HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - July 21, 1982 PH (5)ORDINANCE AMEND- Notice thereof having been published in accordance with law
ING SECTION 27-22 and affidavit of publication being on file in the Office of
(ENFORCEMENTi the City Clerk, Mayor Reid called for the Public Hearing to
PENALTIES; LEGAL consider amending Section 27-22 (Enforcement; Penalties; Legal
PROCEDURES) OF Procedures) of Chapter 27 (zoning) of the Lodi Municipal Code.
CHAPTER 27 (ZONING)
OF THE LODI MUNICIPAL The matter was introduced by Staff.
CODE INTRODUCED
Mr. Charles Duncan, who identified himself only as a Lodi
ORDINANCE NO. 1265 resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed Ordinance.
There being no other persons wishing to speak on the matter,
the public portion of the hearing was closed.
A lengthy discussion followed with questions being directed
to Staff.
Councilman Pinkerton then moved for introduction of Ordinance
No. 1265 amending Section 27-22 (Enforcement; Penalties; Legal
Procedures) of Chapter 27 (zoninc-; of the Lodi Municipal Code.
The motion was seconded by Council Member Olson and carried by
unanimous vote.
LEGAL PROCEDURES) OF CHAPTER 27 (ZONING) OF THE LODI MUNICIPAL CODE.
Publish Dates: July 10, 1982
Tear Sheets Wanted 3
Affidavit and Bill to: ALICE M. REIMCHE CITY CLERK, CITY HALL
Date:July 7, 1982 Ordered by:AIMI AP
&J -
ALICE M. REIMC 1E
CITY CLERK
Fa.
d
CITY OF
LODI
22 1 Wo Pine Street
Lodi,
California
1
ADVERTISING
INSTRUCTIONS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF
z-
S ubjeli4 DI TO CONSIDER AMENDING SECTION 27-22 (ENFORCEMENT;
PENALTIES;
LEGAL PROCEDURES) OF CHAPTER 27 (ZONING) OF THE LODI MUNICIPAL CODE.
Publish Dates: July 10, 1982
Tear Sheets Wanted 3
Affidavit and Bill to: ALICE M. REIMCHE CITY CLERK, CITY HALL
Date:July 7, 1982 Ordered by:AIMI AP
&J -
ALICE M. REIMC 1E
CITY CLERK
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF LODI TO CONSIDER AMENDING
SECTION 27-22 (ENFORCEMENT; PENALTIES;LEGAL
PROCEDURE) OF CHAPTER 27 (ZONING) OF THE LODI
MUNICIPAL CODE.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT ON Wednesday, July 21, 1982,
at the hour of 8:00 p.ra. or as soon thereafter as the matter may
be heard, the Lodi City Council will conduct a public hearing in
the Council Chambers, City Hall, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi,
California, to consider the adoption of the hereinafter set forth
Ordinance.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LODI AMENDING SECTION 27-22 (ENFORCEMENT;
PENALTIES; LEGAL PROCEDURE) OF CHAPTER 27
(ZONING) OF THE LODI MUNICIPAL CODE.
The City Council of the City of Lodi does ordain as
follows:
SECTION 1. Section 27-22 (Enforcement; penalties; legal pro-
cedure) of Chapter 27 (Zoning) of the Lodi Municipal Code is
hereby amended to read in full as follows:
"Section 27-22. Enforcement; penalties; legal procedure.
For the purpose of requiring full compliance with all
of the provisions of this chapter, the following
regulations shall govern:
(a) Enforcement.
The City Manager, Community Development
Director, and Chief Building Inspector or
their designess, are hereby vested with the authority
to issue a citation to any person who violates any
of the provisions of this chapter.
- 1-
Wax
`Lrf11 officials of the City &Lodi charged
by the law with the general duty of enforcing City
ordinances shall also enforce this chapter and
the provisions of the same.
(b) License and Permits.
All departments, officials and public
employees of the city, who are vested with the duty
and authority to issue licenses or permits where
required by law shall conform to the provisions of
this chapter and shall issue no such license or
permit for uses, buildings or purposes where the
same would be in conflict with the provisions of
this chapter. Licenses or permits, if issued in
conflict with the provisions of this chapter, shall
be null and void, if said licenses or permits are
not brought into compliance with the provisions of
this chapter.
(c) Penalties for violation.
Unless otherwise indicated, it shall be an
infraction for any person to do any act forbidden
or fail to perform any act required by this chapter.
Penalties for infractions shall be as set forth in
Government Code Section 36900.
(d) Legal proceedings.
The penalties prescribed herein shall not be
deemed to limit the right of the city through its
legal department as authorized by the city council
upon request of the enforcing officials to institute
- 2 -
'V C
any appropriate legal procedure o s prescribed
by law to restrain, enjoin, correct or abate any
actual or threatened violation of the provisions
of this chapter.
(e) Public Nuisance.
Any violation of this chapter shall constitute
a public nuisance. In addition to any other remedies
provided in this chapter, the city may summarily
abate and bring civil suit to enjoin or abate the
violation.
(f) Separate Offenses - Cumulative Remedies.
Each day any violation of this chapter continues
shall be regarded as a new and separate offense.
The remedies provided in this chapter shall be
cumulative and not exclusive."
Information regarding this item may be obtained in the
office of the Community Development Director at 221 West Pine
Street, Lodi, California. All interested persons are invited
to present their views either for or against the above proposal.
Written statements may be filed with the City Clerk at any time
prior to the hearing scheduled herein and oral statements may be
made at said hearing.
