HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - September 1, 2004C-1
C-2
C-3
LODI CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2004
CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
The City Council Closed Session meeting of September 1, 2004, was called to order by Mayor
Hansen at 5:04 p.m.
Present: Council Members — Beckman, Hitchcock, Howard (arrived at 5:07 p.m.), and
Mayor Hansen
Absent: Council Members — Land
Also Present: Interim City Manager Keeter, City Attorney Schwabauer, and City Clerk Blackston
ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION
a) Conference with labor negotiator, Human Resources Director Joanne Narloch and Rick
Bolanos, regarding Police Officers Association of Lodi and Lodi Police Dispatchers
Association pursuant to Government Code §54957.6
b) Labor relations — Lodi Professional Firefighters: give direction to negotiators, Human
Resources Director Joanne Narloch and Rick Bolanos, in preparation for Grievance
Arbitrations (Government Code §54957.6)
C) Prospective lease of City property at 2 E. Elm Street in association with the Downtown
Park & Ride Structure; the negotiating parties are Atlas Properties, aka Anthony and
Edward Barkett, and the City of Lodi; price and terms of the lease are under negotiation;
Government Code §54956.8.
d) Actual litigation: Government Code §54956.9(a); one case; People of the State of
California: and the City of Lodi. California v. M & P Investments, et al.; United States
District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. CIV -S-00-2441 FCD JFM
e) Actual litigation: Government Code §54956.9(a); one case; Hartford Accident and Indemnity
Company, et al. v. City of Lodi, et al., Superior Court, County of San Francisco, Case No.
323658
f) Conference with legal counsel — initiation of litigation: Government Code §54956.9(c); two
cases
g) Conference with legal counsel — anticipated litigation — significant exposure to litigation
pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; one case; pursuant to Government Code
§54956.9(b)(3)(A) facts, due to not being known to potential plaintiffs, shall not be disclosed
h) Actual litigation: Government Code §54956.9(a); one case; City of Lodi, a California
Municipal Corporation, and Lodi Financing Corporation, a California nonprofit corporation v.
Lehman Brothers. Inc. and US Bank National Association, United States District Court,
Eastern District of California, Case No. CIV. S-04-0606 MCE-KJM
i) Actual litigation: Government Code §54956.9(a); one case; Lehman Brothers Inc.. v. City of
Lodi and Lodi Financing Corporation, United States District Court, Eastern District of
California Case No. CIV -S-04-0850 FCD/JFM
D Actual litigation: Government Code §54956.9(a); one case; Fireman's Fund Insurance
Company v. City of Lodi, et al., United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Case No. CIV -S-98-1489 FCD JFM
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
At 5:04 p.m., Mayor Hansen adjourned the meeting to a Closed Session to discuss the above
matters.
The Closed Session adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
Continued September 1, 2004
C-4 RETURN TO OPEN SESSION / DISCLOSURE OF ACTION
At 7:13 p.m., Mayor Hansen reconvened the City Council meeting, and City Attorney Schwabauer
disclosed the following actions.
In regard to Items C-2 (a), (b), and (c), Council provided direction.
In regard to Item C-2 (d), Council authorized the admission to the Lodi Northern Plume Area Joint
Cooperative Group of the Benson parties on the basis that they would pay the costs equally to all
other parties, with the exception of the oversight costs in the amount of $458; the value of their
admission is approximately $45,000.
In regard to Item C-2 (e) through 0), no reportable action was taken.
A. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
The Regular City Council meeting of September 1, 2004, was called to order by Mayor Hansen at
7:13 p.m.
Present: Council Members — Beckman, Hitchcock, Howard, and Mayor Hansen
Absent: Council Members — Land
Also Present: Interim City Manager Keeter, City Attorney Schwabauer, and City Clerk Blackston
B. INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Reverend David S. Hill, Grace Presbyterian Church.
C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Hansen.
D. AWARDS / PROCLAMATIONS / PRESENTATIONS
D-1 Awards — None
D-2 (a) Mayor Hansen presented a proclamation to Stephanie Allen, with the Lodi Public Library's
Adult Literacy Program, proclaiming Wednesday, September 8, 2004, as "International
Literacy Day" in the City of Lodi.
D-3 (a) Following introductory comments by Police Chief Adams, Mayor Hansen presented a
Certificate of Recognition to Lieutenant Gary Benincasa for his 18 years of service on the
Lodi Police Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) Team.
D-3 (b) Following introductory comments by Police Chief Adams, Mayor Hansen presented a
Certificate of Recognition to Animal Services Supervisor, Terri Arbuckle, for her many years
of service to the City of Lodi Animal Shelter.
D-3 (c) Mayor Hansen presented a Certificate of Recognition to Boy Scout Joshua David Halecky
for obtaining the rank of Eagle Scout.
D-3 (d) Robina Asghar, representing the Community Partnership for Families, and Nawaz Shah
gave a presentation to the City Council regarding the upcoming Pakistani and Mexican
Independence Day Celebrations.
E. CONSENT CALENDAR
In accordance with the report and recommendation of the Interim City Manager, Council, on motion
of Mayor Pro Tempore Beckman, Hitchcock second, approved the following items hereinafter set
forth except those otherwise noted by the vote shown below:
Ayes: Council Members — Beckman, Hitchcock, Howard, and Mayor Hansen
Noes: Council Members — None
Absent: Council Members — Land
2
Continued September 1, 2004
E-1 Claims were approved in the amount of $3,651,945.17.
E-2 The minutes of August 17, 2004 (Shirtsleeve Session), August 17, 2004 (Special Meeting),
and August 17, 2004 (Joint Special Meeting with the East Side Improvement Committee)
were approved as written.
The minutes of July 21, 2004 (Regular Meeting) were removed from the Consent
Calendar and discussed and acted upon following approval of the Consent Calendar.
