HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - October 3, 1984 (53)Lodi. Housing priced above this level is out of
the price range of the majority of the residents -
of Lodi
Based on the vacant lot survey, it is estimated
that there are less than 400 vacant
single-family lots in approved subdivisions that
could contain houses of less than ;85,000. This
figure represents approximately a 3 -year supply
of housing in this price range. Circe this
supply of affordable housing is used up there
are very few new subdivisions being planned to
take their place. Much of this is a result of
the "Greenbelt Initiative" which has
significantly restricted the possibility of new
development.
Residential projects like Batch and Mills often
take 18-24 months from the time of approval to
the first houses becoming available. Batch
would come on line just as existing subdivisions
in this price range are built out or nearly
built out. Without projects like Batch, there
would soon be a shortage of affordable housing
units.
2. Alternative 4, This alternative would utilize
an' rinfTl"-property as an alternative to the
proposed project.
Fi_ nding. The City of Lodi has consistently
encouraged the utilization of "infill" parcels
of land available in the City of Lodi. There
are no parcels that could accemnodate the Batch
project. Nbst of the "infill" properties as
small in size, ranging from single-family lots
to one or two acres. All the large parcels are
under development or have an approved project on
them. Additionally, most of these parcels, if
they were available, would be very expensive.
he price would probably make affordable housing
impossible.
LI
F. CXCWIH-INDUCING IMPACr. The project will not have a
s gni cant growl Ging impact on the City.
Finding. The passage of Measure A, the "Greenbelt
nI-wive", has placed a significant future growth
limit on the City of Lodi. All new General Plan
amendments that require an annexation must receive
voter approval.
CiID. ND. 1338
Further, Council, on motion of Council Member Pinkerton,
INIKULM
Olson second, introduced Ordinance No. 1338 prezoning the
Batch parcel to P -D (26), Planned Development District No.
26 with the single-family portion conforming to the City's
R-2, Single -Family Residential District and the Multiple
Family portions conforming to the City's R -GA, Garden
Apartment Residential Restrictions with a limitation of 15
units per acre. The motion carried by unanimous vote.
CK). NO. 1339
O1 notion of Council Merber Pinkerton, Olson second, Council
INiiIODCED
introduced Ordinance No. 1339 - An Ordinance prezoning the
Mills parcel U -H, Unclassified Holding until a development
plan can be approved by the Planning Commission and the City
Council.
LI
r
SIR CN BA= AND A.
J MI LIS PAWEIS
CE'IFIFD WITH
FINDINGS
0
FNVIWAINTAL MPACr I
1.��ct. The project will result in the loss of
TK acres of prime agricultural soil. If the
project is approved, this loss cannot be
mitigated.
2. �Finding. All of the land in and around the City
of Lodi is designated as prime agricultural
soil.
The City does not have an option of building on
"non -prime" agricultural lands in order to
preserve the prime soils. Every development
built in the City, small or large, utilizes
prime agricultural soil. The residential,
commercial, recreational and industrial needs of
the City requires the urbanization of
agricultural lands.
3. Overriding Considerations. Before the adoption
of the Bel t Ini at ive" in August. 1981
the parcels in question had been designated for
residential development for many years by the
City of Lodi General Plan. The surrounding
ureas have been undergoing urbanization over the
past years. Residential development exists
adjacent to both the Batch and Mills parcels and
prop(.sed development is contiguous to existing
developed areas and will be a logical extension
of the urbanized area.
The City of Lodi has planned and constructed its i
utility system to serve the area with water,
sewer and storm drainage in anticipation of the
area developing. The existing infr4structure
will alloy development of the area without
costly expenditures of public funds for the
extension or construction of major new lines.
ENVII14NTAL IWACT II
1. rnpact. Urbanization of the subject parcels
wi affect adjacent agricultural parcels.
}`
2. Fid
a) The Mills property is adjacent to existing
urban development on three sides and separateds
from an existing vineyard on the west by Laver
!
Sacramento Road which bears a right-of-way of 80
feet and the Woodbridge Irrigation District
Canal with a 100 foot right-of-way. The develop-
ment of this property should cause no modifica-
tion of farming practices on adjacent
agricultural land.
b) The Batch property abuts residential
development on the north and east sides and is
adjacent to the Woodbridge Irrigation District;;.
Canal on the south and east. The development of
this property should cause no modification of
fanning practices on adjacent agricultural land.
C. ENVIIit IElrAL I1Vtr'ACr III
t
1. impact. The development of the subject parcels
STI—generate 5,700 trips day which
vehicle per
will be added to the surrounding streets.
2. Finding. The existing streets adjacent to the
%tc and Mills properties are adequate to
handle additional traffic. Improvements that
will be made to Lower Sacramento Road and Lodi
Avenue will improve the overall traffic flow.
D. ENVIIi31Ul IM M1PACr IV
1. Impact. The project will produce additional
ve ccTe generated air pollution.
F
2. Fid. Based on air quality projections, the
amount of additional air pollution will be leas
than 1/10th of 1% of t1,e total for the City of
Lodi. This level is not considered significtL.t.
E. ENVIFAWI RM IMPACT V
1. Impact. The development of both parcels will
generate 597 additional school-aged children. This
{
will affect Lodi Unified School District's ability
4
to provide adequate classroom space.
i
2. Finding. The City of Lodi has adopted a School
Impact on Fee which is paid to the school district.
y
The fee is considered adequate mitigation for the
impaction of additional students.
F. ALT'ERWIVES TO THE PROJB,r. The EIR discussed
r
several a ternat ves tote proposed project. The
p
following are findings on two of the alternatives:
z
j
1. Alternative 1. This alternative is a "no build"
alternative, which would mean that no
development would be constructed on the
property.
Finding. This alternative would eliminate the
env i—rormental impacts resulting from the
proposed project. This alternative would,
however, affect the future supply of affordable
houging.
The applicant is proposing to construct
single -family houses that will sell in the
$85,000 range. Housing in the price range
provides affordable housing for the residents of
MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Community Development Departure E]V
133k SEP 31 AM ID U0
TO: City Council ALICE 7M��E i�
ERK
FROM: Community Development Director CITY, OF 1 -DU
DATE: September 28, 1984
SUBJECT: FINDINGS OF APPROVAL - BATCH FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT - EIR 84-1
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT I
1. Impact. The project will result in the loss of 120± acres of
prime agricultural soil. If the project is approved, this
loss cannot be mitigated.
2.. Finding. All of the land in and around the City of Lodi is
esated as prime agricultural soil.
The City does not have an option of building on "►-on-prime"
agricultural lands in order to preserve the prime soils.
Eery development built in the City, small or large, utilizes
prime agricultural soil. The residential, commercial,
recreational and industrial needs of the City requires the
urbanization of agricultural lands.
3. Overridin Considerations. Before the adoption of the "Green
e�Tt Initiative in August, 1981 the parcels in question had
been designated for residential development for many years by
the City of Lodi General Plan. The surrounding areas have
been undergoing urbanization over the past years. Residential
development exists adjacent to both the Batch and Mills
parcels and proposed development is contiguous to existing
developed areas and will be a logical extension of the
urbanized area.
The City of Lodi has planned and constructed its utility
system to serve the area with water, sewer and storm drainage
in anticipation of the area developing. The existing
infrastructure will allow development of the area without
costly expenditures of public funds for the extension or
construction of major new lines.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT I1.
1. Impact. Urbanization of the subject parcels will affect
a 3acent agricultural parcels.
2. Finding.
a. The Mills property is adjacent to existing urban
development on three sides and separated from an existing
vineyard on the west by Lower Sacramento Road which bears
a right-of-way of 80 feet and the Woodbridge Irrigation
District Canal with a 100 foot right-of-way. The
development of this parcel should cause no modification of
farming practices on adjacent agricultural land.
b. The Batch property abuts residential development on the
north and east sides and is adjacent to the Woodbridge
Irrigation District Canal on the south and east. The
development of this property should cause no modification
of farming practices on adjacent agricultural land.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT III
1. I_m_pac_t.. The development of the subject parcels will generate
5,700 ehicle trips per day which will be added to the
surrounding streets.
2. PIT
F_inn_d_ing.. The existing streets adjacent to the Batch and
Miproperties are adequate to handle additional traffic.
Improvements that will be made to Lower Sacramento Road and
Lodi Avenue will improve the overall traffic flow.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IV
1. IImpac�t. The project will produce additional vehicle generated
air pollution.
2. Finding. Based on air quality projections. the amount of
a �itional air pollution will be less than 1/10th of 1% of the
total for the City of Lodi. This level is not considered
significant.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT V
1. Impact. The development of both parcels will generate 597
a it onal school -aged children. This will affect Lodi
Unified School District's ability to provide adequate
classroom space.
2. Finding. The City of Lodi has adopted a School Impaction Fee
wwM ch is paid to the school district. The fee is considered
adequate mitigation for the impaction of additional students.
F. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT The EIR discussed several alternatives
to�Ft a propose project. he following are findings on two of the
alternatives:
r
1. Alternative 1.
whic�hwouT-d-`mean
the property.
2
This alternative is a "no build" alternative,
that no development would be constructed on
Finding. This alternative would eliminate the environmental
i acts resulting from the proposed project. This alternative
would, however, affect the future supply of affordable
housing.
The applicant is proposing to construct single-family houses
that will sell in the $85,000 range. Housing in this price
range provides affordable housing for the residents of Lodi.
Housing priced above this level is out of the price range of
the majority of the residents of Lodi.
Based on a vacant lot survey, it is estimated that there are
less than 400 vacant single-family lots in approved
subdivisions that could contain houses of less than $85,000.
This figure represents approximately a 3 -year supply of
housing in this price range. Once this supply of affordable
housing is used up there are very few new subdivisions being
planned to take their place. Much of this is a result of the
"Greenbelt Initiative" which has significantly restricted the
possibility of ne,,i development.
Residential projects like Batch and Mills often take 18-24
months from the time of approval to the first houses becoming
available. Batch would come on line just as existing
subdivisions in this price range are built out or nearly built
out. Without projects like Batch, there would soon be a
shortage of affordable housing units.
2. Alternative 4. This alternative would utilize an "infill"
property as an alternative to the proposed project.
Finding. The City of Lodi has consistently encouraged the
utilizationof "infill" parcels of land available in the City
of Lodi. There are no parcels that could accommodate the
Batch project. Most of the "infill" properties as small in
size, ranging from single-family lots to one or two acres.
All the large parcels are under development or have an
approved project on them. Additionally, most of these
parcels, if they were available, would be very expensive. The
price would probably make affordable housing impossible.
F. GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACT. The project will not have a significant
growth -in impact on the City.
FFind�in The passage of Measure A, the "Greenbelt Initiative", has
placed significant future growth limit on the City of Lodi. All
new General Plan amendments that require an annexation must receive
voter approval.
