Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Report - January 25, 1998
t7;• ; ; „ �-, .9 -E 'A e s n -m- R tions sessm ew"mrt u I en em ral Plan Update. yo, L J. Laurence Mintier & Associates -'Black& Veatch City. of., Lodi. Public Works Department Psomas and Associates TJKM.,Transpertation Consultants January 10-89 MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi , Community Development Department T0: HOLDERS OF OPTIONS ASSESSMENT REPORT - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE : JANUARY 24, 1989 Buildout Calculation Assumptions In April 1987, the Lodi Community Development Department conducted a detailed inventory of existing land uses in the GP study area (1987 Existing Land Use Inventory). Buildout calculations for the three land use options are based on the 1957 Existing Land Use Inventory. The existing conditions 'caseHne data provided in Table 2-1 differ from the existing conditions data provided in the Background Report because Woodbridge data have been eliminated from the GP study area and because the 1987 Existing Land Use Inventory has been refined. Committed Undeveloped Lands A number of parcels surveyed for the 1987 Existing Land Use Inventory were considered to be vacant when in fact a tentative parcel or subdivision map had been approved for them. These committed, undeveloped lands have been included in the calculations of new development based' on the approved use and number of units. Lodi General Plan Time Frame Each of the three land use options has a 20 -year time horizon (1987-2007). Complete buildout of the GP study area is expected to occur within this 20 -year time frame. This Options Assessment Ret)ort analyzes and compares the impacts of each of the land use options. Annexation Assumption Annexation is expected to occur within the GF time frame. Therefore, the Options Assessment Report analyses assume that new development under Options 2 and 3 would be under City jurisdiction at buildout. Future Detention Basin/Parks The need for additional storm drainage detention basins has been estimated based on discussions with City staff (J. Laurence Mintier & Associates 1988). An estimated 8 acres of detention basins (surface area) are required per 100 acres of urban development. Current City policy designates that detention basins also be developed for park purposes. 2-8 The detention basin sites shown in Figure 2-3 are not proposed locations but possible sites Identified for statistical purposes. A preliminary analysis of detention basin and park needs is analyzed in Chapter 8, 'Public Services." Future School Sites The need for additional school sites has been estimated based OR discussions with Lodi Unified School District (LUSD) staff (.I. Laurence Mintier &. Associates 88). According to LUSD staff, the following estimates of schooi site acreage are used: 10 acres per elementary school, 14 acres per middle school, and 45-50 acres per high school. The school sites shown in Figure 2-4 are not proposed locations but possible sites identified for statistical purposes. A preliminary analysis of school needs is analyzed in Chapter 8, 'Public Services." Industrial Reserve It is assumed that some undeveioped, underdeveloped, or agriculturally used land north of Kettleman Lane between the existing city limits and the CCTC tracks would develop with industrial uses beyond the 20 -year time frame of the Lodi GP (Figure 2-5). An industrial reserve land use category has therefore been created for this land. Currently, the existing GP and zoning ordinance designate this area for industrial uses. Market forecasts generated for the GP Update, however, do not indicate that this area would be absorbed during the GP time frame. Therefore, the City has created an industrial reserve category to set aside this area for industrial development past the GP time frame. DESCRIPTION OF LAND USE OPTIONS Each of the three land use options described below represents a different land use scenario for future growth in tyle Lodi GP study area. The Options Assessment Report will assess and compare the impacts of buildout of the GP study area in accordance with the land uses designated under Options 1, 2, and 3. Option 1 Option I reflects the adopted Lodi G? as modified by Ordinance No. 1237 (Measure A), which amended the Land Use Element of the Lodi GP by removing from the Land Use Element anv area not within the city limits. Measure A requires that annexation of properties to the City for development purposes must be approved by a vote of the 2-9 electorate. This option also reflects the adopted GP as modified by Ordinai:ce No. 1409, which limits new residential development in the Eastside study area 3 a maximum density of 7 dweiling units per gross acre. For purposes of analyzing and comparing the three land use options, the existing GP land use designations were translated into the proposed GP iand use designations. In some area, adjustments were made to reflect deveiopment that has occurred and to provide consistency between the GP and zoning. Under Option 1, no new detention basins are designated. Two existing sites are plz.nned For detention basins C -Basin and C -Basin. One additional elementary school is designated under this option (Figure 2-4) because the LUSD is currently constructing an elementary school at Scarborough Drive and Wimbledon Drive. In addition, the LUSD is planning to construct a new middle school on LUSD-owned property Iocated on Mills Avence near West Elm Street. Option I identifies a 9 -acre developed parcel at the southwestern corner of Lower Sacramento and Turner Roads with redevelopment potential. The land use is expected to shift from office to neighborhood/community commercial. Buildout Land Uses The Option 1 iced use ma -p is shown in Figure 2-6. Table 2-1 presents the increment of new growth and total acres by proposed GP designation expected under buildout of Option 1 in 2007. Option 1 proposes 588 acres of new development, of which 364, or 62 percent, are committed but undeveloped. Of the total new development, 34 percent is designated as residential (80 percent low density residential, 16 percent medium density residentid, 2 percent high density residential, and 2 percent Eastside residential), 4 percent commercial (52 percent neighborhood/community, 35 percent general commercial, and 13 percent downtown commercial), 7 percent office, 46 percent industrial (11 percent Light and 89 percent Heavy), and 10percent public/quasi-public. Option 1 does not designate any new acreage as detention basin/park, agriculture, or industrial reserve. Under Option 1, a total of 1,338 new dwelling units are proposed (874 low density residential, 341 medium density residential, 87 high density residential. and 36 Eastside residential). Of the 1,338units, 783 low density residential, 325 medium density residential, 10 high density residential, and 25 Eastside residential units are considered committed ")ut undeveloped. A tota! of 2,935 new employees are projected from deveiopment of commercial, office, industrial, and public/quasi-public uses. 2-13 OPTIONS ASSESSMENT REPORT . FORuN 1 THE`',;. . CITE' OF LODI GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Prepared for: City of Lodi Community Development Department 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95241 Contact: James Schroeder 209/333-6711 Prepared by: Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1725 - 23rd Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95816 Contact: Ron Bass/Francine Demos-Petropouios 916/444-5638 Contributors: J. Laurence Mintier & Associates Black & Veatch City of Lodi Public Works Department Psomas and Associates TJKM Transportation Consultants January 1989 I 'Phis document should be cited as: Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1988. Options assessment report for the Cifv of Lodi general plan update. (JSA 8b-101.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for: City of Dodi Cornmimity Development Department, Lodi, CA. 0 M E 0 a L TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 - Introduction Introduction Scope of the Options Assessment Report Organization of the Options Assessment Report CHAMpTER 2 - Project Description GP Area Study Location Existing Land Uses in the GP Area Land Use Assumptions Description of Land Use Options CHAPTER 3 - Summary of Impacts CHAPTER 4 - Land Use Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Implications for the General Plan CHAPTER 5 - Housing Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Implications for the General Plan CHAPTER 6 - Population Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Implications for the General Plan CHAPTER 7 - Employment Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Implications for the General Plan CHAPTER 8 - Public Services Water Sewerage Storm Drainage Law Enforcement Fire Protection Parks and Recreation Schools 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-4 2-9 3-1 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-4 4-4 5-1 5-1 5-3 5-4 5-5 6-1 6-1 6-1 6""3 6-3 7-1 7-1 7-1 7-3 7-3 8-1 8-1 8-3 8-5 8-10 8-13 8-16 8-19 W9 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) . Paye CHAPTER 9 - Transportation 9-1 CHAPTER 10 - Bibliography 10-1 - Refcrences Cited 10-1 Persona! Communications 10-1 CHAPTER 11 - Report Preparation Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 11-1 J. Laurence Mintier & Associates 11-1 c Black & Veatch 11-2 City of Lodi Public Works Department 11-2 Psomas and Associates 11-2 TJE M Transportation Consultants 11-2 APPENDIX A - Executive Summary of the City of Lodi A-1 J General Plan Update Land Absorption Study _Q LIST OF TABLES Page Table 2-1. Comparison of Approximate Gross Acres, 2-3 Dwelling Units, Population, and Employment for Existing Conditions and by Land Use Option Table 2-2. Land Use Assumptions 2-5 Table 3-1. Summary of Impacts by Land Use Option 3-2 Table 4-1. Agricultural land Conversion by Land Use Option 4-2 Table 5-1. New Housing and Employment Development by 5-2 Land Use Option Table 6-1. Comparison of Approximate Population for Existing 6-2 Conditions and by Land Use Option Table 7-1. Comparison of Approximate Employment for Existing 7-2 Conditions and by Land Use Option Table 8-1. Future Well Demands by Land Use Options 8-2 Table 8-2. Police Protection Requirements Resulting from New 8-11 Development by Land Use Options Table S-3. Fire Protection Requirements Resulting from 8-14 New Development by Land Use Options Table 8-4. Developed Parkland Requirements Resulting from 8-17 New Development by land Use Option 3. Table 8-5. Projected Enrollment and Capacity of Lodi Public 8-20 Schools by Lend Use Option Table 9-1. Recommended Capacities for the Lodi General Plan 9-2 Study Area Table 9-2. Comparison of Road Miles by Arterial Type 9-4 LIST OF FIGURES PAze Figure 2-1. Regional Location 2-2 Figure 2-2. Lodi GP Study and Eastside Areas Follows 2-9 Figure 2-3. Storm Drainage Detention Basins/Parks Follows 2-9 Figure 2-4. School Sites Follows 2-9 Figure 2-5. Industrial Reserve (Options 2 and 3) Follows 2-9 Figure 2-6. New Development Potential (Option 1) Follows 2-10 Figure 2-7. New Development Potential (Option 2) Follows 2-11 Figure 2-8. New Development Potential (Option 3) Follows 2-12 Figure 8-1. Water System Improvements Required Follows 8-2 Under (Option 1) Figure 8-2. Water System Improvements Required Follows 8-2 Under (Option 2) Figure 8-3. Water System Improvements Required Follows 8-3 Under (Option 3) Figure 8-4. Preliminary Sanitary Sewer Improvements Follows 8-3 Required Under Option 1 (Sewers 12 Inches and Large: in Diameter) Figure S-5. Preliminary Sanitary Sewer Improvements Follows 8-4 Required Under Option 2 (Sewers 12 Inches and Larger in Diameter) Figure 8-6. Preliminary Sanitary Sewer Improvements Follows S-4 Required Under Option 3 (Sewers 13 Inches and larger in Diameter) Figure 8-7. Master Storm Drainage System Improvements 8-7 Required Under Option 2 Figure 8-S. Master Storm Drainage System Improvements 8-9 Required Under Option 3 LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Figure 8-9. Schools Required Under Option 1 Figure 5-10. Schools Required Under Option 2 Figure 8-11. Schools Required Under Option 3 Figure 9-1. Daily Traffic Volumes (Option 1) Figure 9-2. Future Circulation. Network (Option 1) Figure 9-3. Daily Traffic Volumes (Option 2) Figure 9-4. Future Circulation Network (Option 2) Figure 9-5. Daily Traffic Volumes (Option 3) Figure 9-6. Future Circulation Network (Option 3) Page Follows 8-20 Follows 8-21 Follows 8-22 9-5 9-6 9-7 9-8 9-9 9-10 U 4 CHAPTER 1. Introduction f INTRODUcriON California state law requires each city and county to adopt a general plan "for the physical development of the city or county, and any land outside its boundaries which bears relation zo its planning." The role of the general plan is to act as a constitution for development, the foundation on which all land use decisions are to be based. The general plan expresses community development goals and embodies public policy relative to the distribution of future !and use. State general plan law (Government Code Section 65302 of the State Genera! Plan Guidelines) requires that a general plan contain the following elements: Land Use, Circulation, Mousing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety. In addition, a general plan may include option;.! elements of local importance that relate to the physical development of a city. The City of Ludi (City) General Plan (GP) Update will also include a Growth VManagement Element as one of these optional elements. This Options Assessment report constitutes Phase V cf rhe City of Lodi GP Update process. To date the Issue Identification, Data Collection and Analysis, and Identification and Screening of Planning Options phases have been completed. The following is a brief description of the GI'Update process. o Issue Identification. The purpose of this phase was to identify community concerns and planning issues to guide data collection and subsequent policy development. To identify community concerns, a series of opinion surveys and interviews were conducted in April 1987. Major planning issues were identified by the Lotti City Council, Lodi Planning Commission, City department heads, community leaders, and residents at large. These opinion surveys and interviews were intended to allow interested persons to express their concerns and become involved in the planning process. The Summary of Community Opinion Survey and Interviews Report is hereby incorporated by reference (Jones &. Stokes Associates 1987). A copy of this report is available for review at the City of Lodi Community Development Department. o Data Collection and Analysis. `17he purpose of this phase was to thoroughly update information on all of the issues described above. The analysis of these data highlighted their implication for land use and development. The data and analyses are presented in the Background Report and will be used as a data source for the GP. The Background Report is hereby incorporated by reference 1-T M (Jones &. Stokes Associates 1988a). A copy Gf this report is available for review at the City of Lodi Community Development Department. o Land Absorption Study. This study was prepared to provide an evaluation of the market demand for major land uses in the Lodi area over a 20 -year period (1987- 2007). The evaluation focused on four broad land use categories defined by the markets for residential, commercial, office, and industrial land. These rnZ rket evaluations include 20 -year absorption schedules for land use options based on two primary assumptions: a 2.0 -percent annual housing stock growth compounded over 20 years and a 3.5 -percent annual average population increase through 2007. This study was used to project the availability of new land that will be needed to satisfy future market demand. '1—he Land Absorption Study is hereby incorporated by reference (Jones & Stokes Associates 1988b) and is summarized in Chapter 2. A copy of this report is available for review at the City of Lodi Community Development Department. o Identification and Screening of Planning Options. Based on the Summary of Community Opinion Survey and Interview Report, the Background Report, and input from City staff, three Citywide land use planning options were selected by the City: Existing GP (Option 1), Low Growth (Option 2), and High Growth (Option 3). The City of Lodi Draft General Plan Options Report, hereby incorporated by reference Q. Laurence Mintier 8 Associates '1988), outlines the three land use options and the assumptions used in developing these land use options, summarizes new development potential associated with each of the land use options and the assumptions and principles on which these calculations and the options arc based, and presents 20 -year development phasing scenarios for Options 2 and 3 that are segregated into 5 -year increments identifying the amount of land that would be developed in each of the proposed GP designations. A copy of this report is available for review at the City of Lodi Community Development Department. o Options Assessment Report. T h e purpose of this study is to comparatively assess the implications and impacts of the three land use options. Based on public review and direction from the Lodi Planning Commission and Ciiy Council, a preferred land use option will be selected to form the basis of the Draft GP. o Draft General Plan. The Draft GP will be prepared in three parts: 1) the Policy Document, 2) the revised Background Report, and 3) the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Policy Document will address the elements required by state planning law, as described earlier, and the optional Growth Management Element, the Urban Design Subelement, and the Schools SubeIement. o Draft Environmental Impact Report. 