HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - November 5, 2008 K-03 PHAGENDA ITEM
-3
CITY OF LODI
%W COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
TM
AGENDA TITLE: Set Public Hearing to Consider the Appeals of Browman Development
Company and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Regarding the Decision of the
Planning Commission to Not Certify the Lodi Shopping Center
Environmental Impact Report
MEETING DATE: November 5,2008
PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, City Clerk
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Set public hearingfor either November 19, 2008 (regularly
scheduled meeting), or November 20, 2008 (special meeting), to
consider the appeals filed by Browman Development Company and
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. regardingthe decision of the Planning Commission to not certifythe Lodi Shopping
Center Environmental Impact Report.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Pursuantto Lodi Municipal Code Chapter 17.88 and Section
17.22.110, Browman Development Company and Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. filed appeals regarding the decision of the Planning
Commission on October 8, 2008, to not certify the Lodi Shopping Center Environmental Impact Report.
The appeals were filed in a timely manner and the appropriate fee was paid. The City Council may now
set the matter for a public hearing to consider the appeals. It is suggested that the matter may be heard
at the regularly scheduled meeting of November 19, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. or at special meeting on
November 20, 2008, at 6:00 p.m. If the matter is heard on November 19, 2008, staff will attempt to limit
the number of items for Council consideration, but there will be other non -related items for action on the
agenda. If the matter is heard on November 20, 2008, the appeals will be the only item for consideration
on the agenda.
FISCAL IMPACT:
FUNDING AVAILABLE:
RJ/jmp
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
W:)��
R ' ohl, City Clerk
Attachments:
1. Agenda for the October 8, 2008, Planning Commission meeting
2. Staff Report for the Lodi Shopping Center El considered at the October 8, 2008, Planning Commission meeting
3. Draft minutes for the October 8, 2008, Planning Commission meeting
APPROVED: --I
Blair �II'r ity Manager
N:1Administration\CLERK1Council\COUNCOM\Appeals.DOC
CARNEGIE FORUM AGENDA REGULAR SESSION
305 WEST PINE LODI WEDNESDAY,
STREET OCTOBER 8, 2008
LODI, CALIFORNIA PLANNING COMMISSION
@ 7:00 PM
For information regarding this agenda please contact:
Kari Chadwick @ (209) 333-6711
Community Development Secretary
NO All staff reports or other written documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the agenda are
on file in the Office of the Community Development Department, located at 221 W. Pine Street, Lodi, and are
available for public inspection. If requested, the agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to
persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec.
12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. To make a request for disability -
related modification or accommodation contact the Community Development Department as soon as possible and at
least 24 hours prior to the meeting date.
1. ROLL CALL
2. MINUTES — "September 10, 2008"
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. The request of Browman Development Company and Wal-Mart Real Estate Business
Trust to certify the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report (EIR-03-01) to allow
construction of the Lodi Shopping Center and allow all subsequent development
approvals for the center; and
Request of Browman Development Company and Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust
to approve Use Permit U-02-12 to allow the construction of a commercial center in a C -S,
Commercial Shopping District, and allow the sale of alcoholic beverages at the Wal-Mart
Supercenter; and
Consider approval of Vesting Tentative Map 03-P-001 to create 12 parcels for the
project.
Request of Browman Development Company and Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust
for site plan and architectural approval of a new retail building to be constructed at 1600
Westgate Drive.
NOTE: The above item is a quasi-judicial hearing and requires disclosure of ex parte communications as set
forth in Resolution No. 2006-31
4. PLANNING MATTERS/FOLLOW-UP ITEMS
5. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE
6. ACTIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
a. Summary Memo Attached
7. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE/DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE
8. ACTIONS OF THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
9. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
10. COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC
11. COMMENTS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS & STAFF
12. ADJOURNMENT
Pursuant to Section 54954.2(a) of the Government Code of the State of California, this agenda was posted at least
72 hours in advance of the scheduled meeting at a public place freely accessible to the public 24 hours a day.
"NOTICE: Pursuant to Government Code §54954.3(a), public comments may be directed to the legislative body
concerning any item contained on the agenda for this meeting be ore (in the case of a Closed Session item) or
during consideration of the item.
Right of Appeal:
If you disagree with the decision of the commission, you have a right of appeal. Only persons who participated in
the review process by submitting written or oral testimony, or by attending the public hearing, may appeal.
Pursuant to Lodi Municipal Code Section 17.72.110, actions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the
City Council by filing, within ten (10) business days, a written appeal with the City Clerk and payment of $300.00
appeal fee. The appeal shall be processed in accordance with Chapter 17.88, Appeals, of the Lodi Municipal Code.
Contact: City Clerk, City Hall 2nd Floor, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California 95240 — Phone: (209) 333-6702.
LODI
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
MEETING DATE: October 8, 2008
APPLICATION NO: Final Revised Environmental Impact Report (EIR-03-01)
Use Permit U-02-12,
Vesting Tentative Map 03-P-001
Site Plan and Architectural Review 08 -SP -08
REQUEST: The request of Browman Development Company to certify the Final
Revised Environmental Impact Report (EIR-03-01) to allow construction of
the Lodi Shopping Center and allow all subsequent development approvals
for the center. Additionally, to approve Use Permit U-02-12 to allow the
construction of a commercial center in a C -S, Commercial Shopping
District, and allow the sale of alcoholic beverages at the Wal-Mart
Supercenter and Vesting Tentative Map 03-P-001 to create 12 parcels for
the project. Finally, to approve the SPARC application concerning the Wal-
Mart building.
LOCATION: 2640 West Kettleman Lane. Approximately 40 acres located at the
southwest corner of west Kettleman Lane/State Route 12 and Lower
Sacramento Road in west Lodi.
APPLICANT: Browman Development Company
100 Swan Way, Suite 206
Oakland, CA 94621
PROPERTY OWNER: Browman Development Company & Wal-Mart Real Estate
100 Swan Way, Suite 206 Business Trust
Oakland, CA 94621 Mail Stop 0555
Bentonville, AR 72716-0555
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission certify the Final Revised
Environmental Impact Report (FREIR) for the Lodi Shopping Center project and that the Planning
Commission approve the Use Permit, Vesting Tentative Map, and SPARC requests subject to the
conditions listed in the Draft Resolutions as attached.
PROJECT/AREA DESCRIPTION
General Plan Designation: NCC, Neighborhood / Community Commercial.
Zoning Designation: C -S, Commercial Shopping District.
Property Size: Approximately 40 acres, 36 acres for the shopping center development
and 4 acres adjacent and southwest of the shopping center site for
construction of a stormwater detention drain.
Adjacent General Plan, Zoning and Land Use:
North (across W. Kettleman Ln): General Plan; NCC, Neighborhood Community Commercial
Lodi Planning Commission Staff Report re Lodi Shopping Center.doc J:\Community Development\Planning\STAFF
REPORTS \2008 \ 1-23
900256.1
Zoning; C -S, Commercial Shopping Center
Land Use; The Vintner's Square Shopping Center anchored by the
Lowe's Home Improvement store
South: General Plan; LDR, Low Density Residential
Zoning; PD, Planned Development
Land Use; Currently Agricultural planted as a vineyard, but
planned as the Southwest Gateway planned residential
community
West: General Plan; PQP, Public/Quasi Public & HDR, High Density
Residential
Zoning; PUB, Public & PD, Planned Development
Land Use; Currently agricultural, but planned for a utility substation
and higher density residential as part of the Southwest
Gateway planned residential community
East (across Lower Sacramento Rd.): General Plan; NCC, Neighborhood Community Commercial
Zoning; C -S, Commercial Shopping Center
Land Use; The Sunwest Plaza Shopping Center currently anchored
by the existing Wal-Mart, J.C. Penny and the Food 4
Less Grocery Store.
BACKGROUND:
The original Final Environmental Impact Report and the associated Lodi Shopping Center project came
to the Planning Commission on December 8, 2004. At the conclusion of that meeting the Planning
Commission certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and approved a Use Permit to allow
the construction of the Lodi Shopping Center, the sale of alcoholic beverages at the Wal-Mart
Supercenter and a Tentative Map to create 12 parcels.
Two appeals were filed concerning the Planning Commission's certification of the FEIR and approval of
the project. The first appeal was filed by the law firm of Herum, Crabtree and Brown on behalf of Lodi
First, an unincorporated association of Lodi residents, voters, property owners, and taxpayers. This
appeal found fault with the FEIR. Lodi First claimed that the project was not consistent with the City's
General Plan or Zoning Code and challenged the FEIR as inadequate. The second appeal was filed by
the law firm of Steefel Levitt and Weiss on behalf of Wal-Mart. Wal -Mart's appeal was limited to two
conditions imposed by the Planning Commission: 1) a condition requiring signed leases for at least 50%
of the existing Wal-Mart building before a building permit could be issued for the Supercenter; and 2) a
condition requiring the project developer to pay for a linkage study based upon the Housing Element and
pay any fees based on the conclusion of the study.
The City Council considered the appeals. On February 3, 2005 the City Council certified the FEIR for the
Lodi Shopping Center project. On February 16, 2005 the City Council approved the Use Permit for the
construction of the Lodi Shopping Center, allowed the sale of alcoholic beverages at the Wal-Mart
Supercenter, and approved the Tentative Map to create 12 parcels. The Council added to the Planning
Commission's condition regarding the existing Wal-Mart building by allowing various options and
expansions. The Council expanded the requirement that prior to the issuance of a building permit for the
Supercenter at least 50% of the existing Wal-Mart building square footage be leased, with said leases
including a minimum two-thirds of the building frontage. Two additional options were added to allow
issuance of a building permit for the Supercenter if the existing building had a fully executed purchase
agreement with a bona -fide retailer, or if the applicant presented a cash escrow for the purpose of
demolishing the existing Wal-Mart building not later than 90 days after the opening of the Supercenter. A
Lodi Planning Commission Staff Report re Lodi Shopping Center.doc J:\Community Development\Planning\STAFF
REPORTS \2008 \ 1-23
900256.1
new alternate condition was also added to allow Wal-Mart to be issued a building permit for the
Supercenter if prior to the issuance of the Use Permit, Wal-Mart sold the existing building to a non Wal-
Mart entity. The appealed condition regarding a Housing Element linkage study was retained but the
developer is to receive credit for the amount paid against the final fee as adopted by the Council.
The City Council approval of the Lodi Shopping Center was challenged in court on environmental
grounds. On December 19, 2005, the Superior Court of California, San Joaquin County, Stockton
Branch found the EIR to be deficient with respect to cumulative urban impacts and energy impacts. The
Court directed the City to void all City approvals for this project pending correction of the differences in
the FEIR. On February 10, 2006 the Court ordered the City to vacate approval of the following Planning
Commission and City Council resolutions approving the project:
a) Planning Commission Resolution PC 04-64 certifying the EIR 03-01 adopted on December 8,
2004;
b) Planning Commission Resolution PC 04-65 approving Use Permit U-02-12 and Tentative
Parcel Map 03-P-001 adopted on December 8, 2004;
c) City Council Resolution 2005-26 certifying the EIR 03-01 adopted on February 3, 2005; and
d) City Council Resolution 2005-38 approving Use Permit U-02-12 and Tentative Parcel Map
03-P-001 adopted on February 16, 2005.
On May 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution 2006-81 rescinding the above listed Planning
Commission and City Council Resolutions relating to the Lodi Shopping Center. The City Council also
adopted Resolution 2006-82 authorizing agreements with two consulting firms to prepare revisions to the
Lodi Shopping Center EIR that was found deficient by the Superior Court.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Revisions to the Lodi Shopping Center:
In the case of Lodi First v. City of Lodi, San Joaquin Superior Court Case No. CV025999 ("Lodi First"),
the Court ordered revisions to the discussions of cumulative urban decay impacts and energy impacts.
In all other respects, the Court found the EIR to be legally sufficient under CEQA. The City of Lodi
decided to make revisions to three additional areas of the EIR. These are: the statement of project
objectives, the discussion of agricultural resources, and the discussion of project alternatives. These
areas of additional analysis were the subject of a lawsuit entitled Citizens for Open Government v. City of
Lodi, San Joaquin Superior Court Case No. CV026002 ("C.O.G."). The C.O.G. case was resolved after
the court's decision in Lodi First by a stipulated order of dismissal, preserving to the C.O.G. plaintiffs the
right to continue to assert certain previously made claims as to the adequacy of the environmental
analysis. The Revised EIR document includes only the above five (5) sections which were subject to
revision or augmentation. Since the remainder of the original EIR is not subject to further review, it is
staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission recertify the original EIR, as amended by the
Revisions to the EIR document to cure the deficiencies identified by the Court.
The Revisions to the EIR are subject to the full administrative and public review. A Notice of Preparation
(NOP) was prepared describing the legal context, a project description and a brief overview of the topics
to be covered in the Revisions document. The NOP was made available to the State Clearinghouse in
the office of Planning and Research for State agencies and was sent to non -state agencies and was
posted and made available to the public to solicit input on the five (5) issues of concern that would be
addressed in the FREIR. After a period of analysis and formulation, the DREIR was prepared. The City
filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Clearinghouse and posted, published, and distributed
the Notice of Availability of the DREIR. This began the public and agency review period for the
Lodi Planning Commission Staff Report re Lodi Shopping Center.doc J:\Community Development\Planning\STAFF
REPORTS \2008 \ 1-23
900256.1
document. The length of the public review period was 52 days. During the review period, the Planning
Commission held a public hearing on November 14, 2007, to receive oral and written comments on the
DREIR. The City prepared formal written responses to all the comments received as well as an
addendum section indicating further revisions made to the document. The revisions, comments
received, and responses constitute the FREIR for the Lodi Shopping Center Project and are presented
for certification.
Summary of Specific Impacts and Their Mitigations:
The revisions to the EIR re -analyzed the potential for urban decay due to cumulative economic effects of
competing retail projects. The REIR looked at region -wide effects of Wal-Mart Supercenters in other
cities and the effects of the Reynolds Ranch commercial area. The analysis found that existing retail
centers in Lodi would be subject to a reduction in sales and it is possible that one or more business
closures could result and the affected properties could be subject to long-term vacancies under
cumulative conditions. However, such closures and vacancies though possible were not reasonably
foreseeable and if closures and long-term vacancies were to occur, they would not result in total neglect
or abandonment which could lead to urban decay or physical deterioration. No urban decay or physical
deterioration is foreseen to occur and that is the test for an EIR impact, therefore no impacts were
identified and no mitigation measures are proposed. Nonetheless, the City has committed to aggressive
code enforcement measures to ensure the abatement of any nuisance within the City and to prevent the
physical deterioration of communities. In this vein, in August of 2008, the City added another member to
its Community Improvement Division by hiring a new Supervising Community Improvement Officer.
The REIR analyzed the Reynolds Ranch project at approximately 640,000 square feet. As a result of the
City Council's most recent approval of the Reynolds Ranch project at 750,000 square feet, the City has
had the economic consultant review the potential impacts of the additional area. The memorandum from
BAE is included as an attachment to this staff report. In summary, the conclusion is that "This review
process has shown that even if BAE had assumed that Reynolds Ranch was to be developed with
750,000 square feet of retail space when preparing the October 2007 analysis, the conclusions and
findings would not have been significantly different than they are at present". Thus, the additional space
does not change the impact conclusions of the REIR. Additionally, the recent Reynolds Ranch EIR
Addendum, which analyzed the impacts of the larger project, did not find any additional economic or
urban decay impacts as a result of the increased project size.
The revisions to the EIR also addressed energy impacts. The analysis found no significant energy
consumption impacts or impacts on energy supplies and infrastructure; therefore, no mitigation measures
are proposed. The original EIR found an impact from the conversions of approximately 40 acres of prime
agricultural use to urban uses, a significant and unavoidable impact. The FREIR confirms the significant
and unavoidable impact on agricultural resources but adds a partial mitigation of requiring the project to
obtain permanent agricultural conservation easements over 40 acres of prime farmland within 15 miles of
the site. The remaining revisions to the EIR modified the project objectives and changed the alternative
project location that was analyzed. The original alternative location was the Reynolds Ranch project site.
As this site is subject to an active development application, a new site at the northeast quadrant of
Highway 12 and Thornton Road was evaluated.
The above sections were the focus of the revisions to the EIR for the Lodi Shopping Center and modified
impacts, mitigations, findings and statements of overriding considerations have been prepared as is
included in the proposed resolution of certification.
Use Permit and Tentative Map Analysis:
Approximately 17 years ago, the City's General Plan designated the southwest corner of West Kettleman
Lane/State Route 12 and Sacramento Road for the construction of large-scale retail development. Since
Lodi Planning Commission Staff Report re Lodi Shopping Center.doc J:\Community Development\Planning\STAFF
REPORTS \2008 \ 1-23
900256.1
that time, the centers on the other three corners have built out as envisioned. Major national retailers
such as Wal-Mart, J. C. Penney, Target, and Lowe's have occupied these corners. The Lodi Shopping
Center is proposed on the remaining fourth corner to be anchored by a Wal-Mart Supercenter. This type
and scale of development is consistent with the activity that has occurred at the other corners.
The City's Zoning Code requires that all plot plans for projects within the C -S, Commercial Shopping
District receive Planning Commission approval. Over time, this review has been done through the Use
Permit process. The Zoning Code also requires use permit approval for the sale of alcoholic beverages.
