The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Report - December 16, 1998 (65)�y OF u �. COUNCIL COMMUNICATION q<iFoa AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation that the City Council adopt the Growth Management Allocations MEETING DATE: December 16, 1998 PREPARED BY: Community Development Director RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation that the City Council approve the 1998 Growth Management Allocations and Expirations. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Each year the City has the ability to award residential building permits for a projected 2% growth in population for the current year. This year the City has 415 residential building permits to allocate. Of the 415 permits, 65% or 270 are for single-family residential units, 10% or 42 are for medium -density residential units such as duplexes and townhouses, and 25% or 104 are for high-density residential units such as apartments. This year the Planning Commission is recommending that the City use its authority to expire allocations on projects that have not met their timelines as established in their approved development schedules. From the adoption of the City's Growth Management Ordinance back in 1991, the City has not expired allocations from any projects. Many allocations have been voluntarily forfeited in exchange for different densities, but none have been expired. This year there are three projects that have not met their development schedules and furthermore, have expired tentative subdivision maps. As you can see on the "Planning Commission Recommended Building Permit Allocation Schedule 1998" there are 2 projects which have requested single-family allocations and 2 that have requested medium - density allocations. There are also two recommended expirations of single-family allocations, and one recommended expiration and one forfeiture of medium -density allocations. The City has received 101 single-family allocation requests and there are 405 available as well as 203 medium -density allocation requests for which 212 are available. The 405 single-family allocations come from the 270 of this year's lot, 30 which were not awarded last year, 100 from Lodi Estates, which is one of the projects that we are recommending expiration of allocations, and 5 from Fugazi Brothers/Hutchins Village, which is the other project that we are recommending expiration of allocations. The 212 medium -density allocations come from the 42 of this year's lot, 63 which were not awarded in the previous years, 50 from Bridgehaven, which is one of the projects that we are recommending expiration of allocations, and 57 being forfeited by Lodi West as part of its redesign as a low-density subdivision. None of the expiration requests were protested; however the Planning Commission at the request of the representative of the owner continued the recommended expirations for the Lodi Estates project. The Lodi Estates representative later confirmed that the owner would not contest the expirations based on information he obtained from City Staff that the allocations APPROVED: N. �;z Dixon lynn -- CityM nager cc9816.doc 12!08/98 Council Communication Meeting Date: December 16, 1998 Page 2 could be obtained in the future for a revised project. The continued item was approved by the Planning Commission as originally introduced by Staff. All developers requesting allocations submitted an application stating the number of allocations they are seeking to obtain. The projects are scored on a set of criteria previously established by City ordinance. The highest scoring projects have the greatest chance of receiving their allocation request, the lowest scoring, the least chance. This year the number of allocation requests did not exceed the amount available. Competitive scoring, in this instance, did not effect a projects ability to obtain allocations. Following their Public Hearing, the Planning Commission adopted the following list of Growth Management allocations: Requested Recommended 1998 Allocations 1998 Allocations Single Family Requests Lodi Estates EXPIRE -100 Fugazi Brothers EXPIRE -5 Lodi West 41 41 Property 60 60 _Sasaki TOTAL 101 101 Medium Density Requests Bridgehaven EXPIRE -50 Lodi West 57 -57 Vintner's Square 200 200 Sasaki Property 3 3 _ TOTAL 203 203 SINGLE-FAMILY PROJECTS • Lodi West is an existing and developing single-family project. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that this project forfeit its 57 medium -density allocations and be awarded 41 allocations, which is all of the allocations needed to complete the development. Sasaki Property contains a new single-family development plan project for review this year. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that this project receive 60 single-family allocations, which is enough to complete the development. MEDIUM -DENSITY PROJECTS • Vintner's Square Apartment Complex The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that this project receive 200 medium -density allocations which is enough to complete the development. • Sasaki Property The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that this project receive 3 medium -density allocations which added to their existing 100 is enough to complete the development. Cc9816.doc Council Communication Meeting Date: December 16, 1998 Page 3 RECOMMENDED EXPIRATIONS • Lodi Estates Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that this project's development plan and 100 single-family allocations be expired and put back into the allocation pool. • Hutchins Village The Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that this project's development plan and 5 single-family allocations be expired and put back into the allocation pool. • Bridgehaven The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that this project's development plan and 50 medium -density allocations be expired and put back into the allocation pool. FUNDING: None required Konradt Bartlam Community Development Director Prepared by: Mark Meissner, Associate Planner MM Attachments Cc9816.doc Commissioner Rasmussen questioned if the project contained any pedestrian bridges. Community Development Director Bartlam responded that it would be subject to WID approval. Tom Doucette, Lodi Building Partners. Mr. Doucette was agreeable to all conditions. Commissioner Rasmussen asked if the project could provide a pedestrian walk -way on the south