E-3 Adopted Resolution No. 2004-169 authorizing the purchase of a replacement rapid
response equipment vehicle for the SWAT Team from EI Dorado Bus Sales, of Hayward, in
the amount of $82,000 from Asset Seizure funds and $850 from State COPS.
E-4 Adopted Resolution No. 2004-170 accepting improvements at 1115 East Lockeford Street.
E-5 Adopted Resolution No. 2004-171 accepting improvements in Millsbridge II, Tract No. 3343,
and amending Traffic Resolution 97-148 by approving stop control on Tienda Dive at
Lakeshore Drive.
E-6 Adopted Resolution No. 2004-172 approving the addendum to the Improvement Agreement
for the Public Improvements of Almondwood Estates, Tract No. 3273, and accepting
Stockton Street and Almond Drive street frontage improvements in Almondwood Estates,
Tract No. 3273, directed the City Manager and City Clerk to execute the addendum to the
Improvement Pgreement on behalf of the City; and appropriated funds in the amount of
$20,300.
E-7 Adopted Resolution No. 2004-173 approving the final map, Improvement Agreement, and
Water Rights Agreement for Legacy Estates, Unit 2, Tract No. 3382, and amending Traffic
Resolution 97-148 by approving stop control on Goehring Drive at Wyndham Way, directed
the City Manager and City Clerk to execute the Improvement Agreement, Water Rights
Agreement, and map on behalf of the City, and appropriated funds in the amount of $5,500
for the required reimbursements.
E-8 Adopted Resolution No. 2004-174 to approve the Water Rights Agreement for APN
031-040-10 (formerly known as 1219 Bezug Lane) and for APN 031-040-11 and APN 031-
040-12 (formerly known as 1239 and 1251 Bezug Lane) and directed the City Manager and
City Clerk to execute the Water Rights Agreements on behalf of the City; and adopted
Resolution No. 2004-175 authorizing the City Manager to execute future Water Rights
Agreements without separate Council action.
E-9 Adopted Resolution No. 2004-176 authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment No.
4 to Contract 96 -SNR -00110 between the Bureau of Reclamation and the United States of
America Department of Energy Western Area Power Administration with the City of Lodi for
the funding of power operation and maintenance for Central Valley Project power facilities.
E-10 Adopted Resolution No. 2004-177 appointing Tiffani M. Fink, Transportation Manager, as
the City of Lodi Director and Kirk J. Evans, Risk Manager, as Alternate for the California
Transit Insurance Pool (CaITIP).
E-11 Adopted Resolution No. 2004-178 authorizing transit services outside of regular service
operations for certain annual events and authorize the Transportation Manager to advertise
to determine if a willing and/or able provider exists for these events.
E-12 "Adopt resolution authorizing the Greater Lodi Area Youth Commission b increase the
number of student appointees from nine to eleven and direct the City Clerk to post for two
vacancies" was pulled from the agenda pursuant to staffs request.
Continued September 1, 2004
ACTION ON ITEM REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
E-2 "Approve minutes: July 21, 2004 (Regular Meeting)"
NOTE: Council Member Howard abstained from voting on this matter due to the fact that
she was not present at the meeting of July 21, 2004.
MOTION / VOTE:
The City Council, on motion of Mayor Hansen, Beckman second, approved the minutes of
July 21, 2004 (Regular Meeting), as written, by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members — Beckman, Hitchcock, and Mayor Hansen
Noes: Council Members — None
Absent: Council Members — Land
Abstain: Council Members — Howard
F. COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS
oo Arthur Price urged citizens not to sign the petition for the'/4 cent sales tax increase initiative by
proponents John Johnson and Lodi Citizens for Public Facilities. He cited the following reasons
for his opposition:
It is a redundant tax that falls upon those least able to pay, i.e. the poor, elderly, and
young.
2. The largest source of sales tax in Lodi is derived from automobile sales. Mr. Price
feared that raising the sales tax would drive customers to Stockton for purchases of
autos, large appliances, and other high-priced merchandise.
3. The initiative does not mention the DeBenedetti Park project, which Mr. Price was most
in favor of.
4. He did not believe the initiative would have the two-thirds vote support it would need to
pass, in which case the $100,000 expense for a special election would be an
unnecessary burden on the City at a time of budget crisis.
5. Mr. Price believed in representative government, noting that Council is answerable to
the people, as no citizen group is.
oo Leslie Kreis expressed frustration that Item J-1, Ordinance 1750 regarding low-income
discounts, has again been pulled from the agenda.
G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
G-1 Notice thereof having been published according to law, an affidavit of which publication is on
file in the office of the City Clerk, Mayor Hansen called for the public hearing to consider
resolution adopting Engineer's Report, confirming the assessments, overruling protests and
declaring Assessment Ballot results and annexing territory to a Maintenance Assessment
District and forming Zone 5 and Zone 6 (Legacy Estates I, Legacy Estates II, and Kirst
Estates Zone 5 and The Villas Zone 6 Lodi Consolidated Landscape Maintenance District
No. 2003-1).
Public Works Director Prima stated that landscape maintenance assessment districts are
now a standard for new subdivisions and there is typically no opposition. The assessments
cover the cost of landscaping along the major arterials, walls, street trees, etc.
In answer to Council Member Hitchcock, Mr. Prima explained that the assessments are a
prorated amount of public parks that serve the area, using a standard of acreage per
person. In accordance with the City's General Plan, neighborhood parks are provided on a
citywide basis for new development, which are being built through the impact fee program.
Under Lodi Consolidated Landscape Maintenance District No. 2003-1, new developments
are asked to pay an ongoing share of maintenance by a prorated amount.
0
Continued September 1, 2004
Hearing for Legacy Estates I & II and Kirst Estates Opened to the Public
None.
Public Portion of Hearing Closed for Legacy Estates I & 11 and Kirst Estates
Hearing for The Villas opened to the Public
None.
