Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - September 19, 1984 (103)APPROVAL OF NC MA COINC I L APPROVED 'INE F I NAL MAP AND SU®I V I S I CN DOQJ[VIr M F ICR RANGE FINAL N"P NCh1A RANCH, TWC17 ND. 1876. AND AIMERI7ED 'INE CITY NWWGM AND AGREW NM AND MY TY CIM3C TD S I CN IME SUI3D I V I S I CN AMM'li M AND MAP CN BFI IALF OF THE CITY. Council was apprised that Gibralter Cannnity Builders. Inc., developers of Nana Ranch, have furnished the City with the necessary Agrecm.nts, Improvement Securities and fees for the proposed subdivision. This 20+ acre subdivision is located north of Almond Drive, west of Cambridge Place. It contains 97 lots which will be developed with single-family, duplex and condominium units. CITY OF LODI PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO: City Council FROM: City Ranager SATE: September 7, 1984 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION SUBJECT: Noma Ranch RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council approve the final map and subdivision ducument for Tract No. 1876 and authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to sign the Subdivision Agreements and map on behalf of the City. BACKGROUND INFOR14ATION: Gibraiter Community Builders, Inc., developers of Noma Ranch, have furnished the City with the necessary Agreements, Improvement Securities and fees for the proposed subdivision. This 20+ acre subdivision is located north of Almond Drive, west of Cambridge Place. it contains 87 lots which will be developed with single-family, duplex and condominium units. ck�,L. Ronsko Iic Works Director JL"B/eeh APPROVED: HENRYA. GLAVES, City Mani -ger RECEIVED SEP 10 PH 3 S5 REIMcHE; CITY OF LOPl i FINAL 83=2 (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL INVIRONMENTAL IMeACT REPORT FOR NOMA SUBDIVISION EIR - 83-2 APPLICANT Search evelopment Company 920 South Cherokee Lane Lodi, CA 95240 PROPERTY OWNER T (-x—n - H om a- 4131 E.Almond Drive Lodi, CA 95240 AGENCY PREPARING EIR City of Lodi 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION fihpropose pro ect is the rezoning and subdivision of a 20± acre parcel of land located on Almond Drive, 1/4 mile west of Cherokee Lane. The project will contain 67 single-family lots, 13 duplex lots (26 units), and a 41 -unit condominium lot. There is also a 1.3 acre parcel that will be sold to an adjacent property for use as a parking lot. The project will require certification of an EIR, approval of a rezoning to Planned Development and approval of a subdivision map. TABLE OF CONTENTS VICINITY MAP........... ............................... PROJECT MAP .............................................. LAND USE MAP....... ........... SUMMARY........... ........................................ I. Project Description II. Site Location and Description III. General Plan and Zoning Designation IV. Descriptinn of Environmental Setting A. Topography B. Hydraulics Co Soil Conditions D. Seismic Hazard E. Biotoc Conditions F. Atmospheric Conditions G. Noise V. Utilities A. Storm Drainage B. ' Sanitary Sewer C. Domestic beater D. Other Utilities VI. Community Services A. Traffic Circulation B. Police and Fire Prote.tion C. Schools D. Solid Taste E. Recreation VII. Measure A - "Greenbelt Initiative" VIII. Historic and Archeological Site IX. Environmental Assessments A. Environmental Impacts B. Mitigation Measures C. Alternatives to the Project D. Irreversible and Long -Term Impacts E. Cumulative Impacts F. Growth -Inducing Impact G. Energy Conservation X. kESPONSE AND COMMENTS A. Comments B. Responses to Comments -Planning Commission Meeting - December 12, 1983. C. LUSD-Development Fee Agreement 2 2 2 3 4 4 4 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 9 10 11 =i1 12 12 13 15 ' 18 1P 18 19 ■ Lql / VrE : . M+4aM'i N.rtil ' i r i r r • • . i /. PARCEL %4- rb It Ar.K .fir 'C.t/v�R•roc! AIAC! AWWrOWW"S ASSOC., A, j ..'..� j ✓w A s h On All, Nwsl, �. �N. •.. Nw • Ir.:.�.r rr� i M►•r I O 7. • i r �• �! i io N K /! N 44 sf i► i! !o = i tt Av it It of L*#'0 NJ *# '0 j t t ,: ..o t 81 2.7 ac t I Londom i n i ufti ' 15 units/acre D 41± units I .�c.�o,vo -—C•t.✓,� s N O M A • R A •N C H r 1< Ir/riI lril. INAO�✓/IIIA• M �A.� .rp�'ONW CbrW7✓ r �fo�rrl MN - - - os✓N/ NrwM' i !IAto's 00, -1100A.440-W.-IF I.O✓I✓dna� + Ir1 mewev//vlyl A /11sst�o/r 100010,61m !fAfR.0A.,A[00•iAf Wry or .a• !op r#pvto Cor wt , C/l jorow - .'rMirNhr.• i/.R�N ArYI�O/MLA/T G'al /Perm. Syt. /983 NOMA RANCH LAND USE MAP IIIImil/r aw O SUMMARY NOMA SUBDIVISION EIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is a 18.7 acre mixed residential project. There will be 67 single-family lots, 13 duplex lots (26 units) and a 41 -unit condominium lot. There is also a 1.3 acre parcel which will be sold to an adjacent property -owner. The total site is 20t acres. The subject site is currently designated low-density residential in the Lodi General Plan and has a zoning of R-2, Residential Single -Family with duplexes allowed on corner lots. The project will require a rezoning to P -D, Planned Development, approval of a specific development plan and a subdivision map. LOCATION The project will be located on the north side of Almond Drive, 1/4 mile west of Cherokee Lane. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) Loss of 20; acres of prime agricultural soil. Parcel is Class I soil. Parcel is Class I soil made up of Hanford Sandy Loam; well suited for a variety of agricultural uses. Development will mean loss of agricultural use of land. Urbanization could affect adjacent agricultural parcels by requiring modification of normal spraying and cultivation operations. Vandalism, trespassing and homeowner's complaints could increase. 2) Traffic will increase on Almond Drive and Valley Avenue/Academy Drive. The project will generate 1124 vehicle trip ends per day when fully developed. 3) Approximately 122 additional school -aged children could be added to the already overcrowded LUSD. MITIGATION MEASURES 1) No real mitigation for loss of agricultural land. Entire Lodi area is prime agriculture land and any development will eliminate agricultural use. 2) Solid fencing along the entire west property line will reduce trespassing and vandalism of adjacent agricultural properties by reducing direct access. 3) The strict conformance with State and Federal regulations will prevent problems with the use of agricultural chemicals. The project will not prevent the use of chemical materials. iv 4) The additional traffic can be mitigated by the careful design of the street system. Portions of the street will be upgraded with curb, gutter and sidewalk and a wider paved roadway. The traffic capacity of the adjacent streets are adequate to handle the additional traffic. 5) Impact of LUSD has been mitigated by the developer who has ante re3 into a contract with the LUSD to pay required impaction fees. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT 1) The "no build" alternative would eliminate environmental impacts by leaving the site in agricultural use. A "no build" alternative would not provide for future affordable housing. The proposed development is designed to provide homebuyers with moderately price houses. 2) Another alternative would be to develop the property under the existing R-2 zoning. This would reduce the total number of units from 134 to 109. -This alterative would reduce the number of school -aged children from 122 to 109 and reduce the traffic generated from 1124 vehicle trips to 981 vehicle trips. This alternative would not affect the loss of prime agricultural land. It would also eliminate the condominiums, which are a good source of affordable housing. IRREVERSIBLE AND LONG-TERM IMPACTS 1) Loss of agricultural land is permanent and irreversible. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 1) Loss of agricultural land is cumulative. In the past years, several hundred acres of land have been developed with various residential, commercial and industrial projects. Because the City of Lodi is entirely surrounded by prime agricultural land, all future projects will utilize agricultural land. 2) There is a cumulative impact on the LUSD. The LUSD includes much of the northern San Joaquin County, including the City of Lodi and north Stockton. It is estimated that there is the potential for an additional several thousand students in projects currently approved and in some state of development. This includes Lodi, north Stockton and the unincorporated County areas. This would seriously affect the LUSD. The LUSO is working with developers in the north County area to assist the District financially to provide additional classroom space. Many have signed agreements with the District. GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACT The project will not have A significant growth -inducing impact on the area. v NOMA Environmental Impact Report 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to subdivide and rezone a 20± acre parcel to permit development of an 18.7 acre mixed residential project. The project will contain a total of 134 residential units broken down as follows: Acres Lots Units Units/acre Single family lots 16 T9T—` Duplex lots 13 26 5.8 Condominiums 2.7 1 41 15.0 TOTAL Overall density 7.17 U.P.A. In addition to the proposed residential development, subdivision map includes a 1.3 acre parcel that is proposed to be sold to the adjacent Cambridge Place property. This parcel, which is adjacent to the Cambridge Place parking area, will be used to provide additional parking and recreational areas for the residents of Cambridge Place. No additional living units will be constructed on this site. The property is within the existing City limits and has a current General Plan designation of low density residential and a zoning of R-2, single-family residential with duplexes permitted on corner lots. The proposed project will require the following governmental actions: Certification of an environmental impact report; a rezoning; and approval of a subdivision map and specific development plan. II. