HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - August 30, 2006 SMLODI CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 30, 2006
A. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
The Special City Council meeting of August 30, 2006, was called to order by Mayor Hitchcock at
6:33 p.m.
Present: Council Members — Beckman, Hansen, Johnson, Mounce, and Mayor Hitchcock
Absent: Council Members — None
Also Present: City Manager King, City Attorney Schwabauer, and Interim City Clerk Perrin
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
B-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 Hitchcock called for the public hearing to consider
certifying an Environmental Impact Report and approving General Plan amendment, zone
change, development agreement, and annexation to allow development of a single tenant
office building (approximately 200,000 square feet) on 20 acres, general retail commercial
uses on 40 acres, 1,084 dwelling units of various densities, and associated public and
quasi -public facilities (Reynolds Ranch project) on a total of 220 acres located on the south
side of Harney Lane between State Highway 99 and the Union Pacific Railroad to the west
AND to concurrently consider appeal filed by San Joaquin Valley Land Company regarding
the Planning Commission's "non -action" on the above actions (Applicant: San Joaquin
Valley Land Company, File #s 06 -GM -01, 06-EIR-01, 06 -AX -01). NOTE: The action pertaining to
the certification of the Environmental Impact Report was a quasi-judicial hearing and required disclosure of ex
parte communications as set forth in Resolution No. 2006-31.
With the aid of a PowerPoint Presentation (filed), Peter Pirnejad, Planning Manager,
summarized that Council is being asked to take five separate actions: 1) Certify the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) with the two Statements of Overriding Consideration;
2) Amend the General Plan from Planned Residential Reserve to Planned Residential, as
amended, Neighborhood/Community Commercial, and Office designations; 3) Approve the
zone change from San Joaquin County AG -40 to Planned Development designation; 4)
Adopt the Development Agreement; and 5) Approve the annexation and forward a request
for annexation to the Local Area Formation Commission. The project is cn the southeast
corner of the City, contiguous to the City limits, and within the Planned Residential
designation of the General Plan. The land use plan consists of the blended low and
medium density units V34 units or 84.5 acres), high-density residential (200 units or 9.1
acres), senior high-density residential (150 units or 3.0 acres), park areas (including a
detention basin, linear parks, and community parks), a 14 -acre school site, one acre for a
fire station, mini storage buffer area to the west of the site adjacent to the greenbelt, a retail
component of 40 acres (350,000 square feet of general retail uses), and the proposed
200,000 square foot Blue Shield call center. Mr. Pirnejad reviewed the development plan,
project description, and the various buffers as detailed in the staff report and displayed
photos from similar communities. The southern buffer provides a barrier between the
residential development to the north and the existing agricultural land to the south, and the
concept is to maintain the visual characteristics of the agricultural land with the use of
native plants and less manicured landscaping. The plan includes walking and bike trails
and trails with park benches and minimal screening. There are no streets that terminate to
the south; all streets loop around or terminate prior to the southern limits of the project to
emphasize the delineation between the residential development to the north and any future
developments. The internal trails would be part of the street structure and have landscaping
typically found within a residential neighborhood. This is a pedestrian -oriented development
with walkability and connectivity to the overall project. There will also be landscaped strips
surrounding the detention basin as a buffer to the residential neighborhoods. Further, a
500 -foot buffer is planned between the existing agriculture to the west, the Union Pacific
Railroad, and the residential homes to the east. The plan provides for empty and structured
buffers to provide acoustical attenuation for the railroad, as well as to secure the farming
practices for the neighbor to the west.
Continued August 30, 2006
Council Member Hansen questioned if the 500 -foot buffer would allow the owner of the
agricultural land the right to farm, to which Mr. Pirnejad replied in the affirmative. Further,
Mr. Hansen questioned if the details regarding the type of landscaping along the trails were
finalized, to which Mr. Pirnejad stated that these are only concepts and this portion of the
project would return to the Planning Commission and Council for final approval.
Mr. Pirnejad displayed the retail portion of the project and explained that the project is
divided into two sections: shopping that is geared bward the commuter or motorist and
retail geared toward the pedestrian. The pedestrian retail shops are oriented closer to
Street A, which is a large street, in order to promote walkability. There would be a plaza in
the back, sheltered from traffic, which could include artistic elements, a fountain, or patio
furniture. The street would include bulb outs on the corners of the intersection to promote
walkability and there would be a walking strip painted a separate color.
Andrea Mayer, representing G.C. Wallace Companies, further reviewed in detail the
walkability and connectivity of the project and stated that the focus of the plan was to
emphasize smart growth and new urbanism. The guiding principles used to create a
pedestrian -friendly community were: 1) a balanced mix of land uses (i.e. mix of residential,
commercial, office, education, and recreational), and 2) a trail system that links the entire
project together with a central focus. The integrated trail system is important to smart
growth in many ways: it provides linkages between the land uses; it gives amenities that
are available to the entire public, not just those that live in the neighborhood; and they serve
as buffers internally and externally. The open space areas serve as smooth transitions
from one density into another.
Mayor Hitchcock stated that this project did not appear to be different from what the City
presently has and she believed that new urbanism is pedestrian access through residential
areas; not by sidewalks. Further, she believed that having separate areas of densities was
not a true mix. Following further discussion, Ms. Mayer confirmed that this project provides
for a trail system, from which each individual neighborhood would provide connectivity and a
standard for additional sidewalk or bicycle thread. In regard to the mix of uses, Ms. Mayer
stated this typically refers to a mix of housing, employment, and retail; however, the
densities of the residential portion would vary.
