Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - February 17, 2010 H-01 PHAGENDA ITEM &% CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION ,m AGENDATITLE: Public Hearing to Receive Comments on the Lodi General Plan and Consider Adopting Resolution Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report. MEETING DATE: February 17,2010 PREPARED BY: Community Development Director RECOMMENDEDACTION: 1) Open public hearing to receive comments on the Lodi General Plan and Final Environmental impact Report. 2) Close public hearing. 3) Adopt Resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City Council received a presentation on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and General Plan at the January 6th meeting. The City Council received one public comment at the meeting from Mr. Bruce Fry regarding land use designations for property south of Harney Lane. Subsequent to the meeting, the public comment period closed for comments related to the DEIR. We received 44 comments from a combination of citizens and public agencies during the 45 -day review period. The attached Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) representsthe responses to those comments and proposed revisions to the DEIR. If the City Council is satisfied with the document, we have provided a Resolution for your consideration to certify the FEIR. This Resolution contains the required findings as well as Statements of Overriding Consideration which the City Council is not being asked to adopt the General Plan at this time. We are waiting for comments from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Additionally, we would like to accept any further comment and direction from the City Council in order to prepare the Final Plan which will contain all of the edits and revisions from the environmental process as well as public comment received to date. I anticipate having this work completed for the City Council meeting on April 7, 2010. As with all EIR's, this document assesses the potential impacts the proposed General Plan may have on specific environmental topics. This is has been done on a program level rather than the detail that the City Council may be used to with specific development projects. As a result of the public comment on the DEIR, there are revisions/edits that are being proposed in this FEIR as follows: Blair City Manager General Plan EIR Revisionsto the Draft EIR Section Page Correction 3.2 3.2-15 The second sentence of the first paragraph is amended as follows: Table 3.2-4 presents the existing and projectedJaLPI traffic volumes and LOS for individual roadway segments throughout the city. 3.2 3.2-21 Add paragraph following Table 3.2-4: Future (2030) traffic volumes and LOS values were assessed for two additional north -south segments. between Hamev Lane and Armstronq Road: • Lower Sacramento Rd: 24,500. LOS B • West Lane: 28,500, LOS D Existing dailv traffic volumes and LOS were not assessed. These additional segments do not alter the conclusions presented in the Draft EIR regarding significant environmental impacts and therefore do not trigger recirculation 3.2 3.2-22 The following text is added after the first paragraph of the Impact Methodology section. The referenced Table 3.2-4A may be found at this end of this chapter. The traffic demand forecasting model summarizes land uses, street network, travel characteristics. and other kev factors. Using these data, the model performs a series of calculations to determine the amount of trips generated, where each trip begins and ends, and the route taken by the trio. Trip generation is estimated by land use, using factors, as described in a new table. Table 3.2-4A. These trips are aggregated to determine daily traffic volumes and total vehicle trips in addition to other outcomes. 3.7 3.7-1 The GemallGhe Camanche Reservoir is located on the Mokelumne River approximately 20 miles northeast of the Planning Area (City of Lodi, 1988; Department of Water Resources, 2006). 3.7-4 A second map is added to this page to show groundwater basins. This new map, Fiaure 7.2-1 A is amended at the end of this section. 3.13-15 The following text is added after the third paragraph under the heading "Policies and Mitigations:" Third, the City's Water Conservation Ordinance promotes water conservation by restrictina water of landscaping to certain days and hours. (For example, odd numbered street addresses may only water landscaping on Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays, and watering between May 1 and September 30, between 10AM and 6PM is prohibited.) The ordinance also specifies enforcement procedures, including sanctions for non-compliance. Most importantly. in relation to dry year scenarios, the ordinance also permits the City to place additional restrictions on water use in an emeraencvsituation to manage water pressure and/orsupply demands. Significantand Unavoidable Impacts Pursuantto the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), EIR's are required to providea summary of those impacts which are considered significant and unavoidable. This is Section 5.3 of the DEIR and summarized in the table below. As the City Council is aware, in orderfor the project (in this case the General Plan) to move forward, the Resolution to certifythe FEIR must contain reasons why the benefits of the General Plan outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts. These are considered Statements of Overriding Considerations. General Plan EIR Summary of Significant and Unavoidable Impacts # Impact Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Significance Mitigation Impact 32 Traffic and Circulation 32-1 The proposed General Plan T -G I, T -PI, T -P2, T4:)3, T -P4, T- Significant N o feasible would result in a substantial RI EW, T -NEW, T -P8, T -NEW, T -P9, and mitigation is increase in vehicular traffic T -P10, T -P13, T -P14, T -PI 5 T -P16, T- Unavoidable currently that would cause certain PI 7, T-PI8, T -P19, T -P20, T -P22, T- available. facilities to exceed level of P24, T -P25, T -P27, T -P-28, T -P29, T - service standards established P43, T -P44, T -P45 by the governing agency. 3.2-2 The proposed General Plan T-Pl , T- P2, T -P8, T -P9, T -P 10 Significant N o mitigation may adversely affect and measures are emergency access. Unavoidable feasible. 32-3 The proposed General Plan T -G I,T-P8, T- P9, T-PI0, T -P13, T -P14, Significant N o, feasible may conflict with adopted T-PI5, T -P 16, T -P 17, T -P18, T -P19, T- and mitigationis policies, plans, or programs P20, T -P22, T -P24, T -P25, T -P27, T- Unavoidable currently supporting alternative P28, T -P29, T -P43, T -P44, T -P45, T -G2, available. transportation modes. T -G3, T -G4, T -G5, T -PI I, T -P 12, T- P21,T-P23, T -P26, T -P30, T -P38, T -P39 3.3 Agriculture and Soil Resources 3.3-1 Buildout of the proposed C -G I, C -G2, C -P I, C -P2, C -P3, C -P4, Significant Not directly General Plan would convert C -PS, C -P6, C -P7, C -P8, GM -GI, GM- and mitigable substantial amounts of P2 Unavoidable aside from Important Farmlandto non- preventing agricultural use. development altogether 3.6 Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases 3.6-1 Implementation of the LU -G I, LU -G2, LU -G3, LU -GI, LU -G4, Overall N o feasible proposed General Plan would LU -P2, LU -P3, LU -P6, LU -PI 8, LU -P25, Significant mitigation increase total carbon dioxide LU -P26, LU -P27, GM -GI, GM -G2, GM- Cumulative measures are equivalent emissions in Lodi, G3, GM-PI,GM-P2, GM -P3, GM -P4, Impact, currently compared to existing GM -P6, CD -G I, CD -PI, CD -G-4, CD- Project available conditions. G-5, CD -P3 I, CD -P21, CD -P24, T -G2, Contribution T -G4, T -P 13, T -P14, T-PI5, T -P 16, T- Cumulatively PI 7, T-PI8, T -P19, T -P23, T -P25, T- Considerable P28, T -P29, GM -P 11, GM -P 13, GM -PI 4, GM-PI5, CD -G8, CD -G9, CD -P38, CD -P39, CD -P40, CD -P32, C -P39, C- PNEW, C-PNEW, C -P37, C -P38, C - P40, C -P42, GM -P19, CD-PI5, CD-PI6, CID -P19, C -P43, C -P44, C -P45, C -P41, C -G9, C -G10, C -P36, T -G8, T -P43, T - P44, T -P45, GM -P17, GM-PI8 General Plan EIR 3.8 Air Quality 3.8-1 Implementation of the C -P46. C -P47, C -P48, C -P49, C -P50, C- Significant Nofeasible proposed General Plan could P5 I, C -P52, C -P53, C -P54, C -P55, C- and mitigation result in a cumulatively P56, C -P57, T -G4, T -G5, T -P 14, T -P 15, Unavoidable measures are considerable net increase of T -P IQ T -P 17. T -P 18, T -P IQ T4>20, T- currently criteria pollutants which may P21,T4 22, T -P23, T -P24, T -P25, T4326 available. conflict with or violate an T -P 7, T -P28 T -P29, T -P38, T-1`39, T - applicable air quality plan, air P43, T -P44, T -P45 quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. 3.8-2 Buildout of the proposed C -P46. C -P47, C -P48, C -P49, C -P50, C- Significant No feasible General Plan could expose P51, C -P52, C -P53, C -P54, C -P55, C- and mitigation sensitive receptors to P56, C -P57, T -G4, T -G5, T -P 14, T -P 15, Unavoidable measures are substantial pollutant T -P16, T -P17. T-PI8, T -P19, T4>20, T- currently concentrations. P21, T4>22, T4>23, T -P24, T -P25, T -P26 available. T4>27, T -P28 T -P29, T -P38, T -P39, T - P43. T -P44, T -P45 3.1 1 Noise 3 .11-1 Implementation of the N -P1, N -P2, N -P3 N -P4, N -P5, N -P6, Significant No feasible proposed General Plan could N -P7, N -P8, N -P9, N -PI O, NWNEW and mitigation result in a substantial Unavoidable measures are permanent increase in currently ambient noise levels. available. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A FUNDING AVAI LABLE: N/A Konradt Bartlam Community Development Director KB/kjc Attachments: Final Environmental Impact Report, February, 2010 Draft Resolution LODI GENERAL PLAN SCH# 2009022075 F a ._ LODI GENERAL PLAN SCH# 2009022075 LODI GENERAL PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH# 200902207S CITY OF LODI FEBRUARY 2010 Table of Contents Introduction............................................................................ 1-1 Purpose....................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Organization.............................................................................................................................. 1-1 Process........................................................................................................................................ 1-2 2 Comments on the Draft EIR................................................. 2-1 3 Response to Comments on the Draft EIR ........................... 3-1 Agencies...................................................................................................................................... 3-1 Organizations/Individuals........................................................................................................ 3-7 OralTestimony.......................................................................................................................3-18 4 Revisions to the Draft EIR..................................................... 4-1 Introduction This Program Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared by the City of Lodi (City) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City is the lead agency responsible for ensuring that the proposed Lodi General Plan (General Plan) complies with CEQA. PURPOSE The Final EIR includes the Draft EIR and this document, which includes Comments on and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR, and minor corrections and clarifications to the Draft EIR. It is intended to disclose to City decision makers, responsible agencies, organizations, and the general public, the potential impacts of implementing the proposed General Plan. This program level analysis addresses potential impacts of activities associated with implementation of the General Plan, which are described in Chapter 2: Project Description, of the Draft EIR. The primary purpose of the Final EIR is to revise and refine the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR, published November 25, 2009, in response to comments received during the 45 -day public review period. The review period for the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2006022008) was from November 25, 2009 to January 11, 2010. This document, combined with the Draft EIR, constitutes the Final EIR on the project. This Final EIR amends and incorporates by reference the Draft EIR, which is available as a separately -bound document from the City of Lodi Community Development Department, 221 W. Pine Street, in Lodi, and also available on the Internet at http://www.lodi.gov/community_development/general plan/reports.htm. The Draft FIR contains some impacts that are significant and unavoidable despite extensive mitigating policies, specifically impacts to traffic and circulation, agricultural resources, climate change and greenhouse gases, air quality, and noise. Other potentially significant impacts can be avoided or reduced to levels that are not significant through implementation of the policies identified in the Draft EIR. ORGANIZATION This document contains the following components: • Chapter 2 lists all of the agencies and individuals that submitted written comments on the Draft EIR; reproduces all comments and provides a unique number for each EIR comment in the page margin. • Chapter 3 provides responses to comments, numbered, and in order according to the comments in Chapter 2. • Chapter 4 lists revisions to the Draft EIR by chapter and page, in the same order as the revisions would appear in the Draft EIR. Additional tables and graphics appear at the end of this chapter, also in the same order that they would appear in the Draft EIR. 1-1 Chapter 1: Introduction PROCESS Upon publication of the Final EIR, the City Council will hold a public hearing to certify the EIR and to consider adoption of the proposed General Plan. The City Council will determine the adequacy of the Final EIR, and, if determined adequate, will certify the document as compliant with CEQA. For impacts identified in the EIR that cannot be reduced to a level that is less than significant, the City must make findings and prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations for approval of the Project if specific social, economic, or other factors justify the proposed Project's unavoidable adverse environmental effects. If the City decides to approve the proposed Project for which the Final EIR has been prepared, it will issue a Notice of Determination. Copies of the Final FIR have been provided to agencies and other parties that commented on the Draft EIR or have requested the Final EIR. The Final EIR is also available at the City of Lodi Community Development Department, 221 W. Pine Street, in Lodi and the City's website at: http://www.lodi.gov/community development/general plan/reports.htm. 1-2 2 Comments on the Draft EIR This chapter contains copies of the comment letters and oral comments received on the Draft EIR of the proposed General Plan. A total of 44 comments were received during the 45 -day comment period. Additionally, oral comments were heard at a Planning Commission public hearing on the Draft EIR, on December 9, 2009. Each comment letter is numbered, and each individual comment is assigned a number in the page margin. Responses to each comment are provided in Chapter 3 of this document. Please note that only comments on the Draft EIR are addressed in this Final EIR. Where comments are on the merits of the proposed General Plan rather than on the Draft EIR, this is noted in the response. Where appropriate, the information and/or revisions suggested in these comment letters have been incorporated into the Final EIR. These revisions are included in Chapter 4 of this document. Comments Received on the Proposed Lodi General Plan Letter # Date I Agency/Organization Commenter Public Agencies (Federal, State Regional, Local) AI December 14, 2009 Central Valley Flood Protection James Herota A2 January 6, 2010 Department of Transportation Tom Dumas A3 January 8, 2010 Public Utilities Commission Moses Stites A4 January 11, 2010 City of Stockton Kevin O'Rourke A5 January 11, 2010 San Joaquin Council of Governments Dana Cowell A6 January 11, 2010 San Joaquin Council of Governments Dana Cowell A7 January 11, 2010 San Joaquin County: Community Devel- opment Department Kerry Sullivan Organizations/Individuals B I December 9, 2009 Jane Wagner-Tyack B2 January 8, 2010 Herum/Crabtree Attorneys Steven A. Herum B3 Bruce Fry B4 January 10, 2010 Joseph L. Manassero B5 January 10, 2010 Catherine T. Manassero B6 January 10, 2010 Michael J. Manassero B7 January 10, 2010 Patricia M. Manassero B8 January 10, 2010 Jack D. Ward B9 January 10, 2010 Joseph Kaehler B I 0 January 10, 2010 Illegible name B I I January 10, 2010 John Kaehler B12 January 10, 2010 Illegible name B13 January 10, 2010 Grace Puccinelli B 14 January 10, 2010 Illegible name 2-1 Chapter 2: Comments on the DEIR Comments Received on the Proposed Lodi General Plan Letter # Date Agency/Organization Commenter BIS January 10, 2010 Illegible name B16 January 10, 2010 Douglass Manassero B17 January 10, 2010 Illegible name B18 January 10, 2010 Illegible name B19 January 10, 2010 Illegible name B20 January 10, 2010 Illegible name B21 January 10, 2010 Illegible name B22 January 10, 2010 Steve J. Borra Jr. B23 January 10, 2010 Beverly Borra B24 January 10, 2010 Lucille Borra B25 January 10, 2010 Gary Tsutsumi B26 January 10, 2010 Illegible name B27 January 10, 2010 Illegible name B28 January 10, 2010 Illegible name B29 January 10, 2010 Illegible name B30 January 10, 2010 Thomas Gooding B31 January 10, 2010 Louise Gooding B32 January 10, 2010 Illegible name B33 January 10, 2010 Diede Construction, Inc Mike Mason B34 January 10, 2010 Diede Construction, Inc Jake Diede B35 January 10, 2010 Diede Construction, Inc Steven L. Diede B36 January 10, 2010 Diede Construction, Inc Izzac Ramirez B37 January 10, 2010 Diede Construction, Inc Robert Lee Oral Testimony (C) C I December 9, 2009 Planning Commission Hearing 2-2 LETTER Al STATE of CAUFORNIA —THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARKOLQ SCHWARMNEG[#M GOVERNM CAM UKAL VALLEY rLU%JID P OTEOTI N BOARD 3310 M CaminQAve., Ism, LL40 SAC 6744)IT0. A 9 I RECEIVED (919) 57#-QB�9 F1o11� (916) 5T4 -Q692 RERMUM. MG) 5744)M FAK[ (91G) S14-D.M Decarnber 14, 2009 I onrac4t Barttarn City of Lodi Planning Division 221 West Pine Suet Lodi, CA 95241 Dear Mr. Bartlarn: State Clearinghouse ( CH) Number. 2909922075 City of Lodi General flan Update EIR - Draft EIR DEC 15 2009 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT CR OF lODI Staff for the Central Valley Flood Protection Board has reviewed the subject document and provides the fbilowing comrner : The proposed project is located within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Flood Protection Board (Formerly known as The Reclamation Board). The Board is rewired to erdbroe standards for the construction. maintenance and protection of adopted flood control plans that vAll protect public lands from floods. The jurisdiction of the Board includes the Central galley, including all tributaries and distdbutaries. arf the Sacramento River and the San Joaquin River, and designated ffoodways (Title 23 California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 2). Board permit is required prior to stardng the work within the Board's jurisdiction for the following: • The plaoernent, construction, reoonstruction, rerhovaf, or abandonment of any landscaping, culvert, bridge, conduit, fence, projeWon, fill, embankment, building, structure, obstrucWn, encroachment, excavation, the planting, or removal of vegetation, and any repair or maintenance Rmt involves cutting into the levee (CCR Section ); • Existing structures that predate permitting or where N is necessary to establish the conditions normally imposed by permitting. The circumstanOES include those where responsibility for the encroachment has not been cJeady established or ownership and use have been revised (CCR Section 6); • Vegetation plantings will require the submission of detailed design drawings; ideintJ#lcatlon of vegetation type; plant and tree names (i.e. common name and scientific name); total number of each type of plant and tree; planting spacing and irrigation method that will be within the project area; a oomplete vegetative management plan for maintenance to prevent the interferenoe with flood control, levee maintenance, inspection and flood fight procedures (Title 23, California Cotte of Regulations CCR Secdon 131). December 14, 2009 lonradt Bardam Page 2 al' 2 TM.permit application. and Title 23 CCR can be found an the Central Malley Flood Protection Board's vmbslte at http:/Awdw.g&b.ca.AavI` Contact your local, federal and state a0enoies, as other permits may apply. If you have any questions please oordact. me at (9 16) 574-0651 or by email jherota@water.ca.gov. Sincerely, James Heroto Staff Environmental Scientist l=loodwayr ProtecWn Seton ca: Govemors Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street, Roam 121 ammentot CA 95814 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPf13trATION DJSTR= 10 O (IM B. DX MARM LU rM XING M.13LM 9!= P110149 (°20 94&7%3 FAX PM MI -300 TW 7!! Jammy 6, 2010 Air. Rad Bartham City of Iii Planning DMdon 2.21 Nest Pine Shvd Lodi, CA 95241 bear Mr. Barffim: RECEIVED ,IAV 1 Z 2010 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DUT CITY OF LORI 10 -,I -Various City of Lodi Cleneml Plan Update SCH 2009022075 LETTER A2 I Fi�.}ipiFrp�a�oe�l 8e e�ar�y �I?e1 The alifotala-Department of Tra ortWon .(epartinmt) appreelates the malty to have reviewed the Draft E n.vj'onmemul Impact Report WM for the City of Lodi General Plan. The D Ment has the. following ommemts: Trate Operations Comments 1. Refar to PW ,2-25, Propped General Plan fticks that Red= the Impact Section T -NEW. This secdon discusses applong a standard of Levu of SerWoe- (L0 R during peals hour Band ons ce all skeds in the City}s jurisdiction. A2-1 Pima amber State Routs 12 (Kettlan Lane) is a Caltrans State Highway and the minhum LOS standard is D. . Reft to page 3.2-9, Trucking. We woWd Bloc the City of Lodi ST'AA Truck A2-2 Routes Map included in the Lodi Ge a1 Plan, . In order to maintain the int rlty of flay Site Highway Syskm (SETS), proposed developmerds with patwial impact to the SIBS will need to be reviewed by Caltrans. Protects impacEir the State I-Iighay+� may rehire a Traffic Impact Study (TTS) in ardor to deteffaine the. operational mitiga on mmsares A2-3 neces ary► to rcme&te the identified transportation impacts. The ITS will need to ba completed per Caltrans' Gulde for the Prepwation of Traffic Impact Studies, December 2002. The TIS shmAd hwAnde all approved and pending proj s w1&m dw.vicinity, , <Mr. Rad Bartharn> <January 11, 2010 <Page 2 4. Please remember, the City of Lodi General Plan should be consistent with A2-4 Caltrans' Ramp Metering, HOV, and Park -and -Ride Plan as a means to further reduce traffic congestion. Travel Forecasting Comments: 1. Table ES -1: General Plan Population, and Employment Potential - The housing, population and employment in the General Plan appear to be inconsistent with SJCOG underlying data. The date in the DEIR for the proposed City of Lodi A2-5 General Plan Update is higher than SJCOG's underlying data. Regardless of which alternative is chosen, Caltrans recommends the City of Lodi work with SJCOG to update the regional land use projections in the next RTP by incorporating the higher numbers in the Lodi General Plan Update. This will ensure approved transportation projects with regional impacts can be accurately identified and properly mitigated. 2. Table 3.1-2: Housing Units, by Type - Please clarify what type of units "2 to 4 A2-6 units" and "5 or More Units" are so that we can determine the trip generation. 3. Table 3.2-1: Average Daily Traffic Volumes and LOS Thresholds — Please specify what highways under "Facility Type" and amount of truck volumes under "Daily Volume". 4. Table 3.2-3: Citywide Transportation Analysis Results for the Proposed A2-8 General Plan --- Please explain how "Total Vehicle Trips" were computed and provide trip generation tables. 5. Table 3.2-4: Existing and Proposed General Plan Average Daily Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service --- Please explain how the "Proposed General Plan A2-9 Daily Traffic Volume" was forecasted and to what year. The DEIR shows existing daily traffic volumes for SR -99 NB/SB Eight Mile Rd. to Armstrong to be 53,000 and the 2008 Caltrans ADT volumes at this same location show 62,000. Please explain this substantial difference. 6. The Department requests that the DEIR address the potential traffic impacts of the City of Lodi's growth on SR. 99 and Interstate 5. It is recommended that a traffic A2-10 mitigation "fair share" fee program be considered with the adopting of the General Plan to address Lodi's growth impacts on the State Highway Transportation System. These projects should be clearly identified as funded through the impact fee program in the DEIR. For example, not mentioned in the DEIR are SR -99 "Caltrans improves mobility across California" <Mr. Rad Bartham> <Januaty 11, 2010 <Page 3 New Capacity projects. The widening of SJ99 four to six lanes from Junction 12 cast to the Sacramento County line. The SJ -99 four to six lane widening from north of Harney Lane to junction Highway 12 cast was also not mentioned. 7. Air Quality — Please send the DEIR to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution A2-11 Control District (SJVAPCD) for review. System & Advanced Planning Comments: 1. In addition to multimodal and Travel Demand Modeling measures to reduce traffic, please consider other methods to maintain and enhance level of service A2-12 (LOS) standards on State Routes through Lodi such as access management, site design, and on-site development circulation. 2. In order to accommodate future growth in the city and surrounding areas, please remember to insure and preserve adequate right of way for future State Route A2-13 improvements to the mainline, ramps and bridges, light rail, and off-road bike, pedestrian trails. 3. The following items were left out of the City of Lodz General Plan Update, but A2-14 should be included in future General Plan Updates: • Provision of a truck route map in the document which includes how plans are being made to link major industrial centers and shopping centers to rail line distribution centers, and STAA truck routes and establish where there are all significant STAA truck route gaps. Delineate all gaps on a map, and establish methodologies including funding as to how these gaps will be addressed over a specific time period. • Include discussion of what efforts are being made with adjacent jurisdictions to provide connectivity for larger sized or STAA trucks. "Caltrans improves mobility across California" <Mr. Rad Bartham> <January 11, 2010 <Page 4 Thank you for continuing to coordinate and consult with the Department to identify and address potential cumulative transportation impacts that may occur within this geographical location. This will assist us in ensuring that traffic safety and quality standards are maintained for the traveling public on existing and future State transportation facilities. /increly, c� TOM DUMAS, Chief Office of Metropolitan Planning "Caltrans Improves inobility across California" STATE OF CALIFORNU4Affdd PUBLtC LFTILrTiES COMMISSION 5MVRIMMAVOM WFRNWWM1;A.9W1W-MM January 8, 2010 Kom & Hartlam LETTER A3 GO"W City of Lodi 221 W Pine Sit Lodi, CA 95240 JAN Re: Notice H 009=7 �Cittyy of Lodi a l Plan Update ) 1TyO Li[j�jY T 7' 577_ W_ .0__s_ As the state agency responsible -for and gfety within California. the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC or Commission) rewmmm ods tha-dew1opment projects proposed near rail corridors be planned with the safety of these corridors in mind. New .developments and improvements to ex.Wjng facilites may increase vehicular buffic volurnM not only on streets and at intersections, but also at at -grade highway -rail cromi.nss. In addition, projmU may increase pedestrian traffic at mwsin� and else h m' along rail corridor rights�of way. Woflmg with CPUC staff early in project planning will help Project proponents, agency staff, and other reviewers to identify potential project impacts and appropriate mitigation measures, and thmby improve the safety of motorists, pohsWans, mdroad perwnnel, and railroad passenger. We concur with the City of Lodi in addressing rag safety in the DEER; A pas 2,16-17, Comnumity Design and Livability,Transportatiar� Improve railma►d crossings to mini� safaV hazards and allow for additioaal capacity improvements. Page 2-19, Support grade wpamted railroad crossings, where f aible and ether appropriate measures adjacent to rMlcoad trades to easare the safety of the community. Page -2-22, Traffic and Cimulation section under Significame criteria, implementation oftE proposed General Plan would have a potentially significant umRsporwhonftraffic if in would, Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supping alternative transportation modes, such as rail transit, buses, bicycles, vanpools and waling. We reronunend that the City hw rponate any impmvemenu to the at -grade railroad era inp and rail corridors im the existing City mitigation fee program to ensm Haat improvements get pr+og amm W with an actual funding modes mism. This will dw add€'ew project specific and curnuiative impacts of new development projecU to rail facilities. Otherwise, the burden could A3-1 eventually fall on one project or the pity, depending on the level of sig�aif+icance and or safety come=. This could potentially affect the int pro cm for future development projects according to CEQA. Konradt Bartlam City of Lodi SCH # 2009022075 January 8, 2010 Page 2 of 2 Thank you for your consideration of these comments. If you have any questions in this matter, please contact me at (415) 713-0092 or email at ms �>cpuc.c.a. €�. Sincerely, Moses Stites Rail Corridor Safety Specialist Consumer Protection and Safety Division Rail Transit and Crossings Branch 515 L Street, Suite 1119 Sacramento, CA 95814 2 LETTER A4 M& =5 CITY OF STOCKTON OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER City Hall • 425 N. El Dorado Steed + Stockton, CA 952D2-1997 ; 2091937-8212 • Fax 2 / 937-7149 www.st ktan9w.corn# January 11, 2010 Rad Bartlam Community Development Director City of Lodi P. O. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241 CITY OF STOCKTON COMMENT'S ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CffY OF LODIAKNER L..PL _ Thank you for the opportunity to review Impact Report (DEIR) for the above -noted following comments: and comment an the Draft Environmental General Flan. Staff respectfully offers the 1. Fund Use Policies: To ensure that future growth wail proceed in an orderly manner, Lodi utas proposed to designate an Urban Reserve Boundary (URB) A4-1 beyond the existing City limits shown on the Land Use Diagram. We recommend that the following land use polices or measures for the URB be Included in the General Plan and the DEIR: (1) that Lodi expands the URB only when applicable General Plant policies can be met and approprlate services and adequate infrastructure can be provided; and () future urban development in the URB be In conformance with Lodrs adopted master Witty and circulation plans. 2. Lard Use Policies, Growth Management and Infrastructure: Stockton"s adopted General Plan has designated an open spacelagricultural land use along the northern boundary as a buffer zone between the City of Stockton and the City of A4-2 Lodi. We recommend that Lodi also take into consideration the same land use designation up to Its southern Sphere of Influence boundary in order to provide a more meaningful and effective greenbelt buffer. 6. The DEIR Indicates that the Armstrong Road Agricultural Cluster Study Area will be designated with agricultural, open space or large -lot rural residential use to A4-3 ensure maintenance of this area as greenbelt* For consistency purposes, the proposed study area on the land use diagram should reflect this policy and show a future land use designation in that area. Comments on the DEIR for City of Lodi General Plan January 11, 2010 Paeof 4. Traffic and Circulation: It appears that the trio analysis did not consider A4-4 potential impacts to arterial roadways including Lower Sacramento Road and West Lane south of Harney Lane, which Is within the proposed Lodi General Plan boundaries and should be to Armstrong Road. 5. Public Facilities: In order to provide protection to the public through effective fire A4-5 protection services and the incorporation of the fire safety features in new and existing development, the General Plan and the IDEIR should include a fire response time which may be used to determine future fire statlon needs under Gmwth Management and Infrastructure Element Policies. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at 937-8212 or Community Development Director Mike Niblock at 937-8444. KEVIN :0'IRO INTERIM CITY MANAGER LM:rmmn:sis emc: Mayor and City Council Rets Nosky, City Attorney Guy Petzold, Deputy City Aftmey Michael M. Niblock, Community Development Director Gregg S. Meissner, Deputy Director/Community Development Department - Planning and Engineering Services Division Mark J. "Iso n, Dir or of Municipal Utilities Department Robert Murdoch, Interim Director of Public Works Department Matt Dualme, Fire Prevention Chief Blair Ulring, Police Chief of Police Department David Stagnaro, AIGP, Planning Manager Michael McDowell, Planning Manager Jenny Liaw, Senior Planner {iC+.'+.''F_1?n:i T+T+why-1&t��7q'..r- .kkr; LETTER A5 SAN ]"OAQUIN COUNCIL 4F GOVERNMENTS 555 E Weber Azwme * .Stockon, Gatif�rnia 95202 209.M"W -,209-235-0438(f ) 11'1v1aSjC0g.Otg January 11, 2010 Mr Rad Bartlam APM_kb-,st1P Community Development Director °`C" CHAIR City of Lodi hrdmty T O&A7 P-0- Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241 1:;t.LGtiY7; ii7 Rf C'fQsft MemberAgemunr Dear Mr Bartlam. CFTI€S SK ESC.3 t,0 t.. +.arrlaor' Re: ALUC Review - City of Lodi's Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) LODI, MANTZcA> Lodi General Plan: SCH# 2009022075 JUP40K S i 0C 1CT0N. TRAM Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important document. The San AN ° Joaquin Council of Governments, in carrying out the duties of the County's Airport TPIF CnUNTY or 3ATC Y0AQGPZC Land Use Commission (ALUC), has reviewed the above -referenced document with respect to safety and regional aviation land use planning pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The following comments are offered on behalf of the ALUC: 1) As discussed with the DEIR, there are two public use airports that are located within the planning boundaries of Lodi's General Plan, Lodi Airpark and Kingdon Executive Airport. The 2009 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) gives detailed information on the existing and future operations of these two airports. Also within the ALUCP, zones of compatible land uses have been established surrounding each respective airport's "Area of Influence" (AIA). Special commendation is noted for including the recently approved compatibility map in the DEIR and incorporating a discussion within the Land Use, Noise, and Hazards sections. Although not enough information has been submitted to the ALUC for detailed consistency analysis of the future land uses as they relate to the compatibility zones, the general land use patterns appear to be consistent. 2) Since neither of the airports AIA's fall within Lodi's City limits, it is the ALUC's understanding that the County of San Joaquin will be the lead agency AS -1 for any future projects that fall outside of the city limits but within Lodi's ALUC Comments — Lodi GP January 11, 2010 Sphere of Influence. However there may be exceptions to this for certain projects resulting in Lodi taking the responsibility as the lead agency In either circumstance, the ALUC requires notification from the lead agency at the time of application. Upon notification and submittal of required project information, ALUC staff will make the determination the project's consistency with the most recent adopted Compatibility Zones. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on Lodi's General Plan. If you have any questions please call the ALUC's staff planner, Laura Brunn, at (209) 235- 0579. Sincerely, DANA COWELL Deputy Director LETTER A6 SAID JOAQUIN C€]UNC1L OF GOVERNM13NTS 555 E. We Avenve • Swrkton, +ahtforwa 952W 209,233.0600.209,235.0438( x) auwu.sjcag:osg The establishment of a Regional Congestion Management Program (RCMP) is required by State Government Code, Section 65088 — 65089 10 and the County's Measure K Renewal Ordinance, Section 1 The purpose of the RCMP is to monitor the cumulative transportation impacts of growth of the regional roadway system, establish a level of service standard, identify deficient regional roadways and develop plans to mitigate the deficiencies, and encourage travel demand management and operational preservation. The following roadways within Lodi's jurisdiction are monitored as part of the adopted RCMP Roadway Network. - Harney Ln. — Lower Sacramento Rd. to SR 99 Hutchins St. — Harney Rd. to Kettleman Ave (SR 12) Lower Sacramento — Harney Lane to Turner Rd Kettleman Lane (SR 12) — West City Limit to SR 99 Victor Rd. (SR 12) — SR 99 to East City Limits Turner Rd. — West City Limits to Lower Sacramento Rd. SR 99 — Northern to Southern City Limits January 11, 2010 Lary Rvv= ctiAi* Mr. Rad Bartlam AmJfAy on Community Development Director .ft;, cra;lig City of Lodi A�-mw T P.O Box 3006, Lodi CA 95241 ti:,r�a7s+s ijixr.G�ra Dear Mr. Bartlam. ,CTIKS, Oi "CA t,ON'. ,A,-,.iKor' Re: CMA Review - City of Lodi's Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) LOUL MANTECA, Lodi General Plan: SCH# 2009022075 YitACY Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important document. As the AND County's designated Congestion Management Agency, the San Joaquin Council of THE COUNTY Or 9AN 1 q& « Governments (SJCOG) has reviewed the above -referenced document with respect to traffic impacts pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The establishment of a Regional Congestion Management Program (RCMP) is required by State Government Code, Section 65088 — 65089 10 and the County's Measure K Renewal Ordinance, Section 1 The purpose of the RCMP is to monitor the cumulative transportation impacts of growth of the regional roadway system, establish a level of service standard, identify deficient regional roadways and develop plans to mitigate the deficiencies, and encourage travel demand management and operational preservation. The following roadways within Lodi's jurisdiction are monitored as part of the adopted RCMP Roadway Network. - Harney Ln. — Lower Sacramento Rd. to SR 99 Hutchins St. — Harney Rd. to Kettleman Ave (SR 12) Lower Sacramento — Harney Lane to Turner Rd Kettleman Lane (SR 12) — West City Limit to SR 99 Victor Rd. (SR 12) — SR 99 to East City Limits Turner Rd. — West City Limits to Lower Sacramento Rd. SR 99 — Northern to Southern City Limits SJCOG Comments — Lodi GP January 11, 2010 One of the major implementation actions of the RCMP is to establish and monitor Level of Service (LOS) conditions on the Network and to assess where any deficiencies exist. A roadway segment is considered deficient if operating at a LOS of "B" or "F" (as calculated per the RCMP's adopted methodology). It should be noted that part of the methodology for determining the LOS includes the deduction of all interregional trips (pass-through trips that originate outside of the county), traffic generated from low-income housing, and traffic generated by high-density residential located within one-fourth mile of a fixed rail passenger station from the volumes. Once a deficient roadway segment is identified, the agency where the majority of a deficient segment physically lies will have twelve months to prepare a Deficiency A6-1 Plan. Government Code Section 65089.4 details the required analysis and components of a Deficiency Plan. Upon implementation of the proposed General Plan's land uses, the DEIR anticipates that several of the roadways listed on page one will exceed the CMP Program's adopted LOS standards; with impacts to Kettleman and SR 99 being significant and unmitigable. CMP statute provides that, regardless of any overriding considerations that the City of Lodi may adopt as part of the FEIR, the jurisdiction will be required to prepare a Deficiency Plan at the time the roadway becomes deficient. Although roadway segments operating at LOS "D" (per RCMP methodology) are not A6-2 considered deficient within the RCMP, this standard does trigger a requirement. Roadway segments operating at LOS "D" are subject to the preparation of a plan that analyzes specific strategies for operational preservation and transportation demand management. SJCOG is currently preparing a Regional Travel Demand Management Action Plan the will give future guidance. SJCOG does recognize and commends the City on its incorporation of the policies that tie directly to the intent of the Regional Congestion Management Program. A second major implementation action of the CMP is the CMA's requirement to analyze and comment on future land uses that may impact roadways located within the RCMP network. The Land Use Analysis Process was adopted as part of the 2007 Regional Congestion Management Plan and is also part of state CMP Legislation (Section 65089) and the Measure K Renewal Ordinance. SJCOG now receives referrals from member jurisdictions development proposals for review, analysis and follow-up action where appropriate as part of RCMP implementation. Based on A6-3 analysis using the RCMP process, proposals resulting in a degradation of LOS conditions require the identification and implementation of mitigation measures to resolve or mitigate the identified impact(s). SJCOG Comments — Lodi GP January 11, 2010 As future land use projects that generate 125 or more peak hour trips go forward with the entitlement process, SJCOG, in implementing the RCMP, will require that the potential impacts to roadways be analyzed within the project's Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and accompanying EIR. The TIA and EIR should each contain a section that specifically addresses requirements and standards of the Regional Congestion Management Program. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on Lodi's General Plan. If you have any questions please call the RCMP's lead planner, Laura Brunn, at (209) 235- 0579 We would be pleased to meet with the city concerning these comments if that would be helpful. Sincerely, �d Ih DANA COWELL Deputy Director SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1810 E. HAZELTON AVE., STOCKTON, CA 95205-6232 PHONE, 209/468.3121 FAX: 209/468-3163 I LETTER A7 I January 11, 2010 RECEIVED Rad Bartlam COMMUNIP� DEVELOPMENT DEFT Community Development Department CITY OF LODI City of Lodi Post Office Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241-1910 RE: LODI GENERAL PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH #2009022075 Dear Mr. Bartlam: The San Joaquin County Community Development Department appreciates the opportunity to review the above referenced document. We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and offer the following comments. The draft EIR makes several references to the "Armstrong Road Agricultural/Cluster Study Area". This area is entirely within the unincorporated portion of San Joaquin County, and subject to land use authority by the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors. Although there have been discussions regarding the potential for creation of the Armstrong Road Agricultural/Cluster Zoning classification, the County is not engaged in any studies of this area, nor involved in the preparation of any Specific Plans or other planning programs for this area. On April 21, 2009, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors voted to authorize the Community Development Director to sent a letter to the City of Lodi clarifying the Board's position that the City of Lodi must submit the necessary applications for the creation of the Specific Plan and preparation of the EIR and pay all costs associated with the review and processing of the application for the creation of the Armstrong Road Agricultural/Cluster Zoning classification. Pursuant to the Board's action, the enclosed letter was sent to the City of Lodi on April 23, 2009. To date, the City has not submitted any applications or application fees to the San Joaquin County Community Development Department for the creation of the Armstrong Road Agricultural/Cluster Zoning. -2 - If you have any questions, I can be reached at (209) 468-3140. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City's Draft EIR. Sincerely, KERRY SULLIVAN Director KS:ss SONINKERRY/BARTLAM LTR Enclosure c: Board of Supervisors Manuel Lopez David Wooten Mark Myles Ray Hoo File: Cluster Zone Pg�iN SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY e COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1810 E. HAZEITON AVE., STOCKTON, CA 95205-6232 PHONE: 209/468-3121 FAX: 209/468.3163 April 23, 2009 Blair King, City Manager City of Lodi, City Hall 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 Dear Mr. King: Re: Armstrong Road Agricultural/Cluster Zoning Classification On April 21, 2009, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors authorized the Community Development Department to send a letter to the City of Lodi clarifying the Board's position that the City of Lodi must submit the necessary applications for the creation of the Specific Plan and preparation of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and pay all costs associated with the review and processing of the applications for the creation of the Armstrong Road Agricultural/Cluster Zoning Classification. Two consulting firms submitted adequate proposals for preparation of the Specific Plan and EIR. Mintier Harnish's proposal is for $483,486.00 and Augustine Planning Associates is for $366,208.00. As both proposals meet the requirements of the Request for Proposal, the Community Development Department would like to award the contract to Augustine Planning Associates in the event that the City of Lodi elects to go forward with the project. The total cost for the Specific Plan and EIR would be $488,108.00, based upon the consultant fee plus the County's administrative fees of 26.5% of the cost of the EIR, plus 35% of the cost of the Specific Plan. Enclosed is an application form for the Specific Plan. Section 9-806.2 (enclosed) of the Development Title states that: Applications for Specific Plans or Specific Plan Amendments may be initiated by the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, Director of Community Development, or the property owner or the property owner's authorized agent. Since the City of Lodi will be the applicant, the City will serve as the "property owner's authorized agent." When the City submits the fees and application materials, the City also needs to submit documentation in writing from the property owners within the Letter to Blair King Armstrong Road Cluster Zone April 23, 2009 Page2 proposed project area that the City of Lodi is representing them in the application process. Please contact me if you have any questions. I can be reached at (209) 468-3140. Sincerely, KERRY SULLIVAN, DIRECTOR /eel Enclosures c: Board of Supervisors Manuel Lopez David Wooten Mark Myles File: ClusterZone4-23-09 9-805.3 (b) Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors CHAPTER 9-806 shall hold a Public Hearing to take final action if the Planning Commission has recommended approval or if SPECIFIC PLANS the Planning Commission's denial was appealed. (Ord. 3715) Sections: 9-806.1 Intent. 9-805.4 APPROVAL. 9-806.2 Requirements for Application. Prior to approving an application for a Public Financ- 9-806.3 Review Procedures. ing Plan or a Public Financing Plan Amendment, the 9-806.4 Approval. Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors shall 9-806.5 Recovery of Costs. determine that the Public Financing Plan or the Public Financing Plan Amendment is consistent with the General 9-806.1 INTENT. Plan and applicable Master Plan. The intent of this Chapter is to provide a method for (Ord. 3715) adopting and amending Specific Plans, as provided in the California Government Code. 9-805.5 RECOVERY OF COSTS. (Ord. 36 For a Public Financing -Plan or a Public Financing Plan Amendment prepared at the County's expense, the 9-806.2 REQUIREMENTS FOR Board of Supervisors may impose a Public Financing APPLICATION. Plan fee. The fee shall be applied to persons seeking Applications for Specific Plans or Specific Pian approvals for development within the area covered by the Amendments may be initiated by the Board of Supervi- Public Financing Plan or Public Financing Plan Amend- sors, Planning Commission, Director of Community ment. The fee charged shall be a prorated amount deter- Development, or the property owner or the property mined on the basis of the amount of land proposed for owner's authorized agent. Applications shall be filed with development expressed as a percentage of the total land the Community Development Department. A fee, as included in the applicable Pubic Financing Plan or Pubic specified by resolution of the Board of Supervisors, shall Financing Plan Amendment. be required. in -A 071 CN (r)rri 36751 9-806.3 REVIEW PROCEDURES. Specific Plan Applications shall be reviewed using the Public Hearing Review Procedure in Chapter 9-220, with modifications as provided in this Section. (a) Planning Commission. At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the Planning Commission shall recom- mend approval of the application or deny the application. (1) If the Planning Commission recommends approval, the application shall be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors. (2) If the Planning Commission denies the Specific Plan Application, the action is final, unless appealed to the Board of Supervisors. (b) Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors shall hold a Public Hearing to take final action if the Planning Commission has recommended approval or if the Planning Commission's denial was appealed. (Ord. 3675) 9-806.4 APPROVAL. Prior to approving an application for a Specific Plan or a Specific Plan Amendment, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors shall determine that the 430 LETTER B1 Comments to Planning Commission Regarding Draft General Plan and Draft ETR Water and Infrastructure 1219109 Jane Wagner-Tyack 145 South Rose Street, Lodi 1. Issues raised in 10/20/09 email to Mr. Bartlam The graphic on page 3-9 of the Draft General Plan is misleading because it minimizes the contribution of groundwater (well water) to Lodi's water supply. The graphic 'should show that we rely primarily on groundwater, that the time frame for recharge is quite long, and that the water does not necessarily become available in the future in the sane place where it entered the ground originally. At a minimum, the title of the graphic should be changed. • On page 3-10, right-hand column, third paragraph, the Draft General Plan says, "As the city grows, the available safe yield of the underlying groundwater will increase." This is a puzzling statement for which there appears to be no justification. At a minimum, the statement requires some explanation. The Draft EIR actually addresses this by explaining (page 3.13-1) that the City will reduce its groundwater pumping from over 17,000 acre feet in 2008 "to a safe yield of approximately 15,000 acre-feet per year. This safe -yield estimate reflects an acreage -based relationship. Therefore, as the City's land area increases, the estimated safe yield of the underlying aquifer will likely increase." Given the unpredictability of groundwater, this seems like a tenuous solution to Lodi's water supply needs. In addition, the connection between more city acreage and more access to groundwater constitutes a perverse incentive B -2 tending to encourage unsustainable urban growth and loss of agricultural land. As a policy, this should be discouraged. On page 3-17, the Draft General Plan says "Use of gray water or rainwater for non -potable uses may require installation of dual plumbing systems." Pages 3-33 — 3-34 (GM -P12) says "Support on-site gray water and rainwater harvesting systems for households and businesses" —1 encourage the city to pursue these alternatives. A careful reading of the Draft General Plan makes it clear that water supply and wastewater treatment options do not support projected growth. Rattier than point out relevant sections in that draft, I have noted them below in comments on the Draft EIR. 7 2. Comments on the Draft EIR • The correct formal name of the Delta is the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta. The B 1-4 area is also correctly referred to as the San Francisco Bay -Delta Estuary. B 1-5 • Camanche Reservoir is misspelled. • This page refers to Figure 3.7-1 regarding Groundwater Basins, but the figure B 1-6 itself doesn't specifically identify groundwater sub -basins, only watersheds. The title of the graphic is "Regional Watersheds and Waterways." The identification of groundwater basins needs to be more clear. In categories related to hydrology, water quality, and infrastructure, the Draft EIR identifies the impact of the General Plan as "less than significant" and reports that no mitigation is required, in some cases because "[the] impact would be mitigated by existing State and local regulations and proposed General Plan policies." This wording undoubtedly meets regulatory requirements, but I urge you to exercise common sense in addressing the spirit as well as the letter of the regulations with respect to water supply and wastewater treatment. Specifically: • "Upon construction of the new surface water treatment plant, the City would have a long-term water supply of 27,000 acre feet per year available from its current safe yield of groundwater and the future surface water supplies." The Draft B 1-7 General Plan (page 3-10) assumes that even with a 15% reduction in residential demand due to the installation of water meters, "the total city-wide demand at reasonable development [would be about] 29,380 acre-feet per year." That is a shortfall of 2,380 acre-feet per year under a best -case scenario for both supply and demand. • The Draft General Plan, (page 3-23) and the Draft ETR (3.13.20 and 21) list inadequacies in the City's wastewater facilities. The Sewer Outfall from the City B 1-8 to the WSWPCF does not have adequate capacity for the PWWF [peak wet weather flows] at reasonable development of the General Plan. The City is already aware that expansion of WSWPCF will be required in the near future, and a tertiary filtration facility is part of that plan. Wastewater discharge by cities in the Delta region has come under increasing scrutiny, not just because it affects the quality of export water (which we might like to assume is not our problem) but because it adversely affects fish and other species and their habitat in the Delta and the Estuary. This i� our problem. Although I don't know the details, I believe the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance has already challenged Lodi's treatment of some of its wastewater. The City should be aware that pressure is increasing from the State for cities in the Delta region to treat their wastewater discharge to a very high level— likely evellikely higher than we have planned for. Recommendations The City should aggressively pursue gray water systems, rainwater harvesting and cisterns, dry wells, and water recycling in addition to rigorous water conservation, including increased use of drought -tolerant landscaping by the City itself. The dual plumbing systems necessary for gray water and harvested rainwater use are allowed under this General Plan. The City should revisit the issue of the cost-effectiveness of delivering recycled water to potential demand locations. The existing Water Conservation Ordinance needs to be strictly enforced, and the City itself should be following the Ordinance. Efforts at public education need to be increased, with the City considering incentives as well as penalties with respect to wise water use. The Draft EIR makes it clear that there is no lack of State regulations and local plans and ordinances addressing water issues, and General Plan policies require planning for water supply and availability before development takes place. Necessary infrastructure must be provided in a "timely" manner—but in practice, we know that budgetary constraints do not allow the City to meet this requirement in every case. It is the job of city planners to take growth projections, however they are arrived at, and give decision -makers a plan that provides for that projected growth. It is possible to make assumptions and update demand and supply calculations in ways that support that projected growth. However, it falls to Lodi decision -makers to connect the dots in this B 1-10 General Plan without relying on optimistic assumptions or estimates. The Draft General Plan and Draft EIR clearly show that water availability and wastewater treatment place inescapable constraints on Lodi's growth. I urge you to require a General Plan that acknowledges actual, realistic limits on water availability, wastewater treatment, and the City's ability to provide necessary water infrastructure, allowing for growth only within those realistic limits. The Final EIR requires responses to public comments. I look forward to seeing these comments addressed there. LETTER 62 H E UI'1 BT1 EE ATTORNEYS Steven A. Herum sherum@herumcrobtree.com January 8, 2010 City of Lodi Community Development Department Lodi City Hall Post Office Box 3006 Lodi, California 95241-1910 Re: City of Lodi General Plan EIR Dear Members of the Lodi Community Development Department: These comments on the City of Lodi General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report are submitted on behalf of property owners