Public Portion of Hearing Closed for The Villas
City Clerk Blackston reported that she personally received the assessment ballots for
Legacy Estates I & II and Kirst Estates (Zone 5) cast in the special assessment mailed
ballot procedure as called by the City Council in its Resolution 2004-136 adopted July 7,
2004, and in accordance with the instructions contained in that resolution, she declared the
balloting closed and certified the results of the tabulation to be as follows:
Total assessment ballots cast YES $51,290
Total assessment ballots cast NO Zero
Ms. Blackston explained that the assessment ballots were weighted according to the
proportional financial obligation the affected property has to the total assessment amount.
The assessment ballots cast "yes" equaled 100% of the total assessment ballots cast.
In addition, Ms. Blackston reported that she received the assessment ballot for The Villas
(Zone 6) and in accordance with the instructions contained in Resolution 2004-136, she
declared the balloting closed and certified the results of the tabulation to be as follows:
Total assessment ballots cast YES $41,920
Total assessment ballots cast NO Zero
The assessment ballot cast "yes" equaled 100% of the total assessments ballots cast.
MOTION / VOTE:
The City Council, on motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Beckman, Hansen second, adopted
Resolution No. 2004-179 adopting Engineer's Report, confirming the assessments,
overruling protests and declaring Assessment Ballot results and annexing territory to a
Maintenance Assessment District and forming Zone 5 and Zone 6 (Legacy Estates I,
Legacy Estates 11, and Kirst Estates Zone 5 and The Villas Zone 6 Lodi Consolidated
Landscape Maintenance District No. 2003-1). The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members — Beckman, Hitchcock, Howard, and Mayor Hansen
Noes: Council Members — None
Absent: Council Members — Land
G-2 Notice thereof having been published according to law, an affidavit of which publication is on
file in the office of the City Clerk, Mayor Hansen called for the public hearing to consider the
Technical Equipment Purchase Proposal for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
Program.
Police Chief Adams reported that on June 30 the Police Department applied for and
received a grant from the Federal Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program in the
amount of $33,813. The grant requires a matching fund of $3,757, which will be taken from
the Police Department's 2004-05 State Citizens Option for Public Safety Grant. He stated
that these funds would be placed in a special revenue fund pending dispersal. On July 27,
an advisory board was convened and reviewed the proposals for disbursement of the funds.
It is proposed that the funds be used for computer and hardware software acquisitions and
technology updates for the Police Department.
5
Continued September 1, 2004
Hearing Opened to the Public
None.
Public Portion of Hearing Closed
MOTION / VOTE:
The City Council, on motion of Council Member Howard, Beckman second, adopted
Resolution No. 2004-180 approving the Technical Equipment Purchase Proposal for the
Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program. The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members — Beckman, Hitchcock, Howard, and Mayor Hansen
Noes: Council Members — None
Absent: Council Members — Land
G-3 Notice thereof having been published according to law, an affidavit of which publication is on
file in the office of the City Clerk, Mayor Hansen called for the public hearing to consider the
certification of Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the White Slough Water
Pollution Control Facility and direct staff to make application to the San Joaquin Local
Agency Formation Commission to designate the sphere of influence.
Interim City Manager Keeter stated that Lodi is proposing a 5280 acre sphere of influence
around the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility, which includes the City's existing
1,040 acres to assure that sufficient area for future construction of land disposal, storage
facilities, and buffer space are available to serve the long-term future growth under the
existing general plan of the City of Lodi.
Community Development Director Bartlam explained that two actions are requested of
Council: 1) certify the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and 2) direct staff to make
application to the Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) to designate a sphere of
influence for which the EIR was prepared. He reminded Council that the area around White
Slough had been studied for a number of years by the City for long-term options for disposal
of treated effluent. In 2001, the Wastewater Master Plan was completed and defined a
variety of treatment discharge and reuse options. Based on that Master Plan, as well as
the City's current State permit for operation of the facility, there are a number of
improvements taking place at the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility.
Mr. Bartlam stated that it has become clear that the City needs to begin looking long term
at where treatment options could take place in terms of additional land. The three
alternatives addressed in the staff report (filed) consider ways in which the City could
dispose of treated effluent over the course of the build out of the current general plan.
Mr. Bartlam described the three alternatives as follows:
Alternative 1
To continue and expand the way Lodi deals with effluent today, i.e. to store treated water in
ponds during winter months and then irrigate crops in summer months on the property
(approximately 800 acres) owned by the City.
Alternative 2
This alternative includes the incorporation of a percolation basin, which is a pond in which
treated effluent would slowly percolate back into the groundwater table. Once the water
has percolated, the soil would be broken and filled again with water following which the
process begins again. This alternative requires land for a storage basin and additional
areas for irrigation of agricultural crops.
Alternative 3
A treatment wetland with water in it year round on property to the south and southwest of
the current City property. This alternative would have storage pond requirements and
irrigated farmland.
3
Continued September 1, 2004
Mr. Bartlam explained that the three options, in total, represent the sphere of influence
proposed and identified in the EIR. The City is nearing completion of its current state
regulatory permit for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility. Over the course of
the next three to five years, the City will need to make a decision on which option to
pursue.
Mr. Bartlam reported that on October 11 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
consider the recommendation of the EIR for Council's certification. At the public hearing,
there were five property owners within the proposed sphere boundary who spoke in
opposition. Their comments were centered around what they considered a loss of property
value by being designated within the City's sphere. Jim Glaser, city of Stockton
Community Development Director, spoke in opposition to the document on the basis of
three areas of environmental concern: 1) alternatives, 2) air quality, and 3) land use conflict.
Mr. Bartlam stated that it is staff's opinion that those concerns were addressed within the
final document in response to comments. Mr. Bartlam recommended that Council certify
the EIR and direct staff to make appropriate application to LAFCO.
Mayor Hansen stated that Council received the following "blue sheets" related to this item
(all filed):
➢ Communication in opposition to the proposal from Angelina Rego;
➢ Communication in opposition to the proposal from Michael Rego;
➢ Letter addressing the EIR from David Ivester of the firm Stoel Rives LLP; and
➢ An amended draft resolution.
