Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - April 9, 2002 SSCITY OF LODI INFORMAL INFORMATIONAL MEETING "SHIRTSLEEVE" SESSION CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2002 An Informal Informational Meeting ("Shirtsleeve" Session) of the Lodi City Council was held Tuesday, April 9, 2002 commencing at 7:02 a.m. A. ROLL CALL Present: Council Members — Hitchcock, Howard, Land, Nakanishi, and Mayor Pennino Absent: Council Members — None Also Present: City Manager Flynn, City Attorney Hays, and City Clerk Blackston B. CITY COUNCIL CALENDAR UPDATE City Clerk Blackston reviewed the weekly calendar (filed). C. TOPIC(S) C-1 "Review of Growth Management Program" Community Development Director Bartlam introduced newly hired City Planner J. D. Hightower and thanked Associate Planner Mark Meissner for his assistance with preparation of the overheads (filed). Mr. Bartlam reported that the Growth Management Program began as a citizens' initiative (Measure A) passed by voters in 1981. It restricted future annexations to require a citywide vote of the people. In 1985 the measure was invalidated by the courts. In 1986 the Mayor convened a task force to address growth issues. In 1987 the task force made a recommendation to adopt a policy to: 1) limit population to 2% per year, 2) apply a program to all residential projects of five units or more, and 3) institute a scoring process for development projects. That recommendation was included in the City's general plan update, which began in 1988 and was adopted by Council in 1991. Mr. Bartlam explained that the state Department of Finance annually estimates the City's population, and staff uses the 'persons per household' factor to determine the number of units that 2% population represents. The units are then divided into three density categories: low, medium, and high. Development plan applications are accepted annually in the month of May and are scored using 13 criteria. Due to a lag in development at the time the program was adopted in 1991, the Council allowed an allocation to occur that backtracked to 1989. During the decade of the 1990s there were a potential of 3,184 units to allocate in the low-density classification, 490 units in medium density, and 1,225 units in high density. The allocations that actually occurred during this time period were 2,453 in low density, 196 in medium density, and none in high density. In the decade of the 1990s there has been only 3/.% housing growth in Lodi. Mr. Bartlam reviewed the priority maps (filed), noting that there are 729 acres left within the original growth management program. He estimated that this area represents 20 more years of growth. There are approximately 900 single-family units that have been allocated, but not yet built. In answer to Council Member Nakanishi, Mr. Bartlam explained that the size of parcels that people in Lodi own and sell for development are between 10 to 20 acres. Lodi has local builders that are multi -generational and their contacts with property owners extend for a similar period of time. These issues have kept large national builders out of Lodi. Continued April 9,1002 Council Member Nakanishi commented that according to Mr. Bartlam's projection the greenbelt issue should not be a concern for another 20 years, assuming that the City of Stockton does not develop beyond Eight Mile Road. Mr. Bartlam reviewed the growth percentage chart (filed) and noted that in terms of total housing units, Stockton is in the lead. Lodi's housing unit growth is the lowest in the county at 9%. In the past ten years Lodi has built only owner -occupied detached housing, yet there was an 8% increase in renter -occupied housing. This was due to existing units being converted from owner- to renter -occupied housing. Mr. Bartlam stated that residents are overpaying for housing in Lodi because too few apartments are available and they must rent houses. Owner -occupied housing units represent 54.6% of all units in the City and 45.5% is renter occupied. Mr. Bartlam warned that neighborhoods are changing in a way that ultimately may not be for the best. Council Member Land asked how the state might consider Lodi's history over the past 20 years in regard to its housing element plan. Mr. Bartlam replied that the state will view Lodi badly, as he believed the May/June economic data from the census will show an increase in people paying more than 30% of their income on housing related expenses. The City will not be able to demonstrate to the state that it is facilitating the