Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - March 22, 1989 (55)C 6 J N C I L C 0 M M U N I CAON TO: THE CITY CJOLML CJOLML MEEIDU DATE: MARCH 15, 1989 FROM: THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE SUBJECT: CONSIDER PIAN COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION ON THE OPTIONS ASSFMVENT REPORT, GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AS PREPARED BY JONES AND SIOCES ASSOCIATES AND J. LAWRENCE MINTIER AND ASSOCIATES .. 1 MICATFD ACTION: The City Council should conduct a public hearing to comidex e recommendation of the Planning Commission that Option 2, as outlined % the' Options Assessment Report, General Plan Update, as prepared by Jones and Stokes Associates and J. Lawrence Mintier and Associates be the preferred Option and' that the 2% growth rate be based on population rather than dwelling units. ' BPCKGROUND MORM UON The General Plan Update Consultants presented the =1 Options Assessment Rrt to the City Council and Planning Commission at a saint meeting at Hutchins Street Square on Wednesday, January 25, 1989. The P1_ann3ng Commission's public hearing was conducted on February 27, 1989 with the -above• }` recommendation being made at the same session by a 4 to 2 vote.. After the preferred Option is selected by the City Council, the Consultants will complete the General Plan and Environmental Impact Report. This final step should take three to four months. p p p 2JE 7SB. SCHROEDER Development Director CC89/7/TXTD.01C March 8, 1989 to the City Clerk, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California, at or prior to, the Public Hearing. By Order Of the Lodi City Council Alice R P.eim he City Clerk Dated: March 16, 1989 Approved as to form: Bobby W. McNatt - City Attorney PH TXTA. 020 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING BY ME CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LODI TO CONSIDER THE OPTIONS ASSESSMENT REPORT, ? GENERAL PLAN UPDATE bn y NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday,March 22 1989 at the hour of 7:30 m., or as soon thereafter as tmatter ma be heard, the Lodi City Council w i l l conduct a continued public hearing in the r Council Chambers of the Lodi City Council at 221 West Pine Street,`; Lodi California, to consider the Options Assessment Report, General , Plan Update, as prepared by Jones and Stokes Associates and J. Laurence } M i nt i e r and Associates. Information regarding -this item may b, obtained in the office of the Community Development Director at 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California. All interested persons are invited to present their views and comments on this matter. Written -statements may be f i I e d with the City Clerk at any time prior to the hearing scheduled herein and oral statements may be made at said hearing. w f If you challenge the subject matter i n court you may be limited to r' raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public ' Hearin described i n this notice or i n written correspondence delivered 9 P to the City Clerk, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California, at or prior to, the Public Hearing. By Order Of the Lodi City Council Alice R P.eim he City Clerk Dated: March 16, 1989 Approved as to form: Bobby W. McNatt - City Attorney PH TXTA. 020 -1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING n NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LODI TO CONSIDER THE CPHCM ASSESSMENT REPORT, GENERAL PLAN UPDATE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, March 15, 1989 at the hour of 7:30 pm., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the Lodi City Council will conduct a public hearing in the Council Chambers of the Lodi City Council at 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California, to consider the Options Assessment Report, General Plan Update, as prepared by Jones and Stokes Associates and J. Laurence Mintier, and Associates. Information regarding this item may be obtained in the office of the Community Development Director at 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California. All interested persons are invited to present their views and conmxtts on this matter. Written statements may be filed with the City Clerk at any t i me prior to the hearing scheduled herein and oral statements may be made at said hearing. If you challenge the subject matter in court you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk. 221 West Pine Street, todi, California, at or prior t o , the Public Hearing. W Order Of the Lodi City Council: Alice M. Remxhe City Clerk Dated: Marrh 1, 1989 Approved as to form: Bobby W. McNatt City Attorney °H/ TXTA. 02D Cir C E I'l� 1020 Bradford Circle 10 _o AN 11: GS Lodi, California 95240 ALICE 1,11.i�Elt,iCFE Cl T Y CLERK CITY OF LOGE March 9, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Lodi City Council City Hall, 221 W. Pine St. Lodi, CA. 95241-1910 Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council: At your March 15, 1989 meeting you will be reviewing the recommendations of the Lodi Planning Commission concerning the Options Assessment Reportr General Plan Update, City of Lodi. The Planning Commission has recommended a Growth Management Policy of two (2) percent per year growth. I am not as concerned about the percentage of growth as much as I am about having a Growth Management Folicy rather than Option 1 which is the current Proposition A. By adopting a Growth Management Policy for the City of Lodi you will then have an opportunity to respond to the concerns of the voters of this city who are seeking control of the development of this community. Such a policy once approved by you would permit you to withdraw your appeal cf the current judicial decision concerning Option 1. I know that I am not the first member of this community to suggest this to you but I want to add my voice to those others who whould like to see the City of Lodi move forward rather than march in place. I hope that you will take advantage of this opportunity to establish a Growth Management Policy for the City of Lodi which in turn will permit tie city staff to move forward in accomplishing their responsibilities in planning for the development of this community. Sincerelyr JAMES E. GRIFFITH Mrs. Carolyn Reichmuth 1358 Midvale Rd. Lodi, CA 95248 March 14, 1989 Lodi City Council 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95241-1910 RECc(' D, rule 1. 33 LICE M. REIHCHE CITY CLERK. CITY OF LOGE Subject Options Assessement Report, General Plan Update. Dear Councilmembers: Since the City of Lodi is updating the General Plan at this time, I would like to take this opportunity to voice my concerns. First, enclosed is a coPY of an article from a recent San Francisco Examiner concerning Senate Bill 2853. I would like this article entered into the minutes. It tells of: counties and cities submitting housing elements but ignoring them in practice. As an option to Measure A the Lodi City Council is considering a 21/6 growth rate limit. The County of Santa Cruz is now in a conflict with the State Housing a Department over their 1% growth rate. Might Lodi also be in conflict with state policy with a similar growth rate? My other concern is affordable housing. The two voter -approved housing projects cannot be classified as affordable housing for the average person wanting to buy a new home within Lodi. Both projects were directed toward the affluent buyer. I hope the new general plan will take these concernsz reasonable growth and affordable housing, into account. If the State Court of Appeals deems Measure A invalid, the City of Lodi should have an alternate plan that is fair to all and in compliance with state law. Having a general plan and housing element are fine but unless the city offfcals are able to implement them, they are wasted. Sincerely, Mrs. Carolyn Reichmuth 20 EXAMiNEK BRADLEY INMAN Old law forces cities to take housing element seriously N RECENT months; each of three groups has turned to an arcane state law to force local government to be more ac- countable for its decisions. The groups: istatehousing agency womed about rising home prices, property owners upset over rent and growthcontrols, and pov- erty groups concerned aboutthe' lack of affordable housing. The law they embrace is Senate Bill 2853, which was enacted in 1980 andoften dismissed as irrele- vant t y local officials. I t requires municipalities to deviseplans for meeting local housing needs by pre• paringand executing what is known in planning as "a housing el- ement." The element was prepared as a report thatwas often shelvedand then ignored. It's part of the com- munity's general plan and is in- tended to guide the amount and quality of development. Every five years, the state reviews local hous- ing elements for compliance with state laws. Thatprocessjust began this year. Communities put on the spot Like it or not, an increasing number ofcommunities srebeing forcedto take the law more serious- ly. • In Alameda, the Legal Aid So- ciety is pushing a suit that says a 119113 city law prohibiting the build- ing of rental housing is in conflict with state housinglaw. The suit al- so says the city's housing element promotes housing discrimination agoinst low-incomeand minority people. • In West Hollywood. the state Department of Housing is zeroing in on various city policies, including the city's rent -control law. ""We , caution the city to monitor. ..the regt- stabilization program to en- sure it does not have an adverse im- pact on the mainterranaeanddevel- opment of affordable housing," says a letter from the stateto West Hollywood City Manager Paul B rournan. • Housing experts say the state Department of Housing and Com- munity Development is getting tougher on cities and counties that don't comply with the law, al- though state officials are reluctant to confirm oris. More than 25 per- cent of the 507 local housing ele- ments are out of compliance, ac - c ordingto the latest agency re- cords. In the past, cities have gone through the perftinctory exercise of preparing the housing element and submitting it to the state for certifi- cation. as the law requires. But then the law was often forgotten. Now, several of the communities that are out of compliance are be- ing attacked by the sts te. The state Housing Department and the County of Santa Cruz are wran- gling over the county's housing ele- ment, which the state says is out of compliance because of Santa Cruz's 1 percent limit on new develop- ment. Santa Cruz officials say they're being unfairly 1) icked on by the state. They argue that state hous- ing people don't u nderstand lociO �r -%"y. March S, 1989 F-5 conditions. Butstate officials say the hous- ingelementlaw saysa ccau unity cannotturnitsbackonhow land - use decisions — such asgrowth- control rules—influence thslatger ra#cr alhousing market, Without acertifiedhousingele- 1 ment, thecomipunity's entiregen- eral plan is in limbo and thecouatY is on loose legal footingwhen app -- proving or rejecting otherdevelo`p- ment proposals. Stateofficials deny they're out to bash rent or growth control, but the agency's director, Ch-istiue Reed, says the normal fiwyearrs view of local housing elenients'may representa"day ofreckoning"for' rent controlandgrowt•h control in, communitiessuch as West Holly- wood ollywood and Santa Cruz. "We aren't rubbingourhands together saying, ` there canes one with rent ambnl, `" Reed says. "But a community may lave to jus- tify itspolicie&" To their liking Nothing could make the housing industry happier. The California Housing Council, an industry -sup: ported lobbying organizati:cn,is - building a case that rent control vi- olates housing element law. I Specifically, it cites language in the state law saying that "potential and actual government constraints upon the mairrtenance, improve- ment or development of housing" must be analyzed. While rent -control advocates ar- gue that controls don't cause such problems, this new plan of attack i� certain to find its way into court. "1 don't think they shouldjust gick on rent -control cities just be- . cause they are under rent control," says Bill Fulton. former chairman: of the West Hollywood Planning Commission. "A community like Thousands Oaks doesn't have rent control, but it is ignoring its obliga. t ion to nffordnble housing and what, if anything, is the state say- . int; about that?" NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE LODI CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THE OPTIONS ASSESSMENT REPORT, GENERAL PLAN UPDATE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, March 22, 1989 at the hour of 7:30 :<k p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard;, --the City Council will R' conduct a continued public hearing in the Council Chambers at -221 West Pine Street, Lodi to consider the Options Assessment Report. General P1an.Update....is' prepared by Jones and Stokes Associates and J Laurence Mintier and`Associa't Information regarding this item may be obtained in the office':: the City: Clerk, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California, or by telephoning (209) 333-6702. By Order of the Lodi City Council Alice M Reimche City Clerk PH/12 TXTA. 02D Y � Ll A GRCNTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR LODI Prepared for: The Mayor's Task Force on Measure "A" Prepared by: x Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1725 - 23rd Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95818 Ron Bass, Project Manager July 1987 A GROWTH MANAGEMENT PF40OR M FOR LODI 3 1 w i This document constitutes a growth management element of the Lodi General Plan. Under Section 65303 of the Californian` Government Code, in addition to the seven mandatory elements, a city may adopt optional elements to its general plan. The growth management element is such an optional element. Optional elements must be consistent with the remainder of the general plan and, once adopted, have the same legal effect as mandatory elements. The growth management element consists of three parts: an introduction and background; statements of goals and policies; and an implementation program. I. Introduction and Background Importance of Agricultural Land in Lodi Lodi is located in an agriculturally important area of California's Central Valley. Agricultural land is the predomi- nant land use surrounding the city with grapes being the key -_ crop (see Fio,•ure 1) . Agriculture contributes an important part of Lodi's economy and provides residents with scenic resources immediately adjacent to the city limits. s Growth Control Prior to Measure A Prior to August 25, 1981, the City of Lodi managed urban growth by the allocation of storm drainage capacity- A limited number of drainage retention basins and collection facilities were designated in the General Plan. The capacity of the drain- age system served as a limitation on the number of housing units and other urban uses that could be developed. As new growth was proposed, additional drainage facilities were added to the plan. Adoption of Measure A Measure A, approved by the voters of Lodi on August 25, 1981 and adopted on September 1, 1981, is an ordinance which amended the land use element of the City General Plan by remov- ing from the Lard Use Element any land that is not within the corporate limits of the city. The ordinance effectively elim- inated the city's planned urban growth area. The intent of Measure A is to preserve and protect agricultural land, preserve -I Ill pt q L" Since 1970, Lodi has annexed approximately 1,660 acres of land to the city. The enactment of Measure A in 1981 signifi- cantly slowed the pace of annexations to the city. Table 1 shows the annual annexations to the city since 1970. In addition to slowing the pace of annexations, Measure A has had a significant effect on the types of projects for which land has been annexed. Generally, the voters have turned down single-family residential projects. Since Measure "A," only one such project has been approved. The only other residential project to be approved was a senior/adult housing project. Table 2 shows the projects presented to the voters between 1982 and 1987 and the results of the elections. Challenge to Measure A On November 25, 1985, a committee known as Lodians In Favor of Free Enterprise (LIFE) challenged Measure A, requesting a court order that the City of Lodi cease administering and en- forcing the measure. The petition alleged that the following legal deficiencies existed in Measure A: o Measure A interferes with state annexation laws. o Measure A is an unreasonable exercise of police power. o The enactment of Measure A causes the General Plan to become invalid. o Measure A does not provide for Lodi to meet its fair share of regional housing nee3s . 