Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - September 17, 2008 I-01 PHJ: 00 1 AGENDA ITEM JM CITY OF LODI ,. ' COUNCIL COMMUNICATION TM AGENDA TITLE: Continued from September 3, 2008, Conduct Public Hearing to Consider and Approve a General Plan Amendment for Reynolds Ranch. MEETING DATE: September 17, 2008 PREPARED BY: Community Development Department RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve an amendment to the General Plan relative to the Reynolds Ranch project as outlined in their action of September 10, 2008. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: San Joaquin Valley Land Company LLC is requesting an amendment to the General Plan designations for certain property located within the Reynolds Ranch project, a 225 -acre mixed-use development at the southwest corner of Harney and State Highway 99. The highlight of the applicant's request is to increase the designated commercial use while decreasing the residential acreage. The applicant received initial approval for the Reynolds Ranch project in 2006. At that time an Environmental Impact Report was certified by the City Council; the properties were annexed to the City; General Plan and Zoning designations were granted; and a Development Agreement was signed. Some work has begun on the development, including construction of the Blue Shield office complex. Major street and infrastructure work is also underway. The original 2006 Land Use Plan for the Reynolds Ranch project had four main General Plan designations. They were Cbe (0), Neighborhood/Community Commercial (NCC) Planned Residential (PR), and Public/Quasi-Public (PQP). The Office designation was the Blue Shield office property and that site's land -use designation will remain unchanged. The 2006 Plan, however, had 40.5 acres of land designated for commercial development. The 2008 Modified Plan increases the Commercial acreage to 78.2 acres and reduces the amount of land designated for Residential use. Although the residential acreage is being reduced, the applicant anticipates constructing the same number of residential units (1,084 units). This will be achieved by increasing the density per acre of the residential units and by targeting most of the residential acreage to senior and adult housing. This will mean that many of the units will be cluster or attached housing or assisted -living group quarters. There will be limited areas of conventional detached single- family homes. This will allow more units on fewer acres. One of the modifications taking place as a result of this shift is the elimination of the planned school. The Lodi Unified School District has determined that with the reduction of conventional housing and the amount of age restricted housing, a school in this area is no longer warranted. There were four main areas of discussion at the two Planning Commission meetings. The initial APPROVED: �� 0r_ r--� Blair Itr,1J ity Manager meeting held on August 27th ended with the item being continued in order to address concerns related to the increase in traffic, potential conflicts with existing residences, the decrease in Park acreage and the general change in the mix of uses. A summary of the traffic issues can be found in the following section under environmental assessments. With regard to the impact of the amendments on the existing residential properties along Stockton Street, a change in the plan that reflects a single family residential designation for the strip on the east side of the road. This is being proposed in order to lesson the impact of the additional retail development on these residences and to create a more cohesive entry into this portion of the project. With this change, staff believes that the amendments will have negligible impacts as the plan is now consistent with the previously approved document. The issues raised about the existing residence on the frontage road were focused on access to the parcel. After consideration of the existing conditions, it has become clear to the City that there is no reason to change their access to the existing street which will intersect at the median break and provide full turning movements. At the meeting on September 10th, the owners of the property explained the historic nature of the site. While the issue is compelling, it must be noted that the certified Environmental Impact Report addressed the project's impacts on the house and property. Simply put, the requested amendments will not increase the original impacts that have already been accounted for. The original plan called for a commercial center surrounding the property and this amendment does not change that circumstance. There are no other changes proposed with this amendmentthat are different than the approved project. Clearly an impetus for the changes are both the state of the economy and the current market conditions. Little needs to be said about the economy. This is the fact of life for the real estate development industry. The good news is that while the general economy is down, there is currently strong interest on the part of the retail sector in this site. The applicant is attempting to take advantage of this opportunity which the City feels is very positive from a revenue standpoint, the increase in jobs and the additional goods and services that will be made available to residents which are now in other cities and outlying areas. We believe that it is good planning to be able to provide the variety of retail outlets that folks in Lodi are now traveling elsewhere to access. The final issue that should be clarified is the amount of Park acreage proposed. The revised plan shows less acreage than the original approval. The applicant's intent is not to decrease the park amount, but at this time, the exact location of all the Park space is not known. It is intended that a 2.0 acre Park be located adjacent to the High density residential development and that the balance of the Park acreage be located within the senior housing area with the exact location to be determined upon actual project design and review. Staff concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation that the City Council amend the General Plan designations for the Reynolds Ranch to reflect the land -use designations and acreages as shown on the attached map (Exhibit A). Although the proposed General Plan Amendment modifies the land -use acreages, the proposed changes are still consistent with the original intent of the Reynolds Ranch development plan. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS: In 2006, the Lodi City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a mixed use residential, commercial, and office project known as Reynolds Ranch. The project consisted of a combination of uses including residential, retail, office, senior high density, public use and office space. Completion of the Initial Study checklist for the 2008 General Plan Amendment has led to the conclusion that the modifications would not result in new potentially significant impacts beyond those already identified in the 2006 Cer iW EIR. As a result, an Addendum (Exhibit B) to the existing EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15162. The addendum to the FEIR. which is attached to this report, was prepared by the firm Design Community & Environment. The main focus of the analysis was on the changes to the traffic section of the environmental document. Prism Engineering prepared the traffic study which is also attached. While the analysis concludes that there will be more traftic overall as a result d the amendment, this additional traftic does not rise to the level of significance that requires any additional mitigation. The factors that contribute to this finding include the differences in peak hour volume, trip distribution and excess capacity which existed as a result of the prior FEIR mitigation measures. A summary of the traffic study and comparison between the FEIR traffic analysis and the Prism study follows. Daily vs. Peak Hour Comparisons The Daily trip generation numbers are not used in the analysis of intersections. Daily trip generation is an interesting side -note, but is not relevant to the specific analysis completed for the FEIR or the PRISM Study. Daily numbers do not take into consideration reductions for say, "PASS -BY" traffic nor time of day, so discussion of the Daily numbers is usually not applicable when there is a discussion of the impacts. It is the pm peak hour that is the analysis time period for both the FEIR and PRISM Study. The daily numbers have no direct correlation to traffic impact, so it is important to note that only the analysis time period numbers (pm peak) should be compared between the FEIR and the PRISM Study. During the pm peak hour, there were 4747 trips generated in the most recent study (Prism) vs. 2270 trips generated in the FEIR without any reductions for the pass -by traffic. Although the raw trip generation calculation is more than double the volume compared to the FEIR, there are certain adjustments that take place to bring the raw trip generation calculation into reality. In the real world, trips in a project may already be on the road, and merely stop over on the way home or to some other destination. Depending on the size of a project, some d these trips may never leave the site to impact external roadways. In the table that follows, a comparison is made of those pm peak hour numbers used for the FEIR and PRISM analysis condition (after pass -by reductions): RESIDENTIALand COMMERCIAL TRIP GENERATION SHIFTS PM INBOUND trips PM OUTBOUND trips TOTAL FEIR 1005 1067 2072 PRISM STUDY 1417 1579 2996 NET INCREASE (45% overall) 412 512 924 RESIDENTIALand COMMERCIAL TRIP GENERATION SHIFTS Source: Table 1page 17from PRISMReport, and Table 3.10.6 Page 3.10-26 of FEIR *reduced forpass-by trips (15% forFE1R, and 34%+ forPRISM study) RESIDENTIALISCHOOL PM TRIPS FEIR 1084 DU and 1000 1118 1678 Students @ 560 trips (one trip rate used PRISM STUDY 729 DU @ 348 trips 2328 2676 (highertrip rates used NET INCREASE -212 1210 998 Source: Table 1page 17from PRISMReport, and Table 3.10.6 Page 3.10-26 of FEIR *reduced forpass-by trips (15% forFE1R, and 34%+ forPRISM study) In addition, the FEIR did not take into consideration "pass -by" traffic reductions set by ITE at 34% lower traffic for retaillcommercial types of uses, but used instead a conservative 15% value for this (probably because no specific land uses were being considered, and an overly conservative estimate was made). This conservative assumption in the FEIR built in excess capacity for the project impacts. According to ITE for a project with commercial retail, 34% of the commercial traffic is already on the roadways because drivers pass by various stores on the way home from work, etc. This is especially true for fast food restaurant trip generation which is set at 50% pass -by reduction. However, the FEIR used a blanket 15% value for ALL 350,000 sq ft of potential uses within the commercial retail designation, for both pm and am peak hours. However, this 15% value cannot be correlated with any specific ITE number to verify. As a result, the FEIR was conservatively high on its commercial trip generation calculation: 19% higher (34% - 15% used = 19%). One other reason the FEIR commercial trip generation calculation was different is because it used the same trip generation rate of 3.75 tripslKSF for the 350,000 SF retail. The PRISM Study used this rate as well for most uses, but several land uses were calculated with much higher trip rates, i.e. fast food @ 34.64 tripslKSF and supermarket @ 10.45 tripslKSF, etc. For this reason, a more realistic assumption for pass -by was used in the analysis. PM Peak Hour Trip Distribution of Office Traffic A comparison of the pm peak hour trip distribution of the office project traffic was made. The FEIR assumed that only 30% of the Blue Shield traffic went south on SR 99. The PRISM Study, however, used 55% because the Blue Shield tenant communicated specific information that 60% of their employees live to the south of the City of Lodi. The PRISM Study assigned 55% of the Blue Shield pm peak traffic south on the frontage road to the Armstrong interchange since it was a significantly shorter path, and there were no left turns or signal delays along the way in getting to SR 99 south. As a result, the PRISM Study assigned 25% more of the Blue Shield traffic to the south on the frontage road, and that was 25% less traffic assigned northerly to Harney Lane. Summary The FEIR assigned 25% more of the Blue Shield traffic to Harney Lane to the north on SR 99 and 25% less south on SR 99 than did the PRISM Study. The PRISM Study assigned more Blue Shield traffic south on the frontage road to SR 99 The FEIR used lower "Pass -By" percentagesthan did the PRISM Study (15% compared to 34%+) which over-estimated impacts, and is why additional mitigation was built-in to the analysis. Although there is more commercial in the current project, there is less residential. The FEIR had 355 more residential dwelling units than the current plan has less. The PRISM study reports 212 less pm residential trips The PRISM Study pm peak hourtrip generation totals are 45% higherthan the FEIR As a check, volumes in the FEIR for Cumulative 2030 + project conditions were compared with the PRISM Study (Figure 3.10.17 compared to Figure 19). An intersection to the west of the project intersections, Harney at Hutchins, had 310 more pm peak trips than the FEIR for the Year 2030 cumulative plus project scenario. Harney at the E. Frontage Road had 272 more pm peak trips than the FEIR for the same scenario. Stockton Street north of Harney had 119 more trips assigned to it than the FEIR for the same scenario. This adds up to 701 trips of the additional 998 trips, so we can see that although travel patterns shifted from the FEIR to the PRISM Study, most of these additional trips were assigned to Harney Lane, and they could still fit within the LOS C threshold. The additional traffic can be accounted for as additional trips heading south on the frontage road from Blue Shield, etc., and any internal traffic that takes place between residential and commercial uses (residents of the project will shop at the local stores and restaurants, etc.). The additional current project traffic volumes external to the project site represented only a 12% increase in overall traffic at the E. Frontage/Harney intersection, and a 7% increase in overall traffic at the Harney/Hutchins intersection. The raw intersection volume increases in the immediate vicinity external to the project site do not reflect the same ratio increase to trip generation for the current project compared to the FEIR. This is primarily because the volume of the project is small compared to the cumulative volume of traffic projected in the City. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A FUNDING: NIA onradt Bartlam Interim Community Development Director Attachments: Vicinity Map Aerial View ExhibitA (General Plan Map) ExhibitB (Addendum toEIR) Planning Commission Staff Report Approved Resolution P.C. 08-23 August 27, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes September70, 2008 Drafl Discussion& Motion/Action Minutes Draft Resolutions V J q4 r VICINITY MAP t Lv �rmii i S�SsF Cr. µ+., L•,�., Y m I= ti r.am:d X. t mJ tf Z f r,*i}�pt f Ar*,a'l- • Yx-j. ^ r �,5j` :F r �-� i� � � �- �� �R`•,.�.*�t �• A'..�}," r -: '1 - I I ty',I'� r � �I:.: � � fh ��G+� ���[ SI r^l '� rv- ,� �'.. itsl r�� :. i- # 5 I� • I ; �� _ .� - �4�r Y� 1; '34M � A � � .R •� `.� �'� - �' T �' -r. I '.%.� � 7G 47 iyR'•� IN �, , T .±^ 'r �,_F� � '�" 'i"-�-,•-_' j .I�� ..•i `f - — � - .� - �,.-�_. nrnlae e - �.` _ „. naw-+�..«.a.....,.... ; i ij. 141 in ....-lI i',li j 1-��.�,.'_ 1 -,rt' I. - _. � 11 LLL... .. ., j ..r.L.r•+. : I •�. - , � I � ,� 'III' I' I�I' I I II I �I' I�; III''il .I I � �'� RESOLUTION NO. 2008-187 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LODI APPROVING THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE REYNOLDS RANCH PROJECT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lodi has heretofore held a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the requested General Plan Amendment in accordance with the Government Code; and WHEREAS, the project proponent is Dale Gillespie on behalf of the San Joaquin Valley Land Company LLC, 1420 S. Mills Ave., Suite K, Lodi, CA 95242; and WHEREAS, the properties are located at the southwest corner of East Harney Lane and State Route 99; and WHEREAS, the General Plan designation is Neighborhood Community Commercial, Office, Planned Residential Drainage Basin Park, and Public Quasi Public; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department prepared an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, consistent with CEQA, an initial study was conducted to analyze potential impacts associated with proposed changes to the project, which initial study demonstrated that none of the circumstances articulated in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR were present; and WHEREAS, pursuantto CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15164an addendum to the previously certified EIR was prepared, which includes and incorporates the initial study analyzing the proposed project changes, and is attached to this Resolution and incorporated herein ("Addendum"); and WHEREAS, on August 27, 2008, the City of Lodi Planning Commission held a duly noticed hearing on the proposed General Plan Amendment, which was continued to September 10, 2008, at which time the Commission recommended approval of the proposed Amendment; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisitesto the approval of this request have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FOUND as follows by the City Council of the City of Lodi, based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the City of Lodi General Plan, the City of Lodi Municipal Code, the previously certified EIR, the Addendum to the EIR and the initial study for the project changes included and incorporated into the Addendum, all reports, minutes, and transcripts prepared for the September 10, 2008, Planning Commission meeting, and all reports, minutes, and transcripts prepared for the September 17, 2008, City Council meeting: 1. The City Council has considered the previously certified EIR and the Addendum and finds that changes to the project, which adjust and redistribute land uses on the site, do not require major revisions to the previously certified EIR or preparation of a subsequent EIR for the following reasons: (a) Proposed project changes will not result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. As described in the Addendum, which incorporates the initial study for the modified project, the modified project is still a mixed-use development, similar to the type of project considered in the previously certified EIR. While specific land uses have been adjusted and redistributed, mitigation identified in the previously certified EIR will apply to the project changes, such that these changes will not create any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts. (b) There are no changes in circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. Though the project has been modified, the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken have not changed, therefore, there are no new or substantially more severe significant impacts that will result from any change in circumstances. (c) The City is not aware of any new information of substantial importance that shows that the project will have any significant impacts not discussed in the previously certified EIR, or that significant impacts previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR, or that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, or that mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previously certified EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. (d) Accordingly, no subsequent EIR is required for approval of this project, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, an addendum is appropriatefor approval of the project. 2. The City Council has considered the proposed General Plan Amendment and finds the proposed Amendment appropriatefor the following reasons: (a) Approval of the General Plan Amendment is consistent with the general goals, policies, and standards of the City of Lodi's General Plan, because the General Plan contemplates future development of the project site. (b) Approval of the General Plan Amendment to designate the project site a combination of Neighborhood Community Commercial, Office, Drainage Basin Park, and Public Quasi Public would not conflict with other existing plans or policies of the General Plan and serves sound planning practice. For example, the proposed amendments are consistent with the General Plan's Land Use Element, in that the Amendments facilitate managed growth and support development of commercial and office uses (Land Use Goals A, E, F). The proposed Amendments are also consistent with the General Plan's Housing Element, in that they would facilitate development of a range of housing types and densities (Housing Goal A), including senior -citizen housing (Housing Policies A.11, A.16). The proposed Amendments are also consistent with the General Plan's Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element, in that the Amendments provide for park space and trails (Parks Goal A). (c) The project site is physically suitable for the proposed General Plan designations, in that the site is generally flat and is not within an identified natural hazard area. (d) Approval of the General Plan Amendment will not be materially detrimental to other properties or land uses in the area, will not cause an unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty, will not be detrimental to the health, morals, comfort or welfare of persons residing or working in the project area or to property or improvements in the project area, and is not contrary to the general public welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DETERMINEDAND RESOLVED that the City d Lodi City Council hereby approves the proposed General Plan Amendment. Dated: September 17, 2008 hereby certify that Resolution No. 2008-187 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held September 17, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Hansen, Johnson, and Katzakian NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Hitchcock and Mayor Mounce ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None L Mf 2008-187 EIR Addendum Submitted to City of Lodi I August 19, 2008 D E S I G N, COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT EIR Addendum Submitted to City of Lodl August 19, 2008 D E S I G N, COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT 1625 SHATTUCK AVENUE, SUITE 300 TEL: 510 848 3815 BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94709 FAX: 510 848 4315 35 SOUTH VENTURA AVENUE TEL: 805 643 7700 VENTURA, CALIFORNIA 93001 FAX: 805 643 7782 in association with Illingworth & Rodkin TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 1 REPORTSUMMARY............................................................................................................... 15 INITIALSTUDY.......................................................................................................................... 45 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH FEIR ADDENDUM TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures Figure 1-1 Regional Location Map, City of Lodi........................................4 Figure 1-2 Local Location Map, City of Lodi.............................................5 Figure 1-3 Previous Site Plan......................................................................7 Figure 1-4 Revised Site Plan........................................................................ 8 List of Tables Table 1-1 2006 Project Land Uses..............................................................9 Table 1-2 2008 Modified Project Land Uses...............................................9 Table 1-3 Change in Residential Land use................................................10 Table 2-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................17 INTRODUCTION A. Background In 2006, the Lodi City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a 220 -acre mixed use residential, commercial, and office project known as Reynolds Ranch (hereafter, "the Project"). The project consisted of a combination of uses including residential, retail, office, senior care, public use and office space. Detailed information on each use is provided in section D of this chapter. This chapter describes the purpose and content of this report and gives a de- scription of the Project. This chapter also compares the original Project, as analyzed in the 2006 EIR, and the proposed modifications that are now under review. Proposed modifications include conversion of residential uses to sen- ior and senior assisted living uses and consequently, omission of the park and school, a general reconfiguration of housing units and a change in street con- figuration; these changes will be addressed in detail later in this document. Completion of the Initial Study checklist in Chapter III of this document has led to the conclusion that the modifications would not result in new poten- tially significant impacts beyond those already identified in the 2006 Certified EIR. As a result, an Addendum to the existing EIR has been prepared in ac- cordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15162, described below. B. Introduction The primary purpose of this report is to conduct an Initial Study of the pro- posed modifications to the Project to determine whether an EIR Addendum or Supplemental EIR should be prepared. Chapter I presents an introduction and description of the modified Project in relation to the original project. Chapter II presents a summary table of the environmental impacts and related mitigation measures, which references all Project -specific impacts from Table 2-1 of the EIR. In Chapter II, the summary table is followed by a brief sum- mary of the analysis conducted previously in the 2006 EIR. Chapter III pre- CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH FEIR ADDENDUM I N T R O D U C T I O N sents the Initial Study checklist analysis of environmental impacts associated with modifications to the Project. Because the Initial Study focuses solely on impacts associated with the modified Project, any impacts associated exclu- sively with the Reynolds Ranch EIR have been removed from the summary table included in Chapter 2 of this report. The most applicable CEQA Guideline regarding analysis of the modified pro- ject and the appropriate level of review is from Section 15162, which pro- vides: a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:' (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the in- volvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial in- crease in the severity of previously identified significant effects. In connection with the significant impacts previously identified in the EIR, a supplemental EIR is not required unless there is substantial evidence to sup- port a determination that the Project changes will require major revisions to the EIR based on a substantial increase in the severity of these impacts. Un- der CEQA, substantial evidence includes facts, reasonable assumptions predi- cated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. Unless the facts support a conclusion that the Project changes would substantially increase the severity of the previously -identified significant and unavoidable impacts in a way that requires major revisions to the EIR, a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required. ' The California Environmental Quality Act, Title 14 California Code of Regulations. Chapter 3 Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Envi- ronmental Quality Act. CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH FEIR ADDENDUM I N T R O D U C T I O N Furthermore, Section 15164 of the 2007 CEQA Guidelines states that a lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the Guidelines calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. A review of the provisions set forth in Section 15162 and 15163 confirm that none of the conditions apply that would trigger the need for a subsequent EIR or a supplement to an EIR. The Lead or Responsible Agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subse- quent EIR any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. Additionally, the supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. As previously stated and as determined through the analy- sis provided in Chapter III of this Addendum, the proposed modifications do not constitute substantial changes or involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified signifi- cant effects. C. Project Location The Project is located in the City of Lodi, California, which is approximately 15 miles north of Stockton and 35 miles south of Sacramento. Lodi, the northernmost city in San Joaquin County, lies between the Sierra Nevada Mountain range to the east and the San Francisco Bay to the west. 1. Regional and Local Location Figure 1-1 shows the Project's location in a regional context. The project site is bordered by Harney Lane to the north, Highway 99 to the east, Union Pacific Railroad tracks to the west, and Scottsdale Road to the south. The project area in relationship to the City of Lodi is displayed in Figure 1-2. K CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH EIR ADDENDUM Sutter ' Lake Placer --------------- ' - EI Dora Yolo--� i Davis Sacramento Napa Sono a 1 Sacramento I � I 101 I ( I I I I Amador FairfieldSolano 99 - -"-- � Lodi �' -------- Calaveras Marin Stockton z S J quin Contra Costa Oakland S'an Fr_anei co --- - Sdn Fran 'co i ' Modesto � I A meda • I Fre ont Stanislaus Oregon Id h i -----------------------, 11 San Mateo (� { (I Nevada Z San Jose A % \\ *Lodi lara i erced Santa Cruz o � e �\ t t 0 10 20 Miles _ .nit NORTH FIGURE I - I REGIONAL LOCATION MAP, CITY OF LODI CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH EIR ADDENDUM Mile Rd. interstate Railroad City Limits County_CA_Clipped t NORTH 0 0.7 1.4 Miles FIGURE 1-2 LOCAL LOCATION MAP, CITY OF LODI Peltier Rd 99 0 C N O O� L It T 1 Ln t L 7 L° 0 J Woodbridge Rd Ln L Turner Rd.Turner Rd. N o c Elm St. D (v Lock ford St. 2) U Pine St. Pine St E Lodi Av. N J ++ N aVine St. = N o Vine St. HWY 12 J an Joaqui C- �0 0 v� Kettleman Ln. 12 3 = u Century Blvd. _-- Harney Ln. J /lll o - �--------``- � = Reynolds Ranch Project L 01 01 J �I Mile Rd. interstate Railroad City Limits County_CA_Clipped t NORTH 0 0.7 1.4 Miles FIGURE 1-2 LOCAL LOCATION MAP, CITY OF LODI CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH FEIR ADDENDUM I N T R O D U C T I O N 2. Surrounding Development Directly to the north of the project, Harney Lane is presently developed with single family residential uses and one industrial use. There is limited residen- tial with heavy agricultural uses to the east and south of the project site. The project site has direct freeway access to State Route 99 along Harney Lane. D. Project Description The Project would consist of 22 parcels totaling 225.9 acres. Proposed uses would include senior care, senior housing, high density residential, medium density residential, low density residential, existing residential, office, public, a hotel, park and trails, pond, mini storage, and retail uses. The original site plan, as analyzed in the 2006 EIR, is shown in Figure 1-3. The modified site plan is illustrated in Figure 1-4. In this section, each of the original Project components is described, followed by a description of the Project proponents' proposed modifications. The major components of the modified Project include residential uses, com- mercial uses, a hotel and parking. The acreages associated with the original site plan are provided in Table 1-1. Acreages associated with the modified project are provided in Table 1-2. Residential Uses This section compares the original project's residential components with the proposed modification. As shown in Table 1-3, the original project proposed 1,084 residential units in over 102.9 acres. Under the modified project, total number of residential units will remain at 1,084. As shown in Table 1-3, the makeup of residential units will change slightly from the original project and the total residential area would be reduced to 77.8 acres. 2. Commercial Uses This section compares the original project's commercial components with the proposed modifications now under consideration. C ITY O F LODI REYNOLDS RANCH EIR ADDENDUM Source:Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report. 2006, page 2.0-8. FIGURE 1-3 PREVIOUS SITE PLAN "PROJECT LEVEL' ANALYSIS 1 (OFFICE 5 RETAIL • IWAC) "PROGRAM LEVEL" ANALYSIS skin "E (RESIDENTIAL, SCHOOL, PARK$, f . PUBLIC FACILITIES. MINI-STORWE-t1WAC) i iA.Z.� 1 i aw NORTH Source:Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report. 2006, page 2.0-8. FIGURE 1-3 PREVIOUS SITE PLAN MDR i io.it Ac y 9 POND 9.0t ACRE HARNEY LANE X13;.•.., TA TABLE 7-7 2006 PROJECT LAND USES Use Retail/ nunrc.l 40.5 acres CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH FEIR ADDENDUM Use High Density Senior Residential I NTR0 D U C TI 0 N Size acre Office 20.1 acres High Density Residential 9.1 acres Mini Storage 5.3 acres Medium Density Residential 63.9 acres Public/ Quasi Public 1 acre Law Density Residential 20.6 acres School 14 acres Interchange/Ramp 4.5 Park, n .c -1 .7 acres Internal Streets -17. Detention B .sin 8 acre s TOTAL Source: WiLldan, Reynolds Ranch Pro)ect EIS August 2006, page .0-19. TABLE 7-2 2008 MODIFIED PROJECT LAND USES 220 acre Use Size Use Size Retail 78.2 acres Office . .crc error Housing 48.5 .cr Public/ Quasi Public 1.0 .cr High Density Residenti.l 9.2 acres Mini Storage 5 acre s Existing Residential 2.5 a.cr Park, Open Space 12.3 .crcMedium Density idents 10. 1 acres Low Density Residential 10.0 .crc Detention Basin 9 acre s Interchange ------ Streets ------- TOTAL 206 acres Note: The total above does not include internal street acreage or highway interchange acreage. The Senior Houses area wM include a niirnurn of 2.0 acres Park. Source: Dale N. Gillespie, RPM company. Personal email cor=umcation with Peter Pirnejad, City of Lodi. June 3, 200S. 9 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH FEIR ADDENDUM I N T R O D U C T I O N TABLE 1-3 CHANGE IN RESIDENTIAL LAND USE Note: Data that is N/A is unavailable because it was not provided during the synthesis of this report or because the uses were not a part of the 2006 project. These housing designations found in the modified project but not the 2006 project are Age Restricted Residential Housing : duet - style residences for individuals who are 62 years and older, but do not desire an assisted living arrangement or require nursing treatment., and Senior Housing/ Medical Care, which includes both assisted living and skilled nursing treatment for individuals 62 years and older. Source: Dale N. Gillespie, RPM Company. Personal email communication with Peter Pirnejad, City of Lodi. June 3, 2008. a. Original Project The original proposed project consisted of 350,000 square feet of retail that was contained in the northeast corner of the site plan. b. Proposed Modifications 750,000 square feet of retail are designated by the modified plan. Addition- ally, in the modified plan, retail would expand west of `A' Street. A gas sta- H 2006 EIR 2006 Modified Modified Designation Size Density Size Density Change High Density 22 du/acre 22 du/acre +.1 acre Residential 9.1 acres 200 units 9.2 acres 202 +2 units Medium 10.3 7 du/acre 53.8 acres du/acre, Density 63.9 acres 10.1 acres 71 SF 560 SF Residential 631 SF homes homes Homes Low Density 5 du/acre 5 du/acre 12.1 acres Residential 20.6 acres 103 units 8.5 acres 43 units 60 units High Density 50 du/acre Senior 3 acres N/A N/A N/A Housing 150 units Senior Housing with N/A N/A 11.3 acres N/A N/A Medical Care Age - Restricted N/A N/A 38.7 acres N/A N/A Senior Residential Note: Data that is N/A is unavailable because it was not provided during the synthesis of this report or because the uses were not a part of the 2006 project. These housing designations found in the modified project but not the 2006 project are Age Restricted Residential Housing : duet - style residences for individuals who are 62 years and older, but do not desire an assisted living arrangement or require nursing treatment., and Senior Housing/ Medical Care, which includes both assisted living and skilled nursing treatment for individuals 62 years and older. Source: Dale N. Gillespie, RPM Company. Personal email communication with Peter Pirnejad, City of Lodi. June 3, 2008. a. Original Project The original proposed project consisted of 350,000 square feet of retail that was contained in the northeast corner of the site plan. b. Proposed Modifications 750,000 square feet of retail are designated by the modified plan. Addition- ally, in the modified plan, retail would expand west of `A' Street. A gas sta- H tion and two fast-food restaurants with dri've-thru windows are included in the modified projects. 3. Hotels Whereas the previous concept did not include a hotel use, the proposed plan does. The proposed hotel would cover a Z.6 -acre portion of the site. The hotel would provide 104 rooms. 4. Parking a. original Project The original parking ratio was anticipated to be consistent with the Municipal Code at a ratio of 1 space per 250 square feet of building area. b. Proposed Modification The proposed parking ration will be in the order of magnitude of 1 space per 227 square feet of building area.2 5. Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation a. original Project The original project consisted of a proposed "Loop Street". which would be internal to the site and would give access to the existina Stockton Ix Street and the proposed "A Street". Proposed "B Street", a through street, would bisect "Loop Street". "A Street" would give access to both Harney Lane and Highway 99. This street configuration is shown in Figure 1-3. b. Proposed Modification Under the modified project, the internal circulation plan will include "Loop Street"; "C Street",, and "Main Street"' would be added, and would connect "A Street" to "B Street."' "B Street." would be a cul-de-sac. This street configuration is shown in Figure 1-4. 2 Peter Pirne j ad, City of Dodi Co -Interim Commum*ty Development Iii re - tor, email rr M ati with d Hid, I u t . C IT Y OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH FEIR ADDENDUM I NTR0DU C T 1 0 N tion and two fast-food restaurants with dri've-thru windows are included in the modified projects. 3. Hotels Whereas the previous concept did not include a hotel use, the proposed plan does. The proposed hotel would cover a Z.6 -acre portion of the site. The hotel would provide 104 rooms. 4. Parking a. original Project The original parking ratio was anticipated to be consistent with the Municipal Code at a ratio of 1 space per 250 square feet of building area. b. Proposed Modification The proposed parking ration will be in the order of magnitude of 1 space per 227 square feet of building area.2 5. Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation a. original Project The original project consisted of a proposed "Loop Street". which would be internal to the site and would give access to the existina Stockton Ix Street and the proposed "A Street". Proposed "B Street", a through street, would bisect "Loop Street". "A Street" would give access to both Harney Lane and Highway 99. This street configuration is shown in Figure 1-3. b. Proposed Modification Under the modified project, the internal circulation plan will include "Loop Street"; "C Street",, and "Main Street"' would be added, and would connect "A Street" to "B Street."' "B Street." would be a cul-de-sac. This street configuration is shown in Figure 1-4. 2 Peter Pirne j ad, City of Dodi Co -Interim Commum*ty Development Iii re - tor, email rr M ati with d Hid, I u t . CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH FEIR ADDENDUM I N T R O D U C T I O N 6. Development Agreement Amendment Though it has not been finalized at this time, it has been concluded that the Development Agreement will not change the project description. Addition- ally, the Development Agreement will be consistent with both the EIR and the EIR Addendum. City staff and the applicant have indicated that they an- ticipate no material changes to the Development Agreement beyond exten- sion of payment time frames to accommodate the current housing cycle.' 7. General Plan While the proposed project is inconsistent with the land use designations, it is consistent with the overall General Plan vision. a. Existing General Plan The existing City of Lodi General Plan land use designation for the entire project site, which lies within the City's Sphere of Influence, is Planned Resi- dential Reserve. San Joaquin County's General Plan designation for the Pro- ject Site is Agricultural. b. General Plan Amendments Like the original project, the modified project would also require a General Plan Amendment. The proposed new land uses are Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential, Senior High Density Residential, Senior Graduated Care, Mini Storage, Public, Office and Retail; these uses will be contained under the following zoning designations: Neighborhood Commercial, Office and Planned Residential. Despite the need for a General Plan Amendment, the project would be consistent with the overall vision of the General Plan, which identifies the project site as an area for future development. 4 Peter Pirnejad, City of Lodi Co -Interim Community Development Direc- tor, email communication with Ted Heyd, DC&E. August 12, 2008. 12 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH FEIR ADDENDUM I N T R O D U C T I O N 8. Park and Buffers a. Original Project The original project includes a 5.3 -acre neighborhood park. b. Proposed Modifications Under the modified plan, the park is reduced to 2.0 acres. This change does not require the construction of additional parkland in the City of Lodi be- cause the City currently has 5.5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents, satisfying its goal of 2.5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents .5 More- over, the conversion of residential to senior and senior assisted living uses under the modified project reduces the need for and expected use of the neighborhood parks. 9. Tentative Map and Development Plan The applicant has submitted the tentative map to the City for review. The map is consistent with the modified site plan, as shown in Figure 1-4. The related development plan would comply with the applicable provision of the 2006 FEIR and this FEIR Addendum. 10. Wastewater Master Plan Existing wastewater facilities on the project site are made up of rural septic systems. The Reynolds Ranch wastewater collection system is planned to connect to the South Wastewater Trunk Line when future area development gives way to the completion of the trunk line. In the interim, Reynolds Ranch will connect to the Century Boulevard trunk line, which may not have the capacity to handle the peak flow of Reynolds Ranch at built out. A detailed study will need to be conducted prior to completion of the Project. Wastewater flow will be calculated using the 1991 City of Lodi Design Stan- dards and pipes will be sized for peak flow conditions set forth by the Waste- water Peaking Factor chart contained in the City's Design Standards. 5 Morimoto, David. Senior Planner, City of Lodi. Personal email commu- nication with Leslie Wilson, Design, Community and Environment, July 14, 2008. 13 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH FEIR ADDENDUM I N T R O D U C T I O N 11. Storm Drain Master Plan A May 2008 study addressed the master storm drain pipe and facilities for Reynolds Ranch. The storm drain master facility includes Collection System A, Collection B and a detention basin with no planned park uses. Reynolds Ranch is the first development project that will connect to the South Re- gional Storm Drain Facilities, and a retention basin will be used until its ca- pacity becomes inadequate to serve the project site. All storm drain pipes should be designed for peak flow and should have a 1 -foot freeboard between the top of curb and the hydraulic grade line. 14 II REPORT SUMMARY This chapter is a summary of the findings from the Reynolds Ranch Project EIR. The summary table from the 2006 certified EIR is included as a refer- ence for the Initial Study Checklist in Chapter 3 of this report, since many of the impacts and mitigation measures from the EIR will pertain to the pro- posed modifications to the Project. A. Significant Impacts Under CEQA, a significant impact on the environment is defined as a sub- stantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical con- ditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, min- erals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic and aesthetic signifi- cance. The project, as analyzed in the 2006 EIR, had the potential to generate envi- ronmental impacts in a number of areas that may be significant: ♦ Air Quality ♦ Biological Resources ♦ Cultural Resources ♦ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ♦ Hydrology and Water Quality ♦ Land Use ♦ Noise ♦ Public Services ♦ Traffic and Circulation ♦ Utilities and Service Systems B. Unavoidable Significant Impacts As determined in the 2006 EIR, Impact 3.1.1 (B), the original project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to operational emissions of ozone precursors. H, CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH FEIR ADDENDUM REPORT SUMMARY Chapter 3, Project Analysis, evaluates the modified Project to determine if any changes to the previous determination would occur. C. Summary Table Table 2-1 below is a summary of all project -specific impacts and related miti- gation measures as found in the Reynolds Ranch EIR. Only those impacts and mitigation measures which pertain to the modified Project are included here for reference. The table is arranged in four columns 1) environmental impacts; 2) signifi- cance prior to mitigation; 3) mitigation measures; and 4) significance after mitigation. A series of mitigation measures is noted where more than one mitigation may be required to achieve a less -than -significant impact. D. Conclusion In Table 2-1 of this report, two changes have occurred to impacts and related mitigation measures from the previous analysis conducted in the Project EIR. Changes are shown in ..-_:i e three g ffiede and have been made due to the removal of the school from the project plans. a CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH FEIR ADDENDUM REPORT SUMMARY TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact the buffer until the biologist confirms that all fledglings have left the nest. In addition to the preconstruction survey, the biologist shall con- duct weekly nesting surveys of the construction site during the clearing, grubbing, and/or removal of vegetation phase, and any discovered ac- 17 Significance Significance Before With Significant Impact Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact 2.1: (Wildlife Movement, Migration, Significant None required and Nursery Sites) The proposed project would not affect the regional movement of wildlife, wildlife migration patterns, or nurs- ery sites. Impact 2.2: (Habitat Conservation Planning) Significant Mitigation 2.2 Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMHCP). This Less than The proposed project is located within the includes payment of Open Space Conversion fees in accordance with significant area covered by the San Joaquin County the fee schedule in-place at the time construction commences and im- Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and plementation of the Plan's "Measures to Minimize Impacts" pursuant to Open Space Plan (SJMHCP) for develop- Section 5.2 of the SJMHCP. ment. Impact 2.3(a): (Special -Status Species — Swain- Significant Mitigation 2.3 Clearing, grubbing, and/or removal of vegetation shall Less than son's Hawk) The proposed project has a low not occur during the bird -nesting season (from February 1 - September significant potential to impact the Swainson's hawk by 31) unless a biologist with qualifications that meet the satisfaction of the eliminating marginal foraging habitat and City of Lodi conducts a preconstruction survey for nesting special - marginal nesting habitat. status birds including Swainson's hawk, western burrowing owl, white- tailed kite, California horned lark, and loggerhead shrike. If discovered, all active nests shall be avoided and provided with a buffer zone of 300 feet (500 feet for all raptor nests) or a buffer zone that otherwise meets the satisfaction of the California Department of Fish and Game. Once buffer zones are established, work shall not commence/resume within LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact the buffer until the biologist confirms that all fledglings have left the nest. In addition to the preconstruction survey, the biologist shall con- duct weekly nesting surveys of the construction site during the clearing, grubbing, and/or removal of vegetation phase, and any discovered ac- 17 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REPORT SUMMARY TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact IN Significance Significance Before With Significant Impact Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation tive nest of a special -status bird shall be afforded the protection identi- fied above. Clearing, grubbing, and/or removal of vegetation conducted outside the bird -nesting season (from October 1- January 31) will not require nesting birds surveys. Mitigation Measure 2.2 Impact 2.3(b) Special -Status Species -Western Significant Mitigation Measure 2.1 Less than Burrowing Owl) The proposed project would Mitigation Measure2.2 significant eliminate marginal habitat for the western burrowing owl, including agricultural land with ground squirrel burrows that could pro- vide nesting opportunities for the western burrowing owl. Construction of the proposed project also has the potential to impact indi- vidual burrowing owls, if any are present on- site during the time of construction. Impact 2.3(c): (Special -Status Species - White- Significant Mitigation Measure 2.1 Less than Tailed Kite) The proposed project has the Mitigation Measure2.2 significant potential to eliminate potential nesting and foraging habitat for the white-tailed kite. Ad- ditionally, construction of the proposed pro- ject has the potential to impact individual white-tailed kites or their nests if any are pre- sent onsite durine the time of construction. LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact IN CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REPORT SUMMARY TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (CONTINUED) Significant Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance With Mitigation Impact 2.3(d): (Special -Status Species - Cali- Significant Mitigation Measure 2.1 Less than fornia Horned Lark) The proposed project Mitigation Measure2.2 significant has the potential to eliminate potential forag- ing and nesting habitat for the California horned lark from the site. Additionally, con- struction of the proposed project has the po- tential to impact individual California horned larks or their nests if any are present onsite during the time of construction. Impact 3.2.3(e): (Special -Status Species - Log- Significant Mitigation Measure 2.1 Less than gerhead Shrike) The proposed project has the Mitigation Measure2.2 significant potential to eliminate suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the loggerhead shrike, and construction of the proposed project has the potential to impact individual loggerhead shrikes or their nests if any are present onsite during the time of construction. Impact 3.2.3(0: (Special -Status Species - Ru- Significant None required Less than fous Hummingbird) The proposed project has significant the potential to temporarily reduce the forag- ing habitat for the Rufous hummingbird on- site. Impact 2.3(g): (Special -Status Species - Bats) Significant Mitigation Measure 2.2 Less than The proposed project has the potential to significant reduce the roosting and foraging habitat on- site for the pallid bat and the greater western mastiff bat. LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact IN CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REPORT SUMMARY TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significant Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance With Mitigation Impact 2.4: The project site contains one tree Significant Mitigation Measure 2.3 Regardless of whether the project develops in Less than that is protected under San Joaquin County's a manner that is subject to the San Joaquin County tree protection or- significant tree protection ordinance. This tree is a valley dinance (San Joaquin County Code Division 15, Natural Resources oak that would be classified as a "Heritage Regulations; Chapter 9-1505, Trees), the proposed project shall comply Oak Tree" by the County's ordinance. De- with the ordinance's "Replacement" requirements (Section 9-1505.4) velopment of the project site has the potential and "Development Constraints" (Section 9-1505.5). to either remove this tree or damage this tree during construction. CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact 3.1: (Historic Resources): The pro- posed project would adaptively reuse the Morse -Skinner Ranch House and water tower, a significant historic resource listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and eligible for listing on the Cali- fornia Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The proposed Development Plan and subsequent development of the balance of the 220 -acre project site could result in the demolition of a Moose Lodge facility, 12 resi- dences, and ancillary structures. None of these structures are known or expected to be historically significant per Section 15064.5 of Significant Mitigation Measure 3.1: The Morse -Skinner Ranch House and water Less than tank, including the one acre parcel on which it is situated, is listed on significant the NRHP and it is therefore a historical resource eligible for the CRHR. Any adaptive reuse of the Morse -Skinner Ranch property shall comply with standards set forth by the Secretary of the Interior. Mitigation Measure 3.2: The residences, barn, and Moose Lodge that are situated within the 60 acres included in the Development Plan shall be evaluated for the CRHR. Some of these resources, such as the Moose Lodge, were clearly constructed within the last 50 years and are unlikely to be eligible for the CRHR. However, some of the residences may be more than 50 years old and their architectural significance shall be evaluated by a qualified architectural historian. This process includes the recording of the buildings and structures on Department of Parks the State CEQA Guidelines. However, none and Recreation Historic Structures Forms (DPR 523). Any structures of these structures have been evaluated by an that are found to be ineligible for the CRHR warrant no further con - architectural historian for historic signifi- sideration. If any of those structures are determined to be CRHR eligi- cance. As such, it cannot be precluded that ble, the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) shall be con- LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact 20 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REPORT SUMMARY TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (CONTINUED) Significant Impact the removal, alteration, or demolition of the- se structures would not result in significant impacts on historical resources. Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures sulted to determine the significance of the discovery, and any resources that are CRHR eligible shall be treated in accordance with the Secretary of Interior Standards. Significance With Mitigation LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact 21 Mitigation Measure 3.3: The CRHR eligibility of existing buildings and structures within the 160 -acre Concept Plan shall be determined. This will require the services of a qualified architectural historian. This process includes the recording of the buildings and structures on De- partment of Parks and Recreation Historic Structures Forms (DPR 523). Any structures that are found to be ineligible for the CRHR war- rant no further consideration. If any of those structures are determined to be CRHR eligible, the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) shall be consulted to determine the significance of the discovery, and any resources that are CRHR eligible shall be treated in accordance with the Secretary of Interior Standards. Impact 3.2: (Archaeological Resources) Al- Significant Mitigation Measure 3.4: The Yokuts who inhabited the project area Less than though not anticipated, grading and construc- prehistorically left no apparent archaeological remains on the ground significant tion activities onsite could encounter previ- surface within the Study Area. Previous studies in the Central Valley ously undiscovered archaeological resources. have shown that archaeological sites are sometimes buried (Moratto 1984). If buried Native American archaeological resources are discov- ered during the project activities, work shall stop immediately in the vicinity of the discovery, until a qualified archaeologist that meets the satisfaction of the City of Lodi determines the significance of the dis- covery and develops plans to preserve the significance of any discovered CRHR eligible resources. Such archaeological resource preservation Dlans shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Citv of Lodi. LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact 21 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REPORT SUMMARY TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significant Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance With Mitigation Impact 3.3: (Paleontological and Unique Significant Mitigation Measure 3.5: Should paleontological resources be encoun- multi -use trail to be utilized within the internal network of trails and Geologic Features) Although not anticipated, pedestrian access within the project shall be required for review and tered during construction excavation, the project proponent shall halt approval by the City's Public Works Department. grading and construction activities could en- excavation in the vicinity of the discovery and contact a qualified verte- Less than counter previously undiscovered paleon- brate paleontologist to evaluate the significance of the find and make significant tological resources. recommendations for collection and preservation of discovered paleon- tological resources in a written report to the City of Lodi. Said recom- mendations shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City of Lodi. Impact 3.4: (Disturbance of Human Re- Significant No mitigation measures required. Public Health and Safety Code Sec- Less than mains) The project site is not known or ex- tion 5097.98, as described in the discussion of Impact 3.3.4 on page 3.3- significant pected to contain human remains and, as 13, further reduces the potential for impacts to human remains. such, the proposed project is not expected to disturb human remains. In the unlikely event that human remains are discovered onsite, existing regulations ensure such remains are handled appropriately. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION Impact 10.1: The project will require road- Significant Mitigation Measure 10.1: Prior to approval of the first tract or parcel Less than way improvements as part project develop- map with the Reynolds Ranch Project, a roadway improvement plan significant ment for an internal roadway network as well for "A," "B," and "Loop" Streets including a detail plan for an off-street as address impacts resulting from increased multi -use trail to be utilized within the internal network of trails and travel demand on surrounding streets. As a pedestrian access within the project shall be required for review and result, identified transportation improve- approval by the City's Public Works Department. ments are needed to mitigate the potential Droiect traffic impacts upon Droiect buildout. LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact 22 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REPORT SUMMARY TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (CONTINUED) Significant Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance With Mitigation Impact 10.2: A development of this size and Significant Mitigation Measure 10.2: Prior to approval of the first tract or parcel Less than scope will likely be developed over a period map for Reynolds Ranch Project, the Public Works Department shall significant of time and in a phased manner. To accom- review and approve a roadway phasing and improvement plan to ensure ment during construction, operation of such modate a phased development, necessary that timing of new roadway construction and improvements will be roadway improvements shall be provided to provided as necessary to serve and support new development for "Year support the pace of development. A compre- 2008 Pre -Project Plus Phase I Project Conditions." The phasing plan hensive and coordinated approach will also be shall also note completion and timing of roadway improvements by needed to address concurrent development in other adjacent development to coincide with proposed improvements surrounding areas adjacent to the project. on the same facilities by the proposed project. Impact 10.3: Because the project has not Significant Mitigation Measure 10.3: As part of the subdivision review process, a Less than identified a specific development plan (layout) roadway improvement plan shall include, but not be limited to provid- significant for the residential, school, mini -storage and ing, the following items: 1) identify all entry/access points for all future public use facilities, an evaluation of the in- development within the project area to ensure proper intersection con- ternal roadway network by a qualified Traffic trol and signage, 2) show adequate sight distance in consideration of Engineer shall be necessary once a develop- grading and landscaping at all intersections and drive entries, and 3) ment plan can be defined to ensure that any identify all bikeways, off-street multi -use trails and sidewalks within the potential access or circulation conflicts can be project area. Submittal of the above information is intended to address addressed and minimized. any potential for vehicle and pedestrian conflicts in the development of the project roadway planand ensure safe and adequate access for all resi- dents and businesses within the oroiect site. Impact 10.4: Construction traffic will occur Significant Mitigation Measure 10.4: Proponents of development onsite shall sub- Less than over time during project development. Be- mit a construction Traffic Control Plan to the Public Works Depart- significant cause of existing and future residential land ment for review and approval prior to commencing construction on the uses located near or adjacent to the develop- project and any related off-site improvements. ment during construction, operation of such heavy equipment vehicles need to be consid- ered. LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact 23 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REPORT SUMMARY TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significance Before Significant Impact Mitigation Impact 10.5: The project serving a largely Significant future residential population will require criti- cal fire and police services. Emergency vehicle access is considered a vital function as part of ny future roadway network to accommodate safe and efficient access for both future resi- dents and critical ememencv services. Significance With Mitigation Measures Mitigation Mitigation Measure 10.5: The design of the internal circulation system Less than and vehicular access will be subject to review and approval by the City significant of Lodi's Police and Fire Departments prior to issuance any building permits for the project. Impact 10.6: Future land uses for the project Significant Mitigation Measure 10.6: Prior to map approval and issuance of build- Less than will be required to provide adequate off-street ing permits, ensure that adequate parking demand is satisfied for all pro- significant parking facilities. Available on -street parking posed uses (i.e. parks, commercial and residential development, etc.) in on future roadways may be limited or, oth- accordance to the City of Lodi Zoning Ordinance. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Impact 11.1: (Increase in the Demand forEn- Significant None required Less than ergy) The proposed project would increase significant energy demand; however, the Lodi Electric Utility has sufficient capacity available to accommodate the increased demand, provided the applicant pays the fair cost of expanding the electrical infrastructure to meet the need of the City's electrical system. Impact 11.2: (Increase in the Demand for Significant None required Less than Natural Gas) The proposed project would significant increase the demand for natural gas; however, PG&E has sufficient capacity available to accommodate the increased demand. LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact 24 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REPORT SUMMARY TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (CONTINUED) Significant Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance With Mitigation Impact 11.3: (Wastewater Treatment Re- Significant None required. Less than quirements) The proposed project would gen- significant erate wastewater; however, the wastewater generated by the project would not exceed the wastewater treatment capacity of the existing treatment facilities. Impact 11.4: (Increase in the Demand for Significant Water Service) The proposed project would increase water demand. The increased de- mand could be accommodated by a water supply system that includes two new ground- water wells. LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact Mitigation Measure 11.1: To the satisfaction of the City of Lodi Pub- lic Works Department, a new well shall be added in the project to sup- port water needs for the project area and shall be included in the first phase of development. The triangular area by the Morse -Skinner Ranch House is a recommended area, although other sites may prove accept- able. A higher fire flow can be maintained by placing the well in the east portion of the project where office and retail fire flows will be higher. Mitigation Measure 11.2: To the satisfaction of the City of Lodi Pub- lic Works Department, a second well shall be constructed as part of the second phase of development as demands indicate the need. Alterna- tively, since the project only necessitates a portion of a second well, the well could be constructed offsite and the development pay its fair share of the second well. Mitigation Measure 11.3: Prior to improvement plan approval, a looped water pipeline plan will be developed for the project that will City system and a phasing plan for pipe installation. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Mitigation Measure 11.4: To the satisfaction of the City of Lodi Pub- lic Works Department, the development shall be assessed its fair share 25 Less than significant CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REPORT SUMMARY TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significance Before Significant Impact Mitigation Mitigation Measures LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact of the cost of developing additional water sources, including but not limited to participation in acquiring additional water rights, develop- ment and construction of surface water treatment or recharge the groundwater system, construction of water transmission facilities, and other related water infrastructure. Mitigation Measure 11.5: To the satisfaction of the City of Lodi Pub- lic Works Department, as part of the design process, a detailed water master plan shall be developed to identify facilities, phasing and other facilities needed to insure that the water system for the project meets the requirements of the City water system. Mitigation Measure 11.6: To the satisfaction of the City of Lodi Pub- lic Works Department, the project proponents shall participate in a financing mechanism to fund the required water infrastructure to serve the demands of the project. Funding of water infrastructure in accor- dance with Conditions of Approval for the project shall satisfy this mitigation measure. Potential project impacts would be lessened through the project's Infra- structure Master Plan. 26 Significance With Mitigation CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REPORT SUMMARY TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (CONTINUED) Significant Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Impact 11.5: (Increase in the Demand for Significant Wastewater Service) The proposed project would increase the demand for wastewater service. The increased demand could be ac- commodated by an onsite sewer system and improvements to wastewater infrastructure in the project vicinity. LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact Mitigation Measure 11.7: To the satisfaction of the City of Lodi Pub- lic Works Department, a detailed engineering analysis for the develop- ment of a collection system that will serve the project area shall be pre- pared. Said analysis shall include sizing of the pipe network, sizing of the pump station modifications, and establishing timing for the pump station modifications. Mitigation Measure 11.8: To reflect the investment that has been made by existing development and other potential developers, a financing mechanism shall be developed and implemented to the satisfaction of the City of Lodi to fund the modification of the pump station and the station outfall force mains. Funding of the pump station in accordance with Conditions of Approval for the project shall satisfy this mitigation measure. Mitigation Measure 11.9: To the satisfaction of the City of Lodi Pub- lic Works Department, and as part of the design process, a detailed sewer master plan shall be developed to identify facilities, phasing and other facilities needed to insure that the wastewater system meets the requirements of the City sewer system. Public Works Department, the project proponents shall participate in a financing mechanism to fund the required sewer infrastructure to serve the demands of the project. Funding of sewer infrastructure in accordance with Conditions of Ap- proval for the project shall satisfy this mitigation measure. Potential project impacts would be lessened through the project's Infrastructure Master Plan. 27 Significance With Mitigation Less than significant CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REPORT SUMMARY TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significant Impact PUBIC SERVICES Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance With Mitigation Impact 9.1: (Schools) The project would add Significant No mitigation measures required. Less than to the city's growing population; however, significant the impact to schools would be less than sig- nificant. Impact 9.2: (Police Service) The project in- volves the development of an office building, retail commercial center, a mini -storage facil- ity, residential structures, a wheel, and park- land and, as a result, would increase the struc- tures and population served by the Lodi Po- lice Department. Impact 9.3: (Fire Service) The project in- volves the development of an office building, retail commercial center, a mini -storage facil- ity, residential structures, aseheel, and park- land and, as a result, would increase the struc- tures and population served by the Lodi Fire Significant No mitigation measures required. Significant Mitigation Measure 9.1: A fire station is proposed to be constructed as part of the proposed project and will be constructed during Phase II development of the site. This impact would be lessened through the project's design, which includes a designated fire station site that is the subject of Mitigation Measure 9.1. LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact Less than significant Less than significant CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REPORT SUMMARY TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (CONTINUED) Significant Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance With Mitigation LAND USE Impact 7.1: The proposed project could re- Significant Mitigation Measure 7.1: The notifications shall disclose that the resi- Less than sult in a land use conflict with surrounding dence is located in an agricultural area subject to ground and aerial ap- significant land uses. plications of chemical and early morning or nighttime farm operations which may create noise, dust, etcetera. The language and format of such notification shall be reviewed and approved by the City Commu- nity Development Department prior to recordation of final maps. Each disclosure statement shall be acknowledged with the signature of each prospective owner. Additionally, each prospective owner shall also be notified of the City of Lodi and the County of San Joaquin Right -to - Farm Ordinance. b. The conditions of approval for tentative maps shall include require- ments ensuring the approval of a suitable design and the installation of a landscaped open space buffer area, fences, and/or walls around the pe- rimeter of the project site affected by the potential conflicts in land use to minimize conflicts between project residents, non-residential uses, and adjacent agricultural uses prior to occupancy of adjacent houses LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact c. Prior to recordation of the final maps for homes adjacent to existing agricultural operations, the applicant shall submit a detailed wall and fencing plan for review and approval by the Community Development 29 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REPORT SUMMARY TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significance Before Significant Impact Mitigation Impact 7.2: The proposed project would re- Significant sult in the conversion of approximately 200 acres of Prime Farmland to non-agricultural uses. LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 7.2: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay an Agricultural Land Mitigation fee to the City of Lodi. Said fee is to be determined by the pending adoption of an ordi- nance of the City establishing a fee mitigation program to offset the loss of agricultural land to future development. In the event said ordinance is not effective at the time building permits are requested, the applicant shall pay a fee to the Central Valley Land Trust (Central Valley Pro- gram) or other equivalent entity to offset the loss of the Prime Farm- land. The City Council, acting within its legislative capacity and as a matter of policy, shall determine the sufficiency of fees paid to mitigate the loss of Prime Farmland. The loss of Prime Farmland caused by the project is mitigated through implementation of Mitigation Measure 7.2. The inclusion of Parcel 058-110-41 on the project site in an active Wil- liamson Act Contract was formally protested by the City with the County Board of Supervisors (Resolution 4449 adopted December 21, 1977). Additionally, the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Com- mission adopted a formal resolution upholding the City's protest of the conservation contract because the parcel is located within one mile of the City limits. IN Significance With Mitigation Less than significant CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REPORT SUMMARY TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (CONTINUED) Significance Before Significant Impact Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance With Mitigation HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Impact 5.1: (On-site Hazardous Materials) Significant Mitigation Measure 5.1: The City of Lodi shall not issue permits for Less than The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment construction activities on the project site unless the portion of the site significant determined that site conditions at certain lo- involved in the requested permit has been deemed clear of recognized cations on the project site constitute poten- environmental conditions in writing by a California State registered tially significant impacts or potential im- Environmental Assessor with HAZWOPER 40 -hour OSHA certifica- pediments to future development of the pro- tion. Portions of the site require further hazardous material investiga- ject site and, therefore, require mitigation. tions to make a determination of the presence of recognized environ- mental conditions. Such investigations shall be conducted in accor- dance with the most recent American Society for Testing and arterials (ASTM) standards, such as the ASTM's "Standard Guide or Environ- mental Site Assessments: Phase I [or II] Environmental Site Assessment Process". In total, the updated hazardous material investigations of the site shall minimally evaluate the areas previously unaccessible to haz- ardous material investigators, the southern -most barn on the eastern portion of APN 058-110-41, the contents of the vault in the shed on the southern portion of APN 058-110-04, the junction of the "water" basin and its previous discharges must be determined, the exact location of the 10 inch Kinder Morgan refined product pipeline, the areas adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way, and the onsite residential structures and buildings which were previously inaccessible. LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact 91 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REPORT SUMMARY TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significance Before Significant Impact Mitigation Mitigation Measures LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact Mitigation Measure 5.2: A Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) shall be completed prior to the approval of individual develop- ment plans within the project area. Said Phase II ESA report shall in- clude subsurface investigations and recommended requirements shall apply: remedial actions, if required, at specific locations as recom- mended in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Kleinfelder, nc., or any subsequent updated report. The following addi- tional requirements shall apply: a. Soil sampling and analysis for pesticides shall only be conducted in those areas of the site that are still agricultural; and b. If levels of organochloride pesticides are found to be in excess of ap- plicable residential or commercial Preliminary Remediation Goals/ Maximum Contaminant Limits (PRGs/MCLS) then an evaluation shall be required to determine the depth and extent of these elevated concen- trations. Mitigation Measure 3.5.3: If subsurface structures are encountered during site development or excavation onsite, care should be exercised in determining whether or not the subsurface structures contain asbes- tos. If they contain asbestos, it shall be removed, handled, transported, and disposed of in accordance with local, state, and federal laws and regulations. Mitigation Measure 3.5.4: The wells onsite should not be used as a water supply for any of the proposed land uses unless the water from said wells is tested and found to meet state and federal drinking water standards as confirmed by the Citv's water department. 32 Significance With Mitigation CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REPORT SUMMARY TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (CONTINUED) Significant Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact Mitigation Measure 3.5.5: An asbestos and lead paint assessment shall be conducted for structures constructed prior to 1980, if they are to be renovated or demolished prior to future development on the project site. The following requirements apply: a. A Certified Cal -OSHA Asbestos Consultant shall conduct said sur- veys. If asbestos is detected, all removal shall be completed by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor; and b. Any lead paint that is detected and which is in poor condition shall be removed prior to building demolition. Mitigation Measure 3.5.6: All locations of underground storage tanks (USTs) on the project site, where past releases are known or are sus- pected, shall be subject to further investigation and analysis to confirm or deny evidence of past releases (See Mitigation Measure 3.5.3). Said investigations shall be conducted in accordance with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and per Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) guidelines. Mitigation Measure 3.5.7: Septic systems which are associated with existing residences shall be removed and/or abandoned in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. Soil samples shall be collected in the vicinity of said septic systems and leach lines to determine the potential for hazardous materials discharged from the septic systems. Any removal of septic systems shall be performed with oversight pro- vided by the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department. Mitigation Measure 3.5.8: Miscellaneous debris located throughout the project site, and described in the Phase I ESA, shall be removed prior to development activities. Any petroleum products and/or hazardous ma- 33 Significance With Mitigation CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REPORT SUMMARY TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significance Before Significant Impact Mitigation Mitigation Measures terials encountered should be disposed of or recycled in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. Mitigation Measure 5.9: Various sized buckets and drums containing petroleum products were noted at several locations on the project site in the Phase I ESA. All such drums and buckets shall be removed from the project site in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. In addition, soil sampling shall be conducted at those bucket and drum locations where staining was noted (See Mitigation Measure 3.5.3). Mitigation Measure 5.10: The vault located in the storage shed along the southern portion of APN 058-110-04 shall be investigated and its nature determined prior to development activity occurring on the pro- ject site. Mitigation Measure5.11: Limited soils samples shall be taken along the project site boundary adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad right-of- way to determine the presence and levels of metals or hazardous mate- rials associated with the railroad richt-of-way. HYDROLOGY, DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY Significance With Mitigation Impact 6.1: (Risk of Flooding as a Result of Significant Mitigation Measure 6.1: None required. Potential project impacts Less than the Failure of a Levee or Dam): Failure of would be lessened by the existing Emergency Action Plan that would significant water supply and/or flood control facilities be initiated by the East Bay Municipal Utility District. along the Mokelumne River, including Pardee Dam, Camanche Dam, and the Camanche Dikes, could cause inundation of the project site. LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact 34 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REPORT SUMMARY TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (CONTINUED) Significant Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance With Mitigation Impact 6.2: (Stormwater Drainage System Significant Mitigation Measure 3.6.1: To the satisfaction of the City of Lodi Pub- Less than Capacity and Polluted Runoff): The proposed lic Works Department, a detailed engineering analysis for the develop- significant project would replace the existing informal ment of a stormwater collection system that will serve the project and and/or non-existent drainage system onsite potential future development between Reynolds Ranch and the Wood - with an engineered drainage system. With bridge Irrigation District (WID) canal shall be prepared. Said analysis the proper design the proposed drainage sys- shall include sizing of the pipe network and sizing of the detention ba - tem will have adequate stormwater capacity sins and pump station discharging to the WID canal. and would not be a substantial source of pol- luted runoff. Mitigation Measure 3.6.2: To the satisfaction of the City of Lodi Pub- lic Works Department, the proposed pump station shall include provi- sions for managing the discharge flow rate to serve the needs of the City and to satisfy the terms of the discharge agreement. LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact Mitigation Measure 3.6.3: To the satisfaction of the City of Lodi Pub- lic Works Department, all drainage facilities shall be constructed in con- formance with the standards and specifications of the City of Lodi. Mitigation Measure 3.6.4: To the satisfaction of the City of Lodi Pub- lic Works Department, the detention basin shall include a low flow facility to enhance water quality and to help manage nuisance flows. Other water quality control features shall be incorporated into the pro- ject design to improve water quality of the storm discharge to the satis- faction of the City of Lodi Public Works Department. Mitigation Measure 3.6.5: To the satisfaction of the City of Lodi Pub- lic Works Department, as part of the design process, a detailed drainage master plan shall be developed to identify collection and storage facili- ties, phasing and other appurtenances needed to insure that the system meets the requirements of the City drainage system. 35 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REPORT SUMMARY TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significant Impact Impact 6.3: (Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements): The pro- posed project has the potential to generate water pollutants from construction and from typical urban land uses. Complying with ex- isting requirements ensures the project would not affect the beneficial uses of any receiving waters. Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 6.6: To the satisfaction of the City of Lodi Public Works Department, the project proponents shall participate in a financ- ing mechanism to fund the required drainage infrastructure to serve the demands of the project. Funding of drainage infrastructure in accor- dance with Conditions of Approval for the project shall satisfy this mitigation measure. Significant None required. Potential project impacts would be lessened through the required compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimi- nation System. Impact 6.4: (Alteration of the Existing Significant None required. Potential project impacts would be lessened through Drainage Pattern of the Site or Area, Includ- the project's Infrastructure Master Plan. ing through the Alteration of the Course of a Stream or River, in a Manner, Which Would Result in Substantial Erosion or Siltation On or Offsite) The proposed project would alter the site's drainage pattern. However, the pro- posed drainage of the site would not induce erosion or siltation. LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact IN Significance With Mitigation Less than significant Less than significant CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REPORT SUMMARY TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (CONTINUED) Significant Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance With Mitigation Impact 6.5: (Alteration of the Existing Significant Mitigation Measures 6.1 - 6.6 Less than Drainage Pattern of the Site or Area, Includ- significant ing through the Alteration of the Course of a Stream or River, or Substantially Increase the Rate or Amount of Surface Runoff in a Man- ner Which Would Result in Flooding On or Off -Site) The proposed project would alter the site's drainage pattern. However, with the proper design of the proposed drainage system, the proposed drainage pattern change would not result in flooding on or offsite. Impact 6.6: (Groundwater) The proposed Significant Potential project impacts would be lessened through project design fea- Less than project would increase the amount of imper- tures and the City's water supply strategy. significant meable surfaces onsite and, as a result, reduce the site's groundwater recharge potential. In addition, the proposed project would increase the use of groundwater as a water source and contribute to the existing overdraft of the groundwater basin. NOISE Impact 8.1: Construction of the proposed Significant Mitigation Measure 8.1: All construction shall require a permit and Less than project would temporarily generate noise shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Staging areas shall be significant above levels existing without the project. located away from existing residences, and all equipment shall use prop- erly operating mufflers. LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact 37 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REPORT SUMMARY TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significance Before Significant Impact Mitigation Impact 8.2: Increased traffic would generate Significant noise levels above levels existing without the project. Impact 8.3: Location of residential uses in proximity to noise sources can result in expo- sure to noise levels in excess of standards. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 8.3: Habitable second -story residential space, lo- cated within 245 feet of the Harney Lane centerline, must have up- graded structural protection including dual -paned windows and sup- plemental ventilation (air conditioning) to allow for window closure, in compliance with the City of Lodi Compatibility Standards. Mitigation Measure 7.4: Outdoor recreational space within 145 feet of the Harney Lane centerline must be shielded by solid perimeter walls of 6-7 feet in height or landscape berming, or any combination of the two to achieve the desired noise attenuation. Mitigation Measure 8.5: New residential development both north and south of Harney Lane shall require installation of 6-7 foot high sound walls or landscape berming, or any combination of the two to achieve the desired noise attenuation. Current and future homes located across Harney Lane will be masked from noise associated with major retail uses by the already elevated ambient background freeway noise and by setback distances of at>tnroximately 300 feet. Significant Mitigation Measures 8.3 - 8.8. Potential project impacts would be lessened through project design fea- tures, including buffering of sensitive land uses from nearby noise sources. LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact CS Significance With Mitigation Less than significant Less than significant CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REPORT SUMMARY TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (CONTINUED) Significant Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Impact 8.4: The proposed project would Significant Mitigation Measure 8.6: Homes situated adjacent to the train tracks place sensitive receptors in the vicinity of require either a setback distance of 430 feet or a 6 foot sound wall, land - train noise. scape berming, or any combination of the two to mitigate train noise to 65 dB at the residential exterior and ground floor interior. This attenua- tion may be achieved by the design of the mini -storage facility. An in- terior noise analysis should be submitted in conjunction with building plan check, to verify that structural noise reduction will be achieved in a livable upstairs space, at the perimeter tier of homes by the specified structural components (windows, walls, doors, roof/ceiling assembly) shown on building plans. Disclosure of the presence of the tracks should be included in all real estate transfer documents to anyone buy- ing or leasing a property within 500 feet of the train tracks. Significance With Mitigation Less than significant LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact Potential project impacts would also be lessened through project design features, including buffering of sensitive land uses from the UPRR. Impact 8.5: Detention basin pump noise Significant Mitigation Measure 8.7: A detention basin pump system will be re- Less than could result in permanent increases in ambi- quired to empty the detention basin. The planned proximity of homes significant ent noise levels above levels existing without to the basin would likely require substantial shielding if such pumps the project. were to operate at night. To the satisfaction of the City of Lodi, noise levels at residences in proximity to any required basin pump system shall be attenuated to meet the City's noise standards. Said attenuation can be achieved through enclosing the pump system or using upgraded sound ratin-a buildine materials in nearby residences. LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REPORT SUMMARY TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significant Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance With Mitigation Impact 8.6: Agricultural noise resulting from Significant Mitigation Measure 8.8: Noisiest agricultural activities will have sub- Less than existing on-going agricultural operations in stantial setback from onsite residences, particularly as the site is pro- significant the vicinity of the project site could impact gressively developed. Buyer notification of the presence of possible sensitive receptors onsite. agricultural activity noise shall be made as part of any property transfer documents. Potential project impacts would be lessened through project design fea- tures, including buffering of sensitive land uses from nearby agricultural uses. r.,.. aet Q n , ,.F -Seh .,.1 Uses n ., less thaft sig- T�7 ..,.,1 This impaet ..la he lessened TAT, ise Sear -,.e. The pr-epese pfejeet.. thre..gh pr-ejeet ,1,...ig Fehr...-ef ineluding the ,.,1 1,.eati,... e f the 1..,1,..; the ...1,.,.,....ent ,.0 , ,.1,....,,ntea�, ,.1.,.,.1 . Ap ,.0 thesite awa-y C_,..-.. CA as and the .1.,.,.1 seasitiAixe neeiseTT T Impact 8.8: Potential to temporarily generate Significant No mitigation measures required. Less than vibration and ground borne noise during con- significant struction. Impact 8.9: Operation of the project will Significant No mitigation measures required. This impact would be lessened Less than result in new noise sources. through project design features, including the placement of sensitive significant receptors removed from noise-eeneratine land uses. LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact 40 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REPORT SUMMARY TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (CONTINUED) Significant Impact AIR QUALITY Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Impact 1.1 (A): (Construction Generated Air Significant Pollutants) Construction of the proposed project would generate air pollutants, includ- ing equipment exhaust and fugitive dust. LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact Mitigation Measure 1.1: In addition to implementing the "Dust Con- trol Measures for Construction" required by San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), construction onsite shall im- plement the "Enhanced and Additional Control Measures for Construc- tion Emissions of PM -10" identified in Table 6-3 of the SJVAPCD's Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. The measures identified in Table 6-3 are as follows: ♦ Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; ♦ Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent; ♦ Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the site; ♦ Install wind breaks at windward side(s) of construction areas; ♦ Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed 20 mph; and ♦ Limit area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any one time. This impact would also be lessened through project design features and compliance with SJVAPD Regulation VIII. 41 Significance With Mitigation Less than significant CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REPORT SUMMARY TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact 1.1 (C): (Operational Emissions of Significant This impact would be lessened through project design features and com- Less than Particulate Matter) Operation of the pro- pliance with SJVAPD Rule 9510. significant posed project would generate particulate mat- ter. Impact 1.1 (D): (Operational Emissions of Significant This impact would be lessened through project design features. Less than Carbon Monoxide) Operation of the pro- significant posed project would generate carbon monox- ide (CO). Impact 1.2: (Contribution to Cumulative Significant This impact would be lessened through project design features and com- Less than Criteria Air Pollutants) The project would pliance with SJVAPD Rule 9510. significant emit ozone precursors (NOx and ROG) at levels that are significant as cumulatively con- siderable net increases of non -attainment cri- teria pollutants for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Impact 1.3: (Exposure of Sensitive Receptors Significant This impact would be lessened through project design features, compli- Less than to Air Pollution) The proposed project would ance with SJVAPD Regulation VIII and Rule 9510, and incorporation significant generate air pollutants that could affect sensi- of Mitigation Measure 1.1. tive receptors and the project involves siting sensitive receptors in the vicinity of air pollu- tion venerators. LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact 42 Significance Significance Before With Significant Impact Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation Impact 1.1 (B): (Operational Emissions of Significant This impact would be lessened through project design features and com- Less than Ozone Precursors) Operation of the proposed pliance with SJVAPD Rule 9510. significant project would generate NOx and ROG, which are ozone precursors, in excess of the SJVAPCD's yearly emission significance thresholds. Impact 1.1 (C): (Operational Emissions of Significant This impact would be lessened through project design features and com- Less than Particulate Matter) Operation of the pro- pliance with SJVAPD Rule 9510. significant posed project would generate particulate mat- ter. Impact 1.1 (D): (Operational Emissions of Significant This impact would be lessened through project design features. Less than Carbon Monoxide) Operation of the pro- significant posed project would generate carbon monox- ide (CO). Impact 1.2: (Contribution to Cumulative Significant This impact would be lessened through project design features and com- Less than Criteria Air Pollutants) The project would pliance with SJVAPD Rule 9510. significant emit ozone precursors (NOx and ROG) at levels that are significant as cumulatively con- siderable net increases of non -attainment cri- teria pollutants for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Impact 1.3: (Exposure of Sensitive Receptors Significant This impact would be lessened through project design features, compli- Less than to Air Pollution) The proposed project would ance with SJVAPD Regulation VIII and Rule 9510, and incorporation significant generate air pollutants that could affect sensi- of Mitigation Measure 1.1. tive receptors and the project involves siting sensitive receptors in the vicinity of air pollu- tion venerators. LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact 42 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REPORT SUMMARY TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (CONTINUED) Significant Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance With Mitigation Impact 1A (Objectionable Odors) The pro- Significant This impact would be lessened through project design features. No Less than posed land uses could be exposed to occa- further mitigation measures are required. significant sional odors emitted by surrounding agricul- tural operations. LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact 43 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH FEIR ADDENDUM REPORT SUMMARY 44 III INITIAL STUDY This chapter provides an evaluation of potential environmental impacts resulting from modifications to the Rey- nolds Ranch Project and summarizes whether or not the mitigation measures shown in Table 2-1 would reduce those potential environmental impacts to less -than significant. A. Analysis The following analysis uses the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Initial Study Checklist. The con- clusions in the checklist are based, in part, on a review of the information presented in Table 2-1, to identify im- pacts associated with the modified project. Findings and Conclusion. There would be less than significant impacts in regard to land use from the modifications to the Project. a. The modified project would remain as a mixed-use development project. As identified in Impact 3.3.1 in the 2006 EIR, the project could result in the demolition of 12 residences, a Moose Lodge Facility and ancillary 45 Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Topic Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 1. Land Use and Planning Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? X b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the X general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation X plan or natural community conservation plan? Findings and Conclusion. There would be less than significant impacts in regard to land use from the modifications to the Project. a. The modified project would remain as a mixed-use development project. As identified in Impact 3.3.1 in the 2006 EIR, the project could result in the demolition of 12 residences, a Moose Lodge Facility and ancillary 45 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH EIR ADDENDUM INITIAL STUDY structures.' The modified project would not result in a greater impact than that already identified in the 2006 EIR and would be reduced to a less -than -significant level through mitigation. Therefore, a less -than - significant impact would occur. b. Though the project would require a General Plan amendment, it is consistent with many principles of the existing General Plan that promote walkability between uses, a jobs to housing ratio, and a varied housing stock to meet the needs of a diverse population. As stated in the 2006 EIR, one parcel located on the project site is active under the Williamson Act Con- tract, however the project modifications do not result in any greater impact than already identified in the 2006 EIR. Conversion of the land to urban uses would not result in a policy conflict with the San Joaquin County General Plan land use designation, however, because the entire project site has been annexed to the City of Lodi, the parcel previously affected by the Williamson Act was removed from the Act 2 As regu- lated by Mitigation Measure 3.7.2 of the 2006 EIR, the project is subject to a fee for the conversion of agri- cultural land and mitigation set forth by the 2006 EIR is adequate to reduce project modifications to a less than significant impact. c. As stated in the 2006 EIR, the project site is within an open space preserve area identified in the San Joaquin Multi Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan.' There are no other habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans that apply to the project site. Mitigation Measures set forth by the 2006 EIR are adequate to reduce potential impacts of the modified project to less -than -significant levels. Therefore, a less -than -significant impact would result from modifications. 