The applicant is requesting a Use Permit and a Vesting Tentative Map in order to divide the property into
12 lots that will correspond to the number of buildings anticipated for the project.
The proposed project includes the construction of approximately 339,966 square feet of commercial retail
uses, representing a variety of retail sales and services, to be contained in 12 buildings of varying sizes.
The primary uses will be a Wal-Mart Supercenter which will occupy approximately 216,710 square feet of
floor area, including approximately 70,000 square feet for grocery sales, 19,889 square feet for a garden
center (including outdoor fenced area), and 6,437 square feet for an auto service shop. The Wal-Mart
Supercenter will not include the use of outdoor metal storage containers, and will not include a seasonal
sales area in the parking lot.
A moderate sized retailer will occupy approximately 35,000 square feet on pad 12 in the southeast
corner of the site. The remaining 11 buildings will range in size from 3,200 square feet to 14,788 square
feet. Three of the 11 buildings will be occupied by fast food franchises, with another two buildings
consisting of sit-down restaurants, and the remaining buildings occupied by such retail uses such as
financial services/bank, professional/business services, and other retail sales and services.
As noted previously, additional environmental and related economic analysis has been undertaken.
However, the uses and layout and design of the shopping center has remained the same as that
presented to and approved by the Planning Commission in December, 2004. The Wal-Mart building is
located at the southwestern corner of the site, with 11 freestanding buildings located along Kettleman
Lane and Lower Sacramento Road to the north and east. In the center of the shopping center is the
main parking lot. The proposed vesting tentative map includes the Wal-Mart store and all corresponding
parking in the largest lot (lot 12, 18.3 acres), with each of the remaining 11 buildings on their own lot with
associated parking. These other lots are generally 1± acre in size, with the smallest (lot 8) being 0.53
AC and the largest (lot 11) being 2.6 AC. Internal travel lanes, parking medians and planters are located
through -out the interior. Access to the Center is mainly from Westgate Drive and Lower Sacramento
Road, with right turn in and out only from Kettleman Lane. As shown on the site plan, significant public
improvements are required in order to build this project, as detailed in the draft conditions in the
accompanying resolution of approval. The applicant will be responsible for the construction of Westgate
Drive from Kettleman Lane to the southerly project boundary as well as the frontage improvements on
Kettleman Lane and Lower Sacramento Road. The applicant is also responsible for the approximately 4
acre site across Westgate Drive to be used for storm water detention, all associated project right-of-way
dedications, utility easements, engineering reports and studies, and fees. An encroachment permit from
CalTrans for Kettleman Lane / State Route 12 will be needed.
Additional conditions in the draft Resolution cover fire safety, outdoor storage or display of merchandise,
shopping cart storage and security, exterior lighting, and a city information/welcome sign. Consistent with
the prior approval by the City Council, conditions relative to re -use of the existing Wal-Mart building are
proposed. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Supercenter, one of the following with respect
to the existing Wal-Mart building shall occur: signed leases with a retailer(s) for at least 50% of the
building square footage covering two-thirds of the building frontage; or a fully executed purchase
agreement for the building with a retailer; or a cash escrow account in the amount to demolish the
Lodi Planning Commission Staff Report re Lodi Shopping Center.doc J:\Community Development\Planning\STAFF
REPORTS \2008 \ 1-23
900256.1
building plus $100,000. This escrow account shall be used by the City to demolish the existing building if
the first two options have not been satisfied within 90 days after the opening date of the Supercenter. A
condition is also proposed that the developer pay for a linkage study required under program 11 of the
Housing Element "...a nexus study to determine whether a direct connection exists between non-
residential development in Lodi that creates jobs and the need for housing affordable to lower-income
workers who will fill some of those jobs." Also as in the prior City Council approval, a condition is
included to incorporate all mitigation measures as specified in the FREIR.
As documented in the FREIR, a CEQA environmental impact as to urban decay or physical deterioration
from the Lodi Shopping Center cannot be made. The Planning Commission can, however, make a policy
decision that the economic effects of the Center on the Downtown can be addressed. To this end, staff
is proposing a condition to require the Lodi Shopping Center to invest money in Downtown or in the
alternative, to pay a fee of $2.00 per square foot of the gross floor area of the Supercenter to the City for
Downtown investment.
The Use Permit will allow the sale of alcoholic beverages at the Supercenter. No Use Permit for alcohol
for any of the freestanding buildings has been applied for or is under consideration. The tenants of these
freestanding buildings are not known to staff and have not been included in this request. Any such
request in the future would require a Planning Commission Hearing at that time when the specific details
of the requesting business are known. The Planning Commission has previously found that the sale of
alcoholic beverages is incidental to a grocery store operation and that is what is being requested by the
Wal-Mart Supercenter. Staff recommends approval of this Use Permit and has included appropriate
conditions in the draft resolution.
As previously discussed in the analysis, a vesting tentative map approval is requested to divide the site
into 12 lots. Staff recommends approval of this action and has included vesting tentative map conditions
in the draft resolution.
SPARC Review:
Along with the plot plan and tentative map for the Lodi Shopping Center, preliminary elevations and
colors for the Wal-Mart Supercenter have been submitted. No elevations or colors, landscaping plan,
signage plan, materials, or other final plans for the rest of the Center or buildings have been submitted.
This shopping center is subject to the City's Design Standards for Large Retail Establishments. The
overall site layout, building footprints, parking areas, and access driveways provide the overall direction
of the Center and were used by staff and the Planning Commission in the December 8, 2004 review to
determine that this project complies with the Design Standards for Large Retail Establishments. As
such, no further designs, layout, or changes have been proposed.
The proposed project includes the construction of a new Wal-Mart Supercenter store with a building size
of approximately 216,710 square feet. The Wal-Mart building would be located on the southwestern
portion of the project site, and the building entrance would face east toward Lower Sacramento Road.
The Wal-Mart Supercenter building is a single story structure. The architectural theme of the building is a
contemporary style and uses construction materials commonly used in commercial shopping center
construction . Architectural materials such as concrete masonry block, metal awnings, and exterior
plaster finish will be utilized on the exterior of the building. The major materials used for architectural
treatment include fawn (brown) colored stucco, fawn (brown) cultured stone veneer, split face (light
brown) block, sea -green colored smooth finish metal panels, charcoal roofing material, hallow (gunmetal
gray) metal doors and cornices, and black fencing. The body of the building will be in shades of brown.
The ground level will have fawn (brown) colored stucco walls with fawn colored stone veneer accent
walls near key entrances and along the lower eight feet of the exterior wall. The architectural treatment
features are mostly used on the north and east elevation. Also on the main entrance, a canopy type
Lodi Planning Commission Staff Report re Lodi Shopping Center.doc J:\Community Development\Planning\STAFF
REPORTS \2008 \ 1-23
900256.1
architectural feature is proposed. The proposed main entry canopy will be clad with a brown cultured
stone finish.
The west and south elevations do not feature the same detailed architectural treatment. The west (rear)
elevation is a continuous wall with little architectural treatment to breakup the elevation of the building.
The entire west elevation will have fawn (brown) colored stucco walls with metal doors painted to match
the stucco. Cornices and accent trims are provided to break up the wall elevation. The ground level will
also have cultured veneer stone elements. The midsection of the western elevation should receive
further architectural treatment to add architectural interest to the wall. It is important to note that this
elevation will be visible from across Westgate Drive. A condition of approval is included in the SPARC
Resolution regarding additional architectural treatment for the west elevation.
The southern elevation will feature nearly identical architectural treatment as the west elevation.
However, the proposed southern elevation is less of an issue. First, there will be an 8 -foot tall masonry
wall on the southern property line to block any view of this elevation from the project to the south.
Second, unlike the western elevation, the southern elevation is not a continuous large mass elevation.
Because the main axis of the building faces west (the longest elevation), the south elevation is the side
of the building and is relatively small in size in comparison.
Circulation and Parking
The site plan indicates six access points to three public streets. There will be three entrances/exits from
Lower Sacramento Road, one from Kettleman Lane (HWY 12), and two from Westgate Drive. All three
streets will have a raised center median that will restrict turning movements in some degree. The main
entrance to the project parking lot is from Lower Sacramento Road and will be located near the middle of
the project site. This entrance will have a traffic signal to control traffic flow and will allow both entering
and exiting traffic to turn in both directions. The other access points from Lower Sacramento Road will be
restricted to right turn in and right turn out movements. The direct driveway entrance from Kettleman
Lane (HWY 12) will only permit a right -turn in and right -turn out traffic movement. Traffic can also access
the shopping center from Kettleman Lane by way of Westgate Drive. This intersection is controlled by an
existing traffic signal that will allow both right and left turning movements. The main (northern) access
point from Westgate Drive will allow both right and left hand tuning movements. The southern access
point will only allow right in, right out movements. Circulation to and from the site is very similar to the
Vintners Square Center (Lowes) to the north.
The main parking lot is located on the east side of the Wal-Mart building. There will be smaller parking
areas to serve the free-standing commercial pads. For the Wal-Mart building, a total of 965 parking
spaces are proposed (4.45/1000). A total of 434 parking spaces are required, per City code (General
Retail 1/500). The proposed number of parking stalls exceeds the minimum parking requirements.
There are 12 cart corrals proposed to be distributed throughout the parking lot. These cart corrals will be
screened in brown CMU wall with wooden frames to provide additional ornamentation.
Landscaping and Signage
The proposed landscape plan calls for various large shade trees, smaller trees, shrubs and ground
covers. A total of 478 larger shade trees will be provided within the parking lot interior, along the
southern and western edges the property line, and throughout the site. This total number of trees
exceeds what the City code requires.
The approval of project signage is not a part of the current review and would be subject to City of Lodi
codes and requirements to ensure they complement the building architecture and landscaping of the
building. Signage applications and approvals would be done separately, should the project be approved.
Lodi Planning Commission Staff Report re Lodi Shopping Center.doc J:\Community Development\Planning\STAFF
REPORTS \2008 \ 1-23
900256.1
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE:
Notice for the FREIR was published on September 27, 2008 in the Lodi New Sentinel. The item was
posted at City Hall, on the City's website, and at the City of Lodi Library on September 26, 2008. 175
public hearing notices were sent out through the combination of the U.S. Postal Service and electronic
mail which included all property owners of record within a 300 -foot radius of the subject property as
required by Government Code section 65091(a)3. Everyone who made a comment on the Draft
Revisions to the EIR was sent a copy of the response to their comment, revisions to the EIR and notice
of the public hearing at least 10 days before the hearing. Legal notice for the use permit and vesting
tentative map consideration was given at the same time and manner as the notice for the FREIR.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that unless significant new additional or contrary information is received during the
public hearing and, based upon its review and consideration of the Draft REIR and comments received
and responded to in the FREIR, and the evidence submitted to the Commission, including the evidence
presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission certify Final Revisions to Environmental Impact Report REIR-03-01, and adopt Resolution
No P.C. 08-28, containing appropriate findings, mitigation, a mitigation monitoring plan, and statement of
overriding considerations.
If the Planning Commission first certifies the FREIR, and based upon the evidence submitted to the
Commission, including the evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence
presented at the public hearing, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit U-
02-12, Vesting Tentative Map 03-P-001 and adopt Resolution No P.C. 08-29. Additionally, staff
recommends that the Planning Commission approve Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Wal-Mart
building 08 -SP -08, P.C. 08-30.
ALTERNATIVE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS:
• Certify with alternative impacts, mitigation measures and adopt findings or overriding considerations
• Deny the certification
• Approve with additional/different conditions
• Deny the Use Permit/Tentative Map
• Continue the requests
Respectfully Submitted,
Konradt Bartlam
Interim Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
Vicinity Map
2.
Site Plan
3.
Vested Tentative Map
4.
BAE Memorandum
5.
Wal-Mart elevation and Hardscape Plan
6.
Comment Letters
7.
Draft P.C. Resolutions; PC 08-28, PC 08-29, & PC 08-30
8.
FREIR — Hard Copies Previously Distributed (http://www.lodi.gov/com dev/EIRs.html)
Lodi Planning Commission Staff Report re Lodi Shopping Center.doc J:\Community Development\Planning\STAFF
REPORTS \2008 \ 1-23
900256.1
_ __.
tr m A NT T T �m . --N89
49;46 "1$�7F�... _
- � L, 207.2I` =1"I
_.
..........
E%ESONG PROPERTY UNE-� _ _
EXISi1NG EASEMENT - .._ .,. __.,. _ _..r.. .. _ _... T -. .. ....�-.__ . .._..•.., ._.. __. __ ...-... j
l -
ECCE OF PAYFAIFNT �{ I
SITE MOTES /
AREA STRPm K1TiK 4" SYSL AT 45' O 2'-0" O.C,
A.=Sme RAMP, SEE DTA; G ON 94ET
PEDEGIRIN CROSSWC 5X4 WO -2 AN SH 2p AT PEDESTRIAN
AS NOTED ON PLANS. SEE OETNL P ONTiTRCAY. SNEET C-&3.
-,nW PAINTED YELLOW *4 PAV9kH;NT TYPICAL SEE DETAX. 5 ON SKEET C-5.1. PAD M PAD 4
ENHANCED PAYLMENi nRfd. SEE ARCRiECTUNAI PLANS FDR OEUAS 8,031 SP A PAD 5 F ,,., , li
10,075 SF (� o n 7,490 SF Z
EXT PORCH. SEE ARM1ECTURAL PLANs PCR EXACT SPC. —AVM PO4 4
S1OOP5. 8TNPS ANIC P PS THAT NAY RE REOD'RSO. k.P PAYENEXT fLU5H I a
IWRI 11,E 101' AR STOUP _
do °ei PE BOLLARD TWew. uxrSS IN M- OTNDevnsT, sTi GETaa. 2 ON 9Wtr .. - L,tf{€,j
PAD 6 it 1 j
CARI mom EDIT SEE OEM i ON 91EET C-&7 AND
DETA& TO ON SHEET C-&2.
s` vX" X 11x LCNO -LW W PA TEO TRUCK AUGNNEMT SYRPES.
PAO, R£EER TO ARa1IMPRAL PLAN Po EXACT
�fDre ACO1tPAA VO
ACCESSOIL PMXNO 9•A1 III SEE OSTAIL SHEET FOR Ae( '% f
PARAiNO SPACE EKE, SGN A40 SWAG ("YAM-INCCAITS VAN ACC:551UIE
SPAGQ, SEE DETAIL 3 cN S1E" C-&1 8 OCTAL S ON SHEET 08.2.
CaHmmTRAt1SORMER PAD. CONTRACTOR TO COORIF.IATE WTI; LOCAL POKA
COT OP FCN OCTAtS.
PLACE STEP Salk PANT STOP RAR 8 'STC•' PER OErl, & ON SHEET
0-&1 AND DETAIL T Ott SHEET O6.2.
PEDEsTRIAi CROSBWAI.X. ETNA: I,N-S PAN7E0 4RA/8" NRi tiSNE sTR7iTM
i PANTED SNA/,; AT Y -O' RG PMPERaTMAAR TO [OCE TLYES. SEE OETAL 7
".1.
M SHEET
• CART ODRRAL SEE, DEIN. s DN mar 6-&7.
• A.D.& SITE ENTRANCE Sal. SEE OVAL 5 ON SHEET C-8.2.
. RF„C011IL.T-&(WM'RPF.WM TO vA4KWDACSET 8 ON Uc2. PV
. 14' CONCRETE CURD ANS GUTTER. SEE DETAIL D ON SIIEET 08.3.
• TRAFFIC FAD* ARROW, SEE DETM T SHEET C -SA
• CONCRETE UVI SEE DETAR 7 On SHEET 0-8.1
PN
. NDM,MENi Sat (SEP A*M EGTVRA PLANS}
,
AISLE POICATOR SIGNS (TTP} STE DETAILS 0 & 11 ON STEET C-&2.
`CARL OROSSWO %ITN WA SEE MAIL I ON 91EET C-B.T.
.-NO -WOKS' SISI. SVC D£TAI. 1 at SHEET 0-82.
.-TRUCK ORAS SON. SEE OET&% 3 ON SHEET 0-8.2.
IBCHT rWRN ONLY' ECL SEE DUAL I2 ON SIRT 0-8.2,
m ,x
11945' PALLET/BALE STORAGE AREA.
ol,l tr
1 50,
. IwY.lACA1,9 OQEES. SEE DETAIL 4011 SHEET C-8.7.
I
.SAKDUT EXSSLD EDGE OF PAVEWENIT TO FORK A SNOOK, UHMORN LINE,
PKAfE PROPOSED PAVEMENT AIAHSi SAWCOT LINE & MATOI tP.V.M GRADE.
.AT GRADE OVERHEAR DOOR LOCAAON SEE ARa1TECTURAL KMS FOR EXACT
SIZE ANO LWADOR FOR COIXK NATOV MRI OML MANS.
Si(E DATA
TDan A,INXN Amaut�v.v
{
MACE CREASE/OL INJMCEPT SEP ARCHITCCTWTAL P:A4S FOR EXACT
SO. fOM1OE 2TRSit S0. Fl. I
831 WAM
SiNHOX
'
{
AEE AN9 LOOA.TNIN.
0AMCES
la,L3"iik,E SPNXS 21 VIM t
VIM
ilF(
JI` I I II . T - i I C•'.s•: :..11 --
". �
T, ISI t11L .I s LOM -.i .8 •...1+ORAWRaS .._ `-AJ �k I.W I _!•
TODi PITOAO3OFD IP SPAIN
'
rwXX16 RAOa i. IW10
i•_.:A Z Ok SNRT Q&1.