Dated: July 7, 1982
By Order of the City Council
ALICE M. RE CHE
City Clerk
MM
P
(tt
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF LODI TO CONSIDER AMENDING
SECTION 27-22 (ENFORCEMENT; PENALTIES;LEGAL
PROCEDURE) OF CHAPTER 27 (ZONING) OF THE LODI
MUNICIPAL CODE.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT ON Wednesday, July 21, 1982,
at the hour of 8:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may
be heard, the Lodi City Council will conduct a public hearing in
the Council Chambers, City Hall, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi,
California, to consider the adoption of the hereinafter set forth
Ordinance.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LODI AMENDING SECTION 27-22 (ENFORCEMENT;
PENALTIES; LEGAL PROCEDURE) OF CHAPTER 27
(ZONING) OF THE LODI MUNICIPAL CODE.
The City Council of the City of Lodi does ordain as
follows:
SECTION 1. Section 27-22 (Enforcement; penalties; legal pro-
cedure) of Chapter 27 (Zoning) of the Lodi Municipal Code is
hereby amended to read in full as follows:
"Section 27-22. Enforcement; penalties Enforcement; penalties; legal procedure.
For the purpose of requiring full compliance with all
of the provisions of this chapter, the following
regulations shall govern:
(a) Enforcement.
The City Manager, Community Development
Director, and Chief Building Inspector or
their designess, are hereby vested with the authority
to issue a citation to any person who violates any
of the provisions of this chapter.
- 1- ..
All officials of the City {o� Lodi charged
by the law with the general duty of enforcing City
ordinances shall also enforce this chapter and
the provisions of the same.
(b) License and Permits.
All departments, officials and public
employees of the city, who are vested with the duty
and authority to issue licenses or permits where
required by law shall conform to the provisions of
this chapter and shall issue no such license or
permit for uses, buildings or purposes where the
same would be in conflict with the provisions of
this chapter. Licenses or permits, if issued in
conflict with the provisions of this chapter, shall
be null and void, if said licenses or permits are
not brought into compliance with the provisions of
this chapter.
(c) Penalties for violation.
Unless otherwise indicated, it shall be an
infraction for any person to do any act forbidden
or fail to perform any act required by this chapter.
Penalties for infractions shall be as -set forth in
Government Code Section 36900.
(d) Legal proceedings.
The penalties prescribed herein shall not be
deemed to limit the right of the city through its
legal department as authorized by the city council
upon request of the enforcing officials to institute
-2
any appropriate legal procedure as prescribed
by law to restrain, enjoin, correct or abate any
actual or threatened violation of the provisions
of this chapter.
(e) Public Nuisance.
Any -,violation of this chapter shall constitute
a public nuisance. In addition to any other remedies
provided in this chapter, the city may summarily
abate and bring civil suit to enjoin or abate the
violation.
(f) Separate Offenses - Cumulativa Remedies.
Each day any violation of this chapter continues
shall be regarded as a new and separate offense.
The remedies provided in this chapter shall be
cumulative and not exclusive."
Information regarding this item may be obtained in the
office of the Community Development Director at 221 West Pine
Street, Lodi, California. All interested persons are invited
to present their views either for or against the above proposal.
Written statements may be filed with the City Clerk at any time
prior to the hearing scheduled herein and oral statements may be
wade at said hearing.
Dated: July 7, 1982
By Order of the City Council
- 3 -
ALICE M. REI CHE
City•. Clerk
I
CITY COUNCIL
FRED M. REID. Mayor CITY OF L O D I
ROBERT G. MURPHY,
Mayor Pro Urnpore
EVELYN M. OLSON
JAMES W. PINKERTON, Jr.
JOHN R. (Randy) SNIDER
Mr. Mike Sabo
4264 East Almond Drive
Lodi, California 95240
Dear Mr. Sabo:
CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 320
LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241
(209)334-5634
August 20, 1982
HENRY A. CLAVES, Jr.
City Manager
ALICE M. REIMCHE
City Clerk
RONALD M. STEIN
City Attorney
Enclosed herewith please find certified copy of the City Council
Minutes of July 21, 1982 reiterating the Council's position
on your request for some relief of the front footage charges
for your recent water main tap on Almond Drive, whereby, the
City Council following lengthy discussion on the matter and
review of the City's policy regarding water main extensions,
denied your request.
Should you have any questions regarding this action, please do
not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
Alice M. Re he
City Clerk
AMR/lf
Enc.
•
FINALY
82-!
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMEDALCT
REPORT
M
r
..
w2-
•
1✓
i : 1•
•
;�. PREPAIIEC BY
COMM(INITY •
s
x
DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
s'
CITY OF LODI
l,.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR
LOBAUGH MEADOWS
APPLICANT
J -W Properties
3515 Country Club Blvd.
Stockton, CA 95204
AGENCY PREPARING EIR
City of Lodi
Community Development Dept.
221 W. Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
The proposed project is a 91.17 acre development on the south
side of Kettleman Lane (State Route 12), east of Lower
Sacramento Road. The project is a mixed use planned develop-
ment containing .65 acres of commercial, 5.16 acres of professional
offices, 30.64 acres of multiple -family and 28.59 acres of
single-family with the remaining acreage devoted to streets and
a school site.
The project will require a General Plan amendment for the
commercial and office portions of the project; a rezoning from
U -H, Unclassified -Holding, to P -D, Planned Development;
certification of an Environmental Impact Report and approval
of a project plan.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VICINITY MAP ..........................................
PROJECT MAP ...........................................
LAND USE MAP ..........................................
SUMMARY.................................................