2. Mineral Resources Per Section 1.0 of the 2006 EIR, "there are no known mineral resources of value or any locally important mineral resource recovery sites within the project area". Therefore, this topic was previously scoped out of the EIR study.' Modifications to the Project will have no impact on mineral resources. 'Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August, 2006, page 3.3-10. 2 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August, 2006, page 3.7-20. ' Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August, 2006, page ES -7. 'Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August, 2006, page 1.0-5. 46 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH EIR ADDENDUM INITIAL STUDY Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Topic Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 3. Transportation/Traffic Would the project: a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial in- X crease in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county con- X gestion management agency for designated roads or c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in lo- X cation that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design fea- ture (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) X or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X f. Result in inadequate parking capacity ? X g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus X Findings and Conclusion. Modifications to the Project result in the following impacts in regards to traffic and transportation. a. Per Mitigation Measure 3.10.2 of the 2006 EIR: prior to approval of the first tract or parcel map for the Reynolds Ranch Project, the Public Works Department will review and approve the roadway phasing and improvement plan to ensure that new roadway improvements will adequately support new development.' The phasing plan shall also note the timing of roadway improvements by other adjacent development so 5 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August, 2006, page 3.10-55. 47 C I TY O F approval L 0 DI access to and from all portions of the site exists for emergency service REYNOLDSRANCH EIR ADDENDUM I I T I L STUDY that these coincide with proposed improvements on the same roadway facilities for the proposed project. 6 Because the area streets will not exceed carrying capacity, impacts regarding traffic are less than significant. b. Per Section 3.10.1 of the Z046 EIR, the City's accepted Level of Service LAS on local streets and intersection is a LOS C. However, LOS D is an acceptable condition for state route facilities. Project modifications would result in an increase of 22,236 daily trips (from Z8,300 to 50,536) and 945 peak hour trips (from 2,072 to 2,996) to and from the project site. Assuming the proposed mitigations in the 2006 FEIR are implemented for the 2030 condition, the project traffic would not reduce the LOS levels at any intersections or on any roads below the LOS for the 2030 condition without the project. Therefore,, the project modifications would have a less -than -significant impact in relation to the LOS thresholds. C. The modified project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in air traffic patterns. There are no aviational uses on the project site and the modified project would not affect an airport or private airstrip. Therefore, no impact would occur. d. All roadways and intersections either within the development or interfacing with existing, surrounding roads would comply with applicable design standards in accordance with City code. Compliance would be ensured through the Public Works Department's review of the project circulation plan. Although the built project would likely be in close proximity to agricultural uses, the project modifications would not create a conflict between vehicles entering and exiting the site and the continued operation of farm equipment. Therefore no impact would occur. C. As required by Mitigation Measure 3.10.5 of the Z006 EIR, the design of the internal circulation system and vehicular access would be subject to review and approval by the City of Lodi's Police and Fire Department prior to issuance of any building permits for the preject.9 This review and approval would ensure that adequate access to and from all portions of the site exists for emergency service responders under the modified project. Therefore, no impact would occur. illdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EII , August, 2006, gage 3.10-57. illdan, Reynolds Ranch h Project EII , August, 2006, page ES -24. we CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH EIR ADDENDUM INITIAL STUDY f. As required by Mitigation Measure 3.10.6 of the 2006 EIR, adequate parking demand must be satisfied for all proposed uses (i.e. parks, commercial and residential development, etc.) prior to the issuance of construc- tion permits.10 Furthermore, under the modified project, the number of spaces proposed would exceed the City's parking requirement. Therefore, no impact would occur. g. Bike lanes, pedestrian facilities, and five bus stops within the site are planned under the modified project. Furthermore, as required by Mitigation Measure 3.10.3 of the 2006 EIR, the project's roadway improve- ment plan is required to identify all bikeways, off-street multi -use trails and sidewalks within the project area." Submittal of the above information is intended to address any potential for conflicts between vehi- cles, pedestrians, and cyclists and thereby ensure safe and adequate access. Therefore, Mitigation Measure 3.10.3, already set forth in the 2006 EIR, is adequate to reduce the potential impacts associated with the modified project to a less -than -significant level. 4. Aesthetics As stated in Section 1.0 of the 2006 EIR, Aesthetics was scoped out of detailed review because the original project did not constitute a specific plan development, but rather a combination of uses that would be fully defined through a phased development plan. 12 The EIR determined that project aesthetics would be evaluated through a future entitlement and environmental review process. This holds true for the modified project as well. The final combination of land uses is not known at this point in the review process. Furthermore, project design details that would allow for a complete evaluation of potential aesthetic impacts do not yet exist. As a result, aesthetics would occur under a future CEQA review. 5. Population and Housing Though the proposed project will generate population and housing, the focus of the 2006 EIR was the retail and office components contained in Phase I of the development process. Housing and population will be studied in detail in a future environmental assessment.13 The estimated population growth associated with the project is ac- counted for in the growth projections set forth in the City of Lodi 1991 General Plan as well as the preliminary projections for the General Plan Update, which is currently underway." 2008. 10 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August, 2006, page ES -24. 10 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August, 2006, page ES -23. 12 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August, 2006, page 1.0-4 13 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August, 2006, page 1.0-4. 14 Peter Pirnejad, City of Lodi Co -Interim Community Development Director, personal communication, August 5, 49 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH EIR ADDENDUM INITIAL STUDY The modified project would result in the displacement of some single-family residential homes on Stockton Street. These home owners will be fully compensated by the applicant for the fair market value of their homes, based on an estimate provided by a third party appraiser.15 The acquisition of homes would be executed through a process mutually agreed to by the applicant and the home owners. Eminent domain would not be exercised. Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Environmental Topic Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 6. Air Quality Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the X applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute sub- stantially to an existing or projected air quality vio- X lation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state X ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial X number of DeoDle? Findings and Conclusions a. The modified project uses would require a General Plan Amendment. The existing land use designation is Planned Residential. The proposed new land uses are Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residen- tial, High Density Residential, Senior High Density Residential, Senior Graduated Care, Mini Storage, Pub- lic, Office and Retail; these uses will be contained under the following zoning designations: Neighborhood Commercial, Office and Planned Residential. Despite the need for a General Plan amendment, the project would be consistent with the overall vision of the General Plan, which identifies the project site as an area " Dale Gillespie, RPM Company, communication with Peter Pirnejad, City of Lodi Co -Interim Community Devel- opment Director, August 14, 2008. 50 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH EIR ADDENDUM INITIAL STUDY for future development. Even with conversion of hosing to commercial uses, the project would not be in- consistent with the General Plan because the General Plan identifies residential and residential supporting uses as appropriate for this area. Project consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan is determined on the basis of whether its pro- jected growth is within the City of Lodi's most current growth projections, which are, in turn, factored into the AQMP. The anticipated population growth for this project is within the regional population forecasts, because the projections are within the Housing Element growth cap, adopted in 2004 as part of the General Plan. Therefore, the modified project is not expected to conflict with the projections used to develop the air quality management plan (AQMP). This would be a less than significant impact. b. The modified project would increase the generation of short-term air pollutants from construction activities and long-term air pollutants from vehicle emissions. Impact 3.1.1 (A) in the 2006 EIR identified impacts that are less than significant, with mitigation, in regards to construction emissions. While the proposed changes to the project will construct different types of units, the finding in the original EIR will remain the same assuming all proposed mitigation measures are in place.16 Impact 3.1.1 (B) in the 2006 EIR identified potentially significant operational emissions of ozone precursors. These impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable after all available mitigation measures were in place. With the proposed changes to the project, trip generation will increase 78.6% in relation to estimated trip volumes under the previous project concept. This could increase the production of NO. and ROG be- yond the levels listed in the 2006 EIR. With all available mitigation measures stated in the current EIRP the impact will remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 3.1.1 (C) in the 2006 EIR identified impacts that are less than significant, with mitigation, in regards to operational emissions of particular matter. Using the same mitigation measures outlined in the EIR18, while the emissions will be increased over the levels in the EIR, the impact should be less than significant. Impact 3.1.1 (D) in the 2006 EIR identified impacts that are less than significant in regards to operational emissions of carbon monoxide. While the tons per year of emissions would be higher than outlined in the 16 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August 2006, page 3.1 - 12 17 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August 2006, page 3.1 - 14 1s Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August 2006, page 3.1 - 16 51 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH EIR ADDENDUM INITIAL STUDY EIR19, the levels in the CO "hotspot" analysis should not change. This is because when a hotspot analysis is conducted, the worst-case scenario is analyzed and this assumes highest volume for the peak hour at the worst time of day with the worst-case meteorological conditions. The finding in the current EIR will re- main the same. A less -than -significant impact would occur. c. Per San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Regulation VIII, Rule 9510, the modi- fied project would not cause new significant impacts to the existing air quality standards. Impact 3.1.2 in the 2006 EIR identified potentially significant cumulative impacts of criteria pollutants. These impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable after all available mitigation measures were in place. This finding will be the same with the modified project. d. Residents of the proposed senior housing project would potentially be exposed to substantial pollutant con- centrations. However, Impact 3.1.3 in the 2006 EIR identified impacts that are less than significant, with mitigation, in regards to exposure of sensitive receptors to air pollution. There will be no change in this finding with the modified project. A less than significant impact would occur. e. The proposed uses under the modified project include residential, office and commercial (retail). None of the proposed uses are known to generate offensive odors that could adversely affect a substantial number of people on-site or in the near vicinity. The gas station is most likely to generate objectionable odors but those would likely be localized and intermittent in nature. Impact 3.1.4 in the 2006 EIR identified impacts that are less than significant in regards to objectionable odors. There will be no change in this finding with the modified project. As a result, a less -than -significant impact would occur. 19 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August 2006, page 3.1 - 16 52 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH EIR ADDENDUM INITIAL STUDY Significant Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Environmental Topic Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 7. Noise Would the project: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise lev- els in excess of standards established in the local X general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise lev- X els? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above X levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use X airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private air- strip, would the project expose people residing or X working in the project area to excessive noise lev- els? Findings and Conclusions: a. Impact 3.8.2 of in the 2006 EIR identifies a noise and land use compatibility impact for residential and out- door recreational space within 145 feet of the Harney Lane centerline. The modified plan reduces the amount of residential uses on Harney Lane to the area between the proposed mini -storage site to the LTRR tracks. Retail development (which is considered to be less noise -sensitive) would replace the residential de- velopment in this area. The modified project would not result in any new impacts beyond those already identified above. A noise and land use compatibility threshold of a community noise exposure level (CNEL) of 65 decibels (dB) or less was established for this project in the 2006 EIR. Mitigation Measures 53 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH EIR ADDENDUM INITIAL STUDY 3.8.3, 3.8.4, and 3.8.5 would be adequate to address the traffic noise impacts from Harney Lane with respect to the 65 dB CNEL threshold, to a less than significant level. Impact 3.8.4 identified a potentially significant noise and land use compatibility impact upon proposed resi- dential development resulting from noise along the UPRR railroad line. The relationship of residential land uses to the railroad tracks in the current plan is basically the same as the plan analyzed in the 2006 EIR. The new plan substitutes low-density residential and senior housing for medium -density residential. This change in land use does not change the conclusions because the City of Lodi noise and land use compatibility guide- lines are the same for each of these residential densities and housing types. Mitigation Measure 3.8.6, as set forth in the 2006 EIR, would be adequate to mitigate the impact of train noise with respect to the estab- lished 65 dB CNEL threshold. A less than significant impact would occur. Impact 3.8.5 in the 2006 EIR addressed the potential effects of noise from the detention basin pump upon proposed residential development. Mitigation Measure 3.8.7, as set forth in the 2006 EIR, would be ade- quate to address potential impacts resulting from the detention basin pump system. Impact 3.8.6 in the 2006 EIR identified the potential impact of ongoing agricultural noise upon future residents within the Specific Plan. The relationship of the proposed residential uses to the site boundaries has not changed. Mitigation Measure 3.8.8, as set forth in the 2006 EIR, would be adequate to address potential impacts resulting from agricultural operation noise. Project modifications would not result in noise levels that are above the ac- cepted noise standards for this project. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. Per Impact 3.8.8, in the 2006 EIR, project construction could temporarily cause groundborne vibration and noise, however, levels are not expected to be excessive because the project would not involve large scale demolition and excavation 20 This conclusion applies to the modified project as well. Should groundborne vibration and noise occur, the intensity and frequency would not be such that off-site receptors would be adversely affected. Under the modified plan, no residential development would be proposed within the 200 - foot screening level setback distance to control ground borne vibration resulting from heavy rail trains. The modified project would not result in any new impacts, and this impact would remain less than signifi- cant. c. Impact 3.8.9 and Section 3.8.6 Cumulative Impacts in the 2006 EIR discuss the potential impact of project - generated traffic on noise levels in the surrounding areas. The modified project traffic report was reviewed 21 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August 2006, page 3.8-17. 54 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH EIR ADDENDUM INITIAL STUDY to determine how changes in project traffic may affect traffic noise increases along the street network.21 The analysis focused on Harney Lane where project traffic would potentially have the greatest impact offsite. The modified project would not result in any new impacts along the offsite street network beyond those al- ready identified in the 2006 EIR. The modified project shows existing residential located along Stockton Street south of Harney Lane to re- main. The land use plan analyzed in the 2006 EIR noise study showed new medium -density residential along both sides of Stockton Street south of Harney Lane. Because the existing residential would remain under the modified project, and was not identified as remaining under the original project, there was no analysis of increased noise levels at these existing Stockton Street residences in the 2006 EIR. The connec- tion of Stockton Street to the project's internal street network would occur when the residential develop- ment moves forward. Until that time, Stockton Street would remain a cul-de-sac.ZZ Currently, the noise environment at these existing residences results primarily from traffic on Harney Lane for those residences located within about 200 feet of the centerline. Noise is also generated from railroad train operations on the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. The existing CNEL along Harney Lane is approximately 68-69 dBA. The existing CNEL resulting from railroad train operations is calculated to be about 57 dBA CNEL. This estab- lishes the residual background noise level at these residences. Traffic projections from the 2008 traffic re- port were used to estimate noise levels along Stockton Street in the future. The data indicate that the CNEL along Stockton Street would be approximately 56 dBA CNEL at full buildout of the project site. The medium -density residential component proposed west of the existing residential development would provide attenuation of railroad train noise, which would benefit the existing homes. The Stockton Street traffic noise would be substantially above the existing traffic noise for residences to the south along Stock- ton Street not near Harney Lane. The overall noise levels from current railroad operations would not change substantially. However, the character of the noise environment would change because it would be dominated by local traffic as compared to distant traffic and distant railroad trains. An increase in retail uses will contribute to an increase in ambient noise levels. However, because retail uses were already planned for in this development project, the modifications cause a less -than -significant impact to the permanent ambient noise levels. d. In the 2006 EIR, Impact 3.8.1 states that the construction of the proposed project would temporarily gener- ate noise above levels existing without the project. As required under mitigation measures 3.8.1 and 3.8.2, 2' Reynolds Ranch Draft Report, Traffic Impact and Planning Study, PRISM Engineering, March 21, 2008. 22 Personal conversation with Peter Pirnejad, City of Lodi Planning, August 2008. 55 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH EIR ADDENDUM INITIAL STUDY construction would require a permit and would be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. for any heavy equipment anticipated within 500 feet of any residence. Staging areas are to be located away from ex- isting residences and all equipment shall use properly operating mufflers 23 Additionally, all stationary con- struction equipment must be placed in a way so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site.24 Temporary noise impacts would not substantially worsen under the modified pro- ject and existing mitigation measures would be adequate to reduce potential impacts to a less -than -significant level. e. Because this project is not located in an airport land use plan, no impact would occur " f. As stated in the 2006 EIR, the closest airport to the project site is the Lodi Airpark, which is approximately 3 miles to the southwest of the site. Because this project is not located near a private air strip, no impact would occur.26 Significant Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Topic Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 8. Biological Resources Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species iden- tified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status spe- cies in local or regional plans, policies, or regula- X tions, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identi- fied in local or regional plans, policies and regula- X tions or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? " Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August 2006, page ES -19. 24 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August 2006, page ES -20. 21 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August 2006, page 3.5-5. 26 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August 2006, page 3.8-8. 56 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH EIR ADDENDUM INITIAL STUDY Significant Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Topic Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally pro- tected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct re- X moval, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory X wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wild- life nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances pro- tecting biological resources, such as a tree preserva- X tion policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conserva- tion Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state X habitat conservation olan? Findings and conclusions: a. Impacts 3.2.3(a) - 3.2.3(g) in the 2006 EIR identify potentially significant effects of the original project on special status species .2' The modified project would not result in any new impacts beyond those already identified above. Mitigation measures 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, as set forth in the 2006 EIR, would be adequate to ad- dress potential impacts to special status species under the modified project. As a result, a less -than -significant impact would occur. b. The project site does not contain a riparian corridor or other sensitive natural community. 9 Therefore, the modified project would have no impact on such resources. 27 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August 2006, page ES -8. 29 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August 2006, page 3.2-17. 57 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH EIR ADDENDUM INITIAL STUDY c. The project site does not contain any wetlands.30 Therefore, the project and its modifications would result in no impact on such resources. d. Due to the absence of water bodies on the project site, the modified project would not affect the movement of any native resident or migratory fish species. Per Impact 3.2.1 of the 2006 EIR, the project would have a less -than -significant impact on wildlife migratory patterns.31 There are no changes under the modified pro- ject that would affect this conclusion. As a result, a less -than -significant impact would also occur under the modified project. e. Per Mitigation Measure 3.2.3, should project modifications affect or necessitate the removal of the Heritage Oak tree on-site, a Review Authority- approved application is required, per San Joaquin County Code Divi- sion 15 Chapter 9-1505. The modified project would not result in the removal of the one Oak tree in the southwestern corner of the site.32 No impact would occur in that the modified project would not conflict with the tree preservation ordinance or any other policies to protect biological resources. f. As required by the San Joaquin County Multi -species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMHCP) and stated by Mitigation Measure 3.2.2 in the 2006 EIR, development of this site includes the payment of Open Space Conversion fees in accordance with the fee schedule in-place at the time construc- tion commences and implementation of the Plan's "Measures to Minimize Impacts", pursuant to Section 5.2 of the SJMHCP.33 Through payment of the Open Space Conversion fee, the modified project would have a less -than -significant impact. 3° Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August 2006, page 3.2-17. 31 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August 2006, page 3.2-18. 32 Peter Pirnejad, City of Lodi, email correspondence, August 7, 2008. 33 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August 2006, page ES -8. 31 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August 2006, page 3.3-10. E CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH EIR ADDENDUM INITIAL STUDY Significant Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Topic Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 9. Cultural Resources Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of a historical resource as defined in X § 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archaeological resource pursuant to X § 15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleon- X tological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those in- X terred outside of formal cemeteries? Findings and Conclusions: a. Impact 3.3.1 of the 2006 EIR identifies potentially significant impacts on resources of historical signifi- cance. 3' ignifi-cance.3' These potential impacts are addressed and mitigated to a less -than -significant level through the re- quirements set forth in Mitigation Measures 3.3.1 - 3.3.3. The modified project would not result in any new, potentially significant impacts beyond those already identified. Accordingly, the specified Mitigation Measures would be adequate to reduce potential impacts under the modified project to a less -than -significant level. b. Impact 3.3.2 of the 2006 EIRidentifies potential significant impacts on archeological resources of historical significance. These potential significant impacts are addressed and mitigated to a less -than -significant level through the requirements set forth in Mitigation Measure 3.3.4.36 The modified project would not result in any new, potentially significant impacts beyond those already identified. Accordingly, the specified Mitiga- tion Measures would be adequate to reduce potential impacts under the modified project to a less -than - significant level. 36 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August 2006, page 3.3-2. 59 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH EIR ADDENDUM INITIAL STUDY c. The site does not contain unique geologic features and no paleotologic resources have been discovered on- site." The modified project would not result in any new, potentially significant impacts beyond those al- ready identified by Impact 3.3.3 the 2006 EIR. Mitigation Measure 3.3.5, set forth in the 2006 EIR would be adequate to reduce potential impacts under the modified project to a less -than -significant level. d. Impact 3.3.4 of the 2006 EIR identifies potentially significant impacts on human remains. These potentially significant impacts would be addressed through requirements of Public Health and Safety Code Section 50.9798." The modified project would not result in any new, potentially significant impacts beyond those already identified in the 2006 EIR. Thus, the project modifications would result in a less -than -significant im- pact. 10. Geology and Soils Based on the Initial Study completed for this project in 2006, potential impacts to Geology and Soils were scoped out from detailed review in the 2006 EIR analysis. As stated in Section 1.0 of the EIR, the (original) project did not include pursuit of approvals for site specific development, and evaluation of potential impacts under CEQA would occur when detailed project information became available, including the exact location and nature of new land uses.39 This applies to the modified project as well. Although there have been changes to the previously pro- posed site plan, the level of project detail is still such that an evaluation of potential impacts will be appropriate at a subsequent phase of the entitlement process. Significant Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Topic Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 11. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? X 37 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August 2006, page 3.3-12 and 3.3.13. 38 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August 2006, page 3.3-16. 39 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August 2006, page 1.0-5. CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH EIR ADDENDUM INITIAL STUDY Significant Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Topic Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable up- set and accident conditions involving the release X of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or X proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a re- X sult, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety X hazard for people residing or working in the oroiect area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety haz- ard for people residing or working in the project X area? g. Impair implementation of or physically inter- fere with an adopted emergency response plan X or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urban- ized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Findings and Conclusions. a. Whereas the previous project concept did not include a gas station on-site, the modified project does. The construction and operation of a new gas station under the modified Project creates a potentially significant 1.1 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH EIR ADDENDUM INITIAL STUDY hazard due to the routine transport and use of fuel and other automotive products. However, the transport of fuel to the station and subsequent storage within underground tanks would be subject to existing hazard- ous materials regulations. The use of automotive products, such as engine oil and window cleaner do not represent a significant hazard due to the volumes of these substances that would be utilized on-site. Local- ized spill of these materials may occur, but the volumes would not be such that a significant hazard exists. No hazardous materials would be disposed of on on-site. For the reasons stated above, a less -than -significant impact would occur under the modified project. The transportation of fuel and subsequent storage under the modified project will be subject to existing haz- ardous materials regulations. Additionally, a fire station will be constructed on-site in Phase II of the pro- ject and will provide emergency assistance in the event of a spill. If necessary, a hazardous materials re- sponse team could respond to a call on-site. Thus, the impact involving the potential release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant. c. The nearest existing school to the project site is Montessori Villa Preschool, serving 30-60 children between the ages of two and six.40 Montessori Villa is located on 2525 S. Stockton, immediately bordering the pro- ject site. Lois E. Borchardt Elementary school is .3 miles from the project site and serves approximately 795 children in grades K-6 41 The impact of hazardous materials on school children would be less than significant because operation of the gas station and transportation of fuel to it would be subject to existing hazardous materials regulations. Furthermore, the gas station would be contained to the center of the project site so that it is set away from the school and its receptors.42 d. As stated in Impact 3.5.1 of the 2006 EIR, there are sites within the project area that contained hazardous materials and required mitigation 43 Mitigation Measure 3.5.1- 3.5.11, which are set forth in the 2006 EIR, would be adequate to address potential impacts to hazardous materials on-site under the modified project. As a result, a less -than -significant impact would occur. 40 Doe, Krista. Montessori Villa School. Personal communication with Leslie Wilson, DC&E. June 23, 2008. 41 Gibbons, Tina. Lodi Unified School District. Personal communication with Leslie Wilson, DC&E. June 23, 2008. 42 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August, 2006, page 3.1-19. 43 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August, 2006, page 3.5-9. 62 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH EIR ADDENDUM INITIAL STUDY e. The project is approximately 3.1 miles away from the Lodi airpark. It is not located in an airport land use plan and none of the area airports cause a safety hazard to the project site.44 Therefore, the modified project would have no impact on air safety. f. The project site is not located near a private airstrip." The safety of people residing or working on the pro- ject site under the modified project would not be affected by air traffic. No impact would occur. g. As required by Mitigation Measure 3.10.5 in the 2006 EIR, the design of the internal circulation system and vehicular access would be subject to review and approval by the City of Lodi's Police and Fire Department prior to issuance of any building permits for the project.46 This review and approval would ensure that ade- quate access to and from all portions of the site would exist for emergency service responders. Therefore, no impact to emergency response or evacuation would occur under the modified project. h. The threat of wildland fires at the project site is considered very low because of its agricultural setting. The 2006 EIR found a less than significant project impact regarding the risk of wildland fires.47 Because project modifications would not introduce new risks or increase existing hazards related to potential wildland fires, a less -than -significant impact would occur. Significant Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Topic Imnact Incornorated Imnact No Imnact 12. Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste dis- 44 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August, 2006, page 3.5-5. 45 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August, 2006, page 3.8-8. 46 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August, 2006, page ES -24. 41 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August, 2006, page 4.0-11. rN 63 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH EIR ADDENDUM INITIAL STUDY 64 Significant Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Topic Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater X table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner X which would result in substantial erosion or silta- tion on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially X increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm- X water drainage systems or provide substantial ad- ditional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g. Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary X or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood haz- ard delineation map? h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area struc- tures which would impede or redirect flood X flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, in- X cluding flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 64 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH EIR ADDENDUM INITIAL STUDY Significant Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Topic Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact J. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X Findings and Conclusion. Modifications to the project would result in a less -than -significant impact on hydrology and water quality. a. As identified in Impact 3.6.3 of the 2006 EIR, the project has the potential to generate nonpoint-source wa- ter pollutants typical to urban land uses. The potential pollution would be mitigated through compliance with Section 402 of the Clean Water Act and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). In order to meet applicable requirements, the City of Lodi has implemented a stormwater man- agement plan to address post -construction impacts.48 There is also the risk of water contamination associated with the construction of the project. These risks include exposed soils and the potential spillage of construction fuels or equipment. Under NPDES re- quirements, the contractor would be required to develop and implement a stormwater pollution plan (SWPP) that will include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize potential impacts to water quality during construction. Because these requirements would apply to the modified project, a less -than -significant impact would occur. b. As identified by Impact 3.6.6 of the 2006 EIR, the project involves the conversion of approximately of 220 acres of largely permeable farmland to impermeable surfaces. 50 Modifications to the project would not cause a substantial increase in the project's impermeable surface area. The construction of a water retention basin on-site will allow for stormwater percolation to occur. Mitigation Measures 3.6.1- 3.6.6, identified in the 2006 EIR, address that stormwater drainage and collection will be constructed or improved to the City " Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August, 2006, page 3.6-14. so Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August, 2006, page 3.6-13. 12 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August, 2006, page 3.6-14. 65 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH EIR ADDENDUM INITIAL STUDY standards. These measures will be adequate to reduce the potential impacts under the modified project to a less -than -significant impact. c. The modified project would not alter the course of a stream or river. As addressed by Impact 3.6.4 of the 2006 EIR, the increase in permeable surfaces on the project site will change the drainage pattern in the area. However, the changes would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Potential impacts under the modified project would be reduced to a less -than -significant level through improvements identified in the Infrastructure Master Plan, which includes the construction of a drainage basin on-site.52 Stormwater generated on-site will be collected in the basin before it is transferred into the Water Irrigation District ca- nal. d. The modified project would not alter the course of a stream or river. As addressed by Impact 3.6.5 of the 2006 EIR, the increase in permeable surfaces on the project site will change the drainage pattern in the area and increase the volume and velocity of stormwater runoff from the site.54 Mitigation Measures 3.6.1 — 3.6.6 in the 2006 EIR would reduce potential impacts to a less -than -significant level. Under the modified project, the same mitigation measures would reduce the potential for on- or off-site flooding to a less -than -significant level. this is considered a less than significant due to improvements that will be made through the Infrastruc- ture Master Plan. These improvements include the construction of a drainage basin on-site. e. While the project and its modifications would contribute to runoff, the requirements set forth in Mitigation Measures 3.6.1-3.6.6 in the 2006 EIR,55 would reduce impacts to a less -than -significant level. These same mitigation measures would apply to the modified project and also reduce potential runoff impacts to a less - than -significant level. f. The project modifications would not otherwise degrade water quality beyond the potential impacts dis- cussed in responses a) and c). Therefore, the modified project would result in a less -than -significant impact. g. The project site is not in a 100 -year flood hazard zone.sb Therefore, the project and its modifications would have no impact. " Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August, 2006, page 3.6-15. ss Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August, 2006, page 3.6-13. " Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August, 2006, page 3.6-11. :. CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH EIR ADDENDUM INITIAL STUDY h. Because the project site is not located in a 100 -year flood hazard zone, proposed structures would not im- pede or redirect flood flows." Therefore, no impacts would occur. i. As stated by Impact 3.6.9 of the 2006 EIR, there is risk of inundation due to dam failure. The existing Emergency Action Plan that would be initiated by the East Bay Municipal Utility District would lessen po- tential risks under the modified project in the event of a dam break along the Lower Mokelumne River." Therefore, a less -than -significant impact would occur. j. Because the project is not located near a large body of water, there will be no impact from seiche. Similarly, there would be no impact associated with a potential tsunami or mudflow due to the distance from the Pa- cific Ocean and the relatively flat topography of the project site. Therefore, no impact would occur. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Topic Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 13. Public Services and Recreation Would the project: a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and re- gional parks or other recreational facilities such that X substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Include recreational facilities or require the con- struction or expansion of recreational facilities X which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Findings and Conclusions: 58 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August, 2006, page 3.6-11. " Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August, 2006, page 3.6-20. 67 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH EIR ADDENDUM INITIAL STUDY a. Fire: As identified by Mitigation Measure 3.9.1 in the 2006 EIR, a fire station would be constructed on-site in Phase II of the development .6' The station and department staff operating from it would be adequate to meet the service needs of the modified project. Because the station would be built on-site under the modi- fied project, its construction would not result in any new, significant impacts beyond those already identi- fied in the 2006 EIR. As a result, a less -than -significant impact would occur. Police: The Lodi Police Department will provide service to the project. As stated in the 2006 EIR, the de- mand for increased policing will be offset by the increase in tax base from the proposed retail and residential uses. 6' This would also apply to the modified project. In addition, the project will involve the formation of a Community Service District (CSD), the proceeds from which will be used to help finance additional po- lice services, if necessary. Therefore, a less -than -significant impact would occur. It may be that new police stations or expansions of existing stations are required in the future to adequately serve the project, in combination with other projects. If and when the City initiates plans for a new or ex- panded facility, an environmental evaluation would be conducted to address potential impacts. Schools: As stated in Impact 3.9.2 of the 2006 EIR, the original project had the potential to cause over- crowding at existing schools within the vicinity of the project.65 Under the modified project, the potential for overcrowding still exists, however due the conversion of residential uses to senior and senior assisted liv- ing uses under the modified project, it is not expected that as many families with school-age children will be living on-site. Accordingly, it is expected that there would be a reduced demand on school capacity as a re- sult of the modified project. It it is anticipated that when the project is at or near buildout, the necessary financing will be available from the collection of developer fees to pay for any necessary expansions of exist- ing schools or construction of new schools to accommodate students generated by the new development. As a result, a less -than -significant impact would occur. 61 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August, 2006, page 3.9-5. 63 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August, 2006, page 3.9-4. 65 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August, 2006, page 3.9-2. CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH EIR ADDENDUM INITIAL STUDY The potential impacts associated with construction of a new school or expansion of existing schools at a fu- ture phase of development would be analyzed under a separate CEQA analysis, when plans are set forth by the school district. Parks: Modifications to the original project do not create the need for additional parkland. Under the modified project, 2 acres of parkland would be created within the project site. Creation of this parkland and construction of related improvements would not result in any potential impacts to the environment beyond those already discussed in the 2006 EIR and this Addendum. Although the original 5.4 acres66 of neighbor- hood parkland would be reduced to 2 acres61 under the modified plan, these modifications would not create the need for additional facilities on or off-site. The City currently has 5.5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents, satisfying its goal of 2.5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents.68 Furthermore, it is expected that many of the future residents of the project currently reside within or near the City of Lodi and already use its parks and recreational facilities. Therefore, project residents are not expected to represent an entirely new (park) user population and it is not expected that all residents would regularly use the City's park and recreational facilities. Lastly, due to the conversion of residential uses to senior and senior assisted living under the modified project, it is expected that there would be a reduced demand for parkland both on and off-site. The expected decrease in the number of families with children and adolescents would more than likely translate to reduced demand for park facilities, especially those containing features such as ball fields and playgrounds. As a result, a less -than -significant impact on parks would occur. b. The project includes the construction of a two -acre park on the project site. Construction of the park will not have an adverse physical effect on the environment beyond the effects already considered in this 2006 EIR and this EIR Addendum. Therefore, a less -than -significant impact would occur. 66 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August, 2006, page 2.0-19. 61 Phillippi Engineering, Reynolds Ranch Land Plan, March 17, 2007. 68 Morimoto, David. Senior Planner, City of Lodi. Personal email communication with Leslie Wilson, DC&E, July 14, 2008. CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH INITIAL STUDY Environmental Topic E I R AD D EN DU M 14. Utilities and Infrastructure Would the project: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of X existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or X are new or expanded entitlements needed? d. Result in a determination by the wastewater treat- ment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's X projected demand in addition to the provider's exist- ing commitments? e. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste X disposal needs? f. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? Findings and Conclusions. a. Though the modified project would generate increased demand for wastewater treatment, the demand from the project modifications will be adequately met by the improvements identified in the 2008 Waste Water Master Plan. The project modifications would slightly increase the wet weather flow from 2.4 cubic feet per second (cfs)69 to 2.5 cfs70; this is not considered a substantial wastewater increase and would not exceed the existing or proposed wastewater processing capabilities. Therefore, the modified project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, and the modified project would have less -than -significant impacts. by Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August, 2006, page 3.11-11. 70 City of Lodi, Reynolds Ranch Wastewater Master Plan, May, 29, 2008, page 11. 