Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - April 1, 1981 (39)tu 1 ii The proposed application for the Filers Reorgani- zation and detachment of territory from the Woodbridge Rural Fire Protection District was inf-roduced by Community Development Director Schroeder. Diagrams of the subject area were presented by Mr. Schroeder for the perusal of the Council. A lengthy discussion followed with questions being directed to Staff. The matter died for lack of a motion by the Lodi City Council. T0: City Council FROM. City Kanager DATE: march 30, 1981 SUBJECT: Request for Sewer Service from Highway Development at Highway 12 and 1-5 During January of this year, the Staff had discussions with the developer of the proposed 52 -acre highway oriented commercial development proposed at the south- east corner of Highway 12 and 1-5 as shown on the attached plan. These dis- cussions were all relative to allowing their development to tie into Lodi's sanitary sewer outfall line and asked that the City treat the sewage from this County development. We, the Staff, made it clear to the developer that the Lodi City Code prohibits connections from outside the City limits. Section 20-15 of the Lodi City Code is as follows: Sec. 20-15. Prohibition on connections outside cite• limits. No discharge from facifities outside the limits of the city ;hall he Alowed into the community sewk-r. (Or:l. 1.) The developer asked if the Council could change the City's pos+tion in this matte -r, we indicated Council did have the authority to change the existing sewer ordinance and City Code, The City then received the attached letter dated February 13, 1981, requesting the City Council to allow their development to tie into our sewer facilities. We asked our sanitary sewer consultants, Black & Veatch, to determine what impact this proposal would have on our facilities and specifically the future plant capacity. Black S Veatch's attached letter of February 24, 1981, indicates that based on present flows, this development would use 6-8% of our existing reserve capacity and would displace approximately 260 residential dwelling units. it is important for the Council to remember that at the time our sewer plant expansion grant application was submitted, the City's position was that we would design the plant for more than the allowed 10 -year future capacity. The City of Lodi designed their plant for 15 years of service area growth and used City funds to pay for this additional 5 years of growth potential. In making a decision on this matter, the City Council should be aware that at least three other highway oriented developments in the area have received general plan amendment and are currently being processed through the County. The acceptance of this development would make it difficult to deny other requests. APPROVED HENRY A. GLAVES, City Manager FILE N0. Council Communication March 30, 1981 Page 2 If it is the Council's desire to make the Lodi plant a regional facility, it is requested that Staff be given reasonable time to work up the use conditions. Jack. Ronsko Public Works Director ments JLR/eeh ®m 1. • 1 S ®m } ,7 Lurtsema- Patick Financial Company 5113 NO. PeERS-0ING AVENUE %UtTE IE ® STOCKTON. CA41VORMIA %5$0'➢ a 109/951.7$98 February 13, 1981 Dear Sirs, We are the owners of approximately 52 acres of land in the southeast quadrant of Interstate 5 and Highway 12 in Lodi. Ile are ready to begin a major highway service commei-ial &velopment which should total over X30 million when complet--d. This project should provide significant tax revenue, and many do'iars of income for the local economy. We are projecting over 500 new jobs to be added to local employment with this development. Our present problem is that we have run into a stumbling block in the sewer service. According to the City Nhnager of Lodi, their is no way we can presently tie into your plant. However, the City Manager and City Attorney, did state that if the council so decided, this could be changed. We are proposing a plan which over a 10 year term through the use of an assessment on our project, would provide additional dollars to expand your