3 the scenic resources of the area, protect wildlife habitats and natural resources, and to maintain the small -city character of Lodi within the designated Greenbelt. The boundaries of the Greenbelt lie between the outer limits of the incorporated city and the outer limits of the adopted sphere of influence. See Figure 2. Measure A includes the following restrictions: Nonagricul- tural development lying immediately adjacent to the designated ` Greenbelt area is permitted only after the City Council has determined that such development would not interfere with pro- ductive agricultural activities or that an adequate buffer zone is implemented to ensure productive use of agricultural land, �rY In addition, no land within the Greenbelt can be annexed to the city without an amendment to the city's Land Use Element of the General Plan and approval by the majority of the people voting in a city-wide election. Land Use Decisions Under Measure A r Since 1970, Lodi has annexed approximately 1,660 acres of land to the city. The enactment of Measure A in 1981 signifi- cantly slowed the pace of annexations to the city. Table 1 shows the annual annexations to the city since 1970. In addition to slowing the pace of annexations, Measure A has had a significant effect on the types of projects for which land has been annexed. Generally, the voters have turned down single-family residential projects. Since Measure "A," only one such project has been approved. The only other residential project to be approved was a senior/adult housing project. Table 2 shows the projects presented to the voters between 1982 and 1987 and the results of the elections. Challenge to Measure A On November 25, 1985, a committee known as Lodians In Favor of Free Enterprise (LIFE) challenged Measure A, requesting a court order that the City of Lodi cease administering and en- forcing the measure. The petition alleged that the following legal deficiencies existed in Measure A: o Measure A interferes with state annexation laws. o Measure A is an unreasonable exercise of police power. o The enactment of Measure A causes the General Plan to become invalid. o Measure A does not provide for Lodi to meet its fair share of regional housing nee3s . 3 Table 1. Annual Annexations to Lodi Since 1970 Year Number of Annexations M6 p 'otal Acres Annexed 5 x.� j4 Measure A Enacted F 1970 6 154-.05 -0- -0- 1983 -0- -0- 1984 1 1971 2All 1985 2 83.76 1986 1 1972 5 73.61 ; 2 67.9__ _ Total 56 1,660.06 1 Noncontiguous public land (wastewater treatment 1973 7 58.54 1974 6 151.34 1975 4 107:.2: 1976 2 54:". 8..= x 19773 .70.6I._.>• 1978 2 lr� } ' 1979 3 152.38 1980 5 225.44 1981 5 169.63 5 x.� j4 Measure A Enacted 1982 -0- -0- 1983 -0- -0- 1984 1 110.001 1985 2 83.76 1986 1 2.196 1987 2 67.9__ _ Total 56 1,660.06 1 Noncontiguous public land (wastewater treatment plant and drainage basin) --no vote was required. 5 1986 Batch Single-family 100.0 Disapproved residential Parkview Terrace Senior/adult 20.0 Approved (Mills) housing Maggio Industrial 37.6 Approved Towne REx Single- family 78.3 Disapproved residential Johnson Ranch Single-family 30.6 Disapproved residential ON The Superior Court of California held that a city and its voters cannot interfere with the annexation process, which had been preempted by state law. The Court, therefore, ordered the city to terminate the administration and enforcement of Mea- sure A. The city is currently appealing the Superior Court's deci- sion. Measure A is still in effect however, and w i 11 be en- forced by the city until the appeal is decided. 5 Creation of Task Force and Its Role In April 1986, the mayor of Lodi convened a task force comprised of 10 citizens who represented a wide spectrum of viewpoints on Measure A. The charge to the Task Force was: "To study and recommend to the Lodi City Council, unani- mously if possible, a solution or solutions that would guide and control growth with the intent to preserve and enhance the aesthetic and economic qualities of the City of, Lodi To advise the task force in its work, the City retained the services of the planning firm of Jones & Stokes Associates of Sacramento. The task force has met monthly between May 1986 and - July 1987 and, with advice from Jones & Stokes Associates, developed the growth management systems contained in the Ele- ment. The Need for Growth Control The citizens of Lodi believe that uncontrolled growth leads to the following problems: o premature and unplanned conversion of agricultural land o interference with productive agricultural activities o stress on public services and facilities o traffic congestion o poorly designed development projects o imbalance in the types of housing and cost of housing produced 11. Goals and Policies The goals of the citizens of Lodi in adopting this growth management element are: 7 t 8 o ability of public services to adequately serve new development. 4 Stable Growth Rate { . .mal. Lodi shall maintain a stable growth rate that enables implemented through a residential development allocation system j it to sustain the small-town quality of iife that is charac- ti- family development is allocated each year. terized by: xi o an agricultural economic base;* ' Policies = O cohesive, well-maintained residential neighborhoods; ous agricultural and open space Greenbelt around the urbanized f o the ability of residents to live close to their places i, my and aesthetic quality of Lodi. The location of that of work: greenbelt shall be designated in the Land Use Element of the o ability of residents to travel from one side of town to '. the other without experiencing serious traffic con- proval of development projects shall be made to encourage the gestion; and 8 o ability of public services to adequately serve new development. Policy. It is the policy of the City of Lodi to grow at a { . rate not exceeding2 percent per year. This Growth rate w i 11 be p p Y implemented through a residential development allocation system j whereby a specified number of units of single-family and mul- ti- family development is allocated each year. Protection of Agricultural Land Eivai Lodi shall encourage the preservation of agricultural activities surrounding the City. ' Policies = Greenbelt. The City of Lodi shall maintain a continu- ous agricultural and open space Greenbelt around the urbanized f part of the city to maintain and enhance the agricnitural econo- y my and aesthetic quality of Lodi. The location of that greenbelt shall be designated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Viable Agriculture. Land use decisions and the ap- proval of development projects shall be made to encourage the continuation of viable agricultural activity surrounding the city. Utility Extensions. City sewer and water facilities shall not be extended tc serve areas within the Greenbelt or beyond. Riqht-to-Farm ordinance. Cit,' of Lodi shall study and consider a "right -to -farm" ordinance by which agricultural land shall be protected from nuisance suits brought by surrour,3ing land owners. 8 Limitation on the Approval of New Development Residential development projects of 5 units or greater, with the exception of senior Atizen housing projects, shall be = p g p 7 subject to the Lodi growth control program under which a limited==Y number of housing allocations shall be approved each year, The . number of housing units approved shall be determined in accor- dance with Table 3. Every year on June 1 the plannicg staff, with the approval of the Planning Commission, shall reevaluate and revise Table I to reflect current demographic assumptions based on state Department of Finance annual population statis- tics. The city council shall only approve residential development projects for any fiscal year (July 1 - June 30) sufficient to accommodate the number of units in columns 6 and 8 of Table 3. Single-family and multi -family units shall be considered sepa- rately, Applications for approval and allocation of residential development projects shall be received between July 1 and Octo- ber 1 each year, Projects shall be considered and allocations awarded by the council between July 1 and October 1 of the j following year. The submittal of applications and review and consideration of projects shall be in accordance with the sched- ule shown in Figure 3. Findings Required Prior to Approval of New Residential Develop- ment Projects In addition to any other findings required by state law or local ordinance, the approval of residential development proj- ects shall only,be made if the following findings are made by the council: o The project applicant has demonstrated a commitment to mitigating impacts to surrounding agricultural uses. o The project is capable of being served adequately with public facilities and services, including: - sanitary sewers and collection facilities, - water for domestic use and fire 0uppression and ancil- lary facilities, - storm drainage basins and collection systems, - parks, - police protection, and 9 ZaG.w""'J � 4�+3 =2 Gid =2 Luz &a sm Em CITY OF LORI - GROWTH RATE ANALYSIS (2 PERCENT) I--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------i I 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 i I I I I TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SINGLE- MULTI- 1 i I TOTAL SINGLE- SINGLE- MULTI- MULTI- FAMILY TOTAL SINGLE- FAMILY TOTAL MULTI- TOTAL i I I POPULATION POPULATION TOTAL UNITS/ FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY ACRES FAMILY ACRES ACRES FAMILY ACRES ACREAGE I I YEAR I I------I----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'---------------------------------------------------------i 2% GROWTH DIFFERENCE UNITS/a YEAR UNITS/b UNITS/YEAR UNITS/C UNITS/YEAR NEEDED/d NEEDED/YEAR NEEDED/e NEEDED/YEAR NEEDED ! I I 1 1987 1 45,794 11988 1 46,710 916 359 ;3595 233 126 .1126 47 47 10 10 57 11 1 1989 1 47,644 1,850 726 ;3663 472 '23E 254 128 94 48 21 11 115 I1 1 1990 1 48,597 2,803 1,099 1374�r 7141243? 385 131- 143 49 32 11 175 I I I 1991 I 49,569 3,775 1,480 :.. 1.:= 381; 962 6248± 518 192 50 43 11 I 236 1 1 1992 1 50,560 4,766 1,869 389 1,215 1253, 654 x133 x136 243 51 55 11 298 1 1993 i 51,571 5,777 2,266 1397, 1,473 ±258' 793 '1391 295 52 66 12 361 1 1 1994 1 52,603 6,809 2,670 X4041 1,736 }363; 935 11411. ?47 53 78 12 425 I 1 1995 1 53,655 7,861 3,083 )411 2,004 1268 1,079 1441 401 54 90 12 491 I 0 1 1996 1 54,728 8,934 3, 504 2,277 274'? 1,226 ;'1471 455 55 102 12 558 1 - 1 1997 1 55,823 10,029 3,933 1429 #ern 2,556 X279; 1,-76 "150 511 56 115 13 626 1 1 1 1 1998 1 '`285` 56,939 11,145 4,371 ;�438I 2,841 1,530 153 568 57 127 13 696 I 1 1999 1 58,078 12,284 4,817 4471 3,131 ;290 1,686 3156 626 58 141 13 767 1 1 2000 1 59,239 13,445 5,273 .14561 3,427 '296' 1,845 159 685 59 154 13 839 1 1 2001 1 60,424 14,630 5,737 465; 3,729 102; 2,008163` 746 60 167 14 913 1 X474' 1 2002 1 61,633 15,839 6,211 4,037 '3081 2,174 166' 807 62 181 14 989 I 1 2003 1 62,865 17,071 6,695 A03j 4,352 , 1,3141, 2,343 165 870 63 195 14 I 1,066 I II 1 2004 1 64,123 18,329 7,188 F4931 4,672 1320) 2,516 173 934 64 210 14 1,144 1 2005 1 65,405 19,611 7,691 503' 4,999 3iWq 2,692 I76 1,000 65 224 15 1,224 I 1 2006 1 56,713 20,919 8,204 '513 5,332 1333 2,871 3180 1,066 67 239 15 1,306 I 1 2007 I 1 I 69,047 22,253 8,727 ±,5,23 5,672 1340 .., 3,054 18 - - 1,134 68 255 15 1,389 I 1 1--------------------------------------------------------------------------- a Assumes 2.55 persons per unit (State Department of Finance - --- - - January 1987 estimates). ---------- ............................................ b Based on 65 percent snlit. c Based on 35 percent split, d Based on 5 dwelling units per acre. e Based on 12 dwelling units per acre. W Qagmc=Luallm gamma-: cm so am FIGURE 3. SCHEDULE FOR PROCESSING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPS WT ALLOCATIC4S APPLICATION RESIDI21TIAL APPLICATION DETERMINATION CEQA DRAFT PUBLIC1 PLANNING CITY CITY WICO FINAL DO MINw DEVELOPMENT WINDOW OP INITIAL EIR REVIEW I COMMISSIOt COUNCIL COUNCIL ACTION MAP OILPIS APPLICATION CIASTS COMPLETENESS STUDY COMPLETED PERIOD InRINO BEARING RESIDENTIAL IF APPROVAL SU&YiMED COMPLETED EMS AND AND DEVELOPMENT NECESSARY .. .---------- REVIEW REVIEW ALLOCATIONS SPARC PRELIMIHARY GRANTED RE WA POINT EVACUATION1 if I 1 11 1 1 JULY 1 JULY -SEPT OCT 1 NOV 1 DEC 1 YAWN 1 APRIL is M Y 1 MAY -JUNE JUNE -MY JULY -SEPT - fire protection. o That Traffic and Circulation System is Adequate to Serve the Proposed Project. The City of Lodi shall maintain adequate traffic flow and circulation of the city road- way network. Level of Service C or above shall be considered adequate (see Appendix A for definitions of the level of service C) . Multiple Year Applications Applicants shall specify in their application(s) for res- idential development project approval the year(s) for which they are seeking allocation, The City Council may grant up to three future year allocations as a part of a single project. Those future allocations shall, however, be subtracted from the number of allocations available to applicants in applicable future years. III. Project Evaluation and Scoring To aid the City Council in implementing the goals and policies stated above, the City of Lodi shall include a point evaluation and scoring system by which each project application for of a new housing project shall be given a point rating pursuant to the criteria stated below. A preliminary point evaluation shall be made during the preparation of the Initial Study required of the. California Environmental Quality Act. Points shall also be assigned during the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration process and shall be included in those documents. In preparing such en- vironmental documents, the city shall include sufficient infor- mation to enable city staff and other appropriate departments to make the point assignments required by this growth management system, Scores given for each issue evaluated a'-)ove shall be clearly stated in a summary in the Draft EIR or proposed Nega- tive Declaration. Scores may be revised in response to public review and any'changes shall be identified in the Final EIR. 12 t , - fire protection. o That Traffic and Circulation System is Adequate to Serve the Proposed Project. The City of Lodi shall maintain adequate traffic flow and circulation of the city road- way network. Level of Service C or above shall be considered adequate (see Appendix A for definitions of the level of service C) . Multiple Year Applications Applicants shall specify in their application(s) for res- idential development project approval the year(s) for which they are seeking allocation, The City Council may grant up to three future year allocations as a part of a single project. Those future allocations shall, however, be subtracted from the number of allocations available to applicants in applicable future years. III. Project Evaluation and Scoring To aid the City Council in implementing the goals and policies stated above, the City of Lodi shall include a point evaluation and scoring system by which each project application for of a new housing project shall be given a point rating pursuant to the criteria stated below. A preliminary point evaluation shall be made during the preparation of the Initial Study required of the. California Environmental Quality Act. Points shall also be assigned during the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration process and shall be included in those documents. In preparing such en- vironmental documents, the city shall include sufficient infor- mation to enable city staff and other appropriate departments to make the point assignments required by this growth management system, Scores given for each issue evaluated a'-)ove shall be clearly stated in a summary in the Draft EIR or proposed Nega- tive Declaration. Scores may be revised in response to public review and any'changes shall be identified in the Final EIR. 12 Criteria (The evaluation criteria listed below have been developed to be consistent with current city policies and state laws.) A. Agricultural Land Conflicts 1. Project does not require conversion of four sides agricultural land b. Project abuts 2. Project is adjacent to agricultural land on one side existing development on 3. Project is adjacent to agricultural land existing on two sides one side 4. Project is adjacent to agricultural laid on three sides 5. Project is surrounded by agricultural land B. Onsite Agricultural Land MitiRatinn 1. Project needs no agricultural land mitigation 2. Adequate onsite buffer has been provided as a part of site layout for ali adjacent agricultural land 3. Onsite buffer provided as a part of site layout for only part of project 4. No buffer between project and adjacent agricultural land C. Relationship to Public Services 1. General Location a. Project abuts existing development on four sides 0' b. Project abuts existing developmerit on three sides C. Project abuts existing development on two sides 0 d. Project abuts existing development on one side 0 5 3 0' 10 4 5 0 s N 2. Sewer a. Project is located adjacent to existing city sewer main trunk line b. Project is within 0.25 -mile of existing city sewer main trunk line c. Project is more than 0.25 -mile from existing city sewer main trunk line 3. Water a. Project is located adjacent to existing city water mains b. Project is located within 0.25 -mile of existing city water mains c. Project is located more than'0.25-mile from existing city water mains 4. Drainage a. Project is located adjacent to city storm drainage collector lines b. Project is located within 0.25 -mile of city storm drainage collector lines c. Project is located more than 0.25- mile .25- mi1e from city storm drainage collector lines D. Promotion of Oben Snace Points shall be awarded on the basis of the percentage of coverage of the total loss of project area by roof area or paved areas on- site (exclusive of streets). 