•MOUNT SEOINUTT CAMERA TO CONT PML, SEC KM &SHEET C-0•
N/E T
. MR 4D VM EXETPNO S AKO A REPLACE W114 NEW PROFUSED SRCPNC,
.3G: OCTAL 0 ON SHUT G-8.1 FP2 iYNCA4 PARKING STA.SLIGPiNO Ott—
HEAVY 0, ASPHMS
J �.
I
TRANSFORMER PAD. SEI AAGNITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATON,
'
NEAyt qt
j! CONdIRC^' CONCRETE
I
` ALL PARKING, ME IAANDS RAM ARE ID' & UNLESS'. LESS O11SRW5E
PLAN.
sTATFn M ET PLAN.
,
i INSTALL PAWN* LAT NatTS. SEE DETAL & SHEET C b.T.
(----
1 € MR
,
WSTALI, PARIOND EAI umm sY. Dam & 9NEr 0 &7_
i ......... ........
I
I IS I
4:1 %OPE
TO
OFF-SITE
(
O STORM WATER DETENTIONI
"i I
(3ASiN--A1950)
1
i
�.•�
'V
IIS I
I �i�
ii�•�►
k•.�li l
_..__..�.._.._.._7V
I I
,®
I
10'
n =s ROAD
- _.... .. ,,. .-.. .. •. �e_aA_ .. TOPLu.2950 -:/-
n t i 14.788 SF
<N o o 0
o- 0�
o o _ �• ° ----�-
1
Ti'• i �,`��•Y'\•%"-�"�` " LTii'I "Fy,nl AS . •�'� ® t5' $
9O 0i0� O O O D}S
Q14=1
! tU�
~I !I'• 1 FENCED .� »,x -t tiros asx—.) • i3 �,A�
i IY
8,156 ST 3a •.'
_ as
-..3ar.._.._...io•..... _.sig,SEASONAL„im R T
BATTERY 1, M.
STORAGE GARDEN CENTER TTP• x
91731 SF
��' - � TOE G' . ____..__• .'.. � .
VIS
'•—•--22`�
• .......: S.ta.na RLr �ta.stWe+ - - - - - d4.5UN6.d
11 it I LLJ ........._....- `-_ o5'�Ri1 l X---. It........... ........... �
'R
Ayr V /
T
� � L1 Jn .:,!
p V) O y �OMw . fIl V V
M\
Y
M.
A 11 U lAJ O S ` i Q�
Q (-; i' O 1 O O O O
,I ,
LO
O O O i O O O O. O
E...� o
,R
axr � w• .
0 _ ,n !L a; SOS O O# O O 0 O
M.
°.
-Pr sr_ i1•.._ 'TMTYP.
ia 4 ` Ar M. . __... 13.3'....
t1 ., T2' TM. 21 S.
Y re i3.
fi�4� i ��. �. 23.x' ----- Ta.s•1+�_',r �'-� 105.9 T�.�
no
PAD 7
5,180 SF
PAD 9
0,537 �
PAD 10
8,596 SF
1)?— -
I
1
1 PAD 11
�t I 35,000 SF
, ,,o
R
d
G�
Z
�
co W
r Q
I:ezVZ
�
g0N
U< -in
w
a Ej LU
(A
o.rP,w ez aP/cY --
dam Ay. w/a
act.; D.0 13, M64
SHEET
CN2.1
OF 34
ProICt NP:
60T -AM
15.5V -
So0o5'orw
3
I
1
9
1
ao�ns•33•
R-1469'
1-I79.7fi'
I
° Iwzl3'
Rnar HIGHWAY 12 KETTLEMAN LANE
o2
1^19.63'
..—__—__ Na09726'E
PARCEL -A (KETILEMAN LANE DEDICATION_.—_.—__ 4_a�t,• yyf
0.41 At (18,026 SF)
N6939T63w N087t'Aw Q+L �>N- �•--•��r--_—�:'-
69'S9i3•E -_ N6x3WE -_ ,116 23.x5 1 SB65.f'{2•E-;a;'it...
.w16'J5--1 LD.11'J6'OB•
jig �••••�."•� ..�.�._.. 1 -+0.0+'_.
R -6A66' R-+40.,9' Stn I S6'StYO•W SB6'2t'42'E yDWWOn _
1-63.15' 1-2B.SD' a PARCEL -6 xooaoocE I a.l
�1� xwvo�oo�E I VIS 'y6'o 1.36 AC q mw I
(60,256 SF) 1n17a'• I
A�•J
PARCEL -2 '' PARCEL -3' PARCEL -4 I
sxam'soow 1.30 AC (' 1.13 AC I 1.55 AC het+•oqt� R.,RSS.0023 I I
(67,543 SF)
(56,612 SF) I (49,413 SF) 1 , i I
' I r PARCEL-5ARC
3166' ( IN 1.17 AC��oonnoo''-j I ^pl
1.45 AC 1 , I,ro9a9'oo'v I ,- (50,9s9 SF) x90 Oow- wsear'w 18 pl
1.45 AC la 8-116 z2•
;3.159 SF R.tt1ar 1 __i26.s4' s�6xvzb3'r I ~1'I
� «x990•MT PARCEL -7 � I81 AC
-�o-zfaYu' ai+s.00µ �i �''a $ 35,373 SF I it SA
1 .e.BY 0-225.4'26 8-166.00' 8-x00.00' 13A16' ( )
R-16100' L-10.41' 1.5546'
1
ga wt453Bf 1.64.63' Rf��1P
- t D-24.13'36•
R-2+).00' R ii'sr3B'-1 - •' �/' xN]C66.1v�"'I
1-v.as• I L-1-72' I'-o-o9oa+�x• e4.w• Jt l I.
iefi's9ar' `41 1
B m li;
PARCEL-8Is PARCEL -9 I�g
' i Ig
(23,364 SF)� 1.51 AC IS
(65,737 SF) I
SWWWE fixe•
N6939.34w
il8 -
1.15..66)64
I I I
I�� I
Nexsx•ss•W _ _ � yy I
soea'7w6c ___ Hass• - I �4 I
PARCEL -12 Ii
111 I
18.30 AC s I 11 1
(797.287 SF)�S I I I
� I I
_ PARCEL -10
S 1.00 AC x69s9.s1•w _ I
Zi
(43,808 SF)
S0o30b0•E_ s9awmw
1123• 315.1x• _ - 5WW26*.
Ie I I I
�s. lel
SII I
1 I it I
9 141
I w I-—
l0'1
I�'I BIS
I�11 p I
I I I I
I I
I I
1 Inch = 60 ft
Vesting Tentative9ilap
Lot Layout
for
Lodi - III
ATNs. 058-030-01 caZ 058-030-02
County (f San Joaquin, Cafifornia
August 15,2008
Sheet 2 of 2
QpOFESS/p��
COle
S
y J
No. C60698 DA-Doucet & Associates, Inc.
Dec. 31, 2008 loss er<d,.wa R;ax 0.1�, s:u In
a'4 Cryl aP -k, CA936M936. Pb (916))80.2003fu(916))00.x018
rFor
CAl1EOP
No.: 001-272
00
O
00
00
O
bae
Date: October 1, 2008
To: Rad Bartlam, interim Director
City of Lodi, Community Development
From: Matt Kowta, Principal
Re: Review of Lodi Shopping Center Economic Impact/Urban Decay Analysis
The purpose of this memo is to provide you with my findings in regard to the validity of the
conclusions from BAE's October 2007 Economic Impact/Urban Decay Analysis for Proposed Lodi
Shopping Center in Lodi, CA, in light of the increase in the proposed Reynolds Ranch project size
from 640,676 square feet of building area to approximately 750,000 square feet. The October 2007
Report had analyzed the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed Lodi Shopping Center along
with the Reynolds Ranch project at 640,676 square feet and the City has requested that BAE
review the conclusions from the 2007 report in light of the increase in the project size.
Potential Market Impacts of Proposed Project and Reynolds
Ranch Project
Because the project description for the Lodi Shopping Center project has not changed since the
preparation of the October 2007 report, there are no impacts on most parts of the report. The
Reynolds Ranch project is first considered on page 62 of the report, where it was noted that the
Reynolds Ranch project was anticipated to be competitive with the Lodi Shopping Center project
and would potentially contribute to cumulative impacts on other existing shopping centers in the
market area. Page 63 of the October 2007 report anticipated that the Reynolds Ranch project retail
component would contain 640,676 square feet of retail building area. The analysis then went on to
estimate how much of the existing trade area retail sales the combined Lodi Shopping Center
project and Keynolds Ranch shopping centers would need to capture in order to perform at their
expected sales levels. In the October 2007 report, this sales diversion was estimated at
approximately 30 percent, meaning that the new stores would divert approximately 30 percent of
existing stores' estimated 2008 sales (see Table 22, page 64).
BAE staff have re -calculated Table 22 of the October 2007 report based on the 750,000 square foot
project size for Reynolds Ranch, holding all other inputs and assumptions constant, and the
resulting sales diversion figure is 34 percent, meaning that the combined Lodi Shopping Center and
Reynolds Ranch projects would be expected to divert approximately 34 percent of estimated 2008
Bay Area Economics
Sacramento Region Office 530.750.2195
803 Second Street, Suite A Fax 530.750.2194
San Francisco Bay Area Sacramento New York Washington, D.C. Davis, CA 95616 bael@bael.com
bayareaeconomics.com
sales volumes from existing market area stores. Given the margin for error for this type of
analysis, where there is an attempt to predict very complex shopping behaviors in the future while
acknowledging the difficulty in controlling for all other variables that may come into play, this
change from 30 percent to 34 percent is not significant. Also, it should be noted that the October
2007 report explained that while the 30 percent estimate reflected the loss of existing stores' 2008
sales levels, anticipated trade area population growth during the intervening time that would be
necessary for the two shopping centers to be built and fully occupied will increase available trade
area demand and therefore, actual sales diversions would likely be significantly lower than these
figures at the time the new stores are opened. As noted on page 73 of the October 2007 report, the
analysis had factored in the slowing housing market when considering the potential growth in retail
demand within the Lodi area.
Page 65 of the October 2007 report indicated that the "construction of Reynolds Ranch, in
combination with the Lodi Shopping Center or even alone, could lead to an oversupply of retail
space in the Lodi area" and then continued with some discussion of the potential impacts on
different sectors of the retail marketplace. Page 68 of the October 2007 report assumed that
potential tenants for Reynolds Ranch would include a warehouse club, home improvement center,
major apparel retailer, and perhaps a major electronics outlet. Based on information published by
CB Richard Ellis in its 2008 Central Valley Market Outlook for retail, which can be found on the
CBRE web site
(http://www.cbi-e.com/USA/US/CA/Stockton/Property/centralvalleymarketoutlook.litni?pa eig d=7),
a Costco and Home Depot are the anticipated anchors for the project. The major project anchors
play a large role in dictating the trade area that the project will serve, and the types of competitive
impacts that the project will have in the marketplace.
Page 68 of the October 2007 report continues:
"In summary, the cumulative impacts of Reynolds Ranch in addition to theproposed Lodi
Shopping Center may lead to substantial cannibalization of retail sales from existing outlets
in Lodi and the Trade Area, putting some existing businesses at increased risk of closure.
ff1hile the tenant mixfor Reynolds Ranch is unconfirmed, potential tenantsfor such a region -
serving center include a warehouse club, a home improvement center, a major apparel
retailer, andperhaps a major electronics outlet. Outlets competing in these categories would
be at the most additional risk. One center with substantial additional risk is the Cherokee
Shopping Center, with Orchard Supply Hardware, already impacted by Lowe's, facing
possible additional conipetition, and Kmart, apoor performing store at risk of closure from
the Lodi Shopping Center alone. At Vineyard Shopping Center, Mervyn's and Ace
Hardware confront thepotentialfo r strong new competition. Sunwest Plaza, where the
existing Wal-Mart is slated to close when the Supercenter opens, would have increased risk
of closurefor the JC Penney store if a large apparel retailer locates at Reynolds Ranch.
Throughout Lodi, vacant spaces wouldface more difficulty in re -tenanting as nearly one
million square feet of retail space is added to the area's real estate inventory. Outside the
TradeArea, the analysis indicates that the impacts of the Lodi Shopping Center in
combination with Reynolds Ranch would not be substantial. "
These basic conclusions remain unchanged given the expanded size of the Reynolds Ranch project,
given the finding that the capture rate of sales from existing retailers would increase from 30
percent to 34 percent of current market area sales with the assumption about the expanded
Reynolds Ranch project, albeit the magnitude of the potential impacts would be slightly larger.
Considering the margin for error in this type of complex analysis, BAE would not reach different
conclusions based on these two different estimates of sales diversion, as they are of the same order
of magnitude. In other words, in preparing the October 2007 report, BAE would have reached the
same conclusions about the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project and the Reynolds
Ranch project, had the finding at the time been that the diversion of sales from existing stores
would have been 34 percent of the 2008 sales levels instead of 30 percent.
Potential for Urban Decay from Cumulative Impacts
Given that the change in the size of the center has apparently not substantially altered the proposed
tenant mix of the center, BAE's assessment of which other shopping centers and types of retailers
would be most likely to be affected by the cumulative effects of the proposed project and the
Reynolds Ranch project would not change significantly. Thus, the portion of the urban decay
analysis on page 73 of the October 2007 report, which deals with the potential negative economic
impacts of the cumulative impacts of the Lodi Shopping Center and the Reynolds Ranch project,
would not change significantly. This portion of the report stated:
"There is one reasonablyforeseeableproject, Reynolds Ranch that cumulatively could result
in additional impacts in Lodi and the TradeArea. The Proposed Project and Reynolds
Ranch combined would add nearly one million squarefeet to Lodi 's retail inventory.
Potential store closures under a cumulative scenario include the supermarket (either
Safeway or S -Mart) and Kmart as mentioned under Proposed Project -only impacts, as well
as one of the two hardware stores (OSHandAce) and JC Penney orMenyns. The
particular impacts will depend in largepart on the tenant mix of Reynolds Ranch. With any
tenant mix at Reynolds Ranch, the addition ofthis large amount ofretail space will make re -
tenanting of any closed spaces more dolcult. The existing Wal-Martspace would be
particularly hard to re -tenant, especially if the JC Penney closed, leaving Food 4 Less as the
only remaining major tenant of Sunwest Plaza; however, this center is relatively new, and
will be in closeproximity to the new Supercenter, and the existing Target, Lowe's and other
regional retail draws, and may attract tenantsfrom some of the other centers. Me Cherokee
Retail Center couldface the loss of both anchor tenants due to the increased competition,
and the Vineyard Shopping Center could lose its largest tenant, Mervyn, along with Ace
Hardware. These centers would allface more limitedprospectsfor re -tenanting with the
additional competition from newer and higher -quality space available, especially in
Reynolds Ranch. "
Again, given that the likely anchor tenants of the Reynolds Ranch project have not changed from
the assumptions used in the October 2007 report, due to the change in project size, our assessment
of potentially affected stores and shopping centers would not change and, furthermore, the
approximate magnitude of the impact on other retail facilities is not of a sufficient magnitude to
compel BAE to make a different judgment about the potential severity of the impacts.
In evaluating the actual risk that cumulative impacts from the proposed Lodi Shopping Center
project would lead to urban decay and physical deterioration, BAE considered the City of Lodi's
intent to enforce local regulations that are intended to prevent neglected or derelict properties from
creating blighting conditions within the community, observing that the City has adopted a number
of regulatory policies that signal that the City will take aggressive action to abate conditions on
private property that may lead to blighting conditions. Considering this, the October 2007 report
stated on page 75:
"the cumulative impacts resulting from the Lodi Shopping Center in combination with the
Reynolds Ranch retail center, aproject approxiinately twice as large as the Lodi Shopping
Center, could result in the closure of additional existing retail outlets in Lodi, and make it
more difficult to re -lease vacated space due to the large addition to the invento7y in the
relatively slow-growing Lodi area. As a result, some existing shopping centers could be
subject to long-term vacancies. In the case of the largestpotential vacant space, the existing
Wal-Mart at Sunwest Plaza, theproposed development agreement would require demolition
of the space if it is not re -tenanted in a relatively shortperiod of time. However, even with
thepotential closure of the JC Penney in this center, Sunwest Plaza is unlikely to be subject
to long-term vacancies since it is relatively new, arid will be in closeproximity to the new
Supercenter, and the existing Target, Lowe's and other regional retail draws, and thus mc�y
attract tenants f rom some of the other centers in Lodi. For other centers, an oversupply of
retail space could result in difficulties re -tenanting vacant retail space in a reasonable
period of time, and the vacant space could then be at risk of entering a cycle of long-term
vacancies, secondary business closures, the inability to re -tenant existing stores, and the
eventual possibility ofphysical deterioration or urban decay.