NOTICE OF KIBLIC DARING
BY ME CITY CC MIL OV 7M CITY wR IMI
TO CCN.SIDER IM PI. MING CUMISSICN'S RDCXR'NWATICN
MAT THE BA' UH FINAL I•NVIRCR&NM IMPACT REMIT BE
CERTIFIED AS ADBQLA E ENVIMMWAL DOa V> VMICN.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, October 3, 1984,
at the hour of 7:30 p.m, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be
heard, the Lodi City Council will conduct a public hearing in the
Council Chambers, City Hall, 221 %lest Pine Street, Lodi, California,
to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation that the Batch
Final Environmental Impact Report be certified as adequate
environmental documentation. This report covers the 100 acre Batch
parcel bounded by Lodi Park West Subdivision on the north; Lower
Sacramento Road on the east; and the hbodbridge Irrigation District
Canal on the south and west, and the 20 acre Mills property at the
northeast corner of Lower Sacramento Road and West Lodi Avenue.
Information regarding this item may be obtained in the
office of the Ccammity Development Director at 221 West Pine Street,
Lodi, California. All interested persons are invited to present their
views either for or against the above proposal. Written statements
may be filed with the City Clerk at any time prior to the hearing
scheduled herein and oral statements may be made at said hearing.
Dated: September 19, 1984
By Order of the City Council
&.1 A
Alice M. Rei he
City Clerk
� .
vnnn!4ENf,
,1111
=W
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL, IMPACT REPORT
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR .
BATCH
EIR 84-1•
APPLICANT
ROBERT BATCH
1819 S. CHEROKEE LANE
LODI, CA 95240
AGENCY PREPARING EIR
City of Lodi
221 West Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The Environmental impact Report covers 2 separate parcels which
total 120* acres. The larger 100 acre parcel (Batch) has a
development proposal containing 325 single-family lots, 246
multiple -family units and a 14 acre basin/park site. The
smaller 20 acre parcel (Mills) does not have a specific
proposal. The EIR assumes a possible 100 lot single-family
subdivision.
The subject properties are currently outside of the City limits
of Lodi. The properties will be require to go through the
Measure A election procedure, annexation, a General Plan Amend-
ment, rezoning and specific development approval.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
VICINITY MAP .......................................... i
LAND USE MAP .......................................... ii
PROJECT MAP ........................................... iii
SUMMARY .............................................. iv
I.
SITE LOCATION.. ................................
1
II.
PROJECT LOCATION.. .........................
2
III.
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ..........................
3
DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
A.
TOPOGRAPHY .................................
4
B.
WATER RESOURCES........ ........................
4
C.
SOIL CONDITIONS ..................................
5
D.
GEOLOGY .... .........................
6
E.
BIOTIC CONDITIONS.. ..........................
6
F.
ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS ...........................
7
UTILITIES
A.
STORM DRAINAGE ...................................
9
B.
SANITARY SEWER ...................................
10
C.
DOMESTIC WATER ...................................
10
D.
OTHER UTILITIES ..................................
11
COMMUNITY SERVICES
A.
TRAFFIC ..........................................
11
B.
POLICE AND FIRE ..................................
13
C.
SCHOOLS ......................................
13
D.
SOLID WASTE ......................................
15
E.
RECREATION .......................................
16
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS
A.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............................
16
B.
MITIGATION MEASURES ..............................
19
Alternatives to the Project
Alternative 1 .....................................
23
Alternative 2 .....................................
24
Alternative 3 .....................................
24
Alternative 4 .....................................
26
C.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS............................
27
D.
GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACT ............................
27
E.
ENERGY CONSERVATION ...............................
28
I
ELMHO
[LAND USE MAP
TURNER RD Comdisco
Of f ice
IAgriculture BuildingC
ITY LIMITS Z I
w
2
Q
cc
2
Q I
Q cr
U Parkwest Subdivision LLJ
(under development)
Agriculture
SARGENT RD
1
Raley• s
Shopping
�e Center
CITY LIMITS —"'j
Residen a"
HELM ST
J C:
General Mills
Manufacturing
Focili',v
.At"
Proposed
School Site
Residentio!
Twin Oaks
Church Basin/Pork �' ^
7�TjJj /
�j
ss i fn• LI
00,i
ResidentO 4,
0.
r--- j
S "M *V E, 9""91
� r
IL
., f.egy.1 5.•Nt1�.—fst lilt lf1..a1.. 4.
s. low /n+•
s. 1At.• 1..11.1> —'t+ff N NIt
/. U.-t""W" 111,11 » ►..•+M h +...+•"
/t us ...N11 ,..111.«
. I f Iw � � •/ � •
L' • ry e K N 7/ d • r 1 I! � •/ I
r .• A' #, >b Of • . .a A
N _
r�tta
ma as . Ialtlw ..f
Y. .fes..
0
N"DM w f.. un OF 401 Rr•1.. Cwauw
makf
fail W r— . +al
t
sale PON Is 3
�
MAIL - In G sn
u+Iwu :u�n.i ciicunl
s R �►04 o
.R smin s.f...►...
r�tta
ma as . Ialtlw ..f
Iw+tOf�� .t1.� C•IOi Avt.
Y. .fes..
0
N"DM w f.. un OF 401 Rr•1.. Cwauw
fail W r— . +al
t
�
u+Iwu :u�n.i ciicunl
s R �►04 o
woln •n r Ircl Is Jm
r
law.lslim or M J1m. Own
Mlti . {lifflw v A sr11sls1 4 M
flaalr 1. 1 1. . .1 .... 1 ..
-
an r:M. saw1we Conn. OU.s�I.
•
,arm 1..1 solo. 1•• 1r
i
►wMM M
n
ti.w.t sate•
+
+Illi • ,w st•..1... M
Iw+tOf�� .t1.� C•IOi Avt.
SUMMARY
PROJECT DESCRIPTIJN
The Environmental Impact Report covers 2 separate parcels which total
120± acres. The larger 100 acre parcel (Batch) has a development
proposal containing 325 single-family lots, 246 multiple -family units
and a 14 acre basin/park site. The smaller 20 acre parcel (Mills) does
not have a specific proposal. The EIR assumes a possible 100 lot
single-family subdivision.
The subject properties are currently outside of the City limits of Lodi.
The properties will be required to go through the Measure A election
procedure, annexation, a General Plan Amendment, rezoning and specific
development approval.
LOCATION
The project properties are located in the western section of Lodi. The
properties are located on the northwest (Batch) and northeast (Mills)
corners of Lower Sacramento Road and Lodi Avenue. San Joaquin County
Assessor's Parcel Nos. 029-030-33 and 029-030-29.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) Development of the two properties would result in the loss of 1201
acres prime agricultural soil. The land is Class I soil, well
suited for agricultural use.
2) Urbanization of the subject parcels could affect the agricultural
use of adjacent parcels by possibly requiring modification of
spraying and cultivation practices. Vandalism, trespassing, and
homeowner's complaints could result.
3) There will be some increase in air pollutants. There will be a
temporary localized increase in dust as a result of construction
grading and site work. This will only occur duri-ng dry, windy
periods and until the developments are completed. The increase in
vehicle related air pollutants will be insignificant in relation to
the totals for San Joaquin County.
4) Traffic will increase by approximately 5,700 v.t.'s per weekday.
Traffic levels will increase by 25-30% on Lower Sacramento Road, Elm
Street and Lodi Avenue and 10-15% on Turner Road and Kettleman
Lane. The major street intersection in the area may require some
modification of the intersection traffic controls.
5) The project could add approximately 573 school -aged children to the
LUSD when fully developed.
6) The project properties are located adjacent to Lower Sacramento
Road and Lodi Avenue. Both streets have traffic generated noise
levels that may require noise reduction measures for residential
units.
MITIGATION MEASURES
1) Loss of agricultural land - No mitigation possible if land is
developed.
2) Impact on adjacent agricultural land - The WID Canal provides a
100' buffer between the Batch and Mills properties and agricultural
properties to the west. Additionally, a solid fence should be
built along the east side of the canal property. The buffer should
reduce problems of agriculturally related noise, dust and chemical
spraying. The physical barrier will also substantially reduce
trespassing and vandalism.
3) Traffic increase will be adequately handled by proposed
improvements to the street system. Elm Street will be extended
west to serve the Batch project. A frontage road will be
constructed on both sides of Lower Sacramento Road as a part of the
Batch and Mills developments. The north side of Lodi Avenue will
be widened and improved when the Mills property is developed.
Improvements will also occur at the major intersections adjacent to
the properties. . Additional stop signs or signal lights may be
added as traffic volumes warrant. Left-hand turn pockets may also
be added at some locations.
Impact on the LUSD - In order to mitigate the impact of additional
students on the LUSD, the developer will be required to either pay a
school impact fee or enter into a development agreement. The agreement
could require a payment of fees or the dedication of a school site.
Noise Impact - The developer will be require to do a noise analysis
for any residential structure other than a detached single-family home
constructed next to Lower Sacramento Road or Lodi Avenue.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
1) "No build" alternative. This alternative would eliminate all
impacts associated with development of these properties. This
alternative would affect the future supply of housing and decrease
the chance for affordable housing.
2) All single-family alternative - This alternative would eliminate
the 246 units of multiple -family developmere and replace them with
approximately 75 single-family lots.
Take all single-family alternative would reduce vehicle trips by
726 v.t.'s/day. The overall Batch project would cha-ge from 4,726
v.t./day to 4,000 v.t./day - a 15% reduction. Th)s alternative
would also affect the student population. Eliminating the
V
multiple -family lots would reduce the number of students from 172 to 75.
The Batch project total would change from 497 students to 400 students -
a 20% reduction.
ALTERNATE 3
Elementary school site alternative - This alternative would add a
school site to the Batch project. The school would be located on the 7
acre multiple -family site at Elm Street and Lower Sacramento Road. The
school site would require 10 acres, meaning that some additional land
would need to be added to this parcel.
This alternative would result in the following:
1) The total number of residential units in the Batch project
would change from 325 single-family lots to 305 lots. The
multiple family lots would change from 246 units to 141 units.
2) The number of vehicle trips would be reduced by 500 v.t./day
if the school site replaced the residential units.
3) Students generated by the Batch development would decrease by
94 students, from 497 to 403 students
4) The school site would be located adjacent to Lower Sacramento
Road, a designated noise source. Some sound reduction
measures will be required to comply with recommended nn" e
levels for schools.
5) There will be benefits to both the neighborhood and..the LUSD
if a school site could be located in the project area. It
will require, however, that the LUSD obtain the funds to
construct the school
ALTERNATIVE 4
Alternative 4 would be to construct the project in some other location
using an "infill" piece of property. This alternative is not possible
because the City has already utilized all the large vacant parcels
within the developed areas of Lodi. The remaining parcels are either
too small in size or already have some project planned for the property.
