HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - January 20, 2021 G-01 PHG
_l
,'• CITY OF LODI
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
° TM
AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing to Consider Adopting a Resolution Amending the Requirements
and Procedures for Review of Growth Allocation Applications
MEETING DATE: January 20, 2021
PREPARED BY: Community Development Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Public hearing to consider adopting a resolution amending the
requirements and procedures for review of Growth Allocation
applications.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Lodi's Growth Management Plan was initiated in
1991 with the adoption of Ordinance No. 1521. Resolutions No.
91-170 and No. 91-171 were also adopted in 1991 to establish
the procedures for approving Growth Allocations; one unit of
growth allocation is needed for each new home built in Lodi.
The Growth Management Plan has been part of an overall strategy, implemented since the 1990s,
that has helped the City maintain an orderly growth pattern and contributed to the current compact
form and logical boundaries of the City of Lodi. However, the rapid growth pressure that led to the
creation of the Growth Management Plan has been less than anticipated and the City has grown more
slowly than the maximum 2% annual growth rate allowed under the Growth Management Plan.
While temporary modifications to the Growth Allocation process have occurred over the past 29 years,
the original regulations and procedures adopted in 1991 remain in effect today. The City Council did
enact temporary changes to certain implementation provisions of the Growth Management Plan in
2013 and those changes remained in effect until December 31, 2019. Under those temporary
provisions, applicants were able to request Growth Allocations at any time of year and the Planning
Commission was able to consider Growth Allocations and Tentative Subdivision Maps concurrently.
In July 2020, the City Council extended the 2013 temporary provisions through December 31, 2020
and directed staff to return with more comprehensive amendments to the Growth Management Plan
by the end of 2020. During a Shirt Sleeve session held in October 2020, the City Council provided
guidance to staff on the types of recommended changes. Most recently, an informational presentation
was held at the Planning Commission meeting in December 2020 to allow the Commission and the
community to provide input on proposed amendments.
OVERVIEW OF POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS:
The proposed amendments retain much of the current Growth Management Plan. However, the form
of regulations has been updated, simplified and adjusted to better align with the development review
process.
Growth Management Plan Provisions to be Retained
• No changes are proposed to Ordinance No. 1521, the Ordinance that established the Growth
Management Plan.
• The purpose and intent of the Growth Management Plan is retained with review procedures
presented in a revised format.
• The maximum growth rate of 2% annually is retained.
• The Growth Allocation points system is retained with minor clarifications.
Growth Allocation Provisions to be Updated
• The current Growth Allocation process is contained in two separate resolutions. Staff proposes
to address the Growth Allocation process in a single, updated resolution.
= Currently, applications for Growth Allocations are only accepted from July 1 through October 1
of each year. Staff proposes that applications for Growth Allocations be accepted at any time
of year.
In its existing form, the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on Growth Allocation
requests and the City Council must approve a Growth Allocation before an applicant may
submit a Tentative Map application. Staff proposes that applications for Growth Allocation and
a Tentative Map may be submitted for concurrent review by the Planning Commission. Final
approval of the Growth Allocation would be provided by the City Council.
• The present required application materials for a Growth Allocation request do not align well
with Tentative Map application materials. Staff proposes the required materials for these two
applications be better harmonized. Quality and character of the proposed development would
be assured through review of a detailed Development Plan with the Growth Allocation request.
• Currently, the SPARC does not have a formal role in the review of proposed Development
Plans. Staff proposes that Development Plans be submitted to the SPARC for review and
recommendation prior to Planning Commission review of a request for Growth Allocations.
• Presently, the City has a practice of carrying over allocations not assigned to a project in any
given year. Staff has proposed guidelines for carrying over unassigned allocations and
automatic expiration of unassigned allocations. Specifically, staff proposes that Unassigned
Growth Allocations carry over for two years and then automatically expire three years from
date the Growth Allocation was created.
Planning Commission Informal Review
Staff presented the major components of the proposed Growth Allocation procedures to the Planning
Commission on December 9, 2020. Following staff's presentation, the Planning Commission offered
the following comments:
• The concerns over maintaining the quality and character of Lodi that led to the Growth
Management Plan remain valid today.
• General support was expressed for accepting Growth Allocation requests throughout the year.
• The Commission was supportive of the SPARC reviewing Development Plans prior to
Planning Commission review, thereby allowing additional community input.
• Generally, the Planning Commission was supportive of proposed revisions to the Growth
Allocation review procedures, though one Commissioner expressed reservations over
amending a Plan that has served the community's interests since 1991.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The California Environmental Quality Act (Section 21000, et. seq. of the California Public Resources
Code, hereafter "CEQK) requires analysis of agency approvals of discretionary "projects." The
proposed revisions to the practices and procedures for review of Growth Allocations ("proposed
amendments") have been analyzed to determine the applicability of CEQA to approval of the
proposed amendments. The original authorization for the City's Growth Management Plan was
Ordinance No 1521 and no changes to Ordinance No. 1521 are proposed in this action. Therefore,
the proposed amendments would be limited to the procedures for the review of Growth Allocation
request, which would not alter the rate, location, form or intensity of development in the City. As such,
the proposed amendments would not cause a significant effect on the environment and adoption of
the proposed amendments is exempt from review under CEQA subject to Section 15061(b)(3) of the
CEQA Guidelines.
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution rescinding resolution No. 91-170 and
resolution No. 91-171 and amend provisions to implement the City of Lodi Growth Management Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
FUNDING AVAILABLE: Not applicable
John R1 Della Monica Jr.
Comm nity Development Direct r
Attachment:
New Proposed Resolution
Existing Resolutions to be rescinded 91-170 & 91-171
Ordinance 1521
PERMANENT RECORD
RESOLUTION NO. 91-170
A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL
ESTABLISHING CRITERIA AND A POINT SYSTEM
FOR PROCESSING TENTATIVE MAPS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the Lodi City Council, by Ordinance No. 1521, adopted
September 18, 1991 has provided for the establishment of certain
development criteria and a point system for processing of tentative
maps, parcel maps, and other approvals under the Subdivision Map Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Lodi City Council that the
following criteria/point system is established:
Evaluation Criteria. (The criteria listed below have been developed
to be consistent with current City policies and State laws.)
