The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Report - July 1, 1987 (97)FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Century Meadows Prepared for: CITY OF LODI Prepared by: JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES July 1887 5 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CENTUPv MEADOWS September 1987 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ::Dw to Use This Report SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Location Project Characteristics General Plan and Zoning Approval Process COMMENTS AND RESPONSES City of Lodi - Department of Public Works City of Lodi - Department of Parks and Recreation City of Lodi - Police Department State Office of Planning and Research State Department of Conservation State Department of Transportation State Department of Food and Agriculture Page 1 i 3 9 9 9 9 9 15 22 24 26 28 32 34 i {. v Y t, i` LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table Page I Summary of Environmental Impacts (DEIR) 4 2 Annual Annexation to Lodi Since 1970 (new) 30 3 Election Results Under Measure A (newt 30 Figure 1 2 3 Page Area Map (DEIR) 10 Century Meadows Project Location (DEIR) Century Meadows Proposed Site Plan (DEIR) 12 Introduction This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared for the City of Lodi (City) in accordance with City requirements and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and State CEQA Guidelines (14 California i.dministrative Code Section 15000 et seq.). The document includes the comment letters received during the required public review period, which began on July 27, 1987 and ended on August 28, 1987. During this time the Dr; --ft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was reviewed by various state and local agencies. Written comments were received from the following agencies: City of Lodi/Department of Public Works and Departme-t of Parks and Recreation, California State Office of Planning and Research, California Department of Conservation, and the California Department of Transportation. The DEIR, of which tris FEIR is a part, identified the potential environmental effects of a proposed residential devel- opment, known as the Century Meadows project, on a 160 -acre parcel adjacent to so.thwest nodi. The proposed project in- cludes the development of 806 s:ngle-family homes and a 2.4 -acre church site with attendant streets and public services. The project site is located outside of the City limits, in an area covered by the Measure A election process, which re- quires annexation, a General Plan Amendment, rezoning, and specific development approval. This EIR is being prepared as part of the voter -mandated Measure A review process. How to Use This Resort This report is divided into four sections: "Summary of Environmental Impacts."; "Project Description"; "Comments and Re- sponses"; and "Appendices." Each of these sections has its own purpose and serves to aid the reader in fully understanding the project and its implications. A brief description of each section follows. The "Summary of Environmental Impacts" section lists all of the potential impacts of the project and presents any mitiga- tions that would reduce or eliminate project impacts. This section is taken directly from the DEIR. This section is in- cluded to facilitate understanding of the comments and re- sponses. Each mitigation measure is numbered to correspond with the Summary Table (Table 1). The level of significance of each impact with and without mitigation is identified. `Phis section is an overview intended for use during discussion of the project and does not include any discussion of the identified impacts. _.. 1 ..A ;sc O' t .c_ _SF'cary only, wlthc` t reading the su;Dportiiig text, ce,-id lead to an incomplete understanding of the project. The "Project Description" section presents a full descrip- tion of the project, including its location, the project compo- nen-,'-s, the project objectives and phasing, and any other rel-.- vant information. This section is included verbatim from the DEIR and is provided to aid the reader in understanding the project as well as the comments and responses. The "Comments and Responses" section includes each letter received during the public review period. The letters are reproduced in the section, with the response to each 'Letter immPdiately following. There are five tables located in this sec'cion. Two of these tables are revised from the DEIR (Revised Toles 14, 15), one is included with no revisions (Table 1), and two include new information ZTables 2, 3). 2 Summary of Environmental Impacts Summary of Environme: sial Impacts The following list (Table 1) itemizes all significant and less -than -significant impacts that were identified during the course of this environmental analysis. The mitigated impact implies that all mitigation measures should be followed, unless otherwise indicated in this Summary. Adverse impacts that are unavoidable, and which cannot be mitigated to a less -than -sig- nificant level are noted. The Initial Study prepared on the project has detailed all areas of investigation. All effects deemed potentially significant have been evaluated in this r` report. P This Summary should be lased in conjunction with a thorough reading of the entire Draft EIR report. The Summary is intended r as an overview; the report serves as the basis for this Summary. Table 1. Summary of 1-hvironmental Impacts Mitigation Measure Impacts No. in Text Mitigation Measures Geology and So -Lis Location of project in area of 2 Implement Unifom Building potential seismic activity Codes (UBC) requirements when designing structures. Conversionof agricultural soils 1 None available if project is approved. Hydrology Generation of increased stomwater 3 Design storm drain facili- runof f ties in accordance with requirements of Lodi Public Works Department. Plants and Wildlife Potentialloss of mature oak trees 4 Encourage retention Of Ma- ture oaks in an open -space buffer, park, or drainage basin area if feasible. 5 Consider implementing tree .'13J.rance or P'rotectio� lor restrictions to encour'%ge long-term maintenance of mature or., speciren oakson private prqxarty. Traffic Generation of increased traffic 6 Signalize intersection of V011wrk-s Lower Sacra mento Rad and Kettlecon Lane, Lower Sacramento Ptoad and Harney Lane, and Kettleman Lam and Mills Avenue. 4 _=x Table 1. Con ii sued Mitigation Measure -I I Impacts No. in Text Mitigation Measures j Traffic (Continueca) 7 Minimize number of collector streets that intersect major 1 arterials. 8 i Limit the use of parallel through -streets. (Use Chills; Avenue as only throuch-� street.) Contribution to cunulati-,e 9 Signalize intersection of traffic growth Kettleman Lane and Mills Avenue. Noise Tei rarr increase of construction- 10 Restrict construction to related noise non -nal daytime periods. 11 Provide proper equipment maintenance, Generation of increases traffic- 12 Use state noise relatee r;oi3e levels insulation standards. 13 Orient buildings to minimize window exposure to roadway traffic. Air Quality Localized increase of carbon 14 Pione required. monoocide levels Generation of construction dust 15 Use standarl construction - dust red ion practices. Consistency with regional air 16 None required. quality plan Incremental contribution to 17 Alone required. regional air quality program 5 Mitigation. Measure - - - Impacts No. in Text Miti.aatior, Measures i t I Land Use I Reduction of agricultural 18 None required. revenues f Inecmpatibility of project with 19 Create 20 -foot b'sffer area adjacent agricultural uses between project aid adjacert i j agricultural uses_ f i 20 Provide a 6--1-oot, �::i;ain-link fence to separate residentia parcels fran drainage basin. Conversion of prim agricultural 21 lb feasible mitigation soils to urban uses measure exists if project is i implemented. (-ancellation of Willison Act 22 None required. j Contract Water Increase in danestic water 23 Done required. cons tion Effect on groundwater table 24 None required. I Sanitary Sewer Development of project in an area 25 Restrict develognent until of insufficient sewerage treat- sufficient treatment ment capacities capacity has been developed. (est. 1989). Generation of increased storm 26 Install trunkline parallel water runoff to and south of Century. Boulevard. Police and Fire Development of project could 27 Provid-- additional fire and necessitate provision of police personnel and equip - additional fire and police hent as required. protection 6 Table 1. Continued Mitigation. Measure I ��cts No. in Text Mitigation Measures ` - j Schools Generatior. of 806 school-age 28 Collect school;nitigrtion children tees as specified by state Resources Code. I ff I I Generation of increased 29 None required. solid waste B Parks park of Development of protect wcuid 3� Provide neighborhoodn the establish a need for pari 2-3 or 5-6 acres within acreage within the project site project site, depending on development of G --Basin. Project Description Project Description Proiect Location The Century Meadows parcels are located in southwestern Lodi, adjacent to the City limits (Figure 1). The project sire is bordered by Harney Lane on the south, the Woodbridge Irriga- tion District (WID) on the east, the G -Basin and agricultural uses and Lower Sacramento Road on the west, and Century Boule- vard on the north (see Figure 2). The site comprises assessor parcel numbers 058-210-1, 058-210-2, 058-210-3, 058-210-4, 058-210-9, and 058-230-2. As the Century Meadows property is not _located within the City limits of Lodi, annexation to the City would be required to have City services made available. Project Characteristics The project would result in the development of 806 single- family homes on 160 acres (5.0 dwelling units per acre). The site plan includes a loop street system with eight cul-de-sacs and three primary project entrances off of Century Boulevard and two entrances off Harney Lane (see Figure 3). The project also includes a 2.4 -acre church site. A 4 -acre portion of the proj- ect site is separately owned and not currently a part of the proposed project. Construction of the project would include the installation of necessary public service infrastructure such as sewer lines, water mains, and other utilities. Stormwater from the site would be piped to a proposed storage basin located directly west of the project. Sewage from the project would flow by gravity to the White Slough Water Pollution Control Treatment Facility + located southwest of the City. General Plan and Zoning The subject parcel is not located within the Lodi City limits and, therefore, has San Joaquin County General Plan and zoning designations. The project site has a General Plan desig- nation of "Agriculture" and "Low Density Residential" and a zoning designation of "General Agriculture - 40 -acre minimum parcel size." Approval Process As the subject parcel is located outside of the Lodi City limits, it would require annexation prior to development with 9 0 A.s. Los Angeles ' FIGURE 1. AREA MAP Uza , �, " � -- , ..'%- 0 12 z LU Cf) 0 UJI CO 0 0- 0 CC a- 0 LU Q D Z ui Cy W cc CD LL FIGURE 8. SURROUNDING LAND USES LEGEND R - RESIDENTIAL A a AGRICULTURAL MF - MULTf--FAMILY I - INDUSTRIAL C =COMMERCIAL ... .... .. .. �..� .�.....-.. .e. �.�.,., • s �. �"'"KSF�I�TMK> K... ?3' .: �.5'S^n,'$�,'¢�44+mqp+ �n ...R.z: '. , � .. r .. , i-. ,'l' =;R4 .. i `T.+. Cit,,, services. The property is therefore subject to the re- quirements of Lodi`s Measure A Growth Initiative. Measure A requires that annexation of properties to the City for development purposes must be approved by a vote of the electorate. The annexation would also require City Council and Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) approvals (see "Land Use" section for further discussion). 14 Comments and Responses r CITY COUNCIL Ike to know JWa no e s re TNO&4AS A "It RSON CF M-11" tvttvN M OLSON. m"w CITY OF L O D I AtiCi M REwCNI IONN R (Re"N SNIDER Page 25 {A-91, Kettlen Une P MiiTs Avvw « Our observations ma C", CMA Kn,w M Teeep— CITY NAIL, 221 WEST "d STRII T DAVID M NINCNMAN CALL SOX Im RONAIo M SM. JAMES W PINKERTON. 1, tODI, CALIF0E NIA 9$241.1910 Cm Mram FRED M ROD 1209) 114•5E,34 Un 2. Page 7E Pros�ect Characteristics - Revise infrastructure statentx ' TI IIC0n1e 110" 111../9. to agree t6meatemen�lic Services section. August 18, 1937 3. Community Development Department City of Lodi Call Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241-1910 SUBJECT: Century Meadows DEIR The City of Lodi Public Works Department has the following comments on sults Ike to know JWa no e s re the Century Meadows Draft Environmental Impact Report: that were actually counted. 1. Pa 7- The total size of the G -Basin Mill not be determined Page 25 {A-91, Kettlen Une P MiiTs Avvw « Our observations ma -9e uetiT the park plans are developed and approved. A 9 -hole golf 1 course concept is now being reviewed which would require in Page 25 A-10), lower Sacraahentome Road 0 Marney Lane - we would not ! / approximate addition of 18 acres. providing a total area of 45 acres. state ta{gnaiwarrants are w out avieg actual traffic t s N counts. According to San Joaquin County, signals are not warranted Un 2. Page 7E Pros�ect Characteristics - Revise infrastructure statentx ' at this time. to agree t6meatemen�lic Services section. Pw 29 - Table references at the bottom aro incorrect. 3. !at 23 A-5 Kettleaan lane Lower Sacramento Road - A traffic I Page 31 - Second paragraph (A-14 - last paregre h .- The statement I Avenue s 9na or s ntersee on s nvia design stage. The project is is ma a aEhE'tilapaci-T1Ce es>anLane/Mills being done under an agreement between San Joaquin County and would be very small", without the ,Century Boulevard extension, the Caltrans. use ort s ani ys s - sT t tnesame as the Hsi in Table 12, I 4. Pa a 25 1-9 Tuurrn_ingmovement Counts - We urhderstand-that use of Page 72? It would appear not, based on examination of Figure A, e ea�e1 or turning movements Is questionable. we would Page A-24. The mitigation measure 9 is included in 6. Is this what ' h .1.d It c red to the intersections was intended? The development should pay for a portion of these and ompa Ike to know JWa no e s re that were actually counted. 5.• Page 25 {A-91, Kettlen Une P MiiTs Avvw « Our observations ma ntersection s no operate as poorly as indicated, are�tTtat ttFis i 6. Page 25 A-10), lower Sacraahentome Road 0 Marney Lane - we would not ! / 9. state ta{gnaiwarrants are w out avieg actual traffic t s �� counts. According to San Joaquin County, signals are not warranted at this time. 7. Pw 29 - Table references at the bottom aro incorrect. / B. Page 31 - Second paragraph (A-14 - last paregre h .- The statement I Avenue is ma a aEhE'tilapaci-T1Ce es>anLane/Mills 10. would be very small", without the ,Century Boulevard extension, the i use ort s ani ys s - sT t tnesame as the Hsi in Table 12, I / 5 C Page 72? It would appear not, based on examination of Figure A, I Page A-24. The mitigation measure 9 is included in 6. Is this what was intended? The development should pay for a portion of these and Community Development Department August 18, 1987 Page 2 heavy', northern traffic will use Mills Avenue and Ham Lane, Since Lower', Sacramento Road is a major north -south route, it would seem the extension would relieve traffic on Mills Avenue. This Is the type of question which the traffic model should be used to help answer, 9. ti anon Measures - These appear to combine those in I Pale J-1' �� -Mi the Append so, no Rention is made of Century woulevardlHam Lane,' Measures 7 and 8 will require a major redesign of the development. They are, hnwever, important and should be done. / Recommendations for realignment will be made to the Planning I Commission. 10. Pane -16}, Cumulative Conditions - it is not clear what was use ort s ani ys s - sT t tnesame as the Hsi in Table 12, I / Page 72? It would appear not, based on examination of Figure A, Page A-24. The mitigation measure 9 is included in 6. Is this what was intended? The development should pay for a portion of these and other traffic Improvements. 11, The MINVO traffic model's calibration to existing Conditions and results for future land uses has not been completely reviewed by Citylstaef. Because of this and the problem mentioned in Comment $3, we are reluctant to make comments on the accuracy of the traffic analysis. We are confident however that the planned lane configurations for the streets involved aro adequate. 