20% or less 10 points 30%or less 8 points 40%or less 6 points 50% 4 points 60% 2 points 70% or greater 0 points 14 5 k E 10 ty aP w..c 5 15 0 '< 10 k E Project owner shall submit an analysis of the percentage of impervious surface of the site - E. Traffic and Circulation: Level of Service Points will be uwarded depending on the level of service on major thoroughfares serving the project as ccmputed during weekday peak ' hour. Computation shall include traffic resulting from the project All thoroughfares operating at LOS A All thoroughfares operating at LOS B or better All thoroughfares operating at LOS C or better All thoroughfares operating at LOS D or better All thoroughfares operating at LOS E or better } All thoroughfares operating at LOS F F. Traffic and Circulation: Improvements 1. Project can be served by the existing street . � a system and will not contribute to the need for h . any offsite improvements within 0.25 mile of iIs its boundaries. 8 2. Project will contribute to the need for minor offsite improvements (less than $50,000) to mitigate potential impacts to a less -than - significant level. 3. Project will contribute to the need for major �i offsite improvements (greater than $50,000) to mitigate potential impacts to a less -than - significant level. 4. No offsite improvements are available to mitigate impacts to less than significant levels. G. Housing 1. Low and Moderate Income Housing, A point credit will be awarded in accordance with the following schedule: 15 a 6 4 2 0 10 7 5 0 �f 10 . � a h . 8 6 4 2 0 10 7 5 0 H. 25% or more 20%-24% 15%-19% 10%-14% 5%-9% Less than 5% low and moderate. or no low and moderate housing Proposed Site Plan and Project Design --Bonus Points (These`' criteria shall only apply to multi -family projects),. of units low and mode 1. 2. Landscaping. (SPARC Committee and provide between l0 and'0 p Architectural Design. (SPARC evaluate and provide between 1 (These criteria shall only ap family projects) sl oil Col 0 ply Findings Required Prior to Adoption of This Element Prior to adoption of this Growth Management.ELement and any implementing ordinances, the city council must make the findings required by is the following provisions Government Code 65302.8 Government Code 65863 Evidence Code 669.5 of sta The following page contains the full sections. t 16 APPENDIX A REQUIRED FINDINGS GOVERNMENT CODE g 65863.6. Ilmitation on construction of housing uni ts; consid- eration; findings In carrying out the provisions of this chapter. each county and dty shall consider the effect o: ordinances adopted pursuant to thk chapter on the housing needs of the region in which the local juris- diction is situated and balance these needs against the pubUc service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental re- soun:es. Any ordinance adopted pursuant to this chapter which. by Its terms, limits the number of housing units which may be con- structed on an annual basis shall contain findings as to the public health, safety, and welfare of the city or county to be promotedby the adoption of the ordinance which justify reducing the housing oppor- tunities cf the region. (Formerly $658635. added by Stats.1979, e. 947, p. 3263. 1 1 Amended by Stats -19K c 823. p. 2:01, 12 Renumbered j 65863.6 and amended by Stats.1981. c.714. i 193.) GOVERNMENT CODE 65302.8. Adoption or amendment of gem emi plan element o p erattng to limit number of housbtg units; findingi If a county or city, including a charter city, adopts or amends a mandatory general plan element which operates to limit the number of housing units which may be constructed on an annual basis, such adoption or amendment shall contain findings which justify reducing the housing opportunities o` the region. The findings shall include all of the following: (a) A description of the city's or county's appropriate share cf the regional need for housing. (b) Adescription cfthe speeiflehousing programs and activities being undertaken by the local jurisdiction to fulfill the requirements of subdivision (c) of Section 65302. (c) A description cf how the public health, safety, and welfare would be promoted by such adoption or amendment. (d) The fiscal and environmental resources available to the local jurisdiction i� EVIDENCE CODE J 669.5. Ordinances limiting building permits or development of buildable tots foot residential purposes; Impact on supply of residential units: actions challenging validity (a) Any ordinance enacted by the governing body of a city. county, or city and county which directly limits. by number. (1) the building permits that may be issued for residential construction or (2) the buildable lots which may be developed for residential purposes. is presumed to have an impact on the supply of residential units available in an area which includes territory outside the jurisdiction of such city. county, or city and county. (b) With respect to any action which challenges the validity of such an ordinance. the city. county. or city and county enacting such ordinance shall bear the burden of proof that such ordinance is necessary for the protection of the public health, safety. or weifaie of the population of such city. county. or city and county. (c) This section does not apply to ordinances which (1) impose a moratorium, to protect the public health and safety. on residential construction for a specified period of time, if. under the terms of the ordinance. the moratorium will cease when the public health or safety is no longer jeopardized by such construction. or (2) create agricultural presen•es under Chapter 7 (commencing aith Section 51200) of Part 1 of Division i of Title 5 of the Government Code, or (3) restrict the number of buildable parcels by limiting the minimum size of buildable parcels within a zone or by desig- acing Q lands within a zone for nonresidential uses. (d) This section shall not apply to a voter approved ordinance adopted by referendum or initiative prior to the effective date of this section which (1) requires the city, county. or city and county to o establish a population growth limit which represents its fair share of each year's state Aide population growth, or (2) which sets a growth rate of no more than the average population g -m th rate experienced by the state is a whole. 1 17 C:7 C7 Elm ZM Options Ass .,st.n.ent::rt: ^!. .4. 11.'. "S ... O.'A L d ;x'v :.t, �• Cas, .i_r=:I�.,;iS.;�.:u. .-....: :': �'':. ..... - ...:. 'ter' ..tit :_.xS.'<.`--:. -•. '::S":: ;': , .,. .... ...:.r .:_ ...... ,, a v .:.. t . ... .... :;ti:':?av •J.. . s �'", y�, �3 _ ..,R•s,. ? ". Y<t��e �:•'.t'-'..`.�'q+"''-.��F.:i�f: ...: sn - • xC-i" n"++a ��=1'-� x.:"1'4' • :nffL•.. Ate. e -.7 ... D"`• - - - �. �,J�-: :fie �:�:F•=.�'" ^: -: JZ: eke ".'�' :•'l r.r : ��4..1^.4,�•;•r ;:ti,,��•' '•�• . iw_ ' .:1: � �� z9.t ,:%,°.i:'i.3flssSsxtiv;�?:vtS'�w�,;,�•r s�'c?�"•::G'�%..'.,:::"� sv . a�ti� .r. ,Mh. ;.eT.._. •.,y�.;rey i::'',}'^;. k:o": l•.= �3', r 9C, .t e# 3. • : y , :w v ': i- +�`fi:�v, •:4µx - -.:..t, ^'-tee .�d.c�'.�.fn:.-;.w=�':� Ci of -LW[Commun' Develo m6ht--'De 5 Prepared bT Jones & Stokes Associates, iric. Contributors: J. Laurence Mintier & Associates Black & Veatch City of Lodi Public Works Department Psomas and Associates TJKM Transportation Consultants January 1989 OPTIONS ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE CITY 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-Petropoulos 916/444-5638 Contributors: J. Laurence Mintier & Associates Black & Veatch City of Lodi Public Works Department Psomas and Associates TJ KM Transportation Consultants January 1989 i This document should be cited as: Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1988. Options assessment report for the City of Lodi general plan update. (JSA 86-101.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for: City of Lodi Community Develop-ment Department, Lodi, CA. LIST OF TABLES EM 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 Lie 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-i. 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 8-3. 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 r. Table 8-5. Projected Enrollment and Capacity of Lodi Public 8-20 Schools by Land 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 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 - Introduction 1-1 Introduction 1-1 Sc cpe of the Options Assessment Report 1-3 . Organization of the Options Assessment'Report 1-3 CHAPTER 2 - Project Description 2-1 GP Area Study Location 2-1 Existing Land Ums in the GP Area 2-1 Land Use Assumptions 24;' Description of Land The Options 2-9 ' CHAPTER 3 - Summary of Impacts 3-1 CHAPTER 4 - Land Use Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Implications for the General Plan CHAPTERS - Housing Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Irrplica.tions for the General Plan 4-1 4-1 ' , 4-1 ti 4-4 6-1 4-4 i 5-1 { 5-1 v 5-3 7-1 5-4 7-1 5-5 7-1 CHAPTER 6 - Population 6-1 C Option 1 6-1 Option 2 6-1 Option 3 6-3 Implications for the General Plan 6-3 v CHAPTER 7 - E loyment 7-1 Option 1 7-1 Option 2 7-1 Option 3 7-3 Implications for the General Plan 7-3 CHAPTER 8 - Public Semites 8-1 Water 8-1 Sewerage 8-3 Storin Drainage 8-5 Law Enforcement 8-10 Fire Protection 8-13 Parks and Recreation 8-16 Schools 8-19 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) CHAPTER 9 - Transportation CHAPTER 10 - Bibliography References Cited Personal Communications CHAPTER 11 - Report Preparation Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. J. Laurence Mintier & Associates Black & Veatch City of Lodi Public Works Department Psomas and Associates T3101 Transportation Consultants APPENDIX A - Executive Surrmnary of the City of Lodi General Plan Update Land Absorption Study Page 9-1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1. Regional Location Figure 2-2. Lodi GP Study and Eastside Areas Figure 2-3. Storm Drainage Detention Basins/Parks Figure 2-4. School Sites Figure 2-5. Industrial Reserve (Options 2 and 3) Figure 2-6. New Development Potential (Option 1) Figure 2-7. New Development Potential (Option 2) Figure 2-8. New Development Potential (Option 3) Figure 8-1. Water System Improvements Required Under (Option 1) Figure 8-2. Water System Improvements Required Under (Option 2) Figure 8-3. Water System Improvements Required Under (Option 3) Figure 8-4. Preliminary Sanitary Sewer Improvements Required Under Option 1 (Sewers 12 Inches and Larger in Diameter) } Figure 8-5. Preliminary Sanitary Sewer Improvements Required Under Option 2 (Sewers 12 Inches and Larger in Diameter) Figure 8-6. Preliminary Sanitary Sewer Improvements Required Under Option 3 (Sewers 12 Inches and Urg?r ;n Diameter) Figure 8-7. Master Storm Drainage System Improvements Required Under Option 2 Figure 8-8. Master Storm Drainage System Improvements Required Under Option 3 2-2 Follows 2-9 Follows 2-9 Follows 2-9 Follows 2-9 Follows 2-10 Follows 2-11 Follows 2-12 Follows 8-2 Follows 8-2 Follows 8-3 Follows 8-3 Follows 84 Follows 8-4 8-7 8-9 LUST OF FIGURES (Continued) r, Page. t �y'lyuy-+ Figure 8-9. Schools Required Under Option 1 Follows 8 ZA . Figure 8-10. Schools Required Under Option 2 Follows 821' 4 Figure 8-11. Schools Required Under Option 3 Follows 8-22 Figure 9-1. Daily Traffic Volumes (Option 1) Figure 9-2. Future Circulation Network (Option 1) Figure 9-3. Daily Traffic Volumes (Option 2) 9-7 Figure 9-4. Future Circulation Network (Option 2) 9-8 =mow: Figure 9-5. Daily Traffic Volumes (Option 3) 9 9 Figure 9-6. Future Circulation Network (Option 3) 9-10 .k.. r, j4 A CHAPTER 1. Introduction INTRODUCTION California state law requires each city and county to adopt a general plan "for the physical deveiopment of the city or county, and any land outside its boundaries which bears relation to 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 land use. State general plan law (Government Code Section 65302 of the State General Plan Guidelines) requires that a general plan contain the following elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety. In addition, a general plan may include optional elements of local importance that relate to the physical development of a city. The City of Lodi (City) General Plan (GP) Update will also include a Growth Management Element as one cf these optional elements. This Options Assessment report constitutes Phase V of the 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 GP 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 Lodi 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. The purpose of this phase was to thoroughly update information on all of the issues described above. `ne 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 3 data source fcr the GP. The Background Report is hereby incorporated by reference 1-1 (Jones & Stokes Associates 1988a). A copy of 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 market evaluations include 20 -year absorption schedules for land use options based on two primary assumptions: a 2.0 -percent annual housing stock growth compoundedover 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. The Land Absorption Study is hereby incorporated by reference (Jones & Sto.-es 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 Survty and Interviews 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 & Associates 1988), outlines the three land use options and the assumptions used in developing these land use options, summarizesnew development potential associatedwith each ofthe land use options and the assumptions and principles on which these calculations and the options are based, and presents 20 -year development phasing scenarios for Options 2 and 3 that are segregated into 5 -year increments identifying the amount cf 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. The 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 City Council, a preferred land use option will be selected to form the basis of the Draft GP. o Draft General Plan. The Draft GPwil1 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 Subeleinent, and the Schools Subelement. o Draft Environmental Impact Report. The Draft GP EIR will analyze the preferred land use option and alternatives in comparison to the preferred option. Based on public review, the Draft GP will be fine-tuned. o Final General Plan and Environmental Impact Report. Following public review of the Draft GP and EIR, the Final GP and EIR will be prepared. 1-2 SCOPE OF THE OPTIONS ASSESSMENT REPORT This report comparativelyassesses the implications and impacts of Lie three land use planning options to aid the Lodi Planning Commission and City Council in selecting the preferred land use option that will form 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 overview of the GP Update process. Chapter 2, "Project Description," describes the three land use options identified by City staff and land 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 GP Polio Document. Chapter 10, 'Bibliography," identifies the documents and individuals consulted in preparing this Options Assessment Report. 1-3 i, 3 SCOPE OF THE OPTIONS ASSESSMENT REPORT This report comparativelyassesses the implications and impacts of Lie three land use planning options to aid the Lodi Planning Commission and City Council in selecting the preferred land use option that will form 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 overview of the GP Update process. Chapter 2, "Project Description," describes the three land use options identified by City staff and land 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 GP Polio Document. Chapter 10, 'Bibliography," identifies the documents and individuals consulted in preparing this Options Assessment Report. 1-3 4 Chapter 11, "Report Preparation," lists those individuals and firms involved in preparing this Options Assessment Report. Technical appendices are included at the end of the report. :. L 1-4 CHAPTER 2. Project Description GP AREA STUDY LOCATION The regional location of the Lodi GP planning area (GP study area) is shown in Figure 2-1. The GP study area comprises 10,526 acres. Its boundaries include all areas within the incorporated city limits and the unincorporated area immediately adjacent to the city limits. The GP study area is bounded by the Mokelumne 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 10,526 acres cf land (5,000 in the incorporated area and 5,526 in the unincorporated area), of which 29 percent is residentid (89 percent low density residential, 6 percent medium density residential, and 5 percent high density residential), 4 percent commercial (39 percent neighborhood/commurdty 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 area. A total of 17,506 units exist in the GP study area (17,158 units in the incorporated area and 345 units in the unincorporated. area), of which 70 percent are low density residential, 9 percent are mediuin density residential, and 21 percent are high density residential. An estimated 21,953 employees currently work in the GP study area (20,154 in the incorporated area and 1,799 in the unincorporated area). 2-1 N S . �_ Q �dKlaUl� �� 2.5 e [L SS _ \ Y 3 T" nnE3 � � E13 � [sNe 5 tl .• f 1Z W. I .0pe 1 v atlzi tl V. tl9 N �J ro . IERI� � M tl ��y l e � �'.•jrr Lodi GP Study Area Z,r_ FIGURE 2-1. REGIONAL LOCATION r: Table 2-1. comparison of Approximate Gross Acres, Duelling Units, Population, and Employment for Existing Conditions and by Land Use Option .......... i It IIIST11C COleltlole it 01101 1 1 .................................................................................. office 2 1 O11110i 1 II oftl0l I 1 01,110/ 1 I oPtlos I 1 ........ t 111 i I 11 ................... 11, II 11 . lortneet of Cttvti I Weakest ........ 1 of Wife I ........ 0f I ttetaat of Cttvtl II et ltlllotl I 41 HIIdaR I tllltit I 11 .....................1..................... .....................i It 11 City Coolty i City Coolly I City Costly II 1 1 I I11 I Laid Use 11 11 .......... ...... tib• IICot/ Sot I........... sib- (Coal ...... 1.......... lot Sob, [CIA/ let fob• 11 Cot Total II City Coney sib-, I sob- i St6• I TotlI City Coolly total I City Canty total I I otslq+atiat 11 City Cooety total IIUeder Cos Total Wider Coo Total 1111,1411 !......................... 11..... ............... i1,............................ I............................1............................11.....................1.....................1.....................1 2,441 3,131 11 1,111 1,526 I1isli f silt$ S, sit 11,57E 5,111 S,Sti 11,5)1 IlCitt�l !I 5,001 S, SIF 11,521 11 364 224 1 311 1 114 224 1,413 2,111 1 331 211 i 1 ii 11 1 I I) 1 Il esideollal I o Lar Jetsity II 11 1,111 II 121 1,133 11 111 11 1 1 ISO 1 ill 1 1,i 1 I1! I 111 if It 1 IS/ 11 7,11; 121 2,115 12,11E 121 2,115 1 2,11E 121 2,115 1 its11 itsII II 111 !1 31 31 31, 31 31, 11111 ) 4 31 11 166 215If 111 1 116 111 1 Ise 116 1 1 + tisit Utilityty 11 Ip 111 it 1 1 t 1 I 1 11 I 1 1 I I i ) 1 l 2 1 I II 3 1 ) I 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 i s listsidt Itsldtatia3 I a Msetd fesideetiat II 1 If 1 1 1 If 1 1 Ii 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1,1le 1,,111 1 1 1 I,ul lilt# II 1 3i lift) 2,IS1 II I,SS6 1 1 1 1 1,116 11116 1 1 1,161 1,141 1 135 1,211 1 1,556 1,161 I,SZ$ 1 2,SS6 2,611 5,211 I + SUIMIL. I II 2,151 II In 1,131 11 II 111 11 1 111 i llt 1 if 1,23E 1,411 1 1 114 iI 1 1 IC:atrcial II I e ItigbWlsood/coolatitit 1 141 II 1 141 it 1 11 I 1 111 1 I 12 it 11 1 1 11 It UI 111 II 161 1I 1 161 1 111 it 211 I III lit 112 I 21 111 I 131 11 III I III It1, )11 1 I + 46+1111 iI 111 11 112 if 3 S 1 i 1 1 S 56 61 1 1 1 1 3 1 S 91 115 II 111 1 1 ) 11 22 1 12 1 11 1 21 1 13 1 11 I I+ ocr,tan it It 1 11 11 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 1 1 1 I1 134 151 1 1 11 111 111 it 111 2) 411 1 Ill 157 Sit I III III IN I + IWOM II Ise 13 111 11 4 if IUlfict If tf 1 Y Sy iI 27 11 1 31 1 11 11 1 11 1 1 21 11 21 61 11 113 11 1 lil 1 !11 1 16) I 113 t1, It; ' 1 ( I noduttial • Light II II II IIl it 11 11 ,Ill 11 21 1 I 1 1 fl 1 21 1 tS S S$ 1 It U Ise f 114 11 )SI 1 1 1 11 111 I tit if) )s1 I )Ie it) 111 I 173 41 S21 1 I + In,7 It JJl If 112 11 110 112 1 211 I III l2s 1 NS I He If 4 los 11 $1$ 1 211 11 t2S 11 fit 1 SSI 41 611 1 I0 1st I 1)s III 111 1 12S 111 111 + su4tau: It $SI 111 111 11 111 ISI 1 211 I tel 1 Ise 1 2le 1 1 III ISI it 1 1 I tablic/lusl•Piblic II 14 101 II I0s 111 II it 21 1 St 1 31 11 31 11 1 is 31 It IN II ISI 11 111 1611 ISO 113 1f? i ISO 11T I,III 1 I otttctloe laslos/htls 11 II Its 11 It Ile 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 76 71 1 1 1 114 lit 11 326 II to 166 1 326 111 Ise II Ni ?II SII I I tgelriiteee If 11 It iS1 1,111 1,15111 1 1 1 1,111 1,1711 1 1 1 1,116 1,1111 1 1 1,115 1,17511 1 1,111 4,4711 1 1,116 1,1161 1 lills 1,,1,131 It I ( 1 I the+,l 11 II Ili 11 !i1, Sp it 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 Il/dishlal lose". t1, 11 1 11 1 1 if f 1 t / 1 1 1 1 1 131 Ill i It 1 SA 1SS 11 1 1 1 1 1 341 131 1 1 1S$ iss 1 I.........................1l.....................11............................ drnLltc UIIIS "11,1,31 )41 11,516 11 1,111 i............................ its 1 1,111 1 1,111 i ......... 113 I'm 1,111 1 1,111 ................... 11.....................1......._.............1.....................1 its 13,111 15,151 Uit,F1e II )4111,111 111,411 1,111 11,411 111,116 I1,It1 32,56) 1 i 'I 1 I I o fav Oeuity II 1111,111 11 ut 11,151 11 11) it 1 1 tit 1 111 t 11 1 III 1 1 111 1t) )ts It 1 Ill 1111,11? 16 1 In 11 y,fls In 11,131 111,111 )11 1),131 111,111 311 11,111 1 1 1,141 11,135 1 1,141 11.$]$ l 1,111 1 I o aeditt Oasity Itasity 11 1,511 51 J,NS f 1,66) 11 1 ),Ili Il )23 it it 71 1 )41 I )35 1 Il l 11 It 1 it 1 /1 1 11 11 1 IT 11 1,113 1 1,113 ) 3,111 1 7,13) 7;3,111 1 ),13) 1 I + lige b + Iasleldt Iesidtatlol 11 1 1 1 11 1S ll 1 1 16 t 25 I 1 I 1 11• 1 31 1 1 1,1$1 I,(SI I 2S 1 11 1 it 11 36 1 I3;21f 11,111 it 1 1 36 1 36 1 Is l 3t 1 36 1 d 1 I 1 $,651 1,151 1 117,715 11,111 1 I r PlItW trlltttlal 1.........................11.....................11............................ 11 1 1 4 it 1 i............................1............................11.....................1..................... (..................... i Ile IIli11S 2yaltl 11,115 111,115 36,641•li,lll 1 no7attt107 1116,1';1 111 17,261 it 1,172 St) 1 1,111 1 1,111 SIT 11,511 16,311 1 1,111 Sol )$,411 31,111 1111,IIS 51,115 1 .........................11.....................I f..................._........I............................I...............::.».......11........ ..:....1 ......... ......p. ................I 1,111 1,311 1,411 1,113 1,111 1121,119 1,11114,111 113,111 5,64111,74t 11Lle1 Ilei 11.171 1 u11LUi1uT I41i,Is4 1,711 21,16) It 1,111 11511 1 3,135 1 1,111 list% L1s# 1 II 1 i e leigabottood/toolialtyll 11 1,111 it 1 ),Ili 11 t 111 1 1 131 1 1 I 334 1,111 1,521 1 1 111 ; 1,111 1,711 II 4,111 ),1)6 1,625 S,JII ., 1.1,111 11,111 1,111 6,311.11;81 .1,311 1;411 1 311 5,11)1 5,114 1,111 i,lll'I;LIIF.;L511 1,111 I 1 + 66661+1, 11 4,111 Sit 5,612 II is IIS It elf i 1s Its 1,111 1.6111 15 17s 11 11 sit fi-sit I.'Stl, 1 511 I'; $is • 1' 111 l 1 e Parc:on II 311 Ii I,lsl 1 Ill 11 1 1,151 If it 411 SF 11# 1 If 1 21 1 116 1 111 SS 1 14 1 Ill 1 41; 1 U: Ut $6'" 1 11 Ill Ii) 311 If LSF; , I_I,S14 I'I;sil 1 2,514.1 LSle 311 1,116 1 I e Office I + licbt It 1,717 IIS 4,412 11 tit sl I He I lel las s6 M I III'- 615 $6 lel 11 filet 115' 4,6311'3,131 alt '4,16);1 4,111 , 711-5,341 1 1.161 - Ill 3,536 1 I • taq it 2,411 361 1,16) 11 Its 65) 1 1,11) 1 Its STS 1 1.113 I ?ll 616 Its 811, 111 1 112 11 ),ill lit NI ISI 111,111 )11 ),111 1 1;1311,6!1 1 18 7.1151,1;121. 311 I,iss,l 1,111 Sia 1,;131 I e Pabllt/06111-hb 1...... ii 2.111 111 2.11111 As Ise 1 Ifo 1 tit .......................................... 111 1 ...... ............................ .... .........1 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS General Plan Designations, Density Standards, and Floor:Area Ratios:: 1 Table 2-2 describes the proposed GP land use designations, average density ; _t standards, and average floonarea ratios [FAR] used in developing the three 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 I new residential development in the Eastside area (Figure 2-2) to a maximum -of 7units per acre. However, as indicated in Table 2-2, an average density of 5 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 acd 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 followingfor-hula: 65 percent low, 10percent medium, and ` 25 percent high density residential. i Summarized below are the proposed GP land use designations and permitted uses. i f Residential 3 S This land use 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 commercial or industrial district. The primary corresponding zoning districts are Residence District - One -Family and Residence District -Two -Family. This designation assumes buildout at 5 units per acre with 2.6 persons per unit. o Medium density residential allows single family, two-, three-, and four -family, and multifamily and group dwellings. The primary corresponding zoning districts 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 residential allows single family, two family, multifamily, and group dwellings, in addition to hotels, motels, and boarding houses. The primary corresponding zoning districts are Medium -Density Multi -Family 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. This ordinance limits new residential development in the Eastside 2-4 o IoW D,..isity 5 » - 1{ o Medium Density 12 : o Irigh Density 24 » x o Eastside Residential 5 f ? 3 o P9ariedResidential 7 ' Commercial s o Neighborhood/Community 30 o General o Downtown T. Office » 35, Industrial ,_ o Light .. 4Q ; o Heavy 4R Public/Quasi-Public -- Detention Basin/Park -- » Floodplain Agriculture Indu-.trial Reserve` Source: J. Laurence Mintier & Associates 1988. 2-5 area to a maximum density of " dwelling units per acre but dee ins all existing multifamily units to be conforminguses. This designation allows single family detached units. This designation assomes buildout at 5 units per acre with 2.6 persons per unit. o Planntd residential is a residential reserve designation applied to unincor- porated land. As this land is incorporated and residential development is approved, this designation would be replaced with a low, medium, or; high. density residential designation, based 'on its' approved` density � 'New uiiits within 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 , limes buildout at 5 units per acre for low density, 12 units per acre I for medium p density and 24 units per acre for high density with 26 persons er unit- (See above discussions for low-, medium-, and high-density designationsfor allowed uses.) Commercial Office o Neighborhood/community commercial allows retail stores, business offices, and service. The primary corresponding zoning districts are commercial - shopping. This designation assumes buildout at 30 percent FAR. o General commercial allows retail store:., business offices, service, and storage and warehousing. The primary ccrresponding zoning districts,are Neighbor- hood commercial and general commercial. This designation assumes buildout at 30 percent FAR. o Downtown commercial aIIows ietaiI stores, business offices, and service in downtown Lodi. The primary corresponding zoning districts are Neighbor- hood commercial, and general commercial. This designation assumes buildout at 150 percent FAR o Office allowsbusiness a -td pr fessional uses, rest and convalescent homes, and multifamily and group Iwellings. The primary corresponding zoning district is residential-commerci. I -professional office district. This designation assumes buildout at 35 percent FAR. Industrial o Light industrial allows retail stores, business offices, service, s-ora?e and warehousing, and wholesale business and manufacturing, The primary corresponding zoning district is commercial -light in dust rial and light industrial. This designation assumes buildout at 40 percent FA1Z, 2-6 o Heavy industrial allows retail stores, business offices, service, storage and warehousing, wholesale business and manufacturing, factory, and transpor- tation. The primary correspdnding zoning district is heavy industrial. This designation assumes buildout at 40 percent FAR. Public/Quasi-Pubfic This category contains uses such as educational, institutional, and religious. Detention Basin/Park This category contains storm drainage detention basins and parks. Floodplain This category contains areas within the floodplain of the Mokelumne River. Agriculture This category contains areas in permanent agriculture. Industrial Reserve This category contains some undeveloped, underdeveloped, or agriculturally used land north of Kettleman Lace between the existing city limits and the Central California Traction Company (CCTC) tracks that would develop with industrial uses beyond the 20 - year time frame. Land Absorption Assumptions As indicated in Chapter 1, "Introduction," the Land Absorption Study provided an evaluation of the market demand for major land use categories in the Lodi area over a 20 - year period (1987-2007). Thr purpose of the study was to provide market information and forecasts to help guide the formation of the land use options. Evaluations were prepared for four major land usn categories defined by the markets for residential, commercial, office, and industrial land. The market evaluation resulted in 20 -year absorption schedules showing cumulative land absorbed in acres in 5 -year increments. 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 1987, needed to satisfy fuat,re market demand was assumed in defining Options 2 and 3. (Appendix A contains a copy of the Executive Summary from this study.) 2-7 C-: 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 owthe 1987 Existing Land . Use Inventory. The existing conditions baseline data provided in Table 2-1 4r fromthe existing conditions data provided in the Background:Reportbecause Woodbridge Awl been eliminated from the GP study area and because the 1987 Existing Iand 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 Report analyzes and compares the impacts of each of the land use options. Annexation Assumption A.anexation 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 (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 detentionbasin sites shown in Figure 2-3 are not proposed locationsbut 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 on discussions with Lodi Unified School District (LUSD) staff Q. Laurence Mintier & Associates 1988). According to LUSD staff, the following estimates of school 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 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 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 the 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 I, 2, and 3. Option 1 Option 1 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 Lund Use Element any area no! 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 ? -9 ? -9 r- 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 acre. For purposes of analyzing and comparing the three land 1 ,se options, the existing GP land use designations were translated into the proposed GP land use designations. In some areas, adjustments were made to reflect development that has occurred and to provide consistency between the GP and zoning. r Under Option 1, no new detention basins are designated. Two existing sites are planned for detention basins C -Basin and G -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 Wimbledcn Drive. In addition, the LUSD is planning to constrict 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 potential. The land use is expected to shift from office to neighborhood/community commercial. l Buildout Land Uses The Option 1 land use map 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 Cf 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 residential, 2 percent high density residential, and 2 percent Eastside residential), 1 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 1,338 units, 183 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 � a� F3 �'► �, -fie - r o®+�� INJul I�.i[Q:� II � o4ei1�,►�1i:•: t'T;uK�����i���}I;: '���:4 �u=.. slsryryry�r�' - -- - Ion 1�1�7J�j� ;1�ij1}JIJ11(JI)4�N, X`■ _ _ N,url.�l: =.Il,.�ll�.,�r, ®. I �11� lln� ��i;����li I!�► ,� I �8ui nn�t+w; I C i I ! .. . .. . .. _ RESIDENTIAL NCC .:..... .... . WD 0O NDUUSSTTR ... /QUASI LHIC Option 2 Option 2 is based on an assumption that the City would adopt a 2 -percent annual residential growth rate and that the mix of new residential development would occur according to the following formula: 65 percent low density residential, 10percent medium density residential, and 25 percent high density residential. This 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 east aE 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 of Kettleman 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 expansion 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 1 (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 acre; of new development, of which 364, or 18 percent, are committed but undeveloped. Of the total new development, 69 percent is designated as residential (11 percent low density residential, 2 percent medium density residential, less than 1 percent high density residentipl and Eastside residential, and 86 percent planned residential), 8percent commercial (57 percent ofPighborhood/community, 41 percent general commercial, and 2 percent downtown comr-►ercial), 2 percent office, 14 percent industrial (20 percent Ligh, and 80 percent Heavy), 4 percent public/quasi-public, and 4 percent detention basin/park. Option 2 also designates an estimated 1,996 acres as agriculture and 999 acres as industrial reserve. Under Option 2, a total of 9,992 new dwelling units are proposed, (874 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 b,.:t >>nd,:veloped. A total of 6,8:2 new employees are projected from development of commercial, office, industrial, and public/quasi-public uses. 2-11 r � - -- � ��;,���� Iia..;, ��,� �° •�_ Nut, Vt Rf {{{»'rrr , 1���i�u�il�lhz� ��nRili�iai■}�' — -- ��--- trllllll 1■�- �� gilt IlJI.II filll 411.1 AjrA 2�'! ;1 li�l;iK►l ����$7�, Y �l1�ll'llil ,��� 1�! UR ---.1—nrjatu� i LEGEND RLD RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY PR PUNNED RESIDENTIAL RMD RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY DBP DETENTION BASIN,+ARK RHD RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY ER EASTSIDE RESIDENTIAL NCC NEIGHBORHOOD /COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL GC GENERAL COMMERCIAL Note: Does not Include committed, undeveloped land. DC DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL 3 OFFICE LI LIGHT INDUSTRIAL H HEAVY INDUSTRIAL POP PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC Lodi General P!a FIGURE 2-7. NEW DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL (OPTION 2) o 800 2400 caa Soarers: J. Laurent• limier 8 A6.00610a 1988 FEET Option 3 Option 3 is based on an asscmptiori that residential grov. th 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 1 -ane 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 desigcated under Options 1 and 2 (Figure 24). 