Mayor Pro Tempore Johnson questioned if there would be a transition between the various
densities, to which Ms. Mayer replied in the affirmative and added that the details would
come forward during the tentative subdivision map process.
In response to Mayor Hitchcock, Mr. Pirnejad confirmed that the conditions of approval for
the zone change include the primary elements of new urbanism, including dwellings that
are within five-minute walking distance from the center (an average of 2,000 feet), streets
that are narrow and shaded by trees, and buildings in the neighborhood center that are
close to the street. The issues of what kind of trail, how wide a trail, delineation between
bicyclists and pedestrians, type of landscaping, etc., will come back to the Planning
Commission and Council for final approval. The walkability aspect promotes air quality
aspects by reducing the number of traffic trips and the utilization of Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design (LEED) certification, which is a higher standard of conservation
and energy, on the Blue Shield project.
Mayor Hitchcock believed this project, which calls for 11% low density, 68% medium
density, and 21% high density, was inconsistent with the policies of the General Plan,
which requires 65% low density, 10% medium density, and 25% high density.
Steve Mattas, legal counsel with Meyers Nave, reported that the General Plan calls for a
gross density of seven units per gross acre in the Planned Residential Reserve, and the
modification to the definition of Planned Fbsidential accomplishes that; therefore, the net
density of the two areas (i.e. low and medium) is less than seven units per gross acre. The
numbers of 65% low, 10% medium, and 25% high are identified in the General Plan as a
goal the City would strive to obtain through new developments.
2
Continued August 30, 2006
Mayor Hitchcock disagreed, stating that the Growth Management ordinance was
implemented at the same time, which has allocations based on 65%, 10%, and 25%, that
the City has adhered to for over 20 years.
Community Development Director Hatch stated that the City has not achieved those
percentage breakdowns in the Growth Management allocations since it was adopted, as
the City has not grown at that level.
Mr. Pirnejad reported on the following:
oo The Development Plan, which details the 200,000 square foot Blue Shield Call Center
and the 350,000 square feet of retail on a 40 -acre lot parcel.
oo The Concept Plan, which contains goals, policies, and general principles to work
toward in the remaining portion of the project, approximately 160 acres.
oo The Infrastructure Master Plan, which details the entire 220 -acre plan regarding needs
and utilities of the project.
The project was broken into two phases: Phase 1, which consists of the Blue Shield Call
Center and the 150 dwelling units, anticipated to be completed in June 2008; and Phase 2,
which consists of the 40 -acre commercial component, as well as the remaining portion of
the project (i.e. various densities of housing, school, parks, linear parks, mini storage),
anticipated to reach build out between 2008 and 2030. The City hired the consulting firm of
Willdan to prepare the EIR as it was the only firm with the required staff, resources, and
time to handle this process expeditiously.
Robert Sun, Senior Planner with Willdan, reported that the EIR process was deliberate and
transparent and that no shortcuts were used despite the short time frame. All technical
studies were fully developed, critiqued, and presented in entirety, and all California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) processing and public notification procedures were
followed in accordance with the guidelines. Ample opportunity was provided to the public to
comment on the environmental analysis, which included presentations of the project at a
public scoping meeting and at a special meeting of the Planning Commission. The EIR
process began on January 25, 2006, at which time the City filed a Notice of Preparation,
which was distributed for a 30 -day public review period ending on February 27, 2006. The
purpose of the public review period was to solicit comments on the scoping content of the
environmental analysis to be included in the draft EIR. During the review period, a scoping
meeting was held on February 14. Upon completion of the draft EIR, the City published the
Notice of Availability on June 9, announcing that the Lodi Reynolds Ranch draft EIR was
available for public review. The notice was submitted to the state clearinghouse, distributed
to state and local agencies, sent to City Council and Planning Commission members and
interested parties, recorded with the County Clerk, mailed to all property owners within 300
feet of the project site, published in the local newspaper, and posted around the site. The
45 -day public review period for the draft EIR began on June 9 and ended on July 24.
Responses to all of the comments received were addressed and incorporated into the final
EIR. Thresholds of significance were identified and environmental impacts were developed
in concert with City staff. All project impacts were fully addressed and discussed in
accordance with CEQA requirements. A list of cumulative projects was included in the
EIR, such as the proposed Frontier Community Builders (FCB) Westside and Southwest
Gateway developments. Appropriate mitigations were applied to the project to reduce
many of the project impacts to a level of insignificance, and these mitigations were
contained in the mitigation monitoring program. Finally, the EIR analyzed several project
alternatives to CEQA where suitable alternatives were explored and developed to consider
project feasibility and goals.
John Bellis, representing Willdan, reported on the environmental topics analyzed in the EIR,
including air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy
conservation/sustainability, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology, land use and
planning, public services, noise, traffic and circulation, and utilities and service systems.
Continued August 30, 2006
Staff is recommending that Council adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations on the
air quality and agricultural resources impacts. There were other topics in the EIR where
impacts were considered potentially significant; however, mitigation measures were
available and feasible and were incorporated into the project to either avoid or reduce the
impacts to a less than significant level. Air quality was identified as a significant and
unavoidable impact, and Mr. Bellis described in detail 1) the operational emissions of ozone
precursors in excess of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District's yearly
emission significance thresholds, and 2) the contribution to cumulative criteria air
pollutants, which are cumulatively considerable net increases of non -attainment criteria
pollutants for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The pollutants from the project come
primarily from traffic associated with the project, as well as from typical operational
activities, landscape maintenance, and day-to-day maintenance of homes and businesses.