A. Agricultural Land Conflicts Score
1. Project does not require conversion of vacant
agricultural land
2. Project is adjacent to agricultural land on
one side
3. Project is adjacent to agricultural land on
two sides
4. Project is adjacent to agricultural land on
10
7
three sides 3
PERMANENT RECORD
5. Project is surrounded by agricultural land 0
B. On-site Agricultural Land Mitigation
1. Project needs no agricultural land mitigation 10
2. Adequate on-site buffer has been provided as a
part of site layout for all adjacent agricultural
land
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
2
100
3.
Project
located
within
Priority
Area
3
0
-2-
PERMANENT RECORD
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 g
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
-3-
PERMANENT RECORD
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 g
c. Project will extend Master Plan lines outside its
boundaries, but within existing right-of-way
(0 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
-4-
PERMANENT RECORD
e. Project requires construction of new water well
for which funds are not available in the Water
Impact Fee Fund
f. Project improves the existing system (i.e.,
eliminates dead -ends, loops master plan lines,
provides a well site) +1 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 (0 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
-5-
PERMANENT RECORD
E.
e. Project requires construction of a new basin
for which funds are not available in the
Master Drainage Impact Fee Fund
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
2. Project will extend Master Plan streets within
its boundaries
-6-
10
N
M
PERMANENT RECORD
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. Housinq
1. Low and Moderate Income Housing. A point credit
will be awarded with the following schedule:
-7-
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 Project Design --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 Desi n. (SPARC Committee shall
evaluate and provide between 10 and 0 points)
(These criteria shall only apply to multi -family
projects.)
-8-
PERMANENTRECORD
I. Schools -
1. Project is within 1/4 mile of an existing
(or proposed) elementary school 10
2. Project is within 1/2 mile of an existing
(or proposed) elementary school 5
3. Project is more than 1/2 mile from an existing or
proposed elementary school 0
4. Project is within 1/2 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
-9-
PERMANENT RECORD
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
Dated: September 4, 1991
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 91-170 was passed and
adopted by the Lodi City Council in a regular meeting held September 4,
1991 by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members - Pennino, Pinkerton, Sieglock, Snider
and Hinchman (Mayor)
Noes: Council Members - None
Absent: Council Members - None
Alice M. Re7mche
City Clerk
91-170
RES91170/TXTA.02J
-10-
RESOLUTION NO. 91-171
A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL
ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES, CONTENTS, AND TIME FRAMES
OF AND FOR DEVELOPMENT PLANS
caaac=aaa.caa=oo=acx==arca=x.a.-��x==-��___=�===soca=aaccaxxs=as=a=aaaa
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 1521, adopted by the City Council on
September 18, 1991 provides that a "Development Plan" shall be
submitted for all tentative maps, parcel maps and other approvals under
the Subdivision Map Act; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 1521 further provides that the format and
contents of such development plans shall be established by Council
resolution;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council that the
following shall apply to Development Plans:
A. Development Plan: Contents.
A development plan shall include:
1. A map showing any street system and/or lot design proposed within
the development. Any area proposed to be dedicated or reserved
for parks, open -space conservation, playgrounds, school sites,
public buildings, churches and other such uses must be shown.
Compliance with this requirement shall not be construed to relieve
the applicant from compliance with City and State Subdivision
regulations or any other applicable local or state laws.
,y COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS
l lq DEPARTMENT RESIDENTIAL
AREA ?.
M\N\\"`� 454 ACRES
AREA 3
538 ACRES
2. A map showing the location of all trees over nine (9) inches in
diameter with an indication of removal or incorporation into
project design.
3. If required by the Community Development Department, a map showing
the topography (with contour lines at one -foot intervals) shall be
provided by the applicant. The map shall indicate the proposed
elevations at the project boundaries and adjacent waterways;
4. The applicant shall provide a land -use plan for the proposed
development indicating the areas to be used for the various
purposes; a land -use map showing existing uses within the
development and uses (including agricultural uses) within five
hundred feet of the proposed development;
5. A plot plan for each building site or sites, except single-family
residents on standard lots in the proposed development or any
other portion thereof as required by the Community Development
Department. A plot plan shall show the approximate location of
all proposed buildings, indicate maximum and minimum distances
between buildings and between buildings and property or building
site lines;
6. Any or all of the following plans and diagrams may also be
required to be included on the plot plan or appended thereto:
(a) Off-street parking and loading plan.
RES91171/TXTA.02J
-2-
PERMANENT RECORD
(b) A circulation diagram indicating the proposed movement of
vehicles, goods and pedestrians within the development and
to and from adjacent public thoroughfares.
7. Elevations or perspective drawings of all proposed structures,
except single-family residences and their accessory buildings.
Such drawings need not be the result of final architectural
decisions and need not be in detail. The purpose of such drawings
is to indicate within stated limits the height of proposed
buildings and the general appearance of the proposed structures to
the end that the entire development will have architectural unity
and be in harmony with the surrounding developments;
8. Engineering data as described in the City of Lodi Public
Improvement Design Standards.
S. Development Schedule.
1. An application shall be accompanied by a development schedule
indicating to the best of the applicant's knowledge the
approximate date when construction of the project can be expected
to begin, the anticipated rate of development and the completion
date. The development schedule, if approved, shall become a part
of the development plan and shall be adhered to. by the owner or
owners of the property and his successors in interest.
RES91171/TXTA.02J
-3-
PERMANENT RECORD
2. From time to time the Planning Commission shall compare the actual
development accomplished with the approved development schedules.
3. If, in the opinion of the Planning Commission, the owner or owners
of property are failing or have failed to meet the approved
schedule, the Planning Commission may initiate proceedings to
amend or revoke the approval of the development plan.
4. If the Tentative Subdivision Map is not filed one year after
approved, the Planning Commission may forfeit the approved
allocations to the next project on the list.
5. If the Planning Commission determines that a proposed Development
Plan will require multi-year allocation to complete, each year of
the development schedule shall be approved for a stated number and
type of residential units.
6. Tentative Subdivision Maps will not be accepted until the Planning
Commission has approved the Development Plan and Development
Schedule and allocated the number of units either on a single -year
or multi-year basis. The City may require individual tentative
maps for each year's phasing of multi-year allocations.
C. Applications for Allocation: Time.
1. The application period for allocation of residential units in
the City shall open July 1 and close October 1 of each year.
RES91171/TXTA.02J
-4-
PERMANENT RECORD
2. The City shall make a Determination of Completeness by
November 1 of the same year. -
3. An Initial Study under the California Environmental Quality
Act shall be completed and a preliminary point score evaluation of the
project, utilizing the criteria adopted by Council resolution
hereunder, shall be done by the City no later than December 1.