generally located in the southern part of the City's General Plan and generally described in the draft General Plan as Alternative A. Several members of the client group presently enjoy the PRR General Plan designation. My client group favors Alternative A and favors retaining the PRR General Plan designation (or its new equivalent) in the new general plan. 1. The PR designation contains special rights that should not be obliterated by this new General Plan. By way of background three local families, the Fry, Costa, Beckman, and Fink families, actively participated in the 1990 Lodi General Plan update. Specifically they asked that their property be included in the General Plan so that ancillary infrastructure plans, such as water, sewer and storm drain, could be designed to include their properties. After more than fifteen presentations to the planning commission and city council, the city council agreed to include these properties in the General Plan with a designation of PRR and agree that infrastructure plans would be designed to include capacity for these territories. As a condition for this city action the City required the landowners to enter into a formal agreement with the City to pay for their fair share of oversized infrastructure. A formal agreement was negotiated and submitted by City Attorney Bob W. McNatt to the City Council for approval. The City Council approved the agreement as recommended by staff. It is vital to note that during the course of these numerous hearings no member of the public appeared and opposed the request of these three families. The essence of the agreement focuses on the property owners' promise to pay their fair share contribution to oversize a sewer line that could serve their properties. The property 2291 WEST MARCH LANE, Suit L SIOD % STOCKTON. CA 95201 k PH 209A72.7700 i MOD Ta PH 209.5n.BW % rX 209,472.79861 APC City of Lodi Community Development Department January 8, 2010 Page 2 of 3 owners agreed to pay their fair share contribution when the City of Lodi demanded that payment be made. Subsequently, on July 11, 1997, the City Attorney authored an opinion about the agreement, stating: "Your current clients (Fry, Costa, Beckman and Fink) have a beneficial interest in the improvements which they may wish to save by seeking specific performance on their behalf. The sizing and location of the improvements is directly for the benefit of your current clients, not for the benefit of the City." (Emphasis and underlining added.) Indeed, the City subsequently, in May 2003, made a demand based upon the Agreement for the property owners to pay their fair share for oversizing the sewer line. The property owners promptly satisfied the City's demand by submitting $177,789.72 as their fair share for oversizing the sewer line. As the City Attorney has opined, the oversizing of the sewer line is for the benefit of these property owners and not for the benefit of the City. If the City takes away the PRR designation then these property owners will be deprived of the benefit of their bargain from B2_� the Agreement and will have relied upon City actions to their detriment. Hence notions of fairness and minimum legal requirements compel the City to retain the PRR designation or equivalent for these properties. Since these properties need to retain a land use designation signifying that the properties are expected to build out during the General Plan planning period it makes sense to include the remainder of Area A within the General Plan. 2. Alternative A is the Environmental Superior Alternative for the General Plan and can facilitate the City's two percent growth policy. The Draft EIR admits that Alternative A is the environmental superior alternative. (DEIR at e- 6, 4-20.) It has "fewer vehicle trips, miles of travel, hours of travel and hours of delay than the proposed general plan." (DEIR at 4-8.) It has "reduced impact to agricultural resources (DEIR at 4-9) less VTMs (DEIR at 4-10), and less demand for fire, police and other emergency services. DEIR at 4-17. The DEIR's criticism of Alternative A is that is cannot independently facilitate meeting the City's two percent growth policy and therefore this policy will not be attained and ambient growth pressure will be redirected to other communities. \\2003-pro1aw\ProLaw\documents\ 1187-001 \SAH\ 108761.doc City of Lodi Community Development Department January 8, 2010 Page 3 of 3 This analysis is fatally flawed for two reasons: First, an environmentally superior alternative does not need to match all of the project objectives in order to be a viable alternative. See Second, this means that Alternative A can be matched or blended with either the preferred alternative or with another alternative and facilitate the two percent growth policy. To the extent this method places additional land into the general plan than may be anticipated for 62-2 development during the general plan's planning period, the City's annexation policy can control the rate, location and timing of the City's expansion with an eye toward the efficient provision for services, environmental considerations and preservation of agricultural lands. In short, the Draft EIR ineffectively dispenses with the environmental superior alternative by designing false choices. Correctly framed, the issue isn't whether Alternative A should be B2.3 adopted to the exclusion of the preferred alternative. Instead the correct way to view the question is whether Alternative A (the environmentally superior alternative) can be integrated into another alterative with the City's future growth pattern determined by the City's annexation policy. In advance, thank you for your attention to these comments. Very truly yours, STEVEN A. HERUM Attorney -at -Law SAH:Iac cc: Client \\2003-pro1aw\ProLaw\documents\ 1187-001 \SAH\ 108761.doc LETTER 63 City of Lodi Community Development Department Lodi City Hall Post Office Box 3006 Lodi, California 95241-1910 Re: City of Lodi General Plan Draft EIR Dear Lodi Community Development Department, ➢ Alternative A should be adopted or integrated into the Draft Preferred General Plan Alternative for several reasons: 63-� o It is the environmentally superior alternative o It is the most logical progression of the City's growth is to the South due to the current planning designation of PRR which was established in the 1991 General Plan and should not be removed and placed to the West side of the City o It retains the PRR General Plan designation (or as it is called in the new General Plan, Urban Reserve [UR]) in the new general plan. o It does not revoke the decision or the integrity of past city council members of establishing the PRR zone [South of Harney Lane, North of Armstrong Road, East of Lower Sacramento Road and west of Highway 991. o It does not revoke the good faith effort/cooperation Armstrong Road Property Owners have done to research and propose the Armstrong Road Agricultural Cluster Zoning Concept. In the property owners good faith effort they have never stated over the many years of discussion of taking away or removing the PRR zoning south of Harney Lane. So it would be of bad faith and poor cooperation for the City of Lodi to remove the PRR B3-2 south of Harney and place it on the West side. o The DEIR does not state what factors caused the Urban Reserve or PRR to be moved from South of Harney to the west side, when the most recent developments have been south of Harney Lane [The Blue Shield Project and the new Costco Project in 20101. So it 63-3 would be a logical conclusion for the city to grow south due to all the infrastructure planning south of Harney Lane ■ The definition of UR is as follows: The Plan identifies Urban Reserve areas to provide additional area for development, if sufficient capacity to accommodate growth in the initial phases is not available. ■ So to fulfill the growth needs of Lodi, Urban Reserve should be maintained in the area described above south of Harney Lane and North of Armstrong Road. If 63-4 more area is needed to fill growth needs then establish a west side Urban Reserve ➢ Of the 16 topics [Land Use & Housing, Traffic & Circulation, Agricultural Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Climate Change & Greenhouse Gases, Hydrology and Water Quality, Air Quality, Flood Hazards, Seismic & Geologic Hazards, Noise, Hazardous Materials & Toxics, Infrastructure, Public Facilities, Parks & Recreation and Visual Resources] evaluated in the DEIR, the Hydrology and Water Quality topic should be evaluated in more detail o Supply: What are the back-up procedures if 1, 2, 3 or more ground water pumps go dry or malfunction? Are water contracts in place for replacement? How fast can water be g3-5 reestablished? Where would the city get their water? How does that affect agriculture? What are the costs associated with all the different options? Also, it is vital that the City of Lodi go forward as quickly as possible with the water treatment plant to use the banked Woodbridge Irrigation District surface water rather than pumping ground water. By B3-6 pumping out of the over drafted ground water aquifer it has detrimental effects on the agricultural farming businesses surrounding the City of Lodi. As the saying goes, "No Water No Farming, No Farming No Food, No Food No Economy." Agriculture is the economic engine in Lodi and San Joaquin County. According to an Economic Impact Report done by the Lodi Winegrape Commission and the Lodi District Grape Growers in 2009, wine and winegrapes alone have a $5 billion economic impact to San Joaquin County. So, the City of Lodi needs to help in every way possible to keep agriculture economically viable which in turn keeps the City of Lodi economy moving. One step would be by switching their source of water from ground water to surface water. o Demand B3-8 Quality ➢ Policy changes o C -P8 Adopt an agricultural conservation program (ACP) establishing a mitigation fee to B3-9 protect and conserve agricultural lands: ■ Comments: When establishing the ACP, besides the City of Lodi residents and policy makers, surrounding property owners in San Joaquin County, the San Joaquin Farm Bureau and other agricultural interests should be fully involved in the process of establishing the ACP and mitigation fee ■ The ACP should encourage that conservation easement locations are prioritized but a ratio [agricultural land : land developed] and fee should not be established or set until the ACP is finalized o Existing language: C -P2: Work with San Joaquin County and relevant land owners to ensure economic viability of grape growing, winemaking, and supporting industries, to ensure the preservation of viable agricultural land use. New language: C -P2: Work with San Joaquin County, the City of Stockton, the City of Galt, San Joaquin Farm Bureau and surrounding land owners to ensure economic viability of all agricultural businesses and supporting industries to ensure the preservation of viable agricultural land use Thank you for allowing my comments and taking them into consideration. Bruce Fry 22000 Lower Sacramento Road Acampo, CA 95220 Januairy 10, 2018 City of Lodi Community Development Dept. Aft Mr. Bartlarn, Director Lodi City Hall P.O. Box 3008 Lodi, Ca. 95241 LETTER 64 RECEIVED JAN I f 2M CC)MMUNITY 0EVE 0PI ENT DEFT CITY OF SUBJECT. Draft General Plea And Environmental Impact Report. Dear Bir, We, desire to make Borrie 00mments concerning the City of Lodi's Draft General Plan. and the related Environmental impact Deport (EIR). Our concerns and comments fellow: Numerous years, countless hours, and significant expenses have been incurred trying to crease a Community Separator along AmWrong Rd. separating the Cities of Lodi and Stacicton. The Amwkong ltd. Property owners diligently met and cooperated with the City of Lodi. and Ban Joaquin County trying to arrive at a workable separator. However as of this date, nothing has happened. The plan #car rezoning the proposed seperator under county jurisdiction appears to have stagnated. The current City of Lodi 1891 General Plan, designates the area South of Harney Ln., extending to The North side of Armstrong Rd. as Planned Residential Reserve (PRR). The new Preferred Draft Lodi General Plan, has removed the PRR designabon frorrm The North side of Armstrong Rd, extending s half mile south, and replaced it with the designation of "Armstrong Rd. Agriculture Cluster StudyAms.' Addiflonally, as an effort to acoornmodate the City's 2% growth policy, the new Preferred Draft General Plan designates Urban Reserve (Ulf) to the west and east of the City I imits. In view of all the cooperation and efforts between the City and the Armstrong Rd. propery owners towards the goal of creating s separator, we are dismayed, that the My of Lod I'a Draft Preferred General Pis n, does not see fit to ruin the current PRR, or the equivalent Urban Reserve {ISR) designation for the Armstrong Rd. area. Back In 1991 when the current Geral Plan was adopted, Area property owners worked diligently, and at signlliicant expense, to obtain the Planned residential Reserve (PRR) designation for the Harney Ln. —Armstrong Rd. are& Removing ving the PRR or the equhra lent Urban Reserve (UR) designation In the Now General Plan, for the Armstrong Rd. area is not In Lodli's beat Inter lL n Additionally, the Micke Grove Park area, and Lodi area, has always been synonymous. One would think that the City of Lodi would like to have some say in the future of the Micke Grove area. An urban reserve designation, adjacent to Micke Grove Park, would serve to "earmark" the area for Lodi's future plans. An additional concern to us is the fact that the Draft EIR indicates that Alternative A, is the environmentally superior alternative. In addition to other reasons, it indicates that it has a reduced impact on agricultural resources, and is the middle -ground 64-2 development scenario. The Draft EIR also finds that Alternative A does not fully meet the City's two percent growth policy. However, this could be accomplished by adjusting the planned urban reserve for the East and West boundaries of the City. The environment is an important consideration affecting our everyday lives, as well as future generations. It appears that to not take heed of the findings of the Draft EIR, and B4-3 adopting the "\Preferred Plan," which has been approved by the Lodi Planning Commission, contradicts the environmental guidelines established by the State of California. In conclusion, we feel that the City of Lodi should adopt Alternative A as the "Preferred Plan" to govern Lodi's future. B4-4 Thank you for the opportunity to express our thoughts and concerns in this matter. Sincerely, ,Aoseph . Manassero 541 W. Turner Road Lodi, CA 95240 Januarys 10, 010 City of Lodi Community Development Dept. Attn: Mr. Bartlam, Director Lodi City Hall P.G. Box 3006 Lodi, Ce. 95241 LETTER BS BEEPED JAN 11019 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT Xy 0� LODE SUBJECT: Draft General Pian And Environmental impact Report. Deer Sir, We, desire to make some comments concerning the City of Lodi's Dry General Plan, and the related Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Our concems and comments follow: Numerous years, countless hours, and significant expenses have been Incurred trying to. create a Commurifty Separator along Armstrong Rd. separating the Cities of Lodi and Stockton. The Armstrong Rd. property owners diligently met and cooperated with the City of Lodi, and San Joaquin County trying to arrive at a workable separator. However as of this date, nothing has happened. The plan for rezoning the proposed separator under county j urisdidtion appears to have stagnated. The current City of Lodi 1991 General Plan, designates the area South of Harney Ln., extending to The North side of Armstrong Rd. as Planned Residential Reserve (PRR). The new Preferred Dry Lodi General Plan, has removed the PRR designation from The north side of Armstrong Rd, extending a half mile south, and replaced it with the designation of "Armstrong Rd. Agriculture duster Study Area.' Additionally, as an effort to accommodate the City's % growth policy, the new Preferred Draft General Plan designates Urban Reserve (UR) to the west and east of the City limbs. In view of all the coopeartion and efforts between the City and the Armstrong lid. propery owner towards the goal of creating a separator, we are dismayed, that the City of Lodi's Draft Prsfsrred General Plan,. does not see fit to retain the B5-1 current Piet, or the equivalent Urban Reserve {UR) designation for the Armstrong Fid. area. Back in 1991 when the current General Plan was adopted, Area property owner worked diligently, and at significant expense, to obtain the Planned Residential Reserve (PRR) designation for the Harney Ln. — Armstrong Rd. area. Removing the PRR or the equivalent Urban Reserve JUR) doelgrmflon In the Now General Pis n, for the Amstrong Rd. area is not In Lodi's best InterwL Additionally, the Micke Grove Park area, and Lodi area, has always been synonymous. One would think that the City of Lodi would like to have some say in the future of the Micke Grove area. An urban reserve designation, adjacent to Micke Grove Park, would serve to "earmark" the area for Lodi's future plans. An additional concern to us is the fact that the Draft EIR indicates that Alternative A, is the environmentally superior alternative. In addition to other reasons, it indicates 65_2 that it has a reduced impact on agricultural resources, and is the middle -ground development scenario. The Draft EIR also finds that Alternative A does not fully meet the City's two percent growth policy. However, this could be accomplished by adjusting the planned urban reserve for the East and West boundaries of the City. The environment is an important consideration affecting our everyday lives, as well as future generations. It appears that to not take heed of the findings of the Draft EIR, and B5-3 adopting the "\Preferred Plan," which has been approved by the Lodi Planning Commission, contradicts the environmental guidelines established by the State of California. In conclusion, we feel that the City of Lodi should adopt Alternative A as the "Preferred B5-4 Plan" to govern Lodi's future. Thank you for the opportunity to express our thoughts and concerns in this matter. Sincerely, Catherine T. Manassero 541 W. Turner Road Lodi, CA 95240 January 10, 2010 City of Lodi Community Development Dept. Attn: Mr. Sartlem, Director Fadi Oily Nall P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, Ga. 95241 SUBJECT: Draft General Plan And Environmental Impact Deport. Dear Sir, LETTER 66 RECEIVED JAN 11 Zg1g CO MUN'TY DEVELOPMENT DEPT CITY OF LORI We, desire to make some comments conceming the Gtty of Lodi s Draft General Plan, and they related Environmental hoped Report (EIR). Our concems and comments WOW: Numerous years, countless hours, and significant expenses have been incurred trying to create a Community Separator along Armstrong Fid. separating the Cities of Lodi and tooktw. "The Armstrong Rd. properly owners d0genfly met and cooperated with the City of Lodi, and San Joaquin County trying to arrive at a workable separator. However as of this date, nothing has happened. The plan for rezoning the proposed .separator under county jurisdiction appears to have stagnated. The current City of Lodi 1991 General Plan, designates the area South of Harney Ln., extending to The North side of Armstrong Ind. as Planned Residential Reserve (PRR). The new Preferred Draft Lodi General Plan, has removed the PRIG designation from The North side of Armstrong Rd, extending a half mile south, and reploroed N with the designation of mArmstrong Rd. Agriculture Cluster Study Area.* Addilionally, as an effort to a=mmodate the CW/s % growth policy, the new Preferred Draft General Plan designates Urban Reserve (UR) to the west and east of the City limits. In view of all the cooperation and eftrts between the City and the Armstrong Ind. propery owners towards the goal of creating a separator, we are dismayed, that *a City of Lodi's Draft Pmfim ad General Plan, does not see fit to retain the current PRR, or the equivalent Urban Reserve JUR) designation for the B6-1 Armstrong Rd. area. Back in 1991 when the current General Plan was adopted, Area property owners worked diligently, and at significant expense, to obtain the Planned Residential Reserve (PRR) designation 1br the Harney Ln. -- Armstrong Rd. area. Removing the PRR or the equivalent Urban Ra"rve JUR) deslgnadon In the New General Plan, for the Amwftng Rd. area is not In Lodi's tit intamt Additionally, the Micke Grove Park area, and Lodi area has always been synonimous. One would think that the City of Lodi would like to have some say in the future of the Micke Grove area. An urban reserve designation, adjacent to Micke Grove Park would serve to "earmark" the area for Lodi `s future plans. An additional concern to us is the fact that, The Draft EIR indicates that Alternative A, is the environmental superior alternative. In addition to other reasons, it indicates B6-2 that it has a reduced impact on agricultural resources, and is the middle- ground development scenario. The Draft EIR also finds that Alternative A does not fully meet the City's two percent growth policy. However, this could be accomplished by adjusting the planned urban reserve for the East and West boundries of the City. The Environment is an important consideration affecting our everyday lives, as well as future generations. It appears that to not take heed of the findings of the Draft EIR, and B6-3 adopting the "preferred plan" which has been approved by the City of Lodi Planning Commission, contradicts the environmental guidelines established by the State of California. In conclusion , we feel that the City of Lodi should adopt Alternative A as the preferred B6-4 plan to govern. Lodi's future. Thank you for the opportunity to express our thoughts and concerns in this matter. Sincerely, 7 Michael J.Manassero 1490 E. Harney Ln. Lodi, Ca. 95242 January 10, 2010 City of Lodi Community Development Dept. Attn: Mr. Bartlam, Director Lodi City Hall P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, Ca.9 41 SUBJECT: Draft General Plan And Environmental Impact Report. (Dear Sir, LETTER 67 RECEIVED JAN 11 2M ENTOEPT I Y 0 LOD! We, desire to make some comments concerning the City of Lodi's Draft General Plan, and the related Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Our oonoerns and oornments follow: Numerous years, oountleas hours, and significant expenses have been incurred trying to create a Community Separator along Armstrong Pd, separating the Cities cf Lodi and Stockton. The Amnstrong lid. property owners difigen#ly met and cooperated with the City of Lodi, and San Joaquin County trying W arrive at a workable separator. However as of this date, nothing has happened. The plant for rezoning thO proposed separator under county jurisdiction appears to have stagnated. The current City of Lodi 1991 General Plan, designates the area South of Hannay Ln,, extending to The Forth side of Armstrong lid. as Planned Residential Reserve (PRIG). The new Preferred Draft Lodi General Plant, has removed the PRR designation from The North side of Armstrong Rd, extending a half mile south, and replaced It with the designation of "Armstrong Rd. Agriculture Cluster Study Area." Additionally, as an effort to accommodate ft CVs 2% growth }policy, the new Preferred Draft General Plan designates urban~ Reserve (UR) to the west and east of the City lirnits. In view of all the cooperation and effa is between the City and the Armstrong Rd. propery owners towards the gel of creating a separator, rave are disnnyed, the# the City of Lodi's Draft Preferred General Plan, does not we fit to retaln the current PRR, or the equivalent Urban Reserve (Ulf) designation for the B7-1 ArrnMrong Rd. area. Beck in 1991 when the currro+nt General Plan was adopb4 Area property owners worked dillgendy, and at signiiffcant expense, to obtain the Planned Residential Reserve (PRR) desig notion for the Harney Ln. — Armstrong Rd. area. Removing the PRR or the equivalent Urban Rw ware (UHC designation In the Now General Pian, fbr the Armstrong Rd. area is not in Lodi's best intemst Additionally, the Micke Grove Park area, and Lodi area has always been synonimous. One would think that the City of Lodi would like to have some say in the future of the Micke Grove area. An urban reserve designation, adjacent to Micke Grove Park would serve to "earmark" the area for Lodi 's future plans. An additional concern to us is the fact that, The Draft EIR indicates that Alternative A, is the environmental superior alternative. In addition to other reasons, it indicates that it has a reduced impact on agricultural resources, and is the middle- ground development scenario. The Draft EIR also finds that Alternative A does not fully meet the City's two percent growth policy. However, this could be accomplished by adjusting the planned urban reserve for the East and West boundries of the City. The Environment is an important consideration affecting our everyday lives, as well as future generations. It appears that to not take heed of the findings of the Draft EIR, and B7-3 adopting the "preferred plan" which has been approved by the City of Lodi Planning Commission, contradicts the environmental guidelines established by the State of California. In conclusion , we feel that the City of Lodi should adopt Alternative A as the preferred B7-4 plan to govern. Lodi's future. Thank you for the opportunity to express our thoughts and concerns in this matter. Sincerely-, Patricia M. Manassero 1490 E. Harney Ln. Lodi, Ca. 95242 jamary 101, 2010 City ofLodi Davdopameot Ike mtmnt Lodi City Hall P.G. Bax 3OD6 Lea Ca. 95241 At= I1L EWrdam Fxe City ofLo& Dmft Gmall Ply and EM Dw W EWx lam: LETTER B8 REEMED JAIL 11 2010 OMMUN o op ENT OWT CJTY As a ci*m of the LO& qty, I wish to taim ium wt& the Draft Gine Plan which the City of Lodi is cwmdy wadcing am My cots am iced low: In rhoosiog the cru cnfdy pwposed draft Gme al pion (r aved to as the `pmfcnvw"-2 B8-1 pim") the any is not follow g the rex 'on ofThe Enviranmontd Impact Roo, j rid by the citbew of Lodi --fix i Uws. The IMM AL V"ACT)UWRT ftdg that Aftemfive A, In the envh.mmentA sopnior sitemsom It pmvidm for less impe& on the as well as other a =nt reasons four-irg adoptiam I feel that the Now IA)& Gmemi Plan shored A&* Ak=a&c A as the plan B8-2 Bch will gDvemLodPs ibr the n=t 0+yom. Do not adopt the mTently proms Genu Plan. Sincerely, NMI'L , � .� ,7 zo W, Jammy 10, 2010 City of Lodi Comity Dovelopment Depirtment Lodi City HAU F.D. Boer 3.006 Lodi, Ca. 95Z41 Attn: ll+ir. Bm tl n Re- City of Lodi Draft fiend Plan and EiR LETTER 69 EEWED SCAN 1 1 2010 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT CITY OF LOCH s.a cities of the Lodi unity, I wish to take issue with dw Draft Gmeral Plan which the City of Lodi is cu=tly working on. My oommenu are identified below: In choosing the cumin ly proposed draft GeneW Plan (referred to as the Weffed B9-1 plawl the City is not follomdug the recommmkiation of'The Environmental hVact l cpor% -funded b Ae aidzens off Loth aux dollars. The EA OAAMWAL PACTREPORT Ends that Atterattve-A# is the envhvnmental superior altemadve. It provides for less impact -on the envimnment, as well as other significant reasons for it's adoption. I feel that the New Logi General Plan should Adopt Altemative A as the plan B9-2 which will govern Lodi's future for the next 20-x- ye ars. Do not adopt the currently proceed feral FUL incely, (Address) 472� / � S�;2 y2 Janus 10, 2010 City of Lodi Community Devclopmn t Department Lodi City Hail P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, Ca, 95241 Attn: Mr. Bartlam City of Lodi Draft General Plan and EIR Dear Mr. Bim: LETTER B10 RECEIVED JAN 112010 COMMUNITY 1Y) V CIFOP ENT DVT As o citizen of the Lodi Community, I wish wtake issue with &e Draft Crenmal P1= which the City of Lodi is c=eatly worbng on. My oommeau.a identified below: In choosing the currendy proposed draft General Plan (ref ,red to as the ' preferred B 10-1 PIWJ the City is not following the: reomnmend.adon ofThe Environmental Impact Reportfunded-b + the citizens of Lodi &w dollars The ENMMOLWAL LCPACTREMT finds diet AMmflve A, is the environmental superior alternative. It provides for lass impact on the envimnment,'as well, as other scant reasons for it's adoption. I feel: that the Nc w Lodi Geneml plan should Adopt Alternative A. as the plan which will gorr m Lcdi's future for the next 0+ gears. Do not adopt the B 10-2 currently proposed .General Pbu. Sincerely, (Name) (mss) January 1O, 2010 City of Lodi Community Development Department Lodi City Hall P:C. Ba 3006 Lodi} Ca. 95241 Atte: Mr. Banti Re: City.ofLodi Draft Gcneml Plan and BIR Dear Mr. Bards= LETTER 611 RECEIVED JA% 112010 n 0ID EST S3Frt As a citiz= of the Lodi Community, I wish to take issue with the Drat Genend Plan vv .h the City of Lodi is currently working on. My comments are ideutif od below: In choosing the currently propo d draft Ommal P (reff=W to as the `Werred B 11-1 Plan'l the City is not following the rwommendadon of The Environmental Impact RepoMfirnded by the dfizens o La i tax dollars. The ENVRONMET L IMPA'T'REPOT finds that Alterattvc A, is the environmental supater alterua#lve. It provides for lessinnpact on the en im=ent, as well as otter.significantreasons for it's adoption. 