Mr. Bellis outlined the specifics of the air pollution reduction/mitigation strategies, which
include Regulation VIII (i.e. requires dust control measures during construction) and Rule
9510 (i.e. requires development projects to reduce short- and long-term construction and
operation emissions by a quantified percentage). The pollutant reductions may not reach
the prescribed percentages of reduction, in which case the developer would be required to
purchase air pollution credits that would be used to fund programs to reduce emissions.
The design of the project would also help to reduce the air pollution, in that it reduces one's
dependency on automobiles and encourages walkability.
Mr. Pirnejad added that there will be two shifts at the Blue Shield Call Center; thereby,
distributing the peak number of traffic trips to and from the facility at one time. Additionally,
Blue Shield will work toward providing pedestrian -enhanced infrastructure, including
sidewalks, pedestrian paths, bicycle enhancing infrastructure, bike locks and lockers,
transit enhancing infrastructure, park and ride lots, and preferred parking for those who car
pool. The applicant must also work toward identifying a transit model, which will be
included in Phase 2, that would bring multi -modal transit to the project site.
City Attorney Schwabauer reported that a mitigation measure is also required that would
identify acreage close to the project site to be maintained for a period of time as an
agricultural use or alternatively to pay an agricultural land mitigation fee to the City, to
Central Valley Land Trust, or to an equivalent entity. The EIR requires some form of
agricultural mitigation through a program that has yet to be developed, which is
implemented through the development agreement and waves any vesting as to the program.
Staff will bring this back to Council within the next three to four months. There has also
been debate as to whether or not agricultural mitigation through conservation easements is
an adequate mitigation, whether it mitigates or just prevents future lands from being taken.
Even with the implementation of the mitigation measure, the impact may not be reduced to
a less than significant level, in which case staff is proposing that Council adopt a Statement
of Overriding Qmsideration and find that the impacts are outweighed by the benefits. In
addition, staff further recommends Council find that, pursuant to CEQA guidelines, the
issue of conversion in prime agricultural farm land was addressed and analyzed in the EIR
that was certified for the City's General Plan. The City has entered into a potential
settlement agreement that would also require one-for-one agricultural mitigation for land that
is within 15 miles of the project site that is in current agricultural production and that is not
within the Delta primary zone.
Gary Hansen, Traffic Engineer with Willdan, reported that one proposed intersection and 27
existing intersections were analyzed. Willdan worked with City staff and California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to obtain input and concerns on the intersections
controlled by Caltrans on State Highway 12 and at the freeway interchanges on Route 99,
as well as input from the County of San Joaquin. The intersections analyzed were primarily
on Harney Lane, Kettleman Lane, Lower Sacramento Road, and Armstrong Road, and
traffic counts were obtained during the peak hours in order to establish the existing
conditions, which were used to forecast the future conditions at these intersections as the
0
Continued August 30, 2006
project developed. Traffic was then added from other projects that were either under
construction or have been approved or proposed, which included the residential
development along Harney Lane, the proposed Wal-Mart at Lower Sacramento Road, and
the FCB Project. Traffic from the other projects was added to the existing circulation
system and projections were made on the conditions in the year 2008 when Phase 1 is
complete. Staff analyzed conditions where unacceptable levels of service were
encountered and have proposed mitigations. The project traffic following completion of
Phase 1 was then added, and any additional impacts that resulted in mitigations were
listed in the report. The next step was to project out to the year 2030, adding a growth rate
to reflect future unknown projects that will occur between now and 2030, and a list of
mitigations were developed and documented in the transportation section of the EIR. Staff
met with Caltrans regarding the interchange at Highway 99 and Harney Lane and the
potential short-term changes to accommodate Phase 1 traffic, as well as long-term
solutions to rebuild the interchange, so that the right of way could be reserved from the
project.
In regard to an earlier question posed by Council Member Hansen, Gary Hansen stated that
Street A will include, at a minimum, an all -way stop and most likely traffic signals. This
issue will be determined as the details of the developments are finalized and more specifics
are known on the amount of left and right turns, through traffic, and anticipated number of
pedestrians at the intersections.
Mayor Pro Tempore Johnson questioned if the frontage road would remain in effect, which
would allow Blue Shield to be accessed from the east, as well as from Road A.
Mr. Hansen responded that Street A will be relocated to the west of the existing frontage
road, which is a requirement of Caltrans in order to meet minimum distance provisions.
In response to Council Member Hansen, Gary Hansen explained that, with Phase 1, the
four-way intersection will become a Tintersection. Traffic will still have the option from
Highway 99 to get off on Armstrong Road, which would be a secondary way into the
development. There will be improvements along Harney Lane to add additional lanes.
Phase 1 also envisions a traffic signal at the intersection, which would operate better than
the all -way stop there presently. Mr. Hansen also confirmed that street widening would be
included further west on Harney Lane.
Mr. Bellis reported on the alternatives section of the EIR that were selected, which meet the
basic objectives of the project and meet CEQA guidelines, including: 1) No project/no
development; 2) Reduced sale residential; and 3) Reduced sale retail with a park and ride
feature alternative. These alternatives are separate and apart from the alternative project
sites that were considered by the City and Blue Shield.