plant. We are more than willing to pay our own way on this project, but do seek your assistance. We would appreciate an appearance in front of the council to explain our plans in detail. Withy -warm regards. &Core),, -ick, Executive Mice President 17 1 BLACK & V E A T C H CONSULTING ENGINEERS City of Lodi City Hall 221 Vilest Fine Street Lodi, California 95200 Attn: Mr. Jack L. Ronsko Gentlemen: 7'EL (4151 944.5770 9470 PVSKIRK AWNUE P.O. BOX 4247 WALNUT C""K. CA 94596 February 24, 1981 File 9010.003 Re: Review of Development Proposal Thornton Road & liighway 12 As per your request, we have reviewed the subject development plan. Our review Is based upon the information shown on the architectural plan which Is subject to considerable interpretation. Therefore, while the data presented w in this letter will give the City a basis for evaluating the request for sewer services, more detailed analysis at a future date is recommended before a final agreement is reached regarding flow and costs. Our review comments are as follows: 1. Estimated Discharge. Average Daily Flow 74,000 gpd Maximum Daily Flow 146,000 gpd 'Peak Ynst. Flow 300,000 gpd 2. Impact on Existing Capacity: Based upon current flows at White Slough, which are lower than historical record because of the drought, this development repre- sents 6-8 percent of the existing reserve capacity and would displace 264 two-bedroom dwelling units (Sewer Service Units) Should flow characteristics return to pre -drought conditions, the development would represent 25--30 percent of existing reserve capacity. About half of the flow will be domestic in nature (i.e.; hotel, motel, restaurants, etc.) with the balance being wastewater of various types. Overall, the strength characteristics of the wastestream should be similar to the existing wasteflow to the plant. RE CTIVED FEB B 2 6 1981 rIT "CHY OF BLACK & v E A i "�4 City of 1-4 Attn. Mr. Jack L. Ronsko 3. Estimated Cost of Expansion: February 24, 1981 Page 2 The smallest reasonable expansion at White Slough Is from 5.8 to 7.0 mgd at an estimated project cost of 2.5 million dollars. The proposed development share would be $160,000. Assuming that the development is able to contract with a local farm for effluent disposal at no cost, construction of on site treatment would cost about $1,150,000. The cost of conveyance facilities to White Slough in lieu of on site treatment would cost about $420,000. Thus, the development realizes a capital cost savings of $130,000, not including the value of the 7.8 acre treatment plant site which could be developed and the administrative costs of obtaining a discharge permit, If wastewater is conveyed to White Slough. Based upon the apparent capital costs involved, a negotiated connection fee between $160,000 and $730,000 would benefit the developer and protect the City. 4. Other Considerations: The overall impact of this development upon the White Slough treat-, went facility is minimal from a technical sense. Political considera tions are the significant factors. The following items came to mind during the analysis which should be considered in the decision process: a. A decision early In the planning of the highway development regarding whother or not to allow discharge at Whitn. Slough would reduce the potential of future technical problems. The City should Insist upon adequate collection facilities to limit Inflltration and maintenance problems. Also, the City must be assured that an Industrial discharge with an Incompatible waste Is not allowed into the development without pretreatment requirements, b. Should the City decide to accept wastes from the development, but not annex the area, then the installation of a permanent flow monitoring station is desirable for billing purposes. An additional service charge would be necessary for users In this area to offset costs paid by residents of the City through general taxes. c. Collective or individual pretreatment at the development for oil and grease due to the large number of restaurants and service stations should be considered. 