12. The project was analyzed as a whole, however, it may be approved as / Separate projects, The design would result in many half streets which create many problems in a residential area. Also, the / it disposition of the four -acre parcel "not included" should be determined as it may affect the Street layout. 13. des 59 6 60 Water Wells - The addition of two wells and overs ze nes w cost the City over $500,000. Some means to mitigate this impact should be developed. 14. Parma �60 _Sew -e System - The collector mentioned will be north_ o lane, G -Basin to the trunT line aid rney pwnped at the south end of in lower Sacramento Road. 15, Pages 60 6 76 Wastewater Treatment Plant Ca acit The City's p ant s currents t y at capac y. a pant s now processing up to 6.1 million gallons per day. First phase capacity of 6.8 million gallons per day is not indicated. The City's present schedule is to have the first phase completed by the winter of 1989. There are many variables in this scheduling. it is v^ry possil a that a connection moratorium will be neede; at some time during the next two expansion phases if all the cumulative projects are approved and built. This development may not be able to be served until the first phase is comp'eted, Community Development Department August 18, 1987 Page 3 16. Page 61, Storm Drainage Basin - The basin is west of the project, not east. It needs to be expanded as part of the project. Until the park plan for the G -Basin has been developed, the total size of the basin is unknown. The additional required eight acres is the absolute minimum just to handle the drainage requirements. Presently, a 9 -hole golf course concept is being evaluated. If this concept is approved, the total G -Basin would be approximately 45 acres. In addition, the Beckman Pump Station needs a major expansion. The pump station work is budgeted for 1987/88. Development of master storm drain facilities in this area (G) has been left to the developers. They have been required to install facilities as a credit agdinst drainage fees,_ 17. Page 65, Park Needs - Drainage basin construction does not provide Tor park appurtenances, i.e., trees, barbecues, benches, walkways, recreation facilities, etc. Some means to mitigate this impact should be developed. 18. Page _75 Cumulative Water Consumption - This table reflects all the projects in Table 12. h� on the City system will be less since Table 12 incle,des Woodbridge projects • rich are not served by the City system. 19. Pa�ess 75 & 76 Cumulative Wastewater Generation - It is not clear which ch of the Table 12 projects are included in these figures. Woodbridge developments should not be included as they are served by a separate sanitary district. Present flows are as high as 6.1, not 5.7. 20. Page 78, Additional Park Land - Statements under this paragraph are not consistent w?t�se on Page 65. If lack of park land is significant under the cumulative impacts, then this Department crust question why it's unavoidable. Means to mitigate this park land deficiency should be developed. If you have any questions about our comments, please contact Richard Prima, Chief F4vil Engineer, or me at your convenience. Jack\ L. Ronsko Puul c Works Director JLR/RCP/ma cc: Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 16 /0/ Response to Comments - City of Lodi Comment No. Response Comment noted; no response required. 2 The wastewater would be pumped to the collector line and then flow by gravity to the water pollution control facility. 3 Comment noted; no response required. 4 It is acknowledged that existing traffic counts and the -- MINUTP projected counts are not :n agreement. This may be due to either seasonal vari,tions in traffic flow and/or additional development of land uses, since 1985, which are not reflected in the data base used in prepar- ing the analysis of area traffic volumes. However, in analyzing the impacts of both the Century Meadows proj- ect and cumulative growth, a compz.:ison of existing volumes projected by the model (wi..h cumulative plus project traffic volumes) provides an adequate analytical tool to determine r_ecessary mitigation measures. In evaluating incremental impacts to street sys*ems, MINUTP is an acknowledged tool for identifying appropriate mitigation measures, even in those F.tuations where the MINUTP projections concerning existing volumes do not directly correlate to known or counted volumes. At this point in time, the citywide 1985-86 model is being updated as a portion of the general plan process. Once this updating and recalibration is complete, the 1.4INUTP model should more accurately reflect current traffic data. However, in the meantime the MINUTP does identify ;< appropriate mitigation which will adequately mitigate project -related impacts. :4 5 The analysis used the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual/ IF Unsignalized Intersection Traffic Capacity method. The LOS indicated is for the most congested -at -the inter- section (i.e., left from Mills onto Kettleman). All other movements are at a higher LOS. y, 6 Since 24-hour ccunts are not available for the inter- section and San Joaquin County indicates that warrants are not met, the FIR consultant recommends that a pro- gram for monitoring this intersection be initiated. 17 ' 5 The reference to Table 3 in the last paragraph on page 29 should read Table 7. 8 The model was used to analyze the effects of construct- ing the Century Boulevard extension. The evaluation indicated that the extension would not attract a signif- icant proportion of the traffic from Ham Lane and Mills Avenue onto Lower Sacramento Road. 9 Mitigation measure 6 was formatted incorrectly. The measures identified will be required to improve traffic flow in the area with or without the project and are not project specific mitigation. 10 Measures 7 and i would necessitate project redesign. In the absence of design direction from the applicant and the City, it is not possible to prepare a revised site plan for this FEIR. The recommended mitigation measures could be included in the site plan during the review process. However, if the plan revisions are substan- tial, it is possible that supplement-�l environmental review would be required. 11 The cumulative analysis included all of the projects shown in Table 12 (page 74), except for the Woodbridge projects. The traffic model used did not include Woodbridge in the analysis study,.area. The traffic volumes shown on Figure A in the report were complete. Mitigation measure 9 was a duplication of mitigation measure 6 and should not be included. The project should pay its share of the area -wide trans- portation improvements. An assessment district or citywide mitigation fee could be set up to collect fees to pay for area transportation improvements. The fees could be collected based on a per project basis. 12 See comment 4. 13 If the projects are separately approved, then each project should be required to develop all streets to an adequate street section. -- 14 Without direction from the City and the applicant, it is not possible to determine the deposition of the 4 -acre not included" parcel. The ultimate use of this parcel will directly affect, and be affected by, the develop- ment of the rest of the project site. Access to the parcel could be provided/ ensured by stubbing streets at the parcel boundary but designing the development so i8 19 that these streets, if built, would not provide primary access to the site. 15 Currently, the City has no means to collect the $250,000 e - cost of the well and oversize water limes. Some mitiga- tion measures to pay for the new well and lines are as follows: o Form an assessment district in which participants of the district pay the cost. o The City can charge the developer for the cost of the f new well and lines. o Charge on a first-come, first -serve basis with either the first develop, -r paying the installation costs with reimbursement con, ng from subsequent developers on a prorated basis, of the last developer using the ___infra- structure paying the total cost. Consideration of this issue should be made by City Council. 16 Comment noted; no response necessary. 17 Comment notee.; no response necessary. ?8 Comment noted; no response necessary. 19 Currently, the City has no development requirements for drainage basins in regard to park appurtenances. The City could require the developer to prepare a recre- ational master plan for the drainage basin. The City could further require review of this plan by appropriate agencies. 20 Revised estimated cumulative consumption would be 3,080,762 gpd (see revised Table 14). 21 Revised estimated cumulative wastewater generation would be 1,360,510 gpd (see revised Table 15). 22 The difference between the statements is because the J analysis on page 67 refers to the project site only, while that on page 80 refers to cumulative growth in the area. There does not appear to be sufficient vacant land to accommodate the park demands resulting from cumulative growth. Therefore this impact g P appears to be unavoidable, as vacant land cannot be created. The means to mitigate this deficiency will need to be Iden- tified and evaluated by the City as part of both its overall project review and General Plan revision pro- cess. 19 Revised Table 14. Estimated Q=lative Water Consumption Residential Single-family Multi -family Subtotal Industrial Tctal Consumption People/ Population Acres du du Generated Rate Unit gpd -- 3,041c,d 2.68 8,150 320 gpcd 2,607,962 -- 680d 2.00 1,360 320 gpod 435,200 761.3 3,721 — 9,579 320 gpcd 3,043,162 37.6 — - -- 1,000 gpod 37,600 3,080,762 b See page 77 of the Draft EIR for original table. Danenichelli pens. corm. dIncludes Lakeshore Meadows. Includes multi -family and duplex units. e Sian does no* equal total due to rounding. W Revised Table 15. Estimated Wastewater Generation Consurption Land Use Zonea Acres Rate Unit rpd �esidentiai Single-family Single-family/ duplex Multi -family Multi -family industrial Total R-1 183.05 1,200 gpad 219,660 R-2 492.25 1,800 gpad 886,050 R -GA 24.4 4,000 gpad 97,600 R -MD 15.0 6,000 gpad 90,000 M-2 37.6 2,000 gpad 75,200 1,368,510 bCity of Lodi Community Development Departanent 1987. Appelfeller pers. cxn[n. C See page 79 of the Draft EIR for original table. 21 Comments - City of Lodi Depart,nent of Parks and Recreation The following comments were submitted by the City of Lodi - Department of Parks and Recreation: o "Regarding the loss of potential native oaks: The recommendation is to allow for a park. If this is feasible it should be pursued - page 2. Mature oaks are often protected in many communities through a tree ordinance. Extensive evaluation of the life expectancy of the oaks is an important consideration. o "Project requires 5-6 acres of park and is near G -Basan. Perhaps oaks could be included in park area. It would appear that this development should be tied to the golf course development if that option is to be exercised." t C "Agree with Scott to try and add the 5-6 acres to exist- ing G -Basin as "high ground" acreage where tennis w courts -soccer fields -buildings might be built." o "Consider a separate area in this development away from G -Basin. Our finding is you should not put a general park 5-6 acres along side a golf course facility. Locate it away from this area, more in the center of the developed area. I see this facility having a lot of open area tennis courts, basketball court, play area, etc. Incorporating the oak tees would be an excellent idea. o "Scott Essin's suggestion of adopting a park dedication fee should be seriously considered. We're letting some ll developers off the hook in sorge areas because there's d already park land set aside in their tract; it would be fairer for every developer to pay into the fund and parks could be developed out of the fund --wherever needed and however many acres, etc." 1 2-x8 22 Response to Comments - City of Lodi Department of Parks and Recreation 23 An evaluation of existing oak trees by a tree specialist is recommended to identify those trees which have the potential to withstand development. 24 and 25 Please refer to page 21 of the "Mitigation Measures, Plants and Wildlife" chapter. 26 Comment noted; no response necessary. 26 and 27 Following review of the comment letter, it appears that the creation of a separate park facility would be appro- priate. 28 Comment should be considered by Lodi City Council. 23 N .A (a, rfCte d f epj - fre)•... <o o(., PV C.. c,_ Police and Fire EXIStinc Conditions g 1 C The Lodi "rv'au.e Depart,cnt $ is the area withi t e Lodi city limits. T department has sworn officers, patrol officers, and patrol cars. T ere is one centra dispatch L station, and the 'City is divided into seven patrol areas. The average response time for the City is 2.9 minutes. Development of the proposed roject will not adversely affect the service level of the ce de artmen )� as 1.611 Q�1 fits. L 5 o ' 1,!108 'will rat, o i s rna:x tzu.t <d . 9 The City of Lodi 'will provide fire protection to the project area. The Lodi Fire Department provides service within the city limits, an area of approximately 8.5 square miles with a population of 45,794. The Department has 46 firefighters with 42 on line. It has four 1,500 -gallon pumpers, one elevated platform, truck and one equipment truck. The equipment i; distributed among three stations. The station closest to the project site is the main station at West Elm and Church Street. Emefpency response time to the project area is estimated to be 3.5 to 4 minutes which is beyond the Fire Department's recommended 3 -minute driving time. The area is currently under consideration for an additional fire station. Due to the increased response time, the project would have a negative impact on the Department's Class III ISO grading unless another fire station was Added. The City has a site on Lower Sacramento Road jest north of Elm Street. Development of the proposed project will not adversely affect the service level of the Fire Department. Although it would require th-s addition of two firefighters and increase the amount of response calls by 32 per year. of oro ect site will nscessitate provision of The City has a present ra•.io of 1.o7 firefighter per 1,000 people. The development of the Batch project would necessitate the provision one firefighter to maintain this ratio. According to the Fire Department, increased density andpopulation may create the need for a higher number of firefighters per thousand people (Hughes pers. comm.). Mitigation Measures 28) None required. 64 AA�:.•..,� .. Tis' ' Qi.• �/_ .. _ ..t 7.'t .Y ��` ,� •:� .. (a, rfCte d f epj - fre)•... <o o(., PV C.. c,_ Police and Fire EXIStinc Conditions g 1 C The Lodi "rv'au.e Depart,cnt $ is the area withi t e Lodi city limits. T department has sworn officers, patrol officers, and patrol cars. T ere is one centra dispatch L station, and the 'City is divided into seven patrol areas. The average response time for the City is 2.9 minutes. Development of the proposed roject will not adversely affect the service level of the ce de artmen )� as 1.611 Q�1 fits. L 5 o ' 1,!108 'will rat, o i s rna:x tzu.t <d . 9 The City of Lodi 'will provide fire protection to the project area. The Lodi Fire Department provides service within the city limits, an area of approximately 8.5 square miles with a population of 45,794. The Department has 46 firefighters with 42 on line. It has four 1,500 -gallon pumpers, one elevated platform, truck and one equipment truck. The equipment i; distributed among three stations. The station closest to the project site is the main station at West Elm and Church Street. Emefpency response time to the project area is estimated to be 3.5 to 4 minutes which is beyond the Fire Department's recommended 3 -minute driving time. The area is currently under consideration for an additional fire station. Due to the increased response time, the project would have a negative impact on the Department's Class III ISO grading unless another fire station was Added. The City has a site on Lower Sacramento Road jest north of Elm Street. Development of the proposed project will not adversely affect the service level of the Fire Department. Although it would require th-s addition of two firefighters and increase the amount of response calls by 32 per year. of oro ect site will nscessitate provision of The City has a present ra•.io of 1.o7 firefighter per 1,000 people. The development of the Batch project would necessitate the provision one firefighter to maintain this ratio. According to the Fire Department, increased density andpopulation may create the need for a higher number of firefighters per thousand people (Hughes pers. comm.). Mitigation Measures 28) None required. 