4. On or before the following March 1, a Draft Environmental
Impact Report (if required) shall be completed.
5. The period for public review/comment on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report shall end April 15 and the final
Environmental Impact Report completed by May 1.
6. The Planning Commission and City Council shall thereafter, not
later than July 1, conduct all necessary public hearings and reviews of
the proposed projects, and shall approve or deny such proposals.
7. Based on such hearings/reviews and by reference to the point
system evaluation described in this Chapter, the City Council shall,
not later than September 30, allocate approvals of residential units.
Thereafter, applicant shall submit a tentative map for a project,
utilizing the number of allocated units awarded for each year.
Dated: September 4, 1991
RES91171/TXTA.02J
-5-
PERMANENT RECORD
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 91-171 was passed and
adopted by the Lodi City Council in a regular meeting held
September 4, 1991 by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members - Pennino, Pinkerton, Sieglock, Snider
and Hinchman (Mayor)
Noes: Council Members - None
Absent: Council Members - None
1u i 4' &'gde-
Alice M. Reimche
City Clerk
91-171
RES91171/TXTA.02J
-6-
PERMANENT RECORD
ORDINANCE NO. 1521
AN ORDINANCE OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL
ESTABLISHING A GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
FCR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
czzazrozzzz=x=aa=zzzzzazxmx-zxznczzxaxzzzzzzzra:xrzxz.a.z...rrzxaa--.a.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE LODI CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter , is hereby added to the Lodi
Municipal Code to read as follows:
CHAPTER
ESTABLISHING A GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVE_0PMlEf
Sections :
Purpose.
Findings.
Policies.
Allocation of Residential Development Approvals.
A I I ocatioos Nontransferable.
Priority Development Map.
Development Plan: Required.
Amendments.
Multi -Year Allocations.
Criteria: Point System.
Allocation of Building Permits/Approvals.
-1-
PERMANENT RECORD
. Purpose.
The purpose of this Chapter i s to state clearly the various
policies which shall govern the future growth and development of the
City of Lodi. It is further the purpose of this ordinance to provide a
growth management system to regulate the character, location, amount
and timing of future development so as to achieve the policies stated
in the Lodi General Plan. It i s further the purpose of this Chapter to
provide for increased housing opportunities for all segments of society
and to promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare by
regulating the future use and development of land in the City of Lodi.
. Findings.
The Lodi City Council, pursuant to Government Code Section
65863.6, hereby finds and determines as follows:
1. San
Joaquin County is
one
of the
most rapidly growing
areas in
the State
of California and
the
United
States. Projections
indicate
such growth is likely to continue.
i. Experience has shown that rapid growth which occurs in the
absence of a growth management plan produces negative impacts upon
housing, traffic, parks, a i r quality, water, aesthetics, and the
general quality of life of City residents.
3. The growth projections and policies established by this
ordinance reflect the estimated planned capacity of the City of Lodi to
serve new growth as it occurs. In doing so, the Council has studied
-2-
PERMANENT RECORD
• 0
the existing and projected capacity of the City's wastewater and water
systems, ability of City streets to handle further traffic, levels of
police and fire protection, the necessity of providing schools, and
other related data.
4. Rapid uncontrolled growth is also a direct cause of serious
adverse environmental and economic effects, some of which are:
a) Loss of significant agricultural lands, including prime
agricultural lands.
b) The ability of the community to provide adequate and decent
housing for its citizens.
Policies.
The Lodi City Council hereby determines that in order to
minimize or eliminate the problems described above, and to assure the
public health, safety and welfare, the following policies shall guide
the future growth and development of the City of Lodi.
1. It shall be the policy of the City of Lodi to insure that
prime agricultural land is preserved by discouraging new residential
developments in rural or unincorporated areas and to provide, to the
extent possible, that mw residential development shall occur in urban
areas.
2. I t shall be the policy of the City of Lodi to minimize
degradation of natural resources, including but not limited to air,
water, and wildlife habitat.
-3-
PERMANENT RECORD
0 •
. Allocation of Residential Development Approvals.
A. The number of residential units approved by the City shall
reflect a two percent (2%) yearly limitation on growth based on
population, to be compounded annually. Calculations for residential
building approval shall be based on a population figure of 50,990 as of
September 1, 1989, and assuming an average number of persons per
residential unit as determined annually by the State Department of
Finance. This limitation and formula shall be applicable to approvals
of residential units for years beginning with calendar year 1990 and
thereafter.
B. This limitation shall not apply to:
1. Commercial and industrial projects,
2. Senior citizen housing,
3. On-site replacement of housing i n existence as of
September 1, 1989, and
4. Projects of four (4) units or less.
. Allocations nontransferable.
No allocation or approval granted under this Chapter may be
transferred or assigned to any other location or project by the
applicant or applicant's heirs, assigns or successors.
. Priority Development Map.
The City Council shall, each year, adopt or update a map of the
City and surrounding areas showing lands eligible for development as
part of the City of Lodi and assigning thereto, priority
-4-
PERMANENT RECORD
classifications of 1, 2 or 3. This map shall be based upon the
recommendation of the Planning Commission, the Public Works Department,
and the Community Development Department, as determined by the
availability of City services including but not limited to water,
wastewater, storm drains, streets, police and fire protection and parks.
. Development Plan: Required.
Prior to submission of a tentative map, parcel map or other
approval under the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66410
et seq.), an application for Growth Management Review shall be made to
the Planning Commission on forms provided by the Community Development
Department and shall include or be accompanied by a development plan.
The format and information to be contained in such development plan
shall be determined by resolution of the City Council.
. Amendments.
If, at any point after approval and before construction begins,
the applicant shall substantially modify the plan submitted, City may
require that the plan be resubmitted for evaluation from the first
step. A determination of the need for resubmission shall be made by
the Community Development Department in the exercise of its sole
discretion.
. Multi -Year Allocations,
Applicant shall specify, if desired, that multi-year approval is
sought. The Planning Commission and City Council may, in their
discretion, grant up to three years allocations. However, any such
1611
PERMANENT RECORD
number of units approved shall be deducted from the total number of
allocations available in such future years.
a Criteria: Point System.
Evaluation of proposed projects shall be done with reference to
and in conformance with a point system/criteria schedule to be
established by Council resolution.