end of project. Mr. Doucette felt that this request was premature and the developer could probably accommodate the request in the Tentative Map stage. Chairman Schmidt stated that he would not vote for the project due to the street widths throughout the project. The Planning Commission on motion of Commissioner Rasmussen, McGladdery second, certified the filing of a Negative Declaration by the Community Development Director as adequate documentation for a Growth Management Development Plan for 42 single-family residences to be located at the southwest corner of Lodi West by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Borelli, Mattheis. Rasmussen, Rice, Schmidt, Stafford and Commissioner McGladdery NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners ABSTAIN: The Planning Commission on motion of Commissioner Rasmussen, Mattheis second, approved the request of Lodi Building Partners for approval of a Growth Management Development Plan for 42 single-family residences to be located at the southwest comer of Lodi West with an added condition that a pedestrian access be provided from the project to Lower Sacramento Road and that access be reflected on the Tentative Map for the site by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Borelli, Mattheis, McGladdery Rasmussen, Rice, and Stafford NOES: Commissioners: Chairman Schmidt ABSENT: Commissioners ABSTAIN: Awarding and Expiring of Building Permit Allocations. This matter was presented to the Commission by Associate Planner Meissner. He stated that each year the City has the ability to award residential building permits for a projected 2% growth in population for the current year. This year, there were 415 Building permits to allocate. Two hundred seventy (270) were for single-family dwellings, forty-two (42) were for medium density, and one hundred four (104) were for high-density. This year the planning staff recommended that the commissioners use their authority to expire unused allocations. There were 3 projects that had not met their development schedules and furthermore, had expired subdivision maps. Min 10-14.doc Vote on the request of Lodi Building Partners for approval of a Growth Management Development Plan for 42 single-family residences to be located at the southwest comer of Lodi West Awarding and Expiring of Building Permit Allocations This year there were 2 projects requesting single-family allocations and 2 requesting medium -density allocations. The projects were as follows: Single -Family Allocations Lodi West - 41 single -Family Allocations. Sasaki Property - 60 Single -Family Allocations. Liedium-Density Allocations Vintner's Square - 200 Medium -Density Allocations. Sasaki Property — 3 Medium -Density Allocations. The projects that were being expired were as follows: Lodi Estates - Less 100 Single -Family Allocations Fugazi Brothers - Less S Single -Family Allocations Bridgehaven - Less 50 Medium -Density Allocations Hearing Opened to the Public Todd Fujinaga, Attorney for Lodi Estates. Mr. Fujinaga was not aware until the day before the meeting that the allocations were being expired. He was opposed to the expiration of the allocations as he had invested a lot of time and money in the project. The Planning Commission on motion of Commissioner McGladdery, Borelli second, Vote on Awarding approved the Growth Management Development Plan Review and Awarding and and Expiring of Expiring of Building Permit Allocations with the exception that the expiration of Lodi Building Permit Estate's allocations be continued until November 11, 1998, by the following vote: Allocations AYES: Commissioners: Borelli, Mattheis, McGladdery Rasmussen, Rice, Stafford, and Chairman Schmidt NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners ABSTAIN: ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bartlam introduced Bob Murdoch, City Engineer to the Commission. ADJOURNMENT As there was no further business to be brought before the Planning Commission, Chairman Schmidt adjourned the session at 11:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, �sa Wagner J Secretary Min 10-14.doc 0 MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Community Development Department To: Planning Commission From: Community Development Department Date: October 14, 1998 Subject: Growth Management Development Plan Review and Awarding and Expiring of Building Permit Allocations APPLICATION NO'S: Growth Management: GM -98-(001 through 003), GM -91-012, GM -93-003, and GM -94-005. SUMMARY The City has established a residential growth cap of a 2% population increase per year. In order to provide adequate housing for this projected increase, the City awards residential building permit allocations to project applicants. In order for a developer to receive these allocations they must make an application which includes a development plan. The development plans are reviewed by staff (Community Development, Public Works, Fire, etc.) for their ability to meet basic engineering, zoning, and land use requirements. The City has a limit on the amount of building permits that can be allocated, and for this reason the projects are competitively scored on 13 different criteria. The criteria is based primarily on a proposed project's location to existing City services. Projects scoring highest may receive a greater recommendation or what can amount to a higher number of allocations than lower scoring projects (Refer to City of Lodi Residential Growth Management Schedule). BACKGROUND Each year the City has the ability to award residential building permits for a projected 2% growth in population for the current year. This year the City has 415 residential building permits to allocate. Of the 415 permits, 65% or 270 are for single-family residential units, 10% or 42 are for medium -density residential units such as duplexes and townhouses, and 25% or 104 are for high-density residential units such as apartments. This year staff is recommending that the City use its authority to expire allocations on projects that have not met their timelines as established in their approved development schedules. From the adoption of the City's Growth Management Ordinance back in 1991, the City has not expired allocations from any projects. Many allocations have been voluntarily forfeited in exchange for different densities, but none have been expired. This year we have three projects that have not met their development