Public Works Director Prima introduced audience members Elizabeth Hughes, of the firm
Hughes Environmental Consulting, and Kathryn Gies from West Yost and Associates.
Hearing Opened to the Public
oo David Ivester, of the firm Stoel Rives, stated that he was representing the city of
Stockton. Mr. Ivester stated that his primary purpose in appearing was to ensure that
his letter had been received by Council (which Mayor Hansen previously confirmed).
He highlighted two aspects of the EIR that were found to be of concern: 1) discussion
of cumulative impacts and 2) discussion of alternatives. He felt that these discussions
were insufficient in detail.
Mayor Hansen pointed out that there is a conflict between the spheres of influences as
proposed by Lodi and Stockton; however, Lodi prepared an EIR, whereas, Stockton
only prepared a negative declaration.
Addressing Mr. Ivester, Council Member Hitchcock asked him whether he would have
been surprised if Lodi had done a negative declaration as opposed to an EIR, and
Mr. Ivester stated that he believed everyone would agree that a negative declaration
would not be appropriate for the City of Lodi's project. At the request of Ms. Hitchcock,
Mr. Ivester further addressed the points made in his letter. He stated that the
discussion of cumulative impacts fell short of what the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) requires. As an example, in dealing with air quality the EIR indicates that
cumulative air quality impacts are potentially significant and then indicates a mitigation
measure of compliance with existing air quality laws. He stated that compliance with
existing air quality laws is not always adequate to mitigate a potential effect. The EIR
does not include an explanation of whether, and how, the mitigation measure would
reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. The EIR focuses on alternatives
within the proposed sphere of influence area, but it does not discuss what alternatives
were considered beforehand outside that area, and particularly, areas to the north. The
city of Stockton offered a comment to this effect earlier and the response was basically
that transporting the wastewater to areas to the north would be more difficult than
7
Continued September 1, 2004
transporting it to the proposed areas. Mr. Ivester stated, that, in and of itself does not
mean those alternatives outside the proposed area would be infeasible and unworthy of
consideration or discussion in the EIR. He urged Council to read the letter he
submitted on this matter and stated that the two points he just addressed were the
most important.
00 Richard Lauchland stated that he was a property owner within Lodi's proposed sphere
of influence amendment. He believed the City was premature in making an application
to LAFCO to enlarge the White Slough sphere of influence and pointed out that the City
has not yet even decided which of the three alternati\,es is preferred. He felt there
should be more balance in weighing the City's convenience against the impact it would
have on property owners. He asked that the City reduce the scope of its sphere of
influence to the minimum possible size and to a single preferred alterative. He
referenced appendix F in CEQA and stated that Lodi's EIR does not include the
following required information:
➢ Discussion of the potential energy impacts of the proposed project;
➢ Five elements of the project description;
➢ Six potential environmental impacts that should be studied; and
➢ Five potential mitigation measures that should be evaluated.
Council Member Howard stated that she had spoken with Mr. Lauchland's brother,
Robert, about this matter. She pointed out that the Lauchland's have asked to place
their property in Stockton's sphere of influence; however, its plan is for residential and
commercial development.
Richard Lauchland asserted that if his property were zoned for wastewater treatment it
would render it useless as a wine grape vineyard. He stated that vineyards do not use
that much water during the period of time that the City proposes to distribute it. Mr.
Lauchland learned in June that the City of Lodi was considering including his property
in its wastewater treatment facility sphere of influence and felt that he had no choice
but to approach the city of Stockton about being placed in its sphere instead. Mr.
Lauchland reported that his property is one mile outside the city limits of Stockton and
approximately three miles from the White Slough facility. Mr. Lauchland stated that
other property owners adjacent to him also asked to be included in Stockton's sphere
of influence, and they were receptive to the idea.
oo Robert Lauchland stated that Stockton's sphere of influence would allow him a future to
continue farming. He believed having his property included in Lodi's proposed sphere of
influence would necessitate pulling out his vineyard and replacing it with a low -value
crop that could tolerate treated effluent. Vineyards are valued at $25,000 to $30,000 an
acre; whereas, row crops or bare land within a wastewater treatment facility sphere of
influence would be worth $7,000 an acre. This would also take away two-thirds of their
ability to obtain lending. Mr. Lauchland stated that they would never be able to sell the
site as a vineyard and would be forced to seek recovery from the City of Lodi for this
action. The economic impacts upon existing farm operations and landowners are not
addressed in the EIR, and Mr. Lauchland believed this to be a major deficiency of the
document. Lodi's proposal is opposed by the Farm Bureau, the Lodi District Grape
Growers, and other agricultural interests. He believed that this action would panic
owners of land around Lodi to sell quickly to development interests to try to protect
their land value. He asserted that the City does not need the sphere of influence in
order to secure land for its sewer treatment facility expansion, unless its intent is to
devalue the land so the City can purchase it more cheaply later. He pointed out that all
the land around the plant is available for sale or lease now at fair market price. He
urged Council to reconsider the effects and make an attempt to mitigate the impact on
high-value land such as vineyards.
Continued September 1, 2004
Mayor Hansen stated that keeping the City's water treatment and disposal options
open protects the interest of the taxpayers of Lodi. Mr. Hansen disclosed that he met
with Robert Lauchland previously about this topic.
In answer to Mayor Hansen, Robert Lauchland stated that he owned 145 acres, which
is included in the most expansive of Lodi's sphere alternatives. He reported that as a
member of the Greenbelt Task Force he met every two weeks with Ms. Hitchcock and
Mr. Bartlam; however, this matter was not addressed until after an article was
published in the newspaper.
Addressing Mr. Lauchland, Council Member Hitchcock stated that the issue appears to
be whether his land goes into Lodi's sphere of influence, which the City has been
planning for three or more years, or whether it goes into Stockton's plan to house
125,000 people between Eight Mile Road and Mettler Road.