70 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH EIR ADDENDUM INITIAL STUDY b. As stated in Impact 3.11.5 in the 2006 EIR, the project would increase the demand for sanitary wastewater service. Mitigation Measures 3.11.7 - 3.11.10 set forth by the 2006 EIR, would require the construction of new wastewater facilities.71 These improvements would take place either within the project site or areas that have previously been disturbed through the installation of infrastructure or building construction. As a result, construction of new wastewater facilities under the modified plan would cause less than significant environmental effects. c. Water supply demand would increase as a result of the modified project. The demand under the original project was 501 acre fee per year (AFY) and would increase to 540 AFY under the modified project, which represent a change of less than 10 percent. The City Public Works Director reviewed the increased water demand levels associate with the modified project and concluded that it was not necessary to update the Wa- ter Supply Assessment completed for the original project and presented in Appendix I of the 2006 EIR.'Z Furthermore, Public Works determined that the increase in water supply demand does not warrant any ad- ditional mitigation that has not already been considered in the 2006 EIR. Accordingly, the Mitigation Measures 3.11.1 — 3.11.6, set forth from the 2006 EIR, are adequate to reduce impacts related to water sup- ply to a less tan significant level. d. See b) above. e. As stated in the 2006 EIR, solid waste from the project would be transported to the North County Recy- cling Center and Landfill. The landfill is projected to be open until 2035. It was determined in the 2006 EIR that the facility had adequate capacity to accommodate solid waste generated under the original project. Although the modified project would likely generate an increased amount of waste due to the proposed in- crease in retail uses, the North County landfill would still have adequate capacity to accommodate the pro- ject's disposal needs.74 Therefore, a less -than -significant impact would occur. f. As stated on page 3.11-10 of the 2006 EIR,75 the original project would have complied with applicable solid waste regulations. Although the modified project would alter land uses on the site, compliance with Fed- '1 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August, 2006, page 3.11-13. 72 Sandelin, Wally, Director of Public Works, City of Lodi. Correspondence with Peter Pirneiad, Co -Interim Com- munity Development Director, City of Lodi, June 24, 2008. 74 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August, 2006, page 3.11-10. 71 Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August, 2006, page 3.11-10. 71 CITY OF LODI REYNOLDS RANCH EIR ADDENDUM INITIAL STUDY eral, State and local statutes related to solid waste would be upheld under the modified project. Because the modified project includes a gas station, conformance with applicable regulations related to the transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and waste would be followed. Therefore, no impact would oc- cur related to the modified project's compliance with federal, State and local solid waste regulations statutes. 72 CITY OF LODI PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report MEETING DATE: September 10, 2008 APPLICATION NO: 08 -GP -01 and 08-P-03 REQUEST: Consider the request of Dale Gillespie on behalf of San Joaquin Valley Land Company LLC, to 1) recommend that the City Council amend to the Land Use Map of the General Plan for the Reynolds Ranch development and 2) approve a Tentative Map for a 225 acre mixed use project located on the south side of Harney Lane between State Route 99 and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) track. LOCATION: Southwest corner of East Harney Lane and State Route 99 APPLICANT: Dale Gillespie on behalf of San Joaquin Valley Land Company LLC, 1420 S. Mills Ave., Suite K, Lodi, CA 95242 PROPERTY OWNERS: Robert & Carolyn Reynolds; Skinner Ranch Holdings LP; South River Ranch LLC; San Joaquin Valley Land Co.; Maria Pelletti, Diane Tsutsumi, etal; Shirley Ann Helm etal; and Lodi Moose Lodge 634. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission 1) Approve a Tentative Map; and 2) Recommend that the City Council amend to the Land Use Map of the General Plan for the Reynolds Ranch development, a 225 acre mixed use project located on the south side of Harney Lane between State Route 99 and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) track. PROJECT/AREA DESCRIPTION: General Plan Designation: O —Office; NCC- Neighborhood Community Commercial; PR - Planned Residential; DBP- Drainage Basin Park; and PQP- Public/Quasi Public. Zoning Designation: Planned Development (39), PD No.39. Property Size: 225.9 acres The adjacent General Plan designations: North: LDR, Low density residential; MDR, Medium density residential; NCC, Neighborhood/community commercial and HI, heavy industrial. South: PRR, Planned residential reserve. West: PRR, Planned residential reserve. East: (across Hwy. 99) San Joaquin County designation of GA, General Agriculture. Rey Ranch TM GPA continued.doc The adjacent land uses are as follows: North: Residential, commercial and industrial uses. South: Rural residential and agricultural uses. West: Rail road tracks, rural residential and agricultural uses. East: State Highway 99, and east of that Agricultural, residential and cemetery uses. SUMMARY: This item was continued from the Planning Commission's August 27th meeting. At that time, the Commission received a staff report and took public testimony concerning the requests. The issues that were outlined by the Commission for follow up by staff included: the traffic analysis for the amended plan, impacts on existing residences along Stockton Street and the home on the Frontage Road, and finally concerns about the mix of uses presented. The applicant received initial approval for the Reynolds Ranch mixed-use project in 2006. The project contained commercial, office and residential uses. Since that date, portions of the project site have begun to develop, including the 20.5 acre Blue Shield office project in the S.E. corner of the project area, as well as some of the street and infrastructure improvements. The applicants are requesting a General Plan Amendment to permit a modification of their original land use development plan. The proposed amendment will increase the commercial acreage by 37.7 acres, reduce the residential acreage by 18.8 acres and eliminate the original 14 acre K-12 school site. The overall design of the development will remain similar to the original plan however the commercial portion of the project will expand further to the west, replacing some of the residential acreage of the previous plan. The applicant is also requesting approval of a Tentative Parcel Map that will subdivide the commercial areas into separate parcels and reflect some of the changes resulting from the General Plan Amendment. BACKGROUND: The Reynolds Ranch project was originally approved by the City of Lodi in 2006. An Environmental Impact Report was approved; the properties were annexed to the City; General Plan and Zoning approvals were granted; and a Development Agreement was signed. Subsequently, some work has begun on the project. A portion of the project's street and infrastructure work is currently underway, and the Blue Shield office complex, a major component of the development, is currently under construction. Prior to moving forward on the remainder of the project, the applicant is requesting an amendment to the land use portion of the General Plan to reflect changes in the development plan. Most notably, applicant is requesting an expansion of the commercial acreage to accommodate additional commercial uses and proportionately reduce the residential acreage. ANALYSIS: Reynolds Ranch is a mixed use project that will have retail commercial, office, hotel, mini - storage and residential uses, along with parks and other public facilities. The original development plan called for the following land uses and acreages: Rey Ranch TM GPA continued.doc 2 2006 Proiect Land Uses Retail/Commercial 40.5 acres High density senior residential 3 acres Office 20.1 acres High density residential 9.1 acres Mini storage 5.3 acres Medium density residential 63.9 acres Public/Quasi-public 1 acre Low density residential 20.6 acres School 14 acres Park/Open space 12.3 acres Basin 8 acres 04111%3a[•TffttT:IwralC- 1Vi Oto=— I Retail/Commercial 78.2 acres Senior housing 48.5 acres* Office 20.5 acres High density residential 9.2 acres Mini -storage 5.0 acres Medium density residential 10.1 acres Public/Quasi-public 1 acre Low density residential 10.0 acres Park/Open space 12.3 acres Basin 9.0 acres *Includes a minimum 2.0 acre Park within the Senior Housing area. The major change between the 2006 Land Use Plan and the proposed 2008 Land Use Plan are in the proportion of commercial and residential land uses. The 2008 Plan will increase the size of the commercial acreage from 40.5 acres to 78.2 acres. The square footage of potential commercial buildings will increase from approximately 350,000 square feet to 750,000 square feet. The additional commercial acreage will push the commercial area to the west of the Reynolds Ranch Parkway/A Street, the main north/south street. The residential acreage will decrease as a result of the increased commercial. The residential use has also changed to an age restricted senior housing product which subsequently eliminated the need for the school site. The 2006 Plan had 96.6 acres of residential uses with approximately 1,084 units. The 2008 Plan proposes 77.8 acres of residential uses with approximately 1,084 units. The reason the number of housing units remains the same while the acreage decreases is because the number of low and medium density residential units decreases substantially. The low density residential decreases from 20.6 acres to 10 acres while the medium density residential decreases from 63.9 acres to 10.1 acres. Conversely, the number of acres of senior housing/assisted senior housing increases from 3 acres to 48.5 acres. The density of the senior housing units will be higher than the medium and low density residential acreage that it replaces. The senior housing will have higher density because some of the units will be either group housing or attached units, and some units will be multi -story buildings. The end result is more residential units on fewer acres. The addendum to the FEIR, which is attached to this report, was prepared by the firm Design Community & Environment. The main focus of the analysis was on the changes to the traffic section of the environmental document. Prism Engineering prepared the traffic study which is also attached. While the analysis concludes that there will be more traffic overall as a result of the amendment, this additional traffic does not rise to the level of significance that requires any additional mitigation. The factors that contribute to this finding include the differences in peak hour volume, trip distribution and excess capacity which existed as a result of the prior FEIR mitigation measures. A summary of the traffic study and comparison between the FEIR traffic analysis and the Prism study follows. Rey Ranch TM GPA continued.doc Daily vs. Peak Hour Comparisons The Daily trip generation numbers are not used in the analysis of intersections. Daily trip generation is an interesting side -note, but is not relevant to the specific analysis completed for the FEIR or the PRISM Study. Daily numbers do not take into consideration reductions for say, "PASS -BY" traffic nor time of day, so discussion of the Daily numbers is usually not applicable when there is a discussion of the impacts. It is the pm peak hour that is the analysis time period for both the FEIR and PRISM Study. The daily numbers have no direct correlation to traffic impact, so it is important to note that only the analysis time period numbers (pm peak) should be compared between the FEIR and the PRISM Study. During the pm peak hour, there were 4747 trips generated in the most recent study (Prism) vs. 2270 trips generated in the FEIR without any reductions for the pass -by traffic. Although the raw trip generation calculation is more than double the volume compared to the FEIR, there are certain adjustments that take place to bring the raw trip generation calculation into reality. In the real world, trips in a project may already be on the road, and merely stop over on the way home or to some other destination. Depending on the size of a project, some of these trips may never leave the site to impact external roadways. In the table that follows, a comparison is made of those pm peak hour numbers used for the FEIR and PRISM analysis condition (after pass -by reductions): PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON Source: Table 1 page 17 from PRISM Report, and Table 3.10.6 Page 3.10-26 of FEIR Note: Numbers are reduced to account for pass -by traffic assumptions. The new analysis numbers calculate to be 45% higher than the FEIR. In the new project, the RETAIL directly took the place of some RESIDENTIAL / SCHOOL uses that were present in the FEIR analysis. There are less homes in the new plan (729 vs. 1084), and also more RETIREMENT homes than before, resulting in lower trips for residential, and a shift of trips (212 less residential/school trips with the reductions, see below). RESIDENTIAL and COMMERCIAL TRIP GENERATION SHIFTS PM INBOUND trips PM OUTBOUND trips TOTAL FEIR 1005 1067 2072 PRISM STUDY 1417 1579 2996 NET INCREASE 45% overall 412 512 924 Source: Table 1 page 17 from PRISM Report, and Table 3.10.6 Page 3.10-26 of FEIR Note: Numbers are reduced to account for pass -by traffic assumptions. The new analysis numbers calculate to be 45% higher than the FEIR. In the new project, the RETAIL directly took the place of some RESIDENTIAL / SCHOOL uses that were present in the FEIR analysis. There are less homes in the new plan (729 vs. 1084), and also more RETIREMENT homes than before, resulting in lower trips for residential, and a shift of trips (212 less residential/school trips with the reductions, see below). RESIDENTIAL and COMMERCIAL TRIP GENERATION SHIFTS Source: Table 1 page 17 from PRISM Report, and Table 3.10.6 Page 3.10-26 of FEIR *reduced for pass -by trips (15% for FEIR, and 34%+ for PRISM study) In addition, the FEIR did not take into consideration "pass -by" traffic reductions set by ITE at 34% lower traffic for retail/commercial types of uses, but used instead a conservative 15% value for this (probably because no specific land uses were being considered, and an overly Rey Ranch TM GPA continued.doc 4 RESIDENTIAL/SCHOOL PM TRIPS FEIR 1084 DU and 1000 1118 1678 Students @ 560 trips (one trip rate used PRISM STUDY 729 DU @ 348 trips 2328 2676 (higher trip rates used NET INCREASE -212 1210 998 Source: Table 1 page 17 from PRISM Report, and Table 3.10.6 Page 3.10-26 of FEIR *reduced for pass -by trips (15% for FEIR, and 34%+ for PRISM study) In addition, the FEIR did not take into consideration "pass -by" traffic reductions set by ITE at 34% lower traffic for retail/commercial types of uses, but used instead a conservative 15% value for this (probably because no specific land uses were being considered, and an overly Rey Ranch TM GPA continued.doc 4 conservative estimate was made). This conservative assumption in the FEIR built in excess capacity for the project impacts. According to ITE for a project with commercial retail, 34% of the commercial traffic is already on the roadways because drivers pass by various stores on the way home from work, etc. This is especially true for fast food restaurant trip generation which is set at 50% pass -by reduction. However, the FEIR used a blanket 15% value for ALL 350,000 sq ft of potential uses within the commercial retail designation, for both pm and am peak hours. However, this 15% value cannot be correlated with any specific ITE number to verify. As a result, the FEIR was conservatively high on its commercial trip generation calculation: 19% higher (34% - 15% used = 19%). One other reason the FEIR commercial trip generation calculation was different is because it used the same trip generation rate of 3.75 trips/KSF for the 350,000 SF retail. The PRISM Study used this rate as well for most uses, but several land uses were calculated with much higher trip rates, i.e. fast food @ 34.64 trips/KSF and supermarket @ 10.45 trips/KSF, etc. For this reason, a more realistic assumption for pass -by was used in the analysis. PM Peak Hour Trip Distribution of Office Traffic A comparison of the pm peak hour trip distribution of the office project traffic was made. The FEIR assumed that only 30% of the Blue Shield traffic went south on SR 99. The PRISM Study, however, used 55% because the Blue Shield tenant communicated specific information that 60% of their employees live to the south of the City of Lodi. The PRISM Study assigned 55% of the Blue Shield pm peak traffic south on the frontage road to the Armstrong interchange since it was a significantly shorter path, and there were no left turns or signal delays along the way in getting to SR 99 south. As a result, the PRISM Study assigned 25% more of the Blue Shield traffic to the south on the frontage road, and that was 25% less traffic assigned northerly to Harney Lane. Summary • The FEIR assigned 25% more of the Blue Shield traffic to Harney Lane to the north on SR 99 and 25% less south on SR 99 than did the PRISM Study. • The PRISM Study assigned more Blue Shield traffic south on the frontage road to SR 99 • The FEIR used lower "Pass -By" percentages than did the PRISM Study (15% compared to 34%+) which over-estimated impacts, and is why additional mitigation was built-in to the analysis. • Although there is more commercial in the current project, there is less residential. • The FEIR had 355 more residential dwelling units than the current plan has less. • The PRISM study reports 212 less pm residential trips • The PRISM Study pm peak hour trip generation totals are 45% higher than the FEIR As a check, volumes in the FEIR for Cumulative 2030 + project conditions were compared with the PRISM Study (Figure 3.10.17 compared to Figure 19). An intersection to the west of the project intersections, Harney at Hutchins, had 310 more pm peak trips than the FEIR for the Year 2030 cumulative plus project scenario. Harney at the E. Frontage Road had 272 more pm peak trips than the FEIR for the same scenario. Stockton Street north of Harney had 119 more trips assigned to it than the FEIR for the same scenario. This adds up to 701 trips of the additional 998 trips, so we can see that although travel patterns shifted from the FEIR to the PRISM Study, most of these additional trips were assigned to Harney Lane, and they could still fit within the LOS C threshold. The additional traffic can be accounted for as additional trips heading south on the frontage road from Blue Shield, etc., and any internal traffic that takes place between residential and commercial uses (residents of the project will shop at the local stores and restaurants, etc.). Rey Ranch TM GPA continued.doc The additional current project traffic volumes external to the project site represented only a 12% increase in overall traffic at the E. Frontage/Harney intersection, and a 7% increase in overall traffic at the Harney/Hutchins intersection. The raw intersection volume increases in the immediate vicinity external to the project site do not reflect the same ratio increase to trip generation for the current project compared to the FEIR. This is primarily because the volume of the project is small compared to the cumulative volume of traffic projected in the City. With regard to the impact of the amendments on the existing residential properties along Stockton Street, the Commission will note a slight change in the plan that reflects a single family residential designation for the strip on the east side of the road. This is being proposed in order to lesson the impact of the additional retail development on these residences and to create a more cohesive entry into this portion of the project. With this change, staff believes that the amendments will have negligible impacts as the plan is now consistent with the previously approved document. The issues raised about the existing residence on the Frontage Road were focused on access to the parcel. After consideration of the existing conditions, it has become clear to the City that there is no reason to change their access to the existing street. An exhibit included in this report reflects this condition. As shown, the Frontage Road will intersect with Reynolds Ranch Parkway at the median break which will provide full turning movements. There are no other changes proposed with this amendment that are different than the approved project. As the Commission has read and heard during the public hearing, the impetus for the changes are both the state of the economy and the current market conditions. Little needs to be said about the economy. This is the fact of life for the real estate development industry. The good news is that while the general economy is down, there is currently strong interest on the part of the retail sector in this site. The applicant is attempting to take advantage of this opportunity which the City feels is very positive from both a revenue standpoint and the additional goods and services that will be made available to residents which are now in other cities and outlying areas. We believe that it is good planning to be able to provide the variety of retail outlets that folks in Lodi are now traveling elsewhere to access. The final issue that should be clarified is the amount of Park acreage proposed. The revised plan shows less acreage than the original approval. The applicant's intent is not to decrease the park amount, but at this time, the exact location of all the Park space is not known. It is intended that a 2.0 acre Park be located adjacent to the High density residential development and that the balance of the Park acreage be located within the senior housing area with the exact location to be determined upon actual project design and review. General Plan and Zoning changes The General Plan Amendment request is to amend the current General Plan Land Use Map to reflect the proposed changes in acreage for the commercial and residential areas as follows: 1) Change 35.6 acres of PR, Planned Residential land to NCC, Neighborhood Community Commercial. 2) Change the 12 acre K-12 school site from PQP, Public Quasi -Public to PR, Planned Residential. The proposed changes in the General Plan Land Use Map will not require any change in the zoning designation for the project. The entire project is zoned PD, Planned Development. Under the PD zoning, all types of land uses are permitted as long as they are approved by the City as part of a development plan. Despite the need for a General Plan Amendment, the project will be consistent with the overall vision of the General Plan, which identifies the project Rey Ranch TM GPA continued.doc 6 site as an area for future development. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS: In 2006, the Lodi City Council certified a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the mixed use residential, commercial, and office project known as Reynolds Ranch. The project consisted of a combination of uses including residential, retail, office, senior high density, public use and office space. Completion of an Initial Study for the amendments has led to the conclusion that the modifications would not result in new potentially significant impacts beyond those already identified in the 2006 certified FEIR. As a result, an Addendum to the existing EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15162. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE: Legal Notice for the Use Permit was published on August 16, 2008. A total of 96 public hearing notices were sent to all property owners of record within a 300 -foot radius of the subject property as required by California State Law §65091 (a) 3. ALTERNATIVE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS: • Approve the Request with Alternate Conditions • Deny the Request • Continue the Request Respectfully Submitted, Konradt Bartlam Interim Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Location 2. Aerial Photo 3. Traffic Impact & Planning Study 4. Draft Resolutions Rey Ranch TM GPA continued.doc 7 ;�F�PRISM ` ENGINEERING LAND PLAN REYNOLDS RANCH LODI, CALIFORNIA 11�� APRIL 24, 2007 [0.1± Al u�ry I 11.61 AC II �_J�__ RE' t 04 AC' RETAIL 35� AC ! HOTEL R 1 2.62 AC � SENIOR HOUSING —' RETAIL 36 7f AC 1F 6/'' RETti Yi 3 t p a! I i U Ehk m 3 RONow 9.04 ACRE . — IIS e e -= - r .aR ra-ick:. Page 1 REYNOLDS RANCH FINAL REPORT Traffic Impact and Planning Study Prepared for San Joaquin Valley Land Company by PRISM Engineering, Grant P. Johnson, PTOE, PE Professional Traffic Operations PRION],� En IneerrRarr•�c g Na, 14Professional Engineer in °; apeRaF �P.T.O.E. in USAENGINEER California ,Certificate No. PTOE0063 Traffir Fnninaar (T F 1 Certificate No. TR001453 September 4, 2008 www.prismworldco Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 `� /�� voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 Table of Contents Page 2 Executive Summary 4 Figure ES.1 2030 Lane Configurations...................................................................................... 6 Figure ES.2 Vicinity Map and Intersection Number Locations .............................................. 7 Table ES.1 Capacity Analysis Summary Mitigated Year 2008 Scenario ................................ 9 Table ES.2 Capacity Analysis Summary Mitigated Year 2030 Scenario Intersections that couldnot be mitigated to LOS C..................................................................................................10 Table ES.3 Road A Sizing Needs for Buildout of Project.......................................................11 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................13 Figure 1 Vicinity Map and Intersection Numbers..................................................................15 Figure2 Project Site Map..................................................................................................16 TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION..........................................17 Table 1 Trip Generation Summary for Project with Pass -By Reductions ............................18 Figure 3 Trip Distribution, Residential Land Use Component.............................................19 Figure 4 Trip Distribution, Commercial Land Use Component ........................................... 20 Figure 5 Trip Distribution, Office Land Use Component*.................................................... 21 ANALYSIS........................................................................................25 Figure 6 Existing Lane Configurations.................................................................................... 32 Figure 7 2030 Lane Configurations, Study Area.................................................................... 33 Figure 8 2006 AM Peak Hour Turning Movements............................................................... 34 Figure 9 2006 AM Peak Hour Plus Project Turning Movements ......................................... 35 Figure 10 2006 PM Peak Hour Turning Movements.............................................................. 36 Figure 112006 PM Peak Hour Plus Project Turning Movements ......................................... 37 www.prCor mworldP orate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 is '�� com voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 Table of Contents Page 3 Figure12 2008 AM Peak Hour Turning Movements.............................................................. 38 Figure 13 2008 AM Peak Hour Plus Project Turning Movements ........................................ 39 Figure 14 2008 PM Peak Hour Turning Movements.............................................................. 40 Figure 15 2008 PM Peak Hour Plus Project Turning Movements ......................................... 41 Figure 16 2030 AM Peak Hour Turning Movements.............................................................. 42 Figure 17 2030 AM Peak Hour Plus Project Turning Movements ........................................ 43 Figure 18 2030 PM Peak Hour Turning Movements.............................................................. 44 Figure 19 2030 PM Peak Hour Plus Project Turning Movements ......................................... 45 Figure 20 AM Peak Hour Project Turning Movements.......................................................... 46 Figure 21 PM Peak Hour Project Turning Movements.......................................................... 47 METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................................... 48 Table 2 Level of Service Summary for the AM Peak Hour .................................................. 50 Table 3 Level of Service Summary for the PM Peak Hour ................................................... 51 APPENDIXA....................................................................................52 APPENDIX6....................................................................................59 APPENDIXC....................................................................................60 APPENDIX D....................................................................................61 ��� Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 www prismworldcom P ,� voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 4 Executive Summary Purpose of Study and Criteria for Mitigation The scope and purpose of this traffic study is to examine the impacts from the proposed Reynolds Ranch project and provide recommended mitigations for intersections where the level of service of the intersection was adversely affected by the project. In the case where background traffic from expected growth (not the project) or cumulative growth causes unacceptable levels of service (LOS E or worse conditions), these are reported directly in this report for reference. There were 28 intersections studied in this report, similar to the intersections studied previously as a part of the Reynolds Ranch EIR. Many of these intersections, especially along Kettleman Lane, experience no significant impact from the project although they may be significantly impacted by background or cumulative traffic. The Reynolds Ranch project was studied in this report to examine the associated traffic impacts, first to its internal roadway system (Road A), and second to the surrounding street network comprised of Harney Lane, Kettleman Lane, and the north/south streets that connect them within the City of Lodi. This report summarizes what is needed to achieve satisfactory levels of service (LOS C or better conditions) at each of the 28 study intersections and the road segments that connect them. The existing and future Year 2030 ultimate intersection configurations are detailed in Figures 6 and 7, respectively. Figure 7 for the ultimate mitigations was duplicated as Figure ES.1 in this section for convenience. LOS C was possible utilizing the intersection improvements detailed in Figure ES.1. Figure ES.1 shows the existing lane configurations at each of the study intersections in black color, and the future additional lane(s) or modification(s) in red. Figure ES.2 shows the locations of each intersection on a vicinity map. One of the main purposes of the study was to determine what mitigations would be needed to achieve satisfactory levels of service on opening day of the project (year 2008), and in the long-term future for cumulative conditions (year 2030). Many of the intersections along Kettleman Lane (SR 12) are already built out and cannot be further expanded without widening of Kettleman Lane to a six lane facility. The work effort involved to address future cumulative needs for Kettleman Lane is beyond the scope of this traffic study. www.prismworldcom Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 '�/� voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 5 Existing Conditions For existing conditions, the study intersections are LOS E or better conditions for the pm peak hour, and LOS D or better for the am peak hour. Three intersections were at unsatisfactory levels of service. Tables 2 and 3 in the Analysis section of the report identify these intersections and detail the level of service results for the unmitigated condition for the am and pm peak hour, respectively. Each table reports the level of service at each intersection for six different scenarios. These scenarios include existing, existing plus project, Year 2008, Year 2008 plus project, Year 2030, and Year 2030 plus project. Existing Plus Project Scenario The Reynolds Ranch project impacts caused several intersections to enter a failure mode. These are detailed in Tables 2 and 3 later in this report. LOS C is the City's threshold of tolerable congestion, and LOS D is the threshold of tolerable congestion for a Caltrans facility (including Kettleman Lane). If a City intersection enters into LOS D conditions (with the exception of Kettleman Lane), this is unacceptable and requires mitigation. It should be noted that in the analysis, there were several intersections that were already at LOS D or LOS E conditions, and the project itself did not cause these to be deficient, but rather contributed to an already deficient condition. In addition to these, the project would cause eight more intersections to become unacceptable with LOS D or worse conditions. Year 2008 Conditions Scenario This scenario represents the future point in time at which the project might be fully developed. The background traffic projections without the project were obtained from The Reynolds Ranch Final EIR, and the assumptions for that approved document are contained in the FEIR. In general, these projections include background growth, and a combination of several approved projects that are expected to develop in the near future. These volumes were used to calculate levels of service for this Year 2008 scenario using HCM 2000 methodology for average vehicle delay. The results show that for the condition without the project, there were five intersections that would be at unsatisfactory LOS D or worse conditions without the project (two of which were already deficient for existing Year 2006 conditions). comCorp;�� www.prismworldCor orate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 .,�. voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 6 1 l�► ENTO RD. 2 ENTO 111 ORD 4 CE l�► CRANE/LoINER . RD. � 5 CRAMENTO R � � ,� 11�-A► 6 AR RAMEN O RD. G RD./LOWER ETT ILLS AVE. 8 NAM AVE. Q MAN ST 1 TT` M� LN./ *URCH ST. i LEMAN LN./ B'�CETON ST. y y LEMAN LN./ C E LN. 13 FREEMAN LN./ R 99 SB RAMPS 1 EMAN W./ R 99 NB RAMPS i HARNEY LN./ AC AVE. �1� � X11► � � ��' 1 xaNNEr W./ NAM W. + 1 SST' i $ HARNEY BTOC ON ST/ y SR99 SB QI[RORAMPS/ N. CHEROKEE LNNEY ! i 10 2 YIARNEV LN, FRONTAGE RD. 9 (� 99 NE RAMPS/ FRONTAGE RD. 2 M GRD. W[ST W ARMSTRONG RD./ W. l4- G! RO. MR ` SR 99 SB RAMPS/ W. FRONTAGE RD. i SR 99 NB RAMPS/ E. FRONTAGE R0. �E qNSTRDNG (. RD./ FRONTAGE D. � HARNEY W./2 �Y DR. �® lo� www.prismworldcom Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 '�/� voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 TURNER RD 2 LODI AVE N z J a KETTLEMAN LN = 1 1 13 4 3 7 8 9 0 z Oj FA ~ W O Z 2 � W U � IA aj W 4 CENTURY BLVD = U O y a W U 9 a O W J V1 3 w 9 O 5 1 ARNEY LN W J OCG H LL W W 3 e 6 ARMSTRONG RD 3 �Figure ES.2 Vicinity Map and Intersection Number• • Page 7 www.prismworldcom Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 '�/� voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Year 2008 plus Project Conditions Page 8 In the ""opening year" of the project, there are eight intersections that experience an unsatisfactory change in level of service (i.e. go from LOS D to LOS E, or LOS B to LOS D, etc.) as a direct result of the project. There are 5 intersections that were already unsatisfactory even without project traffic. Some of these did not change when the project traffic was considered. As a result, no mitigations are recommended for intersections where the level of service did not change to a worse level of service rating (insignificant change). There are a total of 8 intersections at LOS E or worse conditions once the project traffic is added to the street network. Mitigations for this traffic scenario are provided only for the intersections that experience an unsatisfactory change in level of service rank with the increase in project traffic. These are detailed in Table ES.1. Table ES.1 reports the level of service capacity analysis results using the HCM 2000 methodology. It reports the Year 2008 results, the Year 2008 plus project results, and the Year 2008 plus project mitigated results. When the intersections are mitigated according to the improvements noted for each mitigated intersection (see footnotes for details), LOS C or better conditions are the result. Harney Lane will need to be widened in the vicinity of the project to a four lane facility from the Cherokee Lane intersection on the east, to the Stockton Street intersection on the west. In addition, some widening at the Hutchins Street intersection will be needed to accommodate additional approach lanes on Harney Lane. coCor orate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 COM P www.prismworld voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES.1 Capacity Analysis Summary Mitigated Year 2008 Scenario Page 9 1 signal, no widening 2 signal, no widening 3 additional thru lane on Harney 4 signal, left turn pockets 5 signal, right turn pockets EB and NB 6 signal, no widening 7 add NB Stop Sign, ICU=71%, capacity at LOS C 8 signal, additional thru lanes on Harney Note: Mitigations are provided only for the eight intersections that experience an unsatisfactory change in level of service with the addition of project traffic. Intersection 22 has average LOS D condition, but the offramp is LOS F and needs mitigation with a signal. comCorp;�� www.prismworldCor orate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 .,�. voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 LOS Summary for the PM Peak HourProject 20°g PM Without 20GS PM Plus Project 20°$ P Plus Project, Mated' `s q ID Intersection Delay LDS Dela LDS Delay LDS 1 Turner Rd. & Lower Sacramento Rd. 23.6 C 24.5 C 2 Lodi Ave. & Lower Sacramento Rd. 26.5 C 26.5 C 3 Kettlernan Ln. & Lower Sacramento Rd. 51.4 H 36.5 H 4 Century Blvd. & Lower Sacramento Rd. 16.5 B 19.9 B 5 Harney Ln. & Lower Sacramento Rd. 12.7 B 21.0 C 6 Armstrong Rd. & Lower Sacramento Rd. 14.1 B 14.1 B 7 Mills Ave. & Kettlernan Ln. 37.9 H 37.9 H 5 Ham Ln. & Kettlernan Ln. 41.1 D 41.5 D 9 Hutchins St. & Kettleman Ln. 42.4 H 46.3 H 10 Church St. & Kettlernan Ln. 63.5 E 63.4 E III Stockton St. & Kettleman Ln. 40.1 H 39.7 H 12 Cherokee Ln. & Kettlernan Ln. 35.7 H 37.4 H 13 Southbound SR 99 Ramps & Kettlernan Ln. 41.9 H 43.9 H 14 Northbound SR 99 Ramps & Kettlernan Ln. 15.5 B 15.9 B 15 Mills Ave. & Harney Ln. 14.6 B 71.2 F 5.1 A 1 16 Ham Ln. & Harney Ln. 7.4 A 60.7 F 22.9 C 2 171 Hutchins St. & Harney Ln. 36.4 H 77.7 E 34.6 C 3 15 Stockton St. & Harney Ln. 15.4 B 33.1 C 19 Southbound SR 99 Ramps & Cherokee Ln. 4.4 A 4.3 A 20 Cherokee Ln. & Harney Ln. 91.0 F 300+ F 33.7 C 4 21 E. Frontage Rd. & Harney Ln. 51.9 F 300+ F 27.4 C 5 22 Northbound SR 99 Ramps & E. Frontage Rd. 9.7 A 66.3 H 11.3 B 6 23 West Ln. & Armstrong Rd. 57.7 E 71.5 E 24 Cherokee Ln. & Armstrong Rd. 9.5 A 12.0 B 25 Southbound SR 99 Ramps & W. Frontage Rd 5.6 A 125.6 F 71% C 7 26 Northbound SR 99 Ramps & E. Frontage Rd. 7.9 A 5.0 A 27 E. Frontage Rd. & Armstrong Rd. 7.6 A 7.4 A 1281 Road "A" & Harney Ln. 1.2 A 300+ F 34.6 C S 1 signal, no widening 2 signal, no widening 3 additional thru lane on Harney 4 signal, left turn pockets 5 signal, right turn pockets EB and NB 6 signal, no widening 7 add NB Stop Sign, ICU=71%, capacity at LOS C 8 signal, additional thru lanes on Harney Note: Mitigations are provided only for the eight intersections that experience an unsatisfactory change in level of service with the addition of project traffic. Intersection 22 has average LOS D condition, but the offramp is LOS F and needs mitigation with a signal. comCorp;�� www.prismworldCor orate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 .,�. voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Year 2030 Conditions Page 10 This future year scenario volumes used in this study were obtained from the Reynolds Ranch FEIR and validated with City of Lodi "buildout" projections from the City's previous model. Most of the study intersections could be mitigated to LOS C or better conditions, however, some intersections could not be mitigated better than LOS D or even LOS E in some cases due to roadway constraints, with or without the project. The following exceptions to mitigating to LOS C were noted in this study's analysis: Table ES.2 Capacity Analysis Summary Mitigated Year 2030 Scenario Intersections that could not be mitigated to LOS C *AH critical nwvements are LOS EIF, left turn pocket overf7ows Source: PRISM Engineering analysis results using HCM 2000 The analysis methodology for this future year scenario was to mitigate to LOS C conditions for City facilities and LOS D for State facilities, where possible. Table ES.2 shows eight study intersections on City of Lodi surface streets that could not be mitigated to LOS C or better conditions. The reason that mitigation to LOS C/D or better conditions was not possible was due to roadway and right-of-way constraints that made adding lanes not possible without major corridor reconstruction of Kettleman Lane (such as widening Kettleman Lane to a six lane divided arterial facility). Currently Kettleman Lane has two through lanes in each direction, but enough curb - to -curb width to accommodate three through lanes in each direction if only one left turn pocket is needed at intersections (typically, a dual left turn lane is standard for roadways of this size), and if parking and bike lanes are www.prismworldcom Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 '�/� voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 LOS Summary for the PM Peak Hour 2835 PIYI Vlriithout Project 2835 PM Plus Project ID Intersection Delay LOS Delay 4 CenturyBlvd. & Lower Sacramento Rd. 35.9 ❑ 45.0 tE 7 Mills Ave. & Kettleman Ln. 36.0 ❑ 36.0 8 Ham Ln. & Kettleman Ln. 60.7 E 62.3 9 Hutchins St. & Kettleman Ln. 60.1 E 65.2 E 10 Church St. & Kettleman Ln. 151.1 F 152.4 F ill Stockton St. & Kettleman Ln. 51.9 ❑ 53.4 ❑ 12 Cherokee Ln. & Kettleman Ln. 46.9 ❑ 47.8 ❑ 13 Southbound SR 99 Ramps & Kettleman Ln. 55* E 57.1 E *AH critical nwvements are LOS EIF, left turn pocket overf7ows Source: PRISM Engineering analysis results using HCM 2000 The analysis methodology for this future year scenario was to mitigate to LOS C conditions for City facilities and LOS D for State facilities, where possible. Table ES.2 shows eight study intersections on City of Lodi surface streets that could not be mitigated to LOS C or better conditions. The reason that mitigation to LOS C/D or better conditions was not possible was due to roadway and right-of-way constraints that made adding lanes not possible without major corridor reconstruction of Kettleman Lane (such as widening Kettleman Lane to a six lane divided arterial facility). Currently Kettleman Lane has two through lanes in each direction, but enough curb - to -curb width to accommodate three through lanes in each direction if only one left turn pocket is needed at intersections (typically, a dual left turn lane is standard for roadways of this size), and if parking and bike lanes are www.prismworldcom Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 '�/� voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 11 eliminated. This is not an easy transition given the needs of diverse transportation options in Lodi. Internal Road Sizing (Road A) A new road will be built to serve the various land uses within the project site area. Road A will connect with Harney Lane at the existing Melby Drive intersection, and continue south and easterly until it connects with the existing Frontage Road on the west side of the SR 99 freeway. The ultimate sizing of Road A was determined from a combination of traffic operations microsimulation analyses for the pm peak hour traffic (to help determine left turn pocket lengths, right turn pocket needs, intersection signalization needs, etc.), and the use of City of Lodi daily volume criteria for road segments along Road A. Table ES.3 reports the through lane needs for Road A for the buildout of the project based on the City's daily volume criteria. Table ES.3 Road A Sizing Needs for Buildout of Project PM Peak hour NB ROAD A SEGMENT Volume Harney to C Street 1,012 PM Peak Hour SB Volume 1,281 PM Peak Hour Total Volume 2,293 Daily Volume 10.2xPM 23,290 Number of THRU Lanes Needed 4 C Street to Main Street 577 820 1,397 14,189 2 Main St to Blue Shield North Access 276 571 847 8,603 2 Blue Shield North Access to the south 181 537 718 7,293 2 NOTES: Daily Trip Generation weighted on Road A Near Harney 50,536 subtract 60% of Blue Shield daily trips, since they won't impact Road A north of Blue Shield 48,220 -Daily Factor from PM Peak Hour Tri Gen 1 110.2 Commercial daily trip generation on Road A north of C Street was NOT reduced even though 34% was assigned south on Fronta a Road to Armstrong, and 5% remains internal �v.Qmp� Cor orate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 i wwwpr smworld W � com P voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 12 SUMMARY OF COMPARISON OF FEIR TRAFFIC IMPACTS TO THIS STUDY • The FEIR assigned 25% more of the Blue Shield traffic to Harney Lane to the north on SR 99 and 25% less south on SR 99 than did this report. • This report assigned more Blue Shield traffic south on the frontage road to SR 99 • The FEIR used lower "Pass -By" percentages than did this report (15% compared to 34%+) which over-estimated impacts. • Although there is more commercial in the current project, there is less residential. • The FEIR had 355 more residential dwelling units than the current plan has less. • This report reports 212 less pm residential/school trips • This report's pm peak hour trip generation totals are 45% higher than the FEIR As a check, peak hour volumes in the FEIR for Cumulative 2030 + project conditions were compared with this report (Figure 3.10.17 compared to Figure 19). An intersection to the west of the project intersections, Harney at Hutchins, had 310 more pm peak trips than the FEIR for the Year 2030 cumulative plus project scenario. Harney at the E. Frontage Road had 272 more pm peak trips than the FEIR for the same scenario. Stockton Street north of Harney had 119 more trips assigned to it than the FEIR for the same scenario. This adds up to 701 trips of the additional 998 trips, so we can see that although travel patterns shifted from the FEIR to this report, most of these additional trips were assigned to Harney Lane, and they could still fit within the LOS C threshold. The additional traffic can be accounted for additional trips going south on the frontage road from Blue Shield, etc., and any internal traffic that takes place between residential and commercial uses (residents of the project will shop at the local stores and restaurants, etc.). The additional proposed project peak hour traffic external to the project site represented only a 12% increase in overall traffic at the E. Frontage/Harney intersection, and a 7% increase in overall traffic at the Harney/Hutchins intersection. At other intersection locations surrounding the project, similar minor increases in peak hour traffic are predicted. This is a result of the project peak hour traffic spreading out around the project via multiple roadways surrounding the project. comCorp;�� www.prismworldCor orate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 .,�. voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 INTRODUCTION Introduction and Project Description Page 13 The primary purpose of this report was to: 1. Generate traffic projections for the project and add these to background traffic and future growth; 2. Calculate levels of service for study intersections for the peak hour conditions, and; 3. Determine the road sizing and intersection mitigations needed to achieve LOS C or better conditions based on peak hour intersection operations. The process was highly interactive, with traffic playing a significant role with the civil engineering design team in determining the roadway structure and access configuration for the project site. This report documents the final result of the interactive process. Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the project site and the intersections studied in this report. Figure 2 shows the project site map with generalized land use and roadways. The Reynolds Ranch project is different than what was assumed for the project in the Reynolds Ranch Final EIR. There is no school. It has more commercial uses, less residential impacts, however, the Blue Shield office component of the project remains the same. Even the assumptions for trip distribution for Blue Shield have been updated with detailed information about where Blue Shield employees live relative to the City of Lodi. It is known that 60% of Blue Shield employees live south of the City of Lodi and this fact was utilized to refine the trip distribution component for the Blue Shield office traffic. The project essentially has three elements: commercial, residential, and office. These three land use categories are treated separately for trip distribution in this study, so that traffic is assigned in a manner that is consistent with the land uses, and to take advantage of the generally known locations of existing Blue Shield employees who will move into this new facility along Road A. www.prCor mworldP orate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 is '�� com voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 INTRODUCTION Page 14 The land use totals for the project are defined in detail in Table 1 in the next section of this report, but in summary includes 225.9 acres of land including: • 2.6 ac of hotel use • 20.5 ac of office use • 75.6 ac of retail use • 8.0 ac of park and trails buffer • 9.0 ac of pond • 1.0 ac of public use • 5.0 ac of mini storage • 11.3 ac of senior care • 38.7 ac of senior housing • 9.2 ac high density residential • 2.5 ac existing residential • 10.1 ac med density residential • 8.5 ac of low density residential Table 1 breaks these various uses down into square footages, number of pumps, rooms, employees, etc., and calculates the trip generation for each pad, and applies a "pass -by" reduction for appropriate commercial retail land uses (retail that will have partial direct access to Harney Lane). Cor orate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 www.prismworldcom P �� voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 INTRODUCTION Page 15 Cor COM orate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 ww. wprismworldcom P voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 INTRODUCTION www.prismworldcom Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 ,� voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 Page 16 TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION Trip Generation and Distribution Page 17 The trip generation totals for this project were developed using standard ITE Trip Generation rates for shopping center land uses. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 7t" Edition contains data which defines the expected average peak hour vehicle activity for the types of land use being proposed in this project. Table 1 documents the trip generation rates used for the various traffic assignment scenarios. The trip generation for various portions of the project were reduced for pass -by traffic where appropriate, and in accordance with ITE guidelines. Pass -by traffic is where drivers take advantage of visiting a store when they are already on the road, and their relative impact to the traffic volumes on the road is therefore reduced. In addition, some drivers take advantage of the proximity of other stores, and visit more than one store in a shopping center. Trip Distribution The pm peak hour of adjacent street traffic is typically a one hour time period sometime between 4 pm and 6 pm on a weekday (i.e 4:30 to 5:30). The am peak hour is generally between 6:00 am and 8:00 am on a weekday. The peak hour trip rates listed in the table represent the amount of traffic that is expected to take place in and out of the project site during the adjacent street peak hour time period. Pass -by percentages along with diverted link methodology' were implemented where appropriate, and reduced trip generation totals are shown in the right -most columns for inbound and outbound traffic. Care was taken not to reduce the actual traffic impacts improperly on Road A with pass -by traffic factors, because there will be no reductions of project traffic on Road A as these are diverted link trips. The project's traffic was distributed separately for three various land use components of the calculated trip generation to better reflect the unique trip distribution patterns of residential, commercial, and office uses. Figure 3 shows the trip distribution of the Residential land uses in the project. Figure 4 illustrates the trip distribution for the Commercial land use component, and Figure 5 for the Blue Shield Office land use. The Blue Shield trip distribution factors are based on Blue Shield employee living locations. 1 Diverted link traffic are vehicles that are diverted from say, Harney Lane, and turn onto Road A through its intersection with Harney Lane to get to one of the project stores, as opposed to entering the shopping center from a driveway connected directly to Harney Lane. www.prismworldcom Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 '�/� voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION Table 1 Trip Generation Summary for Project with Pass -By Reductions Page 18 Land Use Designation ITE Code Independent Variable Daily Rate Daily Trips PM Peak Hour Rate PNM Peak Hour Trips PNM Pass- By % PNM Reduce d Trips PNM Entering % PNM Exiting % PNM Entering Trips PNM Exiting Trips Supemiarket shopping, groceries 850 92,800 W 10224 9,488 10.45 970 36% 621 51% 49% 317 304 Shopping Center Shops 820 16,0GG W 42.94 687 3.75 60 34% 40 48% 52% 19 21 Shopping Center Walgreens 820 13,200 W 42.94 567 3.75 50 34% 33 48% 52% 16 17 Gas Station Gas Station 944 10 pumps 168.56 1,686 13.86 139 42% 80 50% 50% 40 40 Shopping Center home imprmaement 820 111,371 W 42.94 4,782 3.75 418 34% 276 48% 52% 132 143 Shopping Center Garden Center 820 26,568 W 42.94 1,141 3.75 1GG 34% 66 48% 52% 321 34 Shopping Center Office Depot 820 18,0{}0 W 42.94 773 3.75 68 34% 45 48% 52% 21 23 Shopping Center Beverages & More 820 10,0{}0 le 42.94 429 3.75 38 34% 25 48% 52% 12 13 Shmppirxg Center Shops 820 7,0{}0 tt2 42.94 301 3.75 26 34% 17 48% 52% 8 9 Shopping Center Chili's 820 5,0{}0 tt2 42.94 215 3.75 19 34% 12 48% 52% 6 6 Shopping Center Sleep Train! Pacific Dental 820 5,000 le 42-941 215 3.75 19 34% 12 48% 52% 6 6 Shopping Center Pad 820 7,5{}0 W 42-941 322 3.75 28 34% 19 48% 52% 9 10 Fast Food W DriveThrmugh WDDnalds 934 4,000 W 496.12 1,984 34.64 139 50% 69 52% 48% 36 33 Fast FoDd W Drive Through Taco Bell 934 3,0{}0 W 496.12 1,488 34.64 104 50% 52 52% 48% 27 25 HDtel HDtel 310 104 rooms 8-171 850 0.59 61 0% 61 53% 47% 33 29 Shopping Center Street Front Shops 820 9,700 ft' 42.94 417 3-751 36 34% 24 48% 52% 12 12 Shopping Center Street Front Shops 820 9,700 W 42.94 417 3.75 36 34% 24 48% 52% 121 12 Shopping Center Street Front Shops 820 9,700 tt2 42.94 417 3.75 36 34% 24 48% 52% 12 12 Shopping Center Street Front Shops 820 9,700 W 42.94 417 3.75 36 34% 24 48% 52% 12 12 Shopping Center Wholesale shoppirxg 820 150,505 tt2 42.94 6,463 3.75 56434% 372 48% 52% 179 194 Shopping Center ItmhWBest Buy 820 88,000 W 42-941 3,779 3.75 330 34% 218 48% 52% 105 113 Shopping Center Michaels 820 20,DDG W 42-941 859 3.75 75 34% 50 48% 52% 24 26 Shopping Center Shops 820 15,0GG W 42-941 644 3.75 56 34% 37 48% 52% 181 19 Shmppirxg Center Shops 820 13,DDG W 42-941 558 3.75 49 34% 32 48% 52% 15 17 Shopping Center Petco 820 15,0GG W 42.94 644 3.75 56 34% 37 48% 52% 18 19 Shopping Center Pier One 820 8,000 W 42.94 344 3.75 301 34% 20 48% 52% 10 10 Shopping Center Shops 820 7,500 W 42.94 322 3.75 28 34% 19 48% 52% 9 10 ShoppingShDpping Center ApplebWs 820 8 OGG W 42.94 344 3.75 30 34% 20 48% 52% 10 10 Si le Tenant Office Blue Shield 715 1 600 emp. 3.62 5J92 0.5 800 N/A 320 15% 85% 48 272 Law Density Residential 210 70 D.U. 9.57 670 1.01 71 N/A 71 63% 37% 45 26 Medium Density Residential 230 159 D.U. 6.72 1,068 0.52 83 N/A 831 67% 33% 56 27 High Density Residential 221 200 D.U. 6.72 1,344 0.58 116 N/A 116 65% 35% 75 41 Senior HQUSinq 251 1 300 D.U. 3.71 1 113 026 7$ N!A 781 61%1 39% 48 30 Total Daily: 50,536 Pin Peak 4,747 2,996 1417 1579 Source: PRISM Engineering, City of Lodi, and ITE www.prismworldcom Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 '�/� voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION Page 19 2% TURNER RD 2% LOW AVE N 4% 5% 20% z z 10% 10% 4% a KETTLEMAN LN = 7% 10% D: #A ~ W 0 w V Z V N 4010 CENTUR BLVD = V O = H U y � V a o 0 2 5% % � D O W Ui RMSTRONG RD 5% 10% Figure 3 Trip Distribution, Residential Land Use Component Cor orate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 wprismworldcom PW-OV.410w�r � voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION Page 20 Cor COM orate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 ww. wprismworldcom P voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION Page 21 Cor COM orate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 ww. wprismworldcom P voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION Page 22 COMPARISON OF FEIR TRAFFIC TO THIS STUDY Even though the daily numbers of the project are 79% higher than studied in the FEIR (50536 compared to 28300), the pm peak hour trips are only 45% higher. Traffic impacts are not measured in software analysis programs on a daily basis, but on a peak hour basis, the analysis hour. There are several items to consider when comparing the FEIR results with the results set forth in this study. They are set forth in the paragraphs that follow: DAILY VS PEAK HOUR COMPARISONS The Daily trip generation numbers are not used in the analysis of intersections. Daily trip generation is an interesting side -note, but is not relevant to the specific analysis completed for the FEIR or this report. Daily numbers do not take into consideration reductions for say, ""PASS -BY" traffic, so discussion of the Daily numbers is usually not applicable when there is a discussion of the impacts. The peak hour is the analysis time period for both the FEIR and this report. The daily numbers have no direct correlation to traffic impact, so it is important to note that only the analysis time period numbers are used to compare the FEIR and this report. During the pm peak hour, there were 4747 trips generated for the project in this study vs 2270 trips generated in the FEIR without any reductions for the pass -by traffic. There are certain adjustments that take place to bring the raw trip generation calculation into reality. In the real world, trips to a project may already be on the road, and merely stop over on the way home or to some other destination. Depending on the size of a project, some of these trips stay within the project area providing minimal impact to external roadways. �'W wwwprismworldCor orate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 ;A0116— com voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION In the table that numbers used for reductions): Page 23 follows, a comparison is made of those pm peak hour the FEIR and PRISM analysis condition (after pass -by PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON Source: Table 1 page 17 from PRISM Report, and Table 3.10.6 Page 3.10-26 of FEIR Note: (numbers are reduced to account for pass -by traffic assumptions) The new analysis numbers calculate to be 45% higher than the FEIR. In the new project, the RETAIL directly took the place of some RESIDENTIAL / SCHOOL uses that were present in the FEIR analysis. There are less homes in the new plan (729 vs 1084), and also more RETIREMENT homes than before, resulting in lower trips for residential, and a shift of trips (212 less residential/school trips with the reductions, see below). RESIDENTIAL and COMMERCIAL TRIP GENERATION SHIFTS PM INBOUND PM OUTBOUND TOTAL tris trips TRIPS FEIR 1005 1067 2072 PRISM STUDY 1417 1579 2996 NET INCREASE 412 512 924 45% overall 729 DU @ 348 trips 2328 2676 Source: Table 1 page 17 from PRISM Report, and Table 3.10.6 Page 3.10-26 of FEIR Note: (numbers are reduced to account for pass -by traffic assumptions) The new analysis numbers calculate to be 45% higher than the FEIR. In the new project, the RETAIL directly took the place of some RESIDENTIAL / SCHOOL uses that were present in the FEIR analysis. There are less homes in the new plan (729 vs 1084), and also more RETIREMENT homes than before, resulting in lower trips for residential, and a shift of trips (212 less residential/school trips with the reductions, see below). RESIDENTIAL and COMMERCIAL TRIP GENERATION SHIFTS Source: Table 1 page 17 from PRISM Report, and Table 3.10.6 Page 3.10-26 of FEIR *reduced for pass -by trips (15% for FEIR, and 34%+ for PRISM study) In addition, the FEIR did not take into consideration "pass -by" traffic reductions set by ITE at 34% lower traffic for retail/commercial types of uses, but used a 15% value for this (probably because no specific land uses were being considered, and an overly conservative estimate was made). This assumption for pass -by in the FEIR built in some reserve capacity for the project impacts given the mitigations that were recommended in the FEIR. www.prismworldcom Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 '�/� voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 RESIDENTIAL/SCHOOL COMMERCIAL TOTAL PM TRIPS PM TRIPS* TRIPS FEIR 1084 DU and 1000 1118 1678 Students @ 560 trips (one trip rate used PRISM STUDY 729 DU @ 348 trips 2328 2676 (higher trip rates used NET INCREASE -212 1210 998 Source: Table 1 page 17 from PRISM Report, and Table 3.10.6 Page 3.10-26 of FEIR *reduced for pass -by trips (15% for FEIR, and 34%+ for PRISM study) In addition, the FEIR did not take into consideration "pass -by" traffic reductions set by ITE at 34% lower traffic for retail/commercial types of uses, but used a 15% value for this (probably because no specific land uses were being considered, and an overly conservative estimate was made). This assumption for pass -by in the FEIR built in some reserve capacity for the project impacts given the mitigations that were recommended in the FEIR. www.prismworldcom Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 '�/� voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION Page 24 According to ITE for a project with commercial retail, 34% of the commercial traffic is already on the roadways because drivers pass by various stores on the way home from work, etc. This is especially true for fast food restaurant trip generation which is set at 50% pass -by reduction. However, the FEIR used a blanket 15% value for ALL 350,000 sq ft of potential uses within the commercial retail designation for pm peak hour. As a result, the FEIR was conservatively high on its commercial trip generation calculation. One other reason the FEIR commercial trip generation calculation was different is because it used the same trip generation rate of 3.75 trips/KSF for the 350,000 SF retail. This report used this rate as well for most uses, but several land uses were calculated with much higher trip rates, i.e. fast food @ 34.64 trips/KSF and supermarket @ 10.45 trips/KSF, etc. For this reason, a more realistic assumption for pass -by was used in the analysis. PM PEAK HOUR TRIP DISTRIBUTION of OFFICE TRAFFIC A comparison of the pm peak hour trip distribution of the office project traffic was made. The FEIR assumed that only 30% of the Blue Shield traffic went south on SR 99. This report, however, used 55% because the Blue Shield tenant communicated specific information that 60% of their employees live to the south of the City of Lodi. This report assigned 55% of the Blue Shield pm peak traffic south on the frontage road to the Armstrong interchange since it was a significantly shorter path, and there were no left turns or signal delays along the way in getting to SR 99 south. As a result, this report assigned 25% more of the Blue Shield traffic to the south on the frontage road, and that was 25% less traffic to assigned northerly to Harney Lane. www.prCor mworldP orate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 is '�� com voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 ANALYSIS ANALYSIS Page 25 PRISM Engineering obtained all existing and future traffic turning movement data for the ""No Project" conditions from the Reynolds Ranch Project Final EIR, dated August 2006. In addition, the City of Lodi provided an am and a pm peak hour traffic count for the intersection of Harney Lane and Melby Drive (where Road A will intersect Harney Lane). Twenty-eight (28) intersections were studied similar to those included in the FEIR, but with more detail along the roadways that will directly serve the project land uses, namely, Harney Lane and Road A. The am and pm peak hour projected traffic from the project was assigned onto the surrounding street system for the Year 2006, 2008, and 2030 scenarios using the trip distribution assumptions outlined in Figures 3 through 5. The following scenarios were studied: TIME PERIOD SCENARIOS FIGURES Year 2006 AM Peak Hour W/Project, WO/Project Figures 8 and 9 Year 2006 PM Peak Hour W/Project, WO/Project Figures 10 and 11 Year 2008 AM Peak Hour W/Project, WO/Project Figures 12 and 13 Year 2008 PM Peak Hour W/Project, WO/Project Fi ures 14 and 15 Year 2030 AM Peak Hour W/Project, WO/Project Figures 16 and 17 Year 2030 PM Peak Hour W/Project, WO/Project Figures 18 and 19 Year 2030 AM Peak Hour Project Only Figure 20 Year 2030 PM Peak Hour Project Only Figure 21 Figure 6 shows the current lane geometry for each of the study intersections. Figure 7 shows the assumed lane geometry for the Year 2030 conditions to meet LOS C standards of service. In some cases, LOS C was not possible, and this is detailed in the capacity analysis summary contained in Tables 2 and 3 for the am and pm peak hours, respectively. Figures 8 through 19 have been prepared to illustrate the intersection turning movement volumes at each study intersection corresponding to the scenarios listed above. These are the traffic volumes that were entered into the SynchroPro software program, to calculate levels of service for each intersection using the HCM 2000 methodology. The intersection numbers shown in each figure correspond directly to the location of the intersection numbers shown in Figure 1, the Vicinity Map. The ""Plus Project" traffic volumes shown in each of these figures were derived from combining the trip generation shown in Table 1 with the no project traffic volumes gleaned from the Reynolds Ranch FEIR. Figures 8 www.prismworldcom Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 '�/� voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 ANALYSIS Page 26 through 19 show the volumes with appropriate pass -by reductions for the shopping center traffic, with diverted link traffic added back in for Road A traffic. Figures 20 and 21 show the specific ""project" traffic volumes for the am and pm peak hour, respectively. The capacity analysis and methodology is explained in the section following Figures 6-22, and is based on HCM 2000 and micro -simulation analysis procedures. The future traffic volumes were developed as stated previously, from taking volumes from the Reynolds Ranch FEIR ""without project" scenarios, and using these as a base upon which to add project traffic. The project traffic in this report exceeds that assumed in the FEIR. The FEIR had 28,300 daily trips and 2,072 pm peak hour trips. This report's project has 50,536 daily trips and 2,996 pm peak hour trips assigned to the roadways after pass -by reductions. This analysis' level of detail far exceeds that contained in the FEIR. For example, the trip generation rate used for commercial in the FEIR was only one rate, 3.75 trips per thousand square feet. This report utilized a variety of trip generation rates for retail commercial land uses, and also pass -by percentages to further adjust trip generation details. Rates were used for fast food (53.11/KSF), gas station, supermarket (10.45/KSF), hotel, in addition to the generic rate for "shopping center" (which was only 3.75 trips/KSF). The end result generated a significantly higher trip generation for the project than was utilized in the FEIR analysis, making this report a significantly more conservative analysis. In addition, the FEIR assumed a 10% internal capture rate, and this study only assumed 5% internal capture rate, meaning, that more of the project's traffic was assigned to the external street network outside Reynolds Ranch. The plus project traffic volumes along Harney Lane for the future conditions as studied in this report, resulted in an approximately 4% growth rate per year, which is higher than projected in previous studies. In a compilation of city-wide growth rates prepared previously by Fehr and Peers (shown in Exhibit 1), it was reported that the "General Average Annual Growth Rate" for Harney Lane was 3.67% from the time of the oldest count available to the most current count. This yields the worst possible growth rate because it does not take into consideration fluctuating growth rates at different points in time along a multi -decade process. For example, an area might have already "built out" along a certain roadway, and if it is assumed that the same growth will continue to take place in the future, this would not be a reasonable assumption. The city-wide growth rate was calculated to be 2.30% growth per year. This report shows that a 4% growth rate took place along Harney Lane over the Year 2006 volumes. www.prismworldcom Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 '�/� voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 ANALYSIS EXHIBIT 1 Lodi, CA Average Annual Growth Rate Calculation' Page 27 Stre et 2A Genera 14 Average Annual Growth Rate Cumulative 5 Difference Ham Lane 1.03% 0.65% 0.38% Lodi Avenue 0.65% 1.86% -121% Turner Road 4.05% 4.18% -0-13% Total Area Average Growth Rate 2.30% 2.45% -0.14% Source: City of Lodi, CA and CaNans- Notes- 1 Growth rate calculations do not take into consideration different months during the year when count data was collected - 2 Only streets/locations were considered Mable sites where two-way counts collected on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday for multiple years from the last 20 years were available - 3 Historical roadway volumes provided by the City of Lodi, CA, with supplemental data provided for 20173_ d The General Average Annual Growth Rate was calculated by comparing volumes from the oldest and most recent years available - 5 The Cumulative Average Annual Growth Rate was compiled by calculating growth rates from volumes between each set of years available and then averaging those growth rates - 6 Supplemental roadway volumes provided by the City of Lodi, CA for 1994 and 1998 along State Highway 121Kettleman Lane_ Additional roadway volume data for State Highway 121Kettleman Lane for 1992 and 2004 obtained from the Caltrans website_ INTERNAL CIRCULATION ANALYSIS The project is served by Road A connecting on the north to Harney Lane, and on the south to the existing Frontage Road on the west side of SR 99 (see Figure 2). There are roadway connections along both sides of Road A which lead into the project areas and then connect to parking lots after that. C Street is the first intersection along Road A south of Harney Lane, which will need to be a fully signalized intersection. The next intersection to the south is Main Street, will also need to be a signalized intersection. After this, driveways are stop sign controlled. LOS C or better conditions prevailed along Road A for all scenarios. Micro -simulation traffic operations analysis was used to examine traffic flows in and out of each of the project areas serving the various building pads. Each area was modeled and no adverse traffic queues were observed, www.prismworldcom Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 �� AVM__voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 ANALYSIS Page 28 indicating that the project sites had adequate access and proper design to allow the free flow of traffic inbound and outbound. The micro simulation tools available in traffic engineering allow the viewing of simulated traffic flows for a specific set of lane configurations and traffic projections. For example, if traffic for a left turn pocket backs up into the main through lanes because it is too short, then it is possible to change the land configuration to say, a dual left turn pocket, and then rerun the simulation. Usually such a change will allow more traffic to get through, improve the traffic flows, and clear up the problem. PRISM Engineering utilized this methodology to determine the best lane configurations for each intersection approach in the study area, in an iterative process that also considered right-of-way constraints, adjacent intersection proximity, and traffic volumes. The project has direct driveway access to and from Harney Lane via a right - in / right -out access, both on the west side of Road A and the east side of Road A. These access points help traffic flows and circulation significantly, and help keep some of the project traffic from unnecessarily congesting Road A traffic operations. This is especially true for that section of Road A between Harney Lane and C Street. Since the traffic generators being served by these two access points are large trip generators, this additional access point to Harney Lane is very helpful, and is good site design. COM Cor orate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 www.prismworld 'u m P voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 ANALYSIS SR 99 Freeway Merge Analysis Page 29 Traffic projections for the SR 99 freeway were taken directly from Caltrans Traffic Count Data website (http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov) for the Year 1992 (oldest counts available), and the Year 2005 (most recent counts available). These counts were used to determine the growth rate for the 13 year period, and apply this growth rate to get to the Year 2007, 2008 and 2030 future conditions. The growth rates used for freeway traffic volumes were calculated by determining the compounded growth rate and applying this rate to Year 2005 volumes to calculate each projected volume. Exhibit 2 summarizes how these growth rates were determined. Exhibit 2 Freeway Volumes and Growth Rates Back Peak Hr Peak Mo AADT 1992 10 99 SJ 29 SOUTH LODI; CHEROKEE LANE 4450 53000 48000 2005 10 99 SJ 29 SOUTH LODI; CHEROKEE LANE 6400 77000 74000 13 years Growth 1950 24004 260DD % increase 0.438 0.453 0.542 compounded growth rate 0.028 0.029 0.034 PROJECTED with GROWTH RATE: 2007 10 99 SJ 29 SOUTH LODI; CHEROKEE LANE 6765 81554 79096 2008 10 99 Si 29 SOUTH LODI; CHEROKEE LANE 6960 83931 81774 2030 10 99 Si 29 SOUTH LODI; CHEROKEE LANE 12873 157922 170119 Source: PRISM Engineering and Caltrans Traffic Data Site There are typically two methodologies used in traffic studies to determine growth in traffic. The first and more conservative approach is to use a simple growth rate for a road segment based on historical growth patterns. The second is to use a traffic model (which is also based on historical growth patterns in land use and population growth). PRISM Engineering used the first method in this report, and produced a more conservative result. For example, using the historical growth rate for SR 99 in the vicinity of the project it was determined that the year 2030 traffic volume for the SR 99 freeway would have a peak month of 157,922 AADT (annual average daily traffic in vehicles per day), or about double the existing traffic volume from the year 2005 (it is typical that traffic would double in a 20 year time frame). However, the San Joaquin County Council of Governments Year 2030 volume projection for the same location is 102,300 vehicles per day. With the Reynolds Ranch volume of 5,400 ADT, this increases to about www.prismworldcom Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 .,/�. voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 ANALYSIS Page 30 108,000 ADT. Even with this lower projection of SR 99 daily traffic from the San Joaquin County COG model, LOS F conditions are still projected for the freeway weave in this area, as they are currently at LOS E now with only 79,096 AADT for the Year 2007 condition. The only thing that can improve levels of service in this area are either more lanes on the freeway or elimination of weaving conflicts (ramp closures) or both. The existing and future freeway volume projections for Year 2007, 2008, and 2030 are shown in Exhibit 2. PRISM Engineering used the Peak Hour projections for the freeway analyses in the HCM (HCS) software. It was also assumed that there was a 60/40 split on freeway volumes to obtain the highest directional flow rate. The following volumes and lane assumptions were used for the SR 99 freeway volumes in the highest peak hour direction: • Year 2005: 3,840 vph in three lanes • Year 2007: 4,061 vph in three lanes • Year 2008: 41176 vph in three lanes • Year 2030: 7,724 vph in four lanes The worst-case Reynolds Ranch Project traffic entering the SR 99 freeway at the Harney Lane northbound ramps was 249 vph. This project traffic was added to the cumulative traffic volumes for the ramp, and the total volume of traffic getting onto the SR 99 freeway (northbound) from the frontage road hook ramps just south of Harney Lane was projected to be 338 vph. The majority of traffic at the Harney Lane freeway ramps is getting off of the freeway during the critical pm peak hour. Merging the 338 vph with the mainline freeway volumes shown above yields LOS F conditions in each scenario. However, because the existing level of service for the freeway weave on SR 99 from Harney Lane to the Cherokee Lane offramp (overcrossing) is currently at LOS E, the project is not the reason for the unacceptable traffic conditions. It is an existing problem caused primarily by the close proximity of the Harney Lane northbound onramp and the Cherokee Lane offramp (over -crossing). The following results are true for this weave section without the project traffic added in: • Year 2007: 4,061 vph in three lanes, LOS E • Year 2008: 4,176 vph in three lanes, LOS E • Year 2030: 7,724 vph in four lanes, LOS F com www.prCor mworldP orate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 is .,�. voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 ANALYSIS Page 31 When the project traffic is added in to the Year 2008 and Year 2030 traffic projections for the freeway, it further aggravates the existing problem, and the weaving section (outside right -most lane) will be at LOS F conditions in any scenario, using the HCM 2000 methodology (see appendix). Possible mitigations to the freeway would need to be determined in future studies including a Project Study Report for freeway and interchange improvements on Harney Lane. The existing cemetery on the east side of the freeway and north of Harney Lane poses expansion constraints for SR 99 (ie constructing an auxiliary lane or a fifth lane). There are many other conceptual options that could be considered, but it is more appropriately the subject of a future detailed Project Study Report to look more closely at several alternatives for mitigation, considering the physical constraints and field conditions associated with validating mitigation concepts. �`� Cor orate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 www.prismworldcom P '�� voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 ANALYSIS Page 32 1 D R �► 2 C ENTO RD. -' l�► 3 f11�MENrO R -'ll �� CE RLVD./LOWEEl 4 PANE To RD. 1'► + 5 CRAMENrO RD �l�► i —Vol 0. AR NCRAMENT R0. jlEMA" `1ILL51VE. $ ENAN AVE/ �J EXINS ST. O �WM`NN ST J �► � �1� A �1� 1 ETrLEMAN LN. ST�CICTON ST i LEMAN LN./ y CN OKEE LN. EMAN W./ 3 R 99 5B RAM TTLEMAN W./ 1 R 99 NO RAMPS y HARNEY LM. MILLS AVE 4t HARNEY W./ 1 NAN W. HARNEY LN./ NIRLNINS ST. X�1RNEV W./ LKTDN 5T. y 1 OR 99 OR RAMPS/ CHEROKEE W. HARNEY W./ LNE KEE W. 2 HARNEY LN. E. FRONTA9E RD ��yy L SR 99 NO RAMPS/ E. FRONTA9E RD. MSTRONG RD.j 2 WEST LN ARMSTRDNG RD./ny W. FROM AGE RD L SR 99 SR RANPA/ W. FRONTAGE RD. 20 SR 99 N9 RAMPS/ E. FRONTAGE RD, ARNSTRON9 RD./ E. FRONTAGE RD. 2 HARNEY W./ MEL91 DR. —Al 9 •Existing Lane Configurations www.prismworldco Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 `� /�� voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 ANALYSIS Page 33 1�Rffl! 1�► RMILOWER ONTO RD, 2 I AVE./LOWE ENTO RD. K 3 111 N./LOWER O RD � 4 CE 1�► CRAME/NTO LOWER RD. � 5 �1� OtAMENTO R � � I �11� -A&A X111 -A► AR 6 MG RD./LOWER RAMENTO RD. E TIMAN LN./ ILLS AVE. 8 ETT�EMAN LN./ r NAM AVE. �{ 9 MAN LM./ NLNS 8r. O TTLEMAN LN./ 4FIl1RCN ST. i VLE= LN./ N ST. y LEMAN LN./ CE LN. 13 FREEMANLN./ R 99 95EAMPS 1 EMAM LN./ R 99 NR RAMPSL4 MARNEY LN./ AVE. �1� � X11► � � ��' 1 xaRNEr LN./ NAM LN. SLNbT' 1$ STOCK D ST' 1 SR a,CR01(C N' Z CX ROK!! N' i Z NARNEY LN./ FRONTAGE RD. 99 NO RAMPS/ 2 M RO G�RLDN w L ARMSTRONG RD./ W. FROM AG! RD. w L OR 99 SE RAMPS/ W. PROPRAG! RD. i 2 sR 99 NB RAMPS/0. NTAGE R qNSTRONG RD./HARNEY FRONTAGE RD. + + LN./ Figure 7 2030 Lane Configurations,Study www.prismworldcom Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 '�/� voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 ANALYSIS Page 34 Ij M 01 Inn ,i SACRAMENTO RD. 4— 2 n (T w rl rl Mn LODI AVML/LOWER CENTURY BLVD./LOW SACRAMENTO RD. 3 LO M m SACRAMENTO RD 4 N m U m N 01 �j ffMTO RB '4 m 'i m ^ j C S M (r� m Op m m m SACRAMENTO RD 4— 81 14 231lL'_i �l7 43 112 129 56 f-171 04�i6 7►( 961 42 c 3 I t r 255^^^^IP 1 1 0 01 ♦ 138 33 276 1 67163 97 —N 29 93 ^^^^^01 1 55Lo 0 �-i 33 n 29 [ M 0 n 00 ( ^OfN mmm M 3 00 OOn ,01 rmi +� .4 n RMSIRONG 00./LOWER 6 ^ NDN m RUTl RAMENTO RD. % m m 0 ,i r' KETTLEMAN LL/ KEITLEMAN LN./ KETRPMIN LM.J MILLS AYE. 8 m E MANAVE. n m UTOIIXS ST. Nn0 � DODO 4 N N 'i 'i V 0 m nm� NETTLEKAN LN./ CNINlCX ST. JJ 30 _ 47 85 468 _ 252 518 817 l'_i 94 -d 866 T 1 25 i,Ji 123 (� 64 122 �) f— 93 16 93 '� 101 47 518 /' t 154 55 I 561 .. "� � 1 1 670 �� 1 t 1 109 827"".. n '�j (� 1 t 1 8 Mo o O1 39 77 , ( o m Ln 66 mo � DD N 28 o +4 Of N rl rl rl M N i m Oom 'i 'i KETiLEMAN LM.j KION ST i M QOM N K EMAM LM./ KrrTLEMAN LK./ KETTLEMAN LK./ NEROKEE LN. N1 LD RS RAMPS;9E NB RAMPS ' 6f o0 coo Hoof 'i L NET 1 N.! MILLS A VL �!— T 34 83 T 7� _ 116 JN O J 63 912 T l 107 T 402fi 12808 111 156 � 734 1 180 546 t--�._. 0 233 586 402 1 27 172 o I t 230 ---#f an 00 WLD n 125 of , q 203 0 mrl j OOO St�iN1 0 OOO N r4 r4 N rl N O N n MARKET LN.1i HAM LN. 0 'Cr In '4 MARKET LK./ KARKETLN./ SR"SB RAMPSS( UTcxiMrs sT. di N ^ cgLVDN Sr. O Of N lRDK!! LN. 4- '4 N MARKET LN./ ISiOK![ Lx. 279 —187— � 153 103 12 2895 33 � � � Ji � 58 0 � 19 2""^` 122 �1 1 1 f l �"'..^ 1 62 237 1 14 294 - 149 0 4i7—� 1 ! —�� 317 —► (� t 000 178—� o m LOOLD 1 mRTmLn O*i00 19 in NNS rl rl rl N 2 N O NARNE V LN./ E. ROMfTAGE Rp ISO 30 0 N O T SR 8E NR RAMPS/ ARMSTRONG RD. ARMSTRONG RD-12-1dSR E. RDNTAGE RO. . Ch Ln♦ WEST LN m N m W. ASR RqO 0 mm� i 95 oDNm 30 0 1100 0 f Ij 49 53l� ^ ^ RR BS RAMPS/ W. ROKTAQ1 NO, 2 x126 133 1 1 205 242 86 I 112 i 154 —� I 0 �► t 121 Nmm 10 7 13 Nr�IO i mr, Ln w Lnr 0 ,i 4 0Rt 14 N Ln O l_ 7► BE 0E NO RAMPS/ IL R Gffi RD. 0 4 020 'Z ^ CI m rl ARMSTRONG RQ/ NARNET LK./ E. OR7AGE RD. � 0 N Ml LST DR. 9 n 8 20 � /_ 448 3 ��0 r j�t! �I11 �0 1 is 0 29 46 57 0 0�o 52 � 0 n ? coo www.prismworldco Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 ;4b;, /W� voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 ANALYSIS Page 35 1 Ln V Of SAcaAM irT4 RA Z y� ^ Of snc�uME"TO 1w. 3 1D OD Rr s�Cwu� rro xu 4 m •••; r� M ry - .._. LD D) MM M D1 LD ry � � ENTO Rlf M M C4 SACRIMeNTO RD N 81 O LM M 43 M M. q A-112 f Ln r% 129 M -I M .i A-157 121 171 `ii j 06 961 A �42 ( f-138 33 t r 67 • 163 3 !29 276 —10 97 —1 1i� � 255 — . 0 —�► � � 133 —* 55 � 00 'p 33 118 a N N 0 M LMD LD 3 j o o rl rl M rl N N N ,,ARMStRONG RD./LOWER ' M KWMSMAw LIF./ RETTLENIAN LN./ KE77LEMAw LN./ KETtLEMAN LM./ ±j D] t\ ItAMENTO RO. Ol M O MTLLSAVE. 8 N ^ O xAM AVE. g O1 uTwxw6 sr. 0, CNNIRCEI 5t. NMN � '�rlrl rINN ( �NV4 nLD� 1 _ 30 _ 47 261 _ 85 I 94 468 4 518 6 25 �f f-123 I 64 122 �f� f— 93 �jt— ------ 16 t� 47 t r 154 1 I 55 t� 109 I �1 93 518 561 670 827 —� 8 �DO�' 39 M� 77 Gm� 68 NLn 28 Opp N 'i M V4 Li M Li N h Rr O1 Li KETTLEMAN LN./ KETTLEMAN LM./ K1TrUMCAN LM./ KETTLEMAN LPL/ HARVEY LN.} A Ln 1 O KTON St. ^ Ch EROKEE LM. LD Mss RAMPS S AA tis RAMPS M MILLS AYE OY�M MNM DhO� 000 Ri nO�D 'i 'i _ 34JN 'i 132 N 0 R� 63 'i 127 6 14 517 503 6 83 f 1 1— 98 f-114 O�► f— OQ f 156180 0 —� ��� 233 —� ��� 27 734 � 546 1 586 �► 402 335 �► 230 Ln n 125 0h ,i 226 0,4 LD 0 N.O-10 Ln MN74 D I000 ^''N 1ccoo RAMEY LM/ HARVEY LN./ HARVEY LR./ SR M Ss RAMPS/ HARVEY Lw.f o M HAM LM. N . OD ]CRs ffiT. M N IITOR ST, o N OKP! IIF. 0 Rr Kire LN. N _289 NL 225 'i 'i 436 _125 J _ 12 M 58 f 305 �) f-221 T, T i r� 32 �f 122 7 i,-505 I � 6214 i 149 � € 0 � 389 417 -►'� 1 �` 488 —►,'' 741 —► '" T (" 0 —►''l T f'` 406 —10 0178 LnOc 43 0 MO1 000 1 OHO p1.4 lin riM RARMEY LA./ SR M NR RAMP5f ARMSTRONG RO. ARMSTRONG RD. SR sA Ss RAMPS/ Z E. ROttTACE Rtl. p ry e. ONTAGE RO. rl M 1YEST Lw D) n M W. RONTAGE RD. N ry w, OwTAL RD, N .-1 0 ri ,� 0 j N Ln 1 A N p LD 00 O 0 �^ �1 95 173 �i 52 0 X220 i�� 0 €110 � 57 i� 0 1 30 f 0 84 3 ♦ j 126 4 434 t 242 138 0 J 159 No 0 —i � 1 112-0. 1 154 No I t r O 291 p 10 7 m y 13 0 p ,i coM� Ngo i MOfN Ln j Orl.-I M V Li N Li SR AA No RAMPS/ ARMSTROMA RIX/ HARVEY LR.1 N Ln O E. RONTAGE RO. m ^ D1 E. P�+ORTAGE RD. O n MY OR. 0 rJl'i LL ;c CIX n i 478 8 0 'f-0 f 7 f— 3 l f-493 10 118 45 0►� i I 39 �i [1 84�(��� 186 ^^� p 52 ^^�289 ^^� Ln Ln NNO NV'i ` NpN-I Figure 9 2006 AM Peak Hour Plus Project Turning Movements 11 www.prismworldco Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 ;4b;, /� voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 ANALYSIS Page 36 1 a s s�CRAMENTD RD. N �,�M � 155 2 a O N .,row LgpC �NT�ORD 109 3 �mr4 " M SACRAMENTO RD �.. 168 4N11IRr BLYD.jLOWE O� RAMENTQ RD o"°' I� M 112 HARNEY LM./LQ 5 SACRAMENTO RD "a"' .. M 93 267 J" l_ lN_ 3 J404 1-4 49 210 (� j 150 j 124 I 8 -4 86 72 251 —/ ' I 72 143 —�' I t 240 416 —/ 1 1 1 —0 i 37 84 --0 1 53 '. N 07 35 .aiON N rl� 66 1 wwLn N N a 0 j N N O 1 w j .a a wl wl .a ARMSTRONG RO./LOWwI 6 N M N sAC�RIk►1ENTn RD. M 7 M N N N ..+ ..+ KETTLEMAM LN./ MxLLs AVE. 8 m a c0 a N Yf ..+ M N KETTLEMAN LN./ HAM All. � KfrrLEMAN LN./ 9 10 v v UTCHYNs 5T M O N M ..+ KRMGMAN LN.j 01 .a CHURCH sr. N .4 O I ..+ ..+ .+ J 40 1.4 JL14 77 52 168 i _ 113 �_ 80 7 52 100 126 196 241 28 t 64 ��11 66 912 169 926 t 1 95 10014 I t r 186 1102♦ 3 N V1 f~9 96 w D N N 131 wh N m 119 I ufNO �O l0 N 50� Co M O�1 O ei N N N N N N N i^ a .a .a KKTYLKMAN LN-/ SOdfTnN ST. It a O O N N N KEYTLKMAN L►L/ KEE LN. a O M KETTLEMAN LN./ 53R RAMPS KETTLEMAN LN.! O O O 59 NR RAMPS HARNEY LN./ O '�.rrxg AYE. 26 94 823 150 613 [ [_ 0 14 224 70 500 J 175 3100 97 — � 118 7" ,�^^" 524 .L ♦♦♦ (� 143 872 �` 1 2560 722 �0 706 4 1 278 515 �� 1 42 186 01 1 270 o �0 122 M o 231 0 v 0 N O m N N M M N N M 1If1 M N 000 MO a NARMEY LN./ HAM LN. M N W M '' HARNEY LTL/HARNEY UTCHINS ST.Lal a m N LN./ CKTOR ST. SK 09 SK RAMPS/ O� !BORN LN '' HARNEY LN./ CO Ln Mm a^ dtOKEE LN. 1 236 44 208 ) I � 127 4 33 � l� 96 .4 437 25 124 7 f— 177 f f— 141 f— 12 -- j- 51 ^^^� 162 ► t 1 ---- ---- 39 204 �y -- t 1 220 340 0 l 1 0 ^ ^� 1 0 ,� 159 1 204 1 0 coo 93 —a. ♦ Mma N Oa 1 O .� 0 Ch O N't 24� NC4 11 a N p1 M N HARNEY LN./ E. RONTMaE RD. ^ O w 'y SR" NR RAMPS/ R.;=E RD. a m O W Ln w ARMSTROM& RD. WEST LN ARMSTRONG RD. a w- ONTAFR w M M SR 99 SK RAMPS/ O a a W. CAGE RD. N 1 2 722 0 f- 0 0 132 119 44 38 10 6 15 f 1� 159 ♦ 8 166 � � � 349 0 � � � � 479 81 � � � � 48 1 131 —0, r 0 0 � � 110 v M a w 19 N N O 9 m n^ Ln 19 DT N N 0 O N OI 00 O SR 99 N9 RAMPS/ E. AGE RD. N N ARMSTRONG RD./ E. AGE Ra. O a HARNEY LN./ ELHY OR k 7 1 L •_ 0 0 ei � ,— 28 6 � I 13 1 0 ♦ f-- 2729 � � 0 j 316L 1 402 160 ♦ N w O �-^^� 49 ♦ N n w 0 O O O www prismworldcom Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 1,,/V voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 ANALYSIS Page 37 FINER M/LummLODL l Ln a SACRAMENTO RA M M M N .a 155 kVE./LOWER Z a O N sACNA1RNr0 RQ. N m^ .a m 109 3 O O n O 7 *a M N SACRAMENrQ RO 168 plNTURYRLVO./LOW! 4 a1 O a1 [SA ENTQ RQ L'I[ 112 5 n n N a IN M N SACRAMENTO RD. 4--275 267 I — 109 14 404 3 .4 96 f— 213 I, 150 127 r �^^ 8 ♦ 86 I t � 72 251 --� i � � 172 143 —/. I � 240 427 -10 I t r 1 1 � [� r 37 134 ♦ 53 Z p M N 35 N^ to M IN 186 N Ln N IN 0 N a+ 1 to M wl M M a ARMSTRONG RD.ILOWER 6 NLr, Vf SPIRD. N M N % 00 m N .a ,y KETREMAN LN./ MZLLS AYE. $ It M LnIO N N M N 1W"LENAN LN./ NAM AVE. KETRPMAN LN./ g Vf N UTtl12N3 ST. b O r-4 11 0 14 .y 14 KETTLEMAN LN./ CNWLCII SY. 40 81 172 -126 117 80 X52 �$oo �g96 .�1.. �24� 28 64 ♦I� t _.�1..', 66 912 ��'� t r 169 927 �� 1 95 1002��[ t 186 1105 t 3 ^aM 96 N� 134 00Nm 120 NM.ri 50 Mat00 O h KETTLEMAM LM./ i O M i N ST. N N .a N J26 O O DD 0 O O N M N KITTLEMAN LN.i XEROKEE LN. ,y R O M KETYLEMAM LN.i 99 sR RAMPS I A KETTLEMAN LPL/ s 49 NR RAMPS O O O ( O N O N 14 NARNEY LN./ MILLS AVE. k 845 �� 155 629 0 14 246 ( 70 �j 606 202 14 509 97 118 f-524 143 —--- 872—��t� 261 731—��t� — — 0 15 10 - 278 524—��t� 42 437 10 271 1 r, N .a M h O 122 M O M h p 246 O 00 0 to a ( M M N 0 000 ' N N +ti N M ]HARNEY LN./ O NAM I.M. m " 7 ^III M MMN HARNEY LN./ IFTCXITk3 ST. M (+� m N M '" HARNEY LN./ RTON ST. SR 99 56 RAMPS/ O N ROK!! LN. ~ HARNEY LX./ M m NIROIQ!! LN. n 268 54 229 �► 160 25 124 ~ 746 0 255 � T � Or,— 3S ♦.,.� ( �'� 141 51 441 �--•� � i 39 m� 518 ----� t __. 1 _ 220 769 x--10 _ t 0 ( t 0 101 202 - 532 �. 1 0 p p p 93 MOO O O N 60 M 0 Ch O n 00 N HARNEY LN./ E. ONTAGE RT). O M N 1 M ^ R N O SR 99 NO RAMPS/ E. ONTAGE RQ. 0 7 M m 0 0 0 '' ARMSTRONG RQ. WlST LN 132 ARMSTRONG RQ. 'y 7 W. NTAG! RD O M n ( " 97 It *'� O R Ln '' SR 99 S• RAMPS/ W. ROgTAGE RD. 49 292 l 0 r 160 r 7 99 0 ! 15 9 217 —�� t 607 t 871 t r 131 —` (� 0 t 1 387 N L a m 19 N N O 9 ^ M n Ln o 19 O0 N N 0 O SR 99 NO RAMPS/ p O E.I AGE RQ. 0 7 N .y ARMSTRONG RN/ ARMSTRONG E. PAGE RQ. 22 O 7 HARNEY LN./ OR. k: 13 �l 0 6 904 0 •t[ 60 �• t� 01 �• t1 184M IN to N ON 49 N 14 458 CID a Ln O Turning Movements Figure 11 2006 PM Peak Hour Plus Project www.prismworldco Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 ;4b;, /� voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 ANALYSIS Page 38 Al. ID 0 SACf[M4ENiO RA aN.i [ A— 81 LODI kVE./LOWER Z w m SACRANeNTO Rn. M 0 muf.i 43 3 O m W Na.+ SACRAM61iiO RA A-118 C MVkYELVM./LOWS 4 n n n c0 ENTO RIO .iaD) 140 5 � n a Maw SACRAMENTO RD 1103 41 231 10 � �. 94 363 0 � �r 114 f-199 'or-- 160 � 162 f— 2 � 141 33 --A 276 -� t 75 103 233 325 — t45 0 99 —10 $6Ln 68 MD M w 39 1 O O 1$ O N w $ O N n .OI .pl a ry ARY57fiO1JE: RG./LOWEk 6 DI DJ n RAMENTO Rb. N 0 ry KEYREMAN % 01 M MZLLS AVE.AVC. ry N N 4 8 a a N N N KEITLFMAN LN./ NAM AVE. KETYLEMAN LLL/ g O n Ln UTCNFNS ST. N N E Iff O � n .�-� REMMAN LN./ ChWICN ST. I 30 4 53 25 47 09 � �I 126 _ 252 628 64 85 4 910 125 .„ 94 931 �L� 16 93� 56 672 ...r.-'.'I� t 161 684 6e 767 �[ t 112 928 8 € p N .pi 57 -r4 m r N 88 m m ND 81 N N ND 28 ---a D� N MW KETREMAN LN./ i N �p M S�T CTON ST. '' W4 a O M N MMLEMAN LN.f KEE LN. a 0 M KErTLEMAN LN./ RANFS KETTLEMAN LN./ O O O S E RAMPS O O L '' N NARNEY LN./ LLS AVE. 34 769 J' 'f _ 116 58' 0 224 63 404 147 Of 307 If-83 93 f- 524 ♦♦� r • 166. 815 183--* 621 ♦ —t— -- 1 U 706 1�► 260 451 (Itr 37 _ 37 m_mm_m. 240 0 M125 rnnm ChM m11 231 000 0� I w n it n 0 000 N N ei N N N HARNEY i.N./ a 0". NAM LN. 281 N !A N �1NARNEY LN -f C"" ST. 158 N ^ NANMEY LN-/ KTQN ST. A=1'0 108 $R 90 $R RAMPS/ O r4 M DI N K!E LN. 12 If1 N a HARNEY LN./ �NIROiQt LN. �- 58 247 338 399 0 295 0 197 2 135 11 377 —� 1 1 1 385 —1 1 1 r 551 —�► I. f 1 _ 0 347 288 — 1 0 nv 193 00 4 1 0 Mn 19 HARNEY LN./ 2 N . I p E AGE RD. 0 195 � ry O �.a �l OR 99 NO RAMPS{ E. F�7IONiAGE RO: 0 .4 0 .a .4 Ln '�n.. ARMSTRO"Q ROJ j4L LN 95 11030 ARMFSTROKS RUJ iy n M W. A6! m ODNM l_30 S3 n Jo~n SR 89 SE RAMPS/ ar.�TA VM RA1. 2 0l r 49 f l� 126 4 159 —� (� t 240 0 242 - 112 -- t r 86 154 —` (� - �- 0 t 173 0 w M 107 N N p 0 M W S 13 Ln w 0 O N N a SR"NR RADS/ n O (E. ONTA6E Rtl. 0 00 RD n M .a ARMSTRONG RD./ & F ONTASE R37. 9 40 m O n n ��� HARNEY LN./ MlLRY OR. k 8 5009 30 10 0 i 118 29 1 t 45 54 { 57 o ND o 52 N a .. 0 o 0 0 www prismworldcom Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 1,,/V voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 ANALYSIS Page 39 1 M ^ aN~ SACRAMEMTO RO 81 2 0 00 LODI AYE./LOWER SACRAMENTO RD. 43 LOWM 3 M ' sACRANENTO RQ Na'y 4-118 CENTURY 4 ^ 0 m .+mm BLVD./LOW! RAMENTa RD 140 n to CoLn SACRAMENTO RM MaN I. 204 1— 2314 100 III �— 363 �► �— 0 �— 135 ► f 199 160 *� ►[ 162 42 141 276 —�. 7 i 75 J� 103 —� j` 'I 233 [ 325 45 0 �• t 34 39 ' 1 56 1 0 to IIf N CO 68 � Ij n Rt M a N 1 128 � I Ln �0 N M 01 15 � O O M O 8 � e f O N n AftNM 6 00 n N O N N6 RD./LOWER ENTO RD. % O M O N M O rl rl KETTLEMAN LN. f MILLS AYE. L KETTLEMIN LN.f $ M E NAM AVE. M O O rl N N [ g O '� M 1D n 0 N N KE1T_EMAN iN./ UTtl4iN5 ST 7 ETTnAmAN LN./ V] OLn CXURCX ST. n toRt rl 1 1i 30 53 47 III _ 261 85 14 910 94 (_ 9 .tom 25 126 (� �L� 64 125 31 T 93 1 1 1 r 672 �� I'j 684 �', I� 7 1 928 8 ;0 Ch 57 a0 88 X00 83 MN 28 aan N .+ .+ .+ M . N . N MO KETTLEMAN LN./ ON ST. KITTLEMAN LA./ 11 N 'y A=1 R32 0 KEYTLEMAN LN.f ON B RANPO M O O KETCE.EMAM LN./ S HABMEY LN./ MN OO MS AVE. . N 34 do 769 04 586 � l 0 246 63 404 1 63 408 � � ♦♦ 83 l 99 531 !! +� ♦ � ♦♦♦♦ 166 815 —�► t 183 621 —10 706 —` � 1 � 260 451 —0 � 1 � 37 384 240C11 Ch 00 125 M'M'E 254 j o00 0 n*ar, 0 000 N .ti N 7 0 M N NARNEY LM./ NAM LN. 4-291 NARNFY LM./ Ln N N 00 llTCNINS ST. 7Ln N HARNEY LN./ KTON ST. P'1 N j =1'3 '" '" O Ch N SR 88 SR RAMPS/ NIROK!! LN HARNEY LN./ N ( MOIQ! LM. M Of 305 230 ] 130 0~— �j'"'" 12 58 535 7 1 223 32485 1 78 557 -- - •` 38 t 579 149 10 835 - 1 0 0 419 484 0 0 000 193 0 0 n N 43 1 - O1 R O1 0 M 0i O 14 Do .^-i R •i M N N O HARNEY LN./ E. RONTAGE RD. 0 235 SR PE NR RAMPS/ b ry O E. ONTAGE RQ. M 0 0 1 ARMSTRONG RD.j -n R � WEST LR inner � 95 110 ^ M NNv ARMSTRONG RD4 . RONTAG! RD w.=,73.= 173 .4 57 21d SR 99 SE RAMPS/ O N N -=52 QNTAGE RQ. 00 j 52 30 0 84 3 126 4 185 • �+� I 449 Itr 0 I 242 112 1 138—r 154 1 T �+� I 0 �t 0 �) 343 Ln Ln M M m 10 N .1 0 7 M 13 in LD 0 O 11 u01 .Ni rs LM O L 7 SR 99 NB RAMPS/ 6.,CAGE Rl. 0 ARMSTRONG RD./ Ln ^ O 1 E. FJTONTAGE Rn. .y *+ 34 �1 3 HARNEY LN./ pp O n ` LRY OR. n 539 493 10 45 � 1 11 t r —10 ! 0 39 773 186 0 �00 to O 52 M N� rl 289 M Ln l N O Co 14 Figure PeakHour Plus Project Turning Movements www.prismworldco Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 '� /� voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 ANALYSIS Page 40 N M Man Ru./L ONnDI SACRAMENTO RD. Z M N N O N AYE./LOWER SACRAMENTO RD. n 01 m 3 el m 0 sAtxAMENIR RD M a M NiyBY 11 4 M N N %04•+ BLVD./LOWS SEHTO RD N m '� M m M SACRAMENTO RD a •+ 155 267 �► 109 127 188 579 �r 137 3 154 .56 277 276 260 . 8 90 72 251 177---* 146 -0, I� 380 j 576 25 1 40 [ 87 —� 1 55 I wNN r, r491 w r,.. 00mN 93 It 0 Ln 'I6 Nri 15 NOD rim ARMSTRONG N N m N m N RD./LnwE0. S ENT* RD. % O M m N N .d .-1 40 KrmrmkM W./ MILLS AYE. 77 KETTLEMAN W./ 8 M 10 NkM kVE. [ M m .-1 M N I 168 g .y n m N N M .d KEITURMAM LN./ UTCNiLHL ST 113 K@FILEMAN LN4 m m .y CHURCH ST. N .i O[ .-1 .� N 80 L II _ lil �_ 10 L 1205 �_ 1262 7► 512 j 1069 63 j 7 j 241 28 64 —0 88 ' 1208—� 189�� 1174—� ] 119 1193—�► 188 1297-1 3 n 141 n 0 f~9 1 ml0 161 CA ID 153 w-rm N 50 m I M 01 N .ml N N N N N i N N KETTLEMkN W./ KEITLEMAN W./ N N N* KETTLENAN LN4 O CO SSB RAMPS O O O KETTEEMAN L!L/ SB RkMP4 HARNEY W. ^ O MILLS AVE. 26 _ 50 40 987 771 ��� 0 313 70 -4 607 297 306 r 97 119 258 863 �� — 524 r r 165 1017 0 i�11 1 848 344 ; 590 1 1 76 —� i 1 239 299 m .a 122 m N Ln N O O M M 232 OO O 0 M a m M N 0 j 000 N N0 N M L O L HARNEY LN.! HARNEY LH./ HAM W. ^ HIHS ST. 241 M '' 132 HARNEY LN./ m KTRN ST. 101 O L '' SR 99 SB RAMPS/ A*KEE LA 25 HARNEY LN./ M a M I 'OKEE LH. N i 124 _ 408 469 JN 635 03 r 7 r r� 179 54 ��( � 295 ^—� `fir r� r r� 173 v. j 12 61��� 275 �� 220 �1� 434 0 1 0 ^� ��� 195 t�✓ 275 �►! l 0 103 comm1 000 .4 O Ln O N N 0 0, r4 O n RI 24 w r4 i N a m N -r N ei N .Z O M N HARNEY W./ SR 99 MB RAMPS! E. RONTAGE RD. LO ^ & ONTA6E RD. O .y O N 2 ARMSTRONG RD. M WEST LH m m 0 m '' O N M M ARMSTRONG RD.J W. RnMTAG0 RD � SR 99 SS RAMPS/ W. RONTAGE RD O r,I i �1_286 1 0 721 0 _ 132 119 i ��� 44 �l 38 -4 160 15 f 159 r 3911 't 0 �� j 8 198 479 �%' 81 ( I 48 131 —0 t1 0 --14�t1 0 148 19 0 r4 M a m N N O �^�� 9 7 cD - I� n m 19 m m N ry 0 O N Ch— N m O SA SA 99 NB RAMPS/ ARMSTRONG AD./ E.'CAGE RD. N No Ln E. F NTAGE RD. HARNEY LN./ O a j LBY DR. _14 0 22 01�j 68�� 13 7109 8129 36 •: t 27 0 1 494 160 to 0 49 N n .moi 0 cc 0 www prismworldcom Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 1,,/W voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 ANALYSIS Page 41 0 a n M N ~ SA�RAMq Rp, Z M M N M ry ~ 00109 SAC AVE./LOWER SACRAMlNT0 RD. n� n m v1 3 N M O M Ln M SACRAMEwVO RD C!N'LLIRY N Df 4 M N N 00~ R1_YD.jLOwE RAMENTtl RD M M It M SACRAMENTO RD *— 155 267 127 188 4 579 137 4 3 �. 336 14 103 +� 280 +� ♦ 276 263 +� 38 90 .�( t 177 .I 380 ` 25 40 251 —� 5 I 146 � _ll 587 1 —� 137 —� 55 00MN 91 CON 213 , IDMco 6 �0a 15 "Y,., d ARN6TRON6 v N N RD.7LOWER ENTO RD. 'p N N •+ 'y KFMEMAN LN.1 LiS AVE. m M Ln 'y M KETTLEMAN LN./ �xAM AVE. CO N N KFMFMAN Lw./ CHINE 67. Ch N 110 '' '' '' KETREKAM LN./ �URCH Si'. 40 */— 114 I-1169 81 `N I-1047 172 FF'' 117 +/^1110 80 44 1270 52 l� 106 1� 126 205 241 28 64 88 12084 189 1175 119 1194► 188 1300► 3 n0M 141 m mN 164 � .a r4154 +�Om m ry 01 OInN 50 � oo Mao to *a N N M N M N N i co m Vf M N .. N a KETiLEMAN LN./ KTON ST. M O h N '0"0' WMEMAN LN./ NEROKEE LN. � m +y *a O a m KETTLEMAN LN./ 4a S• RAMPS 00 O KETiLEMAN LM./ SC NE RAMPS �j "� 1 co O ^ O O1 HARNEY LN./ MILLS AYL 26 04 1979 155 04 787 0 14 335 70 6903 I 324 605 r • 119 - 524 165 1017 , 11 r 263 872 0 —A 857 — 1 344 --A 599 1 76 490 10 I t r 300 m N 0 m u1 O N N I 122 M N M N 247 O O O 0 m a Y1 M N N N 0 O O O +- M M NAANEY LN.1 VI Ln O O NAM iN. A— 273 704 N ^ 7 m M N ) � HARNEY LM./ FLTCNINS iT. 234 go 757 It 7 M 10 JN M '~ HARNEY LN.1 KTON ST. 165 Ln O N '~ ~ SR 99 SR RAMPS/ xlROK!! LN. A 25 HARNEY LN.1 Do M xlROK!! LN. ^ 124 826 1 7 1 If— 257 *f 354 17354 238 603 —N 554 l 1 609 —10 1 220 863I t 0 0 — o 1 0 0 0 0 103 a1 CO a1 *a O N 60 O1 .a M Ma .a 0 a Ln O n N N a N +y rl N HARNEY LN -1 Z 61 M N � E_ ASE Rif. oo N O SR 99 LY RAMPS/ E.�AGE RD. � 00 N C ARMSTRONG RD. �wEsw iw at M ^ ARMSTRONG RD. W-pfR! 2 O a] wl Ln SR 99 SR RAMPS/ W.�A� RD. 321 2 97 50 9 0 f j� 99 59 249 � 609 � t r 479 81 01 1 t r 1 17 131 '► � 0 0 425Nam 19 eq 11 O 9 n N o 19 00 Ch 0 to ^ rn 00 N O OL SR 99 HE RAMPS/ E. AGE RD. a N Ln ARMSTRONG RD./ E. cm RD. N O a HARNEY LN./ t8Y OR. 4— 22 �� 13 719 7 0 6 904 27 0 1 1 60 1 r 29 477 11 r 184 —S. ♦ M49 rl N 458 O0 a .Ni O N *+ m 0-igure 15 2008 PM Peak Hour Plus Project Turning Movements www.prismworldco Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 ;4b;, /� voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 ANALYSIS Page 42 1 N O N SACfLAMENTO RO qD O LO M N 112 LODI kVE./LOWER Z ISACRRIRNfO Ra. M n RO " m "�' 60 3 m •' N .y Of OD M M SACRAMR1i7O RA 170 NYVRY RLVG./LOWS 4 O O f N M .a [ SA EMTO RA " " [ 190 5 a o N O M ry SACRAMENTO RD 164 321 is �. 4 418 0 241 296 243 215 8 ♦ 195 46 --A 383 -� � 1 158 181 I � 392 461 —10 354 0 —�• [ � � 79 172 81 [ ., n Cham 170o m r,rnm 71 Ln a o+ ana 125 [ 0 Ln 't 18 map Mm nN Ln F4 a a.a ARY577LONE: RO./LOWEk LO KET7 .. LN./ %O m ti 8 N�N CC N KETTLEMAN LN./ KETTLEMAN LLL/ Co wl ON .I N AU MAC wm .�i KE7 n"M LN./ i.!�ME S W9 [ 52 _91 4 753 2MVE 66 0 1049 1415 43 �ti 133 i 7 68 32 [ �MLp 98 28 160 77 1051-�I� 1 170 1057 011092 114 [ 1 138 1233 1014 € p�N M 89 �� 100 CC maw 85 �n� 30 am°�° KETTLENAN LN./ i N NST. '' wl m m m "'� Lp .� a .4 N wl KE7YLEMAN LN./ NEROKEE LN. O m O^ M EETTLEMAN LN./ S9 RAMPS K=UNAN LN./ S 44 NB RAMPS O O O ( O a N O O N XARNEY LN./ MILLS AVE. 36 4 888 _ 123 679 0 599 I 67 4 506 174 Of 409 V— 186 f 98 113 r 195 i� ♦ 1094` 1] 213 11 846 �♦ t r 0 * 877 �► I t r 309 J I� 619 ( t r 44 520 I t 253 m M o m m 235 ,r � r4 N(h 229 00O 0 w N ( RO .� n 0 -- 000 m .y .y m N N .-I N HARNEY i.N./ Ln O �XAM LN. N RO N XARNEY LN-/ XL/4 ST. M N NARNEY "4 �KTOX ST. $R 99 MS RAMPS/ O O O ACKOK!E LN. 14 O HARNEY LN./ ¢NIROiQt LN. �jC-•- 241 458 195 445 133 422 0 44 88 4003 � � 0 � 245 � 2 I 0 275 —0 11 1 41 560 —� 11 r 366 586 —0► 1 f 1 0 1 1 413 — 1 0310 ry m ,y 1 0 274 —y„ ♦ o00 ma.oa�na N It N o00 o00 2 HARNEY LN./ _E. RD. 254 M I O �l OR 99 NO RAMPS{ F= 0 __189 a L ARMSTRO"Q ROJ WLN 40 16 ARKSTROKS R04 O a I ~ A52 9 ON N y SR"SR RAMPS/ a. P. 3N 37 0l r 84 5 f l� 217 5302 258—�(�t� 0 �� � 417 193 t F 148 26.5 26.5 11tr 0 01�1� 210 m m Na 12 ., 12 v N I W N 22 , ach p 0 p NmO 0 . SR RADS/ ry E. ONTA6E Rtl. .,rnp ( 0 0 1 imLn N O In ARMSiRONQ RN/ & F ONTASE R37. � 15 40 m mor` HARNEY LN./ MlEBY OR. k 8 534 0 4 5 0 0 �► i 3 517 00 t r 45 86 { 98 Ro N N oa 90 N N 0 00 0 N VOW— www.prismworldco Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 ;4b;, /V� voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 ANALYSIS Page 43 1 N~ N O i0 �aN SAFCRAMINM RA. z 01 ' I Ln M O t0 DI AVE./LOWER SACRAMENTO RD. 3 m w N .l N pD Mt`M SACRAMENTO RR N'IY,IRY 4 m M� N O .A .im.i RLVO.fLOWE RAMENTb c0 a s O M �t`M SACRAMENTO RO 112 4 321 [ 60 4- 150 I4 170 418 190 4 0 I 265 �- 262 y 296 t� 243 1�► 215 58 y ,,�^ 195 46 158 J 392 t 354 79 383 --�. 181 � 461 �� 0 X10 212 �' t � 81 � � M 170 ^ 'I � 160 1 � G a 125 Ln a ro 18 rl 11 M 0 M M w N N w N Ln a N ARM57RtlNO 6 pp IO a n a RO.fLOWER RAMlNTO R = % LO a Ln M .9 .9 KETILEMAN LN.f MILLS AVE. 8 a cc w .i M N KETTLEMAN LN./ NAM AYE. g pp ca ^ N .9 KETTLEMAN LN.f t1TCNINS IT, k c0 M � " KPI-MEMAN LN./ SY- CNINN:N Sf 52 �— 91 I 50 4 753 I 275 4 669 90 1049 I 99 1095 1� 43 1 133 1� 68 132 1� �I� 98 28 160 ♦ T r 77 1051 t 170 1057 1 1 t r 114 0924 1 t r 138 233-••W/. � t 14 O .I M 89 m 10 100 n m 0 87 M N o amnio 30 N 10 0 am°�° IOI'1 eMi.^-0 .N,a°' NN M KE771ENAN LN.f T. i36 M M n u 14N'' KETnLr�N N ^KATLEMAN OO M LN/ AMSO P O O KETTLMM LN,/ S NRAMPS OD O 1 N '' M A./ MLLAVE.N 1111141 186 139 104 067 120 506 190 50 .4 195 1094 10846 I�213 �^^�` � � 877 77 1 .(� 11 309 619 � � 44 ► 68310 253 1 IA N o 1 .1 O m 235 NI R7 M -r N O 252 00O 0 M m N Ch 0 000 M N N N N N N N R] a M O f0 HMV£/LAI-/ hAM LN. mat M N m M M HARNEI LN4 OTCNINS Sf. � N N M '' HARVEY LN./ KTON ST. j 000 SR 99 S9 RAMPS/ [ROKE! LN. N O1 m O M N HARVEY LN./ N[ROIO'[ LN. 251 506�� _ 267 JM _ 155 0 �1 88 603 271 i �' 32 • r 0 61 455 -�►I, 1_ ! 41 754 -� -w_w__. tr 1 366 870 —j _w -t ------- I w_w_ 0 0 -� w_w_ w ______._ww_ww__ 0 609 -� _ w.. t _ 1 0 00o 310 N m w ChMtl 43 waw 0346 o00 —y. ♦ o00 LM It 2 N -1 O HARVEY LM./ E -C AGE RO. CL'n O sR 99 N9 RAMPS/ E. FRONTAGE RO. m M ARMSIROHQ RO. �WlST LN t\ a w ARMSTRONG RO. W AO! RO 2 C ^ w SR SO SH RAMPS/ W, TAS-' RO- 2940 0 �i 164 189 95 53 ~� 37 0 119 217 5 284� I,I 511 0 t417 1 r 193� 200 265���� 0 �� 380 ^^� aT 12 INL1 .^1 0 12 Ln m w 220 w�� � N 0 01 O SR 99 N• RANPSf fi. A6fi RO. 0/— Ch N14 IM N ARMMONG ROJ !. F AQ RD. 48 n G ^ ( I HARNEV LICE LSV OR. '— 564 0 5 `I► � 455 17 060 1 4-5 10 724 227 .y 0 90 a n N 270 O Ln N N N Movements Figure17 2030 AM Hour Plus ProjectTurning www.prismworldco Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 '� /� voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 ANALYSIS Page 44 1 ,y a V) sACRAMEnrTD RD O CD LODL kVE./LOWER Z 01 N O ISACRkMENTO RD. N O N N .