Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - October 8, 1986 SMSPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF LODI CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS OCTOBER 8, 1986 7:30 P.M. Pursuant to State Statute, the following notice was mailed under Declaration of Mailing to persons listed on Exhibit B attached advising of a Special Meeting of the Lodi City Council to be held Wednesday, October 8, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL City Clerk Reimche recorded the roll as follows: Present: Council Members - Hinchman, Olson, Pinkerton (arrived 7:40 p.m.), Snider and Reid (Mayor) Absent: Council Members - None Also Present: City Manager Peterson, Assistant City Manager Glenn, Public works Director Ronsko, Community Development Director Schroeder, City Attorney Stein, and City Clerk Reimche PUBLIC HEARINGS Notices thereof having been published according to law, affidavits of which publications are on file in the office CC - '3s' of the City Clerk, Mayor Reid called for the following Public Hearings: CC - ,S3a 1) To consider the Planning Commission's recommendation that the City Council certify, as adequate, the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 86-1) for Johnson Ranch #2, a proposed 30.6 acre, 145 single-family lot project located south of the City limits near the future extension of Century Boulevard and west of Cherokee Lane. 2) To consider the Planning Commission's recommendation to prezone Johnson Ranch #2, a 30.6 acre, 145 single-family lot project located south of the City limits near the future extension of Century Boulevard and west of Cherokee Lane to R-2, Single -Family Residential. The matter was introduced by City Manager Peterson. Detailed information regarding the matter and diagrams of the subject area were presented by Community Development Director Schroeder. A presentation regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 86-1) for Johnson Ranch #2 and mitigations were reviewed by Junior Planner Erin Corey. Jr. Civil Engineer -Traffic, Paula Fernandez, addressed the Council regarding traffic questions concerning the project. JOHNSON RANCH II The following person spoke on behalf of the matter: ORD. NO. 1391 a) Russ Munson INTRODUCED 1530 Edgewood Drive Lodi, CA i 3 Speaking in opposition and asking a number of questions GG -`J regarding the subject matter was: C,G 4 a) Janet Pruss �- 2421 Diablo Drive Lodi, CA 95240 -1- Continued October 8, 1986 There being no other persons wishing to speak on the matter, Mayor Reid closed the public hearing. Council Member Pinkerton asked to abstain on voting on the matter as he was not present for the entire hearing. Following discussion, on motion of Council Member Hirschman Snider second, Council certified the subject Environmental Impact Report as adequate. Council Member Pinkerton abstained from voting on the matter. On motion of Mayor Pro Teq?ore Olson, Reid second, Council, by the following vote, established the following findings of approval for Johnson Ranch II Subdivision: A. 1) ENVIROMWENTAL IMPACT The project will result in the loss of 30.6 acres of prime agricultural soil. If the project is approved, this loss cannot be mitigated. (pp. 2-3) Finding All the land in and around the City of Lodi is designated as prime agricultural soil. The City does not have the option of building on "non -prime" agricultural soils in order to preserve the -prime soils. Every developnezt built in the City, large or small, utilizes some prime agricultural soil. The residential, ca Tnercial and industrial needs of the City necessitate some urbanization of agricultural land. Overriding considerations The area in question was designated for residential development for many years prior to Measure A. The area has been undergoing urbanization for the past several years, and there is residential development adjacent to the proposed project. The City of Lodi has planned and constructed its utility system to serve the area with water, sewer and storm drainage in anticipation of the area developing. The existing infrastructure will allow development of the area without costly expenditures of public funds for the extension or construction of major new lines. 2) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Urbanization of the subject parcel will affect adjacent agricultural parcels. (pp. 2-3) Finding While some modification of current farming practices may be required, those modifications will not prevent the continued agricultural use of the adjacent parcels. The use of agricultural chemicals can continue although in some cases alternative methods of.application or types of chemicals may be required. There will be a 20' buffer required along the south and west sides of the project. This will provide a separation between the parcels, and reduce problems of agriculturally related noise, dust and chemical spraying. -2- ca lJ Continued October 8, 1986 The project will generate approximately 1450 vehicle trips per day when fully developed. (pp. 3-5) Finding Additional traffic can be mitigated by proper design and construction of the street system. Century Blvd. will be the only access to the project until the areas south and west are developed. The ultimate street network includes the extension of Century Blvd. from Lower Sacramento Road to Cherokee Lane. A traffic signal will mitigate the increased traffic at Cherokee Lane and Century Blvd. under the ultimate traffic condition. The intersection will be near capacity, but the lane configuration can be modified to provide additional capacity. 4) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The project will produce some additional air pollution both from vehicle emissions and construction activity. (pp. 8-9) Finding Based on air quality projections, the amount of vehicle -generated air pollution will not significantly affect the region. The construction generated pollution, primarily dust, will be temporary, lasting only during the period of construction. Much of the dust problem can be eliminated by watering down the site during the dry construction months. 5) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Residential units adjacent to Cherokee Lane will be subject to noise levels that exceed reconrended levels for residential units. Finding The developer will be required to comply with Title 25 of the State Administrative Code. The code specifies the amount of noise reduction that will need to be achieved. A sound wall will be required if noise levels cannot be reduced below 60 dB. Significant reductions in noise levels can be achieved by the careful design and construction of the residential units. 6) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The project will generate 145 additional students. This will affect the Lodi Unified School District and its ability to provide adequate classroom space. (pp. 11-12) Finding The developer has agreed to pay an impaction fee to the School District. The District considers the payment of these fees as sufficient mitigation for the impact of the additional students. B. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJFX'T The EIR discussed two alternatives to the proposed project. The following are findings on these two alternatives. -3- '151 Continued October 8, 1986 Alternative 1 This alternative is a "no project" alternative which would mean that no development would be constructed on the property. (pg. 19) Finding This alternative would eliminate the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. This alternative would, however, affect the future supply of housing in the City of Lodi. Although there appears to be an adequate supply of subdivision lots, this supply is continually being reduced by ongoing building and sales activity. Unless new subdivisions like Johnson Ranch II are approved, the City would eventually run out of subdivision lots. Subdivisions often take 18-24 months from the time of approval to when the first houses become available. Johnson Ranch II will provide housing units a year or two from now, just at the time some existing subdivisions are being built out. Alternative 2 This alternative would utilize an "infill" property as an alternative to the proposed project. (pp. 19-20) Finding The City of Lodi has consistently encouraged the utilization of "infill" parcels of land available in the City of Lodi. There are no parcels of land available in the City of Lodi. There are no parcels that could acco nmdate the Johnson Ranch II project. Most of the "infill" properties are small in size, ranging from single-family lots to one or two acres. All the large parcels are under development or have an approved project on them. Additionally, most of these parcels, if they were available, would be very expensive. The price would probably make affordable housing impossible. C. GROWTH-IMUCING IMPACT The project will not have a significant growth -inducing impact on the City. However, the development will elongate the panhandle that lies in the County and is surrounded on three sides by the City of Lodi. It is conceivable that as this panhandle is elongated by development southward, there will be additional pressure for development inside the panhandle. (pg. 18) Finding The area in the panhandle is affected by Measure A, which will require approval by the voters of Lodi before any development can take place. Measure A has placed a significant growth limit on the City of Lodi. Whether or not there will be further annexations and development in the project area will be up to the voters. If they choose not to approve any future annexations, there may be very little growth of the City in future years. Ayes: Council Members - Olson, Snider & Reid (Mayor) Noes: Council Members - Hinchman Absent: Council Members - None Abstain: Council Members - Pinkerton -4- 352 Continued October 8, 1986 -5- Further, on motion of Mayor Reid, Snider second, Council introduced Ordinance No. 1391 prezoning Johnson Ranch #2, a 30.6 acre, 145 single-family lot project located south of the city limits near the future extension of Century Boulevard and west of Cherokee Lane to R-2, Single-family Residential with all lots occupied with single-family dwellings. Council Member Pinkerton abstained from voting on the matter. TOWNE RANCH 0A4 Notices thereof having been published according to law, YZO- /3 9 2 affidavits of which publications are on file in the office � C c _3 S' of the City Clerk, Mayor Reid called for the following Public Hearings: Gc - S3 a. eC - z/( 1) TO consider the Final Environmental impact Report (EIR 0,e 141 86-2) for Towne Ranch, a proposed 78.3 acre residential subdivision, located on the south side of West Turner Road and west of Lower Sacramento Road. 2) To consider the request of the property owner to prezone Towne Ranch, a 78.3 acre residential subdivision, located on the south side of West Turner Road and west of Lower Sacramento Road to P -D, Planned Development, to accommodate single and multiple -family residential uses. The matter was introduced by Commruty Development Director Schroeder who presented diagrams of the subject area. A presentation regarding the Final Environmental Lipact Report (EIR 86-2) for Towne Ranch Subdivision and mitigations were reviewed by Junior Planner Erin Corey. Jr. Civil Engineer -Traffic, Paula Fernandez, addressed the Council regarding traffic