1 feel, that -the New Lodi General Plan should Ado t Alternative A as the: p1m B 11-2 whicb will goy Lo is fidum for the next 20+ yes. Do not adopt the currently proposed feral Phan. Sincerely, M 1,3 0 4-a: (mss) Jammry. 10, 2010 City of LoffiCammunity Development Iepanent Dodi City HO P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, CL 95241 A Mr. Bartlarn I: City of Lodi Draft General Plan and EIR nem W. sa.8am: LETTER 612 RECEIVED JAN l 12010 MM LJNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPT CITY OF CBOT As a cfdm of the Lodi Commumty, I wish t+D take issw vidth the Draft Genes Plan which the City of I.o& is currently workiAg = My .eta are identified ] Dw: In choosing the cry propowd &aft Clm=al Plan (referred to as the " prcfd B 12-1 Pn) the City is not fbIlowing the rcoommendation of The Erniromental fixpaa-RqWt,fundad by, -the chtwu o, Lodi tax dolkes. 'The ENUROMMENTAL LWPACTRE"RTids that Alterative A. la the envlrnnmental superior alternative. It provides for leas mpw on the enviramnent, as weft as. ether s4pffi ant reasons for it's adoption. I fed that the New Lodi Ckneral Pian should Adopt Alterative A as the plan which wiU govern Lode's future for the next 0+ years, Do not adopt the B 12-2 enrrey proposed General Plan. spy. `7)q S t 1 (Address) January 10, OIO City of Lodi Community Dtv pment- Department Lodi City Hall P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, ca. 951 Re: City ofLodi Det General Plans and Ei Dear Mr. Bim: LETTER 613 RECEIVED JAN r 12010 OMA+7UNrY CEVLzLr)pMa7 Cn F L3C, T As a china of the Lodi Community, I wish to take issue with the Drag General Plan which the City of Lodi is currently working on. My comments are identified below: In choosing the currently proposed draft General Plan (referred to as the `preferred B 13-1 Pl&,) the Oty is not following the r=mmendation of The EnviroommW Impact Repo fimded by the ca&ew ofLodi tax dolIars The ENVIR NAMNTA L"ACTRUPORT finds that Alterative A4 is the enrvh mriental superior alternative. It provides for less unpW on the j=vumneM as well as other sipffleant morons for it's adoption. I feel dW the Now Lodi Gena l. Plan should Adopt Alternative A as the plan B 13-2 which will govem Lath`s future for the next 20+ years. Do not adopt the currently proposed GeneW Phm singly, (Name) c271 q S _ S- '� ion -- 1.001 (Address) danumry 1O, 201 City of Lodi Community Dmkpmea Lodi City Haft P.D. lox Lodi, Ca. 95241 Re. City of Lodi Drag Genad Plank and EIR Dur Mr. Barttam: LETTER 614 RECEIVED JAN 1 1 2010 COMMUNITY D EVELO P mENT DEpT CITY OF LOal As a citizen of the Lodi Community, i wish to take H1 WW with the Dmft General Plan which the -City of Lodi is cwrendy working on. My oommmts are identified below. In choosing the cwmndy proposed d General Plan (m&r red to as the ` efeired B 14-1 PIW) ft City. is not Wowbg the rownwunktion ofMe Envinimmental Impact Report; and the ciftzew of Lao& #cox dollars. The EN RON E T L BffACTREP RT finds that Alteradve A. is the envirenmeutd supe or altemadve. It provWw for less impact on the as well as other significant rcawm for it*s adaption. I feel that ffie New Lodi General Plan should Adopt Alternative A as the plan which will govern Lath's fie for the next 20+- years. Do not adopt the B 14-2 cu rreudy proposed Gmeral Plan. Ej f- 0� Sri S �, jammw 10, X010 Ci -afLodi Community DevelopmM Depuftm Lodi City lull P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, Ca.. 95241 Atha: Mr. BarHam Re: City of Lodi Draft General Plan and ER LETTER 615 RECEIVED ,SAN 1 1 2010 COMMUNITY DEVEMPMENT DEPT CITYOF LORI As a oitin of the Lodi Community, I wish to take issue with the Draft General Plan which the City ofLodi is cummdy working om My comment are identified below. In &oodng the ewrently proposed &afi General Plan refen-ed to as the `farad B 15 -1 Maio the City is not- following the recommend irm of The, EnvironmeaW met R Kn%firrtded by the cftkew ofLo& tax dollars. The EATMOAWKWAL M.PACTREPOAT Ends dW Aitemn►e A,. Ls the environmental superior olternative. It provides for lest impact -on the envimnment; as well as other significant reasons for it's adoption. I feel that the New Lodi Geneml Plan should Adopt Aftawdve A as the plan B 15-2 which will govern Loch's fimm for the next 0+ yew. Do not adopt the currently proposed CemwA mm. s"ly, Y (Name) � 0 � 19 4�� 2,, (Aar) i axy 10'.2010 City of La i Comity Development D mrtment Lodi City Ha11 P.O. Bax 3006 Lotti, C& 95241 Atbw Mr. Bard= Re: City sof Lodi Dmfs Geneml Plan and EIR Dear Mr. Baitlem: LETTER B16 RECEIVED .SAN I I ZU10 COMMUN' Y I1EVEWIPME 17 DEPT CITY ,OF LORI As a cftim of tie Loth Community, I wish tD take issue with the Draft Genaid P1= which tho City of Lodi is cimmdy woddng m My commo#S ne identfied below.- In elow: In choosing.the omrrently propoud draft "r enol Plan (rcfenvd to as the "preferred PI&W) dw City is not following the recommndation of The Pnvi ental B 16-1 Impact p"t funded by the cites o, Lodi tax dollars. The EArMOAWNTAL VWPACTAEMRT fluft thatAlterative A, Is the envkonme ntal superlor -alternative. It provides for len impact on the environmen, as well as other s4pfficM realm for it's a ption. I feel that the New Lodi Genual Plan should Adapt Altnativ+e A as the plan which will govem Lode's fire for the next fl+ years. Do not adopt the B 16-2 currently proposed General Plan* SftWM1y- January. 10, 2010 City of Lodi Community. Development Department Lodi City Hall P.G. Boat 3006 Lodt ('a. 95211 Re. City of Lodi Draft General Plan -and EIR Dear,W. Bartlarn; LETTER 617 RECEIVED JAN I 12010 COMMUNfTY DEVaOPMENT UE" CITY of LODI As .a citizen of the Lodi Com*rim;t , I wish to tk issue with the Drat General Blah which the City ofLo4i is cunintly working on. My convent$ are identified bel: In choosing the cumwdy proposed draft General Plan (referred W m the. "preferred. B 17-1 Plan') the City is not following the mmmmdation ofThe ftnvironmcntal Impact Repmrfunded by the 6 dzew off Lodl tac dollars. The EAWMOMffMAL MPA C P T llnds at-Merative A; Is the envlrou en al superior alternative. It provides for less impact on -the environment, as well as other significant reasons far it's adoption. I feel that the New Lodi General Plan should Adopt AlternWve A as the plan B 17-2 which will govern Lodi's future for the next 0+ years. Do -not adopt the currently proposed General Pte. Sincerely, - (ddrem. Jamary 10, 2010 City of Lodi Community Development Department Dodi City Hall P.C. SoX 3006 Lodi, Ca. 95241 Attn: Mr. Barthtm Re: City of Lodi Draft Gencral Plan and EIR LETTER B18 RECEIVED 120JAN 0f0 c MUNJ Dior0 ea DEpt Irr 1 As a citizen of the Lada Community, I wish to take issue with the Dmtt Genmml PIm which the City ofLodi is currently working cin, My commcnts--are identified below; In choosing the cmcnfly proposod dry Gencral Plan (r rod to as the `)prcf=rd Plea" the City is not following the recommendation of The EnvironmentalB 18-1 Impact Reportjrunckd by the cidzens afLodi tax dollars. The ENVIROAMNTAL PA TREPOR ' finds that Alteradve.A, is the environmental superior alternative. It prides fDr less impact on t envk nment, as well as other significant reasons for it's adoption. I feel that the New Lodi General Plan should Adopt Alternative A as the plan B 18-2 why will govern Lodi's fume for the nen . em. Do not adopt the cnrrently proposed General Plam. inewel t Januuy 10, 2010 City of Loch CommunityDmkTment Degartn = Lodi City HaU. P.O. Bok 3006 Lodi, Ca. 95241 Attn: Mr. Bardam Rye: City of Lodi Dry Geral Plan and EII Dear Mr. Bardam: LETTER B19 RECEIVED JAN I I Z010 COMMUNITY aEVELOPM E14T Dom' CITY OF U00I As a citizen of the Lodi Community, f wish to tae issue with the Drat General Plan which the City of Lodi is cmmtly wonting on. My comr6ents are idled below: In choosing the currently propos draft Geral plan (refcmd to as the `preferred B 19-1 Plan) the City is not following the rwor nendation .of The Ew6romnenW Impact Report,, funded by the citizew a, L a& 1= dollars. The ENMONMENTAL AMACT'REPOT finds that AMeradve A$ is the environmental superior alternative. It provides for less impact on the environment, as well as ather significant're ons for it's adoptia L I Feel that the -Now Lodi. Geral Plan should Adopt Alternative A as the plan B 19-2 which will govern Lo&'s future for the next 20+ yem. Do not adW the currently proposed General Plan. Sincerely,, (Name) (Address) LETTER 620 Jany 10, 2010 RECEIVED City of Lodi unity Develq n mt Dqw1ment JAN 11 2UjU Lodi City l of Mu l r of P�W P.O. Box 3006 Lad%. a. 95241 ttr: W Ba th m Re: City of Lodi -I ft Ommul Plan and MR. Dear Mr. Bsttlam: As -a eiti= of the Lodi amamunity,.I wi.sh to take issue with the Draft Gear Plan which the City of Loch is cummdy working on. My musts -are -ider ed below: In choosing ffie cwmtiy proposed draft [General Man (rafcrred to as the )Ptefemd B20-1 PiasJ the City is not following the . _ ' .. of The Envi ummcntal Irapad Report; funded by the cifizem gfLodi.kmc dollmo. The EAWRO]MENTAL IWACTREPORT fhLds that Akerative A, h the euviremental gaperior.jtlternsOve. It provides for less it a t on the. environment, as well as other sigiOcant reasons for it's adcPdom I feel that the New Lodi General plian should Adopt Alttnati e A .as the plan B20-2 which will govern Lo 's fa=e for the nit 0+ geam to not adapt the currently proposed feral Plan. $Mmdyl 11hi-AN C, V� - ame+ 45ztqz..., (Address) /I LETTER 621 January 10, 2010 RECEIVED City of Lodi o ity . Developneat Department JAN 112019 Lodi City Hall L ura CITY OF LORI amt P.D. Bot 300 Lodi, CgL95241 Aft- Mr. Bordam e: City Gf -Lodi Dmft General P1= and EI1 Dear Mx. Baram. .As a oiti = ofthe Lodi 'ommuuit , I wish to moire issue with the Draft General Plan4hzch the iter ofLodi is eur=dy working on. My eon=en am identified helm In choosi LETTER B22 January 10, 2014 RECEIVED City of L06 Community Development Dent JAN 11 2B19 Lodi City lull COMMUWrY D��It DEPS' P.O. Bax 0 . rrY OF Lodi, Ca. 95241 tta: Mr. Bartlem Re. City of Lodi Drat Gmaul Plan and' EI ntw Mr. Ham►: As -a cid= of the Lodi Community, l wish to take issue with the Draft General Plan wbifoh the City of Lodi is currently worldng on. My comnneM are identified below - In choosi4 the -currently proposed drab Ganeral Plan (rte to as the "p fared B22-1 P ") the city is not following the reco mendatioa of The EnviromenW imp ad Repor� fu r: ed by the cit ens o, Loci hex duflars. The ENVMNAMWL ACT EP T' finds 60 Alterative X, is the eavkomeutsl sup uior alternsMm- It provWft for less impact on the environment; w well as other si i cW reasons far it's adoption. I feel dust the Deur Lodi Gmaul F1= should Adopt Alt=ativeA as dw plan which wdl govern Lodi*s- ft.ire for the next 20+ years. Do not adapt the B22-2 cameotly proposed Genesi Plan. roc S 1,�'n E, /7AwsrP-oU, Pvlow, 64 9S,7Y2 (Adds) January 10, .20 10 LETTER 623 RED City of Lodi Commiarity Developmmt Depar t JAIL 1 f 2010 Lath pity. Fall d41M�1Nt�`Y DEVE P.O. Bob 0.0C�]Pl4�IV� p�" Vii; .a.'941m a �000 Attn: Mr. Bardam Re- CAty of Loch Draft General Plan and EIR Dear Mr. Bartlaak: As a citn of the Lodi omm n t , I wish take issue with the Dmft ]ftGeneW Plan which the City of Lodi is. cu ntly working on. My commcnw are identified below: in chousn the eu mmtly proposed draft General refcmred to as- the ` referred B23-1 plans the City is not following the xecmmmon of The Enhunmental Impact deport, fbnded by the mew qfLadY tax dohs". The ENMMARWAL LWACT REPORT (Inds that Alterative AL, is the envirommeubd superior alternadm It -provides for Ims impact on the environment, as well as other siga&,= reasons fDr it's adoption. I feel that the New Lodi Genual Pian should Adopt AAmmative A as the pbn B23-2 which will govern Lodi's hture for the ncd 20rears. Do not adopt the emTently proposed herd Phn. LETTER 624 January 10, 2010 City ofLodi Co ity D elopmaent DqarWi=t RECEIVED Lodi qty Fall P.O. Boy JAN Vii, Ca. 95241 MMUNirr DEVELOPMENT QEpT CITY OF LODI Ate: fir. Bax Re: City of Lodi Drat. feral Plan and ER As a citizen of the Dodi Com=mity, I wish to take issue with the Draft Gme ral Plan w9ch the City of Fadi is -qtly working on. My comments -are identf ed below: In choosing the cun=ay proposed dmft Genual plan refared to as the `*dc red B24-1 Pian! the .City is not following the moo mmnenc#ation of The Bnvtro== Impact R.epbMfu ded by the ciamm of LaO = drallars. The E'er XWML IWACTREWO T ids that Aheraa ave A4 Is tete envt nments) supe e r alternative. It pmvides for lei impact on the environm . as well as other s4pifiir t recons for it's adoption. I feel that the New Lodi General n:should Aapt Altemative A as the plan B24-2 which will govern Lodi's future for the next 0+ years. Do not adopt the urrmtly proms en" Plan. /I LETTER 625 la=ary 10, 2010 RECEIVED JAN 1 1 X010 ityr afLadi Community Development l]epainent GOMI��r��fr DEVEfaPMT DEPT Lodi City Ill crr�r OF Lo� P.O. Boat 30 Lodi, Ca. 952.41 ,tta: M. Bard= Re: City of Lodi Draft Ganaal Plan and EIR As a citiz= of the Lodi Commutfty, I wash to take issm with the Draft Gerkeml Plan why the City of Lodi •is amrently working on. Mir comm nts am identified Wo: In chovsicg the cunmfly proposod draft Ckmeral Pia rc7famA to as the `VWerxcd B25-1 Plan's the City isnot- Mowing the recommeagdatkm of The Envim==W Impact Rep0rt,. fu dead by the e-imew of Loci tax dollars. The EA IWAC R PORT finds tett Akm lrve A,. is the enviroumentsl anperior slfiern.adve. It -provides for less imp.. on the end as wod as other significag reasons for it's. adoption. I feel thm the New Coda Gmeral Plan should Adopt A►ltanaftive A as the plan B25-2 which -will govern Lodi's future for the next 20+ years. Do not adopt the currenfly prod General tau. (Name) ' Coll '� Ja ary l0, 2010 CfEy of Lodi Community Dcvdopment Dqmunmt Lodi City 1 P.D. Box 3006 LOA Cv. 95241 AWL, fir, $8rtlam Re- City of Lodi Dry Cencral Pian, and EIR Dew W. aarrtam: LETTER B26 RECEIVED JAN 1 1 2011 CITY OF LODI As a cibm offt Lodi a itY, I wih to Uka no= with ft Draft G==W Plan whk.h the City of Lodi . cun=dy woAlAg on, MY CammelAs = idmfified mow: It choosing dw. cunwfly proposed draft C nerall xcfc to -as t1 "VMfMvd B26-1 P1eu" the City is not kfflowkg the rccommandefim oafs Fsnviroam Impad Rqxmt;,fiok dby l -cj&*U gfLodi An dO The EA74ROIVWNTAL LWA CT JW"RT ft& that AJkT*de Av fs the euvironmentd anperloir a lUMd ve, It pada fir leers mat an the viranm t, as wall as outer si cant reasons fir it's adoption, 1 fBdthat the Now LO& GaraX Plan should Adopt Alt tivge A as the plan W. & wiH govem Lod'" future for do nw 20+ year. Do not wh9t the B26-2 cmm*dty Primed Gememl Phm surely, I January 10, 2010 City ofLodi Cammunit D"eiopmmi Department Lodi City Eha P.G. Box 3006 U4Ca. 9.5.41 Attn: A& 13=am Re. City of Lodi Dry Geaml Plan -and EIR Dear W. Bartlem: LETTER 627 RECEIVED JAN 1 1 2013 COMMUNITY D EVELOPMENT DEPT CITY OF LORI Asa citizen ofthe Lodi Community, I wish to tam issue with dw Draft General Plan which the City of Lodfis cmmdy worldng on. My comments are identifiod belcw: In choosing the CwMfly proposed dmi t G==ml Plan (rcferrod to -as the'pnfc=d B27-1 Plan") the City is not following the rcco i c of The Environmead Impar# Report funded by -the chqzeps o, -.o& torr dollars. The. ENMOAMENTAL IP CTREPORT finds:tbat Alter ave AL, is the enviro ental saperlor dative: It provides fhr less irnpad.on the environment, as well as other signi&Aknt reasons for it's adoption. 1 feel that the New Lodi Geneml Plan should Adapt Alternative A as the plan B27-2 which will govemn Lodi's futare for the next 20+ years: Dv not adopt the currently proposed General Plan. IN Januwy!l , 2D10 City of .Lodi Cotmunity Development Department Lodi City Hall P.O. Box 3006 nodi, Ca. 95241 Attn: ir. Bartlam Re: City of Lodi Draft Genadl Plan and. EJR Dear 1&. BardanL LETTER 628 RECEIVED JAN 112010 pMMUNI 0E i ENT DEPT C9Y Aa a cifim ofthe -Lodi Community, I wish to talar imue with the Draft Gene Plan which the City of Lodi is currently working od. My oomments- are identified below: In choost'ng.the -=mmfly proposed dry General Plan ( firred W .as, the')prdemd B28-1 Plan') the City is not followimg therew=mdation of The Environmental Im ct RepoM fundid by the cixi em o, 'Lodi W ch ars. the EAWMOAMWAL MPTRAPORT ids that Ahmflve A,1s the envi roa mentai superior alternative. It provides for less impact on the mvironment, as well as other significant rcu= for it's motion. I feel t1mt the New Lodi General Plan should Adopt Altemadve A as.the.plan B28-2 which wiU govern Loch's faturc for the wmt 0+ years. Dao not adopt the currently propod General Plan. Serely, (Name) t'7 _ V_.e January 10, 2010 City of Lodi Commmity DevelopmW Dqwtm=t Lodi City Hall P.O. Box 3006 Dodi, CAL 95241 Attn: Mr. Bwt1mm Re: City of Lodi Draft Ganaal Plan and EIR Dear W. Budain: LETTER 629 RECEIVED JAN I 12010 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT CITY OF LODI As. a dti= of the Lodi Community, L wish to take issue with the Eftft. Gmaul Plan which the. City of Lodi is currenflp wig on. My comments are identified blow= In choosing the eurrently .proposed draft mal Plan (referred to a the `erred B29-1 PI&I the City is not following the reoommendation .of The Environmental Impact Report, rrded by the dflze= ofd t= dollars. The ENMONMEJUAL LNIPACTREPOWT ids that AlteradveAL, is the environmental snperfor alternative. It provides for less kVact on the environment, as well as other scant reasons for it's adoption. I feel that the New Lodi CumeW Plan should Adopt Altanadve A as the plan B29-2 which wM govern Lodi"a fut= for the next 20+ yms. Do not adopt the currently proposed feral Plan.. Sincad, (Address) a'C'7 ' 9 January 1, 2010 City of Lodi Commmity Dquament Lo& City Hall P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, C.a. 95.41 Atta: Mr. Bartlam Re: City of Lodi Dmft GcnaW Plan aad FIR Dear Mr. Bartlam: LETTER B30 RECEIVED JAI I 1 7010 OMMUNFrf DEV"PMEldT DEFT WY OF LODI As .a citizen of the L.odx Community, I wish to take issue with the Draft Gmeral Marr which the City of Lodi is cummdy woddng om My commems ani ideatified below: In shoo g'the cm=fly paposed draft General Plan (rc&nmA W as the `*aemd PI&I &c City is not follo i g the recommmdatica of The EnvfimmcnW B30-1 Impact Repo sed by the OLS em o, Lodi = do ars The EAWMONMENTAL BIPACTREMAT ids that Alterative A4 is the environmental superlar alternative. R provides fox iess imp t -nn the environment, as well as other significant reasons for it's adoption. I feel that the New Lodi Gena -al Plan should Adopt Aftemative A as the pian whieb will govern Lodi }s future for the next 20+ yem. Do not a pt the B30-2 carrendy proposed General Plan. Sincere, (Address) January 10, 2010 City of Lodi Community Development Deparunent Lodi City Ball P.O. Box 3006 Logi, CO- 0524.1 Atte: Mr. Butlam Re. City of Lodi Draft Gencral Plan and EIR Dear Mr. Ssrtlam: LETTER 631 RECEIVED JAN l l 2010 COMM'JNITY OEYELOPMENT Dir Gr7Y OF LODI As a citizen of the Z. di Cosa mmity, l Wish to #fie issue with the Draft feral Plan whim the City of Lodi is wnwWy wodcing on. My comments axe identified below: In choosing the cun=dy proposed draft Generd Plan (referral to as the)preferred B31-1 Plan' the City is not Wowing. the recommendation of The Envirornnental Impact Report, funded by the cifizew of -Lodi tax dollars. The NV ROS TAL IMPACTR PO T duds that; Alterative - , is the environmental superior alternative. It provides for less impact on the environment, as well as other sig io t reasons for it's adoption. I feel that the New Lodi General Plan should Adopt Alternative A as the plan B31-2 which will govern Lodi °s firtum for the next 0+years. Do not adopt the currently pmposed Ge.naal man. V-WAUA wad January l Q, 2010 City of Lodi Community Development Depmtment Lodi pity EM P.C. Box 3006. LAA Cat 9541 Alta: b4r. Bartlarn Re: City of Lodi Draft General Plan and EIR Dear W. BeNam: LETTER 632 RECEIVED JAN I 1 Fg1Q COMMUTY DEV LDNE T Qom` CITY CF LOCl As a cit;= of the LodiCommunity, I wish to t o issue with the Drag Gmemi Flan which dw .City of Lodi is currently working 'on. My comments are identified below; In chasing the currently proposed draft Gmeral Plan refeued to as the "p fenced B32-1 Plan' the City is not following the rwoaq endation of The Environmental Impact Repot fimded by the. citizens o di Um dolh7rFs. The ENMOON EN ',r L MPACTREPORT flmds that Alterative A, is the envirommentA superior alteadve, It Provides for less impact on the envimmneot, as well as other significant reasons for it's adoption. I feel that the New Lodi General Plan should Adopt A temtive A as the plan which will govern Lodi's future for the n t 0+ yes. Do not adapt the B32-2 eminently proposed General Plan. suety, 2a)- A7 f,_ (Address) '144eEci4e #Mctinn, inc. Januaxy 10, 2610 a * DIDUSTMAL + RENWINTUL PQ Bn E07 + Wbmg tidn U 95258 04M :ft om NUWSir" VN City of Lodi Community Development Department rdi City Hall P.O. Box 3006 Loa Ca. 95241 Atha; Mr. Bantam Re: City of Lath Draft Genoa[ Plan and EER Dear A&. Bardam: LETTER B33 RECEIVED ,SAN 11 2U10 COMMUNaY DEVELOPMENT DEpT CITY OF LOD) As .a chi= of the Lodi Community, I wish to take issue with the Draft General Plan which the City of Lodi is currently working on. My comments are identified below: Its choosing the currently prVosed draft Brener d Plan (referred to as thc ` =ferrel B33-1 flan") the City is not Wowingg-th recommendation of The Environmental impact Report, funded by thee-cifizens of Lodi t= dollars. The ENKRONAMNTAL IWA CT REPORT i ds that Alterative A. is the envirpumental superior alterna#lve. It provides for less U npact on the enviro ent, as well as otheraign�ficant masons for it's adoption. I feel that the New Lodi Geneml flan should Adopt Alternative A as the plan B33-1 which will govem Lodi's future: -for the. next {i+ yearn Flo not adopt the currently proposed General Pian,. Sincerely* (Dame) th i icx ffA&V (Address) LETTER B34 �e M W07 + l Cal 952$$ 40 RECEIVED JAN I I 201U lanu ry 1% 2010 UN c QTY DEVELOPMENT DEPT City of Lodi 'Community Developt Department Lodi City Hall P.C. Box 300. Lodi, .C& 95241 Atte: lir. Bard= Re: City of Lodi Draft Gcncral Plan and EIR Dear Mr, Bart]am. As a citizen of the Lodi Community, l wish to takeissue with the Draft General Plan which the City of Loth is currently working on. My comments are identified below: In choosing the currently proposed &aft General Plan (rrf=ed to as the "preferred B34-1 Plan" the City is not following the recommendation of The Environmental Impact RepoMfimded by the citizens o Lodi wx dollars. The ENYMONMEATAL IWACTAEPORT finds that Alterative A, h the envlroamentalsuperior alteruati e. It provides for less impact on the environment, as well as other aignant reasons for it's adoption. I feel that the New Lodi 'General plan should Adapt Altemative Ai as the plan which will govern Lodi"s fixture for the.aext 4+ years. Do not adapt the B34-2 currently proposed General flan. Sincerely., Am 7 (Address) ns#e aloe, i x. January 10, 20 10 Sax 1047 ; Aga, .Ca 95Z UA MM b84M aocbm 4%33U Mt MM %MWNom tm City of Lodi Community Development Depart neat Lodi City HaU P.O. Box.3006 Lodi, Ca. 95241 Ann: l&. Battlam City of Lodi Draft General Plan and EI1 Dear W. Bartlam: LETTER B35 RECEIVED JAN 1 1 20 10 COMMUNITY01=LOPLODEDIT DEPT C[TY As a citizen of the Lodi Community, I wish to. talo issue with the Dmft General Plan which the City of Lodi is currently woddng on. Illy comments are identified below: 1n choos.ing choosingthe cur=tly proposed draft mewl Plan rd mTed to as the `preferred B35-1 PI the City is not following the recon naendation of The Environmental Impact Deport, funded by the citizens of Lod: tax dollars. The ENV R NWENT' IWACTREPORT ids that Alterative A, is the environmental superior alternative. It provides for i s impact on the enviro t, -as well as other significant rea om for it's adoption. I feel that the New Lodi General Flan should Adopt Alternativc-A as the plan B35-2 which will govern Lodi's futum for the next 0+ years. Do not adopt the currently prop sed General Plan. Sincerer, , Mw4Z. L. 1>�"g . 14A " (Address) LETTER B36 CaNIMML - MUM - Asa MMAt Umm'h OW Ew, C 14e M b= Eaux ■ Wb0&&4% CA 95258 #ructjon, Inc. U4 MM Maass um *4.m W W.WN aux. 070 RECEIVED JAN 1 1 2010 January 10, 2010 COMMUNITY OEVELOPN7DEPT CITY OF LODI City of Lodi Community Development Department Lodi City Hall P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, Ca. 95241 Atte: Mr. Bard= : City of Lodi Draft General Plan and EiR Deu 1"vfr.. Bardam As a citizen of the Lodi Community, I wisb to take issue with the Draft feral Plan which the City of Lodi is curr tly worldng on. My comments are identified below: In choosing the =cndy proposed &at Gw=al Plan (referred -was the 'Werrcd B36-1 Plata the City is. not following -the recommendation of The Enyixonmenml impact Report, funded by the citizew. gft4di tax dollars. The ENMOAMEWAL PdPACTREPORT Ends that Altemdve A, is the environmental superior alternative. It provides for less impact on the entronment, as well'as other -significant reasons for it's adoption. I Feel that the New Lodi General Plan should Adopt Alt=ative A as the PlanB36-2 which will govem Lodi "S future for the next 20+ yeas. Do not adapt the currently proposed General Plan. IA � - lid. Anrfee, ed Lnet (Address jr LETTER B37 4ecbe P.O. bu 1007 * Wo* CA M58 (D' trycWn, Inc. ua pm ww% awb= rim wim ft rm owo &W an REED Janu y 10, -2010 JAN 1 12010 City of Lodi Community Development Department Dodi City Hall P:{ . Box 006 Lodi; x.95241 Attn: W Bartlam Re: City of Lodi Draft general Plan and FIR IR : M, COMONTY T 0 MENT DPT ELODI As a citizen of the Lodi Community, I wish to take issue with the Draft General Flan which the City of Lodi is currently worldng on. My comments are identified below: in choosing the currently proposed draft Creneml Plan (==erred to as the "prcfc d B37-1 Plan" .the City is not following the recommendation of The Environmental Impar Rep=, juinded by the'eitizens ofLo& rax dollar& The ENMONMENTAL AWA CT REPORT molds that Alterad a A, Is the environmental superior alternative. It provides for less impact on the environment, as wcH as other sig cant reasons for it"s adoption.. I feel that .the New Lodi General Plan should Adopt Alt=ativc A as the plan B37-2 which will govcm Lodi's future for the -next 0+ gears. Do not adopt the currently proposed en" Pian. A. % V -k (Address) Lolp-4L- Aor-4: m 3 Response to Comments on the Draft EIR This chapter includes responses to each comment, and in the same order, as presented in Chapter 2. The responses are marked with the same number -letter combination as the comment to which they respond, as shown in the margin of the comment letters. Proposed General Plan policies are referenced in several responses below. During preparation of the Draft EIR and this Final EIR, additional policy measures and edits to proposed policies were identified to further reduce potential impacts. New policy measures have been assigned with the suffix "NEW" (e.g. T-PNEW). Proposed policies that have been recommended for revisions are assigned with the suffix "EDIT" (e.g. T-PIEDIT); text additions are noted in underline and text deletions appear in strikeottt. AGENCIES A I: Central Valley Flood Protection Board A1-1: The City acknowledges that the Central Valley Flood Protection Board's (Board) Jurisdiction includes the Mokelumne River, as a tributary of the San Joaquin River and that a Board permit will be required for activities, such as construction or landscaping, within the Board's jurisdiction. This letter does not raise environmental issues under CEQA. A2: Department of Transportation A2-1: The City acknowledges that State Route 12 (Kettleman Lane) is a Caltrans State Highway and that the Congestion Management Program identifies a Level of Service standard of D for this route. The proposed General Plan policies both titled "T -NEW" on page 3.2-25 underscore the City's understanding of the jurisdictional boundaries, stating: "For purposes of design review and environmental assessment, apply a standard of Level of Service E during peak hour conditions on all streets in the City's jurisdiction..." (emphasis added) and that the City will "Strive to comply with the Level of Service standards and other performance measures on Routes of Regional Significance as defined by the County -wide Congestion Management Program." A2-2: This comment regarding adding a truck route map to the General Plan represents a comment on the proposed General Plan and not on the Draft EIR, and therefore does not require a response here. For information purposes, it should be noted, a truck route map was provided in an earlier working paper, published in July 2007 as part of the General Plan update process. See Figure 3-5 in "Land Use, Transportation, Environment, and Infrastructure" available on the City's website: http://www.lodi.gov/community