I. PROJECT
A. Location
B. Description
II. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
A. General
B. Topography
C. Hydraulics
D. Soil Conditions
E. Seismic Hazard
F. Biotic Conditions
G. Noise
H. Atmospheric Conditions
III. UTILITIES
A. Storm Drainage
B. Sanitary Sewer
C. Domestic Water
D. Electricity, Natural Gas 3 Telephone Service
IV. C034UNITY SERVICES
A. Streets and Circulation
B. Police and Fire
C. Schools
D. Recreation
E. Solid Waste
V. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
VI. HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Page
i
ii
iv
l
1
2
2
2
3
4
5
5
7
9
9
9
9
10
11
ll
12
12
13
A. Environmental Impacts 13
B. Mitigation Measures 14
C. Alternatives to the Project 16
D. Irreversible and Long -Term Impacts 16
E. Cumulative Impact 16
F. Growth Inducing Impacts 17
G. Energy Conservation 17
ADDENDUM A-1
COMMENTS C -i
r
-zz
z
I
o
I
tiRif
f
- C:b
t. w
SUMMARY
LOBAUGH MEADOWS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The project is located south of Kettleman Lane/State Highway 12 and 1/4
mile east of Lower Sacramento Road. The project wraps around Grupe
Development's Lakeshore Village Planned Development.
The project contains a total of 91.17 acres. There are 28.59 acres of
single-family residential (153 units), 30.64 acres of multiple -family
residential (534 units), 5.16 acres of professional offices, 0.65 acres of
professional offices, 0.65 acres of commercial and a 9.48 acre school site.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) Loss of 913 acres of prime agricultural land.
2) Affect adjacent agricultural properties. Possibly restrict the use of
certain pesticides and other normal farming practices.
3) Increase traffic volumes by approximately 6,787 vehicle trips per day.
4) Generate a potential of 527 children that will add to the LUSD
overcrowding problem.
5) Project area is not currently served by City storm drainage. Some
solution required.
MITIGATION MEASURES
1) No real mitigation for the loss of agricultural land.
2) Provide buffer area between proposed project structure and adjacent
agricultural properties (streets, open space, etc.)
3) Traffic can be handled by careful street design. Also by limiting
street and driveway access on to Kettleman Lane and Century Boulevard.
Redesign project to reverse the frontage of lots along Century
Boulevard so that driveways do not enter onto Century Boulevard.
4) Storm drainage - limit development to the 20 acres that can be served
by existing storm drainage facility in Lakeshore Village Planned
Development. The remainder of the property cannot develop until an
improved drainage solution can be provided.
5) School impaction can be mitigated by providing an on-site school site
or by payment of fees to help pay for temporary classroom space.
iv
ALTERNATIVES
1) "No build" alternative would eliminate all the impacts of the proposed
project.
2) Different mix of uses would not substantially change the impacts of
the project.
IRREVERSIBLE AND LONG-TERM IMPACTS
1) Loss of prime agricultural land would be irreversible and hong-term
impacts
CUMULATIVE IMPACT
1) There have been several hundred acres of agricultural land developed
over the past 5 years. An additional 140± acres are approved, but not
yet developed. Lodi is completely surrounded by prime agricultural
land and all developments utilize agricultural land.
2) LUSD is overcrowded and additional residential projects continue to
add to the problem.
GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS
1) Development of this property and the extension of utilities may affect
future development of adjacent properties. The "Green Belt"
initiative will significantly affect future growth. Surrounding
properties will require approval of voters prior to development.
ENERGY CONSERVATION
1) All buildings will conform to new State Energy Conservation
regulations.
2) Cluster housing will help reduce energy consumption. Less streets,
utilities, etc. per unit. Easier to site for solar orientation. More
conducive for future public transportation service.
0
1. PROJECT
A. PROJECT LOCATION
B.
LOBAUGH MEADOWS
The proposed project is located in the southwest section of the City
of Lodi. The property is adjacent to the south of Kettleman Lane/
Highway 12 and 1/4 mile east of Lower Sacramento Road. The area is
generally bounded by Kettleman Lane/Highway 12 to the north, the
Woodbridge Irrigation District Canal to the east, the extension of
Century Boulevard to the south and Lower Sacramento Road to the west
(See Vicinity Map).
The parcels 'are designated as San Joaquin County Assessor's parcels
057-060-21, 057-060-22 and 057-580-04 and wrap around the existing
Lakeshore Village Planned Development.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicants, J -W Properties, are proposing a 913 acre mixed used
development. The project will contain 5.16 acres of professional/
business offices, 28.59 acres of single-family residential lots, 30.64
acres of multiple family residential, .65 acres of commercial and a
9.48 acre elementary school site. The remaining acreage will be in
streets. (see Development Plan Map).
The proposed plan will have a total of 687 residential units. Of
these units 153 are detached single-family units and 534 are
multiple -family or attached units. The single-family will have a
density of 5.35 units/acre and the multiple family will have a density
of 17.4 units/acre. The overall residential density, including the
school site, is 10 units per acre.
The project property is currently designated residential low-density
in the Lodi General Plan. This designation permits residential uses
with a maximum overall density of 10 units per acres. The portions of
the proposed development that are designated for office and commercial
use will require a general plan amendment to office/institutional and
commercial.
The site is currently zoned U -H, Unclassified -holding. This is a zone
that the City sometimes uses for undeveloped land that is annexed to
the City. Upon receipt of a specific developmental request the
property is given a regular zoning designation. The applicant is
requesting a zoning designation of P-D,Planned Development. This zone
permits a mix of uses as long as each specific type of use is approved
by the City as part of the overall development plan.
-1-
II. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
A. GENERAL
The project site is currently planted in vineyards. The surrounding
area has a mixture of land uses. The project is bordered on two sides
by Lakeshore Village, a 90t acre planned development that contains
offices, restaurants, condominiums and single-family residences, all
surrounding a manmade lake. To the east are residential and
commercial developments. To the south are primarily agricultural
uses, and to the north and west are agricultural and scattered
residential and commercial uses.