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 expectec: ander 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 (11 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/eommunity, 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 6 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 15,057new dwelling units are proposed (874 low density residential, 331 medium density residential, 87 high density residential, 36 Eastside residential, and 13,719 planned residential). Of the 13,719 units, 783 low density residential, 2-12 C j ROW'm cam� - ci�rll �I'' tt so w il �Ig� n _ `{��•{� O6a_�,. �EM. `4l.o.yIAf1k�lLv�I.:-,fnrtn�,xi Ilia, y�'=",,;� ( sill uii`r, A "-i--'•;�+--�"=��1,�� ®\ �.Ln�t'�%•+-.:e1)� oil nlllill�llili{i{1111[i��t�i9`:.■ �� N K1 ,1Ho`M`i�l.fl 1111A I' +_.alIN sttatt�tetanta ,r,rfi. �� ,-L,;ffyll•III) elttlfij ILR.� a t • 1 LEGEND RL.D RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY PR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL RMD RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY DBP DETENTION BASINAARK RHD RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY ER EASTSIDE RESIDENTIAL NCC NEIGHBORHOOD/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/ OUASI-PUBLIC Lodi General Plan FIGURE 2-8. NEW DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL (OPTION 3) 0 800 2400 ��- Source: J. Uturo— A1tnCor 4 A""ocln"" 1986 FEET 325 medium density residential, 10 high density residential, and 25 Eastside residential units are considered committed but undeveloped. A total of 9,778 new employees are projected from development of commercial, office, industrial, and public/quasi-public uses. 2-13 ........... - I 3-1 1IMM111f EM Table M. loasary of Impacts by "ad Use Option Optlas 2 option ) I LAID USI Caertrsloa of 511 acres of Milt open spice and Convetsios of 2,671 Acrts of vacant apes space and COAYetsloa of 1,016 acres of raAcaat Opel space and agticaltotai land. agticolteral land. agricultural lands to rrbaA Ises. Removal of 1,271 acres of land from agticaltural Removal of 1,200 acres of land from agricultural production. production. Convtrslon of SIO acres of land ander Williamson Coavetsioa of Set acres of land mndet Williamson Act contract. Act contract. Irteation of the n[bas feral agr(cottlrat tttentfoo Of the orDaa caul+agflcaltlui interfact, Interface. Agticeltocal ttsldeatlal laid tse etefllcts. Agticoltaul tesldentiil lard arc conflicts. ....................................................... ..___................._.. ...... _ ............. ROUSINC Addition of 1,111 housing units (611 low dens!ty, Addition of 1,112 housing units 16,155 low density, Additios of 15,917 booslAg salts (5,111 lob' density, W 111 cellos density, 17 hila density, and 16 1,266 medial density, 2,751 high density, and 16 1,711 medics density, 1,511 blgb density, and 16 t tastside residential I, tastside residential). tasSside residential. N Roaring to Jobs deficiency of 1,111 suits. Nowslag to jobs excess of 4,270 salts, Rousing to jobs excess of 1,111 Colts. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. POPULatlON Population Increase of 1,471. Population Increase of 21,111, Population Iscttase of )1,141. .......................................................................................................................................... IMPLDfMIN1 Imploylent generation, of 2,115. _................._...............--•-•-•--....................---•...-- Imploymrat generation of 1,112, hploymeAt generation of 1,711. ......................... PUBLIC IIRWICIS •---..............................................................._......._...._..........._........................................................................................ Valet Generate a demand for in additional 1 wells. OtAttitt a demand for if idditionil 17 wells. Generate a dasasd for as additional 2t wells. Need for additional pipelines. Need fat additlonal pipelines. Ited (of additional pipelines. Nastevater Need for parallel severs to relieve txistiaq sevtrs. Need for parallel severs to relieve existing severs, Reed lot parallel sevtts to ttlieve existing severs, Rev motth•south trial sever, Additloaal pump /ew north-sooth treat sever, -_New .east -West treat stations, and forte miles. sever, additional poop,statiogs; and force mains. Drainage Portion of the planned sister stirs dtil/mgt system Ntgoirt oat additioui store drilmaye detention ReQgire three additional stowdtailage deteotiol z lying omtslde of the Op area resultlaq In problems basis with laeomims hoot likes led if'omtlet pipe. Wills rod additional lrwnt aad,oetlet lines. vitb the scheduled cospletloa of the UptovestAts °y curltatiy wndttviy. Law Infotrelent Cenetate a demand for an addtioail It officers and Vierate a de land lot additional It office Is and 6emgtste a demand fey if addltJoNatil:pffleers aid foot additional patrol vehicles. It additllsal patrol vehieler 71si iddltlotal 11 patrol welicles. • - - -----..._ --.-:--�«..._. owe } W I W Table 1-1. Summary of Impacts by !land Use Option Require additional administrative personnel, Requite additional admlaistrative personnel and additional office space, and possibly expansion of dispatchers, additional office space, expansion of the existing loft. both the exlstl19 )ail and dispatching center, and a new beat In the southern portion of the City. fire Protection Need for a nev station to cover development in the Reed for a new station to cover development In the teed for a new station to cover development In the western part of the City. western part of the City. western part of the City. Generate a demand for an additional 12 firefl9hters Generale a deeded fot an additional 15 firefighters Generate a desiod for an additional 26 firefighters, and six apparatus. and accompanylag apparatus. three accompanying appatatis, and one additional engine company. Led far possibly a fifth flee station, one heed tot possibly a fifth file station and one additional englme cospany, alae firefighters, and accompanying apparatus if farther study of exlsting one accumpamying apparatus if further study of aid planned flit station adequacy detetaltes that existing aad planned file station adequacy the lepirtiest cannot adequately serve the deletalnes that the department cannot adequately southwesteca and southeastern parts of the City with serve the southwestern pact of the City with font fame statlons. stations. a Parts and Cenetite a need lot an additional III acres of Generate a otcd for am additional I11 acres of Gentiate a need tot an additlonil SU acres of Recreation developed pattland. developed parkland. As estimated 122 acres vould developed parllind. Am eslimattd 201 accts would consist of storm drainage dettatfss basins dnd conqst of store dralaage Mention basses and parts, therefore, the remaining 215 acres should pacts, therefore, the retaining III acres should consist of stlghbothood and tommualty parks. consist of aolghbachood and community pacts. Schools Generate in addtlonal III students. Generate as additlonil 6,111 stvdtits. Glaciate in additional 10,111 students. feed lot the converslen of existing schools and Need for live elementary and three middle schools teed for seven elesentaifind title middle schools need for the three proposed elementary and two and one additional high and eoatinvatios school. and one additional hlgh`asd eontissatIon school. proposed ilddle schools. tRaNSPORtatloi lactease the total vehicle miles traveled. licitast the total vehicle mile$ Eureled. lscrease the total vehlele elles'tpveled. Require 11.1 miles of two-lane arterials, 6.6 miles Requite 12.1 miles of tvo-lane itteriala, Regllte J0.1 miles of tvo4iame aittrials, 16.1 miles of foot -lane undivided roads, 1.1 miles of four -lane 10.0 miits'of four -lase undivided roads, 1.1 sties of.lome-ldae nedivided_eeadt, A milesof four -lane divided roads, and :eco miles of sir -lane divided of lout -lint divided toads,+aad 2:0 illes of six- divided loads, aid 1.0 adles_;ef .tis -lase divided reads. lane divided.toads. reads.`. create a meed for addltleaai strett persoontl. Coate i meed fit additloail 3tiett ptrsomntf. ;F max+ .g a«x SIR �tint f»�s� t s c • • CHAPTER 4k Land Use OPTION 1 Because this option is essentially identical to the City's existing General Plan, which limits development to lands within the existing City lift the implications of Option 1 with respect to existing land use patterns, zoning, residential densities, commercial areas, and industrial areas are minimal. Implementation of Option 1 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). All of these 158 acres are targeted for urban development in the existing GP. This acreage, located in the eastern portion of the City, crosists of parcels ranging fran 1A 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 agriculturaluse 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 Sacram,.nto Street, where single family residential uses abut industrial uses; Kettleman Lane, where pressure for strip commercial development has encroached on single family residential areas; and in peripheral areas, where residential development abuts agricultural uses. The first two conflicts are the result of past land use decisions, and the third is inevitable in rural, agricultural communities experiencing urban growth. Again, because this option follows 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 1 calls for the redevelopment of underutilized parcels, most of which are Iocated in the Eastside area. Such redevelop- ment activity would have a positive impact on the City's existing development pattern. OPTION 2 Implementation of Option 2 would result in the conversion of approximately 2,071 acres of vacant open space and agricultural 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 (1987 Existing Land Use Inventory). 4-1 e Converted agricultural land 0 500 500 j under Williamson Act contract r 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 oftenpresents the following land use conflicts: o Use of Chemicals. Residential developmentproxims.te to agricultural operations often limits growers in determining when and how they can apply pesticides and what kind cf pesticides they can apply. o Nuisance Complaints. Residential development adjacent to agricultural uses could result in complaints about agricultural burning, 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 devJopment adjacent to agricultural uses could increase the potential for trespass, vandalism to crops and farm equipment, add to the probability of a lawsuit, arc! increase waste disposal. The conflicts associated with the encroachment cf 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 identified under Option 1, with the exception of 17 acres of land east of SR 99 being shifted from heavy industrial to light industrial. The potential land use conflicts resulting from Option 2 within the existing city limits 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 low or medium density uses, would be located proximate to these commercial areas. The high density residential -commercial interface is generally considered compatible. Implementation of Option 2 would result in the conversion of 1,483 more acres of lams. 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 potential commercial - residential conflicts. 4-3 0 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 acres, an estimated 2,200 acres are in intensive agricultural production, 500 of which are currently under Williamson A&- contract (1987 Existing Land Use Inventory).40 Implementation of Option 3 would remove land from agriculturalproduction, 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 acres of land east of SR 99, which is being shifted from heavy industrial to light industrial. The potential land use conflicts resulting from _)ption 3 wouid, therefore, be similar to those of Option L:.. 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 developmenthas 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 not currently possible to ensure that high density l residential uses, instead of low 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 2,448 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 -commercial conflicts. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE GENERAL PLAN Option 1 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 agi:,:ultural land. 3-4 0 E n G ft Option 2 Consider approving only those development proposals that promote infill development and development that is contiguous to existingdeveloped areas, Promoting infill development could entail establishing "develol:'�7. develop ment phasing programs tied to the provision of public facilities and .services. Consider requiring specificplans, for areas of new development to ensure ordertyr well-planned growth. Specifically, require that planned residential=developments..: be spatially arranged to ensure that high density uses arelocated proximate `to; commercial areas and major intersections. Require site plans to incorporate mitigation measures that reduce adverse effects on adjacent land uses. Consider designating an agricultural buffer between areas identified for urban development and land in intensive agricultural production to minimize agricultural -residential conflicts. Consider adopting right -to -farm policies or a right -to farm:; ordinance -tbat� recognizes a farmer's right to continue agricultural practices that may. 'at times be considered an inconvenience to nearby residents. Option 3 o The implications for Option 3 would be the same as those for Option 2 4-5 J • • CHAPTER 5. Housing OPTION 1 Option 1 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 ants, 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 1 would allow Lodi's housing stoc:: 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 & Stokes Associates 1988a). 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 already committed but undeveloped, would be small infill projects. The primary concern regarding housing impacts pertains to the jobs -housing balance. For purposes ofderermining housing impacts of the GP, it is assumed that maintenance of an internal jobs/housing balance is a fundamental 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 developmect 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 in nonresidential developments. The fundamental objective of maintaining a jobs/housing blance is to reduce 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 adding enough units to achieve a healthy vz,cancy rate of 5 percent. 5-1 Table 5-1. New Housing and Employment Development by Land Use Option Residential Category Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 a Low density 874 6,4998 9,791': Medium density 341 1,206a 1,7138 High"density 8? 2,251 r� 3,517: ,t Eastside residential 36 36 36 Total new housing units 1,338 9,992 15,057 New jobs created 2,935' 61,812 9,778. Includesunits that would be developed under the proposed planned residential s designations. The planned residential designapon_ assumes .a :distribution of; -65 percent . low density, 10 percent medium density, and 25 percent high density. 5-2 Application of this formula to existing conditions shown in Table 2-1 indicates that Lodi has a slight surplus of housing units with approximately 2,400 Lodi residents commuting to jobs outside of Lodi. Implementation of Option 1 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 1would, 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 f existing housing. OPTION 2 1 Option 2 would allow the addition of a projected 9,992 housing units to Lodi's existing hoiising stock (Tables 2-1 and 5-1). The majority of new units would be developed under the proposed planned residential land use designation, which assumes a distribution of 65 percent low density residential ueits, 10 percent medium density residential units, and 25 percent high density residential units. Applying this distribution, an estimated 5,625 low density, 1,865 medium density, aqd 2,164 high density units would be developed under the planned residential designation. Therefore, the total number of new units under each Band use category would be 6,499 low density, 1,206 medium density, 2,251 high density, and 36 Eastside residentid units. The growth of Lodi's housing stock allowed under Option 2 would represent an increase of 58 percent over the estimated existing housing stock. Option 2 would allow Lodi's hcusing stock to increase at an average rate of 500 units per year over the 20 -year GP time frame. 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.") According to the jobs housing formula provided under Option 1, the nun.ber of housing units necessary to accommodate new employees in Lodi would be 5,722. Undcr 5-3 this option, an excess of 4,270 units is projected. The apparent oversupply of. ential 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 affordable 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 x `' low-, medium-, and high-density units. ! `: In identifying proposed land use categories for the GP, the planned residential 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 local -serving commercial operations, with }little ofce employment. It is expected that the income characteristics of these employees would result in the absorption of a higher 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 employment sectors. i" 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 b; 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 and 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 high density, and 36 Eastside residential units. 