The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda Report - November 29, 2006 D-01 PH/SMCITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION AGENDA ITEM lbw% AGENDA TITLE: Conduct a Public Hearing to consider: a) Approval of an Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the City -initiated General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendments to establish an Agriculture/Greenbelt area between Lodi and the City of Stockton. b) Approval of a City -initiated General Plan Amendment to establish a new Agriculture/Greenbelt General Plan designation, identify the 31/2 square mile AgriculturelGreenbelt area on the General Plan Diagram, amend and establish goals, policies, and implementation programs to preserve the agriculture/greenbelt between Lodi and the City of Stockton; and c) Request that LAFCO amend Lodi's Sphere of Influence to include the Agriculture/Greenbelt area within the City's Sphere of Influence. MEETING DATE: November 29, 2006 PREPARED BY: Lynette Dias and Jennifer Craven, Contract Planners, LSA Associates, Inc. Randy Hatch, Community Development Director RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct a Public Hearing to consider the following actions: a) Adopt the Initial Study/Negative Declaration as adequate CEQA analysis for City -initiated General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendments to establish an Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area between Lodi and the City of Stockton; and b) Approve the City -initiated General Plan Amendment to establish a new Agriculture/Greenbelt General Plan designation, identify the 3Y2 square mile Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area as Agriculture/Greenbelt on the General Plan Land Use Diagram, establish Implementation Program LU -19, and amend 18 existing General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs to clarify the City's intent to preserve the plan area as an agriculture/greenbelt community separator between Lodi and the City of Stockton; and c) Request that LAFCO amend Lodi's Sphere of Influence to include the 31/2 square mile Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area within the City of Lodi Sphere of Influence. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: On March 29, 2006, Council directed staff to initiate General Plan and Sphere of Influence amendments to establish a greenbelt area on the General Plan Land Use Diagram directly south of the City's existing SOI boundary to be consistent with the underlying San Joaquin County General Agriculture designation for the area. APPROVED:' it King, City Manager J.`Community Development\Council Communications 12006111-29 CC Rpt Grnblt GPA-SOIA 112906.doc Plan Area Characteristics. The entire 31/2 square mile plan area (equivalent to 2,280 acres) is currently located outside of Lodi's existing Sphere of Influence (SOI) (Attachment 1), as well as Stockton's existing and proposed SOI boundaries (A _ ; T ` t 2). Only the area located north of Armstrong Road is currently included within the General Plan's planning area, designated as Planned Residential Reserve on the Land Use Diagram (Attachrnert 3). The majority of the plan area is designated General Agriculture (NG) on the San Joaquin County General Plan Land Use Map (Attachment 4) and is zoned General Agriculture (AG -40; 40 acre minimum parcel size) on the San Joaquin County Zoning Districts Map (A 5). Agriculture/viticulture and related uses, livestock keeping/grazing, and rural residences are the dominate land uses in the plan area (Atta ). Other uses in the plan area include a portion of the Lodi Airstrip (west of Lower Sacramento Road), a mobile home park (adjacent to the S-curve in North West Lane), and the 258 -acre Micke Grove Regional Park. The Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) main canal transects the central portion of the plan area generally in a north -south direction, and Pixley Slough transects the southeast portion of the area generally in an east -west direction. Description of Amendments. The City -initiated General Plan and Sphere of Influence (SOI) amendments would establish a 31/2 square mile agriculture/greenbelt community separator area ("plan area") in unincorporated San Joaquin County between Lodi and the City of Stockton. The 3%2 square mile (i.e., 2,280 acres) plan area is located south of Lodi's existing corporate boundary, extends % mile north of Armstrong Road to approximately 1/2 to 3/4 mile south of Armstrong Road, approximately'/4 mile west of Lower Sacramento Road, and east to State Route 99 (Attachment 2). The amendments include the following components: 1) New General Plan designation for the plan area, referred to as Agriculture/Greenbelt (Attachment 7); 2) New implementation program for the Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area (Attachment 7; Implementation Program LU -19); 3) Text revisions to 18 existing General Plan policies to clarify the City's intent to preserve the plan area as a community separator between Lodi and Stockton (Attachment 7); 4) Redesignation of an approximately 11/2 square mile area north of Armstrong Road from Planned Residential Reserve (PRR) to Agriculture/Greenbelt on the General Plan Land Use Diagram (Attar'mint 8); 5) Designation of an approximately 2 square mile area located south of Armstrong Road as Agriculture/Greenbelt on the General Plan Land Use Diagram (Attachment 8); and 6) Request LAFCO to amend the City's SOI boundaries to add the 3'/2 square mile plan area clarifying the City's interest in long-range planning for the area (Attachments 2 and 9). The proposed amendments would not result in any physical development. Instead, the City -initiated GPA and SOI amendment were formulated to ensure that preservation of existing commercial agriculture/viticulture crop production and operation, which establishes and provides the "agricul- ture/greenbelt" character and community separator of the plan area, is achieved. New and amended policies for the plan area (Attachment 7) are consistent with the existing agricultural/rural uses on large parcels with a minimum size of 40 acres, and allowed by the underlying San Joaquin County General Plan General Agricultural (AIG) land use designation for the area. The City is not pursing annexation of the plan area as a part of this project. As such, no change in existing service providers (ie. Sheriff, Woodbridge Fire District, individual wells, and septic systems) would result and, correspondingly, no analysis is provided speculating which services may eventually be provided by the City in the future if annexation of the plan area occurred. Lodi 1991 General Plan. The foundation for the City -initiated amendments is provided by 21 existing General Plan goals, policies and implementation measures. These existing policies establish the J:\Community Development\Council Communicatlons\2006111-29 CC Rpt Grnblt GPA-SOIA 112906.doc 2 community's vision to retain the agricultural/rural area surrounding the City as a greenbelt. The following provides this policy framework by listing the General Plan Land Use and Growth Management (LU), Conservation (CON), and Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PRO) Element greenbelt -related policies: • Policy LU -A.1: The City shall seek to preserve Lodi's small-town and rural qualities. • Goal LU -B: To preserve agricultural land surrounding Lodi and to discourage premature development of agricultural land with nonagricultural uses, while providing for urban needs. • Policy LU -B.1: The City shall encourage the preservation of agricultural land surrounding the City. • Policy LU -B.2: The City should designate a continuous open space greenbelt around he urbanized area of Lodi to maintain and enhance the agricultural economy • Policy LU -B-3: The City should cooperate with San Joaquin County and the San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to ensure that the greenbelt is maintained. • Policy LU -B.4: The City shall support the continuation of agricultural uses on lands designated for urban uses until urban development is imminent. • Policy LU -B.5: The City shall promote land use decisions within the designated urbanized area that allow and encourage the continuation of viable agricultural activity around the City. • Policy LU -B.6: The City shall encourage San Joaquin County to retain agricultural uses on lands adjacent to the City. • Policy LU -C.8: The City shall identify a planned residential reserve designation for development of residential uses beyond the time frame of the GP. Until these areas are redesignated with a nonreserve GP designation, allowed uses and development standards shall be the same as those of the agricultural designation. • Implementation Program LU -1: The City shall request the San Joaquin County LAFCO to adopt a sphere of influence for Lodi based on the long-term growth plans of the City as reflected in the GP goals and policies and proposed land uses. • Implementation Program LU -10: The City shall coordinate with San Joaquin County and the City of Stockton to identify and designate an agricultural and open space greenbelt around the urbanized area of the City. • Implementation Program LU -11: The City shall establish an ongoing process by which it will coordinate its planning with San Joaquin County and the City of Stockton to ensure consistency with their plans. • Goal CON -C: To promote the economic viability of agriculture in and surrounding Lodi and to discourage the premature conversion of agricultural lands to nonagricultural uses, while providing for urban needs. • Policy CON -CA: The City shall ensure, in approving urban development near existing agricultural lands, that such development will not constrain agricultural practices or adversely affect the economic viability of adjacent agricultural practices. • Policy CON -C.2: The City shall require new development to establish buffers between urban development and productive agricultural uses consistent with the recommendations of the San Joaquin County Department of Agriculture. • Policy CON -C.3: The City shall adopt a "right -to -farm" ordinance for the purpose of protecting agricultural land from nuisance suits brought by surrounding landowners. • Policy CON -C.4: The City shall support economic programs established by San Joaquin County for farm preservation. • Goal PRO -D: To provide adequate land for open space as a framework for urban development and to meet the active and passive recreational needs of the community. • Policy PRO -D. 1: The City shall discourage the premature conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses. • Policy PRO -D.2: The City shall protect lands designated agriculture on the GP Land Use Diagram from urban development. • Policy PRO -D.3: The City should designate a continuous open space greenbelt around the urbanized area of Lodi to protect open space resources and preventing urban sprawl. J: Community Development\Council Communicatioos12006111-29 CC Rpt Grnblt GPA-SOIA 112906.doc 3 2x2x2 Greenbelt Committee. With a strong General Plan foundation, the City actively began the process to establish a greenbelt separator between Lodi and Stockton in the late 199O's. The process began with the creation of the Lower Lodi Agricultural Land Conservation Program with a grant from the Department of Conservation and Great Valley Center. Through this program, the 2x2x2 Greenbelt Committee was formed with two council member representatives from Lodi and Stockton, and two San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors. Regular 2x2x2 meetings ended in 2001, however the Committee reconvened for one meeting on October 24, 2005. At this meeting, representatives from all three agencies orally agreed that the area between Lodi and Stockton should remain in agriculture. Community Separator/Greenbelt Task Force. Finding it prudent to keep Lodi's greenbelt effort moving forward, Council established the 19 -member Lodi Community Separator/Greenbelt Task Force (Task Force) in December 2003 to: "Explore and investigate the variety of models available, and as utilized in various cities, to accomplish the community separation/open space goal, and make a recommendation to the City Council for the option that works best for Lodi." Persons selected to participate on the Task Force are representative of the local community, including residents, businesses, area landowners, the wine industry, agricultural/farming industry, and building industry. The Task Force has worked diligently over the past few years to accomplish its goal, meeting over 20 times since December 2003. After receiving a number of presentations about greenbelt programs in other communities, the Task Force is now working on developing a Community Separator/Greenbelt Program for City Council consideration. Preliminary Draft Program. A preliminary draft program was presented to the Task Force in 2004, and is outlined below. Target Area — Program targets preservation of the area located east -to -west between Highway 99 and Interstate 5, and 1/2 -mile north and south of Armstrong Road. Continuation of Agricultural Uses — Provide for a program that allows a continuation of agricultural uses as currently provided in the San Joaquin County Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, allow the development of a limited number of houses, as follows: o One credit (i.e., unit) per 10 acres of ownership pro -rated to actual parcel size upon program adoption; o One credit, as above, in 20 years; • Credits must be used within the target area; o Maximum size of a new housing unit parcel is 1 acre or 1/2 acre (consensus on minimum size not yet reached); o Revise the City's Right -to -Farm Ordinance as recommended by the farming community; o Provide for limited public improvements that promote the rural setting; Annex the entire target area, and provide sewer and water service along Armstrong Road. Other services could be provided, as well; • Property owners vote on the program. To date, the Task Force has not reached consensus on any of the elements of this Draft Program. Property Owners Proposal. In late -2004, owners of property within the Task Force's study area voiced their opposition to the preliminary draft program. In response, the Task Force requested that the property owners organize and develop a program that would be acceptable to them, as well as achieving the City's objective of establishing a greenbelt/community separator in the target area. In August 2006, the property owners presented the Task Force with a proposal to remain unincorporated, but to rezone the J:1Community De%elopment Council COmmunicatiois12006111 -2 9 CC Rpt Gmbh GPA -SOLA 112906.doc area to Limited Agriculture (AL -5), which would allow limited agriculture uses on parcels that are as small as five acres. Task Force Comments on City -initiated Amendments. On October 10, 2006, a community workshop was held with the Task Force to discuss the City -initiated amendments. Of the 19 Task Force members, seven attended and participated in the workshop along with 22 private citizens (the majority of which were property owners in the plan area). Of the seven Task Force members in attendance, four stated the amendments were premature and should be folded into the comprehensive Citywide General Plan Update process. Two other Task Force members stated preservation of the south Lodi area as a community separator between Lodi and Stockton was important, but were unsure if the proposed General Plan language was appropriate. The remaining Task Force member in attendance was in favor of the proposed amendments. Similarly, the majority of the audience in attendance spoke unfavorably of the City -initiated SOI amendments, generally stating the timing was poor given the property owners willingness to work with the Task Force to develop a plan for the area that would achieve the City's community separator goal while allowing them the flexibility to subdivide their large parcels into five acre lots. Public Comments on City -initiated Amendments. As described, at the October 10 Task Force community workshop, the majority of Task Force members and general public in attendance raised issues related to the merits of the amendments. A number of comment letters were also received on the proposed project opposing it for these same reasons (see Attachment 13, Exhibits A and 6). The majority of these comments focused on: Amendments moving forward prematurely given the recent initiation of the Citywide General Plan update); Property owners proposal to work with the Task Force to develop a plan for the area that evolved out of consensus building; and Sentiment that the City was not responding to the property owners' desires who reside or own property within the plan area. Planning Commission Comments on City -initiated Amendments: On November 8, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the City -initiated amendments to consider their recommendation to Council on the following: 1) Proposed Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND); 2) General Plan text and map amendments to: establish the Agriculture/Greenbelt designation and Implementation Program LU -19; amend 18 existing goals, policies and implementation programs; and add the Agriculture/Greenbelt area to the General Plan Land Use Diagram; and 3) Request San Joaquin County LAFCO to amend the City's SOI to include the 3'/z square mile plan area. At this meeting the Commission heard: a staff report on these items; asked questions of staff; heard public testimony from 20 speakers, the majority of which opposed these items; closed the public hearing; deliberated on these items; and then a majority of the Commission recommended that Council approve all three items. The Commission posed several questions to staff related to the following: • Clarification of which agency has jurisdictional control over parcels within a SOI; • City's ability to amend the SOL but retain the PRR designation north of Armstrong Road; J:ICommunity Development',Council Convnunications12006111-29 CC Rpt Gmbh GPA -SOLA 1 I2906.doc 5 • Clarification of how Williamson Act Contracts are cancelled; • Clarification of how the Task Force's efforts are affected by Implementation Program LU -19; • Belief that the amendments are unjust because the landowners in the plan area are not represented by the Lodi Council; • Need to preserve the agricultural area between Lodi and Stockton to keep the two communities separated and prevent urban sprawl; • Need to see an "outline" of the property owners plan for the area before recommending on amendments; • Need for landowner consensus before recommendation of amendments; and • Sentiment that City -initiated amendments are good for Lodi. Following its deliberation on the City -initiated amendments, the Commission did pass motions recommending that Council: (1) adopt the IS/ND (5:2 vote); and (2) approve the GPA, as well as request that LAFCO amend the City's 501 (4:3 vote). The Commission did not recommend any changes to the proposed 1S/ND, General Plan text language or map changes, or SOI boundary change. Stockton General Plan Update. During this same period, the City of Stockton initiated an update to its General Plan. In February 2005, Stockton released a draft Land Use Map depicting areas of future growth and land use change through year 2035. Of particular interest to Lodi was that Stockton's 2035 General Plan would allow urban development north of Eight Mile Road up to 1/2 mile south of Armstrong Road (depicted in light blue on Attachment 2). Stockton's draft Land Use Map identifies the majority of the area north of Eight Mile Road up to 1/2 to 3/4 miles south of Armstrong Road as "Village," which would allow residential development up to 29 units per acre with the approval of a specific plan. This Village area would be the northern limit of Stockton's urban service area and, therefore, would be included within its future Sphere of Influence (SOI). North of the Village area, up to Armstrong Road, the Stockton draft 2035 General Plan Land Use Map identifies the area as Open Space/Agriculture (OSA). The draft OSA designation would allow agricultural uses with a minimum parcel size of 40 acres, consistent with the underlying San Joaquin County General Agriculture designation and Lodi's proposed Agriculture/Greenbelt designation for the same area, and would keep the area under County jurisdiction. Parcels Under Farmland Preservation Contracts. Approximately 24 parcels within the plan area are currently under Williamson Act or Farmland Security Zone contracts, as depicted in Attachment 11. These farmland preservation contracts were enacted by the State legislature to enable local governments to enter into contractual agreements with landowners to restrict their parcel to agricultural or open space uses in return for reduced property tax assessments. The City -initiated amendments would ensure that these parcels could continue to operate as agricultural or open uses, thereby preventing urban development encroachment or the extension of public facilities and services intended to serve non-agricultural (that is, urban) uses. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Staff prepared an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for the proposed General Plan and SOI amendments in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15063 through 15073. The IS/ND was circulated for a 22 -day public review period beginning on October 9, 2006 and ending on October 30, 2006. The Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration and availability to review the Initial Study for this project was published in the Lodi -News Sentinel and Stockton Record, posted at City Hall and the Library, mailed to all public agencies and private organizations/persons effected by the proposed amendments, and mailed to property owners within the plan area and those within 300 feet of the plan area. Copies of the 1S/ND were made available and forwarded to the Planning Commission and J:\Community Developrnem\Council Communications12006111-29 CC Rpt Grnblt GPA-SO[A 112906.doc 6 City Council, as well as made available for public review at City Hall and at the Library, and was posted on the City's website. Comments received on the Initial Study/Negative Declaration are provided and responded to in Attachment 13. None of the comments received on the Initial Study/Negative Declaration raised new environmental issues that would require the recirculation of the Initial Study/Negative Declaration. Att t 3 also provides comment letters received expressing opposition to the City -initiated amendments that do not raise any environmental issues. The Planning Commission recommended Council adopt the IS/ND as adequate environmental analysis for the proposed amendments on November 8, 2006. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE: Public hearing notices were sent to all property owners of record within the plan area and within a 300 -foot radius of the plan area, and persons who have expressed interest in the proposed project. Additionally, a newspaper notice of this hearing was published in the Lodi -News Sentinel on November 18, 2006 and was posted at all City posting sites on November 17, 2006. FISCAL IMPACT: Council directed and authorized staff to use up to $50,000 from the General Fund to process the City -initiated amendments. FUNDING: Not applicable. Randy atch Community Development Director RH/LSA/kjc Attachments: 1. Plan Area Vicinity and Regional Map Locations 2. Proposed Amendments Map 3. City of Lodi General Plan Designations and SOI Boundaries in Relation to Plan Area 4. County of San Joaquin General Plan Land Use Designations in Plan Area 5. County of San Joaquin Zoning Districts in Plan Area 6. Aerial Photo of Plan Area 7. Draft Agriculture/Greenbelt General Plan Text Amendments 8. Proposed Lodi General Plan Agriculture/Greenbelt Plan Area and 801 Boundary Amendment 9. Proposed SOI Amendment Plan Area 10. Parcels Within and Around Plan Area Under Williamson Act and Farmland Securing Zone Contracts 11. City Council Minutes from March 29, 2006 (see Item D-4, pages 7 and 8) 12. Approved Planning Commission Resolutions No. PC 06-50 — PC 06-52 13. Draft Negative Declaration Resolution No, CC 06- 14. Draft General Plan Amendment Resolution No. CC 06- 15. Draft Sphere of Influence Amendment Resolution No. PC 06- J J:1Community Development\Council Communications1200611 i-29 CC Rpt Grnblt GPA -SOLA 112906.doc 7 Attachments 1 -11 1. Plan Area Vicinity and Regional Map Locations 2. Proposed Amendments Map 3. City of Lodi General Plan Designations and SOI Boundaries in Relation to Plan Area 4. County of San Joaquin General Plan Land Use Designations in Plan Area 5. County of San Joaquin Zoning Districts in Plan Area 6. Aerial Photo of Plan Area 7. Draft Agriculture/Greenbelt General Plan Text Amendments 8. Proposed Lodi General Plan Agriculture/Greenbelt Plan Area and SOI Boundary Amendment 9. Proposed SOI Amendment Plan Area 10. Parcels Within and Around Plan Area Under Williamson Act and Farmland Securing Zone Contracts 11. City Council Minutes from March 29, 2006 (see Item D-4, pages 7 and 8) W.PeMer.Rd� ' t=E Pe1tln-RIS Lodi V- 'arney v San Francisc a O 80 Lodi °Oakland 0 Santa Cruz Salinas Monterey 0 San Jose Stockton O. 1 }- 11:41 Y4 ' £ clar.Rd- ' 1 ■ 0 Vpi11 0 San Luis Obispo PLAN AREA O Modesto 20 140 Fresno i L I J s, EIr61S"'� r,; W 8ilflr•Rd EiliL. i2 ]]ar r � s rfOlizi . �- A,. l' -'W �► sc_:dC ini��illllj r *I� inn vv 'iirc 15 1=i1��"ri r all 7 ■ i ;i 15.5. ;il vi 10 su --:': {{ VI Hammer L'n- ��- � -' E FlararnarLn :1k g'.+.5:!1,1'R �/II/IIir,T �� a l >,7,1 a��rr_q� �`- - t � 43 ' i= _l 'fir r'•. n ra-ma_rte= .■ rte C ,-' ° :., in '•' c!Oil tAII fit, $ 1 1 � * Olt �~`ii% .c :s"�k ;- c.4 , 11117: : ., -,..-:,...si.. : .....- __-_-_,--z-;-.--. �---E 6 FAA Rd SOURCE: GOOGLE.COM; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2006 0 MILES 1.0 2.0 LEGEND PLAN AREA ATTACHMENT 1 Lodi Ag/Greenbelt General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendments Plan Area Vicinity and Regional Map Locations LANE liIIIIIIII :IIL'I !1 Iv _ M` 1 M•■ • _1_ ,-- �m_ ��u RONG � ROA[ 0:1..�-- 1111., 01111E _Y ■III i liBill1011.� �M�� MI%MI1� __-_-----I-/ANI =mil —I,z— JI�I- -L_=====if _111 TY:I� Ell • um EIGHT MILE ROAD SOURCE: CITY OF LODI, 2006; SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY LAFCO, 2005 b 0 1250 2500 _ FEET LEGEND ■ CITY OF LODI CORPORATE BOUNDARIES EXISTING CITY OF LODI SPHERE OF INFLUENCE CITY OF LODI WHITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY CITY OF STOCKTON CURRENT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF CITY OF STOCKTON SPHERE OF INFLUENCE PROPOSED LODI GENERAL PLAN AG/GREENBELT DESIGNATION PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO LODI SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ATTACHMENT 2 Lodi Ag/Greenbelt General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendments Proposed Amendments Map • MIM d• aII. l .11�- =. nlumnnmm:11I1111 ME ■MN 111.11 ;�•1� NC iliMMIE • MMM! 11_I� 1 viii _ NM' PQP :1�,�♦�� i1 MEM Innlll•1111111 11 III ' 111 non PQP INV. :II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1111111111111111111 1111111111!1111111 1111111111 111111 nnn111nnnn11 Innnn1nn111 III111111111111111: IIIIIIIIIIIIIII. :llllSJII::lli• PQP nriiini e• = E PQP z V1I��II11 1111111111111111: 11 111 111111111111 IIIIIIp1111 01111111111 .h..mririmw. 1m =, , 4� :111- � 7111: - i' 141 LI err PRR 125) FEET 25C war 1.. _ 1r:ain I 1iLaum lit&1 0 II II IL J T IT I11�_ 1I SOURCE: CITY OF LODI, 2006; SAN JOAQUIN LAFCO, 2005 LEGEND LODI CITY LIMITS ti•1•r EASTSIDE RESIDENTIAL (ER) LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) EXISTING LODI SPHERE 77 J OF INFLUENCE (SoI) MEDIUM -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) • AG/GREENBELT PLAN il• . AREA AND PROPOSED SOI AMENDMENT HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR) GENERAL COMMERCIAL(GC) NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (NCC) OFFICE (0) HEAVY INDUSTRIAL (HI) LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (LI) PUBLIC -QUASI PUBLIC (PQP) DRAINAGE BASIN (DBP) PLANNED RESIDENTIAL (PR) PLANNED RESIDENTIAL RESERVE (PRR) 11 WATER FEATURE/BODY ATTACHMENT 3 Lodi Ag/Greenbelt General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendments City of Lodi General Plan Designations and SOI Boundaries In Relation to Plan Area fnT aTTvr f MIN F111111.111111111111 1111,1111. iIIFJ111a LL 701 n11liil mm1innn nnn 111111111111111.!11 IIIIIlIII11II11111: 11111111111111P u U J nm�1�111111, „ 111111 .i !_ "hI11111111111 1.1111111111111 -111 III1111111111„1, .11111111111, ,.111111 Y OF LO I..... � �■■ i = ! 1.,.1...1 �1Lwi- .1..11111.. "!! a•.1.....r, is nnns� • •� 10�� t►• n1=iii: . nnnml.=hmnnnnnd %/ n�' n1uriul riii1 O !1 �P111111/ ■ 9,11 jll .11:1,7112v.,3 ■ _. bl� - lig ILIII n� nal ir MAE Iliall I0111611111 m i i I.•an:maiftEu•NMErrI f ■ li ig==,mi II ��■■�■moi ■ Mir MEI■■_■■■ =1 I�1t=----=1I • ■ ..1�....■...� 1 1.: .��-/ • • ===rte= :=:J2__= --fir In 11=1[ WI■IL iIlllln..� _.1,1wApil .,i_iir._L III_ ____ � ®r__1r1��_�—� ®ilii! UMEINIIIIIIIM = em 9111UIi i1n11. 11111 ,111.,11+, ,. nmmn iii W x.1111 1. 111111 1 ,1,,.1T 111111 111111 111111IIIIIII111. III -- =I ■1:1■1��1 MI Cl1�ul SOURCE: CITY OF LODI, 2006; SAN JOAQUIN LAFCO, 2005 0 FEET 1250 2500 LEGEND LODI CITY LIMITS EXISTING LODI SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (SOI) AG/GREENBELT PLAN AREA AND PROPOSED SOI AMENDMENT ENMEDIUM LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RML) LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R/L) GENERAL AGRICULTURE (A/G) PUBLIC (P) RESOURCE CONSERVATION (OS/RC) OPEN SPACE (0S0) LIMITED AGRICULTURE (A/L) TRUCK TERMINAL (VT) GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C/G) FREEWAY SERVICE (C/FS) WATER FEATURE/BODY ATTACHMENT 4 Lodi Ag/Greenbelt General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendments County of San Joaquin General Plan Land Use Designations in Plan Area 1-17rrnN21- mum ,111 .111 ,.111 num■=4..,..111, 11111111V :111111: dIIk mum 1111111111 mr. mui 1111111111; �Ir 1111111111111111111 111111111111111111. 111111111111111111. 111111111111111111: 11111111111111P :1111nnrr111. MINIMnn.. 91111E MIME 111. iilinn n m1 UL 111::;:.. 11 :1 .1111: -11'41x. 1111111_ _II II..1 ti .111111111111.11;,; 11 .. 1 unmom1111111E.1 it°°11UIIIIIIIIIi. ._,11111111111111 I,IIIIIIm11111 .111111111111 Y OF LO 11nnn1ml..�� 111.1-��"'"'I III.1111:: x.1111 1. 111111 • lllll 111111.T 111111 111111 111uru //111111 11111111 111111011 111111111111111111 1 SIM al 1111 I1n111111: X11111 =1111. P -F DI..p Y 1111111rak ■ ir:111:111 - :5n1111 a O 111 •Id: i4 n 11 111111111 11 111111111 111111111111 11111,111111 X111111111111 nnn iiia �1=1. n�nn, 9111 sonam 1ry11nin1iiim% AG -40 1r� e PF ,Tefr r 1 A AL -5 L t .-I1ITfiuiiAIF' -m11' A III _MEI 111 MIN - \ fi I 1,1 i iii illi 11 aaj L T I -T SOURCE IT 0 FEET CITY OF LODI, 2006; SAN JOAQUIN LAFCO, 2005 LEGEND ti...r LODI CITY LIMITS EXISTING LODI SPHERE J OF INFLUENCE (SOI) AG/GREENBELT PLAN AREA . ■ AND PROPOSED SOI AMENDMENT AGRICULTURAL URBAN 1250 2500 RESERVE (A -U-20) VERY LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R -VL) PUBLIC FACILITIES (P -F) LIMITED COMMERCIAL (C -L) GENERAL AGRICULTURE (AG -40) LIMITED AGRICULTURE (AL -5) TRUCK TERMINAL (I -T) GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C/G) WATER FEATURE/BODY ATTACHMENT 5 Lodi Ag/Greenbelt General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendments County of San Joaquin Zoning Districts in Plan Area SOURCE: GLOBEXPLORER; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2006 5f1.) FEET 1250 2500 LEGEND PLAN AREA . - . ATTACHMENT 6 Lodi Ag/Greenbelt General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendments Aerial Photo of Plan Area City of Lodi Attachment 7 Agriculture/Greenbelt General Plan Text Amendments The following provides General Plan text amendments by chapter and page number. Underlined text represents "new" General Plan language; text that is struck out represents "removed" General Plan language; and no change is proposed for text that is neither underlined nor struck out. General Plan Section 2: Land Use/Circulation Diagrams and Standards Page 2-4 Agriculture/Greenbelt: This designation provides for the conservation and continued productive use of valuable agricultural ("ag") lands surrounding Lodi's urbanized area, ensures for a rural community separator between Lodi and the City of Stockton, and to serve as a visual amenity around urban development. In addition to agricultural and agricultural -related uses, single-family homes, parks, and open space uses could be located within the agriculture/greenbelt area. Because the City has established this area to retain low -intensity rural uses, the extension of munic pal services (e.g., sewer, water, storm water) may not be provided. The minimum parcel size for the creation of new lots in this area is 40 acres, and only one residential unit per parcel is allowed. Comprised of approximately 2,280 acres, the ag/greenbelt area is located south of Lodi's existing City limits and extends 1/2 -mile north of Armstrong Road, approximately 1/2- to 3/4 -mile south of Armstrong Road, approximately 1/4 -mile west of Lower Sacramento Road to the west, and is bounded by State Route 99 to the east, as depicted on the Land Use Diagram. Residential uses in this designation are assumed to have an average of 2.75 persons per household. General Plan Section 3: Land Use and Growth Management (LU) Element Page 3-1 Agricultural Land: The agricultural land that surrounds Lodi is valuable not only because of its high quality and productivity, but also because of its scenic resource value to area residents. The City has long acknowledged the importance of retaining this valuable asset,, but also recognizes the need to balance the needs of urban growth with those of Lodi's agriculturally based economy. This is a dilemma facing many Central Valley communities. Page 3-4 Goal LU -A: To provide for orderly, well-planned, and balanced growth within the City's established corporate boundaries and sphere of influence (SOI), consistent with the limits imposed by the City's infrastructure and the City's ability to assimilate new growth. Policy LU -A.1: The City shall seek to preserve Lodi's small-town and rural qualities, including the agricultural area surrounding Lodi that provides a community separator with adjacent communities. Policy LU -A.3: The City shall ensure the maintenance of ample buffers between incompatible land uses, including urban and rural uses. Goal LU -B: To preserve agricultural land surrounding Lodi, important to the City's economy and small town character, and to : ' prevent conversion of valuable agricultural land with to nonagricultural, urban uses, while providing for some urban needs. P:\LOD0601\PRODUCTS\GPA language, staff reports, etc \Staff Reports\Attachment 7 -Draft Greenbelt GPA Text Changes.doc 1 City of Lodi Attachment 7 Agriculture/Greenbelt General Plan Text Amendments Page 3-5 Policy LU -B.1: The City shall encourage ensure for the preservation of agricultural land surrounding the City. Policy LU -B.2: The City should designate shall establish a continuous ag/greenbelt around the urbanized area of Lodi to maintain and enhance the agricultural economy, as well as to provide a defined, physical edge between the community's urban and rural areas and with adjacent communities. Policy LU -B.3: The City should coordinate and cooperate with San Joaquin County,. and the San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), and the City of Stockton to ensure that the agriculture/greenbelt community separator is established, maintained, and preserved. Policy LU -B.4: The City shall support the continuation of agricultural uses on lands designated for urban uses located within the City's corporate boundaries until urban development is imminent. Page 3-10 Implementation Program LU -1: The City shall request the San Joaquin County LAFCO to adopt a sphere of influence for Lodi based on the long-term growth plans of the City as reflected in the GP goals and policies and proposed land uses. Responsibility: City Council, Community Development Department Time Frame: FY 1990 1991 Ongoing Page 3-13 Implementation Program LU -10: The City shall coordinate with San Joaquin County, San Joaquin County LAFCO, and the City of Stockton to identify and designate an agricultural and open space greenbelt around the urbanized area of the City. The priority area for establishment of the ag/greenbelt is the area located between Lodi and Stockton. Responsibility: City Council, Planning Commission, Community Development Department Time Frame: FY 1991 1992 Ongoing Implementation Program LU -11: The City shall establish an agreement, such as a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), with San Joaquin County to ensure that land use actions requiring discretionary approval proposed in unincorporated areas located within Lodi's sphere of influence would only be approved if found consistent with Lodi's vision for the area and would include City review and recommended action on the proposal. Discretionary land use actions proposed for the City's unincorporated SOI areas that are inconsistent with Lodi's vision for the area should be denied. As a part of this MOU, an ongoing process shall be established by which it the City and San Joaquin County will cooperate and coordinate its land use planning processes with San Joaquin County and the City of Stockton to ensure consistency between each agency's with their plans for the area. Responsibility: City Council, Planning Commission, Community Development Department Time Frame: FY 1991 1992 2006-2007 Page 3-16 Implementation Program LU -19: The City shall establish a program addressing the long-range preservation and development within agriculture/greenbelt areas. This program shall include, at a P:\LOD0601\PRODUCTS\GPA language, staff reports, etc \Staff Reports\Attachment 7 -Draft Greenbelt GPA Text Changes.doc 2 City of Lodi Agriculture/Greenbelt General Plan Text Amendments minimum, a thorough planning process involving all interested stake -holders (including local farm- ers, residents and business owners within the City limits, study area, and surrounding community) that would result in the specific locations and intensities of land uses, circulation system, infra- structure, services, financing plan, as well as design guidelines and other implementation measures. Attachment 7 General Plan Section 7: Conservation (CON) Element Page 7-4 Goal CON -C: To promote the economic viability of agriculture in and surrounding Lodi, and to discourage the premature prevent conversion of valuable agricultural lands located in and around the City's corporate boundaries to nonagricultural, urban uses, while providing for urban need:,. Policy CON -C.1: The City shall ensure, in approving urban development near existing agricultural lands, that such urban development will not constrain agricultural practices or adversely affect the economic viability of adjacent agricultural practices. General Plan Section 8: Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PRO) Element Page 8-3 Goal PRO -D: To provide adequate land for open space as a framework for urban development and to meet the active and passive recreational needs of the community, as well as to provide community separators between Lodi and adjacent communities. Policy PRO -D.1: The City shall discourage the premature prevent conversion of agricultural lands located outside the City's corporate boundaries and sphere of influence to urban uses. Policy PRO -D.3: The City should designate a continuous open space agriculture/greenbelt around the urbanized area of Lodi to protect open space and agricultural resources and preventing Lodi from contributing to urban sprawl across the rich agricultural soil of the San Joaquin Valley. General Plan Section 10: Urban Design and Cultural Resources (UDC) Element Page 10-2 Rural and Agricultural Lands: The City is surrounded on all sides by rural and agricultural lands and uses, forming agriculture/greenbelt areas that physically separate Lodi from adjacent communities, such as Stockton to the south. The character of the edges between rural and urban environments is important to the City's identity and provides residents on either side of the edge with a sense of place. These rural and agricultural lands furrounding Lodi constitute are an important scenic resource that helps to visually define and enhance the City. P:\LOD0601\PRODUCTS\GPA language, staff reports, etc \Staff Reports\Attachment 7 -Draft Greenbelt GPA Text Changes.doc 3 11! 11111 111111151111 mmnnnn nnn111■nnnll nnnnnnnnm 111111111111111111: 111111111111111: 11111[,11L111 snip 4a1 ..1.1. 1 l-?'=: inn 11 i l 1n1.�- i'.1i■1m - �;;; /cn n PQP ■.....111=' JIM SP1 - � .111111111I.11..n1. �lIlllm nnnnnnnn:.,. .. 111111111111111 CC; P 111111111111111: .111 :111111111111 Imx= amnl nnmm�n'-%1 nnmm\ riii: innnnnnnl.� li:iil t■n1m_ Illnnl, ■ -■P 1111111 111111 � IIIn1n1\ 9111 � 111 = 11- ■____�____I 1_■v.___Ir■__r ■___m��■ri��1�� ■=�MM�MMM=1��1M■ ••1 ■ --�____I 1�� 11____==m_�_I mmm 1bi�� .. ---= o A Egi rErrrllT fr■Ji �T��'�■t�1111�� u mIU■=� ll �-__ _ ■■■■■■• ■_%—mill ■i mi'sR 7 i71/ I ■11 011111MIPOSar rINNMe Mr11-Em i 111251 2510 1■1IIIIII��11� / l 1��. FEET H JLL L LI 1— 11111 L T rr 1111. 11 N SOURCE: CITY OF LODI, 2006; SAN JOAQUIN LAFCO, 2005 LEGEND LODI CITY LIMITS EXISTING LODI SPHERE • OF INFLUENCE (SOI) liNaPROPOSED AG/GREENBELT GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION PLAN AREA AND SOI AMENDMENT EASTSIDE RESIDENTIAL (ER) LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) MEDIUM -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR) GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) PLANNED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESERVE (PRR) COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (NCC) WATER FEATURE/BODY OFFICE (0) _ HEAVY INDUSTRIAL (HI) LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (LI) PUBLIC -QUASI PUBLIC (PQP) DRAINAGE BASIN (DBP) PLANNED RESIDENTIAL (PR) ATTACHMENT 8 Lodi Ag/Greenbelt General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendments Proposed Lodi General Plan Agricultural Greenbelt Designation Plan Area and SOI Boundary Amendment -7"-%i x ik,,... W-PeMer.Rd ■ 9 1 ...4 .4 • I+ '. • ` •. SIy+ v San Francisc a 0 80 Lodi °Oakland San Jose Stockton O. 0 CruzSanta Salinas Monterey 0 £ Yclar.Rd 0 San Luis Obispo PLAN AREA O Modesto 1 20 Rd. Leal 9 n n Marney 9. raa. relaal' •I Ara strong Rd. PROPOSED SOI AMENDMENT W6411"Rd ~ 1\0 �►`-: 11r�b��.11l.l- Mil 10,1B nl-In �z iJu! Pi off n:;U3n A111 s_ c+,�-1"s^I=i1vi"-ti- r 41n7 r� ■ ! 1.,7.4!,-; : ill Mall i li til su L lire tea, E Rumor IA A rii l i gpo- its..; y i.� ,[i :a:,1��rLR 61 kite* irvaL !i u•J'.:'-',11 J ...,...q.ill, lik.' lit --V;4‘ •"• . r'Atili �yLlilt . 1 10- :::-,..!,. _ MICKE GROVE REGIONAL W,Hi miner L'n 140 Fresno L ---{c 6 Mk Rd SOURCE: GOOGLE.COM; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2006 0 1.0 2.0 MILES LEGEND EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (SOI) BOUNDARY PLAN AREA AND PROPOSED SOI AMENDMENT AREA ATTACHMENT 9 Lodi Ag/Greenbelt General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendments Proposed SOI Amendment Plan Area '}mI T TI TT�Y'/� f .P' �= nlunnmm.