Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - January 6, 2010 J-04AGENDA ITEM W7404 &% CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION AGENDATITLE: Receive a Presentation on the Draft Environmental Impact Report and Draft General Plan. MEETING DATE: January 6,2010 PREPARED BY: Community Development Director RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive a Presentation on the Draft Environmental Impact Report and Draft General Plan. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On January 4, 2006, four years and two days ago, the City Council authorized a request for proposal for General Plan Update Consulting Services. In May, 2006, the City entered into an agreement with the consulting firm of Dyett & Bhatia to prepare the update to the General Plan and an Environmental Impact Report. The firm and its sub -consultants have been working diligently on this program since that time. Work that has been completed includes the following activities: Public Participation Products • Workshops and meetingswith interested public • Workshops specifically with the Planning Commission and City Council • Stakeholder interviews and neighborhood meetings • Presentationsto service clubs and community organizations • Newsletters • A mail -in survey sent to all residential addresses in the City • Comments via e-mail, and • The projectwebsite • Working Paper#1 : Land Use, Transportation, Environment and Infrastructure • Working Paper #2: Urban Design and Livability • Working Paper #3: Growth and Economic Development Strategy • Working Paper#4: Greenbelt Conservation Strategies • Sketch Plan Report indentifying alternative land use scenarios • Preferred Land Use Plan • Draft Environmental Impact Report, and • Draft General Plan The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was released for public review and comment on November 25, 2009. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the Draft shall be available for commentfor no less than 45 days. This meeting will enable interested partiesto APPROVED: ­:> ---? Blair KingCst::Wnager provide comment that will be included in the final document. The Planning Commission has had the opportunity to take comment as well as provide comment at its December 9 meeting. The Final Environmental Impact Report will be provided to the City Council at the time of its deliberation on the General Plan. As with all El R's, this document assesses the potential impacts the proposed General Plan may have on specific environmental topics. This is has been done on a program level rather than the detail that the City Council may be used to with specific development projects. This DEIR also addresses alternatives to the Draft General Plan, including a No Project scenario. As a result of the environmental review, there are several changes that are being proposed to the Draft General Plan policies. The attached table reflects these changes as either edits or new policy. We believe these changes are necessary as mitigation in order to help reduce or clarify certain impacts created by the plan's implementation. The Draft General Plan was distributed to the Planning Commission in two segments. The first, at the August 26 meeting included the Introduction, Land Use, Community Design & Livability, Parks, Recreation & Open Space, Conservation and Safety chapters. At the Commission's September 9 meeting, the remaining chapters of the Draft General Plan were distributed, including Growth Management & Infrastructure, Transportation, Noise and the Implementation Appendix. The one chapter that has not been completed and will be on a separate review program is the Housing Element. The entire Plan as described has been made available on the website with notification being made by both newspaper and to the mailing list of interested parties. The Planning Commission held Public Hearings on September 23, October 14, October 28 and December 9. Few public comments were received. The minutes from those meetings are attached for the Council's benefit. Staff has also presented the Draft General Plan to several of the City's boards and commissions. The only written comment received was from the Recreation Commission, which is requesting an additional policy in the Parks, Recreation and Open Space element dealing with on-going park maintenance funding. The language from the Commission is included in the attachments. Additionally, staff has received written comments on the Plan. Those comments are also attached. Our intent for this meeting is to introduce the DEIR and Draft General Plan, receive any public comment as well as comment by the City Council. No action is contemplated. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A �onradt Bartlam Community Development Director KB/kjc Attachments: Draft EIR and Draft General Plan distributed previously Minutes from previous Planning Commission meetings Executive Summary of the Draft EIR &Table of edits/additions Introduction Chapter of the Draft General Plan and the list of Policies Parks and Recreation Commission Policy addition Written comments Draft EIR Draft General Plan (distributed previously) Planning Commission Minutes: Sept. 23 d, Oct. 14th, BL Oct. 2 8t (General Plan Discussion Only) r� December 9, 2009 Draft Minutes LODI PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2009 (GENERAL PLAN DISCUSSION ONLY) d) Notice thereof having been published according to law, an affidavit of which publication is on file in the Community Development Department, Chair Cummins called for the public hearing to review and comment on the comprehensive Draft General Plan. Director Bartlam gave a brief PowerPoint presentation based on the staff report. He stated the timeline breakdown of the events that have occurred to this point. Staff is looking forward to receiving the administrative draft EIR some time this week. Mr. Bartlam stated that this is an initial public hearing and no action by the Commission is required at this time. Hearing Opened to the Public No speakers came forward. Public Portion of Hearing Closed Chair Cummins asked his fellow Commissioners how they felt about the ban on gated communities on page 13. Commissioner Kiser felt that gated communities are a positive idea. Commissioner Heinitz stated that depending on the CC&Rs that regulate the area these types of communities can go either way. There are several gated and non -gated communities in Lodi that show as both good and bad examples for this style of community. Commissioner Mattheis stated that gated communities divide up neighborhoods. It takes away the walkable community. Director Bartlam stated his agreement with Commissioner Mattheis and also added that gated communities can give a false sense of security. There are just as many if not more break-ins in gated communities because people don't keep as watchful an eye out which falls back on the false sense of security. These types of communities also necessitate the neighborhood/community to maintain their own streets and sidewalks and for several reasons that does not always work out. Chair Cummins asked for examples. Commissioner Heinitz gave a couple of example where this has occurred. • Commissioner Kiser asked about section CD -P40 on page 16 of the policies regarding the LEED requirements. Director Bartlam stated that some sort of green building construction guidelines are recommended based on the direction that the State is heading. This in not forcing LEED certification, but to be LEED equivalent. • Commissioner Olson asked how staff is going to handle training for all the sustainable policies when there are so many cuts in budgets. Director Bartlam stated that these policies will take years to implement and the timeline spreadsheet that will be presented will show the prioritization of each item. Olson stated her desire to not see the building industry get back on their feet only to be stopped at the front desk. Mr. Bartlam stated that that is not the intention of these policies. • Commissioner Kirsten asked for clarification on LEED equivalent. Mr. Bartlam stated that staff will prepare a stand alone summary for the Commission to help clarify this issue. • Director Bartlam pointed out C -G10 on page 26 regarding the reduction of greenhouse gases is a specific requirement by the state, and on pg 32 C -P36 is how staff feels this should be implemented. • Commissioner Mattheis stated his pleasure over the policies and how they are being presented. He would like to see the language in the policy under Growth Management LU - G1 (*GM -P1) on page 5 strengthened to promote the area south of Lodi as an agricultural area; on pg 7 LU -G1 (*GM -P11) has the verbiage of where feasible, isn't this giving too many outs. Mr. Bartlam stated that not all projects are going to be able to meet this requirement do to unusual circumstances. Mattheis would like to see the yellow sidewalks downtown go away. Bartlam mentioned that the Downtown Summit on October 16th would Continued be a great place to bring that issue up. Mattheis referred to page 14, CD -P29, under Mixed Use Centers isn't 10% of land being devoted to non-residential area a little small. Mr. Bartlam stated that he felt 10% is a good minimum, and wouldn't want to see the number go much higher. He then pointed out the Turner/Lower Sacramento Road intersection and surrounding area as a good example of a mixed use center. It isn't the best example of walkability but that is something that can be worked on in future developments with the new standards. Mattheis stated his agreement with Mr. Bartlam regarding page 16 LEED Certification. He believes it is all hype and is a large burden on the applicants and would like to see how staff plans on implementing equivalent policies. Page 30, C -P23; He is in favor of historic designations so long as the policies are not so restrictive that the areas or structures do not become such protected icons so as to not allow for adaptable reuse of the items. Commissioner Hennecke asked about page 5 regarding Growth Management; should we be implementing policies outside of the areas that are controlled by the City of Lodi. Mr. Bartlam stated that in every environmental document that has come before the Commission over the past five or six years the city has been requiring mitigation measures for preserving agricultural land outside of the City limits. The intent is to deal with this as a city policy rather than it being a hit or miss negotiation item. Further he stated that the EIR is going to be requiring it as a mitigation measure because if you are going to be off -setting the impacts it needs to be outside the City growth area. Hennecke would like to see the mitigation set up as a fee and not focus on this area for land substitution. Hennecke stated that he would like to have the language tightened up regarding the street width and resident parking T -P11 pg 19. He does not care for the narrow streets where there is barely room for two cars to pass each other while cars are parked on the street. Commissioner Kiser agreed with Hennecke. Mr. Bartlam stated that there is a correlation between livable/walkable neighborhoods and the widths of the streets with the intent of slowing down the vehicles. Commissioner Mattheis likes the narrow streets because it slows down the traffic. Kiser stated that he would like to know how the Fire Department feels at this time about this issue. Chair Cummins asked if the street is measured with cars parked on the street. Bartlam stated that if parking is allowed on the street there is an 8' width taken into account for the parked cars then the curb to curb width takes that into consideration. He asked the Commissioners to do some homework and come back with specific examples that they fell are reasonable street width for future developments. Director Bartlam stated that the language is what we are here to fine tune. • Vice Chair Hennecke stated that the street that he lives on is a wider street with parking on both sides and is still a very walkable area with plenty of pedestrian traffic. Director Bartlam thanked the Commission for their input and stated that he anticipates having the General Plan on the agenda for the next few meetings. He would really like to see more public input, so let's get the word out. The plan is to have the General Plan on the agenda for at least the next few meetings giving the public as much of a chance as possible to give their input. *NOTE: During the formatting of the policy attachment included in the packet the number was altered from it's original state, so both numbers have been included in the minutes for the publics convenience. LODI PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2009 (GENERAL PLAN DISCUSSION ONLY) c) Notice thereof having been published according to law, an affidavit of which publication is on file in the Community Development Department, Chair Cummins called for the public hearing to consider the review and comment on the comprehensive Draft General Plan. Director Bartlam gave a brief presentation based on the memo and attachments that are a part of the packet. 2 Continued Commissioner Kirsten stated he did some research on Green Building Standards and the City of Nashville is considering some alternatives to the LEED standards because of significant back log and cost associated with the certification process there. Kirsten stated that after his research he agrees with the direction staff is going. Chair Cummins asked Commissioner Mattheis if his company has had any dealings with the LEED certification process. Commissioner Mattheis stated that yes they have done a couple of LEED certification projects and is in favor of the direction that Mr. Bartlam is going with the policies. Commission Kiser would like more clarification on the street widths. He went out and measured Elgin Avenue and it is 20 feet in width at the corner where there is a bump out. Mr. Bartlam stated that at the bumped out corner on Elgin there isn't any intension to allow parking and is meant to slow traffic down in that area. Commissioner Mattheis asked if the cross section 1 of Standard Plan 101 was going to be eliminated altogether. Mr. Bartlam stated that it would not be eliminated because of the fact that they already exist and are needed for repair purposes. Vice Chair Hennecke asked for clarification on the standards. He does not feel that it is safe as currently written. Commissioner Mattheis believes that the standard is providing a purpose of slowing down traffic in non -collector type streets and feels that it works. Director Bartlam stated that based on the concerns still being expressed he would like to bring back examples of the different types of streets and why they are set up differently for different uses. Commissioner Kiser stated that he uses Elgin on a regular basis for business and it is difficult for two vehicles to pass one another without one of them giving way to the other. Mr. Bartlam stated that the standard is working then. The standard is meant to deter through traffic from using Elgin in place of Kettleman Lane. Commissioner Olson stated that she understands what the standards are intending to accomplish, but feels that the idea has created more of a nuisance. Vice Chair Hennecke would like to see what staff brings back showing the different types of streets and the reasoning behind why they are used in some places and not others. Chair Cummins stated his agreement with Commissioner Mattheis. Commissioner Mattheis commended staff for a job well done with the Draft General Plan. Hearina Opened to the Public • Jane Wagner Tyack, Lodi resident, came forward to comment on the Draft General Plan. She commends staff for a job well done. Ms. Wagner is still concerned with the water conservation portion and would like to have more solid language placed in the policy. Mr. Bartlam stated that the verbiage needs to be vague because not all projects are created equal. There are policies pertaining to the re -harvesting of grey and rain water. The City Council has approved the contract to get the water meters in place in an accelerated time line which should be a deterrent for wasting water. • Commissioner Mattheis went over some of his comments and concerns that he expressed regarding the water conservation issues from the last meeting. He also added that the supply and demand in relation to growth will be addressed in the EIR, which is the backup document to the policies. Mr. Bartlam stated that in the alternatives document that was released and then approved in early 2009 there is a good explanation of the impacts for each of the different growth options. • Commissioner Hennecke asked if the Commercial and industrial areas are metered or billed a flat rate. Mr. Bartlam stated that they are metered. • Bruce Fry, Acampo resident, came forward to express his concerns over the PRR designation being taken out of the new plan for the area south of Harney Lane. This is a very important issue for the property owners in that area. It is currently proposed to be a Continued part of the Cluster Zoning and since the City Council has backed away from funding the EIR for that plan the residences would like to see it put back as PRR. • Vice Chair Hennecke asked if there is a 100% buy in for the PRR designation by all of the property owners from that area. Mr. Fry stated that he can not state that 100% are on board but there is a majority of the property owners that would like to see the designation put back in to the General Plan. Public Portion of Hearing Closed • Commissioner Kirsten asked for a brief summary regarding the area Mr. Fry was referring to. Mr. Bartlam with the assistance of the current General Plan Map on the wall pointed out the PRR designation area and the proposed map on the PowerPoint screen pointed out the Armstrong Road Study Area. He stated that the City Council has backed off of the EIR for that Armstrong study area based on the hurdles that have been put in front of them by the County. The EIR will show a couple of different alternatives for that area. • Director Bartlam stated that he has been taking the policies to other commissions and committees within Lodi. The Parks and Recreation Commission would like to have an additional policy within that element to deal with the financing of existing parks. The new language will be brought back with a later packet. • Chair Cummins asked about the target date for the EIR. Mr. Bartlam stated that some time mid-November. LODI PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2009 (GENERAL PLAN DISCUSSION ONLY) d) Notice thereof having been published according to law, an affidavit of which publication is on file in the Community Development Department, Chair Cummins called for the public hearing to consider the review and comment on the comprehensive Draft General Plan. Director Bartlam gave a brief presentation before opening the item up for discussion. Hearinq Opened to the Public Ann Cerney, Lodi resident and representative for Citizens for Open Government, came forward to comment on the Draft General Plan. Ms. Cerney would like to see more affordable housing placed into the plan. The integrated neighborhoods have always been a part of the growth in the San Joaquin County. It is important to have a variety of housing in every neighborhood. The building of affordable housing is very important to this community. Ms. Cerney would like to see the homeless community considered in any future plans. Mr. Bartlam stated that the Housing Element is being worked on in conjunction with this General Plan. Staff would like to get the Housing Element reviewed by the State prior to the document being brought before the Planning Commission. • Commissioner Kirsten stated his appreciation of Ms. Cerney's comments and hopes she will keep coming back. Public Portion of Hearing Closed LODI PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2009 1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL The Regular Planning Commission meeting of December 9, 2009, was called to order by Chair Cummins at 7:01 p.m. Present: Planning Commissioners — Hennecke, Kirsten, Kiser, Matthe' , Olson, and Chair Cummins Absent: Planning Commissioners — Heinitz Also Present: Community Development Director Konradt B mNd De ity Attorney Janice Magdich, Assistant Planner Immanuel Bei et,lic Wo rector Wally Sandelin, General Plan Update Consultants Raje Jean with Dyett & Bhatia and Administrative Secretary Kari Ch ick 2. MINUTES "October 14, 209" & "October 28, 2009" MOTION /VOTE: The Planning Commission, on m CommissioNattend Ison second, approved the Minutes of October 14, 2009 and Oc #J9 as wssioner Hennecke abstained from the October 28, 2009 minutes be use tif the subject meeting) 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Notice there ving be blisd accor g to law, an affidavit of which publication is on file in the Com velopm epartment, C C mmins called for the public hearing to consider the request for tive el Map to divid a parcel in to two lots at 502 East Oak Street and request for a Van d f yard setback from 20 -feet to 10 -feet for proposed si welling 4 Eas t. (Applicant: Baumbach and Piazza, Inc. on behalf of ice rther ' ornia, Inc. Fi e # 09-P-02). Assistant Plann eket g ief PowerPoint presentation based on the staff report. Staff ommends appr f the pr t as presented. CBI§Wsioner Kirste sked for clarification regarding the variance for the flag lot from 20' to 10' and ere isn't a1puirement for a variance for the front lot from 20' to 18'. Mr. Bereket stated that th lot will AF through the Administrative Deviation process. Kirsten asked if the reduced set backlukrigont along that section of Oak Street. Bereket stated that is was. CommissioneffiMattheis asked about the potential of having all of the dwellings front on a street rather than Aving one front on an alley. Director Bartlam stated that the there has been some discussion regarding that idea, but these are two separate projects. Hearing Opened to the Public • Steve Peachin, Baumbach & Piazza, came forward to answers questions. Mr. Peachin stated that the configuration of the lots come from meetings with the Applicant, City Staff, and himself. The two projects are being done through two different agencies and it will be difficult to alter or try to combine them. Continued • Commissioner Olson asked about the types of funds to be used. Mr. Peachin introduced Sharon Siams with Service First to answer the funding questions. • Sharon Siams, Service First, came forward to answer Commissioner Olson's question. Ms. Siams stated that the corner lot, 500 East Oak Street, is the lot that is being worked on through the City of Lodi HOME Program and 502 East Oak Street is being worked through the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) with the County. Commissioner Olson asked about the type of funding and the qualifications of the applicants. Ms. Siams stated that there will be income qualifications and the applicants will be responsible for getting their own loans through a priveleer.Olson asked if there are any covenants placed on the homes. Siams stated thato NSP they are required to keep them for 30 years because the funds are spe& Urban Development (HUD) funds. Olson asked if the applicant sells befoey required to sell to a targeted income group. Siams stated that that is onents. Commissioner Kirsten asked what the photosNthe ne'ofa mes in the staff report represented. Ms. Siams stated that the pho ent wof home will be put on the properties. Kirsten stated that he wou a ee more style of home that would have a positive effect on the ch er of the neighborhood. L ms stated that she would take the suggestion back t rchitect. Public Portion of Hearing Closed Commissioner Matthe's stated his support project and added his agreement with Commissioner Kirsten rding the look of es. He doesn't want to place any conditions on the proj ould make the partof e expensive, but feels that there could be some m s that would a look of the homes more suburban rather than co mp they are an older neighborhood. Mattheis suggested taking verb' ex t feasible" out of condition number five. Mr artlam stated thaYahe plica i r a parcel map and the architectural revi fall under tew of t application. Mattheis stated that the c ion is Resolutiowould li ato see the verbiage altered if the other issione ree. ■ C0,711ftioner Wer stated his ag " ent with the other two Commissioners regarding the to h Ching t omes in the surrounding area. missiirsten liffltsTaMINOW support of the project except for the architecture and like to a language "To the extent feasible" stricken also. ■ Co oner stated his support for the project and added his agreement with t er Com ioners regarding the architecture. Commission atthe made the motion to approve the project with the deletion of "To the extent feasibl n number five under the Community Development conditions. The Pla ommission, on motion of Commissioner Mattheis, Kiser second, approved the request o e Planning Commission for a Tentative Parcel Map to divide one parcel in to two lots at 5 East Oak Street and request for a Variance to reduce required front yard setback from 20 -feet to 10 -feet for proposed single family dwelling at 504 East Oak Street subject to the conditions in the resolution with the deletion of the language above. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners —Hennecke, Kirsten, Kiser, Olson, Mattheis, and Chair Cummins Noes: Commissioners — None Absent: Commissioners — Heinitz 2 Continued b) Notice thereof having been published according to law, an affidavit of which publication is on file in the Community Development Department, Chair Cummins called for the public hearing to consider the Review and comment on the comprehensive Draft Environmental Impact Report & Draft General Plan. Director Bartlam gave a brief introduction of the program and then introduced Rajeev Bhatia and Jean Eisberg from the consultant firm of Dyett and Bhatia. Mr. Bhatia stated that this Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) is a broad look at the program level. There will be subsequent environmental documents that will need to be done for individual projects. Mr. Bhatia introduced Jean Eisberg to continue with the PowerPoint presentation based the information in the Staff report and PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Bartlam continued the presentation beginning at the section. There are no changes proposed for the Gene changes to the proposed policies based on the environ me Plan Land Use PowerPoint pd Use Plan, but there are Commissioner Hennecke asked why there was definition suNhn Armstrong Agricultural Cluster Zoning area. Mr. Bartlam ted that included within the discussion in the docume he intent study and staff does not want to presuppos outco occur in that area in the future. It is an attem he discussion and staff can not say what that outco Commission's wish a definition can be brought back. c He only asked the question becau was the only area y the downtow affected by the Federal es and she uld like to make sure that that to e d ntown has maybe three or four ome n that occurred at the meeting in al Resour inventory and that will become one of e life of th plan. Olson stated that she did not think Commissioner Olson asked abo Government's definition regarding Hi r avenue has been explored. Mr. Ba properties listed on the registry. The September 2regar additional H the follow uure ill occur o% that sectiony dev d. it is not deap, but is to show tht for future of the stuwhat may I Plan e ongoing e. r. Bhatia stated that if it is the ke stated that that was not necessary. ecificall defined. Commissioner is a about the lev "' Service E. Most EIRs wouldn't find that level acceptable; it wou it nt to be more of a policy of common sense? Mr. B "'' that th orrec ; e is the type of intersection at Lower Sacramento Road e ne an otential of more of these types happening as the plan grows. In the intial traffic r jE r nd six to ten more of this type of intersection that could have been required given t of s andard. Service level D will be our accepted level of service, t on occasion a may looked at where it may have more benefit to a complete street. e a level of sfor intersection doesn't take into consideration weather a pedestrian c ss the streetsingle cycle. Mr. Bhatia stated that on page 3.2-16 of the DEIR there are paq tersecticnt are at Level D and lower. CommissYinR stated her concerns over the street widths. Mr. Bartlam stated that there is no proposal to change the dimension ofstreets. If there is a desire to change the street standardan come back to the Commission with a presentation on that as a separate item. Olsat when this is looked at later down the road this issue should be considered so that response times can be met and law suit avoided. Commissioner Kiser stated his support for having wider streets for public safety purposes and does not want to see this issue fall through the cracks. Mr. Bartlam stated that this is not the venue to look at the specific street standards. The documents are not proposing any changes to the street standards. He also reminded the Commission that he is only with the City for an interim basis and placed the burden of not letting this item fall through the cracks back on the Commission to let the next Director know their concerns. Mr. Bhatia pointed out on pages 4-22 & 23 that there are no street dimensions stated in the DEIR. 3 Continued Commissioner Hennecke asked if staff still planned on bringing back a presentation regarding the manner in which the street standards are enforced. Mr. Bartlam stated that he has discussed this with Director Sandelin and a presentation will be brought back to the Commission. Director Bartlam continued with his presentation. He pointed out additional letters (on blue sheets) that have been received since the packet was delivered to the Commissioners. The DEIR is still in the public review period and will be until January 11, 2010. Commissioner Mattheis asked about the water analysis and the agricultural mitigation. The water levels are at a break even point at the best case scenario. He would like staff to walk through the water analysis section. Mr. Bartlam introduced Wally Sandelin, Prks Director, to answer this question. Mr. Sandelin stated that water presentation in t 0*Ahows that the City has secured reliable supplies in normal years and modestly reliabl lies in dry years. Coupled with the policies within the DEIR there can only be development i levels allow for it. There are opportunities through conservation and estimates used i pari n demand numbers that are relatively conservative such that the city doesn't ha v a long to rries of meeting future development need. Mattheis asked about the futur y d and ho t works and is added into the ground water capacity. Mr. Sandelin stat at w n staff prepar 2005 Urban Water Management Plan there was a very sophistic Ground Water Model th prepared as a decision maker on how we treat the groun contam tion through the E clean-up program. Through that analysis staff was a le tify on rge scale basis the in -flow of water was to our ground water supply, what the o , w t our extracti was through the wells, and determine the annual safe yield was 15,00 feet per year under the existing footprint of the City. That was converted t n to a long term saf based on an enlarged footprint of the City. Mattheis asked if the 15% rvation goals are ily through the water meters. Mr. Sandlin stated that the water mete be a part of it. e e other possibilities through policy changes like taking the wate g wn to one d eek. Mattheis asked about establishing an agricultural mitigation ogra 3.3-10 r arding mitigation measures and fees. This is a new program that woul vet at correct. Mr. Bartlam stated that for the last couple s the agricultur ation ha done on a case-by-case basis. For each of the EI ations propo were differ t due to the different consulting firms preparing the ument rent staff re ing them, and different project applicants that would ultimately implem he measures. he problem was that those measures were only as good as t ose cts an idn't take into a t the rest of the development that might occur. Staff felt that it w e t .. have a c prehensive program for all developments and that wayNn ' of expanding into the agricultural area is captured. more a anguage in the form of a ratio; for instance a 1 to 1. Mr. rtlff at would be best served in the implementation policy; for example if therand a in the Armstrong Road Study Area that might have more of an cein ano ea. Mr. Bhatia stated that on page 7-34 of the plan staff did try rinteres Co ionVKirstesked if there is an acknowledgement ofthe effect that the projected infill wouI ent infrastructure. Mr. Bartlam stated that the program level of the DEIR doesto or the current infrastructure. Mr. Bhatia added that on page 3.13-19 there is a breakdohere may be upgrades needed to the sewer lines. Mr. Bartlam stated that the traffic antook infill into consideration. Mr. Sandelin stated that on the heals of the General Plathe Public Works Department will be preparing detailed master plans for water, sewer, storm drainage infrastructure and then will prepare a revised Impact Mitigation Fee Program for the City Council to consider. Commissioner Olson asked about the wetlands portion and why it is so low. Mr. Bartlam stated that wetlands are more prominent in areas where there is more grazing land verses vineyards and orchards which is what you find in and around Lodi. Olson asked who is doing those delineations. Mr. Bhatia stated that the exhibit on page 3.4-5 shows that the entire planning area was taken into consideration not just the proposed adoption area and it is in that area that you find most of the wetlands. El Continued Hearing Opened to the Public John Beckman, Building Industry Association (BIA) Executive Officer, came forward to comment. Mr. Beckman pointed out the letter that he sent to the Commission. Several of the Commissioners asked for a moment to read the letter. • Chair Cummins asked about Mr. Beckman's opinion on gated communities. Mr. Beckman does not think that they should be prohibited. There is a way to put criteria in the EIR to reduce their impacts and that can discourage them. Commissioner Kirsten asked why Mr. Beckman thinks that a point system would be a better idea for development verse the proposed phasing. eckman stated that the development in phase two should not be penalized becau one has not reached the 75% threshold of completion. For Instance; the zonin ignations in phase one may not have the same market demand as the designati hase two and by prohibiting development in phase two until the threshold is en ave interfered with the free market system. By using a point system you allo evelop phase two to occur, but you penalize it with the point system. Now th ve ment ha adjusted to the City's will without causing an economic hard o e market. n asked for more clarification on how the point system w s; are the different uses different points? Mr. Beckman stated that in this case ojects in ase one are give nts and the projects in phase two are given 25 are a b h of different oth ints given for type of project, the desirability of the proj d v menities the p ect has to offer. The point system is meant to encoura irable development and discourage undesirable or not as highly valued developm d with the phasing system you give a large bonus to projects in a one and a very s umber of points to projects in phase two. This point system is been used in th and has worked very effectively. Kirsten asked if Mr. Beckma r with other ci g this type of system to limit the leap -frog effect of growth. Mr. stated tha has not seen the prohibitions included in this plan in any othe ity. • Commissi er asked why t underpplicant under the point system come to the mmission to ange the Zing. Mr. Beckman stated that what Com ioner s referring to changing the zoning within a geographic area from o design to another. t he is referring to is the phasing of one geographic area v anoth eographic area changing the zoning within a geographic area. Kiser ask IL ion on difference. Mr. Beckman stated that if the project is requ a z s in phase one there would still be a change in the at are to that pr t based request, but they will still get bonus points for bein se on es phase two. Commis Olson that the comment regarding LU -P28 and the problem with having the "price ouldn't the problem be with the word "full"? Mr. Beckman stated that the full r e of h using types is healthy for the community. When you mandate prices ou get into I I and economic problems with continued development. If you mandate the e a prod can be sold at you may limit the quantity of that product that gets built. state at if you take out the word "full" you will still have a development that has a ra f es and prices which most developments do anyway. Mr. Beckman agreed. Olso ed her disagreement with the State Green -housing Standards comment. She state at other jurisdictions have standard that are not the same as the State. Mr. Beckman stated that not where Building Codes are concerned. The City Council must make specific findings based on climatology, seismatology, and soil types that are specific to that region to justify adopting building codes that are different from the State mandated codes. Olson asked that if a city wanted to mandate a certain percentage of development have solar or some other standard to offset energy usage or some other usage it can't be done unless the state mandates it? Mr. Beckman stated that he doesn't believe that mandating solar falls under the building codes, but if you wish to change the distance that the studs in a wall are from each other or if the city wants to change the amount of insulation for green purposes that is required in those walls those are building issues. Olson asked if the areas that adopt requirements that differ from the State have challenges 5 Continued coming from BIA. Mr. Beckman stated that in the Palm Springs area there have been some challenges. • Commissioner Kiser stated that he as a contractor can go from one city to another and find different requirements. Director Bartlam added that the proposed edits to the Growth Management Policy which is in the packet adds to the last sentence "in order to respond to market changes and demand for various land use types exemptions may be made to allow for development in future phases before thresholds in previous phases have been reached". This starts to address Mr. Beckman's prime concern, but staff is not recommending y changes to the Ordinance which is where the point scoring activities occur. The ph that is proposed is for all land use designations. Green -building standards if ad d by a State as part of the mandated Building Codes will become a part of the cit es. The purpose of the policy is to look beyond the Building Codes and look at bui tation, energy efficiency, the use of street trees, and things of that nature h do ter into the building code equation. Mr. Bartlam offered to go through t B letter po oint if the Commission wished. Chair Cummins asked for more discuss' regarding the gated co ies. Mr. Bartlam stated that the intent of the policy is t ke the ci one big connecti rhood and gated communities do not follow n that i Should the Co sion wish to eliminate the policy eliminating the gate u would not be trimental to the DEIR or General Plan. After talking with va ople from the community several good examples of gated communities have been me d, like; the Wine & Roses project and the Rivergate project off Road at the end o amento Street. Jane Wagner-Tyack came omment. Ms. yack handed out and read a letter (attached) to the Co iss ssing her c ms. Commissioner Mattheis asked Ms Wagner-Tyack if sh as usi .13-5 o age 3.13-13 regarding the water supply and demand because th gur th . rs from the number she used in her letter. Ms r-Tyack stated a numbe used could be a typo. Mattheis asked staff fo on the water ue for pea -of-mind in the case where the city may suffe veral d rs in a row. r. Bartlam stated that the analyses in the DEIR are co ve numb and don't tak to ccount any water conservation measures. Mr. Sandlin d tha a County and artner agencies in the County prepared many years ag t ional W er Management Plan acknowledging the fact that the pa rs I lat er drafted the region's ground water to the tune of acre r year. partner agency of that plan has a component of their sha is sha t has been taken on by purchasing 6000 acre feet per year from the Woodb rrigati (WID) which we hope will be delivered to the City in 2011. Now if yo our c situation of using 17,000 acre feet per year and then subtract the 6000 th 11 com rom WID that leaves 11,000 that the City will have to pump from a resource tha uld reasonable supply 15,000. This means that the City will be leaving 000 in the g nd. The idea is to use the surface water in the years of plenty and draw on banked and water in the years of drought. Mr. Bartlam stated that there have be conservation measures put in place and more conservative policies can be im d along the way. Mr. Bhatia added that this is an item that will have to be monit throughout the life of the General Plan. Ms. Wagner-Tyack stated that she would like t see the projections brought into line with what the growth will be so there would not be any discrepancies with these numbers. Mr. Bartlam stated that there are fairly liberal estimates on growth and conservative estimates on supply reflected in the table. Bruce Frye came forward to comment on the Alternative Plans A and B. Mr. Frye asked what the designation for the area north of Armstrong Road is. Mr. Bartlam with the assistance of the PowerPoint slides stated that in Alternative A the designation is Planned Residential Reserve (PRR) which is consistent with the current General Plan. In Alternative B there is a proposed Rural Residential designation which is different than any of the other alternatives. This will extend from the city limits south to the half mile line then the Study area continues south from that. During the discussions on the alternatives there were two separate groups that came forward; one group that consisted of Mr. Frye and his neighbors Continued who wanted an alternative (A) that would provide for the opportunity for the City Council to allow for a designation down to Armstrong Road, and the other group wanted to have an alternative (B) that would allow for the Delta College campus. Mr. Frye would like to see Alternative A used. Mr. Frye suggested that Policy CP -2 needs to have "surrounding cities" included in the verbiage to go along with the San Joaquin County. All agriculture should be included not just grapes. The Agricultural Conservation Program should be worked on with the stake holders which includes the San Joaquin Farm Bureau who have worked with the County along with the City of Stockton on their program. The surface water usage should be addressed in more detail because the ground water levels are being affected by the wells which affects the surrounding area farmers. Mr. Frye asked if the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) is reviewed every five years. andelin stated that that is correct. It will be updated in 2010. Mr. Frye asked if Ge Wal Plan used the 2005 version. Mr. Bartlam stated that the proposed Gene Ian takes information from the 2005 UWMP, but it has been updated with infor t was derived as part of the General Plan Process. The 2010 UWMP once u ed w cide with the General Plan provided the General Plan is adopted in 2010. ft General akes a longer amount of time, then the 2010 UWMP will be based o ur nt Gener Mr. Bartlam stated that the UWMP update in 2010 will occur ther r not the Gene n gets adopted. It is staffs hope that they will go hand -in- d. Mr. Frye stated that t a Bill (HR2421) from a year ago that is before the I Gover ent that would t avigatable Waters out of the Clean Water Act hi Id ma y puddle on any sons property weather it be privately owned or City d e he jurisdictio of the Federal Government. • Mike Manassero came fod to comment on th . He stated his agreement with Mr. Frye's comments. • Ann Cerney came forward to 0 to make two points regarding on page E-7. The mitigation of can t b ted. If this is sane f c the last few ,nakaqMkne for one ac feels M strongly abou ,the woffprice in it. It is i the DEIR. M ney stated that she would like d soil re urces information in Table ES -3 ssed only to the extent to say that it sed to olicy Document then it should have xations t citizens have had to demand that the itigation through lawsuits or the threat of a lawsuit. mitigation of agricultural land. The LU -P28 policy ant to have low income housing. Co er MNstated that there should be minimum mitigation language placed in the Ag al an r. Bartlam stated that the language could be whatever the Commissi shes to mmend to the City Council. If the numbers get boiled down too tight you co nd up' a trap of your own making. Should a developer choose to mitigate Agricultural with a one for one ratio then maybe they get an incentive for choosing an rea that is i rtant to the City possibly the area south of Lodi and those questions need e answ tl before a fee can be determined because there has to be a direct shi attheis stated that he would like to see the language have some teeth. Mr. Ba ed that in figure 7-5 of the General Plan the area immediately south of Lodi is prop to have a higher priority for agricultural mitigation. The thought is if someone is inter ed in preserving land in that area, however that might occur, they may get an incentive to do that by either a lower fee or lower ratio. Mr. Bartlam added that he does not have a problem with the ratio being one for one. Mattheis stated that he supports the preferred plan designations verses the language for the southern portion of the plan being left as Urban Reserve. It is too easy for the land to be taken and used for development with the Urban Reserve designation. With regards to the BIA letter he is satisfied with the explanations given by staff for the concerns expressed. He would like to have language added if the gated communities are going to be allowed that says "limited to areas that do not interrupt the fabric of the City" or something to that effect. Mattheis stated his pleasure with the Plan as presented. • Vice Chair Hennecke requested a brief recess. 7 Continued 4 Chair Cummins called for a brief recess (9:28) Chair Cummins called the meeting back to order (9:34) Vice Chair Hennecke asked what is expected of the Commission tonight. Mr. Bartlam stated that if the Commission is comfortable with the Draft General Plan then a recommendation to Council to that affect is in order. If not it can be brought back for more discussion. Hennecke asked about the street widths needing to be addressed now. Mr. Bartlam stated that that is not a General Plan issue. Those standards are in place and there is no proposal in the General Plan to change those, but if the Commission is interested in reviewing those standards they can be brought bIck. • Commissioner Olson would like to see the language fCckto munities changed and have the word prohibited removed. Staff referredmmissioner Mattheis' language stated earlier; "limited to areas that do not inectivity of the fabric of the City". Commissioner Hennecke asked for cla<that Bhatia stated that when and if there is a Commission it will be up to the Commconnectivity of the City. Mattheis addbefore the Commission and is surroCity fabric however if it is bordered bthoroughfare on another that would nnecessary to address it to that level.individually and the deter ation made see the language altered. • Commissioner Mattheis ask Land Mitigation. Mr. Bartlam tate could easily be inserted into the enin hat lima nnectivity means. Mr. nity applic at comes before the mine weathe of it interrupts the ication for a ga mmMnity comes I it would limit th7keupasked ctivity of the e side and bto a major nn tivity. Henif it is that each plan should be looked at Mattheis disagreed and would like to time to entea to one ratio for Agricultural t language uld be added at this time and nning sio , Chair Cummins, Kiser second, recommend that the appro ew Gene an for the City of Lodi and approve the policy changes recom in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the General Plan Update subject to ndition a solution along with the changes stated above. The motion carried by the ing vo Commis ners —Hennecke, Kirsten, Kiser, Olson, Mattheis, and Chair Cummins Comm ners — None Abs omm' oners — Heinitz None ANNOUNCEMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE Director Bartlam reminded the Commission that this will be the final meeting for this year and wished the Commission on behalf of staff a Happy Holiday. ACTIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Director Bartlam referenced the memo in the packet and stated that staff is available for questions. He pointed out that Councilmember Katzakian is our new Mayor. Continued 7. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE/DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE Mr. Bartlam stated that staff is working very hard to put together the new designations that will need to be implemented along with the general plan. Staff is hoping to bring something back to the Commission regarding those designations at the second meeting in January. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. ACTIONS OF THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Commissioner Kiser gave a brief report regarding the Kohl's Item that the Committee reviewed at it's meeting early this evening. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Kirsten stated that the Commission is up to date week. COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC None None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to at 9:45 p.m. C the next meeting will be next Comments to Planning Commission Regarding Draft General Plan and Draft EIR Water and Infrastructure 12/9/09 Jane Wagner-Tyack 145 South Rose Street, Lodi 1. Issues raised in 10/20/09 email to Mr. Bartlam The graphic on page 3-9 of the Draft General Plan is misleading because it minimizes the contribution of groundwater (well water) to Lodi's water supply. The graphic should show that we rely primarily on groundwater, that the time frame for recharge is quite long, and that the water does not necessarily become available in the future in the same place where it entered the ground originally. At a minimum, the title of the graphic should be changed. On page 3-10, right-hand column, third paragraph, the Draft General Plan says, "As the city grows, the available safe yield of the underlying groundwater will increase." This is a puzzling statement for which there appears to be no justification. At a minimum, the statement requires some explanation. The Draft EIR actually addresses this by explaining (page 3.13-1) that the City will reduce its groundwater pumping from over 17,000 acre feet in 2008 "to a safe yield of approximately 15,000 acre-feet per year. This safe -yield estimate reflects an acreage-basedrelationship. Therefore, as the City's land area increases, the estimated safe yield of the underlying aquifer will likely increase." Given the unpredictability of groundwater, this seems like a tenuous solution to Lodi's water supply needs. In addition, the connection between more city acreage and more access to groundwater constitutes a perverse incentive tending to encourage unsustainable urban growth and loss of agricultural land. As a policy, this should be discouraged. • On page 3-17, the Draft General Plan says "Use of gray water or rainwater for non -potable uses may require installation of dual plumbing systems." Pages 3-33 — 3-34 (GM -P 12) says "Support on-site gray water and rainwater harvesting systems for households and businesses" — I encourage the city to pursue these alternatives. A careful reading of the Draft General Plan makes it clear that water supply and wastewater treatment options do not support projected growth. Rather than point out relevant sections in that draft, I have noted them below in comments on the Draft EIR. 2. Comments on the Draft EIR • The correct formal name of the Delta is the Sacramento-SanJoaquin Delta. The area is also correctly referred to as the San Francisco Bay -Delta Estuary. • Camanche Reservoir is misspelled. • This page refers to Figure 3.7-1 regarding Groundwater Basins, but the figure itself doesn't specifically identify groundwater sub -basins, only watersheds. The title of the graphic is "Regional Watersheds and Waterways." The identification of groundwaterbasins needs to be more clear. In categories related to hydrology, water quality, and infrastructure, the Draft EIR identifies the impact of the General Plan as "less than significant" and reports that no mitigation is required, in some cases because "[the] impact would be mitigated by existing State and local regulations and proposed General Plan policies." This wording undoubtedly meets regulatory requirements, but I urge you to exercise common sense in addressing the spirit as well as the letter of the regulations with respect to water supply and wastewater treatment. Specifically: "Upon construction of the new surface water treatment plant, the City would have a long-term water supply of 27,000 acre feet per year available from its current safe yield of groundwater and the future surface water supplies." The Draft General Plan (page 3-10) assumes that even with a 15%reduction in residential demand due to the installation of water meters, "the total city-wide demand at reasonable development [would be about] 29,380 acre-feet per year." That is a shortfall of 2,380 acre-feet per year under a best -case scenario for both supply and demand. The Draft General Plan, (page 3-23) and the Draft EIR (3.13-20 and 21) list inadequacies in the City's wastewater facilities. The Sewer Outfall from the City to the WSWPCF does not have adequate capacity for the PWWF [peak wet weather flows] at reasonable development of the General Plan. The City is already aware that expansion of WSWPCF will be required in the near future, and a tertiary filtration facility is part of that plan. Wastewater discharge by cities in the Delta region has come under increasing scrutiny, notjust because it affects the quality of export water (which we might like to assume is not our problem) but because it adversely affects fish and other species and their habitat in the Delta and the Estuary. This is our problem. Although I don't know the details, I believe the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance has already challenged Lodi's treatment of some of its wastewater. The City should be aware that pressure is increasing from the State for cities in the Delta region to treat their wastewater discharge to a very high level— likely higher than we have planned for. 2 Recommendations The City should aggressively pursue gray water systems, rainwater harvesting and cisterns, dry wells, and water recycling in addition to rigorous water conservation, including increased use of drought-tolerantlandscaping by the City itself. The dual plumbing systems necessary for gray water and harvested rainwater use are allowed under this General Plan. The City should revisit the issue of the cost-effectivenessof delivering recycled water to potential demand locations. The existing Water Conservation Ordinance needs to be strictly enforced, and the City itself should be following the Ordinance. Efforts at public education need to be increased, with the City considering incentives as well as penalties with respect to wise water use. The Draft EIR makes it clear that there is no lack of State regulations and local plans and ordinances addressing water issues, and General Plan policies require planning for water supply and availability before development takes place. Necessary infrastructure must be provided in a "timely" manner but in practice, we know that budgetary constraints do not allow the City to meet this requirement in every case. It is the job of city planners to take growth projections, however they are arrived at, and give decision -makers a plan that provides for that projected growth. It is possible to make assumptions and update demand and supply calculations in ways that support that projected growth. However, it falls to Lodi decision-makersto connect the dots in this General Plan without relying on optimistic assumptions or estimates. The Draft General Plan and Draft EIR clearly show that water availability and wastewater treatment place inescapable constraints on Lodi's growth. I urge you to require a General Plan that acknowledges actual, realistic limits on water availability, wastewater treatment, and the City's ability to provide necessary water infrastructure, allowing for growth only within those realistic limits. The Final EIR requires responses to public comments. I look forward to seeing these comments addressed there. 3 Executive Summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Edits/Additions Executive Summary This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed City of Lodi General Plan.' The proposed Plan was developed in response to policy direction provided by the City Council and the Planning Commission as well as community concerns identified through public participation and outreach program, including newsletters, community workshops and public meetings between 2006 and 2009. The City of Lodi is the "lead agency" for this EIR, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and therefore required to evaluate the potential effects of the Plan in an EIR. This EIR is a program EIR that examines the potential effects resulting from implementing designated land uses and policies in the proposed General Plan. The impact assessment evaluates the General Plan as a whole and identifies the broad, regional effects that may occur with its implementation. An EIR is intended to inform decision -makers and the general public of the potential significant environmental impacts of a proposed project. Impacts have either been found less than significant through the application of proposed General Plan policies or significant and unavoidable. The EIR also evaluates reasonable alternatives to the proposed project that may reduce or avoid one or more significant environmental effects. By law, alternatives must include a "No Project" alternative that represents the result of not implementing the project and a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project (CEQA Guidelines 15126.6(a)). Based on the alternatives analysis, an environmentally superior alternative must be identified. As a programmatic document, this EIR does not assess site-specific impacts. In order to place many of the proposed General Plan policies into effect, the City would adopt or approve specific actions, such as zoning regulations, zoning map amendments, development impact fees, specific plans, and capital improvement programs, that would be consistent with the policies and implementation measures of the Plan and therefore reflected in this EIR. Any future development project made possible by the General Plan will be subject to individual, site-specific environmental review, as required by State law. Project -level environmental review will need to focus on project -scale impacts. Cumulative and citywide impacts (such as traffic), would not need to be evaluated, provided the data and assumptions used in this EIR remain current and valid. E.1 PROPOSED PROJECT The City of Lodi is situated in the San Joaquin Valley between Stockton, six miles to the south, Sacramento, 35 miles to the north; and along State Route 99. Throughout this document, the term "proposed Lodi General Plan" is used interchangeably with "proposed Plan" or the "proposed project." E-1 Lodi General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report The proposed Lodi General Plan is intended to replace the existing General Plan, which was last updated in 1991. The proposed General Plan is comprised of goals, policies, a land use diagram, and other graphic figures and maps (e.g. open space systems, a transportation network, and public facilities) to guide future development within the city's boundaries, through the year 2030. The Plan includes the seven elements required by State law, including Land Use, Transportation/ Circulation, Housing, Open Space, Conservation, Noise, and Safety. It also includes two optional elements, Growth Management/Infrastructure and Community Design/Livability. (The Housing Element is not included as part of this project, since it is updated more frequently and therefore follows a separate timeline.) KEY PRINCIPLES OF THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN Eleven key principles emerged through the public input process, as the General Plan took shape. Maps and policies in the General Plan are structured around these principles, which represent the proposed Plan objectives: 1. Compact Urban Form. The Plan enhances Lodi's compact urban form, promoting infill devel- opment downtown and along key corridors, while also outlining growth possibilities directly ad- jacent to the existing urban edge. The City's overall form will be squarish, reinforcing the centrali- ty of downtown, with virtually all new development located within three miles from it. 2. Mokelumne River as the City's Northern Edge. The Lodi community has expressed a desire to see the river remain as the city's northern edge. The southern bank of the river (within the city) is oc- cupied by residential uses and streets do not reach the river. Therefore, connectivity across the river to knit the urban fabric would be challenging if growth were to extend northward. 3. Enhanced Mixed -Use Centers and Corridors. The Plan designates downtown as a mixed-use cen- ter, with a mix of commercial and residential uses. Stretches of major commercial corridors are depicted with a mixed use designation to enable continued investment in these areas and en- hancement of vacant and underutilized parcels. 4. Walkable, Livable Neighborhoods. The Plan envisions new neighborhoods with a variety of uses, diversity of housing types, and short blocks, organized around mixed-use centers. This pattern provides retail, housing, offices, parks, and other uses. 5. Street Connectivity and Urban Design. The Plan provides community design strategies for im- proving street connectivity, particularly in terms of access to downtown, neighborhoods, jobs, and shopping. 6. Preservation of Existing Neighborhoods. Existing development in a vast majority of the Planning Area is proposed to remain as is, in terms of land use and density. Lodi residents are proud of their vibrant neighborhoods. They enjoy the small-town character of the city and would like to ensure that Lodi's high quality -of -life is enhanced as the city grows. 7. Agricultural Preservation Along Southern Boundary. In order to preserve agriculture and main- tain a clear distinction between Lodi and Stockton, the Plan acknowledges the Armstrong Road Agricultural/Cluster Study Area along the south edge of Lodi, from Interstate 5 (1-5) to State Route (SR) 99, and south to Stockton's Planning Area boundary. E-2 Executive Summary 8. Employment -Focused Development in the Southeast. The area east of SR -99 toward the south is designated as a growth area for office, business park and commercial uses. This area has excellent regional access, and is adjacent to existing urbanized areas. 9. Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections. Lodi already has an expansive bicycle network and good pedestrian facilities, including sidewalks, signals, landscaping and street furniture, par- ticularly downtown. Improvements to pedestrian and bicycle pathways in new and existing neighborhoods are identified in the General Plan. 10. Recreation Path along Irrigation Canal Right -of- Way. The Woodbridge Irrigation District Canal runs through the city, passing through residential neighborhoods. A public recreation trail is en- visioned to enable walking, jogging, and biking. 11. Phasing Future Development. The Plan identifies urban reserve areas along the west and east edges of the city to provide additional area for development, if needed. These urban reserve areas ensure that the city conforms to its Growth Management Ordinance and grows at a reasonable rate. These themes and the policies proposed to implement them are described in greater detail in Chapter 2: Project Description of this FIR. ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN Although the proposed General Plan applies a 20 -year planning horizon, the Plan is not intended to specify or anticipate when full development will actually occur; nor does the designation of a site for a certain use necessarily mean the site will be built or redeveloped with that use in the next 20 years. The Land Use Element of the proposed General Plan provides a more detailed analysis of proposed General Plan development. Table ES -1 describes housing units, population and jobs resulting from existing development, approved projects, and the proposed General Plan. The table provides a total column, representing projected buildout under the proposed Plan, and a percent increase column for each characteristic, representing the percent change of the proposed Plan, over and above existing and approved development. Housing Units Lodi currently contains 23,353 housing units. Approximately 3,700 housing units have recently been approved or are under construction. The proposed General Plan accommodates 10,100 new residential units. Together, this results in the potential for 37,200 housing units. Approximately half of the housing units will be low-density housing (i.e. single-family), a quarter medium -density, and the remaining quarter high-density and mixed-use residential (containing a mix of density levels). Population Lodi currently contains approximately 63,400 residents. The proposed General Plan could accommodate 26,400 additional residents. Accounting for the current population as well as new residents anticipated from recently approved projects (approximately 9,700 residents), full development of the General Plan could result in a total of 99,500 residents, representing an annual growth rate of 2% (not shown). E-3 Lodi General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Employment Lodi currently contains 24,700 jobs. Total additional employment accommodated in the General Plan by new commercial, office, industrial, and mixed-use land designations could allow for 23,400 new jobs in Lodi. Recently approved or completed development projects are expected to produce an additional 2,900 jobs. In sum, Lodi could expect up to 51,000 jobs under the General Plan. Table ES -1: General Plan Population and Employment Potential The following alternatives are described and evaluated in this EIR: Alternative A. Alternative A fills in growth up to the existing Sphere of Influence (SOI) boundary and extends the urban area south to Armstrong Road. The bulk of new growth would be contained in the mile -wide band between Harney Land and Armstrong Road, including the Planned Residential Reserve designation between Hogan Land and Armstrong Road. This alternatives represent lower development potential compared with the proposed General Plan and Alternative B, but higher than the No Project Alternative. Alternative B. In Alternative B, new development is concentrated on the west side of the city, beyond the existing SOI. Commercial and business uses would be located in the southeast, but in a smaller area than in Alternative A. A small commercial node on Highway 12, adjacent to a site for a Lodi campus of San Joaquin Delta College, is also shown. This alternative produces the largest increase population, but allows fewer jobs compared with the proposed General Plan. • No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative represents the continuation of land use development under the 1991 General Plan. In this scenario, new development results largely from the development of Planned Residential and Planned Residential Reserve areas, in the west and south, respectively. At buildout, this alternative would result in fewer housing units, residents, and jobs, compared with the proposed General Plan and the other alternatives. E-4 Proposed Existing Alternative A Alternative 8 No Project General Plan Housing Units 23,353 34,000 39,100 30,900 37,200 Households 22,185 32,300 37,145 29,355 35,340 Population 63,362 91,000 104,400 82,600 99,500 Employed Residents 32,000 46,000 52,700 41,700 50,300 jobs 24,700 41,000 47,000 32,700 51,000 jobs / Employed Residents Ratio' 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.0 1. Alternatives and General Plan values represent total development potential: existing + approved projects (not shown) + net new. Source: Dyett & Bhotio, 2009. E.2 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN The following alternatives are described and evaluated in this EIR: Alternative A. Alternative A fills in growth up to the existing Sphere of Influence (SOI) boundary and extends the urban area south to Armstrong Road. The bulk of new growth would be contained in the mile -wide band between Harney Land and Armstrong Road, including the Planned Residential Reserve designation between Hogan Land and Armstrong Road. This alternatives represent lower development potential compared with the proposed General Plan and Alternative B, but higher than the No Project Alternative. Alternative B. In Alternative B, new development is concentrated on the west side of the city, beyond the existing SOI. Commercial and business uses would be located in the southeast, but in a smaller area than in Alternative A. A small commercial node on Highway 12, adjacent to a site for a Lodi campus of San Joaquin Delta College, is also shown. This alternative produces the largest increase population, but allows fewer jobs compared with the proposed General Plan. • No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative represents the continuation of land use development under the 1991 General Plan. In this scenario, new development results largely from the development of Planned Residential and Planned Residential Reserve areas, in the west and south, respectively. At buildout, this alternative would result in fewer housing units, residents, and jobs, compared with the proposed General Plan and the other alternatives. E-4 Executive Summary Table ES -2 summarizes key characteristics of the resident and worker populations at full development under the proposed General Plan and each of the EIR alternatives. A detailed comparison of alternatives and associated impacts is provided in Chapter 4: Alternatives of this EIR. Table ES -2: Comparison of Net New Development of the Proposed General Plan and Alternatives Table ES -3 presents the summary of the proposed General Plan impacts identified in the EIR and the proposed General Plan policies that reduce these impacts. Because many of the Plan's policies are designed to avoid or minimize impacts, the Plan is self -mitigating with respect to most of the impacts identified in the EIR. However, in the issue areas of Traffic and Circulation, Agricultural Resources, Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases, Air Quality, and Noise, significant unavoidable impacts are identified. Even with mitigation, these impacts would not be reduced to levels that are not significant. Detailed discussions of the impacts and proposed policies that would reduce impacts are in Chapter 3. The significance of each impact with implementation of the proposed General Plan policies is also shown in Table ES -3. The level of significance is determined by comparing the impact to the significance criteria described in Chapter 3. CEQA Guidelines require the identification of an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives analyzed in an EIR. Alternative A has been selected as the environmentally superior alternative. After the No Project, Alternative A has the least impact, relative to the proposed General Plan and Alternative B in the six environmental areas that have significant impacts. Alternative A and Alternative B meet many of plan objectives as described in Chapter 2: Project Description. However, the proposed General Plan achieves all these objectives to the highest extent, specifically exceeding the alternatives in the following three objectives: • Objective #1: Compact Urban Form. The proposed Plan ensures the most compact urban form, by prioritizing infill development downtown and along the city's major corridors dur- ing Phase 1. E-5 Alternative A Alternative B No Project Proposed General Plan Residential (Units) 6,900 12,000 3,800 10,100 General Commercial (SF) 778,000 1,608,000 298,000 3,932,000 Neighborhood Commercial (SF) 73,000 310,000 773,000 245,000 Business Park/Office (SF) 3,659,000 5,563,000 99,000 5,597,000 Industrial (SF) 1,51 1,000 1,936,000 4,251,000 7,322,000 Park/Detention Basin (Acres) 100 231 47 210 Public/Schools (Acres) 51 98 62 67 Source: Dyett & Bhotio, 2009. E.3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS & ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE Table ES -3 presents the summary of the proposed General Plan impacts identified in the EIR and the proposed General Plan policies that reduce these impacts. Because many of the Plan's policies are designed to avoid or minimize impacts, the Plan is self -mitigating with respect to most of the impacts identified in the EIR. However, in the issue areas of Traffic and Circulation, Agricultural Resources, Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases, Air Quality, and Noise, significant unavoidable impacts are identified. Even with mitigation, these impacts would not be reduced to levels that are not significant. Detailed discussions of the impacts and proposed policies that would reduce impacts are in Chapter 3. The significance of each impact with implementation of the proposed General Plan policies is also shown in Table ES -3. The level of significance is determined by comparing the impact to the significance criteria described in Chapter 3. CEQA Guidelines require the identification of an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives analyzed in an EIR. Alternative A has been selected as the environmentally superior alternative. After the No Project, Alternative A has the least impact, relative to the proposed General Plan and Alternative B in the six environmental areas that have significant impacts. Alternative A and Alternative B meet many of plan objectives as described in Chapter 2: Project Description. However, the proposed General Plan achieves all these objectives to the highest extent, specifically exceeding the alternatives in the following three objectives: • Objective #1: Compact Urban Form. The proposed Plan ensures the most compact urban form, by prioritizing infill development downtown and along the city's major corridors dur- ing Phase 1. E-5 Lodi General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report • Objective #7: Agricultural Preservation Along Southern Boundary. The proposed Plan and Alternative B also preserve an agricultural preservation buffer south of Hogan Lane (Alterna- tive A and the No Project scenario both allow limited development through the Planned Res- idential Reserve designation). • Objective #11: Phasing Future Development. The proposed Plan segments development into three phases, providing a framework for how and where urban growth should proceed. Urban reserve areas ensure that the city conforms to its Growth Management Ordinance and grows at a reasonable rate. Although Alternative A has been chosen as the environmentally superior alternative, it does not in all cases adequately meet the three objectives described above (out of the 11 defined in Chapter 2: Project Description). Most critically, regarding Objective #11, Alternative A puts more growth pressures on other cities in the region and unincorporated portions of San Joaquin County. Alternative B conforms to the City's Growth Management Ordinance, but does not provide environmental impact reduction benefits and does not achieve of the plan objectives. The proposed General Plan achieves all plan objectives while establishing policies to reduce environmental impacts to the greatest extent possible. E-6 Executive Summary Table ES -3: Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact # Impact Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Significance Mitigation Impact 3.1 Land Use and Housing 3.1-1 The proposed General Plan would not physically N/A Beneficial N/A divide any established communities and would increase connectivity locally and regionally. 3.1-2 The proposed General Plan would conflict with an LU -P1, LU -P17, CD -P2, CD -P3, CD -P4, Less than Significant None required applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. CD -P6, CD -P9, CD -PI 1, CD -P31, GM -P10 3.2 Traffic and Circulation 3.2-1 The proposed General Plan would result in a T -G I, T -P1, T -P2, T -P3, T -P4, T-PNEW, T- Significant and No feasible mitigation is substantial increase in vehicular traffic that would NEW, T -P8, T -NEW, T -P9, T -P10, T -P13, Unavoidable currently available. cause certain facilities to exceed level of service T -P 14, T -P 15, T -P 16, T -P 17, T -P 18, T -P 19, standards established by the governing agency. T -P20, T -P22, T -P24, T -P25, T -P27, T -P-28, T -P29, T -P43, T -P44, T -P45 3.2-2 The proposed General Plan may adversely affect T -P 1, T -P2, T -P8, T -P9, T -P 10 Significant and No mitigation measures emergency access. Unavoidable are feasible. 3.2-3 The proposed General Plan may conflict with T -G I, T -P8, T -P9, T -P10, T -P13, T -P14, T- Significant and No feasible mitigation is adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting P 15, T -P 16, T -P 17, T -P 18, T -P 19, T -P20, T- Unavoidable currently available. alternative transportation modes. P22, T -P24, T -P25, T -P27, T -P28, T -P29, T - P43, T -P44, T -P45, T -G2, T -G3, T -G4, T - G5, T -P 11, T -P 12, T -P21, T -P23, T -P26, T - P30, T -P38, T -P39 3.3 Agriculture and Soil Resources 3.3-1 Buildout of the proposed General Plan would C -G I, C -G2, C -PI, C -P2, C -P3, C -P4, C -P5, Significant and Not directly mitigable convert substantial amounts of Important Farmland C -P6, C -P7, C -P8, GM -G I, GM -P2 Unavoidable aside from preventing to non-agricultural use. development altogether 3.3-2 Buildout of the proposed General Plan would result C -P1, C -P2, C -P3, C -P4, C -P5, C -P6, C -P7, Less than Significant None required in potential land use incompatibilities with sites C -P8, GM -G 1, GM -P2, CD -G I designated for continued agriculture use. E-7 Lodi General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Table ES -3: Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact # Impact Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Significance Mitigation Impact 3.4 Biological Resources 3.4-1 Buildout of the proposed General Plan could have a C -P9, C -P 10, C -P 11, C -P 12, C -P 13, C -P 14, Less than Significant None required substantial adverse effect, either directly or through C -P 15, C -P 16, C -P32, P -P9, P -P 10, P -P 11, habitat modifications, on special status and/or P -P 12 common species. 3.4-2 Buildout of the proposed General Plan could have a C -P9, C -P 10, C -P 11, C -P 12, C -P 13, C -P 14, Less than Significant None required substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or C -P 15, C -P 16, C -P32, P -P9, P -P 10, P -P 11, other sensitive natural community identified in local P -P12 or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 3.4-3 Buildout of the proposed General Plan could have a C -P9, C -P 10, C -P 11, C -P 12, C -P 13, C -P 14, Less than Significant None required substantial adverse effect on "federally protected" C -P 15, C -P 16, C -P32, P -P9, P -P 10, P -P 11, wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean P -P12 Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, etc.). 3.4-4 Buildout of the proposed General Plan could C -P9, C -P 10, C -P 11, C -P 12, C -P 13, C -P 14, Less than Significant None required interfere substantially with the movement of any C -P 15, C -P 16, C -P32, P -P9, P -P 10, P -P 11, native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species P -P 12 or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites 3.5 Cultural Resources 3.5-1 Buildout of the proposed General Plan may alter a CD -P10, C -G6, C -G7, C -P20, C -P21, C- Less than Significant None required historic resource. P22, C -P23, C -P24, C -P25 3.5-2 Buildout of the proposed General Plan could disrupt C -G5, C -G6, C -P17, C -P18, C -P19 Less than Significant None required or adversely affect a prehistoric or historic archeological, paleontological, or culturally significant site. E-8 Executive Summary Table ES -3: Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact # Impact 3.6-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would increase total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in Lodi, compared to existing conditions. 3.6-2 Buildout of the proposed General Plan could result in a substantial increase in per capita energy consumption in the city which would suggest more wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Significance Impact LU -G I, LU -G2, LU -G3, LU -G I, LU -G4, LU- Overall Significant P2, LU -P3, LU -P6, LU -P18, LU -P25, LU -P26, Cumulative Impact, LU -P27, GM -G I, GM -G2, GM -G3, GM -P1, Project Contribution GM -P2, GM -P3, GM -P4, GM -P6, CD -G1, Cumulatively CD -P1, CD -G-4, CID -G-5, CD -P31, CD- Considerable P21, CD -P24, T -G2, T -G4, T -P 13, T -P 14, T- P 15, T -P 16, T -P 17, T -P 18, T -P 19, T -P23, T - P25, T -P28, T -P29, GM -PI I, GM -P13, GM- P 14, GM -P 15, CD -G8, CD -G9, CD -P38, CD -P39, CD -P40, CD -P32, C -P39, C- PNEW, C-PNEW, C -P37, C -P38, C -P40, C - P42, GM -P 19, CD -P 15, CD -P 16, CD -P 19, C -P43, C -P44, C -P45, C -P41, C -G9, C -G 10, C -P36, T -G8, T -P43, T -P44, T -P45, GM - P17, GM -P18 LU -G I, LU -G2, LU -G3, LU -G I, LU -G4, LU - P2, LU -P3, LU -P6, LU -P 18, LU -P25, LU -P26, LU -P27, GM -G I, GM -G2, GM -G3, GM -P1, GM -P2, GM -P3, GM -P4, GM -P6, CD -G1, CD -P1, CD -G-4, CID -G-5, CD -P31, CD - P21, CD -P24, T -G2, T -G4, T -P 13, T -P 14, T- P 15, T -P 16, T -P 17, T -P 18, T -P 19, T -P23, T - P25, T -P28, T -P29, GM -PI I, GM -P13, GM- P 14, GM -P 15, CD -G8, CD -G9, CD -P38, CD -P39, CD -P40, CD -P32, C -P39, C- PNEW, C-PNEW, C -P37, C -P38, C -P40, C - P42, GM -P 19, CD -P 15, CD -P 16, CD -P 19, C -P43, C -P44, C -P45, C -P41, C -G9, C -G 10, C -P36, T -G8, T -P43, T -P44, T -P45, GM - P17, GM -P18 Mitigation No feasible mitigation measures are currently available Less than Significant None required E-9 Lodi General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Table ES -3: Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact # Impact Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Significance Mitigation Impact 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality 3.7-1 Buildout of the proposed General Plan could alter C -P-26, C -P-27, C -P-28, C -P-29, C -P-30, C- Less than Significant None required existing drainage patterns of the area in a manner P-31, C -P-32, C -P-33, C -P-34, C -P-35 which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite or increase sediment loads thereby affecting water quality, but this impact would be mitigated by existing State and local regulations and proposed General Plan policies. 3.7-2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would C -P-26, C -P-27, C -P-28, C -P-29, C -P-30, C- Less than Significant None required may result in increased nonpoint source pollution P-31, C -P-32, C -P-33, C -P-34, C -P-35 entering storm water runoff and entering the regional storm drain system or surrounding water resources (from either construction or long-term development), but this impact would be mitigated by existing State and local regulations and proposed General Plan policies. 3.8 Air Quality 3.8-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan could C -P46. C -P47, C -P48, C -P49, C -P50, C -P51, Significant and No feasible mitigation result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of C -P52, C -P53, C -P54, C -P55, C -P56, C -P57, Unavoidable measures are currently criteria pollutants which may conflict with or violate T -G4, T -G5, T -P14, T -P15, T -P16, T -P17. available. an applicable air quality plan, air quality standard or T -P18, T -P19, T -P20, T -P21, T -P22, T -P23, contribute substantially to an existing or projected T -P24, T -P25, T -P26 T -P27, T -P28 T -P29, air quality violation. T -P38, T -P39, T -P43, T -P44, T -P45 3.8-2 Buildout of the proposed General Plan could expose C -P46. C -P47, C -P48, C -P49, C -P50, C -P51, Significant and No feasible mitigation sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant C -P52, C -P53, C -P54, C -P55, C -P56, C -P57, Unavoidable measures are currently concentrations. T -G4, T -G5, T -P 14, T -P 15, T -P 16, T -P 17. available. T -P 18, T -P 19, T -P20, T -P21, T -P22, T -P23, T -P24, T-P25,T-P26 T-P27,T-P28 T -P29, T -P38, T -P39, T -P43, T -P44, T -P45 E-10 Executive Summary Table ES -3: Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact # Impact Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Significance Mitigation Impact 3.9 Flood Hazards 3.9-1 Buildout of the proposed General Plan could expose S -PI, S -P2, S -P4, S -P5, S -P6, S -P7, S-PNEW, Less than Significant None required people or structures to a risk of loss, injury or death S-PNEW involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. 3.10 Seismic and Geologic Hazards 3.10-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan has S -P16, S -P17, S -P18, S -P19, S -P20 Less than Significant None required low to moderate potential to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death resulting from rupture of a known earthquake fault, ground shaking, landslides or liquefaction, though these risks are minimized through compliance with State regulations and proposed General Plan policies. 3.10-2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan has S -P16, S -P17, S -P18, S -P19, S -P20 Less than Significant None required moderate potential to result in substantial soil erosion or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill, though impacts would be mitigated with proposed General Plan policies. 3.10-3 Implementation of the proposed General Plan has S -P16, S -P17, S -P18, S -P19, S -P20 Less than Significant None required low potential to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death resulting from settlement and/or subsidence of the land, or risk of expansive soils, and policies in the proposed General Plan would further mitigate this impact. E-11 Lodi General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Table ES -3: Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact # Impact Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Significance Mitigation Impact 3.11 Noise 3.11-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan could N -PI, N -P2, N -P3 N -P4, N -P5, N -P6, N -P7, Significant and No feasible mitigation result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient N -P8, N -P9, N -P10, N-PNEW Unavoidable measures are currently noise levels. available. 3.11-2 New development in the proposed General Plan N-PNEW, N-PNEW Less than Significant None required would potentially expose existing noise -sensitive uses to construction -related temporary increases in ambient noise. 3.11-3 New development in the proposed General Plan N -P 1, N -P2, N -P3 N -P4, N -P5, N -P6, N -P7, Less than Significant None required could cause the exposure of persons to or N -P8, N -P9, N -PI O, N-PNEW, N-PNEW, generation of excessive groundborne vibration or N-PNEW groundborne noise levels. 3.12 Hazardous Materials, and Toxics 3.12-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan has S -P8, S -P9, S -P I OA. S -P I OB, S -P 11, S -P 12, S- Less than Significant None required the potential to create a significant hazard to the P 13, S -P 14, S -P 15, S -P 18, S -P22, S -P23, S - public or the environment through reasonably P24, S -P25 foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, though existing federal, State, and local regulations and proposed General Plan policies would sufficiently reduce the impact. 3.12-2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan has S -P8, S -P9, S -P I OA. S -P I OB, S -P 11, S -P 12, S- Less than Significant None required the potential to locate land uses on sites which are P 13, S -P 14, S -P 15, S -P 18, S -P22, S -P23, S - included on a list of hazardous materials sites P24, S -P25 compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. 3.12-3 Implementation of the proposed General Plan has S -P8, S -P9, S -P I OA. S -P I OB, S -P 11, S -P 12, S- Less than Significant None required the potential to create a significant hazard to the P 13, S -P 14, S -P 15, S -P 18, S -P22, S -P23, S - public or the environment through the routine P24, S -P25 E-12 Executive Summary Table ES -3: Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact # Impact Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Significance Mitigation Impact transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. 3.12-4 Implementation of the proposed General Plan has S -P8, S -P9, S -P I OA. S -P I OB, S -P 11, S -P 12, S- Less than Significant None required the potential to result in the handling of hazardous P13, S -P14, S -P15, S -P18, S -P22, S -P23, S - materials or wastes within one-quarter mile of an P24, S -P25 existing or proposed school or other sensitive use. 3.13 Infrastructure 3.13-1 New development under the proposed General Plan GM -G2, GM -G3, GM -P7, GM -P8, GM -P9, Less than Significant None required would increase the demand for water beyond GM -P10, GM -PI I, GM -P12, GM -P13, GM - projections in the Lodi Urban Water Management P14, GM -P15, GM -P16, GM -P17, GM -P18 Plan. 3.13-2 New development under the proposed General Plan GM -G2, GM -G3, GM -P7, GM -P8, GM -P9, Less than Significant None required may exceed wastewater treatment capacity of GM -P I 0 existing infrastructure. 3.13-3 New development under the proposed General Plan GM -P 19, C-PNEW Less than Significant None required would cause an increase in waste generation. 3.14 Public Facilities 3.14-1 New development under the proposed Lodi General GM -NEW, GM -NEW, GM -NEW, GM -P20 Less than Significant None required Plan will increase the demand for school facilities. 3.14-2 New development in the proposed General Plan GM -G4, GM -P22, GM -P23, S -P22, S -P23, S- Less than Significant None required requires police and fire protection services that P24, S -P25 exceed current staffing and facilities. 3.15 Parks and Recreation 3.15-1 Future development as a result of the proposed P -G3, P -P1, P -P3, P -PS, P -P7, P -P19, P -P20 Less than Significant None required General Plan may result in failure to meet all of the City's park standard goals and increase the use of existing parks and recreation facilities, which would accelerate physical deterioration. E-13 Lodi General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Table ES -3: Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact # Impact Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Significance Mitigation Impact 3.15-2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would P -G3, P -P1, P -P3, P -P5, P -P7, P -P19, P -P20 Beneficial N/A result in increased accessibility of parks and recreation facilities from residential neighborhoods. 3.16-1 Future proposed development in Lodi has the CD -P20, CD -P22, CD -P23 Less than Significant None required potential to affect scenic vistas within the Planning Area 3.16-2 New development and redevelopment activities CD -G 1, CD -G2, CD -G3, CD -G6, CD -G7, Less than Significant None required have the potential to change Lodi's visual character, CD -P2, CD -P3, CD -P4, CD -P5, CD -P6, particularly where incompatibilities with existing CD -P7, CD -P8, CD -P10, CD -PI I, CD -P12, development in scale and/or character may exist. CD -P 15, CD -P 16, CD -P 17, CD -P 18, CD- P 19, CD -P24, CD -P26, CD -P28, CD -P29, CD -P30, CD -P31, CD -P32, CD -P34, GM - G 1, GM -P 1, GM -P2, C -P20, C -P23, C -P24 3.16-3 Development under the proposed General Plan has None Less than Significant None required the potential to adversely affect visual resources in the short-term during periods of construction by blocking or disrupting views. 