HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - January 13, 1988 (8)CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF LODI
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1988
7:30 P.M.
ADJOURNED MEETING
JOINT MEETING OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL AND
THE LODI PLANNING COMMISSION
ROLL CALL
The roll was recorded by City Clerk Reimche as follows:
Present: Council Members - Hinchman, Pinkerton,
Reid, Snider and Olson (Mayor)
Absent: Council Members - None
Planning Commission Members:
Present: Hitchcock -Akin, Lapenta, Marzolf, Mindt,
Rasmussen, Griffith and Stafford (Chairman)
Absent: None
Also Present: City Manager Peterson, Assistant City
Manager Glenn, Community Development
Director Schroeder, City Attorney Stein, and
City Clerk Reimche
Mayor Olson asked for a moment of silent prayer to remember
Martin Luther King and for all men and women working for
peace and good will, regardless of race, creed, or color.
Mayor Olson reminded the community of the concerns of the
San Joaquin Local Health District regarding rabies and
encouraged rabies vaccination for all canines.
Mayor Olson also pointed out an article that appeared in a
recent article of Sunset Magazine on the fund raising being
accomplished at Hutchins Street Square.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Following introduction of the subject by City Manager
OF MEASURE A
Peterson and Community Development Director Schroeder, Mr.
TASK FORCE
Ron Bass, Project Manager, Jones and Stokes Associates,
Inc., gave an indepth presentation regarding the final
CC -2(j)
recommendation of the Mayor's Task Force on Measure A and
CC -53(a)
the proposed Growth Management Plan.
Mr. Bass indicated that this document constitutes a growth
management element of the Lodi General Plan. Under Section
65303 of the California Government Code, in addition to the
seven mandatory elements, a city may adopt optional
elements to its general plan. The growth management
element is such an optional element. Optional elements
must be consistent with the remainder of the general plan
and, once adopted, have the same legal effect as mandatory
elements.
The growth management element consists of three parts: an
introduction and background; statements of goals and
policies; and an implementation program.
I. Introduction and Backaround
Importance of Agricultural Land in Lodi
Lodi is located in an agriculturally important area of
California's Central Valley. Agricultural land is the
predominant land use surrounding the city with grapes being
Continued January 13, 1988
the key crop. Agriculture contributes an important part of
Lodi 's economy and provides residents with scenic resources
immediately adjacent to the city limits.
Growth Control Prior to Measure A
Prior to August 25, 1981, the City of Lodi managed urban
growth by the allocation of storm drainage capacity. A
limited number of drainage retention basins and collection
facilities were designated in the General Plan. The
capacity of the drainage system served as a limitation on
the number of housing units and other urban uses that could
be developed. As new growth was proposed, additional
drainage facilities were added to the plan.
Adoption of Measure A
Measure A, approved by the voters of Lodi on August 25,
1981 and adopted on September 1, 1981, is an ordinance
which amended the land use element of the City General Plan
by removing from the Land Use Element any land that is not
within the corporate limits of the city. The ordinance
effectively eliminated the city's planned urban growth
area. The intent of Measure A is to preserve and protect
agricultural land, preserve the scenic resources of the
area, protect wildlife habitats and natural resources, and
to maintain the small -city character of Lodi within the
designated Greenbelt.
The boundaries of the Greenbelt lie between the outer
limits of the incorporated city and the outer limits of the
adopted sphere of influence.
Measure A includes the following restrictions:
Nonagricultural development lying immediately adjacent to
the designated Greenbelt area is permitted only after the
City Council has determined that such development would not
interfere with productive agricultural activities or that
an adequate buffer zone is implemented to ensure productive
use of agricultural land. In addition, no land within the
Greenbelt can be annexed to the city without an amendment
to the city's Land Use Element of the General Plan and
approval by the majority of the people voting in a
city-wide election.
Land Use Decisions Under Measure A
Since 1970, Lodi has annexed approximately 1,660 acres of
land to the city. The enactment of Measure A in 1981
significantly slowed the pace of annexations to the city.
A diagram depicting the annual annexations to the city
since 1970 was presented for Council review.
In addition to slowing the pace of annexations, Measure A
has had a significant effect on the types of projects for
which land has been annexed. Generally, the voters have
turned down single-family residential projects. Since
Measure "A", only one such project has been approved. The
only other residential project to be approved was a
senior/adult housing project. Table 2 shows the projects
presented to the voters between 1982 and 1987 and the
results of the elections.
Challenge of Measure A
On November 25, 1985, a committee known as Lodians In Favor
of Free Enterprise (LIFE) challenged Measure A, requesting
a court order that the City of Lodi cease administering and
Continued January 13, 1988
enforcing the measure. The petition alleged that the
following legal deficiencies existed in Measure A:
* Measure A interferes with state annexation laws.