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The project site contains 20 acres and is located in the southeast section of the City of Lodi. The property is located on the north side of Almond Drive, approximately 1/2 mile west of Cherokee Lane. Almond Drive is an east/west street located between Stockton Street and Cherokee Lane and 1/2 mile south of Kettleman Lane (State Highway.12).. (See Vicinity Plap). The parcel is designated as San Joaquin County Assessor Parcel No. 057-160-14. The property is currently under cultivation and is planted in grape vineyards. There is also a farm residence and related farm buildings located on the property. The project site is in a transitional area and contains a mixture of land uses. On the north, uses include a mobilehome/recreational vehicle -1- dealership, a trucking operation, and residential subdivisions. On the .t are residential uses including a 153 unit condominium project and a mobilehome park. To the south are several large -lot single family residences. There is also proposed a residential and commercial subdivision on 47.63 acres immediately south of the project area. This subdivision, the Johnson -Tandy Subdivision, is under review by the City and includes 239 residential units and a 6.2 acre commercial area. On the west are scattered residences and agricultural uses. (See Land Use Map) . III. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATION The subject property currently has a General Plan designation of low-density residential and a zoning of R-2, residential single-family with duplexes on corner lots. The proposed project includes a 2.7 acre condomin4,im parcel that does not conform to the existing R-2 zoning. The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the entire property to P -D, Planned Development. This zoning would permit, with City approval of the specific development plan, both the single-family/duplex lots and the condominium project. The proposed project will have an overall density of 7.17 units per acre. This density is within the maximum of 10 U.P.A. permitted by the low-density residential general plan designation. No change in the general plan designation will be required. IV. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING A. TOPOGRAPHY The project site and the surrounding area are generally flat with elevations of approximately 40-45 feet above sea level. The land in Lodi slopes gently from the northeast to the southwest at the rate of approximately 5' per mile. It is probably that the land was leveled sometime in the past to facilitate surface irrigation. The parcel contains no natural drainage channels or other topographic features. B. HYDRAULICS There are no natural water features or drainage channels located on the project site. The property does not lie within the floodplain of the Mokelumne River and would not be affccLed during a 100 year flood.. Except for agricultural properties served by the Woodbridge Irrigation District Canal, the majority of properties in the Lodi area, including the City of Lodi, are supplied by water pumped from underground sources. There are existing private agricultural and domestic water wells on the property. Using figures provided by the San Joaquin County Farm advisor for agricultural water uses, we can make some water use comparisons. The average vineyard requires approximately 35 inches of water -2- annually. Natural rainfall provides approximately 9 inches of the annual demand. The remaining 26 inches are supplied by irrigation. Converted to acrefeet, each acre of vineyard will use approximately 2.2 acre feet of water per year, excluding rainfall_ The 20 acres of the project x 2.2 acre feet equal approximately 44 acre feet of water required by the agricultural operation annually. The following water consumption chart breaks down the various water uses by acre feet/acre year for different types of residential development. Single family residence Multiple family residence 3.1 acre feet/acre year 2.4 acre feet/acre year The proposed development has the following number of acres in the above described uses. No.Ac. ft/ Total No/Ac.Ft/ use No. Acres Acre/Year Year Single Fam. Res. 16.0 3.1 49.6 Multi-Fam Residential .2.7 2.4 6.48 The estimated water usage for the proposed project will be approximately 56.08 acre feet/year compared to the existing water usage of 44.0 acre feet/year. C. SOIL CONDITIONS The soil type of project site is Hanford Sandy Loam. The surface soil is the Hanford Sandy Loam consists of an 8 to 14 inch layer of light, grayish brown, soft friable sandy loam which has a distinct grayish cast when thoroughly dry. The material grades downward into a subsoil of slightly darker and richer brown soil. Agriculturally, Hanford Sandy Loam is one of the best soils. It is used in the production of orchard, vineyard and other intensive perennial 7rops. In the Lodi area this soil is primarily :rsed for grape vineyards. The soil conservation service rates Hanfore, S:tndy Loam as Ciass 1 (the highest rating) and the Storie Index rates it at 95 percent for the ability to produce crops. The soil is also rated good for construction purposes. The bearing capacity of the soil is 2,000 lbs. per square foot. It does not have expansive qua',ities and will support most structural building loads. 90 The 1978 edition of the Uniform Building Code designates Lodi as being in Seismic Zone 3, one that requires the strir+est design factors for lateral forces. D. SEISMIC HAZARD Earthquake faults are not found in the immediate vicinity of the subject parcel. The nearest faults are approximately 14 miles to the south and west. Tr:? most probable sources of strong ground motion are from tl�e can Andreas Fault, Hayward Fault, the Livermore Fault and the Calaveras Fault, all located in the San Francisco area. E. BIOTIC CONDITIONS The site has been cleared of natural vegetation c;nd replaced with c0 'i vsted crops. The property currently contains grape vineyards. The type of plants and wildlife found on the site are common, to lands in the agricultural areas surrounding Lodi. There are no known rare or endangered species of plant or aninkil located on the project site. F. ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS Air Quality in the San Joaquin Valley is affected by a combination of climatology and topography. Topographically, San Joaquin County is located approximately in the middle of the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley. The valley has a trough-like configuration that acts as a trap for pollutants. Mountain ranges surrounding the valley restrict horizontal air movement and frequent temperature inversions prevent vertical air movement. The inversion forms a lid over the valley trough, preventing the escape of pollutants. Climatology also affects the air quality. High summer temperatures accelerate the formation of smog. This, combined with summer high pressures r:hich create low wind speeds and summer temperature inversions to create the potential for high smog con:entrations. San Joaquin County air quality is not in compliance with National Air Quality Standards. Pollutant uzone Carbon Monoxide Total suspended particulate matter Sulfur -dioxide Nat. Air Quality Standard 0.12 -pp. (Y-hr.avg 9.0 ppm, (8 hr.avg 75 ug/m (AGM) 365 ug/m3(24 hr.avg) 80 ug/m (annual avg) al San Joaquin Air Ouality U. iI ppm 14.4 ppm (highest AGM) no mem =urement The primary source of air pollution generated by the development will be from vehicular traffic. The trip generation estimates are based on data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers. -4- Single -Family Residential: Based on 10 vehicle trip ends per unit, the 93 units will generate 930 vehicle trips per day. Attached Housing Units: Based on 5.1 vehicle trip ends per unit, the 41 units will generate 209 vehicle trips per day. Total vehicle trip generation will be 1.140 v.-hicle trips per weekday generated by the proposed development. There is no specific data for the City of Lodi, so information was generated based on the data for San Joaquin County. The City of Lodi was assumed to generate 9.9% of the total for Sats Joaquin County. The following emission data was generated: Particulate Hydro- *SOx Matter Lead Carbons *CO *NOx San Joaquin County 1.51 3.186 .22 21.18 220.74 27.73 City of Lodi 9.9% of S.J.C. .151 .3186 .022 2.118 22.074 2.778 *Figures' in Tors/day The Noma Subdivision would account for less than 1/10th -If one percent the total for the City of Lodi. The amount would not significantly affect the overall air quality for the City of Lodi. G. NOISE The primary source of noise in the area of the proposed project will be vehicular traffic on Cherokee Lane to the east, Kettleman Lane to the north and the S.P.R.R. tracks to the west. The project site is, however, located a sufficient distance from a!1 of these major noise sources. According to the City of Lodi 14o -?se Contour Map based on 1995 traffic projections, no part of th-.