schedules and furthermore, have expired tentative subdivision maps. As you can see on the "Staff Recommended Building Permit Allocation Schedule" there are 2 projects which have requested single-family allocations and 2 that have requested medium -density allocations. There are also two recommended expirations of single-family allocations, and one recommended expiration and one forfeiture of medium -density allocations. The City has received 101 single-family allocation requests and there are 405 available as well as 203 medium -density allocation requests for which 212 are available. The 405 single-family allocations come from the 270 of this year's lot, 30 which were not awarded last year, 100 from Lodi Estates, which is one of the projects that we are recommending expiration of allocations, and 5 from Fugazi Brothers/Hutchins Village, which is the other project that we are recommending expiration of allocations. The 212 medium -density allocations come from the 42 of this year's lot, 63 which were not awarded in the previous years, 50 from Bridgehaven, which is one of the CD 11Lodints40ent00I Wepart mentslCommuni ty Development\Pl anningZrowth Managementk l998\Growthmgmt98.doc projects that we are recommending expiration of allocations, and 57 being forfeited by Lodi West as part of its redesign as a low-density subdivision. The following is a brief list of the projects, their location, and requested allocations or expirations. The list begins with this year's allocation requests and ends with staff's recommendations for expiration. LODI WEST (App. # GM -98-003) Lodi West is an approved development plan; however, they have proposed to amended this plan to redesign the 57 medium -density lot portion of the development plan as a 42 lot low-density single-family subdivision. The City Council previously awarded 57 medium -density allocations and 337 single-family allocations, which was enough to complete the subdivision. The applicant is now requesting an additional 41 single-family allocations and is forfeiting the 57 medium -density allocation. Forty-one single-family allocations are enough to accommodate the proposed redesign. The discrepancy between the total number of requested allocations and the number of lots in the subdivision comes from the proposed redesign encompassing one of the existing approved lots. APPLICANT: Lodi Building Partners 2375 West March Lane Stockton, CA 95207 Site Characteristics: The allocation area consists of approximately 7.16 acres and 42 single- family lots. The area of allocation is the property fronting Paradise Drive. This area was originally approved back in 1992 as a 57 -lot medium -density single-family subdivision. Four final subdivision units of the original development plan totaling 170 lots are in the process of being developed with homes. Of the 337 single-family allocations previously awarded to Lodi West, 119 homes are constructed or under construction. The property is relatively flat with no unusual topographic features. The physical address of the allocation area is 16891 Lower Sacramento Road (see map). VINTNER'S SQUARE (App. # GM -98-001) is the only new project for review in this year's Growth Management Development Plan review process. The Development Plan includes a total of two -hundred apartment units (200), an office and recreation building, two swimming pools, and two tot -lots. The 200 apartment units will be contained throughout the 12 acre site within fifteen separate two-story buildings. The development plan is designed at approximately 16 dwelling units per acre which is considered medium -density. The applicant has requested 200 medium -density allocations which is enough to complete the project. APPLICANT: G REM Inc. Dale Gillespie, Project Manager P.O. Box 1210 Lodi, CA 95241 Site Characteristics: The project site is completely unimproved and is currently used for agricultural purposes. The site's physical address is 1265 Lower Sacramento Road. The site is generally located on 12 acres at the southwest corner of the intersection of Taylor Road and Lower Sacramento Road. The land is relatively flat without any unusual or extraordinary topographic features. SASAKI PROPERTY (App. # GM -98-002) was reviewed last year as a 100 lot medium - density, single-family, planned development designed around a proposed expansion to the City's existing Municipal Service Center. The City chose not to purchase the land which therefore prompted a major revision of the development plan. The revised development plan has moved the medium -density small lot single-family subdivision south to accommodate a 55 -lot low- density single-family subdivision. This years medium -density design includes 3 additional lots. The 55 -lot low-density single-family subdivision is designed with 5 corner lots each of which is CD 1\Lodints40ent001Wepattments\Community Development\Planning\Growth ManagemenA1998tGrowthmgmt98.doc large enough to accommodate a duplex. The applicant has requested 60 low-density allocations and 3 medium -density allocations which is enough to complete the two projects. APPLICANT: Darrell R. Sasaki 1806 West Kettleman Lane, Suite H Lodi, CA 95242 Site Characteristics: The area of allocation for the Sasaki Property Development Plan is the entire project site, which consists of approximately 23 acres. Thirteen acres of the property is proposed for development as a 103 -unit, medium -density, single-family, planned development, which fronts private streets, has a community building, a private park and swimming pool. Nine and a half acres of the property is proposed for a 55 -lot low-density, single-family subdivision. The project area is located 1549 & 1611 West Kettleman Lane which is generally located north of Kettleman Lane, south and west of the Woodbridge Irrigation District canal, and east of 1723 West Kettleman Lane (see map). LODI ESTATES (App. # GM -94-005) is the first of two single-family expirations recommended by Staff. The project was originally introduced to the City in 1991 as the Morimoto/Neuharth development plan and over a four year period was revised a couple of times to end up as a 100 lot. low-density, single-family residential subdivision known as the Lodi Estates. Way back in 1991 the project was approved with a scheduled completion date of the "Spring of 1993." In 1994 the project was revised and approved in its current state with an expected completion date of