64 Response to Comments - City of Lodi, Police Department 29 The police department has 61 sworn officers, 45 patrol officers, and 15 patrol cars. The development of the proposed project will not adversely affect the service level of the police department as long as the 1.5 offi- cer to 1,000 population ratio is maintained. 25 •=E C�l Cr. JaNA— KF ICE Of THE GovERNC* GEORGE DIEUKPAEAAN C-1-1 F-FICE v: PLANNING AND RESEARCH CRAIMENTo. CA 9591A August 26, 1987 James Shroeder City of Lodi Community Development 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95241-1910 Subject: Century Meadows SCH# 87072802 Dean- Mr. Shroeder: The ✓tate Clearinghouse submitted the above named draft Ebvironmental Impact Report (EIR) to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and the comments of the individual agency(ies) is(are) enclosed. p.Iso, on the enclosed Notice of Completion, the Clearinghouse has checked which agencies have commented.. Please review the Notice of Completion to. ensure that yc:r comment package is complete. If the package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Yoar eight -digit State Clearinghouse number should be used so that we may reply promptly. Please note that recent legislation requires that a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make substantive ccmments on a project which are within the area of the agency's expertise or which relate to activities Which that agency must carry out or approve. (AB 2583, Ch. 1514, Stats. 1984.) These comments are forwarded for your use in preparing your final EIA. If you need -more information or clarification, we suggest you contact the `30 commenting agency at your earliest convenience. Please contact Norma Wood at 916/445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, Dwvid C. Nunenkamp Chief Office of Permit Assistance cc: Resources Agency Enclosures 26 Response to Comments - State Office of Planning and Research 30 Comment noted; no response required. t; t .. ,.'f 27 'M'omorand um T° Dr. Gordon F. Snow o"' - AIA ) ) 19 7 Assistant Secretary for Resources �ODraft Environmental Mr. James Shroedar Impact Report (DEIR) City of Lodi for Batch, Century 221 West Pine Meadows, Bridgetowne Lodi, CA 95241-1910 Estates Fran , Oepann»nt rf G� of IM OYrt10 The Department of Conservation is responsible for monitoring farmland conversion on a statewide basis.The Department also administers the' California .Land Conservation (Williamson) Act. We have reviewed the City of Lodi's DEIR's for the three projects referenced*above (Batch, BCH# 070602031 Century Meadows, SCH/ 870728021 and Bridgetown* Estates, SCM/ 07072601) and have noted that the proposals will involve conversion of valuable farmland. .The Department, therefore, offers the following aammants.. The Bridgetown Estates project would convert 61 acres, Century Meadows would convert 160 acres, and Batch would convert 100 acFes of mostly prime' agricultural land for residential development., Most pf.the land it index Williassnn Act contracts N and would be.annexed by the city of,TMj. 00 The Department is concerned with, the: growth inducing impacts of these projects. Althougb"it .is stated in all throe EIR's that / these projects would not generate new growth because of -Measure 1 A, we would like to point out that them* projects, if approved, demonstrate i:hat this mechanise cannot be assumed to always be d, an effective tool to limit the 'growth inducing effect of projects. We are also concerned with the continuing loss of agricultural lands, especially prime agricultural land.' The State's recently adopted Soil Conservation -.plan analysed figures froze the Department of Water Resources' land use sUmays which indicated that between 1972 and 9:" o California cropland has been converted to urban uses at a rate of 44,000 acres a year. Because the conversion of agricultural and open space land is considered significant- and unavoidable, mitigation measures should be considered and discussed in the r=. These measures alight inolad 'minimising agricultural• conversion impacts On high quality soils by'direeting conversion onto lower 2 quality soils and establishment of greenbelt areas. Farmland !X trusts, su zeas bllshed by the Sonoma Farmland Trust and the Marin Fa can be another effective way to preserve agricult lands. s 2� i) sY� n `.tj 4 J C ,. .. Dr. Snot/ and Mr. Shro*der Peg* i'1+o The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment or, the. DESA. We hope that the farmland conversion impact and Williamson Act issues are given adequate consideration in the FEIR. if i can be of further assistance, please feel fres to call me at (916) 722-5873. -ur;"e-t Dennis J. OBryant Environmental Program Coordin,tor oc: Stephen Oliva, Chief Office of land (nvservation I IE Response to Comments - State Department of Conservation (DC) 31 While the commentator is correct that Measure A does not guarantee the preservation of agricultural land, the deterrent effect of having to obtain voter approval has, in fact, significantly slowed farmland conversion. in Lodi since 1981. As shown in the attached Table 2 and Table 3, the rate of annexation to the City has dramat- ically decreased since the enactment of Measure A. 32 and 33 The conversion of agricultural land to urban uses on this site creates a significant impact for which no mitigation measures are available. For this reason, it �- was identified as "unavoidable."_ The mitigation measures identified in the DC letter would not mitigate conversion of the subject parcel from agricultural uses, but do represent overall management techniques which are available to the City. 29 Table 2. Annual Annexations to Lodi Since 1970 Nus+ber of Total Acres Year Annexations Annexed 1970 6 154.05 1971 2 60.25 1972 5 73.61 1973 7 $8.54 1974 6 151.34 1975 4 107.20 1976 2 54.80 1977 3 70.61 1978 2 98.90 1979 3 152.38 1980 5 225.44 C Rmweest Single-family 1981 5 169.63 Measure A Enacted residential 1982 0 0 1983 0 0 1984 1 110.001 1985 2 83.76 1986 1 2.196 1987 2 67.90 Total 56 1,660.06 1 Noncontiguous public land (wastewater treatment plant and drainage basin)—no vote was required. Table 3. Election Results Under Measure A Election imy Proposed Prar Reallts o' Year project Lard use Acres Election 1982 No proposed annexations 1983 Batch Single-family 100.0 Dis.�prov.:,f residential Rmweest Single-family 54.65 DisapproviA residential 1984 Batch/Mills Single-family 120.0 Disapprov,,j residential blawnest Single-family 54.65 Approved residential 1985 Batch/Mllla Single-family 120.0 Disapprov A residential WAS i poses Bed and 2.196 Approved pantry Inn breakfast inn Maggio Industrial 37.6 Disapproved 1986 Batch Single-family 100.0 Disapproved residential Parkview Terrace Senior/adult .'.0.0 Approved (tti.11s) housing Maggio Indnatrial 37.6 Ar -roved Tr14v Panch Single-family 78.3 Di, provcrl residential Johnson Ranch Single-family 30.6 Disapprowxl residential STATE O� C_At1p0RN1A-6U'51NES'. TRANS"TATiCN AND HQUSCNG AGENCY DEUr_MUTAN. CSN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. SOX 20AS (1976 E CHARTER WAY) STOCKTON, CA 95201 TDO (209) 948.7853 (209) 948-7906 August 19, 1987 10 -SJ -12-15.68 City of Lodi Century Meadows Draft EIR SCH #87072802 Ms. Norma Wood State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Ms. Wood: Caltrans has reviewed the Draft EIR for the Century Meadows Project and offers the following comments: A project is now in progress which will signalize the Route 12, Lower Sacramento Road intersection. Further improvements are - recommended at Mills Avenue and Route 12. Financial responsibility for these and other measures should be more fully addressed in the mitigation section. Commute Management measures should also be discussed in terms of keeping pace with the development proposals in the Lodi area. Participation in increasing the capacity of the Park and Ride facilities is an effective measure for reducing traffic and congestion. Caltrans appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. Any questions concerning these comments may be directed to Al Johnson at Caltrans, telephone number (209) 948-781-8. Attachments cc:PVerdoor VRodman4 Very truly yours, j DANA COWELL Chief, Transportation Planning Branch AUG 2 0 i� 32 Response to Comments - State Department of Transportation 34 The only available funding mechanisms are 1) the forma- tion of an assessment district, and 2) the adoption of mitigation fees via a City initiated ordinance. 35 Comment noted; no response required. 33 S"t. of cowwen. Memorandum Ms. Norma Wood State Cloaringhouse Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Slif D- August 25; 1987 M— Sacramento acramento, Ca ornta 95811 f,a. , o.pwt+ 1.If..4.wd A@,kvk-*--.220 N Street, Roos 104 Sacramento, CA 95811%1, -, SCN Noe. 87060203, 87072801, 87072802 - Batch, Bridgetowne ' Estates, a Century Meadowss Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Agricultural Preserve Contract Cancellation, and Specific Development Approval The California Department of Food and Agriculture (COPA) has reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Reports MIR) concerning the above referenced projects and has the following comments and recommendation. 1. These projects would result in the permanent conversion of 100, 61, and 160 acres of farmland, currently zoned General w Agriculture - 41 acres minimum parcel mise (GA -10), desig- nated as Agriculture in the.San Joaquin County General Plan; to urban uses. This land is all considered to be prime agricultural land, currently planted in irrigated vineyards, irrigated fruit orchards, irrigated field crops, and Christmas trees, with 83 acres vacant on the Batch site. 2. The proposed projects could lead to premature conversion of agricultural land due to the pressure to develop other agri- culturally productive parcels located In close proximity. 3.. The proposed projects w*uld require the cancellation of Cali- fornia Land Conservation Contracts with Ban Joaquin County on 100, S1, and 40 acres of each project aite respectively. This office is unaware if Williamson Act Contracts are a consideration for the Towne Ranch or Johnson Ranch projects. 4. The City of Lodi is currently in the process of updating its General Plan, Expected completion to ■id -1948. S. This project is one of several proposed for this area. Six . of these residential projjects requiring annexation repre- senting over 450 acres of prime agricultural land will be submitted to the voters for approval on the November ballot under Measure A: �mNAMf Ms. Norma Wood August 25, 1987 Page Two While the COPA does recognize the right of local governments to i develop land implement land use policy, we are compelled to tom- went on the conversion of agricultural land. Ultimately, tho voters willdecide the merits of these projects, however, they should be able to make an informed decision with guidance train a detailed u^d current Genera, Plan, Given the importance of agriculture to this region, a comprehensive agricultural land use element 'in the General Plan is recommended, This element should include appropriate mitigation measures which would ensuze the conservation of prime agricultural land. Mitigation meas -fres might include 'he use of land conservation easements, Willicros;on Act contracts, and urban transition soning. Establishing right.- to-fareordinances and a site evaluation system such as anen used by Preen,, County or the USDA -SCS are other methods which +night t>e employed. The use of general obligation bonds to fund a local government land protection program, the use of development assessments to fund a land protection foundation such as the one in Solano County, and the purchase and transfer of development rights can be very effective programs which should be investi- gated. The implementation of such mitigation measures ensuring the protection of surrounding agricultural land is strongly en- couraged, With the foregoing in mind, we recommend approval of the DEIRs for the above referenced projects. Steve Shaffer ' ' Research Analyst (916) 322-5227 Response to Comments - Department of Food and Agriculture 36 Comment noted; no response required. 35 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Prepared for. CITY OF LODI Prepared by: JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES July 1987 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT BATCH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT Prepared for: City of Lodi Community Development Department 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95246 209/333-6711 Prepared by: != Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. ` 1725 - 23rd Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95816 916/444-5638 t Y { - j September 1987 Table of Contents Page INTRODUCTION 1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENT" IMPACTS 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 9 Project Location 9 Project Characteristics 9 General Plan and Zoning 9 Approval Process _13 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 15 City of Lodi - Department of Public Works 15 City of Lodi - Department of Parks and Recreation 26 City of Lodi - Police Department 28 State Office of Planning and Research 30 State Department of Conservation 32 State Department of Transportation 36 State Department of Food and Agriculture 38 L i I LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Tab le 1 Summary of Environmental Impacts (DEIR) 2 Annual Annexation to Lodi Since 1970 (new) 3 Election Results Under Measure A (new) parvo Page 4 34 34 Figure 1 Area Map (DEIR) 10 2 Batch Property Project Location (DEIR) 11 �'- d Batch Property Propose1, 3 Site Plan (DEIR) 12 4 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (new) 20 J Introduction This F4 -nal Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared for the City of Lodi (City) in accordance with City requirements and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Administrative Code Section 15000 et seq.). The document includes the comment letters received during the required public review period, which began on July 27, 1987 and ended on August 28, 1987. During this time the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was reviewed by various state and local agencies. Written comments were received from the following agencies: City of Lodi/Department of Public Works and Department of Parks and Recreation, California State Office of Planning and _Research, California Department of Conservation, and the California Department of Transportation. The DEIR, of which this FEIR is a part, identified the potential environmental effects of a proposed residential devel- opment, known as the Batch project, on a 100 -acre parcel adja- cent to northwest Lodi. The proposed project includes the development of 325 single-family homes and 246 senior citizen units with attendant streets and public services. The original project description and site plan showed a total of 571 dwelling units (325 single-family homes, 246 senior citizen units). t' After commencement of the EIR review, the site plan was revised to show a total of 562 units (316 single-family homes, 246 senior citizen units). All of the analysis in this document is based on the original numbers (571 dwelling units) and therefore represents a "worst case" analysis. The project site is located outside of the City limits, in an area covered by the Measure A election process, which re- quires annexation, a General Plan Amendment, rezoning, and specific development approval. This EIR is being prepared as part of the voter -mandated Measure A review process. How to Use This Report This report is divided into four sections: "Summary of Environmental Impacts"; "Project Description"; "Comments and Re- sponses"; and "Appendices." Each of these sections has its own purpose and serves to aid the reader in fully understanding the project and its implications. A brief description of each section follows. The "Summary of Environmental Impacts" section lists all of the potential impacts of the project and presents any mitiga- tions that would reduce or eliminate project impacts. This 1 section is taken directly from the DEIR. This section is included to facilitate understanding of the comments and responses. Each mitigation measure is numbered to correspond with the Summary Table (Table 1). The level of significance of each impact with and without mitigation is identified. This section is an overview intended for use during discussion of the project and does not include any discussion of the identified impacts. Use of the summary only, without reading the supporting text, could lead to an incomplete understanding of A the project. The "Project Description" section presents a full descrip- tion of the project, including its location, the project compo- nents, the project objectives and phasing, and any other rele- vant information. This section is included verbatim from the DEIR and is provided to aid the reader in understanding the project as well as the comments and responses. The "Comments and Responses" section includes each letter received during the public review period. The letters are x reproduced in the section, with the response to each letter immediately following. There are five tables located in this section. Two of these tables are revised from the DEIR (Revised Tables 14, 15), one is included with no revisions (Table 1), and two include new information (Tables 2, 3). 