- project site will fall within a problem noise contour. Ambient noise levels will not exceed 60 dBA. Levels of 60 dBA and under are considered acceptable for residential development. Ws V. UTILITIES A. STORM DRAINAGE The City of Lodi operates a system of interconnecting storm drainage basins to provide temporary storage for peak storm runoff. The runoff is stored until the water can be pumped in the W.I.D. Canal or the Mokeiumne River at controlled rates and locations. The subject property is located in the "D" drainage basin area which is served by the Salas basin -park. Salas basin -park is located at the southwest corner of South Stockton Street and Century Boulevard (future extension). This basin -park was constructed several years ago and srrves the "D" drainage basin. This drainage area generally covers the area from Lodi Avenue on the north, Central Avenue north of Kettleman Lane and Highway 99 South of Kettleman Lane on the east, Harney Lane on the south and the S.P.R.R. on the west. The basin serves both a storm drainage function and a recreational function. The basin is turfed and landscaped and has baseball diamonds and a concession stand. The project is connected to Salas Basin by a 30" line along Almond Drive and a 60" line alang South Stockton Street. Smaller lines will be extended from Almond Drive to serve the subject property. These lines will also provide storm drainage for a parcel of land north of the subject property. The lines and storm drainage facilities are adequate to provide drainage for this property. B. SANITARY SEWER The proposed project will be served by the City of Lodi sanitary system. There is an existing 8" line in Almond Drive that will serve the project. Subdivision lines will tie into the Almond Drive line. The City's White Slough Waste Water Treatment Facility has adequate capacity to handle all sanitary sewage generated by this project. C. DOMESTIC WATER Domestic water will be provided by the City of Lodi. There is an existing V line in Almond Drive that terminates at the southeast propertyline of the project. This line will need to be extended west across the Almond Drive frontage of the property and must continue to the Stockton Street line. This line will be extended to serve the project. The water lines will also be tied to lines north of the subject parcel upon development of that parcel. This looping of water lines will improve wager pressure and flows in the entire area. Existing agricultural and privatQ domestic wells on the site will be abandor;cc+ ::igen the project is developed. in D. OTHER UTILITIES Electricity will be provided by the City of Lodi. Natural gas will be supplied by P.G.b E., and Pacific Telephone Company will provide telephone service. All services can be adequately supplied to the project with normal line extensions. VI. COMMUNITY SERVICES A. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION (Also see Atmospheric Section). The Noma Ranch Subdivision will front on Almond Drive on the south and connect to Valley Avenue to the north. The subdivision is also designed to have a street that will serve the properties to the west, although at present the street will dead-end at the west property line of the project. In addition to these two streets, the City will recommend that an additional street be included in the project. This will be a street to serve the rear portion of the Geweke property located adjacent to the northwest one-half of the Noma property. This would require that the western most street shown on the Noma Ranch Subdivision map be extended north and stubbed at the north property line. This will eliminate one lot. This street will provide future street access to the Geweke property. Valley Avenue to the north currently dead -ends just north and east of the project property. Plans are for Valley Avenue to be extended and looped into Elgin Avenue in conjunction with the development of the Burgandy Village Subdivision. Plans are to construct Burgandy Village at the same time as Noma Ranch in order to coordinate utility and street work. Construction of the streets in Burgandy Village will provide Noma Ranch a street connection to Kettleman Lane via Valley Avenue and Academy street. Valley Avenue currently has a traffic volume of approximately 200 vehicle trips per day. The low traffic volume is largely a result of the current dead-end situation and the fact tht:t there are only 16 single family lots on the street. The construction of Burgandy Village will add approximately 200 vehicle trips per day. Noma Ranch will add approximately 600 vehicle trips per day. The total traffic volume on Valley Avenue will be approximately 1,000 vehicle trips per day. The looping of the existing dead-end street will improve the overall traffic flow on the street. The 1,000 vehicle trips per day are well within the traffic capacity of Valley Avenue. Almond Drive to the south will take the project traffic west to Stockton Street or east to Cherokee Lane. Stockton Street carries traffic north to Central Lodi. Cherokee Lane serves as both a major convercial street and as a connector to State Highway 99. Almond Driv,! is an east -west street running between Stockton Street and Cherokee Lane. The street was originally built to County road -7- standards with a 20' paved roadway gutters or sidewalk. There have b have been built since portions of City. The street frontage of these City standards which include a 44' sidewalk. dirt shoulders and no curb, !en several developments that he street were annexe; to the projects have been developed to roadway, plus curb, gutter and In future years, as properties along the entire length of the street are developed, the entire street will have a 60' right of way, a 44' road width and curb, gutters and sidewalk. Currently, to eliminate patchwork construction resulting from new developments, the City has expended street funds to improve portions of Almond Drive in conjunction with development projects. If -the Noma Ranch Subdivision is developed, along with proposed Tandy Ranch Subdivision across the street, approximately 2/3 of Almond Drive will be built to City street standards. Currently Almond Drive has relatively low traffic volumes. Most of the traffic is local traffic generated by residents along the street. There is also some through traffic between Stockton Street and Cherokee Lane. Current traffic volumes on Almond Drive are approximately 1200 vehicle trips per weekday. If Noma Ranch Subdivision is approved, it and other projects recently completed, will double the traffic volume to approximately 2,400 vehicle trips per weekday. If Tandy Ranch is approved, approximately 1,000 additional vehicle trips could be added to the total. That would bring the total to approximately 3,400 vehicle trips. B. POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION The City of Lodi will provide police and fire protection to the proposed development. The Chief of Police has indiczted that the department has no "level of reserve" which should be maintained in the city department. He indicates that the additional service for the subject property will come from reordering of departmental enforcement priorities. The Chief notes, however, that this new development and other areas of the city will receive uniform treatment with regard to service levels. The Chief of Police will review the project plans to insure that the street lighting system and building and street layout permit adequate security surveillance by police patrol units. The Fire Chief will review all plans to assure protection. He will work with the developer on location of fire hydrants and will review the insure adequate accessibility for fire equipment, adequate fire the number and project plan to C. SCHOOLS The Lodi Unified School District (LUSD) is experiencing a problem of student overcrowding in many of its schools. Many of the schools are at maximum capacity and the District must move students out of their normal attendance area to accommodate all the students. The LUSD i; attempting to meet the increased enrollment by constructing new school sites and by adding temporary facilities to existing school sites. In order to defray the cost of construction of needed interim school facilities, the City of Lodi passed City Ordinance No. 1149. The ordinance, passed pursuant to Senate Bill 201, was enacted prior to the passage of Proposition 13. The ordinance provides for the payment of a fee of $200 per bedroom for every residential unit constructed in a new subdivisioi:. The fee is collected by the City at the time a building permit is issued. The money is then transferred to the !_USD. The money is used specifically to pay for temporary facilities for the impacted school attendance area. An alternative would be for the developer to enter into a direct agreement with the LUSD. The agreement would be for the direct payment of a monetary amount equal to the fees established by City ordinance No. 1149. These monies can then be applied towards the construction of permanent facilities, rather than interim facilities, as mandated by the law now in effect regarding impaction fees. The proposed project will have 134 residential units. The number of students is estimated as follows: HOUSING TYPE NO. OF UNITS STUDENTS/UNITS TOTAL Single-family 67 1 67 Duplex 26 1 26 Condominiums 41 0.7 29 -9- Total Students 122 D. The project is located in the following attendance areas: Heritage School K-6 Senior Elementary 7-8 Lodi High School 9-12 The projected enrollment for these schools in the 1983-84 school year are: Heritage School 676 Senior Elementary 880 Tokay High School 2421 Student Transportation: Transportation is provided if students live no less than the following distance from school: K-6 1.5 miles 7-8 2.5 miles 9-12 3.5 miles Exceptions to the above may be made at the discretion of the Superintendent of Schools on the basis of pupil safety, pupil hardship, or District convenience. Distance from Noma Subdivision (approximately) Heritage School 1.5 miles Senior Elementary 2.0 miles Tokay High School. 