Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - December 20, 2005 SMLODI CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2005 A. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL The Special City Council meeting of December 20, 2005, was called to order by Mayor Pro Tempore Johnson at 7:02 a.m. Present: Council Members — Beckman, Hansen, Johnson, Mounce, and Mayor Hitchcock (arrived at 7:03 a.m.) Absent: Council Members — None Also Present: City Manager King, City Attorney Schwabauer, and City Clerk Blackston B. REGULAR CALENDAR B-1 "Discuss General Plan update and provide direction regarding the scope of the study area, anticipated timeline to complete the update, and level of public participation" Community Development Director Hatch explained that the General Plan is a State required document and is the basis of all land use decisions for a community. The physical scope of the General Plan relates to the physical development of a city and any land outside its boundary which bears relation to its planning. The local jurisdiction has complete authority to decide what its General Plan area is for study purposes. Lodi's current General Plan was prepared in 1987, adopted on June 12, 1991, and projected to 2007. Mr. Hatch reviewed the elements of a General Plan and typical processes, as were outlined in his staff report dated December 15 (filed). He stated that a Land Absorption Study would be compiled to define absorption rates based on an established growth rate of 2%. Mr. Hatch reviewed options for public and legislative body involvement in the General Plan process, which were outlined as items A through F in his staff report dated December 20 (filed). He mentioned that a series of outreach meetings could be held and surveys conducted via newspaper, mail, and/or telephone. Mr. Hatch stated that he did not recommend having off- site meetings at schools, community centers, etc. because he found them to be expensive and time consuming. He reported that $1.5 million was budgeted for the General Plan update and that it would take a minimum of two years. Council Member Hansen preferred that more than one option be presented to Council when the matter comes forward from the Planning Commission. Mayor Hitchcock and Council Member Hansen expressed hope that a policy would be set in which the maximum time allowed for completion of the General Plan update process would be two years. Mayor Pro Tempore Johnson suggested that two Council Members attend and participate in Planning Commission meetings on this topic. Council Member Beckman suggested that detailed reports of Planning Commission meetings (regarding the General Plan update) be provided to Council for review, and that policy issues be brought forward periodically throughout the process for Council direction. He preferred options C and D as outlined in the December 15 staff report. He was not in favor of conducting joint meetings with the Council and Planning Commission throughout the entire process. Mayor Hitchcock preferred that special joint meetings of the City Council and Planning Commission be held throughout the General Plan update process, combined with a series of community workshops to solicit public input. Council Member Mounce stated that she wanted to be involved in every aspect of the General Plan update process. In addition she wanted to ensure it was accomplished in a frugal manner and that emphasis be placed on engaging the community to encourage participation. Continued December 20, 2005 Council Member Hansen was also opposed to conducting joint meetings; however, he did want to be kept fully informed throughout the process and have enough public involvement to have an understanding of what direction the community would like to see the City move toward in the next 20 years. He favored having community workshops and conducting surveys. Mr. Hatch suggested that a General Plan Review Committee be formed, comprised of the Planning Commission and two members of City Council. He mentioned that other Council Members could attend and participate in meetings as desired. City Attorney Schwabauer pointed out that if a third member (i.e. constituting a quorum) of the Council attended and participated in a Planning Commission meeting it would then be considered a special meeting of the City Council and all Brown Act requirements would have to be met. In reference to the issue of surveys, Mayor Hitchcock suggested that Mr. Hatch review the citywide community survey that was conducted and presented to the City Council at its April 21, 2004 meeting. Mayor Pro Tempore Johnson asked how much public involvement typically occurs, to which Mayor Hitchcock replied that during the last General Plan update there was great interest by the public and she suggested that meetings be held at Hutchins Street Square or the Library Community Room to accommodate the anticipated attendance. In answer to questions posed by Mayor Pro Tempore Johnson, Mr. Hatch explained that the Land Absorption Study area could be considered the "inner ring" for the urban limit line or service area, and the "outer ring" would be for the community separator / greenbelt identity area. He believed that allowing Flag City to get sewer and water service from Lodi would reinforce the issue that it is an area of interest for Lodi's General Plan and should be included within the scope of the study. Mayor Hitchcock and Council Members Hansen and Mounce voiced support for the geographic study area to be as expansive as possible in all directions. Council Member Hansen recommended that Mayor Hitchcock, Mayor Pro Tempore Johnson, and Council Member Mounce be designated to work with the Planning Commission on the General Plan update, to which Mayor Hitchcock asked that the matter be placed on a regular Council agenda for discussion and action. NOTE: City Attorney Schwabauer left the meeting at 8:24 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS: 00 Dave Hinchman stated that he was disappointed with the presentation. He emphasized the importance of seeking input, ideas, opinions, and visions for the future of Lodi, from members of the community regarding all aspects of the General Plan. oo Carl Fink commented that Lodi only seems to react to Stockton and is constantly in a defensive position. He pointed out that Stockton has no desire to enter into discussions regarding a greenbelt/community separator area because its goal is to grow. Stockton will soon be finalizing its General Plan which goes north to Armstrong Road and Mr. Fink intimated that Lodi should have taken decisive action long before this point. He favored setting a time limit to complete the General Plan update so that excessive, non-productive discussions do not delay it. 2 Continued December 20, 2005 MOTION / VOTE: There was no Council action taken on this matter. C. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 8:36 a.m. ATTEST: Susan J. Blackston City Clerk