71« Draft GI' EIIZ will analyze the preferred land use option and alternatives in comparison to the preferred option. Based on public review, the Draft Gl' will be fine-tuned. o Final General Pian and Environmental Impact Report. Following public review of the Draft GP and EIR, the Final GP and EIR will be prep :red. `A SCOPE OF THE OPTIONS ASSESSMENT REPORT This report comparatively assesses the implications and impacts of the three land use planning options to aid the Lodi Planning Commission and City Council in selecting the preferred !and use option that will forn the basis of the Lodi Draft GP. City Community Development and Public Works Department staff determined that the following issues were of concern in selecting the preferred land use option. o land use o housing o population o employment o public services - water - sewerage - storm drainage - law enforcement - fire service - parks and recreation - schools o transportation ORGANIZATION OF THE OPTIONS ASSESSMENT REPORT The Options Assessment Report is organized as follows. Chapter 1, "Introduction," provides a brief c;crview of the GP Update process. Chapter 2, "Project Description," describes the three land use options identified by City staff and iand use assumptions used in identifying the options. Chapter 3, "Summary of Impacts," summarizes and compares the impacts of each land use option. Chapters 4-9 are each devoted to a single impact topic. Relevant data on the environmental setting are contained in the Background Report. The impacts of each land use option are identified, evaluated in terms of their significance, and compared to the other land use options, possible policy options available to the City are suggested for possible incorporation into the Draft GI' Policy Document. Chapter 10, "Bibliography," identifies the documents and individuals co'isulted in preparing this Options Assessment Report. I-3 Chapter 11, "Report Preparation," lists those individuals and firms h1volved in preparing this Options Assessment Report. Technical appendices are included at the end of the report. `eff C 20 GP AREA STUDY LOCATION The regional location of the Lodi GP planning area (GP study area) is shown in FigLre 2-1. The GP study area comprises 10,526 acres. Its boundaries include ail areas within the incorporated city limits and the unincorporated area iininediately adjacent to the city limits. The GP steely area is bounded by the Vtokelumne River on the north, Curry Road on the east, Armstrong Road on the south, and the Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) Canal on the west (Figure 2-2). EXISTING LAND USES IN THE GP STUDY AREA Table 2-1 presents the current land acreage totals by proposed GP land use designation. The GP study area contains 10,526acres of land (5,00( rn the incorporated area and 5,526 in the unincorporated area), of which 29 percent is residential (89 percent low density residential, 6 percent medium density residential, and 5 percent high density residential), 4 percent commercial (39 percent neighborhood/community commercial, 56 percent general commercial, and 5 percent downtown commercial), less than. 1 percent office, 7 percent industrial (45 percent light industrial and 55 percent heavy industrial), 9 percent public/quasi-public, 4 percent detention basin/park, and 42 percent agriculture and approximately 5 percent vacant land. Currently, there are no Eastside residential, planned residential, or industrial reserve designations in the GP study arca. A total of 17,506 units exist in the GP study area (17,155 units in the incorporated area and 348 units in the unincorpQ_rated. area), of which 70 percent are low density residentia!, 9 percent are medium density residential, and 21 percent are high density residenria! . An estimated 21,953 employees currently work in the G? study area (20,154 in the incorporated area and 1,799 in the unincorporated area). 2-1 0 | 2 J 4 MILES FIGURE 2-1. REGIONAL LOCATION Table 2-1. Comparison of Approximate Gross Acres, Dwolling Units, Population, and %inployment for Existing Conditions and by Land Use Option ................ .................... ......... ...................................................... II tilstfic C010111013 II . ............ ........... DIMS I I I OFINI I I .................... opt!"I I II OPTIN .......................................... I 1 01-1101 1 1 WNW I II II I.Citteat of clovt1b I It"tticat of Omit I Io" clent of C.Ovtb II CP got ldcyt I cp lot IdQot I CP out ldoct I ..................... II I............................ I City I ............................ County I ... I ----------- City I ............................ Cocaty I City ...... I.......... I I ..................... Cogoty II ...... II ..................... Lid he II I.......... sob, I 1cot! lot Sob- 1col/ lot Sob- IC041 lot Sut- 11 Sub- I Sob- I ;.D- I D'Sigtation II City I ..................... Cozaty total I JUrdi, Cot ...................... Total ltiodty I ............. Coo Total ihdtv Cot Total II City Cootty Total I CQY Coubtf total I city Cocoty Total I .............. ............................ I I ..................... I ..................... I ........ .................. IAiillC.iIl I S, 000 I I $,sit II, Sit II if 4 2 2 4 1 it I I m I 211 I'll 3 2,171 1 )1 1 Ili 1,111 3,0;1 II S,oll 5, sm to, S71 1 5, oil 5,321 11,570 1 5, 0 (1 5,51; 10,514 I L-V t!tl I ty II 2,017 170 1,iSi II ill 11 1 151 1 if! II I 151 1 1 ( I 11 I Ist II 2, Ili 72e 1,115 1 1,111 120 2,115 1 1,111 120 1, 1 is I X!dics Density II 151 : I 1 171 II 31 1 0 1 M I b 37 1 31 1 9 ;2 II 111 1S 205 1 M ; I 'IDS I III I) M I 1 0 list Wasi"T 11 1 % 2 1 it? Il 1 0 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II Ili I III I lit 0 lit I lit I Its I 1 0 til;si.11 t:5idtct1!I H I I 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 it I I I 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 11 I t F114tal it I f I II I I I I I f I I,Zli 1,711 I 1 0 I'm 1,110 II 0 1, 1 1 1 1,176 1, 1 ]1 1 1 1, lie I, lie I I a SU!10fIL I i i,35s 111 J101 II 1:1 21 0 111 1 111 11 1,211 1 , Ili I 111 I ],I'D 7, ISI II 7,551 113 3, 21) 1 2,551 1,113 1,525 1 2,$51 I'm 5,"11 I I 1 0 1 M I 141 II 0 11 1 12 1 1 I2 11 51 1 0 12 121 111 II lit I lit 1 111 11 ill I lit 121 212 1 1 0 1 17 105 II 151 2) 220 1 !91 7; 211 1 131 110 117 1 1 12 1 11 1 it 1 71 1 22 1 11 1 I o SWONL 1 1 3SI 2 1 M II I i1 I If I I !f Ili 157 1 4 11 ill 20 II Til 23 lot 1 311 M $31 1 111 M ON I I 10 11 ;ct II I I i II II 71 11 I 1 31 1 I 21 11 1 3 1 1 11 I 11 11 it II 11) II 1 103 1 1 : 3 0 15) 1 It) I M I I I I I I laets it I a I II 11 II 11 I I I2 I I I S I 11 2$ 1 SS I 71 101 1 111 I1 251 11 111 1 lit 161 )15 1 M !0) Ill I 1 0 ievy II III it 31I II 136 117 I III I log IIS 0 Its I 100 (1 1 114 11 SIS is Ill I Sit is 101 1 111 is SII I I o IdMIIL II SSI 143 Ill II Til ISO I M I I it ISO 1 110 1 Ill Ise I Ito II 12S 1 if lit I Its Isl 111 1 125 151 117 1 1 1 1 IFSElicl9us!•/a3loc 11 II Ili 1 1 Til >f1 1 31 26 1 1 511 31 1 21 it 111 31 11 11 it III I I Ill 1 Ill I I I 1 151 Ill 1111 111 1;1 i, 111 I I I iW.ttt'M lisli'llatif II II Ili I 11 II 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 it H I I II I Ili lit II Ili I I if )(I 1 :24 111 111 1 )it III $to I sltiralurt I! 151 1, if 1 1,151 II I I 1,111 1,411 I I 1 1,111 I'm I I I IIITS I'm II 1 1,111 I'm I 1 1, 111 1,174 I I I'm I'lls I I I i Mmt II II 111 II I11 AI II I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I 155 Is$ I ..................... .........................1I----------------- IMILLM, 0113 1111, 151 - ............................ ) is 11'sci II 1,143 its ............................ 1 1, us 1 1,141. I ............................ m I'm 1,111 I 1,113 ..................... Its 11,111 Is,IS1 I Ill, m I ...................... ill 11,111 lit, m 1,007 21,111 111,116 11110 )1,517 I I I toy NISIty I I ll,itl 111 11, IST I1 I I ) 11 1 111 1 111. 11 1 M I til 11 1 111 1 1 11,71? 131 11,111 111,111 I I I 11,171 117, 112 131 11,111 1 1 0 4411% ;Costly II I'Sli I I'll) if m if I 111 1 )IS it I I I I 1 315 If I m II 1,115 1 1,114 1 I'M ) I'm 1 1,175 5 I'm I 1 0 liil Deasity 11 I'm I I'm 11 i# 71 0 11 1 11 N 1 11 1 if 71 1 17 it 3,133 1 ),m 1 1,711 1 ),Ill I ],-m I I'm I I 0 l4stside Itsiltatill II I I I II 25 11 1 IS I1• I ) 1 1 25 11 1 11 II 11 1 31 1 34 1 11 1 1t 1 11 plicid NsHtotlfl II I I I If I I I I I I I I'm I'm I 1 1 11,711 11,711 Il 1 1 1 1 1 I'm I,fSI I I 11,111 1),711 1 I ..................... I .........................11.....................I WFUL11101 I I ((1 317 I ............................ Ito 0,211 11 2,111 Sol I ............................ I ),m 1 2,171 I ............................ so] 22,501 25,111 1 I'm I I ..................... scl n,us li'm I ifl,105 I ..................... Ito %ll$ 111;105 Ijilit U'lls lit, to$ li,iol Is, 111 1 I ..................... ......................... fix, LoWly 11.........----........11............................ 1 1 21,ISI 1,111 21,957 it I'm 1,531 I............................ I ........................... *1! ..................... 1 2,135 1 1,117 I'm 1,154 I'll? 1 1,)17 I'm I'm 1,111 117),011 ..................... 1,717 2 1,111 12),114 S'm 21,!15 22),212 1, if I 11,711 I I o IeiSl6oteoeatecaaae11711 ),Ill 1 1,111 II 1 If( I Ili 1 1 m 2,111 7,s2o 1 1 131 1,)n I ), 721 II (,?If I 1,211 1 4,111 1,111 1,)11 1 1,111 ),111 1;514 1 4,524 5!1 5,511 11 ?s ;2S 0 200 1 is 125 1,400 I'm 1 75 I?S 2,41S I'm it 5,111 551 5,112 1 s'llf 1,131 1,112 1 5, lit ),m 1, 1 ) I I I c ocytttya II lit I M II 21 51 1 If 1 21 Si I $I 1 11 So 1 11 11 $71 1 $71 1 $71 # 571 1 $71 - # M I I * officl II 1, Ise 1 1,151 11 137 111 1 M I M 171 1 Ili 1 117 1 it 11) go I II 2,511 1 2,514 1 ?, sii 1 1,514 1 2, sit I I 1 2,116 1 1 0 L:lbt II ),101 Its 4,111 11 170 so 1 110 1 131 M Si ill 1 110 Its Si 131 it 1,111 IDS (,m 1 1,112Til 1, IS] 1 1,112 m 5,211 1 11 2,117 317 2,tlf 11 M is) 1 1,11) I m 57S 1 1,05 f Ito 712 O 177 II Lill 30 3,117 1 3, SJ? Al 1,111 1 I'S"i I I ?, I I I Ill 2,11) II ?it III I IN 1 Af 141 211 ill 1 219 lip Ill IS1 11 3, lit 121 31 Its 1 ),11t III 1, Iss 1 1,124 Sit 1,1111 I LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS General Plan Designations, Density Standards, and Floor:Area Ratios Table 2-2 describes the proposed GP land use designations, average density standards, and a%,erage floor:area ratios [FAR] used in developing the ihree land use options. FAR is the ratio between building square footage to lot square footage. Two new GP land use designations are proposed: Eastside residential and planned residential. Eastside residential reflects the adoption of Ordinance No. 1409, which limits new residential development in the Eastside area (Figure 2-2) to a maximum of 7 units per acre. However, as indicated in Table 2-2, an average density of units per acre is assumed. planned residential is a reserve designation applied to unincorporated lands only. When this land is annexed to the City of Lodi and residential development is approved, the planned residential designation would be replaced with a Low-, Medium-, or High -Density residential designation based on its approved density. On the average, new units would be developed according to the following formula: 65 percent low, 10 percent medium, and 25 percent high density residential. Summarized below are the proposed GP land use designations and permitted uses. Residential This ?anduse category contains the following types of residential uses: o Low density residential allows single family detached and second units and two family units on corner lots or lots sided by a cominercia! or industrial district. I -he primary corresponding zoning districts are Residence District - One -Family and Residence District -Two -Family. 'This designation asstttnes buildout at 5 units per acre with 2.6 persons per unit. o IN-ledium density residentiai allows single family, two-, three-, and four -family, and multifamily and group dwellings. The primary corresponding zoning distri.:ts are Planned Development, Low -Density Multi -Family, and Garden !Apartment Residence. This designation assumes buildout at 12 units per acre with 2.6 persons per unit. o High density residentiai allows single family, two family, multifamily, and group dwellings, in addition to hoteis, motels, rind hoarding houses. "file primary corresponding zoning districts are Medium -Density Multi-l:an ly Residence and High -Density Multi -Family Residence. This designation assumes buildout at 24 units per acre with 2.6 persons per unit. o Eastside residential reflects the Lodi City Council's adoption of ordinance No, 1409. 'Phis ordinance limits new residential development in the Eastside 2-4 Table 2-2. Land Use Assumptions Density Standard FAR Proposed GP Designation (units/acre) (percent FAR/acre) Residential o Low Density 5 -- o Medium Density 12 -- o High Density 24 -- o Eastside Residential 5 o PIanned Residential 7 -- Commercial o Neighborhood/Community -- 30 o General -- 30 o Downtown -- 150 Office -- 35 Industrial o Light -- 40 o Heavy — 40 Public/Quasi-Public -- -- Detention Basin/Park -- -- Floodplain Agriculture -- -- Industrial Reserve -- -- Source: J. Laurence Mintier & Associates 1988. 2-5 2 0 - PM area to a maximum density of 7 dwelling units per acre but deems all existing multifamily units to be conforming uses. This designation allows single family detached units. This designation assumes buildout at 5 units per acre with 2.6 persons per unit. o Planned residential is a residential reserve designation applied to unincor- porated Iand. As this land is incorporated and residential development is approved, this designation would be replaced witli a low, medium, or high de-zsity residential designation, based on its app,-oved density. New units witoin this designation would be developed according to the following formula: 65 percent low density residential, 10 percent medium density residential, and 25 percent high density residential. This designation assumes buildout at 5 units per acre for low density, 12 units -per acre for medium density and 24 units per acre for high density with -2.6 persons per unit. (See above discussions for low-, medium-, and high-density designations for allowed uses.) Commercial _f Office o Neighborhood/community commercial allows retail stores, business offices, and service. The primary corresponding zonin=g districts are conimercial- shopping. This designation assumes buildout at 30 percent FAR. o General commercial allows retail stores, business offices, service, and storage and wareliousii,g. The primary corresponding zoning districts are Neighbor- hood commercial and general commercial. This designation assumes buildout at 30 percent FAR. o Downtown conimercial allows retail stores, business offices, and service in downtown Lodi. The primary corresponding zoning districts are N--ighbor- hood commercial, and general commercial. This designation assumes buildout at 150 percent FAR. o Office allows business and professional uses, rest and convalescent homes, and multifamily and group dwellings. The primary corresponding zoning district is residential -commercial -professional officedistrict. This designat ion assumes buildout at 35 percent FAR. Industrial o Light industrial allows retail stores, business offices, service, storage and warehousing, and wholesale business and manufacturing. The primary corresponding zoning district iscommercial 1 -light industrial and Iight industrial. This designation assumes buildout at 40 percent FAR. 2-6 N Heavy industrial allows retail stores, business offices, service, storage and Public/Quasi-Public This category contains uses such as educational, institutional, and religioas. Detention Basin/Park This category contains storm drainage detention basins and parks. Floodplain This category contains areas within the floodplain of the Mokelumne River, r. Agriculture This category contains areas in permanent agriculture. Industrial Resarve This category contains some undeveloped, underdeveloped, or agriculturally used land north cf Kettleman Lane between the existing city limits and the Central California Traction Company (CCTC) tracks that would develop with industrial uses beyond the 20 - year time frarne. Land Absorption Assumptions As, indicated in Chapter 1, "Introduction," the Land Absorption Study provided an- evaltbution of the market demand for major land use categories in the Lodi area over a 20 year period (1987-2007). The purpose of the study was to provide market information and forecasts to hell) guide the formation of the land use options. Evaluations were prepared for four major land use categories defined by the markets for residential, coil, mercia1, office,and industrial land. 'The market evaluation resulted in 20 -year absorption schedules showing cumulative land absorbed in acres in 5 -year, increnients. These evaluations were based on two primary assumptions: a 2.0 -percent annual housing stock growth rate compounded over 20 years and a 3.5 -percent annual average population increase through 2007. The increment of new land, vacant as of April' 1957, deeded to satisfy future market demand was assumed in defining Options 2 and.3 (AppCttluAOittairis a copy{blhe Executive Surinat3from this study.} 2-7 Buildout. Calculation Assumptions��,�y .n. .: � o In April 1987, the Lodi Community Development Department conducted a detailed inventory,,of..existing land uses in the GP>study area (1987 Existing Land Use Inventory); =s #' Buildout calculations for the three land use options are based on the 1987 Existing Land Use Inventory. The existing conditions baseline data provided in Table 2-1 differ from the existing conditions data provided in the Background Report because Woodbridge data have x i been eliminatedrfrom:the GP:study area ani because the -1987 Existing land~U5e Inventory has been refined_ Committed Undeveloped Lands A number of parcels surveyed for the 1987 Existing Land Use Inventory were considered to be vacant when in fact a tentative parcel or subdivision reap had been approved for them. These committed, undeveloped lands have been included in the calculations of new development based on the approved use and number of units. Lodi General Plan Time Frame Each of the three land use options has a 20 -year time horizon (1987-2007). Complete buildout of the GP study area is expected to occur within this 20 -year time frame. This Options Assessment Report analyzes and compares the impacts of each of the land use options. Annexation Assumption Annexation. is expected to occur within the GP time frame. Therefore, the Options Assessment Report analyses assume that new development under Options 2 and 3 would be under City jurisdiction at buildout. Future Detention Basin/Parks The need for additional storm drainage detention basins has been estimated based on discussions with City staff (3. Laurence Mintier & Associates 1988). An estimated 8 acres of detention basins (surface area) are required per 100 acres of urban development. Current City policy designates that detention basins also be developed for park purposes. H The detention basin sites shown in Figure 2-3 are not proposed locations but possible sites identified for statistic -d purposes. A preliminary analysis of detention basin and park needs is analyzed in Chapter 8, "Public Services." Future School Sites The need for additional school sites has been estimated based on discussions with Lodi Unified School District (LUSD) staff (J. Laurence Mintier & Associates 1988). -According to LUSD staff, the following estimates of school site acreage are.used:...10 acres -o r - - p e r . el e*ffientary school,- 14 acres per middle school, and 45- acres per highschool. schbod'.-` n The school sites shown in Figure 2-4 are not proposed locations but possible sites' identified for statistical purposes. A preliminary analysis of school needs is analyzed in Chapter 8, "Public Services." Industrial Reserve It is assumed that some undeveloped, underdeveloped, or agriculturally used land north of Kettleman Lane between the existing city limits and the CCTC tracks would develop with industrial uses beyond the 20 -year time frame of the Lodi GP (Figure 2-5). An industrial reserve land use category has therefore been created for this land.. Currently, the existing GP and zoning ordinance designate this area for industrial uses. Market forecasts generated for the GP Update, however, do not indicate that this area would be absorbed during the GP time frame. Therefore, the Citv has created an industrial reserve category to set aside this area for industrial development past the GP. time frame. DESCRIPTION OF LAND USE OPTIONS Each of the three land use options described below represents a difflerent.land, use... scenario for future growth in the Lodi GP study area. G The Options Assessment Report will assess and compare the impacts of buildout of the GP study area in accordance with the land uses designated J rider Options 1, 2, and 3. Option 1 Option I reflects the adopted Lodi GP as modified by Ordinance No. 1237 (Measure A), which amended the Land Use Element of the Lodi GP by removing from the I -and Use Element anv area not within the. city limits- Measure A requires that annexation,- of p roved by. a vote m 6"a p: -a properties to the City for -development purposes must b 2-9 i - � 2SSaac �11.24 ac.