development/general plan/reports.htm. A2-3: The City acknowledges that future development projects may have impacts to the State highway system and, consistent with current City practice, future developments with 3-1 Chapter 3: Responses to Comments on the DEIR the potential to cause significant impacts would be subject to environmental review procedures, including preparation of a traffic impact study. Several General Plan policies are intended to ensure that appropriate reviews are applied. For example, Policy T -P1 ensures consistency between the timing of new development and the infrastructure needed to serve that development, and Policy T -P2 calls for project reviews to ensure that appropriate mitigations are identified and provided. Policy T -P3 commits the City to work collaboratively with San Joaquin County, San Joaquin Council of Governments, and Caltrans to successfully implement transportation improvements in the vicinity of Lodi. A24: The City acknowledges the importance of consistency between local and regional/State transportation plan and seeks to further reduce Impact 3.2-1, regarding plan consistency by modifying policy T -P3 to read as follows: Work collaboratively with San Joaquin County, San Joaquin Council of Governments, and Caltrans to maintain consistency with regional and State plans, and to successfully implement transportation improvements in the vicinity of Lodi. A2-5: The proposed Lodi General Plan presents population and employment projections, shown in Table ES -1 on page E-4. Although projections from the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) were reviewed and consulted, the proposed General Plan's projections are based on calculations resulting from land use changes in the General Plan Land Use Diagram. The City acknowledges that projections by SJCOG are used as the foundation for the Regional Transportation Plan, Air Quality Conformity Analyses, traffic modeling, and other planning studies. The agency periodically updates its projections by—among other means—surveying local planning departments. The following proposed General Plan policy assures the City's cooperation: • T -P6: Coordinate with the San Joaquin Council of Governments and actively par- ticipate in regional transportation planning efforts to ensure that the City's inter- ests are reflected in regional goals and priorities. A2-6: The data reported in Table 3.1-2 on page 3.1-4 of the Draft EIR are provided by the California Department of Finance (DOF). DOF does not report a further breakdown of housing units, such as by square footage or the exact number of units in each development. A2-7: Table 3.2-1 on page 3.2-3 of the Draft EIR describes Level of Service thresholds and average daily traffic volumes for typical roadway types in Lodi. They do not refer to specific streets in the city. Rather they are devised through analysis of Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual, local factors and planning practice in Lodi and neighborhood jurisdictions, as described on page 3.2-2 of the Draft EIR. A2-8: As described on page 3.2-22 of the Draft EIR, the City of Lodi travel demand model was used to determine how the land uses in the proposed General Plan would generate vehicle trips and would contribute to future traffic volumes on the major streets throughout the planning area. A table has been added to page 3.2-22 of the Draft EIR 3-2 Final Environmental Impact Report: Lodi General Plan to display the trip generation rates used in the Lodi model for each land use category. See Table 4-1 and the trip generation table in Chapter 4 of this Final EIR. A2-9: The proposed General Plan has a 20 -year horizon, through the year 2030, as described on page 2-10 of the Project Description in the Draft EIR. This is the horizon year for the future traffic volumes and levels of service described on page 3.2-15. A revision has been provided on page 3.2-15 of the Draft EIR to clarify this horizon year. See Table 4- 1 of this Final EIR. Data on existing traffic volumes for State highway facilities was requested from the permanent count station database maintained by Caltrans HQ and was used directly in the General Plan analysis. A2-10: As described in the Physical Setting on page 3.2-1 of the Draft EIR, the study area for the transportation analysis is bound by the Mokelumne River to the north, 'h mile west of Lower Sacramento Road to the west, East Hogan Lane to the south, and the Central California Traction Railroad to the east. This area includes State Route 99, whose potential impacts are reported in Table 2.3-4, on page 3.2-21 of the Draft EIR. However, this study area does not include Interstate 5 located within five miles to the west of the city. Proposed General Plan policy T -P7 commits the City to work with the regional metropolitan transportation organization on regional transportation funding, including the update of regional transportation impact fees. Page 3.2-24 of the Draft EIR describes the planned projects to widen SR 99 through Lodi that are referenced in this comment. As described in the Draft EIR, because those freeway widening projects do not have environmental clearance or identified funding, they cannot be assumed in the EIR analysis, but it is acknowledged that those projects would help to address the capacity shortfalls identified as a significant impact. The City of Lodi has a transportation impact fee program to collect "fair share" contributions from new development projects. The fee program is referenced in General Plan policy T -P2, and the City's commitment to update the fee program is included in General Plan policy T -P5. The City is willing to discuss with Caltrans the potential for expanding the transportation impact fee program to include contributions to State highway facility improvements. However, it should be noted that the future traffic volumes and Levels of Service on SR 99 described in the Draft EIR are the result of increased growth in Lodi combined with increased regional traffic demand (i.e., traffic that passes through Lodi but does not stop). Therefore, the "fair share" contribution toward SR 99 improvements from new development in Lodi may be a relatively small proportion of the overall cost of the improvements. In order for a revised impact fee program to be adopted, the likely sources of funding for the remainder of the improvement costs would need to be identified. The City will coordinate with Caltrans on this issue. A new policy will be added to the proposed General Plan: 3-3 Chapter 3: Responses to Comments on the DEIR • T-PNEW: Participate in discussions with Caltrans and neighboring jurisdictions to develop a fair -share fee program for improvements to regional routes and state highways. This fee should reflect traffic generated by individual municipalities and pass-through traffic. A2-11: The Draft EIR was sent to the Air Resources Board. A2-12: The proposed General Plan identifies a range of policies to improve mobility and maintain Level of Service standards, including suggestions recommended by the reviewer: access management, site design, and on-site development circulation. In addition to the City's Subdivision Ordinance, which specifies required street improvements for different types of development projects, these methods are exemplified by the following policies: • T -P9: Design streets in new developments in configurations that generally match and extend the grid pattern of existing city streets. This is intended to disperse traf- fic and provide multiple connections to arterial streets. Require dedication, widen- ing, extension, and construction of public streets in accordance with the City's street standards. Major street improvements shall be completed as abutting lands develop or redevelop. In currently developed areas, the City may determine that improvements necessary to meet City standards are either infeasible or undesirable. • T -P10: Maintain, and update as needed, roadway design standards to manage ve- hicle speeds and traffic volumes. • CD -P14: Minimize pavement widths (curb -to -curb) along Mixed Use Corridors to prioritize pedestrian and bicycle movement, while ensuring adequate street width for traffic flow. • CD -P34: Minimize curb cuts to expand pedestrian space and increase the supply of curbside parking. Methods include requiring abutting new developments to share a single access point from the road and allowing only one curb cut per parcel. • CD -P35: Require new office development to be designed to address not just auto- mobile access, but also potential for transit access, and allowing lunchtime pede- strian access to adjacent uses. Locate new office development along the street edge, with the main entrance facing the street. Parking should not be located between the street and building. A2-13: The following policy in the proposed General Plan assures the City's continued cooperation with Caltrans and other agencies to make improvements that accommodate future growth: T -P3: Work collaboratively with San Joaquin County, San Joaquin Council of Gov- ernments, and Caltrans to successfully implement transportation improvements in the vicinity of Lodi. 3-4 Final Environmental Impact Report: Lodi General Plan A2-14: This comment regarding truck routes represents a comment on the proposed General Plan and not on the Draft EIR, and therefore does not require a response here. This issue is addressed in the response to comment A2-2 above. A3: Public Utilities Commission A3-1: The City appreciates the Public Utilities Commission's commitment to rail safety in California. The following proposed General Plan policies seek to assure the City's commitment to funding and implementing rail safety measures: • T -P4: Maintain and update a Capital Improvements Program so that identified im- provements are appropriately prioritized and constructed in a timely manner. • T -P5: Update the local transportation impact fee program, consistent with General Plan projections and planned transportation improvements. • T -P31: Coordinate with the California Public Utilities Commission to implement future railroad crossing improvements. • T -P32: Require a commitment of funding for railroad crossing protection devices from private development requiring new railroad spurs. A4: City of Stockton A4-1: This comment regarding policies for Urban Reserve areas represents a comment on the proposed General Plan and not on the Draft EIR, and therefore does not require a response here. Notably, proposed General Plan policies ensure that the city expands only as needed and only when infrastructure has been provided: • GM-P2EDIT: Target new growth into identified areas, extending south, west, and southeast. Ensure contiguous development by requiring development to conform to phasing described in Figure 3-1 [of the proposed General Plan]. Enforce phasing through permitting and infrastructure provision. Development may not extend to Phase 2 until Phase 1 has reached 75% of development potential, and development may not extend to Phase 3 until Phase 2 has reached 75% of development potential. In order to respond to market changes in the demand for various land use types, exemptions may be made to allow for development in future phases before these thresholds in the previous phase have been reached. • GM -G2: Provide infrastructure—including water, sewer, stormwater, and solid waste/recycling systems—that is designed and timed to be consistent with projected capacity requirements and development phasing. • GM -P8: Coordinate extension of sewer service, water service, and stormwater facil- ities into new growth areas concurrent with development phasing. Decline requests for extension of water and sewer lines beyond the city limit prior to the relevant development phase and approve development plans and water system extension only when a dependable and adequate water supply for the development is assured. A4-2: This comment regarding the proposed General Plan's designation of an Armstrong Road Agricultural/Cluster Study Area represents a comment on the proposed General 3-5 Chapter 3: Responses to Comments on the DEIR Plan and not on the Draft EIR, and therefore does not require a response here. The City acknowledges that the City of Stockton has adopted an open space/agricultural land use along this northern boundary. For information purposes, more detail on the Armstrong Road Agricultural/Cluster Study Area is provided in Table 3-1 in the Growth Management Element of the proposed General Plan. This table describes potential policy tools, such as coordinating with other public agencies and avoiding uses that would diminish the agriculture/open space character of the greenbelt. A4-3: This comment regarding the Armstrong Road Agricultural/Cluster Study Area represents a comment on the proposed General Plan and not on the Draft EIR, and therefore does not require a response here. However, for information purposes, we propose additional text in the proposed General Plan to describe the Armstrong Road Agricultural/Cluster Study Area, since it is shown on the Land Use Diagram: • Armstrong Road Agricultural/Cluster Study Area: This overlay designation is in- tended to maintain a clear distinction between Lodi and Stockton. In coordination with relevant public agencies and property owners, the City will continue to study this designation area to determine a strategy to meet these objectives. Notably, additional information and policy direction about the Study Area is described in the Growth Management Element of the proposed General Plan, as mentioned in the response to comment A4-2, above. A44: A revision has been provided to page 3.2-21 of the Draft EIR to address this comment about traffic volumes and Level of Service on arterial roadways south of Harney Lane. See Table 4-1 of this Final EIR. A4-5: Comments noted. The Draft EIR assesses potential impacts on the current staffing levels and facilities for police and fire protection. The City respectfully disagrees that it needs to provide response time standards. Instead, the proposed General Plan calls for establishing even more detailed thresholds to ensuring safety: • GM -P22: Develop a Fire and Police Services Master Plan that would establish thre- sholds and requirements for fire and police facilities, staffing, and building features. The Fire and Police Services Master Plan should consider the following: Typical nature and type of calls for service; Fire prevention and mitigation measures, such as sprinklers, fire retardant mate- rials, and alarms; - Appropriate measures for determining adequate levels of service; and - Locations and requirements for additional facilities and staffing. AS: San Joaquin Council of Governments A5-1: As the reviewer notes, although there are two public airports that lie within the city's Planning Area, the airports do not lie within the city limits and are therefore under San Joaquin County's jurisdiction. The City of Lodi will serve as the lead agency when it has 3-6 Final Environmental Impact Report: Lodi General Plan the primary responsibility for approving a project that may have a significant impact upon the environment. A6: San Joaquin Council of Governments A6-1: The City acknowledges that, according to Government Code Section 65089.4, it will be required to prepare Deficiency Plan for roadway segments that are monitored as part of the Regional Congestion Management Program (RCMP) and which exceed the RCMP's stipulated Level of Service standard (currently LOS D), within 12 months of when the deficiency is identified. A6-2: The City acknowledges that RCMP roadway segments in Lodi that operate at the RCMP Level of Service standard (currently LOS D) will be required to prepare a plan that analyzes specific strategies for operational preservation and transportation demand management. The City further acknowledges that SJCOG is preparing a Regional Travel Demand Management Action Plan that will offer guidance for this requirement. A6-3: The City acknowledges that future projects in Lodi may be required to assess potential impacts on RCMP roadway segments within traffic impact analysis studies and/or environmental review documents, if the project generates 125 or more peak hour trips. A7: San Joaquin County, Community Development Department A7-1: This comment regarding the Armstrong Road Agricultural/Cluster Study Area represents a comment on the proposed General Plan and not on the Draft EIR, and therefore does not require a response here. For further information about the Armstrong Road Agricultural/Cluster Study Area, see response to Letter A4, comment A4-3. ORGANIZATIONS/INDIVIDUALS B 1: Jane Wagner-Tyack B1-1: This comment regarding the Lodi Urban Water Cycle graphic represents a comment on the proposed General Plan and not on the Draft EIR, and therefore does not require a response here. Notably, the sources of the water supply are documented on page 3.13- 13 of the Draft EIR. B1-2: The City appreciates the reviewer's interest in ensuring an adequate water supply. Page 3.13-13 of the Draft EIR describes the potential increase in groundwater safe -yield, as the city grows and its land area increases. However, the proposed General Plan ensures that agricultural land will not be prematurely converted to urban uses in order to gain additional water supply. Proposed policies seek to ensure responsible growth that protects agricultural land and ensures that adequate infrastructure and water resources are in place before development can proceed: 3-7 Chapter 3: Responses to Comments on the DEIR • C -P3: Support the continuation of agricultural uses on lands designated for urban uses until urban development is imminent. • GM -G2: Provide infrastructure—including water, sewer, stormwater, and solid waste/recycling systems—that is designed and timed to be consistent with projected capacity requirements and development phasing. • GM -G3: Promote conservation of resources in order to reduce the load on existing and planned infrastructure capacity, and to preserve existing environmental re- sources. • GM-P2EDIT: Target new growth into identified areas, extending south, west, and southeast. Ensure contiguous development by requiring development to conform to phasing described in Figure 3-1 [of the proposed General Plan]. Enforce phasing through permitting and infrastructure provision. Development may not extend to Phase 2 until Phase 1 has reached 75% of development potential, and development may not extend to Phase 3 until Phase 2 has reached 75% of development potential. • GM -P7: Ensure that public facilities and infrastructure—including water supply, sewer, and stormwater facilities—are designed to meet projected capacity require- ments to avoid the need for future replacement and upsizing, pursuant to the Gen- eral Plan and relevant master planning. • GM -P8: Coordinate extension of sewer service, water service, and stormwater facil- ities into new growth areas concurrent with development phasing. Decline requests for extension of water and sewer lines beyond the city limit prior to the relevant development phase and approve development plans and water system extension only when a dependable and adequate water supply for the development is assured. B1-3: This comment supporting use of gray water or rainwater for non -potable uses represents a comment on the proposed General Plan and not on the Draft EIR, and therefore does not require a response here. B1-4: The Draft EIR makes interchangeable references to the San Francisco Bay -San Joaquin River Delta and the Delta. This full name and abbreviation are provided on page 3.7-1 of the Hydrology and Water Quality section. B1-5: A revision has been provided on page 3.7-1 of the Draft EIR to address this comment and proper spelling of the Camanche Reservoir. See Table 4-1 of this Final EIR. B1-6: A revision has been provided to page 7.2-4 of the Draft EIR to address this comment regarding groundwater basins. See Table 4-1 of this Final EIR. B1-7: During preparation of the Draft EIR, the analysis of potable water was revised to update projections from the most recent urban water management plan and other sources to reflect the development potential accommodated in the proposed General Plan Land Use Diagram. The water demand and supply analysis, presented in Impact 3-8 Final Environmental Impact Report: Lodi General Plan 3.13-1, beginning on page 3.13-2, supersedes the proposed General Plan and identifies sufficient supply to meet demand during normal years. In dry years, demand is projected to exceed supply by approximately 4,040 acre-feet. However, growth management phasing, water conservation measures, recycled water, and graywater systems, are expected to bridge this gap. The proposed General Plan will be updated prior to adoption to reflect this updated analysis. Relevant proposed General Plan policies that would ensure that a sufficient water supply is available to meet needs and that promote potable water conservation are identified in the impact statement, beginning on page 3.13-15. These policies include: GM -G2, GM -G3, GM -P7, GM -P8, GM -P9, GM -P10, GM-P1IEDIT, GM -P12, GM - P13, GM -P14, and GM-P15EDIT. GM -P8 in particular ensures that development will not proceed until an adequate water supply has been identified: • GM -P8: Coordinate extension of sewer service, water service, and stormwater facil- ities into new growth areas concurrent with development phasing. Decline requests for extension of water and sewer lines beyond the city limit prior to the relevant development phase and approve development plans and water system extension only when a dependable and adequate water supply for the development is assured. 131-8: The City appreciates the reviewer's interest in ensuring water quality levels. The Draft EIR acknowledges existing wastewater deficiencies and an implementation program to meet existing and future demand. While the proposed General Plan will require new facilities to accommodate projected wastewater flows and required treatment capacity, it also identifies the infrastructure needed over the life of the Plan, and includes policies that require the provision of infrastructure in a timely manner. In fact, many of the required infrastructure improvements are already underway or are already part of existing master plans. In addition, project level environmental analysis will be required for any infrastructure development that could result in environmental impacts. Impact 3.13-2, beginning on page 3.13-17, identifies the relevant improvements and proposed General Plan policies that address this capacity issue. Moreover, the proposed General Plan also identifies policies to maintain and improve water quality levels in local and regional water bodies: • C -P-26: Monitor water quality regularly to ensure that safe drinking water stan- dards are met and maintained in accordance with State and EPA regulations and take necessary measures to prevent contamination. Comply with the requirements of the Clean Water Act with the intent of minimizing the discharge of pollutants to surface waters. C -P-27: Monitor the water quality of the Mokelumne River and Lodi Lake, in coor- dination with San Joaquin County, to determine when the coliform bacterial stan- dard for contact recreation and the maximum concentration levels of priority pol- lutants, established by the California Department of Health Services, are exceeded. Monitor the presence of pollutants and variables that could cause harm to fish, wildlife, and plant species in the Mokelumne River and Lodi Lake. Post signs at areas used by water recreationists warning users of health risks whenever the coli - 3 -9 Chapter 3: Responses to Comments on the DEIR form bacteria standard for contact recreation is exceeded. Require new industrial development to not adversely affect water quality in the Mokelumne River or in the area's groundwater basin. Control use of potential water contaminants through in- ventorying hazardous materials used in City and industrial operations. • C -P-28: Regularly monitor water quality in municipal wells for evidence of conta- mination from dibromochloropropane (DBCP), saltwater intrusion, and other tox- ic substances that could pose a health hazard to the domestic water supply. Close or treat municipal wells that exceed the action level for DBCP. • C -P-29: Minimize storm sewer pollution of the Mokelumne River and other wa- terways by maintaining an effective street sweeping and cleaning program. • C -P-30: Require, as part of watershed drainage plans, Best Management Practices, to reduce pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. • C -P-31: Require all new development and redevelopment projects comply with the post -construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) called for in the Stormwater Quality Control Criteria Plan, as outlined in the City's Phase 1 Stormwater NPDES permit issued by the California Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Re- gion. Require that owners, developers, and/or successors -in -interest to establish a maintenance entity acceptable to the City to provide funding for the operation, maintenance, and replacement costs of all post -construction BMPs. • C -P-32: Require, as part of the City's Storm Water NPDES Permit and ordinances, the implementation of a Grading Plan, Erosion Control Plan, and Pollution Pre- vention Plan during the construction of any new development and redevelopment projects, to the maximum extent feasible. • C -P-33: Require use of stormwater management techniques to improve water qual- ity and reduce impact on municipal water treatment facilities. • C -P-34: Protect groundwater resources by working with the county to prevent sep- tic systems in unincorporated portions of the county that are in the General Plan Land Use Diagram, on parcels less than two acres. • C -P-35: Reduce the use of pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, or other toxic chemi- cal substances by households and farmers by providing education and incentives. B1-9: The City appreciates the reviewer's support for potable water conservation and use of grey and recycled water. This comment does not raise environmental issues under CEQA. B1-10: This comment does not raise environmental issues under CEQA. The Draft EIR represents a good faith effort to disclose all significant environmental effects of implementing the proposed General Plan, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the proposed Plan. Decision makers are required to use this informational document to make a decision about the Plan contents and adoption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15090). 3-10 Final Environmental Impact Report: Lodi General Plan B2: Herum/Crabtree Attorneys B2-1: This comment—discussing the PRR (Planned Residential Reserve) land use designation, which exists in the current General Plan—represents a comment on the existing and proposed General Plan and not on the Draft EIR, and therefore does not require a response here. 132-2: The reviewer is correct in saying that "an environmentally superior alternative does not need to match all the project objectives in order to be a viable alternative." As described on page 4-20 of the Draft EIR, Alternative A was selected as the environmentally superior alternative for having the least environmental impact relative to the proposed General Plan and Alternative B, while meeting most project objectives. 