2 BLACK &VEA City of Lodi Attn: Mr, ,lack Lo Ronsko February 24, 1981 Page 3 Supporting calculations are attached for your information. Should you have any questions, please call at your convenience. Very truly yours, BLACK & VEATCH ack eo� David A. Requa ®ARI.IRT,sg Enclosure 3 • t r? � +rb oa�Q� sA � � 3 $ F W r t � � - T sx �'^ iS4,.F � �; �'�sl �.�`.+s.,ti xr�gry�� ,{.•,33 . F. s a� -,� �• , � -rte . r'- >, � �y ,� �r ,�_< � Jr ♦t+�yfY atr �> >'Y"r ::� ., :� Y i. ,... �-: � . : ..y..., ..c.! -.. � .,.y. ..;i � i •T a..e:(S.R +`�, Kd%"�Lr� ,-..�a<:- ..:;Fe��'.�'i-�! .. � �e'�: �� ;�`' >F t ,3USTIi,6� ;�3 � `? .. � as'�€z.:-Y{9Y>•.'1F`n'v-®�nt��1d7.vo: nom; t°$»eeaeom: ,+e�' ie n `i�� rpp ogopp�/y $�yqg Commission �p gyp+ �p p�qp �g gp �goe�pp .. � rL M� OnCT:_m o Y6Wtion: ssion 07100 ai$ Joaquin bS6J18616.� :orb Da�os�,g« Tia�sfielda;;�x��u�ive0ffloor '� C:�srtl�oueae 153 ` veirie ®23��12 ae49 Si"ton,:Calif®rrii 95202. 7 tiusdo.oignesla os behalf'; of they, prapanents of the subject proposals hereby give notice �� inte•ntion tAz incorporate a cltyk. 13 disincorporatn a city a fossa a ® dissolves a district. atu x territory tn'an 'aagenty detach territory fro an agency c,.t�solidte �xiatia�g agettciee further deiiLbarailons'.by the. Co ssion, w submit the follovingo ° lm Threw {3) copies of this empleted "Justification of Proposal" 2. cop lea of legal. maters and bounds description of affected territory tot�eisxeat ®rlth standards acceptable to the County Surveyor's Office 3, l�, fteeen {15)F copies ,o maps showing affected territory and affected agencies {yea to ba sus Waller,: than 811 x ll11 which is the most preferable size and shell bis no °larrger than .1811 x 261ee 4® proce®sirs fens in accordance with LAMO fee schedule The follorring_pereons..Lrnot'Co exceed three) are: tb be wiled copies of .the 'Exve acmti Qkfieoxe .$sport ar�d notice ,of:, commission hearings regarding the subje t p roposal.. 'ALICEitlIMC IfE�';C1sy Clerk, 221 W. Pine Street® Lodi, CA 95240 r naris address HENRY Go'. EI1LER5; :1665"7-`E: MI i tare Road, Linden, CA 95236 a y> / 5T V � K 3 1 3. z- rr EILERS REORGANIZATION A:portIon of the Southeast Quarter of Section 34. Township 41. North Range 6 East, Mount Diablo Base and.herldian, being described a 161 l ows : Beginning atpo int in the fest Sine of said Quarter, said point lying,-*rth 1 9' 00" WestB 27.81 feet from the. Southwest ior°ner`af said Quar•Ler; thence North 1 0 9° Oq'6 Wast, .Tong said. West ,1•ine 1295.$ feet, thence Horth 89:: 43' `00" !Mast, 660.92 feet to'a'point ire the East line of LILAC,STREET,;saTd 061nt a1so being the. Southwest corner of ACADEMY BLOCK as shown` on` map of ;THOMAS ADDBTION TO ,THE TOWN OF WOODBRIDGE filed for;recard Jona x7® 1878® Sari.,JoaquLntounty Records; thence; NO.rtheriy along said East line of•' L1 LAC STREET, and , the West line' of ' Sa d ACADEMY BLOCK to the Northwest corner of, said ACADEMY-$LOCKs;sa1d.po1nt also being in tt�c- South ­ line ine of ACADEMY: STREET-' thence Easterly® along the North line„of said ACADEMY BLOCK and`the South line of said ACADEMY STREET to a point in the Westerly right' of, way;.l ine of,. the SOUTHERN'PACIFiC RAILROAD COMPANY; thence Scutheasterly;.'along said Westeriy right of way line to a paint Tse the West 11 %m .ref 101WER SACRAMENTO ROAD, thence Southerly; along `sa.id,.lest line 'to a- point, in the forth 1ir�e of the:'SoutT; ;nne„lzalf::of ;.said Sod.theast Qnarterof Section.' 34 ;; said point. also he Piorthwest, corner of.NORTH`GENERAL MILLS `ADDITION as anneXed to;the'CTxy�'of Lodi, .lune 5,` 1967, by Ordinance A400 836; thence ,South;. 7° 1Z.°.Oq” West, along:.the existing City timits line,:.and along;said West -line of LOWER SACRAMENTO.. ROAD.® 13.12.05 feet to a po1n` Tw.the .North line of WEST., TURNER ROAD; ADDITION as annexed>, to, .the ; Cg ty ,of . tod i August 15® 1975, by Resolution No:. 410q` said paint, also being .1n the North.line of TURNER ROAD; tMnce.West, al©ng'the existing City Limits -line -,-and along said Horth line OUTURNER ROAD, 1204028 feet.td the point of beginning. Containing 46.34 acres, more or less. � Vt T ,y � a ressp. . City: LOO I Rhone, c6unty® SAN JOAQU I N 13§'5634 9 Environ6antal Assessment �. ,INITIAL STUDY ® PROJECT TITLE EiLERS REORGANIZATION 2@ LOCATION' North of Turner Road between Lower- Sacramento Rd S Lilac 'Street . PROJECT DESCRIPTIOii The applicant: -Henry £iler°s has re nested annexatlon' of a .fib &cre parcel :"to�'the 'Cityof Lodi-. The annexation alsoAncludes tie' } .. 