` w flit I t s t t Land Use Option 1: None Land Use Option 2: 1-5 Land Use Option 3: 1-7 -i Lodi General Plan �1 FIGURE 2-3. STORM DRAINAGE DETENTION BASINS/PARKS O 800 2400 _....--Sourcaq:J.:t�urmce MtM1er..a,Aa,ocidos FEET T flll�.i� - � 2SSaac �11.24 ac.` w flit I t s t t Land Use Option 1: None Land Use Option 2: 1-5 Land Use Option 3: 1-7 -i Lodi General Plan �1 FIGURE 2-3. STORM DRAINAGE DETENTION BASINS/PARKS O 800 2400 _....--Sourcaq:J.:t�urmce MtM1er..a,Aa,ocidos FEET Land Use Option I: Middle School A: Elementary School t Land Use Option 2: Middle School A; High School B; Elementary Schools 1-4 Land Use Option 3: Middle School A: High School B; Elementary Schools 1-7 electorate. This option also reflects the adopted GP as modified by Ordinance No. 1409, which limits new residential development in the Eastside study area to a maximum density of 7 dwelling units per,;gross For purposes of analyzing and comparing the three land use options, the existing GP land use designations were translated into the proposed GP land use designations. In some h areas, adjustments were made to reflect development that has occurred and to provide consistency between the GP and zoning. Under Option 1, no new detention basins are designated. Two existing sites are planned for detention basins C -Basin and G -Basin. OnP nriditinnal elementary school is designated under this option (Figure 2=4) because the LUSD is currently constructing an elementary school at Scarborough Drive and Wimbledon Drive. In addition, the LUSD is planning to construct a new middle school. on LUSD-owned property located on Mills Avenue near West Elm Street. Option 1 identifies a 9 -acre developed parcel at the southwestern corner of Lower Sacramento and Turner Roads with redevelopment. pctcntial. ile land use is expected to shift from office to neighborhood/community commercial. Buildout Land Uses 1 he Option l land use map is shown in Figure `_ Table 2-1 presents the inclement:"* of new growth and total acres by proposed GP designation expected under buildout of Option 1 in 2007. Option 1 proposes 588 acres of new development, of which 364, or 62 percent, are committed but undeveioped. Of the total new development, 34 percent is designated as residential (SO percent low density residential, 16 percent medium density residential, 2': percent high density residential, and 2 percent Eastside residentid), 4 percent commercial (52 percent neighborhood/community, 35 percent general cotnrnercial, and 13 percent downtown commercial), 7 percent office, 46 percent industrial (11 percent Light and 99 percent Heavy), and 10 percent public/quasi-public. Option 1 does not designate any new acreage as detention basin/park, agriculture, or industrial reserve. Under Option 1, a totai of 1,338 new dwelling units are proposed (874 low density residential, 341 medium density residential, 87 high density residential, and 36 Eastside residential). Of the 1,338 units, 783 low density residential, 325 medium density residential, 10 high density residential, and 25 Eastside residential units are considered committed but undeveloped. A total of 2,935 new employees are projected from development of commercial, office, industrial, and public/quasi-public uses - 2 -10 j -� RMD RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RHD RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY ER EASTSIDE RESIDENTIAL NCC NEtGHBORI4O0DIC0MMUl4tTY COMMERCIAL Note: Does not Include committed, undeveloped land. GC GENERAL COMMERCIAL DC DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL O OFFICE LI LIGHT INDUSTRIAL H1 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL POP PUBLIC IOUASI —PUBLIC C LOdi General Plan FIGUPE 2-6. NEW DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL (9PTJ9.N 1) 0 800 2400 QST Sovree: J. lam ance 1AlnRor R Aesoclatee i9E8 FEET Option 2 Option 2 is based on an assumption that the City would adopt a 2 -percent annual residential growth rase and that the mix of new residential development would occur according to the following formula: 65 percent low density residential, 10 percent medium density residential, and 25 percent high density residential. his option assumes that nonresidential development would occur at a moderate rate. For the incorporated area, Option 2 is identical to Option 1, except that 17 acres of heavy industrial uses easr of State Route (SR) 99 have been shifted to light industrial. For the unincorporated area, new residential and commercial development has been designated west of Lower Sacramento Road and between Kettleman and Harney Lanes. No new development is proposed south of Harney lane. All new industrial development, with the exception of the area along Stockton Street south ofKettleman Lane, would occur within the existing city limits. Under Option 2, one new detention basin is designated west of Lower Sacramento Road and the E -Basin (Westgate Park) would be expanded in addition to the planned expa :cion of the detention basins designated under Option 1 (Figure 2-3). Three new elementary schools and one new middle school are designated in addition to the elementary school designated under Option I (Figure 2-4). Buildout Land Uses The Option 2 land use map is shown in Figure 2-7. Table 2-1 presents the increment of new growth and total acres by proposed GP designation expected under buildout of Option 2 in 2007. Option 2 proposes 2,071 acres of new development, of which 364, or 18 percent, are committed but undeveloped. Of the total new development, 69 percent is designated as residential (1 1 percent low density residential, 2 percent medium density residential, less than 1 percent high density residential and Eastside residential, and 86 percent planned residential), 8 percent commercial (57 percent neighborhood/community, 41 percent general commercial, and 2 percent downtown commercial), 2 percent office, 14 percent industrial (20 percent Light and 80 percent Heavy), 4 percent public/quasi-public, and 4 percent detention basin/park. Option 2 also designates an estimated 1,006 acres as agriculture and 999 acres as industrial reserve. Under Option 2, a total of 9,992 new dwelling units are proposed, (S74 low density residential, 341 medium density residential, 87 high density residential, 36 Eastside residential, and 8,654 planned residential). of the 9,992 units, 783 low-density, 325 medium -density, 10high-density, and 25 Eastside residential units are considered committed but undeveloped. A total of 6,812 new employees are projected from development of commercial, office, industrial, and public/quasi-public uses. 2-11 LEGEND RLD RESIDENTIAL COW DENSITY PR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL; RMD RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY DoP DETENTION BASROARK RHO RESnFN"4AL FAIG14 DENSITY ER EASTSIDE RESIDENTIAL NCC NEIGHBORHOOD/COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL GC GENERAL COMMERCIAL DC DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL Note: Does not Include committed, undeveloped land. O OFFICE U LIGHT INDUSTRIAL H1 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL POP PUBLIC IOUASI-PUSLIC Lodi General Plan FIGURE 2- 7. NEW DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL (OPTION 2) WIN 0 800 2400 Source: J. Leursnce Mintier 8 Assoctsiss 1988 FEET c�ptton s Option 3 is based on an assumption that residential growth would occur at a 3.5 - percent annual rate either by policy action of the City or as a result of market forces. New residential development would occur according to the following formula: 65 percent low density residential, 10 percent medium density residential, and 25 percent high density residential. This option .also assumes that nonresidential development would occur according to historical market forces. For the incorporated area, Option 3 is identical to Option 1, except that 66 acres of heavy industrial uses east of SR 99 have been shifted to light industrial. For the unincorporated area, new residential development is similar to that under Option 2, except that it extends south of Harney Lane to Armstrong Road between the WID Canal and SR 99_ Compared to Option 2, commercial development has been expanded significantly along Kettleman Lane and the intersection of Harney Lane and Hutchins Street. Under Option 3, two new detention basins are designated south of Harney Lane, in addition to the two existing sites planned for detention basins under Option 1 and the one new detention basin designated west of Lower Sacramento Road and the expansion of E - Basin designated under Option 2. Six new elementary schools and one new middle school are designated under Option 3, in addition to the schools designated under Options 1 and 2 (Figure 2-4). Buildout Land Uses The Option 3 land use map is shown in Figure 2-8. Table 2-1 presents the increment of new growth and total acres by proposed GP designation expected under buildout of Option 3 in 2007. Option 3 proposes 3,036 acres of new development, of which 364, or 12 percent, are committed but undeveloped. Of the total new development, 71 percent is designated as rsidential (I1 percent low density residential, 2 percent medium density residential, less than 1 percent high density residential and Eastside residential, and 86 percent planned residential), 8percent commercial (57 percent neighborhood/comniunity.4I perceni general commercial, and 2 percent downtown commercial), 2 percent office; 14 percent industrial (20 percent Light and 80 percent Heavy), 4 percent public/quasi-public, and G percent detention basin/park. Option 3 also designates an estimated 1,996 acres as agriculture and 955 acres as industrial reserve. Under Option 3, a total of 15,057 new dwelling units are proposed (874 low density residential, 3=!1 medium density residential, 87 high density residential, 36 Eastside residential, and 13,719planned residential). Of the 13,719tinits, 7S3lo%v density residential, 2-12 , I. I4 ' .` � i I � I � � ' •1 . t ' I I „-�-��s�s•�� I.,_ e 3 '� i � .t'�"�`.. ���..i■ �:-:,V�iJ��i s:; i-� �•'� ij;l' 3.�'�p+_ ! r-E.� t �a�• } a- -_rip,. *ter �:,vc'�-s� •�i3-- - 111 PP.k L! - PR `I ! -- PR ! TPR'. NCC 1 PR fl` NCC -- -I --- _-rs - - j 1... i; _ 11 n t 1 6 _l PIR PR 1' -- L- D 'PALR _ t . � NCC � •, i __Ln NCC ' cc PP I ' - 1� LEGEND RLD RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY PR PLANNED RESiDEHTIAL RMD RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY DBP DETENTION BASIN/'ARK - RHO RESIDENTIAL MGH DENSITY ER EASTSIDE RESIDENTIAL NCC NEIGHBORH000/COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL GC GENERAL COMMERCIAL Note: Does not Include committed. undeveloped land. DC DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL O OFFICE LI LIGHT INDUSTRIAL HI HEAVY INDUSTRIAL - -- POP PUBLIC IOUASI -PUBLIC Lodi General Plan , FIGURE 2-8. NEW DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL (OPTION 3) 0 BOD 2400 Source: :. L.—c. Minder 8 Aeaoclates 1989 - FEFT , 335 mediumdensity: idential,10 high`derisity residential, and 25 Eastside residential units are considered committed but undeveloped. A total of 9,775 new employees are projected from development of commercial, office, industrial, and public/quasi-public uses. e�e . CHAPTER 3. Summary of Impacts .Table 3-1 presents a summary' bit ipacts by an use option: For detailed discussicns of these impacts, refer to the appropriate chapters following this chapter, Y LAID USI ROUSING Option I V9.1,581 acres of vacant open space and spare , �i' Conversion of 2,111 acres of vacant open spice and Conversion of 3,016 acres of vinc4nt open SP4 ani agricultural land. agricultural lands to urban uses. , Removal of 1,210 acres of land (too agricultural Itgova) of 2,1110 acres of land ft9lagricultural production. production. Conversion of $00 acres of land Under Rilliaason ConversloA of $00 acres of land Vidtf VillialsoA Act contract. Act contract. litefition of the Otb4fi-lotal-alticultuial Mention of the utb4n-rutal-4111cultutal Intelfact. interface. Agricultutal-tesidential land use conflicts. Agtieultural residential land use conflicts. ......................... ... ................................ . ........ ..................... ............... . ............................................ ........ ... . . ................. Addition of 1,331 housing units 1171 low density, Addition of 9, 992 hous i ag units ( 6, 191 low densi ty,. : Addition of IS,057 housing units 11,111 low densityi 341 pedioa density, $7 high density, and 16 1,206 medluo density, 7,251 high densily, and 3 '5 1,111 tedium density, 1,511 high.density, arJ 3 Eastside re s i. ldenti;ll Eastside residential). Ustside tesiderttlil A 4: Housing WtJ05 deficiency of 1,127 units- Housing to jobs excess of 1,270 units, Housing to jobs excess of 6,111 'Vts ..................................... POPULATION W .................................... M1,01MINT 11ploystr ....................................... rVILIC SERVICIS is Centrale let stwe(s to relieve Need for Need for Parallel 'Sewers to rellcyt existing severs, new ficiti-South t(VAI mer, additional pulp statim, mad [Dice Fall$. pliaatd matter $tots LAID USI ROUSING Option I V9.1,581 acres of vacant open space and spare , �i' Conversion of 2,111 acres of vacant open spice and Conversion of 3,016 acres of vinc4nt open SP4 ani agricultural land. agricultural lands to urban uses. , Removal of 1,210 acres of land (too agricultural Itgova) of 2,1110 acres of land ft9lagricultural production. production. Conversion of $00 acres of land Under Rilliaason ConversloA of $00 acres of land Vidtf VillialsoA Act contract. Act contract. litefition of the Otb4fi-lotal-alticultuial Mention of the utb4n-rutal-4111cultutal Intelfact. interface. Agricultutal-tesidential land use conflicts. Agtieultural residential land use conflicts. ......................... ... ................................ . ........ ..................... ............... . ............................................ ........ ... . . ................. Addition of 1,331 housing units 1171 low density, Addition of 9, 992 hous i ag units ( 6, 191 low densi ty,. : Addition of IS,057 housing units 11,111 low densityi 341 pedioa density, $7 high density, and 16 1,206 medluo density, 7,251 high densily, and 3 '5 1,111 tedium density, 1,511 high.density, arJ 3 Eastside re s i. ldenti;ll Eastside residential). Ustside tesiderttlil A 4: Housing WtJ05 deficiency of 1,127 units- Housing to jobs excess of 1,270 units, Housing to jobs excess of 6,111 'Vts ..................................... POPULATION - POPQldtl( .. .................................... M1,01MINT 11ploystr ....................................... rVILIC SERVICIS Yater Centrale let stwe(s to relieve Need for Vasteviter Need for Of4inage Partial of lying Pots with the's currently,: tau Worceatot Generate a too( adilt V ............................................................................................... ...................................... ................ ........ last of 11429, Population Increase of 258911. Population increase of 33,141. ------------------------------- . ........................................................... ..................................... ............ ........ tatlon of 2,535. liployieAt generation of 1,112. loploysent generation of 1,711. ............................... ................................................................ ..................................... ....................... . ....... land for an additional 7 wells Generate a demand for in adriklonal 17 wells. lonal pipelim. Need for iddltionai:01Dflints, let stwe(s to relieve existing severs. Need for Parallel 'Sewers to rellcyt existing severs, new ficiti-South t(VAI mer, additional pulp statim, mad [Dice Fall$. pliaatd matter $tots d(alAalt system 1equirt one iddillosal $toll drAlficle dettetion or m W area lesilting 10 problems basin with incosin5 tient lines and an Witt pipe. tied coipleticA of the Isproyttents tway,, I and for an dedtional 11 officers and Generate . a demand 10 : I additional Il offictrs aad I patrol vehicles, 12 additional. PJt(ol:vthlclfs. Generate a demand lot an additional. 74 wells. .5, Need for additional pipelines. Need for parallel severs to relJ60411stIng 3fvrffi hev notth-sooth tfutt sorer, new 'iiiit West ttick : sem, additloW S pvsp titiots'. lid force Was., "M All Itriflit three additional stop draleage detentioi basins and,idditlonal aunt and outlet lines. Generate a draandlot an additlopill 11 oflictis an an additional 11 patrol atrot vehicles ._1 N r(' Fire Protection Need for a' western pa Generate a, and six apt W, W fid. centrale developed Generate an',r ddtional 911 students, Ctntratc an additional 6,917 students, Generate an additional !0,171 students. !able 3-1. summary of impacts by Land use Option Iles or two-lane arterials, 6.6 miles Requite 17.1 silts of two-lane arterlais, Need for lhIlk onetrsion of existing schools and Require additional adsfmisttative personnel, itquiae additicnal administrative petsonneI and need for additional office space, and possibly expansion of dispatchers, additional office $race, expansion of and one additional high and continuation school. the existing jail, bolh the existing jail and dispatchlog center, and divided roads, and 7,0 silts of six -lane divided .: a nev beat In the southern portion of the City. station to cover development In the Need for a new station to covet development in the Need for a new station to cover development in thee f the City, western part of the City. western part of the City. and for an additional i1 firefighters Generate a demand for an additional 15 firefighters Generate d demand far an 4d4lttpnal'16 firefightets itus, and accompanying appatatus. three accompanying apparatus, and one additional ` ............. engine company. Need for possibly a fifth Lire station, one Need for possibly a fifth fire station and one additional eogine co>rpany, nine lireligkters, and accompanying apparatus 11 further study of existing" one accompanying apparatus If further study of and planned fire station adequacl determines that ; existing and planned fire station adequacy the depattoent cannot rdegoately serve the determines that the department cannot adequately soulhvesletn and southeasRtin parts of the City wit serve the southwestern part of the City with lour four stations. stat ions. d lot an additional 161 acres of Generale a need for an additional 117 acres of Generate a need for in additional ill acres c' land. developed partland. An estimated 111 acres would developed parkland, kn estimated 101 acres would ' consist of storm drainage detention basins and consist of storm dr -ilea -it detention basins and parts, therefore, the remalning 165 acres should parts, therefore, the rexafning IU acres should consist of neighborhood and comounity parks, consist of neighbothtod and cosmonity picks. Generate an',r ddtional 911 students, Ctntratc an additional 6,917 students, Generate an additional !0,171 students. the total vehicle alies trayied. Iles or two-lane arterials, 6.6 miles Requite 17.1 silts of two-lane arterlais, Need for lhIlk onetrsion of existing schools and Need for five elementary and thrtt middle schools Need for seven elementdry and three riddle schools need for thil.4hiee proposed elementary and two and one additional high and continuation school. and one additional high and continuation school. proposed middle schools. divided roads, and 7,0 silts of six -lane divided .: Require 13 of four-Iai divided in, road$. otai vehicle silts traveled. Increase the, total vehicle Niles traveled. increase the total vehicle alies trayied. Iles or two-lane arterials, 6.6 miles Requite 17.1 silts of two-lane arterlais, Requite 10.1 miles of two-lane atter ols, 16.1 ilc: ddivfded toads, I.S mites of toot Iant .