132-3: The reviewer is correct that elements from two or more alternatives may be blended to create a new alternative and meet the two percent growth policy. However, the environmental impacts generally correlate with population and job projection estimates. Alternative A enjoys the benefits of lower vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions compared with the proposed General Plan in part due to the fact that it results in fewer residents and jobs. Adding land area to accommodate the additional population to meet the two percent growth policy will result in additional environmental impacts, likely similar to those identified in the project. B24: As described on page 4-1 of the Draft EIR, according to CEQA Guidelines, the range of alternatives "shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant impacts" (Section 15126.6(c)) (emphasis added). The project objectives, as described on page 2-4 of the Draft EIR, were synthesized during the planning process, as a result of input from community members, City staff, and decision makers. They articulate a vision for Lodi's future in the next 20 years. When the City set out to define alternatives to the proposed General Plan, it had to balance the basic project objectives with opportunities for substantially lessening significant environmental effects. The Draft EIR represents a good faith effort to disclose all significant environmental effects of implementing the proposed General Plan, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the proposed Plan. Decision makers ultimately decide on a preferred project, and prepare findings, facts in support of findings, and a statement of overriding considerations, as necessary, to support their decision. B3: Bruce Fry 133-1: This comment, regarding the reviewer's preference for Alternative A, does not raise environmental issues under CEQA; however, as a part of the public record, the City will take this comment into account in its decision on the proposed General Plan. B3-2: This comment—discussing the PRR (Planned Residential Reserve) land use designation, which exists in the current General Plan—represents a comment on the 3-11 Chapter 3: Responses to Comments on the DEIR existing and proposed General Plan and not on the Draft EIR, and therefore does not require a response here. B3-3: The objectives of the proposed General Plan clarify the proposed growth pattern, as described on page 2-4 of the Draft EIR (emphasis added): • Objective #1: Compact Urban Form. The Plan enhances Lodi's compact urban form, promoting infill development downtown and along key corridors, while also outlining growth possibilities directly adjacent to the existing urban edge. The City's overall form will be squarish, reinforcing the centrality of downtown, with vir- tually all new development located within three miles from it. • Objective #2: Mokelumne River as the City's Northern Edge. The Lodi communi- ty has expressed a desire to see the river remain as the city's northern edge. The southern bank of the river (within the city) is occupied by residential uses and streets do not reach the river. Therefore, connectivity across the river to knit the urban fabric would be challenging if growth were to extend northward. • Objective #7: Agricultural Preservation Along Southern Boundary. In order to preserve agriculture and maintain a clear distinction between Lodi and Stockton, the Plan acknowledges the Armstrong Road Agricultural/Cluster Study Area along the south edge of Lodi, from Interstate 5 (1-5) to State Route (SR) 99, and south to Stockton's Planning Area boundary. The Land Use Diagram presented in Figure 2.3-1 on page 2-7 of the Draft EIR does depict urban development continuing south up to Hogan Lane, as the reviewer recommends, from Lower Sacramento Road on the west, past the Central California Traction Railroad to the east. However, it recommends stopping urban development at that boundary due to the reasons identified in the three objectives above. 133-4: This comment, recommending that the area south of Harney Lane and north of Armstrong Road be designated as Urban Reserve, represents a comment on the proposed General Plan and not on the Draft EIR, and therefore does not require a response here. 133-5: The water supply analysis presented on page 3.13-13 of the Draft EIR represents a good faith effort to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed General Plan. The assumptions used are the best available and reflect existing knowledge and data. In the case of water supply, the analysis relies on the City's adopted 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). As described on page 3.13-13 of the Draft EIR, during dry years, the reliable water supply is estimated at 25,310 acre-feet. As a result, potential water shortage at full development could be 4,040 acre-feet in a dry year, meeting 86% of demand. The analysis on page 3.13-15 further concludes that because of recycled water supply opportunities, gray water and rain water catchment systems, and proposed General Plan policies that both restricts development until water supply is assured and promote 3-12 Final Environmental Impact Report: Lodi General Plan potable water conservation, supply will meet demand, making the potential impact less than significant. A revision to page 3.13-15 of the Draft EIR (see Table 4-1 in Chapter 4 of this Final EIR) describes the City's Water Conservation Ordinance which further supports water conservation, enforces penalties when water is wasted, and permits the City to take additional conservation measures in the case of a water supply emergency. While the draft EIR does not evaluate scenarios where UWMP assumptions change, such as groundwater pumps malfunctioning, as hypothetically referenced by the reviewer, these revisions do explain the City's regulations during a water emergency situation. B3-6: Comment noted regarding a preference for the City to pursue surface water rather than groundwater sources and not on the Draft EIR, and therefore does not require a response here. B3-7: Comment noted regarding the reviewer seeking additional analysis of water demand. The demand analysis presented on page 3.13-12 of the Draft EIR represents the best effort to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed General Plan. The assumptions used are the best available and reflect existing knowledge and data. The water analysis will be updated as part of the City's regular updating of its Urban Water Management Plan, as highlighted in policy GM -P10 of the proposed General Plan: "...The Urban Water Management Plan should be updated on a five year basis in compliance with State of California mandated requirements. Future plans should be developed in 2010, 2015, 2020, 2025, and 2030." B3-8: Comment noted regarding the reviewer seeking additional analysis of water quality. The potential impacts of the proposed General Plan in terms of water quality are identified in the impact analysis beginning on page 3.7-8 of the Draft EIR. Potential impacts are considered less than significant given the regulatory requirements and standards to which existing and future development must comply. Additionally, General Plan policies have been proposed to ensure potential environmental effects on water quality remain less than significant. B3-9: This comment, regarding the agricultural conservation program, represents a comment on the proposed General Plan and not on the Draft EIR, and therefore does not require a response here. B4: Joseph L. Manassero B4-1: This comment—discussing the PRR (Planned Residential Reserve) land use designation—represents a comment on the existing and proposed General Plan and not on the Draft EIR, and therefore does not require a response here. B4-2: As described on page 4-20 of the Draft EIR, Alternative A was selected as the environmentally superior alternative for having the least environmental impact relative to the proposed General Plan and Alternative B, while meeting most project objectives. The reviewer is correct in saying that additional land area could be added to the east 3-13 Chapter 3: Responses to Comments on the DEIR and west of Alternative A in order to meet the two percent growth policy. However, the environmental impacts generally correlate with population and job projection estimates. Alternative A enjoys the benefits of lower vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions compared with the proposed General Plan in part due to the fact that it results in fewer residents and jobs. Adding land area to accommodate the additional population to meet the two percent growth policy will result in additional environmental impacts, likely similar to those identified in the project. B4-3: The City respectfully disagrees with the reviewer's comment. The Draft EIR is an informational document that represents a good faith effort to disclose all significant environmental effects of implementing the proposed General Plan. It identifies possible ways to minimize the significant effects and describes reasonable alternatives to the proposed Plan. It does not recommend the project nor any of the alternatives. Rather it is intended to assist the community in understanding potential impacts and ultimately to aid decision makers to decide on a preferred project, and prepare findings, facts in support of findings, and a statement of overriding considerations, as necessary, to support their decision. 134-4: This comment, regarding the reviewer's preference for Alternative A, does not raise environmental issues under CEQA; however, as a part of the public record, the City will take this comment into account in its decision on the proposed General Plan. 135: Catherine T. Manassero B5-1: See Letter B4, response to comment B4-1. 135-2: See Letter B4, response to comment 134-2. 135-3: See Letter B4, response to comment 134-3. 135-4: See Letter B4, response to comment 134-4. 136: Michael). Manassero B6-1: See Letter B4, response to comment B4-1. B6-2: See Letter B4, response to comment B4-2. B6-3: See Letter B4, response to comment 134-3. 136-4: See Letter B4, response to comment 134-4. 137: Patricia M. Manassero B7-1: See Letter B4, response to comment B4-1. B7-2: See Letter B4, response to comment B4-2. 3-14 Final Environmental Impact Report: Lodi General Plan B7-3: See Letter B4, response to comment B4-3. B7-4: See Letter B4, response to comment B4-4. 138: Jack D. Ward B8-1: The Environmental Impact Report does not recommend Alternative A nor does it recommend the proposed General Plan. The Draft EIR represents a good faith effort to disclose all significant environmental effects of implementing the proposed General Plan, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the proposed Plan. Decision makers may then use this informational document to make a decision about Plan contents and adoption. B8-2: This comment, regarding the reviewer's preference for Alternative A, does not raise environmental issues under CEQA; however, as a part of the public record, the City will take this comment into account in its decision on the proposed General Plan. 139: Joseph Kaehler B9-1: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-1. B9-2: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-2. B 10: Illegible name BIO -1: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-1. BIO -2: See Letter B8, response to comment 138-2. B 11: John Kaehler B11-1: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-1. B11-2: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-2. B 12: Illegible name B12-1: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-1. B12-2: See Letter B8, response to comment 138-2. B 13: Grace Puccinelli B13-1: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-1. B13-2: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-2. B14: Illegible name B14-1: See Letter B8, response to comment 138-1. 3-15 Chapter 3: Responses to Comments on the DEIR B14-2: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-2. B IS: Illegible name B15-1: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-1. B15-2: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-2. B 16: Douglass Manassero B16-1: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-1. B16-2: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-2. B 17: Illegible name B17-1: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-1. B17-2: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-2. B 18: Illegible name B18-1: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-1. B18-2: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-2. B 19: Illegible name B19-1: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-1. B19-2: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-2. B20: Illegible name B20-1: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-1. B20-2: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-2. B21: Illegible name B21-1: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-1. B21-2: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-2. B22: Steve). Borra Jr. B22-1: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-1. B22-2: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-2. 3-16 Final Environmental Impact Report: Lodi General Plan B23: Beverly Borra B23-1: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-1. B23-2: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-2. B24: Lucille Borra B24-1: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-1. B24-2: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-2. B25: Gary Tsutsumi B25-1: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-1. B25-2: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-2. B26: Illegible name B26-1: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-1. B26-2: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-2. B27: Illegible name B27-1: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-1. B27-2: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-2. B28: Illegible name B28-1: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-1. B28-2: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-2. B29: Illegible name B29-1: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-1. B29-2: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-2. B30: Thomas Gooding B30-1: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-1. B30-2: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-2. B3 I: Louise Gooding B31-1: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-1. 3-17 Chapter 3: Responses to Comments on the DEIR B31-2: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-2. B32: Illegible name B32-1: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-1. B32-2: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-2. B33: Mike Mason B33-1: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-1. B33-2: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-2. B34: Jake Diede B34-1: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-1. B34-2: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-2. B35: Steven L. Diede B35-1: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-1. B35-2: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-2. B36: Izzac Ramirez B36-1: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-1. B36-2: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-2. B37: Robert Lee B37-1: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-1. B37-2: See Letter B8, response to comment B8-2. ORAL TESTIMONY C- 1: Planning Commission Hearing on Draft EIR Oral comments were heard at a Planning Commission public hearing on the Draft EIR, on December 9, 2009. Jane Wagner-Tyack voiced oral comments, but also provided the same comments in a letter. Responses to this letter, Letter B1, are provided above. All other comments heard represented comments on the proposed General Plan and did not raise environmental issues under CEQA and therefore will not be addressed in this response to comments on the Draft EIR. 3-18 4 Revisions to the Draft EIR This chapter includes the revisions to the Draft EIR. These revisions have been made in response to comments or based on review by the EIR preparers. The revisions appear here in the order they appear in the Draft EIR. Text additions are noted in underline and text deletions appear in strikeout. The City may refine the proposed General Plan based upon agency and public comments. These changes will not alter the conclusions presented in the Draft EIR regarding significant environmental impacts or mitigation measures and therefore do not trigger recirculation. Revisions to the Draft EIR are described in Table 4-1 and organized by chapter, page and table or figure, where applicable. Certain revised pages (including revised figures) have been appended to the end of this chapter, for clarity purposes; these pages are referenced in the table. Table 4-1: Revisions to the Draft EIR Chapter/ Section Page Correction 3.2 3.2-15 The second sentence of the first paragraph is amended as follows: Table 3.2-4 presents the existing and projected2( 030) traffic volumes and LOS for individual roadway segments throughout the city. 3.2 3.2-21 Add paragraph following Table 3.2-4: Future (2030) traffic volumes and LOS values were assessed for two additional north -south segments, between Harney Lane and Armstrong Road: • Lower Sacramento Rd: 24,500, LOS B • West Lane: 28,500, LOS D Existing daily traffic volumes and LOS were not assessed. These additional segments do not alter the conclusions presented in the Draft EIR regarding significant envi- ronmental impacts and therefore do not trigger recirculation 3.2 3.2-22 The following text is added after the first paragraph of the Impact Methodology sec- tion. The referenced Table 3.2-4A may be found at this end of this chapter. The traffic demand forecasting model summarizes land uses, street network, travel characteristics, and other key factors. Using these data, the model performs a series of calculations to determine the amount of trips generated, where each trip begins and ends, and the route taken by the trip. Trip generation is estimated by land use, using factors, as described in a new table, Table 3.2-4A. These trips are aggregated to determine daily traffic volumes and total vehicle trips in addition to other out- comes. 3.7 3.7-1 The Cemanche Camanche Reservoir is located on the Mokelumne River approx- imately 20 miles northeast of the Planning Area (City of Lodi, 1988; Department of Water Resources, 2006). 3.7-4 A second map is added to this page to show groundwater basins. This new map, Figure 7.2-1 A is appended at the end of this section. 3.13-15 The following text is added after the third paragraph under the heading "Policies and Mitigations:" 4-1 Chapter 4: Revisions to the DEIR Third, the City's Water Conservation Ordinance promotes water conservation by restricting water of landscaping to certain days and hours. (For example, odd num- bered street addresses may only water landscaping on Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays, and watering between May I and September 30, between I OAM and 6PM is prohibited.) The ordinance also specifies enforcement procedures, including sanc- tions for non-compliance. Most importantly, in relation to dry year scenarios, the ordinance also permits the City to place additional restrictions on water use in an emergency situation to manage water pressure and/or supply demands. 4-2 Final Environmental Impact Report: Lodi General Plan Table 3.2-4A: Daily Vehicle Trip Generation Rates Land Use Type Units Daily Trips Generated per Unit Residential Thousand Square -feet 60 Single Family Dwelling Units I I Multi -Family Dwelling Units 7 Duplex Dwelling Units 9 Mobile Home Dwelling Units 4.99 Retirement Home Thousand Square -feet 3.3 Non -Residential Students 1.71 General Commercial/Shopping Center Thousand Square -feet 45 Super Store Thousand Square -feet 60 Downtown/Neighborhood Commercial Thousand Square -feet 25 Office Thousand Square -feet 15 Light Industrial Thousand Square -feet 6.97 Heavy Industrial Thousand Square -feet 1.7 Public Uses Thousand Square -feet I High School Students 1.71 Elementary & Junior High School Students 1.29 Hotel Rooms 8.92 Hospital Thousand Square -feet 17.57 Highway Commercial Thousand Square -feet 845.6 Source: City of Lodi Travel Demand Forecasting Model, Final Model Development Report, Fehr and Peers, February 2008. 4-3 Chapter 4: Revisions to the DEIR 0 5 10 b MILES Hydrologic Region QGroundwater 5ubbasin o'bi.— Waterway Lad! Planning Area _ Lodi City Limits 4-4 Figure 7.2-1 A San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region and Groundwater Basins IF i r � � r r � � 1 • / San Joaquin 0 5 10 b MILES Hydrologic Region QGroundwater 5ubbasin o'bi.— Waterway Lad! Planning Area _ Lodi City Limits 4-4 Figure 7.2-1 A San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region and Groundwater Basins DYETT & BHATIA Urban and Regional Planners 755 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, California 941 1 1 © 415 956 4300 A 415 956 7315 RESOLUTION NO. 2010-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RELATING TO THE GENERAL PLAN; STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2009022075 WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65300 mandates that cities shall adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the City and of any land outside its boundaries, which in the City's judgment bears a relation to its planning; and WHEREAS, the City Council initiated the comprehensive update to the City's General Plan on May 17, 2006, pursuant to Resolution No. 2006-94; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director made a determination that the update to the City's General Plan 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 (DEIR) was prepared and distributed to reviewing agencies on February 17, 2009; and WHEREAS, the DEIR on the proposed General Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 2009022075) was released for circulation on November 25, 2009, for the statutorily mandated comment period of no less than 45 -days; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi, after ten (10) days published notice, held a study session and public hearing on December 9, 2009. Public comments on the DEIR were taken at the hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lodi, after ten (10) days published notice, took public testimony on the DEIR on January 6,2010; and WHEREAS, written responses were prepared to all comments, oral and written, regarding the DEIR received during the public comment period; and WHEREAS, a Final EIR (FEIR) responding to all public comments, oral and written, regarding the DEIR received during the public comment period was prepared and released to the public and commenting agencies on February 6,2010; and WHEREAS, on February 17, 2010, the City Council, after ten (10) days published notice, held a public hearing on the FEIR; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after consideration of public testimony, voted to include a component of an Alternative B analyzed within the DEIR by adding a College Reserve placeholder to the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council independently reviewed, analyzed, and certified the FEIR; and 904644.4 WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that, in connection with the approval of a project for which an EIR has been prepared, which identifies one or more significant effects, the decision-making agency make certain findings regarding those effects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED, as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. 2. THAT THE CITY COUNCIL hereby finds that full and fair public hearings have been held on the FEIR and the City Council having considered all comments received thereon, said FEIR is hereby determined to be adequate and complete; and said FEIR is hereby incorporated herein by reference. 3. THAT THE CITY COUNCIL hereby determines that the FEIR has been prepared in compliance with CEQA and the state and local environmental guidelines and regulations, that it has independently reviewed and analyzed the information contained therein, including the written comments received during the DEIR review period and the oral comments received at the public hearings, and that the FEIR represents the independent judgment of the City of Lodi as Lead Agency for the project. 4. THAT THE CITY COUNCIL does hereby find and recognize that the FEIR contains additions, clarifications, modifications, and other information in its responses to comments on the DEIR and also incorporates text changes to the DEIR based on information obtained from the City since the DEIR was issued. The City Council does hereby find and determine that such changes and additional information are not significant new information as that term is defined under the provisions of the CEQA because such changes and additional information do not indicate that any new significant environmental impacts not already evaluated would result from the proposed General Plan and they do not reflect any substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impact; no feasible mitigation measures considerably different from those previously analyzed in the DEIR have been proposed that would either lessen a significant environmental impact of the project or result in a new, substantial environmental impact; no feasible alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the DEIR have been proposed that would lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project; and the DEIR was adequate. Accordingly, the City Council hereby finds and determines that recirculation of the Final EIR for further public review and comment is not warranted. (CEQA Guidelines §15088.5). 5. THAT THE CITY COUNCIL does hereby make the findings with respect to the significant effects on the environment resulting from the project, as identified in the FEIR, with the stipulation that (i) all information in these findings is intended as a summary of the full administrative record supporting the FEIR, which full administrative record is available for review through the Director of Community Development located in City Hall, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, 95241, and (ii) any mitigation measures and/or alternatives that were suggested by the commentators on the DEIR and were not adopted as part of the FEIR are hereby expressly rejected for the reasons stated in the responses to comments set forth in the FEIR and elsewhere in the record. The significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed General Plan as determined by the City are listed below. In addition, the findings and facts supporting the findings in connection therewith are listed. The following areas were discussed in the FEIR: 2 904644.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN: Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact # Impact Proposed General Policies that Significance Mitigation 3.I-1 The proposed General Planwould not NIA Beneficial NIA physically divide any established communities and would increase connectivity locally and regionally. 3.1-2 The proposed General Plan would conflict LU -P I, LU -P17, CD -P2, CD -P3, Less than None required 3.2-3 The proposed General Plan may conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or CD -P4, CD -P6, CD -P9, CD -P 11, Significant N o feasible with adopted policies, plans, or programs regulation. CD -P31, GM -P10 mitigationis 3 2 _ Trak and Circulation P 18, T -P19, T -P20, T -P22, T -P24, ....vt,.. �r�;.. r 3.2- 1 The proposed General Plan would result in T -G I,T-PI,T-P2, T -P3, T -P4, T- Significantand No feasible P43, T -P44, T -P45, T -G2, T -G3, a substantial increase in vehicular traffic PNEW, T -NEW, T -P8, T NEW, Unavoidable mitigation is T -G4, T -G5, T -P 11, T -P 12, T -P21, that would cause certain facilities to T -P9, T -P10, T -P 13, T -P14, T -PIS, currently available. T -P23, T -P26, T -P30, T -P38, T. exceed level of service standards T -P16, T -P17, T -P18, T -P19, T - continued agriculture use. P39 established by the governing agency. P20, T -P22, T -P24, T -P25, T -P27, T -P-28, T -P29, T -P43, T -P44, T - P45 3.2-2 The proposed General Plan may adversely affect emergency access. T -P I, T -P2, T -P8, T -P9, T -P10 Significantand Unavoidable No mitigation measures are feasible. 3.2-3 The proposed General Plan may conflict T -G I, T -P8, T -P9, T -P10, T -P 13, Significantand N o feasible with adopted policies, plans, or programs T -P14, T -P15, T -P16, T -P17, T- Unavoidable mitigationis supporting alternative transportation P 18, T -P19, T -P20, T -P22, T -P24, currently available. modes. T -P25, T -P27, T -P28, T -P29, T - altogether 3.3-2 Build out of the proposed General Plan P43, T -P44, T -P45, T -G2, T -G3, Less than None required would result in potential land use T -G4, T -G5, T -P 11, T -P 12, T -P21, Significant incompatibilitieswith sites designated for T -P23, T -P26, T -P30, T -P38, T. continued agriculture use. P39 3.3-1 Build out of the proposed General Plan C -G I, C -G2, C -PI, C -P2, C -P3, Significantand Not directly would convert substantial amounts of C -P4, C -PS, C -P6, C -P7, C -P8, Unavoidable mitigable aside Important Farmland to non-agricultural GM -G I, GM -P2 from preventing use. development altogether 3.3-2 Build out of the proposed General Plan C -P I, C -P2, C -P3, C -P4, C -PS, C- Less than None required would result in potential land use P6, C -P7, C -P8, GM -G I, GM -P2, Significant incompatibilitieswith sites designated for CD -G continued agriculture use. 3.4-1 Build out of the proposed General Plan C -P9, C -P10, C -P 11, C -PI 2, C- Less than None required could have a substantial adverse effect, P 13, C -P14, C -PI 5, C -P 16, C -P32, Significant either directly or through habitat P -P9, P-PI0, P -P 11, P -P12 modifications, on special status and/or common species. 3.4-2 Build out cf the proposed General Plan 904644.4 C -P9, C -P10, C -P 11, C -PI 2, C- Less than None required Summary cF Impacts and Proposed General Policiesthat Reduce the Impact # Impact Proposed General Policies that Significance Mitigation Reduce the Impact could have a substantial adverse effect on P 13, C -P14, C -P 15, C -P16, C -P32, Significant any riparian habitat or other sensitive P -P9, P-PIO, P -PI I, P-PI2 natural community identified in local o r regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US: Fish and Wildlife Service. 3.4-3 Build out of the proposed General Plan C-139, C -PI O, GPI I, C -PI 2, C- Less than None required could have a substantial adverse effect on P 13, C-PI4, C -PI 5, C -P16, C -P32, Significant "federally protected" wetlands as defined P -P9, P-PIO, P -PI I, P -P12 by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, etc.). 