HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - August 5, 2020 Public CommentAdopted Resolution No. 2020-170 authorizing the City Manager to execute lease of City Property
located at 111 North Stockton Street.
C-14 Accept lmprovements Under Contract for White Slouqh Water Pollution Control Facilitv
2017 lrriqation Svstem lmprovements Proiect (P\M
Accepted improvements under contract for White Slough Water Pollution Control Facilily 2017
lrrigation System lmprovements Project.
C-15 Post for Vacancv on Lodi lmprovement Committee (CLK)
This item was pulled from the Consent Calendar at the request of Council Member Mounce for
discussion.
Council Member Mounce asked why there is a vacancy on the Lodi lmprovement Committee,
inquired as to whether or not there are problems with the committee and questioned as to
whether or not the Committee should be disbanded.
City Manager Schwabauer stated that one member did move out of the area and Council Member
Mounce requested staff provide additional information as to the reasons for the other vacancies.
Council Member Chandler made a motion, second by Mayor Pro Tempore Nakanishi, to direct
the City Clerk to post for the following vacancy:
Lodi I mprovement Commiltee
Alfredo Almazan Term to expire March 1,2022
VOTE:
The above motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Member Chandler, Mayor Pro Tempore Nakanishi, and Mayor Kuehne
Noes: Council Member Mounce
Absent: None
ROLL CALL VOTE
The City Council held a ROLL CALL vote (all voiced their votes)
Mayor Kuehne called for a recess of the Regular Meeting at7:25 p.m and called to order the City
CouncilSpecialMeeting at7:25 p.m. The SpecialMeeting of the City Counciladjourned at
7:32 p.m. and the Regular Meeting reconvened at7:32 p.m.
Comments bv the Public on Non-Aqenda ltems
THE TIME ALLOWED PER NON-AGENDA ITEM FOR COMMENTS MADE BY THE
PtiBt tc ts r rMr TED TO FIVE MINUTES
Kenneth Huntley provided public comment via email (filed) regarding negative comments on
social media about residents of the City of Stockton and asking for solutions to promote unity
between the cities of Lodi and Stockton.
Jim Casey provided public comment via email (filed) regarding a proposal for a permanent
homeless facility near the American Legion Building and requesting more information about the
City's intentions and the proposal.
D.c-.Ð)
5
Spencer Rhodes provided public comment via email (filed) regarding a proposed permanent
homeless facility at the Armory/Chapman Park reported by the Lodi News Sentinel and asking the
City to consider a different location.
Kathy Davis provided public comment via email (filed) regarding housing the homeless at the
Armory/Chapman Park and requesting the City not select that location.
Arlene Baker provided public comment via email (filed) regarding the homeless being housed by
the American Legion Building or the Armory and requesting a locatíon on the outskirts of the City
be selected instead.
Debbie Kackley provided public comment via email (filed) regarding not being in favor of housing
the homeless at the Armory.
Merlin Dais provided public comment via email (filed) regarding not beíng in favor of housing the
homeless at the Armory/Chapman Park.
Amanda Lee provided public comment via email (filed) strongly supporting the City's plans to
create a low-bar homeless shelter but not at the Armory/Chapman Park.
E. Comments bv the Citv Council on Non-Aoenda ltems
Mayor Kuehne stated that he does not believe the homeless situation will get any better for any
cities due to decisions made by Governor Newsom to release prisoners.
Council Member Mounce believes prison releases have led to the increase of the homeless and
poor decisions made by the State legislators to release more prisoners rather than build more
prisons. Council Member Mounce noted that the public commenting were against using the
Armory as a location for a shelter.
Council Member Mounce reported that she has continued meeting with the San Joaquin
Partnership via Zoom and the group is continuing to make headway.
Mayor Pro Tempore Nakanishistated the problem of homelessness and COVID-19 will be with
the City for years to come and spoke about how one problem attributes to the other. Mayor Pro
Tempore Nakanishi highlighted some of the actions taken by the City to help address the
problems caused by the homeless. Mayor Pro Tempore Nakanishi discussed the importance of
socialdistancing and washing hands in the prevention of COVID-19 and reviewed some of the
statistics from the County.