2.0 miles tni to WACTF Existing collection of residential solid waste within the City of Lodi is on a weekly basis by a franchise collector. At the present time the waste is hauled to a transfer station and resource recovery station locatedatthe company's headquarters in the east side industrial area. The refuse is sorted with recyclable material removed. The remaining refuse is then loaded onto large transfer trucks and hauled to the Harney Lane Disposal site, a Class II -2 Landfill. Current operations are consistent with the San Joaquin County Solid Waste Management Plan, adopted June, 1979.The subject area is within County Refuse Service Number 3 and the North County Disposal Area, which is served by the Harney Lane Site. -10- The number of units built in the project will be 134. The City's franchise collector estimates that each residential unit in the City of Lodi generates an average of 39 lbs. of solid waste per week. 134 units x 39 lbs/week = 5,226 estimated lbs. of solid waste per week. E. RECREATION The proposed project does not set aside any land for parks or other public recreation. It is possible that some private recreational facilities will be constructed as a part of the condominium development. These might include a swimming pool, spa or recreation room for the tenants of the condominiums. There is a major public recreational facility located approximately 1/2 mile southwest of the project. This is Salas Park, a 21 acre recreational complex constructed in conjunction with the Salas storm drainage basin. The complex contains lighted ball fields, a concession stand, picnic facilities, restrooms and walkways. Future plans are for a parking lot and children's play equipment. These are all open to the public. Approximately 1 mile to the north at Stockton and Poplar Street is another City facility, Blakely Park. This park contains ball fields, a swimming pool, picnic areas and restrooms. VII.MEASURE A - "GREENBELT INITIATIVE" On August 25, 1981, the voters of the City of Lodi passed an initiative ordinance to limit future expansion of the City. The initiative, known as the "Greenbelt" initiative, amended the City's General Plan by removing the Planned Urban Growth Area from the Land Use Element of the general Plan. The Urban Growth area now includes only those areas that were within the City Limits at the time of passage of the initiative. The ordinance now requires that any addition to the Urban Growth area, i.e. annexations, requires an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan. These annexation- related amendments to the General Plan require approval by the voters. VMI. HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE There are no sites or buildings on the subject property that are designated as historical landmarks by any Federal, State or local aoencies. The nearest recorded landmarks are in the community of Woodbridge, several miles to the northwest. -11- Although there are no recorded archeological surveys of the site, it is doubtful that there any any archeological sites on the property. Known Indian sites in the Lodi area are usually located along the banks of the Mokelumne River, several miles to the north. The property has been extensively cultivated for many years. There is no record of any items of antiquity ever being unearthed on the site. Additionally, the extensive digging and plowing to cultivate the vineyards and the trenching to install irrigation lines would have destroyed any archeological material. If, during construction, some article of possible archeological interest should be unearthed, work will be halted and a qualified archeologist called in to examine the findings. XI. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The development of the Noma Subdivision will result in the loss of 20 acres of prime agricultural land. The project property is currently planted in a grape vineyard. The project soil is made up of the Hanford Sandy Loam, the predominate soil type in the Lodi area. This type of soil is rated as Class I soil for agricultural production and can be planted with a wide variety of crops. In the Lodi area this soil type is extensively planted in vineyards. Development of the site with residential uses will terminate further use of the property for agricultural purposes. The existing crops will be removed and the land covered with streets, houses and other urban improvements. Urbanization of the subject parcel will also affect the continued agricultural use of adjacent parcels. The presence of a residential development may require modification of normal farming practices on adjacent agricultural lands. The use of certain controlled pesticides and herbicides may be restricted on areas adjacent to residential developments. Cultivation and harvesting operations may result in complaints from urban residents concerning noise and dust. Agricultural operations adjacent to urbanized areas may also be subject to an increased amount of trespassing and vandalism. The project will increase traffic on adjacent streets, particularly Almond Drive, Valley Avenue and Academy Street. The project is . estimated to generate approximately 1,140 additional vehicular trip ends per weekday when fully developed. Of this number, it is estimated that approximately 570 vehicle trips will use Valley Avenue and 570 vehicle trips will use Almond Drive. The total vehicle trips on Valley Avenue, including Burgandy Village and Noma Ranch will be approximately 1,000 vehicle trips per day. The total vehicle trips on Almond Drive, including -12- Cambridge Place, Stonetree, Tandy Ranch (proposed) and Noma Ranch will be approximately 3,400 vehicle trips per day. The increased vehicular traffic will produce some additional air pollution in the area of the project. The project generated pollution will have a localized affect of air quality, but will not significantly affect the overall air quality of San Joaquin County. Based on a worst-case situation, vehicular traffic generated by the development would increase overall air pollutants in the City of Lodi by less than 1%. The project will generate an estimated 122 additional school -aged children when fully developed. The addition of these students will affect the LUSD and its ability to provide adequate classroom space. The LUSD has filed a Declaration of Impaction that states that the schools are at maximum capacity and that new schools are at maximum capacity and that new students cannot be guaranteed classroom space. B. MITIGATION MEASURES If the Noma Subdivision project is approved and constructed, the 20 acres of prime agricultural land will be removed from further agricultural use. There is no practical way to mitigate the loss of this land. Once cleared and developed with streets and houses, it is unlikely that the land will ever return to agricultural use. The land has, however, been zoned residential and also been designated for residential use for many years by the Lodi General Plan. Trespassing and vandalism on adjacent agricultural properties can be reduced by constructing a solid fence along the west and north property line adjacent to any agricultural property. The fence should also be constructed across any street opening that will dead-end or remain undeveloped. The fence will reduce trespassing and vandalism on the agricultural properties by cutting off easy access from the subdivision. The fence must be maintained by the developer, or the homeowner as the lots are sold. As for any restriction on the use of pesticides, herbicides or other chemicals, these products are controlled by State and Federal regulations. All restricted chemicals, those with the potential to cause health or environmental problems, require a San Joaquin County Agricultural Department permit for use. The Agricultural Department determines the suitability of the chemical based on the location of the field, the types of crops in and around the field and the land uses in the area. According to the San Joaquin County Agricultural Department, there are no definite distances required between the fields being treated and adjacent residences. Permits for application of restricted chemicals are issued based on the particular characteristics and restrictions of the chemical and the judgement of the agricultural -13- commissioner. The Department noted that the key factor in the safe use of any chemical was proper application. This includes using the proper method of application, using the correct equipment, checking for favorable weather conditions and finally the proper care used by the applicator. They also stated that in situations where a particular chemical or application method was felt to be unsuitable, there was usually an acceptable alternative. The presence of homes would not automatically mean that a farmer could not use chemicals. It would only mean that he would have to take