the "Fall of 1995." The final development schedule approved in 1994 for this project was missed many years ago. In addition, the approved Lodi Estates, Unit One tentative subdivision map which was approved in June of 1994, and expired in June of 1997. The Subdivision Map Act gives a tentative subdivision map a time limit of two years to be recorded as a final map. In addition, the state approved a one year extension for all maps approved before may of 1996. The three year time frame past in June of 1997. Given that the project has never recorded a subdivision map since its original development plan approval way back in 1991, Staff believes the development plan and 100 single-family allocations should expire along with its tentative map. Site Characteristics: The project site is completely unimproved. The site's physical addresses are 1544 & 1640 South Stockton Street, and 215, 245, & 265 Almond Drive. The site is generally located on 5 parcels totalling 10 acres at the northeast corner of the intersection of South Stockton Street and Almond Drive. The land remains undeveloped and is relatively flat without any unusual or extraordinary topographic features. HUTCHINS VILLAGE (App. # GM -93-003) is the second of two single-family expirations recommended by Staff. The project was originally introduced to the City in 1993 as the Fugazi Brothers development plan and ended up as the 7 -lot single-family residential subdivision known as the Hutchins Village. In 1993 the project was approved with a scheduled completion date of the "December 1994." The development schedule approved in for this project was missed by nearly four years. As with the Lodi Estates map, the Hutchins Village tentative subdivision map which was approved in August of 1995, expired August of this year. The same two years plus the one year extension applied to the life of this tentative map; however, the three year time frame past as of August 16th. Given that the project never recorded a subdivision map since its original development plan approval back in 1993. Staff believes the development plan and 5 single-family allocations should expire along with its tentative map. Site Characteristics: The site's physical addresses are 425 & 429 West Locust Street. The site is generally located on 2 parcels totaling _78 acres at the northeast corner of the intersection of N. Hutchins Street & W. Locust Street. The land remains undeveloped and is relatively flat without any unusual or extraordinary topographic features. CD \\Lodi nts40ent(X) I Wepartments\Community Developmen0lanning\Growth Management\[9981Growthmgmt98.doc BRIDGEHAVEN (App. # GM -91-012) is the only medium -density expiration recommended by Staff. The 50 -lot medium -density, small -lot, single-family residential development plan was originally introduced and approved by the City in 1991. The scheduled completion date for the development plan was "May 1993." The development schedule approved in for this project was missed by five years. As with the previous two maps above, the Bridgehaven tentative subdivision map which was approved in September of 1992, expired in September of 1997. The same two years. plus in this case three years of State approved extensions, applied to the life of this tentative map. The five year time frame past as of September 28th, 1997. As with the other two projects, Bridgehaven never recorded a subdivision map since its original development plan approval back in 1991, Staff believes the development plan and 50 medium -density allocations should expire along with its tentative map. Site Characteristics: The site's physical address is 1245 Woodhaven Lane. The site is generally located on 6.15 acres north of the Wine & Roses Country Inn and east of the Bridgetown Subdivision. The land remains undeveloped and is relatively flat without any unusual or extraordinary topographic features. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS: Negative Declarations were prepared for the individual project applications. The projects were determined to have no significant impacts; however, some mitigation measures have been required. RECOMMENDATION The number of allocations recommended by staff for each of the proposed projects is based on a project's score and development performance. For a detailed breakdown of how each project scored based on the 13 different criteria, please see the attached document titled "Explanation of 1998 Growth Management Points Scoring Summary." The following recommendations are listed by the ranking of the projects. SINGLE-FAMILY PROJECTS • Lodi West is an existing and developing single-family project. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that this project forfeit its 57 medium -density allocations and be awarded 41 allocations which is all of the allocations needed to complete the development. • Sasaki Property contains a new single-family development plan project for review this year. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that this project receive 60 single-family allocations which is enough to complete the development. MEDIUM -DENSITY PROJECTS • Vintner's Square Apartment Complex Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the Cite Council that this project receive 200 medium -density allocations which is enough to complete the development. • Sasaki Property Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that this project receive 3 medium -density allocations which added to their existing 100 is enough to complete the development. RECOMMENDED EXPIRATIONS • Lodi Estates Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that this project's development plan and 100 single-family allocations be expired and put back into the allocation pool. CD\\l.odints40ent00t\depertmcnts\Commmnity Developmenf%Planning\Growth Managementl1999\Growthmgmt98.doc • Bridgehaven Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that this project's development plan and 50 medium -density allocations be expired and put back into the allocation pool. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the Building Permit Allocation Schedule for 1998 subject to the conditions set forth in the attached Resolution. ALTERNATIVE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS: • Approve the Growth Management Development Plan Allocation Schedule for 1998 with Alternate Conditions • Deny the Development Plan Allocation Schedule • Continue the Request Respect Submitted, Mark issne Associate Planner Reviewed and Concur, Konradt Bartlam Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: 1. Development plan maps 2. City of Lodi Residential Growth Management Schedule 3. Lodi, City Staff Recommended Building Permit Allocation Schedule 1998 4. City Council Awarded Building Permit Allocations 1989-1997 5. 