HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - August 15, 2012 G-01 PHAGENDA ITEM
CITY OF LODI
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing to Considerthe Following Actions:
A. Adopt Resolution Certifying the Negative Declaration as Adequate
Environmental Documentation for the Master Plans for Water, Wastewater,
Storm Drainage and Bicycle
B. Adopt Resolution Approving Master Plans for Water, Wastewater, Storm
Drainage and Bicycle; Approving Impact Mitigation Fee Program Report and
Schedule of Fees; and Approving Impact Mitigation Fee Program Schedule of
Reduced Fees
MEETING DATE: August 15, 2012
PREPARED BY: Public Works Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Public hearing to consider the following actions:
A. Adopt resolution certifying the negative declaration as adequate environmental documentation
for the master plans for water, wastewater, storm drainage and bicycle
B. Adopt resolution approving master plans for water, wastewater] storm drainage and bicycle;
approving Impact Mitigation Fee Program report and schedule of fees; and approving Impact
Mitigation Fee Program schedule of reduced fees
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 1991, City Council approved the Impact Mitigation Fee Program
(IMFP) that established impact fees in the categories of water,
wastewater, storm drainage, streets, police, fire, parks, and general
City facilities. An electric utility impact fee was established in 2007. Over the past 20 years, there have
been few major changes to the program, though minor updates were performed. Generally, the program
has been effective in delivering projects to serve the demand for facilities presented by new development.
The new General Plan for the City was adopted on April 7, 2010. It is the proper time to perform an
overhaul of the Impact Mitigation Fee Program. A number of General Plan policieswere adopted that
apply to the actions for consideration by the City Council as listed and paraphrased below:
A. GM -P1 1 — Prepare master plan documents as necessary during the planning period to
address the infrastructure needs of existing and projected growth, and to determine
appropriate infrastructure provision for each phase.
B. GM -P5 — Update impact fee system to balance the need to sufficiently fund needed facilities
and services without penalizing multifamily housing or infill development.
C. CD -P10 — Incentivize rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of buildings, especially east of the
railroad, particularly on Main and Stockton streets in the Downtown Mixed Use District]
through development review, permitting and fee processes.
D. CD -P12 — Provide incentives, through the development review, permitting and fee processes,
to redevelop underutilized properties located within the Mixed Use Corridors.
E. CD -P24 — Use bike lanes, trails, or linear parkways to improve connectivity throughout the
City and, in particular, between housing located south of Kettleman Lane and amenities north
of Kettleman Lane. These pathways should employ easy and safe crossings and connect to
destinations such as Downtown, shopping centers, and/or schools.
APPROVED:
Konya artlam, City Manager
KAWP\IMFees\2011 IMFUpdate\Council Communications\CPHIMFUpdate.doc 8/1/2012
Public Hearing to Considerthe Following Actions:
A. Adopt Resolution Certifying the Negative Declaration as Adequate Environmental Documentation for
the Master Plans for Water, Wastewater, Storm Drainage and Bicycle
B. Adopt Resolution Approving Master Plans for Water, Wastewater, Storm Drainage and Bicycle;
Approving Impact Mitigation Fee Program Report and Schedule of Fees; and Approving Impact
Mitigation Fee Program Schedule of Reduced Fees
August 15, 2012
Page 2
Master plans for water, wastewater, storm drainage and bicycle infrastructure have been prepared in
conjunction with the IMFP. The General Plan identified conceptual master plans for transportation and
parks that have been incorporated into the identification of projects in these two areas needed to serve
future development.
An initial study/mitigated negative declaration (IS/MND) for the master plans for water, wastewater, storm
drainage and bicycle infrastructure has been prepared and distributed for public comment by the
Community Development Department. The significance determination reached after analyzing the
impacts of the project consisting of the four infrastructure master plans has been "less than significant" or
"no impact" for all four master plans.
The IMFP report and fee schedules provided as Exhibit 1 presents details regarding the assumptions,
methodologies, facilities standards, projects, costs, and cost allocation factors used to establish the
nexus between the fees and the development upon which the fees will be levied. A schedule of impact
fees for each land use type is included in the report. The Technical Appendix to the IMFP report includes
the detailed project descriptions, cost estimates, cost allocation factors and fee calculations and is on file
at the Public Works Department. The IMFP report and fee schedules have been distributed to
representatives of the building community and others that expressed interest in the project. A copy of the
IMFP report and fee schedules is available at the PublicWorks Department and on the City's website. A
summary of the significant changes from the existing IMFP incorporated are presented below.
1. There will no longer be a reimbursementby IMFPfor oversized pipe. Reimbursement will be
secured via a City Council approved reimbursement agreement amongst the benefitting
properties.
2. The existing storm drainage fee zone has been divided into two zones as presented in
Exhibit 2. Zone 1 comprises the existing developed areas of the City that contains some
vacant parcels. Zone 2 is that mostly -undeveloped area south of the Woodbridge Irrigation
District canal and west of Lower Sacramento Road and outside the current City limits. The
vacant property in this area that is already annexed to the City is planned to construct its own
storm drainage facilities and, therefore, will not be subject to a storm drainage impact fee.
3. Water and wastewater treatment capacity charges will be based upon the size of the water
meter needed to serve the property.
4. New developments will be responsiblefor constructing one-half of the fronting road
improvements. IMFPwill be responsiblefor constructing median improvements along
Harney Lane, Hutchins Street and Kettleman Lane.
5. Electric Utility capacity charges will be based upon the panel size serving the property and will
apply to all incorporated areas of the City.
6. New developments will be responsiblefor constructing neighborhood parks. IMFP will be
responsiblefor constructing community and regional park facilities.
7. Residential IMFPfees will be based upon dwelling unit equivalents (DUE). One DUE equals
the demand for service represented by a single-family low-density residential unit.
8. Nonresidential IMF fees will be based upon building square feet, except for storm drainage
that will be based upon the acreage of the project.
9. Limited exceptionsfor nonresidential transportation IMFPfees will be allowed, as determined
by the Public Works Director, based upon demonstrated significant deviation from IMFP
assumptionsfor employee density and trip generation.
10.Art in Public Places IMFPfee will be a stand-alonefee.
K:\WP\IMFees\2011 IMF Update\Council Communications\CPHIMFUpdate.doc 8/112012
Public Hearing to Considerthe Following Actions:
A. Adopt Resolution Certifying the Negative Declaration as Adequate Environmental Documentation for
the Master Plans for Water, Wastewater, Storm Drainage and Bicycle
B. Adopt Resolution Approving Master Plans for Water, Wastewater, Storm Drainage and Bicycle;
Approving Impact Mitigation Fee Program Report and Schedule of Fees; and Approving Impact
Mitigation Fee Program Schedule of Reduced Fees
August 15,2012
Page 3
Preparation of the IMFP report and fee scheduleswas a 24 -month collaborative effort between the
City Council, staff and the development community. Five Shirtsleeve Session presentations were made
to the City Council. Fourteen meetings were held with the project team, including staff, consultants and
the development community. Five of those meetings were focused on determining the assumptions,
objectives, and scope of work needed to complete the update to the existing IMFP. These occurred prior
to award of the consulting contract to Harris & Associates, the project engineering and planning
consultant. Nine additional meetingsfocused on the step-by-step development of project descriptions,
costs analyses, nexus relationships and fee calculations.
The IMFP Report and fee schedules provided in Exhibit 1 are recommended for adoption by resolution.
The schedule of fees would become effective January 1,2020. It is not recommended that an indexing
factor be applied to this schedule of fees during the period from adoption to initiation. It is recommended
that the mandated regular update to the IMFP be completed and ready for adoption shortly after
January 1,2020.
At the request of the building community staff has agreed to recommend to the City Council a schedule of
reduced IMFPfees and conditionsas presented in Exhibit3 thatwill be in effect until December31, 2019.
The objective of the reduced fee is to financially incentivize the development of new residential housing
units in all density categories. Representatives of the building community requestedthis reduction as part
of three -pronged effort to reduce building costs in Lodi. This schedule of reduced fees applies only to
residential land uses and represents an approximate 60 percent reduction to the fees summarized in
Exhibit 4. The total IMFPfees for a single family detached low density residential unit will be reduced from
$14,590 to $5,940. The fees will not be subject to indexed increases for the seven-year life of the reduced
fee schedule.
Revenue diversion associated with the reduced fee schedule, based upon the development forecast
presented on page 8 of Exhibit 1, could be up to $7,534,000. However, based upon current assessments
of market conditions and the slow recovery from the Great Recession, revenue diversion will probably be
closerto $4,000,000. The total value of the capital improvements in the IMFP is $93,900,000.
A public hearing will be conducted at this time to receive public comment on the infrastructure master
plans, the IS/MND and the IMFP report. Council approval of the master plans, IMFP report and IMFP
schedules of fees will lead to the introduction of various Lodi Municipal Code amendments needed to
implementthe IMFP.
FISCAL IMPACT: IMFP revenues support the implementation of infrastructureto serve new
development without which other City revenues would be utilized.
FUNDING AVAILABLE: Not applicable.
F. Wally S delin
PublicWorks Director
FWS/pmf
Attachments
K:\WP\IMFees\2011 IMF Update\Council Communications\CPHIMFUpdate.doc
811/2012
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
City of Lodi Master Plans
Draft
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
For
CITY OF LODI MASTER PLANS
June 2012
Prepared by the City of Lodi
Department of Public Works
221 West Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
SCH# 2012062045
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section1: Introduction...................................................................................................................1-1
1.2 -Lead Agency...............................................................................................................1-1
Aesthetics....................................................................................................................4-1
1.3 - Purpose and Document Organization.....................................................................1-2
4.2
1.4 - Incorporation by Reference.......................................................................................1-2
Section2: Project Title....................................................................................................................2-1
Air Quality..................................................................................................................4-9
2.1 - Lead Agency Name and Addess..............................................................................2-1
4.4
2.2 - Contact Persons..........................................................................................................2-1
2.3 - Project Sponsor's Name and Address.....................................................................2-1
Biological Resources................................................................................................4-19
2.4 - Project Description.....................................................................................................2-1
2.5 - General Plan Designations........................................................................................2-1
Cultural Resources..................................................................................................4-27
2.6 - Zoning Desingation...................................................................................................2-1
2.7 - Other Agencies' Approvals.......................................................................................2-1
2.8 - Other Project Assumption.........................................................................................2-1
2.9 - Project Background...................................................................................................2-2
2.10 - Project Location........................................................................................................2-2
2.11 - Plan Area Boundaries and Context........................................................................2-3
2.12 - Project Description................................................................................................2-13
Wastewater Master Plan......................................................................................2-13
WaterPlan............................................................................................................2-17
StormMaster Plan...............................................................................................2-27
BicycleMaster Plan....................................................................................
2-35
Section3: Environmental Determination...................................................................................... 3
3.1- Environmental Factors Potentially Affected...........................................................3-1
3.2 - Environemntal Determination..................................................................................3-1
3.3 - Notice of Availability and Notice to Adopt a Negative Declaration ...................3-3
3.4 - Proposed Negative Declaration................................................................................3-5
Section4: Discussion of Environmental Evaluation....................................................................4
4.1
Aesthetics....................................................................................................................4-1
4.2
Agricultural Resources.............................................................................................4-5
4.3
Air Quality..................................................................................................................4-9
4.4
Greenhosue Gas Emissions....................................................................................4-15
4.5.
Biological Resources................................................................................................4-19
4-6
Cultural Resources..................................................................................................4-27
4-7
Geology and Soils....................................................................................................4-31
4.8
Hazards and Hazardous Materials.......................................................................4-37
Figure2-4: Aerial Diagram...........................................................................................................2-11
4.9
Hydrology and Water Quality...............................................................................4-43
4.10
Land Use and Planning...........................................................................................4-49
Figure 2-7: General Plan Development Phases.........................................................................2-21
4.11
Mineral Resources...................................................................................................4-53
4.12
Noise..........................................................................................................................4-55
Figure 2-10: Existing Bike Routes................................................................................................2-38
4.13
Population and Housing.........................................................................................4-63
4.14
Public Services..........................................................................................................4-65
4.15
Recreation.................................................................................................................4-73
4.16
Transportation/ Traffic ............................................................................................4-75
4.17
Utilities and Service Systems.................................................................................4-79
4.18
Mandatory Findings of Significance.....................................................................4-85
Section 5: Dicuments Referenced.................................................................................................5-1
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Figure2-1: Regional Map................................................................................................................2-5
Figure2-2: Master Plans Study Area.............................................................................................2-7
Figure 2-3: General Plan Land Use Diagram...............................................................................2-9
Figure2-4: Aerial Diagram...........................................................................................................2-11
Figure 2-5: Wastewater Collection System................................................................................2-15
Figure 2-6: Water Master Plan Service Area..............................................................................2-19
Figure 2-7: General Plan Development Phases.........................................................................2-21
Figure 2-8: Water Distribution System.......................................................................................2-23
Figure 2-9: Storm Drain Planning Area......................................................................................2-29
Figure 2-10: Existing Bike Routes................................................................................................2-38
Figure 2-11: Bikeway Facility Type.............................................................................................2-39
Figure 2-12: Proposed Bike Routes..............................................................................................2-40
This document is divided into the following sections:
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This section provides an introduction and describes the purpose and organization of this
document.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This section provides a detailed description of the proposed project and any alternatives
considered.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
This section provides a summary of environmental factors that would be would be
potentially affected by this project as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
4.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
This section describes the environmental setting for each of the environmental subject
areas, evaluates a range of impacts classified as "no impact", "less than significant
impact", "less than significant with mitigation incorporated", or "potentially significant"
in response to the environmental checklist, and provides mitigation measures, where
appropriate, to mitigate potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level;
and provides an environmental determination of the project.
5.0 DOCUMENTS REFERENCED
This section provides a summary of mitigation measures for the proposed project.
Section 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 -INTRODUCTION AND REGULATORY GUIDANCE
This document is an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the
City of Lodi Master Plans. The City of Lodi has prepared a Wastewater Collection
System Master Plan, Water Distribution System Master Plan, Storm Drainage System
Master Plan and Bicycle Master Plan, which together make up the City's Master
Plans (Master Plans). The Master Plans were prepared and developed consistent
with the recently adopted 2010 General Plan. Pursuant to Section 15152 of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, this Initial Study is tiered
from the City of Lodi 2010 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (General Plan
EIR) (State Clearinghouse Number 2009022075).
Under CEQA, tiering refers to the use of analysis contained in previously certified,
broad -level Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) (often programmatic EIRs) to
support or complement project -specific EIRs or IS/NDs.1 CEQA Guidelines
encourage the use of tiered environmental documents to reduce delays and excessive
paperwork in the environmental review process. This is accomplished in tiered
documents by eliminating repetitive analyses of issues that were adequately
addressed in the Program EIR and by incorporating those analyses by reference.
Impacts only need to be analyzed in more detail in the Initial Study if they were not
examined in the prior EIR or if findings were not adopted for significant,
unavoidable impacts.
It is important to note that none of the Master Plans include design -level details for
any single infrastructure improvement project; therefore, while the aim of this Initial
Study analysis is to comprehensively evaluate the potential environmental impacts
resulting from implementation of the Master Plans, this analysis must necessarily be
carried out at a program -level. No construction activity would be authorized
pursuant to this IS/ND.
1.2 - LEAD AGENCY
The lead agency is the public agency with primary responsibility over a proposed
project. Where two or more public agencies will be involved with a project, CEQA
Guidelines Section 15051 provides criteria for identifying the lead agency. In
accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15051(b)(1), "The lead agency will
normally be the agency with general governmental powers rather than an agency
with a single or limited purpose." In addition, Section 15051(c) states "where more
than one public agency equally meet the criteria in subdivision (b), the agency which
will act first on the project in question shall be the lead agency". The City Public
Works Department has initiated separate comprehensive master plans consistent
with the directives in the recently adopted General Plan: a Wastewater Master Plan,
a Water Master Plan, a Storm Drainage Master Plan; and Bicycle Master Plan.
1 California Association of Environmental Professionals, 2012, CEQA Statute and Guidelines.
1-1
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2012
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Therefore, based on the criteria described above, the lead agency for the proposed
project is the City of Lodi, Public Works Department.
1.3 - PURPOSE AND DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
The purpose of this Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration (IS/ND) is to
identify the potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated
with the proposed compressive Master Plans. Pursuant to Section 15367 of the
CEQA Guidelines, the City is the Lead Agency in the preparation of this IS/ND, and
any additional environmental documentation required for the project. The intended
use of this document is to provide information to support conclusions regarding the
potential environmental impacts of the project. The IS/ND provides the basis for
input from public agencies, organizations, and interested members of the public.
This Initial Study is organized into the following chapters:
Section 1: Introduction. This chapter provides an introduction and overview of the
Initial Study document.
Section 2: Project Description. This chapter describes the location and setting of the
proposed master plans, along with the principal components of the project
boundaries and its relations to the City's recently adopted General Plan. The chapter
also describes the policy setting and implementation process. In addition, This
chapter summarizes pertinent project details, including lead agency contact
information, project location, and General Plan and Zoning designations.
Section 3: Environmental Determination. This chapter summarizes environmental
factors potentially affected by this project and the City's environmental
determination.
Section 4: Environmental Checklist and Findings. Making use of the CEQA
Appendix G Environmental Checklist, this chapter identifies and discusses
anticipated impacts from the proposed Master Plans, providing substantiation of the
findings made. The chapter concludes with the determination, based on the analysis
contained in this Initial Study, that a Negative Declaration is appropriate for the
proposed Master Plans.
Chapter 5: References. This chapter provides a list of documents used in the project.
1.4 - INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
The references outlined below were utilized during preparation of this Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. The documents are available for public
review at the addresses listed below. All City of Lodi documents are available at City
of Lodi, Community Development Department, located at 221 West Pine Street,
California 95240.
1-2
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2012
i Ki] I I, k I:Z•l millet I Eel
• City of Lodi General Plan 2010. State law requires every city and county to adopt
a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of that
city and county. The City of Lodi General Plan, adopted April 2010, contains
goals, policies, and programs which are intended to guide land use and
development decisions for the next twenty years. The General Plan consists of
eight elements, or chapters, which together fulfill the requirements for a general
plan. The General Plan chapter include the Land Use; Growth Management and
Infrastructure; Community Design and Livability; Transportation; Parks,
Recreation and Open Space; Conservation; Safety, and Noise Elements.
• City of Lodi General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, February 2010.
The City of Lodi General Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report (General Plan
FEIR), SCH2O09022075, is intended to provide information to public agencies and
the general public regarding the potential environmental impacts related to
implementation of the City of Lodi General Plan. The purpose of the EIR is "to
identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, to identify
alternatives to the project and to indicate the manner in which significant
impacts can be mitigated or avoided."
• City of Lodi General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, November 2009.
The City of Lodi, Pubic Review Draft General Plan Environmental Impact Report,
SCH2O09022075, is a first-tier evaluation of the environmental effects associated
with the adoption of the updated City of Lodi General Plan.
• The San Toaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space
Plan (STMSCP)2000. The City of Lodi adopted the SJMSCP in 2001, and projects
under the jurisdiction of the City can seek coverage under the plan. The
proposed project is consistent with the SJMSCP, as amended, as reflected in the
conditions of project approval for this proposal. Pursuant to the Final EIR/EIS
for the SJMSCP, dated November 15, 2000, and certified by the San Joaquin
Council of Governments on December 7, 2000, implementation of the SJMSCP is
expected to reduce impacts to biological resources resulting from the proposed
project to a level of less -than -significant. That document is hereby incorporated
by reference and is available for review during regular business hours at the San
Joaquin Council of Governments (555 E. Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202) or
online at: ww.sicoq.orq.
• City of Lodi Municipal Code. The City of Lodi Zoning Code is contained in
Chapter 17 of the Lodi Municipal Code (LMC) and represents the minimum
requirement for the promotion of public safety, health, convenience, comfort,
prosperity or general welfare.
1-3
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2012
Section 2
2.1 - PROJECT TITLE:
City of Lodi Master Plans
2.2 - LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS:
City of Lodi, Public Works Department
221 West Pine Street
Lodi, CA 9540
2.3 - CONTACT PERSONS:
Environmental document:
Project Coordinators:
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Manny Bereket: 209-333-6711
Wally Sandelin: 209-333-6709
Chris Boyer: 209-333-6706
2.4 - PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS:
City of Lodi Public Works Department
221 W. Pine Street
Lodi CA 95240
2.5 - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS:
The Water, Wastewater, Stormwater and Bicycle Master Plan area include various
General Plan land use designations.
2.6 - ZONING DESIGNATIONS:
The Water, Wastewater, Stormwater and Bicycle Master Plan area include various
zoning designations.
2.7 - OTHER AGENCIES' APPROVALS:
None at this time. However, eventual construction of the Master Plan could
involve various public agency approvals, depending upon the improvement
project in question, such as the California Department of Fish and Game, Regional
Water Quality Control Board, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District,
Caltrans District 10, San Joaquin Council of Government (SCOG, Inc.), etc.
2.8 - OTHER PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS:
This IS/ND assumes compliance with all applicable state, federal, and local codes
and regulations including, but not limited to, City of Lodi Standards, the Guidance
2-1
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2012
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Manual for On-site Storm Water Quality Control Measures, the State Health and
Safety Code, and the State Public Resources Code.
2.9 - PROJECT BACKGROUND
The City of Lodi adopted its current General Plan in April of 2010. The General
Plan is the City's vision for how to accommodate anticipated growth within the
next 20 to 30 years. The City of Lodi currently provides services to approximately
8,911.55 acres. According to the 2010 General Plan 2010, the service area will
increase to approximately 10,623 acres of land (16.6 square miles) at full buildout
of the General Plan boundaries. Low Density Residential will continue to represent
the largest land use category in the City and will make up approximately 33
percent of the total acreage at buildout.
In order to meet the increased demand for the newly proposed service area, the
City of Lodi has prepared a Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, Water
Distribution System Master Plan, Storm Drainage System Master Plan, and a
Bicycle Master Plan, which together make up the City's Master Plans. The Master
Plans are initiatives identified in the City's recently adopted 2010 General Plan. In
order to provide for a thematically and geographically comprehensive analysis of
the Master Plans, potential environmental impacts associated with the Master
Plans are analyzed at a program level within this Initial Study. There is no
construction activities associated with the Master Plans.
The City Planning Department will review all future projects within the Master
Plans on a case-by-case basis environmental review under CEQA. Environmental
analysis of the various plans in one document provides for efficiencies in
environmental review for the City, allowing resources to be directed to other areas.
This analysis uses the established policies in the City's 2010 General Plan. To be
sure, the City will conduct specific analyses of future infrastructure project designs
and locations to determine what mitigation measures, if any, would be required to
fully mitigate each project's impacts. Should the City identify any infrastructure
projects that significantly differ from those anticipated in this IS/MND,
subsequent environmental review may be required to determine if additional
mitigation measures are warranted.
2.10 - PROJECT LOCATION
Lodi is situated in the San Joaquin Valley between Stockton, 6 miles to the south;
Sacramento, thirty-five miles to the north; and along State Route (SR) 99. The City
is located on the main line of the Union Pacific Railroad and is within 5 miles of I-5
via SR -12. The regional is depicted in Figure 2.1, Regional Location Map.
2-2
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2012
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Mokelumne River forms the northern edge of the city; Harney and Hogan lane
southern edge. The Central California Traction Line (CCT) railroad (north of
Kettleman Lane) and SR -99 (south of Kettleman Lane) form the eastern boundary.
The western boundary extends approximately one-half mile west of Lower
Sacramento Road. Lodi (exclusive of White Slough Water Pollution Control
Facility) encompasses an area of 12.3 square miles. Figure 2 - 1: Regional Map
illustrates the City's location in regional context.
2.11 - PLAN AREA BOUNDARIES AND CONTEXT
The Lodi Planning Area covers 79.4 square miles, or 50,827 acres. The Planning
Area includes all land within the existing city limits and Sphere of Influence (SOI),
plus adjacent areas that are physically or visually related to the city. The Planning
Area boundaries are formed by natural features, roads, and City of Stockton
boundaries. This land area is dominated by vineyards and agriculture. The Master
Plan area corresponds to the City of Lodi Sphere of Influence (SOI). The SOI is
depicted in Figure 2 -2: Master Plans Study Area.
Adoption and Implementation of the Master Plans
The proposed Master Plans divide the Master Plan area (project limits) into three
quadrants to promote orderly development efforts by quadrant to implement the
General Plan Policies and Goals address compatibility with surrounding uses, and
establish specific development standards and design guidelines the planning area
(see Figure 2-3: General Plan Land Use Diagram). An aerial diagram of the
planning area is depicted on Figure 2-4: Aerial Diagram.
Quadrant 1: Quadrant 1 represents areas within and outside of the City limits. The
part that is within the City limits is partially developed. The area outside of the
City limits is agricultural fields and is not currently served by the City. The areas
outside of the City limits are within the City's Planning Boundaries and Sphere of
Influence.
Quadrant 2: Quadrant 2 is envisioned as future growth of the City to the south and
a small patch area on the eastern part of the city. The General Plan growth
envisions residential developments integrated into mixed use development
projects or operate independently as standalone developments. Community
commercial centers are encouraged in Quadrant 2 to provide neighborhood -
serving uses such as markets, coffee shops, art studios, and professional offices.
Proximity of different uses will help to reduce vehicular traffic by integrating
residential and commercial uses and promote pedestrian activity.
Quadrant 3: Quadrant 3 comprises of the Bicycle Master Plan area and includes the
area within the City of Lodi s jurisdictional boundaries.
2-3
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2012
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2012
2-4
^ r� t ' cryw .-}. {;,_'' { ',��� r 'k v I � ti� � � ' � - .-"wc =�`+•� f�i:l1���4 �'bS �} yy 'r�
}: �FF��= I� . - es�TSi� '�• 'r{+; ,- �.� ; � ' j IIS _ 'ter- - ,� • - � ..
- •..�'� w �;r,, . aL - by,,(�. -`���''11�,,, _
+5� r
t'"���._,;•_ . �=• j>�� � '�.�• wax,, �� � 4 .. � • T�!� �, .
ILI
•ate �`y .S: ++
,�,'r• .., - . �- ��,.._x:^.v,iu, ,;`_�.'' ry' S ' 1-yTaj `. • •r �+- _ Yti, ._�.. ..�: �
n
"o F" „`�.:. Y:� _ �'.., ,-�� 7 y .r•. �' •`�y,7 ��.' ��J '•J _�,:• + ,,5• .��` � �` �t:i qF, ,.
� _ if�� � _ ..gyp �, _• p�j yx �" _ :.� ;, � � ��', - - ,,rA -a-•��
.� f! Ali ••.Y .�•. .� I �. �W r.., � S }::: � � _ r
v �, ��'.•� '[ r.. �:.�'' ° r ' L _� , .'tel :-z�°'`}'�. � .,a' i�r--. v-:• � .� f � '- L N ' 71
,.,w-..��*h.:Y - -`"' -Y'1' .T� r.xr •1K }'may x. i.,':: -.._ r
~'�y''• 1. _ .: w• ;:r r,` f- �a'=..' }7,-t•. •,y�•,.�,n f. tee.. 4
_ ;: >�'�Tyr.�.�..�r.fi'd:'Yii...'..rF �• �� �`"+A;l�`�1 '4 �..F,� 'S II�'a f'r`r`�� .�4�' � +'Sr � -:r. �
Al
vy. 5:-«r 7 t'�' it.Y{F.-' rP! _ �c�x.. 'Y� � Y.:•; ;s,• , A�.:.- :��.s.e,.�l .'� ..Y� 'L
Left blank intentionally
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2012
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2-6
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
_Lhl�dll
A.
1` L71--
A
-n
J
r
CID
IiiI
44-Avo
LMW�T .89M.�
El,
1; W
L
14,4.fi2" Si. u
II I I- I ClrurCh,yry. ChleYC4 5t. ��� 's ,I� =- �� � FI-.
:3
dim 5
I CIL
00 Rl ,a k- Ln
CL
CD
V
L
V)
o CD old w
_j
.7;
7.
2-7
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2012
Left blank intentionally
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2012
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Left blank intentionally
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2012
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
21 10
=..y<.;%Figure 2-4: Aerial Diagram
41
14
IL J
.� .. r. •���..._, _ .`'y',I, [Yrs :I'., .+y!,�..I' ='4 a •:' ■ _ sr ` �..
1I, g
1i lF ' _ _ .. _" • .. ' - .I IMI i1, • * ' ryYy
L
` � r. • _ ' SBI I � ... 41v!: i �yj',. �; S I •i
..,�, f,.... � .�.ry �-. _,.. •. =� ? '. � � 'x`52 i'. �••I
fl. ��' :I:•' ��.;'A_ Ij J�. it t. ..i :J.:... ' �'
1 • �s � x S : :; �::ry� �Y � �I�• .,� fir, _Legend
�P NOW.,Planning Area
nR.
xxx X,LI.
Left blank intentionally
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2012
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2 1 12
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.12 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As previously mentioned, the City of Lodi has prepared four separate
comprehensive Master Plans consistent with the directives outlined in the recently
adopted General Plan: a Wastewater Master Plan, a Water Master Plan, a Storm
Drainage Master Plan, and a Bicycle Master Plan. The 2010 General Plan identifies
areas to be developed within and outside of the city through the year 2030. The
General Plan specifies in Section 3 - Growth Management and Infrastructure, GM -
P11, that the City "prepare Master Plan documents as necessary during the
planning period to address the infrastructure needs of existing and projected
growth, and to determine appropriate infrastructure provisions for each phase."
The Master Plans are policy -level, City -initiated plans and do not authorize any
specific development or construction projects. In order to provide for a
thematically and geographically comprehensive analysis of the Master Plans,
potential environmental impacts associated with both plans are analyzed at a
"program" level within this Initial Study. Future development projects will be
required to receive City approval and conduct appropriate environmental review
on project -by -project basis. The comprehensive Master Plans provide guidance for
implementing development within the project limits. The Master Plans set forth
implementation action plans that identify near and long term actions necessary to
achieve orderly development as envisioned by the City's General Plan. The
anticipated horizon year for the Master Plans correlate to the General Plan (2030).
The Master Plans, its relationship to the General Plan, and other related actions are
discussed in more detail below.
WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN
The City owns and operates the WSWPCF. The wastewater treatment facility has a
current average dry weather flow capacity of 8.5 million gallons per day (mgd).
Current dry weather flow is approximately 5.7 mgd. The wastewater treatment
facility was originally constructed in 1966 with a capacity of 5.8 mgd. In the late
1980's and early 1990's the City expanded the treatment capacity to 6.3 mgd, and
also improved the level of treatment. Between 2003 and 2009 the City again
expanded the treatment capacity to the current 8.5 mgd and added tertiary
treatment and ultraviolet light disinfection improvements. In conjunction with the
2007 improvements to the WSWPCF, the 48 -inch trunk line from the City limits to
the treatment plant influent headworks was lined, thereby reducing it effective
diameter to 42 -inches.
The City's wastewater system currently consist of about 191 miles of collection
system pipelines ranging in sizes from 4 to 42 inches in diameter, with 6 inches
being the predominant size (see Figure 2-5: Wastewater Collection System). The
pipelines discharge into a 48 -inch sewer outfall trunk line that flows southwest to
2-13
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2012
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
the City's White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility (WSWPCF). The 48 -inch
outfall trunk line was originally constructed of concrete material and was lined
with a dual wall PVC slip -line pipe material in 2008, reducing its diameter to 42
inches. There are six trunk sewers (Hutchins Street, Mills Avenue, Ham Lane,
Lower Sacramento Road, Stockton Street/ Washington Street, Beckman Road)
serving the city that generally flow from the north to the south. The six trunk
pipelines connect to the Century Boulevard Trunk Line that flows east to west, and
into a 42 inch outfall trunk line to the White Slough.
The Wastewater Master Plan was prepared in April of 2012. Utilizing the proposed
land uses and buildout scenario of the 2030 General Plan, sewer generation
estimations were developed for the various land uses, including volume and
characteristic flows. The sewer generation estimates would be used to adequately
size and maintain sewer system facilities. The current wastewater treatment facility
is anticipated to meet the needs of new development through 2035. No additional
expansion of the treatment plant is planned at this time.
The proposed Wastewater Collection System Master Plan identifies two new trunk
lines to be added to the existing wastewater system. One of the two trunk lines will
flow from the east to the west and will be located along the southern boundaries of
the General Plan limits. The trunk line will extend one-half mile east of State Route
99, westward to Lower Sacramento Road, north along Lower Sacramento
Road/Extension Road and west along Harney Lane to Davis Road where the trunk
line will connect to the existing 42 inch outfall trunk line. A second trunk line will
flow from the north to the south along the western boundaries of the City limits.
The trunk line will extend from north of Lodi Avenue and south along Westgate
Drive and connect into the 42 -inch outfall trunk line south of Kettleman Lane. The
wastewater collection system network is illustrated in Figure 2-5.
There are five lift stations, Evergreen Pump Station, Woodlake Pump Station,
Rivergate Pump Station, Mokelumne Pump Station and Cluff Pump Station
located in the northern area of the city, and two lift stations, Tienda Pump Station
and Harney Lane Pump Station located in the southern area of the City.
2-14
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2012
i.,
N.. -
-ohms III
P--.•i.. i— _ gip: _
....MINIM ...... '_:; :;i �■ :.: _ � ..
■■� ��'�e�,i ?M?�:.. .:, ,:= ::.I-..., C[.
Vt
•oil
_:
,.�: •ti■■• .'
._4.'IV
'I;=. ISS? `=r.iLi! a ■R
Ag,L:-
l.�
cm
�r I� p .
■■0�_�
Left blank intentionally
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2012
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2-16
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
WATER MASTER PLAN
The Water Distribution System Master Plan was also prepared in April of 2012.
The 2010 General Plan specifies in Section 3 - Growth Management and
Infrastructure, GM -P11, that the City "prepare master plan documents as
necessary during the planning period to address the infrastructure needs of
existing and projected growth, and to determine appropriate infrastructure
provisions for each phase." The proposed Water Master Plan analyzed the
groundwater pumping and distribution system to provide service to the study
area. The study area for the 2012 Water Master Plan coincides with the General
Plan limits for Phases 1 and 2 developments, adding approximately 1,581 acres to
the service area. The boundaries of the 2012 Water Master Plan are shown in
Figure 2-6: Distribution System Map. General Plan development phases are shown
on map Figure 2-7: General Plan Development Phases Map. This map establishes
the correlation between the Master Plans and the General Plan. The area south of
Kettleman Lane and east of SR 99 is not part of the proposed water study area.
2-17
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2012
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2-18
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2012
aim
man
T
W,
Left blank intentionally
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2012
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2-20
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
I
2-21
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2012
Left blank intentionally
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2012
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2-22
r r
}
1� ■ �;
110,
F # 4
Y �4�
..-r
:I F I
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2012
J
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2-23
7
DIM
L
im
1
E
I
■��
2-23
Left blank intentionally
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2012
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2-24
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City currently utilizes groundwater as its sole source of supply. Current water
infrastructure includes a 240 -mile grid network of 6, 8,10,12 and 14 -inch diameter
mains, two water storage tanks with a combined storage capacity of 1.1 million
gallons, and a total of 28 groundwater wells spaced at half -mile intervals
throughout the City. The capacity of the wells ranges from 1.2 to 3.0 million
gallons per day (mgd) and the total capacity of the 28 existing wells is 54 mgd.
Among the 28 existing wells, only 14 wells currently have standby chlorination
equipment. The groundwater is normally not chlorinated in the distribution
system.
The City plans to maintain its groundwater pumping at a sustainable yield in the
future. A safe yield of approximately 15,000 AFY has been estimated for the
aquifer serving Lodi based on water balance calculations performed using data
primarily from the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Management Plan. This safe
yield estimate reflects an acreage -based relationship. Therefore, as the City's land
area increases, the estimated safe yield of the underlying aquifer will likely
increase. The safe yield estimate will be revisited if additional studies are
completed revising the safe yield of the basin. The 2010 City of Lodi Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP) has assumed 15,000 AFY or 2.3 acre-feet per acre as the
amount of groundwater available during all future (post -2005) years.
In addition, the City entered into an agreement with Woodbridge Irrigation
District (WID) in 2003 to purchase 6,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) of surface water
for a period of 40 years. The water will be diverted at Woodbridge Dam. The City
is constructing a water treatment facility necessary to treat and deliver drinking
water from this source. Construction is expected to be completed in Fall of 2012.
Ultimately, the nominal capacity of the plant is 8 million gallons per day while the
peak capacity is 10 million gallons per day. On January 16, 2008, the agreement
was amended by extending the term of the agreement by 4 years to 2047 and
allowing a total of 42,000 acre feet of water to be banked for future use. The
average annual delivery of surface water to the City would be 7,200 acre feet per
year or 2.345 billion gallons per year.
Table 2-1: CURRENT AND PLANNED WATER SUPPLIES
Source 2005 2010
2015 2020
2025
Groundwater, 17,300 15,000
AFY
15,000 15,000
15,000
WID Contract, 0 7,200
AFY
7,200 7,200
7,200
Totals AFY 17,300 22,200
22,200 22,200
22,200
Recycled water used for irrigation not included.
Source: Urban Water Management Plan, 2010
2-25
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2012
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City is in the process of installing water meters on all unmetered water
services. In 2010, the City reviewed the water use characteristics of about 3,000
metered residential accounts. This occurred prior to the implementation of new
metered water rates. That analysis of usage indicated that single family residences
used an average of about 22 hundred cubic feet (CCF) per month, which is
equivalent to nearly 550 gallons per day (gpd).
According to the Master Plan, the combination of required water efficient
plumbing fixtures, citywide metering, and billing for water and wastewater service
on actual usage will result in a reduction in single family water demands to about
500 gpd (20 CCF per month or 0.56 AF per year). This is a 10 percent reduction in
single family water demand.
The Water Distribution System Master Plan identifies new wells south of Harney
Lane, 1.5MG storage tank on Kettleman Ln., and a 36" transmission line on Mills
Avenue and Lodi Avenue as shown on the Figure 2-6: Water Master Plan Service
Area. The locations of the new wells and storage tank are based on the projected
peak hour demand deficiencies. A total of 31 wells and the surface water treatment
facilities will be required to meet the City's water demands thru the year 2035.
2-26
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2012
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
The Storm Drainage System Master Plan was prepared concurrently with the
Wastewater Collection System, Water Distribution System Master Plan, and
Bicycle Master Plan in April of 2012. Currently, the City maintains a network of
conveyance pipelines and storm pump stations with storage basins located around
the City. The basins are interconnected with adjacent drainage areas so that the
disposal of nuisance waters and moderate storm water runoff could be
accomplished by gravity flow to storm pump stations with ultimate disposal to the
Mokelumne River or the Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) canal. By diverting
lower flows directly to terminal drainage facilities, the basins are utilized for
multiple uses including recreations, recharge, and storm water detention.
The 2011 Storm Drainage Master Plan has been expanded to coincide with the
General Plan limits adding Areas J, K, L, M and N., as presented in Figure 2-9:
Storm Drain Planning Areas. These have been further divided into several smaller
planning areas. This Storm Drainage Master Plan will only address Areas F, I, K
and L for the following reasons. First, facilities required to serve Areas F, I, K, and
L are independent of those facilities serving J, M, and N. Second, the planning
horizon for this Storm Drainage Master Plan is 2035 and development is not
expected to occur in Areas J, M, and N before that time. Should development
occur in these areas, this Storm Drainage Master Plan will need to be amended.
2-27
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2-28
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration
ILI
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Left blank intentionally
2-30
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration April 2012
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Area A
This area is generally bounded by Tokay Street on the north, Union Pacific Railroad
(UPRR) on the east, Harney Lane on the south, and the WID canal on the west. Area A
is divided into two sub -areas: A-1 and A-2. Sub -area A-1 extends from Tokay Street to
Kettleman Lane. The detention basin serving sub -area A-1 (Kofu Park) is located
immediately north of the City of Lodi Municipal Services Center at Ham Lane and
Kettleman Lane. The detention basin serving sub -area A-1 disposes storm water
through natural recharge and by a pump station. Flows from the pump station are
sent to the A-2 pump station for discharge into the WID canal.
Sub -area A-2 lies between Kettleman Lane and Harney Lane. The detention basin
serving sub -area A-2 (Beckman Park) is located on Century Boulevard next to the WID
canal. The A-2 pump station has an outfall connection into the WID canal. The A-2
pump station is one of two existing outfall connections into the WID canal. The areas
within sub -areas A-1 and A-2 are fully developed and most storm drainage facilities
have been constructed.
Area B
This area is generally bounded by Lockeford Street on the north, Washington Street on
the east, Tokay Street on the south, and Lower Sacramento Road on the west. Area B
is divided into two sub -areas; B-1 and B-2. Sub -area B-1 extends northerly from Tokay
Street to Elm Street. The detention basin serving sub -area B-1 (Vinewood Park) is
located on Tokay Street just east of Mills Avenue. This detention basin disposes storm
water through natural recharge and by a pump station.
Sub -area B-2 lies between Elm Street and Lockeford Street. The detention basin
serving sub -area B-2 (Henry Glaves Park) is located on Oxford Way, 500 feet east of
Lower Sacramento Road. This detention basin disposes storm water through natural
recharge and by a pump station. Flows from both the B-1 and B-2 pump stations are
sent to the Shady Acres pump station for discharge into the WID canal. The areas
within sub -areas B-1 and B-2 are fully developed and most storm drainage facilities
have been constructed.
Area C
This area is generally bounded by Lockeford Street on the north, Central California
Traction Company Railroad (CCT) on the east, Kettleman Lane on the south, and 500
feet west of Washington Street on the west. The detention basin serving area C (Pixley
Park) is partially constructed at this time and is located on Vine Street, 600 feet east of
Beckman Road. Once fully constructed, the detention Basin C will dispose storm
water through natural recharge and by a pump station that will be constructed in the
future. Flows from the pump station will be diverted to the Cluff Avenue pump
station and pumped to the Mokelumne River.
Area D
This area is generally bounded by Lodi Avenue on the north, Cherokee Lane on the
east, Harney Lane on the south, and the UPRR on the west. The detention basin
2-31
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
serving area D (Salas Park) is located at Stockton Street and Century Boulevard. The
detention basin disposes storm water through natural recharge and by a pump station.
Flows from the pump station are pumped to the A-2 pump station and then
discharged to the WID canal.
Area E
This area is bounded by the WID canal on the north, west and south and Lower
Sacramento Road on the east. The detention basin serving area E (Peterson Park) is
located on Elm Street, 1/4 mile west of Lower Sacramento Road. This detention basin
disposes storm water through natural recharge and by a pump station. Flows from
the pump station are sent to the Lodi Lake pump station located at Turner Road and
Mills Avenue where it is pumped into the Mokelumne River. The areas within area E
are near fully developed and the storm drainage facilities have been fully constructed.
Area F
This area is bounded by the WID canal on the north, Lower Sacramento Road on the
east, Kettleman Lane on the south, and 1/2 mile west of Lower Sacramento Road. Area
F is divided into sub -areas, F-1, F-2, and F-3. Sub -area F-1 is that portion lying between
the WID canal and Lodi Avenue. Sub -area F-2 is that portion lying between Lodi
Avenue and Vine Street. Sub -area F-3 is that portion lying between Vine Street and
Kettleman Lane. Justifications for dividing Area F in this manner are: 1) property
ownerships align with the sub -area boundary, 2) planning sub -areas are
approximately equal -sized, 3) sub -areas are configured in a fashion consisted with the
expected phasing of development and 4) sub -area topography is conducive to the
design of gravity flow facilities.
Area G
This area is bounded by WID canal on the north, WID canal on the east, Harney Lane
on the south, and the Lower Sacramento Road on the west. Area G is divided into two
sub -areas, G-1 and G-2. Sub -area G-1 lies between the WID canal to Century
Boulevard. The detention basin serving sub -areas G-1 and G-2 is located at De
Benedetti Park (G -Basin) located at Lower Sacramento Road and Century Boulevard.
Storm water runoff from sub -area G-1 and most of sub -area G-2 can bypass G Basin
and flow directly to A-2 pump station if needed. The areas within sub -area G-2 are
between Century Boulevard and Harney Lane. The areas within Area G are almost
fully developed and the storm drainage facilities serving this area have been
constructed. Flows from the pump station will be diverted to the A-2 pump station for
release into the WID canal.
Area H
This area is generally bounded by the limits of the urban development bordering the
Mokelumne River on the north, the CCT on the east, Lockeford Street on the south,
and Lower Sacramento Road on the west. Area H discharges storm water by gravity
flow and four pump stations located at Lodi Lake, Lincoln Avenue, Turner Road, and
Cluff Avenue directly into the Mokelumne River. Area H has 17 outfall connections
into the Mokelumne River. Area H, with the exception of east of State Route 99, is
fully developed.
2-32
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Area I
Boundaries for this area include Kettleman Lane on the north, Lower Sacramento Road
on the east, Harney Lane on the south, and one-half mile west of Lower Sacramento
Road on the west. Area I is divided up into sub -areas: I-1, I-2, and I-3. Sub -area I-1 is
that portion lying between Kettleman Lane and 1/4 mile south of Kettleman Lane. Sub-
area I-2 is that portion lying between 1/4 mile south of Kettleman Lane and 600 feet
south of Century Boulevard. Sub -area I-3 is that portion lying between 600 feet south
of Century Boulevard and Harney Lane. Justifications for dividing Area I in this
manner are: 1) planning sub -areas are approximately equal -sized, 2) property
ownerships align with sub -area boundaries and 3) sub -area topography is conducive
to the design of gravity flow facilities.
Area K
This area is bounded by Harney Lane on the north, State Route 99 on the east, one-half
mile south of Harney Lane on the south, and the WID canal on the west. Area K is
divided into sub -areas: K-1, K-2, and K-3 as shown in Figure 1. Sub -area K-1 extends
westerly from Highway 99 to the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks. Sub -area K-2
lies between the UPRR tracks and West Lane. Sub -area K-3 is located between West
Lane and the WID Canal. Each sub -area is distinct because of ownership
characteristics, physical barriers (i.e., railroad, street, canal), and the phasing of
development
Area L
Boundaries for this area include Harney Lane on the north, the WID canal on the east,
one-half mile south of Harney Lane on the south, and Lower Sacramento Road on the
west. Area L is divided into two sub -areas, L-1 and L-2. Sub -area L-1 is that portion
lying between the WID canal and the extension of Mills Avenue. Sub -area L-2 is that
portion lying between the extension of Mills Avenue and Lower Sacramento Road.