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 GP time frame. Implementation of Option 3 would increase employment within Lodi by a projected 9,778 (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 housing units necessary to accommodate new employees would be 8,214. Under this option, ari excess of 6,843 units is projected. As described above for Option 2, this oversupply would presumably be absorbed by new residents eanployed outside of Lodi or provide Lodi housing if additional industrial development occurs. Although the number of new housing units would exceed the demand generated b new employees, the affordability of housing for low- and moderate -income worker 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 qualitativejobs-housing impacts of Option 3 would be similar to those cf 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 exceed the number of new jobs, resulting in an oversupply of 6,843 housing units, 2,573 more units than under Option 2 IMPLICATIONS FOR THE GENERAL PLAN Option 1 o Additional residential land would be needed to achieve an adequate jobs -housing balance. Option 2 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.) Option 3 o The implications for Option 3 would be the same as those under Option 2. CHAPTER 6. Population OPTION 1 Under Option 1, future growth in Lodi would be directed by the adopted Lodi General Plan. Little additional growth would occur under Option 1 since most of the residential land within the existing city limits has been developed. Vacant residential lands within the existing city limits would accommodate the development of an additional 1,338 housing units. Based on full occupancy of additional housing units and an average household size of 2.6 persons per u1it, the additional housing units would accommodate a population increase of 3,479. As shown in Tables 2-1 and 6-1, Lodi's buildout population under Option 1 would reach an estimated 50,745, representing a 7.4 -percent increase over the existing population. Lodi grew at an estimated average annual rate of 35 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 1 would severely limit population growth within Lodi over the 20 -year GP buildout period. OPTION 2 Under Option 2, future population growth in Lodi would be controlled by a policy 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 population increase of 25,979. As shown in Tables 2-1 and 6-1, Lodi's buildout population under Option 2 would reach an estimated 73,245, representing a 55 -percent increase over the existing population. Annual population growth over the 20 -year GP buildout period would occur at a 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 Loci'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 GP buildout period in the absence of the housing stock growth policy. -71 6-2 M 1•'!f c I 1 H P I 1 l'V 1 I 1 I.t 1 1 1 1 1 C H I i 1 C 1 1 V y t 1 1 1 1 1 y 7 1 1 I 1 Y O 1 1 I ly 1 1 1 I t I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I O I tw 1 Q/ O O f b 1 ! 1 1 / 1 1' ip 1 t0 1 .i I 1 I 1 1 / 1 r r r . • r -- r— • 1 • 1 1 = C 1 1 I 1 Y M 1 1 I U Y I t 1 I 1 G I Y O I 1 1 m O I I I y O 1 I t • .Ci 1 1 1 1 1 LY 1 �( I ; O• M I V / I Y 4 >y I 1 a t 1 1 I 1 1 I I N 1 1 C 1 Oi 1 t 1 ~ I N a »+ 1 O 1 t 1 I t H I I 1 1 a 1 Y 0 t 1 1 1 V t.7 1 1 1 q ; 1 •Ci 1 1 t C V I ' � C t Y q t 1 — H C H b 1 1 T t c .t. s � y c o a V F i b u U t q 1 U O 6! 6-2 M 1•'!f c Implementation of Option 2 would generate 22,500 more persons than under Option 1. OPTION 3 Under Option 3, future population growth in Lodi would result from an annual 3.5 percent increase in the City's housing stock over the buildout period. The 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 1,338 housing unilswithin the existing city limits and 13,719 housiog.uhitswithih ` 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. hotisina'units would accommodate a population increase -of 39.148. As shown in Tables 2-1 and 6-1, Lodi's buildout population under Option 3 would reach an estimated 86,414, representing an 82.8 -percent increase over 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 1970-1987ay..rage annual rate of 3.5 percent. Implementation of Option would probably accommodate population growth that would occur in the absence of a growth limitation policy. The populat-lon growth may or may not be limited, however, by a housing stock growth policy. Under market conditions, population growth in Lodi could exceed the 3.5 - percent annual avercge growth rate projected under this option, resulting in secondary impacts on traffic ane public services. Implementation of Option 3 would generate 35,669 more persons than under Option 1 and 13,169 more persons than under Option 2. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE GENERAL PLAN Option 1 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 growth under this optima because population growth would be argely:controlle-d-- by the growth policy that would limit annual housing, stock growth to 2 percent.. -i iJ Opflon 3 niiz o : Consider adopting a policy limiting 'the annual nowt i` W- of tbie housing stock , r to '3.5 percent to ensure that:population growth does nod:xcee pro}etd levels l Orr y w V y K+ 6-4 CHAPTER 7. Employment OPTION 1 Option 1 would designate 390 acres for employment -generating uses, including 23 acres for commercial uses, 38 acres for office uses, 271 acres for industrial uses, and 58 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 employment 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- 1). Under Option l,total employment in Lodi would increase from an estimated existing level of 21,953 to a projected buildout level of 24,888 (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 34.5 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 designated 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 account for 2,520, or 37 percent of the new jobs; employment generated by general commercial uses would account for a projected 1,600, or 23 percent of total rew jobs; and, employment in heavy industrial occupations would account for 1,035, or 15 percent of total new jobs (Table 2-1). Under Option 1, total employment in Lodi would increase from an estimated existing level of 21,953 to a projected buildout level of 28,765 (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 mix. neighborhood/community commercial employment would increase from 17.6 percent to 22.2 percent of total employment, and 7- 1 ,dble 7-1. Comparison of Approximate Employment for Existing Con!"tions and by Land Use Option ------ ------ ----- - - - Existing Conditions/a II Opti i II Developed Existing Percent II Buildout Build I Land Use Designation 1--------------------------11------------------------------------I1------------------- II Acres Eapi(yment of Total II Acres Employ I II IConzerciai II Buildout II 11 ment of Total II I ! I Neighborhood/community II 119 3,824 17.6 it 161 4 1 General it 212 5,511 25.1 II 220 5 1 Downtown Il 19 494 2.3 II 21 1,112 I --][office 11 it 65 1,958 II 8.9 11 103 2 ;,I [Industrial II II 2.011 it {I 578 1.81 I Light ;{ 314 4,412 20.1 II 343 4 I Heavy II 1 382 If 2,864 13.0 II 11 624 3 1Public/quasi-public 11 I--------------------------il------------------------------------ 909 2,839 12.9 11 II 967 ------------------- 3 I II I Total II I 1{ I---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2,050 21,953 ii 99.9 ff II 2,440 11 Source: a Jones 6 Stokes Associates 1988a. ---------------------------------------------------------------- on 1/b ------------------ b II Option 2/b II --------------------------I Option 3/b I i --------------- out If Percent It --------------------=------------ Buildout Buildout If t of II -------------------------------- Buildout Buildout t of I ment of Total II I ! Acres ------------------------------------ Eaploysent Total II ►)------------------------------------ Acres Employment Total I ! ,110 ii II 16.911 239 6,394 II II 12.211 282 7,598 ! 23.91 ,711 23.0 it 276 1,112 24.7 11. 317 8,137 25.6 1 578 2.3 II 22 578.. 2.011 22 578 1.81 ,514 II 10.3 II i! 103 2,514 11 8.9 If II 126 2,916 1 9.31 I ,592 If 18.5 11 369 4,153 II 16.5 II 448 5,243 I 16.5 1 ,971 16.011 it 607 3,x99 13.6 If II 518 3,536 ILL I I ,245 . 13.0 II ---- .---II------------------------------------11------------------------------------! 997 3,455 12.0 II 1,031 3,693 11.61 ;08 -------------------------------- II 100,0 if II 2,613 28;765 ----------..-------------- -------------------------------------------------------- II 99.9 11 II 2,754 31,731 � ------------------- I 99.8 1 I b Bulldout employment projections calculated by adding the incremental increase In employment under each option -to existing employment. Incremental employment was projected based on the following estieates of employees per gross acre (Factor pets, coma;): coamercial-.uses; 18.0; office vies, 16.2; light and heavy Industrial uses, 6.2 and 4.6, respectively; and, public/quasi-public, 10. light industrial employment would decrease from 20.1 percent to 16.5 percent of total employment (Table 7-1). Under Option 2, a large number of new jobs would be generated in Lodi, including a substantial number of jobs in the retail commercial sector. The ability of Lodi to house workers new to the City is dependent upon the availability and affordability of housing. Housing provided under Option 2 would exceed the number of new jobs (see Chapter 5, r a Housing," for further discussion); however, the affordability of housing for- low- and moderate -income workers, such as retail employees, would not. be=' guaranteed. The k unavailability of affordable housing could lead to workers commuting into Lodi, resulting in traffic circulation problems. , Implementation of Option 2 would result in 3,877 more jobs than under Option 1. OPTION3 i- t Option 3 would designate 704 acres for employment -generating uses, including 241 ' acres for commercial uses, 61 acres for office uses, 280 acres for industrial uses, and 122 w� acres for public/quasi-public uses (Table 2-1) . Buildout of designated lands under Option 3 would generate a projected 9,778 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, and employment generated by general commercial uses would account for a projected 2,625, or 27 percent of total new jobs (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 change 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 Light and heavy industrial employment would decrease from a combined 33.1 percent to 27.6 percent of total employment (Table 7-1). Implementation of Option 3 would generate 6,843 more jobs than under Option 1 and 2,966 more jobs than under Option 2. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE GENERAL PLAN Option 1 o No new policies would be required to minimize problems related to employment growth under Option 1 because the increase in employment under Option 1 would not be substantial and the mix of employment at buildout would not differ 7-3 4 C 7 U significantly from the existing employment mix. No new policies would be required to minimize problems related to employment growth unde. Option 1. Option 2 i Consider conducting an annual employee survey of large firms in then GP area � to anticipate housing affordability problems. Employee characteristic to be surveyed include: household size, annual personal � and: hausehol&'income, monthly housing costs, housing unit purchase price, years Iii resid6hod-t)"l of housing unit, ease of finding affordable housing, location of residence, commute distance, and reasons for not living in Lodi: Once the inforII aUon s�gathered; ' the findings should be presented to the Lodi City Council with sgecific recommendations. Consider establishing an annual program to monitor housing prices in Lodi to anticipate affordability problems. Option 3 The implications for Option 3 would be the same as those for Option 2. 7-4 L 4`00. L C�Foa�' CHAPTER 8. Public Services WATER This section is based on information provided by Psomas and Associates. Option 1 Implementation of Option 1 would slightly increase the demand for water by increasing the population in the city limits. 2ns increased demand, plus the need to provide adequate reserve capacity requires an additional seven wells, increasing the total to 25 wells (]Fable 8-1 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 8-1 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 result in higher system efficiency than if located further south or east because of higher groundwater elevations. Because water quality iS generally better closer to the Mokelumne Riw,r, it is beneficial to locate wells in this area. Although future wells added to the northern portion of the City would generally provide 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. The lack of existing wells near the downtown area has caused a local depression of 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 Implementation of Option 2 would increase the demand for water by increasing the pot ulation in the city limits and through annexation of the unincorporated portions of the G1' area into the city limits. This increase would generate a demand for an additional 17 wells, increasing the total to 35 wells (Table 8-1 and Figure 8-2). Also shown in Figure 8- 2 are the major pipelines that would be necessary under Option 2. Implementation of Option 2 would require 10 more wells and additional pipelines than under Option 1. 8-1 E r, x Table 8-1. Future Well Demands by Land Use Option Subarea' Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Northwest 0 3 3 Northcentral 3 5 7 Northeast 2 5 8 Scuthwest 0 2 2 Southcentral 2 2 4 Southeast —0 0 � Total new wells 7 17 24 Total flaw added 7,613 21,163 30,556 - See Figure 8-1 for subarea location. Q n Total peak flow demand added to system network. Source: Psomas and Associates 1988. Note: This table is based on the following assumptions: O o Future well capacity is based on 1,600 gpm at a resulting hydraulic gradient of 172 ft msl o Tank level = 165 ft msl o Heavy industrial peak -hour demand. = maximum day demand o All other demands based on an average day per capita flow of 285 gpd o Maximum day peak factor = 2.24; peak -hour factor = 3.28 o Residential fire flow = 2,000 gptn; commercial/industrial fire flow = 3,000 gpm o Number of wells is determined by peak -hour demand divided by 1,600 gpm per well plus an additional 20 percent for wells out of service. 8-2 Option 3 1 _ 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 o fthe GP area into the city limits. This increase would generate a demand for an additiowl wells, increasing the total of 42 wells (Table 8-1 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 `addit 9pa1pipelines k than under Option 1 and seven more wells and additional pipelines than under -Option 2. SEWERAGE This section is based or information provided by Black & Veatch. Option 1 Sanitary sewer improvements for Option 1 are shown in Figure 8-4. These 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 periods. These sewers have relatively flat slopes and, therefore, velocities that are less than the rninimum 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 Implications for the General Plan Option 1 :, 4 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 o 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. j SEWERAGE This section is based or information provided by Black & Veatch. Option 1 Sanitary sewer improvements for Option 1 are shown in Figure 8-4. These 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 periods. These sewers have relatively flat slopes and, therefore, velocities that are less than the rninimum 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 LEGEND 121 Preliminary Diameter of New Sewer R Parallel Relief Sewer • Change in Pipe Diameter Note: Requirements for relief sewers should be field verified. Lodi Genoral Plan FIGURE 8-4. PRELIMINARY SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED UNDER OPTION 1 (SEWERS 12 INCHES AND LARGER IN DIAMETER) o Boo 2400 Sourer Block a vouch 1988 FEET r, wif ��� •� hii(— II II II 1:11.. i _ - �ll',ca F11 'jpl� I,Aj la job ��=„nails 1.