3.16-4 Development under the proposed General Plan has CD -P33 Less than Significant None required the potential to create new sources of light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. E-14 General Plan Policy Changes / Edits LODI GENERAL PLAN Policy Changes/Additions Following EIR Preparation Chapter 2: Land Use LU-P-I7EDIT Establish land use regulations and development standards in the Zoning Code to reinforce Downtown's assets and traditional development pattern. These should include: Extending the Downtown Mixed Use classification to parcels along Main Street on the Eastside to improve connectivity, while retaining the respective identities of downtown and the Eastside. Establishing maximum set -backs or build -to lines for development in areas designated Downtown Mixed Use. Requiring retail, eating and drinking establishments, or other similar active uses— except for sites designated Public—at the ground level. Alleyway corners shall be "wrapped" with retail uses as well. Chapter 3: Growth Management & Infrastructure GM-P2EDIT Target new growth into identified areas, extending south, west, and southeast. Ensure contiguous development by requiring development to conform to phasing described in Figure 3-1 [of the proposed General Plan]. Enforce phasing through permitting and infrastructure provision. Development may not extend to Phase 2 until Phase 1 has reached 75% of development potential, and development may not extend to Phase 3 until Phase 2 has reached 75% of development potential. In order to respond to market changes in the demand for various land use types, exemptions may be made to allow for development in future phases before these thresholds in the previous phase have been reached. GM -P1 IEDIT Require water conservation in both City operations and private development to minimize the need for the development of new water sources and facilities. To the extent practicable, promote water conservation and reduced water demand by: Requiring the installation of non -potable water (recycled or gray water) infrastructure for irrigation of landscaped areas over one acre of new landscape acreage, where feasible. Conditions of approval shall require connection and use of non -potable water supplies when available at the site. • Encouraging water -conserving landscaping, including the use of drought -tolerant and native plants, xeriscaping, use of evapotranspiration water systems, and other conservation measures. Encouraging retrofitting of existing development with water -efficient plumbing fixtures, such as ultra low -flow toilets, waterless urinals, low -flow sinks and showerheads, and water -efficient dishwashers and washing machines. GM-P15EDIT Monitor water usage and conservation rates due to installed fnete,.s, to or �� resulting from the meter progress to verify if water demand assumptions are correct. If actual usage and conservation rates vary from planning assumptions, reassess requirements for future water resources. GM -NEW Coordinate with Lodi Unified School District in monitoring housing, population, and enrollment trends and evaluating their effects on future school facility needs. GM -NEW Phase school development as part of new residential growth to provide adequate school facilities, without exceeding capacity of existing schools. Schools should be provided consistent with the Lodi Unified School District's School Facilities Master Plan, which defines student generation rates. GM -NEW Support all necessary and reasonable efforts by Lodi Unified School District to obtain funding for capital improvements required to meet school facility needs, including adoption and implementation of local financing mechanisms, such as community facility districts, and the assessment of school impact fees. Chapter 4: Community Design & Livability CD-P40EDIT Prepare, or incorporate by reference, and implement green building and construction guidelines and/or standards, appropriate to the Lodi context, by 2012. The guidelines and/or standards shall ensure a high level of energy efficiency and reduction of environmental impacts associated with new construction, major renovation, and operations of buildings. Ensure that these guidelines/standards: • Require documentation demonstrating that building designs meet minimum performance targets, but allow flexibility in the methods used. • Exceed California's 2005 Title 24 regulation standards for building energy efficiency by 15%, with particular emphasis on industrial and commercial buildings. • Reduce resource or environmental impacts, using cost-effective and well -proven design and construction strategies. • Reduce waste and energy consumption during demolition and construction. • Identify street standards, such as street tree requirements, appropriate landscaping practices, and acceptable materials. • Incorporate sustainable maintenance standards and procedures. • Promote incorporation of energy conservation and weatherization features in existing structures. Develop programs that specifically target commercial and industrial structures for enerav conservation and weatherization measures in order to reduce annual kWh per job. These guidelines could be developed directly from the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) system developed by the U.S. Green Building Council, the California-based Build It Green GreenPoint rating system, or an equivalent green building program. Chapter 5: Transportation T -NEW Strive to comply with the Level of Service standards and other performance measures on Routes of Regional Significance as defined by the County -wide Congestion Management Program. T -NEW For purposes of design review and environmental assessment, apply a standard of Level of Service E during peak hour conditions on all streets in the City's jurisdiction. The objective of this performance standard is to acknowledge that some level of traffic congestion during the peak hour is acceptable and indicative of an economically vibrant and active area, and that infrastructure design decisions should be based on the conditions that predominate during most of each day. T -NEW Exempt downtown from LOS standards to encourage infill development in order to create a pedestrian friendly urban design character and densities necessary to support transit, bicycling, and walking. Development decisions in downtown should be based on community design and livability goals rather than traffic LOS. (Downtown is defined by the Downtown Mixed -Use designation in the Land Use Diagram.) T-P8EDIT would result in elear- publie benefits, subjeet to findings that aehieving LOS D would.: Allow exceptions to LOS standards upon findings by the City Council that achieving the designated LOS would: • Be technologically or economically infeasible, or • Compromise the City's ability to support other important policy priorities, such as: ■ Enhancing the urban design characteristics that contribute to pedestrian comfort and convenience; t ■ Avoiding adverse impacts to alternate modes of transportation; ■ Preserving the existing character of the community; ■ Preserving agricultural land or open space; or ■ Preserving scenic roadways/highways. T -NEW Undertake street improvements shown in Table 5-4 [of the proposed General Plan], and maintain, require or acquire right of way, as necessary. Coordinate with other jurisdictions, including San Joaquin County, and Caltrans, on improvements to street segments common to the City of Lodi and other jurisdictions. It should be noted that because the General Plan will be implemented over an extended time frame, street capacity enhancements will be prioritized through the City's Capital Improvements Program process and will occur as development proceeds. Chapter 7: Conservation C-G10EDIT Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 15% below 2008 levels by 2020, to slow the negative impacts of global climate change. C-P36EDIT Prepare and adopt a comprehensive climate action plan (CAP) by 2012, with implementation beginning in 2013. The CAP will be an additional policy document for the City of Lodi, based on polices listed in Appendix A. The CAP should include the following provisions: • An inventory of citywide greenhouse gas emissions and emissions projections for 2020 or beyond, • Emissions targets that apply at reasonable intervals through the life of the CAP and that meet or exceed AB 32 and/or Executive Order 5-3-05 reduction targets, • Enforceable greenhouse gas emissions control measures, • A detailed funding and implementation component, • A monitoring and reporting program to ensure targets are met, and • Mechanisms to allow for revision of the CAP, as necessary. C-PNEW Ensure environmentally responsible municipal operations by implementing the following measures: • Procure environmentally preferable products and services where criteria have been established by governmental or other widely recognized authorities (e.g. Energy Star, EPA Eco Purchasing Guidelines). • Integrate environmental factors into the City's buying decisions where external authorities have not established criteria, such as by replacing disposables with reusables or recyclables, taking into account life cycle costs and benefits, and evaluating, as appropriate, the environmental performance of vendors in providing products and services; • Raise staff awareness on the environmental issues affecting procurement by providing relevant information and training; • Encourage suppliers and contractors to offer environmentally preferable products and services at competitive prices; • Require all departments and divisions to practice waste prevention and recycling. • When City fleet vehicles are retired, replace vehicles through the purchase or lease of alternative fuel or hybrid substitutes. As contracts for City -contracted fleet services (such as transit buses, trash haulers, and street sweeper trucks) are renewed, encourage contractors to replace their vehicles with alternative fuel or hybrid substitutes through the contract bid process. C-PNEW Continue to offer rebates to residential, commercial, industrial and municipal customers of Lodi Electric Utility who install photovoltaic (PV) systems or that participate in the Lodi Energy Efficient Home Improvement Rebate Program. Ensure that rebate programs are well advertised to the community and offer rebates that are sufficient to gain community interest and participation. C-PNEW Ensure environmentally responsible municipal operations by implementing the following measures: • Procure environmentally preferable products and services where criteria have been established by governmental or other widely recognized authorities (e.g. Energy Star, EPA Eco Purchasing Guidelines). • Integrate environmental factors into the City's buying decisions where external authorities have not established criteria, such as by replacing disposables with reusables or recyclables, taking into account life cycle costs and benefits, and evaluating, as appropriate, the environmental performance of vendors in providing products and services; • Raise staff awareness on the environmental issues affecting procurement by providing relevant information and training; • Encourage suppliers and contractors to offer environmentally preferable products and services at competitive prices; • Require all departments and divisions to practice waste prevention and recycling. • When City fleet vehicles are retired, replace vehicles through the purchase or lease of alternative fuel or hybrid substitutes. • As contracts for City -contracted fleet services (such as transit buses, trash haulers, and street sweeper trucks) are renewed, encourage contractors to replace their vehicles with alternative fuel or hybrid substitutes through the contract bid process. Chapter 8• Safety S-P4EDIT Prohibit new development, except for public uses incidental to open space development, within Zone A (100 -year flood zone) of the most current FEMA floodplain map (see Figure 8-1 [in the proposed General Plan] for the most current map). S-PNEW The City shall cooperate with and encourage reclamation districts to institute a berm maintenance program to reduce berm failures and shall coordinate with appropriate State, federal, and local flood control agencies in planning efforts to ensure the continued protection of local and regional flood control systems. S-PNEW The City will continue to ensure, through the development review process, that future developments do not increase peak storm flows and do not cause flooding of downstream facilities and properties. Additionally, the City shall ensure that storm drainage facilities are constructed to serve new development adequate to storm runoff generated by a 100 - year storm. Chapter 9: Noise N-P10EDIT Restrict the use of sound walls as a noise attenuation method to sites adjacent to State Route(SR) 99, the railroad, and industrial uses east of SR -99. N-PNEW Where substantial traffic noise increases (to above 70db) are expected, such as on Lower Sacramento Road or Harney Lane, as shown on the accompanying graphic, require a minimum 12 -foot setback for noise -sensitive land uses, such as residences, hospitals, schools, libraries, and rest homes. Minimum Setback of 12.fe d for ratw-sensMm land tpq& N-PNEW Update Noise Ordinance regulations to address allowed days and hours of construction, types of work, construction equipment (including noise and distance thresholds), notification of neighbors, and sound attenuation devices. N-PNEW The City shall ensure that new equipment and vehicles purchased by the City of Lodi are equipped with the best available noise reduction technology. N-PNEW Reduce vibration impacts on noise -sensitive land uses (such as residences, hospitals, schools, libraries, and rest homes) adjacent to the railroad, SR -99, expressways, and near noise -generating industrial uses. This may be achieved through site planning, setbacks, and vibration -reduction construction methods such as insulation, soundproofing, staggered studs, double drywall layers, and double walls. Draft General Plan Introduction Chapter and List of Policies Lodi is a distinctive Central Valley community along the Mokelumne River, adjacent to the Sacramento Delta. It is a compact city surrounded by vineyards, with a revitalized downtown and attractive neighborhoods. Lodi is also a burgeoning center of wine production and tourism, with the local appellation increasingly gaining in prestige, especially for its zinfandels. Because of its charm and small-town atmosphere, Lodi remains the preferred residential choice for many residents of the greater San Joaquin County region, and an increasing draw for employers. This General Plan outlines a vision for Lodi's future, building on the city's assets, including its historic downtown, parks, arts and culture, and sense of community. With the wine industry increasingly vital to the city's economic sustenance and character, the General Plan promotes continued compact form and emphasizes preservation of surrounding agricultural and viticulture lands. Economic development, downtown vibrancy, revitalization of commercial corridors with a mix of uses, and creation of walkable neighborhoods are priorities, along with a commit- ment to a sustainable development pattern, ranging from overall city form to the design of buildings and open spaces. 1-1 Livable neighborhoods, with access to retail, public facilities, jobs, and parks, are priorities for both existing and future development areas. 1-2 1 LODI GENERAL PLAN 1.1 PLANNING THEMES The General Plan presents eleven central planning themes, which were highlighted during the visioning phase and developed through discussions with community members. These themes are woven through- out the Plan and specified through policy measures. i. Compact Urban Form. The Plan enhances Lodi's compact urban form, promoting infill development downtown and along key corridors, while also out- lining growth possibilities directly adjacent to the existing urban edge. The City's overall form will be squarish, reinforcing the centrality of downtown, with virtually all new development located within three miles from it. a. Mokelumne River as the City's Northern Edge. The Lodi community has expressed a desire to see the river remain as the city's northern edge. The southern bank of the river (within the city) is occu- pied by residential uses and streets do not reach the river. Therefore, connectivity across the river to knit the urban fabric would be challenging if growth were to extend northward. 3. Enhanced Mixed -Use Centers and Corridors. The Plan designates downtown as a mixed-use center, with a mix of commercial and residential uses. Stretches of major commercial corridors are depicted with a mixed- use designation to enable continued investment in these areas and enhancement of vacant and underuti- lized parcels. 4. Walkable, Livable Neighborhoods. The Plan envi- sions new neighborhoods with a variety of uses, diversity of housing types, and short blocks, orga- nized around mixed-use centers. This pattern provides retail, housing, offices, parks, and other uses. 5. Street Connectivity and Urban Design. The Plan provides community design strategies for improving street connectivity, particularly in terms of access to downtown, neighborhoods, jobs, and shopping. 6. Preservation of Existing Neighborhoods. Existing development in a vast majority of the Planning Area is proposed to remain as is, in terms of land use and density. Lodi residents are proud of their vibrant neighborhoods. They enjoy the small-town charac- ter of the city and would like to ensure that Lodi's high quality -of -life is enhanced as the city grows. 7. Agricultural Preservation Along Southern Bound- ary. In order to preserve agriculture and maintain a clear distinction between Lodi and Stockton, the Plan acknowledges the Armstrong Road Agricul- tural/Cluster Study Area along the south edge of Lodi, from Interstate 5 (I-5) to State Route (SR) 99, and south to Stockton's Planning Area boundary. 8. Employment -Focused Development in the South- east. The area east of SR -99 toward the south is designated as a growth area for office, business park and commercial uses. This area has excellent regional access, and is adjacent to existing urban- ized areas. 9. Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections. Lodi already has an expansive bicycle network and good pedestrian facilities, including sidewalks, signals, landscaping and street furniture, particu- larly downtown. Improvements to pedestrian and bicycle pathways in new and existing neighbor- hoods are identified in the General Plan. To. Recreation Path along Irrigation Canal Right -of - Way. The Woodbridge Irrigation District Canal runs through the city, passing through residential neighborhoods. A public recreation trail is envi- sioned to enable walking, jogging, and biking. it. Phasing Future Development. The Plan identifies urban reserve areas along the west and east edges of the city to provide additional area for development, if needed. These urban reserve areas ensure that the city conforms to its Growth Management Ordinance and grows at a reasonable rate. The Plan ensures that Lodi maintains its compact form, by preserving existing neighborhoods, enabling infill development, defining growth boundaries, and phasing development over time. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 1-3 1.2 SCOPE AND PURPOSE General Plan Purpose The General Plan governs all City actions relating to Lodi's physical development. The General Plan is mandated by and derives its authority from Califor- nia Government Code Section 65300, which requires each city and county in California to adopt a General Plan, "for the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which... bears relation to its planning." The Lodi General Plan is a document adopted by the City Council that serves several purposes: • To outline a vision for Lodi's long-term physi- cal and economic development and community enhancement; • To provide strategies and specific implement- ing actions that will allow this vision to be accomplished; • To establish a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects are in harmony with Plan policies and standards; • To allow City departments, other public agencies, and private developers to design projects that will enhance the character of the community, preserve and enhance critical environmental resources, and minimize hazards; and • To provide the basis for establishing and setting pri- orities for detailed plans and implementing pro- grams, such as the Zoning Ordinance, the Capital Improvements Program and facilities plans. State law requires that a variety of City actions be con- sistent with the General Plan so regular ongoing use of the Plan is essential. The Plan is both general and long- range; there will be circumstances and instances when detailed studies are necessary before Plan policies can be implemented. 1-4 1 LODI GENERAL PLAN General Plan Requirements A city's general plan has been described as its constitu- tion for development—the framework within which decisions must be made on how to grow, provide public services and facilities, and protect and enhance the environment. California's tradition of allowing local authority control over land use decisions means that the state's cities have considerable flexibility in preparing their general plans. However, State planning laws do establish basic requirements about the issues that general plans must address. The California Government Code establishes both the content of general plans and rules for their adoption and subsequent amendment. Together, State law and judicial decisions establish three overall guidelines for general plans. They should be: • Comprehensive. This requirement has two aspects. First, the General Plan must be geographically com- prehensive. That is, it must apply throughout the entire incorporated area and should include other areas that the City determines are relevant to its planning. Second, the general plan must address the full range of issues that affects the City's physical development. • Internally Consistent. This requirement means that the General Plan must fully integrate its sep- arate parts and relate them to each other without conflict. "Horizontal" consistency applies as much to figures and diagrams as to the general plan text. It also applies to data and analysis as well as policies. All adopted portions of the general plan, whether required by State law or not, have equal legal weight. None may supersede another, so the General Plan must resolve conflicts among the provisions of each element. • Long -Range. Because anticipated development will affect the city and the people who live or work there for years to come, State law requires every general plan to take a long-term perspective. The time horizon for this general plan is approximately 20 years. 1.3 PLAN PROCESS The Plan draws its ideas from many citizens, community groups, business owners, elected officials, and City staff who participated in decision-mak- ing during the update process. The maps and policies in this Plan are based on the need to accommodate a future population and employment base and the desire to be an ideal place to live, work, and play. The Plan will be used on an ongoing basis, since many City reg- ulations and actions are required by State law to be consistent with the General Plan. Public Participation Public participation was an essential component to the development of the Lodi General Plan. The update process was initiated in fall zoo6—Lodi's centennial year—to replace the i99r General Plan. Community members and stakeholders participated in the planning process through several different medium over the course of three years. They formulated a vision, deter- mined future development patterns, and informed policy development, through the following participa- tion opportunities: • A mail -in survey sent to all residential addresses in the city; • Public workshops and meetings; • Stakeholder interviews and neighborhood meetings; • Workshops with the City Council and Planning Commission; • Presentations to organizations and neighborhood groups; • Newsletters; • Comments via e-mail; and • A project website. Community members shared ideas and offered feedback on General Plan issues and policies during workshops and meetings. CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1 1-5 Clty of btll xty zoos Interim analyses and products informed the development of the General Plan. 1-6 1 LODI GENERAL PLAN Interim Documents As part of the General Plan update process, four working papers documenting existing conditions, trends, planning issues, and implications were prepared: • Working Paper #r: Land Use, Transportation, Environment, and Infrastructure provided a base- line of existing conditions in the city, focusing on its physical environment and built form. • Working Paper #2: Urban Design and Livability outlined qualities of Lodi that contribute to its liva- bility and which should be embodied in the future. • Working Paper #3: Growth and Economic Devel- opment Strategy presented growth trends, likely demand for various land uses—including retail demand by sector—and opportunities, challenges, and possibilities for their arrangement in Lodi's future. • Working Paper #4: Greenbelt Conservation Strat- egies focused on the issue of a greenbelt along the southern edge of the city, including its viability, size, location, and feasible implementation techniques and incentives. Following these analyses, three land use alternatives for future development and their transportation, infra- structure, and fiscal impacts were prepared in a Sketch Plan Report. The sketch plans presented a range of options to guide future development and intensification in Lodi, addressed goals for conservation, economic development, and walkable livable neighborhoods, and analyzed relative impacts on traffic and infrastructure. Finally, a preferred plan was selected based on the most desired portions of the sketch plans, following a community open house and meetings with citizen and business groups. The Preferred Plan was endorsed by the City's decision makers and became the starting point for the General Plan Land Use Diagram and associated policies. 1.4 REGIONAL LOCATION AND PLANNING BOUNDARIES Regional Location Located along the Mokelumne River, adjacent to the Sacramento River Delta, Lodi is situated in the San Joaquin Valley between Stockton, six miles to the south; Sacramento, 35 miles to the north; and along SR -99. The city is located on the main line of the Union Pacific Railroad and is within five miles of I -S via SR -12. Figure i -i illustrates the city's regional location. FIGURE 1-1: REGIONAL LOCATION 0 10 20 40 MILES CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 1-7 <� SU ',PLACER m Cga � alizto Y O L O ® \ i ° Davis cr Winters, / tC Helen J D y ° / 1 16 o 9 > j l Dixon SACRAtVfa NTO NAPA. i� `, 'AMADOR 9 3 `,1Vacaville 84 � •r Ione Sonoma-' —'113 S O'L A N O Napa �. P d ° r_ n 1 ^/ P , tcali 88 11 2 Fairfield p�i';� e -4,r e b SONO Q-° 2 uisu u 2 'x 29 - Rio , � — Vista eton ------ ----■ 2 � 2 - IVovat Va el / 2 ' lannifig \ '1 B nisi �� Area A R I N�" Hercule Pinole Sar ael 1 Larkspur"^ (, . on . pleasa *Concord a o `$tockt :1 V1ill ValleY \ EI Cer'., Hill *Clayton Brentwood • 4 • Berkley 4 G' Walnut Creek 4 S A N a o afayette C O N T R A J O A Q U I N COSTA ' r o :1 •Danville San cis Manteca an Ramon ` colon /' 1 •Tracy Ripo Daly Cl S A N, ` San L MATED ,\ an rol Pleasa qn • ,r� I , ' 1 Bruno q� IVermore r�tis 1 and 84 A L A M E D A T A N I S L A U Modesto Pacifica Mi rae I 13 Burlingame / 0 10 20 40 MILES CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 1-7 Planning Boundaries The General Plan must cover Lodi's adopted Sphere of Influence (SOI), as well as any land outside these bound- aries that is relevant to the city's planning. The Planning Area covers 79.4 square miles, or 50,827 acres. This land area is dominated by vineyards and agriculture. Devel- opment in the Planning Area is concentrated in the urbanized areas: within Lodi city limits and Wood- bridge—a community contiguous to Lodi and within Lodi's SOI; and in Flag City, an unincorporated com- mercial center at the junction of I-5 and SR -12. Figure 1-2 shows this Planning Area. Lodi's current (zoo8) SOI includes, in addition to Woodbridge, lands west and east of City limits where developments have been recently approved, as well as a small pocket in the northeast portion. Lodi's SOI covers 16.6 square miles, or 1o,623 acres of land. The city is largely flat, distinguished by Lodi Lake and the Mokelumne River that form the northern edge of the city. The White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility (White Slough) is located within City limits, but is separated from the urbanized area of Lodi. Lodi's incor- porated limits (exclusive of White Slough) encompass an area of about 12 square miles. A view toward the northwest corner of Lodi and the Town of Woodbridge shows Lodi Lake and the Mokelumne River—the city's northern boundary. 1-8 1 LODI GENERAL PLAN FIGURE 1-2: LODI PLANNING AREA \Ar CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 1-9 1.5 PLAN ORGANIZATION General Plan Structure State law mandates that general plans include seven elements: Land Use, Circulation, Open Space, Con- servation, Noise and Safety, and Housing. Elements for other topics of local concern may also be included. This General Plan includes all mandated and two optional elements: Growth Management, and Community Design and Livability. Topics related to sustainabil- ity are woven throughout the Plan. For example energy efficiency is discussed in the Conservation Element and green building is discussed in the Community Design and Livability Element. The Housing Element is updated every five to seven years, per State requirements, and therefore is included as an appendix. An implemen- tation program is also included as an appendix. Table i -i illustrates how the nine elements are arranged. Organization of the Elements Each chapter of this General Plan includes brief back- ground ackground information to establish the context for the policies in the chapter. This background material is not a comprehensive statement of existing conditions nor does it contain any adopted information, unless noted otherwise, such as with land use classifications. (Readers interested in a comprehensive understanding of issues related to a particular topic should refer to the working papers described in Section 1.3.) This back- ground ackground information is followed by guiding policies and implementing policies: • Guiding policies are the City's statements of broad direction, philosophy, or standards to be achieved. • Implementing policies are specific statements that guide decision making. They may refer to existing programs or development standards or call for estab- lishment of new ones. Together, these policies articulate a vision for Lodi that the General Plan seeks to achieve. They also provide pro- tection for the city's resources by establishing planning requirements, programs, standards, and criteria for project review. Numbering System Policies are organized using a two-part numbering system. The first part refers to the element and the second is the order in which the policies appear, with a letter designation to distinguish guiding policies (G) and implementing policies (P). For example, the first guiding policy in the Land Use Element is numbered LU-Gi and the first implementing policy is LU -Pi. Thus, each policy in the Plan has a discrete number for easy reference. TABLE 1-1: CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN REQUIRED GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS AND THE LODI GENERAL PLAN STATE MANDATED/OPTIONAL ELEMENT LOCATION IN THE LODI GENERAL PLAN Land Use Chapter 2: Land Use Circulation Chapter 3: Circulation Open Space Chapter 6: Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Conservation Chapter 7: Conservation Safety Chapter 8: Safety Noise Housing Community Design and Livability (optional) Growth Management and Infrastructure (optional) Chapter 9: Noise Appendix A Chapter 4: Community Design and Livability Chapter 3: Growth Management and Infrastructure 1-10 1 LODI GENERAL PLAN 1.6 ADMINISTRATION OF THE PLAN The General Plan is intended to be a dynamic document. As such, it may be subject to amendments over time to address site-specific or comprehensive needs, to respond to changes in State of Federal law, or to modify policies that may become obsolete or unrealistic over time. Amendments to the General Plan State law limits the number of times a jurisdiction can amend its general plan to no more than four times per year, although each amendment may include more than one change. However, this restriction does not apply to amendments that update optional elements (such as Growth Management or Community Design and Liva- bility); allow for the development of affordable housing; or comply with a court decision. Annual Report The California Government Code requires that City staff submit an annual report to the City Council on the status of the General Plan and progress in its implemen- tation. This report is also submitted to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research and the Depart- ment of Housing and Community Development. It must include an analysis of the progress in meeting the City's share of regional housing needs and local efforts to remove governmental constraints to maintenance, improvement, and development of affordable housing. In addition, any mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by the California Environ- mental Quality Act should be addressed in the annual report because they are closely tied to plan implementa- tion. Finally, the report should include a summary of all general plan amendments adopted during the preceding year, a description of upcoming projects or general plan issues to be addressed in the coming year, and a work program and budget. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 1-11 Page intentionally left blank. 1-12 1 LODI GENERAL PLAN Lodi GP Policies Chapter 2: Land Use Policies For policies relating to phasing and growth management, see Chapter 3: Growth Management and Infrastructure. For policies relating to urban design and community character, see Chapter 4. Community Design and Livability. 2.1 GUIDING POLICIES LU -G1 Create a balanced and sustainable land use pattern that provides for a diversity of uses and satisfies existing and future needs. LU -G2 Encourage development of downtown as a mixed-use activity center with a range of commercial, residential, and civic uses. LU -G3 Promote revitalization of key commercial spines of the community with fo- cused, mixed-use development. LU -G4 Foster development of walkable new neighborhoods, with a mix of uses and diversity of housing types. LU -G5 Maintain land use patterns that maximize residents' access to parks, open space, and neighborhood shopping centers. LU -G6 Ensure the continued economic sustainability of the community and fiscal health of the City government. LU -G7 Strengthen the City's economic base and provide employment opportunities for residents to achieve a more balanced jobs/housing ratio. 