particular care in its application and in certain cases might have to use an alternate chemical or method of application. As for complaints about noise or dust from normal farming operations, it is always possible that these problems could arise. If, however, the farmer uses a reasonable amount of care in his operation, it is unlikely that this would be a problem. Farming operations completely surround the City of Lodi and the City has not experienced any particular problem with homeowner complaints regarding farming operations. If any problems did arise, the City would do whatever possible to resolve the problem. Although there are agricultural properties in the area, the area has been undergoing a transition to non agricultural uses for many years. As long ago as the early 1960's, there were 10-12 single-family parcels with houses along Almond Dive. Additionally, Almond Drive Estates, a 68 -space mobilehome park, and a pitch and putt golf course was built during the 60's. At the same time there were various commercial and residential projects constructed along Cherokee Lane and Kettleman Lane. Recently there have been two major residential projects built on Almond Drive. Cambridge Place Condominiums (163 units) and Stonetree Condominiums (90 units). There has also been numerous industrial developments constructed along Stockton Street at the west end of Almond Drive. There have been several recent planning actions along Almond Drive. One was the Johnson -Tandy rezoning, a 43 -acre residential and commercial project on the south side of Almond Drive. This project was in court litigation and has not been built. The project has been resubmitted for City review. A second rezoning, the Hausler Rezoning, changed the zoning on 6 single-family lots from R-1, residential single-family; to R -MD, residential medium density. These lots are also on the south side of Almond Drive. Finally, Burgandy Village, a 32 -lot subdivision was approved for the parcel iwA#*diately north of the subject site. The additional traffic on Almond Drive can be ha{idled by the current street design, although the increase in traffic will be noticeable to current residents on the street. The development of properties adjacent to Almond Drive will greatly improve the street as well as adding traffic. If Noma Ranch and Tandy Ranch are both -14- developed, 2/3 of the north side and one-half of the south side of Almond Drive will be developed to City street standards. This will mean two full travel lanes, a parking lane on both sides and curb, gutter and sidewalks. The improvement in the roadway will permit safer traffic movement on the street, improved storm water runoff and sidewalk for pedestrians. As traffic increases on Almond Drive, the City will study whether any modifications are necessary at the Almond/Cherokee intersection. If it is determined to be necessary, a left-hand turn pocket on Almond Drive may be considered. Also, some work may be required on Cherokee Lane. This could be done in conjunction with the redesign of the Cherokee/Century intersection. The impact of additional students on the LUSD will be mitigated by the payment of school impaction fees by the developer. the City of Lodi has received a copy of a signed contract executed between the Noma's and the LUSD. The agreement states that the property owners have agreed to pay directly to the LUSD all fees prevailing at the time building permits are issued. The LUSD considers the payment of these fees as mitigation for the environmental impacts of the LUSD caused by the development. C. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT Alternative 1 The principle alternative to the proposed project would be to not construct the project. This would maintain the existing agricultural use of the land and eliminate the adverse impacts resulting from the proposed project. While this alternative would eliminate the environmental impacts, it could have other effects on the City of Lodi. The primary effect would be on the future supply of moderate cost housing. Currently, there are approximately 396 vacant single family lots in subdivision with final subdivision maps. There are also approximately 508 vacant single family lots in subdivision with only a tentative subdivision map or tentative project approval. Subdivisions with a final map can obtain building permits while those with only a tentative map must still file a final map before any permits can be issued. Finally, there are approximately 212 single family/duplex lots in subdivision currently being reviewed by the City. These projects, Tandy Ranch and Summerfield, have not obtained any approvals as of December 1, 1983. The 396 lots with final subdivision maps represent approximately a 28 -month supply based on a 10 year average of 179 single-family -15- As the figures indicate, only 45% of the lots will have housing of less than $85,000. In Lodi, housing that exceeds $85,000 in price is beyond the price range of most people. It is only the housing that is less than $85,000 that would come close to being considered moderate or affordable housing. The subdivisions that contain houses of less than $85,000 are the most active in terms of building and selling, since they are in demand by the largest number of people. The 406 lots in this category probably constitute about a 3 -year supply of lots. In one year to 18 -months, however, all the subdivisions in this category, except Lodi Parkwest, will be completely built out. This might mean that a homebuyer looking in this price range may only have one subdivision to choose from. The developer of Noma Ranch feels that he can provide single-family housing for less than $85,000, based on current economic conditions. He would, therefore, b,� able to provide affordable housing for future homebuyers. This is particularly important since these units would not come on line until late in 1984 or early 1985, just as many of the other projedts in Category C are built out. If Noma Ranch, or similarly price projects are not developed, there will be a shortage of affordable single family housing in the very near future. The construction of affordable units will result in even more affordable housing becoming available in other- parts of the City. Some of the homebuyers will be trading up from less expensive houses in older parts of the City. These older houses represent the only source.of detached housing in the less than $50,000 range. Alternative 2 Another alternative would be to develop the property in conformance with the existing zoning. The existing R-2 zoning would permit a single-family subdivision with duplexes on corner lots. It would eliminate the proposed multiple family development planned for 2.9± acres of the project. The primary difference would be a reduction in the number of units. The 2.7± acres developed at 15 UPA would yield 41 writs. The same 2.1± acres developed at 5.8 UPA would only yield approximately 16 units, a reduction of 27 units. The change to an all R-2 development would not require a rezoning. The reduction in the number of total residential units from 134 to 109 would also change some of the other aspects of the project. There would be fewer vehicle trips generated by the reduced number of units. The original 134 unit project would generate approximately 1,140 vehicle trip ends per weekday. The 109 unit alternative would generate approximately 981 vehicle trip ends per weekday a reduction of 143 vehicle trip ends. Fewer households would also reduce the number of school children generated by the project. Instead of 122 school -aged children, there would only be approximately 109, a reduction of 13. •-17- This alternative would also not affect the major impact of this project, the loss of agricultural land. Whether the land is developed with all single-family units or a mix of siigle-family and multiple -family, the land will be removed from agricultural use. D. IRREVERSIBLE AND LONG TERM IMPACTS The loss of agricultural land will be an irreversible and long-term impact. Once the land is developed with homes and streets, there is little likelihood that the land will ever be used for agricultural purposes. E. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The proposed project will have a cumulative impact on the loss of agricultural land in the past several years, Lakeshore Village, a 96± acre development, Lobaugh Meadows, a 92± acre development and Kennedy Ranch, a 88± acre development, have been approved., These developments will utilize a total of 216± acres of agricultural land when these projects are constructed. Additionally, if the Johnson -Tandy project is developed, this will utilize another 43 acres of agricultural land. Unfortunately, all land in and around the City of Lodi is designated prime agricultural land. The entire area surrounding the City is in agricultural use. Almost every development, large or small, must utilize agricultural land. There are no non -prim soil, non-agricultural parcels around Lodi. The residential, commercial and industrial requirements of tF.e City and its residents necessit,'L urbanization of agricultural land. The other significant cumulative impact is the impact on the LUSD. LUSD estimates place the number of new students generated by developments in Lodi and North Stockton at several thousand students in the next few years. These students place a strain on the District's ability to provide classroom space, particularly in light of the fiscal problems facing schools. Currently, developers both in Lodi and in Stockton have been working with the LUSD to provide funds for additional classroom space. This will help alleviate the short-term problems facing the schools. F. GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACT Development of the Noma property will allow the development of Rurgandy Village to the north. This 5 acre, 32 -lot subdivision is located immediately north of the Noma project. Certain utilities are required which must be run south to Almond Drive. Once these utility lines a;e installed as a part of the Noma Subdivision, Burgandy Village can tie into these lines and proceed with development. The subdivision has already been appro❖ed by the City. As for any additional growth -inducing effects, they will be severely limited by the "Greenbelt" initiative. This measure will require all annexations to be approved by a vote of the people. Since much of undeveloped land in the area of the proposed project is not in the City, the voters will ultimately determine whether it will develop or not. G. ENERGY CONSERVATION Structures in the project will be constricted to meet State of California Energy Standards. The standards include such things as window area, insulation, energy efficient appliances, etc. Approximately one half of the lots in the project have a north -south orientation. This orientation provides the best adaptability for both passive and active solar design. The developer could also offer various solar design packages as part of the construction of the homes.. -19- RESPONSE TO COMMENTS -20- X. RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS Most of the comments we received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report were addressed in the -text of the final EIR. The following are comments that we are addressing separately. REMY b THOMAS - ATTORNEY FOR RLOA. Q. What is the vacancy rate for adjacent developments? RESPONSE: By using utility billing records it appears that the CambrTUe—ei—TTace Condominiums are about 95% occupied. Stonetree Condominiums are about 25% occupied. Stonetree was completed in the late summer of 1983 and is still in the sale/rent up period. Q: What is the vacancy rate in Lodi? RESPONSE: The vacancy rate in the Lodi Planning area (includes some areas outside of City limits; was 5.3% in 1980. This compares to a San Joaquin County vacancy rate of 7.9%. Both figures are based on the 1980 U.S. Census and include all types of housing. Q. How many units does Lodi absorb annually? RESPONSE: The city does not maintain sales or rental information for resT3ent zl units. The 10 year average for new units constructed is 179 single-family units and 180 multiple -family and condominium units per year. It would seem that the number of units constructed would reflect the City's ability to absorb new units. While there may be short-term oversupply or undersupply, these tend to wcrk themselves out. The 10 -year average is probably an accurate measure of absorption. If interest rates were to fall, the absorption rate for housing might be much higher due to pent up demand. Q. Has Lodi m:.t its Regional Fair Share of housing? RESPONSE: The City is attempting to meet its Regional Fair Share Housingneeds. The City has contracted with the San Joaquin County Housing Authority to administer its Section 8 program. This is a rent subsidy program that helps low-income people by paying a portion of their rent. Currently, there are 98 families in Lodi being assisted by this program. The City has also encouraged developers who attempt to build units under N.U.D. or other subsidized housing programs. The City is particularly interested in encouraging senior -citizens housing, since they constitute a sizable portion of low income households. The City also encourages affordable housing by allowing increased densities in many of the newer housing developments. Many of the newer projects include some multiple -family units as well as single-family units. The higher units per acre lowers the land and development cost. per unit, lowering the overall price per unit. -21- The City has also zoned sufficient areas of the City in multiple -family zoning. The zoning permits people to construct condominium and apartment projects which provide a supply of affordable housing units. The remainder of this letter's comments were addressed in the text. WILBERT RUHL Q: Is annexation of Noma property valid in light of Greenbelt Initiative? RESPONSE: The City Attorney has determined that the courts did not invalidateTh annexation and that the Noma annexation was proper and valid. -22- �...,.. .�.�+'�3��';��..'��i `c"a.;�,.r ,.;. .... .o ,..r. .. ,.. �'Fr.<.. K-„,.,.... � '.t'•” .,•:_-: �rz-c-s,.,.;.ars:zsr ,:.-Rr.�s.�.,. :<:>rtc!'m.^+n .. .. _ REMY and THOMAS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 801 12TH STREET. SUITE 500 SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 95814 MICHAEL 1/. REMY 49161 443.2745 TWA A THOMAS November 16, 1983 Mr. David Morimoto City of Lodi 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 RE: Noma Ranch Subdivision Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Morimoto: Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the above referenced EIR. On behalf of the Rural Landowners' Association (RLOA) the following comments ar'e submitted. We recognize that these comments were due by November 11, 1983, however, your City Attorney, Mr. Ronald Stein. has agreed to accept these comments late. While the EIR briefly mentions impacts related to the agricultural use of the property, the EIR fails to discuss the feasibility of infill development- in the City of Lodi. As you will recall, this was of major concern in the Tandy -Johnson project. If it is true that the neighboring subdivisions are unoccupied, is it appropriate to continue approving housing at all? How many vacant units are available in the City of Lodi? How many units does Lodi absorb annually? Has Lodi met its Regional fair share? When approving the project, CEQA. the Guidelines and recent precedent require the approving agency to reject all project alternatives in the EIR with a finding that the alternative is infeasible. RLOA asserts that the necessary findings cannot possibly be made for project approval since the EIR is deficient in analyzing housing demand in Lodi. The EIR also off -handedly determines that neighboring agricultural lands may be unable to be used for agricultural purposes because of pesticide and herbicide usage. Mitigation measures have not been discussed with regard to that identified impact. The cumulative impact analysis is also deficient because the EIR does not specifically address the Johnson -Tandy proposal. Since the Guidelines require that reasonably foreseeable future projects must be discussed (Guidelines Section 15355), the Johnson -Tandy project must be discussed since the project application for Johnson -Tandy has been accepted by the City (i.e., cumulative traffic, cumulative services, cumulative impacts on agricultural lands). -23- Finally, Measure A requires the agency to find that projects adjacent to the Green Belt are not incompatible with the agricultural uses of the Green Belt. This finding is impossible in light of the scant evidence in the EIR. Thank you for allowing these brief comments. Very truly yours, REMY AND THOMAS BY /,/- A? W-� INA A. THOMAS, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR RURAL LANDOWNERS E -24- g C � STATE OF CAIIfORN1A—OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR GEORGE OEUKMEAAK Gbvwnw OFFICE OF RESOURCES. ENERGY. AND PERMIT ASSISTANCE 1400 TENTH STREET :mac L SACRAMENTO. CA 95814 ,iMc (916/445-0613) November 28, 1983 Mr. David Morimoto City of Lodi 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 Subject: SCN 83101101, Noma Ranch Subdivision Dear Mr. Morimoto: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This letter certifies only that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (EIR Guidelines, Section 15161.5). Where applicable,' this should not be construed as a waiver of any jurisdictional authority or title interests of the State of California. The project may still require approval from state agencies with permit authority or jurisdiction by law. If so, the state agencies will have to use the environmental document in their decision-making. Please contact themm im- mediately after the document is finalized with a copy of the final document, the Notice of Determination, adopted mitigation measures, and any statements of overriding considerations. Once the document is adopted (Negative Declaration) or certified (final EIR) and .'.f a decision is made to approve the project, a Notice of Determination must be filed with the County Clerk. If the project requires discretionary approval from any state agency, the Notice of Determination must also be filed with the Secretary for Resources (EIR Guidelines, Sections 15083(f) and 15085 (h)). I erely c Terry Roberts Manager State Clearinghouse -25- RECEIVED f NOY 151983 U let, c c' Noma Ranch E.I.R. Page iii I don't see Ruth Colvin or Ruhl's homes Page 2 Johnson -Tandy 47.63 acres, on page 13 it is 43 acres Page 13 Cambridge Condos 163 units, on page 8 it is 153 units , Page 14 E Eihlers annexation omitted as available land Page 9 Projected enrollment of a school means nothing unless you know the schools' capacity. Page 6 A Water flows across the Noma ground south during wet weather. Covering the ground with houses and streets will increase the flow. If there is a storm drain in now it has not helped this long-standing problem. Page v I think adding 134 families to a neighborhood is growth - inducing. To develop the land under the existing R-2 zoning which would be mainly single story homes as compared to a 41 unit two-story condo at 15 uni_ts pe-, ire certainly changes the environment. 