questions concerning the project. The following person spoke on behalf of the matter: 1. Glen Baumbach (representing the Towne family) Baumbach and Piazza 323 West Elm Street Lodi, CA Speaking in opposition was Walter Pruss, 2421 Diablo Court, Lodi, who also posed a number of questions regarding the matter to the Council. There being no other persons wishing to speak on the matter, Mayor Reid closed the Public Hearing. Following discussion, on motion of Council Member Pinkerton, Hirschman second, Council, by unanimous vote, certified the subject Environmental Impact Report as adequate. On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Olson, Hirschman second, Council by unanimous vote, established the following findings of approval for Towne Ranch Subdivision: A. 1) ENVIRCNMENTAL IMPACT The project will result in the loss of 78.3 acres of prime agricultural soil if the project is approved. This loss cannot be mitigated. (pp. 3-4) -5- 153 Continued October 8, 1986 Finding All the land in and around the City of Lodi is designated as prime agricultural soil. The City does not have the option of building on "non -prime" agricultural soils in order to preserve the prime soils. Every development built in the City, large or small, utilizes some prine agricultural soil. The residential, ccmTercial and industrial needs of the City necessitates some urbanization of agricultural land. Overriding Considerations The area in question was designated for residential development for many years prior to Measure A. The area has been undergoing urbanization for the past several years, and there is residential development adjacent to the proposed project. The City of Lodi has planned and constructed its utility system to serve the area with water, sewer and storm drainage in anticipation for the area developing. The existing infrastructure will allow development of the area without costly expenditures of public funds for the extension or construction of major new lines. 2) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Urbanization of the subject parcel will affect adjacent agricultural parcels. (pg. 4) Finding While some modification of current farming practices may be required, those modifications will not prevent the continued agricultural use of the adjacent parcels. The use of agricultural chemicals can continue although in some cases alternative methods of application or types of chemicals may be required. There is an 80' right of way on Turner Road will will serve as a buffer between the agricultural use on the north and the project site. A nursery and the Woodbridge Irrigation District serves as a buffer on the west between the project and agricultural use. 3) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The project will generate approximately 5524 vehicle trips per day when fully developed. (pp. 5-9) Finding The primary effects of the project traffic will be at Turner Road/Lower Sacramento Road intersection. A traffic signal will be needed with the development of this project. Under present policies, the City will have to pay for the traffic signal installation. 4) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The project will produce sane additional air pollution both from vehicle emissions and construction activity. (pp. 12-14) Finding Based on Air Quality projections, the amount of vehicle -generated air pollution will not significantly affect the region. The construction generated pollution, primarily dust, will be temporary, lasting only during the period of construction. Much of the dust problem can be eliminated by watering down the site during the dry construction months. G:fl 354 Continued October 8, 1986 5) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Residential units adjacent to Lower Sacramento Road will be subject to noise levels that exceed recampnded levels for residential units. Finding The project along Lower Sacramento Road will not be subject to CNELs exceeding 60 dB. The multiple -family units along Lower Sacramento Road and Turner Road could be subject to Title 25 of the California Administrative Code if they are placed on the site within noise contours exceeding 60 dB. Depending on the ultimate site plan (presently there is no site plan for the multiple -family units), a noise analysis may be required and mitigation measures such as limiting number and size of windows and bedrooms facing Lower Sacramento Road could be required. The same would be required of the multiple family units along Turner Road. 6) ENVI1b0D U NIAL IMPACT The project will generate 749 additional students. This will affect the Lodi Unified School District and its ability to provide adequate classroom space. (pp. 16-17) Finding The developer has agreed to pay an impaction fee to the School District. The District considers the payment of these fees as sufficient mitigation for the impact of the additional students. The EIR discussed several alternatives to the proposed project. The following are findings on three alternatives. Alternative 1 This alternative is a "no project" alternative which would mean that no development would be constructed on the property. (pp. 23-24) Finding This alternative would eliminate the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. This alternative would, however, affect the future supply of housing in the City of Lodi. Although there appears to be an adequate supply of subdivision lots, this supply is continually being reduced by ongoing building and sales activity. Unless new subdivisions like Johnson Ranch II are approved, the City would eventually run out of subdivision lots. Subdivisions often take 18-24 months from the time of approval to when the first