The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Report - February 7, 2001 E-23 PH- � CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION AGENDA TITLE: Adopt a Resolution Certifying the Negative Declaration for the Lodi Station Parking Structure; and Set a Public Hearing for February 21, 2001, to Consider the Environmental Assessment for the Lodi Station Parking Structure MEETING DATE: February 7, 2001 PREPARED BY: Public Works Director RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council adopt a resolution certifying " the Negative Declaration for the Lodi Station Parking Structure and set a public hearing for February 21, 2001, to consider the Environmental Assessment for the Lodi Station Parking Structure. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As part of the Federal Transit Administration application process for the Lodi Station Parking Structure, the Environmental Assessment and the Negative Declaration must be certified by the City Council prior to contract award. The Negative Declaration fulfills the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an Environmental Assessment (EA) has to be prepared when a historic structure is affected. In Lodi's case, the Lodi Arch triggers the review. The EA addresses the mitigation measures that the State Office of Historic Preservation required in order to find no significant impact on the Lodi Arch: (1) Change the color of the terra cotta brick on the facade near the Arch to a sandy yellow color; (2) Move the structure another foot north — six feet instead of five feet as the City proposed. This is a total of eleven feet from the property line, as the structure was moved five feet north as a result of our public meetings during the design phase; (3) Add a large canopy tree to the plaza area between the Arch and the corner of the structure to soften the corner; and (4) Use columnar trees on the Pine Street frontage. The Federal Transit Administration wanted a fifteen -day review period and a public hearing on the EA, even though it was explained to them that we exceeded this requirement during the Neaative Declaration phase. For that reason, this Council Communication was changed. and the certification of the EA will occur after the public hearing on February 21, 2001. APPROVED: H. Dixon Flynn -- City anager j CEnvAssessNegDec2 02I0�/01 Adopt a Resolution Certifying the Negative Declaration for the Lodi Station Parking Structure: and Set a Public Hearing to Consider the Environmental Assessment for the Lodi Station Parking Structure February 7, 2001 Page 2 It is expected that the Federal Transit Administration will authorize the City of Lodi to award the construction contract after the public hearing_ FUNDING: Not applicable Richard C. Prima, Public Works Director Prepared by Carlos Tobar, Transportation Manager RCP/CTlpmf cc: H. Dixon Flynn, City Manager Randy Hays, City Attorney NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 00-09 FOR LODI STATION PARKING STRUCTURE APPLICANT: City of Lodi Public Works Department PREPARED BY: CITY OF LODI Community Development Department P.O. BOX 3006 LODI, CA 95241 September 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED........................................................................................................3 PROJECTDESCRIPTION.....................................................................................................................3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM.............................................................................................4 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS..............................................................................................10 DETERMINATION...............................................................................................................................13 VICINITYMAP....................................................................................................................................14 2 CITY OF LODI Lodi Station Parking Structure PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED The City of Lodi Public Works Department is proposing to construct a parking structure at 50 North Sacramento Street. The purpose of the project is to increase the amount of available parking for patrons of the Lodi Station transit service providers, which have increase in number in recent years. Amtrak and Greyhound will provide more round -trips and new service to the Lodi Station in 2001. Additionally, the downtown business district will be impacted by the loss of 36 parking stalls at the proposed parking structure site currently used for downtown employee parking, further redevelopment efforts, and the proposed 12 screen theater. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The parking structure will be located on the former train depot site, the block bordered by Sacramento Street (west), Elm Street (north), Pine Street (south) and the Southern Pacific railroad tracks (east). The structure includes a three level, 329 car parking structure with 15,000 square -feet of ground level retail/office space along the Sacramento, Pine and Elm Street frontages. Rental income will be used to offset maintenance and security costs. A dual-purpose shade structure is planned for the center portion of the roof parking deck to provide shade for vehicles and generate solar power. There will also be bike parking lockers and four electric vehicle charging stations located on the ground level. The architect has incorporated the historical building facade along Sacramento Street so the structure will fit nicely with the adjacent buildings and will appear to be several small storefronts instead on one long building. The use of brick and stucco finishes will add to the effect. The east side of the structure (facing the railroad tracks) will be a metal grillwork with an ornamental grape cluster design that will greet visitors arriving on the train. The elevator on the Elm Street side of the structure will have glass on the west side so that passengers will be able to view the Elm Street activities and the multi -screen theater at the corner of Elm and School Streets. The Building corner at Pine and Sacramento Street features an exterior stairway from the third level to a ground level pedestrian mall area. Visitors will observe spectacular views of the renovated Train Depot and see eye to eye with the bear that adorns the top of the Historical Arch. Construction is scheduled to begin in October 2000 and to last for approximately ten to twelve months. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Project title: Lodi Station Parking Structure Lead agency name and address: City of Lodi -Community Development Department Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241 Contact person and phone number: Mark Meissner, Associate Planner, City of Lodi, (209) 333-6711 Project location: San Joaquin County, CA; City of Lodi, CA Project sponsor's name and address: City of Lodi Public Works Department PO Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241 General plan designation: DC, Downtown Commercial. Zoning: City: C -M, Commercial Light Industrial Description of project: See attached description of project. Surrounding land uses and setting: The project area is currently the site of a City parking lot. To the north and west are commercial businesses, restaurants and bars in the downtown district. To the south is the Historic Lodi Arch which spans Pine Street, and across Pine Street is the City's Multi -Modal Station. To the east is the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way and across the tracks is essentially vacant land fronting North Main Street. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. 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. ❑ Land Use and Planning ❑ Population and Housing ❑Geological Problems ❑Water ❑Air Quality H Transportation/Circulation ❑Biological Resources ❑ Energy and Mineral Resources ❑ Hazards ❑ Noise 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 0 Public Services ❑ Utilities and Service Systems 0 Aesthetics 0 Cultural Resources 0 Recreation 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: ❑ Potentially ❑ 0 b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e g., ❑ ❑ Significant through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major Potentially Unless Less than Significant mitigation Significant No I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposed: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ o ❑ 0 c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? ❑ g) Subsidence of land? ❑ ❑ e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 community (including a low-income or minority community)? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 11 POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e g., ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Seismic ground shaking? ❑ 0 ❑ 0 c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ o ❑ 0 d) Sciche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 f) Erosion, 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 climate? 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)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ❑ ❑ Potentially ❑ ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ Significant ❑ ❑ p 0 Potentially Unless Less than ❑ 0 Significant mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ p 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 13 0 ❑ 0 VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal migration corridors? VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal. a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plan? b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that 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 (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? 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? ❑ ❑ Potentially ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Potentially Significant ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Significant Unless Less than Impact mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ O 0 ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 7 XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a Potentially Significant need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following Potentially Unless Less than utilities. Significant mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Power or natural gas? , ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Communications systems? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 d) Sewer or septic tanks? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 e) Storm water drainage? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 f) Solid waste disposal? ❑ ❑ ❑ H g) Local or regional water supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal. 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ PJ b) Disturb archaeological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 c) Have the potential to cause a physical change, which would affect unique ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ethnic cultural values? d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 e) Historic Site? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 recreational facilities? b) Affect recreation opportunities? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 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? ❑ ❑ 0 1l b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? ❑ ❑ ❑ a 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) ❑ ❑ ❑ it d) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. ❑ .❑ ❑ B 6 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. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION VI. a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion. The 15,000 square -feet of general commercial space will create additional vehicle trips that may effect transportation patterns relative to existing traffic loads and street capacity in the irmnediate project area. In order to reduce potential impacts from additional traffic, City Staff will review this development for consistency with the General Plan Circulation Element and the Capital Improvements Program. If the project is found to be generating more traffic than that assumed in the Circulation Element, the City will identify and install needed improvements not specified in the capital improvements program. The project site is within the historic downtown district of Lodi, which has always been commercial in nature. The zoning of the project site is C -M, Commercial -Light Industrial. The commercial square footage to be added as part of the parking structure is consistent with this zoning, and development of the site with the proposed type of uses is expected. Even with the additional commercial space, we find that the provision of 329 parking stalls will actually lessen traffic congestion in the entire downtown business district by providing an alternative to driving up and down streets searching for a parking place. The additional parking will also provide storeowners and their employees a convenient reliable parking alternative, which will help to free - up on -street storefront parking for their customers. We believe that implementation of the City's Circulation Master Plan based on the General Plan Circulation Element and Environmental Impact Report, and implementation of the project itself, will adequately reduce traffic impacts in the immediate area to less than significant levels. CULTURAL RESOURCES XIVe). Historic Site In September of 1997, an Environmental Assessment which included the required Section 106 Review was completed for the Multimodal Station by the U.S. Department of Transportation — Federal Transit Administration. Much of the infonnation provided in that report is applicable and will be referenced for this project. The City of Lodi is embarking upon the next phase of revitalization development within the downtown area. Two years ago, the street and sidewalk improvements were completed along the School Street corridor. As stated previously, the relocation of the Lodi Southern Pacific Railroad Depot was moved one block south and renovated for use as the Lodi Multimodal Transit Station last year. Now, the City is preparing to develop the fonner site of the Railroad Depot to 10 construct a three-level parking garage facility with retail storefronts in order to provide much needed parking to serve the newly opened Transit which has added more service and more transit operators than anticipated in the first Environmental Assessment. This project will provide an additional 342 parking spaces over 131,700 square feet of area and 13,500 square feet of retail space along the Sacramento Street, Elm Street and Pine Street ground floor frontages. The retail portion is critical to Transit because it will be a revenue source that will help maintain low fares and reduce the federal and local subsidies for Transit. The APE for this project is identified as follows: The SPRR tracks to the east, the line of the south side Oak Street projected across the Lodi Multimodal Station property to the south, the west side of Sacramento Street to the west, and the north side of Elm Street to the north. As stated previously, an approved Environmental Assessment for the affected area was completed in September of 1997, which provides a great deal of information from an extensive review. From that report, the following information is considered to be relevant and applicable to this project. 1. The APE for this project is located within the site of the original Southern Pacific Railroad "Railroad Reservation" established in July 1869, when the original Plat for Town of Mokelumne, which is now Lodi, was surveyed. 2. No prehistoric or historical archaeological sites were found within the APE for this project. 3. The Tokay (Lodi) Arch, a National Register and State Landmark (SRL 93 1) is within the APE for this project. 4. No other recorded cultural resources exist within a'/o mile radius of the proposed project site. The proposed project has funding from Federal Transit Authority in the amount of $2,050,000. This qualifies the project as an undertaking which requires the Section 106 review process. The scope of this project is such that it has been determined that this undertaking has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. The information provided in the previously referenced Environmental Assessment confirms that there is a recognized historical landmark within the area which we are designating as the APE. The Tokay (Lodi) Arch, a National Register and State Landmark (SRL 93 1) is located on Pine Street, just east of Sacramento Street. The southernmost base of the Arch is within twenty feet (20') of the proposed parking/retail structure. The Lodi Multimodal Station is considered to be a potential historical property. The City of Lodi initiated consultations with the Lodi Historical Society to solicit their comments on the proposed project and have made changes in the design of the proposed structure in response to stated concerns which are identified below. The Office of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) were involved in the project which moved the SP Depot from this site and was consulted for their comment on this proposed project as well. The State Historic Preservation Officer was sent a project description on July 10, 2000. Pursuant to Section 36 CFR 800.3 (c) (4), SHPO must respond within 30 days. No comment has been received to date. Considering all of these factors, staff has concluded that the anticipated effect of the proposed project on the surrounding historical feature does not meet the criteria as an adverse effect to a historical property by either the physical destruction or damage, alteration, removal, change of the character of the use or setting, introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements, neglect, or the transfer, sale or lease out of Federal ownership or control. The City of Lodi Public Works Department has conducted two public meetings for this proposed project. A summary of both the January 20, 2000 and March 27, 2000 meetings are attached. Issues which were discussed which are relevant to this review are as follows: January 20 Meeting: 1. A representative of the Lodi Historical Society stated that the parking structure's south elevation would block the view of the Lodi Arch from the east. A representative of the architectural firm of Gordon H. Chong and Associated stated that he could address that concern by moving the building further north which has occurred. 