Allocation of Building Permits/Approvals.
If, in any year, the number of applications for residential
units subject to this ordinance exceeds the number of building permits
to be issued in that year by the City, as calculated herein, such
available building Permits/approvals shall be issued as follows:
A. By reference to the point system/criteria specified in
Section of this chapter, the project with the lowest
number of points shall be eliminated from consideration until the
number of unit applications remaining equals the number of building
permits to be issued during that year.
B. During elimination of projects under (A) above, if 2 or more
projects are tied for low score after all lower scores have been
eliminated, the Community Development Director shall reduce the number
of units in each of the tied low -scoring projects, on an equal
percentage basis, until the number remaining coincides with the number
of building permits available.
C. No single project shall receive more than one-third of all
single family permits available in any single year, unless the number
of applications received is less than permits available in that year.
-6-
PERMANENT RECORD
& i
SECTION 2. A I I ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict
herewith are repealed insofar as such conflict may exist.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be published one time i n the "Lodi
News Sentinel", a daily newspaper of general circulation printed and
published in the City of Lodi and shall be in force and take effect
thirty days from and after its passage and approval.
Approved this 18th day of September 1991
n
Attest: Mayor
ALICE M. REIMCHE
City Clerk
xs=asm.====.as.ica=====ssss-as====ssss:=e===xsaa==s..aa=aa�asassaaoosaz
State of California
County of San Joaquin, ss.
I, Alice M Reimche, City Clerk of the City of Lodi, do hereby certify
that Ordinance No.1521 was introduced at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Lodi held September 4, 1991 and was thereafter
passed, adopted and ordered to print at a regular meeting of said
Council held September 18, 1991 by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members - Pennino, Pinkerton, Sieglock,
Snider and Hinchman (Mayor)
Noes: Council Members - None
Absent: Council Members - None
Abstain : Council Members - None
-7-
PERMANENT RECORD
I further certify that Ordinance No. 1521 was approved and signed by
the Mayor on the date of its passage and the same has been published
pursuant to law.
ALICE M. REiMCNE
Approved as to Form City Clerk
--� &J
BOBBY W. McNATT
City Attorney
ORD1521/TXTA.02J
WC
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-21
A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 91-170 AND
RESOLUTION NO. 91-171, AND ADOPTING AMENDED
PROVISIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE CITY OF LODI
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the Lodi City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1521 on September 20, 1991, thereby
establishing the City's Growth Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 1521 establishes that the City Council will adopt guidance for the
implementation of the Growth Management Plan, including procedures and requirements for the
approval of Growth Allocations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council then adopted Resolutions No. 91-170 and No. 91-171, establishing
submittal requirements and procedures for the review of applications for Growth Allocations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has periodically reviewed and amended the procedures and
requirements for the review of Growth Allocations with automatic sunset provisions, but has made no
permanent revisions to the provisions of Resolutions No. 91-170 and No. 9 1 -171 since their adoption
in 1991; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has now reviewed Resolutions No. 91-170 and No. 91-171 and
has determined it would be beneficial to amend procedures and requirements to better articulate a clear
development review practice for City staff to ensure that future development is compatible with the City's
expectations for quality and character of new development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that, for ease of application and consistency, the
contents of Resolutions No. 91-170 and No. 91-171 should be combined and updated into a single
resolution that would repeal and replace the earlier resolutions; and
WHEREAS, the goals and intent of Ordinance No. 1521 would remain in effect as adopted,
without any amendments to the Ordinance or to the rate at which development within the City of Lodi
may occur; and
WHEREAS, the City's Growth Management Plan was established through Ordinance No. 1521
and no changes to Ordinance No. 1521 are proposed in this action. The proposed amendments would
be limited to the procedures for the review of Growth Allocation requests, which would not alter the rate,
location, form or intensity of development in the City. As such, it can be seen with certainty that the
proposed amendments would not cause a significant effect on the environment and adoption of the
proposed amendments is exempt from review under CEQA subject to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA
Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Lodi City Council as follows:
A. The Recitals as stated above are true and incorporated herein by this reference.
B. Earlier Resolutions Rescinded.
The City Council hereby repeals and replaces Resolution No. 91-170 and Resolution No. 91-171
in their entirety.
C. Growth Allocations Required.
1. Consistent with the provisions of Ordinance No. 1521, the following actions require approval
of Growth Allocations prior to residential projects or the residential component(s) of a mixed
use project receiving approval:
a. Approval of a Specific Plan, Planned Unit Development, Master Plan or similar land use
entitlement.
b. Approval of a multifamily residential project on a parcel that has not received a Growth
Allocation.
c. Recordation of a Final Map.
d. Issuance of building permits.
2. The following are exempt from requirements for Growth Allocations:
a. Commercial and industrial projects.
b. Senior citizen housing.
c. Construction of a new or replacement of a single-family home.
d. Reconstruction of any residential unit that was originally constructed with a Growth
Allocation.
e. Residential project of four (4) units or less, including attached and detached units.
f. Accessory Dwelling Units.
g. Emergency Housing.
D. Development Plan Required.
Applications for Growth Allocations shall contain a Development Plan that includes:
1. A map showing the following:
a. Proposed street system and/or lotting design proposed within the development.
b. Any area proposed to be dedicated or reserved for parks, open -space conservation,
playgrounds, school sites, public buildings, churches and other such uses.
Compliance with this requirement shall not be construed to relieve the applicant from
compliance with City and State Subdivision regulations or any other applicable local or
state laws.
2. A map showing the location of all trees over nine (9) inches in diameter with an indication of
whether they will be removed or retained as part of the project.
3. A land -use plan for the proposed development indicating the proposed land uses, as well as
a description of and development standards for each land use designation (including, if
desired, reference(s) to the Lodi Zoning Code for development standards, permitted land
uses, etc.).
4. A map showing existing uses (including agriculture) inside and within 500 feet of the
proposed development.
5. Typical plot plan(s) for residential dwellings for each typical proposed residential lot type.
The plot plan(s) shall identify development standards, including setbacks from lot lines for
front, side and rear yards.
6. A circulation diagram and standards defining the proposed system of public and private
streets within the development, and all other features (on- and off-street bikeways,
pedestrian sidewalks and trails, etc.) related to the movement of vehicles, goods,
pedestrians, and bicyclists within the development and to and from adjacent public
thoroughfares. The circulation diagram shall also document proposed off-street parking.