\ 111111111 v� 111 11111'flhIP m111111n1- 11111mu. UM 1 ��ra Orr_ 11111.E Orr' 1, 0= 4- nlnq GunIr:IIIIIi IIk :91111'111°11°Il�mun I s/mm# witnnn anon .nnn. IEEENUM worm JAL 1111111111111111■ 1111111111111111111 111111111111519 11 mm 11111111111.11111. 11111111111111191■ mm�mnmin: 111111■111111■P i11111111■:1111 n1n�::' 111111111111- ,11.:.1 :e -,n] .I III I� n11� 4 1n- '=4 i�nnn1111111111n: •. i:% :no :9. nal .p1 11111111 1.11 w :p1111111 .11111.. 9111010 a11n. m� 11:11111 11.11= �nnr illllll' PQP nnq 1199. nn1n l : 11 Illrrasssl I na 1 .11111.11 .11.,111.1 1113111111;1 liin::iri:� �mn n. 111111 n1n11 r 111111 III■I _1y�1n,11 1111111111111111. 1111111111 11111111111111 111 111111111,11 111111111111 111111111111 OIIIII■111 x'111111111111 nnn FRAM fi=n;= _ 111.1 11111111 ■III[ HARNEY =MR1■1n 11111 ■ I11..! NMI 3 Mom 1111111111■1 ■■■■■wL■wwww�� .l.�i� 1 ■■■■�I �11'�11 �11•11111�11111I llllllllllllll■IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII■IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII■�IIIIIIIIIII ....II�11111111111111111111■�� Elliall ■I_\\�1I■�I IIIIIIIIIIIII��'I■■ D ■IN&Mil�lm■� �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� —�I��■SII =—=-��I i_. i... ITAIhMLIZLII 7 __IIIIIII■IIIIIII■II■IIIIII. In,Mil ii: B6inm l `�E EN I!A ■III all MI±IR 101.11i fillifri •1� v., mall EMIIllpIMMr __I Illlll�.f..:=lll�il�l.ii MIND -IIIIIIIIII■IIIIIIIIIIIII■l ft:r�.�EmmoolE_1 I7If'I ■■■li■S • ■ gilli1�t�'l—=iiii�1 IU iI_■1111�° • • 1111111■�1 ■■I • • ■■■:_ Vii: •I/�I�F--11-,ii��N ■�■ Emm%ilii■ /' IifljlIIiIIP!'P'I 1 ■ 111-= 4111.1-11 Sip �!- r■moi■=-■1` "MIIFIki, lli SOURCE: SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, 2006 0 FEET 1250 2500 LEGEND :b....! LODI CITY LIMITS EXISTING LODI SPHERE J OF INFLUENCE (SOI) AG/GREENBELT PLAN AREA AND PROPOSED SOI AMENDMENT ■ I J FARMLAND SECURITY PARCELS ALSO UNDER WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT WILLIAMSON ACT WATER FEATURE, CANAL OR SLOUGH ATTACHMENT 10 Lodi Ag/Greenbelt General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendments Parcels Within and Around Plan Area Under Williamson Act and Farmland Security Zone Contracts LODI CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2006 CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL The Special City Council meeting of March 29, 2006, was called to order by Mayor Hitchcock at 6:04 p.m. Present: Council Members — Beckman, Hansen, Johnson, Mounce, and Mayor Hitchcock Absent: Council Members — None Also Present: City Manager King, City Attorney Schwabauer, and City Clerk Blackston B. PUBLIC HEARINQS B-1 Notice thereof having been published acccrding to law, an affidavit of which publication is on file in the office of the City Clerk, Mayor Hitchcock called for the public hearing to consider adoption of resolution levying annual (2006) assessment for the Lodi Tourism and Business Improvement District (LTBID) and confirming the LTBID 2006 Annual Report (as approved by Council March 15, 2006). NOTE: Due to a potential conflict of interest related to his spouse's employment with the Lodi Conference and Visitors Bureau, Council Member Beckman abstained from discussion and voting on this matter and vacated his seat at the dais at 6:05 p.m. City Manager King recalled that Council heard on March 15 a presentation from Nancy Beckman representing the Lodi Tourism Business Improvement District on its proposed work plan and use of proceeds. Pursuant to the Streets and Highways Code, the Council had set a public hearing to receive comments on the proposed work plan and consider protests to the assessment. In reply to Mayor Pro Tempore Johnson, Mr. King stated that the Lodi Conference and Visitors Bureau's proposal to gradually decrease reliance on City funding would be considered during upcoming budget discussions. He mentioned that there is also consideration being made about reinstituting the economic development position in the City Manager's Office. In answer to questions posed by Council Member Hansen, Nancy Beckman, Executive Director of the Lodi Conference and Visitors Bureau, reported that 1 has three full-time personnel: one director, one sales manager, and one assistant. Under the category of promotions are expenses related to press trips. In response to Council Member Mounce, Ms. Beckman stated that to lose all City funding would mean laying off staff, promotions would be negatively effected, and tourism levels would decrease. Hearing Opened to the Public None. Public Portion of Hearing Closed City Clerk Blackston reported that no written protests to the assessment for the Lodi Tourism and Business Improvement District had been received. MOTION / VOTE: The City Council, on motion of Council Member Hansen, Johnson second, adopted Resolution No. 2006-46 confirming the 2006 Annual Report for the Lodi Tourism Business Improvement District and levy of assessment. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members — Hansen, Johnson, Mounce, and Mayor Hitchcock Noes: Council Members — None Absent: Council Members — None Abstain: Council Members — Beckman NOTE: Mayor Beckman returned to the Council dais at 6:23 p.m. Attachment 11 Continued March 29, 2006 NOTE: The following item was discussed and acted upon out of order. D. REGULAR CALENDAR D-8 "Authorize the City Manager to execute a lease agreement between the County of San Joaquin and the City of Lodi to relocate Lodi Superior Courtroom No. 1 to the new police building and an assignment agreement between the State of California Administrative Office of Courts (AOC), the County of San Joaquin, and the City of Lodi assigning the lease to the AOC after completion of construction" City Manager King reported that he proposed lease agreement with the County of San Joaquin regarding Lodi Superior Courtroom No. 1 was for 15 years, plus one additional year. The County would continue to pay the operational provisions of the agreement of the current court space for a period of time to allow them to construct tenant improvements in the new court space at the new police building. It has been offered that the County could contract with the City for project management services; however, they would be charged the full cost. Upon completion of the tenant improvements, or a specific time, whichever occurred first, lease payments would begin at $1.35 per square foot. In addition, there would be a triple ret component where the City would also be paid for utilities, maintenance, and other services. The lease rate would increase 2.50% per year until it reached $1.50 per square foot. In year six, an appraisal would be conducted and the market rate would be charged for the remainder of the lease period. The lease agreement would create a revenue stream over the first five years that would exceed $619,000. Mr. King noted that tie City is spending $220,000 a year leasing space for the Finance Department. The relocation of the court would mean that the City would have the option d moving the Finance Department into City -owned property. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tempore Johnson made a motion, Beckman second, to authorize the City Manager to execute a lease agreement between the County of San Joaquin and the City of Lodi to relocate Lodi Superior Courtroom No. 1 to the new police building and an assignment agreement between the State of California Administrative Office of Courts (AOC), the County of San Joaquin, and the City of Lodi assigning the lease to the AOC after completion of construction. DISCUSSION: In reply to Council Member Hansen, Mr. King explained that during negotiations the State asked if the City would provide maintenance services. It was agreed that maintenance costs would be capped if the level of services could be reduced. The fee for maintenance included a cost of living adjustment factor. Mr. King stated that the agreement was structured in such a way that the State would pay for any maintenance increases that Occur. VOTE: The above motion carried by a unanimous vote. ADJOURN TO SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY At 6:35 p.m., Mayor Hitchcock adjourned the special meeting of the City Council to a Special Joint meeting with the Redevelopment Agency (NOTE: Refer to the Special Joint meeting with the Redevelopment Agency minutes of March 29, 2006). The Special City Council meeting reconvened at 7:14 p.m. 2 Continued March 29, 2006 REGULAR CALENDAR D-1 "Provide direction with regard to a request from Council Member Mounce to declare 'Livable, Lovable Lodi' the official City motto' Council Member Mounce mentioned that the Lodi News -Sentinel recently reported that the slogan "Livable, Lovable Lodi" was known to have been used as far back as the 1950s. She felt that with 2006 being the City's Centennial year it would be an appropriate time to adopt "Livable, Lovable Lodi" as the City's official motto. Council Member Beckman suggested that the City, State, and National mottos all be displayed on the wall behind the Council dais. Mayor Pro Tempore Johnson was opposed to the proposal as he felt the City had changed over the years and would continue to. Rather than reflect on the past, he suggested that consideration be made to the City's future. He recommended that the Arts Commission conduct a citywide contest to create an appropriate City slogan. Council Member Hansen expressed support for Ms. Mounce's proposal. Mayor Hitchcock also supported the proposal and felt it would be a good challenge and responsibility to maintain the City as "Livable, Loveable Lodi." PUBLIC COMMENTS: • Sara Heberle commented that she had lived in Lodi for 50 years and she encouraged Council to approve "Livable, Loveable Lodi" as the official City motto. MOTION 1 VOTE: The City Council, on motion of Council Member Mounce, Beckman second, adopted Resolution No. 2006-47 adopting "Livable, Lovable Lodi" as the official motto of the City of Lodi and directed the City Clerk to create a way to incorporate it into Lodi's Centennial celebration. The motion carried by the following ote: Ayes: Council Members — Beckman, Hansen, Mounce, and Mayor Hitchcock Noes: Council Members — Johnson Absent: Council Members — None RECESS At 7:28 p.m., Mayor Hitchcock called for a recess, and the City Council meeting reconvened at 7:38 p.m. D. REGULAR CALENDAR (Continued) 0-2 "Provide direction with regard to a request from Council Member Mounce on whether to return with legal analysis of the proposal to display the National motto, 'In God We Trust,' in the Council Chamber" City Attorney Schwabauer reported that the most recent Supreme Court ruling on the Establishment Clause involved the State of Texas's display of the Ten Commandments on its capitol grounds. The Court found that the display was constitutional; however, it drew seven different opinions. Council Member Beckman recommended that the City Attorney conduct a legal analysis on a display that would include the City, State, and National mottos. 3 Continued March 29, 2006 Council Member Mounce explained that Jacquie Sullivan, a Bakersfield Council Member, formed a nonprofit organization called "in God We Trust — America" whose mission is to encourage every city in California and across the United States to display the National motto in their Council Chambers. Ms. Mounce noted that 2006 is the 50"' anniversary cf the National Motto, which was adopted by Congress on July 30, 1956. Ms. Mounce asked that a plaque similar to the example in the staff report (filed) be displayed in the Camegie Forum lobby and incorporated into the City's Centennial celebration. PUBLIC COMMENTS: • Robin Rushing pointed out that the United States was hunting for communists in the 1950s and adopted the National Motto, "In God We Trust," as a way to separate Americans from communists. He read Califomia Constitution, Article 1, Section 4, "Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.' Mr. Rushing stated that in 2000 there were 2,467 hate crimes committed in California and 17% were religiously motivated. The proposal to display "In God We Trust" shows a preference to Christian religion. He contended that the liberty of conscience is an individual matter. • Reuven Epstein stated that there are different versions of God and this fact should be taken into account during consideration of this matter. • Ken Owen, Director of Christian Community Concerns, submitted a written statement (filed) and asked Council to help put a stop to the "erosion of citizen's national history and godly heritage" by adopting the proposal as presented by Ms. Mounce. • Norman Walker stated that when references to God have been pit into community documents it was during times of stress. Among the founding fathers there were men who did not believe in God. He asked how it was the City Council's right (because of each Members personal belief) that all citizens must subscribe to their position. He asserted that this was not equal protection under the law. He admonished Council Member Mounce for believing in the "tyranny of the majority. He contended that the early writers of the Constitution wanted the separation of church and state. • Sara Heberle mentioned that, for the past 50 years, the American Legion Auxiliary has had an Americanism essay contest and this year nearly 300 essays were submitted. She spoke in support of displaying the National motto. • Arthur Price commented that "a person is known by the company he keeps." He asserted that religion in the United States is under attack. • Timothy Kruppe voiced support for the proposal. He stated that the world is increasing in lawlessness and needs to get back on the right track. • Reverend Dale Edwards questioned why the National motto is being debated. He reported that there were over 80 churches in Lodi and the overwhelming majority of the community believes "In God We Trust" and varying forms of it such as the Islamic and Buddhist communities and the multi -theistic concept of Hinduism. He stated that the concept of separation of church and state was an amended statement in a letter to a private citizen by Thomas Jefferson and was not a part of the foundation of the nation. Values and the moral basis of the country and communities have been eroded away. Prayer has been taken out of schools. He noted that it is not freedom "from" religion; it is freedom "of" religion. 4 Continued March 29, 2006 • Pastor Tim Pollock emphasized that symbols have a far reaching effect. The point of the National motto, In God We Trust," is to remember the historical centrality of God in the formation and future of the republic. He encouraged Council to display the National motto in every public building. • William Harper stated that Lodians want to encourage people to look to their roots and to historical values. • Scott Parr believed that if good people did not speak up, then evil would triumph. He felt that a minority has ruled the nation for too long and reported that there were 1% atheists and 96% of people who believed in God. He stated that the founding fathers left Europe to come to America so they would not have a state run church. They did not want to keep religion or God out of government; they wanted to keep government from regulating religion. • Eunice Friederich thanked Council Member Mounce for bringing forward this request and encouraged Council to support it. She stated that while Thomas Jefferson was President he was also the head of the bible society and insisted that bibles be in public schools. • Roger Gillistrom asked Council to consider the scientific proof that God exists today. • Kathleen Decker Jones spoke in support of the proposal. • John Whitted stated that the question to consider is not who is "God," but who is "we." Council is being asked to accept a statement with a "we" in it, which is the division that separation of church and state was set up to avoid. Council's job is not to "stop the erosion of our godly heritage"; it is to make laws and govern. This proposal puts Council in the position of supporting the good people against the bad people. He believed it was a disservice to God to tell him he is trusted; it is up to God to decide whether he is trusted or not. • Ely Schofield, a student from Century Assembly Church, spoke in support of the proposal and pointed out that the National motto a not forcing anyone to believe; it asks if the followers want to trust. • Bill Manley commented that the proposal is merely to honor what the National motto is. • Bob Waline noted that, legally, it has already been proven that the National motto can be displayed. City Attorney Schwabauer pointed out that the title to the item under consideration is whether or not to give the City Attorney direction to return with a legal analysis. Council Member Mounce had hoped that the matter could be voted on tonight. Council Member Beckman reported that the fourth verse of the national anthem written in 1814 includes the words "...and this be our motto, in God is our trust..." MOTION #1: Council Member Beckman made a motion, second by Mounce, directing staff to research the matter and return with a plan for a display of the City, State, and National mottos to be displayed above the Council dais. 5 Continued March 29, 2006 DISCUSSION: Mayor Hitchcock was comfortable with the concept of displaying the National motto in a government building. She did not see it as a religious issue and noted that there was a historical precedence. She was opposed to having a large display of all three mottos on the wall above the Council dais as described by Council Member Beckman. Mayor Pro Tempore Johnson stated that he supported the National motto, though he was uncertain about the appropriateness of its placement in the Council Chamber. Council Member Mounce explained that she had meant for this proposal to be in celebration of patriotism and the country's heritage. She preferred that a plaque similar to the example in the staff report (filed) be placed in the lobby of the Camegie Forum with the statement, t?n July 30, 1956, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed a law declaring !n God We Trust" the official motto of the United States. Fifty years later, the City of Lodi officially recognizes the historical significance of our national motto in our country's affairs." MOTION WITHDRAWN: Council Member Mounce withdrew her second, and the motion died for lack of a second. MOTION #2 / VOTE: Council Member Mounce made a motion, Hitchcock second, to direct the City Attorney to return with legal analysis on the proposal to place the National motto, "In God We Trust," in the lobby of the Camegie Forum. DISCUSSION: Council Member Hansen mentioned that if Lodi were to vote against the proposal, it would be the only city to do so. He pointed out that Lodi is in solation of a court decision about invocations at City Council meetings. Mr. Hansen recalled that when Council Member Beckman nominated the faith community to receive the 2006 Community Service Award, Mr. Hansen had mentioned to those in attendance at the awards ceremony that he listened to and appreciated the invocations. Mr. Hansen stated that he had struggled with the proposal under consideration, because it led him to further evaluate what the role of government was. He stated that it is not the role of government to tell people what to think, read, or view. As a celebration of history, he would support the proposal to display the National motto. It has been stated that if it is "reduced to a patriotic and historical reference" it makes it defensible, in all probability, in the courts of law. Mr. Hansen did not want the National motto displayed behind the Council dais, however, and stated that as a Council Member he had a responsibility to be open to all who wish to address the Council. VOTE: The above motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members — Beckman, Hansen, Mounce, and Mayor Hitchcock Noes: Council Members — Johnson Absent: Council Members — None RECESS At 9:40 p.m., Mayor Hitchcock called for a recess, and the City Council meeting reconvened at 9:52 p.m. D. REGULAR CALENDAR (Continued) D-3 "Provide direction with regard to a request by Council Member Beckman to schedule a town hall meeting to receive public comments concerning alternatives to pay for PCE/TCE remediation" 6 Continued March 29, 2006 Council Member Beckman stated that the proponents of the water rate reduction initiative had originally requested a town hall meeting to discuss options to pay for the groundwater contamination cleanup. Mr. Beckman suggested that doing 5o might prevent the matter from proceeding to an election. Proponents indicated they would like the town hall meeting held at the Loel Center with a representative from the Chamber of Commerce to moderate and their concerns be documented and addressed during the meeting. Mayor Pro Tempore Johnson did not believe that a town hall meeting would avoid a ballot initiative and that having a meeting now on the topic would accomplish nothing. Council Member Hansen recalled that many public meetings on the topic were held and agreed with Mr. Johnson that another one would not stop the initiative process. He believed that the majority of the people in Lodi recognize that Council made the best of a "horrible" situation and that the water rate increase was not unreasonable and that is why the September 21, 2005 Proposition 218 written protest opportunity was not successful. Mayor Hitchcock noted that when public meetings were held citizens were asked to offer other solutions; however, none were brought forward. Council Member Mounce stated that if the initiative does qualify for the ballot, the City needs to educate its citizens so that they can make a decision based on correct information. Mayor Pro Tempore Johnson agreed with Ms. Mounce and suggested that a coordinated effort be made to inform the public of the facts related to the matter. MOTION / VOTE: No Council action was taken on this matter. D-4 "Provide direction with regard to a request by Council Member Beckman regarding amending the General Plan to include a greenbelt area" Community Development Director Hatch reported that Stockton's general plan designates a green area as agriculture open space, not to be included with any development proposal. Stockton does not propose to go into the "green area" with its sphere of influence. Council Member Beckman recommended that Lodi designate a half mile south of Harney Lane to a half mile north of Armstrong Road as agriculture open space and amend the general plan to include a half mile south of Harney Lane as the extent of the City's sphere of influence. Mayor Hitchcock felt that, in an effort to maintain control over the area, it would be wiser to put the area in Lodi's sphere of influence and designate it as a greenbelt area with the City's general plan. Mr, Hatch concurred with Ms. Hitchcock and suggested that this would be an opportune time for Lodi to look south of its current general plan. He recommended Council consider putting the area in the City's sphere of influence as agriculture, not for development purposes. Mr. Hatch reported that he had spoken to the Executive Director of the Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) who was supportive that Lodi include in its sphere of influence, land that the City had no intention of developing to support the existing uses in the area. In reply to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Hatch confirmed that the City cannot annex land without the consent/vote of the property owners. He reiterated his proposal to designate land currently shown as residential reserve and designate it as agriculture open 7 Continued March 29, 2006 space/greenbelt. This would change the current holding designation and go further south to incorporate additional ]and as part of Lodi's general plan. Staff is not proposing any changes to the land use that presently exists. Council Member Hansen asked if this proposal would prohibit development south of Harney Lane, to which Mr. Hatch replied that there would be full opportunities for development from a half mile south of Harney Lane. The change proposed would be the following half mile to Armstrong Road. City Manager King mentioned that this proposal does not resolve the issue of transferable development rights. Mayor Pro Tempore Johnson stated that he spoke with an individual who said that such a proposal could constitute an illegal taking of the property of the people in the new sphere of influence. Mr. Hatch explained that it would not because the property owners have rights that exist under their current county zoning. He reiterated that there would be no change to their current zoning. The designation of a sphere of influence does not in any way remove any of the rights the property owners have. PUBLIC COMMENTS: • Burt Castelanelli stated that he owned property in the area under consideration. He was opposed to the proposal as he believed it would restrict his ability to sell for a developmental price and continued farming would be difficult because of nearby residential property. He felt Council should wait to receive the plan from the property owners associated with the Greenbelt Task Force. Mr. Hatch explained that development of any current agricultural property is predicated upon the ability to get sewer, water, and other City services. That is the only time development rights are added to a property, i.e. when it is annexed and zoned for development. • Pat Patrick, Executive Director of the Lodi Chamber of Commerce, urged Council to consider general plan amendment proposals from an economic point of view. The ideas the Chamber has brought forward have been a partnership between the Lodi agricultural community and Lodi urban interests. Mr. Patrick reported that LAFCO is interested in preserving agricultural space. The concept of merging Lodi urban and agricultural together and being financially linked satisfies different parties of shared economic interest. Action needs to take place to preserve the orchards and vineyards around Lodi to insulate it from the "sameness" from the north and south. Mr. Patrick stated that in doing so it would make Lodi more attractive to tourists. MOTION ( VOTE: The City Council, on motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Johnson, Mounce second, unanimously directed staff to bring back a proposal to Council that would amend Lodi's General Plan to expand its sphere of influence to include an aea one half mile south of Harney Lane down to one half mile south of Armstrong Road (including the area adjacent to the Micke Grove property) and change the "Residential Urban Reserve" designation to "AG -40 Open Space/Greenbelt." VOTE TQ CONTINUE WITH THE REMAINDER OF THE MEETING The City Council, on motion of Council Member Beckman, Mounce second, unanimously voted to continue with the remainder of the meeting following the 11:00 p.m. hour. 8 Continued March 29, 2006 D REGULAR CALENDAR (Continued) D-5 "Provide direction with regard to a request by Mayor Pro Tempore Johnson to discuss the future use of the maintenance shop at Hutchins Street Square and its possible use as a Hospice facility" Mayor Pro Tempore Johnson had recently read in the Hutchins Street Square Foundation minutes that there was consideration being made to convert the maintenance shop into a Hospice facility. He felt it should be discussed by Council before proceeding further. Council Member Beckman stated that the Foundation minutes are provided to Council as a courtesy. The Foundation is a separate entity apart from the City and it has the freedom to spend time and resources studying concepts as it wishes. When an idea develops to the point Council needs to be informed or take action, it would be scheduled on an agenda. PUBLIC COMMENTS: • Charlene Lange stated that several studies have been undertaken for various uses of the auto shop, as the Foundation would like to finish out the southwest corner of the Hutchins Street Square project. Money for the studies carne from the Foundation. If a project appeared feasible, the Foundation would bring it to Council. She felt that the discussion tonight was premature, as it is only an idea at this point. No staff time is being utilized on the project idea. Mayor Hitchcock saw the Foundation as a fundraising Board that supported the Director in promoting and developing the Square. She felt that a close Zink should be in place between the Board and the Director. City Attorney Schwabauer confirmed that the Hutchins Street Square Foundation is an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit group that can choose its own agenda. Steve Baker, Interim Community Center Director, reported that the cost for a part-time City employee who assists the Board is reimbursed to the City by the Foundation. • John Ledbetter, Chairman of the Foundation, stated that its commitment is to be helpful and the Foundation's history is that it has always worked with Council and staff. He agreed that this discussion was premature at this point and stated that when a plan is developed the Council would be informed. • Dennis Bennett stated that the Foundation Board members are visionaries who have been able to promote the Square and raise millions of dollars. Its Board has run the Foundation impeccably for 25 years. He believed the Foundation was successful because it "kept City Hall out of Hutchins Street Square." The Foundation has never spent money without prior approval from Council, nor does it have the authority to obligate money. MOTION / VOTE: There was no Council action taken on this matter. D-6 'Provide direction with regard to a request from Mayor Pro Tempore Johnson for a Council - sponsored quarter -cent sales tax increase to pay for public safety and/or open space acquisition" Mayor Pro Tempore Johnson stated that a significant portion of the City's general fund is spent on public safety and he suggested that Council consider a sales tax increase to maintain the current funding toward Police and Fire services, which would free up money for other departments. 9 Continued March 29, 2006 Council Member Hansen was opposed to a Council sponsored sales tax measure for the November 2006 election because Measure K (half -cent sales tax dedicated to transportation) and the citizens Fire & Facilities Sales Tax initiative would be on the ballot. When there are multiple tax increase requests on ballots, the tendency is for people to vote no on all of them. He suggested that the 2008 election be targeted for Mr. Johnson's proposal, which would allow time to develop a good plan to promote it. Council Member Mounce agreed with Mr. Hansen's comments. She preferred that the sales tax increase also be for the purpose of preserving open space. Council Member Beckman also agreed the proposal would be worth considering, but not for the November 2006 election. Mayor Hitchcock stated that if she were ever to support a sales tax increase it would have to be for something very important that would have a far reaching, generational type impact, such as a greenbelt. She felt the discussion was premature at this point because the Greenbelt Task Force had not yet formulated its plan for the greenbelt. City Manager King stated that he would inform Council of when the next League of California Cities workshop is held on the topic of city participation in ballot measure campaigns. MOTION / VOTE: There was no Council action taken on this matter. D-7 'Provide direction with regard to a request from Mayor Hitchcock regarding coordination of requests by Council Members to place items on the agenda" Mayor Hitchcock favored conducting special meetings in months with five Wednesdays to consider special requests of Council Members, as was done tonight. Council Member Beckman voiced support for option one as provided on the blue sheet (filed), i.e. reviewing the "Pending Council Requests" report that is prepared by the City Clerk at Shirtsleeve Sessions and deciding on the disposition of each matter at that time. Items could then be scheduled for regular meetings as time permits. He also favored speaker time limits as a way of making meetings more efficient. Council Member Mounce preferred that Council requests to place items on the agenda be scheduled for regular meetings. She felt it was important that citizens be allowed a full opportunity to speak and be heard. Mayor Pro Tempore Johnson felt that Council meetings should be expedited and that Council Members, public, and staff could speak more succinctly. He favored speaker time limits of three minutes, and felt that if the public was aware of the limitation in advance they would compose their thoughts accordingly and be prepared. He felt that any Member of Council should be able to place an item on the agenda. He complained of routine equipment problems causing delays and lack of knowledge by staff in using computer software. He suggested that the number of, and comments, under the heading of presentations/proclamations be limited. Council Member Hansen defended the right of any Council Member to request an item be agendized and discussed. Mayor Hitchcock summarized that Council Members should be judicious about adding items to the agenda, that the Pending Council Requests reports be reviewed during Shirtsleeve Sessions, and that Council requested items be scheduled on regular meeting agendas if possible, otherwise a special meeting on fifth Wednesdays of the month would be held. MOTION / VOTE: There was no Council action taken on this matter. 10 Continued March 29, 2006 E. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:18 a.m., Thursday, March 30, 2006. ATTEST: Susan J. Blackston City Clerk 11 Attachment 12 Planning Commission Resolutions 8 AL PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 06-50 A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE LODI CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR CITY -INITIATED PROJECT FILE NO. 06 -GPA -LU -03 (AGRICULTURE/GREENBELT PLAN AREA). WHEREAS, the Lodi City Council initiated General Plan and Sphere of Influence (SOI) amendments on March 29, 2006 to establish an Agriculture/Greenbelt land use designation, amend the Land Use Diagram to identify an approximately 3.5 square mile area located south of the City's corporate boundary as agriculture/greenbelt (plan area), make amendments to existing City General Plan policy related to preservation of the area south of Lodi (plan area) as a com- munity separator between Lodi and the City of Stockton, and increase the Sphere of Influence (SOI) to include the 3.5 square mile plan area within the City's future planning area; and WHEREAS, the approximately 3.5 square mile Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area is generally located south of Lodi's existing City limits and extends one-half mile north of Armstrong Road, approximately one-half to three-quarter mile south of Armstrong Road, approximately one- quarter mile west of Lower Sacramento Road to the west, and is bounded by State Route 99 to the east, as depicted in Figure 1; and Figure 1: Proposed Sphere of Influence Amendment of Agriculture/Greenbelt Plan Area �.i PLAN AREA EXISTING SOI waMa.Ra- - 1 PROPOSED SOI AMENDMENT MICKE GROVE REGIONAL PARK WHEREAS, the Community Development Department prepared an Initial Study for the City - initiated General Plan and SOI amendments, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended; and WHEREAS, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration (ND -06-02) were circulated for a 22 -day period between October 9, 2006 through October 30, 2006, and the following 11 comment letters were received addressing the Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND), which have been responded to in writing in Exhibit A. An additional 14 comment letters were received that did not address the IS/ND, but express opposition to the City -initiated project (provided in Exhibit B); and • Letter from San Joaquin County Community Development Department, dated October 31, 2006; • Letter from City of Stockton, dated October 30, 2006; • Letter from San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, dated October 30, 2006; CdDocuments and Settings\cchadwick\Desktop\Packet Staging area\PCres 06-50 Attachment 12 Neg Dec.doc • Letter from Woodbridge Rural Fire Protection District, dated October 30, 2006; • Letter from Pacific Gas and Electric Company, dated October 27, 2006; • Letter from Agnes Tsutsumi, dated October 10, 2006; • Letter from Dr. Robert E. and Mari J. Carloni, dated October 27, 2006; • Letter from Gary Daniel, dated October 27, 2006; • Letter from Margaret and Jeryl R. Fry, Jr., dated October 28, 2006; • Letter from Carol Lauchland, dated October 22, 2006; and • Letter from Rick Castelanelli, dated October 25, 2006. WHEREAS, the Lodi Planning Commission at the regular meeting of November 8, 2006, held a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the City -initiated General Plan and Sphere of Influence amendments (Project File No. 06 -GPA -LU -03) in accordance with the Government Code and Lodi Municipal Code Chapter 17.84, Amendments, received public testimony from the public on the proposed Negative Declaration (ND -06-02), and considered proposed General Plan text and Land Use Diagram amendments, as well as the amendment to the Sphere of Influence, written comments from the public, the written responses to the comments, and other pertinent information. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FOUND that the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi incorporates the staff report and attachments, Initial Study/Negative Declaration (ND -06-02), and written comments to Initial Study/Negative Declaration, on this matter, and make the following findings: 1. The de minimus finding that the project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, because no evidence has been found to indicate that the City -initiated amendments have the potential to substantially degrade the existing environment. The Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area has not been identified as being habitat for any rare of endangered flora or fauna and, further, the establishment of the Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area does not increase development in this area. 2. No new impacts were identified in the public testimony that were not addressed in the Initial Study. 3. Implementation of the City -initiated amendments would not result in any physical development. Future discretionary agricultural buildings and facilities proposed in the Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area would undergo additional environmental analysis. As a result, the City -initiated amendments would not directly diminish a plant or animal population, including special -status species, or substantially impact associated habitat, nor would it significantly impact or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. 4. The City -initiated amendments will not have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable because the Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area will serve as a community separator and not increase the potential for development in this area. CdDocuments and Settingslcchadwick\Desktop\Packet Staging area \PCres 06-50 Attachment 12 Neg Dec.doc ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Based on the findings in the Initial Study, the City -initiated amendments would not result in significant cumulative environmental effects. 5. The City -initiated amendments will not have an environmental effect which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly based on changes made by the amendments as identified in the Initial Study/Negative Declaration (ND -06-02). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED, that the Lodi Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lodi City Council the adoption of a Negative Declaration (ND -06-02) for Project File No. 06 -GPA -LU -03. I hereby certify that Resolution No. 06-50 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi at a regular meeting held on November 8, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Heinitz, Kiser, Mattheis, Moran, and Chair Kuehne NOES: Commissioners: Cummins and White ABSENT: Commissioners: None ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission CdDocuments and Settingslcchadwick\Desktop\Packet Staging area \PCres 06-50 Attachment 12 Neg Dec.doc Please See Corresponding Council Resolution For Exhibit EXHIBIT A COMMENTS RECEIVED ON INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND -06-03) CdDocuments and Settingslcchadwick\Desktop\Packet Staging area \PCres 06-50 Attachment 12 Neg Dec.doc Please See Corresponding Council Resolution For Exhibit EXHIBIT B COMMENTS RECEIVED OPPOSING PROJECT BUT NOT ADDRESSING INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND -06-03) CdDocuments and Settingslcchadwick\Desktop\Packet Staging area \PCres 06-50 Attachment 12 Neg Dec.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 06-51 A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE LODI CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE CITY -INITIATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH AN AGRICULTURE/GREENBELT LAND USE DESIGNATION, AMEND THE LAND USE DIAGRAM TO IDENTIFY AN APPROXIMATELY 3% SQUARE MILE AREA LOCATED SOUTH OF THE CITY'S CORPORATE BOUNDARY AS AGRICULTURE/GREENBELT, AND MAKE AMENDMENTS TO GENERAL PLAN POLICY RELATED TO PRESERVATION OF THE AREA SOUTH OF LODI AS A COMMUNITY SEPARATOR BETWEEN LODI AND THE CITY OF STOCKTON (AGRICULTURE/GREENBELT PLAN AREA). WHEREAS, the City Council initiated a General Plan Amendment (Project File No. 06 -GPA -LU -03) on March 29, 2006 to establish an Agriculture/Greenbelt land use designation, amend the Land Use Diagram to identify an approximately 3.5 square mile area located south of the City's corporate boundary as Agriculture/Greenbelt (plan area), and amend General Plan policy related to preservation of the area south of Lodi (plan area) as a community separator between Lodi and the City of Stockton; and WHEREAS, the Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area is generally located south of Lodi's existing City limits and extends one-half mile north of Armstrong Road, approximately one-half to three-quarter mile south of Armstrong Road, approximately one-quarter mile west of Lower Sacramento Road to the west, and is bounded by State Route 99 to the east, as depicted in Figure 1; and Figure 1: Agriculture/Greenbelt Plan Area 12 u4 Ket11ernan Lii 1 ,14 11 - ff. PLAN AREA Ar nstronj Rd. PNCKE GROVE REGIONAL PARK WHEREAS, the City -initiated General Plan Amendment was processed in accordance with Government Code Sections 53350 through 55358; and WHEREAS, the Lodi Planning Commission has heretofore held a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the requested General Plan amendment, in accordance with the Government Code and Lodi Municipal Code Chapter 17.84, Amendments; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (ND -06-02) prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and CADocuments and Settings\kchadwick\Desktop\Packet Staging area ['Gres 06-51 Attachment 12 GPA.doc 1 WHEREAS, the General Plan Land Use Diagram designates the portion of the plan area located one- half mile north of Armstrong Road as Planned Residential Reserve (PRR); and WHERAS, the remainder of the Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area located south of Armstrong Road is not designated on the General Plan Land Use Diagram; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan text amendments clarify the City's intent to maintain a community separator between Lodi and Stockton, as well as its desire to preserve the open space and agriculture lands surrounding the City; and WHEREAS, the proposed Agriculture/Greenbelt designation would be compatible with the underlying San Joaquin County General Plan General Agriculture (A/G) designation, which allows commercial agricultural and agricultural -related uses with a minimum parcel size of 40 acres, and Public (P) and Resource Conservation (OS/RC) designations which allow for institutional uses and facilities and the protection of significant resources, respectively; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to recommend the approval of this request have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FOUND that, based upon the evidence within the staff report and project file, and public testimony, the Lodi Planning Commission makes the following findings: 1. The Lodi Planning Commission has recommended to the City Council the adoption of an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (ND -06-02) for this project by Planning Commission Resolution No. 06-50. 