construction of a wide range of housing types. The state generally views growth management programs as a detraction to building various housing projects. Council Member Land noted that he serves on the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and commented that it will be looking at whether the City is meeting its housing element plan to determine whether or not to annex property for development. He stated that decent, affordable, multi -family housing is difficult to find in Lodi and homes are very expensive. Mr. Bartlam stated that beginning in 2003 staff will begin a process of updating the City's housing element using a new target number arrived at by the state for development occurring during the period of 2002 to 2008. Council Member Howard noted that there are a number of permits that have yet to be used and recommended that Council discussion take place regarding sunset clauses. She believed there might be benefit derived from reducing the numbers to a minimum, rather than having them roll over year to year in addition to the 2% potential allocation. Mr. Bartlam suggested that Council focus on the 2,000+ units that are available for allocation, but have not yet been requested. He stated that these units could be expired today and have no impact on growth in the future. Project units that have been allocated are protected under their subdivision map, which the state allows a certain period of time for it to remain active. Mr. Bartlam recommended that if Council chooses to expire unallocated units, that it do so equally and leave a balance in each category. He explained that medium- and high-density projects are likely to be 100 or more units. In reply to Council Member Nakanishi, Mr. Bartlam expressed his opinion that there is value in continuing the greenbelt discussion because the City should be planning farther in the future than 20 years. He added that there is nothing restricting Stockton from annexing land beyond Eight Mile Road. Mayor Pennino believed that the Growth Management Program had functioned adequately for over ten years and he was not in favor of amending it; however, he would support expiring some of the unallocated units. He asked staff for the following information: 1) census data by tracts related to owner- versus renter -occupied units, 2) economic data from the state, which sets the range for the percentage of income spent on housing, and 3) a Growth Management Program recommendation from staff, e.g., policy amendment and/or expiring unallocated units. 2 Continued April 9, 2002 Mayor Pro Tempore Hitchcock supported a sunset clause or a change in the policy for the Growth Management Program eliminating the yearly roll over of allocations. She pointed out that Lodi has a higher percentage of multi -family units than other cities in the region, and until it becomes more equal, she was not in favor of developing additional multi -family units. Ms. Hitchcock recommended that Council read the upcoming series of articles in Western Cities magazine, the first of which is entitled, "Balancing Housing and Growth Pressures with Limited Resources." Council Member Howard commented that she attended the library's first Sunday opening and noted that the newspaper did a nice job of highlighting it. She thanked Community Development Director Bartlam for following up on inquiries from citizens that she had received related to development plans. Ms. Howard stated that she had visited a Sacramento sports complex and met with the owner. She had shared her ideas for an indoor sports complex with the City Manager and Parks and Recreation Director. D. COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS None. E. ADJOURNMENT No action was taken by the City Council. The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 a.m. ATTEST: Susan J. Blackston City Clerk Mayor's & Council Member's Weekly Calendar WEEK OF APRIL 9, 2002 Tuesday, April 9, 2002 7:00 a.m. Shirtsleeve Session 1. Review of Growth Management Program 7:00 a.m. Special Meeting 1. Prospective lease of property located at 100 East Pine Street, (APN 043-072-01); the negotiating parties are the City of Lodi and the Lodi Adopt A -Child Foundation; price and terms of the lease are under negotiation; Government Code §54956.8 9:30 a.m. Pennino. "National Week of the Young Child" event, Lodi Day School (760 S. Ham Lane). Mayor to present Certificates. 