Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - December 15, 2004 G-02 PHAGENDA ITEM Qw2, CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION TM AGENDA TITLE: Conduct Public hearing to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation for the 2004 Growth Management Allocations MEETING DATE: December 15, 2004 PREPARED BY: Mark Meissner, Associate Planner RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council approve the Planning Commission's recommendation for the 2004 Growth Management Allocations. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Every year, as part of the City's Growth Management program, the Planning Commission reviews the requests that have been submitted. Following a public hearing, the Commission makes a recommendation for City Council consideration. This public hearing is being held for the Council to award the 2004 allocations. On October 13th the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the 2004 Residential Growth Management Development Plan review and Allocations. At this hearing the Planning Commission reviewed 7 Development Plans totaling 124 dwelling units. Of the requested 124 dwelling units, 80 were low density (single-family homes), and 44 were medium density (Townhomes/small lot single family). There were no requests for high-density allocations. The 7 projects seeking residential growth management allocations are as follows: GM -04-001: Vintage Oaks, 2320 South Lower Sacramento Road, which is on the east frontage of Lower Sacramento Road, north of Harney Lane, south of DeBenedetti Park, totaling 15 Low Density Allocations; and GM -04-002: Professional Constructors Inc., 1745 West Kettleman Lane, on the southwest corner of Tienda Drive and Lakeshore Drive, totaling 7 Low Density Allocations; and GM -04-003: Mills Avenue Townhomes Phase 2,1441 South Mills Avenue, on the west side of Mills Avenue, south of Kettleman Lane, totaling 20 Medium Density Allocations; and GM -04-004: Cluff LLC, Rick Hanson, 1028 South School Street, on a portion of land that is the parking lot of the old Interlake Rack company on the west side of School Street between Sierra Vista Place and Park Street, totaling 11 Medium Density Allocations; a and APPROVED: CC 2004 allocation.doc Janet S/Keeter,"Interim City Manager GM -04-005: Winchester Woods, 835 West Harney Lane, on the west frontage of Winchester Drive north of Harney Lane and South of Wimbledon Drive, totaling 8 Medium Density Allocations; and GM -04-006: Vintner's Square Homes, 1333 S. Lower Sacramento Rd. and 1380 Westgate Drive, on two separate parcels west of Lower Sacramento Road and north of Kettleman Lane on Taylor and Westgate Drive, totaling 52 Single Family Allocations; and GM -04-007: Kenneth Tate, 2139 West Harney Lane, west of South Mills Avenue on the north side of Harney Lane, totaling 6 Low Density Allocations. Six of these seven Development Plans were approved on the 13th with a recommendation to the City Council to approve their requested allocations. The Cluff LLC, Rick Hanson project at 1028 S. School St. was however continued by the Planning Commission due to concerns of neighbors that their existing low water pressure would become worse, and their concerns that the half plex units were not compatible with the neighborhood. The Planning Commission continued the review of this project to their Public Hearing of October 27th. The applicants subsequently amended their Development Plan and reduced the number of dwellings units to 9 single family and 2 half-plex units from the original 16 half -plea units. The amended plan was a compromise between the applicants and the neighbors. The issue of water pressure was evaluated, presented, and explained to the Commission by the City Engineer as an existing situation that the new project would not make worse. With this information and the amended plan, the Planning Commission approved the Development Plan and added the project's 1 I medium density allocation request to the attached "Planning Commission Recommended Growth Management Allocation Schedule 2004." Please refer to the attached Planning Commission Staff Reports of the Public Hearings of October 13th and the 27th for more details regarding the Growth Management Process and the individual projects design and setting. FUNDING: None onradt Bartlam Community Development Director MM/lw PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED BUILDING PERMIT ALLOCATION SCHEDULE 2004 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO BE ALLOCATED FOR 2004 = 440 NO. TENTATIVE I NO. FINAL MAP I ALLOCATIONS IALLOC. NEEDEDI REQUESTED IRECOMMENDED PROJECT MAP UNITS I UNITS I RECEIVED'89-'031 TO COMPLETE I ALLOC. 2004 1 ALLOC. 2004 KENNETH TATE 0 0 0 6 6 6 PROFESSIONAL CONSTRUCTORS INC. 0 0 0 7 7 7 VINTAGE OAKS 0 0 0 15 15 15 VINTNER'S SQUARE 0 0 0 52 52 52 01 01 01 801 801 80 * 1,218 allocations from expirations and unused allocations from previous years are available. PROJECT NO. TENTATIVE MAP UNITS NO. FINAL MAP UNITS I ALLOCATIONS JALLOC. RECEIVED'89-'031 NEEDEDI TO COMPLETE I REQUESTED ALLOC. 2004 RECOMMENDED 1 ALLOC. 2004 MILLS AVENUE TOWNHOMES 01 0 01 20 20 19 CLUFF, LLC (RICK HANSON) 01 0 01 11 11 11 WINCHESTER WOODS 01 0 01 8 8 8 01 01 01 39 1 39 1 38 * 218 allocations from expirations and unused allocations from previous years are available. There are no projects to request the 110, year 2004 allocations for high density units. * 1,550 Allocations from the previous years ('89-'03) are available. MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Community Development Department To: Planning Commission From: Mark Meissner, Associate Planner Date: October 13, 2004 Subject; Review of Residential Development Plans and Growth Management Allocation Requests for 2004, pursuant to Section 15.34.040 of the Lodi Municipal Code. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the Growth Management Development Plans as conditioned in each request's respective resolution, and a recommendation of approval of the "Staff Recommended Building Permit Allocation Schedule 2004" to the City Council. SUMMARY: There are seven separate residential projects requesting allocations for 2004. A total of 124 allocations were requested and 440 are permissible under the Growth Management ordinance. Of the requested 124 dwelling units, 80 are low density and 44 are medium, density. The 7 projects seeking residential growth management allocations are as follows: GM -04-001: Vintage Oaks, 2320 South Lower Sacramento Road, which is on the east frontage of Lower Sacramento Road, north of Harney Lane, south of DcBenedetti Park, totaling 15 Low Density Allocations; and GM -04-002: Professional Constructors Inc., 1745 West Kettleman Lane, on the southwest corner of Tienda Drive and Lakeshore Drive, totaling 7 Low Density Allocations; and GM -04-003: Mills Avenue Townhomes Phase 2, 1441 South Mills Avenue, on the west side of Mills Avenue, south of Kettleman Lane, totaling 20 Medium Density Allocations; and GM -04-004: Cluff LLC, Rick Hanson, 1028 South School Street, on a portion of land that is the parking lot of the old Interlake Rack company on the west side of School Street between Sierra Vista Place and Park Street, totaling 16 Medium Density Allocations; and GM -04-005: Winchester Woods, 835 West Harney Lane, on the west frontage of Winchester Drive north of Harney Lane and South of Wimbledon Drive, totaling 8 Medium Density Allocations; and GM -04-006: Vintner's Square Homes, 1333 S. Lower Sacramento Rd. and 1380 Westgate Drive, on two separate parcels west of Lower Sacramento Road and north of Kettleman Lane on Taylor and Westgate Drive, totaling 52 Single Family Allocations; and GM -04-007: Kenneth Tate, 2139 West Harney Lane, west of South Mills Avenue on the north side of Harney Lane, totaling 6 Low Density Allocations. BACKGROUND: The Growth Management Ordinance was adopted in 1991 to manage the rate of growth within Lodi. The ordinance set the maximum number of homes to be developed in a year at the number required to house a 2% increase in population. Planning Staff determines this number by using the State Department of Finance population figure for the current year, increasing that number by 2% and then dividing it by the persons per household number. The result is the number of allocations that may be awarded for the year, which is further divided so that 65% of residential development is low density, 10% is medium density, and 25% is high density. This breakdown is detailed on the "City of Lodi Residential Growth Management Schedule 2004" table. The total number of allocations could be considered a limit on the amount of building permits that can be allocated if there were more requests than there are allocations to award, but it has been years since this has happened. In any case, the projects are required to be competitively scored based on 13 different criteria. These criteria are based primarily on a proposed project's location to existing City services. Projects scoring highest would typically receive a greater number of allocations than lower scoring projects. See the "2004 Development Plan Scoring Summary." The Growth Management Ordinance also requires that prior to awarding a project with allocations, a development plan must be reviewed and approved. The development plans are reviewed by staff for their ability to meet basic engineering, zoning, and land use requirements, and to ensure that the number of requested allocations is legitimate. An approved development plan and allocations are required prior to the submittal of a subdivision map. By setting the total number and types of units that can be mapped on a property, the ordinance has effectively managed the rate of growth within Lodi. ANALYSIS The proposed residential development plans and allocations for 2004 brings forth the following key policy questions: lj Are the proposed development plans consistent with the General Plan? 2) Are the allocations consistent with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan? 3) Are potential environmental impacts created by the allocations minimized? 4) Can the City adequately serve the homes with needed services? 5) Do the individual projects fit the character of their neighborhoods? • Are the proposed development plans consistent with the General Plan? Yes, all of the plans are consistent with their respective General Plan Land Use designations as shown on the table below: 2004 aliocation.doc 2 VinLaLe Oaks 15 Low Density 4.076 LDR, Low Density Res. Professional Constructors Inc. 7 Low Density 0.988 O, Office Mills Avenue Townhomes 20 Medium Density 1.660 O, Office Cluff LLC 16 Medium Density 1.480 1 MDR, Medium Density Res. Winchester Woods 8 Medium Density 0.410 MDR, Medium Density Res. 2004 aliocation.doc 2 It is important to note that the Office General Plan Designation allows residential development in the same range as medium density residential, 7.1 to 20 dwelling units per acre. • Are the allocations consistent with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation Pian? The San Joaquin Council of Governments adopted the San Joaquin County Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan on December 5, 2003. This plan stated a regional need for 4,014 dwelling units to be built within Lodi between 2001 and 2008. Of the 4,014 units, the goal is to have a mix of housing types with approximately 60% of the units at a rate affordable to moderate -income families. This need represents a goal and Lodi is not responsible for the actual construction of any units, however, there cannot be any unreasonable institutional barriers that would prevent the goal from being met. One factor contributing to affordability is density. Over the past few years Lodi has seen a change in market demand for these more affordable homes. The units have been a medium -density product type on smaller lots and reduced setbacks. The Commission may remember the medium density projects from the recent past being Tienda Place on Lakeshore Drive north of Kettlernan Lane, Wine and Roses Homes north of Wine and Roses, Lalazar Estates on Lakeshore Drive just south of Kettleman, The Villas on Harney and Cherokee, and Mills Avenue Townhomes which is back this year for 20 additional lots. These projects contributed 230 units to the medium density category. This year, we have 3 projects in the medium density range. Another factor helping to provide greater housing opportunities are duplex units on corner lots within R-2, zoning districts. The Vintner's Square, proposes to develop duplex units on its 11 corner lots. • Are potential environmental impacts created by the allocations minimized? The potential environmental impacts created by the proposed development plans are expected to be mitigated through the implementation of existing ordinances and policies. Total acreage of development plans this year is approximately 21 with 124 allocations for an overall density of 5.9 dwelling units per acre. This density is on the high side of low-density development that tops out at 7 units per acre. Considering that over 15 of the 21 acres is within two of the larger single-family projects we consider an overall density of 5.9 dwelling units per acre to be an efficient use of land. Efficient use of land reduces demands on City infrastructure and services and the cost of expanded services. Reduces impacts to farmland by delaying its conversion to urban uses. Compact development, also decreases impacts on air quality by reducing vehicle miles traveled. Another key factor minimizing environmental impacts is that 6 of the 7 development plans are considered infill projects that are exempted from environmental review by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Even the largest project, Vintner's Square Homes at 11.18 acres and 52 units, will be developed on land that has been within the City for over a decade and originally designated for single-family development. Given the infrastructure being 2004 allocation.doc development for the Lowe's Shopping Center immediately south and east of the project site, realistically the Vintner's Square Homes development plan could be considered infill. Infill development significantly reduces the private investment needed to build the homes and the public investment needed to maintain infrastructure. Can the City adequately serve the proposed units with needed services? Because all of the development plans are adjacent to existing urban developments served by utilities and are in accordance with the density anticipated by the General Plan, the City expects to adequately serve the projects. Incremental increases in the demand for services are offset by the routine payment of development impact fees. Payment of Development Impact Mitigation fees cover expected service impacts to water, sewer, storm drainage, streets, police, fire, parks and recreation; and general city capital costs. Additionally, the projects, as conditioned in their resolutions, will be served at expected levels without adversely impacting existing residential development. Do the individual projects fit the character of their neighborhoods? Vintage Oaks Vintage Oaks is a 15 -lot low density, single family residential, infill development on approximately 4 -acres of land just south of the DeBenedetti Park and north of Harney Lane and the Sunnyside Estates homes on South Lower Sacramento Road. The zoning of the project area is R -LD, Residential Low Density, which allows for the development of up to four units per lot depending on the size and width of the property. In the case of this Development Plan the requested number of allocations matches the number of lots, so the plan is one house per lot. In an effort to ensure compatibility with the neighboring homes of the Sunnyside Estates to the south, this development is proposed as a traditional single-family subdivision with larger and wider lots than most of our recent projects. The average lot size is approximately 9,500 sq. ft., with the largest being around 12,000 sq. ft. and the smallest about 7,500 sq. ft. The lot widths are generally 66 -feet on the north side of the street and 75 -feet on the south. The proposed development exceeds the requirements of the zoning and should be acceptable to the neighbors to the south. Access to the lots of the development plan is along a 50 -foot public right of way with a cul-de-sac connecting to Lower Sacramento Road. This is really the only design possible for the development and is dimensioned appropriately. Staff is; however, conditioning that the project use the City's Standard Plan for minor residential streets which includes a parkway and street trees. Professional Constructors Inc. This development plan is proposed as a 7 -lot, low density, single-family residential subdivision just north of Kettleman Lane on the southwest corner of the intersection of Lakeshore and Tienda Drive. The zoning of the project area is R -CP, Residential Commercial Professional, which allows for the development of the proposed single-family homes on lots no smaller than 5,000 sq. ft. and no less than 50 -feet wide. The average lot size is approximately 6,678 sq. ft. with the largest being nearly 8,000 sq. ft. and the smallest 5,066 sq. ft. The lots range in width from 51 -feet being the narrowest and 59 -feet the widest. 