houses became available. Johnson Ranch II will provide housing units a year or two from now just at the time some existing subdivisions are being built out. Alternative 2 This alternative would utilize an "infill" property as an alternative to the proposed project. (p. 24) Finding The City of Lodi has consistently encouraged the utilization of "infill" parcels of land available in the City of Lodi. There are no parcels of land available in the City of Lodi. There are no parcels that could acccmmdate the Towne Ranch project. Most of the "infill" -7- 355 Continued October 8, 1986 properties are small in size, ranging from single-family lots to one or two acres. All the large parcels are under development or have an approved project on them. Additionally, most of these parcels, if they were available, would be very expensive. The price would probably make affordable housing impossible. Alternative 3 This alternative would eliminate all multiple -family housing from the project (499 units) and consist only of single-family housing. The project would then consist of 385 single-family units. Finding This alternative would result in the reduction of vehicle trips per day; decrease the number of additional students for the LUSD; and reduce the amount of water, wastewater and solid waste. The City of Lodi Planning Commission chose a variation of this alternative which deletes nine acres of multiple -family units along Lower Sacramento Road. The overall density is reduced to 7.5 units per acre. This alternative reduces the density of the original project but leaves score multiple -family units in the project. The City of Lodi recognizes multiple -family units as a source of low and moderate income housing. Therefore, it is important that multiple -family units be included in new subdivisions and not relegated as in the past to the eastside of town, where there are numerous problems relating to increased densities. C. GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACT The project will not have a significant growth -inducing impact on the City. Finding The project is surrounded on three sides by development. The only undeveloped area is to the north. This area is affected by Measure A, which will require approval by the voters of Lodi before any development can take place. Measure A has placed a significant growth limit on the City of Lodi. Whether or not there will be further annexations and development in the project area will be up to the voters. If they choose not to approve any future annexations, there may be very little growth of the City in future years. -8- Further, on motion of Council Member Pinkerton, Olson second,Council introduced ordinance No. 1392 prezoning Towne Ranch, a 78.3 acre residential subdivision, located on the south side of West Turner Road and west of Lower Sacramento Road to P -D, Planned Development District, to accommodate single and multiple -family residential uses. The motion carried by unanimous vote. PARKVIEW TERRACE Council Member Snider asked to abstain from discussion and voting on the Parkview Terrace project because of a conflict of interest and left the council table. ORD. NO. 1393 Notices thereof having been published according to law, INTRODUCED affidavits of which publications are on file in the office �C .3< of the City Clerk, Mayor Reid called for the following 9sv Public Hearings: C L -8- 356 Continued October 8, 1986 1) To consider the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 86-3) for Parkview Terrace, a 20 acre, 155 unit proposed adult comity at the northeast corner of Lodi Avenue and Lacer Sacramento Road. To consider the request of the property owners to prezone Parkview Terrace, a 20 acre, 155 unit adult community at the northeast corner of West Lodi Avenue and Lowes Sacramento Road to P -D, Planned Development, to accommodate a cluster home development with recreational amenities. The matter was introduced by Conor mity Development Director Schroeder who presented diagrams of the subject area. A presentation regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 86-3) for the Parkview Terrace Subdivision and mitigations were reviewed by Junior Planner Erin Corey. Jr. Civil Engineer -Traffic, Paula Fernandez, addressed the Council regarding traffic questions concerning the project. The following persons spoke on behalf of the project: 1) Chuck Wentland 119 South Avena Lodi, CA There were no persons wishing to speak in opposition. Mayor Reid closed the Public Hearing Following discussion, on motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Olson, Hinchman second, Council certified the subject Environmental Inpact Report as adequate. On motion of Council Member Pinkerton, Olson second, Council established the following findings of approval for the Parkview Terrace Subdivision. A. 1. ENVIRON4WrAL IMPACT The project will result in the loss of 20.88 acres of prime agricultural soil if the project is approved. This loss cannot be mitigated. (pp. 3-4) Finding All the land in and around the City of Lodi is designated as prime agricultural soil. The City does not have the option of building on "non -prime" agricultural soils in order to preserve the prime soils. Every development built in the City, large or small, utilizes some prime agricultural soil. The residential, commercial and industrial needs of the City necessitates some urbanization of agricultural land. Overriding Considerations The area in question was designated for residential development for many years prior to Measure A. The area has been urbanized for many years and there are residential developments adjacent to the proposed project. The City of Lodi has planned and constructed