5choal o Woodbrid a Se�Tor° £lementa ry l'h ' rea1rrgpLn1 Ton__-rioul d a! re wire ...withdrawal from the Woodb id e' Fl re -District and the db T e l 'Witricto _ �r . ierai Flan .designation (A) Existing (city), (i3) proposed (A Lova Density ,. Residenmtial (lila emits/aer•e) s Public° B No Chan :5• Site descrlption and surrounding.land use Thepr rty contAins a -_ com rci6l ...M. •'> tuit-star&d ons?the southern,portion and aw school on the n®rtherf rtion. ,PrOOrty'' IS'.surrounded lay residential, commercial' '&.agricultural uses,' r' 6. orair�g {A):Existing, (B) $ raposed (A) GA l,- San Joaquin County�[d U -H, v _. .�� _ UnclasTfied Holdin &Public. #ll 'they Prb �:tt'ilava a Si nlficar�t�'Effect ; -Through t fo awn 1 acts "-'Yes `No. l4 yb ]m am `'Substantial alteration ofnatural topagraphy, soil - or subsoilfea>:ieres•er•res•`r•om•.•m •o srf..•m ••o oo'•••orm - a X. Y b. 'Substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.. .c® Substantially'deple:te'surface'or:groundwater . ,,�.. -resoearces••®•eomo•mae•.•,•omr••.•o•o•moeo•. oerm•mm•o.mo ° - d. Subs.tantlaliy interfere with groundwater flew ®r'rec?�argem..•••.••rr..............•r®..m.••®®mlamm•®• X a. Cense asignificant affect related to flood, erosion ' r:- siltation .sro•rmo•••em Demo. wAm..mo. sro row••r•r.. mm. X - f• interference with the habitat of any .Substantial species of fish, wildlife or plant ............ m....... X g.; 1lialate ambient air quality standards or create 4ubstantial air emissions or objectionable odors...... _X h• SiabstantTally increase ambient Noise or glare tl ,;level for adjoining areas ............................. /X n . ' it Substantial reduction of existing cropland.....ee••.e.m � gyp it A rExpose Individuals or property to geologic, Public health, traffic, flood, seismic: or other hazards ...... X c` mUP ' € Yes NoMaybe a substantial, demonstrable, negative aesthetic f �ff�ctw lm' Result In the disruption or alteration of an .archeological, historical.or pal,eon€ologlcal site.... x as Cause 'or allow substantial Increase in consumption in anynatural reoureesao`« ®aweae®a.mm`ed:va:da,mo.w�w x n® Results `In the use or Wash of substantia] ass�tnts of - - X fuel.or ener-gyaa.awmaa'��® ®aa.®®ama.amaaaa'ama®.masa oo ldecessi,tatemajor; eactenslons of rater, sewer, storm. { X ;drairr,':electrical' lines orr public roads..aoaam:...aoa iJ .... - pa Substantially Increase nd for or roti 1 izatton 'of r' publ is .servvices such 'as schools or° :fire orpo] ice' pro#ectionaa mammaoawaom®mwamm maam®a oaaamammamammmo aaa qa Substahtlally change patterns. related .Y to ex� 'traffic 1isti d �.-.a street eapacitY� harking �•X S..J ' evallability or tr�'ffic safatyaa®Va.meeaas"®'ease:..:.. ' , .ij34 "r ' - r°a'' Induce substaritIaI gr the cer�tr•atlorr or displace ; h> �errt ®f;'poptilation«:masa®..m. a®ma®m.amw'sa oaam®®aab ; w X J 3 k f ReiuIt , Inan .]fetation or. canfl Pct Fri th �aeisting �r and -uses. me+mrm-ommnesammams oaoaaaam0-:0.0, t®, Conflict with adopted plans, goals or• policies of X the City of 1.odl.mma.....Aaaommwo�m;em:�bm..da-aam.. �ldver,se pacts of pro,iect and their `magnitudHone.:,:: The school will be Cit :.. , -providedy police end fire pratectlon but this will°not'substantiall effect the Poi ice or Fire Departments.'AnncRetian'ev11.1 not affect the functioning of: the schools 4 Mitigation Pleasures to Reduce Adverse Impacts Identified by Initial Study: .RECOMMENDATION.J _ * i ative Declaration EIR Conditional Negative Declaratioq , a ES B.' CHROEDER En I StiAEn to l V i e*W f 1 c J ;a 71 .- April 8''.1981 Itlerss =.y77. �1`ht t letter will serve aa- fgrmaV, notification; that >. e d Citi Council _�t its "'A 'Al lar �aeetin ®t p3 % 1, 19�A declined to talo' "action : on dour pplication for . rl�orgair�3zation and detacYnent froua the Woorbriclge dire £ 4 V strict a �. should �..u�h�v�an� quest3ona xegadaag tis ac3on