IRREVERSIBLE AND LONG-TERM IMPACT
the loss of, agricultural land is permanent and irreversible once
development occurs.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
1) Loss of agricultural land is cumulative. In the past years,
several hundred acres of land have been developed with various
residential, commercial and industrial projects. Because the City
of Lodi is entirely surrounded by prime agricultural land, all
future projects will utilize agricultural land.
2) There is a cumulative impact on the LUSD. The LUSD includes much
of the northern San Joaquin County, including the City of Lodi and
north Stockton. It is estimated that there is the potential for an
additional several thousand students in projects currently approved
and in some state of development. This includes Lodi, north
Stockton and the unincorporated County areas. This would seriously
affect the LUSD.
The LUSD is working with the State and local officials and
developers to come up with a long term solution to the problem.
Developers are currently paying an impact fee or entering into a
development agreement to help finance school construction.
GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACT
The proposed project is approved by the voters and the City - it could
have growth -inducing impact. If they were to approve this project, that
might indicate some willingness to approve similar development request
in the future. On the other hand, they could approve this request and
deny all future requests. In any case, they would have the final
determination on any future growth in the City.
In the project area, all the area west of the WID Canal is outside of
both the Lodi General Plan area and the Measure A area. This means that
development of this area could not occur as a part of the City of Lodi.
vii
I. SITE LOCATION
The subject properties are two separate parcels located on the northwest
and northeast corners of Lower Sacramento Road and Lodi Avenue/Sargent
Road. The two properties are separated by Lower Sacramento Road. The
northwest parcel (San Joaquin County APN 029-030-33) is bounded by Elm
Street on the north, the Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) Canal to the
west and south, and Lower Sacramento Road to the east. The northeast
parcel (San Joaquin County APN 029-030-29) is roughly bounded by Lodi
Avenue on the south, Lower Sacramento Road on the west, Allen Drive on the
east and Twin Oaks Park and St. Peter's Church on the north (see Vicinity
Map).
The subject properties are not within the City limits of Lodi and will
require annexation to the City in order to be developed with City
service::.
Both parcels are currently in agricultural uses.' The parcel on the east
side of Lower Sacramento Road is planted in a grape vineyard. The
property also contains a single residence and some related farm
structures. The surrounding uses include a church and City park/basin to
the north, a church, priiate swim club and residential subdi-visions to the
east, and a 2.5 acre vo-ant parcel, a residential subdivision and a
shopping center to the south.
The property on the west side of Lower Sacramento Road is planted in a
variety of field crops. The surrounding uses include vineyards to the
south and west, a church and residential subdivision to the east, and Lodi
Park West, a new residential development to the north (see Land Use Map).
-1-
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The environmental impact report will cover two separate properties that
are under separate ownership. The western parcel is a 100 acre parcel
owned by Robert Batch, who is also the applicant for the EIR. The eastern
Parcel is a 20 acre parcel owned by the Estate of Martha Mills.
Both properties are outside of the existing City limits of Lodi and will
require annexation prior to development with City services. Because they
are outside of the City limits, the properties are subject to the
requirements of Lodi's Measure A Growth Initiative. Measure A requires
that annexation of properties to the City for development purposes
requires that the annexation be approved by a vote of the electorate (see
Appendix A). The annexation will also require City and LAFCo approvals.
The Batch property has, in conjunction with the annexation request,
submitted a development proposal. The proposal includes the entire 100
acres and is a mixed use residential project. The project will contain
single-family lots, two cluster hone parcels and 14 acres for a park/storm
drainage -basin site.
ACRES UNITS U.P.A.
Single -Family Lots 69.6 325 4.7
Cluster Homes 16.4 246 15.0
Basin/Park 14.0 - -
im-. u 777
Overall Density = 5.70 UPA
If the annexation is approved, the development proposal will require
adding the property to the Land Use Map of 'he General Plan, approval of a
zoning of P -D, Planned Development, and approval of a subdivision map.
The Mills property, a 20 acre parcel, does not have a specific development
request at this time. Based on the existing zoning and uses on the
surrounding properties, a probable use of the property would be a R-1 or
R-2 subdivision. An R-1 subdivision would yield approximately 5 lots per
-2-
acre or a total of 100 lots with a minimum lot size of 6,500 square feet.
An R-2 subdivision would allow single-family houses on lots of 5,000
square feet and duplexes on corner lots of 6,000 square feet. This would
yield approximately 7 units per acre for a total of 140 units.
III. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
The project properties are not within the City limits and have San
Joaquin County general plan and zoning designations. The Batch property
has a general plan designation of low density residential (6 u.p.a.
maximum) and a zoning of GA -20, general agricultural, 20 acres minimum
parcel size.
The Mills property has a general plan designation of low density
residential and a zoning if I -PA, interim -protected agriculture, a holding
zone.
-3-
DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
A. TOPOGRAPHY
The project site and the surrounding area are generally flat with
elevations of approximately 35-40 feet above sea level. The land in Lodi
slopes gently from the northeast to the southwest at the rate of
approximately 5 feet per mile. It is probable that the land was leveled
sometime in the past to facilitate surface irrigation. The parcel
contains no natural topographic feature.
B. WATER RESOURCES
There are no natural water features or drainage channels located on the
project site. The property does not lie within the floodplain of the
Mokelumne River and would not be affected during a 100 -Year Flood.
The Woodbridge Irrigation District Canal runs along the west and south
edge of the Batch property. This canal carries water from the Mokelumne
River to irrigate agricultural properties to the south and west of Lcdi.
The canal is full during the irrigation season that runs from early spring
to late fall The canal has elevated banks and the crown of the bank is
5-6 feet higher than the Batch property.
Except for agricultural properties served by irrigation canals the
majority of properties in the Lodi area including the City of Lodi, are
supplied by water pumped from underground sources. The City of Lodi
provides water to its customers from a series of 18 wells drawing on
150-500 foot deep aquifiers. The entire system has a capacity of 42
million gallons per day (mgd). New wells are drilled using water utility
revenues as additional areas are developed.
The City's water system is only partially metered. Most of the commercial
and industrial users are metered. For that reason, a precise figure on
residential water usage is not available.
-4-
The City has come up with estimated figures using a combination of City
data and information provided by the City of Stoc kton
(Leedshill-Harkenhoff, Inc. Report, Nov. 1983). Stockton has a fully
metered water system.
It is estimated that each acre of residential development will use
approximately 3.2 acre feet of water per year. Based on this figure, the
120 acres would have a total consumption of 384 acre feet of water per
year. In comparison, the California Department of Water Resources
estimates that grape vineyards use approximately 2.4 acre feet of water
per year and truck gardening crops use approximately 1.8 acre feet of
water per year. The subject properties contain 20 acres of vineyard and
100 acres of truck gardening crops for a total water consumption of 228
acre feet of water per year.
C. SOIL CONDITIONS
The soil type on project site is Hanford Sandy loam. The surface soil is
the Hanford sandy loam and 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 projection of orchard, vineyard and other intensive perennial crops.
In the Lodi area this soil is primarily used for grape vineyards. The
soil conservation service rates Hanford sandy loam as Class 1 (the highest
rating) and the Storie Index rates it at 95 percent for the ability to
produce crops.
The soil is also r.,,ted for construction purposes. The bearing capacity of
the soil is 2,000 lbs. per square foot. It does not hava expansive
qualities and will support most structural building loads.
-5-
D. GEOLOGY
The soil in the project area is derived from the Modesto Formation, a
geologically young alluvial deposit that is part of 8,000 to 10,000 feet
of lake and river sediments filling the Great Valley. Underlying these
sediments are about 60,000 feet of relatively undeformed marine
sedimentary rock. Although no faults appear on the surface in the
vicinity of Lodi, the structure of the bedrock indicates that ancient
faults probably affected the Great Valley Sequence.
The nearest potentially active faults are in the Rio Vista -Montezuma area,
22 to 32 miles west of Lodi. The Stockton Fault (about 14 miles south)
and the Isleton-Ryde Fault Zone (about 14 miles west) are older, buried
faults generally considered inactive. The nearest historically active
faults, the most probable source of strong goundmotion, are in the San
Francisco Bay Area of the Coast Ranges. These faults include the San
Andreas (about 70 miles southwest), the Hayward (about 55 miles
southwest), the Calaveras (about 45 miles southwest), the Livermore (about
40 miles southwest), and the Antioch (about 30 miles west southwest). The
Midland Fault Zone (about 20 miles west) is buried and considered mostly
inactive although a Richter Magnitude 4+ earthquake was epicentered in the
zone within this century.
Lateral bedrock acceleration from a maximum expected earthquake along one
of the active faults would be about 30b of the speed of gravity (o.39).
Lodi is in seismic Zone 3, as defined by the 1978 Uniform Building Code,
which requires the strictest design design factors to resist these lateral
forces.
E.
BIOTIC CONDITIONS
The site has been cleared of natural vegetation and replaced with various
agricultural crops. The Batch property has been planted in various row
crops including beans, corn and tomatoes. The Mills property is planted
with a grape vineyard.
The types of plants and wildlife found on the site are common to lands in
the agricultural meas surrounding Lodi. There are no known rare or
endangered species of plant or animal located on the project site.
F. ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS
Air Quality in the San Joaquin Valley is affected by a combination of
climatology and topography. Topographically, San Joaquin County is
located approximately in the middle of the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley.
The valley has a trough-like configuration that acts as a trap for
pollutants. Mountain ranges surrounding the valley restrict horizontal
air movement and frequent temperature inversions prevent vertical air
movement. The inversion forms a lid over the valley trough, preventing
the escape of pollutants.
Climatology also affects the air quality. High summer temperatures
accelerate the formation of smog. This, combined with summer high
pressures which create low wind speeds and summer temperature inversions
creates the potential for high smog concentrations. San Joaquin County
air qua.iLy is not in compliance with National Air Quality Standards.
Nat. Air Quality San Joaquin
Pollutant Standard Air Quality
Ozone 0.12 pp. (1 hr.avg) 0.17 ppm
Carbon Monoxide 9.0 ppm (8 hr.avg) 14.4 ppm
Total suspended 15 ug/m3(24 hr.avg) 81 (highest AGM)
Sulfure-dioxide 365 ug/m3 (24 hr.avg) no measurement
80 ug/m3(annual avg)
The primary source of air pollution generated by the development will be
from vehicular traffic. The trip generation estimates are based on data
from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip General Manual.
-7-
Single -Family .Residential
—tease on n 10trip per units, the 425 units will generate 4,500
v.t/weekday.
Attached Housing Units
ed -on .v.t. per unit, the 246 units will generate 1476
v.t./weekday.