In response to Mayor Hitchcock, Mr. Sun stated that it took approximately eight months to
complete the EIR. Mr. Pirnejad added that typically an EIR takes between six months and
a year and a half to complete. The reason for the speedy turnaround was that staff worked
very closely with Willdan, who had the necessary staff to perform the studies and prepare
the technical appendices. The developer was available and forthcoming in supplying
information to staff, engineers, and consultants, and weekly scoping meetings were held to
identify and deal immediately with critical issues. Additionally, meetings were held with
Caltrans prior to distributing the draft EIR in order to incorporate its comments into the
document.
In response to Mayor Hitchcock, Mr. King stated that the City charged the applicant the full
cost for the work incurred in house and by extension of staff to complete this project.
In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Pirnejad stated that 15 comments were
received during the two scoping meetings, including comments from the school district,
Ann Cerney, and Will Ackle, all of which were responded to and recorded in the response
to comments section of the EIR. No comments were received from Caltrans or other
agencies that would normally submit comments.
Continued August 30, 2006
RECESS
At 8:25 p.m., Mayor Hitchcock called for a recess, and the City Council meeting reconvened at 8:37
p.m.
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
B-1 Mr. Schwabauer pointed out that, should Council amend the final EIR that has been (Cont'd.)
published, it would require recirculation.
Mr. Pirnejad reported that the General Plan, which was adopted in 1991, had two areas
identified for reserve: residential reserve and industrial reserve. Since adoption of the
General Plan, those have been absorbed into the City limits and given a new designation.
Mr. Pirnejad stated that lands identified in the General Plan that are expected to develop
beyond 2007 have been designated as reserve areas in the Planned Residential Reserve.
This designation is applied to areas that are well suited for residential development, but are
not expected to develop within the timeframe of the General Plan going out to 2007;
however, until the areas are re -designated with a non -reserve General Plan land use
designation, allowed uses in development standards shall be the same as those of
agriculture designation. Therefore, the General Plan allows the City Council to alter or
amend the designation from Ranned Residential Fbserve to another designation, which
would allow development. Staff is recommending the Planned Residential designation with
a minor alteration to the language: `This designation provides for single-family detached
and attached homes, secondary residential units, multi -family residential units, parks, open
space, detention basins, public and quasi public uses, and similar and compatible uses.
All development under this designation shall be approved pursuant to a development plan.
New residential units within Planned Residential areas will strive to develop according to the
General Plan policy goal of maintaining the following mix of residential densities: 65% low
density, 10% medium density, and 25% high density. The average residential density of a
development plan, master plan, or specific plan will generally not exceed seven units per
gross acre. This designation assumes an average of 2.6 persons per household. "
Mr. Pirnejad addressed the issue of consistency with the General Plan EIR and stated that
it did determine there would be a site for elementary and middle schools and future sewer
and water network connections in the project area.
Mr. King stated that development agreements allow a local agency to enter into a contract
with a developer, for which both parties are to receive a benefit. In this agreement, the
developer will receive a series of growth allocations and vested rights upon the effective date
of the development agreement. The City will receive the following benefits: developer will
pay a downtown impact mitigation fee in order to create an incentive for reinvestment into
the downtown area; the developer cannot amend the land use of the commercial piece for
Blue Shield; developer will pay for rehabilitation of units on the east side; developer will
dedicate an acre of land, valued at $200,000, and pay $2 million for a fire station and
$500,000 for fire apparatus; developer to dedicate the land and construct all parks internal
to the development; developers will pay current impact fees as they currently exist, with the
exception of parks; payment of $60,000 for public art; contribution of $50,000 toward animal
shelter programs; developer will pay for fair share costs for either water treatment or
recharge system, for improvements at Highway 99 and Harney Lane, and for electric line
extensions, should Council amend the policy; and the developers would agree not to
protest the imposition of a community facilities district for on-going maintenance, which has
been established at $600 per unit. Mr. King stated that this development agreement is
heftier than most agreements within San Joaquin County.
Council Member Mounce questioned how the east side rehabilitation program would be
structured, to which Mr. King responded that it was modeled after a "paint up/fix up
program." The developer Aould either come forward with units for rehabilitation or it vould
3
Continued August 30, 2006
deposit funds for the City to establish a program, the criteria for which would be brought to
the City Council for approval. Council Member Mounce stated she envisioned
improvements that were more structural in nature (i.e. replacement of windows, new roof,
etc.) and further questioned how the City would manage the funds for all of the programs.
Mr. King stated that the rehabilitation program amounts to $1.25 million and the proposal is
to divide the money among 50 units; however, it could be structured differently. In regard to
control of the funds, staff would provide regular updates to Council as the funds come in and
during the budget cycles; however, Council would maintain control on the expenditure of
those funds. There is a provision within the development agreement for a letter of credit,
which the City could provide to the bank and borrow against should there be a need to build
the fire station earlier.
Council Member Mounce expressed concern vrth the City's cash flow and that it has
borrowed from accounts in the past to pay for items other than what the funds were
intended. She questioned what kind of restrictions could be placed on the funds so that it
remains intact for the intended purposes. Deputy City Manager Krueger stated that there is
a process associated with the deposit, accounting, and expenditure of the funds, which in
this case would fall within the concept of impact mitigation fees. Mr. Krueger cautioned
against restricting funds, with the exception of those situations where the City has been
required to do so, as it would greatly limit the flexibility of future Councils.
City Attorney Schwabauer added that State law allows cities to borrow against impact
mitigation fees without interest, unless it is borrowed from a non -impact fee program, in
which case interest must be charged. Council can prevent future Councils from using the
funds; however, there must be something that encumbers the funds, such as a settlement
agreement, and in this context there is no such avenue available.