�1111�1�11� .BH��trll In� N elir.?tl 1 . '�11[1�T II C':11�,W� Jr, IUYUII 10,�MI I LEGEND 121 Preliminary Diameter of New Sewer R Parallel Relief Sewer • Change in Pipe Diameter Note: Requirements for relief sewers should be field verified. Lodi Genoral Plan FIGURE 8-4. PRELIMINARY SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED UNDER OPTION 1 (SEWERS 12 INCHES AND LARGER IN DIAMETER) o Boo 2400 Sourer Block a vouch 1988 FEET development will increase surcharging. Actual flows and requirements for relief sewers should be field verified prior to implementation of Option 1. Option 2 Sanitary sewer improvements for Option 2 are shown in Figure 8-5. A relief sewer would be required along aportion of the existingtrunk sewer located in Lower Sacramento Road. This relief sewer would permit near-term development adjacent to Lower Sacramento Road to be connected via gravity flow laterals. It would also carry flows from the area east of the WID Canal and north of Elm Street. A new north -south trunk sewer would be required as indicated to serve development west of Lower Sacramento Road that cannot be served by gravity flow to the existing trunk sewer. Tnmk sewers, pump stations, and force mains would be required as indicated to serve development in the vicinity of Century Boulevard that cannot be sefved by gravity flow to existing trunk sewers. Flow from these pump stations would be directed to the existing Century Boulevard trunk sewer. Peak flow rates to these pump stations are estimated at 450 gallons per minute (gpm) for the pump station on Kettleman Lane and 1,150 cpm for the pump station on Lower Sacramento Road. In addition to the improvements required under Option 1, implementation of Option 2 would require a new north -south trunk sewer, additional pump stations, and force mains. Option 3 Sanitary sewer improvements for Option 3 are shown in Figure 8-6. These improvements consist of a new east -west trunk sewer between Harney Lane and Armstrong Road. A pump station and force main would be required to convey flow from the proposed trunk sewer to the existing Century Boulevard trunk sewer. The estimated ultimate peak flow rate to this pump station is 2,600 gpm. In addition to the improvements required under Option 1 and 2, implementation of Option 3 would require a new east -west trunk sewer, additional pump stations, and force mains. , Implications for the General Plan Option 1 o Develop a policy and fee schedule for funding improvements required for the sewer system based on fair share contributions from all new developments. 8-4 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. 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 drainage system service area were prepared 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 drainage system gets larger to accommodate new growth and the amounts 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 the northern part of Lodi. Option 1 Under Option 1, a major portion of the planned master storm drainage systemwould 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 and developed. It also contains a temporary pump structure located in the Beckman Road ditch. While the existingbasin and associatedpump stations are performing adequately, the basin is not developed in accordance with the adopted City design standards. o 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 Miscellaneous Storm Drainage blaster Lines. Currently five unconstructed masa;; norm drainage lines would be needed to serve developmentun der Option i: the Calavaras Street storm drain from T-ockeford Street to Pioneer Drive, the 8-5 M 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 CIuff Avenue to Guild Avenue. A line in Hutchins Street from Walnut Street to Elm Street is planned for construction in 1989. These projects would be funded from storm drainage fees assessed'.to future development. As presently planned, these projects will coat over $3.5 4nillion. Mus -,cost a could be reduced if the service area were reduced and the projects redesigned:'' However, t a number of policy decisions would have to be made regarding accommodating future growth and the level of improvements needed in the basins. With development restricted t: to the land designated under Option 1, the ability to finance or plan for these improvements is severely restricted. Option 2 Under Option 2, the master storm drainage system as presently planned would accommodate all cf the area shown, with the exception of the area south of Kettlenian # `: Lane and west of Lower Sacramento Road. For this area, one additional basin, I Bbsin, with incoming trunk lines and an outlet pipe would be needed (Figure 8-� , 'this area would be similar to Area F in Figure 8-7 because all of the water from: this: -area would be pumped twice, once at the basin to drain the basin and the incoming pipes (including ©i nuisance flows) and again at the Beckman Pump Station into the WID Canak The addition of I -Basin would add approximately 17 hours to the total time necessary to empty the basins after a design storm. In addition to the improvements required under Option 1,impleiileNation 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 J and K in Figure 8-8) would be required to accommodate growth under Option 3. Double pumping would also be required at these locations for water because the existing ground elevations are lower, in relation to the rest of the City and the existing storm drainage system. The addition of these basins would add approximately 50 hours to the total time necessary to empty the basins after a design storm. The design of the area south of 1-larney Lane (Areas J and K in Figure 8-8) is such that Area J should be developed before Area K. 8-E C CITY CF L0DI MASTER STORM DR9N PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SYSTEM IWESTGAT i W.I.D. CANAL i. {I I ar+cnin TRUNK LINES 6 OUTFALLS �- EXISTING .. FUTURE BASIN/PARKS E] FUTURE EXISTING -•» DRAINAGE AREA (APPROX .) FIGURE 8-7. N MASTER STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PUMP STATIC^: REQUIRED UNDER OPTION 2 Source: City of nodi Public Wer" Department t964 Q_'7 �i CF 40 CITY OF LOD I %%ftR 3T@PM BRAN ;��SYSTEM ' <rFoe� PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT RIVER WESTGATE LEGEND o 1/6 t/. 316 1/8 HUI 0 loon •am FM TRUNK LINES 6 OUTFALLS EXISTING • FUTURE RAgTN!/:'ARKS E] FUTURE EXISTING DRAINAGE AREA (APPROX � FIGURE 8-8. .... MASTER STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS O PUMP STATION REQUIRED UNDER OPTION 3 1 Source, Qitl Qt. Lodi. Public Works Department 1988 8-S In addition to the improvements required under Options 1 and 2, implementation of Option 3 would require three more storm drainage detention basins and additional trunk and outlet lines and two more storm drainage detention basins and additional trunk and outlet lines. I Implications for the General Plan Option I o Consider selection of Options 2 or 3 instead of Option 1. o Accept a lower level of service for the incomplete storm drainage facilities. -1 o Develop a policy for funding improvements required for the master storm drainage system other than fair share contributions from all new developments because Option 1 does not allow enough new development to fund needed improvements. Option 2 o Develop 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 Plan 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 double pumping would be unavoidable. o Design the storm drainage basins so portions of the basins could remain flooded for longer periods with fewer detrimental effects. O Revise the City design criteria for storage volume to increase the required volume. 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 o Reduce the pumping rate at Shady Acres Pump Station and increase the Beckman Park Pump Station rate to compensate. o Adopt a phasing plan for new development as part of the growth Management Element. LAW ENFORCEMENT Option 1 Implementation of Option 1 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 department3 goal of 1.5 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 pens. 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 population 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 total to 110 officers (Table 8-2). 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 existing jail. The department is ultimately planning to increase space within the existing jail 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 under this option (Williams pers. comm.). implementation of Option 2 would require 33 more officers and additional office and jail space than unci r Option 1. 8-10 A L" i .._77.. . ...... ............. ....�.....«s........•... .. ... _ f. Table 1.2. Police protection Negalteleats leseltlag (too Nov Oerelepsest by load Use 011tlel II. .............................� ...................I.... ............................... saitipltet ....................... taltlpllet� ................................... ................................ I I I Offieets/1,100 ledltiooai Offlcets/1,100 14410e"1 Total !abet of Total lgsbel of Iddltlasal lasbet of I I Inaldat I popslatla lasbet of topstatios tosbet of 011leets tegltted Offleets tegaited lattol yelleles tegolttd I 1 Load use Option I popetotios I I60ttUt stalling! Officers Needed Oepattmt Coal) Officers_ Needed ..... 11.1/11801) _ •••ILS/1,101). lyttlelell•officers)..� .................................... •••. -' ..�.. ............................... , I Option I 1 1 i 50,115 Persons I 1.1 1 1 i.S N I ss li 1 1 I I I 1 I Option 2 I t I I 11,111 petsoes 1 I 1 1.1 11 1 1.1 I 11 1 lS N I 111 1 I2 1 1 I 1 CO I 1 Option ) I I 1 11,111 petsoas I 1.) S1 I !.S 01 I 112 i I Ill I 11 1 1 ).... ................... Sostee: V1111423 pets. conn. ..................................................................................................................... .............. .... .............. i .._77.. . ...... ............. ....�.....«s........•... .. ... _ f. 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 police department service area by producing an additional service population of 39,148. Based on the department's goal of 1S 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) . The additional officers would also require 17 additional patrol vehicles (Table 8-2). According to the police chief, the increase in service population and officers would require additi6hal administrative personnel and dispatchers and would require additional office space, expansion cf both the existingjail, and existing dispatching center, and a new beat in the southern portion of the City (Williams pers. comm.). Implementation of Option 3 would require 54 more officers than under Option 1 and 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 1 o Provide additional police officers and related equipment to serve new development based OR the department's staff -to -population goal of 1.5 officers per 1,000 popuiation. Option 2 o Provide additional police officers and related equipment, personnel, and office space to serve new development based on the department's staff -to -population goal of 1.5 officers per 1,000 population. Remodeling of the existing public services building would be needed to house the expanded police department and aiiow for possible expansion of the jail. Option 3 o The implications for Option 3 would be the same as those for Option 2. Provide additional dispatchers, expand the existing dispatch center, and establish I new beat in the southern part of the City. 8-12 A C C FIRE PROTECTION i Option 1 f 4` The number of firefighters needed to adequately staff a fire department is dependent on community characteristics. (For example,es of land use, and demographics are more critical than population numbers). Thus, the Lodi f. Fire Department does not I 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. is Total personnel and equipment requirements for each of the land use options are presented in Table 8-3. These estimates are based on the location and types of proposed development under each option. Currently, the department's fire protection coverage of the City's west side is considered weak (Hughes pers. comm.). A new station, in addition to the three existing F 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 z the City. Personnel requirements under this option would include 12 firefighters, which is adequate to cover the additional station, and six apparatus, two more than the i department has now. [ t Fire station placement is based on an average 3 -minute driving response time to al! 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 -minute response time. At present, the department is considering annexation of the Woodbridge 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 2 The four -station concept, as described under Option 1, would also be required for Option 2. Implementation of Option 2 would generate a dentari 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 an engine company, 8-13 Table 8-3. Fire Protection Requilemilntij Ravulting from. New Development -by Land_.Use Option I---------------------------------------- ----rr-----J------------- --- ---- !�! -------------- - -- ----.---------------------..r' II Additional Additional Additional Additional I 1 Total Personnel Personnel Number of Number of I I Number of Required Required Equipment Needed Equipment Needed Land use notion I-------------------------------I------------------------------------ I Stations Needed (4 Stations) (5 Stations) .----------------- (4 Stations) ----------. ------------------------I (5 Stations) Q II Option 1 I f 4 f 12 N/A 2 apparatus NIA I Option 2 =1 �i 4 or 5 I 15 24 2 apparatus 3 apparatus II I I Option 3 1 4 or 5 26 26 3 apparatus 3 apparatus I I-------------------------------------------------------------- Hughes pets. comm. --------------------------------- --- -------------------------Source: 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 four -station concept, as described under Option Option 3. 1, would also be required for Implementation of Option 3 would generate a demand for'`- an, additional 26 firefighters and three accompanying apparatus (Table 8-3). As described" above under Option 2, four fire stations may not be adequate to serve the expanded city limits. Further study would be required to assess the adequacy of the existing stations. However, one additional engine company would be required under this option. With four stations, the southwestern and the southeastern portions of the City would be outside the required 3 -minute response range. The fire chief has indicated that thesf 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 currently outside the 3 -minute response range. o Provide additional firefighters and related equipment to serve new development. o Consider annexation of the Woodbridge Rural Fire District if it is found to help finance the cost of a fourth fire station. A n n ex a t i o n would provide better service to a larger service area. o Adopt a sprinkler ordinance for commercial and i n d ti s t r i a l uses (required for commercial and industrial buildings larger than 6,000 square feet) to reduce critical response time to these buildings. 8-15 4 a- F-.1 Option 2 o The implications for Option 2 would be the same as those for Option 1. `% o study the existing and planned fire station adequacy to determine if the fire t 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 adequately serve the routhwestern _ and southeastern parts of the City with four fire stations. PARKS AND RECREATION f Option 1 Currently, the City has an estimated 391 acres of parkland, of which 81 acres are school parks and 46 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 p this deficiency of 2.7 acres per 1,000 population with more parkland (rather than basin of, school parks) to reach the national standard (Williamson pers. comm.). 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 per 1,000population ratio, which includes school parks, this population increase would generate a demand 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 expansion 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 desigrl,ited Undcr Opu,>n I (Figure 2-3). 8-16 ..... ......... ......... __ . Table 8-4, Developed Parkland Requiresents Resulting frog New Developsent by Land Use Option Source: Willijuson pers, coma, -------------------- --------------------------;' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 1 ' Existing Additional Total 1 Existing Additional Total I ; Buildout Multiplier Developed Park Developed Park 1 Multiplier Developed Park Developed Park General Pian Option I Population (including Acres Needed Acres Needed 1 (excluding Acres Heeded Acres Needed 1 1 school parks) 1 school Parks) ---------------, '-------------------------------:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------1-----------«--------------------------- ; Option 1 50,745 Persons 10.0 acres 162 507 5.0 acres 0 253 ' ofaaev I of developed A par k[aeu)?p��O I parklagd/.1,000 , population 1 population ' Option 2 ! 73,245 Persons 10.0 acres 387 132 5.0 acres 102 366 of developed I of developed f 9arkland/1,000 1 parkla6d/1,000 population I population Option 3 86,414 Persons 10.0 acres 519 864 1 ' 5.0 acres 168 432 of developed I o f developed parkland/1,000 I parkland/1,000 population 1 population '-----•---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .--. =-----------------------------------------1 Source: Willijuson pers, coma, Option 2 Implementation of Option 2 would increase the demand for parkland in the City of Lodi by increasing the population of the city limits by 25,979 and through annexation cf 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 387 acres of developed parkland, increasing the total to need 732 acres (Table 8-4). Option 2 designates 104 acres cf storm drainage detention basin parks and 18 acres of school parks, for a total of 122 acres (Figures 2-3 and 24). 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.). Implementation of Option 2 would require 225 more acres of parkland than under Option 1. Option 3 Implementation of Option 3 would increase the demana for parkland in the City of Lodi by increasing the population of the city limits by 39,148 and through annexation ofthe 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. Implications for the General P 1 a n Option 1 o Provide additional parkland to serve new development based on the depart,-oent's 10 acres per 1,000 population goal which includes school parks. o Develop the 46 acres of existing City parkland to help meet rhe projected demand. 