Total vehicle trip generation will be 5,726 v.t./weekday generated by the
Batch and Mills projects. There is no specific data for vehicle emissions
for the City of Lodi so San Joaquin County figures are used. The
following emission data was generated:
Total
HC emissions -
2.707
Total
CO emissions
226.601
Total
NOx emissions
25.574
Total
Part.Matter emissions
3.248
Total
SOx emissions
1.524
Total
Pb emissions =
.220
Based on a vehicle figure of 1.6 vehicles per single-family home and 1.3
vehicles per multi -family units, the projects could have a total of
approximately 1,000 vehicles. This compares with a total San Joaquin
County vehicle population estimate of approximately 230,000 passenger cars
and light trucks. The projects vehicles will represent a small fraction
of the total vehicles in San Joaquin County.
NOISE
The proposed project would be subject to the standards contained in Title
25 of the California Administrative Code which states that residence
(other than detached single-family) located in areas of Community
Equiva',ent Noise Levels (CNEL) of 60 dba or greater are required to have
an acoustical analysis showing that the structure has been designed to
limit noise to the prescribed allowable levels.
The City of Lodi Noise Element states that areas exposed to less than
day/night average noise levels (CNEL) of 60 dba are considered acceptable
for residential development. Areas exposed to Ldn 60-65 dba are
conditionally acceptabli if minor sound reduction measures are
In
incorporated into the project design.
The City's Noise Contour Map shows that Ldn noise levels reach 65-70 dba
along both Lcwer Sacramento Road and Lodi Avenue adjacent to the subject
properties. This would indicate that sound reduction measures will be.
required for any residences (other than detached single-family) located
adjacent to these roadways.
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 into the WID Canal or the Mokelumne
River at controlled rates and locations. The Batch property will include
14 acres for a portion of a storm drainage basin park. The remaining 6+
acres of the 20+ acre basin will be located on the adjacent Lodi Park West
property.
This basin -park is designed to serve the H drainage area that includes all
the area between Lower Sacramento Road and the WID, and north to the
southern edge of Woodbridge. The portion of the basin located on the Lodi
Park West property is under construction. The remaining portion located
on the Batch property will be developed if and when this property is
developed. The basin serves both a storm drainage function and a
park/recreation function. _
The basin will be connected to the rest of the storm drainage system by
way of a 36" line along Elm Street. The line will pass through a control
structure at Elm and Lower Sacramento Road that will regulate the flow
into Twin Oaks basin/park. The basin will also serve the rest of the
drainage area through a 36" - 42" line a;ung "vergreen Drive. The Elm
Street line, as well as a portion of the Evergreen Drive line, has been
installed as a part of the Park West Subdivision now under construction.
The Mills property is located in the 8 drainage basin. This area is
served by the Twin Oaks basin/park located just north of the Mills
property. If and when the Mills property is developed, it will be
connected to the Twin Oaks basin by way of lines in either Lower
Sacramento Road or Lodi Avenue.
For both properties, the existing or planned lines and basin facilities
will be adequate to provide storm drainage.
B. SANITARY SEWER
The proposed project will be served by the City of Lodi sanitary sewer
system. There is an existing 15" line in lower Sacramento Road that will
adequately serve the subject property. New 6" and 8" lines will be
installed in the Batch project and tied into this 15" line.
The City's White Slough Water Treatment Facility has adequate capacity to
handle all sanitary sew.,ge generated by this project.
C. DOMESTIC WATER
Water for the project will be provided by the City of Lodi. There are
existing major lines along Lower Sacramento Road that will be extended as
a part of development of the Batch and Mills properties. The Mills
property will also be served by a 10" line in Lodi Avenue. Lines will be
constructed within the Batch project to connect with the Lower Sacramento
Road lines and also with the Park West Subdivision to the north. Water
lines will be loped to improve water pressures and flow within the area,
Plans are for a City water well to be installed on the basin/park
property. The exact location has not been determined pending results of
the drilling of test wells. The location could be on the Batch portion of
the basin or on the Park West portion depending on test results. The well
will serve both the §park West and Batch properties and tie-in with the
City water system.
-10-
The Mills property will be served by an existing City well located int he
Twin Oaks basin/park adjacent to the Mills property.
Existing agricultural and private domestic wells on the site will be
abandoned when the subject properties are developed.
D. OTHER UTILITIES
Electricity will be provided by the City of Lodi. Natural gas will be
supplied by PG&E amu Pacific Bell will provided local _telephone service.
All services can be adequately supplied to the properties with normal line
extensions.
VI. COMMUNITY SERVICES
A. TRAFFIC
The project properties are located on Lower Sacramento Road, the Batch
property on the west side and the Mills property on the east side.
Additionally, the properties are bounded by Elm Street on the north and
Lodi Avenue on the south.
Local access to and from the Batch property will be from Lower Sacramento
Road and Elm Street. Currently, Lower Sacramento Road, between Lodi
Avenue and Turner Road is a two-lane street with a frontage road on
portions of the east side. When fully developed Lower Sacramento Road
will have four lanes of traffic and a frontage road on both sides of the
street. A portion of the frontage road on the west side has been
installed 3s a part of Lodi Park West and another section will be
installed as a part of the Batch development. Access from the Batch
property to Lower Sacramento Road will be limited to Elm Street and a
second access point near the south edge of the property.
Elm Street is a two-lane street that forms a T -intersection at Lower
Sacramento Road. Elm Street will be extended west of Lower Sacramento
Road as a part of the Batch development, creating a four-way
-11-
intersection. Elm Street will provide the major access from Lower
Sacramento Road for the Batch property as well as Lodi Park West to the
north. Elm Street provides east -west access to central Lodi. At present
there is a stop sign on Elm Street with no traffic control on Lower
Sacramento Road. When Elm is extended and the two projects completed, a
four-way stop or traffic signal may be required as traffic volumes
increase.
Lodi Avenue will provide a secondary access to Central Lodi for the Batch
property and a primary access for the Mills property. Lodi Avenue is a
four -lane street through most of Lodi but narrows to a two-lane street
between Allen Drive and Lower Sacramento Road. When the Mills property
and another vacant parcel at the southeast corner are developed, there
will be four lanes all the way to Lower Sacramento Road. Currently, there
is a four-way stop sign at this intersection. As traffic volumes continue
to increase, a traffic signal system may be required in the future.
Lower Sacramento Road is a major north/south street. Going north it
carries traffic to Turner Road, Woodbridge and northern San Vloaquin
County. Going south it intersects with Kettleman Lane/Highway 12, which
in turn connects with Highway 99 and Interstate 5. Lower Sacramento Road
also is a major route to North Stockton.
Current traffic volumes on existing streets in the area are as follows:
Lower Sacramento Road (between)
Turner Road 6 Elm Street
- 5,000
v.t./day
Elm Street 8 Lodi Avenue
- 7,000
v.t./day
Lodi Avenue & Tokay Street
- 8,000
v.t./day_
Elm Street (between)
Lwr. Sacramento Rd b Mills Ave.
- 2,500
v.t./day
Mills Avenue b Ham Lane
- 8,000
v.t./day
Lodi Avenue (between)
Lwr. Sacramento Rd b Mills Ave.
- 5,500
v.t./day
Mills Ave. b Ilam Lane
- 10,000
v.t./day
It is estimated that approximately 5,700 v.t./day of traffic would be
generated by the proposed projects. Of this traffic, it is estimated that
-12-
perhaps 60% of the trips would be to and from Central Lodi, using Elm
Street or Lodi Avenue. Another 25% would go south towards Kettleman Lane
or Stockton and the remaining 15% would head north towards Turner Road or
Woodbridge.
B. POLICE AND FIRE
The Lodi Police Department serves the area within the Lodi City limits.
The department has 54 sworn officers, 40 patrol officers and 14 patrol
cars. There is one central 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 project will not adversely affect
the service level of the police department.
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 40,000. 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 between three stations. The station closest to
the project site is the main station at West Elm and Church Street.
Emergency response time to the project area is estimated to be 31 to 4
minutes. The City has a Class III ISO rating.
Development of the proposed projects will not adversely affct the service
I
evel of the Fire Department. Continued development of the western
portion of Lodi may require future construction of an additional fire
station. The City has a site on Lower Sacramento Road just north of Elm
Street.
C. SCHOOLS
The Lodi Unified School District (LUSD) serves the City of Lodi and most
of northern San Joaquin County, including portions of North Stockton. The
District has a student population of 17,000 which is estimated to be
growing by 4 to 7% per year.
-13-
The LUSD does not have adequate classroom space to house all of its
students in permanent neighborhood school facilities. Consequently some
bussing and extended school hours are utilized to handle the student
overload.
The LUSD is attempting to meet the increased enrollment by constructing
new schools, primarily in North Stockton and adding additional classrooms
to existing schools. In order to defray the cost of constrvction of
needed interim school facilities, the City of Lodi has 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 subdivision. The fee is collected
by the City at the time a building permit is issued. The money is then
transferred to the LUSD. The money is used specifically to pay for
temporary faciiities for the impacted school attendance area. An
alternate method would be for the developer to enter into a direct
agreement with the LUSD. The agreement would be for the direct payment of
an amount equal to the "bedroom fee" to the LUSD by the developer. This
method of payment allows more flexibility on the part of LUSD in terms of
how the money is spent. Direct payments can be used to pay for permanent
facilities. Money collected through impaction fees can only be used for
temporary facilities. The agreements may also provide for the dedication
of a school site instead of payment of fees.
The developers of the Batch property are working with the LUSD on a
payment agreement. The Mills property will be affected by the fee
requirements at such future date when the property is developed.
The proposed Batch development would add approximately 491 additional
school -aged children. The Mills p►•operty could add approximately 100
students for a total of 591 additional school -aged children.
The students would attend Erma Reese or Washington Elementary School,
Woodbridge Senior Elementary and. Lodi High School. Attendance areas are
subject to modification based on District requirements.
-14-
D. SOLID WASTE
Existing collection of residential solid waste within the City of Lodi is
on a weekly basis by a franchise collector. At the present time the waste
is hauled to a transfer station and resource recovery station located at
the company's headquarters in the east side industrial area. The refuse
is sorted with recyclable material removed. The remaining refuse is then
loaded onto large transfer trucks and hauled to the Harney Lane Disposal
site, a Class 1I-2 Landfill. Current operations are consistent with the
San Joaquin County Solid Waste Management Plan, adopted June, 1979. The
subject area within County Refuse Service Number 3 and the North County
Disposal Area, which is served by the Harney Lane site.
The number of units built in the project will be 671. 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.
671 units x 39 lbs/week - 26,169 estimated
lbs. of solid
waste per week.