Mayor Pro Tempore Johnson expressed support for staff developing a means to restrict the
use of the funds in order to preserve the money for the future intended purpose.
Mayor Hitchcock expressed concern that staff did not have input on the negotiation of the
development agreement and that these types of agreements change the way Lodi has
developed over the last 20 years with impact fees. She agreed that the impact fees have
been deficient; however, every developer knew the amounts, followed the Growth
Management program, and knew the densities and priority areas. She felt that
development agreements were unfair.
Mr. King stated that the development agreement does not usurp the impact fee program
and the developer does meet all State mandated requirements. The development
agreement is intended to bridge the gap between insufficient impact fee levels and the
ability to provide City services to the community. Mr. King reviewed data on the jobs per
acre, jobs to housing ratios, and sales tax per capita (all of which are filed) and stated he
believed the worst case scenario would be to not approve the Bue Shield project and
approve the FCB housing project, both in terms of a jobs -to -housing ratio and a sales tax
per capita ratio.
Mayor Hitchcock stated that she agreed with Mr. King's theory if one were to look only at
each individual project; however, she believed growth should be considered as a whole.
She questioned if Lodi needed these jobs and the commercial development and stated the
City has not done a job housing study for the proposed area.
Council Member Hansen believed the City Manager arrived at a sound business proposal for
the City to deal with growth and development. He believed that the development community
needed to be held accountable for the impact it places on the community and that this
project was consistent with the General Plan goals and policies. He questioned if the City
has met the General Plan goals for density in the last 20 years, to which Community
Development Director Hatch replied in the negative.
7
Continued August 30, 2006
Mayor Hitchcock agreed that impact fees have been insufficient, which was the reasoning
behind her request for a development moratorium. She believed the City needed time to
implement the community facilities districts, electric impact fees, and the water delivery
system, all of which are inadequate at this time. Mr. Hatch responded to Mayor Hitchcock
that the City has not consumed all of the available low, medium, and high densities and the
City has been growing at roughly 1%.
Mayor Pro Tempore Johnson expressed support for Council participation in future
development agreements and commended the City Manager for coming up with a new
approach that is beneficial to the community.
Council Member Beckman stated that the low density allocations have been the highest
allocations as compared to medium and high densities, to which Mr. Hatch agreed, and Mr.
Beckman pointed out that this project will bring in medium and high density projects where
the City is most deficient. He believed that the development agreement brings the City
closer to making development pay its fair share.
Mr. Schwabauer reported that the development agreement incorporates a potential
settlement agreement between the City, the developer, and Citizens for Open Government,
which modifies the agreement to require that the developer mitigate acre for acre and buy
an agricultural easement on 200 acres of property that is in current agricultural production.
It requires the developer to negotiate and secure the agricultural preservation easement,
which must be within 15 miles of the project site and within San Joaquin County. It cannot
be in a primary agricultural zone and the property will be secured in perpetuity. In addition,
the agreement provides that residential entitlements cannot be granted until the developer
has either participated in the formation of a financing district to pay for the Woodbridge
Irrigation District to supply water to the project, or pay its share of the cost of that project.
In regard to impact mitigations, the agreement places new urbanism principles in as a
requirement. The settlement agreement also provides for a contingency should a third party
sue, which states that it becomes ineffective, or partially ineffective, depending on how it
were to occur. If the Citizens for Open Government were to sue, the mitigations that were
set up in the agreement would cease entirely. If a third party were to sue, it would be cut in
half.
Mayor Hitchcock questioned why this was not placed in the greenbelt area, to which
Mr. Schwabauer stated this decision was made as a potential litigation by a third party; not
the City threatening to sue the developer. A mitigation such as the greenbelt area would
more appropriately be made by Council in negotiating the development agreement.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
00 Dale Gillespie introduced himself as the principle with San Joaquin Valley Land
Company and introduced the following three representatives from Blue Shield.
00 Bob Novelli, representing Blue Shield, stated that Blue Shield made a strategic
decision to consolidate its many small sites into three larger ones. Two have been
built: one in EI Dorado Hills with 1,500 employees and the other in Redding with over
300 workers and a capacity for 600. Lodi is the final phase in this strategy, with a
proposed new building to house eventually 1,000 employees. Lodi was selected due to
the positive experience Blue Shield employees have had working in this community, as
well as the opportunities for growth in San Joaquin County. Blue Shield is committed
to this project and, if approved, intends to move quickly on the design and construction
of an environmentally sensitive building. This project will enable Blue Shield to recruit
500 additional employees, many of whom have already been hired in anticipation of this
building, which is scheduled to open January 2008.
00 Lauri Satterthwaite with Blue Shield shared the many benefits of working for Blue
Shield and the benefits of the new Blue Shield facility in Lodi. Blue Shield is
committed to this community and over the last two years has contributed over
$400,000 to non-profit organizations in San Joaquin County. In addition, the employees
are actively involved in and support numerous local charities.
Continued August 30, 2006
In response to Council Member Hansen, Ms. Satterthwaite stated that Blue Shield
employees were surveyed and significantly involved in the decision on the location and
type of environment for the new facility, which was instrumental in the decision to
select Lodi.
00 Kathy Lucky with Blue Shield stated that Blue Shield has begun the design phase of
the building and is committed to using green design principles and LEED certified
architects and construction firms. The project will include energy and water
conservation methods and alternative commute incentives for employees (e.g. bike
storage or parking, alternative fuel, vehicle parking, car pooling, etc.). The employees
are excited that the development will be adjacent to retail and residential and that it will
include walking paths, which has been a high priority amenity for employees.