Justifications for dividing Area L in this manner are: 1) property ownerships align
with the sub -area boundary and 2) sub -area sizes are conducive to the design of
gravity flow facilities.
2-33
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
BICYCLE MASTER PLAN
The Bicycle Master Plan was prepared in April 2012 concurrently with Waster,
Wastewaster and Storm Drainage master plans. This Bicycle Master Plan
provides a broad vision, strategies and actions for the improvement of the
bicycling environment in Lodi. The Bike Master Plan was developed to
compliment the Transportation element of the 2010 Lodi General Plan. The
purpose of the Plan is to expand the existing network, complete network gaps,
2-34
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
provide greater connectivity, educate, encourage and to maximize funding
sources.
The Plan envisions the City of Lodi with a transportation system that supports
the City's goals for sustainability, active living and community where bicycling
is an integral part of daily life. The system will include a comprehensive, safe,
and logical citywide bicycle network that will support bicycling as a viable,
convenient and popular travel choice for residents and visitors. A key purpose
for the Plan is to satisfy requirements of the California Bicycle Act, to qualify for
funding from Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA), and other state and federal
funding programs.
Transportation Setting
The City of Lodi is accessible by highways and both regional and local transit.
State Highway 12 (east -west) runs through the center of the City. State Highway
99 runs north -south and connects the City with other San Joaquin County cities
to the south and Sacramento County cities to the north.
The current Bicycle Master Plan, prepared by Brady and Associates, Inc., was
adopted November 16, 1994. The intent of this plan was to institute bicycle
network and programs; and to prioritize projects for implementation as funds
become available. Since 1994, several bicycle facilities have been installed within
the city since then. In 2002, the plan was updated and approved by the City
Council to include additional proposed bicycle facilities. This action allowed City
of Lodi to receive funds for several bicycle facilities. Figure 2-10: Existing Bike
Routes map captures the existing bike facilities within the City.
Bicycle Facilities
Today the City of Lodi has 23 miles of existing bikeways. Below is the
distribution of bikeway miles based on bikeway classification:
Bikeway Classification
Mileage
Class I Bike Paths
0.1
Class II Bike Lanes
46.4
Class III Bike Routes
1.0
Total
47.5
Class I Bikeways (Bike Paths)
Class I Bikeways are completely separate facilities designated for the exclusive
use of bicyclists and pedestrians with minimal vehicle crossings. Currently,
there is one Class I Bikeways from the Lodi Lake swimming area to Turner Road
and Mills Avenue, and a multi -use path around the lake that allows vehicle,
bicycle and pedestrian use. In addition, there are proposed Class I Bikeways
along the Woodbridge Irrigation Canal right-of-way and along the Victor
Road/Lockeford Street railroad right-of-way, between the City's eastern
boundary and downtown.
2-35
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Class II Bikeways (Bike Lanes)
Class II Bikeways are signed and striped lanes designated for the use of bicycles
on a street or highway. Vehicle parking and vehicle/ pedestrian cross-flow are
permitted at designated locations. Class II bicycle lanes are provided on
segments of Lower Sacramento Road, Mills Avenue, Elm Street, Kettleman Lane,
Century Boulevard, Harney Lane, Stockton Street, Central Avenue, Crescent
Avenue, and Vine Street.
Class III Bikeways (Bike Routes)
Class III Bikeways are routes designated by signs or pavement markings for
bicyclists within the vehicular travel lane (i.e., shared use) of a roadway.
Portions of Beckman Road and Elm Street are currently designated as Class III
bicycle routes. Figure 2-11 illustrates type of bikeways and provides dimensions,
sizes and other relevant information.
Bicycle Parking
Bicycle parking can range from a simple and convenient bicycle rack to storage
in a bicycle locker or cage that protects against weather, vandalism and theft.
Bicycle parking is available throughout the City at retail destinations such as the
Sunwest Plaza, Vintner's Square, Reynolds Ranch, City facilities and grocery
stores such as Safeway, Save -Mart, etc. The City requires all commercial, office,
industrial, medical and high medium and high residential developments to
provide bicycle parking facilities.
Project Goals and Objectives
The goal of the 2012 Bicycle Master Plan is to update the current Bicycle Master
Plan and provide guidance to implement bicycle facilities. Goals of the plans are
to:
➢ Provide bicycle facilities to serve the needs of all types of cyclists in Lodi.
➢ Coordinate with bicycle facilities that exist and are planned for construction
in unincorporated San Joaquin County;
➢ Allow for priority use by cyclists on particular trails;
➢ Provide a continuous network of bike lanes on the City's arterial streets to
allow for commuting to major destinations. These bikeways serve
experienced cyclists who commute;
➢ Provide a second continuous network of dedicated bike paths and
designated bikeways on streets with low traffic volumes. These bikeways
serve bicyclists who prefer quiet facilities with streets that have low traffic
volume and speeds; and
➢ Provide facilities and programs that will support bicycling as a commuting
option and recreational activity over the long term. These programs will
serve and encourage all types of cyclists.
The overall objective is is to implement the projects and programs described in
the Plan over the life of the General Plan as development occurs. Proposed new
bike facilities are illustrated on Figure 2-12: Proposed Bike Routes.
2-36
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Plan Recommendations
Key aspects of this Bicycle Master Plan are programs the City can enact to
support and encourage cycling. These programs will be studied by the City for
implementation when funding is available'
• Bicycle On Transit services should be provided to accommodate bicycles on
public transportation vehicles.
• Public Bicycle Parking identifies key locations citywide for bicycle parking
installation, a bike parking plan for downtown and a recommended bicycle
parking ordinance.
• Private Bicycle Parking should become a requirement for all new
commercial construction and renovations.
• Network Improvements fill gaps in the existing network so the community
has a seamless bicycle network to use.
• Spot Improvements identify specific locations for focused improvements.
2-37
o ,
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Fide -1I: Bikeway Facifity Types
Typical Sections
t t f
B' pared + Tgraded edge mire, for two-wa
(Greater width recommended where high bike
volumes or high levels of mixed use occur)
5' mirnirnum total width
(WKW terve rmconnrnended where take velurr
are expected %o be Ngh - maximum of B')
Locational
Criteria
Right-of-way separated
from motor vehicular
traffic. Used where
adjacent roadway
speeds and ADTs are
too high for safe joint
use, for connections
through open space
areas and parks, or
Where no other facitity
type Is feasible.
Within vehicular right-
of-way, but delineated
b�r wamin symbols and
Striping, May be used
where roadway speeds
and ADC`s are fairly high,
but adequate roadway
width Is available.
Directness and number
of users are significant
factors.
Within vehicular right-of-
way, but delineated by
directional signage only.
Used where roadway
speeds and ADTs are
fairly low. and where
route directness and
number of users Is not
likely to be significant.
( hder #hon standard outside Primarily for route
lane recommended) directions on suggested
roadways.
2-39
Section 3
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
3.1 - ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project as indicated by
the checklist on the following pages.
❑
Aesthetics
❑
Agriculture Resources
❑
Air Quality
❑
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
❑
Biological Resources
❑
Cultural Resources
❑
Geology/Soils
❑
Hazards & Hazardous
❑
Hydrology/ Water
Materials
Quality
❑
Land Use/Planning
❑
Mineral Resources
❑
Noise
❑
Population/ Housing
❑
Public Services
❑
Recreation
❑
Transportation/Traffic
❑
Utilities/Services Systems
❑
Mandatory Findings of Significance
3.2 ENVIRONEMNTAL DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation:
❑ I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a
Negative Declaration will be prepared.
® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made
by or agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
Environmental Impact Report is required.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measure based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An Environmental Impact Report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Konradt Bartlam, Community Development Director Date
3-1
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
3-2
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY AND NOTICE TO OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
Notice is herby given that the City of Lodi, Community Development Department, has
completed an initial study and proposed a Negative Declaration pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act for the project described below.
The initial study prepared by the City was undertaken for the purpose of determining
whether the proposed Harney Lane Specific Plan may have a significant effect on the
environment. On the basis of the initial study, Community Development Department staff
has concluded that the proposed Harney Lane Specific Plan will not have a significant effect
on the environment, and therefore has prepared a proposed Negative Declaration 12 -ND -01.
The initial study reflects the independent judgment of the City.
FILE NUMBER: 12 -ND -01
PROJECT TITLE: City of Lodi Master Plans
PROJECT LOCATION: The Lodi Master Plans study area includes the current city
boundaries and the Lodi 2010 General Plan planning area. The Mokelumne River forms the
northern edge of the city; Harney and Hogan lane southern edge. The Central California
Traction Line (CCT) railroad (north of Kettleman Lane) and SR -99 (south of Kettleman Lane)
form the eastern boundary. The western boundary extends approximately one-half mile
west of Lower Sacramento Road. Lodi (exclusive of White Slough Water Pollution Control
Facility) encompasses an area of 12.3 square miles.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Lodi has prepared a Wastewater Collection System
Master Plan, Water Distribution System Master Plan, Storm Drainage System Master Plan,
and Bicycle Master Plan, which together make up the City's Master Plans. The Master Plans
were prepared and developed consistent with the recently adopted 2010 General Plan. The
Master Plans are an integral part of the City's General Plan and involve establishment and
adoption of policy documents to accommodate future growth. No physical improvements
or construction activities are proposed in conjunction with adoption of the Master Plans.
This Initial Study and ND evaluated whether the proposed Master Plans would result in
physical impacts beyond those addressed in the General Plan EIR. The Master Plans do not
include design -level details for any single infrastructure improvement project. The goal of
the Initial Study analysis is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts could occur due
to adoption of the Master Plans. Based on the analysis of this Initial Study, a negative
declaration is sufficient for adoption of the proposed Master Utility Plans. The City will
3-3
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL OETERMINATION
conduct speci& analyses of futu±e h&uhvrWe project deli and locations to determine
appropriate erw ronmen#al dom*r a tation and rnitiptions nwesums.
PUBLIC REVIEW ICID: The proposed Negative Declaration will be circulated for a 30 -
day public review period, beg wiing on Wednesday, June 13,2012 and ending on Thursday,
July A 2M. Capie� of the docummt are wvaflable for review at the following loca aims:
* Community Development Department, 2Z1 West Pirie "street, Lodi, CA 95240
* Lath Public Library, 201 sliest Locust Street, Lodi, CA 95244
• Public Warks Departrnent� 221 West Pine Strwt l .tr It CA 95240
The Mitigated Negative lDec]aratian is also available for review on the Internet at the
follDwing web address: hft:IZww .loth ov/22M dev/En html
Any person wishing to o=ment on the Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration
must submit such comments in writing no later than 5:30 pm on Wednesday, July 12, 2DIZ
to the City of Lodi at the foMming address:
Con m mitt' Development Director
City of Lpol
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Prepared pursuant to City of Lodi Environmental Guidelines, §§ 1.7 (c), 5.5
FILE NUMBER: 12 -ND -01
PROJECT TITLE: City of Lodi Master Plans
PROJECT LOCATION: The Lodi Master Plans study area includes the current city
boundaries and the Lodi 2010 General Plan planning area. The Mokelumne River forms the
northern edge of the city; Harney and Hogan lane southern edge. The Central California
Traction Line (CCT) railroad (north of Kettleman Lane) and SR -99 (south of Kettleman Lane)
form the eastern boundary. The western boundary extends approximately one-half mile
west of Lower Sacramento Road. Lodi (exclusive of White Slough Water Pollution Control
Facility) encompasses an area of 12.3 square miles.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Lodi has prepared a Wastewater Collection System
Master Plan, Water Distribution System Master Plan, Storm Drainage System Master Plan,
and Bicycle Master Plan, which together make up the City's Master Plans. The Master Plans
were prepared and developed consistent with the recently adopted 2010 General Plan. The
Master Plans are an integral part of the City's General Plan 2010 and involve establishment
and adoption of policy documents to accommodate future growth. No physical
improvements or construction activities are proposed in conjunction with adoption of the
Master Plans. This Initial Study and ND evaluated whether the proposed Master Plans
would result in physical impacts beyond those addressed in the General Plan EIR. The
Master Plans do not include design -level details for any single infrastructure improvement
project. The goal of the Initial Study analysis is to evaluate the potential environmental
impacts could occur due to adoption of the Master Plans. Based on the analysis of this Initial
Study, a negative declaration is sufficient for adoption of the proposed Master Utility Plans.
The City will conduct specific analyses of future infrastructure project designs and locations
to determine appropriate environmental documentation and mitigations measures.
NAME OF PROJECT PROPONENT/APPLICANT:
City of Lodi, Public Works Department
221 West Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
A copy of the Initial Study ("Environmental Information Form' and "Environment
Checklist") documenting the reasons to support the adoption of a Negative Declaration is
available at the City of Lodi Community Development Department.
Mitigation measures are ❑x are not ❑included in the project to avoid potentially significant
effects on the environment.
3-5
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The public review on the proposed Negative Declaration will commence on Wednesday,
June 13, 2012 and ending on Thursday, July 12, 2012. Copies of the document are available
for review at the following locations:
Community Development Department, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240
Lodi Public Library, 201 West Locust Street, Lodi, CA 95240
Public Works Department, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240
The City will provide additional public notices when the public hearings have been
scheduled to consider approval of the Negative Declaration.
Konradt Bartlam, Community Development Director Date
3-6
Section 4
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans
Environmental Checklist
potentially Less Than Less -Than -
Si ficant With No
Issues Significant � Significant
Mitigation Impact
Impact Impact
Incorporated
4.1 AESTHETICS.
Mould the Project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑ ❑
vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, ❑
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
C. Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
The proposed project consists of the preparation and
Master Plans involve the City's wastewater collection,
IF]
IF]
■ ❑
❑ ■
❑ ■
❑ ■
adoption of four Master Plans. The
water distribution, storm drainage
systems, and bike master plans. No physical improvements or construction activities are
proposed in conjunction with implementation of Master Plans. All pipeline improvement
projects, including storm drain, water, and wastewater pipelines, and bike lane instillations
will be evaluated for their impact on the environment at a future date on project -by -project
basis. Therefore, the adoption of the proposed Master Plans would not involve any physical
changes to the environment.
Regulatory Setting:
The proposed project would implement the General Plan goals and policies in the Growth
Management and Infrastructure and Transportation Element of the General Plan and Visual
Resources component of the General Plan EIR designed to reduce visual impacts. Applicable
City Policies include, but are not limited to, the following:
• GM -G2: Provide infrastructure - including water, sewer, stormwater, and solid
waster/ recycling systems- that is designed and consistent with the
projected capacity requirements and development phasing.
• GM -P8: Ensure that public facilities and infrastructure —including water supply,
sewer, and stormwater facilities —are designed to meet projected capacity
requirements to avoid the need for future replacement and upsizing,
pursuant to the General Plan and relevant master planning.
• GM -P11: Prepare master plan documents as necessary during the planning period to
address the infrastructure needs of existing and projected growth, and to
determine appropriate infrastructure provision for each phase. Existing
master plan documents should be used until new master plans are
developed, and updates should occur as follows:
➢ A sanitary sewer system master plan should be undertaken soon after
General Plan adoption. In particular, this master plan should address
how to best provide sewer service for the growth on the east side of
the city and for infill development, and to determine if additional
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-1 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
wastewater flows will need to be diverted into the proposed South
Wastewater Trunk Line.
➢ A Citywide stormwater master plan should be prepared soon after
General Plan adoption to confirm or revise existing planning studies.
➢ A White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility master plan should
be completed during the early stages of Phase 1, most likely in 2013 or
2014.
➢ A recycled water master plan was prepared in May 2008 and is
current as of 2009. It may be appropriate to update this document
when the next WSWPCF master plan is prepared, in 2013 or 2014, to
evaluate the feasibility of constructing a scalping plant to provide
recycled water for use within the city.
➢ A potable water supply and distribution master plan is not urgently
needed, as of 2009. Future planning should be completed as
necessary.
➢ The Urban Water Management Plan should be updated on a five year
basis in compliance with State of California mandated requirements.
Future plans should be developed in 2010, 2015, 2020, 2025, and 2030.
• T -P22: Use the City's Bike Master Plan as a comprehensive method for
implementing bicycle circulation, safety, and facilities development. Update the Plan
for consistency with the General Plan.
Impact Analysis:
(a) Determination of significance for potential impacts to visual resources is based primarily
on the level of visual sensitivity in an area. Scenic vistas typically consist of a far
reaching view, such as a panoramic view of a skyline or ridgeline, and provide an
aesthetic public benefit (i.e. available to the general public). All roads nationally
designated as such are considered part of America's Byways collection and must possess
at least one of these six intrinsic qualities: historic, cultural, natural, scenic, recreational,
and/or archaeological. To receive an All-American Road designation, a road must
possess multiple intrinsic qualities that are nationally significant and contain one -of -a -
kind features that do not exist elsewhere. The road must also be considered a
"destination unto itself," and must provide an exceptional travel experience.
(http: / /www.scenic.org/bywa)�s).
No scenic vistas or other scenic resources have been identified within the City of Lodi.
The project does not propose the construction of any new structures that could block
views. The project limits currently consist of rural residential, agricultural and open
space land uses. The nearest highways to the project limits are SR -12 and SR -99, which
are not considered state scenic highways and would not be impacted. Scenic resources,
such as rock outcroppings and historic buildings, are not known to exist within the
project limits. Further, the Master Plans do not involve construction, site grading, and
disturbing. Future construction project would be viewed for potential environmental
impact on project basis. Therefore, because the proposed project would not affect a
known scenic vista or damage scenic resources, impacts would be considered less -than -
significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant.
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-2 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required.
Significance After Mitigation: No impact.
(b) There are no designated scenic highways within the City of Lodi. The proposed Master
Plans are not expected to damage any existing historic buildings. The General Plan and
General Plan EIR have not identified any scenic rock outcroppings within the City of
Lodi. Adoption of the Master Plans does not involve physical improvements or result in
construction activities. Future construction project would be viewed for potential
environmental impact on project basis. Therefore, because the proposed project would
not affect a known scenic vista or damage scenic resources, impacts would be
considered less -than -significant.
Significance Determination: No impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required.
Significance After Mitigation: No impact.
(c) A project is generally considered to have a significant aesthetic impact if the project
substantially changes the character of the project site such that it becomes visually
incompatible in comparison to that of its surroundings.
The Master Plans involve development of infrastructure for future implementation and
construction. The Master Plans are intended to implement the above mentioned General
Plan policies.' The proposed Master Plans would not affect any text in the General Plan
relative to aesthetics. The visual character of the City will not be degraded through
implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Significance Determination: No impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required.
Significance After Mitigation: No impact.
(d) Building materials (i.e., reflective glass and polished surfaces) are the most substantial
sources of glare. The amount of glare depends on the intensity and direction of sunlight,
which is more acute at sunrise and sunset because the angle of the sun is lower during
these times. Nighttime light sources include, but are not limited to, residential
developments, vehicles (headlights), overhead street lighting, parking lot lighting, and
security related lighting for non-residential uses. However, the Master Plans do no
involve any construction activities. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Significance Determination: No impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required.
Significance After Mitigation: No impact.
Sources:
City of Lodi. Lodi General Plan. Prepared by Dytte & Bhatia, Inc. April 2010.
1 City of Lodi General Plan 2010. Growth Management and Infrastructure Element. P. 3.1-32.
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-3 April 2012
City of Lodi —Utility Master Plans Environmental Checklist
California, State of, Department of Transportation. San Joaquin County Officially Designated
State Scenic Highways and Historic Parkways 2009. Available online at
httn://www.dot.ca.Lyov/ho/LandArch/scenic hiLyhways/index.htm
California, State of, Department of Transportation. Scenic Highway Guidelines. Also available
online at
http: / / www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ LandArch/ scenic/ guidelines/ scenic_hwy_guidelines.pdf
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. The National Scenic
Byways Program. (h=://www.scenic.org/byways).
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4.4 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans
Issues
4.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept.
of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland. 1Vould the Pr ject:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program in the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
C. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of forest land (as defined in PRC Sec.
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined in PRC Sec. 51104 (g)?
Environmental Checklist
potentially Less Than Less -Than -
Significant Sign ficant Significant No
With Mitigation Impact
Impact T Pa Impact
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
d. Result in loss of forest land or conversion of ❑
forest land to non -forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing ❑
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use?
❑■
❑■
❑ ■
❑ ■
❑ ■
Regulatory Setting:
The proposed project would implement the General Plan goals and policies in the Growth
Management and Infrastructure and Transportation Elements of the General Plan and Visual
Resources component of the General Plan EIR designed to reduce visual impacts. Applicable
City Policies include, but are not limited to, the following:
• GM -G1: Ensure contiguous, paced and orderly growth by identifying phases for
development. Allow development in subsequent phases only once
thresholds of reasonable development in prior phases have been archived.
• GM -P2: Target new growth into identified areas, extending south, west, and
southeast. Ensure contiguous development by requiring development to
conform to phasing described in Figure 3-1. Enforce phasing through
permitting and infrastructure provision. Development may not extend to
Phase 2 until Phase 1 has reached 75% of development potential (measured
in acres) and development may not extend to Phase 3 until Phase 2 has
reached 75% of development potential. In order to respond to market
changes in the demand for various land use types, exemptions may be
made to allow for development in future phases before these thresholds in
the previous phase have been reached.
• C -GI: Promote preservation and economic viability of agricultural land
surrounding Lodi.
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-5 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
• C -P3: Support the continuation of agricultural uses on lands designated for urban
uses until urban development is imminent.
• C -P4: Encourage San Joaquin County to conserve agricultural soils, preserve
agricultural land surrounding the city and promote the continuation of
existing agricultural operations, by supporting the county's economic
programs.
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Classification
The Department of Conservation (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
(FMMP) prepares Important Farmland maps periodically for most of the state's
agricultural areas based on information from Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) soil survey maps, Land Inventory and Monitoring (LIM) criteria developed by
NRCS, and land use information mapped by the California Department of Water
Resources (DWR). These criteria generally are expressed as definitions that characterize
the land's suitability for agricultural production, physical and chemical characteristics of
the soil, and actual land use, Important Farmland maps generally are updated every 2
years.
(a) Agriculture has historically been an important part of Lodi s land use and economy.
Impacts resulting from conversion of important farmland, including conversions for
infrastructure improvements, were considered and analyzed in the City's General Plan
EIR (2009). In addition, the City's General Plan policies C -P7 and C -P82 involve
mitigation measures aimed for the preservation of agricultural land and activities. The
proposed Master Plans are implementing directives of the said General Plan and involve
no construction activities. Future construction projects would be subjected to
environmental review on a project -by -project basis. Because the proposed Master Plans
and the fee program would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance, the project would have no impact from conversion of
farmland.
Significance Determination: No Impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required.
Significance After Mitigation: No impact.
(b) The proposed Master Plans do not involve physical improvements or construction
activities. Subsequent development in the Plan Area, including all Subdivisions, Site
Plan Reviews, Planned Development Review, and Conditional Use Permits will be
subject to environmental review on a project -by -project basis. Therefore, no impact
would occur due to the proposed the Master Plans.
Significance Determination: No Impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required.
Significance After Mitigation: No impact.
(c) A significant impact may occur if the proposed Project were to result in the conversion
of forest land to non -forest land. The proposed project does not contain any
improvements on land considered forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
2 City of Lodi General Plan 2010. Conservation Element. P. 7.1-40.
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-6 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), and is
not zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104[g]).
Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact with regard to conversion of
forest land or any potential conflict with forest land, timberland, or Timberland
Production zoning.
Significance Determination: No Impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required.
Significance After Mitigation: No impact.
(d) A significant impact may occur if the proposed Project were to result in the conversion
of forest land to non -forest land. The proposed project does not contain any
improvements on land considered forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), and is
not zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104[g]).
Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact with regard to conversion of
forest land or any potential conflict with forest land, timberland, or Timberland
Production zoning.
Significance Determination: No Impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required.
Significance After Mitigation: No impact.
(e) Most of the proposed project limits are in areas currently used as agricultural land and
classified as Prime Farm Land by the Department of Conservation (DOC) Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). Physical installation of the plans is
expected to be commensurate with urban development in these areas. As a result, the
proposed project would not cause conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use
greater than what has been anticipated and analyzed by the General Plan. The General
Plan EIR found that a significant and unavoidable impact related to the conversion of
farmland would occur. However, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations were adopted as part of the Certification of the 2010 General Plan EIR.
The Master Plans study area is designated for development and would require
annexation and pre -zoning prior to development and in depth environmental review at
a project level. Therefore, the Master Plans would not conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact.
Significance Determination: No Impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required.
Significance After Mitigation: No impact.
Sources:
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. San Joaquin
County Important Farmland 2006. June 2008.
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (2004-2006).
City of Lodi. Lodi General Plan. Prepared by Dytte & Bhatia, Inc. April 2010.
City of Lodi. Lodi General Plan EIR 2010. Prepared by Dytte & Bhatia, Inc. SCH Number:
2009022075. April 2010.
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-7 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4.8 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
Potentially Less Thagnificann Less -Than- No
Issues Significant With N irigation Significant Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
4.3 AIR QUALITY.
Vould the Pr lect:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
❑
❑
❑ ■
the applicable air quality plan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute
❑
❑
❑ ■
substantially to an existing or Projected air
quality violation?
C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
❑
❑
❑ ■
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
Project region is non -attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
❑
❑
❑ ■
pollutant concentrations?
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a
❑
❑
❑ ■
substantial number of people?
Introduction
The City of Lodi is located in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). Air quality
conditions in the SJVAB are regulated by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control
District (SJVAPCD). The following sections describe the overall regulatory framework for
air quality management in California and the region, discuss federal and state ambient air
quality standards, summarize existing air quality conditions in the Project area, and identify
sensitive receptors in the Project area.
Regional Climate and Topography
The area's climate is considered "inland Mediterranean" and is characterized by warm, dry
summers and cool winters. Summer high temperatures often exceed 100°F, averaging in the
low 90s in the northern valley and high 90s in the south. Although marine air generally
flows into the basin from the Sacramento -San Joaquin River Delta, the surrounding
mountain ranges restrict air movement through and out of the valley. Wind speed and
direction influence the dispersion and transportation of ozone precursors, particulate matter
less than 10 microns in diameter (PM1o), and carbon monoxide (CO); the more wind flow,
the less accumulation of these pollutants.
The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the SJVAB is limited by the presence of persistent
temperature inversion (warm air over cool air). Because of differences in air density, the air
above and below the inversion does not mix. Ozone (03) and its precursors will react to
produce higher concentrations under an inversion and will trap directly emitted pollutants,
such as 0. Precipitation and fog tend to reduce or limit pollutant concentrations. Ozone
needs sunlight for its formation, and clouds and fog block the required radiation. CO is
slightly water soluble, so precipitation and fog tend to reduce CO concentrations in the
atmosphere. PM10 is somewhat "washed" from the atmosphere with precipitation. Annual
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-9 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
precipitation in the San Joaquin Valley decreases from north to south, with about 20 inches
in the north, 10 inches in the middle, and less than 6 inches in the southern part of the
valley.
Air Quality Management
The air quality management agencies of direct importance in San Joaquin County include
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California Air Resources Board (ARB),
and the SJVAPCD. EPA has established federal ambient air quality standards for which
ARB and the SJVAPCD have primary implementation responsibility. ARB and the
SJVAPCD are also responsible for ensuring that state ambient air quality standards are met.
The SJVAPCD is also responsible for implementing strategies for air quality improvement
and recommending mitigation measures for new growth and development.
Air quality is determined primarily by the type and amount of contaminants emitted into
the atmosphere, the size and topography of the air basin, and its meteorological conditions.
State and federal criteria pollutant emission standards have been established for six
pollutants: CO, 03, PM10 and PM2.5 [particulates 2.5 microns or less in diameter], nitrogen
dioxide (NOZ), sulfur dioxide (SOZ), and lead. Within the SJVAB, the SJVAPCD is
responsible for ensuring that these emission standards are not violated.
Existing air quality conditions in the Project area can be characterized in terms of the
ambient air quality standards that the federal government and California have established
for several different pollutants. For some pollutants, separate standards have been set for
different measurement periods. Most standards have been set to protect public health and
welfare with an adequate margin of safety. For some pollutants, standards have been based
on other values (such as protection of crops, protection of materials, or avoidance of
nuisance conditions). The national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), which describe
acceptable conditions, were first authorized by the federal Clean Air Act of 1970. Air quality
is considered in "attainment" if pollutant levels are below or equal to the NAAQS
continuously and exceed them no more than once each year. The California Ambient Air
Quality Standards (CAAQS), which describe adverse conditions, were authorized by the
state legislature in 1967. Pollution levels must be below the CAAQS before a basin can attain
the standard.
Sensitive Receptors
The SJVAPCD defines sensitive receptors as "facilities that house or attract children, the
elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air
pollutants (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2002)." Typical sensitive
receptors are residences, hospitals, schools, parks, and places of worship.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Thresholds
SJVAPCD does not require construction emissions to be quantified. Rather, it requires
implementation of effective and comprehensive feasible control measures to reduce PM10
emissions (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2002). SJVAPCD considers PM10
emissions to be the greatest pollutant of concern when assessing construction -related air
quality impacts. It has determined that compliance with its Regulation VIII, including
implementation of all feasible control measures specified in its Guide for Assessing Air
Quality Impacts (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2002) constitutes sufficient
mitigation to reduce construction -related PM10 emissions to less -than -significant levels and
minimize adverse air quality effects. Since the publication of the district's guidance manual,
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-10 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
the district has revised some of the rules making up Regulation VIII, Guidance from district
staff indicates that implementation of a dust control plan would satisfy all of the
requirements of SJVAPCD Regulation VIII. Although explicit thresholds for construction -
related emissions of ozone precursors are not enumerated in the Guide for Assessing and
Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, the SJVAPCD considers a significant impact to occur when
construction emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) or oxides of nitrogen (NO,,) exceed
10 tons per year.
On December 15, 2005, SJVAPCD adopted Rule 9510, Indirect Source Review. This rule
fulfills the district's emission reduction commitments in the PM10 and Attainment Plans
through emission reductions from the construction and use of development Projects
through design features and onsite measures. Rule 9510 requires implementation of control
measures to mitigate construction related NOX and PM10 emissions from roadway Projects in
excess of 2.0 tons. If additional mitigation is necessary to achieve the required reductions,
emissions offsets can be purchased. Compliance with Rule 9510 is separate from the CEQA
process, although the control measures used to comply with the Rule 9510 may be used to
mitigate CEQA impacts.
General Plan Goals and Policies
The proposed project would implement the General Plan goals and policies in the
Conservation Element of the General Plan and Air Quality Resources component of the General
Plan EIR. Applicable City Policies include, but are not limited to, the following:
• C -P48: Require all construction equipment to be maintained and tuned to meet
appropriate EPA and CARB emission requirements and when new
emission control devices or operational modifications are found to be
effective, such devices or operational modifications are to be required on
construction equipment.
• C -P49: Continue to require mitigation measures as a condition of obtaining
permits to minimize dust and air emissions impacts from construction.
• C -P50: Require contractors to implement dust suppression measures during
excavation, grading, and site preparation activities. Techniques may
include, but are not limited to:
➢ Site watering or application of dust suppressants;
➢ Phasing or extension of grading operations;
➢ Covering of stockpiles;
➢ Suspension of grading activities during high wind periods (typically
winds greater than 25 miles per hour); and
➢ Revegetation of graded areas.
• C -P51: Cooperate with other local, regional, and State agencies in developing and
implementing air quality plans to achieve State and Federal Ambient Air
Quality Standards and address cross -jurisdictional and regional
transportation and air quality issues.
• C -P52: Use the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District's (SJVAPCD)
Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts for determining
and mitigating project air quality impacts and related thresholds of
significance for use in environmental documents. The City shall consult
with the SJVAPCD during CEQA review for projects that require air
quality impact analysis and ensure that the SJVAPCD is on the distribution
list for all CEQA documents.
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-11 April 2012
of Lodi —Utility Master Plans Environmental Checklist
C -P50: Support recommendations to reduce air pollutants found in the San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) local attainment
plans and use its regulatory authority to mitigate "point" sources of air
pollution (e.g., factories, power plants, etc.).
(a) A significant impact could occur if the proposed project conflicts with or obstructs
implementation of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District policies. The
proposed project is a policy document designed to guide future development within the
planning area over the long term. The Plans would follow all City policies meant to
protect and improve air quality, integrate the air quality, land use, and transportation
planning process, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change. The
impact analysis in the General Plan regarding confliction with or obstruction of
implementation of an applicable air quality plan found the impact to be less -than -
significant with implementation of the City's Construction Mitigation Measures (Policy
C -P50).3 All future development projects would be required to comply with General
Plan Goals, Policies, and Policy Actions, as well as General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure
AQ -3.8, which requires compliance with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control
District (SJVAPCD) regulations and permitting requirements.
The proposed Master Plans are consistent with the recently updated General Plan. As
implementation policy of the General Plan, and General Plan EIR, policy documents are
considered to conflict with an Air Quality Plan or contribute to new air quality
violations, as no physical development is proposed. In addition, the General Plan Air
Quality Element cites the BMP as an implementing policy document for air quality
improvements because it encourages bicycling for transportation purposes. This is
consistent with air quality planning and transportation planning efforts in the region,
which due to the ozone non -attainment status emphasize alternative modes of
transportation. To the extent that increased levels of bicycling reduce vehicle trips,
vehicle idling and vehicle miles traveled, implementation of the BMP Update would
reduce the emissions of criteria pollutants, including NOx and ROG, the precursors to
ozone. As a result, implementation of the BMP Update will not conflict with local,
regional, state or federal air quality planning. Because the City would ensure that all of
the improvement projects included in the Master Plans would adhere to all relevant
General Plan air quality policies aimed at ensuring consistency with applicable air
quality plans, impacts regarding conflict with or obstruction of implementation of the
applicable air quality plan would be considered no impact.
Significance Determination: No Impact
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(b) A project may have a significant impact if project related emissions would exceed
Federal, State, or regional standards or thresholds, or if project related emissions would
substantially contribute to an existing or project air quality violations. As
aforementioned in item (a), this project involves the adoption of Master Plans and
involves no construction activities. Ultimate construction and operation of the
improvements identified in the Master Plans could violate air quality standards.
However, those projects would be subject to project -level environmental impact
3 City of Lodi General Plan 2010. Conservation Element. P. 7.1-40.
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-12 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
analyses. The proposed project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation since it does not involve
physical improvements or construction activities. All future projects including, but not
limited to, Subdivision Maps, Parcel Maps, Conditional Use Permits, Site Plan Review,
and Planned Development Review projects must be evaluated to ensure compliance
with air quality standards, including construction, area source, and operational
emissions.
Significance Determination: No Impact
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(c) As discussed in checklist item 4.3(a) and(b), the project will not significantly increase the
production of any criteria pollutant as described in section a), therefore, it is appropriate
to conclude that the project's incremental contribution to criteria pollutant emissions is
not cumulatively considerable. Future construction activities will be subject to
environmental review on a project -by -project basis.
Significance Determination: No Impact
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(d) When quantifying mass emissions for localized analysis, only emissions that occur on-
site are considered. Consistent with SJVAPCD Localized Significance Threshold (LST)
methodology guidelines, emissions related to off-site delivery/haul truck activity and
employee trips are not considered in the evaluation of localized impacts. As such,
localized impacts that may result from the proposed Master Plans would be of no
consequences as there no construction activity is being proposed at this time. Ultimate
construction and operation any segment of the Master Plans would be subject to
environmental review on a project -by -project basis.
Significance Determination: No Impact
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(e) According to the SJVAPCD Guide For Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, land
uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater
treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries,
landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding facilities. This project involves adaptation and
implementation of Master Plans. No construction activities or operations are proposed.
As such, no potential odor impacts are anticipated due to the project.
Significance Determination: No Impact
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
Sources:
California Air Resources Board. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community
Health Perspective.
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-13 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
City of Lodi. 2010. City of Lodi General Plan Policy Document. Prepared by Dytte and Bhatia,
Inc., April 2010.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2002. Guide for assessing and
mitigating air quality impacts. Mobile Sources/ CEQA Pages 22-26. Section of the
Planning Division of the san Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Fresno, CA.
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-14 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
Potentially S Less Thann Less -Than- No
Issues Sign ficant With N irigation Sign ficant Impact
Impact _ _ , Impact
4.4 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
Would the Project.•
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Since the adoption of AB 32, there has been little regulatory guidance regarding
quantification of potential greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts. Given the complexity of the
overall interactions between various global and regional scale air emissions, it is difficult to
determine whether any proposed project would alter any existing conditions. No statewide
significance threshold has been adopted. Although the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District has adopted interim guidance on GHG analysis, this guidance only applies
to stationary sources.
The recently revised CEQA Guidelines indicate that the lead agency should use careful
judgment in assessing potential GHG impacts. Pursuant to the Guidelines, the lead agency
should make a good faith effort to describe a project's potential GHG emissions. The lead
agency may, in its discretion, rely on a quantitative or qualitative analysis for these
purposes (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.4(a))
(a) Climate change is the distinct change in measures of climate for a long period of time.4
Climate change can result from natural processes and from human activities. Natural
changes in the climate can be caused by indirect processes such as changes in the Earth's
orbit around the Sun or direct changes within the climate system itself (i.e. changes in
ocean circulation). Human activities can affect the atmosphere through emissions of
greenhouse gases (GHG) and changes to the planet's surface. Greenhouse gases differ
from other emissions in that they contribute to the "greenhouse effect". The greenhouse
effect is a natural occurrence that helps regulate the temperature of the planet. The
majority of radiation from the Sun hits the Earth's surface and warms it. The surface in
turn radiates heat back towards the atmosphere, known as infrared radiation. Gases and
clouds in the atmosphere trap and prevent some of this heat from escaping back into
space and re -radiate it in all directions. This process is essential to supporting life on
Earth because it keeps the planet approximately 60° F warmer than without it. Emissions
from human activities since the beginning of the industrial revolution (approximately
150 years) are adding to the natural greenhouse effect by increasing the gases in the
atmosphere that trap heat, thereby contributing to an average increase in the Earth's
temperature. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) occur naturally and from human activities.
Greenhouse gases produced by human activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and
sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Since 1750, it is estimated that the concentrations of carbon
4 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Frequently Asked Questions About Global Warming and
Climate Change. Back to Basics. April 2009.
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-15 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere have increased over 36 percent,
148 percent, and 18 percent, respectively, primarily due to human activity. Emissions of
greenhouse gases affect the atmosphere directly by changing its chemical composition
while changes to the land surface indirectly affect the atmosphere by changing the way
the Earth absorbs gases from the atmosphere.
California is a substantial contributor of global greenhouse gases (GHG's), emitting over
400 million tons of CO2 a year. Climate studies indicate that California is likely to see an
increase of three to four degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. Methane is also an
important GHG that potentially contributes to global climate change. GHG's are global
in their effect, which is to increase the earth's ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. As
primary GHG's have a long lifetime in the atmosphere, accumulate over time, and are
generally well -mixed, their impact on the atmosphere is mostly independent of the point
of emission.
The impact of anthropogenic activities on global climate change is apparent in the
observational record. Air trapped by ice has been extracted from core samples taken
from polar ice sheets to determine the global atmospheric variation of CO2, methane,
and nitrous oxide from before the start of the industrialization (approximately 1750), to
over 650,000 years ago. For that period, it was found that CO2 concentrations ranged
from 180 parts per million (ppm) to 300 ppm. For the period from approximately 1750 to
the present, global CO2 concentrations increased from a pre -industrialization period
concentration of 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005, with the 2005 value far exceeding the
upper end of the pre -industrial period range.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constructed several emission
trajectories of GHG's needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change
impacts. It concluded that a stabilization of GHG's at 400 to 450 ppm carbon dioxide -
equivalent concentration is required to keep mean global climate change below 2c,
which in turn is assumed to be necessary to avoid dangerous climate change.
City of Lodi Greenhouse Gas Emissions
In accordance with Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) 2006 and Senate Bill (SB 97) 2007, the City
of Lodi is implementing a policy that requires Negative Declarations, Mitigated
Negative Declarations and Environmental Impact Reports prepared to comply with
CEQA to include a GHG Emissions analysis. The adverse impacts of global climate
change include impacts to water supply, air quality, fire hazards, sea level rise
(flooding), and an increase in health related problems. AB 32 establishes a state goal of
reducing GHG emissions to 1990 level by the year 2020. The long range reduction goal is
reflected in Executive Order S-3-05, which requires GHG to be reduced to 80 percent
below 1990 levels by 2050.
When dealing with air quality issues related to operation emissions, thresholds are
usually compared to the net change in emissions compared to baseline conditions
(normally existing conditions with no Project). In addition, there are currently no health -
based standards that measure the threat GHGs, including CO2, pose on human health.
In comparison to existing conditions, implementation of the proposed Master Plans
would not increase vehicle emissions generated by mobile source as well as emissions
generated by stationary sources because it does not propose physical improvements or
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-16 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
construction activities. The City's General Plan is consistent with the State's goal of
reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and is consistent with the City of Lodi
General Plan 2010 and accompanying EIR. Therefore, no impact is anticipated.
It should be noted that any future development project consistent with the General Plan
would be required to implement all relevant City policies, such as Policy C -P36, which
provides guidance on reducing GHG emissions and global climate change, as well as
other policies included in the Conservation Element of the General Plan designed to
promote a variety of energy conservation measures. In addition, each future
development project would be required to comply with CARB's AB 32 Scoping Plan,
including compliance with the cap -and -trade and other regulations, Governor's Office of
Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory, Office of the Attorney General
measures, the CalGreen Code, and any other plans or regulations set forth for reducing
GHG emissions at the time of project approval. Compliance with all applicable plans,
policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions would
help to ensure that project GHG emissions would not result in a significant impact on
the environment.
Significance Determination: No Impact
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(b) As stated previously, adoption of the proposed Master Plans would not conflict with
applicable regional or local plans, policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The proposed Project would be consistent
with the State's goals of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. As such, the
proposed Project's contribution to climate change/ worldwide GHG emissions would be
less than significant.
Significance Determination: No Impact
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
Sources
California Air Resources Board (CARB), Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A
Community Health Perspective, 2005.
California Air Resources Board (CARB), Ambient Air Quality Standards, last updated
February, 2007.
California Air Resources Board, California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Level and 2020
Emissions Limit, 2007.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), Guide for Assessing and
Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, Technical Document: Information for Preparing Air
Quality Sections in EIRs, Adopted August 20, 1998; January 10, 2002 revision.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), District Air Quality Plans
and Related Reports, Particulate Matter, and Ozone, 2003.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), Ambient Air Quality
Standards and Valley Attainment Status, 2005.
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-17 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
US Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks 1990-2006.2008.
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-18 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans
Environmental Checklist
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any ❑
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
C. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ❑
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of ❑
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
£ Conflict with the provisions of an adopted ❑
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Conservation Community Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Regulatory Setting
❑■
U
X
1
❑ ■
■
■
Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA)
The ESA protects fish and wildlife species and their habitats that have been identified by US
Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as
threatened or endangered. Endangered refers to species, subspecies, or distinct population
segments that are in danger of extinction through all or a significant portion of their range.
Threatened refers to species, subspecies, or distinct population segments that are likely to
become endangered in the near future. In general, NMFS is responsible for protection of
federally listed marine species and anadromous fishes, whereas other listed species are
under USFWS jurisdiction. Provisions of Sections 9 and 10 of the ESA may be relevant to the
Project; these are summarized below.
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-19 April 2012
Potential)
Potentially
Significant With
Less -Than -
No
Issues
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
4.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal.•
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
❑
❑
❑ ■
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any ❑
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
C. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ❑
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of ❑
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
£ Conflict with the provisions of an adopted ❑
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Conservation Community Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Regulatory Setting
❑■
U
X
1
❑ ■
■
■
Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA)
The ESA protects fish and wildlife species and their habitats that have been identified by US
Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as
threatened or endangered. Endangered refers to species, subspecies, or distinct population
segments that are in danger of extinction through all or a significant portion of their range.
Threatened refers to species, subspecies, or distinct population segments that are likely to
become endangered in the near future. In general, NMFS is responsible for protection of
federally listed marine species and anadromous fishes, whereas other listed species are
under USFWS jurisdiction. Provisions of Sections 9 and 10 of the ESA may be relevant to the
Project; these are summarized below.
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-19 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
Section 9: Prohibitions
Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the take of any fish or wildlife species listed under the ESA as
endangered. Take of threatened species is also prohibited under Section 9, unless otherwise
authorized by federal regulations.l Take is defined by the ESA as intending "[to] harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in
any such conduct." Harm is defined as "any act that kills or injures the species, including
significant habitat modification." In addition, Section 9 prohibits removing, digging up,
cutting, and maliciously damaging or destroying federally listed plants on sites under
federal jurisdiction.
Section 10: Nonfederal Actions
In cases where a nonfederal entity is undertaking an action that does not have federal
funding or require federal authorization, the take of listed species must be permitted by
USFWS through the Section 10 process. If the proposed Project would result in the
incidental take of a listed species, the applicant first must obtain an incidental take permit
under ESA Section 10. To receive an incidental take permit, the nonfederal entity is required
to prepare a habitat conservation plan that describes Project impacts and specifies
conservation measures that avoid, minimize, and mitigate the Project's impact on listed
species and their habitat.
The proposed Project would be a covered activity within the San Joaquin County Multi -
Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) area. The SJMSCP, in
accordance with ESA Section 10 (a) (1) (B) provides compensation for conversion of open
space to non -open space uses that affect plant, fish, and wildlife species covered by the plan
(San Joaquin Council of Governments 2000).
Federal Clean Water Act
The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted as an amendment to the federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972, which outlined the basic structure for regulating discharges of
pollutants to waters of the United States. The CWA serves as the primary federal law
protecting the quality of the nation's surface waters, including lakes, rivers, and coastal
wetlands. The Federal CWA is administered by the EPA and the USACE. USACE is
responsible for regulating the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States
(including lakes, rivers, streams, and their tributaries) and wetlands. Wetlands are defined
for regulatory purposes as areas that are "inundated or saturated by surface or ground
water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances, do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated
soil conditions" (Environmental Laboratory 1987:13).
The discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States is subject to
permitting under CWA Section 404. Certification from the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is also required when a proposed activity may result in
discharge into navigable waters, pursuant to CWA Section 401 and EPA's Section 404(b)(1)
guidelines. On june 5,2007, the EPA and the U.S. Department of the Army issued a
memorandum titled Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court's
Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v, United States that states that the agencies
will assert jurisdiction over the following categories of water bodies: traditional navigable
waters (TNWs), wetlands adjacent to TNWs, nonnavigable tributaries of TNWs that are
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-20 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
relatively permanent, and wetlands that abut such tributaries (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and U.S. Department of the Army 2007).
Presidential Executive Order 13186: Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The MBTA (16 U.S. Government Code 703-7111 prohibits the take of any migratory bird or
any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird. Under the act, take is defined as the action of or
attempt to "pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, or kill." This act applies to all persons and
agencies in the United States, including f3deral agencies.
Executive Order CEO) 13186 for conservation of migratory birds (January 11,2001) requires
that any Project with federal involvement address impacts of federal actions on migratory
birds. The order is designed to assist federal agencies in their efforts to comply with the
MBTA and does not constitute any legal authorization to take migratory birds. The order
also requires federal agencies to work with USFWS to develop a memorandum of
understanding (MOU). Protocols developed under the MOU must promote the conservation
of migratory bird populations through the following means.
• Avoid and minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on migratory bird
resources when conducting agency actions.
• Restore and enhance habitat of migratory birds, as practicable.
• Prevent or abate the pollution or detrimental alteration of the environment for the
benefit of migratory birds, as practicable.
State Regulations
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA is the regulatory framework by which California public agencies identify and
mitigate significant environmental impacts. A Project normally is considered to result in a
significant environmental impact on biological resources if it substantially affects a rare or
endangered species or the habitat of that species; substantially interferes with the movement
of resident or migratory fish or wildlife; or substantially diminishes habitat for fish, wildlife,
or plants.
The State CEQA Guidelines define rare, threatened, or endangered species as those listed
under CESA and ESA, as well as any other species that meets the criteria of the resource
agencies or local agencies (e.g., CDFG-designated species of special concern, CNPS-listed
species). The State CEQA Guidelines stipulate that the lead agency preparing an
environmental impact report must consult with and receive written findings from CDFG
concerning Project impacts on species that are listed as endangered or threatened. The
effects of a proposed Project on these resources are important in determining whether the
Project has significant environmental impacts under CEQA.
California Endangered Species Act
California implemented CESA in 1984. The act prohibits the take of endangered and
threatened species; however, habitat destruction is not included in the state's definition of
take. Under CESA, take is defined as an activity that would directly or indirectly kill an
individual of a species, but the definition does not include harm or harass. Section 2090
requires state agencies to comply with endangered species protection and recovery and to
promote conservation of these species. CDFG administers the act and may authorize take
through Section 2081 agreements (except for species designated as fully protected).
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-21 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
Regarding rare plant species, CESA defers to the CNPPA of 1977, which prohibits
importing, taking, and selling rare and endangered plants. State -listed plants are protected
mainly in cases where state agencies are involved in Projects under CEQA. In these cases,
plants listed as rare under the CNPPA are not protected under CESA but can be protected
under CEQA.
California Fish and Game Code
Fully Protected Species
The California Fish and Game Code provides protection from take for a variety of species,
referred to as fully protected species. Section 5050 lists fully protected amphibians and
reptiles. Section 3515 prohibits take of fully protected fish species. Fully protected birds are
listed in Section 35 11, and fully protected mammals are listed in Section 4700. The
California Fish and Game Code defines take as "hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or
attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill." Except for take related to scientific research,
all take of fully protected species is prohibited.
Sections 3503 and 3503.5
Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits the destruction of bird nests or
eggs. Section 3503.5 prohibits the killing of raptor species and the destruction of raptor nests
or eggs.
California Native Plant Protection Act
The CNPPA prohibits importation of rare and endangered plants into California, and take
or sale of rare and endangered plants. CESA defers to CNPPA, which ensures that state -
listed plant species are protected when state agencies are involved in Projects subject to
CEQA. In this case, plants listed as rare under CNPPA are not protected under CESA, but
rather under CEQA.
Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Section 13260 of the California Water Code requires "any person discharging waste, or
proposing to discharge waste, in any region that could affect the waters of the state to file a
report of discharge (an application for waste discharge requirements [WDRs])." Under the
Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act definition, the term waters of the state is defined
as "any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the
state." Although all waters of the United States that are within the borders of California are
also waters of the state, the converse is not true -in California, waters of the United States
represent a subset of waters of the state. Therefore, the State of California retains authority
to regulate discharges of waste into any waters of the state, regardless of whether USACE
has concurrent jurisdiction under CWA Section 404. If USACE determines a wetland or
other water (e.g., drainage ditch) is not subject to regulation under CWA Section 404, water
quality certification under CWA Section 401 is not required. However, the RWQCB may
impose WDRs if fill material would be placed into waters of the state. In accordance with a
preliminary jurisdictional determination approach, the seasonal wetlands and drainage
ditches in the study area were interpreted to fall within the scope of USACE jurisdiction.
Local Regulations
San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan
The key purposed of the SJMSCP is to provide a strategy for balancing the need to conserve
Open Space and the need to convert open space to other uses while protecting the region's
agricultural economy; preserving landowner's property rights; providing for the long-term
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-22 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
management of plant, fish and wildlife species, especially special -status species; providing
and maintaining multiple -use open spaces which contribute to the quality of life of the
residents; and accommodating a growing population while minimizing costs to Project
proponents and society. The SJMSCP addresses 97 species over more than 1,400 square
miles. It encompasses the entire county except for federally owned lands and area
encompassing those Projects not covered by the SJMSCP listed in Section 8.2.2. The SJMSCP
provides compensation for the conversion of open space.
The SJMSCP provides compensation for the Conversion of Open Space to non -Open Space
uses which affect the plant, fish and wildlife species covered by the Plan. The SJMSCP
compensates for Conversions of Open Space for the following activities: urban
development, mining, expansion of existing urban boundaries, non-agricultural activities
occurring outside of urban boundaries, levee maintenance undertaken by the San Joaquin
Area Flood Control Agency, transportation Projects, school expansions, non-federal flood
control Projects, new parks and trails, maintenance of existing facilities for non-federal
irrigation district Projects, installation, maintenance activities, managing Preserves, and
similar public agency Projects.
(a) The proposed project consists of adoption of the Master Plans that have been prepared
as a directive of the 2010 General Plan. No construction activity is proposed. Therefore,
no impacts to biological resources are expected as a result of the proposed Master Plans.
All future constructions plans would by reviewed for environmental impact on project -
by -project basis. Additionally, future construction activities within the project limits
would be required to adhere to the requirements of the San Joaquin County Multi -
Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP). Pursuant to the Final
EIR/EIS for the San Joaquin county Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space
Plan (SJMSCP), dated November 15, 2000, and certified by the San Joaquin Council of
Governments on December 7, 2000, implementation of the SJMSCP is expected to reduce
impacts to biological resources resulting from construction activates to a level of less -
than -significant. That document is hereby incorporated by reference and is available for
review during regular business hours at the San Joaquin Council of Governments (555
East Weber Avenue/ Stockton, CA 95202) or online at www.sjcog.org.
Significance Determination: No Impact
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(b) The proposed Master Plans do not involve construction activities. Potential impacts to
Biological Resources due to constriction activities have been exhaustively examined and
mitigation measures have been detailed in the City's General Plan EIR (SCH
#2009022075) and mitigation polices are incorporated in the General Plan policy. All
future projects and developments in the Plan Area, including all construction of lines,
would be subject to environmental review on a project -by -project basis. Therefore, no
impact is anticipated.
Significance Determination: No Impact
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-23 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
(c) A significant impact may occur if wetlands that are protected under federal regulation,
as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, would be modified or removed. The
proposed project consists of adoption and implementation of Master Plans prepared as
directive of the 2010 General Plan. No construction activity is proposed. No impact
would occur.
Significance Determination: No Impact
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(d) A significant impact may occur if the proposed Project interferes or removes access to a
migratory wildlife corridor or impedes the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The
proposed Master Plans do not involve construction activities. Additionally, the project
limits are not identified as a missing linkage on the California Wilderness Coalition
California's Missing Linkages Report. Therefore, no impact is anticipated due to the
implementation of the proposed Master Plans.
Significance Determination: No Impact
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(e) A significant impact may occur if the proposed Project would cause an impact that was
inconsistent with local regulations pertaining to biological resources, including
protected trees. The proposed project consists of adoption and implementation of Master
Plans. No construction activity is proposed. Additionally, the City of Lodi General Plan
(Conservation Element) includes goals and policies intended to protect sensitive native
vegetation and wildlife habitats. Adaptation of the proposed Master Plans and fee
program will have no impacts on the preservation or conservation plans.
Significance Determination: No Impact
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(f) A significant impact may occur if the proposed Project were inconsistent with mapping
or policies in any conservation plans of the types cited. The proposed project consists of
adoption and implementation of Master Plans. The Master Plans would comply with
the 2010 General Plan and visions and goals outlined therein. Development consistent
with the 2010 General Plan would not conflict with any adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved conservation plans.
Policies that would mitigate impacts to Biological Resources are listed in the General Plan
Draft EIR, Biological Resources 3.4-1. Implementation of policies and mitigation measures
listed therein, particularly those related to riparian corridors, wetlands, special -status
species, sensitive natural communities, and wildlife movement corridors, would ensure
that any covered species would not be adversely impacted. As a result, this impact
would be less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less Than Significant.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-24 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
Sources:
City of Lodi. Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Lodi General Plan. Prepared by
Dytte & Bhatia, Inc., April 2010.
San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP).
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4_25 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4.26 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
potentiallyLess Than Less -Than -
Significant Significant With No
Issues Significant Significant
Mitigation Impact
Impact Impact
Incorporated
4.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the Project. -
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
significance of a historical resource as defined
in §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
paleontological resource or unique geologic
feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
interred outside of formal cemeteries.
Regulatory Setting
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires that public agencies (in this case, the City) that finance or approve public or
private Projects must assess the effects of the Project on cultural resources. Cultural
resources are defined as buildings, sites, structures, or objects, each of which may have
historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific importance. CEQA requires
that if a Project would result in significant effects on important cultural resources,
alternative plans or mitigation measures must be considered; only significant cultural
resources, however, need to be addressed. Therefore, prior to the development of mitigation
measures, the importance of cultural resources must be determined. The steps that are
normally taken in a cultural resources investigation for CEQA compliance are:
• identify cultural resources;
• evaluate the significance of resources;
• evaluate the impacts of a Project on significant cultural resources; and
• develop and implement measures to mitigate the impacts of the Project only on
significant resources, namely historical resources and unique archaeological
resources.
The State CEQA Guidelines define three ways that a cultural resource may qualify as a
historical resource for the purposes of CEQA review:
1. if the resource is listed in or determined eligible for listing in the CRHR;
2. if the resource is included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in
Public Resources Code (PRC) 5020.1(k), or is identified as significant in an historical
resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC 5024.1Cg) unless the
preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally
significant; or
3. the lead agency determines the resource to be significant as supported by substantial
evidence in light of the whole record (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR]
15064.5[a]).
A cultural resource may be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical
Resources (CRHR) if it:
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4_27 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
• is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;
• is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
• embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses
high artistic values; or has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important
in prehistory or history.
In addition, CEQA distinguishes between two classes of archaeological resources:
archaeological resources that meet the definition of a historical resource as above, and
"unique archaeological resources." An archaeological resource is considered unique if it:
• is associated with an event or person of recognized significance in California or
American history or of recognized scientific importance in prehistory;
• can provide information, that is of demonstrable pubic interest and is useful in
addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable research questions; or
• has a special or particular quality such as oldest, best example, largest, or last
surviving example of its kind (PRC 21083.2).
Lodi General Plan
The Conservation Element of the Lodi Draft General Plan addresses cultural resources with
the following goals.
C -G5: Encourage the identification, protection, and enhancement of archaeological
resources.
C -G6: Preserve and enhance districts, sites, and structures that serve as significant,
visible connections to Lodi's social, cultural, economic, and architectural history.
The following policies are pertinent to the proposed Project.
C -P14: In the event that archaeological/ paleontological resources are discovered during
site excavation, the City shall required that grading and construction work on the
Project site be suspended until the significance of the features can be determined
by a qualified archaeologist/ paleontologist. The City will require that a qualified
archaeologist/ paleontologist make recommendations for measures necessary to
protect any site determined to contain or constitute a historical resource, a unique
archaeological resource, or a unique paleontological resource or to undertake data
recovery, excavation, analysis, and curation of archaeological/ paleontological
materials. City staff shall consider such recommendations and implement them
where they are feasible in light of Project design as previously allowed by the
City.
C -PIS: If any human remains are discovered or recognized in any location on the Project
site, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby
area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until:
• The San Joaquin County Coroner/Sheriff has been informed and has
determined that no investigation of the cause of death is required; and
• If the remains are of Native American origin: (1) the descendants of the
deceased Native Americans have made a timely recommendation to the
landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-28 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any
associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98,
or (2) the Native American Heritage Commission was unable to identify a
descendant or the descendant failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours
after being notified by the Commission.
Policies C-PI6 through C -P21 address the preservation, maintenance, recording, and
evaluation of historic buildings, structures, and districts.
(a) A significant impact would occur if the Project caused a substantial adverse change to a
historical resource through demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the
resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the historical
resource would be materially impaired. The proposed project consists of adoption of
Master Plans. The proposed Master Plans do not involve construction, grading, and site
disturbance. Therefore, the Project would have less than significant impact on historical
resources as defined by CEQA
Significance Determination: Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(b) A significant impact would occur if the Project caused a substantial adverse change to a
historical resource through demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the
resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the historical
resource would be materially impaired. The proposed project consists of the adoption of
Master Plans. The proposed Master Plans do not involve construction, grading, and site
disturbance. All future construction activities would be evaluated for potential
environmental impacts on project -by -project basis. The proposed project would not
change or have any effect on these existing regulation or mitigation measures; no impact
on archeological resources would result. Therefore, the Project would have less than
significant impact on historical resources as defined by CEQA
Significance Determination: Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(c) A significant impact may occur if grading or excavation activities associated with the
proposed Project would disturb paleontological resources or geologic features that exist
within the Project site. The proposed project consists of the adoption of Master Plans.
The proposed Master Plans do not include construction, grading, and site disturbance.
Additionally, the General Plan EIR found no unique geologic features within the
Planning Area. The City is not known to contain documented paleontological resources.
It is unlikely that unknown paleontological resources would exist within the project
limits. The Master Plans do not propose to change the General Plan land use designation
or the zoning for any parcel that was previously identified for preservation or open
space; no impacts to paleontological resources are anticipated.
Significance Determination: Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-29 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
(d) The proposed Master Plans would not authorize any plans for
development/ construction or redevelopment; therefore, it would have no impact on
human remains. Procedures to notify the County Coroner and Native American
representatives are implemented in accordance with California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 for all development projects within the city. This requirement is
furthermore reinforced through General Plan EIR. The proposed project would have no
effect on this existing regulatory standard or General Plan EIR mitigation measures;
therefore, this project would have no effect involving potential disturbance or recovery
of human remains.
Significance Determination: Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
Sources:
City of Lodi. Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Lodi Draft General Plan.
Prepared by Dytte and Bhatia, Inc., April 2010.
City of Lodi General Plan Policy Document. Prepared by by Dytte and Bhatia, Inc.,
April 2010.
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-30 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
Less Than
potentially Significant Less -Than- No
Issues Significant With Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporated
4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
Would the Pr ject.-
a. Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
❑
❑
❑ ■
delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
❑
❑
❑ ■
iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including
❑
❑
❑ ■
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
❑
❑
❑ ■
b. Result in substantial soil erosion, or the loss of
❑
❑
❑ ■
topsoil?
C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
❑
❑
❑ ■
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the Project, and potentially result in
on -or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soils, as defined in ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Table 18-1-13 of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are
not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Regulatory Setting
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
California's Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Alquist-Priolo Act) (PRC 2621 et
seq.), enacted in 1972 as the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act and renamed in 1994,
is intended to reduce the risk to life and property from surface fault rupture during
earthquakes. The Alquist- Priolo Act prohibits the location of most types of structures
intended for human occupancy across the traces of active faults and strictly regulates
construction in the corridors along active faults (Earthquake Fault Zones). It also defines
criteria for identifying active faults, giving legal weight to terms such as active, and
establishes a process for reviewing building proposals in and adjacent to Earthquake Fault
Zones.
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-31 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
Under the Alquist-Priolo Act, faults are zoned, and construction along or across them is
strictly regulated if they are "sufficiently active" and "well-defined." A fault is considered
sufficiently active if one or more of its segments or strands show evidence of surface
displacement during Holocene time (defined for purposes of the act as referring to
approximately the last 11,000 years). A fault is considered well-defined if its trace can be
clearly identified by a trained geologist at the ground surface or in the shallow subsurface,
using standard professional techniques, criteria, and judgment (Hart and Bryant 1997).
Seismic Hazard Mapping Act
Like the Alquist-Priolo Act, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (PRC Section 2690-
2699.6) is intended to reduce damage resulting from earthquakes. Whereas the Alquist-
Priolo Act addresses surface fault rupture, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act addresses
other earthquake -related hazards, including strong groundshaking, liquefaction, and
seismically induced landslides. Its provisions are similar in concept to those of the Alquist-
Priolo Act: the state is charged with identifying and mapping areas at risk of strong
groundshaking, liquefaction, landslides, and other corollary hazards, and cities and counties
are required to regulate development within mapped Seismic Hazard Zones.
Under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, permit review is the primary mechanism for local
regulation of development. Specifically, cities and counties are prohibited from issuing
development permits for sites within Seismic Hazard Zones until appropriate site-specific
geologic or geotechnical investigations have been carried out, and measures to reduce
potential damage have been incorporated into the development plans.
Lodi General Plan
The Conservation Element and the Safety Element of the Draft General Plan includes a
number of policies related to geology, seismicity, and soils.
C -G2: Maintain the quality of the Planning Area's soil resources and reduce erosion to
protect agricultural productivity.
C -P6: Require new development to implement measures that minimize soil erosion from
wind and water related to construction and urban development. Measures may
include:
• Construction techniques that utilize site preparation, gracing, and best
management practices that provide erosion control and prevent soil
contamination.
• Tree rows or other windbreaks shall be used within buffers on the edge of
urban development and in other areas as appropriate to reduce soil erosion.
S -G-2: Prevent loss of lives, injury, illness, and property damage due to flooding, hazardous
materials, seismic and geological hazards, and fire.
S -P20: Require soils reports for new Projects and use the information to determine
appropriate permitting requirements, if deemed necessary.
S -P22: Require new development to include grading and erosion control plans prepared by
a qualified engineer or land surveyor.
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-32 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans
Figure 4-1: Regional Faults
Environmental Checklist
� y 11l
f .+ NU T I� I 'k I �' }!ti, 3A[JOA OJN T4 I Y
A
.''i� { 9 K r V
% Q L
Q 1111111
1
Yt
'vim
,y
1Area
{47'.{Tr/ rS�.li"a # ±••. } r
_ WI"adv
"I
r. A n .I. J 4 A 4 U 1 N
afir' 7r1` ;i II C 6 U N 7 Y j
�. �AI 11p � \ � �1i1r'ni •• �y
4 PA L - A y. , i 4 t . u JLiwwc.
[0u 4Tf %
_ Ir -PI 7 Yl `� _
6 S ib 38
Active Fault {lilStorlC Dlsplaoetxlwt} ..ES
Active Fault (Holocene Displacement)
Potentially Active Fault
(Quaternary Displacement)
Inactive Fault (Pre-Ouatemary)
The proposed project consists of the adoption of Master Plans. The Master Plans do not
propose construction activities. The Master Plans would not involve any physical changes to
the environment.
i. There are no mapped surface or subsurface faults that traverse the city and the city is
not listed within a State designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Any
future construction will be required to employ building standards set forth in the
City's Building Code, including specific provisions for seismic design of structures.
In addition, the General Plan FEIR concluded that impacts associated with seismic -
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-33 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
related ground shaking would be reduced to less than significant due to mandatory
compliance with building codes, policies contained in the General Plan, and
mitigation measures included in the General Plan EIR. These mitigation measures
require site-specific geologic investigation of seismic and geotechnical hazards
potential for new development projects within the city. The proposed project would
not change or have any effect on these existing regulations or mitigation measures;
no new impacts associated with ground shaking or liquefaction would occur.
Significance Determination: No Impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
ii. A significant impact may occur if the proposed Project results in or exposes people
to adverse effects involving strong ground shaking from fault rupture or seismic
hazards. There is no record of any seismic activity originating in the City of Lodi
other than tremors on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, close to the Ortigalita
Fault. No impact.
Significance Determination: No Impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact.
iii. A significant impact may occur if the Project were to result in or expose people to
adverse effects involving seismic -related ground failure from liquefaction and other
geologic hazards. Liquefaction is a form of earthquake -induced ground failure that
occurs primarily in relatively shallow, loose, granular, water -saturated soils. The
potential for liquefaction is recognized throughout the San Joaquin Valley where
unconsolidated sediments and a high water table coincide. Areas which have the
greatest potential for liquefaction are those areas in which the water table is less than
50 feet below the ground surface and soils are predominantly clean, comprised of
relatively uniform sands and are of loose to medium density. However, the
proposed Master Plans would not expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects involving surface rupture as the Project involves no
construction activities. No impact.
Significance Determination: No Impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact.
iv. A significant impact may occur if the Project results in or exposes people to adverse
effects involving landslides. Slope stability hazards are nonexistent and present no
risk in the City of Lodi. The project limits are located in an area of generally level
terrain that would not produce a landslide. Average grade within the Project site is
between zero and five degrees. Additionally, according to the Official Maps of
Seismic Hazard Zones provided by the State of California Department of
Conservation, the City of Lodi is not located within an earthquake -induced landslide
zone, which is defined as an area where previous occurrence of landslide movement,
or local topographic, geological, geotechnical and subsurface water conditions
indicate a potential for permanent ground displacement.
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-34 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
Significance Determination: No Impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact.
(b) The project consists of adoption of regulatory and policy documents that will not result
directly in the construction activities. The proposed Master Plans would not put any
policies in place that would increase soil erosion or result in the loss of topsoil.
Moreover, all future development projects would be subject to compliance with City of
Lodi Municipal Code and the City's Storm Water Management and Discharge Control,
which requires compliance with NPDES standards and implementation of Best
Management Practices (BMP), in order to minimize short- and long-term erosion.
Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Significance Determination: No Impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(c) The conditions favorable for hazards associated with unstable geologic unit or soil
(landslides or subsidence/ collapse) are not present in Lodi. The proposed project will
not directly result in the construction within any area susceptible to liquefaction,
subsidence, landslide, or soil collapse hazards. All development projects constructed
pursuant to the Master Plans will be required to adhere to the standards contained in the
City's Building Code to prevent hazardous soil conditions that could lead to building
failure. The project does not involve any changes to these regulations. No impact would
occur from liquefaction, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
Significance Determination: No Impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(d) General Plan Mitigation Measure require that all new development have a site-specific
geology investigation of seismic and geotechnical hazards; this will ensure that impacts
related to expansive soils impacts are evaluated on a project -by -project basis.
Significance Determination: No Impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(e) The proposed project does not involve septic tanks or other soil -based wastewater
disposal systems. Future development within the project limits would connect to the
existing and/or future wastewater infrastructure. As sewers are available for the
disposal of wastewater, the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems would not be allowed. No impact would occur.
Significance Determination: No Impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-35 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
Sources:
California Geological Survey (CGS), Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Mapping Ground Motion
Page, http://redirect.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/psha/pshamap.asp, accessed
February 25, 2010.
City of Lodi, City of Lodi General Plan 2010, adopted April 2010. Safety Element. pg. 8-9.
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-36 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans
Environmental Checklist
Issues
potentially Less Than Less -Than -
Significant With No
Significant Significant
Mitigation Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS.
Wlould the Pr ject:
a.
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b.
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
C.
Emit hazardous emissions or handle
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
d.
Be located on a site which is included on a list
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as
a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e.
For a Project located within an airport land
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the Project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the Project area?
f.
For a Project within the vicinity of a private
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
airstrip, would the Project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
Project area?
g.
Impair implementation of or physically
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h.
Expose people or structures to a significant
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Regulatory Settings
Hazardous materials are substances which can harm people or the environment, can impair
human health if contacted, ingested, or inhaled. Such processes are classified as hazardous
because of materials they use or because of the potential for spills, fire or explosions to
occur.
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4_37 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
State agencies accept delegation of federal responsibility for the administration of hazardous
materials and hazardous waste management. The Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control
Act allows the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the RWQCB to
accept implementation and responsibility for the Clean Water Act. The Hazardous Waste
Control Act of 1977, and recent amendments to its implementing regulations, has given the
Department of Health Services (DHS) the lead role in administering the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program.
State and Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration Regulations
Pursuant to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, the federal Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) has adopted numerous regulations pertaining to
worker safety, contained in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 29 (29 CFR). California
OSHA (Cal/ OSHA) regulations are generally more stringent than federal OSHA regulations
and are detailed in Title 8 of the CCR.
San Joaquin County Hazardous Materials Plan
San Joaquin County prepared a Hazardous Materials Area Plan in March 2004. This
document was prepared in accordance with statutory requirements. The overall goal of the
hazardous materials response system is to protect public health, prevent environmental
damage, and ensure proper use and disposal of hazardous materials.
San Joaquin County Multi -Hazard Plan
The San Joaquin County Multi -Hazard Plan addresses the four phases of emergency
management: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. The Plan identifies those
organizations, agencies, and individuals that are assigned duties and responsibilities for
responding to emergencies within the unincorporated areas of the county and in support of
incorporated cities. It also provides guidance on how emergencies will be managed.
Lodi General Plan
The Lodi General Plan Safety Element provides guiding and implementing policies
regarding hazards and hazardous materials.
S -G2: Prevent loss of lives, injury, illness, and property damage due to flooding,
hazardous materials, seismic and geological hazards.
S -P10: Require that all fuel sand chemical storage tanks are appropriately constructed;
include spill containment areas to prevent seismic damage, leakage, fire and
explosion; and are structurally or spatially separated from sensitive land uses,
such as residential neighborhoods, schools, hospitals and places of public
assembly.
The proposed project consists of adoption of Master Plans. The Master Plans do not propose
construction activities. The Master Plans do not involve any physical changes to the
environment.
(a) Adoption of the Master Plans would not provide exceptions to existing laws governing
the use and disposal of any hazardous materials. As noted in the General Plan Program
EIR, compliance with measures established by Federal, State, and local regulatory
agencies is considered adequate to offset the negative effects related to the use, storage,
and transport of hazardous materials in the City. In addition, policies and policy actions
in the General Plan address hazardous materials and safety. The project would not
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-38 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
conflict with any of these policies, and would not exempt any future development from
the City's programs to control and safely dispose of hazardous materials and wastes.
With implementation of standard City practices and Federal, State, and local policies
regarding hazardous waste and hazardous materials, no impact from the use, transport,
or disposal of hazardous wastes or materials is anticipated.
Significance Determination: No Impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(b) The proposed project does not involve any development activity. The General Plan Final
Program EIR concluded that compliance with measures established by Federal, State,
and local regulatory agencies is considered adequate to offset the negative effects related
to the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials in the City. Additional General Plan goals, policies, and
implementation measures, as well as mitigation measures contained in the General Plan
Final Program EIR further reduce accidental release of hazardous materials impacts to a
less -than -significant level. The proposed project does not revise any of these policies and
does not allow uses generally associated with hazardous materials, beyond general
hazards associated with residential and commercial development. Individual
development projects will be required to comply with City, Federal, and State
requirements and any other applicable City regulations relating to hazardous materials.
Impact would be less than significant.
Significance Determination: No Impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(c) The proposed Master Plans would not authorize any new kinds of land uses in the City
or any new or more dangerous processes that involve use, transport, storage, generation
or disposal of hazardous substances or wastes. All land uses that would be permitted as
a result of the proposed Specific Plan were anticipated citywide by the General Plan and
the General Plan Program EIR.
Significance Determination: No Impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(d) The project limits do not contain any known location designated as hazardous materials
sites. In the event that hazardous materials are discovered during construction,
construction would cease until such materials have been remediated in accordance with
state and local requirements. Such standards have been designed to eliminate or
minimize to an acceptable level the potential health impacts associated with human
exposure to hazardous materials. As described above, the Master Plans do not involve
construction activities. All future construction activities would be subject to standard
City procedures and other applicable State and Federal procedures and requirements.
Significance Determination: No Impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-39 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
(e) A significant impact may occur if the proposed Project site is located within a public
airport land use plan area or within 2 miles of a public airport and would create a safety
hazard. The project limits are not located within the area of influence for the Lodi
Airpark and Kingdon Executive Airport. The Lodi Airpark is located roughly 3 miles to
the southwest of the City of Lodi while the Kingdon Executive Airport is located
approximately 4 miles southwest of the Project site. The primary function of the Lodi
Airpark is as a base for a commercial aerial chemical application service for both
agriculture and insect abatement purposes. The Lodi Airpark is also used for pilot
training activity. The Kingdon Executive Airport presently hosts a variety of aviation
activities including pilot training and aerial application of agricultural chemicals. The
airport is also home to the Delta Flying Club, which owns six single-engine piston
aircraft for use by its members. Because the Master Plans have been developed in
accordance with the 2010 General Plan and would not likely result in airport -related
safety issues, no impact related to public airports and private airstrips would occur.
Significance Determination: No Impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(f) A significant impact may occur if the proposed Project is located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip and creates a safety hazard for people in the Project area. The project
limits are outside of the Part 77 Horizontal Surface zone of the Lodi Airpark and
Kingdon Executive Airport. Part 77 Horizontal Surface zone consists of the airport's
primary, horizontal, conical, approach and transitional surfaces. Therefore, no impact is
anticipated.
Significance Determination: No Impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(g) The Lodi Emergency Operations Plan outlines emergency response actions in the event
of a large-scale disaster, such as a hazardous materials emergency. The proposed project
will not directly result in any new construction. All future development in the City
would be subject to compliance with the General Plan Policies and Policy Actions. The
General Plan Program EIR requires traffic control plans for new development to ensure
that construction would not interfere with emergency response/ evacuation plans. No
change or interference with these emergency response plans or related policies will
occur as associated with the project. The Master Plans do not propose any changes to the
primary circulation system that could affect evacuation plans. No impact would occur in
this regard.
Significance Determination: No Impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(h) The City's newly adopted 2010 General Plan identifies both urban and wildland fire
hazards exist in the Lodi Planning Area, creating the potential for injury, loss of life, and
property damage. Urban fires primarily involve the uncontrolled burning of residential,
commercial, and/or industrial structures due to human activities. Factors that
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-40 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
exacerbate urban structural fires include substandard building construction, highly
flammable materials, delayed response times, and inadequate fire protection services.
The City of Lodi is not characterized by substantial areas of wildlands. The topography
of the City is relatively homogenous and steep slopes that could contribute to wildland
fires are not common. The City's General Plan indicates that less than one percent of the
City and its immediate vicinity has "Moderate' fire hazard potential. In the event of a
fire, the Fire Department relies on sufficient water supply and pressure. The City's
design standard for water transmission facilities is to provide 4,000 gallons per minute
of flow at a minimum 45 pounds per square inch of pressure in pipes 8 inches and
larger. The Project area is made up of Non-Wildland/Non-Urban zones,
Urban/Unzoned, and Moderate Risk zones. Therefore, the proposed Project would not
expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildland fires are adjacent to urbanized areas. As such,
there would be no impact.
Significance Determination: No Impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
Sources:
California Geological Survey (CGS), Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Mapping Ground
Motion Page, http://redirect.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/psha/pshamap.asp, accessed
August, 2010.
City of Lodi. City of Lodi General Plan Policy Document. Prepared by Dytte and Bhatia,
Inc. April 2010.
San Joaquin County, Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 2008.
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-41 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4.42 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans
Environmental Checklist
Issues
PotentiaUy Less Than Less -Than -
Significant With No
Significant Significant
Mitigation Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the Project:
a.
Violate any water quality standards or waste
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
discharge requirements?
b.
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (i.e., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
C.
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in
a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d.
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
e.
Create or contribute runoff water which
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f.
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
g.
Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
area, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
h.
Place within a 100 -year floodplain structures
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i.
Expose people or structures to a significant
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
J.
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Regulatory Setting
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-43 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
Federal
Clean Water Act
Important applicable sections of the federal CWA (33 USC 1251-1376) include:
• Sections 303 and 304 provide water quality standards, criteria, and guidelines.
• Section 401 requires an applicant for any federal permit that proposes an activity
that may result in a discharge to waters of the United States to obtain certification
from the state that the discharge will comply with other provisions of CWA.
Certification is provided by the RWQCB.
• Section 402 establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES), a permitting system for the discharge of any pollutant (except for
dredged or fill material) into waters of the United States. This permit program is
administered by the Central Valley RWQCB. The proposed Project would have a
footprint greater than 1 acre. As a result, an NPDES General Construction Permit
will need to be obtained prior to any construction activities. One requirement for
an NPDES permit is the development and implementation of a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that provides BMPs to prevent the discharge of
pollutants and sediments into receiving waters.
• Section 404 establishes permit programs for the discharge of dredged or fill
material into waters of the United States. This permit program is administered by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
State
Porter -Cologne Water Quality Act
The State of California's Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water
Code, Section 13000 et seq.) provides the basis for water quality regulation in California.
The act requires a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) for any discharge of waste [liquid,
solid, or otherwise) to land or surface waters that may impair a beneficial use of surface or
groundwater of the state. Based on the report, the RWQCBs issue waste discharge
requirements to minimize the effect of the discharge.
Report of Waste Discharge
The ROWD is pursuant to California Water Code Section 13260. Section 13260 states that
persons discharging or proposing to discharge waste that could affect the quality of the
waters of the state, other than into a community sewer system, must file an ROWD
containing information that may be required by the appropriate RWQCB.
Local
Lodi General Plan
Environmental Checklist
The Safety Element of the Lodi General Plan addresses flooding and water quality issues.
GM -G2: Provide infrastructure -including water, sewer, stormwater, and solid
waste/recycling systems -that is designed and timed to be consistent with
Projected capacity requirements and development phasing.
GM -P8: Ensure that public facilities and infrastructure —including water supply, sewer,
and stormwater facilities —are designed to meet Projected capacity requirements
to avoid the need for future replacement and upsizing, pursuant to the General
Plan and relevant master planning.
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-44 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
S -G2: Prevent loss of lives, injury, illness, and property damage due to flooding,
hazardous materials, seismic and geologic hazards and fire.
S -PI: Continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program and ensure
that local regulations are in full compliance with standards adopted by FEMA.
(a) The proposed project does not involve any construction activity and thus will not
involve any discharges to water bodies. Future instillation of the proposed Master Plans
will be required to comply with the City's local procedures as well as requirements of
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program of the
Federal Clean Water Act to control storm water runoff and prevent violations of
regional water quality standards. Less than significant impact on water quality
standards or waste discharges would occur.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(b) Groundwater is a major component of the water supply for many public water suppliers
in the Valley. It is also used by private industry, as well as by private agricultural and
domestic users. A project would normally have a significant impact on groundwater
supplies if it were to result in a demonstrable and sustained reduction in groundwater
recharge capacity or change the potable water levels enough to reduce the ability of a
water to use the groundwater basin for public water supplies or the storage of imported
water, reduce the yields of adjacent wells or well fields, or adversely change the rate or
direction of groundwater flow. The proposed Master Plans are policy documents and do
not involve construction activities. All future construction activities would be subjected
to environmental review on project -by -project basis.
Significance Determination: No impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(c) A significant impact may occur if the proposed project results in a substantial alteration
of drainage patterns and a substantial increase in erosion or siltation during construction
or operation of the project. The proposed Master Plans do not propose alteration of any
watercourse or specific modifications to drainage patterns. The proposed project consists
of adaptation of a policy documents and no construction is proposed. Therefore, no
impact is anticipated.
Significance Determination: No impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(d) Refer to c), above. The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area. New development would not be permitted to occur
in any manner that could significantly alter the drainage pattern of an area nor create
any new sources of runoff. As indicated in the General Plan Final Program EIR, all
future development would be required to incorporate adequate drainage that would
transport runoff to local basins and nearby storm channels. Additionally, the proposed
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-45 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
project would not create runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of the City's
existing stormwater drainage system. The General Plan Growth Management Element and
Safety Element policies and policy actions further protect community members from
drainage and flooding harm. The project consists of regulatory and policy documents
and will not result directly in the construction of any development. As the proposed
project does not affect any of these policies, less than significant impacts on drainage
patterns and runoff levels are anticipated.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(e) The project consists of regulatory and policy documents and will not result directly in
the construction of any development. All future construction activates would be subject
to environmental review on project -by -project basis. As the proposed project does not
affect any of these policies, less than significant impacts on drainage patterns and runoff
levels are anticipated.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(f) The proposed project consists of regulatory and policy documents that will not directly
result in any new construction. No new sources of runoff, waste discharges, or
hazardous material sites would arise from adoption and implementation of the Master
Plans. Any development project pursuant to these regulations will be required to
comply with City, County, and State regulations that protect water quality. Project
impacts on water quality would be less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(g) A significant impact may occur if the proposed project is located within a 100 -year flood
zone. The proposed Master Plans would not place housing within a 100 -year flood
hazard area identified on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map because the Project does not include a
residential component that would be affected by flooding potential. Project impacts
would be less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(h) A significant impact may occur if the proposed project is located within a 100 -year flood
zone and would impede or redirect flood flows.
As discussed in Checklist Response 3.9 (G) above, the project site is not located within a
100 -year flood hazard area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Master Plan
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-46 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
would not place structures or housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area and a less
than significant impact would occur in this regard.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(i) The City, including the project limits, is subject to inundation of the the Pardee and
Camanche Dam and dike system were to fail. Flood water from the Pardee dam would
take 4 hours and 20 minutes to reach west Lodi, and flood water from the Camanche
Dam and dike system would take 4 to 6 hours to reach Lodi. Due to the location of the
proposed Project, the impacts associated with seiches, tsunami, and extreme high tides
or sea level change would be considered low.
Significance Determination: No impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
0) The project limits are not located near any body of water or water storage facility that
would be considered susceptible to seiche. Lodi is located inland from the Pacific Ocean
and as such, is not subject to tsunami hazards. The project limits are relatively flat and
fully urbanized and therefore not susceptible to mudflows. No impact would result.
Significance Determination: No Impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
Sources
City of Lodi. City of Lodi General Plan Policy Document. Prepared by Dytte and Bhatia,
Inc. April 2010.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Map No.
06077C0306F, October 19, 2009.
Western Regional Climate Center, 2005. Website: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-
bin/cliMAIN.pl?calodi+nca
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-47 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4_48 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
potentiallyLess Than Less -Than -
Issues Sign fican Significant With Significant No
t
Mitigation Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING.
Vould the Pr lect:
a. Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating on
environmental effect?
C. Conflict with any applicable habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
Regulatory Setting
There are several regulatory documents that serve as a guide for land use and development
on the Project site. The following review of these documents is categorized based on the
four jurisdictions that oversee the regulation of the Project site: the City of Lodi; the County
of San Joaquin; the San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO),
and the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG). Regulations that specifically relate to
agricultural use are discussed separately.
City of Lodi General Plan. The Lodi General Plan was adopted in April 2010, and
represents the official policy regarding the future character and quality of development
within the City of Lodi. The General Plan designates the general distribution of different
types of land uses within the City, and the document serves as a point of reference for
public officials when making land use and planning decisions.
The General Plan includes the following elements: Land Use, Circulation, Open Space,
Conservation, Safety, Noise, Housing and two optional elements: Community Design and
Livability and Growth Management and Infrastructure. For each of these elements, the
General Plan outlines goals, policies, standards, and implementation programs. A goal is
considered a direction -setter, an ideal future end, condition, or state. A policy is a specific
statement that guides decision- making. A standard is a specific, quantified guideline that is
incorporated into a policy or implementation program. An implementation program is an
action, procedure, program or technique that carries out general plan policy.
This designation provides for neighborhood and locally oriented retail and service uses,
multifamily residential units, public and quasi -public uses, professional and administrative
offices, medical and dental clinics, laboratories, financial institutions, and similar and
compatible uses. Annexation of the Project would not necessitate General Plan amendment.
GM -P2 Target new growth into identified areas, extending south, west, and southeast.
Ensure contiguous development by requiring development to conform to phasing
described in Development Phasing map below. Enforce phasing through
permitting and infrastructure provision. Development may not extend to Phase 2
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-49 April 2012
of Lodi —Utility Master Plans Environmental Checklist
until Phase 1 has reached 75% of development potential (measured in acres) and
development may not extend to Phase 3 until Phase 2 has reached 75% of
development potential. In order to respond to market changes in the demand for
various land use types, exemptions may be made to allow for development in
future phases before these thresholds in the previous phase have been reached.
GM -P6 Annex areas outside the existing sphere of influence to conform with development
needs for Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3. Subsequent phases shall be annexed as
current phases reach development thresholds.
The Lodi General Plan Land Use Element lists the following applicable guidelines policy:
GM -P2 Create a balanced and sustainable land use pattern that provides for a diversity of
uses and satisfies existing and future needs.
(a) The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of
a physical feature (such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a
means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an
existing community, or between a community and outlying area. The proposed project
is adoption and implementation of a policy document and involves no construction
activities.
Significance Determination: No Impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(b) The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan goals, policies, and
objectives. The proposed project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan.
With regard to consistency with Federal and State plans and policies, the General Plan
contains policies and implementing actions such as the referral of plans to appropriate
Federal and State agencies to ensure consistency between City and other agency
regulations and requirements. Policies in the General Plan provide for implementation
of and participation in area -wide planning efforts. As indicated in the General Plan
Program EIR, the General Plan is consistent with Federal and State plans. The proposed
Master Plans would not affect any of these General Plan policies or implementing
actions, and would therefore have no impact on the conclusions of the General Plan
Program EIR. No impact would result.
Significance Determination: No Impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(c) As discussed in 3.10 (B) above, there are no physical improvements or construction
activities proposed by the Master Plans. The proposed Master Plans are consistent with
the San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan
(SJMSCP), as amended, as reflected in the conditions of Project approval for this
proposal. Pursuant to the Final EIR/EIS for the San Joaquin county Multi -Species
Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), dated November 15, 2000, and
certified by the San Joaquin Council of Governments on December 7, 2000,
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-50 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
implementation of the SJMSCP is expected to reduce impacts to biological resources
resulting from the proposed Project to a level of less -than -significant. That document is
hereby incorporated by reference and is available for review during regular business
hours at the San Joaquin Council of Governments (555 East Webber Avenue/ Stockton,
CA 95202) or online at: www.sjcog.org.
Significance Determination: No Impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
Sources
City of Lodi. City of Lodi General Plan Policy Document. Prepared by Dytte & Bhatia, Inc.,
April 2010.
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-51 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4_52 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
Potentially Less Thagnificann Less -Than- No
Issues Significant With N irigation Significant Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
Vould the Pr lect:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the State?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally- ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
(a) The proposed project consists of adoption Master Plans. The Master Plans are
implementing policies of the City's 2012 General Plan. The City of Lodi General Plan EIR
2010 GP does not specifically address mineral resources. As such the presumption is that
impacts related to mineral resources was determined to be less -than -significant during
the EIR scoping stage of the analysis, and no further assessment was performed. In
addition, no construction activities are proposed. Therefore, no impact to mineral
resources would occur.
Significance Determination: Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(b) As discussed in 3.11(A), no physical improvements or construction activities are
proposed by the project itself at this time. Subsequent development in the Plan Area,
including all Subdivisions, Site Plan Reviews, Planned Development Review, and
Conditional Use Permits will be subject to environmental review on a project -by -project
basis.
Significance Determination: Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
Sources
California Department of Conservation (CDC), Division of Mines, California Geological
Survey - SMARA Mineral Land Classification Map 2006.
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-53 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-54 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans
Environmental Checklist
potentially Less Than Less -Than -
Issues Significant
ignifica t Significant With Significant NO
M tigation Impact
Impact Impact
Incorporated
4.12 NOISE
Would the Project result in:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels
existing without the Project?
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity
above levels existing without the Project?
e. For a Project located within an airport land use
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the Project expose
people residing or working in the Project area
to excessive noise levels?
f. For a Project within the vicinity of a private
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
airstrip, would the Project expose people
residing or working in the Project area to
excessive noise levels?
Noise
Terminology
Noise is commonly defined as unwanted sound that annoys or disturbs people and
potentially causes an adverse psychological or physiological effect on human health.
Because noise is an environmental pollutant that can interfere with human activities,
evaluation of noise is necessary when considering the environmental impacts of a
proposed Project.
Sound is mechanical energy (vibration) transmitted by pressure waves over a medium
such as air or water. Sound is characterized by various parameters that include the rate of
oscillation of sound waves (frequency), the speed of propagation, and the pressure level
or energy content (amplitude). In particular, the sound pressure level is the most common
descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient (existing) sound level. Several
noise measurement scales exist which are used to describe noise in a particular location. A
decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement which indicates the relative intensity of a sound. The
0 point on the dB scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired
human ear can detect. Changes of 3.0 dB or less are only perceptible in laboratory
environments. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3.0 dB or
more, as this level has been found to be barely perceptible to the human ear in outdoor
environments. Sound levels in dB are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10
dB represents a 10 -fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense,
30 dB is 1,000 times more intense. Each 10 -dB increase in sound level is perceived as
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-55 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans
Environmental Checklist
approximately a doubling of loudness. Sound intensity is normally measured through the
A -weighted sound level (dBA). This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to
which the human ear is most sensitive. Table below provides definitions of sound
measurements and other terminology used in this chapter.
Table 12-1: Sound Definition and T
Decibel (dB)
A unitless measure of sound on a logarithmic scale,
which indicates the squared ratio of sound
pressure amplitude to a reference sound pressure
amplitude. The reference pressure is 20 micro -
pascals.