2 . . . . . .. . . .. .. . .. . . . . Summary of Environmental Impacts � \ . � a . Summary of Environmental impacts The following list (Table 1) itemizes all significant and less -than -significant impacts that were identified during the course of this environmental analysis. The mitigated impact implies that all mitigation measures should be followed, unless otherwise indicated in this Summary. Adverse impacts that are unavoidable, and which cannot be mitigated to a less -than -sig- nificant level are noted. The Initial Study prepared on the project has detailed all areas of investigation. All effects deemed potentially significant have been evaluated in this report. This Summary should beused in conjunction with a thorough reading of the entire Draft EIR report. The Summary is intended as an overview; the report serves as the basis for this Summary. Table 1. Surma.ry of Environmental Inpacts 4 Mitigation Measures � Limpacts in Text Mitigation Measures Geology and Soils I 'Location of project in area of 1 I Implement Uniform Building f f�ootential seismic acti,.Tity Codes (UBC) r°Qairements I when designing structures. !Conversion of agricultural soils 2 None available if project is approved. I Hydrology i Generation of -increased stomwater 3 Design stone drain facilities t runoff in accordance with require- ments of Lodi Public Works Department. Plants and Wildlife Potential loss of mature oak trees 4 Encourage retention of mature oaks in an open -space buffer, park, or drainage basin area - if feasible. 5 Consider implementing a tree Protection ordinance or restrictions to encourage long -team maintenance of mature or specimen. oaks on private property. Traffic Generation of increased traffic 6 Install northbound turn volumes pocket for project entrance to south of Elm Street on Lower Sacramento Road entrance. 4 O� Table 1. Continua Mitigation Measures t in Text Mitigation Measures 7 Close off frontage road and revise site plan to provide an access for units located to the east of the site. 8 Redesign dri ieway configur- ations for parcels fronting on Elm Street. i ve traffic 9 Signalize intersection of 1-imer Sacramento Road/woad- I haven Lane/Turner Road intersections; widen and im- prove intersection of Lower Sacramento Road and Lake Avenue; widen Lacer Sacra- mento Road between Kettleman Lane and Lodi Avenue. , Noise Ten orary increase of constru:-:`ion- 10 related noise 11 Oration of increased traffic- 12 related noise levels 13 Air Quality Localized increase of carbon 14 monoxide levels Regional.increase in ozone levels 15 5 Restrict construction to normal daytime periods. Provide proper equipment maintenance. Use state noise insulation standards. Orient buildings to mi.iumize window exposure to roadway traffic and iraxease, setbacks. None required. None available. Tame 1. �-:ontsjluec Mitigation Measures Impacts in Text Mitigation Measures Generation of Construction dust 16 Use standard constr.'ction dust reduction practices. Consistency with regional air 11 None required. quality plan Incremental contribution to 18 None required. regional air quality program Land Use Reduction of agricultural revenues Incompatibility of project with adjacent agricultural uses Conversion of prime agricultural soils to urban uses Cancellation of Williamson Act contract Water Approval of project would require development of additional well and necessary infrastructure Effect on groundwater table 5 19 None required. 20 Create 20 -foot buffer area between project and adjacent agricultural uses where required. 21 Provide a 6 -foot, chain-link fence to separate residential parcels from drainage basin where none exists. 22 No feasible mitigation measure exists if project is implemented. 23 None required. 24 None required. 25 None regiired. :'ab, r...v^i:iP-17, ydtiaatior, Impacts in Text Mitigation rSeasures r_s_�:n_ tary Sewe��s n DevelopTent of project in an area 26 Restrict development until 'f of insufficient sewerage treat- sufficient treatment. f ment capacities capacity has been developed III (est. 1989). Generation of increased storm 27 None required. water runoff - --� Police and Fire Developrernt of project could ncessitate provision of additional fire and police protection Schools Generation of 227 school-age children Generation of increased solid waste. Parks No impact ttltural Resources Location of project i- an area with no known arche•..ingical resources 7 fif 28 Provide additional fire and police personnel and equip- ment as required. 29 Collect school mitigation fees as allowed by state law. 30 None required. 31 None required. 32 Consult archeologist if resources are discovered during construction. Project Description Project Description Project Location The Batch Residential parcel is located in northwestern Lodi (see Figure 1), adjacent to the City limits. The project site is bordered by the wID Canal on the west and south; the Parkwest Residential Subdivision on the north; and Lower Sacra- mento Road on the east (see Figure 2). The site comprises assessor's parcel number 029-030-33. As the Batch property is not located within the City limits, annexation to the City will be required in order to make City services available. The subject parcel contains about 83 acres of, vacant farm- land and 17 acres of agricultural uses (vineyards and Christmas trees). Theadjacentland uses include agricu-lture -to the south -- and west, and residential subdivision to the north. A church and the proposed Parkview Terrace Project, currently in agricul- tural use, are located to the east (see Figure 8 - Surrounding Land Use). Project Characteristics The Batch project would result in the development of 325 single-family homes and 246 senior citizen units on 100 acres (5.7 du/ac overall) (See Figure. 3.) The original project de- scription and site plan showed a total of 571 dwelling units (325 single-family homes, 246 senior citizen units). After commencement of the EIR review the site plan was revised to show a total of 562 units (316 single-family homes, 246 senior citi- zen units). All of the analysis in this document is based on the original numbers (571 dwelling units) and therefore repre- sents a "worst case" analysis. The site plan includes a loop street system with two cul-de-sacs and two primary project entrances off Lower Sacramento Road. Construction of the proj- ect would include the installation of necessary public service infrastructure, such as sewer lines, water mains, and other utilities. Stormwater from the site would be piped to a proposed storage basin located on the project site. Sewage from the project would flow by gravity to the treatment facility located southwest of the City. General Plan and Zoning The subject parcel is not located within the Lodi City limits and, therefore, has San Joaquin County General Plan and zoning designations. The Batch property has a general plan OJ 7A+� Los Angeles• FIGURE 1. AREA MAP 10 00 PROJECT SITE LAW O FIGURE 2. BATCH PROPERTY PROJECT LOCATION 11 d i . \ f•3K1 1 rJ sur. 4 � 7 •�� sa sr JAI 4 � - � ' T a � aim s a � = 0 C:•w Pet' i . \ f•3K1 1 rJ sur. 4 � 7 •�� sa sr JAI �`► 4 � - � ' .. .. � . •. a � aim s a � = 0 At 0*1 11� !/1 1M ,y pl !lI P1! SMI n t a N � s11 1I� /1V Jt6 117 no► �° ` � O Z L s!! I* fm 171 O r g fm Y - ! • y 1M I+r me • !h � n /ACK A M <N Td .t0. e e �a �`► .� A 3 V NN designation of "Lou, Density Residential" and a zoning of "GA -20" (General Agriculture -20 acre minimum parcel. size) Approval Process As the parcel is located outside of the existing City limits, it would require annexation prior to development with City services. The property is therefoZe subject to the re- quirements of Lodi's Measure A Growth Initiative, which r::?quiras that annexation of properties to the City for development pur- poses must be approved by a vote of the electorate. The annex- ation would also require City Council and Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) approvals (see "Land Use" section). 13 Comments and Responses < \ {..( . {»\ � (\( 2«\: ?^ d<( \» ƒ f v.r r CITY COUNCIL TNOMASA PIT[RION (VfIYN M. DIjDN, Mo. CITY OF LODI —CIO Al K! M R(,MCII! IONN R IR•40SN101R Cm CN./ Ma Pro T.Mw. CITY NAIL I21 WEST PINt STRICT DAVID M KIN HMAN CAIA. eOx )DOR RONAIO M SII IN IAM(S W. PINKERTON, 11 LODI, CALIFORNIA 9S241.MO Cm A11-1 FRED MO (:0%3)4-5634 II ICOM . X% $134M August 19, 1987 Community Development Department City of Lodi Call Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241-1910 SUBJECT: Batch DEiR The City of Lodi Public Works Department has the following comments on the Batch Draft Environmental Impact Report: 1. Page 7, Project Characteristics - No mention 1s oda of the school 11N. 2. Page 10 Deve�loent Layout - The basin site (lkstgate Park) does not con- ora to a ParkMaster Plan apppproved by the City Council. This will reduce the number of lots tau t can be developed. tJi e. Paye 21 A-5 - Elm Street is planned for four lanes and has I .� surf c eii—ntwidlh:—TFisfrreet will be restriped when volumes warrant four lanes, Lodi Avenue East of lower Sacramento Road will have an additional I ' - ;- west oun ane n ar r ew larrace project is constructed. probably in the spring of 1988. Kettlemmn Lane/Lower Sacramento_ Road - A traffic signal for this f 1� intersection s in the design stage. The project is being done under an agreement between Son, Jaquin County and Caltrans. 4. Page 23 U-8). Turnino Novemisnt Counts - W understand that use of �1 tTAfNDTF To�r�ing movements 1s questionable. MO would I like to know how the model's results tampered to the intersections that were actually counted, - S. There may be a need to provide an improved access 6 the northerly levee of the Woodbridge Irrigation District Canal at Lower I Sacramento Road and Lodi Avenue. Then may have to be an access easement dedicated to keep the entrance to the levee away from the intersection, 6. Page 27 - Bottom table references are incorrect. -> Conmunity Development Department August 19, 1987 Page 1 7. Page 28 - Table 5 is not the same as the corresponding table in TFe Appendix. 8. PPaa_1.9 Miti ation 7 - We strongly agree that the frontage road ' shouT e e m nate This will be recommended to the Planning Commission. I. Pa a 29 Mitt anon B We strongly agree with this recommendatio,� IT. -1,11! w reit4l d-E"o the City Council that the City Design Standards require this type driveway or reverse frontage on arterial i streets. 10. it is recommended that Mitigations 7 and 8 be detailed and shown a, part of the report. !I. Paae31 (A-16 ,L Cumulative Conditions - it is not clear what was I use ort sanalysis - is It Erie same as the list in Table 12, Page 74? It would appear not, based on examination of Figure A, Page A:-23 for the intersection of Lower Sacramento Road and Elm Street'. it also appears traffic for the project is incorrect. There should be an exhibit showing all the traffic volume assignments. 12. Pa a 33 A -l7 19) Mitigation Measures - Although this project I a one oes nD requ re a traTTIC s gnat at Lower Sacramento Road at Woodhaven, the development should pay for a portion of this and other traffic improvements. The eastbound approach at Lodi Avenue needs no mitigation according j to the traffic appendix. There are no volumes shown or capacity discussion in the text regarding widening Lower Sacramento Road to four lanes. Right-of-way on Lower Sacramento Road at Lodi Avenue should mirror that required at Parkview Terrace. 13. There 1s no discussion on the southernmost access point at Lower }, Sacramento Road. Since Lower Sacramento Road is planned as a divided facility, this access would allow right turns only. The question of a median opening should be analyzed. The MINUTP traffic model's calibration to existing conditions and results for future land uses has not been completely reviewed by City staff, Because of this and the problem mentioned in Comment 08, we are reluctant to make comments on the accuracy of the traffic analysis. We are confident however that the ultimate lane configurations for the streets involved are adequate. 14, Page 51 - Surrounding land use is incorrect, f Community Development Department August 19, 1987 Page 3 15. Page 52 - This figure is for Bridgetown Estates, not Batch. I " 16. Pa a 61 Water Well, - The water use figures appear to not include the sc oo s te.'T6e addition of • well and oversize tins will cost the City over 1250,000. Sone means to mitigate this impact should be developed, 11. Paes61 i 18 Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity - The City's 1 to .ntiy a capacity. Fla s now processing up a t s _urr, 6.1 million gallons per day. first phare capacity of 6.8 million l gallons per day is not Indicated. The City's present schedule is to have the first phase completed by the winter of 1989. There are many variables in this scheduling. it is very possible that a connection moratorium will be needed at sone time during the next two expansion phases if all the cumulative projects are approved and built. This develoFF-ent may not be able to be served until the first phase is c(,mpleted. 18, Pa a 62 lower Is Road 15" Sewer - Preliminary work done I -� n e as ewater ec on ys en s r Plan indicates this line ^ ly does not have capacity for ail the developments on lower Sacramento I Road. Some means to mitigate this impact should be developed. 19. Page 63 Storm Drains a Basin - OMIopment of master stone drain ' Zacilites n ts area it Area. Westgate Park) has been left to the p� developers. They have been required to install facilities as a , credit against drainage fees. The design of the basin as shown in the site plan does not conform �) , to the Basin Master Plan adopted by the City Council. Some revisions that will reduce the number of lots wilt be necessary. 20. Pae__65 School Site - is the school site large enough to provide or onsite t' oaZher and public parking and bus loading? 21. esstttee Park - Oralnage basin construction does not Paee 67 Nega — benches. pr kways,orepar appurtenances, creation facilities. Sow trees, meant LO mitigatehts waiimpact i should be developed. 22. Page 7T Cumulative Water Consumption - This table reflects all t�ectsn impacton the City systema will be - less since Table 12 includes Woodbridge projects which are not served by the City system. 23. Pa a 79 Cumulative Wastewater Generation - It is not clear which o t e a e pro ec s are nc u n theta figures. Woodbridge developments should not be included as they are served by a separate sanitary Jistrict. 3 Community Development Department August 19, 1987 Page 4 14. Page 80, Add 1110 Park Land • Statements under this paragraph stent are not cons w ose on Page 67, if lack of park land is significant under the cumulative impacts, then this Department must question why it's unavoidable. Means to mitigate this park land deficiency should be developed. if you have any questions about our comments, please contact Richard Prima, Chief Civil Engineer, or me at your convenience. Li,.-L Ja L. Ronsko Pub is Works Director RCP/ma cc: Jones b Stokes Associates, Inc, � ECER AUG 18 191 Cita... 01) :. Response to Comments - City of Lodi, _ Department of Public Works Comment No. Ressponse 1 The site contains a 10 -acre school site in the northwest corner of the parcel (see Figure 3, "Project De- scription" in the "Project Description" section). 2 The basin site plan may need to be revised to ensure compliance with the Master Plan. Any lot reductions would need to be reflected in this revised plan. 3 Comment noted; no response required. 4 Comment noted; no response required. 5 Comment noted; no response required. 