-. 10.0 Niles of four-lant mndevidtd roads, 7.1 riles of foot -lane undivided roads, 7.1 miles of four•lanl '`ind sero Niles of six -line dIwlded of tout-iane divided road$, and 1.0 miles of six- divided roads, and 7,0 silts of six -lane divided .: 4. lane divided loads, roads. Create a need for additional street personnel. Create i rtt'. need for additional street pilsonnel. L.... ................... .. ... ............................................. ............. I CHAPTER 4. Land Use OPTION I Because this option is essentially identical to the City's existing General Plan, which. limits development to lands within the existing City limits, the implications of Option I with respect to existing land use patterns, zoning, residential densities, commercial areas, and industrial areas are minimal. Implementation of Option I would result in the conversion of approximately 588 acres of vacant open space and agricultural lands to urban uses, resulting in a substantial irreversible land use change (Table 4-1). Of these 588 acres, an estimated 158 acres are in intensive agricultural production (1987 Existing Land Use Inventory). AH of these 158 acres are targeted for urban development in the existing GP. This acreage, located in the eastern portion of the City. consists of parcels ranging from 1.4 to 27.1 acres, most of which (143 acres) are designated on the adopted GP and zoning maps as heavy industrial.. Because of their relatively small size and proximity to existing urban uses, the viability -of these parcels for continued agricultural use is limited. Option 1, therefore, designates only` ,.:"�- marginal agricultural land for conversion to urban uses. The primary concern regarding land use conflicts under this option pertains to existing conflicts. Areas where conflicts currently exist include South Sacramento Street, where single family residential uses abut industrial uses; Kettleman Lane, where pressure for strip comm, ercial development has encroached on single family residential areas; ineripheral areas, where residential development abuts agn-ultural uses. The first two conflicts are the result of past land use decisions, and the thifd is inevitable in rural, agricultural communities experiencing urban growth. Again, because this option follow3_ the basic land use pattern set forth on the adopted GP map, these conflicts would not be aggravated or increased by implementation of this option. In addition to the development of vacant rand, Option I calls for the redevelopment of underutilized parcels, most of which are located in the Eastside area. Such redevelop- ment activity would have a positive impact on the City's existing development pattern.... A -'M MM-5� OPTION 2 Implementation of Option 2 would result in the conversion of approximately 2,071 acres of vacant open space and agJcultural land to urban uses, resulting in a substantial irreversible land use change (Table 4-1). Of these 2,071 acres, an estimated 1,270 acres are in intensive agricultural production, 500 of which are currently under Williamson Act contract (1957 Existing Land Use Inventory). 4-1 .. . ......... - Table 4-1. Agricultural Land Conversion by Land Use .Option .. }. 4-2 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 New urban development 588 2,071 3,036 Converted agricultural land 158 1,270 2,200 Converted agricultural Iand 0 5G0 500 under Williamson Act contract Source- 1987 Existing Land Use Inventor. 4-2 Implementation of Option 2 would remove land from agricultural production, extend the urban -rural -agricultural interface, and result in agricultural residential conflicts The existence of residential development adjacent to agricultural uses often presents the following iand use conflicts: o ``ITse'of Chemicals. Residential development proximate to agricultural "operations often limits growers in determining when and how they can apply pesticides and what kind of pesticides they can apply. o Nuisance Complaints. Residential developmerit adjacent to agricultural uses could result in complaints about agricultural buining, noise, dust, and odors from adjacent agricultural operations. o Restrictions on Aircraft Application of Chemicals Near Residential Development. Aircraft application in the vicinity of residential areas, as regulated by *the Federal. Aviation Administration, prohibits operation of cropduster aircraft over or even' near residential areas. ,.. o 'Vandalism and Trespass. Residential development adjacent to agricultural uses could increase the potential for trespass, vandalism to crops and farm equipment, add to the probability of a lawsuit, and increase waste disposal. The conflicts associated with the encroachment of urban uses on agricultural activities would, however, be partially minimized because, as detailed in Chapter 2, "Project Description," Option 2 directs new urban development to large blocks of contiguous land defined by streets, canals, or natural features. The land uses identified within the existing city limits are the same as those identifiedunder Option 1, with the exception of 17 acres of land east of SR 99 being shifted from heavy industrial to Iight industrial. The potential land use conflicts resulting from Option 2 within the existing city Iimits would, therefore, be similar to those of Option 1. For areas outside of the existing city limits, Option 2 minimizes incompatible uses by concentrating new commercial centers at key intersections. Because of the nature of the proposed planned residential designation (see Chapter 2, "Project Description"), it is not currently possible to ensure that high density residential uses, instead of Iow or medium density rises, would be located proximate to these commercial areas. The high density residential -commercial interface is generally considered compatible. impiementation or vpt.on z wouia restin mine conversion of 1,46) more acres of land. Of these total acres, Option 2 would result in the conversion of 1,112 more acres of productive agricultural land than under Option 1. In addition to existing land use conflicts, Option 2 would result in new agricultural -residential conflicts, and potentia! commercial - residential conflicts. 4-3 U OPTION 3 Implementation of Option 3 would result in the conversion of approximately 3,036 acres of vacant open space and agricultural lands to urban uses, resulting in a substantial irreversible land use change (Table 4-1). Of these 3,036 ael'es?an estimated 2,300 acres are in intensive"agrrcuItural°production'500 of which are currently under Williamson Act contract (1987 Existing Land Use Inventory). Implementation of Option 3 would remove iand fromn agricultural pro duction, extend the urban -rural -agricultural interface, and result in agricultural -residential conflicts. (See Option 2 for a discussion of agricultural -residential conflicts.) The encroachment of urban uses on agricultural activities would, however, be partially minimized because, as detailed in Chapter 2, "Project Description," Option 3 directs new urban development to large contiguous blocks defined by streets, canals, or natural features. The land uses identified within the existing city limits are the same as those identified under Option 1, with the exception of 66 scres of iand east of SR 99, which is being shifted from heavy industrial to light industrial. The potential land use confiicis resulting from Option 3 would, therefore, be similar to those of Option 1. For areas outside of the existing city limits, Option 3 minimizes incompatible uses by concentrating new commercial centers at key intersections. In addition, land designated for new office development has been located along the western portion of Kettleman lane, near similar existing and newly developing uses. Because of the nature of the proposed planned residential designation, it is riot currently possible to ensure that high density residential uses, instead of tow and medium density residential uses, would be located near commercial and office areas and major intersections. Implementation of Option 3 would result in the conversion of 2,445 more acres of land than Option 1 and 965 more acres of total land than Option 2. Of these 2,448 acres, Option. 3 would result in the conversion of 2,042 more acres of productive agricultural land than Option 1 and 930 more acres than Option 2. In addition to existing land use conflicts, Option 3 would result in new agricultural -residential conflicts, potential commercial - residential conflicts, and potential office-commercia! conflicts. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE GENERAL PLAN o Option 1 does not propose land uses that would aggravate existing conditions or reduce the amount of land identified for agricultural use under the adopted GP. The only agriculturally used land that would be converted to urban uses is dispersed mostly throughout the eastern portion of the City on relatively small parcels. This land is only marginally viable as agricultural land. 4-4 Option 2 .rr',+z�W�, m.,BLr96.'Soc's``.>, o Consider approving only those development proposals that promote infill development and development that is contiguous to existing developed areas. Promoting infill development could entail establishing comprehensive develop- f ment phasing programs tied to the provision of public facilities and services. o Consider requiring specific plans for areas of new development to ensure orderly, well-planned growth. Specifically, require that planned residential developments be spatially arranged to ensure that high density uses are located proximate to commercial areas and major intersections. o Require site plans to incorporate mitigation measures that reduce adverse effects on adjacent land uses. o Consider designating an agricultural buffer between areas identified for urban development and land in intensive agricultural production to minimize agricultural -residential conflicts. o Consider adopting right -to -farm policies or a right-ro-farm ordinance that recognizes a farmer's right to continue agricultural practices that may at times be consi4ered an inconvenience to nearby residents. Option 3 o The implications for Option 3 would be the same as those for Option 2. "� z "�' -�.t✓x 3.s:::c- 3r.�; �..a'-`'za.. �e�'- �` � tt ti, ,r a s'"�.�",r- ., ��Z.'' S�� ���'` � rf�,�i.93s � � ._ k ��r.er'*^�?'u�v�-moi, ,vm�.�u,.. -. ..�. '__ • 5�"�r�';` ^_d,�i'.'xr��r�'s�-urxkC lSy�.-�^„,�. � d;iin4-&r;:'. �,a..�+�,A;'1 �4�','����`������.,i�C. a?:��.��� f ICQa tJ HA P TER 5. HoUsing OPTION 1 Option I would allow the addition of a projected 1,338 housing units to Lodi's existing housing stock (Tables 2-1 and 5-1). Of these 1,338 units, 874 would be low density residential, 341 would be medium density residential, 87 would be high density residential; and the remaining 36 would be in the proposed Eastside residential category. which is low density. An estimated 1,143 of the total 1,338 new units are considered committed, but undeveloped. The growth of Lodi's housing stock allowed under Option 1 would represent an increase of 7.8 percent over the estimated existing housing stock. Option I would allow Lodi's housing stock to increase at an average rate of 67 units per year over the 20 -year Gp time frame. This would be lower than Lodi's estimated housing stock growth rate of 502 units per year between 1980 and 1987 (Jones yet Stokes Associates 1988x). Because little vacant land is left in Lodi that is suitable for residential development, :virtually all of the new units to be developed under Option 1, beyond those units alnady committed but undeveloped, would be small infill projects. The primary concern regarding housing impacts pertains to the jobs -housing balance. For purposes of determining housing impacts of the GP, it is assumed that maintenance of an internal jobs/housing balance is a fundamentai objective. The concept of balancing housing development with employment generation involves three fundamental relationships: o the spatial relationship between employment centers and residential development, o the numerical balance between the number of employees generated by non- residential development and the number of housing units developed in residential development, and o the qualitative relationship between the cost of housing developed and the income levels of jobs generated innonrestdentiat developments �, � aH � "i r �` e�!"a ;S;R s �' z N� �� ... - $ _ .. �n z •`..: h,r., ;.._.. � � :,s' , sc s_;.N� '�[�.,-_.--'-?s7'.= `Tile fundamental oblective of maintaining �� jobs/Dousing Mance is to reduc;, commute distances. For purposes of calculating the balance resulting from the land uses designated under each option, J. Laurence Mintier & Associates (1988) assumes that Lodi households have an average of 1.25 workers. A balance between the number of housing units developed and the number of jobs generated can, therefore, be calculated by dividing the number of jobs created by the average number of workers per household (1.25) and by addino enough units to achieve a healthy vacancy rite of 5 percent. 5-1 i •"}—?N, 4^ine^as..?,- Table 5-1 New Housing and Employment Development by Land Use Option UP Residential Category Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Low density 874 6,499" 9,791" Medium density 341 " "�- i - -- ,- High density 87 2,251a 3,517a . Eastside residential 36 36 Total new housing units 1,335 9,992 15,057 New jobs created 2,935 6;812 9,778 d Includes units that would be developed under the proposed planned residentiial designations. The planned residential designation assumes a distribution of 65 percent. . low density, 10 percent medium density; and 25 percent high' density Application of this formula to existing conditions shown in Table 2-1 indicates ithat ..4 1v. Lodi has a slight surplus 'of housing "units"" with "approximately 2,400`�16diresidents commuting to jobs outside of Lodi. Implementation of Option i would increase employment within Lodi by a projected 2,935 (Tables 2-1 and 5-1). (See also Chapter 7, "Employment.") The majority of these new jobs, 1,293, would be created by the industrial development designated in the eastern portion of the City. According to the jobs -housing formula provided above, the number of new employees generated under Option 1 would create a demand for an additional 2,465 housing units. Option 1 would, therefore, result in a housing deficiency of 1,127units. This deficiency may, however, be slightly distorted because, according to the 1980 U. S. Census, of the 94 percent of Lodi heads of households working in San Joaquin County, only 62 percent work in Lodi (Jones & Stokes Associates 1988a). Under this option, there is not enough land within the existing city limits to accommodate the number of housing units necessary to house the employees generated from buildout of nonresidential land. Given the inability, to achieve an adequate balance, the other two balance relationships described above, spatial and qualitative, could not be satisfactorily accomplished under Option 1. The lack of land identified for new residential development would also have a negative effect on the existing housing market because it would limit the amount of housing available, thereby potentially increasing the demand for, and consequently the cost of, existing housing. OPTION 2 Option 2 wnuld allow the addition of a projected 9,992 housing units to Lodi's existing housing stocK (Tables 2-1 and 5-1). -1-he majority of ne%v units would be developed under the proposed planned residential land use designation. which assumes a distribution of 65 percent low density residential units, 10 percent medium density residential units, and 25 percent high density residential units. Applying this distribution, an estimated 5,625 low density, 1,565 medium density, and 2,163 high density units would be developed under the planned residential designation. Therefore, the total number of new units under each land use category Would be 6,499 low density, 1,206 medium density, 2,251 high density, and 36 Eastside residential units., �- increase of 58 percent Lodi's housing stock to GP time frame. odi's" otistiib'stock allo�c�ed under Option 2 would represent an over the estimated existinV,, housing stock. Option 2 would allow increase at an average rate of 500 units per year over the 20 -year Implementation of Option 2 would increase employment within Lodi by a projected 6,812 (Tables 2-1 and 5-1). (See also Chapter 7, "Employment.") recording to the jobs -housing formula provided under Option 1, the number of housing units necessary to accommodate 11M employees in Lodi Would be 5,722. Under 5-3 E this option, an excess of 4,270 units is projected. The apparent oversupply of residential land would, however, accommodate new residents who would commute to jobs outside of Lodi or provide Lodi housing if additional industrial development, occurs Although housing would exceed the number of new jobs, the affordability of housing for low- and moderate -income workers, would not be guaranteed. The unavailability of affordabie housing could lead to workers commuting into Lodi, resulting' in traffic circulation problems. The proposed planned residential designation, however, attempts to provide affordable housing by requiring new development to provide a combination of low-, medium-, and high-density units. In identifying proposed land use categories for the GP, the planned residentiai category was formulated to provide a qualitative internal balance among housing types. Accordingly, the relationship between the cost of new units and the income levels of expected new jobs would be positive. Most of the new job growth in Lodi is expected to be either in the industrial sector or in IocaI-serving commercial operations, with little office employrnent. it is expected that the income characteristics of these employees would result in the absorption of ahigher percentage of the new medium- and high-density units developed under Option 2. The remaining lower density units could be expected to accommodate new residents commuting to job markets with higher -income -generating empioyrnent sectors. Because Lodi is relatively small and isolated, the spatial relationship? which usually plays such an important role in the consideration of the jobs -housing balance, is less crucial. The spatial balance resulting from Option 2 is therefore assumed to be positive. Implementation of Option 2 would result in 8,654 more housing units than under Option 1. Housing units provided under this option would exceed the demand for new units generated by new employees, resulting in an oversupply of 4,270 units. OPTION 3 Option 3 would allow the addition of a projected 15,057 housing units to Lodi's existing housing stock (Tables 2-1 anti 5-1). An estimated 13,719 of the new units developed under Option 3 would be in the planned residential designation, resulting in 8,917 new low density residential units, 1,372 new medium density residential units, and 3,340 new high density residential units. The total number of new units developed under each land use category would, therefore be 9,791 low density, 1,713�medium density, 3,517: -t^. - r r=- ..a - r�,.aa `p"' e -ter high, dens�tY, and 336 .E� tsz esrdeii`t al units. ��� � ' �� `-4 The growth of Lodi's housing stock allowed under Option 3 would represent an increase of 88 percent over the estimated existing housing stock. Option 3 would allow Lodi's housing stock to increase at an average rate of 753 units per year over the 20 -year G P time frame. Implementation of Option 3 would increase employment within Lodi by a projected 9,773 (Tables 2-1 and 5-1). (See also Chapter 7, "Employment.") 