The actualpotentialforphysical deterioration to occur at a specificproperty will be largely
dependent on the commitment f'om theproperty owner to maintain theproperty, which
4
would be more challenging in the case ofmultiple ownership or control. However, in the
event of an owner'sfailure to maintain vacatedproperties in a condition suitable for
releasing, it will be incumbent on the City of Lodi toprevent such conditions from occurring
through active and aggressive enforcement of its Codeprovisions relating to the abatement
of public nuisances due to lack of property maintenance and management. The City of Lodi
has demonstrated its commitment to preventing physical deterioration of cornrnercial
properties within the City through its successful revitalization efforts in Downtown, which
involved a multi faceted long-term program including large expenditures of Cityfunds. Per
Resolution No 2006-39, passed in March 2006, as noted above, the City Council was
emphatic in its direction to staff to proactively enforce compliance with its building codes If
conditions warrant, staff isprepared to apply the receivershipprovisions of the California
Health and Safety Code to ensure that the corrective action is taken. As such, it is fully
expected that the City will continue to be aggressive in the enforcement of its nuisance
ordinances relating to building maintenance. Based on its past performance andpolicy
commitments, it is reasonable to expect that the City will not allow any commercial
properties which may become vacant under cumulative conditions to deterioratephysically.
Therefore, while there is a remote possibility that certainproperties such as the Vineyard
Shopping Center and Cherokee Retail Center could be subject to a causal chain ultimately
resulting in urban decay under cumulative conditions, such outcomes are considered highly
unlikely given that the City can be counted on to take aggressive action toprevent such
conditions from occurring.
In conclusion, the limited project definition mailablefor the revised Reynolds Ranch project
precludes the preparation a� a definitive analysis cfpotential urban decay impacts under
cumulative conditions at this time. However, given the City's commitment topreventing the
physical deterioration a` commercial properties, even under assumptions of reasonable
worst-case conditions, as discussed above, it is expected that the cumulative economic
effects of the Lodi Shopping Center, when combined with the economic effects of an
expanded Reynolds Ranch project, would result in a less -than -significant cumulative urban
decay impact. "
The change in the project description does not provide any additional information that would cause
BAE to change these conclusions. This presumes that the City of Lodi remains confident in its
ability and commitment to effectively use its powers to enforce its regulations to prevent blighting
conditions from developing, even if the result of the increased size of the Reynolds Ranch project
is a greater need for enforcement and possibly action to abate buildings that may become vacant
and in disrepair due to the cumulative impacts of the Lodi Shopping Center as proposed and the
Reynolds Ranch retail facility at its larger size.
5
Conclusion
Based on the preceding assessment of the October 2007 report and the impact of the change in the
Reynolds Ranch project size on that analysis, there would be no benefit to conducting further
analysis of the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed Lodi Shopping Center and the
Reynolds Ranch shopping center, because the conclusions are unlikely to change. This review
process has shown that even if BAE had assumed that Reynolds Ranch was to be developed with
750, 000 square feet of retail space when preparing the October 2007 analysis, the conclusions and
findings would not have been significantly different than what is reflected in the October 2007
report. Only if the City of Lodi is not confident that it can effectively enforce its "anti -blight'
regulations in the face of a somewhat greater quantity of space at risk of becoming vacant as
compared to what was determined in the October 2007 report would a revision of that report be in
order.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
LODI SHOPPING CENTER
CITY OF LODI
OCTOBER 2008
IMPACTS
MITIGATION MEASURES
RESPONSIBLE
TIMING
IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY
(To be completed by
responsible party)
DATE
INITIALS
B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
B1. Avricultural
B1. The applicant shall obtain a permanent Agricultural Conservation
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Land Conversion
Easement over 40 acres of prime farmland. The agricultural
approval of City of
issuance of
conservation easement shall consist of a single parcel of land of at
Lodi Community
occupancy
least 40 acres. This easement shall be located in San Joaquin County
Development Director.
permits.
(excluding the Delta Primary Zone as currently defined by State law).
The easement shall be in current agricultural use; if it is not in current
agricultural use, the easement shall be required to be put into
agricultural production as a result of the conservation easement
transaction. The lands subject to the easement shall be placed under
permanent restrictions on land use to ensure its continued agricultural
production capacity by limiting non-farm development and other uses
that are inconsistent with commercial agriculture. The easement shall
be held by the City or a qualified entity (i.e., land trust) approved by
the City. The applicant shall pay a fee (in an amount to be determined
by the City) for purposes of establishing an endowment to provide for
adequate administration, monitoring, and maintenance of the easement
in perpetuity.
887538.3 11233.26
IMPACTS
MITIGATION MEASURES
RESPONSIBLE
TIMING
IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY
(To be completed by
responsible party)
DATE
INITIALS
C. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Cl. Seismic
Cl. Structural damage to buildings resulting from ground shaking
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Ground Shaking
shall be minimized by following the requirements of the Uniform
Building Code, and implementing the recommendations of the project
approval by City of
Lodi Building Official
issuance of
grading
geotechnical engineer.
and Lodi Public Works
permits.
Director.
C2. Seismic
C2. If subsequent geotechnical studies indicate unacceptable levels of
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Settlement
potential seismic settlement, available measures to reduce the effects
approval by City of
issuance of
of such settlements would include replacement of near -surface soils
Lodi Building Official
grading
with engineered fill, or supporting structures on quasi -rigid
and Lodi Public Works
permits.
foundations, as recommended by the project geotechnical engineer.
Director.
C3. Stormwater
C3. Design -level geotechnical studies shall investigate the potential of
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Bank Stability
bank instability at the proposed basin and recommend appropriate
setbacks, if warranted.
approval of City of
Lodi Public Works
issuance of
grading
Director.
permits.
C4. Soil
C4. The effects of soil consolidation and collapse can be mitigated by
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Consolidation
placing shallow spread foundations on a uniform thickness of
engineered fill; specific measures shall be specified by an engineering
approval of City of
Lodi Public Works
issuance of
grading
and Collapse
geologist as appropriate in response to localized conditions.
Director and Building
permits.
Official.
C5. Expansive
C5. The potential damage from soils expansion would be reduced
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Soils
by placement of non -expansive engineered fill below foundation
approval of Lodi Public
issuance of
slabs, or other measures as recommended by the geotechnical
Works Director and
grading
engineer.
Building Official.
permits.
887538.3 11233.26
IMPACTS
MITIGATION MEASURES
RESPONSIBLE
TIMING
IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY
(To be completed by
responsible party)
DATE
INITIALS
C. GEOLOGY AND SOILS (Cont'd)
C6. Soil
C6. The potential damage from soil corrosivity can be mitigated by
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Corrosivity
using corrosion -resistant materials for buried utilities and systems;
approval of City of
issuance of
specific measures shall be specified by an engineering geologist as
Lodi Public Works
grading
appropriate in response to localized conditions.
Director.
permits.
D. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
D3. Erosion and
D3. A comprehensive erosion control and water pollution prevention
Project Applicant with
Throughout
Sedimentation
program shall be implemented during grading and construction. (See
EIR text for details.)
approval by City of
Lodi Public Works
grading and
construction of
Director.
the project.
D4. Urban
D4. The project shall include stormwater controls to reduce nonpoint
Project Applicant with
Throughout
Non -Point
pollutant loads. (See EIR text for details.)
final approval by City
construction
Pollution
of Lodi Public Works
and operation
Director.
of project.
E. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
E3. Loss of
E3. In accordance with the SJMSCP and City of Lodi requirements,
Project Applicant, in
Prior to
Habitat for
the project proponent will pay the applicable in -lieu mitigation fees
accordance with
issuance of
Special Status
to compensate for loss of open space and habitat resulting from
development of the project site, and will ensure the completion of
SJMSCP, and with
approval of City of
grading
permits.
Animals
preconstruction surveys for Swainson's hawks, burrowing owls, and
Lodi Community
California horned larks, as well as the implementation of specified
Development Director.
measures if any of these species are found on the site.
887538.3 11233.26
IMPACTS
MITIGATION MEASURES
RESPONSIBLE
TIMING
IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY
(To be completed by
responsible party)
DATE
INITIALS
E. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (Cont'd)
E4. Disturbance
E4. The following measures shall be implemented to ensure that
Project Applicant, in
Prior to
to Burrowing
raptors (hawks and owls) are not disturbed during the breeding
consultation with
issuance of
Owls and
season:
CDFG, and with
grading
Raptors
• If ground disturbance is to occur during the breeding season (Feb.
approval of City of
permits.
1 to Aug. 31), a qualified ornithologist shall conduct a pre-
Lodi Community
construction survey for nesting raptors (including both tree- and
Development Director.
ground -nesting raptors) on site within 30 days of the onset of
ground disturbance. These surveys will be based on the accepted
protocols (e.g., as for the burrowing owl) for the target species. If
a nesting raptor is detected, then the ornithologist will, in
consultation with CDFG, determine an appropriate disturbance -
free zone (usually a minimum of 250 feet) around the tree that
contains the nest or the burrow in which the owl is nesting. The
actual size of the buffer would depend on species, topography,
and type of construction activity that would occur in the vicinity
of the nest. The setback area must be temporarily fenced, and
construction equipment and workers shall not enter the enclosed
setback area until the conclusion of the breeding season. Once
the raptor abandons its nest and all young have fledged,
construction can begin within the boundaries of the buffer.
• If ground disturbance is to occur during the non -breeding season
(September 1 to January 31), a qualified ornithologist will
conduct pre -construction surveys for burrowing owls only. (Pre -
construction surveys during the non -breeding season are not
necessary for tree nesting raptors since these species would be
expected to abandon their nests voluntarily during construction.)
• If burrowing owls are detected during the non -breeding season,
they can be passively relocated by placing one-way doors in the
burrows and leaving them in place for a minimum of three days.
(Continued on next page.)
887538.3 11233.26
IMPACTS
MITIGATION MEASURES
RESPONSIBLE
TIMING
IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY
(To be completed by
responsible party)
DATE
INITIALS
E. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (Cont'd)
E4. (Cont'd)
Once it has been determined that owls have vacated the site, the
burrows can be collapsed and ground disturbance can proceed.
F. CULTURAL RESOURCES
F1. Disturbance
F1. Implementation of the following measures will mitigate any
Project Applicant in
Throughout
to Buried
potential impacts to cultural resources.
consultation with a
grading and
Cultural
• In the event that prehistoric or historic archaeological materials
qualified archaeologist
construction of
Resources
are exposed or discovered during site clearing, grading or
and/or qualified
project.
subsurface construction, work within a 25 -foot radius of the find
paleontologist, as
shall be halted and a qualified professional archaeologist
applicable, with
contacted for further review and recommendations. Potential
verification of
recommendations could include evaluation, collection,
mitigation by City of
recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials
Lodi Community
followed by a professional report.
Development Director.
• In the event that fossils are exposed during site clearing, grading
or subsurface construction, work within a 25 -foot radius of the
find shall be halted and a qualified professional paleontologist
contacted for further review and recommendations. Potential
recommendations could include evaluation, collection,
recordation, and analysis of any significant paleontological
materials followed by a professional report. (Cont'd next page.)
887538.3 11233.26
IMPACTS
MITIGATION MEASURES
RESPONSIBLE
TIMING
IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY
(To be completed by
responsible party)
DATE
INITIALS
F. CULTURAL RESOURCES (Cont'd)
F1. (Cont'd)
• If human remains are discovered, the San Joaquin County
Coroner shall be notified. The Coroner would determine whether
or not the remains are Native American. If the Coroner
determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he
will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, who
would identify a most likely descendant to make
recommendations to the land owner for dealing with the human
remains and any associated grave goods, as provided in Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98.
H. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
H2. Future Plus
H2. The project shall contribute its fair share cost to the installation
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Project
of a traffic signal at Lower Sacramento Road and Harney Lane.
approval by City of
issuance of
Unsi nam
Lodi Public Works
occupancy
Intersection
Director
permits.
Operations
H4. Cumulative
H4. Modify the project site plan to provide dual eastbound left -turn
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Plus Project
movements out of the project site onto northbound Lower
approval by City of
issuance of
Access
Sacramento Road, consisting of a 150 -foot left -turn pocket and a full
Lodi Public Works
occupancy
Conditions at
travel lane back to the internal project site intersection. In the
Director.
permits.
the Signalized
eastbound direction, a left -turn pocket and a full travel lane back to
the signalized intersection will provide adequate capacity for
Access Drive
Proposed Along
inbound traffic. In addition, STOP signs shall be installed on all
approaches except the westbound to provide continuous traffic flow
the Lower
Sacramento
into the project site and eliminate the potential for backups onto
Road frontage
Lower Sacramento Road. On the Food 4 Less approach, a 100 -foot
left -turn pocket will be provided at the signalized intersection.
887538.3 11233.26
IMPACTS
MITIGATION MEASURES
RESPONSIBLE
TIMING
IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY
(To be completed by
responsible party)
DATE
INITIALS
H. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION (Cont'd)
H5. Cumulative
H5. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Plus Project
A) Extend a third southbound travel lane on Lower Sacramento
final approval by City
issuance of
Access
Road from its current planned terminus at the signalized project
of Lodi Public Works
occupancy
Conditions at
driveway to the southern boundary of the project site;
Director.
permits.
Northern
Unsi nalized
B) Construct a 100 -foot southbound right -turn lane at the signalized
Access Drive
project driveway;
AlongL
C) Extend the southbound left -turn pocket by 100 feet;
Sacramento
D) Extend the taper from 60 feet to a City standard 120 -foot taper;
Road
E) Eliminate the northbound left -turn lane into the northern project
driveway (under Alternative B).
H6. Inadequate
H6. The project site plan shall be modified to move the north project
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Left -turn Lane
driveway on Westgate Drive south by 25 feet in order to
accommodate the required 90 -foot taper length.
approval of City of
Lodi Public Works
issuance of
occupancy
Taper on
Westgate Drive
Director.
permits.
H7. Inadequate
H7. The project site plan shall be modified to extend the northbound
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Left -turn Lane
left -turn pocket to 250 feet, and extend the taper from 70 to a City
standard 120 -foot taper.
approval by City of
Lodi Public Works
Director.
issuance of
occupancy
permits.
Taper on Lower
Sacramento
Road
H8. Public
H8. The project applicant shall work with and provide fair share
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Transit Service
funding to the City of Lodi Grapeline Service and the San Joaquin
Regional Transit District to expand transit service to the project.
final approval by City
of Lodi Public Works
issuance of
occupancy
Director.
permits.
887538.3 11233.26
IMPACTS
MITIGATION MEASURES
RESPONSIBLE
TIMING
IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY
(To be completed by
responsible party)
DATE
INITIALS
H. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION (Cont'd)
H9. Public
H9. Modify the project site plan to: 1) provide a bus bay and
Project Applicant, in
Prior to
Transit Stop
passenger shelter at the proposed transit stop; and 2) include a
consultation with City
issuance of
second transit stop in the eastern portion of the project near Lower
of Lodi Grapeline
grading
Sacramento Road.
Service, and with
permits.
approval of City of
Lodi Public Works
Director.
H11. Pedestrian
H11. Pedestrian walkways and crosswalks shall be provided to serve
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Facilities
Pads 8, 9, and 12 in order to complete the internal pedestrian
approval of City of
issuance of
circulation system.
Lodi Community
grading
Development Director.
permits.
I. NOISE
I3. Noise from
I3. The following noise mitigation measures are identified as
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Project Activity
appropriate for the various types of project activities, to reduce project
noise at both existing and planned future adjacent development:
approval of City of
Lodi Community
issuance of
building
Rooftop Mechanical Equipment. To ensure that the potential noise
Development Director.
permits.
impact of mechanical equipment is reduced to less -than -significant
levels, the applicant shall submit engineering and acoustical
specifications for project mechanical equipment, for review prior to
issuance of building permits for each retail building, demonstrating
that the equipment design (types, location, enclosure specifications),
combined with any parapets and/or screen walls, will not result in
noise levels exceeding 45 dBA (Leq-hour) for any residential yards.
Parking Lot Cleaning. To assure compliance with the City of Lodi
Noise Regulations regarding occasional excessive noise, leaf blowing
in the southeast corner of the project site shall be limited to operating
during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
887538.3 11233.26
IMPACTS
MITIGATION MEASURES
RESPONSIBLE
TIMING
IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY
(To be completed by
responsible party)
DATE
INITIALS
L NOISE (Cont'd)
I4. Noise from
I4. The following measures shall be implemented to mitigate
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Stormwater
potential noise generated by the stormwater basin pump:
approval of City of
issuance of
Basin Pump
1) The pump shall be located as far as is feasible from the nearest
Lodi Community
grading
future planned residential development. In addition, the noise
Development Director.
permits.
levels generated by pump shall be specified to produce noise
levels no greater than 45 dBA Leq at the nearest residential
property lines. The pump facility shall be designed so that noise
levels do not exceed 45 dBA at the nearest residential property
lines. The pump may need to be enclosed to meet this noise
level. Plans and specifications for the pump facility shall be
included in the Improvement Plans for the project and reviewed
for compliance with this noise criterion.
2) In order to avoid creating a noise nuisance during nighttime
hours, pump operations shall be restricted to the hours of 7 a.m.
to 10 p.m., except under emergency conditions (e.g., when the
basin needs to be emptied immediately to accommodate flows
from another imminent storm).
15. Construction
H5. Short-term noise impacts shall be reduced through
Project Applicant, to be
Throughout
Noise
implementation of the following measures: limiting the hours of
verified by the City of
grading and
construction; proper muffling and maintenance of equipment;
Lodi Building Official
construction.
prohibition of unnecessary idling; noise shielding of stationary
and City of Lodi
equipment and location of such equipment away from sensitive
Community
receptors; selection of quiet equipment; notification to neighbors of
Development Director.
construction schedule, and designation of a `noise disturbance
coordinator' to respond to noise complaints. (See EIR text for details.)