2. The required public hearing by the Planning Commission was duly advertised and noticed and held in a manner prescribed by law. 3. The City -initiated General Plan amendment does not conflict with adopted plans or General Plan policies and will serve sound Planning practice. 4. The size, shape and topography of the site are physically suitable for the continued agricultural and agricultural -related land uses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED, that the Lodi Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of the General Plan amendments to the City Council of the City of Lodi shown below: 1. The text of the General Plan shall be amended as shown in Exhibit A hereto. 2. The General Plan Land Use Diagram shall be revised as shown on Exhibit B hereto. I hereby certify that Resolution No. 06-51 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi at a regular meeting held on November 8, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Heinitz, Kiser, Mattheis, and Moran NOES: Commissioners: Cummins, White, and Chair Kuehne ABSENT: Commissioners: None ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission CADocuments and Settings\kchadwick\Desktop\Packet Staging area ['Gres 06-51 Attachment 12 GPA.doc 2 Please See Corresponding Council Resolution For Exhibit EXHIBIT A GENERAL PLAN TEXT CHANGES Please See Corresponding Council Resolution For Exhibit EXHIBIT B REVISED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 06-52 A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL REQUEST SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISION (LAFCO) AMEND THE CITY'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (SOI) TO ADD AN APPROXIMATELY 3.5 SQUARE MILE AREA TO THE CITY'S FUTURE PLANNING AREA LOCATED DIRECTLY SOUTH OF THE EXISTING SOUTHERN SOI BOUNDARY (AGRICULTURE/GREENBELT PLAN AREA). WHEREAS, the Lodi City Council initiated a Sphere of Influence (SOI) amendment (Project File No. 06 -GPA -LU -03) on March 29, 2006 to include the approximately 3.5 square mile Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area within the City's future planning area as a community separator between Lodi and the City of Stockton; and WHEREAS, the Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area is generally located south of Lodi's existing City limits and extends one-half mile north of Armstrong Road, approximately one-half to three- quarter mile south of Armstrong Road, approximately one-quarter mile west of Lower Sacramento Road to the west, and is bounded by State Route 99 to the east, as depicted in Figure 1; and Figure 1: Proposed Sphere of Influence Amendment of Agriculture/Greenbelt Plan Area PLAN AREA EXISTING 501 MICKE GROVE REGIONAL PARK WHEREAS, the City of Lodi has long considered the Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area integral to its small town, rural character, evidenced by multiple Lodi General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs aiming to preserve the plan area as a greenbelt, as described in the Planning Commission staff report for this matter; and WHEREAS, the City of Stockton's Draft 2035 General Plan Land Use Map proposes to extend urban development north of Eight Mile Road, up to one-half to three-quarter mile south of Armstrong Road, directly abutting the southern edge of the Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area; and WHEREAS, the City of Lodi does not desire to have the valuable agricultural lands between Lodi and Stockton converted to urban uses; and WHEREAS, the City of Lodi desires to maintain an agricultural/greenbelt area around the Lodi as a separator from adjacent communities thereby ensuring preservation of Lodi's unique location in the San Joaquin Valley, agriculturally -based history, and long -founded high quality of life; and 1 WHEREAS, the City -initiated Sphere of Influence Amendment would ensure that parcels currently under Farmland Security Zone and Williamson Act contracts would be protected and preserved from urban encroachment. WHEREAS, the Lodi Planning Commission has heretofore held a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the City -initiated Sphere of Influence Amendment in accordance with the Government Code and Lodi Municipal Code Chapter 17.84, Amendments; and WHEREAS, the Lodi Planning Commission considered and recommended that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration (ND -06-02) for the City -initiated amendments pursuant to CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area is consistent with the underlying San Joaquin County General Plan General Agriculture (A/G), Public (P), and Resource Conservation (OS/RC) designations; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the approval of this request have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FOUND that based upon the evidence within the staff report and project file, the Lodi Planning Commission makes the following findings: 1. An Initial Study/Negative Declaration (ND -06-02) for this project was recommended for adoption to the City Council by Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 06-50. 2. A duly advertised public hearing was held by the Lodi Planning Commission in a manner prescribed by law. 3. The plan area is located adjacent to the City's existing Sphere of Influence, thereby providing a contiguous extension of the City's existing planning area. 4. It is found that the proposed Sphere of Influence amendment does not conflict with adopted and proposed plans or policies of the Lodi General Plan and will serve sound planning practice. 5. It is found that the parcels in the plan area proposed to be included with the Sphere of Influence are of a size, shape, and topography that are physically suitable for the agricultural and agricultural -related uses. 6. The area being added to the Sphere of Influence is primarily in agricultural use. 7. The City's goal is to establish a new General Plan land use designation called Agriculture/Greenbelt which identifies areas to be retained as agriculture or greenbelt areas. 8. Viticulture and related winery operations are an important part of Lodi's community identity. 9. Preservation of the plan area and the continued existence of viticulture and wineries are directly related to the economy of the City because the viticulture and winery industries surrounding the City's urban area are essential to the urban economic functions of Lodi. 10. The City actively promotes viticulture and winery industries within its downtown via tasting rooms, community events, and public outreach. 11. The inclusion of the plan area as part of Lodi's SOI is critical to Lodi's ongoing economic health and vitality as a community 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED, that the Lodi Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council to request the San Joaquin County LAFCO to amend the City's Sphere of Influence as depicted in Exhibit A. I hereby certify that Resolution No. 06-52 was passed and adopted by the Lodi Planning Commission at a regular meeting held on November 8, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Heinitz, Kiser, Mattheis, and Moran NOES: Commissioners: Cummins, White, and Chair Kuehne ABSENT: Commissioners: None ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission 3 Please See Corresponding Council Resolution For Exhibit EXHIBIT A PROPOSED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT 4 Attachment 13- 15 City Council Draft Resolutions 13. Negative Declaration Resolution No. CC 06- 14. General Plan Amendment Resolution No. CC 06- 15. Sphere of Influence Amendment Resolution No. PC 06- RESOLUTION 2006- A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR CITY -INITIATED GENERAL PLAN AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENTS TO ESTABLISH AN AGRICULTURE/GREENBELT PLAN AREA BETWEEN LODI AND THE CITY OF STOCKTON (PROJECT FILE NO. 06 -GPA -LU -03). 04,4pr WHEREAS, the Lodi City Council initiated General Plan and Sphere of Influence (SOI) amendments on March 29, 2006 to establish an Agriculture/Greenbelt land use designation, amend the Land Use Diagram to identify an approximately 3.5 square mile area located south of the City's corporate boundary as agriculture/greenbelt (plan area), make amendments to existing City General Plan policy related to preservation of the area south of Lodi (plan area) as a com- munity separator between Lodi and the City of Stockton, and increase the Sphere of Influence (SOI) to include the 3.5 square mile plan area within the City's future planning area; and WHEREAS, the approximately 3.5 square mile Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area is generally located south of Lodi's existing City limits and extends one-half mile north of Armstrong Road, approximately one-half to three-quarter mile south of Armstrong Road, approximately one-quarter mile west of Lower Sacramento Road to the west, and is bounded by State Route 99 to the east, as depicted in Figure 1; and Figure 1 Proposed Sphere of Influence Amendment of A. riculture/Greenbelt Plan Area 13 Arfr sh o. g Rd EXISTING 501 PROPOSED SOI AMENDMENT GROVE "REGIONAL PAfV WHEREAS, the Community Development Department prepared an Initial Study for the City -initiated General Plan and SOI amendments, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended; and WHEREAS, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration (ND -06-02) were circulated for a 22 - day period between October 9, 2006 through October 30, 2006, and the following 11 comment letters were received addressing the Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND), which have been responded to in writing in Exhibit A. An additional 14 comment letters were received that did not address the IS/ND, but expressed opposition to the City -initiated project (provided in Exhibit B); and Letter from San Joaquin County Community Development Department, dated October 31, 2006; Letter from City of Stockton, dated October 30, 2006; Letter from San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, dated October 30, 2006; Letter from Woodbridge Rural Fire Protection District, dated October 30, 2006; Letter from Pacific Gas and Electric Company, dated October 27, 2006; Letter from Agnes Tsutsumi, dated October 10, 2006; Letter from Dr. Robert E. and Mari J. Carloni, dated October 27, 2006; Letter from Gary Daniel, dated October 27, 2006; Letter from Margaret and Jeryl R. Fry, Jr., dated October 28, 2006; Letter from Carol Lauchland, dated October 22, 2006; and Letter from Rick Castelanelli, dated October 25, 2006. WHEREAS, the Lodi Planning Commission at the regular meeting of November 8, 2006, held a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the City -initiated General Plan and Sphere of Influence amendments (Project File No. 06 -GPA -LU -03) in accordance with the Government Code and Lodi Municipal Code Chapter 17.84, Amendments, received public testimony from the public on the proposed Negative Declaration (ND -06-02), and considered proposed General Plan text and Land Use Diagram amendments, as well as the amendment to the Sphere of Influence, written comments from the public, the written responses to the comments, and other pertinent information; and WHEREAS, the Lodi City Council at the special meeting of November 29, 2006, held a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the City -initiated General Plan and Sphere of Influence amendments (Project File No. 06 -GPA -LU -03) in accordance with the Government Code and Lodi Municipal Code Chapter 17.84, Amendments, received public testimony from the public on the proposed Negative Declaration (ND -06-02), and considered proposed General Plan text and Land Use Diagram amendments, as well as the amendment to the Sphere of Influence, written comments from the public, the written responses to the comments, and other pertinent information. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FOUND that the City Council of the City of Lodi incorporates by reference the staff report and attachments, Initial Study/Negative Declaration (ND -06-02), and written comments to Initial Study/Negative Declaration, on this matter, and make the following findings: 1, The de minimus finding that the project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, because no evidence has been found to indicate that the City -initiated amendments have the potential to substantially degrade the existing environment. The Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area has not been identified as being habitat for any rare of endangered flora or fauna and, further, the establishment of the Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area does not increase development in this area. 2. No new impacts were identified in the public testimony that were not addressed in the Initial Study, 3. Implementation of the City -initiated amendments would not result in any physical development. Future agricultural buildings and facilities proposed in the Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area would undergo subsequent and separate additional environmental analysis as such may be required under San Joaquin County's zoning rules and regulations. As a result, the City -initiated amendments would not directly diminish a plant or animal population, including special -status species, or substantially impact associated habitat, nor would it significantly impact or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. The City -initiated amendments will not have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable because the Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area will serve as a community separator and not increase the potential for development in this area, but rather continue existing development and the current development rights under existing county regulations. ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Based on the findings in the Initial Study, the City -initiated amendments would not result in significant cumulative environmental effects. 5. The City -initiated amendments will not have an environmental effect which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly based on changes made by the amendments as identified in the Initial Study/Negative Declaration (ND -06- 02). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED, that the Lodi City Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration (ND -06-02) for Project File No. 06 -GPA -LU -03. Dated: November 29 2006 I hereby certify that Resolution No. 2006- was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a special meeting held November 29, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS — ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS — RANDI JOHL City Clerk 2006- Attachment 13 EXHIBIT A COMMENTS RECEIVED ON INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND -06-03) P. 1LOD06011PRODUC-I:5I0PA Language, ,teff reports, eteS1 fI Rcports1CC Hewing, 112906Wttachmen t 13, Nes Dec CC Ran. 1 I2906.doc MEMORANDUM DATE, TO, FR -01,6 suaryan November 2, 2006 Mayor Hitchcock and Members of the City Council Chair Kuehne and Members of the Planning Commission Randy Hatch, Community Development Director Lynette Dias and Jennifer Craven, Contract Planners Comments Received on Initial Study/Negative Declaration (ND -06-02) for City - initiated Agriculture/Greenbelt General Plan and Sphere Of Influence Amendments The Initial Study and Negative Declaration (ND -06-02) for the City -initiated General Plan and Sphere of Influence amendments to establish a 31/2 -square mile Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area south of the City's corporate boundary were circulated for a 22 -day public review period between October 9, 2006 and October 30, 2006. At the close of the public review period, 11 letters were received that specific- ally addressed the adequacy of the Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) (attached), none of which raise new issues requiring additional analysis and recirculation of the IS/ND. An additional 14 comment Letters were received that related to the project merits and express opposition to this City - initiated project (not adequacy of the IS/ND). The 11 agencies and persons who commented on the IS/ND include: • Letter from San Joaquin County Community Development Department, dated October 31, 2006; • Letter from City of Stockton, dated October 30, 2006; • Letter from San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, dated October 30, 2006; • Letter from Woodbridge Rural Fire Protection District, dated October 30, 2006; • Letter from Pacific Gas and Electric Company, dated October 27, 2006; • Letter from Agnes Tsutsumi, dated October 10, 2006; • Letter from Dr. Robert E. and Mari J. Carloni, dated October 27, 2006; • Letter from Gary Daniel, dated October 27, 2006; • Letter from Jeryl R. Fry, Jr., dated October 28, 2006; • Letter frons Carol Lauchland, dated October 22, 2006; and • Letter from Rick Castelanelli, dated October 25, 2006 The following provides brief responses to each of the 11 letters listed above. San Joaquin County Community Development Department (dated October 31, 2006). This letter clarifies that proposed General Plan Implementation Program LU -11 is a policy decision that would be up to the Board of Supervisors and would require County Counsel review. No environmental issues are raised. City of Stockton (dated October 30. 2006). Stockton's letter provides four comments addressing the IS/ND, each of which is responded to below. • Stockton clarifies that when it released the NOPs for its 2050 and 2035 General Plan Update EIRs, respectively, Lodi did not indicate it would be amending its General Plan and Sphere of Influence to include the proposed Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area, This statement is correct. Stockton initiated its General Plan update process in June 2003; Lodi initiated the proposed General Plan and Sphere of Influence amendments in March 2006. This comment does not raise any issue related to the adequacy of the IS/ND. • Stockton states Lodi's IS/ND should acknowledge Stockton's Draft 2035 General Plan Land Use Map indicates the area between Armstrong Road and Stockton's proposed Sphere of Influence/ Urban Service Boundary is proposed to be designated Open Space and Agriculture. The comment further states Stockton has already proposed to include the area south of Armstrong Road on its Draft General Plan Land Use Map, it is inappropriate for Lodi to include it on Lodi's General Plan Land Use Diagram and, instead, it should not be included in any public agency SOI and should remain unincorporated. This comment does not raise any environmental issues; instead, it raises issues related to the appropriateness of Lodi planning and policy decisions in relationship to Stockton's decisions. However, Lodi disagrees with Stockton's position about the area south of Armstrong Road. Lodi has witnessed Stockton's perpetual urban encroachment north into the agricultural area between Lodi and Stockton. Lodi believes that to preserve the area south of Armstrong Road as agri- cultural land it should include it within its General Plan planning area as an Agriculture/ Greenbelt plan area, and within its SOI to ensure Stockton will not be able to annex it in the future, allowing urban uses to replace the agricultural, rural, and open space uses currently occurring in the area. As a result, Lodi's goal is to ensure that a community separator is preserved between it and the City of Stockton. • Stockton cites Government Code Section 56425 stating "a SOI boundary is established for the purpose of `promoting logical and orderly development.'" Stockton further states that the envir- onmental document should address the specific mechanisms regarding future urbanization of the proposed SOI area. Lodi disagrees with Stockton's interpretation of Government Code Section 56425. Lodi believes that its proposed SOI amendment would ensure logical and orderly develop- ment within an agricultural/greenbelt plan area. Lodi does not believe that all "development" must be of an urban intensity. Further, proposed General Plan Implementation Program LU-19 when developed would plan for the long-range preservation of the Agriculture /Greenbelt plan area. When that the plan is developed in accordance with Implementation Program LU-19, specific land use densities and public improvements will be proposed. At that time, additional analysis will be conducted to evaluate the environmental implications of proposed plan for the Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area. At this time, no physical changes would result from the proposed amendments. As a result, no change in the existing environmental conditions would result due to the proposed amendments. • Stockton states a greenbelt designation should not be used within the City's SOI and, instead, the City should designate the area as Urban Reserve if it intends to ultimately provide services and/or develop the SOI amendment area. No environmental issues are raised by this comment. Again, as stated above, Lodi disagrees with Stockton's understanding of the intent of a SOI. 2 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (dated October 30, 2006). The Air District's letter concurs with the conclusions in the Initial Study/Negative Declaration (ND -06-02) that the City -initiated General Plan and Sphere of Influence amendments would result in a less -than - significant impact on air quality. No additional environmental comments are provided. Woodbridge Rural Fire Protection District (dated October 30, 20061. The Fire District's letter states it believes the City -initiated amendments would leave fire services in the plan area in limbo, and that the environmental analysis should evaluate the City's ultimate intent for the area. As described in the Initial Study, the City -initiated amendments would not result in any change to the existing environmental conditions in the plan area. The proposed General Plan Agriculture/ Greenbelt land use designation allows comparable land uses and intensities as the underlying County General Agriculture designation. Further the City does not have any plans, at this time, to annex the plan area, therefore no change in fire protection and services would result. The IS/ND was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under CEQA, public agencies are required to evaluate the environmental implications of a proposed action to allow decision makers and the general public to make informed decisions about the project. For the City -initiated project, the proposed actions are the General Plan and Sphere of Influence amendments to ensure the area is preserve as an agriculture/greenbelt community separator between Lodi and the City of Stockton. As a result, the City -initiated amendments would not result in any change to the existing condition of the environment and, therefore, would not result in any significant environmental impacts, including those to fire protection and service providers. The plan that results from Implementation Program LU -19 would be evaluated for its environmental implications, inclu- ding those on fire protection and service providers, to allow for informed decision making relative to it. To attempt to evaluate the environmental implications of an implementation plan that does not yet exist, would be too speculative an implementation as it is not yet known what will be in the plan under CEQA. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (dated October 27, 2006). This letter confirms that the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) owns and operates the gas and electric facilities in the plan area. The letter further clarifies that the City -initiated amendments would not restrict or limit PG&E's ability to serve its customers with a reliable and capable energy system. PG&E also requests that, in order to promote the safe and reliable maintenance and operation of its utility facilities, any proposals for future projects should be coordinated with PG&E early on in the entitlement review process. As described in the Initial Study, no development would result from the City -initiated amendments; instead the existing condition would remain. As a result, expansion of distribution and transmission lines and related facilities would not be necessary. No additional environmental issues are raised. Agnes Tsutsumi (dated October 10, 2006). The letter suggests that an environmental impact report is necessary for the City -initiated amendments because Lodi has identified the plan area without just cause, it would have economic impacts on those within the plan area, as well as would have fiscal impacts on the City of Lodi that have not been analyzed in the IS/ND. As described in the IS/ND, the City -initiated amendments would not result in any physical change to the existing environmental condition within the Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area. Consistent with CEQA, the IS/ND analyzes the proposed amendments effects on the existing, physical environmental condition. The proposed Agriculture/Greenbelt General Plan land use designation is consistent with the underlying San Joaquin County General Agriculture designation, allowing the same agricultural/ rural uses with a minimum parcel size of 40 acres. Because the City -initiated amendments would not result in any physical change or development in the plan area, and the proposed land use designation is consistent with what is currently allowed by San Joaquin County, they would not result in any 3 measurable economic change within the plan area. Further, because the City is not annexing the plan area, it would not encumber any fiscal impacts from including the area on the General Plan Land Use Diagram and Sphere of Influence for future planning purposes. As described in the Initial Study, at the time a plan is prepared for Implementation Program LU -19, additional analysis will be conducted to evaluate the physical environmental implications of that plan. As a part of that analysis, the City would prepare economic and fiscal analyses to understand the financial implications of the plan on the property owners with the plan area and the City's fiscal planning. No further environmental issues were raised. Finally, the City determined the boundary for the proposed amendments by utilizing its existing General Plan land use planning boundaries. The existing east and west boundaries were intentionally extended directly south to intersect with the City of Stockton's proposed Sphere of Influence bound- aries, thereby eliminating any unaccounted area between the two cities planning areas. Dr. Robert E. and Mari J. Carloni (dated October 27, 200611. The commentors state they disagree with the City's conclusion that the City -initiated project would result in no negative environmental impacts. The commentor's further state that "in the categories of Air Quality, Transportation Hazards, and Mandatory Findings of Significance we can see obvious conflicts with the City's position. In the categories of Noise, Public Services and Utilities we see lesser conflicts, but still are not in agreement that no negative impacts would result." The commentor's do not, however, specify how the City's position on this project conflicts the environmental analysis provided in the ISNND. As described in the Initial Study, the City -initiated amendments would not result in any development; therefore no change to the existing environmental condition would result. As described above, the IS/ND was prepared in accordance with CEQA. Under CEQA, public agencies are required to eval- uate the environmental implications of a proposed action to allow decision makers and the general public to make informed decisions about the project. For the City -initiated project, the proposed actions are the General Plan and Sphere of Influence amendments to ensure the area is preserved as an agriculture/greenbelt community separator between Lodi and the City of Stockton. As a result, the City -initiated amendments would not result in any change to the existing condition of the environ- ment and, therefore, would not result in any significant environmental impacts. The City finds that the IS/ND and the City's intent for the proposed General Plan and Sphere of Influence amendments are consistent. Gary Daniel (dated October 27. 2006). The letter states that the IS/ND focuses almost solely on the greenbelt area without taking into consideration the impact of activities surrounding the area. See response to Rick Castelanelli letter, below. Margaret and Jeryl R. Fry, Jr. (dated October 28, 2006). The letter states that an environmental impact report (EIR) should be prepared because not all affects of the proposed amendments on the agricultural area have been addressed. The letter also states that the City has no intentions to provide services in the plan area, nor develop the plan area within a reasonable amount of time. The letter does not specify what affects on the agricultural area have not been addressed. As described in the Initial Study, the proposed General Plan Agriculture/Greenbelt land use designation is consistent with the underlying San Joaquin County General Agriculture designation for the area. The City's intent is to make its long-range plan for the area consistent with the existing County plan for the area. The proposed amendments accomplish this goal. The County's General Agriculture designation allows commercial agricultural and rural uses on a minimum parcel size of 40 acres. The City -initiated amendments would result in identical land uses and parcel sizes. No change to the existing physical environment would occur; therefore, no impacts on the existing agricultural area would occur either. 4 Further, as described above, the plan that results from Implementation Program LU -19 would identify which, if any, public services would be extended to the plan area. This future plan would be evaluated for its environmental effects, including service provider's ability to extend identified improvements considered necessary to implement the plan to the Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area. The City cannot evaluate the environmental effects of a plan that does not yet exist; to do so would be speculative and inappropriate under CEQA. As a result, the City -initiated amendments would result in less -than - significant impacts in all topical areas; therefore, warranting the proposed Negative Declaration. An environmental impact report would only be warranted in significant environmental impacts would result from the proposed amendments. As described, all topical areas were found to be less -than - significant, and, as a result, an EIR is not warranted. Carol Lauchland (dated October 22, 2006). This letter is entitled "Initial Study and Negative Declaration," however, it does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of the IS/ND prepared for the proposed City -initiated amendments. Instead, the letter expresses opposition to the proposed amendments. No environmental issues are raised. Rick Castelanelli (dated October 25, 2006). The comrnentor raises concerns that the IS/ND does not adequately address how the development of urban uses, which would be permitted outside of the proposed Agricultural/Greenbelt designated areas, could adversely impact the viability of agricultural lands within the Agricultural/Greenbelt Designated areas. The area to the immediate south is proposed in the City of Stockton's Draft General Plan to be within the City of Stockton's SOI and is designated for future urban development. The area to the immediate north is within the City of Lodi's SOI and is designated for future residential development. The ultimate effects associated with the commentor's concerns are primarily financial and the continued viability of the agricultural operations, and not environmental physical effects as defined by CEQA. As detailed in the IS/ND, the proposed General Plan and SOI amendments would not change the zoning or any of the existing development regulations for the area. If approved, the GPA will only state the City's desires to preserve the area as an AgriculturailGreenbelt area; it will not include any specific development regulations or rezonings that will prescribe what can and cannot occur in the area. Proposed Implementation Program LU -19, which requires establishment of a program addressing long-range preservation and development within the agricultural/greenbelt area, states that the program will need to include, at a minimum, a thorough planning process involving all interested stake -holders (including local farmers, residents and business owners within the City limits, study area, and surrounding community) that would result in the specific locations and intensities of land uses, circulation system, infrastructure, services, financing plan, as well as design guidelines and other implementation measures. This program will have to be analyzed under CEQA at the time it is prepared and prior to it being approved. Until such a program is prepared, it would be too speculative to try and evaluate what physical adverse effects could result. Once a specific program is proposed, the CEQA review will consider each of the specific issues raised by the commentor including agricultural traffic. 5 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1810 E. HAZELTON AVE.. ETOC1CTON, CA 96205-0292 PHONE: 2091488.9121 FAX: 209f488.3183 October 31, 2006 Randy Hatch, Director of Community Development Community Development Department City of Lodi P.O. Box 3406 Lodi, CA 95241 Dear Mr. Hatch: RECEIVE[) tyro € i w � w cQMMU lrty DEVELOPMENT t DEP CITY ofLOD Re: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration for a General Plan Amendment and Sphere of Influence Amendment to Establish an Agriculture/Greenbelt Designation and Plan Area Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration coneerning the plan area on the attached map. The Community Development Department has reviewed the document and offers the following comments: Agriculture/Greenbelt General Plan Text Amendments Page 3-13. Implementation Program LU -11 This proposed program states in part: The City shall establish an agreement, such as a Memorandum of Understanding (MOL/), with San Joaquin County to ensure that land use actions requiring discretionary approval proposed in unincorporated areas located within Lodi's sphere of influence would only be approved if found consistent with Lodi's vision for the area and would include City review and recommended action on the proposal. Discretionary land use actions proposed for the City's unincorporated SOI areas that are inconsistent with Lodi's vision for the area should be denied. Such a delegation of the County's land use authority would be a policy decision that would be up to the Board of Supervisors and would require review by County Counsel. If you have any questions regarding this issue, please contact me at 468-3140. Sincerely, Kerry Sullivan Director KS/CM/ (DEVSVC/Lodi Greenbdt Response) Attachment: Map c: Manuel Lopez, County Administrator Dario Marenco, Chairman, Board of Supervisors Terrence Dermody, County Counsel David Wooten, Office off the County Counsel SOURCE. GOOGLE.COM:, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2906 4 0 1.0 2.0 LEGEND E272 PLAN AREA Lodi Ag/Greenbelt General Plan and Sphere afInfluence Amendments Plan Area Vicinity and Regional Map Locations 10/30/2906 17:50 2099377149 0 CITY M4AGER RECEIVED via facsimile 333-6842 oci 30 2006 C,OWNItit4ITY ©EVELOPMEW DEPT C1l°0°1 T X OF STOCKTON PAGE 91/02 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER City Hall • 425 N. El Dorado Street • Stockton, CA 95202-1997 • 209/93748212 • Fax 209/937-7149 October 30, 2006 www.stocktongov.cotn Randy Hatch, Director of Community Development Community Development Department City of Lodi P. 0. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241 COMMENTS REGARDING THE INITIAL STI,IDY(NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE CITY OF LODI SPHERE QF INFLUENCE (SOI) SOUTH OF ARMSTRONG ROAD I wish to thank you for the discussion you had with City Planning staff on October 27, 2006, regarding the City of Lodi's proposed Sphere of influence (S0I) Amendment proposal for the area extending up to three-quarters of a mile south of Armstrong Road, west of State Route 99. I believe that the City has a much clearer understanding of your proposal as a result of that discussion and I hope that we can reach a mutually agreeable solution on this issue. However, the focus of this letter is to provide some comments regarding the City of Lodi's Environmental Checklist/Initial Study (initial Study) and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration (NOl) for a General Plan Amendment and 501 Amendment to establish an Agriculture/Greenbelt designation and plan area. Based on our review of the initial Study, we respectfully offer the following comments: The City of Stockton's 2050 General Plan Notice of Preparation (NOP) was sent to the City of Lodi in August of 2004, and the 2035 General Plan NOP was sent May 2005. The City of Lodi did not respond to the 2050 General Plan NOP. In its 2035 General Plan NOP response letter, the City of Lodi did not mention any issue with the City's proposed General Plan boundary or the Open Space/Agriculture designation for the above -noted area between Stockton's proposed northern SOI boundary and Armstrong Road. 2 The City of Lodi's Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) should acknowledge that the City of Stockton's Draft 2035 General Plan Map currently designates the area between Armstrong Road and the proposed SOI and Urban Service Boundary west of State Route 99 for Open Space and Agriculture use. Since the subject area is included within the City of Stockton's proposed General Plan boundary, it would be more appropriate to allow the area in question to remain outside any city's 501, and to subsequently come to an agreement with San Joaquin County for the maintenance of the existing County agricultural zoning. Stockton 10/30/2006 17:50 2099377149 City of Lodi October 30, 2006 Page 2 CITY MANAGER PAGE 02/02 3 A SOI boundary is established for the purpose of "promoting logical and orderly development" (Govt. Code Sec. 56425). The environmental document should address the specific mechanisms regarding future urbanization of the proposed SOI area. 4. It is the City's opinion that a greenbelt designation should not be used within a City's Sphere of Influence. If it is the City of Lodi's intent to ultimately provide services to and/or develop the SOI amendment area, an Urban Reserve designation may be more appropriate. As mentioned to you during the October 27. 2006, telephone conversation that you had with our Planning staff, the City recommends that a three -party (City of Lodi, San Joaquin County and City of Stockton) memorandum of understanding (MOU) regarding the future of the area between Lodi and Stockton be explored. The MOU could establish a permanent buffer between the two cities and avoid a continuous stretch of urbanization. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Initial Study. The City of Stockton reserves the right to make additional comments regarding the proposed SOI Amendment upon its submittal to the Local Agency Formation Commission and requests that we be notified of any public hearings and that we receive any other related documentation regarding this project. Please direct any correspondence related to this matter to Christine Tien, Deputy City Manager/Interim Director of Community Development Department, City of Stockton Permit Center, 425 North El Dorado Street, Stockton, CA 95202. You may also reach Christine by telephone at 937-8551. CHRISTINE TIEN, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER INTERIM DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CT:DJS:rw cc: Bruce Baracco, Executive Director, LAFCo Kerry Sullivan, San Joaquin County 1860 East Hazelton Avenue Community Development Department Stockton, CA 95205 1810 East Hazelton Avenue Stockton, CA 95205 emc: Mayor and City Council Planning Commission J. Gordon Palmer, Jr,, City Manager Ren Nosky, City Attorney Johnny Ford, Deputy City Manager Jim Giottonini, Public Works Director Mark Madison, Municipal Utilities Director Guy Petzold, Deputy City Attorney Bob Murdoch, City Engineer Gregg Meissner, Development Services Manager Mike Niblock, Deputy Director, Planning Division Dave Stegnero AICP, Senior Planner 0DMA\GRPW IS EICOS.CoD.COD_LLbrary:5? 182.1 14:14 OCT 30, 2006 ID; SJVAPCD CENTRAL FAX NO: 221-4272 *11331 PAGE: 2'2 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District October 30, 2006 Randy Hatch City of Lodi Community Development P,O. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241 Project' Initial Study / Negative Declaration No. 06-02 Subject: CEQA comments regarding the Lodi Agriculture/Greenbelt Community Separator General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendments District Reference No: 0200402276 Dear Mr. Hatch: The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the project referenced above and concurs with the Initial Study 1 Negative Declaration that this project will have a less -than -significant effect on air quality. District staff is available to meet with you and/or the applicant to further discuss the regulatory requirements that are associated with this project. If you have any questions or require further information, please call Jessica Willis at (559) 230-5818 and provide the reference number at the top of this letter. Sincerely, David Warner Director of Permits Services Arnaud Marjoliet Permit Services Manager DW:jw 10/30/2006 03:46 2093694560 m000aRiosE RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 400 EAST AUGUSTA STREET WOODBRIDGE. CA 95255 TELEPHONE (209) 369.1945 FAN (209)369-4568 October 30, 2006 Randy Hatch, Director Lodi Community Development Department Dear Mr, Hatch. WOODBRIDGE FIRE DIS PAGE 02 MICHAEL W. KIRKLE Firs Chief DIreotorb TOM ALEXANDER MICHAEL MANASSERD MICHAEL MANNA LOREN MOORE SR. JOHN NEAL The Woodbridge Rural Fire Protection District is quite concerned about the ramifications of the City of Lodi's intention to extend its sphere of influence south of Harney Lane. While ordinarily a sphere of influence expansion might not have an adverse effect upon District operations, the Di.stri.ct is quite concerned about the City's recent statements regarding its intentions. As the District understands, the City intends to exercise veto -like authority over development in the SOL to preserve a green belt. The District operates a. fire station within that area, and it is concerned about what impact the City's approach may have upon station operations. Such impact may be negative, depending upon its nature, scope and degree. However, until the City's intentions are defined objectively as regards the operation of District's station, negative impacts cannot be ruled out or confirmed, but remain in limbo, which precludes the negative declaration sought by the City. The District requests an opportunity to meet with you and other appropriate City representatives to discuss its intentions regarding station operations. It is not the District's intention to interfere with the City's endeavor, but to meet and confer regarding the matter so that negative impacts upon station operation may be identified and mitigated. Hopefully, the discussions will result in documentation to which both agencies agree and will abide. erely, Michael Kirkle, Fire Chief MK.SB Cc: Michael Manassero, Board President Thomas Discoll, Attorney !IPPacific Gas and Electric Company_ October 27, 2006 The Director Community Development Dept. City of Lodi P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241 Attn: Randy Hatch Alfred Poon Land Agent Technical & Land Services. P.O. Box 930 Stockton, Ca. 95201 Orrice: (209) 942-1419 Fax: (209) 942-1485 E -mall: akp4)pge.com RE:Negative Declaration (ND) For: The General Plan Amendment and Sphere of influence Amendment to establish an agriculture / Greenbelt designation and plan area Project Loc: Between City of Lodi and City of Stockton to the South. PG&E File : WL 582 (land) Dear Sir, Thank you for the opportunity to review the intent to adopt a Negative Declaration for the General Pian Amendment and Sphere of Influence Amendment to Establish an agriculture / Greenbelt designation and plan area project at the Referenced location. PG&E has the following comments to offer: PG&E owns and operates gas and electric facilities such as an electric substation, gas and electric transmission lines both overhead and underground, gas and electric distribution lines both overhead and underground, etc. within the subject area. In order to maintain reliable service and meet the energy needs of the growing region PG&E is required to periodically upgrade and expand the capacity of its facilities. This amendment shall not restrict or limit PG&E's ability to serve its customers with a reliable and capable energy system. Because utility facilities are operated as an integrated system, the presence of an existing gas or electric transmission or distribution facility does not necessarily mean the facility has capacity to connect new loads. Expansion of distribution and transmission lines and related facilities is a necessary consequence of growth and development. In addition to adding new distribution feeders, the range of electric system improvements needed to accommodate growth may include upgrading existing substation and transmission line equipment, expanding existing substations to their ultimate buildout capacity, and building new substations and interconnecting transmission lines. Comparable upgrades or additions needed to accommodate additional load on the gas system could include facilities such as regulator stations, odorizer stations, valve lots, distribution and transmission lines. To promote the safe and reliable maintenance and operation of utility facilities, the California Public Utilities Commission (CP%JC) has mandated specific clearance requirements between utility facilities and surrounding objects or construction activities. To ensure compliance with these standards, project proponents should coordinate with PG&E early in the development of their project plans. Any proposed development plans should provide for unrestricted utility access and prevent easement encroachments that might impair the safe and reliable maintenance and operation of PG&E's facilities. The requesting party will be responsible for the costs associated with the relocation of existing PG&E facilities to accommodate their proposed development. Because facilities relocation's require long lead times and are not always feasible, the requesting party should be encouraged to consult with PG&E as early in their planning stages as possible. Relocations of PG&E's electric transmission and substation facilities (50,000 volts and above) could also require formal approval from the California Public Utilities Commission. If required, this approval process could take up to two years to complete. Proponents with development plans which could affect such electric transmission facilities should be referred to PG&E for additional information and assistance in the development of their project schedules. We would like to recommend that environmental documents for proposed development projects include adequate evaluation of cumulative impacts to utility systems, the utility facilities needed to serve those developments and any potential environmental issues associated with extending utility service to the proposed project. This will assure the project's compliance with CEQA and reduce potential delays to the project schedule. PG&E remains committed to working with the City to provide timely, reliable and cost effective gas and electric service to the planned area. We would also appreciate being copied on future correspondence regarding this subject as this project develops. The California Constitution vests in the Califomia Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) exclusive power and sole authority with respect to the regulation of privately owned or investor owned public utilities such as PG&E. This exclusive power extends to all aspects of the iocatiion, design, construction, maintenance and operation of public utility facilities. Nevertheless, the CPUC has provisions for regulated utilities to work closely with local governments and give due consideration to their concerns. PG&E must balance our commitment to provide due consideration to local concerns with our obligation to provide the public with a safe, reliable, cost-effective energy supply in compliance with the rules and tariffs of the CPUC. Should you require any additional information or have any questions, please call me at (209) 942-1419. Sincerely, Alfred Poon Land Agent Land Rights Protection Northern Area External: (209) 942-1419 Fax: (209) 942-1485 October 10, 2006 Randy Hatch, Director of Community Development Community Development Department City of Lodi P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, Ca. 95241 RECEIVED OCT 1 2U06 COMMUNITY [DEVELOPMENT DEPT DM' OF LODI Re: AGRICULTURE/GREENBELT DESIGNATION AND PLAN AREA Please accept this letter of protest from the (Tsutsumi, Agnes M Tr. APN 0581104 and APN 0581106) to the City of Lodi designating the area as stated in a "Notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration for a General Plan Amendment and Sphere of Influence amendment to establish a "Agriculture/Greenbelt Designation and Plan Area". It has been our position that the City of Lodi has not addressed the total impacts and the economic impacts that a designations of a "Agriculture/Greenbelt Designation" will be within the planned area. It is our concern that due to other influences west of the designated area to 1-5 as originally outlined to the landowners in the area and to the financial impacts to the City of Lodi. The area now has been reduced to a specific area without just cause. This alone has specific and direct impacts that have not been addressed. To isolate an area without cause discriminates the area from all of the other areas around the City. Also the City has not addressed the impacts/compensation to the landowners in the area once this area has been isolated as the sole area within the General Plan as a "Agriculture/Greenbelt Area". Therefore, the Tsutsumi, Agnes M. Tr. APN 0581104 and APN 0581106 object to the negative declaration designating this area as "Agriculture/Greenbelt Designation". It is our position that a "FULL" Environmental Impact Report is necessary. Agnes Tsutsumi Dr. Robert E. & Mari J. Carloni 1123 E. Mettler Rd. Lodi, CA 95242 October 27, 2006 Randy Hatch, Director of Community Development Community Development Department City of Lodi P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241 Dear Sir: CcT 3 L' 2000 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT ELOPMEDEPT CTY OF LOD This communication is being written pursuant to receiving the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration, etc. My wife and I are landowners in the proposed greenbelt area. As of this time we have reviewed the Declaration, Amendment, Greenbelt and Sphere of Influence proposal in its entirety. We would like to know if this initial study and environmental checklist was prepared by city staff or was a more detailed or professional assessment undertaken? To be candid, there are concerns that we can see and present arguments contrary to the City's position that there would be no negative impact, in at least several categories. In the categories of Air Quality, Transportation Hiwards and Mandatory Findings of Significance we can see obvious conflicts with the City's position. In the categories of Noise, Public Services and Utilities we see lesser conflicts, but still are not in agreement that no negative impacts would result. If we, who are obviously not experts in the area of environmental study, can see negative impacts the validity of this proposal comes into question. Therefore, again, we would appreciate knowing how this Declaration and Environmental proposal was performed. Was it simply a process of fill in the blank or was a more detailed approach taken? If a more detailed approach was taken could you please provide us with the specifics and who or what entities were engaged who helped prepare this proposal? En reading this proposal it is obvious that Lodi, by adopting this proposal, would prevent the landowners from significant economic gain if and when the area in question might be developed for urban use. Also, by adopting this proposal the landowners would suffer an immediate depreciation of the current value of their property. We can understand that individual rights are sometimes forfeited for the good of the whole. However, a very important covenant exists in this country which mandates that subjugation of individual rights must be for a reasonable and realistic harm which would be borne by the many. In reading and re -reading Lodi's DOC and proposal we cannot see any, potential or actual harm which would come to Lodi if this area was eventually developed for urban use. When viewing the greater Sacramento thru Manteca/Tracy area, it is most obvious that the corridor between California's two major north -south highways (I-5 & 99) and the intersection of 1-80 and 580/205 create and mitigate this entire area for urban development. These major arteries are here and the incorporated cities from Tracy/Manteca to Sacramento are here. Given these facts there is no question that this area will at some point in time be completely developed into a major urban area. When we review Lodi's reasons for this DOC and proposal it is apparent that Lodi seeks to isolate from what Lodi perceives as a threat. However, in the DOC proposal Lodi does not demonstrate a real or even possible harmful effect, if development eventually occurred. To the contrary, if this proposal would be enacted there is no disputing the immediate loss of property value as well as the greater loss of potential value which the landowners would suffer. When my wife and I attended Lodi High School, the population of Lodi was between 20-25 thousand. We can understand a yearning for a slower paced and more rural life. However, California has a population of 32 million and has been one of the most productive and progressive areas in the world, Californians, to include Lodians, have benefitted financially above and beyond most other places and peoples as a result of this growth and prosperity. And, yes there are negative side-effects of such prosperity. Now Lodi wants to isolate from what they perceive as a potential negative effect if the city boundaries between Stockton and Lodi were eventually separated by a street. For 10-15 years or more we have been hearing this discussion of a greenbelt. But never have we heard how or why this greenbelt would realistically harm or benefit the residents of Lodi. Unfortunately, this rhetoric has been going on for so long that Lodi has created an obsessive need to have a greenbelt. A bad idea presented as a good idea long enough is sometimes eventually perceived as good. History gives us many examples of bad ideas sold as good ideas, but in the final analysis once a bad idea is enacted there are destructive effects and inevitably history judges the idea as bad. We can understand the attitude that wishes and yearns for seclusion; however, Lodi and Lodians by existing in the geographic area have participated in and benefitted from the prosperity. This attitude of isolation from the negative effects of prosperity is understandable, but not a responsible attitude since Lodi has participated and benefitted from the growth and prosperity. The Council Members who support this attitude and proposal should know the serious and real harmful impact which will be dealt to the landowners. It is most difficult for us to believe our Lodi neighbors would perpetuate and engage in such an endeavor. We would wish that the Lodi City Council members would provide responsible leadership by informing their constituents and removing what has come to be a "phantom fear." By going forth with this venture the Council members present an arrogant attitude and disregard for the rights of the landowners. This is unfortunate and we would sincerely hope and pray that this entire proposal and venture be earnestly and truly reassessed. In summary, there is no real or potential harm to Lodi if this area were eventually developed. There are many examples of urban growth in which city boundaries are separated by a street. Lodi needs to join California in the 2151 century and realize that this Declaration and proposal for their "emotional convenience" cannot come at the expense of the landowners, which would be a real financial hardship. We are not only opposed to this Declaration and proposal, but appalled and ashamed that the Lodi City Council members would continue this undertaking. Sincerely, October 27, 2006 Mr. Randy Hatch, Director of Community Development Community Development Department City of Lodi P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241 RECEIVED OCT 30 2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT CITY OF LODi Re: Response to Notice of intent to Adopt a Negative declaration for a General Plan Amendment and Sphere of influence Amendment to Establish an Agriculture/Greenbelt Designation and Plan Area Dear Mr. Hatch, Below are my comments regarding the above Initial Study and Negative Declaration. At this point in time 1 believe significant additional considerations should be reviewed and addressed prior to adoption of the above plan. The report focuses almost solely on the greenbelt area without taking into consideration the impact of activities surrounding this area. Until these are adequately addressed it appears premature for the City of Lodi to take action on the above proposal. My concerns and issues to be addressed are as follows: The report states that, "The agricultural land that surrounds Lodi is valuable not only because of its high quality and productivity, but also because of its scenic resource value to the area residents." While 1 agree that the land produces high quality and quantity, in many instances the value to the farmers is decreasing. Oversupply of grapes and imports appear to have decreased the prices paid to farmers for their products, especially grapes which comprise a large portion of the acreage within the proposed greenbelt. Farming acreage can also provide a scenic resource, but currently the responsibility to maintain this resource is the responsibility of the farmer. Without adequate revenue from farming operations farmers may not be able to maintain this aesthetic quality. The report cites the scenic resource of an agricultural area, but does not address the public areas contained in the proposed greenbelt which currently do not have a scenic value. The median on West Lane north of Armstrong Road entering into south Lodi is not maintained and is currently and eyesore to travelers entering and exiting Lodi from this direction. This area along with other public areas such as highways and on and off ramps close to the proposed greenbelt is not adequately maintained to provide a scenic resource. The report states on page 3 that, no change in existing service providers would result from the City of Lodi's action on this proposal. Since the aesthetic quality of this area is important to the greenbelt proposal the City of Lodi's proposed action to adequately maintain these areas should be addressed before action is taken. Planned development within and north and south of the proposed greenbelt area will impact the area and may make the area unsuitable for agricultural operations: -Traffic on Armstrong Road will probably increase significantly and possibly pose a public safety concern with the operation of agricultural equipment on and across this area of traffic. -Agricultural spraying, noise and dust may negatively impact the planned increase usage of public parks, worship centers and residents and businesses located north and south of the proposed greenbelt area. -Increased population north and south of the proposed greenbelt has and will negatively impact agricultural operations through trespassing, theft, graffiti, litter and dumping. Mitigation of this impact has not yet been adequately addressed. Current construction work is expanding Highway 99 significantly on the eastern boundary of the proposed greenbelt. There is also an anticipated trucking development to be constructed on the west side of Highway 99 directly across from the south bound Armstrong Road off ramp. Along with these construction projects there is proposed development of the north end of Micke's Grove that will increase the public usage of this park. These changes will probably significantly increase the usage of the on and off ramps and traffic at Armstrong Road between Highway 99 and Micke's Grove. These changes may make it impractical to maintain a viable agricultural operation in this affected area. On page 4 under item 10 the report states that the property east of Highway 99 has similar usage as the proposed greenbelt. The report states that this area has designated five acre lots. It is my understanding that a proposal has been made by landowners in the proposed greenbelt area to have the area in the greenbelt have a similar five acre lot designation. This seems like a generous proposal by the landowners bringing this to the City of Lodi, but it appears that this proposal has been given no consideration in this report. I believe this proposal should be further addressed before any further action is taken regarding the proposed greenbelt. The report states on page 26 that the, "land use designation will clarify Lodi's commitment to preservation of the agricultural character and quality of the plan area." With the proposed development activity occurring north of the proposed area and the current and proposed development south of the proposed greenbelt area it may be impossible to maintain the agricultural character and quality which appears to be envisioned by the current proposal. Consequently further thought with definite plans should be pursued prior to any greenbelt designation. The report states: "The City shall establish a program addressing the long-range preservation and development within agriculture/greenbelt areas." From the report it appears that this will be accomplished prior to annexation which the report states the City of Lodi is not pursuing at this time. Although the City of Lodi is not pursuing annexation at this time the City of Lodi is pursuing influencing this property under amendments to the General Plan and the Sphere of Influence. Since the amendments will have a significant impact on the property these long-range issues should be thoroughly addressed and established as outlined in the report prior to bringing this property under the City of Lodi's sphere of influence. The report focuses almost solely on the area of the proposed greenbelt without addressing the impact of current and proposed projects in and surrounding the proposed greenbelt. Consequently the report is not comprehensive enough to make a reasonable and well informed decision at this time. The report should include a more forward thinking approach to allow those relying on its content to make an informed decision regarding this proposal. Therefore I am proposing that the City of Lodi complete the process proposed on page 3 of the report quoted under Implementation LU -19 prior to making any decision regarding the City of Lodi's General Plan Amendment and Sphere of Influence Amendment to Establish and Agriculture/Greenbelt Designation and Plan Area. Sincerely, Gary Daliiel 9e1`yr.Fry, 9T 12495 N 74kesi Lane RECEIVED Lock California 95240-9424 OCT 3 1 2006 COt MUN!'CY DEVELOPMENT DEPT cm( OF LODI October 28, 2006 Er:' .... Mr. Randy Hatch, Director of Community Development COMMUN'° JEp'1- Community Development Department City of Lodi P. O. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241 RE: Lodi General Plan Amendment and Sphere of Influence Amendment to Establish an Agriculture/Greenbelt Designation and Plan Area Dear Mr. Hatch: We, as property owners in the affected area, are opposed to the negative declaration, determined by the City staff, in regard to the proposal by the City of Lodi to extend its sphere of influence, and make a General Plan Amendment to Establish an Agricultural/Greenbelt Designation and Nan Area. An EIR should be required. This is nothing more than a land grab by the City to establish a separator, without any intention to provide services, and develop the Project's enclosed properties in any reasonable amount of time. The City's 2% requirement, for controlling growth, assures this. The Project studies do not address all the effects on the agricultural area, and the property owners are basically disenfranchised. We therefore request that the City prepare an EIR, or withdraw its project proposal. Thank you. 209-368.7769 dome 209-334-3808 Office 1 ry, Jr. 1 209-368-9904 Fax Carol Lauchland 700 E. Armstrong Road L i, CA 95242 RESPONSE TO MAYOR HITCHCOCK— e ,,Ln $/ d5( Vied Me egY j v-eDedr.tratiet-/ ard �o�l Can the City of Lodi Afford Mayor Hitchcock's ideas? it is unfortunate that Mayor Hitchcock does not understand or chooses to ignore many important realities regarding her proposed establishment of a Sphere of Influence: I . The purpose of establishing a sphere of influence is that it will be used by cities to provide for properly and carefully planned growth within a SET TIMII FRAME. 2. No sphere of influence has ever been created for the purpose of establishing "farming" within a city. 3. Property rights provided by the United States Constitution would be violated, 4. Other San Joaquin county cities create spheres which provide for orderly growth according to their projections-- within a reasonable time frame (not 20-40 years). 5. Recently Lodi, under Ms. Hitchcock's guidance, proposed a 4,000+ acre sewer expansion sphere on vineyards south and west of Lodi. The city abandoned this plan, but only after great expense to the city and local farmers. 6. Most likely this current sphere proposal will be rejected by San Joaquin County (LAFCO)_ 7. Ms. Hitchcock does not mention the huge costs to the city that would be created by her sphere proposal—costs such as providing city services (water, sewer, electric, etc.), roads to fanning areas, and probable landowner suits. The "Taking" clause in the United States Constitution states that private property cannot be taken without just compensation. Susan Hitchcock has chosen to ignore all the recommendations of her Greenbelt Taskforce and the local landowners. She owes an apology to the taskforce members and the property owners who have worked diligently for years to establish a realistic plan for a properly working greenbelt which would be funded fully and controlled by San Joaquin County, not Stockton or the City of Lodi, WITHOUT COST TO LODI.. Her approach will incur huge expenses to city taxpayers. 10/31/2066 8:36 An MUM: Fax T0: 3340633 PAGE: 001 OF 003 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. h astelenelli,l ett rh d October 25, 2006 Randy Hatch, Director of Community Development Community Development Department City of Lodi Post Office Box 3006 Lodi, California 95241 Re: Negative Declaration for Agriculture/Greenbelt Designation and Plan Area Dear Mr. Hatch; We own 16 parcels of land located in San Joaquin County along Harney Lane, Davis Road and Armstrong Road, some of which are proposed to be included in the City of Lodi's ("City") proposed sphere of influence ("S0I") and new Agriculture/Greenbelt designation. The City states that it has no intention of annexing and providing services to the Property or other portions of the proposed Agriculture/Greenbelt area. It appears the City's only reason for proposing the new 501 is to separate itself from Stockton — regardless of the cost and burden to the property owners in the proposed SOI area. Of our sixteen (16) parcels or approximately 375 acres, all but one is vineyard and cropland; one parcel of about 79 acres is the family dairy Currently, the Property is designated General Agriculture (A/G) and zoned AG -40 under the San Joaquin County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, respectively. Our family has owned and operated the dairy for over 80 years and three generations. The dairy houses approximately 1800 dairy cows. There can be 50 or more trucks visiting the dairy on a daily basis to pick up milk, deliver feed, and transport waste. We constantly use large tractors and trucks to farm the other parcels where we grow grapes, corn, alfalfa and oats. Although our property is now surrounded by other farms and agricultural uses, urban uses have started encroaching. The same is true for the neighboring properties some of which are proposed to be included in the City's new SOI. Unfortunately, the new 5OI will do nothing to protect our Property. The boundary of the SOI has been arbitrarily drawn and with its limited size — only three and a half square miles or 2,280 acres -- the proposed Agriculture/Greenbelt area will be surrounded by urban uses — mainly residential homes, schools, and other non -compatible uses both on the northern side by the City of Lodi and the southern side by the City of Stockton (See attached Land Use Diagram from City of Stockton dated February 6, 2005 showing residential uses up to the proposed SCI boundary.) It will be bounded by Highway 99 on the east and undoubtedly btcrbaau�lQPmeat-och_e 10131/2006 8:38 AM FROM: Fax TO: 3310533 PAGE: 002 OF 003 Mr. Randy Hatch, Director of Community Development October 24, 2006 Page 2 Despite these facts, the City is proposing absolutely nothing to prevent the landowners in the SOI area from becoming the targets of nuisance complaints due to standard agricultural practices including spraying, dusting, and disking etc., as well as complaints due to odors, equipment noises, and dust associated with day to day agricultural operations. In addition, the City has failed to consider how agricultural traffic (trucks, tractors) will affect the surrounding residential uses which will eventually encircle the area. For instance, even now, without urban uses built out around the 50I area, there have been numerous complaints about tractors, trucks and agricultural debris an the roads. On Armstrong Road there is often moderate to heavy traffic as well as cars speeding down Armstrong road looking for a short cut from Highway 99. These concerns will only increase as homes are built around the SOI, yet the City has made it clear that there are no plans to help the SOI area with improved infrastructure (e.g., upgraded roads) to serve the area and its new users. There is little doubt that in the future, even with the Agriculture/Greenbelt designation in place, that our dairy will be required to shut down or relocate, and agricultural practices on the other parcels will be severely restricted or required to stop. This, of course, places an undue burden on us (as well as other landowners in the SOI area). In addition, our resin assets - the parcels we own within the SOI — will be valued at far less in the eyes of banks, in spite of what Mayor Hitchcock says. This will make it impossible to borrow adequate funds to continue farming, or to purchase any other land as replacement property. Should we or other property owners in the SOI area decide we want to develop our land, we would be prohibited from doing so. The Negative Declaration (ND) issued on October 9, 2006, completely fails to account for the land use incompatibilities discussed above that will result from the proposed SOI. The ND also fails to address the fact that while many of the properties included in the new Agriculture/Oreenbelt designation are classified Farmland of Statewide Importance, they have water quality, nitrate and salinity issues that have degraded the soils, malting them potentially unsuitable for growing produce and winegrapes which sell for a much higher price than corn or alfalfa. This situation has happened and continues to happen in a number of areas throughout the Central Valley. For the City of Lodi to disregard this and try to adopt this expanded SOI under the guise of protecting agricultural is disingenuous. In addition, the proposed SOI is hone to only one small winery and a minimal number of Lodi's total winegrape acreage on mediocre sod. Not exactly formulas for what some see as a future hub of tourism. Adoption of the proposed SQl and Agriculture/Greenbelt is unreasonable and unfair. It constitutes deplorable land use planning. Not only will we undoubtedly be unable to continue our agricultural practices as the cities of Stockton and Lodi grow closer together, who will want to buy land that can only be used for money losing endeavors. We will also be treated as second class citizens compared to our neighbors just outside the SOI boundary. If the citizens of Lodi, Stockton and San Joaquin County are really serious about creating a greenbelt/ separator then eliminate the sham of pretending to preserve agriculture and create a true greenbelt. Come up with proposals to purchase all of the proposed SOI at fair market price and create parks, lakes, walking and bicycle paths. 10/33/2006 8:38 PN FROM: Fax TO: 3310633 PAGE: 003 OF 003 Mr. Randy Hatch, Director of Community Development October 24, 2006 Page 3 For the reasons provided in this letter, we ask that the Planning Commission and the City not adopt the Negative Declaration and that the SOI and redesignation of the proposed area to Agriculture/Greenbelt be denied. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Very truly yours, cc: Susan Hitchcock, Mayor Bob Johnson, Mayor Pro Tempore John Beckman, Council member Larry Hansen, Council member Joanne Mounce, Council member William Cummin, Planning Commissioner Randy Heinitz, Planning Commissioner Wendel Kiser, Planning Commissioner Doug Kuehne, Planning Commissioner Tim Mattheis, Planning Commissioner Gina Moran, Planning Commissioner Dennis White, PlanningCommissioner M:r PAGE: 005 OF 005 • • Attachment 13 EXHIBIT B COMMENTS RECEIVED OPPOSING PROJECT BUT NOT ADDRESSING INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND -06-03) P:LL ODO6OI1[7*ODUC351GPA language, staffreports, dclStafjteporlslCC Hearicg. I I 7.9H6lAtInchinent 13. Nog Da CC Rao, 1129064oc -18/3812006 17:67 2999311433 Sin PAGE 02/82 SAN JOAQUIN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION October 30, 2006 MEETING TODAY'S CYALL£NGt$ / PLANNING FOR TOMORROW Mr. Randy Hatch, Director City of Lodi Community Development Department 22] W. Pine St, Lodi, CA 95240 Sent via facsimile to (209) 333-6842 RE: Proposed Lodi Greenbelt Dear Mr. Hatch., RECEIVED OCT 31 2006 COMM c � ODI NT DEPT The San Joaquin Farm Bureau Federation opposes the proposed General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendments regarding the creation of an Agriculture/Greenbelt Community Separator. As staled in the project description, "the entire plan area is currently located outside of Lodi's existing 50I, as well as Stoekton's existing and proposed SOI boundaries and only the arca located north of Armstrong Road is currently included within the General Plan's planning area." We do not see a need for the City of Lodi to preemptively seek amendments to the Genera] Nan and Sphere of influence, If the purpose of the description is true, that "the City of Lodi is not pursuing annexation of the plan area as part of -this project," then the City of Lodi should leave this area under the jurisdiction of San Joaquin County. The plan also commented that this designation would provide a "visual amenity" around urban development. ASricu t}tttrc is not visual amenity,; It is a business that requires innovation and flexibility to retrain viable. The lands involved with production agriculture are not to look at, they are used to produce and provide for the many families that live and work off of the land. Thank you for the opportunity to cotrtlncnt and we encourage the Planning Commission and the City Cotnwil to consider any proposals hrought forward by the affected landowners and San Joaquin County prior 10 a final decision, This cooperation will help all parties involved reach an amicable solution. A unilateral action by the City of Lodi affecting a landowner's private property is contrary to a "livable, loveable Lodi." Sincerely, qilce Rubinson aresident 3290 NORTH AO ART ROAD • S1 OCKTON, CA • 95215 • (209) 9314931 • (209)931-1433 Fax WWW,SJFB.ORG Fayeq Rashid 12732 N. West Lane Lodi, CA 95240 HAND DELIVERED October 26, 2006 Randy Hatch, Director Community Development Department City of Lodi P. O. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241 Re: Proposed General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendment RECEIVED OCT 27 2006 COMMUNITY CDOF EVELOPMENT DEPT I own property located within the area where the City of Lodi is proposing to amend its General Plan and sphere 01 influence. My property is under the jurisdiction of San Joaquin County. This area is currently designated in the Lodi General Plan as "planned residential reserve (PER)". The City of Lodi is proposing to amend their General Plan and re -designate this area as Agriculture/Greenbelt (A/G), and also include the area in the city sphere of influence (SOI). I do not support the City of Lodi's attempt to gain control of my land by amending its General Plan and Sphere of Influence. I vehemently oppose this action. It is regrettable that Lodi's City Council failed to put the best interest of the citizens of Lodi and the landowners by tailing to continue discussions regarding a compromise between the City and the landowners. am apposed to any changes that are being ose a City of Lodi. Sincerely, Fayeq Rashid Giuseppe and Grace Puccinelli 13323 N. Stockton Street Lodi, California 95240 HAND DELIVERED October 26, 2006 Randy Hatch, Director of Community Development Community Development Department City of Lodi P. 0. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241 RECEIVE© OCT 27 2406 gEy .OPMENT DEPT. CON crry OF LODI Re: Proposed City -initiated General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendments We own agricultural land located within the area where the City of Lodi is proposing to amend it's General Plan. Our land is under the jurisdiction of San Joaquin County, and is zoned AG -40. This area is currently designated in the Lodi General Plan as "planned residential reserve (PRR)." The City of Lodi is proposing to amend their General Plan and re -designate this area as Agriculture/Greenbelt (A/G), and also include the area in the city sphere of influence (SOI). We are intensely oppose to the City of Lodi's attempt to gain control of the farmers and their property through this change of zoning. This attempt by the City of Lodi to control the property owners land is nothing more than an "underhanded land grab". The farmers are being treated by the City of Lodi like "second class citizens". Our rights to make decisions regarding our property and our future are being violated. We have been told the proposed Sphere of Influence would not take the land out of the control of San Joaquin County. This is not true! Lodi will have the final authority to decide what we can or cannot do with our land according to "their vision". This proposed Sphere of Influence change and land use designation change to "Agriculture/Greenbelt" will add another layer of bureaucracy which we the landowners will have to deal with. At the August 2006 Greenbelt Taskforce meeting the landowners proposed a generous compromise to the city which would have been a "win-win" situation for all. This proposal has been rejected without fair consideration without any attempt at discussion with the landowners. We are vehemently opposed to any action by the City of Lodi which would amend the present land designation and change of Lodi's sphere of influence. Sincerely, Giuseppe and Grace Puccinelli HAND DELIVERED October 26, 2006 Randy Hatch, Director Community Development Department City of Lodi P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95242 RECEIVED OCT 27 2006 C:O MUNlTY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. CITY OF Lops Re: Proposed General Plan and Sphere of influence Amendment I own property located at 11988 N. Micke Grove Road which is located within the area where the City of Lodi is proposing to amend its General Plan. My property is under the jurisdiction of San Joaquin County. The City of Lodi is proposing to amend their General Plan and re -designate this area as Agriculture/Greenbelt (NG), and also include the area in the city sphere of influence (S01). I am opposed to the City of Lodi's attempt to gain unfair control of the landowners property. This is a cheap attempt by the City of Lodi to control our land and take away our private property rights. The City of Lodi has not dealt fairly with the landowners. The City of Lodi has chosen not to work with the landowners is a great disappointment and shows the City's lack of respect of the landowners and their efforts to work towards a fair compromise. am emphatically apposed to the City of Lodi's initiated General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendments. &eta, Domenico Della Maggiore MICHAEL & JOSEPH MANASSERO 2171 E. Armstrong Rd. Lodi, Ca. 95242 October 26, 2006 Randy Hatch, Director of Community Development Community Development Dept. City of Lodi P O. Box 3006 Lodi, Ca. 95242 RECEIVED C'.;i 3 U 2006 k- rr MUNIIY DEVELOPMENT DEP CfTY OF LODI SUBJECT : Proposed General Plan And Sphere Of Influence Amendment We are the owners of real property located at 2171 E. Armstrong Rd. This property is located within the area where the City of Lodi is proposing to amend it's General Plan. The area wherein our property is located, is under the jurisdiction of San Joaquin County, and is zoned AG -40. This area is currently designated in the Lodi General Plan as planned residential reserve (PRR). The City of Lodi is proposing to amend their General Plan, and re -designate this area as Agriculture/Greenbelt (A!G), and also include the area in the City sphere of influence (S01). We are being told by the City of Lodi, that "Nothing Will Change" and that the area will still remain under County AG -40 zoning. However, upon review of the City of Lodi Agriculture/Greenbelt General Plan Text Amendments document, we note that General Plan Section 3 (LU) element, Page 3-13 Implementation Program LU -11, States: The City shall establish an agreement such as a Memorandum of understanding (MOLE.. with San Joaquin County to insure that /and use actions requiring discretionary approval proposedin unincorporated areas located within Lodi's sphere of influence would only beapprsrve i if found consistent with Lodi's vision far the area and would include City review and mmended action on the . y�• •1-/ n areas that are inconsistent with Lodi vision for the area should be denied, Although we are told by the City of Lodi, that "nothing will change', we feel that things will change, if the proposed City of Lodi amendment is approved. A landowner who desires to conduct an activity which is permitted under county regulations, could find that it was not permissible because it did not fit in to Lodi's vision for the area. This would likely encumber the property owner with more expense and problems. Additionally, amending the General Plan designation for the area from PRR to AG -40, would de -value land which would have an adverse effect on the land owner's borrowing ability. If the City feels that nothing will change, then why not leave the land owners in the Armstrong Rd. area alone? Why does the City who is already experiencing financial difficulties, going to the expense and efforts of forcing their desires upon their rural neighbors? Why not work together with the area land owners in developing a workable compromize that we can all be proud of? In August 2006, the land owners in the proposed Armstrong Rd. Greenbelt/Separator area, identified a plan which could be a workable compromize in the creation of a separator between Lodi and Stockton. However, the plan although still in the planning stages, appears to have fallen on "deaf ears" at the City of Lodi. It appears that Loth does not want to cooperate and compromize with the land owners in the affected area. We are adamantly opposed to any action by the City of Lodi which would amend the present General Plan designation of the Armstrong Rd. area from PRR to Agriculture/Greenbelt, and including the area in Lodi's sphere of influence. Sincerely, J ichael J. Manassero Joseph L. Manassero HAND DELIVERED October 26, 2006 COMmUNiTY OEVELOPf ENT DEPT cr '' OF LODI Randy Hatch, Director Community Development Department City of Lodi P. O. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95242 Re: Proposed General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendment I own property which is located within the area where the City of Lodi is proposing to amend it's General Pian. My property is under the jurisdiction of San Joaquin County. The City of Lodi is proposing to amend their General Plan and re -designate this area as Agriculture/Greenbelt (A!G), and also include the area in the city sphere of influence (S01). 1 am opposed to the City of Lodi's attempt to gain unfair control of the landowners property. This is a cheap attempt by the City of Lodi to control our land and take away our private property rights. The City of Lodi has not dealt fairly with the landowners. The City of Lodi has chosen not to work with the landowners is a great disappointment and shows the City's lack of respect of the landowners and their efforts to work towards a fair compromise. 1 am emphatically apposed to the City of Lodi's initiated General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendments. 1100, KAJIL 9411,,-- (3, /74,,,,A, Lci dc: CI. 4S2-42. Joseph L. and Catherine T. Manassero 541 W. Turner Road Lodi, California 95240 October 26, 2006 Randy Hatch, Director Community Development Department City of Lodi P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95242 RECEIVED OCT 3 U 2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT CETY OF LODI SUBJECT: Proposed General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendment As residents of 541 W. Turner Road, we also are the owners of the land and farming operations at 1307 E. Armstrong Road. This property is located within the area where the City of Lodi is proposing to amend it's General Plan. The area wherein our property is located, is under the jurisdiction of San Joaquin County, and is zoned AG -40. This area is currently designated in the Lodi General Plan as "planned residential reserve (PRR)." The City of Lodi is proposing to amend their General Plan and re -designate this area as Agriculture/Greenbelt (AIG), and also include the area in the city sphere of influence (SOI). We vehemently oppose this action! It is a "behind the door" form of "Eminent Domain" tactics being used to "control" an area already governed by San Joaquin County regulations. We, as property owners, have had our property rights violated by this action purported to the public as the "only way to stop Stockton's encroachment" toward Lodi's southern border. Farmers on Armstrong Road presented a compromise proposal to the City Task Force Committee and were snubbed as "sub -citizens" and told we had no voting rights on this matter! We understand that very clearly now. We will soon become the "sacrificial lambs" during an "election year!" We note that in the City of Lodi Agriculture/Greenbelt General Plan Text Amendments Document, the City of Lodi wants to enter into an MOU with the County of San Joaquin to "ensure" found that land use actions requiring discretionary approval proposed in unincorporated areas located within Lodi's sphere of influence would only be approved if consistent with Lodi's vision for the area, and would include City review and recommended action on the proposal. To a landowner in this area, this means that even if we only wanted to construct a barn, or add a new water well , etc., we Would incur added expenses and red tape of the city bureaucracy in order to be approved or denied, even though technically, we are located outside of the city limits with none of the added luxuries of city living, i.e. City Police Patrol, City street lights for safety, reduced electrical rates as city based industries, etc. We are all family farmers trying to retain the values of our properties and viability of our crops to pass on to our children. This action will devalue the land and make it expensive and very difficult to change course, if our crops do not continue to be viable commodities. In other words, the City will have sealed our fate, just for the political status of a few, under the false pretense of doing this for the "good of the citizens of the City of Lodi." The landowners have, in good faith, proposed a compromise. The City, however, has chosen to pursue it's General Plan Amendment, with little regard for the plan offered by the landowners. It is regretable that the City chooses to ignore the landowners, and refuses to work out a compromise in order to arrive at a solution for the Greenbelt Separator which would accomplish both parties' goals. We ask that you use good judgment and stop this "browbeating" tactic, by denying this premature amendment to the General Plan. Allow time for more public discussion where all sides can fairly be represented. Sincerely, 0q�/j -L- 74 / / ,5 4/t..2440i{.d- 4 Joseph L. and Catherine T. Manassero Randy Hatch Director of Community Development Community Development Department City of Lodi P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241 Mr. Hatch, RECEIVED CCI 2 . 200S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT CITY OF LODI We are writing this letter to go on record as being greatly opposed to the City of Lodi's Sphere of Influence Amendment. This proposal will have a negative impact on both the financial value of our property and our farm business, Bruce and Sally Keszler 4051 East Armstrong Road Lodi, CA 95240 John and Irene Keszler 3861 East Armstrong Road Lodi, CA 95240 to — & -O(0 /,-. 3.6 .- (:)12 /C-- -4 HAND DELIVERED October 26, 2006 Randy Batch, Director Community Development Department City of Lodi P. O. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241 Re: Proposed General Plan and Sphere of influence Amendment RECEIVED OCT 3 2006 GomMUNrrY SSI=VELOPMENT DEPT CITY OF L OOI 1 own property located within the area where the City of Lodi is proposing to amend its General Plan and sphere of influence_ My property is under the jurisdiction of San Joaquin County. This area is currently designated in the Lodi General Plan as "planned residential reserve (PRR)". The City of Lodi is proposing to amend their General Plan and re -designate this area as Agriculture/Greenbelt (A/G), and also include the area in the city sphere of influence (501). 1 do not support the City of Lodi's attempt to gain control of my land by amending its General Plan and Sphere of Influence, 1 vehemently oppose this action. It is regrettable that Lodi's City Council failed to put the best interest of the citizens of Lodi and the landowners by failing to continue discussions regarding a compromise between the City and the landowners. I am apposed to any changes that are being proposed by the City of Lodi. Sincerely, �th.dk((e HO 5 5 o--s,4.(t,L. 1QA, Lod c) -5c)-1-1 Anthony F. Fuso Fuso Farms October 30, 2006 Randy Hatch, Director Community Development Department City of Lodi P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, Ca. 95241 Dear Mr. Hatch, 2217 W. Vine Si. Lodi, California 05242 RECEIVED C17 3 An COMMUi fT Y t.3EVELOPi4PEN' "CJS CITY OF LODI I am a resident of the City of Lodi and a viticulturist in the surrounding Lodi area. I wish to express my opposition to the proposed amendment to the City of Lodi General Plan and proposed sphere of influence. The amendment to the general plan is no more than a regulatory taking of private property. In attending some of the Greenbelt Taskforoe meetings, it as become apparent the Mayor and a few members of the committee have their own agenda and will not listen to the recommendations of their committee. On numerous occasions during those meetings, the Mayor had told the land owners they had better take our deal or we will pass an initiative so you get nothing. Is this how government works with its neighbors? City staff and the Mayor have publicly stated that nothing will change in the proposed greenbelt area. While this may be true about the current agricultural zoning, I do not believe it for anything else. The proposed amendment calls for a MOU, memorandum of understanding, between San Joaquin County and the City of Lodi which states that the county shall not allow anything that does not fit into the vision of the City of Lodi for the greenbelt area. No ware does it describe the vision In any detail. During the greenbelt taskforce meetings, the vision from the Mayor was apparent The terms open space are reoccurring, no rooftops, and another member kept talking about riding trails and paths for the public to enjoy. I fear, if this amendment passes, that the Mayor and the City of Lodi wilt use their power against the farming community to further their private agenda. The MOU suggests that nothing can be done without the City of Lodi's approval. If a farmer needs to build a new bam will the City determine the size and color ? Will the City use it's current form of extortion, as with developers, to demand land be donated for riding trails or money to build parks in order for that farmer to build a new barn? With the vision being open space, will the City of Lodi even allow wineries, dairies, agricultural processing plants, ect. to be built in the greenbelt area? The proposed amendment also states, that in the future, the City of Lodi intends to expand its sphere of influence to encompass an area around the City of Lodi with a greenbelt, not just the Armstrong Rd. area. When are you going to tell the general public or those affected farmers of this plan? I am opposed to these proposed changes to the City of Lodi General Pian in the current form. Anthony F. Fuso Oat 30 06 01:16p Fujinaka t 20S 1 943 2947 t' , 1 Fujinaka Family 2016 East Armstrong Road • Lodi • CA • 95242 October 30, 2006 Randy Hatch, Director Community Development Department City of Lodi P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, Ca. 95747 ctileffitnp DOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT, CITY OF LODi RE: Proposed General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendment Deas Randy Hatch, Director: This leper is written to express our strong apposition to the proposed changes in the General Plan for Lodi. Our property would be under the city sphere of influence and would be re -designated as Agriculture/Greenbelt. This is not a fair treatment of the effected landowners as the result would severely limit our options for ground usage and reduce nur rights to control our own land. We have farmed this property since 1964 and been a good steward of this ground. In the 40+ years of ownership of this land, there was never any indication that this arca would be in a greenbelt designated area. However, with development now at Harney Lane, there appears this concerted drive to establish a greenbelt for our area. We feel that if this designation was to have been formulated, arnp]e time for careful consideration and discussion would result in a well thought nut and reasonable resolution. Instead, this proposal is an unfair treatment of a few property owners without the financial resources, governmental insight, or any reasonable chance to stop such a plan. We hope that fairness and good judgment will prevail in this matter and that the City of Lodi will respect the rights of its citizen landowners and reject the proposed general plan and sphere of influence amendment. Thank you, Keiji "Kay" Fujinaka Shtzue Fujinaka Steve Fujinaka Barbara Fujinaka HAND DELIVERED October 26, Z006 Randy Hatch, Director Community Development Department City of Lodi P. A. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241 RECEIVED OCT 3 2006 COMMUN(Tf DEVELOPMENT NT DEPT orr'' OF WOt Re: Proposed General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendment 1 own property located within the area where the City of Lodi is proposing to amend its General Plan and sphere of influence. My property is under the jurisdiction of San Joaquin County. This area is currently designated in the Lodi General Plan as "planned residential reserve (PRR)". The City of Lodi is proposing to amend their General Plan and re -designate this area as Agriculture/Greenbelt (A/G), and also include the area in the city sphere of influence (SOl). 1 do not support the City of Lodi's attempt to gain control of my land by amending its General Plan and Sphere of Influence, I vehemently oppose this action. It is regrettable that Lodes City Council failed to put the best interest of the citizens of Lodi and the landowners by failing to continue discussions regarding a compromise between the City and the landowners. I am apposed to any changes that are being proposed by the City of Lodi. Sincerely, 4e, , 155-0 e 142 ta'+6- x ig i2c Lodi, CA HAND DELIVERED October 26, 2006 Randy Hatch, Director Community Development Department City of Lodi P. 0. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241 RECEIVED OCT 3 u 2006 COMMUNfT ( DEVELOPMENT DEPT CITY OF LODI Re: Proposed General Pian and Sphere of Influence Amendment I own property located within the area where the City of Lodi is proposing to amend its General Plan and sphere of influence. My property is under the jurisdiction of San Joaquin County. This area is currently designated in the Lodi General Pian as "planned residential reserve (PRR) ". The City of Lodi is proposing to amend their General Plan and re -designate this area as Agriculture/Greenbelt (A/G), and also include the area in the city sphere of influence (S01). I do not support the City of Lodi's attempt to gain control of my land by amending its General Plan and Sphere of Influence. I vehemently oppose this action. It is regrettable that Lodi's City Council failed to put the best interest of the citizens of Lodi and the landowners by failing to continue discussions regarding a compromise between the City and the landowners. i am apposed to any changes that are being proposed by the City of Lodi. Sincerely, /30/ ET ,e/79L/? n0 /26/ HAND DELIVERED October 26, 2006 Randy Hatch, Director Community Development Department City of Lodi P. 0. Bax 3006 Lodi, CA 96242 Re: Proposed General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendment RECEIVED CCT 0 2006 coMMuNirr. DEVELOPMENT DEPT CITY Of LOD# ! own property which is located within the area where the City of Lodi is proposing to amend it's General Plan. My property is under the jurisdiction of San Joaquin County. The City of Lodi is proposing to amend their General Plan and re -designate this area as AgriculturelGreenbeit (NG), and also include the area in the city sphere of influence (S0l). am opposed to the City of Lodi's attempt to gain unfair control of the landowners property. This is a cheap attempt by the City of Lodi to control our land and take away our private property rights. The City of Lodi has not dealt fairly with the landowners. The City of Lodi has chosen not to work with the Landowners is a great disappointment and shows the City's lack of respect of the landowners and their efforts to work towards a fair compromise. I am emphatically apposed to the City of Lodi's initiated General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendme s� cat- 0237� ?� /2.r (--1,L �5 Zoo ; 0 62vs RESOLUTION NO. 2006- A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING A CITY -INITIATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH AN AGRICULTURE/GREENBELT DESIGNATION, AMEND THE LAND USE DIAGRAM TO IDENTIFY AN APPROXIMATELY 3% SQUARE MILE AREA LOCATED SOUTH OF THE CITY'S CORPORATE BOUNDARY AS AGRICULTURE/GREENBELT, AND MAKE AMENDMENTS TO GENERAL PLAN POLICY RELATED TO PRESERVATION OF THE AREA SOUTH OF LODI AS A COMMUNITY SEPARATOR BETWEEN LODI AND THE CITY OF STOCKTON (PROJECT FILE NO. 06 -GPA -LU -03) WHEREAS, the City Council initiated a General Plan Amendment (Project File No. 06 -GPA -LU -03) on March 29, 2006 to establish an Agriculture/Greenbelt designation, amend the Land Use Diagram to identify an approximately 3.5 square mile area located south of the City's corporate boundary as Agriculture/Greenbelt (plan area), and amend General Plan policy related to preservation of the area south of Lodi (plan area) as a community separator between Lodi and the City of Stockton; and WHEREAS, the Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area is generally located south of Lodi's existing City limits and extends one-half mile north of Armstrong Road, approximately one-half to three-quarter mile south of Armstrong Road, approximately one-quarter mile west of Lower Sacramento Road to the west, and is bounded by State Route 99 to the east, as depicted in Figure 1; and Figure 1: Agriculture/Greenbelt Plan Area MICKE GROVE REGIONAL PARK WHEREAS, the City -initiated General Plan Amendment was processed in accordance with Government Code Sections 53350 through 55358; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Land Use Diagram designates the portion of the plan area located one-half mile north of Armstrong Road as Planned Residential Reserve (PRR); and 1 WHEREAS, the remainder of the Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area located south of Armstrong Road is not designated on the General Plan Land Use Diagram; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan text amendments clarify the City's intent to maintain a community separator between Lodi and Stockton, as well as its desire to preserve the open space and agriculture lands surrounding the City; and WHEREAS, the proposed Agriculture/Greenbelt designation would be compatible with the underlying San Joaquin County General Plan General Agriculture (A/G) designation, which allows commercial agricultural and agricultural -related uses with a minimum parcel size of 40 acres, and Public (P) and Resource Conservation (OSIRC) designations which allow for institutional uses and facilities and the protection of significant resources, respectively; and WHEREAS, the Lodi Planning Commission at the regular meeting of November 8. 2006, held a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the City -initiated General Plan and Sphere of Influence amendments (Project File No. 06 -GPA -LU -03) in accordance with the Government Code and Lodi Municipal Code Chapter 17.84, Amendments, received public testimony from the public on the proposed Negative Declaration (ND -06-02), and considered proposed General Plan text and Land Use Diagram amendments, as well as the amendment to the Sphere of Influence, written comments from the public, the written responses to the comments, and other pertinent information. WHEREAS, the Lodi Planning Commission recommended the Lodi City Council adopt the Initial Study/Negative Declaration (ND -06-02) prepared for the General Plan Amendment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Lodi Planning Commission recommended the Lodi City Council adopt the City -initiated General Plan Amendment (Project File No. 06 -GPA -LU -03); and WHEREAS. ail legal prerequisites to recommend the approval of this request have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FOUND that, based upon the evidence within the project file, staff report, and public testimony, and the recommendation for adoption by the Lodi Planning Commission, which is incorporated herein by reference, the Lodi City Council makes the following findings: 1. The Lodi City Council has adopted Initial Study/Negative Declaration (ND -06-02) for this project by City Council Resolution No. 2006- 2. The required public hearing by the City Council was duly advertised and held in a manner prescribed by law. 3. The City -initiated General Plan amendment does not conflict with adopted plans or General Plan policies and will serve sound Planning practice. 4. The size, shape and topography of the site are physically suitable for the continued agricultural and agricultural -related land uses. 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED, that the Lodi City Council has adopted the City -initiated General Plan Amendment shown below: 1 The text of the General Plan shall be amended as shown in Exhibit A hereto. 2 The General Plan Land Use Diagram shall be revised as shown on Exhibit B hereto. Dated: November 29, 2006 I hereby certify that Resolution No. 2006- was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a special meeting held November 29, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS — ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS — 2006 - RAND! JOHL City Clerk 3 EXHIBIT A GENERAL PLAN TEXT CHANGES EXHIBIT A AGRICULTURE/GREENBELT GENERAL PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS The following provides General Plan text amendments by chapter and page number. Underlined text represents "new" General Plan language; text that is stnielfc-eut represents "removed" General Plan language; and no change is proposed for text that is neither underlined nor struck out. General Plan Section 2: Land Use/Circulation Diagrams and Standards Page 2-4 Agriculture/Greenbelt: This designation provides for the conservation and continued productive use of valuable agricultural ("ate') lands surrounding Lodi's urbanized area, ensures for a rural community separator between Lodi and the City of Stockton, and to serve as a visual amenity around urban development. In addition to agricultural and agricultural -related uses, single-family homes, parks, and open space uses could be located within the agriculture/greenbelt area. Because the City has established this area to retain low -intensity rural uses, the extension of municipal services (e.g., sewer, water, storm water) may not be provided. The minimum parcel size for the creation of new lots in this area is 40 acres, and only one residential unit per parcel is allowed. Comprised of approximately 2,280 acres, the ag/greenbelt area is located south of Lodi's existing City limits and extends 1/4 -mile north of Armstrong Road, approximately 1/4- to 1/4 -mile south of Armstrong Road, approximately 1/4 -mile west of Lower Sacramento Road to the west, and is bounded by State Route 99 to the east, as depicted on the Land Use Diagram. Residential uses in this designation are assumed to have an average of 2.75 persons per household. General Plan Section 3: Land Use and Growth Management (LU) Element Page 3-1 Agricultural Land: The agricultural land that surrounds Lodi is valuable not only because of its high quality and productivity, but also because of its scenic resource value to area residents. The City has long acknowledged the importance of retaining this valuable asset;_ Page 3-4 Goal LU -A: To provide for orderly, well-planned, and balanced growth within the City's established corporate boundaries and sphere of influence (SOI), consistent with the limits imposed by the City's infrastructure and the City's ability to assimilate new growth. Policy LU -A.1: The City shall seek to preserve Lodi's small-town and rural qualities, including the agricultural area surrounding Lodi that provides a community separator with adjacent communities. Policy LU -A.3: The City shall ensure the maintenance of ample buffers between incompatible land uses, including -urban and rural uses. Goal LU -B: To preserve agricultural land surrounding Lodi, important to the City's economy and small town character, and to : ' -: - - - : . - : - - :: •• • • : prevent conversion of valuable agricultural land with to nonagricultural, urban uses, while providing for some urban needs. Page 3-3 EXHIBIT A AGRICULTURE/GREENBELT GENERAL PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS Policy LU -B.1: The City shall encourage ensure for the preservation of agricultural land surrounding the City. Policy LU -B.2: The City should -designate shall establish a continuous aglgreenbelt around the urbanized area of Lodi to maintain and enhance the agricultural economy, as well as to provide a defined, physical edge between the community's urban and rural areas and with adjacent communities. Policy LU -B.3: The City should coordinate and cooperate with San Joaquin County,. and the San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), and the City of Stockton to ensure that the agriculture/greenbelt community separator is establisheds maintained, and preserved. Policy LU -B.4: The City shall support the continuation of agricultural uses on lands designated for urban uses located within the City's corporate boundaries until urban development is imminent. Page 3-10 Implementation Program LU -I: The City shall request the San Joaquin County LAFCO to adopt a sphere of influence for Lodi based on the long-term growth plans of the City as reflected in the GP goals and policies and proposed land uses. Responsibility: City Council, Community Development Department Time Frame: FY 1990 1991 Ongoing Page 3-13 Implementation Program LU -10: The City shall coordinate with San Joaquin County, San Joaquin County LAFCO, and the City of Stockton to identify and designate an agricultural and -open -space greenbelt around the urbanized area of the City. The priority area for establishment of the aglgreenbelt is the area located between Lodi and Stockton. Responsibility: City Council, Planning Commission, Community Development Department Time Frame: FY 1991 1992 Ongoing Implementation Program LU -11: The City shall establish an agreement, such as a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), with San Joaquin County to ensure that land use actions requiring discretionary approval proposed in unincorporated areas located within Lodi's sphere of influence would only be approved if found consistent with Lodi's vision for the area and would include City review and recommended action on the proposal. Discretionary land use actions proposed for the City's unincorporated SOI. areas that are inconsistent with Lodi's vision for the area should be denied. As a part of this MOU, an ongoing process shall be established by which it the City and San Joaquin County will cooperate and coordinate its land use planning processes with San Joagaio County and the City of Stockton to ensure consistency between each agency's ...,., " eir plans for the area. Responsibility: City Council, Planning Commission, Community Development Department Time Frame: FY 1991 1992 2006-2007 Page 3-16 Implementation Program LU -19: The City shall establish a program addressing the long-range preservation and development within agriculture/greenbelt areas. This program shall include, at a 2 EXHIBIT A AGRICULTURE/GREENBELT GENERAL PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS minimum, a thorough planning process involving all interested stake -holders (including local farm- ers, residents and business owners within the City limits, study area, and surrounding community) that would result in the specific locations and intensities of land uses, circulation system, infra- structure, services, financing plan, as well as design guidelines and other implementation measures. General Plan Section 7: Conservation (CON) Element Page" -4 Goa] CON -C: To promote the economic viability of agriculture in and surrounding Lodi, and to prevent conversion of valuable agricultural lands located in and around the City's corporate boundaries to nonagricultural, urban uses -while pfviding for weeds. Policy CON -C.1: The City shall ensure, in approving urban development near existing agricultural lands, that such urban development will not constrain agricultural practices or adversely affect the economic viability of adjacent agricultural practices. General Plan Section 8: Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PRO) Element Page 8-3 Goal PRO -D: To provide adequate land for open space as a framework for urban development and to meet the active and passive recreational needs of the community, as well as to provide community separators between Lodi and adjacent comrnunities. Policy PRO -D.1: The City shall prevent conversion of agricultural lands located outside the City's corporate boundaries and sphere of influence to urban uses. Policy PRO -D.3: The City should designate a continuous open-spaee agriculture/greenbelt around the urbanized area of Lodi to protect open space and agricultural resources, and preventing Lodi from contributing to urban sprawl across the rich agricultural soil of the San Joaquin Valley. General Plan Section 10: Urban Design and Cultural Resources (UDC) Element Page 10-2 Rural and Agricultural Lands: The City is surrounded on all sides by rural and agricultural lands and uses, forming agriculture/greenbelt areas that physically separate Lodi from adjacent communities, such as Stockton to the south. The character of the edges between rural and urban environments is important to the City's identity and provides residents on either side of the edge with a sense of place. These rural and agricultural lands surroun ing Lod; -c -on t tote- are an important scenic resource that helps to visually define and enhance the City. 3 EXHIBIT B REVISED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP • ....... 111.P.. 1-1-rn L-1-111.1111.111.1.111, 000111On000 nnnnnnnnm 111111111111111111: 111■11111111111: :,111[,11..111 " p POP 11 l-?'=: inn _ 2 Va=.1110;oasc: ■,...I,LI,J11111 11P1 � .IIIIIIIllI.11..n1. �lIlllr.li .. 111111111111111 CC; 111111111111111: ,115 111,Ir11'L .'01111 1111.1.1111': 11111111111 111: 1111111111.1111. :;:11 ' ,1111 IIP 1111 0;11111, ■ IIP1111111 111111 � III.1n•\ 9111 � Ill i 11— EP =mm_mmmm1 imm____1 LIE= mmm ____IIliil 1 NI -—...■■—■ ■��.��■�� ■____�____I 1_■v.___I___■ ■____ ____I 1■rilllMIMMIJ =MM MMM=1_gi■� MM1 17■ Imm••u.m_ -i- fl___=--wom 4.1 r■EPrlT ■I�__I �rrIMENi _• — Iii viii _ ...•�1 _%—.1111 •ir_ jp1R 7117 //.1 x;I1 ilinewar. ,....ira .1. rim NO � 111251 2510 1.1IIIIII ��11� / IIL Ili. IN 11 FEET H JLL L J LI —7111 L T IT 1111. 11 SOURCE: CITY OF LODI, 2006; SAN JOAQUIN LAFCO, 2005 LEGEND LODI CITY LIMITS EXISTING LODI SPHERE • OF INFLUENCE (SOI) liNaPROPOSED AG/GREENBELT GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION PLAN AREA AND SOI AMENDMENT EASTSIDE RESIDENTIAL (ER) LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) MEDIUM -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR) GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) PLANNED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESERVE (PRR) COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (NCC) WATER FEATURE/BODY OFFICE (0) HEAVY INDUSTRIAL (HI) LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (LI) PUBLIC -QUASI PUBLIC (PQP) DRAINAGE BASIN (DBP) PLANNED RESIDENTIAL (PR) EXHIBIT B Lodi Ag/Greenbelt General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendments Proposed Lodi General Plan Agricultural Greenbelt Designation Plan Area and SOI Boundary Amendment RESOLUTION NO. 2006- oR4pt A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL TO REQUEST SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISION (LAFCO) TO AMEND THE CITY'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (SOI) TO ADD AN APPROXIMATELY 3.5 SQUARE MILE AREA TO THE CITY'S FUTURE PLANNING AREA LOCATED DIRECTLY SOUTH OF THE EXISTING SOUTHERN SOI BOUNDARY (PROJECT FILE NO. 06 -GPA -LU -03) WHEREAS, the Lodi City Council initiated a Sphere of Influence (SOI) amendment (Project File No. 06 -GPA -LU -03) on March 29, 2006 to include the approximately 3.5 square mile Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area within the City's future planning area as a community separator between Lodi and the City of Stockton; and WHEREAS, the Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area is generally located south of Lodi's existing City limits and extends one-half mile north of Armstrong Road, approximately one-half to three-quarter mile south of Armstrong Road, approximately one-quarter mile west of Lower Sacramento Road to the west, and is bounded by State Route 99 to the east, as depicted in Figure 1; and Figure 1: Proposed Sphere of Influence Amendment of Aoriculture/Greenbelt Plan Area EXISTING 301 PROPOSED SOI AMENDMENT MICKE GROVE REGIONAL MARK WHEREAS, the City of Lodi has long considered the Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area integral to its small town, rural character, evidenced by multiple Lodi General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs aiming to preserve the plan area as a greenbelt, as described in the staff report for this matter; and WHEREAS, the City of Stockton's Draft 2035 General Plan Land Use Map proposes to extend urban development north of Eight Mile Road, up to one-half to three- quarter mile south of Armstrong Road, directly abutting the southern edge of the Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area; and WHEREAS, the City of Lodi does not desire to have the valuable agricultural lands between Lodi and Stockton converted to urban uses; and 1 WHEREAS, the City of Lodi desires to maintain an agricultural/greenbelt area around the Lodi as a separator from adjacent communities thereby ensuring preservation of Lodi's unique location in the San Joaquin Valley, agriculturally -based history, and long -founded high quality of life; and WHEREAS, the City -initiated Sphere of Influence Amendment would ensure that parcels currently under Farmland Security Zone and Williamson Act contracts would be protected and preserved from urban encroachment. WHEREAS, the Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area is consistent with the underlying San Joaquin County General Plan General Agriculture (NG), Public (P), and Resource Conservation (OS/RC) designations; and WHEREAS, on November 8, 2006, the Lodi Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the City -initiated Sphere of Influence Amendment in accordance with the Government Code and Lodi Municipal Code Chapter 17.84, Amendments; and WHEREAS, the Lodi Planning Commission considered and recommended that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration (ND -06-02) for the City -initiated amendments pursuant to CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Lodi Planning Commission recommended that City Council request that San Joaquin County LAFCO amend the City's SOI to add the 3.5 square mile Agriculture/Greenbelt Plan Area; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the approval of this request have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FOUND, that based upon the evidence within the project file, staff report, public testimony, and recommendation of the Lodi Planning Commission, the Lodi City Council makes the following findings: 1. An Initial Study/Negative Declaration (ND -06-02) for this project was adopted by City Council Resolution No, 2006- . 2. A duly advertised public hearing was held by the Lodi City Council in a manner prescribed by law. 3. The plan area is located adjacent to the City's existing Sphere of influence, thereby providing a contiguous extension of the City's existing planning area. 4. The City of Lodi has a great interest in future planning efforts in the plan area. 5. It is found that the proposed Sphere of Influence amendment does not conflict with adopted and proposed plans or policies of the Lodi General Plan and will serve sound planning practice. 6. It is found that the parcels in the plan area proposed to be included with the Sphere of Influence are of a size, shape, and topography that are physically suitable for the agricultural and agricultural -related uses. 2 The area being added to the Sphere of Influence is primarily in agricultural use. 8 The City's goal is to establish a new General Plan designation called Agriculture/Greenbelt which identifies areas to be retained as agriculture or greenbelt areas. 9 Viticulture and related winery operations are an important part of Lodi's community identity. 10. Preservation of the plan area and the continued existence of viticulture and wineries are directly related to the economy of the City because the viticulture and winery industries surrounding the City's urban area are essential to the urban economic functions of Lodi. 11. The City actively promotes viticulture and winery industries within its downtown via tasting rooms, community events, and public outreach. 12. The inclusion of the plan area as part of Lodi's SOI is critical to Lodi's ongoing economic health and vitality as a community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED, that the Lodi City Council hereby requests the San Joaquin County LAFCO to amend the City's Sphere of Influence as depicted in Exhibit A. Dated: November 29, 2006 I hereby certify that Resolution No. 2006- was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a special meeting held November 29, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS — ABSTAIN COUNCIL MEMBERS — 2006- RANDI JOHL City Clerk EXHIBIT A PROPOSED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT 4 1 Lodi °Oakland PLAN AREA Stockton O. San Francisc O Modesto W.PeMer.Rd O. Santa Cruz / °Salinas Monterey 0 Fresno •. ,/ I+'.: • �•-***•.• s.y+ £ Yclar,Rd San Luis Obispo Rd. Marney Ln.il g • tiai ■ tiiati�ia�. ti ti�— Ara strong Rd L. � k PROPOSED SOI AMENDMENT MICKE GROVE REGIONAL r^E 6 Nfl■ Rd SOURCE: GOOGLE.COM; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2006 0 1.0 2.0 MILES LEGEND EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (SOI) BOUNDARY PLAN AREA AND PROPOSED SOI AMENDMENT AREA EXHIBIT A Lodi Ag/Greenbelt General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendments Proposed SOI Amendment Plan Area STRATEGICECONOMICS MEMORANDUM Date: November 29, 2006 To: Lynnette Dias, Jennifer Craven, LSA Associates From: Project: Subject: Strategic Economics Lodi. Greenbelt Task Force Property Values and Various Bank Loans for the Proposed Greenbelt Area Prior to attending the Lodi Greenbelt Task Force meeting on November 14, 2006, Strategic Economics was asked to assess the ability of farmers to obtain commercial bank loans based the land values under the existing General Plan Land Use designation. This question is complicated by the fact that there are different sets of land use regulations in the area currently under consideration for a greenbelt. Currently, none of the land is in Lodi's existing corporate boundaries, or within its Sphere of Influence. Consequently, at this time, Lodi has no authority to regulate land use within any of the proposed area. However, all of the land within the proposed Greenbelt north of Armstrong Road has a land use designation of Planned Residential Reserve (PRR) in the Lodi General Plan, even though this land is actually under San Joaquin County's jurisdiction. The land south of Armstrong Road has no designation in the Lodi General Plan. The question regarding the relationship between the General Plan land use designation and the land's value in terms of obtaining loans seems to only pertain to that land north of Armstrong Road where an expectation has been created that at some point, this land will be reassigned to a higher density, where development could occur that would be more suburban, rather than agricultural in nature. Apparently, property owners have been obtaining bank loans using this land for collateral, and the assumed value of the land in these loan agreements has been established based on the PRR land use designation, which could create a higher value. This allows for higher loan amounts than if the land were valued based on its current designation in the San Joaquin County General Plan, which is AG -40 (on a per acre basis, AG -40 land is worth approximately $9,000-$18,000 per acre whereas the value as residential land would be exponentially higher). These property owners are concerned that if their land k included in the City of Lodi's Sphere of Influence and redesignated as Agriculture /_Greenbelt, they will no longer be able to leverage the same loan amounts, which will adversely impact their businesses. To better understand the issues at hand, Strategic Economics contacted Mr. Steve Allen, a commercial loan officer with Farmers & Merchants Bank in Lodi. Mr. Allen stated that this is an unusual concern based on the lending practices of his bank. Farmers & Merchants Bank makes 9 .IIMI" F. is i'E X"'13 9FRFELEY, CALIFORI I =94705 I P: 519.547.;291 F: ti ri,£:4'1.529:: 1 fi T': ATEC91^LC;ONOH1(:::.,: DH production loans to farmers which are collateralized by the value of the crops themselves and whatever farm equipment and other materials the farmer is using to grow the crops. Land would only be used as collateral when the loan applicant has a very weak line of credit. In that case, the land would be valued only on its current use and zoning so that if the Bank were to sell the land, it could recoup its losses without having to obtain any new zoning or other entitlements. In addition, Mr. Allen said that if a farmer was mortgaging his land, then the value of the land is, again, based on existing zoning or existing use, not on some speculative use. Future zoning might be taken into account only if nothing needs to be done to the parcel to achieve this value, such as subdividing a large parcel. Clearly there is some kind of "disconnect" between property owners' concerns and the lending practices of at least one local bank. Therefore, there may be a need for further research before any clear conclusions can be drawn. -2- Lodi City Council Public Hearing November 29, 2006 City -Initiated Agriculture/Greenbelt General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendments 1 General Plan and Sphere Amendment --.1 City -initiated General Plan Amendment • Establish a new Agriculture/Greenbelt General Plan designation, • Modify the General Plan Land Use Diagram to include area • Amend goals, policies, and implementation programs to clarify the City's intent to preserve the area as an agriculture/greenbelt community separator between Lodi and the City of Stockton S01 Amendment • Request LAFCO amend the City's Sphere of Influence to include the 31/2 square mile Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area. November 29, 2006 2 Why Now? Why now? • • The Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area is an area of interest to the City and should be included within Lodi's long-range, future planning area • City Council priority to get the area within Lodi's future planning area as soon as possible • Ensure that future planning for the area is done by Lodi, and not the City of Stockton November 29, 2006 3 General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendments T • • • • March 29, 2006 — Council initiated General Plan and Sphere of Influence (S01) amendments to establish an agriculture/greenbelt area • Council's direction included — New General Plan land use designation consistent with the underlying County General Plan and zoning for the area • County General Plan designation: General Agriculture (A/G) • County Zoning: General Agriculture (AG -40) November 29, 2006 4 General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendments EXISTING CM 07 LODI SPHERE OF iNFLUIIKC4 CITY 4F LODI WHITE SG0Sf0H WATER POLLUTION CONTEO1 T1C1L]Tt' CITV OF STOCJCTGN CUREENT sAI RT o> IN'1I.11EN.C# FAOFUSEI} EYTEMSIOM OF CITY OF STOC.XTCN sPH#QE OF 1N FLCJEHCE PROPOSED LOE.1 GENERAL PLAN ACS:AEENBELT DESJCNATlON FFIQFOSEb hmAND'1[ENT TO LODI SPHERE OF INFLUENCE II__ mibt*,4 •III!u1 mipoP Pi 141 to intliloArio Aailmr M ' �01 : Ai jig,1 ?AMOR r I EMJil.IN1'.'Oi W � ■!ii! -:-■�=_iIlli�i ■ „MI M.4 ■■ m: - raiumi ■f e Components of Amendments General Plan Text Additions • New General Plan designation "Agriculture/Greenbelt: This designation provides for the conservation and continued productive use of valuable agricultural ("ag") lands surrounding Lodi's urbanized area, ensures for a rural community separator arator between Lodi and the Cityof Stockton, and serves as a visual amenity around urban development. In addition to agricultural and agricultural -related uses, single-family homes, parks, and open space uses could be located within the agriculture/greenbelt area. Because the City has established this area to retain low -intensity rural uses, the extension of municipal services (e.g., sewer, water, storm water) may not be provided. The minimum parcel size for the creation of new Tots in this area is 40 acres, and only one residential unit per parcel is allowed. Comprised of approximately 2,280 acres, the ag/greenbelt area is located south of Lodi's existing City limits and extends %-mile north of Armstrong Road, approximately 1/2- to 3/4 -mile south of Armstrong Road, approximately %-mile west of Lower Sacramento Road to the west, and is bounded by State Route 99 to the east, as depicted on the Land Use Diagram. Residential uses in this designation are assumed to have an average of 2.75 persons per household." November 29, 2006 6 Components of Amendments General Plan Text Additions • New implementation program "Implementation Program LU -19: The City shall establish a program addressing the long-range preservation and development within agriculture/greenbelt areas. This program shall include, at a minimum, a thorough planning process involving all interested stake -holders (including local farmers, residents and business owners within the City limits, study area, and surrounding community) that would result in the specific locations and intensities of land uses, circulation system, infrastructure, services, financing plan , as well as design guidelines and other implementation measures. November 29, 2006 7 Components of Amendments General Plan Text Revisions • Amend 18 existing goals, policies and implementation programs to strengthen intent to preserve plan area as a community separator between Lodi and Stockton — Sample policy language refinement • Goal LU A: To provide for orderly, well-planned, and balanced growth within the City's established corporate boundaries and sphere of influence (Sol), consistent with the limits imposed by the City's infrastructure and the City's ability to assimilate new growth. November 29, 2006 8 Components of Amendments • Land Use Diagram Revisions • Redesignate area 1/2 mile north of Armstrong Road from Planned Residential Reserve (PRR) to Agriculture/Greenbelt • Designate area % to 3/4 mile south of Armstrong Road as "Agriculture/Greenbelt" November 29, 2006 9 Existing General Plan Land Use Diagram rJTr November 29, 2006 pp • -II Ar44r rffig 111116111. A 'i!]'' Iii! =!mann1E1!