5-4 According to the jobs -housing formula provided under Option 1, the number of hotrsing, units necessary., -to accommodate new employees would be 8,214.. Under this option,.,,,,,:,, - - an exress•of (�,843=umts is protected: As "described~ above` for Option 2',''this oversupply would presumably be absorbed by new residents employed outside of Lodi or provide Lodi housing if additional Industrial development occurs. Although the number of new housing units would exceed the demand generated by new employees, the affordability of housing for tow- and moderate -income workers would not be guaranteed. (See above discussion for Option 2.) Because the assumptions used to identify residential land under Option 3 are virtually the same as under Option 2, and because of the nature of the proposed planned residential land use category, the spatial and qualitative jobs -housing impacts of Option 3 would be similar to those of Option 2. Implementation of Option 3 would result in 13,719 more housing units than Option 1 and 5,065,.,more,housing units,_than Option 2. Housing provided under this option would ' ''' Pr of nPw mhc rP tlIting in an oversupply of 6,843 housing units, 2,573 more units than under Option 2_ IMPLICATIONS FOR THE GENERAL PLAN Option 1 o Consider conducting an annual employee survey of large firms in the GP area to gather useful data on housing; income, and commuting trends. (See Chapter... 7, "Employment," for further discussion.) x a.r » -ra.-a MR—WR OR, o The implications for Option 3 would be the same P,,s those under Option 2. 5-5 • • • C-HAPTER 6. Population OPTION I Under Option 1, future growth in Lodi would he directed by the adopted Lodi General Plan. Little additional growth would occur under Option I since most of the residential land within the existing city limits has been developed. Vacant residential lands within the existing city limns would accommodate the development of an additional 1,338 housing units. Based on full occupancy r, -F additional housing units and an average household size of 2.6 persons per unit, the additional housing units would accommodate a population increase of 3,479. As shown in Tables 2-1 and 6-1, Lodi's buiidout population under Option I would reach an estimated 50,745, representing a 7.4 -percent increase over the existing popuiation. Lodi grew at an estimated average annual rate of 3-5 percent between 1970 and 1987 (Jones & Stokes Associates 1988a). Continued growth at this long-term rate would lead to the absorption of existing vacant parcels within 2-3 years. implementation of Option I would severely limit population growth within Lodi over the 20 -year GP buildout period. OPTION 2 Under Option 2, future population grov.ih in Lodi would be controlled by a policy C� limiting the City's annual housing stock growth to 2 percent per year. (See Chapter 2, "Project Description.") Residential lands designated by Option 2 would accommodate development of an additional 1,338 housing units within the existing city limits and 8,654 housing units within the unincorporated portions of the GP area: Based on full occupancy of additional housing units and an average household size of 2.6 persons Per unit, the additional housing units would accommodate a i�_ . . population increase of 25,979i.. As., shownin. Tables- 2-4 and 6-1,-.-. F, in f_ p esen -0- _00 a 55-perccnt increase over the existing population. Annual population growth over the 20 -year GP buildout period would occur at relatively constant rate because of the housing stock growth rate policy. Based on a population increase of 25,979, Lodi's population would increase at an average annual rate of 2.7 percent over the buildout period. This population growth rate would be below Lodi's estimated 1970-1987 average annual rate of 3.5 percent. Implementation of Option 2 would probably limit the population growth that would occur within Lodi over the 20 -year Gly buildout period 19 the absence of the housing stock growth policy. 6-1 ----------------------------------- ----------- ------------------- I Location Within I 11 Existing .. I GP Area I------------------il- 11 Population ------------- - • I I City it 11 46,327 i I II ,( I County I II 940 II ------------------ I I Total --------------- it II 47,267 II ----------------------------------- vote: Population projections based c h_. i Table ti. T V Population for Existing Conditions and by Land Use Option' ------------- --------------------------------------------- t~: ------------ 7 ----------------------------------- ---------- ---- -- ----- -------I Option i II Option 2 II r. option 3 .. - rr .�. T. # h_. Table 6-1. Comparison of Approximate Population for Existing Conditions and by Land Use Option' ------------- --------------------------------------------- t~: ------------ 7 ----------------------------------- ---------- ---- -- ----- -------I Option i II Option 2 II option 3 >----- r--- ---------------------------..------- ncrewen61 -- Buildout Percent Increase II ------------------- II incremental -------------------- Buildout c' Percent Increase If it ------------------- Incremental ------------------------ Buildout' I Percent .Increase I Growth. Population over Existing it Growth Population Over Existing II Groyth Population over Existing 1 3,479 !9,805 11 3,179 19,805 II 3,!19 49,605 t` I 0 910; II' 22,500 23,440 II 35,669 36,609 - -----3-,4--79- --------- -- ------- ----,------------- ----------------------- -------------- ------------_..------------------ x• II 714 II 25,979 73,245 55.0 it 39,148I1 86 ,U 82.8 150,745 s -------------------- --------- -------------------------------------------------_ II ..._...-___.... II ._-,.._.-_-..... ---r._ .. -n .-- --. -------- naverage household size of 2.6 personser housing unit (Schroeder Pers, comm.). :L-._. -W'' :_-- T. 2 t S. .. 4 Implementation of Option 2 would generate 22,500 more persons than under Option -w- __:...::.. O PTIOI' 3 ys`Under Option -3 fuiure-population growth in Lodi would result f- .)m an annual 3.5 percent increase in the City's housing stock over the buildout period. rhe housing stock growth rate would either be controlled by a policy similar to the one proposed under Option 2, or would occur as a result of market forces. Residential lands designated by Option 3 would accommodate development of an additional 1,335 housing. units within the existing city limits and 13,719 housing units within the unincorporated portions of the GP, area. Based on full occupancy of additional housing units and an average household size of 2.6 personsy per unit, the additional housing units.— would nits would accommodate a population Increase of 39,148. As shown in Tables 2-l-and'6-1, Lodi's buildout population under Option 3 would reach an estimated 86,414, representing an 82.8 -percent increase ever the existing population. Annual population growth over the 20 -year GP buildout period would occur at a relatively constant rate if controlled by a housing stock growth rate policy. Population growth generated by market forces could vary significantly from year to year. Based on a population increase of 39,148, Lodi's population would increase at an average annual rate of 4.1 percent over the buildout period. This population growth rate would exceed Lodi's estimated 1970-1987 average annual rate of 3.5 percent. Implerentation of Option 3 would probably accommodate population growth that would occur in the absence of a growth Iimitation,policy.- The population growth may or may not be limited, however, by a housing stock .growth policy. Under market conditions, population growth in Lodi could exceed the 3.3 - percent annual average growth rate projected under this option, resulting in secondary impacts on traffic and public services. Iniplementation ofOption 3 would generate 35,669 more p:.rFins than under Option I and '13,169 more persons than under Option 2. IMPLICATIONS FOIZ THE GENERAL PLAN Option I o No additional policies would be required to minimize the impacts of population growth under this option because relatively little vacant land exists within the city limits. Population growth would be limited by the amount of land available under Option 1. 6-3 Option 2 o No additional policies would be required to minimize the impacts of population growth under this option becIr use population growth would be largely controlled w by thegrowth policy.that would limit;annual housiriD's tock `growth to'2`perc ent. Option 3 o Consider adopting a policy limiting the annual growth rate of the housing stock to 3.5 percent to.ensure,that population growth. does not exceed projected levels. wwwr+a"�c��Y— n 0 a • OPTION 1 Option 1 would designate 390 acres for employment-generating: uses, including 23 (( f acres for commercial uses, 38 acres for office uses, 271 acres for industrial uses, and 58 I acres for public/quasi-public uses (Table 2-1). Buildout of vacant lands under this option would generate a projected 2,935 new jobs within Lodi, based on employee density factors derived from a study of employment patterns in San Joaquin County (Factor and Schroeder pers. comms.). Two general employ^nent sectors would account for a majority of the new jobs. Employment generated by the use of land designated for heavy industrial develop- ment would account for 1,113, or 38 percent of the new jobs, and employment generated by office uses would account for a projected 616, or 21 percent of total new jobs (Table 2- Under Option 1, total employment in Lodi would increase from an estimated existing level of 21,953 to a projected buildout level of 23,585 (Tables 2-1 and 7-1)_ The employment mix in Lodi at buildout under Option 1 would not change substantially from the existing employment mix (Table 7-1). Industrial employment would increase slightly from 33.1 percent to 345 percent of total employment, and commercial employment would decrease from 45.0 percent to 42.2 percent of total employment. OPTION 2 Option 2 would designate 563 acres for employment-generating uses, including 157 acres for commercial uses, 38 acres for office uses, 280 acres for industrial uses, and 88 acres for public/quasi-pPublic uses (Table 2-1). Buildout of designnted lands under- Option 2 would generate a projected 6,812 new jobs within Lodi. Three general employment sectors would account for a majority of the new jobs. Retail employment generated by the use of land designated for neighborhood/community, commercial development would,, ..; ,accountfar2 52Q or "37' erc nne�v obs x ... P tea, J ... employmentFgenerated; ;tiy° general commercial uses would account for 'a projected 1,600, or 23 percent of total new jobs; and, employme,--t in heavy industrial occupations would account for 1,035, or 15 percent of total new jobs (Table :'71). under Option 1, total eirployment rn Loin would increase from an estimated existing level of 21,953 to a projected buildout level of 25,765 (Tables 2-1 and 7-1). The employment mix in Lodi at buildout under Option 2 would change substantially in two sectors from the existing employment rnbc. neighborhood/community commercial empioyment would increase from 17.6 percent to 22.2 percent of total employment, and 7-1 is 'r A Table 7-1. 'Comparison of Approximate Employment for Existing Conditions and by band Use Option' ,3 Conditions/a .II - - -------Optianyl/b - ---- ---- II - ------------------------------------------- Option 2/b II ----......I - -- Option 3/b Percent II ment Total JI Buildout Acres Buildout Employment Percent II Burldout ------------ Buildout --_- of II -------- Buildout -- ---------.--,xisting Buildout t -o. lP%o f =of Total II --------------- -- --------------I-- Acres Employment Total II Acres Employment Total I---------------- IIJ IIJ - --------- J...............'�- --_ f------------------ _---------- -3, 3,814 17.6 I I 161 1 110 II I I I II i 5,512 25.1 II 491 220 5,:112 23.0 II 276 T,ll2 - 19.1 II: 3I1 518 '1 23.9f 2.3 II II 22> $78 2.3 IJ :22 S18 1.0 II 137 $78 25.6 1 1,958 8.9 !I JI 103 2,51410.3 II JI II l03 2,571 II 8.9 II ,.;126 { V2,946 93 1 4,112 20.1 it 2,861 343 4,592 18.5 II ;369 4,153 16.5 II 448 13.0 II. I(; 624 3,971 16;05,243 II 601 3,p9 .13.6 II 528 ,536 16.5 1 11.1 I 2,839 12.9 II 967 3,245 II l3.0 91 3,455 II 1. IYO 31 3;` 693=----------------- ---- ----------� - -.----- ------J--- •--.------------- -------------III-----,---------- -- 11.6 1JI II 21, 9 5399.9 2,140 21,868 II 100.0 I 21613 28, 765 99.9 II 2159 ------------------- ------------------21,953 3i, 731 I 99,8 I ----------------------- ------------------ ------------------------------------ - .---- ---- I------- --- : - - - --- Ii Iculated by adding the incremental q estimates of employees increase,in employment under each option to existing employment. Incremental employment respectively; and, public/quasi-public, per gross,acre (Factor 7:b. pets. comm,): commercial uses, 28,0; office uses, 16.2, light light industrial employment would decrease from 20.1 percent to 16.5 percent of total employment Under Option 2. a large number of newjobs would be generated in Lodi, including a substantial number ofjobs in the retail cgmmercxal sector Z ze,ability of Lodi.,to house workers new to the City is dependent upon the availability and affordability of lioustng. Housing provided under Option 2 would exceed the number of new jobs (see Chapter 5, Housing," for further discussion); however, the affordabiiity of housing for low- and moderate -income workers, such as retail employees, would not be guaranteed. The unavailability of affordable housing could lead to workers commuting into Lodi, resulting in traffic circulation problems. Implementation of Option 2 would result in 3,577 more jobs than under Option I_ OPTION 3 Option 3 would designate 704 acres for employment -generating uses, including 241 acres for commercial uses, 61 acres for officeuses, 280 acres for industrial uses, and 122 acres for public/quasi-public uses (Table 2-1). Buildout of designated lands under Option 3 would generate a projected 9,775 new jobs within Lodi. Two general employment sectors would account for a majority of the new jobs. Retail employment generated by the use of land designated for neighborhood/community commercial development would account for 3,724, or 38 percent of the new jobs, ,-tnd eml loyment generated by general commercial uses would account for a projected 2.625. or'27 percent of total newjobs (Table 2-1). Under Option 3, total employment in Lodi would increase from an estimated existing level of 21,953 to a projected buildout level of 31,731 (Tables 2-1 and 7-1). The employment mix in Lodi at buildout under Option 3 would chane substantially in two sectors from the existing employment mix. neighborhood/community commercial employment would increase from 17.6 percent to 23.9 percent of total employment, and Aht and heavyindustrial employment would decrease from a combined 33.1 percent to percent of total employment (Table 7-1). - Implementation of Option 3 would generate 6,843 more Jobs than under Option I and 2.966 more iobs than under 2. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE GENERAL PLAN { : Option 1 " o No new policies would be required to minimize problems related to employment growth tinder Option 1 because the increase in empfloyment under Option I wouic' not be substantial and the mix of employment at buildout would not differ 7-3 significantly from the existing employment mix. No new policies would be required to minimize problems related to employment growth Linder Option 1. r Option 2 o Consider conducting an annual employee survey of large firms in the GP area to anticipate housing affordability problems_ Employee characteristics to be surveyed include: household size, annual persona! and household income, - monthly housing costs, housing unit purchase price, years in residence, type of housing unit, ease of finding affordable housing, location of residence, commute distance, and reasons for not living in Lodi_ Once the information is gathered, the findings should be presented to the Lodi City Council with specific recommendations. ti+ r...,s 35s" FZ% ` ... 4-4 UPI:YWk- 7-4 • CHAPTER 8. Public Services WATER This section is based on information provided by Psorhas and Associates. Option I Implementation of Option 1 would slightly., increase the demand for ,wate.r...by.- ""d t ty, T. ;9,421ifid6 "�d 0 t 51ftee 0*'..