7. Elevations and perspective drawings of the front elevations of all proposed structures,
including single-family residences and their accessory buildings. Elevations of all sides of
proposed non-residential and/or neighborhood serving structures shall be provided. Such
drawings need not be the result of final architectural decisions, but shall be reviewed for
consistency in the formal design review process. The purpose of such drawings is to indicate
height of proposed buildings, the proposed character and level of finish, and the general
appearance of the proposed structures to ensure that the entire development will meet the
City's expectations for quality design and construction, will have architectural unity, and will
be in harmony with the surrounding developments.
2
8. Engineering data as described in the City of Lodi Public Improvement Design Standards.
E. Development Schedule.
1. An application shall be accompanied by a development schedule indicating to the best of
the applicant's knowledge the approximate date when construction of the project can be
expected to begin, the anticipated rate of development and the completion date. The
development schedule, if approved, shall become a part of the Development Plan and shall
be adhered to by the owner or owners of the property and his successors in interest.
2. If a Tentative Subdivision Map is not filed one year after a Development Plan and Growth
Allocations are approved, the Planning Commission may rescind the approved Growth
Allocations following a public hearing at which the applicant shall be provided with notice
and an opportunity to be heard. This would allow the applicant to explain why the project
has been delayed and request an extension of the deadline to file a Tentative Map.
3. If the Planning Commission determines that a proposed Development Plan will require multi-
year allocation to complete, each year of the development schedule shall be approved for a
stated number and type of residential units.
4. For projects seeking a multi-year allocation, the City may require individual tentative maps
for each year's phasing of multi-year allocations.
F. Processing of Applications for Growth Allocations.
1. Applications for Growth Allocations may be submitted prior to or concurrently with an
application for a Tentative Subdivision Map. An application for a Tentative Subdivision Map
may not be submitted prior to an application for or approval of a Growth Allocation.
2. An application for Growth Allocation, whether submitted in conjunction with a Tentative
Subdivision Map or independently, shall include application materials described in Section
D. Development Plan, and shall be reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) as established under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
3. The Site Planning and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) shall review and provide
comments and recommendations on the Development Plan that accompanies the Growth
Allocation application prior to any Planning Commission review of an application for Growth
Allocations.
4. The Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing to consider the application for
Growth Allocation and shall make a recommendation to the City Council to either approve
or deny the request for Growth Allocation.
5. Following recommendation by the Planning Commission, the City Council shall conduct a
public hearing to consider the application for Growth Allocation and shall either approve or
deny the request for Growth Allocation.
6. A Growth Allocation of units equal to or greater than the number of units proposed in the
Final Map must be approved and in place prior to recording of a Final Map.
7. Should the City Council approve a Growth Allocation for less units than the associated
Tentative Map, the applicant shall amend and submit a revised Tentative Map and
Development Plan for Planning Commission consideration.
G. Carry Over of Growth Allocations..
1. Annual Accrual of New Growth Allocations. On January 1 of each year, new Growth
Allocations will be created in an amount that will accommodate a 2% increase over the City's
previous year population. The number of new Growth Allocations shall be the number of
dwellings required to accommodate the increased population based on the average number
of persons per household as determined by the State Department of Finance.
2. Unused Growth Allocations. Growth Allocation available in any given year that are not
assigned to a development project shall be deemed to be Unused Growth Allocations and
shall be available to assign in subsequent years.
3. Carry Over Allocations. An Unused Allocation becomes a Carry Over Allocation on
January 1 of the year following its original creation.
4. Available Growth Allocations. Available Growth Allocations shall be calculated on January 1
of each year as the sum of newly created Growth Allocations plus any Carry Over Growth
Allocations from previous years.
5. Oldest Allocations Assigned First. In each year, the first allocations assigned to development
projects shall be the oldest Carry Over Growth Allocations. Once all Carry Over Growth
Allocations have been assigned, the Growth Allocations created in the current year shall be
assigned.
6. Automatic Retirement of Carry Over Growth Allocations. Growth Allocations may only be
carried over for two subsequent years. If a Carry Over Growth Allocation has not been
assigned to a development project within three years of its original creation, then such
Growth Allocation shall be automatically retired.
7. Annual Accounting of Growth Allocations. By January 15 of each year, the Community
Development Department shall document newly created Growth Allocations for the current
year and Carry Over Growth Allocations from previous years. Any Carry Over Growth
Allocations that are determined to be more than three years old are automatically retired.
H. Points System/Evaluation Criteria.
Consistent with the provisions of Ordinance No. 1521, the following point system/evaluation
criteria shall be applied to the review of projects when requested Growth Allocations exceed the number
of available Growth Allocations.
1. Agricultural Land Conflicts
Score
a. Project does not require conversion of vacant agricultural land
10
b. Project is adjacent to agricultural land on one side
7
c. Project is adjacent to agricultural land on two sides
5
d. Project is adjacent to agricultural land on three sides
3
e. Project is surrounded by agricultural land
0
2. On -Site Agricultural Land Buffer
---------------
a. Project needs no agricultural land mitigation
10
b. Adequate on-site buffer has been provided as a part of site layout
for all adjacent agricultural land
7
c. On-site buffer provided as a part of site layout for only part of the
project
5
d. No buffer between project and adjacent agricultural land
0
3. 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.
a. Project located within Priority Area 1
200
b. Project located within Priority Area 2
100
c. Project located within Priority Area 3
0
4. Relationshic to Public Services
a. General Location
L Project abuts existing or approved development that has
not yet been built on four sides
10
4
ii. Project abuts existing or approved development that has
not yet been built on three sides
iii. Project abuts existing or approved development that has
not yet been built on two sides
iv. Project abuts existing or approved development that has
not yet been built on one side
V. Project is surrounded by undeveloped land
b. Wastewater
L Project is located adjacent to existing Master Plan sanitary
sewers or mains designed to serve the project
ii. Project will extend a Master Plan line within its boundaries
iii. Project will extend a Master Plan line outside of its
boundaries but within existing right -of way (0 if right-of-way
is necessary)
iv. Project requires construction of a new lift station for which
funds are available in the Sewer Impact Fee Fund
v. Project requires construction of a new lift station for which
funds are not available in the Sewer Impact Fee Fund
* Project cannot proceed without provision of funding for
construction of the lift station.