Mr. Lauchland reiterated that Stockton's sphere of influence would allow him to
continue to farm; whereas, Lodi's wastewater treatment facility sphere of influence
would destroy his wine grape vineyard operation. He stated that there was no
projection for housing in the sphere of influence proposed by Stockton, which is why it
did not require an EIR.
Mr. Bartlam stated that the sphere proposal is a planning tool. It would not change the
land use designation of Mr. Lauchland's property, as that jurisdiction would remain with
the County of San Joaquin. Being placed within Lodi's sphere of influence would have
no impact on Mr. Lauchland's vineyard operation. It would only have effect at such time
that the City chose to utilize the property by virtue of paying fair market value for it or
coming to an agreement on the use of treated wastewater on the property if agreed to
by the owner. He reported that a notice of preparation was sent to all properties within
the projected sphere.
00 Pati Hamm stated that she is from a fiird-generation family to operate the dairy on
Thornton Road adjacent to the White Slough property. Nt. Hamm noted that her
family has rented over 200 acres of White Slough property from the City for the last ten
years. She reported that approximately 10% of the 1,000 acres that the City owns at
White Slough is currently not being used for wastewater discharge. Over 275 of these
acres were purchased by the City from a landowner 15 years ago. Ms. Hamm noted
that a sphere of influence change was not needed at that time and she questioned why
it would be now. She believed Lodi's proposal was bad for agricultural property. When
land is placed within Lodi's sphere of influence, there would be limitations on what
crops can be grown. Land values in the sphere of influence could be reduced to "next
to nothing." Lenders loan on the value of equity, so the ability to obtain a loan would
also be significantly reduced. Ms. Hamm asserted that if the City needs more land it
should approach the landowners and purchase it from them at fair market value. She
stated that the San Joaquin County Farm Bureau Federation representing over 6,000
farm families submitted a letter to Community Development Director Bartlam dated July
21, 2004, in opposition to Lodi's sphere of influence proposal.
Mayor Pro Tempore Beckman stated that it is true that changing the sphere of
influence would not affect landowners' current ability to run their operations; however, it
would have a significant impact on their land's resale value.
oo William Hammonds stated that he owned approximately 600 acres south of White
Slough's southern boundary, which would be impacted by alternatives 1 and 3. His
family has farmed the area since 1885. He has asked to be included in the city of
Stockton's sphere of influence, and not in Lodi's. Mr. Hammonds and another group of
landowners spent $9 million to $12 million to construct a levy around properties that are
7
Continued September 1, 2004
west of Interstate 5 and south of White slough. The levy took the property out of the
FEMA 100 -year flood plan. He expressed great concern that Lodi would attempt to buy
the land at a vastly discounted price after all the work that has gone into it and history
of ownership. Mr. Hammonds stated that he heard about Lodi's proposal for the first
time when he attended a recent Greenbelt Task Force meeting. The first written notice
he received was sent out only one week ago. He recalled that the City of Lodi
approached his family a number of years ago with an interest in purchasing property
south of the current southern boundary of White Slough. The property was appraised,
following which no further communication from the City was received. Mr. Hammonds
stated that the property would be worth tar more today. In summary, Mr. Hammonds
stated that he did not want his property to be a buffer zone, a sewer disposal site, or
his farmland devalued by 80% or 90%.
Mayor Hansen reiterated that what is driving this issue is an effort to meet the
requirements that the State of California has put upon the City.
Mr. Hammonds replied that the sphere of influence is being expanded with the
expressed or implied intent of reducing property values so the City can buy it at a
lesser rate. Mr. Hammonds noted that he heard that statement made at a Greenbelt
Planning Commission meeting from members of the Commission and members of staff.
Fair market value would change significantly once property is in the Lodi's sphere of
influence.
Mr. Bartlam confirmed that the fair market value of land in Stockton's sphere of
influence would be much different than if it were in Lodi's sphere of influence.
oo Steve Herum stated that he represented the Stockton Family Farm Coalition,
comprised of landowners with property in and around Lodi's proposed sphere of
influence. He stated that Lodi does not need the sphere of influence to acquire the land
it needs. The City could enter into a lease or purchase property for the disposal of
treated effluent. Mr. Herum stated that the EIR did not fulfill its requirement as an
informational document. The EIR did not provide a sufficient statement for determining
why some impacts were considered to be less than significant, nor did it conclude why
certain mitigation measures were infeasible. As a result, Mr. Herum stated that the
EIR did not meet the minimum requirements by state law. The EIR states that the
tonnages of pollution are going to increase because of the project and that causes
respiratory ailments. It does not, however, inform the public of what are going to be the
increased incidents of respiratory disease because of the increased tonnage of PM10.
A recent case, Protect the Historic Amador Waterways, was overturned by the court of
appeals for using the same failed methodology that Lodi has used. Mr. Herum stated
that the response to comments was also insufficient. As an example, he had
commented that with respect to the cumulative impacts (e.g. air quality, traffic) Lodi did
not look at the Spanos commercial development or any development in Stockton. The
draft EIR stated that only the Lodi General Plan and the San Joaquin County General
Plan was used to determine cumulative impacts. On page 4.4 of the final EIR, a minor
change was made to add the city of Stockton's General Plan; however, the EIR notes
that a summary of cumulative impacts is provided in Section 7.0 and when referring to
that section it states that the potential cumulative impacts of the build out, when
combined with the effects of growth and development forecast for the City of Lodi
General Plan area and the San Joaquin County General Plan, could result in cumulative
impacts of the environment. Mr. Herum stated that the cumulative impacts were under
projected. In addition, he believed that the EIR treated the cumulative analysis
incoherently. At Section 5.1 of the draft EIR, it presented three options: 1) 2,310
acres; 2) 3,890 acres; and 3) 4,470 acres. The alternative presented was 4,240 acres.