- increasing the population in the 6 b AS6' "...ddffl�d j:. provide adequate reserve capacity requires an additional seven wells, incieasing'Athe total to 25 wells (Table 9-1 and Figure 8-1). Also shown in Figure 8-1 are the major pipelines that would be necessary under Option 1. Based on the computer network analysis prepared by Psomas and Associates, the wells and pipelines shown in Figure 8-i would meet peak- hour, maximum-day, and fire flow demands. The computer analysis showed that future wells added to the northeastern portion of Lodi would resu it in higher system efficiency than if located further south or east bec'qusd"....... of higher groundwater elevations. Because water quality is generally better closer to the Mokelumne River, it is beneficial to locate wells in this area. Although future wells added to the northern portion of the City would generally-.Frovide a more efficient system, approximately one well per utility subarea (Figure 8-1) would be required in the southern service areas to meet local peak hour and fire demands. �s'caus ed a local depression of k s ng webs near the dowftt6%vn area � ha the system hydraulic gradient in the center of the City. By adding new wells to the central area of Lodi, system water pressure would be stabilized during high demand periods. Option 2 aw 00 **ago Implementation of Option 2 would increase the demamd for water by increasing the population in the city limits and through annexation of the unincorporated portions of the GP area into the city limits. This increase would generate a demand for an additional 17 ri 0 Al§qsfio 787� . - a tb&aj n h - m or es that Mould be n&essarY'1fftd6'rF Option'2 Implementation of Option 2 WOUid require 10 more wells and additional pipelines than under Option 1. =7777 Table 8-1. Future Well Demands by Land Use Option "�ubareaa Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Northwest 0 3, 3 Northcentral 3 5 7 Northeast 2 5 8 Southwest 0 2 2 Southcentral 2 2 4 Southeast 0 0 0 Total new wells 7 17 24 Total flow added" 7,613 21,163 30,556 3 See Figure 8-1 for subarea Iocation. b Total peak flow demand added to system network. Source: Psomas and Associates 1988. Note: This table is based on the following assumptions: o Future well capacity is based on 1,600gpm at a resulting hydraulic gradient of 172 ft msl u o Tank level = 165 ft msl o Heavy industrial peak -hour demand. = maximum day demand I o All other demands based on an average day per capita flow of 285 bpd �© Maximum da y eak facior' 2 24he l.hour aor - 2�� _ o Residential. fire flow = 2,000 gpm; commercial/industrial fire flow = 3,000 gpm o `Number. of,wells is determined by peak - hour, -J& -d by `I,600 gprri'per well plus an additional 20 percent for wells out of service. FIGURE 8-1. WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED UNDER OPTION i S-mcv mf Maocial•s tppA 1 ti FI } .;J 1 �{{ ! ' I •il I t III II' '- '. tti:-�.i dEXtSt�n t Well r -"'�' ,y • ,3r ' s ?r.<C e:.t .+x_.e,Ygham.t. .�, . ,,n_ �'!J's^e n�lnn�k�i `.'.��.E.- �4���z""=r,�i`�',A^"h'r .w"3. dWA•r -..a ^?r.} ...,...a. '«�`-�„�_. .. . _.... __ _ o Future Well — — — Future 10-fnch Pipe Note: Approximate locations. Option 2 also inclVdea,... improvements required under option t.. Lodi General Plan FIGURE 8-2. WATER SYSTEM INIPROVEMENTS REQUIRED UNDER OPTION 2 0 800 2400 S—-- r'no—v -nd A.." tet 1906 F ah�tf�t 1{1�11i.7 silty ���� i� =��_ 1 .11111;lU �ilio If Ii�;u>t�II � •��:�- - 1{11;1►�. ���arfU.Wvi��1�i "fill, z. �. I11.is4 jUUJ111111xtv!!I{ t1 'r �+ t•ak•'� 1 ti FI } .;J 1 �{{ ! ' I •il I t III II' '- '. tti:-�.i dEXtSt�n t Well r -"'�' ,y • ,3r ' s ?r.<C e:.t .+x_.e,Ygham.t. .�, . ,,n_ �'!J's^e n�lnn�k�i `.'.��.E.- �4���z""=r,�i`�',A^"h'r .w"3. dWA•r -..a ^?r.} ...,...a. '«�`-�„�_. .. . _.... __ _ o Future Well — — — Future 10-fnch Pipe Note: Approximate locations. Option 2 also inclVdea,... improvements required under option t.. Lodi General Plan FIGURE 8-2. WATER SYSTEM INIPROVEMENTS REQUIRED UNDER OPTION 2 0 800 2400 S—-- r'no—v -nd A.." tet 1906 F Option 3 Implementation of Option 3 would increase the demand for water by increasing the population in the city limits and through annexation of the unincorporated portions of the .GP area into the city limits. This increase would generate a demand for an additional 24 J " `' ` wells, increasing the total of 42 wells (Table 8-Z and Figure 8-3). Also shown in Figure $- 3 are the major pipelines that would be necessary under Option 3. Implementation of Option 3 would require 17 more wells and additional pipelines than under Option 1 and seven more wells and additional pipelines than under Option 2. Implications for the General Plan Option I o Provide additional wells and major pipelines to`serve"new'development. o Develop a policy and fee schedule for funding improvements, required for the water system based on fair share contributions from all new developments. Option 2 The requirements for Option 2 would be the same as those for Option 1. Option 3 o The requirements for Option 3 would be the same as those for Option 1. SEWERAGE This section is based on i Ar ism— AWN Qptionj Sanitary sewer improvements for Option , are shown n Figure 8-4. 'Riese improvements consist solely of parallel sewers to relieve existing sewers, which, as indicated by computer modeling, are presently at or near capacity and surcharged during peak flow r)eriods. These sewers have relatively flat slopes and, therefore, velocities that are less than the minimum required for self-cleaning. It is likely that solids deposition is a significant problem in these sewers and is contributing to capacity reduction. New connected 8-3 1 i • I p �: 'ter_—�� �s C#a�YP.►t .r ,� fir, � �.� {'� � �•� g. � __..._: s _ 11 ZZ � t J, 1; "Ji li'01-1 LEGEND r s 9 • f OptionFuture 10 -inch Pip e Note: Approximate locations. Optionsimprovements required under FIGURE 3-3. WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED UNDER OPTION 3 toUICSE Plomak #" A1106161e1 1911 Lodi General Plan FES I },\ I I, I � i i I►f LL -Al i1I i t. a` .} .Iq '' i _s �iil •, 12-R.1PEE .1 �•. _ - ii�(t ' ' 1.P148'fi _ t r I t .-z _ - � It11�.�21-R ,:Ilr r 21'R 1- I �--- t`. t I t - i I t rti.• .�: -- �'"�'' '.� s� � - -- - �. - ar- �' � .e�sas=-,y-Lazar=o.� �c�tt�%-�^.-��.,�x r•- - � -;� _ _- _ LEGEND 12' Preliminary Diameter of New Sewer R ,PWraLkel Relief;_.Sewer; Y Change in Plpe Diameter Nole: Requirements for relief sewers should be field verified. I Lodi General Plan FIGURE 8-4. PRELIMINARY SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED UNDER OPTION 1 (SEWERS 12 INCHES AND LARGER IN DIAMETER) o 800 2400 Source: Black a Vseleh 196E FEET h-8 'sluaiudolanap AX= Ile wo13 suotln%iluoa alugs 1tr3 uo pasrq walsns lamas ag1 103 paltnbal slu0ulan0ldwi 2utpun3 1o3 alnpag3s aa3 pur bilod r, d0lanaQ 0 uot1 0 uP,ld tl'-lauaq a>_ll 1oj suoitemildwl 'Sul -CLU a31o3 pur. `suottuis dwnd lruomope `nAlos ;unll lsam-lsea mau r alinbal pjnom c uopdp ;3o u0tlr1uaulaldult `� pur I potld� iapun paltnbai sluawanclduit aga of uoPip! u E -wdii 0091G si uoums dwnd stgl 01 alrl mol3 �Irad ommuilln palrwilso agl, 'laAxas un11 pleAalnoa flnlua3 autnsixa agl of lamas :1un11 pasodold agl wO13 mol3 Xanuo3 01 palinbal aq pinom utL'w a31o3 pur uopuls dwnd V •ptoU 2uollsw'V pur aar-I iau1EH uaaAVlaq lamas �1un11 lsam-lsi;a mau E 30 lsisuoa slua;uanoldwi asagd, •9-8 a1n�i j ut uAlogs a1r c uoildo 1o3 sluawanoldwi ;amos bujiuES C uoildp 'sull?w 33.103 pur `suotjrls dwnd jumilippr `1amos �1un11 glnos-guou mau r alinbal pjnom Z uopdp 3o uotlEluawaldwi `j uotldp lapun pwiabal sluawaAOldutl agl 01 uotltppe uj -pEON'o2uauiuiluS iQMO71Lo uoniis duand aq1 103 u>d9 OSI`I pur auEZ uuwojlla:I uo uopEls dwnd aql 1o3 (wdo) alnutiu nd suoll-e2 0St, 1r palEwilsa a1r sLotlrls .dulnd ;asagj ol. sajri: Aiog- �Laj UIDA►as -Iuml pirAalnog''1�Zn uaZ) six a111 01 paaaaiip Qq pinoAl suoilels dwnd 0sag1 u1o13 A,ol3 -slamas -lurid nupsixa 01 m0t3 ,K1;AU12 Xq paAlas aq MUM 1Eg1 plrAalnog knlua3 3o Xitut3u aqi ui luatudolanap aAlas ol palmipui sr pa inbal oq pinom sutrcu 03103 pur `suOtlels dwnd `slamas )lunll, 1aA�as yun11 JL)utlstxo ails of A,ol3 XimuA Aq pa,uos oq louura iugl PEON oluaulunrS lomo'1 3o isa.v� luawdolaAap aquas of palr3tpu1 su palinbal oq pinom 1arAas YlUnll gln0s-1111ou m2lz d -1aa11S Wig 3o tillou pue trur.D QIAk 0[11 30 lsra ralr aql uto1; s 1Ol3 fj1r3 oslr p1nom 11 'slrlajVj MOM d4tAr12 EIA p-3l3auu03 aq Ol PEON o1ua)wul rS ia,Aoq o1;- u;)arfpe luauidotanap . tuns -frau InUlad pinom jamos 3aziai stgl •puo- oluawEl3Es 1aAtO-1 ui palr3ol 1aAkas _jurL11 outlstxa "agl 3o uotuod E 'Jouolr paltnb0l oq pinom lamas 3atlal V -g-g oin2t- ut un,ogs a1r Z uoudp 1o3 sluawaAoldwi lamas I1rliuES .� Z u011do s I zoildp 3o iiotlrluaua�dti of olcI paitlan pi0i3�0a Pinogs slamos 3atlal 1oz sluawalmbal pur smo13 lrnl3V lul�lrgJlns asral3ut lltni w3wdolanap R Parallel Relief Suver Change in Pipe Size A Pump Station FM Force Main FIGURE 8-5. PRELIMINARY SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS Lod' General Plan REQUIRED UNDER OPTIONI 2 (SEWERS 12 INCHES ahL AND LARGER IN DIAMETER) o soo 2400 Source: slack 8 Veatch 1488 FEET FIGURE B-6. PRELIMINARY SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED UNDER OPTION 3 tSEWERS 12 INCHES AND LARGER IN DIAMETER) 3 800 2400 source: Bieck 9 Veatch rasa FEET Option 2 o The implications for Option 2 would be the same as those for Option 1. o The implications for Option 3 would be the same as those for Option I. STORM DRAINAGE This section is based on information provided by the City of Lodi Public Works Department. Introduction Preliminary designs for areas added to the master storm c�:ainage system service area wereprepared in accordance with adopted City design standards. No major. changes to the design concepts used for the existing drainage basins are assumed. However, as the storm rTrn,n-- «,cram apte T-irnnr tn-arrnmmnrintp� nPLV vrnluth anri the mmntintc of stored water increase, some of these design concepts should be reevaluated, particularly the level of service provided by the system in the southern part of Lodi compared to the: system in t e, northern part of Lodi. Option 1 Under Option 1,a ,najor portion of the planned master storm drainage system would lie outside of the GP study area. This poses a number of problems, particularly with the completion of the following projects currently underway: o. C -Basin. This basin is partially excavated T4 '-1— 6.temp�rjt�puznp struqure�located =in. the=-t3eck rian Koad"':di#ch ""WhrIe'"the existing basin and associated pump stations are performing adequately, the basin is not developed in accordance with the adopted City design standards. -,G-Basin.This, basin is partially excavated and has essentially. no improvements 'other'than'a temporary perimeter fence. The basin needs a pump and inlet/outlet structure and interior drainage system for it to drain completely. o Miscellaneons Storm Drainage Baster Lines. Currently five unconstructed master storm drainage lines would be needed to serve development under Option I: the Calavaras Street storm drain from Lockeford Street to Pioneer Drive, the 8-5 Pine Street storm drain from Guild Avenue to 800 feet east of Guild Avenue, the Vine Street storm drain from 400 feet east of Cluff Avenue to Guild Avenue, and the Lodi Avenue storm drain from 600 feet east of Cluff Avenue to Guild Avenue „A line- in. Hutchins Stveet from -WWaut 5treett to"Elrri`Street s'planned for Construction in 1989. These projects would be funded,Jrom storm drainages,fed"•� sessedfirto ftttii& ``t r.$ develogment:As piesently'plannedGthese'ptojects "will cast over $3.5 million. This cost could be reduced if the service area were reduced and the projects redesigned. However, a number of policy decisions would have to be made regarding accommodating future growth and the Ievel of improvements needed in the basins. With development restricted to the land designated under Option 1, the ability to finance or plan for these improvements is severelv restricted. _ 0 -;tion' _' Under Option 2, the master storm drainage system as presently planned would accommodate A of the area shown, with the exception of the area south of Kettieman Lane and west of Lower Sacramento Road. For this area, one additional basin I -Basin, with inccming trunk lines and an outlet pip@ would be needed (Figure,,8::7)-,,_..T asarea , would be sunilar to Area F,�n7Fi re 8 7=becaiise all ,of"the raterfrorri this area would bei ^^� �* �� �- .� '-�: •'' basin and the incoming pipes (including nuisance flows) and again at the Beckman p1jmo Stnt:nn into the _�uFii C nnnI The add ion of I -Basin would add approximately 17hours to the total time necessary sins after a design storm. In addition to the improvements required under Option 1, implementation of Option - 2 would require one additional storm drainage detention basin with incoming trunk lines and an outlet pipe. Option 3 Under Option 3, the master storm drainage system would be the same as. required for Option 2. However, two additional basins and trunk and outlet lines south of Harney Lane between the. WID Canal and SR 99 and north of Armstrong. road, (see Areas 3 and .>Fxa ' - pumprng wou d`also° be required hf these locations for water beEause the existing ground elevations are lower, in.relation to the rest of the City and the existing storm drainage system. Thee ddifon .of, rhes basiif' would add approximately 50 hours to the total time necessary to enip", after a design storm. The design of the area south of Harney Lane (Areas J and K in Figure 8-8) is such that Area J should be developed before Area K. 8-6 OF ffl oCITY OF LC�DT MASTER STORM DRAIN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT S Y S T E M .ice :-cr ,.sw- -. -yr ^ .T:Yk'K"y•s ._-�3�.',?"' - -. ".w,"', .. ... _ M 'ELUMNE RI:-ER1 •fssf•s•+++1� � { + L 2 • a E; B-2;: W s TURNER III at j ! y ! Li)C EFOP.a S r ° Ee o •s• ter. •• f• • O�` • SPAR Vl*oA so. t H ST • Wi WESTGA T ol__ �.►e• ! t to , m . sz °Mie °� � ! 1 I T° • S:. < � ". $ %% GLAVL" AVE ' I l f U • FA Ife. v t �. a t f 2 tl a2 •. KEMEfI °•K�F�t ••. M ; • •/ e Z ' f 13 a LS L I i ♦ 0 s o 1 soon p' 2000 FES ♦ V u I9p A-2 • w «� ^r^ f _cNTURY • BECKMAN t _ • g--� L�i •+_ SALAS tl� In iii r * • f� a w w w w ! • >�c" O1 s HAAs" LANE ]G f W.I.D. CANAL LEGEND TRUNK LI`JES & OUTFALLS ® EX IST ING w FUTURE ;BAS LN/PAPKS. FUTURE EXISTING . DRAINAGE AREA (APPROX .) FIGURE 8-7. MASTER STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Q PUMP STATION REQUIRED UNDER OPTION 2 Source. City & Lodi PublicWorks Department 1988 f 8-7 —./ VC { OF C°o CITY OF 1OD I MASTER STORM DRAIN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTmeati r�°A SYSTEM •-. `\.MELUMiVE"RIVER .fid €?':• { w �$i CR N �1 t e e• J. LAV c L_L' —� v � a . B-2; tad • j 'S t 'iDCliEt: t3a13 5 * : • em ++w♦ s a 1 • OR FID. WESTGATE � ;•♦w•r • •+ t11 Wj 12 T. `.,• GLAV �� 1 • i0� I AVE 1 I B— 2Cam Li 1 Uf • t i 1}� • • + 1 I �� • W ' � 1 •Ni •'•.w• 3V fft • s .. .... KOFU "+ •� 12 KET7LDt " s m w 11 1 ocn +• S 0 3 / "• •F� • I T::W • I 0 1/8 12 wIIE ` ` p JJl0 1000 2000 FEET ..J11-..111 • a A-2 "'. • • v « + ENTURY 8 J n' . J.! IAN = U .�.... r— BECKt i SALAS � a s 11AfNEY UNE • :SAL LEGEND a' J a K sa a ., � `'_£ •'het '..`-- _ yy.� � f,. : >•. ..,: .. i .. r et. ?�nria4!?'..,£jt , a-;Sz,s�'..''"e��§'�, `K'k?, • �r �'•.� �..:�,�,.TRhiNK• �:INES& ��C11"FALLS ♦ ..1... . -� EXISTIfvG RA, S 1-4T�F1 rli �V�npE w•r••wwsww•w•tw'.'•s r FUTUOf EXISTING •--- DRAINAGE AREA (APPROX . ) FIGURE $� PUN'P STATION MASTER STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED UNDER OPTION 3 { Source: City of Lodi Public Works Department 1988 8-8 In addiiion to the improvements required under Options l and 2, implementation---- of Option3 would requite 'Three more `storm`'drainage detention'basi'ns and additional trunk and outlet lines and two more storm drainage detention basins and additional trunk and outlet lines. T' Implications for the General Plan Option 1 o Consider selection of Options 2 or 3 instead of Option 1. o Accept a lower Ievel of service for the incomplete storm drainage facilities. o Develop a policy for funding improvements required for :he master storm drainage system other than fair share contributions from all new developments because Option I does not allow enough new development to fund needed improvements. Option 2 o Deveiop a policy and fee schedule for funding improvements required for the master storm drainage system from fair share contributions from all new developments. o Revise the Master Storm Drain System Flan and fee structure to include the facilities needed to accommodate growth under Option 2. o Design the storm drainage system to best use available fall. , Some doubleArR pumprng,W Id`be unavoidable. o Design the storm drainage basins so portions of the basins could remain flooded - for longer periods with fearer detrimental effects. o Revise the City design criteria for storage volume to increase the required volume. r , �.^t w`'Z'F}"' .,>Y l t C'.. c .•...Y ':,,i.3 % hF ?3 .X-#. YS._.i.'i{`,yr�jy-.' �`^�T$ _. SJC'LC2'hh..,a•5°t r"c,..0;"�i`-�`„"'� r Option 3 o The implications for Option 3 would be the same as those for Option 2 o Obtain permission from WID for a third discharge point. o Extend the storm drainage discharge line south to Pixley Slough. 8-9 N o Reduce the pumping rate at Shady Acres Pump Station and increase the Beckman Park Pump Station rate to compensate _.:.. ., .,._.. .-F-:ate ^- .:•t: .:3 : ?.m t}r G;.... :?`i s.w. >^r- _ _ _ o Adopt a phasing plan for new development as part of the growth Management Element. LAW ENFORCEMENT Option 1 Implementation of Option I would increase the demand for police protection in the City of Lodi by increasing the population in the city limits. Option 1 would add 1,338 residential dwelling units to the Lodi Police Department service area, producing an additional service population of 3,479. Currently, the department has a staff -to -population ratio of 1.3 officers per 1,000 population. However, based on the department's goal of 15 officers per 1,000 population, this increase would generate a demand for an additional 14 officers, increasing the total to 76 officers (Table 8-2). The additional officers would also require four additional patrol vehicles (Table 8-2). According to the police chief, additional substations would not be necessary (Williams pers. comm.). Option 2 Implementation of Option 2 would increase the demand for police protection in the City of Lodi by increasing the population in the city limits and through annexation of the unincorporated portions of the GP area into the City. Option 2 would add 9,992 dwelling units to the Lodi Police_ Department service area, producing an .,additional service pope ation of 25,979. Based on the department's goal of 1.5 officers per 1,000 population, this increase would generate a demand for an additional 48 officers, increasing the totai to 110 officers (Table S-3). The additional officers would also require 12 additional patrol vehicles (Table 8-2). According to the police chief, the increase in service population would require additional administrative personnel, additional office space, and possibly expansion of the existtnQ aiT Thede actment is ,ultimately pIarirngt to unci ease space°'tivithln the eXt��. 77 »» -- lail by expanding into the adjacent building, which currently houses the fire department. The police chief has indicated that the use of substations is not satisfactory tinder this option (Williams pers. comm.). Implemenfation 'of Option 2 `world require 33 more officers and additional office " and jail space than under Option 1. 8-10 -4 is S. ?able 1-2. Police Protection 1equirellat3 Itsoltlaq Eros few Deyelopleat by land Use Option ...................................... ...... ..................... ............................................ .................... ................... ? I..._......, .. .................... fait I Papa I a t too Total jubtf of Total Sulber of Idditiosil 1211bet IV— I Was [gibe( of I (Cutest VOIN49) Officits Itcded topol4tiol (Depirtleot Coal) lister of Officers Ife,114 Officers Uqvited Officm 1eqqlad 11trol velICICS leqvkid I ................................................... .................................. lytilcle/i officerli i.................. .......................... 1.5 ttsons 1.5 if lid f 12 .................... ................................................ 1.5 If I ................. 1tI ...... ... .......... ................. 