A -Weighted Decibel (dBA)
7:00 a.m.
or PPV)
An overall frequency -weighted sound level in
decibels that approximates the frequency response
of the human ear.
Maximum Sound Level (Lmax)
moving relative to its inactive state. PPV is usually
The maximum sound level measured during the
Frequency: Hertz (Hz)
measurement period.
Minimum Sound Level (Lmin)
The number of complete pressure fluctuations per
The minimum sound level measured during the
measurement period.
Equivalent Sound Level (Leq)
The equivalent steady state sound level that in a
stated period of time would contain the same
Percentile -Exceeded Sound Level
acoustical energy.
(Lxx) The sound level exceeded "x" % of a specific time
period. Llois the sound level exceeded 10% of the
time.
Day -Night Level (Ldn) The energy average of the A -weighted sound
levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 10
dB added to the A -weighted sound levels
occurring during the period from 10:00 p.m. to
7:00 a.m.
Community Noise Equivalent Level I The energy average of the A -weighted sound
(CNEL)
levels occurring during a 24-hour period with 5 dB
added to the A -weighted sound levels occurring
during the period from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
and 10 dB added to the A -weighted sound levels
occurring during the period from 10:00 p.m. to
Peak Particle Velocity (Peak Velocity
7:00 a.m.
or PPV)
A measurement of ground vibration defined as
the maximum speed (measured in inches per
second) at which a particle in the ground is
moving relative to its inactive state. PPV is usually
expressed in inches/ sec.
Frequency: Hertz (Hz)
The number of complete pressure fluctuations per
second above and below atmospheric pressure.
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-56 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
As noise spreads from a source, it loses energy so that the farther away the noise receiver is
from the noise source, the lower the perceived noise level would be. Geometric spreading
causes the sound level to attenuate or be reduced, resulting in a 6 -dB reduction in the noise
level for each doubling of distance from a single point source of noise to the noise sensitive
receptor of concern. There are many ways to rate noise for various time periods, but an
appropriate rating of ambient noise affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects
of sound. Equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the total sound energy of time -varying
noise over a sample period. However, the predominant rating scales for human
communities in the State of California are the Leq and community noise equivalent level
(CNEL) or the day -night average level (Ldn) based on A -weighted decibels (dBA). CNEL is
the time -varying noise over a 24-hour period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the
hourly Leq for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours)
and a 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
(defined as sleeping hours). Ldn is similar to the CNEL scale but without the adjustment for
events occurring during the evening hours. CNEL and Ldn are within one dBA of each
other and are normally exchangeable. The noise adjustments are added to the noise events
occurring during the more sensitive hours. The City of Lodi uses the CNEL noise scale for
long-term noise impact assessments. Table below demonstrates typical a -weighted sound
levels for indoor and outdoor activities.
12-2: Tvvical A -Weighted Sound Levels
Common Outdoor Activities
Noise Level
dBA
Common Indoor Activities
110
Rock band
Jet flyover at 1,000 feet
100
Gas lawnmower at 3 feet
90
Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 mph
Food blender at 3 feet
80
Garbage disposal at 3 feet
Noisy urban area, daytime
Gas lawnmower, 100 feet
70
Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet
Commercial area
Normal s eech at 3 feet
Heavy traffic at 300 feet
60
Large business office
Quiet urban daytime
50
Dishwasher in next room
Regulatory Setting
Noise Control Act (1972)
In 1972 Congress enacted the Noise Control Act. This act authorized the EPA to publish
descriptive data on the effects of noise and establish levels of sound "requisite to protect
the public welfare with an adequate margin of safety." These levels are separated into
health (hearing loss levels) and welfare (annoyance levels) as shown in Table IV.D-2. The
EPA cautions that these identified levels are not standards because they do not take into
account the cost or feasibility of the levels. For protection against hearing loss, 96 percent
of the population would be protected if sound levels are less than or equal to an Leq(24)
of 70 dB. The "(24)" signifies an Leq duration of 24 hours. The EPA activity and
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-57 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
interference guidelines are designed to ensure reliable speech communication at about 5
feet in the outdoor environment. For outdoor and indoor environments, interference with
activity and annoyance should not occur if levels are below 55 dBA and 45 dBA,
respectively.
State of California.
The State of California has established regulations that help prevent adverse impacts to
occupants of buildings located near noise sources. Referred to as the "State Noise
Insulation Standard," it requires buildings to meet performance standards through design
and/or building materials that would offset any noise source in the vicinity of the
receptor. State regulations include requirements for the construction of new hotels,
motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single-family dwellings that
are intended to limit the extent of noise transmitted into habitable spaces. These
requirements are found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24 (known as the
Building Standards Administrative Code), Part 2 (known as the California Building
Code), Appendix Chapters 12 and 12A. For limiting noise transmitted between adjacent
dwelling units, the noise insulation standards specify the extent to which walls, doors,
and floor ceiling assemblies must block or absorb sound. For limiting noise from exterior
noise sources, the noise insulation standards set an interior standard of 45 dBA CNEL in
any habitable room with all doors and windows closed. In addition, the standards require
preparation of an acoustical analysis demonstrating the manner in which dwelling units
have been designed to meet this interior standard, where such units are proposed in an
area with exterior noise levels greater than 60 dBA CNEL.
City of Lodi.
The City of Lodi addresses noise in the Noise Element of the General Plan and in the
Noise Ordinance. The Noise Element of the General Plan adopts the Land Use
Compatibility Chart which is shown in below. The Noise Element also lists goals and
policies for the City related to noise. Table below presents the community noise exposure
matrix, which explains the compatibility of land uses at various noise levels and offers
criteria which the City can use to evaluate land use decisions. This matrix is adapted and
slightly modified from the Office of Noise Control in the State Department of Health
Services guidelines for local governments to use when setting standards for human
exposure to noise and preparing noise elements for general plans.
12-3: Tvvical Weighted Noise Levels
Land Use
Outdoor Activity Area'
(CNEL)
Interior Areas (CNEL)
Residential
60
45
Motels, Hotels
60
45
Public/Semi-Public
65
45
Recreational
65
50
Commercial
65
50
Industrial
70
65
1. For no -residential uses, where an outdoor activity area is not proposed, the
standard does not apply.
Source: Lodi General Plan 2010, Chapter 9: Noise, page 9-9.
The following are the City of Lodi Goals, Policies and Implementation Programs from the
Noise Element of the General Plan that are related to the proposed Project.
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-58 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
N -G1 Protect humans, the natural environment, and property from manmade hazards
due to excessive noise exposure.
N -G2 Protect sensitive uses, including schools, hospitals, and senior care facilities, from
excessive noise.
N -P1 Control and mitigate nose at the source where feasible, as opposed to at the
receptor end.
N -P2 Encourage the control of noise through site design, building design, landscaping,
hours of operation, and other techniques for new development deemed to be noise
generators.
N -P3 Use the noise and land use compatibility matrix provided in the General Plan 2010
and allowable noise exposure levels as review criteria for all new land uses.
Incorporate noise attenuation measures for all Projects that have noise exposure
levels of "conditionally acceptable' and higher. These may include:
• Fagades constructed with substantial weight and insulation;
• Sound -rated windows in habitable rooms;
• Sound -rated doors in all exterior entries;
• Active cancellation;
• Acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys, fans and gable ends;
• Ventilation system affording comfort under
• closed -window conditions; and
• Double doors and heavy roofs with ceilings of two layers of gypsum board on
resilient channels to meet the highest noise level reduction requirements.
N -P4 Discourage noise sensitive uses such as residences, hospitals, schools, libraries, and
rest homes from locating in areas with noise levels above 65db. Conversely, do not
permit new uses likely to produce high levels of noise (above 65db) from locating
in or adjacent to areas with existing or planned noise -sensitive uses.
N -P5 Noise sensitive uses, such as residences, hospitals, schools, libraries, and rest
homes, proposed in areas that have noise exposure levels of "conditionally
acceptable" and higher must complete an acoustical study, prepared by a
professional acoustic engineer. This study should specify the appropriate noise
mitigation features to be included in the design and construction of these uses, to
achieve interior noise levels.
N -P6 Where substantial traffic noise increases (to above 70db) are expected, such as on
Lower Sacramento Road or Harney Lane, as shown on the accompanying graphic,
require a minimum 12 -foot setback for noise -sensitive land uses, such as
residences, hospitals, schools, libraries, and rest homes.
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-59 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
Minimum setback of 12 feet for noise -sensitive land uses.
City of Lodi Noise Ordinance
The City of Lodi's Noise Ordinance, found in Chapter 9.24 of the Municipal Code,
specifically
mandates noise limits on construction noise and ambient noise levels.
The ordinance establishes allowable levels of sound that may cross any adjacent property
line, as well as prohibiting general nuisance noise and identifying a number of specific
prohibitions. The City of Lodi Municipal Code regulations relevant to this Project are:
9.24.020 a. General Noise Regulations. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
chapter, and in addition thereto, it is unlawful for any persons to willfully make or
continue or permit or cause to be made or continued, any loud, unnecessary or unusual
noise which unreasonably disturbs the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or which
causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal noise sensitivity.
9.24.030 c. It is unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to cause, permit or generate
any noise or sound as described herein between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
which exceeds the ambient noise levels at the property line of any residential property as
determined at the time of such reading by more than five decibels. This section shall be
applicable whether such noise or sound is of a commercial or noncommercial nature.
The City of Lodi Municipal Code exempts any sound -causing equipment that has a valid
City license or permit. Construction activities would need to be authorized by City
construction permits before any work could begin on site. The municipal code does not
establish the time period that this exempted equipment may operate. However, limits on
construction hours would be determined in the special provisions for construction
activities. Because this is a City Project, authorization is not needed before work can begin.
(a) The proposed Master Plans will not directly result in any construction activity and thus
will not result in the exposure of any persons to short-term construction noise or any
long-term excessive noise conditions. However, development followed pursuant to the
Master Plans could result in the exposure of future developments and residents to
higher noise levels that could exceed the City's Noise Standards. The General Plan
Program EIR concluded that with adherence to the City's Noise Ordinance, impacts
would be reduced to a less than significant level. Future development pursuant to the
proposed project would also be subject to these mitigation measures, and the proposed
project would not change any General Plan policies associated with reduction of noise
impacts. Impact would be less than significant.
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-60 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
Significance Determination: Less than significant impact
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(b) The project will not result directly in any construction activity and thus will not result in
the exposure of any persons to groundborne noise or vibration. Consistent with the
General Plan, development under the Master Plans would be reviewed on project -by -
project basis. Impact would be less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant impact
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(c) The proposed project does not authorize any development activity, nor does the project
allow for any new noise -intensive land uses in the project limits that would lead to the
establishment of a noise environment different than that existing in the area today and
the noise environment analyzed in the General Plan Program EIR. All land use activities
will be required to comply with the noise regulations contained in Municipal Code.
Future development pursuant to the proposed project would also be subject to General
Plan Policies, Policy Actions, and Mitigation Measures. Impact would be less than
significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant impact
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(d) The proposed project will not directly result in any new construction. The proposed
Master Plans implement policies and programs approved in the City of Lodi 2010
General Plan. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that compliance and/or
adherence to the City's Noise Ordinance, policies and policy actions in the General Plan,
and adherence to FEIR mitigation measure listed in the Noise Element would reduce
short-term construction noise impacts to less than significant levels.44 The proposed
project would not affect any of these policies and future development projects would be
required to abide by them. Impact would be less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant impact
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(e) The proposed Master Plans would not expose people residing or working in the project
limits to excessive noise levels generated by public use airports, or private airstrips.
There is not an airport located within two (2) miles of the project limits. The closest
airport to the Project site is the Lodi Airpark, located approximately four (4) miles
southwest of the Project site, and supports twenty to thirty (20-30) operations per day.
The airport's noise "footprint" does not extend beyond the immediate airport boundary.
Therefore, the Project would have no impact from airport -generated noise.
Significance Determination: Less than significant impact
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-61 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(f) The City of Lodi is not located within an airport land use plan and no public airports are
located within two miles of the City. There is not an airport located within two (2) miles
of the project limits. The proposed project would not introduce any new public airports
or private airstrips within the City; no impact would result.
Significance Determination: Less than significant impact
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
Source:
City of Lodi. City of Lodi General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report SCH NO.
2009022075. Prepared by Dytte & Bhatia Associates, Inc., April 2010.
. City of Lodi General Plan 2010. Prepared by Prepared by Dytte & Bhatia
Associates, Inc., April 2010.
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4.62 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
Potentially Less Than Less -Than- No
Issues Significant With nificaNlitigtion nt Significant Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Vould the Prelect:
a. Induce substantial population growth in an ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g.,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
C. Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
(a) The proposed project consists of the implementation of Master Plans. Implementation of
the proposed Master Plans is necessary to support the General Plans growth forecast.
No new housing or employment opportunities would not be created as a result of
adoption of the proposed Master Plans. Therefore, because the proposed project would
not change population within the City, impacts related to population growth would be
less -than -significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant impact
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(b) The proposed Master Plans do not propose any policies that are intended to or that
would indirectly result in displacement or demolition of any permanent or temporary
residential structures. The project is not expected to induce development and population
to the City. Demand for new housing beyond that anticipated in the General Plan
would not be created from the development of the proposed project nor would the
proposed project displace any existing housing or people. Therefore, no impact to
housing would result.
Significance Determination: No impact
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(c) Please refer to 3.13(B). Implementation of the plans would not result in displacement of
people and no replacement housing would be required.
Significance Determination: No impact
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-63 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
Sources:
City of Lodi. City of Lodi General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report SCH NO.
2009022075. Prepared by Dytte & Bhatia Associates, Inc., April 2010.
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-64 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
potentiallyLess Than Less -Than -
Significant Significant With No
Issues Significant Significant
Mitigation Impact
Impact Impact
Incorporated
4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of nein orphysically
alteredgovernmental facilities, need for new orphysically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or otherperformance
objectives for any of the public services:
a. Fire protection?
❑
❑
■ ❑
b. Police protection?
❑
❑
■ ❑
C. Schools?
❑
❑
■ ❑
d. Parks?
❑
❑
■ ❑
e. Other public facilities?
❑
❑
■ ❑
Regulatory Settings
City of Lodi General Plan
The Lodi General Plan Growth Management and Infrastructure Element addressed public
services.
GM -G4: Provide public facilities -including police and fire services, schools and libraries
commensurate with the needs of the existing and future population.
Fire Protection
The Lodi Fire Department (LFD) provides fire protection, basic life support (BLS), fire
prevention, technical rescue, and hazardous materials response services to the City of Lodi.
The LFD employs 48 firefighters, captains, and engineers. In addition, LFD employs 4
battalion chiefs, 2 division chiefs, 1 fire chief, 2 support staff, and 1 inspector for a total
department work force of 59. LFD maintains 4 front line fire apparatus capable of 1500
GPM, one Truck Company, 100 ft aerial, 2 reserve apparatus, and various support vehicles.
The LFD has 4 fire stations located throughout the City of Lodi.
Police
The Lodi Police Department provides law enforcement and animal services to the City of
Lodi. The LPD has 117 positions including 78 Sworn Officers. The LPD will service the area
that will be annexed. In addition, the LPD maintains SWAT van, 1 SWAT armored Vehicle,
1 Mobile Command Center,1 DUI trailer,1 Crime Prevention van,1 FET van, 24 patrol cars,
25 undercover cars, 4 motorcycles, 1 bomb squad van, and 4 volunteer vehicles. The LPD
also maintains an average of 1.25 -minute emergency response time and maintains an
average of 31 minutes per call at the scene of the incident.
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-65 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans Environmental Checklist
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4-66 April 2012
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans
Environmental Checklist
Figure 4.14.1— Fire Stations and Police Department Locations
1 Mixo
FLS! FTAi Clip
F4LICF {TASJ#K
W VII ZF1 All?14! FLIF
MMIX A: RIX 5TJGN AREM
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4_67 April 2012
Loeativa of Pollee Deparlmant
and Fixe Slations
of Lodi —Utilitv Master Plans
Environmental Checklist
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 4_68 April 2012
4.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Schools
The Project site lies within the Lodi Unified School District (LUSD). The Lodi Unified School
District provides public education for grades preschool through twelve on a traditional
calendar system. The District employs 3,018 contracted employees, including 1,573 teachers.
The District maintains thirty elementary schools, seven middle schools, and ten alternative
schools, and three charter schools. In addition, the District currently has plans for five more
elementary schools, including the one proposed as part of this Project. At present, the
District employs one thousand five hundred seventy-three teachers 1,573 teachers at its
facilities.
Parks and Recreation. The City of Lodi operates a total of 27 parks, natural open space areas,
and sports field. Park facilities in Lodi range from mini -parks and tot lots to larger regional
parks and natural open space areas, in accordance with the City of Lodi Park development
standards. Several parks serve the dual purpose of a park facility and a storm drainage
detention basin during the winter rainy season. The City of Lodi General Plan established a
standard of 8 acres of neighborhood and community parkland per 1,000 population,
including school parks and storm drainage detention basin parks, and 3.9 acres of
neighborhood and community parkland per 1,000 population, excluding school parks and
storm drainage detention basin parks. (More detailed discussion is provided in Recreation
Section).
(a) The proposed project consists of the adoption of Master Plans. The proposed Master
Plans were developed as policies of the City's 2010 General Plan. The proposed Master
Program is necessary to maintain service levels for the anticipated growth per the 2010
General Plan. The Master Plans would not generate new residents or employees, and
would not result in a demand of fire and emergency response services. Future
construction activities would be reviewed on project -by -project basis to ensure
compliance and consistency with the City's Safety policy. Therefore, impacts are less
than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant impact
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(b) The City of Lodi Police Department provides police protection to the City. The proposed
project consists of adoption of policy documents and does not include uses that would
require additional police services or facilities. Future development would furthermore
be subject to General Plan polices and policy actions ensuring safety in the community;
the proposed project would not affect any of those policies. Impact would be less than
significant. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant impact
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
4.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
(c) The proposed project does not involve any construction activity. Whenever new
development projects are proposed and approved pursuant to the 2010 General Plan,
payment of fees to the applicable school district is considered full mitigation for project
impacts according to Senate Bill (SB) 50, including impacts related to the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, or other performance objectives
for schools. Therefore, individual project applicants would be required to pay the
statutory fees so that space can be constructed, if necessary, at the nearest sites to
accommodate the impact of project -generated students, reducing impacts to a less than
significant level.
Significance Determination: Less than significant impact
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(d) The proposed project consists of the adoption of Master Plans. The proposed Master
Plans are necessary to maintain service levels anticipated by the 2010 General Plan.
Whenever new development projects are proposed and approved pursuant to the 2010
General Plan, projects will be subject to the goals and polices as well as best
management practices (BMPs) included in the General Plan. Policies include requiring
the City to plan for and expand a variety of public services (including law enforcement,
fire protection, school, community, and park and recreation facilities) consistent with
community needs to ensure that adequate levels of service are maintained. Therefore,
because the proposed project would incorporate all relevant City policies and would not
directly result in adverse physical impacts to fire and police protection services, schools,
parks, or other public facilities and services, less than significant impact would occur.
Significance Determination: Less than significant impact
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(e) A significant impact may occur if the proposed project generates demand for other
public facilities, thereby exceeding the capacity available to serve the project site.
The proposed project consists of adoption of policy documents and would not
contribute significantly to the demand for any other public facilities (e.g., library, senior
centers, or other public facilities/ services) as it would not directly introduce a new
population of residents to the City. Some minor incidental demand for services may
result, as such impacts would be less than significant on a Project -specific or cumulative
basis.
Significance Determination: Less than significant impact
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
4-70
4.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Sources:
City of Lodi. City of Lodi General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report SCH NO.
2009022075. Prepared by Dytte & Bhatia Associates, Inc., April 2010.
City of Lodi General Plan 2010. Prepared by Dytte & Bhatia Associates, Inc., April
2010.
4-71
4.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
4-72
4.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
potentiallyLess Than Less -Than -
Significant With No
Issues
Significant Significant
Mitigation Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
4.15 RECREATION
a. Would the Project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the Project include recreational facilities ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
Regulatory Setting
Lodi General Plan
The Lodi General Plan Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element addresses recreation
issues. It contains the following pertinent policy.
P -GI: Provide and maintain park and recreation facilities for the entire community.
(a) The proposed Master Plans would not add new residents or create new land uses that
would impact existing recreational facilities. The Bicycle Master Plan would likely result
in additional residents and visitors utilizing the bikeways because the planned bikeways
are intended to provide connections to parks. However, it would be expected that many
of these users would already be utilizing the park and recreation facilities and would be
simply be using a non -motorized transportation alternative to reach the parks and open
spaces. The proposed project would increase the use of existing parks and recreation
facilities to the extent that the expanded bikeway system and BMP policies encourage
park and open space use for residents who were not previously using these recreational
facilities, or additional use by those already using the recreational facilities. However,
this increased use would not be expected to substantially impact the parks and facilities
to the extent that physical deterioration would occur nor would these facilities need to
be expanded. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on
recreation facilities.
Significance Determination: Less than significant impact
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(b) The proposed Master Plans implement General Plan policies and programs, and does
not affect General Plan policy, which requires dedication of parkland and/or payment
of in -lieu fees prior to approval of final parcel or tract maps for residential projects.
Policies include requiring the City to plan for and expand a variety of public services,
including park and recreation facilities, consistent with community needs. Other policies
include requiring the City to maintain park service standards, require developers to
provide for park acreages at a minimum of 8 acres/1,000 residents and make land
acquisition for parks and open space a recreation priority, require the City to ensure that
4-73
4.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
recreation facilities are sited to minimize negative impacts. The City's park and
recreation master plan is required to be updated as necessary to outline facility needs
and funding mechanisms for future parks. Therefore, because the proposed project
would incorporate all relevant City policies and would not directly result in an increase
in use or the construction of new parks or other recreational facilities, impacts would be
less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant impact
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
Sources:
City of Lodi. City of Lodi General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report SCH NO.
2009022075. Prepared by Dytte & Bhatia Associates, Inc., April 2010.
City of Lodi General Plan 2010. Prepared by Dytte & Bhatia Associates, Inc., April
2010.
4-74
4.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Less -Than -
Significant No
Impact
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
4.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the Pr ject:
a.
Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial
❑
❑
■ ❑
in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a
substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b.
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
❑
❑
■ ❑
level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
C.
Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
❑
❑
■ ❑
including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d.
Substantially increase hazards due to a design
❑
❑
■ ❑
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e.
Result in inadequate emergency access?
❑
❑
❑ ■
f.
Result in inadequate parking capacity?
❑
❑
❑ ■
g.
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
❑
❑
❑ ■
programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(a) A significant impact may occur if the proposed project causes an increase in traffic that
is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The
proposed project consists of the adoption of Master Plans. The proposed project does not
involve construction of any new roadways, modification of existing roadways, or any
modification to the existing transportation system, including transit, bicycle, equestrian,
pedestrian, and private automobile modes, and would not increase vehicle trips.
Because modifications to the transportation system would not occur, a substantial
increase in hazards due to roadway design features or incompatible uses would not
result from implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, because no additional
vehicle trips would be introduced to the existing roadway network as a result of the
project, the proposed projects are anticipated to result in less than significant traffic
impacts.
Significance Determination: Less than significant impact
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
4-75
4.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
(b) A significant impact may occur if the proposed project exceeds, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the San Joaquin Council of
Governments, the county congestion management agency, for designated roads or
highways.
Please refer to 3.11(A). The purpose of a Congestion Management Program (CMP) is to
develop a coordinated approach to managing and decreasing traffic congestion by
linking the various transportation, land use, and air quality planning programs
throughout the County. The CMP program required review of substantial individual
projects, which might individually impact the CMP transportation system. The
proposed project does not involve construction of any new roadways, modification of
existing roadways, or any modification to the existing transportation system, including
transit, bicycle, equestrian, pedestrian, and private automobile modes, and would not
increase vehicle trips. Therefore, less than significant impact would occur.
Significance Determination: Less than significant impact
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(c) The proposed project would not require any changes to existing regional air traffic
activity and is not located within an airport land use plan area. Therefore, no impact to
air traffic patterns would occur.
Significance Determination: Less than significant impact
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(d) Please refer to 3.11(A). The proposed project does not involve construction of any new
roadways, modification of existing roadways, or any modification to the existing
transportation system, including transit, bicycle, equestrian, pedestrian, and private
automobile modes, and would not increase vehicle trips. Therefore, less than significant
impact would occur.
Significance Determination: Less than significant impact
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(e) The proposed project would not modify the existing transportation system.
Significance Determination: No impact
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(f) Please refer to 3.11(A). The proposed project does not involve construction of any new
roadways, modification of existing roadways, or any modification to the existing
transportation system, including transit, bicycle, equestrian, pedestrian, and private
automobile modes, and would not increase vehicle trips.
4-76
4.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Significance Determination: No Impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(g) A significant impact may occur if the proposed project conflicts with adopted policies,
plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The proposed project does not
involve construction of any new roadways, modification of existing roadways, or any
modification to the existing transportation system, including transit, bicycle, equestrian,
pedestrian, and private automobile modes, and would not increase vehicle trips.
Because modifications to the transportation system would not occur, a substantial
increase in hazards due to roadway design features or incompatible uses would not
result from implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, because no additional
vehicle trips would be introduced to the existing roadway network as a result of the
project, less than significant impact is anticipated.
Significance Determination: No Impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
Sources:
City of Lodi. City of Lodi General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report SCH NO.
2009022075. Prepared by Dytte & Bhatia Associates, Inc., April 2010.
4-77
4.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
4-78
4.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
potentiallyLess Than Less -Than -
Significant With No
Issues
Significant Significant
Mitigation Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the Project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b. Require or result in the construction of new
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
C. Require or result in the construction of new
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
the Project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the Project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the Project's Projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
capacity to accommodate the Project's solid
waste disposal needs?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes,
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
and regulations related to solid waste?
Regulatory Setting
Lodi General Plan
The Lodi General Plan Growth Management and Infrastructure Element addresses utilities
and service systems. It includes the following relevant policy:
GM -G2: Provide infrastructure -including water, sewer, stormwater, and solid
waste/recycling systems -that is designed and timed to be consistent with
Projected capacity requirements and development phasing.
Water
The City provides water to its customers from a series of 27 wells drawing on 150 foot to 500
foot deep aquifers. A "safe yield" of approximately 15,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) has been
estimated for the aquifer serving as the source of the City water supply based on water
balance calculations. The City of Lodi has adopted and maintains an Urban Water
Management Plan to Project future demands and to ensure that the supply of urban water is
4-79
4.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
provided in a manner suitable to serve the demands of future growth. The City currently
uses groundwater as its sole source of supply through a network of 27 productions wells in
operation, which have a capacity of 35,210 gallons per minute or 50.7 million gallons per
day (MGD). The wells operate automatically on demand and pump directly into the
distribution system. Seven of the wells are fitted with emergency diesel -powered generators
to maintain water pressure during power outages.
Wastewater
The City owns and operates the wastewater collection system within its corporate limits.
The collection system includes separate domestic and industrial sewers and related
pumping facilities. Untreated wastewater is piped to the City's treatment plant through
pipes, utilizing both gravity flow and lift stations, where appropriate. The City also owns
the treatment facilities at the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility (WSWPCF)
located approximately 6 miles southwest of the City. The City has adopted and maintains a
Wastewater Master Plan to estimate future infrastructure and service demands within Lodi.
Upgrades and improvements to the infrastructure and plant can provide sewer service to
the Project area. The City's domestic sewage treatment plant has the capacity to treat 8.5
million gallons per day (mgd) at completion of the current expansion Project.
Storm Drainage
Currently, the City maintains a network of conveyance pipelines and storm pump stations
with storage basins located around the City. The basins are interconnected with adjacent
drainage areas so that the disposal of nuisance waters and moderate storm water runoff
could be accomplished by gravity flow to storm pump stations with ultimate disposal to the
Mokelumne River or the Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) canal. By diverting lower
flows directly to terminal drainage facilities, the basins are utilized for multiple uses
including recreations, recharge, and storm water detention.
Energy Service
Lodi Electric and Utility Department (EUD) provides electricity to the City of Lodi and the
Project vicinity. EUD is customer -owned and City operated to offer local residences
competitive prices and service. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides natural
gas service. PG&E is a state -regulated that is obligated to extend electrical and gas service to
existing and new development within its service area.
(a) A significant impact may occur if the proposed project exceeds wastewater treatment
requirements of the regional water quality control board, the local regulatory governing
agency. The proposed project consists of adoption of policy documents. It does not
involve any development activity. The project implements General Plan policies and
programs. The project would not facilitate any substantial new development activity
beyond that analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. The Master Plan would not directly
result in an increased demand for wastewater treatment service by the City. The plan is
meant to accommodate growth anticipated by the City's 2010 General Plan. Since no
construction project is associated with the plan, and this project consist of adopting a
policy document, a less -than -significant impact related to the City's sewer system would
occur.
4.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Significance Determination: Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(b) As indicated in the project description, the proposed Master Plans are an integral part of
the City's 2010 General Plan and involve establishment and adoption of policy
documents to accommodate future growth. No physical improvements or construction
activities are proposed in conjunction with adoption of the Master Plans. Subsequent
development in the Plan Area, including all Subdivisions, Site Plan Reviews, Planned
Development Review, and Conditional Use Permits will be subject to environmental
review on a project -by -project basis. In addition, all applicable policies, standards, and
regulations would be adhered to during design and construction of the individual
improvement projects included in the Wastewater Master Plan. Furthermore, the project
would not change or interfere with Regional Water Quality Control Board wastewater
treatment requirements. New development under implementation of the Specific Plan
would continue to comply with all provisions of the NPDES program, as enforced by the
RWQCB, consistent with the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR. Impacts on
any wastewater treatment capabilities and public services would be less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(c) The proposed project does not involve any development activity. The project
implements General Plan policies and programs. The project would not facilitate any
substantial new development activity beyond that analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.
The General Plan Program EIR included a mitigation measure which requires all new
development to undertake a site-specific sewer evaluation prior to issuance of grading
permits or otherwise determined as necessary by the City. The sewer evaluation on a
site specific basis assesses the adequacy of the conveyance system capacities, including
trunk and local sewers. The proposed project would not affect this mitigation measure,
and future development projects within the project limits would be required to comply
with this mitigation measure. The construction of all storm water drainage facilities
would be subject to the requirements of the RWQCB and the NPDES permit process;
therefore impacts are considered less than significant. Impacts on any stormwater
drainage capabilities and public services would be less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than Significant.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(d) City of Lodi Water supplies and distributes potable water. According to the City's
Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City currently has a net surplus in water
supply given the City's current water entitlements and current water demand. In
addition, year 2030 Projections show the City with a net surplus in water supply. The
UWMP analyzed future growth within the City based on land use assumptions depicted
4-81
4.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
in the City's General Plan. The proposed Project consists of activation of a well and
would contribute to the City's water supply. The proposed project does not involve any
development activity. The project implements General Plan policies and programs at a
development level that does not exceed that which was analyzed in the General Plan
EIR. Review of future projects will continue to be carried out to ensure that the projects
are consistent with all General Plan Policies and Policy Actions. Impacts on water
supplies or water supply infrastructure would be less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(e) The City of Lodi Public Works Department provides wastewater treatment for the City
of Lodi. Wastewater in the City of Lodi is treated at the White Slough Water Pollution
Control Facility (WSWPCF). The facility has been expanded to a design capacity of 8.5
million gallons (mgd) per day with permits to operate at 8.5 mgd.. The WSWPCF
currently treats approximately 6.2 mgd per day, which means the facility has a net
surplus capacity of 2.3 mgd per day ("permitted" capacity). The proposed project does
not involve any development activity. The project implements General Plan policies and
programs. Review of future projects will continue to be carried out to ensure that the
projects are consistent with all General Plan Policies and Policy Actions. Impacts on any
wastewater treatment capabilities and public services would be less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(f) As indicated in the General Plan EIR, The increased solid waste due to implementation
of the General Plan could be accommodated within the existing landfill capacity.
Adoption of the proposed Master Plans will not facilitate any substantial new
development activity beyond that analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and thus will not
lead to any significant solid waste production beyond that previously indicated.
Furthermore, compliance with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element
(SRRE) program, whereby all future development projects must divert solid waste to
meet state diversion goals associated with AB 939, as well as State and County waste
reduction programs and policies, would reduce the volume of solid waste entering
landfills. Review of future projects will continue be carried out to ensure that the
projects are consistent with all General Plan Policies and Policy Actions and the SRRE
program. Adherence to such requirements would reduce potential impacts associated
with solid waste to a less than significant impact level.
Significance Determination: Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
(g) As indicated above, in the General Plan EIR, the increased solid waste due to
implementation of the General Plan could be accommodated within the existing landfill
4-82
4.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
capacity. Review of future projects will continue be carried out to ensure that the
projects are consistent with all General Plan Policies and Policy Actions. Adherence to
such requirements would reduce potential impacts associated with solid waste to a less
than significant impact level.
Significance Determination: Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are not required
Significance After Mitigation: No impact
Sources:
California, State of, Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. 2008. Available online at
http://www. geotracker. swrcb. ca. gov
City of Lodi. City of Lodi General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report SCH NO.
2009022075. Prepared by Dytte & Bhatia Associates, Inc., April 2010.
City of Lodi. 2003. Stormwater Management Program, January 2003. Prepared by Black &
Veatch Corporation, 2003.
City of Lodi. 2006. 2005 Urban Water Management Plan: Final Report. Prepared by RMC,
March 2006.
West Yost & Associates, 2005. Technical Memorandum No.1 Full Surface Water
Implementation Study, City of Lodi.
West Yost Associates. 2003. Memo including summary of proposed improvements at the
White Slough WPCF. January 2003.
West Yost Associates. 2006. Memo including summary of proposed Phase 3 improvements
2007 at the White Slough WPCF. September 2006.
4-83
4.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Issues Potentially Less Than Less -Than- No
4-84
4.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Significant Significant With Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
a. Does the Project have the potential to degrade ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the Project have impacts that are ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a Project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past Projects, the effects of
other current Projects, and the effects of
probable future Projects)?
C. Does the Project have environmental effects ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
(a) Does the Project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Less than Significant impact. As documented in this Initial Study, the results of the
preceding analyses and discussions of responses to the entire Initial Study Checklist
have determined that the proposed project would have no effect upon sensitive
biological resources, and would not result in significant impacts to historical,
archaeological or paleontological resources. The proposed Master Plans support
anticipated growth by the recently adopted 2010 General Plan. There are no historic
resources identified within the project limits. The proposed project will not affect
regulations protecting historical or cultural resources. The proposed Master Plans do not
authorize any plan for a development or redevelopment on any property within the City
of Lodi or the project vicinity. The Master Plans are intended to provide a framework for
future projects in accordance with the 2010 General Plan and Lodi General Plan EIR 2009
(SCH#2009022075). The proposed project would not result in any effects that would
degrade the quality of the environment. Subsequent development in the Plan Area,
including all Subdivisions, Site Plan Reviews, Planned Development Review, and
4.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Conditional Use Permits will be subject to environmental review on a project -by -project
basis.
(b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.
Less than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i) states that a Lead
Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and
whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the
significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in
connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future
projects. Cumulative effects resulting from implementation of the City's goals and
policies were evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR 2009 (SCH#2009022075). The
proposed Master Plans implement the policies and vision of the General Plan. No
General Plan policies would be changed or modified through adoption of the proposed
project. Adoption of the proposed Master Plans would not create any significant impacts
beyond those previously identified in the General Plan Program EIR. No development
projects are associated with the proposed project, and thus the project would not
contribute to short-term or long-term cumulative impacts.
(c) Does the Project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project does not involve any development
activity. Rather, the project implements adopted General Plan policies and policy
actions. The Master Plans provide infrastructural framework for possible development
in the future. The proposed project would not result in any adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly.
Section 5
5.0 REFERENCES
Documents Referenced
• Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (http:
www.consrv.ca. og v/dmg/shezp/maps/mora4.htln).
• California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, as amended.
• California Air Resources Board (CARB), Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A
Community Health Perspective, 2005.
• California Air Resources Board (CARB), Ambient Air Quality Standards, last updated
February, 2007.
• California Air Resources Board, California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Level and
2020 Emissions Limit, 2007.
• California Department of Conservation (CDC), Division of Mines, California Geological
Survey - SMARA Mineral Land Classification Map 2006.
• California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. San
Joaquin County Important Farmland 2006. June 2008.
• . Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (2004-2006).
• California Geological Survey (CGS), Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Mapping Ground
Motion Page, http://redirect.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/psha/pshamap.asp, accessed
February 25, 2010.
• California, State of, Department of Transportation. San Joaquin County Officially
Designated State Scenic Highways and Historic Parkways 2009. Available online at
http: / /www.dot.ca.gov/hq/ LandArch/ scenic_ highways/index.htm
• California, State of, Department of Transportation. Scenic Highway Guidelines. Also
available online at
http:/ /www.dot.ca.gov/hq/ LandArch/ scenic/ guidelines/ scenic_hwy_guidelines.pdf
• California, State of, Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. 2008. Available online
at hllp://www.geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov
• City of Lodi 2010 General Plan.
• City of Lodi General Plan Environmental Impact Report 2009 (SCH#2009022075)
• City of Lodi. 2003. Stormwater Management Program, January 2003. Prepared by Black
& Veatch Corporation, 2003.
• City of Lodi. 2006. 2005 Urban Water Management Plan: Final Report. Prepared by
RMC, March 2006.
• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map, Map Panel
Number 06077C0169F, Effective Date October 16, 2009.
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), Guide for Assessing and
Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, Technical Document: Information for Preparing Air
Quality Sections in EIRs, Adopted August 20, 1998; January 10, 2002 revision.
5-1
5.0 REFERENCES
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), District Air Quality Plans
and Related Reports, Particulate Matter, and Ozone, 2003.
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), Ambient Air Quality
Standards and Valley Attainment Status, 2005.
• San Joaquin County, Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 2008.
• San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan
(SJMSCP).
• State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection.
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Accessed at www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp
• State of California, Health and Human Safety Code, Section 7050.5.
• State of California, Public Resources Code, Section 5097.5.
• United States, Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service. National Wetlands
Inventory. Wetlands Mapper, Accessed March 28, 2011. Available online at
http: / /www.fws.gov/wetlands/ data/Mapper.html
• United States, Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service. The National Map
(created and maintained by U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey).
• United States, Environmental Protection Agency, EnviroMapper for Superfund. Available
online at http://www.epa.gov/enviro/sf/.
. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2006, 2008.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. The National Scenic
Byways Program. (hW2://www.scenic.org/byways).
• West Yost & Associates, 2005. Technical Memorandum No. l Full Surface Water
Implementation Study, City of Lodi.
• West Yost Associates. 2003. Memo including summary of proposed improvements at the
White Slough WPCF. January 2003.
• West Yost Associates. 2006. Memo including summary of proposed Phase 3
improvements 2007 at the White Slough WPCF. September 2006.
• Western Regional Climate Center, 2005. Website: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-
bin/cliMAIN.pl?calodi+nca
5-2
Draft
Final Negative Declaration /Initial Study
For
CITY OF LODI MASTER PLANS
SCH# 2012062045
July 16, 2012
Prepared by:
City of Lodi
Community Development Department • Planning Division
City Hall, 221 West Pine Street
P.O. Box 3006
Lodi, CA 95241-1910
(209)333-6711
(209)333-6842(Fax)
www.lodi.gov
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter1- Negative Declaration.................................................................................................1-1
Chpater2 - Introduction.................................................................................................................2-1
2.1 - Purpose of the Final Initial Study............................................................................2-1
2.2 - Environmental Review Process................................................................................2-1
2.3 - Project Description.....................................................................................................2-2
2.4 - Project Location..........................................................................................................2-2
Chapter3 - Written Comments and Responses.........................................................................3-1
CHAPTER 2 - INTRODUCTION
2.1 Purpose of the Final Initial Study
This document is an Initial Study/ Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for the City of Lodi
Master Plans. The City of Lodi has prepared a Wastewater Collection System Master
Plan, Water Distribution System Master Plan, Storm Drainage System Master Plan and
Bicycle Master Plan, which together make up the City's Master Plans (Master Plans). The
Master Plans were prepared and developed consistent with the recently adopted 2010
General Plan. Pursuant to Section 15152 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines, this Initial Study is tiered from the City of Lodi 2010 General Plan
Environmental Impact Report (General Plan EIR) (State Clearinghouse Number
2009022075).
Under CEQA, tiering refers to the use of analysis contained in previously certified,
broad -level Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) (often programmatic EIRs) to support
or complement project -specific EIRs or IS/NDs.1 CEQA Guidelines encourage the use of
tiered environmental documents to reduce delays and excessive paperwork in the
environmental review process. This is accomplished in tiered documents by eliminating
repetitive analyses of issues that were adequately addressed in the Program EIR and by
incorporating those analyses by reference. Impacts only need to be analyzed in more
detail in the Initial Study if they were not examined in the prior EIR or if findings were
not adopted for significant, unavoidable impacts.
The statutes and guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) require
the Lead Agency to consult with public agencies having jurisdiction over a proposed
project and to provide public and other interested parties with an opportunity to
comment on a Draft IS/MND. This document responds to environmental issues raised
in the comments on the Draft IS/MND.
2.2 - Environmental Review Process
The Draft IS/ND for the Lodi Master Plans was submitted to the State Clearinghouse
(SCH # 2012062045) on June 14, 2012 for a 30 -day public and agency review and comment,
which ended on Friday, June 13, 2012. The Draft IS/ND was prepared in accordance
with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statutes
(Public Resources Code [PRC] Sections 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14,
Section 15000 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations). The City of Lodi is the lead
agency for CEQA compliance.
In accordance with the CEQA Statutes (PRC Section 21092) and Section 15072 of the
CEQA Guidelines, public notice of the Draft IS/ND was provided by the City of Lodi
through publication of an announcement in the Lodi Sentinel on June 14, 2012. In
accordance with Section 15105(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City provided a 30 -day
public review period for the Draft IS/Negative Declaration commenced on Wednesday,
' California Association of Environmental Professionals, 2012, CEQA Statute and Guidelines.
Final Negative Declaration 2-1
June 13, 2012 and ended on Friday, July 13, 2012. At the conclusion of the public review
period, all written comments were responded to and incorporated in the Final ND.
The public notice published in the Lodi Sentinel included details on how to obtain
copies of the Draft IS/ND. Additional notification methods were also used, including:
mailing copies of the Draft IS/ ND to various agencies, posting the Notice of Availability
(NOA) at the City's website and library. The NOA included information on how to
obtain copies of the Draft IS/ ND and how to provide comments on the document.
The City received two comment letters on the Draft IS/ ND during the 30 -day public and
agency comment period. These two comment letters are addressed in Chapter 3 of this
document. This Final IS/ ND has been prepared to respond to the comments received by
the City that address environmental issues related to the Draft IS/ND, in accordance
with the CEQA Guidelines.
2.3 Project description
The City of Lodi has prepared four separate comprehensive Master Plans consistent
with the directives outlined in the recently adopted General Plan: a Wastewater Master
Plan, a Water Master Plan, a Storm Drainage Master Plan, and a Bicycle Master Plan.
The 2010 General Plan identifies areas to be developed within and outside of the city
through the year 2030. The General Plan specifies in Section 3 - Growth Management
and Infrastructure, GM -P11, that the City "prepare Master Plan documents as necessary
during the planning period to address the infrastructure needs of existing and projected
growth, and to determine appropriate infrastructure provisions for each phase."
The Master Plans are policy -level, City -initiated plans and do not authorize any specific
development or construction projects. In order to provide for a thematically and
geographically comprehensive analysis of the Master Plans, potential environmental
impacts associated with both plans are analyzed at a "program" level within this Initial
Study. Future development projects will be required to receive City approval and
conduct appropriate environmental review on project -by -project basis. The
comprehensive Master Plans provide guidance for implementing development within
the project limits. The Master Plans set forth implementation action plans that identify
near and long term actions necessary to achieve orderly development as envisioned by
the City's General Plan. The anticipated horizon year for the Master Plans correlate to
the 2010 General Plan. The City will conduct specific analyses of future infrastructure
project designs and locations to determine appropriate environmental documentation
and mitigations measures.
2.4 Project Location
The Lodi Master Plans study area includes the current city boundaries and the Lodi 2010
General Plan planning area. The Mokelumne River forms the northern edge of the city;
Harney and Hogan lane southern edge. The Central California Traction Line (CCT)
railroad (north of Kettleman Lane) and SR -99 (south of Kettleman Lane) form the eastern
boundary. The western boundary extends approximately one-half mile west of Lower
Final Negative Declaration 2-2
Sacramento Road. Lodi (exclusive of White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility)
encompasses an area of 12.3 square miles.
Final Negative Declaration 2-3
CHAPTER 3 - WRITTEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
The City received two (2) comment letters on the Draft IS/ ND during the public and agency
comment period. The following table lists the commenters and the dates of the letters. Each
letter and individual comment has been assigned a letter/number designation for cross-
referencing.
Also included at the end of this chapter is a letter from the State Clearinghouse. The letter
acknowledges that the City of Lodi has complied with the State Clearinghouse draft
environmental document review requirements, and indicates that one state agency
submitted comments through the State Clearinghouse by the close of the comment period
on May 11, 2011. All comment letters received are addressed in this Final IS/MND.
List of Commenters/Letters
Designation
Commenter
Date of Letter
Comment
Numbers
A
Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Region 5 Sacramento
July 3, 2012
A-1
B
State Clearinghouse
July 12, 2012
A-1
3-1
3-2
RECEIVED
ar Boyd
t+d+Ar'Kwiil' OFvi..u]PAFE4r SPT
o -Low
Gm*wl VM" Rrplorul W &W Qw9ft OwgbW mrd
3 JaNlr 2D12
ird. ammi Bar"
CRY of Lodi
fila MWQ MAam
221 West Pfns &jeet
Lad. CA MM
COMFIED BAWL
7011 r19M OW3 6915 T
OOMBM TO THE MWr NMKTW CeCL.ARATKN% MY OF L.001 KUMM M KAM
PMJEV,SCH NO. 20124 MO, SM JOA011l9il COLIIIYY
Ptaswmf W ft Sf*Es CleOrkyhouW 14 Juht 2012 MON&L 6s0 Cert * Vaby PAgW ! Walm
QWd" Oor" f3wd (OmW VWWYYdotu flon� hos rrWlfxwd ft "Awelpam &*WAElat
W f* d Lode flf**iar Plans Pv*ck Wodad irt 3m AwWhl CoW
ow sgwcy 4 delepaW WM 1* msp*nWb-gy of pm to *q the gmMy of surbo WW
g=rK r A*m *f ft *late. llrerbfare ow oorrandis w§ oanma" eurrVumft plots
Issues.
