HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - May 13, 2009 B-01 PH/SMAGENDA ITEM 8 00'
CITY OF LODI
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
AGENDA TITLE: Conduct Public Hearing to consider appeals filed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
Browman Development Company, Lodi First, and PAQ, Inc. regarding the
decision of the Planning Commission to deny Use Permit (U-02-12)
concerning a Use Permit for the construction of a commercial center in a
C -S, Commercial Shopping District, and the sale of alcoholic beverages at
the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter; Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (03-P-
001) concerning the creation of 12 parcels for the project; and Site Plan and
Architectural Review (08 -SP -08) concerning site plan and architectural
review of a proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter at the proposed Lodi Shopping
Center located at 2640 West Kettleman Lane (collectively "the Project"); and
further consider approval of the Project and consider adopting findings and
statements of overriding considerations pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act.
MEETING DATE: May 13,2009
PREPARED BY: Community Development Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct Public Hearing to consider appeals filed by Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., Browman Development Company, Lodi First, and PAQ, Inc.
regarding the decision of the Planning Commission to deny Use Permit (U-02-12) for the
construction of a commercial center in a C -S, Commercial Shopping District, and the sale of
alcoholic beverages at the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter; Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (03-P-
001) concerning the creation of 12 parcels for the project; and Site Plan and Architectural Review
(08 -SP -08) concerning site plan and architectural review of a proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter at
the proposed Lodi Shopping Center located at 2640 West Kettleman Lane (collectively "the
Project"); and further consider approval of the Project and consider adopting findings and
statements of overriding considerations pursuantto the California Environmental Quality Act.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On April 8, 2009, the Planning Commission held a Public
Hearing to consider the applications that have been filed
regarding the Lodi Shopping Center project. The specific applications would enable the project to
move forward. The Use Permit requests are required by the Commercial Shopping (C -S) zoning
designation. An additional Use Permit is required in order for Wal-Mart to sell alcoholic beverages
within its store. The Vesting Tentative Map allows for the subdivision of the property consistentwith
the number of buildings planned for the site and the site plan and architectural review is required
for any building constructed on the property. In this case, just the Wal-Mart store is being reviewed
at this time. Finally, the Planning Commission considered the required findings and statements of
overriding considerations which link the project approvals to the certified Final Revised
Environmental Impact Report.
APPROVED: %
Blair King, City anager
The Planning Commission took testimony from 13 people including the project applicants and
opponents. As with the previous meetings on this project, the focus of the comment was on the
advantage or disadvantage of having a Wal-Mart Supercenter, not necessarily the details of the
specific requests. The main issue raised by the attorneys representing Lodi First and Citizens for
Open Government was on the findings and statements of overriding considerations which relate
back to the action taken by the City Council to certify the environmental document. After
consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission voted a 3-3 tie. As the City Council is
aware, an action approving a project requires an affirmative vote of the majority of the Planning
Commission, so the end result of the Commission's tie vote was denial of the requests. The City
has received four appeals as noted in the title of this action. Two appeals have been filed on behalf
of the applicants and two requests were filed by the opposition to the project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Use Permit and Tentative Map Analvsis:
Approximately 18 years ago, the City's General Plan designated the southwest corner of West
Kettleman Lane/State Route 12 and Lower Sacramento Road for the construction of large-scale
retail development. Since that time, the centers on the other three corners have built out as
envisioned. Major national retailers such as Wal-Mart, JCPenney, Target, and Lowe's have
occupied these corners. The Lodi Shopping Center is proposed on the remaining fourth corner to
be anchored by a Wal-Mart Supercenter. This type and scale of development is consistent with
the activity that has occurred at the other three corners.
The City's Zoning Code requires that all plot plans for projects within the C -S, Commercial
Shopping District receive Planning Commission approval. Over time, this review has been done
through the Use Permit process. The Zoning Code also requires Use Permit approval for the sale
of alcoholic beverages. The applicant is requesting a Use Permit and a Vesting Tentative Map in
order to divide the property into 12 lots that will correspond to the number of buildings anticipated
for the project.
The proposed project includes the construction of approximately 339,966 square feet of
commercial retail uses, representing a variety of retail sales and services, to be contained in 12
buildings of varying sizes. The primary use will be a Wal-Mart Supercenter that will occupy
approximately 226,868 square feet of floor area, including approximately 70,000 square feet for
grocery sales, 19,889 square feet for a garden center (including outdoor fenced area), and 6,437
square feet for an auto service shop. The Wal-Mart Supercenterwill not include the use of outdoor
metal storage containers, and will not include a seasonal sales area in the parking lot.
A moderate sized retailerwill occupy approximately 35,000 square feet on pad 12 in the southeast
corner of the site. The remaining 11 buildings will range in size from 3,200 square feet to 14,788
square feet. Three of the 11 buildings will be occupied by fast food franchises, with another two
buildings consisting of sit-down restaurants, and the remaining buildings occupied by such retail
uses such as financial services/bank, professional/business services, and other retail sales and
services.
The uses, layout and design of the shopping center have remained the same as that presented to
and approved by the Planning Commission in December 2004. The Wal-Mart building is located at
the southwestern corner of the site, with 11 freestanding buildings located along Kettleman Lane
and Lower Sacramento Road to the north and east. In the center of the shopping center is the
main parking lot. The proposed vesting tentative map includes the Wal-Mart store and all
corresponding parking in the largest lot (lot 12, 18.3 acres), with each of the remaining 11 buildings
on their own lot with associated parking. These other lots are generally one+/- acre, ranging from
0.53 acres (lot 8) to 2.6 acres (lot 11). Internal travel lanes, parking medians and planters are
located throughout the interior. Access to the Center is mainly from Westgate Drive and Lower
Sacramento Road, with right turn in and out only from Kettleman Lane. As shown on the site plan,
significant public improvements are required in order to build this project, as detailed in the draft
conditions in the accompanying resolution of approval. The applicant will be responsible for the
construction of Westgate Drive from Kettleman Lane to the southerly project boundary as well as
the frontage improvements on Kettleman Lane and Lower Sacramento Road. The applicant is also
responsible for the approximately four -acre site across Westgate Drive to be used for storm water
detention, all associated project right-of-way dedications, utility easements, engineering reports
and studies, and fees. An encroachment permit from CalTrans for Kettleman Lane/State Route 12
will be needed.
Conditions in the draft Resolution cover fire safety, outdoor storage or display of merchandise,
shopping cart storage, security and exterior lighting. Consistent with the prior approval by the City
Council, conditions relative to re -use of the existing Wal-Mart building are also included. Further,
even though a CEQA environmental impact as to urban decay or physical deterioration from the
Lodi Shopping Center cannot be made, the City Council can make a decision that the economic
effects of the Center on the Downtown should be addressed. To this end, staff is proposing a
condition to require the Lodi Shopping Center to invest in the Downtown area. The aggregate value
of the capital improvement must exceed $700,000. Finally, a condition is included to incorporate all
mitigation measures as specified in the certified FREIR.
The Use Permit will allow the Wal-Mart Supercenter to sell alcoholic beverages. No Use Permit for
alcohol for any of the freestanding buildings has been applied for or is under consideration. The
tenants of these freestanding buildings are not known to staff and have not been included in this
request. Any such request in the future would require a Planning Commission hearing at that time
when the specific details of the requesting business are known. The City Council has previously
found that the sale of alcoholic beverages is incidental to a grocery store operation and that is what
is being requested by the Wal-Mart Supercenter. As such, staff is recommending that the City
Council approve the request to sell alcohol.
The second Use Permit request emanates from the C -S zoning designation which specifically
states that a "detailed plot plan of the proposed construction" be submitted to the Planning
Commission. The design standards identified in the code are as follows:
A. The site shall be designed and used as a unit, regardless of ownership of the land and
buildings.
B. All streets bordering the site shall be fully dedicated and improved by the developer.
C. The design of the development shall include the landscaping of buildings and parking
areas, the screening of nearby residential areas, and the enclosure or shielding of
trash and disposal areas. Lights and signs shall be located to avoid disturbance to
residential areas.
D. Driveways, parking areas and loading areas shall be located so as to minimize traffic
interference.
Section 17.58 of the Municipal Code adds additional design requirements to the project. These
standards were adopted in 2004 specifically to deal with the design of large-scale retail
establishments like Wal-Mart. The applicant has met or exceeded each of these standards as
presented and conditioned, and staff recommends approval of the request.
As previously discussed in the analysis, a vesting tentative map approval is requested to divide the
site into 12 lots. The applicant has met the requirements of the City's subdivision ordinance and
the State Subdivision Map Act, and staff recommends approval of the map.
SPARC Review:
Along with the plot plan and tentative map for the Lodi Shopping Center, preliminary elevations and
colors for the Wal-Mart Supercenter have been submitted. No elevations or colors, landscaping
plan, signage plan, materials, or other final plans for the rest of the Center or buildings have been
submitted. As mentioned, this shopping center is subject to the City's Design Standards for Large
Retail Establishments. The overall site layout, building footprints, parking areas, and access
driveways provide the overall direction of the Center and were used by staff and the Planning
Commission in the December 8, 2004 review to determine that this project complies with the
Design Standards for Large Retail Establishments. As such, no further design, layout, or changes
have been proposed.
The proposed project includes the construction of a new Wal-Mart Supercenter store with a
building size of approximately 226,868 square feet. The Wal-Mart building would be located on the
southwestern portion of the project site, and the building entrance would face east toward Lower
Sacramento Road. The Wal-Mart Supercenter building is a single story structure. The architectural
theme of the building is a contemporary style and uses construction materials commonly used in
commercial shopping center construction. Architectural materials such as concrete masonry block,
metal awnings, and exterior plaster finish will be utilized on the exterior of the building. The major
materials used for architectural treatment include fawn (brown) colored stucco, fawn (brown)
cultured stone veneer, split face (light brown) block, sea -green colored smooth finish metal panels,
charcoal roofing material, hallow (gunmetal gray) metal doors and cornices, and black fencing. The
body of the building will be in shades of brown. The ground level will have fawn (brown)
colored stucco walls with fawn colored stone veneer accent walls near key entrances and along
the lower eight feet of the exteriorwall. The architectural treatment features are mostly used on the
north and east elevation. Also on the main entrance, a canopy type architectural feature is
proposed. The proposed main entry canopy will be clad with a brown cultured stone finish.
The west and south elevations do not feature the same detailed architectural treatment. The west
(rear) elevation is a continuous wall with little architectural treatment to breakup the elevation of the
building. The entire west elevation will have fawn (brown) colored stucco walls with metal doors
painted to match the stucco. Cornices and accent trims are provided to break up the wall elevation.
The ground level will also have cultured veneer stone elements. The midsection of the western
elevation should receive further architectural treatment to add architectural interest to the wall. It is
importantto note that this elevation will be visible from across Westgate Drive.
The southern elevation will feature nearly identical architectural treatment as the west elevation.
However, the proposed southern elevation is less of an issue. First, there will be an 8 -foot tall
masonry wall on the southern property line to block any view of this elevation from the project to
the south. Second, unlike the western elevation, the southern elevation is not a continuous large
mass elevation. Because the main axis of the building faces west (the longest elevation), the south
elevation is the side of the building and is relatively small in size in comparison. A condition of
approval is included in the SPARC Resolution regarding additional architectural treatment for the
west elevation.
Circulation and Parking
The site plan indicates six access points to three public streets. There will be three entrances/exits
from Lower Sacramento Road, one from Kettleman Lane (Highway 12), and two from Westgate
Drive. All three streets will have a raised center median that will restrict turning movements in
some degree. The main entrance to the project parking lot is from Lower Sacramento Road and
will be located near the middle of the project site. This entrance will have a traffic signal to control
traffic flow and will allow both entering and exiting traffic to turn in both directions. The other access
pointsfrom Lower Sacramento Road will be restricted to rightturn-in and right turn -out movements.
The direct driveway entrance from Kettleman Lane (Highway 12) will only permit a right turn -in and
right turn -out traffic movement. Traffic can also access the shopping center from Kettleman Lane
by way of Westgate Drive. This intersection is controlled by an existing traffic signal that will allow
both right- and left -turning movements. The main (northern) access point from Westgate Drive will
allow both right- and left-hand turning movements. The southern access point will only allow right -
in, right -out movements. Circulation to and from the site is very similar to the Vintners Square
Center (Lowe's) to the north.
The main parking lot is located on the east side of the Wal-Mart building. There will be smaller
parking areas to serve the free-standing commercial pads. For the Wal-Mart building, a total of 965
parking spaces are proposed (4.45 per 1,000 square feet of building). A total of 434 parking
spaces are required, per City code (General Retail 1 per 500). The proposed number of parking
stalls exceeds the minimum parking requirements.
There are 12 cart corrals proposed to be distributed throughout the parking lot. These cart corrals
will be screened in brown Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) wall with wooden frames to provide
additional ornamentation.
Landscaping and Signage
The proposed landscape plan calls for various large shade trees, smaller trees, shrubs and ground
covers. A total of 478 larger shade trees will be provided within the parking lot interior, along the
southern and western edges the property line, and throughout the site. This total number of trees
exceeds what the City code requires.
The approval of project signage is not a part of the current review and would be subject to City of
Lodi codes and requirementsto ensure they complement the building architecture and landscaping
of the building. Signage applications and approvals would be done separately, should the project
be approved.
CONCLUSION: Staff believes that the discretion the City Council has is fairly limited as it relates
to the project requests. The Use Permit, Tentative Map and Site Plan and
Architectural review are all consistent with City Ordinances, Policy and past practice. The area of
broader discretion is with the CEQA findings and statements of overriding considerations, and staff
recommends approval of the Project.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
FUNDING AVAILABLE: None
adt Bartlam
Community Development Director
Attachments: Draft Resolution
Sheppard Mullin Richter& Hampton/ Remy Thomas Moose& Manley Appeal dated April 10,2009
Herum Crabtree Appeal dated April 15,2009
PAQ, Inc. Appeal dated April 17,2009
Planning Commission Resolution from April 8,2009
Draft Planning Commission Minutes from April 8, 2009
Planning Commission Staff Reportfrom April 8, 2009
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-58
A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL APPROVING USE PERMIT
FILE NO. U-02-12 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OFA COMMERCIAL
SHOPPING CENTER IN THE C -S ZONE AND ALLOW THE SALE OF
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AT THE WAL-MART SUPERCENTER;
APPROVING THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 03-P-001 TO CREATE 12
PARCELS FOR THE PROJECT RELATING TO THE LODI SHOPPING
CENTER; AND PROVIDING THE ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL OF A NEW
COMMERCIAL BUILDING TO BE CONSTRUCTEDAT 2640 WEST
KETTLEMAN LANE (WAL-MART), AND MAKING FINDINGS AND
STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PURSUANTTO
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITYACT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
........................................................................
WHEREAS, an application was filed by Browman Development Company for a
commercial shopping center at 2640 W. Kettleman Lane more particularly described as
Assessor's Parcel Numbers 058-030-08 and 058-030-02 and portion of 058-030-09; and
WHEREAS, the application is for the following approvals: Use Permits for the
construction of commercial structures as required by the C -S Commercial Shopping District and
for the sale of alcoholic beverages, a Vesting Tentative Map to create 12 parcels for the project,
and architectural approval of a new commercial building including elevations and colors to be
used for the construction of a Wal-Mart store located at 2640 W. Kettleman Lane (the
"Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi, after more than ten (10) days
published notice, held a public hearing before said Commission on April 8, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted 3-3 on a motion to approve the requests
and make the findings, which resulted in a denial of the Project approvals; and
WHEREAS, the Project is consistent with all elements of the General Plan, and in
particular, the following General Plan Goals and Policies:
A. Land Use and Growth Management Element, Goal E, "To provide adequate
land and support for the development of commercial uses providing goods
and services to Lodi residents and Lodi's market share."
B. Land Use and Growth Management Element, Goal E, Policy 7, "In approving
new commercial projects, the City shall seek to ensure that such projects
reflect the City's concern for achieving and maintaining high quality."
C. Land Use and Growth Management Element, Goal E, Policy 3, "The City
shall encourage new large-scale commercial centers to be located along
major arterials and at the intersections of major arterials and freeways."
D. Housing Element, Goal C, "To ensure the provision of adequate public
facilities and services to support existing and future residential development".
E. Circulation Element, Goal G, "To encourage a reduction in regional vehicle
miles traveled."
F. Circulation Element, Goal A, Policy 1, "The City shall strive to maintain Level
of Service C on local streets and intersections. The acceptable level of
service goal will be consistentwith financial resources available and the limits
of technical feasibility."
G. Noise Element, Goal A, "To ensure that City residents are protected from
excessive noise."
H. Conservation Element, Goal C, Policy 1, "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."
I. Health and Safety Element, Goals A, B, C, and D, "To prevent loss of lives,
injury and property damage due to flooding." To prevent loss of lives, injury,
and property damage due to the collapse of buildings and critical facilities
and to prevent disruption cf essential services in the event of an earthquake.
To prevent loss of lives, injury, and property damage due to urban fires. To
prevent crime and promote the personal security of Lodi residents.
J. Urban Design and Cultural resources, Goal C, "To maintain and enhance the
aesthetic quality of major streets and public/civic areas."
WHEREAS, the design and improvement of the site is consistent with all applicable
standards adopted by the City. Specifically, the project has met the requirements of the Lodi
Zoning Ordinance with particular emphasis on the standards for large retail establishments; and
WHEREAS, the design of the proposed project and type of improvements are not likely
to cause public health or safety problems in that all improvements will be constructed to the City
of Lodi standards; and
WHEREAS, these findings, as well as the findings made within City Council Resolution
No. 2009-27 certifying Final Revised Environmental Impact Report EIR-03-01, are supported by
substantial evidence in the record of this proceeding and before this body; and
WHEREAS, approval of the requested architectural drawings will allow the construction
of a commercial building that will comply with the City's Zoning Ordinance and Building Code
regulations; and
WHEREAS, the design of the proposed project and type of improvements are not likely
to cause public health or safety problems in that all improvements wilI be constructed to the City
of Lodi standards; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lodi has invested over sixteen million dollars in its Downtown
area to revitalize and create a specialty retail and commercial destination within the City; and
WHEREAS, the Lodi Shopping Center will create retail and commercial shopping
opportunities outside of the Downtown area; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lodi is committed to revitalizing its Downtown area and is
requiring that all new retail and commercial developments contribute to that effort; and
2
WHEREAS, the City of Lodi recognizes that the applicant will make an in kind
contributionto the redevelopment of the Downtown area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED that the Lodi
City Council does hereby approve the Project subject to the following findings, conclusions, and
conditions of approval:
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
2. The City Council incorporates herein by reference City Council Resolution No. 09-27, dated
March 11, 2009 certifying the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the
Project and finds that the EIR, as revised, adequately identifies all significant environmental
effects of the project pursuantto CEQA.
3. As provided by Public Resources Code section 21081, CEQA Guidelines sections 15091,
15092, and 15093, and other relevant provisions of CEQA, the City Council hereby makes
and adopts those Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ("Findings")
set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The City
Council, exercising its own independent judgment, determines that such Findings are
supported by substantial evidence in the record including, but not limited to, the information
and materials contained in the EIR, as revised, all notices and other documents related
thereto, those documents and materials described in California Public Resources Code
section 21167.6(e), and those documents and materials referenced in the Findings.
4. The City Council hereby approves and adopts each and every mitigation measure
proposed in the EIR, as revised, (and as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto) and makes
such mitigation measures a required component of and incorporated into approval of the
Project. The City Council further finds that, except as to impacts found by the EIR to be
significant and unavoidable, implementation of the mitigation measures identified and
discussed in the EIR will avoid or lessen to a level of less than significant those
environmental effects identified in the EIR for which a mitigation measure is identified.
5. Pursuantto Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby approves and
adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto as Exhibit B and
incorporated herein by reference, which was prepared in conjunction with the EIR. The
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is made a required component and condition
of approval of the Project.
6. Because the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures will not substantially lessen or
avoid all significant adverse environmental effects caused by the project, the City Council
adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations concerning the Project's unavoidable
significant impacts to explain why the Project's benefits override and outweigh its
unavoidable impacts on the environment as set forth in ExhibitA.
7. The City Council does hereby make its findings with respect to the significant effects on the
environment resulting from the Project, as identified herein and in the hereinbefore
mentioned EIR, with the stipulation that all information in the findings is intended as a
summary of the full administrative record supporting the EIR, which full administrative
3
record is available for review through the Director of Community Development at his office
in Lodi City Hall at 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, 95241.
8. Having reviewed and considered the Draft and Final EIR for the Project, as revised, and
other relevant materials and information in the record, the City Council hereby approves the
Project and makes the following specific findings relative thereto.
Use Permit andTentative Map
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
2. Said Tentative Map complies with the requirements of the City Subdivision Ordinance, and
the Subdivision Map Act.
3. Said Site Plan complies with the requirements of the Commercial Shopping (C -S) Zoning
District.
4. The submitted plans, including site plot plan and architectural elevations for the major
anchor building, for the project is approved subject to the following conditions.
A. The approval of the Use Permit expires within 24 months from the date of this
Resolution. Should any litigation be filed or continued regarding this project, the time
limit shown shall be tolled during the pendency of the litigation. Final Parcel Map(s)
conforming to this conditionally approved Tentative Parcel Map shall be filed with the
Public Works Department in time so that the Public Works Department may approve
said map before its expiration pursuant to City Council Resolution 2008-125, unless
prior to that date, the Planning Commission or City Council subsequently grants a time
extension for the filing of the Final Parcel Map, as provided for in the City's Subdivision
Ordinance and the Subdivision Map Act. The Public Works Department shall notify
the City Council of any such approvals. It is the developer's responsibilityto track the
expiration date. Failure to request an extension will result in a refilling of the Tentative
Map and new review processing of the map. Pursuant to Government Code section
66456. 1, the applicant may seek multiple/phased final maps.
B. Prior to submittal of any further plan check or within 90 days of the approval of this
project, whichever occurs first, the applicant and all property owners shall sign a
notarized affidavit stating that "I (we), , the owner(s) or the owner's representative
have read, understand, and agree to implement all mitigation measures identified in
the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Lodi Shopping Center and the
conditions of the City Council approving U-02-12 and 03-P-001." Immediately
following this statement will appear a signature block for the owner or the owner's
representative, which shall be signed. Signature blocks for the Community
Development Director and City Engineer shall also appear on this page. The affidavit
shall be approved by the City prior to any improvement plan or final map submittal.
C. Prior to issuance of any building permit on the site, each building shall be reviewed by
the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee for consistency with this resolution
as well as all applicable standards of the City.
D. All applications for Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee consideration shall
comply with the following conditions:
4
1. All buildings shall comply with the requirements of C -S zoning district and meet
setback requirements from the right of way shown on the site plan. All
buildings shall implement building elements and materials illustrated on the
submitted elevation or otherwise consistent with the architectural theme
presented on the submitted elevation of the major tenant building.
2. Submit a construction landscape plan consistent with the submitted conceptual
landscape plan. The applicant shall also insure that the overall ratio of trees,
including perimeter landscaping is equal to one tree for every four parking
spaces. Further, said plan shall demonstrate that the City's requirement for
parking lot shading is met.
3. The applicant shall select and note on all plans common tree species for the
parking lot and perimeter areas from the list of large trees as identified in the
Local Government Commission's "Tree Guidelines for the San Joaquin Valley".
4. All drive-through eating facilities shall have a "double service window"
configuration and pullout lane to minimize auto emissions.
5. Cart corrals shall to be provided in the parking lot adjacent to Wal-Mart and
distributed evenly throughout the lots rather than concentrated along the main
drive aisle. In addition, a cart corral shall be provided as close as possible to
the two bus stop/shelters provided on-site. Further, cart corrals shall be
permanent with a design that is consistent with the theme of the center.
Portable metal corrals shall be prohibited. Developer shall install landscaping,
curbing and other features to discourage removal of carts from the site.
However, if such features prove ineffective, the Planning Director may require
the installation of a cartwheel locking system.
6. Trash enclosures shall be designed to accommodate separate facilities for
trash and recyclable materials. Trash enclosures having connections to the
wastewater system shall install a sand/grease trap conforming to Standard
Plan 205 and shall be covered.
7. Hardscape items, including tables, benches/seats, trashcans, bike racks,
drinking fountains, etc. shall be uniform for all stores throughout the shopping
center.
8. All signage shall be in compliance with a detailed Sign Program that shall be
submitted to SPARC for review and approval with the first building plan review.
9. Said program shall require all signs to be individual channel letter at the
standards provided by the zoning ordinance.
10. Any bollards installed in a storefront location shall be decorative in style and
consistent with the theme of the shopping center. Plain concrete bollards, or
concrete filled steel pipe bollards shall not be permitted.
E. All landscaped area shall be kept free from weeds and debris, maintained in a
healthy growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and
trimming. Unhealthy, dead, or damaged plant materials shall be removed and
replaced within 30 days following written notice from the Community Development
Director.
F. The following items are conditions of approval for the vesting tentative parcel map, all
to be accomplished prior to, or concurrent with, final parcel map filing unless noted
otherwise:
1. Project must receive and comply with all terms of the Cal Trans encroachment
Permit necessary for access to Highway 12 directly from the Project and from
Westgate Drive. Any conditions imposed by Cal Trans for the encroachment
permit that result in site plan modifications shall be reviewed by City staff for
consistency with Project approvals.
2. Dedication of street right-of-way as shown on the parcel map with the following
changes/additions:
a) Street right-of-way dedications on Westgate Drive shall be in conformance
with the lane geometries, transitions and turn pocket configurations
resulting from Item #1 above. The dedications shall be to the approval of
the Public Works Department.
b) Right-of-way dedications on Lower Sacramento Road and Kettleman Lane
shall be in conformance with the lane geometries resulting from Item #1
above and City of Lodi street geometric requirements for this project and to
the approval of the Public Works Department and Caltrans. Right-of-way
dedications on Kettleman Lane shall be made to Caltrans in conformance
with their requirements. Separate parcels shall be created for Caltrans
dedications. It should be anticipated that Caltrans will require street
widening improvements west of the project boundary. Acquisition of any
right-of-way necessary to meet Caltrans requirements shall be the
responsibility of the developer.
c) Lower Sacramento Road is an established STAA route and turning
movements to and from the roadway into private driveways and
intersecting streets are required to demonstrate that accommodation has
been made for the truck turning movement in conformance with Public
Works requirements.
d) The right-of-way dedication and driveway design at the south project
driveway on Lower Sacramento Road shall accommodate and be in
conformance with the California Semitrailer wheel track (18m/60ft radius)
turning template.
e) Right-of-way dedications at all proposed project driveway locations shall be
sufficient to accommodate the handicap ramps and public sidewalks at the
crosswalk locations. In addition, the right-of-way dedication at the
proposed traffic signal location on Lower Sacramento Road shall be
sufficient to allow installation of the traffic signal improvements within the
public right-of-way.
3. Dedication of public utility easements as required by the various utility
companies and the City of Lodi, including, but not limited to, the following:
a) A PUE along the southerly property line sufficient to accommodate the
installation of electric utility overhead transmission lines and underground
conduit bank which may be outside proposed landscape areas, and the
extension of water, wastewater and industrial waste transmission lines
between Lower Sacramento Road and Westgate Drive. We anticipate the
6
required PUE along the south project boundary will be on the order of 65 to
75 feet. It may be possible to reduce the width of the PUE by realigning
some of the pipes through the shopping center site. The actual alignment
and width will be to the approval of the Public Works Department and City
of Lodi Electric Utility.
b) A PUE at the proposed signalized project driveway to accommodate the
installation of traffic signal loops.
c) A PUE at the existing southerly Sunwest Plaza (Food 4 Less) driveway to
accommodate the installation of traffic signal loops. Acquisition of the PUE
is the responsibility of the developer and must be accomplished prior to
recordation of any final parcel map.
4. Provide a private access easement providing a clear path of travel for
pedestrian traffic from the public right-of-wayto all parcels within the boundaries
of the map in conformance with ADA requirements.
5. In order to assist the City in providing an adequate water supply, the property
owner is required to enter into an agreement with the City that the City of Lodi
be appointed as its agent for the exercise of any and all overlying water rights
appurtenant to the proposed Lodi Shopping Center, and that the City may
charge fees for the delivery of such water in accordance with City rate policies.
The agreement establishes conditions and covenants running with the land for
all lots in the parcel map and provides deed provisions to be included in each
conveyance.
Submit final map per City requirements including the following:
a) Preliminarytitle report.
b) Standard note regarding requirements to be met at subsequent date.
6. Payment of the following:
a) Filing and processing fees and charges for services performed by City
forces per the Public Works Fee and Service Charge Schedule.
G. The following items are conditions of approval for the vesting tentative parcel map and
use permit that will be deferred until the time of development:
1. Engineering and preparation of improvement plans and estimate per City Public
Improvement Design Standards for all public improvementsfor all parcels at the
time of development of the first parcel. Plansto include:
a) Detailed utility master plans and design calculations for all phases of the
development, including the proposed temporary storm drainage detention
basin. Detailed utility master plans have not been developed for the area
between Kettleman Lane on the north, Harney Lane on the south, Lower
Sacramento Road on the east and the current General Plan boundary on
the west. The project site is at the upstream boundary of the storm drain
and wastewater utilities for this area. The developer's engineer shall
provide a detailed drainage master plan, including engineering calculations,
for the entire area as well as all phases of the proposed project. The
developer's engineer shall prepare and submit a work plan/scope for
master plan preparation for approval by the City Engineer prior to start of
7
master plan work. Master plans need to be coordinated with the Southwest
Gateway development. City staff will assist in the master planning process
to the extent practicable. Should City staff be unable to meet developer's
schedule, developer shall have the option to pay the City to contract for
supplemental outside consultant services to expedite review and approval
of the master planning work.
b) Current soils report. If the soils report was not issued within the past three
(3) years, provide an updated soils report from a licensed geotechnical
engineer.
c) Grading, drainage and erosion control plan.
d) Copy of Notice of Intent for NPDES permit, including storm water pollution
prevention plan (SWPPP).
e) All utilities, including street lights and electrical, gas, telephone and cable
television facilities.
f) Landscaping and irrigation plans for street medians and parkway areas in
the public right-of-way.
g) Undergrounding of existing overhead utilities, excluding transmission lines.
h) Installation of the proposed traffic signal at the main project driveway on
Lower Sacramento Road. The traffic signal shall be designed to operate as
an eight phase signal.
i) Modification of the existing southerly Sunwest Plaza (Food 4 Less)
driveway to widen the driveway to the approval of the Public Works
Department.
j) Installation/modification of the traffic signal at the Kettleman Lane/Westgate
Drive intersection as required by the project.
k) Traffic striping for Lower Sacramento Road, Westgate Drive and Kettleman
Lane.
A complete plan check submittal package, including all the items listed above
plus the Map/Improvement Plan Submittal cover letter, Improvement Plan
Checklist and engineering plan check fees, is required to initiate the Public
Works Department plan review process for the engineered improvement plans.
2. There is limited wastewater capacity in the wastewater main in Lower
Sacramento Road. The area of the shopping center site containing the
proposed Walmart store lies outside the service area for the Lower Sacramento
Road wastewater line. Developer shall perform a capacity analysis using
approved flow monitoring protocols to assess the viability of utilizing the Lower
Sacramento Road wastewater line on an interim basis. Wastewater facilities
outside the Lower Sacramento Road service area shall be designed to allow
future connection to the wastewater main in Westgate Drive. If the capacity
analysis indicates that interim capacity in the Lower Sacramento Road
wastewater line is not available, wastewater collection facilities shall be
constructed to serve the project to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
8
3. Installation of all public utilities and street improvements in conformance with
City of Lodi master plans and design standards and specifications, including,
but not limited to, the following:
a) Installation of all curb, gutter, sidewalk, traffic signal and appurtenant
facilities, traffic control or other regulatory/street signs, street lights, medians
and landscaping and irrigation systems in Westgate Drive, Kettleman Lane
and Lower Sacramento Road.
b) All improvements on Kettleman Lane shall be in conformance with City of
Lodi and Caltrans requirements and require a Caltrans encroachment permit.
The Caltrans encroachment permit submittal package shall include a terminal
access route application for STAA trucks. Additional right-of-way acquisition
outside the limits of the map may be required. The City of Lodi will assist the
developer in obtaining the additional right-of-way that may be required.
Design and construction staking for the Kettleman Lane improvements will be
performed by the City at the Developer's expense.
c) Street improvements in Westgate Drive shall be in conformance with the lane
geometries, transitions and turn pocket configurations resulting from Item #1
above and landscaped median, parkway and sidewalk improvements required
by the City. Developer shall have no obligation to do any work on Westgate
Drive west of the westernmost curb.
d) Modification of the existing southerly Sunwest Plaza (Food 4 Less) driveway to
construct a driveway to the approval of the Public Works Director. Acquisition
of additional right-of-way and construction easements from the adjacent
property to the south (APN # 058-140-04) may be necessary to accomplish this
work and shall be the responsibility of the developer.
e) The extension/installation of all public utilities, including, but not limited to, the
extension/installation of master plan water, wastewater, storm drainage and
recycled water mains to the south end of Westgate Drive, the extension of
water, wastewater and industrial waste transmission lines through the
shopping center site from Lower Sacramento Road to Westgate Drive and
the installation of recycled water main in Lower Sacramento Road and
Westgate Drive from Kettleman Lane to the south project boundary. The
cost of extending or installing recycled water mains shall be eligible for
reimbursement. The developer's engineer shall work with Public Works
Department staff to resolve public utility design issues.
f) Relocation of existing utilities, as necessary, and undergrounding of existing
overhead lines, excluding electric (64 kv) transmission lines.
g) Project design and construction shall be in compliance with applicable terms
and conditions of the City's Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) approved
by the City Council on March 5, 2003, and shall employ the Best
Management Practices(BMPs) identified in the SMP.
The City's adopted Stormwater Development Standards for new projects
in conformance with the conditions of the City's Stormwater Discharge
Permit. The design of projects containing more than 5,000 square feet of
impervious area, retail gasoline outlets and trash enclosures is
significantly affected by these Standards. The project shall be required to
comply with the requirements of the Standards.
9
ii) State -mandated construction site inspections to assure compliance with
the City of Lodi Storm Discharge Permit are required. The fee for the
inspections is the responsibility of the developer and must be paid priorto
commencement of site grading and/or construction operations.
iii) If bioswales are to be used, they need to be clearly delineated and
detailed on the site plan and the landscape plan. Most trees are not
compatiblewith bioswales.
The City and Applicant shall enter into an improvement agreement for the installation
of public improvements required as part of the Project prior to the development of
the first parcel.
4. The proposed temporary storm drainage basin shall be designed in
conformance with City of Lodi Design Standards §3.700 and must be approved
by the City's Public Works Department. Acquisition of property to
accommodate the construction of the temporary drainage basin is the
responsibility of the developer. All drainage improvements shall be designed for
future connection to permanent public drainage facilities when they become
available. In the event the Utility Master Plan referenced in paragraph
4(G)(1)(a) locates the permanent storm drainage basin in the same location as
the temporary storm drainage basin, Project shall be entitled to reimbursement
for its construction costs minus any cost to retrofit the temporary basin to serve
as a permanent basin and meet public works permanent basin standards and
specifications. Project's Stormwater Impact Fee shall be deferred pursuantto a
Deferred Fee Payment Agreement as provided in Lodi Municipal Code Section
15.64.040 until such time as the reimbursement contingency set forth in this
paragraph is resolved.
5. A Caltrans encroachment permit is required for all work in the Kettleman Lane
right-of-way, including landscape and irrigation improvements in the median and
parkway along the site frontage. Based on past experience, Caltrans will not
allow landscape and irrigation improvements within their right-of-way unless the
City enters into an agreement with Caltrans covering maintenance
responsibilities for those improvements. The City is willing to execute such an
agreement; however, the developer will be required to execute a similar
landscape maintenance agreement with the City assuming the city's
responsibilitiesfor the landscape and irrigation improvements in the parkways.
6. Design and installation of public improvements to be in accordance with City
master plans and the detailed utility master plans as previously referenced
above.
Note that the developer may be eligible for reimbursement from others for the
cost of certain improvements. It is the developer's responsibility to request
reimbursement and submit the appropriate information per the Lodi Municipal
Code (LMC) §16.40
7. All project design and construction shall be in compliance with the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA). Project compliance with ADA standards is the
developer's responsibility.
10
8. The following improvements shall be constructed with the development of the
first parcel zoned for commercial development:
a) Installation of all street improvements on Lower Sacramento Road,
Kettleman Lane and Westgate Drive. Street improvements for Lower
Sacramento Road and Westgate Drive shall be constructed from the
signalized intersections on Kettleman Lane to the south boundary of the
parcel map. Street improvements along the frontages of Parcels 1, 12 and
" Ashall extend to and include the installation of the westerly curb and gutter.
b) Modification of the existing southerly Sunwest Plaza (Food 4 Less) driveway
to widen the driveway to the south as shown on the site plan and construct a
driveway to the satisfaction of the City's Public Works Department.
c) The extension/installation of all public utilities necessary to serve the
commercial development and/or required as a condition of development.
d) Temporary storm drainage detention basin to serve the project.
9. Acquisition of street right-of-way, public utility easements and/or construction
easements outside the limits of the map to allow the installation of required
improvements on Kettleman Lane, Lower Sacramento Road and Westgate
Drive.
10. All property dedicated to the City of Lodi shall be free and clear of all liens and
encumbrances and without cost to the City of Lodi and free and clear of
environmental hazards, hazardous materials or hazardous waste. Developer
shall prepare and submit a hazardous materials report and all property owners
shall indemnify the City against any and all hazardous materials and/or ground
water contamination existing on their individual property at the time of dedication
for all property/easements dedicated to the City.
11. Abandonment/removal of wells, septic systems and underground tanks in
conformance with applicable City and County requirements and codes prior to
approval of public improvement plans.
12. The project shall provide for a prorated share of the on-going maintenance costs
of median landscape improvements in Kettleman Lane, Lower Sacramento Road
and Westgate Drive by annexation to the Lodi Consolidated Landscape and
Maintenance District 2003-1 prior to acceptance of the public improvements. All
costs associated with annexation to the District shall be the Developer's
responsibility.
13. Payment of the following:
a) Filing and processing fees and charges for services performed by City forces
per the Public Works Fee and Service Charge Schedule.
b) Development Impact Mitigation Fees per the Public Works Fee and Service
Charge Schedule at the time of building permit issuance.
c) Wastewater capacity impact fee at the time of building permit issuance.
d) County Facilities Fees at the time of building permit issuance.
e) Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) at the time of building permit
issuance.
11
f) The City is currently developing a Water Capacity Impact Fee to pay for the
costs to construct a water treatment plant necessary to provide water to the
Project. In lieu of paying the fee as ultimately adopted, Project has agreed to
pay a current fee estimate of $765,050 (1.43 times project Sewer Service
Units (SSU's) times $5,000) prior to the development of the first parcel. The
purpose of paying a fee now is to obtain certainty of costs and the Project
shall not be subject to future assessment or refund in the event the fee is
ultimately higher or lowerthan the amount set forth above.
g) Stormwater compliance inspection fee prior to commencement of site
grading and/or construction operations.
h) Reimbursement fees per existing agreements:
i. Reimbursement Agreement RA -02-02. The reimbursement fee for 2009
is $40,469.03. The fee is adjusted annually on January 1. The fee to be
paid will be that in effect at the time of payment. The fee shall be paid
prior to approval of the public improvement plans.
ii. Resolution No. 2007-52 establishing an area of benefit and reimbursable
costs for Lower Sacramento Road (Kettleman Lane to Harney Lane)
improvements. The reimbursement fee for 2009 is $90,042.73. The fee
is adjusted annually on January 1. The fee to be paid will be that in
effect at the time of payment. The fee shall be paid prior to approval of
the public improvement plans.
iii. Reimbursement Agreement RA 08-01. The reimbursement fee for 2009
is $222,498.63. The fee is adjusted annually on January 1. The fee to be
paid will be that in effect at the time of payment. The fee shall be paid
prior to approval of the public improvement plans.
i) City Resolution 2006-234, adopted on December 20, 2006 amended the
Electric Utility Department's Rules & Regulations 13, 15 and 16 and requires
new development and this Project to pay the full cost of extending electric
facilities to serve the Project.
The above fees are subject to periodic adjustment as provided by the
implementing ordinance/resolution. The fee charged will be that in effect at the
time of collection indicated above.
14. Obtain the following permits:
a) San Joaquin County well/septic abandonment permit.
b) Caltrans Encroachment Permit for work in Caltrans right-of-way.
15. The City will participate in the cost of the following improvements in conformance
with LMC §16.40 Reimbursementsfor Construction:
a) Master plan storm drain facilities and lines.
b) Master plan water mains.
c) Master plan reclaimed water mains.
d) Industrialwaste lines.
Please note that construction of master plan wastewater facilities to serve the
project site is not included in the City's Development Impact Mitigation Fee
Program and is not subject to impact mitigation fee credits for sewer facilities or
reimbursement by the City.
12
H. Install fire hydrants at locations approved by the Fire Marshal.
I. Shopping carts shall be stored inside the buildings or stored in a cart storage area
adjacent to the entrance of the building.
J. No outdoor storage or display of merchandise shall be permitted at the project
unless a specific plan for such display is approved by SPARC. At no time shall
outdoor storage or display be allowed within the parking area, drive aisle or required
sidewalks of the center.
K. Vending machines, video games, amusement games, children's rides, recycling
machines, vendor carts or similar items shall be prohibited in the outside area of all
storefronts. The storefront placement of public telephones, drinking fountains and
ATM machines shall be permitted subject to the review and approval of the
Community Development Director.
L. All storage of cardboard bales and pallets shall be contained within the area
designated at the rear of the Wal-Mart building for such use. No storage of
cardboard or pallets may exceed the height of the masonry enclosure at any time.
M. The loading area shown in front of the Wal-Mart building shall be stripped and
posted with "NO PARKING — LOADING ONLY signs to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director.
N. A photometric exterior lighting plan and fixture specification shall be submitted for
review and approval of the Community development Director prior to the issuance of
any building permit. Said plans and specification shall address the following:
1. All project lighting shall be confined to the premises. No spillover beyond the
property line is permitted.
2. The equivalent of one (1) foot-candle of illumination shall be maintained
throughout the parking area.
O. Exterior lighting fixtures on the face of the buildings shall be consistent with the
theme of the center. No wallpacks or other floodlights shall be permitted. All building
mounted lighting shall have a 90 -degree horizontal flat cut-off lens unless the fixture
is for decorative purposes.
P. All parking light fixtures shall be a maximum of 25 feet in height. All fixtures shall be
consistent throughout the center.
Q. All construction activity shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Monday through Saturday: No exterior construction activity is permitted on Sundays
or legal holidays.
R. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the new Wal-Mart Supercenter, the
applicant shall ensure one of the following with respect to the existing Wal-Mart
building located at 2350 West Kettleman Lane ("Building"):
a) The owner of the Building shall have entered into signed lease(s) with bona -fide
tenant(s) for at least 50% of the Building square footage (not including the
fenced, outdoor garden center). The signed lease(s) required hereunder shall
include a lease(s) with a bona -fide retailer(s) or restaurant for a minimum of two-
thirds of the Building frontage (not including the fenced, outdoor garden center);
or
13
b) The owner of the Building shall have entered into a fully executed purchase
agreement for the Building with a bona -fide retailer; or
c) The Applicant shall present to the City a cash escrow account, subject to the
approval of the City Attorney, which account shall be for the purpose of securing
applicant's obligation to demolish the Building not later than 90 days after the
opening to the general public of the new Wal-Mart Supercenter (the "Opening
Date"). The amount of the deposit shall be equal to the City estimated
reasonable costs to demolish the Building (based on a licensed contractor
estimate) plus $100,000. The escrow account shall be paid to City in the event
that Option (a), (b) or (c) is not satisfied within 90 days of the Opening Date. If
Option (a), (b) or (c) is satisfied within 90 days after the Opening Date, the cash
in the escrow account shall be refunded in full to the Applicant.
If the Applicant does not satisfy this condition under Option (a), (b) or (c) within
90 days after the Opening Date, the City shall use the funds to demolish the
Building with any balance reverting to the City as compensation for its expense
and inconvenience incurred to demolish the Building. The owner of the Building
shall present evidence that any lender on the Building consents to the demolition
in a form subject to the approval of the City Attorney. This condition shall be
recorded against the property as a deed restriction, which runs with the land.
Applicant and Wal-Mart agree to enter into any agreements that are necessary in
order to implementthis condition.
S. No materials within the garden or seasonal sales area shall be stored higher than
the screen provided.
T. Wal-Mart shall operate and abide by the conditions of the State of California
Alcoholic Beverage Control license Type 21, off sale -general.
U. Wal-Mart shall insure that the sale of beer and wine does not cause any condition
that will result in repeated activities that are harmful to the health, peace or safety of
persons residing or working in the surrounding area. This includes, but is not limited
to: disturbances of the peace, illegal drug activity, public drunkenness, drinking in
public, harassment of passerby, assaults, batteries, acts of vandalism, loitering,
illegal parking, excessive or loud noise, traffic violations, lewd conduct, or police
detention and arrests.
V. This Use Permit is subject to periodic review to monitor potential problems
associated to the sale of alcoholic beverages.
W. Prior to the issuance of a Type 21 license by the State of California Alcoholic
Beverage Control Department, the management of the Wal-Mart store shall
complete the Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs (LEAD) as provided by the
State Alcoholic Beverage Control Department. in the event that Wal-Mart has
training that is equivalent to the LEAD program, such documentation shall be
submitted to the Community Development Directorfor review and approval.
X. The project shall incorporate all mitigation measures as specified in the adopted
Final Revised Environmental impact Report EIR-03-01 and attached CEQA findings
for the project.
Y. The submitted Use Permit, Tentative Map and associated plot plan are hereby
approved subject to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
14
Z. No variance from any City of Lodi adopted code; policy or specification is granted or
implied by the approval of this Resolution.
AA. The sliding gates that are shown in the rear of the Wal-Mart building shall have a
knox box system at each gate for Fire Department access.
BB. Buildings, which are fire sprinkled, shall have Fire Department connections within 50
feet of a fire hydrant, subject to the Fire Marshall's approval.
CC. Fire lanes shall be identified per Lodi Municipal Code 10.40.100 and marked in
locations specified by the Fire Marshall. All fire lanes shall be a minimum of 24 -foot -
wide.
DD. The water supply for the project shall meet the requirements for fire hydrants and
fire sprinkler demand and system approved by the Fire Marshall.
EE. Developer shall pay for the linkage study that the City is required to do based on
Program 11 of the recently adopted Housing Element of the General Plan. The
developer shall receive a credit for the amount paid against the final fee as adopted
by the City Council.
FF. Wal-Mart shall provide proof of sale, to a non Wal-Mart related entity, of the existing
Wal-Mart property located at 2350 W. Kettleman Lane prior to the issuance of the
building permit for the new Wal-Mart Supercenter without condition on the right of
purchaserto lease or sell the existing Wal-Mart building.
GG. Wal- Mart shall not allow overnight camping of any type (i. e. campers, recreational
vehicles, tents) within the parking lot or site.
HH. The developer shall invest in a building and/or capital improvements within the
Downtown area, as defined by the Community Development Director, but no smaller
than the area described in the June 1997 Downtown Development Standards and
Guidelines plus the Pine Street Corridor extending to Washington. Investment shall
be defined as supporting construction, rehabilitation, acquisition, tenant
improvements and other improvements. The developer may make or
support improvements to commercial buildings or property it owns or rents
independently or in partnership with others, or to commercial property owned by
others in partnershipwith owners and/or tenants. The downtown investment must
be made no later than seven and a half (7.5) years from the issuance of final
certificate of occupancy for the largest retail tenant. The total aggregate value of the
capital improvements resulting from developer's investment must exceed $700,000.
ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
2. The submitted Site Plan complies with the requirements of the Commercial Shopping (C-
S) Zoning District.
3. The submitted plans, including site plot plan and architectural elevations for the major
anchor building, for the project is approved subject to the following conditions:
a. All conditions set for the above shall apply to this approval.
b. The proposed building shall comply with all zoning and building code regulations.
c. The finished building shall be consistent with the plans approved by the City Council.
15
d. The applicant shall submit appropriate plans to the Community Development
Department for plan check and building permit. The final plans shall include the
architectural features such as the approved colors, the building elevations including
the cornice, trim caps, and curbed canopy, and other elements approved by the City
Council. Any significant alteration to the building elevations as approved by the City
Council shall require approval by the Planning Commission. Signage shall be
individual letters.
e. Further architectural treatment shall occur on the west elevation. Such treatment
shall result in a visual break in the elevation.
f. The proposed building must comply with all City Council requirements; as well as the
requirements of the Community Development, the Public Works, the Electric Utility
and the Fire Departments; and all other utility agencies.
g. No variance from any City of Lodi adopted code, policy or specification is granted or
implied by the approval of this resolution.
h. The Developer shall pay for Electric Utility Department charges in accordance with
the Electric Department's Rules and Regulations.
The applicant shall submit load calculations and Electric drawings to Electric Utility as
part of a building permit process. Load calculations and Electric drawings are needed
for service equipment location, PUE requirements, and service sizing. Should the
load calculations and Electric drawings require a change of site plan, the Planning
Department shall forward the site plan to the Planning Commission for review and
approval.
j. This resolution does not constitute a complete plan check. Complete plan check shall
be completed during building permit process.
k. Wal-Mart shall employ the energy efficient measures proven effective, at the time of
Plan Check submittal, by its High Efficiency (HE) program in the building design and
construction. However, the measures used shall, at a minimum, be as energy
efficient as those proven energy efficiency measures, or comparable measures,
outlined more fully in the letter addressed to the City of Lodi from J. Kelly Collier,
Senior Design Manager for Wal-Mart Real Estate and Design dated October 6, 2008
and presented to the Planning Commission at its October 8, 2008 meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DETERMINEDAND RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Lodi that Use Permit U-02-12, Vesting Tentative Map 03-P-001, and Site Plan and
Architectural review relating to the Lodi Shopping Center project; State Clearinghouse
No. 2003042113 is hereby approved, and the City Council hereby adopts the findings,
statements of overriding considerations and other matters set forth in this resolution.
Dated: May 13, 2009
16
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 2009-58 was passed and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Lodi in a special meeting held May 13,2009, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS —Johnson, Katzakian, and Mayor Hansen
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Hitchcock and Mounce
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS— None
&RAJOHLL
City Clerk
2009-58
17
ExhibitA
(CEQA Findings)
915101.2 11233.26
CITY OF LODI FINDINGS OF FACTAND STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PURSUANTTO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
FOR THE LODI SHOPPING CENTER
Under the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code, sections
21000 et seq. ("CEQA), for each significant environmental effect identified in an environmental
impact report ("EIR) for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a finding
reaching one or more of three allowable conclusions in conjunction with approval of the project.
The first allowable finding is that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment.
The second allowable finding is that those changes or alterations are within the responsibility
and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the
other agency. The third allowable finding is that specific economic, legal, social, technological,
or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities
for highly trained workers, made infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in
the environmental impact report. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21081; CEQA Guideline § 15091).
CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible,
to avoid or substantially reduce significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur.
Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where they are infeasible or
where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency (CEQA
Guidelines, § 15091). Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean
"capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time,
taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." CEQA
Guidelines section 15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations. See also Citizens of
Goleta Vallev v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal. 3d 553, 565 (1990)).
In situations in which significant impacts are not at least "substantially mitigated," the agency,
after adopting the findings, may approve the project if it adopts a statement of overriding
considerations setting forth the reasons why the agency found that the project's benefits render
acceptable its unavoidable adverse environmental effects (CEQA Guidelines§§ 15093, 15043).
The California Supreme Court has stated that, "[t]he wisdom of approving... any development
project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound
discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions.
The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and
therefore balanced." (Citizens of Goleta Valley, supra, 52 Cal. 3d at 576).
The Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth below ("Findings") provide
the written analysis and conclusions of the City regarding the Project's environmental impacts,
mitigation measures, alternatives to the Project, and the overriding considerations and presents
an explanation to supply the logical step between the Finding and the facts in the record.
(CEQA Guidelines § 15091.) To the extent that these Findings conclude that various proposed
mitigation measures outlined in the EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded
or withdrawn, the City hereby commits to implementing these measures. These Findings, in
other words, are not merely informational, but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that
will come into effect as part of the Project approval. The mitigation measures are referenced in
the Mitigation Monitoring Program, adopted concurrently with these Findings, and will be
effective through the process of constructing and implementing the project.
1. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
A. LOSS OF PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND
1. Impact: The projectwould convert approximately40 acres of prime agricultural land to
urban uses. While the severity of this impact can be reduced somewhat, no mitigation
is available which would reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level except an
outright prohibition of all development on prime agricultural lands. (Significant and
Unavoidable Impact)
2. Mitigation: The applicant shall obtain a permanent Agricultural Conservation
Easement over 40 acres of prime farmland (1:1 mitigation ratio). The agricultural
conservation easement shall consist of a single parcel of land of at least 40 acres.
This easement shall be located in San Joaquin County (excluding the Delta Primary
Zone as currently defined by State law). The easement shall be in current agricultural
use; if it is not in current agricultural use, the easement shall be required to be put into
agricultural production as a result of the conservation easement transaction. The
lands subject to the easement shall be placed under permanent restrictions on land
use to ensure its continued agricultural production capacity by limiting non-farm
development and other uses that are inconsistent with commercial agriculture. The
easement shall be held by the City or a qualified entity (i.e., land trust) approved by the
City. The applicant shall pay a fee (in an amount to be determined by the City) for
purposes of establishing an endowment to provide for adequate administration,
monitoring, and maintenance of the easement in perpetuity.
3. Finding: The acquisition of an off-site agricultural conservation easement would
provide partial mitigation for the loss of prime farmland resulting form the project, but
it would not reduce the impact to a less -than -significant level. There are no feasible
mitigation measures available that would avoid the significant loss of agricultural
land if the project is implemented. Specific economic, legal, social, technological or
other considerations make mitigation of this impact infeasible. In particular,
mitigation is infeasible because it is not possible to re-create prime farmland on
other lands that do not consist of prime agricultural soils. This impact, therefore,
remains significant and unavoidable.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact
is significant and unavoidable.
As discussed in the Draft REIR and Final REIR, there are no feasible alternatives or
mitigation measures that would reduce the impact of loss of prime agricultural land
resulting from the project to a less -than -significant level. The project's significant
and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources could be avoided by denying the
project or lessened by requiring a substantially reduced project, which would prevent
the conversion of all or a major portion of the site to urban uses. However, this
action would not meet the fundamental objective of the applicant or the City of Lodi
of developing the site for a commercial retail shopping plaza in conformancewith the
General Plan and zoning designations applicable to the site. In addition, denial of
the project would not constitute a "feasible mitigation," and therefore would not be
required under Section 15126.4 of the state CEQA Guidelines.
Although project -specific impacts to prime farmland cannot be feasibly mitigated to
less -than -significant levels, the City has minimized and substantially lessened the
2
significant effects of the proposed project on prime agricultural land through the
requirement that an off-site agricultural conservation easement be acquired by the
project applicant. The City has also generally minimized the significant effects of
development on prime agricultural land through the policies of its adopted General
Plan. A principal purpose of the City's General Plan regulatory scheme is to
minimize the impact on prime agricultural land resulting from the City's urban
expansion. The City of Lodi is recognized for its compact growth pattern and clearly
defined urban boundaries, its emphasis on infill development, and its deliberate and
considered approach to urban expansion to accommodate housing and other long-
term development needs. These guiding principles serve to minimize and forestall
conversion of agricultural lands within the City's growth boundaries.
The General Plan policies related to agricultural preservation and protection are
intended, and have been successful, in maintaining the productivity of prime
agricultural land surrounding the City by controlling urban expansion in a manner
which has the least impact on prime agricultural lands. In addition to maintaining
compact and defined urban growth boundaries, agricultural preservation and
protection is primarily accomplished through the City's Growth Management Plan for
Residential Development, which limits housing development to a growth rate of two
percent per year, and which gives priority to proposed residential developments with
the least impact on agricultural land, in accordance with General Plan policy.
The General Plan implementation program includes a directive to "identify and
designate an agricultural and open space greenbelt around the urbanized area of
the City' (Land Use and Growth Management Implementation Program 10). This
buffer zone is intended to provide a well-defined edge to the urban area, and to
minimize conflicts at the urban -agricultural interface by providing a transition zone
separating urban from agricultural uses, and to remove uncertainty for agricultural
operations nearthe urbanfringe. The greenbeltwill perform an important function in
minimizing urban -agricultural conflicts and promote the preservation of prime
agricultural land beyond the greenbelt; however, it will not constitute mitigation for
loss of farmland since it cannot itself replace land lost to development. The City is
continuing to study the implementation of a greenbelt area between Stockton and
Lodi, and is committed to the implementationof such a greenbelt.
In summary, the City of Lodi has attempted to reduce the impact for the loss of
prime agricultural land at the project site through the required acquisition of off-site
agricultural conservation easements, and also through its extensive efforts to avoid
the loss of prime farmland through its careful planning of urban areas.
Nevertheless, the City recognizes that there is no feasible mitigation available to
reduce this impact on the project site to a less -than -significant level and, therefore,
the impact remains significant and unavoidable. These facts support the City's
finding.
5. Statement of Overriding Considerations: The following is a summary of the
benefits that the City Council has found to outweigh the significant unavoidable
impacts of the project, the full discussion of which can be found in the "Statement of
Overriding Considerations" at the end of this document. The project is expected to
provide substantial revenue for the City of Lodi General Fund through increased
sales tax and property tax, and will generate employment opportunities for Lodi
residents. The project will cause vital municipal infrastructure improvements to be
implemented in the project vicinity, and development impact fees paid by the
3
applicant will help fund the project's proportionate share of contributions towards
public services throughout the City of Lodi. The project will implement adopted City
plans and policies by accomplishing the City of Lodi's long-term development plans
for commercial use at the project site, consistent with City's growth control measures
prioritizing in -fill development within the existing City boundaries. The project will
reflect a high quality of design, through the on-site implementation of the City's
Design Guidelines for Large Commercial Establishments, which will be particularly
important at this visually prominent western gateway into the City.
11. GEOLOGYAND SOILS
A. SEISMIC HAZARD FROM GROUND SHAKING
1. Impact: Strong ground shaking occurring on the site during a majorearthquake event
could cause severe damage to project buildings and structures. (Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: Structural damage to buildings resulting from ground shaking shall be
minimized by following the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, and
implementing the recommendations of the project geotechnical engineer.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact
will be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
All portions of the project will be designed and constructed in accordance with the
Uniform Building Code guidelines for Seismic Zone 3 to avoid or minimize potential
damage from seismic shaking at the site. Conformance with these requirements will
be ensured by the Building Division through its routine inspection and permitting
functions. These facts support the City's findings.
B. SEISMICALLY -INDUCED GROUND SETTLEMENTS
1. Impact: There is a potential for seismically -induced ground settlements at the site,
which could result in damage to project foundations and structures. (Significant
Impact)
2. Mitigation: If subsequent design -level geotechnical studies indicate unacceptable
levels of potential seismic settlement, available measures to reduce the effects of such
settlements would include replacement of near -surface soils with engineered fill, or
supporting structures on quasi -rigid foundations, as recommended by the project
geotechnical engineer.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less-than-significantlevel.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact
will be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
4
As part of the mitigation for this impact, geotechnical investigations will be completed
prior to the approval of building permits for specific buildings, and these buildingswill
be designed in conformance with the geotechnical report's recommendations to
reduce this potential hazard. Implementation of the recommendations will be
ensured by the Public Works Department and Building Division through their routine
inspection and permitting functions. These facts support the City's findings.
C. STORMWATER BASIN BANK INSTABILITY
1- Impact: There is a potential for bank instability along the banks of the proposed
basin. (Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: Design -level geotechnical studies shall investigate the potential of bank
instability at the proposed basin and recommend appropriate setbacks, if warranted.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -sig n ificant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact
will be reduced to a less-than-significantlevel.
As part of the mitigation for this impact, geotechnical investigations will be completed
along with the design -level improvement plans for the stormwater basin, and the
Public Works Director will ensure that the basin is constructed in conformance with
the geotechnical report's recommendations to reduce this potential hazard. These
facts support the City's findings.
D. SOIL CONSOLIDATION AND COLLAPSE
1. Impact: Soils present on the site are subject to moisture -induced collapse, which
could result in damage to structures. (Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: The effects of soil consolidation and collapse can be mitigated by placing
shallow spread foundations on a uniform thickness of engineered fill; specific
measures shall be specified by an engineering geologist, as appropriate, in response
to localized conditions.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less-than-significantlevel.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact
will be reduced to a less-than-significantlevel.
As part of the mitigation for this impact, geotechnical investigationswill be completed
prior to the approval of building permits for specific buildings, and the Public Works
Department and Building Division will ensure that these buildings are be designed in
conformance with the geotechnical report's recommendations to reduce this
potential hazard. These facts support the City's finding.
5
E. EXPANSIVE SOILS
Impact: There is a low, but not necessarily insignificant, potential for soils expansion
at the site, which could result in differential subgrade movements and cracking of
foundations. (Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: The potential damage from soils expansion would be reduced by
placement of non -expansive engineered fill below foundation slabs, or other
measures as recommended by the geotechnical engineer.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact
will be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
As part of the mitigation for this impact, geotechnical investigationswill be completed
prior to the approval of building permits for specific buildings, and the Public Works
Department and Building Division will ensure that these buildings are be designed in
conformance with the geotechnical report's recommendations to reduce this
potential hazard. These facts support the City's finding.
F. SOILCORROSIVITY
1. Impact: The corrosion potential of the on-site soils could result in damage to buried
utilities and foundation systems. (Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: The potential damage from soil corrosivity can be mitigated by using
corrosion -resistant materials for buried utilities and systems; specific measures shall
be specified by an engineering geologist as appropriate in response to localized
conditions.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support cf Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact
will be reduced to a less-than-significantlevel.
As part of the mitigationfor this impact, geotechnical investigations will be completed
prior to the City's approval specific buried utilities and foundation systems for
buildings, and these features will be designed in conformance with the geotechnical
report's recommendations to reduce this potential hazard. These facts support the
City's finding.
6
III. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
A. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION DURING CONSTRUCTION
1. Impact: During grading and construction, erosion of exposed soils and pollutants
from equipment may result in water quality impacts to downstream water bodies.
(Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: A comprehensive erosion control and water pollution prevention program
shall be implemented during grading and construction. Typical measures required by
the City of Lodi to be implemented during the grading and construction phase include
the following:
• Schedule earthwork to occur primarily during the dry season to prevent most runoff
erosion.
• Stabilize exposed soils by the end of October in any given year by revegetating
disturbed areas or applying hydromulch with tetra -foam or other adhesive material.
• Convey runoff from areas of exposed soils to temporary siltation basins to provide
for settling of eroded sediments.
• Protect drainages and storm drain inlets from sedimentation with berms or filtration
barriers, such as filter fabric fences or rock bags or filter screens.
• Apply water to exposed soils and on-site dirt roads regularly during the dry season
to prevent wind erosion.
• Stabilize stockpiles of topsoil and fill material by watering daily, or by the use of
chemical agents.
• Install gravel construction entrances to reduce tracking of sediment onto adjoining
streets.
• Sweep on-site paved surfaces and surrounding streets regularly with a wet
sweeper to collect sediment before it is washed into the storm drains or channels.
• Store all construction equipment and material in designated areas away from
waterways and storm drain inlets. Surround construction staging areas with
earthen berms or dikes.
• Wash and maintain equipment and vehicles in a separate bermed area, with runoff
directed to a lined retention basin.
• Collect construction waste daily and deposit in covered dumpsters.
• After construction is completed, clean all drainage culverts of accumulated
sediment and debris.
The project also is required to comply with NPDES permit requirements, file a Notice
of Intent with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and prepare a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan.
7
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact
will be reduced to a less -than -sig n ificant level.
The above mitigation measures are derived from Best Management Practices
(BMPs) recommended by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and are to be
included in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to be prepared and
implemented by the project proponent in conformance with the state's General
Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. In
addition, the project grading plans will conform to the drainage and erosion control
standards of the City of Lodi, and will be incorporated into the project Improvement
Plans to be approved by the City. Implementation of the erosion control measures
will be monitored and enforced by City grading inspectors. These facts support the
City's finding.
B. WATER QUALITY IMPACTS FROM NON -POINT POLLUTANTS
1. Impact: The project would generate urban nonpoint contaminants which may be
carried in stormwater runoff from paved surfaces to downstream water bodies.
(Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: The project shall include stormwater controls to reduce nonpoint source
pollutant loads.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less-than-significantlevel.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact
will be reduced to a less-than-significantlevel.
In January 2003, the City adopted a Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) to
implementthe provisions of its Phase II NPDES stormwater permit issued by the State
Water Resources Control Board. The SMP contains a comprehensive program for
the reduction of surface water pollution. The project includes feasible structural
BMPs (Best Management Practices) such as vegetated swales and a stormwater
basin. Much of the stormwater runoff generated in the northern and southern
portions of the site will be conveyed to vegetated swales or bioswales which will
provide partial filtering of pollutants and sediments. This partially treated runoff,
along with all other parking lot and roof runoff from the project will be conveyed to
the 3.65 -acre stormwater basin planned adjacent to the southwest corner of the site.
The basin would serve as a settling pond where suspended sediments and urban
pollutants would settle out prior to discharge of the collected stormwater into the
City's storm drain system, thereby reducing potential surface water quality impacts to
drainages and water bodies. The pump intake for the basin will be located two feet
above the bottom to provide for accumulation of sediments which would be cleaned
out on a regular basis.
8
Non-structural BMPs typically required by the City include the implementation of
regular maintenance'activities (e.g., damp sweeping of paved areas; inspection and
cleaning of storm drain inlets; litter control) at the site to prevent soil, grease, and
litter from accumulating on the project site and contaminating surface runoff.
Stormwater catch basins will be required to be stenciled to discourage illegal
dumping. In the landscaped areas, chemicals and irrigation water will be required to
be applied at rates specified by the project landscape architect to minimize potential
for contaminated runoff. Additional BMPs, as identified from a set of model practices
developed by the state, may be required as appropriate at the time of Improvement
Plan approval. These facts support the City's finding.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
A. LOSS OF HABITAT FOR SPECIAL -STATUS SPECIES
1. Impact: The project would result in the loss of approximately 40 acres of foraging
habitat for three protected bird species, and could result in the loss of breeding habitat
for two protected bird species. (Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: ?n accordance with the San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat
Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) and City of Lodi requirements, the
project proponent will pay the applicable in -lieu mitigation fees to compensate for
loss of open space and habitat resulting from development of the project site, and
will ensure the completion of preconstruction surveys for Swainson's hawks,
burrowing owls, and California horned larks, as well as the implementation of
specified measures if any of these species are found on the site.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact
will be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
The in -lieu mitigation fees prescribed under the SJMSCP vary depending on the
location of the site, its designation under the SJMSCP, and annual adjustments. The
project site is covered by two designations or pay zones under the SJMSCP. The
20.5 -acre eastern portion of the shopping center site, is designated "Multi -Purpose
Open Space Lands," where in -lieu fees are currently $6,165 per acre (2008). The
19.5 -acre western portion of the site, which includes the proposed stormwater basin, is
designated "Agricultural Habitat and Natural Lands," where in -lieu fees are currently
$12,329 per acre (2008). The compliance with the provisions of the SJMSCP, along
with the prescribed preconstruction surveys and any required follow-up measures
prescribed at that time, would fully mitigate the small reduction in foraging habitat
resulting from development of the project site. The applicant's duty to mitigatethe loss
of agricultural land at a 1:1 ratio will further mitigate the loss of foraging habitat. These
facts support the City's finding of less-than-significantafter mitigation.