3.44 Build out of the proposed General Plan C -P9, C -P10, C -P 11, C -PI 2, C- Less than None required could interfere substantially with the P 13, C-PI4, C -P 15, C -P16, C-1332, Significant movement of any native resident or P-139, P-PIO, P -PI 1,P -P12 migratoryfish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of nativewildlife nursery sites 3 5 CultusralResources _ -�IN 3.5-1 Build out of the proposed General Plan CD -PI O, C -G6, C -G7, C -P20, C- Less than None required may alter a historic resource. P21, C -P22, C -P23, C -P24, C -P25 Significant 3.5-2 Build out of the proposed General Plan C -GS, C -G6, C -P17, C -P18, C- Less than None required could disrupt or adverselyaffecta P19 Significant prehistoric or historic archeological, paleontological, or culturally significant site. 3k6 �Chmate Change and Greenhouse Gases ` ,�} ,�� i"��� 3 , 3.6-1 Implementationof the proposed General LU -GI, LU -G2, LU -G3, LU -G1, Overall Nofeasible Plan would increasetotal carbon dioxide LU -G4, LU -P2, LU -P3, LU -P6, LU- Significant mitigation equivalent emissions in Lodi, compared to P18, LU -P25, LU -P26, LU -P27, Cumulative measures are existing conditions. GM -G1, GM -G2, GM -G3, GM -PI, Impact, Project currently available GM -P2, GM -P3, GM -P4, GM -P6, Contribution CD -G I, CD -PI, CD -G-4, CD -G- Cumulatively 5, CD -P3 I,CD-P2 1, CD -P24, T- Considerable G2, T -G4, T -P 13, T-PI4, T -PI 5, T -P 16, T -P 17, T -P 18, T -P 19, T - P23, T -P25, T -P28, T -P29, GM - PI I,GM-P13, GM -1314, GM -P15, CD -G8, CD -G9, CD -P38, CD. P39, CD -P40, CD -P32, C -P39, C- PNEW, C-PNEW, C -P37, C -P38, C -P40, C -P42, GM -P19, CD -P15, CD -P 16, CD -P19, C -P43, C -P44, C -P45, C -P41, C -G 9, C -G 10, C - P36, T -G8, T -P43, T -P44, T -P45, GM -P17, GM -P18 3.6-2 Build out of the proposed General Plan LU -G I, LU -G2, LU -G3, LU -G1, Less than None required could result in a substantial increase in per LU -G4, LU -P2, LU -P3, LU -P6, LU - 4 904644.4 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact # Impact Proposed General Policies that Significance Mitigation Reduce the Impact capita energy consumption in the city P 18, LU -P25, LU -P26, LU -P27, Significant which would suggest more wasteful, GM -GI, GM -G2, GM-G3,GM-PI, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of GM -P2, GM -133, GM -P4, GM -P6, energy. CD -GI, CD -PI, CD -G4, CD -G- 5, CD-P3I, CD -P2 1, CD -P24, T - G2, T -G4, T-1313, T -P14, T-PI5, T -P 16, T -P 17, T -P 18, T -P 19, T - P23, T-1325, T -P28, T -P29, GM- P 11, GM -P 13, GM -P 14, GM -P 15, CD -G8, CD -G9, CD -P38, CD - P39, CD -P40, CD -P32, C -P39, C- PNEW, C-PNEW, C -P37, C -P38, C -P40, C -P42, GM -PI 9, CD -PI 5, CD -P16, CD -P 19, C -P43, C -P44, C -P45, C-P4I, C -G9, C -GI O, C - P36, T -G8, T -P43, T -P44, T -P45, GM -PIT GM -P18 3.7-1 Build out of the proposed General Plan C -P-26, C -P-27, C -P-28, C -P-29, could alter existing drainage patterns of the C -P-30, C -P-3 I, C -P-32, C -P-33, area in a mannerwhich would result in c -P-34, c -P-35 substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite or increase sediment loads thereby affectingwater quality, but this impact would be mitigated by existing State and local regulations and proposed General Plan policies. 3.7-2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would may result in increased nonpoint source pollution entering storm water runoff and entering the regional storm drain system or surrounding water resources (from either construction or long-term development), but this impact would be mitigated by existing State and local regulations and proposed General Plan policies. 3.8-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants which may conflict with or violate an applicable air quality plan, air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. 3.8-2 Build out of the proposed General Plan could expose sensitive receptors to 904644.4 C -P-26, C -P-27, C -P-28, C -P-29, C -P-30, C -P-31, C -P-32, C -P-33, C -P-34, C -P-35 C -P46. GP47, C -P48, C -P49, C - P50, C-P5I, C -P52, C -P53, C -P54, C -P55, C -P56, C -P57, T -G4, T - G5, T -P14, T-PI5, T -P16, T -P17. T -P18, T -P19, T -P20, T -P21, T - P22, T -P23, T -P24, T -P25, T -P26 T -P27, T -P28 T -P29, T=P38, T - P39, T -P43, T -P44, T -P45 Less than Significant Less than Significant Significant and Unavoidable None required None required N o feasible mitigation measures are currently available. C -P46. GP47, C -P48, C -P49, C- Significantand No feasible P50, C -P51, C -P52, C -P53, C -P54, Unavoidable mitigation Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact # Impact Proposed General Policies that Significance Mitigation Reduce the Impact substantial pollutant concentrations. C -P55, C -P56, C -P57, - - measures are G5, T -P14, T-PI5, T-PI6, T -P17. currently available. T -P 18, T -P 19, T -P20, T -P21, T - P22, T -P23, T -P24, T -P25, T -P26 T -P27, T -P28 T -P29, T -P38, T - P39. T -P43. T -P44. T -P45 3.9-1 Build out of the proposed General Plan S -PI , S -P2, S -P4, S -P5, S -P6, S- 7, Less than None required could expose people or structuresto a SPNEW, SPNEW Significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. 3.10- Implementationof the proposed General S-PI6, S -PI 7, S-PI8, S-PI9, S -P20 Lessthan None required I Plan has low to moderate potential to Significant expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death resultingfrom rupture of a known earthquake fault, ground shaking, landslides or liquefaction, though these risks are minimized through compliancewith State regulationsand proposed General Plan policies. 3.10- Implementation of the proposed General S-PI6, S -P17, S-PI8, S-PI9, S -P20 Less than None required 2 Plan has moderate potential to result in Significant substantial soil erosion or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill, though impacts would be mitigated with proposed General Plan policies. 3.10- Implementation of the proposed General 3 Plan has low potential to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, includingthe risk of loss, injury, or death resultingfrom settlement and/or subsidence of the land, or risk of expansive soils, and policies in the proposed General Planwould further miticiatethis impact. S -P 16, S -P 17, S -P 18, S -PI 9, S -P20 Less than Significant 3.1 I- Implementation of the proposed General N -PI, N -P2, N -P3 N -P4, N -P5, N- Significant and I Plan could result in a substantial permanent P6, N -P7, N -P8, N-139, N-PIO, N- Unavoidable increase in ambient noise levels. PNEW 3.11- New developmentin the proposed N -PHEW, N-PNEW Less than 2 General Plan would potentially expose Significant existing noise -sensitive uses to construction -related temporary increases in ambient noise. 3. 1 1- New development in the proposed N -PI, N -P2, N -P3 N -P4, N -P5, N- Less than 3 General Plan could cause the exposure of P6, N -P7, N -P8, N -P9, N -PI 0, N- Significant M 904644.4 None required N o feasible mitigation measures are currently available. None required None required Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact # Impact Proposed General Policies that Significance Mitigation Reduce the lmboct persons to or generation of excessive PNEW, N-PNEW, N-PNEW ground borne vibration or ground borne 3 Plan has the potential to create a significant noise levels. Significant �.. l f 4 7 l m ..t' N 'S ; 4t k'^t Min- df ir�rl ? 2a.+', 3 1'2 Hazardous Materials, and Toxrc� N S -P22, S -P23, S -P24, S -P25 OMNI 3.12- Implementationof the proposed General S -P8, S -P9, S -PI OA S -PI OB, S -PI I, Less than None required Plan has the potential to create a significant S-PI2, S-PI3, S -P 14, S -PI 5, S -PI 8, Significant hazard to the public or the environment SAF 2, S-23, S -P24, SSP 5 through reasonably foreseeable upset and S -P8, S -P9, S -PI OA S -PI OB, S -PI I, accident conditions involvingthe released 4 Plan has the potential to result in the hazardous materials into the environment, Significant though existing federal, State, and local S ­F22, S -P23, S -P24, S -P25 regulations and proposed General Plan within one-quarter mile of an existing or policies would sufficiently reduce the General Plan may exceed wastewater impact. Significant 3.12- Implementationof the proposed General SP8, S -P9, S -PI OA S -PI OB, SSI I, Lessthan None required 2 Plan has the potential to locate land uses S-PI2, S -PI 3, S -P14, S-PI5, S -P18, Significant on sites which are included on a list of SP22, S -P23, S-1324, S -P25 hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. 3.12- Implementationof the proposed General S-138, S -P9, S -P 1OA S -PI OB, S -PI I, Less than None required 3 Plan has the potential to create a significant S -P12, S -PI 3, S -P14, S -P15, S -P 18, Significant hazard to the public or the environment S -P22, S -P23, S -P24, S -P25 Significant through the routine transport, use, or for water beyond projections in the Lodi disposal of hazardous materials. 3.12- Implementationof the proposed General S -P8, S -P9, S -PI OA S -PI OB, S -PI I, Less than None required 4 Plan has the potential to result in the S-PI2, S -P 13, S -P14, S -P15, S -P18, Significant handlingcE hazardous materials or wastes S ­F22, S -P23, S -P24, S -P25 Less than within one-quarter mile of an existing or 2 General Plan may exceed wastewater or000sed school or other sensitive use. Significant 3.13- New development under the proposed GM -G2, GM -G3, GM -P7, GM -P8, Less than None required General Plan would increase the demand GM -P9, GM-PIO, GM -PI 1, GM- Significant for water beyond projections in the Lodi P 12, GM -PI 3, GM -PI 4, GM -PI 5, Urban Water Management Plan. GM -1316, GM -P17, GM -P18 3.13- New development under the proposed GM -G2, GM -G3, GM -P7, GM -P8, Less than None required 2 General Plan may exceed wastewater GM -F9, GM -PI O Significant treatment capacity of existing infrastructure. 3.13- New development under the proposed GM -P19, C-PNEW Less than None required 3 General Plan would cause an increase in Significant waste generation. 3; 14 'Public, Facilities 3.14- New development under the proposed GM -NEW, GM -NEW, GM -NEW, Less than None required 7 904644.4 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact # Impact Proposed General Policies that Signijkance Mitigation Reduce the Impact Lodi General Plan will increase the demand Significant for school facilities. 3.14- New development in the proposed GM -G4, GM -P22, GM -P23, S -P22, Less than None required 2 General Plan requires policeand fire S -P23, S-1324, S -P25 Significant protection services that exceed current staffing and facilities. 315 Parks and fecreaticans �� 3.15- Future developmentas a result of the P -G3, P -PI, P -P3, P -P5, P -P7, P- Less than None required I proposed General Plan may result in failure P 19, P -P20 Significant to meet all of the City's park standard goals and increase the use of existing parks and recreation facilities, which would accelerate physical deterioration. 3.15- Implementation of the proposed General P -G3, P -P I, P -M, P -P5, P -P7, P- Beneficial NIA 2 Plan would result in increased accessibility PI 9, P-1320 of parks and recreation facilities from residential neighborhoods. Is6 Visual Resources ` fi ' 3.16- Future proposed development in Lodi has CD -P20, CD -P22, CD -P23 Less than None required I the potential to affect scenic vistas within Significant the PlanningArea 3.16- New developmentand redevelopment CD -G I, CD -G2, CD -G3, CD -G6, Less than None required 2 activities have the potential to change CD -G7, CD -P2, CD -P3, CD -P4, Significant Lodi's visual character, particularly where CD -P5, CD -P6, CD -P7, CD -P8, incompatibilities with existing development CD -P10, CD -PI I, CD -PI 2, CD - in scale and/or character may exist. PI 5, CD -PI 6, CD -P 17, CD -PI 8, CD -P19, CD -P24, CD -P26, CD - P28, CD -P29, CD -P30, CD -133 I, CD -P32, CD -P34, GM -G I, GM - PI, GM -P2, C -P20, C -P23, C -P24 3.16- Development under the proposed General None Less than None required 3 Plan has the potential to adversely affect Significant visual resources in the short-term during periods of construction by blocking or disrupting views. 3.16- Development under the proposed General CD -P33 Less than None required 4 Plan has the potential to create new Significant sources of light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. 904644.4 FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS REDUCED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL: Based upon the FEIR and the entire record the City Council finds that the mitigation measures and proposed General Plan policies identified above are feasible and will be required in, or incorporated into, the proposed General Plan. These mitigation measures will reduce the impact to a less than significant level except as otherwise noted. FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS: The EIR must examine the potential growth -inducing impacts of the proposed General Plan. More specifically, CEQA Guidelines require that the EIR "discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly" (CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(d)). This analysis must also consider the removal of obstacles to population growth, such as improvements in the regional transportation system. Projected Growth Lodi currently contains 23,353 housing units. Approximately 3,700 housing units have recently been approved or are under construction. The proposed General Plan accommodates 10,100 new residential units. Together, this results in the potential for 37,200 housing units, an increase of 38% above existing and approved units. Approximately half of the housing units will be low-density housing (i.e. single-family), a quarter medium -density, and the remaining quarter high-densityand mixed-use residential (containing a mix of density levels). Population Lodi currently contains approximately 63,400 residents. The proposed General Plan could accommodate 26,400 additional residents. Accounting for the current population as well as new residents anticipated from recently approved projects (approximately 9,700 residents); full development of the General Plan could result in a total of 99,500 residents, representing an annual growth rate of 2%, consistent with the Growth Management Ordinance. Total residents under the proposed General Plan would exceed the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) population projection of 81,717 in 2030 by 22%. (Notably, these SJCOG estimates are based on historical growth rates in Lodi and do not dictate how much growth could be accommodated.) The proposed General Plan accommodates 20% more residents than the No Project scenario, which allows for a population of 82,600 people. However, the population growth in the proposed General Plan is consistent with an annual growth rate of 2% as allowed in Lodi's Growth Management Ordinance. Employment Lodi currently contains 24,700 jobs. Recently approved or completed development projects are expected to produce an additional 2,900 jobs. Total additional employment accommodated in the proposed General Plan by new commercial, office, industrial, and mixed-use land designations could allow for 23,400 new jobs in Lodi. In sum, Lodi could expect up to 51,000 jobs under the proposed General Plan, an increase of 85%. Total jobs under the proposed General Plan would exceed the SJCOG jobs projection of 33,686 in 2030 by 51 %. Similarly, the proposed General Plan accommodates 56% more jobs than the No Project scenario, which includes 32,700 jobs. The increase in jobs under the proposed General Plan serves to improve the balance of jobs and housing. 9 904644.4 Jobs/Housing Balance A city's jobs/employment ratio (jobs to employed residents) would be 1.0 if the number of jobs in the city equaled the number of employed residents. In theory, such a balance would eliminate the need for commuting. More realistically, a balance means that in -commuting and out -commuting are matched, leading to efficient use of the transportation system, particularly during peak hours. The proposed General Plan projects a more balanced jobs/employed residents ratio when compared to existing conditions. In 2008, Lodi had a jobs/employed residents ratio of 0.8, meaning that the city did not have quite enough jobs for all the working people who lived there, even if the match between job skills required and job skills offered had been perfect. As of 2000, 54% of Lodi's employed residents commuted out of Lodi for work. The proposed General Plan designates land area for substantial employment growth, should market opportunities exist, as one attempt to reduce out -commuting and enable existing and future Lodi residents to work in Lodi. While the increase in newjobs exceeds the increase in new employed residents, the combined effect will result in a more balanced ratio of 1.0. This ratio suggests that the city would have about as many jobs as employed residents. Increase in Regional Housing Demand As the employment base in Lodi increases, more people may be drawn to Lodi and surrounding areas, thereby increasing housing demand in both Lodi and other adjacent areas that are within commuting distance. Proposed new employment would primarily be located in the southeastern corner of Lodi, easily accessible from major transportation routes. Service to Lodi via Amtrak and regional bus service would also provide access to new jobs from other cities. in addition, the proposed General Plan has the potential to result in development cf approximately 10,100 new housing units by the year 2030, which will help meet some cf the increased housing need. Lodi's updated Housing Element, which addresses housing programs and how Lodi will accommodate its regional housing needs allocation, is part of the proposed General Plan. Growth Management While the proposed General Plan allows growth beyond SJCOG's projections, the proposed General Plan represents an annual growth rate of 2%, which meets the maximum population permissible under the City's Growth Management Ordinance. The proposed General Plan also includes multiple growth management techniques including phasing, a community separator, and continuation cf the Growth Management Ordinance. While policies to regulate the location, pace and timing of growth are included, these will not restrict Lodi's ability to meet its housing need obligations or long-range growth projections by regional agencies. Key policies and strategies are described in Chapter 2: Project Description. Because growth under the proposed General Plan is consistent with allowable growth under the Growth Management Ordinance, is managed through multiple strategies to maintain a compact form, and helps the City achieve a more balanced jobs/housing ratio, the proposed General Plan is not expected to significantly contribute, directly or indirectly, to regional, subregional or citywide growth inducing impacts. 10 904644.4 FINDINGS REGARD1NG SIGNIFICANT RREVERSI BLE CHANGES: The EIR must also examine irreversible changes to the environment. More specifically, CEQA Guidelines require the EIR to consider whether "uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely" (CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(c)). "Nonrenewable resource" refers to the physical features of the natural environment, such as land, waterways, etc. Air Qual ky Increases in vehicle trips and traffic resulting from implementation of the proposed General Plan would potentially contribute to long-term degradation of air quality and atmospheric conditions in the region, other parts of California, and the Western United States. However, technological improvements in automobiles, as well as commercial and industrial machinery, may lower the rate of air quality degradation in the coming decades. Agricultural Land and Open Space Development under the proposed General Plan could result in the permanent conversion of just under 2,893 acres of prime farmland to urban uses. This conversion has a wide array of impacts, ranging from habitat modifications to visual disruptions to new noise sources and stormwater drainage constraints. Overall, this represents a significant and irreversible environmental change. Energy Sources New development under the proposed General Plan would result in the commitment of existing and planned sources of energy, which would be necessary for the construction and daily use of new buildings and for transportation. Residential and non-residential development use electricity, natural gas, and petroleum products for power, lighting, heating, and other indoor and outdoor services, while cars use both oil and gas. Use of these types of energy for new development would result in the overall increased use of non-renewable energy resources. This represents an irreversible environmental change. However, energy - reduction efforts may lower the rate of increase. Construction -Related Impacts Irreversible environmental changes could also occur during the course of constructing development projects made possible by the proposed General Plan. New construction would result in the consumption of building materials, natural gas, electricity, water, and petroleum products. Construction equipment running on fossil fuels would be needed for excavation and the shipping of building materials. Due to the non-renewable or slowly renewable nature of these resources, this represents an irretrievable commitment of resources. FINDINGS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed General Plan's cumulative impacts are discussed in the DEIR on pages 5-3, 5-4 and 5-5. CEQA requires that the EIR examine cumulative impacts. As discussed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(1), a cumulative impact "consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts." The analysis of cumulative impacts need not provide the level of detail required of the analysis of impacts from the project itself, but shall "reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence" (CEQA Guidelines §15130(b)). 11 904644.4 In order to assess cumulative impacts, the EIR must analyze either a list of past, present, and probable future projects or a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document. It is important to note that the proposed General Plan is essentially a set of projects, representing the cumulative development scenario for the reasonably foreseeable future in the Lodi Planning Area. This future scenario incorporates the likely effects of surrounding regional growth. By their nature, the air quality, transportation, noise, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analyses presented in Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures represent a cumulative analysis of the Planning Area as a whole. As a result of adding the proposed General Plan to the regional land use and transportation baseline, the travel demand, level of service operations, and associated air quality and GHG emissions produced by the proposed project is the cumulative condition for CEQA purposes. Some cumulative impacts on transportation, air quality, and noise are found to be significant; in addition, the cumulative effects on GHG emissions are found to be cumulatively significant, and the project's contribution cumulatively considerable. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT: CEQA mandates consideration and analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed General Plan. According to CEQA Guidelines, the range of alternatives "shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant impacts" (CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(c)). The alternatives may result in new impacts that do not result from the proposed General Plan. Case law suggests that the discussion of alternatives need not be exhaustive and that alternatives be subject to a construction of reasonableness. The impacts of the alternatives may be discussed "in less detail than the significant effects of the project proposed" (CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(d)). Also, the Guidelines permit analysis of alternatives at a less detailed level for general plans and other program EIRs, compared to project EIRs. The Guidelines do not specify what would be an adequate level of detail. Quantified information on the alternatives is presented where available; however, in some cases only partial quantification can be provided because of data or analytical limitations. No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative represents the continuation of land use development under the 1991 General Plan. In this scenario, new development results largely from the development of Planned Residential and Planned Residential Reserve areas, in the west and south, respectively. These areas are assumed to develop primarily for residential uses, at seven units per acre, and with a portion of land reserved for public uses, parks, and drainage basins. The No Project Alternative is illustrated in Figure 4.2-1. The No Project Alternative could result in a total of 82,600 residents and 32,700 jobs, leading to a jobs/employed residents ratio of 0.8. This alternative produces the fewest number of housing units, new residents, and jobs compared with the other alternatives. Alternative A Alternative A fills in growth up to the existing Sphere of Influence (SOI) boundary and extends the urban area south to Armstrong Road. The bulk of new growth would be contained in the mile -wide band between Harney Lane and Armstrong Road, including the 12 904644.4 Planned Residential Reserve designation between Hogan Lane and Armstrong Road. In the southeast (south of Kettleman Lane and east of SR -99), the alternative includes Business Park/Office uses, with commercial nodes around the Kettleman and Harney Lane interchanges. Limited development is proposed through infill on vacant and underutilized sites in Downtown and along Cherokee Lane. This alternative includes similar assumptions compared with the proposed General Plan in terms of the density, intensity, and land use categories. As a result, Alternative A could result in a total of 91,000 residents and 41,000 jobs, leading to a jobs/employed residents ratio of 0.9. These numbers represent lower development potential compared with the proposed General Plan and Alternative B, but higherthan the No Project Alternative. Alternative B In Alternative B, new development is concentrated on the west side of the city, beyond the existing SOI. New neighborhoods on the west side of the city would contain a diverse range of amenities and uses, including neighborhood services, parks and schools. These neighborhoods would be focused around walkable centers containing retail, office, and higher density residential uses. A network of streets connects residential areas to these centers and to the existing street grid where feasible. Commercial and business uses would be located in the southeast, but in a smaller area than in Alternative A. A smaller portion of land is designated for urban and Rural Residential use between Harney and Hogan lanes. Finally, a small commercial node on Highway 12, adjacent to a site for a Lodi campus of San Joaquin Delta College, is also shown. This alternative includes similar assumptions compared with the proposed General Plan in terms of the density, intensity, and land use categories. As a result, Alternative B could result in 104,400 residents and 47,000 jobs, leading to a jobs/employed residents ratio of 0.9. This alternative produces the largest increase population, but allows fewer jobs compared with the proposed General Plan. CEQA Guidelines require the identification of an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives analyzed in an EIR. Alternative A has been selected as the environmentally superior alternative. Since the No Project Alternative results in the least amount of development, it results in the fewest environmental impacts and therefore would be the environmentally superior alternative. However, CEQA Guidelines stipulate that if the No Project Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative, then another environmentally superior alternative must be identified, among the other alternatives and the project. After the No Project, Alternative A has the least impact, relative to the proposed General Plan and Alternative B in the six environmental areas that have significant impacts: Traffic and Circulation, Agricultural Resources, Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases, Air Quality, and Noise. Alternative A has relatively more adverse impacts in the areas of Land Use and Housing and Parks and Recreation, when compared to the proposed General Plan and Alternative B. Particularly, in terms of Land Use, Alternative A does not allow sufficient growth to meet the city's future needs or the Growth Management Ordinance's allocation of 2% annual growth. This could also result in a cumulative regional impact as population and employment growth in the region may put additional pressure in the surrounding unincorporated areas or other parts of the region. 