887538.3 11233.26
IMPACTS
MITIGATION MEASURES
RESPONSIBLE
TIMING
IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY
(To be completed by
responsible party)
DATE
INITIALS
J. AIR QUALITY
J1. Construction
J1. Dust control measures shall be implemented to reduce PM10
Project Applicant, to be
Throughout
Emissions
emissions during grading and construction, as required by the City of
verified by the City of
grading and
Lodi and the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
Lodi Public Works
construction.
District. (See EIR text for details.)
Director and City of
Lodi Community
Development Director.
J3. Re ig onal
J3 Project design measures shall be implemented to reduce project
Project Applicant, to be
Prior to
Air Quality
area source emissions, and a Transportation Demand Management
verified by the City of
issuance of
(TDM) plan should be implemented to reduce project traffic and
Lodi Building Official
building
resulting air emissions; however, these measures would not reduce
and City of Lodi
permits.
the impact to a less -than -significant level.
Community
Development Director.
J6. Restaurant
J5. All restaurant uses within the project shall locate kitchen exhaust
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Odors
vents in accordance with accepted engineering practice and shall
approval of City of
issuance of
install exhaust filtration systems or other accepted methods of odor
Lodi Building Official
building
reduction.
and City of Lodi
permits.
Community
Development Director.
887538.3 11233.26 10
RESOLUTION NO. P.C. 08-28
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LODI
DENYING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (EIR-03-01) RELATING TO THE LODI SHOPPING CENTER;
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2003042113
WHEREAS, an application was filed by Browman Development Company for a
commercial shopping center at 2640 W. Kettleman Lane more particularly
described as Assessor's Parcel numbers 058-030-08 and 058-030-02, and
a portion of 058-030-09; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director made a determination that the
project may have a potentially significant impact on the environment and
ordered the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and
WHEREAS, the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Draft EIR was prepared and
distributed to reviewing agencies on April 14, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was released on August 5,
2004, for circulation; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi, after ten (10) days published
notice held a study session and public hearing on September 9, 2004.
Public comments on the DEIR were taken at this hearing; and
WHEREAS, a Final EIR (FEIR) responding to all public comments on the DEIR
submitted prior to the expiration of the comment period was prepared and
released to the public and commenting agencies on November 22, 2004;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi, after ten (10) days published
notice held a public hearing before said Commission on December 8, 2004;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi reviewed and certified the Final
Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project; and
WHEREAS, that certification and approval was appealed to the Lodi City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Lodi City Council, on appeal, reviewed and certified the FEIR prepared
for the project (Resolution No. 2005-26, February 3, 2005); and
WHEREAS, the Lodi City Council rescinded the certification of the FEIR on May 3,
2006, pursuant to Superior Court Order of December 19, 2005, which order
directed revisions to be made to the EIR; and
EIR Denial Resolution
902116.1
Lodi Shopping CenterEIR
WHEREAS, in response to the Court Order, the City prepared a Notice of Preparation
(NOP) of the Revisions to the Environmental Impact Report (REIR) and
distributed it to reviewing agencies on September 25, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Revisions to the Environmental Impact Report (DREIR) was
released and circulated on October 17, 2007, for public comment and
review; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi, after ten (10) days published
notice held a study session and public hearing on November 14, 2007.
Public comments on the DREIR were received at this hearing; and
WHEREAS, a Final Revisions to the EIR (FREIR) including responses to all public
comments on the DREIR submitted prior to the expiration of the comment
period was prepared and released to the public and commenting agencies
on August 26,2008; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi, after ten (10) days published
notice held a public hearing before said Commission on October 8, 2008 to
consider certification of the FREIR; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED, as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
2. For the reasons stated on the record at the October 8, 2008 Planning
Commission hearing, the Planning Commission denies certification of the
FREIR.
Dated: October 8, 2008
I hereby certify that Resolution No. P.C. 08-28 was passed and adopted
by the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi at their meeting held on October
8, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Kiser, Kirsten, Olson, Heinitz, Hennecke
NOES: Commissioners: Cummins
ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Mattheis
ATTEST:
S c e ary, Planning Commission
EIR Denial Resolution
2
902116.1
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
LODI PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING
CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2008
1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
The Regular Planning Commission meeting of October 8, 2008, was called to order by Chair Kiser at
7:01 p.m.
Present
2. MINUTES
Planning Commissioners — Cummins, Heinitz, Hennecke, Kirsten, Mattheis, Olson, and
Chair Kiser AL
Planning Commissioners —
Interim Community Development Director
Magdich, Outside Counsel for the City of
Secretary Kari Chadwick
"September 10, 2008"
MOTION /VOTE:
The Planning Commission, on
Minutes of September 10, 2008
present at the subject meeting)
Chair Kiser stated the rules of conduct for the P
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Commissioner M
applicant.
of Commissio
Vin. (Commission
City Attorney Janice
and Administrative
Olson second, approved the
> abstain because he was not
to law, ah affidavit of which publication is on file in
r Kiser called for the public hearing to consider the
al -Mart Real Estate Business Trust to certify the
EIR-03-01) to allow construction of the Lodi
development approvals for the center; and
Company and Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust to approve
onstruction of a commercial center in a C -S, Commercial
le of alcoholic beverages at the Wal-Mart Supercenter; and
parcels for the project.
:Iopment Company and Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust for site plan
I of a new retail building to be constructed at 1600 Westgate Drive.
recused himself from the hearing because his spouse is an attorney for the
Commissioner Kirsten disclosed that he met with both the applicant and an attorney for the opponent,
Brett Jolley.
Commissioner Heinitz disclosed that he met with the Applicant's attorney.
Commissioner Olson disclosed that she met with a contingent from Wal-Mart and spoke with many
concerned citizens.
Commissioner Hennecke disclosed that he met with the applicant, Ms. Davis, and Mr. Pedesto.
Vice Chair Cummins disclosed that he spoke with the applicant and others regarding the project.
Chair Kiser disclosed that he spoke with the applicant.
Continued
Interim Director Bartlam gave a brief PowerPoint Presentation (attached) based on the staff report.
Mr. Bartlam stated that the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report (FREIR) per the Court
Order focused on five specific areas: Cumulative Urban Decay, Energy Impacts, Agricultural
Resource Impacts, Project Objectives, and Project Alternatives. Staff is recommending approval of
the project. Mr. Bartlam introduced Jonathan Hobbs who is special outside Counsel for the City of
Lodi and has been a part of this project since 2005.
Jonathon Hobbs stated that he has been representing and working with the City since the project
went into litigation and has been a part of the revision process. The Court found the original EIR to
be adequate except in two areas: Cumulative Impacts for Urban Decay and Energy Consumption.
Both of those areas have been revised in the revisions to the EIR. City decided to voluntarily
revise three additional areas: Project Objectives, Agricultural Res and Project Alternatives.
Under Case Law these are the only areas that are subject to revi
Commissioner Heinitz stated that he is the only remai missioner that was on the
Commission when this project came around in 2004. He ask t will happen to the vacant
building that is the current Wal-Mart; what the Iikeliho d ther sto osing if this project gets
approved; and in the case that other store close a itizens h o pick-up the tab on
maintenance so they don't become blighted. Mr. lam tated that in a case scenario the
Code Enforcement Division may have to step ' hen the property owner not maintain the
area. The City does have a variety of tools disposa force the prope to maintain
their property to the City Standards. There av circu ces in the City o the years that
the Code Enforcement function has been in plac a to to force the operty owner to
maintain the property have been used. Bartlam also that the citizens do inadvertently incur
the cost because Code Enforcem t falls under the Cit neral Fund. Heinitz stated that based
on what he was told about what h ened in other ci en the stores, not just the old Wal-
Mart building, close up the citizens ick in for the ini Iaof boarding up, repairs, and
cleaning although a lien is taken ou roperty for is ever sold. Bartlam stated
that he does not know of what other ' s th pened in ut what has happen here in the
past is that Code Enforcement takes a to the property. Heinitz asked for
clairification regardi it has already p ed her Bartlam stated that it had and will
probably happe t staff can make the nnection between the Environmental
Document be you a e events.
Vice Chai s aske he five areas i e evision to the EIR should be the main focus for
the Commissio Bartl stated that the areas are the only areas that should be focused
on along with the Map d Site Plan &Architectural review approvals.
Darrel an, B n evelopment - Applicant, came forward to speak in favor of the
project a saver ns. Mr. Browman addressed the concern of Commissioner
Heinitz reg g the r enanting of the current building. He stated that this isn't a big
merchant bu r coma g in and trying to build a store, but a long time area developer that
as other Ion sting developments in the City. The other retail developments owned by
wman D opment in the City have a 98 to 100% occupancy. The City initiated the
ation this property eight years ago and Mr. Browman has been working with the
Ci roject ever since. When Food -4 -Less came to town all the other stores said it
woul them out of business, but it didn't. The positive thing that happens when
com ition comes to the area is it spurs the other stores to reinvest and remodel which
leads to revitalization. The major benefit of this project is that it solidifies this intersection as
a dominate retail area. By placing this kind of quantity and quality of retail in one area it
draws the kind of retail that the City has been wanting for some time. The architectural look
of the building with the columns and cornices give it a pedestrian feel. Browman added that
the current Wal-Mart building has been bought by Browman Development to help alleviate
the concern expressed in 2004 regarding the re -tenanting of the building. Two years ago
Browman Development entered into negotiations with a new tenant for the space, but the
possible tenant backed out because they did not know how long the process was going to
take. Browman Development is currently in negotiations with another tenant that will
occupy 90% of the building. Mr. Browman stated that he is confident that they will be able
to re -tenant the space with a quality tenant. Mr. Browman requested that he be allowed to
2
Continued
come back up at the end of the public hearing and address some of the concerns
mentioned.
Commissioner Heinitz stated that he is not comfortable with the fact that there isn't a tenant
in line for the building. Mr. Browman stated that if he could tell a tenant that in 18 months
he would have the space available he would have a tenant's signature today, but like the
first time around with Home Depot and no guarantee of when the property would be
available, he is not comfortable trying to sign someone when he can't give them a solid time
frame. Browman stated that he is very comfortable with the turn -a -round time of 12 months
once the project is passed to get a new tenant into that space. He stated that it doesn't do
any good to create a project and destroy another, so he woul of be going ahead with this
if he was not confident that a new tenant would be placed i ce.
Commissioner Kirsten asked about the cumulative a is impacts of the project and
what the projected numbers are in the increase because he has not seen
anything that shows those numbers. Mr. Browm tate aron Rios, representative
from Wal-Mart, is here to address those nu be in more il, but the number that
Browman used is the average sales tax r g erated b uper Center which is
$790,000, then used $300/sf which is wh ey go by doing a qu t across the street
and then took off $11 million in annual s which is what they estim or the difference
in sales from whomever they backfi nant sp with, provided is a higher
sales volume than the new tenant. Kir sked i t included the p le closure or
lost revenue for other stores. Mr. Browma a at h did not do a arket analysis. If
the fear of store closures is based on Wal- oming in, then look around the current
shopping center and the aw that Wal-Mart ha for other stores to want to be in the
same area. Kirsten asked the $40million ex property tax increase figure came
from. Browman stated that om a $100/sf f i (340,000 sf) and $10million
for site work and then backe sten asked if me cost would apply for other
buildings of this size. Browm state ased hi umbers on construction cost, so
the same numbers would apply any .ze. Kirsten asked about the energy
efficiency o roject. Mr. Bro tated th ould like to leave the answer for that
questio sentative fro al -Mart, bu a understanding is that the building will
exce a curr tle 24 Standa Kirsten asked about the reduced size alternative.
Mr an stat at a smaller project isn't a viable option. The size creates the
s erg that c r. The viabilit ringing in the other specialty retailers such as
electrons s tores gets sier with the other retail surrounding the area.
iser aNt `000 jobs that will be created. Mr. Browman stated that
upwill employ about 450and another 350 + will be employed by the
other be drawn to the center. Kiser asked how many are full time
employe ted he did not know, but could get that number for him.
Aaron Rios, resen ive for Wal-Mart and Applicant, came forward to speak in favor of
the project a nswer questions. Mr. Rios stated that the current Wal-Mart building can
of meet th ustomer demand. He stated that in regards to the Revised EIR the
mission 't reviewing the entire project that was approved in 2004. The Commission
I res sible for looking at the five revised areas. Specific to energy, this project will
no energy impact. The project will exceed the current Title 24 Energy Standards.
Thro ut the United States Wal-Mart has constructed proto-type stores to test new
tech ogies that can then be implemented in other stores. The Agricultural mitigation will
consist of over 40 acres of prime famland which is a 1 for 1 ratio for this project. In 2005
the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and Wal-Mart launched the "Acres for America
Program". The goal is to permanently protect one acre of important wildlife habitat for every
acre developed by Wal-Mart. To date that is 350,000 acres of land. The Applicant,
Browman Company and Wal-Mart, will be investing $700,000+ in the downtown area even
though it has been shown there will not be an impact from this project on the Downtown.
The average Super Center in California contributes $790,000 to their cities sales tax. The
sales tax will increase approximately 23% based on the past examples of Super Stores
opening. A lot of the agricultural goods will come from local produce companies.
Continued
Commissioner Heinitz stated his appreciation for the Wal-Mart that the City already has and
for their continued work in the community. He then stated his opposition to Mr. Rios, by
telling this Commission that they only have to focus on the five issues in the revised EIR.
Heinitz stated that he is the only Commissioner left on the Commission that was present at
the time of the first hearing and to expect this Commission to accept those findings and just
look at the revised issues is wrong. The Commission needs to look at every single
element. He asked why not just remodel the current store? Mr. Rios stated that the new
store will have wider isles and offer a better place for the customers to shop. He then
compared the experience to his family of 4 people living in a studio apartment verses a
three bedroom home; could he do it, yes, but is it theb st way to take care of his
family/customers, no.
Commissioner Kirsten stated his appreciation of Wal- s contribution to the World of
Wonders Museum. He then asked about the intende impacts. Mr. Rios stated that
the items outlined in the letter from the real estate sio a included in the new store
and if there are any other items that prove to b nergy t those will be included.
What proves to work elsewhere will be incl i this buil Kirsten asked if these
items should be a part of the conditions val. Mr. Rio ed that these items
exceed the minimum requirements alre Kirsten asked about bility of Wal-Mart
using the option of acquiring a piec roperty i the downtown fo and then
turning around and selling it prov' the miti 'on requirement iving a zero
benefit to the downtown area. Mr. Rios th is no immedia intention by the
Wal-Mart real estate group to purchase pr wntown. What has been explored to
date is making some kind of investments in own Lodi along with the developer to
meet that mitigation req ent. Kirsten wou to tighten up the verbiage for the
mitigation requirements downtown. Mr. stated that, with respect for
Commissioner Kirsten's co has put ma s into this project and the
mitigation requirements, and ing om Mr. Ba that was in the paper "this is
the most extensive list of Con 'ons o that has seen in 28 years". He does
know if playing with the langua th to ated so much time too, is the most
beneficia a Commission e, but resp their ability if they so choose. Kirsten
then a a examples o e increase n sales tax. In the example of a current
Wal Store t uper Wal -Ma tore what was the increase in sales tax. Mr. Rios
st in La ta, where a re r al -Mart store was being replaced by a Super
Center, tails tax the year be the store opened was $100 million, the year that
the Super 127 illion, and the year after was $258 million. Kirsten
for cla on as ures being total retail for the entire area including all
t just al -Mart. r. Rios stated that is correct. Kirsten asked for a math
chec , d you ubtract the existing Wal-Mart tax revenues from the new Super
Center enues a total of the increase in tax revenues? Mr. Rios stated that
hypothetic the cu t tax revenues for the existing Wal-Mart were at $500,000 and
then just b ving oss the street and opening up the new Super Center that would
increase the tribution just from Wal-Mart to $790,000, now you have to consider the rest
the retail c er which increases it that much more. Kirsten stated that you would have
nsider lost sales from your competition also, would you not? Rios stated that
Io at raw numbers based on past experiences the tax revenues increasing 23%.
Kirs ed about the lower prices playing a factor, example: buy a toaster at company X
for $ and buy a toaster at company Y for $20, do you not lose 33% of your sales
reve e? Rios stated that no, because by lowering the price you increase the volume, not
necessarily with toasters but overall.
Chair Kiser asked for clarification regarding employee benefits and if Wal-Mart covers 92%
of the employees with coverage. Mr. Rios stated that 92% of Wal-Mart employees have
coverage either with a spouses plan or with Wal-Mart. Out of the 92% over 50% are using
the Wal-Mart Plan. Kiser asked if Wal-Mart is in a LEED Program. Mr. Rios stated that
they are not in a LEED Program. Kiser then stated that Wal-Mart is only doing what is
mandated by the State of California regarding energy. Mr. Rios stated that it will exceed
that standard.
Continued
Commissioner Hennecke asked about Solar Panels being used in any other stores. Mr.
Rios stated that yes they are currently doing a 22 store test. Hennecke asked why the
Applicant is agreeing to pay so much money to the Downtown when the project shows no
impact and the Reynolds Ranch Project that was just before the Commission which has
retail and shows no impact, doesn't have to pay. Mr. Rios stated that was one of the
conditions placed on the project by City Staff, so that the project could move on
Chair Kiser called for a 5 minute recess (8:35).
Chair Kiser Called the meeting back to order (8:46).