its utility system to serve the area with water, sewer and storm drainage in anticipation of the area developing. The existing infrastructure will allow development of the area without costly expenditures of public funds for the extension or construction of major new lines. -9- '157 Continued October 8, 1986 2) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Urbanization of the subject parcel will affect adjacent agricultural parcels. (pg. 4) Finding While sane modification of current farming practices may be required, those modifications will not prevent the continued agricultural use of the adjacent parcels. The use of agricultural chemicals can continue although in some cases alternative methods of application or types of chemicals may be required. There is a 137' right of way on Lower Sacramento Road which will serve as a buffer between the agricultural use on the west and the project site. 3) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The project will generate approximately 1750 vehicle trips per day when fully developed. Finding The project will be adequately served by proper street design and widening. Lower Sacramento Road frontage will be abandoned. 4) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The project will produce some additional air pollution both from vehicle emissions and construction activity. (pp. 14-17) Feng Based on Air Quality projections, the amount of vehicle -generated air pollution will not significantly affect the region. The construction generated pollution, primarily dust, will be temporary, lasting only during the period of construction. Much of the dust problem can be eliminated by watering down the site during the dry construction months. 5) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The project is located adjacent to Lower Sacramento Road and Lodi Avenue which have traffic generated noise levels that may require noise reduction measures for residential units. Finding Because noise levels exceed recommended levels for residential units, a noise analysis will be required for any residential structure along Lower Sacramento Road or Lodi Avenue. B. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJIX.T The EIR discussed several alternatives to the proposed project. The following are findings on three alternatives. Alternative 1 This alternative is a "no project" alternative which would mean that no development would be constructed on the property. (pp. 25-26) Finding This alternative would eliminate the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. This alternative would, however, affect the future supply of housing in the City of Lodi, particularly senior citizen housing. -10- 358 Continued October 8, 1986 Alternative 2 This alternative would utilize an "infill" property as an alternative to the proposed project. (pg. 24) Finding The City of Lodi has consistently encouraged the utilization of "infill" parcels of land available in the City of Lodi. There are no parcels of land available in the City of Lodi. There are no parcels that could accattnodate the Parkview Terrace project. Most of the "infill" properties are small in size, ranging from single-family lots to one or two acres. All the large parcels are under development or have an approved project on them. Additionally, most of these parcels, if they were available, would be very expensive. The price would probably make affordable housing impossible. Alternative 3 Deletes senior citizen project for a single- family residential project. This would result in a lower density project and would reduce all impacts except those on the Lodi Unified School District. This alternative would add 104 students to the school district. This alternative could also affect the supply of senior citizen housing in Lodi. Lodi has a high proportion of senior citizens compared to the rest of San Joaquin County, and studies show that the senior population is growing by 25% per year. Although at the present there seems to be an adequate supply of senior housing at various rents. This growth rate, if it continues, could exhaust the supply quickly. The proposed project is also unique in the fact the units will be for sale, not for rent, which might appeal to senior who want to live more independently and have more money. C. GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACT The project will not have a significant growth -inducing impact on the City. Finding The project is surrounded on three sides by the City of Lodi with this parcel approved for annexation, all land east of Lower Sacramento Poad frau north of Turner Road to Kettleman Lane would be in the City Limits. This area is affected by Measure A, which will require approval by the voters of Lodi before any developnent can take place. Measure A has placed a significant growth Limit on the City of Lodi. whether or not there will be further annexations and development in the project area will be up to the voters. If they choose not to approve any future annexations, there may be very little growth of the City in future years. On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Olson, Hinchman second, Council introduced Ordinance No. 1393 prezoning Parkview Terrace, a 20 acre, 155 unit adult counvx .ty at the northeast corner of west Lodi Avenue and Lowes' Sacramento Road to P -D, Planned Development District, to acco mtodate a cluster hone development with recreational amenities. NOTE: Council Member Snider abstained from voting on all items pertaining to the Parkview Terrace project. -11- 359 Continued October 8, 1986 ALUOURNMMr Mayor Reid adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:15 p.m. Attest: Alice M. Reimche City Clerk -12-