8-18 o Consider a City policy allowing for an appropriate amount of upland acreage for parks in all future storm drainage detention basin parks and expansions for recreational facilities and winter sport activities. Option 2 o The implications for Option 2 would be the same as-rhose for Option L o Provide additional 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 Preserv,- the Mokelumne River by designating it as a recreationai resource. Option 3 o The implications for Option 3 would be the same as those for Option 2 SCHOOLS Option 1 Implementation of Option 1 would add 1,338 residential dwelling units to the Lodi Unified School District (LUSD), generating a:i additional 928 students (490 K -h, 133 7-8, 265 9-12, and 40 continuation students, respectively) (Table 8-5)• Current overcrowdingof Lodi schoolswould be reduced by apr roximately 17percent under Option 1, as enrollment would decline from 103.8to 86.3 percent of available seating capacity (Table 8-5). This enrollment projection assumes that student; 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) and for students generated under Option 1. ilenlentary and middle schools would be operating at 72.8 and 75.0 percent of capacity. respectively ('fable 8-5), enabling the LUSD to hou, e students torn overcrowded attendance areas outside Lodi, if necessary, or to return to noneo-mded school scheJules. However, the two high schoo?s in Lodi would be operating at slightly over capacity, and contineation school: would be overcrowded by approximately 5C percent (Table 8-5), requiring the use of portable units or alternate sites. Conversion of rxistinU schools (e.g. conversion of elementary and rniddle school space for grades 9-12) and construction of proposed schools (Figures 2-4 and 8-9) \vould he nzeded o fully accommodate projected 5-19 table 1-5. Projected lorailtent led Capacity of Lodi PNblic Schools by Land Use Option ..--.....---•- •...................................................------.........---.............-......................-...........----...................................--------- Correct Projected Increase to Projectel 1390116th as tatotbeot lnroiluit UOR Lodi Petceatalt of Ptojected as Petceatige 0trelopment, 1511-2007 (b) Projected /oteilatot, 1001 (:) Ptojected Capacity Crade Cutcent Current of Current _ increase 11 MITI Levels lirolisent Capacity (a) Capacity Option I Option 2 Option 3 Optlot 1 Option 2 option 3 Capacity (1) Capacity (1) Option 1 Option 2 Optiol 3 .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-6 4,112 3,193 NSA 110 3,114 5,311 S,312 I'm 11,255 3,415 1,312 12.1 116.1 135.1 1 t 1,291 1,136 10.5 133 916 1,665 1,311 2,221 1,615 1,352 1,13i 15.1 121.9 Ili.$ 9-12 5,511 5,155 9S.i I65 1,561 2,511 S'lH 7,502 1,452 1 5,71S lem, 121.5 115.1 Cootinuatlon/ 11) 601 145.5 iI 2% 111 510 . 1,tiS 1,111 1 ill 151.2 151.1 211.5 Adult ldocation ...... ...... ..... .-. ..... ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ...... ..... ..... Total 12,590 12,126 103,1 121 1,111 11,111 11,411 15,157 22,111 1,1!1 1S,i13 1611 124.6 145.5 ............. ....................................................................................................................................................................... rt :ounce: Lodi Uallied School District hand aid lethal pets. colas.); Jones i Itokes Associates ,''a votes: (a) Capacity estimates are based oa petsanect facilities (i.e. do not Include aliowaoces lot portable colts) and projected school schedules as of July 1919. Schools that will be operating on TRS or other ettended-year schediles ace Indicated by asterisks. Capacities of elesentiry schools are expected to licrease by 21 percent with conversion fro# stabdatd-tract to year -roved schedules. Capacities Iiddle and high schools ate etptettd 20 locrease 3( peteeat older ,:traded (Concept 6) schedolts. (b) latollaeat projections assume that 1101 stadents ate correctly is eoottication programs, 12.$ perctat of lotite stsdehts t1 grades 9.12 will attend tostillatiom school, aid enrollaeat IN adult edsatioa programs will loctHse at tie site rate as the 1-12 stadtat popolatiom. tc) larollatat ptoj,ctloss asssae tbt indents (rot North Itecktom IoaseAelds who all currently attending Lodl schools will be attending schools in 161th Stoektma by 2601. it Is estitated that Be Rather of north M:ktom stodents eoramtty attending Lodi schools is 2,651 to grades 5-12 (eosoettioaal high schools), 150 la the cohtineatioa proyras, 51 in grades 1-1, aid a scall mother is grades 9-6. These fiqu:ts do not include stodtats in special education classes. enrollment under Option 1 without the use o interim facilities or the construction o 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 use of YRS or other extended scheduling, elementary school capacities hava beenX''. increased approximately 36 percent (Hand pers. comm). k 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 overciowding of Lodi schools would increase by approximately 20 percent, as enroiiment 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, 209, and 295 percent over capacity, respectively, and continuation schools would be overcrowdedby 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 schco'.s outside Lodi) (Figure 8-10). ' In addition to the three elementary schools and two middle schools proposed under Option I, 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, 1,445 7-8, 2,911 9-12, and 438 continuation students, respectively) (Table 8-5). Current overcrowding of Lodi schools would increase by approximately 40 percent, as enrollment would increase from 103.8 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 schools would be operating a 39.0, 46.5, and 45.5 percent over capacity, respectively, and continuation schools would be overcrowded by 115.5 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 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 witho Lit the use of interim facilities or alternate sites (e.g., busing to schools 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. Option 1 0 C Implications for the General Plan Designate future school sites as proposed by the LUSD, including sites for the Bark West and Century elementary schools and the Millswood and Harney middle schools. Consider assistingthe LUSD in fmancingnew school facilities through assessment of impaction fees and implementation of other local funding mechanisms that may be adopted, including formation of a community facility (Me11 6- R00s) district. o Consider implementation of a cooperative landbankmg program, through which the City would acquire sites for future schools and complementary facilities (e.g. adjoiningparks) 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 Option 1. o Construct two additional elementary school sites, one additional middle school site, one additional high schoo! site, and one additional continuation school site to meet the projected demand. i t Option 3 o The implications for Option 3 world be the same as those for Option 2. o Construct foiir additional elementary school sites, one additional middle school site, one additional high school site, and one additional continuation school site, to meet the projected demand. 5-22 e • • CHAPTER 9. Transportation • ' This section is based on information provided by TJE M Transportation Consultants. METHODOLOGY The future roadway needs of each of the GP options were developed using the same method. A Citywide computer-baed 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 land use option. The model that was developed used a proprietary software package known as MINUTP. MINUTP 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 faciiities, 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 Q. Laurence Mintier & Associates 1988). The circulation network for each option were provided by City of Lodi Public Works Department staff (Fernandez peis. comm.). The future circulation netwgrk for each land use option was determined by cot.ipari.!'the projecte.; da:,',) traffic, volurnes wah the capacities for various -oadwav types. The recommended capacities for various roadway types are shown in Table 9-1. The capacities shown in Table 9-1 represent two operating conditions: level of service (LOS) C and E. LOS is a measure of traffic operating conditions whereby letter grades A through F are assigned to a roadway segment and represent progressively congested traffic conditions. LOS C is the operating condition that City of Lodi Public Works Department staff have established as the criteria for acceptable traffic conditions. The future roadway network was established using LOS C capacities for various roadway types. 9-1 Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants'1988. 9-2 0 Table 9-1. Recommended Capacities for the Lodi General Plan Study Area Daily Oawacities Roadway Type LOS C LOS E Six- l aue Freeway 90,000 112;500 Four-Lane Freeway 60,000 :'-..75,000,_- - 75,000;_Six-Lane Six-LaneDivided Arterial 36,000 ° ' 451000 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 A29500 Two-Iane Residential 4;000 « 5,000 Two-Lane Freeway Ramp (New) One-Lane Freeway Ramp (New): 11,000 .15;000 One-Lane Freeway Ramp (Old) 9,000 12;000 p Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants'1988. 9-2 0 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 1 Implementation of Option 1 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 offour-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 1 are shown in Figure 9-1. The circulation network that would need to be developed to accommodate traffic volumes from buildout of Option 1 while maintaining LOS C is shown in Figure 9-2. Option 2 E 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 I 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 t from buildout of Option 2 while maintaining LOS C is shown in Figure 9-4. Option 3 I.mplerrnentation 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 limits. As shown in Table 9-2, Option 3 would require 10.9 miles cf two-lane arterials, 16.4 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 3 are shown in Figu-s 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 of the land use options should consider also the following recommendations: 9-3 9-4 Table 9-2. Comparison cf Road Miles by Arterial Tye ' 4. Road Miles 2-I:ane4Lane 4Lane 3 6 -Laney tion .. Ar '- ria dM ed Di ` ed Dnnd ' i . 1 13.7 6.6 8S 0 OEC 2.; 12.1. 10.0:. 3 10.9' 16.4 7.3 `2 0 :S T, t y. l: Source: T31NAl Transportation Cons iltants 1988. .. Note: Based on 1985 survey,vsnth five cities of approxunaiely the-sameziie fo ind i' Y _- onemaintenance person should be added for every.. 12..6 o� streets: .mules yr 'sx, f: t 9-4 FIGURE 9-1. DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (OPTION 1) $oYrt �'. TJMM Tr �n SDOIIlI�On COnfultlnrf 19(14 9-S rte. FIGURE C-2. FUTURE CIRCULATION NETWORK (OPTION 1) Source: TJKM Transoorraluon Cm summa 1966 FIGURE 9-3. DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (OPTION 2) So,,c , TJKM T,An%poflA!­ Cons,,.n, ISBN Q-7 FIGURE 9-4. FUTURE CIRCULATION NETWORK (OPTION 2) soo,c.: Ti -A hnnaportal,on con.wt­j, 1488 n _o E I 3 3 A 0 3800 10500 �13000 12w0 13000 —--------- o Lor[R 13800 ' 16000 1 1- G) _ ' m DI O O O ; o "Tl m ^ Y7u t P C x _ 1 N 9200 c -� i mG) _ 6400 19900 = a O P S P •+[ 3 YYiCNINl. .. s. a 20100 I 16[00 18300 "a 14600 16200 U 0 15300 O O � o !. 6300 9200 0 g 7900 5100 7— 7800—, 5700 4200 2500 V ; - ," v -- i—T—r�--�--- n—+ � i S tih u oo��• • iAVtr R t4CR4 [Nro 14000 0.0,0A 12700 YooON 1800 16400 16800 17100 '1 p - 0 RYTltO{t L C ST. L I • C O H w 7200 N O Cy p ALLEN ALLtN D O O O ^ SAC*,N[Ntp O y 12. O 9000 f. 7KRAYCMTO < -- 12000 • NIL L S 6200 AV{. .," - oQ 2200 a 6800 =:a2003000 A `.. C1,1110:0 ^ b CO'04'"T" AV . e ttOC11TOM. A ► o PACIFIC -t. so0 o+ o C ezoo w 3100 NAY LN. 12900 N I RAN LN. X w m O 15800 16100 x .- ! f 4 16100 NMMON _ :::1:3:100 /YRYONT ^ M. N , p GtNTRAI 15000 AV{' _ - i g 1100 'a O o CY 0 w 000 t. 1I00CRESCENT S [ Ct GRANT W{. u E y} 1800 2000 eN[Rottl m pRN1A r = i4 8 S p w GALT 0 600 0 A ' 2000 $ 10V '£fj� 7900 5100 7— R • l'n ; - ," v • yCNUNCN 5500GNURCII 1 4 '1 a 7200 N O SC -00L A300 u f. 7KRAYCMTO < • .," - oQ 2200 `.. ^ b S ...1500 •o•. o-. ttOC11TOM. N• o STOG[rp1 so0 9300 5900 uoo u ezoo w 3100 X w m O u § y x .- S O 00 ^ -♦ ^ GtNTRAI 15000 AV{' _ - i g SI S 6900 4900 _ 000 gX 4R OO 7700 NO[[[ LN eN[Rottl m 22000 21000:' 24200 oo i4 10 S 45 100 RY1N lCC8500 $ 10V '£fj� S N $ i 2004 1000 - 6600 - 22000 �"`�' — — --To — — �➢00 10 200 FIGURE 9-6. FUTURE CIRCULATION NETWORK (OPTION 3) SOUrC1. 'J.M C.Jnj.Jnt. t986 M U 2 0 Option 1 Develop a policy and fee schedule for funding improvements required for the circulation network based on fair share contributions from all new developments using.a trip end fee method or score other appropriate approach Coordinate with Caltrans and San Joaquin County Council of Governments for planning and implementing future interchange improvements that `would be necessary. 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 resukof buildout of the City of Lodi's adopted GP option. Coordinate with San Joaquin County Council of Governments, San" Joaquin County, and Caltrans forplanning and implementingmeasures to.reduce regional trips originating from Lodi, which include strategic placemenf of park and::=nde 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 • • CHAPT'rR 10. Bibliography REFERENCES CRIED 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"generall`plan options. Sacramento, CA. Prepared for: City of Lodi Community Development Department, Lodi, CA. Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 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 cf Lodi. (JSA 86- 101.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for: City of Lodi Community Development Department, Lodi, CA. Psomas and Associates. 1988. Unpublished data for future water system improvements for various land use options for the Lodi general plan update. Sacramento, CA. Prepared for: 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 COMMUNICATIONS 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. Hughes, Larry. Fire Chief. City of Lodi Fire Department, Lodi, CA. September 28,1988 meeting. Prima, Richard. Chief Civil Engineer. City of Lodi Public Works Department LoCA. August -November 1988 - telephone conversations, meetings. Schroeder, Jim Community Development Department. City of Lodi Community. Development Department, Lodi, CA. September -October 1988 - telephone conversations. Williams, Floyd Chief of Police. City of Lodi Police Department, Lod'CA. ° Septembet 28, 1988 meeting. Williamson, Ron. Director. City of Lodi Parks and Recreation Department, Lodi, CA. October 5 and 6, 1988 - telephone conversations. 10-2 • CHAPTER 11. Report Preparation This Options Asssessinent Report has been prepared by Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. under contract to the City of Lodi Coamiunity Development Department. The persons responsible for preparing this report are listed below. JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES, INC. JSA Management Team Ron Bass - Project Manager Francine Demos-Petropoulos - Project Coordinator JSA Technical Staff Erin Maclean - Law Enforcement, Fire Protection, and Pass and Recreation Valerie Rosenkrantz - Transportation Ira Saletan - Schools Roger Trott - Population and Employment JSA Production Staff Victoria Axiaq - Production Coordinator Ruth McRonald - Word Processor Jack Whelehan - Editor Ken McNeil - Editor3 Assistant Tony Rypich - Graphics J. LAURENCE MINTIER & ASSOCIATES Land Use and Housing J. Laurence Mintier Robert Lagomarsino BLACK & WATCH Sewerage 40 11-2 a « ?° \� > 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 long-term period. For a general plan to achieve its goals, the plan should be linked to economic and market realities. The timely development of lands designated by the general plan for certain uses will occur only if the urban land market can support it such development. This report provides an evaluation of the market demand for major land uses in the Lodi area over a 20 -year period from 1987 to 2007. The study is designed to provide market information and land absorption forecasts that will help guide the development of Lodi's General Plan Update. Evaluationswere 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 categorywas evaluatedbased 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 Plar. 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 homing stock to 2 percent (compounded) over the 20 -year period of analysis. o The City will allocate future housing permits so :hat 65 percent of all new housing is single-family and 35 percent is multifamily. o Average household size in Lodi will remain relatively stable over 20 years, decreasing by 3 percent. 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 peicent and per capita automobile sales decreasing by 10 percent. A-2 cKn:. ..., �.;3 `4.,..:y.- tsYlx�r'i°;:`'t,"'�ry.i"a'i...'i'iv'�1.:..•smn•..... ,. u The future demand for office space in Lodi will be generated by local office users. No regional office development will occur. r A-3 0