5:30 - 7:00 p.m. Grand opening and ribbon cutting for Corina's Custom Framing, 523 W. Harney Lane, Suite #2. Wednesday, April 10, 2002 9:00 -1:00 p.m. Pennino. City of Stockton and the U.S. Department of Justice "Domestic Preparedness/Weapons of Mass Destruction" full- scale training exercise. Thursday, April ll, 2002 9:00 - 10:00 a.m. Pennino. Speaking to Century Assembly Junior High. 6:00 p.m. Joint dinner meeting of the Lodi City Council and the Lodi Arts Commission, Wine and Roses - Deodar Room. Friday, April 12, 2002 4:30 p.m. Lodi Chamber Street Stroll (includes street entertainment, wine tasting, wineglass, food, theater ticket). Stroll begins at 5:00 p.m. Saturday, April 13, 2002 9:00 a.m. Pennino. LUSD Visual and Performing Arts Commission will hold its I" annual "Celebrate the Arts Day," Hutchins Street Square. Mayor to present proclamation. Vhl r1i 9:00 - 4:00 p.m. f • Lodi All Emergency Preparedness Expo, Lodi Grape Pavilion. Sunday, April 14, 2002 Monday, April 15, 2002 Disclaimer. This calendar contains only information that was Provided to the City Clerk's office counci1\misc\mca1ndr.doc HISTORICAL BACKGROUND MEAsuRE A 1981 : • Measure A was approved by Lodi Citizens to require all annexations to be approved by a citywide vote. Invalidated in 1985. MAYOR'S TASK FORCE (APRIL 1986): TO ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING PROBLEMS: 1) Premature and unplanned conversion of agricultural land, 2) Interference with productive agricultural activities, 3) Stress on public services and facilities, 4) Traffic congestion, 5) Poorly designed development projects, 6) Imbalance in the types of housing and cost of housing produced. RECOMMENDATIONS "A GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR LODI." (1987): • Policy for a population based 2 percent limit on residential development was established. • Applies to all residential projects of 5 units or more, with the exception of senior citizen housing. • Institution of a development plan scoring process. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE (199 1 ) • Includes Growth Management Element. • Adopted policy to establish 2 percent residential growth based on Mayor's Task Force recommendations. • Ordinance 1521: "An ordinance of the Lodi City Council establishing a growth management plan for residential development." (1991). • Resolution 91-170: "A resolution of the Lodi City Council establishing criteria and a point system for processing tentative maps for residential development." (199 1) • Resolution 91-171: "A resolution of the Lodi City Council establishing guidelines, contents, and time frames of and for development plans." (1991) REVIEW OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 1) Building permit allocations awarded each year are based on 2% population and persons per household Dept. of Finance estimates. 2) Allocations are divided into three density categories. 3) Development Plan applications are accepted each year in the month of May. 4) Development Plans must illustrate a functional project whether low, medium, or high density residential. 5) Development plans are scored based on 13 different criteria. 6) The primary criterion is a projects general location, which is based on the Priority Development Map. DEVELOPMENT PLAN SCORING CRITERIA A) Agricultural Land Conflicts (Adjacency) B) On Site Agricultural Land Mitigation (Buffer) C) General Location (Priority Area) D) Relationship to Existing Development 1) Relationship to Public Services (Wastewater) 2) Relationship to Public Services (Water) 3) Relationship to Public Services (Drainage) E) Promotion of Open Space (Percentage) F) Traffic (Street Improvements) G) Housing (Affordability) H) Site Plan and Project Design I) Schools (Proximity) J) Fire Protection (Proximity) OF to COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL PRIORITY DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT AREAS 9tIF0 R�~ ALLOCATION STATISTICS UNITS TO DATE (1989-2000): • Single Family Residential: 3,184. • Medium Density Units: 490. • High Density: 1,225. ALLOCATIONS TO DATE (1989-2000): • Single Family Residential: 2,453. • Medium Density Units: 196. • High Density: 0. UNITS REMAINING TO ALLOCATE: • Single Family Residential: 731. • Medium Density Units: 294. • High Density: 1,225. UNITS BUILT: • Single Family Residential: 1550. • Medium Density Units: 75. • High Density: 0. UN -BUILT UNITS: • Single Family Residential: 903. • Medium Density Units: 121. • High Density: 1,225. 