* Measure A is an unreasonable exercise of police power.
* The enactment of Measure A causes the General Plan to
become invalid
* Measure A does not provide for Lodi to meet its fair
share of regional housing needs
The Superior Court of California held that a city and its
voters cannot interfere with the annexation process, which
had been preempted by state law. The Court, therefore,
ordered the city to terminate the administration and
enforcement of Measure A.
The city is currently appealing the Superior Court's
decision. Measure A is still in effect, however, and will
be enforced by the city until the appeal is decided.
Creation of Task Force and Its Role
In April 1986, the mayor of Lodi convened a task force
comprised of 10 citizens who represented a wide spectrum of
viewpoints on Measure A. The charge to the Task Force was:
"To study and recommend to the Lodi City Council,
unanimously if possible, a solution or solutions that would
guide and control growth with the intent to preserve and
enhance the aesthetic and economic qualities of the City of
Lodi".
To advise the task force in its work, the City retained the
services of the planning firm of Jones and Stokes
Associates of Sacramento. The task force has met monthly
between May 1986 and July 1987 and, with advice from Jones
and Stokes Associates, developed the growth management
systems contained in the Element.
The Need for Growth Control
The citizens of Lodi believe that uncontrolled growth leads
to the following problems:
* premature and unplanned conversion of agricultural land
* interference with productive agricultural activities
* stress on public services and facilities
* traffic congestion
* poorly designed development projects
* imbalance in the types of housing and cost of housing
produced
II. Goals and Policies
The goals of the citizens of Lodi in adopting this growth
management element are:
3
Continued January 13, 1988
Stable Growth Rate
Goal. Lodi shall maintain a stable growth rate that
enables it to sustain the small-town quality of life that
is characterized by:
* an agricultural economic base;
* cohesive, well-maintained residential neighborhoods;
* the ability of residents to live close to their places
of work;
* ability of residents to travel from one side of town to
the other without experiencing serious traffic
congestion; and
* ability of public services to adequately serve new
development
Policy. It is the policy of the City of Lodi to grow at
a rate not exceeding 2 percent per year. This Growth rate
will be implemented through a residential development
allocation system whereby a specified number of units of
single-family and multi -family development is allocated
each year.
Protection of Agricultural Land
Goal. Lodi shall encourage the preservation of
agricultural activities surrounding the City.
Policies
Greenbelt. The City of Lodi shall maintain a continuous
agricultural and open space Greenbelt around the urbanized
part of the city to maintain and enhance the agricultural
economy and aesthetic quality of Lodi. The location of
that greenbelt shall be designated in the land Use Element
of the General Plan.
Viable Agriculture. Land use decisions and the approval
of development projects shall be made to encourage the
continuation of viable agricultural activity surrounding
the city.
Utility Extensions. City sewer and water facilities
shall not be extended to serve areas within the Greenbelt
or beyond.
Right -to -Farm Ordinance. City of Lodi shall study and
consider a "right -to -farm" ordinance by which agricultural
land shall be protected from nuisance suits brought by
surrounding land owners.
Implementation Program
Limitation on the Approval of New Development
Residential development projects of 5 units or greater,
with the exception of senior citizen housing projects,
shall be subject to the Lodi growth control program under
which a limited number of housing allocations shall be
approved each year. The number of housing units approved
4
Continued January 13, 1988
shall be determined in accordance with Table 3 presented
t for Council review. Every year on June 1 the planning
! staff, with the approval of the Planning Commission, shall
reevaluate and revise Table 2 to reflect current
demographic assumptions based on state Department of
Finance annual population statistics. A
1
The city council shall only approve residential development
projects for any fiscal year (July 1 - June 30) sufficient
to accommodate the number of units in columns 6 and 8 of
Table 3. Single-family and multi -family units shall be
considered separately. Applications for approval and
allocation of residential development projects shall be
received between July 1 and October 1 each year. Projects
shall be considered and allocations awarded by the council
between July 1 and October 1 of the following year. The
submittal of applications and review and consideration of
projects shall be in accordance with the schedule shown in
Figure 3 listed on page 7:
Findings Required Prior to Approval of New Residential_
Development Projects
In addition to any other findings required by state law or
local ordinance, the approval of residential development
projects shall only be made if the following findings are
made by the council:
* The project applicant has demonstrated a commitment to
mitigating impacts to surrounding agricultural uses.