6 it is acknowledged that existing traffic counts and the MINUTP projected courts are not in agreement. This may be due to either seasonal variations in traffic flow and/or additional development of land uses, since 1985, which are not reflected in the data base used in prepar- ing the analysis of area traffic volumes. However, in analyzing the impacts of both the Batch project and cumulative growth, a comparison of existing volumes projected by the model (with cumulative plus project traffic volumes) provides an adequate analytical tool to determine necessary mitigation measures. In evaluating incremental impacts to street systems, MINUTP is an acknowledged tool for identifying appropriate mitigation measures, even in those situations where the MINUTP projections concerning existing volumes do not directly correlate to known or counted volumes. At this point in time, the citywide 1985-86 model is being updated as a portion of the general plan process. Once this updating and recalibration is complete, the MINUTP model should more accurately reflect current traffic data." However, in the meantime the MINUTP does identify appropriate mitigation which will adequately mitigate project - related impacts. 7 If access to the northerly levee is required, it will be necessary to revise the site access easements according- ly. If these revisions are not made during the public hearing/ election process, they can be made at the use permit/tentative map stage. 17 8 The reference to Table 5 in the bottom two lines on page 27 should be a reference to Table 7, page 32. 9 Table 5 in the text does -not agree with the table shown in DEIR Appendix A, page A-12. The table shown in the Appendix is the correct table and should be used in evaluation of trip generation for the project. 10 Comment noted; no response required. 11 Comment noted; no response required. 12 In the absence of design direction from the applicant and the City of Lodi, it is not possible to prepare a revised site plan for this FEIR. The recommended mitigation measures could be included in the site plan during the review process. however, if the plan re- visions are substantial, it is possible that supple- mental environmental review would be required. 13, 14 and 15 The cumulative analysis included all of the projects shown in Table 12 (page 74 of the DEIR) except for the Woodbridge projects. ThE traffic model used did not include Woodbridge in the analysis study area. The traffic volumes shown on Figure A in the report were not complete. The correct traffic volumes are shown on the following exhibit: Ir T C> 0a ao'I 0 1 0 1 CJ m o - 310 44 19 327 44 - 467 75 19 484 75 Ir T C> 0a ao'I 0 1 0 1 CJ m o M LEGEND ,EXISTING EXISTING + PROJECT CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE + PROJECT at -z i 427 147 166 427 147 - 650 155 166 650 155 M LEGEND ,EXISTING EXISTING + PROJECT CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE + PROJECT at -z i The p.m. peak hour traffic volumes for the existing, existing + project, cumulative, and cumulative + project conditions are shown on Figure 4 (attached). 16 Comment noted; no response required. 17 Correction noted; there is no requirement for mitigation measures for the eastbound approach to Lodi Avenue. 18 The traffic analysis indicates that the widening of Lower Sacramento Road to four lanes is not necessary. 19 Comment noted; no response required. 20 Based on evaluation of traffic volumes, the use of a median opening on Lower Sacramento Road would not be appropriate or necessary. The use of a right turn only access will be adequate. 21 See response to comment 8. 22 Additional surrounding land use includes a commercial shopping center at the southwest corner of Lower Sacramento Road and Sargent Road. 23 See attached Figure 8 - Surrounding Land Use. (Figure number refers to numbering in the BEIR, not to figures contained in this FEIR.) 24 The school would require approximately 10;875 gallons of water per day (gpd) (based on a worst case enrollment of 725 student generating 15 gpd) (Domenichelli pers. comm.). Therefore, the project would require a total of 391,675 gpd. Currently, the city has no means to collect the $250,000 cost of the well and oversize water lines. Some mitiga- tion measures to pay for the new well and lines are as follows: 1. Form an assessment district in which participants of the district pay the cost. 2. The city can charge the developer for the cost `of the new well and lines. 3. Charge should be on a first-come, first -serve basis with either the first developer paying the installation costs with reimbursement coining from subsequent developers on a prorated basis or the last developer using the infrastructure paying the total cost. Consideration of this issue should be made by City Council. 19 1201 383 13-541-1417 z LODF AVE. 546 563 567 710 LEGEND 790 840 922 FWSTING 811 955 1069 EXISTING + PROJECT a 1262 CUMULATIVE _ v 1377 CUMULATIVE + PROJECT N KETTLEMAN LN. 1063 1250 1074 641 1323 1172 1463 1183731 1536 CENTUR`f BLVD. 39 0 740 J HARNEY LN. FIGURE 4. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUM 20 F E ! r�� 402 —1265 409 324 514 1329 z: 521 _ g M- F.: TURNER RD. 600 ire 667 638 726 896 c 1012 , 934 T 1071 } ELM ST. 1201 383 13-541-1417 z LODF AVE. 546 563 567 710 LEGEND 790 840 922 FWSTING 811 955 1069 EXISTING + PROJECT a 1262 CUMULATIVE _ v 1377 CUMULATIVE + PROJECT N KETTLEMAN LN. 1063 1250 1074 641 1323 1172 1463 1183731 1536 CENTUR`f BLVD. 39 0 740 J HARNEY LN. FIGURE 4. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUM 20 z: _ g M- F.: ire f T } i '1 'r 3 f7l :6 tw.. e== ` LEGEND R - RESIDENTIAL A - AGRICULTURAL 0 200 400 MF - MULTI -FAMILY I - INDUSTRIA_ MILES C -COMMERCIAL FIGURE S. SURROUNDING LAND USES 21 25 Comment noted; no response required. 26 Preliminary work by Black & Veatch, consultants prepar- ing the Wastewater Master Plan, indicates deficiencies in existing capacity. The existing 15 -inch and 18 -inch lines need to be paralleled with an additional 18 -inch line. Currently, the City has no means to assess the cost of improvements. See comment 16 for available mitigation measures. 27 and 28 Project applicant must revise site pian to conform city's Basin Master Plan. 24 A preliminary review indicates that the site has ace- quate space to accommodate public and teacher parking as well as school buses. However, in the absence of more precise design information, this is not assured and will need to be evaluated before final approval of the site plan for the project. 30 Currently, the City has no development requirements for drainage basins in regards to park appurtenances. The City should require the developer to prepare a recreational master plan for the drainage basin. The City could further require review of this plan by appro- priate City agencies. 31 Revised estimated cumulative water consumption would be 3,080,762 gpd (see Revised Table 14 following). 32 Revised estimated cumulative wastewater generation would be 1,368,510 gpd (see Revised Table 15 following). 33 The d+i 'fference between the statements is because th^ analysis on page 67 refers to the project site only, while that on page 80 refers to cumulative growth in the area. There does not appear to be sufficient vacant �. land to accommodate the park demands resulting from cumulative growth. Therefore, this impact appears to be unavoidable, as vacant land cannot be created. The means to mitigate this deficiency will need to be iden- tified and evaluated by the City as part of its overall project re-•iew and General Plan revision process. { 22 Revised Table 14. Estimated Cumulative Water Conswnptiona Consumption People/ Population du Residential Acres du Generated Rate' Unit gpd Single -family — 3,041c,d 2.68 8,150 320 gpod 2,607,962 - Multi-family — 680d 2.00 1,360 320 gpcd 435,200 -ubtotale 761.3 3,721 — 9,579 320 gpcd 3,043,162 Industrial 37.6 -- — -- 1,000 gpcd 37,600 Total 3,080,762 b See page 77 of the DraftEIR for original table. rkxrenichelli pens. cam. dIncludes Lakeshore Meadows. Includes multi-family and duplex units. e Sum does not equal total due to rounding. 23 Revised 'Takle 15. Estimated Wastewater Generation Consumption Land Use Zonea Acresa Rate Unit gpd Residential Si ng?_e-fanily -Sinai s- family duplex Multi-famiiy Multi -family Industrial Total R -I 183.05 R-2 492.25 R --GA 24.4 R -M 15.0 M-2 37.6 1,200 gpad 219,660 1,800 gpad 886,050 4,000 gpad 97,600 6,000 gpad 90,000 2,000 gpad 75,200 bCity of Lodi Crmiunity Developuennt Department 1987. Pppelfeller pens. Cain. c See page 79 of the Draft EIR for original table. 24 1,368,510 C F F; 3 k µ. 5' y t Comments — Lodi City Parks Department N 00 COrrtttCc! l'c��y - Police and Fire Exist ias--Conditiona 'S The Lodi Po ce Department a e the area wlthi t e Lodi' city limits. department has sworn officers, patrol officers, and patrol care. T ere is one centra dispatch station, and the City is divided into seven patrol areas. The average response time for the City is 2.9 minutes. Development of the proposed roject will not adversely affect the service i level of the ce de artmen )� a5 Lini aA i 1. 5 o ,,oar 'M ratio is "%aAA-Liin.cd . The City of Lodi w 11 provide fire protection to the project area. The Lodi Fire Department provides service within the city limits', on area of approximately 8.5 square miles with a population of 450794. The Department has 48 firefighters with 42 on line. It has four 1,500 -gallon pumpers, one elevated platform, truck and one equipment truck. The equipment is distributed among three stations. The station closest to the Project site is the main station at West Elm and Church Street. Eme(pency response time to the project area is estimated to be 3.5 to 4 minutes which is beyond the Fire Department's reco.amended 3 -minute driving time. The area is currently under consideration for an additional fire station. Due to the increased response time, the project would have a negative impact on the Department's Class ITI ISO grading unless .,-,Other fire station was added. The City has a site on Lower Sacramento Road just north of Elm Street, Development of the proposed project will not adversely affect the service level of the Fire Department. Although it would require the addition of two firefighters and increase the amount of response calls by 32 per year. inn The City has a present ratio .f 1.02 firefighter per 1,000 people. The development of the Batch project would necessitatethe provision one firefighter to maintain this ratio. According to the Fire Department, increased density and population may cr, to the need for a higher number of firefighters per thousand people ydughes pers. comm.), Mitigation Measures 28) None required. Response to Comments - City of Lodi, Police Department 35 The police department has 61 sworn officers, 45 patrol officers, and 15 patrol cars. The development of the proposed project will not adversely affect the service level of the police department as long as the 1.5 offi- cer to 1,000 population ratio is maintained. —E Cs CAOFOS "A_ --OFFICE O- HE <:0'VE6 NOR :,E-�.�vE ✓Eiiwi.;cJiA iv, iso .e,�.K.r J Fits OF PLANNING %ND RESEARCH CRAAkENTC, CA 9581• August 26, 1907 James Shroeder City cf Lodi Community Development Department 221 West Pine Lodi, CA 95241-1910 Subject: Batch Project SCH# 87060203 Dear Mr. Shroeder: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) tc aelected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and the comment; of the individual agency(ies) is(are) enclosed. Also, on the enclosed No :ice of Completion, the Clearinghouse has checked Which agencies have coE vseated . Please review the Nctice of Cbmpietion to ensure that your cemnent package is complete. If the package is not in order, please iatify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Your eight -digit State Clearinghouse nun*rr should be ssed so that we may reply promptly. Please note that recent legislation requires that a responsible agency or other piblic agency shell only makr substantive comments on a project which are within the area of the agency's expertise or which relate to activities which that agency must carry out or approve. (AB 2583, Cb. 1514, Stats. 1984.) .� These comments are forwarded for your use in preparing your final EIR. If � you need more information or clarification, we suggest you contact the commenting agency at your earliest convenience. Please contact Norma Mood at 916/445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the eavironmental review process. F bar Sincerely, David C. Rumkamp Chief Office of Permit Assistance cc: resources Agency Enclosures 30 Response to Comments - Office of Planning and Research 36 Comment noted; no response requ;_red. Memorandum to Dr. Gordon r. Snow Assistant Secretary for Resources Mr. James Shrosder City of Lodi 221 west Pine Lodi, CA 95241-1910 From , Dper"MMt of Cww"avat4e- ollke of Nw DY�t�r nr atsoueCU •O&OCY Of CAUP00 . De. , AU(, 1 > W Draft Environmental Iupact Report (DEIR) for Batch, Cpntury Meadows, Bridgetown* Estates The Department of Conservation is responsible for monitoring farmland conversion on a statewide basis. The Department also administers tbe' California Land Conservation (Williamson) Act. We have reviewed the City of Lodi's DEIR's for the three projects referenced above (Batch. SCBO 87060203/ Century Meadows, SCHI 870728021 and Bridyetowns $states, SCH# 87072801) and have noted that the proposals will involve CC=vgrsion of valuable farmland. The Department, therefore, offers the following comments. The Bridgetown Estates project would convert 61 acres, Century Meadows would con.ert 160 acres, and Batch would convert 100 acres of Mostly prime' agricultural land for residential development.. Most. gf.the land id under Williamson Act 'contracts and vould'be.annexed by the Ci* 4.1cdi., NThe Department is concerned vitt the growth Inducing, impacts of i these projects. Although it is stated in all three EIR's that �.hasa projects would not generate new growth because of Measure A, we would like to point out that these projects, if approved, demonstrate that this mechanism cannot be'assvmed to always be an effective tool to limit the growth inducing effect of projects. we are also concerned with the continuing loss of agricultural lands, especially prime agricultural land. The states recently adopted Soil Conservation plan analysed figures from the Departmeytt of Water Resources' land use surveys which indicated that "twaen 1972 and 1980 California Cropland habeen s converted to urhan uses at a rate of 44,000 acres a year. Because the conversion of agricultural and open space land is considered significant- and avoidable, mitigation measures should be considered and discussed in the YEIR. , These measures Bight include minimising agriouitural conversion impaets'on high quality soils bjl'direatinq conversiononto lower quality soils and establishment of greenbelt area... farmland trusts,Fila,�dx aiies�ablished by the Sonoma farmland Trust and the If Marin be another effective wa toagriculY preserve `; J C! Dr. Snow and Mr. Shrosder Page Two The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment an the DEIR. We hope that the farmland conversion impact and Williamson Act issues are given adequate consideration in the rEIR. if I can be of further assistance, please feel free to call me at (916) 7,22-5873. Dennis J. OSryant Environmental Program Crl,.rdinator ee: Stephen Oliva, Chief office of Land Conservation Response to Comments - Department of Conservation (DC) 37 while the commentator is correct that Measure A does not guarantee the preservation of agricultural land, the deterrent effect of having to obtain voter approval has, in fact, significantly slowed farmland conversion in Lodi since 1981. As shown in the attached Table 2 and Table 3, the rate of annexation to the City has dramat- ically decreased since the enactment of Measure A. 38 and 39 The conversion of agricultural land to urban uses on this site creates a significant impact for which no mitigation measures are available. For this reason it was identified as "unavoidable." The mitigation measures identified in the DC letter would not serve to mitigation conversion of the subject parcel from agricultural uses but do represent overall management techniques which are available to the City. 33 Table 2. Annual Annexations to Lodi Since 1970 Table 3. Election Results UMer Measure A Number of Total. Acres Electiwl Primary proposed Results of Year Annexations Annexed y,,,t�, project lard Use Acres Electicr: 1970 6 154.05 1982 No proposed 1971 2 80.25 annexations �- 1972 5 73.61 1983 Batch Single-family 100,0 Disapproved 1973 1 58.54 residential 1974 6 151.34 Surwest Single-famil/ 54.65 DisafVrc—i3 residential 1975 4 107.20 1976 2 1984 Batch/Hills Single-family 120.0 Disappmwed 54.80 residential 1977 3 7[.61. Surssst Single-family 54.65 Approved 1978 2 98.90 residential 1979 3 152.38 1985 Batch/Kills Single-family 320.0 Disappraved W p 1980 5 225.44 residential 1981 5 169.63 wire i Roses Sed and 2.196 ApproveJ Country Len breakfast inn Measure A Enacted Maggio Industrial 37.6 Disappravc::i 1982 0 0 1983 0 1986 Batch Side -family 100.0 Disappnxmed 0 residential 1964 1 110.001 Parkview Terrace Senior/adult 20.0 Approver) 1985 2 83.76 (Mills) housing 1986 Maggio Irxbmtrial 37.6 Apprc ved 1 2.196 1987 2 Towne Ranch Single-fanily 78.3 Disapprcx:r.