� 3 M O 01 c0 CO Ln m It SACRANXNTD RD A-344 CENmRY RLVG./LOWS 4 O CA [7 O N c0 ENTO RD M OA .+ 5 •+ 01 M N f0 N SACRAMENTO RD j 371 151 301 4 737 180 4 �r[ 315 14 119 462 ♦ 474�. 430 ,�^^ 3 123 100 348 0. 11 1 r 280 227 r 493 678 — t73 211 r 135 —� 88 [ o N to [_ N w n 164 ma 00 N N 130 1 a o N N to W 50 M 00 O .4 20 a .� It M .a It N w M LO 00 ARY577LONE: KO./LOWEk 6 07 M ! RANENTD RD. M n a KETTLEMAN LN./ % N O O NZLLS AVE. N N I'I H Ln N .a N M N KEYTLEMAN LN.J NAM AVE. � K97r"MAN LNLJKETTLEWN g N a .4 UTCNINa V. N M N [ N a .a N M N LN.J ChWICN Si. I 69 196 90 81 -1102 � �I _ 178 14r38 _ 119 14r37 1216 _ 119 2167 'or 7 [ 48 110 103 1491-� 'i � 1 199 1453 153 1434 � !1 1 r 153 1434♦ 5 n €~ Ln " M 165MCh 173 Co p 160 [ Ln m N 160 m N 01 N N N M^ N N N N N N KETTLENAN LN./ 1 00 a 07 NST.Ln LO 00 a a 00 O N M N KrmRMAN LN.J XEROKEE LN. � "'� Ln O� Ln KETTLEMAN LN./ S9 SE RAMPS � K=LENAN LN./ S 44 NB RAMPS O 0 0 i � N a � O 01 XARNEY LN./ MILLS AVE. 27 4 1299 JN _ 159 1022 0 4 545 74 14 4 80 340 Of 6 103 f 193 554 r 01 186 i� ♦ 1224` 1] 286 1032♦ 0 1009► 384 J (� 716 ( 86 380 li 314 M Ch n N 0 334 D Ln ,y -r Ln 264 O O O 0 ( .y M M 0 000 N N N N M N N HARNET i.N./ O N �XAM LN. UD ahL/5 XARNEY LH-/ ST. Ln HARNEY "4 �KTOX ST. $R 99 SN RAMPS/ O O O A K!! LN. m O HARNEY LN./ ¢hIROiQt LN. �jC–•- 328 697 163 �� 662 203 44 584 0 44 40 831 0 222 4 0 r 0 w _ w �. _ w _w _w___w 410 1 1 __ 6.4 411 —� ww_w__. 1 402 455 —�► f 1 0 —� 1 1 369 — 1 0 o 0 0 177 Ch m M It o m 1 �" o N ., 0 o 0 0 152 ♦ o 0 0 M to .4 HARNEY LN./ 2 a N E.',AGE RD. 1 a N 0 N OR 99 NO RAMPCJ E. F�iLONTAOE RO: 0 a Ln C ^ ~ " .i ARMSTRONG RA. �WlST LN 227 ARKSTROKS RLi. m W A6! RD ~ 65 �l�! 0 a ^ SR"ER RAMPS/ ar. TA RL1. 95 .1�.; 920° 0 1 r 76 108 f l� 274 10 275—t� 506 0 � 825 139 t F 83 226—�(�� 0 175 o ., l a QI 24 nv N N O 15 Nm RD N M (A 33 j v0 N Ln M 0 MM p M N .y SR A9 NO RADS/ N a E RD N .-o 0 ., N N '1f MERN/ OAGE RD. &F� 38 - o a �1f HARNEY LN.J DR. 0pRO M -4 46 0 632 t 29 537 { 276 N O 84 a In N .moi 0 O O O r4 www.prismworldco Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 ;4b;, /W� voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 ANALYSIS Page 45 1 .a a SACRAMENTO RD O Z N O C LODLAVL/LOWER (SACRAMENTO RD. 3 M Eo 0 M m aM SACRAMENT. RD O NITIRY BLVD./IOWE 4 C M ENTO RD '~ .i M y~j M W a SACRAMENTO RD ` 215 ^' 151 301 344 of 737 ^' 180 4 —497 og 166 [ 465 li�� 474 433 53 123 100 348 280 227 -^^-1' 689 —fir 1 211 �� [ 73 185 —� 1 88 OQirl � v M 164 moa ::tea 250 Ln ch It 0 w 50 MON 0 0" 20 Na'y '" m W kRMuIRONG RIY./LOWER 6 W M RAilENTO RD. M N a KET7IEMAN LN./ % N O 'y LtILFS AVE. r- .Mi .Mi iii 8 M N .^i M N KETTLSMAN LN./ NAM AV � KElTLPMAN LN./ -?1 N N N IiTCHINS'ST' .y a .a N a' 1 .y M .y KETTLEWN LN./ CNINIQi ST. 69 196 85 02 182 1 332 � 123 [�-1471 �� � 119 �W1475 I } 11 J, � 216 -J +� � 216 48 110 —� 103 1491—�'i,� 199 1454 10 1 1 r 153 1435—�� 153 1437 10 5 n [ N M 165 MM N 176 0� n 161 Ln r- N 160 RnoRN N GR N N M N M N N KETH.EMAN LN./ i m %D pp ON ST. RD M a ( .� N '~ RD O Ol N N N M N KET MrMAN L N./ CCHEROKEE tH. i J '~ a O O W 0 KE TLEMAN LN./ 99 SR RAMPS KEfTLSMAN LN./ S 99 N8 RANP9 O O O (� N N O N N HARVEY LN. MILLS AVE. 27 164 14 0 of 567 74 8900 18500 367 1031 193 r 554 �I 186 24 291 41 � t � 0 — 10 1018 I t r 384 — � i 725 686 31 —� � 1 315 315 11 334 3 � 279 0 N 0 n Ro N N M a R. 0 N M. 0 0 0 M 17 N .y 000 HARNEY LN./ a RO NAM LN. O M k N O1 m O UD i0 00 a N HARNEY LN./ DTCMINS ST.L81 � M M M O M OD '' HARNEY LNJ jjjKTYiN ST, SR 99 SR RAMPS/ ROKlE LN. O O ( 000 m N M O O M HARNEY LN./ HEROA'E LN, 1 360 953 265 950 267 913 0 i�� 0 40 1154 0 300 36 0 0 73 689 �� 64 25 �� 1 402 884 —♦ 11 r 0 ^�� 11 r 1 697 ^� 11 r 0 177 m N 60 � 0 195 0 0 0 M o N m y 000 0 0 0 0 0 .Z HARNEY LN./ .y E ONTME RD. N ( -r ,y N N O OR 99 NO RAMPS/ E. OIYTAG$ RD. O M 0 N v '' N '' '' ARMSTRONG RD. WEST LM � ARMSTRONG RD. O � M W. �+NTAGE RD N Rn O i N '' m � O R4 Ln '' SR 99 55 RAMPS/ W. RONTAGE R0. _ 1 J� 0 '� _ 227 205 _ 124 J _ 129 90 �f 0 131 f 10 f 274 ��" i� 322 6 —� 784 0 � � t r 825 139 �' � t r 152 J � � 226 —' 0 0 1 � 452 m - m 24 n r N N 15 N m R R N RT N 33 .. �( v o N RO M 0 ., Rn N N F, N SR 94 MR RAMPS/ N a E. ffRONTAGE RD. N N O L 0 O O RD M Rn N N ARMSTRONG R0./ & ONiAGE3RD. 8 n HARNEY LN./ MELBY DR.. 13 _ 4 72 854 00 10 847 46 0 �� 19 86 t r 29 6361'�� 300 N N 0 84 � r4 434 m0 r4 0 11 w www prismworldcom Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 1,,/W voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 ANALYSIS Page 46 1 0 0 N SACRAMENTO RD. Z 0 0 0 M LODE AVE.ILOWER SACAAMlNTO RD. 3 wt 0 0 SACRAMENTO RO A-0 GBN711RY 4 N o BLVD./ ER ENTO RO 5 o N SACRAMENTO RD 0 O � 0 � 0 0 J� f l� �� 0 r 0 l ~- 0 0 � �-+-21L0 0 f-- ♦ ♦ 7 �— ♦ r 0 �tl 0 No 0 �"'1t1 0 40 �tl 0 O N O 0 Itl O N O 89 w M 0 0 0 O O 0 000 6 wRMSTRONc OOO RD.xnm ENTO RO. % OOO KEMPMAN LN./ MILLS AVE. p v O O N KETTLEMAN LN./ XAM AVE. 9 ^ O KER1_EM/N LN./ U7tl1TN6 ST. A= OOO KETREMAN LN./ ST. O 9 A"7"" o0 �,t,► 0 10 o :�t� 0 �,tr o ►�t 0 O O O 0 O O 0 1000 2 � OI �o O �000 i KE'TTLEMAM LN./ KION Sr - O I O m O O KETTLENAM =f XERO ME LN. 000 O O KETTLEMAN LN./ 99 SB RADS O O KETTLEMAN LM.f 99 NB RAMPS m O MARNEY LN -1 MILLB AVE. 1.4 0 II 6 �l� 00 �271T �0 �—01 0 O 0 �'�t� 0 —� 0 � 0 �t� 0 � 0 Its 0 t� -- � 0 - 1063 �► 0 cat 0 II, 00n 23 000 0 Nom 0 000 NARMEY LN,/ 0 0 NAM LN 0 0 NARNEY LM.f N[NS ST. 0 0 R NARN�' LN./ KION ST 0 0 SR 99 9R RAMPS/ pe�RDKEE LN. 0 0 NARNEY LM.f 10 �1. 72 �l 22 0 0 O o0 X108 l�.II*-67 mol .. . o 180—► o w 194—►II 1 w_www o 284—►t� 0 —►tl o 9fi —1►t� 1 0 j 000 0 — O O M 42 — a R� 0 O O O 72 O O O r=MARNEY LM.; 0 0 0 E RONTAGE AQ SR 99 US RAMPS/ N 0 0 E. ONTAGE RO. 94 � 0,40 ,4 ARMSTROM it LVCST L � 0 O Pa ,i ARMSTRONG RD. �TT.iRORTAeE RD `--q43 yT y� � ^ SR 9995 RAMPS/ W. OgTARE R.I. �O 0 UO 0 l 0 � 0 �l� .�1. � . .II � . .X35 �00 . . �00 26 � tl (_ 2690'I1tl 6 � jam_ tl 0 10 6 10 It� Itl 170 a coo O 0 O O O 0 O N w 0 O O O 0 O O SR 99 NB RAMPS/ 00 E,AGE RD, 000 N 0 0 ARMSTRONG RQ./ E. FADE RO. 000 MARKEY LR./ LBY TNL 14 30 0 , f 0 i 455 0 ��I�tl 10 138��t� Itl 129 j 000 0 1000 270 o n +�o� N ,l www.prismworldcom Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 '�/� voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 ANALYSIS Page 47 1 m Oa0 MR M./LowSm SACRAMRM10 RD. 0 z .a Jo^O LOCI AVE./LOWER SACRAMENTO RD. 0 3 n o^O SACRAMRMO RD 0 CEN71MlY 4 11 ONo BLY04LOWS RAMENTb 0 '' ooN SACRAMENTO RD 182 3 � t► 0 � 3 � 0 � y 0 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 0 1000 11 : �t� 0 : t� SU t� 0 • oMN 0 Ga0 120 Ch110 NChN 0 000 6 ARM57ROMG RiY.fLOWE! RAMlNTO RC % O O KE57LEMAM Ill./ �MLAE O n � LM AYEf 9 OOOO MLM/ kNINBSF, O O OKM-MEMAN LN.f NSi �- 0 f 0 JKEFTL9M t 4 4 J f 4 4 ) I 4 8 0t 0♦ 0 t� 1 .�..� �t� 01 ; 3 ♦� 0 000 0 00 3 IN 1 o v 0 0 0 0 i ON O KE7TLEMAM LN./ LC t0 xwmrMAN LN LN./ iN OO O RNALMP/S 9So KRA. LM,/1 S � RAMPS OO NAnwmM./ YEOo. A o 16 � lKILEMA ,1M9�e�X0 0 9�` 9m_ 10 9mm_ 251► 1 ma,Ny 0 1 OND, 15 000 0 Kf 00 0 1 000 Ln O O m NMN£/ LN-/ hAM LM. k O O Ch 01 AM LN./ OTCNINS SF. A=102 288 N m O m n JN MARNRY LMJ jKTOM Sr'[IIOKE! 64 329 O O O SR 99 $9 RAMPS/ LN. -T 0 0 "ARM" LM./ N[ROK![ L N. 303 06 � � 78 i 32 � I � r 0 � 1 f— 279 —�► 1 314 —� w_w__. 1 429 -► _w -----w_. 0 —� 328 1 i 1 0 O O O 0 O O n 59 w 11 M N 0 O O O 43 —y. ♦ O O O Z 00o HARNEY LA14 E RONTA6E RD. I,I � N rl Noo SR 99 M9 RAMPS/ E. O r; RD, w 0..0 ARMSFRONQ RD. wesT LN " w OD0m ARMSTRMO RD. W. 910MAf RD N ^ O.�.Ln SR 99 SR RAMPS/ W R ^Gm RD- 0 0 0 o 0 59 �1. 59 f- o ,�� 34 o 0 � 51 �I� II 1 278 0 t r 0 tr 60 t r 0 277 i m N O O 0 1 O O O 0 Ch O O N a 0 O O O 0 m O N O N 14 N O O O SR 99 NR RAMPS! E. �R�iAGE RD. LO O O •i ARMSTRONG RDJ E. P�A� RD. O O O MARKET LICE . MI VOR. )1�lI f -o �l�.�04 .���.�s7 0 410 0 t 1 1 24 I O O O 0 O O O 434 M O OND cD 07 www.prismworldcom Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 '�/� voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY Page 48 All capacity calculations were conducted using the industry standard Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 methodologies. The HCM analysis methodology calculates a "'level of service" ranking (from A through F) for a signalized or unsignalized intersection based on the average amount of delay that is expected for each motorist at an intersection during the peak hour time period. The HCM definition for level of service is limited to average delay, and has no application to other factors such as sight distance, horizontal or vertical curvature, pavement condition, etc. In every case, the analyses were enhanced with SimTraffic, a more sophisticated micro -simulation software program built in to the SynchroPro software program. This micro -simulation tool aids in determining vehicle queue lengths used to estimate left turn pocket length needs, the adequacy of intersection operations, congestion, etc. All locations in the vicinity of the project, and along the Harney Lane corridor were mitigated to LOS C or better conditions as per the City's LOS standard in the General Plan. Locations along a Caltrans facility (such as Kettleman Lane (SR 12)) were mitigated to an LOS D standard as needed and if the project also caused the need for mitigation. The Reynolds Ranch FEIR transportation section has been included as an appendix for this report (Appendix Q. The detailed SynchroPro HCM 2000 capacity analysis sheets can be found in Appendix B of this report. A summary of the LOS conditions for the various scenarios is given in the specific scenario tables that follow. All intersection levels of service are measured in terms of average overall intersection delay, and the corresponding level of service ranking is given as follows: For Signalized intersections the following average delays apply: For Unsignalized intersections the followin average delays apply: LOS A < 10 seconds LOS A < 10 seconds LOS 8 >10 seconds and <20 seconds LOS 8 >10 seconds and <15 seconds LOS C >20 seconds and <35 seconds LOS C >16 seconds and <25 seconds LOS D >35 seconds and <55 seconds LOS D >26 seconds and <35 seconds LOS E >55 seconds and <80 seconds LOS E >36 seconds and <50 seconds LOS F >81 seconds LOS F >51 seconds What this means is that if the average delay at a signalized intersection is more than 81 seconds, then LOS F conditions exist. At a stop sign controlled comCorp;�� www.prismworldCor orate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 .,�. voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 ANALYSIS Page 49 intersection this threshold is lowered to 51 seconds. The HCM methodology can also report side street or approach level of service, but the method becomes unstable when volumes approach capacity. For this reason, some of the values shown in Table 2 and Table 3 may show an LOS F condition, because the HCM 2000 methodology for intersections with the side street controlled by a stop sign exponentially reports unfavorable levels of service once capacity is reached (i.e. at Cherokee at Harney). Once a signal is installed the level of service improves dramatically to an acceptable condition. A condition of approval for the project will be to install new traffic signals along Harney Lane at the Reynolds Ranch Parkway, Cherokee Lane, and at the E. Frontage Road, fully mitigating the project impacts with some minor widening. Cor orate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 worldcom PW'4,,�v.410r� voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 ANALYSIS Table 2 Level of Service Summary for the AM Peak Hour Page 50 www.prismworldcom Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 '�/� voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 LOS Summary far the AM Peak Hour 2006 AM lAWithout Project 2006 ANI Plus Project 2006 AM iAErthout Project 2008 ANI Plus Project 2030 AM lAWrthout Project 2030 ANI Plus Project ID Intersection Delay LDS Delav LDS Delay LDS Delay LDS Delay LDS Delay LDS 1 Turner Rd. & Lower Sacramento Rd. 22.7 C 24.2 C 23.3 C 25.9 C 22.6 C 23.2 C 2 Lodi Ave. & Lower Sacramento Rd. 26.7 C 26.1 C 25.5 C 25.2 C 18.6 B 20.3 C 3 Kettleman Ln. & Lower Sacramento Rd. 23.4 C 23.4 C 26 C 26.2 C 25.5 C 25.7 C 4 Century Blvd. & Lower Sacramento Rd. 15.3 B 15.7 B 16.1 B 16.8 B 54.6 a 60.2 E 5 Harney Ln. & Lower Sacramento Rd. 12.1 B 14.4 B 12.2 B 14.9 B 23.3 C 27.9 C 6 Armstrong Rd. & Lower Sacramento Rd. 16.7 B 16.7 B 15.3 B 15.3 B 15.9 B 15.9 B 7 Mills Ave. & Kettleman Ln. 29.1 C 29.1 C 31.9 C 31.9 C 30.8 C 30.8 C 8 Ham Ln. & Kettleman Ln. 25.5 C 25.1 C 26 C 26 C 30.2 C 30.2 C 9 Hutchins St. & Kettlernan Ln. 34.6 C 30.5 C 33.1 C 33.6 C 35.3 d 35.1 d 101 Church St. & Kettlernan Ln. 31.5 C 31.5 C 36.1 a 36.1 a 22.2 C 22.2 C 11 Stockton St. & Kettlernan Ln. 36.5 d 36.4 d 39.1 d 38.9 a 55.1 a/E 54.9 D/E 12 Cherokee Ln. & Kettleman Ln. 29.7 C 28.6 a 27.6 C 26.7 C 34 C 33.6 C 13 Southbound SR 99 Ramps & Kettleman Ln. 15.6 B 15.9 B 36.1 d 37.3 a 20.9 C 20.4 C 14 Northbound SR 99 Ramps & Kettleman Ln. 10.3 B 10.3 B 11.1 B 11.1 B 13.3 B 13.4 B 15 Mills Ave. & Harney Ln. 10.6 B 17.5 B 14.3 A 31.3 a 7.1 A 7.6 A 16 Ham Ln. & Harney Ln. 8.3 A 29.1 a 18.7 C 62.3 B 10.4 B 10.3 B 17 Hutchins St. & Harney Ln. 37.1 d 58.8 E 43.8 d 71.1 E 23.2 C 26.5 C 18 Stockton St. & Harney Ln. 12.9 B 22.4 C 14 B 23.9 C 17 B 18.8 B 19 Southbound SR 99 Ramps & Cherokee Ln. 3 A 2.8 A 3.2 A 3 A N/A N/A N/A N/A 20 Cherokee Ln. & Harney Ln. 28.1 a 187.4 F 59.4 F 251.6 F 9.5 A 10.5 B 21 E. Frontage Rd. & Harney Ln. 5.6 A 48.5 E 6.1 A 78 F 11.4 B 13 B 22 Northbound SR 99 Ramps & E. Frontage Rd. 6.7 A 11.0 B 6.5 A 12 B 7 A 8.9 A 23 West Ln. &Armstrong Rd. 26 C 26.6 C 25.9 C 26.6 C 21.4 C 20.9 C 24 Cherokee Ln. & Armstrong Rd. 9.2 A 11.3 B 9.2 A 11.3 A 15.8 C 26 a 25 Southbound SR 99 Ramps & W. Frontage Rd 4.7 A 5.5 A 4.7 A 5.5 A 5.5 A 9.4 A 26 Northbound SR 99 Ramps & E. Frontage Rd. 7.3 A 8.0 A 7.3 A 8 A 7.7 A 8.2 A 27 E. Frontage Rd. & Armstrong Rd. 6.9 A 7.5 A 6.9 A 7.5 A 10.4 B 11.5 B 1281 Road "A" & Harney Ln. 1.8 1 A 300+ 1 F 1 2 1 A 300+ 1 F 1 16.1 1 B 1 25.3 1 C www.prismworldcom Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 '�/� voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 ANALYSIS Table 3 Level of Service Summary for the PM Peak Hour Page 51 " Aff cnbcaf movements are LOS EIF, left tum pocket overflows www.prismworldcom Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 '�/� voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 LOS Summary for the PM Peak Hour 2006 PM Without Project 2ait6 PIYI Plus Project 2885 PM Without Project 2UU8 PIYI Plus Project 2038 PM Without Project 2t)3o PIYI Plus Project ID Intersection dela LDS Dela LDS Dela LDS Dela LDS dela LDS Dela LDS 1 Turner Rd. &Lower Sacramento Rd. 22.5 C 23.1 C 23.6 C 24.5 C 25.9 C 28.0 C 2 Lodi Ave. &Lower Sacramento Rd. 22.1 C 21.9 C 26.5 C 26.5 C 31.2 C 32.7 C 3 Kettlernan Ln. &Lower Sacramento Rd. 26.9 C 28.5 C 51.4 ❑ 36.8 ❑ 34.2 C 31.8 C 4 Century Blvd. & Lower Sacramento Rd. 15.1 B 16.1 B 16.8 B 19.9 B 38.9 ❑ 45.0 ❑ 5 Harney Ln. & Lower Sacramento Rd. 11.7 B 16.9 B 12.7 B 21.0 C 25.3 C 30.2 C 6 Armstrong Rd. & Lower Sacramento Rd. 12.8 B 12.8 B 14.1 B 14.1 B 29.1 C 29.1 C 7 Mills Ave. & Kettlernan Ln. 31.4 C 31.5 C 37.9 ❑ 37.9 ❑ 36.0 ❑ 36.0 ❑ 8 Ham Ln. & Kettlernan Ln. 34.2 C 34.4 C 41.1 ❑ 41.5 ❑ 60.7 E 62.3 E 9 Hutchins St. & Kettlernan Ln. 34.7 C 37.7 ❑ 42.4 ❑ 46.3 ❑ 60.1 E 68.2 E 101 Church St. & Kettleman Ln. 52.9 ❑ 53.4 ❑ 63.5 1 E 63.4 E 181.1 F 182.4 F 11 Stockton St. & Kettlernan Ln. 34.6 C 35.3 ❑ 40.1 ❑ 39.7 ❑ 51.9 ❑ 53.4 ❑ 12 Cherokee Ln. & Kettlernan Ln. 33.6 C 34.3 C 35.7 ❑ 37.4 ❑ 46.9 ❑ 47.8 ❑ 13 Southbound SR 99 Ramps & Kettleman Ln. 36.1 ❑ 36.9 ❑ 41.9 ❑ 43.9 ❑ 55* E 57.1 E 14 Northbound SR 99 Ramps & Kettlernan Ln. 13.2 B 13.5 B 15.8 B 15.9 B 27.5 C 29.7 C 15 Mills Ave. & Harney Ln. 10.3 B 34.8 ❑ 14.6 B 71.2 F 6.3 A 7.0 A 16 Ham Ln. & Harney Ln. 4.5 A 26.0 ❑ 7.4 A 60.7 F 12.7 B 14.6 B 17 Hutchins St. & Harney Ln. 28.6 C 60.8 E 36.4 ❑ 77.7 E 24.9 C 27.3 C 18 Stockton St. & Harney Ln. 14.8 B 26.9 C 18.4 B 33.1 C 20.3 C 26.8 C 19 Southbound SR 99 Ramps & Cherokee Ln. 3.7 A 3.6 A 4.4 A 4.3 A N/A N/A N/A N/A 20 Cherokee Ln. & Harney Ln. 40.5 E 300+ F 91.0 F 300+ F 10.2 B 11.8 B 21 E. Frontage Rd. & Harney Ln. 31.2 ❑ 300+ F 81.9 F 300+ F 14.5 B 18.4 B 22 Northbound SR 99 Ramps & E. Frontage Rd. 8.9 A 45.9 E 9.7 A 66.3 ❑ 8.4 A 14.0 B 23 West Ln. &Armstrong Rd. 56.9 E 70.5 E 57.7 E 71.8 E 32.4 C 34.3 C 24 Cherokee Ln. & Armstrong Rd. 9.5 A 12.0 B 9.5 A 12.0 B 16.4 C 29.5 ❑ 25 Southbound SR 99 Ramps & W. Frontage Rd 5.6 A 128.6 F 5.6 A ICU C 11.0 B ICU ❑ 26 Northbound SR 99 Ramps & E. Frontage Rd. 7.9 A 8.0 A 7.9 A 8.0 A 8.7 A 8.8 A 27 E. Frontage Rd. & Armstrong Rd. 7.6 A 7.4 A 7.6 A 7.4 A 11.2 B 12.1 B 1281 Road "A" & Harney Ln. 0.7 A 1 300+ 1 F 1 1.2 1 A 300+ F 1 15.7 1 B 33.6 1 C " Aff cnbcaf movements are LOS EIF, left tum pocket overflows www.prismworldcom Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 '�/� voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 Appendix A: Freeway Analysis APPENDIX A AM and PM peak hour Freeway Weave Analysis Page 52 � � Cor orate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street Suite 480 Fresno California 93720 Is- com P www.prismworldvoice: (559) 437-1300 Sfax: (559)437-1304 Appendix A: Freeway Analysis Freeway Analysis NB segment, PM Peak Hour. HCS2000: Freeway Weaving Release 4.1d Grant Johnson Prism Engineering 8365 N. Fresno St Suite 480 Fresno, Ca 93720 Phone: (559) 437-1300 Fax: E-mail: Operational Analysis Analyst: grant johnson, pe, ptoe Agency/Co.: PRISM Engineering Date Performed: 5/1/2007 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Freeway/Dir of Travel: NB Weaving Location: Cherokee to Cherokee Offramp Jurisdiction: Lodi Analysis Year: 2007 Description: Plus Project Inputs Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 55 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 3 Weaving segment length, L 1400 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type A Volume ratio, VR 0.15 Weaving ratio, R 0.23 Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions Volume, V Peak -hour factor, PHF Peak 15 -min volume, v15 Trucks and buses Recreational vehicles Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Driver population adjustment, fP Flow rate, v Page 53 Non -Weaving Weaving V V V V A -C B -D A -D B -C 4061 0 550 168 veh/h 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 1128 0 153 47 v 13 10 10 10 % 0 0 0 0 % 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.939 0.952 0.952 0.952 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4805 0 641 196 pc/h Weaving and Non -Weaving Speeds Weaving Non -Weaving Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street Suite 480 Fresno California 93720 www.prismworldcom P ZISAVJM— voice: (559) 437-1300 Sfax: (559)437-1304 Appendix A: Freeway Analysis a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.15 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.97 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.80 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.93 Weaving and non -weaving speeds, Si 38.34 Number of lanes required for of base condition, cb unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) Type of operation is 0.00 4.00 1.30 0.75 0.48 45.40 0.82 1.40 Unconstrained Page 54 Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity. Weaving segment speed, S 44.20 mph Weaving segment density, D 42.55 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS E Capacity of base condition, cb 5687 pc/h Capacity as a 15 -minute flow rate, c 5340 pc/h Capacity as a full -hour volume, ch 4806 pc/h Limitations on Weaving Segments If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 837 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1880 2250 b Volume ratio, VR 0.15 0.45 c Weaving ratio, R 0.23 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1400 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. C. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three -lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four -lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five -lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street Suite 480 Fresno California 93720 www.prismworldcom P ,/� voice: (559) 437-1300 Sfax: (559)437-1304 Appendix A: Freeway Analysis Page 55 HCS2000: Freeway Weaving Release 4.1d Grant Johnson Prism Engineering 8365 N. Fresno St Suite 480 Fresno, Ca 93720 Phone: (559) 437-1300 Fax: E-mail: Operational Analysis Analyst: grant johnson, pe, ptoe Agency/Co.: PRISM Engineering Date Performed: 5/1/2007 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Freeway/Dir of Travel: NB Weaving Location: Cherokee to Cherokee Offramp Jurisdiction: Lodi Analysis Year: 2008 Description: Plus Project Inputs Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 55 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 3 Weaving segment length, L 1400 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type A Volume ratio, VR 0.20 Weaving ratio, R 0.47 Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions Volume, V Peak -hour factor, PHF Peak 15 -min volume, v15 Trucks and buses Recreational vehicles Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Driver population adjustment, fP Flow rate, v a (Exhibit 24-6) b (Exhibit 24-6) c (Exhibit 24-6) www.pn.smwodd com /� Non -Weaving Weaving V V V V A -C B -D A -D B -C 4176 0 550 487 veh/h 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 1160 0 153 135 v 13 10 10 10 % 0 0 0 0 % 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.939 0.952 0.952 0.952 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4941 0 641 568 pc/h Weaving and Non -Weaving Speeds Weaving Non -Weaving 0.15 0.00 2.20 4.00 0.97 1.30 Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 Appendix A: Freeway Analysis Page 56 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.80 0.75 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 1.10 0.63 Weaving and non -weaving speeds, Si 36.39 42.55 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.99 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 1.40 Type of operation is Unconstrained Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity. Weaving segment speed, S 41.18 mph Weaving segment density, D 49.78 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS F Capacity of base condition, cb 5496 pc/h Capacity as a 15 -minute flow rate, c 5161 pc/h Capacity as a full -hour volume, ch 4645 pc/h Limitations on Weaving Segments If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1209 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 2050 2250 b Volume ratio, VR 0.20 0.45 c Weaving ratio, R 0.47 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1400 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. C. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three -lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four -lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five -lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street Suite 480 Fresno California 93720 www.prismworldcom P ,/� voice: (559) 437-1300 Sfax: (559)437-1304 Appendix A: Freeway Analysis Page 57 HCS2000: Freeway Weaving Release 4.1d Grant Johnson Prism Engineering 8365 N. Fresno St Suite 480 Fresno, Ca 93720 Phone: (559) 437-1300 Fax: E-mail: Operational Analysis Analyst: grant johnson, pe, ptoe Agency/Co.: PRISM Engineering Date Performed: 5/1/2007 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Freeway/Dir of Travel: NB Weaving Location: Cherokee to Cherokee Offramp Jurisdiction: Lodi Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Plus Project Inputs Freeway free-flow speed, SFF Non -Weaving 55 mph c (Exhibit 24-6) Weaving number of lanes, N d (Exhibit 24-6) 3 www.pn.smwodd com /� Weaving segment length, L 1400 ft Terrain type Level Grade o Length mi Weaving type A Volume ratio, VR 0.10 Weaving ratio, R 0.38 Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions Non -Weaving Weaving V V V V A -C B -D A -D B -C Volume, V 7724 0 550 338 veh/h Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Peak 15 -min volume, v15 2146 0 153 94 v Trucks and buses 13 10 10 10 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.939 0.952 0.952 0.952 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 9140 0 641 394 pc/h a (Exhibit 24-6) Non -Weaving b (Exhibit 24-6) 0.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 4.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 1.30 www.pn.smwodd com /� Weaving and Non -Weaving Speeds Weaving Non -Weaving 0.15 0.00 2.20 4.00 0.97 1.30 0.80 0.75 Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street, Suite 480, Fresno, California 93720 voice: (559) 437-1300 fax: (559) 437-1304 Appendix A: Freeway Analysis Page 58 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 1.50 0.88 Weaving and non -weaving speeds, Si 33.00 38.99 Number of lanes required for flow rate, Vw unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.71 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 1.40 Type of operation is as a full -hour volume, ch Unconstrained Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity. Weaving segment speed, S 38.28 mph Weaving segment density, D 88.59 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS F flow rate, Vw Capacity of base condition, cb 5871 pc/h Capacity as a 15 -minute flow rate, c 5513 pc/h Capacity as a full -hour volume, ch 4962 pc/h Limitations on Weaving Segments Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. C. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three -lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four -lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five -lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street Suite 480 Fresno California 93720 www.prismworldcom P ,/� voice: (559) 437-1300 Sfax: (559)437-1304 If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1035 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 3391 2250 b Volume ratio, VR 0.10 0.45 c Weaving ratio, R 0.38 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1400 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. C. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three -lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four -lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five -lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street Suite 480 Fresno California 93720 www.prismworldcom P ,/� voice: (559) 437-1300 Sfax: (559)437-1304 Appendix B: Capacity Analysis APPENDIX B LOS Capacity Calculation Worksheets Page 59 ,, Corporate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street Suite 480 Fresno California 93720 www.prismworldcom P Is- voice: (559) 437-1300 Sfax: (559)437-1304 Reynolds Ranch FEIR (Transportation Section) APPENDIX C Reynolds Ranch Final EIR Transportation Section � � Cor orate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street Suite 480 Fresno California 93720 Is- com P www.prismworldvoice: (559) 437-1300 Sfax: (559)437-1304 Reynolds Ranch FEIR (Transportation Section) APPENDIX D Historical Growth Rates � � Cor orate Office: 8365 North Fresno Street Suite 480 Fresno California 93720 Is- com P www.prismworldvoice: (559) 437-1300 Sfax: (559)437-1304 RESOLUTION NO. P.C. 08-23 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LODI RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE REYNOLDS RANCH PROJECT (File No. 08 -GPA -01) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi has heretofore held a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the requested General Plan Amendment in accordance with the Government Code; and WHEREAS, the project proponent is Dale Gillespie on behalf of the San Joaquin Valley Land Company LLC, 1420 S. Mills Ave., Suite K, Lodi, CA 95242; and WHEREAS, the properties are located at the Southwest corner of East Harney Lane and State Route 99; and WHEREAS, the properties have a General Plan land use designation of Planned Residential, Neighborhood Community Commercial, Office, Drainage Basin Park, and Public Quasi Public; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan designation is Neighborhood Community Commercial, Office, Drainage Basin Park, and Public Quasi Public; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the EIR was published, posted and circulated between June 9, 2006 and July 24, 2006 for a 45 -day public review period; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR, including comments and responses to comments, was certified by the City Council on August 30, 2006; and WHEREAS, consistent with CEQA, an initial study was conducted to analyze potential impacts associated with proposed changes to the project, which initial study demonstrated that none of the circumstances articulated in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR were present; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15164 an addendum to the previously certified EIR was prepared, which includes and incorporates the initial study analyzing the proposed project changes, and is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A and incorporated herein ("Addendum"); and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the approval of this request have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FOUND, as follows, by the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi, based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the City of Lodi General Plan, the City of Lodi Municipal Code, the previously certified EIR, the Addendum to the EIR and the initial study for the project changes, included and incorporated into the Addendum: 1. The Planning Commission has considered the previously certified EIR and the addendum and finds that changes to the project, which redistribute land uses on the site, do not require major revisions to the previously certified EIR or preparation of a subsequent EIR for the following reasons: (a) Proposed project changes will not result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. As described in the Addendum, which incorporates the initial study for the modified project, the modified project is still a mixed-use development, similar to the type of project considered in the previously certified EIR. While specific land uses have been adjusted and redistributed, mitigation identified in the previously certified EIR will apply to the project changes, such that these changes will not create any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts. (b) There are no changes in circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. Though the project has been modified, the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken have not changed, therefore, there are no new or substantially more severe significant impacts that will result from any change in circumstances. (c) The City is not aware of any new information of substantial importance that shows that the project will have any significant impacts not discussed in the previously certified EIR, or that significant impacts previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR, or that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, or that mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previously certified EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. (d) Accordingly, no subsequent EIR is required for approval of this project, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, an addendum is appropriate for approval of the project. 2. The Planning Commission has considered the proposed General Plan Amendment and finds the proposed Amendment appropriate for the following reasons: (a) Approval of the General Plan Amendment is consistent with the general goals, policies and standards of the City of Lodi's General Plan, because the General Plan contemplates future development of the project site. (b) Approval of the General Plan Amendment to designate the project site a combination of Neighborhood Community Commercial, Office, Drainage Basin Park, and Public Quasi Public would not conflict with other existing plans or policies of the General Plan and serves sound planning practice (Exhibit B). For example, the proposed amendments are consistent with the General Plan's Land Use Element, in that the Amendments facilitate managed growth and support development of commercial and office uses (Land Use Goals A, E, F). The proposed Amendments are also consistent with the General Plan's Housing Element, in that they would facilitate development of a range of housing types and densities (Housing Goal A), including senior -citizen housing (Housing Policies A.11, A.16). The proposed Amendments are also consistent with the General Plan's Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element, in that the Amendments provide for park space and trails (Parks Goal A). (c) The project site is physically suitable for the proposed General Plan designations, in that the site is generally flat and is not within an identified natural hazard area. (d) Approval of the General Plan Amendment will not be materially detrimental to other properties or land uses in the area, will not cause an unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty, will not be detrimental to the health, morals, comfort or welfare of persons residing or working in the project area or to property or improvements in the project area, and is not contrary to the general public welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DETERMINED AND RESOLVED, that the City of Lodi Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City of Lodi City Council approve the proposed General Plan Amendment. Dated: September 10, 2008 I hereby certify that Resolution No. P.C. 08-23 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi at a regular meeting held on September 10, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Cummins, Heinitz, Kirsten, and Olson NOES: Commissioners: Hennecke and Chair Kiser ABSENT: Commissioners: Mattheis ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission EXHIBIT A EIR Addendum Submitted to City of Lodi I August 19, 2008 D E S I G N, COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT LODI PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2008 1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL The Regular Planning Commission meeting of August 27, 2008, was called to order by Chair Kiser at 7:00 p.m. Present: Planning Commissioners — Cummins, Hennecke, Kirsten, Mattheis, Olson, and Chair Kiser Absent: Planning Commissioners — Heinitz Also Present: Planning Manager Peter Pirnejad, Deputy City Attorney Janice Magdich, Senior Planner David Morimoto, Assistant Planner Immanuel Bereket, and Administrative Secretary Kari Chadwick 2. MINUTES "June 25, 2008" MOTION /VOTE: The Planning Commission, on motion of Vice Chair Cummins, Olson second, approved the Minutes of June 25, 2008 with additional language added to page three, forth bullet point as noted below by Commissioner Mattheis: Added Verbiage — Chair Mattheis would like to get away from using, front, side, and back yard designations in flag lot situations thus looking at the intent of adjacencies in existing conditions. Commissioners Kirsten abstained because he was not in attendance at the subject meeting. "July 9, 2008" MOTION /VOTE: The Planning Commission, on motion of Commissioner Mattheis, Hennecke second, approved the Minutes of July 9, 2008 with additional language added to page three under item number 7 as noted below by Commissioner Mattheis: Commissioner Mattheis would like the discussion regarding why the Heritage Tree Ordinance was rejected by the City Council during the preliminary discussions with them added to the minutes. Commissioners Cummins and Kirsten abstained because they were not in attendance at the subject meeting. "August 13, 2008" MOTION /VOTE: The Planning Commission, on motion of Commissioner Mattheis, Kiser second, approved the Minutes of August 13, 2008 with additional language added to page 3, 6t" paragraph of item 3c as noted below by Commissioner Mattheis: A Land Use designation in the document should be reconsidered because of the conflict with the General Plan and he suggests that it be changed. Commissioner Hennecke and Olson abstained because they were not in attendance at the subject meeting. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Notice thereof having been published according to law, an affidavit of which publication is on file in the Community Development Department, Chair Kiser called for the public hearing to consider the Continued request for a Use Permit to allow Live Entertainment and Dancing at La Luna Restaurant located at 910 South Cherokee Lane. Planning Manager Pirnejad made a brief introduction pointing out the letters received, which are provided on the blue sheets. Chair Kiser asked if these activities are already going on. Planning Manager Pirnejad stated that based on the letters received the activities are currently happening, but suggested that the applicant may be the best person to answer the question. Assistant Planner Bereket gave a brief PowerPoint presentation based on the staff report. Commissioner Olson asked for clarification of whether or not there has been dance classes and dancing already taking place with no complaints. Assistant Planner Bereket stated there have not been any complaints to date. Planning Manager Pirnejad stated that the public hearing notice has generated some complaints. Hearing Opened to the Public • Noe Luna, applicant, came forward to answer questions. Mr. Luna stated that he is concerned about the surrounding neighbors and will do all he can to not disturb them. • Chair Kiser asked if there has been dancing and live music taking place. Mr. Luna stated that there has been Salsa Classes and he has rented the area for private parties. He also added that he has altered the position of the speakers and posted the doors to help keep the noise from getting outside. • Commissioner Kirsten asked if there was a fence separating Mr. Luna's property from the property to the south and east. Mr. Luna stated that there are fences. • Commissioner Kirsten asked if Mr. Luna has received any complaints from the residences on Lloyd Street or from the Police Department. Mr. Luna stated that there was one incident involving the Police, but it involved someone unassociated with the business loitering around the area. • Chair Kiser asked if there is a regular security company patrolling the area or is it regular employees. Mr. Luna stated that it is regular employees that have had security background. • Commissioner Olson asked if the conditions of this permit would alter Mr. Luna's restaurant hours. Mr. Luna stated that the restaurant closes at 8:30pm, but the dancing lasts until 1:30am. • Chair Kiser asked if Mr. Luna is trying to turn this into a nightclub. Mr. Luna stated that is not the intension. • Debra Cass, Lodi, came forward to ask if this was going to happen every Friday and Saturday. Mr. Luna answered from the audience and out of range of the microphone by stating that it will occur every Friday and Saturday. Public Portion of Hearing Closed • Commissioner Olson asked if it is staff's recommendation to give this a 6 month permit then bring it back to the Commission. Planning Manager Pirnejad stated that that is what Staff is recommending. • Commissioner Kirsten stated that he is in favor of the application with the conditions in the resolution. Chair Kiser asked about updating the fire suppression system. Planning Manager Pirnejad stated that that would have to be done as part of any tenant improvement. Commissioner Mattheis stated that there is language in the staff report regarding the fire suppression system being required by December or the use permit will be revoked. 2 Continued • Commissioner Cummins stated his support of the application. MOTION /VOTE: The Planning Commission, on motion of Commissioner Kirsten, Olson second, approved the request of the Planning Commission for a Use Permit to allow Live Entertainment and Dancing at La Luna Restaurant located at 910 South Cherokee Lane subject to the conditions in Resolution P.C. 08-22. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners — Cummins, Hennecke, Kirsten, Mattheis, Olson, and Chair Kiser Noes: Commissioners — None Absent: Commissioners — Heinitz b) Notice thereof having been published according to law, an affidavit of which publication is on file in the Community Development Department, Chair Kiser called for the public hearing to consider the recommendation for a General Plan Amendment to the City Council for Reynolds Ranch. Planning Manager Pirnejad gave a brief PowerPoint presentation based on the staff report. Commissioner Mattheis stated that this amendment is a huge, significant change to the type, character, and quality of what was approved. He would like staff to elaborate more on why this change is necessary. Planning Manager Pirnejad stated that he will give a summary, but would like the applicant to expand on the answer when the public hearing is opened. The expansion of the road to line up with Melby increased the retail area to the east of Reynolds Ranch Park Way (RRPW). Mattheis asked why couldn't there be housing in between RRPW and the existing retail area. Pirnejad stated that the road alignment drove the decision to expand the retail. Commissioner Mattheis stated that the project has gone from a neighborhood community to a large retail area. He is also surprised that staff feels this is a good plan for the growth of the City and a better plan than the original. Pirnejad stated that the job balance, higher density, and walk ability are all make this a responsible plan. Commissioner Mattheis pointed out that there are a lot of missing words and phrases in the document which makes it illegible. He asked about the General Plan Amendment on page 12 section 7, point A; there is a statement that the plan is inconsistent with the general plan, but consistent with the General Plan vision and then referenced the General Plan Vision as being something for future development. Pirnejad stated that the proposed plan is inconsistent with the approved General Plan because it requires a General Plan Amendment to be consistent. The Planned Residential (PR) zoning which is defined as neighborhood related uses, and the amendment consists of all neighborhood related uses, makes it consistent with the vision of the approved General Plan. The land uses need to be amended. Commissioner Mattheis asked for clarification on the parking. He does not think that the 2288 sf of parking is correct. Pirnejad stated originally the parking should have been 4 spaces per 1000 sf of retail space now we know that there will be more than that. Mattheis stated that the retail is being doubled and feels this document is not taking that into consideration. On page 48 the Traffic study and Noise Study are mentioned as being done and they are not a part of this staff report, why? Pirnejad stated that the traffic study is a technical document and is available upon request and will wait until the Public Hearing is opened to the public so that the Traffic expert can answer further questions. Mattheis asked about the noise? Pirnejad stated that the increase in traffic will not increase the noise that was already mitigated in the original EIR. Chair Kiser asked about eliminating the school. Planning Manager Pirnejad stated that because of the primary type of housing being senior housing the school district felt a school would be better served elsewhere. Kiser asked about the Fire House that was planned for the area. Pirnejad stated that it is still there. Commissioner Olson stated that the document does not answer all of her questions because of the "Technical Difficulties". She also stated her bias to the project as an Economic Developer with the Continued increase in jobs. She would like to have more information. Pirnejad stated that there are different levels of the types of establishments going into the project. There will be large retail, Jr. Majors, smaller retail, and in the center of the project to break up the mass of parking lot there will be an oasis of eatery style retail. Olson would like to know more about the open spaces/transition space from one designation to another. Pirnejad stated that the proposed land use map breaks down the different areas and pointed them out on the powerpoint map. Olson asked it the plan reduces the park area to 2 acres from 5.3 acres. Pirnejad stated that the park acreage in the plan has been reduced, but will defer to the applicant for specifics. Chair Kiser asked if the project is increasing the retail and decreasing the residential. Pirnejad stated that the retail is increasing and the residential is staying the same just with a higher density. Hearing Opened to the Public • Dale Gillespie, applicant, came forward to answer questions. Commissioner Kirsten disclosed that he had a meeting with Mr. Gillespie and Mr. Robertson prior to the meeting. • Mr. Gillespie stated that the parking ratio figures seem to be misstated in the document. The site plan that is currently being put together will show 4 parking spaces per 1000 sf of retail space. The school district removed the requirement of the site based on the type of housing proposed. The configuration and types of parks will be different. The land use map doesn't represent them all. There will be two or three anchor type establishments employing 150 +/- benefited positions and 25 +/- non -benefited part-time positions each, the Jr./major type (Best Buy) can typically employee 75 people with maybe 30 to 40 of those being benefited. Roughly 500 jobs along with the numerous part-time positions will be created at full build out. Mr. Gillespie added that there is no surprise that the housing market is not in the best of shape prompting the increase in retail. The proximity to HWY 99 is a big draw for the retail market. The future for housing is showing that there will be a great demand in senior housing. There will be a large graduated care facility/Campus with open space areas. • Chair Kiser asked if the seniors will be able to purchase these homes. Mr. Gillespie stated that this will be predominately owner occupied. The greater care unit will not be owner occupied. There has been some casual discussion with the LOEL Center. There will be approximately 350 patio homes & 300 — 400 graduating care units. • Commissioner Kirsten asked about the different phases. Mr. Gillespie stated that the Blue Shield building and the infrastructure is all a part of the first phase. Phase two will consist of the core retail area and phase three will be everything else. • Commissioner Kirsten asked how many employees Blue Shield will have when it is open. Mr. Gillespie stated that there will be 1000 to 1100 employees with a max of 1600 at the time of full build out. The core retail will bring in 500 jobs with approximately 350-ish benefited positions. • Commissioner Kirsten asked how the area around Grant Line Road in Elk Grove is being mothballed and there is such great demand here in this project. Mr. Gillespie stated that the Grant Line area was expecting to have a great deal of residential surrounding it, but that has not developed. This project is a tiny fraction in size of that project. • Commissioner Kirsten asked about the housing market for seniors being better than that of family housing. Mr. Gillespie stated that at this time it is better, but it is still based on the idea of the seniors being able to sell if necessary their current home. • Commissioner Kirsten asked about the park land differences. Mr. Gillespie stated that initially 5.3 acres were planned, but he can't at this time give a definitive answer as to how many acres there will be when the project is finished. • Commissioner Olson asked about any inclusions or income restrictions on the senior housing. Mr. Gillespie stated that that has not been determined at this time. The patio Continued housing being affordable has not been determined. There is a requirement in the State Bond financing that requires that 20% of the project be affordable housing. • Commissioner Mattheis stated his understanding of creating a development in response to market flow. Mattheis asked about the proposed land plan. The dead end culd-e-sacs don't seem residentially friendly. Mr. Gillespie stated that the roads are set up to be more pedestrian friendly. He used the proposed land use map to show how the flow of the configuration is geared to be pedestrian friendly. • Commissioner Hennecke asked about the finish of the housing element portion and construction to start on the housing units. Mr. Gillespie stated that he was not certain. The retail portion of the project should be built out by mid -year 2010. • Vice Chair Cummins stated his favor for the addition of the senior housing and the hotel close by to that area. He also asked if there will need to be any improvement needed to the Harney Lane and HWY 99 interchange. Mr. Gillespie stated that there will need to be improvements made. The interchange improvements are currently second on the measure K list for the improvements needed. The funding should come through some time in 2011 and the construction should be complete in 2015. • Chair Kiser asked about the effect on the downtown. Mr. Gillespie stated that because there isn't any BigBox stores planned for this area the effects on downtown are not significant. There is a per square foot of retail space impact fee assessed at the time of building permit issuance that will be used to help with the vitality of the downtown area. • Commissioner Mattheis asked if there was a market analysis done regarding the impact of the additional retail on the Downtown. Pirnejad stated that the analysis was done in the initial study phase of the project which determined that the analysis done as part of the original EIR was adequate. Mattheis stated that in his opinion the smaller retail establishments would have more of an impact on the downtown. Mr. Gillespie stated that the stress in the market has been on the smaller retail areas. Mattheis asked about the build out of the retail. Mr. Gillespie stated that the core stores by August 2009 and the surrounding area by March of 2010 which will consist of 510,000 sf of retail. • Commissioner Cummins asked who the major anchors are. Mr. Gillespie stated that he is not at liberty to say until formal documents have been signed. • Commissioner Hennecke asked about any concerns that the retail market will follow the residential. Mr. Gillespie stated that yes it is a concern, but that is part of the risk of doing business. • Grant Johnson, Traffic Engineer for the Project, came forward to answer questions. Mr. Johnson stated that the team working on this project built a traffic model to see if it would work and after working within that model found that the mitigations fit within the standards set in the 2006 Final EIR for the project. No additional mitigations are necessary. • Commissioner Kirsten asked about the specific table that dictates requirements for traffic. Mr. Johnson stated that everything used to be done off of spreadsheets but with modern technology it has become easier to determine the flow of the traffic. The information regarding the traffic gets plugged in and the program simulates the flow of traffic, so you get to see where you may have traffic backing up allowing alterations to be made. Kirsten asked if it takes into account peak use times. Mr. Johnson stated that yes it does. The simulation is based on the busiest time of day which is the PM peak hour. • Kirsten asked if there is a requirement to look out 20 years down the road. Mr. Johnson stated that the 20 year window is the industry practice. • Commissioner Mattheis stated that without the traffic study in front of the Commissioners it makes it a little difficult to follow the conclusions. How many lanes will be on Harney Lane at build out? Mr. Johnson stated that there will be four lanes with left and right turn only lanes at major intersections. Mattheis asked if the original project was over -sized. Johnson stated that the original project was based on a category of LOSC which was an over mitigation for the proposed project. 