E. RECREATION
The Batch property will contain a basin/park that will provide open space
and recreation facilities for surrounding residents. The park will be
turfed and when fully developed contain restrooms, play and picnic
equipment, and ball diamonds or playing fields.
On the west side of Lower Sacramento Road is Twin Oaks Park, an existing
basin/park. This facility will provide similar facilities for the Mills
property.
Fresumably the condominium projects proposed for the Batch project will
provide some private recreational facilities for its residents. This may
include swimming pools, a clubhouse, picnic areas and children's play
areas.
31611
VII. HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE
There are no sites or buildings on the
designated as historical landmarks by any
agencies. The rearest recorded landmarks
Woodbridge, one mile to the northwest.
subject property that are
Federal, State or local
are in the community of
Although there are no recorded archeological surveys of the site, it is
doubtful that there are any archeological sites on the property. Known
Indian sites in the Lodi area are usually located along the banks of the
Mokelumne River, one mile to the north.
The property has been extensively cultivated for many years. There is no
record of any items of antiquity every 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 will
be called in to examine the findings.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Development of the Batch and Mills property will result iji the loss of
120± acres of prime agricultural land. The project properties are
currently planted in grape vineyards and various row crops. The project
soil is made up of Handford 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. Development
will result in the removal of existing crop and the development of the
site with urban land uses.
-16-
Urbanization of the project site may 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, and particularly the aerial
application 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, particularly from the increase of school-age children.
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 t;ie 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 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.
-17-
The project will result in some additional air pollution. There will be a
localized, short-term affect from construction activity. Trucks and other
motorized construction equipment would release exhaust during construction
periods. Earth moving and grading operations would generate suspended
particulates (dust) when the wind blows over dry, exposed soil surfaces.
This problem is particularly bad during dry summer and fall months. The
blowing dust could aggravate individuals with respitory problems and annoy
nearby residents de4nwind from the projects. This problem will only last
during the period of construction.
There will also be some additional air pollutants generated by vehicles
driven by future residents of the )roject properties. The amount of
additional pollutants will not be significant in relation to the total
vehicle generated emission for the San Joaquin County air basin. Vehicle
emissions are regulated by State and Federal agencies. These agencies are
attempting to improve overall air quality through stricter vehicle
emission standards.
The two properties, when fully developed, could generate an additional
5,700 vehicle trips (v.t.) per weekday. These vehicle trips will
primarily affect Lower Sacramento Road, Elm Street and Lodi Avenue. There
will be secondary affects on Turner Road and Kettleman Lane. Traffic on
the primary streets could increase by as much as 25-30%. The secondary
streets could experience an increase of 10-15%.
The additional traffic will result in some degradation in traffic flows in
the immediate area of the project properties. Service levels will remain
at an acceptable level although drivers will notice some additional
traffic congestion and perhaps some reduction in travel speed. The
primary source of congestion will be the intersections particularly Lower
Sacramento Road and Elm Street, and Lower Sacramento Road and Lodi Avenue.
The Elm Street intersection will change from a T -intersection with a stop
sign on Elm Street co a four-way intersection. Stop signs may be required
on Lower Sacramento Road. The Lodi Avenue and Lower Sacramento Road
intersection will remain largely the same except for some street widening.
1";
As a part of development of these two properties, major street
improvements will take place. When the Batch property is developed, Elm
Street will be extended west of Lower Sacramento Road, providing a major
access street for this property and the Park West project to the north.
Along the west side of Lower Sacramento Road, a frontage road will be
constructed across most of the frontage of the property. This will
restrict vehicular access to Lower Sacramento Road to two designates
locations. Lower Sacramento Road will also eventually be widened to four
lanes when there is sufficient traffic to warrant the construction.
When the Mills property is developed, the frontage along Lodi Avenue will
be improved with curb, gutter and sidewalk and an additional travel lane
on the north side of the street. Along Lower Sacramento Road the frontage
road will be constructed on the east side of Lower Sacramento Road
according to the specific plan for the street.
The project will impact the LUSD by adding approximately 573 school -aged
children when fully developed. The addition of new students will affect
the LUSD and its ability to provide adequate classroom space. The LUSD
has filed a Declaration of Impaction which states that schools are at
maximum capacity and that new students cannot be guaranteed classroom
space.
IMPACTS
Those portions of the subject properties that fall within the first 150±'
of Lower Sacramento Road and of Lodi Avenue will have noise levels that
exceed DNEL 60 dba. Those areas most comply with California
Administrative Code Titled 25 which required interior noise levels to be
reduced to a level not in excess of CNEL 45 dba.
B. MITIGATION MEASURES
If the Batch 8 Mills property are annexed and developed the 120± acres of
prime agricultural land will be removed from further agricultural use.
-19-
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.
The impact of adjacent agricultural properties will be substantially
reduced because of the WID Canal. The canal runs along the west and south
property line of the Batch property and separates it from adjacent
agricultural properties. The WID has a right-of-way width 100'. The
canal will serve as a physical barrier to keep people from trespassing
onto the agricultural property. The 100' of canal property will also act
as a buffer between the two land uses, reducing the problem of noise, dust
and and the application of agricultural chemicals.
In addition to the canal, the developer should also construct a solid
fence along the canal property line. The fence provides an additional
barrier between the project and the agricultural property. The fence
would also form a barrier along the canal to keep people from trespassing
on the WID property.
The Mills property is separated from agricultural properties to the west
by the WID Canal property and also the width of Lower Sacramento Road.
The 200+ feet of separation will be an adequate buffer between the two
uses. If the Mills property were to remain in agricultural use for a few
years, they would be buffered from the Batch development by the 100+ foot
width of the Lower Sacramento Road right of way.
Based on information provided by the San Joaquin County Agricultural
Commissioner's Office, the buffering should be adequate to allow the
continued economical agricultural use of the adjacent properties. This
will require that the farmer use a reasonable amount of care in his
farming operations and conform to all State and Federal regulations. If
problems did arise, the City would do whatever possible to resolve any
problems.
-20-
The additional traffic generated by the projects can be adequately ha idled
by existing and proposed streets and future street improvements. The
proposed improvements on Lodi Avenue and Lower Sacramento Road will
increase traffic capacities to match the increase in traffic volumes. The
extension of Elm Street will provide a major access street servicing the
Batch property and Lodi Park West.
The potential problem spots will be the intersections on Lower Sacrarment�.
Road at Lodi Avenue, Elm Street and Burner Road. These intersections are,
however, already under study by the City of Lodi. The Lodi Avenue and
Lower Sacramento Road intersection is already proposed for a traffic
signal system which should be installed in the next 2-4 years. The Turner
Road and Lower Sacramento Road intersection will also undergo some changes
and probably become a four-way stop when traffic warrants. Both the Elm
Street and Turner Road intersections will be :losely monitored and if
traffic levels warrant, traffic signals will be installed.
In addition to traffic controls, the City will study the need for
left -turn pockets at the various intersections. If they are required,
they will be incorporated into the intersection design.
Finally, the frontage road on Lower Sacramento Road will help traffic flow
on Lower Sacramento Road by eliminating direct driveway access onto the
street. Driveways and side streets will access onto the frontage road and
enter Lower Sacramento Road at two locations, Elm Street and another point
several blocks south.
In order to mitigate the impact of the additional students on the LUSD,
the developer will be required to make a monetary payment to the LUSD.
The payment could be in the form of the school impaction fee which is $200
a bedroom paid at the time of building permit issuance. The other method
would be for the developer to enter into a direct development agreement
with the LUSD to either make payment of development fees or dedicate a
schoul site. The LUSD would make the determination on whether it wanted
the money or the land. Both the impaction fees and the development
-21-
agreement are considered to constitute mitigation for the school impact
problem.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Because the noise levels on portions of the property adjacent to Lower
Sacramento Road and to Lodi Avenue exceed CNEL 60 dba, any multiple family
structures will require that a noise analysis be performed to identify
measures which would result in a 15-20 dba noise reduction. Such measures
could include, but would not necessarily be limited to, the following:
- Minimize number and size of windows facing Lower Sacramento Road
or Lodi Avenue.
- Shield sliding glass doors facing noise sources with solid
balcony wall.
- Avoid placing bedrooms facing Lodi Avenue or Lower Sacramento
Road.
- Locate parking structures, recreational building or other none
habitable buidlings to block noise transmission from adjacent
streets.
-22-
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
Alternative 1
The principle alternative to the proposed project would be to not go
forward with the project. This would maintain the existing agricultural
use of the properties and eliminate the adverse impacts resulting from the
proposed project.
This "no build" alternative would eliminate the environmental impacts of
the proposed project; it could adversely affect the future housing supply
in the City of Lodi. Although there currently appears to be a sufficient
number of subdivision lots available to meet housing demand, this supply
will not last indefinitely. It is estimated that at current building
rates, there is approximately a 5 year supply of subdivision lots. This
includes subdivision that have houses under construction and also
subdivisions that exist only as a subdivision map. Several of these
subdivisions will probably be built out in the next year or two.
While a 5 year supply of lots may seem like a substantial amount, it must
be remembered that large subdivision projects take 2-3 years fres: the
planning stage to when actual houses are built. Even if the Batch project
were approved, it might be 1986 before any houses are completed in this
project. By then the number of existing subdivision lots will have been
reduced substantially.
Ey continually adding new subdivisions as existing subdivisions are built
out, she City would maintain a steady supply of available lots. This
tends to create a more stable housing environment, with both builders and
buyers assured of a future supply. This, in turn, would tend to help
moderate housing prices by balancing supply with demand, thereby creating
more affordable housing. Maintaining an adequate number of new
subdivision also allows the homebuyer a better selection of houses to
choose from. The increased selection would mean that the buyer would have
-23-
a better opportunity to select the price range, location, housing style,
etc. to suit their need.
Alternative 2
A second alternative would be to change the housing mix in the Batch
project to an all single-family project. The two multiple -family parcels
containing 246 units would be converted to single-family lots. That
acreage would yield approximately 75 single-family lots compared to the
246 multiple -family units as currently proposed.
The impacts of this alternative are as follows:
1) The number of vehicle trips would be reduced by 726 v.t./weekday
The 246 multiple -family units would generate approximately 1476
v.t./day while the 75 single family lots would generate
750 v.t./weekday. The Batch project total would change from
4,726 v.t./day to 4,000 v.t./day - a 15% reduction.
2) The student population would also be affected. The proposed 246
multiple -family un;ts would generate approximately 172 students
while the 75 single-family lots would generate approximately 75
students. The Batch project total would change from 497
students to 400 students - a 20% reduction.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 would involve the addition of an elementary school site to
the Batch project. The school site would be approximately 10 acres in
size. Although nothing definite has been determined, the LUSD has
expressed an interest in acquiring a school site to serve the area west of
Lower Sacramento Road. They have determined that if and when the Batch
property is developed and when Lodi Park West is completed there will be a
sufficient number of students in the area to warrant a school.