2004 allocation.doc 4 The project site is across Tienda Drive from the developing Millsbridge II single- family residential subdivision approved last year, and across Lakeshore Drive from the developing Tienda Place medium -density, single-family subdivision approved in 1998. The western most lot, Lot 7, is adjacent to the east of an existing single- family home that fronts onto Tienda Drive. The entire project rears to a future professional building that takes access from Kettleman Lane. Each of the homes of this development plan will front on the existing streets. Limited improvements are necessary for the development of this project site. Aside from rearing to a future professional building that will be separated from the new homes of this project by a decorative block wall, the majority of the surrounding neighborhood is made of single-family residences of varying densities and styles. Staff finds that the 7 new homes of this development plan will complement this developing neighborhood. Mills Avenue Townhomes, Phase 2 The Mills Avenue Townhomes, Phase 2 is the westward expansion of the approved 13 -lots of Phase 1. Phase was approved last year as a 12 -lot medium density single-family residential development on Mills Avenue, immediately south of the adjacent office development on Kettleman Lane. The project site is zoned PD, Planned Development, which in the case of this project has been used extensively to establish a single family product on relatively small lots with reduced setbacks. During the review of Phase 1, the lot sizes and setbacks were introduced and approved by the Commission. Phase 1 was approved and conditioned with lot sizes as low as 2,400 sq. ft.; increased lot coverage of a little over 50% in some instances; reduced setbacks of 3 - feet on the sides, 5 -feet in the rear, and 12 -feet in the front with 18 -foot deep driveways; and a 34 -foot -wide private street including curb, gutter, and 32 -feet of street. The private street and a reverse frontage wall separating the homes from the offices, was included due to concerns from the office owners over possible traffic congestion and land use conflicts. The private street was found to be adequate for parking and emergency access. The wall is 6 -feet high with a 2.5 -foot planter and 5 by 6 -foot tree wells about 40 -feet apart. Staff finds that Phase 2 is a simple extension to the west, with the same design elements. We find that it remains consistent with the General Plan and zoning, allows for individual ownership and a more affordable lot size, and that it addresses the concerns of the office uses to the north. We also find that the Development Plan is an infill project that helps the City remain compact, provides for a portion of the City's share of the regional housing needs, and has a measure of affordability not otherwise found in Lodi's traditional housing market. One concern of Staff is that lots 19-23 at the northwest corner of the project encroach on an existing access easement. These lots are conditioned for redesign to eliminate this problem. Lot 23 will most likely be removed from the plan because it is entirely within the access easement for the City's well site, and requires the elimination of required parking for the Social Security Office to the north. The "Staff Recommended Building Permit Allocation Schedule 2004," reflects the loss of one lot. Cluff LLC, Rick Hanson The proposed development plan is a 16 -lot medium density development, consisting of 8 half-plex buildings sharing a property line. The project site is the location of the old Interlake Rack systems building fronting on South Sacramento Street and its parking and storage area fronting on South School Street. The half of the property fronting Sacramento Street is zoned M-2, Heavy industrial; however, the 2004 allocation.doc 5 half fronting School Street where the development plan is proposed is zoned R -MD, Residential Medium Density. In order for the applicant to utilize the residentially zoned portion of the project site for this development plan, he was required to illustrate how the industrial portion of the site would be provided for. Since the project site was once an industrial use, staff has required the applicant to illustrate on the development plan how the industrial use and its previous parking and storage area will be separated. Staff's concern was with the ability of the applicant to provide the required emergency access and parking for the industrial building. The parking ratio for the industrial building is one stall for each 750 sq. ft. The plan illustrates 58 stalls, which meets this requirement. There is also an adequate driveway around the back of the building for emergency, access. The industrial portion of the project is conditioned to separate itself from the residential portion with a decorative block wall and landscaping, which should help screen the view of the building. This separation is about all that can be reasonably required even with such a dramatic change in zoning from one half of the block to the next. This situation is; however, not unique, as it exists essentially along the entire length of Sacramento Street and School Street from north to south. The R -MD zoning of the development plan requires that individual lots contain no less than 4,000 sq. ft. and that they are at least 40 -feet wide. The project includes 8 half-plex units that are different than a duplex because each half of a half -plea unit is on a separate piece of property and can be sold separately. Each half shares a common wall along a property line. There are four groups of two half plea units, facing north and south to one another, and each obtaining access and utilities from School Street along a shared private driveway between each of them. R -MD zoning requires standard residential setbacks of 20 -foot front yards, 10 -foot rear yards, and 5 -foot side yards. The front setback will be measured from School Street to each of the units. The rear setback will be measured from the property line separating the industrial area from the residences, and the north and south or rear elevations of each building. The side yard setback does not apply given the attached situation. Based on the size and dimensions of the proposed lots, it is likely that the dwellings will be two stories. As far as the policy question is concerned, staff finds that due to the neighborhood being primarily single family with an older style of architecture, this Development Plan requires conditions regarding the appearance and/or architecture of the units. Staff is recommending a condition that the applicant provides the Community Development Department with at least 3 unique elevations that incorporate architectural features and materials from the surrounding residences. The intent of this condition is to eliminate the monotony of the street frontages, and produce the appearance of a single-family structure. Staff finds that the development plan is consistent with the General Plan and zoning in that all development standards and requirements will be met by the project. As with the other medium density projects, this development plan is an infill project that reduces the pressures to develop our agricultural land, provides for a portion of the City's share of the regional housing needs, and has a measure of affordability not otherwise found in Lodi's traditional housing market. Winchester Woods Winchester Woods is an 8 -lot, medium density development plan just north of West Harney Lane on the west side of Winchester Drive within the English Oaks Planned Development. The development plan includes 8 individual lots with two four -unit buildings. The Planning Commission recently approved a parcel map to create the 2004 allocation.doc 6 subject parcel. The land is actually the tennis courts of the Vineyards apartment complex, which was found to be excess land ideal for an infill project. The zoning of the project site is PD, Planned Development that allows for any and all uses when approved by the Planning Commission on a development plan. PD zoning also allows the use of non -conventional development standards; as in the case of this project, a smaller individual lot size and width, and increased lot coverage. The average lot is approximately 2,257.5 sq. ft. with the largest being nearly 2,700 sq. ft. and the smallest 1,900 sq. ft. The lots range in width from 25.1 -to 36.3 -feet. This proposal is consistent with the General Plan of MDR, Medium Density Residential, which allows for a maximum density of 20 units per acre and attached units. To the east across Winchester Drive is the existing Winchester Oaks apartment complex, and adjacent to the west is the Vineyards apartment complex. Each of the units of this development plan takes access for its garage from Winchester Drive. The surrounding neighborhood is made of attached multi family dwellings of varying densities, styles, and ownership. Staff finds that the 8 new homes of this development plan complement this mature neighborhood, and furthers the City's efforts of developing from within the existing City Limits where possible. Vintner's Square Homes The development plan is the largest development plan this year. The plan includes two separate parcels encompassing 7.44 acres within the City of Lodi. The development plan illustrates 2 properties with 41 -lots for the development of 30 single-family homes, and 11 duplexes. The larger 5.25 -acre parcel is located on the southwest corner of Taylor Road and Lower Sacramento Road. This parcel is proposed for 35 dwellings on 30 lots with its five corner lots to be developed as duplexes. The dwellings of this parcel take access from Taylor Road. The smaller 2.18 -acre parcel fronts Westgate Drive and is proposed for 17 dwellings on 11 lots with its 6 corner lots to be developed as duplexes. Both parcels are zoned R-2, residential single family and have general plan designations of LDR, low density residential, which allows development up to 7 dwelling units per acre. The project proposes development at 6.99 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with zoning and the general plan. R-2 zoning also mandates a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet and 50 -feet in width for single- family lots and 6,000 sq, ft. and 60 -feet in width for duplex lots on corners. All of the proposed lots comply with these requirements. On average, each of the single- family lots is 5,300 sq. ft. and 52.5 -feet wide, and the duplex lots are 6,400 sq. ft. 65 -feet wide. The surrounding land uses of the northern parcel are as follows: There are several low-density residential dwelling units across Taylor Road to the north that developed in the County many years ago, and are still in the County. These homes are designated in the City's General Plan to remain low density, so land use conflicts are not anticipated. To the east are two single-family homes zoned R-1, single family residential. To the southeast is the Sunwest Marketplace shopping center, and to the south is the developing Lowe's shopping center. The development plan will be separated from the Lowe's shopping center to the south and the Lower Sacramento Road to the east by an 8 -foot high decorative masonry wall. To the west is a future phase of the development plan, but is now a temporary storm drainage basin for this development and the shopping center. For the portion of the development plan on Westgate Drive the surrounding land uses are as follows: To the west are undeveloped rural residential properties in the 2004 allocation.doc 7 County. These properties are not in agricultural production thus no impacts are expected. As designated in the City's General Plan and the Westside Facilities plan, the area is destined for residential use, so future compatibility is assured. To the South is the proposed Chili's restaurant and parking lot, to the east is the backside of the Lowe's building, and to the north is the temporary storm drainage basin. The development will be separated from these uses by an 8 -foot tall decorative masonry wall. Kenneth Tate This Development Plan is contemplated as a 6 -lot single family, low-density development on the northeast corner of Harney Lane and Legacy Way, between Lower Sacramento Road and Mills Avenue. The zoning of the project area is R-2, single family residential, which allows for the development single-family homes on lots no smaller than 5,000 sq. ft. and no less than 50 -feet wide. Each of the 6 lots is dimensioned equally at 50 -feet gide, 145 -feet deep and containing 7,250 sq. ft. The project site is across Legacy Way from the developing Legacy Estates, Unit 1, single-family residential subdivision, and south and east of the developing Legacy Estates, Unit 2, single-family subdivision. The southern most lot, Lot 6, is adjacent to the south of an existing single-family home on the corner of Harney Lane and Legacy Way. Each of the homes of this development plans fronts on Legacy Way. Limited improvements are necessary for the development of this project site. The proposed development plan is surrounded low-density residential development. Staff finds that the 6 new homes of this development plan will tit seamlessly with this developing neighborhood. T peetfully Su itted, w Mark Meissner Associate Planner KB/MM 2004 allocation.doc 8 Reviewed & Concur, Zonradt Bartl Community Development Director City of Lodi Residential Growth Management Schedule 2004 Adopted: September 18, 1991 under Ordinance #1521 Year Population %Actual Growth 2% Pop. projection Persons/ Household Total units per year Single Fam.@ 65% Med density @ 10% High density @ 25% •• Sep -89 50,990 1,020 2.572 397 258 40 99 Sep -90 52,010 2.00% 1,040 2.567 404 263 40 101 Sep -91 53,050 2.00% 1,061 2.630 403 262 40 101 Jan -92 53,186 0.26% 1,064 2.664 399 259 40 100 Jan -93 53,701 0.97% 1,074 2.680 401 261 40 100 Jan -94 53,903 0.38% 1,078 2.680 402 261 40 101 Jan -95 54,694 1.47% 1,094 2.697 406 264 41 102 Jan -96 54,473 -0.40% 1,089 2.662 409 266 41 102 Jan -97 54,812 0.62% 1,096 2.659 412 268 41 103 Jan -98 55,681 1.59% 1,114 2.684 415 270 42 104 Ian -99 56,926 2.24% 1,139 2.695 423 275 42 106 Jan -00 57,935 1.77% 1,159 2.709 428 278 43 107 Jan -01 58,600 1.15% 1,172 2.710 432 281 43 108 Jan -02 59,431 1.42% 1,189 2.745 433 282 43 108 Jan -03 60,521 1.83% 1,210 2.770 437 284 44 109 an- 2. 0 1,2 st 2.76 45 9 1 Jan -06 63,224 2.00% 1,264 Est 2.760 466 303 47 117 Jan -07 64,488 2.00% 11290 Est 2.760 476 309 48 119 TOTALS:1 8,042 I 5,227 1 604 1 2,0101 " Sep'89 population number equals 2/3 of the population difference of Jan '89 and Jan 'go added to Jan'89 NOTE: Population and persons per household per State [Department of Finance. Actual percentage increases in papulation maybe higher or lower than 2%. Calculation of building permit allocations is based on a 2% increase of the current year population figure. CITY COUNCIL AWARDED BUILDING PERMIT ALLOCATIONS 1989-2003 TC)TA1 RFSl17FNTIAI. UNITS [1989-20031 = 6.202 57 allocations remained from the'93 allocation year, giving the City a total of 318 single family units to allocate for 1994. �* One, 1996 single family allocation was granted to the Parisis property project in '95. € Fifteen, 1996 single family allocations were awarded toy�the �Richard's Ranch Project by resolution #96-40. Page 2 of 4 ALLOCATION TOTALS PROJECT 1989 1 1990 1 19911992 1 1993 1994 1995 1 1996 1997 1 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 ALMOND WOOD ESTS. 0 0 01 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 74 01 0 74 ALMOND NORTH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 34 34 BANG'S RANCH 34 35 35 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 123 BECKMAN PROPERTY 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 46 0 0 0 46 BRIDGETOWN 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 51 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 CENTURY MEADOWS 1 161 16 16 0 0 0 52 55 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 CENTURY MEADOWS 2 25 26 25 0 29 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 165 CENTURY MEADOWS 3 24 24 25 0 29 0 51 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 203 CENTURY MEADOWS 4 29 29 29 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 137 LVIN RANCH 20 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 JOHNSON RANCH 2 43 43 43 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 173 KIRST PROPERTY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 LEGACY ESTATES 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 141 141 LODI WEST 26 27 27 80 551 69 0 0 53 41 0 0 0 0 0 378 LUCKEY/LACKYARD MILLSBRIDGE 2 PARISIS PROPERTY 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 01 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 PERLEGOS PROPERTY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 0 0 0 57 RICHARDS RANCH € 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 RIVERPOINTE 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 44 SASAKI PROPERTY 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 01 60 SUNWEST XIV 0 01 0 0 01 0 0 31 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 THAYER PROPERTY 0 0 0 0 01 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 TSUTAOKA PROPERTY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 TOWNE RANCH 35 36 36 56 52 151 37 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 D 415 11 258 263 2621 259 204 318 2661 265 236 1 2 1 171 103 151 33 1 209 2,813 57 allocations remained from the'93 allocation year, giving the City a total of 318 single family units to allocate for 1994. �* One, 1996 single family allocation was granted to the Parisis property project in '95. € Fifteen, 1996 single family allocations were awarded toy�the �Richard's Ranch Project by resolution #96-40. Page 2 of 4 CITY COUNCIL AWARDED BUILDING PERMIT ALLOCATIONS 1989-2003 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS (1989-2003) = 6,202 PROJECT 1989 1990 7491 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 _ ALL J TOTALS BANG'S RANCH *' 18 18 0 0 0 -36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LALAZAR ESTATES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 LODI ESTATES '• 0 0 22 0 0 -22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LODI WEST 0 0 0 0 57 0 0 0 0 -57 0 0 0 0 0 0 MILLS AVENUE TOWNHOMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 NEUSCHAFFER PROPERTY 0 0 0 O 0 0 01 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 154 154 SASAKI PROPERTY o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 3 0 0 0 0 0 103 'WEST GARDEN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 ..NE & ROSES HOMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 31 WOODHAVEN PARK 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 75 401 40 1 281 01 132 -581 01 01 118 -104 1 01 01 01 01 2061 402 * In'93 the Planning Commission awarded 40, 1994 medium density allocations to the Lodi West project '* The Bangs Ranch and Lodi Estates projects each were awarded single family allocations in place of their medium density allocations 11 ALLOCATION PROJECT 1989 1990 1 1991 1 1992 1 1993 1 1994 1 1995 1 1996 1 1997 1 1998 1 1999 1 2000 2001 2002 1 2003 TOTALS BENNETT & COMPTON 1 991 451 01 0 -1-441 01 01 01 0 E 0 1 D 0 0 01 0 0 99 45 0 D -144 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 Ol D * The Bennett and Compton project was awarded 75 medium density allocations under the project name of Woodhaven Park. Page 3 of 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED BUILDING PERMIT ALLOCATION SCHEDULE 2004 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO BE ALLOCATED FOR 2004 = 440 PROJECT NO. TENTATIVE MAP UNITS NO. FINAL MAP UNITS I ALLOCATIONS RECEIVED'89-b3 JALLOC. NEEDED TO COMPLETE I REQUESTED ALLOC. 