1998 Development Plan Scoring Summary 6. Explanation of 1998 Growth Management Points Scoring Summary 7. Draft Resolution MGM/mgm CD\\Lodints40ent0011departments\Commumty Development\Planning\Growth Management% 1998\Growthmgmt98.doc � L� I80 ww 1 41� � —L i ! L— J �� + l; 261 273 261 57 Mo •;T,,,�t I •� [ Id2 "' " ' 75 174 173 I )"Z t 71p 2161217 21A 219 ?20 � 210 Ift',• ��i �-�-f-� • lat 80 82 100 n7 I �..L.!1M`l 2220 247 I . Ck / `rte 12279.723, 1-4 I 88 Y �•/ 93 = 2921 a� + ,•\� ° �f j 144 0l fey /� r2 •-. \88 go 92 3 94 L 217 + r r ea = z36 z31 T I t1� � \,j�211 to \ tiro / •�i► r 1 114 113 112 �j d' w7' Gse l � + I ~ a' /� • f? •'� / � J lOT 230 �\ 9. J at �� ,f • `mob los 100 110 111 100 106 104 103 100 101 \ 4 � Sb 30 p f! if M '� d • � ' r w . PREVIOUSLY ALLOCATED LOW-DENSITY LOT \ ; _ ~ _ f \ � s m AREA OF REQUESTED ALLOCATIONS 41 LOW-DENSITY (DASHED) SARGENT ROAD :0I M IM a@ 14 17— S/VV Corner of Lodi West 42 Single -Family Dwelling Unit Growth Mgmt. Development Plan 16891 N. Lwr. Sacramento Rd. GM -98-003 10-14-98 City of Lodi Residential Growth Management Schedule 1998 Adopted: September 18, 1991 under Ordinance #1521 Year Population 2% Pop. Persons/ Total units Single Fam.@ Med density @ High Density @ projection Household per year 65% 10% 25% Sep -89 50,990 1,020 2.572 397 258 40 99 Sep -90 52,010 1,040 2.567 404 263 40 101 Sep -91 53,050 1,061 2.630 403: 262 40 101 Jan -92: 53,186 1,064 2.664 399 259 40 100 Jan -93 53,701 1,074 2.680 - 401 261 40 100 Jan -94 53,903 1,078 2.680 402 261 40 101 Jan -95 54,694 1,094 2.697 406 264 41 102 Jan -96 54,473 1,089 2.662 409 266 41 102 Jan -97 54,812 1,096 2.659 412 268 41 103 Jan -99 . 56,795 ' 1,136 Est. 2.684 423 275 42 106 Jan -00 57,931 1,159 Est. 2.684 432. 261 43 108 Jan -01 59,090: 1,182 ; Est. 2.684 j 440 286 44 110 Ian -02 : 60,272 1,205 Est. 2.684 449 292 45 112 Jan -03 61,477 1,230 Est. 2.684 458 298 46 115 Jan -04 62,707: 1,254 Est. 2.684 467 304 47 117 Jan -05 63,961 1,279 Est. 2.684 477 310 48 119 Jan -06 65,240 1,305 Est 2.684 486 316 49 122 Jan -07 66,545 1,331 Est. 2.684 496 ! 322 50 124 TOTALS: 8,176 5,314 818 2,044 Sep'89 population number equals 2/3 of the population difference of Jan '89 and Jan '90 added to Jan'89 NOTE: Population and persons per household from '89 to'96 per State Department of Finance. Actual percentage increases in population may be higher or lower than 2%. Calculation of building permit allocations is based on a 2% increase of the current year population figure. STAFF RECOMMENDED BUILDING PERMIT ALLOCATION SCHEDULE 1998 1 OTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO 8E ALLOCATED FOR 1998 = 415 ISINGLE FAMILY 65%=405 UNITS PROJECT NO. TENTATIVE I MAP UNITS NO. FINAL MAPALLOCATIONS UNITS FECEIVED'89--971 I ALLOC. NEEDED TO COMPLETE REQUESTED I ALLOC. 1'998 RECOMMENDED ALLOC. 1998 LODI ESTATES EXPIRED 0 100 N/A N/A -100 FUGAZI BROTHERS EXPIRED 0 5 N/A N/A -5 LODI WEST 167 170 337 41 41 41 SASAKI PROPERTY 0 0 0 60 60 60 1671 1701 337 1 101 1 101 1 101 * 105 allocations from expired projects and 30 from last years lot are available. 'MEDIUM DENSITY 10'lo=212 UNITS" NO. TENTATIVE NO. FINAL MAP ALLOCATIONS I ALLOC. NEEDED REQUESTED RECOMMENDED PROJECT MAP UNITS UNITS RECEIVED'89-'97 TO COMPLETE ALLOC. 1998 1 ALLOC. 1998 6RIDCEHAVEN EXPIRED 0 50 N/A N/A -50 LODI WEST 57 0 57 N/A -57 -57 VINTNER'S SQUARE 0 0 0 200 200 200 SASAKI PROPERTY 0 0 100 3 3 3 57 01 207 1 203 1 203 1 203 * 107 allocations from expired projects and forfeited allocations, and 63 from last years lot are available. No projects have requested any of the 104, 1998 allocations for high density units. * Allocations from the previous years ('89-97) are available. CITY COUNCIL AWARDED BUILDING PERMIT ALLOCATIONS 1989-1997 I OI Al RI SIIN N -f lim UNl l ti ("19ti�)-"1907)=3,633 ' SINGLE FAMILY PROJECT =2361 UNITS ALLOC.'S I REC. '89 ALLOC.'S REC. '90 ALLOC.'S REC. `91 ALLOC.'S REC. '92 ALLOC.'S I REC. '93 ALLOC.'S REC. '94 * ALLOC.'S REC. '95 ** ALLOC.'S REC. '960 ALLOC.'S REC. '970 ALLOCATION TOTALS _ BANG'S RANCH 34 35 35 0 0 19 0 0 0 123 BRIDGETOWN 0 0 0 0 tl 0 53 51 36 140 CENTURY MEADOWS 1 16 16 16 0 0 0 52 55 45 200 CENTURY MEADOWS 2 25 26 25 0 29 0 0 0 60 165 CENTURY MEADOWS :3 24 24 25 0 29 0 51 50 0 203 CENTURY MEADOWS 4 291 29 29 33 0 0 0 0 0 120 COLVIN RANCH 20 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 FUGAZI BROTHERS 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 JOHNSON RANCH 2 43 43 43 44 0 0 0 0 0 173 LODI ESTATES 6 7 6 46 0 35 0 0 0 LODI WEST 26 27 27 80 55 69 0 0 53 3.si PARISIS PROPERTY 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 39 RICHARDS RANCH 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 15 0 49 RIVERPOINTE 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 44 SUNWEST XIV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 36 67 THAYER PROPERTY 0 A 01 01 01 01 34 1 0 0 34 TSUTAOKA PROPERTY 01 0 01 01 01 01 01 63 0 63 TOWN[ RANCH 35 1 361 361 561 52 1 151 1 37 1 0 6 409 11 2581 2631 262 1 2591 204 13181 2661 265 2 !qJ 2,331 * 57 allocations remained from the'93 allocation year, giving the City a total of 318 single family units to allocate for 1994. ** One, 1996 single family allocation was granted to the Parisis property project in '95. ]a Fifteen, 1996 single family allocations were awarded to the Richard's Ranch Project by resolution #96-40, giving the City a total of 250 single family units to allocate for 1996. Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL AWARDED BUILDING PERMIT ALLOCATIONS 1989-1997 IOJ;\I RISIDI-NIIAl l.1NITti(1�)!3�)-10971=3,6:33 'MEDIUM DENSITY 10%=363 UNITS PROJECT ALLOC.'S RECEIVED'89 ALLOC.'S RECEIVED'90 ALLOC.'S RECEIVED'91 ALLOC.'S RECEIVEp'92 ALLOC.'S RECEIVED '93 * ALLOC.