* The project is capable of being served adequately with
! public facilities and services, including:
- sanitary sewers and collection facilities, 1
- water for domestic use and fire suppression and
ancillary facilities,
- storm drainage basins and collection systems,
- parks,
- police protection, and
- fire protection
* That Traffic and Circulation System is Adequate to Serve
the Proposed Project. The City of Lodi shall maintain
adequate traffic flow and circulation of the city roadway
network. Level of Service C or above shall be considered
adequate. An explanation of Service C was presented for
Council information.
5
Continued aea9 S, 198e
0
Continued January 13, 1988
Multiple Year Applications
Applicants shall specify in their application(s) for
residential development project approval the year(s) for
which they are seeking allocation. The City Council may
grant up to three future year allocations as a part of a
single project. Those future allocations shall, however,
be subtracted from the number of allocations available to
applicants in applicable future years.
III. Project Evaluation and Scoring
To aid the City Council in implementing the goals and
policies stated above, the City of Lodi shall include a
point evaluation and scoring system by which each project
application for a new housing project shall be given a
point rating pursuant to the criteria stated below. A
preliminary point evaluation shall be made during the
preparation of the Initial Study required of the California
Environmental Quality Act. Points shall also be assigned
during the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report
or Negative Declaration process and shall be included in
those documents. In preparing such environmental
documents, the city shall include sufficient information to
enable city staff and other appropriate departments to make
the point assignments required by this growth management
system. Scores given for each issue evaluated above shall
be clearly stated in a summary in the Draft EIR or proposed
Negative Declaration. Scores may be revised in response to
public review and any changes shall be identified in the
Final EIR.
CRITERIA
(The evaluation criteria listed below have been developed
to be consistent with current city policies and state laws.)
A. Agricultural Land Conflicts SCORE
1. Project does not require conversion of
agricultural land 10
2. Project is adjacent to agricultural land
on one side 7
3. Project is adjacent to agricultural land
on two sides 5
4. Project is adjacent to agricultural land
on three sides 3
5. Project is surrounded by agricultural land 0
B. Onsite Agricultural Land Mitigation
1. Project needs no agricultural land
mitigation 10
2. Adequate onsite buffer has been provided as a
part of site layout for all adjacent
agricultural land 7
3. Onsite buffer provided as a part of site
layout for only part of project 5
4. No buffer between project and adjacent
agricultural land 0
Continued January 13, 1988
1
C. Relationship to Public Services
1. General Location
a.
Project abuts existing development on
four sides 10
b.
Project abuts existing development on
three sides 7
c.
Project abuts existing development on
two sides 5
d.
Project abuts existing development on
one side 3
e.
Project is surrounded by undeveloped land 0
2. Sewer
a.
Project is located adjacent to existing
city sewer main trunk line 10
b.
Project is within 0.25 -mile of existing
city sewer main trunk line 5
c.
Project is more than 0.25 -mile from
existing city sewer main trunk line 0
3. Water
a. Project is located adjacent to existing
city water mains 10
b. Project is located within 0.25 -mile of
existing city water mains 5
c. Project is located more than 0.25 -mile
from existing city water mains 0
4. Drainage
a. Project is located adjacent to city
storm drainage collector lines 10
b. Project is located within 0.25 -mile
of city storm drainage collector lines 5
c. Project is located more than 0.25 -mile
from city storm drainage collector lines 0
D. Promotion of Open Space
Points shall be awarded on the basis of the percentage
of coverage of the total loss of project area by roof
area or paved areas on-site (exclusive of streets).
200 or less 10 points
30% or less 8 points
40% or less 5 points
50% 4 points
60% 2 points
701. or greater 0 points
Project owner shall submit an analysis of the
percentage of impervious surface of the site.
8
Continued January 13, 1988
E. Traffic and Circulation: Level of Service
Points will be awarded depending on the level of
service on major thoroughfares serving the project as
computed during weekday peak hours. Computation shall
include traffic resulting from the project
All thoroughfares operating at LOS A 10
All thoroughfares operating at LOS B
or better 8
All thoroughfares operating at LOS C
or better 6
All thoroughfares operating at LOS D
or better 4
All thoroughfares operating at LOS E
or better 2
All thoroughfares operating at LOS F 0
F. Traffic and Circulation: Improvements
1. Project can be served by the existing street
system and will not contribute to the need
for any offsite improvements within 0.25
mile of its boundaries. 10
2. Project will contribute to the need for
minor offsite improvements (less than
$50,000) to mitigate potential impacts
to a less -than -significant level. 7
3. Project will contribute to the need for
major offsite improvements (greater than
$50,000) to mitigate potential impacts to
a less -than -significant level. 5
4. No offsite improvements are available to
mitigate impacts to less than significant
levels. 0
G. Housing
1. Low and Moderate Income Housing. A point credit
will be awarded in accordance with the following
schedule:
25% or more of units low and moderate
10
20%-24%
8
15%-19%
6
10%-14%
4
5%-9%
2
Less than 5% low and moderate or no low
and moderate housing proposed
0
H. Site Plan and Project Design --Bonus Points (These
criteria shall only apply to multi -family projects).