Council Member Chandler noted that the public comments were addressing what is a concept
and not a proposal and he thinks all of the concepts require vetting. Council Member Chandler
stated that there may never be a perfect location, but action needs to be taken.
F. Comments bv the Citv Manaoer on Non-Aqenda ltems
City Manager Schwabauer stated that the City Council did give staff direction to explore the
concept of a low-bar/no-bar shelter for the homeless and staff has started that process. Staff is
doing its due diligence in exploring all options to bring to Council to be publicly discussed. There
has been no location selected and there will be a public process to consider a location. City
Manager Schwabauer stated that he shares many of the concerns of the public who provided
comment and discussed the options legally available to the City. He also noted that there is a lot
more work to complete other than vetting a location, such as securing funding.
6
Þ
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
lGylee]Cla$g0 on behalf of City Council Comments
Jennifer Cusmir
FW: Public Comment for next Regular council meeting
Wednesday, August 5, 2020 9:30:17 AM
From: Kenneth Huntley
Sent: Friday, July 24,2020 10:26 PM
To: City Council Comments
Subject: Public Comment for next Regular council meet¡ng
Members of the council and City of Lodi staff: I have previously written to the Lodi Police Department in regards to replies to
their posts on Facebook, specifically when they arrest people whom live in the City of Stockton, I challenge you to read the
comments ofyour residents, on the LPD post on Jlttly 24th,2020 so you can get the whole picture and see the hatred that your
residents have towards the residents of the City of Stockton.
There needs to be change and here's why. Lodi prides itselfon its Christian values and heritage; yet the residents tend to
forget a very critical law that came from Christ himself, from Mark l2:31 "Love your neighbor as yourself. " Stockton is
Lodi's neighbor, and Lodi is Stockton's neighbor. Guess what? A majority of Stockton residents are law abiding and peaceful
citizens, just like Lodi's majority of residents. It is unfortunate that we have criminal activity in both our towns.
The good news is that the churches in Lodi and Stockton are coming together to promote unity, notjust in the Kingdom of
Christ, but here on earth as well. It's challenging but prior to COVID-I9 shutting things down, there was going to be a huge
event at First Baptist Church in Lodi, at least 20 different church congregations were going to meet under one roofto meet
each other.
The City of Lodi and the Lodi Police Department do need to come up with a better solution to promote unity in our cities.
While I highly value our first amendment to free speech, there are times when Lodi's citizens pass the boundaries and get
into defamation territory against Stockton residents as a whole. It is time to better moderate these comments and have social
media guidelines for LPD's page. San Joaquin Delta College's police department has social media guidelines, as does San
Joaquin Delta College, and many other social media pages out there.
In conclusion: it's okay to post that people are frustrated with criminals doing what they're doing out there. It's okay to post
that they're glad they're behind bars. It's not okay to label an entire city as criminals. Let's work together to resolve a long
time dispute between the City of Stockton and the City of Lodi. Let's spiritually grow together and do better together so that
we can better our cities.
sincerely,
Kenneth Huntley
D
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Jim Casev
Citv Council
Homeless housing
Tuesday, August 4, 2020 2:58:26 PM
There has been quite a conversation regarding a proposed permanent camp ground "given" to the
transients by the American Legion Building. Supposedly locations for tiny houses and research as to
available facilities has been discussed. I am amazed that,if true, this has gone so far without public
knowledge or approval. Please release your intentions with regard to this issue and, if possible, the
author of this proposal.
Jim Casey
Lodi, Ca 95242
Sent from Mail for Windows 1"0
tions
)
From:
To:
Subject:
Dãte:
Spencer Rhoads
City Council
Armory/Chapman Park Homelessness Project
Tuesday, August 4, 2020 3:53:33 PM
Lodi City Council -
Quite honestly, I don't know where to start with this e-mail. This morning I read a
piece by Lodi News Sentinel writer Steve Mann, in which he described the City's plan
to convert the National Guard Armory and adjacent softball field into a space to
accommodate up to 1 18 "spaces" for the homeless.