DfrcYrwam %%r P dWhrb arse or mom amm of moN or where pn> dlrhab Ion gm
ow axes but am putt of a "r omro on phn of dmiDpmd && In tocol dlehrhs we or um
aerek are r mph d to dAmin a WWW under ft G NWO PCrff& far Storm Wblar DbOm rps
Aasadoted with Cam* uaft was #Cary bu edw 3w oll P9rn'fA Car»IngtY*1 GeO611a1
Fain Odor No 2009-oOa.0 Cwwhmfm ear w im* to" ps" inelu W draft,
amdkm gnkble9, dIshwbersaee to ft Cronrd. am* se wwdqkft or exDwm l n btA dow not
hrdrrde r r mamas adMtlaa perfannse to raslors &m cm%o l lks, grads, or omp"
of Ow %fty. The dors Genl W P*rm* ragdrro its dovdopnrent and inlpf nwtw o
01 41 om m Wider fPakow Pwarom Plan {Wsv ).
For more~ lNbrr tOm on ft CmnslnKbw G6n&W Pomp, vM ft w fReo mwims
Oar" Dowd wobgft at
#�pt�huw�w,wa�erhoor�.as.0en�wridi► 1s.MYItr111,
rt.LF- Lsun Bon. Pte, art r P --mL. 0. C.I. p&_ 6:EEadN.e.a...
Comment A
A-1
3-3
"of UM MOW Rim .2- S MY 2012
San Joaqurn colrnW
Pfd I OW N ft=kkW SiMn& SkM Sawa 8ftb n 1M54I Pami%11
The Phase I and I IA94 perm ra*ie the ?arMHN Feduoe "Amft and navoff flows Aram
nm drink p mat and n%WmiopmeM u sit Hat IAanWoment Py cbm (SMPs} In the
nmmlmtim &dwurt practicable { EP). M84 ParmMen haws their ouch davalopmwd standards,
dw l mmn as Low ympod devakaprrranf {Llf]ygml m standards that irraiuda a
hydmmoxdYlcmian =npwomiL The M84 parmlts algia n gtAm spacft deslon aormpm for
L04mmt.=mhtrdtm RMPs in the m* a&gm of a pnljerx drsirrg lila m4 temm4 aid LEGA
praosea am the 4wel4 rmn PW l*VW r pnxm&
For acro W6xmallcls an Iw" Prim I M54 Pernwts I* pri*d appkm V% YM the fi&*W
Vestey WGW Board vrebahe at
f11tp'.fiwwYr.Yraiellyoa rd s.ca.Oavlcel�wlrro� ydwale r�waibartln �11tI rf.
Indualrlal 96W" Water €iarlaaal Pamnit
Stortlh OSS ebdaMVW aaaadoWd w114 lydam W ON mord Mm* wwNh 06 raguWbons
contaihad in On Induaboil StromVIOW Gant PwmA Order No. 974)34Nn
For mmsinfcrmWkm an the Indu"I ShmmWaterGonmW Pwrrwt vW ft CanhiW Ver
V41GMErr Board wsbgh ac
Mfg'�wAhr444+ad6fi��4hd44ti4ryt�eEOr�MrFO� ��el�rOfhri
tt,�hdear.shlml.
Chen WataeAct .S* dWn 4k Permk
If the pn" A Wv*e the ftdwr$e of &**W or fM maherW h wig" wata m or
welfarrds, a panM pwsAfe Eo S*Wm 404 of site Obm Mar Act may be. tom ft
UrAbd 8Wft Army Carps d Enpblaera JUSAOOE), ff a Gookon 404 pen * Is required by dm
MOW. srre Crintnll V&*Wow Coarct wo review ore p mn* aW§m dom io or"m 0fdrl
dMohrrrOa ww ax vial % wafer qua* sbmdwd& if the pnsjaei nquiraa aurfroM wain draiw.Q.
mobVnMi L the ap*.am is adWe+rtd to a0MS!t stir O It Of Dish and OUT* for
ktifbmwt M on SMWVbW AMMUM P"I* raqulrMfnertrs
If you h m any IauaAkore mgWdirgl the t; *m Ylfafw Act $Mian 401 pemhlte, Rlaarae oar W
lfhe Re"tery Dhilh>n of #re SaerArr OM Otllrlct of U ALOE at (M) 557-5M.
Chan Water Act Soaffm 401 Pamk— Mur OuMW CaNkatlon
ff an USAODX psfrM, or my other fb *m pww4l, Is requked fa" pr*a am W uta
4letulb rras of waters of she UrAW SWm Ouch as strame and wsttands� O n a Vlfalar
Qua14 QM MtOWW rnu# be otr WWA frau the Cenbal Vali sy Water Board prior to wffim on of
pro ed aclWkm There are no watmi for 4Qi Vabor Out cotkabN&
`lwraaow Pw+mlr ■ lh• N+ l MAwklpM SomMr spurn Vlhrrr 9"N" "M Pam* amm mr aaa Mod
!Aro e. f.e+nlnY Eerr� ioGpoo b4 �a l RmbpW o" eap 4N" a w
25UW gftpW.lrh� P faro 111!54 p�awdei nurenQe loran mu�ipafa9es irk mw-* apesf $mO
US". W" il>t*W mmWy tun. putlaa mVuW prtrro" O 1101 us.
A-1
Comment A
3-4
d Lcdt friMW PMM -S 3,*2012
den aorrquc CK"
It USACOE dfWrMkrraWaiM* rwl-Artadl 6wW VMrWMpf the ae„ IXw46*wW WabM
of do Su* we present an tw wopmo popd wvm% Gb oropawd pr*d veil I ref a wnw
I eg4drel1illlltN`YDR parrnitbLekpeUad CantrN►1a�ayVhFamrBoard Urdwdw
Calrands Pwkw-C vbprre Wafer QuoMy Corkd Ad, filar: www ic aq wraWa of ft $4ft,
Irr,ILP V al voodwrda and o0w meters d fie Stsw 4KAW ft but rvA rnW*d ia, teNatCeO
waSarrdh, we d to Starr rsgubwm
For frlatt kftr#mi<t m on ft VVWw Ou Wqr Cwffkzt w and VVDR prom aa, viae the Cofft l
Valley Vlfwler SaM d webel6e At
hWJA ww.wmbwboarda,ca 0 .
If yw hm OMWM fftaft Won corrune ft Florae cxr W rm at QM6) 45"W or
,cr,9ay.
TAPW Creek
EmAnxwoutolS
401 WMW OMMY CwtftfWn PMW=
cc Shit ClseringbMM U WL Cha CAllar of PkW&V WW ROOMO, S$Bl Mfr
A. -I
Comment A
3-5
3-6
Comment A
RESPONSE TO COMMENT A
Comment Letter A: Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 5 (Sacramento)
Response to Comment A-1
Thank you for your input on this important City project. As documented in the
Draft Negative Declaration, the City of Lodi has prepared four separate
comprehensive Master Plans consistent with the directives outlined in the recently
adopted General Plan: a Wastewater Master Plan, a Water Master Plan, a Storm
Drainage Master Plan, and a Bicycle Master Plan. The 2010 General Plan identifies
areas to be developed within and outside of the city through the year 2030.
The Master Plans are policy -level, City -initiated plans and do not authorize any
specific development or construction projects. Future development projects,
including infrastructure improvements, will be required to receive City approval
and conduct appropriate environmental review on project -by -project basis.
This comment is noted.
3-7
Im.
in
DEPARTMENT OF TRA MOIrrATi0K
([WM 6 CUM= WAYMM ri OL MARTM
lAFnmIFWJLXLVIX KMO
r KMO taoh� huh-Imh
PAX PMR&FIN
July 12; 2012
caya•LON
T Agion
221 W, Pirie SL
LoA CA 9VAO
Dear Mr. ea imir
FINOWPPOW
b wrd%*ml
1081-YaNeus
C ty of Lodi Mawr Plan
SCH M178fi9M
Ilia Crlitwai- D"*P os of TMMpWM6 u Beni} &WeaUm the app ]' in
oaulh#IMM"IM Nehedve UWANEW 4w do C* of Imi Mater Ph" TU City of LMH Wo
pmpwrad Rr spume empmbnAve uaw Flaws ommvmzd with to dbmohvas oWiaad in dw
rim* Mk and ilMNW rim: WaGnwa u Ma" Pia14 Rater ly kMw Plro,11- 9 17raiaw
114rraterFlan, ratd Biej�lholl�da+ter'1'hw. All lidaatprPirhha ire patio-lexel and do- notau�iri�e
my Q-, dry► by wM nt emomtkm p 4wit.
Shwald the City daddy to puaaecd with wq Phbje"%pr mmwnRw idanti W in Rhe 1us ow Phim
tha vmdd Luhpm tlae! m= H a or encroach as the 9bmdrA&-d wW, a ThaiSc
Amdyzis 1Raporl of the propow d pu+oM Awal d be ffabmimed for our naview wW e4nUrid d
t�rohhgh the lalerlpeFrerp�eeslrj iReviaa' (7QR}prod
J fyou b*" Mjv *W*aM ploM cM*w Sw"Wh PJr mal [2090 9 #i Q92 teyro�.Q;
SidMPhdndpldan,d4v} ar hrgartlftA (�'0�1} 9+11-1921.
x
Sig 4
1 OPFICR OF MMWPOUTAN PLAfdMM
c Saatr Morpo, Swe Clemimoaasa
Comment B
0-1
3-9
3-10
Comment B
RESPONSE TO COMMENT B
Comment Letter A: Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 5 (Sacramento)
Response to Comment B-1
Thank you for your input on this important City project. This comment is noted.
3-11
PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Prepared pursuant to City of Lodi Environmental Guidelines, §§ 1.7 (c), 5.5
FILE NUMBER: 12 -ND -01
PROJECT TITLE: City of Lodi Master Plans
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Lodi has prepared a Wastewater Collection
System Master Plan, Water Distribution System Master Plan, Storm Drainage System
Master Plan, and Bicycle Master Plan, which together make up the City's Master Plans.
The Master Plans were prepared and developed consistent with the recently adopted
2010 General Plan. The Master Plans are an integral part of the City's General Plan and
involve establishment and adoption of policy documents to accommodate future
growth. No physical improvements or construction activities are proposed in
conjunction with adoption of the Master Plans. This Initial Study and ND evaluated
whether the proposed Master Plans would result in physical impacts beyond those
addressed in the General Plan EIR. The Master Plans do not include design -level details
for any single infrastructure improvement project. The goal of the Initial Study analysis
is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts could occur due to adoption of the
Master Plans. Based on the analysis of this Initial Study, a negative declaration is
sufficient for adoption of the proposed Master Utility Plans. The City will conduct
specific analyses of future infrastructure project designs and locations to determine
appropriate environmental documentation and mitigations measures.
PROJECT LOCATION: The Lodi Master Plans study area includes the current city
boundaries and the Lodi 2010 General Plan planning area. The Mokelumne River forms
the northern edge of the city; Harney and Hogan lane southern edge. The Central
California Traction Line (CCT) railroad (north of Kettleman Lane) and SR -99 (south of
Kettleman Lane) form the eastern boundary. The western boundary extends
approximately one-half mile west of Lower Sacramento Road. Lodi (exclusive of White
Slough Water Pollution Control Facility) encompasses an area of 12.3 square miles.
APPLICANT:
City of Lodi Public Works Department
221 West Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
A copy of the Initial Study ("Environmental Information Form' and "Environment
Checklist") documenting the reasons to support the adoption of a Negative Declaration
is available at the City of Lodi Community Development Department, 221 West Pine
Street, Lodi CA 95240.
Mitigation measures are ❑ are not ❑x included in the project to avoid potentially
significant effects on the environment.
1-1
The public review on the proposed Negative Declaration commenced on Wednesday,
June 13, 2012 and ended on Friday, July 13, 2012. At the conclusion of the public review
period, all written comments were responded to and incorporated in the Final ND.
The City will provide additional public notices when the public hearings have been
scheduled to consider approval of the Negative Declaration.
Konradt Bartlam, Community Development Director Date
1-2
CHAPTER 2 - INTRODUCTION
2.1 Purpose of the Final Initial Study
This document is an Initial Study/ Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for the City of Lodi
Master Plans. The City of Lodi has prepared a Wastewater Collection System Master
Plan, Water Distribution System Master Plan, Storm Drainage System Master Plan and
Bicycle Master Plan, which together make up the City's Master Plans (Master Plans). The
Master Plans were prepared and developed consistent with the recently adopted 2010
General Plan. Pursuant to Section 15152 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines, this Initial Study is tiered from the City of Lodi 2010 General Plan
Environmental Impact Report (General Plan EIR) (State Clearinghouse Number
2009022075).
Under CEQA, tiering refers to the use of analysis contained in previously certified,
broad -level Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) (often programmatic EIRs) to support
or complement project -specific EIRs or IS/NDs.1 CEQA Guidelines encourage the use of
tiered environmental documents to reduce delays and excessive paperwork in the
environmental review process. This is accomplished in tiered documents by eliminating
repetitive analyses of issues that were adequately addressed in the Program EIR and by
incorporating those analyses by reference. Impacts only need to be analyzed in more
detail in the Initial Study if they were not examined in the prior EIR or if findings were
not adopted for significant, unavoidable impacts.
The statutes and guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) require
the Lead Agency to consult with public agencies having jurisdiction over a proposed
project and to provide public and other interested parties with an opportunity to
comment on a Draft IS/MND. This document responds to environmental issues raised
in the comments on the Draft IS/MND.
2.2 - Environmental Review Process
The Draft IS/ND for the Lodi Master Plans was submitted to the State Clearinghouse
(SCH # 2012062045) on June 14, 2012 for a 30 -day public and agency review and comment,
which ended on Friday, June 13, 2012. The Draft IS/ND was prepared in accordance
with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statutes
(Public Resources Code [PRC] Sections 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14,
Section 15000 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations). The City of Lodi is the lead
agency for CEQA compliance.
In accordance with the CEQA Statutes (PRC Section 21092) and Section 15072 of the
CEQA Guidelines, public notice of the Draft IS/ND was provided by the City of Lodi
through publication of an announcement in the Lodi Sentinel on June 14, 2012. In
accordance with Section 15105(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City provided a 30 -day
public review period for the Draft IS/Negative Declaration commenced on Wednesday,
' California Association of Environmental Professionals, 2012, CEQA Statute and Guidelines.
Final Negative Declaration 2-1
June 13, 2012 and ended on Friday, July 13, 2012. At the conclusion of the public review
period, all written comments were responded to and incorporated in the Final ND.
The public notice published in the Lodi Sentinel included details on how to obtain
copies of the Draft IS/ND. Additional notification methods were also used, including:
mailing copies of the Draft IS/ ND to various agencies, posting the Notice of Availability
(NOA) at the City's website and library. The NOA included information on how to
obtain copies of the Draft IS/ ND and how to provide comments on the document.
The City received two comment letters on the Draft IS/ ND during the 30 -day public and
agency comment period. These two comment letters are addressed in Chapter 3 of this
document. This Final IS/ ND has been prepared to respond to the comments received by
the City that address environmental issues related to the Draft IS/ND, in accordance
with the CEQA Guidelines.
2.3 Project description
The City of Lodi has prepared four separate comprehensive Master Plans consistent
with the directives outlined in the recently adopted General Plan: a Wastewater Master
Plan, a Water Master Plan, a Storm Drainage Master Plan, and a Bicycle Master Plan.
The 2010 General Plan identifies areas to be developed within and outside of the city
through the year 2030. The General Plan specifies in Section 3 - Growth Management
and Infrastructure, GM -P11, that the City "prepare Master Plan documents as necessary
during the planning period to address the infrastructure needs of existing and projected
growth, and to determine appropriate infrastructure provisions for each phase."
The Master Plans are policy -level, City -initiated plans and do not authorize any specific
development or construction projects. In order to provide for a thematically and
geographically comprehensive analysis of the Master Plans, potential environmental
impacts associated with both plans are analyzed at a "program" level within this Initial
Study. Future development projects will be required to receive City approval and
conduct appropriate environmental review on project -by -project basis. The
comprehensive Master Plans provide guidance for implementing development within
the project limits. The Master Plans set forth implementation action plans that identify
near and long term actions necessary to achieve orderly development as envisioned by
the City's General Plan. The anticipated horizon year for the Master Plans correlate to
the 2010 General Plan. The City will conduct specific analyses of future infrastructure
project designs and locations to determine appropriate environmental documentation
and mitigations measures.
2.4 Project Location
The Lodi Master Plans study area includes the current city boundaries and the Lodi 2010
General Plan planning area. The Mokelumne River forms the northern edge of the city;
Harney and Hogan lane southern edge. The Central California Traction Line (CCT)
railroad (north of Kettleman Lane) and SR -99 (south of Kettleman Lane) form the eastern
boundary. The western boundary extends approximately one-half mile west of Lower
Final Negative Declaration 2-2
Sacramento Road. Lodi (exclusive of White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility)
encompasses an area of 12.3 square miles.
Final Negative Declaration 2-3
CHAPTER 3 - WRITTEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
The City received two (2) comment letters on the Draft IS/ ND during the public and agency
comment period. The following table lists the commenters and the dates of the letters. Each
letter and individual comment has been assigned a letter/number designation for cross-
referencing.
Also included at the end of this chapter is a letter from the State Clearinghouse. The letter
acknowledges that the City of Lodi has complied with the State Clearinghouse draft
environmental document review requirements, and indicates that one state agency
submitted comments through the State Clearinghouse by the close of the comment period
on May 11, 2011. All comment letters received are addressed in this Final IS/MND.
List of Commenters/Letters
Designation
Commenter
Date of Letter
Comment
Numbers
A
Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Region 5 Sacramento
July 3, 2012
A-1
B
State Clearinghouse
July 12, 2012
A-1
3-1
3-2
RECEIVED
ar Boyd
t+d+Ar'Kwiil' OFvi..u]PAFE4r SPT
o -Low
Gm*wl VM" Rrplorul W &W Qw9ft OwgbW mrd
3 JaNlr 2D12
ird. ammi Bar"
CRY of Lodi
fila MWQ MAam
221 West Pfns &jeet
Lad. CA MM
COMFIED BAWL
7011 r19M OW3 6915 T
OOMBM TO THE MWr NMKTW CeCL.ARATKN% MY OF L.001 KUMM M KAM
PMJEV,SCH NO. 20124 MO, SM JOA011l9il COLIIIYY
Ptaswmf W ft Sf*Es CleOrkyhouW 14 Juht 2012 MON&L 6s0 Cert * Vaby PAgW ! Walm
QWd" Oor" f3wd (OmW VWWYYdotu flon� hos rrWlfxwd ft "Awelpam &*WAElat
W f* d Lode flf**iar Plans Pv*ck Wodad irt 3m AwWhl CoW
ow sgwcy 4 delepaW WM 1* msp*nWb-gy of pm to *q the gmMy of surbo WW
g=rK r A*m *f ft *late. llrerbfare ow oorrandis w§ oanma" eurrVumft plots
Issues.
DfrcYrwam %%r P dWhrb arse or mom amm of moN or where pn> dlrhab Ion gm
ow axes but am putt of a "r omro on phn of dmiDpmd && In tocol dlehrhs we or um
aerek are r mph d to dAmin a WWW under ft G NWO PCrff& far Storm Wblar DbOm rps
Aasadoted with Cam* uaft was #Cary bu edw 3w oll P9rn'fA Car»IngtY*1 GeO611a1
Fain Odor No 2009-oOa.0 Cwwhmfm ear w im* to" ps" inelu W draft,
amdkm gnkble9, dIshwbersaee to ft Cronrd. am* se wwdqkft or exDwm l n btA dow not
hrdrrde r r mamas adMtlaa perfannse to raslors &m cm%o l lks, grads, or omp"
of Ow %fty. The dors Genl W P*rm* ragdrro its dovdopnrent and inlpf nwtw o
01 41 om m Wider fPakow Pwarom Plan {Wsv ).
For more~ lNbrr tOm on ft CmnslnKbw G6n&W Pomp, vM ft w fReo mwims
Oar" Dowd wobgft at
#�pt�huw�w,wa�erhoor�.as.0en�wridi► 1s.MYItr111,
rt.LF- Lsun Bon. Pte, art r P --mL. 0. C.I. p&_ 6:EEadN.e.a...
Comment A
A-1
3-3
"of UM MOW Rim .2- S MY 2012
San Joaqurn colrnW
Pfd I OW N ft=kkW SiMn& SkM Sawa 8ftb n 1M54I Pami%11
The Phase I and I IA94 perm ra*ie the ?arMHN Feduoe "Amft and navoff flows Aram
nm drink p mat and n%WmiopmeM u sit Hat IAanWoment Py cbm (SMPs} In the
nmmlmtim &dwurt practicable { EP). M84 ParmMen haws their ouch davalopmwd standards,
dw l mmn as Low ympod devakaprrranf {Llf]ygml m standards that irraiuda a
hydmmoxdYlcmian =npwomiL The M84 parmlts algia n gtAm spacft deslon aormpm for
L04mmt.=mhtrdtm RMPs in the m* a&gm of a pnljerx drsirrg lila m4 temm4 aid LEGA
praosea am the 4wel4 rmn PW l*VW r pnxm&
For acro W6xmallcls an Iw" Prim I M54 Pernwts I* pri*d appkm V% YM the fi&*W
Vestey WGW Board vrebahe at
f11tp'.fiwwYr.Yraiellyoa rd s.ca.Oavlcel�wlrro� ydwale r�waibartln �11tI rf.
Indualrlal 96W" Water €iarlaaal Pamnit
Stortlh OSS ebdaMVW aaaadoWd w114 lydam W ON mord Mm* wwNh 06 raguWbons
contaihad in On Induaboil StromVIOW Gant PwmA Order No. 974)34Nn
For mmsinfcrmWkm an the Indu"I ShmmWaterGonmW Pwrrwt vW ft CanhiW Ver
V41GMErr Board wsbgh ac
Mfg'�wAhr444+ad6fi��4hd44ti4ryt�eEOr�MrFO� ��el�rOfhri
tt,�hdear.shlml.
Chen WataeAct .S* dWn 4k Permk
If the pn" A Wv*e the ftdwr$e of &**W or fM maherW h wig" wata m or
welfarrds, a panM pwsAfe Eo S*Wm 404 of site Obm Mar Act may be. tom ft
UrAbd 8Wft Army Carps d Enpblaera JUSAOOE), ff a Gookon 404 pen * Is required by dm
MOW. srre Crintnll V&*Wow Coarct wo review ore p mn* aW§m dom io or"m 0fdrl
dMohrrrOa ww ax vial % wafer qua* sbmdwd& if the pnsjaei nquiraa aurfroM wain draiw.Q.
mobVnMi L the ap*.am is adWe+rtd to a0MS!t stir O It Of Dish and OUT* for
ktifbmwt M on SMWVbW AMMUM P"I* raqulrMfnertrs
If you h m any IauaAkore mgWdirgl the t; *m Ylfafw Act $Mian 401 pemhlte, Rlaarae oar W
lfhe Re"tery Dhilh>n of #re SaerArr OM Otllrlct of U ALOE at (M) 557-5M.
Chan Water Act Soaffm 401 Pamk— Mur OuMW CaNkatlon
ff an USAODX psfrM, or my other fb *m pww4l, Is requked fa" pr*a am W uta
4letulb rras of waters of she UrAW SWm Ouch as strame and wsttands� O n a Vlfalar
Qua14 QM MtOWW rnu# be otr WWA frau the Cenbal Vali sy Water Board prior to wffim on of
pro ed aclWkm There are no watmi for 4Qi Vabor Out cotkabN&
`lwraaow Pw+mlr ■ lh• N+ l MAwklpM SomMr spurn Vlhrrr 9"N" "M Pam* amm mr aaa Mod
!Aro e. f.e+nlnY Eerr� ioGpoo b4 �a l RmbpW o" eap 4N" a w
25UW gftpW.lrh� P faro 111!54 p�awdei nurenQe loran mu�ipafa9es irk mw-* apesf $mO
US". W" il>t*W mmWy tun. putlaa mVuW prtrro" O 1101 us.
A-1
Comment A
3-4
d Lcdt friMW PMM -S 3,*2012
den aorrquc CK"
It USACOE dfWrMkrraWaiM* rwl-Artadl 6wW VMrWMpf the ae„ IXw46*wW WabM
of do Su* we present an tw wopmo popd wvm% Gb oropawd pr*d veil I ref a wnw
I eg4drel1illlltN`YDR parrnitbLekpeUad CantrN►1a�ayVhFamrBoard Urdwdw
Calrands Pwkw-C vbprre Wafer QuoMy Corkd Ad, filar: www ic aq wraWa of ft $4ft,
Irr,ILP V al voodwrda and o0w meters d fie Stsw 4KAW ft but rvA rnW*d ia, teNatCeO
waSarrdh, we d to Starr rsgubwm
For frlatt kftr#mi<t m on ft VVWw Ou Wqr Cwffkzt w and VVDR prom aa, viae the Cofft l
Valley Vlfwler SaM d webel6e At
hWJA ww.wmbwboarda,ca 0 .
If yw hm OMWM fftaft Won corrune ft Florae cxr W rm at QM6) 45"W or
,cr,9ay.
TAPW Creek
EmAnxwoutolS
401 WMW OMMY CwtftfWn PMW=
cc Shit ClseringbMM U WL Cha CAllar of PkW&V WW ROOMO, S$Bl Mfr
A. -I
Comment A
3-5
3-6
Comment A
RESPONSE TO COMMENT A
Comment Letter A: Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 5 (Sacramento)
Response to Comment A-1
Thank you for your input on this important City project. As documented in the
Draft Negative Declaration, the City of Lodi has prepared four separate
comprehensive Master Plans consistent with the directives outlined in the recently
adopted General Plan: a Wastewater Master Plan, a Water Master Plan, a Storm
Drainage Master Plan, and a Bicycle Master Plan. The 2010 General Plan identifies
areas to be developed within and outside of the city through the year 2030.
The Master Plans are policy -level, City -initiated plans and do not authorize any
specific development or construction projects. Future development projects,
including infrastructure improvements, will be required to receive City approval
and conduct appropriate environmental review on project -by -project basis.
This comment is noted.
3-7
Im.
in
DEPARTMENT OF TRA MOIrrATi0K
([WM 6 CUM= WAYMM ri OL MARTM
lAFnmIFWJLXLVIX KMO
r KMO taoh� huh-Imh
PAX PMR&FIN
July 12; 2012
caya•LON
T Agion
221 W, Pirie SL
LoA CA 9VAO
Dear Mr. ea imir
FINOWPPOW
b wrd%*ml
1081-YaNeus
C ty of Lodi Mawr Plan
SCH M178fi9M
Ilia Crlitwai- D"*P os of TMMpWM6 u Beni} &WeaUm the app ]' in
oaulh#IMM"IM Nehedve UWANEW 4w do C* of Imi Mater Ph" TU City of LMH Wo
pmpwrad Rr spume empmbnAve uaw Flaws ommvmzd with to dbmohvas oWiaad in dw
rim* Mk and ilMNW rim: WaGnwa u Ma" Pia14 Rater ly kMw Plro,11- 9 17raiaw
114rraterFlan, ratd Biej�lholl�da+ter'1'hw. All lidaatprPirhha ire patio-lexel and do- notau�iri�e
my Q-, dry► by wM nt emomtkm p 4wit.
Shwald the City daddy to puaaecd with wq Phbje"%pr mmwnRw idanti W in Rhe 1us ow Phim
tha vmdd Luhpm tlae! m= H a or encroach as the 9bmdrA&-d wW, a ThaiSc
Amdyzis 1Raporl of the propow d pu+oM Awal d be ffabmimed for our naview wW e4nUrid d
t�rohhgh the lalerlpeFrerp�eeslrj iReviaa' (7QR}prod
J fyou b*" Mjv *W*aM ploM cM*w Sw"Wh PJr mal [2090 9 #i Q92 teyro�.Q;
SidMPhdndpldan,d4v} ar hrgartlftA (�'0�1} 9+11-1921.
x
Sig 4
1 OPFICR OF MMWPOUTAN PLAfdMM
c Saatr Morpo, Swe Clemimoaasa
Comment B
0-1
3-9
3-10
Comment B
RESPONSE TO COMMENT B
Comment Letter A: Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 5 (Sacramento)
Response to Comment B-1
Thank you for your input on this important City project. This comment is noted.
3-11
Description of Item
Development Forecast
Assignment of Burden
to Land Use
Project Cost Estimates
Final Report — August 2012
Summary of Responsibilities
Prepared By
Denise Wiman, City of Lodi
Alison Bouley, Harris & Associates
Storm Drain, Transportation, Wastewater
Conveyance, Water Supply
Victor Irzyk, Goodwin Consultants
Fire, Police, General Facilities, AIPP
Bob Reed, The Reed Group, Inc.
Water & Wastewater Treatment
Alison Bouley, Harris & Associates
Storm Drain, Transportation, Wastewater
Conveyance, Water Supply
Victor Irzyk, Goodwin Consulting Group
Fire, Police, General Facilities, AIPP
F. Wally Sandelin, City of Lodi
Water & Wastewater Treatment
Approved By
F. Wally Sandelin, City of Lodi
F. Wally Sandelin, City of Lodi
F. Wally Sandelin, City of Lodi
Description of Item Prepared By Approved By
Development Impact Fee Estimates
Legal Form
Approved for Transmittal to
City Council
Victor Irzyk, Goodwin Consulting Group F. Wally Sandelin, City of Lodi
D. Stephen Schwabauer, City of Lodi
D. Stephen Schwabauer, City of Lodi
City of Lodi
Impact Mitigation Fee Program Update
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary and Introductory Sections...................................................................... 1
Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1
Purposeof IMFP............................................................................................................... 1
VacantLand Description................................................................................................... 2
Summaryof Proposed Fees............................................................................................... 3
Fee Adjustment Procedures............................................................................................... 5
NexusRequirement Summary........................................................................................... 5
Lodi Municipal Code Amendments.................................................................................. 6
2. Development Assumptions...................................................................................................... 7
Population.......................................................................................................................... 7
Land Use Categories and Density Assumptions............................................................... 9
Vacant Land Inventory.................................................................................................... 10
3. Impact Fee Methodology.......................................................................................................
13
DUEFactors....................................................................................................................
13
CostEstimates.................................................................................................................
14
Mark-Up Assumptions....................................................................................................
15
Land Acquisition Assumptions.......................................................................................
15
FeeMethodology.............................................................................................................
15
Plan -Based Fee Methodology.................................................................................
15
Standard -Based Fee Methodology..........................................................................
16
Credits and Reimbursement Policies...............................................................................
18
LandUses........................................................................................................................
18
4. Water..................................................................................................................................... 20
Background..................................................................................................................... 20
Facilitiesand Costs.......................................................................................................... 20
Dwelling Unit Equivalents.............................................................................................. 21
FeeMethodology............................................................................................................. 23
Surface Water Treatment Component..................................................................... 23
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page I i
New Water Supply Facilities Component............................................................... 25
Total Water Impact Mitigation Fee......................................................................... 25
FeeSchedule.................................................................................................................... 25
NexusRequirements........................................................................................................ 26
5. Wastewater............................................................................................................................ 27
Wastewater Treatment Plant........................................................................................... 27
Background............................................................................................................ 27
Facilitiesand Costs................................................................................................. 27
Dwelling Unit Equivalents..................................................................................... 28
FeeMethodology.................................................................................................... 28
FeeSchedule........................................................................................................... 31
Nexus Requirements............................................................................................... 31
South Wastewater Trunk Line......................................................................................... 32
Background............................................................................................................ 32
Facilitiesand Costs................................................................................................. 32
Dwelling Unit Equivalents..................................................................................... 34
FeeZones............................................................................................................... 34
FeeMethodology.................................................................................................... 36
FeeSchedule........................................................................................................... 36
NexusRequirements............................................................................................... 37
6. Storm Drainage...................................................................................................................... 38
Background..................................................................................................................... 38
Facilitiesand Costs.......................................................................................................... 38
Dwelling Unit Equivalents.............................................................................................. 40
FeeMethodology............................................................................................................. 40
FeeSchedule.................................................................................................................... 41
Conceptual Zone 2 Fees.................................................................................................. 41
NexusRequirements........................................................................................................ 43
7. Transportation........................................................................................................................44
Background..................................................................................................................... 44
Facilitiesand Costs.......................................................................................................... 44
Dwelling Unit Equivalents.............................................................................................. 46
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page I ii
FeeMethodology............................................................................................................. 47
FeeSchedule.................................................................................................................... 47
NexusRequirements........................................................................................................ 48
8. Police..................................................................................................................................... 49
Background..................................................................................................................... 49
Facilitiesand Costs.......................................................................................................... 49
LevelOf Service Standard.............................................................................................. 49
DwellingUnit Equivalents.............................................................................................. 50
FeeMethodology............................................................................................................. 50
FeeSchedule.................................................................................................................... 52
NexusRequirements........................................................................................................ 52
9. Fire.........................................................................................................................................53
Background..................................................................................................................... 53
Facilitiesand Costs.......................................................................................................... 53
Level of Service Standard............................................................................................... 54
Dwelling Unit Equivalents.............................................................................................. 54
FeeMethodology............................................................................................................. 55
FeeSchedule.................................................................................................................... 56
NexusRequirements........................................................................................................ 56
10. Parks...................................................................................................................................... 57
Background..................................................................................................................... 57
Facilitiesand costs........................................................................................................... 57
Levelof Service Standard............................................................................................... 58
Dwelling Unit Equivalents.............................................................................................. 58
FeeMethodology............................................................................................................. 59
FeeSchedule.................................................................................................................... 60
Nexus Requirements........................................................................................................ 60
11. Electric Utility....................................................................................................................... 61
Background..................................................................................................................... 61
Facilitiesand Costs.......................................................................................................... 61
Dwelling Unit Equivalents.............................................................................................. 62
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page I iii
FeeMethodology............................................................................................................. 62
FeeSchedule.................................................................................................................... 63
NexusRequirements........................................................................................................ 64
12. General City Facilities........................................................................................................... 65
Background..................................................................................................................... 65
Facilitiesand Costs.......................................................................................................... 65
Levelof Service Standard............................................................................................... 66
DwellingUnit Equivalents.............................................................................................. 66
FeeMethodology............................................................................................................. 67
FeeSchedule.................................................................................................................... 67
NexusRequirements........................................................................................................ 68
13. Art in Public Places............................................................................................................... 69
Background..................................................................................................................... 69
Facilitiesand Costs.......................................................................................................... 69
Level of Service Standard............................................................................................... 70
Dwelling Unit Equivalents.............................................................................................. 70
FeeMethodology............................................................................................................. 71
FeeSchedule.................................................................................................................... 71
NexusRequirements........................................................................................................ 72
14. Implementation and Administration...................................................................................... 73
Implementation................................................................................................................ 73
FeeAdjustments.............................................................................................................. 73
Fee Program Administrative Requirements.................................................................... 73
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page I iv
Tables and Figures
Table 1-1: Water and Wastewater Fees.......................................................................................... 3
Table 1-2: Transportation, Police, Fire, General City Facilities, Park, and Art in Public Places
Fees................................................................................................................................................. 3
Table 1-3: Electric Utility Fees....................................................................................................... 4
Table 1-4: Storm Drainage Fees..................................................................................................... 4
Table 1-5: South Wastewater Trunk Line Fees.............................................................................. 5
Table 2-1: Residential Density Assumptions.................................................................................. 7
Table 2-2: Projected Citywide Population Increase........................................................................ 8
Table 2-3: Population Density by Land Use Category................................................................... 9
Table 2-4: Projected Citywide Non -Residential Development....................................................
10
Figure 2-1:2035 Projected Housing Development.......................................................................
11
Figure 2-2: Non -Residential Growth Forecast..............................................................................
12
Table 3-1: Demand Variable by Fee Component.........................................................................
13
Table 3-2: Summary of Facilities Costs........................................................................................
14
Table3-3: Mark Up Assumptions.................................................................................................
15
Table 4-1: Surface Water Treatment and Storage Costs...............................................................
21
Table 4-2: Hydraulic Capacity Factors for Various Meter Sizes ..................................................
22
Table 4-3: Water Dwelling Unit Equivalents of Future Non -Residential Development ..............
23
Table 4-4: Water Dwelling Unit Equivalents of Future Residential Development ......................
23
Table 4-5: Surface Water Treatment Component Calculation.....................................................
24
Table 4-6: New Water Supply Facilities Component Calculation ................................................
25
Table 4-7: Proposed Water System Impact Mitigation Fee Summary .........................................
25
Table 4-8: Proposed Water System Impact Mitigation Fee Schedule ..........................................
26
Table 4-9: Water Fee Nexus Requirements..................................................................................
26
Table 5-1: Wastewater Treatment Impact Mitigation Fee Calculation ........................................
30
Table 5-2: Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant Impact Mitigation Fee Schedule ...................
31
Table 5-3: Wastewater Treatment Plant Nexus Requirement.......................................................
32
Figure 5-1: Wastewater Facilities Through 2035.........................................................................
33
Table 5-4: South Wastewater Trunk Line Costs...........................................................................
34
Table 5-5: Dwelling Unit Equivalents..........................................................................................
34
Figure 5-2: Wastewater Fee Zones...............................................................................................
35
Table 5-6: South Wastewater Trunk Line Fee Schedule..............................................................
36
Table 5-7: South Wastewater Trunk Line Nexus Requirements..................................................
37
Figure 6-1: Storm Drain Fee Zones..............................................................................................
39
Table 6-1: Storm Drainage Cost Summary...................................................................................
40
Table 6-2: Storm Drainage Dwelling Unit Equivalents................................................................
40
Table 6-3: Zone 1 Storm Drainage Fees.......................................................................................
41
Table 6-4: Zone 2 Estimated Costs...............................................................................................
42
Table 6-5: Zone 2 Conceptual Storm Drainage Fees....................................................................
42
Table 6-6: Storm Drainage Fee Nexus Requirements..................................................................
43
Table 7-1: Transportation Cost Summary.....................................................................................
46
Table 7-2: Calculation of Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE) Factors ...........................................
47
Table 7-3: Transportation Fees.....................................................................................................
47
Table 7-4: Transportation Fee Nexus Requirements....................................................................
48
Table 8-1: Police Cost Summary..................................................................................................
49
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page I v
Table 8-2: Police Facilities Dwelling Unit Equivalents...............................................................
50
Table 8-3: Police Station Cost......................................................................................................
51
Table8-4: Police Fees...................................................................................................................
52
Table 8-5: Police Fee Nexus Requirements..................................................................................
52
Table 9-1: Fire Facilities Costs.....................................................................................................
53
Table 9-2: Fire Facilities Dwelling Unit Equivalents...................................................................
54
Table 9-3: Fire Station Persons Served.........................................................................................
55
Table9-4: Fire Fees......................................................................................................................
56
Table 9-5: Fire Fee Nexus Requirements.....................................................................................
56
Table 10-1: Park Facilities Costs..................................................................................................
57
Table 10-2: Park Service Standards..............................................................................................
58
Table 10-3: Parks Dwelling Unit Equivalents..............................................................................
59
Table10-4: Park Fees...................................................................................................................
60
Table 10-5: Park Fee Nexus Requirements..................................................................................
60
Table 11-1: Electric Utility Costs.................................................................................................
61
Table 11-2: Electric Utility Dwelling Unit Equivalents...............................................................
62
Table 11-3: Electric Utility Fees...................................................................................................
63
Table 11-4: Electric Utility Fee Nexus Requirements..................................................................
64
Table 12-1: General City Facilities Costs.....................................................................................
65
Table 12-2: General City Facilities Dwelling Unit Equivalents...................................................
66
Table 12-3: General City Facilities Fees......................................................................................
67
Table 12-4: General Facility Fee Nexus Requirements................................................................
68
Table 13-1: Existing Art in Public Places.....................................................................................
69
Table 13-2: Art in Public Places Dwelling Unit Equivalents.......................................................
71
Table 13-3: Art in Public Places Fee............................................................................................
71
Table 13-4: Art in Public Places Nexus Requirements.................................................................
72
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page I vi
LEXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTORY
SECTIONS
INTRODUCTION
The City of Lodi (City) is located in the San Joaquin Valley, approximately 10 miles north of
Stockton and 35 miles south of Sacramento. Incorporated in 1906, the City has grown to a
current population of more than 62,000. Corresponding to this population growth, the San
Joaquin Council of Government estimates that there are approximately 26,000 jobs in the City.
The City's growth is provided for in both the General Plan and the City's Growth Ordinance
(LMC 15.34) that allows for an increase in population of 2% per year.
Increased population and employment in the City will lead to increased demand for public
infrastructure and services and will ultimately impact infrastructure and the facilities required to
provide such services. Where backbone infrastructure and capital facilities are inadequate,
permitting development is contrary to the responsibility of local government to protect the
public's health, safety, and welfare. Consequently, the City has planned for construction and
expansion of backbone infrastructure and capital facilities that will adequately serve current and
future development anticipated through 2035.
Funding for these facilities will come from several sources, including the City's Impact
Mitigation Fee Program (IMFP); federal, state and local programs; developer contributions; and
other funding sources. The IMFP Fees discussed in this report will apply to all future growth
within the City projected through 2035.
PURPOSE OF IMFP
As new development occurs within the City, new backbone infrastructure and capital facilities
will be required to meet the demands from future development. Backbone infrastructure and
capital facilities will be funded through the City's IMFP, which will contain separate fee
categories for each type of infrastructure and capital facility. The IMFP will apply to all future
growth anticipated through 2035, except where otherwise noted in this report. The infrastructure
and capital facility impact fee categories incorporated in this report include:
• Water Fee;
• Wastewater Fee;
• Storm Drainage Fee;
• Transportation Fee;
• Police Fee;
• Fire Fee;
• General City Facilities Fee;
• Park Fee;
• Electric Utility Fee; and
• Art in Public Places Fee.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page I I
The City retained a team of consultants, including Harris and Associates, Goodwin Consulting
Group, Inc., Fehr & Peers, The Reed Group, and Vallier Design Associates, to assist it with the
update of the IMFP. The fees in the IMFP will be implemented by the Lodi City Council
through the adoption of this IMFP report. The IMFP is compliant with the requirements set forth
in the Mitigation Fee Act and ensures that a rational nexus exists between the fees and the cost or
portion of the cost of the infrastructure and capital facilities attributable to future development.
VACANT LAND DESCRIPTION
The City, in conjunction with input from local developers, reviewed the vacant land within the
City and studied past development trends. Based on this review, both residential and non-
residential growth forecasts were established. These forecasts form the basis for the analysis
presented in this report and are a critical assumption in the determination of infrastructure
requirements.
It is assumed that substantial residential growth would not begin to occur until 2015, at which
time approximately 100 low density residential units are expected to develop. Development is
expected to gradually increase until 2018 at which point the historical average of 240 units per
year is assumed. A total of 4,000 low density residential units and 720 medium density
residential units are expected to develop through 2035.
Non-residential growth was estimated based on vacant land within the City. It is estimated that
by 2035 approximately 2 million square feet of industrial space, just over 1 million square feet of
retail, approximately 530,000 square feet of office, and approximately 68,000 square feet of
medical will develop.
A more detailed description of this analysis is included in Section 2.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 12
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED FEES
Tables 1-1 through 1-5 summarize the fees for each component in the IMFP.
Table 1-1: Water and Wastewater Fees
Meter Size
Water
Wastewater
5/8 -inch meter
$2,079
$2,831
3/4 -inch meter
$3,103
$4,225
1 -inch meter
$5,181
$7,056
1 1/2 -inch meter
$10,332
$14,070
2 -inch meter
$16,537
$22,521
3 -inch meter
$31,026
$42,253
4 -inch meter
$51,721
$70,435
6 -inch meter
$103,411
$140,828
8 -inch meter
$165,464
$225,333
10 -inch meter
$237,880
$323,951
Table 1-2: Transportation, Police, Fire, General City Facilities, Park, and
Art in Public Places Fees
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 13
RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
Low
Medium
High
Office/
Density
Density
Density
Retail
Medical
Industrial
Fee Component
(per Unit)
(per Unit)
(per Unit)
(per 1,000
SF)
(per 1,000
SF)
(per 1,000
SF)
Transportation
$711
$386
$386
$1,199
$872
$443
Police
$753
$634
$528
$330
$528
$176
Fire
$385
$324
$270
$338
$540
$180
Park
$3,890
$3,276
$2,730
$406
$650
$217
General City Facilities
$617
$519
$433
$270
$433
$144
Art in Public Places
$80
$67
$56
$35
$56
$19
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 13
Table 1-3: Electric Utilitv Fees
'fable 1-4: Storm Drainau Fees
RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
208 Volts
240 Volts
480 Volts
Sin.gle Phase Panel
Office/
Density
60 amps
Density
$248
n/a
100 amps
(per Unit)
$413
n/a
125 amps
Storm Drainage — Zone 11 $1,394
$516
n/a
200 amps
$14,640 $15,686
$826
n/a
400 amps
$1,652
n/a
600 amps
$2,478
n/a
Three Phase Panel
200 amps
$1,178
$1,359
$2,718
400 amps
$2,356
$2,718
$5,437
600 amps
$3,534
$4,077
$8,155
800 amps
$4,712
$5,437
$10,873
1000 amps
$5,890
n/a
$13,591
1200 amps
$7,068
n/a
$16,310
1600 amps
$9,423
n/a
$21,746
2000 amps
$11,779
n/a
$27,183
2500 amps
$14,724
n/a
$33,979
3000 amps
$17,669
n/a
$40,744
'fable 1-4: Storm Drainau Fees
RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
Low
Medium
High
Office/
Density
Density
Density
Retail
Medical Industrial
(per Unit)
(per Unit)
(per Unit)
(per Acre)
(per Acre) (per Acre)
Storm Drainage — Zone 11 $1,394
$697
$561
$14,640
$14,640 $15,686
1 Applies to future development in the Zone
I area shown on Figure 6-1.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 14
Table 1-5: South Wastewater Trunk Line Fees
RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
Low
Medium
High
Office/
Density
Density
Density
Retail Medical Industrial
Fee Component (per Unit)
(per Unit)
(per Unit)
(per 1,000 (per 1,000 (per 1,000
SF) SF) SF)
South Wastewater Trunk Line 1 $1,181
$994
$829
$1,096 n/a n/a
r Applies only to development that will benefit from construction of the wastewater trunk line serving the
southern area of the City.