B. IMPACTS TO BURROWING OWLS AND RAPTORS
1. Impact: The project could adversely affect any burrowing owls that may occupy the
site prior to construction, and could also adversely affect any tree -nesting raptor that
E
may establish nests in trees along the project boundaries prior to construction.
(Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: The following measures shall be implemented to ensure that raptors
(hawks and owls) are not disturbed during the breeding season:
If ground disturbance is to occur during the breeding season (February 1 to
August 31), a qualified ornithologist shall conduct a pre -construction survey for
nesting raptors (including both tree- and ground -nesting raptors) on site within 30
days of the onset of ground disturbance. These surveys will be based on the
accepted protocols (e.g., as for the burrowing owl) for the target species. If a
nesting raptor is detected, then the ornithologist will, in consultation with CDFG,
determine an appropriate disturbance -free zone (usually a minimum of 250 feet)
around the tree that contains the nest or the burrow in which the owl is nesting.
The actual size of the buffer would depend on species, topography, and type of
construction activity that would occur in the vicinity of the nest. The setback area
must be temporarily fenced, and construction equipment and workers shall not
enter the enclosed setback area until the conclusion of the breeding season.
Once the raptor abandons its nest and all young have fledged, construction can
begin within the boundaries of the buffer.
If ground disturbance is to occur during the non -breeding season (September 1
to January 31), a qualified ornithologist will conduct pre -construction surveys for
burrowing owls only. (Pre -construction surveys during the non -breeding season
are not necessary for tree nesting raptors since these species would be
expected to abandon their nests voluntarily during construction.) If burrowing
owls are detected during the non -breeding season, they can be passively
relocated by placing one-way doors in the burrows and leaving them in place for
a minimum of three days. Once it has been determined that owls have vacated
the site, the burrows can be collapsed and ground disturbance can proceed.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support cf Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact
will be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
While none of these species are currently on the project site, this mitigation measure
is included as a contingency to be implemented in the event nesting occurs prior to
construction. As specified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
attached to this document, the Community Development Director will ensure that the
pre -construction surveys are undertaken and that a report of the survey findings is
submitted to the City prior to the approval of the project Improvement Plans. If any
of the species are found on-site during the surveys, the Public Works Director will
ensure that the required setback zones are established. No grading or construction
in the vicinity of the nests would be permitted until the project biologist is satisfied
that impacts to the species are mitigated or avoided. Relocation of burrowing owls
would be allowed to occur only under the direction of the California Department of
Fish and Game. These facts support the City's finding.
10
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A IMPACTSTO CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Impact: It is possiblethat previously undiscovered cultural materials may be buried on
the site which could be adversely affected by grading and construction for the project.
(Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: Implementation of the following measures will mitigate any potential
impacts to cultural resources:
In the event that prehistoric or historic archaeological materials are exposed or
discovered during site clearing, grading or subsurface construction, work within a
25 -foot radius of the find shall be halted and a qualified professional
archaeologist contacted for further review and recommendations. Potential
recommendations could include evaluation, collection, recordation, and analysis
of any significant cultural materials followed by a professional report.
• In the event that fossils are exposed during site clearing, grading or subsurface
construction, work within a 25 -foot radius of the find shall be halted and a
qualified professional paleontologist contacted for further review and
recommendations. Potential recommendations could include evaluation,
collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant paleontological materials
followed by a professional report.
• If human remains are discovered, the San Joaquin County Coroner shall be
notified. The Coroner would determine whether or not the remains are Native
American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his
authority, he will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, who would
identify a most likely descendant to make recommendations to the land owner
for dealing with the human remains and any associated grave goods, as
provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -sig n ificant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact
will be reduced to a less -than -sig n ificant level.
While the detailed site reconnaissance by Basin Research Associates indicated that
there is no evidence to suggest that cultural resources may be buried on site, the
mitigation measure is a standard contingency that is applied in all but the least
archaeologically sensitive areas. In the unlikely event artifacts are encountered
during grading or excavation, the Public Works Director will enforce any required
work stoppages, and the Community Development Director will contact the project
archaeologist and will ensure that the archaeologist's recommendations are
implemented. These facts support the City's finding.
VI. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
A NEAR TERM PLUS PROJECT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
11
1. Impact: The addition of project -generated traffic would exacerbate LOS F
operations at the intersection of Lower Sacramento Road / Harney Lane during both
a.m. and p.m. peak hour conditions. (Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: The project shall contribute its fair share cost to the installation of a
traffic signal at Lower Sacramento Road and Harney Lane.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact
will be reduced to a less-than-significantlevel.
The traffic report prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates calculated that with the
above mitigation in place, the level of service at the affected intersection would rise
to Level of Service C and thus meet the service standards of the City of Lodi. These
facts support the City's finding.
B. CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT ACCESS CONDITIONS AT SIGNALIZED ACCESS
DRIVE PROPOSEDALONG LOWER SACRAMENTO ROAD FRONTAGE
1. Impact: During the p.m. peak hour, the eastbound left -turn queue length of 250 feet
(average queue) to 375 feet (95th Percentile queue) of exiting vehicles would extend
west to the internal intersection located south of Pad 10. (Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: Modify the project site plan to provide dual eastbound left -turn
movements out of the project site onto northbound Lower Sacramento Road,
consisting of a 150 -foot left -turn pocket and a full travel lane back to the internal
project site intersection. In the eastbound direction, a left -turn pocket and a full
travel lane back to the signalized intersection will provide adequate capacity for
inbound traffic. In addition, STOP signs shall be installed on all approaches at the
on-site intersections adjacent to Pads 10 and 11 , except the westbound approaches
to provide continuous traffic flow into the project site and eliminate the potential for
backups onto Lower Sacramento Road. On the Food 4 Less approach, a 100 -foot
left -turn pocket will be provided at the signalized intersection.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact
will be reduced to a less-than-significantlevel.
The traffic report prepared by Fehr& Peers Associates indicates that with the above
mitigations in place, the potential for traffic conflicts at this intersection would be
eliminated. These facts support the City's finding.
C. CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT ACCESS CONDITIONS AT NORTHERN
UNSIGNALIZED ACCESS DRIVE PROPOSED ALONG LOWER SACRAMENTO
ROAD
12
Impact: The addition of a northbound left -turn lane under Access Alternative B
would result in Level of Service F conditions at this unsignalized intersection. (This
condition does not occur under Access Alternative A where no northbound left -turn
movement would occur.) In addition, a non-standard 60 -foot back-to-back taper is
provided between the northbound left -turn lane (Alternative B) at the northern
unsignalized access drive and the southbound left -turn lane at the signalized project
entrance. (Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: The following mitigations shall be implemented:
a. Extend a third southbound travel lane on Lower Sacramento Road from its
current planned terminus at the signalized project driveway to the southern
boundary of the project site;
b. Construct a 100 -foot southbound right -turn lane at the signalized project
driveway;
c. Extend the southbound left -turn pocket by 100 feet;
d. Extend the taper from 60 feet to a City standard 120-foottaper;
e. Eliminate the northbound left -turn lane into the northern driveway.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact
will be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
The traffic report prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates indicates that with the above
mitigations in place, the potential for traffic conflicts at this intersection would be
eliminated. These facts support the City's finding.
D. INADEQUATE LEFT -TURN LANE TAPER ON WESTGATE DRIVE
Impact: On Westgate Drive, a non -City standard 64 -foot back-to-back taper is
proposed between the northbound left -turn lane at W. Kettleman Lane and the
southbound left -turn lane at the northern project driveway. (Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: The project site plan shall be modified to move the north project
driveway on Westgate Drive south by 25 feet in order to accommodate the required
90 -foot taper length.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support cf Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact
will be reduced to a less-than-significantlevel.
The traffic report prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates indicates that with the above
mitigation in place, the potential for traffic conflicts arising from inadequate queuing
capacity on Westgate Drive would be eliminated. These facts support the City's
finding.
13
E. INADEQUATE LEFT -TURN LANE TAPER ON LOWER SACRAMENTO ROAD
Impact: On Lower Sacramento Road, a non -City standard 70 -foot back-to-back
taper is proposed between the dual northbound left -turn lanes at W. Kettleman Lane
and the southbound left -turn lane at the middle Food 4 Less Driveway. (Significant
Impact)
2. Mitigation: The project site plan shall be modified to extend the northbound left -turn
pocket to 250 feet, and to extend the taper from 70 feet to a City standard 120 -foot
taper.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact
will be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
While the traffic report by Fehr & Peers indicated that mitigation for this impact
would need to be achieved through closure of the southbound left -turn lane at the
middle Food 4 Less Driveway, the applicant instead proposes to provide additional
roadway right-of-way along the project frontage on Lower Sacramento Road to
accommodate side-by-side left -turn lanes (instead of the back-to-back turn pockets
as originally proposed). This would allow the mitigation to be implemented as
specified while also maintaining the existing southbound left turn. Fehr & Peers
Associates has reviewed the proposed roadway configuration and concurs that it
would serve as adequate mitigation for the deficiencies noted in the EIR traffic
impact report. Therefore, Fehr & Peers Associates concludes that with the above
mitigation in place, the potential for traffic conflicts at this intersection would be
eliminated. These facts support the City's finding.
F. PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE
1. Impact: Development of the project would create a demand for increased public
transit service above that which is currently provided or planned. (Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: The project applicant shall work with and provide fair share funding to
the City of Lodi Grapeline Service and the San Joaquin Regional Transit District to
expand transit service to the project.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less-than-significantlevel.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact
will be reduced to a less-than-significantlevel.
The traffic report prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates indicates that with the above
mitigation in place, the additional demand for transit service generated by the project
would not exceed the capacity of the transit system. These facts support the City's
finding.
14
G. PUBLIC TRANSIT STOP
Impact: Development of the project would create an unmet demand for public
transit service which would not be met by the single transit stop proposed for the
northwest portion of the project. (Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: Modify the project site plan to: 1) provide a bus bay and passenger
shelter at the proposed transit stop; and 2) include a second transit stop and
passenger shelter in the eastern portion of the project near Lower Sacramento
Road.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact
will be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
The traffic report prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates indicates that with the above
mitigations in place, the transit service to the site would be adequate to meet
ridership demand and would be provided in a manner which is convenient to transit
riders, and which avoids traffic and circulation conflicts or congestion. These facts
supportthe City'sfinding.
H. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
1. Impact: Development of the project would create an unmet demand for pedestrian
facilities along West Kettleman Lane, Lower Sacramento Road and Westgate Drive,
and internally between the different areas of the project site. (Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: Pedestrian walkways and crosswalks shall be provided to serve Pads 8,
9, and 12 in order to complete the internal pedestrian circulation system.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -sig n ificant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact
will be reduced to a less-than-significantlevel.
The traffic report prepared by Fehr& Peers Associates indicates that with the above
mitigations in place, the pedestrian facilities provided in the project would be
adequate to meet demand and providefor safe pedestrian movement throughout the
project. These facts support the City's finding.
Vil. NOISE
A. NOISE FROM PROJECTACTIVITY
1. Impact: Noise generated by activity associated with the project would elevate off-site
noise levels at existing and future residences in the vicinity. (Significant Impact)
15
2. Mitigation: The following noise mitigations are identified as appropriate for the
various types of project activities, to reduce project noise at both existing and planned
future adjacent development:
Rooftop Mechanical Equipment. To ensure that the potential noise impact of
mechanical equipment is reduced to less -than -significant levels, the applicant shall
submit engineering and acoustical specifications for project mechanical equipment, for
review prior to issuance of building permits for each retail building, demonstrating that
the equipment design (types, location, enclosure specifications), combined with any
parapets and/or screen walls, will not result in noise levels exceeding 45 dBA (L�y
hour) for any residential yards.
Parking Lot Cleanina. To assure compliance with the City of Lodi Noise Regulations
regarding occasional excessive noise, leaf blowing in the southeast comer of the
project site shall be limited to operating during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact
will be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
The City of Lodi Building Official will require demonstration of compliance with noise
specifications for rooftop mechanical equipment in conjunction with each individual
building permit required for the project. The enforcement of the City Noise
Regulations with respect to leaf blower noise will be the responsibility of the
Community Development Director, who may enforce the noise restrictions with or
without a citizen complaint from a nearby resident. These facts support the City's
finding.
B. NOISE FROM STORMWATER BASIN PUMP
Impact: Occasional pumping of water from the stormwater basin would generate
noise at the planned future residential areas to the south and west of the basin.
(Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: The following measures shall be implemented to mitigate potential noise
generated by the stormwater basin pump:
1) The pump shall be located as far as is feasible from the nearest future planned
residential development. In addition, the pump facility shall be designed so that
noise levels do not exceed 45 dBA at the nearest residential property lines. The
pump may need to be enclosed to meet this noise level. Plans and specifications
for the pump facility shall be included in the Improvement Plans for the project
and reviewed for compliance with this noise criterion.
2) In order to avoid creating a noise nuisance during nighttime hours, pump
operations shall be restricted to the hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., except under
emergency conditions (e.g., when the basin needs to be emptied immediately to
accommodate flows from an imminent storm).
16
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact
will be reduced to a less -than significant level.
The City of Lodi Public Works Director will require demonstration of compliance with
noise specifications for the basin pump in conjunction with the Improvement Plans
for the project. The enforcement of the City Noise Regulations with respect to the
hours of pump operation will be the responsibility of the Community Development
Director, who may enforce the noise restrictions with or without a citizen complaint
from a nearby resident. These facts support the City's finding.
C. CONSTRUCTION NOISE
I. Impact: Noise levels would be temporarily elevated during grading and construction.
(Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: Short-term construction noise impacts shall be reduced through
implementation of the following measures:
Construction Scheduling. The applicant/contractor shall limit noise -generating
construction activities to daytime, weekday, (non -holiday) hours of 7:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m.
Construction Equipment Mufflers and Maintenance. The applicant/contractor
shall properly muffle and maintain all construction equipment powered by internal
combustion engines.
Idling Prohibitions. The applicanticontractor shall prohibit unnecessary idling of
internal combustion engines.
Equipment Location and Shielding. The applicant/contractor shall locate all
stationary noise -generating construction equipment such as air compressors as
far as practicable from existing nearby residences. Acoustically shield such
equipment as required to achieve continuous noise levels of 55 dBA or lower at
the property line.
Quiet Equipment Selection. The applicant/contractor shall select quiet
construction equipment, particularly air compressors, whenever possible. Fit
motorized equipmentwith proper mufflers in good working order.
Notification. The applicanticontractorshall notify neighbors located adjacent to,
and across the major roadways from, the project site of the construction
schedule in writing.
Noise Disturbance Coordinator. The applicant/contractor shall designate a
"noise disturbance coordinator" who would be responsiblefor responding to any
local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would
notify the City, determine the cause of the noise complaints (e.g., starting too
early, bad muffler, etc.) and would institute reasonable measures to correct the
17
problem. Applicanticontractor shall conspicuously post a telephone number for
the disturbance coordinator at the construction site, and include it in the notice
sent to neighboring property owners regarding construction schedule. All
complaints and remedial actions shall be reported to the City of Lodi by the noise
disturbance coordinator.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact
will be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
Each phase of grading and construction will be required to implement the above
noise control measures and other measures which may be required by the City of
Lodi. The construction noise control measures will be required to be included as
part of the General Notes on the project Improvement Plans, which must be
approved by the City Public Works Department prior to commencement of grading.
Although there are noise sensitive uses such as residential neighborhoods in the
vicinity of the project site, most existing dwellings would be at least 200 feet away
from the nearest grading and construction activity. This distance separation from
the noise sources and the effective implementation of the above mitigation
measures by the contractors, as monitored and enforced by City Public Works
Department and Building Division, would reduce the noise levels from this temporary
source to acceptable levels. These facts support the City's finding.
VIII. AIR QUALITY
A. CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
1. impact: Construction and grading for the project would generate dust and exhaust
emissions that could adversely affect local and regional air quality. (Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: Dust control measures, in addition to those described in the FEIR, shall
be implemented to reduce PM,o emissions during grading and construction, as
required by the City of Lodi and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control ,District
(Air District). (See Original Draft EIR, p.120).
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support cf Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact
will be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
Each phase of grading and construction will be required to implement the dust
control measures specified in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District's
Regulation VIII, as well as additional practices itemized in the FEIR and as otherwise
required by the City of Lodi. The dust control measures will be required to be
included as part of the General Notes on the project Improvement Plans, which must
be approved by the City Public Works Department prior to commencement of
grading. The Public Works Department will monitor and enforce the dust
18
suppression requirements as part of their site inspection duties. Violations of the
requirements of Regulation VIII are also subject to enforcement action by the Air
District. Violations are indicated by the generation of visible dust clouds and/or
generation of complaints. These facts support the City's finding.
B. REGIONALAIR QUALITY
1. Impact: Emissions from project -generated traffic would result in air pollutant
emissions affecting the entire air basin. (Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: Project design measures shall be implemented to reduce project area
source emissions, and a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan should
be implemented to reduce project traffic and resulting air emissions, including those
measures described in the FEIR; however, these measures would not reduce the
impact to a less -than -sig n ificant level.
3. Finding: While the implementation of specified design measures and a TDM plan in
conjunction with the project would reduce the level of the air quality impact, the
impact would not be reduced to less -than -significant level. Therefore, the impact is
significant and unavoidable.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact
is significant and unavoidable.
Due to the large size of the project and the very low thresholds for significance
established by the Air District for the emission of Reactive Organic Gases, Nitrogen
Oxides, and fine Particulate Matter, the air quality report by Donald Ballanti
concluded that the project would exceed the significance thresholds established for
these pollutants. In addition, large commercial shopping centers attract high
volumes of personal vehicles, and transportation alternatives such as public transit,
carpooling, and bicycling have limited effectiveness in reducing automobile traffic
generated by this type of project. Thus, although the City will require the
implementation of selected Transportation Demand Management measures, as
appropriate, it is estimated by Donald Ballanti that such measures would reduce
project -generated traffic by no more than five percent. The small reduction in
associated emissions would not reduce overall regional air quality impacts to less -
than -significant levels. These facts support the City's finding.
5. Statement of Overriding Considerations: The following is a summary of the
benefits that the City Council has found to outweigh the significant unavoidable
impacts of the project, the full discussion of which can be found in the "Statement of
Overriding Considerations" at the end of this document. The project is expected to
provide substantial revenues for the City of Lodi General Fund through increased
sales tax and property tax, and will generate employment opportunities for City
residents. The project will implement vital municipal infrastructure improvements in
the project vicinity, and impact fees paid by the project will help fund its pro -rata
share of public services throughout the City of Lodi. The project will implement
adopted City plans and policies by accomplishing the City of Lodi long-term
development plans for commercial use at the project site. The project will reflect a
high quality of design, through the on-site implementation of the City's Design
Guidelines for Large Commercial Establishments, which will be particularly important
at this visually prom i nent western gateway into the City.
19
C. RESTAURANT ODORS
1. Impact: The restaurant uses in the project could release cooking exhausts which
could result in noticeableodors beyond project boundaries. (Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: All restaurant uses within the project shall locate kitchen exhaust vents
in accordance with accepted engineering practice and shall install exhaust filtration
systems or other accepted methods of odor reduction.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact
will be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
While the nature and location of restaurants within the project has not been
determined, this mitigation requirement will ensure that cooking odors from any on-
site restaurants will not result in annoyance or nuisance conditions. The Building
Official will ensure that the required equipment is included on the plans, and will
ensure that the equipment is properly installed and functioning. These facts support
the City's finding.
IX. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
A. AGRICULTURAL LAND CONVERSION
1. Impact: The conversion of prime agricultural land at the project site, combined with
the agricultural conversion associated with other foreseeable projects in the area,
would result in a cumulatively substantial impact to agricultural resources. (Significant
Impact)
2. Mitigation: The applicant shall obtain a permanent Agricultural Conservation
Easement over 40 acres of prime farmland (1:1 mitigation ratio). The agricultural
conservation easement shall consist of a single parcel cf land of at least 40 acres.
This easement shall be located in San Joaquin County (excluding the Delta Primary
Zone as currently defined by State law). The easement shall be in current agricultural
use; if it is not in current agricultural use, the easement shall be required to be put into
agricultural production as a result of the conservation easement transaction. The
lands subject to the easement shall be placed under permanent restrictions on land
use to ensure its continued agricultural production capacity by limiting non-farm
development and other uses that are inconsistent with commercial agriculture. The
easement shall be held by the City or a qualified entity (i.e., land trust) approved by the
City. The applicant shall pay a fee (in an amount to be determined by the City) for
purposes of establishing an endowment to provide for adequate administration,
monitoring, and maintenance of the easement in perpetuity.
3. Finding: It is the City's current practice to require development projects to acquire
off-site conservation easements to off -set the loss of prime farmland. The
acquisition of an off-site agricultural conservation easement would provide partial
mitigation for the cumulative loss of prime farmland resulting from development
20
projects, but it would not reduce the impact to a less -than -significant level. As with
the project -specific agricultural impacts, there is no feasible mitigation measure
available that would reduce or avoid the significant cumulative loss of agricultural
land resulting from development of the proposed project and other foreseeable
projects in the area. Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other
considerations make mitigation of this impact infeasible. In particular, mitigation is
infeasible because it is not possible to re-create prime farmland on other lands that
do not consist of prime agricultural soils. This impact therefore remains significant
and unavoidable.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact
is significant and unavoidable.
As discussed in the Draft REIR and Final REIR, there are no feasible measures that
would reduce the impact of loss of prime agricultural land to a less -than -significant
level. Although impacts to prime farmland cannot be feasibly mitigatedto less -than -
significant levels, the City has in fact minimized and substantially lessened the
significant effects of development on prime agricultural land through requirements
that an off-site agricultural conservation easement be acquired by project applicants.
The City has also generally minimized the significant effects of development on
prime agricultural land through the policies of its adopted General Plan. A principal
purpose of the City's General Plan regulatory scheme is to minimize the impact on
prime agricultural land resulting from the City's urban expansion. The City of Lodi is
recognized for its compact growth pattern and clearly defined urban boundaries, its
emphasis on infill development, and its deliberate and considered approach to urban
expansion to accommodate housing and other long-term development needs. These
guiding principles serve to minimize and forestall conversion of agricultural lands within
the City's growth boundaries.
The General Plan policies related to agricultural preservation and protection are
intended, and have been successful, in maintaining the productivity of prime
agricultural land surrounding the City by controlling urban expansion in a manner
which has the least impact on prime agricultural lands. In addition to maintaining
compact and defined urban growth boundaries, agricultural preservation and
protection are primarily accomplished through the City's Growth Management Plan
for Residential Development, which limits housing development to a growth rate of
two percent per year, and which gives priority to proposed residential developments
with the least impact on agricultural land, in accordancewith General Plan policy.
The General Plan implementation program includes a directive to "identify and
designate an agricultural and open space greenbelt around the urbanized area of
the City' (Land Use and Growth Management Implementation Program 10). This
buffer zone is intended to provide a well-defined edge to the urban area, and to
minimize conflicts at the urban -agricultural interface by providing a transition zone
separating urban from agricultural uses, and to remove uncertainty for agricultural
operations near the urban fringe. The greenbelt will perform an important function in
minimizing urban -agricultural conflicts and promote the preservation of prime
agricultural land beyond the greenbelt; however, it will not constitute mitigation for
loss of farmland since it cannot itself replace land lost to development. In addition,
the City is continuing to study the implementation of a greenbelt area between
Stockton and Lodi, and is committed to the implementation of such a greenbelt.
21
In summary, the City of Lodi has applied feasible mitigation measures for loss of
prime agricultural land at the cumulative project sites through the required
acquisition of off-site agricultural conservation easements, and also through its
extensive efforts to avoid the loss of prime farmland through its careful planning of
urban areas within its boundaries. Nevertheless, the City recognizes that there is no
feasible mitigation available to reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level on a
project -specific or cumulative basis and, therefore, the impact remains cumulatively
significant and unavoidable. These facts support the City's finding.
5. Statement of Overriding Considerations: The following is a summary of the
benefits that the City Council has found to outweigh the significant unavoidable
impacts of the project, the full discussion of which can be found in the "Statement of
Overriding Considerations" at the end of this document. The project is expected to
provide substantial revenues for the City of Lodi General Fund through increased
sales tax and property tax, and will generate employment opportunities for Lodi
residents. The project will cause vital municipal infrastructure improvements to be
implemented in the project vicinity, and development impact fees paid by the
applicant will help fund the project's proportionate share of contributions towards
public services throughout the City of Lodi. The project will implement adopted City
plans and policies by accomplishing the City of Lodi's long-term development plans
for commercial use at the project site, consistent with the City's growth control
measures prioritizing in -fill development within the existing City boundaries. The
projectwill reflect a high quality of design, through the on-site implementation of the
City's Design Guidelines for Large Commercial Establishments, which will be
particularly important at this visually prominent western gateway into the City.
B. REGIONALAIR QUALITY IMPACTS
1. Impact: Emissions from project -generated traffic, combined with the emissions of
other foreseeable projects in the area, would result in air pollutant emissions
affecting the entire air basin. (Significant Cumulative Impact)
2. Mitigation: For the proposed project, design measures shall be implemented to
reduce project area source emissions, and a Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) plan should be implemented to reduce project traffic and resulting air
emissions. However, these measures would not reduce the impact to a less -than -
significant level, either on a project -specific basis or on a cumulative basis.
3. Finding: While the implementation of specified design measures and a TDM plan in
conjunction with the project would reduce the level, of the air quality impact, the
impact would not be reduced to less -than -significant level. This impact would be
exacerbated by emissions from other foreseeable projects in the area. Therefore,
the cumulative impact is significant and unavoidable.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact
is significant and unavoidable.
Due to the large size of the project and the very low thresholds for significance
established by the Air District for the emission of Reactive Organic Gases, Nitrogen
Oxides, and fine Particulate Matter, the air quality report by environmental
consultant, Donald Ballanti, concluded that the project would far exceed the
significance thresholds established for these pollutants. In addition, large
22
commercial shopping centers attract high volumes of personal vehicles, and
transportation alternatives such as public transit, carpooling, and bicycling have
limited effectiveness in reducing automobile traffic generated by this type of project.
Thus, although the City will require the implementation of selected Transportation
Demand Management measures, as appropriate, it is estimated by Donald Ballanti
that such measures would reduce project -generated traffic by no more than five
percent. The small reduction in associated emissions would not reduce overall
regional air quality impacts resulting from the proposed project to less -than -
significant levels. Other foreseeable projects in the area may be more suitable for
the implementation of TDM measures to reduce emissions on an individual project
basis; however, the cumulative impact would not be reduced to a less -than -
significant level. These facts supportthe City's finding.
5. Statement of Overriding Considerations: The following is a summary of the
benefits that the City Council has found to outweigh the significant unavoidable
impacts of the project, the full discussion of which can be found in the "Statement of
Overriding Considerations" at the end of this document. The project is expected to
provide substantial revenues for the City of Lodi General Fund through increased
sales tax and property tax, and will generate employment opportunities for City
residents. The project will implement vital municipal infrastructure improvements in
the project vicinity, and impact fees paid by the project will help fund its pro -rata
share of public services throughout the City of Lodi. The project will implement
adopted City plans and policies by accomplishing the City of Lodi's long-term
development plans for commercial use at the project site, consistent with City's
growth control measures prioritizing in -fill development within the existing City
boundaries. The project will reflect a high quality of design, through the on-site
implementation of the City's Design Guidelines for Large Commercial
Establishments, which will be particularly important at this visually prominent western
gateway into the City.
IMPACTSANALYZED IN THE REIR FOUNDTO BE LESS LESS-THANSIGNIFICANT.
CEQA does not require that findings be made on impacts found to be less -than -
significant (See CEQA Guideline § 15091 (requiring findings on impacts found to be
significant)). Nonetheless, set forth below is a summary of the City's conclusions on
new items analyzed in the REIR for which impacts were found to be less -than -
significant.
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING — SOCIOECONOMIC/URBAN DECAY IMPACTS
Urban decay is the product of an economic chain reaction that results in the closures of
retail businesses as a result of a project, such as a shopping center, which in turn leads
to physical deterioration of the surrounding neighborhood and businesses. (See
Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield, 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184
(2004)). An EIR need only disclose and analyze the direct and reasonably foreseeable
indirect environmental impacts of a proposed project if they are significant. (Guidelines,
§§ 15126.2, 15064(d)(3)). An impact "which is speculative or unlikely to occur is not
reasonably foreseeable." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(d)(3)). Mere economic and social
impacts of proposed projects are outside CEQA's purview. However, when there is
evidence that economic and social effects caused by a project, such as a shopping
center, could result in a reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental impact, such as
urban decay or deterioration, then the CEQA lead agency is obligated to assess this
23
indirect environmental impact. See Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson, 130
Cal. App. 0 1137 (2005). As summarized below, urban decay impacts of the Project
are found to be less -than -significant
A. POTENTIAL FOR URBAN DECAY DUE TO SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
1. Impact: The Project would include new retailers who would compete with existing
retailers in the City of Lodi; however, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that
this increased competition would result in business closures, and consequently
would not indirectly result in substantial physical deterioration of properties, or
urban decay (Less -than -Significant Impact).
2. Mitigation: None Required.
3. Findings: The above impact is less than significant.
4. Facts in Support of Findings: The DREIR, the FREIR, the BAE study and
analysis included with the DREIR and the supplemental BAE Supplemental
Reports dated October 1, 2008 and March 11, 2009, which are incorporated
herein by reference, discuss the potential for urban decay. The analysis
considered the economic effects of the project on local supermarkets general
merchandise outlets, and businesses in Downtown Lodi. As explained further in
the REIR and the BAE analyses, the evidence gathered as part of the economic
analysis is insufficient to support a finding that the project alone would result in
or contribute to business vacancies or a downward spiral resulting in physical
deterioration or urban decay. While there may be some decline in sales of
competing supermarkets, supermarket store closures are not reasonably
foreseeable. Sales are expected to decline for general merchandise stores such
as Target and Kmart. The Kmart store is at risk of closure. However, the
owners of the Kmart site indicate that they feel they could find new tenants
should Kmart close and cease operation, thus minimizing the prospect of long
term vacancies or total neglect leading to urban decay. Furthermore, the City
Council has directed diligent code enforcement, which will assist in the
prevention of urban decay. The City is entitled to rely on the effectiveness of its
Code Enforcement program to prevent code violations. (See City Municipal
Code Section 1.10.010 et seq.; Cal. Health and Safety Code Sections 17980-
17992). Downtown Lodi has shifted its retail mix to specialty stores,
entertainment, and restaurants which are less directly competitive with the
proposed project and therefore not anticipated to realize urban decay because of
the Project. With respect to the closure of the existing Wal-Mart store in
conjunction with the project, conditions would be imposed on the project
requiring, prior to the issuance of a building permit, either re -tenanting by a
retailer, sale to a retailer, or demolition of the structure to minimize the possibility
of urban decay resulting from its closure.
In summary, even if the project were to result in the failure of one or more
existing competing businesses, any resulting vacancy would not necessarily lead
to urban decay. Other contributing factors would need to occur to result in urban
decay, such as the failure of surrounding businesses, combined with little or no
effort on the part of property owners to maintain or improve their properties to a
condition suitable for leasing. To reach a condition recognized as a physical
impact under CEQA would require total neglect or abandonment of these
24
properties by their owners for an extended period such that substantial physical
deterioration or urban decay would ensue. Such a conclusion is not reasonably
foreseeable. Moreover, the City Council has directed staff to pursue diligent code
enforcement, and such an urban decay impact is not supported by substantial
evidence in the record. Accordingly, this impact is found to be less-than-
signiticant.
B. POTENTIAL FOR URBAN DECAY DUE TO CUMULATIVE ECONOMIC EFFECTS
OF COMPETING RETAIL PROJECTS
1. Impact: When the effects of the project are combined with those of the other
approved, pending, or probable future retail project in the project trade area (e.g.,
Reynolds Ranch), there is a likelihood existing retail centers in Lodi would be
subject to reduction in sales. Consequently, it is possible, but not reasonably
foreseeable, that one or more business closures could result, and that the affected
properties could be subject to long-term vacancies under cumulative conditions,
but not total neglect or abandonment. Moreover, aggressive enforcement action
by the City of Lodi under existing municipal code and state law provisions relating
to nuisance abatement is expected to prevent conditions which would result in
substantial physical deterioration of potentially affected properties. Therefore, no
urban decay is expected to occur under cumulative conditions. (Less -than -
Significant Cumulative Impact)
2. Mitigation: None Required.
3. Findings: The above impact is less than cumulatively significant.
4. Facts in Support of Findings: The DREIR, the FREIR, the BAE study and
analysis included with the DREIR and the supplemental BAE Supplemental
Reports dated October 1, 2008 and March 11, 2009, which are incorporated
herein by reference, discuss the potential for urban decay. The analysis
considered the proposed Reynolds Ranch development and other existing retail
within the City, including, the Target Center (which includes a Target and a
Safeway), the Cherokee Retail Center (which includes a Kmart and OSH store),
the Sunwest Plaza (which includes the existing Wal-Mart and a Food 4 Less
Supermarket), Vineyard Shopping Center (which includes a Mervyns and Ace
Hardware), Vintner's Square Center (which includes a Lowe's), retail at Lodi and
Hutchins (which includes the former Albertsons, which is now an S -Mart, and a
Rite Aid), Westgate Shopping Center (which includes a Raley's), Lakewood Mall
(which includes local -serving tenants) the Lockeford Payless IGA/True Value
Hardware, the Downtown Lodi retail, as well as retail outside the Lodi Shopping
Center Trade Area. The REIR also considered the then planned Wal-Mart
supercenters in Stockton (as well as the existing store in Stockton on Hammer
Lane) and Gait. The Stockton and Galt stores are not expected to have a
cumulative economic impact within the Trade Area defined for the proposed
project because the Trade Areas are not expected to overlap to any great
degree. This is especially true considering Stockton's Ordinance No. 018-07
C.S. (August 14,2007).
While it is possible that the project, in combination with the Reynolds Ranch
project, will result one or more business closures, it is not reasonably
foreseeable that such closures would lead to total neglect or abandonment of the
25
business or urban decay. Should there be a business closure, the potential for
physical deterioration will depend largely on the commitment of the property
owner to maintain the property. Should the owner fail to maintain the property,
City code enforcement staff would pursue active and aggressive enforcement as
previously directed by City Council.
As discussed previously, Downtown has shifted to a specialty niche market,
concentrated on entertainment and dining as well as unique, locally owned
shops. Under cumulative conditions, the impacts to Downtown many include a
reduction in sales and some additional limitation on Downtown's ability to expand
its niche, particularly if Reynolds Ranch included boutique -style stores and
restaurants. However, no closures of downtown business, including the
downtown Long's Drugstore, are anticipated to occur under cumulative
conditions with the assumed general tenant mix for the Reynolds Ranch project.
Thus, in the absence of anticipated store closures, there is no potential for urban
decay in the Downtown under cumulative conditions.
Accordingly and as further explained in the REIR, even assuming a reasonable
worst-case scenario that results in one or more business closure, urban decay
impacts of the Lodi Shopping Center, when combined with the economic effects
of projects such as Reynolds Ranch, would result in a less -than -significant
cumulative urban decay impact.
11. ENERGY
Appendix F to the CEQA Guidelines provides than an EIR should consider potentially
significant energy implications. (See also Pub. Res. Code § 21100(b)(3); CEQA
Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1) (energy mitigation measures should be discussed when
relevant)). As summarized below, energy impacts of the Project are found to be less-
than-significan f.
A. ENERGY CONSUMPTION
1. Impact: The project would increase energy consumption in the construction and
operational phases of the project. However, energy conservation measures
incorporated into the design, construction and operation of the project would avoid
wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy. (Less -than -Significant
Impact)
2. Mitigation: None Required.
3. Findings: The above impact is less than significant.
4. Facts in Support of Findings: The operation of the project would result in the
consumption of about 162 billion BTU of electricity, natural gas, and
transportation fuel per year. This is over 500 times more energy than the
estimated 0.3 billion BTU in annual energy inputs that would be applied in an
agricultural operation on the site. The energy consumed by the project operation
would represent 1.9 percent of the total annual energy consumption in the City of
Lodi of about 8,634 billion BTU, and about 0.002 percent of statewide energy
consumption. However, there are a number of energy conservation measures
beyond those required by Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, which
26
will be incorporated into the design, construction, and operational aspects of the
project, as discussed in the REIR, which would result in a considerable reduction
in project energy consumption, particularly electricity. These measures include
the use of skylights, energy-efficient HVAC units, solar -reflective roofing
materials, energy-efficient lighting systems, and the reclamation of the "heat of
rejection" from refrigeration equipment to generate hot water.
Fuel energy consumed during construction would be temporary and would not
present a significant demand upon energy resources. Some incidental energy
conservation would occur during construction through implementation of the
noise mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR such as fuel savings from
the prohibition of unnecessary idling of vehicles and equipment. The incremental
increase in the use of energy bound in construction materials would not
substantially increase demand for energy compared to overall local and regional
demand for construction materials.
The project demand for electricity would be approximately 4.42 gigawatt -hours
per year during the operational phase; however, compared to the total electrical
demand for the City of approximately 470 gigawatt -hours during 2005, the
project would represent less than one percent of the total electrical demand in
the City. The project demand for natural gas would be approximately 12.6
million cubic feet per year during the operational phase; however, compared with
the total natural gas year demand for the City of approximately 3,892 million
cubic feet during 2005, the project would represent about 0.3 percent of total gas
demand.
The project would not result in a significant impact to energy resources since it
would result in the consumption of relatively small amounts of energy, compared
to statewide and local consumption rates, in both the construction and
operational phases, and because the energy conservation measures
incorporated into the design and operation of the project would avoid wasteful,
inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy.
B. IMPACT ON ENERGY SUPPLIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
1. Impact: The increased demand for energy resulting from the project would not be
substantial enough to require new or expanded sources of supply or the
construction of new or expanded energy delivery systems or infrastructure
capacity. (Less -than -Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: None Required.
3. Findings: The above impact is less than cumulatively significant.
4. Facts in Support of Findings: The energy requirements associated with the
project would not exceed the energy supplies available to the project or exceed
the ability of the various energy infrastructures to provide adequate supplies of
energy to the project, during normal and peak demand periods, for the
foreseeable future. As such, no new energy supplies would need to be
developed to serve the project, and no system improvements would be needed
to the energy delivery infrastructure to serve the project. Therefore, the impact
27
of the project upon energy supplies and energy delivery infrastructure would be
less than significant.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. GLOBAL WARMING
The issue of global warming has been raised in the processing of the REIR. At the time
the initial EIR was prepared and certified in 2005, no commenter raised the issue of
climate change despite there being general awareness of the issue within the scientific
and environmental communities. At that time, CEQA also did not require an analysis of
global warming impacts. Assembly Bill 32 ("AB 32"), known as the California Global
Warming Solutions Act, Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 38500 et seq., was passed in
September 2006 and became effective on January 1, 2007. AB 32 sets a statewide
goal to decrease greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, and it
directs the California Air Resources Board to develop regulations on greenhouse gas
emissions verification and monitoring. Senate Bill 97 ("SB 97"), enacting Public
Resources Code section 21083.05, was passed in August of 2007, and became
effective January 1, 2008. SB 97 directs the Governor's Office of Planning and
Research to prepare, develop, and transmit to the Resources Agency guidelines for
feasible mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas
emissions, by July 1, 2009. It further directs that the Resources Agency certify or adopt
those guidelines by January 1, 2010.
Both AB 32 and SB 97 were passed after the certification of the initial EIR, which
occurred in February 2005. However, the issue of global warming is not a new concept,
and it was known at the time the original EIR was certified in 2005. Comments
concerning global warming impacts could have been, but were not, made on the initial
EIR certified in 2005. Since no comments were made on the topic of global warming at
the time the original EIR was circulated for public review, and because the Court did not
order analysis of global warming impacts, the City is not required to analyze global
warming impacts in this EIR. Additionally, AB 32 and SB 97 are not the type of new
information contemplated by Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA
Guidelines section 15162 that would require revisions to an EIR.
The City finds that it is not required to conduct an analysis of global warming in the
FREIR, in part, because it is outside the scope of the FREIR prepared on remained and
in response to the Superior Court's decision.. Nonetheless, the City notes that evidence
and materials submitted by the applicant indicate that global warming impacts would be
less than significant in any event and speculative on a cumulative level of analysis.
B. WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
By letter dated December 10, 2008, the Herum Crabtree law firm suggests that a water
supply assessment is required for the Project pursuant to California Water Code
sections 10910, 10912, 10911 and Public Resources Code section 21159.9. Because
this issue could have been raised at the time the initial EIR was prepared and certified in
2005, but was not raised, the commenter is precluded from raising the issue now under
the legal doctrine of res judicata, and the City is not required to analyze this issue at
this time. Nonetheless, the City notes that this Project does not satisfy the criteria for
requiring a water supply study under the applicable statutes. Water supply
assessments are required for projects meeting the following criteria:
28
(1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units.
(2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more
than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor
space.
(3) A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000
persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space.
(4) A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms.
(5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial
park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40
acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area.
(6) A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in
this subdivision.
(7) A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater
than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project.
(Cal. Water Code § 10912)
Based on evidence in the record, including evidence and testimony from the applicant
concerning the size and nature of the Project, the City concludes that the proposed
Project does not meet the square footage or water demand requirements set forth
above. The project is an approximately 326,000 shopping center anticipated to employ
less than 1,000 person. (See Sheppard Mullin letter of March 10, 2009). The City,
therefore, concludes that it is not required to conduct a water supply assessment for the
Project for the reasons that: (1) the issue was not raised during consideration of the EIR
in 2005 and is now barred under the legal doctrine of res judicata; and (2) the Project
does not meet the statutory criteria for requiring a water supply assessment.
FINDINGS CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES
Under CEQA, an EIR must describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the
location cf the project, which would feasibly attain most of the objectives of the project but would
avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the
comparative merits of the alternatives. Even if a project alternative will avoid or substantially
lessen any of the significant environmental effects of the project, the decision -makers may reject
the alternative if they determine that specific considerations make the alternative infeasible. The
findings with respectto the alternatives identified in the Final REIR are described below.
I. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
A. Description of the Alternative: The No Project alternative consists of not building on
the project site and possibly resuming agricultural cultivation of the property for oats, hay,
or row crops.
B. Comparison to the Project: The No Project alternative would avoid some of the
significant unmitigable effects of the proposed project, such as conversion of prime
farmland and regional air quality impacts. For all other areas of concern, the differences in
impacts between the No Project alternative and the proposed project would not be
significant because the project impacts could be reduced to less -than -significant levels
through feasible mitigation measures. On balance, the No Project alternative would be
superior to the proposed project because it would not result in the significant unavoidable
29
impacts to agricultural resources and air quality which are associated with the proposed
project, and because itwould result in little or no impact in the other impact categories.
C. Finding: This alternative is hereby rejected for the reasons set forth below.
The substantial revenues for the City of Lodi General Fund through increased sales tax
and property tax that would be generated by the project would be lost, as would the
employment opportunities for City residents created by the project. The vital municipal
infrastructure improvements that would be constructed by the project would be
foregone, as would the development impact fees paid by the applicant which would help
fund the project's proportionate share of contributions towards vital public services
throughout the City of Lodi. Unlike the proposed project, the No Project alternative
would not implement adopted City plans and policies by accomplishing the City of Lodi
long-term development plans for commercial use at the project site, consistent with
City's growth control measures prioritizing in -fill development within the existing City
boundaries, or the objective of meeting unmet retail demand from existing and future
residents of Lodi. The No Project alternative also would not implement the high quality
of design reflected in the proposed project for this visually prominent western gateway
into the City. For the reasons mentioned above, because the No Project alternative
would not meet the project objectives, and because the No Project alternative would not
provide the same benefits as the proposed project, it is not a feasible alternative.
II. REDUCED PROJECT SIZE ALTERNATIVE
A. Description cf the Alternative: This alternative would consist of a substantially reduced
project site of approximately 24 acres, including about 22 gross acres for retail
development and 2 acres for the stormwater basin. This would represent approximately
60 percent of the proposed project size of 40 acres. This alternative would include the
Wal-Mart Supercenter, as proposed, but would not include any of the ancillary retail pads
proposed in the project.
B. Comparison to the Project: The Reduced Project Size alternative would result in a slight
reduction in the levels of impact associated with the proposed project in several topic
areas, although these impacts would be mitigated to less -than -significant levels under the
proposed project. For the two significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the
proposed project—impactsto agricultural resources and regional air quality—the Reduced
Project Size alternative would lessen these impacts but would not avoid them or reduce
them to less -than -significant levels. Thus, although the Reduced Project Size alternative
would be slightly superior to the proposed project, it would not achieve the CEQA objective
of avoiding the significant impacts associated with the project.
C. Finding: This alternative is hereby rejected for the reasons set forth below.
The revenues for the City of Lodi General Fund that would be generated by the project
would be substantially reduced, as would the number of employment opportunities for
City residents created by the project. This alternative would not complete the vital
municipal infrastructure improvements that would be constructed by the project, and
would substantially reduce the development impact fees paid by the applicant to help
fund the project's proportionate share of contributions towards vital public services
throughout the City of Lodi. This alternative would lessen the City's ability to implement
adopted City plans and policies for accomplishing long-term development plans for
commercial use at the project site. This alternative would also compromise the City's
0
ability to implement the high quality of design reflected in the proposed project for this
visually prominent western gateway into the City and for these reasons is not a feasible
alternative. For the reasons mentioned above, because the Reduced Project alternative
would not meet the project objectives, and because the Reduced Project alternative
would not provide the same benefits as the proposed project, it is not a feasible
alternative.
III. ALTERNATIVE PROJECT LOCATION
A. Description of the Alternative: An alternative project site was identified in the
unincorporated area of San Joaquin County known as Flag City, consisting of
approximately 36 gross acres in the northeast quadrant of Highway 12 and Thornton
Road, just east of 1-5. To allow direct comparison, it was assumed that a 36 -acre
portion of the lands at this location would be developed with roughly the same land use
configuration and intensity as the proposed project.
B. Comparison to the Project: The impacts associated with development of the Flag City
site would be somewhat greater than for the proposed project site. Although the impacts
for many categories would be similar for both project locations, development of the Flag
City site would result in negative effects in terms of land use policy, and the resulting
potential for growth inducement, which would not occur with the proposed project site.
Traffic impacts would be greater for the Flag City site, as would impacts to utilities and
public services, although these impacts would be less than significant or could be fully
mitigated. More importantly, the alternative project site would result in the same significant
and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources and air quality as are associated with
the proposed project. Therefore, the alternative site would not lessen or avoid the
significant and unavoidable impacts of the project.
C. Finding: This alternative is hereby rejected for the reasons set forth below.
The alternative project site is not environmentally superior to the proposed project site. In
addition, due to its location outside the City of Lodi, the alternative site would not provide
the benefits associated with the proposed project including increased municipal revenues
and development impact fees for providing services, creation of employment opportunities
for Lodi residents, meeting unmet retail demand from existing and future Lodi residents,
construction of the project's proportionate share of vital municipal infrastructure
improvements, and the opportunityto implement City goals and policies with respect to the
commercial development of the project site (consistent with City's growth control
measures prioritizing in -fill development within the existing City boundaries), and the
chance to provide a high quality development at the western gateway to the City. For the
reasons listed above, this alternative is infeasible.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Of the three project alternatives considered, only the No Project alternative would avoid or
substantially lessen the significant impacts of the project. The significant and unavoidable
impacts to agricultural resources and air quality associated with the proposed project would both
be avoided by the No Project alternative. Since all other project impacts are either less than
significant or can be reduced to less -than -significant levels through the implementation of feasible
mitigation measures, the No Project alternative would not offer substantial reductions in impact
levels under the other impact categories. Therefore, the No Project alternative would represent
the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project. The No Project alternative was
31
not selected because it would not meet the applicant's objective of developing the site for
shopping center uses; nor would it meet the City's goals of enhancing its revenue base, creating
jobs, providing vital municipal infrastructure, and implementing the City's policy objective of
developing the site with commercial retail uses.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires that if the environmentally superior alternative is
the No Project alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative from
among the other alternatives. The Reduced Project Size alternative was found to result in the
same significant and unavoidable impactsto agricultural resources and air quality as the proposed
project. However, it would result in slightly lower levels of impact in several impact categories,
although these impacts would all be reduced to less -than -significant levels in conjunction with the
proposed project. Therefore, the Reduced Project Size alternative represents the environmentally
superior alternative. The Reduced Project Size alternative was not selected because it would not
entirely fulfill the project objective of developing the proposed project site with a regional shopping
center in conformance with the City of Lodi General Plan and zoning regulations, and because it
would be substantially less effective than the proposed project in fulfilling the project objective of
meeting unmet retail demand from existing and future residents of Lodi. It also would be
substantially less effective than the proposed project in fulfilling the City's objective of enhancing
its fiscal resources through increased sales tax and property tax revenues, or in meeting the
objectives of creating new jobs, and providing a pro -rata share of vital municipal infrastructure.
Additional alternatives recently suggested in a letter dated December 10, 2008 from the law firm
of Herum Crabtree include: (1) a "Reynolds Ranch" alternative; (2) an "East Lodi/Redevelopment
Area" alternative; (3) a "Proportionately Reduced Size" alternative; and (4) a "High Efficiency"
alternative. As noted above, the EIR must identify a reasonable range of alternatives which
would feasibly attain most of the Project's objectives and would avoid or substantially lessen any
of the significant effects of the project. The lead agency need not consider every conceivable
alternative, and it has discretion to determine how many alternatives constitute a reasonable
range. The EIR's discussion and analysis of alternatives satisfies the requirement in its of
analyzing a reasonable range of alternatives. The additionally proposed alternatives need not
be considered at this time. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that these additionally
proposed alternatives would meet most of the project objectives and also avoid or substantially
lessen the environmental effects of the Project. Based on materials in the record, including a
letter dated March 10, 2009 from the law firm of Sheppard Mullin, the Reynolds Ranch, East
Lodi/Redevelopment Area and Proportionately Reduced Size alternatives appear infeasible.
Components of the High Efficiency alternative are included as part of the Project conditions, and
thus, it has not been shown that the High Efficiency alternative would most of the project
objectives and also avoid or substantially lessen the environmental effects of the Project.
In conclusion, the City finds that there are no alternativesto the Projectwhich could feasibly attain
most of the basic objectives of the project and also avoid or reduce the significant impacts
associated with the proposed project to less -than -significant levels.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Attached hereto and incorporated and adopted herewith, is the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for the Lodi Shopping Center project. The Program identifies the mitigation
measures to be implemented in conjunction with the project, and designates responsibility for
the implementation and monitoring of the mitigation measures, as well as the required timing of
their implementation.
32
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091-
15093, the City Council of the City of Lodi hereby adopts and makes the following Statement of
Overriding Considerations regarding the remaining significant and unavoidable impacts of the
project and the anticipated economic, social and other benefits of the project.
A Significant Unavoidable Impacts
With respect to the foregoing findings and in recognition of those facts which are included in the
record, the City Council has determined that the project would result in significant unavoidable
impacts to prime agricultural land and regional air quality. While mitigation measures have
been identified which will reduce these impacts, they cannot be mitigated to a less -than -
significant level by feasible changes or alterations to the project.
B. Overriding Considerations
The City Council specifically adopts and makes this Statement of Overriding Considerations
that this project has eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the
environment where feasible, and finds that the remaining significant, unavoidable impacts of the
project are acceptable in light of environmental, economic, social or other considerations set
forth herein because the benefits of the project outweigh the significant and adverse effects of
the project.
The City Council has considered the EIR, the public record of proceedings on the proposed
project and other written materials presented to the City, as well as oral and written testimony
received, and does hereby determine that implementation of the project as specifically provided
in the project documents would result in the following substantial public benefits:
1. Proiect Will Generate Citv Taxes. The sales generated by the Lodi Shopping Center will
generate additional sales tax and property tax revenues for the City, which would
otherwise not be generated by the undeveloped site. These revenues go to the City's
General Fund which is the primary funding source for the construction, operation and
maintenance of a numberof essential City services, programs and facilities including fire
and police services, recreation programs, transit operations, library services, public
infrastructure such as water and sanitary sewer service, and administrative functions,
among other things.
2. Proiect Creates Employment Opportunities for City Residents. The Lodi Shopping
Center project will generate both temporary construction jobs as well as hundreds of
permanent full-time and part-time jobs. The vast majority of the permanent jobs will not
require special skills and therefore could be filled by existing local residents. Thus, with
the exception of a very few management positions which will likely be filled by
transferees from other localities, no specially -skilled workers would need to be
"imported" from outside the City. Consequently, it is expected that City residents would
benefit from added employment opportunities offered by the Lodi Shopping Center
project.
3. Proiect Will Implement Vital Municipal Infrastructure Improvements. Through the
development of the project, a number of public infrastructure projectswill be constructed
on the project site and the project vicinity. As described on page 15 of the Draft EIR,
the project will construct planned roadway improvements along the portions of Lower
33
Sacramento Road and State Route 12/Kettleman Lane that front the project site, and as
well as Westgate Drive to its full design width along the western project boundary. This
is an economic benefit of the project in that these improvements would otherwise not be
made without approval and implementation of the project. The project will also be
conditioned to pay impact fees to the City in accordance with City's adopted
Development Impact Fee program, which can be applied toward it's pro -rata share of
municipal improvements such as water, sewer, storm drainage, and streets, as well as
police, fire, parks and recreation, and general City government. These are vital
municipal improvements necessary to the function of the City and the quality of life for
City residents, providing another economic benefit as well as social benefit of the
project.
4. Proiect Implements Adopted City Plans. The project is situated within Lodi City limits
and has been planned for commercial development in the current City of Lodi General
Plan since its adoption in 1991. Therefore, the project implements adopted City plans
and policies by accomplishing the City of Lodi long-term development plans for
commercial use at the project site, consistent with City's growth control measures
prioritizing in -fill development within the existing City boundaries. In addition, the project
completes the development of the "Four Corners" area by providing a large-scale retail
center on the last remaining undeveloped site at the Lower Sacramento Road/Kettleman
Lane intersection consistent with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance.
5. Creates High Quality Design at Western Gateway to the Citv. The Lodi Shopping
Center has been designed in conformance with the City's Design Standards for Large
Retail Establishments which will ensure a consistent high quality of design throughout
the project site. This is a particularly important consideration given the project's visually
prominent location at the western gateway to the City, and will effectively implement the
General Plan goal and policies which call for the establishment of identifiable, visually
appealing, and memorable entrances along the principal roads into the City.
6. Proiect Features Numerous Energy Conserving Measures. The project proposes to
include energy efficient and sustainable features as part of the project designs,
including, for example, automated control system for heating/air conditioning, lighting
controls, energy efficient lighting, and light colored roof materials to reflect heat.
In making the statement of overriding consideration in support of the findings of fact and
this project, the City Council has weighed the above economic and social benefits of the
proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks and adverse environmental
effects identified in the EIR and hereby determines that those benefits outweigh the risks
and adverse environmental effects and, therefore, further determines that these risks and
adverse environmental effects are acceptable.
34
Exhibit B
(Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program)
EXHIBIT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
LODI SHOPPING CENTER
CITY OF LODI
APRIL 2009
887538.4 11233.26 1
ffWW4Kr"
"NEW""
PARTY
(To be completed by
responsible party)
DATE
INITIALS
B. AGRICULTURALRESOURCES
B 1. Agricultural
B 1. The applicant shall obtain a permanent Agricultural Conservation
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Land Conversion
Easement over 40 acres of prime farmland (1: 1 mitigation mtW. The
agricultural conservation easement shall consist of a single parcel of
approval of City of
Lodi Community
issuance of
occupancy
land of at least 40 acres. This easement shall be located in San
Development Director.
permits.
Joaquin County (excluding the Delta Pm -nary Zone as currently
defined by State law). The easement shall be in current agricultural
use; if it is not in current agricultural use, the easement shall be
required to be put into agricultural production as a result of the
conservation easement transaction. The lands subject to the easement
shall be placed under permanent restrictions on land use to ensure its
continued agricultural production capacity by limiting non-farm
development and other uses that are inconsistent with commercial
agriculture. The easement shall be held by the City or a qualified
entity (i.e., land trust) approved by the City. The applicant shall pay a
fee (in an amount to be determined by the City) for purposes of
establishing an endowment to provide for adequate administration,
monitoring. and maintenance ofthe easement in perpetuity.
887538.4 11233.26 1
EXHIBIT B
I1VII'AC'S'
k r._-_....,�..I
"VIITGA;TIt)1V'1VIEAS7RES'
RES>�'ONSIBL
T11VIINU ``
I1�..
PL�lYrf'i']N'`'
PARTY
(To be completed by
responsible party)
DATE
INITIALS
C. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
C1. Seismic
C 1. Structural damage to buildings resulting from ground shaking
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Shaking_shall
be minimized by following the requirements of the Uniform
Building Code, and implementing the recommendations of the project
approval by City of
Lodi Building Official
issuance of
grading
geotechnical engineer.
and Lodi Public Works
permits.
Director.
C2. Seismic
C2. If subsequent geotechnical studies indicate unacceptable levels of
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Settlement
potential seismic settlement, available measures to reduce the effects
approval by City of
issuance of
of such settlements would include replacement of near -surface soils
Lodi Building Official
grading
with engineered fill, or supporting structures on quasi -rigid
and Lodi Public Works
permits.
foundations, as recommendedby the project geotechnical engineer.
Director.
C3. Stormwater
C3. Design -level geotechnical studies shall investigate the potential of
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Bank Stability
bank instability at the proposed basin and recommend appropriate
setbacks, if warranted.
approval of City of
Lodi Public Works
issuance of
grading
Director.
permits.
c4. Soil
C4. The effects of soil consolidation and collapse can be mitigated by
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Consolidation
placing shallow spread foundations on a uniform thickness of
engineered fill; specific measures shall be specifiedby an engineering
approval of City of
Lodi Public Works
issuance of
grading
and Colla se
geologist as appropriate in response to localized conditions.
Director and Building
pen -nits.
Official.
C5. Expansive
C5. The potential damage from soils expansion would be reduced
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Soils
by placement of non -expansive engineered fill below foundation
approval of Lodi Public
issuance of
slabs, or other measures as recommended by the geotechnical
Works Director and
grading
engineer.
Building Official.
pen -nits.
881538.4 11233.26
EXHIBIT B
IMPACTS`
. 1VI)�T�GATYO� MEA�UI2ES
'R�'S�PO'iY�L"�
TIMING "'
T1V�`13�L"E1V��NTA`t' (5N"'
PARTY
(To be completed by
responsible party)
DATE
INITIALS
C. GEOLOGYAND SOILS(Cont'd)
C6. Soil
C6. The potential damage from soil corrosivity can be mitigated by
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Corrosivity
using corrosion-resistantmaterials for buried utilities and systems;
approval of City of
issuance of
specific measures shall be specifiedby an engineering geologist as
Lodi Public Works
grading
appropriate in response to localized conditions.
Director.
permits.
D. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
D3. Erosion and
D3. A comprehensive erosion control and water pollution prevention
Project Applicant with
Throughout
e imentati n
program shall be implemented during grading and construction. (See
EIR text for details.)
approval by City of
Lodi Public Works
grading and
construction of
Director.
the project.
D4. Urban
D4. The project shall include stormwater controls to reduce nonpoint
Project Applicant with
Throughout
Non -Po int
pollutant loads. (See EIR text for details.)
final approval by City
construction
Pollution
of Lodi Public Works
and operation
Director.
of project.
E. BIOLOGICALRESOURCES
E3. Loss of
E3. In accordance with the SJMSCP and City of Lodi requirements,
Project Applicant, in
Prior to
Habitat for
the project proponent will pay the applicable in -lieu mitigation fees
accordance with
issuance of
S ecial Status
to compensate for loss of open space and habitat resulting from
development of the project site, and will ensure the completion of
SJMSCP, and with
approval of City of
grading
pen -nits.
Animals
preconstruction surveys for Swainson's hawks, burrowing owls, and
Lodi Community
California horned larks, as well as the implementation of specified
Development Director.
measures if any of these species are found on the site.
887538.411233.26
V 111101MA111
IMPACTS
S �
',S�YYM1�,'M
MI �GAN' ME
RESP`bl I$LP `� T 1M1NG
IIVYP . Ul ,,, i .
PARTY
(To be completed by
responsible party)
DATE
INITIALS
E. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (Cont'd)
E4. Disturbance
E4. The following measures shall be implemented to ensure that
Project Applicant, in
Prior to
to Burrowing
raptors (hawks and owls) are not disturbed during the breeding
consultation with
issuance of
Owls and
season:
CDFG, and with
grading
Ravtors
. If ground disturbance is to occur during the breeding season (Feb.
approval o f City of
pen -nits.
1 to Aug. 31), a qualified ornithologist shall conduct a pre-
Lodi Community
construction survey for nesting raptors (including both tree- and
Development Director -
ground -nesting raptors) on site within 30 days of the onset of
ground disturbance. These surveys will be based on the accepted
protocols (e.g:, as for the burrowing owl) for the target species. If
a nesting raptor is detected, then the Ornithologist will, in
consultation with CDFG, determine an appropriate disturbance -
free zone (usually a minimum of 250 feet) around the tree that
contains the nest or the burrow in which the owl is nesting. The
actual size of the buffer would depend on species, topography,
and type of construction activity that would occur in the vicinity
of the nest. The setback area must be temporarily fenced, and
construction equipment and workers shall not enter the enclosed
setback area until the conclusion of the breeding season. Once
the raptor abandons its nest and all young have fledged,
constructioncan begin within the boundaries of the buffer.
• If ground disturbance is to occur during the non -breeding season
(September 1 to January 31), a qualified ornithologist will
conduct pre -construction surveys for burrowing owls only. (Pre -
construction surveys during the non -breeding season are not
necessary for tree nesting raptors since these species would be
expected to abandon their nests voluntarily during construction.)
• If burrowing owls are detected during the non -breeding season,
they can be passively relocated by placing one-way doors in the
burrows and leaving them in place for a minimum of three days.
(Continued on next page.)
887538.4 11233.26
IIVIPACTS
,' " ;MITIGA`T�01�T
PARTY
(To be completed by
responsible party)
DATE
INITIALS
E. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (Cont'd)
]E4. (Cont'd)
Once it has been determined that owls have vacated the site, the
burrows can be collapsed and ground disturbance can proceed.
F. CULTURAL RESOURCES
F 1. Disturbance
F1. Implementation of the following measures will mitigate any
Project Applicant in
Throughout
�o Buried
potential impacts to cultural resources.
consultation with a
grading and
Cultural
. In the event that prehistoric or historic archaeological materials
qualified archaeologist
construction of
Resources
are exposed or discovered during site clearing, grading or
and/or qualified
project.
subsurface construction, work within a 25 -foot radius of the find
paleontologist, as
shall be halted and a qualified professional archaeologist
applicable, with
contacted for further review and recommendations. Potential
verificationof
recommendations could include evaluation, collection,
mitigation by City of
recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials
Lodi Community
followedby aprofessionalreport.
Development Director.
. In the event that fossils are exposed during site clearing, grading
or subsurface construction, work within a 25 -foot radius of the
find shall be halted and a qualified professional paleontologist
contacted for further review and recommendations. Potential
recommendations could include evaluation, collection,
recordation, and analysis of any significant paleontological
materials followedbv aprofessionalreport. (Cont'd next page.)
887538.4 11233.26
EXHIBIT B
IlVIPACTS
r_
`
PARTY
(To be completed by
responsible party)
DATE
INITIALS
F. CULTURAL RESOURCES (Cont'd)
FI. (Cont'd)
• If human remains are discovered, the San Joaquin County
Coroner shall be notified. The Coroner would determine whether
or not the remains are Native American. If the Coroner
determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he
will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, who
would identify a most likely descendant to make
recommendations to the land owner for dealing with the human
remains and any associated grave goods, as provided in Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98.
H. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
H2. Future Plus
H2. The project shall contribute its fair share cost to the installation
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Proiect
of a traffic signal at Lower Sacramento Road and Harney Lane.
approval by City of
issuance of
Unsignalized
Lodi Public Works
occupancy
Intersection
Director
permits.
Operations
H4. Cumulative
H4. Modify the project site plan to provide dual eastbound left -turn
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Plus Proiect
movements out of the project site onto northbound Lower
approval by City of
issuance of
Acces
Sacramento Road, consisting of a 150-footleft-turn pocket and a full
Lodi Public Works
occupancy
Conditions at
travel lane back to the internal project site intersection. In the
Director.
permits.
the Si alized
eastbound direction, a left -tum pocket and a full travel lane back to
Access Driv
the signalized intersection will provide adequate capacity for
Pro osed Along
inbound traffic. In addition, STOP signs shall be installed on all
the L w r
approaches except the westbound to provide continuous traffic flow
Sacramento
into the project site and eliminate the potential for backups onto
Road frontaize
Lower Sacramento Road. On the Food 4 Less approach, a 100 -foot
left-turnpocket will be provided at the signalized intersection.
887538.4 11233.26
EXHIBIT
887538.411233.26
PARTY
(To be completed by
responsible party)
DATE
INITIALS
H. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION (Cont'd)
H5. Cumulative
H5. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Plus Pr i ct
A) Extend a third southbound travel lane on Lower Sacramento
final approval by City
issuance of
Access
Road from its current planned terminus at the signalizedproject
of Lodi Public Works
occupancy
Conditions at
driveway to the southern boundary of the project site;
Director.
permits.
Northem
B) Construct a 100 -foot southbound right -turn lane at the signalized
Unsienalized
project driveway;
Access Driv
Along Lower
C) Extend the southbound left -tum pocket by 100 feet;
Sacram
D) Extend the taper from 60 feet to a City standard 120-foottaper;
Road
E) Eliminatethe northbound left -tum lane into the northernproject
driveway (under Alternative B).
H6. Inadeauate
H6. The project site plan shall be modified to move the north project
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Left -tum Lane
driveway on Westgate Drive south by 25 feet in order to
accommodatethe required 90 -foot taper length.
approval of City of
Lodi Public Works
issuance of
occupancy
Taper on
Westgate Drive
Director.
permits.
H7. Inadeauate
H7. The project site plan shall be modified to extend the northbound
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Left -tum Lane
left -tum pocket to 250 feet, and extend the taper from 70 to a City
standard 120-foottaper.
approval by City of
Lodi Public Works
Director.
issuance of
occupancy
permits.
Tamr on Lower
Sacrament
Road
H8. Publi
H8. The project applicant shall work with and provide fair share
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Transit Service
funding to the City of Lodi Grapeline Service and the San Joaquin
Regional Transit District to expand transit service to the project.
final approval by City
of Lodi Public Works
issuance of
occupancy
Director.
permits.
887538.411233.26
EXHIBIT B
ti'SW'i^ �I
v •!� ;5: t� y�c4 r'A 'F,F 4hY
PARTY
(To be completed by
responsible party)
DATE
INITIALS
H. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION (Cont'd)
119. Public
H9. Modify the project site plan to: 1) provide a bus bay and
Project Applicant, in
Prior to
Transit Stop
passenger shelter at the proposed transit stop; and 2) include a
consultation with City
issuance of
second transit stop in the eastern portion of the project near Lower
of Lodi Grapeline
grading
Sacramento Road.
Service, and with
pen -nits.
approval of City of
Lodi Public Works
Director.
H1 1.
H 11. Pedestrian walkways and crosswalks shall be provided to serve
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Facilities
Pads 8, 9, and 12 in order to complete the internal pedestrian
approval of City of
issuance of
circulation system.
Lodi Community
grading
Development Director.
pen -nits.