5 Continued • Commissioner Mattheis asked how many lanes Harney Lane will need to be from the time of the retail build -out to when the construction on the interchange at 99 will be complete. Mr. Johnson stated that there will be four lanes, two lanes for each direction. There will be a signal placed at Cherokee Lane with right and left turn lanes allowing for the current overpass to accommodate the traffic. Mattheis stated that that was hard to believe with the amount of increase in the traffic. • Melissa & Charles Katzakian, owners of the home on the frontage road, came forward to oppose the new proposed plan. The new plan is not what she and her husband had wanted. The property is now going to be surrounded by large retail buildings. The roadway access is going to be taken away when the frontage road is diverted on to Reynolds Ranch Parkway. This will eliminate access onto their property from the frontage road and require them to use the new retail parking lot for access. • Commissioner Kirsten asked if Mrs. Katzakian's concerns are based on the increase in retail or decrease in the residential. Mrs. Katzakian stated that her concern is based on the extra retail and the additional pollution and noise that will accompany it. Mr. Katzakian stated that the traffic will be doubled and that will impact how they get in an out of their property, kids to school, etc. • Commissioner Kirsten asked how the Katzakians came to realize they would have to use a parking lot to access their property. Mrs. Katzakian has a piece of paper that she will be presenting at a meeting next week that shows the access. She added that she wanted Blue Shield and the retail to come to the area, but with all the changes it puts a pit in her stomach. Kirsten asked how big their parcel is. The parcel is 1.1 acres. • Commissioner Mattheis asked for the original Land Use Plan to be put up on the PowerPoint screen and asked Mrs. Katzakian to explain the concerns in the differences. Mrs. Katzakian with the help of the land use map explained her concerns regarding the differences. • Commissioner Mattheis asked what the original conditions were in the agreement with the developer. Mr. & Mrs. Katzakian stated that the original agreement gave them a private roadway to their property from the frontage road/Parkway connection. It was going to be nicely landscaped with the possibility of a fountain just to the west of the entrance. Mattheis stated that he did not realize that there was a historical home in that area because it is colored red like the retail. Mrs. Katzakian stated that the property is called the Skinner Ranch and the original plan showed that the developer was going to possibly re -using it. Mattheis asked when the Katzakians were told of the change. They stated that they were informed of the change in May of this year. • Dale Gillespie came forward to address the issues with the Ranch. Mr. Gillespie stated that there was an offer to purchase the property that was not accepted. • Chair Kiser asked Mr. Gillespie to show how he plans to work with the Katzakians to provide them with access. Mr. Gillespie showed with the assistance of the proposed land use PowerPoint slide what the intentions are for supplying them with access to their property, but pointed out that CalTrans has required a large easement into the current frontage road area to accommodate the expansion of Hwy 99. A secondary access to the property will be added to accommodate the Fire Department's conditions. • Commissioner Mattheis asked if the area south of the Ranch is still going to be landscaped. Mr. Gillespie stated that it is anticipated that there will be a monument sign and landscaping and possibly a water feature in the corner where the frontage road meets up with the new Parkway, but a formal plan has not been mocked up yet. Mattheis would like to see more sensitivity shown to the Ranch property in how it is integrated into the overall "Campus". Mr. Gillespie stated that it would be better for it to be integrated into the overall plan, but that hinges on who is in control of the property and what agreements can be made. • Mr. & Mrs. Katzakian came forward to state that there was an offer for the Ranch property, but that it was only a 24hr offer. Chair Kiser called for a five minute adjournment (9:32pm). IN Continued Chair Kiser called the meeting back to order (9:41 pm). • William Griffitts, property owner on Stockton Street, came forward to oppose the new project plan. Mr. Griffitts read the letter (attached to these minutes) aloud he and other residences signed and submitted for this hearing. • Commissioner Olson asked what the residences wanted the Commission to consider. Mr. Griffitts stated that the original plan gave the residences along Stockton Street a buffer to the retail that was planned to the east of their homes. • Commissioner Hennecke asked how large the property is that Mr. Griffitts owns. Mr. Griffitts stated that he sits on .43 acres and his home is 2450 sf. • Domenico Della Maggiora, resident on Stockton Street, came forward to state that if the sewer and water are being brought to the properties he is in favor of the plan even though he signed the letter submitted by Mr. Griffitts. He is in support of the new jobs being brought into the area. • Seng Heuansavath, resident on Stockton Street, came forward to oppose the new plan. He stated that he came to Lodi to live because of the draw that Lodi has. He did not object to the original plan because of the buffer of residential surrounding his property. The new plan puts a big masonry wall in the resident's front yard in the form of a large retail building and then possibly in the back yard as a large fence surrounding that residential neighborhood. • Commissioner Mattheis asked about the discussions between Mr. Heuansavath and the developer. Mr. Heuansavath stated that the notice that went out for this meeting was the first he has heard of this new change, but it was the newspaper article that brought the major changes to light. • Commissioner Kirsten stated that it's the responsibility of the Commission to consider the concerns of what is right for Lodi and still have to weigh the concerns of the individual. Mr. Heuansavath stated that this is an emotional issue for him and his family. He would like to work with the developer to make this work for both sides. • Chair Kiser asked if Mr. Heuansavath was satisfied with the plan prior to the changes. Mr. Heuansavath stated as much as he could be. • Commissioner Cummins asked how long Mr. Heuansavath lived on this property. Mr. Heuansavath stated that he and his family have lived there since 2004. Cummins then asked if he had looked at the General Plan to see that there was going to be development in his area. Mr. Heuansavath stated that he knew that there was going to be development all around his property, he just feels that presented with this plan at that time he would have had a different feeling about the area. • Commissioner Kirsten asked if the developer offered what was on the assessor's role. Mr. Heuansavath stated that he was offered the appraisal amount. • Pirnejad stated that the decision on the proposed General Plan Amendment should be based on the relationship of the Amendment to the General Plan and the rules of CEQA. • Stacy Allen, resident, came forward to state her approval of the project. • Cliff Deby, Lodi, came forward to ask how Harney lane is going to handle the additional traffic. Grant Johnson stated that enlarging Harney Lane to four lanes will accommodate the level of traffic that this project will generate • Debra Cass, Lodi, came forward to object to the traffic conclusions. She does not feel that the conclusions are accurate. Public Portion of Hearing Closed • Commissioner Olson stated that she is familiar with reading EIRs and traffic studies and she is not getting all the answers to all of the questions from the documents presented. 7 Continued Commissioner Mattheis stated that he also feels left out of the loop without having the traffic study having been made available. He also disagrees with Mr. Pirnejad in regards to what the Commission's purview is. His concerns are with: The direction that this plan is taking the project, the concentration of senior housing, the decrease in parks — seniors need parks also, traffic Impacts. He felt this was not good land use planning. In regards to the existing historical residence there should be more attempts to positively integrate it into the plan. The Harney Lane overpass will not be able to handle the additional traffic as is and it isn't scheduled to be updated for five to ten years. He doesn't see why the property on the east side of Stockton Street couldn't be residential. • Chair Kiser stated his concerns regarding the differences in the proposed project verses the original plan. He would like to see the traffic study. He does not like the idea of the Ranch being land locked. The reduction in park area has him very concerned and can not support the project at this time. • Commissioner Kirsten stated that we need to acknowledge that this new plan is market driven. When looking at the plan the increase in jobs and senior housing is a positive factor. He is a little concerned with the loss of the park area, and would like to see more of the plan to see how they are going to make up for that. Overall he is in support of the project. • Vice Chair Cummins stated that he likes the new proposed plan. The bottom of the housing market has dropped out and the need for the senior housing is great for this area and having it in an isolated area is a definite plus. He is in favor of the project. • Commissioner Hennecke stated that there are too many changes to support the plan at this time. There are plenty of positive elements in this plan but there needs to be some tweaking done before he can support it. • Commissioner Olson stated that if the traffic study had been made available she could be supporting this project tonight, but without it she can not support it at this time. • Planning Manager Pirnejad stated that the traffic study is available to anyone that would like to view it. Mr. Johnson, the Traffic Engineer, was brought here tonight to address the traffic issues and answer all your questions. The level of detail regarding the project for the General Plan Amendment (GPA) is not to consider the Ranch or the added retail or increase in senior housing that should be done at the SPARC level. • Chair Kiser stated his concern with the why the project is growing. Planning Manager Pirnejad read the statute for CEQA requirements regarding the GPA. • Commissioner Mattheis stated that the time to determine whether or not the merits of the project are consistent with the General Plan is now and doubling the size of the retail is not consistent with the current General Plan or we wouldn't need an amendment. The Commission is not here just to "rubber stamp" everything that staff brings before us. Public Portion of Hearing Re -Opened • Dale Gillespie came forward to state that he would be in favor of continuing the hearing to the next Planning Commission Meeting date. • Mrs. Katzakian stated that she does not think that the EIR addresses the Ranch as a historical landmark Public Portion of Hearing closed MOTION /VOTE: The Planning Commission, on motion of Commissioner Mattheis, Kirsten second, continued Reynolds Ranch items b & c to the Planning Commission meeting of September 10, 2008. The motion carried by the following vote: Continued Ayes: Commissioners — Cummins, Hennecke, Kirsten, Mattheis, Olson, and Chair Kiser Noes: Commissioners — None Absent: Commissioners — Heinitz c) Notice thereof having been published according to law, an affidavit of which publication is on file in the Community Development Department, Chair Kiser called for the public hearing to consider the request for approval of a Tentative Map for Reynolds Ranch. This item was continued along with item 3b in the above Motion/Vote. 4. PLANNING MATTERS/FOLLOW-UP ITEMS None 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE None 6. ACTIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Summary memo attached 7. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE/DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE None 8. ACTIONS OF THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE None 9. UPDATE ON COMMUNITY SEPARATOR/GREENBELT TASK FORCE None 10. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None 11. COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC None 12. COMMENTS BY STAFF AND COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Cummins thank Peter for everything he had done and wished him well in Daly City. Peter responded in kind. 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:41 p.m. ATTEST: Planning Commissioner Secretary x ITEM A & c Citizens of Lodi 2600-2700 block of Stockton St. Lodi, Ca. 95240 August 27, 2008 To Whom It May Concern ( Lodi Planning Commission, et al.) As residents of the block of Stockton St. south of Harney Lane and part of the Reynolds Ranch project we would like to go on record concerning the current general plan amendment. Simply put, we have lived on these properties for up to 61 years. We have been inspired by the vast horizons and rows of vine grapes from both our front and rear windows. It has been a pastoral scene with Mt. Diablo towering in the distance. Our soil is a legendary Hanford Sandy Loam. We have loved it here. It is a mecca for children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Our two options are unfolding: to stay or to leave. For those who desire to stay, we are appreciative of the offers of the developers to bear the costs of bringing in and connecting electrical, water, sewer, and natural gas, if done concurrently, and providing curb and gutter. Also to abandon wells and septic systems if desired. For those who would w'ant- to sell and obtain comparable properties, diffe-rences persist. The proposed General Plan and tentative map appears to have almost doubled commercial/retail development and in oup 4re'cti( .�q - V I burdens .p. assume this relieves some of the financia of the Developer caused by present market conditions. Our financial burdens persist and the setting in which they occur appears to be worsening. A street and a landscaped berm as now proposed appears to separate us from commercial/retail buildings. We will see the top 10 or 15 feet of the buildings until the trees mature. And in Fall and Winter? at the same time are reaching out to city government for their own financial benefit would be willing to pass along a measure of their gain to those who are their neighbors. Those of us who have sought to relocate have been unable to locate comparable propertieswith the valuations determined by their respective appraisals. If a truly comparable property were available, many of us would embrace it and move on. As it is now, we will become a buffer between commercial/retail on the east and residential development on the west. Farriers in front and in the rear. A strip of old world meets the creations, of the avant-garde. We, the old world, are left in the middle. So much for our assessment. We think more can be done for us as we seek to find genuinely comparable properties in other close -in country parts of Lodi . Please examine our concerns that we may come to a mutual agreement. VW111", and Cheryl Griffittv. —,.. Domenico Della Maggiora Sean and Summer Varner "" 10-0110- Elsie Seeman Seng Heuansavath DRAFT DISCUSSION AND MOTION/VOTE LODI PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 d) Notice thereof having been published according to law, an affidavit of which publication is on file in the Community Development Department, Chair Kiser called for the continued public hearing from August 27, 2008 to consider the recommendation for a General Plan Amendment to the City Council for Reynolds Ranch; and e) Consider the request for approval of a Tentative Map for Reynolds Ranch. (Applicant: San Joaquin Valley Land Co.; File #s: 08 -GPA -01 & 08-P-03) Interim Director Rad Bartlam gave a brief PowerPoint presentation based on the staff report. The project was continued from the Commission meeting two weeks ago and the concerns expressed then have been addressed in this new presentation. The area along the east side of Stockton Street has been altered to show a strip of residential which staff feels will make a nicer entry into the area. The buffer along the western edge is now shown on the map which was inadvertently left out previously. The new proposal does have an increase in traffic from the 2006 plan which the previous mitigation measures cover. There is a consensus among staff to provide the residential dwelling on the frontage road with a right and left hand turn access to their property from at the break in the median on Reynolds Ranch Parkway. It is not the intent of the applicant to decrease the amount of parkland. He will address the issue with the design of the senior housing component when it comes before the Commission so that it can be identified with that area more accurately. Commissioner Hennecke asked why staff thinks the amendment is necessary. Mr. Bartlam stated that the condition of the current market, the fact that the Applicant has real viable retail interests wanting to be there, and the additional retail in this quadrant of the City is good planning. Hennecke asked why staff has changed their mind from 2006 as to the necessity of the size of retail. Bartlam stated that with a project of this size changes are going to happen over time. Hennecke asked if as Commissioners should we be swayed by market conditions or should we be doing what we feel is right for the growth of the City. Bartlam stated that the two items are not mutually exclusive and the Commissioners should vote their conscience and what they felt was best for the City as a whole. Commissioner Heinitz asked about the grading scale of the traffic at the time of the original application compared to now. Mr. Bartlam stated that each intersection has a different grade as shown in the tables in the traffic study, but the level of service is not going to change from the original plan to this one. Commissioner Olson stated that she had spoken with Dale Gillespie, Applicant, prior to this meeting. Commissioner Olson asked about the other infrastructure items. Public Works Director Sandelin stated that all of the infrastructure items were taken into consideration when looking at this new plan. Olson asked then if the original project was over planned. Sandelin stated that the staff report clearly states that the initial assumptions made on the traffic aspect of the project were purposely conservative because the users were not yet defined. Chair Kiser, Commissioners Kirsten, Hennecke, and Cummins also disclosed that they had discussions with the applicant regarding this application. Hearing Opened to the Public • Dale Gillespie, Applicant, came forward to thank the Commission for taking another look at the application and is available to answer any questions. Continued • William Griffits, Stockton Street resident, came forward to state that after the first meeting the neighbors discussed the out come and it turns out that not everyone concurred with his thoughts regarding the idea of a residential buffer on the east side of Stockton Street. Mr. Griffits added that the neighbors felt that the whole area should have been zoned commercial. • Commissioner Heinitz stated that he spoke with Mr. Griffits regarding this project and how the General Plan Designation would affect the property values along Stockton Street. • Melissa and Charles Katzakian came forward to present a letter and background information regarding the Moore Skinner Ranch (attached to be end of these minutes). Mrs. Katzakian feels this property is a valuable piece of Lodi's history and should be preserved. The neighborhood surrounding this area has now been torn down and is no longer a place to raise a family. • Dennis Silber, Lodi, came forward to express his concerns. He stated that the traffic will change increasing by 79%. The original EIR states that the traffic will need significant mitigations imagine what it will be now. Mr. Silber feels that the 2006 plan should stay in place. • Seng Heuansavath, Stockton Street resident, came forward to address the project. He would like to have had more communication with the applicant prior to this point regarding these changes. The residences should have been more involved with this project when these changes were being discussed. This project is an emotional issue for him and he does not feel he has been genuinely dealt with during this process. It is a major change for his family. • Commissioner Kirsten asked what Mr. Heuansavath felt was a fair agreement. Mr. Heuansavath. stated that he would like to find a like for like place to raise his family. The fair market value offer isn't going to get something that is equivalent to what he currently has. Mr. Heuansavath would just like to be treated fairly and honestly. Public Portion of Hearing Closed • Commissioner Heinitz asked for clarification as to whether or not the parcels along Stockton Street can legally be included in the project without their consent. Interim Director Bartlam stated that Mr. Gillespie can not include them in the project, but the Commission could change the Land Use designation of the property even with out their permission. • Commissioner Hennecke stated his understanding of the Stockton Street residence frustrations and his appreciation of their coming forward to express them. • Commissioner Cummins stated that there is not an established greenbelt south of the City of Lodi. Hearing re -opened to the public • Commissioner Cummins asked if there were any detailed plans drawn up for the residential area yet. Mr. Gillespie stated that the only detailed plans were for the phase II retail area. Public Portion of Hearing Re -Closed • Chair Kiser stated that he still has concerns with the project. • Commissioner Heinitz stated that he feels the location is a prime area for this project and will support it. • Commissioner Hennecke stated that the changes from the 2006 plan are so great that he doesn't feel he can support it. • Commissioner Cummins stated that this is going to be a regional shopping center. This will have people from many of the surrounding areas of Lodi drawn to it. Lodi can use the extra tax revenues and supports the project. 2 Continued • Commissioner Olson stated that the concerns that she expressed at the previous meeting have been addressed in this new staff report and is pleased with the differences that she sees and supports the project. • Commissioner Kirsten stated his support for the project. MOTION /VOTE: The Planning Commission, on motion of Commissioner Kirsten, Cummins second, approved the request of the Planning Commission for recommendation for a General Plan Amendment to the City Council for Reynolds Ranch subject to the conditions in resolution PC 08-23; and the approval of a Tentative Map for Reynolds Ranch subject to the condition in resolution PC 08- 24. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners — Cummins, Heinitz, Kirsten, and Olson Noes: Commissioners — Hennecke and Chair Kiser Absent: Commissioners — Mattheis City of Lodi Planning Commission c/o City Clerk City Hall, 2"d Floor 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 September 10, 2008 ITEM 3d & e Re; Reynolds ,Ranch. Tentative Map and General Plan Amendment, File Numbers 08 -GPA -01 & 08-P-03 I am writing as a citizen of the City of Lodi to let the Planning Commission know that I am very concerned about the Reynolds Ranch expansion. From what I can tell, Reynolds Ranch wants to cram a lot more commercial into an area that was supposed to be used for a specific mix of single-family homes and businesses, and without doing the proper studies to show how all that added commercial will impact the area. The expansion would add 400,000 square feet of commercial uses and will nearly double the amount of traffic from the project. With all the added traffic will come worse air quality and more noise. The Addendum says that no new impacts would occur that weren't already in the 2006 Reynolds Ranch Environmental Impact Report. With such big changes being made, why haven't all of the impacts been studied? The public, the Planning Commission and the City Council deserve to know exactly what these changes mean before the City takes any further action on this project. I have never fought such a matter, but I believe this potential action by the Planning Commission and City Council is so egregious and without proper study, I had to speak out. If in the long run proper studies and incorporation of the expanded project into the processing of the new General Plan show that it is in the best interest of the City, I will accept that decision. However, short of it being studied to the extent it should be, I will be doing whatever is necessary to keep it from impacting this community. The citizens of Lodi deserve the full process of the system and no short cuts should be taken in a land use decision of this magnitude. The Project Is a Major Expansion The Reynolds Ranch project was originally studied in an environmental impact report in 2006. The new version of the project is much more intense than was studied in that EIR. The Reynolds Ranch FEIR Addendum included in the agenda packet says the new project would involve the same number of homes as the old project (1,084 units), but would have 400,000 square feet more of retail uses, and would also add a gas station, two fast-food restaurants, and a 104 -room hotel. Park land would also be decreased. All of this would occur in an area currently ITEM 3d & e slated as Planned Residential Reserve. A recent newspaper article says that the project has been changed again to include a "buffer" of low-density housing between existing homes and proposed commercial areas. Since the Addendum is dated August 19, 2008, the newest changes have received no study whatsoever. There is nothing to prove that the "buffer" would actually protect nearby residents. The Addendum -is Not Enough — the City Must Prepare a New EJR The new project would be much more intense than the one approved in 2006, but the City only did an Addendum instead of a new EIR. From what I can tell, the Addendum is not enough and has many problems that need answers. Infrastructiae is Not in Place The Addendum says in several places that the new project will not result in significant impacts because infrastructure plans are in place. Are those plans still valid in light of the major project changes? The Addendum doesn't say. Mitigation Measure 11.2 of the 2006 EIR says construction of a second water well might be needed. The Addendum says water demand will increase but the Planning Commission and public aren't told whether another well is needed. Also page 13 of the Addendum says a "detailed study will need to be conducted prior to completion of the Project" to figure out whether the Century Boulevard wastewater trunk line will have capacity to handle waste water from the Project. That kind of study needs to be performed before project approval, not after. Land Use Conflicts The Addendum says that the new project is consistent with the "general principles" of the General Plan. The Addendum does not explain how all that added commercial is consistent with the General Plan's Residential Reserve designation. Also, Mitigation Measure 7.1 of the original EIR says that buyers need to be notified of nearby agricultural activities. What about the seniors that will rent units in the senior living facilities? Will they be put on notice? Stormwater The old project had studies about stormwater facilities. By getting rid of single-family homes and putting in a bunch more commercial, wouldn't that mean a lot more paving? Can the stormwater facilities handle all that stormwater? 2 ITEM 3d & e Noise The original EIR had very specific mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts. The new project will almost double traffic, but there weren't any studies to show whether those measures will still be enough to protect residents. Shouldn't more studies be done? Traffic The Addendum says that traffic trips will almost double from 28,300 to over 50,000 trips per day and peak hour trips will increase by nearly 1000 trips per day. Mitigation measure, 3.10.2 of the original Elft required a roadway improvement phasing plan before approval of the first parcel map. The Planning Commission is now being asked to approve a parcel map, but was the phasing plan ever prepared? Will it still work given the tremendous increased in traffic proposed as part of this project? The traffic study looked at 2008 and 2030. What about all of the years in between? Will the roads be improved before the traffic comes or will there be problems before everything is built? Air Quality The Addendum admits that traffic will nearly double, and that significant ozone emissions would occur as a result. No new mitigation was proposed to reduce those impacts. Isn't that worse than the original EIR said? It doesn't look like air quality studies were updated to deal with the new traffic, so it is impossible to tell whether other new significant impacts would occur. This is a real problem since the new project would put more seniors who might have health problems near those emissions sources. Hazardous Materials The new project would involve new hazards related to the gas station. The Addendum only said the project will comply with existing laws. We always hear about leaking underground storage tanks, so accidents and leaks happen. If a leak occurred, wouldn't the City's groundwater, which it uses for drinking water, be in jeopardy? Water SUPI The Addendum admits that water use would increase by almost 10 percent. But then the Addendurri says no new study is necessary. Isn't that a big enough increase to require more study? ITEM 3d & e How can the Planning Commission gpRrove a Tentative Map before the General Plan The resolution in the agenda packet says the Planning Commission will approve the tentative map before the City Council acts on the proposed General Plan Amendment. Doesn't state law requires projects to be consistent with the General Plan? More important in my opinion is that this new project be considered at the same time as the City's General Plan update. That way the plan for the whole area can be in place before individual projects are approved that might not fit with the City's overall goals and needs. Conclusion Please do not approve the new project at this time. More study needs to be done to make sure that adding over 20,000 traffic trips per day won't cause problems that can't be solved, Also The City's residents deserve the benefit of unrushed and thorough environmental study. Very truly yours, 6 Ib 4 4u 4 ITEM 3d & e 9/10/2008 Dear Planning Committee/ City Leaders I feel an obligation to be here tonight and represent the Morse/Skinner National Historical Site, It would not be right, to not share with you just a tiny glimpse of this important piece of Lodi's history. The 200 acres that Reynolds Ranch is being developed on was once the acreage that belonged to the Morse/Skinner house. The ranch was built in 1869 and according to my understanding it may be one Lodi's oldest standing structures and is nearing it's 140th anniversary. As you may have read The Morse family originated from Lodi, Illinois If you reference our local history books and information from Wiki edia both are giving evidence that the Morse family likely had a hand in christening Lodi with its name. Today the Mickey's Grove Historical building displays 2 wagons from this family; a freight wagon and a camp wagon, the family used the camp wagon and enjoyed camping in the sierra's the wagon was used from 1898-1912 engraved in metal on the inside top was a list of some of there summer trips. It is believed that this camp wagon is the only camp wagon of this type and era displayed anywhere in California. ALSO More endearing to my heart is a diary by Mrs. Eva Morse. Written in 1859 it is a 70 pages of detailed writings about the journey from Lodi, Illinois to here where we stand today. Mr. Morse and Mr. Skinner were very active members in the community each generation of this family has played in important part in our agriculture, community growth and education contributions. I feel This historical home is a tangible presence of Lodi's past, To be blessed with this historical value and to not incorporate this landmark into this project is a dishonor and embarrassment to our past, present, and future legacy -on a city, county, and state level .We should be running after and preserving all are history, it is a wonderful reminder to "never forget where You conte from " We have had the privilege to live in this home for 15 years, It has been a wonderful home to raise kids, be a family and gather for holidays. As much as we love our home, this historical home is Lodi's Heritage and legacy. Once Blue Shield committed in May 2006 we knew we would soon have to leave, We found comfort in doing so because this area would no longer be an area to raise a family, also Lodi would have the privilege of obtaining a piece of their history. It was a positive step in blending Lodi's history with new growth. The location of the home is a great place it helps to anchor the history in downtown with the history at the San Joaquin County Historical Museum. We support the jobs and the retail of the Reynolds Ranch Project in 2006, if that is what Lodi wants and needs, I do not agree a family should be living in this massive retail area, especially living on the east side of this project. It affects us to the highest degree. Over the pass two years we watched out neighborhood dwindle down to nobody around us, gone were our friendly neighbors, my children's school buddies, and the over feel you have with a small group of country homes. There would not be anymore shared goodies for the holidays, nor more yard sales or friendly waves while riding our bikes, WE patiently have sat for the last`2 years as deals were made to secure the larger parcels of land around us, and we were suppose to be included. As each family left for better surroundings. We sat & watched our neighbors homes being boarded up, looted by thieves and burned to the ground — We have struggled with health issues; headaches, nose bleeds, eye irritations and breathing problems; my daughter has been on a breathing treatment morning and night since the beginning of the year and carries an emergency inhaler based with steroids. San Joaquin Valley land Co. was kind enough to put in a W A C unit on the air conditioner; all it say's to me is "stay in the house, shut your doors and windows and come out in about 2-5 years when construction might be over." Other measures have been taken to control the dust, and the unwanted critters that have come to visit us due to the construction. Still I must repeat this is no place for a residence. In the middle of this retail project. Gone for us will be every dark night, every beautiful sunset, the view of mount Diablo, the growing and harvesting of the grapes, and the awesome Delta breezes we all have come to enjoy. This will be replaced by street lights, large signs of retail businesses, cement walls, and 40-50,000 Vehicles circling my home. that is a cesspool of auto emissions, sounds and smells that no family should be subject to. Next week we have a meeting again with Mr. Gillespie, This will be the third one that we have initiated. I remain optimistic and yet pessimistic at the same time. It is quoted as saying, "Anyone who lives in Lodi is stuck on Lodi, Not stuck in Lodi" I would like to see it come to pass that we are not stuck in retail Lodi. Charles & Melissa Katzakian Morse Skinner Ranch National Historical Landmark California Historical Landmark 07/14/2008 Picture's taken 8-28-08 My home entrance and truck entrance for Reynolds Ranch PCI construction Entrance for REYNOLDS RANCH -10-15' from my vehicle entrance and approx. 35' from my residence & front door. This is a 200+ acre project, Could have been put somewhere else. Here we both were trying to pull onto PCI Construction entrance and storage site, loading and unloading for heavy equipment throughout all hours, eliminating this access so close to my house could have alleviated some of the dust and problems associated with this project which impacted us in many ways. 5 - A k�sf �.�..- +t ,ria �r •r ' 11 1 L. F 4 t f •r- ori. , < Ti 4 t f •r- ori. , < Ti Morse Skinner Ranch —Historical Site 00. m Y AhAt '-N 4 l MORSE SKINNER RANCH National Historical Landmark California Historical Landmark MM".asw�irYeu^+rce4:.wwu)R'a"'�y�' Y f I I Morse Skinner Ranch Home Visible from fence, all sides. East& South phto's �i.� ' • iy TIS" r5 L ,. T 800Z/I/6 juzlu•oiCosiouxaa/soloed/ Toms/L,o/u,sn/Sao•louuoSsn-AvAm//:due II ownlOA `ojdood put, soomoso-d sil tuxo�Tj�D moM oiUjo fjojsiH :oomoS osiow •g Uoillg Z Ja j osud osxoW 'H UoTIIH - dDHV° MUJO IL J., CalifomiaAHGP - Elliott E. Morse ELLIOTT E. MORSE Page 1 of 1 Elliott E. Morse, whose handsome homestead is located on Cherokee Lane about three miles fr,_,r, Lodi, T9- a—fia iv�e --son well known citizen of San Joaquin county, and his active career has brought him into eL place among the lea(Ing mein of the county, both through his able management of private affairs and through his public-spirited efforts for the upbuilding of his community. In his home estate there are a hundred and twenty acres of land, and a short distance to the south, also on Cherokee Lane, he has another ranch of one hundred and ninety acres, about sixty acres of which are planted to grapes. Born in San Joaquin county, March 11, 1861, he was a son of Lorenzo M. and Sarah Eveline (Elliott) Morse, old settlers of the county. His father was a native of Maine and his mother o New Hamps ire. These parents, accompanied by their one son, then a child, in 1859 crossed the great western plains to California, coming direct to San Joaquin county and settling near the present home of Mr. Morse. There the father remained until his death in 1899, but his wife yet survives as one of the honored pioneer women of the county, being now threescore and ten years of age. She resides with her daughter, Mrs. Richard E. Ryan, of near Lodi. Lorenzo Marion Morse was a Republican in politics, and a well known citizen of the county, whose death was much lamented. Of his children but two survive, Elliott E. and Hattie A., the latter the wife of Richard E. Ryan, a farmer near Lodi. Reared to man's estate in San Joaquin county, where he received his education in the public schools and also in 1883 graduated from the Stockton Business College, Mr. Morse has from youth up been intimately acquainted with agricultural life, and through his earnest study and careful experience in its various departments has gained the worthy success which gives him influence and high rank among his compeers. He was married February 14, 1888, to Miss Florence C. Heaton. She is a native of St. Catherines, provice on Ontario, Canada, and at the age of nine years she accompanied her parents to this state, their home being located in what is now Glenn county, where she was reared and married. Mr. and Mrs. Morse have two children, Evelyn A. and Genevieve. For seven consecutive years Mr. Morse served as a trustee of the Live Oak school district, and during all this time he was clerk of the board. Fraternally he is affiliated with the Knights of Pythias at Lodi, and his political belief is Republican. Source: History of the New California Its Resources and People, Volume II The Lewis Publishing Company - 1905 Edited by Leigh H. Irvine /`/e2 .n?ari d n http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ca/state 1/biographies/eemorse.html 9/1/2008 Period Areas of Significenca---Check and justity belovi prehistoric _— archeology-prehletodc .____. communh ptnnning __._ londscapa arrchitectur,___ reCg+on 1400-1499 _ _ archeology -historic _ cor•,servali'm _-. lav _.__ science 1500-1599 agriculture __._ . economkca _ _ ilteratura _ sculpture 1600---1699 _.x architecture _ _education __ military ___ so -KV 1 700-179),9 __. art _._ engineering _._ _ mus;c humanitarian _.._ 1 3:J0-1299 _.__ commerce exploration, sehiemcnt ___ philosophy — theater X 1 96a._. cornmunlcstions _.__. _Industry _._ p0hics.government ___._ transportation Invention __ other (specity) Spec;fic ,dates 1869 • remod . 1912 `BuitdebArchitect � ,gate wwnt of SIgnificenco (in one paragraph) T,' -,e Morse -Skinner Ranch house in Lodi, California, possesses historic significance due to its associations with three successive generations of a prominent pioneer Lodi family, each of which contributed substantially to the evolution of the community. This family also played a principal role in the naming of the City of Lodi. The ranch rosi Bence is additionally important as a handsome and distinctive architectural design, cocnbininrl Greek Revival and Colonial Revival styles, and reflecting the major periods of its significant associations. The structure is an unusual survivor of its typo and era still remaining in the Lodi area. It has retained its ranch setting, and its design integrity reflects the principal periods of significant occupation by family Members. The Morse -Skinner Ranch house was built by the prominent Lodi pioneer, Lorenzo Marion Qrse i n 1869. Morse, horn in Maine of English immigrant parents, met and married Evi�lin Sarah Elliot in Illinois in the 1850s. The family, and Want son Fred, traveled ky ox -drawn wagons to California in 1859 with members of the Elliot family, anti settled in the Lodi area where Mrs. Morse's father was waiting. In its earliest days, Lodi was called MoReTumne Station. Due to the mail confusion between Mokelumne Station and Mokelumne Hill, it was determined to change th^ name of the former settlement. Lorenzo Morse's brother Charles, a U.S. Marshal and later a prominent Figure in the Bay Area, called a mass meeting of townspeople to vote upon, another name for the town. The name Lodi was strongly advocated by Morse family members, and particularly Charles Morse, after a town in 11linoi_, containing many members of the Elliot and Morse families. Lodi was chosen by town members as the new name of their settlement. I— ll< Morse purchased the ranch land thit was to hold his house in 1867. The house, constructed in 1369, served as the residential focus of the Morse ranch which was purchased for $1?.50 on acre. At the time of the construction of the house, the coupie's second soon, Edmund (E. L.) Morse, born in 1861, was VIA years old. 'The land, covcred with liv,? oaks and underbrush, was cleared and the family first raised grain and waternel ons , Later Morse planted fruit orchards, drying and shipping the harvested apricots and peaches. Morse and son Edmund are credited for having planted, in 1892, the first `fokay grapes in Lodi on this ranch,l Lodi has since become particularly well known for this highly successful crop. T_.__ihis acreage is no lor,r,r�r part i ,, 9 Y l l o the property and s not included , n the nomination. Y_ 1859H *a u MOrso.-Skinner Ranch lZesj- idence, 13063 N� Flighwav 99 Prontage- Road, Lodi, CA Of C)riqlrla ec- cive- unknown. New knegat-ive 8 5 7 9 Ta # -i i '11,14 en Dr. I ;k- 8- 30 OA UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HF.RITACE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE t A il CONTI NUATION SHEET 1 ITEM NUMBER 7 PAGE 1 In 1936, the interior was remodeled with the addition of a bathroom, enclosure of the screened porch, and the replacement of some downstairs doors with French doors, Tank House (Contributor) A two story wood frame tank house, c. 1912, stands to the west and behind the residence, The structure is almost square in floor plan and topped with a hip roof,. Tho small wood frame building is surfaced with wood siding and contains a ground floor door on the east elevation, The small gabled addition of wood on the north end of the tank house was added after World War II to accommodate the washer and dryer, q:�E.a,5.e (Non. -contributor) A one story, two car garage stands between the residence and tank house, slightly north of the latter. The small flat -roofed building is surfaced with wood siding and was apparently constructed during the 1940s. There are windows on the east and west elevations and paired doors on the south. Modifications appear to be minor. The property occupies a one acre portion of the original ranch which formerly also contained a stable and carriage house, demolished in the 1970s. The larger property was reduced to its present size through sub- division, primarily over the twenty five years between 1950 and 1975. Additional features on the property include several mature deciduous and evergreen trees, a wide lawn and shrubbery. A fence separates the property from the frontage road, hi-iffnraid from the parallel Highway 99 I -,)Y (ien3e_ planting. Z 7 _4 CONTI NUATION SHEET 1 ITEM NUMBER 7 PAGE 1 In 1936, the interior was remodeled with the addition of a bathroom, enclosure of the screened porch, and the replacement of some downstairs doors with French doors, Tank House (Contributor) A two story wood frame tank house, c. 1912, stands to the west and behind the residence, The structure is almost square in floor plan and topped with a hip roof,. Tho small wood frame building is surfaced with wood siding and contains a ground floor door on the east elevation, The small gabled addition of wood on the north end of the tank house was added after World War II to accommodate the washer and dryer, q:�E.a,5.e (Non. -contributor) A one story, two car garage stands between the residence and tank house, slightly north of the latter. The small flat -roofed building is surfaced with wood siding and was apparently constructed during the 1940s. There are windows on the east and west elevations and paired doors on the south. Modifications appear to be minor. The property occupies a one acre portion of the original ranch which formerly also contained a stable and carriage house, demolished in the 1970s. The larger property was reduced to its present size through sub- division, primarily over the twenty five years between 1950 and 1975. Additional features on the property include several mature deciduous and evergreen trees, a wide lawn and shrubbery. A fence separates the property from the frontage road, hi-iffnraid from the parallel Highway 99 I -,)Y (ien3e_ planting. . .. aJUUN (11/78) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE I NfiER I CR HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE r s: YDS use OVt Y Ems* CONTI NUATION SHEET 2 ITEM NUMBER g PAGE l L.H. Morse's real interest, however, hay in raising pacers and tr, tang horses. Perhaps the best known member of his stable was the taro ter Dexter Prince, out of the famous Hambletonian, purchased from Le - Land Stanford and eventually sold back to him. L.M. and a partner ha< a harness racing track near the present Micke Grave, Unfortunately Morse's "hobby" became a financial drain upon the family, and Morse's two sons, E.E. and Fred, farmed to offset the los: Morse's death in 1899 left debts that had to be paid by auctioning hoi colts, buggies, carts, harnesses and furniture, upon Morse's death, I widow Evel.ine went to Litre with her married daughter, and dmund and k family moved into the ranch house, Edmund continued to .farm the origi ranch, and purchased additional acreage known as the "Lower Ranch", bx ing the total acreage then under cultivation approximately 65 acres. With his college background in business, E.E. soon added financ and business activities to his agricultural concerns. V* became a fou oder of the First National Bank of Lodi. This bank was subsequently pu chased by the Bank of America, and E.E. served as a Director of the Tc E3xanch throughout his life. Further expanding his financial activities, Morse helped found the Lodi Investment Co., formed in order to construct the Hotel sodi and l T'heater, He remained a Director of this company as well until his dea Morse was also a. founding nieinber of Faxmer's Mutual Fire Insurance Co. of Stockton, again remaining an active Director for many years. A,s a Member of the Lodi Union High School Board of Trustees, Morse helped to spearhead the bond issue for a new and accredited high 5choo which was built .in 1910, and utilized continuously until about 1975. E.E'. Morse participed actively in a number of community and �. o,,� i.al groups including the Lodi Masonic Lodge, den Alio Sbxine in Sacramento, Stockton Lodge dge o Scottish Rites, Knights of Pythias, and the old Moke lurane Chub (Mokelumne was the town's first name). 14orse's influence in the financial field in this region was signi- ficant and his agricultural contributions, particularly the first plan• ing of Tokay drapes, important. His participation in the community wa., broad, ranging frau educational concerns to a tide variety of c onimun.it" services. E.E. Morse was all important earl -twentieth century figure Lodi ajid contributed significantly to the financ.ia.l � educational growth cg:im° the c r�n��tz'��ximt��� �ri,.� # l 1unre,i l his c:Ieath in 1945. A thi,rd CaX'Iilely "rRnmb(--ir of -30rrta a.+:&ominenC- as"3ociatecl wit -J-1 the j`a`ms: —� UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 1iFRITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE OVA T1 ®NALvtry E G:S°IEgl/�°'� VlF tS�gd ORIC�pyPp�L�.ACMES Tfol A/iu%Ti"DV__i'ii5 X4 1VH ri(91V M■ 2RA ICC VSE !W .44 r rA��. �: br �r ty� 1� 1� ��, � ry/v .•r��rr�Jr -/�q/ r°�/r� _m�r9?�ir y.