1 136 ....................... : V I I 11 I A, C7 Option 3 Implementation of Option 3 would increase the demand for police protection in the City by increasing the population of the city limits and through annexation of the unincorporated portions of the GP area into the City. Option 3 would add 15,057 dwelling units to the polies department service area by producing an additional service population s {r of 39,148. Based tart the department's goal of 1.5 officers per 1,000 population, this increase would generate a demand for an additional 68 officers, increasing the total to 130 officers (Table 8-2), ?he tldditional officers would also require 17additional patrol vehicles (Table 8-2). According to the police chief, the increase in service population and officerswoulcl require additional administrative personnel and dispatchers and would require additional office space, expansion of both the existing jail, acid existing dispatching center, and anew beat in the southern portion of the City (Williarns pers. comm.). Implement,Uion of Option 3 would require 54 more officers than under Option land 20 more officers than under Option 2, as well as additional administrative personnel and dispatchers. Option 3 would also create the need to expand the existing dispatching center and a new beat. Implications for the General Plan Option I o Provide additional police officers and related equipment to serve new development based on the dep;:utment's staff -to -population goal of 1.5 officers per 1,000 population. Option 2 o Provide additional police officers and related equipment,> personnel, ,and°officf s ' to serve new development based on the department's staff-to-popiilatior_ ace p goal of 1.5 officers per 1,000 population. Remodeling of the existing public cv,z,;..flr.1�iltlFtlrt_inttill,{1P.etPPl�PIIt11:}lAl1CP-YiIP%.aVllftf�dt;+'_ilA}1lLSf�RSYt`.}t'trrla"i+i#�'iC^w z'� ''°`"`d "aI}ow ft3C itosslble expansion of'the jail. Option 3 o The implications for Option 3 would be the s-ame as those for Option 2. Provide additiotttil dispatchers,, expand the existing dispatch center, and establish a new beat in ilia southern part of the City. U-12 '- FIRE PROTECTION Option 1 The number of firefighters needed to_ adequately staff , a fire department is ,.- dependent on community characteristics. (For example, types of land iise and demographics are more critical than population numbers). Thus, the Lodi Fire Department does not maintain a staff -to -population goal. Adequate fire protection within the Lodi Fire Department service area is based on response time rather than population. Currently, the time it takes for the fire department to respond to an incoming service call is 4 minutes: one minute to receive the service call and 3 minutes driving time. Total personnel and equipment requirements for each of the land use opptions are presented in Table 8-3. These estimates are based cn the location and types of proposed development under each option. Currently, the department's fire protection coverage of the City's tvest side is considered weak (Hughes pers. comm.). A new station, in addition to the three existing stations, is needed in that area under existing conditions. Therefore, implementation of Option 1 would require a new station to cover new development in the western part of the City. Personnel requirer*ients under this option would include 12 firefighters, which is adequate to cover the additional station, and six apparatus, two more than the tiepartment has now. Fire station placement is based on an average 3 -minute driving response time to all emergency alarms. If the west side fire station were located at the presently proposed site on Lower Sacramento Road near Elm Street, all areas within the city limits under Option 1 would be within range of the 3-rninutc response time. At Present, "the department is considering annexation of the Woodbridc e Rural Fire District. If annexation were to occur, the proposed location of the fire station on the west side could change because the department would use the existing station in Woodbridge, which would serve the northwestern part of the City (Hughes pers. comm.'. Option % The four -station concept, as described under Option 1, would also be required for Option 2. Implementation of Option 2 would generate a demand for an additional 15 firefighters and accompanying apparatus (Table 8-3). The fire chief indicated, however, that four fire stations may not be adequate under this option and that further study would be needed to assess the adequacy of the station locations (Hughes pers. comm.). With four fire stations, the southwestern part of the City would be outside of the required 3 -minute response time range. Depending on the outcome of the study, a fifth fire station may be needed under Option 2. The addition of a fifth station would require all engine company, 8-13 � 1 1 .... (.(ru y� ,L < N N 1 C ru ' ru 04 `rtta-.!H!�� M ?aJ:r E�#F i£s ..mob.. ` { �' A.�_Y:}�• :.sv.YL47?. .+d.2=.�5^^ _ .� lio �.��Y:4�ft..k?,i�!".r^1}�1��'^-�i''%6Q�.•.t'?#1'Y.,�.'E4'.:'. !'! i• .Y.:: '+}ml'"" #}M ,.''�.:� O 1 v ( rh M t • 1 � ! f 1 Lq '!') 1 __ m m M1 II "' Ul b rp ( - W ! a 1 p 1 i ^ t Ct I .-t to t 1 I 3 t •.-r C -.41 4t ! N Cwt ..-. tZ tom,. .c. I N q1 CO W C-- Lr,) cn 1 u I t Cl 1 I ' , ! ' tr-v LO 1 at C 1 _co1 vi al N ( LS'Co III Q O 0 Lr) { 41 r w al O •Q C ! +' E- E O a ! Q to N 1 ! - 1 -v,Yctu ✓;ti. ._ i.^+t il' l,f C': . ,'k(.'� g-.�-t�efaY(}' x� �c �''"t�,._„ _,_ t 1 I O O O 1 c , C [ 1 i 1 I t N R_iJt � nine firefighters, and one accompanying apparatus (Table 8-3). The proposed location of the fifth fire station is not known at this time. Implementation of Option 2 would require eight more firefighters, and possibly a fifth fire station, than under Option 1. Option 3 The fox -station concept, as described under Option 1, would also be required for Option 3. Implementation of Option 3 would generate a demand for an additional 26 firefighters and three accompanying apparatus (Table 8-3). As described above ander Option 2, four fire stations may not be adequate to serve the expanded city limits. Further study would he required to assess the adequacy of the existing stations. However, one. additional engine company would be required under this optio.l. With four stations, the southwestern and the southeastern portions of the City would �)e outside the required 3 -minute response range. The fire chief has indicated that these corners could be a problem (Hughes pers. comm.). Depending on the outcome of the study, the addition of a fifth fire station would also require nine additional firefighters and one additional apparatus (Table 8-3). Implementation of Option 3 would require 14 more firefighters than under Option 1 and 11 more firefighters and one more apparatus than under Option 2, in addition to one additional engine company. This option may also require the addition of a fifth fire station. Implications for the General Plan Option 1 o Construct a fourth fire station in the western part of the City to adequately serve those areas currentfy outside the 3 -minute response range. o Provide additional firefighters and related equipment to serve new development. "o'� C6cisii ex atiriesatrori"ot the"Wooatzrtti e" Rtiral Fire District if it is foi iid to Help finance the cost of a fourth fire station. Annexation would provide better service to a larger service area. o and ' LStna sus re"T r Adopt a sprinkfer-ordinance?for'commereial md'• 1 u ( cl�tt edfor commercial and industrial buildings larger than 6,000 square feet) to reduce critical response time to these buildings- $ -1s Option 2 o T implications;"ft 12zwou�d be the'samP a"sthose'�fo� 00tion 1. o Study the existing and planned fire station a-lequacy to determine if the fi-e department could adequately serve the southwestern part of the City with four fire stations. Option 3 o The implications for Option 3 would be the same as those for Option 2. o Further study of existing and planned fire station adequacy would be required to determine if the fire department could ad,, quately serve the southwestern and southeastern parts of the City with four fire stations. PARKS AND RECREATION ._ Option 1 Currently, the City has an estimated 391 acres of parkland, of which 81 acres are school parks and 36 acres are undeveloped parks. The City of Lodi has established a standard of 5 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 population. The national standard is 10 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 population. However, when including school parks as developed parkland, the City prefers to use the national standard (Williamson pers. comm.). Currently, the City has a ratio of 7.3 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 population including school parks. "`Without school `parks, the City's ratio is 6.5 acres per 1,000 population. The recreation and parks director has indicated a preference for making up this deficiency of 2.7 acres per 1,000population with more parkland (rather than basin or school parks) to reach the national standard (Williamson pers. cornin.). Implementation of Option 1 would increase the demand for parkland in the City of Lodi by increasing the population of the city limits by 3,479. Based on the 10 acres er 1,000 population ratio, which iflcludes &chooI paris,thispopttl�ition inc'reale=vould'genet ate ,yr., d - a tiers ad for an additional 162 acres `of developed parkland, increasing the total need to 507 acres (Table 8-4). The future planned expansion of G -Basin would add another 51.5 acres of parkland. This planned espansion is not included in the total number of acres because the site has not yet been purchased by the City. This expansion is planned for development in approximately 2-5 years (Williamson pers. comm.). No drainage basins or school parks are designated under Option 1(Figure 2-3). 8-16 A" 41 Aw. two) -siad uosimptIpM a)jnoS --------------- ------------------- --------------------- -------------------------------------------- - ---------------- -------------------- uo i I v Indod uo i I- ndod 00oll/pupilied 000, 11pue IvA padolaAdo,lo padol@AOP 10 zet 891 Sane 615 sanpU01 5110slad H 0011PIndod uoileindod 1 CIO 000ll/puvt.ljpd i p padol8Aap 10adoJ8A8p JO, zol same 0.s ZU LBC sane 0-01 40sia d Z U011do uotleltidoduoilpindod 0 000,11purnlrd 0011/puelljpd padolaAap,jo padol@Aap JO csz 0 LOS Z91 same 0.01 Suoslad SH ikl I U011do ----------------------------- ---------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ---------------- (slied lootps I(sl)pd loops E WaBN sRJ)V papaafl sane Ii 6ulpnl)xa) papaq saj)v papaaN SBI)v 6ulpnl)ul) U01 uoildo ueld IpjauaD ll?d padol8UG lied padol@Aad jaildilpW Ved padolaAaa 112d padolaA@Q jai dilln Inoplind Mol 1p"I'MIP, PIN IPUOII!PPV 6u'151x3 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- -7 ------------------------------------- err- rrr«rr`--'-« _I 3 ---------------------------------- 1 uotldo asn puel Aq juawdolaA80 marl wojj hilinsag sluaulaiinbq puel4jed Pahlma .-P-8 alqp Al 0 Option 2 Implementation of Option 2 would increase the demand €orparkland in the City of Lodi by increasing the population of the city limits ',,v 25,979 and through annexation of the unincorporated portions of the GP area into the City. Rased on the 10 acres per 1,000 population ratio, this increase would generate a need for an additional _387 acres developed parkland, increasing the'total to need 732 -acres `(Table 8-4)." + Option 2 designates 104 acres of storm drainage deterition basin parks and 18 acres of school parks, for a total of 122 acres (Figures 2-3 and 2-4). According to the recreation and parks director, the remaining 265 acres that would be needed under this option should consist of neighborhood and community parks strategically located throughout new residential development (Williamson pers. comm.). linplementation of Option 2 would require 225 more acres of parkland than under Option 1. Option 3 Implementation of Option 3 would increase the demand for parkland in the City of Lodi by increasing the population of the city limits by 39,148 and through annexation of the unincorporated portions of the GP area into the City. Based on the 10 acres per 1,000 population ratio, this increase would generate a need for an additional 519 acres of developed parkland, increasing the total need to 864 acres (Table 8-4). Option 3 designates 164 acres of storm drainage detention basin parks and 44 acres of school parks, for a total of 208 acres (Figures 2-3 and 2-4). According to the recreation and parks director the remaining 311 acres that would be needed under this option should consist of neighborhood and community parks strategically located throughout new residential development (Williamson pers. comm.). Implementation of Option 3 would require 357 more acres of parkland than under Option 1 and 132 more acres than under Option 2. Implication fof the;: -General PIan r� � .KF xjpt!on 1 o Provide additional parkland to serve new development based on the department's 10 acres per 1,000 population goal which includes school parks. o Consider a City policy allowing for an appropriate amount of upland acreage for parks in all future storm drainage detention basin parks and e.xoansions for retreational facilities and winter sport acuvtttes Option 2 The implications for Option 2 would he the same as those for Option 1. o Provideadditional parkland, consisting of neighborhood and community parks, because designated storm drainage detention basin parks would not adequately meet the projected demand. o Establish a fee assessed to developers to finance new recreational facility development. o Preserve the Mokelumne River by designating it as a recreational resource. Option 3 o The implications for Option 3 would be the same as those fur Option 2. SCHOOLS Option 1 Implementation of Option 1 would add 1,338 residential dwelling units to the Lodi Unified School District (LUSD), generating an additional 928 students (490 K-6, 133 7-8, 265 9-12, and 40 continuation students, respectively) (Table 8-5). Current overcrowding of Lodi schools would be reduced by approximately 17percent under Option 1, as enrollment would decline from 103.8 to 86.3 perceni of available seating capacity (Table 8-5). This enrollment projection assumes that students from north Stockton households who are currently attending Lodi schools would be attending schools in north Stockton by 2007. The LUSD would have adequate housing capacity for the existing enrollment (excluding north Stockton transfers) anti_ fox students generated under -Opt 1 w Elementary and middle schools would be operating ;it 72.8 and 75.0 percent of ,pa sp ctively (Table 8-5), enabling the i USD it, house, Students Froni overCfC)\,'dC(1 capare . �.. attendance areas outside Lodi, if necessary, or to return to nonextended school schedules. However, the two high schools in Lodi would be operating at slightly over capacity, and continuation schools would be overcrowded by approximately 50 percent (Table 8-5), requiring the use of portable units or alternate sites. Conversion of existing schools (e.g. conversion of elementary and middle school space for grades 9-12) rind construction of proposed schools (Figures 2-4 and S-9) would be needed to fully accommodate projected co 1 N O Table 1-5. Ptojeeted Inrollteot and Capacity of Lodi Public Schools by Land Use Option . Z . . �! Cement Projected Increase in Projected Imrolltent as i( ,rhn5 Inrollsent Inrolltent Pot Lodi - Pttctntage of Projected r�niPercentage as Develorpment, 1911-2001(b) Ptojteted Intollntnt, 2007 (e) Projected Capacity Y Grade Comet -{� Current of Current Inettise to future Levels Into)lunO Capacity (a) Capacity Option 1 option 2 Option 3 option 1 Option 1 Option 3 Capacity (a) Capacity (a) Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 ............. --------•---•-----•---------------------------•- `Y r dr 1.1 3,893 125,1 190 3,686 5,317 5,112 1,564 10,259 7,112 71.1 116,0 139,0 1,112 `y'1^ ,1J9 7.1 1,291 . 1,616 70.5 131 916 1,115 1,117 2,770 2,689 :,392 1,836 15.0 120.9 M.5 V. Jli'I 9-12 5,511;*' 5,195 91.6 764 1,961 2,911 5,806 1,501 I'm 0 5,195 100.2 119,5 115.1 Continuation/ I11__� t,. 606 115.5 t0 291 131 111 1,169 1,311 0 600 152.2 IMI 211.5 adult Idoc,'ion Total 12,590= 12,121 101.1 911 (,911 10,111 -. 13,161 11,457 22,711 1,111. IS,613 16.) MA If$.$ ------------------ ....------ - -.---.------.----..---.-.-..----------------------r--------------------...---------------.------.--.-------------.-.-.------------.--------------- Source: Lodi Unified School3Dlitrict Iliand and Ieenan pers. cotts.l; Jones 4 Stotts Assoelatts I...tts: (a) Capacity tstilat.tr art based on limanent facilities 11 r. do not -_ Include ailovaocfifor portable unitsi and projected school schedules as of July 1915.2 -schools that will be operating on IRS or other extended -year scEedules ace indicated by aste:ists. Capacities of elementary schobfs art expected tt increase by 28 perctot vith conversion fruit i.1;,iedard•track to year round schedules. Capacities tlddie and high:lFADols ate ezpected I o increase 16 percent under extended IL'onceptkfl. sched.les. rr (b) Inrolltett proje(tlons assote that 800 students ate currently to eomtinaatlon prograts, 11.5 percent of Were students in grades 9.11 will Wend continuation school, and entollsent in adiilt•"education proilim will Increase at the case rate as the 1•1I student population ic) Infolleent ptoject_loas assume that students flop north Stockton households who are eurteotly atlend(k Lodi schools will be attending schools In north Stockton by 2607. it Is ii iiattd that the ouster of north Stoclton students currently attending Lodi schools is 2,650 In grades 9-11 (conventional high schools), 150 In the contiaddlloo prograt, 50 in gradts 1.1, and a stat( nusbtt in grades 1.1. ?hest figures do include include students in special education classes. I Lodi Genera! FIGURE 8-9. SCHOOLS REQUIRED UNDER OPTION 1 0 800 2400 enrollment under Option 1 without the use of interim facilities or the construction of additional permanent facilities. The LUSD has recently adopted a policy of converting existing schools to year-round schedules (YRS) and operating all future schools on YRS to alleviate overcrowding with the usu of YRS or other extendedschedulling, elemetary schcol, capacities .have; been p increased approximately ( 36 percent Hand pers. comm). Option 2 Implementation of Option 2 would add 9,992 residential dwelling units to the LUSD, generating an additional 6,917 students (3,684 K-6,976 7-8, 1,9619-12, and 296 continuation students, respectively) (Table 8-5). Current overcrowding of Lodi schools would increase by approximately 20 percent, as enrollment would increase from 103.8 to 124.6 percent of available seating capacity (Table 8-5). The LUSD would not have adequate capacity to house existing enrollment (excluding north Stockton transfers) and students generated under Option 2. Elementary, middle, and high schools would be operating at 16.0, 20.9, and 29.5 percent over capacity, respectively, and continuation schools would be overcrowded by 94.8 percent (Table 8-5), requiring the use of portable units, alternate sites, or the construction of additional schools. Two more elementary schools, one additional middle school, one additional high school, and one additional continuation school would be needed to fully accommodate projected enrollment under Option 2 without the use of interim facilities or the use of alternate sites (e.g., busing to schools outside Lodi) (Figure 8-10). In addition to the three elementary schools and two middle schools proposeu under Option 1, implementation of Option 2 would require two more elementary schools, and one additional middle school, high school, and continuation school than under Option 1. Option 3 Implementation of Option 3 would add 15,057 residential dwelling units to the LUSD, generating an additional 10,171 students (5,377 K-6 1,44 7 5, 2,911 9 12 }and„438 , 1 :. * -ce;•^r�., `� �$1''d_ ...;�.,, .,.,: a.