B. TOPOGRAPHY
The project site and surrounding area are generally flat with
elevations of approximately 30 to 50 feet above sea level. The site
is presently planted with vineyards and was probably graded sometime
in the past to facilitate irrigation. The area slopes slightly .1-.2%
in a westerly direction. There are no natural surface drainage
features on the site. The Woodbridge Irrigation Canal (WID) operates
their canal along the eastern edge of the property. The canal has an
elevated levee approximately 6 to 8 feet above the surrounding area.
C. HYDRAULICS
There are no natural water channels or other bodies of water located
on the project site. There is a 19.5± acre manmade lake in the
Lakeshore Village Development immediately to the east and north of the
project site. There is also the WID canal that flows in a north -south
direction along the eastern edge of the property.
Test borings taken on an adjacent parcel in 1919 as part of a
subsurface investigation indicated no free groundwater to a depth of
46 feet. The test did not go below the 46 foot level.
The City of Lodi has a municipal water well located just across the
WID canal from the project site at Century Boulevard and the WID
Canal. Recent records indicate the ground water level to be between
55-65 feet below the surface ground levels. Groundwater is not
expected to be a factor in grading or design/construction of the
project.
Groundwater is the source of water for much of both agricultural
irrigation and domestic water in the Lodi area. Some farms adjacent
to the WID Canal are served by surface water from the Mokelumne River
via the WID Canal system.
The San Joaquin County Agriculture Department estimates that each acre
of vineyard requires approximately 35 inches of water annually.
During the average year annual rainfall provides approximately 9
inches of this annual demand. The remaining 24 inches is supplied by
irrigation Translated into acre feet, each vineyard acre uses
approximately 3 acre feet of water during a normal year.
&Z
The existing vineyard on the Lobaugh property uses approximately 273
acre feet of water annually (3 acre feet of water/acre x 91 acres =
273 feet).
By comparison, the following water consumption chart breaks down the
various water uses by acre feet/acre/year for different types of
developments,
Single-family residential 3.1 acre ft/ac/year
Multip-family residential 2.4 acre ft/ac/year
Commercial 2.3 acre ft/ac/year
Office/Professional 1.4 acre ft/ac/year
The proposed development has the following number of acres in the
above described uses.
No. of Acre Total No. of
Use
No. Acres
Ft/Ac/Year
Acre/Ft/Year
Single -Family
-B.59_—
X8.6
Multi -Family
30.64
2.4
73.5
Commercial
0.65
2.3
1.5
Office/Profes.
5.16
1.4
7.2
School
9.4E
2.5
23.7
1V4-.-'5
The total project water consumption would be approximately 194.5 acre
feet/year. This is less than the current 273 acre feet of water
consumption for the vineyard operation. It should be noted that
approximately 1/2 of the project is currently served by the WID Canal.
This is surface water from the Mokelumne River. The remaining acreage
utilizes groundwater from an onsite irrigation well.
D. SOIL CONDITIONS
The soil type on the project site is Hanford Sandy Loam. The surface
soil of the Hanford Sandy Loam consists of an 8 to 14 inch layer of
light, grayish brown, soft friable sandy loam which has a distinct
grayish cast when thoroughly dry. The material grades downward into a
subsoil of slightly darker and richer brown soil. The site has been
mapped by the U.S. Geological Survey (U.S.G.S. OFR 79-933) as being
directly underlain by an upper member of Pleistocene Modesto
Formation, an alluvial deposit associated with the Mokeiukmne River
Drainage. The uppermost soil extends from the ground surface to
variable depth 2 to 9 feet over the site and is comprised of very
fine- fine silty sand and very fine sandy silt.
Agriculturally, Hanford Sandy Loam is one of the best soils. It is
used in the production of orchards, vineyard and other intensive
perennial crops. In the Lodi area this soil is primarily used for
grape vineyards. The soil conservation service rates Hanford Sandy
Loam as Class 1 (the highest rating) and the Storie Index rates it at
95 percent for the ability to produce crops.
ism
The soil is also rated good for construction purposes. The bearing
capacity of the soil is 2,000 lbs. per square foot. It does not have
expansive qualities and will support most structural building loads.
E. SEISMIC HAZARD
Earthquake faults are not found in the immediate vicinity of the
subject parcel. The nearest faults are approximately 14 miles to the
south and west. The most probably sources of strong ground motion are
from the San Andreas Fault, HAYWARD Fault, the Livermore Fault and the
Calaveras Fault, all located in the San Francisco Bay area. More
detailed information can be obtained from the San Joaquin County COG
SAFETY/SEISMIC SAFETY ELEMENT, 1978, available at the Lodi City Hall.
F. BIOTIC CONDITIONS
The site has been cleared of natural vegetation and replaced with
cultivated crops. The property currently contains grape vineyards.
The type of plants and wildlife found on the site are common to lands
in agricultural areas surrounding Lodi. There are no known rare or
endangered species of plant or animal located on the project site.
The development of agricultural land has been an increasing concern
both locally and on the State level. Primary consideration has been
on the preservation of prime agricultural land. Much of the farm land
surrounding the City of Lodi is classified as prime agricultural land.
Most of this land is planted in various varieties of grapes, both wine
and table.
Over the past 5 years several hundred acres of agricultural land has
been developed with various urban uses in the City of Lodi. Another
1401 acres have been approved but not yet developed (Kennedy Ranch A
Johnson -Tandy). All the acreage has been immediately adjacent to the
existing City limits and within the General Plan area.
