Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - January 4, 1984 (27)PUBLIC HEARING Notice thereof having been published in accordance with law CONTINUED and affidavit of publication being on file in the office of the City Clerk, Mayor Olson called for the Public Hearing: . NCM RANCH EIR 1. To consider the Planning Commission's recmrendaticn AND REZONING that the Final Environmental Report for Noma Ranch, a 20+ acre residential project proposed for the north side of 0'1 Almond Drive, Lodi, 4 mile west of Cherokee Lane (4131 E. Almond Drive) be certified and �� �:. as adequate, r , 2. To consider the appeal of Mr. Terry Piazza, c/o Baumbach and Piazza, 323 West Elm Street, Lodi, on behalf of Mr. Tom M. Noma of the Lodi City Planning Co mtission's denial to rezone a 20+ acre parcel on the North side of Almrnd Drive, Lodi, 4 mile west of Cherokee Lane (4131 E. Almond Drive) from R-2, Single -Family -Residential to P -D (26), Planned Development District No. 26. The matter was introduced by Community Development Director James Schroeder who presented diagrams of the subject area. Mr. Schroeder reminded the Council that the appeal would require a 4/5 vote of the Council for approval. Camtinity Development Director Schroeder presented a calendar of events regarding the annexation process as it related to the Nona Property. CaT unity Development Director Schroeder, apprised the Council that the Planning Conmission had established the following findings regarding the Nana Ranch tentative Map on January 9, 1984. 1. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the applicable general and specific plans; 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of improven-nt; 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development; 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed inprovements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantial and avoidable injury to fish, wildlife or their habitat; 6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems; 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with the easements, acquired PUBLIC HFAKNGS by the public at large, for access through or use of, (CONr'D) property within the proposed subdivision; 8. That the approval of this subdivision shall have a positive affect on the housing needs in the region in which the City is situated and balances these needs against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. Mr. Schroeder further explained the Urban Growth plan (ultimate growth line). The City Attorney spoke about the relationship to the Rual Land owners law suit. Assistant Planner David Morimoto presented the Final Environmental Impact Report for Nana Subdivision (EIR - 83-2). The proposed project is the rezoning and subdivision of a 20+ acre parcel of land located on Almond Drive, k mile west of Cherokee Lane. The project will contain 67 single-family lots, 13 duplex lost (26 units), and a 41 -unit condominium lot. There is also a 1.3 acre parcel that will be sold to an adjacent property for use as a parking lot. Mr. Morimoto's overview of the EIR included the project description; the environmental impacts; mitigation measures; alternatives to the project; irreversible and long-term impacts; cumulative impacts; growth -inducing impact; energy conservation. Mr. Morimoto addressed the response to comments included in the environmental document. Mr. Schroeder then addressed the Council regarding the vacancy rate within the City of Lodi. Mr. Morimoto, Mr. Schroeder, and City Attorney Stein responded to questions as were posed by the Council. The following persons spoke on behalf of the project: a) Mr. Don Geiger, 311 East Main Street, Lodi, Attorney at Law b) Mr. Glen Baummbach, Baunbach and Piazza, representing Search Development Company. Mr. Baumbach presented proposed alternates for the project. The following persons spoke in opposition of the project: a) Mr. Fred Wilson, 4210 Almond Drive, Lodi - Mr. Wilson presented petitions requesting that the R-2 zoning be retained. b) Ms. Barbara Lea, 448 Almond Drive, Lodi c) Mr. Wilbur Ruhl, 3933 Almond Drive, Lodi There were no other persons in the audience wishing to speak on the matter, and the public portion of the hearing was closed. Following a lengthy discussion, with questions being directed to Staff, Council, on motion of Council Member Pinkerton, Reid second, certified the Nana Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report as adequate; established the following findings: PUBLIC HEMINGS A. 1) ENVIARMML DTACr (CMU'D) The project will result in the lost of 201 acres of prime agricultural soil. If the project is approved, this loss cannot be mitigated. All the land in and around the City of Lodi is designated as prime agricultural soil. The City does not have the option of building on "non prime" agricultural soils in order to preserve the prime soils. Every development built in the City, small or large, utilizes some prime agricultural soil. The residential, commercial and industrial needs of the City necessitates sane urbanization of agricultural land. overriding considerations The area in questions has been designated for residential development for many years by both the San Joaquin County and City of Lodi General Plan. The property currently has a zoning designation of R-2, Single -Family with corner duplexes. This existing zoning already permits development of the property. Prior to annexing to the City, the property had a similar zoning in the County. (pg. 2) The area has been undergoing urbanization for many years. There are residential and commercial developo ents adjacent to the proposed project. The development is contiguous to existing developed areas and will be a logical continuation of the urbanized area. (pg. 2 & 14) The City of Lodi has planned and constructed its utility system to serve the area with water, sewer and storm drainage in anticipation of the area developing. The existing infrastructure will allow development of the area without costly expenditures of public funds for the extension or construction of major new lines. (pg. 6 & 7) 2) QJVINI'AL IMPACT Urbanization of the subject parcel will affect adjacent aqricultural parcels. Finding While some modification of current farming practices may be required, those modifications will not prevent the continued agricultural use of adjacent parcels. The use of agricultural chemicals can continue although in some cases alternative methods of application or types of chemicals may be required. (pg. 13 & 14) Trespassing and vandalism on adjacent agricultural parcels can be reduced by constructing a solid fence along the entire west and north property line adjacent to any agricultural property. The fence will reduce trespassing and vandalism by reducing easy access frau the subdivision. (pg. 13) The City is surrounded by farming operations, yet has not experienced any particular problems concerning twreawners complaints about agricultural noise or dust. If a farmer uses a reasonable amount of care, it is unlikely that he would have a problPsn. (pg. 14) PUBLIC HEMUNM 3. ENVIMMINM IWACr (OCNP'D) The project will generate approximately 1,140 additional vehicle trips per day which will be added to surrounding streets. Finding The existing streets adjacent to the Noma Ranch Project area adequate to handle the additional traffic. Improvements that will be made on Almond Drive and on Valley Avenue will improve the overall traffic flow. This includes the installation of curbs, gutters and sidewalks on both streets and the oorpletion of Valley and Elgin Avenues. (pg. 7,8 b 14) 4. PNVIROMEMAL IMPACT The project will produce some additional vehicle generated air pollution. Finding Based on air quality projections, the amount of additional air pollution will be less than 1/10th of 1% of the total for the City of Lodi. This level is not considered significant. (pg. 4 & 5) 5. ENVIRONMEMM IMPACT The project will W.)erate an estimated 122 additional school -aged children. This will affect the LUSD and its ability to provide adequate classroom space. Find The applicant has signed a contract with the UJSD in which he agrees to pay an impaction fee to the District. Tte District considers the payment of these fees as sufficient mitigation for the impact of the additional students. B. 1) ALTERNATIVES Tl? THE PRO= The EIR discussed several alternatives to the proposed project. The following are findings on two of the alternatives. Alternative 1 This alternative is a "no build" alternative, which would mean that no development would be oonstxvcted on the property - Finding This alternative would eliminate the environmental iupacts resulting from the proposed project. This alternative would, however, affect the future supply of affordable housing. The applicant is proposing to construct single-family houses that will sell for less than $85,000. housing in this price range provides affordable housing for the residents of Lodi. Housing priced above this level is out of the price range of the majority of the residents of Lodi. Based on a vacant lot survey, it is estimated that there arP approximately 406 vacant single-family lots in approved subdivisions that could contain houses of less than $85,000. This figure represents approximately a 3 -year supply of housing in this price range. Once this supply of affordable PUB= HEAtaNGS housing is used up there are very few new subdivisions being D) planned to take their place. Much of this is a result of "Greenbelt the Initiative" which has significantly t x restricted the possibility of new developments. Residential projects like Now Ranch often take 18-24 months frim the time of approval to the first houses becoming �.` available. Nana Ranch would cane on line just as existing subdivisions in this price range are built out or nearly built out. Without projects like Nana Ranch, there would soon be a shortage of affordable housing units. (pg. 15, 16 b 17) ,. 