2.2 IMPLEMENTING POLICIES USE CLASSIFICATIONS AND LAND USE PROGRAM LU -P1 Update the City's Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations contained in the Municipal Code for consistency with the General Plan, including the Gen- eral Plan Diagram. Zoning changes that will need to be made include: Establishment of new base districts, consistent with the land use classifications in the General Plan, such as for mixed-use centers, corridors and downtown; and New development regulations that reflect policy direction contained through- out the General Plan (e.g. parking standards). LU -P2 Require sites designated for mixed-use development—downtown, corridors, and in new neighborhood centers—to be developed with a variety of residential and non-residential uses, in accordance with the General Plan designation. LU -P3 Do not allow development at less than the minimum density prescribed by each residential land use category. Lodi GP Policies LU -P4 Maintain the highest development intensities downtown, and in mixed-use corridors and centers, with adequate transition to Low -Density Residential neighborhoods. LAND USE PATTERN LU -P5 Maintain a centralized economic development and land information system to continually monitor land use availability, ensuring sufficient land for appropri- ate use designations, development intensities and locations. LU -P6 Locate new medium- and high-density development adjacent to parks or other open space, in order to maximize residents' access to recreational uses; or ad- jacent to mixed-use centers or neighborhood commercial developments, to maximize access to services. LU -P7 Encourage new neighborhood commercial facilities and supermarkets in loca- tions that maximize accessibility to all residential areas. LU -P8 Permit child-care centers in all districts except Industrial. • Regulations would also need to be in accordance with criteria for family day care homes established in Chapter 3.4 and Chapter 3.6, Division 2 of the California Health and Safety Code. LU -P9 Focus new business park growth in the southeast portion of the city and new industrial growth along the two railroad lines, as shown in the Land Use Dia- gram. LU -P10 Allow employee -serving amenities and services such as restaurants, cafes, dry cleaners, and other complementary uses in Business Park areas. LU -P11 Promote clustering of industrial uses into areas that have common needs and are compatible in order to maximize their efficiency. Work closely with indus- try contacts to identify specific needs to be addressed through development standards. LU -P12 Prioritize economic development activities on potential growth industries that are appropriate for Lodi, including retail and tourism, as well as of- fice/industrial users in need of large parcels. LU -P13 Continue to publish a handbook and/or fact sheets of permitting procedures and fees for new and existing businesses. LU -P14 Partner with business and community groups to proactively pursue companies and industries and to implement economic development programs. LU -P15 Continue efforts to locate a hotel in conjunction with or in proximity to Hut- chins Street Square. DOWNTOWN LU -P16 Promote downtown as the center of tourism, business, social, and civic life by directing high intensity office uses, government, and entertainment uses to lo- cate downtown. VJ Lodi GP Policies LU -P17 Establish land use regulations and development standards in the Zoning Code to reinforce Downtown's assets and traditional development pattern. These should include: • Extending the Downtown Mixed Use classification to parcels along Main Street on the Eastside to improve connectivity, while retaining the respec- tive identities of downtown and the Eastside. • Maximum set -backs or build -to lines for development in areas designated Downtown Mixed Use. • Requiring retail, eating and drinking establishments, or other similar active uses—except for sites designated Public—at the ground level. Alleyway cor- ners shall be "wrapped" with retail uses as well. LU -P18 Encourage medium- and high-density residential development in downtown by permitting residential uses at upper levels; and east and northwest of downtown, as depicted on the Land Use Diagram, by identifying vacant and underutilized sites that are appropriate for redevelopment. LU -P19 Maintain parking regulations for downtown that are lower than elsewhere in the city, reflecting its position as a pedestrian- and transit -friendly center. LU -P20 Expand the Downtown Parking District to include the Downtown Mixed Use area in order to consolidate parking areas. Require all development within these boundaries to either meet the established off-street parking require- ments or contribute an appropriate share to the Downtown Parking District. MIXED USE CORRIDORS LU -P21 Allow an appropriate range of single uses or mixed-use development, with use requirements/mixes as follows: • Kettleman Lane. Allow any mix of uses as permitted within the Mixed Use Corridor classification. Ensure that residential uses are sited at upper levels or, if at ground level, then not directly facing the highly trafficked Kettle - man Lane. • Cherokee Lane. Require that any new development/redevelopment of sites with Mixed Use designation south of Tokay Street to devote at least one- quarter of the built-up area to commercial or business park uses, while al- lowing the full spectrum of single or mixed -uses permitted within the des- ignation. LU -P22 Lodi and Central Avenues. Require any development or redevelopment of sites to have active uses—retail, restaurants, cafe, and personal service establish- ments—fronting the streets at the ground level. A range of compatible uses, such as residential or office, may be located at upper levels and in portions not fronting the streets. EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS LU -P23 Promote infill development that maintains the scale and character of estab- lished neighborhoods. Lodi GP Policies LU -P24 Establish bulk and Floor Area Ratio standards for older residential neighbor- hoods surrounding Downtown to preserve their character. NEW NEIGHBORHOODS LU -P25 Guide new residential development into compact neighborhoods with a de- fined Mixed -Use Center, including public open space, a school or other commu- nity facilities, and neighborhood commercial development. LU -P26 Require a centrally located Mixed -Use Center within each new residential neighborhood: one west of Lower Sacramento Road and two south of Harney Lane, as shown on the Land Use Diagram. Centers should serve as a focal point for the surrounding neighborhood, be pedestrian -oriented and encourage a mix of uses to serve local needs. LU -P27 Require a master or specific plan in areas with a Mixed -Use Center and adja- cent complementary uses, as a condition of subdivision approval. Uses should include neighborhood commercial, civic and institutional uses, parks, plazas, and open space—consistent with Land Use Diagram (unless any of these uses are found infeasible and/or alternative locations are available to carry out mixed-use policies). Streets should adhere to the pattern depicted on the Land Use Diagram. LU -P28 Provide for a full range of housing types and prices within new neighborhoods, including minimum requirements for small -lot single family homes, town- houses, duplexes, triplexes, and multi -family housing. 4 Lodi GP Policies Chapter 3: Growth Management and Infra- structure Policies 3.1 GUIDING POLICES Please refer to Chapter 4: Community Design and Livability for additional policies regardingLo&i urban form. GM -G1 Ensure contiguous, paced, and orderly growth by identifying phases for devel- opment. Allow development in subsequent phases only once thresholds of rea- sonable development in prior phases have been achieved. GM -G2 Provide infrastructure—including water, sewer, stormwater, and solid waste/recycling systems—that is designed and timed to be consistent with pro- jected capacity requirements and development phasing. GM -G3 Promote conservation of resources in order to reduce the load on existing and planned infrastructure capacity, and to preserve existing environmental re- sources. GM -G4 Provide public facilities—including police and fire services, schools, and librar- ies commensurate with the needs of the existing and future population. GM -G5 Support efforts to provide superior public and private educational opportuni- ties for all segments of the population. 3.2 IMPLEMENTING POLICIES GROWTH MANAGEMENT Please refer to Chapter 7.• Conservation for policies regarding agricultural preservation and Chapter 8.• Safetyfor policies regarding storm water management. GM -P1 Define Lodi's southern boundary and establish limits on development to the south through the establishment the Armstrong Road Agricultural/Cluster Study Area. Cooperate with San Joaquin County, the San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission and property owners to ensure maintenance of this area as a separator from the City of Stockton. GM -P2 Target new growth into identified areas, extending south, west, and southeast. Ensure contiguous development by requiring development to conform to phas- ing described in Figure 3-1. Enforce phasing through permitting and infrastruc- ture provision. Development may not extend to Phase 2 until Phase 1 has reached 75% of de- velopment potential, and development may not extend to Phase 3 until Phase 2 has reached 75% of development potential. GM -P3 Use the Growth Management Allocation Ordinance as a mechanism to even out the pace, diversity, and direction of growth. Update the Growth Management Allocation Ordinance to reflect phasing and desired housing mix. Because unused allocations carry over, as of 2007, 3,268 additional permits Lodi GP Policies were available. Therefore, the Growth Management Allocation Ordinance will not restrict growth, but simply even out any market extremes. GM -P4 Update allocation of units by density to ensure that development density oc- curs as recommended in Chapter 2: Land Use. For instance, approved permits should be allocated to provide 45.4% of permits for low density, 27.3% me- dium density, and 27.3% high density/ mixed use housing during phase 1. This represents a shift towards slightly more medium and high density housing in Lodi. GM -P5 Update impact fee system to balance the need to sufficiently fund needed facili- ties and services without penalizing multifamily housing or infill development. GM -P6 Annex areas outside the existing sphere of influence to conform with develop- ment needs for Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3. Subsequent phases shall be an- nexed as current phases reach development thresholds. INFRASTRUCTURE GM -P7 Ensure that public facilities and infrastructure—including water supply, sewer, and stormwater facilities—are designed to meet projected capacity require- ments to avoid the need for future replacement and upsizing, pursuant to the General Plan and relevant master planning. GM -P8 Coordinate extension of sewer service, water service, and stormwater facilities into new growth areas concurrent with development phasing. Decline requests for extension of water and sewer lines beyond the city limit prior to the rele- vant development phase and approve development plans and water system ex- tension only when a dependable and adequate water supply for the develop- ment is assured. GM -P9 Develop new facilities and rehabilitate existing facilities as needed to serve ex- isting development and expected development, in accordance with the General Plan and relevant infrastructure master plans. GM -P10 Prepare master plan documents as necessary during the planning period to address the infrastructure needs of existing and projected growth, and to de- termine appropriate infrastructure provision for each phase. Existing master plan documents should be used until new master plans are developed, and up- dates should occur as follows: • A sanitary sewer system master plan should be undertaken soon after Gen- eral Plan adoption. In particular, this master plan should address how to best provide sewer service for the growth on the east side of the city and for infill development, and to determine if additional wastewater flows will need to be diverted into the proposed South Wastewater Trunk Line. • A citywide stormwater master plan should be prepared soon after General Plan adoption to confirm or revise existing planning studies. • A White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility master plan should be completed during the early stages of Phase 1, most likely in 2013 or 2014. • A recycled water master plan was prepared in May 2008 and is current as of 2009. It may be appropriate to update this document when the next 1.1 Lodi GP Policies WSWPCF master plan is prepared, in 2013 or 2014, to evaluate the feasibil- ity of constructing a scalping plant to provide recycled water for use within the city. • A potable water supply and distribution master plan is not urgently needed, as of 2009. Future planning should be completed as necessary. • The Urban Water Management Plan should be updated on a five year basis in compliance with State of California mandated requirements. Future plans should be developed in 2010, 2015, 2020, 2025, and 2030. WATER CONSERVATION GM -P11 Require water conservation in both City operations and private development to minimize the need for the development of new water sources and facilities. To the extent practicable, promote water conservation and reduced water de- mand by: • Requiring the installation of non -potable water infrastructure for irrigation of landscaped areas over one acre of new landscape acreage, where feasi- ble. Conditions of approval shall require connection and use of nonpotable water supplies when available at the site. • Encouraging water -conserving landscaping, including the use of drought - tolerant and native plants, xeriscaping, use of evapotranspiration water systems, and other conservation measures. • Encouraging retrofitting of existing development with water -efficient plumbing fixtures, such as ultra low -flow toilets, waterless urinals, low -flow sinks and showerheads, and water -efficient dishwashers and washing ma- chines. GM -P12 Support on-site gray water and rainwater harvesting systems for households and businesses. • The City should develop a strategy for the legal, effective, and safe imple- mentation of gray water and rainwater harvesting systems, including amendment of the Building Code as appropriate to permit gray water and provision of technical assistance and educational programming to help residents implement gray water and rainwater harvesting strategies. GM -P13 Continue to implement the Water Meter Retrofit Program (consistent with State requirements as indicated in AB 2572), whereby all existing non -metered connections would be retrofitted with a water meter. This program is expected to be completed in 2013. GM -P14 Require water meters in all new and rehabilitated development. GM -P15 Monitor water usage and conservation rates due to installed meters, to ensure water demand assumptions are correct. If actual usage and conservation rates vary from planning assumptions, reassess requirements for future water re- sources. 7 Lodi GP Policies POTABLE WATER SUPPLY GM -P16 Cooperate with Northeastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Banking Au- thority, other member water agencies, and the Woodbridge Irrigation District to retain surface water rights and groundwater supply. RECYCLED WATER GM -P17 Explore a program of complete wastewater reclamation and reuse at the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility. GM -P18 Encourage the use of tertiary treated wastewater for irrigation of agricultural lands, large landscaped areas, and recreation/open space areas within close proximity to the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING GM -P19 Continue to improve waste diversion rates through recycling and resource conservation measures. Support waste reduction and recycling programs through public education. PUBLIC FACILITIES Please refer to Chapter 8.• Safety for policies regarding fire and police staffing and emergencyservices GM -P20 Locate additional schools to fill any existing gaps in capacity and meet the needs of existing and new residents. Provide needed facilities concurrent with phased development. GM -P21 Locate any additional library branches to ensure all neighborhoods are served, in particular in the Eastside neighborhood and in proposed mixed use centers. GM -P22 Develop a Fire and Police Services Master Plan that would establish thresholds and requirements for fire and police facilities, staffing, and building features. The Fire and Police Services Master Plan should consider the following: • Typical nature and type of calls for service; • Fire prevention and mitigation measures, such as sprinklers, fire retardant materials, and alarms; • Appropriate measures for determining adequate levels of service; and • Locations and requirements for additional facilities and staffing. GM -P23 Maintain sufficient fire and police personnel and facilities to ensure mainte- nance of acceptable levels of service. Provide needed facilities concurrent with phased development. Lodi GP Policies Chapter 4: Community Design and Livability Policies 4.1 GUIDING POLICIES CD -G1 Enhance Lodi's identity and livability by maintaining a compact urban form, with clear edges and delineation between urban and rural uses. CD -G2 Promote downtown as the symbolic center of the city, with a greater mix of uses, and building types, and an expanded extent that embraces the Eastside. Promote downtown as a tourist destination. CD -G3 Respect and maintain Lodi's small-town character, its existing neighborhoods, the historic downtown, and historic buildings. CD -G4 Structure new neighborhoods to promote walkability, and ensure they are integrated with the surrounding urban fabric. CD -G5 Foster a well connected street network that enhances accessibility to jobs, services, parks, schools, and shopping, particularly at the scale of pedestrians and bicyclists. CD -G6 Foster redevelopment of key corridors as vital spines, with nodes of mixed-use, higher intensity, pedestrian- and bicycle -friendly development. CD -G7 Promote a mix of uses, densities, and building typologies in new development. CD -G8 Promote sustainable development practices and conservation of resources to reduce environmental impact and ensure long-term sustainability. CD -G9 Encourage green building and construction in new development and renovations 4.2 IMPLEMENTING POLICIES CITYWIDE POLICIES CD -P1 Incentivize infill housing—within the Downtown Mixed Use district and along Mixed Use Corridors—through the development review, permitting and fee processes. CD -P2 Ensure that Zoning and Subdivision ordinances include measures that guide infill development to be compatible with the scale, character and identity of adjacent development. CD -P3 Ensure that the Zoning Ordinance includes measures to promote fine-grain development along retail and mixed-use streets, using horizontal and vertical building articulation that engages pedestrians and breaks up building mass. CD -P4 Ensure that the Zoning Ordinance includes measures to promote durable and high quality building materials and high standards of construction for longevity and reduced maintenance costs over time, especially for buildings in high - 9 Lodi GP Policies pedestrian activity areas, such as downtown, along Mixed Use Corridors, and in Mixed Use Centers. CD -P5 Configure parking areas to balance a vital pedestrian environment with automobile convenience. Parking areas should be: • Located in locations less visible from the sidewalk—behind buildings and away from the street edge, especially along Mixed Use Corridors and Cen- ters, and principal downtown streets. Where a lot faces two streets, parking lots should be accessible by side road. • Sized and located to take advantage of shared parking opportunities. • Accommodating to pedestrians and bicycle traffic with pedestrian -only pathways through parking areas. • Landscaped to achieve fifty percent (50%) shade coverage at tree maturity. Architectural elements such as trellises and awnings may also contribute to shade coverage. • Buffered from adjacent uses and pedestrians through the use of low walls and hedges. DOWNTOWN CD -P6 Update downtown regulations in the Zoning Ordinance: • Establish a Downtown District to encompass the area shown as Downtown Mixed Use in the Land Use Diagram (Chapter 2, Figure 2-1). • Require active uses—such as retail, eating and drinking establishments—at the ground level for the area shown in Figure 4-5. • Update allowable uses to permit residential uses on upper levels on all streets in downtown. CD -P7 Extend downtown streetscape treatment to embrace the entire area where ground -level retail is required, especially streetscape treatment for streets east of the railroad in the Downtown Mixed Use district. The elements should be consistent with the existing downtown streetscape, but should identify the eastern section as a unique area within downtown. CD -P8 Require active uses or pedestrian oriented design in alleyways located in the downtown area to establish retail and pedestrian connections, particularly where alleyways connect retail streets (such as between School Street and Sacramento Street) or retail to parking (such as between School Street and Church Street). • Other pedestrian oriented design may include pedestrian only walkways, high quality paving, landscaping, lighting, seating, or other similar features. CD -P9 Continue to use the Eastside Mobility and Access Plan as a means of connecting downtown and the Eastside neighborhood. 10 Lodi GP Policies CD -P10 Incentivize rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of buildings, especially east of the railroad, particularly on Main and Stockton streets in the Downtown Mixed Use district, through development review, permitting and fee processes. MIXED USE CORRIDORS CD -P11 Establish development standards in the Zoning Ordinance for Mixed Use Corridors that create a pedestrian -scaled environment: • Require a minimum percentage of the frontage of sites along Lodi and Cen- tral avenues to be devoted to active uses. Ensure that depth and height of the provided space is adequate to accommodate a variety of tenants and provide flexibility for the future. • Maintain a consistent building base/streetwall along majority of site front- age along all Mixed Use Corridors except Kettleman and Cherokee lanes, with minimum height ranging from 15 to 25 feet, depending on the scale and character of the corridor, with taller streetwall along wider corridors. • Along Sacramento Street, and Lodi and Central avenues, require new devel- opment to be built to the street edge, with parking located in the rear. • Require buildings to be finely articulated and visually engaging. • For properties located at key intersections—on particular the intersections of Lodi Avenue and Central Avenue, Lodi Avenue and School Street, and Lo- di Avenue and Sacramento Street—require appropriate design features, in- cluding: buildings that punctuate the corner with design elements and/or projects that provide additional public or pedestrian amenities (such as the inclusion of plazas). CD -P12 Provide incentives, through the development review, permitting and fee processes, to redevelop underutilized commercial properties located within the Mixed Use Corridors. CD -P13 To provide development flexibility, consider incorporating overall development intensity measures (such as floor area ratio) for all non- residential and residential uses, rather than regulating density/intensity separately. CD -P14 Minimize pavement widths (curb -to -curb) along Mixed Use Corridors to prioritize pedestrian and bicycle movement, while ensuring adequate street width for traffic flow. CD -P15 Improve or maintain improvements could Amenities may include: • Streettrees • Wide sidewalks • Special paving 11 streetscapes, along Mixed Use Corridors. Streetscape be implemented through a city streetscape program. Lodi GP Policies • Street lighting • Seating • Info kiosks, particularly in the downtown area • Open bus stop shelters • Bicycle racks CD -P16 Provide continuous street trees along the curb, between the vehicle roadway and the sidewalk, unless this is physically impossible due to constraints such as underground utility lines. Minimize curb cuts to emphasize continuous unbroken curb lengths. CD -P17 Develop a wayfinding and signage scheme along the city's major corridors and streets that utilizes public art and street elements, such as banners and light fixtures. The scheme should reinforce the City's identity and linkages to downtown. Include Kettleman Lane, Lodi Avenue, Cherokee Lane, Sacramento Street, Central Avenue, and Stockton Street in the wayfinding scheme. CD -P18 Require active uses at the ground floor on Lodi and Central avenues within their Mixed Use Corridor designations, as noted shown in Figures 4-8 and 4-9, respectively. STREETS, CONNECTIVITY, AND ACCESSIBILITY Refer to Chapter S.• Transportation for policies related to transportation infrastructure, including for pedestrians and bicycles CD -P19 Develop requirements for street trees in all new growth areas that maximize shade to minimize urban heat island impacts. • Require all subdivisions in new growth areas to prepare a street plan dem- onstrating maximum connection to existing streets, specifically incorporat- ing streets shown in Figure 4-4 and intermediate street connections. En- sure that new development on the west side enables expansion of the street grid for future growth, beyond this General Plan horizon. • Existing and emerging development at the City's edges has not been de- signed to enable future extensions, producing disconnected neighborhoods. CD -P20 Prohibit gated development, and avoid cul-de-sacs. Where cul-de-sacs are provided, require pedestrian and bicycle connection at the terminus of the cul- de-sac to adjacent street. CD -P21 Limit maximum block lengths in new neighborhoods to 600 feet, with pedestrian/bicycle connection no more than 400 feet apart (where resulting from connection at end of cul-de-sac), and 400 feet between through streets along Neighborhood Mixed Use Centers. CD -P22 Encourage alternatives to soundwalls and permit new soundwalls only where alternatives are not feasible, such as along Highway 99 and the railroad tracks. 12 Lodi GP Policies • While soundwalls can limit sound to development immediately adjacent to traffic, much of the sound is simply reflected to development further away, resulting in increase in ambiance noise levels. Moreover, soundwalls are disruptive to neighborhood character and connectivity. Alternative designs could include frontage roads, dense vegetation, and ensuring sufficient in- sulation in residential units that would potentially be impacted by the noise. CD -P23 Create smooth transitions between neighborhoods and across the railroad with pedestrian paths and/or uniform streetscape design. CD -P24 Use bike lanes, trails, or linear parks to improve connectivity throughout the city and in particular between housing located south of Kettleman and amenities located north of Kettleman, as shown in Figure 4-7. These pathways should employ easy and safe crossings and connect to destinations such as downtown, shopping centers, parks, and/or schools. CD -P25 Increase public art throughout Lodi. Encourage the placement of art in locations that are interactive and accessible to the public. Develop a funding strategy to ensure adequate support of arts and cultural programs. NEW RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS CD -P26 Focus new growth, which is not accommodated through infill development of existing neighborhoods, in easily -accessible and pedestrian friendly neighborhoods that include neighborhood -oriented commercial, public services such as schools and parks, and residential uses. CD -P27 Require new development to connect with nearby uses and neighborhoods; include paths to connect to the rest of the city; exhibit architectural variety and visual interest; conform to scale requirements; and relate housing to public streets. CD -P28 Minimize the visual impact of automobiles in residential areas. Methods include reducing garage frontage, minimizing curb cuts, setting garages and parking areas back from houses, locating garages at rear or along alleyways, and providing narrow roads. MIXED USE CENTERS CD -P29 Require all development at sites designated Mixed Use Center to provide a mix of commercial uses, while allowing residential uses, to create a "node," typically centered around a plaza, or "a main street," with a minimum of 10 percent (10%) of the land area devoted to non-residential land uses, to create pedestrian vitality in the core area. Allow a range of other supportive commercial uses, such as medical, dental, and real-estate offices, as well as community facilities. 13 Lodi GP Policies CD -P30 Require each core to have at least one plaza or other satisfactory gathering space along the main street that enables gathering and promotes a sense of neighborhood identity. CD -P31 Integrate new Mixed Use Centers into the city's existing fabric and proposed new development. Provide a network of streets and connections that expands circulation opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists and ensures connections by multiple modes between the new centers, and existing neighborhoods. Update Subdivision ordinance to require: • Master plans for new development that show publicly accessible parks, and a connected street grid. • Blocks that do not exceed 600 feet in length unless additional pedestrian connections or public space is included. • Street trees on public streets. • Sidewalks on public streets. CD -P32 In order to use less energy and reduce light pollution, ensure that lighting associated with new development or facilities (including street lighting, recreational facilities, and parking) shall be designed to prevent artificial lighting from illuminating adjacent residential neighborhoods and/or natural areas at a level greater than one foot candle above ambient conditions. CD -P33 Require that any office uses in Mixed Use Centers front along the street edge with minimal setbacks; locate parking in the rear or underground; provide plazas and other open space amenities for employees; provide street landscaping; and provide pedestrian connections where appropriate. CD -P34 Minimize curb cuts to expand pedestrian space and increase the supply of curbside parking. Methods include requiring abutting new developments to share a single access point from the road and allowing only one curb cut per parcel. NEW OFFICE DEVELOPMENT CD -P35 Require new office development to be designed to address not just automobile access, but also potential for transit access, and allowing lunchtime pedestrian access to adjacent uses. Locate new office development along the street edge, with the main entrance facing the street. Parking should not be located between the street and building. CD -P36 Include pedestrian paths that provide internal access on all site plans. Pedestrian paths should access the sidewalk, main building entrances, and parking areas. 14 Lodi GP Policies CD -P37 Provide landscaped setbacks between all parking areas and buildings, and at the edges of parking areas. SITE PLANNING AND GREEN BUILDING Refer to Chapter 7: Conservation for related energy and climate change policies and Chapter 8: Safety for related stormwater management policies. CD -P38 Promote location and siting of buildings that minimizes energy use by features such as enhancing use of daylight, minimizing summer solar gain, and use of ventilating breezes. CD -P39 Design any City -owned buildings or City -owned buildings that are proposed for new construction, major renovation to meet the standards set by LEEDTM or equivalent. CD -P40 Prepare, or incorporate by reference, and implement green building and construction guidelines and/or standards, appropriate to the Lodi context, to ensure high level of energy efficiency and reduction of environmental impacts associated with construction and operations of buildings. Ensure that these guidelines/standards: • Require documentation demonstrating that building designs meet mini- mum performance targets, but allow flexibility in the methods used. • Exceed California's 2005 Title 24 regulation standards for building energy efficiency, if feasible. • Reduce resource or environmental impacts, using cost-effective and well - proven design and construction strategies. • Reduce waste and energy consumption during demolition and construction. • Identify street standards, such as street tree requirements, appropriate landscaping practices, and acceptable materials. • Incorporate sustainable maintenance standards and procedures. • Promote incorporation of energy conservation and weatherization features in existing structures. • These guidelines could be developed directly from the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) system developed by the U.S. Green Building Council, the California-based Build It Green GreenPoint rating sys- tem, or an equivalent green building program. 