- LEGEND IL ■■■ i LODI CITY mins d" EXISTING LORI SPHERE ■ OF INFLIIF TCF (S01) ■'� AGIGRF.F.NRELT H- N Ir roil AREA AND PROPOSED SOI AMFNDM NT ▪ F.. t'$IPF.8F.$IT NT!AI. (ER/ LOw-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LOR) • MEDIUM-DENS/TY 11ESIDEN'1'1AL • HIGH 1ENS11Y RESIDENTIAL (HIDE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GU NE 10111304.H0013. COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL {NCC Q!FICE (0) HEAVY INDUSTRIAL (EID LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (LI) PUBLIC -QUASI PUBLIC (POP) p]lALNINVi 8#STN {P&P} PLANNED RESIDENTIAL (PR} PLANNED RESIDENTIAL RESERVE (PR$1 WATER FEATURE BOLY 10 Revision to General Plan Land Use Diagram 11r�JerF+' al4 afr ��,�ii �4••ra=1" • SA ;die. I PRR November 29, 2006 LEGEND +••• • LA DI CITY L]61 In. .6 141 N I LxIYEI NO LODI SP1tEkE �• GE INFLUENCE L5o11. hQOPQSP.I] AGGk81: N 1LELT GENERAL PLAN DESf{:N,ITEQN PLAN ,'.RIA AM!. SOJ AMENDMENT : "1 EASTS7f]E RESIDENTIAL ER) LOW rFANSF7v RESIDENT AL{LOR] I 1 PLED1 Lf11 -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL{Mnq] HF{,}H-EI EN S]TY MAMMAL {ENV _ C.F FACOMMEROIAL.{CO Qi C4hiluIL']YCalidEls IAL (M I OJ I OFFICE SOI HEAVY INDUSTRIAL {HE) 1 1 LIGHT LNPUSTSUAL {LL' _ Y'DL1C-2S]A3[ FUDLIG firgp I� PR.INAEFL DAMN {I Y1 11 MANN ID RES1DEN LiL'; E-1 r!ANN ICIRES! EI. 17AL :n:[LVt' kq7 wATIN FRATORIVOZDY 11 Sphere of Influence (S01) Amendment • Amend City's Sphere of Influence boundaries to add an Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area to the City's future planning area PLAN AREA k'd eltern an L. n Harney} Cn. Arsiong ;d. WOKE GROVE REGIONAL PAR November 29, 2006 12 General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendments Approval of Amendments would not — Change County's jurisdiction over area — Change County zoning, impose new regulations, or change entitlements — Change allowed uses or restrict agricultural or farming use of properties — Result in new development — Result in land being annexed into the City — Result in the use of "Eminent Domain" to acquire any property within the plan area or the physical taking of private property — Change how property is assessed in plan area November 29, 2006 13 General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendments Approval of amendments would • Add the area to the General Plan Land Use Diagram • Clarify the plan area is of interest to the City of Lodi and should be included within it's, and not Stockton's, future planning area • Clarify the City's intent to preserve the area as a agriculture/greenbelt community separator between Lodi and Stockton • Provide for continued Task Force efforts to develop a plan for the area November 29, 2006 14 Environmental Assessment • City prepared Initial Study and Negative Declaration (IS/ND) • No change to existing environmental condition would result • Released for 22 -day public review and comment period from 10/9/06 through 10/30/06 • 11 comment letters received; each individually responded to in Exhibit A of Attachment 13 • No comments received raise new environmental issues that would require recirculation of the IS/ND November 29, 2006 15 Task Force Deliberations on Amendments • Community workshop with Greenbelt Task Force on October 10, 2006 — 7 of 19 Task Force members and 22 private citizens in attendance — General concerns/comments — Moving forward prematurely given City-wide General Plan update — Property owners would like more time to develop plan — Sentiment that the City not responding to plan area property owners' desires — Property owners want to stay in County November 29, 2006 16 Planning Commission Deliberations on Amendments Public Hearing on November 8, 2006 • Received staff report, 20 speakers, deliberated on amendments • Comments/questions posed to staff — Agency with jurisdiction over parcels within S01 and outside City limits — Ability to amend S01 but retain PRR north of Armstrong Road — Process to cancel Williamson Act contracts — Task Force's role related to Implementation Program LU -19 — Unjustness of amendments because landowners not represented by Council — Need to keep Lodi and Stockton separated by agriculture — Need to understand property owners plan before acting on amendments — Need for landowner consensus be acting on amendments — Sentiment that amendments are good for Lodi November 29, 2006 17 Recommendation on Amendments Planning Commission recommends that City Council • Adopt the Negative Declaration for the City -initiated General Plan and Sphere of Influence amendments and direct staff to file a Notice of Determination of this action with the County Clerk; and • Approve the City -initiated General Plan Amendment to establish a new Agriculture/Greenbelt General Plan land use designation, identify the 3% square mile Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area as Agriculture/Greenbelt on the General Plan Land Use Diagram, and make amendments to General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs clarifying the City's intent to preserve the plan area as an agriculture/greenbelt community separator between Lodi and the City of Stockton; and • Request that San Joaquin County LAFCO amend the City's Sphere of Influence to include the 31/2 square mile Agriculture/Greenbelt plan area. November 29, 2006 18 End of Presentation November 29, 2006 Questions? 19 EXTRA SLIDES FOR BACKGROUND FROM THIS POINT FORWARD November 29, 2006 20 Overview of City's Efforts to Establish Greenbelt/Community Separator • 1991 General Plan: 21 policies provide framework to establish greenbelt area • Late 1990's: Established 2x2x2 Greenbelt Committee • December 2003: Council established 19 -member Community Separator/Greenbelt Task Force November 29, 2006 21 Community Separator/Greenbelt Task Force Task Assigned by Council "Explore and investigate the variety of models available, and as utilized in various cities, to accomplish the community separation/open space goal, and make a recommendation to the City Council for the option that works best for Lodi." November 29, 2006 22 Community Separator/Greenbelt Task Force • • Task Force Activities • Met approximately 20 times since December 2003 • Considered a Preliminary Draft Program in 2004 — Property owners expressed opposition to Draft Program — Requested time to develop a program acceptable to them, as well as achieve the City's objective of establishing a greenbelt/community separator — August 15, 2006: Property owners presented their proposal • Stay within the County • Rezone the area to Limited Agriculture (AL -5) — Task Force has not yet reached consensus on any of the elements of this Draft Program 'Ilr November 29, 2006 23 Stockton 2035 General Plan Update • June 2003: Stockton General Plan update began • February 2005: Published Draft 2035 General Plan Land Use Plan • Expands urban uses north of Eight Mile Road with "Village" designation • "Village" demarcates area Stockton intends to annex over life of 2035 General Plan. November 29, 2006 24 Draft Stockton 2035 General Plan Land Use Plan 2 City of Ladi E 11.1R El LN z y November 29, 2006 25 Stockton 2035 General Plan Update • North of proposed "Village" area, identified as "Open Space/Agriculture" • Open Space/Agriculture parcels would — Remain under County jurisdiction — Minimum parcel size of 40 acres — Uses consistent with underlying County designation • Stockton 2035 General Plan Update not adopted • December 1, 2006 — Anticipated release of Draft General Plan and EIR November 29, 2006 26 Parcels Under Farmland Preservation Contracts • 24 parcels under Farmland Security Zone and/or Williamson Act Contracts • Contracts restrict parcels to agricultural or open space uses in return for reduced property tax assessments November 29, 2006 27 Parcels Under Farmland Preservation Contracts LEGEND ■ �■ae■ EXISTING LODI SPHERE • OF INFLUENCE (SOI) i .N AG/GREENBELT PLAN ..I AREA AND PROPOSED SOI AMENDMENT FARMLAND SECURITY PARCELS ALSO UNDER WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT WILIJAMSCN ACT LODI CITY LIMITS WATER FEATURE, CANAL OR SLOUGH November 29, 2006 28 Lodi General Plan Update --iir • City authorized contract with consultant on May 17, 2006 • Joint PC/CC General Plan kick-off meeting on September 4, 2006 • Stakeholder interviews, community survey, and community workshops from November 2006 through February 2007 • Project completion of General Plan in August 2008 November 29, 2006 29 Why no EIR? Why no Environmental Impact Report (EIR)? • Amendments would not change zoning, allowed uses, or regulations for area • No development is proposed • No change to the existing environmental condition would result • No significant impacts would result Therefore, no EIR is required November 29, 2006 30 Reduced Plan Area Y1I11111 =Mly=ray 1111 111 1111 III 1II b I 1 11111 I X111 II I..f11i' Mpk_ I • Y ■4 ..y 111..1 II ILIINII!11 • 11111 fL 11111 1111. 11 1111. 11' ,.nn. 1 :1.1111 1111 1.111E .p11 MLA =111; PRR 1.4 7-I ■ a • ..r.YS77.CtJ •..rr'r November 29, 2006 31 Reduced S01 Amendment Area PLAN AREA 2I) W itrttlart , to EXISTING SOI 1 a it • PROPOSED 801 AMENDMENT MICKE GROVE REGIONAL C- PARC November 29, 2006 32 �iGR /1 C AB1 REE ,...131RCAWNJ . Attorneys A6 t Law Steven A. Herum sherum@herumcrabtree.com November 29, 2006 Honorable Members of the City Council Lodi City Hall P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, California 95241 Re: Initial Study/Negative Declaration No. 06-02 For General Plan Text and Land Use Diagram Amendments to Establish Agricultural/Greenbelt Designation and Plan Area and Sphere Of Influence (SOI) Amendment for Agriculture/Greenbelt Plan Area (October 2006) Dear Honorable Members of the City Council: This office represents the Armstrong Road Property Owners, an unincorporated association of property owners, taxpayers and voters in San Joaquin County and the City of Lodi who are vitally interested in the land use policies and environmental practices of the City of Lodi. This letter is written on their behalf. 1. The Initial Study Fully Defeats the Legal Basis for the Sphere of Influence/General Plan Amendment or, in the Alternative, truncates the Project Description to Understate Environmental Effects of the Proposal. A. The Initial Study Defeats the Legal Basis for the Sphere of Influence/General Plan Amendment. 1. Purpose of a Sphere of Influence. The Government Code defines a "sphere of influence" as follows: "'Sphere of influence' means a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the commission." 2291 \A sf )VMrck Lane Suite 8100 Stockton, CA 95207 • Tel 209.472./700 • Fax 209.472.7986 • Modes+o Tel. 209.525.8444 A Professional Corporation Honorable Members of the City Council November 29, 2006 Page 2 The State of California General Plan Guidelines defines "sphere of influence" similarly: it is "[a]dopted by the LAFCO, [and] encompasses incorporated and unincorporated territory that is the city's ultimate service area." State of California General Plan Guidelines at 11. It adds: "A sphere of influence is a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a city or district, as determined by the LAFCO (§56076). This plan serves as a basis for making future annexation decisions and is intended to provide for orderly growth and development. Annexation of land outside the 501 is generally not allowed." 2. The proposed sphere of influence does not meet the minimum criteria for a sphere of influence. Does the proposed sphere of influence amendment meet the criteria for a sphere of influence as defined by state law and the accompanying state guidelines? The initial study's evaluation eviscerates the validity of the proposed sphere of influence. The Initial Study states, "The proposed amendments would not result in any physical development. [page 2] Further, the City of Lodi is not pursing annexation of the plan area as a part of this project. As such, no change in existing service providers would result and correspondingly, no analysis is provided speculating which services may eventually be provided by the City in the future...." A leaders in the so-called greenbelt movement, Councilman Hansen concedes that the sphere of influence is not intended to depict the ultimate urban boundary of Lodi but instead is intended to obstruct expansion of Lodi's urban boundary: "Our attempt to expand the sphere of influence is intended to create a pause on the speculation that the city of Stockton will eventually annex up to the current borders of Lodi. Let's recognize the area in question for what it is: part of Lodi, not Stockton. Mr. Gill also accused the council of misusing the sphere of influence to create a community separator. To that charge I plead guilty — with explanation. We are indeed using our sphere of influence to create a community separator. The spheres are used to a community's area of interest and \'\2003-prolaw\Prolaw\docume nts\2576-001\SAH\60094. doc Honorable Members of the City Council November 29, 2006 Page 3 LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission) is charged with making decisions promoting community separators." Lodi News Sentinel May 17, 2006 (guest editorial authored by Larry Hansen) (emphasis added). Similarly, the Mayor confirmed this purpose and intent: "The council's action to increase its sphere of influence south of Harney Lane is designated to preserve farming, open space and protect the agricultural traditions of the Lodi area." Lodi News Sentinel October 21, 2006 (guest editorial written by Susan Hitchcock) (emphasis added). These purposes, intentions and designs are fully antagonistic with the statutory purpose and basis for establishing and expanding a sphere of influence. Stated slightly differently, the sphere of influence represents the "ultimate public service boundary" for a city and is generally correlated to the term of the general plan. This proposal symbolically turns the sphere of influence on its head, making it a plan that thwarts the expansion of municipal services rather than enable the logical expansion of provisions for urban services. As a result, the proposal does not meet state standards and the City's initial study impermissibly truncates the review of potential environmental effects by materially misstating the characteristics and features of a sphere of influence. To put a finer point on it, Lodi's application to LAFCO for a sphere of influence change will require it to prepare and submit a municipal plan of service. This plan of service will demonstrate how Lodi will provide municipal services to the affected area. A legally sufficient plan of service will fully contradict the predicates and assumptions that the City's Initial Study relied upon. It will also constitute "substantial new information" as defined by Public Resources Code §21166 and CEQA Guidelines §15162(a) (3). B. The City of Lodi has asserted a Sphere of Influence application cannot ignore the consequences of this change to land uses. Interestingly, the City of Lodi, when commenting on a 2004 proposed sphere of influence by the City of Stockton, based on a negative declaration and not an EIR, claimed that an environmental review for a sphere of influence must: \\2003-prolaw\Prolaw\documents\2576-001\SAH\60094. doc Honorable Members of the City Council November 29, 2006 Page 4 "take into account the ultimate buildout that would reasonably occur as a result of a sphere of influence amendment....[and] a sphere of influence amendment creates 'irreversible momentum toward ultimate build out' and the impact of the `whole action must be evaluated." City of Lodi July 8, 20004 letter to City of Stockton at 4 (emphasis added). Relevant to this action, the City of Lodi cited to City of Antioch v. City of Pittsburgh for the principle that: "Environmental review cannot be deferred until reasonably foreseeable future development is, in fact, proposed...The fact that future development may take several forms or that it may never occur does not excuse environmental review or the project which is the catalyst for the projected future growth. The fact that the extent and location of such growth cannot now be determined does not excuse the County from preparation of an EIR." Id. at 8 (emphasis added). Relevant to this discussion the City of Lodi observed that its 2004 White Slough EIR "finds that air quality impacts were potentially significant" and "[t]his evidence and analysis contained in Lodi's Draft EIR provide substantial evidence of a potentially significant environmental impact here, precluding Stockton's reliance on a negative declaration." Id. at 9. The import of this statement is significant and obvious: if Lodi believed that its 2004 EIR presented substantial evidence and analysis of a potentially significant environmental effect thereby precluding Stockton from processing a sphere of influence application on the basis of a negative declaration then the argument applies with equal dignity to Lodi itself. [Lodi did not limit this argument to the environmental effect of air quality. It also observed that the same result was true concerning biological resources and endangered species. 1d. at 10.] This point of view was the centerpiece of the Petition for Writ of Mandate filed by the City of Lodi against the City of Stockton's negative declaration for Stockton's Sphere of Influence project: "Permitting Stockton and/or Real Parties to proceed as planned would undermine any meaningful environmental review of any proposed development in the future in light of \ \2003-prolaw\Prolaw \documents\2576-001\SAH\60094. doc Honorable Members of the City Council November 29, 2006 Page 5 the momentum that has been created as a result of Stockton's approvals of negative declarations for the project." First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate Case No CV 024720 Para. 19 at page 7 (emphasis added). 2 A Negative Declaration is Unavailable to the City of Lodi When Proposing a Sphere of Influence Amendment. The point is straightforward: based upon immediate past actions and statements, the City of Lodi cannot argue that a sphere of influence amendment such as the one pending is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act. In part, substantial evidence produced by an earlier certified EIR by the City of Lodi provides a fair argument that the sphere of influence application may have a significant environmental effect. [Certified EIRs, such as Lodi's earlier EIR, constitute "substantial evidence" supporting an argument of a potential significant environmental effect. CEQA Guideline §15121(c).] In addition, the City of Lodi has repeatedly represented that spheres of influence create "irreversible momentum" toward an "ultimate" urban build out that must be studies before approving the sphere of influence even if "the extent and location of such growth cannot now be determined." Applying this belief to the immediate situation, the environmental analysis is highly truncated and fails to address the potential effects of the project. The legal purpose and justification for the sphere of influence application is that it represents the ultimate boundary of Lodi's plan to provide public services during the planning period. Yet, within the Initial Study, Lodi contradicts this clear legal purpose and argues that no environmental review is required because this area is being set aside to prevent or impair urbanization. The internal contradictions eviscerate both the sphere of influence application and the CEQA review. We wonder, for instance, how will Lodi complete an application to LAFCO? Local LAFCO regulations require a sphere of influence application to include a plan of municipal service. What will the plan of municipal service consists of in this instance? The dilemma is obvious: a legally sufficient plan of municipal service will contradict the position of the City and Council and Initial Study that the sphere of influence is not for urbanization. \\2003-prolaw\Prolaw\documents\2576-001\SAH\60094. doc Honorable Members of the City Council November 29, 2006 Page 6 3. Conduct at the Planning Commission Prevents the City Council from Receiving an Independent Recommendation from the Planning Commission as Required by State Law. State Planning and Zoning Law, applicable to general law cities such as Lodi, requires a planning commission to impartially review proposed zoning and general plan amendments and independently recommend approval of the amendments to the City Council. Gov. Code §§65100, 65353, 65354, 65855; Lodi Municipal Code §§2.16.010, 2.16.030. (Indeed the Council's role is to "approve, modify or disapprove the recommendation of the Planning Commission". Gov.C. §65356.) Unfortunately, conduct at the Planning Commission hearing unduly influenced the commission's recommendation thereby tainting the recommendation and depriving the City Council of the ability to consider the proposed sphere of influence expansion and general plan amendment as intended by the statutory scheme enacted by the State Planning and Zoning Law. "A primary goal of statutory construction is ascertainment of the legislative intent so that the purpose of the law may be effectuated. Statutes should be given a reasonable interpretation which comports with the apparent purpose and intent of the legislature. Statutory language must be read in context, keeping in mind the nature and purpose of the enactment, and must be given such interpretation as will promote rather than defeat the objective of the law." Contra Costa Theatre, inc. v. Redevelopment Agency (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 860, 864; see also Twain Harte Homeowners Ass'n v. County of Tuolumne (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 664, 698-699 ("[e]very word, phrase, and provision of a statute was intended to have some meaning and perform some useful function...") (emphasis added). In this case, the statutory policy underlying Government Code sections 65354 and 65855 is plain: members of the planning commission are experienced in matters of planning and development, and their opinions on such topics are significant, Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 155; hence, their independent and unbiased recommendations on planning issues aides legislative bodies in making thoughtful and orderly municipal planning decisions in the public interest. Stated differently, the State Planning and Zoning Law legislative scheme concerning general plan amendments integrates a planning commission recommendation as a major feature of that scheme. The legislative scheme and purpose cannot be attained if this recommendation is empty, pointless or subject to prejudice. This approach is required in order to "honor the legislative scheme." Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Ca1.4th 377, 394. \\2003-prolaw\Prolaw\documents\2576-001\SAH\60094. doc Honorable Members of the City Council November 29, 2006 Page 7 A valid planning commission recommendation, therefore, is a condition precedent to the City Council's consideration of a proposed zoning and general plan amendment. Gov. Code §§65354, 65855. A City Council is deprived of its police power to make such planning decisions when an impartial planning commission recommendation is lacking. Indeed, relying on a planning commission recommendation when several appointive planning commissioners were unduly influenced by the very council member who appointed them necessarily defeats the statutory objectives of sections 65354 and 65855. Thus, in order to attain the statutory goals delineated in Government Code sections 65354 and 65855, a planning commission's recommendation must be free from improper outside influence. Mayor Hitchcock's subtle attempt to influence certain Planning Commissioners into recommending approval of the amendment taints the Planning Commission's recommendation in violation of State Planning and Zoning Law. For nearly two decades, Mayor Hitchcock has been an outspoken proponent of creating a "Green Belt" between Lodi and Stockton. See The Stockton Record, Larger Sphere of Influence Would Affect Properties (Nov. 28, 2006), attached to this letter as Exhibit "A". Not surprisingly, Mayor Hitchcock again passionately stated her position at the Planning Commission hearing speaking in favor of the Project. Mayor Hitchcock's presentation contained what can only be characterized as a thinly veiled attempt to unduly influence those members of the Planning Commission whom she appointed to the commission. Mayor Hitchcock conveniently reminded members of the Planning Commission that they were planning for the residents of Lodi that voted for council members that out you on in your positions..." See Excerpt from November 8, 2006 Planning Commission Hearing Transcript, attached to this letter as Exhibit "B" at 1. As a result of this undue influence, the Planning Commission voted four to three to recommend approval. And, not coincidentally, the Mayor herself appointed all four members of the Planning Commission who "rubber-stamped" the approval under the Mayor's watchful eye. Such blatantly partial actions necessarily deprive the Planning Commission's recommendation of any independence, and, hence, any validity under Government Code sections 65354 and 65855. The Planning Commission's tainted review and recommendation also runs afoul of procedural due process requirements, including the requirement to provide a fair hearing "before a reasonable impartial, noninvolved reviewer," \\2003-prolaw\Prolaw\documents\2576.001\SAH\60094. doc Honorable Members of the City Council November 29, 2006 Page 8 Nasha LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 470, 483 (emphasis in original). Where, as here, the general plan amendment affects a discrete number of persons who are exceptionally affected by the action, procedural due process restraints apply. See Harris v. County of Riverside (9th Cir. 1990) 904 F.2d 497, 502 (holding that a county's adoption of a general plan amendment that redesignated the plaintiff's property from commercial to residential uses was subject to procedural due process requirements, even though general plan amendments normally are considered legislative actions); Londoner v. Denver (1908) 210 U.S. 373, 385 (holding that procedural due process constraints apply when a decision concerns a relatively small number of persons who are exceptionally affected, in each case upon individual grounds). Mayor Hitchcock's influence over the Planning Commission's recommendation rendered the hearing patently unfair in violation of imperative procedural due process protections. Due process in an administrative hearing "demands an appearance of fairness and the absence of even a probability of outside influence on the adjudication." Nightlife Partners, Ltd. v. City of Beverly Hills (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 81, 90. In fact, the broad applicability of administrative hearings to the various rights and responsibilities of citizens and businesses militate in favor of assuring such hearings are fair. id. at 90-91 (noting that these fairness mandates relate equally to state-wide administrative agencies as well as local municipal and county boards and commissions). Discretely reminding members of the Planning Commission that she "put them in their positions", and by implication, could remove them if they did not vote as she wanted, surrounded the administrative hearing with an aura of unfairness. More importantly, such conduct gives rise to a distinct possibility of improper outside influence. This is especially so since Mayor Hitchcock appointed the only Planning Commissioners who voted to recommend approval. The failure to fiercely guard procedural due process rights prohibits the City Council's consideration of the proposed sphere of influence expansion and general plan amendment. 4- Conclusion. At the end of the day the City of Lodi cannot have it both ways. Either: (a) the proposed sphere of influence application has the legally minimum features of a sphere of influence, in which case the Initial Study underestimates and truncates an analysis of environmental effect; or, (b) the proposed sphere of influence lacks the minimum features of a sphere of influence, in which case the sphere cannot be considered by the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission. \\2003-prolaw\Prolaw\documents\2578.001\SAH\80094. doc Honorable Members of the City Council November 29, 2006 Page 9 This approach is simply an effort to take the property rights of the affected property owners without due process of law. The City has substituted a regulation for a gun when involuntarily taking the property owners' Constitutionally protected rights. Finally this letter incorporates by reference the City of Lodi's certified EIR prepared for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Sphere of Influence Program, the City of Lodi's July 8, 2004 letter to the City of Stockton, the City of Lodi's First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate filed September 23, 2004, its letter to the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission opposing the City of Stockton sphere of influence applications, the City of Lodi files regarding the White Slough Sphere of Influence and the City of Lodi files regarding the City of Lodi's opposition to the City of Stockton's 2004 Sphere of Influence applications. Very truly your STEVEN A. HERUM Attorney -at -Law SAH:Iac \2003-prolaw\Prolaw\documents \2576-001 \SAH\60094.doc Page 1 of 2 News FARMERS FIGHTING LODI PLAN LARGER SPHERE OF INFLUENCE WOULD AFFECT PROPERTIES By Jeff Hood November 28, 2006 Lodi Bureau Chief LODI - Dwindling agricultural land between Stockton and Lodi someday might be impractical to farm, according to those who, like their ancestors did, earn a living by working the rich soil. Not only do lower-cost food and wine imports make farming less profitable, but encroaching suburbs also mean more vandalism, crop theft and neighbors' complaints. Those are only some of the reasons farmers in that area say Lodi's proposal to create an agricultural buffer between the cities through legislation isn't fair. "It's under the pretense of preserving agriculture," said Jerry Fry of Mohr -Fry Ranches. "No one here has been asked what's the best way to preserve agriculture." Although they say they intend to keep farming, 10 farmers who met with The Record on Monday said their biggest objection to Lodi's plan is that a permanent buffer takes away options for their families, which could include selling land for development in future generations. The City Council is scheduled to vote Wednesday on expanding its sphere of influence south of Armstrong Road and creating a 3112 -square -mile zone where only agricultural uses would be permitted. "What they're saying is you can't do anything except this forever," said Bob Carloni, who grows alfalfa south of Lodi. "I say, let the natural course of events happen." The farmers said Monday that such a plan, if passed by the City Council and approved by the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission, burdens them with providing an amenity to Lodi residents at no cost to the city. "The city of Lodi is like a stepfather that I don't like, ordering us around," farmer Domenico DellaMaggiora said. "Leave us alone. We just want some options. That's what we want." Wednesday's City Council discussion is the closest Mayor Susan Hitchcock has come to creating a greenbelt in two decades' work on the issue, first with the Lodi Planning Commission and the past eight years on the Lodi City Council Hervision of open space from Eight Mile Road to Harney Lane has shrunk in recent years. Stockton plans to grow north of its current city limits and Lodi south by a half -mile. Hitchcock, who has made a greenbelt the focus of her tenure on the City Council, was rewarded Nov. 7 by being elected to a third term. She was picked on nearly 60 percent of ballots in the eight -candidate race for three seats. The day after the election, she listened to farmers at a Lodi Planning Commission meeting who objected to the city's extended planning area. "The only conclusion I can draw is they would like to be part of Stockton's sphere of influence so they can develop," http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061128/A NEWS/611280323&... 11/28/2006 Page o Hitchcock said. "Unfortunately, that's not in Lodi's best interest. Do we go with sprawl and malls, or do we look to preserve our historic heritage of agriculture? Lodi's at that crossroad." Even if the City Council approves the proposal, affected farmers said they doubt LAFCO would allow the expanded planning area. Bruce Baracco. LAFCO's executive officer, said he doesn't know of any similar effort by a city elsewhere in the state to add property under its control for open space. "Historically. the general rule has been if the property owner does not want to be included in the sphere, LAFCO takes that into consideration and tries to balance that," Baracco said. "Keep in mind, too, that a normal sphere program would commit an area to development, and, in this case, it's designed to commit an area to agriculture and open space." Farmers said Monday that they're still willing to go along with a proposal they made in August to a Hitchcock - appointed task force that would restrict development on their property to one home for every 5 acres. "It's in its infancy, and we have not finished developing that plan," grape grower Mike Manassero said. "Now the city thinks there's an urgency for completing their plan today." Hitchcock said there's nothing in the farmers' offer that's incompatible with an expansion of the city's planning area If Lodi's proposal is adopted, property owners might even be able to develop 5 -acre ranchettes sooner than they would otherwis "We support the plan they submitted, and we're proceeding in that direction," Hitchcock said. ''(Allowing 5 -acre lots is compensation. Otherwise it would be years out before they could develop." City Manager Blair King said that even if Lodi's proposal isn't approved by LAFCO, it announces that Lodi is seriou about having a say over development south of Armstrong Road. "It's an issue of self-determination," King said. "For Lodi, it's who is going to control that area. I don't see urban development happening there unless Lodi allows it." Contact Lodi Bureau Chief Jeff Hood at (209) 367-7427 or jhood@recordnet.com http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.d11/article?AID=/20061128/A_NEWS/611280323& 1/28/200 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING Partial Record of PC Meeting on November 8, 2006 Susan Hitchcock: 1, Susan Hitchcock, Lodi City Council - you know I sat in your chair for thirteen years, and it is always very difficult when you are discussing land use issues. And this is very difficult when you have a bunch of individuals here who have property in the area, and while I appreciate their situation, and had I been ... had land in that area I would probably be here as well speaking up and trying to keep the highest value for my land, which is a speculative value. However, as a Planning Commissioner, or as a Council Member, we don't represent the farmers that are in this room. We want to respect the rights they have as their property, and the property rights that are associated with Ag 40, and I think that Mr. Frye made a really important point that whatever we do, we need to try to assist them to maintain the viability of farming. And, you know, who knows what that will like down the road 50 years from now. I won't be here to make that decision, and maybe something will change, but at this point in time when you are planning for Lodi, you are planning for the 60,000 people that live in Lodi that voted for council members that put you on in your positions, and you have an obligation to represent them. And unfortunately, sometimes that does go contrary to what others outside the City may want to do. When you look at ... I know as an elected representative what I hear aver and over again is let's please don't grow together with Stockton, and I know you made the comment about, or someone made the comment I've never seen so many people afraid for the cities to merge. Lodi has a lot of pride, a lot of pride of ownership, of their independence, much like these farmers do in terms of their land, and I have learned that in working with the Green Belt Task Force the last two years. They have a lot of pride, a lot of independence, fierce independence, and don't want anyone to tell them what to do with their land, and I respect that, I appreciate that, but at the same time as an elected official for a population of a city of 60,000, we have the responsibility to direct the future of the city, and what that will look like, and unfortunately our neighbor to the south doesn't have the same growth policies that we have. They are much more rapidly growing. Mr. Hatch will tell you that when he worked for the City of Stockton ten years ago they said they will never cross Eight Mile Road. Here we are, they currently are ready to submit or have submitted a Spanos plan that goes a mile and a half north of Harney Lane, and that's both east and west, it's 2,000 acres east and west of 1-5. So, they can amend their general plan four times a year, and if someone comes in with a project that happens to be a half mile south of Harney Lane, because that's all our sphere of influence currently goes is one half mile south of Harney Lane. That's it. And if they came in with a project not to us, but to Stockton, and said let's amend the general plan, let's move this into the sphere of influence for Stockton, you know what I would not be surprised if they would approve it. Thirteen years on the Planning Commission, eight years on the City Council, I worked on a 2 x 2 x 2 group with the County, the City of Stockton, and the City of Lodi trying to work towards a Green Belt community separater. When I was on the Planning Commission, I worked on a group with the City of Stockton trying to work on a community separater. All I saw was further growth north. Lodi must determine its own destiny, and we must represent the people — unfortunately not the farmers that live here, but the people that live in the City of Lodi, and I think that the -2- overwhelming majority of them wish to maintain their own identity, that wish to maintain that sense of pride they have as a separate city, not as the Elk Grove model, and not as part of North Stockton. So, it's difficult -- you know it's difficult. You are charged with a difficult decision. The Green Belt Task Force has been working for two years, that too has been a challenge, but we did come up with a compromise, and frankly I embrace that compromise, and those farmers who were at the meeting know that I embrace that compromise. And I look forward to working through that, but we can't work through it if we don't have the sphere of influence to work through it in. If it's all of a sudden in Stockton, and you know I am sure there are individuals here who would like to continue farming, and that's what I would like to protect their ability to do that. There are others, I'm sure, who want to develop, and I am sorry that I can't accommodate that, but I have to look at the entire City of Lodi and not the individual interests whether they be my own. Currently, they have the ability and will have the ability under the sphere of influence to use their land as it is currently zoned. None of you can come in here .. . Man: Sony, I've got to cut you off. We are giving everybody five minutes, and you have gone over that. Susan Hitchcock: Okay, thank you for your time. -3- Randi Joh! Page 1 of 1 From: Blair King Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 4:31 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: Greenbelt Language Agriculture/Greenbelt Study Area: This Study Area designation providcscstablishes the City's desire to provide for the conservation and continued productive use of valuable agricultural ("ag") lands surrounding Lodi's urbanized area, ensures for a rural community separator between Lodi and the City of Stockton, and to serve as a visual amenity around urban development. 