-(: 67.90 residential Total 56 1,660.06 Johnson Ranch Sirxjle-family 30.6 DisappnmvJ -- residential 1 Noncontiguous public land (wastewater treatment plant and drainage basin) --no vote was required. - — -- ATE OF CALIFORMA,—BUSINESS. TRAhKOpR7AT1ON AND HCgISING AGE�-%Cy GEORGE DEUKAkE4AS-4• G,y.,rnos ?E-PARTMt!NT OF TRANSPORTATION EiR - -.. J. BOX 2048 !1476 E. CHARTWAY} -oCKTC**. CA 95201 I0 (2091 9a8-7839 209) 948-7906 August 18, 1987 10 -SJ -12-15.15 City of Lodi Batch Development Draft EIR SCH- 87060203 Ms. Norma Wood State Clearinghouse �• 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95EI4 Dear Ms. Wood: Caltrans has reviewed the Draft EIR for the Batch Project W and offers the following comments: Mitigation measures include widening of Lower Sacramento Road to Route 12 and signalizing and widening the Route i2 intersection to accomodate turn lanes. Some discussion should be included regarding the method and responsibility of funding: these projects. Caltrans appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. Any questions regarding the comments may be directed to Al Johnson at Caltrans, telephone number (209) 948-7838. Very truly YPUrs, 'woo Y DANA COWELL Chief, Transportation :.•• Planning Branch 1 cc:PVerdoorn/SJCCOG VRodman/SJCAPCD- t Fr�CEIV�D ,n i;U- 2 p 1387 b 11 r-%3=DANCE 3 6 w 40 EEs eeee to comments - Q£tatia The only available funding mechanisms are l) the forma- tion of an assessment district and 2) the adoption of mitigation fees via a city of Lodi initiated ordinance. SNN �) CoiMr")s Memorandum Tc Ms. Norma Wood Do- � August 25, 1987 State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research ►lwo - Sacramento 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, California 95810 Dpwt"N"14)i"dOWAp4evaws--1220 N Street, Room 101 Sacramento, CA 95814 �. UA*', SCS Nos. 87060203, 67072801, 87072802 - Batch, Bridgetown& Estates, t Century Meadows( Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Agricultural Preserve Contract Cancellation, and Specific Development Approval The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDPA) has reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Roports (D6IR) concerning the above referenced projects and has the following comments and recommendation. 1. These projects would result in the permanent conversion of 100, 61, and 160 acres of farmland, currently zoned General Agriculture - 41 acres minimum parcel sire (CA -40), desig- w nated as Agriculture in the San Joaquin County General Plan, 00 to urban uses. This land is all considered to be prime agricultural land, currently planted in irrigated vineyards, irrigated fruit orchards, irrigated field crops, and Christmas trees, with 83 acres vacadt on the batch site. 2. The proposed projects could lead to premature conversion of agricultural land due to the pressure to develop other agri- culturally productive parcels located in c)ose proximity, 3. The proposal projects would require the cancellation of Cali- fornia Land Conservation Contracts with San Joaquin County on 100, 51, and 10 acres of each project sits respectively. This office is unaware if Williamson Act contracts are a consideration for the Towne Ranch or Johnson Ranch projects. 1. The City of Lodi is currently in the process of updating its General Plan. Expected completion is mi4-1988. 5. This project is one of several proposed for this area. six of these residential protects requiring annexation repre- senting over 450 acres of prise agricultural land will be submitted to the voters for approval on the November ballot under Measure A. JRNAMf p.,q Ms. Norma Wood August 25, 1987 Page Two While the CDPA does recognise the right of local government.:, to develop and implement land use policy, we are compelled to r_om- ment on the conversion of'agricuitural land. Ultimately, the voters will decide the merits of these projects, however, they should be able to make an informed decision with guidance from a detailed and current General Plan. Given the importance of agriculture to this region, a comprehensive agricultural land use element'in the General Plan is recommended. This element should include appropriate mitigation measures which would ensure the conservation of prime agricultural land. Mitigation measar,as might include the use of land conservation easements, wiltinm9nn Act contracts, and urban transition zoning. Establirhinq ri,ht- to-farm''crdinances and a site evaluation system such as onen used by Preano County or the USDA -SCS are other methods which migor. bt! employed, The use of general obligation bonds to fund a lot l government land protection program, the use of development assessments to fund a land protection foundation such as the one in Solano County, and the purchase and transfer of development rights can be very effective programs which should be invesri-- gated. The implementation of such mitigation measures ensuring the protection of surrounding agricultural land is strongly en- couraged. With the foregoing in mind, we recommend approval of the DEIRe for the above referenced projects. Steve Shaffer ' Research Analyst (916) 322-5727 Resoonse to Comments - Department of Food and Agriculture 41 Comment noted; no response required. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT a Prepared for: CITY OF LODI Prepared by: JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES July 1987 3 'INAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT BRIDGETOWNE ESTATES nt x Prepared for: City of Lodi Community Development Departme 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95246 209/333-6711 Prepared by: ones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1725 - 23rd Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95816 916/444-5638 September 1987 3 -- Table of Contents Page INTRODUCTION 1 How to Use This Report 1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 3 PROJEC, DESCRIPTION 7 Project Location 7 Project Characteristics 7 General Plan and Zoning 7 Approval Process 11 "OMM-ENTS AND RESPONSES City of Lodi - Department of Public Works 13 City of Lodi - Department of Parks and Recreation 24 City of Lodi - Police Department 26 State Office of Planning and Research 28 State Department of Conservation 30 State Department of Transportation 34 State Department of Food and Agriculture 36 Russ Munson, Project Applicant 38 Table 1 2 3 Figure 1 2 3 4 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Summary of Environmental Impacts (DEIR) Annual Annexation to Lodi Since 1970 (new) Election Results Under Measure A (new) Page Area Map (DEIR) S Bridgetowne Estates Project Location (DEIR) 9 Bridgetowne Estates Proposed Site Plan (DEIR) 10 Driveway Locations 17 Introduction This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared for the City of Lodi (City) in accordance with City requirements and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Administrative Code Section 15000 et seq.). The document includes the comment letters received during the required public review period, which began on July 27, 1987 and ended on August 28, 1987. During this time the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was reviewed by various state and local agencies. Written comments were received from the following agencies: City of Lodi/Department of Public Works and Department of Parks and Recreation, California State Office of Planning and Research, California Department of Conservation, and the California Department of Transportation. The DEIR, of which this FEIR is a part, identified the potential environmental effects of a proposed residential devel- opment, known as the Bridg:towne project, on a 61 -acre parcel adjacent to northwest Lodi. The proposed project includes the development of 127 single-family homes with attendant streets and public services. The project site is located outside of the City limits, in an area covered by the Measure A election process, which re- quires annexation, a General Plan Amendment, rezoning, and specific development approval. This EIR is being prepared as part of the voter -mandated Measure A review process. How to Use This Report This report is divided into four sections: "Summary of Environmental Impacts"; "Project Description"; "Comments and Re- sponses"; and "Appendices." Each of these sections has its own purpose and serves to aid the reader in fully understanding the project and its implications. A brief description of each section follows. The "Summary of Environmental Impacts" section lists all of the potential impacts of the project and presents any mitiga- tions that would reduce or eliminate project impacts. This section is taken directly from the DEIR. This section is in- cluded to facilitate understanding of the comments and re- sponses. Each mitigation measure is numbered to correspond with the Summary Table (Table 1). The level of significance of each impact with and without mitigation is identified. This section is an overview intended foi use during discussion of the project and does not include any discussion.of the identified impacts. 1 Use of the summary only, without reading the supporting text, could lead to an incomplete understanding of the project_ The "Project Description" section presents a full descrip- tion of the project, including its location, the project compo- nents, the project objectives and phasing, and any other rele- vant information. This section is included verbatim from the DEIR and is provided to aid the reader in understanding the project as well as the comments and responses. The "Comments and Responses" section includes each letter received during the public review period. The letters are reproduced in the section, with the response to each leiter immediately following. There are five tables located in this section. Two of these tables are revised from the DEIR (Revised Tables 14, 15), one is included with no revisions (Table 1), and two include new information (Tables 2, 3). V4 r�. Summary of Environmental Impacts Summary of Environmental Impacts The following list (Table 1) itemizes all significant and less -than -significant impacts that were identified during the course of this environmental analysis. The mitigated impact implies that all mitigation measures should be followed, unless otherwise indicated in this Summary. Adverse impacts that are unavoidable, and which cannot be mitigated to a less-than-sig— nificant level are noted. The Initial Study prepared on the project has detailed all areas of investigation. All effects deemed potentially significant have been evaluated in this report. This Summary should be used in conjunction with a thorough read -ng of the entire Draft EIR report. The Summary is intended as an overview; the report serves as the basis for this Sumannary. 3 fable I. Su :an r: of Environmental L=acts Mitigation Measure Number %acts in Text Mitigation Measures Geolociv & Soils Location of project in xea of 1 Implement Uniform Building potential seismio activity Codes (UBC) requirements when designing structures. Conversion of agricultural soils 2 None available if project is approved- Hydrology pproved. H of Generati-on of increased stormwater runcff 3 Design storm drain facilities in accordance \,dth require- umts of Lodi -P iblic Works Departrien` . Plants and Wildlife No impact 4 None required. Traffic Generation of increased traffic 5 None required. volumes Contribution to cunaai.ative traffic 6 Signalize and improve t.. -.e growth intersection C F Lower Sacramento RG .;!Woodhaven Lome with Turner Road, install ;.lm pockets to project access roads, iMrove the intersec- tion of Lower Sacramento Road and Lodi Avenues, and widen Lawex Sacramento Road between Kettlenan Lane and Lodi Avenue. Noise TapOrary increase of construction- 7 Restrict construction to. related noise normal daytime peril. is 8 Provide proper equipment main- tenance.` 4 Table 1. C:ontirr.�r-2d Inpacts Noise (continued) Generation of increased traffic - related noise levels Air juality Localized increase of carbon mono- xide levels Generation c`_ construction dust Consistency with regional air quality plan Incremental contribution to regional air quality program Land Use Mitigation Measure Number in Text Mitigation Measures 9 Use state noise insulation standards. 10 orient buildings to minimize window exposure to roadway traffic and increase setbacks frau roadway. 11 None required. 12 Use standard construction dust reduction practices. 13 None required. 14 None required. Reduction cf agricultural revenues 15 Incompatibility of project wi.:i 16 Create 20 -foot buffer area adjacent agricultural uses between project and adjacent agricultural uses where`thd WID canal is deemed insuf-> ficient. Conversion of prime agricultural 17 No feasible mitigation measure soils to urban uses exists if project is approved. Cancellation of Williamson Act 18 None required. Contract 6 Table 1. Cantinuec.: Impacts water Approval of project would require the development of an additional well and necessary infrastructure. Effect on groundwater table Sanitary Sewer System Development of project in an area of insufficient sewerage treatment capacities Mitigation Measure Number in Text Mitigation Measures 19 None required. 20 None required. 21 Restrict development until sufficient treatment capacity has been developed (est_ 1989). Stonuwater Runoff - Location of project in area of 22 Evaluate the p:1.=--enent of potentially irsufficient runoff retention facilities on the detention facilities project site or elsewhere in the project area if the E -Basin is not developed. Police and Fire Development of project could 23 None required. necessitate provision of additional fire and police protection Schools Generation of 227 school-age 24 Collect school mitigation children fees. Generation of increased solid 25 Nome required. waste Parks No impact 25 None required. Cultural Resources a Location of project in an area with 27 Consult archeologist only if no known archeological resources resource is discovered during construction. 6 Project Description Project Description Project Location The Bridgetowne Estates parcel is located in northwestern Lodi (see Figure 1), adjacent to the City limits. The project site is bordered by Turner Road on the south, the Woodbridge Irrigation District Canal on the north and west; and Lilac Street on the east (see Figure 2). The .site comprises asses- sor's parcel number 15-170-5, 7, 8, 9 and 15-230-28, 29. As the Bridgetowne Estates property is not located within the City limits of Lodi, annexation to the City will be required in order to have City services made available. The subject parcel is currently in agricultural uses (vine- yards and row crops). The adjacent land uses include agricul- ture to the north, south, and west, and a residential subdivi- sion to the east. The proposed Towne Residential Project, cur- rently in agricultural use, is located to the south (see Figure 8) . Project Characteristics The Bridgetowne Estates project would result in the devel- opment of 227 single-family homes on 61 acres (3.7 du/ac over- all). The tentative map (see Figure 3) for the Bridgetowne project also provides for expansion of the Wine & Roses Country Inn, located on 2.6 acres to the east of the property. The expansion plans include renovation of the Towne family home, relandscaping, improvement of the pool, remodeling of existing shops, construction of a restaurant and boutique and the creation of an arts and crafts center open to the public. The site plan includes a loop street system with nine cul-de-sacs and two primary project entrances off of Turner Road and one primary entrance off Lilac Street. Construction of the project would include the installation of necessary public service infrastructure such as sewer lines, water mains, and other utilities. Stormwater from the site would be piped to a proposed storage basin located on the Batch property. Sewage from the project would flow by gravity to the treatment facility located southwest of the City. General Plan and Zonin The subject parcel is not located within the Lodi City limits and, therefore, has San Joaquin County General Plan and zoning designations. The Bridgetowne properties have a general plan designation of "Agricultural" and "Low Density Residential" Los Angeles FIGURE 1. AREA MAP 8 '_ FIGURE 2. BRIDGETOWNE ESTATES PROJECT LOCATION PROJECT EL S IT - slim ru ri Nang ��- it ��rt��li��:.