• Mary Miller, Lodi, came forward to oppose the prc
happy when the original store came to town and d
the right message about how Lodi should grow.
back to Carlsbad if this passes.
• Dennis Satler, Lodi, came forward ATrc9onomic
amount of retail coming to the City.is proving. If too many big retaileinternet is also taking up a lot of sal
• Bruce Schweigerdt, Lodi, came forward to s
the current store is old and needing major
Commission should be en ing this project.
\illeautedd that she was not
t feer Center will send
stateconsidering moving
ect. oncerned with the
ies aar t downturn
a it s out. The
e project. Mr. Schweigerdt stated that
?ns. He believes that the Planning
• Wanda Van Santen, Lodi, c to support th . Ms. Van Santen stated that
since she was in an accident a h to get aro She would like to have a one
stop shopping store.
• Mark Anafo ' odi, came fo ppose ject. Mr. Anaforian stated that when
the first me to town h as working the Lodi Avenue Longs Drug Store and
the s prom ere made a the downtown Longs Drug Store lost 1/3 of their
bu ' and was ed to layoff a loyees. According to the Stockton Record of Sept.
1 , 2 ocery es would experi 6% loss in sales the first year, Target & K -Mart
together e a 46% los a first year and by the third year sales would still
down by iWbe
a high risk of closing. As of May 2000 Wal-Mart had
ed 2 n squaroccupied store. The economy is not growing. Mr.
An LI
iev should supporting those businesses that have been here for a
long ti
Shawn Pi Lodi, a forward to oppose the project. Mr. Piazza stated that the
forward thin of grZing'
is not good timing. The economy is retracting not expanding.
He is heari that the Planning Commission is here tonight just to focus on the
vironment mpact report and he believes this is wrong. The Commission should be
ng at th ig picture. He commended the Commission for their tough questions and
b t ase numbers to the people that weren't aware.
Chris esto, Lodi, came forward to oppose the project. Mr. Podesto stated that the Food
4 Le Store has 100% Health coverage. Food 4 Less is vested in the community and has
given money to support area activities. The store currently shares the shopping center with
the current Wal-Mart which is the anchor store for the shopping center. When that Wal-
Mart moves across the street not only does the current shopping center lose it's anchor but
it puts a discount grocery competitor right across the street in an area that is already
inundated with grocery stores.
• Suzie Wilbourn, Lodi, came forward as part of the Lodi First group to protect Lodi's
Downtown and oppose the project. Ms. Wilbourn stated that the Environmental Document
does not address the additional store closures. She also opposes the extra traffic, security,
and environmental issues. Wal-Mart has a past practice of fighting the additional tax
revenues assessed with the new stores in court and does not want to see that happen here.
5
Continued
Marlene Borchers, Ione, came forward to support the project. Ms. Borchers is the current
store manager at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart has given her many opportunities to advance and
gives others that may not have the education to do the same. She stated that Wal-Mart
donates extensively within the City. She has heard overwhelming support from customers
for the new Super Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart saves people money and that is what is needed in
this tough economy.
Gene Davenport, Galt, came forward to oppose the project. Mr. Davenport stated that
there are too many unknowns. The Downtown mitigation of $680,000 isn't going to cover it
when you consider the effects in down the road, it's a pittance. Mr. Rios doesn't give any
figures on the cost of social and city services, which will inc e. If Wal-Mart wants to be
here let them be here, they don't deserve a Super Center ' use they want one. The
surrounding stores pay a livable wage in this commune al -Mart does not pay a livable
wage for this community.
• Corey Manos, Lodi, came forward to oppose th oject a part of Lodi First. Mr.
Manos stated that he and his family moved to e a six ye o because of the small
town feel. He wanted to point out what w e gin Elk and doesn't want to
see that happen in Lodi.
• Brenda Manos, Lodi, came forward t se theId
t. Mrs. Mano at she is a
causality of the Super Wal-Mart in oc She for a Pharmac had to close
its doors and she lost her job. She is a p et group which pports the local
businesses first. She pointed out that when ens voted for Measure R it was not for
a Super Wal-Mart, but for requiring a City wide for any retail establishment wanting to
exceed 125,000 square fe
• Elsie Greenwood, Lodi, ca to support the She has been a member of
this community for over 50 y s. n't provide a elderly in regards to parking.
Ms. Greenwood votes yes on t Supe
• Tr^ould
me forwaXe
pose7-las
ect. Lakewood Mall has become a
ghss of retan the done it talked about the cumulative
imong with tolds Ranch Project, but now we've approved even
moct. If we lding retail out the retail within will die.
• Denise r, Lo ame forward 7n,but
port the project. There are a lot of handicapped
and elder j wideto get around. The employees are very helpful.
oyner h d to s it is too hard to get around.
• Ro3ea
i, forward to support the project. The associates are always available
to nd n ement is always helpful with donations to community needs.
• Shdi, ca orward to support the project. She and many of her friends take
spStoc on to shop because they can't find the items they need here. She
shs, Food 4 Less, and S -Mart and will continue to shop at those
odi, came forward to oppose the project because of the sale of alcohol.
Shsafe with that.
• B.J. pson, Lodi, came forward to support the project. She stated that she is 83 years
old and will some day have to depend on someone to take her to the store and she would
like to have a one -stop -shop store, so she does not have to be overly burdensome.
• James Lanchester, Lodi, came forward to support the project. He stated ditto on what has
been said for the project. He currently shops at the Super Center in Stockton and would
like to be able to keep his tax dollars here in Lodi.
• Phyllis Rabusin, Lodi, came forward to oppose the project. She sees Lodi as a quaint
tourist attraction with its downtown. Ms. Rabusin feels Wal-Mart detracts from that image.
• Linda Nelson, Lodi, came forward to support the project. Ms. Nelson stated that she is a 14
year associate at Wal-Mart and has health coverage through them. She makes a good
IN
Continued
wage and will continue to shop at other stores around town. There are no grocery stores
downtown. The Super Center will not impact that area. The current Wal-Mart has not
affected that area, so adding groceries to it won't either.
• Tim Jacobsen, Lodi, is a district manager for Wal-Mart and came forward to support the
project. Mr. Jacobsen stated that with the economy the way it is people will be looking to
save money. People are going to Stockton to shop at the Super Center or Winco because
of the hard times. He would like to see the tax dollars stay in Lodi.
• Andrea Violett, Lodi, came forward to support the project. She would like to see the item
placed back on the ballet as a Super Wal-Mart item, becaus that is what a lot of citizens
thought they were voting for with Measure R.
• Bill Freitas, Lodi, came forward to oppose the project. a is the need for this store?
• Karen Helmandollar, Lodi, came forward to sup t ect. Mrs. Helmandollar is
grateful to Wal-Mart for hiring a senior citizen. as h Ith coverage through Wal-
Mart and is very happy with it.
• Michael Tener, Lodi, came forward to op a th roject. Mr. stated that the EIR
states that there will be a less than si cant impact on Urban D nd he finds that
very hard to believe.
• Don Mooney, Attorney for Citizens for Op ver
and came forward to oppose the project an q
a result of the Lawsuit the original EIR decisio re
is not an approved docu t. The provisions f
the new requirements that een signed into I
have been taken into cons en doing the
some drastic changes recen t of Urban y
closer in regards to other groc store
submitted a do ent (attached)
ues ions. Mr. Moo ey stated that as
• Commissio ennecke asked the fo
develop the Wal-Mart sect. Mr
only is issu
rescinded, therefore the original EIR
nhouse gas emissions do not meet
the Governor (AB32) and should
R. The economy has had
should have been looked at
:izens for Open Government on all
stated that he represents the group
• V' Cum
mi asked if Mr. knew about this meeting well in advance of
tonight so, s the Commis just now receiving a 100+ page document. Mr.
Mooney s e the document earlier in the day, but it did not go
• Co XeIr Ki asked that the audience to be courteous. The waving of the vote
paperselpfu .
• Commissio Ison a d about the AB32 item mentioned earlier, is it in effect right now?
Mr. Mooney ed th it is in effect now, but there is some confusion as to how it affects
CEQA. Pa the Legislation associated with the budget required the State to adopt
ulations u r CEQA implementing AB32, which have not been adopted yet. CEQA
withou a adoption has an obligation to comply with the Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
T v is office has stated that if a project does not meet the regulations then it does
not under CEQA. The threshold that has been set is 0% increase in emissions, so
if the oject increases greenhouse emissions at all then there must be impact mitigations
state Olson asked if there has been enough study done for this project in Mr. Mooney's
opinion. Mr. Mooney stated that there has not. Mr. Mooney also stated that he litigated this
issue in court against CalTrans and won.
• Vice Chair Cummins asked if the AB32 reductions need to be done by 2020. Mr. Mooney
stated that yes, but the thresholds should be considered now.
Commissioner Hennecke asked staff to clarify the AB32 regulations. Mr. Hobbs stated that
the emissions are to be reduced to the 1990 level by the year 2020 and became effective
January 1, 2007. It does not mandate specific requirements at this time. There is a current
legal debate going on right now regarding whether or not CEQA requires analysis on
greenhouse gases. If you start a project right now it probably does require you to look at
7
Continued
that area, but this project was originally approved in 2004. The concept of greenhouse
gases was not new in 2005 and should have been raised during the litigation which would
have made it possible for them to pursue those claims now. Mr. Mooney's group is entitled
to pursue claims that may have been raised and challenged in the original EIR. What the
current procedure of this case does allow is for them to raise new issues that were not in
place during the original process. The CalTrans case that Mr. Mooney referred to was a
new case and the court ruled that they should have looked at the greenhouse gases.
• Anita Quroi, Lockeford, came forward to oppose the project.
• Commissioner Kirsten asked what Ms. Quroi meant by"suck- the recourses". Ms. Quroi
stated that the more people drawn to the area by this prof I be sucking -up the City's
resources such as; water, air quality, police services, hos
• Jag Batth, Lodi, came forward to state that his com 'll have to wait for the Council
level of this project.
• Mark Ruggiero, Lodi, came forward to oppose p 'ect.
• Jennifer Bond, Lodi, came forward to opp he ject. Ms. Bo nts to know how all
the good things that Wal-Mart does cur y for the community are to change if they
move. There are a lot of other busin other th in the Downtown a affected
by a Super Wal-Mart.
• Brett Jolley, Attorney representing Lodi a forward to opposb the project and
answer questions. The decision that shoul ade tonight should not be based on
whether this is a good pr ' t or if this is a goo ler or not but whether or not he EIR
has provided enough in n for you to c There are two steps for the
Commission; first is to dete EIR provides nformation, if it does then it
should certified, second is whether or this project is right for the
community. Mr. Jolley does n feel th ect s Id make it to step two. The EIR
states that there is insufficient 11 to Urban Decay. CEQA states that
insufficie a is not via eterminati There have been a lot of comments
made a Representa about exc ding the Title 24 compliance. This is not
HE store
Luper c;e
antific of what the ergy saving features will be. The State Building
n just a ted changes it 24 last month which are designed to in part
AB uidelines that M ooney talked about by requiring greener building
reen se emissions. The catch is that the guidelines are
it 009 mandatory in 2010, so if Wal-Mart builds in 2009 and
ow t untary gui a es they will be building a below standard project. There
tions g from the alternative project size from the Project Alternatives
being the entire project proportionately, not just taking out all the
s and I g Wal-Mart at the same size. The other alternative missing is
cy (H alternative. If you go to Wal -Mart's website they state that the new
Ia as opened up in Las Vegas is 45% more energy efficient than a regular
to hich is what is planned for Lodi. In CEQA when the EIR concludes that
have significant and unavoidable effects, which this EIR does for both ag
n and air quality impacts, the Commission then has the obligations to make
ings before approving the project. The Commission must decide whether the
the project out way the significant unavoidable impacts.
Commissioner Kirsten asked how a store closure is connected to urban decay/blight. Mr.
Jolley stated that the EIR states that the urban decay will be less than significant because
the space can be re -tenanted which was based on the economy in October 2007. The staff
report states that new a Code Enforcement Officer was hired to handle this kind of blight
which is a drain on taxpayers. Kirsten asked if because of the strict code enforcement even
if you don't re -tenant the store right away it won't necessarily lead to urban decay. Mr.
Jolley stated that is possible.
• Ann Cerney, Lodi, came forward to oppose the project. She stated that she does not feel
that the Commission has an EIR before them and that they should have one with all the
comments submitted for this project.
Continued
• Gary Silva, Lodi, came forward to oppose the project. Mr. Silva would like to see the
Commission consider other options such as, stores that are not grocery stores for this
project area. These types of stores would overlap and work well with the surrounding area
and not be so combative. He would like to see a development in that area, but would like to
see something that would work with the area not against.
Pat Patrick, President of the Chamber of Commerce, came forward to support the project.
The Chamber supports free enterprise. The Chamber led the campaign for No on Measure
R. Even though as stated here tonight the Measure was not technically about Wal-Mart it
was emotionally about Wal-Mart. The most knowledgeable person in the City employ has
recommended that the Commission accept this proposar1h t. Mr. Patrick does not
believe, due to past dealings with Mr. Bartlam, that heve brought this project
before the Commission with the approval recommendaI
as going to be detrimental
to rest of the business community within the City, n e Chamber feel the same
way. For people to stand up here and tell the mhat they need to make a
decision based on the fact that the country is in a n eco then they need to tell you
how long we will be in that down turn.
• Commissioner Olson asked if the membe p of the Chamber of erce took a vote to
support the project. Mr. Patrick stated they did got.
Public Portion of Hearing Closed
Chair Kiser called for a brief r ss (10:38).
Chair Kiser called the meeting rder (10:43).
• Commissioner Heinitz stated oppo a proj He does not feel that a move
across the street is the best mo for 1. ed that his main concerns are blight
and the e ' ilding. He wo er see art expand their current store and just
make on of a Supe enter. He ted his respect for staff, but also stated
that is here II us if the p ct fits the laws, not if it fits Lodi. The Commission
n take th ext step beyo th t and listen to what the citizens want also.
Commi r Hei stated that he c t support the project.
ommissio oject came about before the Redevelopment Area
Mr. state is correct. Olson asked if for a Redevelopment area to
b ed th s to be some blight already in the area. Mr. Bartlam agreed. Ms.
Olson then n ere be a determination of no blight if there has already been
areas fo ted that a blight and an Urban Decay analysis are two different
types of a is. For e first EIR a blight analysis was what was essentially done and
then found i icien through the Court hence the reason for the Urban Decay analysis
eing done f he Revised EIR. The K -Mart Center on Cherokee Lane was the focus of
cern in th conomic Analysis and is in the Redevelopment area. This should give the
issio me level of comfort because of the tools that will now be made available to
as enter in maintaining a level playing field with any new development. Olson
state she is a huge proponent of Redevelopment, but it seems odd to be creating a
probl just because we now have the tools to fix it. She continued by stating that Mr.
Bartlam was correct; just because we have an economically disadvantaged area doesn't
mean that urban decay or blight is determined just by a closed store. Olson stated that with
the extremely narrow view that she has been given to make any determinations regarding
the project has her perplexed. She is having a hard time relating what was done a couple
of years ago to what she feels is relevant today. She would like to be able to ask the
applicant to go back and look at some of the environmental items such as greenhouse gas
emissions and include them in the scope of the project; is that possible? Mr. Bartlam stated
that yes you can ask, but Council sets the policy. The Council could have opened it up for
more review, but they didn't. Olson stated that she would like to have additional areas to
look at and can not support the project with the limited look that has been granted.
X
Continued
Commissioner Kirsten stated that he shares Commissioners Heinitz and Olson's views and
would like to focus his comments on the BAE analysis. Kirsten feels that the report is
shallow and insufficient. The report acknowledges potential store closures such as; S -Mart,
K -Mart, Orchard Supply/Ace, JC Penny, or Mervyns, but the report states that there is
insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions. Kirsten believes that the resources and
statistical modeling are available to do a more thorough analysis. He can not support the
project at this time.
Vice Chair Cummins stated that there has been a lot of discussion on whether we need a
Super Wal-Mart. The 40 acre parcel that this project is proposed to occupy has been sitting
vacant except for the weeds and campaign signs for over aade. There seems to be a
lot of fear regarding the economy right now. Cummins at he remembers back
when Food -4 -less was trying to open up and there a lot of fear then about other
grocery stores closing, but that didn't happen. When San Miguel opened up a few
years ago there were 350,000 sf of grocery store ce dy in Lodi, but there wasn't
any fear about other stores closing. Cummins s d that ke with the K -Mart store
manager and learned that the store has bee d roducin the last ten years. He
added that he got several calls from con . izens. Cum tated that he spoke
with the City Manager today regarding budget and the City i ire need of more
revenue. What other store is capab developi a 40 acre regi o ing center
other than Wal-Mart. There will be ads tha ill be a part of thi ect which will
bring in several more jobs. The develope an t track record i odi. There are
some issues with AB32, but legal counsel h that i will not be an issue in this case.
Commissioner Cummins stated his support of oject and will vote in favor of certifying
the EIR.