I. NOISE
13. Noise from
13. The following noise mitigation measures are identified as
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Proiect AgUyiU
appropriate for the various types of project activities, to reduce project
noise at both existing and planned future adjacent development
approval of City of
Lodi Community
issuance of
building
Roofto Mechanical Equipment. To ensure that the potential noise
Development Director.
permits.
impact of mechanical equipment is reduced to less -than -significant
levels, the applicant shall submit engineering and acoustical
specifications for project mechanical equipment, for review prior to
issuance of building permits for each retail building, demonstrating
that the equipment design (types, location, enclosure specifications),
combined with any parapets and/or screen walls, will not result in
noise levels exceeding45 dBA (Leq-hour) for any residentialyards.
r ' tleanin . To assure compliance with the City of Lodi
oise Regulations regarding occasional excessivenoise, leaf blowing
the southeast comer of the project site shall be limited to operating
rin
ring the hours of 7:00 am. to 10:00 v m.
887538.4 11233.26
EXHIBIT
887538.4 11233.26
PARTY
(To be completed by
responsible party)
DATE
INITIALS
I. NOISE (Cont'd)
14. Noise from
14. The following measures shall be implemented to mitigate
Project Applicant with
Prior to
St nnwater
potential noise generatedby the stormwaterbasin pump:
approval of City of
issuance of
Basin Pump
I ) The pump shall be located as far as is feasible from the nearest
Lodi Community
grading
future planned residential development. In addition, the noise
Development Director.
pen -nits.
levels generated by pump shall be specified to produce noise
levels no greater than 45 dBA Lq at the nearest residential
properly lines. The pump facility shall be designed so that noise
levels do not exceed 45 dBA at the nearest residential property
lines. The pump may need to be enclosed to meet this noise
level. Plans and specifications for the pump facility shall be
included in the Improvement Plans for the project and reviewed
for compliance with this noise criterion.
2) In order to avoid creating a noise nuisance during nighttime
hours, pump operations shall be restricted to the hours of 7 am.
to 10 p.m., except under emergency conditions (e.g., when the
basin needs to be emptied immediately to accommodate flows
from another imminent storm).
15. Construction
H5. Short-term noise impacts shall be reduced through
Project Applicant, to be
Throughout
Noise
implementation of the following measures: limiting the hours of
verified by the City of
grading and
construction; proper muffling and maintenance of equipment;
Lodi Building Official
construction.
prohibition of unnecessary idling; noise shielding of stationary
and City of Lodi
equipment and location of such equipment away from sensitive
community
receptors; selection of quiet equipment; notification to neighbors of
Development Director.
construction schedule, and designation of a 'noise disturbance
coordinator' to respond to noise complaints. (See EIR text for details.)
887538.4 11233.26
EXHIBIT B
887538.4 11233.26 3D
-
PARTY
(To be completed by
responsible party)
DATE
INITIALS
J. AIRQUALITY
J1. Construction
J1. Dust control measures shall be implemented to reduce PMIo
Project Applicant, to be
Throughout
Emissions
emissions during grading and construction, as required by the City of
verified by the City of
grading and
Lodi and the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
Lodi Public Works
construction.
District. (See EIR text for details.)
Director and City of
Lodi Community
Development Director.
J3. Regional
J3 Project design measures shall be implemented to reduce project
Project Applicant, to be
Prior to
Air Quality
area source emissions, and a Transportation Demand Management
verified by the City of
issuance of
(TDM) plan should be implemented to reduce project traffic and
Lodi Building Official
building
resulting air emissions; however, these measures would not reduce
and City of Lodi
permits.
the impact to a less-than-significantlevel.
Community
Development Director.
J6. Restaurant
J5. All restaurant uses within the project shall locate kitchen exhaust
Project Applicant with
Prior to
vents in accordance with accepted engineering practice and shall
approval of City of
issuance of
install exhaust filtration systems or other accepted methods of odor
Lodi Building Official
building
reduction.
and City of Lodi
permits.
Community
Development Director.
887538.4 11233.26 3D
APPEAL LETTERS
Sheppard Mullin AND
Remy, Thomas, Moose & Manley
LLP 4/10/09
Herum/Crabtree 4/15/09
PAQ Inc. 4/17/09
17th Floor I Four Embarcadero Center I San Fiana isco CA 9411 1-4106
`• • 415-434 9100 office 1 415 434 3947 ku. l) www.sheppardmVJ11V,com
A T T O R N E Y 5 A T L A W r,
Writer's Direct Line: 415-774-2974
apelosi@sheppardinuIlin.cm
April 10,2009
Our File Number: 15CM-130407
VIAE -MAIL AND FEDEX
Ms. Randi Johl, City Clerk
221 West Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission's decision to not approve the Lodi
Shopping Center entitlements and to not adopt the Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations (April 8,2009 Planning
Commission agenda item 2)
Dear Ms. Johl:
We submit this letter on behalf of our clients, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Browman
Development Company. We hereby appeal the Planning Commission's decision to: (1) not
approve the Use Permit (U-02-12), Vesting Tentative Map (03-P-001), and Site Plan and
Architectural Review (08 -SP -08); and (2) not make and adopt the Findings of Fact and Statement
of Overriding Considerations for the Lodi Shopping Center project ("Project") to the City
Council.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 8,2009 to hear public
testimony and to consider the Project entitlements (Use Permit, Vesting Tentative Map, and Site
Plan and Architectural Review) and the Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations. Alexis Pelosi and Darryl Browman presented testimony on behalf of Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. and Browman Development Company, respectively, in connection with the Planning
Commission's decision. The Planning Commission motion to approve the Project Entitlements
and to make and adopt the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations failed
for lack of a majority vote and is therefore appealable per the City's code provisions and the State
Subdivision Map Act.
City staff and its team of expert consultants have worked on this Project for at
least seven years. We believe that the Project complies with all applicable City requirements for
these entitlements and that the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
complies with the California Environmental Quality Act. Thus, we respectfully request that the
City Clerk place this appeal on the City Council agenda in compliance with the City's appeal
SHE, PPARD MUI.LIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
City Clerk
April 10,2009
Page 2
procedures set forth in the City Zoning Code Chapter 17.88 and the State Subdivision Map Act.
(See Government Code section 66452.5(a).)
Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. Please contact us if you
need additional information.
V', Len
Andrea K. LeisyV\- J �jr'i
for REMY, THOMAS, MOOSE &
MANLEY LLP
W02-WEST;5ENS 1\401483434.2
Sincerely,
/ (VA, �y
Alexis M. Pelosi
for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER &
HAMPTON LLP
cc: Rad Bartlam, City Community Development Director
Steve Schwabauer, City Attorney
Blair King, City Manager
401
1
pre6�
FFEE
7ITwr M17 I==
4)
LI LJ L LJ
-77
11 J
mMin
BROWMAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.
Development . Leasing 0 Management
Company Overview:
Browman Development Company, Inc. (BDC) is a commercial retail
development company based in Walnut Creek, California that has undertaken
multiple development projects throughout the western United States including
the San Francisco Bay Area, Central Valley of California, Washington and
Alaska. An active shopping center developer since 1989, BDC has withstood
multiple real estate cycles by adapting to expanding and contracting real estate
markets. BDC is not a merchant builder, It develops shopping centers for its
own portfolio and manages them internally through its construction, leasing,
legal and property management divisions. Since its inception, BDC has
completed the development of over 40 neighborhood and regional shopping
centers totaling 3,500,000 square feet.
Company Philosophy:
BDC's philosophy is to develop viable shopping centers for its long term
portfolio by creating attractive retail environments that serve the needs of the
communities in which they are built. BDC pursues this philosophy by seeking
out quality tenants to fill voids in the marketplace, fostering a healthy tenant
mix, and developing a welcoming environment for customers to enjoy on a
recurring basis.
BROWMAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.
Development Leasing . Management
Project History
San Francisco Bay Area:
Alameda Tulare
- Marina Village Shopping Center (Outparcel) - Walgreens Pharmacy
- Webster Square - Tulare Marketplace
American Canyon Visalia
- American Canyon Marketplace
E1 Sobrante
- E1 Sobrante Center
Hayward
- City Center Gateway
- Mission Plaza Shopping Center
- Shops at Palmtag
- Skywest Commons
- Sueirro Plaza
Morgan Hill
- Morgan Hill Shopping Center
SanJose
- The Shops at Evergreen
San Pablo
- Richmond Parkway Plaza
Central Valley
Atwater
- Five Corner Crossings Phase I & II
Fresno
- Ashlan Plaza
- Cedar Marketplace
- Sunnyside Marketplace
Hanford
- Walgreens Pharmacy
Lodi
- Lodi Town Plaza
- Sunwest Plaza
Madera
- Walgreens Pharmacy
Orangevale
- Greenback Promenade
Riverbank
- Crossroads at Riverbank
- Walgreens Pharmacy
Sacramento Area
Davis
- Covell Plaza
Elk Grove
- Laguna 99 Marketplace
Sacramento
- Arden Place
- Bradshaw Marketplace
Northwestern California
Eureka
- Eureka Plaza
McKinleyville
- Mill Creek Marketplace
Alaska
Anchorage
- Tikahtnu Commons
Wasilla
- Cottonwood Creek Place
Washington State
Richland
- Vintner Square
Spokane
- Northwest Center
- Crestline Center
- Cascade Center
- Sullivan Shopping Center
BROWMAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.
Development . Leasing . Management
Current Projects
Tikahtnu Commons Shopping Center (Anchorage, AIg
Tikahtnu Commons is an 85 acre regional shopping center serving the growing needs of
Anchorage, Eagle River, and the Mat -Su Valley that commenced construction May 15,2007.
The shopping center is presently anchored by Target, Lowe's, and Kohl's; with Sports Authority,
Best Buy, and Regal Cinemas opening in May 2009, June 2009, and March 2010 respectively.
The center also offers additional retail opportunities ranging from shop space to major
anchor locations. By being conveniently located next to Glenn Highway, the project will serve
as a gateway to Anchorage as it is located at the first Anchorage off -ramp from the rapidly
growing Mat -Su Valley and Eagle River.
Cottonwood Creek Place (Wasilla, AI)
This Target anchored center is located at the high identity intersection of Glenn Parks Highway
and Palmer Wasilla Highway. Its tenant mix provides a varied offering to serve the
community, including Walgreens, Sports Authority, Famous Footwear, Wells Fargo, Taco Bell,
GCI, AT&T, Regis, Sally Beauty, GameStop, and more. This center is home to Walgreens
first store in the Alaska market and one of Target's first two stores in Alaska.
BROWMAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.
Development . Leasing . Management
Featured Projects
Cochrane Commons Shopping Center (MorganHill, CA)
A 650,000 square foot regional retail project located -v i
the affluent community of Morgan Hill anchored by Target,
Petco, DSW, and Staples. Other key tenants include Chili's,
Red Robin, Starbucks, Men's Wearhouse, Sleep Train, Massage
Envy, Jamba Juice, Seds Candies, Dickey's BBQ, and more.
This Art Deco architecturally themed project is conveniently located in north Morgan Hill
to serve southeast San Jose, Gilroy, and of course, Morgan Hill.
Skywest Commons Retail Shopping Center (Hayward, CA)
Located on the site of a former movie theater, hotel, and
gas station, this redevelopment project features a 140,850
square foot Target store, a 15,000 square foot Fresh & Easy
Neighborhood Market, a 5,000 square foot junior major
tenant, and 25,500 square feet of retail shops and restaurants
including Payless Shoes, Pizza Hut, GameStop, Starbucks,
Jamba Juice, T -Mobile, and more. Skywest Commons' Tuscan themed architecture and site
amenities have set a new design standard for Southern Alameda County retail projects.
Crossroads Regional Center at Riverbank (Riverbank, CA)
A 600,000 square foot regional retail project located on the
border of northeast Modesto anchored by Target, Kohl's,
Save Mart, and Home Depot, serving Riverbank, Oakdale,
Escalon and northeast Modesto. This project, which opened
in 2005, also includes Petco, Staples, Wells Fargo, The Men's
Wearhouse, Famous Footwear, Justice for Girls, Red Robin,
Applebee's, and Round Table Pizza among the co -tenants. The project also includes 152
single family homes built adjacent to the center by Morrison Homes.
BROWMAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.
Development . Leasing . Management
Featured Projects
American Canyon Maxketplace (American Canyon, CA)
A 77,000 square foot neighborhood shopping center
anchored by a Safeway Marketplace store and one of the
first Safeway Fuel Centers to open in the region.
Jack in the Box, Starbucks, UPS Store, and Cold Stone
Creamery are among the national shop tenants located
within this Napa Wine Country themed shopping center.
Sunwest Plaza Shopping Center (Lodi, CA)
Located in the growing Central Valley community of Lodi,
this successful 250,000 square foot regional shopping
center is anchored by Wal-Mart, JC Penney, and Food 4 Less.
The many shops and restaurants in the center include
Applebee's, Hollywood Video, McDonald's, GNC, Strings
Italian Cafe, Sally Beauty Supply, and Radio Shack.
City Center Gateway (Hayward, CA)
City Center Gateway features three multi -tenant buildings
containing 17,800 square feet of retail space located in the
heart of Downtown Hayward. This exciting, pedestrian
friendly project is anchored by Lucky grocery store and
includes Starbucks Coffee, Jamba Juice, La Salsa Fresh
Mexican Grill, Panda Express, and Cold Stone Creamery as co -tenants.
BROWMAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.
Development . Leasing • Management
Featured Projects
Lodi Towne Center (Lodi, CA)
Situated in Lodi's most dominant retail corridor, Lodi
Towne Center features 170,000 square feet of retail
space that is anchored by a recently remodeled Target
store, Staples Office Supply, Big 5 Sporting Goods,
and Payless Shoe Source.
The Shops at Evergreen Village (SanJose, CA)
Located in southeast SanJose's Evergreen
neighborhood, The Shops at Evergreen Village
feature a 15,000 square foot Walgreen's Drug Store
and 6,000 square feet of retail and office space on two
floors. The building's distinct European architecture
creates a unique environment for patrons.
Tulare Marketplace (Tulare, CA)
Tulare Marketplace features one of the first Super Target
stores to be built in California. This regional shopping
center contains approximately 230,000 sf of retail and
is strategically located in the path of growth at
Prosperity and Mooney Blvd. Key co -tenancy for the
peoject includes Tractor Supply Company, Valvoline, Starbucks, AT&T, Jeb's
Blueberry u;'l FedEx Kinko's, and Curves among others. It also offers two pads
ideal for fast food and sit down restaurants.
HERUM CRABTREE
ATTORNEYS
i
`tf`F,i
/_Ri1�iF� § h'7
Ms. Randi Johl, City Clerk
221 W. Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
Brefl S. Jolley
bjolley@herumcrabtree.com
Re: Lodi First Appeal to City Council re Lodi Shopping Center Project
Dear Randi:
Pursuant to Chapter 17.88 of the Lodi Municipal Code, please accept this letter as Lodi
First's appeal of the Planning Commission's actions on April 8, 2008 regarding the Lodi
Shopping Center Project ("Project"). Enclosed herewith please find a check in the
amount of $300for the appeal fee.
This appeal is filed in an abundance of caution to preserve all claims and to exhaust all
remedies regarding the Planning Commission's 3-3 tie -vote on a motion to approve the
Project. Although staff declared the tie vote to be a denial, Lodi Fist appeals from the
fact that the Commission did not make any affirmative denial of the Project - including
affirmatively denying the findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations as
set forth in CEOA Guidelines §§ 15091 and 15093 and that staff curtailed further
Commission discussions regarding the Project or alternative motions once the motion to
approve failed.
We request that the City Council set this appeal for hearing as required by the Lodi
Municipal Code and that the hearing on this appeal be consolidated with any other
hearings on timely filed appeals of the same decision. Should you have any questions,
please feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Attorney -at -Law
Enclosure
cc: Client
Don Mooney, Counsel for Citizens for Open Government
Steve Schwabauer, City Attorney
2291WEST MARCH LANE SUITE 13100 STOCKTON, CA 95207 PH 209 472 7700 MODESTO PH 209 525 8444 FX 209 472 7986 APC
HERUM CRABTREE
ATTORNEYS
April 22, 2009
VIA ELMAIL
Ms. Randi Johl, City Clerk
221 W. Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
Brett S Jolley
bjoiley@herumcrabtree.com
Re: Lodi First: Corrected Appeal to City Council re Lodi Shopping Center Project
DearRandi:
Please accept this letter as correction of Lodi First's April 15, 2009 letter appealing the
Planning Commission's actions on April 8, 2009 regarding the Lodi Slopping Center
Project. The $300 appeal fee was paid by Check No. 19432, delivered to your office,
along with the original appeal letter, on April 16, 2009.
I recently discovered that the original appeal letter contained a typographical error
listing the date of the Planning Commission hearing as April 8, 2008 rather than April 8,
2009. Although yourconfirming e-mail acknowledged the appeal related to the April 8,
2009 hearing date (thankyou), in orderto ensure an accurate record, this letter formally
corrects that typographical error and, to ensure no issues arise regarding timeliness of
the correction, the correction issubmitted within the appeal timeframe set forth in Lodi
Municipal Code Section 17.88.060.A.1. All other information in the original appeal letter
applies.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Iff
BR,ETrS. JOLLEY
Attorney -at -Law
cc: Client
Don Mooney, Counsel for Citizens for Open Government
Steve Schwabauer, City Attorney
2291 WEST MARCH LANE 1 SUITE 81001 STOCKTON, CA 952071 PH 209.472.77001 MODESTO PH 209.525.844-41 FX 209.472.7986 1 APC
April 17,2009
Lodi City Council
c/o City Clerk
221 W. Pine Street 2nd Floor
Lodi, CA 95240
Dear City Council:
Please accept this letter as an appeal by PAQ Inc. (doing business as Food 4 Less and
Rancho San Miguel supermarkets) of the Planning Commission hearing on April 8, 2009
on the Lodi Shopping Center Project. Please find a check in the amount of $300 as
payment for the appeal fee. A representative of PAQ Inc. has attended and spoken against
the project and EIR at all hearings on the project and EIR in 2008 and 2009.
The Planning Commission tied 3-3 on a motion to approve the project, but did not
affirmatively deny the project. PAQ Inc. requests that the City Council affirmatively
deny the application of Brownian Development Company and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to
construct a Wal-Mart Supercenter at the proposed location for the following reasons:
The project will severely impact and likely close several existing Lodi businesses,
including our Food 4 Less store located at the southeast quadrant of Lower
Sacramento Road and Kettleman Lane
• The project will create additional retail vacancies, decay, and blight throughout the
city and prevent revitalization in East Lodi, and the project will stall or reverse
downtown revitalization.
• The project will not create substantial taxes orjobs to support approving the project.
The project will impact public services such as police, fire, and code enforcement;
placing an improper financial burden on residents, taxpayers, and business owners.
• The project has the potential to displace hundreds of existing Lodi workers.
Sincerely,
Chris Podesto
Director of Marketing
4/8/09 PLANNING
COMMISSION
MEETING
Resolution
Transcript of meeting
Packet
RESOLUTION NO. P.C. 09-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING USE PERMIT FILE NO.
U-02-12 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER IN
THE C -S ZONE AND THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGESAT THE WAL-MART
SUPERCENTER; THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 03-P-001 TO CREATE 12 PARCELS;
PROVIDING AND THE ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL FORA NEW COMMERCIAL
BUILDING TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT 2640 W. KETTLEMAN LANE (WAL-MART)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, an application was filed by Browman Development Company for a commercial
shopping center at 2640 W. Kettleman Lane more particularly described as
Assessor's Parcel Numbers 058-030-08 and 058-030-02 and portion of 058-030-
09; and
WHEREAS, the application included the following requested approvals: Use Permits for the
construction of commercial structures as required by the C -S Commercial
Shopping District and for the sale of alcoholic beverages, a Vesting Tentative
..................... Map to create 12 parcels for the project, and architectural approval of a new
commercial building including elevations and colors to be used for the
construction of a Wal-Mart store located at 2640 W. Kettleman Lane (the
"Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi, after more than ten (10) days
published notice, held a public hearing before said Commission on April 8, 2009
to consider the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the information provided in the record and
at the Public Hearing on April 8, 2009, including, but not limited to, the proposed
conditions of Project approval and the proposed findings and statement of
overriding considerations pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED, as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
2. A motion to approve the Project resulted in a tie (3-3) vote of the members of the
Planning Commission, as indicated below, which results in a denial of the Project.
Dated: April 8, 2009
1 hereby certify that Resolution No. P.C. 09-07 was passed and adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Lodi at their meeting held on April 8, 2009, as a result of the following
vote to approve the Project:
AYES: Commissioners: Cummins, Olson, Hennecke
NOES: Commissioners: Kiser, Kirsten, Heinitz
ABSENT: Commissioners: Mattheis
ATTEST:
Secre ary, Planning Commission
913848.1
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
0001
1 LODI PLANNING COMMISSION
2 PUBLIC HEARING
3 RE: REQUEST OF BROWMAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
4 AND WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST
5 TO APPROVE USE PERMIT U-02-12 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION
6 OF A COMMERCIAL CENTER IN A C -S DISTRICT, AND ALLOW THE
7 SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AT THE WAL-MART SUPERCENTER;
8 AND APPROVE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 03-P-001 TO CREATE
9 12 PARCELS FOR THE PROJECT; AND SITE PLAN AND
10 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL OF A NEW RETAIL BUILDING TO BE
11 CONSTRUCTED AT 1600 WESTGATE DRIVE; TO CONSIDER
12 ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING
13 CONSIDERATIONS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
14 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
15
16 ---------------------------------------------------
17 Wednesday, April 8, 2009
18 at 6:04 p.m.
19
20 125 S. Hutchins Street
Charlene Powers Lange Theatre
21 Lodi, California
22
23 Mandy M. Medina, CSR No. 11649
24
25
0002
1 APPEARANCES
2
3 Planning Commission Members:
4 WENDEL KISER, CHAIRMAN
5 BILL CUMMINS, VICE CHAIRMAN
6 RANDALL HEINITZ, COMMISSIONER
7 DEBBIE OLSON, COMMISSIONER
8 DAVE KIRSTEN, COMMISSIONER
9 STEVE HENNECKE, COMMISSIONER
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0003
1 PUBLIC HEARING
2 April 8, 2009
3
4 CHAIRMAN KISER: Call the meeting to order,
5 please. would the Secretary please call roll?
6 MS. CHADWICK: Absolutely. Okay.
7 Commissioner Heinitz?
8 COMMISSIONER HEINITZ: Present.
9 MS. CHADWICK: Commissioner Hennecke?
Page 1
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
10 COMMISSIONER HENNECKE: Here.
11 MS. CHADWICK: Commissioner Kirsten?
12 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: Here.
13 MS. CHADWICK: Commissioner Olson?
14 COMMISSIONER OLSON: Here.
15 MS. CHADWICK: Commissioner Mathias?
16 (No response.)
17 MS. CHADWICK: Vice Chair Cummins?
18 VICE CHAIRMAN CUMMINS: Here.
19 MS. CHADWICK: Chair Kiser?
20 CHAIRMAN KISER: Here.
21 Before we get started, I would like to kind of
22 set the ground rules so that everybody knows what is
23 going to be happening this evening. First of all, I
24 would like to welcome everybody to the meeting of the
25 Lodi Planning Commission. we have a large number of
0004
1 people here tonight. I understand that everyone is very
2 interested in our subject tonight. I want to start the
3 meeting by letting everybody know that, first, we will
4 keep to our agenda, which is available on the back
5 table. And that's this. Okay?
6 All right. Next thing I would like to say is,
7 if you want to speak, please fill out a speaker card
8 like this. Pass it up here, and I will give everybody
9 an opportunity to speak. Once recognized by me, you may
10 speak for up to three minutes. I'm going to give the
11 proponent and the opponent ten minutes each to do it,
12 then five minutes on the rebuttal. I will let you know
13 when you have about a minute left. Once I notify you,
14 you should start wrapping it up. when your three
15 minutes are up, I would ask you to conclude, and then
16 you must stop speaking.
17 Just as you have an opportunity to be heard
18 with respect, so, too, do others. There will be no
19 applause, no heckling, no personal attacks. And please
20 limit your comments to relevant facts or to a point of
21 view.
22 Additionally, as there are so many people here
23 to speak, please try not to repeat comments that already
24 have been made. If you agree with a previous speaker,
25 you may simply tell us so. Come up and say, I agree
0005
1 with what was said, and that would be fine.
2 we will first hear a staff report from
3 Mr. Bartlam. After he concludes, I will ask the
4 Commission if they have any questions. once all
5 Planning Commissioners' questions are answered, I will
6 open to the public. First we will hear from the
7 applicant. I will take public comment in the order I
8 receive cards, and once all comments have been heard,
9 the public hearing will close. At this point, all
10 decisions will be between the Planning Commission.
11 Is there anyone who does not understand these
12 rules, or is there anyone who does not agree with the
13 following?
14 Thank you very much. Okay. Mr. Bartlam.
15 MR. BARTLAM: Thank you. Good evening,
16 Commissioners. we're here once again to present the
17 Lodi Shopping Center for your consideration. As the
18 Commission will recall, you reviewed these very same
19 requests this past October. At that time, the
20 Commission chose to not certify the final revised
Page 2
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
21 Environmental Impact Report. As a result of that
22 action, you were not able to consider the other project
23 approvals that were before you.
24 Subsequent to the Commission's action, the
25 matter was appealed to the City Council. The City
0006
1 Council considered the appeal last month in this
2 theater, and after the public hearing, voted to certify
3 the final revised EIR. Therefore, the Commission is now
4 faced with the balance of the project requests before
5 you and as previously presented.
6 Specifically, the applicant is requesting
7 three actions: A use permit to allow the sale of
8 alcoholic beverages within the Wal-Mart Supercenter
9 building, an additional use permit which is essentially
10 a site plan review within the community shopping center
11 district; a tentative parcel map which will divide the
12 land into 12 lots; and the site plan and architectural
13 review required for the buildings within the C -S
14 designation. And specifically before you this evening
15 is the Wal-Mart building.
16 So just by way of background, as you all know,
17 the Commission first reviewed and approved this project
18 in December of 2004. That began a fairly long list, at
19 least from Lodi's perspective, of actions before the
20 Lodi Planning Commission and City Council. Most
21 recently, the Commission, as I mentioned, denied a
22 request to certify the final revised EIR in October.
23 And as I mentioned, the City Council certified that
24 document last month.
25 So, once again, just to orient everybody as to
0007
1 what the project is, it's the southwest corner of
2 Kettleman Lane and Lower Sacramento Road. The property
3 is designated commercial shopping center. Its general
4 plan is neighborhood community commercial, and has been
5 that way since the 1991 general plan.
6 As you can see on the aerial, it is
7 essentially the fourth of -- fourth leg of what is a
8 built -out retail intersection, and this would complete
9 all the commercial activity within this area of Lodi.
10 So, specifically, as I mentioned, there are a
11 variety of project approvals before you. The use permit
12 and the commercial shopping center zone is the process
13 by which the C -S designation gets a public review. It's
14 the exact same review that took place with the other
15 three legs of the intersection, the Lowe's center, the
16 other Wal-Mart center, the Target center all came before
17 a planning commission during their review process.
18 In particular, the Commission's review should
19 be focused towards the standards for large retail
20 establishments, which was adopted by the City in 2004,
21 and in fact were, for the most part, derived to deal
22 with this project, in particular, and projects like it
23 in the future.
24 The second use permit request is the sale of
25 alcoholic beverages. As the Commission is aware, the
0008
1 City requires a use permit and a public hearing whenever
2 alcoholic beverages are requested to be sold, whether
3 those are packaged for off -sale consumption or for
4 on -sale consumption like a restaurant, a bar, night
5 club, and so forth.
Page 3
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
6 The shopping center site plan is not changed
7 from December of 2004. Specifically a requirement of
8 the City was to keep everything that was approved at
9 that time the same as what is being proposed today. The
10 tentative map before you is to subdivide the property
11 into 12 parcels. The largest parcel is obviously for
12 the Wal-Mart building. It's just over 18 acres. The
13 smallest is just under a half an acre. All 12 buildings
14 in the project will accompany their own parcel. In
15 other words, each parcel will have a building on it.
16 As a typical shopping center, all the parking
17 is reciprocal, and would be no reserved parking or
18 identified parking for one use over the other. And
19 that's an idea of what the map looks like.
20 The site plan and architectural review is
21 relatively new for the Planning Commission's action.
22 Typically, in the past, this action would have taken
23 place by your site plan architectural review committee
24 subsequent to all of the Planning Commission and City
25 Council actions. A recent, a fairly recent,
0009
1 modification to the city code requires the Planning
2 Commission to do the site plan and architectural review
3 whenever the project's entitlement to those approvals
4 require a Planning Commission action. So before you is
5 the site plan and architectural review. Just briefly,
6 we're talking about the Wal-Mart building only, not the
7 entire center. Those will come back in subsequent
8 actions before you when they're ready to be constructed.
9 The Wal-Mart building is approximately
10 216,000 square feet. It's located in the southwestern
11 portion of the site and would face towards Lower
12 Sacramento Road much like the Lowe's shopping center to
13 the north. There are three entrance and exits off of
14 Lower Sacramento Road: one off of Kettleman Lane, which
15 is State Highway 12, and two from Westgate Drive, which
16 is the extension of the street to the west, or what
17 would be in back of the Wal-Mart building.
18 The main parking lot is located east side of
19 the Wal-Mart building itself. There are a variety of
20 smaller parking magazines strewn throughout the site
21 that are more convenient to the pad shops and smaller
22 tenants. There are a total of 965 stalls proposed.
23 Their landscape plan calls for a variety of
24 large shade trees, ground cover, shrubs and so forth.
25 There are over 450 trees being proposed. The conceptual
0010
1 plan indicates standards that meet the large retail
2 standards that I mentioned previously approved in 2004.
3 In terms of the elevation -- and I apologize
4 for the quality of the visual for the audience -- the
5 building is obviously a very large building. The front
6 of the building and the street side of the building are
7 shown in the first two elevations; the rear of the
8 building, the west elevation, being the third from the
9 top, and then the south elevation which will face
10 essentially a block wall on the site. A little better
11 perspective of what that building looks like.
12 There is a variety of building materials
13 proposed, including split face masonry, rock detail,
14 stucco, cornice treatments, and so forth. The
15 attempt -- the attempt, obviously, architecturally with
16 this building is to break up the large masses into
Page 4
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
17 smaller frameworks. Again, it is a large building, so
18 I -- from a staff perspective, we believe they have done
19 an incredible job in trying to humanize, if you will, or
20 put a pedestrian scale to the building proposed.
21 This is a view -- as the previous elevations
22 were really the front of the building that faces inward
23 towards the parking lot, this is a view what would be
24 from the entry off of Westgate Drive. It shows the auto
25 related activities that are proposed for that north
0011
1 elevation, which brings me to a conclusion.
2 Staff believes that, based on the City
3 Council's action to certify the final revised EIR, the
4 plans that have been submitted, policies, and the
5 previous actions of the City, including this Planning
6 Commission, that the Planning Commission should make the
7 findings that are contained in your resolution, which
8 would approve the two use permit requests, it would
9 approve the vesting tentative map, and it would approve
10 the site plan and architectural review.
11 And with that, I'll entertain any questions
12 you might have.
13 CHAIRMAN KISER: Questions?
14 VICE CHAIRMAN CUMMINS: I just want to -- a
15 point of clarification: So tonight we're not dealing
16 with any issue relating to the EIR, because that's
17 certified and that's past, correct?
18 MR. BARTLAM: Yes and no. The Council
19 certified the EIR, so the contents of that environmental
20 review, the mitigation measures that were proposed have
21 all been adopted by the Council. Those are issues off
22 the table for the Commission's action tonight. You are
23 required, however, and contained in your resolution are
24 a set of findings having to do with the Environmental
25 Impact Report as well as statements of overriding
0012
1 consideration for those impact areas that were not able
2 to be mitigated.
3 And you will recall, there's really two issue
4 areas: one is cumulative air quality, and the second
5 being agricultural resources. Those are two areas of
6 environmental impact for which mitigation cannot be
7 proposed or implemented that lessens to a less than
8 significant impact.
9 And so by the California Environmental Quality
10 Act, the Commission is now faced with making a finding
11 for each of those two issue areas of statement of
12 overriding consideration. Essentially what you're being
13 asked to find is that there are benefits to the project
14 that outweigh the negative environmental impact that's
15 associated with the project.
16 And so, yes, in the sense that the
17 environmental document is certified. You don't have the
18 ability to go in and ask for more environmental study,
19 you don't have the ability to suggest other types of
20 mitigation. The Council has dealt with that issue.
21 The only thing before you is whether you agree
22 with the Council action. And simply put, if you agree,
23 there are findings that are consistent with that action.
24 If you disagree, then you just simply cannot find those
25 findings, you can't agree and make those findings, and
0013
1 your action tonight is simple. You have to say no.
Page 5
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
2 VICE CHAIRMAN CUMMINS: So, really, we have
3 five proposals. So the four you mentioned, plus we're
4 going to be voting on a statement of overriding plans,
5 or making a ruling on that as well?
6 MR. BARTLAM: That's right. In
7 your resolution, as you have with every resolution that
8 is before the Planning Commission, regardless of the
9 action, there are a series of findings which are
10 essentially the facts of the action. And with this set
11 of requests, as is the case with other requests we've
12 seen, you must make those findings in the affirmative.
13 And so a piece of the findings in your resolution are
14 the environmental findings. And, again, I'm not going
15 to tell you you must do one thing or another. You can
16 do with it as you wish. But you can't -- you can't
17 modify the environmental document. Now, that's not to
18 say that you can't -- you can't tweak the findings. You
19 certainly can. If there's something that is written
20 that staff has proposed as a finding that you may not
21 agree with, but written a different way you might, you
22 certainly are able to modify those findings to get them
23 to a place where you can agree. But you are not
24 obligated -- and I'll stress this -- you're not
25 obligated to agree with the Council action. But should
0014
1 you not agree, your action then must be to deny the
2 request.
3 VICE CHAIRMAN CUMMINS: Okay.
4 CHAIRMAN KISER: Commissioner Olson.
5 COMMISSIONER OLSON: I have a quick clarifying
6 question. And that is, will you -- will we be asked to
7 take all of this in one action, or can we parse them in
8 any way, the actions, or are you going to address each
9 one separately and ask for a vote? I noticed the
10 resolution is drafted so that it's all in one fell
11 swoop.
12 MR. BARTLAM: we've given you one resolution
13 for one action. The Commission could certainly split
14 them if you wanted to vote on the use permits separate
15 than the parcel map, that's separate than the site plan
16 and architectural review. we would then just make sure
17 you understand that the various findings that are
18 specific to those requests, the use permit findings
19 would go with the use permit action, the environmental
20 findings would go with each one of the actions you might
21 take separately.
22 COMMISSIONER OLSON: Thank you.
23 CHAIRMAN KISER: Commissioner Heinitz.
24 COMMISSIONER HEINITZ: Yes. Just to clarify
25 what Commissioner Olson just said, it's actually set up
0015
1 so we're going to have public opinion on each and every
2 one of these at one time; is that correct? So we're not
3 going to take them one at a time that they're going to
4 speak on.
5 CHAIRMAN KISER: Right.
6 COMMISSIONER HEINITZ: So it would be better
7 for us that we just wait and look at it all in one
8 package together? If they're going to speak -- if
9 everybody is going to speak on everything all at one
10 time, they're not going to be separated per action --
11 CHAIRMAN KISER: Right. Right. Right. Yes.
12 COMMISSIONER HEINITZ: That's what I wanted to
Page 6
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
13 know. Thank you.
14 CHAIRMAN KISER: Any other questions? seeing
15 none, open it to the public.
16 Applicant come up and speak, please. state
17 your name and address for the record.
18 MR. BROWMAN: Mr. Chairman, members of the
19 Planning Commission, I want to thank you again for the
20 opportunity to be before you. I think it's an exciting
21 time. This is a project that's been going on --
22 CHAIRMAN KISER: Excuse me. Can you state
23 your name for the record, please?
24 MR. BROWMAN: I'm sorry. Darryl Browman, 1556
25 Parkside Drive, walnut Creek, California. sorry about
0016
1 that, Mr. Chairman.
2 Again, I just wanted to say that we're excited
3 to be before you. This is a project that we've been
4 working on for over eight years, and we are in agreement
5 with staff on the conditions of approval. You know, one
6 of the benefits that you get with a project that's gone
7 on for this duration is, and that has been this
8 controversial, is that you get a huge amount of public
9 debate and you get a huge amount of input. And I think
10 one of the benefits that comes from that is that the
11 ultimate project that's before you today is a
12 culmination of years and years of people's hard work and
13 effort and public debate and participation. And as
14 difficult as it's been on my company and, you know,
15 planning staff and the City and the Planning
16 Commissioners on multiple occasions, I think that at the
17 end of the day, you ultimately will probably have a
18 better project as a result of the amount of debate and
19 effort and work that people put in.
20 I also want to take a minute and thank staff,
21 because staff has worked extremely hard, and I think has
22 been instrumental in the project design. And that's
23 something that I'm extremely proud of, and that's one of
24 the things that's before you. This project, I think,
25 will become a statement, and it will become -- it will
0017
1 become the project that people look to for new projects
2 in the City in terms of quality and design and, you
3 know, architectural enhancements for retail developed in
4 the City.
5 A couple of things that I want to talk about
6 that really, I think, make a big difference in this
7 project is we have taken it to what's called a
8 contemporary craftsman, which we think goes very well
9 with the wine industry for the City of Lodi. we got
10 large -- we've got large slope tiled roofs, we've got
11 significant breaking up of the massing as Mr. Bartlam
12 indicated in the front. And that articulation does a
13 lot of important things, but one of the most important
14 is it creates a pedestrian scale to the buildings. It
15 reduces the mass. And we have incorporated a lot of
16 trellising in the parking lot to both bring down the
17 scale of the buildings, and we did introduce, you know,
18 decorative light sconces and things like that that will
19 appeal to both the pedestrian in a distant visual basis.
20 And, lastly, from an architectural standpoint,
21 the pad buildings that will surround that are not before
22 you today are intended to match the same architectural
23 theme that you see, but the scale of those buildings
Page 7
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
24 will be smaller, again, bringing the scale and feel of
25 the project to a pedestrian level both from the street
0018
1 and as you go from the street back into the project.
2 And we also intend to incorporate a number of outdoor
3 seating plazas and outdoor spaces as a part of the
4 project as well.
5 The other thing that I wanted to just clarify
6 for a second, in our last meeting, there was some
7 concern, and I think a little bit of misunderstanding,
8 regarding what Wal-Mart was willing to do as a part of
9 the building. And I wanted to go on the record to say
10 that Wal-Mart is prepared to do, at minimum, those items
11 that were outlined in the letters that were given to the
12 Planning Commission from Kelly Collier (ph), dated
13 10/6/08. And a lot of those -- a lot of those energy
14 efficiency items are things that we wanted to go on
15 record to say that they would do that or better. And I
16 think Mr. Bartlam also included that as a condition.
17 But I just wanted to make sure that was clarified. And
18 I can take a couple of seconds and talk about some of
19 those things if the Commission thought that was
20 appropriate, or if they just wanted to refer back to the
21 letter.
22 CHAIRMAN KISER: You can talk about those.
23 MR. BROWMAN: Number one, the structural steel
24 is going to be predominantly recycled structural steel.
25 The concrete floor slab will have fly ash and furnace
0019
1 slag which can reduce the amount of concrete by up to
2 40 percent. That would be put in the building. The
3 interior slabs will have an integral color rather than
4 the typical flooring and carpets for VCT and carpet.
5 we're talking about the introduction of about
6 250 skylights, with each of the skylights containing
7 daylight -- I'm sorry -- daylight sensoring and dimming
8 ballasts which will be another significantly energy
9 efficient feature.
10 There will be a central energy monitoring
11 system that will be covered by the home office that can
12 allow the store to deal specifically with the climatic
13 issues in Lodi, the particular location of the store.
14 we intend -- the store intends to use high efficiency
15 RTUs which will save between 14 and 70 percent -- I'm
16 sorry -- 14 and 17 percent of additional energy. we
17 intend to use TA fluorescent light fixtures in the
18 store. we also intend to use sensory activated high
19 efficiency low-flow toilets and faucets and urinals in
20 the project as well, which also saves significantly in
21 water. And the building signage is intended to be
22 internally illuminated LED instead of fluorescent.
23 And this has been to give you some examples of
24 the stuff that was highlighted in that letter. The only
25 other thing that I wanted to say is, you know, we think
0020
1 that this project has been highly scrutinized. we
2 appreciate the effort that everyone is putting into it
3 both at the Planning Commission and the City level and
4 at the public's level as well. we respectfully ask for
5 your approval of the project today. And I'm available
6 to answer any questions, and I thank you very much for
7 the chance.
8 CHAIRMAN KISER: Any questions? No questions
Page 8
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
9 at this time. Thank you.
10 MR. BROWMAN: Thank you.
11 CHAIRMAN KISER: Opponent will get up and
12 speak.
13 MR. JOLLEY: Chair Kiser, I'm Brett Jolley,
14 2291 West March Lane, Suite B-100 in Stockton. I'm here
15 tonight on behalf of the Lodi First Group. And I
16 assumed that the proponents were done, so I stepped up
17 on behalf of the opponents.
18 Regarding this project, as Mr. Browman points
19 out, it has been a long time that this has been going
20 through the process. But we need to remember that time
21 doesn't necessarily heal all wounds, or in this case,
22 address all environmental and land use concerns with
23 this project.
24 Specifically, in looking at this proposal, I
25 see what I would call Costanza permitting. And if we
0021
1 think back to Seinfeld, one of my favorite characters
2 was George Costanza. And if you'll recall, George had a
3 famous adage about work. He said, when you're at work,
4 always walk around with papers in your hand so you look
5 busy and important. And in this case, we have heard
6 time and time again about all of the papers, all of the
7 studies and reports that have been put in, particularly
8 those that were recently produced by the applicants.
9 But like George's papers in his hand, these papers don't
10 necessarily go to answering the questions that you must
11 consider before approving this project. And,
12 specifically, that relates to this statement of
13 overriding considerations.
14 As we back up through this, we have to
15 remember that, although the Council certified the
16 Environmental Impact Report, as Mr. Bartlam has pointed
17 out, this commission still has a particular CEQA role in
18 makings it decision. And in doing that, you have to
19 adopt findings required by CEQA guideline sections 15091
20 and 15093.
21 The 15091 findings require you to address the
22 significance and mitigation measures of impacts from the
23 project and to adopt a mitigation monitoring plan. The
24 15093 finding is the so-called statement of overriding
25 considerations, and that's where the focus of my
0022
1 discussion is. Specifically, the statement of
2 overriding considerations is required where the project
3 has significant and unavoidable effects as in the case
4 with this project. The Commission cannot approve the
5 project unless it makes that statement of overriding
6 considerations, finding that the benefits of the project
7 outweigh the environmental burdens.
8 In this case, your statement of overriding
9 considerations is found at page 34, Exhibit A of the
10 proposed resolution. And in that, the proposed
11 resolution contains six findings of overriding
12 consideration. They are tax generation, employment
13 creation, municipal infrastructure development, plan
14 implementation, high quality design, and energy saving
15 features.
16 I would submit to you that the latter four,
17 municipal infrastructure development, plan
18 implementation, design standards, and energy saving
19 features are project specific. They relate only to the
Page 9
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
20 project, and do not necessarily confer any additional
21 benefit on the City that would justify the project going
22 forward. The real statements of overriding
23 consideration are one and two, tax generation and
24 employment creation.
25 The problem is the record is replete with
0023
1 contradictory evidence on both of these items.
2 Specifically, regarding evidence of tax generation
3 increases in the City, we have a 2004 report submitted
4 by the applicants and prepared by ADE, Applied
5 Development Economics. And in that 2004 report, it
6 indicated that there would be approximately a $135,000
7 tax increase from this project.
8 In October of 2008, Wal-Mart said that the
9 project would generate about $790,000 in sales tax, and
10 then noted that the current store generates about 600,
11 leaving about a $190,000 tax increase. At the same
12 hearing, Mr. Browman said that the project would bring
13 about a million dollars in sales tax revenue to the
14 City.
15 In December, I submitted a report from
16 Professor King, an economics professor from San
17 Francisco State, who looked at the EIR's numbers and
18 concluded there would likely be about a $143,000 tax --
19 gross -- adjusted gross tax increase from this project,
20 which he found was negligible when you consider other
21 closed businesses and loss of other revenue in the City.
22 Then in March of this year, Wal-Mart, at the
23 last City Council hearing, brought CBRE consultants from
24 San Francisco who presented a report that night that
25 found there would be a $1.364 million tax benefit to the
0024
1 City. So we raised the gamut from negligible to 1.364.
2 That is meaningful to your conclusion, if you
3 so make it, that this project has benefits that outweigh
4 its burdens. You need to know whether this is going to
5 generate $100,000 in additional tax revenue that might
6 not even cover costs from the project, or whether it's
7 going to generate 1.36 million.
8 You've got similar inconsistencies with jobs.
9 And point two on the statement of overriding
10 consideration says that the project will increase jobs
11 in Lodi. on October 2008, Browman said the project will
12 generate 900 to 1,000 new jobs. In December, Browman
13 reduced that number and said it will probably create 600
14 to 800 new jobs. In March of this year, Wal-Mart said
15 the project would have about 866 jobs, 568 at the
16 Supercenter and 298 at the other retail.
17 Again, you don't have a clear picture of what
18 amount of jobs are being created, what types of jobs,
19 and what type of employment revenues are going to come
20 from this project. And that's relevant, because a 2007
21 case called Woodward Park versus City of Fresno
22 explains, overriding considerations contrast with
23 mitigation and feasibility findings. There are larger,
24 more general reasons for approving the project such as
25 the need to create jobs, providing housing, generate
0025
1 taxes, and the like. This does not mean, however, that
2 an agency's unsupported claim the project will confer
3 general benefits is sufficient. The asserted overriding
4 considerations must be supported by substantial evidence
Page 10
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
5 in the final EIR or in the record.
6 You do not have that evidence in the record to
7 support that conclusion. That evidence may well be out
8 there, but you don't have it yet. And what I would
9 encourage the Commission to do is to require that a
10 fiscal impact analysis be done by the City, not by the
11 developer, not by project opponents, not by Wal-Mart,
12 giving the City an objective statement of what the true
13 job and tax revenues will be from this project. once
14 you have that, you can determine whether or not to make
15 your statement of overriding considerations. And until
16 you have that, you're unable to make that statement.
17 MS. CHADWICK: That's eight minutes, so you
18 have two minutes left. That's two minutes left.
19 MR. JOLLEY: Mr. Kiser, I apologize.
20 Mr. Mooney representing Citizens for Open Government is
21 here tonight. He had asked for four minutes, and I did
22 not stop the clock. So if you could indulge him once
23 you're done with me, I would appreciate that.
24 CHAIRMAN KISER: Okay. You got two minutes.
25 Any questions before -- a question for you, Mr. Jolley.
0026
1 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: Hi, Mr. Jolley. I have
2 a question. You summarized the various analysis
3 relative to the tax -- sales tax benefits that the City
4 might realize. Just -- and I'm not sure that I
5 understand. Are those figures, are they designed to
6 describe the sales tax benefits at the outset, or is
7 that an average over a period of years, or how is that
8 analysis done?
9 MR. JOLLEY: It's not even that much
10 information in most of the documents, Mr. Kirsten. what
11 you have is one of the documents might say -- for
12 example, the 2004 ADE report reaches a conclusion that
13 there will be $13.5 million in captured sales leakage
14 that is new tax revenue in the City. The City gets
15 one percent of that, or 135,000, if we assume that
16 number is correct. The report doesn't even go that far
17 to say it's going to generate $135,000 in City sales tax
18 revenue. That's the data that can be extrapolated from
19 that. And that's the reason that I'm advocating the
20 City get its own analysis of this done for the specific
21 issue of what are the tax benefits from this pro] ect.
22 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: would you say that each
23 of these figures that are given in the various reports
24 are independent of sales tax dollars that would be lost
25 to other businesses based on competitive issues?
0027
1 MR. JOLLEY: Yes. They do not account for --
2 based on my noneconomist reading of it, they do not
3 account for lost revenue from other closed businesses or
4 reduced income that might result from this project.
5 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: Okay. And then you
6 also mentioned that you would propose that the
7 Commission require an independent fiscal analysis based
8 on not only the jobs, but also the sales tax. Have you
9 seen examples of that? Is that a mainstream thing to
10 do, or have you seen examples of that occurring?
11 MR. JOLLEY: Yeah. Yes. To answer your
12 question, yes. Actually, several cities have recently
13 adopted big box type ordinances. And, oftentimes, those
14 will require special permitting for big box, however
15 that ends up being defined. And one of the requirements
Page 11
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
16 for permitting a big box is often the preparation of a
17 fiscal impact study that addresses the respective costs
18 and benefits in terms of a tax revenue from those big
19 box stores.
20 In terms of case law, there's only one case
21 out there that addresses fiscal impact studies. It's a
22 case called American Canyon from 2006. And in that
23 case, the City had prepared a fiscal impact study
24 analyzing the costs and benefits to the City coffers
25 from adopting a supercenter development project, and
0028
1 said that substituted for the need to conduct an urban
2 decay analysis. And the appellate court said, no, the
3 fiscal impact study may be relevant to the City
4 understanding the impacts to the City's coffers, but it
5 doesn't substitute for an urban decay analysis.
6 Here you almost have a flip-flop situation
7 where you have an urban decay analysis, but not a fiscal
8 impact study to address the impacts.
9 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: One last question
10 regarding the expected increases in employment and job
11 opportunities. Should we view that as a measure of the
12 buildout, the complete buildout, of the project, or is
13 the number of jobs that are expressed in that figure,
14 are they -- are they resulting from an expected buildout
15 over the years, and what might ultimately be produced in
16 terms of jobs in that project?
17 MR. JOLLEY: I think it would be relevant for
18 your analysis, in the analysis that the Commission
19 conducts, to look at that, job creation from the entire
20 project and over what time frame you would expect to see
21 that so you can understand. If you're only going to
22 create a gross of five new jobs when you compare it to
23 the existing facility, that should weigh in your
24 decision of whether or not the benefits of five new jobs
25 outweigh the impacts from this project. The numbers
0029
1 that are out there that I quoted you from the record, I
2 don't know exactly what those -- what those relate to,
3 because that detail is not included.
4 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: Would you guess that
5 it's likely that, say, for example, a Wal-Mart project
6 is built or is not built, whether that happens, there is
7 likely to be a shopping center or some similar use in
8 that corner, some of thoseJobs that are incorporated in
9 that figure would exist with or without the Wal-Mart,
10 correct?
11 MR. JOLLEY: Correct. Correct. So there's an
12 offset there that you have to account for.
13 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: okay. I don't have any
14 other questions.
15 CHAIRMAN KISER: Any other questions? No
16 questions for you at this time, Mr. Jolley.
17 MR. JOLLEY: Thank you.
18 MR. MOONEY: Good evening. My name is Don
19 Mooney. I'm an attorney for Citizens for Open
20 Government. My address is 129 C Street, Suite 2, Davis,
21 California.
22 A couple of things. one, we did provide a
23 letter to the Commission this afternoon. And, again,
24 with these things, we don't get the -- apologize for
25 getting it to you on, you know, Wednesday afternoon, but
0030
Page 12
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
1 when we receive the staff reports on Friday afternoon,
2 it takes us a little bit of time to go through it and
3 prepare a letter and get it to the Commission.
4 A couple of things I just wanted to touch on.
5 I agree with what Mr. Jolley had said. I also want to
6 focus on the fact that, in the resolution that you've
7 been asked to -- that's before you, one of the things in
8 the resolution on page three, I want to make sure the
9 Commission understands, it states that the Commission is
10 exercising its own independent judgment. And then some
11 of the things that you're being asked to find in the
12 resolution in the findings really seem to go against
13 what this Planning Commission -- actually, some of the
14 concerns that this Planning Commission raised back in
15 October with regards to the economic analysis, I'll even
16 say with regards to global warming, and some of the
17 other things -- the other issues that were of concern,
18 and the statement of overriding considerations, as
19 Mr. Jolley was stating.
20 So I wanted to make sure -- and I was glad
21 that there was a little bit of discussion from staff --
22 that you do have -- you're not simply bound -- you're
23 not required to simply approve this pro]ect with a
24 rubber stamp. And I think that that's kind of -- there
25 is another provision here in the staff report that says
0031
1 that the Commission has a little discretion with regards
2 to approval of this use permit. And I found that
3 troubling, because then, at the same time, you're
4 supposed to be exercising your own independent judgment
5 with regards to the CEQA findings.
6 And so I would like -- you know, and I
7 encourage the Commission to go back and think about
8 those issues that were of concern to it in October that
9 really haven't been addressed. And, in fact, on some of
10 the economic issues that hadn't been addressed, we all
11 know that the economic situation has only gotten worse
12 as time has gone by. And so, as Mr. Jolley said,
13 there's a lot of uncertainty there. And your decision
14 with regards to the statement of overriding
15 consideration is supposed to be based upon substantial
16 evidence within the record. And the Commission has
17 already expressed some concern about these issues. So I
18 encourage the Commission to take a hard look at it, and
19 prior to exercising your independent judgment, ask some
20 of those hard questions, but particularly of the
21 applicant and the staff in terms of the recommendations.
22 The other things of concern is that one of the
23 things in here is the -- we talked about in our letter
24 was the alternative analysis where staff has indicated
25 in the staff report that there is little discretion with
0032
1 regards to what could be approved. That makes the
2 alternative analysis within the EIR essentially a sham.
3 Because they're saying, this is the project you have to
4 approve, that you don t have the option of looking at
5 what those other alternatives are. And I would -- I
6 would argue that you, in fact, could adopt a no -project
7 alternative, and CEQA certainly allows for that. And
8 simply because the City Council had certified the EIR,
9 essentially, granted the appeal to certify the EIR, does
10 not -- does not bind the Council to adopt what
11 essentially was the preferred project in the EIR, or the
Page 13
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
12 preferred alternative in the EIR. There are other
13 alternatives there that can be looked at and evaluated
14 and/or considered.
15 CHAIRMAN KISER: You have about two minutes.
16 MR. MOONEY: Thank you. You know, I really
17 don't have -- I really don't have anything else to add
18 in terms of what Mr. Jolley had said and what I had
19 said, so I'll just -- I will leave it at that, and
20 encourage -- again, I encourage the Commission to
21 exercise its own independent judgment with regards to
22 this, and not feel that they are bound by approving a
23 project simply because the City Council had certified
24 the EIR.
25 CHAIRMAN KISER: I think we have some
0033
1 questions for you. Commissioner?
2 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: Thank you, Mr. Mooney.
3 Just quickly, can you help me understand the -- you
4 mentioned that we have a no -protect alternative. Can
5 you explain -- help me define that?
6 MR. MOONEY: well, the no -project alternative
7 is under -- under the CEQA analysis. In the EIR, in the
8 final EIR, there was a range of alternatives on -- that
9 were evaluated. one was this project, one was a reduced
10 size project, one was the alternative location, and then
11 there's a required no -project alternative. And the
12 no -project alternative is oftentimes what you use to
13 evaluate kind of your baseline in terms of evaluating
14 your environmental impacts.
15 And in your consideration of your CEQA
16 findings, in terms of what project you want to adopt in
17 making your CEQA findings, do you have that discretion
18 to say, we're going to adopt the no -project alternative?
19 I acknowledge that, in essence, it would be a
20 denial of the application that's before you, but it
21 would be taking a look at the CEQA document. As
22 Mr. Jolley talked about the statement of overriding
23 considerations, in order for you to approve this
24 project, you have to make a statement of overriding
25 consideration, so -- and that statement of overriding
0034
1 consideration applies to the project the applicant has
2 put before you. So if you simply said, we're not
3 willing -- we don't think -- either the evidence does
4 not support the statement of overriding consideration,
5 or you don't think that the benefits as outlined in this
6 staff report in the resolution outweigh the -- outweigh
7 the costs or the impacts of the project, you're free to
8 simply say instead, we're going to -- we're going to
9 adopt the no -project alternative.
10 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: well, then before we do
11 that, I would like to get the City staff and possibly
12 the City Attorney's opinion here. Thank you,
13 Mr. Mooney.
14 CHAIRMAN KISER: Any other questions for
15 Mr. Mooney? None at this time. Thank you.
16 MR. MOONEY: Thank you.
17 CHAIRMAN KISER: Okay. The next item on the
18 agenda is anyone who wanted to speak. If you want to
19 speak, please turn one of these cards in.
20 MR. BARTLAM: Mr. Chair, I believe you were
21 going to give opportunity for rebuttal.
22 CHAIRMAN KISER: Yes. Do you have rebuttal?
Page 14
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
23 MS. PELOSI: Good evening, Chairman. My name
24 is Alexis Pelosi. I'm with Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &
25 Hampton. I'm land use counsel for Wal-Mart. In
0035
1 response to some of the questions, and I'll just be
2 brief, Darryl Browman wanted to have a few minutes. So
3 if you could just let me know when I have a little more
4 than a minute left.
5 CHAIRMAN KISER: You have five minutes for
6 rebuttal, so --
7 MS. PELOSI: Okay. Great. I don't think I'll
8 take all that time. with regard to the comments made by
9 the opponents, first, I wanted to be clear and on the
10 record that there is substantial evidence in the record
11 before you to make the CEQA findings and to adopt the
12 statement of overriding considerations.
13 what we have here is a conflict among experts.
14 There are experts that have been presented that state
15 that the economic benefit of the project is one thing,
16 then there are also statements by experts that say
17 another. That's the battle of the experts, and that is
18 what you have before you here tonight.
19 The Woodward Park case is not exactly on
20 point, because in that case, there was no evidence in
21 the record. Here we do have evidence in the record. we
22 have the BAE report, which actually did do a fiscal
23 impact analysis and it did look at sales tax. we also
24 have the CB Richard Ellis report, which we prepared in
25 direct response to the comments that we received from
0036
1 the Planning Commission when we were before you the last
2 time. And the point of the CB Richard Ellis is to go
3 over what the net tax gain or net tax revenue would be
4 to the City from this project. It looks at the gain of
5 sales tax, it takes away the loss of sales tax from the
6 closing of the existing Wal-Mart, the gain of
7 replacement tenants to that building, and then the loss
8 of sales tax from the diversion of the applicant based
9 on information in the BAE report and the EIR. It also
10 looked at property taxes and other sales tax revenues.
11 with regard to jobs, the existing Wal-Mart
12 employs approximately 300 people. It's been estimated
13 in a letter that was submitted to the City Council that
14 there will be approximately 866 -- or up to 866 new
15 employees at the Lodi Shopping Center. That would be a
16 net gain of 566 new jobs from not only the Wal-Mart, but
17 then also from the other --
18 COMMISSIONER HEINITZ: Is there feedback?
19 CHAIRMAN KISER: we're having a tough time.
20 we can't hear.
21 (A brief interruption.)
22 CHAIRMAN KISER: That's better.
23 MS. PELOSI: Is that better?
24 CHAIRMAN KISER: Yes.
25 MS. PELOSI: So, basically, that, in summary,
0037
1 you know, are the comments that we have with regard to
2 the statements that the opposing attorneys have said.
3 There is substantial evidence in the record
4 before you tonight. There is evidence that shows the
5 economic benefit of this project both in the EIR and in
6 the CB Richard Ellis report, which was submitted.
7 And with regard to current economic
Page 15
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
8 conditions, before the City Council considered the EIR,
9 BAE did prepare an update of current market conditions
10 and the impact on their analysis. And that was
11 considered in the EIR, and the City Council considered
12 it before deciding to certify the EIR. So there has
13 been additional information that has been given, that
14 has been analyzed, that is in the record, this report,
15 the findings, and the statement of overriding
16 considerations.
17 CHAIRMAN KISER: They have some questions for
18 you. I do.
19 MS. PELOSI: Sure.
20 CHAIRMAN KISER: I have been at the meetings,
21 the last Council meeting and the one before that. I ve
22 been in all those meetings. I was there at this meeting
23 and a gentlemangot up from CB Richard Ellis, and those
24 numbers were conflicting with, and the numbers have been
25 all over the board. Can you explain that to me?
0038
1 MS. PELOSI: Yes. And, again, you should have
2 received today a letter from CB Richard Ellis. And,
3 unfortunately, Elliott was not able to attend tonight,
4 because it is a Jewish high holiday, and so he was not
5 able to be here. And this basically goes over those
6 questions that were raised. And the letter explains the
7 difference in those numbers between the ADE report and
8 the CB Richard Ellis report.
9 So in it you can see that BAE actually
10 included a larger diversion in sales. So they assume
11 that there would be 55 million in sales diverted. This
12 is from the EIR. And ADE assumed a lower figure of
13 36.2 million.
14 There also, if you compare again, there's a
15 disparity between the estimate of total sales for the
16 pro]ect. ADE only estimated total sales of 111 million,
17 while BAE estimated 163 million. And the reason why is
18 it's a difference in assumptions. ADE assumed a
19 Wal-Mart annual sales of $350 per square foot, and BAE
20 assumed an estimate of $564 per square foot, which was
21 based on more current information, including national
22 sales data for all Wal-Mart stores, and the estimated
23 sales per square foot of the existing Lodi store.
24 CHAIRMAN KISER: Now, the question I have is,
25 this is 207. we're in 209. And your sales are down
0039
1 from 207, aren't they, or are they up?
2 MS. PELOSI: unfortunately, Aaron Rios from
3 Wal-Mart would be the person to answer that question
4 regarding existing sales. But I think if you follow the
5 news reports, I think of all the retailers, Wal-Mart has
6 continued to do very well in these tough economic times.
7 Wal-Mart is one of the only large scale retailers who
8 continues to show increase in profit and also an
9 increase in their share price. So as a result, I don't
10 think that that would be an accurate statement to assume
11 that simply because the economy is down that the sales
12 per square foot at the existing Lodi store is also down.
13 CHAIRMAN KISER: Thank you. I got a question
14 for you here. Mr. Kirsten?
15 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: Ms. Pelosi, thank you
16 for your comments.
17 MS. PELOSI: Yes.
18 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: I would just comment,
Page 16
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
19 this letter dated today, April 8th, comes to us at the
20 11th hour. And in each of our previous meetings, we
21 received information just in the hours preceding the
22 meeting. It's important information. It's a little
23 hard to get our brain around this on such short notice.
24 So while there may be some valuable information in here,
25 and something that would be pertinent, I would just say
0040
1 that for the -- in my case, I would rather see this
2 information a little earlier so that I have a chance to
3 incorporate it into my thought process.
4 MS. PELOSI: I do apologize for that. There
5 was some scheduling issues and some people were out of
6 the country, and that's the reason why the report didn't
7 get to you until this afternoon. And I do apologize for
8 that.
9 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: Okay. I don't blame
10 you. I'm just saying that --
11 MS. PELOSI: No, I understand.
12 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: -- I'm speaking for
13 myself, it's pretty difficult to incorporate. It looks
14 like -- it looks like it contained some useful
15 information, but I didn't get it in time to really have
16 a chance to analyze it.
17 MS. PELOSI: And, again, I mean, the CB
18 Richard Ellis report which was prepared previously
19 actually is in the packet. It was in the agenda packet.
20 And this just specifically responds to the questions
21 that the City Council had raised.
22 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: Right. And we agree on
23 that.
24 MS. PELOSI: And I do apologize it came so
25 late.
0041
1 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: Okay. I agree. I'm
2 just referring to this April 8th letter.
3 CHAIRMAN KISER: I have a question for you.
4 This report was prepared January the 12th, 209. The
5 Planning Commission never got that report until it was
6 brought to the Council. How come we never got it
7 before?
8 MS. PELOSI: And I just have to assume that
9 the report wasn't final and wasn't ready for
10 dissemination at that point.
11 CHAIRMAN KISER: It states right here it was
12 completed on January 12th of 209. That s why I asked
13 the question.
14 MS. PELOSI: Yeah. And, again, I don't know
15 the answer to that question.
16 CHAIRMAN KISER: Okay. All right. Thank you.
17 MS. PELOSI: And then Darryl wanted to say a
18 few --
19 CHAIRMAN KISER: Yes. Can you state your name
20 and address for the record again?
21 MR. BROWMAN: Yeah. Darryl Browman again,
22 1556 Parkside. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of
23 the Council. I just wanted to say a couple of things.
24 I think that there's -- as Alexis said, there's a
25 substantial amount of evidence before you that supports,
0042
1 you know,lob creation, sales tax revenue increases.
2 But I think even more importantly, we have a Planning
3 Commission that has the ability to exercise its own
Page 17
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
4 discretion and is an intelligent group of people. And I
5 would ask not only to look at those reports, but to use
6 some common sense. And I would point out a couple of
7 things that I think are helpful.
8 Number one, one of the benefits that hasn't
9 been, but I think should be if you -- if you do elect
10 the report of the overriding considerations, is that the
11 creation in the buildout of the four corners creates a
12 powerhouse intersection that ensures for the City of
13 Lodi successful retail for the foreseeable future, 30,
14 40, 50 years.
15 And I use -- let's talk specifically. Let's
16 not use speculation. Let's use some real examples. And
17 the best example I can give you is a community of 20,000
18 people in Riverbank, California. And each time we added
19 larger and better retailers to that project, the sales
20 of those tenants have increased substantially. And the
21 base of what you have been able to obtain in terms of
22 retail possibilities has expanded each time we've done
23 that. And that's practical real examples that's less
24 than an hour and a half from where we're talking about.
25 And what ends up happening is, by creating a
0043
1 broad -- a broader retail environment, you not only are
2 able to increase the amount of people that come to shop
3 in the location, but you're also able to increase the
4 quality and the number of tenants that are potential
5 tenants for the project. For example, you know, when we
6 first started in Riverbank, if there wasn't a Target and
7 a Home Depot, we never would have gotten Kohl's in a
8 community of 20,000 people. But with a Target, with a
9 Home Depot, we were able to attract that kind of a
10 tenant. And then what happened after that was, with the
11 Kohl's, we were able to get a grocery store to that
12 location, because the volumes that were available there
13 were actually expandable, and so --
14 CHAIRMAN KISER: Two minutes. Just to let you
15 know.
16 MR. BROWMAN: Thank you. And so I think those
17 are things that I think are certainly available for the
18 Planning Commission to consider as part of this decision
19 process.
20 And I would also say, you know, there was some
21 concerns expressed about, you know, when do those jobs
22 occur. And I think that's a legitimate question. And I
23 think the answer is they're not all going to happen
24 tomorrow. But what I can assure you is I have a history
25 of 17 years with the City. And we're going to do it
0044
1 incrementally, so that we build when we have tenants
2 that support what we're trying to do. Not just tenants,
3 but the right tenants that will create a good, viable
4 shopping center over the long-term.
5 So will that be in 12 months? No. It may be
6 a three- or four-year buildout. But what I can do is I
7 can point to a history in the City of doing just exactly
8 that. we phased each one of our projects and built them
9 out, and those tenants still exist today because we've
10 not gone after the first available body that might not
11 be the best retailer, but who is the best retailer that
12 will complement what's going on at that intersection.
13 we're committed to doing that exact same thing. So I
14 would suggest, yeah, it's not going to happen tomorrow,
Page 18
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
15 but we're all in this for the long-term. we've been
16 together for 17 years and, frankly, we'll probably be
17 together for another 20 or 25 or 30 years, at least in
18 my lifetime. And I can say that that's, I think, the
19 approach we ought to be taking. Let's make good
20 long-term decisions that get us where we want to go.