2004 RECOMMENDED ALLOC. 2004 KENNETH TATE 0 0 0 6 6 6 PROFESSIONAL CONSTRUCTORS INC. 0 0 0 7 7 7 VINTAGE OAKS 0 0 0 15 15 15 VINTNER'S SQUARE 0 0 0 52 52 52 01 01 01 801 80 80 1,218 allocations from expirations and unused allocations from previous years are available. NO. TENTATIVE I NO. FINAL MAP I ALLOCATIONS IALLOC. NEEDED I REQUESTED IRECOMMENDED PROJECT _ MAP UNITS I UNITS IRECEIVED, '89-'03 TO COMPLETE I ALLOC. 2004 1 ALLOC. 2004 MILLS AVENUE TOWNHOMES 0 0 0 20 20 19 CLUFF, LLC (RICK HANSON) 0 0 0 16 16 16 WINCHESTER WOODS 0 0 0 8 8 8 01 01 01 441 441 43 * 218 allocations from expirations and unused allocations from previous years are available. -here are no projects to request the 110, year 2004 allocations for high density units. _ * 1,550 Allocations from the previous years C89-'03) are available_ RESOLUTION NO. P.C. 04-- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LODI RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE BUILDING PERMIT ALLOCATION SCHEDULE FOR THE YEAR 2004 WHEREAS, growth projections and policies established by Lodi's managed growth reflect the estimated planned capacity of the city to serve new growth as it occurs; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the city to ensure that prime agricultural land is preserved by discouraging new residential developments in rural or unincorporated areas and to provide, to the extent possible, that new residential development occur in urban areas; and WHEREAS, it is the City of Lodi's desire to insure the ability of the community to provide adequate and decent housing for its citizens; and WHEREAS, all proposed development plans have acceptable scores pursuant to Section 15.34. 100 of the Growth Management Plan for Residential Development; and WHEREAS, there are 440 Growth Management allocation to award, and 123 requested. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FOUND, DETERMINED AND RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi as follows: 1. That the Residential Development Allocations comply with the requirements of the Growth Management Residential Development Ordinance. 2. That each of the projects requesting allocation have been reviewed for conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. 3. That 7 development plans were reviewed and approved to confirm the number of allocations requested by each of the applicants is correct. 4. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council allocate 43 medium -density and 80 low-density Residential Growth Management Allocations for the calendar year 2004 as outlined in the attached table. Dated: October 13, 2004 I hereby certify that Resolution No. 04-_ was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi at a regular meeting held on October 13, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission MILLS AV. TOWNHOMES, PHASE 2, DEVELOPMENT PLAN CITY OF LODI PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report MEETING DATE: October 13, 2004 APPLICATION NO'S: GM -04-003 REQUEST: The request of Mitch Scheflo for approval of the Mills Avenue Townhomes, Phase 2, a 20 -lot medium -density single-family residential Growth Management Development plan at 1441 South Mills Avenue, and a request that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council for 20 medium -density Growth Management allocations. LOCATION: 1441 South Mills Avenue (058-160-46, 90, & 91) APPLICANT: Mitch Scheflo 1711 Windjammer Lodi, CA 95242 OWNER: Kettleman II PTP 301 South Ham Lane, Suite A Lodi, CA 95242 Site Characteristics: The site is relatively fiat with no unusual topographic features. The site has been prepared and maintained for several years in a condition anticipating development. General Plan Designation; O, Office Zoning Designations. PD(21), Planned Development Projekt Size: 3 parcels totaling, 1.66 acres Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North: PD(21), Planned Development (Office); O, Office. South: PD(21) Planned Development (Apartments); MDR, Medium Density Residential. East: PD(24) Planned Development (Office); O, Office. West: PD(21) Planned Development (Lake); O, Office. Neighborhood Characteristics: The project site is vacant and between the existing office buildings fronting the 2000 and 2100 block of West Kettleman Lane to the north and the Lakeview Condominium Rentals beyond the block wall to the south. To the west are additional vacant parcels to be developed in a similar fashion under future phases. To the east across South Mills Avenue is a private recreation facility for the homeowners of the Lakeshore area accessing Mallard Lake. The project area is accessed along a common driveway between the subject parcels and the existing offices on Kettleman Lane. This common driveway has access to gm04003r.doc MILLS AV. TOWNHOMES, PHASE 2, DEVELOPMENT PLAN Kettlgman Lane to the north from a driveway between the Wrights Insurance Builc4ng and the PAM building locations, and to Mills Avenue at the west end of the project site. UV*ONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS: Negalive Declaration ND -04-04 has been prepared in accordance with CEQA. This document adequately addresses possible adverse environmental effects of this pkoject. No significant impacts are anticipated. PUBLAC HEARING NOTICE: Legal Notice for the Development Plan was published on October 2, 2004. A total if 14 notices were sent to all property owners of record within a 300 -foot radius of the subject property. HEC igMDATION: Staff: recommends that the Planning Commission approve the request of Mitch ScheSo for the Mills Avenue Townhomes, Phase 2, a 19 -lot medium -density singles -family residential Growth Management Development plan at 1441 South Mills Avenue, and recommend approval to the City Council for 19 medium - density Growth Management allocations, subject to the conditions in the attacked resolution. ALTZOtHATIVE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS: • Arove the Requests with alternate conditions. • Dony the Requests • Continue the requests ATTIDRUSNTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. DOvelopment Plan 3. N4gative Declaration 4. Dft Resolution gm04003r.doc 2 2350 Cm Tien a r. 2314 2312 2309 23, a ^ a N m C J�1 ,4 K 7141 2245 Z 2220 2?2, N 2217 _ �] 2218 =• 2215 2214 0)z 2211 Z � 221, 2218 17 2210 2209 2208 2208 2207 r 2211 Z -t 2207 2212 r•-� N a 2223 2228 201 2205 `" rr OCE6DC s /1 2150 v Nw (Nn aN N �\..•iL� �/ 1 [n 4T N V 18 n V 2145 Heidell © 1 2132 ED0 2122 2115 2126 )`� y► 2100 2111 2110 A O1 d' a �•' m a ( 2024 2400 _ 7 �• 2 Q > r Q 020 m i p0 o r 0 o`y 0 Vl ro > Ci o w-0 � �G 2oso O N m C -o =—,-_� zaaa � m U;-• N 18x9 =r S' u L~' D a �- MILLS AV. m a � o � eft• P 3 1935 1936 1937 19 p1 O lD 1910 1829 1930 1901 19 r^► VI N :� y r ^v` ` ,935 R w -+ LCL 1973 1924 �i 1825 19 "ammer 1701 1900' 1925 1917 1918 O 1919 19 ,fig 1911 19120 1915 19 O u 915 1905 1908 1907 191 NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 04-04 FOR Growth Management Development Plan for Mills Avenue Townhomes, Phase 2 File No.: GM -04-003 APPLICANT: Mitch Scheflo PREPARED BY: CITY OF LODI Community Development Department P.O. BOX 3006 LODI, CA 95241 September 2004 r. TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE PROJECTDESCRIPTION....................................................................................................................1 ENVIRONMENTALCHECKLIST FORM............................................................................................. 3 SCIMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS............................................................................................... 9 DETERMINATION:.............................................................................................................................14 VICINITYMAP....................................................................................................................................1 S 1 r., CITY OF LODI Growth Management Development Plan for Mills Avenue Townhomes, Phase 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Mills Avenue Townhomes, Phase 2 Development Plan is a design that illustrates 20 new single-family homes on approximately 1.95 -acres. The project area consists of 3 vacant parcels of land at 2024, 2106, & 2116 West Kettleman Lane (APN's: 058- 160-45, 46, & 90). Phase 2 connects to the western end of the recently approved 12 units of Mills Avenue Townhomes, Phase 1. The dwellings of both phases front on a private street accessed at 1441 S. Mills Av. The development plan is within the Lodi City Limits and is zoned PD(21), allowing for medium density housing up to 17 dwelling units per acre. The General Plan Land Use designation is O, Office that allows up to 20 dwelling units per acre. The project density is 10.26 units per acre, which is consistent with the zoning and general plan land use designation. E ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project title: Growth Management Development Plan for Mills Avenue Townhomes, Phase 2 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Lodi -Community Development Department Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241 3. Contact person and phone number: Mark Meissner Associate Planner (209) 333-6711 4. Project location: San Joaquin County, CA.; Addresses and Parcel Numbers listed above in Project Description Lodi, CA 95240. 5 Project Applicant: Mitch Scheflo 1711 Windjammer Court Lodi, CA 95242 6 Property Owner: Angelo Anagnos 725 Atherton Drive Lodi, CA 95242 7 General plan designation: O, Office 8 Zo*ing: PD(21), Planned Development, Medium Density Residential 9 Description of project: See "Project Description" section above. 10 Surrounding land uses and setting: The Development Plan is south of developed commercial properties of the Lakeshore Professional Center fronting West Kettleman Lane (Hwy. 12), north of the Lakeview apartment complex, east of undeveloped properties of the Lakeshore Professional Center, and west of a developed office buildings across South Mills Avenue. The project site is relatively flat with no unusual or extraordinary topographic features. 11 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. C3 Land Use and Planning ❑ Population and Housing ❑ Geological Problems ❑ Water © Air Quality ❑ Transportation/Circulation ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Energy and Mineral Resources ❑ Hazards ❑ Noise ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities and Service Systems ❑ Aesthetics © Cultural Resources ❑ Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposed: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? II POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed oMclal regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects In an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential Impacts Involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? g) Subsidence of land? h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geologic or physical features? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Potentially ❑ 0 ❑ Significant 0 ❑ Potentially Unless Less than Signitkaat mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ Ea ❑ ❑ ❑ m ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ B1 ❑ ❑ ❑ Ea ❑ ❑ ❑ m ❑ ❑ ❑ 4 V. AIR QUALITY. Would theproposal. All "No" Reference Source: Appendix N, GS & Environmental Setting, Sea 3.3: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected ❑ Potentially ® ❑ air quality violation? ❑ Significant ❑ Q b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Potentially Unless Less than IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: Significant mitigation Significant No All "No"- Reference Source: See Project Description Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ surftice 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? ❑ ❑ ❑Ea I) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ public water supplies? V. AIR QUALITY. Would theproposal. All "No" Reference Source: Appendix N, GS & Environmental Setting, Sea 3.3: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected ❑ ❑ ® ❑ air quality violation? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in ❑ ❑ ❑ climate? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 d) Create objectionable odors? ❑ ❑ ❑ VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result In: All "No" Reference Source: See Project Description a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ b) Hazards to safety from design feature, (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous ❑ ❑ ❑ Q intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ 5 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 habhat, etc.)? d) Wedand 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ la b) Use nonrenewable resources in it wasteful and inefficient manner? ❑ ❑ ❑ Ed c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be El ❑ ❑ la of fature 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 ❑ H ❑ Significant ❑ la Potentially Unless Less than Significant mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ la b) Use nonrenewable resources in it wasteful and inefficient manner? ❑ ❑ ❑ Ed c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be El ❑ ❑ la of fature 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ la ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 ❑ ❑ ❑ EZ ❑ ❑ ❑ la ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cl 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Cl ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ R XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a nerd for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following "dudes: 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. AIL.STHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? Potentially ❑ ❑ 0 Significant ❑ ❑ Potentially Unless Less than ❑ Significant mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Create light or glare? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Disturb archaeological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ❑ ❑ ❑ ethnic cultural values? d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential ❑ ❑ ❑ impact area.? XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other (3 ❑ ® ❑ recreational facilities? b) Affect recreation opportunities? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 7 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Leas 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 or 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? ❑ ❑ ❑ 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) ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses used. Just 1991. City of Lodi General Plan EIR. This area was identified in the Lodi General Plan and discussed in the Environmental Impact Report SCH# 9020206 Mitigation measures. See Attached Summary for discussion. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS An explanation of potentially significant impacts follows. Measures included in this summery shall be treated as mitigation where indicated. LAND USE AND PLANNING The subject properties total approximately 0.73 -acres of land zoned for the development of homes at a maximum density of 17 dwelling units per acre, and is designated in the general plan as O, Office which allows for residential development up to 20 dwelling units per acre. The Mills Avenue Townhomes development plan, Phase 2, proposes 20 -single-family homes at a density of 10.26 units per acre, which is consistent with the zoning and general plan. The land of the project site has been within the City limits for over a decade and has been improved for development for just as long. The property is surrounded by urbanization, and is too small for any profitable commercial scale agricultural use. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS The Project area is located in the San Joaquin Valley portion of the Central Valley of California. A sequence of sedimentary rocks up to 60,000 feet thick has filled the valley. Basement rocks composed of meta -sediments, volcanics, and granites underlie these deposits. The Midland Fault Zone is the nearest seismic area, and lies approximately 20 miles west of Lodi. Based upon the inactive status of this fault, the area has not been identified as a Special Studies Zone within the definitions of the Alquist-Priolo Act. The routine implementation of the adopted California Building Code, Seismic zone 3 requirements, will mitigate this potential impact to a less than significant level. WATER This project by itself will not substantially reduce the amount of groundwater available for public water supplies; however, approval of the Mills Avenue Townhomes development plan for 20 homes will contribute to the existing decline in the quantity of ground water by creating additional demand on the groundwater basin. According to the City's "Urban Water Management Plan, June 2001," the City of Lodi obtains all of its fresh water supply from 24 existing water wells that pump groundwater from the Longer San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin, The Plan states that the City has been over drafting the groundwater basin, which is the cause of the gradual but continued decrease in groundwater levels, "Overall, the average annual decrease in groundwater levels from 1927 to 2000 has been 0.35 feet per year. Generally, groundwater elevations have decreased with the increase in population and water production." At the time the General Plan was drafted in 1987, water demand stood at 13.7 MGD. In 1991, it had grown to 14.1 MGD. According to estimates prepared in 1991, development provided for by the General Plan would create demand for approximately 7.8 MGD of water, or 76 percent more than the current amount. The "Urban Water Management Plan" provides many recommendations the City could implement to ensure that the City maintains an adequate supply of fresh water. These recommendations include: Developing a conjunctive use program to reduce overall pumping of groundwater, recycling waste water, continuing current water conservation efforts, and adopting many `Best Management Practices" (BMP) water conservation processes established by the California Urban Water Conservation Council. The basic finding of the report is that if the City is going to continue its sole reliance on groundwater, it must establish additional conservation programs or the City will eventually run out of groundwater. The land of the Mills Avenue Townhomes Development Plan, Phase 2, is anticipated to develop in the near future as a 20 -dwelling unit subdivision. Prior to development of any residential project consisting of more than 4 dwelling units, the City requires a development plan review as provided by the City's Growth Management Program. Because of this program, growth within the City of Lodi has not exceeded the limit of providing housing for a 2% population increase per year. In fact, population growth has occurred at an average rate of 1.18% per year since the establishment of the Growth Management Program in 1991. This has reduced the anticipated per capita consumption of water. In addition, increased water conservation efforts by the City beginning in 1995 have also reduced the per capita consumption of water to less than expected levels. The City has recently entered into an agreement with the Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) to purchase surface water rights from the Mokelumne River; this agreement is for a term of 40 years. The City now has rights to 6,000 acre-feet per year, which is approximately 36% of the total volume of 16,572 acre-feet of water the City currently consumes per year. Among other things, this agreement states that the WID will bank up to 3 years of water (18,000 acre-feet) while the City plans for its use. Initial plans are for ground water recharge, but could be to treat and use the water directly. Even with these efforts, water usage of existing homes, businesses, and industry will continue to overdraft the groundwater basin. For this reason, the City will pursue each of the recommendations cited in the Urban Water Management Plan. These recommended efforts are comprehensive to the City as a whole. At this time the City has not established a mechanism to mitigate by compensation or other means the cumulative impact on the City's fresh water supply at the individual project level, For this reason the City of Lodi finds that future development of the Mills Avenue Townhomes Development Plan Phase 2 project area shall at the time of establishment of the mechanism for compensation be required to compensate the City on a "fair share" basis. These endeavors as well as the continuing efforts of the City to pursue additional surface water sources and to regulate water usage and promote water conservation shall suffice as mitigation to reduce the impacts of this development to less than significant. AIR QUALITY The development of the project site to 20 -unit residential subdivision may cause a small decrease in ambient air quality standards and increase air emissions. Increased vehicle trips and emissions in the project area could be considered a substantial impact to an area that was relatively vacant property. Chapter 15, Air Quality, of the City of Lodi General Plan Environmental Impact Report states that "the City of Lodi will coordinate development project review with the San Joaquin County APCD in order to minimize future increases in vehicle travel and to assist in implementing any indirect source regulations adopted by the APCD." At the time of development the City of Lodi will implement impact -reducing measures prescribed by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District in order to W] reduce. the potential impact from fugitive dust (PM -10) due to earth moving and other constriction activities. The "Regulation VIII control measures" are listed as follows: s All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, covered with a tarp or other suitable cover or vegetative ground cover. e All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. a All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling„ grading, out & fill, and demolition activities shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions utilizing application of water or by presoaking. a When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained, a All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. (The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions.) (Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.) e Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. a Within urban areas, track out shall be immediately removed when it extends 50 or more feet from the site and at the end of each workday. a Any site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day shall prevent carryout and track out. By implementing the measures above, the temporary impacts from construction (primary impacts) on air quality will be reduced to less than significant levels. In addition, the City is reducing impacts from vehicle emissions (secondary impacts) by implementing programs for alternate transportation. Programs such as the City's Dial -A - Ride system, which is a door to door service; or the Grape Line, which is a fixed route transit system utilizing compressed natural gas vehicles; or implementation of the City's Bicycle Transportation Master Plan; or even the recent introduction of Amtrak rail service to the City's Multi -Modal station will help to reduce vehicle emissions. The City's programs along with the programs at the Federal, State, and County levels will help to reduce vehicle emissions created by this project to less than significant levels. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION The a4ditional vehicle trips will not affect transportation patterns relative to existing traffic loads and street capacity in the immediate project area. The entire project site was originally design*ted in the City's General PIan as O, Office so its circulation needs were projected for office and/or medium density residential development, which is what is proposed. According to the City's Traffic Engineering of the Public Works Department, the daily trip rate for multi -family residential development is 5 trips per dwelling unit and the peak hour II ratio is 0.7 per dwelling unit. Based on these numbers, the 20 dwellings will generate an estimated 120 daily trips and 14 peak hour trips compared to an office complex on this land with a potential for 249.6 daily trips (128 trips * 1.95 acres) and 35.1 peak hour trips (18 trips * 1.95 acres). The traffic projections for residential development are much lower than if the project site were developed with offices. Given that development of the site as an office complex would be a ministerial action exempt from CEQA review, and that the homes will generate less traffic; staff projects the impacts on traffic and the circulation system to be minimal if any. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The proposed project is consistent with the San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), as amended, as reflected in the conditions of project approval for this proposal. Pursuant to the Final EIR/EIS for the San Joaquin county Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), dated November 15, 2000, and certified by the San Joaquin Council of Governments on December 7, 2000, implementation of the SJMSCP is expected to reduce impacts to biological resources resulting from the proposed project to a level of less-than—significant. That document is hereby incorporated by reference and is available for review during regular business hours at the San Joaquin Council of Governments (6 S. EI Dorado St., Suite 400/Stockton, CA 95202) or online at: www.sjcog.org. PUBLIC SERVICES The development of 20 new homes will not generate the need for additional fire and/or police services. The Mills Avenue Townhomes Development Plan is an infill project that was planned for the provision of public services many years ago. Based on the California State Department of Finance statistics for Lodi, the persons per household figure for 2004 is 2.76, which means this project will add 55 people to the City. Although the project is an infill development it is still subject to payment of development impact mitigation fees. The development impact mitigation fee schedule was adopted by the City to insure that new development, big or small, generates sufficient revenue to maintain specified levels of public services. Page 9-5 of the General Plan Policy Document states that the City shall add personnel, equipment, or facilities necessary to maintain a minimum three (3) minute travel time for fine calls. Page 9-6 of the Policy Document further states that the City shall strive to maintain a staff ratio of 3.1 police officers per 1,000 population with response times averaging three (3) minutes for emergency calls and 40 minutes for non emergency calls. Impact fees are calculated on new development to generate enough revenue to preserve these service levels, thereby mitigating any potential adverse impacts on fire and/or police protection to less than significant levels. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS The General Plan EIR points out on page 10-2 that at the time the General Plan was prepared in 1989, there was a design treatment capacity of 6.2 MGD. A planned (and later completed) expansion increased capacity to 8.5 MGD in 1991. Assuming that residential growth was going to continue at the estimated two (2) percent annual rate, and that flows would increase at a proportionate rate, the City's White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility (WSWPCF) 12 f has adequate capacity for the life of the 20 year plan. In fact, residential growth has not reached the two (2) percent mark since it was adopted. Over the last five (5) years, growth has averaged 1.32%. This being the case, there is estimated to be excess carrying capacity at the WSWPCF, enough to mitigate any impacts of the new homes to less than significant levels. The General Plan E1R, page 10-3 outlines the City's storm water collection, distribution, and disposal system. In Lodi, storm water is discharged to the Mokelumne River and the Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) Canal. Mallard Lake doubles as the storm drainage basin for the Lakeshore Village developments, the drainage of the project site will flow to the lake. The lake has a weir that allows excess water to transfer to the "G -Basin" which is approximately '/ mile southwest. The G -Basin was engineered with a capacity to handle storm water runoff from a 48-hour, 100 -year storm. Storm runoff from the undeveloped site has been draining into this system for many years, Development of the 1.95 -acre site with 20 new homes will create more runoff due to the covering of the land with impervious services; however, the increase is not significant. Page 10-1 of the General Plan EIR explains that the water supply for the entire City is provided by a groundwater aquifer, tapped into by a system of interconnected City wells. According to Lodi standards, one well shall be maintained per each 2,000 population. New wells are drilled as necessary to provide an adequate supply commensurate with growth. At the time the General Plan was drafted in 1987, water demand stood at 13.7 MGD. In 199I, it had grown to 14.1 MGD. According to estimates prepared in I991, development provided for by the General Plan would create demand for approximately 7.8 MGD of water, or 67 percent more than the current amount. As stated previously in this initial study, due to the affect of the City's Growth Management Program, growth has not reached the levels anticipated in 1991, reducing the anticipated per capita consumption of water. In addition, increased water conservation efforts by the City beginning in 1995 have also reduced the per capita consumption of water to less than expected levels. With 26 water wells currently in operation there is estimated to be a sufficient supply of water. Considering the aforementioned mitigating factors, any impacts on the water supply created because of the Mills Avenue Townhomes development are reduced to less than significant levels. 13 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: © 1 And that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE declaration will be prepared. ® 1 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 Z) 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." © 1 find that although the proposed project could haves 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 im osed en the proposed project Signature: Date: Printed Name: Mar Meissner For: City of Lodi 14 RESOLUTION NO. P.C. 04- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LODI APPROVING THE REQUEST OF MITCH SCHEFLO FOR THE MILLS AVENUE TGVNHOMES PHASE 2, A 19 -LOT MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AT 1441 SOUTH MILLS AVENUE. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi has heretofore held a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the requested Growth Management Development Plan as required by Lodi Municipal Code Chapter 15.34; and WHEREAS, the property is located at 1441 South Mills Avenue (APN's: 058- 160-45, 90, & 91); and WHEREAS, the project proponent is Mitch Scheflo, 1711 Windjammer, Lodi, CA, 95242; and WHEREAS, the property owner is Kettleman II PTP, 301 South Ham Lane, Lodi, CA, 93242; and WHEREAS, the property is zoned PD(21), Planned Development #21; and WHEREAS, the request is for approval of an additional 19 medium density single family residential lots to complete Phase 2 of the proposed Growth Management Development plan; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the approval of this request have occurred; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's recommendation is based upon the following findings and determinations: 1. Negative Declaration 04-04 has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines provided there under. Further, the Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with respect to the project identified in this Resolution. 