Commissioner Hennecke sfl
only to look at the EIR, we
personal level. He believes
growth of the City should be
fit for Lodi. uld like to
what th ould not
the
CW it
offered
The Planning
request of Bro
6eF inalRevisepingCenter
by the foll
rno like to tell us that we have
d w not help but think of it on a
issio duties is growth, and the future
rtel that a Super Wal-Mart is a good
he store is going to do, rather than
nd, he can not vote in favor of certifying
decay and is not satisfied with the mitigations
t ee the greenhouse gas emissions considered in
atisfied with the energy standards being met. Kiser
not support this EIR.
sio otion of Commissioner Hennecke, Heinitz second, denied the
evel ent Company and Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust to certify
iron ental Impact Report (EIR-03-01) to allow construction of the Lodi
allow all subsequent development approvals for the center. The motion
i vote:
Ayes: ssioners — Heinitz, Hennecke, Kirsten, Olson, and Chair Kiser
Noes: missioners — Cummins
Abstain: mmissioners — Mattheis
Chair Kiser asked if the rest of the item needed to have a vote. Mr. Hobbs stated that the project can
not be approved because there isn't a Certified EIR, however the Commission can move to deny the
rest of the project keeping it all together so that if the denial gets appealed it would keep everything
together and put it all at the Council level. Mr. Hobbs recommends denying the entire project, so that it
is kept together in one package.
MOTION:
The Planning Commission, on motion of Commissioner Kirsten, Kiser second, to deny the
request of Browman Development Company and Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust to
10
Continued
approve Use Permit U-02-12 to allow the construction of a commercial center in a C -S,
Commercial Shopping District, and allow the sale of alcoholic beverages at the Wal-Mart
Supercenter; and
Consider approval of Vesting Tentative Map 03-P-001 to create 12 parcels for the project; and
The request of Browman Development Company and Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust for
site plan and architectural approval of a new retail building to be constructed at 1600 Westgate
Drive.
Commissioner Olson requested clarification on the recommendation.^cer
am stated that what Mr.
Hobbs suggested was that the project could not be approved�xe
ed EIR, but it could be
denied so that it can be kept together in a complete package wio that the City Council could
review the entire project, not just the Revised EIR assuming an Commissions action.
Commissioner Kirsten withdrew his motion.
Commissioner Olson stated that to deny the entire pr
applicant. Olson stated that she doesn't necessarily t to
them separate does not bother her.
Commissioner Heinitz does not want to sign o roject at
Council and they choose to override the Commission sion
have say in the rest of the project.
Commissioner Hennecke stated that a would like to have
certified by Council.
Chair Kiser stated his agreement with h mmissioners,
were tabled for possible further action.
Commissioner Mattheis rejoine X,,ommission.
expedit entire project for the
the pro
jec gether, so leaving
gether. If this E s to the City
4itz stated that h ould like to still
look at the project if the EIR gets
the balance of the requests
the Commis%pn will need to take a vote to continue the meeting
f Commissioner Kirsten, Heinitz second, chose to
Igst 11:OOpm. The motion carried by the following vote:
ns, Heinitz, Hennecke, Kirsten, Mattheis, Olson, and Chair
Interim Director Bartlam pointed out the summary memo in the packet and stated that staff was
available to answer any questions.
7. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE/DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE
Interim Director Bartlam stated that the Draft Preferred Plan will be coming before the Commission at
the first meeting in November.
11
Continued
8. ACTIONS OF THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
Chair Kiser gave a brief report on the meeting of October 6th , specifically regarding the property over on
Cherokee Lane that the Commission denied the service station and Mini Mart plan. Kiser stated that
the project came back as a Cafe/Deli and has been approved by SPARC. Commissioner Mattheis
stated his appreciation of the Commission for sticking with their ideals and seeking a much better use of
this property.
9. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
None
10. COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC
None
11. COMMENTS BY STAFF AND COMMISSIONERS
Vice Chair Cummins congratulated Commissioner Matth
12. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come beford'the'IW,7%fission, the meeti as adjourned
at 11:18 p.m.
ATTEST:
12
Development Director
Lodi Shopping Center
Applicant: Browman Development Company
File No.: EIR-03-01-Final Revised EIR
U-02-12 — Use Permit
03-P-001— Vesting Tentative Map
08 -SP -08 - SPARC
Lodi Shopping Center
Final Revised Environmental Impact Report:
The Revised EIR includes the five (5) sections which were subject to
revision or augmentation as directed b the Court.
9 Y
. Cumulative Urban Decay Impacts
Energy Impacts
. Agricultural Resource Impacts
. Project Objectives
. Project Alternatives
• Use Permit: C -S, Commercial Shopping District plan review of the site as well
as the sale of alcoholic beverages within Wal-Mart building.
Vesting Tentative Map: Allows the subdivision of the property into 12
parcels.
• Site Plan and Architectural Review: Required for all buildings in a C -S
zone designation. Focus on architecture and site design.
Lodi Shopping Center
. Background:
• Planning Commission approval: December, 2004
• City Council approval: February, 2005
• EIR found deficient for cumulative urban decay
and energy impacts: December, 2005
• City Council rescinds original approvals: May,
2006
• Draft
Revised
EIR:
October, 2007
• Final
Revised
EIR:
March, 2008
Lodi Shopping Center: Zoning & Vicinity Map
r,. ri!�f/ter ✓ yyf� iii,/ !i,r�
/i/f�rj Y1rf /j/ jyf✓fj�s
rf�y/r yi/-✓/✓.
✓i/r�rr i !fir ✓ / � f/
.rf/✓/ � / �1rJ, r/iii/✓; �li�y�/�
ry/i//yi,// �/ir//✓iii/�
f/ ✓ yy f ii i✓r y f�f/� y /f
//✓.riir✓frfr✓1fi✓/r/.i///
rffrf!✓///rf�//f/Jrfrr//✓✓//!r////i//r
r�ii✓✓iiiisiiiiiii/i✓iiiiiiii',�
flifr.ff/✓i.r.////✓//J/./ri�rfrr/r/! /✓✓✓/
y /f1//r/y� i i 7///1'_ff�/r//1%/I//%✓//r ✓/1fff/
/frit//ff//rrfr/fir///'fi/r✓r//./// ///r�r ,
.fl///f/.%f/%l%%%%/rte%%l%%%%l%✓f/%f/I�%%%%,i
r✓✓///./://rir✓iii>yi�irfiiiii� %%%%��•,
tri✓.r,ri✓rr/i//i/////✓/r/frJ/i///
//JL/J/f✓//✓//f//✓> ����;/�l rr f.f rl.i�.>f r/.
! ✓ /,✓ r/-f.i! ,! :iii�ii ✓l / / ✓ r ✓. /✓y � � / J / i / ' _
Rvge#1nl
L@FR fFcc�'-
:1r ////i/r///✓/
/Z/
City
rJ/r//ri/ ✓r / 'rP�
f/�✓ri ii✓ /r/
1/f./✓../- / iiiiiii i
/ // /./ r . iii✓ � - / ,i ' /
City of Lodi Zoning Map
y PD, Planned Development
' - C -S, Commercial Shopping
i
• 0 R -C -P, Res. Comm. Professional
R -t, Single Family Res.
✓ i /
® R -MD, Res. Medium Dansity
R-2, Single Family Res.
/.
N
PUB, Public
i
.1"
wj
Ir
�YI7 � ♦ P'�'� ' � i � "moi' � � * �j
L '' 5 ; .., 'r
4p wb
JA
.�4 �' .�_�� � _ 1TiYJM• _ rr "�kti��']Z�`�- # F �r 1�7-L4L .V7'4����1� 1- .. .. _. T� __ - �^r •_ -- } --
duou
pit Y } 7 •I�' *L
.10
�3
1*f
le
qL
r ` �,
Lodi Shopping Center
. Summary of Environmental Impacts:
• The project would include new retailers who
would compete with existing retailers in the City of
Lodi;
• There is insufficient evidence to suggest that this
increased competition would result in any business
closures, and consequently would not indirectly
result in substantial deterioration of properties or
urban decay.
• This is considered less than significant
Lodi Shopping Center
• Summary of Impacts cont.:
• The project would increase energy consumption in the
construction and operational phases of the project.
• Energy conservation measures incorporated into the
design, construction and operation of the project would
avoid wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of
energy.
• This is considered less than significant
• The increased demand for energy resulting from the
project would not be substantial enough to require new or
expanded sources of supply or the construction of new or
expanded energy delivery systems or infrastructure
capacity.
• This is considered less than significant
Lodi Shopping Center
. Summary of Impacts cont.:
• The project would convert approximately 40 acres
of prime agricultural land to urban areas.
• No mitigation is available which would reduce this
impact to a less than significant level. This is
considered a significant impact.
• As a result, the applicant shall obtain a permanent
Agricultural Conservation Easement over 40 acres
of prime farmland within San Joaquin County.
Lodi Shopping Center
Use Permit:
• The C -S zoning designation requires all plot plans to be
approved by the Planning Commission.
• The plan presented is identical to that approved by the
Commission in December, 2004. The plan meets or
exceeds all requirements of the Lodi Zoning Ordinance
including the Standards for Large Retail Establishments.
• Allows the sale of alcoholic beverages within the Wal-Mart
building. The Planning Commission has previously found
that the sale of alcoholic beverages is incidental to a
grocery store operation and that is what is being
requested by the Wal-Mart.
Lodi Shopping Center: Site Plan
0
•�
SffE NOTES
� LJ x
Q ne
LL
wk
OW O Opq O O
. -� 111111 %�
`h' Q
.yyq nWpr,+,a w
3
O TIDO 4� 0 0 O O
<od
O OW O§ O O O O O
.0 .0 ON
Oy O O O 4 b
175
�a�i ix'��-ra. rCa. prsmttysMwwu
M f
r
f rco o bl b o 0 0 0
PA4 2
I
PA
50511 Ss F
I
10.0 5P
0
'
�M.se.s lon ,n xlewelwa aw ro. an rx..ve.
7,4 0 SF
'
- 1
1
mm
IIS. �
� •iii I
l l � I
.,ua.c�'•11 I ,
11= I
�II� I
aroAy I
am wiesl vu,rA oms)
I III I
I III
iir i
i yil
1
f•.
1
�'• i
I,
I
`
-- L ---Z--'1-----.L-..1-.--.-L.--�.-�.-J
L —
1
I 1
J
44
Lodi Shopping Center: Site Plan
e
■
O 10 �O O O 4
q oo oW�oo o b
9 O 0-0 O O O ko
IJP
0
•�
I C
®� a� a� o �O b
� LJ x
Q ne
LL
wk
OW O Opq O O
. -� 111111 %�
`h' Q
C,
3
O TIDO 4� 0 0 O O
<od
O OW O§ O O O O O
.0 .0 ON
Oy O O O 4 b
175
M f
r
f rco o bl b o 0 0 0
PA4 2
I
PA
50511 Ss F
I
10.0 5P
0
7,4 0 SF
44
I
i Y
PAD 6
14,7 $(
; 1i
=
O
O
I
F
ix
'
Q
O
I ll
11
—1r---.•--�.----
SF
j
�
-42b
'I
1
e
■
O 10 �O O O 4
q oo oW�oo o b
9 O 0-0 O O O ko
IJP
0
•�
I C
®� a� a� o �O b
� LJ x
Q ne
LL
OW O Opq O O
. -� 111111 %�
`h' Q
C,
3
O TIDO 4� 0 0 O O
<od
O OW O§ O O O O O
.0 .0 ON
Oy O O O 4 b
M f
r
f rco o bl b o 0 0 0
PAD 11
5.D00 Sr I I I
IIMM 8.59fi Sf ---
Ij
I
PAD 11
I 35.DOD sr
I
a
a
a
Lodi Shopping Center
. Tentative Map:
. The proposed Vesting Tentative Map
includes 12 parcels which range in size
from the largest lot at 18.3 acres to the
smallest at .53 acres.
.All 12 buildings are on their own lot with
associated parking.
Lodi Shopping Center: Vesting Tentative Parcel Map
Vat,E,W Tentative 91iap
Got Layout
for
Loi - III
A'PXs: 058-030-01 OZ 05&030-02
Comity ofSangoagr* Cafifomia
AWW 1S, 2008
Shiest 2 of 2
VA.
Lodi Shopping Center
. Site Plan and Architectural Review:
. The proposed project includes the construction of a new
Wal-Mart building which is approximately 216,710 square
feet. The Wal-Mart building would be located on the
southwestern portion of the project site, and the building
entrance would face east toward Lower Sacramento Road.
• Architectural materials such as concrete masonry block,
metal awnings, and exterior plaster finish will be utilized on
the exterior of the building.
Lodi Shopping Center
. SPARC cont.:
. There will be three entrances/exits from Lower Sacramento
Road, one from Kettleman Lane (Hwy. 12), and two from
Westgate Drive.
. The main parking lot is located on the east side of the Wal-
Mart building. There will be smaller parking areas to serve
the free-standing commercial pads. For the Wal-Mart
building, a total of 965 parking spaces are proposed
. The proposed landscape plan calls for various large shade
trees, smaller trees, shru s and ground covers. A total of
478 larger shade trees will be provided within the parking
lot interior, along the southern and western edges the
property line, and throughout the site. This total number of
trees exceeds what the City code requires.
Lodi Shopping Center: Landscape Plan
WAL:, f MART 4
-ulg
i
Elul1 �° gfea
1 *; r s.
3i OUIPARML 10
Lodi Shopping Center: Elevations
LAST ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATION
WEST
SOUTH F.LFVATION
M � ~
`Oro
K. fi
Low Prices �"
_ i' -
rr�+
OIL
- Iwl
�W
WAIL MART
Meat Bakery Dell - - S1
MOM
Low Prices
J ml
may. If
r•�.ti
e �
•44
1, VOL
X41 .IIP-
9��
Ai
,40
ow
i tel..
Iw WAL*MART
e Meat Bakery DL41 ,_��-
Uw Pric"
w . Y. r.
yIN*_�w
--a- -e-�
Ae
Lodi Shopping Center
• Conclusion:
. Based on the information contained within the Final Revised
EIR, the plans submitted and the policies and previous actions
of the City, staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
• Certify Final Revised Environmental Impact Report (EIR-03-01)
Approve Use Permit U-02-12,
Approve Vesting Tentative Map 03-P-001
Approve Site Plan and Architectural Review 08 -SP -08
LAW OFFICES OF DOC44QQISA4
1220 i_ Street, Suite 2
DC?iEA?.,I:7 B, i`vlC)(3NEY
Da's, i:nlifornia 951616
It1.1e }tone (530) 778-23-17
F,:ic::sitnlle (530) 758.7.1.69
October 8,2008
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
AND REGULAR MAIL
Planning Commission
City of Lodi
221 West Pine Street
Lodi, California 95241-1910
Re: Final Revisions to the Environmental Impact Report for the Lodi
Shopping Center, State Clearinghouse No. 20030421 13
Dear Commissioners:
At your October 8, 2008 meeting, you will decide whether to (1) certify the City
of Lodi's ("City") the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR') for the Lodi
Shopping Center project (or the "Project") and (2) approve the Project. On behalf of
Citizens for Open Government ("Citizens"), we urge you to send the deficient FEIR back
for further work and deny the Project. The two principle questions before you are
whether the environmental documentation fully discloses, and mitigates where feasible,
the environmental impacts of the Project and whether Lodi needs the Project given the
substantial negative impact on local businesses in these lean economic times. We ask
the Planning Commission to examine this latter question particularly carefully given that
the City's stated objective is to approve only "commercial development which does not
negatively affect Downtown and the past and ongoing investment in Downtown."
(DREIR at 32.)
A. Background
As you are aware, the Lodi Shopping Center is proposed to be constructed on 40
acres of prime agricultural land on the west side of the City on the southwest corner of
West Kettleman Lane and Lower Sacramento Road. The main purpose of the Project is
to substitute a new 227,000 square foot Wal-Mart Supercenter for the existing Wal-Mart
across the street. The Project also contains approximately 110,000 square feet of
additional smaller scale commercial space.
The City considered an EIR for this Project once before and certified it as in full
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") in early 2005. In
litigation commenced by Lodi First, the Superior Court determined that the City made
numerous errors in the analysis and remanded the EIR for an overhaul should the City
desire to proceed with the Project. Citizens also sued the City over the same EIR,
Lodi Planning Commission
October 8,2008
Page 2 of 7
asserting a range of additional CEQA errors. The Lodi City Council thereafter
decertified the Final EIR and voided the project approvals. After prevailing on appeal to
establish its right to sue, Citizens agreed to dismiss its case when the City released a
Notice of Preparation for the "Draft Revisions" to the EIR ("DREIR") and agreed to
permit Citizens to "comment fully" on the new draft EIR. A year ago, the City produced
its DREIR and on December 7,2007, Citizens provided extensive comments. The City
produced its "Final Revisions" to the EIR ("FREIR') some six months ago in March
2008.
B. Inadequate CEOA Compliance
1. Improperly Restricted Scope of Analysis
Instead of producing a coniprehensive analysis of the full environmental effects of
building another 330,000 square feet of new coinmercial development, the City insists
that it may pick and choose which issues to present to you. For example, in response to
comments that the City's CEQA documents failed to adequately analyze certain critical
environmental effects, (e.g., global warming, certain air quality impacts such as PM2.5
emissions and SJVAPCD 9510 compliance), the City contends that it may ignore these
impacts by restricting the scope of its "Revised" EIR. The City contends that it can avoid
properly disclosing the full impact of the Wal-Mart Supercenter to the Planning
Commission and the public because they were not allegedly addressed by the court in the
Lodi First litigation or were not voluntarily considered in the DREIR.