21 And the other thing, the discussion about the
22 no -project alternative, I think, misses the point. This
23 property has been zoned in general plan for I believe
24 it's 12 years. So if this project gets denied, that
25 doesn't mean the project will lay fallow forever. There
0045
1 would end up ultimately being another commercial
2 property here which, theoretically, could have the exact
3 same impacts.
4 And so I think that the real answer is I would
5 ask the Council to take a look at some of these
6 benefits. I think that they're real and they're
7 measurable. And I would ask the Council to use their
8 discretion. I have faith in your ability to make
9 quality decisions. And I thank you very much for your
10 time, and I'm available to answer any questions.
11 CHAIRMAN KISER: Commissioner Heinitz.
12 COMMISSIONER HEINITZ: Yes, Mr. Browman.
13 Thank you. Since you opened it up, I'll continue on.
14 The dynamic four corners. Great idea. It's dynamic as
15 it sits now. Tell me, what will you do with your
16 dynamic four corners once the Wal-Mart goes across the
17 street and you have an empty Wal-Mart existing building,
18 and it affects Food -4 -Less, which possibly could be
19 affected, and it affects Safeway, which could be
20 affected? what happens to your dynamic four corners at
21 that time?
22 MR. BROWMAN: Actually, I look forward to that
23 challenge. I have an occupancy rate that's in the high
24 98, 99 percent. And I'm committed to getting the space
25 leased. I purchased the building. That was one of the
0046
1 big concerns that people had said early on, that it was
2 going to get restricted. we worked with the City and
3 made sure there were no restrictions on the building.
4 I've had the building leased once. I couldn't deliver,
5 because it was four years ago. And for two years, I sat
6 there with a fully negotiated lease ready to sign it and
7 couldn't give the tenant a delivery date. I had a
8 second tenant I was very close to. I'm not able to get
9 delivery. I'm very comfortable that space will be
10 leased.
11 And there is nobody that's got any motivation
12 any greater than me to make sure that I take care of my
13 existing tenants. I mean, I'm the guy who lives and
14 dies by it. And the one benefit you have is you got a
15 guy that's been here for 17 years. You know, if there
16 was ever a time in my career that there was a time to
17 sell projects if you were a merchant builder and just
18 wanted to capitalize and get out, it was probably three
19 or four years ago. And if nothing, we basically
20 recommitted to all of our projects. I just reinvested
21 and bought out my partner in the Target project.
22 And so, I mean, I don't -- I don't know what
23 else I can do other than to show everybody I'm committed
24 to the City and I'm committed to doing a great job on
25 the project. I won't rush the project. So if Wal-Mart
Page 19
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
0047
1 moves across the street, that traffic generation will be
2 greater than it existed in the existing Wal-Mart lot.
3 But what I can tell you -- so I don't think you lose any
4 of that traffic. I think you actually expand it. But
5 what I can tell you is I'll be committed to do it right,
6 and that I won't rush out just to get a tenant in order
7 to fill the space. we're going to get the right tenant
8 that are going to make that intersection viable over the
9 long -run. And I think we have shown that time and time
10 again. And we're committed to continue to do that.
11 COMMISSIONER HEINITZ: Thank you.
12 CHAIRMAN KISER: Commissioner Olson.
13 COMMISSIONER OLSON: Thank you for coming
14 tonight and speaking on behalf of this pro]ect. You do
15 have a very -- a reputation that is admirable, and I
16 don't want to impugn it at all, but I think comparing
17 this project to Riverbank is a little misguided
18 considering that there was no K -Mart across town in
19 Riverbank, there was nothing in town, much less a
20 Safeway across the street. And there is no doubt that
21 that project is -- has brought a lot of revenue. But I
22 think that it's misleading to compare this particular
23 corner and the Wal-Mart to what happened in Riverbank
24 when there was absolutely nothing else. And if the
25 point you are making is that you believe in your ability
0048
1 to bring other tenants in, I'll accept that. But other
2 than that, I'm not sure that I can accept the
3 comparison. So I just wanted to state that.
4 MR. BROWMAN: Yeah. And let me -- maybe I
5 didn't do a very good job of explaining. what I was
6 trying to say is -- I don't think Wal-Mart is the savior
7 to everybody's problems. But what I do think is that
8 they're a great anchor tenant and they drive a
9 significant amount of traffic. And what I was trying to
10 point out in the analogy to Riverbank is, Riverbank, as
11 a community, is not capable of supporting the type of
12 retail that's there without drawing from a much larger
13 trade area. And the analysis that I was trying to show
14 was that by expanding and putting a million square feet
15 at that intersection, you expand Lodi's trade. Not
16 because Wal-Mart is some superstar, but by creating that
17 much synergy at that intersection.
18 And I can only give you some examples. Like
19 part of -- for years and years we tried to get somebody
20 like a Best Buy or a Borders to look at Lodi's
21 community, and it was too small. But when you put that
22 much -- that concentration of retail in an intersection,
23 notwithstanding whether it's Wal-Mart, but it's quality
24 anchor tenant kind of retail like your Targets,
25 Wal -Marts, Safeways, Food-4-Lesses, Penney s, you open
0049
1 the base of who else will take a look at that
2 intersection because of the amount of traffic it drives.
3 So I apologize if that came out -- but that's really
4 what I was trying to get at is the synergy that's
5 created.
6 CHAIRMAN KISER: Do you have any questions?
7 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: Yes. Mr. Browman,
8 thank you again. You answered one of my questions, but
9 the other one would be, and I think you alluded to it a
10 little bit, that the net number of jobs, I suppose, for
Page 20
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
11 that powerhouse at four corners, for your project, is a
12 function of, I guess, how quickly it builds out. And I
13 don't know if there's been a published time line.
14 But I guess my question is, have you had to
15 amend your time line or your projections based on the
16 difficult economy, or are you still pretty much on track
17 with your original projections?
18 MR. BROwMAN: Yeah. You know, Lodi is sort of
19 an interesting one. I've been working on this project
20 for about eight years. So unlike a lot of projects that
21 were being done like up in Sacramento or some other
22 communities, they were all done based on a lot of
23 housinggrowth occurring. Lodi has got limited growth.
24 And so the demand for this project actually existed
25 seven or eight years ago. So although the economy has
0050
1 slowed down, it may impact to some degree the -- how
2 quickly things happen. I don't believe that it's the
3 same demand problem that you'll have like, for example,
4 in Roseville where they were expecting 5,000 homes to be
5 built in a very short period of time.
6 I don't know if that answered your question.
7 So I think that the -- I think that ultimately -- I
8 believe there's tenants for what we want to do. I don't
9 believe we're overbuilding the market. And that's not
10 something that we're going to be willing to do. we're
11 going to lease the space to the right tenants when those
12 tenants are available.
13 And I think in the best case, if the Planning
14 Commission saw it in their discretion to approve this
15 project, we would still have to go back to court, and it
16 would another year before the project is built. It may
17 be two years before anything gets out on that site. So
18 my -- if I had to hold up a crystal ball, I would say
19 that '09 is a difficult year and '010 will be a somewhat
20 difficult year, and I think '011, I think retailers will
21 be back starting to do new projects again and stuff like
22 that. So I don t think -- unfortunately, given the
23 delays that we've had, I don't think that you're talking
24 about a significant time lag in the reality.
25 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: If you look at the
0051
1 crystal ball, once you to get to the golden shovel
2 stage, from that point on, could you give me any kind of
3 a prediction as to how long it takes to build out the
4 shopping center?
5 MR. BROwMAN: Yeah. Absolutely. I would say
6 phase one -- and you have to understand, we stopped
7 leasing the project a couple of years ago, because it
8 was going so long we couldn't -- we didn't know where to
9 make deals with tenants and when we could deliver
10 spaces, and tenants would put termination rights in
11 their leases if you didn't deliver.
12 So I would say, let's say it took us until the
13 end of the year -- if we were to get approved, it took
14 us to the end of year to get a court decision, we got
15 the ground in spring, then it would probably take seven
16 to nine months to build the first phase of the project.
17 And then each phase takes about, say, as quick as four
18 months and as long as six and a half months. So you can
19 actually start progressing pretty quickly with your
20 buildings once you get going. And so the first one
21 happens probably in nine months, because you're doing a
Page 21
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
22 lot of off -sites and a lot of on -sites. And then all
23 the rest of the utilities are stubbed and stuff like
24 that, so it happens pretty quickly, say, four to six for
25 each other phase.
0052
1 And if you want to look historically, I think
2 we built the Target and the Wal-Mart, the existing
3 centers, I think we built them in three or four phases.
4 So that would probably be -- I mean, I think that would
5 be a reasonable approach to look at as well, three to
6 four phases. Yougot 12 building pads. Some would go
7 right away, like, for example, you know, Walgreens is
8 interested ingoing on the corner and has been for four
9 years. There's three or four pads that would go right
10 away. But I think we would take time to do it right to
11 make sure we have the right tenants.
12 CHAIRMAN KISER: Go ahead, Mr. Heinitz.
13 COMMISSIONER HEINITZ: Yes. I think there's a
14 great deal of confusion out there that is being promoted
15 by Wal-Mart, and the fact that all of these wonderful
16 numbers that are going to come into Lodi, the jobs, the
17 tax revenue, the income is all based upon not only
18 Wal-Mart, but the stores that will come along with the
19 Wal-Mart. At this time, do you have any of these
20 businesses that have committed to those other spots
21 whatsoever?
22 MR. BROWMAN: Yeah, we have one, two, three,
23 possibly a fourth of the pads that are committed right
24 now. And we stopped. we actually could have probably
25 leased seven or eight of them, but we stopped, because
0053
1 we couldn't understand, you know, where you make a deal
2 and what the delivery time frames are.
3 But, you know, this is -- this is a very
4 unique situation. This is a case where you got a
5 project that's been ready to go for eight years, let's
6 say, and probably a little bit longer. It's very
7 atypical, because most of the retail stuff that you're
8 seeing .n a lot of other communities was predicated on
9 retailers getting way ahead of the growth.
10 And Lodi is not a community like that. That's
11 one of the beautiful things about it. It's slower
12 growth, it's -- you know, the people take a real good
13 look at what's going on. It's not like, you know,
14 they're approving 6,000 units and somebody has got to
15 run out two miles from the intersection of a real
16 intersection today and tie that up so they can build a
17 store three years from now.
18 So it's -- you know, so I think it's a little
19 bit different in that regard. And Sacramento is a great
20 example of a lot of that. There's been a ton of that in
21 other portions of the Central valley as well.
22 COMMISSIONER HEINITZ: I guess one of my
23 concerns is, to add insult to injury, would be the fact
24 that we would have a beautiful new Wal-Mart in that
25 corner, we have an empty Wal-Mart across the street, and
0054
1 then we would have empty pads or empty buildings, if you
2 did build them, with no other stores. And that would be
3 a real horrible situation.
4 MR. BROWMAN: Absolutely. I can assure you,
5 you know, I feel very comfortable that we would be able
6 to lease those pads without much difficulty, and we will
Page 22
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
7 lease the Wal-Mart building. That is our number one
8 priority.
9 In fact, we -- at this point, we will not
10 lease our junior anchor building -- and that's one of
11 the benefits of having someone like us. we're motivated
12 to make sure we take care of our existing centers first.
13 And so the unior anchor building that's part of the
14 Wal-Mart will not get leased until we have our Wal-Mart
15 building leased. You know what I mean? So that's
16 actually one of the positive benefits that flow from
17 something like this. Rather than having disparate
18 ownerships where some guy doesn't care about what
19 happens next to him.
20 And, you know, we love Food-4-Less. They're a
21 great tenant. It is unfortunate that we're in this
22 situation, because we have a very good relationship with
23 Chris, and they're a fantastic tenant and have been a
24 great tenant for us over the years.
25 CHAIRMAN KISER: I have a question for you.
0055
1 In the agreement, it states that prior to the issuance
2 of a building permit, you have to have 50 percent leased
3 ahead of time. Do you feel you can achieve that?
4 MR. BROWMAN: Yeah. Absolutely.
5 CHAIRMAN KISER: And my second question is,
6 what's going to make people go to you instead of the
7 guys across the street where they've had a vacant
8 building for approximately a year now in the Lowe's
9 shopping center and have them become a tenant there?
10 MR. BROWMAN: That's their 12,000-foot
11 building?
12 CHAIRMAN KISER: Yes.
13 MR. BROWMAN: Yeah, I think we're -- I think
14 that Mr. Geweke does a good job with his properties. I
15 think we are -- we do one thing, and we pride ourselves
16 on our ability to work with tenants. We build shopping
17 centers and we own and manage them and lease them on our
18 own behalf.
19 And I think -- that's a very small building.
20 And what we're talking about here is the ability to
21 attract retailers in the 25- to 120,000-foot range.
22 That's something that they don't have the flexibility.
23 And, frankly, we have people that are committed to doing
24 nothing on our projects but lease them. And that's one
25 of the reasons why we have a higher occupancy rate. we
0056
1 do multiple transactions with tenants. You know what I
2 mean? And that gives us the ability to convince tenants
3 they should come to our project versus a different
4 project, you know, because it's those long-standing
5 relationships that we've had over the years.
6 CHAIRMAN KISER: Thank you. Any questions?
7 None at this time. Thank you.
8 MR. BROWMAN: Thank you very much.
9 CHAIRMAN KISER: Would the opponents like to
10 get up for rebuttal? Mr. Mooney is going to want some
11 time, too?
12 MR. JOLLEY: Yes.
13 CHAIRMAN KISER: You have five minutes.
14 MR. JOLLEY: If you can give me one minute to
15 at least let Mr. Mooney wrap up --
16 CHAIRMAN KISER: One minute?
17 MR. JOLLEY: -- and I'll try to be brief.
Page 23
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
18 Again, for the record, Brett Jolley on behalf of Lodi
19 First.
20 Responding to Ms. Pelosi's comments first,
21 regarding substantial evidence, I would submit to you
22 that you don't really have that situation that she
23 describes. And that in fact goes to your question that
24 you asked, Commissioner Kiser, of why did you not get it
25 as a Planning Commission when it was prepared in
0057
1 January. It wasn't released until March. And, again,
2 why does apparently a new letter that I have not seen,
3 and probably most of you have not had the opportunity to
4 review in detail, come in today?
5 And the answer is because Wal-Mart is not
6 putting that in there to educate you. They're putting
7 that in there to pad the record, so when they go to
8 court, they can say, we have evidence in the record that
9 the Commission considered and adopted. It's -- there's
10 not an intent for you to read or consider that evidence,
11 otherwise, it would have been produced to you when it
12 was available and not submitted to you at the last
13 minute when you can't review it.
14 And with respect to the evidence that's been
15 prepared, it is not objective. It is -- it is
16 essentially biased evidence prepared by Wal -Mart's
17 consultants. That's true of CBRE that you got the
18 letter from, apparently, in January, and it's also true
19 of BAE, Bay Area Economics, that has prepared the
20 Environmental Impact Report.
21 And I say that because in 2008, September of
22 2008, the City of Tracy asked BAE how many Wal-Mart
23 Supercenters have you done environmental review on. And
24 BAE said, dust off the top of my head, we've done Suisun
25 City, Redding, Antioch, Crescent City, Lodi,
0058
1 Porterville, Ceres, Soledad. So off the top of his
2 head, the BAE representative came up with eight
3 Supercenters that BAE is working on. BAE has a
4 relationship with Wal-Mart all over, and they are not
5 going to be inclined to bite the hand that feeds them.
6 That's why I would encourage this commission
7 to conduct an independent analysis, not by BAE, not by
8 CBRE, not by Professor King. Have it done either by
9 your staff or by your staff engaging someone that hasn't
10 done work with the other consultants.
11 Regarding jobs, the interesting thing is the
12 letter submitted by Wal-Mart at the City Council hearing
13 said, no, no, no, Lodi First has overestimated the
14 number of jobs that will come from this project. our
15 argument was it triggered a water supply assessment
16 requirement.
17 They did that because -- we did that because
18 we based our evidence on press releases issued by
19 Wal-Mart on new Supercenter openings. But, in fact, the
20 Supercenters employed much lower numbers than announced
21 in Wal -Mart's own press releases. So that tells you
22 that you're not getting accurate information. You got
23 the marketing side that's going to play it up, and the
24 other side that won't.
25 CHAIRMAN KISER: You got about two minutes or
0059
1 a minute.
2 MS. CHADWICK: One minute.
Page 24
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
3 MR. JOLLEY: Thank you. And, finally,
4 regarding Mr. Browman and Wal-Mart being a great anchor
5 tenant for this site, I don't think we need to have a
6 synergy overriding consideration, and that is because
7 you already have a Wal-Mart at that intersection. The
8 benefits of that Wal-Mart should really be fully
9 realized by the City at this point. But, in fact, what
10 you would be doing is adding so much additional square
11 footage that that synergy is going to hurt the rest of
12 the city.
13 And I think one example of this can be seen by
14 the story in yesterday's paper about downtown Starbucks
15 closing. Downtown Starbucks is closing, but the three
16 that are located at that intersection will remain open.
17 And when you get that synergy out at that intersection,
18 it really hurts the core of the city, because it draws
19 people away. Thank you.
20 CHAIRMAN KISER: We got a question for you.
21 COMMISSIONER HENNECKE: We have seen a lot of
22 numbers on these reports. And, of course, you know,
23 pros and cons. You guys have had your opportunity.
24 Tell me if I'm correct on my take here. We have got a
25 range on the tax dollar assessment of a low of 134,000
0060
1 to a high of 1.3 million; is that correct?
2 MR. JOLLEY: Approximately, yes.
3 COMMISSIONER HENNECKE: And then on the job
4 range, we've got a range of 600 to 1,000; is that
5 correct?
6 MR. JOLLEY: Correct.
7 COMMISSIONER HENNECKE: okay. The one thing
8 that puzzles me, and I'll give you a little background
9 on it is, I had the good fortune of taking statistics in
10 college from a very smart lady who was working for Gray
11 Davis at the time who was a spin doctor. And she used
12 to leave our class and go out and do whatever they
13 needed for press releases. And the one thing that she
14 taught me is that you can make stats say whatever you
15 want them to say. The one thing that puzzles me is, you
16 being against this, you have not been able to come up
17 with any negative numbers. All of these are in the
18 plus; is that correct?
19 MR. JOLLEY: It's in the plus for the shopping
20 center itself. So there's no evidence that says the
21 shopping center itself will actually have a negative
22 number of jobs or negative taxes. But you have to look
23 at the comparison of the shopping center against what
24 it's taking away from the rest of the city.
25 COMMISSIONER HENNECKE: So what you're asking
0061
1 us to do as planning commissioners is, on our overriding
2 consideration, is to take a positive gain in tax dollars
3 and a positive gain inJobs and try to quantify that to
4 a number, a threshold that says that if it's below this
5 dollar amount, even though it's positive, I can't do
6 this? Is that what you're asking?
7 MR. JOLLEY: I don't know that you have to
8 reach an actual threshold, but you need to have the
9 information, credible information, there before you so
10 you understand what those numbers are, what are your
11 real tax benefits going to be. It may be CBRE is
12 correct and it is 1.3 million. I'm not an economist. I
13 don't know. But that's information that seems to
Page 25
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
14 conflict with much of the other information in the
15 record and was produced by Wal-Mart at the 11th hour.
16 So I have a feeling that's probably not accurate. Maybe
17 it is. And maybe you get that information, and as a
18 commission, you say, well, looking at these benefits,
19 they really do outweigh the burdens, and we can adopt
20 this statement of overriding consideration.
21 COMMISSIONER HENNECKE: Yeah. Well, I can
22 understand that these are all just projections and, you
23 know, crystal ball numbers. But I guess I'm really
24 amazed that you can't come up with anything more
25 negative being against it.
0062
1 MR. JOLLEY: I'm a positive guy.
2 COMMISSIONER HENNECKE: okay. Thank you.
3 CHAIRMAN KISER: Questions? That's all.
4 Thank you.
5 MR. MOONEY: I don't have anything else to
6 add.
7 CHAIRMAN KISER: Thank you. I would like to
8 take comments from the public. Let's take a little
9 recess, please. Five minutes.
10 (A recess was taken.)
11 CHAIRMAN KISER: Back to order. We have the
12 cards here. First, Chris Podesto.
13 MR. PODESTO: Good evening, Chairman and
14 Commissioners. My name is Chris Podesto, and my
15 business address is 8014 Lower Sacramento Road,
16 Stockton.
17 I do have a tremendous amount of respect for
18 Mr. Browman. we are friends. And that's why he's here
19 in a sling tonight. we decided to arm wrestle over this
20 issue.
21 Anyway, on a serious note. Many of you know I
22 come here tonight wearing two hats: Director of
23 marketing for Food -4 -Less and Rancho San Miguel, and a
24 local area resident. And what I have to say here is
25 equally influenced by both roles.
0063
1 The City Council may have overruled your
2 decision not to certify the EIR. This does not mean
3 that you should approve this project here before you
4 tonight. The EIR tells you this project may close
5 several existing businesses in Lodi. our store is near
6 the top of the list. we agree, and think that store is
7 in greater jeopardy than the EIR would suggest.
8 we coanchor the southeast corner of Lower
9 Sacramento -- Lower Sac and Kettleman Lane with the
10 existing Wal-Mart. If this project goes forward, not
11 only do we lose our 120,000 square foot Wal-Mart
12 coanchor, but we will also see the addition of a new
13 discount supermarket across the street in a part of town
14 that is already inundated with supermarkets.
15 A couple of these changes, with the current
16 economic downturn, yield a recipe for disaster. Not
17 only could this create a vacant commercial space in west
18 Lodi, but will also result in a loss of community
19 partners such as Food -4 -Less and other local businesses
20 who have contributed to Lodi's well being.
21 while this decision to certify the EIR may be
22 out of your hands, the decision of whether to approve
23 this project is not. You must balance the benefits of
24 this project against the costs. Is approving this
Page 26
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
25 340,000 square foot project at the expense of other
0064
1 retailers and possibly the downtown supported by other
2 benefits? Is approving this project in west Lodi at the
3 expense of east Lodi worth the cost?
4 CHAIRMAN KISER: You got a minute, Chris.
5 MR. PODESTO: I do not think so. I can tell
6 you that Food -4 -Less will seriously consider placing a
7 supermarket in east Lodi. But if the Supercenter goes
8 forth, that will not happen. The Supercenter will
9 simply place too much pressure on the existing
10 groceries -- Lodi grocers, and will likely lead to
11 vacancy of existing shopping centers and losses of their
12 tax revenue. Any increase in tax revenue will be offset
13 by the losses, as well as increased city need for
14 services.
15 For these reasons, I urge you not to approve
16 this project. Any questions?
17 CHAIRMAN KISER: Yes. Mr. Heinitz.
18 COMMISSIONER HEINITZ: Yes. Thank you,
19 Mr. Podesto. I appreciate you coming forward tonight.
20 Just a couple very simple questions. Does Food -4 -Less
21 own the building that they're in?
22 MR. PODESTO: No.
23 COMMISSIONER HEINITZ: It is owned by?
24 MR. PODESTO: Mr. Browman.
25 COMMISSIONER HEINITZ: You have a lease.
0065
1 MR. PODESTO: Yes.
2 COMMISSIONER HEINITZ: How long do you have
3 left on the lease? Do you have any idea?
4 MR. PODESTO: I would have to defer to
5 Mr. Browman on that.
6 MR. BROWMAN: Seven to eight years.
7 MR. PODESTO: Seven to eight years we'd say.
8 COMMISSIONER HEINITZ: Seven to eight years
9 comes up, the Wal-Mart Supercenter goes in, your sales
10 are lacking, what would you tell me?
11 MR. PODESTO: We will absolutely -- well, when
12 you say lacking, I guess to what extent? The EIR would
13 suggest that our business would be impacted by at least
14 40 percent. If that's the case, we would absolutely
15 close the doors. we could not afford to lose 40 percent
16 of our business.
17 COMMISSIONER HEINITZ: Thank you.
18 CHAIRMAN KISER: Commissioner Kirsten.
19 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: Hi, Chris. Quick
20 question. How many employees are there currently in
21 your facility, Food -4 -Less?
22 MR. PODESTO: Approximately 140, give or take.
23 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: And I don't know if
24 this is a number that you want to make public, but can
25 you give us any kind of estimation of the sales tax -- I
0066
1 mean, it's all grocery, or is it -- it's a very high
2 percentage of grocery, correct?
3 MR. PODESTO: High percentage of grocery. we
4 are a taxable grocery as well. But I am not prepared to
5 give you those figures tonight. If the Planning
6 Commission would like those figures, I would be glad to
7 bring them to you.
8 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: I think it suffices.
9 It's a high percentage of grocery. And would you say is
Page 27
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
10 the Rancho San Miguel market also -- would you say it
11 could be impacted by this proposed Supercenter?
12 MR. PODESTO: There's no question. This is --
13 this is -- let me answer your question directly.
14 There's no question that the socioeconomics of the east
15 side will be a draw to the west side. You will be
16 pulling people from Cherokee Lane to west Lodi. That's
17 dust the nature of the consumer base in Wal -Mart's
18 demographic.
19 With respect to a Supercenter, the tax
20 revenue, you already have a tremendous tax base from the
21 existing Wal-Mart. The Supercenter really isn't going
22 to generate a tremendous amount of additional taxes,
23 because the additional component will consist of
24 grocery, which doesn't create a lot of tax dollars for
25 the City.
0067
1 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: So just to clarify, the
2 greatest impact this community is likely to suffer if --
3 if Food -4 -Less or Rancho San Miguel are impacted to the
4 extent it could possibly go out of business, then the
5 greatest impact to our community is likely to be the
6 loss of the jobs, correct?
7 MR. PODESTO: Oh, there's no question. It
8 will simply be a redistribution. To suggest that we're
9 going to pull from this greater area around us is kind
10 of deceiving. we all know that Galt is projected to
11 have a Wal-Mart or Supercenter, we know that they're
12 pushing to have one on Eight -Mile Road. what is this
13 radius we think we're going to pull from? And as
14 Mr. Browman indicated, Lodi does grow at a slow pace.
15 So where are these incremental customers coming from?
16 And if in fact you bring in Costco, which
17 needs to do approximately 700,000 in grocery, Wal-Mart
18 is going to want to do 700,000 in grocery, where is the
19 1.4 million in grocery going to come from? Since you
20 have a Costco in Stockton, you have wal-Marts in
21 Stockton, you're going to have a Wal-Mart in Galt,
22 where -- seriously, where do we think these incremental
23 dollars are coming from? And since when do we need a
24 commercial center every five minutes away? It's kind of
25 crazy.
0068
1 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: All right. That's all
2 I have.
3 VICE CHAIRMAN CUMMINS: Thanks for being here,
4 Chris. Thanks for the bags, too. I appreciate that.
5 MR. PODESTO: You're welcome, sir.
6 VICE CHAIRMAN CUMMINS: And I wanted to ask a
7 question. How long ago -- or how old is Rancho San
8 Miguel, the actual --
9 MR. PODESTO: Five years.
10 VICE CHAIRMAN CUMMINS: Five years? And when
11 you opened up Rancho San Miguel, up through today, did
12 net sales of Food -4 -Less go up or down with the addition
13 of Rancho San Miguel? It s probably the most new -- the
14 newest grocery store in town?
15 MR. PODESTO: Yeah. They actually went down.
16 VICE CHAIRMAN CUMMINS: Food -4 -Less went down?
17 MR. PODESTO: Yes, sir.
18 VICE CHAIRMAN CUMMINS: But together, they had
19 to have gone up.
20 MR. PODESTO: I'm sorry?
Page 28
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
21 VICE CHAIRMAN CUMMINS: Since you own both of
22 them together, obviously the net sales together would
23 have gone up.
24 MR. PODESTO: Well, you certainly double your
25 overhead. And Food -4 -Less was very much impacted by
0069
1 Rancho San Miguel on the east side. Again, the people
2 from the east side in many cases will pull to the west
3 side and vice versa.
4 VICE CHAIRMAN CUMMINS: But, I mean, opening
5 Rancho San Miguel didn't make Food -4 -Less go out of
6 business; is that correct?
7 MR. PODESTO: No. But I think that's an
8 interesting comparison.
9 CHAIRMAN KISER: I have a question for you.
10 Actually, what San Miguel did was provide a grocery
11 store for the east side so people could go there, and
12 Food -4 -Less would provide for the west side, and some go
13 vice versa is what you're saying. would that be a fair
14 analysis, I should say?
15 MR. PODESTO: Yeah. It's interesting.
16 Food -4 -Less is a price -impact store similar to Wal-Mart.
17 It has the ability to pull from a greater distance. So
18 Food -4 -Less can in fact pull from the east side. Rancho
19 San Miguel really acts as a ethnic store and a
20 neighborhood store, but it doesn't have the draw like a
21 Wal-Mart or a Food -4 -Less.
22 CHAIRMAN KISER: Okay. Commissioner Olson has
23 a question for you.
24 COMMISSIONER OLSON: Yeah. Mr. Podesto, I
25 just want to congratulate you on being such a really
0070
1 outstanding corporate citizen in our community. And I
2 know how much Food -4 -Less does, and Rancho San Miguel,
3 and I appreciate that, and I hope the community has
4 given you that appreciation.
5 Part of what I want to ask you is, really, I'm
6 trying to distill in my mind what some of the issues --
7 what some of your issues are. And I don't believe it's
8 necessarily competition, and you can correct me if I'm
9 wrong, because you have competition around town. It's
10 really more of, I think -- are you really saying it's
11 more an outsider coming in and usurping local --
12 MR. PODESTO: No. As I stated earlier, I
13 really come here wearing two hats. I live in Lodi. I
14 love this community. I am very aware of Wal-Mart and
15 their practices and what they -- the impact they have on
16 our community. The hat I'm wearing tonight, however,
17 though is Chris Podesto, corporate citizen.
18 I think that you guys all were aware of
19 Measure W. we know that there is blight and decay on
20 the east side of town. To bring a Supercenter to this
21 west corner, in my opinion, is just Silly. How are you
22 ever going to stop the blight and bring business to the
23 east side if, in fact, you're going to put all your eggs
24 in one basket on the west side. You're going to
25 perpetuate the blight, and you're going to stop all the
0071
1 businesses such as ourselves from considering partnering
2 on the east side.
3 COMMISSIONER OLSON: That helps. Thank you.
4 COMMISSIONER HENNECKE: Wouldn't -- I'm sorry.
5 wouldn't you consider the Reynolds Ranch project east
Page 29
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
6 side stores and shopping?
7 MR. PODESTO: Very much so. I guess the
8 difference with the Reynolds Ranch is we don't have a
9 Costco in Lodi. As a citizen and a consumer in Lodi, we
10 think Costco is wonderful and makes sense for Lodi. our
11 whole point is that we already have a Wal-Mart, and we
12 certainly don't need a fifth grocery store on that
13 corner. It makes terrible planning sense. Somebody has
14 got to go. Something has got togive. This notion that
15 nothing will give is not real world, and I think we're
16 seeing that in our current economic planning.
17 COMMISSIONER HENNECKE: If Costco was to try
18 to move into the Reynolds center, would that pose the
19 same problem for you as the Super Wal-Mart?
20 MR. PODESTO: No. Again, as a consumer of
21 Lodi -- and, again, I have to articulate I wear two
22 hats -- I think a Costco would be fantastic. I wouldn't
23 oppose a Costco at all. We don't have a Costco in Lodi,
24 but we already have a Wal-Mart.
25 COMMISSIONER HENNECKE: Thanks.
0072
1 CHAIRMAN KISER: Thank you. Next person, John
2 Ibarra. John Ibarra?
3 MS. CHADWICK: He's already gone.
4 CHAIRMAN KISER: John Ibarra? Roger Oster?
5 MR. OSTER: My name is Roger Oster. I live at
6 2026 Oxford way here in Lodi. Born and raised in this
7 town. I thought the meeting was going to be talking
8 about the three items that you were supposed to be
9 voting on tonight. All I've heard from both sides, of
10 course, is a rehash of everything that's been talked
11 about before; the fact that Food-4-Less is going to go
12 out of business because of Wal-Mart coming in, and
13 Safeway, and Lodi downtown being deteriorated.
14 Things have deteriorated in Lodi not because
15 of Wal-Mart coming in, because it hasn't come in yet,
16 the supercenter, but because of bad management and, of
17 course, the economy.
18 As far as the people at Safeway, they're going
19 to shop Safeway regardless if there's a Supercenter.
20 The people who shop at Raley's will shop at Raley's
21 regardless of whether there's a Supercenter. I agree.
22 Food-4-Less may be hurt. But being a person who shops
23 at all of the different markets, and I used to shop the
24 Food-4-Less continuously until about a year ago when the
25 employees started bad mouthing Wal-Mart while we were in
0073
1 there shopping and checking out. That's not a thing to
2 do. If they don't like it, that's fine. But we're
3 supposed to have free society of competition.
4 Now, all the projections that everybody makes,
5 you realize that all projections are crystal ball
6 projections, and usually they're more than what's going
7 to really happen. As far as you're saying, you're
8 getting reports, and you got them here at the 11th hour,
9 and you haven't had time to read them. well, our great
10 politicians in Washington, they just passed a trillion
11 dollar budget, 18,000 pages that they didn't even read.
12 If you haven't already decided on what you're
13 going to do before you come to this meeting tonight,
14 then what are you doing here and how can you make a
15 decision based on the few comments that you've heard
16 time and time again?
Page 30
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
17 Look at what you're supposed to be voting on
18 and vote on that. Don't worry about the gobbledegook.
19 The lawyer was talking about Seinfeld, walking around
20 with papers to look busy. He walked around talking
21 words to make himself look busy, which nobody understood
22 what the heck he's talking about. You people aren't
23 lawyers. You have no idea what's right or what's wrong.
24 The young lady from Wal-Mart, she was correct.
25 There are experts on this side and there are experts on
0074
1 that side. who are you going to believe? You have to
2 just toss them up in the air and pick out the one you
3 want to believe. So that's what it amounts to, what you
4 think is what's going to happen.
5 And, unfortunately, you have no responsibility
6 to the public, because you're not voted on. You're
7 appointed. So you're trying to tell the City Council
8 what they can and can't do. well, go ahead, vote on the
9 way you want. But we need a Wal-Mart in this town to
10 keep us sustained.
11 we have got businesses all over Lodi being
12 built that are standing empty. That's the blight.
13 You're approving all these other small constructions
14 when there's not anybody in them. what for? we have a
15 tremendous amount of empty buildings around.
16 Wal-Mart at least is going to be occupied and
17 built. And I believe in the developer who is going to
18 do it, that he will get people into the old store and he
19 will fill up that center. But that's my belief. You're
20 the ones who are voting on it. Thank you.
21 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: I'll just comment. I
22 would like to say thank you for coming forward and
23 offering your viewpoints publicly so we can take them
24 into consideration. Thank you.
25 CHAIRMAN KISER: Leo Duncan, please.
0075
1 MR. DUNCAN: My name is Leo Duncan. I reside
2 at 35 River Pointe Circle here in Lodi. Five years ago
3 last month I moved into the house that I built in that
4 gated community. I have enjoyed it very much and
5 enjoyed being a resident of Lodi.
6 I have listened to the arguments both ways
7 that have beengoing on. And as I have heard not only
8 tonight, but other times, people talking about they want
9 to have a certified account of how much income and how
10 many jobs it's going to be. They're requiring that they
11 give something out of prediction that is going to hold
12 up and be accurate when it's completed. And yet we have
13 been years in process, and so that's not a very easy
14 thing to do. However, it seems to me it's a simple
15 thing to count nickels and noses in the existing
16 locations. You can see progress in the cities where
17 they have built. And if you look at the national income
18 of Wal-Mart, they are consistently growing and ahead of
19 the curve even in this depression, or recession, or low
20 business cycle, or whatever you wish to call it.
21 Yes, competition will come as a result of
22 this. I have in the past, in the '70s, owned four
23 businesses. I saw Costco come in to where I live and
24 created competition for me, but it didn't put me out of
25 business. It stimulated me to find better ways to
0076
1 market what I had.
Page 31
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
2 I don't -- I think that those who are looking
3 for the problems that Wal-Mart is going to create,
4 according to their theory, it's like looking in a black
5 room for a black -- a dark room for a black cat that
6 isn't there. You can't prove it, but you can see -- you
7 certainly can see the progress in existing locations.
8 when I built the house in Lodi here, it
9 required permitting, as you well know. And the house I
10 built is 2,800 square feet and single floor, and it did
11 require a great deal of permitting and some exceptions.
12 And it took a long time, because at that time, the
13 building cycle was very, very busy. And you, the
14 Planning Commission, even farmed out some of their plan
15 checks to Sacramento. And so I know what delay can be.
16 But I think it is unconscionable for a city to hold --
17 CHAIRMAN KISER: You got a minute.
18 MR. DUNCAN: -- thank you -- to hold any
19 developer and/or landowner at bay for this length of
20 time. I think that it is wrong. I have seen in other
21 cities where this kind of thing happened, and it put a
22 smaller developer out of business, bankrupt. And it
23 does not speak well for our city. You should give them
24 an up or down vote. It should have been done years ago.
25 It's too far into this thing.
0077
1 I approve -- I am in favor of and would urge
2 you to approve this project. Thank you.
3 CHAIRMAN KISER: Thank you. Ann Cerney.
4 MS. CERNEY: Ann Cerney, 900 West vine Street,
5 Lodi. I am here mainly to just register my presence --
6 CHAIRMAN KISER: Can you please speak up a
7 little bit, ma'am?
8 MS. CERNEY: Myself and a group, Citizens for
9 Open Government, have been involved in this since the
10 beginning. And I Just wanted to contain my standing and
11 indicate that I'm here.
12 I do have one more comment to make, that
13 you've already determined in the previously reviewed
14 Environmental Impact Report, that you found it
15 inadequate and you overruled. I find it very, very
16 difficult to imagine that the decision that -- the
17 certification of this EIR is going to be enough to
18 support the findings that are recommended. And the
19 information, I don't believe, is there, but deliberately
20 ignored some pretty extensive legislation that's been
21 passed since the previous decision, and I think those
22 are very telling factors.
23 And I urge you to make the finding -- make the
24 findings -- to not make the recommended findings. And I
25 do ask that you consider seriously the alternative of
0078
1 no-project. Thank you.
2 CHAIRMAN KISER: Mark Anaforian? If I messed
3 it up, I apologize.
4 MR. ANAFORIAN: No, you're pretty close. My
5 name is Mark Anaforian. I live at 625 Black oak way
6 here in Lodi.
7 This meeting has been all about assumptions.
8 All we've heard is one side assume this way, one side
9 assume that way. I want to stick to facts. At the last
10 Planning Commission meeting, the representatives of
11 Wal-Mart used the La Quinta store as their shining
12 example. It should be noted -- or noted that the La
Page 32
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
13 Quinta store was the first Supercenter built in
14 California. But for the sake of argument, let's use
15 that store as a barometer.
16 That store was opened in 2004, and
17 unemployment in La Quinta was 2.6 percent. In 2005, it
18 was 2.4; in 2006, it was 2.3; and by 2007, it had risen
19 to 3.5 percent. This is an example -- this is an
20 increase of .9 percent unemployment.
21 By way of comparison, Lodi had only a .2
22 increase in unemployment at that time. It should also
23 be noted that California as a whole had a .6 percent
24 increase. So La Quinta actually was higher than the
25 State average. These numbers reaffirm the argument that
0079
1 when a Supercenter opens, there are a couple of years of
2 increased jobs, but those tail out pretty quickly.
3 The second point I want to bring up is the
4 impact on other stores. For many years I managed a
5 major -- or a major drug chain here in town. when the
6 first Supercenter was going to be built, we heard the
7 same arguments. It's not going to affect business,
8 there won't be a loss of jobs, what have you. well, I'm
9 here to tell you that our sales the first year the first
10 Wal-Mart was opened went down 30 percent. Now, they did
11 come back. Not to anywhere near the level before. we
12 wound up rising to about 18 percent loss. what that
13 correlated to was a loss of jobs and a loss of folks
14 that were -_good paying jobs, jobs with benefits. Some
15 of those folks did wind up going over to Wal-Mart and
16 working at a lesser pay and with no benefits.
17 Thirdly, the one thing I want to stick to is
18 the Wal-Mart has -- and this was 2007 numbers. Wal-Mart
19 has four times more calls than Target for police
20 service. Lodi News Sentinel reported in the past year,
21 2007, Wal-Mart had 507 calls for service, Target had
22 123, K -Mart had 198. If you take into consideration the
23 cost of a police officer for the 507 calls, that's
24 $17,000. That does not correlate into administrative
25 costs, court costs, whether there's two police officers
0080
1 in the car, what have you.
2 So when you're looking at the whole of what
3 Wal-Mart brings to you, you have to look at the whole.
4 You have to look at what it's going to cost in jobs,
5 what it's going to cost in revenue, what it's going to
6 cost in service to the City.
7 Lastly, I just would like to leave you with
8 the fact that you're talking about adding a grocery
9 store. Most grocery store items are nontaxable. I
10 would love to know where these numbers are coming from.
11 Wal-Mart sells some food items in their stores right now
12 that are taxable, sodas, beers, those type of things.
13 They'll sell those in the new store. But,
14 predominantly, the stuff that they want to bring in
15 that's different are nontaxable items. I would just
16 love to know where this is coming from.
17 And I'll leave you with this one, too.
18 Mr. Browman reaffirmed my point when he said Lodi is a
19 slow -growth community. Lodi is a slow -growth community.
20 Being as we are a slow -growth community, where are these
21 additional tax dollars coming from if they're not coming
22 from the existing business? where are these employees
23 coming from unless they're coming from existing
Page 33
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
24 businesses?
25 I got a lot of friends that are contractors.
0081
1 They're not building new homes. They're definitely not
2 building new homes in Lodi. what they're doing is
3 redoing older homes. So if somebody could please
4 explain to me where we're going to pull from and where
5 these folks are coming from and where these extra
6 dollars are coming from because, frankly, right now, I
7 don't have a whole lot of extra dollars. If you could
8 explain that to me, I would love to hear it. Thank you.
9 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: Mark, just a
10 question --
11 MR. ANAFORIAN: Absolutely.
12 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: -- for you. who do you
13 work for?
14 MR. ANAFORIAN: Right now, I'm actually in
15 sales. I don't work for any groceries or anybody right
16 now.
17 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: And on the subject of
18 the higher rate of police calls or crime --
19 MR. ANAFORIAN: Yeah.
20 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: -- where did those
21 numbers come from?
22 MR. ANAFORIAN: Those numbers came from the
23 City of Lodi. I pulled off their web site the same way
24 the unemployment numbers came from the La Quinta city
25 web site.
0082
1 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: Okay.
2 MR. ANAFORIAN: Actually, give me a second
3 here. That came from Police Captain David Mann.
4 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: Could you just state
5 again the statistic that you cited regarding the number
6 of calls there?
7 MR. ANAFORIAN: Sure. David Mann had said
8 four times as many. Lodi News Sentinel reported that
9 Wal-Mart had 507 calls for service, Target had 123, and
10 K -Mart had 198 in that same time period.
11 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: Those are calls for
12 service, is that right, over a one-year period?
13 MR. ANAFORIAN: Those are calls for service
14 where a police officer had to respond to the scene, yes.
15 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: All right. Thank you
16 very much.
17 MR. ANAFORIAN: Absolutely.
18 CHAIRMAN KISER: okay. Brad Clark?
19 MR. CLARK: Good evening, Commission Members.
20 My name is Brad Clark. I live on westbridge Drive here
21 in Lodi.
22 I think it's important to look at the overall
23 job loss to the community if we allow another grocery
24 store to go on this corner. And I urge you to think
25 about Safeway, Raley's, Save -Mart, Food -4 -Less, Apple
0083
1 Market, and Rancho San Miguel that was brought up
2 tonight as well.
3 It is without a doubt that one of these stores
4 will close. And the ones that don't close, I think, are
5 going to suffer significant impacts to their sales, with
6 a result of loss of jobs, reduced hours, less income to
7 the community, and unhigh paying jobs.
8 That's a huge impact on our community. As a
Page 34
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
9 tax payer in this community, how does our community
10 absorb that loss of tax base? If they're not generating
11 the income, where are they spending their money? They
12 don't have it to spend. The dollars are tight now. If
13 I had to work less hours in my job, I would have to cut
14 back my household spending. My family will not go to
15 the movies, we won't go out to dinner, we won't do these
16 other things.
17 So asJobs are lost, you know, what is the net
18 gain? And it's been said different ways here tonight,
19 so I don't want to duplicate what people are saying.
20 But it seriously needs to be considered that, you know,
21 yeah, there's new jobs, but they're lower paying jobs
22 than the current tax base jobs at the grocery stores,
23 not to mention, without benefits.
24 Mr. Browman stated that Riverbank, a community
25 of 20,000 people, wasn't impacted by this new retail.
0084
1 when you have a small town like that that has no retail,
2 that's going to create growth. Lodi doesn't compare,
3 because we're not a small town anymore. I mean, we have
4 significant retail here in town. what happens when you
5 do look at retail, we already have a Wal-Mart, and you
6 move it across the street and you add another grocery
7 store on the corner, something has got to close.
8 Now if we were talking about a Costco coming
9 to town, or a whole bunch of retailers such as you would
10 see at the end of Eight -Mile Road and that type of a
11 center, I don't think we would all be here, because
12 those would be incremental tax dollars, because people
13 aren't leaving our city to go to purchase items in
14 another place. we're not gaining anything new. I think
15 that if you bring new retail to Lodi, we wouldn't be
16 here at all.
17 I think that you really need to consider the
18 retaining of the Wal-Mart. If he takes the Wal-Mart out
19 of the Sunwest Plaza now, you can compare that to what
20 happened in Stockton. If you look at the Hammer Lane
21 Wal-Mart that's there, as soon as it closed, within a
22 year, they had retenanted it to -- I believe it was a
23 furniture company that was in there about six months,
24 and then closed.
25 But if you ever had any time to travel through
0085
1 Stockton -- I work in Stockton and do a lot of work
2 there -- there was never any traffic in that center.
3 And there's all of a sudden a couple of strip malls.
4 All those offices and shops in the strip malls have all
5 closed. And they keep trying to reopen it in different
6 areas, but it keeps failing. They have since --
7 CHAIRMAN KISER: You got one minute.
8 MR. CLARK: They have since split that
9 building into two different retailers. And one, I
10 believe, is a Burlington Coat Factory, and another is
11 some kind of a retailer I never heard of before. You
12 drive by there and take a look. There's anywhere
13 between 10 and 15 cars in a parking lot that holds 1,500
14 cars. Okay? That doesn't support a center.
15 You go a mile away to Food Max on the corner
16 of Hammer Lane and west Lane, that's closed as a direct
17 result of the food -- the Supercenter opening up on
18 Hammer Lane. That center has over 30 stores in it. And
19 if you drive by there now -- I counted the other day --
Page 35
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
20 there's 21 closed shops. There's over 1,000 parking
21 stalls in that Food Max shopping center that are
22 completely empty.
23 A. So is there a financial impact on the City if
24 the Wal-Mart closes down? Yes. what is the net gain
25 that we get? You don't get taxes on groceries. Yeah,
0086
1 you get an auto center, but does that mean that one of
2 the auto centers -- one of the auto places downtown
3 closes, these local businesses that we've supported for
4 years? our friends and neighbors are going to lose
5 their businesses because of the other thing.
6 It all needs to be considered. And are we
7 just trading tax dollars? And that's my opinion. I
8 don't think that there's any net gain there by letting
9 them come across the street. If there was another
10 retailer there, I wouldn't be standing here before you
11 tonight. I don't think there's any value to a
12 Supercenter coming across the street in that center.
13 CHAIRMAN KISER: Thank you.
14 MR. CLARK: Thank you.
15 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: I have a quick
16 question. Mr. Clark, what kind of business are you in?
17 MR. CLARK: I'm in the grocery business, sir.
18 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: which company?
19 MR. CLARK: I'm with Food -4 -Less, Rancho San
20 Miguel.
21 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: So I think I already
22 know the answer. so you feel like your business, the
23 business that you're associated with, is -- would be
24 directly impacted by this.
25 MR. CLARK: Absolutely.
0087
1 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: Thank you.
2 COMMISSIONER HENNECKE: I have a quick
3 question also. So your view is that you expect us, as
4 planning commissioners, to regulate commerce? In other
5 words, no matter who it was, if there was another
6 grocery store that wanted to come into Lodi, you would
7 ave the same view?
8 MR. CLARK: well, when you look at where they
9 are, a third grocery store on one corner, two being
10 price -impact, is that good planning? I would say no.
11 If you're going to draw all the businesses -- all the
12 business to one side of town, is that good planning? I
13 would say no.
14 COMMISSIONER HENNECKE: who is the last
15 grocery store to move into that corner? Do you know?
16 MR. CLARK: Safeway.
17 COMMISSIONER HENNECKE: Safeway was?
18 MR. CLARK: Yeah.
19 COMMISSIONER HENNECKE: Did you protest when
20 they moved?
21 MR. CLARK: No.
22 COMMISSIONER HENNECKE: why not?
23 MR. CLARK: Safeway, for one, pays prevailing
24 wages. They take good care of their employees. They
25 have full benefits to all their employees. So it's -- I
0088
1 don't want to say a fair fight, but at Food -4 -Less, we
2 pay prevailing wage, all of our employees are fully
3 benefited, whether you work 20 hours or 40 hours a week,
4 there's no -cost benefits. So when you put those things
Page 36
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
5 on your business, you have a higher cost of doing
6 business. we are a price-impact format. So are they.
7 Their MO, they move into towns, they drop
8 their retails, they run businesses out -- they run
9 companies out of business, and then they raise up the
10 retails. How is that good for a community? That's what
11 I ask.
12 COMMISSIONER HENNECKE: Okay. But I guess
13 what you're asking us, you want us to regulate commerce
14 and you also want us to enforce work policies and
15 benefits and all that, too?
16 MR. CLARK: That's not what I'm asking, sir.
17 COMMISSIONER HENNECKE: we're a planning
18 commission, sir.
19 MR. CLARK: My original statement was that
20 there is no net gain with the job losses. And I think
21 the tax base and everything they're talking about is a
22 farce. I think there's going to be a significant job
23 loss due to the fact that they're going to open up. And
24 they're talking there's going to be a great tax gain.
25 They're selling groceries. There's no tax gain in
0089
1 groceries.
2 And the jobs that are going to be lost are
3 high paying jobs. All that money that's going to be
4 lost because they've lost their jobs and the hours that
5 they work, that money is not going to be spent back in
6 the community. That's my point, sir.
7 COMMISSIONER HENNECKE: wouldn't you agree
8 though that there's probably external forces that are
9 going to create job loss, and it's tied to the economy,
10 and probably doesn't have anything to do with this
11 project necessarily?
12 MR. CLARK: Not to the extent that this
13 project would create.
14 COMMISSIONER HENNECKE: And I know in other
15 industries, not talking grocery, but right now, with the
16 economy the way that it is, there's going to be a lot of
17 businesses that fail.
18 But the free market system is survival of the
19 fittest. so that competition is what has made America
20 the way it is. It makes people sharpen their pencils
21 and get better at their business. You don't --
22 MR. CLARK: Is that a question?
23 COMMISSIONER HENNECKE: You want to us to make
24 policy to regulate your competition as planning
25 commissioners?
0090
1 MR. CLARK: No, I don't.
2 COMMISSIONER HENNECKE: All right. Thank you.
3 CHAIRMAN KISER: Stan Finberg?
4 MR. FINBERG: My name is Stan Finberg, and I'm
5 an owner, one of the owners, and manager of a shopping
6 center in Lodi here called Cherokee Plaza on South
7 Cherokee Lane.
8 I'm not here to give you a bunch of facts and
9 figures like everybody else. I'm here to give you just
10 the true experience I'm having here in Lodi, the most
11 wonderful little town, except that it seems like lately
12 we are concentrating on only one area of Lodi, and
13 that's on the west side, or should I say, the
14 intersection of Kettleman Lane and Lower Sacramento
15 Road.
Page 37
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
16 I have been here seven years now, and I have
17 seen no interest in -- from the people that have had
18 businesses here for 20, 30 years, that built their whole
19 life owning a small, little business, which is the basis
20 of America, not working for huge corporations or big
21 companies such as Wal-Mart. I m saying that I'm very
22 close to some of these people, and I really feel for
23 them. And I said this three weeks ago when I was here
24 and in front of the Council. At that time, I had been
25 listening to the cries of many of my tenants over there
0091
1 at Cherokee Plaza, how they struggle to just make ends
2 meet in a business. The area on the east side has been
3 neglected. I don't hear any talk at all here today
4 about what we're going to do about the east side. It's
5 what we're going to do about the little area over there
6 way on the west side.
7 Now, I'm here to tell you that since a month
8 ago when I was here, I have lost one of my best tenants.
9 They moved out and went bankrupt. I have four other
10 tenants that are ready to go out. I work with these
11 tenants. They -- if they can't make it, I don't want
12 them to have a vacancy. we have lowered their rents
13 just to keep them in there to help them out. I've gone
14 to the City and asked, what can you do to even lower
15 their electrical bills, which are so high in this city.
16 I can't believe it. I think it's because the City adds
17 onto them, a little profit on what they buy here, just
18 like the garbage companies, see? I have to pay a higher
19 price here than I do in any other cities. I'msaying
20 that the reason this is all happening is because of all
21 this development in other areas of the city here, you're
22 not thinking about this is one big Lodi. You're
23 thinking about one area way out there and another area
24 way over here. what's happening to the people downtown?
25 That's a beautiful downtown you have there, and it's
0092
1 very quiet. And why isn't it a concentration of helping
2 those businesses? And I'm saying, I know that
3 eventually, if this keeps up, we 11 have much more
4 blight on the east side. In our shopping center, which
5 we have about 24 --
6 CHAIRMAN KISER: One minute.
7 MR. FINBERG: -- when the last tenants go out,
8 what are you going to do then? what are we going to do?
9 We can't make payments, we can't keep it up. Are you
10 going to come over there in your city and pay and keep
11 it up? Think of that.
12 I'm just saying that I don't think that Lodi
13 can afford now to put in -- maybe eight years ago when
14 things were great to put in a Wal-Mart, but not now.
15 Maybe not even three years from now. we do not know
16 what the economy is going to be. Nobody has got a
17 crystal ball, so some say it's going to turn around the
18 end of this year or two years. Let me tell you, I don't
19 know if you're going to be surprised and see it actually
20 turn around. You're going to see lots more people
21 losing their homes, lots of small businesses that are
22 failing. And IJUst -- I'm just here emotionally,
23 because I'm really trying to help these tenants stay in
24 their stores. Because once they're vacant, it's very,
25 very difficult to find a tenant. And there's other
0093
Page 38
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
1 vacancies around town here now. And, I mean, I have
2 been talking to people around the country to find
3 tenants to fill some of our vacancies, and it's getting
4 impossible.
5 So we have a nice little area over there, but
6 it needs help. And I don't see anyone saying, hey,
7 let's dress up the street of Cherokee Plaza. Let's make
8 it beautified, let's do things like that. You're
9 abandoning all these small businesses. And you're a
10 planner. You are all planners. And you got to think of
11 the whole city, not just one little area, instead of
12 bringing a big blight to the area.
13 I don't know what else I can tell you. But as
14 you can see, I'm not for you people approving a Wal-Mart
15 and that permit. Thank you.
16 CHAIRMAN KISER: Thank you. I got a question
17 for you, Mr. Finberg.
18 MR. FINBERG: I'm sorry?
19 CHAIRMAN KISER: A question for you, sir.
20 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: Mr. Finberg, you know,
21 I guess I can't really disagree with you in one regard,
22 and that is that, certainly, the east side could use
23 some help. I'm sure that you are aware that Measure W
24 was, by some measure, an attempt to help improve the
25 east side and other parts of the community.
0094
1 I just -- I have a quick question for you. Do
2 you feel -- there's a proposed Costco that might
3 eventually occupy a space near Reynolds Ranch. How
4 would you expect that might impact your businesses?
5 would that -- would that help bring new business or
6 traffic to your part of the city?
7 MR. FINBERG: What I see now is if a person
8 could go one place and buy all the little things they
9 need, including grocery, and liquor, and beer, and do it
10 all in one place, why would they shop anywhere else
11 around Lodi? They '11 just go there every day and spend
12 their time, because they can save on gas and don't have
13 to go to many places. It'sJust like -- it's one place.
14 I can see it. I've seen it happen over in some of the
15 other areas of California. It's just that when you have
16 everything in one place versus -- they're just going to
17 go there and buy everything there and go back home.
18 And so the other stores in the area, the
19 people that have really been giving customer service for
20 years to their customers, you can't get that service
21 from Wal-Mart. Absolutely not.
22 I was reading in the paper this morning where
23 the Consumers Digest did a study of stores in 2006 and
24 just this year, and Wal-Mart was on the bottom of the
25 list of quality, service, cleanliness. And it was in
0095
1 this morning's paper, the Sacramento Bee. And the top
2 one was Raley's, of course. They were the top up there
3 for being clean and friendly with their people.
4 So you have to get close to people. And you
5 just don't get close at a big store like that. You have
6 to have these small businesses to succeed.
7 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: Thank you for your
8 comments.
9 CHAIRMAN KISER: Cheryl Nitschke.
10 MS. NITSCHKE: Good evening. My name is
11 Cheryl Nitschke. I live at 532 Louie Avenue in Lodi.
Page 39
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
12 My husband was born and raised here in Lodi, and I have
13 been here almost that many years.
14 Anyway, what I have to say tonight is that a
15 little over seven years ago, Wal-Mart to be built in
16 Lodi was put on a ballot. It was passed. Now we're
17 still fiddle faddling around seven years. I mean, my
18 God, is that supposed to be the Taj Mahal? It took a
19 long time for that one to be built, too.
20 But what I'm really upset about is the delays,
21 over and over and over. There's been so many required
22 things that Wal-Mart has been asked to do. They have
23 complied as far as I can tell. They have even been
24 required to pay money to downtown Lodi because, oh, my,
25 Wal-Mart is going to drive them out of business. I
0096
1 don't know what for. There's nothing down there that
2 Wal-Mart sells. And I don't know -- I can't remember of
3 another project that has come into this town that has
4 taken this long to be approved, back and forth and back
5 and forth.
6 Yeah. Food-4-Less, as an example. If I
7 remember correctly, when Safeway came in, Food-4-Less
8 was going out of business. They're still there, and
9 they re still complaining about the same thing.
10 Wal-Mart is not and will not be a grocery store. They
11 have multiple things. They have more clothing, more
12 hardware stuff, more other things than they do
13 groceries.
14 I went down to Wal-Mart in Stockton, and I've
15 also been to Food-4-Less. In comparison shopping,
16 Wal-Mart really, when you average out what you could
17 buy, same items, Wal-Mart is not that much cheaper, if
18 they're any cheaper at all. In fact, canned goods,
19 especially at Food-4-Less, are less than what they are
20 at Wal-Mart.
21 Now, where are these other businesses going to
22 come from? My opinion is is that the reputation of
23 Lodi. we're livable, lovable Lodi. Gee, that's going
24 to bring everybody and their brother in. But, no, it's
25 not. But we, as the City of Lodi -- and it's a clean
0097
1 town. Every -- you know, it's very nice town.
2 In fact, I had new neighbors that came in.
3 They said, oh, gee, I love this street, it's just like
4 Mayberry, USA. And it is. We take pride in our town.
5 And that's how we're going to get other businesses,
6 along with Wal-Mart, as the base on that.
7 CHAIRMAN KISER: You have one minute.
8 MS. NITSCHKE: okay. Also why -- okay. I
9 guess it's not being -- really going to be approved yet
10 as far as a Costco coming in. Hey, Costco is nice. I
11 like Costco. I shop there. Food-4-Less is going to
12 jump on that one, too. They say no, but that's going to
13 take business away, because the majority of Costco is
14 food.
15 You know, come on. Let's make a decision on
16 this. Let's get it over with. Let's get it done. Let
17 these guys start building, or let them say goodbye,
18 Lodi, see you. Thank you.
19 CHAIRMAN KISER: Thank you. Sean Reilly.
20 MR. REILLY: Sean Reilly, 101 West Locust
21 Street. I have been here for almost two years, and I
22 used to live in Stockton. And, you know, I go there
Page 40
23
24
25
0098
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0099
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
right now, you know, to Super Wal-Mart, because they
have more than what we do here. I think it's better
to -- for us to have a Super Wal-Mart here so we don't
have to go all the way to Stockton or Eight -Mile Road.
I do now know that was in the process, but that's a
different story.
But the revenue -- I like to take my revenue
here in Lodi more than to Stockton. Okay? Stockton is
a good town. It's getting big. I like Lodi. It's
quiet. You know what, coming in the past, in the past
year, have been bad, and I've seen businesses stay in
business, you know. You know, Food -4 -Less should be
worried about if a Costco was going to go in there,
because that's where -- you know, where all the food is.
But Wal-Mart has more, like, clothing and stuff like
that.
So I support Super Wal-Mart here, because it
will have jobs, revenue will be good, and no one -- you
know, I can see it right now that no other businesses
will go down and will not go out of business. That's
what I have to say.
CHAIRMAN KISER: Thank you. Last one, Don
Mooney.
MR. MOONEY: I had filled out a card, but I
already spoke.
CHAIRMAN KISER: okay. All right. Any other
people that would like to come up and make a comment?
Not seeing any, I'll close it to the public. we'll go
back to the Commission.
COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: Can I have just a
moment here to -- for the record, I need to state that I
had met with certain parties relevant to tonight's
discussion, and they are Chris Podesto with Food -4 -Less,
and I met with both Steve Herum and Brad Jolley of Herum
& Crabtree, and I also met with the applicant, Darryl
Browman of Browman Company.
CHAIRMAN KISER: I also would like to disclose
that I talked to Darryl Browman and I talked with Steve
Herum. And I'll just state that for the record.
VICE CHAIRMAN CUMMINS: I also spoke with
Mr. Browman today as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNECKE: I'll just disclose
that I talked to Mr. Browman and Mr. Podesto.
COMMISSIONER OLSON: And I spoke with
Mr. Herum.
questions
questions.
CHAIRMAN KISER: All right.
COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: I had a couple of
for staff.
CHAIRMAN KISER: Go ahead. Ask your
COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: If this is the time,
have two questions for staff, and I will ask them
separately.
At some point, Mr. Mooney brought up the
no -project option. And I just wondered, at this stage,
is a no -project option within the authority of the
Planning Commission?
MR. BARTLAM: Under the scenario. Sorry about
that. under the scenario of the environmental document,
it's not. That scenario, if you will, was acted on by
Page 41
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
8 the City Council. That having been said, the Commission
9 actually does have discretion of a no-project
10 alternative, if you want to call it that, by not
11 approving the resolution. And so your ability --
12 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: But that's the only
13 form that it would take from the standpoint of tonight's
14 discussion?
15 MR. BARTLAM: That's right. It's not an
16 environmental decision. It's a decision to not make an
17 affirmative to any one of the numbers of findings before
18 you.
19 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: Then there was another
20 discussion we heard from Mr. Jolley that -- and my
21 question is, do we have the authority at this stage to
22 delay this application, this request, pending a request
23 for an independent economic analysis, new information?
24 MR. BARTLAM: I would say you have the
25 authority to request additional information as it
0101
1 pertains to the projects before you: The two use
2 permits, the tentative map, the site plan and
3 architectural review, and any of the findings, including
4 the statements of overriding consideration.
5 That having been said, I would actually
6 challenge the Commission to decide whether any
7 additional information that might come forward would
8 have bearing on your decision. so if you feel, in the
9 range of opportunities for additional economic
10 information, as an example, would that information have
11 an impact on your decision making. And if it would, ask
12 for it. whether that will be forthcoming, I can't tell
13 you. But if you just simply are looking for additional
14 information in order to have yet more information, then
15 why bother frankly.
16 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: Let's borrow
17 Mr. Jolley's argument for a moment. And I believe that
18 we heard a range of estimates. From my memory, it's
19 from $130,000 of additional sales tax revenues all the
20 way to a high of up to $1.3 million. I would say that,
21 speaking for myself, as -- I find that to be a pretty
22 wide range, and it would help me make a useful decision
23 if I knew in fact that it was $1.3 million, then I might
24 weigh that more heavily as I consider the statement of
25 overriding consideration.
0102
1 The same would be true with the employee
2 numbers. You heard the same ranges that I did, 600 to
3 1,000. If it's 600, then you weigh that differently
4 when you're trying to make -- consider a statement of
5 overriding consideration. or if it's 1,000, then it --
6 you know, it has the obvious weight and impact on your
7 decision making.
8 And so, to me, I might be able to make the
9 argument that if we don't know -- at this point, I
10 personally have heard a lot of estimates. And I'm not
11 sure that I have an independent and accurate analysis,
12 particularly of those two measures, economic measures.
13 And so would you suggest -- would you say then that if
14 we could get a clearer picture of that, it might be a
15 reasonable request on the part of the Commission?
16 MR. BARTLAM: Yeah. Again, I can't speak for
17 each individual commissioner in terms of what is going
18 through your own minds about what's important and what's
Page 42
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
19 not important. The fiscal impacts, plus or minus, may
20 or may not make a difference whatsoever in your decision
21 making. That's all I'm suggesting. If it does, then
22 asking for additional information would be valuable. If
23 it doesn't, then I certainly wouldn't suggest wego out
24 and study yet another realm of possibility when the end
25 result won't make a difference. That's all I'm saying.
0103
1 MR. HOBBS: There's another consideration, if
2 I could, Planning Commission. under State law, since
3 the EIR has now been certified, you have a certain
4 amount of time to make a decision on the project. And
5 that time is 50 days, five, zero days, from the date of
6 certification of the EIR to approve or disapprove the
7 map. And that 50 days runs on April 30th of this year.
8 So we don't have a lot of time on that. So
9 you're coming up against some deadlines where you need
10 to make a decision one way or the other. And which
11 decision you make is certainly up to you.
12 The other consideration that you should think
13 about if you're going to ask for additional analyses and
14 studies is what might be gained, sort of building on
15 what Mr. Bartlam is saying. we have some estimates and
16 some ranges here that are given. If we have another
17 analysis done, it's reasonable to assume that you're
18 going to get a third or a fourth set of data sets, of
19 studies, of analyses, and it will probably come within
20 those ranges.
21 And as planning commissioners, you have the
22 authority tonight in deciding on the project, and the
23 discretion to accept whatever sets of evidence has been
24 presented to you so far, and reject those that you don't
25 find credible and persuasive. So you have that
0104
1 authority.
2 And the fiscal analysis is not necessarily a
3 CEQA related issue anyways. The tax benefits that may
4 be gained from it is certainly a consideration that you
5 can take into account, but that doesn't necessarily have
6 a physical, environmental impact.
7 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: If -- kind of borrow
8 for a minute that we chose that path. How -- what would
9 be -- logistically, I have knowledge that the time frame
10 may prohibit this being done in time to achieve that
11 objective, but if we -- if we were to do that, what
12 would be the logistics on how we would obtain
13 independent information, from what body would it come
14 from, and how would that be paid for?
15 MR. BARTLAM: It's a good question. So let's
16 play that scenario out. First, let's assume that the
17 majority of the commission so chooses to direct the
18 additional information. Your action then would be to
19 continue the actions tonight.
20 I frankly would fully expect to see an appeal
21 of that decision to the City Council, which would be
22 perfectly appropriate for the proponents to do. So if
23 you take the scenario, branching off on the appeals
24 basis, we would then schedule that appeal to the City
25 Council, the City Council would weigh in on whether that
0105
1 additional information is valuable or not, and then you
2 would branch off on a yes or a no to -- whether, indeed,
3 they would direct staff to go do additional study.