2) Alternative 3 (Discussed in Response to Comments) This alternative would utilize an "infill" property as an alternative to the Nana property. (pg. 33) Find The City of Lodi has consistently encouraged the utilization i of "infill" parcels of land available in the City of Lodi. There are no parcels that could aecomndate the Nana Ranch project. Most of the "infill" properties are small in size, ? ranging from single-family lots to one or two acres. All the large parcels are under development or have an approved i project on them. Additionally, rest of these parcels, if they were available, would be very expensive. The price would probably make affordable housing impossible. z C. GFCWT i -I DUCUC IMPACT The project will not have a significant growth -inducing impact on the City. ! Frrxiln jThe passage of Measure A, the "Greenbelt Initiative", has placed a significant future growth limit on the City of Lodi. All new General Plan amendments that require an annexation mist receive voter approval. It does not appear that the voters are inclined to approve any new annexations. Consequently there may be very little gnrowth of the City in future years. Because there is very little vacant land left within the City limits, there may be very few new developments in coming years. (pg. 11 & 18) Council determined that an adequate buffer or mitigation zone exists to assure continued productivity use of agricultural land in the Green Belt Area. The motion carried by unanimous vote. on motion of Council Member Pinkerton, Reid second, Council introduced Ordinance No. 1304 rezoning a 20+ acre parcel on the north side of Almond Drive, Loculi, mile west of Cherokee Larne (4131 Fast Almond Drive - Noma Ranch - from s R-2, Single -Family Residential to P -D (26), Planned` Development District No. 26 with the following conditions:` 1. For lots designated for single-family development a) The lot size shall be as shown on the development plan as adopted by the City Council; b) Building set -backs for front, side, street side and rear yards shall conform to Section 27-6, R-2 Residence District - One -family of the Lodi Municipal Code. ' PUBLIC HEARINGS c) OD) The maximum lot coverage shall not exceed' 45 lot (IO per -vent of the area. d) The maximmheight shall be two -stories or 35 feet' . whichever i s the greater. e) Two off-street parking spaces shall be provided for ` each lot with both spaces covered and in eonformwu a with the set -back requirements of Section 27-6 of the Lodi Municipal Code. 2. For corner lots designated for duplex development a) The lot size shall be as shown on the development. plan as adopted by the City Council. b) Building set -backs for front, side, street side and rear yards shall oonform to Section 27-6 of the Lodi Municipal Code. j r c) The maximan lot coverage shall not exceed 45 per -cent of the lot area. d) The maximum height shall be two -stories or 35 feet t whichever is the greater. e) Two off-street parking places shall be provided for ` each unit in a duplex with all such spaces covered and in conformance with the set -back and driveway requirements of Section 27-6 and 27-13 of the Lodi Municipal Code. 3. For Lot 41 designate for multiple -family purposes a) The maximum density shall be 15 units per gross acres with a maximan of 2.9 gross acres. b) Building set -backs for front, side, street side and rear yards shall conform to Section 27-7, R -CA Residence District - Garden Apartment of the Lodi Municipal Code. c) The maximun lot coverage shall not exceed 50 per cent of the parcel area. d) The maximan height shall be two stories or 35 feet whichever is greater. e). Two off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each residential unit in the project with two-thirds (i.e. 66 2/38) of such spaces covered and in conformance with the set -back and driveway requirements of Section 27-7 and 27-13 of the Lodi Municipal Code. ORD. NO. 1304 The motion carried by the following vote: ADOPTID Ayes: Council Members - Murphy, Pinkerton, Reid, Snider, & Olson (Mayor) Noes: Council Members - None Absent: Council Mmtx>rs - None FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR NOMA SUBDIVISION EIR - 83-2 APPLICANT Te-a—rc-FTevelopment Company 920 South Cherokee Lane Lodi, CA 95240 PROPERTY OWNER Tom Noma 4131 E.Almond Drive Lodi, CA 95240 AGENCY PREPARING EIR City of Lodi 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION The proposed project is the rezoning and subdivision of a 20± acre parcel of land located on Almond Drive, 1/4 mile west of Cherokee Lane. The project will contain 67 single-family lots, 13 duplex lots (26 units), and a 41 -unit condominium lot. There is also a 1.3 acre parcel that will be sold to an adjacent property for use as a parking lot. The project will require certification of an EIR, approval of a rezoning to Planned Development and approval of a subdivision map. TABLE OF CONTENTS VICINITY MAP ............................................. PROJECT MAP .............................................. LANDUSE MAP ............................................. SUMMARY.................................................. I. Project Description II. Site Location and Description III. General Plan and Zoning Designation IV. Description of Environmental Setting A. Topography B. Hydraulics C. Soil Conditions D. Seismic Hazard E. Biotoc Conditions F. Atmospheric Conditions G. Noise V. Utilities a+: A. Storm Drainage B..'Sanitary Sewer C. Domestic Water D. Other Utilities VI. Community Services A. Traffic Circulation B. Police and Fire Protection C. Schools D. Solid Waste E. Recreation VII. Measure A - "Greenbelt Initiative" VIII. Historic and Archeological Site IX. Environmental Assessments A. Environmental Impacts B. Mitigation Measures C. Alternatives to the Project D. Irreversible and Long -Term Impacts E. Cumulative Impacts F. Growth—Inducing Impact G. Energy Conservation X. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS A. Comments a+: • f�r7.' 8 Z 110i,p�i►..) � L4 -T - t�rc' v a� r r r m M � c 0 sY` w H ciL t ip V :O V k 0 3 i ro '© f�r7.' 8 Z 110i,p�i►..) � L4 -T - t�rc' a� r r c 0 v ciL t ip :O V k c w O O to — '© :AI .1..y _. •y .,,",mow t 1 IM v 8 Z L4 -T - t�rc' a� r :AI .1..y _. •y .,,",mow t 1 IM L4 -T - v t ip :O V k w Q w•r . :AI .1..y _. •y .,,",mow t 1 IM Q w•r . :AI .1..y _. •y .,,",mow t 1 IM IN C L IL t� E u d c a 4� s r w a0 •O •c :3 C +1 0 0 0 Ln 0 44 4 v r Nb w M �'O r 1 t t ` Tj Ob oft 14 it ti •. NI• _ Ir s t F tit 0` �i r "1 ;`acs i A JL t L IL t� E u d c a 4� s r w a0 •O •c :3 C +1 0 0 0 Ln 0 44 4 v r Nb w M �'O r 1 t t ` Tj Ob oft 14 it ti •. NI• _ Ir s t F NOMA RANCH LAND USE MAP offillllo I --i W RE SUMtdARY N0I4A SUBDIVISION EIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is a 18.7 acre mixed residential project. There will be 67 single-family lots, 13 duplex lots (26 units) and a 41 -unit condominium lot. There is also a 1.3 acre parcel which will be sold to an adjacent property -owner. The total site is 20* acres. The subject site is currently designated low --density residential in the Lodi General Plan and has a zoning of R-2, Residential Single -Family with duplexes allowed on corner lots. The project will require a rezoning to P -D, Planned Development, approval of a specific development plan and a subdivision map. LOCATION The project will be located on the north side of Almond Drive, 1/4 mile west of Cherokee Lane. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) Loss of 20t acres of prime agricultural soil. Parcel is Class I soil. Parcel is Class I soil made up of Hanford Sandy Loam; well suited for a variety of agricultural uses. Development will mean loss of agricultural use of land. Urbanization could affect adjacent agricultural parcels by requiring modification of normal spraying and cultivation operations. Vandalism, trespassing and homeowner's complaints could increase. 2) Traffic will increase on Almond Drive and Valley Avenue/Academy Drive. The project will generate 1124 vehicle trip ends per day when fully developed. 3) Approximately 122 additional school -aged children could be added to the already overcrowded LUSD. MITIGATION MEASURES 1) No real mitigation for loss of agricultural land. Entire Lodi area is prime agriculture land and any development will eliminate agricultural use. 2) Solid fencing along the entire west property line will reduce trespassing and vandalism of adjacent agricultural properties by reducing direct access. 3) The strict conformance with State and Federal regulations will prevent problems with the use of agricultural chemicals. The project will not prevent the use of chemical materials. iv 4) The additional traffic can be mitigated by the careful design of the street system. Portions of the street will be upgraded with curb, gutter and sidewalk and a wider paved roadway. The traffic capacity of the adjacent streets are adequate to handle the additional traffic. 5) Impact of LUSD has been mitigated by the developer who has entered into a contract with the LUSD to pay required impaction fees. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT 1) The "no build" alternative would eliminate environmental impacts by leaving the site in agricultural use. . A "no build" alternative would not provide for future affordable housing. The proposed development is designed to provide homebuyers with moderately price houses. 2) Another alternative would be to develop the property under the existing R-2 zoning. This would reduce the total number of units from 134 to 109. This alternative would reduce the number of school -aged children from 122 to 109 and reduce the traffic generated from 1124 vehicle trips to 981 vehicle trips. This alternative would not affect the loss of prime agricultural land. It would also eliminate the condominiums, which are a good source of affordable housing. IRREVERSIBLE AND LONG-TERM IMPACTS 1) Loss of agricultural land is permanent and irreversible. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 1) Loss of agricultural land is cumulative. In the past years, several hundred acres of land have been developed with various residential, commercial and industrial projects. Because the City of Lodi is entirely surrounded by prime agricultural land, all future projects will utilize agricultural land. 2) There is a cumulative impact on the LUSD. The LUSD includes much of the northern San Joaquin County, including the City of Lodi and north Stockton. It is estimated that there is the potential, for an additional several thousand students in projects currently approved and in some state of development. This includes Lodi, north Stockton and the unincorporated County areas. This would seriously affect the LUSD. The LUSD is working with developers in the north County area to assist the District financially to provide additional classroom space. Many have signed agreements with the District. GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACT The project will not have a significant growth -inducing impact on the area. v NOMA Environmental Impact Report 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to subdivide and rezone a 20± acre parcel to permit development of an 18.7 acre mixed residential project. The project will contain a total of 134 residential units broken down as follows: Single family lots Duplex lots Condominiums TOTAL Acres Lots Units Units/acre 16 67 67 13 26 5.8 2.7 1 41 15.0 Overall density 7.17 U.P.A. In addition to the proposed residential development, subdivision map includes a 1.3 acre parcel that is proposed to be sold to the adjacent Cambridge Place property. This parcel, which is adjacent to the Cambridge Place parking area, will be used to provide additional parking and recreational areas for the residents of Cambridge Place. No additional living units will be constructed on this site. The property is within the existing City limits and has a current General Plan designation of low density residential and a zoning of R-2, single-family residential with duplexes permitted on corner lots. The proposed project will require the following governmental actions: Certification of an environmental impact report; a rezoning; and approval of a subdivision map and specific development plan. II. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The project site contains 20 acres and is located in the southeast section of the City of Lodi. The property is located on the north side of Almond Drive, approximately 1/2 mile west of Cherokee lane. Almond Drive is an east/west street located between Stockton Street and Cherokee Lane and 1/2 mile south of Kettleman Lane (State Highway 12). (See Vicinity Map). The parcel is designated as San Joaquin County Assessor Parcel No. 057-160-14. The property is currently under cultivation and is planted in grape vineyards. There is also a farm residence and related farm buildings located on the property. The project site is in a transitional area and contains a mixture of land uses. On the north, uses include a mobilehome/recreational vehicle -1- dealership, a trucking operation, and residential subdivisions. On the east are residential uses including a 153 unit condominium project and a mobilehome park. To the south are several large -lot single family residences. There is also proposed a residential and commercial subdivision on 47.63 acres immediately south of the project area. This subdivision, the Johnson -Tandy Subdivision, is under review by the City and includes 239 residential units and a 6.2 acre commercial area. On the west are scattered residences and agricultural uses. (See Land Use Map). III. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATION The subject property currently has a General Plan designation of low-density residential and a zoning of R-2, residential single-family with duplexes on corner lots. The proposed project includes a 2.7 acre condominium parcel that does not conform to the existing R-2 zoning. The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the entire property to P -D, Planned Development. This zoning would permit, with City approval of the specific development plan, both the single-family/duplex lots and the condominium project. The proposed project will have an overall density of 7.17 units per acre. This density is within the maximum of 10 U.P.A. permitted by the low-density residential general plan designation. No change in the general plan designation will be required. IV. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING A. TOPOGRAPHY The project site and the surrounding area are generally flat with elevations of approximately 40-45 feet above sea level. The land in Lodi slopes gently from the northeast to the southwest at the rate of approximately 5' per mile. It is probably that the land was leveled sometime in the past to facilitate surface irrigation. The parcel contains no natural drainage channels or other topographic features. B. HYDRAULICS There are no natural water features or drainage channels located on the project site. The property does not lie within the floodplain of the Mokelumne River and would not be affected during a 100 year flood. Except for agricultural properties served by the Woodbridge Irrigation District Canal, the majority of properties in the Lodi area, including the City of Lodi, are supplied by water pumped from underground sources. There are existing private agricultural and domestic water wells on the property. Using figures provided by the San Joaquin County Farm advisor for agricultural water uses, we can make some water use comparisons. The average vineyard requires approximately 35 inches of water -2- annually. Natural rainfall provides approximately 9 inches of the annual demand. The remaining 26 inches are supplied by irrigation. Converted to acre feet, each acre of vineyard will use approximately 2.2 acre feet of water per year, excluding rainfall. The 20 acres of the.project x 2.2 acre feet equal approximately 44 acre feet of water required by the agricultural operation annually. The following water consumption chart breaks down the various water uses by acre feet/acre year for different types of residential development. Single family residence 3.1 acre feet/acre year Multiple family residence 2.4 acre feet/acre year The proposed development has the following number of acres in the above described uses. No.Ac. ft/ Total N'o/Ac.Ft/ Use No. Acres Acre/Year Year Single Fam. Res. 16.0 3.1 49.6 Multi-Fam Residential 2.7 2.4 6.48 6.08 The estimated water usage for the proposed project will be approximately 56.08 acre feet/year compared to the existing water usage of 44.0 acre feet/year. C. SOIL CONDITIONS The soil type of project site is Hanford Sandy Loam. The surface soil is the Hanford Sandy Loam consists of an 8 to 14 inch layer of light, grayish brown, soft friable sandy loam which has a distinct grayish cast when thoroughly dry. The material grades downward into a subsoil of slightly darker and richer brown soil. Agriculturally, Hanford Sandy Loam is one of the best soils. It is used in the production of orchard, vineyard and other intensive perennial crops. In the Lodi area this soil is primarily used for grape vineyards. The soil conservation service rates Hanford Sandy Loam as Class 1 (the highest rating) and the Storie Index rates it at 95 percent for the ability to produce crops. The soil is also rated good for construction purposes. The bearing capacity of the soil is 2,000 lbs. per square foot. It does not have expansive qualities and will support most structural building loads. -3- The 1978 edition of the uniform Building Code designates Lodi as being in Seismic Zone 3, one that requires the strictest design factors for lateral forces. D. SEISMIC HAZARD Earthquake faults are not found in the immediate vicinity of the subject parcel. The nearest faults are approximately 14 miles to the south and west. The most probable sources of strong ground motion are from the San Andreas Fault, Hayward Fault, the Livermore Fault and the Calaveras Fault, all located in the San Francisco area. E. BIOTIC CONDITIONS The site has been cleared of natural vegetation and replaced with cultivated crops. The property currently contains grape vineyards. The type of plants and wildlife found on the site are common to lands in the agricultural areas surrounding Lodi. There are no known rare or endangered species of plant or animal located on the project site. F. ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS Air Quality in the San Joaquin Valley is affected by a combination of climatology and topography. Topographically, San Joaquin County is located approximately in the middle of the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley. The valley has a trough-like configuration that acts as a trap for pollutants. Mountain ranges surrounding the valley restrict horizontal air movement and frequent temperature inversions prevent vertical air movement. The inversion forms a lid over the valley trough, preventing the escape of pollutants. Climatology also affects the air quality. High summer temperatures accelerate the formation of smog. This, combined with summer high pressures which create low wind speeds and summer temperature inversions to create the potential for high smog concentrations. San Joaquin County air quality is not in compliance with National Air Quality Standards. Nat. Air Quality San Joaquin Pollutant Standard Air Quality Ozone 0.12 pp. r.avg ppm Carbon Monoxide 9.0 ppm3 8 hr.avg) 14.4 ppm Total suspended 75 ug/m (AGM) 81 (highest AGM) particulate matter 3 Sulfur -dioxide 365 ug/m3 24 hr.avg) no measurement 80 ug/m annual avg) The primary source of air pollution generated by the development will be from vehicular traffic. The trip generation estimates are based on data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers. -4- Single -Family Residential: Based on 10 vehicle trip ends per unit, the 93 units will generate 930 vehicle trips per day. Attached Housing Units: Based on 5.1 vehicle trip ends per unit, the 41 units will generate 209 vehicle trips per day. Total vehicle trip generation will be 1140 vehicle trips per weekday generated by the proposed development. There is no specific data for the City of Lodi, so information was generated based on the data for San Joaquin County. The City of Lodi was assumed to generate 9.9% of the total for San Joaquin County. The following emission data was generated: Particulate Hydro- *SOx Matter Lead Carbons *CO *NOx San Joaquin County 1.51 3.186 .22 21.18 220.74 27.78 City of Lodi 9.9% of