Lodi, like many Central Valley cities is totally surrounded by prime
agricultural land. Any new development requires the utilization of
agricultural land. In Lodi, because the crop value from grapes is
relatively high, there is very little land which is unused or totally
vacant. Lands remain in vineyards right up to time development
actually begins. In most areas of the City, vineyards are planted
right up to the edge of existing developments.
In 1981, the voters of Lodi passed a ballot initiative called the
"Green Belt" initiative. The initiative removes from the Lodi General
Plan Land Use Element all areas that were not within the existing City
limits at the time of the election. All annexations to the City mould
require an amendment to the General Plan that would require approval
by a vote of the people. The Green Belt area is defined as the area
between the existing City limits at the time of the election and the
outer limits of the sphere of influence.
Another provision of the "Green Belt" initiative was that
"non-agricultural development in the City of Lodi which lies adjacent
to the Green Belt area shall be permitted only after a finding by the
.
IN
City Council that such non-agricultural development will not interfere
with the continued productive use of agricultural land in the Green
Belt area or that an adequate buffer or mitigation zone exists to
assure continued productive use of agricultural land in the Green Belt
area." The initiative did not contain language which defined
"adequate buffer" or "mitigation zone."
The Lobaugh Meadows project is adjacent to the Green Belt zone so it
will fall within the provisions of the initiative.
G. NOISE
The major source of noise in the proposed project area is Kettleman
Lane (State Highway 12). This is a major collector thoroughfare
serving the south part of Lodi. It is also a connector between State
Route 99 to the east and Interstate 5 to the west.
The City of Lodi's Noise Contour Map shows the following noise levels
projections for the property:
70 decibels to 20' of the roadway
65.decibels to 100' of the roadway
These figures are based on pre -1913 data projected
to 1995. They do not take into consideration
shielding of any type.
The San Joaquin County Noise Element sets forth the following noise
guidelines for residential development:
Less than 60 decibels a Acceptable
60-69 decibels Conditionally acceptable
70-74 decibels a Normally unacceptable
75 decibels or greater = Clearly unacceptable
The data show that noise levels within 20' of the roadway are in the
unacceptable range. Noise levels up to 100' are in the conditionally
unacceptable range.
The proposed plan does not show any residential units within 100' of
the Kettleman Lane roadway. The nearest residential units will be
approximately 350' from Kettleman Lane.
H. ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS
Air Quality in the San Joaquin Valley is affected by a combination of
climatology and topography. Topographically, San Joaquin County is
located approximately in the middle of the Sacramento/San Joaquin
Valley. The valley has a trough-like configuration that acts as a
trap for pollutants. Mountain ranges surrounding the valley restrict
horizontal air movement and frequent temperature inversions prevent
vertical air movement. The inversion forms a lid over the valley
trough, preventing the escape of pollutants.
Climatology also affects the air quality. High summer temperatures
accelerate the formation of smog. This, combined with summer high
pressures which create low wind speeds and summer temperature
inversions to create the potential for high smog concentrations.
San Joaquin County air quality is not in compliance with National Air
Quality Standards.
Pollutant
Ozone
Carbon Monoxide
,Particulate Matter
Total suspended
Sul fure-dioxide
Nat. Air Quality
Standard
0.12 ppm (1 hr. av )
9.0 ppm (8 hr. avg}
75 ug/m3 (AGM)
365 ug/m3 (24 hr. av )
80 ug/m3 (annual avg�
San Joaquin
Air Quality
0.17 ppm
14.4 ppm
81 (highest (AGM)
no measurement
The primary source of air pollution generated by the development will
be from vehicular traffic. The trip generation estimates are based on
data from the Cal Trans District 4, Trip End Generation Research
Report and RGM Association, Traffic Engineers, Newsletter 021.
Single-family residential:
Based on 10 vehicle trips per unit, the 153 units will
generate 1530 vehicle trips per day.
Attached housing:
Based on 7 vehicle trips per unit, the 534 units will
generate 3738 vehicle trips per day.
Offices:
Based on 150 vehicle trips per acre, the 5.16 acres will
generate 774 vehicle trips per day.
Neighborhood Commercial:
Estimate of 325 vehicle trips for this single parcel
convenience store.
School (K-6 grade)
Based on .7 vehicle trips per student, the s,:hool site will
generate 420 vehicle trips per day.
Total vehicle trip generation will be 6,787 vehicle trips per weekday
generated by the proposed development.
-6-
There is no specific data for the City of Lodi, so auto emission
information was based on data for San Joaquin County. The City of
Lodi was assumed to generate 9.9% of the total vehicle trips for San
Joaquin County based on population. The following emission data was
generated:
Lobaugh
.77% S J Co. .01 .02 .001 .16 1.62 .15
(Total V.Ts)
*Figures in ons ay
The proposed Lobaugh Meadows project would account for less than .77% of
the total for San Joaquin County. This is a worst-case situation and
actual figures for the project will probably be less than those indicated.
The trip generation for Lobaugh Meadows used slightly higher vehicle trip
per household multipliers than the State uses in their calculations.
III. UTILITIES
A. STORM DRAINAGE
The City of Lodi operates a system of interconnected storm drainage
basins to provide storage for peak storm runoff. This peak runoff is
stored in the basins until it can be pumped into the W.I.D. Canal or
the Mokelumne River at controlled rates.
The City of Lodi does not currently have a drainage basin to serve the
project area. The City does have a basin site (G -South.) located west
of the project at what will be the southeast corner of the extension
of Century Boulevard and Lower Sacramento Road. The construction of
this basin is not in the current 5 year capital improvement plan.
Additionally the site is located outside of the current City limits of
Lodi.