00 Dale Gillespie reiterated Blue Shield's commitment to remain in Lodi and stated that
the design of this project breaks new ground in providing residents and employees the
ability to walk to work, school, park, shopping, or for exercise, as well as providing
community separators with the use of buffers. He thanked the City Manager and staff
for their efforts, as well as Ann Cerney for her passion to make Lodi a better place. Mr.
Gillespie urged Council to vote in favor of the Reynolds Ranch project.
Council Member Hansen questioned if this project would address affordable housing for
seniors, to which Mr. Gillespie responded that he was willing to pursue the matter, but
only if the appropriate state bond financing were available that would allow the project to
be financially viable. Mr. Gillespie stated his firm is very experienced in this field as it
has developed and rehabilitated many such projects.
Mayor Hitchcock questioned if the Blue Shield project could move forward without the
housing portion until after the General Plan is amended, to which Mr. Gillespie replied
in the negative.
oo Michael Manna, owner of Manna Ranch and Acampo Ag and third generation farmer in
the Lodi area, expressed support for the ability for agriculture to exist with this project.
He stated he farms 11 ranches that abut to the City of Lodi and every year it becomes
more difficult to farm due to the lack of buffers between the property lines. He was
pleased that this project had appropriate buffers to protect the rights of the farmers.
00 Kimberly Bozeman with Blue Shield stated that the City would benefit from the revenue
that Blue Shield would bring to the community and urged Council to approve the
project.
00 Renee Mazzara with Blue Shield expressed support for the project and urged Council
to approve it this evening.
00 Mike Locke, President and CEO of the San Joaquin Partnership, stated that the
Partnership has been involved with Blue Shield representatives since November 2003 in
its search for a site within San Joaquin County. Mr. Locke reported that over 65% of
total job growth occurs through retention and expansion of existing business, which is
why it is important to protect existing jobs and not rely solely upon the ability to attract
employers from the outside. The direct impact of the existing facility creates over $22
million to the local economy; however, the indirect and induced impacts increase that
to $39 million annually. The employment impact from 621 employees increases to 815
jobs with a total labor income of $26 million annually to the community. Going into
Phase 1 at 165,000 square feet with 1,100 jobs, the numbers jump significantly to total
industry output to $70 million, employment impact of over 1,400, with a labor income
annually of over $47 million. At final build out with a project site of 200,000 square feet
and 1,600 positions, output industry increases to $102 million with over 2,096 jobs and
annual labor income of $68 million. The retention and expansion of Blue Shield
provides a job base, but also sends a message to other companies in the community
of how the City values their investment and employees. He encouraged Council to
support the proposed project.
7
Continued August 30, 2006
oo Aimee Zapara-Sullivan with Blue Shield stated she has not seen negative impacts from
the growth in Lodi, is excited about this progressive project, and urged Council to vote
in favor of it.
00 Kathy Haring believed that Lodi's growth has not been in the best interest of this
community. She was not opposed to Blue Shield; however, she was opposed to the
residential portion of the project as the homes on the market in this community are not
selling. Ms. Haring questioned why the City was being asked to make up for the
developer's deal for cheaper land price and expressed concern that developers can
purchase cheaper land from reserved property, which would ultimately be annexed into
the community, while others pay considerably more for land within the City. She
stated the greenbelt area should be closer to the development and further pointed out
that the buffers are only 75 feet wide and should not be considered as the greenbelt
area.
00 Rosemary Atkinson stated she represents Campaign for Common Ground, which is a
county -wide organization that has worked to establish greenbelt community separators
to preserve farmland. She expressed concern for the precedence of crossing Harney
Lane and believed that Lodi breached its line prior to Stockton. She was opposed to
the project, unless it was within the established boundary of Lodi.
00 Peter Iturraran stated that for years the firefighters have raised the issue about a fire
station on the southeast corner of town, which houses one-third of Lodi's population
and 90% of its industry. He felt this project had a balance of homes, retail, and jobs.
In regard to the fire station, he agreed with the concerns raised earlier that the money
be available at the time the fire station is built. He encouraged Council to vote yes on
the Reynolds Ranch project.
oo Will Ackel spoke regarding the quality of life in Lodi and cautioned that nothing be done
to destroy the very things that provide those qualities. He believed that, regardless of
how this project is designed, this is another step in the process of Lodi and Stockton
merging into one. He pointed to the city of Napa as an example where the leaders
knew where to draw the line on development in order to protect and preserve the
community. He expressed concern that Blue Shield may leave, after which the City
would be left with the empty building.
00 Bill Griffitts, speaking as a resident near the proposed project, stated that those who
live in the area do not want to be "steamrolled" and requested that everyone be treated
fairly.
00 Deborah Kass expressed concern about the greenbelt area, which she believed was
not the 75 -foot buffers, and reminded Council that 87% of those surveyed recently were
in support of a greenbelt. The General Plan will soon expire and many changes have
occurred since the adoption of the current plan.
oo Ann Cerney, representing Citizens for Open Government, acknowledged support for the
proposed project provided the amended conditions negotiated between her group and
the City are included in the project. Citizens for Open Government continues to share
the goal of Lodi citizens to promote agriculture as the primary economic base. She
appreciated the willingness of the project proponents to enter into these negotiations,
which she believed resulted in an improved project.
oo Joe Petersen expressed support for the settlement agreement, which is incorporated
within the proposed development agreement. If the City wants a greenbelt, it must
support local agriculture, and he believed a greenbelt would not be accomplished with
urban limit lines or agricultural mitigation fees. This agreement is precedent setting for
San Joaquin County, and the developer is setting precedent for taking responsibility for
the impact that it is creating one to one. Mr. Petersen encouraged Council to accept
the settlement agreement.