c. Water
i. Project is located adjacent to existing Master Plan water
mains or mains designed to serve the project
ii. Project will extend Master Plan lines within its boundaries
iii. Project will extend Master Plan lines outside its
boundaries, but within existing right-of-way (0 if outside
right-of-way)
iv. Project requires construction of a new water well for which
funds are available in the Water Impact Fee Fund
v. Project requires construction of new water well for which
funds are not available in the Water Impact Fee Fund
A Project improves the existing system (i.e., eliminates dead -
ends, loops master plan lines, provides a well site)
* Project cannot proceed without provision of funding for
construction of the required well.
d. Drainage
L Project is served by an existing drainage basin and Master
Plan line or mains designed to serve the project
ii. Project will extend a Master Plan line or expand an existing
basin within its boundaries
5
7
5
3
0
10
8
4
0
10
8
4
0
*
+1 to 3
10
A
iii. Project will extend a Master Plan line or expand an existing
basin outside of its boundaries but within existing rights-of-
way (0 points if right-of-way is necessary) 4
iv. Project requires construction of a new basin for which
funds are available in the Master Drainage Impact Fee
Fund 0
V, Project requires construction of a new basin for which
funds are not available in the Master Drainage Impact Fee
Fund
* Project cannot proceed without provision of funding for
construction of the required basin.
5. Promotion of ❑ en 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 and single-family homes).
20% or less
10
30% or less
8
40% or less
6
50%
4
60%
2
70% or greater
0
Project owner shall submit an analysis of the percentage of the
coverage of surface area.
6. Traffic
a. Project widens or improves an existing facility 10
b. Project will extend Master Plan streets within its boundaries 8
c. Project will extend Master Plan streets outside its boundaries, but
within existing right-of-way (0 if outside right-of-way) 4
d. Project require roadway improvements for which funds are
available in the Street Impact Fee Program 0
e. Project requires roadway improvements for which funds are not
available in the Street Impact Fee Program
f. Project improves circulation by providing additional access to
adjacent development (including non -vehicular access) +1 to 5
* Project cannot proceed without provision of funding for
construction of the required road improvement.
1.9
7. Housinq
Low and Moderate Income Housing.
A point credit will be awarded with the following schedule:
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
8. Site Plan and Prosect Desi n --Bonus Points for Multi -Family Projects
These criteria shall only apply to multi -family projects.
a. Landscaping. (Planning Commission shall evaluate and provide
between 10 and 0 points)
b. Architectural Design. (SPARC shall evaluate and provide
between 10 and 0 points)
9. Schools
a. Project is within 1/4 mile of an existing (or proposed) elementary
school 10
b. Project is within 1/2 mile of an existing (or proposed) elementary
school 5
c. Project is more than 1/2 mile from an existing or proposed
elementary school 0
d. Project is within 1/2 mile of an existing (or proposed) middle
school 10
e. Project is within 1 mile of an existing or proposed middle school 5
f. Project is more than 1 mile from an existing or proposed middle
school 0
g. Project is within 1 mile of an existing or proposed high school 10
h. Project is within 2 miles of an existing or proposed high school 5
10. Fire Protection. (Proximity to fire protection services)
a. Within 3 minute emergency vehicle driving time from the nearest
fire station 10
b. Within 4 minute emergency vehicle driving time from the nearest
fire station 5
c. Beyond 4 minute emergency vehicle driving time from the
nearest fire station 0
VA
Dated: January 20, 2021
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 2021-21 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Lodi in a regular meeting held January 20, 2021, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Chandler, Hothi, Kuehne, and Mayor Nakanishi
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Khan
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None
��� .Gly��ruc�
(7 JENNIFEWeUSMIR
City Clerk
2021-21
M
City Council Consideration
Amendments to the City of Lodi
Growth Allocation Procedures
January 20, 2021
Purpose of Meeting
• Status of Planning Efforts
• Proposed Changes to the Growth
Allocation Process
• City Council Discussion and Action
History of Lodi Growth Allocation
• Late 1980s: Rapid growth in the county led to
concerns about Lodi's community character and
pace of growth
• Growth Management Program established in 1991
with adoption of Ordinance No. 1521
• Resolution No. 91-170: Point system for evaluating
competitive Growth Allocation applications
• Resolution No. 91-171: Procedures for the review of
Growth Allocation applications
• 2010: General Plan amended to include Growth
Management and Infrastructure chapter
Growth Allocation Adjustments
June 5, 2013: Council approved changes to the
Growth Allocation process:
• Eliminated requirement that all Growth
Allocation applications be heard each year in
November
• Allowed the Planning Commission to consider
Tentative Maps and Growth Allocation
recommendations concurrently
Those changes expired
IMMOMERVIEW -
on December 31, 2019
Council Discussion June 3, 2020
• Extended the process changes enacted in
2013 through December 31, 2020
• Directed staff to return with a more
comprehensive review of Growth Allocation
procedures before the end of 2020
Council Discussion October 20, 2020
• Council Shirtsleeve — Overview of Growth
Management and Potential Amendments
• Council provided direction for changes to the
program
• Staff developed amendments based on City
Council direction
Planning Commission
December 9, 2020
Review
• Planning Commission informal review — no
Commission action required
• Commission supports and values the Growth
Allocation process
• Commission supports expanded role of
SPARC in Development Plan Review
• Commission was generally supportive of the
proposed Growth Allocation procedures
���WERVIEW--=
Council Shirtsleeve January 5, 2021
• Council Shirtsleeve — Presentation of
proposed amendments
• Council provided support for proceeding with
amendments
• No objections received from residents or the
development community
Features of Growth Allocation to be Retained
• No changes are proposed to Ordinance No. 1521,
which established the Growth Management Plan.
• Much of the overall structure and the purpose of
the Growth Management Program will be retained.
• The maximum growth rate of 2% annually will be
retained.
•The Growth Allocation points system will be
retained but will only applied when requests for
allocations exceed available allocations.
• General Plan chapter on Growth Management will
not be changed.
Proposed Amendments to Growth Allocation
Procedures and Regulations
Consolidate Procedures Into One Resolution
• Currently Growth Allocation procedures are
presented in two resolutions.
• Proposed change would consolidate Growth
Allocations in a single, simplified resolution.
Timing of Applications
• Currently applications for Growth Allocation
can only be submitted from July 1 through
October 1.
• Proposed change would allow Growth
Allocations aaalications to be submitted for
review at any time during the year.
