Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - February 18, 1998 H-04CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION AGENDA TITLE: Certify mitigated Negative Declaration as Adequate Environmental Documentation for Highway 12/99 Interchange Improvement Project. MEETING DATE: February 18, 1998 PREPARED BY: Community Development Director RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council certify as adequate environmental documentation, the filing of a Negative Declaration for the Highway 12 (Kettleman Lane)/Highway 99 interchange improvement project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Lodi Public Works Department is proposing an improvement plan for the Highway 12 and State Route 99 interchange. The purpose of the project is to improve the flow of traffic on Highway 12 (Kettleman Lane) between Cherokee Lane and Beckman Road, reduce traffic delays at intersections and reduce traffic accidents. The project includes widening Kettleman Lane between the southbound State Route 99 ramp and Beckman Road, to provide two westbound through lanes, both a westbound and an eastbound left -turn lane, and one eastbound through lane. East of Beckman Road, Kettleman Lane would transition back to the existing two-lane section. The intersection of Kettleman Lane and Route 99 northbound and southbound ramps would be signalized and the off -ramps widened. The project also includes the relocation of a section of the north leg of Beckman Road approximately 400 feet to the east of its present location. Currently, Beckman Road is approximately 225 feet east of the northbound State Route 99 ramp, a distance too close to the two proposed signalized intersections. The new Beckman Road (north -leg) and Kettleman Lane intersection will be a signalized "T" intersection. The Community Development Department conducted an environmental review and determined that there were no significant environmental impacts that could not be adequately mitigated. Based on this review, we are recommending the certification of a Negative Declaration as adequate environmental documentation. FUNDING: There is no funding request at this tim . Konradt Bartlam Community Development Director Prepared by David Morimoto, Senior Planner KB/DM/Lisa Wagner Attachments APPROVED: .11"H. Dixon Flynn -- City M nager CC9801.doc 02/10/98 NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-07 FOR Highway 12/99 Interchange Improvement Project APPLICANT: City of Lodi Public Works Department PREPARED BY: CITY OF LODI Community Development Department P.O. BOX 3006 LODI, CA 95241 October 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE PROJECTDESCRIPTION.......................................................................................... 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM.................................................................. 4 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS.................................................................... 5 DETERMINATION ..................................... . VICINITY MAP ............................................ .............................................13 .............................................15 2 CITY OF LODI Project Name Highway 12/99 Interchange Improvement Project PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED The City of Lodi Public Works Department is proposing an improvement plan for the Highway 12 and State Route 99 Interchange. The purpose of the project is to improve the flow of traffic on Highway 12, (Kettleman Lane) between Cherokee Lane and Beckman Road, reduce traffic delays at intersections and reduce traffic accidents. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project includes widening Kettleman Lane between the southbound State Route 99 ramp and Beckman Road, to provide two westbound through lanes, both a westbound and an eastbound left turn lane and one eastbound through lane. East of Beckman Road, Kettleman Lane would transition back to the existing two lane section The intersection of Kettleman Lane and Route 99 northbound and southbound ramps would be signalized and the off ramps widened. In order to retain the existing State Route 99 overcrossing, the south sidewalk under the overcrossing would be removed and a new narrower sidewalk constructed on the northside of Kettleman Lane. The project also includes the relocation of a section of the north leg of Beckman Road approximately 400 feet to the east of its present location. Currently, Beckman Road is about 225 feet east of the northbound State Route 99 ramp, a distant too close to the two proposed signalized intersections. Due to the close proximity of the highway ramps, the relocation of Beckman Road was identified as a priority project in Lodi's Street Master Plan (1993). The Beckman Road (north leg) and Kettleman Lane intersection will be a signalized "T" intersection. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project title: Highway 12/99 Interchange Improvement Project 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Lodi -Community Development Department Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241 3. Contact person and phone number: David Morimoto, Senior Planner, City of Lodi, (209) 333-6711 4. Project location: San Joaquin County, CA; City of Lodi, CA 5. Project sponsor's name and address: City of Lodi Public Works Department PO Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241 6. General plan designation: City - General Commercial and Light Industrial. San Joaquin County - Agricultural 7. Zoning: City; C-2, General Commercial, M-1, Light Industrial S. Description of project: See attached description of project. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Commercial - restaurants and service station. Agriculture, 2 residences and vacant commercial/industrial lane!. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Cal Trans and San Joaquin County. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a (Potentially Significant Impact" by the checklist on the following pages. H Land Use and ❑ Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services Planning ❑ Population and Housing OGeological Problems 0 Water 0 Air Quality 0 Biological Resources ❑ Utilities and Service Systems ❑ Energy and Mineral Resources [3 Aesthetics El Hazards EZ Cultural Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance 9 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: ❑ Potentially ❑ Q projections? Significant b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly Potentially Unless Less than I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposed: Significant mitigation Significant No through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ❑ 0 ® 0 b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or E3 ❑ 0 8 farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established ❑ B 8 0 community (including a low-income or minority community)? ❑ 13 ❑ 0 II POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population ❑ ❑ ❑ Q projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly ❑ 0 ❑ (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ❑ ❑ 8 0 III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Seismic ground shaking? ❑ Cl ❑ El c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ 13 ❑ 0 d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 t) Frosion. changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from 0 excavation, grading or fill? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Subsidence of land? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 h) Expansive soils? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 i) Unique geologic or physical features? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 5 IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in; a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? f) Change in the quantity of ground water, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavation or through substantial loss of ground water recharge capability? .g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? I) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? - b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climaie? d) Create objectionable odors? VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design feature, (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? p Potentially 0 0 17 0 ❑ ❑ Significant ❑ ❑ Potentially Unless Less than Significant mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ M 0 p 0 0 0 17 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 17 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 p ❑ p 0 i c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 D O 0 Potentially VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: Potentially SigniFicant Significant Unless Less than Signiricant No Impact mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including ❑ ❑ ❑ EI but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? 0 ❑ O 0 c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal O ❑ ❑ 0 habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? 0 ❑ ❑ R e) Wildlife dispersal migration corridors? ❑ 0 ❑ EI VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plan? ❑ ❑ O 0 b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ❑ 0 ❑ 0 c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances ❑ O ❑ FD (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ CEJ emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ❑ 0 0 0 d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 trees? 7 X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposed have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other government services? ❑ ❑ ❑ 8 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ O 0 ❑ ❑ D 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 g XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? Potentially ❑ ❑ 0 Significant ❑ ❑ Potentially Unless Less than ❑ Significant mitigation Signiticant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ D ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 c) Create light or glare? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Disturb archaeological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 unique ethnic cultural values? d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 impact area? e) Historic Site? 13 ❑ El ❑ XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 recreational facilities.? b) Affect recreation opportunities? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 6 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Significant mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or pre -history? ❑ ❑ ❑ H b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? ❑ ❑ ❑ El c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) ❑ ❑ ❑ Q d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. ❑ ❑ H Q REFERENCE MATERIAL 1). Lodi SR 99/Kettleman PSR Working Paper 1- Existing Traffic Conditions. July 29, 1996 CCS Planning and Engineers, Inc. 2). Lodi Route 99/Kettleman Interchange Memorandum. Subject - "Operational analysis of preferred project." August 27, 1996. CCS Planning and -Engineers, Inc. 3). Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. Historic review of project site by Leslie R Fryman, Staff Historian/Architectural Historian. 1996: 4). SJVUAPCD Air Ouality Guidelines for General Pians. September 22,1994 5). Jones & Stokes Association, Inc. 1991 Basis for establishment of a wildlife habitat and open space conservation fee for the City of Stockton. October 4, 1991. Prepared for the City of Stockton Community Development Department. 10 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS An explanation of items checked -off as Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated or Less than Significant Impact on the Environmental Checklist Form. Measures included in this summary shall be treated as mitigation where indicated. LAND USE AND PLANNING Id). The project will have little affect on agricultural land in the area. Some new right-of-way will be required for the relocation of Beckman Road, the construction of a one block section of new frontage road and the widening of a portion of the north side of Kettleman Lane. In total, the amount of new right-of-way will not exceed 5 acres. The land where the new right-of-way will be required is zoned for commercial and industrial use. The land has already been cleared of vegetation in anticipation of development and is being developed with commercial uses. Some right of way is being acquired from an existing McDonald's restaurant on the north side of Kettleman Lane. AIR QUALITY Va). The project area is located within the San Joaquin Vallc; Air Basin. Violations of air quality standards occur periodically as a result of vehicle emissions, agricultural and industrial activities and the unique geologic and atmospheric conditions of the Central Valley. The proposed project will not have any long term adverse affect on air quality. The project is not designed to add significant vehicle capacity to the roadways. Instead, the project is primarily designed to relieve existing traffic congestion and improve traffic safety. The project may even slightly improve air quality by reducing traffic delays, particularly at the on -and -off ramps to Highway 99. The project will generate short-term increases in air pollutants and primarily dust during construction. The largest amount of dust will be generated during the earthwork phase of construction. This is a short-term impact and will end