The City presumption of its ability to exclude analysis and consideration of
environmental impacts caused by the Project exceeds its legal ability and gives short
shrift to the Planning Commission's need for complete disclosure of impacts. Under the
Stipulation for Dismissal executed by the Citizens and the City, the City agreed that
Citizens "shall have the right to comment fully on the revised draft and final EIRs ...."
without limitation. The City then agreed that it would not assert any defense to any
subsequent litigation "claims" that is not inconsistent with the terms of this Stipulation . .
" In other words, the City cannot agree on the one hand to allow Citizens to comments
fully but on the other hand disregard those comments.
More importantly, the City is asking the Planning Commission to certify that all
the environmental documentation before its meets CEQA's obligation to fully disclose all
impacts and fully mitigate were feasible. The Planning Commission may examine the
FEIR in order ensure that it discloses and mitigates all impacts regardless of Wal -Mart's
desire to shield as much information as possible from public disclosure.
2. Land Use — Urban Decay
In 2005, the City asserted that approval of the Lodi Shopping Center with over
330,000 square feet of commercial/retail would not result in urban decay. The Superior
Lodi Planning Commission
October 8,2008
Page 3 of 7
Court held this conclusion irrational because the City did not consider the cumulative
impacts of surrounding commercial development, including new close by Wal-Mart
Supercenters. In 2006, the City approved 350,000 square feet of new commercial retail
Reynolds Ranch, apparently concluding that this 350,000 square feet would have no
adverse affect on downtown retailers. Recently, the City approved more than doubling of
commercial area to 750,000 square feet again apparently concluding no adverse
consequences from this development.' Central to this determination was that the
Reynolds Ranch project did not contain any big box stores like a Wal-Mart Supercenter.
(See Planning Commission Minutes wherein Mr. Gillespie "stated that because there isn't
any Big Box stores planned for this area the effects on the downtown are not
significant."j
Now the City asserts that — in addition to the new nearby Wal -Marts and the
750,000 of new commercial of Reynolds Ranch —the Lodi Shopping Center, including a
"Big Box" Wal-Mart Supercenter and more than 330,000 square feet will not adversely
affect the downtown core notwithstanding a projected 34% loss of sales. We urge the
Planning Commission to ask "Is conclusion rational in this economic climate?" We also
urge the Planning Commission to review carefully the economic analysis for this report
and ask probing questions such as "did the economic analysis include the re -tenanted
Wal-Mart space?" and "on what factual basis does the City assume that 100% of sales
leakages will be captured by the Project and Reynolds Ranch?" We ask this question
because we not only believe this assumption to be unsupported and irrational (particularly
100% of the $29,229,496 in annual service station leakages), but also because this
assumption is used by the economic consultant to reduce on a dollar for dollar basis the
effect from the Project on local retailers. In other words, the actual adverse sales impact
to existing local businesses will be substantially greater than reported because "using a
lower assumed capture rate would raise the percent capture from existing" local retailers.
(See DREIR Table 22, at 64, note e.>
We also ask whether another fundamental assumption central to the consultant's
"no effects" conclusion is rationale: that growth in trade area will expand the economic
pie so that the addition of over 1 million square feet of new commercial will keep
existing business viable (see e.g., FREIR at 39). Is continued growth sufficient to cover
the admitted over supply of retail space objectively reasonable given the economic
downturn?
We note that while the City seems institutionally unable to conclude that any new
amount of retail will adversely affect downtown, it rests its CEQA conclusion on the
absence of urban decay on implementation of the new prioritized code enforcement
I In light of the expansion of the Reynolds Project beyond what was disclosed to
the public in the DREIR, the City is obligated to recirculate the DREIR in order to
provide a meaningful opportunity to comment on Land Use/Urban Decay cumulative
impacts and the City's last minute disclosure of additional consultant analysis.
Lodi Planning Commission
October 8,2008
Page 4 of 7
policy. We attach a copy of Resolution 2006-39 and ask the Planning Commission to
note that contrary to its representations in the EIRs, the City has placed enforcement of
"[v]iolations related to proerty maintenance issues" next to the bottom of its
"Operational Priorities" (9t out of 10). In addition, while Resolution No. 2006-39
includes abatement of nuisances as a potential topic for one of five "Focused
Enforcement Efforts," we ask for proof in these tight budgetary times that such an effort
has actually been funded for the long term, for adopted criteria indicating how much
urban decay is necessary before a "nuisance" is established, and instances of past
nuisance building prosecutions, if any.
Finally, we note that the proposed adopting ordinance imposes Condition HH "to
address the economic affects of the Lodi Shopping Center on the Downtown."
Condition HH requires an investment of not less than $680,000 in downtown buildings
owned or rented by the developer (or by others). It is difficult to reconcile the City's
previous conclusion that development of the Lodi Shopping Center will not adversely
affect downtown with the imposition of a condition "to address" those non-existent
impacts. More fundamental, however, is the disconnect between substantial loss of sales
for existing retailers and the urban decay conditions likely to result there from and
Condition HH — which can be satisfied simply by the developer upgrading buildings it
owns (which may or may be related to retailing or contributing to urban decay). Has the
City undertaken any analysis that links Project impacts to Condition HH or is it simply a
monetary sweetener?
2. Airicultural Resources
The City has made significant strides in recognizing that agricultural conservation
easements may mitigate loss of prime agricultural lands. We also applaud the City for
taking may of our suggestions to improve the easement mitigation requirement imposed
on the Project. The City ignored, however, one of our central points —that mitigation
should occur at a ratio greater than 1:1 in order to more fully mitigate the loss and that is
certainly feasible to do so. In response the City simply points to other jurisdictions that
have required minimal mitigation requirements (while other jurisdictions require much
more). CEQA, however, does not permit the City to meet some "least common
denominator" test to limit its mitigation obligation. If the City desires to override the
significant but unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources CEQA requires that it adopt
all feasible mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts. (CEQA Guidelines §
15043(a).) In this instance, it is imminently feasible to require greater mitigation ratios in
order to lessen the individual and cumulative loss of prime agricultural lands.
3. Enerffy
As we pointed out in our comments on the DREIR, global warming has become
one the most critical environmental problems that humans must confront. Despite
discussing global warming in its revised Energy chapter, the City failed to undertake any
Lodi Planning Commission
October 8,2008
Page 5 of 7
analysis of global warming impacts and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by the
Project. The City responded that, even though it raised the global warming issue in the
DREIR, it need not discuss it as (1) global warming lies outside the alleged restricted
scope of the DRIER, and (2) no meaningful analysis could be undertaken in any event
absent more guidance from state government.
The City is wrong. As discussed above, global warming is a legitimate issue
raised in timely comments and must be addressed. Moreover, the City cannot raise the
issue, inadequately assess its impact, and then claim immunity from comment because
global warming lies outside the scope of DREIR.
Next, the City self-servingly asserts that CEQA does not require assessment of
global warming impacts until the State if California has provided it with step-by-step
guidance on measuring impacts and rendering significance determinations. CEQA's
mandate to assess all impacts is not limited to those issues for which a local jurisdiction
believe it has sufficient guidance. Instead, as the Governor's Office of Planning and
Research ("OPR") has recognized in its June 19,2008, Technical Advisory entitled
CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through California
Environmental QualityAct (CEQA) Review requires a global warming analysis and that
the Energy section of an EIR is an appropriate place for such an analysis. (A copy of the
Technical Advisory is attached as Attachment A.) In the Technical Advisory, OPR
provides a recommended approach:
Each public agency that is a lead agency for complying with CEQA needs
to develop its own approach to performing a climate change analysis for
projects that generate GHG emissions. A consistent approach should be
applied for the analysis of all such projects, and the analysis must be based
on best available information. For these projects, compliance with CEQA
entails three basic steps: identify and quantify the GHG emissions; assess
the significance of the impact on climate change; and if the impact is
found to be significant, identify alternatives and/or mitigation measures
that will reduce the impact below significance. (Technical Advisory at p.
5•)
The Technical Advisory also informs lead agencies must assess whether the
emissions are individually or cumulatively significant. (Id.) Thus, the City must
consider the impact of the Project when viewed in connection with the effects of past,
current, and probable future projects. (Id.)
As indicated in the Technical Advisory (at p. 6), CEQA requires the lead agency
must also determine the threshold of significance for the project. It should be noted that
the State Lands Commission recently stated in a draft Environmental Impact Report for
the Venoco Ellwood Oil Development and Pipeline Project determined that a project
would be considered having a significant impact if its GHG emissions have a net increase
Lodi Planning Commission
October 8,2008
Page 6 of 7
over the baseline. Because of the severity of the global warming problem as the result of
cumulative GHG emissions worldwide, the State Lands Commission's Draft EIR
coiicludes that the zero -threshold approach appears to be the most scientifically
supportable of the options.2
Additionally, there are available mitigation measures that could be incorporated
into the project, before it is approved, that could feasibly and substantially reduce the
Project's global warming impacts to a level of insignificance. Submitted as Attachment
C with this comment letter is the California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association's
("CAPCOA") January 2008 report titled CEQA & Climate Change, Evaluating and
Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissionsfrom Projects Subject to the California
Environmental QualityAct. " Appendix B of this report presents 45 pages of potential
mitigation measures that could reduce air quality impacts. Many of which could be
incorporated to offset air quality impacts, including GHG emissions.
In sum, in light of the Governor's Executive Order 5-3-05 (June 1,2005) and the
requirement that GHG be significantly reduced by 2020 and even further reduced by
2050, it is incomprehensible that the City, a subdivision of the state, has essentially
thumbed its nose at the Governor's Executive Order and refused to even attempt to
evaluate the Project's GHG emission and contributions to global warming.
4. Alternatives
Has the City presented the Planning Commission with an adequate array of
alternatives that meet critical project objectives that offer environmental benefits over the
proposed Project; or is the Alternative Analysis simply an exercise is rationalizing the
development as proposed by the developer to maximize his fiscal return? We fear the
latter as we have consistently pointed out that the City lacked a meaningful set of
alternatives. We were encouraged when in the City represented to the public that its
consultants would include in the DREIR up to two additional project alternatives. It now
appears that one of the alternatives the City expected to include was the Reynolds Ranch
site —the same site the City has now approved 750,000 square feet of commercial
development. We urge the Planning Commission to require that the City present a
meaningful alternative, including redevelopment of the existing Wal-Mart site that not
2 The State Lands Commission's Draft Environmental Impact Report is available
on line at:
http://slc.ca.f-)ov/Division Pages/DEPM/DEPM Programs and Reports/Venoco Santa
Barbara/Venoco Santa Barbara.html
A copy of the Lands Commission's Draft EIR's GHG analysis is Attachment B to
these comments.
Lodi Planning Commission
October 8,2008
Page 7 of 7
only will avoid many of the main environmental impacts but also more in line with the
objective of avoiding new development harmful to downtown.
B. Statement of Overriding Considerations
The City proposes to override the significant but unavoidable environmental
impacts with a host of unsupported, speculative benefits. Given the projected sales
decline of at least 34 percent in the City, and the likely loss of established business, added
expense of an alleged stepped up urban decay enforcement, no evidence is presented that
actually shows the Project to be a net tax benefit to the City once the true cost of the
Project is measured. Without some supporting analysis the City cannot override the
adverse environmental consequences.
C. Conclusion
The proposed Lodi Shopping Center is not good planning for a healthy Lodi in
these uncertain and tenuous economic times. The City has already approved nearly one
million square feet on new commercial space close to the downtown. Why approve even
more to drive more existing business down. On behalf of Citizens for Open Government,
we urge the Planning Commission to reject the EIR and fundamentally inadequate and
deny the Project as simply unwise to undertake at this time.
Sincerely,
Donald B. Mooney l
John L. Marshall fZ
Attorneys for Citizens for Open Government
Page 1 of 1
Randi Johl 5
From: Blair King
Sent: Wednesday, November05,2008 3:02 PM
To: City Council: Bob Johnson - External
cc: Randi Johl; Steve Schwabauer; Rad Bartlam
Subject: Wal-Mart Appeal
Dear Council:
Aaron Rios of Wal-Mart called today and reports that he and Darryl Browman have conflicts the week of
November 17th and 24th and request the Council consider scheduling the appeal hearing the weeks of December
8th or 15th.
Blair
11/05/2008
Please immediately confirm receipt
of this fax by calling 333-6702
CITY OF LODI
P.O. BOX 3006
LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910
ADVERTISING INSTRUCTIONS
SUBJECT PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPEALS OF BROWMAN
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND WAL-MART STORES, INC.
REGARDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO NOT
CERTIFY THE LODI SHOPPING CENTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT
PUBLISH DATE: SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 8,2008
TEAR SHEETS WANTED: One (1) please
SEND AFFIDAVIT AND BILL TO: RAND] JOHL, CITY CLERK
City of Lodi
P. O Box 3006
Lodi, CA 95241-1910
DATED: THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6,2008
ORDERED BY: RANDI JOHL
CITY CLERK
IFER M ERRIN, CMC
A5SISTANT CITY CLERK
form Wvins.doc
MARIA BECERRA
ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK
or r
DECLARATION OF POSTING
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPEALS OF BROWMAN DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY AND WAL-MART STORES, INC. REGARDING THE DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO NOT CERTIFY THE LODI SHOPPING CENTER
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
On Friday, November 7, 2008, in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, a
Notice of Public Hearing to consider appeals of Browman Development Company and
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. regarding the decision of the Planning Commission to not certify
the Lodi Shopping Center Environmental Impact Report (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
declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on November 7, 2008, at Lodi, California.
AA ju
j�"'
J IFERPERRIN, CMC
A SISTANTY CLERK
N:\AdniinistrationNCLFRK\Forms\DECPOSTCD.DOC
ORDERED BY:
RANDIJOHL
CITY CLERK
MARIA BECERRA
ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK
DECLARATION OF MAILING
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPEALS OF BROWMAN DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY AND WAL-MART STORES, INC. REGARDING THE DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO NOT CERTIFY THE LODI SHOPPING CENTER
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
On Friday, November 7, 2008, in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, I deposited in
the United States mail, envelopes with first-class postage prepaid thereon, containing a Notice
of Public Hearing to consider appeals of Browman Development Company and Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. regarding the decision of the Planning Commission to not certify the Lodi Shopping
Center Environmental Impact Report, attached hereto marked Exhibit A. The mailing list for
said matter is attached hereto marked Exhibit B.
There is a regular daily communication by mail between the City of Lodi, California, and the
places to which said envelopes were addressed.
I declare under penalty of perjurythat the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on November 7, 2008, at Lodi, California.
4ASISTANT
FER fGITY
RRIN, CMC
CLERK
Forms/decmail.doc
ORDERED BY:
RANDIJOHL
CITY CLERK, CITY OF LODI
MARIA BECERRA
ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK
CITY OF LODI
Carnegie Forum
305 West Pine Street, Lodi
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Date: December 10,2008
Time: 6:30 p.m.
For information regarding this notice please contact:
Randi Johl
City Clerk
Telephone: (209) 333-6702
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
EXHIBIT A
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, December 10, 2008, at the hour of
6:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council will
conduct a public hearing at the Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, to consider
approval of the following item:
a) Appeals cf Browman Development Company and Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. regarding the decision of the Planning Commission to
not certify the Lodi Shopping Center Environmental Impact
Report.
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, 2nd 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 er of the Lodi City Council:
Jahl
City Clerk
Dated: November 5,2008
Approved as to form:
J
D. Stephen Schwabauer
City Attorney
CLERKtiPUMEARWOTICESMTCDD-DOC IM"
FIEXHIBIT BI
APPEALS REGARDING DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO
NOT CERTIFY THE LODI SHOPPING CENTER EIR
Mailing List
Judy V. Davidoff, Esq.
Sheppard Mullin Richter& Hampton LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Andrea K. Leisy, Esq.
Remy Thomas Moose & Manley LLP
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 210
Sacramento, CA 95814
Lodi Shopping Center Public Hearing 300' radius mailing list
APN
OWNER
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
02742001
GEWEKE
PO BOX 1210
LODI
CA
95241
FAMILY PTP
02742002
GEWEKE VI11
PO BOX 1420
LODI
CA
95241
LP
02742003
IN N OUT
13502
BALDWIN
CA
91706
BURGERS
HAMBURGER
PARK
CORP
Lei
02742014
GEWEKE VIII
PO BOX 1210
LODI
CA
95241
LP
05803003
VAN RUITEN
PO BOX 520
WOODBRIDGE
CA
95258
RANCH LTD
05803011
BDC LODI III
100 SWAN OAKLAND
CA
94621
LP
WAY SUITE
05803012
WAL MART
MAIL STOP
BENTONVILLE
AR
72716
REAL EST
0555
BUSINESS
TRU
05803013
BDC LODI Ili
100 SWAN
OAKLAND
CA
94621
LP
WAY STE 206
05814001
TESORO
300
SAN ANTONIO
TX
78216
SIERRA
CONCORD
PROPERTIES
PLAZA DR
LLC
05814004
FRAME,
212
LODI
CA
95242
DEAN K &
RUTLEDGE
SHARON
DR
TR
05814006
HERRMANN,
1200
LODI
CA
95240
CHARLENE K
GLENHURST
TR ETAL
DR
05814011
GREYER,
1432 PARK
LODI
CA
95242
ZANE M &
ST
PATSY R TR
05803010
LODI CITY
PO BOX 3006
LODI
CA
95241
OF
05814011
GREVER,
1432 PARK
LODI
CA
95242
ZAN E M &
ST
PATSY R TR
Created on 11/06/20081:46;00 PM