13 904644.4 Alternative A and Alternative B meet many of plan objectives as described in Chapter 2 Project Description. However, the proposed General Plan achieves all these objectives to the highest extent, specifically exceeding the alternatives in the following three objectives: • Objective #1: Compact Urban Form. The proposed General Plan ensures the most compact urban form, by prioritizing infill development downtown and along the city's major corridors during Phase 1 _ • Objective#7: Agricultural Preservation Along Southern Boundary. The proposed General Plan and Alternative B also preserve an agricultural preservation buffer south of Hogan Lane (Alternative A and the No Project scenario both allow limited development through the Planned Residential Reserve designation). • Objective #11: Phasing Future Development. The proposed General Plan segments development into three phases, providing a framework for how and where urban growth should proceed. Urban reserve areas ensure that the city conforms to its Growth Management Ordinance and grows at a reasonable rate. Although Alternative A has been chosen as the environmentally superior alternative, it does not in all cases adequately meet the three objectives described above (out of the 11 defined in the Project Description). Most critically, regarding Objective #1 1 Alternative A puts more growth pressures on other cities in the region and unincorporated portions of San Joaquin County. Reviewing historic trends, between 2000 and 2007, Lodi's population grew at half the rate compared with the County as a whole. Accommodating growth in Lodi through contiguous responsible development relieves some of this pressure elsewhere in the region. Alternative B conforms to the City's Growth Management Ordinance, but does not provide environmental impact reduction benefits and does not achieve all of the plan objectives. The proposed General Plan achieves all plan objectives while establishing policies to reduce environmental impacts to the greatest extent possible. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS: Transportation and Circulation The proposed General Plan would result in a substantial increase in vehicular traffic that would cause certain facilities to exceed LOS standards established by the City (for City facilities) and the County (for regional routes). Proposed General plan policies and improvements have been identified to minimize transportation impacts, but even with these measures, the impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Proposed General Plan policies, intended to improve neighborhood character and the pedestrian environment, could adversely affect access for emergency vehicles in Lodi. Planned improvements that would help mitigate this impact include roadway extensions, roadway widenings, and the construction of a new arterial, all of which would serve to enhance connectivity and local neighborhood circulation. Still, implementation of the proposed General Plan and increases in regional travel passing through Lodi would increase the amount of vehicular traffic in and around Lodi, and would therefore increase the number of potential emergency access conflicts, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. The substantial increases in vehicle trips and vehicle miles of travel resulting from the proposed General Plan could create conflicts with the goals and objectives of established alternative transportation plans. Increased traffic volumes may make it more difficult and time-consuming for pedestrians to cross some streets. Higher traffic volumes on some facilities could discourage bicycle travel, especially among non -expert bicycle users. 14 904644.4 Additionally, increased delay on some of Lodi's roadway facilities could increase travel times for the various bus services that serve the city and provide access to regional travel services like Amtrak and ACE. Agricultural Resources While one quarter of the gross proposed General Plan potential development area is infill and will not reduce the amount of farmland, some conversion of agricultural land to urban use is inevitable given Lodi's growth needs. If the proposed General Plan were developed to maximum capacity, 2,893 acres of land classified as Prime Farmland would be replaced by urban development (including parks and open spaces), This area represents 69% of the new urban area delineated in the General Plan Land Use Diagram. The most prevalent crop types that would be displaced if the proposed General Plan developed to its fullest potential are vineyards (1,676 acres), deciduous fruits and nuts (516 acres), and field crops (322 acres). Although there are policies in the proposed General Plan to reduce this impact, the potential conversion of agricultural land—which will affect some agricultural activities and prime agricultural soils -4s significant and unavoidable. Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases Under the proposed General Plan, future emissions are estimated to increase to 419,221 MTCO2e in 2030 with State mandates, an increase of approximately 32% over the existing condition. This increase in emissions under the proposed General Plan is largely a result of job growth. This estimate, however, does not account for policies in the proposed General Plan that would contribute to lowering emissions, but that are difficult to quantify. Given the current uncertainty in quantifying the impacts of the measures, it is not possible to determine in this analysis if the proposed policies would reduce emissions sufficiently. Therefore, the proposed General Plan would result in a considerable contribution to the significant cumulative impact. Air Quality The proposed General Plan would result in an increase in criteria pollutant emissions primarily due to related motor vehicle trips. Stationary sources and area sources would result in lesser quantities of criteria pollutant emissions. Stationary sources and diesel -fueled mobile sources would also generate emissions of TACs including diesel particulate matter that could pose a health risk. Future growth in accordance with the proposed General Plan would exceed the annual San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) thresholds for PM10, as well as the threshold used for this analysis for PM2.5, and would therefore result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants. Noise Implementation of the proposed General Plan will result in higher traffic volumes, more industrial and commercial noise sources, and a larger population, all of which will contribute to the noise environment in Lodi. Future noise impacts related to traffic, railroads, and stationary sources would remain significant and unavoidable, given the uncertainty as to whether future noise impacts could be adequately mitigated for all the individual projects that will be implemented as part of the proposed General Plan. 15 904644.4 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS: CEQA requires a public agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. CEQA requires the City Council to state in writing specific reasons for approving a project in a "statement of overriding considerations" if the EIR identifies significant impacts of the project that cannot feasibly be mitigated to below a level of significance. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the remaining significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed General Plan, as discussed above, and the anticipated benefits of the proposed General Plan. The City finds and determines that the majority of the potentially significant impacts of the proposed General Plan will be reduced to less -than -significant levels by the mitigation measures recommended in the document. However, as set forth above, the City's approval of the proposed General Plan will result in project and cumulative significant adverse environmental impacts related to Transportation, Agricultural Resources, Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases, Air Quality and Noise that cannot be avoided even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures into the proposed General Plan, and there are no feasible Project alternatives which would mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impacts. The proposed General Plan has unavoidable and significant adverse impacts as referenced previously; however, the benefits of the project outweigh the significant adverse impacts. The implementation of the proposed General Plan will mitigate to the greatest extent feasible impacts created. Every viable General Plan alternative, as well as the "no project" alternative, would have a significant and unavoidable environmental impact. There are no feasible mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce the impacts to a level that is less than significant. Mitigations, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed General Plan which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effects identified in the FEIR. In light of the environmental, social, economic, and other considerations set forth below related to this proposed General Plan, the City chooses to approve the proposed General Plan, because in its view, the economic, social, and other benefits resulting from the proposed General Plan will render the significant effects acceptable. The following statement identifies the reasons why, in the City's judgment, the benefits of the proposed General Plan outweigh the significant and unavoidable effects. The substantial evidence supporting the enumerated benefits of the proposed General Plan can be found in the Findings, which are herein incorporated by reference, in the proposed General Plan itself, and in the record of proceedings. Each of the overriding considerations set forth below constitutes a separate and independent ground for finding that the benefits of the proposed General Plan outweigh its significant adverse environmental effects and is an overriding consideration warranting approval. The proposed General Plan allows the City to plan for growth in an orderly manner to meet future land needs based on projected population and job growth. 2. The proposed General Plan allows the City to meet the City's job/housing balance objective, the need for additional housing in the community, and State Law requirements. T 904644.4 3. The proposed General Plan promotes economic development of the community, maintains and improves the quality of life in the community, preserves and enhances environmental resources, and conserves the natural and built environment. 4. The proposed General Plant integrates economic development into the General Plan and underscores the City's goals for fiscal health, a strong regional center, a vibrant Downtown, and retail strength. 5. The proposed General Plan protects and enhances community assets, including quiet communities with distinctive character, a strong sense of community, a diverse population, high quality building design, convenient shopping, post -secondary educational opportunities, broad choice in employment and entertainment, a family atmosphere with excellent recreational activities, and job opportunities close to where people live. 6. The proposed General Plan provides for the positive direction for the future physical development of the City, such as supporting mixed use development, transit supportive land uses and economic revitalization of underutilized sites to create more economic vitality in these commercial corridors. 7. The proposed General Plan enhances an efficient multi -modal transportation system and promotes a well -integrated and coordinated transit network and safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle circulation. 8. The proposed General Plan serves a critical need to allow the City to plan for the equitable distribution of community facilities and services to meet the needs of all segments of the population and provide services for special needs that increase and enhance the community's quality of life while avoiding over - concentration in any one area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DETERMINED AND RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the findings, statements of overriding considerations, and other determinations set forth in this resolution and based thereon certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Lodi General Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 2009022075). Dated: February 17, 2010 hereby certify that Resolution No. 2010-21 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held February 17, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN 904644.4 COUNCIL MEMBERS — Hitchcock, Johnson, Mounce, and Mayor Katzakian COUNCIL MEMBERS — Hansen COUNCIL MEMBERS — None COUNCIL MEMBERS — None 2010-21 17 Lodi Environmental Impact Report & General Plan City Council February 17, 2010 7 4f ffirailre 1. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ■ Requirements ■ Purpose ■ Topics 2. General Plan Draft EIR ■ Project Description ■ Impacts ■ Alternatives ■ Cumulative and Growth -Inducing Impacts 3. General Plan Final EIR 4. Next Steps DYETT & SHATIA Lrba.n IM ltbp , Monnevs ■ CEQA is a statute that requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. ■ A public agency must comply with CEQA when it undertakes an activity defined as a "project." ■ "Program" vs. "Project" EI R DYETT A $RAYL► 1. Meet CEQA requirements by evaluating physical impacts of the Plan and its alternatives. 2. Inform the public and decision -makers of these potential impacts to assist in the review and adoption the Plan. 3. Assist decision -makers in determining appropriate amendments to land use regulations or other standards. DYETT A $RAYL► Draft Environmental Impact Report DYETT & SHATIA Lrba.n IM ltbp , Monnevs 1. Land Use and Housing 2. Traffic and Circulation 3. Agricultural Resources 4. Biological Resources 5. Cultural Resources 6. Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases 7. Hydrology and Water Quality 8. Air Quality 9. Flood Hazards 10. Seismic and Geologic Hazards 11. Noise 12. Hazardous Materials and Toxics 13. Infrastructure 14. Public Facilities 15. Parks and Recreation 16. Visual Resources DYETT & 81HATIA Project DARcri ntic ■ Basis for impact analysis ■ Description of Plan characteristics ■ Development potential ■ Precise location and boundaries ■ Objectives (11 Planning Themes) DYETT & SHATIA Lrba.n IM ltbp , MNnnoIs Executive Summary Table E5-3: Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact ## Impact Propcwd General Policies that Reduce the Sigruficancc !!&&anon bnpact 3.1 Land Use and Housing 3.1-1 The proposed General Plan would not physically NIA Beneficial NIA divide any established communities and would increase connectivity locally and regionally. 3.1-2 The proposed General Plan would conflict with an W -P I, LU -P17, CD -P2, CD -P3, CD -P4, Less than Significant None required applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. CD -P6, CD -P9, CD -PI I, CD -P31, GM -P 10 3.2 Traffic. and Circulation 3.2-1 The proposed General Plan would result in a T -G 1, T -P I, T -P2, T -P3, T -P4, T-PNEW, T- Significant and No feasible mitigation is substantial increase in vehicular traffic that would NEW, T -P8, T-NEVV, T -P9, T -P 10, T -P 13, Unavoidable currently available. cause certain facilities to exceed level of service T -P 14, T -P 15, T -P 16, T -P 17, T -P 18, T -P 19, standards established by the governing agency. T -P20, T -P22, T -P24, T -P25, T -P27, T -P-2$ T -P29, T -P43, T -P44, T -P45 3.2-2 The proposed General Plan may adversely affect T -P I, T -P2, T -P8, T -P9, T -P 10 Significant and No mitigation measures emergency access. Unavoidable are feasible. 3.2-3 The proposed General Plan may conflict with T -G 1, T -P8, T -P9, T -P 10, T -P 13, T -P 14, T- Significant and No feasible mitigation is adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting P15, T -P16, T -P17, T -P18, T -P19, T -P20, T- Unavoidable currently available. alternative transportation modes. P22, T -P24, T -P25, T -P27, T -P28, T -P29, T - P43, T -P44, T -P45, T -G2, T -G3, T -G4, T - G5, T -PI 1, T -PI 2, T -P21, T -P23, T -P26, T - P30, T -P38, T -P39 3.3 Agriculture and Soil Resources 3.3-1 Buildout of the proposed General Plan would C -G I, C -G2, C -PI , C -P2, C -P3, C -P4, C -P5, Significantand Not directly mitigable convert substantial amounts of Important Farmland C -P6, C -P7, C -PS, GM -G I, GM -P2 Unavoidable aside from preventing to non-agricultural use. development altogether 3.3-2 Buildout of the proposed General Plan would result CPI, GP2, C -P3, C -P4, C -P5, C -P6, C -P7, Less than Significant None required in potential land use incompatibilities with sites C -P8, GM -G1, GM -P2, CD -GI designated for continued agriculture use. &7 I ■ Beneficial ■ Land Use and Housing ■ Parks and Recreation ■ Less than Significant ■ (Most impacts were mitigated through General Plan policies) DYETT & 814ATIA Wba.n IM It6gWMI MYnniRs I ■ Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ■ Traffic and Circulation ■ Agricultural Resources ■ Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases ■ Air Quality ■ Noise 4 Require Statement of Overriding Considerations DYETT & SHATIA Lrba.n IM ltbp , Monnevs I ■ Significant and Irreversible Environmental Changes ■ Air Quality ■ Agricultural Land and Open Space ■ Energy Sources ■ Construction -Related DYETT & BRATIA Wba.n IM It6gWMI MYnniRs L1 ■ No Project Alternative results in the fewest impacts ■ Alternative A is the "environmentally superior alternative" ■ The proposed General Plan best meets Plan objectives (11 planning themes) DYETT & RHATIA Lrba.n IM ltbp , Monnevs 01TAMNDIsis 19[y1110MI111• ■ The General Plan allows approximately: ■ 23,400 new jobs ■ 26,400 new residents ■ 10,100 new housing units ■ jobs/employed residents ratio of 1:1 ■ No significant growth -inducing impacts DYETT & SHATIA Lrba.n IM ltbp , MNnnoIs E ■ Many impacts are "cumulative" by nature ■ Traffic ■ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ■ Air Quality ■ Noise ■ Other cumulative impacts: ■ Agricultural Resources ■ Cultural Resources ■ Biological Resources ■ Land Use DYETT & SHATIA Lrba.n IM ltbp , MNFIlmovs Final Environmental Impact Report DYETT & SHATIA Lrba.n IM ltbp , Monnevs 1. Introduction 2. Comments on the DEI R 3. Response to Comments 4. Revisions to the Draft EI R DYETT & 814ATIA Wban IM 4tbgwml MYnniRs ■ Planning Commission Hearing: December 6, 2009 ■ Written Comments: ■ Six public agencies ■ 37 individuals ■ Topics addressed, include: ■ Transportation and Traffic ■ Water Demand and Supply ■ Armstrong Road/Agricultural Cluster Study Area ■ Environmentally Superior Alternative DYETT & RHATIA Lrba.n IM ltbp , MNnnoIs ■ Coordinate with Lodi Unified School District on school planning ■ Revise Level of Service Standards ■ Implement conservation and efficiency measures into municipal operations ■ Improve storm drain and flood prevention facilities as needed ■ Implement measures to reduce noise impacts on sensitive receptors ■ Coordinate with Caltrans and neighboring jurisdictions to develop a fair -share fee program. DYETT & 81HATIA ■ Certification of the Final EIR ■ Revision of the General Plan ■ Will include policy revisions/additions per EIR findings and responses ■ Adoption of the General Plan DYETT & 814ATIA Wba.n IM 4tbgwml MYnniRs General Plan Land Use Lodi Environmental Impact Report & General Plan City Council February 17, 2010 7 4f CAPITOL AVENUE DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENTS 528 Third Street West Sacramento, CA 95605 February 9, 2010 Phone: (916) 374-1662 Fax: (916) 374-8447 Mayor Phil Katzakian and I-Ionorable Members of the Lodi City Council Lodi City Hall 22I W. Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 RE: City of l,odi General Plan and Environmental Impact Report Dear Mayor Katzakian and Honorable Members of the Lodi City Council: On behalf of Lodi Victor Ventures, the private development partnership involving development of the San Joaquin Delta College (SJDC) project on Highway 12, we respectfully request to be included in the City of Lodi General Plan Update as part of the Lodi General Plan. The project area we wish to be included in the General Plan is depicted on the attached EIR exhibit of Alternative B. Although SJDC abandoned participating in developing the Highway 12 site in 2009, we have retained enforceable contracts with the land sellers in the belief that SJDC will revive its efforts to develop a Lodi satellite campus. We do not have formal communications that SJDC will locate at the Hwy 12 site; however, we believe that this location still provides the best opportunity to develop a long term campus in the City of Lodi, and this location is consistent with the substantial planning and design work that has been undertaken to date. Should you elect to include this project area in the General Plan, it sends a clear message of welcome to SJDC while advancing the ability of SJDC and the City of Lodi to complete the satellite campus. As you are no doubt aware, the City would retain control over the timing and type of development in this area as the General Plan land use designation is merely a preliminary step toward entitling this property. We understand that this SJDC project has faced many challenges. But it is important to note that the City of Lodi, SJDC, and our partnership have expended substantial time and money evaluating, planning, and designing this project and quantifying the substantial benefits it brings to the community. Approving this request provides flexibility to the City, SJDC and us to advance important benefits to the citizens of Lodi. Once again, thank you for your consideration and we would appreciate your support. Sincerely, Patrick McCuen rad Hay �AOF � O G� � O 0"Oq</FORS 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 CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN PUBLISH DATE: SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 6,2010 TEAR SHEETSWANTED: One (1) please SEND AFFIDAVIT AND BILLTO: RANDI JOHL, CITY CLERK City cf Lodi P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241-1910 DATED: THURSDAY, FEBRUARY4,2010 ORDERED BY: RANDI JOHL CITY CLERK JIrVNIFER M ROBISON, CMC ASSISTANT CITY CLERK MARIA BECERRA ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK Faxed to the Sentinel at 369-1084 at (time) on (date) (pages) LNS Phoned to confirm receipt of all pages at ' (time) MB JMR (initials) formAadvins.doc DECLARATION OF POSTING PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTAND ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN On Friday, February 5, 2010, in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, a Notice of Public Hearing to consider certification of Final Environmental Impact Report and adoption of the General Plan (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 February5, 2010, at Lodi, California. `! I1 JE FER M. OBISON, CMC ASS STANT CITY CLERK N:\Administration\CLERK\Forms\DECPOSTCD.DOC ORDERED BY: RANDI JOHL CITY CLERK MARIA BECERRA ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK DECLARATION OF MAILING PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTAND ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN On Friday, February 5, 2010, 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 certification of Final Environmental Impact Report and adoption of the General Plan, 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. declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 5, 2010, at Lodi, California. J NIFER MAPOBISON. CMC ASSISTANT CITY CLERK Forms/decmail.doc ORDERED BY: RANDIJOHL CITY CLERK, CITY OF LODI MARIA BECERRA ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK • CITY OF LODI Date: Carnegie Forum • • 305 West Pine Street, Lodi Time: NOTICE OF PUBLIC MRARM February 17,2010 7:00 p.m. For information regarding this notice please contact: Rand! Johl City Clerk Telephone: (209) 333-6702 E X 1-i biT A NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, February 17, 2010, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council will conduct a public hearing at the Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, to consider the following item: a) Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report and adoption of the General Plan. 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. Ord of the ohl City Clerk Lodi City Council: Dated: February 3,2010 0 D. Stephen Schwabauer City Attorney CLERK\PUBHEAR\NOTICES\NOTCDD.DOC 214110 General Plan Update — mailing list EXHIPLIff BI �olClpan FirstName LastName Addressl City State Postal Code 1. J. Manassero 2171 E. Armstrong Rd. Lodi CA 95242 2. I Denis Silber 1050Port Chelsea Cr. Lodi CA 95240 3. Calif Valley Silvia Burley, 10601 Escondido Place Stockton CA 95212 Miwok Tribe Chairperson 4. Ione Band of Matthew Franklin, P.O. Box 1190 Ione CA 95640 Miwok Indians Chairperson 5. North Valley Katherine Perez P.O. Box 717 Linden CA 95236 Yokuts Tribe Erolinda 6. Southern Sierra Anthony Brochini, P.O. Box 1200 Mariposa CA 95338 Miwuk Nation Chairperson 7. Wilton Mary Daniels- 7916Farnell Way Sacrame CA 95823 Rancheria Tarango, nto Chairperson 8. Brookfield Douglas Brewer 500 La Gonda Way, Suite Danville CA 94526 Homes 100 JACommunity Development\Planning\Lists\Agenda Mailing Lists\General Plan Update Mailing List.DOC Page 1 01/28/2010 Kari Chadwick — semyl a. e- ►�ct�ica� Distribution List Name: Planning Commission Agendas Members: Anne Cerney acemey@inreach.com CaliforniaPoso CaliforniaPoso@yahoo.com Carmen Bais carmenbais@mypermail.com Chris Chdssenkeresty@Yahoo.com Connie O'Brien cobden@metrostudy.com Crystal Kirst ckirst@gmail.com Daniel Thigpen dthigpen@recordnet.com Demy Bucaneg (Lodi EUD) dbucaneg@lodielectdc.com Dennis Haugan madhaugan@inreach.com Eileen St Yves (LIC) EileenSt.Yves@comcast.net Erin Arago earago@sheppardmullin.com Erin Arago earago@yahoo.com Greg Harp gharp@sjconstruction.com Jacki Roth jackiJr@yahoo.com Janet L. Hamilton j hamilton@lodi.gov Janice Magdich jmagdich@lodi.gov Jeff Hood jhood@lodi.gov Jim Migliore jmigliore@petrovichdevelopment.com John Beckman johnb@biadelta.org John Johnson john@johnejohnson.com Joseph Wood jwood@lodi.gov Kevin Donnelly kdonnelly@lodi.gov Lindy Combs mecombs@sjcphs.org Maggie Creamer maggiec@lodinews.com Marty Willett mwillett@g-rem.com Michael Caruba Michael@Duncanda.com Patty Anderson panderson@firstam.com Pete Gibson pgibson@fcbhomes.com Ron DuHamel duhamel@sbcglobal.net Sandy Meyers SMeyers@pd.lodi.gov Scott Kime SKime@flintco.com Steve Pechin bpengineers@sbcglobal.net Susan Lake slake@lodi.gov Tammy M. Minatre tminatre@agspanos.com Terri Lovell tlovell@lodi.gov Wanda Doscher wanda@petrovichdevelopment.com Wes Reed wreed@mve.net Kari Chadwick - Secy v 'l o, a �T.1�o''� �i c oft oar-• Distribution List Name: Greenbelt Task Force Members: Ann Cerney Bill Cummins Bob Launchland Bruce Fry Carl Fink Gina Moran Kevin Sharrar Lynette Dias Mark Chandler Pat Patrick Patrick Johnston Randy Snider Susan Hitchcock Tim Mattheis acerney@inreach.com PASTORBILL@BEARCREEKCHURCH.COM winegrwr@aol.com BRUCEFRY@MOHRFRY.COM FINK540 a(J� OL.COM Gina. Moran@dot.ca.gov KevinS@biadelta.org Lynette. Dias@lsa-assoc.com MARK@LODIW INE.COM ppatrick@lodichamber.com PJ@PATRICK-JOHNSTON.COM rwhiplash@aol.com susanhitchcock@corncast.net TM@wmbarchitects.com Kari Chadwick — Se -c* \j'\ 0. e - iAT Distribution List Name: Greenbelt Task ForceAgenda Members Brian Young Can Lu Chuck Easterling Daniel Thigpen Elizabeth Daniel Kate Hart Rosemary Atkinson William Ackel Byoung@lodinet.com clu@tusd.net chuck@downtowniodi.com dthigpen@recordnet.com LizDaniel@clearwire.net khart@aklandlaw.com rosymoonatk@comcast.net ackel-properties@comcast.net Kari Chadwick - v, (), Distribution List Name: General Plan Updates Members: Brett Jolley BJolley@herumcrabtree.com Crystal Kirst ckirst@gmail.com Dale C. Prohaska turner6lO@softcom.net Dale Gillespie dale@rpmcompany.net Daniel Thigpen dthigpen@recordnet.com Denis Silber dsilber@lodiusd.net EJC ejc_enterprise@verizon.net Frederick Addison frederick@uborainc.com Greg Costa fcands@lodinet.com Greg Costa costasquad@verizon.net Jeff Traverso j.traverso@sbcglobal.net John Beckman johnb@biadelta.org Jon Schrader JonSchrader@FMBonline.com Kate Hart khart@aklandlaw.com Kelly Stump kelkel38@aol.com Kevin Dougherty kdougherty@fcrei.com Marty Willett mwillett@g-rem.com Matt Dobbins mjdobbins22@msn.com Michael Caruba Michael@Duncanda.com Rick Gerlack makualike@comcast.net Rod Attebery rattebery@neumiller.com RosemaryAtkinson rosymoonatk@comcast.net Russ Munson Russ@winerose.com Warmerdam warmerdam7@sbcglobal.net Kari Chadwick — Se,-�ty�\ o-_ e-�1o1��nCo:h®v� Distribution List Name: Members: Bill Cummins Bill Cummins - Work Dave Kirsten Debbie Olson Randy Heinitz Steven Hennecke Tim Mattheis-Work Timothy Mattheis Planning Commission pastorbillc@aol.com pastorbill@bearcreekchurch.com dave@ kirsten.com Debbie.Olson@pacbell.net dhntzrdy@sbcglobal.net shenecke@pacbell.net TM@wmbarchitects.com tkmhome@sbcglobal.net Kari Chadwick -- Seams \i 1o. e- -i�itCafiDv� Distribution List Name: SPARC Members Members: Keith Selleseth carkei@sbcglobal.net MitchellSlater mslater@lodiusd.net Reyes Jaramillo ray_pridelands@yahoo.com Roger Stafford staf4ds@comcast.net