`S 1ALLOUS RECEIVED'94 RECEIVD'95 ALLOC.'S RECEIVED `9G ALLOC'S RECEIVD'970 ALLOCATION TOTALS BANG'S RANCH ** 18 18 0 0 0 -36 0 0 0 0 LODI WEST 0 0 0 0 57 0 0 0 0 57 BRIDGEHAVEN 22 22 G 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 LODI ESTATES ** 0 0 22 0 0 -22 0 0 0 0 SASAKI PROPERTY (1 011 U () 1 01 01 01 100 100 SUNWEST GARDEN (1 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 18 18 WOODHAVEN PARK 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 1 75 401 401 281 01 132 -581 0 () 1 118 300 * In '93 the Planning Commission awarded 40, 1994 medium density allo(ations to the I odi West project. * The Bangs Ranh and Lodi Estates projects each were awarded single family allocations in place of their medium density allocations. JI ' ALLOUS IALLOUS ' I O SIOC11ALLOCATION PROJECT RECEIVED 189 RECEIVVED'90 I RECEIVED 91I RECEIVED RECEIVD'93 *I RCEID94 RECEIVED I RCEID9G RECEI D97ttTOTALS BENNETT & COIvtPTON 991 451 01 0 -1441 01 01 01 011 11 991 45 1 01 0 -1441 01 01 01 011 * The Bennett and Compton project was awarded 75 medium density allocations under the project name of Woodhaven Park. Page 2of2 Ln . cn z : v: r h D =-� cn D T. Z, C' S rn y O, Cb C -+ m h z zG rr z -�y {;�: -- o ` fl n y R, Cb zn' -4 vi -'t, Agricultural Land Conflicts (Adjacency) y ~ C o On Site Agricultural Land iNitigation (Buffer) O oEo; r) �eneralloGation:(PriorityArea) �. v O .Ite/atibnship to,fxisting Development Cr) O O Z) :kelationshjp to;Public Sentices (Wastewater) o o 4 Ret atronship to, Public 5ervires (Water) o o L fieladons-60 gPublic5er Oces (DrairtW 0 0 `' � Promotion c f pen Space'•(Perrenta • o o Traffic (Streetrrtprovemerrts% d O O -C) ,Housing (Affordability) i o ;. o Z Site, -Jan acid On Design ti v, a (P " u, Schools (Proximity) o p p_ ` Fire Protection (Proximity) �.� to :p ;: Explanation of 1998 Growth Management Points Scoring Summary. Each of the 3 projects was scored based on the entire development plan as a whole. Existing development and utilities is defined as physical existence of a feature. For example, if a road, pipe, structure is in place. Project scores are carried with a project from year to year if they do not obtain all the allocations needed to complete a project in the first review. Please note that Lodi West (Southwest Corner of) and Sasaki Property have been previously scored. Included at the end of this document is the resolution adopted by the City Council establishing the criteria and point system for processing tentative maps for residential development. SINGLE-FAMILY PROJECTS Lodi West: CD \ ,udints4lkntW I\ departrnents\Community DevelopmentTlanning\Growth ManaremenA1998\append98.doc Total = 276 points. A. 5 points out of ten: for being adjacent to agricultural land on two sides; the south and the west across the W.I.D. Canal. B. 7 points out of ten: for having the W.I.D. Canal as a buffer between the adjacent agricultural lands. C. 200 points. for simply being within Priority Area One. DI. 10 points out of ten: for being adjacent to homes across Lower Sacramento Road to the east and the Park West subdivision to the north. D2. 8 points out of ten: because the project will extend a master plan wastewater line within its boundaries D3. 8 points out of ten: because the project will extend master plan water lines within its boundaries. D4. * points out of ten: because when the project was originally approved expansion of the Peterson Park drainage basin was required, and no funds were available to build it. E. 0 points out of ten: because this category does not apply to single-family projects. F. 8 points out of ten: because the project will extend Evergreen Drive within the project area. G. 0 points out of ten: because no mention of affordability was made for the proposed development. H. 0 points out of ten: because this category only applies to multi -family projects. I. 20 points out of thirty: for being within'/z mile of Erma Reese Elementary School (5 points), within I mile of a proposed middle school on N. Mills Av. (5 points), and within 1 mile of Lodi High School (10 points). J. 10 points out of ten: for being within the 3 minute emergency vehicle driving time from the nearest fire department. CD \ ,udints4lkntW I\ departrnents\Community DevelopmentTlanning\Growth ManaremenA1998\append98.doc Sasaki Property: MEDIUM -DENSITY PROJECTS Sasaki Property: Total = 139 points. Same explanation as the low-density scoring. Total = 139 points. A. 7 points out of ten: for being.adjacent to agricultural land on one side; the south or remainder of the property fronting Kettleman Lane B. 0 points out of ten: for having no buffer between the adjacent agricultural land. C. 100 points: for simply being within Priority Area Two. Dl. -7 points out of ten: for being adjacent to homes across the W.I.D. Canal to the north and east, and adjacent to homes on Bezug Lane. D2. 0 points out of ten: because the project will extend a master plan wastewater line across the adjacent properties to the west; however the right-of-way needs to be obtained. D3. 0 points out of ten: because the project will extend a master plan water line across the adjacent properties to the west; however the right-of-way needs to be obtained. D4. 0 points out of ten: because the project will extend a master plan drainage line across the adjacent properties to the west; however the right-of-way needs to be obtained. E. 0 points out of ten: because the applicant did not provide an analysis of the percentage of impervious surface of the site. F. 0 points out of ten: because the project will extend master plan streets across the adjacent properties to the west; however the right-of-way needs to be obtained. G. 0 points out of ten: because no mention of affordability was made for the proposed development. H. 0 points out of ten: because the apartment complex has not yet been reviewed by SPARC. I. 15 points out of thirty: for being within 1 mile of Lodi Middle School (5 points), and within 1 mile of Tokay High School (10 points). J. 10 points out of ten: for being within the 3 minute emergency vehicle driving time from the nearest fire department. MEDIUM -DENSITY PROJECTS Sasaki Property: Total = 139 points. Same explanation as the low-density scoring. MGM J:\Community Development\Planning\Growth Managemenv1998 appendWdoc Vintners Square: Total = 139 points. A. 5 points out of ten: for being adjacent to agricultural land on two sides; the south and west. B. 0 points out of ten: for having no buffer between the adjacent agricultural land. MGM J:\Community Development\Planning\Growth Managemenv1998 appendWdoc C. 100 points: for simply being within Priority Area Two. Dl. 5 points out of ten: for being adjacent to existing development on two sides; the homes across Taylor to the north and across Lower Sacramento Road to the east D2. 