FEE ADJUSTMENT PROCEDURES
The fees may be adjusted in future years to reflect revised facility requirements, receipt of
funding from alternative sources (i.e., state or federal grants), revised facilities or costs, or
changes in demographics or the land use plan. In addition, the fees will be adjusted each year by
the Engineering News Record 20 -city average construction cost index.
The fee categories summarized in the IMFP may not be applicable to specialized development
projects in the City. For example, development of a cemetery, golf course, or stadium would not
fall under any of the fee categories in this study. For specialized development projects, the City
will review the impacts and decide on the applicable fee.
NEXUS REQUIREMENT SUMMARY
Assembly Bill (AB) 1600, which was enacted by the State of California in 1987, created
Mitigation Fee Act - Section 66000 et seq. of the Government Code. The Mitigation Fee Act
requires that all public agencies satisfy the following requirements when establishing, increasing,
or imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project:
1. Identify the purpose of the fee.
2. Identify the use to which the fee is to be put.
3. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between:
A. The fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is
imposed.
B. The need for the public facility and the type of development project on which
the fee is imposed.
C. The amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the
public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.
As stated above, the purpose of this IMFP report is to demonstrate that all fee components of the
updated IMFP comply with the Mitigation Fee Act. The assumptions, methodologies, facility
standards, costs, and cost allocation factors that were used to establish the nexus between the
fees and the development on which the fees will be levied are summarized in subsequent sections
of this report.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 15
LODI MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS
The following sections of the Lodi Municipal Code will need to be amended to implement the
changes included in the IMFP:
12.12.370
13.08.130
13.12.180
13.12.220
15.64.010
15.64.020
15.64.030
15.64.050
15.64.060
15.67.070
15.64.080
16.24.040
The changes included in the IMFP leading to the need to amend the Lodi Municipal Code are
described below:
1. There will no longer be a reimbursement by the IMFP for oversized pipe.
Reimbursement will be secured via a City Council approved reimbursement agreement
amongst the benefitting properties.
2. Water and wastewater treatment capacity charges will be based upon the size of the water
meter needed to serve the property.
3. New Developments will be responsible for constructing one-half of the fronting road
improvements. The IMFP will be responsible for construction of the median
improvements along Harney Lane and Hutchins Street.
4. The Electric Utility capacity charge will be based upon the panel size serving the
property and will apply to all incorporated areas of the City.
5. New developments will be responsible for constructing neighborhood parks. The IMFP
will be responsible for constructing community and regional park facilities.
6. Residential IMFP fees will be based upon dwelling unit equivalents (DUE). One DUE
equals the demands for services represented by a single family, low density residential
unit.
7. Non-residential IMF fees will be based upon building square feet except for Storm
Drainage which will be based upon the acreage of the project.
8. Limited exceptions for non-residential Transportation IMF fees will be allowed, as
determined by the Public Works Director, based upon demonstrated significant deviation
from the IMFP assumptions for employee density and trip generation.
9. The Art in Public Places IMF fee will be a stand-alone fee.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 16
2. DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
POPULATION
The City adopted a Growth Ordinance (LMC 15.34) in 1991 that restricts the number of housing
units approved by the City to produce no more than a 2% annual population growth. The Growth
Ordinance provides for an additional allocation by residential land use category of approximately
65% Low Density, 10% Medium Density and 25% for High Density. The Growth Ordinance is
not seen as a constraint to residential development as the 2005 allocation translated to a
maximum of 450 new units, which is well above the anticipated residential development
forecast. In addition, unallocated permits are allowed to roll into future years; there were 3,268
unused permits available prior to 2007.
Table 2-1 shows the residential density assumptions that were applied in estimating population
projections for the IMFP update.
Table 2-1: Residential Density Assumptions
Land Use Population Density,
Person/Dwelling Units
Low Density 2.85
Medium Density 2.40
High Density 2.00
1 Derived from the 2000 census and California
Department of Finance, Population Research Unit.
The citywide residential forecast is shown in Table 2-2. This forecast was developed in
conjunction with local residential developers and reflects the consensus that it will be a few more
years before substantial residential development returns to Lodi. Once the market for residential
housing starts up again, it is anticipated that it will take three to four years to return to historical
levels.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 17
I able L-2:
New Dwelling Units
increase
Year Low Density Medium Density High Density
Population
Increase
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 18
(LDR)
(MDR)
(HDR)
2015
100
0
0
285
2016
125
0
0
356
2017
175
0
0
499
2018
200
40
0
666
2019
200
40
0
666
2020
200
40
0
666
2021
200
40
0
666
2022
200
40
0
666
2023
200
40
0
666
2024
200
40
0
666
2025
200
40
0
666
2026
200
40
0
666
2027
200
40
0
666
2028
200
40
0
666
2029
200
40
0
666
2030
200
40
0
666
2031
200
40
0
666
2032
200
40
0
666
2033
200
40
0
666
2034
200
40
0
666
2035
200
40
0
666
Total
4,000
720
0
13,128
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 18
LAND USE CATEGORIES AND DENSITY ASSUMPTIONS
The land use categories included in the Lodi General Plan are also used in the IMFP. These
categories are presented in Table 2-3. This table includes a summary of development densities
and site coverage that were assumed during the IMFP update process.
Table 2-3: Population Density by Land Use Category
Land Use Category
General Plan Permitted
Residential Maximum
Density FAR
Fkpected
Residential
FAR
Density
Residentiall
Low Density
2-8
n/a
6
n/a
Medium Density
8-20
n/a
15
n/a
High Density
15-35
n/a
25
n/a
Non-Residentiaf
General Commercial
n/a
0.6
n/a
0.25
Office
n/a
0.6
n/a
0.30
Business Park
n/a
1
n/a
0.40
Industrial
n/a
0.6
n/a
0.40
Mixed Use
Downtown Mixed Use
8-35
3
20
1.0
Mixed Use Corridor
2-35
1.2
20
1.0
Mixed Use Center
8-35
1
20
1.0
Residential density expressed in dwelling units per net acre
2 Non-residential FAR expressed
in terms of gross building sq ft per net acre.
3 IMFP fees on Mixed Use development
will be
imposed based
on the underlying
Residential or Non -Residential development that is part of the Mixed Use project.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 19
VACANT LAND INVENTORY
Figure 2-1 shows the spatial allocation of the residential forecast that was prepared examining
projects in the pipeline and available vacant land that would be efficient extensions of
development. The initial phasing for residential land uses was developed with input from the
residential development community and the City Manager/Community Development Director.
The non-residential development has been estimated in 5 year increments by the City and is
shown in Table 2-4.
Table 2-4: Proiected Citvwide Non -Residential Develobment
Figure 2-2 shows the initial phasing and spatial allocation of the non-residential forecast and was
prepared by examining projects in the pipeline and available vacant land. The non-residential
phasing was developed with input from the City Manager/Community Development Director.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 110
Mixed
Subtotal
Use
Mixed
Citywide
Corridor
Use
Major
Minor
Non-
Major
Corridor
Year
Industrial
Retail
Retail
Office Medical
residential
Retail
Office
(1000 st)
(1000 st) (1000 st) (1000 st) (1000 st)
(1000 st)
(1000 st)
(1000 st)
2015-19
351
492.5
180 68
1,092
100
70
2020-24
800
26.5
90
916.5
2025-29
707
109
90
906
2030-35
714
100
814
Total
2,221
351
628
460 68
3,728
100
70
Figure 2-2 shows the initial phasing and spatial allocation of the non-residential forecast and was
prepared by examining projects in the pipeline and available vacant land. The non-residential
phasing was developed with input from the City Manager/Community Development Director.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 110
3. IMPACT FEE METHODOLOGY
When impact fees are imposed, a fee report must demonstrate that logical and thorough
consideration was applied in determining that the fees relate to the impacts from new
development. Various findings must be made to ensure that a reasonable relationship exists
between the fee and the cost of the facility or portion of the facility attributable to new
development on which that impact fee will be levied.
DUE FACTORS
A Dwelling Equivalent Unit (DUE) is a factor that quantifies the facilities demand of different
land use types in terms of their equivalence to a low density residential unit. A low density
residential unit is assigned a DUE factor of 1.0 and the DUE factor for each of the other land use
categories is determined based on the anticipated demand for each land use category relative to
the anticipated demand for a low density residential unit.
Demand is measured differently for each component of the IMFP. Demand variables are
assigned to future development based on industry practice for each component of the IMFP as
shown in Table 3-1.
'fable 3-1: Demand Variable bV Yee
Fee Component Demand Variable
Water
Wastewater
Storm Drainage
Transportation
Police
Fire
Parks
Electric Utility
General City Facilities
Art in Public Places
Hydraulic Capacity Factor
Hydraulic Capacity Factor
Runoff Coefficient
Trip Generation
Persons Served
Persons Served
Persons Served
Load Factor (kVA)
Persons Served
Persons Served
For example, demand for police facilities is based on the potential number of persons served. If
each person were assumed to equal one person served and a low density residential unit is
assumed to have 2.85 persons per household, then a low density residential unit would equal 2.85
persons served and have a DUE of 1.0. A medium density residential unit with an average of
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 113
2.40 persons per household would generate 2.40 persons served. By dividing 2.40 by 2.85, a
DUE factor of approximately 0.84 is calculated for a medium density residential unit. The
number of persons served is derived from a persons per household factor for residential land uses
and the number of employees per 1,000 building square feet for non-residential land uses. The
persons per household and employees per 1,000 building square feet assumptions are derived
from population figures from the Census Bureau and common industry -related employee density
averages.
COST ESTIMATES
Facilities cost estimates for each component of the IMFP have been developed with the
assistance of City staff and its team of consultants, including Harris and Associates, Fehr &
Peers, and Vallier Design Associates. Facilities cost estimates have been prepared utilizing
current cost data as well as recent bids for similar projects. A summary of the facilities costs
included in the IMFP is presented in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2: Summary of Facilities Costs
IMFP Component
IMFP Funding
Other Funding 1
Total Funding
Water Treatment
$13,390,000
$58,275,000
$71,665,000
Water Supply
$4,000,000
$0
$4,000,000
Wastewater Treatment
$23,681,000
$24,910,000
$48,591,000
Wastewater Conveyance
$6,252,400
$0
$6,252,400
Storm Drainage
$2,968,500
$0
$2,968,500
Transportation
$5,832,600
$29,079,200
$34,911,800
Police
$4,496,000
$22,896,000
$27,392,000
Fire
$2,825,000
$0
$2,825,000
Parks
$19,183,000
$0
$19,183,000
Electric Utility
$7,092,000
$0
$7,092,000
General City Facilities
$3,682,000
$2,444,000
$6,126,000
Art in Public Places
$477,000
$0
$477,000
1 Includes all alternate sources
of funding (e.g., existing development, future development beyond 2035,
RTIF, RTSP, SJCOG, Measure K, etc) other than projected IMFP fee revenue through 2035.
Additional facility and cost details related to each component of the IMFP are provided in the
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 114
following sections of this report.
MARK-UP ASSUMPTIONS
In order to properly capture the City's full cost to design, build, and manage the projects required
by new development, it is necessary to include soft costs in preparing the estimates. While the
mark-ups can vary widely from one project to the next, the mark-ups shown in Table 3-3
represent average and realistic assumptions and were used in calculating the costs included in
this study.
lapme 3-3: mark Un As
Soft Cost
Percent
Contingency 20%
Design & Environmental 10%
Construction Management 5%
City Administration & Plan Checking 5%
LAND ACQUISITION ASSUMPTIONS
For some of the facilities, it will be necessary for the City to purchase land. In these cases, the
cost of land acquisition was included in the IMFP and estimated at $160,000 per acre. This cost
assumes not only land acquisition, but also other costs the City may incur, such as mapping or
legal fees. Should a developer dedicate land for a project that includes a land acquisition cost in
the program, he would be subject to a credit or a reimbursement at the appraised value of the
land or the amount assumed in the IMFP, whichever is less.
FEE METHODOLOGY
There are several methodologies used to determine impact fees for new development. The
choice of the methodology to use depends on the type of facility for which an impact fee is being
calculated as well as the availability of documentation and research conducted in support of the
fee. Following is a discussion of the two methodologies used to calculate the separate impact fee
components in this report.
PLAN -BASED FEE METHODOLOGY
The plan -based fee methodology is used for facilities that must be designed based on multiple
considerations, including, but not limited to, future demand projections, geographic location of
anticipated growth, and potential development constraints. For example, the need for
transportation -related improvements depends specifically on the projected number of trips that
must be accommodated. The City must first analyze existing facilities, geographic constraints,
and current and required levels of service in order to identify future facility needs. This
information is analyzed in conjunction with a projection of the amount and location of future
development in order to determine the adequacy of existing facilities and the demand for new
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 115
improvements. The steps to calculate a component of the IMFP under the plan -based fee
methodology include the following:
Step 1. Determine the future development, by land use category and location,
anticipated within the City through 2035.
Step 2. Determine facilities needed to serve anticipated growth and, if necessary, the
existing development in the City.
Step 3. Estimate the gross cost of facilities needed to serve the current and future City
population and determine that portion of the cost for which only future growth
will be responsible. Exclude the cost from the fee calculation of any
improvements that will cure existing deficiencies.
Step 4. Subtract expected revenues that will be available from alternative funding
sources, if any, to determine the net facilities cost that will be allocated to
future development.
Step S. Identify the demand variable (e.g., trips generated, runoff coefficient, persons
served, etc.) that will be used to allocate facility costs on a fair -share basis to
each future land use category.
Step 6. Determine the dwelling unit equivalent factor for each land use category
based on the applicable demand variable.
Step 7. Calculate the total DUES that will be generated from future development for
all land use categories by multiplying each land use type by its DUE factor
and taking the sum of the DUEs.
Step 8. Divide the total DUEs for each land use category by the total DUES for all
future land uses to determine each land use category's percentage share of the
total DUEs.
Step 9. Multiply each land use's percentage share of the total DUEs by the total
facilities cost in the fee program to determine the cost attributable to each land
use category.
Step 10. Divide the cost attributable to each land use category by the number of units
(i.e., homes, building square feet, or acres) of each land use type to determine
the fee for each type of residential or non-residential land use category.
The plan -based impact fee calculation methodology was used in this IMFP to calculate the water,
wastewater, storm drainage, transportation, police, fire, electrical utility, and general city
facilities fee components.
STANDARD -BASED FEE METHODOLOGY
The standard -based methodology is used when a consistent facility service level standard is to be
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 116
applied to new development (i.e., per 1,000 residents) regardless of the total future projected
development or geographic location of development. The standard to be used in calculating
impact fees under this methodology may be based on an existing standard or a preferred standard
that may be presented in the General Plan or a master plan. The steps to calculate a component
of the IMFP under the standard -based fee methodology include the following:
Step 1. Define the required level of service standard (e.g., park acres per 1,000
residents) expressed in terms of residents, employees, or other standard
appropriate for the type of facility for which the fee is being calculated.
Step 2. Estimate the future growth and the additional facilities required by
multiplying the applicable facility service standard by the future growth
projection.
Step 3. Determine a facility cost based on current costs; reduce the facility cost by
alternative funding sources, if applicable. Calculate the net cost of the
required additional facilities. Exclude the cost from the fee calculation of any
improvements that will cure existing deficiencies.
Step 4. Identify the demand variable (e.g., persons served) that will be used to
allocate facility costs on a fair -share basis to each future land use category.
Step S. Determine the dwelling unit equivalent factor for each land use category
based on the applicable demand variable.
Step 6. Calculate the total DUES that will be generated from future development for
all land use categories by multiplying each land use type by its DUE factor
and taking the sum of the DUEs.
Step 7. Divide the total DUEs for each land use category by the total DUES for all
future land uses to determine each land use's percentage share of the total
DUES.
Step 8. Multiply each land use's percentage share of the total DUES by the applicable
facilities cost to determine the cost attributable to each land use category.
Step 9. Divide the cost attributable to each land use category by the number of units
(i.e., homes or building square feet) of each land use type to determine the fee
for each residential or non-residential land use category.
The standard based fee methodology was used to calculate the park and art in public places fee
components of the IMFP.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 117
CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENT POLICIES
The City may provide fee credits or reimbursements to developers who dedicate land or
construct facilities. Fee credits or reimbursements may be provided up to the cost of the
improvement, as shown in an applicable improvement plan, subject to periodic inflation
adjustments, or the actual cost paid by the developer, whichever is lower. For construction cost
overruns, only that amount shown in the applicable improvement plan, subject to periodic
inflation adjustments, would be credited or reimbursed. The City will evaluate the appropriate
fee credit or reimbursement based on the value of the dedication or improvement. Credits or
reimbursements may be repaid based on the priority of the capital improvements, as determined
by the City. The City will determine fee credits and reimbursements on a case by case basis and
possibly through the use of a development agreement.
LAND USES
Nearly all development impact fees in this study have been calculated per dwelling unit for
residential land uses and per 1,000 square feet of building space for non-residential land use
categories. The only exceptions are fees for water, wastewater, storm drainage, and electric
utility. Impact fees for water and wastewater are calculated based on meter size, while electric
utility fees are calculated based on the capacity of the electric panel. Finally, storm drainage fees
are calculated per dwelling unit for residential land uses and per acre for non-residential land use
types.
The following land use categories are identified for purposes of the IMFP and are consistent with
the City's General Plan:
Low Density Residential: includes all single family detached residential
development at densities of two to eight units per acre.
The fee calculations assume future development
occurring at an average density of 6.0 units per acre.
Medium Density Residential: includes all residential development at densities of eight
to 20 units per acre. A variety of housing types are
permitted within this land use type, including detached or
attached (i.e., townhomes) single family houses and two
or three-story multi -family units. The fee calculations
assume future development occurring at an average
density of 15.0 units per acre.
High Density Residential: includes development of townhomes and stacked multi-
family housing at densities of 15 to 35 units per acre. The
fee calculations assume future development occurring at
an average density of 25.0 units per acre.
Commercial: includes large and small-scale retail uses. The fee
calculations assume a floor -area -ratio of 0.25 per acre of
land.
Office/Medical: Includes administrative, financial, professional, business,
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 118
and medical office uses. The fee calculations assume a
floor -area -ratio of 0.30 per acre of land.
Industrial: Includes a mix of heavy manufacturing, warehousing,
general service, storage, and distribution uses. The fee
calculations assume a floor -area -ratio of 0.40 per acre of
land.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 119
4. WATER
BACKGROUND
Expansion of the City's water service is required to serve planned development areas. The
existing Lodi Water Master Plan was adopted in 1990.
The City's water system currently consists of twenty-eight groundwater wells, about 237 miles
of distribution pipelines, and two storage reservoirs totaling 1.1 million gallons (MG) of
capacity. Groundwater currently serves as the sole source of supply for the City. Studies have
suggested the safe groundwater yield for the area underlying the City is approximately 15,000
acre-feet (AF) per year. Annual well production for the four-year period from 2006 through
2009 ranged from 16,052 AF to 17,164 AF.
In 2003, the City entered into a forty -year agreement with the Woodbridge Irrigation District
(WID) to purchase 6,000 AF of water per year from the Mokelumne River. In 2008, the
agreement was amended to forty-four years and included banking of 42,000 acre feet of water
purchased during project development. In 2011, the City began construction of an 8 million
gallon per day (mgd) water treatment plant with an estimated total cost of about $40 million. In
the fall of 2010, the City issued $38.7 million in water revenue bonds to help fund the
construction of the new surface water treatment facilities necessary to treat and distribute water
purchased from the WID.
The proposed water system fee is intended to reflect the cost of water treatment capacity,
including financing costs, and as well as costs to integrate the surface water supply into the
distribution system. Additional supply facilities include a new 1.5 MG water storage tank and an
additional groundwater well to help manage peak demands throughout the distribution system.
For water fee calculation purposes, all customers (existing and new) will receive a blended water
supply of both groundwater and surface water. The water fee calculation reflects the costs
associated with this blended water supply.
FACILITIES AND COSTS
The City has historically used groundwater to meet its water needs. In 2003, the City entered
into an agreement with the WID to purchase 6,000 AF per year of WID's pre -1914 Mokelumne
River water entitlements. A new surface water treatment facility and ancillary facilities are
needed to make use of the WID water supply.
The surface water treatment facility was designed to pump up to 11.5 mgd of water from the
Mokelumne River, treat this water and deliver it to the City's existing water distribution system.
Untreated surface water is first passed through a sedimentation basin to remove larger materials.
The principal treatment process is a system of membranes that remove finer particles and provide
a positive barrier to water -borne bacteria and organisms such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium.
This process provides 8.0 mgd of firm capacity (and 10 mgd peak capacity) of treated water that
will meet or exceed state and federal drinking water standards.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 120
The estimated total cost to plan, design, and construct the surface water treatment facility is
shown in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1: Surface Water Treatment and Storage Costs
Cost, in
millions
Surface Water Treatment Facility Planning & Design
Costs $3.87
Surface Water Treatment Facility Construction Cost
(Including Financing) $67.78
Total $71.65
The City has been paying $1.2 million annually ($200 per AF) for the WID water supply. Under
terms of the agreement with WID, unused water can be banked for future use. It is estimated that
by the time the water treatment facility becomes operational the City will be able to utilize 7,200
AF annually under the agreement (including banked water spread over the remaining term of the
agreement). For purposes of water fee calculations, this 7,200 AF annual supply limit represents
the assumed capacity of treatment facilities.
City staff has estimated that the existing groundwater supply provides a safe yield of about 2.3
AF per acre per year. With an estimated residential density of 6 dwelling units per acre, the
groundwater supply provides 0.38 AF per DUE. With a water supply requirement of 0.62 AF
per DUE, new water treatment facilities will be needed to provide 0.24 AF per DUE.
DWELLING UNIT EQUIVALENTS
Water demand is expressed in dwelling unit equivalents, which is the estimated average annual
water demand for a single family home. For purposes of calculating the water fee, a DUE is
equal to a water production requirement of 0.62 AF per year, as described in the preceding
paragraph.
Most single family residential dwellings are (or will be) equipped with a 3/4 -inch water meter as
the residential standard. The water fee for 1 DUE will establish the fee for each 3/4 -inch water
meter. For other meter sizes the amount of the water fee will be proportioned relative to the 3/4 -
inch meter, and based on the hydraulic capacity of each meter size. Table 4-2 summarizes the
hydraulic flow capacities and the corresponding hydraulic capacity factors for a variety of meter
sizes.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 121
Table
4-2: Hvdraulic Capacity Factors for Various Metei
Meter
Size
Rated
Maximum Flow
Capacity
(gpm)1
Hydraulic
Capacity
Factor
5/8" meter
20
0.67
3/4" meter
30
1.00
1" meter
50
1.67
1 1/2" meter
100
3.33
2" meter
160
5.33
3" meter
300
10.00
4" meter
500
16.67
6" meter
1,000
33.33
8" meter
1,600
53.33
10" meter
2,300
76.67
1 From AWWA Manual M6 - Water Meters, 3rd
Edition, American Water Works Association, 1986.
2 Ratio of rated flow capacity relative to 3/4 -inch
meter.
• Sizes
Based on the City's growth projections through 2035 and applying floor -area -ratios,
development density estimates, and water demand factors provided by the City, the anticipated
future non-residential development is estimated to be equivalent to 885 DUES, as determined in
Table 4-3.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 122
1 able 4-3: water imelling Unit h:auivalents of Future Non-Resiaennal
3,898 Total New Non -Residential Water Demand --> 489,574 gpd
548 AF/year
885 DUEs2
1 Data provided by the Lodi Department of Public Works.
2 One DUE is equivalent to 0.62 AF per year of water demand.
Based on the City's growth projections through 2035, the anticipated residential development is
estimated to be equivalent to 4,720 DUES as shown in Table 4-4.
Table 4-4: Water Dwelling Unit Equivalents of Future Residential Development
future units Demand/ Demand/ Demand
(DUES) year (AF)/unit year (AF) (gpd)
LDR & MD] 4,720 0.62 2,926 2,612,525
Combining both residential and non-residential development, the total future development in the
City through 2035 is estimated to be 5,605 DUES.
FEE METHODOLOGY
SURFACE WATER TREATMENT COMPONENT
The total cost of the new surface water treatment facility, including repayment of the 2010 water
revenue bonds to finance construction, is about $71.67 million. The capacity of the treatment
facility, as previously described, is 7,200 AF per year. Each DUE requires 0.62 AF of water per
year, of which 0.38 AF is to be supplied from groundwater and 0.24 AF from the new WID
water treatment facilities. At 0.24 AF per DUE, the water treatment facility can provide needed
water for 30,000 DUES. Therefore, the proportionate share of water treatment facility cost to
each DUE is $2,389, as presented in Table 4-5.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 123
Floor
Future
Area
Development
Water
Land Use
Develop.
Ratio
Density
Demand
Factor
Demand
(1,000 SF)
(FAR)
(1,000
(gal/ac/day)
(gal/1,000
(gpd)
SF/acre)
SF)
Retail
1,079
0.25
10.89
2,500
230
247,704
Office
598
0.30
13.07
2,500
191
114,402
Business Park
-
0.40
17.42
2,500
143
-
Industrial
2,221
0.40
17.42
1,000
57
127,468
Multi Use
-
0.25
10.89
2,500
230
-
3,898 Total New Non -Residential Water Demand --> 489,574 gpd
548 AF/year
885 DUEs2
1 Data provided by the Lodi Department of Public Works.
2 One DUE is equivalent to 0.62 AF per year of water demand.
Based on the City's growth projections through 2035, the anticipated residential development is
estimated to be equivalent to 4,720 DUES as shown in Table 4-4.
Table 4-4: Water Dwelling Unit Equivalents of Future Residential Development
future units Demand/ Demand/ Demand
(DUES) year (AF)/unit year (AF) (gpd)
LDR & MD] 4,720 0.62 2,926 2,612,525
Combining both residential and non-residential development, the total future development in the
City through 2035 is estimated to be 5,605 DUES.
FEE METHODOLOGY
SURFACE WATER TREATMENT COMPONENT
The total cost of the new surface water treatment facility, including repayment of the 2010 water
revenue bonds to finance construction, is about $71.67 million. The capacity of the treatment
facility, as previously described, is 7,200 AF per year. Each DUE requires 0.62 AF of water per
year, of which 0.38 AF is to be supplied from groundwater and 0.24 AF from the new WID
water treatment facilities. At 0.24 AF per DUE, the water treatment facility can provide needed
water for 30,000 DUES. Therefore, the proportionate share of water treatment facility cost to
each DUE is $2,389, as presented in Table 4-5.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 123
I Qulu IF -0; aul1i %;C VV MCI 1I VUL111C116 %-U1111JU11C116 %-,41GU12161U11
Water Treatment Facility Costs
Total
Planning and Design Costs (prior tofinancing)
Laboratory Testing
$
33,800
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Review
$
377,000
Preliminary Design and Environmental Review
$
858,000
Final Design, Plans and Specifications
$
1,737,000
Design Review
$
50,000
Financial Planning and Legal
$
107,000
City Staff
$
110,000
Raw Water Intake Pipe Construction
$
572,000
Miscellaneous
$
25,000
Total Paid from Reserves
$
3,869,800
Estimated Construction Costs (financed)
Construction Contract (bid amount)
$
22,837,000
Wastewater Connection Fee
$
1,472,912
Site Acquisition (land cost)
$
1,200,000
Testing and Inspection
$
488,000
Other Construction Costs
$
1,338,973
Pall Membrane Purchase
$
3,926,081
Other Equipment
$
427,026
Engr. Service - Contract Admin.
$
890,000
Project Contingency
$
3,920,008
Total Construction Costs
$
36,500,000
Debt Financing
2010A & 2010B Water Revenue Bonds (par) 2
$
38,665,000
Total of Annual Debt Service Payments s
$
67,795,425
Total Water Treatment Costs for IMF Calculation
$
71,665,225
Water Treatment Facility Capacity
Firm Capacity'
8.0
Peak Capacity'
10.0
Annual Supply Limit (AF)4
7,200
Unit Cost of Treatment Capacity
$
9,954 /AF
Estimated Annual Water Supply Requirement per DUES
0.62 AF
Supply Provided by Groundwater per DUE"
0.38 AF
Supply to be Provided by Surface Water per DUE
0.24 AF
DUES of Surface Water Capacity
30,000
Surface Water Treatment Component (3/4" mtr.)7
$
2,389
I From Limited Engineer's Feasibility Report: City ofLodi's Water Systemand Planned Surface Water Treatment Facilities, prepared
by HDR Engineering, hic, October 7, 2010.
2 From Lodi Public Financing Authority - 2010 Water Revenue Bonds, Series A and Series B, Official Statement, October 19, 2010.
3 Total ofall annual principal and interest payments, net of federal subsidy, on the 2010 Series A and Series B bonds.
° From Agreement for Purchase of Water fromthe Woodbridge hrigation District by the City ofLodi, May 13, 2003, plus future use
ofbanked supplies.
5 Calculated based on the information below:
Average daily water use 500.4427397 gpd
Average monthly water use 20.35 CCF
Average annual water use 0.560606061 AF
Unaccounted for water loss rate 0.1
Water treatment capacity rgmt. per DUE 0.622895623 AF
6 The safe yield of groundwater is estimated at 2.3 AF/ac. Assuming residential density of 6 DU/ac, groundwater can provide about
0.38 AF per DU.
7 Calculated as total water treatment facility expansion costs for new development divided by new DUES of capacity.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program
Page 124
NEW WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES COMPONENT
New water supply facilities needed to ensure adequate water system pressure and fire flows
during peak water use periods include a 1.5 MG water storage tank and one additional
groundwater well. These planned new facilities are to be paid for entirely by projected future
development. As indicated previously, the projected future new development has been
estimated to be 5,605 DUES. As shown in Table 4-6 dividing the estimated $4 million cost of
planned new facilities by 5,605 DUES of new development results in a new water supply
facilities component of $714 per DUE.
fable 4-6: New Water SUDDIV l+acilities Component Ualculation
New Water System Facilities Est. Cost
1.5 MG Storage Reservoir $ 3,000,000
Groundwater Well $ 1,000,000
Total Facilities Cost
New Development (DUEs) 1
$ 4,000,000
5,605
New Water Supply Facilities Component (3/4" meter) $ 714
1 Includes 4,720 residential units, plus 885 DUES of non-residential
development. See Table 4-3.
TOTAL WATER IMPACT MITIGATION FEE
Combining the surface water treatment component of $2,389 with the new water system
facilities component of $714 results in a total water fee of $3,103 per DUE, as summarized in
Table 4-7.
Table 4-7: Proposed Water Svstem Impact Mitigation Fee Summar
Water System
IMF
Surface Water Treatment Component $ 2,389
New Water Facilities Component $ 714
Total Water IMF for Std. 3/4" Meter $ 3,103
FEE SCHEDULE
Table 4-8 presents a complete schedule of proposed water fees based on the size of the water
meter. The water fees would apply to all new connections to the City's water system.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 125
Table 4-8: Proposed Water Svstem Impact Mitigation Fee Schedul
NEXUS REQUIREMENTS
The water fee component meets the Mitigation Fee Act nexus requirements as described in
Table 4-9.
Table 4-9: Water Fee Nexus Requirements
Identify Purpose of Fee
Hydraulic
Identify Use of Fee
To fund the water facilities identified in this
Capacity
Determine how there is a reasonable
New residential and non-residential
Meter Size
Factor
Water System Fee 1
5/8" meter
0.67
$
2,079
3/4" meter
1.00
$
3,103
1"meter
1.67
$
5,181
1 1/2" meter
3.33
$
10,332
2" meter
5.33
$
16,537
3" meter
10.00
$
31,026
4" meter
16.67
$
51,721
6" meter
33.33
$
103,411
8" meter
53.33
$
165,464
10" meter
76.67
$
237,880
1 Standard single family meter
size is 3/4" (one
DUE). Other fee amounts
proportioned based on hydraulic capacity of each meter size.
NEXUS REQUIREMENTS
The water fee component meets the Mitigation Fee Act nexus requirements as described in
Table 4-9.
Table 4-9: Water Fee Nexus Requirements
Identify Purpose of Fee
To fund water costs, including construction of a
new storage tank, construction of a new well
and a proportionate share of treatment
Icapacity.
Identify Use of Fee
To fund the water facilities identified in this
IMFP.
Determine how there is a reasonable
New residential and non-residential
relationship between the need for the public
development will generate additional residents
facility, the use of the fee, the amount of the
and employees in the City of Lodi who will
fee and the type of development project on
increase the demand for water. The water
which the fee is imposed.
fees collected from new development will equal
the cost of the portion of the facilities
attributable to new development. Residential
and non-residential development will be
responsible for their fair -share portion of the
total cost based on the estimated water use of
the individual land uses.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 126
5. WASTEWATER
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
BACKGROUND
The City's wastewater system currently consists of about 191 miles of collection system
pipelines ranging in sizes from 4 to 42 inches in diameter, with 6 inches being the predominant
size. There are six trunk sewers serving the City that generally flow from the north to the south.
The Century Boulevard Trunk Line flows from east to west, and into a 42 -inch trunk sewer to
the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility (WSWPCF).
There are five lift stations located in the northern area of the City, and three in the southern area
of the City.
The wastewater treatment facility was originally constructed with a capacity of 5.8 mgd. In the
late 1980s and early 1990s the City expanded the treatment capacity to 6.3 mgd and also
improved the level of treatment. Between 2003 and 2009 the City again expanded the treatment
capacity to the current 8.5 mgd along with further improvements in the level of treatment.
The proposed wastewater treatment impact mitigation fee is intended to reflect the cost of
wastewater treatment capacity, including financing costs, resulting from the expansions from
5.8 mgd to 6.3 mgd and then to 8.5 mgd. This allows the analysis to incorporate a broader
range of treatment improvements and to average the costs from each phase of expansion. In
addition, debt issued in 1991 to help finance the earlier expansion were refunded and rolled into
new debt issued in 2007, resulting in a commingling of debt costs across multiple debt issues
and phases of plant expansion.
FACILITIES AND COSTS
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the City undertook projects to improve the level of treatment
and to expand capacity in the White Slough water pollution control facility from 5.8 mgd to 6.3
mgd. Additional projects to further improve and expand treatment capacity occurred from 2003
to the present. These more recent wastewater improvements increased capacity from 6.3 mgd to
8.5 mgd.
The wastewater treatment facility is intended to meet 100 percent of wastewater treatment needs
of new development within the City. The wastewater treatment facility has a dry weather flow
capacity of 8.5 mgd and current utilization of about 6.2 mgd, resulting in available capacity of
2.3 mgd. About 85 percent (2.3 of 2.7 mgd) of the expanded treatment capacity is available for
new development.
For purposes of calculating the wastewater fee, the average daily wastewater flow for single
family residential accounts is estimated at 200 gallons per day (gpd). On this basis, the increase
in wastewater treatment capacity of 2.7 mgd is able to accommodate an additional 13,500 single
family dwellings (or DUES). At present, about 0.4 mgd of the added capacity (from 5.8 mgd to
6.2 mgd) is being used to meet existing demands (i.e., has been subscribed). This leaves 2.3
mgd of capacity available for future development. At 200 gpd per DUE, this remaining
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 127
capacity is capable of serving about 11,500 DUEs. Wastewater conveyance facilities will be
discussed later in this section.
Capital costs for wastewater treatment improvements to bring capacity from 5.8 mgd to 8.5 mgd
total about $57.3 million. Engineering estimates indicate that about 46.7 percent of the cost of
wastewater treatment improvements are for the benefit of new development (i.e., new capacity
above 5.8 mgd). Projects were financed with debt proceeds from certificates of participation
(COPS) issued in 1991, 2003, 2004, and 2007. A portion of the 2007 debt issue was used to
refund the 1991 COPs. Total debt service payments (principal and interest) related to these debt
issues total about $128.0 million, with final payments scheduled for FY 37/38.
The proposed wastewater fee is intended to cover the future development's share of debt service
payments. Analysis of debt financing indicates that 45.3 percent of remaining debt service
obligations is associated with improvements that benefit new development. Wastewater
conveyance costs will be discussed later in this section.
DWELLING UNIT EQUIVALENTS
Wastewater demand is expressed in dwelling unit equivalents, which is the estimated average
daily wastewater flow for a single family home. For purposes of calculating the wastewater fee,
a DUE is equal to 200 gpd, with residential loading factors of 243 milligrams per liter (mg/1) of
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and 285 mg/l of suspended solids (SS).
Most single family residential dwellings are (or will be) equipped with a 3/4 -inch water meter, as
the residential standard. The wastewater fee for 1 DUE will establish the fee for each/4-inch
water meter. For other meter sizes the amount of the wastewater fee will be proportioned,
relative to the 3/4 -inch meter, based on the hydraulic capacity of each meter size. Table 4-1, in
the water treatment fee section of the report, summarized the hydraulic flow capacities and the
corresponding hydraulic capacity factors for a variety of meter sizes.
Wastewater fees would only apply to new water service connections that include corresponding
wastewater service. Dedicated irrigation accounts, or other water connections not resulting in
wastewater flows, will not be subject to the wastewaterfee.
FEE METHODOLOGY
The purpose of the wastewater fee is to ensure that new development pays a proportionate share
of the cost of constructing wastewater treatment and ancillary facilities needed to accommodate
new wastewater demands within the City. The revenue generated from the wastewater fee will
be used to assist the City in making debt service payments related to the 2003, 2004, and 2007
COPS. Debt proceeds are being used to finance the construction of wastewater treatment
facilities.
The wastewater fee has been calculated using what is commonly referred to as an incremental
cost methodology. With this methodology, the amount of the fee is based on the cost of
capacity in new facilities, in this case new wastewater treatment facilities needed to provide
treatment capacity for new development anticipated within the City.
Analysis of the various improvements made during each phase of improvements indicate that
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 128
about 46.7 percent of wastewater treatment improvements were related to expanding treatment
capacity, rather than upgrading the level of treatment of existing capacity. Analysis of the debt
service schedules for each debt issue indicates that 45.3 percent of the debt service payments are
related to the expansion portion of improvements. Therefore, wastewater fee revenue can be
used to fund 45.3 percent of remaining annual debt service costs.
Total debt service costs for the improvements to bring capacity from 5.8 mgd to 8.5 mgd total
about $128.0 million. This cost was reduced by $5.8 million to reflect payment for capacity
paid by the area known as Flag City. About $57.0 million (46.7 percent) of this adjusted total is
related to expanding capacity, rather than upgrading existing capacity. Of the 2.7 mgd in
increased capacity, 0.4 mgd has already been used (subscribed to) by development in recent
years. This leaves about 2.3 mgd of capacity available for future development. At 200 gpd per
DUE, about 2,000 DUEs of expansion capacity has already been subscribed to, while about
11,500 DUEs remain available for new development. This represents about 85 percent of the
expansion capacity.
The standard fee for 1 DUE is based on the cost of new treatment facility capacity associated
with each unit of new development. To date, $57.0 million has been spent on the new treatment
facilities which provides 13,500 DUEs of capacity. About $48.6 million (about 85 percent) of
the expansion portion of debt service is assigned to the potential future development of 11,500
DUEs. This results in the portion of the cost of treatment facilities allocated to future
development to be about $4,225 per DUE.
Details of the calculation of the wastewater fee are presented in Table 5-1.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 129
I able 5-1: wastewater Treatment
WWTP
Improvement
Costs Upgrade
Wastewater Treatment Improvements
Expansion from 5.8 to 6.3 mgd $
Expansion from 6.3 to 8.5 mgd
Phase 1 $
Phase 2 $
Phase 3 $
Thickening $
Dewatering & Storage $
Total4 $
vee ualculatlon
Expansion Upgrade Expansion
11,240,000 $ 3,082,451 $ 8,157,549 27.4% 72.6% 2
1,976,000
$
1,464,741
Net Proceeds
511,259
74.1%
25.9% 3
for WWTP
$
8,822,000
Par Amount
Improvements
Wastewater Debt Financing
23.5%
27,341,000
$
1991 WW COPs
$
11,170,000
$ 10,140,000 1
2003 WW COPS
$
5,000,000
$ 4,935,000
2004 WW COP
$
27,360,000
$ 25,000,000
2007 WW COPS
$
30,320,000
$ 30,000,000
Portion for 1991 Refunding
$
(9,089,000)
$ (8,990,000)
Total
$
64,761,000
$ 61,085,000
WWTP
Improvement
Costs Upgrade
Wastewater Treatment Improvements
Expansion from 5.8 to 6.3 mgd $
Expansion from 6.3 to 8.5 mgd
Phase 1 $
Phase 2 $
Phase 3 $
Thickening $
Dewatering & Storage $
Total4 $
vee ualculatlon
Expansion Upgrade Expansion
11,240,000 $ 3,082,451 $ 8,157,549 27.4% 72.6% 2
1,976,000
$
1,464,741
$
511,259
74.1%
25.9% 3
11,528,000
$
8,822,000
$
2,706,000
76.5%
23.5%
27,341,000
$
13,341,000
$
14,003,000
48.8%
51.2%
1,263,000
$
933,997
$
329,003
74.0%
26.0%
3,930,000
$
2,906,263
$
1,023,737
74.0%
26.0%
57,278,000 $ 30,550,453 $ 26,730,547 53.3% 46.7% 5
Expansion portion of outstanding debt --> 45.3% 6
Wastewater Treatment IMF
Calculation
Total
Original
Expansion
Subscribed
Available
WWTP Capacity (mgd)
8.50
5.80
2.70
0.40
2.30
Capacity per DUE (gpd)
200
200
200
DUES of Expanded Capacity
42,500
29,000
13,500
2,000
11,500
Growth Share of WWTP DS7
$ 122,227,080
$ 65,186,039
$57,041,041
$8,450,525
$48,590,517
53.3%
46.7%
14.8%
85.2%
Wastewater Treatment IMF
$ 4,225 per DUE
I Net proceeds from 1991 COPS have been estimated.
2 Allocation between upgrade and expansion from WSALLOC.xls worksheet titled Rev. 10-97 2.
3 Weighted average allocation to new development for expansion to 8.5 mgd is 40.3 percent.
4 A portion of net debt proceeds remain unexplained, assumed to be planning/design or other related costs.
5 This portion of debt service costs is appropriately attributed to expansion of treatment capacity.
6 About 15.4% of outstanding debt is related to financing of 1991 improvements (.154 x .726 +.846 x .403 = .453). Wastewater
IMF revenue can be used to pay for up to 45.3 percent of remaining debt service.
7 Growth share of Wastewater Treatment Plant Debt Service equal to 46.7 percent of total.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 130
FEE SCHEDULE
Table 5-3 presents a complete schedule of proposed wastewater fees based on the size of the
water meter. The wastewater fees would apply to all new connections to the City's wastewater
system.
In instances where new wastewater customers may generate high strength wastewater and/or
high flows, at the discretion of the Public Works Director, the appropriate wastewater fee may
be calculated using specific estimates of annual flow, as well as BOD and SS loading. The
factors to be applied for calculating high strength or high volume commercial and industrial
wastewater fees are also included at the bottom of Table 5-2. These special cost factors are
based on the overall treatment capacity of 8.5 mgd with a BOD concentration of 330 mg/1 and a
SS concentration of 340 mg/1.
Table 5-2: Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant Impact Mitigation Fee Schedule
Hydraulic
Capacity
Wastewater
Meter Size Factor
Treatment
5/8" meter 0.67
$ 2,831
3/4" meter 1.00
$ 4,225
1"meter 1.67
$ 7,056
1 1/2" meter 3.33
$ 14,070
2" meter 5.33
$ 22,521
3" meter 10.00
$ 42,253
4" meter 16.67
$ 70,435
6" meter 33.33
$140,828
8" meter 53.33
$225,333
10" meter 76.67
$323,951
High Strength/High Volume Commercial and Industrial Development 1
Charge for Flow
$ 13.10 per gpd
Charge for BOD Loading
$ 2,002 per ppd
Charge for SS Loading
$ 1,670 per ppd
1 Applies to high strength and/or high volume commercial
and industrial customers, as
determined by the Director of Public Works. Formula
for calculation is as follows:
WW IMF = A x ($13.10 + 0.00000834 x (B x $2,002
+ C x $1,670)), where
A = Estimated average daily flow rate in gpd
B = Estimated average BOD concentration in mg/1
C = Estimated average SS concentration in mg/1
NEXUS REQUIREMENTS
The Wastewater Treatment Plant fee component meets the Mitigation Fee Act nexus
requirements, as described in Table 5-3.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 131
Table 5-3: Wastewater Treatment Plant Nexus Reauirement
Identify Purpose of Fee
To fund wastewater costs that include a
proportionate share of the wastewater treatment
plant.
Identify Use of Fee
To fund the wastewater facilities identified in this
IMFP.
Determine how there is a reasonable
New residential and non-residential development
relationship between the need for the public
will generate additional residents and employees
facility, the use of the fee, the amount of the
in the City of Lodi who will increase the demand
fee and the type of development project on
for wastewater. The wastewater fees collected
which the fee is imposed.
from new development will equal the cost of the
portion of the facilities attributable to new
development. Residential and non-residential
development will be responsible for their fair -
share portion of the total cost based on the
estimated wastewater use of the individual land
uses.
SOUTH WASTEWATER TRUNK LINE
BACKGROUND
In order to develop on the south side of the City, a new trunk line is needed to collect
wastewater and transport the flows to the City's existing 42" trunk Line at Davis Road.
Reynold's Ranch has already constructed the 24" line along the southern boundary of their
property and will receive reimbursement for the amount in excess of their fair share.
The new South Wastewater Trunk Line only serves the properties in this area; therefore, it has
been determined that a special fee will be established for this area. Because the construction of
this line requires extensive capital up -front, the City will have to explore alternative financing
mechanisms with the development community as development becomes a reality in this area.
Figure 5-2 shoes the area that contributes flows to these new lines.