Page 43
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
4 If they did, we would follow, frankly, the
5 same process that we do to hire any other consultant.
6 we would put together a request for proposal, we would
7 send out that request to a variety of economic
8 consultants that exist within Northern California, and
9 then weigh what we felt was the most responsive
10 proposal. That proposal would then go to the City
11 Council for approval, and we would then hire the
12 consultant.
13 The consultant would then take however much
14 time they felt necessary to undertake the work. That
15 work would be ultimately paid for by the applicant, much
16 like the Environmental Impact Report. And I appreciate
17 Mr. Jolley's concern about the legitimacy of Bay Area
18 Economics, but Wal-Mart didn't hire them. The City of
19 Lodi hired them. And so if the best proposal was yet
20 another economic firm that somehow did business with
21 Wal-Mart down the road, we would be back, frankly, right
22 before you.
23 So, at any rate, there's obviously some
24 concern about impartiality. And it's not a piece of
25 work that City staff is going to do for the Commission.
0106
1 It's a piece of work that's going to come from some
2 outside body.
3 So let's assume that we've now hired and we've
4 received a report, it's paid for through our contracting
5 system by the applicant, Mr. Browman, and then we
6 schedule the Planning Commission back to a meeting much
7 like tonight --
8 COMMISSIONER HENNECKE: So, in essence, the
9 BAE report was commissioned by the City and is an
10 impartial third party report?
11 MR. BARTLAM: Yeah. Bay Area Economics was
12 retained by the City. It was not a decision to hire Bay
13 Area Economics by Wal-Mart, much like the environmental
14 consultant, PMC. PMC was hired by the City. That
15 process took place back in, I want to say, 2001 or 2002
16 when we initially got the application for the project.
17 The original economic consultant was retained by the
18 City.
19 And so, again, what's impartial, who is
20 impartial, what information you get, to a certain
21 degree, anybody will tell you anything as long as you're
22 paying them. And I would argue Dr. King, the consultant
23 of choice for Mr. Jolley, has the same cloud of
24 credibility that anybody that Mr. Jolley would bring
25 forth as well.
0107
1 CHAIRMAN KISER: Is there -- just like -- the
2 question that I had though was that, CB Richard Ellis,
3 that was hired by Wal-Mart.
4 MR. BARTLAM: They were hired by Wal-Mart.
5 CHAIRMAN KISER: Those are conflicting numbers
6 with what the other ones have. That's why I have the
7 question, because --
8 MR. BARTLAM: I can tell you that every
9 economic report that's been submitted to the City,
10 whether it be a firm hired by the City, a firm
11 representing Mr. Jolley, or a firm representing Wal-Mart
12 Stores, every one of those reports suggests a different
13 number. And I think as Mr. Hobbs has suggested to you,
14 we can certainly go out and do yet another study. And I
Page 44
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
15 would -- I would lay odds that that study is going to
16 come up with yet a different set of numbers.
17 CHAIRMAN KISER: Is there a possibility of
18 getting someone that hasn't done a report for either one
19 of -- the proponent or opponent?
20 MR. BARTLAM: Perhaps.
21 CHAIRMAN KISER: And just the City pick that
22 person and --
23 MR. BARTLAM: Perhaps.
24 CHAIRMAN KISER: -- take that report?
25 MR. BARTLAM: But, again, I won't know that
0108
1 until I've gone through the process to find out who is
2 out there that might be standing that hasn't been,
3 quote, unquote, clouded by the applicant or the
4 Opposition.
5 COMMISSIONER HENNECKE: It doesn't matter who
6 you hire. It's all going to be conjecture on forecasts
7 and how you slice and dice statistics. So you can get
8 reports until the cows come home and get a different
9 answer every time.
10 VICE CHAIRMAN CUMMINS: I would agree with
11 Commissioner Hennecke. we have more than enough data
12 before us. we have statistics coming out of our ears.
13 we've all taken college stats. we know how these things
14 go. And I think we have more than enough economic data
15 information for us to make a decision tonight.
16 CHAIRMAN KISER: Well, I don't feel that I
17 could make a decision on those impacts. Regarding --
18 VICE CHAIRMAN CUMMINS: How many more studies
19 do we need? Do we need one more? But what if you don't
20 like those numbers?
21 CHAIRMAN KISER: I want to know that we've
22 done the right thing. And in my mind, I'm not
23 comfortable with it right now.
24 VICE CHAIRMAN CUMMINS: okay.
25 CHAIRMAN KISER: I feel that the -- again, I
0109
1 want to know if they're hiring 600 people, because -- I
2 mean, there's got to be something that's going to be a
3 lot closer. when you got -- I don't care -- I know you
4 can get there, but there's something that's going to
5 be --
6 MR. BARTLAM: Let's talk about that a bit
7 more. I think you can come pretty close -- in fact, I
8 mean, I think we've got the data telling you pretty
9 close what the potential sales and the number of
10 employees from the project will be.
11 That's really not the point of contention.
12 The point of contention is how much loss of jobs or
13 sales from other projects are you going to attribute to
14 the project. And that is really where you're going
15 to -- you're going to take what is at best a crystal
16 ball, particularly in this economic climate, and then
17 cover it with a blanket and decide how many -- what's
18 the percentage of loss of sales, if any, from
19 Food-4-Less, and what does that mean in terms of the
20 number of jobs.
21 All I'm Suggesting is you're not asking for
22 what are the gross dollars and gross employee gains as a
23 result of the project. That's simple. It's in your
24 record. Give me five minutes, and I'll tell you what
25 those numbers are. That's not where the argument is.
Page 45
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
0110
1 The argument is, what is the net impact? In other
2 words, how many sales, if any, are going to be lost from
3 other stores, and how many people as a result are going
4 to lose their jobs as a result.
5 And I got to tell you, I think you're going to
6 get another set of numbers, and somebody will call those
7 numbers into question. And, again, I challenge you to
8 be definitive about whether that is going to result --
9 that information, whatever it is, is going to result in
10 a decision different than what you're sitting at --
11 looking at with the volume of text that you've already
12 seen. And if it is, then make a motion, and we'll see
13 where the rest of the Commission sits.
14 COMMISSIONER HENNECKE: I don't think that
15 would be easy anyway with the economic climate, because
16 we're not looking at a static target. It's forever
17 moving and volatile. So I don't see how anybody is
18 going to analyze and come up with something concrete.
19 MR. BARTLAM: Again, you have full discretion
20 over whether you agree or disagree with the
21 environmental findings before you. I think Mr. Mooney
22 or Mr. Jolley, whichever one said it, took the comments
23 in the staff report out of context.
24 Your slimming discretion relates specifically
25 to the findings relative to the use permit, tentative
0111
1 map, and site plan and architectural review. That is
2 where you have little discretion, and that is what the
3 staff report says. I'm telling you here tonight, the
4 Commission can accept or reject any of those
5 environmental findings. You can -- you can ask for
6 additional information, if you think that's necessary.
7 You can strike the entire piece of statement of
8 overriding consideration having to do with jobs and
9 revenue, and still have a valid statement of overriding
10 consideration. Take it out of the equation completely,
11 if you want. You don't have to accept any of that.
12 VICE CHAIRMAN CUMMINS: I have one more
13 question for the staff. when we get ready to actually
14 vote on something, do we have to take each of these four
15 or five items individually, or can we lump the use
16 permit, sale of alcoholic beverages, tentative map, et
17 cetera, together? How do we do this?
18 MR. BARTLAM: You can take it as one motion,
19 or you can split it up and take each of those actions
20 separately. we have provided a resolution that gives
21 you one motion to approve or deny the whole thing.
22 VICE CHAIRMAN CUMMINS: The whole thing.
23 CHAIRMAN KISER: Any other questions?
24 MR. BROWMAN: Mr. Chairman, could I say one
25 thing? would that be possible?
0112
1 CHAIRMAN KISER: It's closed to the public
2 right now.
3 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: I think you have a --
4 CHAIRMAN KISER: Do I have to open it back up?
5 MR. BARTLAM: That's completely up to you,
6 Mr. Chairman.
7 CHAIRMAN KISER: Go ahead. I'll open it back
8 up.
9 MR. BROWMAN: Thank you. I just wanted to ask
10 one thing at this point.
Page 46
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
11 MS. CHADWICK: At the mic, please.
12 MR. BARTLAM: Excuse me. Can we at least have
13 him come to the mic so we can have it on record?
14 MR. BROWMAN: I'm sorry. Thank you very much,
15 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Council. I appreciate
16 the opportunity. All I would ask tonight is -- I
17 respect your discretion whether you approve or deny the
18 project. I would just ask for a decision. This has
19 been going on for eight years. And with all due
20 respect, I would -- if you don't believe the information
21 is there to approve the project, or for some reason you
22 don't, I would just ask that you make that decision.
23 There's been so much information that's been provided.
24 At some point, I would hope that fairness and just
25 getting a decision, whatever it may be, I would hope
0113
1 that you would support theproject. But if, for
2 whatever reason, that wasn't something, I would just ask
3 for a decision on all of the items that are before you.
4 If you don't feel there's adequate information to
5 support the project, I would ask you to deny the project
6 just so that we can get some definition and resolution.
7 And -- and, respectfully, that's all I would ask. Thank
8 you very much.
9 MR. HOBBS: Chair and Members of the
10 Commission, if I could just add to that a little bit.
11 That's certainly an option, what the applicant is
12 suggesting. And if you don't feel you have enough
13 information tonight, you can certainly deny the project,
14 and with your comments on the record, or with an express
15 directive or declaration that the City Council can take
16 into consideration that you feel that there should have
17 been or needed to be more studies in order for you to
18 make a yes vote.
19 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: I have a quick
20 question. Mr. Browman, I think it was Mr. Hobbs that
21 mentioned that, in all likelihood, if the Planning
22 Commission was to take the decision tonight to request,
23 what we call, quote, unquote, an independent economic
24 analysis so that we can try to sort out the difference
25 between the ranges we discussed earlier, if the Planning
0114
1 Commission did that -- I'm not saying that they are --
2 but if in that case, they mentioned that it would likely
3 be, you know, contested. And is that your
4 understanding, that in all likelihood, that the
5 applicant would contest that decision and ask for appeal
6 there as well?
7 MR. BROWMAN: Absolutely. I think, from our
8 standpoint, with all due respect, I respect your
9 judgment, whatever that judgment would be. I would just
10 ask, as long as this has been going on, you know, just
11 treating us fairly would be just to give me a decision,
12 whether we agree or not.
13 I mean, I have respect for everyone sitting at
14 that table. But, please, at this point, give me a
15 decision and let me move on, whether it's yes or no. To
16 do another study, we'll be back in the same place. what
17 we've been doing is, you know, we provide data, we
18 provide practical answers, and then, you know,
19 Mr. Jolley is a great attorney, so he provides a bunch
20 of arguments, and then, you know, it creates some
21 uncertainty. I think the people that are sitting at
Page 47
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
22 that table are more than capable of making a decision
23 based on the information. And I would respectfully just
24 ask you to do that. If it's in support of the project,
25 that's wonderful. And if for some reason you don't feel
0115
1 like there's adequate information for you to support the
2 project, if you would just make the decision and deny
3 the project, at least then I would know where I stand
4 after eight years.
5 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: All right. And I
6 just -- personally, I regret that we have this threshold
7 of 50 days or -- I'm sorry. what was it, Mr. Hobbs?
8 MR. HOBBS: It was 50 days from certification
9 of the EIR.
10 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: And that hardly
11 provides enough time. I swallow hard on this subject,
12 because more information is always good, but to be
13 perfectly fair, in your words, and respectful of your
14 situation, I struggle that you might be exposed to
15 another time lapse that would cause you further delays,
16 costs. So I got to tell you, I'm really respectful and
17 sympathetic to that argument. And so -- I don't speak
18 for the Commission, but that weighs my decision making.
19 MR. BROwMAN: Thank you. Thank you very much.
20 CHAIRMAN KISER: Thank you.
21 MR. JOLLEY: Chair Kiser, if you may -- if I
22 may have a moment to respond to those comments. Thank
23 you.
24 with respect to the timing, the 50 -day issue,
25 I would submit that that is not an issue for the
0116
1 Commission at this point. That comes from the
2 Subdivision Map Act. And it says, when an agency
3 certifies an EIR, then the time frame for approval is 50
4 days.
5 The problem is, the term, "certifies an EIR,"
6 includes several components, one of which is the
7 adoption of the mitigation measures, mitigation
8 monitoring and reporting program that you are to do
9 tonight.
10 And that comes from a case called Vedanta
11 Society versus California Quartet. And in that case, a
12 planning commission approved an environmental impact
13 before certifying the EIR and approved the project. And
14 that was appealed to the city council. The city council
15 had one member recuse himself and deadlocked 2-2. The
16 council said that this was an appeal of a planning
17 commission approval, that the approval stood, and
18 opponents challenged that. And the appellate court
19 said, no, that is not the case, because you must
20 affirmatively certify the Environmental Impact Report
21 and make the findings before the project can be
22 approved.
23 And so I would submit to you that the 50 -day
24 time frame for EIR certification doesn't run until those
25 findings are made, and that's something the Commission
0117
1 is being asked to do.
2 Aside from that, let's assume that the 50 days
3 does apply. Mr. Bartlam has said he can look at the
4 data andgive you some real information on this. The
5 data is there, but maybe the information summary is not.
6 we have conflicting reports. I'm not sure which reports
Page 48
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
7 he would look at to get that information. He thinks he
8 can do it in a short period of time. Perhaps the better
9 course for the Commission is to give Mr. Bartlam and his
10 staff the opportunity to do that, and give you his
11 objective analysis in a short period of time, and have
12 him come back to you before that April 30th deadline to
13 give you that information. Thank you.
14 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: Well, I would defer to
15 staff --
16 CHAIRMAN KISER: Hold on. Any questions for
17 Mr. Jolley?
18 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: None.
19 CHAIRMAN KISER: Closed meeting. Back to
20 staff.
21 MR. BARTLAM: Let me jump on the last part. I
22 think Mr. Hobbs wants to jump on the first part. what I
23 said was the information is in the record relative to
24 the gross numbers, whether that be sales or numbers of
25 employees. The short period of time is take your
0118
1 five-minute break, because it's in the record, and I'll
2 pull it out.
3 what I can't give you in a short period of
4 time, and in fact, I would not even propose to suggest I
5 can provide it, is the cloudy crystal ball about the
6 assumption that somebody will have to make, whether it's
7 another economic consultant or you individually as
8 planning commissioners, of what is the net effect.
9 Because if Mr. Jolley just wants the gross effects, he
10 knows what those are. we can agree, I think, pretty
11 quickly on the number of employees and the gross
12 revenues from the project.
13 what I think everybody from day one with the
14 project has had a hard time getting their arms around is
15 acceptance of what the assumption for store closures,
16 and as a result, what might be the impacts of the
17 project because of that. And that's not something that
18 myself, my staff, or anybody else at the City of Lodi is
19 going to be able to provide for you. They're not going
20 to feel comfortable, because quite honestly, as
21 Mr. Jolley is not an economist, neither am I, and
22 neither is anybody else at the City of Lodi.
23 MR. HOBBS: Commissioner, let me just respond
24 briefly to what Mr. Jolley was speaking about with the
25 certification of the EIR.
0119
1 The City Council has certified the EIR. The
2 EIR has to be certified prior to approval of the
3 project, which is a consideration before you tonight.
4 And under CEQA guideline 15090, what needs to happen for
5 certification of the EIR is that the decision making
6 body, the City Council, has to certify that it was
7 completed in compliance with CEQA, they did that, that
8 the EIR was presented to them, and that they reviewed it
9 and considered the EIR, they did that, and that they
10 affirmed that the EIR reflects their independent
11 judgment. They did that.
12 what my colleague, Mr. Jolley, is referring to
13 are the findings that are made in conjunction with
14 project approval. Those happen tonight, if at all, or
15 if it is appealed to the Council following your
16 decision, may happen at that point. That is separate
17 than the certification of the EIR. The certification of
Page 49
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
18 the EIR is just basically a declaration by the City
19 Council that the EIR analyzed all the environmental
20 impacts. It doesn't approve the project, it doesn't do
21 anything towards approval of the project, except certify
22 that that document adequately analyzed all the impacts.
23 The case that my colleague refers to, the
24 Vedanta case, I'm very familiar with that case. It's
25 actually different from what he's suggesting. In that
0120
1 situation, what happened was there was a planning
2 commission decision that was appealed to the city
3 council. It went to the city council and hung up on a
4 2-2 vote, which the city council determined was an
5 approval, an approval by, basically, a tied vote.
6 what the court said in that case is that you
7 can't, at the appeal level, city council level, approve
8 a project by, basically, inaction, which is what a tie
9 was. You have to have an affirmative majority vote
10 affirming the findings and making specific findings.
11 That's a different consideration than what's before you
12 tonight. The case doesn't have application to what's
13 before you.
14 The 50 days comes out of the subdivision Map
15 Act. And it says that following certification of the
16 EIR, the legislative body considering the map, which is
17 the Planning Commission here, has 50 days to act on it.
18 You don't have to approve it, but you have to act on it.
19 MR. BARTLAM: And, mind you, we're talking
20 about one of the actions before you. So in a, let's
21 call it, a potential worst-case scenario, the Commission
22 doesn't act within the 50 days, the tentative map would
23 be approved by inaction. So in the scheme of things,
24 they don't have a project, they don't have an ability to
25 construct. You need the use permit approval and the
0121
1 site plan architectural review approval for that.
2 There's a separate clock ticking for that action. It's
3 180 days from the council's certification. what they
4 would have is a tentative map, which is nothing more
5 than an ability to then work towards filing the final
6 map, subdivide the property into 12 blocks.
7 I don't want to make more of the 50 days than
8 it is, but in the worst-case scenario, if you think
9 about it from the ability for the City to consider it
10 appropriately, you end up subdividing the property by
11 the inability for the Commission to take action. The
12 pro]ect, the use permits, the site plan and
13 architectural review, that clock ticking is 180 days.
14 And, frankly, if I have to go back, hire a consultant,
15 go through the typical process, we're going to bump up
16 against that time frame.
17 COMMISSIONER HENNECKE: Mr. Chair, if I would,
18 I would like to maybe make a recommendation that we take
19 a ten-minute break, and maybe you can work your
20 five-minute magic, and pull out two numbers, and maybe
21 that would appease some of my fellow commissioners.
22 More numbers for them to throw in their number basket to
23 mix them around and see how they like them.
24 COMMISSIONER OLSON: I don't need that.
25 CHAIRMAN KISER: okay.
0122
1 VICE CHAIRMAN CUMMINS: Mr. Chairman, I would
2 like to make a motion that the Planning Commission
Page 50
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
3 approve the use permit file number U-02-12 to allow the
4 construction of a commercial shopping center in a C -S
5 zone and allow the sale of alcoholic beverages at the
6 Wal-Mart Supercenter; that we approve the tentative
7 parcel map, 03-P-001, to create 12 parcels for the
8 project relating to the Lodi Shopping Center; that we
9 also approve the architectural approval for the new
10 commercial buildings to be constructed at 2640 West
11 Kettleman Lane, and making findings that we adopt the
12 statement of overriding consideration pursuant to the
13 California Environmental Quality.
14 COMMISSIONER HENNECKE: I will second that.
15 CHAIRMAN KISER: we have a motion on the floor
16 as to the Browman Development Company and Wal-Mart Real
17 Estate Business Trust to approve use permit U-02-12 to
18 allow the construction of commercial center in a C -S,
19 commercial shopping district, and allow the sale of
20 alcoholic beverages at the Wal-Mart Supercenter; to
21 approve vesting tentative map 03-P-001 to create 12
22 parcels for the project; site plan and architectural
23 approval of a new retail building to be constructed at
24 1600 Westgate Drive. In addition, the Planning
25 Commission will consider adopting and approving the
0123
1 findings and statements of overriding consideration
2 pursuant to the Environmental Act.
3 We have a first by Commissioner Cummins; a
4 second by Commissioner Hennecke. All those in favor?
5 COMMISSIONER HENNECKE: Aye.
6 VICE CHAIRMAN CUMMINS: Aye.
7 COMMISSIONER OLSON: Aye.
8 CHAIRMAN KISER: Opposed?
9 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: Aye.
10 CHAIRMAN KISER: Aye.
11 COMMISSIONER HEINITZ: Aye.
12 MR. BARTLAM: Could I get a voice vote? I'm
13 not able to read the lips. If the ayes could either
14 raise their hand, or we can go across and do it.
15 MR. HOBBS: Let's do it audibly so we have a
16 record.
17 COMMISSIONER HENNECKE: Approved. Aye.
18 VICE CHAIRMAN CUMMINS: Aye.
19 COMMISSIONER OLSON: Approved.
20 CHAIRMAN KISER: Nay.
21 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: No.
22 COMMISSIONER HEINITZ: No.
23 COMMISSIONER OLSON: Approved.
24 MS. CHADWICK: Okay. I missed that.
25 MR. BARTLAM: What was your vote, Mr. Heinitz?
0124
1 COMMISSIONER HEINITZ: No.
2 MR. BARTLAM: Oh, good. We have a tie vote.
3 VICE CHAIRMAN CUMMINS: I'm going to comment
4 as follows --
5 MR. BARTLAM: Tied votes are denied. You have
6 to have an affirmative action for the project to move
7 forward. 3-3 is, in effect, a denial.
8 COMMISSIONER KIRSTEN: All right. I believe
9 that concludes the matter, correct?
10 CHAIRMAN KISER: Yes. We have just issued a
11 denial.
12 MR. BARTLAM: That's correct.
13 CHAIRMAN KISER: okay. Comments by the
Page 51
4-08 PC PH trascripts.txt
14 public? Comments by the Planning Commission and staff?
15 MR. BARTLAM: I have no comments, Mr. Chair.
16 CHAIRMAN KISER: None? Then I adjourn the
17 meeting.
18 (The proceedings concluded at 9:00 p.m.)
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0125
1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION
2
3 I, Mandy M. Medina, Certified Shorthand Reporter,
4 in and for the state of California, do hereby certify:
5
6 That the foregoing was taken before me at the
7 time and place herein set forth; that the testimony
8 and proceedings were reported stenographically by me
9 and later transcribed into typewriting under my
10 direction; that the foregoing is a true record of the
11 testimony and proceedings taken at that time.
12
13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed my name
14 this 5th day of May, 2009.
15
16
17
18
19
Mandy M. Medina, CSR No. 11649
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 52
LODI
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
MEETING DATE: April 8, 2009
APPLICATION NO: Use Permit U-02-12,
Vesting Tentative Map 03-P-001
Site Plan and Architectural Review 08 -SP -08
REQUEST: The request of Browman Development Company to allow construction of
the Lodi Shopping Center and allow all subsequent development approvals
for the center. Specifically, to approve Use Permit U-02-12 to allow the
construction of a commercial center in a C -S, Commercial Shopping
District, and allow the sale of alcoholic beverages at the Wal-Mart
Supercenter and Vesting Tentative Map 03-P-001 to create 12 parcels for
the project. Finally, to approve the SPARC application concerning the Wal-
Mart building.
LOCATION: 2640 West Kettleman Lane. Approximately 40 acres located at the
southwest corner of west Kettleman Lane/State Route 12 and Lower
Sacramento Road in west Lodi.
APPLICANT: Browman Development Company
100 Swan Way, Suite 206
Oakland, CA 94621
PROPERTY OWNER: Browman Development Company & Wal-Mart Real Estate
100 Swan Way, Suite 206 Business Trust
Oakland, CA 94621 Mail Stop 0555
Bentonville,AR 72716-0555
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Use Permit,
Vesting Tentative Map, and SPARC requests subject to the conditions listed in the Draft Resolution as
attached.
PROJECT/AREA DESCRIPTION
General Plan Designation: NCC, Neighborhood/ Community Commercial.
Zoning Designation: C -S, Commercial Shopping District.
Property Size: Approximately 40 acres, 36 acres for the shopping center development
and 4 acres adjacent and southwest of the shopping center site for
construction of a stormwater detention drain.
Adjacent General Plan, Zoning and Land Use:
North (across W. Kettleman Ln): General Plan; NCC, Neighborhood Community Commercial
Zoning; C -S, Commercial Shopping Center
Land Use; The Vintner's Square Shopping Center anchored by
the Lowe's Home Improvement store
Lodi Planning Commission Stall Report re Lodi Shopping Center 4-8-09.doc J:\Community
Development\Planning\STAFP REPORTS\2008\ 1-23
000256.1
South: General Plan; LDR, Low Density Residential
Zoning; PD, Planned Development
Land Use; Currently Agricultural planted as a vineyard, but
planned as the Southwest Gateway planned
residential community
West: General Plan; PQP, Public/Quasi Public & HDR, High Density
Residential
Zoning; PUB, Public & PD, Planned Development
Land Use; Currently agricultural, but planned for a utility
substation and higher density residential as part of
the Southwest Gateway planned residential community
East (across Lower Sacramento Rd.): General Plan; NCC, Neighborhood Community Commercial
Zoning; C -S, Commercial Shopping Center
Land Use; The Sunwest Plaza Shopping Center currently
anchored by the existing Wal-Mart, J.C. Penny and the Food
4 Less Grocery Store.
BACKGROUND:
March 11, 2009, the Lodi City Council certified the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report (FREIR)
for the Lodi Shopping Center project. The action took place as a result of two appeals that were filed
concerning the Planning Commission's decision to not certify the document at their October 8, 2008
meeting. At that October meeting, the balance of the requests that have been submitted were tabled in
order for final action on the environmental document to take place. With the Council action, those
requests are now back before the Commission for consideration.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Use Permit and Tentative Map Analysis:
Approximately 18 years ago, the City's General Plan designated the southwest corner of West Kettleman
Lane/State Route 12 and Lower Sacramento Road for the construction of large-scale retail development.
Since that time, the centers on the other three corners have built out as envisioned. Major national
retailers such as Wal-Mart, J.C. Penney, Target, and Lowe's have occupied these corners. The Lodi
Shopping Center is proposed on the remaining fourth corner to be anchored by a Wal-Mart Supercenter.
This type and scale of development is consistent with the activity that has occurred at the other three
corners.
The City's Zoning'Code requires that all plot plans for projects within the C -S, Commercial Shopping
District receive Planning Commission approval. Over time, this review has been done through the Use
Permit process. The Zoning Code also requires Use Permit approval for the sale of alcoholic beverages.
The applicant is requesting a Use Permit and a Vesting Tentative Map in order to divide the property into
12 lots that will correspond to the number of buildings anticipated for the project.
The proposed project includes the construction of approximately 339,966 square feet of commercial retail
uses, representing a variety of retail sales and services, to be contained in 12 buildings of varying sizes.
The primary use will be a Wal-Mart Supercenter which will occupy approximately 226,868 square feet of
floor area, including approximately 70,000 square feet for grocery sales, 19,889 square feet fora garden
center (including outdoor fenced area), and 6,437 square feet for an auto service shop. The Wal-Mart
Lodi Planning Commission Staff Repurt re Lodi ShoppingCcnter 4.8.09.duc J;\Community
Dcvclopmcnt\Planning\STAPP REPORTS\2008\ 1-23
900256.1
Supercenterwill not include the use of outdoor metal storage containers, and will not include a seasonal
sales area in the parking lot.
A moderate sized retailer will occupy approximately 35,000 square feet on pad 12 in the southeast
corner of the site. The remaining 11 buildings will range in size from 3,200 square feet to 14,788 square
feet. Three of the 11 buildings will be occupied by fast food franchises, with another two buildings
consisting of sit-down restaurants, and the remaining buildings occupied by such retail uses such as
financial services/bank, professional/business services, and other retail sales and services.
The uses, layout and design of the shopping center has remained the same as that presented to and
approved by the Planning Commission in December, 2004. The Wal-Mart building is located at the
southwestern corner of the site, with 11 freestanding buildings located along Kettleman Lane and Lower
Sacramento Road to the north and east. In the center of the shopping center is the main parking lot.
The proposed vesting tentative map includes the Wal-Mart store and all corresponding parking in the
largest lot (lot 12, 18.3 acres), with each of the remaining 11 buildings on their own lot with associated
parking. These other lots are generally one+/- acre in size, with the smallest (lot 8) being 0.53 AC and
the largest (lot 11) being 2.6 AC. Internal travel lanes, parking medians and planters are located
through -out the interior. Access to the Center is mainly from Westgate Drive and Lower Sacramento
Road; with--right-turrfim-and out -only -from Kettleman-Lane. As sh-owri orr-the sites plan; significant -public
improvements are required in order to build this project, as detailed in the draft conditions in the
accompanying resolution of approval. The applicant will be responsiblefor the construction of Westgate
Drive from Kettleman Lane to the southerly project boundary as well as the frontage improvements on
Kettleman Lane and Lower Sacramento Road. The applicant is also responsible for the approximately
four acre site across Westgate Drive to be used for storm water detention, all associated project right-of-
way dedications, utility easements, engineering reports and studies, and fees. An encroachment permit
from CalTrans for Kettleman Lane/ State Route 12will be needed.
Conditions in the draft Resolution cover fire safety, outdoor storage or display of merchandise, shopping
cart storage, security and exterior lighting. Consistent with the prior approval by the City Council,
conditions relative to re -use of the existing Wal-Mart building are also included. Further, even though a
CEQA environmental impact as to urban decay or physical deterioration from the Lodi Shopping Center
cannot be made, the Planning Commission can make a decision that the economic effects of the Center
on the Downtown should be addressed. To this end, staff is proposing a condition to require the Lodi
Shopping Center to invest in the Downtown area. The aggregate value of the capital improvement must
exceed $700,000. Finally, a condition is included to incorporate all mitigation measures as specified in
the certified FREIR.
The Use Permit will allow the sale of alcoholic beverages, for the Supercenter's use. No Use Permit for
alcohol for any of the freestanding buildings has been applied for or is under consideration. The tenants
of these freestanding buildings are not known to staff and have not been included in this request. Any
such request in the future would require a Planning Commission Hearing at that time when the specific
details of the requesting business are known. The Planning Commission has previously found that the
sale of alcoholic beverages is incidental to a grocery store operation and that is what is being requested
by the Wal-Mart Supercenter. As such, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve
the request to sell alcohol.
The second Use Permit request emanates from the C -S zoning designation which specifically states that
a "detailed plot plan of the proposed construction" be submitted to the Planning Commission. The design
standards identified in the code are as follows:
Lodi Planning Commission Staff Report re Lodi Shopping Center 4.8.09.doc J:\Community
Developmcnt\Planning\STAFF REPORTS\2008\ 1-23
900256.1
A. The site shall be designed and used as a unit, regardless of ownership of the land and buildings.
B. All streets bordering the site shall be fully dedicated and improved by the developer.
C. The design of the development shall include the landscaping of buildings and parking areas, the
screening of nearby residential areas, and the enclosure or shielding of trash and disposal areas. Lights
and signs shall be located to avoid disturbance to residential areas.
D. Driveways, parking areas and loading areas shall be located so as to minimize traffic interference.
It is staffs opinion that the Planning Commission has little discretion regarding this Use Permit.
Effectively, Section 17.58 of the Municipal Code adds additional design requirements to the project.
These standards were adopted in 2004 specifically to deal with the design of large scale retail
establishments like Wal-Mart. The applicant has met or exceeded each of these standards as presented
and conditioned. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve this request.
As previously discussed in the analysis, a vesting tentative map approval is requested to divide the site
into 12 lots. The applicant has met the requirements of the City's subdivision ordinance and the State
Subdivision Map Act. Staff recommends approval of this action and has included vesting tentative map
conditions in the draft resolution.
SPARC Review:
Along with the plot plan and tentative map for the Lodi Shopping Center, preliminary elevations and
colors for the Wal-Mart Supercenter have been submitted. No elevations or colors, landscaping plan,
signage plan, materials, or other final plans for the rest of the Center or buildings have been submitted.
As mentioned, this shopping center is subject to the City's Design Standards for Large Retail
Establishments. The overall site layout, building footprints, parking areas, and access driveways provide
the overall direction of the Center and were used by staff and the Planning Commission in the December
8, 2004 review to determine that this project complies with the Design Standards for Large Retail
Establishments. As such, no further design, layout, or changes have been proposed.
The proposed project includes the construction of a new Wal-Mart Supercenter store with a building size
of approximately 226,868 square feet. The Wal-Mart building would be located on the southwestern
portion of the project site, and the building entrance would face east toward Lower Sacramento Road.
The Wal-Mart Supercenter building is a single story structure. The architectural theme of the building is a
contemporary style and uses construction materials commonly used in commercial shopping center
construction. Architectural materials such as concrete masonry block, metal awnings, and exterior plaster
finish will be utilized on the exterior of the building. The major materials used for architectural treatment
include fawn (brown) colored stucco, fawn (brown) cultured stone veneer, split face (light brown) block,
sea -green colored smooth finish metal panels, charcoal roofing material, hallow (gunmetal gray) metal
doors and cornices, and black fencing. The body of the building will be in shades of brown. The ground
level will have fawn (brown) colored stucco walls with fawn colored stone veneer accent walls near key
entrances and along the lower eight feet of the exterior wall. The architectural treatment features are
mostly used on the north and east elevation. Also on the main entrance, a canopy type architectural
feature is proposed. The proposed main entry canopywill be clad with a brown cultured stone finish.
The west and south elevations do not feature the same detailed architectural treatment. The west (rear)
elevation is a continuous wall with little architectural treatment to breakup the elevation of the building.
The entire west elevation will have fawn (brown) colored stucco walls with metal doors painted to match
the stucco. Cornices and accent trims are provided to break up the wall elevation. The ground level will
also have cultured veneer stone elements. The midsection of the western elevation should receive
further architectural treatment to add architectural interest to the wall. It is important to note that this
elevation will be visible from across Westgate Drive.
Lodi Planning Commission Stnf( Report re Lodi Shopping Center 4.8.09.doc J:\Community
Development\Planning\STAFF REPORTS\2008\ 1-23
900256.1
The southern elevation will feature nearly identical architectural treatment as the west elevation.
However, the proposed southern elevation is less of an issue. First, there will be an 8 -foot tall masonry
wall on the southern property line to block any view of this elevation from the project to the south.
Second, unlike the western elevation, the southern elevation is not a continuous large mass elevation.
Because the main axis of the building faces west (the longest elevation), the south elevation is the side
of the building and is relatively small in size in comparison. A condition of approval is included in the
SPARC Resolution regarding additional architectural treatment for the west elevation.
Circulation and Parking
The site plan indicates six access points to three public streets. There will be three entrances/exits from
Lower Sacramento Road, one from Kettleman Lane (HWY 12), and two from Westgate Drive. All three
streets will have a raised center median that will restrict turning movements in some degree. The main
entrance to the project parking lot is from Lower Sacramento Road and will be located near the middle of
the project site. This entrance will have a traffic signal to control traffic flow and will allow both entering
and exiting traffic to turn in both directions. The other access points from Lower Sacramento Road will be
restricted to right turn in and right turn out movements. The direct driveway entrance from Kettleman
Lane (Hwy. 12)will only permit a right -turn in and right -turn out traffic movement. Traffic can also access
the shopping center from Kettleman Lane by way of Westgate Drive. This intersection is controlled by an
existing traffic signal that will allow both right and left turning movements. The main (northern) access
point from Westgate Drive will allow both right and left hand tuning movements. The southern access
point will only allow right in, right out movements. Circulation to and from the site is very similar to the
Vintners Square Center (Lowes)to the north.
The main parking lot is located on the east side of the Wal-Mart building. There will be smaller parking
areas to serve the free-standing commercial pads. For the Wal-Mart building, a total of 965 parking
spaces are proposed (4:45/1000). A total of 434 parking spaces are required, per City code (General
Retail 1/500). The proposed number of parking stalls exceeds the minimum parking requirements.
There are 12 cart corrals proposed to be distributed throughout the parking lot. These cart corrals will be
screened in brown CMU wall with wooden frames to provide additional ornamentation.
Landscaping and Signage
The proposed landscape plan calls for various large shade trees, smaller trees, shrubs and ground
covers. A total of 478 larger shade trees will be provided within the parking lot interior, along the
southern and western edges the property line, and throughout the site. This total number of trees
exceeds what the City code requires.
The approval of project signage is not a part of the current review and would be subject to City of Lodi
codes and requirements to ensure they complement the building architecture and landscaping of the
building. Signage applications and approvals would be done separately, should the project be approved.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE:
Legal Notice for the Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Map was published on March 28, 2009 in the Lodi
New Sentinel. The item was posted at City Hall and at the City of Lodi Library on March 26, 2009. 62
public hearing notices were sent out through the combination of the U.S. Postal Service and electronic
mail which included all property owners of record within a 300 -foot radius of the subject property as
required by Government Code section 65091(a)3.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the fact that the applicant has met all of the City's requirements for these requests, staff
recommends that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit U-02-12, Vesting Tentative Map 03 -P-
LA Planning Commission Staff Report re Lodi Shopping Center 4.8.09.doc J:\Community
Development\Planning\STAR' REPORTS\2008\ 1-23
900256.1
001and that the Planning Commission approve Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Wal-Mart
building 08 -SP -08, P.C. 09 -
ALTERNATIVE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS:
• Approve with additional/different conditions
• Deny the Use Permit/Tentative Map
• Continue the requests
Respectfully Submitted,
rr
1
Ko radt-g-a�tiam
Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Site Plan
3. Vesting Tentative Map
4. Wal-Mart Elevation and Hardscape Plan
5. Draft P.C. Resolutions; PC 09-
6. City Council Resolution 2009-27
7. Comment Letters
Lodi Planning Commission Staff Report re Lodi Shopping Center 4.8.09.doc J:\Community
Development\Planning\STAFF REPORTS\2008\ 1-23
900256.1
_ __.
tr m A NT T T �m . --N89
49;46 "1$�7F�... _
- � L, 207.2I` =1"I
_.
..........
E%ESONG PROPERTY UNE-� _ _
EXISi1NG EASEMENT - .._ .,. __.,. _ _..r.. .. _ _... T -. .. ....�-.__ . .._..•.., ._.. __. __ ...-... j
l -
ECCE OF PAYFAIFNT �{ I
SITE MOTES /
AREA STRPm K1TiK 4" SYSL AT 45' O 2'-0" O.C,
A.=Sme RAMP, SEE DTA; G ON 94ET
PEDEGIRIN CROSSWC 5X4 WO -2 AN SH 2p AT PEDESTRIAN
AS NOTED ON PLANS. SEE OETNL P ONTiTRCAY. SNEET C-&3.
-,nW PAINTED YELLOW *4 PAV9kH;NT TYPICAL SEE DETAX. 5 ON SKEET C-5.1. PAD M PAD 4
ENHANCED PAYLMENi nRfd. SEE ARCRiECTUNAI PLANS FDR OEUAS 8,031 SP A PAD 5 F ,,., , li
10,075 SF (� o n 7,490 SF Z
EXT PORCH. SEE ARM1ECTURAL PLANs PCR EXACT SPC. —AVM PO4 4
S1OOP5. 8TNPS ANIC P PS THAT NAY RE REOD'RSO. k.P PAYENEXT fLU5H I a
IWRI 11,E 101' AR STOUP _
do °ei PE BOLLARD TWew. uxrSS IN M- OTNDevnsT, sTi GETaa. 2 ON 9Wtr .. - L,tf{€,j
PAD 6 it 1 j
CARI mom EDIT SEE OEM i ON 91EET C-&7 AND
DETA& TO ON SHEET C-&2.
s` vX" X 11x LCNO -LW W PA TEO TRUCK AUGNNEMT SYRPES.
PAO, R£EER TO ARa1IMPRAL PLAN Po EXACT
�fDre ACO1tPAA VO
ACCESSOIL PMXNO 9•A1 III SEE OSTAIL SHEET FOR Ae( '% f
PARAiNO SPACE EKE, SGN A40 SWAG ("YAM-INCCAITS VAN ACC:551UIE
SPAGQ, SEE DETAIL 3 cN S1E" C-&1 8 OCTAL S ON SHEET 08.2.
CaHmmTRAt1SORMER PAD. CONTRACTOR TO COORIF.IATE WTI; LOCAL POKA
COT OP FCN OCTAtS.
PLACE STEP Salk PANT STOP RAR 8 'STC•' PER OErl, & ON SHEET
0-&1 AND DETAIL T Ott SHEET O6.2.
PEDEsTRIAi CROSBWAI.X. ETNA: I,N-S PAN7E0 4RA/8" NRi tiSNE sTR7iTM
i PANTED SNA/,; AT Y -O' RG PMPERaTMAAR TO [OCE TLYES. SEE OETAL 7
".1.
M SHEET
• CART ODRRAL SEE, DEIN. s DN mar 6-&7.
• A.D.& SITE ENTRANCE Sal. SEE OVAL 5 ON SHEET C-8.2.
. RF„C011IL.T-&(WM'RPF.WM TO vA4KWDACSET 8 ON Uc2. PV
. 14' CONCRETE CURD ANS GUTTER. SEE DETAIL D ON SIIEET 08.3.
• TRAFFIC FAD* ARROW, SEE DETM T SHEET C -SA
• CONCRETE UVI SEE DETAR 7 On SHEET 0-8.1
PN
. NDM,MENi Sat (SEP A*M EGTVRA PLANS}
,
AISLE POICATOR SIGNS (TTP} STE DETAILS 0 & 11 ON STEET C-&2.
`CARL OROSSWO %ITN WA SEE MAIL I ON 91EET C-B.T.
.-NO -WOKS' SISI. SVC D£TAI. 1 at SHEET 0-82.
.-TRUCK ORAS SON. SEE OET&% 3 ON SHEET 0-8.2.
IBCHT rWRN ONLY' ECL SEE DUAL I2 ON SIRT 0-8.2,
m ,x
11945' PALLET/BALE STORAGE AREA.
ol,l tr
1 50,
. IwY.lACA1,9 OQEES. SEE DETAIL 4011 SHEET C-8.7.
I
.SAKDUT EXSSLD EDGE OF PAVEWENIT TO FORK A SNOOK, UHMORN LINE,
PKAfE PROPOSED PAVEMENT AIAHSi SAWCOT LINE & MATOI tP.V.M GRADE.
.AT GRADE OVERHEAR DOOR LOCAAON SEE ARa1TECTURAL KMS FOR EXACT
SIZE ANO LWADOR FOR COIXK NATOV MRI OML MANS.
Si(E DATA
TDan A,INXN Amaut�v.v
{
MACE CREASE/OL INJMCEPT SEP ARCHITCCTWTAL P:A4S FOR EXACT
SO. fOM1OE 2TRSit S0. Fl. I
831 WAM
SiNHOX
'
{
AEE AN9 LOOA.TNIN.
0AMCES
la,L3"iik,E SPNXS 21 VIM t
VIM
ilF(
JI` I I II . T - i I C•'.s•: :..11 --
". �
T, ISI t11L .I s LOM -.i .8 •...1+ORAWRaS .._ `-AJ �k I.W I _!•
TODi PITOAO3OFD IP SPAIN
'
rwXX16 RAOa i. IW10
i•_.:A Z Ok SNRT Q&1.
•MOUNT SEOINUTT CAMERA TO CONT PML, SEC KM &SHEET C-0•
N/E T
. MR 4D VM EXETPNO S AKO A REPLACE W114 NEW PROFUSED SRCPNC,
.3G: OCTAL 0 ON SHUT G-8.1 FP2 iYNCA4 PARKING STA.SLIGPiNO Ott—
HEAVY 0, ASPHMS
J �.
I
TRANSFORMER PAD. SEI AAGNITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATON,
'
NEAyt qt
j! CONdIRC^' CONCRETE
I
` ALL PARKING, ME IAANDS RAM ARE ID' & UNLESS'. LESS O11SRW5E
PLAN.
sTATFn M ET PLAN.
,
i INSTALL PAWN* LAT NatTS. SEE DETAL & SHEET C b.T.
(----
1 € MR
,
WSTALI, PARIOND EAI umm sY. Dam & 9NEr 0 &7_
i ......... ........
I
I IS I
4:1 %OPE
TO
OFF-SITE
(
O STORM WATER DETENTIONI
"i I
(3ASiN--A1950)
1
i
�.•�
'V
IIS I
I �i�
ii�•�►
k•.�li l
_..__..�.._.._.._7V
I I
,®
I
10'
n =s ROAD
- _.... .. ,,. .-.. .. •. �e_aA_ .. TOPLu.2950 -:/-
n t i 14.788 SF
<N o o 0
o- 0�
o o _ �• ° ----�-
1
Ti'• i �,`��•Y'\•%"-�"�` " LTii'I "Fy,nl AS . •�'� ® t5' $
9O 0i0� O O O D}S
Q14=1
! tU�
~I !I'• 1 FENCED .� »,x -t tiros asx—.) • i3 �,A�
i IY
8,156 ST 3a •.'
_ as
-..3ar.._.._...io•..... _.sig,SEASONAL„im R T
BATTERY 1, M.
STORAGE GARDEN CENTER TTP• x
91731 SF
��' - � TOE G' . ____..__• .'.. � .
VIS
'•—•--22`�
• .......: S.ta.na RLr �ta.stWe+ - - - - - d4.5UN6.d
11 it I LLJ ........._....- `-_ o5'�Ri1 l X---. It........... ........... �
'R
Ayr V /
T
� � L1 Jn .:,!
p V) O y �OMw . fIl V V
M\
Y
M.
A 11 U lAJ O S ` i Q�
Q (-; i' O 1 O O O O
,I ,
LO
O O O i O O O O. O
E...� o
,R
axr � w• .
0 _ ,n !L a; SOS O O# O O 0 O
M.
°.
-Pr sr_ i1•.._ 'TMTYP.
ia 4 ` Ar M. . __... 13.3'....
t1 ., T2' TM. 21 S.
Y re i3.
fi�4� i ��. �. 23.x' ----- Ta.s•1+�_',r �'-� 105.9 T�.�
no
PAD 7
5,180 SF
PAD 9
0,537 �
PAD 10
8,596 SF
1)?— -
I
1
1 PAD 11
�t I 35,000 SF
, ,,o
R
d
G�
Z
�
co W
r Q
I:ezVZ
�
g0N
U< -in
w
a Ej LU
(A
o.rP,w ez aP/cY --
dam Ay. w/a
act.; D.0 13, M64
SHEET
CN2.1
OF 34
ProICt NP:
60T -AM
15.5V -
So0o5'orw
3
I
1
9
1
ao�ns•33•
R-1469'
1-I79.7fi'
I
° Iwzl3'
Rnar HIGHWAY 12 KETTLEMAN LANE
o2
1^19.63'
..—__—__ Na09726'E
PARCEL -A (KETILEMAN LANE DEDICATION_.—_.—__ 4_a�t,• yyf
0.41 At (18,026 SF)
N6939T63w N087t'Aw Q+L �>N- �•--•��r--_—�:'-
69'S9i3•E -_ N6x3WE -_ ,116 23.x5 1 SB65.f'{2•E-;a;'it...
.w16'J5--1 LD.11'J6'OB•
jig �••••�."•� ..�.�._.. 1 -+0.0+'_.
R -6A66' R-+40.,9' Stn I S6'StYO•W SB6'2t'42'E yDWWOn _
1-63.15' 1-2B.SD' a PARCEL -6 xooaoocE I a.l
�1� xwvo�oo�E I VIS 'y6'o 1.36 AC q mw I
(60,256 SF) 1n17a'• I
A�•J
PARCEL -2 '' PARCEL -3' PARCEL -4 I
sxam'soow 1.30 AC (' 1.13 AC I 1.55 AC het+•oqt� R.,RSS.0023 I I
(67,543 SF)
(56,612 SF) I (49,413 SF) 1 , i I
' I r PARCEL-5ARC
3166' ( IN 1.17 AC��oonnoo''-j I ^pl
1.45 AC 1 , I,ro9a9'oo'v I ,- (50,9s9 SF) x90 Oow- wsear'w 18 pl
1.45 AC la 8-116 z2•
;3.159 SF R.tt1ar 1 __i26.s4' s�6xvzb3'r I ~1'I
� «x990•MT PARCEL -7 � I81 AC
-�o-zfaYu' ai+s.00µ �i �''a $ 35,373 SF I it SA
1 .e.BY 0-225.4'26 8-166.00' 8-x00.00' 13A16' ( )
R-16100' L-10.41' 1.5546'
1
ga wt453Bf 1.64.63' Rf��1P
- t D-24.13'36•
R-2+).00' R ii'sr3B'-1 - •' �/' xN]C66.1v�"'I
1-v.as• I L-1-72' I'-o-o9oa+�x• e4.w• Jt l I.
iefi's9ar' `41 1
B m li;
PARCEL-8Is PARCEL -9 I�g
' i Ig
(23,364 SF)� 1.51 AC IS
(65,737 SF) I
SWWWE fixe•
N6939.34w
il8 -
1.15..66)64
I I I
I�� I
Nexsx•ss•W _ _ � yy I
soea'7w6c ___ Hass• - I �4 I
PARCEL -12 Ii
111 I
18.30 AC s I 11 1
(797.287 SF)�S I I I
� I I
_ PARCEL -10
S 1.00 AC x69s9.s1•w _ I
Zi
(43,808 SF)
S0o30b0•E_ s9awmw
1123• 315.1x• _ - 5WW26*.
Ie I I I
�s. lel
SII I
1 I it I
9 141
I w I-—
l0'1
I�'I BIS
I�11 p I
I I I I
I I
I I
1 Inch = 60 ft
Vesting Tentative9ilap
Lot Layout
for
Lodi - III
ATNs. 058-030-01 caZ 058-030-02
County (f San Joaquin, Cafifornia
August 15,2008
Sheet 2 of 2
QpOFESS/p��
COle
S
y J
No. C60698 DA-Doucet & Associates, Inc.
Dec. 31, 2008 loss er<d,.wa R;ax 0.1�, s:u In
a'4 Cryl aP -k, CA936M936. Pb (916))80.2003fu(916))00.x018
rFor
CAl1EOP
No.: 001-272
00
O
00
00
O
EAST ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
3levations
refitNc,;
NC".•\%VMT: 02-0_X16 REVISIONS
nM:
614,111.1.,.•1 MIN
am Ualr:
M—.1— 7. NM
leparcd B,:
lu. r1m. U.•.�gn
'I,r1kc11 By
17 N
Sheet 1 of 7
WAL*MART
William
in h
design development
consultants,
consultants, inc.
Lodi, Califomia
10001akes drive, su0e 40S
Myv1(wv? to 917.M
RN. 1619%
Store No. 1789-03
�w91,.rero
L JO z IONS
C0-69LL *ON aJOIS
L'1Uj0j!1e:),!P01
121t/W *7VM
Rm . i16,9Z9'-
t,wzI619 .3
Ao P4
DUL6
-to Pa hk
1 s a p
qs!jjed wullpm
L JO z IONS
C0-69LL *ON aJOIS
L'1Uj0j!1e:),!P01
121t/W *7VM
lSaA',qtlO?q RU11001 Malt
L aAlpadsiad
aw
Ao P4
-to Pa hk
SNOSIA33 96 zo IWINW)IN
:-N I -I."
lSaA',qtlO?q RU11001 Malt
L aAlpadsiad
woi.VZd— -m
9=161 '9
01109'Lt6N 9
OU16
4,4, .-p i-qq 0001
=UO,.,,., ,.!Sap
Wind weilli.m
/ jo C laaqS
C0-69LL 'ON aJOIS
L"Ujoj!IL,D,!Pol
V w lw-,f
pq Ifilallyl To
9NOISISIS
xk
3 Id awr
"I
li-,, ....... .. . Aa I—M.4
IS,),"q)JON ',IUII(X)l A%,)!A
Z @AlpadsjOd
Perspective 3
Aew Looking Southwest
,,IM Na
R1k'I510N5
11R
WAL* MAR T
1AA California
Store No. 1789-03
Sheet 4of 7
william parrish
design development
consultants, inc.
4k- dri-, .4. 406
..'t twin., Ca 91790
r.626.9170M
.
f.16.917 b8
06
3erspective 4 Sheet 5 of 7
liew Laking Southm-it
REVISION'S
WAL*MART
Lodi, California
Store No. 1789-03
ff
will'ampanish
design development
consultants, inc.
�06:6.91?.t&[I
. 626.91?.6806
w. x�x:wyklccrrm
�a6•:
Rely I>cua,
we!]aIe
Ihi 21.1V
rcparnl BO
Iw IM inn
-hnWd Bl:
MR
rx':
awr
REVISION'S
WAL*MART
Lodi, California
Store No. 1789-03
ff
will'ampanish
design development
consultants, inc.
�06:6.91?.t&[I
. 626.91?.6806
w. x�x:wyklccrrm
Perspective 5
View Looking Southwest
hojcct No;
NCA W61T: 0.-V_°/Yr k[tl15B]INS
—'e;
kck Muik
I nrtf"
Ih< ! dAH
P pucd Bl
CFn(kcd By:
Ilk
ax;
tune
x „n,.. ,.rttrrrx r �r .. i✓w a�...
WAL*MART
Lodi, California
Store No. 1789-03
I ni III � , -
Sheet 6 of 7
william Parrish
design development
consultants, Inc.
1000 lake, drke, suite 4OS
—st as 1",,, 91791
p. 626.917.6890
T"(.9 7.60)(1
Perspective 6
View Lookine Southeast
'nryttt P'n:
\G\VkIT-0.,0-116 REVISIONS
tale:
RCteteMY lk•Iiill
ue Date:
IhY rn!n t ?. mu
',cp—1 Ry
l ui w:u. Ik o".
;pecked 8V
IYR
AW:
W.V'
WAL*MART
Lodi, California
Store No .1789-03
Sheet 7of 7
William par en
design development
consultants, inc.
t00D lakes drne, wite
91791190
7
Hecicmina, ca
1�.6n.91;.6xa1
t .4!6.917.6RUR
Nv NMN'. Wcxt
Q
U
F
omm
3
KETTLEMAN ROAD HIGHWAY 12
a�
JI � 'd►�iil'
I0F �I�
lrcAi.nlu! _ � vwN
j tY.�u. n.D�wD covwv I ow.rae.,e e.Dun.e!
O
OUTPARCEL 4 UTPARCEL 5
`y ®-I j
4
�p.3 /oly i, 1,%, alis tllif _ ' �.. Iil' �� o.l i i •i �} 1 a�p.
(!�,< .r•. �• -ave /�Yn. I -:'i! �':).� ' tVy
4>r
�! yy
•
4
1
1 MART r.V - •r?
�,: 94s� '1'.�•'-9:. !.'..i '..i 44ia '44a,- O..i �ill3 1��
Qlya' 14 1.: . Pars. 1r "All
p in. NO
,.
SITE PLAN
01 �1 \• :�'r of C"-. �.i . -!i � e�m�
4
�^II .IDa
I►elf' r.. ,i ''r � �'i �', "�" �i �i ll��
- 1
OUTPARCEL 10
PIIl17\Z MIIII.
• nODOGPWf O0.A�ID. J
rma me
Au •a oA'.�DN nn rorx cDlMr, ax
SHRUBS AND ACCENTS:
ww a+us ewunNs�.
°'`lG" OrtTDfADNMTDeYaI. �AtA
�ATlD tDNA
1 <}� .HnAN.l. �aA•.r
WAPYtlLNB'JADc NAN!'
GW IIaW1MDPN!
Itll<.a'rxOWd1'6.arta'
NNIf� MVA w.W1T�LYW/
%.IIMAOO AURCUaTA
CAPE 0.N4lAGO
DWAFF GNxw�. UU¢L DNeCt"
� xnus �.naar 'aacw ewmr
JanAN.l..oXwDDD
b
FwD4aa..naalra
w Pra+na..
Yeu.ow w+tan�Y.m
bil.WMIIMYA U►wFRt
gMNl
HeYF1OCALLA Y6LGw lvQKiP![N
DATULY
GROUND COVERS:
I� coonoxuraax
I� va�l4vnre cavaDan.
Ili 4NL,YLDlPlbalM 3AsnND.u!
lrAR�Ay..a
sateN eu•:ceos N1TN
I wweHwl alacuolNel oAvw rrtwwA Ya:Dw
Ap f�uW xuov eAw+..
9 w.rAw.w,aFi.e
i .DD vw>v •. ••-•4•
NDT6 THAT TlYl RA. I! CD1YeR4AL M'wtlAu,NDrALL lwtrel ow rt.ANraa MAYx lMDw.t nae!
` IGKJ�y ANp C0.wTlliWRRATM DnwVAT wxLM NGWN On The DONITMICTON DOCLMNTI
` ALL 1..ANT/IY M{ TO N eMLC11lD WRM A T VnFI M eMK a411.C,1
A TN! aaaeATgNlritD4 f`f4L MAN AV1OnATK, unGlael4iLLYD 1YP! uYVe 4lTV Voux44 Fui.T.Durut DPi
1 Iv rsxaswr.tvY T1ANe TO VKM MVJrvD4�1 n�Aal.ORx+.+•e pL9 tDwD.vo POn.11v, L.Tv voluM
!/RAY MADb.
Au. VTDKAaaVe ewu w w eeew�A.ra wmt nu eyY on Ieo.! wA4w ur 1A+waaNe auDu+rrl.
JAMES
FERGUSON
CLABANGR
ARCHITECT
4s% SHAWN LAI
VACAVILLE•CA 95688
PHONEI FAX: 707d49-3916
LODI
SHOPPING
CENTER
LOWER SACRAMENTO ROAD
AND
KERKEMAN ROAD
LODI, CALIFORNIA
Date
7/15105 Eb. Dab
�e6Ne.
D-qg 6y J.C.
-.y J.C.
PRELIM UNARY
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
9Mat No.
PL -0
9117
SUGGESTED PLANT LIST
v
TREES: COUNT
�
�
l�Dua+sl•csrvama!'lDaule�'
coot w.vooD
O
2
O
uaoo enoaaN u os,aA �.
Z
NA TW!
w
a
cc I
v.al uur.Ax..A.mroour n
ROw>elaH PlM 1P/
v + Q
�
J .
�
V•eellTlDpAA TUlUJtlIUAYD wsrJet n
aa+w rDten!
nAYwDDD Aw
� rydt1
•
nurAeus..ca4osA a:D0000aa
lYc++aDlae
r \
w+.us'naxrne' �
• nODOGPWf O0.A�ID. J
rma me
Au •a oA'.�DN nn rorx cDlMr, ax
SHRUBS AND ACCENTS:
ww a+us ewunNs�.
°'`lG" OrtTDfADNMTDeYaI. �AtA
�ATlD tDNA
1 <}� .HnAN.l. �aA•.r
WAPYtlLNB'JADc NAN!'
GW IIaW1MDPN!
Itll<.a'rxOWd1'6.arta'
NNIf� MVA w.W1T�LYW/
%.IIMAOO AURCUaTA
CAPE 0.N4lAGO
DWAFF GNxw�. UU¢L DNeCt"
� xnus �.naar 'aacw ewmr
JanAN.l..oXwDDD
b
FwD4aa..naalra
w Pra+na..
Yeu.ow w+tan�Y.m
bil.WMIIMYA U►wFRt
gMNl
HeYF1OCALLA Y6LGw lvQKiP![N
DATULY
GROUND COVERS:
I� coonoxuraax
I� va�l4vnre cavaDan.
Ili 4NL,YLDlPlbalM 3AsnND.u!
lrAR�Ay..a
sateN eu•:ceos N1TN
I wweHwl alacuolNel oAvw rrtwwA Ya:Dw
Ap f�uW xuov eAw+..
9 w.rAw.w,aFi.e
i .DD vw>v •. ••-•4•
NDT6 THAT TlYl RA. I! CD1YeR4AL M'wtlAu,NDrALL lwtrel ow rt.ANraa MAYx lMDw.t nae!
` IGKJ�y ANp C0.wTlliWRRATM DnwVAT wxLM NGWN On The DONITMICTON DOCLMNTI
` ALL 1..ANT/IY M{ TO N eMLC11lD WRM A T VnFI M eMK a411.C,1
A TN! aaaeATgNlritD4 f`f4L MAN AV1OnATK, unGlael4iLLYD 1YP! uYVe 4lTV Voux44 Fui.T.Durut DPi
1 Iv rsxaswr.tvY T1ANe TO VKM MVJrvD4�1 n�Aal.ORx+.+•e pL9 tDwD.vo POn.11v, L.Tv voluM
!/RAY MADb.
Au. VTDKAaaVe ewu w w eeew�A.ra wmt nu eyY on Ieo.! wA4w ur 1A+waaNe auDu+rrl.
JAMES
FERGUSON
CLABANGR
ARCHITECT
4s% SHAWN LAI
VACAVILLE•CA 95688
PHONEI FAX: 707d49-3916
LODI
SHOPPING
CENTER
LOWER SACRAMENTO ROAD
AND
KERKEMAN ROAD
LODI, CALIFORNIA
Date
7/15105 Eb. Dab
�e6Ne.
D-qg 6y J.C.
-.y J.C.
PRELIM UNARY
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
9Mat No.
PL -0
9117
Comment
Letters
Dear Ms. Johl and Members of the City Council:
Mis office represents the Citizens for Open Government. This letter is to
call your attention to violations of the Ralph M. Brown Act, which occurred
during the Lodi City Council ("Council") meeting on December 10,2008.
The violation occurred with respect to the Council's aetien on the following
agenda item:
B.1 Public Hearing to Consider the Appeals of Browman Development
Company and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Regarding the Decision of the Planning
Commission to Not Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report
Regarding the Lodi Shopping Center Project Located at 2640 West
Kettleman Lane (CD)
The action cf the Council to grant the appeal and certify the Final
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Lodi Shopping Center was not in
compliance with the Brown Act for the following reasons:
1. The meeting was not open as required by Government Code section
54953. An open meeting is not one where the only choice to attend is to sit in
near freezing temperatures for 2 and half hours, particularly when the City could
have easily postponed the meeting in order meet in a facility capable cf
providing seatin for all concerned. These facts also establish a violation Cf
section 54954.3(aby unreasonably interfering with the public's right to comment
on the agenda item.
2. In order to ensure attendance, members of the public had to fill out
speaker cards in violation of Government Code section 54953.3,which prohibits
the placement of eorklitions of identification on meeting attendance.
5307587169
P.1
Jan 06 2009 1:02PM Law Office of DB Mooney
LAW OFFICES OF DONALD
B.. MOONEY
R. E E IV E D
129 C Street, Suite. 2
B Davis, California 95626
T�ONfit.1? MOC�NFY 'reiephone (530) 758-2377
2009 �ir:. —6 PM 1:'06
Facsimile 630) 758-7169
dbinooney �n.�rg
,,,
C', 1 TO L'r ft �
CIS( Y OF LODI
January 6,2008
✓CC
HR
VIA FACSLMILE (209-333-6807)
VCM
is
AND .FEDERAL EXPRESS
✓CA GLIB
ZCD �PR
Randi Johl, City Clerk
^EUD SPD
Lodi City Council
—FIN _PW
221 W. Pine Street
AFD
COM
Lodi, California 95240
Re:. NOTICE TO CUREAND CORRECTVIOLA77ON Com' THERALPH
M BROWN ACT PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54960.1
Dear Ms. Johl and Members of the City Council:
Mis office represents the Citizens for Open Government. This letter is to
call your attention to violations of the Ralph M. Brown Act, which occurred
during the Lodi City Council ("Council") meeting on December 10,2008.
The violation occurred with respect to the Council's aetien on the following
agenda item:
B.1 Public Hearing to Consider the Appeals of Browman Development
Company and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Regarding the Decision of the Planning
Commission to Not Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report
Regarding the Lodi Shopping Center Project Located at 2640 West
Kettleman Lane (CD)
The action cf the Council to grant the appeal and certify the Final
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Lodi Shopping Center was not in
compliance with the Brown Act for the following reasons:
1. The meeting was not open as required by Government Code section
54953. An open meeting is not one where the only choice to attend is to sit in
near freezing temperatures for 2 and half hours, particularly when the City could
have easily postponed the meeting in order meet in a facility capable cf
providing seatin for all concerned. These facts also establish a violation Cf
section 54954.3(aby unreasonably interfering with the public's right to comment
on the agenda item.
2. In order to ensure attendance, members of the public had to fill out
speaker cards in violation of Government Code section 54953.3,which prohibits
the placement of eorklitions of identification on meeting attendance.
Jan 06 2009 1:02PM Law Office of DB Mooney 5307587169
Ms. Randi johl
January6,2009
Page 2
3. By providing the new and unprecedented comment and meeting
procedures in advance to only some entities, the rules for public comment were
not fair in violation cf Government Code section 54954.5(b). In addition, the
selection of the 4 p.m. timd. to submit speaker/ attendance cards appears
calculated to favor the paid Wal-Mart employees who packed the room to the
exclusion cf other interests - i.e., those opponents of the project would have had
to leave work without pay in order to ensure admittance to the meeting,
4. In violation of Government Code section 54956, the agenda for the
December 10 special meeting lists the starting time of the meeting incorrectlyas
6:30 p.m. The meeting effectively started at 4:00 p.m. for members cf the public
when they were required to submit speaker-/ attendance cards in order to ensure
their attendance.
Pursuant to the Government Code seetim54960.1 we demand that the
Lodi City Council cure and correct the illegally taken action As follows:
1. The formal and explicit withdrawal and nullification of the action
taken on Agenda Item B:1 at the December 10,2008 meeting.
As provided by section 54960.1', you have 30 days from the receipt of this
demand to either cure or correct the challenged action or inform this office of
your decision not to do so. If you fail to cure or correct as demanded, such
inaction may leave our client with no reeoursebut to seek a judicial invalidation
of the challenged action pursuant to section 54960.1; in which case w e would
seek the award of court costs and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to section
54960.5.
Very truly yours,
John L. Marshall
Attorneys for Citizen.
Open Government
cc: Ann. Cerney
p . 2
V
'
L- ---------------------------'-'-------------^--------------------
_
�
!
�.~n�ee~_~`-~-�=^^.__._~__~�_`_.--°o'~- ��^'°-=~��--��-^---- ---- -- -�---
| ^
__-____�_-_____�_
........ ....
cz----
Page 1 of 1
Kari Chadwick
From: Mark Anaforian [mjanaforian@sbcglobal.netj
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 1:28 PM
To: Kari Chadwick
Subject: Wal Mart project
Miss Chadwick,
I'm e -mailing this to you in the hopes you can forward this to the members of the planning commission. I could not
find the needed information on the cities website (but than again it is Friday, so who knows).
Dear Lodi City Planning Commission,
I am writing this to urge you to vote "no" on the proposed Wal Mart project. I know this may be a little premature
but there is no time like the present. After attending the city council meeting on the 10th, and standing outside in the
cold for 4 hours, I was very disappointed with some of the council members. This has less to do with there votes than
in their condescending attitude. Thirty minutes into the meeting I knew the vote would be 3-2 and some members
seemed annoyed to be there.
But enough of that. My main argument against the proposed Wal Mart is the effect on other businesses in town. A
Super Wal Mart not only offers groceries, but tire service, pharmacy, garden, fast food and other items and services.
Do not get me wrong I am all for free enterprise when it makes sense.
From my economics classes at USC I know these facts. To increase your tax base without driving others out of
business you need one of these truths to be true.
1. An influx of new residents into our city - With the housing market in the shape it's in and banks not giving out
construction loan to home buyers as often as they use to, I do not see this being a viable reason.
2. Attracting customers from outside the area - With a Super Wal Mart on Hammer Lane, a now okay ed Wal Mart
store in the Spanos development on Eight Mile Road, an approved Wal Mart in Weston Ranch and a Wal Mart
coming soon to Galt, I do not see where these outside shoppers are going to come from.
3. People increasing their spending - Personally my family has a budget for groceries for the month that is based on
my wife and my income. Unless money falls from the sky we have only so much we can spend on groceries. With
unemployment at an all time high, uncertainty in the state and countries economic situation and people worrying
about their investments in their retirement accounts, I do not see people spending more money just because a Super
Wal Mart opens their doors.