0 points out of ten: because the project will extend a master plan wastewater line in Lower Sacramento Road. D3. 10 points out of ten: because the project is adjacent to a master plan water line. D4. * points out of ten: because the project requires the construction of a basin and cannot proceed without it.. E. 4 points out of ten: because there is approximately 50% of impervious surface throughout the site. F. 0 points out of ten. because the project requires roadway improvements for which funds are available in the Street Impact Fee Program. G. 0 points out of ten: because no mention of affordability was made for the proposed development. Hl. 0 points out of ten: because the landscaping has not yet been reviewed by the Planning Commission. H2. 0 points out of ten: because the apartment complex has not yet been reviewed by SPARC. I. 10 points out of thirty: for being within 1 mile of Lodi Middle School (5 points), and within 2 miles of Tokay High School (5 points). J. 10 points out of ten: for being within the 3 minute emergency vehicle driving time from the nearest fire department. Resolution No. 91-170 A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING CRITERIA AND A POINT SYSTEM FOR PROCESSING TENTATIVE MAPS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Evaluation Criteria. A. Al;ricultural Land Conflicts Points 1. Project does not require conversion of vacant agricultural land 10 2. Project is adjacent to agricultural land on one side 7 3. Project is adjacent to agricultural land on two sides 5 4. Project is adjacent to agricultural land on three sides 3 5. Project is surrounded by agricultural land 0 B. On-site A.aricultural Land Mitieation Points 1. Project needs no agricultural land mitigation 10 MGM J:\Community DevelopmentTlanning\Growth Management\ 1998\append98.doc 3 2. Adequate on-site buffer has been provided as a part of site layout for all adjacent agricultural land 7 3. On-site buffer provided as a part of site layout for only part of the project 5 4. No buffer between project and adjacent agricultural land 0 C. General Location - A map showing such priority shall be adopted or updated from time to time by the Council, and shall be available for inspection in the office of the City Clerk. 1. Project located within Priority Area 1 200 2. Project located within Priority Area 3 100 3. Project located within Priority Area 3 0 D. Relationship to Public Services 1. General Location a. Project abuts existing development on four sides 10 b. Project abuts existing development on three sides 7 C. Project abuts existing development on two sides 5 d. Project abuts existing development on one side 3 e. Project is surrounded by undeveloped land 0 2. Wastewater a. Project is located adjacent to existing Master Plan sanitary sewers or mains designed to serve the project 10 b. Project will extend a Master Plan line within its boundaries 8 C. Project will extend a Master Plan line outside of its boundaries but within existing right -of way (0 if right-of-way is necessary) 4 d. Project requires construction of a new lift station for which funds are available in the Sewer Impact Fee Fund 0 e. Project requires construction of a new lift station for which funds are not available in the Sewer Impact Fee Fund 3. Water a. Project is located adjacent to existing Master Plan water mains or mains designed to serve the project 10 b. Project will extend Master Plan lines within its boundaries 8 C. Project will extend Master Plan lines outside its boundaries, but within existing right-of-way (O if outside right-of-way) 4 d. Project requires construction of a new water well for which funds are available in the Water Impact Fee Fund 0 e. Project requires construction of new water well for which funds are not available in the Water Impact Fee Fund MGM 1:\Community Develop ment\PlanninglGrowth Management 1998`append9g.doc 4 f. Project improves the existing system (i.e., eliminates dead -ends, loops master plan lines, provides a well site) +l to 3 4. Drainage a. Project is served by an existing drainage basin and Master Plan line or mains designed to serve the project 10 b. Project will extend a Master Plan line or expand an existing basin within its boundaries 8 C. Project will extend a Master Plan line or expand an existing basin outside of its boundaries but within existing rights-of-way (O points if right-of-way is necessary 4 d. Project requires construction of a new basin for which funds are available in the Master Drainage Impact Fee Fund 0 e. Project requires construction of a new basin for which funds are not available in the Master Drainage Impact Fee Fund E. Promotion of Open Space Points shall be awarded on the basis of the percentage of coverage of the total loss of project area by roof area and paved areas on-site (exclusive of streets). 20% or less 10 points 30% or less 8 points 40% or less 6 points 50% 4 points 60% 2 points 70% or greater 0 points Project owner shall submit an analysis of the percentage of impervious surface of the site. This section shall not apply to single-family residential. F. Traffic 1. Project widens or improves an existing facility 10 2. Project will extend Master Plan streets within its boundaries 8 3. Project will extend Master Plan streets outside its boundaries, but within existing right-of-way (0 if outside right-of-way) 4 4. Project requires roadway improvements for which funds are available in the Street Impact Fee Program 0 5. Project requires roadway improvements for which, funds are not available in the Street Impact Fee Program 6. Project improves circulation by providing additional access to adjacent development (including non -vehicular access) +1 to 5 G. Housin 1. Low and Moderate Income Housing. A point credit will be awarded with the following schedule: MGM PNCommunity DevelopmentTlannin_'',,Growth Management11998',.append98.doc 5 J. Fire Protection. (Proximity to fire protection services) Within 3 minute emergency vehicle driving time from the nearest fire station 10 Within 4 minute emergency vehicle driving time from the nearest fire station 5 Beyond 4 minute emergency vehicle driving time from The nearest fire -station 0 MGM JACommunity Development\Planning\Growth Management\ I 9Wappend%.duc 6 25% or more of units low and moderate 10 20%-24% 8 15%-19% 6 10%-14% 4 5%;.9% 2 Less than 5% low and moderate or low and moderate housing proposed 0 " Indicates project cannot proceed without provision for construction of the appropriate facility. H. Site Plan and Proiect Desien--Bonus Points (These criteria shall only apply to multi -family projects). 