FACILITIES AND COSTS
A wastewater model was developed by City staff for the Study Area to model wastewater
generation and determine pipe sizing. It was determined that 7900 linear feet of 24" pipe and
15,700 linear feet of 30" pipe will be needed for the project from Highway 99 to connect to the
City's existing 42" trunk line at Davis Road. These facilities are shown in Figure 5-1.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 132
N
0
0
_
LEGEND
LZ
Figure 5-1
WASTEWATER FACILITIES THROUGH 2035
CONSTRUCT IN FEE PROGRAM EXISTING COLLECTION
FACILITIES SERVE
DEVELOPER TO CONSTRUCT INFILL DEVELOPMENT
EXISTING WASTEWATER
TRUNK LINE
FUTURE ANALYSIS
SOUTH WASTEWATER
TRUNK LINE STUDY AREA
city of Lodi
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
0 1/8 1/4 3/8 1/2 MILE
O 1200 2400 3600 FEET
NEW FACILITIES REQUIRED TO
SERVE NEW DEVELOPMENT
NEW FACLITIES REQUIRED TO
SERVE NEW DEVELOPMENT.
FUNDED BY NON -CITY SOURCES
BY AGREEMENT
2012 CITY LIMITS
GENERAL PLAN
LIMITS m Farris & Associates
A summary of the facilities and corresponding costs included in the IMFP is presented in Table
5-4.
Table 5-4: South Wastewater Trunk Line Costs
South Wastewater Trunk Line
12"
--
15"
--
18"
--
24"
$1,225,700
24" (exist)
$630,700
30"
$4,396,000
Total Cost Allocated to Future Development
$6,252,400
The South Wastewater Trunk Line area is shown on Figure 5-2. The fee for these
improvements will only apply to this area.
DWELLING UNIT EQUIVALENTS
For purposes of the South Trunk Line component of the wastewater fees, demand is expressed
in dwelling unit equivalents, which is the estimated average daily wastewater flow as compared
to a single family home. For purposes of calculating the wastewater fee a DUE is defined to
equal 200 gpd. A summary of the DUE factors for each land use type is presented in Table 5-5.
'fable 5-5: Dwelling Unit
Land Use
DUE
Factor
Residentialep
r Unit
Low Density Residential
1.00
Medium Density Residential
0.84
High Density Residential
0.70
Non -Residential
per 1,000 SF
Retail (Minor & Major)
0.93
Office/Medical
0.77
Industrial
0.41
FEE ZONES
The Core City area, shown in yellow on Figure 5-2, would pay the Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP) fee. The areas in pink on the map would pay the WWTP fee and be required to build
all collection facilities. The hatched area south of Harney Lane would have to pay their WWTP
fee and would be subject to a special fee, the South Wastewater Trunk Line fee, which was
discussed previously in this chapter. The fee zones are shown in Figure 5-2.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 134
FEE METHODOLOGY
Future development in the South Wastewater Trunk Line Area of the City will create demand
for additional wastewater facilities. By allocating facilities costs to each land use category based
on its potential wastewater generation, this IMFP ensures that each land use category will fund
its fair -share of the required facilities. Consequently, the total South Wastewater Trunk Line
cost of $6.3 million is allocated to future development based on the wastewater generation rates
for each land use. For purposes of this fee calculation the cost of the pipes is spread amongst
the entire development area that contributes flows to these facilities rather than 2035 land uses.
This is due to the fact that these improvements will serve the buildout of this area.
FEE SCHEDULE
A summary of the South Wastewater Trunk Line component of the IMFP is presented in Table
5-6.
Table 5-6: South Wastewater Trunk Line Fee Schedule
Residential
per Unit
Low Density
$1,181
Medium Density
$994
High Density
$829
Non Residential
per 1, 000 SF
Retail (Minor & Major)
$1,096
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 136
NEXUS REQUIREMENTS
The South Wastewater Trunk Line fee component meets the Mitigation Fee Act nexus
requirements, as described in Table 5-7 below.
Table 5-7: South Wastewater Trunk Line Nexus Requirements
Identify Purpose of Fee
To fund costs associated with the South Sewer Trunk
Line that is required to serve future development in
the South Area.
Identify Use of Fee
To fund the wastewater facilities identified in this
IMFP.
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship
New residential and non-residential development will
between the need for the public facility, the use of
generate additional residents and employees in the
the fee, the amount of the fee and the type of
South Area who will generate new demand for
development project on which the fee is imposed.
wastewater. The wastewater fees collected from new
development in the South Area will equal the cost of
the portion of the facilities attributable to new
development in that area. Residential and non-
residential development will be responsible for their
fair -share portion of the total cost based on the
estimated wastewater use of the individual land uses.
Only those properties that utilize the sewer line will
pay the fee.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 137
6. STORM DRAINAGE
BACKGROUND
The City of Lodi is divided into several of Storm Drainage Basin areas, referred to as Basins A
through K. Each of the basin areas has a series of storm drainage pipes and detention basins
that serve the area's drainage needs. In order for new development to occur, new improvements
must be made to the City's existing system.
In 1963, the City adopted the Lodi Master Plan for the Development of Storm Water Collection
and Disposal Facilities for drainage areas A through H. Facilities required to serve areas A
through E, G and H have been constructed. In 1990, the planning area was expanded to include
Drainage Area I that extends from Kettleman Lane to Harney Lane and from Lower Sacramento
Road to the extension of the WID canal. As part of the IMFP update, the City prepared a 2012
Storm Drainage Master Plan that addresses planning areas F, I, K, and L. The terminal drainage
for K and L is the WID canal; the terminal drainage for J is the existing master storm drain
trunk line located in Century Boulevard.
FACILITIES AND COSTS
The City completed a storm drainage master plan as part of the IMFP update. Following is a
description of the various areas within the City and the improvements that are required:
• Zone 1, as shown on Figure 6-1, consists of the City Core area as well as the
area that lies east of Highway 99. Basin and pump station improvements are
required to be completed at the C -basin.
• Zone 2, as shown on Figure 6-1, is east of Lower Sacramento Road, beyond
City limits. New pipes and basins are required to serve future development as
shown in the storm drainage master plan. The cost of these facilities is included
in Table 6-1.
• Basins F, I, L and K, on the west and south sides of the City, do not have a fee.
It has been determined that the developers in this area will fund the construction
of their own storm drainage facilities; therefore no fee is being established.
• The remaining areas in the City are expected to develop beyond the 2035
planning horizon used in this IMFP. As a result, these area were not included
in the master plan at this time and will be analyzed in future IMFP and master
plan updates.
Table 6-1 summarizes the costs of the facilities that form the basis of the fee for Zone 1.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 138
Table 6-1: Storm Drainage Cost Summar
Zone 1•
Zone I Basin Improvements
C -Basin Pump Station $2,055,900
C -Basin $912,593
Total Zone 1 Cost $2,968,493
DWELLING UNIT EQUIVALENTS
Storm Drainage costs are allocated based on run-off coefficients. A dwelling equivalent unit is
based on the amount of run-off that an acre of each land use produces in relation to an acre of
low density residential development. A summary of the DUE factors for each land use type is
presented in the Table 6-2 below. Storm Drainage fees for non-residential will be collected on a
per acre basis rather than a per 1,000 SF basis as other fees are. This is due to the fact that run-
off coefficients are more directly linked to acreage.
Table 6-2: Storm Drainage Dwelling Unit Eauivalents
Land Use
Runoff
Coefficient
DUE
Factor
Residential
per Acre
per Acre
Low Density
0.40
1.00
Medium Density
0.50
1.25
High Density
0.67
1.68
Subtotal
Non -Residential
per Acre
per Acre
Retail (Minor & Major)
0.70
1.75
Office/Medical
0.70
1.75
Industrial
0.75
1.88
FEE METHODOLOGY
The purpose of the storm drainage fee is to ensure that new development pays a proportionate
share of the cost of constructing facilities to accommodate drainage demands of new
construction within the City. For purposes of the storm drainage IMFP, demand is measured by
applying run-off coefficient factors which establishes the fair share of storm drainage facilities
for each land use. Using zones for storm drainage ensures that new development is only paying
towards the improvements that they in fact use.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 140
FEE SCHEDULE
A summary of the storm drainage component of the IMFP is presented in Table 6-3. The Zone 2
fees are for planning purposes and apply only to property outside the City limits in the drainage
basin.
Table 6-3: Zone 1 Storm Drainage Fees
Land Use
Cost per
Unit / Acre
Residential
per Unit
Low Density
$1,394
Medium Density
$697
High Density
$561
Non -Residential
per Acre
Retail (Minor & Major)
$14,640
Office/Medical
$14,640
Industrial
$15,686
CONCEPTUAL ZONE 2 FEES
Zone 2 costs and fees are being included for estimating purposes only. This zone is shown on
Figure 6-1. All properties in this zone are currently outside the City limits. The estimated cost of
the basin, pump station, land and pipe oversizing costs are shown in Table 6-4. The fees shown
in Table 6-5 are representative of what the fee might be should the property annex into the City
and develop.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 141
Table 6-4: Zone 2 Estimated Costs
Zone 2: F & I -Basin Watershed Areas
F -Basin Improvements
Pipes $1,068,017
Basins $8,981,826
Subtotal Cost $10,049,843
I -Basin Improvements
Pipes $902,971
Basins $6,271,380
Subtotal Cost $7,174,351
Total Zone 2 Cost $17,224,193"
Less: Available SD Fee Fund Revenue ($560,652)
Net Zone 2 Cost $16,663,541
Table 6-5: Zone 2 Conceptual Storm Drainage Fees
Residentialep
r Unit
Low Density
$4,237
Medium Density
$2,118
High Density
$1,703
Non-Residentialep
rAcre
Retail (Minor & Major)
$44,485
Office/Medical
$44,485
Industrial
$47,663
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 142
NEXUS REQUIREMENTS
The storm drainage fee component meets the Mitigation Fee Act nexus requirements, as
described in Table 6-6.
Table 6-6: Storm Drainage Fee Nexus Requirements
Identify Purpose of Fee
To fund Storm Drainage costs that include a
proportionate share of storm drainage basins and pipe
costs.
Identify Use of Fee
To fund the storm drainage facilities identified in this
IMFP.
Determine how there is a
New residential and non-residential development will
reasonable relationship between
generate the demand for additional storm drainage
the need for the public facility, the
facilities. The storm drainage fees collected from new
use of the fee, the amount of the
development will equal the cost of the portion of the
fee and the type of development
facilities attributable to new development within Zone
project on which the fee is
1. Residential and non-residential development will be
imposed.
responsible for their fair -share portion of the total cost
based on the estimated storm water generated for
each of the individual land uses. The fees are
collected by zones.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 143
7. TRANSPORTATION
BACKGROUND
To measure and describe the operational status of the local roadway network, transportation
engineers and planners commonly use a grading system called level of service (LOS). Level of
service is a description of a facility's operation, ranging from LOS A (indicating free-flow traffic
conditions with little or no delay) to LOS F (representing over -saturated conditions where traffic
flows exceed design capacity, resulting in long queues and delays).
The City's 2010 General Plan contains policy direction about what constitutes acceptable
operations on the City's street network. The policy states, "[fJor purposes of design review and
environmental assessment, apply a standard of Level of Service E ... on all streets in the City's
jurisdiction. The objective of this performance standard is to acknowledge that some level of
traffic congestion during the peak hour is acceptable and indicative of an economically vibrant
and active area, and that infrastructure design decisions should be based on the conditions that
predominate during most of each day."
The baseline analysis conducted for the 2010 General Plan Update evaluated more than 100
roadway segments and 11 major intersections throughout the City and calculated the LOS at each
location (this effort was documented in the Lodi General Plan Update Working Paper #1: Land
Use, Transportation, Environment and Infrastructure, 2007). Of all the locations studied in
2010, the only locations found to operate at LOS F, and thus operating outside of the standards
set in the 2010 General Plan, were the segments of Kettleman Lane between Tienda Drive and
Cherokee Lane. As will be discussed later in this section, none of the capital improvement
projects included in the IMFP are located along these segments of Kettleman Lane, so the IMFP
projects are not affected by the operations results presented in the General Plan baseline analysis.
(It should also be noted that the data used in the General Plan baseline analysis were collected in
late 2006; since that time, traffic volumes throughout San Joaquin County have declined due to
depressed economic conditions, so it is likely that if more up-to-date information were available,
it would indicate improved LOS on Kettleman Lane and throughout the City.)
The South Hutchins Street Annexation Project Traffic Impact Analysis (2009) evaluated 19 study
intersections throughout the southern part of Lodi, and found that all of the intersections operated
at LOS D or better during both the morning and afternoon peak hours. Therefore, for the
purposes of the IMFP analysis, no existing deficiencies have been identified that would affect the
nexus determination.
FACILITIES AND COSTS
The primary future deficiency is anticipated to occur along Harney Lane, which is currently a
two-lane road but which would need to be widened to four lanes in order to accommodate the
demand from the new development that is anticipated in the southern and western areas of the
City. Harney Lane is immediately adjacent to major new development areas, and the widening is
only needed to serve those new areas; therefore, it is reasonable for the full cost of the Harney
Lane improvements to be included in the IMFP.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 144
Additional future deficiencies were identified along Guild Avenue and Victor Road, due to the
addition of more industrial development in the area east of SR 99. The capital improvement
project list for the IMFP, therefore, includes the widening of Victor Road from two to four lanes
between SR 99 and Guild Avenue, addition of a median on West Lane south of Harney, the
ultimate median construction on Harney from just west of Lower Sacramento Road to South
Hutchins Street, interim widening improvements on Harney from Lower Sacramento Road to
Mills Avenue, and a re -striping of Guild Avenue to provide four travel lanes between Lodi
Avenue and Auto Center Drive. Along with these roadway improvements, the intersection of
Victor Road and Guild Avenue should be signalized. These improvements are adjacent to major
areas of future development and are needed to serve the traffic generated by those new uses, so it
is reasonable for the full cost of the improvements to be included in the IMFP.
City staff was also consulted to identify more localized improvements that should be included in
the IMFP capital improvement list. Based on intersection projects that have been identified in
previous capital improvement programs, staff designated five intersections where installation of
traffic signals are needed: Mills Avenue/Elm Street, Turner Road/California Street, Turner
Road/Sacramento Street, Cherokee Lane/Elm Street, and Guild Avenue/Victor Road. Because
these are local intersections that are not adjacent to major new development areas, it was
determined that the IMFP should cover only a portion of these project costs, proportional to the
amount of future traffic passing through these intersections that is generated by new
development. These fair -share percentages were calculated using the results of the 2035 traffic
model.
The costs for the projects are summarized in Table 7-1. It should be noted that it is assumed that
the full cost of the UPRR grade separation on Harney Lane would be funded through a variety of
outside funding sources such as STIP, Measure K, etc. Should assumptions change and outside
funding not be secured, additional funding will be required from the IMFP.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 145
Table 7-1: Transportation Cost Summary
Total
Outside
IMFP
Net Cost
Project
Funding
Percentage
Included in
Cost
Sources
Share
Fee Program
Traffic Signals
Mills Ave and Elm St
$259,000
20%
$51,800
Turner Rd and California St
$280,000
20%
$56,000
Turner Rd and Sacramento St
$280,000
30%
$84,000
Cherokee Ln and Ehn St
$280,000
30%
$84,000
Guild Ave and Victor Rd
$315,000
100%
$315,000
Subtotal
$1,414,000 --
$590,800
Roadway Improvements
Guild Ave
$43,400 --
100%
$43,400
Victor Rd
$5,890,000 ($3,530,000)
100%
$2,500,000
West Lane
$568,400 --
100%
$568,400
Harney Lane
$26,856,000 ($24,726,000)
100%
$2,130,000
Subtotal
$33,357,800 ($28,256,000)
$5,241,800
Total Cost Allocated to Future Development
$5,832,600
DWELLING UNIT EQUIVALENTS
Dwelling Unit Equivalent factors are a common way of normalizing the effects of different types
of land use on a set of public facilities. Many transportation impact fee programs use DUE
factors to account for the relative burden on the transportation system caused by different types
of development. DUE factors commonly include an accounting of trip generation rates and
percentages of pass -by trips attributable to different land uses, and sometimes include a
representation of average trip lengths or other characteristics.
For purposes of this evaluation, trip generation rates and pass -by trip percentages were used to
develop DUE factors for each land use type. The City of Lodi travel demand model contains trip
generation rates for several land use categories and has been calibrated to reflect local
conditions. Table 7-2 shows the PM peak hour trip generation rate for each land use category
based on the Lodi model, as well as the percentage of new trips attributable to each category
from a commonly -accepted reference document on this subject. These figures are multiplied
together to determine the number of new trips per unit of development (per dwelling unit for
residential uses, and per thousand square feet for non-residential uses). The single-family
residential rate is then set to 1.0 and all other rates are normalized to that level, so the factors can
be used to calculate each land use category's proportional contribution toward the capital
improvement project costs.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 146
Table 7-2: Calculation of Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE) Factors
Land Use
Unit t
PM Peak
Hour Trip
Rate
(a)
New Trips 3
(b)
New Trips
per Unit
(a * b)
DUE per
Unit
Single -Family
per Unit
Low Density
$711
Medium Density
$386
Residential
DU
1.16
100%
1.16
1.00
Multi -Family
DU
0.63
100%
0.63
0.54
Residential
Commercial / Retail
1,000 SF
3.91
50%
1.96
1.69
Office
1,000 SF
2.03
70%
1.42
1.22
Industrial
1,000 SF
0.85
85%
0.72
0.62
1DU = dwelling unit
2Lodi Travel Demand Forecasting
Model and ITE Trip Generation,
e Edition.
3SANDAG Brief Guide of Vehicular
Traffic Generation Rates, April 2002.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2012.
FEE METHODOLOGY
Future development in the City will create the needs for roadway improvement. For the
purposes of this evaluation, trip generation rates and pass -by trip percentages were used to
develop DUE factors for each land use type. These DUE factors were then used to allocate costs
to each land use type.
FEE SCHEDULE
A summary of the transportation component of the IMFP is presented in the Table 7-3.
'fable 7-3:
Yees
Non -Residential per 1,000 SF
Retail (Minor & Major) $1,199
Office/Medical $872
Industrial $443
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 147
Cost per
Unit/
Land Use
1,000 SF
Residential
per Unit
Low Density
$711
Medium Density
$386
High Density
$386
Non -Residential per 1,000 SF
Retail (Minor & Major) $1,199
Office/Medical $872
Industrial $443
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 147
NEXUS REQUIREMENTS
The Traffic fee component meets the Mitigation Fee Act nexus requirements, as described in
Table 7-4.
Table 7-4: Transportation Fee Nexus Requirements
Identify Purpose of Fee
To fund traffic costs that include a
proportionate share of new traffic signals and
road widening projects.
Identify Use of Fee
To fund the traffic improvements identified in
this IMFP .
Determine how there is a reasonable
New residential and non-residential
relationship between the need for the
development will generate additional residents
public facility, the use of the fee, the
and employees in the City who will increase the
amount of the fee and the type of
traffic in Lodi and will trigger the need for
development project on which the fee
additional traffic improvements. The traffic
is imposed.
fees collected from new development will equal
the cost of the portion of the facilities
attributable to new development. Residential
and non-residential development will be
responsible for their fair -share portion of the
total cost based on the estimated traffic
generation rates of the individual land uses.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 148
8. POLICE
BACKGROUND
The Lodi Police Department has organized the City into three districts - the Central District,
Heritage District, and Sunset District - and five patrol beats. The department protects and serves
the City through crime prevention, investigation, and other public safety services. The
department has several specialized units, including investigations, narcotics, gang intelligence,
drug suppression, crime prevention, K-9, special weapons and tactics, and traffic units.
FACILITIES AND COSTS
The police station is located at 215 West Elm Street and includes 56,000 square feet of building
space. Based on a building capacity review conducted by the police department, the police
station can accommodate enough additional officers and personnel to serve approximately
92,000 residents.
The police station was financed with a portion of the proceeds from the 2002 Public
Improvement Financing Project, which issued $26.7 million in Certificates of Participation
(COPS). Approximately $14.3 million of the aggregate bond amount was used to construct the
police station. The total cost related to the police station portion of the COPs equals
approximately $27.0 million and includes COP principal and interest costs. However, only a
portion of the total cost of the police facilities is attributable to future development. A summary
of the facilities, and corresponding costs, included in the IMFP is presented in Table 8-1.
'fable 8-1: Police Cost
Project
Police Station Costs
(Future development's share only)
Vehicle Costs
Fee Funded Cost
$4,062,000
$434,000
Total Cost Allocated to Future Development $4,496,000
LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD
The City's fiscal year 2011/12 budget includes funding for 106 police officers; this includes 71
sworn and 35 non -sworn officers. The current number of officers translates into a police service
standard of 1.70 officers per 1,000 residents. The building capacity review conducted by the
police department revealed that the existing police station could accommodate approximately 50
additional police personnel.
Based on the City's current level of service and the police station capacity review, the police
station can serve an additional 29,412 future residents. The IMFP incorporates development
through year 2035; development projections assume the City will grow by an additional 13,128
residents by 2035. Consequently, the police station has excess capacity to accommodate
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 149
sufficient officers to serve an additional 16,284 residents beyond the 2035 horizon of the IMFP.
DWELLING UNIT EQUIVALENTS
Police facility costs are allocated based on residents and employees since it is reasoned that
residential and non-residential developments benefit from these facilities. Consequently, a
persons served figure is used in the cost allocation calculation for police facilities. The persons
served factor is defined as the residential population plus 50% of employees. The exact
relationship in terms of service demand required by residents and employees is difficult to
measure, but it is a generally understood that employees utilize less police services than do
residents. As a result, a resident is equal to 1.0 persons served and an employee is assumed to
equal 0.5 persons served. The persons served for a residential unit is equal to the average
persons per household. The persons served per 1,000 square feet of non-residential building
space is equal to one half the average number of employees assumed for that building type.
The DUE for the police fee is based on the persons served and is a factor that quantifies different
land use types in terms of their equivalence to a low density residential unit. A low density
residential unit is assigned a DUE factor of 1.0 and the DUE factor for each of the other land use
categories is determined based on the anticipated number of persons served for each land use
category relative to the number of persons served for a low density residential unit. A summary
of the DUE factors for each land use type is presented in Table 8-2.
Table 8-2: Police Facilities Dwelling Unit Eauivalents
Land Use
Persons per
Household/
Employees per
1,000 SF
Resident -to -Employee
Ratio =1.0 : 0.5
Persons DUE
Served Factor
Residential
per Unit
Low Density
2.85
2.85 1.00
Medium Density
2.40
2.40 0.84
High Density
2.00
2.00 0.70
Non -Residential
per 1, 000 SF
Retail (Minor & Major)
2.50
1.25 0.44
Office/Medical
4.00
2.00 0.70
Industrial
1.33
0.67 0.23
FEE METHODOLOGY
Because the police station has the capacity to service the City's residents beyond 2035, police
station costs are allocated to existing development in the City, future development through 2035,
and future development beyond 2035, based on the estimated total persons served for each
development period. Based on this methodology, existing development in the City is responsible
for approximately 66% of the cost of the police station; this portion of the cost must be funded
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 150
with revenues other than future development impact fees. Future development, through and
beyond 2035, is responsible for the remaining 34% of the total cost. As shown in Table 8-3,
approximately 19% of the total cost is allocated to future development beyond 2035 and 15% is
allocated to future development through 2035; this $4.1 million dollar amount is included in the
calculation of the police fee component of the IMFP.
Table 8-3: Police Station Cost
In addition to providing funding for the police station, the IMFP will also provide funding for
various police vehicles, including marked patrol cars, unmarked/administration cars, traffic cars,
partners/crime prevention cars, code enforcement cars, and animal control cars. Based on the
City's current vehicles per sworn officer standard for each vehicle type, the total cost for vehicles
needed to serve future development through 2035 is approximately $0.4 million. The total cost
allocated to future development included in the IMFP for the police station and vehicles is $4.5
million.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 151
Remaining
Existing
Future
(Beyond
Total
(2011)
(thru 2035)
2035)
Cost
% of Total Police Station Cost 66%
15%
19%
100%
Police Station Cost Allocation $17.9 M
$4.1 M
$5.0 M
$27.0 M
In addition to providing funding for the police station, the IMFP will also provide funding for
various police vehicles, including marked patrol cars, unmarked/administration cars, traffic cars,
partners/crime prevention cars, code enforcement cars, and animal control cars. Based on the
City's current vehicles per sworn officer standard for each vehicle type, the total cost for vehicles
needed to serve future development through 2035 is approximately $0.4 million. The total cost
allocated to future development included in the IMFP for the police station and vehicles is $4.5
million.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 151
FEE SCHEDULE
A summary of the police fees is presented in Table 8-4.
Table 8-4: Police Fees
Residential
per Unit
Low Density
$753
Medium Density
$634
High Density
$528
Non -Residential per 1, 000 SF
Retail (Minor & Major) $330
Office/Medical $528
Industrial $176
NEXUS REQUIREMENTS
The police fee component meets the Mitigation Fee Act nexus requirements, as described in
Table 8-5.
Table 8-5: Police Fee Nexus Reauirements
Identify the purpose of the fee.
To fund police -related capital and vehicle costs,
including financing costs, attributable to the impact of
new development.
Identify the use of the fee.
To fund the police facilities identified in this IMFP.
Determine how there is a
New residential and non-residential development will
reasonable relationship between
generate additional residents and employees who will
the need for the public facility,
increase the demand for additional police services and
the use of the fee, the amount of
personnel. Police facilities and vehicles will be needed
the fee and the type of
for the new police personnel. The police fees are
development project on which
calculated so that fee revenue will equal the cost of the
the fee is imposed
portion of the facilities and vehicles attributable to new
development through 2035. Residential and
non-residential development will be responsible for their
fair -share portion of the total cost based on the DUE
variable assigned to each individual land use.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 152
9. FIRE
BACKGROUND
The Fire Department provides a wide range of emergency and non -emergency services,
including fire suppression, emergency medical services, hazardous materials response, technical
rescue, fire prevention, public education, and related safety services. The City has an Insurance
Services Office (ISO) rating of Class 3, which indicates that the Fire Department is strategically
placed throughout the City and has adequate personnel, equipment, and expertise to serve the
current population.
FACILITIES AND COSTS
The Fire Department provides fire protection services to the City from four fire stations: Fire
Station 1 is located in Lodi's downtown area; Fire Station 2 is located on the eastside of the City;
Fire Station 3 is located in the southwest quadrant of the City; and Station 4 is in the northwest
quadrant of the City.
The department reviewed the anticipated locations of future development through 2035 and
determined that it could continue to serve the entire City with existing Fire Stations 1, 3, and 4
and by relocating and expanding Fire Station 2. Fire Station 2 is planned for relocation from its
current site to another location in the area; the existing station will be expanded from 6,200 to
10,500 square feet at a cost of approximately $1.6 million, including financing costs. In 2001,
the City borrowed approximately $1.6 million from the water fee fund to construct Fire
Station 4. The fire fee fund has repaid approximately $0.4 million of the inter -fund loan to -date,
resulting in an outstanding balance of $1.2 million.
A summary of the facilities and corresponding costs included in the IMFP is presented in Table
9-1.
Table 9-1: Fire Facilities Costs
Project
Fee Funded Cost
Outstanding Loan Balance For Fire Station 4 1
$1,225,000
Station 2 Expansion Cost
$1,290,000
Station 2 Financing Cost
$310,000
Total Cost Allocated to Future Development
$2,825,000
'Represents the outstanding principal balance from the water fund; no interest is
included in the loan from the water fund.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 153
LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD
Lodi's four fire stations provide adequate fire protection services to all areas within the City
limits. In 2006, the most recent year of data availability, the department met a response time
criteria of 6 minutes for 90% of all calls.
The department reviewed the anticipated location of future development in the City through
2035 and based on that review, determined that the existing four stations, along with the future
relocation and expansion of Station 2, would continue to provide adequate service coverage to
existing and future development.
DWELLING UNIT EQUIVALENTS
Fire facility costs are allocated based on residents and employees since it is reasoned that
residential and non-residential developments both benefit from these facilities. For residential
land uses, the persons served equals the residential population; for non-residential land uses, the
persons served is equal to 50% of the number of employees. The exact relationship in terms of
service demand required by residents and employees is difficult to measure, but it is a commonly
understood that non-residential development utilizes less fire services than does residential
development. As a result, a resident is equal to 1.0 persons served and an employee is assumed
to equal 0.5 persons served. In order to quantify different land use types in terms of their
equivalence to a low density residential unit, a DUE factor is determined for each land use type
and is based on the number of persons served. A summary of the DUE factors for each land use
type is presented in the following table.
Table 9-2: Fire Facilities Dwelling Unit Equivalents
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 154
Persons per
Resident -to -Employee
Household/
Ratio =1.0 : 0.5
Employees
per
Persons DUE
Land Use
1,000 SF
Served Factor
Residential
per Unit
Low Density
2.85
2.85 1.00
Medium Density
2.40
2.40 0.84
High Density
2.00
2.00 0.70
Non -Residential
per 1, 000 SF
Retail (Minor & Major)
2.50
1.25 0.44
Office/Medical
4.00
2.00 0.70
Industrial
1.33
0.67 0.23
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 154
FEE METHODOLOGY
As discussed in this chapter, the City determined that it could serve future development through
2035 with existing Fire Stations 1, 3, and 4 and by relocating and expanding Fire Station 2.
Consequently, the replacement value of existing fire stations and vehicles, plus the future Station
#2 expansion construction costs, which are estimated to be $16.5 million, are allocated to
existing and future development based on the existing and future (i.e., through 2035) persons
served within the City. A summary of the existing and future (i.e., through 2035) persons
served, as well as the cost allocation, is presented in Table 9-3.
Table 9-3: Fire Station Persons Served
Existing
Future
(2011)
(thru
Total
2035)
Total Persons Served 75,399
17,153
92,553
% of Total 81%
19%
100%
Total Cost Allocation $13,443,000
$3,058,000
$16,501,000
Based on the number of persons served, existing development is allocated approximately 81% of
fire facilities and vehicle costs and future development through 2035 is allocated the remaining
19%. The total cost attributable to future development for fire facilities and vehicles is $3.1
million. This amount represents future development's fair share of all fire facilities in the City at
2035 and is the maximum amount that could be allocated to future development.
Since the maximum amount that could be allocated to future development (i.e., $3.1 million) is
more than the remaining unfunded facilities costs through 2035 (i.e., $2.8 million), only the $2.8
million cost should be incorporated in the calculation of the fire fee. The remaining unfunded
facilities costs through 2035 include the outstanding amount borrowed from the water fund ($1.2
million) to finance the construction of Fire Station 4 and the construction and financing costs for
the expansion of Fire Station 2 ($1.6 million).
In calculating the fire fees, the $2.8 million cost is first allocated between future residential and
non-residential development based on calls for service. Department records show that
approximately 63% of the documented calls are attributable to residential development and the
remaining 37% are attributable to non-residential development. These percentages were used to
allocate the $2.8 million cost between future residential and non-residential development. A
persons served methodology was then applied to determine the fire fee for each land use class
within residential and non-residential development.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 155
FEE SCHEDULE
A summary of the fire fees are presented in Table 9-4:
Table 9-4: Fire Fees
Residential
per Unit
Low Density
$385
Medium Density
$324
High Density
$270
Non -Residential per 1,000 SF
Retail (Minor & Major) $338
Office/Medical $540
Industrial $180
NEXUS REQUIREMENTS
The fire fee meets the Mitigation Fee Act nexus requirements, as described in Table 9-5.
Table 9-5: Fire Fee Nexus Requirements
Identify the purpose of the fee.
To fund fire -related capital costs, including financing
costs, attributable to the impact from new development.
Identify the use of the fee.
To fund the fire facilities identified in this IMFP.
Determine how there is a
New residential and non-residential development will
reasonable relationship between
generate additional residents and employees who will
the need for the public facility,
increase the demand for additional fire facilities and
the use of the fee, the amount of
services. The fire fees are calculated so that fee revenue
the fee and the type of
will equal the cost of the portion of the facilities
development project on which
attributable to new development through 2035.
the fee is imposed
Residential and non-residential development will be
responsible for their fair -share portion of the total cost
based on the DUE variables assigned to the individual
land uses.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 156
10. PARKS
BACKGROUND
The City maintains 278 acres of parks and dual use drainage basins; 184 acres of this total are
parkland. The City's parks system includes twenty three developed parks that offer a variety of
ball fields, picnic and play areas, and other amenities. Lodi Lake is the City's regional park,
through which the Mokelumne River traverses, providing the City's residents with an assortment
of outdoor activities.
FACILITIES AND COSTS
The IMFP's parks consultant, Vallier Design Associates (VDA), reviewed existing park facilities
to determine the type of parks and amenities that would supplement the City's existing park
facilities. VDA, along with City staff, determined that improvements to DeBenedetti Park,
Pixley Park, and Lodi Lake Park would be needed to serve future development. The proposed
improvements for each park are as follows:
• DeBenedetti Park is a 49 acre master planned community park off of Century Boulevard
that is being constructed in phases. The first 35 -acre phase is complete, with the
exception of lighting, leaving 14 acres to be constructed at a cost of $11.1 million. Park
improvements consist of soccer, baseball and softball fields, a football field, restrooms, a
concessions building, picnic and play areas, parking, and a storm water basin.
Pixley Park is a 27 acre park planned for multiple sports fields. The cost of the park
construction is $4.9 million. The park will include softball fields, picnic structures,
restrooms, and a storm water basin.
Lodi Lake Park is a 101 acre regional park on the northern edge of the City that will be
expanded by 7 acres at a cost of $3.1 million. The expansion will add a group picnic area
including a kitchen, shade/picnic structures, restrooms, pathways, parking, and a bocce
ball court.
A summary of the facilities, and corresponding costs, included in the IMFP is presented in Table
10-1.
Table 10-1: Park Facilities Costs
Project Fee Funded Cost
DeBenedetti Park $11,135,000
Pixley Park $4,946,000
Lodi Lake Park $3,102,000
Total Cost Allocated to Future Development $19,183,000
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 157
LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD
The City's 2010 General Plan identifies a park service standard of 8.0 acres of parks and
drainage basins per 1,000 residents. However, the IMFP will not fund all of the parks included
in the 8.0 acre requirement. Neighborhood parks, which account for 2.5 acres out of the 8.0 acre
standard, as well as most of the natural space, will be funded privately by future development.
Therefore, development costs associated with the neighborhood parks and most of the open
space are not included in the IMFP. Table 10-2 provides a breakdown of the City's General Plan
standard for each type of park.
Table 10-2: Park Service Standards
Park Type
General Plan Standard
(Acres per 1,000 Residents)
Neighborhood
2.50 acres
Community
1.80 acres
Regional
0.80 acres
Natural Open Space
2.10 acres
Special Use Areas
0.80 acres
Total
8.0 acres
DWELLING UNIT EQUIVALENTS
Park costs are allocated based on residents and employees since it is reasoned that residential and
non-residential developments both benefit from these facilities. Consequently, a persons served
figure is used to estimate future impacts to park facilities. The number of persons served is
defined as the residential population plus approximately 0.12 of all employees. The relationship
in terms of service demand required by residents and employees is estimated based on the
potential amount of time that a resident or employee can utilize park facilities. For example, a
resident can utilize park facilities an average of 12 hours per day seven days a week for a total of
84 hours and an employee can utilize park facilities an average of about two hours per day five
days a week for a total of 10 hours per week. In other words, the employee has the potential to
use the park approximately 0. 12 of the time that a resident can (10 - 84 = 0.12).
A dwelling unit equivalent, based on the number of persons served, quantifies the impact from
different land use types in terms of their equivalence to a low density residential unit. A low
density residential unit is assigned a DUE factor of 1.0 and the DUE factor for each of the other
land use categories is determined based on the persons served for each land use category relative
to the persons served for a low density residential unit. A summary of the DUE factors for each
land use type is presented in Table 10-3.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 158
Table 10-3: Parks Dwelling Unit Eauivalents
Land Use
Persons per
Household/
Employees
Per 1,000 SF
Resident -to -Employee
Ratio =1.0 : 0.12
Persons DUE
Served Factor
Residential
per Unit
Low Density
2.85
2.85 1.00
Medium Density
2.40
2.40 0.84
High Density
2.00
2.00 0.70
Non -Residential
per 1, 000 SF
Retail (Minor & Major)
2.50
0.30 0.10
Office/Medical
4.00
0.48 0.17
Industrial
1.33
0.16 0.06
FEE METHODOLOGY
Future development in the City will create demand for park facilities. For purposes of the park
component of the IMFP, demand is measured by applying the parks service standard identified in
the General Plan to the future number of residents in the City. By allocating facilities costs to
each land use category based on its potential demand for park facilities, this IMFP ensures that
each land use category will fund its fair -share of the required facilities. Consequently, the total
park cost of $19.2 million is allocated to future development based on the number of persons
served.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 159
FEE SCHEDULE
A summary of the park component of the IMFP is presented in Table 10-4.
Table 10-4: Park Fees
Residential
per Unit
Low Density
$3,890
Medium Density
$3,276
High Density
$2,730
Non -Residential
per 1, 000 SF
Retail (Minor & Major)
$406
Office/Medical
$650
Industrial
$217
NEXUS REQUIREMENTS
The park fee component meets the Mitigation Fee Act nexus requirements, as described in Table
10-5.
Table 10-5: Park Fee Nexus Requirements
Identify the purpose of the fee.
To fund park facilities attributable to new development.
Identify the use of the fee.
To fund the park facilities identified in this IMFP.
Determine how there is a
New residential and non-residential development will
reasonable relationship between
generate additional residents and employees who will
the need for the public facility,
increase the demand for additional park facilities. The
the use of the fee, the amount of
park fees are calculated so that fee revenue will equal the
the fee and the type of
cost of the facilities attributable to new development.
development project on which
Residential and non-residential development will be
the fee is imposed
responsible for their fair -share portion of the total cost
based on the DUE variables assigned to the individual
land uses.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 160
11. ELECTRIC UTILITY
BACKGROUND
When Lodi incorporated in 1906, a privately owned company provided electricity to the City.
However, operation of the power utility transferred to the City in 1910. As the City grows,
demand for electricity from new residential and non-residential development will also grow
creating a need for new and upgraded electrical facilities and equipment. The electric utility
component of the IMFP will ensure that funding will be available for electric utility projects that
will serve future development in the City.
FACILITIES AND COSTS
Lodi Electric Utility Department (EUD) staff evaluated load growth associated with new
development and determined that new facilities will be required to meet the additional demand
for electricity. New facilities include the following:
1. Distribution Reinforcements — to change the operational configuration of the system by
switching, upgrading and extending existing feeders
2. Feeder Additions — adding feeders to existing substations
3. Added Bank at Industrial — adding a transformer and feeder(s) at Industrial Substation
4. Reynolds Ranch Phase 1 Line Extension
5. East Side Overhead Phase 1 Line Extension
6. Future Underground North Line Extension
EUD has begun a Distribution Capacity Plan to enhance the capacity of the electrical distribution
system by modifying and reinforcing the distribution system to meet projected loads. This is
being done by using peak load data to determine which feeders have excess capacity and then
moving the excess load to lightly loaded feeders. A summary of the facilities, and corresponding
costs, included in the IMFP is presented in Table 11-1.
'fable 11-1: Electric Utility Costs
Project
Distribution Reinforcements
Feeder Additions
Added Bank at Industrial
Reynolds Ranch Phase 1 Line Extension
East Side Overhead Phase 1 Line Extension
Future Underground North Line Extension
Total Cost Allocated to Future Development
Fee Funded Cost
$1,023,000
$707,000
$4,200,000
$557,000
$215,000
$390,000
$7,092,000
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 161
DWELLING UNIT EQUIVALENTS
EUD facilities costs are allocated based on estimated demand for electricity from residential and
non-residential land uses. Demand is measured in 1,000 volt-ampere (kVA) increments, and
represents the average transformer load per residential unit and 1,000 square feet of non-
residential building space.
A DUE, based on the average transformer load, is a factor that quantifies impacts from different
land use types in terms of their equivalence to a low density residential unit. A low density
residential unit is assigned a DUE factor of 1.0 and the DUE factor for each of the other land use
categories is determined based on the average load factor (kVA) for each land use category
relative to the kVA load generated by a low density residential unit. The DUE calculations are
used to calculate the fee per kVA. The electric utility fee will be determined by actual panel
size. A summary of the DUE factors for each land use type is presented in Table 11-2.
Table 11-2: Electric Utifity Dwelling Unit Eauivalents
Land Use
Average
Load
Factor
(kVA)
DUE
Factor
Residential
per Unit
Low Density
5.0
1.00
Medium Density
4.0
0.80
High Density
3.0
0.60
Non -Residential
per 1, 000 SF
Retail (Minor & Major)
7.0
1.40
Office/Medical
7.0
1.40
Industrial
4.0
0.80
FEE METHODOLOGY
The total $7.1 million electric utility cost is allocated to future development based on the demand
for electricity from each land use category. Applying the DUE factors from the prior section to
future development within the City through 2035 results in 8,582 DUEs. By dividing the $7.1
million cost by the 8,582 DUEs, the cost per DUE is $826.
Similar to water and wastewater fees that are based on meter size, the electric utility fee is based
on the load capacity of the electric panel. Consequently, the electric fee for a residential unit that
requires a 200 amp panel, which is the typical panel capacity for a home in Lodi, is $826.
The fee for each panel load capacity is calculated in terms of its load capacity relative to the 200
amp panel. Accordingly, a 200 amp panel is assigned a DUE factor of 1.0 and a fee of $826.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 162
The DUE factor for each of the other panel sizes is determined based on the maximum load
permitted for each panel type relative to the maximum load for a single phase 200 amp panel.
FEE SCHEDULE
Electric utility fees will be determined based on the load capacity of the electric panel that is
installed. A summary of the electric utility fees is presented in Table 11-3.
Table 11-3: Electric Utilitv Fees
A single-phase 200 amp panel is typically required for a single family residential unit; therefore,
the estimated electric utility fee for a single family unit is $826. However, fees for all land uses
will be determined based on actual panel size needed.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 163
208 Volts
240 Volts
480 Volts
Sin, -le Phase Panel
60 amps
$248
n/a
100 amps
$413
n/a
125 amps
$516
n/a
200 amps
$826
n/a
400 amps
$1,652
n/a
600 amps
$2,478
n/a
Three Phase Panel
200 amps
$1,178
$1,359
$2,718
400 amps
$2,356
$2,718
$5,437
600 amps
$3,534
$4,077
$8,155
800 amps
$4,712
$5,437
$10,873
1000 amps
$5,890
n/a
$13,591
1200 amps
$7,068
n/a
$16,310
1600 amps
$9,423
n/a
$21,746
2000 amps
$11,779
n/a
$27,183
2500 amps
$14,724
n/a
$33,979
3000 amps
$17,669
n/a
$40,774
A single-phase 200 amp panel is typically required for a single family residential unit; therefore,
the estimated electric utility fee for a single family unit is $826. However, fees for all land uses
will be determined based on actual panel size needed.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 163
NEXUS REQUIREMENTS
The electric utility fee component meets the Mitigation Fee Act nexus requirements, as described
in Table 11-4.
Table 11-4: Electric Utility Fee Nexus Requirements
Identify the purpose of the fee.
To fund electric utility facilities attributable to the impact of
new development.
Identify the use of the fee.
To fund the electric utility facilities identified in this IMFP.
Determine how there is a reasonable
New residential and non-residential development will generate
relationship between the need for
additional residents and employees who will increase the
the public facility, the use of the
demand for electricity. Electric utility facilities will be needed
fee, the amount of the fee and the
to accommodate the additional demand for electricity. The
type of development project on
electric utilities fees are calculated so that fee revenue will
which the fee is imposed
equal the cost of the facilities attributable to new development.
Residential and non-residential development will be
responsible for their fair -share portion of the total cost based
on the load capacity of the electric panel that will be required
to serve each development type.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 164
12. GENERAL CITY FACILITIES
BACKGROUND
As new development occurs within the City, additional city facilities will be required to meet the
service demands from future development. In 1991 when the City's original Development
Impact Fee Study was adopted, the capital improvement plan for the general city facilities fee
included a city hall addition, library expansion, land acquisition, vehicles and equipment, fee
program monitoring costs, and the cost of updating the General Plan. The general city facilities
capital improvement plan has been updated for the IMFP and is summarized below.
FACILITIES AND COSTS
The general city facilities capital improvement plan for this IMFP includes: existing public
safety building remodel; library expansion; and the costs of updates of the General Plan and the
IMFP.
The public safety building remodel is estimated to cost $1.0 million and the general plan update
is estimated to cost $2.0 million. However, only a portion of the total $3.0 million cost is
attributable to future development, as discussed in the Fee Methodology section of this chapter.
Additional library building space needed to serve future development out to 2035 is estimated to
equal approximately 5,900 square feet based on a General Plan standard of 0.45 square feet per
capita. The cost of the library space totals approximately $2.4 million based on a construction
cost of $402 per square foot of building space.
The fee program update costs include $550,000 for the current IMFP update and $200,000 for
future fee program updates. A summary of the facilities and the costs included in the IMFP is
presented in Table 12-1.
Fable 12-1: General Ulty Vacilitles Costs
Project
Public Safety Building Remodel & General Plan
(Future development's share only)
Library Expansion
Current and Future Fee Program Updates
Total Cost Allocated to Future Development
IMFP Fee
Funded Cost
$556,000
$2,376,000
$750,000
$3,682,000
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 165
LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD
City staff has reviewed the City's general city facility needs associated with future development
through 2035 and has determined the facilities and items to incorporate in the IMFP. The IMFP
provides funding for only future development's share of costs associated with the existing public
safety building remodel and future General Plan updates. Furthermore, the IMFP includes the
cost of library space that is required to serve only future development. Based on the City's
General Plan standard of 0.45 square feet of library building space per resident and an estimated
13,128 future residents, approximately 5,900 square feet of new library space will be needed by
2035.
DWELLING UNIT EQUIVALENTS
General city facility costs are allocated based on residents and employees since it is reasoned that
residential and non-residential developments both benefit from these facilities. A persons served
figure is used in the cost allocation calculation for general city facilities costs. The persons
served factor is defined as the residential population plus 50% of employees.