Lodi's tax revenue income is like a pie. It's not getting bigger. Instead Wal Mart is j ust trying to take a bigger piece
of the pie. And if they do, and you think this will not affect other stores you are sadly mistaken. Responsible growth
not only means for home building but for business building.
Many towns across the U.S. have fallen for the pitch from Wal Mart and have regretted their decision later. In
Nowata, Oklahoma a Wal Mart was opened in 1982 which caused half of the businesses in downtown to close. Then
in 1984, they closed that store and one in a nearby town and opened a Super Center 30 miles away. Effectively
killing not only the downtown of Nowata, but also the town's tax revenues.
Do not be fooled by the grandiose promises from Wal Mart. They are always over inflated and at times not
truthful. I strongly urge you to vote no on the proposed Wal Mart projects when it comes up for the next vote.
Thank you for your time,
Mark Anaforian
12/12/2008
Page 1 of 1
Kari Chadwick
Subject: Wal-Mart Wolves
Member(s)
Bill Cummins
Randall Heinitz
Steven Hennecke
Dave Kirsten
Wendel Kiser
Tim Mattheis
Debbie Olson
To our esteemed Planning Commission members:
Do you folks really want to continue being a party to this outside "ambulance chasing" legal and financial support that is being
used to hassle Lodi, Tracy, and other communities which run up city costs and become a consuming distraction? Idearly hope
not. Enough is enough. Please see below.
Thank you,
Jim Locke
511 Willow Glen Drive
Lodi, CA 95240
368-9009
To Our Honorable City Council and the Lodi News -Sentinel:
(just read in the Lodi News -Sentinel that Tracy, which approved a Wal-Mart Supercenter last month, has been sued over claims
that its impact studies are incomplete and inaccurate. The City was sued by the same law firm that sued Lodi over this project
three years ago as well as on other Wal-Mart projects in several different California cities over the past few years.
Interestingly enough, this law firm represented Reynolds Ranch in their dealings with the City, helped them get their approvals
quickly and no litigation has been filed. Something is not right here.
I would feel differently if litigation like this was motivated by local residents but that is clearly not the case in Tracy, Lodi or any
of the other cities where this law firm has been active. If our Lodi elected officials feel that the studies and work done by City
Staff and the consultants they have chosen is sufficient then I am personally offended that an outside law firm would file a suit
like this. From what 1 have heard, this firm appears to go from city to city filing lawsuits like this against Wal-Mart projects as
though they know what's best. But they don't know what's best for Lodi.
t should be up to our elected officials and residents to decide and not for outside groups to turn to the courts to stop Council
approved projects because they don't like Wal-Mart. They don't live here. We do and Iwant to have a Supercenter in Lodi.
Jim Locke
511 Willow Glen Drive
Lodi, CA 95240
368-9009
P.S. Note the name of the organization created to play the "front"
First, quite similar to: Lodi First
My, what a coincidence.
12/17/2008
(representation) like they are local Tracy people. e.g. Tracy
Page I of I
Kari Chadwick
From: James Keller Dim.keller@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07,2009 1:25 PM
To: Kari Chadwick
Subject: Lodi Supercenter
I might not be able to attend the upcoming meeting on Jan 14th, however, I want you to know that I would like you to
vote NO on the final plans for the Supercenter. I was disappointed in the way the City Council failed to reschedule the
hearing on Wa1Mart, as it appeared that the WalMart people were advised of the city managers decision, on the day of
the meeting to have seat numbers handed out at 4pm. When I arrived at 5:30 for the meeting - thinking I was early - I
found out about the seating decision and I was left out in the cold.
Jim Keller
2429 Summerset CT
Lodi, CA 95242
01/07/2009
Page 1 of 1
Kari Chadwick
From: Cinclarke57@aol.com
Sent: Monday, January 12,2009 8:05 AM
To: Kari Chadwick
Subject: (no subject)
Please consider my vote a NO on the Walmart Supercenter
I am not able to attend the meeting.
Glenn Clarke
209-339-8177
New year ... new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines.
01/12/2009
Page 1 of l
Kari Chadwick
From: Cinclarke57@aol.com
Sent: Monday, January 12,2009 8:04 AM
To: Kari Chadwick
Subject: (no subject)
am unable to attend the meeting on January 14 but would like to voice my vote "NO" on the Walmart Supercenter
Thank you,
Cindy Clarke
209-339-8177
New year ... new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines.
01/12/2009
Page 1 of 1
Kari Chadwick
From: russell young [young5084@sbeglobal.net]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 10:24 PM
To: Kari Chadwick
Subject: Walmart Supercenter
To Planning Commission members.
My wife and I wish to let you know that we are in favor of having the Walinart Supercenter built in the proposed
Shopping Center as the council voted for. We have been going to the Walmart in Stockton, but we would like our tax
dollars keep in Lodi. Thank you for taking the time to read our vote.
Mr & Mrs Russell Young
303 Cork Oak Way
01/12/2009
Page 1 of 1
Kari Chadwick
From: Harry Stafford [teebagx2@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 12,2009 1:34 PM
To: Kari Chadwick
Subject: Anti WalMart flyer
Planning Commission,
Herewith is rebuttal to a flyer delivered to my door:
Wal Mart should NOT be required to fund a full time Lodi PD officer to the Supercenter parking lot unless every
holder of a Lodi business license is required to do so.
Wal Mart has the right to determine its store hours and delivery truck hours without
oversight by any entity, governmental or otherwise.
Wal Mart should NOT be required to fund a Lodi Code Enforcement Officer when local businesses close after the
Supercenter opens. Operating any business is a risk that owners willingly take in order to provide a service and
hopefully make a profit. Competition is the
essence of our Capitalistic system and must remain so.
I am not necessarily pro Wal Mart but the anti WM who delivered the flyers are biased
against the company to the extreme.
Harry I. Stafford
2405 Saint Moritz Drive
Lodi, CA 95242
Windows LiveTm Hotmail@: Chat. Store. Share. Do more with mail. Check it out.
01/12/2009
LaA4 I Jo -41,
A
AL
zl
, ) -:� a�e i
Page 1 of 1
Kari Chadwick
From: Betty Peters [cutekitties@att.neq
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 6:11 PM
To: Kari Chadwick
Subject: Super Walmart
K. Chadwick:
Please consider this as my vote in favor of the new Super Walmart. I am so tired of going in circles over
this matter, can't we just approve this and get it done. The current Walmart is too small, the aisles are
too small especially for disabled people in carts. They put the clothes racks close together because there
isn't enough room. Plus, with the economy, we need a cheaper groceiy store and Lodi needs the tax
dollars.
Thank You,
Betty Peters
03/30/2009
Page 1 of 1
Kari Chadwick
From: Mark Watkins [watkins.mark@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 6:58 PM
To: Kari Chadwick
Subject: Enough is enough
Vote yes on the Super Walmart and end that ugly comer.
Later, Mark
03/30/2009
Page 1 of 1
Kari Chadwick
From: Ted McBrayer [tedmcbrayer@a yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 6:27 AM
To: Kari Chadwick
Subject: WALMART SUPERCENTER IN LODIHH
We will be unable to attend the meeting on April 8th, but do want our voices to be heard!!
WE WANT A SUPERWALMART IN LODI! ! ! ! ! ! We never shop at the small business because they
are too expensive and we are on a fixed income. In these hard times the senior citizen needs a
WALMART SUPERCENTER more than ever. The small shops have been out for a long time. Just
look at Lodi now ...2 car dealerships are gone not to mention all the other businesses gone. To keep
money not being spend in Stockton you need to approve this SUPERWALMART OR DON'T
COMPLAIN ABOUT LOST REVENUES TO MEM!
Sincerely,
Ted and Lynda McBrayer
6 Robin Court
Lodi, CA 95242
03/30/2009
Kari Chadwick
From: Bob & Jackie [bjhealy@att.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 1:48 PM
To: Kari Chadwick
Subject: Walmart Super Center
I am a concerned Lodi citizen who is in favor of putting in a Walmart
Super Center at the corner of Kettleman and Lower Sac. I do not believe
this will hurt the Mom & Pop stores in Lodi as folks who shop there will
continue to shop their. They are loyal clientele who shop there for
reasons other than price. I do not believe it will hurt Safeway or
Raley's for the same reason. However, I do believe it will benefit the
citizens of Lodi who are cost/value conscious. As you know, many, many,
many items are more expensive at other stores when compared to Walmart.
I could give you many examples, but I think it would better if you did
some comparison shopping for yourself. Although a Super Walmart may not
generate a lot more sales tax dollars than the current Walmart, as a
community, we need all the additional revenue we can get. A Super
Walmart will also create some additional jobs here in Lodi. In a nut
shell, I support a Super Walmart at the corner of Kettleman and Lower
Sac. Jackie Healy, Concerned Lodi Citizen
1
Page 1 of 1
Kari Chadwick
From: shirleymikeburns@comcast.net
Sent: Sunday, March 29,2009 10:45 AM
To: Kari Chadwick
Subject: Super Walmart
March 29,
2009
Dear Planning commissioner,
I support the Super Walmart Center. We have waited long enough. Please vote "Yes" on it
now.
Thank you.
Shirley J. Burns
111 Applewood Dr.
Lodi, CA 95242
(209)369-4643
03/30/2009
27 March 2009
Community Development Director
P.O. Box 3006
Lodi. CA 95241-1910
RE: Walmart Super Center
Gentlemen:
This is regarding an email I received today from Kari Chadwick, regarding the above topic,
Since my husband and I will not able to attend the meeting on April 8, 2009, we would like to express our thought
and opinions on this subject by means of this letter.
It appears to us that this delay has been going on way too long. What is the problem with Walmart building a Super
Center on the outskirts of Lodi? We feel it will not only be a big convenience for many people, but will also provide
employment, which is greatly needed in this economic downturn. The traffic issue has already been taken care of
and there is plenty of land on which to build and provide parking for the store.
Of course the large stores — namely Safeway's, Food 4 Less, and even Lowes - are going to take issue with
Walmart; but if Walmart can provide a quality productfor less cost, then we see that as competition, not unfair
business tactics. The construction cf this establishment will enable many unemployed construction workers to earn
a living, plus older people to have shot at ajob when it is completed. Walmart is also a place that a person who
has limited education to find gainful employment with benefits. Perhaps we can get some of the locals off of
Welfare and unemployment benefits by allowing Walmart to build their store and get on with business.
We do not feel this is going to jeopardize the "downtown" businesses, as most of the people who shop at Walmart
can't afford to shop at the shops downtown, Beside someone has messed up the parking so badly downtown, I
personally can't shop there as I have a hip problem which doesn't allow me to walk any distance. The trees have a
much better parking spot than most customers Oust my personal opinion, sorry).
Please make it possible for Walmart to continue with their Super Center and get this issue put to rest. I a m sure
you all have better and more important issues that need dealing with than this one.
Thank you for allowing me to express my thoughts and opinions.
Sincerely,
James and Alice Adkins
19261 Perryman Rd.
Lodi, CA 95242
Page 1 of I
Kari Chadwick
From: craig diederich [craig.diederich05@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 10:39 AM
To: Kari Chadwick
Subject: lodi shopping center, walmart supercenter
To whom it may concern:
My name is Craig, my wife Kris. I would like to encourage you to support the supercenter. Kris is
handicapped and we like to shop the supercenter in stockton. The problem is there is never any
handicapped parking available unless we want to wait 20 minutes or more for someone to come out.
There is also never a drivey cart. I feel that if the Current Walrnart moves to a new Supercenter, We
will have the parking, the everyday low prices, and the convience.
Thanks
Craig A Diederich
Kris L. Diederich
03/30/2009
Page 1 of 1
Kari Chadwick
From: Jerry & Shirley Schmierer [evencouple@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, March 30,2009 1:02 PM
To: Kari Chadwick
Subject: super walmart
I am mailing our support for our new super walmart. IT IS TIME!!!!!!!! Please,
please, please support this on April 8th at the meeting. Joanne Mounce is RIGHT!!!
Listen to the people of Lodi .... We voted this in once and some small influencial
group (ha) who knows, sold us out with their big attorney. What's that about????
Save us the gas driving to Stockton to shop superwalmart. Please be our voice.
You know who needs to hear the support from the people of Lodi.... Thanking you in
advance...
Shirley Schmierer
646 N. Loma Dr.
Lodi, CA 95242
2093398603
Lodi residents since 1977. We are seniors and need the savings
03/30/2009
Page 1 of 1
Kari Chadwick
From: Robert Davis [bobbetty1271 @sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, March 30,2009 9:21 PM
To: Kari Chadwick
Subject: We want the Wal-Mart Super Center in Lodi
We want the Wal-Mart Super Center in Lodi
Bob & Betty Davis
03/31/2009
Page 1 of 1
Kari Chadwick
From: Mark Washburn [markswashburn@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 31,2009 10:23 AM
To: Kari Chadwick
Subject: Wal-Mart Super Center
Dear Ms. Chadwick,
Thank you for all you and your colleagues in the City of Lodi do to keep the city functioning.
Please let the members of the Commission know that as much as we appreciate their role and function
looking out for us as a city, it is time to approve the Wal-Mart Super Center. As Mr. Johnson said at the
last City Council Meeting, "If this were Costco or anyone else it would already be approved."
Wal-Mart will employ hundreds of additional people at a time when our area needs jobs. Also, their
prices are excellent and a Super Center has many items we can't get anywhere else in Lodi for a
comparable price.
Again, thanks to you and the other members of the Commission for your dedication and thank you for
listening.
Blessings! !
Mark and Beth Washburn
03/31/2009
Kari Chadwick
Subject: Wall Mart Super Store
From: louisereiswig@sbcglobal.net [mai lto:louisere iswig@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 11:07' AM
To; City Council
Cc: louisereiswig@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Wall Mart Super Store
I am firmly against building a Super Wallmart Store. There are plenty of grocery stores,
pharmacies, fast food restraunts, meat markets, and the list goes on and on. We do need
dining and dancing places, there is absolutely no decent places for singles of all ages to
attend. For those of us older singles, as a widow, I would never go into a bar. But it
would be nice to have a place to have a nice meal or just go dancing. We have all kinds of
stores in which I feel would be hurt by building a huge store such as this. Personally, I
buy most of my groceries at Safeway or Apple market. Lakewood Sausage on Ham Lane and
Salisbury Meats are the best as far as a good quality of meat is concerned. Our Lodi is
and always has been known as a small town community. We have already lost two nice dress
shops and are forced to go to Lincoln Center, Macy's and Dillards to buy clothing and
better cosmetics. Why do we need a huge market that has everything, I very seldom shop at
Wall Mart on Kettleman. Please don't make it harder on other stores that would be hurt
from this! Thank you. Louise Reiswig
Page 1 of 1
Kari Chadwick
From: Ken/Gail Gruszie [kengol23@softcom.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 01,2009 11:25 AM
To: Kari Chadwick
Subject: Wal-Mart
Get us a super WalMart
04/01/2009
Aaron J. Rios
Senior Manager Public Affairs &
Government Relations
March 10,2009
Via Email
Honorable Larry Hansen
Mayor
City of Lodi
221 W. Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95242
Re: Walmart Supercenter Tax Impacts
Dear Mayor Hansen and Honorable City Council members,
r71
t 1 44111
P.O. Box 750
Bryn Mawr, CA 92318
Phone 909.799.1853
Cell 559-274.8461
Fax 909.799.1876
www,walmartstores. co m
www. walmartfacts. corn
On behalf of Walmart Stores, Inc., I am pleased to provide you with the attached economic study recently
completed by CB Richard Ellis. This study was conducted to determine the impact of the proposed Lodi
Shopping Center, including the proposed Walmart Supercenter, on the City of Lodi's General Fund
revenues. Walmart decided to undertake this study to respond to specific questions raised by some
Planning Commissioners and City Council members, among others, about what the net gain is projected to
be upon tax revenues specifically in the City of Lodi.
All data used in the CBRE study was based on figures' in the Urban Decay Analysis prepared by Bay Area
Economics (BAE) as part of the Environmental Impact Report (El R) for the Lodi Shopping Center and not
internal projected sales figures. The study's key conclusions include:
• The new Walmart is estimated to generate $1.08 million in sales tax revenue per year in 2005
dollars (see footnote 1)
• The other stores in the Lodi Shopping Center are estimated to generate $308,000 in sales tax
revenue per year in 2005 dollars
• Including business and property taxes, the new tax revenue per year for the Lodi Shopping center is
estimated to be $1.491 million in 2007 dollars
• The existing Walmart store generates $548,000 in sales tax revenue to the City, and retenanting of
the old Walmart is anticipated to generate $421,000 in sales tax revenue
' . The BAE report used 2005 dollars. As a result, many figures in the report are in 2005 dollars except where scaled
using the Consumer Price Index to 2007 dollars.
• The Lodi Shopping Center should result in an increase of $1.364 million ($1.491 — ($.548) + $.421 =
$1.364) in 2007 dollars
• The reduction in sales tax revenue from other stores in Lodi as a result of the Lodi Shopping Center
is $550,000 (Note: This figure is based on the BAE economic report and is extremely conservative
and therefore potentially very high because the BAE market area was defined to include stores
outside of the City of Lodi.)
• Using this conservative figure, the total net increase in sales tax revenue alone to the City is
$814,000.
• Once gains in property taxes and business license taxes are accounted for, and tax losses
due to diverted sales are included, the net incremental tax gain for the City of Lodi is
$1,000,169.
Our team looks forward to answering any questions you may have about this report or any other issue at the
March 11, 2009, hearing. I also want to take this opportunity to reiterate Walmart's previous statements
concerning the procedures used at the December 10, 2008, hearing. I wanted to make abundantly clear
that Walmart did not have any prior knowledge of the ticket distribution system for the December 10, 2008,
hearing. City staff did not tell any member of our team that tickets would be distributed for seats inside the
chamber, nor did they tell us what time city personnel would begin that distribution. These facts can be
easily confirmed with city staff. Also, while we understand the Council's decision to re -hear the certification
of the Draft EIR out of an abundance of caution, we do not believe that the procedures used by the city at
the December 10, 2008, hearing, caused a Brown Act violation.
Despite the many delays that the Lodi Shopping Center has encountered along the way, Walmart and
Browman Development remain committed to building this important project. Both Walmart and Browman
Development have been part of the successful fabric of Lodi for many years, and we hope that our mutual
commitment to Lodi is self-evident. We believe, and we hope you will agree, that the Lodi Shopping Center
will be an asset for the citizens of Lodi for many years to come.
Resp-ectf illy,
Aaron J. Rios
Senior Manager Public Affairs & Government Relations
Wal-Mart Stores. Inc.
Attachments
cc: Lodi City Council
Blair King, City Manager
Steve Schwabauer, City Attorney
Radlam Bartlam, Interim Community Development Director
CBRE CONSULTING, INC
Date: January 12, 2009
To: City of Lodi
CBMM11110ft SMI
CB RICHARD ELLIS
4 Embarcodero Center, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94111
T 415 781 8900
F 415 733 5530
www.cbre.com/consulting
MEMORANDUM
From: Elliot R. Stein
Senior Managing Director
CBRE Consulting, Inc.
Re: Proposed Lodi Shopping Center
Sales Tax, Property Tax and Business License Tax Impacts
CBRE Consulting, Inc. was asked to determine the impact of the development of the proposed
Lodi Shopping Center ("the Center") on the City of Lodi's General Fund revenues. The Center
will be anchored by a 226,868 square foot Wal-Mart Supercenter and an additional 113,098
square feet of other retail space (see Exhibit 1). CBRE Consulting relied upon certain
information contained in the Economic Impact Analysis prepared by Bay Area Economics (BAE)
in order to conduct this analysis.' Specifically, the BAE report was the source of the project
description, square footages, and sales per square foot figures used to estimate sales and
property tax revenues. In addition, CBRE Consulting obtained from the California Board of
Equalization and the City of Lodi's Finance Department information on property tax, sales tax,
and business license tax relevant to the City of Lodi. Findings are summarized below and
presented in greater detail in the attached exhibits.
Sales Tax Generated by the Center
According to the California Board of Equalization, the City of Lodi receives 1.0 percent of
taxable retail sales generated by businesses within the city. Since not all of the sales at the
proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter or at the other retail businesses in the Center will be taxable
sales (e.g. certain food items, prescription drugs, etc.), CBRE Consulting adjusted total projected
sales by removing the non-taxable sales. The adjustments are explained in detail in Exhibit 2.
Based on Bay Area Economics' sales estimates which were presented in 2005 dollars, sales tax
revenue to the City of Lodi is estimated at $1,080,700 from the Wal-Mart Supercenter plus an
additional $308,900 from the other stores in the Center, for a total of $1,389,600/year (in
2005 dollars), assuming stabilized sales. It would be reasonable to escalate these figures to
reflect sales in current dollars. However, for the sake of consistencywith the BAE analysis, we
did not escalate the numbers for this calculation.
' Bay Area Economics, "Economic Impact/Urban Decay Analysis for Proposed Lodi Shopping Center in Lodi,
CA," October 2007.
CBRE CONSULTING, INC.
City of Lodi
January 12, 2009
Page 2
Business License Tax
Relying on the schedule of business license taxes provided by the City of Lodi Finance
Department, CBRE Consulting estimated the annual taxes that would be payable by Wal-Mart
and by the other tenants in the Center. Detailed assumptions are shown in Exhibit 3. Business
license taxes are estimated at $128,000 per year from Wal-Mart plus approximately
$17,000/year from the other stores in the Center, for a total of $145,225/year.
Property Tax
Property taxes generated by the Wal-Mart Supercenter will be a function of its assessed value.
For the purpose of this analysis, it was assumed that the value will be determined based on the
cost approach to value. That is, the sum of direct construction costs plus indirect costs (i.e. fees
for architecture, engineering, other consultants, financing, interest, entitlements, permits,
insurance, etc.) was used as the basis for calculating real property taxes. Cost estimates from
Wal-Mart were used to estimate the potential assessed value of the property (see Exhibit 4).
Development costs for the remainder of the Center were not provided to CBRE Consulting;
therefore, this estimate of property tax revenue to the City of Lodi is limited to the Wal-Mart
store only.
It was assumed that property tax is already being assessed on the land and that taxes are
already being received on that component of the property. Therefore, CBRE Consulting focused
on the net property tax revenue that would result from the development of the Wal-Mart
Supercenter. As shown in Exhibit 4, the net property tax generated by the Supercenter is
estimated at $358,630, of which an estimated $40,920 represents the City of Lodi's share.
Net Increase in Sales Tax
CBRE Consulting was also asked to factor into the analysis of sales tax impact two additional
considerations: the loss of sales tax resulting from the closure of the existing Lodi Wal-Mart
store; and the new sales tax that could be expected from replacement tenants in the space Wal-
Mart will be vacating. That analysis is presented in detail in Exhibit 5. It begins with the
estimate of sales tax from the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter ($1,389,568 in 2005 dollars).
That figure was escalated to 2007 dollars (to $1,491,241) before adjusting for the closing of
the existing Wal-Mart store and the addition of replacement tenants in order to have
comparable numbers. The actual change in the Consumer Price Index from 2005 to 2007 was
used to adjust to 2007 dollars (see Exhibit 5, footnote 5 for further detail). In summary, the
closure of the existing Wal-Mart store would represent a loss of approximately $548,000 per
year in sales tax revenue to the City of Lodi, while replacement tenants generating industry
average annual sales of $350 per square foot would represent an estimated $421,000 of new
sales tax revenue to the City. Overall, the net increase in sales tax is estimated at $1,364,000
in 2007 dollars, as shown below:
Sales Tax Revenue from Lodi Shopping Center $1,491,241
Less: Sales Tax from Existing Lodi Wal-Mart Store (548,2 17)
Plus: Sales Tax from Replacement Tenants 421,000
Net Increase in Sales Tax Revenue to the City of Lodi $1,364,024
CBRE CONSULTING, INC.
City of Lodi
January 12, 2009
Page 3
CBRE
CB RICHARD ELLIS
Among its conclusions, Bay Area Economics indicated that: "The net capture of sales from
existing retail outlets in 2008 is estimated at approximately $55 million.112 In other words, there
may be a diversion of sales from existing retail outlets in the trade area to the new Center,
which would result in a decrease in sales tax to the City from those outlets. Because the trade
area defined by Bay Area Economics is larger than the City of Lodi (it includes surrounding
areas outside the city limits), not all of the $55 million in diverted sales will impact the City.
However, for the purpose of this analysis, it is reasonable to note that since most of the existing
trade area retailers are located within the City, one can conservatively estimate that if all of
these diverted sales were at the expense of City of Lodi retailers, then the loss of $55 million in
sales would equate to a loss of $55 million x 1% _ $550,000 in sales tax revenue to the City of
Lodi.
Conclusion
The estimated net gain to the City of Lodi from property, sales, and business license taxes is
summarized below.
Total Taxes Incremental
Type of Tax Generated Taxes Lost Tax Gain
Sales Tax
Lodi Shopping Center
$1,491,241
Existing Lodi Wal-Mart
($548,217)
Replacement Tenants
$421,000
Diverted Sales
($550,000)
Property Tax (Wal-Mart only)
$40,920
Business License Tax
$145,225
Total _ ___
_ $2,098,386 ($1,098,217) $1,000,169
Sources, CBRE Consulting
z Ibid, p. 68.
CBRE CONSULTING, INC. soft �
CBMh
City of Lodi CB RICHARD EELIS
January 12, 2009
Page 4
ASSUMPTIONS AND GENERAL LIMITING CONDITIONS
CBRE Consulting, Inc. has made extensive efforts to confirm the accuracy and timeliness of the
information contained in this study. Such information was compiled from a variety of sources,
including interviews with government officials, review of government documents, and other third
parties deemed to be reliable. Although CBRE Consulting, Inc. believes all information in this study
is correct, it does not warrant the accuracy of such information and assumes no responsibility for
inaccuracies in the information by third parties. We have no responsibility to update this report for
events and circumstances occurring after the date of this report. Further, no guarantee is made as
to the possible effect on development of present or future federal, state or local legislation, including
any regarding environmental or ecological matters.
The accompanying projections and analyses are based on estimates and assumptions developed in
connection with the study. In turn, these assumptions, and their relation to the projections, were
developed using currently available economic data and other relevant information. It is the nature
of forecasting, however, that some assumptions may not materialize, and unanticipated events and
circumstances may occur. Therefore, actual results achieved during the projection period will likely
vary from the projections, and some of the variations may be material to the conclusions of the
analysis.
Contractual obligations do not include access to or ownership transfer of any electronic data
processing files, programs or models completed directly for or as by-products of this research effort,
unless explicitly so agreed as part of the contract.
This report may not be used for any purpose other than that for which it is prepared. Neither all nor
any part of the contents of this study shall be disseminated to the public through publication
advertising media, public relations, news media, sales media, or any other public means of
communication without prior written consent and approval of CBRE Consulting, Inc.
Exhibit 1
Sales Estimate and Distribution
Proposed Lodi Shopping Center
2005 Dollars
Store Characteristic/BOE Retail Category (1)
Square Feet (2)
Sales Per
Square Foot (2)
Projected
Sales (3)
Proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter
Square Footage
General Merchandise
176,313
$564
$99,510,918
Grocery
50,555
$564
$28,533,202
Total
226,868
$128,044,120
Other Stores
Square Footage (1)
Apparel
8,131
$300
$2,439,411
Drug Store
14,788
$478
$7,068,664
Eating and Drinking Places
17,190
$475
$8,165,250
Other Retail
59,829
$300
$17,948,589
Non -Retail Uses
13,160
N/A
N/A
Total
113,098
$35,621,913
Center Total
339,966
$163,666,033
Sources: California State Board of Equalization; Bay Area Economics; and CBRE Consulting
(1) BCE is the State of California Board of Equalization, which collects sales taxes from retailers and provides
public tabulations of the occurrence and level of taxable sales in the categories provided.
(2) Square footages and sales for the proposed shopping center provided by Bay Area Economics, "Economic
Impact/Urban Decay Analysis for Proposed Lodi Shopping Center in Lodi, CA," October 2007.
(3)Totals may not add due to rounding.
N:\Team-Sedwoy\Proiects\2008\1008135 Sheppard Mullin\Working docs\Exhibits 1008135 Version I Final
Exhibit 2
City of Lodi General Fund Impacts
Proposed Lodi Shopping Center Sales Tax Revenue
2005 Dollars
Sales Tax Assumptions Amount
Sales Tax Revenue from Proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter
Non -Grocery Sales (1)
Taxable Grocery Sales (2)
Total Taxable Sales
Local Tax Share to General Fund (3)
Sales Tax Revenue from Wal-Mart
Sales Tax Revenue from Other Stores in the Center
Taxable Drug Store Sales (4)
Other Taxable Sales (1)
Total Taxable Sales
Local Tax Share to General Fund (3)
$99,510,918
$8,559,961
$108,070,879
1.0%
$1,080,709
$2,332,659
$28,553,249
$30,885,908
1.0%
Sales Tax Revenue from the Remaining Center $308,859
Total Sales Tax Revenue to the City of Lodi $1,389,568
Sources: California State Board of Equalization; and CBRE Consulting
(1) Referto Exhibit 1.
(2)The Wal-Mart Supercenter's total grocery sales are estimated at $28.5
million (referto Exhibit 1). Itis estimated that only 30.0 percent of
grocery sales are taxable.
(3) Information obtained from the California Board of Equalization.
(4) It is estimated that only 33.0 percent of drug store sales are taxable.
Exhibit 3
Proposed Lodi Shopping Center Business License Tax Revenue
2008 Dollars
Business License Tax Assumptions (1)
Amount
Business License Tax Revenuefrom Proposed Wal-Mart
Total Gross Receipts
$128,044,120
Tax Rate (1)
$1.00/$1,000
Estimated Total Business License Tax for Wal -Marl
$128,044
Business License Tax Revenue from Other Stores
Apparel (2)
Total Gross Receipts Per Store
$609,900
Tax Per Store
$210
Estimated Total Business License Tax for 4 Stores
$840
Drug Store
Total Gross Receipts
$7,068,664
Tax Rate
$.60/$1,000
Estimated Total Business License Tax
$4,241
Eating and Drinking Places (3)
Total Gross Receipts Per Stores, 4 Fast Food
$1,150,688
Total Gross Receipts Per Store, 2 Sit -Downs
$1,781,250
Tax Per Store
$450
Estimated Total Business License Tax
$2,700
Other Retail (4)
Total Gross Receipts Per Store
$900,000
Tax Per Store
$450
Estimated Total Business License Tax for 20 Stores
$9,000
Non -Retail Uses (5)
Total Gross Receipts, 8 Spaces
N/A
Tax Per Business
$50
Estimated Total Business License Tax
$400
Total for Other Stores
$17,181
Total Estimated Business License Tax Revenue from the Center
$145,225
Sources: City of Lodi Finance Department; and CBRE Consulting.
(1) The City of Lodi Finance Department the Business License Tax Rate for the Retail and
Services Group is as follows:
Gross Receipts Tax or Tax Rate
$0 to $200,000 $50
$200,001 to $500,000 $98
$500,001 to $900,000 $210
$900,001 to $3,000,000 $450
$3,000,001 to $10,000,000 $.60/$1,000
$10,000,001 and greater $1.00/$1,000 (no limit)
(2) Gross receipts for Apparel estimated based on 4 stores at 2,033 square feet each.
(3)Gross receipts for Eating and Drinking Places estimated based on 4 Fast Food and 2 Sit -
Down restaurants at 2,423 and 3,750 square feet each, respectively.
(4) Gross receipts for Other Retail stores estimated based on 20 stores at 3,000 square feet
each.
(5) Gross receipts for Non -Retail spaces conservatively estimated using 8 spaces at the
minimum tax rate.
Exhibit 4
City of Lodi General Fund Revenue Impacts
Wal-Mart Supercenter Property Tax Revenue
2008 Dollars
Wal-Mart Supercenter
Total Direct Construction Costs (1)
Indirect Cost Estimate (2)
Land Cost (3)
Total Project Costs Excluding Land
Total Tax Basis (excluding Land)
County Tax Rate (4)
Total Tax to County
City Share of the County Tax Rate (4)
Net Property Tax Revenuefrom Wal-Mart Supercenter (4)
Amount
$26,800,000
$7,300,000
N/A
$34,100,000
$34,100,000
1.0517%
$358,630
11.41%
$40,920
Sources: San Joaquin County Treasurer -Tax Collector; Wal-Mart Stores Inc.; California State Board of
Equalization; Bay Area Economics; and CBRE Consulting.
(1) Construction cost estimates provided by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
(2) Indirect construction costs estimates provided by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
(3) Net property tax revenue reflects tax on only the hard and soft costs of the project, excluding land cost.
It is assumed that property tax is already being assessed on the land value; therefore, it is not incremental
to this analysis.
(4) Information provided by San Joaquin County Treasurer -Tax Collector.
Exhibit 5
City of Lodi General Fund Impacts
Net Increase in Sales Tax Revenue From Proposed Lodi Shopping Center
Sales Tax Assumptions Amount
LODI SHOPPING CENTER
Sales Tax Revenuefrom Proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter
Non -Grocery Sales (1)
$99,510,918
Taxable Grocery Sales (2)
$8,559,961
Total Taxable Sales
$108,070,879
Local Tax Share to General Fund (3)
1.0%
Sales Tax Revenue from Wal-Mart
$1,080,709
Sales Tax Revenue from Other Stores in the Center
Taxable Drug Store Sales (4) $2,332,659
Other Taxable Sales (1) $28,553,249
Total Taxable Sales $30,885,908
Local Tax Share to General Fund (3) 1.0%
Sales Tax Revenue from the Remaining Center $308,859
Total Sales Tax Revenue to the City of Lodi
2005 Dollars $1,389,568
2007 Dollars (5) $1,491,241 [A]
LESS EXISTING LODI WAL-MART STORE
Sales Tax Paid to City of Lodi (2007) (6) $548,217 [B]
PLUS: REPLACEMENTTENANTS AT EXISTING LODI WAL-MART STORE
Taxable Sales (7) $42,100,000
Local Tax Share to General Fund (3) 1.0%
Sales Tax Revenue from Replacement Tenants $421,000 [C]
NET INCREASE IN SALES TAX REVENUETO CITY CF LODI [A $1,364,024
-B+C]
Sources: California State Board of Equalization; State of California Department of Industrial
Relations, Division of Labor Statistics and Research; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; and CBRE
Consulting.
(1) Refer to Exhibit 1.
(2)The Wal-Mart Supercenter's total grocery sales are estimated at $28.5 million (referto
Exhibit 1). It is estimated that only 30.0 percent of grocery sales are taxable.
(3) Information obtained from the California Board of Equalization.
(4) It is estimated that only 33.0 percent of drug store sales are taxable.
(5) Escalation based on the State of California Department of Industrial Relations, Division
of Labor Statistics and Research; annual CPI changes 3.9 percent from 2005-2006 and
3.29 percent from 2006-2007.
(6) Information provided by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
(7)This estimate is based on an industry sales per square foot standard of $350 multiplied
by 120,352 square feet.
COMMENT LETTERS
RECEIVED BY CITY
CLERK'S OFFICE
Through 5/7/09
REMY, THOMAS, MOOSE and MANLEY, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
MICHAEL H. REMY
1944-2003 455 CAPITOL MALI., SUITE 214
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
TINA A. THOMAS
OF COUNSEL
Telephone: (916} 443-2745
Facsimile: (9i6)443-9017
E-mail: info cet rtmmlaw.com
JAMES G. MOOSE
httpalwww,rimmlaw.Com
WHITMAN F. MANLEY
ANDREA K. LEISY
TIFFANY K. WRIGHT
SABRINA V. TELLER
ASHLE T. CROCKER
April 7, 2009
YIA ELECTRONIC & REGULAR MAIL
Steve Schwabauer, City Attorney
City of Lodi
221 W. Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
JENNIFER S HOLMAN
AMY R. HIGUERA
HOWARD F. WILKINS III
AMANDA R. BERLIN
JASON W.HOLDFR
LAURA M. HARRIS
CHRISTOPHER J. BUTCHER
JACK R. McKENNA
BRIAN J. PLANT
OF COUNSEL
Re: Browman Development Company Request —Lodi Shopping Center Project
Dear Mr. Schwabauer:
This letter reconfirms, pursuant to Government Code section 66456. 1, that our
client, Browman Development Company, will seek multiple final/phased maps for the
above referenced project if reapproved by the City. The Vesting Tentative Map Lot
Layout for Lodi —III (August 15, 2008), contained within the Planning Commission
Agenda packet for April 8, 2009, should therefore continue to be considered in light of
this request.
If you have any questions or need anything further from our client please let me
know. Thank you.
Very tryjy yours,
Cc: Darryl Browman
Jon Hobbs
Alexis Pelosi
CBRE CONSULTING, INC.
April 8, 2009
Mr. Wendell Kiser
Chairman
and Members of the Planning Commission
City of Lodi
221 W. Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95242
CBRE
CB RICHARD ELLIS
4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94111
T 415 781 8900
F 415 733 5530
www.cbre.com/consulting
Re: Additional Documentation to Clarify Information Presented at the March 11, 2009
Special Meeting of the Lodi City Council Regarding Tax Revenue Impacts of the
Proposed Lodi Shopping Center
Dear Chairman Kiser and Members of the Planning Commission:
During the public hearing portion of the above referenced Special Meeting, I presented
estimates of the sales tax, property tax and business license taxes that would be generated by
the proposed Lodi Shopping Center project (the "Project"). My presentation was based on
information included in a memorandum to the City of Lodi, prepared by CBRE Consulting, Inc.,
dated January 12, 2009. A copy of that memorandum is attached. Please note it contains all
of the assumptions relied upon to estimate tax revenue to the City from the Project. This letter is
intended to briefly summarize our findings and to respond to questions raised by
Councilmembers Susan Hitchcock and Joanne Mounce about apparent discrepancies between
the CBRE Consulting findings and those presented by other sources.
Summary of Estimated Sales Tax
Our analysis considered four components in order to estimate the net impact of the Project on
sales tax revenue to the City of Lodi:
■ the gain of sales tax from the new Lodi Shopping Center including the 226,868 SF Wal-
Mart Supercenter and an additional 113,098 SF of other stores;
■ the loss of sales tax from the closing of the existing Lodi Wal-Mart;
■ the gain of sales tax that could be generated by replacement tenants who occupy the
existing Wal-Mart store after Wal-Mart vacates the premises; and
■ the loss of sales tax resulting from the diversion of sales from existing retail outlets in the
trade area (as concluded by Bay Area Economics [BAE] in its report, "Economic
Impact/Urban Decay Analysis for Proposed Lodi Shopping Center in Lodi, CA," dated
October 2007, prepared for the City of Lodi as part of the Project EIR [the "BAE Report"]).
CBRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
Mr. Wendell Kiser, Chairman
Members of the Planning Commission CB RICHARD ELLIS
April 8, 2009
Page 2
As explained in the January 12, 2009 memorandum, the net increase in sales tax revenue to
the City of Lodi was estimated to be $814,000 (in 2007 dollars) as shown below.
Sales Tax to the City of Lodi
Lodi Shopping Center
$1,491,241
less: Existing Lodi Wal-Mart
(548,217)
plus: Replacement Tenants
421,000
less: Diverted Sales
(550,000)
Total
814,024
The figure shown above for the Lodi Shopping Center breaks down as follows:
Wal-Mart Supercenter
Other Stores
Tota I
2005 Dollars 2007 Dollars
$1,080,709
308,859
$1,389,568
$1,159,783
331,458
$1,491,241
At the Special Meeting, Councilmember Joanne Mounce stated that the CBRE Consulting
estimate was inconsistent with a lower figure of $790,000 which had been previously presented
by Wal-Mart. We inquired into this figure and learned that it appeared in an ad by Wal-Mart
which stated, in part: "Wal-Mart is one of the top revenue generators in the City of Lodi — in
2006 nearly $600,000 in local sales tax revenue was generated from the Kettleman Lane store.
The average California Supercenter contributes $790,000 in sales tax, representing a 35.9%
increase in Lodi." The difference between the CBRE Consulting estimate and the $790,000
figure can be explained as follows:
the $790,000 is an average for all Wal-Mart Supercenters in California and appears to be
presented in 2006 dollars.
the CBRE Consulting estimate relied upon sales per square foot estimates contained in the
BAE Report prepared for the City of Lodi as a part of the EIR. According to the BAE Report,
those sales were, "...based on a blend of national Wal-Mart average and estimated sales
per square foot for [the] existing store." For the sake of consistency with the economic
analysis contained in the EIR, CBRE Consulting used the sales per square foot figures in the
BAE Report to calculate estimated sales tax revenues.
In summary, the $790,000 figure (in 2006 dollars) is an average annual city sales tax for
all California Wal-Mart Supercenters, while the higher figures appearing in the CBRE
Consulting analysis reflect specific assumptions about sales per square foot projected in the
EIR for the proposed Lodi Wal-Mart Supercenter.
Also at the Special Meeting, Councilmember Susan Hitchcock stated that a report prepared for
the City by another economic consultant reached the conclusion that the proposed Project
would not generate any new sales tax revenue to the City of Lodi. At Council member
CBRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
Mr. Wendell Kiser, Chairman
Members of the Planning Commission CB RICHARD ELLIS
April 8, 2009
Page 3
Hitchcock's request, copies of two reports, both prepared by Applied Development Economics
(ADE) in 2004, were provided to us.'
The two reports are very similar; in fact the July 2004 report draws heavily on the contents of
the June 2004 report. We found nothing in the ADE reports to indicate that the Project will not
generate any new sales tax revenue to the City. It does conclude, however, "...that the
proposed project will take $36.2 million of sales away from established business assuming that
the superstore anchor tenant is relocated from across the street. "2. The remainder of the
Project's demand would come from recapturing sales leakage and from "new sales earned by
Proposed Project."' By comparison, the BAE report used in the EIR prepared for the City was
more pessimistic in its estimate of diverted sales (i.e. sales the proposed Project would divert
from existing retail outlets in the trade area). BAE concluded that the Project could divert $55
million in such sales, compared to ADE's lower figure of $36.2 million. CBRE Consulting relied
upon the larger BAE estimate to estimate the downward adjustment that would need to be
made to arrive at a net sales tax impact number. Therefore, as shown in the table above and
in CBRE Consulting's January 12, 2009 memorandum, $55 million x 1% = $550,000 was
netted out of the calculation in order to derive the next sales tax impact of the Project on the
City. In other words, the assumption used by BAE in the EIR (and by CBRE Consulting) is more
conservative than the assumption used by ADE with respect to diverted sales.
A comparison of the 2004 ADE reports and the 2007 BAE Report also reveals a disparity
between estimates of total sales for the Project. Both reports use the same square footage
figures. However, ADE estimated total Project sales of $111.5 million while BAE estimated
$163.7 million. The key difference in assumptions is that while ADE assumed Wal-Mart annual
sales at $350 per square foot ("The proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter Store is estimated to earn
at least $350 per SF of sales..."4), BAE estimated sales for the proposed Supercenter at $564
per square foot based on more current information including national sales data for all Wal-
Mart stores and estimated sales per square foot for Wal -Mart's existing Lodi store.' For the
sake of consistency with the EIR, CBRE Consulting used the BAE estimate of sales in order to
calculate sales tax revenue to the City of Lodi.
Summary of Estimated Property Tax
The calculation of estimated property tax is straight -forward. It is based on a cost approach to
value which would be used by the county assessor. Development cost estimates provided by
Wal-Mart were used to estimate the assessed value of the property. It was assumed that
property tax is already being assessed on the land and that taxes are already being received on
that component of the property. Therefore, CBRE Consulting focused only on the net property
' Applied Development Economics, "Economic Impacts of the Proposed Lodi Shopping Center On
Downtown Lodi," June 2004; and "Socio -Economic Impact Analysis of the Proposed Lodi Shopping
Center," July 2004.
2 Ibid (July 2004 report), p. 18.
s Ibid, p. 18, Table 10.
4 Ibid, p. 15.
5 Bay Area Economics, "Economic Impact/Urban Decay Analysis for Proposed Lodi Shopping Center
in Lodi, CA," October 2007, p. 42.
CBRE CONSULTING, INC. BRE
Mr. Wendell Kiser, Chairman
Members of the Planning Commission CB RICHARD ELLIS
April 8, 2009
Page 4
tax revenue that would result from the development of the improvements for the Wal-Mart
Supercenter. The City's share of property tax generated by the Supercenter is estimated at
$40,900. See Exhibit 4 in the attached January 12, 2009 memorandum for the derivation of
this amount.
Summary of Business License Tax
The City of Lodi's Finance Department was the source of business license tax rates. Those rates
were applied to the Wal-Mart Supercenter and to the businesses that will occupy the remainder
of space in the Project. Business license taxes are estimated at $128,000 per year from Wal-
Mart plus approximately $17,000/year from the other stores in the center, for a total of
$145,225 per year. See Exhibit 3 in the attached January 12, 2009 memorandum for all of the
assumptions used.
I hope this additional information is helpful. Please let us know if anything requires further
clarification.
Sincerely,
Elliot R. Stein
Senior Managing Director
cc: Alexis Pelosi; Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
N:\Team-Sedway\Projects\2008\1008135 Sheppard Mullin\Report\8Mar09 Letter to Lodi Planning Commission\ltr to
planning commission 8Apr09.doc
CBRE CONSULTING, INC.
CBRE
CB RICHARD ELLIS
4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94111
T 415 781 8900
F 415 733 5530
www.cbre.com/consulting
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 12, 2009
To: City of Lodi
From: Elliot R. Stein
Senior Managing Director
CBRE Consulting, Inc.
Re: Proposed Lodi Shopping Center
Sales Tax, Property Tax and Business License Tax Impacts
CBRE Consulting, Inc. was asked to determine the impact of the development of the proposed
Lodi Shopping Center ("the Center") on the City of Lodi's General Fund revenues. The Center
will be anchored by a 226,868 square foot Wal-Mart Supercenter and an additional 113,098
square feet of other retail space (see Exhibit 1). CBRE Consulting relied upon certain
information contained in the Economic Impact Analysis prepared by Bay Area Economics (BAE)
in order to conduct this analysis.' Specifically, the BAE report was the source of the project
description, square footages, and sales per square foot figures used to estimate sales and
property tax revenues. In addition, CBRE Consulting obtained from the California Board of
Equalization and the City of Lodi's Finance Department information on property tax, sales tax,
and business license tax relevant to the City of Lodi. Findings are summarized below and
presented in greater detail in the attached exhibits.
Sales Tax Generated by the Center
According to the California Board of Equalization, the City of Lodi receives 1.0 percent of
taxable retail sales generated by businesses within the city. Since not all of the sales at the
proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter or at the other retail businesses in the Center will be taxable
sales (e.g. certain food items, prescription drugs, etc.), CBRE Consulting adjusted total projected
sales by removing the non-taxable sales. The adjustments are explained in detail in Exhibit 2.
Based on Bay Area Economics' sales estimates which were presented in 2005 dollars, sales tax
revenue to the City of Lodi is estimated at $1,080,700 from the Wal-Mart Supercenter plus an
additional $308,900 from the other stores in the Center, for a total of $1,389,600/year (in
2005 dollars), assuming stabilized sales. It would be reasonable to escalate these figures to
reflect sales in current dollars. However, for the sake of consistency with the BAE analysis, we
did not escalate the numbers for this calculation.
' Bay Area Economics, "Economic Impact/Urban Decay Analysis for Proposed Lodi Shopping Center in Lodi,
CA," October 2007.
CBRE CONSULTING, INC.
City of Lodi
January 12, 2009
Page 2
Business License Tax
CBRE
CB RICHARD ELLIS
Relying on the schedule of business license taxes provided by the City of Lodi Finance
Department, CBRE Consulting estimated the annual taxes that would be payable by Wal-Mart
and by the other tenants in the Center. Detailed assumptions are shown in Exhibit 3. Business
license taxes are estimated at $128,000 per year from Wal-Mart plus approximately
$17,000/year from the other stores in the Center, for a total of $145,225/year.
Property Tax
Property taxes generated by the Wal-Mart Supercenter will be a function of its assessed value.
For the purpose of this analysis, it was assumed that the value will be determined based on the
cost approach to value. That is, the sum of direct construction costs plus indirect costs (i.e. fees
for architecture, engineering, other consultants, financing, interest, entitlements, permits,
insurance, etc.) was used as the basis for calculating real property taxes. Cost estimates from
Wal-Mart were used to estimate the potential assessed value of the property (see Exhibit 4).
Development costs for the remainder of the Center were not provided to CBRE Consulting;
therefore, this estimate of property tax revenue to the City of Lodi is limited to the Wal-Mart
store only.
It was assumed that property tax is already being assessed on the land and that taxes are
already being received on that component of the property. Therefore, CBRE Consulting focused
on the net property tax revenue that would result from the development of the Wal-Mart
Supercenter. As shown in Exhibit 4, the net property tax generated by the Supercenter is
estimated at $358,630, of which an estimated $40,920 represents the City of Lodi's share.
Net Increase in Sales Tax
CBRE Consulting was also asked to factor into the analysis of sales tax impact two additional
considerations: the loss of sales tax resulting from the closure of the existing Lodi Wal-Mart
store; and the new sales tax that could be expected from replacement tenants in the space Wal-
Mart will be vacating. That analysis is presented in detail in Exhibit 5. It begins with the
estimate of sales tax from the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter ($1,389,568 in 2005 dollars).
That figure was escalated to 2007 dollars (to $1,491,241) before adjusting for the closing of
the existing Wal-Mart store and the addition of replacement tenants in order to have
comparable numbers. The actual change in the Consumer Price Index from 2005 to 2007 was
used to adjust to 2007 dollars (see Exhibit 5, footnote 5 for further detail). In summary, the
closure of the existing Wal-Mart store would represent a loss of approximately $548,000 per
year in sales tax revenue to the City of Lodi, while replacement tenants generating industry
average annual sales of $350 per square foot would represent an estimated $421,000 of new
sales tax revenue to the City. Overall, the net increase in sales tax is estimated at $1,364,000
in 2007 dollars, as shown below:
Sales Tax Revenue from Lodi Shopping Center $1,491,241
Less: Sales Tax from Existing Lodi Wal-Mart Store (548,217)
Plus: Sales Tax from Replacement Tenants 421,000
Net Increase in Sales Tax Revenue to the City of Lodi $1,364,024
CBRE CONSULTING, INC.
City of Lodi
January 12, 2009
Page 3
CBRE
CB RICHARD ELLIS
Among its conclusions, Bay Area Economics indicated that: "The net capture of sales from
existing retail outlets in 2008 is estimated at approximately $55 million.i2 In other words, there
may be a diversion of sales from existing retail outlets in the trade area to the new Center,
which would result in a decrease in sales tax to the City from those outlets. Because the trade
area defined by Bay Area Economics is larger than the City of Lodi (it includes surrounding
areas outside the city limits), not all of the $55 million in diverted sales will impact the City.
However, for the purpose of this analysis, it is reasonable to note that since most of the existing
trade area retailers are located within the City, one can conservatively estimate that if all of
these diverted sales were at the expense of City of Lodi retailers, then the loss of $55 million in
sales would equate to a loss of $55 million x 1 % _ $550,000 in sales tax revenue to the City of
Lodi.
Conclusion
The estimated net gain to the City of Lodi from property, sales, and business license taxes is
summarized below.
Total Taxes Incremental
Type of Tax Generated Taxes Lost Tax Gain
Sales Tax
Lodi Shopping Center
$1,491,241
Existing Lodi Wal-Mart
($548,217)
Replacement Tenants
$421,000
Diverted Sales
($550,000)
Property Tax (Wal-Mart only)
$40,920
Business License Tax
$145,225
Total
Sources: CBRE Consulting.
2 Ibid, p. 68.
$2,098,386 ($1,098,217) $1,000,169
CBRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
City of Lodi CB RICHARD ELLIS
January 12, 2009
Page 4
ASSUMPTIONS AND GENERAL LIMITING CONDITIONS
CBRE Consulting, Inc. has made extensive efforts to confirm the accuracy and timeliness of the
information contained in this study. Such information was compiled from a variety of sources,
including interviews with government officials, review of government documents, and other third
parties deemed to be reliable. Although CBRE Consulting, Inc. believes all information in this study
is correct, it does not warrant the accuracy of such information and assumes no responsibility for
inaccuracies in the information by third parties. We have no responsibility to update this report for
events and circumstances occurring after the date of this report. Further, no guarantee is made as
to the possible effect on development of present or future federal, state or local legislation, including
any regarding environmental or ecological matters.
The accompanying projections and analyses are based on estimates and assumptions developed in
connection with the study. In turn, these assumptions, and their relation to the projections, were
developed using currently available economic data and other relevant information. It is the nature
of forecasting, however, that some assumptions may not materialize, and unanticipated events and
circumstances may occur. Therefore, actual results achieved during the projection period will likely
vary from the projections, and some of the variations may be material to the conclusions of the
analysis.
Contractual obligations do not include access to or ownership transfer of any electronic data
processing files, programs or models completed directly for or as by-products of this research effort,
unless explicitly so agreed as part of the contract.
This report may not be used for any purpose other than that for which it is prepared. Neither all nor
any part of the contents of this study shall be disseminated to the public through publication
advertising media, public relations, news media, sales media, or any other public means of
communication without prior written consent and approval of CBRE Consulting, Inc.
Exhibit 1
Sales Estimate and Distribution
Proposed Lodi Shopping Center
2005 Dollars
Store Characteristic/BOE Retail Category (1)
Square Feet (2)
Sales Per
Square Foot (2)
Projected
Sales (3)
Proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter
14,788
$478
$7,068,664
Square Footage
17,190
$475
$8,165,250
General Merchandise
176,313
$564
$99,510,918
Grocery
50,555
$564
$28,533,202
Total
226,868
$128,044,120
Other Stores
Square Footage (1)
Apparel
8,131
$300
$2,439,411
Drug Store
14,788
$478
$7,068,664
Eating and Drinking Places
17,190
$475
$8,165,250
Other Retail
59,829
$300
$17,948,589
Non -Retail Uses
13,160
N/A
N/A
Total
113,098
$35,621,913
Center Total
339,966
$163,666,033
Sources: California State Board of Equalization; Bay Area Economics; and CBRE Consulting.
(1) BOE is the State of California Board of Equalization, which collects sales taxes from retailers and provides
public tabulations of the occurrence and level of taxable sales in the categories provided.
(2) Square footages and sales for the proposed shopping center provided by Bay Area Economics, "Economic
Impact/Urban Decay Analysis for Proposed Lodi Shopping Center in Lodi, CA," October 2007.
(3) Totals may not add due to rounding.
N:\Team-Sedway\Proiects\2008\1008135 Sheppard Mullin\Working docs\Exhibits 1008135 Version I Final
Exhibit 2
City of Lodi General Fund Impacts
Proposed Lodi Shopping Center Sales Tax Revenue
2005 Dollars
Sales Tax Assumptions
Sales Tax Revenue from Proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter
Non -Grocery Sales (1)
Taxable Grocery Sales (2)
Total Taxable Sales
Local Tax Share to General Fund (3)
Sales Tax Revenue from Wal-Mart
Sales Tax Revenue from Other Stores in the Center
Taxable Drug Store Sales (4)
Other Taxable Sales (1)
Total Taxable Sales
Local Tax Share to General Fund (3)
Amount
$99,510,918
$8,559,961
$108,070,879
1.0%
$1,080,709
$2,332,659
$28,553,249
$30,885,908
1.0%
Sales Tax Revenue from the Remaining Center $308,859
Total Sales Tax Revenue to the City of Lodi $1,389,568
Sources: California State Board of Equalization; and CBRE Consulting.
(1) Refer to Exhibit 1.
(2) The Wal-Mart Supercenter's total grocery sales are estimated at $28.5
million (refer to Exhibit 1). It is estimated that only 30.0 percent of
grocery sales are taxable.
(3) Information obtained from the California Board of Equalization.
(4) It is estimated that only 33.0 percent of drug store sales are taxable.
Exhibit 3
Proposed Lodi Shopping Center Business License Tax Revenue
2008 Dollars
Business License Tax Assumptions (1) Amount
Business License Tax Revenue from Proposed Wal-Mart
Total Gross Receipts $128,044,120
Tax Rate (1) $1.00/$1,000
Estimated Total Business License Tax for Wal-Mart $128,044
Business License Tax Revenue from Other Stores
Apparel (2)
Total Gross Receipts Per Store
$609,900
Tax Per Store
$210
Estimated Total Business License Tax for 4 Stores
$840
Drug Store
Total Gross Receipts
$7,068,664
Tax Rate
$.60/$1,000
Estimated Total Business License Tax
$4,241
Eating and Drinking Places (3)
Total Gross Receipts Per Stores, 4 Fast Food
$1,150,688
Total Gross Receipts Per Store, 2 Sit -Downs
$1,781,250
Tax Per Store
$450
Estimated Total Business License Tax
$2,700
Other Retail (4)
Total Gross Receipts Per Store
$900,000
Tax Per Store
$450
Estimated Total Business License Tax for 20 Stores
$9,000
Non -Retail Uses (5)
Total Gross Receipts, 8 Spaces
N/A
Tax Per Business
$50
Estimated Total Business License Tax
$400
Total for Other Stores
$17,181
Total Estimated Business License Tax Revenue from the Center
$145,225
Sources: City of Lodi Finance Department; and CBRE Consulting.
(1) The City of Lodi Finance Department the Business License Tax Rate for the Retail and
Services Group is as follows:
Gross Receipts Tax or Tax Rate
$0 to $200,000 $50
$200,001 to $500,000 $98
$500,001 to $900,000 $210
$900,001 to $3,000,000 $450
$3,000,001 to $10,000,000 $.60/$1,000
$10,000,001 and greater $1.00/$1,000 (no limit)
(2) Gross receipts for Apparel estimated based on 4 stores at 2,033 square feet each.
(3) Gross receipts for Eating and Drinking Places estimated based on 4 Fast Food and 2 Sit -
Down restaurants at 2,423 and 3,750 square feet each, respectively.
(4) Gross receipts for Other Retail stores estimated based on 20 stores at 3,000 square feet
each.
(5) Gross receipts for Non -Retail spaces conservatively estimated using 8 spaces at the
minimum tax rate.
Exhibit 4
City of Lodi General Fund Revenue Impacts
Wal-Mart Supercenter Property Tax Revenue
2008 Dollars
Amount
Wal-Mart Supercenter
Total Direct Construction Costs (1) $26,800,000
Indirect Cost Estimate (2) $7,300,000
Land Cost (3) N/A
Total Project Costs Excluding Land $34,100,000
Total Tax Basis (excluding Land) $34,100,000
County Tax Rate (4) 1.0517%
Total Tax to County $358,630
City Share of the County Tax Rate (4) 11.41%
Net Property Tax Revenue from Wal-Mart Supercenter (4) $40,920
Sources: San Joaquin County Treasurer -Tax Collector; Wal-Mart Stores Inc.; California State Board of
Equalization; Bay Area Economics; and CBRE Consulting.
(1) Construction cost estimates provided by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
(2) Indirect construction costs estimates provided by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
(3) Net property tax revenue reflects tax on only the hard and soft costs of the project, excluding land cost.
It is assumed that property tax is already being assessed on the land value; therefore, it is not incremental
to this analysis.
(4) Information provided by San Joaquin County Treasurer -Tax Collector.
Exhibit 5
City of Lodi General Fund Impacts
Net Increase in Sales Tax Revenue From Proposed Lodi Shopping Center
Sales Tax Assumptions Amount
LODI SHOPPING CENTER
Sales Tax Revenue from Proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter
Non -Grocery Sales (1) $99,510,918
Taxable Grocery Sales (2) $8,559,961
Total Taxable Sales $108,070,879
Local Tax Share to General Fund (3) 1.0%
Sales Tax Revenue from Wal-Mart $1,080,709
Sales Tax Revenue from Other Stores in the Center
Taxable Drug Store Sales (4)
Other Taxable Sales (1)
Total Taxable Sales
Local Tax Share to General Fund (3)
Sales Tax Revenue from the Remaining Center
Total Sales Tax Revenue to the City of Lodi
2005 Dollars
2007 Dollars (5)
LESS: EXISTING LODI WAL-MART STORE
$2,332,659
$28,553,249
$30,885,908
1.0%
$308,859
$1,389,568
$1,491,241 [A]
Sales Tax Paid to City of Lodi (2007) (6) $548,217 [B]
PLUS: REPLACEMENT TENANTS AT EXISTING LODI WAL-MART STORE
Taxable Sales (7)
Local Tax Share to General Fund (3)
Sales Tax Revenue from Replacement Tenants
NET INCREASE IN SALES TAX REVENUE TO CITY OF LODI [A
-B+C]
$42,100,000
1.0%
$421,000 [C]
$1,364,024
Sources: California State Board of Equalization; State of California Department of Industrial
Relations, Division of Labor Statistics and Research; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; and CBRE
Consulting.
(1) Refer to Exhibit 1.
(2) The Wal-Mart Supercenter's total grocery sales are estimated at $28.5 million (refer to
Exhibit 1). It is estimated that only 30.0 percent of grocery sales are taxable.
(3) Information obtained from the California Board of Equalization.
(4) It is estimated that only 33.0 percent of drug store sales are taxable.
(5) Escalation based on the State of California Department of Industrial Relations, Division
of Labor Statistics and Research; annual CPI changes 3.9 percent from 2005-2006 and
3.29 percent from 2006-2007.
(6) Information provided by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
(7) This estimate is based on an industry sales per square foot standard of $350 multiplied
by 120,352 square feet.
Page 1 of 1
Jennifer Perrin
From: Randi Johl
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 09:44 AM
To: City Council
Cc: Blair King; Steve Schwabauer; Jeff Hood; Rad Bartlam; Jennifer Perrin; Kari Chadwick
Subject: Consumer Reports - Costco vs Walmart
Attachments: Consumer Reports.pdf
Attached please find a copy of a report that was provided to Council Member Mounce by a concerned citizen. It is
being forwarded to the entire City Council upon request.
05/08/2009
COSTCO VS. NO -HASSLE
WALMART LAWNS
W
09 I CONSUMERREPORTS.ORG
I
RELIEVEYOUR
BACK PAIN
FEATURE
;..
- mil �: �
less, on average, than national brands.
The names stress value and shopping sav-
vy: A&P's Savings Plus and Smart Price,
Safeway's Basic Red, Bashas' Valu Time,
and Food Lion's Smart Option.
Expanded bonus -card programs.
Next to purchasing store brands, using a
bonus card is the surest way to save at
most chains. According to the Food Mar-
keting Institute, a trade group, half of re-
tailers now offer customers savings
through card programs, with discounts
such as two-for-one sales, members -only
specials, and reward points toward future
Bydoinga little homework and adjusting your
shopping habits. you could shave thousands
of dollars offyouryearlygrocery bill.
That's what Tod Marks, authoroithe
Tightwad Tod money-savingblog at www.
ConsumerReports.orgfound when he used
different strategies to shop for the same 30
products at two stores over several days in
February.As a savvy shopper, he sniffedout
the bestdealson perishables and national
brands; studied his local Stop&. Shop'sweekIv
flyer: searched for coupons in Sunday
newspapers, on
manufacturers' Web
sites, and at coupon
sitessuchas
SmartSollrCe.COm:
and used his store
bonuscard. Next.
he played the role of
an impulsive
shopper, filling his
cart with pricier
products in the
sarnecategoriesand in similar quantities. He
didn't usecoupons orbuy the cheapest -sized
package. Then Marks chose Stop 9,5hop's own
store -brand alternatives to the big brands.
again in the same quantities. Aftell at, he
compared the u nit pricesforthesameitems
at Costco Wholesale. a warehouse club known
for day -in, day -out bargains,
By payingattention to price, Marks cut his
cost by as much as 45 percent. Here'swhathe
spent for his 30 products:
Impulsive atsupermarket: $288.26
Sawy at supermarket: $166.22
Warehouse club: $15616
Store brands at supermarket: $154.62
Thechartat right. I isting 70 items, gives an
idea of how that pricegapgrewso big. Fora
free look at the complete chart, go to www.
ConsurrrerReports. org.
Bottom line. Marks hit thejackpot by
purchases. Giant Food Stores, for exam-
ple, doubles the value of manufacturers'
coupons for members. And during a re-
cent promotion at Vons, cardholders who
spent $100 received $1.50 off their gas pur-
chase at participating stations. Of the 56
percent of survey respondents who belong
to a shopper's club, 87percent were satis-
fied with membership -related savings.
More coupons. If you aren't clipping
coupons for items you buy regularly,
you're overspending. The average manu-
facturer's grocery coupon had a face value
of $1.08, according to NCH Marketing, a
shoppingfor store brandsand buyingata
club. But thosestrategiesalone won't be
practical for everyone. Another approach: Plan
menus and otherpurchasesaroundastore's
coupon -processing firm. In 2008, 281 bil-
lion manufacturers' coupons were distrib-
uted, and 2.6 billion were redeemed. Yet
about 30 percent of survey respondents
said they hadn't used coupons within the
past month. Most coupons are still to be
found in newspapers andmagazines, but
some manufacturers offer them through
Web -site downloads. Procter & Gamble,
for instance, has coupons on its own site
and on those of participating retailers.
Dedicated coupon sites at www.cool ings,
Corn, ww.coupons.com, Www.smartsourcexom.
Continuedonpagezz
weeklyflyer,usea bonuscard and coupons,
and opt for store brands as often as possible.
Warehouse clubs can be good forstocking up
on bulk items at low everyday prices.
Select savings: 10 purchases compared
$7„38 � $4.99 { $3.35 i $2.65
Mustard Maille, two75-oz. , urey Noupon. FID jar ' Grey POUPW
jars
Disinfectant ! $9.57 $4.81
Wile5 1 Lyscl, three Clorox. 105-5heet
i 35-sheetcontainei contamer,sale
Vegetable oil
Cereal
Premium pasta
sauce
Multivitamins
$7.98 $5.29
Wesson, two 24 -oz Crisco, Q -oz,
bott€es bottle, sale
$1.44 $2
Clorox
$2.34 $2.99
Crisco
$8-98 $3 $3.10 $1.89
Frosted Flakes, Frosted Flakes,two Frosted Flakes
two 14-0Z boxes 14 -oz boxes.card.
coupon
$8.99
$2.50
Rao's tomato basil
Classicotornatobsn
24-oz.jar
24-oz.jar,sale
$17.98
$4.99
OneADay. two
Centrumsilver,loo
50 -tablet bottles
tablets, sale. coupon
Laundry) $14.99
. 'fideZ(l id,
detergent l000z
I
Disposable;' $36.63
Huggies, three
diapers � 3o-countpacl<s
Cream $2.99
Cheese l Philadelphia,
8 oz. soft
$70.99
Tide 2X liquid.
1Qo oz., card
$21.49
Huggies, Iuo-pacK,
coupon
$2.50
Philadelphia,
9 -oz. bar
$1.75
Classico
$6.55
Centrum
$13.09
Tide 2X liquid
$18.30
Huggies
$0.98
Philadelphia. bar
$4.69
$5
$8.99
$16.99
$1.69
MAY 2009 WWWXONSUMERREPORTS,org 17
FEATURE SUPERMARKETS
Continued from pagel7
and www.shortcuLs.com are worth a try, too.
But they ask for personal information.
Extra -value coupons. If you live in a
fiercelycompetitive market such as the New
York metropolitan area, you might benefit
from a price war in which chains double
eor triple manufacturers' coupons, usually
those of up to 99 cents. Near our Yonkers,
N.Y., headquarters, we've seenA&P, Wald-
batim's, Pathmark (all owned by A&P), and
ShopRite dangling such incentives.