100% 90% 80% 70% d 60% C d V L a 50% s 0 40% a 30% 20% 10% 0% Housing Unit Growth by Tenure Types (1990-2000) Lodi Stockton San Manteca Escalon Ripon Lathrop Tracy Joaquin Areas Total Housing Unit Growth ■ Owner Occupied Housing Unit Growth ❑ Renter Occupied Housing Unit Growth Source: 1990 and 2000 Census, U.S. Census Bureau s0 70% 60% 4 50% c d v IL 40% 20% 10% 0% Housing and Population Growth (1990-2000) I i i Lodi Stockton San Manteca Escalon Ripon Lathrop Tracy Joaquin Areas Total Housing Unit Growth ■ Population Growth Source: 1990 and 2000 Census, U.S. Census Bureau tft �:.... tom. 't HISTORICAL BACKGROUND MEASURE A (198D - e Measure A was approved by Lodi Citizens to require all annexations to be approved by a citywide vote. Invalidated in 1985. MAYOR'S TASK FORCE (APRIL 1986): TO ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING PROBLEMS: 1) Premature and unplanned conversion of agricultural land, 2) Interference with productive agricultural activities, 3) Stress on public services and facilities, 4) Traffic congestion, 5) Poorly designed development projects, 6) Imbalance in the types of housing and cost of housing produced. RECOMMENDATIONS "A GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR LODI." (1987): • Policy for a population based 2 percent limit on residential development was established. • Applies to all residential projects of 5 units or more, with the exception of senior citizen housing. • Institution of a development plan scoring process. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE (1991) • Includes Growth Management Element. • Adopted policy to establish 2 percent residential growth based on Mayor's Task Force recommendations. • Ordinance 1521: "An ordinance of the Lodi City Council establishing a growth management plan for residential development." (1991). • Resolution 91-170: "A resolution of the Lodi City Council establishing criteria and a point system for processing tentative maps for residential development." (199 1) • Resolution 91-171: "A resolution of the Lodi City Council establishing guidelines, contents, and time frames of and for development plans." (199 1) REVIEW OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 1) Building permit allocations awarded each year are based on 2% population and persons per household Dept. of Finance estimates. 2) Allocations are divided into three density categories. 3) Development Plan applications are accepted each year in the month of May. 4) Development Plans must illustrate a functional project whether low, medium, or high density residential. 5) Development plans are scored based on 13 different criteria. 6) The primary criterion is a projects general location, which is based on the Priority Development Map. DEVELOPMENT PLAN SCORING CRITERIA A) Agricultural Land Conflicts (Adjacency) B) On Site Agricultural Land Mitigation (Buffer) C) General Location (Priority Area) D) Relationship to Existing Development 1) Relationship to Public Services (Wastewater) 2) Relationship to Public Services (Water) 3) Relationship to Public Services (Drainage) E) Promotion of Open Space (Percentage) F) Traffic (Street Improvements) G) Housing (Affordability) H) Site Plan and Project Design I) Schools (Proximity) J) Fire Protection (Proximity) ALLOCATION STATISTICS UNITS TO DATE (1989-2000): • Low Density Residential: 3,184. • Medium Density Units: 490. • High Density: 1,225. ALLOCATIONS TO DATE (1989-2000): • Low Density Residential: 2,453. • Medium Density Units: 196. • High Density: 0. UNITS REMAINING TO ALLOCATE: • Low Density Residential: 731. • Medium Density Units: 294. • High Density: 1,225. UNITS BUILT: • Low Density Residential: 1550. • Medium Density Units: 75. • High Density: 0. UN -BUILT UNITS: • Low Density Residential: 903. • Medium Density Units: 121. • High Density: 1,225. O O O N 1 O C) rn r v t O C O cc a 0 CL �a c .N 0 S e o ee e e Not o6-0 ti N In N O Q a6e}u83a0d LIIMOJE) _ ev47 N o C O v O w N O J 0 rn rn A v H 0 CL J O w t4 7 C 06O °o. a R ■ 0 m a _ ev47 N o C O v O w N O J 100% 90% 80% 70% m vi 60% d L IL 50% Housing Unit Growth by Tenure Types (1990-2000) 30% 20% 10% 0% Lodi Stockton San Manteca Escalon Ripon Lathrop Tracy Joaquin Areas Total Housing Unit Growth ■ Owner Occupied Housing Unit Growth W Renter Occupied Housing Unit Growth Source: 1990 and 2000 Census, U.S. Census Bureau POTENTIAL NUMBER OF UNITS USING REMAINING ACREAGE LOW DENSITY 100% • 729 acres remaining in all Priority Zones. • At 5 units per acre = 3,645 units. LOW DENSITY AT 65% • 474 acres. • At 5 units per acre = 2,370 units. MEDIUM DENSITY AT 10% • 73 acres. • At 15 units per acre = 1,095 units. HIGH DENSITY AT 25% • 182 acres. • At 25 units per acre = 4,550 units. TOTAL • 8,015 Units.