The most likely location for the school site would be utilize the 7 acre
multiple -family parcel located on Elm Street and the frontage road. The
parcel could be increased to 10 acres by adding adjacent single-family
lots to the parcel and rearranging the streets.
-24-
This particular location would have the advantage of having access to two
major streets - Elm Street and Lower Sacramento Road. At the same time,
the Lower Sacramento frontage road will provide them with a street.
frontage that is not directly on Lower Sacramento Road, thereby reducing
traffic hazards. Proximity to the major streets will allow good access
for school buses and parent picking up and delivering their children_ The
school itself could be oriented so it faced onto the frontage road or one
of the other residential streets. The bus loading and parking areas could
be located closer to Elm Street. By keeping the bulk of the school
traffic off the residential streets, the impact on the residences can be
reduced.
The effects of adding an elementary school to the Batch property includes
the following:
1) The total number of dwelling units on the Batch property will
change. The requirement for a 10 acre parcel would eliminate
the 7 acre multiple family percel containing 105 units plus an
additional 20± single-family lots. Instead of 325 single-family
lots there would be approximately 305 single-family lots and
instead of 246 multiple -family units there will be approximately
141 multiple family units.
2) The number of vehicle trips would be reduced somewhat by the
reduction in residential units. Elimination of the 125; units
would reduce v.t's by approximately 830 v.t/weekday. This would
be partially offset by v.t.'s generated by the school. It is
estimated that an elementary school will generate approximate
300 v.t./day plus some bus traffic. The net reduction would be
approximately 500 v.t/weekday.
3) The reduction in the number of dwelling units would reduce the
number of students generated by the development. The Batch
project would generate approximately 94 fewer students with the
school site. The Batch project would generate a total of 403
students vs. 497 students in the original plan.
4) The school site will be located adjacent to a problem noise
source - Lower Sacramento Road. The City of Lodi Noise Contour
Map indicates that L n noise level along Lower Sacramento Road
will reach 65-70 Jb�. This could result in classroom noise
levels that exceed the recommended level of 45 dba. Noise
levels both on the school site and within the classroom can be
lowered by the use of various sound reduction methods. The LUSD
will need to do an acoustical analysis prior to construction of
the school.
-25-
5) The LUSD and the neighborhood would both benefit by getting a
neighborhood school site in that location. Students in the
neighborhood could walk to school. The school could also serve
as an informal neighborhood center and recreation facility
during none school hours. This alternative does, however,
presume that the LUSD is able to obtain funds to construct a
school at this location.
Alternative 4
Alternative 4 would be to utilize a vacant "infill" property located
somewhere in the existing City limits as an alternate site for this
project. This would eliminate the development of the Batch and Mills
properties, and place the project in a location that presumably is already
impacted.
The problem with this alternative is that the City of Lodi does not have
any large "infill" properties remaining. Because the City has had a
continuous policy of only developing properties that are adjacent to
developed areas of the City, there have never been many "infill"
properties in the City. The City is, in fact, extremely compact in area
for a City of its type and population.
In recent years, Homestead Manor, Turner Road Estates, Rive rgate
Mokelumne, Sanguinetti Park and Mokelumne Village, have been approved on
"infill" properties. These subdivisions are all under construction with
various types of 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 one or two rcres. Many of the large parcels are owned by
church groups or individuals who do not want to sell their property. In
any case, there are no properties that would be suitable for a large
subdivision development.
The Mills property could, in fact, be ccnsidered an "infill" property.
The property has had development surrounding it for a number of years.
-26-
There are existing utilities and streets adjacent to the property and
residential, church and commercial development surrounding the parcel.
D. 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 92t acre development; and Lodi Park Llest,
an 881 acre development and Tandy -Johnson, a 48 acre development, have
been approved. These developments will utilize a total of 324 acres of
agricultural land as these projects are constructed.
Unfortunately, al, land in and around the City of Lodi is designated prime
agricultural land. The entire area surrounding the City is in
agricultural use. Almost every development, large or small, must utilize
agricultural land. There are no non -prime soil, non-agricultural parcels
around Lodi. The residential, commercial and industrial requirements of
the City and its residents necessitate urbanization of agricultural land.
The other significant cumulative impact is the impact on the LUSO. 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 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.
E. GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACT
If the voters of Lodi approve a general plan amendment and annexation of
the Batch/Mills properties, the project will have some growth -inducing
impacts on Lodi. The properties are outside the existing City limits and
-27-
are therefore subject to the requirements of Measure A. This initiative
requires an approval of the electorate for any General Flan
Amendment/Annexation to the City of Lodi. Besides approving this specific
project, voter approval could indicate some willingness on the part of the
electorate to approve additional annexations to the City of Lodi. 'This
willingness could mean that other properties covered by Measure A could,
in future years, be approved for development by the voters. All this is
somewhat speculative at this point since there is no way of knowing if the
proposal will be approved by the voters. If it is not approved, then
there would be no growth -inducing impact. Even if the proposal were
approved, the growth -inducing impact would be limited.
First, every proposal would have to be voted on by the electorate, so it
is possible that this proposal could be approved and all future proposals
rejected. Second, although there is substantial undeveloped areas west of
the Batch property, everything west of WID Canal is outside of the
Pre -Measure A General Plan area. This means that the City's utilities are
not designed to go west of the canal so it would not be possible for this
land to be developed in the City. There are only two large parcels that
could be developed, even with Measure A approval. One is the triangular
piece located south of the Batch property between the WID Canal and Lodi
Avenue. The other is the piece of land north of Lodi Park West between
Lower Sacramento Road and the WID Canal. In any case, the voters will
ultimately determine whether any additional growth will occur.
F. ENERGY CONSERVATION
Structures in the project will be constructed to meet State -of California
Energy Standards. The standards include such things as window area,
insulation, energy efficient appliances, etc. Approximately 50% 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.
sm
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY 7HE CITY CUW1L OF UM CITY OF LCDI
TD CONSIDER THE PLANNING 0[M!NISSICI 3 RE1000 ff ATICN
MW ME BA7CH PAR(F.t. BE PRF.d qM TO P -D (26). KAMM DIrVEUOE'NENT
DISTRICT NO. 26 WITH THE SINCU-FAMILY PCRTICN PIING TD ME
CITY'S R-2, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL iiISMICT AND THE MULTIPLE FAMILY
PCIrTICNS OONiU KING TO IM CITY'S R -GA, GAIDEN APAFMANT RESIDENTIAL
RESMICTICNS WITH A LI IITATICN OF 15 UNITS PER ACRE.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, October 3, 1984,
at the hour of 7:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be
heard, the Lodi City Council will conduct a public hearing in the
Council Chambers, City Nall, 221 Nest Pine Street, Lodi, California,
to consider the Planning Commission's recamwidation that the Batch
parcel be prezoned to P -D (26), Planned Development District No. 26
with the Single -Family portion conforming to the City's R-2,
Single -Family Residential District and the hbltiple Family portions
conforming to the City's 11--CA,-Garden Apartment Residential
restrictions with a limitation of 15 units per acre.
The Batch development 325 single-family lots. 2
multiple -family parcels containing 246 units and a 14 acre basin/park
site. An elementary school may be substituted for one of the multiple
family sites.
Information regarding this item may be obtained in the
office of the Cemnxnity Development Director at 221 West Pine Street,
Lodi, California. All interested persons are invited to present their
views either for or against the above proposal. Written statements
my be filed with the City Clerk at any time prior to the hearing
scheduled herein and oral statements may be made at said hearing.
Dated: September 19, 1984
By Order of the City Council
Alice M.. Re elm niche
City Clerk
•r
EE
V, —
-47 t t
_ �►7
It � � it � � • F t++ ! ;.
Ab
`` ' •
Aft
AV 4p
lb16
i s
A �:y , ..«► •tiI� tom, y• ti Y ` �a
ra 1. , r :fr �'A1 �1f -- •~ } st � _Y' .r � �x.!'S ! T Y�, * `
Ys •/V ., .p .wt .y
1 ..• ..Mt 1
n
� a
i we
MOAUWAWAC"_P�._P�AZZA-
ava =wts.•riiwp
•uwv vOwrW. �»�.�` M
YM. •._� M. Mb�N••
4
'
i
i
�s.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY ME CITY aXNCIL OF ME CITY OF IMI
TO SNS IDER 11E PLANNING CC MISS ION'S RDQ11SV Dff ICN
MW 7HE MILLS PAi1sC�. BE PRE'dC M U -H , LNCIASS I F t ED HCED ING
UNTIL A E EVEIAF1bI' Nr PLAN CAN BE APPROM BY 7M
PLANNING OlASIISS ICN AND CITY CCXNCIL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday. October 3, 1984 at the
hour of 7:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard,
the Lodi City Council will conduct a public hearing in the Council
Chardbers. City Hall, 221 chest Pine Street, Lodi, Calt ornia, to
consider the Planning Conmission's recommendation that the Mills
Parcel be prezoned U -H. Unclassified holding until a Development Plan
can be approved by the Planning Ccrrmission and City Council.
Information regarding this item may be obtained in the office of
the Camxmity Development Director at 221 %!st Pine Street, Lodi,
California. All interested persons are invited to present their views
either for or against the above proposal. Written statements may be
filed with the City Clerk at any time prior to the hearing scheduled
herein and oral statunents may be made at said hearing.
Dated: Septenber 19, 1984
By Order of the City Council
A1*
Dl. Rei�ei R�
ms
City Clerk
LAND USE MAP
LIg110r
TURNER RD Comdisco e
Of f ice
Buiking Vacant
Agriculture __ —p
General Milli
p Manuf acturing
ITY LIMITSZ Facility
w
i
_j
t .�
z
Qr-1PorkWest Subdivision SFi-
1""18,111 Dow"
v (under development) r =
Residen d >
Millswood p
l SS
BATCH
Agriculture
SARGENT RD
1
N CITY LIMITS --0111
•.
Shopping
Center
shod ate J
(future) J
ST
VON,
ResidentialMIT
•
_ r
IL
Twin Oaks
Bosin/Pork
=!.fit twow
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BEFORE THE LODI CITY COUNCIL
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
--000--
To
-000--
To Considers )
(1) The Planning Commission's recommendation )
that the Batch Final Environmental Impact )
Report be certified as adequate )
environmental documentations )
(2) The Planning Commission's recommendation )
that the Batch parcel be prezoned to Planned )
Development District No. 26, with the single )
family portion conforming to the City's R-2, )
Single -Family Residential District, and the )
Multiple Family portions confornAn,; to the )
City's R -GA, Garden Apartment Residential )
Restrictions with a limitation of 15 units )
per acres )
(3) The Planning Commission's recommendation )
that the Mills parcel be prezoned UH, )
Unclassified Holding, until a development )
plan can be approved by the Planning )
Commission and City Council. )
C:(DFIY
LODI CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: October 3, 1984 at 7:30 p.m.