Until the City basin is constructed to serve the area, there is not
adequate storm drainage capacity to serve the area. The developer has
made some provision for temporary storm drainage. They have an
agreement with the Lakeshore Village (Grupe Development Company) which
borders them to the north and east, to provide them with storm
drainage for a maximum of 20 acres of their property along Kettleman
Lane. The storm water will be stored in the lake built in the
Lakeshore Village Subdivision. The lake also serves as a temporary
ponding basin and adequate capacity was designed into the lake to
handle all of Lakeshore Village plus 20 acres of the Lobaugh property.
-7-
Particulate
Hydro -
so x*
Matter* Lead
carbons*
CO* Nox*
S J County 1.45
2.77 .21
20.84
211.27 19.62
City of Lodi
9.9% S J Co. .167
.274 .02
2.06
20.92 1.94
Lobaugh
.77% S J Co. .01 .02 .001 .16 1.62 .15
(Total V.Ts)
*Figures in ons ay
The proposed Lobaugh Meadows project would account for less than .77% of
the total for San Joaquin County. This is a worst-case situation and
actual figures for the project will probably be less than those indicated.
The trip generation for Lobaugh Meadows used slightly higher vehicle trip
per household multipliers than the State uses in their calculations.
III. UTILITIES
A. STORM DRAINAGE
The City of Lodi operates a system of interconnected storm drainage
basins to provide storage for peak storm runoff. This peak runoff is
stored in the basins until it can be pumped into the W.I.D. Canal or
the Mokelumne River at controlled rates.
The City of Lodi does not currently have a drainage basin to serve the
project area. The City does have a basin site (G -South.) located west
of the project at what will be the southeast corner of the extension
of Century Boulevard and Lower Sacramento Road. The construction of
this basin is not in the current 5 year capital improvement plan.
Additionally the site is located outside of the current City limits of
Lodi.
Until the City basin is constructed to serve the area, there is not
adequate storm drainage capacity to serve the area. The developer has
made some provision for temporary storm drainage. They have an
agreement with the Lakeshore Village (Grupe Development Company) which
borders them to the north and east, to provide them with storm
drainage for a maximum of 20 acres of their property along Kettleman
Lane. The storm water will be stored in the lake built in the
Lakeshore Village Subdivision. The lake also serves as a temporary
ponding basin and adequate capacity was designed into the lake to
handle all of Lakeshore Village plus 20 acres of the Lobaugh property.
-7-
This agreement was made by Grupe in exchange for certain utility
easements that were required across the Lobaugh property during the
construction of Lakeshore Village. The agreement only covers the 20
acres that can he served by an existing stubbed line in Sand Creek
Drive that will be extended west onto the subject property.
As for the remainder of the 91+ acre project, there is no available
storm drainage. If more than the previously mentioned 20 acres is to
be developed prior to the City constructing a permanent basin
(G -South) a temporary solution will be required. There are two
alternatives.
One, the developer could, with the consent of the City, construct a
temporary storm drainage basin on his property. The basin would be
constructed to City standards and be designed to handle the runoff
generated by this project. The basin would be similar to the one
constructed in the Sunwest Subdivision and would be funded entirely by
the developer. At some future date when the City constructs a
permanent basin, the temporary basin would be eliminated and the land
developed with residential or other uses as approved under the planned
development.
The second alternative would be for the developer to construct a
portion of the permanent basin on the City -owned basin site (G -South).
The developer would construct enough of the basin to provide for the
project runoff. The construction would be at the developer's expense
and would require the City's approval.
Both alternatives conflict with the City's policy of only allowing
development in areas that can be adequately served with City services.
Temporary facilities create added maintenance and City liability
problems. Additionally, there is duplication of cost and effort since
the developer must pay for and construct the temporary facility as
well as pay for the eventual construction of the permanent facility.
The second alternative, the partial construction of the G -South basin,
presents an additional problem. First, the basin site is outside the
existing City limits. Annexation of the property would require an
approval by the citizens of Lodi in a City-wide election. It may be
difficult to get approval at this time. The basin could be
constructed in the County with a Use Permit.
In addition to the storage basin, the project will require the
extension of the Master Plan 48" storm drain line in the Century
Boulevard right-of-way from Mills Avenue to the western edge of the
subject property.
am
B. SANITARY SEWER
The subject parcel will be served by the City of Lodi Sanitary System.
The system has the capacity to serve the development. The sanitary
lines within the development will tie into the City's 42" outfall line
located in the Century Boulevard right of way.
C. DOMESTIC WATER
The City of Lodi will provide water service to the proposed project.
The project will be served from a 10" line that will be extended along
Kettleman Lane. This is the same line that serves Lakeshore Village.
Currently, this is a deadend line. Eventual plans are to loop the
water system down to Century Boulevard then back under the W.I.D.
Canal to tie back into the system east of the Canal. The looping of
the line will increase water pressure in the lines and improve overall
service. Additionally, the City well (Well r20), located in Lakeshore
Village, will be constructed this year and will tie into the system.
Looping of the existing system at Century Boulevard and the W.I.D.
will occur with the complete development of Lobaugh Meadows. However,
the City.will be monitoring water pressures in Lakeshore Village as
the project is developed. Based on their findings, the looping of the
water line may be required prior to completion of the development.
Under present City ordinances, one half the cost of the W.I.G.
crossing will be borne by the City.
D. ELECTRICITY, NATURAL GAS b TELEPHONE SERVICE
Electricity will be provided by the City of Lodi, natural gas by
P.G.&E, and telephone service by Pacific Telephone. All services can
be adequately supplied to the project with normal line extensions.