2. City Staff put forward the recommendation that Sacramento Street, which borders the proposed building on the west, be narrowed to accommodate the retail portion of the structure. March 27 Meeting: 1. A citizen suggested that features from the architecture of the buildings on Sacramento Street, across from the proposed parking structure, be worked into the design concepts for this project. The architect has incorporated features into the storefronts which front on Sacrament Street. 12 FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF NO ADVERSE IMPACT Staff has consulted further with representatives of the Lodi Historical Society, and have made extensive site visits to review concerns regarding the visual impact that the project will have on the Lodi Arch and have made the following determinations and conclusions. It has been determined that the existing views of the Lodi Arch are currently impaired from a number of viewpoints. The line of redwood trees which are located in the landscaping close to both bases of the Arch block the view of the Arch from the Lodi Multimodal Station, located to the southeast, and from viewpoints to the north and northeast along West Elm Street. The trees which line the east side of North Sacramento Street restrict the view of the Arch from viewpoints looking south on Sacramento Street until you reach a point well past the center of the block. Furthermore, the aforementioned visual impairment have been in existence for well over 20 years and have not diminished the integrity of the Lodi Arch's historical features during that time. The proposed project will not provide any further impairments of the view of the Lodi Arch from points along the public right-of-way or public property, and will actually provide better visual access of the Lodi Arch from points along North Sacramento Street and the Lodi Multimodal Station. 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. 0 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. ❑ 1 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." 0 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 posed upon the proposed project Signature: Date: q/1 lj5;o Printed Name: ein«(��-,(,two For: City of Lodi 13 FM -1 i A 10 m U, 208 n V/ N N N1714 2 21 1 20 6 1 12 0 9 0 o n N o N N N N f'n 0 t7 VICINITY MAP 0 N N H ..(y N _ N N NO N N c' 7 cv^f 11 2 6 Z N N c� N nO 122 N O Y U N N N N N r N M 104 2 12 U) 114 11 24 _ N N 125 120 124 0 t7 VICINITY MAP RESOLUTION NO. 2001-30 A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION FOR THE LODI STATION PARKING STRUCTURE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, as part of the Federal Transit Administration application process for the Lodi Station Parking Structure, the Environmental Assessment and the Negative Declaration must be certified by the City Council prior to contract award; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Assessment addresses the mitigation measures that the State Office of Historic Preservation required in order to find no significant impact on the Lodi Arch, and they are as follows: (1) Change of color of the terra cotta brick on the fagade near the Arch to a sandy yellow color; (2) Move the structure another foot north — six feet instead of five feet as the City proposed for a total of eleven feet from the property line; (3) Add a large canopy tree to the plaza area between the Arch and the corner of the structure to soften the corner; and (4) Use columnar trees on the Pine Street frontage. WHEREAS, staff recommends that a Public Hearing be set for Wednesday, February 21, 2001, to consider the Environmental Assessment for the Lodi Station Parking Structure. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council has reviewed all documentation and hereby certifies the Negative Declaration as adequate environmental documentation for the Lodi Station Parking Structure; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council does hereby establish Wednesday, February 21, 2001 as the date to hold the Public Hearing to consider the Environmental Assessment for the Lodi Station Parking Structure. Dated: February 7, 2001 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I hereby certify that Resolution No. 2001-30 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held February 7, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Hitchcock, Howard, Land and Pennino NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Mayor Nakanishi ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None SUSAN J. BLACKSTON City Clerk 2001-30 .. `� CITY OF LODI Carnegie Forum 305 West Pine Street, Lodi NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Date: February 21, 2001 Time: 7:00 p.m. For information regarding this notice please contact: Susan J. Blackston City Clerk Telephone: (209) 333-6702 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 at the hour of 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City of Lodi will conduct a Public Hearing at the Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, to consider the following matter: a) the Environmental Assessment for the Lodi Station Parking Structure. All interested persons are invited to present their views and comments on this matter. 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. If you challenge the subject matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk, 221 West Pine Street, at or prior to the Public Hearing. By Order of the Lodi City Council: Susan J. BlackstorN City Clerk Dated: February 7, 2001 Approved as to form: X� of*�� _. Randall A. Hays City Attorney J:\C.ITYCI.RKIFORMS7nolmviron.doc 217101