419—It is the City's intent that in addition to agricultural and agricultural -related uses, single-family homes, parks, and open space uses eewould be iaootcdpermitted within the agriculture/greenbelt area. Bcooucc the City has cctabliohcdFurther it is the City's intent to bring this area into its Sphere of Influence and develop policies that would establish this area to retain low -intensity rural uses; and as a result the extension of municipal services (e.g., sewer, water, storm water) may not be provided. The Study Area designation will not change the existing County General Plan Designation or Zoning which currently requires a minimum parcel size of 40 acres for the creation of new lots +n tOlis arco is 10 aorcs, and permits only one residential unit per parcel is allowcd. Comprised of approximately 2,280 acres, the ag/greenbelt study area is located south of Lodi's existing City limits and extends 1/2 -mile north of Armstrong Road, approximately '/z- to 3/4 -mile south of Armstrong Road, approximately 3/4 -mile west of Lower Sacramento Road to the west, and is bounded by State Route 99 to the east, as depicted on the Land Use Diagram. an avcragc of 2.76 personc per houce.14ald. r - Implementation Program LU -19: The City shall establish a program addressing the long-range preservation and development within agriculture/greenbelt areas. Thic Study Area. The process for developing this program shall include, at a minimum, a thorough planning process involving all interested stake -holders (including local farmers, residents and business owners within the City limits, study area, and surrounding community) that would result in). The Program shall address jurisdictional control/cooperation, the specific locations and intensities of land uses, circulation system, infrastructure, services, a financing plan, whether rezoning is warranted, as well as design guidelines and other implementation measures. The Program shall also consider incentives for property participation such as a transfer of development rights program. 12/01/2006 DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE Privately ' owned acreage in SOI 00 0 7-74 000`st 80 acres 0 00 Privately Publicly owned owned acreage acreage in city in SOI 00 0 0 200 VD N Publicly Agency owned acreage in city 0 0 00 3,285 Several thousand City of Novato City of San Rafael City of San Juan Capistrano City of Chino Hills City of Ventura City of Thousand Oaks City of Rohnert Park City of Claremont Lodi City Council C/o Randi Johl Lodi City Clerk Lodi City Hall 221 W. Pine St., 2"d Floor Lodi_ CA 95240 Seryl : fry, 5r. 12495 N ` i st Lane Lodi, California 95240-9424 November 27, 2006 RE: Hearing Notice: General Plan Amendment and Sphere of Influence Amendment to Establish an Agriculture/Greenbelt Dear Lodi City Council Members: We, as property owners in the affected area, are opposed to the negative declaration for the proposal, as well as the proposal itself, to expand the Sphere of Influence and establish an Agricultural/Greenbelt land use designation, while removing a pre-existing PRR designation. A full FIR should be required. This is an ill-advised land grab by the City to establish a separator, without any intention to provide services, and develop the Project's enclosed properties in any reasonable amount of time. The City's 2% requirement, for controlling growth, assures this. The Project studies do not address all the effects on the agricultural area, and the property owners are basically disenfranchised_ The preponderance of prior testimony on the subject at the October 10th Greenbelt Task Force meeting, and the November 8th Planning Commission Hearing was in opposition to the proposal. The Task Force meeting was stated to be a "Community Workshop on City -Initiated General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendments to Establish Agriculture/Greenbelt Community Separator Between Lodi and Stockton" (See Attached Agenda). The City of Lodi is not listening! It is time for the City Council to also pay attention to those of us in the outlying area that contribute so much to the City's economy and charities. The property owners struggled long and hard to reach consensus to propose a recommendation to the land use problem. Let's work together, 209-368-7769 Home 209-334-3808 Office 209-368-9904 Pax 2 We, therefore, request that the City prepare a full EIR, or withdraw its project proposal. We appreciate your attention and consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, SPECIAL AGENDA City of Lodi Greenbelt Task Force October 10, 2006 7:00 p.m. to 9 p.m. Special Location: Carnegie Forum 305 W. Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 1. WELCOME COMMUNITY WORKSHOP ON CITY -INITIATED GENERAL PLAN AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENTS TO ESTABLISH AGRICULTURE/GREENBELT COMMUNITY SEPARATOR BETWEEN LODI AND STOCKTON 3. UPDATE ON STATUS OF STOCKTON GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 4. ECONOMIC CONSULTANT WORK IN -PROGRESS FOR NOVEMBER MEETING 5. NEXT STEPS As a property owner or interested person your input is important. Please attend one of our meetings to be more involved in this process. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Lynette Dias, Contract Planner, at 510-540-7331. 1 Sphere of Influence Randi Joh' Page 1 of 1 From: Beth Brampton [beth.brampton@aspirepublicschools.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 6:18 AM To: Randi Joh] Subject: Sphere of Influence Dear City Council members, I encourage you to extend the city's sphere of influence as soon as possible, and as widely as possible. I do not want to see wall-to-wall development in the Valley, and small cities like Lodi can and must stand in the way. Stockton will not respect any invisible borders and keep its distance, just to be polite. I want to live in a small town, not LA! Do your best for the farmers,but I'm looking for effective action on a greenbelt to protect our precious connnunity. Thank you. Beth Brampton 11/29/2006 b -I When I saw this editorial I couldn't resist. Credit to Bob Johnson for recognizing that farmers may not be in the city limits but most of what the city claims to value depends on more than their survival. The council can legalize their way right into the extinction of Lodi's appeal. If the council continues to claim only voter's rights are important to them. If I were in the farming business I'd be highly considering livestock instead of pretty vineyards. Manipulation of the law works both ways. Lodi better wake up before the permanent agriculture zoning nearest the city becomes dairy or pig farms, chicken ranches, or how about mushroom farming. You know what they grow in? The smell of inequity might begin to really stink! r Gtirtsirk 3 Scdor, ,trze�� L4; t 95P -9c, t 77. r1 C) r State of the World t6,40.4.1% II- ;-‘1•0,0 kijaikergparKercon — irunr. e s - addi State of Lodi wig Lodi City Council Lj�4Elli1} 41tiesitir 1 t J Consider all rights, not just majority Editor: This letter is to Mayor Susan Hitchcock. In years past, I have admired the way you took a stand on what you thought was right during the water pollu- tion and cleanup litigation fias- co, However, part of good lead- ership is also recognizing that the rights of a few, the farming community, should not be ig- nored to serve the majority. The Wishes and wants of the general population of Lodians should not come at the cost of the people who own the land that we are so covetous to re- main unchanged. It is not like citizens of Lodi to stealfrom their neighbors. When has the government, the masses or the city been more important than an individual? History presents an ugly picture of the results of traveling down that road. Is Lo- di the charitable Christian community it claims to be? Coveting and stealing are still listed in the Ten Command- ments, or have we forgotten from where our freedom and blessings come? I have lived here for 20 years and I love the farmland sur- rOunding our community, too. I have made many friends that e farmers and landowners. They are some of the most gen- err:us, hardworking, dedicated individuals and families of this area. They have worked hard Our Readers Write for everything that they own. The Lodi land grab is despica- ble when landowners have come to the table to discuss al- ternatives to massive housing projects. If Lodi wants to increase their sphere of influence, let it be to increase the city as well as its services. Isn't that the func- tion of a city and its governing body? Are we also in the busi- ness of regulating the farming community? I keep hearing you say the majority of citizens want a greenbelt. When did,the major- ity get the right to steal? If the majority wants it, let them pay for it. Voicing what the majori- ty of Lodians know is right if they take the time to think of others. Karen Westerterp Lodi Our enemies applaud Democratic control .Editor: Now that the Democrats will be controlling America's des- tiny, celebrations are going on within countries which hate America and Americans. Mus- lim terrorists and murderers are singing songs of praise to Allah and endorsements for De- mocratic leadership have been made by al-Qaeda and countries such as Iran, North Korea and Mexico. As America, it's founding fa- thers, and Christian heritage are being vilified and demo- nized, the celebrations rage on. Our enemies applaud and cheer for elected Democrats, while America's unguarded borders are being swarmed by illegal in- vaders who are now assured of amnesty protection under De- mocratic leadership. As the De- mocratic party continues to support and promote racist Af- firmative Action, killing un- born children, socialist poli- cies, perverse homosexuality, il- legal immigrants, anti-American entities and a secular nation without Godly morals or values, it is crystal clear why murderers, terror- ists, and America's enemies are emboldened and gleeful that De- mocrats will be in control of America's fate. As American society moves away from and denies its Judeo- Christian heritage, and as cor- rupt government continues to embrace liberal ideals of glob- alism, secularism and social- ism, the inevitable demise of our "National Sovereignty," "One Nation Under God" and democracy as we know it, be- comes clearly visible. Don't be surprised to find Hillary Clinton as president in 2008, Barack Obama as vice president and of course Nancy Pelosi is speaker of the House. This is a formula for disaster and right on target for Ameri- ca's impending doom. Bryan Stamps Lodi LETTER INVITE' The Lodi News -Ser welcomes opinions readers. ! must be and inclu writer's ac and phon number. L longer ttk words wo, accepted. Send lett( PO. Box 1 Lodi, CA 1360; or e-mail to letters@lo com. "Di • I Randi Johl From: Ps Parises [psparises@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 10:49 AM To: Randi Joh! Subject: Public Comment on Green Belt It's a Thin Green Line not a belt! Page 1 of 1 The City Council is not trying to create a "Green Belt", but a Thin Green line hoping to separate Lodi from Stockton. If the City Council truly wants to preserve the agricultural separator around the City then encompass the whole town. What ever zoning change for the South should apply to the North, East and West. The council will not encompass the whole city because the properties to the west of town between I-5 and Lodi have already been purchased or optioned for future growth. If this Zoning change is approved, then are we setting precedence? Will other towns in San Joaquin County seek to do the same? The Myopia of the Council will create more problems in their new sphere of influence. An agriculture landscape speckled with residential homes sounds scenic and ideal, but it increases a farmer's liability. The City should be familiar with past pesticide problems in regards to ground water quality, but more importantly needs to be aware of the increase risk of pesticide drift onto residential properties. The more homes closer in proximity to a farming operation increase the difficulty of farmers to do their needed day to day tasks, Most of the Agricultural Pesticides used today are less toxic than in the past, but off target/off site pesticide drift is illegal and a great liability. Although farmers do have the "right to farm act", home owners have the right to sue, and many farmers have been sued over the past few years for excessive noise, dust, running tractors at night and PESTICIDE DRIFT and most of these suits occurred in large rural areas. The Green Line concept is noble dream that will be come a nightmare for farmers. Paul Parises 2259 S Ham Ln Lodi Paul Parises 11/29/2006 • November 29, 2006 Randy Hatch, Director Community Development Department City of Lodi P. O. Box 3006 Lod, CA 95242 Re: Proposed General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendment RECEIVED WA( 2 9 2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT CITY OF LODI I own property located within the area where the City of Lodi is proposing to amend it's General Plan. My property is under the jurisdiction of San Joaquin County. The City of Lodi is proposing to amend their General Plan and re -designate this area as Agriculture/Greenbelt (A!G), and also include the area in the city sphere of influence (S01). I am opposed to the City of Lodi's attempt to gain unfair control of the landowners property. This is a cheap attempt by the City of Lodi to control our land and take away our private property rights. The City of Lodi has not dealt fairly with the landowners. The City of Lodi has chosen not to work with the landowners is a great disappointment and shows the City's lack of respect of the landowners and their efforts to work towards a fair compromise. 1 am emphatically apposed to the City of Lodi's initiated General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendments. /75-0 Ay" '77.110''(-& los/ o IN 3 RECEIVED NUV 2 9 2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT CITY OF LODI November 29, 2006 Randy Hatch, Director Community Development Department City of Lodi P. 0. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241 Re: Proposed General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendment I own property located within the area where the City of Lodi is proposing to amend its General Plan and sphere of influence. My property is under the jurisdiction of San Joaquin County. This area is currently designated in the Lodi General Plan as "planned residential reserve (PRR)". The City of Lodi is proposing to amend their General Plan and re -designate this area as Agriculture/Greenbelt (A/G), and also include the area in the city sphere of influence (501). I do not support the City of Lodi's attempt to gain control of my land by amending its General Plan and Sphere of Influence. I vehemently oppose this action. It is regrettable that Lodi's City Council refused to consider the best interest of the citizens of Lodi and the landowners by failing to continue discussions regarding a compromise between the City and the landowners. I am apposed to any changes that are being proposed by the City of Lodi. Sincere 406( fiie • November 29, 2006 Randy Hatch, Director Community Development Department City of Lodi P. 0. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241 TD RECEIVED NU V 2 9 2006 ;OMMUNRY DEVELOPMENT DEP? CITY OF LODI Re: Proposed General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendment I own property located within the area where the City of Lodi is proposing to amend its General Plan and sphere of influence. My property is under the jurisdiction of San Joaquin County. This area is currently designated in the Lodi General Plan as "planned residential reserve (PRR) ". The City of Lodi is proposing to amend their General Plan and re -designate this area as Agriculture/Greenbelt (A/G), and also include the area in the city sphere of influence (50I). I do not support the City of Lodi's attempt to gain control of my land by amending its General.Plan and Sphere of Influence. I vehemently oppose this action. It is regrettable that Lodi's City Council refused to consider the best interest of the citizens of Lodi and the landowners by failing to continue discussions regarding a compromise between the City and the landowners. I am apposed to any changes that are being proposed by the City of Lodi. Sincerely ,i 752/1 ku RECEIVED NUv 29 2006 QTY` T DEPT CrTY OF November 29, 2006 Randy Hatch, Director Community Development Department City of Lodi P. 0. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241 Re: Proposed General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendment 1 own property located within the area where the City of Lodi is proposing to amend its General Plan and sphere of influence. My property is under the jurisdiction of San Joaquin County. This area is currently designated in the Lodi General Plan as "planned residential reserve (PRR) ". The City of Lodi is proposing to amend their General Plan and re -designate this area as Agriculture/Greenbelt (A/G), and also include the area in the city sphere of influence (S01). I do not support the City of Lodi's attempt to gain control of my land by amending its General Plan and Sphere of Influence. I vehemently oppose this action. It is regrettable that Lodi's City Council refused to consider the best interest of the citizens of Lodi and the landowners by failing to continue discussions regarding a compromise between the City and the landowners I am apposed to any changes that are being proposed by the City of Lodi. Sincerely, /40‘4 ,y..$Ji -kk .ep RECEIVED Nuv 2 9 2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT CITY OF LODI November 29, 2006 Randy Hatch, Director Community Development Department City of Lodi P. 0. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95242 Re: Proposed General Plan and Sphere of influence Amendment I own property located within the area where the City of Lodi is proposing to amend its General Plan. My property is under the jurisdiction of San Joaquin County. The City of Lodi is proposing to amend their General Plan and re -designate this area as Agriculture/Greenbelt (KG), and also include the area in the city sphere of influence (S01). 1 am opposed to the City of Lodi's attempt to gain unfair control of the landowners property. This is a cheap attempt by the City of Lodi to control our land and take away our private property rights. The City of Lodi has not dealt fairly with the landowners. The City of Lodi has chosen not to work with the landowners is a great disappointment and shows the City's lack of respect of the landowners and their efforts to work towards a fair compromise. 1 am emphatically apposed to the City of Lodi's initiated General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendments. c\ 1 gAlkAi 1 S - RECEIVED NO 2 9 2006 CONY DEVELOPMENT DEPT CITY OF LOO November 29, 2006 Randy Hatch, Director Community Development Department City of Lodi P 0. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241 Re: Proposed General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendment I own property located within the area where the City of Lodi is proposing to amend its General Plan and sphere of influence. My property is under the jurisdiction of San Joaquin County. This area is currently designated in the Lodi General Plan as "planned residential reserve (PRR) ". The City of Lodi is proposing to amend their General Plan and re -designate this area as Agriculture/Greenbelt (A/G), and also include the area in the city sphere of influence (S01). I do not support the City of Lodi's attempt to gain control of my land by amending its General Plan and Sphere of influence. I vehemently oppose this action. It is regrettable that Lodi's City Council refused to consider the best interest of the citizens of Lodi and the landowners by failing to continue discussions regarding a compromise between the City and the landowners. I am apposed to any changes that are being proposed by the City of Lodi. ev\,_ & —re. t. I Ae7c4,r j 1 3 q- was-ta n ref Com_ `j'SayL November 29, 2006 To: Members Lodi City Council City of Lodi, Ca. RECEIVED NUV 2 9 2006 , MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. CITY OF LODI Re: Lodi Greenbelt/Separator Plan Dear Council Members: • We, are property owners within the Armstrong Rd. where the City is planning to amend it's general plan. This area is under the jurisdiction of San Joaquin Co, not the City of Lodi. Initially, plans were to create a much larger greenbelt area, stretching from SR99 to 1-5, and from Harney Ln. south to Eightmile Rd. However, present plans have downsized the proposed area to a narrow strip in the Armstrong Rd. / Mettler Rd. area. The small area proposed by the City Of Lodi as a separator, is about 20 years too late. The public has been led to believe that by preserving this area and creating it as a Greenbelt, it preserves the land for farming. In order for Agriculture to remain in the area, it must remain a viable, economical activity. Agricultural activities are already feeling the impact of nearby development and urbanization. Trespassing, vandalism to crops, farm equipment as well as dumping of trash, and theft, are an ever increasing problem which the farmer must contend with. Additionally, complaints from adjoining home owners, concerned about noise, dust, odor caused by agricultural activities is creating an increasing negative impact on farming. Increased importing of agricultural products, as well as ever increasing regulations, are all having an effect on the survival of agriculture. This problem will only worsen for Agriculture if the small narrow separator is ever implemented. Many persons might be thinking -- What's wrong with a greenbelt? Nothing if the city pays_forit However, the City of Lodi has taken the position that it shouldn't have to pay for it because nothing will change. By creating a Greenbelt Agricultural designation for the area, Farmlands around Armstrong rd. will remain farmlands. What the City will really be taking away -- Without paying for it -- is the right of the property owners to put their properties to their best use. If the city is successful in amending their general plan, creating a Greenbelt Agriculture zoning for the area, it would likely cause Agriculture to be the dominant activity indefinitely, with little concern as to whether Agriculture would remain a viable activity. Recently, the Armstrong Rd. property owners announced a plan for the area, which could benefit all concerned. The property owners proposed that San Joaquin Co. pursue rezoning the area from the present AG -40 zoning to AG -5. The area would remain under County jurisdiction and would extend from Highway 99 westerly to the vicinity of Interstate 5. The change in zoning would allow 1 residence per 5 acres. As a comparison, residential areas within a city are usually developed allowing 4-5 residences per acre. This plan would allow a minimal amount of develoment, and could be a workable compromise to keep the two Cities separated. The plan proposed by the property owners is a long way from being finalized. However, through master planning, cooperation, and compromize among the property owners, the Cities of Lodi, Stockton and San Joaquin Co, a separator for the area could be created that would be a "Win -Win" situation for all concerned. It could also be an example for other areas seeking a separator to follow. This plan could be accomplished at a very minimal expenditure of taxpayer dollars. However, the City of Lodi, has not given the property owners an opportunity to work out the details of their plan. Over the objections voiced by the majority of the property owners in the affected area, the City is planning to amend it's general plan and SOI. It is apparent, that there is little regard for the property owners objections, and their concerns go unheeded. It is apparent, that the motive behind the Greenbelt / Separator plan is solely a way to keep our Stockton neighbors separated from Lodi. If this is a concern, then why doesn't the City of Lodi consider leaving the present PRR designation on the north side of Armstrong Rd. in place, and expand the PRR designation from Armstrong Rd. to Mettler Rd.? A SOI amendment of this type would indicate that Lodi has a future interest in the area, and would keep Stockton from growing north of Mettler Rd. We are adamently opposed to the city of Lodi amending it's general plan and SOI. Mayor Hitchock has stated numerous times that she wanted this to be a "Win -Win " situation for all concerned. Let's put into practice what we say. The city's planned amendment has driven a wedge between the property owners and the City. We need to cooperate and compromize, to come up with a plan. Some viable options are available. Let's all work together to create a separator that we can all be proud of. Sincerely, Mike J. and Leonard Manassero 2171 E. Armstrong Rd. Lodi, CA. 95242 Randi Joh! From: Rosemary Atkinson irosymoonatk@comcast.neti Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 3:04 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: SOI change vote CAMPAIGN FOR COMMON GROUND From: Campaign for Common Ground To: Lodi City Clerk Date: November 29, 2006 Page 1 of 2 We strongly support the City of Lodi in its attempt to conserve agricultural lands between Lodi and Stockton by amending its Sphere of Influence (SOI). Retaining an agricultural buffer between the two cities is a paramount goal of our group, as is working for ag buffers or community separators between all of the cities in San Joaquin County. We urge the City Council to approve the 501 amendment application and direct staff to forward the application to the San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). We also urge the Council to direct staff to better define the zoning and development regulations that should apply to the agricultural properties within the amended SOI. Further definition of how the SOI amended area will be implemented will be required by the LAFCo executive officer and the commission before they will support the city's application. The properties within the SOl amendment area are now governed by the AG -40 (Agriculture, 40 -acre minimum lot size) zoning regulations of San Joaquin County. We will strongly oppose any attempt to radically "up -zone" the agricultural area from 40 -acre lot minimums to allow for a proliferation of 5 -acre ranchettes. Such a move could destroy the agricultural viability of the area. The easiest way for the City to augment the SOI amendment application is to define (and "pre- zone") the agricultural properties by stating that the City intends to adopt a City zoning district that replicates the County AG -40 district, and apply it to the SOI area in order to retain the exact zoning regulations that are now in place. In closing, please cast a vote for the future of agriculture between Lodi and Stockton by approving this 301 amendment application. Signed, Ann Johnston, CCG Executive Committee Chair Campaign for Common Ground, P.O. Box 693545, Stockton, CA 95269 www.campaignforcommonground.org Phone: (209) 478-4380 11/29/2006 1) • i a�tfl S. 'z1c a . YS zy �-- v-- z7, o ab inctu, a stic ar eAL 4/A" kuitbot,v uu, •XttA,Qt,sei„ ;too t:GaYftt.li111,80.t., crv-t& 75ttLi /i) • ntakZ_ •€:T oPeet, Kitt eirn.c.b, t,tarL ice,, or4plitt efa . peziee•Lei,•�-h. cam.-+�=� Piu- ,e ctirru__O-a-An .04L-• . Y � , 4AdLt1/047 ereA..;6 'mom Mote- 7 c� er� or.� vol• -et, m,►- n1t Mut otAtt-. Jat -erti tz& doi44;t yyla-44__ --e-A_A-u_e_d_f tm00.4.e_41` (AMNE mtclikscA� Our Readers Write country s given us — A chance of : better life for our- selves and amities; an opportu- nity of ed ation and future for our kids a well as a social, legal freedom . r d sense of honor and respect. Gener. i y saying that back in our cou y we could not even dream o having the opportuni- ty of s b a freedom and other faciliti:. that we enjoy while liv- ing he I hope that everyone in our cu • unity will establish more their sense of responsi- bility, + espect and honor, and contri lute more efforts for peace nd prosperity. Mohammed Shoiab LOlii .. Voice concerns to help Armstrong Road farmers Editor: My family has been farming grapes on Armstrong Road for more than 50 years, We have al- ways been proud to say that we are "Lodians." Unfortunately, that is no longer true. Mayor Hitchcock made it "crystal clear" at the Nov 8 Planning Commission meeting that the farmers are not considered part of Lodi. A slap in the face would have hurt less! Mayor Hitchcock encouraged the Planning Commission to vote in favor of amending the city's Sphere of Influence, which will change the present designation of PRR to green- beltlagriculture. This change in zoning will severely restrict our property rights and . diminish the value of our land. Yet in a letter to the editor, dated Oct. 21, 2006, written by Mayor Hitch- cock, she states, "with immense potential in the wine industry and tourism, Lodi is on the cusp of transforming its economic base." We are not considered to be part of Lodi, yet Lodi has bene- fited financially from the farm- ers reputation of growing "qual- ity grapes." Lodi is now, a "wine destination" only through years of bard work attributed to the farmers and their financial con- tributions to the Lodi -Wood- bridge Wine Grape Commission. The city of Lodi has profited fi- nancially because of the farm- ers, through name recognition of our- wines, articles written in newspapers and magazines tout- ing Lodi's wines. This is not the only financial benefit Lodi receives. Farmers and their families spend their hard-earned money supporting Lodi's economy -- from farming supplies, equipment, parts, gasoline, diesel, sulfur, fertilizer, cars, trucks, not to mention food and clothing. The list could go on and on! How would Lodi's economy fair if the farmers were to spend their hard-earned dollars elsewhere, even though Lodi businesses are not at fault? I'm sure Lodi businesses would certainly feel the economic loss of the farmers' money. I hope that Local businesses and citi- zens of Lodi will support the Armstrong Road property own- ers by contacting members of the city council and voice your concerns. Grace Puccinelli Lodi Lodi N.:e* sentinel Fred Weybret Marty Weybret Chairman Publisher Richard Hanner Chuck Higgs Gary Greider Editor Advertising Director Circulation Manager li/-3/c) MEMORANDUM Office of the Lodi City Clerk TO: Members of the City Council FROM: Randi Johl, City Clerk DATE: December 1, 2006 SUBJECT: Supplemental Information -- November 29, 2006 Council Meeting Attached for informational purposes only, is the supplemental documentation provided by various public speakers at the Council meeting of November 29, 2006 regarding the Greenbelt matter. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the above. C: City Manager City Attorney Community Development Director File SAN JOAQUIN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION October 30, 2006 MEETING TODAY'S CHALLENGES / PLANNING FOR TOMORROW Mr. Randy Hatch, Director City of Lodi Community Development Department 221 W. Pine St. Lodi, CA 95240 Sent via facsimile to (209) 333-6842 RE: Proposed Lodi Greenbelt Dear Mr. Hatch, The San Joaquin Farm Bureau Federation opposes the proposed General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendments regarding the creation of an Agriculture/Greenbelt Community Separator. As stated in the project description, "the entire plan area is currently located outside of Lodi's existing SOI, as welt as Stockton's existing and proposed SOI boundaries and only the area located north of Armstrong Road is currently included within the General Plan's planning area." We do not see a need for the City of Lodi to preemptively seek amendments to the General Plan and Sphere of Influence. If the purpose of the description is true, that "the City of Lodi is not pursuing annexation of the plan area as part of this project," then the City of Lodi should leave this area under the jurisdiction of San Joaquin County. The plan also commented that this designation would provide a "visual amenity" around urban development. AEriculture is not a visual amenity. It is a business that requires innovation and flexibility to remain viable. The lands involved with production agriculture are not to look at, they are used to produce and provide for the many families that live and work off of the land. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and we encourage the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider any proposals brought forward by the affected landowners and San Joaquin County prior to a final decision. This cooperation will help all parties involved reach an amicable solution. A unilateral action by the City of Lodi affecting a landowner's private property is contrary to a "livable, loveable Lodi." Sincerely, Mike Robinson President 3290 NORTH AD ART ROAD • STOCKTON, CA • 95215 • (209) 931-4931 • (209) 931-1433 Fax WWW.SJFB.ORG • November 29, 2006 Randy Hatch, Director Community Development Department City of Lodi P. 0. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241 Re: Proposed General Plan and Sphere of Influence Amendment I own property located within the area where the City of Lodi is proposing to amend its General Plan and sphere of influence. My property is under the Jurisdiction of San Joaquin County. This area is currently designated in the Lodi General Pian as "planned residential reserve (PRR) ". The City of Lodi is proposing to amend their General Plan and re -designate this area as Agriculture/Greenbelt (A/G), and also include the area in the city sphere of influence (S01). I do not support the City of Lodi's attempt to gain control of my land by amending its Generai.Plan and Sphere of Influence. I vehemently oppose this action. It is regrettable that Lodi's City Council refused to consider the best interest of the citizens of Lodi and the landowners by failing to continue discussions regarding a compromise between the City and the landowners. I am apposed to any changes that are being proposed by the City of Lodi. Sincerely, d.7" Armstrong Road Property Owners 12609 N. West Ln., Lodi, CA 95240 We as property owners in the affected area are opposed to the City of Lodi's proposed amendment to expand its General Plan Area ( Sphere of influence ) to 112 mile South of Armstrong Road between Hwy 99 and approximately 1/8 mile West of Lower Sacramento Road. The area would be designated Greenbelt/ Agriculture. We are also opposed to the City's proposal to change the designation of the area 112 mile North of Armstrong Road from Planned Residential Reserve to Greenbelt/Agriculture. Address y> 1& -8_1 00 L(sf 5,43' APN Acres r 1� 1 �'lE eYoYJ Print Name s 1160'1 f\-)tivP kaki C Ly ,) Address givi)Signature iLut r 144-u Print Name% APN a- 61-- Signature i 0 1001:5" _D AQ:73 APN Acres -gig() f e t ((PeL ccs1.Y ( 67 2y' Address 4.e1 .`t qo /('rte (r- e+ (.c (IR en -29-0 Address ILL/27- I e a 1550 W Print Name APN Ams VA* */) / CI' ` LI (: 'SkRe Sign AddressC0.5g (00 (3 -, 13'� ..©1 f `x "4-7, , 4-i. 4") � ` ,tvesi2t)z ' ISP ' C> j' q 01( 0)- 5(0 '(1 rint Name Address APN 03-8 �04C. ( 7 •t `,arJ I TIC- ()k--ra Pci 0 5q 1 DOVo a 62.03' Acres /k F. A Address c� s� Q9 csglno l 32.27 APN Acres t a -43.4 4h-, 016i- Address r16i-Address E sS q. 03 c( (O C3If ( de.5c,r-C APN Acres Address I /3(C7 (x). lks Print N- me APN Acres ,c•G�/ g01 i Ari? ;? c /zi Print Na e APN Si Address . • •i ao 1(0 Pal 1 GU ,s 0;'800,a(p C.S. J Acres •` d Signature Print Name Address J 4.sTe44,vee-ter 7 to. - APN �'�' fi�� Acres Address Print N� - Signa re APN r Address 6QL00`,1 J L0 it 01got (a.Ole Acres ,„, Soc as6oceoai 19 7� r2c� ,j'J 20-4 4e1 inPr ..17 V Print Name APN Acres ()i 1,c} /r',K);,,S7/ea ve fi 4, -6i Lo/ Ar +re 0580(0O3), 7g. ?9‘ ns , 05-,&0600 3 --trl CCSB f 0(SS 1. gneture • Address Acres 3t3 _E..Ar-0-1,5 not Name Sigruatura BtC4C# Ac"5—,11-e Print Name 1) gnature Print 5i' re Address Pr t Na = APN APN Address APN Address (5581:0(0 Acres 6\ 8 . A -0N9 OS8J O(3 APN Acres as& 1 �O Aries 78c1 E_ A� OS8ogo: o nature nt Name nature tf\ lettc-LIEV Print Name nature 1V4VL }Zixj tt/ Print Name nature Address APN Address fib + L .t - APN Address APN Address Print Name APN S ature ittate Print Name Address (0.3 Acres 7Q( os8QCOlAj cres Pd 2 7I I5 Acres �~ (� pp / : , Ar'fn Acres C S & -°'(tO 7 APN Acres 11.95 orv,s1-aird.r1 Po( `f�f.S Ignature )o_iirlc.n.co DeGCu; m. Print N=me A � 1 Signature �' " Addss 11 Q 5O fUive,Le Grcc ?S D cit (oO.)_`1 11 ,L4 kp C� 5.-c( 1 c7& D8 Acres :2.375 . 1 055 D1_03 Acres Signature dress 2%%C>© 055 X30/43 I -17i/(0 Print Name APN Acres Ceo(9 (c) ture Address Pd " fl -e r 1u,t4.,�- 05c? � f () ._13 . 627 Print Name APN Acres ` e4 ture Print Name Address )4-',7APN C)55+D.��' 1.' wo � 1 7co0 Address 5 J6 APN re Acres Os P Address '1 � �/ Print Si nature ll�li'1 d' �i if 6 Pr nature /in Print Name APN Address /N Aress APN 31111( Acres Oi--)C3 D5, LI U C1/ 11-04f5- 1 `700 [,6i Cres Xrrn / 8,30 ) /0.7,a of .76 h rcrq MI) )3 1x.17 055' D303 ? C� Acres Signature Address FAA-sky-Ai[L-1 cA .5 z`�{2-- APN Acres lee E �, :.:�.�. 4:1 ' l c/4 �s �t- Address APN Acres g) 1 /24 Z Address Print N me APN Signature Acres Address �1 tr 0S -•0).4c) v 7 1 4 c Print Mme APN Acres /1 7y /1/ waL s LP Signature Address -770 7/e&72° O5"e"06 3 3�l 1 Pnnt Name APN Acres Si��v i✓AL_11 ._ �f. Low er, Sigtura / /J Address Pant Name APN Acres _ ' <s�� t 7e( Ai_ Signature < Address Pi\aAnc--. 6 . (:-.43.L, bs qo acr) ifs\ Print Name ti AF'N Acres - t Ce \ b•C, _3.-r5C (/U .7E edw Pc) 055W))1- 15s Rs Signature Address rkik--c.-4 K, o L. i ?d C3J 1 ??C 16-1.3'f Print Name APN Acres Cia1A(Z—RIccs;nee.. ? .tE -14r--+E.L.--P2(--- gnature ) Address Grace. ce. P cc V LU l i __ & 1000 ,30 , [ Print Name APN Acres �flf (.03. Signature e� ON)/, -__i At oy' PcY( Address alorrek 051.090(L7 O9O(L7 PN Acres 1.550 r. Ars Adess C,5? C)`Q Signature (71 fla Print Nar11e Signature LL)tee APN Acres l 1A-r--r!2.,2_rim Address 0.581000 _ 5 Acres _ riY1() -f-froAri, pct° 0(5 APN Acres L�-� Sin Address Ss ildiele7dza tfe int Na /o.7(9 Signature Pri /fal nt NameF APN Ac /97t.or 4,4.2— 4/Address /JY7 S11-4-/ i).57 r y'o_il� APN Situ CL -�«,, K PlUtAlarne Sign;314-0ldressei'w APN Ar.iddre" • 4" APN rin t Name (U 2$ C/1 -604d1 Acres O LU 77,3 NdV awaN 4IIWd sasappy annouP s a0J0V NdV 9WeN lid sae,Ippy 80. 00 NdV sseippy alnistelS OWBN 141d e4rgeu6lg 3eJV N V wJV 4d) gSOW c)) `'? 1 -5; c,O 0/ -b450 14/ 1P1 acappy nlau845 NdV _ r lr aunneu / - ' L --z ssaappy sew OC' L 0- 0).s6 o -) c NdV 8W / u619 ss94PPV • / SW Ndb► _ WAN ;u!ad G� 11 Sa 04 /A f:, -t- ,44ak' - (5 1) - 61'41 ' „j cJ wimpy Lc-• bc-0 ? 1S ry . ��y#^,� /e , ; 1 l �-r' 1 h l o -,O 8 'O sassy % NdV awaN;ulad 9,4 r') 0-3 on-D,h>l as9Jppy e n eu6e Q1 � �,,v,, espy NdV aseappV vrisu41)‘- luud fr j w7r (v) }("?`v„ wrleu6lS r�� LILFC.A7 4926 59E 6i 7L 5Z60 -9O4 sf NdY *ow sumd ---�r....�.." • Mir 1111111111 cuniewile N6}YWAN $114 +M+wN �Ilki MeV MwN Mid ehripstili NOW Ndll s 11 IRAN ?"caz,-,"‘*: %o C, 0 b,5O :s umprir kcre "17 ‘20-1-7 , sowvNdY ��..� h1� +5 L� oZob �. 6� . 4 y?sr)116i v ovr$ t1 ►yarabl Vrel7'N111,I1 Id Wdt72:10 9002 S? 'day S9& -S9: 'GIN XV3 1 C O 7 E.. Ar rn� i )58 (0 00S Print Name Signature APN Acres Address Print Name APN Acres Signature Address Print Name APN Acres Signature Address Print Name APN Acres Signature Address Print Name APN Acres Signature Address Print Name APN Acres Signature Address Print Name APN Acres Signature Address Print Name APN Acres Signature Address Print Name APN Acres Saki y Ndt! aweN 3uua ssaappy arrau6!g sway NdV aweN TUUC ssaJppy ain}eu ft NdV *WEN )u4Jd ssaJppy alfl aufig Sajay NdV ewe 2u+id sse- PPV aJrleu6's saaoy Ndt/ aweN ]a!�d ssaIPPV ainleu6's Ndti OWEN 3u!►d ssalppv s un au6ig sassy NdV aweN 4u!Jd ssajPpv awrgeu6's sassy NdV eus 44 cam sse,ppv GunietAs 14— Q/-- b90 ,t ecl'rh% (1 ssaippy airyeuth Address! i S' C1 e Lt..... , 11 -©as- '?,73 oSQ 30 - - cJ (0, - 05- DA( ---0`( S OS -r (0 - (iOL. M 'fY 73 742 L, `A4rxa At S S. dot? a_ . 0.5a - (0 0 3.E Y (117bgV APN Acre. 6Paj eiSe/fri'l (1), OC7 Ai R Address 059- Cb 08 Paint Nim. APN Print Nam '�-isN ANi r �T AIP Print Na �--� Signature) ACM _L2 - Acre. many 7>c 1),Alinsfrc, �S ()hI Address /.(.t q ' 0'33 APN Acre. Address ------ = _R C) 1- Acre. . b Q SCDTtL Address Print Name signatures 11, APN 9Oj 164 OSq -- :13-0( r Address TR ff &u 1 c is ,&� * A4 / Print Name APN Signature Address Nam -L° L. cc 1(4 / //moo Prirrt Nam. APN Acres "" o' 8 7= 7 OSci a`'° Y( lk.S3 Gq r)3C) S.Of Acres M moi: 9S-.2. Acres p XPA3 Acres (.)c(r-'J_3 008 Ski Address Q * E. r/04/• 01174 t APN Acres `6T-7 4RW - Address 347< 4- :d 20 Acres 0 W- 0'1-63? C 9 o(Q35 : (4( C>S'VOL( Oar (9.Sc „ff P�cf_ t-u.�(revt(tof Print Name e APN oo3 6e -^ (0 75' re Address 3S Print Name APN Acres Ro Signature Address 110 cJ j Print Name .fly -Ii APN Acres 39 it`f E..11ay- -,r04Lc Rtf Signature Cjek at ILL,4L �. PnNWma si1/4_,LSZL. Signatureose (8 Dr S AV" C ��•-k +r - V ` O �� Ake Address (r� o_► 0 S8 CL- 5 L.`1 `1 CtePt 4StePrint - me 141 Print APN �Q�, � Aexas �". at/EAtiOS 8 - r r - 0(s- (0 77 Acres )JIB- //171 AJ, ijaj 9, - , 0,P?,C, / Address 6-/e- r 44 05q- 10 Print Name APN �l�1Ii _ q �,. LDdI Jc4 4/5'a yo Signature Address -le_-- i 137 Acres Print Name APN odc' C A O5 8 -(r) -7 41,8if A MS Signature Print Name FPx NO. :365-9265 Armstrong Road Property Owners 12609 N. West Ln., Lodi, CA 95240 Hug. ifc Grru,_ We as property owners in the affected area are opposed to the City of Lodi's proposed amendment to expand its General Plan Area ( Sphere of Influence ) to 112 mile South of Armstrong Road between Hwy 99 and approximately 1/8 mile West of Lower Sacramento Road. The area would be designated Greenbelt/ Agriculture. We are also opposed to the City's proposal to change the designation of the area 112 mile North of Armstrong Road fjPlanned Residential Reserve to Greenbelt/Agriculture. u1 Address c�. 4kols-A0tV6 6 `)-cm)6.-2 . 14° APN Acres 4;s79--p-7_744,/v/9- // 5s ,1 Print Name APN e 7;f /11,9-- Sig 'iceSig ure Address APN r, nr ArEISS not Name APN Sign tore ddress osQ a /V os a)coa cre.8 Acres !/'off. L.✓ Acres 49a I 0 APN 3'6)3 05g X3603 Name Acres o e ; :. / cid t . Signa` d' me APN FUG a--2 G 15:17 365 9255 Acres 96% 0S y P_P.i 2114 g: at # 4e;- V2- Signature Address APN Acres C A rPLE-2v Ct 4° 4iitirmiturs Address lel 9 Ria 1::)/g Print Name APN Lam, ,1091( Sig Address Signature Print Name APN /5 05-9 011. -- 03 Address APN ©4/ 0 Acres #A(' /1 Signature Address Acres o.