Concurrent review of Growth Allocation and
Tentative Map
• Current rules require the Planning Commission
to recommend and City Council to approve
Growth Allocation before a Tentative Map can be
submitted
• Proposed change would allow the Planning
Commission to consider Growth Allocation and
Tentative Map concurrently
Growth Allocation Application
• Currently the application materials for a
Growth Allocation request do not align well
with Tentative Map application materials.
• Proposed changes would be better align
application materials.
• Quality and character of the proposed
development would be assured through
review of a detailed Development Plan with
the Growth Allocation request.
SPARC Review of Development Plan
• Currently the SPARC does not have a role in
reviewing Growth Allocation requests.
• Proposed change would require SPARC
review of Development Plans.
• SPARC comments would be forwarded to
Commission and Council for consideration.
Carry Over/Expiration of Unused Allocations
• Current practice allows unused allocations to
carry over to future years until retired by
Council (no automatic expiration).
• Proposed change would clarify how unused
allocations carry over.
• Allocations for all residential densities would
carry over for three years and then be
automatically retired.
CEQA Analysis
• The proposed amendments are limited to
procedures for Growth Allocation reviews.
• The proposed amendments would not alter
the rate, intensity or location of future
development.
• It can be seen with certainty that approval of
the proposed amendments would not have a
significant effect on the environment.
• Subject to Section 15061 (13)(3) of the CEQA
Guidelines approval of the Growth Allocation
amendments are exempt from CEQA review.
�CEQAANALYSI-S�
Recommended Action
• Adopt the proposed Resolution, thereby
updating the City's Growth Allocation
Procedures.
City Council
Discussion and Action
From: Jacklyn Shaw
To: City Counrit Comments; Jennifer Cusmir
Subject: G-1.Map? Comment for no growth but Lodi food crops
Date: Wednesday, January 20, 20214:39:13 PM
on Jan. 20, 2021 from
Dear Lodi Mayor Nakanishi and Council members (Mayor Pro "Tempore" Chandler, Hothi, Khan, and
Kuehne) plus city staff: Mngr, Schwabauer; City Attorney, Magdich; and City Clerk, Cusmir.
RE: G-1.Map? Letter Comment for no growth but Lodi food crops on best fertile soil in world (with
Mokelumne River & Delta).
Alerting me to the issue of G-1 on Lodi city growth, here is my honest opinion from observations.
A) Other Lodi growers and farmers asked me to write (where comments are 3-5 minutes). Thank you for
this opportunity, as born and raised in "Liveable, Loveable Lodi" area. Given that the "Arch of Lodi" was
stylized from crates of food crops", we are concerned with what is happening with the map of Lodi? (See
Notes.*) In the impressive agenda, the only map was for bicycle paths, p. 157. But it is not clear for the
agenda item on G-1. Question: Could you please provide a MAP with all the streets and proposed site
names on growth adjustments, for the Lodi public community -at -large, before your voting? *
B) Having lived in Orange County, California, for 30 years, my folks kept saying that I lived in L.A..
Actually, it was five miles from Disneyland, which had had orange trees. Now, Orange County has no
orange trees. San Jose was known for garden crops, but now it is a "concrete jungle", with some blocks not
having any trees. "Lodi area" is known for value crops of orchards of olive and cherry trees, walnut and
almond trees, other row crops and food industries. Question: With the spread, if not encroachments, in 10
years beyond Lower Sacramento Road, wben would agricultural Lodi becQme an unsightly. unhealthy
" e ,? (Stop it now or neverw
C) Manager, Steve Schwabauer, responded to my question, as to why lifelong stal belts Q I,fi
farmers are not allowed to vote for city council? That is on the vitality, livelihood and even romantic
attractions of surrounding vineyards and groves, even glorious oak trees. *
(i) When will we have a freew"Welcome-Eo Arch of Lodi, with &ad tasting_(galore)�!.9
(As former Mayor, Mark Chandler told me that one was planned. (Maybe a welcome sign could be near
Turner Raad towards lovelY Lgdi Lakc, off of Interstate 5?
(ii) Concern is with Lodi founding family framers (if not crate growers of food crops): Question: What do
Vg do with this assue: How do we resolve that Loda agricultural fjmqlies are not only not rellresfulcd
in either county fir city, but pay increasing -county taxes! (That is with decreasing net income from
costs).
D)
could he an Enyironmental issue, but I'd aftge it is an increasing HEALIIJ issue, from WAXER
EXPORTS of Mo jClumne River towards Port of Oakland and eLsewbere, * Impact is that Lodi used to
have months of fog, now it has a few weeks. Manager, A. Christensen of Woodbridge Irrigation District,
WID, told me we needed growers to go to state water board meetings or they'd make us into a Delta Dust
Bowl (WID vs EBMUD, Lodinews.com, Jan. 31, 2018). Maybg Lod' needs to be shown jhe Delta pla
funnel"MAP for devastating TerMoLlous Resort by a "wattr And that is 12 miles from
Lodi, amidst increasing local recycles of drought.*
E) Who cares about healthy Lodi -w.Fth Delta Eabtgud ocean breeze, and ]&hat is good about Lodi
agriculture produce to the JocaL agri-tourism eggnomv? Having lived and taught at Kabul University,
two full years, I could discuss the plight of Afghan farmers and females. That is to express more alarm on
expanded homeless housing, to avoid narco crops for terrorist addicts (since 7th C.). (Notes include
counterproductive pest regulations.) Instead I'll add a Lodi cheer.
Sincerely yours,
Prof. Jacklvn.El.Shaw rr7r icloud.com
J. Lauchland Shaw vineyard
Zin Grapes Grower (Delta East)
Ed.Admin., Prof -Author
JJJJShawPR.coin (pending)
15766 Devries Road (private)
Lodi, CA 95242
(562) 233-7300 (mobile)
P.S. As we sang at Lodi High games:
"Are you from Lodi, Yes I'm from Lodi, The greatest town in all of the land.
Are you from Lodi? Yes, I'm from Lodi, Where Zinfandel is supreme..."
OK, I updated a bit on the substituting "Zinfandel' for "Tokay". Cheers?