IV. COMMUNITY SERVICES
A. STREETS AND CIRCULATION
The street access to the proposed project will be from Kettleman Lane
which runs along the north edge of the project site. The plan shows a
north -south collector (60' right-of-way) providing access from
Kettleman Lane to the western half of the project. The City Public
Works Department is recommending that this street be reduced to a 55'
right-of-way. The central and eastern portions of the project will be
served by extensions of Mills Avenue and Lakeshore Drive which also
serve Lakeshore Village.
The Public Works Department is also recommending that an east -west
street to the west be provided somewhere midway between Kettleman Lane
and Century Boulevard. This street would eventually connect the
property with Lower Sacramento Road. One possibility is to align the
street with Olive Street, an existing private street that accesses off
of Lower Sacramento Road.
Century Boulevard will run along the south boundary of the proposed
project. When fully developed, the street will have a
52
B.
80' right-of-way with 4 travel lanes and parking on both sides.
Eventual plans are to construct a bridge across the W.I.D. Canal to
connect this section of Century Boulevard to the existing portion of
the street east of the Canal. This will give the project site a
second major access. There is no specific time table for the
construction of the bridge. This will depend on the development of
the area west of the canal and the resulting traffic demands. Under
present City policies, the cost of the bridge will be borne by the
City.
At present the developer will be required to construct the northern
half of Century Boulevard along his property frontage. The street
will not have any connection to the west or east until the bridge is
constructed or additional properties are developed to the west. Upon
development to the west, Century Boulevard will extend to Lower
Sacramento Road.
Kettleman Lane is a State Highway (Highway 12). It has recently been
improved from the City limits west to I-5 with two 12' travel lanes
and two 8' shoulders. As part of the proposed project, Kettleman Lane
will be further widened along the project frontage. The southern half
of the street will be developed to add an additional east bound travel
lane, a parking lane and curb, gutter and sidewalk. There will also
be a left -turn lane at the Kettleman Lane entrance to the project.
All work on Kettleman Lane will require Cal Trans permits and
approvals.
POLICE AND FIRE
The City of Lodi will provide police and fire protection to the
proposed development.
The Chief of Police has indicated that the department has no "level of
reserve" which should be maintained in the City Department. He
indicates that the additional service for the subject project will
come from a re -ordering of departmental enforcement policies. The
Chief notes, however, that this new development and other areas of the
City will receive uniform treatment with regard to service levels.
The Chief of Police will review the project plans to insure that the
street lighting system and the building street layout permit adequate
security surveillance by patrol units.
The nearest fire station to the subject development is located at the
corner of South Ham Lane and Arundel Court, next to Beckman Park. At
present this would be a distance of approximately 3 miles to the
project site. When the Century Boulevard canal crossing is
constructed, this distance will be reduced to approximately 1-2 miles.
The Fire Chief will review all plans to assure adequate fire
protection. He will work with the developer on the number and
location of fire hydrants and will review the project plan to insure
adequate accessibility for fire equipment.
-10-
C. SCHOOLS
The Lodi Unified School District (LUSD) is experiencing a problem of
student overcrowding in many of its schools. Many of the schools are
at maximum capacity and the District must transport students out of
their normal attendance area to accommodate all the students.
In order to help defray the costs of construction of needed classroom
space, the City of Lodi passed City Ordinance No. 1149. This
Ordinance, passed pursuant to Senate Bill 201, was enacted prior to
the passage of Proposition 13. The ordinance provided for the City
Building Department to collect a "fee" of $200 per bedroom in new
residential developments. The money collected is then transferred to
the LUSD and used to provide for temporary classroom space to help
relieve the overcrowding.
The other option available is for the developer to enter into an
agreement directly with the LUSD. This agreement can be for direct
payment of the fees to the LUSD instead of to the City through the
building permit process. The developer could also agree to provide
either land for a school site or provide temporary classroom
facilities instead of the payment fees. Any of these options would
require a formal agreement between the LUSD and the developer.
The developer has shown a 9.48 acre site for an elementary school site
within the proposed development. There has been no agreement or
acceptance of the site by the LUSD. There is some question whether
the LUSD will want a school site within this project. The decision
will depend on the financial position of the LUSD and the future
requirements of the student population and attendance areas.
The proposed project will contain approximately 687 residential units.
The number of children are estimated as follows:
Housing Type No. of Units Children/Unit Total
3Tng7e--family 15 — . —
homes
Multi -family or
condominiums 374 0.7 374
Total children W
The estimate for total number of children is based on total
development of the project. This could take 5-8 years depending on
the economy and other factors. Additionally, many of these children
will move into the project from other residences that are already
located within the LUSD.
0. RECREATION
The proposed project does not have any pub] is'recreational areas
except for the possible school site. If the school is developed, that
will provide an open space/recreation area during non -school hours.
Presumably the multi -family projects will have private recreation
areas for their tenants.
-11-
The City has a large basin/park facility located at Beckman Park, just
east of the project area at Century Boulevard and Ham Lane. When the
Century Boulevard crossing over the W.I.D. Canal is completed, this
park facility will be within walking distance to the project. Until
then it is approximately 2 miles via Kettleman Lane.
The City also has plans for another basin park (G -South) located on
Lower Sacramento Road, just west of the project site. This
basin/park will have open space, picnic areas and play equipment.
There will also be sports field areas for organized activities.
E. SOLID WASTE
Existing collection of residential solid waste within the City of Lodi
is on a weekly basis by a franchise collector. The refuse is hauled
to a newly constructed transfer station on the outskirts of Lodi. The
refuse is sorted and some materials removed for recycling.
The remaining material is consolidated and hauled to the Harney Lane
Sanitary Landfill, a Classll-2 disposal site. The refuse company has
future plans for expanded resource recovery facilities, including a
composting operation for leaves and garden materials collected.