25 fewer families in the neighborhood would be significant. I am in favor of keeping the R--2 zoning if this ranch is to be developed. 1!qV , 19 :3.i -27- Dy O CJ " " t 323 West Elm Street Lodi, California 95240 BAUMBACH & PIAZZA Phone (209) 368-6618 November 10, 1983 Mr. James Schroeder, Director Community Development Department City of Lodi Re: Noma Ranch E.I.R. Dear Sir: A statement was made on page 1 of the E.I.R. (because of information supplied by us) that a 1.3 acre parcel will be sold to Cambridge Place Homeowners Association. The sale as originally contemplated can not be com- pleted. The principals are still trying to arrive at a way of providing a parking and recreation area for Cambridge Place; however, we can no longer state that will definitely happen. Sincerely, TERRY P ZA TP:jc CC: Search Development 110V 10 ; 33 28- C P-,C'm N'cT7� / 00 q1003 . c ,tO A A -t 4 �..� te4 sz.._z�t e lzQ� �—°A°u-t Wiz, t;A� f-o--� aA4 ;44 Azj� �4 1--0 4,, pvvue� U/ 6-.4 ",Oct 4 C,0.01 - P�e� C,A��tXAL� • State of Caiifomia �• Department of the Youth k&000* Northem California Youth lints► 7660 & Newcastle Road Stockton. CA 95206 >tt,rt�ts,.n RECEIVEW NOV 1 1983 Peter M0. RIX COtIMtlt�il OEYEtW hli1i Fobd Adrnkiistretor i 9"4%334 pT:►ARIMTMT "!;!!'!1:....v ..��:�:....;,.0 �..�,r v��..-. .. ,. :.�:..:,..x�:�wti��� . 'eau":�re�:....,,� :M1.,,*...� ....,...�4rr►: �r,r3-� �. �:.x.8.w v:R..,,..rnrs,c-....a ... utN'�S.k'., GEIWM IFI Jeep MERCURY; cured c October 19, 1983 Mr. jamec B. SOiroeder, Directs+- Cornr-:unity Developnent Director City of Lodi 221 West Pine Street Lodi, California 95240 *Dear Mr. Schroeder: Thant: you for taking yom- valuable tine to disc>rs the development of the Nona rRanci Su''aivision. I wo•ild like to go on record that the Noma Ranch Suhdivision he so constructed that We may also dcvelop our parcel (Fee attac`ied circled in red). This request is made so that our parcel not be land loc'ked by the above mentioned development. Si�rc^-^ lv 4; DA . _. President DG: pts Enclosure {r t t' i a c t � - -30- Leasing • Sales • Service Lodi 2091369.4725 • Stockton 2091466-8571 • 1045 S. Cherokee Lane • Lodi, CA 95240 :, „�.t�-. . ti::wru ,.It w�:. ,..,: ,:. ... .. .......i.s�':fad•A'.�icV.4t.L.;k'.i.�,5n+:.+ Geweke Ford Enclosure NOMA RANCH LAND USE MAP ',. '—'-�1.0 nom• s p KETTIEMAN LANE ( STATE ROUTE HWY, il? CO ME CI L BURGUNDY N Q VILLAGE ; SUBDIVISION 32 La at • - NOMA RA NCM SLaDNISION auWo p u V R R R H R lit R R R R RU o 1 IN of STONETREE Z TANDY RANCH 90 UNIT OONDO, _ Y • (UNDEVELOPED) .a,,..... r .r D . V JOHNSON RANCH SUBDIVISION .. BLVD (UNDEVELOPED)- RESrONSE TO COMMENTS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 12, 1983 -32- RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED AT PLANNINGON MEETING DECEMBER -12, 1993 COMMENT Are there available "infill" properties that can be utilized instead o t e Noma property. RESPONSE The City of Lodi has consistently encouraged development of "infill" property for all types of development. The result of this policy is that there are very few vacant parcels left in the developed parts of the City. Unlike some cities, Lodi has not leapfrogged over vacant areas. The City is, in fact, very compact with few remaining vacant properties that are not a part of a subdivision underdevelopment. In recent years, Homestead Manor, Turner Road Estates (formally Colony Ranch) Rivergate-Mokelumne, Sanguinetti Park and Mokelumne Village have been approved on "infill" properties. These subdivisions are all under construe tion with various types of residential development. These developments have utilized all the large vacant properties that existed within the developed parts of Lodi. Of the remaining vacant parcels, most are too small for a residential subdivision. They range in size from individual single-family lots to parcels of several acres. Many of the larger parcels are owned by church groups or individuals who do not want to sell the property because they have their own future plans for their property or simply wish to keep it undeveloped. Other properties have an approved tentative map on them or have a map under review by the City. In any case, these properties are not available for development by the developers of Noma Ranch. COMMENT Is the aaXment of st.nool impaction fees sufficient mitigation for the impact of a t onal students. RESPONSE The payment of the impaction fees will not, by itself, solve the problems of overcrowding in the LUSD. The problem is really both a District and State-wide problem that must be addressed in that manner. The whole question of school financing must be resolved by State and local governing bodies to come up with a long-term solution on how to educate and house our students. As far as individual developments like Noma Ranch are concerned, the LUSD has determined that the payment of the impaction fees are sufficient mitigation. In a contract signed between the Noma's and the LUSD, the contract states, "Whereas, District has no objection to Developer's annexation of said property to the City of Lodi and future development as long as the Owner makes a reasonable and -33- appropriate contribution to mitigate the impact of the Owner's aggravation of the existing student housing shortage." MR. WILBERT RUHL COMMENT Water usage figures do not agree with fiqures used by Mr. u RESPONSE The figures used by the City are based on information provided by the City of Lodi Water Department. These figures are an estimate of the average usage based on existing developments and the amount of water distributed by the City system. Figures may vary from other areas because of differences in climate, soil type and average lot sizes. COMMENT Why are horned -toads not mentioned in the report? RESPONSE Horned -toads are not mentioned in the report because they are not considered a rare or endangered species. They are more common to the desert regions of Southern California and the Southwestern United States. They are not very common to the Lodi area because of the climate and because intensive farming disturbs their natura' environment. C"ENT Does not agree with figures on number of lots available in existrno future subdivisions. RESPONSE The figures we used were derived by counting the actual number of lots on tentative or final subdivision maps. On projects that did not have an approved subdivision map, we used figures from the preliminary development maps. The figures could change if the maps are revised or new maps are filed, however, the figures should be accurate. We did not use an average density per acre as suggested by Mr. Ruhl since there was too much difference in density between the various subdivisions. COMMENT Is vacancy rate higher than 1980 census figures for apartment condominium. RESPONSE The City does not maintain annual vacancy figures. However, based on the construction of several large multiple -family units in the past year, it is likely that the figure may be somewhat higher for 1983. This is normal since the number of units constructed tends to go in cycles. In high construction cycles the vacancy rate rises while in down cycles the vacancy rate will fall. The interest rate for new construction and the supply of money has a major affect on the cycle of apartment/condominium construction. Also, as the vacancy rate rises, the number of new units constructed will decline and in turn the vacancy rate will eventually come down. -34- BARBARA LEA COMMENT Why wasn't Eihler's property included in Cumulative Impacts section'? RESPONSE The Eihler's property was not included in the Cumulative Impacts section because it is not, as of this date, creating any impact. The Cumulative Impact section was dealing with the cumulative impact of the urbanization of agricultural land. The Eihler's property is still agricultural use and the City has not received any applications for a rezoning or any development proposal. COMMENT :,hat about the storm runoff problem on Almond Drive? RESPONSE Almond Drive currently has some ponding problems during periods of heavy rain. Storm water runs off the street and off adjacent properties and ponds on low spots in the street and driveways. The problem will not be totally resolved until the entire street has curb, gutters and catch basins to carry the water into the City storm drain system. The Noma project will not solve the existing problem, however, it will also not increase the problem. When developed, the Noma Subdivision frontage will have curb, gutters and catch basins. The runoff from the development will be carried into the City storm drain lines that exist in Almond Drive. This may not solve the problem for adjacent properties that are not developed. They could, however, tie into the storm drain system by installing curb and gutter on their property and paying certain storm drainage fees. COMMENT What can be done to alleviate theparkin am ri qe ace. oblem created b� RESPONSE Unfortunately, there is not a great deal that the City can do to improve the parking problem. There is adequate parking on-site in Cambridge Place. The problem is that the residents choose not to utilize the garages provided and instead park on the street. Some of the parking is also generated by visitors to the development. The developers of Noma Ranch are attempting to sell or lease a 1.3 acre parcel to Cambridge Place for use as additional parking. This would substantially improve the situation by providing more cff-street parking for both residents and guests. It is not certain, however, whether the parcel can be transferred to Cambridge Place for this purpose. 