I have some questions about this proposal.
It's my understanding that the armory was designated as state surplus property and
was a candidate for a possible homeless shelter. However, the state is no longer
considering the armory, and if anything were to become of the armory, it would
require the city to purchase the property from the state. I guess my first question is
how exactly the city would fund such a purchase? As a Measure L Oversight
Committee Member, we were just briefed that more police officer positions were
shifted this Fiscal Year to Measure L in order to relieve pressure off of the General
Fund so that the city could address its rising pension obligation. lt is also obvious that
the recession brought on by COVID-19 has affected our city's budget.
As some of you know, I work for a firm in Sacramento that represents law
enforcement agencies. One topic that continues to come up in law enforcement
circles is homelessness and the individuals that officers come into contact with on a
daily basis. Since 2011 Realignment, we have seen the numbers of homeless
individuals continue to climb due to the lack of community based services, and the
inability for formerly incarcerated people to find stable employment and housing. A
reason why some fall into homelessness is because they are registered sex
offenders.
According to California's Megan's Law website, if you type in "Lodi" and set the
criteria to search for sex offenders within a 2 mile radius, you will find that there are
45 sex offenders in Lodi and the surrounding area. But if you then set the criteria to
also include transient sex offenders, that number skyrockets to 172 individuals. Just
looking at transient sex offender violations, you will find multiple disturbing cases,
such as lewd acts involving minors under 14 years old, attempted sodomy and oral
copulation of a minor under 14, and forcible rape. This is extremely problematic when
we are talking about creating a homeless shelter less than a quarter of a mile away
from Lawrence Elementary School property and family-friendly locations such as the
Grape Bowl, the Softball Complex, and the new Bowling Alley. Although the Supreme
Court has questioned the constitutionality of Jessica's Law, which prohibits sex
offenders from being within 2,000 feet from a school or park, it is important you listen
to the residents in the area, as well as the parents of Lawrence Elementary students.
Another issue I have with this proposal is that there has been little notice or
discussion with the public. According to the Committee on Homelessness's approved
minutes, the last time the Lodi Armory was mentioned was in January, and the only
comment was "looking into." And records show that the last time the Committee
mentioned Chapman Field was in May, but for a "Sanitation Station" for the
homeless, not a shelter.
I urge you to please look for a different location if you want this homeless shelter to
become a reality. Please set public hearings that give the general public multiple
opportunities to weigh in on this issue. I would suggest partnering with a community
based organization that provides sex offender programming for the homeless,
however, it is well documented on how frequently our homeless population refuses
services. I urge you to please be as open and transparent on this proposed homeless
shelter as possible (Sure would be great to have Homelessness Committee meetings
recorded and posted on the City's website... but that discussion is for another day).
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Spencer Rhoads
D
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
kathy da¡s
City Council
Homeless and the Armory
Tuesday, August 4, 2020 8:01:03 PM
Lodi Cíty Council,
Eoch ond evety one of you, hos q sworn duty to do whot The citizens of Lodí need
done ond f eel is ín the best interest of our town, f or'fhe mojority of our
citizens!
This Armory Chopmon field issuø to house the homeless, fS tOO% not bockød by
the tox poying cilizens of Lodi, So who mode you God? He a,lone cqn do whot he
wonts. Not you. CirculaTe c peTítíon in your own districts ond see whoT people
hove to soy. Or do you not core whot we thinkZ This ideq needs to be broodcost
in the pape?, on the news, gathered by hundreds with the sole purposø to díscuss
this issu¿. Not just o speck on on agendo of o council meeting. T've been to many
councíl meetings, only to f ind a límited time for qnyonø to speok, ond no qnswers
given to onyonø, Only to soy we will qddress oll issues oT onother meeting. We
need an octive ínteroction on such on idea.