Website specials. Today's more so-
phisticated sites let shoppers see the cur-
rent store flyer, print out coupons, and
create customized shopping lists. Price
Chopper's site, for example, features reci-
pes for feeding your family for around $5
per person per meal. Move your cursor
over items in Hannaford's flyer and you'll
see the regular price, sale price, and the
savings between the two. Web sites are
also making shopping more convenient.
The Food Marketing Institute estimates
that 44 percent of supermarkets let shop-
pers submit orders electronically. At soma
branches of chains such as Albertson and
Hams Teeter, store employees will gather
your groceries and load them into your car
when you drive up. At select King Soopers,
Hy -Vee, and others, they'll deliver. Pickup
service typically costs $5 to $10; delivery,
about twice as much.
Longer salsas. Apart from their weekly
specials, some chains have extended or
frozen sale prices. Weis Markets, for in-
stance, dropped the price of thousands of
staples for 90 days this spring, Pathmark
identifies its longer-term markdowns as
"PriceHold" deals. Pathmark, in fact, un-
veiled a whole new type of store last year
aimed squarely at cost-conscious shop-
pers. The chain's Price Impact format
emphasizes those price -hold bargains, as
well as less-expensive store brands, eco-
nomical family packs, "yellow tag" sav-
ings (5,000 weekly specials), and "power
priced" goods that represent the deepest:
discounts ofthe week.
Drug discounts. This past winter,
many chains with pharmacies, including
Wegmans, stop & Shop, and Giant, of-
fered consumers free generic antibiotics
with a doctor's prescription. Year round,
you'll discover a growing number of
supermarkets selling low-cost generic
drugs. Walmart, Target, Bashas', and
Kroger are among The chains charging $4
for a month's supply of commonly pre-
scribed generics.
22 CONSUMERREPORTS MAY2009
Ratings Supermarkets
in order of ieaderscore.
1
Wegmans
0 0 O
2
Trader Joe's
® O O e
3
Publix
e A O e
4
Raley's
0 e O e
5
Harris Teeter
® e ® e
6
Fareway
e ® e O
7
Costco
O 5 ® O
Sam's Club
Whole Foods
39
Ralphs
Market
40
9
Market Basket
O O ® O
10
winco Foods
O 00 O
11
StaterBros.
O O e O
12
Hy -vee
e O O O
13
Piggly wiggly`
e O O O
14
Aldi
OG®O
15
Fry's Food Stores
0000
16
Fred Meyer
0000
17
Save Mart
® O 00
18
Kingsoopers
00 00
19
H -E -e
0000
20
SuperTarget
O O e e
21
Hannaford
0000
22
SbepRite
O O e O
23
Ingles Market5
0000
24
Schnucks
0000
25
County Market
O O 00
26
Pillons
0000
27
PdceChopper
O O 00
28
Cub Foods
O O 00
29
Sav-a-Lot
O C 04
30
BigY
O O O O
'Ratings
pertain tostores in Wisconsin. Iowa, and Illinois.
Guide to the Ratings
%' .G 4S n
g
0 Bett{
e
O
O
O wore
d
a ;a
o luu
31
Bashas'
32
Meijer
33
Giant Food Stores
34
grrrgh's Food&
35
Bi -Lo
36
Vons
37
Kroger
38
Sam's Club
39
Ralphs
40
Weis Market5
41
IGA
42
BJ's Wholesale
Club
43
Albertson
44
Safeway
45
Jewel -0x0
46
Giant Eagle
47
Aare
48
Stop & Shop
49
Pick'n Save
50
Dominick's
51
Tops Markets
52
Pathmark
53
Food Libn
54
Giant
55
Winn-Dixie
56
Walmart
Supercenter
57
Shads
58
A&P
59
Waldbaum's
Ratings are based on 32,599 responses to the Grocery Store Shopper Survey conducted by the
Consumer Reports National Research Center. Respondents told us about their experiencesat one or
two supermarkets, supe reenters, or wa rehouse clubs between April 2007 a nd Apri 12008. The survey
covers a total of 48,831 visits. Findings reflect the experiences of our readers, notnecessariiythoseof
the general population.
Reader score reflects overall satisfactionwith the shopping experience and isn't limited to thecriteria
listed in the table. A score of 100 would mean all respondents were completely satisfied; 80 would
mean very satisfied, on average; 60, fairly well satisfied. Differences of fewer than 6 points are not
meaningful. Other scores reflect how each store compared with the Overall average in several
categories. Service reflects a combination ofstaffhelpf ilnesand checkout speed. Perishables
pertainsto thequality of meat and produce. Readers alsojudged price and Cleanliness.
UPFRONT
Calorie-free,plant-based Truvia Is "a
miracle of nature;' the manufacturer
says. It combines thesweetener
rebiana, from theleavesofthestevia
plant; erythritol. a natural sweetener
typicallyfound in grapes and pears;
and natural flavors One packet is
supposedto be as sweetas
2 teaspoons of sugar (32 calories).
Rebiana had been'permitted as a
dietary supplement;last December
the Food and Drug Administration
approved itsuseinfoodsand drinks
despite earlier concerns. Here's what
our panel oftastersfound:
Coffeeand iced tea. The difference
between Truvia and sugar was subtle,
butsometasterssaid thecoffeewith
Tfuvia was more bitter overall. The
tea had a lingering sweet aftertaste.
Cornflakes with milk. Both sugar
and Truvia dissolvedniceiy in the milk,
but Tmvia on cereal didn't taste quite
like sugar and hada big, lingering
sweet aftertaste.
Strawberries. We dipped half of each
berry in sugar,the other half in Truvia.
Thelookandtexture of the
sweetenerswere similar,butTruvia
had an artificial flavor and bitterness.
Shortbread cookies. We used a
recipefromtheTruvia Web site. (Our
real -sugar version incorporated
confectioners'sugar.)The cookies
made with sugarwere toasted, had a
tendertextureand butteryflavor, and
were slightlysweet.Truviacookies
had some grittiness, alongwiththat
lingering sweetness.
Bottom lime. Truvia could be agood
choice, especially in beverages. for
someone on a sugar -restricted diet.
B u t it may not makesenseifyou'reon
a restricted budget: We paid the
equivalent of 9 cents per packet of
Truvia, compared with a penny for
2 teaspoons ofgranulated sugar.
8 CONSUMER REPORTS MAY 2009
I UP kp"Ow 9 it goo 7-
If you're shopping at a big retailer, you'll
probably be happiest at Costco and least
happy at Walmart or Kmart. That's a key
finding from our recent online survey of
6,903 subscribers to ConsumerReports.
org. They told us about more than 13,000
experiences shopping for everything from
clothes to electronics to car-careproducts
during the previous year.
We surveyed in October 2008, when
the recession was ratcheting up. Only
20 percent of respondents said their shop-
ping behavior had not changed in the pre-
vious year. Fifty-eight percent said they
were holding offon unneeded purchases;
46 percent said they were shopping less
often; 42 percent said they saw lowprices,
coupons, and sales as more important.
Overall, respondents to the Consumer
Reports National Research Center survey
Ratings B� retailers
Costco Eft
Kohl's
Target
JCPenney
Sears
Sam's Club Ftp
Macy's
walmart
Kmart [fes
`Reflects satisfaction with all shopping experiences.
Scores of 100 would mean all respondents were
completely satisfied; 80 would mean very satisfied,
on average; 60 fairly well satisfied. Differences of less
than 4 points aren't meaningful. Respondents might
not reflect the U.S. population.
34%.
That's how many retail shoppers
complained about too few open
checkout lanes.
were far more pleased with the quality of
personal-careitems (77 percent rated them
excellent or very good overall) than with
that of clothes orjewelry(56 percent).
But where you shop for those clothes or
jewels makes a big difference: Subscribers
buying at Costco were significantly more
satisfied with the quality of clothes and
jewelry than those buying at most of the
other eight storeswe rated, including some
better known for clothes, such as J (Penney.
Subscribers also that said Costco (along
with Sam's Club and Kohl's) provided espe-
cially good value for its clothes and jewehy.
The main complaints about the biggest
retailers as a group: long lines and too few
open checkout lanes. Fifty-eight percent
of subscribers tried to return at least one
item to the store in the previous year, and
16 percent had a problem with the return.
Bottom line. Costco ranked highest
overall in shopping satisfaction and was
among the top choices for apparel. Abasic
membership in this warehouse club costs
$50, but according to our online subscrib-
ers, it's money well spent.
HERUM CRABTREE
ATTORNEYS
April 22, 2009
VIA ELMAIL
Ms. Randi Johl, City Clerk
221 W. Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
Brett S Jolley
bjoiley@herumcrabtree.com
Re: Lodi First: Corrected Appeal to City Council re Lodi Shopping Center Project
DearRandi:
Please accept this letter as correction of Lodi First's April 15, 2009 letter appealing the
Planning Commission's actions on April 8, 2009 regarding the Lodi Slopping Center
Project. The $300 appeal fee was paid by Check No. 19432, delivered to your office,
along with the original appeal letter, on April 16, 2009.
I recently discovered that the original appeal letter contained a typographical error
listing the date of the Planning Commission hearing as April 8, 2008 rather than April 8,
2009. Although yourconfirming e-mail acknowledged the appeal related to the April 8,
2009 hearing date (thankyou), in orderto ensure an accurate record, this letter formally
corrects that typographical error and, to ensure no issues arise regarding timeliness of
the correction, the correction issubmitted within the appeal timeframe set forth in Lodi
Municipal Code Section 17.88.060.A.1. All other information in the original appeal letter
applies.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Iff
BR,ETrS. JOLLEY
Attorney -at -Law
cc: Client
Don Mooney, Counsel for Citizens for Open Government
Steve Schwabauer, City Attorney
2291 WEST MARCH LANE 1 SUITE 81001 STOCKTON, CA 952071 PH 209.472.77001 MODESTO PH 209.525.844-41 FX 209.472.7986 1 APC
Lodi Shopping Center
Applicant: Browman Development Company
File No.: U-02-12 — Use Permit
03-P-001— Vesting Tentative Map
08 -SP -08 - SPARC
Lodi Shopping Center
• Background:
• Planning Commission approval: December, 2004
• City Council approval: February, 2005
• EIR found deficient for cumulative urban decay
and energy impacts: December, 2005
• City Council rescinds original approvals: May, 2006
• Planning Commission Denies Final Revised EIR:
October, 2008
• City Council Certifies FREIR: March, 2009
• Planning Commission Denies project approvals:
April 8, 2009
Lodi Shopping Center: Zoning & Vicinity Map
/
1'
;L ..
Z`■■■wire
T.
�'i/'////////
/
City of Lodi Zoning Map
/ PD, Planned Development
_ C -S, Commercial Shopping
0 R -C -P, Res. Comm. Professional
R-1, Single Family Res.
® R -MD, Res. Medium Density
/ ,
R-2, Single Family Res.
N
PUB, Public
Lodi Shopping Center
■ Use Permit: C -S, Commercial Shopping District plan review of the site as well
as the sale of alcoholic beverages within Wal-Mart building.
Vesting Tentative Map: Allows the subdivision of the property into 12
parcels.
■ Site Plan and Architectural Review: Required for all buildings in a C -S
zone designation. Focus on architecture and site design.
Lodi Shopping Center
Use Permit:
. Allows the sale of alcoholic beverages within the Wal-Mart
building. The City has previously found that the sale of
alcoholic beverages is incidental to a grocery store
operation and that is what is being requested by the Wal-
Mart.
. The C -S zoning designation requires all plot plans to be
approved by the City.
. The plan presented is identical to that approved by the
City Council in February, 2005. The plan meets or exceeds
all requirements of the Lodi Zoning Ordinance including
the Standards for Large Retail Establishments.
Lodi Shopping Center: Site Plan
0
•�
SffE NOTES
� LJ x
Q ne
LL
wk
OW O Opq O O
. -� 111111 %�
`h' Q
.yyq nWpr,+,a w
3
O TIDO 4� 0 0 O O
<od
O OW O§ O O O O O
.0 .0 ON
Oy O O O 4 b
175
�a�i ix'��-ra. rCa. prsmttysMwwu
M f
r
f rco o bl b o 0 0 0
PA4 2
I
PA
50511 Ss F
I
10.0 5P
0
'
�M.se.s lon ,n xlewelwa aw ro. an rx..ve.
7,4 0 SF
'
- 1
1
mm
IIS. �
� •iii I
l l � I
.,ua.c�'•11 I ,
11= I
�II� I
aroAy I
am wiesl vu,rA oms)
I III I
I III
iir i
i yil
1
f•.
1
�'• i
I,
I
`
-- L ---Z--'1-----.L-..1-.--.-L.--�.-�.-J
L —
1
I 1
J
44
Lodi Shopping Center: Site Plan
e
■
O 10 �O O O 4
q oo oW�oo o b
9 O 0-0 O O O ko
IJP
0
•�
I C
®� a� a� o �O b
� LJ x
Q ne
LL
wk
OW O Opq O O
. -� 111111 %�
`h' Q
C,
3
O TIDO 4� 0 0 O O
<od
O OW O§ O O O O O
.0 .0 ON
Oy O O O 4 b
175
M f
r
f rco o bl b o 0 0 0
PA4 2
I
PA
50511 Ss F
I
10.0 5P
0
7,4 0 SF
44
I
i Y
PAD 6
14,7 $(
; 1i
=
O
O
I
F
ix
'
Q
O
I ll
11
—1r---.•--�.----
SF
j
�
-42b
'I
1
e
■
O 10 �O O O 4
q oo oW�oo o b
9 O 0-0 O O O ko
IJP
0
•�
I C
®� a� a� o �O b
� LJ x
Q ne
LL
OW O Opq O O
. -� 111111 %�
`h' Q
C,
3
O TIDO 4� 0 0 O O
<od
O OW O§ O O O O O
.0 .0 ON
Oy O O O 4 b
M f
r
f rco o bl b o 0 0 0
PAD 11
5.D00 Sr I I I
IIMM 8.59fi Sf ---
Ij
I
PAD 11
I 35.DOD sr
I
a
a
a
Lodi Shopping Center
. Tentative Map:
. The proposed Vesting Tentative Map
includes 12 parcels which range in size
from the largest lot at 18.3 acres to the
smallest at .53 acres.
.All 12 buildings are on their own lot with
associated parking.
Lodi Shopping Center: Vesting Tentative Parcel Map
Vat,E,W Tentative 91iap
Got Layout
for
Loi - III
A'PXs: 058-030-01 OZ 05&030-02
Comity ofSangoagr* Cafifomia
AWW 1S, 2008
Shiest 2 of 2
VA.
Lodi Shopping Center
. Site Plan and Architectural Review:
. The proposed project includes the construction of a new
Wal-Mart building which is approximately 216,710 square
feet. The Wal-Mart building would be located on the
southwestern portion of the project site, and the building
entrance would face east toward Lower Sacramento Road.
• Architectural materials such as concrete masonry block,
metal awnings, and exterior plaster finish will be utilized on
the exterior of the building.
Lodi Shopping Center
. SPARC cont.:
. There will be three entrances/exits from Lower Sacramento
Road, one from Kettleman Lane (Hwy. 12), and two from
Westgate Drive.
. The main parking lot is located on the east side of the Wal-
Mart building. There will be smaller parking areas to serve
the free-standing commercial pads. For the Wal-Mart
building, a total of 965 parking spaces are proposed
. The proposed landscape plan calls for various large shade
trees, smaller trees, shru s and ground covers. A total of
478 larger shade trees will be provided within the parking
lot interior, along the southern and western edges the
property line, and throughout the site. This total number of
trees exceeds what the City code requires.
Lodi Shopping Center: Landscape Plan
1 t
- r
I
VailDinI
Mille Val MI
_III as9 , . C, . . r� � � S r'.4ti ��► "!C � lu,
P $o ` I` I''.!M GROUND COVERS:
A
LLM
LLL__L_LLiI 11 Ill 11
���....,..�� __.a.�.®...
7..o..-. 0 SITE PLAN .a .....m o ba «...� .....
SCALE' 1"=BV-R'
Lodi Shopping Center: Elevations
LAST ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATION
WEST
SOUTH ELEVATEON
a — w1y
9A..
-
Low Prices �"
7
fl ^
4F
9
s
J•
_
AL
011
WAIS*MART
-
e -
Meat Bakery Dell ..
Low Prices
..
XL M
F
911111 ICIIINitl
-W :-,
-da
Lodi Shopping Center
• Conclusion:
. Based on the action of the City Council to Certify the Final
Revised EIR, the plans submitted and the policies and
previous actions of the City, staff recommends that the City
Council make the appropriate findings and:
Approve Use Permit U-02-12,
Approve Vesting Tentative Map 03-P-001
Approve Site Plan and Architectural Review 08 -SP -08
** BLUE SHEET
COMMENT LETTERS
RECEIVED BY CITY
CLERK'S OFFICE
Through 3 p.m, on 5/13/09
Jennifer Perrin
From:
Kari Chadwick
Sent:
Monday, May 11, 2009 04:45 PM
To:
Randi Johl
cc:
Jennifer Perrin
Subject:
FW: Vote No on Proposed Lodi Wal-Mart Supercenter
Kari Chadwick
Administrative Secretary
Community Development Department
(209) 333-6711
-----Original Message -----
From: Steven Jones [mailto: sj ones 0 145@gmail. com]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 4;46 PM
To: Bob Johnson; Larry Hansen; Phil Katzakian; JoAnne Mounce; Susan Hitchcock; Kari
Chadwick
Subject: Vote No on Proposed Lodi Wal-Mart Supercenter
Dear Lodi Mayor and Council,
I am one of many voices in opposition to the proposed 24-hour Wal-Mart Supercenter in
Lodi. Our city should focus on protecting Lodia€'s existing businesses, particularly our
locally owned businesses, and our quality of life.
Businesses throughout Lodi are struggling in this difficult economy, even without the
added pressure of a 24-hour Wal-Mart Supercenter. Our country is in the worst recession
in 27 -years! Lodi Is multiple shopping districts are littered with vacancies and more
stores will certainly close. Look at what happened to Geweke Dodge!
The Lodi Shopping Center will provide no needed services to Lodi. The center will only
serve to swap Wal -Marts, leaving one vacant big box store. We encourage you to remember
what happened in Stockton when Wal-P4art closed their old store for a new Supercenter. THE
OLD BIG BOX STORE REMAINED VACANT FOR YEARS!
Further, Wal-Mart has already gone back on its word with Lodi officials once. What makes
our officials feel they will keep their word in the future?
Lodi is a beautiful community with a unique downtown and thriving wineries! Our city
should be more creative in approving developments and generating revenues.
Please listen to your constituents and vote to deny the EIR certification for the Lodi
Shopping Center! Thank you.
Steven Jones
2029 Petersburg Way
Lodi, California 95242
Phone: 7038507791
p,s,
Delivered by CitizenSpeak!
Report abuse to abuse 4citizenspeak.org [1504]
1
Four Embarcadero Center I i 701 Floo, I San Francisco, CA 941 11-4109
415-434-9100 uffice I 415-434-3947 tax I www.sheppordmullin.com
r T O R N E Y A L A W
Writer's Direct Line: 415-774-2974
ape1osi@sheppardmu1Iin.can
May 12,2009
Our File Number: 15CM-130407
VIAE -MAIL AND U.S MAIL
Honorable Larry Hansen
Mayor
City of Lodi
221 W. Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95242
Re: Additional Documentation to Support Appeal of Planning Commission's
April 8, 2009, 3-3 Vote on the Lodi Shopping Center Project Approvals.
Dear Mayor Hansen and Honorable City Council Members:
This letter is submitted on behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ("Wal-Mart") and
Browman Development Company (`Browman") in support of their joint appeal of the Lodi
Planning Commission's three to three (3-3) vote on April 8,2009, on Use Permit (U-02-12),
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (03-P-001), and Site Plan and Architectural Review (08 -SP -08)
for the Lodi Shopping Center project (collectively referred to as "Project Entitlements").
It has been over seven (7) years since the Lodi Shopping Center Project was first
proposed in the City of Lodi. Since that time there have been two lawsuits, numerous appeals
and public hearings, and volumes of public comment. We know that this has been a long road
and'wewant to thank the City and its staff for its years of hard work on this Project. We truly
appreciate the City and the public's patience and input and look forward to what will hopefully
be the final Project hearing on May 13, 2009. That said, we are writing to ask the City Council
to re -approve the Project and make the required findings and statement of overriding
consideration under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
SUMMARY
The Lodi Shopping Center Project is projected to bring approximately $1 million
in annual increased tax revenue to the City of Lodi. This revenue can help fund much needed
public services for the businesses and residents of the City. The issue of whether the Project will
cause significant adverse indirect impacts by causing urban decay, as that term is defined under
CEQA, has been discussed and analyzed extensively. On March 1 1,2009, by certifying the
SHEPPARD MULLIN RJOITER & IJAMPTON LLP
Honorable Larry Hansen
May 12,2009
Page 2
Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project, the City Council found that substantial
evidence supported the conclusions reached and no further discussion or analysis is needed or
warranted, including for purposes of the return to the writ.
With regard to the Project's impact to prime agricultural farmland, the City of
Lodi does not have an adopted policy on this issue. City practice, however, is to require
development to obtain permanent conservation easements over an equal amount of farmland lost.
Here, the Project is required to obtain an agricultural conservation easement over 40 acres of
prime farmland in San Joaquin County. This is consistent with City practice and fully mitigates
any direct impacts of the Project on agricultural lands.
Finally, because the Project will have significant adverse impacts that cannot be
avoided or substantially lessened, the City Council will be required to adopt a statement of
overriding considerations. The six (6) statements of overriding considerations included in the
City Council Resolution approving the Project are supported by substantial evidence in the
record and satisfy the requirements of CEQA.
I. The Project Will Contribute Significant Tax Revenue to the City of Lodi.
At the December 10, 2008, City Council meeting on the Revised Environmental
Impact Report for the Project (State Clearinghouse No. 20030421 13) ("Revised EIR" ), the City
Council voiced questions and concerns regarding the tax revenue that would be generated from
the Project. As a result, Wal-Mart commissioned CB Richard Ellis ("CBRE') to prepare a tax
revenue analysis of the Project. That analysis was prepared on January 12,2009, and presented
to the City for the March 11,2009, City Council hearing on the Revised Environmental Impact
Report ("EIR") for the Project. At that hearing, Councilmembers Susan Hitchcock and Joanne
Mounce expressed concerns regarding CBRE's findings. As a result, CBRE prepared a written
response to those concerns that was submitted to the Planning Commission for their April 8,
2009, hearing on the Project Entitlements. A copy of that letter is attached as Attachment A.
The concerns raised at the March 11,2009, City Council hearing focused on the
wide disparity between the various estimates of tax revenue estimated to be generated by the
Project, if re -approved, to the City. CBRE estimates that the net increase in sales tax revenue to
the City from the Project is approximately $814,000 (in 2007 dollars). The total net incremental
tax gain to the City from the Project is approximately $1 million dollars. See CBRE Consulting,
Inc., January 12,2009, Memorandum to City of Lodi, pg. 3. As explained in the CBRE
January 12,2009, memorandum, this $1 million dollar figure is based on the net increase in sales
tax revenue as well as increases in property tax and business license tax payments. It also takes
into consideration the re -tenanting of the existing Wal-Mart Store as well as estimated diverted
sales from other retailers.
SHEPi?4RD MULLIN RICHTER& ILAKPTON LLP
Honorable Larry Hansen
May 12,2009
Page 3
The discrepancies between the various tax benefit figures can be explained in part
by the fact that previous estimates were based on "average annual city sales tax for all California
Wal-Mart Supercenters, while the higher figures in the CBRE Consulting analysis reflect
specific assumptions about sales per square foot projected in the EIR" for the Project as unique
to the City. CBRE Consulting, Letter to the Planning Commission, April 8, 2009, pg. 2.
Regarding the discrepancies with the 2004 Applied Development Economics ("ADE") reports,
CBRE found that these reports used a lower annual sales per square foot ($350 per square foot)
as well as a lower diverted sales figure ($36.2 million). See id at pg. 3. Bay Area Economics
(BAE), which prepared the economic analysis for the Revised EIR — and was independently
hired by the City — estimated $564 square feet with $55 million in diverted sales. See id
CBRE's analysis was correctly based on the most recent economic analysis prepared under
CEQA for the Project — the BAE analysis.
The approximately $1 million the Project is estimated to bring to the City of Lodi
does not include the value to the City of the additional investment the Project is required to make
in Downtown Lodi. Under condition 4 -HH, the Applicant and Wal-Mart voluntarily agreed to
the following:
"The developer shall invest in a building and/or capital
improvements within the Downtown area, as defined by the
Community Development Director, but no smaller than the area
described in the June 1997 Downtown Development Standards and
Guidelines plus the Pine Street Corridor extending to Washington.
Investment shall be defined as supporting construction,
rehabilitation, acquisition, tenant improvements and other
improvements. The developer may make or support improvements
to commercial buildings or property it owns or rents independently
or in partnership with others, or to commercial property owned by
others in partnership with owners and/or tenants. The downtown
investment must be made no later than seven and a half (7.5) years
from the issuance of final certificate of occupancy for the largest
retail tenant. The total aggregate value of the capital
improvements resulting from developer's investment must exceed
$700,000."
In addition, the approximately $1 million estimate does not include the indirect
tax benefits to the City from the increase injobs that will be created from the Project. As stated
in our March 10, 2009, letter to the City Council, it is estimated that up to 866j obs will be
created from the Project. While a portion of these jobs will be a relocation of jobs from the
existing Wal-Mart (i.e., approximately 300 existing employees), more than fifty (50%) will be
SHE PARD NIULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
Honorable Larry Hansen
May 12,2009
Page 4
new j obs at the Wal-Mart Supercenter and other retailers in the shopping center. Thus, the net
true fiscal benefit of the Project to the City of Lodi exceeds $1 million.
II. The Project Will Not Cause Urban Decay.
As discussed previously in our November 24,2008, January 12,2009, and
March 10, 2009, letters, substantial evidence exists to find that the Project will not result in
significant adverse impacts, either direct or cumulative, to the physical environment from urban
decay. Over 100+ pages of tables, analyses, surveys, investigations, etc., exist to support a
finding that the Project would not cause urban decay. Any potential for the Project to cause
urban decay has been thoroughly analyzed.
On March 11,2009, BAE submitted a memorandum to the City Council that,
among other things, analyzed whether the current housing and economic situation impacted its
previous analysis. BAE concluded the current market situation did not "affect its findings
regarding urban decay." BAE, Memorandum to City of Lodi, March 11,2009, pg. 7. It stated
that "the turmoil in the economy makes any kind of long term prediction difficult, and any
further analysis by BAE could be subj ect to a 'moving target' problem, where the updates to the
analysis would not be able to keep pace with events." Id. at pg. 6. BAE also pointed out that the
opening and operation of the Project is unlikely to occur until 2011 or 2012 and that by that time
the economy is "likely to have come out of even this serious recession." Id. at pg. 7. Thus, BAE
stands by its analysis and conclusions regarding the lack of substantial evidence showing that the
Project, if re -approved, would cause urban decay. Substantial evidence exists in the record to
support the less -than -significant impact conclusions. The City Council can rely upon that
information and other evidence in the record to reach the same conclusion, make the required
findings, and adopt the statement of overriding considerations under CEQA.
III. The Project Will Comply with City Practices Regarding Offsets for Conversion of
Prime Farmland
The Project site has been zoned and designated for commercial uses for over 10
years. The Proj ect is consistent with the zoning and general plan designation and only requires a
use permit, vesting tentative map, and site plan and architectural review. However, because the
Project will convert approximately40 acres of prime agricultural land to urban uses, it will be
required to obtain a permanent agricultural easement over 40 acres of prime farmland in San
Joaquin County. See Final Revised EIR, March 2008, pg. 116. According to the Draft Revised
EIR, the City does not have an adopted policy or General Plan requirement to offset the loss of
prime farmland. See Draft Revisions EIR, October 2007, pg. 57. Over the last few years the
City has implemented a practice of imposing farmland offset or mitigation requirements on
developments approved by the City.
8HEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & H TFON LIX
Honorable Larry Hansen
May 12,2009
Page 5
Any requirement to offset or mitigate a Project impact must include a nexus
between the "mitigation" required and the impact identified. CEQA and constitutional
requirements dictate that there be an "essential nexus (i.e., connection) between the mitigation
measure and a legitimate governmental interest." Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483
U.S. 825 (1987); CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(4). Moreover, "[w]here the mitigation
measure is an ad hoc exaction, it must be `roughly proportional' to the impacts of the project.
Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1996) 12 Cal. 4th 854." (CEQA Guidelines sec,
15125.4(a)(4)(B).) Any requirements for offsets or mitigation that impose additional
requirements beyond established programs and/or regulations will result in the measure being
excessive and unnecessary.
Here, the proposed offset or mitigation required to address the impact from the
loss of prime farmland meets the "essential nexus" and "roughly proportional" test. This is
evidenced not only by the language in the Draft Revised EIR, but also by the fact that other
recent development projects were also required to mitigate, or offset, agricultural losses on a 1:1
ratio. See Draft EIR, pg. 57; see also Ordinance No. 1785, City of Lodi, adopted on September
6,2006, § 6.4. l l,pg. 14 referencing Exhibit I. Contrary to the assertion of those economically
motivated to oppose the Project, no justification or evidence exists to support a higher ratio of
agricultural land preservation than proposed. Thus, any proposal to require greater than a 1:1
ratio for agricultural mitigation would be excessive and unnecessary and would not be supported
by substantial evidence.
IV. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is Supported by Substantial Evidence
in the Record.
A statement of overriding considerations under CEQA is required when a project
will result in significant impacts that cannot be avoided or substantially lessened. CEQA
Guidelines, § 15093(b). In this instance, the decision-making agency can balance the
°`economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a proposed project against its
unavoidable environmental risk" and approve a project if the benefits outweigh the unavoidable
adverse environmental effects. CEQA Guidelines, § 15093(a). Any statement of ovemding
considerations must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. CEQA Guidelines,
§ 15093(b).
The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Lodi Shopping Center found
that the Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts. Asa result, the City Council
will be required under CEQA to adopt a statement of overriding considerations as part of any
Project approvals. The resolution drafted for the March 13,2009, City Council hearing on the
Project Entitlements included the following overriding considerations:
Project Will Generate City Taxes; and,
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER, & HAMPTON LLP
Honorable Larry Hansen
May 12,2009
Page 6
2. Project Creates Employment Opportunities for City Residents; and,
Project Will Implement Vital Municipal Infrastructure Improvements; and,
4. Project Implements Adopted City Plans; and,
Creates High Quality Design at Western Gateway to the City; and,
6. Project Features Numerous Energy Conserving Measures.
Each of these considerations is supportedby substantial evidence in the record.
For example, after each consideration there is a detailed explanation of the reasons and evidence
to support the assertion that the stated benefit outweighs the unavoidable impact. In addition, the
following are a few of the many examples of substantial evidence included in the record to
support the various statements of overriding considerations:
• Letter to the City of Lodi from J. Kelly Collier, Senior Design Manager
for Wal-Mart Real Estate and Design, dated October 6, 2008 and
presented to the Planning Commission at its October 8, 2008, meeting.
• Memorandum to City of Lodi from Elliot R. Stein, Senior Managing
Director CBRE Consulting, Inc., dated January 12,2 009, presented to the
City Council at its March 11, 2009, hearing.
• Memorandum to Rad Bartlam, City of Lodi, from Raymond Kennedy,
Vice Present, BAE, dated March 11,2009, presented to the City Council
at its March 11, 2009, hearing.
• Letter to Wendell Kiser, Planning Commission, City of Lodi, from Elliot
R. Stein, Senior Managing Director CBRE Consulting, Inc., dated April 8,
2009, presented to the Planning Commission at its April 8, 2009, hearing.
• Draft Revised EIR, pages 79-84, listing various energy conserving
measures that will be incorporated into the Project.
Substantial evidence exists in the record to support the City's statement of
overriding considerations.
In closing, we would like to thank the City and its staff for the years of hard work
on this Project. We appreciate the time that the City Council has taken over the last three and a
SHEP13ARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
Honorable Larry Hansen
May 12,2009
Page 7
half years to hear and consider all of the information presented about the proposed re -approval of
the Lodi Shopping Center. It has been a long road, with many bumps, but we are now at the
finish line and respectfully request that the City Council re -approve the Lodi Shopping Center
Project Entitlements and adopt the findings and statement of overriding considerations.
Very truly yours,
Alexis M. Pelosi
for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER &
HAMPTON LLP
Attachments
Very truly yours,
0 � is e
Andrea K. Leisy
for REMY, THOMAS, MOOSE &
MANLEY LLP
cc: Lodi City Council
Blair King, City Manager
Steve Schwabauer, City Attorney
Radlam Bartlam, Interim Community Development Director
Attachment A
CBRE CONSULTING, INC.
April 8, 2009
Mr. Wendell Kiser
Chairman
and Members of the Planning Commission
City of Lodi
221 W. Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95242
CBRE
CS RICHARD ELLIS
4 EmbarcaderoCenter, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94111
T 415 781 8900
F 415 733 5530
www.cbre.com/consulting
Ra Additional Documentation to Clarify Information Presented at the March 11, 2009
Special Meeting of the Lodi Ciiy Council Regarding Tax Revenue Impacts of the
Proposed Lodi Shopping Center
Dear Chairman Kiser and Members of the Planning Commission:
During the public hearing portion of the above referenced Special Meeting, I presented
estimates of the sales tax, property tax and business license taxes that would be generated by
the proposed Lodi Shopping Center project (the "Project"). My presentation was based on
information included in a memorandum to the City of Lodi, prepared by CBRE Consulting, Inc.,
dated January 12, 2009. A copy of that memorandum'is attached. Please note it contains all
of the assumptions relied upon to estimate tax revenue to the City from the Project. This letter is
intended to briefly summarize our findings and to respond to questions raised by
Councilmembers Susan Hitchcock and Joanne Mounce about apparent discrepancies between
the CBRE Consulting findings and those presented by other sources.
Summary of Estimated Sales Tax
Our analysis considered four components in order to estimate the net impact of the Project on
sales tax revenue to the City of Lodi:
the gain of sales tax from the new Lodi Shopping Center including the 226,868 SF Wal-
Mart Supercenter and an additional 1 13,098 SF of other stores;
■ the loss of sales tax from the closing of the existing Lodi Wal-Mart;
■ the gain of sales tax that could be generated by replacement tenants who occupy the
existing Wal-Mart store after Wal-Mart vacates the premises; and
■ the loss of sales tax resulting from the diversion of sales from existing retail outlets in the
trade area (as concluded by Bay Area Economics [BAE] in its report, "Economic
Impact/Urban Decay Analysis for Proposed Lodi Shopping Center in Lodi, CA," dated
October 2007, prepared for the City of Lodi as part of the Project ER [the "BAE Report"]).
CBRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
Mr. Wendell Kiser, Chairman
Members of the Planning Commission CS RICHARD ELLIS
April 8, 2009
Page 2
As explained in the January 12, 2009 memorandum, the net increase in sales tax revenue to
the City of Lodi was estimated to be $814,000 (in 2007 dollars) as shown below.
Sales Tax to the City of Lodi
Lodi Shopping Center
$1,491,241
less: Existing Lodi Wal-Mart
(548,2 17)
plus: ReplacementTenants
421,000
less: Diverted Sales
1550,000)
Total
814,024
The figure shown above for the Lodi Shopping Center breaks down as follows:
2005 Dollars
2007 Dollars
Wal-Mart Supercenter $1,080,709
$1,159,783
Other Stores 308,859
331,458
Total $1,389,568
$1,491,241
At the Special Meeting, Councilmember Joanne Mounce stated that the CBRE Consulting
estimate was inconsistent with a lower figure of $790,000 which had been previously presented
by Wal-Mart. We inquired into this figure and learned that it appeared in an ad by Wal-Mart
which stated, in part: "Wal-Mart is one of the top revenue generators in the City of Lodi — in
2006 nearly $600,000 in local sales tax revenue was generated from the Kettleman Lane store.
The average California Supercenter contributes $790,000 in sales tax, representing a 35.9%
increase in Lodi." The difference between the CBRE Consulting estimate and the $790,000
figure can be explained as follows:
• the $790,000 is an average for all Wal-Mart Supercenters in California and appears to be
presented in 2006 dollars.
■ the CBRE Consulting estimate relied upon sales per square foot estimates contained in the
BAE Report prepared for the City of Lodi as a part of the EIR. According to the BAE Report,
those sales were, "...based on a blend of national Wal-Mart average and estimated sales
per square foot for [the] existing store." For the sake of consistency with the economic
analysis contained in the EIR, CBRE Consulting used the sales per square foot figures in the
BAE Report to calculate estimated sales tax revenues.
In summary, the $790,000 figure (in 2006 dollars) is an average annual city sales tax for
all California Wal-Mart Supercenters, while the higher figures appearing in the CBRE
Consulting analysis reflect specific assumptions about sales per square foot projected in the
EIR for the proposed Lodi Wal-Mart Supercenter.
Also at the Special Meeting, Councilmember Susan Hitchcock stated that a report prepared for
the City by another economic consultant reached the conclusion that the proposed Project
would not generate any new sales tax revenue to the City of Lodi. At Council member
CBRE CONSULTING, INC. AM
Mr. Wendell Kiser, Chairman �.BRE
Members of the Planning Commission CB RICHARD ELLIS
April 8, 2009
Page 3
Hitchcock's request, copies of two reports, both prepared by Applied Development Economics
(ADE) in 2004, were provided to us.'
The two reports are very similar; in fact the July 2004 report draws heavily on the contents of
the June 2004 report. We found nothing in the ADE reports to indicate that the Project will not
generate any new sales tax revenue to the City. It does conclude, however, "...that the
proposed project will take $36.2 million of sales away from established business assuming that
the superstore anchor tenant is relocated from across the street.'". The remainder of the
Project's demand would come from recapturing sales leakage and from "new sales earned by
Proposed Project. 13 By comparison, the BAE report used in the EIR prepared for the City was
more pessimistic in its estimate of diverted sales (i.e. sales the proposed Project would divert
from existing retail outlets in the trade area). BAE concluded that the Project could divert $55
million in such sales, compared to ADE's lower figure of $36.2 million. CBRE Consulting relied
upon the larger BAE estimate to estimate the downward adjustment that would need to be
made to arrive at a net sales tax impact number. Therefore, as shown in the fable above and
in CBRE Consulting's January 12, 2009 memorandum, $55 million x 1% = $550,000 was
netted out of the calculation in order to derive the next sales tax impact of the Project on the
City. In other words, the assumption used by BAE in the EIR (and by CBRE Consulting) is more
conservative than the assumption used by ADE with respect to diverted sales.
A comparison of the 2004 ADE reports and the 2007 BAE Report also reveals a disparity
between estimates of total sales for the Project. Both reports use the same square footage
figures. However, ADE estimated total Project sales of $1 11.5 million while BAE estimated
$163.7 million. The key difference in assumptions is that while ADE assumed Wal-Mart annual
sales at $350 per square foot ("The proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter Store is estimated to earn
at least $350 per SF of sales...""), BAE estimated sales for the proposed Supercenter at $564
per square foot based on more current information including national sales data for all Wal-
Mart stores and estimated sales per square foot for Wal -Mart's existing Lodi store .5 For the
sake cf consistency with the EIR, CBRE Consulting used the BAE estimate of sales in order fo
calculate sales tax revenue to the City of Lodi.
Summary of Estimated Property Tax
The calculation of estimated property tax is straight -forward. It is based on a cost approach to
value which would be used by the county assessor. Development cost estimates provided by
Wal-Mart were used to estimate the assessed value of the property. It was assumed that
property tax is already being assessed on the land and that taxes are already being received on
that component of the property. Therefore, CBRE Consulting focused only on the net property
' Applied Development Economics, "Economic Impacts of the Proposed Lodi Shopping Center On
Downtown Lodi," June 2004; and "Socio -Economic Impact Analysis of the Proposed Lodi Shopping
Center," July 2004.
7 Ibid (July 2004 report), p. 18.
3 Ibid, p. 18, Table 10.
° Ibid, p. 15.
5 Bay Area Economics, "Economic Impact/Urban Decay Analysis for Proposed Lodi Shopping Center
in Lodi, CA," October 2007, p. 42.
CBRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
Mr. Wendell Kiser, Chairman
Members of the Planning Commission CB RICHARD ELLIS
April 8, 2009
Page 4
tax revenue that ,would result from the development of the improvements for the Wal-Mart
Supercenter. The City's share of property tax generated by the Supercenter is estimated at
$40,900. See Exhibit in the attached January 12, 2009 memorandum for the derivation of
this amount.
Summary of Business License Tax
The City of Lodi's Finance Department was the source of business license tax rates. Those rates
were applied to the Wal-Mart Supercenter and to the businesses that will occupy the remainder
of space in the Project. Business license taxes are estimated at $128,000 per year from Wal-
Mart plus approximately $17,000/year from the other stores in the center, for a total of
$145,225 per year. See Exhibit 3 in the attached January 12,2009 memorandum for all of the
assumptions used.
I hope this additionat information is helpful. Please let us know If anything requires further
clarification.
Sincerely,
Elliot R. Stein
Senior Managing Director
cc: Alexis Pelosi; Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
N:\Team-Sedwoy\Projects\2008\1008135 Sheppard Mu1lin\Report\8Mor09 Istber to Lodi Planning Commission\ltr to
planning commission 8Apr09.doc
CBRE CONSULTING, INC.
Date: January 12, 2009
To: City of Lodi
VWX
CBR=
CB RICHARD ELLIS
4 Emborcadero Center, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94111
T 415781 8900
F 4157335530
www.cbre.com/consulting
MEMORANDUM
From: Elliot R Stein
Senior Managing Director
CBRE Consulting, Inc.
Re: Proposed Lodi Shopping Center
Sales Tax, Property Tax and Business License Tax Impacts
CBRE Consulting, Inc. was asked to determine the impact of the development of the proposed
Lodi Shopping Center ("the Center") on the City of Lodi's General Fund revenues. The Center
will be anchored by a 226,868 square foot Wal-Mart Supercenter and an additional 113,098
square feet of other retail space (see Exhibit 1). CBRE Consulting relied upon certain
information contained in the Economic Impact Analysis prepared by Bay Area Economics (BAE)
in order to conduct this analysis.' Specifically, the BAE report was the source of the project
description, square footages, and sales per square foot figures used to estimate sales and
property tax revenues. In addition, CBRE Consulting obtained from the California Board of
Equalization and the City of Lodi's Finance Department information on property tax, sales tax,
and business license tax relevant to the City of Lodi. Findings are summarized below and
presented in greater detail in the attached exhibits.
Sales Tax Generated by the Center
According to the California Board of Equalization, the City of Lodi receives 1.0 percent of
taxable retail sales generated by businesses within the city. Since not all of the sales at the
proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter or at the other retail businesses in the Center will be taxable
sales (e.g. certain food items, prescription drugs, etc.), CBRE Consulting adjusted total projected
sales by removing the non-taxable sales. The adjustments are explained in detail in Exhibit 2.
Based on Bay Area Economics' sales estimates which were presented in 2005 dollars, sales tax
revenue to the City of Lodi is estimated at $1,080,700 from the Wal-Mart Supercenter plus an
additional $308,900 from the other stores in the Center, .for a total of $1,389,600/year (in
2005 dollars), assuming stabilized sales. It would be reasonable to escalate these figures to
reflect sales in current dollars. However, for the sake of consistency with the BAE analysis, we
did not escalate the numbers for this calculation.
' Bar Area Economics, "Economic Impact/Urbon Decay Analysis for Proposed Lodi Shopping Cerrter in Lodi,
CA," October 2007.
CBRE CONSULTING, INC.
City of Lodi
January 12, 2009
Page 2
Business License Tax
C B R E
CB MCHARD ELLIS
Relying on the schedule of business license taxes provided by the City of Lodi Finance
Department, CBRE Consulting estimated the annual taxes that would be payable by Wal-Mart
and by the other tenants in the Center. Detailed assumptions are shown in Exhibit 3. Business
license taxes are estimated at $128,000 per year from Wal -Mort plus approximately
$17,000/year from the other stores in the Center, for a total of $145,225/year.
Property Tax
Property taxes generated by the Wal-Mart Supercenter will be a function of its assessed value.
For the purpose of this analysis, it was assumed that the value will be determined based on the
cost approach to value. That is, the sum of direct construction costs plus indirect costs (i.e. fees
for architecture, engineering, other consultants, financing, interest, entitlements, permits,
insurance, etc.) was used as the basis for calculating real property taxes. Cost estimates from
Wal-Mart were used to estimate the potential assessed value of the property (see Exhibit 4).
Development costs for the remainder of the Center were not provided to CBRE Consulting;
therefore, this estimate of property tax revenue to the City of Lodi is limited to the Wal -Mort
store only.
It was assumed that property tax is already being assessed on the land and that taxes are
already being received on that component of the property. Therefore, CBRE Consulting focused
on the net property tax revenue that would result from the development of the Wal-Mart
Supercenter. As shown in Exhibit 4, the net property tax generated by the Supercenter is
estimated at $358,630, of which an estimated $40,920 represents the City of Lodi's share.
Nef Increase in Sales Tax
CBRE Consulting was also asked to factor into the analysis of sales tax impact two additional
considerations: the loss of sales tax resulting from the closure of the existing Lodi Wal-Mart
store; and the new sales tax that could be expected from replacement tenants in the space Wal-
Mart will be vacating. That analysis is presented in detail in Exhibit 5. It begins with the
estimate of sales tax from the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter ($1,389,568 in 2005 dollars).
That figure was escalated to 2007 dollars (to $1,491,241) before adjusting for the closing of
the existing Wal-Mart store and the addition of replacement tenants in order to have
comparable numbers. The actual change in the Consumer Price Index from 2005 to 2007 was
used to adjust to 2007 dollars (see Exhibit 5, footnote 5 for further detail). In summary, the
closure of the existing Wal-Mart store would represent a loss of approximately $548,000 per
year in sales tax revenue to the City of Lodi, while replacement tenants generating industry
average annual sales of $350 per square foot would representan estimated $421,000 of new
sales tax revenue to the City. Overall, the net increase in sales tax is estimated at $1,364,000
in 2007 dollars, as shown below:
Sales Tax Revenue from Lodi Shopping Center $1,491,241
Less: Sales Tax from Existing Lodi Wal-Mart Store (548,217)
Plus: Sales Tax from Replacement Tenants 421.000
Net Increase in Sales Tax Revenue to the City of Lodi $1,364,024
CBRE CONSULTING, INC.
City of Lodi
January 12, 2009
Page 3
'OmBRE
t�
CS RICHARD ELLIS
Among its conclusions, Bay Area Economics indicated that: 'The net capture of sales from
existing retail outlets in 2008 is estimated at approximately $55 million." ' In other words, there
may be a diversion of sales from existing retail outlets in the trade area to the new Center,
which would result in a decrease in sales tax to the City from those outlets. Because the trade
area defined by Bay Area Economics is larger than the City of Lodi (it includes surrounding
areas outside the city limits), not all of the $55 million in diverted sales will impact the City.
However, for the purpose of this analysis, it is reasonable to note that since most of the existing
trade area retailers are located within the City, one can conservatively estimate that If all CE
these diverted sales were at the expense of City of Lodi retailers, then the loss of $55 million in
sales would equate to a loss of $55 million x 1% _ $550,000 in sales tax revenue to the City of
Lodi.
Conclusion
The estimated net gain to the City of Lodi from property, sales, and business license taxes is
summarized below.
Total Taxes Incremental
_Type of Tax Generated Taxes Lost Tax Gain
Sales Tax
Lodi Shopping Center $1,491,241
Existing Lodi Wal-Mart ($548,217)
Replacement Tenants $421,000
Diverted Sales ($550,000)
Property Tax (Wal-Mart only) $40,920
Business License Tax $145,225
Total $2,098,386 ($1,098,217) $1 ,000,169
Sources: CBRE Consulting.
2 Ibid, p. 68.
CBRE CONSULTING, INC. C B R E
City of Lodi CB RICHARD ELLIS
January 12, 2009
Page 4
ASSUMPTIONSAND GENERAL LPdn[ING CONDITIONS
CBRE Consulting, Inc. has made extensive efforts to confirm the accuracy and timeliness of the
information contained in this study. Such information was compiled from a variety cf sources,
including interviews with government officials, review cf government documents, and other third
parties deemed to be reliable. Although C BRE Consulting, Inc. believes all information in this study
is correct, it does not warrant the accuracy of such information and assumes no responsibility for
inaccuracies in the information by third parties. We have no responsibility to update this report for
events and circumstances occurring after the date of this report. Further, no guarantee is made as
to the possible effect on development of present or future federal, state or local legislation, including
any regarding environmental or ecological matters.
The accompanying projections and analyses are based on estimates and assumptions developed in
connection with the study. In turn, these assumptions, and their relation to the projections, were
developed using currently available economic data and other relevant information. It is the nature
of forecasting, however, that some assumptions may not materialize, and unanticipated events and
circumstances may occur. Therefore, actual results achieved during the projection period will likely
vary from the projections, and some of the variations may be material to the conclusions of the
analysis.
Contractual obligations do not include access to or ownership transfer of any electronic data
processing files, programs or models completed directly for or as by-products of this research effort,
unless explicitly so agreed as part of the contract.
This report may not be used for any purpose other than that for which it is prepared. Neither all nor
any part of the contents of this study shall be disseminated to the public through publication
advertising media, public relations, news media, sales media, or any other public means of
communication without prior written consent and approval of CBRE Consulting, Inc.
Exhibit 1
Sales Estimate and Distribution
Proposed Lodi Shopping Center
2005 Dollars
Sales Per Projected
Store Characteristic/BOE Retail Category(1) Square Feet (2) Square Foot (2) Soles (3)
Proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter
Square Footage
General Merchandise
Grocery
Total
Other Stores
Square Footage (1)
176,313 $564 $99,510,918
50,555 $564 $28,533,202
226,868 $128,044,120
Apparel
8,131
$300
$2,439,411
Drug Store
14,788
$478
$7,068,664
Eating and Drinking Places
17,190
$475
$8,165,250
Other Retail
59,829
$300
$17,948,589
Non -Retail Uses
13,160
N/A
N/A
Total
113,098
$35,621,913
Center Total
339,966
$163,666,033
Sources: California State Board of Equalization; Bay Area Economics; and CBR_ Consulting.
(1) EM is the State of California Board of Equalization, which collects sales taxes from retailers and provides
public tabulations of the occurrence and level of taxable sales in the categories provided.
(2)Square footages and sales for the proposed shopping center provided by Bay Area Economics, "Economic
Impact/Urban Decoy Analysis for Proposed Lodi Shopping Center in Lodi, CA," October 2007.
(3)Totals may not add due to rounding.
N:\Team-Sedwoy\Projects\2008\1008135 Sheppard Mullin\Working docs\Exhibits 1008135 Version I Final
Exhibit 2
City of Lodi General Fund Impacts
Proposed Lodi Shopping Center Sales Tax Revenue
2005 Dollars
Sales Tax Assumptions Amount
Sales Tax Revenue from Proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter
Non -Grocery sales (1)
Taxable Grocery Sales (2)
Total Taxable Sales
Local Tax Share to General Fund (3)
Sales Tax Revenue from Wal-Mart
Sales Tax Revenue from Other Stores in the Center
Taxable Drug Store Sales (4)
OtherTaxable Sales (1)
Total Taxable Sales
Local Tax Share to General Fund (3)
$99,510,918
$8,559,961
$108,070,879
1.0%
$1,080,709
$2,332,659
$28,553,249
$30,885,908
1.0%
Sales Tax Revenue from the Remaining Center $308,859
Total Sales Tax Revenue to the City of Lodi $1,389,568
Sources: California State Board of Equalization; and CBFRE Consulting.
(1) Refer to Exhibit 1.
(2)The Wal-Mart Supercenters total grocery sales are estimated at $28.5
million (referto Exhibit 1). It is estimated that only 30.0 percent of
grocery sales are taxable.
(3) Information obtained from the California Board of Equalization.
(4) It is estimated that only 33.0 percent of drug store sales are taxable.
Exhibit 3
Proposed Lodi Shopping Center Business License Tax Revenue
2008 Dollars
Business License Tax Assumptions (1) Amount
Business License Tax Revenuefrom Proposed Wal-Mart
Total Gross Receipts $128,044,120
Tax Rate (1) $1.00/$ 1,000
Estimated Total Business License Tax for Wal-Mart $128,044
Business License Tax Revenue from Other Stores
Apparel (2)
Total Gross Receipts Per Store
$609,900
Tax Per Store
$210
Estimated Total Business License Tax for 4 Stores
$840
Drug Store
Total Gross Receipts
$7,068,664
Tax Rate
$.60/$1,000
Estimated Total Business License Tax
$4,241
Eating and Drinking Places (3)
Total Gross Receipts Per Stores, 4 Fast Food
$1,150,688
Total Grass Receipts Per Store, 2 Sit -Downs
$1,781,250
Tax Per Store
$450
Estimated Total Business License Tax
$2,700
Other Retail (4)
Total Gross Receipts Per Store
$900,000
Tax Per Store
$450
Estimated Total Business License Tax for 20 Stores
$9,000
Non -Retail Uses (5)
Total Gross Receipts, 8 Spaces
N/A
Tax Per Business
$50
Estimated Total Business License Tax
$400
Total for Other Stores
$17.181
Total Estimated Business License Tax Revenue from the Center $145,225
Sources: City of Lodi Finance Department; and CBRE Consulting.
(1)The City of Lodi Finance Department the Business License Tax Rate for the Retail and
Services Group is as follows:
Gross Receiuls Tax or Tax Rate
$0 to $200,000 $50
$200,001 to $500,000 $98
$500,001 to $900,000 $210
$900,001 to $3,000,000 $450
$3,000,001 to $10,000,000 $.60/$1,000
510,000,001 and greater $1.00/$1,000 (no limit)
(2) Gross receipts for Apparel estimated based on 4 stores at 2,033 square feet each.
(3) Gross receipts for Eating and Drinking Places estimated based on 4 Fast Food and 2 Sit -
Down restaurants at 2,423 and 3,750 square feet each, respectively.
(4) Gross receipts for Other Retail stores estimated based on 20 stores at 3,000 square feet
each.
(5) Gross receipts for Non -Retail spaces conservatively estimated using 8 spaces at the
minimum tax rate.
Exhibit 4
City of Lodi General Fund Revenue Impacts
Wal-Mart Supercenter Property Tax Revenue
2008 Dollars
Amount
Wal-Mart Supercenter
Total Direct Construction Costs (1) $26,800,000
Indirect Cost Estimate (2) $7,300,000
Land Cost (3) N/A
Total Project Costs Excluding Land $34,100,000
Total Tax Basis (excluding Land) $34,100,000
County Tax Rate (4) 1.0517%
Total Tax to County $358,630
City Share of the County Tax Rate (4) 11.41%
Net Property Tax Revenue from Wal-Mart Supercenter (4) $40,920
Sources: San Joaquin County Treasurer -Tax Collector; Wal-Mart Stores Inc.; California State Board of
Equalization; Bay Area Economics; and CBRE Consulting.
(1) Construction cost estimates provided by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
(2) Indirect construction costs estimates provided by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
(3) Net property tax revenue reflects tax on only the hard and soft costs of the project, excluding land cost.
It is assumed that property tax is already being assessed on the land value; therefore, it is not incremental
to this analysis.
(4) Information provided by San Joaquin County Treasurer -Tax Collector.
Exhibit 5
City of Lodi General Fund Impacts
Net Increase in Soles Tax Revenue From Proposed Lodi Shopping Center
Sales Tox Assumptions Amount
LODI SHOPPING CENTER
Sales Tax Revenue from Proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter
Non -Grocery Sales (1)
$99,510,918
Taxable Grocery Sales (2)
$8,559,961
Total Taxable Sales
$108,070,879
Local Tax Share to General Fund (3)
1.0%
Sales Tax Revenuefrom Wal-Mart
$1,080,709
Sales Tax Revenue from Other Stores in the Center
Taxable Drug Store Sales (4) $2,332,659
Other Taxable Sales (1) $28,553,249
Total Taxable Sales $30,885,908
Local Tax Share to General Fund (3) 1.0%
Sales Tax Revenue from the Remaining Center $308,859
Total Sales Tax Revenue to the City of Lodi
2005 Dollars $1,389,568
2007 Dollars (5) $1,491,241 [A]
LESS: EXISTING LODI WAL-MART STORE
Sales Tax Paid to City of Lodi (2007) (6) $548,217 [B]
PLUS. REPLACEMENTTENANTSAT EXISTING LODI WAL-MART STORE
Taxable Sales (7) $42,100,000
Local Tax Share to General Fund (3) 1.0%
Sales Tax Revenue from ReplacementTenants $421,000 [C]
NET INCREASE IN SALES TAX REVENUE TO CITY (F LODI [A $1,364,024
-B+C]
Sources: Californio State Board of Equalization; State of California Departmentof Industrial
Relations, Division of Labor Statistics and Research; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; and CBRE
Consulting.
(1) Refer to Exhibit 1.
(2)The Wal-Mart Supercenters total grocery sales are estimated at $28.5 million (referto
Exhibit 1). It is estimated that only 30.0 percentof grocery sales are taxable.
(3) Information obtained from the California Board of Equalization.
(4) It is estimated that only 33.0 percent of drug store sales are taxable.
(5) Escalation based on the State of California Department of Industrial Relations, Division
of Labor Statistics and Research; annual CPI changes 3.9 percent from 2005-2006 and
3.29 percentfrom 2006-2007.
(6) Information provided by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
(7) This estimate is based on an industry sales per square foot standard of $350 multiplied
by 120,352 squarefeet.
Page 1 of 1
Jennifer Perrin
From: Randi Johl
Sent: Tuesday, May 12,2009 03:59 PM
To: Jennifer Perrin
Subject: FW: Walmart
From: Dan Wolcott [mailto:dan@downingpaint.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 20091:17 PM
To: Randi Johl; Susan Hitchcock; Bob Johnson; JoAnne Mounce; Phil Katzakian; Larry Hansen
Subject: Walmart
Again we are facing the Wal-Mart issue in a meeting on Wednesday. I am amazed that you all have kept your
council jobs, which at some point I voted for you all and that will not continue, It seems to me that over the years
the people of Lodi (or the voting majority) have said no to the Wal-Mart super center and yet we continue to be
dealing with that same issue. If you look at the vacant retail space that is in Lodi Oust look across the street from
the proposed Wal-Mart development) adding more makes no sense. What you gain you lose, as an example my
wife owns a business in the Vintners Square (Lowe's) shopping center and the addition of the Wal-Mart
development and what it will bring will shut her down. She is a life time (born and raise) Lodian and a women
owned business that can not compete against the corporatefunded competitors. The hope as I see it, based on
the councils decision to continue to support bad growth is that she only has 2 years left on her lease and can then
walk away and open her business in Galt.
I think what totally amazes me is that the planning commission say no, the people say no and still three out of five
council members continue to say yes.
Although I may have a personal stake in this decision I have tried to understand this from a unbiased point and
even then I can not get a hold of the reason we would consider bad growth. With Reynolds Ranch already
approved and the fact that there are a large number of vacant building within the proposed project area there is
noway this is a good decision. Wal-Mart already exist within a quarter mile of the new project and all they want is
to expand their grocery lines on a corner that now has two other large grocery stores. You are not gaining resale
dollars you are trading. Someone needs to help me understand why this make sense I just don't get it and
therefore have a hard time supporting those I helped put in office. Please help me understand and for once do the
correct thing that the people of Lodi have asked you to do.
Dan Wolcott
Juice It Up
05/12/2009
Ann M. Cerney
900 W. Vine Street —
Lodi, CA 95240
Hand -delivered
May 12,2009
Mayor Larry Hansen
City of Lodi
221 W. Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
Re: Lodi Shopping Center Project Hearing, May 13,2009
Dear Mayor Hansen:
This is written to express my continued opposition to the above -captioned project. My objection
is based on the same grounds previously articulated at numerous City Council meetings and
Planning Commission meetings.
Please consider my objection along with those of other opponents and adopt the NO PROJECT
alternative.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
ANN M. CERNEY
Attorney at Law
Page 1 of 1
Jennifer Perrin
From: Rebecca Wallace [rlwallace72@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 12,2009 07:38 PM
To: Randi Johl; Susan Hitchcock; Bob Johnson; JoAnne Mounce; Phil Katzakian; Larry Hansen
Subject: Super center
Good Evening Everyone,
My name is Rebecca Wallace. I've worked for Wal-Mart for 12 years. (was a
cashier for 1 year. Iwas promoted to a Customer Service Manager and held that
position for 4 years. After that 1 needed a change of position/hours so 1 became a
Garden Cashier. While Iwas in that position Iwas asked if Iwas interested in
coming to Stockton and helping them open the Supercenter and work in Personnel.
It was a huge opportunity for me and Itook it. Iwas there 2004 to 2007. The best
time of my career at Wal-Mart. Ilearned so much about FMLA,hiring,legal
matters,etc.. The position Iwas in at Stockton opened in Lodi. (jumped at the
chance to take it because it was closer to home and Iwas looking to the future
when we get a Supercenter. (will have the knowledge and experience to know
what needs to be done, what to look for in potential associates etc.. So I've been
back in Lodi since 2007. I've added Community Involvement to my title since
coming back. I'm telling you it has been a great feeling to give to the community 1
live in and my children are growing up in. I'm given a dollar amount each month to
give out at a store level. I give in the form of Gift Cards, raffle baskets, pallets of
water, and so on. lalso have an amount each year to give out for grant money.
We have given to World of Wonders, Big Brothers Big Sisters, Salvation Army,
Relay for Life, Lodi Memorial, Foster Care facilities, and Make a Wish Foundation.
We will be taking 10 foster kids to go see a Monarchs game on June 6th,
something that those kids would not normally be able to see.This is just to name a
few things. I f we were to go Supercenter I would recieve more money to give to
the Community. The Stockton store recieves $5,000 more money than we do in
grant money. We need that money for Lodi to help people with fundraisers and
give to the organizations. Please consider this as just one reason the Supercenter
should be built. We have great people who work here. I love going to work
everyday. Please don't stop the growth of such a great place to work. Let it expand
to what it needs to be. Also, another quick point. We are still hiring in this
economy. Can many other places say that??
Thank you for your time,
Rebecca Wallace
Training Coordinator, .........
Community Involvement Coordinator........ Since 1997 and counting!!
#1789 Lodi, Ca
05/13/2009
Jennifer Perrin
From: Don Mooney[dbmooney@dcn.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 13,2009 11:49 AM
To: Randi Johl
Subject: Wal-Mart Hearing
Attachments: 2009-05-13_11_15_54.pdf
2009-05-13-11-15
_54. pdf (2 MB) ...
Ms. Johl,
Attached is a letter on beha f Citizens for open Government regarding
the hearing tonight. Also, please send me any recent submittals to the
Council, including anything received this afternoon so that I may have an
opportunity to review them prior to the hearing this evening.
Don Mooney
Law Office of Donald B. Mooney
129 C Street, Suite 2
Davis, CA 95616
530-758-2377
530-758-7169 (fax)
LAW OFFICES OF DONALD B. MOONM
129 C Street, Suite 2
Davis, California 95616
'rely phone' (530) 758-2377
F:.wslinile ON)) 75S-7167
dbm,,)onev@dcn.org
May 13,2009
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
AND HAND DELIVERED
01V C"OUnC11 Melnbers
City of Codi
22 l West Pine Street
I.,odl, California 95241-1910
Re: Consideration of the Lodi Shopping Center
State Clearinghouse No. 2003042113
Dear Citi' Council Members:
On beha, l F of the Citizens for Open Government ("Citizens"), we urge you to
deny the Lodi Shopping Center/Wal-Nlart Supereentel. project (or the "Project"). In
October 2008, the Planning Commission deterin ined that the Final Environmental Impact
Report ("I, IR") for the Project was inadequate and denied certification under the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). On appeal by Wal-Mart and Browman
Development Company, the City Council reversed the Planning Commission's S decision
and.ccrtified the F IR as complete. The Project then came before the Planning
Commission fora decision on the merits of the CEQA hidings and the Project approvals
themselves. In April 2009, the Planning Corninisslon rejected the findings and denied the
project on a split vote. after multiple appeals; the matter comes back before the City
C:OUnCil to n'lake a number of necessary project specific Endings under CEQA and For
consideration of the Project itself. The City Council should reject the Project on the
fol low ing grounds.
Alternative Analysis Was A Sham
The City Council is being asked to find tinder CEQA that it has been presented
with a range of feasible alternatives and to reject each and every alternative. (Findings at
30-33.) However, the City Staff states that the City Council possesses little discretion
regarding the project approvals. (Staff Report at Conclusion.) Given that the City
maintains that it lacks discretion to consider alternatives, the City Council cannot make
the findings regarding a reasonable range of alternatives.
iL3. Feasible Mitigation O naortunities Remain for Farmland Destruction
The City Council is being asked to find that no further feasible mitigation exists
for significant project and cumulative loss ol'prime agricultural farmland. (CEQA
City Council LVlembers
May 13, 2009
Page 2 o 1'4
Findings at 2-3.) Ilowever, multiple additional feasible mitigation opportunities exists to
further reduce significant impacts, including but not limited to increasing the ratio of
uonserw tttion easements to greater than I :l (indeed, no argument to the contrary, is
Presented) or locating previously disturbed prime lands to rehabilitate. The Council
therefore cannot Lind that all feasible mitigation measures for signilleant impacts to
:hgricultural resources have been exhausted.
No Rational Basis E:xists,to Find Urban Decay Tess `]'hall Sit llifieant
The City Council should examine closely the proposed CEQA finding {at 24-26)
that approval ofthe Pro ect will definitively cause no significant urban decay. This
iinditlU is wV-holly, unwar-i-anted by the record. First, the analysis is premised on economic
conditions existing in 2006. Without a doubt, the present.dadicaIly different conditions
wvill exacerbate the ecanonhia impacts associated with the Project, Consumer spending is
dow'n, thus the pre, to be divided among downtow3-11 existing retailers and the new Wal -
M,11 -t Supercenter/retail space, has shrunk substantitiIIy. Not only are consumers holding
onto their money but also the tough economic times have resulted in decreased consumer
resources. Nest, comnhercinI credit markets are exlraordinarihJ tight nraiting existing
business much less able to adapt to losses in reventie. l"inally, the trade area has slhrtutk
given new competitors in adjacent communities further reducing consumer dol lars
available to keep all existing business afloat. These sour economic conditions arc
exacerbated by the City recent approval and then redesign of the Reynolds Ranch project
to place additional competitors near downtown and other retailers. Moreover, while the
City intends to count over S421.000 in tax revenue from retena.tine the existing Wal-Mart
site, it does not include in its economic/urban impacts analysis the additional draw away
From existing business of the retenated retail space. l
Hie City's economic consu.Ittint brushes aside al I concerns with naive speculation
and presumptions. In a recent letter, BAE' states that no change in its rosy economic
analysis isnecessary given the "unanticipated" economic downturn because the
consultant considers it to be "difficult." (March 11, 2009 BAB letter at 6.) 1 he City's
consultant also speculates that the Wal-Mart w -ill not be built fool several years, the
economy may improve in that time and all will be well. (Id. at T) Given the enormous
consecJttenccs to the existing business and local residents, the Citizens would hope that
prior to approving, major new retail space, that will have a confirihred adverse and
substantial economic impact, that the City preformed a good Faith analysis under these
new economic conditions even if it proves to be difficult. Simply relying on hopes that
the economy ww ill turn around provides no sound basis to affirmatively conclude that tine
Project will have no significant Urban decay impacts,
i We also n o — h Project Conditions R(b) (restricting sale to a retailer) and FF
seem to be contradictory as the latter requires sale of the existing Wal-Mart property
Without precondition as to who the purchasers may be.
