September 21, 1989.
A lengthy discussion followed with questions being directed
to the City Attorney and to staff.
Addressing the City Council regarding the matter were:
1) Janet Pruss, 2421 Diablo Drive, Lodi
2) Ann Cerney, 900 W. Vine Street, Lodi
3) Wilbur Ruhl, 3933 Almond Drive, Lodi
21
22
Continued September 20, 1989
CONTRACT AWARD FOR
ELM STREET PARKING
LOT, 207 AND 211
WEST ELM STREET
Following additional discussion, on motion of Mayor Pro
Tempore Hinchman, Pinkerton second, the City Council by
unanimous vote voted not to file a petition for
reconsideration. Further, the City Attorney was asked to
look into the decertification process of the decision, and
to look into the possibility of including a "right -to -farm"
element in the General Plan.
RES. NO. 89-134
CC -12(a)
On motion of Council Member Pinkerton, Hinchman second,
CC -300
the City Council awarded the contract for Elm Street
Parking Lot, 207 and 211 West Elm Street to Gooden Paving
Company in the amount of $33,846.00.
This project is the construction of a 41 -space parking lot
located at 207 and 211 West Elm Street. Landscaping and
lighting will be done separately at a later date. The
parking lot will be used by City employees and County court
jurors.
The City contacted San Joaquin County regarding
participation in the project. The County recently sent a
letter of concurrence contributing $80,000 toward the
construction cost. The City will construct and maintain
the parking lot and retain ownership.
Plans and specifications for this project were approved on
September 6, 1989.
The City received the following two bids for this project:
Bidder Location Bid
Engineer's Estimate $48,553
C)aude C. Wood Company Lodi $41,931
Gooden Paving Company Acampo $33,846
PURCHASE OF BEAR
ALIGNMENT EQUIPMENT
AND ANNUAL TEST
PACKAGES FOR EQUIPMENT
MAINTENANCE DIVISION
RES. NO. 89-135
CC -12(a) On motion of Council Member Reid, Hinchman second, the City
CC -(d) Council adopted Resolution No. 89-135 approving the
CC -300 purchase of BEAR alignment equipment and annual test
22
23
Continued September 20, 1989
packages for the Equipment Maintenance Division in the
amount of $15,941.13.
BEAR Automotive Service Equipment Company supplied the
City's existing equipment analyzer; therefore, the annual
update packages and the alignment equipment must be
purchased from them since they are the sole supplier.
The cost breakdown is as follows:
Alignment equipment $13,538.80
Annual update packages 1,500.00
Tax 902.33
$15,941.13
Funds were budgeted in the 1989/90 fiscal year budget for
this purchase.
1989/90 CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
FOR WATER, WASTEWATER,
MASTER DRAINAGE, AND
PUBLIC FACILITIES
ORDINANCE NO. 1461
CC -15 The recommended 1989/90 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
CC -149 for water, wastewater, master drainage, and public
facilities was presented for City Council approval. This
matter was reviewed by the City Council at the September
12, 1989 "Shirtsleeve" Session and was determined to be in
conformance with the City's General Plan by the Planning
Commission at its meeting of August 14, 1989.
Following discussion, with questions being directed to
Staff, the City Council, on motion of Council Member
Pinkerton, Olson second, introduced Ordinance No. 1461 -
Ordinance adopting the 1989-90 Capital Improvement Program
for Water, Wastewater, Master Drainage, and Public
Facilities.
VOTING AND ALTERNATE
VOTING DELEGATES
SELECTED FOR ANNUAL
CONGRESS OF CITIES
CC -7(r) On motion of Mayor Snider, Reid second, the City Council
designated Mayor Pro Tempore Hinchman as the voting
delegate and Council Member Olson as the voting alternate
for the Annual Congress of Cities-, to be held in Atlanta,
Georgia, November 25 - 29, 1989.
ORDINANCES There were no ordinances presented for adoption.
23
W
Continued September 20, 1989
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:10 p.m. to a
Special Meeting of the City Council.
ATTEST:,
Alice M. Reimche
City Clerk
24