Any idea of providing housing for the people who room our streøts qnd couse
filth ond stench oll oround them, is o bad ideq. Rewordíng o couple of hundred
people, with o ploce to gother ond destroy, wostíng thousonds of dollors is the
most rídículous thing I have ever hesrd. IF you build it Lodi will become o
mognet to hundreds more, who don't core obout lows, rules of o society or
hygiene. Hsveyou seen Son Frqncisco? ÂÂodesto? even 5tocklon, We cll
shuttør fo think of how thqt becamø whoT it ís. Lodi does not wont to become
onother The cess pool of the Valley.
We ore ot løqsï 63,000 populotíon , Why would the council think to spend big
money on these lowless individuols. How would you even políce such o
communíty? The police will not police them on the room, don't thínk things will
change. 5o you wont onother ploque in recognition of "All your efforts to help
the homeless", To hell with thot I soy. ft is not to bø obout recognition, but
rother to the sotisfoction of fhe majoríty of Lodi Citizens, should you be doing
your job. Wouldn't you rother the citizens of Lodí showered you wiïh thonks for
thinking of 63,000 ciTizens in your decisions? Becouse I con surely tell you, you
ore not being thonked, you s?ebeing ridículed ond loughed ot. How sqd, to spend
so much time ín o positíon ond hove ocguired such disgust ond disoppointmenl, oll
over town. Maybe in your smoll groups you ore potted on the bocks for q job well
d0ne...........8uT evøryday Lodí people, would likø To kick oll of you sguc¡re in the455. Yes, I hove nomes
f om q member of TAKE BACK LODI, ond Mqrk ond f ond mony mqny oïhers hovø
beøn cleaning up ofter this messy bunch, for going on 3 yeors. I hove not oncø
seen any of you porTícipote, ond gø'l involved lo see thø conlínuíng deslruction of
our town. Whot's up with thot, don't wont to get your honds dirty? Neither do
we, but WE hovø to do something, becouse no one else is. Whilø you "lclk" obout
il, we do The work thot needs to be donø. We rqttle the wolls of Cal Trons, we
coll the LPD, we wríte the letters to you. We trovel the streets wíth lrucks qnd
pick up obondoned lrosh oll over Town. Not becouse we ore qsked to or poid fo,
BUT because we wont our town cleqn We continue to screom .DO
SOMETHING " obout oll the lowlessness by these peoplø. BUT nothing ís done
NOW you wont to tqke the Armory owoy from Lodi, You wont to pile the f ilth
withín f eet of the Americon Legion Holl, You wont fons to enTer Zupo Field
through on olley of fílth ond stench. you wonT to toke owoy Chopmon boseboll
pork from the citizens, who wont to ?ecreate, you wont to plont f ihh wíthinf eet
of our beloved Grape Bowl. You wont o complete communíty ríght qcross fhe
s'freet from the Softboll complexes. Vou wont children to venture to school right
in front of This lowless, and mostly mentolly ill group. WHy? WHY?
f for one would like to seethe vost mojority of these lowless individuols, locked
uP.
For exomple, This om. Tennessee decid ed the lone for testing on Foirmont by the
hospítol wos his prívote property. fn oll his sgualor of filth ond disgust, he wqs
slouched in his wheelchair, deod center of the lone of the entrqn ce of the
Emergency room, snoring owoy, while potients, doctors ond nurses, hod to
novigotø his beíng. Do we hove no respect for the hospilol qnd the efforts to
help people? He should hove bøen removed from the area.
Emerson pork wos populofed by over sdozen wílh buggiøs,tønts, blonkets on the
f ences, ond sleeping on the picníc tobles, os ís every morning. Whot o wonderful
site to woke up to EVERy morning f or the neighbors.
Wske UP..........Do whot ís in the interest of ó3,000 people, not q couple hundred.
Do not døstroy our historic buildings for our militory, Do not jeopardize oll of us
by crecting this obsurd gothering place. IT wíll explode in your fqces!