51-11 LUSD DEVELOPMENT FEE AGREEMENT -36- December 2, 1983 Mr. David Morimoto City of Lodi Community Development Department 221 W. Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 Dear David: SUBJECT: Development Fee Agreement -- Noma Annexation Enclosed for your information is a copy of the above agreement and a copy of LUSD's Resolution No. 81-15 authorizing execution of that -agreement. A copy of the agreement and resolution has also been given to Mr. John Giannoni for his records. If you h ve any questions, please do not hesitate to call. S • ly , Mhry Joan Starr, AICP Facility Planner eh Enclosure cc: John Giannoni, Jr. -37- i Vnifled VACKITIES aw PLANNING »S W. LOCKEPoRO MEET LODI, CAUPORNIA 940 A G R E E M E N T .1 AECGRtiEit' �: ��FlC;: 1• J....••t.'� i6it AYE ORDE[)/ REQ EKY OF FEE THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 12th day of May, 1981, by and between TOM M. NOMA and YURIKO NOMA, of Lodi. San Joaquin County, California. or their assigns, successors or nominees, hereafter referred to as "Owners," and LODI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT of San Joaquin County, State of California, hereinafter referred to as "District", for mitigating the invironmental impact on District caused by the possible development'of Owners' property hereinafter described; I. RECITALS WHEREAS, Owners have applied for annexation of their hereinafter described property to the City of Lodi, with the anticipation that annexation will lead eventually to the resid- ential development of said property; and WHEREAS, the possible residential development of isid property will aggravate an existing student -housing shortage in the District to an entent unknown by the parties; and WHEREAS, Ownera desire to alleviate the housing shortage caused by said development; and WHEREAS, District has no objection to Developer's annexation of said property to the City of Lodi and future development as long as Owner makes a reasonable and appropriate contribution to mitigate the impact of the Owner's aggravation of the existing student housing shortage; •rvcvcFn?F It m�lti�al p z 8 lows � '+-Sy y�� -.:�i ly reed s +�.yi�iYll.iY.�.A •hi'k�.'Si..�d �.' . ,.r..T't.l"'%[.Y �.W' .4H:. Y..'. VF.h"Y 1. .�. nJ :..'e-ylt�l/` ,t �.V iP�.%i.Ty; ;".Cw'.. yA'"`) '�'�' ,. Not of U��ylii II. TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. DESCRIPTION. The real property owned by Owners and proposed for annexation to the City of Lodi is more particula-rly described as follows: That certain real property situated in the County of San Joaquin, State of California. described as follows: Lots eight (8) and eleven (11), of A.J. LARSON'S SUB- DIVISION of the Northeast one-uarter (NE 1/4) of Section thirteen (13), Township three B) North, Range six (6) East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, filed in Vol. 2 of Maps and Plats, page 4. San Joaquin County Records. B. PRIMARY MITIGATION. Owners agree oii behalf of them- selves and their successors to comply with any requirements adopted by the County Task Force dealing with school housing shortage. C. 'SECONDARY MITIGATION. As secondary mitigation of said possible problem, Owners and their successors agree to pay fees prevailing at the time of the building permits directly to the District unless said fees are provided for by City Ordinance. D. BREACH. In the event that Owners or their successors breach any term of this agreement, District reserves the right to notify the City of Lodi of any such breach and request that the City of Lodi withdraw its approval of any development project then in progress and refrain from issuing any further approvals until Owners or their successors agree to remedy the breach or otherwise mitigate the impact of said development on the District's overcrowded classroom conditions. District's reserved right under this paragraph shall be in addition to, and shall in no way preclude, its right to pursue other lawful remedies for breach of this agreement. -39- c 810359?n( E. RECORDING. District shall record a copy of this Agree- ment in the Official Records of San Joaquin County. From and after the date of said recording, Owner's obligation under this Agreement shall constitute a covenant running with the -land described herein. F. SEVERABILITY. In the event any portion of this Agreement shall be found or declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the remaining terms and conditions hereof not expressly declared to be invalid shall remain in full force and effect. G. ATTORNEY'S FEES. In the event that either party to this Agreement resorts to litigation to enforce the terms and conditions hereof or to seek declaratory relief or to collect damages for breach hereof, the prevailing party it such litigation shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees. H. NOTICES. All notices and payments to be given or made under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered 4. either personally or by first class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to the following persons at the locations specified: FOR THE DISTRICT Director of Facilities & Planning Lodi Unified School District 815 West Lockeford Street Lodi, CA 95240 FOR OWNERS Tom M. Noma Yuriko Noma 4131 E. Almond Drive Lodi, CA 95240 I. TERM. This Agreement shall be effective the date first above written and shall terminate upon completion of the final residential construction on the property hereinbefore described, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. '-40- C J. MODIFICATION. This Agreement contains each and every term and condition agreed to by the parties and may not be amended except by mutual written agreement. K. AGREEMENT BINDING. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their heirs, successors, administrators, executors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Agreement the day and year first written above. OWNERS: DISTRICT: W LODI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 4ftme 2�V4• OF SAN JOAQUIN COU OMA By �YJr av Title: Y IKO NOMA STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN) On this 12th day of May 1981, before me, the undersigned a Notary Public in and for the State ofCali'tom—ia, w� r nc pa office in San Joaquin County, persona4y appeared -�. C.�:�.+•c� known to me to be of the LODI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, an known to me to be t e person who executed the within instrument on behalf of said political subdivision, and acknowledged to me ivision executed the same. _ CFTICiAL SEAL BARBARA J. MI 00" hmCes, Ont* M San Jeq=rn Cow 4 Mr Cvnnrann taw" Mooch & Hsi --Rotary Public t q State 0 A Orn STATE OF CALIFORNIA )� COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN ) 11 On this 12th day of _ �Mm , 1981, before me, the undersig, a Notary Pubiic for the State of California, w t r nc pa ce n San Joaquin County, personally appeared TOM M.NOMA and YURIKO NOMA, known to me to be the persons whose ar evKG 'CUL U0AK9 OF TRU... RRS OF TUR LODI UNIFIKD SCHOOL ...STRICT OF THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 RESOLUTION NO. 81-15 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT FOR ALLEVIATING THE ENVIRONMENTAL, DWA:CT ON DISTRICT CAUSED BY THE NOVA ANNEXATION AND POSSIBLE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has determined that the construction of restidences in an annexed area commonly known as the Noma Reorganisation will exacerbate an existing student housing shortage in the District; and WHEREAS, the developers -- Tom M. Noma and Yuriko Noma, desires to alleviate the housing shortage caused by the possible development; and WHEREAS, the District considers the said Agreement to be in no way contrary to the affcrte of the "County Task Force Dealing With School Rousing Sbortaga"; NOW, TMEFOREj BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees hereby authorize the SUPERINTENDENT OF TRE LODI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, rLLHRTH E. LARsm9 to execute on behalf of the District, that certain agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto, upon the following terms and conditions; 1. Developer shall deposit with District monies in lieu of any sums prescribed for such residential development by Lodi City Ordinance No. 114, Chapter 19A of the Lodi City Coda. 2. District shall, upon receipt of monies notify the City of Lodi of its receipt thereof and shall request that Developer be ,exempt from the requirement of Ordinance No. 1149, and be allowed to acquire building permits in the project phase for which full payment has beta made. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Facility Planner is hereby authorised to notify the City of Lodi of the Agreement. . PASSED AND ADOPTED this '2nd. day of June 1981, by the following vote of the Board of Trustees, to wits AYES: Vatsula, w►isenor, Johnston, Meyer, Ball, Abrahamson and Buck NOES: None ABSENT:None , • . % � -.may .�� ' ATTEST: ,JOHN VA'ISULA, PRESIDENT of the Board I.AURE WISEN .,_. PX„X-,pf-t-be� nvs rA.