Mr. Herum asked how an EIR can have options that are not alternatives. The document
then rejects the 4,240 acre alternative because it would be too small to create the
buffer, and yet there is no evidence in the EIR of what an adequate buffer is.
10
Continued September 1, 2004
Mr. Herum stated that if Lodi changes its sphere of influence his clients would not be
able to get loans for capital improvements because no bank would be able to amortize
it, due to the threat of being used for wastewater treatment facility purposes. He
asserted that his clients did not make the wastewater problem, they do not benefit from
the treatment facility, and should not be harmed as a result of it. Mr. Herum stated
that taking action tonight would create a liability d the City to all of the property
owners. Furthermore, he stated that all 4,000 acres are potentially being condemned
by the City's action and they will be looking at pre -condemnation damage. The EIR
specifically states that there would be buffer properties, yet there is no compensation
for those properties. Mr. Herum asserted that the City is taking away his clients
property rights.
Mr. Herum agreed with the former speaker that appendix F in the preamble states that
an EIR shall include energy conservation sections, yet it is not in the document. He
stated that on page 2.4 the language is virtually identical to the language in the initial
studies that the city of Stockton prepared. Mr. Herum was not aware of another city in
the Central Valley proposing to solve their wastewater treatment State mandates by
having a non-contiguous sphere of influence of 4,000 acres, and believed it to be the
largest in the history of California.
Council Member Hitchcock stated that Lodi's proposed sphere of influence prevents
development by another entity that wants to come into that area. She then elaborated
by saying that the city of Stockton wants residential development to occur on the
property. By protecting Lodi's sphere of influence it retains the property for long-term
planning of wastewater treatment facility needs. If the State eventually decides that the
City can no longer discharge into the Delta, and Stockton or the County has already
encroached on the area, Lodi would have no land available to purchase for discharge.
Mr. Herum alleged that this topic has nothing to do with the wastewater treatment
facility needs; it is a "Trojan horse" to prevent Stockton from growing north.
Mayor Hansen believed that Mr. Herum's purpose was not only to protect his client's
rights, but to provide an opportunity for the massive expansion that the city of Stockton
wants to pursue. He noted that the dilemma for the Council is to protect the City's
investment. He asked Mr. Herum who he was representing when he spoke at the
Stockton City Council meeting recently.
Mr. Herum replied that he was representing a number of landowners. He suggested
that Lodi ought to have a better idea of how much land it needs before proceeding with
the sphere of influence.
oo Steve Coldani stated that he and his family own approximately 800 acres within the
sphere of influence and expressed opposition to the proposal.
oo John Cosby suggested that Lodi do more to limit its growth, intimating that increased
population contributes to the difficulties being encountered at the wastewater treatment
facility. He urged Council to delay its vote tonight and read the Constitution of the
State of California regarding freedom and property owners' rights.
oo Janice Hart stated that she owns 1.06 acres on DeVries Road just outside the
proposed sphere of influence. She asked why the City had selected so much property
north of Lodi and questioned the environmental soundness of applying treated effluent in
one location instead of smaller amounts distributed more widely.
Public Portion of Hearing Closed
11
Continued September 1, 2004
In answer to the previous speaker and questions from Council, Kathryn Gies of West Yost
and Associates explained that, in the technical document, her firm considered proximity to
the treatment plant, existing zoning, and soil type. She explained that when treated
effluent is used for irrigation it must be applied at an agronomic rate. The City is prohibited
from going west because of the Delta boundary. The areas to the east of Interstate 5 are
within the 100 -year flood boundary. Areas to the west and north move uphill and would
require crossing major roads necessitating sub -service conveyance and additional facilities
to get the water to those locations. Lodi is currently in the process of constructing a
filtration facility that would allow for completely unrestricted irrigation on property either
owned by the City or any landowner. Agricultural reuse of the water would be a benefit to
the citizens and those that receive the water. Ms. Gies confirmed that treated effluent
could be applied to wine grape vineyards. Napa and Sonoma counties use reclaimed water
to irrigate vineyards.
Elizabeth Hughes, of Hughes Environmental Consulting, reported that her firm began
preparing the EIR over a year ago. A Notice of Preparation was submitted to the public and
to agencies for comments. The draft document was released for public review. She noted
that it is a program level document indicating that there is no project and no action is being
taken. If the City decided to go forward and look at one of the options, there would be
detailed environmental analysis at that time in a project level EIR.
Mayor Pro Tempore Beckman disclosed that Richard and Robert Lauchland were his
cousins; their grandfather was his great grandfather. He believed that the duty, role, and
responsibility of government is primarily to protect and preserve private property rights;
another role is to provide municipal utilities, and tonight those are in direct conflict.
MOTION #1
Mayor Pro Tempore Beckman made a motion to approve certification of the FINAL Program
Environmental Impact Report (EIR 03-02) for fie White Slough Water Pollution Control
Facility and further direct staff to make application to LAFCO to designate the sphere of
influence; and 1) that upon Lodi's annexation of land that provides what is needed for the
White Slough Treatment Facility, the sphere of influence expansion that is not needed
would be rescinded; and 2) eminent domain would not be used in determining options or
land to be annexed. The motion died for lack of a second.
MOTION #2:
Council Member Hitchcock made a motion, Howard second, to adopt Resolution No. 2004-
181 approving certification of the FINAL Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR 03-02)
for fie White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility and further directing staff to make
application to LAFCO to designate the sphere of influence.
DISCUSSION:
Mayor Pro Tempore Beckman stated that if it is the City's desire to use eminent domain
and pay fair market \alue then it should do so prior to putting the property within the sphere
of influence, noting that the price would change with the land designation.
In response to Mayor Pro Tempore Beckman, City Attorney Schwabauer stated that extra
territorial eminent domain is possible. He did not believe the action Council was taking
tonight would affect the appraised value of the property for purposes of eminent domain.
Mayor Hansen stated that timing appears to be critical, as moving forward with the sphere
of influence would allow the City additional time to decide what the best alternative is.