Kcthy Dois
Resíd¿nt of Lodi for over 69 yøars
Active membør of TAKE 9ACK LODI
A voice for mony who connot or will not contocT you
)
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Arlene Baker
City Council
Our City of Lodi
Tuesday, August 4, 2020 7:02:09 PM
Dear council,
I have driven around town lately and I am so disappointed at out City. lt is dirty and people don't
care. We don't want the homeless being housed by the Legion building or the Armory. You have
baseball diamonds around there but is taken over by homeless. My tax dollar pays for this and not
fair. Find another place on the outskirts of town to set something up for them. Make them sleep
there and if not jail them. Don't just cite them. They don't care if they get a citation. They are
steal¡ng from our stores daily. lt never ends. I have a family member that has to deal with them and
I worry about their safety because nothing is being done anymore. Let's get our once beautiful City
back to what it was.
Arlene Baker
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
)
From:
To:
Subject:
Dãte:
dkackleyt
C¡ty Council
No on the homeless at the armory
Wednesday, August 5, 2020 5:44:41 AM
Please do NOT turn Lodi into Stockton with the homeless. They need to be in treatment and given
jobs, not given a place to live, They will never change and Lodi is already turning into a dump
because of them. There are many jobs that for some reason, people are refusing to do. Put them to
work doing those jobs and it ¡s a win/win for everyone. Let them earn their way in life. Nothing in life
is free, the sooner they learn that, the better it will be for them. We are allowing them to be what
they are. Please put a stop to this madness and crime.
Debbie Kackley
D
Kaylee Clayton
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
M Bonilla
Wednesday, August 05,2020 L:03 PM
City Council Comments
City Council
CouncilComments
Councilmembers,
I strongly support the city's plans to create a low-bar shelter for the homeless in Lodi; however, I feel that the
prospective location at the armory building and Chapman field will not meet our community's needs. lt is my
understanding that the city plans to cram 6 tiny homes as well as a shelter for 136 people into that location.
lfeelthat there are several problems with the site itself. First, the size of the site is not adequate to accommodate our
homeless population of 136+ people. With the economic distress caused by the Covid-19 shutdowns, I think that it is
reasonable to assume that homelessness in Lodi is likely to increase, not decrease. Per the EDD, the unemployment rate
in San Joaquin County reached L5.9% in June 2020. This site will quíckly be outgrown as we meet the needs of residents
that have been displaced due to financial hardship and eviction. Part of the reason that Lodi and San Joaquin County
have failed to adequately address homelessness is that we have failed to invest in projects that meet the scope of the
problem, for example - 6 tiny homes when we have 136+ unsheltered residents in our community.
Second, this site is inappropriate due to its proximity to an elementary school, residential neighborhood, American
Legion Hall, FOE Hall, the grape bowl, and the grape festival grounds. The very purpose of a low-bar shelter is to
accommodate individuals that are unable to be served by organizations like Salvation Army - namely individuals with
pets, couples, individuals with substance abuse issues, sex offenders, etc. The proposed site is across from the Softball
Complex, the Grape Bowl, and a half-mile from Lawrence Elementary School. ln my opinion, it is imprudent to
concentrate this particular demographic of people within this neighborhood and within stones throw of organizations
that are dedicated to serving our children, elderly, and veterans.
Again, I want to reiterate that I vehemently support the creation of a low-bar shelter in the City of Lodi; however, it will
be a disservice to our community if we do not choose a location that will meet not only our current needs, but also
future needs as we enter into this time of economic turmoil. The citizens of Lodi passed Measure L, which promised to
address crime and homelessness. Despite an increase in LPD and LFD staff, their hands are tied due to the Martin v.
Boise decision. Without creating a low-bar shelter that can serve every unsheltered individual in our community, the
Lodi Police will remain hamstrung by the Boise decision. I strongly encourage the city to explore the possibility of using
other city-owned properties. I understand that the city has plans for undeveloped parcels in the east side of town, but I
urge you all to reconsider those plans and to create a shelter that will meet the community's needs into the future.
Sincerely,
Amanda Lee
Sent from my iPhone
1