10
Continued August 30, 2006
oo Osha Meserve, attorney for Citizens for Open Government, state that, if Council were to
add additional specificity or mitigation measures that improve upon the situation from
an environmental perspective, the group would not object; particularly, the suggestion
that the agricultural mitigation be within the designated or mapped greenbelt area. She
requested clarification regarding a statement made at a recent Planning Commission
meeting that there would be a 75 -foot buffer extending across the Blue Shield property,
which the map this evening does not reflect. Should the Council not approve the
agreement, Citizens for Open Government would revert to and renew all of the
objections previously made to the adequacy of the EIR and project development,
including, but not limited to, analysis of environmental impact, inadequate mitigation
measures, cumulative impacts, alternatives, and failure to comply with procedural and
informational requirements of CEQA.
00 Pat Patrick, President and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce, stated that the
Chamber is in favor of this project and he hoped Council would show a demonstrated
commitment to this project by voting 5 to 0 in support.
00 Kathy Haring requested that Council not treat Lodi as a business and not make its
decisions based on what makes the most money. She believed that staff is promoting
its own agenda and harassing Council into going along. She encouraged Council to
keep an open mind and vote its conscience.
Council Member Beckman stated that Ms. Haring was developing a project in Lodi and
questioned if she was being subject to a development agreement similar to this one
(i.e. rehabilitation of residential property, money for a fire station, etc.), to which Ms.
Haring replied that she is paying the regular fees as an infill project. She believed that
all of the requirements in the development agreement actually benefit the bottom line for
the developers in that it will make money, to which Mr. Beckman stated that staff could
create a development agreement for her project as well that would improve her final
outcome.
00 Dennis Silber expressed concern on the location of the project and believed Council
was ignoring the fact that a majority of residents want a greenbelt between Lodi and
Stockton. Development in the greenbelt negatively impacts farming, and he
encouraged Council to either put the project elsewhere or vote it down.
RECESS
At 11:21 p.m., Mayor Hitchcock called for a recess, and the City Council meeting reconvened at
11:27 p.m.
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
B-1 Public portion of hearing continued
(Cont'd.)
00 Ray Golub stated that the Reynolds Ranch project has the potential to create problems
for area residents, in which they will become cornered and blocked in. He believed that
the traffic reports in the EIR were inadequate as the county roads were closed during
the study.
oo Chuck Easterling commended the City Manager and staff on the negotiations with San
Joaquin Valley Land Company and stated that this type of managed growth with the
precedent setting mitigation and impact fees is essential now and in the future of any
development. He expressed support for the Reynolds Ranch project for these reasons:
managed growth, agricultural mitigation, maintaining Bue Shield and its job base,
rehabilitation funds for the east side, City services fees and concessions from the
developer, and the impact fees on commercial development for downtown Lodi.
oo Al Hernandez with Blue Shield expressed support for the project and for Blue Shield as
an employer and encouraged Council to support the project.
11
Continued August 30, 2006
00 Brad Doell stated that the City does not have adequate fire response in the southeast
part of town and this project addresses the fire issue, as well as being a well-balanced
project. He encouraged Council to vote yes on the Reynolds Ranch project.
00 Elizabeth Nicolini stated that Lodi is a farming community and that, at the turn of the
Century, 40% of the people in this country were farmers; today there is less than 2%.
She encouraged Council to preserve its farmland and not cover it with cement.
oo Joseph Nicolini also spoke in support of preserving farmland.
00 David Neilsen spoke in support of the Reynolds Ranch project, particularly the east
side rehabilitation program.
00 Dale Gillespie clarified the question raised by Osha Meserve in that the 75 -foot buffer
was designed to be a buffer that transitions to the start of the proposed greenbelt. He
is committed to the 75 -foot buffer in the area of Blue Shield; however, the trail system
on the west side of the Blue Shield parcel is designed to head north and the trail would
only lead to the frontage road. Despite the fact that there would not be a trail
anticipated there, the width and design would still be in place.
Public Portion of Hearing Closed
Mayor Hitchcock believed that the project had an inadequate amount of recreational areas.
The General Plan calls for 8 acres of park land per 1,000 people; therefore, this project
would require 20 acres. She questioned why the General Plan policy was changed from
using detention basins for parks and recreational areas, to which Public Works Director
Prima responded that the intention is to utilize the detention basin as a park; however, the
design has not yet been finalized.
Council Member Beckman expressed appreciation for the parties working out the issues
regarding agricultural mitigation and preservation in advance, instead of litigating afterward,
and stated he would support the development agreement. He pointed out, however, that he
would like to see farming operations preserved, not just the land itself.
MOTION #1:
Council Member Beckman made a motion, Johnson second, to adopt Resolution No. 2006-
162 certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (06-EIR-01), adopting the findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring Program
prepared for the Reynolds Ranch project.
DISCUSSION:
Council Member Mounce stated she supports the reuse of the historical Morris -Skinner
Ranch House and the water tower, the jobs this will bring to Lodi, the developer's
willingness to relocate the Moose Lodge and its members, and the high-density housing.
She, unfortunately, could not support the project because the agricultural mitigation was
not sufficient and because she believed there was inefficient water supply for the project.