S.J.C. .151 .3186 .022 2.118 22.074 2.778 r�gures in ons/day The Noma Subdivision would account for less than 1% of the total for the City of Lodi. G. NOISE The primary source of noise in the area of the proposed project will be vehicular traffic on Cherokee Lane to the east, Kettleman Lane to the north and the S.P.R.R. tracks to the west. The project site is, however, located a sufficient distance from all of these major noise sources. According to the City of Lodi Noise Contour Map based on 1995 traffic projections, no part of the project site will fall within a problem noise contour. Ambient noise levels will not exceed 60 dBA. Levels of 60 dBA and under are considered acceptable for residential development. -5- V. UTILITIES A. STORM DRAINAGE C. The City of Lodi operates a system of interconnecting storm drainage basins to provide temporary storage for peak storm runoff. The runoff is stored until the water can be pumped in the W.I.D. Canal or the Mokelumne River at controlled rates and locations. The subject property is located in the "D" drainage basin area which is served by the Salas basin -park. Salas basin -park is located at the southwest corner of South Stockton Street and Century Boulevard (future extension). This basin -park was constructed several years ago and serves the "D" drainage basin. This drainage area generally covers the area from Lodi Avenue on the north, Central Avenue north of Kettleman Lane and Highway 99 South of Kettleman Lane on the east, Harney Lane on the south and the S.P.R.R. on the west. The basin serves both a storm drainage function and a recreational function. The basin is turfed and landscaped and has baseball diamonds and a concession stand. The project is connected to Salas Basin by a 30" line along Almond Drive and a 60" line along South Stockton Street. Smaller lines will be extended from Almond Drive to serve the subject property. These lines will also provide storm drainage for a parcel of land north of the subject property. The lines and storm drainage facilities are adequate to provide drainage for this property. SANITARY SEWER The proposed project will be served by the City of Lodi sanitary system. There is an existing 8" line in Almond Drive that will serve the project. Subdivision lines will tie into the Almond Drive line. The City's White Slough Waste Water Treatment Facility has adequate capacity to handle all sanitary sewage generated by this project. DOMESTIC WATER Domestic water will be provided by the City of Lodi. There is an existing 8" line in Almond Drive that terminates at the southeast propertyline of the project. This line will need to be extended west across the Almond Drive frontage of the property and must continue to the Stockton Street line. This line will be extended to serve the project. The water lines will also be tied to lines north of the subject parcel upon development of that parcel. This looping of water lines will improve water pressure and flows in the entire area. Existing agricult- ral and private domestic wells on the site will be abandoned when the project is developed. 0. OTHER UTILITIES Electricity will be provided by the City of Lodi. Natural gas will be supplied by P.G.& E., and Pacific Telephone Company will provide telephone service. All services can be adequately supplied to the project with normal line extensions. VI. COMMUNITY SERVICES A. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION (Also see Atmospheric Section). The Noma Ranch Subdivision will front on Almond Drive on the south and connect to Valley Avenue to the north. The subdivision is also designed to have a street that will serve the properties to the west, although at present the street will dead-end at the west property line of the project. In addition to these two streets, the City will recommend that an additional street be included in the project. This will be a street to serve the rear portion of the Geweke property located adjacent to the northwest one-half of the Noma property. This would require that the western most street shown on the Noma Ranch Subdivision map be extended north and stubbed at the north property line. This will eliminate one lot. This street will provide future street access to the Geweke property. Valley Avenue to the north currently dead -ends .just north and east of the project property. Plans are for Valley Avenue to be extended and looped into Elgin Avenue in conjunction with the development of the Burgandy Village Subdivision. Plans are to construct Burgandy Village at the same time as Noma Ranch in order to coordinate utility and street work. Construction of the streets in Burgandy Village will provide Noma Ranch a street connection to Kettleman Lane via Valley Avenue and Academy street. Valley Avenue currently has a traffic volume of approximately 200 vehicle trips per day. The low traffic volume is largely a result of the current dead-end situation and the fact that there are only 16 single family lots on the street. The construction of Burgandy Village will add approximately 200 vehicle trips per day. Noma Ranch will add approximately 600 vehicle trips per day. The total traffic volume on Valley Avenue will be approximately 1,000 vehicle trips per day. The looping of the existing dead-end street will improve the overall traffic flow on the street. The 1,000 vehicle trips per day are well within the traffic capacity of Valley Avenue. Almond Drive to the south will take the project traffic west to Stockton Street or east to Cherokee Lane. Stockton Street carries traffic north to Central Lodi. Cherokee Lane serves as both a maior commercial street and as a connector to State Highway 99. Al^�ond Drive is an east -west street running between Stockton Street and Cherokee Lane. The street was originally built to County road -7- standards with a 20' paved roadway gutters or sidewalk. There have b have been built since portions of City. The street frontage of these City standards which include a 44' sidewalk. dirt shoulders and no curb, ?en several developments that he street were annexed to the projects have been developed to roadway, plus curb, gutter and In future years, as properties along the entire length of the street are developed, the entire street will have a 60' right of way, a 44' road width and curb, gutters and sidewalk. Currently, to eliminate patchwork construction resulting from new developments, the City has expended street funds to improve portions of Almond Drive in conjunction with development projects. If the Noma Ranch Subdivision is developed, along with proposed Tandy Ranch Subdivision across the street, approximately 2/3 of Almond Drive will be built to City street standards. Currently Almond Drive has relatively low traffic volumes. Most of the traffic is local traffic generated by residents along the street. There is also some through traffic between Stockton Street and Cherokee Lane. Current traffic volumes on Almond Drive are approximately 1200 vehicle trips per weekday. If Noma Ranch Subdivision is approved, it and other projects recently completed, will double the traffic volume to approximately 2,400 vehicle trips per weekday. If Tandy Ranch is approved, approximately 1,000 additional vehicle trips could be added to the total. That would bring the total to approximately 3,400 vehicle trips. B. POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION The City of Lodi will provide police and fire protection to the proposed development. The Chief of Police has indicated that the department has no "level of reserve" which should be maintained in the city department. He indicates that the additional service for the subject property will come from reordering of departmental enforcement priorities. The Chief notes, however, that this new development and other areas of the city will receive uniform treatment with regard to service levels. The Chief of Police will review the project plans to insure that the street lighting system and bud ding and street layout permit adequate security surveillance h; police patrol units. The Fire Chief will review all plans to assure protection. He will work with the developer on location of fire hydrants and will review the insure adequate accessibility for fire equipment, adequate fire the number and project plan to C. SCHOOLS The Lodi Unified School District (LUSD) is experiencing a problem of student overcrowding in many of its schools. Many of the schools are at maximum capacity and the District must move students out of their normal attendance area to accommodate all the students. The LUSD is attempting to meet the increased enrollment by constructing new school sites and by adding temporary facilities to existing school sites. In order to defray the cost of construction of needed interim school facilities, the City of Lodi passed City Ordinance No. 1149. The ordinance, passed pursuant to Senate Bill 201, was enacted prior to the passage of Proposition 13. The ordinance provides for the payment of a fee of 5200 per bedroom for every residential unit constructed in a new subdivision. The fee is collected by the City at the time a building permit is issued. The money is then transferred to the LUSD. The money is used specifically to pay for temporary facilities for the impacted school attendance area. An alternative would be for the developer to enter into a direct agreement with the LUSD. The agreement would be for the direct payment of a monetary amount equal to the fees established by City ordinance No. 1149. These monies can then be applied towards the construction of permanent facilities, rather than interim facilities, as mandated by the law now in effect regarding impaction fees. The proposed project will have 134 residential units. The number of students is estimated as follows: HOUSING TYPE NO. OF UNITS STUDENTS/UNITS TOTAL Single-family 67 1 67 Duplex 26 1 26 Condominiums 41 0.7 29 Total Students 122 in The project is located in the following attendance areas: Heritage School K-6 Senior Elementary 7-8 Lodi High School 9-12 The projected enrollment for these schools in the 1983-84 school year are: Heritage School 676 Senior Elementary 880 Tokay High