A dwelling equivalent unit is based on the persons served and is a factor that quantifies different
land use types in terms of their equivalence to a low density residential unit. A summary of the
DUE factors for each land use type is presented in Table 12-2.
Table 12-2: General Citv Facilities Dwelling Unit Equivalents
Land Use
Persons per
Household/
Employees
Per 1,000 SF
Resident -to -Employee
Ratio= 1.0 : 0.5
Persons DUE
Served Factor
Residential
per Unit
Low Density
2.85
2.85 1.00
Medium Density
2.40
2.40 0.84
High Density
2.00
2.00 0.70
Non -Residential
per 1, 000 SF
Retail (Minor & Major)
2.50
1.25 0.44
Office/Medical
4.00
2.00 0.70
Industrial
1.33
0.67 0.23
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 166
FEE METHODOLOGY
Because the public safety building remodel and General Plan will benefit both existing and
future development, these costs are allocated to existing development and future development
through 2035, based on the estimated total persons served for each development period. As
discussed in previous sections, the number of persons served is equal the residential population
plus 50% of the employee population. Based on this methodology, existing development is
responsible for approximately 81% of the remodel and General Plan costs and must fund its
share of the cost with revenues other than future development impact fees. Future development
is responsible for the remaining 19% of the total cost, and therefore, this portion of the cost is
included in the IMFP.
In addition to providing funding for future development's fair -share of the remodel and General
Plan costs, the IMFP will provide full funding for the expansion of the library facilities as well as
the cost of updating the IMFP. Since the library expansion and the IMFP updates will primarily
benefit future development, the full cost of these items is included in the IMFP and allocated to
future development only.
FEE SCHEDULE
A summary of the general city facilities fees is presented in Table 12-3.
'fable 12-3: General City Vacilities Yees
Residential
per Unit
Low Density
$617
Medium Density
$519
High Density
$433
Non -Residential per 1, 000 SF
Retail (Minor & Major) $270
Office/Medical $433
Industrial $144
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 167
NEXUS REQUIREMENTS
The general city facilities fee meets the Mitigation Fee Act nexus requirements, as described in
Table 12-4.
Table 12-4: General Facility Fee Nexus Requirements
Identify the purpose of the fee.
To fund general city facilities costs, including
remodeling of the existing public safety building, general
plan, library expansion, and fee program updates,
attributable to new development.
Identify the use of the fee.
To fund the general city facilities identified in this IMFP.
Determine how there is a
New residential and non-residential development will
reasonable relationship between
generate additional residents and employees who will
the need for the public facility,
increase the demand for the general city facilities
the use of the fee, the amount of
included in the IMFP. The general city facilities fees are
the fee and the type of
calculated so that fee revenue will equal the cost of the
development project on which
portion of the facilities attributable to new development.
the fee is imposed
Residential and non-residential development will be
responsible for their fair -share portion of the total cost
based on the DUE variables assigned to the individual
land uses.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 168
13. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
BACKGROUND
The City adopted a Public Art Policy in 2001 that established a public art requirement for public
projects. The policy requires the public art fund to pay for art in public places. The art in public
places fee of the IMFP establishes a public art funding standard based on the estimated value of
the existing public art in the City.
FACILITIES AND COSTS
Public art pieces are located throughout the City, from the Veterans Memorial Plaza near City
Hall to murals scattered throughout the City's downtown area. In all, approximately 30 public
art pieces are located throughout the City. The estimated value for all 30 public art pieces totals
approximately $2.1 million. Table 13-1 identifies the City's art in public places.
fable 1i-1: r:xlsting Art in YubliC Places
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 169
Estimated
Replacement
Existing Art
Cost
1.
Water Tower
$52,456
2.
Better Days Pergola
$86,000
3.
Grape Wall of Lodi
$40,000
4.
Japantown Murals
$29,000
5.
PALS Mural
$57,015
6.
Sacramento Street Mural
$46,000
7.
Celebrate Harvest bronze sculpture
$153,000
8.
Cranes
$30,000
9.
Bus Stop
$15,000
10.
Sculpture Exhibit (rentals)
$30,000
11.
Art Purchase - Transit Clock Tower
$5,000
12.
Mosaics
$2,500
13.
Van Buskirk Park
$4,678
14.
Veterans Memorial Plaza
$450,000
15.
Lodi Avenue Gateway
$135,000
16.
Water Shed Mural
$20,000
17.
Segale Murals
$75,000
18.
Recognition Plaques
$3,165
19.
Wall Dog Murals (10)
$100,000
20.
School Street Gateway Arch
$780,000
Total
$2,113,814
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 169
LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD
The City's estimated cost of existing public art pieces totals approximately $2.1 million. This
cost translates into a service standard of approximately $28 per person served in the City.
Applying the $28 per person served funding standard to 17,021 persons served through 2035 will
produce an estimated $477,000 by 2035 to fund additional public art in the City. At this time,
the City has not identified specific art pieces for future purchase; however, these will be
determined as fee revenue becomes available.
DWELLING UNIT EQUIVALENTS
Public art costs are allocated based on residents and employees since it is reasoned that
residential and non-residential developments benefit from art in public places. A persons served
figure is used to estimate future impacts related to art in public places. The persons served factor
is defined as the residential population plus 50% of employees. The exact relationship, in terms
of benefit received from the art pieces, between residents and employees is difficult to measure.
However, if benefit is estimated based on the potential to view and enjoy public art, then it is
generally understood that a resident has much more time to view and enjoy public art than an
employee. For residential land uses, the persons served equals the persons per household factor;
for non-residential land uses, the persons served is equal to 50% of the number of employees per
1,000 square feet of building space.
A DUE based on persons served quantifies the impact of different land use types in terms of their
equivalence to a low density residential unit. A low density residential unit is assigned a DUE
factor of 1.0 and the DUE factor for each of the other land use categories is determined based on
the number of persons served for each land use category relative to the number of persons served
for a low density residential unit. A summary of the DUE factors for each land use type is
presented in Table 13-2.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 170
Table 13-2: Art in Public Places Dwelling Unit Equivalents
Land Use
Persons per
Household/
Employees
Per 1,000 sf
Resident -to -Employee
Ratio =1.0 : 0.5
Persons DUE
Served Factor
Residential
Medium Density
per Unit
Low Density
2.85
2.85 1.00
Medium Density
2.40
2.40 0.84
High Density
2.00
2.00 0.70
Non -Residential
per 1, 000 SF
Retail (Minor & Major)
2.50
1.25 0.44
Office/Medical
4.00
2.00 0.70
Industrial
1.33
0.67 0.23
FEE METHODOLOGY
The art in public places fee uses a standard -based fee methodology, which applies a consistent
facility service level standard ($28 per person served) to future development regardless of the
amount of projected development. Residential fees are calculated by multiplying the cost per
person served by the person per household factor for each type of residential unit. For example,
a Low Density Unit is assumed to have an average of 2.85 persons per household; therefore, the
resulting Art in Public Places fee equals $80 ($28 x 2.85).
FEE SCHEDULE
A summary of the art in public places fee is presented in Table 13-3.
Table 13-3: Art in Public Places Fee
Residential
per Unit
Low Density
$80
Medium Density
$67
High Density
$56
Non -Residential
per 1, 000 SF
Retail (Minor & Major)
$35
Office/Medical
$56
Industrial
$19
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 171
NEXUS REQUIREMENTS
The art in public places fee
described in the Table 13-4.
component meets the Mitigation Fee Act nexus requirements, as
Table 13-4: Art in Public Places Nexus Requirements
Identify the purpose of the fee.
To fund public art.
Identify the use of the fee.
To fund the art in public places that will serve future
development.
Determine how there is a reasonable
New residential and non-residential development will generate
relationship between the need for
additional residents and employees who will increase the
the public facility, the use of the
demand for art in the City. The art in public places fees are
fee, the amount of the fee and the
calculated so that fee revenue will equal the cost of acquiring
type of development project on
new art to serve new development. Residential and
which the fee is imposed
non-residential development will be responsible for their
fair -share portion of the total cost based on the DUE variables
assigned to the individual land uses.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 172
14. IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION
IMPLEMENTATION
According to the California Government Code, prior to levying a new fee or increasing an
existing fee, an agency must hold at least one open and public meeting. At least ten days prior to
this meeting, the agency must make data on infrastructure costs and funding sources available to
the public. Notice of the time and place of the meeting and a general explanation of the matter
are to be published in accordance with Section 6062a of the Government Code, which states that
publication of notice shall occur for ten days in a newspaper regularly published once a week or
more. The City may then adopt the new fees at the second reading. The new or increased fees
shall be effective no earlier than 60 days following the final action on the adoption or increase of
the fees.
FEE ADJUSTMENTS
The fees may be adjusted in future years to reflect revised facility standards, receipt of funding
from alternative sources (i.e., state or federal grants), revised facilities or costs, or changes in
demographics or the land use plan. In addition to such adjustments, the fees will be inflated each
year by the Engineering News Record 20 -city average construction cost index.
The fee categories summarized in this IMFP report may not be applicable to specialized
development projects in the City. For example, development of a cemetery, golf course, or
stadium would not fall under any of the fee categories in this study. For specialized development
projects, the City will review the impacts and decide on an applicable ad hoc fee.
FEE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
The Government Code requires the City to report every year and every fifth year certain
financial information regarding the fees. The City must make available within 180 days after the
last day of each fiscal year the following information from the prior fiscal year:
1. A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund
2. The amount of the fee
3. The beginning and ending balance in the account or fund
4. The amount of the fee collected and the interest earned
5. An identification of each public improvement for which fees were expended and the
amount of expenditures
6. An identification of an approximate date by which time construction on the
improvement will commence if it is determined that sufficient funds exist to complete
the project
7. A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account and when it
will be repaid
8. Identification of any refunds made once it is determined that sufficient monies have
been collected to fund all fee related projects
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 173
The City must make this information available for public review and must also present it at the
next regularly scheduled public meeting not less than 15 days after this information is made
available to the public.
For the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the account or fund, and every five years
thereafter, the City must make the following findings with respect to any remaining funds in the
fee account, regardless of whether those funds are committed or uncommitted:
1. Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put
2. Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is
charged
3. Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing any
incomplete improvements
4. Designate the approximate dates on which funding in item (3) above is expected to be
deposited into the fee account
As with the annual disclosure, the five year report must be made public within 180 days after the
end of the City's fiscal year and must be reviewed at the next regularly scheduled public
meeting. The City must make these findings; otherwise, the law requires that the City refund the
money on a prorated basis to the then current record owners of the development project.
Lodi Impact Fee Mitigation Program Page 174
EXHIBIT 3
1. Fees effective until December 31, 2019. Fees not subject to annual inflationary increases.
2. Includes 3/4" meter for water, 3/4" meter for wastewater and 200 amp electrical fees. Excludes storm drainage fees.
3. Water Capacity Fee, Wastewater Capacity Fee, Electrical Fee and Storm Drainage Fees not standardized. Fees will be adjusted based on information provided
by Developer.
Total Fee
Streets
Police
Fire
Parks &
General City
Art In Public
Land Use Category
Fee/Meter
Recreation
Fee/Meter
Places
Land Use Category
per Unit
Fee/Unit
Fee/Unit
Fee/Unit
Fee/Unit
Fee/Unit
Fee/Unit
Residential
Fee/1000 Bldg
Fee/1000 Bldg
Fee/1000 Bldg
Fee/1000 Bldg
Fee/1000 Bldg
Fee/1000 Bldg
Low Density
$5,940 z
$289
$307
$157
$1,584
$251
$33
Medium Density
$5,4392
$157
$258
$132
$1,334
$211
$27
High Density
$1,792 3
$157
1 $215
1 $110
1 $1,111
1 $176
1 $23
1. Fees effective until December 31, 2019. Fees not subject to annual inflationary increases.
2. Includes 3/4" meter for water, 3/4" meter for wastewater and 200 amp electrical fees. Excludes storm drainage fees.
3. Water Capacity Fee, Wastewater Capacity Fee, Electrical Fee and Storm Drainage Fees not standardized. Fees will be adjusted based on information provided
by Developer.
Total Fee
Streets
Police
Fire
Parks &
General City
Art In Public
Non -Residential
Fee/Meter
Recreation
Fee/Meter
Places
Land Use Category
Meter Size Water Fee
Sewer Fee
5/8" $846 $1,152
5/8" $2,079
$2,831
3/4"
$1,263
$1,720
Fee/1000 Bldg
Fee/1000 Bldg
Fee/1000 Bldg
Fee/1000 Bldg
Fee/1000 Bldg
Fee/1000 Bldg
per 1000 Bldg SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
Commercial
$10,332
$14,070
2"
$6,732
$9,168
2"
Retail
$2,578 3
$1,199
$330
$338
$406
$270
$35
Office
$3,0793
$872
$528
$540
$650
$433
$56
Industrial
1$1,1793
1 $443
1$176
1$180
1$217
1$144
1$19
1. Fees effective until December 31, 2019. Fees not subject to annual inflationary increases.
2. Includes 3/4" meter for water, 3/4" meter for wastewater and 200 amp electrical fees. Excludes storm drainage fees.
3. Water Capacity Fee, Wastewater Capacity Fee, Electrical Fee and Storm Drainage Fees not standardized. Fees will be adjusted based on information provided
by Developer.
Water/Wastewater Capacity Fees
Residential
Non -Residential
Fee/Meter
Fee/Meter
Meter Size Water Fee Sewer Fee
Meter Size Water Fee
Sewer Fee
5/8" $846 $1,152
5/8" $2,079
$2,831
3/4"
$1,263
$1,720
3/4"
$3,103
$4,225
1"
$2,109
$2,873
1"
$5,181
$7,056
11/2"
$4,206
$5,728
11/2"
$10,332
$14,070
2"
$6,732
$9,168
2"
$16,537
$22,521
3"
$12,631
$17,201
3"
$31,026
$42,253
4"
$21,056
$28,674
4"
$51,721
$70,435
6"
$42,099
$57,331
6"
$103,411
$140,828
8"
$67,360
$91,733
8"
$165,464
$225,333
10"
$96,841
$131,880
10"
$237,880
$323,951
1. Fees effective until December 31, 2019. Fees not subject to annual inflationary increases.
2. Includes 3/4" meter for water, 3/4" meter for wastewater and 200 amp electrical fees. Excludes storm drainage fees.
3. Water Capacity Fee, Wastewater Capacity Fee, Electrical Fee and Storm Drainage Fees not standardized. Fees will be adjusted based on information provided
by Developer.
Fee/Panel
Panel Size 208 Volts 240 Volts
Single Phase Panal
(Amps)
60
n/a
$101
100
n/a
$168
125
n/a
$210
200
n/a
$336
400
n/a
$673
600
n/a
$1,009
EXHIBIT 3
Electrical Fees
Panel Size 208 Volts 240 Volts 480 Volts
Three Phase Panal (Amps)
Fee/Panel
480 Volts
Panel Size 208 Volts 240 Volts 480 Volts
$2,718
Single Phase Panal
$2,356
$2,718
(Amps)
n/a
60
n/a
$248
n/a
n/a
$5,437
100
n/a
$413
n/a
n/a
1,200
125
n/a
$516
n/a
n/a
n/a
200
n/a
$826
n/a
n/a
2,500
400
n/a
$1,652
n/a
n/a
n/a
600
n/a
$2,478
n/a
Panel Size 208 Volts 240 Volts 480 Volts
Three Phase Panal (Amps)
200
$1,178
$1,359
$2,718
400
$2,356
$2,718
$5,437
600
$3,534
$4,077
$8,155
800
$4,712
$5,437
$10,873
1,000
$5,890
n/a
$13,591
1,200
$7,068
n/a
$16,310
1,600
$9,423
n/a
$21,746
2,000
$11,779
n/a
$27,183
2,500
$14,724
n/a
$33,979
3,000
$17,669
n/a
$40,774
Storm Drainage Fees
Land Use Category
Zone 1
Zone 2
Residential
Cost per Unit
Cost per Unit
Low Density
$567
$1,725
Medium Density
$284
$862
High Density
$228
$693
Commercial
Cost per Acre
Cost per Acre
Retail
$14,640
$44,485
Office
$14,640
$44,485
Industrial
Cost per Acre
Cost per Acre
$15,686
$31,775
Institutional
Cost per Acre
$31,775
South Wastewater Trunk Line Fees
Land Use Category
Residential
Cost per Unit
Low Density
$481
Medium Density
$405
High Density
$337
Commercial
Cost per 1,000 SF
Retail
$446
Office
n/a
Industrial
Cost per 1,000 SF
n/a
EXHIBIT 4
WaterMastewater Capacity Fees
Residential
Fee/Meter
Meter Size I Water Fee I Sewer Fee
Non -Residential
Fee/Meter
Meter Size I Water Fee I Sewer Fee
5/8"
Total Fee
Streets
Police
Fire
Parks &
General City
Art In Public
Land Use Category
$4,225
3/4"
$3,103
Recreation
1"
Places
Land Use Category
per Unit
Fee/Unit
Fee/Unit
Fee/Unit
Fee/Unit
Fee/Unit
Fee/Unit
Residential
per 1000 Bldg
Fee/1000 Bldg
Fee/1000 Bldg
Fee/1000 Bldg
Fee/1000 Bldg
Fee/1000 Bldg
Fee/1000 Bldg
Low Density
$14,590
$711
$753
$385
$3,890
$617
$80
Medium Density
$13,360'
$386
$634
$324
$3,276
$519
$67
High Density
$4,403 2
$386
$528
$270
$2,730
$433
$56
WaterMastewater Capacity Fees
Residential
Fee/Meter
Meter Size I Water Fee I Sewer Fee
Non -Residential
Fee/Meter
Meter Size I Water Fee I Sewer Fee
5/8"
Total Fee
Streets
Police
Fire
Parks &
General City
Art In Public
$3,103
$4,225
3/4"
$3,103
Recreation
1"
Places
Land Use Category
1"
$5,181
$7,056
11/2"
$10,332
$14,070
per 1000 Bldg
Fee/1000 Bldg
Fee/1000 Bldg
Fee/1000 Bldg
Fee/1000 Bldg
Fee/1000 Bldg
Fee/1000 Bldg
2"
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
Commercial
$42,253
4"
$51,721
$70,435
4"
$51,721
Retail
$2,578 2
$1,199
$330
$338
$406
$270
$35
Office
$3,0792
$872
$528
$540
$650
$433
$56
Industrial
$1,1792
$443
1$176
1$180
1 $217
1 $144
1 $19
WaterMastewater Capacity Fees
Residential
Fee/Meter
Meter Size I Water Fee I Sewer Fee
Non -Residential
Fee/Meter
Meter Size I Water Fee I Sewer Fee
5/8"
$2,079
$2,831
5/8"
$2,079
$2,831
3/4"
$3,103
$4,225
3/4"
$3,103
$4,225
1"
$5,181
$7,056
1"
$5,181
$7,056
11/2"
$10,332
$14,070
11/2"
$10,332
$14,070
2"
$16,537
$22,521
2"
$16,537
$22,521
3"
$31,026
$42,253
3"
$31,026
$42,253
4"
$51,721
$70,435
4"
$51,721
$70,435
6"
$103,411
$140,828
6"
$103,411
$140,828
8"
$165,464
$225,333
8"
$165,464
$225,333
10"
$237,880
$323,951
10"
$237,880
$323,951
1. Includes 3/4" meter for water, 3/4" meter for wastewater and 200 amp electrical fees. Excludes storm drainage fees.
2. Water Capacity Fee, Wastewater Capacity Fee, Electrical Fee and Storm Drainage Fees not standardized. Fees will be adjusted based on
information provided by Developer.
EXHIBIT 4
Panel Size 208 Volts 240 Volts 480 Volts
Electrical Fees
(Amps)
200
Fee/Panel
$1,359
Panel Size
208 Volts 240 Volts
480 Volts
$2,718
Single Phase Panal
600
$3,534
(Amps)
$8,155
60
n/a
$248
n/a
100
n/a
$413
n/a
125
n/a
$516
n/a
200
n/a
$826
n/a
400
n/a
$1,652
n/a
600
n/a
$2,478
n/a
Panel Size 208 Volts 240 Volts 480 Volts
Three Phase Panal
(Amps)
200
$1,178
$1,359
$2,718
400
$2,356
$2,718
$5,437
600
$3,534
$4,077
$8,155
800
$4,712
$5,437
$10,873
1,000
$5,890
n/a
$13,591
1,200
$7,068
n/a
$16,310
1,600
$9,423
n/a
$21,746
2,000
$11,779
n/a
$27,183
2,500
$14,724
n/a
$33,979
3,000
$17,669
1 n/a
$40,774
Storm Drainage Fees
Land Use Category
Zone 1
Zone 2
Residential
Cost per Unit
Cost per Unit
Low Density
$1,394
$4,237
Medium Density
$697
$2,118
High Density
$561
$1,703
Commercial
Cost per Acre
Cost per Acre
Retail
$14,640
$44,485
Office
$14,640
$44,485
Industrial
Cost per Acre
Cost per Acre
$15,686
$47,663
South Wastewater Trunk Line Fees
Land Use Category
Residential
Cost per Unit
Low Density
$1,181
Medium Density
$994
High Density
$829
Commercial
Cost per 1,000 SF
Retail
$1,096
Office
n/a
Industrial
Cost per 1,000 SF
n/a
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-141
A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL
CERTIFYING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS
ADEQUATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
FOR MASTER PLANS FOR WATER, WASTEWATER,
STORM DRAINAGE, AND BICYCLE; STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2012062045
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lodi has heretofore held a duly
noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the master plans for water, wastewater,
storm drainage, and bicycle in accordance with the Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the project proponent is City of Lodi, Public Works Department,
221 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA, 95240; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (State Clearinghouse
No. 2012062045) was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines provided thereunder. The Community
Development Department has determined that all environmental impacts that result from
this project consisting of the four infrastructure master plans has been "less than
significant" or "no impact" for all four master plans; and
WHEREAS, the Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft Initial Study/Negative
Declaration was prepared and distributed to reviewing agencies on Wednesday, June
13,2012; and
WHEREAS, the required 30 -day review period for this project commenced on
Thursday, June 14,2012 and ended on Friday, July 13,2012; and
WHEREAS, City received two written comments during the public review period
and the commentswere responded to and incorporated into the Final Mitigated Negative
Declaration; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council approve the filing of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration by the Community Development Director as adequate
environmental documentation for the project; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the approval of this request have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Lodi City Council has reviewed
all documentation and hereby certifies the Negative Declaration as adequate
environmental documentation for the master plans for water, wastewater, storm
drainage, and bicycle (State Clearinghouse No. 2012062045).
Dated: August 15, 2012
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 2012-141 was passed and adopted by the
City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held August 15, 2012, by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS— Hansen, Johnson, Katzakian, Nakanishi,
and Mayor Mounce
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS— None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS— None
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS— None
jgfT
RANDI JOHL
City Clerk
2012-141
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-142
A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL APPROVING MASTER
PLANS FOR WATER, WASTEWATER, STORM DRAINAGE, AND
BICYCLE; APPROVING IMPACT MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM
REPORT AND SCHEDULE OF FEES; AND APPROVING IMPACT
MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM SCHEDULE OF REDUCED FEES
WHEREAS, in 1991, City Council approved the Impact Mitigation Fee Program (IMFP) that
established impact fees in the categories of water, wastewater, storm drainage, streets, police, fire,
parks, and general City facilities. An electric utility impact fee was established in 2007. With the 2010
adoption of the new General Plan for the City, it is the proper time to perform an overhaul of the IMFP;
and
WHEREAS, master plans for water, wastewater, storm drainage, and bicycle infrastructure
have been prepared in conjunction with the IMFP and an initial study/mitigated negative declaration
for the master plans has been prepared and distributed for public comments by the Community
Development Department; and
WHEREAS, the IMFP Report presents details regarding the assumptions, methodologies,
facilities standards, projects, costs, and cost allocation factors used to establish the nexus between
the fees and the development upon which the fees will be levied. The Technical Appendix to the
report includes the detailed project descriptions, cost estimates, cost allocation factors, and fee
calculations; and
WHEREAS, the IMFP Report has been distributed to representatives of the building
community and others that expressed interest in the project, and a copy was made available to the
public at the Public Works Department and on the City's website; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held to receive public comment on the master plans, the
IMFP Report and Schedule of Fees and the IMFP Schedule of Reduced Fees.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Lodi City Council does hereby approve the
master plans for water, wastewater, storm drainage, and bicycle; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the Impact Mitigation
Fee Program Report and Schedule of Fees, attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the Impact Mitigation
Fee Program Schedule of Reduced Fees, attached hereto as Exhibit B.
Dated: August 15, 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hereby certify that Resolution No. 2012-142 was passed and adopted by the City Council of
the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held August 15, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Hansen, Johnson, Katzakian, Nakanishi, and
Mayor Mounce
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS— None
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS— None
RANDI JOHL
City Clerk
2012-142
Exhibit A
Impact Mitigation Fee Program
Schedule of Fees
Table A-1: Water and Wastewater Fees
Meter Size
Water
Wastewater
5/8 -inch meter
$2,079
$2,831
3/4 -inch meter
$3,103
$4,225
1 -inch meter
$5,181
$7,056
11/2 -inch meter
$10,332
$14,070
2 -inch meter
$16,537
$22,521
3 -inch meter
$31,026
$42,253
4 -inch meter
$51,721
$70,435
6 -inch meter
$103,411
$140,828
8 -inch meter
$165,464
$225,333
10 -inch meter
$237,880
$323,951
NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
Office/
Retail Medical Industrial
(per 1,000SF) (per 1,000SF) (per 1,000SF)
$1,199
RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
$443
Low
Medium
High
$338
Density
Density
Density
Fee Component
(per Unit)
(per Unit)
(perUnit)
Transportation
$711
$386
$386
Police
$753
$634
$528
Fire
$385
$324
$270
Park
$3,890
$3,276
$2,730
General City Facilities
$617
$519
$433
Art in Public Places
$80
$67
$56
NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
Office/
Retail Medical Industrial
(per 1,000SF) (per 1,000SF) (per 1,000SF)
$1,199
$872
$443
$330
$528
$176
$338
$540
$180
$406
$650
$217
$270
$433
$144
$35
$56
$19
Table A-4: Non -Residential Electric Utility Fees
240
Volts
Single Phase Panel
480
Volts
60 amps
$248
100 amps
$413
125 amps
$516
200 amps
$826
400 amps
$1,652
600 amps
$2,478
Table A-4: Non -Residential Electric Utility Fees
208
Volts
240
Volts
480
Volts
Single Phase Panel
60 amps
n/a
$248
n/a
100 amps
n/a
$413
n/a
125 amps
n/a
$516
n/a
200 amps
n/a
$826
n/a
400 amps
n/a
$1,652
n/a
600 amps
n/a
$2,478
n/a
Three Phase Panel
200 amps
$1,178
$1,359
$2,718
400 amps
$2,356
$2,718
$5,437
600 amps
$3,534
$4,077
$8,155
800 amps
$4,712
$5,437
$10,873
1000amps
$5,890
n/a
$13,591
1200 amps
$7,068
n/a
$16,310
1600 amps
$9,423
n/a
$21,746
2000 amps
$11,779
n/a
$27,183
2500 amps
$14,724
n/a
$33,979
3000 amps
$17,669
n/a
$40,774
Storm Drainage - Zone 1
Storm Drainage - Zone 2
RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
NON-RESIDENTIALLAND USES
Low
Medium
High
Density
Office/
(per unit)
Density
Density
Density
Retail
Medical
Industrial
(per Unit)
(per Unit)
(per Unit)
(per Acre)
(per Acre)
(per Acre)
$1,394
$697
$561
$14,640
$14,640
$15,686
$4,237
$2,118
$1,703
$44,485
$44,485
$47,663
RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
Low
Medium
High
Density
Density
Density
Fee Component (per Unit)
(per unit)
(per unit)
South Wastewater Trunk Line' $1,181
$994
$829
NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
Office/
Retail Medical Industrial
(per 1,000 s1) (per 1,000sO (per 1,000 sfj
$1,096 n/a n/a
Exhibit B
Impact Mitigation Fee Program
Schedule of Reduced Fees
Table B-1: Water and Wastewater Fees
Meter Size
Residential
Water Wastewater
Non -Residential
Water Wastewater
5/8 -inch meter
$846
$1,152
$2,079
$2,831
3/4 -inch meter
$1,263
$1,720
$3,103
$4,225
1 -inch meter
$2,109
$2,873
$5,181
$7,056
11/2 -inch meter
$4,206
$5,728
$10,332
$14,070
2 -inch meter
$6,732
$9,168
$16,537
$22,521
3 -inch meter
$12,631
$17,201
$31,026
$42,253
4 -inch meter
$21,056
$28,674
$51,721
$70,435
5 -inch meter
$42,099
$57,331
$103,411
$140,828
3 -inch meter
$67,360
$91,733
$165,464
$225,333
10-inchmeter
$96,841
$131,880
$237,880
$323,951
Table B-2: Transportation, Police, Fire, General City Facilities, Park and
Art in Public Places Fees
RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
Low
Medium
High
Office/
Density
Density
Density
Retail
Medical
Industrial
Fee Component
(per Unit)
(per Unit)
(per Unit)
(per 1,000 SF)
(per 1,000 SF)
(per 1,000 SF)
Transportation
$289
$157
$157
$1,199
$872
$443
Police
$307
$258
$215
$330
$528
$176
Fire
$157
$132
$110
$338
$540
$180
Park
$1,584
$1,334
$1,111
$406
$650
$217
General City Facilities
$251
$211
$176
$270
$433
$144
Art in Public Places
$33
$27
$23
$35
$56
$19
Table B-3: Residential Electric Utility Fees
Table B-4: Non -Residential Electric Utility Fees
240 Volts
Single Phase Panel
Volts
60 amps
$101
100 amps
$168
125 amps
$210
200 amps
$336
400 amps
$673
600 amps
$1,009
Table B-4: Non -Residential Electric Utility Fees
Volts
Volts
Volts
Single Phase Panel
60 amps
nfa
$248
n/a
100 amps
n/a
$413
n/a
125 amps
n/a
$516
n/a
200 amps
n/a
$826
n/a
400 amps
n/a
$1,652
n/a
600 amps
n/a
$2,478
n/a
Three Phase Panel
200 amps
$1,178
$1,359
$2,718
400 amps
$2,356
$2,718
$5,437
600 amps
$3,534
$4,077
$8,155
800 amps
$4,712
$5,437
$10,873
1000amps
$5,890
n/a
$13,591
1200 amps
$7,068
n/a
$16,310
1600amps
$9,423
n/a
$21,746
2000 amps
$11,779
n/a
$27,183
2500 amps
$14,724
n/a
$33,979
3000 amps
$17,669
n/a
$40,774
Table &5: Storm Drainage Fees
RESIDENTIAL LAND USES NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
Low Medium High
Density Density Density
(per Unit) (per Unit) (per Unit)
$567 $284 $228
Office/
Retail Medical Industrial
(per Acre) (per Acre) (per Acre)
$14,640 $14,640 $15,686
$1,725 $862 $693 $44,485 $44,485 $47,663
Storm Drainage - Zone 2
RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
Low
Medium
High
Density
Density
Density
Fee Component (per Unit)
(per Unit)
(per Unit)
Storm Drainage - Zone 1
$405
$337
Storm Drainage - Zone 2
RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
Low
Medium
High
Density
Density
Density
Fee Component (per Unit)
(per Unit)
(per Unit)
South Wastewater Trunk Line' $481
$405
$337
1
NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
Office/
Retail Medical Industrial
(per 1,000sf) (per 1,000sf) (per 1,000sf)
$446 n/a n/a
The City of Lodi
Public Works
Engineering
r
login `•
h }
l
F
Impact Mitigation Fee Program
Agenda Item G-01
August 15, 2012
History
5 Shirtsleeve Presentations
4 Program Development Meetings
10 Project Meetings
ift Changes to Program
• No Over Sizing Reimbursement
• Water and Wastewater Capacity Charge Based Upon
Water Meter Size
• Developer Constructs Roads (Except Median)
• Electric Capacity Charge Based Upon Panel Size
• Electric Capacity Charge Applies City -Wide
4
ift Changes to Program
• Developer Constructs Neighborhood Parks
• Developer Constructs Storm Drainage Facilities
• Art In Public Places Stand Alone Fee
• Residential Fees Based Upon Unit (DUE)
• Non -Residential Fees Based Upon 1,000 SF (Except
Storm Drainage)
0 Limited Exceptions (Except Transportation)
Jr)
s
A7
Incentive Zones
ift Recommended Fee Program
1. Mutual agreement with development community
2. Incentivize residential development
3. 60% reduction of all residential fees
4. No reduction of non-residential fees
5. Residential fees effective through December 31, 2019
6. Adopt non -discounted fees effective January 1, 2020
7. First Update ready for implementation January 1, 2020
Fee Component
Existing Fees
New Fees
(per Unit)
(per Unit)
Water
$954
$1,263
Wastewater
$7,675
$1,720
Storm Drainage
$3,487
$0
Transportation
$2,713
$289
Police
$375
$307
Fire
$366
$157
Electric
$845
$336
Park
$5,266
$1,584
General City Facilities
$1,514
$251
Art in Public Places
2% Included in Fee
$33
TOTAL
$23,195/Unit
$5,940/Unit
Fee Component
Existing Fees
New Fees
(per Acre)
(per 1,000 SF)
Water
$7,541
$13,436
Wastewater
$6,140
$4,225
Storm Drainage
$57,328
$30,158
Transportation
$109,646
$6,932
Police
$17,234
$4,198
Fire
$11,138
$4,293
Electric
$0
$5,437
Park
$35,150
$5,168
General City Facilities
$28,632
$3,442
Art in Public Places
2% Included in Fee
$445
TOTAL
$272,809
$77,734
4
�1? Recommended Actions
✓Conduct Public Hearing
✓Adopt Resolutions
1. Certifying Negative Declaration for
Master Plans
2. Approving Master Plans
3. Approving IMF Report and Schedule
of Fees
4. Approving Schedule of Reduced Fees
DECLARATIONOF POSTING
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER:
A) RESOLUTION APPROVING MASTER PLANS FORWATER, WASTEWATER, STORM
DRAINAGE, AND BICYCLE; B) CERTIFYINGTHE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION FORTHE MASTER PLANS FORTHE WATER,
WASTEWATER, STORM DRAINAGE, AND BICYCLE; C) RESOLUTION APPROVING IMPACT
MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM REPORT; AND D) RESOLUTION APPROVING IMPACT
MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM SCHEDULE OF FEES
On Thursday, August 2, 2012, in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, a
Notice of Continued Public Hearing to consider: a) Resolution approving Master Plans
for Water, Wastewater, Storm Drainage, and Bicycle; b) Certifying the Negative
Declaration as adequate environmental documentation for the Master Plans for the
Water, Wastewater, Storm Drainage, and Bicycle; c) Resolution approving Impact
Mitigation Fee Program Report; and d) Resolution approving Impact Mitigation Fee
Program Schedule of Fees (attached and marked as Exhibit A) was posted at the
following locations:
Lodi Public Library
Lodi City Clerk's Office
Lodi City Hall Lobby
Lodi Carnegie Forum
declare under penalty of perjurythat the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on August 2, 2012, at Lodi, California.
JRNNIFER Ah. ROBISON, CMC
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
N:\Administration\CLERK\Forins\DECPOSTPW.DOC
ORDERED BY:
RANDI JOHL
CITY CLERK
MARIA BECERRA
ADMI NISTRATIVE CLERK
• CITY OF LODI
Carnegie Forum
305 West Pine Street, Lodi
Date: August 15,2012
Time: 7:00 p.m.
For information regarding this notice please contact:
Rand! Johl,
City Clerk
Telephone: (209) 333-6702
NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, August 15, 2012, at the hour of
7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council will
conduct a public hearing at the Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, to consider
the following matter:
a) Resolution approving Master Plans for Water, Wastewater, Storm Drainage,
and Bicycle;
b) Certifying the Negative Declaration as adequate environmental
documentation for the Master Plans for the Water, Wastewater, Storm
Drainage, and Bicycle;
c) Resolution approving Impact Mitigation Fee Program Report; and
d) Resolution approving Impact Mitigation Fee Program Schedule of Fees.
Information regarding this item may be obtained in the Public Works Department,
221 West Pine Street, Lodi, (209) 333-6706. All interested persons are invited to
present their views and comments on this matter. Written statements may be filed with
the City Clerk, City Hall, 221 West Pine Street, 2"d Floor, Lodi, 95240, at any time prior
to the hearing scheduled herein, and oral statements may be made at said hearing.
If you challenge the subject matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in
written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk, 221 West Pine Street, at or prior to
the close of the public hearing.
rder of the Lodi City Council:
' hl
City Clerk
Dated: August 1, 2012
s .f�otm•
D. Stephen Schwabauer
City Attorney
N\Administration\CLERK\PubHear\NOTICES\NotPW doc CLERK\PUBHEAR\NOTICES\NotPW doc 8/1/12
Please immediately confirm receipt
of this ax by calling 333-6702
CITY OF LODI
P. O. BOX 3006
LODI, CALIEUMIA 95241-1910
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER:
A) RESOLUTION APPROVING MASTER PLANS FOR WATER, WASTEWATER,
STORM DRAINAGE, AND BICYCLE; B) CERTIFYING THE NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION FOR
THE MASTER PLANS FOR THE WATER, WASTEWATER, STORM DRAINAGE,
AND BICYCLE; C) RESOLUTION APPROVING IMPACT MITIGATION FEE
PROGRAM REPORT; AND D) RESOLUTION APPROVING IMPACT MITIGATION
FEE PROGRAM SCHEDULE OF FEES
PUBLISH DATE: SATURDAY, JUNE 30,2012
TEAR SHEETS WANTED: One (11 please
SEND AFFIDAVIT AND BILLTO:
LNS ACCT. #0510052
DATED: TUESDAY, JUNE 26,2012
ORDERED B Y RANDI JOHL
C.TY CLERK
J NIFER M. ROBISON, CMC
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
RANDI JOHL, CITY CLERK
City of Lodi
P.O. Box 3006
Lodi, CA 95241-1910
MARIA BECERRA
ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK
Verify Appearance of this Legal in the Newspaper —Copy to File
formsladvins.doo
DECLARATION OF 1
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER:
A) RESOLUTION APPROVING MASTER PLANS FOR WATER, WASTEWATER, STORM
DRAINAGE, AND BICYCLE; B) CERTIFYING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION FOR THE MASTER PLANS FOR THE WATER,
WASTEWATER, STORM DRAINAGE, AND BICYCLE; C) RESOLUTION APPROVING IMPACT
MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM REPORT; AND D) RESOLUTIONAPPROVING IMPACT
MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM SCHEDULE OF FEES
On Tuesday, June 26, 2012, in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, a
Notice of Public Hearing to consider: a) Resolution approving Master Plans for Water,
Wastewater, Storm Drainage, and Bicycle; b) Certifying the Negative Declaration as
adequate environmental documentation for the Master Plans for the Water, Wastewater,
Storm Drainage, and Bicycle; c) Resolution approving Impact Mitigation Fee Program
Report; and d) Resolution approving Impact Mitigation Fee Program Schedule of Fees
(attached and marked as ExhibitA) was posted at the following locations:
Lodi Public Library
Lodi City Clerk's Office
Lodi City Hall Lobby
Lodi Carnegie Forum
declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on June 26, 2012, at Lodi, California.
n
JEANIFER . ROBISON, CMC
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
N:\Administration\CLERKTorms\DECPOSTPW.DOC
ORDERED BY:
RANDIJOHL
CITY CLERK
MARIA BECERRA
ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK
DECLARATION OF MAILING
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER:
A) RESOLUTION APPROVING MASTER PLANS FOR WATER, WASTEWATER, STORM
DRAINAGE, AND BICYCLE; B) CERTIFYINGTHE NEGATIVE DECLARATIONAS
ADEQUATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION FORTHE MASTER PLANS FORTHE
WATER, WASTEWATER, STORM DRAINAGE, AND BICYCLE; C) RESOLUTION
APPROVING IMPACT MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM REPORT; AND D) RESOLUTION
APPROVING IMPACT MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM SCHEDULE OF FEES
On Tuesday, June 26, 2012, in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, I deposited in
the United States mail, envelopes with first lass postage prepaid thereon, containing Notice of
Public Hearing to consider: a) Resolution approving Master Plans for Water, Wastewater,
Storm Drainage, and Bicycle; b) Certifying the Negative Declaration as adequate environmental
documentation for the Master Plans for the Water, Wastewater, Storm Drainage, and Bicycle;
c) Resolution approving Impact Mitigation Fee Program Report; and d) Resolution approving
Impact Mitigation Fee Program Schedule of Fees, attached hereto marked Exhibit A. The
mailing $t for said matter is attached hereto, marked Exhibit 6.
There is a regular daily communication by mail between the City of Lodi, California, and the
placesto which said envelopeswere addressed.
declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on June 26, 2012, at Lodi, California.
&A A
JENNIFER IN. ROBIS NCMC�-----
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
Fortes/docmail.doc
ORDERED BY:
RANDIJOHL
CITY CLERK, CITY OF LODI
MARIA B EC ERRA
ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK
• CITY OF LODI
1(
Carnegie Forum
305 West Pine Streets Lodi
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Date: August 1, 2012
Time: 7:00 p.m.
l
For information regarding this notice please contact:
Randa Johl,
City Clerk
Telephone: (209) 333-6702
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE S HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, August 1, 2012, at the hour of
7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council will
conduct a public hearing at the Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, to consider
the following matter:
a) Resolution approving Master Plans for Water, Wastewater, Storm Drainage,
and Bicycle;
b) Certifying the Negative Declaration as adequate environmental
documentation for the Master Plans for the Water, Wastewater, Storm
Drainage, and Bicycle;
c) Resolution approving Impact Mitigation Fee Program Report; and
d) Resolution approving Impact Mitigation Fee Program Schedule of Fees.
Information regarding this item may be obtained in the Public Works Department,
221 West Pine Street, Lodi, (209) 333-6706. All interested persons are invited to
present their views and comments on this matter. Written statements may be filed with
the City Clerk, City Hall, 221 West Pine Street, 2"d Floor, Lodi, 95240, at any time prior
to the hearing scheduled herein, and oral statements may be made at said hearing.
If you challenge the subject matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in
written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk, 221 West Pine Street, at or prior to
the close cf the public hearing.
O r cf the Lodi City Council:
City Clerk
Dated: June 20,2012
app ved s to f rm:
D. Stephen Schwabauer
City Attorney
N.1Administration%CLERMPubHeaANOTICESI4otPW,doe CLERMPUSHEAMOTICESWOPW.doo W M2
EXHIBIT B
A FRED BAKER
PO BOX 1510
,.ODI DISTRICT CHAMBER OF
LODI CA 95241-1510
DELMAR BATCH
11174 N DAVIS RD
VAARK CHANDLER EXEC DIRECTOR
LODI CA 95242
STEVE SINNOCK
PO BOX 844
KJELDSEN SINNOCK & NEUDECK
STOCKTON CA 95201-0844
LOWELL FLEMMER
777 SHAM LN STE A
KATZAKIANWILLIAMS SHERMAN
LODI CA 95242
JOHN GIANNONI
150OW EL CAMINO AVE STE 192
GIANNONI DEVELOPMENT
SACRAMENTO CA 95833
JEFFREY KIRST
PO BOX 1259
TOKAY DEVELOPMENT INC
WOODBRIDGE CA 95258
LUSD
1305E VINE ST
BAUMBACH & PIAZZA 323 W ELM ST
STEVE PECHIN LODI CA 95240
DARRELL SASAKI 1806W KETTLEMAN LN STE G
DRS REAL ESTATE APPRAISALS INC LODI CA 95242
RON THOMAS 1209 W TOKAY
LEX CORALES 4045 CORONADO AVE
SIEGFRIED & ASSOCIATES STOCKTON CA 95204
WENTLAND SNIDER MCINTOSH 301 S HAM LN STE A
LODI CA 95242
TOM DAVIS
-EE & ASSOCIATES
SAN JOAQUIN PARTNERSHIP
STOCKTON CA 95206
2800 W MARCH LN STE 470
STOCKTON CA 95219
?AT PATRICK
35 S SCHOOL ST
,.ODI DISTRICT CHAMBER OF
LODI CA 95240
SOMMERCE
VAARK CHANDLER EXEC DIRECTOR
2545 W TURNER RD
_ODI WOODBRIDGE WINEGRAPE
LODI CA 95242
,OMMISSION
-ARRIS & ASSOCIATES
2315 ORCHARD PKWY STE 120
NLISON BOULEY
TRACY CA 95377
3OODWIN CONSULTING GROUP
555 UNIVERSITY AVE STE 280
✓ICTOR IRZYK
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
=EHR & PEERS
100 PRINGLE AVE STE 600
IULIE MORGAN
WALNUT CREEK CA 94596
/ALLIER DESIGN ASSOCIATES INC
210 WASHINGTON AVE STE G
AARCIA VALLIER
POINT RICHMOND CA 94801
3ENNETT HOMES
1610 W KETTLEMAN LN STE A
)ENNIS BENNETT/RODNEY BOVEE
LODI CA 95242
'OKAY DEVELOPMENT
222 W LOCKEFORDST STE 1
'EFFREY KIRST/KRYSTAL KIRST
LODI CA 95240
3ROWMAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
1556PARKSIDE DR
)ARRYL BROWMAN/VIC DE MELO
WALNUT CREEK CA 94596
DILLON & MURPHY
PO BOX 2180
LODI CA 95241
DGP REAL ESTATE
1420 S MILLSAVE STE K
MICHAEL CAROUBA
LODI CA 95242
RPM COMPANY
1420 S MILLS AVE STEM
DALE GILLESPIE
LODI CA 95242
BIA OF THE DELTA
315 N SAN JOAQUIN ST STE 202
JOHN BECKMAN
STOCKTON CA 95202
FCB HOMES
10100 TRINITY PKWY STE 420
TOM DOUCETTE
STOCKTON CA 95219
MUNSON CONSTRUCTION
PO BOX 643
TIM MUNSON/RUSS MUNSON
WOODBRIDGE CA 95258
JBT PROPERTY MGMT
1901 W KETTLEMAN LN STE 102
MATT DOBBINS
LODI CA 95242
HESSELTINE REALTY
312 S CRESCENT AVE