� � ,r r FIGURE 2. BRIDGETOWNE ESTATES PROJECT LOCATION 10 Q 0- Uj O w O CL O CC U) LL! U w U1 Z O 1— W C� O cc m w Q O .. C'3 LL 10 ,:.4 a.rid a zoning o� " :.-! (General rur..,CUl Wits— rut-IiMUrr parcel size). Approval Process As the parcel is located outside of the existing City limits of Lodi, it would require annexation prior to development with City services. The property is therefore subject to the requirements of: Lodi's Measure A Growth Initiative. Measure A requires that annexation of properties to the City for develop— ment purposes must be approved by a vote of the electorate. The annexation would also require City Council and Local Agency Formation ConLmisEion (LAFCO) approvals (see "Land Ilse" section)_ it Comments and Responses i f f, 4 :i y. i� i d L CITY COUNCIL IV(LrN M OLSON. MJva JOHN 1 Jltdodr) SNIDIIt M1YM Pro TM,Ipom DAVID M HINCHMAN JAMES IN PINKFATON. It FRED M ALIO CITY OF LODI CITY NAIL. I77 WEST MN( STSII I CALL 601 IOU► LORI, CALIFORNIA 9S241.1910 JIM) 134.5634 IllitOhla Dal 1114M August 18, 1987 I/H)A S A t'11 T K SOS C�h M,r (r. Allcl . aft.-c"I c.h c4.1 KONAID M Sll 1+ cah AI.- ------------------- Community Development Department August 10, 1987 Page 1 8. A-16 Turner Road Left Turn Lanes - Provision of these lanes will mean no parking on Turner Road additional street width 5hculd be provided. 9. Page 29 (A-19 21)requ Mitigation Measures - Although this project I G aTe � re a traffic s -nal at Lower Sacramento Road at r Woodhaven, the development should pay for a portion of this and other traffic Improvements. 10. The alignment of Towne Circle with curves at the northeast and ( t northwest corners will be a speeding and traffic safety concern of the future residents. Mitigation of the sight distance problem at I Dresser Court should be discussed. Recommendations for realignment will be made to the Planning Commission. 11. The need for missing street improvements (curb, gutter and sidr.•walt /) and 'street widening) between Lot 226 and Lot 225 should be discussed I and ',eitigated. 12. The'MIKUTP traffic model's calibration to existing conditions and f results for future land uses has not been completely reviewed by City staff. Because of this and the problem mentioned in Coww nt 06. we are reluctant to make comments on the accuracy of the traffic analysis. We are lonfident however that the planned lane configurations for the streets involvfl3 are adequate. 11. Pala 17 Surroundln Land Use - Commercial development east of the �} PF" ec sou a so be shown. 11. Pain 18 11 ure 8 - This shows the Batch development and not ' Or ge own S a es. 15. Pa eses_57 b 58 Water Wells - Based on the existing well production r' needs of the t�ify, ere will be one or possibly two City well sites located within the boundaries of this development. The addition of one well and oversize lines will cost the City over $250,000. Some means to mitigate this impact should be developed. 16. Pa a 5$ Wastewater Collection 5 stem - Both lift ,I.ations went one sc arge nto a grav yItne 1n lower Sacramento Road. Preliminary work on the Wastewater Master Plan indicates this line does not have sufficient capacity to serve all the developments on Lower Sacramento Road. Some means to mitigate this impact should be developed. Comwunity Development Department August 18, 1987 Page 3 17. Pa es 58 & 75 Wastewater Treatment Plant Ce acit - The City's p an s Curren y a caDac p an s now processingy up to 6.1 million gallons per day. First phase capacity of 6.8 mIlion gallons per day is not indtuted. The City's I / present schedule is to have the first phase completed by the winter of 1989. There are many variables in this scheduling. it is very possible that a connection moratorium will be needed at same time during the next two expansion phases if Ali the cumtulative projects are approved and built. This.developpmmeent may not be able to be served until the first phase is completed. 18. Page 59• Stora Draina Basin • Development of Bridgetown with a not bbearecommendeedd by the P�uubbliceWorks Deparic ttment. Coommsnt should be made about the City using its condemnation powers to acquire expansion of Westgate Park and public utility easements required for trunk lines through the Towne property. Costs involved would be the developer's responsibilittyy, pevelepemnt of master stores drain facilities in this area (E Area, Westgate park) has been left to the developers. They have been required to install facilities as a credit against drainage fees. }+ 19. Pa2e 63 Westgate Park - Drainage basin construction does not Q 'r'' Provide for par p tenances, i.e., trees, barbecues, benches. walkways, recreation,factiities, etc. Some means to mitigate this / impact should be developed. 20. Pae 73 Cumulative Wa'er Corea tion - This table reflocts all t e pro ec s to Table-T1"The�mpa"c n / on the City system will be I less since Table 12 includes ridge projects which are not Qt V served by the City system. 7f & 76 ISO" ilastewater'Beneration - it is not clear 21. PONS .Tiable12 projects are ret u e�in these figures. I ! Woodbrida dev 9 pments should not be included as they are served by a separate sanitary district. 22. Page 76 Additional Park Land - Statements under this paragraph ' are no tons stent w fii fiio'se on Page 63. If lack of park land 1s significant under the rumuiative impacts, then this Department must �� question why it's 'aravoldable. Means to mitigate this park land deficiency should be developed. if you have any questions about our comments, please contact Richard Prima, Chief ivil Engineer, or me at your convenience. Jack L. Ronsko Pubifli Works Director .RCP/ma cc: Jones & Stokes Assoclates; Inc. Response to Comments - City of Lodi Deaartment of Public Works Comment No. Response 1 Comment noted; no response required. 2 Comment noted; no response required. 3 It is acknowledged that existing traffic courts and the MINUTP projected counts are not in agreement. This may be due to either seasonal variations in traffic flow and/or additional development of land uses, since 1985, which are not reflected in the data base used in prepar- ing the analysis of area traffic volumes. However, in analyzing the impacts of both the Bridgetowne project and cumulative growth, a comparison of existing volumes projected by the model (with cumulative plus project traffic volumes) provides an adequate analytical tool to determine necessary mitigation measures. In evaluating incremental impacts to street systems, MINUTP is an acknowledged tool for identifying appropriate mitigation measures, even in those situations where the MINUTP projections concerning existing volumes do not directly correlate to known or counted volumes. At this point in time, the citywide 1985-86 model is being updated as a portion of the general plan process. Once this updating and recalibration is complete, the MINUTP model should more accurately reflect current traffic data. However, in the meantime the MINUTP does identify appropriate mitigation which will adequately mitigate project - related impacts. 4 The references to Table 5 in the first two paragraphs on page 26 should be to Table 7. The reference to Table 3 on page 26, paragraph four, should be to Table 7. The reference in paragraph four on page 27 should be to Table 7 rather than Table 6. 3 The alignment of Evergreen Drive with the project en- trances was considered in the analysis, however, no graphic or drawing was provided. Figure 4 (driveway locations) illustrates projected p.m. peak -hour volumes and turning movements for Turner Road. Figure 3 in the Traffic Appendix on page A-16 also addresses this issue. 6 The identified mitigations are not specific to the project but would be the result of cumulative growth in the area without the project. The only available 15 rn BRIDGETOWNE ESTATES 1✓ YIN. DIST. 200, MIN -DIST. 100 MIN. 0187. 200' — � 3 7 % �. W6 — +202 ' 73 -96 .►.28b 29ti� /'. 19b-► 06 274— TURNER 74+TURNER RD.won a 0 z w w q w TOWNE RANCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS rAtrAR[o sv FIGUR DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS FOR THE BRIDGETOWNE ESTATES R�Sti?'mrtae, aim„ , 600 667 638 1 726 1 896 t0I2 934 a: 110,11 TURNER RD. ELM ST. 966 353 1201 383 13 54F 417 Z 1589 X447; LODI AVE_ 546 563 567 710 LEGEND 790 840 922 EXISTING 811 955 1069 EXISTING + PROJECT Q 1262 CUMULATIVE _ a 1377 CUMULATIVE + PROJECT c KETTLEMAN LN. 1063 1250 1074 641 1323 1172 650 1463 1183 a 731 1 1536 W 0 740 J CENTURY BLVD. HARNEY LN. FIGURE 5. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 17 � 7.65 I 4.J 24� 514 521 329 600 667 638 1 726 1 896 t0I2 934 a: 110,11 TURNER RD. ELM ST. 966 353 1201 383 13 54F 417 Z 1589 X447; LODI AVE_ 546 563 567 710 LEGEND 790 840 922 EXISTING 811 955 1069 EXISTING + PROJECT Q 1262 CUMULATIVE _ a 1377 CUMULATIVE + PROJECT c KETTLEMAN LN. 1063 1250 1074 641 1323 1172 650 1463 1183 a 731 1 1536 W 0 740 J CENTURY BLVD. HARNEY LN. FIGURE 5. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 17 7 8 9 10 m�tic�;tier: measure be to develop an areawide impact fee or assessment district. Funds collected could be used to finance traffic improvements based on trip generation by individual projects. The cumulative analysis included all of the projects shown in Table 12 (page 74), except for the Woodbridge projects. The traffic model used did not include Woodbridge in the analysis study area. The traffic volumes shown on Figure A in the report were not complete. The correct traffic volumes are shown on the following exhibit: - 310 44 - 337 1 44 19 484 75 19 496 75 LEGEND EXISTING EXISTING + PROJECT CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE + PROJECT The p.m. peak -hour traffic volumes for the existing, existing + project, cumulative, and cumulative + project conditions are shown on Figure 5. Comment noted; no response required. See comment 6 above. Since there is no through traffic, no attraction as a "shortcut," and since the street would be used primarily by residents, the actual probability of speeding is con- sidered to be low. No mitigation measure has been identified. Realigning the street would certainly reduce the chance for speeding; however, it does not appear to be necessary. 18 - 427 147 - 471 147 166 650 155 166 694 155 CO 1 i 1 I M M U L" N N V* O O ! } m ap to m LEGEND EXISTING EXISTING + PROJECT CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE + PROJECT The p.m. peak -hour traffic volumes for the existing, existing + project, cumulative, and cumulative + project conditions are shown on Figure 5. Comment noted; no response required. See comment 6 above. Since there is no through traffic, no attraction as a "shortcut," and since the street would be used primarily by residents, the actual probability of speeding is con- sidered to be low. No mitigation measure has been identified. Realigning the street would certainly reduce the chance for speeding; however, it does not appear to be necessary. 18 - 427 147 - 471 147 166 650 155 166 694 155 LEGEND EXISTING EXISTING + PROJECT CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE + PROJECT The p.m. peak -hour traffic volumes for the existing, existing + project, cumulative, and cumulative + project conditions are shown on Figure 5. Comment noted; no response required. See comment 6 above. Since there is no through traffic, no attraction as a "shortcut," and since the street would be used primarily by residents, the actual probability of speeding is con- sidered to be low. No mitigation measure has been identified. Realigning the street would certainly reduce the chance for speeding; however, it does not appear to be necessary. 18 Lc aiiow a;�equate i_r:e or sight at "Ire Court, C -- setback setback on lots 100-102 would be required. The setback would require that buildings be constructed toward the rear of these lots and that vegetation be planted which is either low -growing (1-2 feet) o-- high -growing (more than 6 feet) . 12 Require sufficient right-of-way to allow for development of sidewalk and gutters for lots 201, 207, and 224 through 227 as needed. 13 See comment 3 above. 14 Figure 8 on page 48 is not correct. Corrected Figure 8 follows. (Figure number refers to nurnbering in the DEIR, not to that in the FEIR.) 15 Currently, the City has no means to collect the $250,000 cost of the well and oversize water lines. Some mitiga- tion -measures--to---Fay for the new well and lines are as follows: o Form an assessment district in which participants of the district pay the cost. o Charge the developer for the cost of the new well and lines. o Charge on a first-come, first -serve basis with either the first developer paying the installation costs with reimbursement coming from subsequent` developers on a prorated basis, or the last developer using the infra- structure paying the total cost. Consideration of this issue should be made by City Council. 16 Preliminary work by Black and Veatch, consultants preparing the Wastewater Master Plan, indicates defi- ciencies in existing capacity. The existing 15 -inch and 18 -inch lines need to be paralleled with an additional 18 -inch line. Currently, the City has no means to assess the cost of improvements. See comment 15 for available mitigation measures. 17 Comment noted; no response necessary. 18 It appears from this comment that a temporary drainage basin on the Bridgetowne property may not be feasible. Condemnation measures to acquire expansion of Westgate Park could be necessary in order to service the Bridgetowne project. Alternatively, approval of the project would need to be delayed until the Batch project and Westgate Park expansion are approved. 19 19 Currently, the City has no development requirements for drainage basins in regards to park appurtenances. mhe City could require the developer to prepare a recre— ational master plan for the drainage basins. The City could further require review of this plan by appropriate City agencies. 20 Revised estimated cumulative water consumption would be 3,080,762 gpd (see Revised Table 14 following). 21 Revised estimated cumulative wastewater generation would be 1,368,510 gpd (see Revised Table 15 following). 22 The difference between the statements is because the analysis on page 67 refers to the project site only, while that on page 80 refers to cumulative growth in the area. There does not appear to be sufficient vacant land to accommodate the park demands resulting from cumulative growth. Therefore, -this --impact appears to be unavoidable, as vacant land cannot be created. The means to mitigate this deficiency will need to be iden— tified and evaluated by the City as part of its overall project review and General Plan revision process. 20 - r 00 PARK 1"ll Project Site CHURCH Q Q.w LEGEND R -RESIDENTIAL A - AGRICULTURAL MF - MULTI -FAMILY C -COMMERCIAL Revised Table 14. Estimated Clmulative Water Consumption Conmmip Liam People/ Population Residential Acres du du Generated Rate b Unit gpd Single-family — 3,041" d 2.68 8,150 320 gpod 2,607,962 !Multi -family — 680d 2.00 1,360 320 gpcd 435,200 Subtotal 761.3 3,721 -- 9,579 320-----gpod 3-,043,162 Industrial 37.6 — -- — 1,000 gpcd 37,600 Total 3,080,762 1.1 See page 77 of the Draft EIR for original table. Dcwenichelli pens. conn. c Includes :.akeshore Meadows. d Includes multi -family and duplex units. e Sum does not equal total due to rounding. 