School 2421 Student Transportation: Transportation is provided if students live no less than the following distance from school: K-6 1.5 miles 7-8 2.5 miles 9-12 3.5 miles Exceptions to the above may be made at the discretion of the Superintendent of Schools on the basis of pupil safety, pupil hardship, or District convenience. Distance from Noma Subdivision (approximately) Heritage School 1.5 miles Senior Elementary 2.0 miles Tokay High School 2.0 miles D. SOLID WASTE Existing collection of residential solid waste within the City of Lodi is on a weekly basis by a franchise collector. At the present time the waste is hauled to a transfer station and resource recovery station located at the company's headquarters in the east side industrial area. The refuse is sorted with recyclable materiel removed. The remaining refuse is then loaded onto large transfer trucks and hauled to the Harney Lane Disposal site, a Class II -2 Landfill. Current operations are consistent with the San Joaquin County Solid Waste Management Plan, adopted June, 1979.The subject area is within County Refuse Service Number 3 and the North County Disposal Area, which is served by the Harney Lane Site. -10- The number of units built in the project will be 134. The City's franchise collector estimates that each residential unit in the City of Lodi generates an average of 39 lbs. of solid waste per week. 134 units x 39 lbs/week = 5,226 estimated lbs. of solid waste per week. E. RECREATION The proposed project does not set aside any land for parks or other public recreation. It is possible that some private recreational facilities will be constructed as a part of the condominium development. These might include a swimming pool, spa or recreation room for the tenants of the condominiums. There is a major public recreational facility located approximately 1/2 mile southwest of the project. This is Salas Park, a 21 acre recreational complex constructed in conjunction with the Salas storm drainage basin. The complex contains lighted ball fields, a concession stand, picnic facilities, restrooms and walkways. Future plans are for a parking lot and children's play equipment. These are all open to the public. Approximately 1 mile to the north at Stockton and Poplar Street is another City facility, Blakely Park. This park contains ball fields, a swimming pool, picnic areas and restrooms. VII.MEASURE A - "GREENBELT INITIATIVE" On August 25, 1981, the voters of the City of Lodi passed an initiative ordinance to limit future expansion of the City. The initiative, known as the "Greenbelt" initiative, amended the City's General Plan by removing the Planned Urban Growth Area from the Land Use Element of the general Plan. The Urban Growth area now includes only those areas that were within the City Limits at the time of passage of the initiat4ve. The ordinance now requires that any addition to the Urban Growth area, i.e. annexations, requires an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan. These annexation- related amendments to the General Plan require approval by the voters. This project was annexed prior to the passage of Measure A. It is not subject to the restrictions of Measure A and can be processed like a regular subdivision. VIII.HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE There are no sites or buildings on the subject property that are designated as historical landmarks by any Federal, State or local agencies. The nearest recorded landmarks are in the community of Woodbridge, several miles to the northwest. -11- Although there are no recorded archeological surveys of the site, it is doubtful that there any any archeological sites on the property. Known Indian sites in the Lodi area are usually located along the banks of the Mokelumne River, several miles to the north. The property has been extensively cultivated for many years. There is no record of any items of antiquity ever being unearthed on the site. Additionally, the extensive digging and plowing to cultivate the vineyards and the trenching to install irrigation lines would have destroyed any archeological material. If, during construction, some article of possible archeological interest should be unearthed, work will be halted and a qualified archeologist called in to examine the findings. XI. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The development of the Noma Subdivision will result in the loss of 20 acres of prime agricultural land. The project property is currently planted in a grape vineyard. The project soil is made up of the Hanford Sandy Loam, the predominate soil type in the Lodi area. This type of soil is rated as Class I soil for agricultural production and can be planted with a wide variety of crops. In the Lodi area this soil type is extensively planted in vineyards. Development of the site with residential uses will terminate further use of the property for agricultural purposes. The existing crops will be removed and the land covered with streets, houses and other urban improvements. Urbanization of the subject parcel will also affect the continued agricultural use of adjacent parcels. The presence of a residential development may require modification of normal farming practices on adjacent agricultural lands. The use of certain controlled pesticides and herbicides may he restricted on areas adjacent to residential developments. Cultivation and harvesting operations may result in complaints from urban residents concerning noise and dust. Agricultural operations adjacent to urbanized areas may also be subject to an increased amount of trespassing and vandalism. The project will increase traffic on adjacent streets, particularly Almond Drive, Valley Avenue and Academy Street. The project is estimated to generate approximately 1,140 additional vehicular trip ends per weekday when fully developed. Of this number, it is estimated that approximately 570 vehicle trips will use Valley Avenue and 570 vehicle trips will use Almond Drive. The total vehicle trips on Valley Avenue, including Burgandy Village and Noma Ranch will be approximately 1,000 vehicle trips per day. The total vehicle trips on Almond Drive, including -12- Cambridge Place, Stonetree, Tandy Ranch (proposed) and Noma Ranch will be approximately 3,400 vehicle trips per day. The increased vehicular traffic will produce some additional air pollution in the area of the project. The project generated pollution will have a localized affect of air quality, but will not significantly affect the overall air quality of San Joaquin County. Based on a worst-case situation, vehicular traffic generated by the development would increase overall air pollutants in the City of Lodi by less than 1%. The project will generate an estimated 122 additional school -aged children when fully developed. The addition of these students will affect the LUSD and its ability to provide adequate classroom space. The LUSD has filed a Declaration of Impaction that states that the schools are at maximum capacity and that new schools are at maximum capacity and that new students cannot be guaranteed classroom space. B. MITIGATION MEASURES If the Noma Subdivision project is approved and constructed, the 20 acres of prime agricultural land will be removed from further agricultural use. There is no practical way to mitigate the loss of this land. Once cleared and developed with streets and houses, it is unlikely that the land will ever return to agricultural use. The land has, however, been zoned residential and also been designated for residential use for many years by the Lodi General Plan. Trespassing and vandalism on adjacent agricultural properties can be reduced by constructing a solid fence along the west and north property line adjacent to any agricultural property. The fence should also be constructed across any street opening that will dead-end or remain undeveloped. The fence will reduce trespassing and vandalism on the agricultural properties by cutting off easy access from the subdivision. The fence must be maintained by the developer, or the homeowner as the lots are sold. As for any restriction on the use of pesticides, herbicides or other chemicals, these products are controlled by State and Federal regulations. All restricted chemicals, those with the potential to cause health or environmental problems, require a San Joaquin County Agricultural Department permit for use. The Agricultural Department determines the suitability of the chemical based on the location of the field, the types of crops in and around the field and the land uses in the area. According to the San Joaquin County Agricultural Department, there are no definite distances required between the fields being treated and adjacent residences. Permits for application of restricted chemicals are issued based on the particular characteristics and restrictions of the chemical and the judgement of the agricultural -13- commissioner. The Department noted that the key factor in the safe use of any chemical was proper application. This includes using the proper method of application, using the correct equipment, checking for favorable weather conditions and finally the proper care used by the applicator. They also stated that in situations where a particular chemical or application method was felt to be unsuitable, there was usually an acceptable alternative. The presence of homes would not automatically mean that a farmer could not,use chemicals. It would only mean that he would have to take particular care in its application and in certain cases might have to use an alternate chemical or method of application. As for complaints about noise or dust from normal farming operations, it is always possible that these problems could arise. If, however, the farmer uses a reasonable amount of care in his operation, it is unlikely that this would be a problem. Farming operations completely surround the City of Lodi and the City has not experienced any particular problem with homeowner complaints regarding farming operations. If any problems did arise, the City would do whatever possible to resolve the problem. Although there are agricultural properties in the area, the