Council Member Hansen responded to an earlier comment, stating that Napa receives $5
million a year from transient occupancy taxes to help its city be economically viable;
whereas, Lodi receives $360,000 a year. He believed that the Reynolds Ranch project was
critical in making Lodi economically viable, as was demonstrated earlier by Mr. Locke. He
further believed that it would take 15 to 30 years to see the residential neighborhoods at full
capacity. Mr. Hansen expressed support for the agricultural mitigation and quoted data
that shows San Joaquin County having 912,600 acres of land, of which only 83,000 acres
(or 9.1%) are urbanized.
Mayor Pro Tempore Johnson stated that 87% of those surveyed supported a greenbelt;
however, that number decreased significantly when asked if they were willing to pay for it.
He stated that, at some point, someone will have to pay for those features that contribute to
quality of life. Those who are selling these properties are agri-business people and are
12
Continued August 30, 2006
willing sellers; there is no eminent domain involved. Lodi does not have the land available to
market to businesses, which is why it is important to retain the jobs and expand the job
base. To maintain the quality of life in Lodi, the developers have agreed to many things that
will benefit this community.
Mayor Hitchcock stated she would not support the project. She attributed Lodi's quality of
life to the City's General Plan, which set the tone over 20 years ago and will take Lodi into
the next 20 years with the new Plan. She stated that it is more expensive to buy and
develop in the City; however, the alternative is urban sprawl, which is what Stockton has
done. Lodi needs to be more responsible, and she believed the EIR was inconsistent with
the current General Plan. The residential reserve area will account for one-third of the City,
which is being piecemealed. The Growth Management ordinance established areas of
development and set forth rules and guidelines for developers; however, this project usurps
that plan. She stated she could not make her decision based solely on Blue Shield, but
rather the entire development.
VOTE:
The above motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members — Beckman, Hansen, and Johnson
Noes: Council Members — Mounce and Mayor Hitchcock
Absent: Council Members — None
MOTION #2 / VOTE:
The City Council, on motion of Council Member Beckman, Johnson second, adopted
Resolution No. 2006-163 approving a General Plan amendment for development of an office
building, retail commercial uses, 1,084 dwelling units, and associated public facilities
(Reynolds Ranch project) on 220 acres located on the south side of Harney Lane between
State Highway 99 and the Union Pacific Railroad to the west. The motion carried by the
following vote:
Ayes: Council Members — Beckman, Hansen, and Johnson
Noes: Council Members — Mounce and Mayor Hitchcock
Absent: Council Members — None
MOTION #3 / VOTE:
The City Council, on motion of Council Member Beckman, Hansen second, introduced
Ordinance No. 1784 re-classifying 220 acres located on the south side of Harney Lane
between State Highway 99 and the Union Pacific Railroad to the west (Reynolds Ranch)
from San Joaquin County AG -40 (Agriculture, General, minimum 40 acres) zone to City of
Lodi PD (Planned Development) zone, which includes designations specific to housing,
commercial, office, and public/quasi-public (zone change 06-Z-02). The motion carried by
the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members — Beckman, Hansen, and Johnson
Noes: Council Members — Mounce and Mayor Hitchcock
Absent: Council Members — None
MOTION #4 / VOTE:
The City Council, on motion of Council Member Beckman, Hansen second, adopted
Resolution No. 2006-164 approving the request of Dale Gillespie, on behalf of San Joaquin
Valley Land Company LLC, for an annexation to allow general development plan approval for
development of an office building, retail commercial uses, 1,084 dwelling units, and
associated public facilities (Reynolds Ranch Project) on 220 acres located on the south
side of Harney Lane between State Highway 99 and the Union Pacific Railroad to the west.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members — Beckman, Hansen, and Johnson
Noes: Council Members — Mounce and Mayor Hitchcock
Absent: Council Members — None
13
Continued August 30, 2006
MOTION #5:
Council Member Beckman made a motion, Johnson second, to introduce Ordinance
No. 1785 adopting a Development Agreement pertaining to the development of 220 acres
located on the south side of Harney Lane between State Highway 99 and the Union Pacific
Railroad to the west (Reynolds Ranch) (Development Agreement
06 -GM -01), which incorporates the Settlement Agreement between the City of Lodi,
San Joaquin Valley Land Company, and Citizens for Open Government.
DISCUSSION:
Council Member Hansen expressed support for the east side rehabilitation program and
stated he would be willing to look at options on how to structure the program.
Council Member Mounce reiterated her desire that all income received as part of the
development agreement be deposited into restricted accounts in order to protect those
funds. She suggested the money be set aside in a certificate of deposit that would gain
interest. She stressed that she could like to see the east side rehabilitation project be for
structural improvements in order to change the deficient housing stock on the east side and
that this language become a permanent requirement in future development agreements.
She further hoped this program would address the need for low-interest loans to
homeowners that would create a revolving pot of funds for long-term changes on the east
side, similar to that of the Community Development Block Grant funding program for
economic development.
City Manager King suggested that, if so desired, Council could make a subsequent motion
following approval of the development agreement to prohibit the expenditure of these funds
for the first year. He pointed out that Council would also, as required by law, annually
review the status of the development agreement.
VOTE:
The above motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members — Beckman, Hansen, and Johnson
Noes: Council Members — Mounce and Mayor Hitchcock
Absent: Council Members — None
C. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at
12:28 a.m., Thursday, August 31, 2006.
ATTEST:
Jennifer M. Perrin
Interim City Clerk
14