•,'. s,s,:t 0 �'.:'�., ; �' i`3au.ac`,'' canttnuatton-; tis ents, .respectively) T', e;:.R8 5): Current overcrowding of Lodi schools would increase by approximately 40 percent, as enrollment would increase from iO3.8 to 145.5 percent of available seating capacity (Table 8-5). The LUSD would not have adequate capacity to house existing enrollment (excluding north Stockton transfers) and students generated under Option 3. Elementary, middle, and high schoois would be operating at 39.0, 46.5, and 45.8 percent ov,�r capacity, respectively, and continuation schools would be overcrowded by 118.5 percent (Table 8-5>,requiring the use of portable units, the use of alternate sites, or the construction of additional schools. Four more elementary schools, one additional middle 8-21 ® Elementary School A Middle School ® High School I� Continuation School 0 300 2400 Source: Lodi Unillod School DIPWd Sirrff FEET school, at least one additional high school, and at least one additional continuation school would be needed to fully accommodate projected enrollment under Option 3 without the use of interim facilities or alternate sites (e.Q., busing to schoois outside Lodi) (Figure 8 - In addition to the five elementary schools, three middle schools, one high school, and one continuation school needed under Option 2, implementation of Option 3 would require two more elementary schools than under Option 2. Implications for the General pian Option 1 o Designate future school sites as proposed by the LUSD, including sites for the Park: West and Century elementary schools and the Millswood and Harney middle schools. o Consider assisting the LUSD in financing new school facilities through assessment of impaction fees and implementation of other focal funding mechanisms that may be adopted, including formation of a community facility (iviello-Roos) district. o Consider implementation of a cooperative landbanking progrsrn, through which the City would acquire sites for future schools and complementary facilities (e.g. adjoining parks) and subsequently sell or dedicate land to the LUSD, to facilitate the timely location and construction of needed facilities and to minimize the financial burden of these improvements. Option 2 o The implications for Option 2 would be the same as those for Cption 1. o Construct two additional elementary school sites, one additional middle school site, one additional high school site, and one additional continuation schooi site to meet the projected demand. o The implications for Option 3 would be the same as those for Option 2. o Construct four additional elementary school sites, one additional middle school site, one additional high school site, and one additional continuation school site, tc meet the projected demand. 8-22 LEGEND +8 Elementary School A Middle Schooi 11 High School ® Continuation School FIGURE 8-11. SCHOOLS REQUIRED UNDER OPTION 3 $Qww' Leal { 1MVild school ®191041 5101 Lodi General Plan aFQ IrIv 0 000 2400 FEET e CHAPTER 9. Transportation � . This section is based on information provided by T3 Kai Transportation Consultants. METHODOLOGY The future roadway needs of each of the GP options were developed using the same method. A Citywide computer-based travel demand model was used to simulate existing traffic volumes and forecast future traffic volumes. The model simulates daily traffic volumes for traditional travel demand forecasting procedures: trip generation, trip distribution, and traffic assignment for each iand use option. The model that was developed used a proprietary software package known as MINUTP. MIND'I'P can be thought of as a framework of transportation modeling modules that is custom fit to a specific study area. The information required to operate the model includes detailed inventories of existing land development, street facilities, existing traffic volumes, and regional travel patterns and behavior. These elements are integrated into the model framework, along with specific travel parameters that are developed to produce an accurate simulation of existing traffic flows in the study area. Once existing traffic conditions are simulated by the model, it is considered valid for forecasting future traffic conditions. The traffic volumes at buildout of each land use option were based on the calibrated Citywide model, with adjusted land use data and a circulation network that varied by option. The land use data were based on Options 1, 2, and 3, as outlined in Draft General Plan Option Report (J. Laurence Mintier & Associates 1988). The circulation network for each option were, provided by City of Lodi Public Works Department staff (Fernandez pers. comm.). The future circulation network for each land use option was determined by comparing the projected daily traffic volumes with the capacities for various roadway types. The recommended capacities for various roadway types are shown in "fable 9-1. I -ie capacities shown in Table 9-1 represent two operating conditions: level of service (LOS) F� `assl _ igned' fo' a roadway' segmerif` and represent progressively congested traffic conditions. LOS C is the operating condition that City of Lodi Public Works Department staffhave established as the criteria for acceptable traffic conditions. The f[iture roadway network was established using LOS C capacities for various roadway types. 9-1 S Table 9-1. Recommended Capacities for the Lodi General Plan Study Area Roadway Type Daily Capacities LOS C LOS E Six -Lane Freeway 90,000 112,500 Four -Lane Freeway 60,000 75,000 Six -Lane Divided Arterial 36,000 45,000 Four -lane Divided Arterial 24,000 30,000 Four -Lane Undivided Arterial 22,000 25,000 Two -Lane Arterial 14,000 17,500 Two -Lane Collector 10,000 12,500 Two -Lane Residential 4,000 5,000 Two -Lane Freeway Ramp (New) 22,000 30,000 One -Lane Freeway Ramp (New) 11,000 15,000 One -Lane Freeway Ramp (Old) 9,000 12,000 Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants 1933. D-2 -, The total road miles of each roadway type by option are shown in Table 9-2. The two-lane collectors, residential streets, and freeways are not included in the estimates of road miles. Option I Implementation of Option I would increase the total arterial miles traveled in the City of Lodi and within the region by increasing the population in the city limits. As shown in Table 9-2, Option 1 would require 13.7 miles of two-lane arterials, 6.6 miles of four -lane undivided roads, 8.5 miles of four -lane divided roads, and no miles of six -lane divided roads. The traffic volumes associated with buildout of Option I are shown in Figure 9-1. The circulation network that would need to be developed to accommodate traffic volumes from buildout of Option I while maintaining LOS C is shown in Figure 9 -2 - Option 2 Implementation of Option 2 would increase the total arterial miles traveled in the City of Lodi and within the region by increasing the population in the city limits. As shown in Table 9-2, Option 2 would require 12.1 miles of two-lane arterials, 10.0 miles of four - lane undivided roads, 7.3 miles of four -lane divided roads, and 2.0 miles of six -lane divided roads. The traffic volumes associated with buildout of Option 2 are shown in Figure 9-3. The circulation network that would need to be developed to accommodate traffic volumes from buildout of Option 2 while maintaining LOS C is shown in Figure 9-4. Option 3 Implementation of Option 3 would increase the total arterial miles traveled in the City of Lodi and within the region by increasing the population in the city Iimits. As shown in Table 9-2, Option 3 would require 10.9 miles of two-lane arterials, 16.4 miles of four - lane undivided roads, 7.3 miles of four-lanedivided roads, and 2.0 miles of six -lane divided roads. The traffic volumes associated with buildout of Option 3 are shown in Figure 9-5. The circulation network that would need to be developed to accommodate traffic volumes from buildout of Option 3 while maintaining LOS C is shown in Figure 9-6. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE GENERAL PLAN In addition to the development of the required circulation network, adoption of any 1 of the land use options should consider also the following recommendations: 9-3 Table 9-2. Comparison of Road Miles by Arterial Type Source: TJKlbi Transportation Consultants 1988. Note: Based on 1985 survey with five cities of approximately the same size found that one maintenance person should be added for every 12.6 miles of streets. 9-4 Road Miles 2 -Lane 4 -Lane 4 -Lane 6 -Lane Option Arterial Undivided Divideti Divided 1 13.7 6.6 8.5 0.0 2 12.1 10.0 7.3 2.0 3 10.9 16.4 7.3 2.0 Source: TJKlbi Transportation Consultants 1988. Note: Based on 1985 survey with five cities of approximately the same size found that one maintenance person should be added for every 12.6 miles of streets. 9-4 0 FIGURE 9-1. DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (OPTION 11 v Source: TJKM Transoortatron C"XUJIania 1989 Q-5 � � | / LEGEND ~^^^^^^~^^~ o LANE FREEWAY ^ LANE FREEWAY ~~~~~~~nLANE opmsnARTERIAL ------ ^ LANE DIVIDED ARTERIAL - - - - - - - ~ LANE UNDIVIDED ^pnsm^L ----''—z LANE ARTERIAL FKGURE 9-2. FUTURE CIRCULATION NETWORK (OPTION 1) FIGURE 9-3. DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (OPTION 2) Source: TJKM fransporlat.on Cons,ir, 1398 Q-7 I FIGURE 9-4. FUTURE CIRCULATION NETWORK (OPTION 2) t So res: TJKM Transoortation Consultants 199a n 0 2200 0 1300 p0 \»o•[Luu n[ �a X00 �o 4j �o Ttt11�� a s 14000 tet= lu•n[n ^0620 fII —��,Cp ; 17200 18300 175 00 7700.�\ C 23000 \\1 I Lam:[ ocnnfn ,� x I zJ o T � .iroaRfsT w.[. CYf[•' t I<oo PARR W[ST} 12500 G �i LCCsonD Y. tasT �•. } (4 R 9500 n 14400 u 8500 I ILocusr 10700 I --- cLYt_i,_'_`0'o - ? -- c. Locos v 12600 3800 5200 ct o,ro+o 21p0V .w[ 43CO 5100 2400 .6100 y z 3000' HSco 4 V I At nV Loot sARlfnr col [15100 8400 "II !1100 112W 913500 15500 14500 17300 20000 = LT2G0 915800 oIf — c — o ! o ofIti PtoRAt M } 26004500 „171 7000 6200 7100 m scJQ sao 7300 0 _ [ ~� 4000 j I 5500171[ i l 3500 3500 2 00 a :-00 2000 of ; 1 OtwR o o} -Ti m� — � 12 o�y ( ^ } t R .e sr I .[11LCwAY _—L Win. L' .25000 21000 23700 23300 31300 I 37000 24000 ooI o 0 0_1. R 5600 4800 Y-- i i — oo, a O .La,onO IIRIv[ 1 — m➢ L `�� �l0 2000. _ cr Y; uRl k1 1 ' R8o0 1600 o r �u�o O — nI IY1 3800 �- .RY[1 4300 n +7200 f I4000 w Zero 15400 zo6oQ zzGOo I( im R LEGEND iP — EXISTING ---- FUFURE �sF;:c i 5900 � � o 5500 7906 1 12100 10300 FIGURE 9-5. DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (OPTION 3) Source: TJKM Transoortat:on Con sul;ants 1985 O—A C a`- LEGEND '"bar ......'•••'•'• 6 LANE FREEWAY '•+.';�� � 4 LANE FREEWAY +o ------ 6 LANE DIVIDED ARTERIAL a LANE DIVIDED ARTERIAL _---_ r - a LANE UNDIVIDED ARTERIAL I / --- 2 LANE ARTERIAL JJ• ---• 2 LANE COLLECTOR .._._..1-- of�T_—------- ------------------- IT[�� ✓''O[Sr i Eow• `�..[' • t tI t-. ... ......t...l�. '�, • l..0 �C Fp_n0 • tt E.f=_ �r • IDG. [.p.D El" ST _1 v�-�.:. lM•JST C�:_[�r 'iCJf.,r IT ......... .. ----------- f OAX �......--------------- ------- i [ - ..... ro...• 4: 0. ........... -------- ...... -• .... r -• 1 i! •r....nacn, art •� `cI }. �' "a `[TILE..." 1 »• �: t I [. ri.rrrrs�— __�, . i Ct:ci L. ( vORO •� Dn�v C...j ...................... � -____. i_=r".c:J R. (, .......... 1 1 ! 1 t .................( i . i 1 ! 1 1 1 ( 1 1 1 ... ..................... __ ................. _------ _��. �__ �_-��_�� FIGURE 9-6. FUTURE CIRCULATION NETWORK (OPTION 3) Soures [JKAf Trjnsoottrtton COS.)ta,% t9Be n_in Option 1 o Develop a policy and fee schedule for funding improvements required fo: the circulation network based on fair share contributions from a?lnew developments using a trip end fee method or some other appropriate approach. o Coordinate with Caltrans and San Joaquin County Council of Governments for planning and implementing future interchange improvements that would be necessary. o Coordinate with San Joaquin County to develop a policy and plan for improve- ments in the County's jurisdiction that would be required as a result of buildout of the City of Lodi's adopted GP option o Coordinate with San Joaquin County Council of Governments, San Joaquin County, and Caltrans for planning and implementing measures to reduce regional trips originating from Lodi, which include strategic placement of park-and-ride lots and available information for other trip reduction efforts. Option 2 o The implications for Option 2 would be the same as those for Option 1. Option 3 o The implications for Option 3 would be the same as those for Option 1. 9-11 f�f s CHAPTER 10. Bibliography REFERENCES CITED { Black & Veatch. 1988. Unpublished data for future sewerage system improvements for various land use options for the Lodi general plan update. Pleasant Hill, CA. Prepared for: City of Lodi Public Works Department, Lodi, CA. Unpublished data. J. Laurence Mintier & Associates. 1988. City of Lodi general plan draft 'general plan options. Sacramento, CA. Prepared for City of Lodi Community Development Department; Jones & Stokes Associates, Tnc. 1987. Final summary of community opinion survey and interviews. (JSA 86-101.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for: City of Lodi Community Development Department, Lodi, CA. . 1988a. Background report general plan update - City of Lodi. (JSA 86- 101.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for: City of Lodi Community Development Department, Lodi, CA. 1988b. Land absorption study general plan update - City of Lodi. (JSA S6- 101.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for: City of Ludi Community Development Department, Lodi, CA. Psomas and Associates. 1985. Unpublished data for future water system improvements for carious land use options for the Lodi general plan update. Sacramento, CA. Prepared fur: City of Lodi Public Works Department, Lodi, CA. TJKM Transportation Consultants. 1988. Unpublished data on future traffic volumes for various land use options for the Lodi general plan update. Fair Oaks, CA. Unpublished report. PERSONAL, COi''IMUNDCA`IIONS Factor, Bill. Associate Planner. San Joaquin County Department of Planning and Building Inspection, Stockton, CA. September 22, 1988 - telephone conversation. Fernandez, Paula. Traffic Engineer. City of Lodi Community Development Department, Lodi, CA. November 1988 - telephone conversations. Hand, Art. Planning Analyst. Facility Planning Department, Lodi Unified School District, Lodi, CA. October 3-13, 1988 - telephone communications, notes, and memoranda - 10 -1 a Hughes, Larryof Lodi Fire Department, Lodi, CA. September 28, 1988 meeting. Prima, Richard. Chief Civil Engineer. City of Lodi Public Works Department, Lodi, CA. August -November 1988 - telephone conversations, meetings. Schroeder, Jim. Community Development Department. City of Lodi Community Development Department, Lodi, CA. September-Ocrober 1988 - telephone conversations. Williams, Floyd. Chief of Police. City of Lodi Police Department, Lodi, CA. September 28, 1988 -meeting. Williamson, Ron. Director. City of Lodi Parks and Recreation Department, Lodi, CA. _..October S3and 6,,,1.988 :;telephone conversations... 10-2 . F „- CHAPTER 11. Report Preparation This Options Assessment Report has been prepared by Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. under contract to the City of Lack Community Development Department. The persons responsible for preparing this report are listed below: ` JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES, INC. I JSA Management Team Ron Bass - Project Manager Francine Demos-Petropoulos - Project Coordinator JSA Technical Staff f Erin Maclean - Law Enforcement, Fire Protection, and Parks and Recreation VaLe-rie Rosenkrantz - Transportation Ira Saletan - Schools Roger Trott - Population and Employment JSA Production Staff Victoria Axiaq - Production Coordinator Ruth McRonald - Word Processor Jack Wlhelehan - Editor Ken McNeil - Editors Assistant Tony Rypich - Graphics J. LAURENCE MINTIER & ASSOCIATES Land Use and flousing J. Laurence Mintier I{ Robert Lagomarsino C BLACK & VEATCH :. ewerage. •n.e .rq '....:. Y ...... ,, .f YF�,•�:'r'.=1 ' ��ti:. ... d - :Lti'r.'... ..'}x:.%1i��`...�_:.. Frank A. Appelfeller CITY OF LODI PUBLIC IVORKS DEPARTMENT Storm Drainage Richard Prima Wes Fujitani PSOM,A,S AND ASSOCIATES Water Harold L. Welborn Joe DomenichelIi TJKi'NI TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Transportation Jeff Clark 11-2 • • _ A ' APPENDIX A. ExecuiveS,ummary of the City of Lodi General Plan Update Land Absorption Study . A-1 Executive Summary The role of a community's general plan is to guide the type, location, and timing of urban growth and infrastructure development over a Iong term period. For a general plan to achieve its goals, the plan should be linked to economic and market realities. The tim development of lands designated by the general plan for certain uses will occur only if t urban land market can support it such development. This report provides an evaluation of the market demanJ for major land uses in the Lodi area over a 20 -year period from 1987 to 2007. The stL;.dy is designed to provide market information and land absorption forecasts that will help guide the development of Lodi's General Plan Update. Evaluations were prepared for four broad land use categories defined by the markets for residential, retail commercial, office commercial, and industrial land. The primary-, products of these market evaluations were 20 -year absorption schedules showing land absorbed in 5 -year increments. The market demand for land within each General Plan category was evaluated based on two future growth scenarios representing the expected lower and upper range of demand. Absorption schedules were prepared for both scenarios for each of the nine General Plan categories. The following sections present summaries of the basic assumptions used to forecast the demand for land in Lodi under Growth Scenarios 1 and 2. GROWTH SCENARIO 1 ASSUMPTIONS o The City will adopt a policy limiting the annual growth of Lodi's housing stock to 2 percent (compounded) over the 20 -year period of analysis. o The City will allocate future housing permits so that 65 percent of ail new housing is single -Family and 35 perce:;t is multifamily. O Average hoLlschc Id size in Lodi will remain relatively stable over 20 years, decreasing by 3 percen!. o Per capita sales in Lodi stores will remain relatively stable over 20 years, with per capita apparel and general merchandise sales increasing by 5 percent and per capita automobile sales decreasing by 10 percent. A-2 r� o The future demand for office space in Lodi will be ;,venerated by local office users. No regional office deveiopment will occur. A-3