22 Revised Table 15. Estimated Wastewater Generation Consumption Land Use Zoa n Acresa Rateb Unit gpd Residential Single-family R-1 183.05 1,200 gpad 219,660 Single-family/ duplex R-2 492.25 1,800 gpad 886,050 Multi -family R -GA 24.4 4,000 gpad 97,600 Multi -family R --M 15.0 6,000, gpad 90,000 Industrial M-2 37.6 2,000 gpad 75,200 Total 1,368,510 bCity of Lodi Camunity Development Departnent 1987. e: Appelfeller pens, ocum. C See page 79 of the Draft EIR for original table. Comments - City of Lodi Department of Parks and Recreation M The following comment was submitted by the City of Lodi. Department of Parks and Recreation: €: o "The need for additional park lard is mentioned in this F' report. The adjacent parks will service these homes. However, for consideration should be the adoption of a 'i 2 park land dedication fee. The builder would be charged p�Q! a fee for each house to allow the City to purchase additional park land. This approach would allow us to continue to expand our park acreage to meet the growing need." L t J f 25 N J (,7 o"itcJe(la/"� - fys>, .4o Oe— poi. Police and Fire r:xistinc conditions ,6 (�7Lc The Lodi Poke Department s}ie;, the Brea wlthl Je Lodi city limits. T department hae f�i4'sworn alficers, patrol officers, and 'patrol care. T ere is one centra dispatch station, and the City is dlvidsd into seven patrol areas. The average response time for the City is 2.9 minutes. Development of the propoWIN roject will not adversely affect the service level of the departmentL tt��e,+�� )/ as (bh ltd I. 500 PgoulAtl m rati o is rh4j x cnl J. 9 The City of Lodi w 11 provide lire protection to the project area. 'TheLodi Fire Department provides service within the city limits, an area of approximately 8.5 square miles with a population of 45,794. The Department has 48 firefighters with 42 on line. It has four 1,500 -gallon pumpers, one elevated platform, truck and one equipment truck. The equipment is distributed among three stations. The station closest to the project site is the main station at West Elm and Church Street. Eme,Fgancy response time to the project area is estimated to be 3.5 to 4 minutes which is beyond the Fire Department's recommended 3 -minute driving time. The area is currently under consideration for an additional fire station. Due to the increased response time, the project would have a negative isipact on the Department's Class III ISO grading unless another fire station was added. The City has a site on Lower Sacramento Road just north of Elm Street. Development of the proposed project will not adversely affect the service level of the Fire Department. Althouqh it would require the addition of two firelighters and increase the amount of response calls by 32 per year. Assessment of Impact Deelopof project site will necessitate provision of addvitional ant lire and po ice protection The City has a present ratio of 1.02 firefighter per 1,000 people. The development of the Batch project would' necessitate the provision one firefighter to maintain this ra(io. According to the Fire Department, increased density and populationmaycreate the need for a higher number of firefighters per thousand people (Nughes pars, comm.). Mitigation Measures 28) None (required. 64 Response to Comments - City of Lodi Department of Parks and Recreation 23 Comment should be considered by the Lodi City Counci I during review of the project. 4 26 Response to Comments - City of Lodi, Police Department 24 The police department has 61 sworn officers, 45 patrol officers, and 15 patrol cars. The development of the proposed project will not adversely affect the service level of the police department as long as the 1.5 offi- cer to 1,000 population ratio is maintained. TATE (lF CAI1FC*NiA--0FFI(CF (1c Two f,.nyc►.N�o - CiF w UKME}lAIV. C�, DFFICE OF P! ANN''ING nNC RESEARCH , ..41X T -E J -H STREE, -,CRAMEr-410 CA August 26, 1987 James Shroeder City of Lodi Community Development Department 221 West Pine Lodi, CA 95241-1910 Subject: Bridgetowne Estates SCN# 87072801 Dear Mr. Shroeder: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above names! draft Environmental Impe.ct Report (EIR) to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and the comments of the individual agency(ies) is(are) enclosed. Also, on the enclosed Notice of Completion, the Clearinghouse has checked which agencies have commented. Please review the Notice of Completion to ensure that your comment package is complete. If the package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Your eight -digit State Clearinghouse number should be used so that we may reply promptly. Please note that recent legislation requires that a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make substantive comments on a project which are within the area of the agency's expertise or Which relate to activities which that agency must carry out or approve. (AB 2583, Ch. 1514, Stats. 1984.) These comments are forwarded for your use in preparing your finAl EIR. If I a� you need more information or clarification, we suggest you contact the commenting agency at your earliest convenience. Please contact Norma Wood at 916/445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, David C. Nuneakemp F Chief Office of Permit Assistance cc: Resources Agency Enclosures 29 Response to Comments - State Office of Planning and Research 25 Comment noted; no response required. Memorandum To Dr. Cordon F. Snow Assistant Secretary for Resources Mr. Janos Shroeder City of Lodi 221 West Pine Lodi, CA 95241-1910 F_ i Dyoe„wM d co" wMMrgrae of IAa DI,Wo TMi aasoueca Awrx.Y Of CALWOR)" Dw AUG I -$ W7 } Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Hatch; Century Meadows, Bridgetown* Estates The Department of Conservation is responsible for monitoring farmland conversion on a statewide basis. The Department also administers the California Land Conservation (Williamson) Act. We have reviewed the City of Lodi's DEIR's for the tbree projects referenced above (batch, BCH/ $70602031 Century Hosdow*, SCHI 87072802; and Bridgetown* Estates, $CHO $7072601) and have noted that the proposals will involve conversion of valuable farmland. The Department, therefore, offers the following comments. The Bridgetown Estates project Would convert 61 acres, Century Meadows would convert 160 acres, and batch would convert 100 acres of mostly prime ag=iealtural land for residential to development. Most of•the land IS-ander.Milliamson Act contracts and would be. annexed by the City.of Lodi., The Department is concerned with the growth inducing impacts of these projects. Although it is stated is all three EIR's that these projects would not generate new growth because of Measure �� A, we would like to point out that theme projects, if approved, demonstrate that this mechanism cannot be assumed to always be, an effective tool to limit the growth inducing effect of projects'. We are also concerned with the continuing loss of agricultural lands, especially prime agricultural land. The State's recently adopted ;1411 con;arvation Plan analysed figures from the) �1 Department of Water Resources' land use surveys which indicated oC that between 1972 and 19$0 California cropland has been converted to urban uses at a rate of 64,000 acres a year. Because the conversion of agricultural and open space land is considered significant and unavoidable, mitigation measures should be consider ; and discussed in the TEIA. These measures might Include -minimizing agricultural conversion impact; on high'puality soils by directing conversion onto lover t� quality soils and a� tabli nt of greenbelt areas. rarm o trusts, such as estanlah the Sonoma Tarmland Trust and the Marin rarmland'.1'rust, can another affective way to preserve -agricultural aiids. :a 0 � �. 2 �t • 11 Y" Dr. Page and Mr. Shroedor The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DEIR. We hope that the farmland conversion impact and Williamson Act issues are given adequate consideration in the FETR Tf I can be of further assistance, please feel free to call se at (9I6) M-5873. jc.�A - C;'ki Denis J. OBryont Environmental Program coordinator cc: Stephen Oliva, Chief Office of Land Conservation Response to Comments - State Department of Conservation (DC) 26 While the commentator is correct that Measure A does not guarantee the preservation of agricultural land, the deterrent effect of having to obtain voter approval has, in fact, significantly slowed farmland conversion in Lodi since 1981. As shown in the attached Table 2 and Table 3, the rate of annexation to the City has dramat- ically decreased since the enactment of Measure A. 27 and 28 The conversion of agricultural land to urban uses on this site creates a significant impact for which no mitigation measures are available. For this reason, it was identified as "unavoidable." The mitigation measures identified in the DC letter would not mitigate conversion of the subject parcel from agricultural uses, but do represent overall management techniques which are available to the City. 32 Table 2. Annual Annexations to Lodi Since 1970 Number of Total Acres Year Annexations Annexed 1970 6 154.05 1971 2 80.25 1972 5 73.61 1973 7 58.54 1974 6 151_34 1975 4 107.20 1976 2 54.80 1977 3 70.61 1978 2 98.90 1979 3 15.38 1980 5 225.44 1981 5 169.63 f - Measure A Enacted 1982 0 0 1983 0 0 ¢ 1984 1 110.001 1985 2 83.76 1986 1 2.196 s 1987 2 67.90 Total 56 3,660.06 'z 1 Noncontiguous public land (wastewater treatment plant and drainage basin) --no vote was required. 33 Table 3. Election Results Under Measure A Election Year Project Primary Proposed Land Use Acres Results of Electior 1982 No proposed annexations — — — 1983 Batch Single-family 100.0 Disapproved residential Sunwest Single-family 54.65 Disapproved residential 1984 Batch/Mills Single-family 1.20.0 Disapproved residential Sunwest Single-family 54.65 Approved residential 1985 Batch/Kills Single-family 120.0 Disapproved residential Stine & Roses Bed and 2.196 Approved Country Inn breakfast inn ylagglo Industrial 37.5 Disapproved 1986 Bauch Single-family 100.0 Disapproved residential Parkview Terrace Senior/adult 20.0 Approved (Mills) housing Maggio Industrial 37.6 Approved ^ Towne Ranch Single-family 78.3 Disapproved residential Johnsen Ranch Single-family 30.6 Disapproved residential j 34 :TATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND .+C-uSING AGENCY GeORGE DE;;KMEitn^r DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION --- ----- -- -- _-- --- P C BO)( 20-48 !!970 E. ChARTER WAY) STOCKTON, CA 9520! TDO 120PYi 948-7833 (209) 948-7906 August 19, 1987 10 -SJ -12-15.15 City of Lodi Br.idgetowne Estates Draft EIR SCH #87072801 Ms. Norma Wood Stut_e Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Ms. Wood: Caltrans has reviewed he Draft EAR for. the Bridgetowne Estates and offers the following comments: The Mitigation Measure portion of the Traffic Study should more fully address the financial responsibility for. _^ the recommended improvements. Along with the many development proposals in the Lodi area, and the trend toward longer commute trips, more capacity in��Z the existing Park and Ride lots may be required. Participation in the Commute Management programs should be addressed. Caltrans appreciates the opportunity to comment on the - Draft EIR. Any questions regarding these comments may be directed to Al Johnson at Caltrans, telephone (209) 948-7838. Very truly yours, DANA COWELL Chief, Transportation _ .. Planning Branch E- Attachments cc: PVerdoorn/_SJCCOG VRodman/SJCAPCD 35 5 t Response to Comments - State Department of Transportation 29 The only available funding mechanisms are 1) the =orma- tion of an assessment district, and 2) the adoption of mitigation fees via a City initiated ordinance. 30 Comment noted; no response required. f. i 36 i r„ ry- >y' t � 6 y �. SAN of cam"Fie Memorandum To Me. Norma Wood 0." , August 25, 1987 State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research P%to , Sacramento 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, California 95814 �v s O"wh" w, W la«i se/ +»o --I220 0 Street, Room 104 Sacramento, CA 95814 v sa-Od , SCN Nos. 87060203, 67072801, 87072802 - Batch, Bridgetown.' Estates, i Can tury Meadows Annexation, General Plan, Amendment. Rezoning, Agricultural Preserve Contract Cancellation, and Specific Development Approval The California Department of food and Agriculture (CO►A) has ruvieved the draft Environmental Impact Reports (OEIR) concerning the above referenced projects and has the following comments and recommendation. 1. These projects would result in the permanent conversion of w 100, 61, and 160 acres of farmland, currently coned General Agriculture - 41 acres minimum parcel size (GA -40), desig- nated as Agriculture in the.Ban Joaquin County General Pian, to urban uses. This land is all considered to be prime agricultural land, currently planted in irrigated vineyards, irrigated fruit orchards, irrigated field crops, and C'rristmas trees, with 63 acres vacant on the Batch site. 2. The proposed projects could lead to premature conversion of agricultural land due to the pressure to develop other agri- culturally productive parcels located in close proximity. 3. The proposed projects would require the cancellation of Cali- fornia Land conservation Contracts with can Joaquin County on 100, 51, and 40 acres of Nob project site respectively. This office is unaware if Williamson Act contracts are a consideration for the Towns Ranch or Johnson Ranch projects. 4. The City of Lodi is currently in the process of updating its General Plan. Expected completion is rid -1988. 5. This project is one of several proposed for this area. Six of these residential proiisets requiring annexation repre- senting over 450 acres of prime agricultural land will be submitted to the voters for approval on the November ballot under Measure A. Ms. Norma Wood August 25, 1987 Page Two While the COPA does recognise the right of local governments to 2+ develop and implement land use policy, we are compelled to -m sent on the conversion of'agricultural land. Ultimate).y, the voters will decide the merits of thea. projects, hovever, they should be able to sake an informed decision with guidance from a detailed and current Genera) Plan. Given the importance of agriculture to this region, a comprehensive agricultural lend use element In the General Plan is recommended. This element should include appropriate mitigation measures which would ensure the conservation of prime agricultural land. Mitigation measures sight include the use of land conservation easements, Williamson Act contracts, and urban transition zoning. Establishing right - to -faro ordinances and a site evaluation system snch as once used by rresno County or the USDA -SCS are other methods which might he employed'. The use of general obligation bonds to fund a local government land protection program, the use of development Is sessments to fund a land protection foundation such as the one in Solano County, and the purchase and transfer of development rights can br very effective programs which should be investi- gated. The implementation of such mitigation measures aneurinq the protection of surrounding agricultural land is strongly en- couraged. With the foregoing In mind, we recommend approval of the DSIR,a for the above referenced'projects. Steve Shaffer Research Analyst (916) 322-5227 �6 Response to Comments - State Department of Food and Agriculture 31 Comment noted; no response required. N Mr. non Bass Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1725 23rd Street, Suit* 100 Sacramento, CA 95816 August 3, 1987' RE, Bridgetown* Estates B.I.R. Dear Ron, ?leaseInd enclosed &:copy,otthe proposed site an or the win Prallainaty.in o not n al Rases expaftsion.� fo 9 IX. .'initially 3� to your office concerning thLe.,expansion that was not OLUn Msant lo.d your draft &.1 A.j other. than a brief mention in the s " - I project characteristics on'Pioi1� On page 48, the project siteinfigaws &should be changed to reflect the cot act site. A final comment to the 3.1 R. Is in response to the minor impact the project would have an iraffic traveling north on Woodhaven..: 133 across the W.I.D. Irrigation canal. Currently# residents in the area are petitioning the Lodi City Council to close down Sihiors Lane due to the traffic.problems associated in the area. Ron, If I can be of any fucth*c assistance pleas* call. Sincerely, Russ Munson een. v� g-+f't„t W,..w �.c^ •caw � r "'"'_ .--. ;_ a+- ..- i tk � 1 �.ri�a,�^/."mill: �• Response to Comments - Russ Munson, Project Developer 32 The project description submitted to the EIR consultant did not include development of the Wine and Roses Coun- try. Estate. Therefore, the DEIR did not address the development of this project. It is not possible to assess the impacts of this project in the FEIR. 33 Comment noted; no response. required. Response to Comments - Russ Munson, Proiect Develooer 32 The project description submitted to the ESR consultant did not include development of the Wine and Roses Coun- try Estate. Therefore, the DEIR did not address the development of this project. It is not possible to assess the impacts of this project in the FEIR. 33 Comment noted; no response required. 42