1. Landscaping. (Planning Commission shall evaluate and provide between 10 and 0 points) (These criteria shall only apply to multi -family projects). 2. Architectural Design. (SPARC Committee shall evaluate and provide between 10 and 0 points) (These criteria shall only apply to multi -family projects.) I. Schools 1. Project is within '/< mile of an existing (or proposed) elementary school 10 2. Project is within %Z mile of an existing (or proposed) elementary school 5 3. Project is more than %z mile from an existing (or proposed) elementary school 0 4. Project is within'/ mile of an existing (or proposed) middle school 10 5. Project is within 1 mile of an existing (or proposed) middle school 5 6. Project is more than 1 mile from an existing (or proposed) middle school 0 7. Project is within 1 mile of an existing (or proposed) high school 10 8. Project is within -2 miles of an existing (or proposed) high school 5 J. Fire Protection. (Proximity to fire protection services) Within 3 minute emergency vehicle driving time from the nearest fire station 10 Within 4 minute emergency vehicle driving time from the nearest fire station 5 Beyond 4 minute emergency vehicle driving time from The nearest fire -station 0 MGM JACommunity Development\Planning\Growth Management\ I 9Wappend%.duc 6 RESOLUTION NO. P.C. 98-25 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LODI RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE 1998 BUILDING PERMIT ALLOCATION SCHEDULE. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi has heretofore held a duly noticed meeting on the Growth*Management Development Plan Allocation Schedule which includes Growth Management Application Numbers GM -98-(01 through 03) and Expirations of Building Permit Allocations for GM -91-012 and GM -93-003 (in accordance with City Ordinance No. 1521, and Resolution No. 91-171. WHEREAS, the project areas are made up of the following properties:. 1549 & 1611 W. Kettleman Lane, 16891 N. Lower Sacramento Road, 1265 S. Lower Sacramento Road, 1245 Woodhaven Lane, and 425 & 429 West Locust Street. WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the approval of this request have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi as follows: 1. Negative Declarations have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines provided thereunder. Further, the Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in these Negative Declarations with respect to the projects identified in this Resolution. 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council, approval of a resolution adopting the 1998 Building Permit Allocation Schedule as identified in this Resolution. Dated: October 14, 1998 I hereby certify that Resolution No. 98- 25 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi at a continued meeting held on October 14, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Borelli, Mattheis, McGladdery, Rasmussen, Rice, Stafford, and Chairman Schmidt. NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: ATTEST:a1 -- Seer tary, Planning Commission ReM-35.doc RESOLUTION NO. 98-190 A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE 1998 GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOCATIONS BE IT RESOLVED, that the Lodi City Council does hereby approve the 1998 Growth Management Allocations as recommended by the Lodi Planning Commission, as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Dated: December 16, 1998 I hereby certify that Resolution No. 98-190 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held December 16, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Hitchcock, Mann, Nakanishi, Pennino and Land (Mayor) NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None dhe . A ALICE M. R IMCHE City Clerk 98-190 CITY COUNCIL APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT ALLOCATION SCHEDULE 1998 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO BE ALLOCATED FOR 1998 = 415 ISINGLE FAMILY 65%=40-5 UNITS PROJECT NO. TENTATIVE MAP UNITS NO. FINALMAP UNITS ALLOCATIONS RECEIVED'89-'97 ALLOC. NEEDED TO COMPLETE REQUESTED ALLOC. 1998 RECOMMENDED TALLOC. 1998 LODI ESTATES EXPIRED 0 100 N/A N/A -100 FUGAZI BROTHERS EXPIRED 0 5 N/A N/A -5 LODI WEST 1G7 170 337 41 41 41 SASAKI PROPERTY 0 0 0 60 60 60 1671 1701 337 1 101 1 101 1 101 * 105 allocations from expired projects and 30 from last years lot are available. �MEDIUM DENSITY PROJECT 11 NO. TENTATIVE NO. FINAL MAP I ALLOCATIONS ALLOC. NEEDED I REQUESTED 11. MAP UNITS UNITS RECEIVED'89-'97 TO COMPLETE ALLOC. 1998 RECOMMENDED 1 ALLOC. 1998 BRIDGEHAVEN EXPIRED 0 50 N/A N A -50 LODI WEST 57 0 57 N/A -57 -57 SASAKI PROPERTY 0 OT- 1001 3 1 3 1 3 57 0 207 1 3 1 3 1 3 * 107 allocations from expired projects and forfeited allocations, and 63 from last years lot are available. HIGH DENSITY No projects have requested any of the 104, 1998 allocations for high density units. * Allocations from the previous years ('89-97) are available. • CITY OF LODI NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Carnegie Forum Date: December 16,1998 305 West Pine Street, Lodi Time: 7:00 p.m. For information regarding this notice please contact: Alice M. Reimche City Clerk Telephone: (209) 333.6702 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, December 16, 1998 at the hour of 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council will conduct a Public Hearing to consider the following matter: a) Planning Commission's recommendation that City Council adopt the Growth Management Allocations. Information regarding this item may be obtained in the office of the Community Development Department Director, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, Califomia. All interested persons are invited to present their views and comments on this matter. Written statements may be filed with the City Clerk at any time prior to the hearing scheduled herein, and oral statements may be made at said hearing. If you challenge the subject matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk, 221 West Pine Street, at or prior to the Public Hearing. By Order of the Lodi City Council: Alice M. Reimche City Clerk Dated: November4,1998 Approved as to form: 5;�r A4,<e� Randall A. Hays City Attorney JACRYURKTORMSWOTCDD.DOC M5M