1. Landscaping. (SPARC Committee shall
evaluate and provide between 10 and 0
point.)
10
2. Architectural Design. (SPARC Committee
shal evaluate and provide between 10 and
0 points) (These criteria shall only apply
to multi -family projects)
10
9
Continued January 13, 1988
Findings Required Prior to Adoption of This Element
Prior to adoption of this Growth Management Element and any
implementing ordinances, the city council must make the
findings required by the following provisions of state law:
* Government Cade 65302.8 - Adoption or amendment of
general plan element operating to limit number of
housing units; findings
If a county or city, including a charter city, adapts
or amends a mandatory general plan element which
operates to limit the number of housing units which may
be constructed on an annual basis, such adoption or
amendment shall contain findings which justify reducing
the housing opportunities of the region. The findings
shall include all of the following:
(a) A description of the city's or county's
appropriate share of the regional need for
housing.
(b) A description of the specific housing programs and
activities being undertaken by the local
jurisdiction to fulfill the requirements of
subdivision (c) of Section 65302.
(c) A description of how the public health, safety,
and welfare would be promoted by such adoption or
amendment.
(d) The fiscal and environmental resources available to
the local jurisdiction.
* Government Code 65863.6 - Limitation on construction of
housing units; consideration; findings
In carrying out the provisions of this chapter, each
county and city shall consider the effect of ordinances
adopted pursuant to this chapter on the housing needs of
the region in which the local jurisdiction is situated
and balance these needs against the public service needs
of its residents and available fiscal and environmental
resources. Any ordinance adopted pursuant to this
chapter which, by its terms, limits the number of
housing units which may be constructed on an annual
basis shall contain findings as to the public health,
safety, and welfare of the city or county to be promoted
by the adoption of the ordinance which justify reducing
the housing opportunities of the region.
* Evidence Code 669.5 - Ordinances limiting building
permits or development of buildable lots for residential
purposes; impact on supply of residential units;
actions challenging validity
(a) Any ordinance enacted by the governing body of a
city, county, or city and county which directly
limits, by number, (1) the building permits that
may be issued for residential construction or (2)
the buildable lots which may be developed for
residential purposes, is presumed to have an
impact.
(b) With respect to any action which challenges the
validity of such an ordinance, the city, county, or
city and county enacting such ordinance shall bear
the burden of proof that such ordinance is
10
Continued January 13, 1988
necessary for the protection of the public health,
safety, or welfare of the population of such city,
county, or city and county.
(c) This section does not apply to ordinances which
(1) impose a moratorium, to protect the public
health and safety, on residential construction for
a specified period of time, if, under the terms of
the ordinance, the moratorium will cease when the
public health or safety is no longer jeopardized by
such construction, or (2) create agricultural
preserves under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section
51200) of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5 of the
Government Code, or (3) restrict the number of
buildable parcels by limiting the minimum size of
buildable parcels within a zone or by designating
lands within a zone for nonresidential uses.
(d) This section shall not apply to a voter approved
ordinance adopted by referendum or initiative prior
to the effective date of this section which (1)
requires the city, county, or city and county to
establish a population growth limit which
represents its fair share of each year's statewide
population growth, or (2) which sets a growth rate
of no more than the average population growth rate
experienced by the state as a whole.
Numerous diagrams and exhibits were presented for council
review.
Addressing the council regarding the matter were:
a) Ben Schaffer
600 Connie Street
Lodi
b) Ken Boyd
2208 West Vine Street
Lodi
c) Carl Fink
540 South Mills
Lodi
d) Robert Mullen
10 South Avena
Lodi
e) Ron Thomas, Chairman
Measure A Task Force
A very lengthy discussion followed with questions being
directed to Staff.
City Manager Peterson pointed out that if council wished to
bring an advisory measure regarding 2% growth to the
electorate in June 1988, the last date the city could
request consolidation for the election with the County
would be March 10, 1988. It was further suggested that the
public hearing regarding this matter be held March 2, 1988.
Following discussion, on motion of Council Member Hinchman,
Reid second, the City Clerk and the Community Development
Director were directed to proceed with scheduling the
various hearings, etc. as set forth on the calendar
entitled "Task Force -2% Growth". The motion passed by
unanimous vote.
11
} Continued January 13, 1988
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:00 p.m.
Attest: 6ft,�,
Alice M. Reimche
City Clerk
12