� q o07 /(.f Acres OS9oc: S7 Print Name APN Acres Signature Address Print Name APN Acres Signature Address Print Name APN Acres Signature Address Print Name APN Acres Signature Address Print Name APN From:Hesseltine Realty 3390524 11/21/2006 16:13 #969 P.001/001 11/20/08 16:08 FAX 209 339 1689 T. KAUTZ FARI(S W1003/003 We the business interests is the Lodi Community are concerned about the direction of the Lodi City Creme l in the Sphere of Yatluenee and General Plan Amendment application and its impact to otir agricultzral customers. We believe that it will negatively impact their buswcases and in turn ours es well. We axe deeplSr concerned about the philosophical mindset of the current council and their disregard for those in ow farm community who without this cott n: amity would not exist It is infix rtant to recognize that the value of their business is attached to the land just like the value of outs is connected to goodwill. If by council' action you rob thorn of their value, you also steal Emil . our futures. Please rethink this process. learn from past mistakes and go forward in a more cooperative effort. Comy k 1.16 5r3nrs frvka t( 13 t,/ (refs: Lt)) Ne 141,44 7f'Zi./.1hoicize-x-} amu • 311 FAX NO. :365-9265 Nov. 24 2006 03:25PM P3 FAX NO. :65-9265 /2u/(fit 12 36 KVI o► FAX NO. :3&3-"265. Ur 1-10v. 20 2006 @E: 0 Su 15 /F; u a Ploy. 2C 2006 10 ; 47AM P2 We the business Interests in. the Lotti Community aro ooncernad Gout the dilution or the Loi, City Comail in the eat&ed Sptave of inflame and General Plan Anteodnient application and its impact to o agrieulturaltcustomers. We believe that it will negatively impact their bueitaascs and la tum ours as We art deeply sono ed about the phiioso iaai met 01' the Fent cot noil and their disregaa for thoaktin etc faun ocznrctutity who without this commumity would not exist. li is impOrtant to recon ills the value oPheir bu ins% is s .ached to the land just like the value o¢ o is cormiCtce, to goodwill. T{by eoune l'actioxt you rob/hetri. ciftheir value, you also steel fro= or "Inures. Please rahlri this process, team from past mics wicl g+ for ward irl a more «ive effort.. M : FAX NO. :365-9265 11/L11'U iL:aa rAA. Lua JJtl roan AALIL PARNS FROM FAX NO. : 365-9255 Nov. 24 2006 03:25PM P2 �uuu;uuu %N.,. c 0 Zees 10: 47AM P2 We the business ieeerests in the Lodi Community are concerned about the direction of the Lodi City Council in the a gaiuded Sphere of Influence and General Plan Amendment Application and its impact to air a rlcultuzal icustomers We believe that it will negatively impact their businesses and hi tuna our as well. We are deeply concerned about the philosophical mindset of the current council and their disregard for those in our farm community who without this community would not exist. h is impotent to recognize that the value of their busnc is attached to the land just like the value of ours is connected to goodwill. if by council action yot rob thein of their 'v'alue, you also steal From our futures. Please rethink this process, lcatn from past mistakes tnad go forward in a more cooperative effort. fl► re/ I rAip) r • a ' 9' 3 . Sl Add ii►.,�, FAX NO. :365-9265 Nov. 20 2006 10:47RM1 P2 We the business interests in the Lodi Community are concerned about the direction of the Lodi City Council in the expanded Sphere of Influence and General Plan Amendment application and its impact to our agricultural customers. We believe that it will negatively impact their businesses and in turn ours as well. We are deeply concerned about the philosophical mindset of the current council and their disregard for those in our farm community who without this community would not exist. It is important to recognize that the value of their business is attached to the land just like the value of ours is connected to goodwill. If by council action you rob them of their value, you also steal from our futures. Please rethink this process, learn from past mistakes and go forward in a more cooperative effort. ( nh A " o d t 1Z� O (k \ \,-s (he/ '40toiric /4/0.-e 5,dilafilf7 A"is 1 r t, t,11� SI Ad ti °S 'e\t,-A vv Dia /17g,rf 1.—.. �f its° ga;71s&-N1T 11720/06 16:01 FAX 209 339 1689 J AUTZ FARMS E 003/003 We the bi.isiness interests in the Lodi Community are concerned about the direction of the Lodi City Council in the expanded Sphere of Influence and Generali Plan Amendment application and its impact to our agricultural customers. We believe that iit'•ilii negatively impact their businesses and in turn ours as well. We are deeply concerned about the philosophical mindset of the current council .and their disregard for those iia our farm community who without this community would not exist. It is important to rzoogsiize that the value of their bncir+ess is attached to the land just like the value of anus is connected to goodwill. If by Council action you rob them of their value, you also steal from our futures. Please rethink this process, learu flora past mistakes and go forward in amore cooperative effort. (L M F '-/ 5-AN,(EO44 C'//4 vp20 •n k,1 170484LLL09L waques pie1piy d0:4090ZZAoN 11/2112006 09:31 2093682030 . .-.. .. ,.tiu,a U04 We the business rbciodi City Council in application and its impact ,reg tlively impact fhch. b about the pbilosoph3.aal farm coonuamity who wi recognize that the value of is connected to goodwill. from our futures. Please a more cooperative effort. VAL LEYVINEYARD itiAIY.rz HARMS i } in the Lodi CIOnunllnity are eonceaned about Ate direction of expanded Sphere of Influence and General Plan Amendment o -T agrictlatomers, We believe that it will -• and im ours ai well. We a deeply concerned set of the curient council and their disregard for those in o -Ur lit this community would not exist. It is koapoitant to eir business iS attached to the land just like the value of ours by council action you rob trent of their valno, you also steal this proce&s, learn from past mistakes and go forward in Isor PAGE e1i01 2003 113 t Mov 28 08 O5;25p Donald 9. Wortley KAtrrz FARIS 14/063/003 1.020/d8 10:11 1 AX '209 339 1689 209 339 8887 p.1 We the business interests in the Lodi Community are cawed about the direction, of the Lodi City Council in the mended Sphere of Wflu6enco and General Plan went application and its impact to ovyr agricultural customers. We believe that it will negatively impact their businesses and in turn ours as welL We are deeply congaed about the philosophical mindsei of the =rent council and their disregard for those in our farm connflunity who without this oomtnunity would not exist. It is k ap&ta nt to recognize that the value of their business is attached to the land just like the value of ours is connected to goodwill, If by council' action you rob therm of breis value, you also steal from our futures. Please rethink this process, levan from past mistakes and go forward in a more cooperative effort. foMrik^1i/ x'41► Fa1 A- UiWOOP - ilif-vr C S r hi 1' �v x /lam- 14-- 1 11/20/06 12:29 FAX 209 339 1689 KAUTZ FARMS z005 -"R0M : FAX N0. .:3G5-9265 Nov. 20 2006 10: 47AM P2 ��) 61N(6)14.WeIDC' LOLL L€ ' I1 rJ g -4.6P4 t r A & , We the business interests in the Lodi Commuxiity are concerned about the direction of the Lodi City Council in the expanded Sphere of Influence and General Plan Amendment application and its impact to otlr agricultural 'customers. We believe that it will negatively impact their businesses and in turn ours as well. We are deeply concerned about the philosophical mindset of the current council and their disregard for those in our farm community who without this community would not eicist,. It is important to recognize that the value of their business is attached to the land just like the value of ours is connected to goodwill. If by council action you rob them of their value, you also steal from our futures. Please rethink this process, learn from past mistakes and go forward in a more cooperative effort. C v n+s ? N +`' / � r Oao e_ ,Tetireler5 / T`? NOV-20-2006 12:46 209 339 1689 97: P.05 11/20/06 12:29 FAX 209 339 1689 KAUTZ FARMS FROM : fj005 FAX NO. :365-9265 Nov. 22 2226 10:4?AM P2 We the business interests in the Lodi Community are concerned about the direction of the Lodi City Council in the expanded Sphere of Influence and General Plan Amendment application and its impact to oiir agricultural customers. We believe that it will negatively impact their businesses and in turn ours as well_ We are deeply concerned about the philosophical mindset of the current council and their disregard for those in our farm community who without this community would not exist. It is important to recognize that the value of their business is attached to the land just like the value of ours is connected to goodwill. If by council action you rob them of their value, you also steal frorn our futures. Please rethink this process, learn from past mistakes and go forward in a more cooperative effort. CUMlarJ 1 -REP (reee tA)ir`er1 • J- bi [At 54t ccs. , J I • Ai c • N0V-20-2006 12:46 209 339 1689 97% P.05 11/20/06 16:09 FAX 209 339 1689 KAUTZ FARMS a003/003 We the business interests in the Lodi Community are concerned about the direction of the Lodi City Council in the expanded Sphere of Influence and General flan Amendment application and its impact to oar agricultural customers. We believe that it will negatively impact their businesses and in turn ours as well. We are deepi'y concerned abort the philosophical mindset of the current council and thein disregard for those in our farm community who without This community would not exist. It is important to recognize that the value of their business is attached to the land just like the value of ours is connected to goodwill. If by council action you rob them of their 'value, you also steal from our futures. please rethink this process, learn from past mistakes and go forward in a more cooperative effort - (oil rare SlfNs S3 Sulphur/Quantum I 209 367 4529 11/29/06 06:36pm P. 001 enc. ennFei a r sf I I& rf7--fis-----wy-a-Ny s.A4v1A0o3 aloud 1; to plettug og pus e4stswi )sed wog !tea[ `S; 2D0AT sipup assai .samtru xt o * {tis ()s no C 4-anteA.,rcoqllo urate so3. -ram( trop,,re tpun +(i °11(ua&paa=i of rapatmoa s, :>-mo ;Canon aip 3 ; f pur, * 01 p;Iovs sc utsn riaq JO X11114 ate Try aztffo 1 01 j $pordsui rit :}a 1i.F-a uora 3ru .-4,11 1w& [Y i& .-4;:iv tIU1 WQ"3 Mag .11.0 01 9S01.0.15.4 paeDarstp .gaga ptxx p'anota soars[:; at{140 42awtcr refs (foIosoplid s wow patua3u°M Aquorip ors 3/4 • ;aM spat r< nt pus sassarrtsaeq 2d111 ApA MA& rt W anaga aft -61a11,101f ;) p;zfErap mcg 011010:11.[I[ p aoq Ecud 1sxa uPuam-v usid lwattao .euro ,-XAX3rifirirf, JO axatids, pope d. za a t < puma, o 41DD !poi NI ',�i 740110.1,4. ,+'oq",+4 G"iir. povaz;}".-1C3'J 7 47:: SFSCT.3 !'pal 1141 LTT ns„ -.),10,4:7 Eg31 ,ding .0*ii Ant Dr. Robert E. & Mari J. Carloni 1123 E. Mettler Rd. Lodi, CA 95242 Nov. 28, 2006 Lodi City Council City of Lodi P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, (A 95241 Attn: Randy Hatch, Director of Community Development Community Development Department RE: Greenbelt/Separator Dear City Council Members: With all the problems facing us—not only the world and state issues that affect us but the local issues of importance that affect the lives of Lodians, such as energy costs, water costs, infrastructure and city maintenance costs. With these most important concerns, here we are discussing a Separator between Lodi and Stockton. As the Negative Declaration Amendment Proposal notes, the Separator is necessary and important to Lodi and Lodians because: 1. The Separator visually defines and enhances Lodi, and 2. The Separator provides Lodi residents with a sense of place. There is nothing in the proposal which indicates any possible or probable harm, now or in the future, which will be bourne by Lodi residents, if the Greenbelt is never established. Therefore, Lodi wishes the Landowners to forfeit their rights for the convenience of "Visual Enhancement", and the emotional comfort of a Separator to create a "Sense of Place". i have a hard time believing the people of Lodi would ask their farming neighbors to sacrifice Part of our property rights for such superficial and selfish reasons. This proposal has been spearheaded by Mayor Hitchcock, but the idea of a Separator has been around for many years. Unfortunately, this idea to be segregated from our Stockton neighbors was a bad idea when it was first conceived, but over the years it has taken on a life of its own. So now, and in recent years Council members have, for the most part, gone along with this idea. To be in opposition to the greenbelt has become synonymous with being an unpatriotic Lodian. Unfortunately, the very heart of this issue has never been dissected to get at the true underlying and driving forces which created and perpetuated this negative idea of a separator between people. I would suggest that if the Council Members would honestly evaluate the driving forces and feelings which have pushed this issue, they would find racism, elitism, bigotry, and unfortunately a segregationist attitude and agenda. I strongly urge Council Members to rethink and reevaluate this issue. It is a Bad Idea. This Neg/Dec/Amendment notes in Policy LU B2 that "the City shall establish a continuous Ag/Greenbelt around the urbanized area of Lodi, ..." The question begs to be asked. Does a continuous Ag/Greenbelt encircling Lodi, mean Lodi plans to stop growing? Apparently so, given this proposal. The next question to be asked is: How does Lodi maintain its retail and tax base with no growth? Lodi has tried no growth in the past and it led into financial, tax, and retail base problems. If growth is to occur, if our state economy prospers, Lodi has no choice but to grow to acquire Lodi's share of the tax and retail base. To isolate will be very destructive to Lodi and Lodians. Therefore, if this area grows, do not attempt to change the natural course and patterns of growth for the immature and irresponsible reasons stated in the proposal. The most important question to ask is, "Does Lodi really need to be separated from Stockton by a mile of land?" A few years ago a survey was made and it was reported that the general opinion acquired from the survey was that Lodians wanted a separator. Unfortunately, the survey was answered by a small number of the total population and a much more inclusive survey should have been undertaken. Are we to assume that if 2000 people out of a population of 65,000 want something that the City Council should work so diligently to achieve this purpose for 3 percent of the people? Did the fact that only 3 percent responded favorably to the Separator idea mean that 97% are either opposed or do not care enough about a Separator that they did not bother to respond? But most importantly the survey placed no real value on this project. The survey lacks credibility since it did not ask in realistic terms how important and what Lodians might be willing to pay for such a valuable resource—the Greenbelt/Separator. A responsible survey would have asked each Lodi homeowner how much they would be willing to have assessed on their property for the privilege of having a "beautiful visually defined sense of place". What did this survey prove? That if you put kids in a candy store and tell them they can have all the candy they want, they will take lots of candy. There are some people who want no growth. They are usually people my age or older who are in the last part of our lives. Unfortunately as we grow older, insecurity creeps in and we want to stop progress, stop change because things changing around us are a constant reminder that we are not as individually powerful and vibrant as we once were. Change makes it appear as though we are faster approaching our mortality. This is why progress and change are so feared and threatening to some people as they age. This fear is part of what has fueled the Greenbelt Separator plan. lam sure you have all come to the conclusion by now, that I do not see the need for a Separator between Lodi and Stockton. If growth occurs in the future and Lodi and Stockton are separated by a street, I see no harm. I see neighbors who happen to have different city addresses. I have a hard time believing someone living on Elm Street is going to be threatened by the fact that Lodi and Stockton are separated by a street, 4 miles away. That if Lodi and Stockton some day share a street as a common boundary, that this will somehow create turmoil and people living in Lodi are going to suffer some deprivation, lose of enhancement and lose of their sense of place. Although I see no problem with eventual urban development in the proposed area and am personally against the idea of a Separator, I find it most unusual, that Lodi is attempting to move forward with this proposal to control this area of land. Stockton has just amended their plan and the City of Stockton's boundaries are not projected for fill in for 30 to 50 years, and that's if there is good growth. So why the hurry for Lodi to control an area, which Lodi says it doesn't want to develop and which Stockton has no plans of expanding into? 4 The farmers have presented a plan for Ag 5 zoning, and this plan would prevent urban development. In regard to the 5 acre plan, Mayor Hitchcock was recently quoted in the Stockton Record, saying. "We support the plan they submitted and we're proceeding in that direction. Allowing 5 acre lots is compensation. Otherwise it would be years out before they could develop." This quote was a revelation to us landowners, since there has not been any real work by the City with the landowners in preparing and planning an Ag 5 rezoning effort to present to the County. I for one would be interested to know how all the members of the Council feel about this Ag 5 proposal. I would like to know who exactly are the Council members that Major Hitchcock referred to as the "WE" in her quote, who apparently support the Ag 5 plan? Even though the aforementioned quote by Major Hitchcock appeared in yesterdays Stockton Record, there are no guarantees that if Lodi controls this area that Ag 5 zoning would be allowed by Lodi. If Major Hitchcock is truly in support of the Ag 5 plan, and as she indicated other Council members are too, then why not show good faith and work with the landowners in the creation of the Ag 5 plan first, then discuss whether or not there is a need for Lodi to control this area. Why put the cart before the horse. Mr. Bruce Barocco, LAFCO executive director stated in the Record, that " He doesn't know of any similar effort by a city elsewhere in the state to add property under its control for open space." Mr. Barocco, farther stated, "That a normal sphere program would commit an area to development and in this case it's designed to commit an area to agriculture and open space." I have a hard time believing that LAFCO would approve such a dangerous precedent. This would be a precedent that would allow a larger group of people to circumvent the rights of a smaller group, for what constitutes an emotional convenience. Council Members, do not let this small group in Lodi rule this issue especially when their motives are fueled by selfishness, ignorance, and fear which allows for racism, segregation and bigotry. This proposal is callous, selfish and contrary to the American ideals of justice and freedom. To continue with this project in complete opposition to the landowners, will create more mistrust and more adversarial positioning. It is time for Lodi to reject the negative emotions that have fueled this Separator issue. I sincerely hope Council members will rethink and have the coyiaQe to change directions on this issue. California is a progressive and dynamic place. It is the greatest melting pot of humanity in the world. This diversity is why we are so progressive and successful—not because of isolating and separating from other people. Segregation is never an answer and isolating is destructive. The way to prosperity and peace is through understanding and embracing our differences. PLEASE REJECT THIS PROPOSAL! 6 Please immediately confirm receipt of this fax by calling 333-6702 CITY OF LODI P. O. BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 ADVERTISING INSTRUCTIONS SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH AN AGRICULTURE/GREENBELT LEGAL AD PUBLISH DATE: SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2006 TEAR SHEETS WANTED: Three (3) please SEND AFFIDAVIT AND BILL TO: RANDI JOHL, CITY CLERK City of Lodi P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241-1910 DATED: THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2006 ORDERED BY: RANDI JOHL CITY CLERK r _ .L ie NIFER n PERRIN, CMC PUTY CITY CLERK DANA R. CHAPMAN ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK Verify Appearance of this Legal in the Newspaper - Copy to File Faxed to the Sentinel at 369-1084 at pc(time) on 11 161010 (date) (pages) Phoned to confirm receipt of all pages at (time) _JLT ©RC� _JMP (initials) fonns\advins.doc DECLARATION OF POSTING PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH AN AGRICULTURE/GREENBELT On Friday, November 17, 2006, in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, a copy of a Notice of Public Hearing to consider a General Plan amendment and Sphere of Influence amendment to establish an agriculture/greenbelt (attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A") was posted at the following four locations: Lodi Public Library Lodi City Clerk's Office Lodi City Hall Lobby Lodi Carnegie Forum I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November 17, 2006, at Lodi, California. ORDERED BY: RANDI JOHL CITY CLERK NIFER M PERRIN, CMC DANA CHAPMAN DEPUTY CITY CLERK ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK N:1Administration\CLERK\FormsIDECPOST2.DOC DECLARATION OF MAILING PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH AN AGRICULTURE/GREENBELT On November 17, 2006, in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, I deposited in the United States mail, envelopes with first-class postage prepaid thereon, containing Notice of Public Hearing to consider a General Plan amendment and Sphere of Influence amendment to establish an agriculture/greenbelt, attached hereto Marked Exhibit A. The mailing list for said matter is attached hereto, marked Exhibit B. There is a regular daily communication by mail between the City of Lodi, California, and the places to which said envelopes were addressed. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November 17, 2006, at Lodi, California. NITER DEPUTY CI Forms/decmail.doe RIN, CMC CLERK ORDERED BY: RAND! JOHL CITY CLERK, CITY OF LODI DANA R. CHAPMAN ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK CITY OF LODI Carnegie Forum 305 West Pine Street, Lodi NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Date: November 29, 2006 Time: 7:00 p.m. For information regarding this notice please contact: Randi Joh! City Clerk Telephone: (209) 333-6702 l EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, November 29, 2006, 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 matter: a) General Plan amendment and Sphere of Influence amendment to establish an agriculture/greenbelt 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, City Hall, 221 W. Pine Street, 2"d Floor, Lodi, 95240, 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 close of the public hearing. rder of the Lodi City Council: Johl City Clerk Dated: November 15, 2006 roved as to form: D. Stephen Schwabauer City Attorney CLERKPUBHEARINOTICESnotcdd2.dx 11/15/06 Greenbelt General Plan Amendment public hearing mailing list 'N 05801001 410N PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY 16 DODGE ST ROOM 830 AHA NE, 68179 'N 05805014 AZ, JUAN 773 LOWER SAC RD }DI CA, 95242 'N 05806034 4WKINS, AUDREE B TR $0 ENCINA DR ILLBRAE CA, 94030 'N 05806043 EAL, JOHN R & JANIE W ARMSTRONG RD )DI CA, 95242 'N 05807024 4EHLER DAIRY FARMS PTP )25 E ARMSTRONG RD DDI CA, 95240 'N 05809004 ANASSERO, MICHAEL & PATRICIA 190 E HARNEY LN DDI CA, 95242 PN 05809007 RAYA, EDUARDO & XIMENA 2732 N LOWER SAC RD DDI CA, 95242 PN 05809010 ADYAL, INDERJIT S ETAL 2592 N LOWER SAC RD DDI CA, 95242 PN 05809013 ASJENS, MARLIN 2500 N LWR SAC RD DDI CA, 95240 PN 05809016 ORRA, STEPHEN J SR & BEVERLY 301 E ARMSTRONG RD DDI CA, 95242 APN 05801002 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY 1416 DODGE ST ROOM 830 OMAHA NE, 68179 APN 05805015 CRUZ, FABIAN J & H 12775 N LOWER SAC LODI CA, 95240 APN 05806041 TACHELLA, PHILIP B & KATHLEN C 65 W ARMSTRONG RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05806044 CASTELANELLI, LARRY L TR ETAL 401 W ARMSTRONG LODI CA, 95240 APN 05809001 TAMURA, S T & E TRS ETL 1220 E HARNEY LANE LODI CA, 95242 APN 05809005 HAWKINS, AUDREE B TR 1260 ENCINA DR MILLBRAE CA, 94030 APN 05809008 ARAYA, EDUARDO & XIMENA 12732 N LOWER SAC RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05809011 VASQUEZ, JONATHAN M & DESIRE 12510 N LOWER SACRAMENTO RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05809014 KAEHLER DAIRY FARM PTP 1025 E ARMSTRONG RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05809017 MANASSERO, JOSEPH L & CATHERIN 541 W TURNER RD LODI CA, 95240 EXHB!T Bj APN 05801003 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY 1416 DODGE ST ROOM 830 OMAHA NE, 68179 APN 05806023 KANEGAWA, KEITH & LAURA 600 S FAIRMONT AVE LODI CA, 95240 APN 05806042 NEAL, JOHN R & JANIE 25 W ARMSTRONG RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05807023 FAROOQIA ISLAMIC CENTER 12828 N LOWER SAC RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05809003 EVERITT, RAYMOND E TR 1320 E HARNEY LN LODI CA, 95242 APN 05809006 EYTCHISON, DANIEL A & PAULETTE 12750 N LOWER SACRAMENTO LODI CA, 95242 APN 05809009 BADYAL, INDERJIT S 12592 N LOWER SAC RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05809012 FELTON, MARY P TR 12400 LOWER SAC RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05809015 KAEHLER DAIRY FARM PTP 1025 E ARMSTRONG RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 05809018 CASTELANELLI, LARRY L TR ETAL 401 W ARMSTRONG RD LODI CA, 95240 Greenbelt General Plan Amendment public hearing mailing list \PN 05809019 3AS!LLAS, CONSUELO '0 BOX 966 _0D1 CA, 95241 APN 05809022 :ILIPPI, ANNETTE C LF EST 12125 N LOWER SAC RD _ODI CA, 95242 PPN 05809025 3KEELS, KATHLEEN A ETAL 3267 TULIPWOOD LN 3AN JOSE CA, 95132 APN 05809030 (AEHLER DAIRY FARM LP T89 E ARMSTRONG RD _0D1 CA, 95242 aPN 05810007 aCKEL, WILLIAM A TR ETAL 1434 ARUNDEL CT ADI CA, 95242 APN 05810013 VIANASSERO, JOSEPH L & CATHERIN 1490E HARNEY LN _001 CA, 95242 TN 05810016 :RY, JERYL R JR & M 12495 N WEST LANE _00I CA, 95240 APN 05810019 CIHARA, YOICHI TR 1689 E ARMSTRONG RD _ODI CA, 95242 \PN 05811009 'HIBBS, W ROBERT & SHERIDA J 'O BOX 417 _0D1 CA, 95241 APN 05811017 VITTA, GORDON & T 3771 SCOTTSDALE RD .001 CA, 95240 APN 05809020 PAOLETTI, JEANNE E TR PO BOX 1068 WOODBRIDGE CA, 95258 APN 05809023 METCALF, JOE P & SHARON M 12376 N LOWER SAC RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05809027 KAEHLER DAIRY FARM PTP 1025 E ARMSTRONG RD {.ODI CA, 95242 APN 05810005 D ARRIGO BROS, CO OF CAL CORP PO BOX 850 SALINAS CA, 93902 APN 05810010 PUCCINELLI, GRACE 13323 N STOCKTON ST LODI CA, 95240 APN 05810014 BECK, TOM 2281 E ARMSTRONG RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 05810017 RANDOLPH, LANCE TRUSTEE 3862 PENINSULA CT STOCKTON CA, 95219 APN 05810021 PERRIN RANCH LLC ETAL 8975 HWY 88 JACKSON CA, 95642 APN 05811015 OWEN, BETTY JANE TR 3651 SCOTTSDALE RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 05811018 RISHWAIN, TIMOTHY E 3909 E SCOTTSDALE RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 05809021 CASTELANELLI, LARRY L TR ETAL 1080 W HARNEY LN LODI CA, 95242 APN 05809024 KELLY, WILSON C & P H 78071 ALLEGRO CT PALM DESERT CA, 92211 APN 05809029 KAEHLER DAIRY FARM PTP 1025 E ARMSTRONG RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05810006 GRANLEES, MICHAEL & GINA 1441 E ARMSTRONG RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05810012 MCCURDY, JOHN R & LAURIE F TR 2015 E ARMSTRONG RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05810015 MOHR ENTERPRISES LTD PTP PO BOX 97 MT EDEN CA, 94557 APN 05810018 HARR, DWIGHT A 1969 E ARMSTRONG RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05811006 FAYEQ, RASHID & YUSRA FAYEQ 12732 N WEST LN LODI CA, 95240 APN 05811016 SCHOCK, ROBERT V & DIANE M TR 3680 SCOTTSDALE RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 05811019 WHITE, MICHAEL G & 0 J 3993 SCOTTSDALE RD LODI CA, 95240 Greenbelt General Plan Amendment public hearing mailing list 'N 05811020 ILARIO, PEDRO D & ESTELA H TR 37 ALTOS OAKS DR DS ALTOS CA, 94024 PN 05811030 ERUMEN, JESSE M ?200 N HWY 99 DDI CA, 95242 PN 05811033 IRSCHENMANN, DONNA W ETAL 0 BOX 871 ICTOR CA, 95253 PN 05811037 IOHR ENTERPRISES LTD PTP 0 BOX 97 IT EDEN CA, 94557 PN 05811040 ESHMESH DARBAR LODI & STOCKTO 2098 N WEST LN ODI CA, 95240 PN 05811044 SUTSUMI, AGNES M TR 725 E ARMSTRONG RD ODI CA, 95240 PN 05811048 'IEDE FARMS LLC O BOX 1007 100DBRIDGE CA, 95258 PN 05811051 AYEQ, RASHID & YUSRA FAYEQ 2732 N WEST LN ODI CA, 95240 PN 05812003 .ETELAAR, MICHAEL T 900 SCOTTSDALE RD ODI CA, 95240 PN 05812006 ISHER, ALFRED JR & K 004 E SCOTTDALE RD ODI CA, 95240 APN 05811022 HERRERA, JOSE R & DEBRA 12637 N HWY 99 LODI CA, 95240 APN 05811031 MUHLBEIER, TIM F & KATHY E TR 4279 SCOTTSDALE RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 05811034 POLLARD, GARETH G TR 3522 E SCOTTSDALE RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 05811038 QUASCHNICK, HAROLD & L TRS 10826 E KETTLEMAN LN LODI CA, 95240 APN 05811041 ROBERT/CAROLYN REYNOLDS FAM LL 23290 N PEARL RD ACAMPO CA, 95220 APN 05811045 TSUTSUMI HOLMES LLC 6333 N PACIFIC AVE #357 STOCKTON CA, 95207 APN 05811049 DIEDE FARMS LLC PO BOX 1007 WOODBRIDGE CA, 95258 APN 05812001 MONDAVI, JOHN & WANDA 3754 E SCOTTSDALE RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 05812004 FORSBERG, BYNG TR 3966 SCOTTSDALE RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 05812007 HUECKSTEADT, DAVID P & BARBARA 4052 SCOTTSDALE RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 05811029 BOGARIN, JOHN JR & F 4965 E CORA POST LODI CA, 95240 APN 05811032 ZAVALA, DONALD & ALEXANDRIA 4291 SCOTTSDALE RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 05811035 KIRSCHENMANN, DONNA W ETAL PO BOX 871 VICTOR CA, 95253 APN 05811039 ODAIYAR, CHARLIE & MITHU ETAL 1124 BRIDGETOWNE DR LODI CA, 95242 APN 05811042 ZAVALA, DONALD & ALEXANDRIA 4291 SCOTTSDALE RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 05811046 TSUTSUMI, AGNES M TR 3725 E ARMSTRONG RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 05811050 DIEDE FARMS LLC PO BOX 1007 WOODBRIDGE CA, 95258 APN 05812002 VAN NESS, JOHN MARK & JILL L 3818 SCOTTSDALE RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 05812005 GOODEN, CHARLIE R 3944 SCOTTSDALE RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 05812009 BURLESON, LARRY EUGENE 4015 E ARMSTRONG RD LODI CA, 95240 Greenbelt General Plan Amendment public hearing mailing list 'N 05812010 :SZLER, JOHN JR & I TRS 61 E ARMSTRONG RD )DI CA, 95240 'N 05812013 :SZLER, JOHN JR & I TRS 61 E ARMSTRONG RD )DI CA, 95240 N 05812016 :SZLER, JOHN JR & I TRS 161 E ARMSTRONG RD )DI CA, 95240 N 05902013 ZEDONYER, LAND CO 919 N LOWER SAC )DI CA, 95240 'N 05902038 AZZA, CHARLES J JR BOX 1720 OODBRIDGE CA, 95258 'N 05902044 -INN, STEVEN M & SHARON G TR 700 N DAVIS RD )DI CA, 95242 'N 05904001 ERVANTES, JESS SR & M TRS 940 N LOWER SAC RD )DI CA, 95240 'N 05904004 \BADO, HILARIO P JR BOX 690064 FOCKTON CA, 95269 'N 05904007 kRBERO, ANTHONY TR BOX 644 )DI CA, 95241 'N 05904012 EKAM, LARRY D & DEANNE R X50 METTLER RD )DI CA, 95242 APN 05812011 SCHNEIDER, CAROLYN S TR 9043 HILDRETH LN STOCKTON CA, 95212 APN 05812014 KESZLER, JOHN JR & I TRS 3861 E ARMSTRONG RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 05902011 SCHUMACHER, WELDON D & BONNIE 1303 RIVERGATE DR LODI CA, 95240 APN 05902023 GANDARA, MELCHOR G JR & E TR 11851 N LOWER SAC RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05902040 KAMMERER, CLINT TR 11869 LOWER SAC RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05902045 SHINN, STEVEN M & SHARON G TR 21700 N DAVIS RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05904002 SABADO, HILARIO P JR PO BOX 690064 STOCKTON CA, 95269 APN 05904005 LAUCHLAND, JAMES R & CAROL 700 E ARMSTRONG RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 05904010 SENNER, ROBERT W & VALERIE S 1289 METTLER RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05904013 BENNITT, CHRISTOPHER JOHN 1624 E ALPINE AVE STOCKTON CA, 95205 APN 05812012 GARROW, LEONARD J & PATRICIA T 3909 E ARMSTRONG RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 05812015 KESZLER, BRUCE L & SALLY E TR 4051 E ARMSTRONG RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 05902012 DEKAM, LARRY & DEANNE TR 280 E ARMSTRONG RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05902024 SHINN, VIRGINIAATR 176 SAN MARCOS DR LODI CA, 95240 APN 05902041 HADDAD, MARY ETAL 4327 CURLEW ST STOCKTON CA, 95219 APN 05902047 FREDONYER, LAND CO INC 11919 N LOWER SACTO LODI CA, 95240 APN 05904003 BARBERO, ANTHONY TRS PO BOX 644 LODI CA, 95241 APN 05904006 BARBER°, ANTHONY TR PO BOX 644 LODI CA, 95241 APN 05904011 STEINHEIMER, M MAX & B G 1410 METTLER RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05904015 DAVENPORT, GREGORY R & MONICA 1102 E METTLER RD LODI CA, 94240 Greenbelt General Plan Amendment public hearing mailing list ,PN 05904016 ;DESS, RICHARD C & D M 34 E METTLER RD ODI CA, 95242 PN 05904024 LYNN, DENNIS P 1780 N LOWER SACRAMENTO RD ODI CA, 95242 PN 05904029 :ARLONI, ROBERT E & MARI J TR 123 METTLER RD ODI CA, 95242 PN 05904032 RODBECK, MARTHA 003 HEIRLOOM WAY SACRAMENTO CA, 95826 PN 05904038 ARNHARDT, JAMES E & C TRS 91 E METTLER RD 001 CA, 95242 PN 05904043 USSMAN, KEITH 0 BOX 77766 TOCKTON CA, 95267 PN 05904046 /ORKMAN, BRENT & STEFFANI N 560 E ARMSTRONG RD 001 CA, 95240 PN -0591-0002 dded to Label APN05920003 PN 05910010 IAGISTRI, JOSEPH L & SANDRA TR 1769 N HWY 99 DDI CA, 95240 PN 05910018 ANK OF AMERICA NT & SA TRUSTE 0 BOX 13519 RLINGTON TX, 76094 APN 05904019 BLIGHTON, MARY E TR 620 GRANT ST LODI CA, 95240 APN 05904025 LAUCHLAND, JAMES R ETAL 700 E ARMSTRONG RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05904030 CARLON', ROBERT E & MARI J TR 1123 E METTLER RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05904035 SUESS, RICHARD C & D M 934 E METTLER RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05904039 KAUTZ, KURT ANDREW 5490 BEAR CREEK RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 05904044 BUSSMAN, KEITH 659 E METTLER RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05904047 HOFER, WALTER T & E L 1202 E METTLER RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 05910003 POWERS, MICHAEL A & DORIS A TR 3980 E ARMSTRONG RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 05910011 KAUTZ, JOHN H & G ETAL 5920 E LIVE OAK RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 05910019 BANK OF AMERICA NT & SA TRUSTE PO BOX 13519 ARLINGTON TX, 76094 APN 05904020 CHINCHIOLO, F JAMES TR ETAL 3536 GLENEAGLES DR STOCKTON CA, 95219 APN 05904027 SCHNEWEIS, ALICE S TR 1020 E METTLER RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05904031 SENNER, ROBERT W & VALERIE S 1289 METTLER RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05904037 ULMER, ROGER & SYLVIA TR PO BOX 5487 STOCKTON CA, 95205 APN 05904041 KAUTZ, KURT ANDREW 5490 BEAR CREEK RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 05904045 BORRA, STEPHEN JR & CHRISTINE 1550 E ARMSTRONG RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05910001 BANK OF AMERICA NT & SA TRUSTE PO BOX 13519 ARLINGTON TX, 76094 APN 05910008 PARISES, GUS A 11929 N HWY 99 LODI CA, 95240 APN 05910012 KAUTZ, JOHN H & GAIL E 5490 E BEAR CREEK RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 05910025 SACKSCHEWSKY, PAUL J & LESLIE 11724 N M ICKE GROVE RD LODI CA, 95240 Greenbelt General Plan Amendment public hearing mailing list 'N 05910026 itUTZ, JOHN H & G E 20ELIVE OAK RD )DI CA, 95240 'N 05910032 DYNER, MICHAEL S & RUBY D TR 170 E ARMSTRONG RD )DI CA, 95240 'N 05910035 EGAN, DENNIS F & PAMELA V TR !20 E ARMSTRONG RD )DI CA, 95240 'N 05910038 ANIEL, GARY R & ELIZABETH TR 386 E ARMSTRONG RD ?DI CA, 95240 'N 05910041 OFFMAN, ARTHUR J & LORENE TR 118 E W00DRIDGE RD CAMPO CA. 95220 PN 05912003 ASILLAS, CONSUELO 1799 N HWY 99 DOI CA, 95240 PN 05912006 HUMATE, CAREY & ANGELA R 1777 N HWY 99 DDI CA, 95240 PN 05913001 IEDE CONSTRUCTION 0 BOX 1007 IOODBRIDGE CA, 95258 PN 05914035 AUTZ, JOHN H & GAIL E 190 E BEAR CREEK RD DDI CA, 95240 PN 05917009 DC/ABS, KAREN S ETAL 0 BOX 797 DDI CA, 95241 APN 05910028 MAGGIORA, DOMENICO DELLA TR ET 13323 N STOCKTON ST LODI CA, 95240 APN 05910033 TRAN, HUNG & KIM NGOC 4130 E ARMSTRONG RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 05910036 HOFFMAN, ARTHUR & L TRS 2418 E WOODBRIDGE RD ACAMPO CA, 95220 APN 05910039 DANIEL, GARY R & ELIZABETH TR 4386 E ARMSTRONG RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 05912001 COFFMAN, ED L & LINDA ARLEEN 497 PERKINS DR HAYWARD CA, 94541 APN 05912004 SCHMIDLI, KORY J & MICHELLE R 11791 N HWY 99 LODI CA, 95240 APN 05912007 PIKE, JOHN H & DONNA 11747 N HWY 99 LODI CA, 95240 APN 05914002 KAUTZ, JOHN H & GAIL E 5490 BEAR CREEK RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 05914036 KAUTZ, JOHN H & G E 5490 E BEAR CREEK RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 05917013 SALAS, MAGDALENA 2111 W MARCH LN STOCKTON CA, 95207 APN 05910029 DELLA MAGGIORA, DOMENICO TR ET 13323 N STOCKTON ST LODI CA, 95240 APN 05910034 REISWIG, KERBY & LINDA 4180 E ARMSTRONG RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 05910037 DANIEL, GARY R & ELIZABETH TR 822 W PINOT NOIR DR LODI CA, 95240 APN 05910040 FERRERO, ANGIE M TR 11877 N HWY 99 LODI CA, 95240 APN 05912002 PARKER, VAN PO BOX 7 GALT CA, 95632 APN 05912005 FERRERO, SUSAN 11785 N HWY 99 LODI CA, 95240 APN 05912008 ESTES, JAMES B & CHARLOTTE G T 11735 N HWY 99 LODI CA, 95240 APN 05914003 JEFFRIES, ROBERT E & JUDY A 11374 N MICKE GROVE RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 05917008 POPUCH, JOHN & CATHY L 11450 N PEARSON RD LODI CA, 95240 Attn: David Beadles, Parks Administrator APNS 05910002, 05920003 Parks & Recreation Division 11793 N Micke Grove Rd Lodi, CA 95240 Greenbelt General Plan Amendment public hearing mailing list APN 05920007 San Joaquin Cnty Flood Control Agency c/o Stockton Public Works 22 E. Weber Avenue Stockton, CA 95202 PN 05920004 THAYDE, HUBERT P & ANNA L TR 0 BOX 1226 ODI CA, 95241 PN 05920008 ,ETTENCOURT, JOSEPH L & BETTY '0 BOX 2375 ODI CA, 95241 ,PN 05922004 UJINAKA, STEVE & BARBARA TR E 016 E ARMSTRONG RD ODI CA, 95242 APN 05922007 AGIR, GULZARA & SHASHI TR ETA :061 METTLER RD OD! CA, 95242 PN 05923001 IATT, EDWARD P TR !376 E ARMSTRONG RD .0D1 CA, 95240 TN 05923004 3CHNEIDER, JAMES W & KAREN L 11884NHAM LN ADI CA, 95242 1,PN 05923007 ACDANNALD, WILLIAM L & LURA M X433 DRUET LN _0D1 CA, 95242 APN 05923010 ;HRISTOPHERSON, CAROL D TR ?522 E DRUET LN _ODI CA, 95242 TN 05923013 DORTEZ, RUBEN A & E 11794 N HAM LANE _ODI CA, 95240 4PN 05923018 3ANK OF AMERICA NT & SA TRUSTE DO BOX 13519 4RLINGTON TX, 76094 APN 05920006 STADEROLI, JOHN & MARILYN E TR 11300 N GOLFVIEW RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 05922002 LOPEZ, FRANK PACO & GUADALUPE 1760 E ARMSTRONG RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05922005 COSTAMAGNA, JOE TR 11906 N HAM LN LODI CA, 95240 APN 05922008 MERIN, GARY WAYNE & NANCY LEE 11769 N HAM LN LODI CA, 95242 APN 05923002 COSTAMAGNA, JOE TR 11906NHAM LN LODI CA, 95240 APN 05923005 COSTAMAGNA, JOE TR ETAL 11906 N HAM LN LODI CA, 95240 APN 05923008 KLEMIN, CLEO & B TRS 11854 N HAM LANE LODI CA, 95242 APN 05923011 COSTAMAGNA, MICHAEL & FLORENCE 11920 N HAM LN LODI CA, 95240 APN 05923014 HERRMANN, ERWIN & INGE TR 11740 N HAM LN LODI CA, 95240 APN 05924001 GILL, JASBIR S & PARAMPAL K PO BOX 8778 STOCKTON CA, 95208 APN 05922003 FUJINAKA, STEVE & BARBARA TR E 2016 E ARMSTRONG RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05922006 BLODGETT, JOHN M III 11845 N HAM LN LODI CA, 95242 APN 05922009 NIETSCHKE, DAVID & MARIDEE ETA PO BOX 1143 LODI CA, 95241 APN 05923003 COSTAMAGNA, JOE TR 11906 N HAM LN LODI CA, 95240 APN 05923006 FILLER, MERRIT 11872 N HAM LN LODI CA, 95242 APN 05923009 NEVIS, SANDY E 2356 E DRUET LANE LODI CA, 95242 APN 05923012 SCOTT, RUSSELL & 0 TRS 11808 N HAM LN LODI CA, 95242 APN 05923017 BANK OF AMERICA NT & SA TRUSTE PO BOX 13519 ARLINGTON TX, 76094 APN 05924002 GILL, JASBIR S & PARAMPAL K PO BIX 8778 STOCKTON CA, 95208 Greenbelt General Plan Amendment public hearing mailing list PN 05924003 AGIR, GULZARA & SHASHI TR ETA 061 METTLER RD ODI CA, 95242 PN 05924006 AGIR, GULZARA & SHASHI TR 061 METTLER RD ODI CA, 95242 PN 05924009 LORIN, JASON 564 METTLER RD ODI CA, 95242 PN 05924012 )OWU, OLAJIRE & 0 734 E METTLER RD OD! CA, 95242 PN 05924017 ;HEN, GEORGE & I TRS 900 E METTLER RD ODI CA, 95242 PN 05924022 VHITESIDE, TERRY C & VICKIE G 150 METTLER RD ODI CA, 95242 ,PN 05925002 'ACIFIC GAS &, ELECTRIC CO '0 Box 930 ;tockton, CA 95201 ttn: Land Agents PN 05925011 LANK OF AMERICA NT & SA TRUSTE '0 BOX 13519 ARLINGTON TX, 76094 PN 06107006 'ELKINS, JEANETTE L TR 1480 N DEVRIES RD ODI CA, 95242 PN 06108011 IOGAN RANCH 1051 E BAKER RD iTOCKTON CA, 95215 APN 05924004 NIETSCHKE, DAVID & MARIDEE ETA PO BOX 444 LODI CA, 95241 APN 05924007 FREY, JAMES E & LINDA JORITA T 1560 E METTLER RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 05924010 CALDERON, JOSE L & AURORA S 1672 METTLER RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05924013 RAUSCH, A PETER JR & NANCY L 7488 SHORELINE DR STE A3 STOCKTON CA, 95219 APN 05924020 CHAMBERS, ELLIOTT R TR 2014 E METTLER RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05924023 RUELAS, JUAN & CLAUDIA 2200 METTLER RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05925003 PASSALACQUA FAMILY PARTNERSHIP 1515 BLACK MOUNTAIN RD HILLSBOROUGH CA, 94010 APN 05925012 BANK OF AMERICA NT & SA TRUSTE PO BOX 13519 ARLINGTON TX, 76094 APN 06108001 MANGAT, CHIRANJEEV S & KANWALJ 12680 N HWY 99 LODI CA, 95240 APN 06108016 VILLA CEREZOS LLC 12901 TRIPOLI CT LOS ALTOS CA, 94022 APN 05924005 ROSS, WILLIAM & JEANINE TR 1931 METTLER RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05924008 PENNISI, VINCENT & D A 1600 METTLER RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 05924011 DANIELS, FRANKLIN & LORETTA TR 1700 E METTLER RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05924016 OREN, WILLIAM V & DIANE M TR 1800 METTLER RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05924021 MCCANN, MARTIN 0 & MARY B 2130 METTLER RD LODI CA, 95242 APN 05925001 HERRMANN, ERWIN P & INGE L TR 11740 N HAM LN LODI CA, 95242 APN 05925004 LU, CAN N & PHUONG K 250 NORTH 9TH ST OAKDALE CA, 95361 APN 05925013 BANK OF AMERICA NT & SA TRUSTE PO BOX 13519 ARLINGTON TX, 76094 APN 06108006 SINGH MANGAT, CHIRANJEEV & K 12680 N HWY 99 LODI CA, 95240 APN 06108017 DONNELLY, NICHOLAS & H 12404 N HWY 99 LODI CA, 95240 N 06108018 <INS, CARL A & PHILLIS TR ET BOX 338 ;TOR CA, 95253 N 06109004 ;E, JOHN & BARBARA 35 E BEAR CREEK RD DI CA, 95240 N 06109039 JTTINGLY, PAMELA ANN ETAL T74 N HWY 99 DI CA, 95240 N 06109042 UTZ, JOHN H & GAIL E 30 E BEAR CREEK RD DI CA, 95240 coin Fire Department 30 North Pershing Ave., Suite B-1 )ckton, CA 95207 n' Ginger Root n Joaquin County LAFCO 30 E. Hazelton Avenue )ckton, CA 95205 n: Bruce C. Baracco Greenbelt General Plan Amendment public hearing mailing list APN 06109001 CASTAGNO, PRIMO & JOAN CTR 4782 E ARMSTRONG RD LODI CA, 95240 APN 06109037 EAGLE ENTERPRISES PTP PO BOX 1007 WOODBRIDGE CA, 95258 APN 06109040 HALL, JENNIFER 11786 N HWY 99 LODI CA, 95240 APN 06109043 MCCLOUD, BRIAN J 11882 N HWY 99 LODI CA, 95240 Woodbridge Fire Protection District PO Box 186 Woodbridge, CA 95258 San Joaquin County Community Development Department 1810 E. Hazelton Avenue Stockton, CA 95205 APN 06109003 KELLER, DONALD J & D L 11950 N 99 HWY LODI CA, 95240 APN 06109038 EAGLE ENTERPRISES PTP PO BOX 1007 WOODBRIDGE CA, 95258 APN 06109041 KAUTZ, JOHN H & GAIL E 5490E BEAR CREEK RD LODI CA, 95240 Lodi Unified School District 1305 E. Vine Street Lodi, CA 95240 Attn: Mamie Star Waterloo Morada Fire District 6925 East Foppiano Lane Stockton, CA 95212 San Joaquin County Administration Office 222 E. Weber Street Stockton, CA 95205