Lodi City Council Chambers
City Hall
Lodi, California
HILL and WPHERSON
CCATIr190 S"ORT►.AHO R[POwTaw•
STOCKTON. CALIFORNIA
•1 •
40 0.•86.1
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
*** CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT ***
Mayor John R. Snider
Mr. James W. Pinkerton
Mr. David M. Hinchman
Mrs, Evelyn M. Olson
Mr. Fred M. Reid
*** STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT ***
Mr. Ronald Stein, City Attorney
Mr. James Scnroeder, Director -Secretary
Mr. Jack L. Ronsko, Public works Director
Mr. Henry A. Glaves, Jr., City Manager
Mr. Jerry L. Glenn, Assistant City Manager
Mrs. Alice Reimche, Clerk
*** PUBLIC WHO SPORE ***
Mr. Glen B aumbach
*** ALSO PRESENT ***
Kathy Handley
Newspaper Reporters
Members of the Public
HILL and McPHERSON
CCRTIV16r) SHORTNANO RUPOwrtw•
liOCKYON. CAt.t101tNIA
t10�1 ♦.. • t�.l
0
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 • .
28
3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )
) ss.
COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN. )
I, Helen R. McPherson, Certified Shorthand
Reporter and a Notary Public in and for the County of San
Joaquin, State of California, do hereby certify:
That on October 31, 1984 at 7:30 p.m., I was present
at the above -entitled matters that I took down in shorthand
notes all proceedings had and testimony givens that I
thereafter caused said shorthand notes to be transcribed
into longhand typewriting, the following being a full, true
and correct transcription thereof..
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
and affixed my Official Seal this 22nd day of October, 1984,
Helen R. McPherson
Certified Shorthand Reporter No. 2070
KILL and WPNERSON
CtATI/ttO.MO"TMANO Itepo"Islt• I
6TOCKTON. CALIFORNIA
taboo ...•7-..t
:. •!i ....:r _.. �.a_ �ir.Fr�.a. :.ai`a _� «o...:��?,11 .�t:��..0 �:c". �..: tsr„_..,.. .:, i.. u�il9.duJv;.�-:..�,. .. ..
4
1
2 MAYOR SNIDER: We have three public hearings that we are
3 going to conduct at one time. One will be to consider the
4 Planning Commission's recommendation that the Batch Final
5 Environmental Impact Report be certified as adequate
6 environmental documentation. I'm sure that the impaction will
7 come up under there.
S Number two, that we consider the Planning
9 Commission's recommendation that the Batch parcel be prezoned
10 to PD -26, and at the same time we'll consider the Planning
11 Commission's recommendation that the Mills parcel be prezoned
12 Unclassified Holding.
13 I'd like to open it up with the staff presentation at
14 this time. Mr. Schroeder.
15 MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to use the overhead
16 projector. We put a map on the bac.. wall because I think it
17 more readily expresses what we'll be talking about this
18 evening.
19 iWe have before you, Mr. Mayor, members of the
20 Council, a Measure A proposition that the Council previously
21 put on the ballot for the November election, and what it -- the
22 election was originally aimed at was this hundred -acre piece,
23 the triangular piece on the back that's owned by Mr. Robert
24 Batch.
25 At the time we received that request, it was our
26 determination that we would also have to inc:.ude the 20 -acre
27 Mills piece, because you. can see that {F _t is approved,, we
26 could not go to LAFCO without having the thing in the general
HILL and WPHERSON
CIERTlil(O.NORTHANO A<PORT[R.
STOCKTON. CALIFORNIA
,....u.:ucaus�cs��•_.,-+as,...:x:�..,•t..i.yi:n:.,:;a:.._.n..:•a��......:,.:.r....,..:.. _. __.. ,........ .._,,.,.m:�.wdl�.Rll►.�.�.._-. _.-__. -� _.._,_._. _. ... ..,-----_._..-•----_. _ ..___
5
1 plan, and LAFCO would have to force the Mills property in. I
2 should, for the record, Mr. Mayor, indicate that at this point
3 I have talked to the trill:,' iamily's attorney and they
4 indicated no opposition. They have not indicated they're in
5 favor, they just indicated, I guess, no opposition. How's that?
6 The Planning Commission has recommended that the --
7 three things; one, that you certify the environmental impact
8 retort as adequate; two, that the hatch property be rezones: to
9 Planned Development zone with two kings of zoning.
10 One, that the single-family areas conform to the
11 city's R-2 zone, and that the multiple -family areas -- and
12 there are two of them, a large piece down here that probably
13 will be a senior citizens' conplex, and a smaller piece in this
14 location -- conform to the RGA zoning, with one difference,
15 that it be limited to 15 units rather than 20 units per acre.
16 I'm sure if you've read Mrs. Stars' comments in the
17 EIR, she's indicated that the school district is interested in
18 a school site in this location.
19 We have had preliminary discussions with Mr. Batch.
20 What we would do would be to eliminate this street, and extend
21 the school site over into this location to provide
22 approximately a 10 -acre site, so that Ithis parcel here may
23 ultimately be an elementary school site.
24 The other large piece is a piece that is referred to
25 in the EIR as the extension of the E Basin, which is --
26- presently is providing drainage for the Lodi Park West
27 subdivision.
28 This would be the remaining basin which would drain
HILL and McPHERSON
t:RATI/ICO fN0111TN ANO Al PONT906 t
STOCKTON. CALIFORNIA
1i0�1 N. • t1. t -
6
1 the west side of Lodi from the canal north across Turner Road,
2 around the woods School, that total area. It's about 500
3 acres, Jack, something like that. That basin ultimately, ties
4 into Twin Oaks Park and goes out to the lake.
5 Mr. Morimoto isn't here tonight, Mr. Mayor, so I'm
6 not going to spend an awful lot of time on the BIR, but I have
7 to do a couple of things.
8 We have put with your Council package a list of
9 findings that the staff is recommending be included with the
10 certification of the EIR.
11 These findings talk about the impacts that are listed
12 in the report, and there's the standard ones, you've all heard
13 them before. I'll read them if you like.
14 The first talks about the loss of agricultural soil.
15 The finding, of course, is that you can't build a subdivision
16 in Lodi without taking agricultural soil out.
17 We talk about urbanization of the subject parc:ele,
18 how they will affect the adjacent property. Interestingly,
19 they probably won't. As you see, the Mills property is
20 completely surrounded with urban development at the present
21 time. The Batch property has urban development on the north
22 side and the east side, in the Woodbridge Irrigation District
23 canal, which is a hundred foot right-of-way.
24 I think that each of you has heard testimony at this
25 podium that an adequate buffer of 20 feet with adequate fencing
26 and landscaping will provide what is necessary. In this
27 situation, we have a hundred foot buffer that's already there.
28 it's been there for some 85 yeara. So at this point, we' -re -
HILL And McPHERSON
ctwnr+60 sHOwTHAND RUPORTSR• I
STOCKTO". CALIFORMA
u.a +..•as��
7
1 recommending that there's no Measure A findings to be mads.
2 There isn't one, because we've already done it, either through
3 the irrigation district or through the existing conditions.
4 We talk about the -- impact three as the number of
5 trips generated by the project. Both Lower Sacramento Road and
6 Lodi Avenue, as well as Elm Street, are all four -lane major
7 city streets. Fifty-seven hundred cars a day distributed on
8 those streets is not a significant amount of trips.
9 The amount of air pollution to be generated is
10 insignificant based on the matrix we used presented by the
11 State of California.
12 The final impact, Mr. Mayor, is the one you already
13 discussed, the impact of 597 students on the Lodi Unified
14 School District.
15 Mrs. Stars' comments in the EIR besides the school
16 also indicate mitigation would be accomplished through the
17 impact fee.
18 We talk about the alternates to the project, the
19 no -growth alternate, I think that we all -- no build on it, we
20 all understand that one.
21 And, finally, the infill alternate. The infill
22 alternate, Mr. Mayor, is very rapidly becoming no alternate at
23 all, because residentially there are very few in -filled parcels
24 of any size in the City of Lodi that could be used for urban
25 residential development.
26 There are infill projects for industrial land, there
27 are a few in -f idled commero+ial pieces, but this is the last --
28 I don't think there's a significant piece of residential
HILL and McPHERSON
CaRTIPIaO tNOATNA"o Repo"Taws /
•TOCKTON. CALIFORNIA
lt..i 4..-8641
��,r;1�R�i6 •. .. _. .ti..-. -•?:r'a�yl;w�;+,:'�aE:i�siE+6�ik�*:
8
1 property in Lodi that doesn't have an approved map on it In
2 fact, I think that's very swiftly becoming that doesn't have an
3 approved final map on it.
4 Finally, the growth -inducing impact of this project
5 won't be great because of the restrictions of Measure A. I'll
6 be glad to go into David's dog and pony show if you'd 1 ike# Mr.
7 Mayor, but I think that should be sufficient to indicate what's
8 happened. I'll answer any questions.
9 MAYOR SNIDER: Mr. Reid?
10 MR. REID: In the EIR for the Mills -- where it covered
11 the Mills property, it only spoke about the possibility of
12 residential units. Mould that be the worst condition you could
13 have, residential rather than commercial?
14 MR. SCHROEDER: No, I think that would probably be the
15 best condition.
16 MR, REID: Commercial would impact it more?
17 MIR. SCHROEDERt Trafficwise, it certainly would, yes, air.
18 MR. REID: And it's coming in as Unclassified Holding?
19 MR. SCHROEDER: Yes.
20 MR. REID: Then does that indicate that there is a
21 deficiency in the EIR, since --
22 MR. SCHROEDER: No. I think what we will have to do is at
23 the time that we have the project on that property, we'll do
24 another BIR on that project, but we thought it would be
25 oolheart of to mention that the Mills property had some
26 ential of x number of units. That property was always shown
27
the general
plan
before
Measure
A
as residential.
The
28
Ion
commercial was
over
where
Raley's
is
always and it wis
always
HILL and McPHERSON
CCATIFI90 SHORTHAND R19PORTtR. )
3TOCKT011, CAIIFOOIMiA
1t0.1 406 • 4141
9
1 assumed that the Mills property mould be residential. That's
Z why we selected that alternate to di3cuss the EIR. I don't
3 think it's inadequate, because there isn't any project. We've
4 simply told the public the potential is there.
S MAYOR SNIDER: Mr. Hinchman?
4 MR. HINCHMAN: Mr. Schroeder, the public works director's
7 comments asked for additional basin frontage on the west side
8 of the basin?