NOTES:
* a) Urban supervisors took over San Joaquin County in 1961. (Mom was upset, as PTA President of former
Lafayette School, now with a missing bell.) That is as if 80 Lodi wineries were considered "unmanageable
properties", dubbed "unincorporated" regardless (to say the least). Fact is Wine Enthusiast noted Lodi wine
grapes as #1 in the world, and in 2020 the Michael and David winery was rated #1 in USA. Also, We
appreciate that circular spin for slowdown on Lodi Avenue alias Sargent Road, west Lodi area. Moreover,
respects to the former President of LDGGA. He drew a circle on the map stating "that Lodi is one district"
(not any divisive Balkanization, if allowed to add observation; this is a pro and con issue on direct
representation not popular, cash vote by campaign). Agreed, some grower heirs have issues on surviving
the Lodi agricultural legacy.
* b) And that is not to mention Lodi amidst one of two most panoramic views in the world: Mt. Diablo and
Mt. Kilimanjaro. Currently, the sunset is heartwarming to view (of the real estate landmark) Mt. Diablo, as
well as snow-capped Sierras for rivers on the East.
* c) * Somehow, Lodi farmers Have increasing taxes, without rural representation at SJ County nor in Lodi
area. Who shares and benefits from this Roman Law concern? (God bless all those picturesque winery
signs in the Lodi countryside roads.)
* d) That is since Pardee Dam tax in 1929. It is as if there is not the California coast of Pacific Ocean, with
increasing desalination plants in 100 nations, and since invented with UCB, Leibovitz, PhD, UCB, 1977.
* e.i) Costly Regulations? Anyway, I paid over $200 for a pest control specialist to get rid of a rat that was
the size of a squirrel. All he was allowed to use was peanut butter, plus and effective sock to stuff a hole.
(Wish I could tell the story of how our lovely 96 year old Lodi neighbor resolved it, that is for a dead rat.)
The Sheriff's concern is with increasing Delta counts of Nutria (like a wart hog), competing with beavers
and Delta levees.
* e.ii) I was surprised at how Lahore, Pakistan (nation 1947, half from larger Afghanistan) looked like the
Stockton Delta. My concern is about safeguarding against any homeless housing from any terrorist crops.
Heroin is from impacted Marijuana, used since 7th century by terrorist addicts.
* e.III) Granted, pest control issues get one-sided coverage. Pest advisors say that some regulations cause
more pestulants than less, like solving problems in timely manner, for future concerns.
cc: cilyclerk EodiX= for after 48 hours
ck, bl, rfin (confidential)
From: Chris Nico
To: City Council
Subject: Growth Allocation Applications
Date: Wednesday, January 20, 20214:34:28 PM
Dear Council Members,
Please do not amend the requirements and procedures for a review of Growth
Allocation applications.
City staff says Lodi did not grow as quickly as once thought it would. We say
"hooray". Development
should be discouraged on prime agricultural farmland!
Thank you.
From: All
To: City Council
Subject: Requirements for review of Growth Allocation
Date: Wednesday, January 20, 20214:53:38 PM
Dear Lodi Council Members,
I am saddened to hear that city staff and council want to make changes to the current Growth
Allocation application which allows for further
development. As a 60 + year resident I would hope you would consider the detrimental effect
of growth on the quality of Life in our town.
Sincerely yours,
Eunice Friederich
SUBJECT:
PUBLISH DATE:
Please immediately confirm receipt
of this fax by calling 333-6702
CITY OF LODI
P. O. BOX 3006
LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910
ADVERTISING INSTRUCTIONS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION
AMENDING REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW OF
GROWTH ALLOCATION APPLICATIONS
SATURDAY, JANUARY 9, 2021
TEAR SHEETS WANTED: One (1) please
SEND AFFIDAVIT AND BILL TO: JENNIFER CUSMIR, CITY CLERK
LNS ACCT. #5100152 City of Lodi
P.O. Box 3006
Lodi, CA 95241-1910
DATED: THURSDAY, JANUARY 7, 2021
ORDERED BY: JENNIFER CUSMIR
CITY CLERK
PAMELA M. FARRIS
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
KAYLEE' LAYTON
ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK
Verify Appearance of this Legal in the Newspaper — Copy to File
Emailed to the Sentinel .at legals@lodinews:com at (time) on ('tlate') (pages)
formsladvins.doc
DECLARATION OF POSTING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION
AMENDING REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW OF GROWTH
ALLOCATION APPLICATIONS
On Tuesday, January 7, 2021, in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, a
Notice of Public Hearing to consider adopting resolution amending requirements and
procedures for review of Growth Allocation applications (attached and marked as Exhibit
A) was posted at the following locations:
Lodi City Clerk's Office
Lodi City Hall Lobby
Lodi Carnegie Forum
WorkNet Office
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on January 7, 2021, at Lodi, California.
PAMELA M. FARRIS
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
ORDERED BY:
JENNIFER CUSMIR
CITY CLERK
KAYLER CLAYTON
ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK
\\cvcfilv0l\administration$\Administration\CLERK\Public Hearings\AFFADAVITS\DECPOSTCDD.DOC
,...} •. CITY OF LODI
Carnegie Forum
305 West Pine Street, Lodi
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Date: January 20, 2021
Time: 7:00 p.m.
For information regarding this notice please contact:
Jennifer Cusmir
City Clerk
Telephone: (209) 333-6702
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
c a'
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, January 20, 2021, 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 at the Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, to consider
the following item:
a) Adopting a resolution amending requirements and procedures for
review of Growth Allocation applications.
While social distancing measures are imposed due to COVID-19, Council chambers are
closed to the public during meetings of the City Council. Members of the public may
view and listen to the open session of the meeting at www.farebook.c;om/CitvofLodi/ or
htt s:/Izoorr.us11983434570037 wd=Vml4anRKUm9PWURFbDJnbThSWDFDdz0g.
Information regarding this item may be obtained in the Community Development
Department, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, (209) 333-6711. All interested persons are
invited to present their views and comments on this matter. Written statements may be
filed with the City Clerk by emailing councilcomments2lodi.gov. All comments received
prior to the close of the public hearing will be read into the record. Oral comments may
be made at: litl s:lizoonl.us)it983434570037 wd=Vm14anRKUm9PWURFbOJnbTlISWDFUdzo9.
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 close of the public hearing.
By Order of e Lodi City Council:
r
r usmir
ity Clerk
Dated: January 6, 2021
Approved as to form:
Janice D. Magdich
Janice D. Magdich
City Attorney
AVISO: Para obtener ayuda interpretativa con esta noticia, por favor Ilame a la oficina de la
Secretaria Municipal, a las (209) 333-6702.
CLERK\PUBHEAR\NOTICES\NOTCDD_teleconf GrowthAllocation 12/30120