2. The standard proposed design and improvement of the site is consistent with all applicable standards adopted by the City in that the project, as conditioned, shall conform to the standards and improvements mandated by the City of Lodi Public Works Department Standards and Specifications and Zoning Ordinance. 3. The standard size, shape and topography of the site are physically suitable for the residential development proposed in that the site is generally flat and has no unusual or extraordinary topographic features. 4. The site is suitable for the proposed density of 11.44 dwelling units per acre, and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use and Growth Management Elements that limits the density of the project site to 17 dwelling units per acre. 5. The proposed development plan can be served by all public utilities. 6. The Development Plan complies with the requirements of Section 15.34.070 of the Growth Management Plan for Residential Development Ordinance, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FOUND, DETERMINED AND RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi as follows: Growth Management Application Number: GM -04-003 is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions, which are required for the subject project per City codes and standards unless noted otherwise: The north and west boundaries in the westerly portion of the project site do not reflect the property lines established by the Certificate of Lot Line Adjustment recorded April 19, 2001, as Instrument No. 0105736450. The west 50 feet of the project site, containing the proposed private street and a portion of Lot 23, is actually part of the adjacent parcel to the north (APN 058-160-92) and contains required parking stalls for the existing development on that parcel, In addition, Lots 19 through 23 encroach into the existing access easement along their northerly boundaries and Lot A and Lot 23 encroach into the existing 25 -foot access easement along the west project boundary. No encroachments into the adjacent parcel or the existing access easements shall be allowed. There is also an existing 5 -foot public utility easement within the proposed buildable area of Lots 15 and 30. Relocation of existing utilities and dedication of new public utility easements must be included in the project design. 2. Separate water and wastewater services must be provided to each lot and site drainage must be discharged to the public storm drain system. A public water main and private wastewater and storm drain lines shall be extended through the site. A public water main and private wastewater lines are proposed to be extended the east project boundary as part of the adjacent Mills Avenue Single Family Homes development. The public water main may have to be looped to provide domestic service and fare hydrants. Existing public utilities include a 10 -inch water main and an 12 -inch wastewater main in Mills Avenue, an 8 -inch water main north and east of the City well site adjacent to Lot 24 and an 18 -inch storm drain line in the 25 -foot public utility easement along the north project boundary. 3. Dedication of public utility easements conforming to City Design Standards shall be required to accommodate the public utilities required to serve the project. 4. The private street in the vicinity of the City well site shall be designed to accommodate vehicles and equipment used for maintenance an operation of the well to the approval of the Public Works Department. 5. The developer needs to coordinate the project design with California Waste Removal Services to accommodate future garbage collection services. 6. The Developer shall provide a noise analysis to determine if mitigation measures are required to provide sound attenuation for well site operations gm04003 res.d oc 2 and machinery due to the proximity of proposed residential structures. Mitigation measures, if any, shall be the responsibility of the Developer and shall be to the approval of the Public Works Department. Dated: October 13, 2004 I hereby certify that Resolution No. 04 --was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi at a regular meeting held on October 13, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission gmO4o03res.doc 3 KETTLEMAN LN w � N NY N 1205 1206 ]1221 1:51211 1216 1218 122A 12271232 J 12731 h272 1323 L VICINITY MAP Mills Av. Townhomes, Phase 2 Growth Management Development Plan 1441 South Mills Avenue GM -04-003 MWORANDUM, City of Lodi, Community Development Department %W To: Planning Commission Frong Mark Meissner, Associate Planner Datet October 27, 2004 eubjoct: The continued request of Cluff LLC, Rick Hanson, for approval of a 16 - lot medium density residential Growth Management Development Plan at 1028 South School Street, and a recommendation of approval to the City Council for 16 Medium Density Growth Management Allocations. REC#MMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the request of Cluff LLC, Rick Hanson, for a 11 -lot medium density residential Growth Management Development Plan at 1028 South School Street, and recommend approval to the City Council for 11 medium -density Growth Management allocations, subject to the conditions in the attached resolution. sumoli RY The oposed project was a 16 -lot medium density development plan, consisting of 8 half plex buildings. The site contains approximately 1.48 acres of land that was the parking lot of the old Interlake Rack company on the west side of School Street betw4en Sierra Vista Place and Park Street. The area of the development plan is zoned R -MD, residential medium density which allows the construction of attached or detached homes at a density of 20 dwelling units per acre. This plan met the zone's requirements by providing lots that contain at least 4,000 sq. ft. and 40 -feet of width, an overall density of 10.81 dwelling units per acre, and the necessary setbacks. Following the continuance of their request on the 13th, the applicants began discussing their project with the neighbors and have apparently come to an agreement on a new design with 9 -single family homes on 40 -foot wide lots and two half -Ilex units on the corner. At 11 units the project just puts itself over the limitation of the General Plan requiring that development in this area be at least 7.1 dwelling units per acre. The request for medium density allocations has been amended from 16 to 11. EAC*GROUND This request was continued from the Planning Commission's Public Hearing of October 13, 2004. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve a motion of Commissioner Heinitz to continue the Public Hearing to obtain more information regarding the state of utilities in the area, in particular water pressure. During the rather lengthy public hearing there were many questions and concerns stated regarding the project including: • When the medium density zoning of the project site was established. • Low water pressure and the impact new homes would have on the situation, • That the proposed project would increase traffic, • That it would create a parking shortage, • That it would be renter occupied and poorly maintained, and + That the project was not compatible with the neighborhood. ANA*T8I8 Over the past several days, staff has compiled the data necessary to answer the questions brought up at the previous Public Hearing. The answer to the first question, "When was the medium density zoning of the project site established?" is sometime between July of 1922 when the land was first annexed to the City and 1952, which is the oldest Zoning Map staff could find. The zoning has been in place for over 50 -years. As you can see on the attached zoning map and its legend, the stretch of South School Street on the east frontage between Lodi Avenue and Kettleman Lane has been zoned R-3 or more for over half a century. In regard to water pressure the Public Works, Engineering Division has provided a separate memo analyzing the situation. Based on the water analysis results, the proposed medium density residential development will not adversely affect the water pressure in the surrounding area, and the existing water mains in the street can provide adequate fire flow for the proposed project (see attached). In regard to increasing traffic, the numbers for any medium density project can be estimated using Lodi's "Citywide Circulation Study." The Study estimates that a half-plex generates approximately 8 trips per day per unit, and 0.9 peak hour trips per day per unit. The trip generation figures are actually greater for single-family homes at 10 per home per day and 1.1 peak hour trips per home per day. At the lowest density allowed by the General Plan, this 1.48 -acre parcel must develop with at least 11 homes. The 16 -unit project will generate 14.4 peak hour trips compared to 12.1 for the single-family proposal. The daily trips for the 16 -unit project are 128 per unit compared to 110 per unit for the single-family project. Staff finds that the differences between the two projects are minimal. It is also important to note that the current traffic volume on South School Street between Tokay and Kettleman is approximately 1,400 vehicles per day. A projected increase of 110 or 128 vehicle trips per day on a street that is designed for traffic volumes as high as 4,000 trips per day is not considered significant. As far as parking is concerned, the 16 -unit project provides 71 off-street parking stalls or a parking ratio of 4.44 off-street parking stalls per home. Each half-plex has a 2 -car garage and a 2 -car driveway with the addition of 2 guest parking stalls per group of four units. The exception is the half-plexes fronting park street will not have guest parking other than their driveway or the street. Staff found these numbers to be more than acceptable given that the City does not hold other developments to standards in excess of 2 off-street parking stalls per unit. As a matter of fact, the revised single-family development will provide a 2 -car garage and has no requirement for guest parking. These homes will have only what is available on the street. Furthermore, each of the single-family homes has its own driveway connecting to School St., which reduces and breaks up the usable on street parking opportunities. The City does not have a requirement for on -street parking; I just felt it was important to note that the 16 -unit project actually provided more on and off street parking. In reS rd to renter or owner occupancy of the proposed project staff finds that whether the project is a 16 -unit half-plex project or the proposed 11 -unit project there is nothing the City can do about rental housing. In order to provide a background on the current occupancy status of the area, I queried the County Asses'sor's ownership data for the parcels with frontage on South School Street between Vine and Sycamore to compare the owner's mailing address with the site address of the parcel. If the addresses were the same, I made the assumption that gm044D04. doc 2 the parcel was owner occupied. What I found was that there are 26 residential parcels between Vine and Sycamore, and that 19 are owner occupied and 7 are rentals. The percentages are 73% owner occupied and 27% renter occupied. There are 2 duplex lots and a lot with 2 separate homes, or otherwise 3 parcels with 6 units. An interesting statistic from this information is that 4 of the renter occupied properties are traditional single-family homes. I also thought it was interesting to note that the 4 half-plex units on the north east corner of Tamarack and School Street mentioned on the 13th are owner occupied and were built in 1991. In regard to compatibility with the neighborhood, staff agrees that the revised project with 9 single-family homes and 2 half-plex units fit the character of the neighborhood better. The half-plex unit on the corner remains as it was proposed on the 13th. Given that the zoning across School Street to the west is R-2, Residential Single Family allowing duplexes on corner lots, staff finds that it is completely appropriate for the half-plex to remain on the corner. The proposed single-family homes will be on 40 -foot wide lots, lining the School Street frontage, just as any other home in the neighborhood. In order to ensure that the architecture remains compatible, Staff has kept the condition to provide the Community Development Department with at least 3 unique elevations incorporating architectural features and materials from the surrounding residences. Staff finds that the revised development plan is consistent with the General Plan and zoning in that all development standards and requirements will be met by the project. The revised project may be a lower density, but remains within the medium density range. As with the other medium density projects, this development plan is an infill project that reduces the pressures to develop our agricultural land, and provides for a portion of the City's share of the regional housing needs. Respectfully Submitted, Mark Meissner Associate Planner KB/ MM Reviewed & Concur, t5 Kra t Bartlam Community Development Director gm04004. doc 3 CLUFF LLC, RICK HANSON, DEVELOPMENT PLAN CITY OF LODI PLANNING COMMISSION Stag Report MEETING DATE: October 27, 2004 APPLICATION NO'S: GM -04-004 REQUEST: The continued request of Cluff LLC, Rick Hanson, for approval of a 16 -lot medium density residential Growth Management Development Plan at 1028 South School Street, and a recommendation of approval to the City Council for 16 Medium Density Growth Management Allocations. LOCATION: 1028 South School Street (045-260-01 & 03) APPLICANT: Cluff LLC, Rick Hanson 908 West Turner Road Lodi, CA 95242 OWNER: Same SiteCharacteristics: The site is made up of approximately 1.48 acres of land that was the parking lot of the old Interlake Rack company on the west side of School Street between Sierra Vista Place and Park Street. The site is relatively flat with no extraordinary topographic features other than the existing paving and landscaping around the street frontages of the area. General Plan Designation: MDR, Medium Density Residential Zoniag Designations: R -MD, Residential Medium Density Project Size: 1.48 acres Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North. R -MD, Residential Medium Density; MDR Medium Density Residential. South: R -MD, Residential Medium Density; MDR Medium Density Residential. East: M-2, Heavy Industrial; HI, Heavy Industrial. West: R-2, Residential Single Family; LDR, Low Density Residential, Neighborhood Characteristics: The area surrounding the project site is one of Lodi's older neighborhoods, with fairly abrupt changes in land uses. The zoning of the west frontage of School Street is R-2, the east frontage is R -MD, and the west frontage of Sacramento Street is M-2. For the most part the neighborhood consists of single-family homes fronting School Street, with homes and industrial buildings on Sacramento Street. These uses have coexisted for decades without much controversy. The parking lot and storage yard of the Interlake Rack Systems gm04004r_2. doc CLUFF LLC, RICK HANSON, DEVELOPMENT PLAN has been zoned R -MD for a very long time and was allowed to be established by Use Permit approval of the Planning Commission. ENV] tONX=TAL ASSESSMENTS: The project was found to be categorically exempt according to the standard exemption found at CEQA Section 15332, Class 32. - In -Fill Development Projects. The project is consistent with the general plan and zoning, is less than 5 -acres in size, is within the City and surrounded by development, there is no habitat value, approval of the project will not result in significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and will be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The project is exempt from further review under CEQA. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigoLtion measures have been required. IPUBY#C HEARING NOTICE: Legal Notice for the Development Plan was published on October 2, 2004. A total of 66 notices were sent to all property owners of record within a 300 -foot radius of the subject property. REC40MBNDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the request of Cluff LLC, Pick Hanson, for an 11 -lot medium density residential Growth Management Development Plan at 1028 South School Street, and recommend approval to the City Council for 11 medium -density Growth Management allocations, subject to the conditions in the attached resolution. ALT*tNATIVE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS: A]►prove the Requests with alternate conditions. • Dtny the Requests • Continue the requests ATT4CHMEIITS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Rovised Development Plan 3. Zoning Map, 1952. 4. P-4blic Works Study. 