9 MR. RONSRO: Tentative map.
10 MR. SCHROEDER: That's not a problem, Mr. Hinchman. What
11 we'll do at the time, if this project is approved by the
lZ electorate, then we'll go back to the Planning Commission with
13 a tentative map. we'll make those changes on the tentative
14 map.
15 MR. HINCHKAN: What would be done about the -- under
16 recreation, there are no plans for restrooms. Since we
17 sometimes have problems getting restrooms in parks, when would
18 that happen?
19 MR, SCHRODER: Oh, my --
20 MR. HINCHW-N: Recreation department provide for that in
21 their department?
22 MR. SCHROEDER& Yes, they will, and it will happen at such
23 time as the southern portion -- the piece that's on the Batch
24 property is out at this park. The area we have now there is
25 almost all storm drain, isn't it, Jack? There's very little
26 upland there that can really be used year around for recreation
27 purposes, so it would be a place where we could put the
28 restrooms, on the present northerly configuration.
HILL and McPHERSON
CCRTIVICO 504004TMAN0 Avow T(A. 1
STOCKTON. CALWOANIA
10.1 ... • 7.11
r�+'^'kw T t .... .: f!L!`•h'iS :%�'"- .h.' _.. ^. k2N•-,:.Jf.."„,... ..,
HILL and McPHERSON
CIIRTI/IRO.I+ORTHAPOO w[POAT[wa I
5TOCKT014, CALIPORRIA
U 0.1 4.0 • 46* 1
:'af'
: <:a`1,�-.-f, �,-.4, ,t Si rq ,2 :){:.',: �ftni:Ns.. :. :.: •; �...i. 1'by.; ',.:rM.:.. ..... .. .. i. u�(.�'+`...e - ., _ y, .. _'.:S','�.. �.-� _ _:_`�i-.��'
10
2
MR. HINCHMAN: There's also something mentioned about the
2
noise problem from the environmental person in the county?
3
MR. SCHROEDER: No, that was a comment raised by the --
4
through the state clearing house. Okay?
5
MR. HINCHMAN: Four lanes of Lower Sacramento Road?
6
MR, SCHROEDER: They made a couple of assumptions that
7
were erroneous. Number one, they assumed that the residential
8
units were going to be adjacent to the main street. They will
9
not be. They'll set back another 45 feet, plus the front yard
10
setback, so that the nearest that any home will be to the curb -
11
to the right-of-way will be 65 feet. It will be another 10 or
12
12 feet. It will be almost 80 feet before you even get to a
13
traffic lane.
14
See, the assumption the state made is we were going
15
to build those houses on Lower Sacramento Road. Nolte building
16
them on a frontage road.
17
Secondly, that comment does not reflect the
18
requirements of Title 21 of the State of California as far as
19
energy requirements.
20
we are now required by the state to make all houses
21
energy efficient, and as a by-product of those energy efficient
22
houses, double pane glass, heavy insulation in walls, we have
23
come up with houses that are much quieter inside, so that that
24
comment is okay, except it doesn't take in two considerations.
25
One, the distance -- and that's a very important factor in
26
noise, distance -- and, two, insulation.
27
MR. HINCHMAN: Thank you.
28
MAYOR SNIDER: Mr. Schroeder, the stretch of Lower
HILL and McPHERSON
CIIRTI/IRO.I+ORTHAPOO w[POAT[wa I
5TOCKT014, CALIPORRIA
U 0.1 4.0 • 46* 1
:'af'
: <:a`1,�-.-f, �,-.4, ,t Si rq ,2 :){:.',: �ftni:Ns.. :. :.: •; �...i. 1'by.; ',.:rM.:.. ..... .. .. i. u�(.�'+`...e - ., _ y, .. _'.:S','�.. �.-� _ _:_`�i-.��'
11
1 Sacramento Road that's two-lane, I think it starts --
2 MR. SCHROEDER: It's all two-lane now.
3 MAYOR SNIDER: Right, and it's otvious that there - -
4 provisions have been made to make that a four -lane road.
5 MR. SCHROEDER: Yeah, Lower Sacramento Road from Turner to
6 Lodi Avenue will be four lanes with frontage roads.
7 MAYOR SNIDER: when will it be four lanes with frontage
8 roads? Obviously, if the Batch property were developed, then
9 that portion would be taken care of at that time, wouldn't it?
10 MR. SCHROEDER: we have the responsibility to do the main
11 road, they have the responsibility to do the frontage road just
12 like it is on the other side.
13 MAYOR SNIDER: Are there any questions of council with Mr.
14 Schroeder's p-esentation? Thank you, Mr. Schroeder.
15 At this time, I'd like to open the public hearing.
16 Anyone in the audience wishing to speak -- we've got so many
17 things here to discuss. Why don't we just do it this way,
18 anyone wishing to speak on this particular project for or
19 against, please come forward, state your name and address for
20 the record.
21 MR. BAOMBACHs Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, my
22 name is Glen Baumbach, I'm speaking on behalf of Mr. Robert
23 Batch tonight.
24 I think this environmental impact report is quite
25 adequate and very well done and very thorough.
26 As you know, this is the first step in a long process
27 of -- developing proceq$ ,in the City of Lcdi, especially*,in
28 light of Measure A. This particular property, as you know, if -�
HILL and McPHrERSON
CCRTI/It0 ONORTHANO 1491ORT11R. 1
STOCKTON. CALI/ORN1l
2
12
1 if it were -- if we are successful in the annexation th is
2 coming November, we're probably two years away before the first
3 lot will be brought upon the market. There's that much work to
4 be done, and there's that much government and other red tape to
5 go through before we can do anything.
6 we started this project almost a year ago with the
7 tentative map and submitted it to the city for the
8 erivi ronmental impact report. We've been through the Planning
9 Commission and they have recommended approval of this thing.
10 It is now before you people. We go on the election ballot in
11 November. If we are successful there, we go to LAFCO a little
12 while later, then right back to you people again for the final
13 annexation, if that is to be.
14 As Mr. Schroeder mentioned, there are a lot of lots
15 in town for sale right now, but in two years there won't be any
16 lots, very few lots for sale. And, again, this is the first
17 step in a long process of steps to develop property in the City
18 of Lodi, and we urge that you approve this environmental impact
19 report and prezone the property.
20 I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
21 MAYOR SNIDER: Mr. Baumbach, I notice that in the zoning --
22 prezoning, I should say -- no, zoning of this parcel --
23 prezone, okay, there it is, prezone, okay, that your
24 single-family residential will be R-2.
25 MR. BAUMBACH: That's right.
26 MAYOR SNIDER: Will there be any R-1?
27 MR. BAUMBACH: Yes',: there will probably be some R-1 in
28 there. This is -- as I said, this is a preliminary plan.
MILL and McPHERSON
Gtw ♦1►I<O •NOwTN AMO wtPOwTtwf
STOCKTON. CALIIOItN{A
17oal 640 -8641
HILL and McPHERSON
Ca11Ti I1t0 $140ATMAN0 IIaponTtA•
STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA
41001
... • 20461
13
1
There's bound to be a few minor changes by staff and by the
2
developer. This is our first start on this project, and it's
3
the best we can do at this time until we get annexed.
4
We plan on some R-1, though, around the basin
5
especially and in the back end there.
6
MAYOR SNIDER: Are there any other questions of Mr.
7
Baumbach? Thank you, Mr. Baumbach.
6
MR. BAUMBACH: Thank you.
9
MAYOR SNIDER: Is there anyone else in the audience
10
wishing to speak on this particular subject?
11
If not, we'll close the public hearing. Return it to
12
the Council for discussion and action.
13
what we would be doing here, number one, the
14
consideration of the council is to certify the final
15
environmental impact report with findings for both the Batch
16
and Mills properties.
17
Mr. Reid?
18
MR, REID: I would move that we certify the final
19
environmental impact report.
20
MAYOR SNIDER: With f india.gs?
21
MR. REID: With findings.
22
MS. OLSON: I second it.
23
MAYOR SNIDER: Been moved and seconded. Is there any
24
discussion?
25
Mr. Reid?
26
MR. REID: I do have one question, it's for staff. You
27
said, Jim, that at the time the Mills property was reclassified
28
to something other than Unclassified Holding, you would require
HILL and McPHERSON
Ca11Ti I1t0 $140ATMAN0 IIaponTtA•
STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA
41001
... • 20461
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
environmental impact report. Is that required by ordinance or
law?
MR. STEIN: By law.
MR. SCHROEDERS Well, it's required by law. It's a
determination that we would make, but I'm sure that a project
of that size in Lodi, we would do the documentation because
it's -- it simply gets the developer to a point where he's not
going to have another stumbling block to worry about.
MAYOR SNIDER: Mr. Stein?
MR. STEIN: Yes, I'd like to respond to that.
Under CEQ UA, you're supposed to do an EIR at the
earliest possible time when you know what the project is, Mr.
Reid, and you do not know what the project is going to be on
Mills. All we do know is there is a possibility of an
annexation, and, frankly, right now that's what we have in
front of you.
It's not one where you know what the development is
going to be. If you knew what the development was going to be,
you'd certainly have to do an EIR on the whole thing. And as
far as -- you're just talking about the worst -possible -case
scenario. We just don't know what's going to be there, so I
think we're doing it adequately.
MAYOR SNIDER: Any other discussion?
MR. REID: Call for the question.
MAYOR SNIDER: All those in favor, say aye.
(whereupon all Council Members said Aye.)
MAYOR SNIDER: Opposed? -So carried.
What we'll be doing next is the introduction of an
.:,ter. -.4 -11._', _.._, r,Z ., -J—,
HILL and McPHERSON
CtRTIFI(O •Mow TMANO 11[►ORTtws
STOCKTON. CALIFORNIA
t=001 NO - 2*4 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
F#7
24
25
26
27
28
15
ordinance prezoning the Batch property to keep Planned
Development District Number 26.
MR. PINKERTON: So moved.
MS. OLSON: Seconded.
MAYOR SNIDER: It's been moved and seconded that we
introduce the ordinance prezoning the Batch property to Planned
Development District Number 26. Any discussion?
MR. PINKERTON: Question.
MAYOR SNIDER: A11 those in favor, say aye.
(whereupon all Council Members Said Aye.)
MAYOR SNIDER: Opposed? So carried.
Our next requirement would be be to introduce an
ordinance prezoning the Mills property to Unclassified Holding.
MR. REID: So moved.
MS. OLSON: Seconded.
MAYOR SNIDER: Any discussion? All those in favor, say
ay e.
(Whereupon All Council Members Said Aye.)
MAYOR SNIDER: So carried. We'll take a five-minute
recess.
HILL and McPHERSON 1
CCRTIVI[C •MawTMANO AgPORTCOS `
STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA
18091 •.� a�•