area has been undergoing a transition to non agricultural uses for many years. As long ago as the early 1960's, there were 10-12 single-family parcels with houses along Almond Drive. Additionally, Almond Drive Estates, a 68 -space mobilehome park, and a pitch and putt golf course was built during the 60's. At the same time there were various commercial and residential projects constructed along Cherokee Lane and Kettleman Lane. Recently there have been two major residential projects built on Almond Drive. Cambridge Place Condominiums (163 units) and Stonetree Condominiums (90 units). There has also been numerous industrial developments constructed along Stockton Street at the west end of Almond Drive. There have been several recent planning actions along Almond Drive. One w. -s the Johnson -Tandy rezoning, a 43 -acre residential and commercial project on the south side of Almond Drive. This project was in court litigation and has not been built. The project has been resubmitted for City review. A slecond rezoning, the Hausler Rezoning, changed the zoning on 6 single-family lots from R-1, residential single-family, to R -MD, residential medium density. These lots are also on the south side of Almond Drive. Finally, Burgandy Village, a 32 -lot subdivision was approved for the parcel immediately north of the subject site. The additional traffic on Almond Drive can be handled by the current street design, although the increase in traffic will be noticeable to current residents on the street. The development of properties adjacent to Almond Drive will greatly improve the street as well as adding traffic. If Noma Ranch and Tandy Ranch are both -14- A developed, 2/3 of the north side and one-half of the south side of Almond Drive will be developed to City street standards. This will mean two full travel lanes, a parking lane on both sides and curb, gutter and sidewalks. The improvement in the roadway will permit safer traffic movement on the street, improved storm water runoff and sidewalk for pedestrians. As traffic increases on Almond Drive, the City will study whether any modifications are necessary at the Almond/Cherokee intersection. If it is determined to be necessary, a left-hand turn pocket on Almond Drive may be considered. Also, some work may be required on Cherokee Lane. This could be done in conjunction with the redesign of the Cherokee/Century intersection. The impact of additional students on the LUSD will be mitigated by the payment of school impaction fees by the developer. The City of Lodi has received a copy of a signed contract executed between the Noma's and the LUSD. The agreement states that the property owners have agreed to pay directly to the LUSD all fees prevailing at the time building permits are issued. The LUSD considers the payment of.these fees as mitigation for the environmental impacts of the LUSD caused by the development. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT The principle alternative to the proposed project would be a no -build alternative. This would maintain the existing agricultural use of the land and eliminate the adverse impacts resulting from the proposed project. Alternative 1 The principle alternative to the proposed project would be to not construct the project. This would maintain the existing agricultural use of the land and eliminate the adverse impacts resulting from the proposed project. While this alternative would eliminate the environmental impacts, it could have other effects on the City of Lodi. The primary effect would be on the future supply of moderate cost housing. Currently, there are approximately-§Yai»'i lots in subdivision with final subdivision map's. There are also approximately 508 vacant single family lots in subdivision with only a tentative subdivision map -or tentative project approval. Subdivisions with a final map can obtain building permits while those with only a tentative map must still file a final map before any permits can be issued. Finally, there are approximately;ti2�?ng�fatsily/dupT lots in subdivision currently being reviewe�'by the City. These projects, Tandy Ranch and Summerfield, have not obtained any approvals as of December 1, 1983. The, 396 lots i th f i nal subdivision maps :represent . approxitately a"" 28 -math' suppiy'basec on a 10 year average of 179 single-family -15- homes constructed per year. 10 The :ot1 a so�te ►hat mislea;din ince homebu ers are d-ivided 9' ; Y by the priceohomesythey'can afford. If we take the 904 lots and separate them by housing price, we get a different picture. The price of the units are estimates since the units are not yet built and market and economic conditions may change the price. The categories we used are as follows: Over $120,000 (Category A) $85,000 - $119,999(Category B) Less than $85,000 (Category C) Category A No. Lots Lobaugh Meadows 153 Lakeshore Village - No. 1,2,3,5,& 6 57 Rivergate-Mokelumne 16 Sunwest No. 3 2 Aaron Terrace 2 230 Category B Lodi Park West 175 Mokelumne Village 78 Lakeshore Village 3 & 4 10 Burlington Manor 2 Homestead Manor 3 268 Category C Turner Road Estates 59 Beckman Ranch #5 55 Lakeshore Village No. 4 75 Lodi Parkwest 175 Burgandy Village 32 Pinewood 9 English Oaks #7 1 406 Of the total, approximately 220 (25%) are in Category A, 268 (30%) are in Category B, and 406 (45%) are in Category C. -16- As the figures indicate, only 45% of the lots will have housing of less than $85,000. In Lodi, housing that exceeds $85,000 in price is beyond the price range of most people. It is only the housing that is less than $85,000 that would come close to being considered moderate or affordable housing. The subdivisions that contain houses of less than $85,000 are the most active in terms of building and selling, since they are in demand by the largest number of people. The 406 lots in this category probably constitute about a 3 -year supply of lots. In one year to 18 -months, however, all the subdivisions in this category, except Lodi Parkwest, will be completely built out. This might mean that a homebuyer looking in this price range may only have one subdivision to choose from. The developer of Noma Ranch feels that he can provide single-family housing for less than $85,000, based on current economic conditions. He would, therefore, be able to provide affordable housing for future homebuyers. This is particularly important since these units would not come on line until in late 1984 or early 1985, just as many of the other projects in Category C are built out. If Noma Ranch, or similarly price projects are not developed, there will be a shortage of affordable single family housing in the very near future. The construction of affordable units will result in even more affordable housing becoming available in other parts of the City. Some of the homebuyers will be trading up from less expensive houses in older parts of the City. These older houses represent the only source of detached housing in the less than $50,000 range. Another alternative would be to develop the property in conformance with the existing zoning. The existing R-2 zoning would permit a single-family subdivision with duplexes on corner lots. It would eliminate the proposed multiple family development planned for 2.9± acres of the project. The primary difference would be a reduction in the number of units. The 2.7± acres developed at 15 UPA would yield 41 units. The same 2.7± acres developed at 5.8 UPA would only yield approximately 16 units, a reduction of 27 units. The change to an all R-2 development would not require a rezoning. The reduction in the number of total residential units from 134 to 109 would also change some of the other aspects of the project. There would be fewer vehicle trips generated by the reduced number of units. The original 134 unit project would generate approximately 1,140 vehicle trip ends per weekday. The 109 unit alternative would generate approximately 981 vehicle trip ends per weekday a reduction of 143 vehicle trip ends. Fewer households would also reduce the number of school children generated by the project. Instead of 122 school -aged children, there would only be approximately 109, a reduction of 13. -17- This alternative would also not affect the major impact of this project, the loss of agricultural land. Whether the land is developed with all single-family units or a mix of single-family and multiple -family, the land will be removed from agricultural use. D. IRREVERSIBLE AND LONG TERM IMPACTS The loss of agricultural land will be -an irreversible and -.long-term impact. Once the land is developed with Ihomes and streets,�theee_is little likelihood that the lard will.ever be used..for agricultural . purposes. : E. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The proposed project will have a cumulative impact -on the loss of agricultural land in the past several years, Lakeshore Village, a 96± acre development, Lobaugh Meadows, a 92± acre development and Kennedy Ranch, a 88± acre development, have been approved. These developments will utilize a total of 276± acres of agricultural land when these projects are constructed. Additionally, if the Johnson -Tandy project is developed, this will utilize another 43 acres of agricultural land. Unfortunately, all land in and around the City of Lodi is designated prime agricultural land. The entire area surrounding the City is in agricultural use. Almost every development, large or small, must utilize agricultural land. ' There are no non -prime soil, non-agricultural parcels around Lodi. The residential, commercial and industrial requirements of the City and its residents necessitate urbanization of agricultural land. The other significant cumulative impact is the impact on the LUSD. LUSD estimates place the number of new students generated by developments in Lodi and North Stockton at several thousand students in the next few years. These students place a strain on the District's ability to provide classroom space, particularly in light of the fiscal problems facing schools. Currently, developers both in Lodi and in Stockton have been working with the LUSD to provide funds for additional classroom space. This Will help alleviate the short-term problems facing the schools. F. GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACT Development of the Noma property will allow the development of Burgandy Village to the north. This 5 acre, 32 -lot subdivision is located immediately north of the Noma project. Certain utilities are required which must be run south to Almond Drive. Once these utility lines are installed as a part of the Noma Subdivision, Burgandy Village can tie into these lines and MM proceed with development. The subdivision has already been approved by the City. As for any additional growth -inducing effects, they will be severely limited by the "Greenbelt" initiative. This measure will require all annexations to be approved by a vote of the people. Since much of undeveloped land in the area of the proposed project is not'i.n the. City, the voters will ultimately determine whether it will develop or-_ not.'r= G. ENERGY CONSERVATION =; Structures in the project will be constructed to meet State of California Energy Standards. The standards include such things as window area, insulation, energy efficient appliances, etc. Approximately one half of the lots in the project have a north -south orientation. This orientation provides the best adaptability for both passive and active solar design. The developer could also offer various solar design packages as part of the construction of the homes. -19- RESPONSE TO COMMENTS X. RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS Most of the comments we received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report were addressed in the text of the final EIR. The following are comments that we are addressing separately. REMY & THOMAS - ATTORNEY FOR RLOA. Q. What is the vacancy rate for adjacent developments? RESPONSE: By using utility billing records it appears that the Cambridge 'face Condominiums are about 95% occupied. Stonetree Condominiums are about 25% occupied. Stonetree was completed in the late summer of 1983 and is still in the sale/rent up period. Q: What is the vacancy rate in Lodi? RESPONSE: The vacancy rate in the Lodi Planning area (includes some areas outside of City limits) was 5.3% in 1980. This compares to a San Joaquin County vacancy rate of 7.9%. Both figures are based on the 1980 U.S. Census and include all types of housing. Q. How many units does Lodi absorb annually? RESPONSE: The city does not maintain sales or rental information for residential units. The 10 year average for new units constructed is 179 single-family units and 180 multiple -family and condominium units per year. It would seem that the number of units constructed would reflect the City's ability to absorb new units. While there may be short-term oversupply or undersupply, these tend to work themselves out. The 10 -year average is probably an accurate measure of absorption. If interest rates were 06o fall, the absorption rate for housing might be much nigher due to pent up demand. Q. Has Lodi met its Regional Fair Share of housing? RESPONSE: The City is attempting to meet its Regional Fair Share Housing needs. The City has contracted with the San Joaquin County Housing A-ithority to administer its Section 8 program. This is a rent subsidy program that helps low-income people by paying a portion of their rent. Currently, there are 98 families in Lodi being assisted by this program. The City has also encouraged developers who attempt to build units under H.U.D. or other subsidized housing programs. The City is particularly interested in encouraging senior -citizens housing, since they constitute a sizable portion of low income households. The City also encourages affordable housing by allowing increased densities in many of the newer housing developments. Many of the newer projects include some multiple -family units as well as single-family units. The higher units per acre lowers the land and development cost per unit, lowering the overall price per unit. -20- The City has also zoned .sufficient areas of the City in multiple -family zoning. The zoning permits people to construct condominium and apartment projects which provide a supply of affordable housing units. The remainder of this letter's comments were addressed in the text. WILBERT RUHL Q: Is annexation of Noma property valid in light of Greenbelt Initirative? RESPONSE: The City Attorney has determined that the courts did not invaliTa—te ttie annexation and that the Noma annexation was proper and valid. C - -21- f MICHAEL H. REMY TINA A. THOMAS November 16, 1983 Mr. David Morimoto City of Lodi 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 REMY and THOMAS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 801 12TH STREET. SUITE 500 SACRAMPITO, CALIFORNIA 95814 (916) 443.2745 RE: Noma Ranch Subdivision Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Morimoto: Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the above referenced EIR. On behalf of the Rural Landowners' Association (RLOA) the following comments are submitted. We recognize that these comments were due by November 11, 1983, however, your City Attorney, Mr. Ronald Stein, has agreed to accept these comments late. While the EIR briefly mentions impacts related to the agricultural use of the property, the EIR fails to discuss theBa8lbilty,',of development in.yt.4eCity of Lodi. As you will recall, this was of major concern in the Tandy -Johnson project. If it is true that the neighboring subdivisions are unoccupied, is it appropriate to continue approving housing at. all? Now many vacant units are available in the City of Lodi? Bo..w many units, does -,..,Lodi, absorb,.a y? Has Lodi met its Regional fair share? When approving the, project, CEQA, the Guidelines and recent precedent require the approving agency to reject all project alternatives in the EIR with a finding that the alternative is infeasible. RLOA asserts that the necessary findings cannot possibly be made for project approval since the EIR is deficient in analyzing housing demand in Lodi. The EIR also off -handedly determines that neighboring agricultural lands may be unable to be used for agricultural purposes because of pesticide and herbicide usage. Mitigation measures have not been discussed with regard to that identified impact. The cumulative impact analysis is also deficient because the EIR does not. specifically address the Johnson -Tandy proposal. Since the Guidelines require that reasonably foreseeable future projects must be discussed (Guidelines Section 15355), the Johnson -Tandy project must " be discussed since the project application for Johnson -Tandy has been accepted by the City (i.e., cumulative traffic, cumulative services, cumulative impacts on agricultural lands). -I- C Finally, Measure A requires the agency to find that projects adjacent to the Green Belt are not incompatible with the agricultural uses of the Green Belt. This finding is impossible in light of -the s_cant- evidence in the EIR. Thank you for allowing these brief comments. Very truly yours► REMY AND THOMAS BY INA A. THOMAS, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR RURAL-LANDOWNERS I t TATE OF CALIFORNIA --OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR GEORGE C>ELIKMEJIAN, GowWOM DFFICE OF RESOURCES, ENERGY, AND PERMIT ASSISTANCE 400 TENTH STREET ACRAMfNTO. CA 93814 (916/445-0613) November 28, 1983 Mr. David Morimoto City of Lodi 221 West Pine Street - Lodi, CA 95240 Subject: SCH 83101101, Noma Ranch Subdivision Dear Mr. Morimoto: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This letter certifies only that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (EIR Guidelines, Section 15161.5). Where applicable,' this should not be construed as a waiver of any jurisdictional authority or title interests of the State of California. The project may still require approval from state agencies with permit authority or jurisdiction by law. If so, the state agencies will have to use the environmental document in their decision-making. Please contact them im- mediately after the document is finalized with a copy of the final document, the Notice of Determination, adopted mitigation measures, and any statements of overriding considerations. once the document is adopted (Negative Declaration) or certified (final EIR) and if a decision is made to approve the project, a Notice of Determination must be filed with the County Clerk. If the project requires discretionary approval from any state agency, the Notice of Determination must also be filed with the Secretary for P.esources (EIR Guidelines, Sections 15083(f) and 15085 (h)) • i ereiy, c - __ _ Terry Roberts f>,. Manager j State Clearinghouse RECEIVED NOV 15 1983 cowmwn actio Hct 3 933c 14 Noma Ranch I.R. Page iii I don I t see Ruta. Colvin or Ruhl's homes Page 2 Johnson -Tandy 47.63 acres, on pale 13 it is 13 acres Page 13 Cambridge ^ondos 16.3 units, on page 9 it is 153 units Page 14 E Eihlers annexation omitted as available lard Paye 9 Projected enrollment of a school rears nothing unless you knoll the schools' capacity. Page 6 A Yater flows across the Noma around south during wet weather. Covering the ground with houses and streets will increase the flow. If there is a storm drain in now it has not helped this long-standing problem. Page v I think adding 134 families to a neighborhood is growth - inducing. To develop the land under the existing R-2 zoning which would he mainly single story homes as compared to a 41 unit two-story condo at 15 units per dere certainly changes the environment. 25 fewer families in the neighborhood would be significant. I am in favor of keeping the R-2 zoning if this ranch is to be developed. y y� C civil wen n • ineers 323 West Elm Street Lodi, California 95240 BAUMBACH & PIAZZA Phone (209) 3681-6618 November 10, 1983 Mr. James Schroeder, Director Community Development Department City of Lodi Re: Noma Ranch E.I.R. Dear Sir: A statement was made on page l of the E.I.R. (because of information supplied by us) that a 1.3 acre parcel will be sold to Cambridge Place Homeowners Association. The sale as originally contemplated can not be com- pleted. The principals are still trying to arrive at a way of providing a parking and recreation area for Cambridge Place; however, we can no longer state that will definitely happen. Si ncerely,_� > �� ,/ TERRY P TP:jc CC: Search Development r 0 �!!!,�s.'