5. Dtaft Resolution gm04404r_2.doc 2 64 , 840 v 845 L24 0 0 N N 901 900 905 906 909 910 915 914 919 918 923 922 1001 U 9Q1 1000 1005 - 1009 1008 1015 1014 1017 920 921 1020 1021 1021 1028 1025 LO O_ N 909 915 919 925 '001 845 850 LO (nLO r O T O 0 N T T VINE ST N CO er CO vt x 100$ 900 •= 900 U 9Q1 904 1015 908 91 90, 909 ._ 914 915 N r - Pi. 916 919=!7t 920 921 924 y gP 925 '001 000 1001 1009 x 100$ 1007 U O 1015 �/ 1016 1015 O V 1025 x 1020 1021 U 102LO 1029 1029 1030 1100 1101 1100 o lO N 1101 1001 1100 �' 1104 1105 1104 '109 1008 1108 1107 1104 108 112 1'1i 1115 1108 1113 1112 1114 1115 '114 1115 1116 1I2 1118 1112 1117 1121 '121 1120 1,20 1121 1120 1121 1125 1130 1125 1124 131 1124 1124 1129 1,29 � 1125 F more `� 113Q qO05, fi 200 1201 CD NN 20412021201 *' na ,.,,,.,,,.,_ 1206 VICINITY MAP Cluff, LLC Rick Hanson Development Plan 11 -lots 9 S.F. & 2 Halfplex Units 1028 South School Street GM -04-004 SITE STUDY INTERLAKE PROPERTY PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION .*-of A. CONTI ENGINEERING BEIMCES P.O. IM ]99 Woodbndg,. M OM T 6 I%- Ira .11 . owl If *IV lGF9 16 if 4. Gmv, r --g Lill 1 e tzm II I'to Ii *erg 1 tux Kv I ii ba ecarq 'ii tit Gveg 686,9 ai .*-of A. CONTI ENGINEERING BEIMCES P.O. IM ]99 Woodbndg,. M OM 4 V r Ct R 3 -4 R- 4 R -Z C'2 R4 _ R-,,' �1T _ Ri Rf RI R2 R3 R -3t3 R-4 R4 R-! yR-I R -I R•I R-2 R ®3 3 4 R-4 R-4 R-4 f c -z R-9 R•4 R -i 4 R I R] R f R 2 R�C 3 V 3, R-4 R - C-2 L A -4R 4 [2 C. = R-4 R-4 ®C 2 �R� IR-} Lk R -I R-1 i R-2 j -2 t R-2 R-2 R 2 R 3 R-3 h R-4 R-4 R-4 C-2 r 1 j �; I r zz R -4R-4 L'S7Cf C.2 'cc Rc �JR2 R2 R2 R -Z R R 3iff c rl R- f` So Naen r No,�_ LLL... ...--- -- - L C R-4 -A R 4 9 8 R-3 R- -3 R- 3 R- R- -3 •R-3 R-2 I i Of' R-2 R-2 R-2 I�yyl IIID � Y/{�11 R-3 jR 3 t / t� a R 3 R-2 R -Z R C 3 R- R -3 R -Z R-2 I ti t ' 2 2 R-3, ' R 3 R-3 R-4 -2 R-2 i R-3 R-4 R_g 3 4 Ft R-3 3 3 R-4 R_3 R-4 ;Z-4 R-4 R-� C.. Ft R h ti T F PRLIMARY`-MAY 20-1452 -, .. S•n ¢�kyrs - mss: D#BTR#`CT MAP EXHI BIT;"AX',7I0 OKDI NAMCE' N0. iillL h R• L � 2 R u R-4 2 ---CENTIeALBUs'hrz5sA"A LIVII-F LITG END - I I R' FOR DETAILS OF REGULATlON5 A- q,.RZ 92 EXCEPTION5 SEE TEXT OF ORDINANCE t [ --R-2 Rz RE51flLNCL pI5TR1CT—ONE FAMILY R hE I'MILr DWELLINGt-A(CFy.BURY RLPGS R-4 h R 2 MIN'M LUT AREA 61005Q.f T, -FARMING TTC u RE SIpENCE DISTRICT -ONE FAMILY 2 v a R"Z A 2 R• R SAME M5 R ] €xG. MINM lUl AREA SODU ]0 FI U Azz EZ'FAM.DWELLG50N CERTAINLOT5f60005O.Ff.} REBID, pIST'T-LIMITEDMDLTIPLL FAMY STATE Hwy /e CIT R-3 5CS IN R -Z ff M11,T Fan- 61M' DWELLINGS JWI7H 9 FAMILI E5 MA%M-DR:S OFiV (U5E PERMIT), R#SIL. G15T-MULT.-FAM'Y-INSTITUTIONAL R_: 9 i USES Ih R -d! MULT-FAMw6 GROUP DWELLINGS, AP'T.5, HOTELS, H0,SPITAL5,INSTi TUT'L RLDC.Sofc ��^��� rC-1 COMM ERCIAL DIST'TNEIGHBORHOOD OFFICIAL CERTIFICATES ES IN R 9 A REI AIL STtlRES,OFFfC ES ETC FOR JU5 —} NEIrNBaaH000 SERVICE -E ctuaeslnousray. ADOPTCD BY RESOLUTION NO, OF THE j C2 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT -GENERAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF LODI. C 2 uSES iN C -IF ADDITIONAL CDNM'L uSEs AND - WHOLE5ALt ETC. -SEE SPECIFIC LISTS FOR (462. -- ----------- ------- CHAIRMAN SECRETARY DATE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (LIGHT) USES IN C -Z t INOU57KY(NOT OBJECTtONASLV ADOPTED BY ORDINAHCG N0, OF THE E]ICtUDEs HEAvr INDUST-Exc, DY W PERMIT. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LODJ,GAL,. INDICATES PA`RKSA.OPEN SPACE Fort PUBLICLY OWNED -ZONE -D PUBLICUSEDNtY MA'?O iL CITY Cl.laJf DATE TTlST I�yyl IIID � Y/{�11 R-3 jR 3 t / t� a R 3 R-2 R -Z R C 3 R- R -3 R -Z R-2 I ti t ' 2 2 R-3, ' R 3 R-3 R-4 -2 R-2 i R-3 R-4 R_g 3 4 Ft R-3 3 3 R-4 R_3 R-4 ;Z-4 R-4 R-� C.. Ft R h ti T F PRLIMARY`-MAY 20-1452 -, .. S•n ¢�kyrs - mss: D#BTR#`CT MAP EXHI BIT;"AX',7I0 OKDI NAMCE' N0. C-rryiln 6b U CALI FORMA 1y,1 rG�ti GPLAPHIC,ScAiE 0 500 loac Saco r"co I MAV 10052 PARK • FRO I DATA FOR SA3E MAP 106TAINED C I r Y L=Ll;CITY AND C0VWTYe,-EN*fNlZ^S' MAPS' =R-1 R-2 P-2 L - [ JL - — ------- R -2 P-2 1Z 2 - R-2 R-2 R -z ER R-2 sq P. -p- F; R-2 R-2 E L L R-2 -F R-3 R-2 R-3 P,-2 R-3 .4 R RL 3 R -Z C- R-4 R-4 .. -4 R-4 . R-4 "R-- UR-* R- RA R-,+ 19 R- R-4 . - _ C--21 R4 R-3 'id -_- R - _g 3 R- R - 3a C,2 C- 3 2 R'3 R-3 R -'a 414 -3 R- R-3 R-3 R-3 3 R-3 4 R - —, I ;Lik-3 R-3 R-4 MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Public Works Department To: Community Development Director From: City Engineer Date: October 22, 2004 Subject: Water Pressure Analysis for Interlake Property 1028 S. School Street The WaterlWastewater Division of the Public Works Department reviewed the Utility Service Reports for 2004 and found only two that were in the general project area. A copy of those Utility Service Reports is attached. Also, two residents, Desiree Babb (1101 S. School Street) and Debbie Kackley (1112 S. School Street), have contacted the Water/Wastewater Division in the past week regarding low water pressure problems in the area. A water pressure analysis has been performed on the area surrounding the Interlake property at 1028 S. School Street. The analysis studied the effect of the proposed medium density residential development on the water pressure of the surrounding area during peak hour usage and fire flow. A water model was setup based on the existing water system map for the affected area as shown on the attached Figure 1. The water mains in the streets are generally 6 -inch and 8 -inch diameter pipes. The water mains that serve the residences in the study area are in backyard easements and are 2 inches in diameter. The connection points for the study area network were set at 45 psi per Design Standard §4.0302. Average water demand per Design Standard §4.200 was assigned to various nodes as shown on Table A. The calculated demand for the proposed development was assigned to Node J-14 at the intersection of School Street and Park Street. In the peak hour scenario, the model indicates that there is minimal pressure loss in the study area as shown in Table B. For the fire flow analysis, the nodes that are near fire hydrants as shown on the City's fire hydrant map were assigned a minimum of 2,000 gpm (low density residential) and a maximum of 3,000 gpm (medium density residential). The results are shown on Table C. All the nodes met the fire flow requirements per Design Standard §4.200. Based on the water analysis results, the proposed medium density residential development will not adversely affect the water pressure in the surrounding area and the existing water mains in the street can provide adequate fire flow for the proposed project. We also preformed a flow analysis for the 2 -inch water mains serving the residences in the study area (Table D). The existing 2 -inch water mains are very old (more than 50 years). The roughness factor for the water mains has increased and the effective pipe diameter has decreased due to pipe corrosion. If a peak flow of 50 gpm is flowing Community Development Director October 22, 2004 Page 2 through a 2 -inch water main and the effective pipe diameter has decreased even 10% (not uncommon for old steel pipes), the pressure loss through the pipe is significant. That means that the water pressure at the water shut-off/meter box to the residences could be as low as 23 psi during peak hour conditions. 40.j� 4AM�' F. Wally Sandelin City Engineer FWS/saw Attachments cc: Senior Civil Engineer Welch Associate Civil Engineer Chang M_Water Pressure Analysis.dac el 4L '.City of Lodi " SERVICE -REPORT 04 u 3" TILITY SERVICE REPORT a,40 U DATE'} - y� . U TIME V l REPORT OPERA ISSUED TO 11 TIME NAME1��_ ��lS �. j 1-.�:.C. REPORT NAME 6(j I tv PHONE` L1 (`,1!� J 5 1 t, O �v iV 7 r ADDRESS %�J� (r1`Y REQUEST�_C> L.., {/�,r try"�'',r„ r -44 PHONE S� C.) AEQUEST.�_JJt 1QT e C%- COMPLETED SY L./ ,h/ HOURS i o DATE: -- - � " Jj TIMET-, OPERATOR COMPLETED BY C<X) i- HOURS DATE'', �G '� TIME �� 3 opeRATOp'-m help-oor �nw. ar�s1 f City of Lodi - UTILITY SERVICE -REPORT 04 u 3" DATE-,.- TIME S3� pPERATOS ISSUECTO',fK TIMEy r REPORT NAME1��_ ��lS �. j 1-.�:.C. ADDRESS 2�64 fay Q>vra,} I tv PHONE` L1 (`,1!� REQUEST�_C> L.., {/�,r try"�'',r„ r -44 y� , COMPLETED SY L./ ,h/ HOURS DATE: -- - � " Jj TIMET-, OPERATOR Scenario: Base 7ASUC A` Steady State Analysis Junction Report Label ElevatioZone (ft) Type i Base Flow (gpm) Pattern Demand Calculated (gpm) Calculated iydraulic Grad (ft) Pressure (psi) J-2 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 103.99 44.99 J-3 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 103.99 44.99 J-4 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 103.99 44.99 J-5 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 103.99 44.99 J-6 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 103.99 44.99 J-7 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 104.00 44.99 J-8 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 104.00 45.00 J-9 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 103.98 44.99 J-10 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 7.13 Fixed 7.13 103.98 44.99 J-11 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 7.13 Fixed 7.13 103.98 44.99 J-12 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 103.98 44.99 J-13 0.00 Zane -1 Demand 6.53 Fixed 6.53 103.98 44.99 J-14 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 13.06 Fixed 13.06 103.98 44.99 J-15 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 11.91 Fixed 11.91 103.99 44.99 J-16 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 3.57 Fixed 3.57 103.99 44.99 J-17 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 2..78 Fixed 2.78 103.99 44.99 J-18 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 1.78 Fixed 1.78 103.99 44.99 J-19 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 1.78 Fixed 1.78 103.99 44.99 J-20 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 103.99 44.99 J-21 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 103.98 44.99 J-22 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 103.96 44.99 J-23 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 12.47 Fixed 12.47 103.98 44.99 J-24 0.00 Zane -1 Demand 16.16 Fixed 16.16 103.99 44.99 J-25 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 103.98 44.99 J-26 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 9.50 Fixed 9.50 103.98 44.99 J-27 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 8.90 Fixed 8.90 103.98 44,99 J-28 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 103.98 44.99 J-29 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 8.31 Fixed 8.31 103.98 44.99 J-30 0.00 Zona -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 104.00 44.99 J-31 0.00 Zane -1 Demand 10.69 Fixed 10.69 103.99 44.99 J-32 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 10.69 Fixed 10.69 103.99 44.99 J-33 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 103.99 44.99 J-34 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 11.88 Fixed 11.88 103.98 44.99 J-35 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 103.98 44.99 J-36 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 8.31 Fixed 8.31 103.98 44.99 J-37 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 7.13 Fixed 7.13 103.99 44.99 J-38 0.00 Zane -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 103.99 44.99 J-39 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 7.13 Fixed 7.13 103.99 44.99 J-40 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 1 0.00 1 Fixed 10.001 103.991 44.99 Title: Interlake Property Project Engineer: Lyman Chang c:lprogram files%haestadlwtrcVnterlake.wcd City of Lodi WaterCAD v5.0 [5.0032] 10/15/04 08:12:31 AM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 IDSA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Scenario: Peak Hour TA. eo-E 13 Steady State Analysis Junction Report Label ElevatioZone (ft) Type Base Flow (gpm) Pattern Demand Calculate (9pm) Calculated ydraulic Grad (ft) Pressure (psi) J-2 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 103.95 44.97 J-3 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 103.92 44.96 J-4 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 103.92 44.96 J-5 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0,00 103.92 44.96 J-6 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 103.95 44.97 J-7 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 103.96 44.98 J-8 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 103.98 44.99 J-9 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 103.86 44.93 J-10 0,00 Zone -1 Demand 23.39 Fixed 23.39 103.84 44.93 J-11 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 23.39 Fixed 23.39 103.84 44.93 J-12 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 103.85 44.93 J-13 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 21.42 Fixed 21.42 103.84 44.93 J-14 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 42.84 Fixed 42.84 103.84 44.93 J-15 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 39.06 Fixed 39.06 103.87 44.94 J-16 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 11.71 Fixed 11.71 103.92 44.96 J-17 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 9.12 Fixed 9.12 103.95 44.98 J-18 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 5.84 Fixed 5.84 103.93 44.96 J-19 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 5.84 Fixed 5.84 103.89 44.95 J-20 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 103.88 44.94 J-21 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 103.84 44.92 J-22 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 103.84 44.93 J-23 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 40.90 Fixed 40.90 103.83 44.92 J-24 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 53.00 Fixed 53.00 103.87 44.94 J-25 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 103.82 44.92 J-26 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 31.16 Fixed 31.16 103.81 44.91 J-27 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 29.19 Fixed 29.19 103.81 44.92 J-28 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 103.84 44.93 J-29 0.00 Zane -1 Demand 27.26 Fixed 27.26 103.83 44.92 J-30 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 103.96 44.98 J-31 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 35.06 Fixed 35.06 103.89 44.95 J-32 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 35.06 Fixed 35.06 103.89 44.95 J-33 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 103.88 44.95 J-34 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 38.97 Fixed 38.97 103.84 44.93 J-35 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 103.85 44,93 J-36 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 27.26 Fixed 27.26 103.85 44.93 J-37 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 23.39 Fixed 23.39 103.87 44.94 J-38 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 103.88 44.94 J-39 0.00 Zane -1 Demand 23.39 Fixed 23.39 103.88 44.94 J-40 0.00 Zone -1 Demand 1 0.00 1 Fixed 10.00 103.951 44.97 Title: Interlake Property Project Engineer: Lyman Chang c:lprogram fileslhaestadlwtrctinterlake.wcd City of Lodi WaterCAD v5.0 [5.0032] 10/15/04 08:12:06 AM V Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Scenario: Peak Hour -TASLr. C Fire Flow Analysis Fire Flow Report Label Zone Satisfies Fire Flow Constraints', Needed Fire Flow (gpm) Available Fire Flow (gpm) Total Flow Needed (gpm) Tota! Flow Available (gpm) Residual Pressure (psi) Calculateolinimum Residua! Pressure (psi) Syste(Talculated Pressure (psi) Minimum System Pressure (psi) Minimum System .function J-2 Zone -1 true 2,000.00 3,000.00 2,000.00 3,000.00 20.00 35.22 20.00 40.45 J-3 J-3 Zone -1 true 2,000.00 3,000.00 2,000.00 3,000.00 20.00 37.34 20.00 40.23 J-2 J-6 Zone -1 true 2,000.00 3,000.00 2,000.00 3,000.00 20.00 38.36 20.00 39.76 J-18 J-9 Zone -1 true 2,000.00 3,000.00 2,000.00 3,000.00 20.00 29.59 20.00 32.51 J-10 J-11 Zone -1 true 2,000.00 2,984.62 2,023.39 3,008.01 20.00 20.00 20.00 33.46 J-10 J-14 Zone -1 true 2,000.00 3,000.00 2,042.84 3,042.84 20.00 32.87 20.00 37.67 J-13 J-15 Zane -1 true 2,000.00 3,000.00 2,039.06 3,039.06 20.00 32.41 20.00 39.78 J-16 J-16 Zone -1 true 2,000.00 3,000.00 2,011.71 3,011.71 20.00 34.04 20.00 39.42 J-15 J-20 Zone -1 true 2,000.00 3,000.00 2,000.00 3,000.00 20.00 30.40 20.00 33.79 J-19 J-21 Zone -1 true 2,000.00 3,000.00 2,000.00 3,000.00 20.00 24.52 20.00 33.09 J-29 J-22 Zone -1 true 2,000.00 3,000.00 2,000.00 3,000.00 20.00 25.95 20.00 33.18 J-23 J-24 Zane -1 true 2,000.00 3,000.00 2,053.00 3,053.00 20.00 34.51 20.00 38.07 J-23 J-25 Zone -1 true 2,000.00 2,182.16 2,000.00 2,182.16 20.00 20.00 20.00 24.91 J-26 J-27 Zone -1 true 2,000.00 2,696.14 2,029.19 2,725.33 20.00 20.00 20.00 27.68 J-26 J-28 Zone -1 true 2,000.00 3,000.00 2,000.00 3,000.00 20.00 36.35 20.00 37.51 J-27 J-31 Zone -1 true 2,000.00 2,693.33 2,035.06 2,728.39 20.00 20.00 20.00 35.76 J-30 J-32 Zone -1 true 2,000.00 3,000.00 2,035.06 3,035.06 20.00 29.47 20.00 35.64 J-31 J-35 Zone -1 true 2,000.00 2,300.54 2,000.00 2,300.54 20.00 20.00 20.00 27.24 J-36 J-37 Zane -1 true 2,000.00 3,000.00 2,023.39 3,023.39 20.00 28.11 20.00 33.15 J-36 J-38 Zone -1 true 1 2'000.0013,000.0012,000.001 3,000.001 20.001 38.211 20,001 40.25 J-37 Title: Interiake Property Project Engineer: Lyman Chang CAprogram fileslhaestadlwtrclinteriake.wcd City of Lodi WaterCAD v5.0 [5.00321 10/15/04 08:21:43 AM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 WATER SERVICE SIZING Flow (gpm): 50.00 Flow (cfs): 1.14E-01 Pressure @POC 45 psi Pressure loss calc ' Hazen -Williams formula C W 100 Length of Pipe 300 Pipe Dia. Area Velocity Pipe Loss* in. in^2 fps ft psi 2.00 3.14 5.23 31.006 13.44 1.95 2.99 5.50 35.075 15.20 1.90 2.84 5.79 39.805 17.25 1.85 2.69 6.11 45.326 19.64 1.80 2.54 6.45 51.797 22.45 1.75 2.41 6.82 59.414 25.75 1.70 2.27 7.23 68.423 29.65 Page 1 -TA BL -E D RESOLUTION NO. P.C. 04- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LODI APPROVING THE REQUEST OF CLUFF LLC, RICK HANSON, FOR AN 11 -LOT MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AT 1028 SOUTH SCHOOL STREET. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi has heretofore held a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the requested Growth Management Development Plan as required by Lodi Municipal Code Chapter 15.34; and WHEREAS, the property is located at 1028 South School Street (APN's: 045-260-01, & 03); and WHEREAS, the project proponent and owner is Cluff LLC, Rick Hanson, 908 West Turner Road, Lodi, CA, 95242; and WHEREAS, the property has been zoned R -MD, Residential Medium Density in excess of 50 -years; and WHEREAS, the request is for approval of a Growth Management Development Plan for a 11 -lot, medium density, single family development with 9 detached dwelling units and 2 half-plex units; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the approval of this request have occurred; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's recommendation is based upon the following findings and determinations: 1. The project is found to be categorically exempt according to the standard exemption of CEQA Section 15332, Class 32. - In -Fill Development Projects. The project is consistent with the general plan and zoning, is less than 5 -acres in size, is within the City and surrounded by development, there is no habitat value, approval of the project will not result in significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and will be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The project is exempt from further review under CEQA. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures have been required. 2. The standard proposed design and improvement of the site is consistent with all applicable standards adopted by the City in that the project, as conditioned, shall conform to the standards and improvements mandated by the City of Lodi Public Works Department Standards and Specifications, and Zoning Ordinance. 3. The standard size, shape and topography of the site are physically suitable for the proposed residential development in that the site is generally flat and has no unusual or extraordinary topographic features. 4. The site is suitable for the proposed density of 7.4 dwelling units per acre, and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use and Growth Management Elements that require a density of at least 7. 1, and no greater than 20 dwelling units per acre. 5. The proposed development plan can be served by all public utilities without a loss in service quality to surrounding properties of the project site. 6. The Development Plan complies with the requirements of Section 15.34.070 of the Growth Management Plan for Residential Development Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FOUND, DETERMINED AND RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi as follows: Growth Management Application Number: GM -04-004 is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions, which are required for the subject project per City codes and standards unless noted otherwise: 1. The applicant shall provide the Community Development Department with at least 3 unique elevations that incorporate architectural features and materials from the surrounding residences. The intent of this condition is to eliminate the monotony of the street frontage elevations, and maintain consistency and character with the neighborhood. 2. There is a lot line adjustment in process to create the project site. The Certificate of Lot Line Adjustment needs to be filed for record prior to submission of the tentative map. 3. Dedicate a corner cutoff at the School Street/Park Street intersection and install a handicap ramp in conformance with City standards. 4. If the proposed structures on the most southerly lots will back onto Park Street, access from Park Street will be restricted. In addition, a 10 -foot right- of-way dedication on Park Street and installation of a reverse frontage wall, landscaping and irrigation along the Park Street frontage will be required. 5. Install street improvements, including but not limited to, project driveways, handicap ramp, street lights, street trees, reverse frontage wall, including landscaping and irrigation, and replacement of damaged curb, gutter, sidewalk and street pavement in conformance with City standards and to the approval of the Public Works Director. 6. Provide separate water and wastewater services for each lot. a) Water. Water services shall be provided from the existing 6 -inch public water main in School Street. Service taps will be provided by City crews at the owner's expense. Extension of the service laterals from the main to the lots will be the responsibility of the developer's contractor. Service locations should be designed to minimize trenching in School Street. Developer's engineer should contact the Public Works Department prior to improvement plan submittal to discuss service design and location alternatives. b) Wastewater. There are no public wastewater mains in School Street or Park Street. There are existing wastewater facilities in the vicinity of the project site, but the mains are very shallow (4 to 5 feet). Existing facilities include a 6 -inch public wastewater main that extends westerly from Sacramento Street and terminates at a manhole along the north project boundary, a wastewater manhole in Park Street that is the terminus of a 6 - inch wastewater line that extends to the south, an 8 -inch wastewater main in Sacramento Street and an 8 -inch wastewater main parallel to and approximately 200 feet west of School Street. The developer's engineer will need to provide further analysis and design to determine the best way to provide wastewater service to the development. Extension of public wastewater mains and/or the use of private pumping facilities may be required. gm04004res_2.doc 2 7. Storm drainage facilities appear to be marginally adequate. Existing facilities in the vicinity of the project site include a 12 -inch storm drain line in Park Street and a 10 -inch storm drain line in Sierra Vista Place north of the project boundary. Additional facilities may be needed to convey runoff to the existing 12 -inch storm drain line in Park Street. 8. Underground existing overhead utilities. Dated: October 27, 2004 I hereby certify that Resolution No. 04-_ was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi at a regular meeting held on October 27, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission gm04004res_2.doc 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2004-281 A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE 2004 GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOCATIONS NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Lodi City Council does hereby approve the 2004 Growth Management Allocations as recommended by the Lodi Planning Commission, as shown as follows: Recommended 2004 Allocations SUBDIVISION Vintage Oaks 2320 S. Lower Sacramento Road Professional Constructors, Inc. 1745 W. Kettleman Lane Mills Avenue Townhomes, Phase 2 1441 S. Mills Avenue Cluff LLC, Rick Hanson 1028 S. School Street Winchester Woods 835 W. Harney Lane Vintner's Square Homes 1333 S. Lower Sacramento Road UNIT NUMBER AND TYPE 15 Low -Density Allocations 7 Low -Density Allocations 19 Medium -Density Allocations 11 Medium -Density Allocations 8 Medium -Density Allocations 52 Low -Density Allocations Kenneth Tate 6 Low -Density Allocations 2139 W. Harney Lane TOTAL 118 Dated: December 15, 2004 I hereby certify that Resolution No. 2004-281 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held December 15, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Hansen, Hitchcock, Johnson, Mounce, and Mayor Beckman NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS -- None SUSAN J. BLACKSTON City Clerk 2004-281 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Joaquin I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the Lodi News -Sentinel, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published daily except Sundays and holidays, in the City of Lodi, California, County of San Joaquin and which newspaper had been adjudicated a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court, Department 3, of the County of San Joaquin, State of California, under the date of May 26th, 1953. Case Number 65990; that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than non-pareil) has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereto on the following dates to -wit: December 4th all in the year 2004, I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Lodi, California, this 4th day of Decembe , 2004 ........... .................................... Signature PAOFPW.)QS This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp WJU- Q `i 2004 Proof of Publication of of Public Hearing City of Lodi, December 15th, 2004 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING tNOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on PWednesday'December 15, 2004, at the hour 'of 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the ;matter may be heard, the City Council will +conduct a Public Hearing at the Carnegie .Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, to con. Psider the fallowing matter: N The Planning Commission's recommen- ±dation for the 2004 Growth Management :Allocations. oinformation regarding this item may be +obtained in the 9tfice, of the Community 0Development Department, 221 West Pine 'Street, Lodi, Calfomia. All Interested persons Oars Invited to present their views and com. �ments on this matter. Written statements ,may be filed with the City Clerk at any time +prior to the hearing scheduled herein, and *Orel statements may be made at said hear- ing. :If you challenge the subject matter in, court, .you may be limited to raising only those tissues you or someone else raised at the +Public Hearing described in this notice or in . +written correspondence delivered to the City tClerk, 221 West Pine Street, at or prior to the 'Public H®'ring. PBy Ordorof the Lodi City Council :Susan J. Blackston tCRy Cleric 0 . +'Dated: December 2; 2004 ,:,Approved as to form: pD. Stephen Schwabauer :City Attorney .December 4, 2004 —7350 a' 7350 CITY OF LODI Carnegie Forum 305 West Pine Street, Lodi NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Date: December 15, 2004 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 NONCE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wedrwday, December 15, 20004, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council wig conduct a Public Hearing at fare Camegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, to consider the following matter: ay The Planning Commission's recommendation for the 2004 Growth Mainagement AbocaEtions. Information regarding this inn may be obtained in the office of the Community Development Department, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California. All interested persons are invited to present fish 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 dwMenge 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 corresporndence delivered to the City Cleric, 221 West Pine Street, at or prior to the Public Hearing. By Order of the Lodi City Council: Susan J. Biackslon Cityllerk Dated: December 2, 2004 Approved as to form: D. Siephen Schwabauer City Aftomey a' • t • ••• •• .r.e DECLARATION OF POSTING SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR NOVEMBER 17, 2004, TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE 2004 GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOCATIONS On Friday, December 3, 2004, in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, a copy of a Notice of Public Hearing to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation for the 2004 Growth Management Allocations (attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A"), was posted at the following four locations: Lodi Public Library Lodi City Clerk's Office Lodi City Hall Lobby Lodi Carnegie Forum I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on December 3, 2004, at Lodi, California. Kari J. Poadwick Admin' rative Clerk N:lAdministration\CLERKIFORMSIDECPOST 1.DOC ORDERED BY: SUSAN J. BLACKSTON CITY CLERK Jacqueline L. Taylor, CMC Deputy City Clerk Jennifer M. Perrin, CMC Deputy City Clerk 4DDECLARATION OF MAILING SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR DECEMBER 15, 2004, TO CONSIDER THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE 2004 GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOCATIONS On December 3, 2004, in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, I deposited in the United States mail, envelopes with first-class postage prepaid thereon, containing a notice to set public hearing for December 15, 2004, to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation for the 2004 Growth Management Allocations, marked Exhibit "A"; said envelopes were addressed as is more particularly shown on Exhibit `B" attached hereto. There is a regular daily communication by mail between the City of Lodi, California, and the places to which said envelopes were addressed. declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on December 3, 2004, at Lodi, California. ORDBRED BY: JACQUELINE L. TAYLOR DEPUTY CITY CLERK . d (� ia�-,,_� KA I ,1. HADWICK ADMINIISTRATIVE CLERK Formsidecmail.doc ORDERED BY: SUSAN BLACKSTON CITY CLERK, CITY OF LODI JENNIFER M. PERRIN DEPUTY CITY CLERK ' The Planning Commission's recoommendation for the 2004 Growth Management Allocations APN;OWNER;ADDRESS;CITY;STATE;ZIP 1. 02733003;TRACY, JEFFREY L & TAMRA ;2426 BRITTANY CT ;LODI ;CA;95242 2. 02733004;MATHEWS, RICHARD E & DORENE ;2432 BRITTANY CT ;LODI ;CA;95242 3. 02733005;SCHMIERER, MICHAEL H ;2438 BRITTANY CT ;LODI ;CA;95242 4. 02733006;GREG GEORGUSON GEN CONTRCTR IN;1227 SALZBURG LN ;LODI ;CA;95242 5. 02741001;VALENTINE, MENARDA TR ;22 POWERS AVE ;SAN FRANCISCO ;CA;94110 6. 02741002;KIRIU, TOM & TERRY TRS ;1212 S LOWER SAC RD ;LODI ;CA;95242 7. 02741003;VLAVIANOS, ROBERT ;1224 S LOWER SAC RD ;LODI ;CA;95242 8. 02741005;BROOKHURST SHOPPING CENTER LLC;1371 OAKLAND BLVD SUITE 200 ;WALNUT CREEK ;CA;94596 9. 02741006;WILLMAR DRIVE PROPERTIES LLC ;4145 WILMAR DR ;PALO ALTO ;CA;94306 10.02742007;LOWES HIW INC ;PO BOX 1111 ;NO WILKESBORO ;NC;28656 11.02742010;GEWEKE FAMILY PTP ;PO BOX 1210 ;LODI ;CA;95241 12.02705010,PARISIS, ANGELOS S ;9949 FERNWOOD AVE ;STOCKTON ;CA;95212 13.02705021;MEXICAN AMER CATHOLIC FED ;PO BOX 553 ;LODI ;CA;95241 14.02706009;SANCHEZ, DOMINGO ;517 TAYLOR RD ;LODI ;CA;95240 15.02706011;FREY, LELAND G TR ETAL ;4$5 E TAYLOR RD ;LODI ;CA;95242 16.02706012;REISWIG, KENNETH C ETAL ;246 NORTH LOMA ;LODI ;CA;95240 17.02706013,ROBERSON, KENNETH A & RITA G ;619 TAYLOR RD ;LODI ;CA;95242 1$.02706014;FINKELSTEIN, JAY & DONNA ;360 RANELAGH RD ;HILLSBOROUGH ;CA;94010 19.02706027;VANDER HEIDEN, BEN & RENEE ;661 TAYLOR RD ;LODI ;CA;95242 JACommunity Development\Planning\DATA120041gm04006.doc 10$ 0 20.02706028;SMITH, DANA C & DEANNA L ;211 S AVENA AVE ;LODI ;CA;95242 2.1.02706029;2APARA, RANDY K & M A ;695 E TAYLOR RD ;LODI ;CA;95240 22.02706034;SMITH, DANA C & DEANNA L ;211 S AVENA AVE ;LODI ;CA;95240 23.02706035;WILLIAMS, DAVE A & KATHLEEN R ;12373 N LOWER SAC RD ;LODI ;CA;95242 24.02706036;WAGNER, LESTER & M ;15472 HILDE LANE ;LODI ;CA;95240 25.02706039;FREY, LELAND G & DEBRA M TR ;485 TAYLOR RD ;LODI ;CA;95242 J.-Tommunity DevelopmentlPlanni,ng1DATA120041gm04006.doc .? ,-p 1 APN;OWNER;ADDRESS;CITY;STATE;ZIP 1. 04517034;DUBURG, BARBARA M TR;921 S SCHOOL ST;LODI;CA;95240 2. 04517037;TERESI, DANIEL R;909 S SCHOOL ST;LODI;CA;95240 3. 04525019;SHAKOOR, FYYAZ;9 SIERRA VISTA PL;LODI;CA;95240 4. 04525020;ACAMPO MACHINE INC;930 S SACRAMENTO ST;LODI;CA;95240 5. 04516003;ARLT, RENEE ;1000 S CHURCH ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 6. 04516004;DEPAOLI, AVONNE M TR ETAL ;1135 N JACK TONE RD ;STOCKTON ;CA;95215 7. 04516005;OKAZAKI, GARY ;1007 S SCHOOL ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 8. 04516006;MCKENZIE, LISA ETAL ;1015 S SCHOOL ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 9. 