once grading is completed and streets are paved. MITIGATION The project will conform to SJVUAPCD Regulation VIII, which requires projects to control fugitive dust. The following measures will be implemented to minimize air quality impacts generated by construction activities: 11 • Construction equipment shall be maintained to minimize exhaust emissions and idling shall be kept to a minimum when equipment is not in use. • Construction truck speeds shall not exceed 24 km/h (15 mph) on unpaved surfaces. Truck trips using nearby roadways shall be scheduled during non. peak hours. Peak hours are considered 6 a.m. to 14 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. • Any truck transporting dust producing material leaving or entering the site shall be covered and nearby roadways shall be cleaned regularly to reduce possible fugitive dust emissions outside of the construction area. Dust emissions from temporary haul routes, which are used for less than five working days, shall be controlled by frequent application of water. Water shall be applied using water trucks or sprinklers as often as necessary to keep the roads damp. At a minimum, the roads shall be watered twice a day unless it rains more than one- tenth of an inch in a 24-hour period. • Soils exposed by clearing and grubbing, cutting and filling, or other operations, which will be bare for more than five working days, shall be covered or sprayed with a tackifier to reduce windblown fugitive dust generation. • A sign shall be posted at the construction site which clearly identifies the construction disturbance coordinator for the project who shall be designated to respond to complaints and/or inquiries regarding dust generation or other air quality issues. The construction disturbance coordinator shall also keep records to verify compliance with all mitigation measures listed above. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES VIIa). No State or Federally listed threatened or endangered species are found within the immediate project area. The project area does not contain any stands of native vegetation. The work will be done within existing street right-of-ways, developed commercial properties or grape vineyards. In all cases, the land has been previously cleared of native vegetation and replaced with man-made features or agricultural crops and ornamental plants. Swainson's Hawks would be the only endangered animal that would inhabit this area of the San Joaquin County. According to the City of Stockton "Habitat Conservation Plan for Swainson's Hawk," there are no known nesting sites in or near the project site. Additionally, grape vineyards or cleared fields do not constitute a suitable foraging area for Swainson's Hawks. The hawks prefer large open fields such as hay or grain crops where they can forage for mice and other small rodents. 12 CULTURAL RESOURCES XIVe). Historic Structures A field survey conducted by Jones and Stoke's staff historian Leslie R. Fryman identified two potential sites of historical significance in the area. These two sites are located at the southeast and the southwest corners of Kettleman Lane and Beckman Road. At the southwest corner is the Beckman House, a two-story craftsman -era house with a full brick veneer and Prairie School -style massing and fenestration. The house was designed by the architectural firm of Kerrey Bros. of Sacramento for Charles Beckman Sr. and his family in 1926. Charles Beckman Jr. Still lives in the house and has maintained the house and grounds in good condition and retained the original architecture of the buildings. The Beckmans were prominent citizens in the Lodi area. At the southeast corner of Kettleman Lane and Beckman Road is a small frame farmhouse and enclosed wooden water tower. The structures are estimated to date back to the early 1914's and were described as "classic " examples of an architectural vernacular distinctive to Sacramento Valley farms of this period: Neither house is a registered historic landmark, although it is possible that one or both could qualify. Because of this, the project was modified to eliminate any impact on the properties. Originally, additional right-of-way was going to be acquired on the southside of Kettleman Lane adjacent to these properties. Instead, the right-of-way was shifted to the north so no additional right-of-way will be required adjacent to the two properties. This will reduce any impacts to a less than significant level. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE declaration will be prepared. B I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 13 ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets' if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project Signature: Date: Printed Name:For: Citv of Lodi 14 - NMA, FNDEX OF SHEETS PROJECT PLANS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAY 12 — KETTLEMAN LANE / HIGHWAY 99 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF LODI . SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY URS Greiner W 10 1997 PRELIMINARY S,Ep P43 -1007 30/. SUBMITTAL CITY OF LOD! TITLE SHEET fte+t+auea.wrt .aa nus.nla, e• t.fw nnur route mvaerrrxr HIGHWAY 12 - NETTLEMAN LANE I HIGHWAY 90 T on.nw INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT G:;'• .t ------------I ! n 1 • ' �'-� •RF' UN —�`-�--- a � — E RAMP F � LINE BECKMAN POAD ' IZ r -New• BECKMAN RD 7 RESOLUTION NO. 98-29 A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION FOR THE HIGHWAY 12199 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Lodi Public Works Department is proposing an Improvement Plan for the Highway 12 and State Route 99 Interchange; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the project is to improve the flow of traffic on Highway 12 (Kettleman Lane) between Cherokee Lane and Beckman Road, reduce traffic delays at intersections and reduce traffic accidents; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has conducted an environmental review and determined that there were no significant environmental impacts that could not be adequately mitigated and recommends that the City Council certify the filing of a Negative Declaration as adequate environmental documentation for the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed all documentation and hereby certifies the Negative Declaration as adequate environmental documentation for the Improvement Plan for the Highway 12 and State Route 99 Interchange Project. Dated: February 18, 1998 hereby certify that Resolution No. 98-29 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held February 18, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Land, Mann, Pennino and Sieglock (Mayor) NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None &6" 7x E&V641 ALICE M, R IMCHE City Cierk 4.