.::•.',:�. : Gv tis' yak"'�'.w'a�:�"=yt`�tv5,}67�`.s:Yf��l'e�S:4114�,as'�2.,4,} ya...s�� ,:+�.�.t'as�+i�:'..:_ : 'y 10134403 Com- AA-ez�.-,-lr -[>Itl.:.�. -4 � a,. -Wiz, r State of Callfomls Department of t" Youth AulhVity Northw"OkftrliZ Youth CWder 7650 S. NewCUO* Road CA 95205 6127� C4., "OtiAL 04L4-4. REICEOVEr � �/ Dnp NOV 1 1983 g . Food AdMW"IlltOr i 944-63M -w g GBIVEKE r1l Jeep • 1'i AMC ' Renault - " GIVE•A•KEY" October 19, 1963 Jxncr B. Sc':roedcr, Director Co --=-f ty Development Director cit- o_` Lodi 221 West Pine Street Lodi, California 95240 Dear 'Mr. Schroeder: Thank you for tall -ling pottr valuable time to digcv5s the development of the Noma Ranch Subdivision. I wo-ild like to go on record that the Noma Ranch Subdivision he so constructed that we nay also develop our parcel (see attPched circled in red). T`:;s request is made so that our parcel not be land loc'-_ed !�v the above mentioned development. Sipe• -mel} / DAR`.'- E' President DG: pt. Enclosure 1 t Leasing • Sales • Service • Lodi 2091369-4725 • Stockton 209614668571 • 1045 S. Cherokee Lane • Lodi, CA 95240 Geaeke Ford Enclosure NOMA RANCH LAND USE MAP iu'�ii: i111�11' kf ,m a l� CITY COUNCIL HENRY A. CLAVES. Jr. %� City Manager EVEIYN M. OLSON, Mayor CITY, r�p,>f` T O D I ALICE M. REIMCHE JOHN R. (Randy) SNIDE R L L1 C i1Y r rU?V City Clerk Maya Pro Tempore CITY HALL. 22f1 WEST PINE STREET ROBERT W PNKERTON. Jr Lt i'tAl 1 0 A X7l RONALD M STEIN City AttorMY FRED.%4 RE ID 56 ALICY 3 ,Elf -M E CITY CLERK C: T ` December 14, 1983 Mr. Terry Piazza c/o Baumbapkand Piazza Consult g Engineers 323 West Elm Street Lod(, CA 95240 Dear Terry: RE: NOMA RANCH REZONING AND FINAL EIR At its meeting of Monday, December 12, 1983 the Lodi City Planning Commission denied your request on behalf of Tom M. Noma to rezone a 20t acre parcel on the north side of Almond Drive, 1/4 mile west of Cherokee Lane (4131 E. Almond Drive) from R-2, Single -Family Residential to P -D (26), Planned Development District No. 26. In a related matter the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify, as adequate, the Final Environmental Impact Report of the Noma Ranch project. Our office was in receipt of your letter of December 13, 1983, appealing the Planning Commission's denial of the rezoning request. It has been forwarded to Alice M. Reimche, City Clerk, so that the City Council may set the matt --r for public hearing. Sincerely, S B. SCHROEDER unity Development Director cc: Tom M. Noma D.D. Geiger, Attorney at Law Vic Meyer Search Development City Clerk.' Don Morita NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LODI TO CONSIDER THE PLANNING MLMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION THAT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR NOMA RANCH, a 20+ ACRE FESTDENTIAL PROTECT PROPOSED FOR THE NORTH SIDE OF ALMOND DRIVE, LODI, 1/4 MILE WEST OF CHEROKEE LANE (4131 E. ALMOND DRIVE, LODI)BE CERTIFIED AS ADEQUATE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, January 4, 1984, at the hour of 8:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the Lodi City Council will conduct a public hearing in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California, to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation Lhat the Final Environmental Report for Noma Ranch, a 20+ acre residential project proposed for the north side of Almond Drive, Lodi, 1/4 mile west of Cherokee Lane (4131 E. Almond Drive, Lodi ) be certified as adequate. Information regarding this item may be obtained in the office of the Community Development Director at 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California. All interested persons are invited to present their views either for or against the above proposal. Written statements may be filed with the City Clerk at any time prior to the hearing scheduled herein and oral statements may be made at said hearing. Dated: December 21, 1983 By Order of the Lodi City Council Alice M. Reimche City Clerk If HCf C"C 28 AN a 3 . . .� .��...;...,:. S�� �_� M �.. '. = Y 4 �.-`�� t�,•�'`i�•'�i''�tr�i.rn�. . r!� Y ._ ... .. :; v'�a4 '�`i �ti� - a � � J 4 M A U U L �. SMA � w• C�'NCIL COniAtUNICATI010 TO: THE CITY COUNCK FROM: THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE (Ronald Stein) SUBJECT: Findings DATE December 28, 1983 7A In certifying an Environmental Impact Report (E.I.P..) as adaquate, and then in approving the project for which the environmental report was prepared, the City Council must make certain findings. Findings are legally relevant subconclusions which expose the agency's motive analysis facts, regr?ations, and policies, and bridge the analytical gap between raw data and ult.imaLe decision (Topan a Associ- ation for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974] 11 Cal-. 3d In othezwords, findings are the legal Footprints local administrators and officials leave to explain how they progressed from the facts through established policies to the decision. Findings should: (1) Provide a framework for making principle decisions (2) Dihance the int_ertri ty of the act inistra t i ve process (3) fleln make analysis orderly and reduce the likelihood that the agency will randomly leap from evidence to conclusion (4) Enable the parties to determine whether and on what basis they should seek judicial review and remedies (5) Appraise the reviewing quarter of the basis for the agency's action `+ormally, findings are not re -ruined where there is a leclislative or cn-uzs;i leci.- slative act of the City Council, such as.- a rezoning, or a gereral plan amendment. however, the California F7nvironmental Ouality Act recrui.res specific f.irxli.*'rgs where there are environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated to less than a sicmif- icant level (Public Resource Code Section 21081 and t-Tuidelines Sections 15091 and 15092) . Specifically, the City w}x.re there has been a shmincr in ti,e E.I.R. of environ- mental irpacts may not approve or carni out the project unless the City requires changes or alterations which w.11 lessen the significant impacts mentioned in t}xy F.I.R. or show t] -at there are specific economic social or other considerations makina infeasible the mitigation measures. ',he City is required to state in %-.,riting the sr7ecific reasons to support its actions based on the final E.I.R. and or other information in the record. In a review of the decision approving the rnroject before a court (CCP Section 1094.5), the court will look to see whether the findings support the decision and whether the evidence support the findings. Because of the coarplexity in bridging the analytical qap from evidence to findings, it is permissible for the staff to prepare findings (P1d4illan v. Ame-rican (leneral Finance Carman 119761 60 Cal. App. 3d 175, 184) . Suggest -e -J f i Ings can help dec ssii on' n makers identify the appro- priate information. policies and reo-alations governing the proposed project and Page 1 of 2 SUBJE)Cr: Findings guide then in making the necessary findings. Of course, before adopting and staff prepared finding, the decision maker must objectively review and where necessary revise then to make sure they adequately reflect the evidence in the record and their own conclusions. Further, it is possible where there is very late evening meeting for the Council to take tentative action and then to direct the staff to draft a written state- ment of the supporting reasons as reflecting the evidence and deliberative dis- cussion. The staff draft can then be reviewed for adoption as the agency's findings at a later meeting. Ms: j Ronald M. Stein City Attorney Paqe 2 of 2 i► NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LODI,TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF MR. TERRY PIAZZA, c/o BAUMBACH AND PIAZZA, 323 WEST ELM STREET, LODI,ON BEHALF OF MR. TOM M. NOMA OF THE LOuI CITY PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL TO REZONE A 20+ ACRE PARCEL ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ALMOND DRIVE, LODI 1/4 MILE WEST OF CHEROKEE LANE (4131 E. ALMOND DRIVE) FROM R-2, SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO P -D (26), PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 26. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, January 4, 1984, at the hour of 8:00 pm or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the Lodi City Council will conduct a Public Hearing in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 221 W. Pine Street, Lodi, California to consider the appeal of Mr. Terry Piazza, c/o Baumbach and Piazza, 323 West Elm Street, Lodi, on behalf of Mr. Tom M. Noma of the Lodi City Planning Commission's denial to rezone a 20+ acre parcel on the north side of Almond Drive, Lodi, 1/4 mile west of Cherokee Lane (4131 E. Almond Drive) from R-2, Single - Family Residential to P -D (26), Planned Development District No. 26. Information regarding this item may be obtained in the office of the Community Development Director at 221 W. P-ne Street, Lodi, California. All interested persons are invited to present their views either for or against the above proposal. Written statements may be filed with the City Clerk at any time prior to the hearing scheduled herein and oral statements may be made at said hearing. Dated: December 21, 1983 By Order of the Lodi City Council Pi GI.uiT�tAce M. Reim e City Clerk C3C3 C, �OWO O C Ing0IM Ep BAUMBACH & PIAZZA December 13, 1983 Mr. James Schroeder, Director Community Development Department City of Lodi Lodi, California Re: Noma Ranch Dear Mr. Schroeder: My clients wish to appeal last night's decision by the Planning Commission not to rezone the Noma Ranch from the present R-2 zoning to the requested PD zoning. We intend to argue the Commission's decision at the City Council's hearing on January 4, 1984. Sincere, 1-iCRRY PIAllA TP: jc CC: Search Development Co. 323 West Elm Street kodL:C$titaTdia 95240 Pj Ons,QrQ9) 368-6618