Mayor Pro Tempore Beckman acknowledged that Lodi needs to protect its sphere of
influence from the city of Stockton. He asked Mr. Bartlam to remember his previous
comments this evening, i.e. that the landowners can sell to the City of Lodi when they
choose.
12
Continued September 1, 2004
VOTE:
The above motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members — Beckman, Hitchcock, Howard, and Mayor Hansen
Noes: Council Members — None
Absent: Council Members — Land
RECESS
At 10:23 p.m., Mayor Hansen called for a recess, and the City Council meeting reconvened at
10:30 p.m.
H. COMMUNICATIONS
H-1 On recommendation of the City's contract administrator and Human Resources staff, the
City Council, on motion of Mayor Hansen, Howard second, rejected the following claims by
the vote shown below:
Ayes: Council Members — Beckman, Hitchcock, Howard, and Mayor Hansen
Noes: Council Members — None
Absent: Council Members — Land
a) Sherry Klein Successor in Interest to Agnus Klein, date of loss 2/5/04
b) Sherry Klein Wrongful Death of Father Howard C. Klein, date of loss 2/5/04
C) Sherry Klein Wrongful Death of Mother Agnus B. Klein, date of loss 2/5/04
d) Sherry Klein, Executor of Estate of Howard C. Klein, Successor in Interest to
Agnus Klein, date of loss 2/5/04
e) Sherry Klein Wrongful Death of Brother Howard Blair Klein, date of loss 2/5/04
f) Tim Vallem, date of loss 7/94 to current
H-2 Reports: Boards/Commissions/Task Forces/Committees — None
H-3 Appointments — None
H-4 Miscellaneous — None
REGULAR CALENDAR
1-1 "Approve removal of left -turn restriction on Lilac Street at Eilers Lane"
Paula Fernandez, Senior Traffic Engineer, reported that Public Works received a petition
with over 80 signatures from residents requesting the removal of the left -turn restriction on
Lilac Street and Eilers Lane. Staff mailed the staff report for this item to all residents of
Eilers Lane, as well as Inglewood Drive petitioners. The posted speed limit on Eilers Lane
is 30 mph, the prima facie speed limit on Lilac Street is 25 mph, and Lower Sacramento
Road is posted at 35 mph. Currently the traffic volume on Eilers Lane is 240 vehicles per
day. She reminded Council of previous actions related to this matter:
➢ September 1987 — Residents of Eilers Lane requested that the street be closed.
Council denied the request and approved the installation of the left -turn restriction that
is currently in place;
➢ Spring 1989 — The chestnut bridge was opened and the traffic volume increased on
Woodhaven and Chestnut and decreased on Lilac Street;
➢ In 1990 — Staff restudied Lilac Street and Eilers Lane at the request of Council; no
action was taken; and
➢ October 1997 — Staff received a petition with over 30 signatures of residents wanting to
remove the left -turn restriction; no action was taken.
13
Continued September 1, 2004
Ms. Fernandez summarized that Public Works has received 13 formal requests and two
petitions since the installation of the left -turn restriction in September 1987. Staff
recommends that Council approve the request to remove the left -turn restriction on Lilac
Street at Eilers Lane.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
oo Steve Hennecke distributed a 19 page packet of information (filed) to Council and
stated that he represented a group of residents on Eilers Lane who were opposed to
the removal of the sign. He expressed frustration with the lack of police presence and
enforcement of traffic laws in the northwest corner of Lodi. Referencing Council
minutes of March 17, 1993, he noted that Council at that time had recommended the
left -turn restriction be made similar to Fairmont Avenue and Kettleman Lane.
Mr. Hennecke reported that it had never been done.
In response, Ms. Fernandez confirmed that the island is painted; it is not raised
concrete as was done on Fairmont Avenue and Kettleman Lane.
Mr. Hennecke anticipated that when the Woodbridge school reopens as an elementary
school there would be younger children in the area and traffic would increase. He noted
that the primary concern of those he represents is the safety of the children and
neighborhood. He felt that the 30 mph speed limit on Eilers Lane was too high. He
acknowledged that Woodhaven Lane can a be a challenge to exit, but felt there was no
logic in changing street designs making Eilers Lane more dangerous. He
recommended that Council lower the speed limit on Eilers Lane to 25 mph, increase
police presence and traffic enforcement, construct a concrete island to keep the left -
turn restriction sign intact, and add no -parking zones on Woodhaven to allow for
increased visibility.
00 Lance Selkirk stated that when school is in session during the hours of 7:45 to 8:15
and 2:45 to 3:15, the traffic is very heavy. He believed that, in a year, when the
elementary school opens it will increase the number of buses and parents delivering
and picking up their children.
0o Steve Nilssen stated that turning left onto Woodhaven Lane is becoming prohibitive.
Referencing Council minutes of June 1, 1988, Mr. Nilssen reminded Council that a
resolution was adopted establishing no -parking zones on Woodhaven Lane north of
Eilers Lane. He recommended that it be done, as well as placing speed bumps on
Eilers Lane. He recalled that there was an island at one time; however, the City
removed it.
oo Dori Mann stated that the problem that existed when the left -turn restriction sign was
placed, no longer exists, and it is now obsolete and should be removed.
oo Cindy Rudow-Smith commented that the area is being developed with more residential
construction. She suggested that joint communication take place in the future between
the residents, Lodi Unified School District, and the City regarding changes to the flow of
traffic in front of the school. She was in favor of removing the left -turn restriction on
Lilac Street at Eilers Lane.
In reply to Mayor Pro Tempore Beckman, Public Works Director Prima stated that both
Police Chief Adams and Fire Chief Pretz were opposed to undulations on streets, due to
the difficulty they pose for emergency equipment.
In answer to Council inquiries, Ms. Fernandez stated that she would look into why the no -
parking zones were not placed on Woodhaven Lane. She did not believe that the traffic
volume would be affected by eliminating the left -turn restriction.