15 Lodi GP Policies Chapter 5: Transportation Policies Strategies related to transportation infrastructure financing can be found in Appendix A: Implementation. 5.1 GUIDING POLICIES T -G1 Plan, develop, and maintain a comprehensive, coordinated transportation system to ensure the safe, efficient, and convenient movement of people and goods. T -G2 Maintain and update street standards that provide for the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of City streets based on a "complete streets" concept that enables safe, comfortable, and attractive access for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit users of all ages and abilities, in a form that is compatible with and complementary to adjacent land uses. T -G3 Develop neighborhood streets that encourage walking, biking, and outdoor activity through sound engineering and urban design principles that limit potential speeding. T -G4 Provide for safe and convenient pedestrian, bicycle, and transit circulation. T -G5 Ensure the adequate provision of both on -street and off-street parking, taking into account the effect of parking management techniques on urban design, economic vitality, and walkability. T -G6 Improve railroad crossings to minimize safety hazards and allow for additional capacity improvements. T -G7 Provide efficient and direct circulation for local truck traffic, with minimal disruption to residential neighborhoods. T -G8 Encourage reduction in vehicle miles traveled as part of a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 5.2 IMPLEMENTING POLICIES CIRCULATION SYSTEM T -P1 Ensure consistency between the timing of new development and the provision of transportation infrastructure needed to serve that development. Regularly monitor traffic volumes on city streets and, prior to issuance of building permits, ensure that there is a funded plan for the developer to provide all necessary transportation improvements at the appropriate phase of development so as to minimize transportation impacts. T -P2 Review new development proposals for consistency with the Transportation Element and the Capital Improvements Program. Ensure that new projects 10 Lodi GP Policies provide needed facilities to serve developments, and provide all needed facilities and/or contribute a fair share to the City's transportation impact fee. T -P3 Work collaboratively with San Joaquin County, San Joaquin Council of Governments, and Caltrans to successfully implement transportation improvements in the vicinity of Lodi. T -P4 Maintain and update a Capital Improvements Program so that identified improvements are appropriately prioritized and constructed in a timely manner. T -PS Update the local transportation impact fee program, consistent with General Plan projections and planned transportation improvements. T -P6 Coordinate with the San Joaquin Council of Governments and actively participate in regional transportation planning efforts to ensure that the City's interests are reflected in regional goals and priorities. T -P7 Continue to work with the San Joaquin Council of Governments on regional transportation funding issues, including the update of regional transportation impact fees. ROADWAY NETWORK T -P8 Strive to maintain applicable Level of Service (LOS) standards. The Regional Congestion Management Program defines LOS D on its network. The General Plan establishes an LOS D on city streets and at intersections. Exceptions to this LOS D policy may be allowed by the City Council in areas, such as downtown, where allowing a lower LOS would result in clear public benefits, subject to findings that achieving LOS D would: • Be technologically or economically infeasible, or • Compromise the City's ability to support other important policy priorities, such as: • Enhancing the urban design characteristics that contribute to pedes- trian comfort and convenience; • Preserving and enhancing an economically vibrant downtown area; • Avoiding adverse impacts to alternate modes of transportation; • Preserving the existing character of the community; • Preserving agricultural land or open space; or • Preserving scenic roadways/highways. T -P9 Design streets in new developments in configurations that generally match and extend the grid pattern of existing city streets. This is intended to disperse traffic and provide multiple connections to arterial streets. Require dedication, widening, extension, and construction of public streets in accordance with the 17 Lodi GP Policies City's street standards. Major street improvements shall be completed as abutting lands develop or redevelop. In currently developed areas, the City may determine that improvements necessary to meet City standards are either infeasible or undesirable. T -P10 Maintain, and update as needed, roadway design standards to manage vehicle speeds and traffic volumes. T -P11 Limit street right-of-way dimensions where necessary to maintain desired neighborhood character. Consider allowing narrower street rights-of-way and pavement widths for local streets in new residential subdivisions. T -P12 Implement traffic calming measures to slow traffic on local and collector residential streets and prioritize these measures over congestion management. Include roundabouts, corner bulb -outs, traffic circles, and other traffic calming devices among these measures. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Policies describing street connectivity related to urban design can be found in Chapter 4: Community Design and Livability. T -P13 Foster walkable streets through streetscape improvements, continuous sidewalks on both sides of streets, and encouraging pedestrian access wherever feasible. Update the Subdivision Ordinance to include requirements for sidewalks, street trees, and lighting. Where sidewalks do not exist within existing developments, and are desired, explore a program to provide sidewalks by reducing the curb -to -curb road width, in cases where safety and traffic flow are not compromised. T -P14 To maintain walkability and pedestrian safety, consider roadway width and roadway design features such as islands, pedestrian refuges, pedestrian count- down signals, and other such mechanisms. This policy applies to new roadway construction as well as existing roadways where pedestrian safety issues may occur due to roadway design or width. T -P15 In new development areas, include pedestrian connections to public transit systems, commercial centers, schools, employment centers, community centers, parks, senior centers and residences, and high-density residential areas. T-1316 Work cooperatively with the Lodi Unified School District on a "safe routes to schools" program that aims to provide a network of safe, convenient, and comfortable pedestrian routes from residential areas to schools. Improvements may include expanded sidewalks, shade trees, bus stops, and connections to the extended street, bike, and transit network. Lodi GP Policies BICYCLE FACILITIES T -P17 Use the City's Bike Master Plan as a comprehensive method for implementing bicycle circulation, safety, and facilities development. Update the Plan for consistency with Figure 5-2, which defines bike route connections in new development areas. T -P18 Coordinate the connection of local bikeways and trails to regional bikeways identified in the San Joaquin County Bicycle Transportation Plan. T -P19 Require the placement of bicycle racks or lockers at park-and-ride facilities. T -P20 Establish standards requiring new commercial and mixed-use developments (of sizes exceeding certain minimum thresholds) to provide shaded and convenient bicycle racks, as appropriate. When such facilities are required, use specifications provided in Caltrans' Design Manual, Section 1000, or other appropriate standards. PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICES T -P21 Implement the City's Short Range Transit Plan and the San Joaquin Council of Government's Regional Transit Systems Plan, using the most cost effective methods available and based upon professional analysis. T -P22 Review new development proposals for consistency with the Short Range Transit Plan. Ensure new projects provide needed transit facilities to serve developments and provide all needed facilities and/or contribute a fair share for improvements not covered by other funding sources. T -P23 Continue to support the efficient operation of the Lodi Station, and to explore opportunities to expand the multi -modal transportation services provided there. T -P24 Encourage continued commuter rail service in Lodi by cooperating with Amtrak and supporting transit -oriented development and improvements around Lodi Station. T -P25 Encourage ridership on public transit systems through marketing and promotional efforts. Provide information to residents and employees on transit services available for both local and regional trips. T -P26 Maintain transit performance measures sufficient to meet State requirements. T -P27 Coordinate transit services and transfers between the various transit operators serving Lodi. T -P28 Require new development to provide transit improvements where appropriate and feasible, including direct pedestrian access to transit stops, bus turnouts and shelters, and local streets with adequate width to accommodate buses. 19 Lodi GP Policies T -P29 Continue to actively support and manage the Lodi Grapeline bus service, and to expand public transit services when justified by new demand. T -P30 Require community care facilities and senior housing projects with more than 25 units to provide accessible transportation services for the convenience of residents. T -P31 Coordinate with the California Public Utilities Commission to implement future railroad crossing improvements. T -P32 Require a commitment of funding for railroad crossing protection devices from private development requiring new railroad spurs. T -P33 Continue the ongoing comprehensive program to improve the condition and safety of existing railroad crossings by upgrading surface conditions and installing signs and signals where warranted. PARKING Policies related to the design ofparking lots and structures and their relationship to the street and buildings are provided in Chapter 4: Community Design and Livability. Off- street parking regulations and a program for an expanded Downtown Parking District are described in Chapter 2. Land Use. T -P34 Review and update parking standards periodically, and require new developments to provide an adequate number of off-street parking spaces in accordance with those parking standards. The parking standards will allow shared parking facilities whenever possible to reduce the number of new parking stalls required. Consideration will also be given to parking reductions for mixed-use projects or projects that have agreed to implement sustainable and enforceable trip reduction methods. T -P35 Consider replacement of on -street parking in commercial areas that will be lost to additional turn lanes at intersections, with an equal number of off-street spaces within the same vicinity, where feasible. T -P36 Continue to implement existing preferential residential parking programs such as in the Eastside residential neighborhood, in the vicinity of the PCP Cannery, and adjacent to high schools. Consider expanding the preferential residential parking program to other neighborhoods only where parking intrusion from adjacent uses clearly undermines the neighborhood's quality of life after all other options are deemed unsuccessful. T -P37 Improve parking opportunities in the downtown area and along Lodi Avenue (between downtown and Cherokee Lane) by examining rear or vacant lots and other underutilized areas for potential off-street parking. In addition, expand the Downtown Parking District to encompass the entire Downtown Mixed Use area shown in the Land Use Diagram (Figure 2-1). 20 Lodi GP Policies T -P38 Consider development of local park-and-ride facilities, particularly in conjunction with future rail and bus services, if the demand for such facilities is warranted and economically feasible. T -P39 Provide park and ride facilities designed to accommodate public transit, van and car pool users. GOODS MOVEMENT T -P40 Maintain design standards for industrial streets that incorporate heavier loads associated with truck operations and larger turning radii to facilitate truck movements. Consider requiring developments using commercial vehicles with large turning radii to provide needed intersection improvements along direct routes from development to freeway access points. T -P41 Ensure adequate truck access to off-street loading areas in commercial areas. T -P42 Encourage regional freight movement on freeways and other appropriate routes; evaluate and implement vehicle weight limits as appropriate on arterial, collector, and local roadways to mitigate truck traffic impacts in the community. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT T -P43 Promote ridesharing and cooperate with regional travel demand management programs to reduce peak -hour traffic congestion and help reduce regional vehicle miles traveled. T -P44 Promote employment opportunities within Lodi to reduce commuting to areas outside of Lodi. T -P45 Reduce the total vehicle miles of travel per household by making efficient use of existing transportation facilities and by providing for more direct routes for pedestrians and bicyclists through the implementation of "smart growth" and sustainable planning principles. 21 Lodi GP Policies Chapter 6: Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Policies For storm water managementpolicies, see Chapter 8.• Safety. 6.1 GUIDING POLICIES P -G1 Provide and maintain park and recreation facilities for the entire community. P -G2 Protect natural resource areas, native vegetation, scenic areas, open space areas, and parks from encroachment or destruction. P -G3 Improve connectivity between parks and recreation facilities. P -G4 Expand non -vehicular paths and trails and bikeways. 6.2 IMPLEMENTING POLICIES P -P1 Acquire and develop additional neighborhood and community parks to serve existing and future needs. P -P2 Provide open space to meet recreation and storm drainage needs, at a ratio of eight acres of open space per 1,000 new residents. At least four acres must be constructed for park and recreation uses only. Drainage basins should be constructed as distinct facilities, as opposed to dual -functioning park and drainage basin facilities. P -P3 Pursue the development of park and recreation facilities within a quarter -mile walking distance of all residences. P -P4 Ensure that parks are visible and accessible from the street, welcoming the surrounding neighborhood and citywide users. P -PS Update the City's Open Space and Recreation Master Plan, as necessary to: • Arrange a distribution of open spaces across all neighborhoods in the city; • Ensure that parks are visible and accessible from the street, to the sur- rounding neighborhood, and citywide users; and • Provide a variety of open spaces and facilities to serve the needs of the community, ensuring a balance between indoor and outdoor organized sports and other recreation needs, including passive and leisure activities. P -P6 Continue working with the Lodi Unified School District to share use of school and City park and recreation facilities through a mutually beneficial joint use agreement. 22 Lodi GP Policies P -P7 Work with developers of proposed development projects to provide parks and trails, as well as linkages to existing parks and trails. P -P8 Coordinate with the Woodbridge Irrigation District to develop a recreation trail for walking, jogging, and biking along the canal right-of-way, as shown in Figure 6-1. P -P9 Support improvements along the Mokelumne River in consultation and cooperation with the County and with creek restoration and design professionals. P -P10 Improve accessibility to the Mokelumne River and Lodi Lake Wilderness Area with walking and biking trails. Site park use and new facilities and trails in Lodi Lake Park such that they will not degrade or destroy riparian or sensitive habitat areas. P -P11 Encourage the planting of native trees, shrubs, and grasslands in order to preserve the visual integrity of the landscape, provide habitat conditions suitable for native vegetation, and ensure the maximum number and variety of well -adapted plants are maintained. P -P12 Encourage retention of mature trees and woodlands to the maximum extent possible. The City shall regulate the removal of trees that are defined as "heritage trees." P -P13 Identify and discourage the removal of significant trees on private and public property by establishing a tree inventory and tree management ordinance. Where removal is required, the City shall require a two-for-one replacement or transplantation. P -P14 Review infrastructure needs for existing and new recreational facilities, and where appropriate, identify required improvements in the City's Capital Improvement Program. P -P15 Renovate the Grape Bowl in order to increase use and revenue generation. P -P16 Ensure safety of users and security of facilities through lighting, signage, fencing, and landscaping, as appropriate and feasible. P -P17 Continue to provide parks and recreation services to all residents within the Lodi Unified School District service area north of Eight Mile Road. Expand visitor and non-resident fee-based programs to ensure that non-residents pay their share of park maintenance and improvement costs. P -P18 Promote the use of the City's existing and planned Special Use park and recreation facilities for both local resident use and for visitor attractions, such as athletic tournaments. 23 Lodi GP Policies P -P19 Require master planned residential communities to dedicate parkland consistent with General Plan standards. In -lieu fees will only be acceptable where an exemption from providing a neighborhood park facility would not adversely affect local residents because an existing park is nearby. P -P20 Address park dedication and new development impact fees as part of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations Update, to ensure compliance with the General Plan park and open space standard. 24 Lodi GP Policies Chapter 7: Conservation Policies 7.1 GUIDING POLICIES C -G1 Promote preservation and economic viability of agricultural land surrounding Lodi. C -G2 Maintain the quality of the Planning Area's soil resources and reduce erosion to protect agricultural productivity. C -G3 Protect sensitive wildlife species and their habitats. C -G4 Protect, restore and enhance local watercourses and associated plant, wildlife, and fish species, particularly in the Mokelumne River and floodplain areas. C -GS Encourage the identification, protection, and enhancement of archaeological resources. C -G6 Preserve and enhance districts, sites, and structures that serve as significant, visible connections to Lodi's social, cultural, economic, and architectural history. C -G7 Promote community awareness and appreciation of Lodi's history, culture and architecture. C -G8 Protect and improve water quality in the Mokelumne River, Lodi Lake, and major drainage ways. C -G9 Conserve energy and reduce per capita energy consumption. C -G10 Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 15% over 2008 levels by 2020, to slow the negative impacts of global climate change. C -G11 Support land use, transportation management, infrastructure, and environmental planning programs that reduce vehicle emissions and improve air quality. C -G12 Minimize the adverse effects of construction related air quality emissions and Toxic Air Contaminants on human health. 7.2 IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AGRICULTURAL AND SOIL RESOURCES C -P1 Work with San Joaquin County and the City of Stockton to maintain land surrounding Lodi in agricultural use. Encourage the continuation of Flag City as a small freeway -oriented commercial node, with no residential uses. 25 Lodi GP Policies C -P2 Work with San Joaquin County and relevant land owners to ensure economic viability of grape growing, winemaking, and supporting industries, to ensure the preservation of viable agricultural land use. C -P3 Support the continuation of agricultural uses on lands designated for urban uses until urban development is imminent. C -P4 Encourage San Joaquin County to conserve agricultural soils, preserve agricultural land surrounding the City and promote the continuation of existing agricultural operations, by supporting the county's economic programs. C -PS Ensure that urban development does not constrain agricultural practices or adversely affect the economic viability of adjacent agricultural practices. Use appropriate buffers consistent with the recommendations of the San Joaquin County Department of Agriculture (typically no less than 150 feet) and limit incompatible uses (such as schools and hospitals) near agriculture. C -P6 Require new development to implement measures that minimize soil erosion from wind and water related to construction and urban development. Measures may include: • Construction techniques that utilize site preparation, grading, and best management practices that provide erosion control and prevent soil con- tamination. • Tree rows or other windbreaks shall be used within buffers on the edge of urban development and in other areas as appropriate to reduce soil ero- sion. C -P7 Maintain the City's Right -to -Farm Ordinance, and update as necessary, to protect agricultural land from nuisance suits brought by surrounding landowners. C -P8 Adopt an agricultural conservation program (ACP) establishing a mitigation fee to protect and conserve agricultural lands: • The ACP shall include the collection of an agricultural mitigation fee for acreage converted from agricultural to urban use, taking into consideration all fees collected for agricultural loss (i.e., A131600). The mitigation fee col- lected shall fund agricultural conservation easements, fee title acquisition, and research, the funding of agricultural education and local marketing programs, other capital improvement projects that clearly benefit agricul- ture (e.g., groundwater recharge projects) and administrative fees through an appropriate entity ("Administrative Entity") pursuant to an administra- tive agreement. • The conservation easements and fee title acquisition of conservation lands shall be used for lands determined to be of statewide significance (Prime or other Important Farmlands), or sensitive and necessary for the preserva- tion of agricultural land, including land that may be part of a community NR Lodi GP Policies separator as part of a comprehensive program to establish community se- parators. • The ACP shall encourage that conservation easement locations are pri- oritized as shown in Figure 7-5: A. the Armstrong Road Agricultural/Cluster Study area east of Lower Sacramento Road; B. the Armstrong Road Agricultural/Cluster Study area west of Lower Sacramento Road; C. elsewhere in the Planning Area, one mile east and west of the Ur- ban Reserve boundaries respectively; and D. outside the Planning Area, elsewhere in San Joaquin County. • The mitigation fees collected by the City shall be transferred to a farm- land trust or other qualifying entity, which will arrange the purchase of conservation easements. The City shall encourage the Trust or other qualifying entity to pursue a variety of funding sources (grants, dona- tions, taxes, or other funds) to fund implementation of the ACP. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES C -P9 Support the protection, preservation, restoration, and enhancement of habitats of State or federally -listed rare, threatened, endangered and/or other sensitive and special status species, and favor enhancement of contiguous areas over small segmented remainder parcels. C -P10 Continue to coordinate with the San Joaquin Council of Governments and comply with the terms of the Multi Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan to protect critical habitat areas that support endangered species and other special status species. C -P11 Work with other agencies to ensure that the spread of invasive/noxious plant species do not occur in the Planning Area. Support efforts to eradicate invasive and noxious weeds and vegetation on public and private property. C -P12 Protect the river channel, pond and marsh, and riparian vegetation and wildlife communities and habitats in the Mokelumne River and floodplain areas. Prohibit any activity that will disturb bottom sediments containing zinc deposits in Mokelumne River, because such disturbance could cause fish kills. Prohibit activities that could disturb anadramous fish in the Mokelumne River during periods of migration and spawning. C -P13 Support the protection, restoration, expansion, and management of wetland and riparian plant communities along the Mokelumne River for passive recreation, groundwater recharge, and wildlife habitat. C -P14 Explore the purchase of or establishment of a joint agreement for open space preservation and habitat enhancement in the Woodbridge Irrigation District's property located north of the Mokelumne River. Ensure the open space 27 Lodi GP Policies preservation and enhancement of this property, while exploring opportunities for public access. C -P15 Site new development to maximize the protection of native tree species and sensitive plants and wildlife habitat. Minimize impacts to protect mature trees, Swainson's hawk, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, and any threatened, endangered or other sensitive species when approving new development. Mitigate any loss. C-1316 Work with the California Department of Fish and Game in identifying an area or areas suitable for Swainson's hawk and burrowing owl habitat. Preserve land through a mitigation land bank to mitigate impacts on existing habitat for these species. Establish a mechanism for developer funding for the acquisition and management of lands in the mitigation bank. CULTURAL RESOURCES C -P17 For future development projects on previously un -surveyed lands, require a project applicant to have a qualified archeologist conduct the following activities: (1) conduct a record search at the Central California Information Center at the California State University, Stanislaus, and other appropriate historical repositories, (2) conduct field surveys where appropriate and required by law, and (3) prepare technical reports, where appropriate, meeting California Office of Historic Preservation Standards (Archeological Resource Management Reports). C -P18 In the event that archaeological/paleontological resources are discovered during site excavation, the City shall require that grading and construction work on the project site be suspended until the significance of the features can be determined by a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist. The City will require that a qualified archeologist/paleontologist make recommendations for measures necessary to protect any site determined to contain or constitute an historical resource, a unique archaeological resource, or a unique paleontological resource or to undertake data recovery, excavation, analysis, and curation of archaeological/paleontologist materials. City staff shall consider such recommendations and implement them where they are feasible in light of project design as previously approved by the City. C-1319 If any human remains are discovered or recognized in any location on the project site, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until: • The San Joaquin County Coroner/Sheriff has been informed and has deter- mined that no investigation of the cause of death is required; and • If the remains are of Native American origin: (1) the descendants of the de- ceased Native Americans have made a timely recommendation to the land- owner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section Lodi GP Policies 5097.98, or (2) The Native American Heritage Commission was unable to identify a descendant or the descendant failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission. HISTORIC RESOURCES C -P20 Encourage the preservation, maintenance, and adaptive reuse of existing historic buildings by developing incentives for owners of historically - significant buildings to improve their properties. C -P21 Require that, prior to the demolition of a historic structure, developers offer the structure for relocation by interested parties. C -P22 Require that environmental review consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act be conducted on demolition permit applications for buildings designated as, or potentially eligible for designation as, historic structures. C -P23 Conduct a comprehensive survey of historic resources in Lodi, including consideration of potentially eligible historic resources. Update Figure 7-3 upon completion of the survey. • Designate a structure as historic if it: • Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city's cultural, architec- tural, aesthetic, social, economic, political, artistic, and/or engineering heritage; • Is identified with persons, businesses, or events significant to local, State, or National history; • Embodies distinctive characteristics of style, type, period, or method of construction or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; • Represents the notable work of a builder, designer, engineer, or archi- tect; and/or • Is unique in location or has a singular physical characteristic that repre- sents a familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or the city. • Designate a district as historic if it: • Is a geographically definable area possessing a concentration or conti- nuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects as unified by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical development; or • Identifies relevant key neighborhoods either as historic districts or me- rit districts. Designate accordingly if 50% of property owners in the proposed district agree to the designation. • An "Historic District" means any area containing a concentration of im- provements that has a special character, architectural importance, his - 29 Lodi GP Policies torical interest, or aesthetic value, which possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association or which represents one or more architectural periods or styles typical to the history of Lodi. • A "Merit District" recognizes a district's history but does not provide for a regulatory structure at this time. The structures of these districts may not be architecturally significant, but the role that these neighborhoods have played in the city's development, the cultural and economic condi- tions that resulted in the construction of these neighborhoods and the stories surrounding them make them an important part of the city's his- tory for which they should be acknowledged and celebrated. C -P24 Follow preservation standards outlined in the current Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, for structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historical Resources. C -P25 Coordinate historic preservation efforts with other agencies and organizations, including the Lodi Historical Society, San Joaquin County Historical Society and other historical organizations. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY See Chapter 3: Growth Management and Chapter 6: Parks, Recreation, and Open Space for water -related policies that address water supply and conservation; and riparian areas within open spaces, respectively. C -P26 Monitor water quality regularly to ensure that safe drinking water standards are met and maintained in accordance with State and EPA regulations and take necessary measures to prevent contamination. Comply with the requirements of the Clean Water Act with the intent of minimizing the discharge of pollutants to surface waters. C -P27 Monitor the water quality of the Mokelumne River and Lodi Lake, in coordination with San Joaquin County, to determine when the coliform bacterial standard for contact recreation and the maximum concentration levels of priority pollutants, established by the California Department of Health Services, are exceeded. Monitor the presence of pollutants and variables that could cause harm to fish, wildlife, and plant species in the Mokelumne River and Lodi Lake. Post signs at areas used by water recreationists warning users of health risks whenever the coliform bacteria standard for contact recreation is exceeded. Require new industrial development to not adversely affect water quality in the Mokelumne River or in the area's groundwater basin. Control use of potential water contaminants through inventorying hazardous materials used in City and industrial operations. C -P28 Regularly monitor water quality in municipal wells for evidence of contamination from dibromochloropropane (DBCP), saltwater intrusion, and M Lodi GP Policies other toxic substances that could pose a health hazard to the domestic water supply. Close or treat municipal wells that exceed the action level for DBCP. C -P29 Minimize storm sewer pollution of the Mokelumne River and other waterways by maintaining an effective street sweeping and cleaning program. C -P30 Require, as part of watershed drainage plans, Best Management Practices, to reduce pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. C -P31 Require all new development and redevelopment projects to comply with the post -construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) called for in the Stormwater Quality Control Criteria Plan, as outlined in the City's Phase 1 Stormwater NPDES permit issued by the California Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region. Require that owners, developers, and/or successors -in -interest to establish a maintenance entity acceptable to the City to provide funding for the operation, maintenance, and replacement costs of all post -construction BMPs. C -P32 Require, as part of the City's Storm Water NPDES Permit and ordinances, the implementation of a Grading Plan, Erosion Control Plan, and Pollution Prevention Plan during the construction of any new development and redevelopment projects, to the maximum extent feasible. C -P33 Require use of stormwater management techniques to improve water quality and reduce impact on municipal water treatment facilities. C -P34 Protect groundwater resources by working with the county to prevent septic systems in unincorporated portions of the county that are in the General Plan Land Use Diagram, on parcels less than two acres. C -P35 Reduce the use of pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, or other toxic chemical substances by households and farmers by providing education and incentives. ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE C -P36 Prepare and adopt a comprehensive climate action plan (CAP). The CAP should include the following provisions: • An inventory of citywide greenhouse gas emissions, • Emissions targets that apply at reasonable intervals through the life of the CAP, • Enforceable greenhouse gas emissions control measures, • A monitoring and reporting program to ensure targets are met, and • Mechanisms to allow for revision of the CAP, as necessary. C -P37 Promote incorporation of energy conservation and weatherization features into existing structures. Update the Zoning Ordinance and make local amendments to the California Building Code, as needed, to allow for the 31 Lodi GP Policies implementation of green building, green construction, and energy efficiency measures. C -P38 Encourage the development of energy efficient buildings and communities. All new development, including major rehabilitation, renovation, and redevelopment projects, shall incorporate energy conservation and green building practices to the maximum extent feasible and as appropriate to the project proposed. Such practices include, but are not limited to: building orientation and shading, landscaping, and the use of active and passive solar heating and water systems. The City may implement this policy by adopting and enforcing a Green Building Ordinance. C -P39 Reduce energy consumption within City government facilities and motor fleets. C -P40 Encourage the use of passive and active solar devices such as solar collectors, solar cells, and solar heating systems into the design of local buildings. Promote voluntary participation in incentive programs to increase the use of solar photovoltaic systems in new and existing residential, commercial, institutional, and public buildings. C -P41 Work with the California Energy Commission and other public and non-profit agencies to promote the use of programs that encourage developers to surpass Title 24 Energy Efficiency standards by utilizing renewable energy systems and more efficient practices that conserve energy, including, but not limited to natural gas, hydrogen or electrical vehicles. Offer incentives such as density bonus, expedited process, fee reduction/waiver to property owners and developers who exceed California Title 24 energy efficiency standards. C -P42 Develop, adopt, and implement a heat island mitigation plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, smog, and the energy required to cool buildings. This plan should contain requirements and incentives for the use of cool roofs, cool pavements, and strategic shade tree placement, all of which may result in as much as 6-8 F temperature decrease from existing conditions. C -P43 Encourage the planting of shade trees along all City streets and residential lots (but, particularly in areas that currently lack street trees) to reduce radiation heating and greenhouse gases. Develop a tree planting informational packet to help future residents understand their options for planting trees. C -P44 Promote public education energy conservation programs that strive to reduce the consumption of natural or human -made energy sources. C -P45 Post and distribute hard -copy and electronic information on currently available weatherization and energy conservation programs. 32 Lodi GP Policies AIR QUALITY See Chapter 2. Land Use, Chapter 4. Community Design and Livability, and Chapter 5.• Transportation for related policies that seek to improve air quality and reduce emissions through land use, transportation, and urban design strategies C -P46 Require all construction equipment to be maintained and tuned to meet appropriate EPA and CARB emission requirements and when new emission control devices or operational modifications are found to be effective, such devices or operational modifications are to be required on construction equipment. C -P47 Continue to require mitigation measures as a condition of obtaining permits to minimize dust and air emissions impacts from construction. C -P48 Require contractors to implement dust suppression measures during excavation, grading, and site preparation activities. Techniques may include, but are not limited to: • Site watering or application of dust suppressants; • Phasing or extension of grading operations; • Covering of stockpiles; • Suspension of grading activities during high wind periods (typically winds greater than 25 miles per hour); and • Revegetation of graded areas. C -P49 Cooperate with other local, regional, and State agencies in developing and implementing air quality plans to achieve State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards and address cross -jurisdictional and regional transportation and air quality issues. C -P50 Use the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District's (SJVAPCD) Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts for determining and mitigating project air quality impacts and related thresholds of significance for use in environmental documents. The City shall consult with the SJVAPCD during CEQA review for projects that require air quality impact analysis and ensure that the SJVAPCD is on the distribution list for all CEQA documents. C -P51 Support recommendations to reduce air pollutants found in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) local attainment plans and use its regulatory authority to mitigate "point" sources of air pollution (e.g., factories, power plants, etc.). C -P52 Ensure that air quality impacts identified during the project -level CEQA review process are fairly and consistently mitigated. Require projects to comply with the City's adopted air quality impact assessment and mitigation process, and to provide specific mitigation measures as outlined in policies of Chapter 5: Circulation. 33 Lodi GP Policies C -P53 Assess air quality mitigation fees for all new development, with the fees to be used to fund air quality programs. C -P54 Require the use of natural gas or the installation of low -emission, EPA -certified fireplace inserts in all open hearth fireplaces in new homes. Promote the use of natural gas over wood products in space heating devices and fireplaces in all existing and new homes. Follow the guidelines set forth in San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District's Rule 4901. C -P55 Review, support, and require implementation (as applicable) of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District guidance and recommendations (including those identified in the Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts) in regards to several key issues including: • Environmental Assessment; • Air Quality Mitigation Agreements; • Integrated Planning; • Air Quality Education; • Congestion Management/Transportation Control Measures; • Toxic and Hazardous Pollutant Emissions; • Fugitive Dust and PM10 Emissions; and • Energy Conservation and Alternative Fuels. C -P56 Require new sensitive uses proposed to be located within 500 feet of high volume traffic routes where daily vehicle counts exceed 100,000, to use an HVAC system with filtration to reduce/mitigate infiltration of vehicle emissions as warranted by exposure analysis. C -P57 Require industrial development adjacent to residential areas to provide buffers and institute setback intended to ensure land use compatibility in regards to potential Toxic Air Contaminant exposure. 34 Lodi GP Policies Chapter 8: Safety Policies 8.1 GUIDING POLICIES S -G1 Ensure a high level of public health and safety. S -G2 Prevent loss of lives, injury, illness, and property damage due to flooding, hazardous materials, seismic and geological hazards, and fire. S -G3 Protect the public from disasters and provide guidance and response in the event a disaster or emergency. S -G4 Minimize vulnerability of infrastructure and water supply and distribution systems. 8.2 IMPLEMENTING POLICIES FLOODING AND DRAINAGE S -P1 Continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program and ensure that local regulations are in full compliance with standards adopted by FEMA. S -P2 Cooperate with appropriate local, State, and federal agencies to address local and regional flood issues and dam failure hazards. S -P3 Require adequate natural floodway design to assure flood control in areas where stream channels have been modified and to foster stream enhancement, improved water quality, recreational opportunities, and groundwater recharge. S -P4 Prohibit new development, except for public uses incidental to open space development, within Zone A (100 -year flood zone), as shown on Figure 8-1. S -PS Site critical emergency response facilities—such as hospitals, fire stations, police offices, substations, emergency operations centers and other emergency service facilities and utilities—to minimize exposure to flooding and other hazards. S -P6 Update Zoning Ordinance and development review process as needed to reduce peak -hour stormwater flow and increase groundwater recharge. These may include provisions for: • Constructing parking areas and parking islands without curbs and gutters, to allow stormwater sheet flow into vegetated areas. • Grading that lengthens flow paths and increases runoff travel time to re- duce the peak flow rate. • Installing cisterns or sub -surface retention facilities to capture rainwater for use in irrigation and non -potable uses. 35 Lodi GP Policies S -P7 Update City street design standards to allow for expanded stormwater management techniques. These may include: • Canopy trees to absorb rainwater and slow water flow. • Directing runoff into or across vegetated areas to help filter runoff and en- courage groundwater recharge. • Disconnecting impervious areas from the storm drain network and main- tain natural drainage divides to keep flow paths dispersed. • Providing naturally vegetated areas in close proximity to parking areas, buildings, and other impervious expanses to slow runoff, filter out pollut- ants, and facilitate infiltration. • Directing stormwater into vegetated areas or into water collection devices. • Using devices such as bioretention cells, vegetated swales, infiltration trenches and dry wells to increase storage volume and facilitate infiltration. • Diverting water away from storm drains using correctional drainage tech- niques. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND OPERATIONS S -P8 Require that all fuel and chemical storage tanks are appropriately constructed; include spill containment areas to prevent seismic damage, leakage, fire and explosion; and are structurally or spatially separated from sensitive land uses, such as residential neighborhoods, schools, hospitals and places of public assembly. S -P9 Ensure compatibility between hazardous material users and surrounding land use through the development review process. Separate hazardous waste facilities from incompatible uses including, but not limited to, schools, daycares, hospitals, public gathering areas, and high-density residential housing through development standards and the review process. S -P10 Consider the potential for the production, use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials in approving new development. Provide for reasonable controls on such hazardous materials. Ensure that the proponents of applicable new development projects address hazardous materials concerns through the preparation of Phase I or Phase II hazardous materials studies, as necessary, for each identified site as part of the design phase for each project. Require projects to implement federal or State cleanup standards outlined in the studies during construction. S -P11 Regulate the production, use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials to protect the health of Lodi residents. Cooperate with the County and Lodi Fire Department in the identification of hazardous material users, development of an inspection process, and implementation of the City's Hazardous Waste Management and Hazardous Materials Area plans. Require, as appropriate, a hazardous materials inventory for project sites, including an assessment of materials and operations for any development applications, as a component of 011 Lodi GP Policies the development environmental review process or business license review/building permit review. S -P12 Work with waste disposal service provider(s) to educate the public as to the types of household hazardous wastes and the proper methods of disposal and shall continue to provide opportunities for residents to conveniently dispose of household hazardous waste. S -P13 Continue to follow the County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for guidelines on land use compatability near airports, land use restrictions, and to ensure public safety. S -P14 Support grade -separated railroad crossings, where feasible, and other appropriate measures adjacent to railroad tracks to ensure the safety of the community. S -P15 Continue to mark underground utilities and abide by federal safe -digging practices during construction. SEISMIC AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS S -P16 Ensure that all public facilities, such as buildings, water tanks, underground utilities, and berms, are structurally sound and able to withstand seismic activity. S -P17 For buildings identified as seismically unsafe, prohibit a change in use to a higher occupancy or more intensive use until an engineering evaluation of the structure has been conducted and structural deficiencies corrected consistent with City building codes. S -P18 Require soils reports for new projects and use the information to determine appropriate permitting requirements, if deemed necessary. S -P19 Require that geotechnical investigations be prepared for all proposed critical structures (such as police stations, fire stations, emergency equipment, storage buildings, water towers, wastewater lift stations, electrical substations, fuel storage facilities, large public assembly buildings, designated emergency shelters, and buildings three or more stories high) before construction or approval of building permits, if deemed necessary. The investigation shall include estimation of the maximum credible earthquake, maximum ground acceleration, duration, and the potential for ground failure because of liquefaction or differential settling. S -P20 Require new development to include grading and erosion control plans prepared by a qualified engineer or land surveyor. 37 Lodi GP Policies FIRE HAZARDS S -P21 Maintain a vegetation management program to ensure clearing of dry brush areas. Conduct management activities in a manner consistent with all applicable environmental regulations. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Policies related to police and fire facilities are addressed in Chapter 3.• Growth Management and Infrastructure. S -P22 Coordinate with local, State, and Federal agencies to establish, maintain, and test a coordinated emergency response system that addresses a variety of hazardous and threatening situations. Conduct periodic emergency response exercises to test the effectiveness of City emergency response procedures. Develop and implement public information programs concerning disaster response and emergency preparedness and develop mutual aid agreements and communication links with surrounding communities for assistance during times of emergency. S -P23 Maintain and periodically update the City's Emergency Preparedness Plan, including review of County and State emergency response procedures that must be coordinated with City procedures. S -P24 Ensure that major access and evacuation corridors are available and unobstructed in case of major emergency or disaster. Continue to identify appropriate road standards, including minimum road widths and turnouts to provide adequate emergency access and evacuation routes. S -P25 Continue to use the San Joaquin County Hazard Mitigation Plan to reduce hazard risk and coordinate with the County on its update and implementation, consistent with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Disaster Act of 2000. Lodi GP Policies Chapter 9: Noise Policies 9.1 GUIDING POLICIES N -G1 Protect humans, the natural environment, and property from manmade hazards due to excessive noise exposure. N -G2 Protect sensitive uses, including schools, hospitals, and senior care facilities, from excessive noise. 9.2 IMPLEMENTING POLICIES N -PI Control and mitigate noise at the source where feasible, as opposed to at the receptor end. N -P2 Encourage the control of noise through site design, building design, landscaping, hours of operation, and other techniques for new development deemed to be noise generators. N -P3 Use the noise and land use compatibility matrix (Table 9-2) and allowable noise exposure levels (Table 9-3) as review criteria for all new land uses. Incorporate noise attenuation measures for all projects that have noise exposure levels of "conditionally acceptable" and higher. These may include: • Facades constructed with substantial weight and insulation; • Sound -rated windows in habitable rooms; • Sound -rated doors in all exterior entries; • Active cancellation; • Acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys, fans and gable ends; • Ventilation system affording comfort under closed -window conditions; and • Double doors and heavy roofs with ceilings of two layers of gypsum board on resilient channels to meet the highest noise level reduction require- ments. N -P4 Discourage noise sensitive uses such as residences, hospitals, schools, libraries, and rest homes from locating in areas with noise levels above 65db. Conversely, do not permit new uses likely to produce high levels of noise (above 65db) from locating in or adjacent to areas with existing or planned noise -sensitive uses. N -PS Noise sensitive uses, such as residences, hospitals, schools, libraries, and rest homes, proposed in areas that have noise exposure levels of "conditionally acceptable" and higher must complete an acoustical study, prepared by a professional acoustic engineer. This study should specify the appropriate noise mitigation features to be included in the design and construction of these uses, to achieve interior noise levels consistent with Table 9-3. Q Lodi GP Policies N -P6 Require developers of potentially noise -generating new developments to mitigate the noise impacts on adjacent properties as a condition of permit approval. This should be achieved through appropriate means, such as: • Dampening or actively canceling noise sources; • Increasing setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings; • Using soundproofing materials and double -glazed windows; • Screening and controling noise sources, such as parking and loading facili- ties, outdoor activities, and mechanical equipment; • Using open space, building orientation and design, landscaping and running water to mask sounds; and • Controling hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup. N -P7 Develop and implement noise reduction measures when undertaking improvements, extensions, or design changes to City streets where feasible and appropriate. N -P8 Encourage transit agencies and rail companies to develop and apply noise reduction technologies for their vehicles to reduce the noise and vibration impacts of bus and rail traffic. N -P9 Coordinate with the California Public Utilities Commission and other pertinent agencies and stakeholders to determine the feasibility of development a railroad "quiet zone" in downtown, which would prohibit trains from sounding their horns. N -P10 Restrict the use of sound walls as a noise attenuation method. 40 Message Kari Chadwick Subject: General Plan Parks & Rec Policy Hi Kari, Page 1 of 1 Sorry it took so long to get this to you. Here's the language that Jim shared with the Commission at the November meeting: "Due to eroding financial support from the general fund for park maintenance it will be imperative to seek out new and protected funding sources in order to maintain current park inventory." If I can help with anything else, please let me know. TErri Low -41 Administrative Secretary City of Lodi Parks and Recreation (209) 333-6742 tlovell@lodi.gov 12/02/2009 Comment Letters Kari Chadwick From: Rad Bartlam Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:44 AM To: Kari Chadwick Subject: FW: General Plan comments Kari, please print and add to the Commission's packet for the next meeting Thanks, Rad -----Original Message ----- From: Jon Bjork(mailto:jon@pantheoncellars.com) Sent: Thu 10/29/2009 7:50 AM To: Rad Bartlam Subject: RE: General Plan comments Hi Rad, Thanks for reading my column! I'm hoping you'll get at least a little more feedback from Lodi on the general plan as a result. Having reviewed the PDFs of the draft plan from the City Web site, however, I really didn't find much I didn't agree with. My feeling is that you might not be getting much feedback because people don't often take the time just to write, "Hey, great job guys! Looks good to me!" From my personal perspective as a Lodi home and wine business owner, and having worked on the Chamber's GP task force white paper, here are my requests: 1) I'm happy to see the business and city leadership staking the future of our precious town on the wine industry. 2) I support some form of greenbelt, and therefore support the City spending public funds to help with the establishment of it. I'm fine with an AL -5 zoning from Highway 5 to 99 and beyond, if necessary. It would be a terrible shame if the entire valley from Stockton to Sacramento became one long city. 3) I'm happy to see School Street be a continued focus for more development, preserving downtown as the heart and soul of Lodi. I agree with following all of the suggestions from last Friday's summit at Hutchins Street Square, including a critical mass of interesting wall-to-wall stores and restaurants, along with recognized national brands and a nice hotel, circled by New York style brownstones would keep overnight guests coming back for more. 4) A downtown upscale hotel is critical to build overnight out-of-town tourism. In a perfect world, fixed-income residents of the historic Hotel Lodi could be relocated into desirable high-density housing within an easy walk of School Street. That would free a developer to restore the hotel for tourists. 5) I've heard enough feedback now to believe that the building code is a bit strict with downtown structures, disincenting them from making them more attractive for tenants or tourists. The code should be reviewed, with provisions Cor cohesive fagade designs, if necessary. 6) Continue to allow restaurants to use sidewalk areas for outdoor seating. 7) Allow new buildings downtown to be taller than existing buildings 8) Pie -in -the -sky: Get the railroad to go underground for several blocks, allowing Elm, Pine and Lodi Ave to be uninterrupted. Build an international plaza and multi -modal underground station where the current station is now. This could be the permanent site of the Farmer's Market, outdoor concerts, and vendors, helping to unify east and west sides of the city. 9) Language to encourage the establishment of boutique wineries or tasting rooms attached to City services, along with continued access for wineries to our state-of-the-art water treatment plant at White Slough. Also allow larger wineries to use White Slough. 10) Safe bike paths and trails to the wineries, either along existing roads, or along irrigation canals. Near vineyards, these would have to be designed to allow mechanical harvesters to traverse them during harvest. 11) Good-sized "Welcome to Lodi" signs on the east and west approaches with photo -op turnouts wouldn't hurt in establishing our collective brand. Search Google images for "Welcome to Napa Sign" for an example. 12) High-density office complexes, like Blue Shield, located on the industrial southeast side would encourage restaurants serving the lunch rush and give commuters ideas for spending the weekend with the family shopping and tasting the best of Lodi. I have intended all these comments to be supportive of the Chamber's White paper. Please let me know if you have any questions. Otherwise, great job guys! Your plan looks good to me! Thanks, Jon Jon Bjork Pantheon Cellars LLC 2715 W Kettleman Ln Suite 203-101 Lodi, CA 95242 panthos.com 888-952-4288 888-952-4289 fax -----Original Message ----- From: Rad Bartlam [mailto:rbartlam@lodi.govl Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 8:37 AM To: wineguy@lodinews.com Subject: General Plan comments Jon, I read your column this morning, as usual. I was surprised and pleased that you mentioned the City's General Plan update. I was also pleased to see you added some comment. It would be helpful to me if you could provide those comments to me via e-mail or letter. I cannot include them formally as a newspaper column. Thanks, Rad Bartlam Community Development Director City of Lodi 2 Page 1 of ] Kari Chadwick From: Ryan Sherman [ryansherman10@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 10:24 AM To: Kari Chadwick Subject: City of Lodi General Plan To Whom It May Concern: Please forward this to Rad as well, Re: Gated Communities and the General Plan - As a Realtor and home owner, lam a bit concerned that the City of Lodi would adopt as a part of its General Plan something that appears to be an infringment on private property rights. The people that choose to live in gated communities do so for their own reasons and understanding of how that effects their sense of community. Builders/Developers put gated communities in place only if they are an economically viable proposition. Basic Econ 101 - something is only worth what someone else is willing to pay. Gated communities are a part of every community just as Condos, Towne houses and standard Single Family Residence. lalso serve as President for the Lodi Association of Realtors - we are dedicated to preserving private property rights and have been supportive of the City in its endeavors regarding a number of General Plan/private property topics. However, we represent clients who proactively seek gated communities in their search and dream for home ownership. Idon't believe the City should implement any plan that would limit a developers ability to develop gated communities or anyone looking to buy a home in Lodi who desires to live in a gated community. As the real estate market and economy gradually show signs of a meager turn around - let's be proactive and stay on the forefront of future SMART development - and not put in place plans that would impede economic improvement to our community. We should stay focused on our Ag preservation/Green belt initiative and look at the possibilty of future development in the Lodi area without the use of Mello Roos. Ryan Sherman Realtor Sherman & Associates 2009 LAR President Behold the rain which descends from heaven upon our vineyards; there it enters the roots of the vines, to be changed into wine; a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy. - Benjamin Franklin http;//www.lodi homesforsale.net Windows 7: It helps you do more. Explore Windows 7. 11/05/2009 0380M. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT ""ITIV, o. qr)! 11-4-W kad Bwd� Lit o4 Lodi RJ 3066 Lodi. L.4 95241 0ea,t &. BaiUam -Y can in �°cwoa o� gated conmmiliez. lk. Tom Sanders has a "Aeet good•' "4-za that can 1,iLV be accomr-,LLAed at an 4pdiwduat levet. (acA fw-"on can cAoo.6e to get invotved in' ac&vili e.