Cite Council Members
-Tay 13, 2409
PaLre 3 of 4
To avoid taking a hard look at the economic impacts for the proposed Projcct, the
City has consistently fallen back on "aggressive enforcement" of nuisance ordinances as
its urban decay failsafe regardless of the impacts to its local businesses. (See e.g., March
11, 2000 BAE letter at 7). The evidence before the Council, howe\ cr, renders this
reliance displaced, For example, from the existing conditions decayed downtotivn and
elsewhere, the City has not been at all successful in avoiding such conditions in the past.
Moreover, the City points to no evidence the; since its adoption several years ago o.f.'a
resolution addressing code enforcement that its has "aggressively" remedied any existing
conditions of urban decay. Next, the City is suffering from major budgetary shortfalls
resulting in staff furloughs and firing freezes. Ill times of reduced budgets and personnel,
the City`shope ol""aggressive" enf rce.ment is not based on any hard facts indicating it
has the capacity or changed past practice in flush times to address the likely business
failures resulting from approval of the Projcct. In short, no conditions seem too adverse
for the City's consultant to dismiss out of hand.
4. Global Warming,indings lna wn z•itite
Hie City Council is asked to hind that "it is not required to conduct analysis of
globad warming." (C EQA Findings at 29.) The Citizens disagree. The City miscd global
ca-arn1Ilia and energy concerns in its revisions to the FEIR and cannot now CIucic the
consequences of all adequate analysis. In addition, Council members are free to choose
to reelc a full disclosure in a C1QA contest of the global warming impacts of the Project
prior to making findings regarding its environmental impacts. In this vein, Wal -Mart's
yel I' serving global warming "Climate Change" report should not be accepted as a
ubstitute for a non -partial report whose preparation was overseen by staff and subject to
rigorous pub] is review and comment.
Statement of Overridiniz Considerations Inadecivate
The City Council is being asked to override all allegedly significant but
unavoidable environmental impacts and approve the Project based on a lists of
slaeculati.ve project benefits. (CEQA Findings at 34-35.) Ili order to approve, a statement
of ov=erriding considerations, the City Council must be fully informed its to all impacts
and exhausted all reasonably feasible alternatives and mitigation measures. As detailed
above, the. City has not exhausted available mitigation nleastu•es (e.g., for prime
f:armland), conducted an holiest look at alternatives, or disclosed to the full impacts of the
project (e.g., urban decay, global warming). Thus, on the environmental impacts side,
the Council should refuse to override impacts until the City conducts the necessary
analysis.
Turning to the benefits side (to be balanced against the disclosed environmental
impacts), the City has not revealed to the Council the true nature of the economic
consequences of the Project. The City claims a substantial sales tax increase expected
from approval of the Project. However, as noted above, that projection was based not on
City Council Members
May 13, 2000
Page 4 of 4
current economic conditions. Moreover, the impact to existing business will be more
seN ere than anticipated under rosy economic times so the actual net economic beatefit to
the City has not been disclosed to the Council or the public. Moreover, the other benefits
allcgedly gained do not outweigh either the identified significant environmental impacts
of the project or the adverse consequences to existing Lodi retailers and local businesses.
For example, employment benefits cannot be tied to Lodi residents were as exiting job
loses wiII adversely affect Lodi citizens. Similarly,do "infrastructure improvements"
and it Wal-Mart as a "high quality„ gateway to Lodi really outweigh (he known
consegLienccs?
In conclusion, the City Council should reject the: l..,odi :Shopping Center for tile
reasons set forth above.
Sincerely,
onak 1,.1 gooney
John 1— Marshall
Attorneys for Citizens for Open. Government
ALM& E V V OOD ' ESS.
Tn1 PM' tock#on, Lod4 Manteca, Los Bano%
ya s, Ceres, Atascadero,
Stockton, Lodi San Luis Obispo, Paso Robles
Randi Johl CITY CLERK May 13 2009
CITY OF LODI y
City Clerk
221 W. Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
v�mEs
Oahu
Subject: Lodi ShoppingCenter/Wal-Mart Supercenter May 13,2009 City Council
Hearing. Disclosure Regarding Gift of Tickets
Dear Ms. Johl,
PAQ Inc. (doing business as Food 4 Less and Rancho San Miguel supermarkets), is one of the
appellants opposing the Lodi Shopping Center/Wal-Mart Supercenter project which the City
Council will consider on May 13, 2009. PAQ, Inc. prides its self on positively impacting the
communities it serves and demonstrating good corporate citizenship at all times. Due to the
potential implications of the following events, and in abundance of caution, PAQ, Inc. feels
necessary to disclose the following on the record.
PAQ, Inc. owns various season tickets to professional sporting events, including floor seats to
Sacramento Kings' basketball games. On April 2"d Councilman Katzakian's wife phoned PAQ,
Inc.'s Marketing Director, Chris Podesto, and asked Mr. Podesto to provide tickets to an
upcoming Kings' game. The Councilmember's wife and Mr. Podesto are distant relatives (
grandparents of each were siblings). In response to her request, on April 3rd Mr. Podesto
provided two front row tickets to Mrs. Katzakian for the April 5th, 2009 Kings' home game at
Arco Arena. The face value of each ticket provided was $960. These tickets are often used for
corporate marketing events. As PAQ, Inc. understands the situation, the tickets were ultimately
used by the Councilmember's daughter and a friend.
Because the Councilmember's wife is a distant relative, Mr. Podesto didn't perceive the potential
for a conflict of interest by giving Mrs. Katzakian the tickets; however, upon subsequent review
by our corporate advisors, PAQ, Inc. believes it necessary to disclose this information to you and
the Council.
This situation is complicated by the fact that PAQ, Inc. filed an appeal of the Planning
Commission's April 8d` action regarding the proposed Supercenter — after providing the tickets to
Mrs. Katzakian. The Planning Commission reached a tie vote regarding whether to approve the
project, and because no discussion was given as to how the tie would be resolved, PAQ, Inc.
appealed.
Despite the embarrassment that may result to all involved, the company believes it prudent and
necessary to disclose this matter in the midst of the appeal process before the Council. We desire
to see this process operate in complete transparency and, accordingly, make this disclosure to
avoid any problems that may arise from that gift. Unfortunately, this perfect storm of events
8014 LOWER SACRAMENTO ROAD, SUITE I, STOCKTON CA 95210 • (209) 957-4917 • FAX(209)956-8525
FoaDdLus. 0
Stockton, Lodi, Manteca, Los Banos, v�
Salinas, Ceres, Atascadero,
San Luis Obispo, Paso Robles Oahu
makes the present situation entirely uncomfortable for PAQ, for Mi-. Podesto, and we assume for
the Councilmember and his family. This obviously was not Mr. Podesto's intent in agreeing to
Mrs. Katzakian's request, and accordingly Mr. Podesto and PAQ, Inc., as a whole, are truly
embarrassed by the situation.
We do not offer a legal conclusion on whether this transaction creates a conflict of interest
precluding the Councilmember from voting on PAQ's appeal, but we do know that these events
create a very uncomfortable perception of conflict and bias and, realize that this public disclosure
may even trigger a backlash from the Councilmember to vote "against" this perceived conflict or
bias. Accordingly PAQ, Inc. encourages the Councilmemberto avoid the potential conflict and
excuse himself from voting on the appeals.
I would appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your advisement should it
be warranted.
Thank you,
President/CEO
8014 LOWER SACRAMENTO ROAD, SUITE I, STOCKTON CA 95210 • (209) 957-4917 • FAX(209)956-8525
Page 1 of 1
Jennifer Perrin
From: MABEL MARTIN [mmm32mom@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 13,2009 01:46 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Wal Mart
I urge you to vote NO on Wal Mart. We do not need it or want it.
I am a Lodi resident.
Do the right thing. Vote NO
Mabel Martin
05/13/2009
Page 1 of 1
Jennifer Perrin
From: Russ In Lodi [russemartin@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 13,2009 01;52 PM
To: City Council
Subject: No on Super Wal-Mart, Lodi resident, thank you.
05/13/2009
Page 1 of 1
Jennifer Perrin
From: Philip King [pking@sbcglobal.netj
Sent: Wednesday, May 13,2009 01:58 PM
To: RandiJohl
cc: Brett S. Jolley; skingl @pacific.edu
Subject: Replyto Commenston my earlier Report concerning the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter in
Lodi
Attachments: WM response May 2009 Lodi with vitas.pdf
Ms. Johl:
Please provide the attached memo to the City Council for tonight's hearing on the Lodi Shopping Center Project.
Thanks
Dr. Philip King
05/13/2009
May 13,2009
To: City of Lodi
From: Philip King, Associate Professor of Economics, San Francisco State University
Sharmila King, Associate Professor of Economics, University of the Pacific
Re: Response to Allegations in Recent Wal-Mart Submissions
Introduction
It is come to the authors' attention that Wal-Mart recently submitted documents to the
City accusing the authors of exhibitingbias against Wal-Mart and being "consistently
wrong" in urban decay analyses prepared for other communities."' These statements are
untrue and inaccurate. Neither author is biased against Wal-Mart or any other particular
retailer. However, we do have expertise in this field (as evidencedby the numerous
communities in which we have been asked to consult on the impacts of various big -box
retail projects including Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Lowe's, and Target). Dr. Philip King
also served as an expert consultant to the City of Stockton on its adoption of a big box
ordinance in 2007 and co-authored the 2003 economic impact study relied upon by the
court in Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield to overturn
Bakersfield's treatment of urban decay from two Supercenter -anchored shopping
centers. Dr. Sharmila King is an Associate professor of Economics at the University of
the Pacific in Stockton and has a strong understanding of the local economies of Stockton
and surrounding communities in San Joaquin County, such as Lodi. Neither CBRE nor
BAE can claim these credentials. And, unlike CBRE or BAE, the authors derive the vast
majority of their incomes from their professorships, rather than from occasional
consulting. Therefore contrary to the accusations, we are not professional"hired guns"
like CBRE and BAE, but rather economists and academics concerned with what we
perceive, in our professional opinions, as the over -retailing of smaller California
communites, ultimately leading to signficnat negative economic climates in these
communities. We are not -anti growth. We are not even anti -retail. However, we do
recognize that impacts from over -retailing a community will ultimately have a negative
impact on both the economy and the environment. While we are not fortune-tellers,we
do have experience analyzing the data and making fact -based predictions of urban decay
impacts. In our professional opinions, this Project is j ust such an example of over -
retailing that will lead to significant and unhealthy retail vacancies, increased store
closings, and decay that must be addressed now rather than later.
Summary of Points
Our collective experience has established a strong foundation on the topic of big -box -
related urban decay in California and from that knowledge the authors recognize that
certain types of retail development is more likely to cause and contribute to increased
vacancies and urban decay. At the forefront are "Supercenters" which based on their size,
' As we understand these documents were submitted to the City in March and April of this year, and were
provided to Counsel for Lodi First by the City on April 29,2009.
hours of operation, and compilation of nearly every type of retail item (and several
service items) tend to collect sales dollars from existing retail -- rather than by providing
new retail spending -- in tun cannibalizing other stores in the community. This
cannibalization,particularly in this economic climate, leads to business closures and
potential urban decay. Of course, this must be determined on a case-by-case basis
which the authors have done on several occasions. In this case, it is our professional
opinion that the EIR process has not adequately addressed this impact because it fails to
consider existing blight in Lodi (which will be exacerbated rather than alleviated by
development of this project), omits relevant sales data, and significantly overstates the
fiscal benefits of the project.
We believe the personal attack levied by Wal-Mart is inappropriate. To bolster this point,
we demonstrate herein that our prior analyses of urban decay in cities in which Wal-Mart
claims wrong, are in fact consistent with the current conditions on in those communities.z
The appendix to this memo contains a more complete response to these allegations..
Here are the key points:
• To our knowledge, neither CBRE nor BAE (Wal -Mart's preferred consultants)
has ever concluded significanturban decay from a Supercenter or other big -box
store anywhere in California.
• The Wal-Mart attach cherry -picked a few cities and caricatured our analysis.
Nevertheless:
o In three of the five cities Wal-Mart discusses, a former Wal-Mart
store was closed, just as one will be in Lodi. In all of three cities, the
EIR's predicted that the Wal-Mart stores would be retenanted and
our obiections were rebuffed as "gloom and doom." All three of these
former Wal-Mart stores are still closed and the shopping: centers they
anchor are crippled with vacancies and poor maintenance.
o These cities3 have seen increased vacancies, deteriorating downtowns,
and urban decay.
■ Vacancies in Anderson have skyrocketed. Wal-Mart states that the
Outlet center has benefited from the Supercenter, but vacancies
have increased to 30%, the level at which a center is considered to
be a "greyfield," in serious trouble. The center anchored by
Safeway is close behind, with a 29% vacancy rate and even the
center anchored by Wal-Mart has over a 20% vacancy rate. Urban
decay has significantly increased in downtown Anderson. Most of
the stores that the authors predicted would close have, in fact,
closed, including the Holiday (Super)market.
■ An analysis we conducted two years ago in Hanford indicated that
urban decay had significantly encroached on the downtown, which
2 Interestingly, this attack is similar to one produced by CBRE in another community in 2007.
3 In the case of American Canyon the urban decay is in Vallejo next door, as Dr. Philip King predicted.
4 Vacancy rates are measured by the number of closed stores vs. total number of stores.
was once praised, and in centers anchored by the closed former
Wal-Mart and the Monte (Super)market, closed after the
Supercenterwas built—adding over 330,000 square feet of empty
and deteriorating space in Hanford. Since then, Mervyns has
closed, Gottschalks will close along with many other stores.
The Supercenter in American Canyon exacerbated urban decay in
Vallejo as we predicted. Sonoma Blvd., just down the road from
the Supercenter, is loaded with deteriorating shopping centers with
high vacancy rates. The former Wal-Mart which relocated from
Vallejo to American Canyon remains closed; a Mervyns is now
closed, and dozens of other stores are closed. The vacancy rate is
well above the 10%uhhealthy threshold at most of these centers.
Although we did not have time to visit Gilroy or Yuba City since
receiving Wal -Mart's claims, , we have spoken with knowledgable
sources in these communities who explain that vacancies have
risen substantially and the downtown in Gilroy continues to
deteriorate. Marysville, right next to Yuba City, suffers from
serious urban decay exacerbatedby Supercenters in Yuba City and
Marysville.
o Finally, Wal -Mart's claim that Supercentersboost other business is
fallacious. While Supercentersmay boost some businesses, overall they
take sales away from most businesses. And the "Navigant" report
completed in late 2008 does not support Wal -Mart's conclusions.
o The original study for the City of Lodi was deeply flawed and was thrown
out by ajudge. We do not relish going over these issues again and again.
Ultimately it is the city's decision as to whether to approve a Supercenter
or not, but CEQA does require that a good faith, objective analysis be
conducted so that citizens can make an informed and reasoned choice. As
explained in our December 2008 report submitted to the Council
(incorporatedherein by reference), this requirement simply has not been
satisfied.
Conclusion
Wal-Mart claims that we are biased while CBRE and BAE are somehow objective. It is
clear that CBRE and BAE each has a long term relationship with many developers and
big box stores, including Wal-Mart and that CBRE and BAE values these relationships.
The developerpays for these reports and clearly expects a certain outcome.
This is not the purpose of CEQA or the EIR process. If Lodi wants a Wal-Mart
Supercenter, that is ultimately up to the City and its citizens. This process has dragged on
largely due to Wal -Mart's failure to accurately assess the situation. The original urban
decay report was thrown out by the Court because it omitted one million square feet of
new retail! That is a large oversight and inexcusable give the resources that CBRE had at
its disposal.
As explained previously, the current EIR's urban decay analysis is also materially flawed
in several ways: (1) It omits existing blight in east Lodi identified by the City Council
and fails to accurately describe the economic environmental setting (2) it concludes
"insufficient evidence" exists to determine whether significant urban decay will occur
from the project (where, as here, Lodi has existing decay and blight, declining retail
spending, and the EIR admits several store will close this is, in fact, substantial evidence
that the likelihood of urban decay is significant); (3) the EIR omits the considerationof
an additional 100,000 square feet of retail from the Reynolds Ranch project -- a
significant omission representing a substantialpercentage of eminent and approved Lodi
retail development which will add to decay impacts in Lodi if this project goes forward,
and (4) assumes the Project will generate significant tax revenues but relies on
inconsistent and unsupported overstatements of sales tax benefits provided by the
developer and Wal-Mart without considering the offsets from loss of revenue from other
retailers in Lodi -- including closing the existing Wal-Mart store which, history shows, is
likely to remain vacant (and non -tax -producing) for a number of years. These errors and
omissions are not inconsequential. Instead, when the necessary information is included,
the significance of the impact is realized and the EIR must address this through
mitigation or overriding considerations.
The EIR and consultant reports fail to follow this requirement. Instead, the EIR plays
"hide the ball" with the data to avoid findings of significance, to avoid mitigation, and
ultimately to avoid disclosingthe true impacts of the project.
The appendix to this memo documents these issues in more detail.
Appendix to Memo responding to Wal-Mart and CBRE
This appendix will respond in more detail to specific allegations made in the memo
proffered by Wal-Mart and CBRE.
Response to Claims Regarding Urban Decay in other Communities: Anderson
Contrary to allegations made by Wal-Mart, vacancies and store closings have increased
considerably in the years since the Supercenterwas built. Wal-Mart argues that the
outlet center across the street has benefited, yet the vacancy rate is now at 30%, a
threshold rate which indicates a decaying center. Most of the stores we predicted would
close have indeed closed. Overallbusiness traffic is poor and many stores are
struggling.
Figure 1: One of many closed stores at the Shasta Outlet Center in Anderson
Figure 2: Downtown Anderson has struggled with many vacancies. Signs of
urban decay near North and Center Street near downtown Anderson.
Figure 3: One of many closed stores downtown.
Figure 4: One of many closed stores at the center anchored by Safeway. Although
the shopping center is not that old, it shows signs of poor maintenance already
Downtown Anderson is filled with marginal businesses such as thrift stores and check -
cashing stores. The existence of these stores indicates very low rents, which leads to
lack of maintenance and urban decay. The center anchoredby Safewayhas a 29%
vacancy rate and many buildings already show signs of deterioration (see Figure 4)
above.
Overall, Anderson is far from what WAL-MART has depicted. There are clear signs
everywhere that stores are struggling due to sales displacementby the Supercenter.
American CanyonNallejo
Dr. Kin 's original declaration for the Supercenter in American Canyon specifically
mentions urban decay in Vallejo, which is immediately adiacent to the site, not in
American Canyon. WAL-MART's memo implies that the declaration predicted urban
decay in American Canyon, when it did not.
In Vallejo it is clear that numerous shopping centers on Sonoma Blvd. (the main
shopping areajust down from the Supercenter) are experiencing poor maintenance and
high vacancies —the precursors of serious urban decay. Further, the condition of these
stores has deteriorated significantly since the Supercenterwas built several years ago.
Urban decay does not happen overnight. It is a long process, but once it sets in, it is
very difficult to eliminate. CBRE claimed that in Lodi the blighted buildingsjust east
of the downtown area were due to landlord neglect, but the story is simplerthan that.
Landlords only neglect property when it doesn't pay to maintain the property. In our
opinion, this is the situation now in many shopping centers on Sonoma Blvd. in Vallejo.
The former Wal-Mart store, which CBRE claimed would be retenanted. has been vacant
since its closing and vacancies in the shopping center it co-anchors are rising while
maintenance is falling.
Figure 1: The Wal-Mart in Vallejo closed soon afterthe American Canyon store
opened and has remained closed for years. Many stores nearby are also vacant and the
shopping center is deteriorating.
Figure 2: The closed Mervyns in Vallejo just down the road from the closed Wal-Mart.
The cumulative impact of these closures is serious.
Figure 3: One of many closed stores on Sonoma Blvd.
Hanford
Dr. King's 2007 memo included a detailed description of store closings in Hanford at
the time, which were substantial. Since then, Mervyns has closed and Gottschalks are
slated to close and we are told that the downtown has shrunk further. It should also be
pointed out that in 1985, downtown Hanford was chosen as "Best of the State" in a
competition sponsored by the League of California cities. Hanford (unlike Lodi) has an
ordinance which requires furniture stores to locate downtown, and this has helped slow
the deterioration and shrinkage downtown, but has not prevented it.
The full 2007 report is attached. Here are the most salient facts:
• The Monte Mart, a large (55,000 square foot) independent grocery store in the
Hanford Towne Center, closed soon after the Supercenter opened and the store
has not been retenanted. Proponents of the Supercenterhave argued that the
store would have closed anyway, but its sales were very healthy before the
opening of the Supercenter; even if the owners had wanted to close the Monte
Mart store, someone else could have been found to take over the business, a
commonpractice when an owner of a successfulbusiness retires or closes a
store. The entire shopping center anchoredby the Monte Mart, is seriously
underutilized and had an additional 15,000 square feet of vacant space in 2007.
• When the Supercenter opened, the existing Wal-Mart in the Centennial Plaza
shopping center was closed. It is still vacant today (May 2009) and the rest of
the shopping center is struggling.
• In 2007, although the core of Hanford's downtown contained many businesses,
the periphery of the downtown area suffered from urban decay, with many
closed and deterioratingbusinesses. Hanford's historic Chinese stores were
badly deteriorating, despite efforts to retenant some of the stores.
• The 2007 memo took an inventory of closed stores in Hanford and estimated
the total square footage of closed stores in downtown Hanford and at the two
shopping centers anchored. Over 330,000 square feet of vacant retail space
existed, including a large number of closed and dilapidated buildings in or near
downtown Hanford. Please keep in mind that Hanford is a small city, about
2/3 the size of Lodi or Elk Grove or 1/7 the size of Stockton, so this is a
significant overhang of closed stores.
Figure 4: The Closed Monte Mart in Hanford
Figures 5 and 6: The old Wal-Mart has closed in Hanford and not been retenanted.
Figure 7: This old awning and tarp store in downtown Hanford was closed and
falling apart.
Figures 8 and 9: More urban decay downtown.
Table 1: Closed Stores in Hanford with Estimated Square Feet (From 2007 Study)
Location Est Square Feet
312 Sixth St.
1,000
210 Sixth
3,000
100 Sixth
61000
116 Sixth
25,000
Fifth/Douty
2,000
601 Seventh St.
1,500
520 Seventh
21000
410 Seventh
21000
407 Seventh
1,000
333 Seventh
5,000
203 Seventh
8,000
125 Haris at Seventh
400
Seventh Douty
40,000
110 Seventh
3,000
120 Douty at Seventh
800
118 Seventh (closing)
1,500
Eighth (across from Sears)
2,000
Eigth and Irwin
4,000
312 Seventh (Old Sears)
40,000
130 Eight
1,000
Montemart
55,000
Space next to Monte Mart
2,000
2 stores in front of Monte Mart
15,000
Closed Wal-Mart
110,000
Store next to Wal-Mart
2,000
Tntal
333.200
Gilroy
We were not able to visit Gilroy. However, I spoke to people in the commercial real
estate business downtown area in Gilroy continues to deteriorate and vacancies are
rising. The closed Wal-Mart in Gilroy continues to be closed.
Yuba City
Vacancies in Yuba City have risen substantially including a closed Mervyns and a soon
to be closed Gottschalks. However, like in American Canyon, the most significant
decay has occurred in neighboring Marysville, which suffers from serious urban. These
"twin cities" are adjacent and hence should be examined together, which the WAL-
MART memo did not do.
Other Cities: Woodland
Since the WAL-MART memo has accused us of bias against Wal-Mart and cherry -
picked examples of "successful" Supercenter development, we believe it is only fair to
offer a couple of counterexamples —involving CBRE reports for Home Depot. In an
urban decay report prepared for a Home Depot in Eureka this year, CBRE referred to
the City of Woodland as a success story integratingbig box stores.
Like Lodi, Woodland is a medium sized city in the central valley near a larger city
(Sacramento as opposed to Stockton). Like Lodi, Woodland has experienced a
substantial increase in retail over the last 5-10 years along with growth in residential
development which has now slowed to a crawl. In addition to the Home Depot, a new
Wal-Mart (non Supercenter), a new Costco, and a new Target (replacing an existing
store) have been built and other stores are planned.
The downtown in Woodland is not thriving, as stated in the urban decay report prepared
by CBRE, but has continued to stagnate even in the boom years of 2000-2004. The
"antique stores" that the EIR mentioned are in fact, second hand stores which have very
low sales per square feet and operate in low rent buildings which have continued to
deteriorate over the past ten years. Other retail in Woodland has also stagnated and
many stores are now stagnating.
The western end of Main St. in Woodland—Main street is essentially "downtown"
Woodland—has a large number of store closures and deteriorating stores and shopping
centers. At one of these centers on 117 W. Main in Woodland Dr. King was physically
threatened and escaped by car. He was pursued for 25 minutes (and dialed 911) before
the police were able to intervene (in Sacramento). Make no mistake, this is a dangerous
area. We have been shopping in Woodland regularly for 12 years and used to visit a
dentist not far from this area, so we were shocked.
Figure 10: This store in central downtown Woodland is one of many stores that has
been closed and "For Lease" for some time now. This is the beginning of urban decay.
Figure 11: The former Long John Silver's on Main St.. in Woodland is now boarded up.
Most significant, the County Fair mall in Woodland, which before the recent
developments, was the main regional shopping mall in Woodland is rapidly
becoming a "ghost mall." On a recent visit I counted 30+ vacancies out of a total of
65-70 spaces —indicating an almost 50% vacancy rate. In addition to obviously any
stores still had merchandise but were closed midday indicating they would probably
close soon. The mall was anchored by Mervyns and Gottschalks. The Mervyns has
closed and Gottschalks will follow soon. The former Target store also left. The spec
was retenanted by a Burlington coat factory. Significantly, this store fronts main
entrance is outside of the mall.
Figure 12: One of many, many closed stores at the County Fair Mall in Woodland.
Eureka
CBRE also recently prepared an urban decay report in Eureka. The report:
• Systematically ignored urban decay and 127 vacancies in central Eureka.
(Eureka is a small City.)
• Dismissed severe problems at Eureka's Bayshore Mall, which is now in
bankruptcy.
• Assumed that there would be no leakage outside of Humboldt County—that is
that folks would do all of there shopping in the County, even though it does not
contain a single, GAP, Macy's, Nordstrom, Ann Taylor, or many other
mainstream stores that can be found across the US.
• Despite CBRE's Omissions, the EIR concluded that in many retail
categories it will take more than 10 years to "mitigate" impacts, yet CBRE
concluded there would be no urban decay impacts.
Figure 13: This store on 15`h Street in Eureka is boarded up and starting to deteriorate.
Figure 14: This store at 3d and Jacobs in Eureka is vacant and suffering from lack of
maintenance.
maintenance—without tenants and with few prospects of future, landlords have little
incentive to upkeep property.
Vacancies at Bayshore Mall in Eureka
The Eureka EIR and urban decay report prepared by CBRE briefly discussed the
Bayshore mall and discussed some of the major vacancies, but the entire discussion
served to dismiss what is clearly a failed shopping center where conditions are going
from bad to worse. Since the report was filed, the Bayshore Mall's owner, General
Properties, has filed for bankruptcy and this bankruptcy includes the Bayshore Mall.
The Bayshore mall has lost most of its anchor tenants and prime draws—Old Navy, the
Gap, Mervyns and now Gottschalks has declared bankruptcy and will leave Bayshore as
well. This leaves very few anchor tenants and the remaining ones such as Sears and
Borders have also been experiencing difficulty and may very well close.. A very partial
list of store closings includes the following stores:
1. Arbys
2. Sweet River Grill.
3. Campost Casual
4. Old Navy.
5. JC Penney outlet.
6. Site for Sore Eyes.
7. Vitamin World.
8. Suncoast movies.
9. Rocxco furniture.
10. Hot dog on a stick.
11. Gottschalks other store outlet they own in the mall.
12. Bayshore mall cinema
13. KB toys.
14. Candy factory
15. Wilson's Leather
Indeed, people have described the mall as a "ghost town."
Figure 17: One of many storefronts closed in the Bayshore Mall
Conclusion
Wal-Mart claims that we are biased while CBRE is somehow objective. It is clear that
CBRE has a long term relationship with many developers and big box stores, including
Wal-Mart and that CBRE values this relationship. The developer pays for these reports
and clearly expects a certain outcome.
This is not the purpose of CEQA or the EIR process. If Lodi wants a Wal-Mart
Supercenter, that is clearly up to the City and its citizens. This process has dragged on
largely due to Wal -Mart's failure to accurately assess the situation. The original urban
decay report was thrown out because it omitted one million square feet of new retail!
That is a large oversight and inexcusable give the resources that CBRE had at its
disposal.
AtegqafAW-w�bhw
appath hiasled to wiaz
lazi ze dEtalflo"'ns in the
Urafted States that we haw
Wvm alwit bTMM
but have so M failed
to dt anythng about.
A NEW SUeelE 15 POPPING -
and as usual I vam
'Unflic The 110-irg hubble many
ba ai aamnnunatses rand deotegapeas-
To =Ments-p1weed The kq- Me
In c -^01S Am &n'� mW bubble-
kw1t%byft;1eftf J& Palfald
kesesen,10M. bmd in Po*un
and landan, shaw a =jfjd* ising
numbetafsh3pping ogrWyman-
ems, amund the Counly PPR pm-
dkls the a.--m'fl mulwammy miles,
wiz! mxh L2.,T, wMeal-One out of
,V.e,y tiont q u3m:kd 1J.?O'A 3q nI)
of arm-bb1c mda M space.
Flt tnW not sound so bA but
avrepated byG36batmelcom,
at mpreent"crMOT] aboult-t B
Ban squam *d;�LOm[fl5-sq
nti arse, ar�eud�rif {f5 square
ldremp?(and
arwOmt jad
4quam Tm1cs,[2,rq ±q knO ofunused
RN&US k -ft— W.31 TMIS"Wri a
px))r-*i to deefine bymam than
5 paxenI in lov bebmi4rcrger
kT in 11J1,44 and fd-40 CAPta! Value
Sas lesTnarf approadi -id pexerd-
ju'd hap,
penbemu-teaffine econamic
downtumn of the flowing bust ff"a
ben in too 7 although these
tr*emd t The trend actuaW has,
,been building far mfs and it ante
now beca M-ff% wil 91 T"111bed-
Aim ublirrg nea roped is, That:
much afew new-vocard *tail
n,Imcc is in n twat s1iqp;fiTj cqn-
temin outer subuiban cqmmufi»
lies vgme hawknq constmcfian
has sZovwd dwinficalV--nal in
okle; obsokie s; Tim d'A
pries that mu'd b1c,"Topta-A
has become wid Y ditiorled as
mousli demlopment Waned 111
antl:ipsfion offore m4aps-a
URINAA LAND JANUARY 2009
MICHAEL BEYAR,
D
fiflum lbafia am gmsOf detWed
oTafighinc-'el come at 4111 in Some
fringe areart, holon."V hV'Suse
arl'be 110*1erm hougris hLa
but abo bemuse a f $anptcrm
demopm;f1fic: changes; itgard-
ins wtem Pea ilk vlax to ,re.
wirle pass experiences;,
Ile el -id of The current hdimin;
do viffiath mwj not be fulowed
by another housthig boom ifflIft
ftftv-zd least not 110 the Wt.
upturn we hwe gotten used M
The ma*4mvjrhdi MR outbad
dw-Wons cm
am and comm udakm sayfime
soon, becaute mom and more
maple may look for ahernsfrees
to a tarp sing*44mN iwaw
at Iffic ffing! that re quiles brt&
congested d*ov& to ft Smccrf
star a Or IQ work when Sasioune
;PFKC& irr-mase agom and as out
IfTbvary infi"ar-luie Continues
10 dele63rale.
Boen if another boom does
averflua ly 3-tarl up *I; the ftk%W,
The type aftewifin; brid h3u%&V)
mquimd wil Fke�t cl&W!kjbslan,
fwrq from W101 Yes bulw4hine in
the pas -,L Inobied,
canlazi and stande bt b-cs
amens le on)r by aw am We in
dL*,Ian 1, lc�:,dfmm. wO seem mls<
The intense comjWXion amang
jurisdkfaft 53tcommerW tax
rearues is anotirerase of the
pabipm. Cammun*p arben da TW
cam lba ftm is no n tr demartl
knaddNonad Mal spacc Man
fwf zone sw mwb Wad farming
OTAP pme too numf td%al c-w3vz$,
!Rwj am krwmsed p6mad
Ifin
ensuring an incmaft Commexild
*muvenue amam fxthemr;41wei
1pqadrevL 1%4,
1, wir new"baf Solder ca#W4 Mwe
so wCard. notof Much conCern.
Tift bMam tfrfnOo bpi
app xwh Eras k -d to refwA land
use d&1a43pfvw!(ha1.we hwe
kikwn about: far ya=, bu I, Ihm
VO hW4VS9 fat W$Od 10 63 any
the aihow- M, i, easy to sof that
communym1% sliould Co. bac--k,
an She land rhecfgane ibf arriaii-
hV and Ma p apprahng 5,3,,— rry
unneeded shqypS mrem, bort
Oa Wgi mq Ifire 9'ale Ir"N-emen I
mg-ding,ioxwol plannin; and
w,afion pokies 53 succeed
Wkw commun"6m. can do I&
to matirm, Irtiear meqami dridap,
meTd.TcgUwxM to cage mom
W511afflableMIS-111; pallems-
CommuniffitOmWIdemand sus,,
tamable miwd-ulc domlopmem,
lfmber Commexill &-mki"M16
3mm kwiv& mare mkid,
opment of 0010D des, and
mg7DraR(a& weR as lava Pj-
'ire world!las Changed funda-
menlaa 6 and the camro cfa-%
ih=ld he 3 V&1rA--U;,1 411 rat us 53
step back and addiez the zcri
vIgil lard uw and dvievapmeni
pafrc wvx;l havvW to he
ust)rs cuvmdcoelbuWL-%
obwkscence, and finamial
dsm fterviisv. we wit r=m-
Vif bog Inl6nS The Voundwaik for
the next desftxvOre (roam bush.
x1al cWle, and our Suit of coca I-
ing mate Evabk and satldmb ke
me MPORIan Cam man6m wit
slip that much furlherw&qy. LL
PHILIP G. KING
Economics Department, San Francisco State University
E-mail: pking@sbcglobal.net
Cell: (530)-867-3935
Education:
July, 87 Ph.D. in ECONOMICS
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
Fields: Applied Microeconomics, Economic Development, International Economics
Dissertation:Bargaining between Multinational Corporations and Less Developed Countries over
Mineral Concessions Contracts.
May, 78 B. A. in PHILOSOPHY & ECONOMICS WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
Nominated to Omicron Delta Epsilon (EconomicsHonor Society.)
Work Experience:
1/ 06 -present
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY
9/02-12/05
CHAIR, ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT
SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY
9/ 93 -present
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY
9/87-9/93
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY
9/83-5/85
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ECONOMICS
S.U.N.Y. at CORTLAND
Policy Papers prepared for Government and Non -Profit Organizations:
Contributed Economics portion of Regional Sediment Master Plan for BEACON (Beach Erosion
Authority for Clean Oceans and Nourishment—Santa Barbara. and Ventura Counties), February
2009, with Noble Consultants.
ESTIMATING THE POTENTIAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BEACHES, prepared for the California Energy Commission
(Energy Commission) and the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), with
Linwood Pendleton, Craig Mohn, D. G. Webster, Ryan K. Vaughn, and Peter Adams.
Prepared for the City of Stockton: Economic Analysis of A Proposed Ordinance to Limit Grocery
Sales at Superstores in Stockton, California, May 10,2007
Contributed Economics Portion of "The ARC GIS Coastal Sediment Analysis Tool: A GIS
Support Tool for Regional Sediment Management Program: White Paper, Draft
Technical Report for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, by Ying Poon (Everest Consultants),
Los Angeles District, April 2006.
Contributed Economics Portion of "Coastal Sediment Analysis Tool (CSBAT) Beta
Version --Sediment Management Decision Support Tool for Santa Barbara and Ventura
Counties," Draft Technical Report for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, by Ying Poon
(Everest Consultants), Los Angeles District, June 2006.
"TheArcGIS Coastal Sediment Analyst: A Prototype Decision Support Tool for Regional
Sediment Management, John Wilson et. al., USC Geography Department, 2004
(contributed economic analysis for paper).
"The Economic of Regional Sediment Management in Ventura and Santa Barbara
Counties," prepared for the California State Resources Agency, Final draft (refereed) ,
Fall 2006, prepared for the Coastal Sediment Management Work group (CSMW).
"The Potential Loss in GNP and GSP from a failure to Maintain California's Beaches,"
with Douglas Symes, prepared for the California State Resources Agency, 2002,
http://userwww.sfsu.edu/ —pgking/pubpol.htm.
"The (Economic) Benefits of California'sBeaches," prepared for the California State
Resources Agency, 2002, http://dbw.ca.gov/beachreport.htm.
"The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Beach Recreation in San Clemente," presented as
part cf Hearings on CongressionalAppropriations for California Coastal Projects, US
House of Representatives, April 2002. Also completed similarprojects for Cities of
Carlsbad, Caspinteria, Encinitas, and Solana Beach.
San Francisco's Economic Growth 1995-2000: The Fiscal Health of the City and
Implications for the Future," prepared for the San Francisco Committee on Jobs Summer
2001. This report was widely cited in the San Francisco press including front page
articlesby the Chronicle and Examiner.
"The Demand for Beaches in California," prepared for the California Dept. of Boating and
Waterways, Spring 2001.
"Cost Benefit Analysis of Shoreline Protection Projects in California," prepared for the
California Dept. of Boating and Waterways, Spring 2000.
"The Fiscal Impact cf Beaches in California," prepared for the Public Research Institute, San
Francisco State University, Fall 1999, available at
http://online.sfsu.edu/—pgking/beaches.htm.
"An Economic Analysis of Coastal Resources on the Majuro Atoll," prepared for the United
Nations Development Program ProjectMAS 95/001/DO1/99 and the Majuro Atoll Local
Government, September, 1997.
"The Economic Impact of California'sBeaches," prepared for the Public Research Institute,
San Francisco State University, Summer, 1997 (with Michael Potepan.)
"The Revenue Impact cf the Proposed Marine Link Pipeline System in Richmond,
California," prepared for the Public Research Institute, San Francisco State University,
Spring, 1997 (with Ted Rust.)
"The Economic Impact cf California's Ports and Harbors," prepared for the Public
Research Institute, San Francisco State University, Spring, 1997 (with Ted Rust).
Books: International Economics and International Economic Policy, 5th Edition, McGraw-Hill, 2009.
International Economics and International Economic Policy, 4th Edition, McGraw-Hill, 2004.
International Economics and International Economic Policy, 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill, 2000.
International Economics and International Economic Policy, 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1995.
International Economics and International Economic Policy, 1 stEdition, McGraw-Hill, 1990.
Published Papers:
"Potential Loss in GNP and GSP from a Failure to Maintain California's Beaches", Fall
2004, with Douglas Symes, Shore and Beach (Refereed).
"Do Beaches Benefit Local Communities?: A Case Study cf Two California Beach Towns,"
Fall 2002, Proceedings cf the Conference on California and the World Oceans.
"The Economic Value cf California's Beaches," Fall 1997, Proceedings of the Conference on
California and the World Oceans (with Michael Potepan.)
"William Simon: Treasury Secretary," in Biographical Dictionay of the United States
Secretaries of the Treasuy:1789-1995, edited by Bernard Katz and C. Daniel Vencill,
GreenwoodPress, 1996.
"The Multinational Corporation: Pro and Con," in International Economics and International
Economic Policy, McGraw-Hill, 1990.
"Negotiations over Mineral and Petroleum Contracts in Developing Countries: a new
explanation," Winter 1987,Journal of Economics and International Relations.
"A Political Theory of MNC-LDC Negotiations over Mineral Concessions Contracts,"
1988, International Interactions.
Public Testimony:
Testified and prepared report to the California Coastal Commission in San Diego on the
economic loss due to a proposed seawall at Las Brisas, Solana Beach, California.
PERSONAL
University Address:
SHARMILA KUMARI KING
Department of Economics
University of the Pacific
3601 Pacific Avenue
Stockton, CA 95211
Citizenship: US and UK
EDUCATION
E-mail: sking 1 @pacific.edu
Office Phone: (209) 946 2293
• Ph.D. Economics, University of California, Davis, 2001
Dissertation: The Formulation of Monetary Policy and the Transmission Mechanism in Europe
(Chair: Professor Kevin Hoover)
Major Fields: Monetary Economics, International Finance, and Econometrics
• M.A. Economics, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, 1996
• B.A. Economics (Honors), University of York, York, England, 1992
TEACHING APPOINTMENTS
Associate Professor, University of the Pacific, Fall 2007 present
Assistant Professor, University of the Pacific, Fall 2001 -Spring 2006
• Introductory Macroeconomics (ECON 55, ECON 55H)
• Intermediate Macroeconomics, Theory and Policy (ECON 103, ECON 103L)
• Money and Banking (ECON 14 1)
• International Finance (ECON 123)
• Computer Applications (ECON 16 1)
• Mentor2
PAPERS and BOOKS
• "Bank Efficiency and the Effectiveness of Monetary Policy" with Michael Jonas,
ContemporaryEconomic Policy, Vol. 26, No. 4, October 2008
• Philip King and Sharmila King International Economics and Globalization, and Policy:
A Reader, 5rh ed. McGraw-Hill Publishers, 2008
• Sharmila King "China's Controversial Exchange Rate Policy" in International
Economics and Globalization, and Policy: A Reader, 5th ed. McGraw-Hill Publishers,
2008
• Sharmila King "Currency Boards" in International Economics and International
Economic Policy: A Reader, Philip King and Sharmila King (Eds.), McGraw-Hill
Publishers 2005
• Philip King and Sharmila King International Economics and International Economic
Policy: A Reader, McGraw-Hill Publishers, 2005
• "Do Symmetric Shocks Matter? The Monetary Transmission in the Euro Area," with
Philip King, Jean Monnet Chair ConferenceProceedings, 2003
• "Tax Evasion and Equity Theory: An Experimental Investigation", with Steven Sheffrin,
International Tax and Public Finance, 9, 505-521, August 2002
• "The Effects of Off -Balance Sheet Lending and Monetary Policy Outcomes in the U.S."
Manuscript.
• "A Lending Channel in Europe: Evidence from Bank Balance Sheets", under revision.
PRESENTATIONS
• "Bank Efficiency and the Effectiveness of Monetary Policy" at the WesternEconomic
Association International Conference, Vancouver, July 2004
• Economics Department Colloquium Presentation: "Bank Efficiency and the Effectiveness
of Monetary Policy", April 2004
• "Do Symmetric Shocks Matter? The Monetary Transmission in the Euro Area," at the
Jean Monnet Chair "Regional Integration Compared" Conference in Bordeaux, France,
July 2003
• "Do Symmetric Shocks Matter? The Monetary Transmission in the Euro Area," at the
Western Economic Association International Conference in Seattle, July 2002
• Economics Department Colloquium Presentation: "Do Symmetric Shocks Matter? The
Monetary Transmission in the Euro Area," April 2002
• "A Credit Channel in Europe: Evidence from Firm Balance Sheets" presented at the
WesternEconomic Association International Conference in Vancouver, July 2000
UNIVERSITY SERVICE
• College of Pacific Council -present
• College of Pacific: Curriculum Committee 2007-2008
• Department of Economics Webmaster, Fall 2004 -Fall 2008
• Omicron Delta Epsilon Faculty Advisor 2006-2008
• The Pacific Investment Group Faculty Advisor 2007—present
• College of Pacific: Courses and Standards 2003-2005
• University Parking Taskforce Committee 2004
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE
• Peer Reviewer for Southern Economic Journal
• Economics Analysis of MOA between the City of Stockton and the Sierra Club, 2008
• Economic Analysis of a Proposed Supercenter Wal-Mart in Tracy, California 2006
• Economic Analysis of a Proposed Supercenter Wal-Mart in Stockton (Eight Mile Road),
California 2005
• Economic Analysis of a Proposed Supercenter Wal-Mart in Lodi, California 2005,2008
• Book Review on Krugman and Well's Macroeconomics, Worth Publishers, 2004
• Chapter Review Stiglitz and Walsh's the Phillips Curve in Principles of
Macroeconomics, W. W. Norton Publishers, 2004
COMMENT LETTERS
RECEIVED BY CITY
CLERK'S OFFICE
At or after the public hearing on
May 13,2009
Jennifer Perrin
From: Randi Johl
Sent: Thursday, May 14,200912:54 PM
To: Jennifer Perrin
Subject: FW: Wal-Mart Supercenter -Vote NO!
----- Original Message -----
From:
essage-----
From: Butch England [mailto: laf fert67 @yahoo. coml
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 3:38 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Fw: Wal-Mart Supercenter -Vote NO!
Just as a reminder of a letter I sent last December. Downtown Lodi and the Lowe s
shopping center have lost businesses and there are still plenty of vacancies at Reynolds
Ranch. Please take into consideration the EIR.
I am not a member of any'activist organization just a concerned private citizen on this
matter.
thank you,
Laffert "Butch" "England
1940 Providence Way
Lodi, CA 95242
--- On Wed, 12/10/08, laffert@prodigy.net <laffert@prodigy.net> wrote:
> From: laffert@prodigy.net <laffert@prodigy.net>
> Subject: Wal-Mart Supercenter
> To: lhansen@lodi.gov
> Cc: jniounce@lodi.gov, bjohnson@lodi,gov, pkatzakian@lodi.gov,
letters@lodinews.com
> Date: Wednesday, December 10, 2008, 4:15 PM
> Dear Council members,
> my name is Laffert "Butch" England. I am a
> registered voter and have lived in Lodi for over 7 years. I
> am writing to express my opposition to the Wal-Mart
> Supercenter.
> When my wife and I got married in 2001, we were looking for
> a place to live that would suit both our commutes. We were
> going to look at three cities but after just going to Lodi,
> we knew it was (and is) the place for us. The locals call
> it "livable lovable Lodi" for good reason. Lodi,
> to me, is a unique city with its contolled growth, wine
> industry, and downtown ambiance. I am very comfortable here
> even wishing that I had grown up here instead of Antioch,
> If you want to look at how to ruin a community, look there
> with its oversized unplanned growth.
> This leads me to the Wal-Mart Supercenter. Lodi will lose
> much of its charm if this opens. More and more downtown
> businesses will close up only to replaced with either
> nothing or a bunch of "antique" shops. Martinez
> has a cute downtown but it's mostly "antique"
> shops.
> I don't want to see Lodi become just like any other
> city here in the San Joaquin Valley. I would like to see
> Lodi keep its unique aura. Sadly, a Supercenter would take
> that away. With many of the towns stripsmalls already
> losing tenants (Lakewood comes to mind), I think the
> Supercenter would compound this problem.
hitchcock@lodi.gov,
> I understand the need for revenues. Let's get creative
> and find some other means. I, for one, will NEVER set foot
> in the Supercenter.
> I will admit to you that I am no fan of Wal-Mart to begin
> with due to their business tactics with vendors and
> underhanded labor practices.
> But even if I did like Wal-Mart, I still don't like
> what it will do to this town if they get their Supercenter.
> Laffert "Butch" England
> 1940 Providence Way
> Lodi, CA 95242
> 209-367-4585
> 209-663-7485 (cell)
2
Jennifer Perrin
From: Randi Johl
Sent: Thursday, May 14,2009 12:55 PM
To: Jennifer Perrin
Subject: FW: No to the Walmart Supercenter
- - - --Original Message -----
From: Maria [mailto: zentara@ yahoo. coml
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 3:07 PM
To: City Council
Subject: No to the Walmart Supercenter
Good afternoon,
I know at tonight's Lodi City Council meeting you will be considering approving the
Walmart Supercenter project. This is a bad idea and I am again asking you all to vote no.
Our city continues to loose business downtown, and the shopping center at Lowe Is can t
even fill it empty spaces. If the project is approved then what are we going to do with
the empty Walmart store across the street? Downtown is looking like a ghost town and even
Starbucks is leaving.
The Reynolds Ranch project is big enough for our town at this time. Legs get that up and
running first. We are stretching ourselves too thin. Please listen to the voters of Lodi
rather than the special interests of Walmart. The voters want a small town feel. Not to
mention I don't see how Caltrans is going to approve the project with its potential impact
on highway 12.
PLEASE VOTE .........................
Thank you,
Maria England
1940 Providence Way
Lodi, CA 95242
1
HERUM C RABTREE
ATTORNEYS
Brett S. Jolley
bjolley@herumcrabtree.com
May 13,2009
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Mayor Larry Hansen
Honorable Members of the Lodi City Council
City of Lodi
221 W. Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95241
Re: Appeals of Planning Commission's Actions Regarding Lodi Shormina Center
Proiect
Dear Mayor Hansen and Honorable Members of the Lodi City Council:
This office represents Lodi Fist in its appeal of the Planning Commission's actions on the
Lodi Shopping Center Project ("Project"). Lodi Fist incorporates is prior objections to
the EIR and the Project herein, as well as those of others throughout the administrative
process, but also addresses the following three issues in this letter:
1. No Action by Planning Commission
The Council lacksjurisdiction to consider the appeals. Lodi Municipal Code § 17.88.030
A., regarding appeals to the Council, states, "The council may choose to review a
decision rendered by the commission."
This condition precedent has not yet occurred and the Council cannot yet consider the
merits of the project because the Planning Commission did not make a "decision" on
the Project. During the Planning Commission hearing a motion to approved the Project
as presented failed 3-3. Thereafter, a Commissioner attempted to discuss the matter
further but was cut off by staff, who advised that the 3-3 tie resulted in a denial and the
hearing was complete. This conclusions incorrect.
Although a 3-3 tie on a motion to approve cannot be an approval of that motion, such
result is not a decision to deny of the entire application. Accordingly, the process was
truncated at the Planning Commission. Specifically, Lodi Fist had advocated for an
additional, independent fiscal impact study and Citizens for Open Government had
advocated for the Commission to approve the "no -project alternative." By truncating
2291 WEST MARCH LANE\ SUITE B 100 \ STOCKTON, CA 95207 \ PH 209.472.7700 \ MODESTO PH 209.525.8444 \ FX 209.472.7986 \ APC
Lodi City Council
May 13, 2009
Page 2 of 4
the process, the Commission never made a final decision, took action, or established
an irreconcilable deadlock in reaching any decision. In short, the decision making
process was not exhausted to give rise to an appeal. To the extent the Council is
asked by the proponents to reverse the Commission's decision, no final decision
occurred and the appeal is premature.
Moreover, this truncated process leaves the Council without the benefit of knowing the
Planning Commission's final decision or reasoning on this project. Ths result prejudices
the approval process. To the extent the Commissionwere to adopt one of the project
alternatives and articulate its reasonsfor doing so, order the preparation of an
independent fiscal impact study, or add conditions to the Project, the Council would
be reviewing the appeal with the benefit of that information. Likewise, were the
Commission to affirmatively deny the project and make findings to that effect (an
option not allowed in the process),the Council and the public would have a better
understanding on the record of the basis for denial which would influence the decision
on appeal. Indeed, "at 'every level of the planning process' -the Legislature -
'recognizes the importance of public participation."' Environmental Defense Projectof
Sierra County v. County of Sierra (2008)158Cal.App.4th 877, 891 [holdingfast track
permitting process that provided notice of Council Hearing without benefit of Planning
Commission recommendation violated public participation and informed decision
making principles.]
Simply stated an appeal may only be taken from a decision and no decision was made
by the Commission. Accordingly the Council lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeals
and the project cannot be approved.
2. Project Design
The Project violates the Lodi Major Retail Design Ordinance three material ways.
First, Section 17.58.030 B. 1. states "Facades greater than one hundred feet in length,
measured horizontally, shall incorporate wall plane projections or recesses having a
depth of at least three percent of the length of the facade and extending at least
twenty percent of the length of the facade. No uninterrupted length of any facade
shall exceed one hundred horizontal feet." The design plans attached to the staff
report reveal that the south facade of the Supercenter is over 300' feet in length and is
unbroken as required by the ordinance. The southern portion of the rear (west)facade
also appears to have an uninterrupted wall of greater than 100'. The Staff report even
notes "The west and south elevations do not feature the same detailed architectural
treatment. The west (rearelevation) is a continuous wall with little architectural
treatment to breakup the elevation of the building...The southern elevation will feature
nearly identical architectural treatment as the west elevation."
\\2003-prolaw\ProLaw\documents\9001-5402\BSJ\94234. doc
'Lodi City Council
May 13, 2009
Page 3 of 4
Second, Section 17.58.0306.2. provides "Ground floor facades that face public streets
shall have arcades, display windows, entry areas, awnings, or other such features along
no less than sixty percent of their horizontal length." The rear (west)face of the
Supercenter abuts (faces)Westgate Drive but does not appear to have any such
features identified above. These requirements also to apply to all sides of a building
visible from adjoining properties (Section 17.50.090) -which includes the south side of
the Supercenter.
Third, Section 17.58.1 10 states, "No more than sixty percent of the off-street parking area
for the lot, tract or area of land devoted to the large retail establishment shall be
located between the front facade of the large retail establishment and the abutting
streets (the Front Parking Area).Tl-e front parking area shall be determined by drawing
a line from the front comers of the building, parallel with the building sides, straight to
the public street forming a ninety degree angle with the front facade." When we do
this on the Preliminary Landscape Plan diagram attached to the staff report, we see
that the "Front Parking Area" of the Supercenter Project contains approximately 664 of
978 spaces on the Supercenter lot or 67.9%. -ft percentage of stalls in the Front Parking
Area creeps even higher to 68.8%when the compared against the staff report's
statement that "a total of 965 sparking spaces are proposed." In either case, the
Project does not comply with the mandatory language of the Zoning Ordinance.
Therefore, contrary to the conclusion in the staff report, the Project does not comply
with the City's Design Standards for Large Retail Establishments and, as a matter of law,
cannot be approved. Instead, the Council must deny the Project, send the Project
back to Staff and the Planning Commission for design revision, or consider a variance
from these Zoning Ordinance requirements.
3. Overriding Considerations Inappropriate
Prior to approving the Project, the Council must make mandatory CEQA findings
(Guideline§ 15091) including a statement of overriding considerations which finds that
specific benefits of the project outweigh the environmental burdens (Guideline§ 15093).
Although the Statement of Overriding reflects a policy decision, it must be supported by
substantial evidence in the record.
The evidence in the record does not support these findings. Specifically, the resolution
lists 6 overriding considerations; (1) tax generation; (2) employment creation; (3)
municipal infrastructure development; (4) plan implementation: (5) high quality design;
and (6) energy saving features. Of these six, the later four only benefit development of
the property but do not provide citywide benefits and therefore are of no
consequence as over6ding considerations. The first two, tax generation and job
creation, are relevant to the discussion. Only if the Council finds that the project will
create sufficient taxes and jobs, based on substantial evidence, it may approve the
project. In this case, that evidentiary foundation is lacking.
\\2003-prolaw\ProLaw\documents\9001-5402\BSJ\94234. doc
Lodi City Council
May 13,2009
Page 4 of 4
Regarding tax benefits, as discussed in detail during the March City Council hearing on
this project, Wal-Mart has been all over the board on its tax benefit numbers: from as
low as $1 35,000 to as high as $1.3 million. In 2004 the City's consultantADE concluded
the City would see a tax increase of about $135,000 from the Project. In October Wal-
Mart indicated the Projectwould generate approximately$1 90,000 ($790,000minus
$600,000 from existing Wal-Mart). A December 2008 report Economic Professors Philip
(SFSU) and Sharmila King (UOP)concluded that the Project would likely generate a net
$143,000, which 's offset by other closed businesses and resulting loss of revenue. In
March, Wal-Mart presented a report from its consultant CBFRE concluding the Project
would produce a $1.364 million sales tax benefit to the City. In this case, the $1.364
million is extreme and wholly inconsistent with the $135,000 to $190,000 suggested by
others including Wal-Mart. Thus the Council must decide which figures - if any - it
believes and must determine whether the net gains offset by costs of additional police
service, additional code enforcement, and lost business in Lodi.
A similar problem exists with the overriding consideration for job creation. The
employment benefits from the Project are unknown. We are told anywhere from 600 to
1000+ jobs will be created by the project. However, this 's an unacceptably broad
range and the record does not reveal the source of these conclusions. More pointedly,
the record does not disclose how many of these jobs will be relocated (and lost)from
the existing Wal-Mart store, as well as from existing retailers in the community who may
close or engaged in lay-offs due to the Project's decrease in revenues. In short,
assuming forsake of argument the Project will create 800 jobs, if 400 of these come
from the existing Wal-Mart store, and three existing grocery stores close (losing an
additional 400), you are down to a zero netjob creation. Following this line of
reasoning, the Project could actually contribute to negative job creation.
Simply stated the Council does not have sufficient information to support the findings
and therefore cannot make the mandatory findings of overriding consideration.
For these reasons, the Council should deny the Project.
Very truly yours,
219�
/
Attorney -at -Law
\\2003-prolaw\ProLaw\documents\9001-5402\BSJ\94234.doc
Mt
� :..: _ �,
�� , J
�t .�aysx �.,_
NOTICING
REQUIREMENTS
SUBJECT:
Please immediately confirms ript
of th is fax 6y calling -1 3 3- 0' UZ
CITY OF LODI
P. O. BOX 3006
LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910
ADVERTISING INSTRUCTIONS
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPEALS FILED REGARDING THE
LODI SHOPPING CENTER
PUBLISH DATE: THURSDAY, APRIL 30,2009
TEAR SHEETS WANTED: One (1) please
SEND AFFIDAVIT AND BILL TO:
DATE[: TUESDAY, APRIL 28,2009
ORDERED BY: RANDI JOHL
CITY CLERK
N',ER PERRIN, CMC
SISYANT CITY CLERK
RANDI JOHL, CITYCLERK
City of Lodi
P.O. Box 3006
Lodi, CA 95241-1910
MARIA BECERRA
ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK
�
�N$ fib �i :. t . x +Amp
fomis\advins.d—
DECLARATION OF POSTING
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ALL OF THE APPEALS THAT HAVE BEEN
FILED REGARDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY
USE PERMIT (U-02-12), VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (03-P-001), AND
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (08 -SP -08) CONCERNING THE
LODI SHOPPING CENTER LOCATEDAT 2640 WEST KETTLEMAN LANE; AND
FURTHER CONSIDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND STATEMENTS OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PURSUANTTO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
On Friday, May 1, 2009, in the City of Lodi. San Joaquin County, California, a Notice of
Public Hearing to consider all of the appeals that have been filed regarding the decision
of the Planning Commission to deny Use Permit (U-02-12), Vesting Tentative Parcel
Map (03-P-001), and Site Plan and Architectural Review (08 -SP -08) concerning the Lodi
Shopping Center located at 2640 West Kettleman Lane; and further consider adopting
the findings and statements of overriding considerations pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (attached and marked as Exhibit A) was posted at the
following locations:
Lodi Public Library
Lodi City Clerk's Office
Lodi City Hall Lobby
Lodi Carnegie Forum
declare under penalty of perjurythat the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 1, 2009, at Lodi, California.
JENIFER MOPERRIN, CMC
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
N:1A&rAnistratian%CLERK\Forrm\DECPOSTCD. DOC
1XV901:1497:3'ii
RANDI JOHL
CITY CLERK
MARIA BECERRA
ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK
DECLARATION OF MAILING
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDERALL OF THE APPEALS THAT HAVE BEEN
FILED REGARDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY
USE PERMIT (U-02-12), VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (03-P-001), AND
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (08 -SP -08) CONCERNING THE
LODI SHOPPING CENTER LOCATEDAT 2640 WEST KETTLEMAN LANE; AND
FURTHER CONSIDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGSAND STATEMENTS CF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PURSUANTTO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
On Wednesday, April 29, 2009, in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, I deposited
in the United States mail, envelopes with first-class postage prepaid thereon, containing a
Notice of Public Hearing to consider all of the appeals that have been filed regarding the
decision of the Planning Commission to deny Use Permit (U-02-12] ,Vesting Tentative Parcel
Map (03-P-001), and Site Plan and Architectural Review (08 -SP -08) concerning the
Lodi Shopping Center located at 2640 West Kettleman Lane; and further consider adopting the
Findings and Statements of Overriding Considerations pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act, attached hereto marked ExhibitA. 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 April 29,2009,at Lodi, California.
JtAN4FER PERRIN, CMC
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
Forms/decmail.doc
ORDERED BY:
RANDIJOHL
CITY CLERK, CITY OF LODI
MARIA BECERRA
ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK
CITY OF LODI
1WHatchings Street Square
125 S. Elutchins St., Lodi
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Date: May 13,2009
Time: 6:30 p.m.
r information regarding this notice please contact:
RandiJohlfBII:T
City Clerk
Telephone: (209) 333-6702 .
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBYGIVEN that on Wednesday, May 13,2009.at the hour of 6:30 p,m., or as
soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council will conduct a public hearing at
Hutchins Street Square, 125 South Hutchins Street, Lodi, to consider the following items:
a) Appeals filed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Browman Development Company, Lodi
First, and PAQ, Inc. regarding the decision of the Planning Commission to deny
Use Permit (U-02-12) concern i ng the construction of a commercial center in a C -S,
Commercial Shopping District, and the sale of alcoholic beverages at the
proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter; Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (03-P-001)
concerning the creation of 12 parcels for the project; and Site Plan and
Architectural Review (08 -SP -08) concerning site plan and architectural review of a
proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter at the proposed Lodi Shopping Center located at
2640 West Kettleman Lane (collectively "the Project'); and further consider
approval of the Project and consider adopting findings and statements of
overriding considerations pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
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 West Pine Street, 2nd Floor, Lodi, 95240, at any time prior to the hearing scheduled
herein, and oral statements may be made at said hearing.
ff 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.
r of the Lodi City Council:
City Clerk
Dated: April21,2009
CLERK\PUBHEARINOTICESINOTCDD_Wal-Mat42.DOC 4128109
May 13, 2009 Special City Council Meeting
PH mailing List for Wa1Mart Su er Center Pro ect
r TIT B
APN
OWNER
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
02741007
SACRAMENTO
1954 MT
WALNUT
CA
94596
KETTLEMAN
DIABLO
CREEK
LLC ETAL
BLVD #A
02742001
GEWEKE
PO BOX
LODI
CA
95241
FAMILY PTP
1420
02742003
IN N OUT
13502
BALDWIN
CA
91706
BURGERS
HAMBURGER
PARK
CORP
LN
02742013
GEWEKE
PO BOX
LODI
CA
95241
VIII LP
1210
ETAL
05803005
VAN RUITEN
PO BOX 520
WOODBRIDGE
CA
95258
RANCH LTD
05603009
REICHMUTH,
2541 LYNCH
LODI
CA
95242
THOMAS E
WAY
TR
05603011
BDC LODI
100 SWAN
OAKLAND
CA
94621
III LP
WAY SUITE
206
05803012
WAL MART
MAIL STOP
BENTONVILLE
AR
72716
REAL EST
0555
BUSINESS
TRU
05803013
BDC LODI
100 SWAN
OAKLAND
CA
94621
III LP
WAY STE
206
05814001
TESORO
300
SAN ANTONIO
TX
78216
SIERRA
CONCORD
PROPERTIES
PLAZA DR
LLC
05814004
FRAME,
212
LODI
CA
95242
DEAN K &
RUTLEDGE
SHARON L
DR
TR
05814006
HERRMANN,
1200
LODI
CA
95240
CHARLENE K
GLENHURST
TR ETAL
DR
05814007
DEL RIO,
15315 N
LODI
CA
95240
SANTIAGO M
HOERL RD
& RAMONA T
05814011
GREVER,
1432 PARK
LODI
CA
95242
ZANE M &
ST
PATSY R TR
05814012
PETERSON,
PO BOX 473
LOCKEFORD
CA
95237
M BILL
05814014
PETERSON,
PO BOX 331
BUTTER
CA
95685
RUTH SUSAN
CREEK
05814042
BARBER
2595 AUTO
FAIRFIELD
CA
94533
VALLEJO
MALL PKWY
PROPERTIES
LP
05814044
FIRST LODI
1556
WALNUT
CA
94596
PLAZA
PARKSIDE
CREEK
ASSOCIATES
DR
02705021
GEWEKE
2475
LODI
CA
95240
FAMILY LTD
MAGGIO CIR
PTP
EXHIBIT B
APPEALS REGARDING DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO
DENY USE PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, AND SITE PLAN
AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR LODI SHOPPING CENTER
Mailing List
Alexis M. Pelosi
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Andrea K. Leisy, Esq.
Remy Thomas Moose & Manley LLP
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 210
Sacramento, CA 95814
Chris Podesto, Director of Marketing
PAQ Inc. (dba Food 4 Less/Rancho San Miguel Supermarkets)
17935 Murphy Parkway
Lathrop, CA 95330
Brett Jolley
Herum & Crabtree
2291 W. March Lane
Stockton, CA 95207
Kari ChadWidt--
Distribution List Name: Lodi Shopping Center EIR redo
Members
Alex Aliferis
aaliferis@ahiworld.org
Alexis Pelosi
APelosi@sheppardmullin.com
Amy Kaida
akaida@tusd.net
Barbara Spencer
BSpencer@BrowrnanDevelopment.com
Barbara Transon
btranson@sbcglobal.net
Bill Selling
bselling@comcast.net
Brett Jolley
BJoiley@herumcrabtree.com
Briein Kortuern
briankortuem@hotmail.com
Bruce & Connie Schweigerdt
schweig2@comcast.net
Chades Wasmuth
chuckw2901 @sbcglobal.net
Claire Lima
jazborenis@cs.com
DaffneyHillis
daffney_hillis@hotmail.com
Deb Bacon
debbacon@sbcglobal.net
Don Mooney
dbmooney@dcn.org
Gerry & Jane Gandt
gerjane@sbcglobal.net
James &Alice
aaacompsvc@sbcglobal.net
Jamie Cunningham
j_cunningham@pacific.edu
Jeanette Bedford
sjrnrnbedford@yahoo.com
Jerry& Shirley Schmierer
evencouple@sbcglobal.net
Jim & Betty Mae Locke
jnblocke@sbcglobal.net
Joe
Joeo1212@yahoo.com
Joe & Olivia Trifiro
ntrifiro@hotmail.com
John Marshall
johnrnarshall@charter.net
John Wixon
johnwixon@sbcglobal.net
Jon Hobbs
jhobbs@kmtg.com
Linda Hamrnons
Ijhammons@sbcglobal.net
Liz Galbreath
Iiz.Galbreath@genmills.com
Lucille Schnabel
deelucys@earthlink.net
Luis Cornejo
Luis.Cornejo@doucet-ce.com
Mark anaforian
mjanaforian@sbcglobal.net
Maxine Shear
swetpea@softcom.net
Michael Kost
gomichaell @sbcglobal.net
Michael Scanlan
mscanlanl@gmail.com
Parnala L e y
paloule@corncast.net
Pat & Paul Underhill
patundpaul@comcast.net
Robert Lewis
rlewis@pdgcenters.com
Roger Priest
445dir@raleys.com
Ron Werner
ronwerner@comcast.net
Scott Turner
sturner@retailwestinc.com
Shelley Toy
srctoy@sonic.net
Sue McCombs
osrnccombs@sbcglobal.net
Susan Williams
Susan.Williams@doucet-ca.com
Travis Beckett
t.beckett@gmx.com
Ty Murphy
Tymurphy001 @yahoo.com