14
Continued September 1, 2004
Mayor Hansen stated that he would ask the Police Department to increase traffic
enforcement in the area.
MOTION:
Council Member Howard made a motion, Beckman second, to approve the removal of the
left -turn restriction on Lilac Street at Eilers Lane.
DISCUSSION:
Mayor Hansen felt that the left -turn restriction was a traffic mitigation that had been in place
for a long period of time, and had its purpose.
VOTE:
The above motion carried by the vote shown below:
Ayes: Council Members — Beckman, Hitchcock, and Howard
Noes: Council Members — Mayor Hansen
Absent: Council Members — Land
VOTE TO CONTINUE WITH THE REMAINDER OF THE MEETING
The City Council, on motion of Mayor Hansen, Hitchcock second, voted to continue with the
remainder of the meeting following the 11:00 p.m. hour. The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members — Beckman, Hitchcock, Howard, and Mayor Hansen
Noes: Council Members — None
Absent: Council Members — Land
REGULAR CALENDAR (Continued)
1-2 1) Adopt resolution waiving $10,500 reimbursement from Lodi-Tokay Rotary for costs
incurred by the City during the Oooh Ahhh Festival and approving special allocation from
the Fund Balance to cover unbudgeted overtime costs and 2) discussion and appropriate
action regarding restructuring the agreement between the City of Lodi and the Lodi-Tokay
Rotary for the production of the July 4, 2005, Oooh Ahhh Festival"
Interim City Manager Keeter recalled that in August 2003 a meeting took place between the
City Manager and representatives of Lodi-Tokay Rotary, at which time an agreement was
reached that the Rotary would reimburse the City $10,500 of its total cost (of $38,000) for
the Oooh Ahhh Festival. She explained that $38,000 includes $18,000 from the City's
General Fund for the fireworks and $1,000 from Electric Utility. In April 2004, the Rotary's
contract and budget for the event was approved by Council. On May 21, 2004, the Rotary
asked that the reimbursement amount be reduced to $9,500 because some of the Parks
and Recreation staff time supports the Kiwanis pancake breakfast at the event. On August
19, 2004, the Rotary requested that the City waive the $9,500 reimbursement, due to a
shortfall in revenues.
Ms. Keeter recommended that Council waive the $10,500 reimbursement from the Lodi-
Tokay Rotary for oasts incurred by the City during the Oooh Ahhh Festival, appropriate
funds from the City's General Fund, and direct staff to work with the Oooh Ahhh Festival
Committee (through the Rotary) to develop a business plan for the 2005 event.
Mayor Hansen noted that Council received a "blue sheet" on this item from Barbara
McWilliams who was in favor of the Rotary's request.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
oo Joanne Mounce reported that the Rotary's profit and loss statement showed that
$4,000 was made; however, subsequently it paid $7,000 to volunteers who worked at
the event.
15
Continued September 1, 2004
00 Bob Johnson recalled that the Rotary has been coordinating the Oooh Ahhh Festival for
the past ten years, prior to which there had been problems associated with the use of
alcohol, etc. He stated that the Rotary "came to the City's rescue" to salvage a nice
tradition and community event. He distributed and reviewed a list (filed) showing
contributions that the Rotary makes to the community.
Council Member Howard stated that the reimbursement was part of a contract and agreed
upon by both parties.
MOTION / VOTE:
The City Council, on motion of Mayor Hansen, Hitchcock second, 1) adopted Resolution
No. 2004-182 waiving $10,500 reimbursement from Lodi-Tokay Rotary for costs incurred by
the City during the Oooh Ahhh Festival and approving special allocation from the Fund
Balance to cover unbudgeted overtime costs and 2) directed staff to work with Lodi-Tokay
Rotary to find a way to make the Oooh Ahhh Festival a more streamlined and profitable
event. The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members — Beckman, Hitchcock, and Mayor Hansen
Noes: Council Members — Howard
Absent: Council Members — Land
1-3 "Discussion and appropriate action regarding termination or restructuring of the New Year's
Eve Kids' Night Out event"
Interim City Manager Keeter reviewed the options outlined in the staff report and
recommended that the New Year's Eve Kids' Night Out event be suspended for 2004 and
reevaluated annually during the budget preparation. She noted that representatives from the
Downtown Lodi Business Partnership, as well as the Chamber of Commerce, expressed an
interest in participating as a partner with the City in coordinating the event. In addition, she
received communication from Steve Whyte of WhyteHouse Productions who has offered to
be the event coordinator. Ms. Keeter reminded Council that the community survey rated
the event very low.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
oo Joanne Mounce offered the assistance of Lodi-Tokay Rotary members to work at the
event, if another organization coordinated it, as well as providing a cash donation of
$750.
oo Pat Patrick, President of the Chamber of Commerce, declined to take over coordination
and financial responsibility for the New Year's Eve Kids' Night Out event.
MOTION / VOTE:
The City Council, on motion of Council Member Hitchcock, Hansen second, voted to
suspend the New Year's Eve Kids' Night Out event for 2004 unless another organization
wishes to coordinate and fund the event. The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members — Beckman, Hitchcock, Howard, and Mayor Hansen
Noes: Council Members — None
Absent: Council Members — Land
J. ORDINANCES
J-1 "Ordinance No. 1750 entitled, 'An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Lodi
Amending Chapter 13.04 of the Lodi Municipal Code by Repealing and Reenacting Section
13.04.130, Relating to Low -Income Adjustments"' was pulled from the agenda and
continued to the regular City Council meeting of September 15, 2004.
16
Continued September 1, 2004
K. COMMENTS BY CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS
00 Mayor Hansen asked that an item be placed on the September 15, 2004, Council agenda to
consider an increase in compensation for the Interim City Manager.
L. COMMENTS BY THE CITY MANAGER ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS
None.
M. ADJOURNMENT
There being ro further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at
12:15 a.m., Thursday, September 2, 2004.
ATTEST:
Susan J. Blackston
City Clerk
17