� which bAing, Avn on hen in cordact w4th a c&-vex6e, yAoup o� rw-ople. 1)eopee olio warit ;to live in a gated coffvwrulty 6houl-d be. allowed to do ,6o in LocL. Kath teen M Andiade Joyce Siewert NOV 0 9 2009 220 S Orange Ave COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT Lodi California,95240 CITY € F LODI November 9,2009 Community Development Department City of Lodi Dear Mr. Bartlan: I am concerned about the new General Plan being proposed for Lodi and it's section that prohibits the building of any Gated communities in the future. I personally do not want to live in one but I think it is wrong not to allow those who do , to have that privilege. In fact, I would go even farther and say that in so doing you are taking away their freedom of choosing where they live. Mr. Tom Sander states that people who live in a Gated Community have less of a chance of meeting people of a different ethnicity, race or socio-economic status. This argument is really not true, since most of our activities occur outside of our homes and neighborhoods. We work, conduct our business, attend school, belong to groups and organizations, participate in community events, attend movies, eat in restaurants, along with other members of the community regardless of our ethnicity, race or socio- economic status. This is where the " building of bridges" takes place., Where we live will always be influenced by our monetary means and I think those who desire to live in Gated Communities have that right. Kari Chadwick From: Rad Bartlam Sent: Tuesday, November 10,20092:12 PM To: Kari Chadwick Subject: FW: general plan comment Please add to the pile... -----Original Message ----- From: Steve Mann [mailto:smannl@pacbell.netl Sent: Fri 11/6/20097:28 Aq To: Rad Bartlam Subject: general plan comment Rad, I would like to see gated communities allowed under the new General Plan. Thanks for allowing me this opportunity for input. Steve 1 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: Don Van Noy [divannoy@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 1:49 PM To: Kari Chadwick Subject: gated communities Attn Rad Bartlem: For some reason the leaders of our city government think that in order to get good government we have to go outside the city to New York or worse, San Francisco, to figure out how to govern. Stay home. Plumb the depths of the experience found here at home. Had the city done that years ago, they would have a Parks & Recreation Head that would still be here. Someone raised in Lodi with local values and ideas. Someone who wanted to stay in Lodi not move on to another place across the country in a couple of years with Lodi listed on the resume. Don't meddle where the city government does not need to be. Why are you wanting to worm your way into the private lives of the citizenry? The reason we are all living in Lodi is because we like it the way it is. We do not want to be like Stockton. We do not need to be like Modesto, or Sacramento. Do not pass a law against gated communities. If a gated community would not sell or would not be desired by the citizens, the developers wouldn't offer it. There must be a demand. That means people in Lodi want it. If they didn't want it there would be no market for it. Why do you keep asking the question? The established citizenry have not changed their minds since you first asked the question. So nobody shows up at a city meeting. That does not mean we like what you are doing. Let the market run the economy of our town. That's how we became what we are. Not because our early city governments of years ago were so great and you are no better. Let the people decide what they want to buy. It's their money not yours. You do not know what is best for the rest of us. This is not Obama land, yet. Just because he is able to lie and persuade people this should be a socialist country doesn't mean that ours should be a socialist city. I'm upset with government getting into what is not their business. Regards, Don Van Noy 1141 Port Chelsea Circle Lodi, CA 95240 334-4728 12/07/2009 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: Robert Blincoe [r.blincoe@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 5:20 PM To: Kari Chadwick Subject: Lodi Draft General Plan Community Development Department Attention: Rad Bartlam Lodi, CA RE: Lodi Draft General Plan There are two important items in the Draft General Plan that I, and several of my neighbors, think must be deleted in their entirety! As a retired Real Estate Broker who moved from the Bay Area to Lodi 20 years ago because my wife and I thought then, and we know now, that Lodi is the greatest city in California in which to reside. I am now over 80 years old, and the following recommendations are based upon significant real estate and personal experience. The two items which are of great comcem are: (1) The possible banning or limiting of GATED DEVELOPMENTS in Lodi. There are many residents who prefer, and even demand, a gated community for a variety of reasons. Those potential buyers must not be be pushed by unnecessary rules to avoid the great city of Lodi, and (2) The possible limiting or BANNING OF CUL-DE-SACS in new developments in Lodi. Cul-de-sacs should not be avoided as they tend to reduce traffic flow and to reduce speeding, making the City a much more attractive and safer place in which to raise a family. To leave either one of these important family issues in the Draft General Plan would be a serious step backward for our now family -friendly city! Robert M. Blincoe Marilyn G. Blincoe 2359 Brittany Lane Lodi, California 12/08/2009 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: Sally [sally@keszlercreations.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 12:44 PM To: Kari Chadwick Subject: our Armstrong property Our property on Armstrong Road is zoned AG40. Please do NOT illegally label it an "Ag cluster zone" or a "greenbelt" on Lodi's new General Plan. By doing so you are knowingly falsefying your legal document. Thank you for your time, Bruce and Sally Keszler 12/09/2009 +H6: Oro,+ 6- e n -e r,ac I et Y\ DY -C e-e-ts Yj e -e -<A- wtae- c va s bvi de i I'(.. C Peopk -s'llooli be CIWQ. +0 CAUO.Ac L,/�evp- kA k/)O:" P-e-oplc Vj�o 6L)l 1V4 1- 6 v-ec, Yet(vevve-t-, T 'e av eer- Gtu r 1,1G e- LV lle k 42, Lv V V (C-, r op t) s c6t Piet v) Pt' 'ki A Vt&- " I C YA o t a o L') I VIN I Ar W 6 -Ve- E 10L)h fL) 6Lnk - Wkl-Ie- SloujV, c j� &too -c- Vuaj. rh-\ -fkq- h�y-f- )o -jeco r -s Loe-Q uum 6of-CtL avai law e, AI u,, 4, s � o t, i &- p r o u, 16, p 4- ? lctc I s p r , u �, v+ .. (1+f J rr -e e -f, -Tke-re- ex, -e- +00 Cav--k Pkr�\A o -, Lock,'i -s f -'r e- Ij 1, 7-k vlo ctuad&\D�k-, Rad pleA se Y -,e 0, Iuldl hot loe- fhe/�- SLA- S 7 5 - gl� OFFICERS Mahesh Ranchhod American -USA Homes Jeremy White The Grupe Company Randy Bling Florsheim Homer Dudley McGee Kimball Hill Homes Dehhie Armstrung Old Republic Title Company Matt Arnaiz H.D. Arnaiz Corporation Rod Attehery Neumiller & Beardslcte Ramon Batista River IslandsL Lathrop Rey Chavez Kelly -Moore Paint Company Ryan Gerding Pulte Homes Cathy Ghan Oak Valley Community Bank Steve Herum Herum Crabtree Brown Wayne LeBaron LeBaron Ranches John Looper Top Gndc Construction Terry Miles Teichert Construction Carol Ornelas Visionary Home Buildeis, Inc Jim Panagopoulos A.C. Spans Companies LIFETIME DIRE( Dennis Bennett Bennett Development Bill Filius AKF Development, LLC Mike Hakeem Hakeem, Ellis & Marengo Jeffrey First Tokay Development Steve Moore Westervelt Zandra Morris Old Republic Title Company Toni Raymus Raymus Homes, Inc Tony Souza Souza Realty & Development BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF THE DELTA 315 N. SAN JOAQUIN ST., SUITE 202 STOCKTON, CA 95202 209-235-7831 • 209-235-7837 fax December 9,2009 Bill Cummins, Chairman Lodi Planning Commission City of Lodi 221 W Pine St. Lodi, CA 95240 Chairman Cummins, The Building Industry Association has reviewed the proposed General Plan and would like to offer the following comments and observations regarding some of the general themes found within the plan as well as specific comments on sections of the plan. In light of recent legislation including AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, SB 375 requiring the adoption of Sustainable Communities Strategies and other legislation mandating new building codes, water quality, air quality and transportation regulations, the BIA recognizes the need to include the provisions of these mandates in the General Plan. However, these mandates from the State, in many cases, allow for local jurisdictions to tailor the implementation to fit local situations. Many of the ideas found in the legislation are directed at large urban centers and not towards small inland cities. The proposed General Plan appears to embrace the concept of making Lodi look like a suburb of Los Angeles or San Francisco instead of a central valley farming town. Mixed use development, larger numbers of medium and high density housing and increased costs of development due to new fee programs are all concepts that work in coastal urban areas. Whether or not these concepts will work in Lodi is uncertain. The history of Lodi and the current demographics indicate these concepts may not be acceptable or economically feasible. The policies taking Lodi in this direction should be tempered with the caveat that they are desired goals and will be implemented to the fullest extent allowable under existing market conditions at the time a project moves forward. The proposed General Plan mandating a minimum amount of mixed use development, minimum numbers of medium and high density housing and Chairman Rill Cummins December 9. 2009 Page 2 of 8 additional fee programs, in today's economic climate, will further impeded the economic recovery so desperately needed in Lodi. Revenues to the City of Lodi and the overall Lodi economy are in -part tied to the construction industry. A stable pace of growth at or near 1 % is needed for the City to maintain a balanced budget and for the health of the economy. The last three years have seen an unprecedented and dramatic decline of residential building activity. For the health of the City and the local economy the General Plan must not act as a hindrance to new development but rather act as a Blueprint to allow growth in a managed environment. Residential building activity in Lodi over the last eight years is as follows: 2002:305 2003:274 2004:244 2005:370 2006: 86 2007: 19 2008: 7 2009: 4 The longer this trend continues the more our city suffers. In order to restore our economy and the health of the City over the next 20 years the BIA requests the following amendments and/or clarifications to each of the following sections: LU -P3 Do not allow development at less than the minimum density prescribed by each residential land use category. Add thephrase "withoutrebalancing the overallplan and comply with the "nonet lossprovisions d state housing law". LU -P6 Locate new medium and high density development adjacent to parks or other open space, in order to maximize residents' access to recreational uses; or adjacent to mixed-use centers or neighborhood commercial development, to maximize access to services. Locating medium and high density adjacent to commercial and mixed uses is a good requirement. However, it should merely be encouraged to locate medium and high density adjacent to park and other open space areas. LU -P 17 3'-d Bullet Point Requiring retain, eating and drinking establishments, or other similar active uses -except for sites designated Chairman Bill Cummins December 9, 2009 Page 3 of 8 Public -at the ground level. Alleyway comers shall be "wrapped" with retail uses as well. Replace "shall be " with "encouraged to be ". LU -P25 Guide new residential development into compact neighborhoods with a defined mixed-use center, including public open space a school or other community facilities, and neighborhood commercial development. Clarify this to be applied to the three identified areas, one west cf Lower Sacramento Road, and two south of Harney Lane as shown on the Land UseDiagram. And clarify to be "whenpossible " as there may be situations where a small residentialproject cannot comply with this requirement. LU -P27 ......... Clarify this to be applied to the three identified areas, one west of Lower Sacramento Road, and two south of Harney Lane as shown on the Land UseDiagram. LU -P28 Provide for a full range of housing types and prices within new neighborhoods including minimum requirements for small -lot single family homes, town -houses, duplexes, triplexes, and multi -family housing. Eliminate "andprices ". Providefurther explanation and examples d"minimum requirementsfo r small -lot singlejam ily homes ". GM -P2 Target new growth into identified areas, extending south, west, and southeast. Ensure contiguous development by requiring development to conform to phasing described in figure 3-1. Enforce phasing through permitting and infrastructure provision. Development may not extend to Phase 2 until Phase 1 has reached 75% of development potential, and development may not extend to Phase 3 until Phase 2 has reached 75% of development potential. Continue using thepoint systemforphasing. Prohibiting development in onephase due to a lack ofdevelopment in aprior phase will give one landowner at a time a temporary monopoly on development. Thispolicy hands over a loaded gun to the landowner of thepriorphase. Thispolicy will create a land shortage and correspondingprice spikes making development economically unfeasible in Lodi. 3 Chairman Bill Cummins December 9, 2009 Page 4,2f 8 GM -P3 Use the Growth Management Allocation Ordinance as a mechanism to even out the pace, diversity, and direction of growth. Update the Growth Management Allocation Ordinance to reflect phasing and desired housing mix. Because unused allocations carry over, as of 2007, 3,268 additional permits were available. Therefore, the Growth Management Allocation Ordinance will not restrict growth, but simply even out any market extremes. Provide clarification as to HOW market extremes will be evened out. GM -N..... Land use for phase 1 should be 45.4% LDR, 27.3% MDR and 27.3% HDR..... And if the marketfor these types ofproduct does not match up with these recommendations then is all of phase 2 placed on hold until the housing market matches these numbers? GM -P5 Update impact fee system to balance the need to sufficiently fund needed facilities and services without penalizing multifamily housing or infill development. The impactfee system must bejustified by a legally defensible nexus that complies with the Mitigation Fee Act. Whether the legally defensiblefees operate as a penalty or not is outside the scope of a General Plan. To effectuate the desired outcome the language could be changed to read there will be no increase of impactfees on multifamily housing or infill development. GM -P 1 1 .... l" Bullet Point — Requiring the installation of non -potable water infrastructure for irrigation of landscaped areas over one acre of new landscape acreage, where feasible. Conditions of approval shall require connection and use of nonpotable water supplies when available at the site. This item needs to be clarified so that only after nonpotable water is available at a development site will the nextphase of that development be required to connect to the nonpotable source. A nonpotable source may not be available for several years but the City may require expensive dual infrastructure to beput inplace in the hopes that the water wM be available sooner. GM -P20 Locate additional schools to fill any existing gaps in capacity and meet the needs of existing and new residents. Provide needed facilities concurrent with phased development. 0 Chairman Rill Cummins December 9, 2009 Page 5 oj'8 This is the responsibility of L USD. The City should cooperate with L USD andprovide support upon the request of L USD but stop short of doing the work of the School District. CD -P3 Ensure that the Zoning Ordinance includes measures to promote fine -,grain development along retail and mixed-use streets, using horizontal and vertical building articulation that engages pedestrians and breaks up building mass. Clarify what is meant by "fine-grain " CD -PS Configure parking areas to balance a vital pedestrian environment with automobile convenience. Parking areas should be: All af*the `Shouldbe" bulletpoints need to include "where feasible " caveat. CD -P20 Prohibit gated development, and avoid cul-de-sacs. Where cul- de-sacs are provided, require pedestrian and bicycle connection at the terminous of the cul-de-sac to adjacent street. Replaceprohibit with "allow in moderation". Gated communities and cul-de-sacs are appropriate in some circumstances. CD -P22 Encourage alternatives to soundwalls and permit new soundwalls only where alternatives are not feasible, such as along Highway 99 and the railroad tracks. Alternatives to soundwalls should be encouraged but soundwalls still should be allowed when alternatives are notfeasible. This section should simply read "encourage alternatives to soundwalls ". CD -P27 Require new development to connect with nearby uses and neighborhoods; include paths to connect to the rest of the city; exhibit architectural variety and visual interest; conform to scale requirements; and relate housing to public streets. This section is too subjective to be a requirement. This item should be "encouraged" and not required. CD -P28 Minimize the visual impact of automobiles in residential areas. Add to the list the allowance of 'one curgarages. Chairman Rill Cummins December 9, 2009 Page 6 of.S CD -P32 ..... illuminating adjacent residential neighborhoods and/or natural areas at a level greater than one foot candle above ambient conditions. Please clarify what this means CD -P40 - Green building guidelines - The State of California is working on Green Building Codes, simply adopt the State code once the State has completed it. ff the City chooses to adopt different building standards other than the adopted building code the City must make specific, findings of climatic, geological or environmental significance showing how the City of Lodi is different than the State in general. P -P2 Provide open space to meet recreation and storm drainage needs, at a ratio of eight acres of open space per 1,000 new residents. At least four acres must be constructed for park and recreation uses only. Drainage basins should be constructed as distinct facilities, as opposed to dual - functioning park and drainage basin facilities. What is current ratio of'park acreage to 1,000 residents? Will this bean increase in the current "levelofsewice "? This is an efficient use of land, why eliminate the dual usage? Requiring separatefacilities will increase urban sprawl and advance the conversion of prime farmland. P -P 19 Require master planned residential communities to dedicate parkland consistent with General Plan standards. In -Lieu fees will only be acceptable where an exemption from providing a neighborhood park facility would not adversely affect local residents because an existing park is nearby. What is the size limitation? Someplanned communities may be too small to accommodate this requirement. Identify a minimum size requirement of communities 40 acres or larger. GPS Adopt an agricultural conservation program establishing a mitigation fee to protect and conserve agricultural lands: Does the city intend. for thisplan to comply with the Mitigation Fee Act or will they use their `policepowers" or publichealth and safety --powers to create aprogram unbridled by the requirements ofAB 1600 or the Mitigation Fee Act? 6 Chairman Bill Cummins Deeemher 9, 2009 Page 7 o f 8 C -P 16 .... Identify areas suitable for Swainson's Hawk habitat ..... This is already covered under the San Joaquin County Multi - Species Habitat and Open Space Conservation Plan as administered by SJCOG. C -P 17 For future development projects on previously un -surveyed lands, require a project applicant to have a qualified archeologist conduct the following activities:....... This requirement goes well beyond the standards of the California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA). Byperforming an EIR applicants demonstrate their compliance with CEQA and all archeological considerations are covered in the EIR. This requirement will add considerable time delays and extra costs to projects with little extra benefitprovided to the City. C-PI8 See Above. C -P38 .......Green Building Ordinance The State of California is working on Green Building Codes, simply adopt the State code once the State has completed it, If the City chooses to adopt different building standards other than the adopted building code the City must make specific findings of climatic, geological or environmental significance showing how the City ofLodi is dijjcrent than the State in general. C -P42 Develop, adopt, and implement a heat island mitigation plan.. Is this a city wideplan to cover existing "heat islands " or will this only apply to new development? AIR QUALITY — This entire section is duplicative of 'the workperformed by the San Joaquin ValleyAir Pollution Control District. The cost to the City ofperforming this redundant work willprovide little benefit to the City. C -P46 Require all construction equipment to be maintained and tuned to meet appropriate EPA and CARB emission requirements and when new emission control devices or operational modifications are found to be effective, such devices or operational modifications are to be required on construction equipment. 7 Chairman Bill Cummins December 9. 2009 page 8 oj8 Is this to mean that only the latest model of equipment will be allowed in Lodi? Will all construction work be required to purchase the most advanced equipment as soon as it is available? C -P53 Assess air quality mitigation fees for all new development with the fees to be used to fund air quality programs. Is this a newprogram in Lodi or is this a reference to the existing Air District Fees that are already imposed on new development? S -P18 Require soils reports for new projects and use the information to determine appropriate permitting requirements, if deemed necessary. What kind ofpermitting requirements might be deemed necessary? Further explanation is needed. C -P56 Require new sensitive uses proposed to be located within 500 feet of high volume traffic routes where daily vehicle counts exceed 100,000. to use an HVAC system with filtration to reduce/mitigate infiltration of vehicle emissions as warranted by exposure analysis. Please clarify this item. The BIA of the Delta appreciates the good working relationship between the development community and the City. We look forward to continuing this relationship and sharing in the prosperity of Lodi's future. Thank you, ohn R. Beckman Chief Executive Officer Comments to Planning Commission Regarding Draft General Plan and Draft EIR Water and Infrastructure 12/9/09 Jane Wagner-Tyack 145 South Rose Street, Lodi 1. Issues raised in 10/20/09 email to Mr. Bartlam The graphic on page 3-9 of the Draft General Plan is misleading because it minimizes the contribution of groundwater (well water) to Lodi's water supply. The graphic should show that we rely primarily on groundwater, that the time frame for recharge is quite long, and that the water does not necessarily become available in the future in the same place where it entered the ground originally. At a minimum, the title of the graphic should be changed. On page 3-10, right-hand column, third paragraph, the Draft General Plan says, "As the city grows, the available safe yield of the underlying groundwater will increase." This is a puzzling statement for which there appears to be no justification. At a minimum, the statement requires some explanation. The Draft EIR actually addresses this by explaining (page 3.13-1) that the City will reduce its groundwater pumping from over 17,000 acre feet in 2008 "to a safe yield of approximately 15,000 acre-feet per year. This safe -yield estimate reflects an acreage-basedrelationship. Therefore, as the City's land area increases, the estimated safe yield of the underlying aquifer will likely increase." Given the unpredictability of groundwater, this seems like a tenuous solution to Lodi's water supply needs. In addition, the connection between more city acreage and more access to groundwater constitutes a perverse incentive tending to encourage unsustainable urban growth and loss of agricultural land. As a policy, this should be discouraged. • On page 3-17, the Draft General Plan says "Use of gray water or rainwater for non -potable uses may require installation of dual plumbing systems." Pages 3-33 — 3-34 (GM -P 12) says "Support on-site gray water and rainwater harvesting systems for households and businesses" — I encourage the city to pursue these alternatives. A careful reading of the Draft General Plan makes it clear that water supply and wastewater treatment options do not support projected growth. Rather than point out relevant sections in that draft, I have noted them below in comments on the Draft EIR. 2. Comments on the Draft EIR • The correct formal name of the Delta is the Sacramento-SanJoaquin Delta. The area is also correctly referred to as the San Francisco Bay -Delta Estuary. • Camanche Reservoir is misspelled. • This page refers to Figure 3.7-1 regarding Groundwater Basins, but the figure itself doesn't specifically identify groundwater sub -basins, only watersheds. The title of the graphic is "Regional Watersheds and Waterways." The identification of groundwaterbasins needs to be more clear. In categories related to hydrology, water quality, and infrastructure, the Draft EIR identifies the impact of the General Plan as "less than significant" and reports that no mitigation is required, in some cases because "[the] impact would be mitigated by existing State and local regulations and proposed General Plan policies." This wording undoubtedly meets regulatory requirements, but I urge you to exercise common sense in addressing the spirit as well as the letter of the regulations with respect to water supply and wastewater treatment. Specifically: "Upon construction of the new surface water treatment plant, the City would have a long-term water supply of 27,000 acre feet per year available from its current safe yield of groundwater and the future surface water supplies." The Draft General Plan (page 3-10) assumes that even with a 15%reduction in residential demand due to the installation of water meters, "the total city-wide demand at reasonable development [would be about] 29,380 acre-feet per year." That is a shortfall of 2,380 acre-feet per year under a best -case scenario for both supply and demand. The Draft General Plan, (page 3-23) and the Draft EIR (3.13-20 and 21) list inadequacies in the City's wastewater facilities. The Sewer Outfall from the City to the WSWPCF does not have adequate capacity for the PWWF [peak wet weather flows] at reasonable development of the General Plan. The City is already aware that expansion of WSWPCF will be required in the near future, and a tertiary filtration facility is part of that plan. Wastewater discharge by cities in the Delta region has come under increasing scrutiny, notjust because it affects the quality of export water (which we might like to assume is not our problem) but because it adversely affects fish and other species and their habitat in the Delta and the Estuary. This is our problem. Although I don't know the details, I believe the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance has already challenged Lodi's treatment of some of its wastewater. The City should be aware that pressure is increasing from the State for cities in the Delta region to treat their wastewater discharge to a very high level— likely higher than we have planned for. 2 Recommendations The City should aggressively pursue gray water systems, rainwater harvesting and cisterns, dry wells, and water recycling in addition to rigorous water conservation, including increased use of drought-tolerantlandscaping by the City itself. The dual plumbing systems necessary for gray water and harvested rainwater use are allowed under this General Plan. The City should revisit the issue of the cost-effectivenessof delivering recycled water to potential demand locations. The existing Water Conservation Ordinance needs to be strictly enforced, and the City itself should be following the Ordinance. Efforts at public education need to be increased, with the City considering incentives as well as penalties with respect to wise water use. The Draft EIR makes it clear that there is no lack of State regulations and local plans and ordinances addressing water issues, and General Plan policies require planning for water supply and availability before development takes place. Necessary infrastructure must be provided in a "timely" manner but in practice, we know that budgetary constraints do not allow the City to meet this requirement in every case. It is the job of city planners to take growth projections, however they are arrived at, and give decision -makers a plan that provides for that projected growth. It is possible to make assumptions and update demand and supply calculations in ways that support that projected growth. However, it falls to Lodi decision-makersto connect the dots in this General Plan without relying on optimistic assumptions or estimates. The Draft General Plan and Draft EIR clearly show that water availability and wastewater treatment place inescapable constraints on Lodi's growth. I urge you to require a General Plan that acknowledges actual, realistic limits on water availability, wastewater treatment, and the City's ability to provide necessary water infrastructure, allowing for growth only within those realistic limits. The Final EIR requires responses to public comments. I look forward to seeing these comments addressed there. 3 Lodi Draft Environmental Impact Report & General Plan City Council Meeting January 6, 2010 M _ 7 ' f4g 31— fi � l� gni 1. Meet CEQA requirements by evaluating physical impacts of the Plan and its alternatives. 2. Inform the public and decision -makers of these potential impacts to assist in the review and adoption the Plan. 3. Assist decision -makers in determining appropriate amendments to land use regulations or other standards. DYETT & BHATIA U.ba. and Ragto al Plan—s 1. Land Use and Housing 2. Traffic and Circulation 3. Agricultural Resources 4. Biological Resources 5. Cultural Resources 6. Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases 7. Hydrology and Water Quality 8. Air Quality 9. Flood Hazards 10. Seismic and Geologic Hazards 11. Noise 12. Hazardous Materials and Toxics 13. Infrastructure 14. Public Facilities 15. Parks and Recreation 16. Visual Resources DY > TT & BHATIA Urba. a.d U4t—1 Mannan Executive Summary Table E5-3: Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies that Redux die SignIfcance Mitigation hnpact 3.1 Land Use and Housing 3.1.1 The proposed General Ran would not physically NIA Beneficial NIA divide any established communities and would increase connectivity Ixally and regionally. 3.1.2 The proposed General Ran would conflictwith an W -P I, LU -PI 7, CD -P2, CD -P3, CD -P4, Less than Significant None required applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. CD -P6, CD -P9, CD -PI 1, CD -P31, GM -P 10 3.2 Traffic and G mulation 3.2-1 The proposed General Ran would result in a T -G I , T -P I, T -P2, T -P3, T -P4, T-PNEW, T- Significant and No feasible mitigation is substantial increase in vehicular traffic that would NEW, T -PS, T -NEW, T -P9, T -P 10, T -P 13, Urevddable currently available. cause certain facilities to exceed level of service T -P 14, T -P 15, T -P 16, T -P 17, T -P 18, T -P 19, standards established by the governing agency. T -P20, T -P22, T -P24, T -P25, T -P27, T -P-28, T -P29, T -P43, T -P44, T -P45 3.2.2 The proposed General Ran may adversely affect T -P 1, T -P2, T -P8, T -P-9, T -P 10 Significant and No mitigation measures emergency access. Unavoidable arefeasible. 3.2-3 The proposed General Plan may conflict with T -G 1, T -P8, T -P9, T -P 10, T -P 13, T -P 14, T- Significant and No feasible mitigation is adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting P 15, T -P16, T -P17, T -Ph% T -P19, T -P20, T- Unavoidable curremly available. alternative transportation modes. P22, T -P24, T -P25, T -P27, T -P28, T -P29, T. P43, T -P44, T -P45, T -G2, T -G3, T -G4, T. G5, T -PI 1, T-PI2, T -P21, T -P23, T -P26, T - P30, T -P38, T -P39 3.3 Agriculture and Soil Resources 3.3-1 Buildout of the proposed General Plan would "I, C -G2, GPI, C -P2, C -P3, C -P4, C -PS, Significantand Not directly mitigable convert substantial amounts of Important farmland C -P6, C-177, C -P8, GM -G 1, GM -P2 Unavoidable aside from preventing to non-agricultural use. development altogether 3.3-2 Buildout of the proposed General Plan would result GPI, C -P2, C -P3, C -P4, C -PS, C -P6, C -P7, Less than Significant None required in potential land use incompatibilities with sites C -PB, GM -G1, GM -P2, CD -GI designated for continued agriculture use. &7 Alternative A IN 01W Alternative B Bill ii" fi 1 1�'r.. in-mmv, w i��i ■ s s No Project Alternative General Plan Land Use Map ■ Planning Themes: ■ Compact Urban Form ■ Mokelumne River as the City's Northern Edge ■ Enhanced Mixed -Use Centers and Corridors ■ Walkable, Liveable Neighborhoods ■ Street Connectivity and Design ■ Preservation of Existing Neighborhoods ■ Armstrong Road Study Area ■ Employment -Focused Development in the Southeast ■ Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections ■ Managed Future Development DY TT & BHATIA Urban and R.—'. ■ Planning Commission Action ■ Public Hearings on: 9-23, 10-14, 10-28 and 12-9 ■ Recommendation for City Council Approval with three modifications: ■ Additional Policy as requested by the Recreation Commission regarding Park Maintenance. ■ Modification to Policy CD -P20 allowing for limited gated development where implementation does not interrupt neighborhood connectivity ■ Modification to Policy C -P8 stating the minimum mitigation ratio shall be 1:1. DYETT & BHATIA U.ba- and Ragt-al Plan—s