04516007;STEARNS, CHARLES & T ;1165 S SCHOOL ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 10.04516008;VAN STEENBERGE, PAUL & VICKIE ;1029 S SCHOOL ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 11.04516009;BABB, GARY A & DESIREE C ;1101 S SCHOOL ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 12.04516010;ANDREWS, WILLARD L & B A ;1107 S SCHOOL ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 13.04516011;WAKEFIELD, LLOYD FRED ETAL ;1115 S SCHOOL ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 14.04516012;AGGAS, RICHARD W & MANUELA ;1121 S SCHOOL ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 15.04516016;LEAVITT, VIRGINIA C TR ;1114 S CHURCH ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 16.04516017;SYPNIESKI, JOHN T ETAL ;1108 S CHURCH ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 17.04516018;PLUMMER, ROBERT R & R A ;3368 HYW 99 SOUTH ;ASHLAND ;OR;97520 18.04516019;LEAVITT, VELVA MAE ;903 SUNNYOAK WAY ;STOCKTON ;CA;95209 19.04516020;SKELTON, JOSHUA T & CANDACE ET;1024 S CHURCH ST ;LODI ;CA;95242 24.04516021;YOUNG, GARY D ;1020 S CHURCH ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 JACommunity DevelopmentlPianning\DATA120041gmO4004.doc z rc 17 21.04516022;SUYEMATSU, MICHAEL F & SANDRA ;1016 S CHURCH ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 22.04516023;POTEET, JASON A & LINDA K ;1008 S CHURCH ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 23.04517027;NICKEL, STEVEN K & LAURA M ;5631 E KETTLEMAN LN ;LODI ;CA;95240 24.04517026;STANFORD, RICHARD W & M B ;914 S CHURCH ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 25.04517029;TEMP, ELSIE M ;916 S CHURCH ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 26.04517030;NICHOLS, PAUL E & ROBERTA M TR;920 S CHURCH ST, ;LODI ;CA;95240 27.04517031;ANDERSON, FRANKLIN L & V ;924 S CHURCH ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 29.04517032;SCHULTZ, HERBERT J & DEANNA M ;833 GREENWOOD DR ;LODI ;CA;95240 29.04517035;ANDREWS, MARGARET K ETAL ;1001 LAKEWOOD DR ;LODI ;CA;95240 30.04517036;FUJITANI, WESLEY K & GAYLE S T;700 RIMBY AVE ;LODI ;CA;95240 31.04517038;MCCARTY, MATHEW L & GRETA L TR;417 RIVER MEADOWS DR ;WOODBRIDGE ;CA;95258 32.04517039;GREENING, JAMES D TR ;100 BLACK PINE TRAIL ;MISSOULA ;MT;59803 33.04525009;CHASE, HARVEY W TR ;4 W VINE ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 34.04525010;TRAVIS, WILLIAM R & P M ;8 W VINE ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 35.04525011,HEINE, ELMER H & BEVERLY J TR ;704 WINDSOR DR ;LODI ;CA;95240 36.04525012;MAHMOOD, TARIQ ETAL ;18 W VINE ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 37.04525013;ANDERSON, ALBERTA V TR ;22 W VINE ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 38.04525014;CARRANZA, DANIEL ETAL ;900 S SCHOOL ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 39.04525015;SCHULENSURG, ROBERT W TR ;15470 MOORE RD ;LODI ;CA;95242 40.04525016;LUCIANO, PEDRO & GABINA ;21 SIERRA VISTA PL ;LODI ;CA;95240 JACommunity Development\Planning\DATA120041gm04004.doc 4 o -P 17 41.04525017;KHAN, YASMIN ;17 W SIERRA VISTA PL ;LODI ;CA;95240 42.04525018;SHAKOOR, FYYAZ ETAL ;9 W SIERRA VISTA PL ;LODI ;CA;9.5240 43.04525021;NEWFIELD, JOSEPH K III ;19000 N LOWER SAC RD ;WOODBRIDGE ;CA;95258 44.04525022;JORDET, BRIAN H & DEANA J ;11085 WEIGUM RD ;LODI ;CA;95240 45.04525023;SEIBEL ARNE, SEIBEL KENNETH ;25157 EUNICE AV ;ACAMPO ;CA;95220 46.04525024;FLORES, BALDEMAR & N ;16 SIERRA VISTA PL ;LODI ;CA;95240 47.04525025;RALL, RONALD & LINDA ;20 SIERRA VISTA PL ;LODI ;CA;95240 48.04525026;FURUOKA, JULIA R TR ;24 SIERRA VISTA PL ;LODI ;CA;95240 49.04526001;INTERLAKE MATERIAL HANDLING IN;1240 E.DIEHL RD #200 ;NAPERVILLE ;IL;60563 50.04526003;INTERLAKE MATERIAL HANDLING IN;1029 S SACRAMENTO ST ;LODI.;CA;95240 51.04526004;UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY;1416 DODGE ST ROOM 830 ;OMAHA ;NE;681.79 52.04527001;COBARRUBIO, ADAM S & ESTHER M ;1100 S SCHOOL ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 53.04527002;RICHISON, LINDA L ;1104 S SCHOOL ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 54.04527003;GROSSMAN, DOUGLAS & SARAH A ;1108 S SCHOOL ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 55.04527004;KACKLEY, MELVIN E & DEBORAH A ;1112 S SCHOOL ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 56.04527005;SMART, ALICE C TR ;1120 S SCHOOL ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 57.04527009;ALVAREZ, RODRIGO C & JOVITA G ;1117 S SACRAMENTO ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 58.04527010;GREENLEE, JESSE ;1113 S SACRAMENTO ST ;LOi)I ;CA;95240 59.04527011;NAKABA'YASHI, RAY K & HELEN A T;10 PARK ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 60.04527012;OSBURN, TOMMIE SUE ;6 W PARK ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 JACommunity Development\Planning\DATA12004\gm04OO4.doc r 61.04527013;SHADDY, AARON L & NANCI ;2 PARK ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 62.04527014;LODI FAB INDUSTRIES INC ;1240 E DIEHL RD SUITE 200 ;NAPERVILLE ;IL;60563 63.04527015;CLEMINGS, WILLIAM TODD & JULIE;1104 S SACRAMENTO ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 64.04527016;GARCIA, RAFAEL & FLORA ;115 FORREST AVE ;LODI ;CA;95240 65.04527017;SIMON, JERRY H & DONNA R ;134 OXBOW MARINA DR ;ISLETON ;CA;95641 JACommunity Development\Planning\DATAQ004\gn04004.doe Lo vp i APN;OWNER;ADDRESS;CITY;STATE;ZIP 1. 05823025;FCB BUILDING PARTNERS II LP ;3247 W MARCH LN SUITE 220 ;STOCKTON ;CA;95219 2. 05823026;LODI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ;1305 E VINE ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 3. 05809001;TAMURA, S T & E TRS ETL ;1220 E HARNEY LANE ;LODI ;CA;95242 4. 05809002;TANABE, JOYCE T ETAL ;1040 W KETTLEMAN LN 1B PMB 308 ;LODI ;CA;95240 5. 05809003;EVERITT, RAYMOND E TR ;1320 E HARNEY LN ;LODI ;CA;95242 6. 05823014;TATE, KENNETH JR & N ;1243 HARNEY LN ;LODI ;CA;95242 JACommunity Development\Planning\DATA120041gm04408.doc APN;OWNER;ADDRESS;CITY;STATE;ZIP 1. 02741017;LODI RETIREMENT RESIDENCE LLC ;925 4TH AVE SUITE 3300 ;SEATTLE ;WA;98104 2. 02741020;BRITTANY LLC ;PO BOX 1510 ;LODI ;CA;95241 3. 02741021;GIANNONI, JOHN M JR & KERRY ;2000 W KETTLEMAN LN SUITE 107 ;LODI ;CA;95242 4. 02741022;CHURCH OF GOD 7TH DAY OF LODI ;2100 TIENDA DR ;LODI ;CA;95242 5. 05814018,LODI INVESTMENT PARTNSHP I LTD;PO BOX 87407 ;CHICAGO ;IL;60680 6. 05816038;LAKESHORE VILLAGE ASSOC ;2291 W MARCH LN ;STOCKTON ;CA;95207 7. 05816046,KETTLEMAN II PTP ;301 S HAM LN SUITE A ;LODI ;CA;95242 8. 05816078;MICHAEL, DAVID J & PAMELA J TR;2020 W KETTLEMAN LN ;LODI ;CA;95242 9. 05816083;WRIGHT, GARLAND & RUTH TR ETAL;2100 W KETTLEMAN IN ;LODI ;CA;95242 10.05816084;KNIGHT, GEORGE J & STACY L TR ;91.1 CASTEC DR ;SACRAMENTO ;CA;95864 11.05816089;2122 32 KETTLEMEN LANE LLC ;PO BOX 9440 ;FRESNO ;CA;93792 12.05816090;DREW NO 8 LODI LLC ;656 W RANDOLPH ST SUITE 400W ;CHICAGO ;IL;60661 13.05837001;FOUNTAINS AT LODI LLC 000 LARKSPUR LANDING CIR #155 ;LARKSPUR ;CA;94939 14.05837002;NATIONWIDE HEALTH PROPERTIES 1;610 NEWPORT CENTER DR SUITE 1150;NEWPORT BEACH ;CA;92660 JACommunity DevelopmentlPlanning\DATA120041gm04003.doe ? ort 17 APN;OWNER;ADDRESS.;CITY;STATE;ZIP 1. 06021014;GLINE, ALETA;1080 BRADFORD CIR;LODI;CA;95240 2. 06026004;SOUSA, NICOLE V;2524 WINCHESTER DR 110;LODI;CA;95240 3. 06026007;MUSGROVE, ROBERT & PATRICIA ET;1572 MISTY WOOD DR;ROSEVILLE;CA;95747 4. 06027014;DAVIS, THOMAS C & JACQUELINE L;294 SPARROW;GALT;CA;95632 5. 06010004;CALIF LODI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP;380 UNION ST STE 300 ;W SPRINGFIELD ;MA;01089 6. 06010005;LODI UNIFIED, SCHOOL DIST ;00000 7. 06017018,WALLACE, PATRICIA A ;1044 PORT CHELSEA CIR ;LODI ;CA;95240 8. 06017019;SILBER, DENIS J ;1050 PORT CHELSEA CIR ;LODI ;CA;95240 9. 06017020;MANSON, ANDREW ;1056 PORT CHELSEA CIR ;LODI ;CA;95240 10.06017021;EMDE, GEORGE W III & SANDRA L ;1060 PORT CHELSEA CIR ;LODI ;CA;95240 11.06017022;MARKS, RICHARD & D L ;1064 PORT CHELSEA CR ;LODI ;CA;95240 12.06017.023;MCCLAINE, WILLIAM W & CHERYL M;1068 PORT CHELSEA CIR ;LODI ;CA;95240 13.06019001;CALIF LODI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP;380 UNION ST STE 300 ;W SPRINGFIELD ;MA;01089 14.06019035;VIERRA, JOHN J & ELEANOR L TR ;5350 FIG AVE ;MANTECA ;CA;95337 15.06020038;BASILIO, NEHEMIAH & MARY ;1105 W HARNEY LN ;LODI ;CA;95240 16.06020039;FREITAS, WILLIAM J & E ;1021 W HARNEY LN ;LODI ;CA;95240 17.06020040;ARQUILADA, LYDIA M ;1015 W HARNEY LN ;LODI ;CA;95240 18.06021008;WALLIS, ARLENE GAIL ;770 BEAVER CT ;BYRON ;CA;94514 19.06021009;GOLONKA, SCOTT ;1115 BRADFORD CIR ;LODI ;CA;95240 20.06021010;HEROLD, JOHN & LINDA ;1109 BRADFORD CIR ;LODI ;CA;95240 JACommunity Development\Planning\DATA120041gm04005.doe 9 0� Q 21.06021012;DE JONG, DAVID & CHERIE ;1101 W BRADFORD CIR ;LODI ;CA;95240 22.06021013;TOWLE, JEANETTE ;1086 BRADFORD CIR ;LODI ;CA;95240 23.06021015;SMITH, FRED F JR & LETHA F ;708 S CALIFORNIA ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 24.06021016;NOWACK, NORMAN & DIANNE ;1068 BRADFORD CIR ;LODI ;CA;95240 25.06021017;SANDOVAL, OSCAR M.& RUTH ;1062 BRADFORD CIR ;LODI ;CA;95240 26.06021018;YOUNG, BRIAN L & PATRICIA A TR;1056 BRADFORD CIR ;LODI ;CA;95240 27.06021019;BUSAROW, BETTY J TR ;1050 BRADFORD CIR ;LODI ;CA;95240 28.06021020;THOMPSON, SCOTT & D M ;1044 BRADFORD Cl ;LODI ;CA;95240 24.06021021;WICHMAN, BERNELL & S J ;1038 BRADFORD CI ;LODI ;CA;95240 30.06021034;MADRIGAL, HECTOR & FRANCES ;1129 BRADFORD CIR ;LODI ;CA;95240 31.06021035;CAMPAGNA, DAVID M & DENISE R ;1114 BRADFORD CIR ;LODI ;CA;95240 32.06021036;RINEHART, KENNETH & SHARON ;1079 BRADFORD CIR ;LODI ;CA;95240 33.06021037;SWOPE, MATTHEW &ELAINE ;1073 BRADFORD CI ;LODI ;CA;95240 34.06021038;UNTERSEHER, CALVIN & H TRS ;1049 BRADFORD CIR ;LODI ;CA;95240 35.06021039;GEMETTE, VALERIE ;1043 W BRADFORD CIR ;LODI ;CA;95240 36.06022001;RENDON, ANTHONY & MARIA ;1007 W HARNEY LN ;LODI ;CA;95240 37.06022002;BAKKEN, TROY & LORIS ;1001 W HARNEY LN ;LODI ;CA;95242 38.06022003;OAKS AT LODI LLC ;ONE MONTOGOMERY TOWER 24TH FLOOR;SAN FRANCISCO ;CA;94104 39.06022004;KHAN, AHMAD & BALQIS ;1022 S WASHINGTON ST #2 ;LODI ;CA;95240 JACommunity Developmen#1Planning\DATA120041gm04005.doc 40.06022005;BARBER, DANIEL K & M L ;8710 MT VERNON RD ;AUBURN ;CA;95603 41.06022006;GROSE, JOEY ;488 E KETTLEMAN LN ;LODI ;CA;95240 42.06022007;DRUE HOFF, DELVIS M TR ;1015 WIMBLEDON DR ;LODI ;CA;95240 43.06022008;LEE, WINIFRED H EST ;910 KIRSTEN CT ;LODI ;CA;95242 44.06022009;BARROWS, GEORGE G & ANGEL T ;4907 FRANCO AVE ;STOCKTON ;CA;95212 45.06022022;GARZA, LUIS JR & E M ;1102 WIMBLEDON ;LODI ;CA;95240 46.06022023;BRAUER, CRAIG & LOWANA ;2351 ANTON DR ;LODI ;CA;95240. 47.06022024;FARMER, JOHN K & SANDY E ;1014 WIMBLEDON DR ;LODI ;CA;95240 48.06022026;TASSI, ROY A & BARBARA K TR ;1008 WIMBLEDON DR ;LODI ;CA;95240 49.06022027;RIOS, DAVID & DIANA R ;1002 WIMBLEDON DR ;LODI ;CA;95240 50.06023001;PORTER, ROBERT J & DARLENE F ;5900 STARBOARD DR ;DISCOVERY BAY ;CA;94514 51.06024003;HEWITT, LESLIE G & E L ;303 GRAND CANAL ;NEW PORT BEACH ;CA;92662 52.06024004;RACCANELLO, JAMES TR ETAL ;2 THORNTON CT ;NOVATO ;CA; 94945 53.06025001;QUIZON, RONALD M & DANA M ;2524 WINCHESTER DR #1 ;LODI ;CA;95242 54.06025002;CONTI, ANTONIO MARCEL & CYNTHI;PO BOX 1396 ;WOODBRIDGE ;CA;95258 55.06025003;SEARS, CHARLES & MARY A ;2524 WINCHESTER DR #3 ;LODI ;CA;95240 56.06025004;MORAN, CAROL ;2524 WINCHESTER DR #6 ;LODI ;CA;95240 57.06025005;ALLEN, ERIC ;2524 WINCHESTER DR #7 ;LODI ;CA;95240 58.06025006;WOODROME, CHRISTIAN B ;2524 WINCHESTER DR #8 ;LODI ;CA;95240 59.06025007;RUBIOLO, MICHAEL A ;2524 WINCHESTER DR #11 ;LODI ;CA;95240 JACommunity DevelopmentlPlanninglDATA12004\gmO4{105.doc 60.06025008;CHARKOW, SAMUEL TR & CECIL TR ;PO BOX 637 ;THORNTON ;CA;95686 61.06025009;MANGRUM, JAMES M ;2524 WINCHESTER DR #15 ;LODI ;CA;95240 62.06025010;HALL, CLIFF ;2524 WINCHESTER DR #16 ;LODI ;CA;95240 63.06025011;GLENBROUGH HOMES ETAL ;% PO BOX 14 ;LODI ;CA;95240 64.06026001;FIELDS, ANTHONY W ;2524 WINCHESTER DR #4 ;LODI ;CA;95240 65.06026002;ROMMEL, LEWIS J SR & VIOLA A ;2524 WINCHESTER DR #5 ;LODI ;CA;95242 66.06026003;POLK, JULIE ;6507 PACIFIC AVE #148 ;STOCKTON ;CA;95207 67.06026005;ROBISON, SCOTT G ;2524 WINCHESTER DR #13 ;LODI. ;CA;95240 68.06026006;ROMERO, TORIBIO & ILMA E ;700 MCCOY CT #14 ;LODI ;CA;.95240 69.06026008;GIORGI, KENNETH A & ELIZABETH ;95480 HWY 101 NORTH ;FLORENCE ;OR;97439 70.06027012;SCHMIEDEL, JEANIE ETAL ;2625 MUEGGE RD ;ROSENBERG ;TX;77471 71.0.6027013;RUIZ, SAM J ETAL ;4600 N PERSHING AVE #D ;STOCKOTN ;CA;95207 72.06027015;OREJEL, DAVID P & BRENDA J ET;712 MCCOY CT #49 ;LODI ;CA;95240 73.06028011;JOHNSON, DORIS M ;1263 HUSTED AVE ;SAN JOSE ;CA;95125 74.06028012,DELHAYE, JOHN & STACIE ;700 MCCOY CT #74 ;LODI ;CA;95240 75.06029029;COSENTINI, AUDREY J ETAL ;700 MCCOY CT #1 ;LODI ;CA;95240 76.05810003;FINK, CARL & JUDITH ;540 S MILLS ;LODI ;CA;95242 77.05810015;MOHR ENTERPRISES LTD PTP ;PO BOX 97 ;MT EDEN ;CA;94557 JACommunity Development\Planning\DATA120041gm04005.doe 12. 0� 4"7 or APN;OWNER;ADDRESS;CITY;STATE;ZIP 1. 03104042;NAKAMURA, GEORGE S ETAL;645 POSADA WAY;FREMONT;CA;94536 2. 03124011;CORREA, CHARLES J TR ETAL;1308 MILLSBRIDGE PL;LODI;CA;95242 3. 03126001;BLAIR, TAMMY;1618 COWENS LN;LODI;CA;95242 4. 03126002;D&B SASAKI ENTERPRISES INC;1806 W KETTLEMAN LN SUITE G;LODI;CA;95242 5. 03126004;MAGHUYOP, ROSS;1606 COWENS LN;LODI;CA;95242 6. 03126005;SHERIDAN, MARY ETTA TR;1600 COWENS LN;LODI;CA;95242 7. 03126006;TANKERSLEY, RYAN D;1580 COWENS LN;LODI;CA;95242 8. 03126008;MORROW, GREGORY;1595 COWENS LN;LODI;CA;95242 9. 03126009,STACY, LOREN & KAREN LEE;1545 JASMINE WAY;LODI;CA;95242 10.03126010;ANDERSON, JAMES R;1340 PIPPEN LN;LODI;CA;95242 11.03126011;SHEPHERD, SCOTT & COURTNEY;1334 PIPPEN LN;LODI;CA;95242 12.03126012;HRASSESCO, MICHELLE;1328 PIPPEN LN;LODI;CA;95242 13.03126013;LEHR, RICK;812 PERRY WAY;LODI;CA;95240 14.03126014;BAKER, FLOYD A & LINDA C ETAL;7319 E KETTLEMEN LN;LODI;CA;95240 15.03126015;DEKAM, LARRY & DEANNE R;280 E ARMSTRONG RCS; LODI; CA; 95242 16.03126016;MAZZARA, MARK S & RENEE A;1335 PIPPEN LN;LODI;CA;95242 17.03126017;STRUGLIA, PATRICIA M;1331 PIPPEN LN;LODI;CA;95242 18.03126018;NEAL, FRANCES K TR;1210 RIVERGATE DR;LODI;CA;95242 19.03126019;DAVENPORT, KATHERINE C;1323 PIPPEN LN;LODI;CA;95242 20.03126020;CALDER, RICHARD W TR ETAL;2111 ST ANTON DR;LODI;CA;95242 21.03126021;LEE, STEPHEN A;1311 PIPPEN LN;LODI;CA;95242 JACommunity Development\Planning\DATA120041gm04002.doe 13 V� 1'Z 22.03126022;FOLEY, WALTER & ELLEN LUCILLE;16970 N DEVRI.ES RD;LODI;CA;95242 23.03126023;MOORE, KELLY J;1308 LAKESHORE DR;LODI;CA;95242 24.03126024;MONTGOMERY, BRIAN & RENEE;1314 LAKESHORE DR;LODI;CA;95242 25.03126025;LIKINS, JAMES & JUDY;1318 LAKESHORE DR;LODI;CA;95242 26.03126026;FOUST, MARLON;1123 DARTMOOR CIR;LODI;CA;95240 27.03126027;TEVES, TERESA A;1330 LAKESHORE DR;LODI;CA;95242 28.03126028;KEITH, CHAN C & BARBARA J;PO BOX 775;LODI;CA;95241. 29.03126038;CHRISTENSEN, GREGORY & S A ETA;1595 MONROE. LN;LODI;CA;95242 30.03104014;THOMAS, RONALD B TR ETAL ;PO BOX 1259 ;WOODBRIDG9 ;CA;95258 31.03104015;BATTAGLIA, BARBARA TR ;PO BOX 47 ;LODI ;CA;95241 32.03104020;TSUTAOKA, MARY ;1833 W KETTLEMAN LN ;LODI ;CA;95242 33.03104038;SASAKI, DARRELL & RHONDA ;1806 W KETTLEMAN IN SUITE H ;LODI ;CA;95242 34.03104039;SASAKI, DARRELL & RHONDA ;1816 TIENDA DR ;LODI ;CA;95242 35.03104040;BEZUG, JOHN & A V ;1811 W KETTLEMAN LN ;LODI ;CA;95240 36.03124012;WICKSTEN, LEONARD R & NANCY A ;1314 MILLSBRIDGE PL ;LODI ;CA;95242 37.03124013;JAUREQUITO, ROSIE ;12081 N JACKTONE RD ;LODI ;CA;95240 38.03124014;SOTO, PHYLLIS M ;1326 MILLSBRIDGE PL ;LODI ;CA;95242 39.03124015,MENDONCA, RICHARD & LEANN ;1905 TIENDA DR ;LODI ;CA;95242 40.03126040;TIENDA PLACE HOMEOWNERS ASSN ;1806 W KETTLEMAN LN SUITE G ;LODI ;CA;95242 41.03128003;MILLSBRIDGE OFFICE PARK EAST L;PO BOX 1598 ;LODI ;CA;95241 42.03128004;MILLSBRIDGE OFFICE PARK EAST L;1209 W TOKAY ST ;LODI ;CA;95242 JACommunity Development\Planning\DATA\2004\gm04002.doe 14 o� k"I 43.03129001;R THOMAS DEVELOPMENT INC ETAL;PO BOX 1598;LODI;CA;95241 44.05816025;KHAN, TAJ & SHAKILA ;1112 RIVERGATE DR ;LODI ;CA;95240 45.05816029;FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LP ;PO BOX 306 ;ACAMPO ;CA;95220 46.05816085;KHAN, TAJ & SHAKILA ;1112 RIVERGATE DR ;LODI ;CA;95240 47.05816086;HENDRICK, DAVID J TR ;19593 ST JOHN AVE ;ESCALON ;CA;95320• 48.05826035;STATE FARM AUTO INS CO ;1 STATE FARM PLAZA ;BLOOMINGTON ;IL;61710 49.05840007;ANAGNOS, ANGELO J & OLYMPIA ET;725 ATHERTON DR ;LODI ;CA;95242 JACommunity DevelopmentlPlanning\DATA120041gmO4OO2.doe is 4 17 APN;OWNER;ADDRESS;CITY;STATE;ZIP 1. 05823025;FCB BUILDING PARTNERS II LP ;3247 W MARCH LN SUITE 220 ;STOCKTON ;CA;95219 2. 05809001;TAMURA, S T & E TRS ETL ;1220 E HARNEY LANE ;LODI ;CA;95242 3. 05809002;TANABE, JOYCE T ETAL ;1040 W KETTLEMAN LN 1B PMB 308 ;LODI ;CA;95240 4. 05809003;EVERITT, RAYMOND E TR ;1320 E HARNEY LN ;LODI ;CA;95242 S. 05823013;FRONTIER LAND COMPANIES CORP ;3247 W MARCH LN ;STOCKTON ;CA;95219 6. 05823014;TATE, KENNETH JR & N ;1243 HARNEY LN ;LODI ;CA;95242 JACotimunity Development\Planning\DATA\2004\04-P-006.doc APN;OWNER;ADDRESS;CITY;STATE;ZIP 05823025;FCB BUILDING PARTNERS II LP ;3247 W MARCH LN SUITE 220 ;STOCKTON ;CA;95219 �. 05823026;LODI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ;3.305 E VINE ST ;LODI ;CA;95240 �. 05804002;SCHUMACHER, WELDON & BONNIE TR;1303 RIVERGATE DR ;LODI ;CA;95240 ✓4. 05822001;MARTIN, MARILYN ANN ;791 KRISTEN CR ;LODI ;CA;95242 �5. 05822002;VAUGHN, FREDDIE L & KHRISTINA ;805 KRISTEN CT ;LODI ;CA;95242 Vff. 05822004;NEUMANN, WILLIAM D & BONNIE R ;865 KRISTEN CT ;LODI ;CA;95242 ✓7. 05822005;NORDWICK, FLOYD H & LACE A TR ;895 KRISTEN CT ;LODI ;CA;95242 8. 05822006;AZEVEDO, STEVEN, A & KIM HUTSON;909 KRISTEN CT ;LODI ;CA;95242 9. 05822008;LOUIE, SAM K & LORNA L TR ;910 KRISTEN CT ;LODI ;CA;95242 10.05822009;YAMASHITA, KENNETH K & Y ;884 KRISTEN CT ;LODI ;CA;95240 11.05822010;FAUGHT, MICHAEL ;860 E KRISTEN CT ;LODI ;CA;95242 12.05822011;LANGWORTHY, ELMER D & S M ;13710 HARTLEY IN ;LODI ;CA;95240 13.05823003;ROGAN, WILLIAM & A ETL ;12620 N DAVIS RD ;LODI ;CA;95242 v-14.05823004;KUBOTA, TSUGIO TR ETAL ;1500 VISTA DR ;LODI ;CA;95242 v 15.05823005;GERLACK, JOHN D & B TRS ;101 N LOMA DR ;LODI ;CA;95240 JACommunity Development\Planning\DATA\20041gm04001.doc