•'� �.rr/•� ��3`�a'� fy i-.. r5y.:. i CO NTI NUATIO I SHEET 3 IrEM NUMBER 8 PAGE 2 was John Carroll Skinner, husband of one of E.E. Morse's daughters, Skinner was an early twentieth century automobile dealer in Stockton. Mechanically inclined, he invented the Skinner vaporizer designed to obtain greater fuel efficiency from motor fuel consumption. Skinner was also a noted race driver, holding all of the automobile speed re- cords for non professional racers in California c. 1915, Much of h i s mountain racing was done to publicize the type of cars he sold. At the time of the Corbett -Fitzsimmons prize fight, he carried the San Fran- cisco ran- cisco Examiner's fight extras from San Francisco to Carson City, beating the train in a well publicized race where county sheriffs closed the roads to other traffic and crowds cheered him on, In 1920. skinner gave up the automobile business and Loved, with his wife Evelyn (E.E. Morse's daughter) to the Morse Ranch, where he joined his father-in-law in ranching activities, Ile was active in the agricultural community in the ensuing years as an originator of the To- kay Marketing Agreement which sat fresh market grape standards, and as a founder of the Del Rio Winery, now Guild, where he served on the Boarc of Directors. Additionally, he was a Rotarian, a member of the Ben Ali. Shrine and active with the San Francisco Wine and Food Society, At the time of his death in 1967, he was a Director of the Lodi Branch of the Bank of America and of the Farmer's Mutual Fire Insurance Co. of Stock - tan, apparently following his father-in-law's lead. Each generational member of this important Lada:. family, . from early ranching and agricultural innovations to later financial and education- al contributions, participated significantly in the growth i-.ind evolution: of the area. The Morse -Skinner House is a handsome vernacular ranch residence whose appearance reflects the elegance, deli qn, and char- acter of two important architectural eras. It is ail interesting exaMple of its type and style representations, and an unusually attractive struc— ture for its location and use as a ranch residence. The large residence .is also one of the very few ranch houses of its gage remaining in the ; rea� Essentially Greek Revival in design origins, the Residence stylisti- cally reflects both of its two major periods of associative significance; the Greek Revival period associated with the Lodi pioneer builder of the house, and the Colonial Revival era of the early twentieth century associated with the builder's son who remodeled a nortw.ion of the house -in:19.1 . The basic 'forms and proportions of the G eek Revival style of he original, building are combined with the later Colonial. Revival, cle- siqn of its porch. Though somewhat (Iifferent in design cipprc�a.c.ah, the f:wo styles derive from the same architectural origins, and retain a cumpati- bi.11ty 11/%8) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF WSTORIC PLACES INVENTORY— NOMINATION ]FORM fit' v�Y HMS USE�. VM:7W :N iECir1�l CONTINUATION SHEET 4 ITEM NUMBER 8 PAGE S The Greek Revival style aspects of the structure are most strongly reflected in the simple forms and elegant proportions of the two print: pal rectangles of the residence and in such detailing characteristic o: the mode as the eave retLrns, window types and simple moldings. The crisp lines of the building create a visual counterpoint to the curvi- linear ornament of the pediment, porch columns, and the curve of t h e porch, the principal Colonial- Revival themes utilized in the building design. The Greek Revival style was widely utilized in California during tt 1850s and 1860s. The themes were brought to the West during and just after the Cold Rush, by immigrants from the eastern and southern areas the country, where the style had been popular since the early decades c the nineteenth century. Vernacular representatives of the style range from farm homes and churches to commercial, urban structures, The mode reflected the basic forms and ornament of Greek temple architecture, ar often employed gabled or pedimented forms, eave returns that derive ori ginally from pediments, and simple, refined proportions, During the 18609, the style gradually declined in popularity, givir way to Italianate or Second Empire modes. The construction of this Greek Revival house as late as 1869 reflects the fact that established styles tended to be retained longer in isolated or rural areas than in urban sites where new trends were?more quickly adapted. The angled busy on the north elevation is more common to later It;al iana.te design and ma been an early modification to the structure. The Colonial Revival style evolved during the and of the nineteent: and early twentieth century, and characteristically employed such clas- sical elements as columns, pediments, lentil, courses and friezes, often embellished with formal flroral. ornament. The architectural, .return to simpler classical farms after -the often excessive ornamentation of the late Victorian era reflected both a reaction to those excesses and to the grand versions of classicism represented at the Columbian. E.xposistio of 1893 in Chicago that heralded architectural styles for the next guar ter of a century. E.R. Morsels use of the made to "modernize:" the porc, of the ranch house that had become his permanent home was in keeping wi the era. The Morse -Skinner Residence is an important and .rare remnant of the aarly settlement of the Lodi region, a good example of residential rant c;ronstriic;ti an of the arrba, and an iinusua.:l..ly handsome ar< hit,,..�ctural r egrsn ,� �ient-at.i vq For its location on and snodest usp_ �.3- 5 (10A (-AITED STATES DEPAR'rmEtiT OF THE INTERIOR"„,MRS,t ("LY, HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE 1-vW ti AL REGISTER OF WSTORIC PLACES -fvvq d1t ” X? T&rd-%1LffTAT A a-1 A,1 Vf'113 Iff COMT(NUATION SHEET 5 ITEM NUMBER PAGE, Bewley, Marilyn, Grandaughter of E.E. Morse, Stockton, California, Interview. 7/27/84. Bewley, Marily, Grandaughter of E.E. Morse, Stockton, California, Letter. 8/26/84. Hillman, Raymond, Regional, Vice President, Conference of California Historical Societies, Letter, 1/27/83. History of San Joaquin County, illustrations descriptive of its scenery, residences, public buildings, fine blocks and manu- factories.... Thompson and West, Oakland, 1879. Irvine, Leigh H., A History of the New California, 1905. Lodi News---Gentinel-, 8/13/83. Lodi News -Sentinel, 3/16/44 Personal Account of Eva S. Morse# 1859. Norton, Maria Elliott, ""Diary of a Trip Across the Plains in 159", 1913. Pratt, Harry Nayes, O -Lodi, a City of Progress", Commercial 'Ency- E-1edict dia i2f the Pacifi,;, 1915. ,p _ Sacramento dee, 11/20/45. San Francisco Chronicle, 1/14/05. San Joaquin 'Historian, "Early 13arks in Stockton!', V.1,10 X10.1.1p ,fanuary-March 1975. Walker,s manual of Pacific Coast Securities. 11alker I s Maniv T " eFnv-v-%n -w-n f-tAA .q,-4 n P r�,l " of sir I Q 9 7 I C) 9 R- !-'1R-8-300A (11/78) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR �iERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE i USE ONLY: cr,NTI IYUATl9N SHEET 6 ITEM NUMSER 10 PACE 1 The Morse -Skinner Ranch house property to be designated lies along ti frontage road of Highway 99, less than one mile south of Lodi. The rar property included over 200 acres of land during the height of its opex at.ion. The residence and tank house are the only ranch buildings now remaining from the original ranch. The garage is included in the pro- perty to be designated due to its Location between the buildings. The property nominated is the one acre remnant of the once larger ranch, an contains these three structures and a small ga.rd.en area s-�r•m �L-� 1.. -W "111 P1VY*1,UA1 !a{ pearl "UW Yale Morse -Skinner Ranch house stands on the frontage road paralleling Highway 99, les, t1han one mile south of Dodi, California, on a one -acre remnant of a once -larger ranch. The property includes two additional structures: a water tank and a more recent nr)n- c,intri hu ti rig garage. The residence, built in vernacular Greek Revival style in 1959, was altered in 1912 with the addition of Colonial Revival details. Subsequent alaeritions are mi nor. a Stylistically, the residence is a vernacular representative of the Greek Revival styli with Coljnial Revival modifications. The Greek Revival influence is most strongly sewi in the proportions aril forms of the two principal gabled rectangles with their eav_ returns and simple detailing. The original'porr_h was replaced by the current Colonial Revival lesign with its Tuscan columns and orn_!mented pediment. 4 ;Vnp l `r 3me residence is two stories i n Oght and roughly rectangular in form. The Willing is comprised ess'ntiaily of two gabled rectangles. The largest: one is oriente: east/wpst an! is intersected by the other rectangle which extends to the south. The gable', rectangles contain e,ave returns an the Facades, and double hung windows of both four light; over four and two ligh"s over two, ,A slatted vent occurs in the center of the front facade gable. The largest rectangle appears to have been the original house. The southern wing may have been constructed at the same time or perhaps slightly later. The wood frame building is surfaced with wide channel mastic siding. The walls of the residence were originally constructed on the ground and raised into place on a brick fouidation. An angl el one-story bdy projects from the north elevation on the east end. A long one --story rectangle projects from the gabled wing along the south elevation. This sten porch contains steps and an entry, flanked by a row of windows on either side, The original porch with its paired post columns and second floor balustrade was replacr by E. E. Morse, c. 1912, with the current Colonial Revival -inspired design. This one story porch is supported by Tuscan columns and contains a balustrade of turned balusters. The entrance is marked by an ornamented pediment and dramatized by a rouno projection on its southern side. The southern sun porch was converted from an earlier screened porch, apparently added the residenre early in E. E. Morse's occupancy. A one-story roofed addition on the northwest and a gabled extension of the sun porch to the west are connected by a small a -'.d i ti on at the rear (west) . The interior contains a stairway with turned balusters leading to the upper floor. Decorative moldings of Greek Revival derivation onframe doors and windows. The i nteri trai,iing of she angled flay is emhelliswed with decoritive brackats. Upstairs doors st' contain tri nsams . Other let'a i l i ng is simple and stafi'i'{jo to rcinch house construction the era, E. E. Morse and SENATOR Leland Stanford ( Stanford University) Had a love for Vineyards and horse racing. Mr. Morse purchased Dexter Prince from the senator, the senator later got the horse back. Wallace's American Trotting Register Dexter Prince, (6)b. h. foaled 1879; by Kentucky Prince, 2470; dam Lady Dexter, by Hambletonian, 10; g. d. Clara (dam of Dexter. 2:17^. Alma, 2.28%, Astoria, 2:29>£, etc.), by American Star, 14, etc. [See Lady Dexter, Vol. IV.] Bred by Chas. Backman, Stony Ford, N. Y,; passed to Leland Stanford, Menlo Park, Cal., then. to ]. Morse, Lodi, Cal. Hambleto n ian From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Hambletonian is a United States harness racinc event held annually for three-year- old trotting standardbreds. The race is named for the famous trotting horse, Hambletonian 10 (1849.1876), from whose four sons, the lineage of virtually allAmerican standardbred race horses can be traced. It is the most coveted North American racefor trotters; among racesforpacers, only the Little Brown Jug is as prestigious. The Hambletonian is the first, and most prestigious event in the United States Trotting Trinle Crown races. Leland Stanford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Stanford University With wife Jane, Stanford founded Leland Stanford Junior University as a memorial for their only child, Leland Stanford, Jr., who died as a teenager of typhoid in Florence, Italy while on a trip t o Europe. Approximately US$20 million (U S$400 million in 2005 dollars) initially went into the university, which held its opening exercises October I, 189 1. The wealth of the Stanford family.duringthe late nineteenth century is estimated at approximatelyUS$50 million ($US[ billion in 2005 dollars). Leland Stanford died at home in Palo Alto, Californiaon June 20, 1893, and is buried in the Stanford family mausoleum on the Stanford campus. The Memorial Church at Stanford University is also dedicated to his memory. Posthumous Honors California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and First Lady Maria Shriver announced on May 28, 2408, that Stanford will be inducted into the California Hall of Fame, located at The California Museum for History, Women and the Arts. The induction ceremony will take place December 10 and Stanford family descen int, To nford wilt acce t the honor in his place. (61 Leland Stanford (1824-1893) Page 1 of 1 �..aau a, aat••a. a.�t..P Leland Stanford in 18901'1 The Memorial Church at Stanford One of the "Big Four" who built Ca ti ornia s en ra Pacific railroad, Leland Stanford brouaht a sweenina political influence to the partnership that insured this privately financed project all the advantages of public funding. Stanford was born into a well-off farming family in Watervliet, New York. After a superb secondary education and several years of higher education, Stanford entered an elite law office to prepare for a career as an attorney, passing his bar exam in 1848. He soon moved to Wisconsin, where he began to practice his profession. After three years in Wisconsin, Stanford and his new wife decided to move to California, where several of his brothers had already found success as merchants. Stanford joined them in 1852 and soon began making enormous sums of money by selling equipment to miners in northern California. He also became involved in politics, first as ajustice of the peace, then as the unsuccessful 1857 Republican candidate for state treasurer, and in 1859 as the unsuccessful Republican gubernatorial candidate. Stanford was finally elected governor in 1861, when the Civil War split the Democratic vote, and he played a part in keeping California loyal to the Union. During his tenure, Stanford made no attempt to separate his political office from his private business interests. With Mark Hopkins, Collis Huntington and Charles Crocker, Stanford was one of the "Big Four" planning to build the eastbound section of the transcontinental railroad, and his contribution to the partnership was to come in the form of political influence. As governor, Stanford kept this pledge, despite his responsibilities to the public, by helping to secure massive state investment and land grants for the railroad project. When his term ended in 1863, Stanford declined to run for governor again, choosing instead to become president of the Central Pacific, a post he held until his death. He was also a major stakeholder in and longtime president of the Southern Pacific, as well as owner of many of the construction companies that did most of the actual railroad building. Later in the century, as public pressure mounted for government regulation of such monopolies, Stanford's political connections in California continued to keep his railroad business interests on track. The immense wealth Stanford acquired from railroad building enabled him to live a lavish life. He maintained enormous vineyards and owned a large horse -raising ranch near Palo Alto. I n 1884, the death of their fifteen - year -old son prompted the Stanfords to found and endow Stanford University in his memory. I n 1885, Stanford arranged for the California legislature to appoint him to the United States Senate, where he served without distinction but with pleasure until his death in 1893. http://en.wikipedia.org/w iki/Leland-Stanford "an JoaquinCounty Biographies San Joaquin County Biographies WILLIAM H. LORENZ. I'age 1 of l San Joaquin County will never forget thc(iiiiportantncinecessary part played by the far-sighted, experiericed bankers in her development, through -which she has come to take a tront place among the euuntic�s o . California, and prominent among the agencies that has clone much for the progress in Central l Cal iEornia the First National Bank of LoJt..tnust be mentioned. Its success is undoubtedly due, to a great extent, to tFi personal attention to every detail of William Il. Lorenz, the president of this thriving institution. Ile was born in Crawsfordsville, Ind., on April 9, 1863, and there was reared and educated. In 1885 he came West to Walla Walla, Wash., and engaged in farming pursuits for two years at the end of which time he removed to Stockton and was employed by P. A. Buell & Company; later he entered the Stockton State Hospital and soon afterward a' urned the supervision of that institution, where he remained for fifteen years. During the year oQ90he settled in Lodi and helped to organize the First National Bank and became its cashier, which po`stiion he held trntjlxecently when he was elected president. The other officers are as follows: ff. C. Beckman, . E. Morse end S. H. Zimmerman, vice- presidents: Lloyd Mazzera, cashier; P. A. Ritchie, 1I, € .L,ighil" ot; D-. 1'=I: Groff and C. D. Tappan, assistant cashiers. rhe present board of directors are: George F. McNohle, chaimian and W. 1.1. Lorenz. president; H. C. Beckman,�E. E. Morse nd S. H. Zimmerman, � ic,c pre stdc,nts� George W. Le Moin, E. A. Covell, John C. Bewley. 1066-1 etiker and W. G. Micke. TheT rsf K,;at on I Bank was organized with a capital of $25,000; and now with the Central Savings Bank, under the same management, has a combined capital of $300,000 with a surplus of $150,000 and resources of over ilt $3,500 000. Mr. Lorenz is the secretary and treasurer of the Lodi Investment Company whit buand own the �e,autifial Dodi lfotel and the Lodi theater)In 1913 he purchased sin eighty -acre vineyard near ``► ufff stown, which fie hos brought to a high state of cultivation; an arch at the entrance to tho property reads "Vista Del Monte Vineyard." In partnership with John C. Bewley, he recently subdivided aforty- acre tract south of Lodi into one -acre lots. Mr. Lorenz has been city treasurer of Lodi since its incorporation in 1906. Fraternally he is a member of Lodi Lodge No, 256 1,. & A. M. Masons; aril belongs to all branches of that order- in Stockton. and to the Scan Francisco Consistory and Shrine, he has passed through all the chairs of the Lodi Lodge of ()dd Fellows. Mr. Lorenz's rnairiage united him with lledwig Rtdil, a native daughter of California horn in Stockton, she is the daughter of the late F'r'ed Ruhl, a Stockton pioneer, whose sketch appears elsewhere in this N c. h nle. Mr. and Mrs. Lorenz are the parents of one datq!hter, Bernice, a gra.dtiate of the University of'C'alitornia in 1921 . She married P. A. Ritchie of Lodi and they have; a little daughter. A pian of tine character. a clear thinker. broad-minded and progressive, Mr. Lorenz has a keen desire for the contmtmity's bettcrinent. morally, educationally and commercially. llivol.l., of S'cna Joayrvin ('o nlv, ('alifiw«i« — L.os Angeles, Historic Record Co., 1923 1) Lqq Transcribed by Kisthy Sedler. 9/1')M)8 MICKEY'S GROVE -San Joaquin County Historical Building Mickey Building - E. E. Morse 1898-1912 CAMP WAGON t� - � -J .J -� 1 ,� ��5 � _-�.���_ C.Lr.'_t'� � �� � l f � _ 'j' E. E. Morse Camp Wagon 1898-1912 Restored by Lodi Rotary Club in memory of Howard T. Letcher The Camp Wagon has been restored for the museum by the Lodi Rotary Club in memory of the late Dr. Howard Letcher, past presi- dent of Rotary and also past president of the San Joaquin County Historical Society and a member of the museum board. The wagon was originally owned by Elliott E. Morse of Cherokee Lane. E 1 1 i o t t E. Morse was born in the county in 1861 to Lorenzo Marion Morse and Sarah Eveline (Elliott) Morse. His father was a native of Maine and his mother of New Hampshire. In 1859 his father crossed the great western plains to California, coming directly to San Joaquin County, and settling near the old home on Cherokee Lane. Our 1885 Directory lists Lorenzo as a farmer with 905 acres at Live Oak. Elliott (the owner of the Camp Wagon) was reared in San Joaquin County and graduated from Stockton Business College in 1883. In 1884 he married Florence Heaton. Mr. Morse served as trustee of the Live Oak School District, and during all this time he was a clerk of the board. Fraternally, he was affiliated with the Knights of Pythias at Lodi, and politically was registeded as a Republican. Mr. and Mrs. Morse had two children, Genevieve Morse Roberts and Evelyn Morse Skinner. Mr. Skinner w<as one of the active m mmbe.rs of F,odi Rotary. He and Mrs. Evelyn Skinner l:.ivecl it the o.1cl h.orne just south of FT. r:ney Dane. After he passing of Mr. and Miss. S]� _Lnner, L -he rriuseum was invited to the home place and the Lower ranch south on Cherokee. In May of 1968 the Camp wagon and a T:.re:i.ght Wagon were received by the museum. The roof to the barn on the lower place was gone and the vehicles were rotting away. ''Phe musewn .rea.lizc;d the i.mPxortance. of tlaese items and the story (:). s✓o:rk �:rnd play. On(-::! of theinl_1::>c=u�.n' p.t i me c:orlec.a^rl � only tl e -�Xh'iiAtion, ;:Ind c)f <x.1:t.. tact_s, bi.;Lt:: f.:,he ?`> ',L\T1t..1 ;)al cind iC l';]t=.7.C1r1 of -G Often the physical mementos of our history disappear quickly, consumed in onrushing and engulfing waves of important current events. And we, as people sustain a great loss. The San Joaquin County Historical Museum believes that through conservation and proper inter- pretation, we can instill understanding and pride in the past and a sense of belonging that is needed desperately by our young people. We have the Camp Wagon that belonged to one of our pioneers. The museum is one of the few, if not the only, museum in California to own a Camp Wagon that can be documented. It came from almost insight of t h e museum. The wagon belonged to Elliott E. Morse and his family, and, like other families, they went to the Sierras in the summer for camping trips. They did not travel in air conditioned cars over smooth roads with eating places along the way and luxurious accomodations awaiting their arrival. They went in the Camp Wagon, pulled by two horses, piled high with cooking and sleeping equipment up the steep and crooked and dusty grades. At night, Mrs. Morse made biscuits at the campfire, and then the family turned in to gaze at the stars from a bed on the ground. The Camp Wagon, according to the granddaughter, Mrs. Ross Bewley, of Stockton, and donor of the wagon, was used for trips to Mokolumne Meadows, Yosemite, Myers Station and the southern end of Lake Tahoe from 1898 until about 1912. Writing was found under the top, which will be preserved. 'Phe following has been mitten oTl the tin of the top by Genevieve and Evelyn as young q irls : July 1903 Parkinson f_ami..l.y an.d Ernest Ferchin elevation 6500, trip fine camp on right bank of the Stan:islaus whose waters _rise into Kennedy Lal<,e, lovely slx)t. Post farn:i_.1_y l.c;.ft for l-zorrie E. E. Morse Carn.il.y ar-r...il ed at '1:'a.L1-ac July 2, 1.903 6200 :Ct. on 4th went. as far as 'Tahoe Tav(= rn and the Wall:i_ngs stopped at K i.rkwood . July G, 1,91.0 bound for Eclio Lake, wa)—_m woaLher, enchanting t vel_yn Morse an(.]. Marion Ryan are going 'to Salem School now, and so on. From L "I:;7`t.: Y 0:. `i Z: k, `1.1 Its Aesources �- + . cople odit;e I by l.ei; h Irv:itie 1`j0 5 Vol. II Iul8 "hnoivlod e of kindred :.Ln(i t',e ;enealo ies of ','ie ;1ricient desorveth hi"'hest Imaise. Heroin consi-te-th L p,, -,.rt of i; le knowledge of --ma's min .;el It is a c;roat spur to look back on the ;vorth Of our line," —lord bacon. �Iliott ?,horse (owner of ri:ie Ccxip 'agon) :111iott : orsc!, Villose handsot:ie homestead is located on Cherokee Lane aboat ti►see hilus 'roti 1,odi, is a native son wid well knom citizen of San Joaquin Coiuity, and his active c-areer has brought him into a place c mong t..e leading; men of Ilia country, '_)otai '.:?Lrou� ti his able manage�.ient of private affairs and through his public—spirited o forts :_or t:;e ;"ARlildirtg of iiis cof,v.iuni,,y. In iiis home estate there are a !hundred and 'mority acres, of land, mid -t short distance to the south, also4on CheroRee Lane, he ,'ras another ranch of one hundred and ninety acres, about sixty acres of Iicll ire, !;?ant;ect to grapes. (the ca:-lp tr:_;,;ozl %vas Cored in tho bi,rn on the south -ince of ,)roperty just east :)f.':icke Gro re.) ;Orn in -an a�oagt7LiE2 cotln"ty, .:,:arch 11, 1861, lie Yvan 23 Son Of Lorenzo Marion Morse and Saralt Eveliae (Elliott) :orse, old se ;tlers of t,.i.e county. :t is father a nalAve of ImIlaine 'tied 1:i s :'Tother of 1`low Ifiminshire. In 1 359 they crossed the great western Mains to Calisornia, coming direst to :-),n Joaquin county and settling near the present ':iorae of 11r, `.`orae. (The 1384--5 Directory lists :- orse, Lorenzo 1.1, farrser 905 acres, Live 0t -di) 'eared 't0 I:IanI s estaf;E in :'ixin of J .i ,!3 ii1 CC)i:ll"I f, Ci' ierE ht! i'eCC ivlt his education in 'isle imblic schools and also in U)'&3 _'z':?.'l_,`.tie:I .0 roll' the :Aock-ton Ciidsiness Col.le,,e, ,'.Lj,'. .,orse has .LrOiil yoF:7:Fis`.2 it3 �.;Cen itl ��)_r�latel" �1,C<fti<1:d.I:t"bel:;!. ;Viol <'Ct_:T.'iC41.� tin's^a1 1:�...le, and thr0 tr his e turnest study and dire i:il experience is its Vt?rious dell rti-Jeiits has dined the svortlty SitC C'EfSS '.': ..2Ch `;1'Ves dill iI'1flilenCe end iti r:h rank ii":C)il his COpeer:io Lie Y.'L?s Iaarried Pebrt ctry 144, 1388, to .'.1-iss v'lozenee C. '. Z!atoii. -ilie :is is native of .`3t.Cratheriaos, proviaca o): Ontario, C"ana'7da, and at Wm) 2!,;e of nine, y"%'Ctrs Okie accompanied her 1,,)arents to U,is their iimic Oeirig Iocatied in ',Olat is awu Glenn coilnty, "s t2ere She "rmi-, _-v id _,E1:1 :a:..Y';'2i? �• .'.r• +:111(1 '.':U LO IP -1 ie JAQVI Ovc �._ '� ;'or 'vee Consecu VE �':�i.i:i -re>. :i L"VEL ii.: L riZ:'tL't? of !Ave Oak sel-fool di, --tri€ t, -md t1uring t1.1 tlli! i. I. :'e 4r:) :lark of t C lbo-1rd, 1'rater*1-'. ly 110 is to ]�filicttetl .v:ii,h "he ':tl ;2'ts of -IYU.i as ct LoJi, and itis w i -tical be' 1 ief s 1ejiut-A ic<ail. THE PERSONAL ACCOUNT OF EVA S. MORSE Trip across the Plains in 59' (1859) Diary account of a 3000 mile trip. Survival, I•Ieartache, Death, Beauty, Landscape, Sickness, hanii ly and most of all hope. 3 out 70 pages 4 -43- realize it, until we fret there. Are now camped on Shoshonee Creek. Had to Leave poor Dick today, an ox that has worked most of the time, but Failed two or three days ago, we hate to leave y him, he has been so kind. 20t.h Camped on Shoshonee Creek, an Indian came round camp & appeared very Er tendly , bur they are so treacherous that we can -- not place much dependence upon them. Traveled unt i.1 nearly dark & were just going to camp when two men that we had seen some time before, came Q-tip & gave us the unwelcome & stunning intelligent that: the Indians some seven miles ahead, had that day between eleven & twelve, while they were passing through a deep ravine, attacked them & shot 6 as they suppose, killed two of their men & taken their stock, provisions, wagons & everything. They escaped by flight & came back here, where they camped the night before & where there was a Mormon stand just come out to sell_ vegetables to the emigrants. They treated them kindly, some of them eat supper & lodged with us, there were two women & one child who escaped, by all riding on a pony. Ola, it makes my blood r..i_n cold & to think too that we have got to go through t hundred ,.e the same place & �.t�.x<��..a.gh a rtlilnbF-z o._ laun�r�c. miles of the sage wild country. But God is able & willing to save & l- trust Re will not leave us to be killed by those wild savages. >1st; Last night was the longest L1 LghL that I_ ever experienced. I 1 '3y in i'ou ,l ;. ni War r O being x.11_oU;;ed L. y a volley Ois bullets _44 - the hideous yells of the savage:;. But we were not troubled with thein, but the Loud & wild howling of the ch:i..otes deceived t_ls for a dumber of t i_rne:s, but thank to God, we are all well this morning. The boy:; went up there & found one of the men still living & sensible, he was very thirsty & after quenching his thirst, some of them stayed there & the rest came back, got two carriages & have now returned with the corpse & wounded man. We cannot yet determine how badly he is hurt:, only that his leg & arm are both broken. They both have families in Muscatine, Iowa. How sad the news must be to them. The Living man says they left about sun an hour high, after setting fire to their wagons & nearly all that they did not want, but: they found a few things which they brought down. Some of their cattle carne back in the night & others today, numbering about thirty. They are now dressing the wounded & digging the grave. It seems "very sad & Lonely. The Indians left their si.ghn of war, the red flag hung on a bush. Oh it is something I never expected to see, but our only hope is in a higher power than man, although our boys & the neighboring ramps have been getting prepared for Lhem. There are now about 15 1T1E'n in all going to keep LogeLher, have iJ turned o11").r droves together & they think that they will not t i. us as Long as there is so large a company. I hope & prey they won't, but Els we are about_ the last of emigrations, there is much more danger. One of their boys who gigot a flesh wound, yesterday started C) ]a d mule to go to t"l G' ravine lwhen. C1 ,. 5 mule :'r.:e.1..l_ is threw .. Am, b�' "<.i.,_�1og his ;.ol_1 _.1.1:' hone. They .t'].VF' ,lu_st. JE_('L7. S(?rt:&c_�`r in, , --45- His sister got a shot through the .skirt of her dress, another through his hat, but let us all place hope & confidence in the promises of Christ & fecal. that He will protect_ us for He is mighty. They are dressing the wounded & preparing the dead foi burial, he is very much mangled & the most horrible spectacle that I ever witnessed, God grant L may never behold such anorl 12nd They are now preparing to start & to go through that fearf place, but as there are 70 or 75 men of them, they apprehend no danger, but we poor weak defenceless women can't rest so easy, still they are going with their eyes open & hands ready for act but I hope & pray - that they may not be called to action, God Almighty grant it! I have just been talking with the wounded m, his courage is good, but yet he considers his recovery doubtful under the circumstances. They are ;_going to carry him to Salt L, as the nearest place :for relief, his arm from his elbow to his shoulder seems to be completely shattered, his :Leg :is broken, They took a ring from the dead man's finger & a lock of hair, w send to his wife, What heart-rending news!! 23rd Have Come nine mi1,C,?s & h-:irVe `,,;Jt: through l i at. fearful p l jco & i_t: is indeed a. t i_cti_n g place for such a terrible deed. We have not seen a better. It :is a deep ravine with very high blaj ' side d. e a ' � 01:1 LdC:i1 sx a �>(.)i7d I7a���.Iay b�l:ISI.C.:i Q11 t:'.�1.E.lCI & just t:1t t:x1E_ bottom a grove of cherry trees. He saw the blackened ru.ir.-I.s of An fin( ',./ngons & the place where the :iro'l.I.r i?'ien were s.A.M11f._'; playing Oucr,- & small pools of blood near :it. It was a sad & gloomy spectacl I breathed much more free when we scaled the top, but st:il.l Y the road lies through good dark places for hellish deeds. We have eight on guard at dight & the boys all keep their eyes & ears open & I can safely say the women too. We are now just going to start: & I must postpone until tonight, if we live to se Heard more bad news ahead & some good -- a number of trains have been entirely killed & others more or less killed & wounded. We also Learn from the same source (some men which we met going from Salt Lake to Washington territory) that there are 350 sol.di about 9 miles from here, that have come out for the protection of the emigrants, & for exterminating the red skins with whom th have already had two or three skirmishes & killed at one time 25 them but as we take a different road this morning, we shall not see them, as our courageous men think we are sufficiently strong, to prevent an attack, but for my part, I should feel much more safe to have about -25 or 50 of them escort us until we reach a country lass dangerous as we have got to go throngh the worst yet. Now every day the road passes through long deep ca.nons> 2401 G Soon after ?t.a.itl.tl,�y came tJJ3 C)11.��n a canon,4 C7 Y' _) miles i long With very si self bluffs on each hand. A number of our 'Tlc:n went to the Lop of them & followed along them, to be :sure that: there were no savages 1. J.eing in ambush & when we next joined t:hel we were on a very high hill, down which our guide says, the wagol m be ler dr>>,rr, by ,ropes, bw we (roma "il.UM no worse Lhan sune AN N that we had been down before. For quite a distance at the moot of Vis, the road was just wide enough for wagons to piss, between very high bluffs, not even room enough for the drivers to walk beside their teams, some of the way, but they were obliged to climb up steep banks, Solite higher than their teams. Mr. Yelser i one of his nen .went back to get a couple of strays & as they were returning, they met the soldiers with whom they had a talk. They advised us to keep a sharp Lookout & he prepared for thein (Indians) & thought we would not be attacked. They have gone to final four men which camped with us some about a week ago but stopped ,with a sick ox & have since been traveling alone but they, the soldiers & we feel afraid they have been. killed. '..Graveled till near 10 o'clock to reach water, Lking 25 miles today & find water scarce & no feed & the stock 1-A<:ave eaten nothing since this morning. We have camped in the same place where t.h.e Indians killed a man the 26th of last month. His name was hall, they shot, him awhile on eventing guard & stole their cattle. His grave is dear only a few camp./ This is our little Freddie's birthday, l�iA.thday, hods lfrio�m �. e s now a two year old & a �!�I..eat EaL 1.)c.)y 25A. A.a. We a l_wos L start this morning before we are up, before 1.t. was Fairly light, chC Lont.s were down, stoves put ouL & cattle driven up for yoking c& as Acy i17d no i_( -'.ed, we went about 2 Cll.l_u-; u stopped - g O t our breakfast tAn cattle :-C1LS, & from here ae entered a 15 mile canon_ where e a train of 12 men, a women & 5 ,U ._a C,;_t'_Cl were attacked rhe,_ 7 i '1 A last: :'oiit.-1 by t_'11.' Eidi,3-11s r --,cion Qst-_: n i j` k-ii..i_C.d _. one rtii.... n & one ,".-:ail wounded, z - i From: Jori Leads [mailto.jil6398@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 200810:29 AM To: City Colmcil Subject: Fwd: Reynolds Ranch ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jon Leach <ii16398@grnai1.com> Date: Tue, Sep 16,2008 at 10;26 AM Subject: Reynolds Ranch To: citycouncil@lodi.org Dear City Council Members, I encourage you to take your time to address the new Reynolds Ranch proposal. It is so important to look at each proposed development for IaL because once we lose the small town feel of Lodi we can never get that back. Currently, Lodi has the best of both worlds, we still have the feel of a small mid -western town, but we have all the benefits that California has to offer. My family has been in Lodi over 100 years, and I love it here. But I do not want to live in Modesto, Elk Grove, Fresno, Bakersfield, Manteca or any other generic California town that all look alike. Lodi is so unique. But with each huge retail or housing development we chip away at Lodi's uniqueness, quality of life, and sense of community. It confuses me why the City Council is considering more retail for Lodi when the August 29th edition of the News Sentinel reported that Lodi's projected sales tax revenue for 2008-2009 fiscal year will be down $800,000. Each Lodi household has only so much discretionary income, whether it is $10 a month or $10,000 a month. Itis very hard for me to believe that people will increase their spendingjust because there are more stores in Lodi. Shopping at one store will only take away sales from another store. There is a small percentage of tax revenue that comes from shoppers outside of Lodi, but with the current economy, and the high gas prices that will never have a substantial drop in price, it is bad business to expect out of town shoppers will come to Lodi in great numbers. I would also encourage you not to use that old chestnut that if we have more tax revenue we will have a better city, a safer city, with more money to spend on police, fire, the library, etc. If tax revenue collected by the city was the only indicator of quality of life, that would mean that New York, L.A., San Jose, Sacramento, Oakland, or Modesto all are safer cities with more city services available. We all know that is not true. I encourage the City Council to deny the Reynold Ranch developers request to change their plans. The developers made a good faith agreement with Lodi, if they are honorable they will stick to their agreement. Lodi, and its citizens are struggling with the current economy, we should not have to shoulder the burden of a tough economic time for a wealthy developer. My question to the City Council, will this development contribute to Lodi's quality of life, our wonderful sense of community, or will it create more empty store fronts, create more traffic, and contribute to the decline of our sense of community? Vote NO on Reynolds Ranch changes. Sincerely, Jon Leach From: Katzakian [mailto:chaskat@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, September 11,2008 9:03 AM To: RandiJohl; Susan Hitchcock; Bob Johnson; JoAnne Mounce; Phil Katzaklan; Larry Hansen Subject: Reynolds Ranch Dear Coucil Representatives, Good Morning, At last nights planning meeting, I handed out a packetof information about my home the Morse Skinner Ranch/National Historical Landmark and some information about the Reynolds Ranch development and the affects it is taking on my family. I had asked that the information be passed along to you, It is my sincere hope that you will have time to read the information soon.. If by chance you do not recieve it in a timely manner- I would be willing to bring you a copy.. Sincerely, Charles and Melissa Katzakian From: Randi Johl Sent: Tuesday, September 16,2008 1:09 PM To: 'regan43@clearwire.net; Susan Hitchcock, Larry Hansen Cc: Blair King; Steve Schwabauer; Jeff Hood; Subject: RE: Reynolds Ranch Bob Johnson; JoAnne Mounce; Phil Katzakian; Rad Bartlam Thank you for your email. It was received by the City Council and forwarded to the appropriate department(s) for information, response, and/or handling. Randi Johl, City Clerk From: regan43@cleafwire.net[mailto:regan43@clearwire.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 1:06 PM To: Randi Johl; Susan Hitchcock; Bob Johnson; JoAnne Mounce; Phil Katzakian; Larry Hansen Subject: Reynolds Ranch Lodi City Council -Reynolds Ranch I ask that you consider the traffic impact, allowing Reynolds Ranch to go from residentialto retail. I live on Armstrong Rd. and have for about 17 years. In the last few years we have seen lot's of increased traffic because of excess traffic on Eight Mile Rd. In the morning and evening rush hours we have to sit and wait to exit our drive. I know that many of the new 800 empoyees of Blue Shield will be coming from Stockton area, increasing traffic; with the original Reynolds Ranch plan creating 27,000 plus cars per day, to the proposed plan change to 50,000 plus cars a day: what is too much? I hope the council takes time to consider the needs of those you represent and not be influenced by the big developers. If you're so concerned with raising tax revenue; charge each one of the 27,000 cars a day a dollar each, that should solve your budget problems. Dennis Regan 4220 E. Armstrong Rd Sep 15 08 04:51p P.1 City of Lodi City Council c/o City Clerk City Hall, 2nd Floor 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 September 15,2008 T- I Re: Reynolds Ranch Tentative Map and General Plan Amendment, File Numbers 08 -GPA -01 & 08-P-03 Ike City Council, I previously submitted a letter to the Planning Commission voicing my concerns over the Reynolds Ranch expansion. The expansion would add 400,000 square feet of commercial uses and will nearly double the amount of traffic from the project. This expansion is a significant change to the Reynolds Ranch land use plan and should be evaluated as part of the General Plan Update. Approval of Reynolds Ranch expansion will change the outcome of the General Plan Update. The City may determine that this expansion is a good land use decision. That determination can only be made while looking at the City comprehensively. Approving the expansion at this time, during a General Plan Update, will significantly change the existing conditions, and further reduce the City's ability to approach land use decisions comprehensively. Please reconsider the Planning Commission's decision to approve this project. I urge you take a comprehensive approach to these very important land use decisions. Also, this process is sQ rushed that the public does not have enough notice of what the C ity Council is doing. The Planning Commission meeting was only last week. The letter I previously submitted to the Planning Commission is attached for your review. Very truly yours, ieg 15 08 04:52p p.2 ITEM 3d & e City of Lodi Planning Commission o1a City Clerk City Hall, 2°d Floor 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 September 10, 200$ Re: Reynolds Ranch Tentative Map and General Plan Amendment, File Numbers 08 -GPA -01 & 08-P-03 I ant Writing as a citizen of the City of Lodi to let the Planning Commission tow th t I am very concerned about the Reynolds Ranch expansion. From what I cantell, Reynolds Ranch wants to cram a lot more commmial into an am thatwas supposed to be used for a specific m ix of single-familyhomes and businesses, and without doing the properstudies to show howall that added commercial will impact the area. The expansion would add 400,000square feet of commercial uses andwt7l aewIy double the amount of traffic from the project With all the added traffic will come worse air quality and more noise. The Addendum says that no new impaca would Occur that wmmm't already in the 2006 Reynolds Ranch Envirom ental Impact Report. With such big changes being made, why haven't ell of the impacts been studied? The public, the Planning Commission and the City Council deserve to h o w exactly what these changes mean before the City takes any further action on this project. I have newer fought such a , but I believe this potential action by the Parr &q Cantaissionand City Council is ao qValRow and without proper study, I had to speak out. If in the long run proper studies and incorporation of the cxpandcd project into the processing of the new Genera) Plan show timet it is in the best interest of the City, I will accept that decision. However, short ofit being studied to the Went it should be, l will be domg whatever is necessary to keep it from impacting this community. The citizens of Lodi deserve the full process ofthe system and no short cuts should be taken in a land use decision of this magnitude. The Project Is a Major Expansion The Reynolds Ranch project was originallystudied in an anvimumWl impact report in 2006. Theater► version of the project is much more intense than was studied in that EIR. The Peynolds Ranch FOR Addendum irrludad in the agenda packet says the new projectwould involve the. same aumbeT ofhornes as the old project (1.084 units), but would have 400,000 square feet more ofretail uses, and would also add a gas station, two fast-food restaurants, and a 104 -room hotel. Park land would also be decreased. AU of this would occur in an area currently iep 15 08 04:53p P.3 I�E1113d & ea� .0 slated as Planned Residential Fesenie. A raeext newspaper article says that the project has been ai=ged againto include a "buffsr" of low-densityhousing betwm existing homes and proposed commercial areas, Since the Addendum is dated August 19, 2W8, the newest changer have received no study whatsocvo. There is nothing to prove that the "buffer"would actually protect nearby residents. The Addendum is Not Enough —the City Must Rmpare a New HIR The new project would be much mcrc intense than the one approvcd in 2006, but the City only did as Addendum instead of a new E L From what I can tell, the Addendum is not enough and hAs many problems that need answers, Infratnxturc is Not in Place The Addendum says in several places that the new p raj ect will not result in s g,i fi rant impactsbecauss inftutlurnumplans am inplu,:, are those purrs stillvalid in light of+h2 major project changes? Toe Addendum doesn't say. Mitigations Measure 11.2 of the 2006 ErR says construction of a second water well might be needed, 'The Addendum says water dPmWd M 13 increase but the Planning Commission and public amt%'t told whether another well is needed Alsopage 13 of the Addendum sar a"detailed study will need io be conducted Bart to completion oftbe Fmicvt"to figvm outwhathcrthe CenNU7 Boulevardwastewdter t%rL: line uM Dave capacity to handle waste water from tha Project. That kind of study needs to be performed before project apptovai, not after. Land Use Conflicts The Addendum says that the new project is consistent with the "general principles" of the General Plan. The Addendum docs not explain how all that addl commercial is consistent with the General Plan'sResidetttial .F,-. s ye designation. Also, I tigationM3Be7.1 ofthe original EM says tbatbuyers need to be notified of nearby agricultural activities. What about the seniors that will rent unirs in the senior living facilities? Will they be put on notice? Stornwater The old pzrjeethad studies a�ot)tstcr=waccrfacilities By gc rd ng rid of single-family homes and putting in a bunch nee catarnetmiaJ, wouldn't thatmean a lot more paving? Cin the swrmwaber facilities handle all thatstormwatct? 259 s 77777 iep 15 08 04:53p ITEM 3d & e The original EIR had very specific mitigation mearnat to reduce noise impacts. The new project will almost double traffic, bui time weren't any studies to show whether those neasmes will stili be enoughto protect residents. Shouldn't more studies be done? The Addend= says thatftffiic trips will almost double from 28,300 to over 50,00© trips per day and peak hour trips will inn vasa by rnarly 1440 trips per day. MitigationnUMMM 3.10.2of the original EIR required a roadway improvement phasing plan before approval of the first parcel map. The Plawing Coanr ission is nowbeing asked to approve a parcel map, but was the phasing plan ever prepared? full it still work giver the tremendous increased in traffic proposed as part oft" project? The traffic study looked at 2008 and 2030. What about all of the yeah in between? will the madsbe improved before the traffic comes or will thAM be problems before everything is built' Air Quay She Adder darn admits that traffic will nearly double, and that siqif m t ozone emissions would occur as a result No new mitigation was proposed to reducethose impacts. Isn't that worse than the or3gi W EIR said? It doesn't look like air quality studies wrrc updated to deal With the new traffic, so it is imipossible m tell whether other riew significant impacts would occur. This is a red problem :sacs the maw project would put mots seniors who might have health problems near those emissionswurm. Hazardous Mataw§ Thenew project would involve newhazads related to the gas station. The Addendum only said the project will comply with existing laws. We always hear about leaking underground storage tanks, so accidents and leaks happen. If a leak ow rcd, wouldn't tha Cass groundwater, wlikh it uses for drinking wafer. be injeopardy? Water Sunol The Addendum admits that Water use would increase by almost 10 percent. But then the Addendum says no new study is necessary. Isn't that a big enough ltwem to require more study? 260 3ep 15 019 04:53p P.5 .... ... .... .... at 4V ITEM 3d & e How cm the Planning Commissim amrove a Tentative Mao before the Gmml Plan? The resolution in tbc agenda packet says the Planning Commission will approve the tentative map before the 0 ry Council "% on the proposed OtneW Plan Amendment. Doesn't state law requires projects to be consistent with the General Plan? More important La my opinion is that this new project be considered at the Ume tkm U the City's Genaal Plan upchft. That way the plan for the vknile area can be in place before individual projects are approved that might not fit with the City's overall goals and nceds. conelasion Please do not approve the now project at thistime. More shicly needs to be done to make sure that adding ever 20,000 baffle aim per day won't muse problems that can't be solved. Also The City's residents deservethe benefit ofumshed and thorough cmvironmental study. Very trVIY YodM D City of Lodi Community Development, Planning Division. Request for Lodi City Council approval - Reynolds Ranch ... _--��____.__; _�,kAm|mam1 E F1 1 -7� k ■ -'•m. mAr� : � ; . It It Bman & � A� _ | � # �� _� a.. 8 ,� „ m%_� :i■�!FO ■]§ ' � ■ _t �- - m. mai �&�; ���� ����,.�_9■�.IN. ■�= Im %. \�| 1 ■ k . i Aerial View Arcadia T'. 6im Ik i. MuVipn qpx z 6=1=m�m I.,@ kuz R 4, X-0 tiff X-0 Air 1111! 111111111111111�r1�'f"""'"" !111!1 ti1s111111111111111 X11111 ;1111 1111 sllr 1111111! �n lk �•'� �Islsl _��■ _=111_��IIS1111 111111�11�1�111111►�����r,:,��-..J -- 111114 I l f"'1"' EEIM■ 1 �'i� LAND l:E? Sl}� E 1`j RANCH CITE' OF LODI, C.0 IFORNIA LAND USE SUMMARY LWDL99E LOREb FINED 00upF tRITb nir_ W-4 b Mo "qmm- ;" t WAG 103 4LM1001ARr Il EKXWML ®1 V.3 U_VL ml mWl�Y—iPYa. ■. UouwC m aul �elolr lnw-x %a io-avhc lm -m- 4:6 11ULW WIC[ Al 110006 yy4mu� L} p&n. 31LU RIIJC jp api: x 1+O O6�Y]b�060.,1b� L1 cAJ1 Uir_T mWicRomm FS Lo grow Y1veF«rneele u i r� TOTAL 2m 1Au lEO.iA6 Original Land Plan UAY 19, 2056 6 UNALULC6 4F ChUEPORDUA Q{C. [pyo.+� /vuma.n/wvrTMT�. ewe A •s" ^s.v v s:o' y°'n?Si . iSC ' 'Y ]'. F 41 .: 'E $.#. ,N,:�i.:., a•'r?4ra:x: 36#e: '�»..�. .VF'. 9�Y.. ��x > �.�;:i "; .#3' r� sx., f axoa6m �: x ir: E s:xcce ^a> > xis^axwa: se. > 'ao-ax x:ra�r^aca s x a^x asr�s :x* zxas :ax'x x41 BP�E�#4'#x. < x+�# •#' x*# v� Vm: .,�f.. #*rte, M#8 :x ss�s *� ryz *#s. 3}{� .. }xa�s> ,. �i.< ••,xxK •� x: xx> :. s:a':ttcv <�.. ¢e^Vr zxs>S:u>�s «xx>xsxtt•s >x xx:ss<.'. :#•<x>:smr¢#: My f .�:. .��<: >,�:.�. :.,. ..s 3&#�"o5'#,mo- s' v�: z<'�4 �Er x �'. '� tc '& s x."�k¢'#'x'•�: ,. ON . .... > �• i'.���# << �}t'�"&3PSc .xk'#.•i..�. <#' �#: •`a�a��a# >n�&b {" '•.z#i� � s ss: sk.>s� ..'artta �s'.rxcaaxa<s>'.rti �xz+',m:a^aoa. zss }:dttMta+:x s*;: aau ax:*a<:. •ra^aam,..«.'.a PRi Proposed Land Plan TABLE 1-12006 PROJECT LAND USES Use Size Use Size Retail/ 40.5 acres High Density Senior 3 acres commercial Residential Office 20.1 acres High Density Residential 9.1 acres Mini Storage 5.3 acres Medium Density Residential 63.9 acres Public/ 1 acre Low Density Residential 20-6 acres Quasi Public School 14 acres Interchange/ Ramp 4.5 Park, Open Space 12.7 acres Internal Streets 17.3 Detention Basin 8 acres TOTAL Source: Willdan, Reynolds Ranch Project EIR, August 2006, page 2.0-19. TABLE 1-2 2008 MODIFIED PROJECT LAND USES Use Size Use Retail 78.2 acres 220 acres Size Office 20.5 acres Senior Housing 48.5 acres Public/Quasi Public 1.0 acres Densitv Residential 9.2 acres Mini Storage 5 acres Existing Residential 2.5 acres Park, Open Space 12.3 acres Medium Density Residential 10.1 acres Low Density Residential 10.0 acres Detention Basin 9 acres Interchange ------ Streets TOTAL 206 acres Note: The total above does not include internal street acreage or highway interchange acreage. The senior Housing area will include a minimum of 2.0 acres Parti. Source: Dale N. Gillespie, RPM Company. Personal email communication with Peter Pimejad, City of Lodi. June 3, 2008. DECLARATION OF POSTING CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR REYNOLDS RANCH On Friday, September 5, 2008, in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, a Notice of Continued Public Hearing to consider approval cf a General Plan amendment for Reynolds Ranch (attached and marked as Exhibit A), was posted at the following locations: Lodi Public Library Lodi City Clerk's Office Lodi City Hall Lobby Lodi Carnegie Forum I declare under penalty of perjurythat the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 5, 2008, at Lodi, California. F •� JEOIFER M. ERRIN, CMC DEPUTY CITY CLERK N:1Administration%CLERK\Forms\DECPOST.DOC ORDERED BY: RAND]JOHL CITY CLERK MARIA BECERRA ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK CITY OF LODI Carnegie Forum 305 West Pine Street, Lodi Date: September 17, 2008 Time: 7:00 p.m. For information regarding this notice please contact: Randi Johl City Clerk Telephone: (209) 333-8702 NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, September 17, 2008, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council will conduct a continued public hearing at the Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, to consider approval of the following item: a) Consider approval of a General Plan amendment for Reynolds Ranch. Information regarding this item may be obtained in the Community Development Department, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, (209) 333-6711. All interested persons are invited to present their views and comments on this matter. Written statements may be filed with the City Clerk, City Hall, 221 West Pine Street, 2"0 Floor, Lodi, 95240, at any time prior to the hearing scheduled herein, and oral statements may be made at said hearing. If you challenge the subject matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk, 221 West Pine Street, at or prior to the close of the public hearing. B Order of the Lodi City Council: I Joh I City Clerk Dated: September 3,2008 D. Stephen Schwabauer City Attorney CLERKIPUBHEAR\NOTICESINOTCDD.DOC 913/08