Current and proposed operations are consistent with the San Joaquin
County Solid Waste Management Plan, adopted June, 1979. The subject
area is within County Refuse Service Number 3 and the North County
Disposal Area, which is served by the Harney Lane site. The Harney
Lane site is nearing capacity and plans for a new landfill site in the
same general area are in the final stages of review.
The subject area was within the planned urban growth area of the City
of Lodi at the time the County Solid Waste Management Plan was
developed and adopted. Solid waste volume projections used in the
plan were based on future urban development, which included the
subject area. Following are solid waste estimates based on planned
and projected residential densities.
The volume of solid waste which will be generated by the proposed
office/professional area (compared to the area developing residential)
is considered insignificant in terms of its impact on the existing and
future disposal and collection systems.
The number of units built on the project will be 687. The City's
franchise collector estimates that each residential unit in the City
of Lodi generates an average of 39 pounds of solid waste per week.
687 units x 39 lbs/week = 26,793 pounds of solid
waste per week
V. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
The proposed project will affect one special district, the Woodbridge
Irrigation District (W.I.D.) which has a canal along the east property
line. The W.I.D. will be affected by the development in two ways.
-12-
First, the N.I.D. will no longer provide the project site with
irrigation water from the canal. The exact cut-off time will depend
on the development of the project. N.I.D. water service may continue
for serveral years if the portion of the project adjacent to the canal
is not developed in the early phases. Once the vines are removed, the
irrigation water will no longer be needed. Domestic water for the
project will be supplied by the City of Lodi.
Secondly, because the N.I.D. Canal is an open ditch, the District is
concerned with unauthorized trespassing on their property. On past
projects, they have required the developer to construct a 6' chain
link fence or similar barrier between the project and the canal. This
would be a condition of the project approval.
VI. HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE
There are no sites or buildings on the subject property that are
designated as historical landmarks by any Federal, State or local
agencies. The nearest recorded landmarks are in the .community of
Woodbridge, 3 miles to the north.
Although there are no recorded archeological surveys of the site, it
is doubtful that there are any archeological sites on the property.
Known Indian sites in the Lodi area are usually located along the
banks of the Mokelumne River, 3 miles to the north.
The property has been extensively cultivated for many years. There is
no record of any items of antiquity ever being unearthed on the site.
Additionally, the extensive digging and plowing to cultivate the
vineyards and the trenching to install irrigation lines would have
destroyed any archeological material.
If during construction, some article of possible archeological
interest should be unearthed, work will be halted and a qualified
archeologist called in to examine the findings.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The proposed project will result in the loss of 91+ acres of prime
agricultural land to urban development. The project site is made up
of Hanford Sandy Loam which is rated as a Class I soil for
agricultural production. In the Lodi area this type of soil is well
suited for the growing of grapes.
If the proposed Lobaugh Meadows project is approved, it will require
the removal of the vineyards and the construction of structures,
thereby terminating further use of the land for agriculture.
-13-
Urbanization of the subject parcel may affect the continued
agricultural operation on adjacent parcels. The presence of
residential and commercial structures may restrict or limit normal
farming operations on adjacent agricultural lands. The use of certain
pesticides or herbicides may be restricted by State regulations,
particularly adjacent to residential structures. Cultivation and
harvesting operations may result in complaints from residents
concerning noise and dust. Agricultural operations adjacent to
urbanized areas may also be subject to an increased amount of
trespassing and vandalism.
The project will increase traffic on Kettleman Lane/Highway 12 and
Mills Avenue. Approximately 6,787 additional vehicle trips (V.T.) per
weekday will be generated by the project when it is fully developed.
Eventually Century Boulevard will handle some of this traffic when the
bridge crossing over the W.I.D. Canal is constructed. Until that time
traffic will all flow north to Kettleman Lane.
The project could result in the addition of approximately 527 children
to the LUSO population. The addition of these children to the LUSD's
student population will adversely affect the District's ability to
provide adequate classroom space. Most of the schools in the District
are at or above capacity now and the addition of more students will
increase the current problem.
The City does not have a permanent drainage basin to serve the project
area. The developer has made provisions for 20 acres of his project
through an agreement with Lakeshore Village. The remainder of the
project will require some provision for storm drainage in order to
develop. Unless a solution acceptable to the City can be found, only
the 20 acres covered by the Lakeshore agreement can be developed.
B. MITIGATION MEASURES
If the Lobaugh Meadows project is approved and constructed, the 911
acres of prime agricultural land will be removed from further
agricultural use. There is no practical way to m;tigate this impact
once the decision to develop this property is made. The property is
within the City limits and has been designated for residential use by
the Lodi General Plan for many years.
The possible impact on adjacent agricultural properties can be
mitigated to some extent by requiring a buffer between this project
and adjacent properties. Along the south property line Century
Boulevard will run the entire length of the property. This will
provide an eventual 80' buffer between Lobaugh Meadows and the
properties to the south. If only the property on the north side of
Century Boulevard is developed, the entire 80' right of way will not
be constructed at this time. There would, however, be at least 40' of
right of way developed as part of Lobaugh Meadowb.
Along the west property line there will not be any street to provide a
buffer zone. The development proposal does however show most of the
area along this property line proposed for either office or
multiple -family development. It may be possible to require in the
-14-
design of these projects that the buildings be set back a sufficient
distance to provide a buffer. If, for instance, a driveway and a row
of parking were placed along the west property line, this would set
the nearest building back 50 feet or more. The area could also be
used as open space or landscaping for the projects.
To some extent, the agricultural properties along the west property
line are already affected by non agricultural uses. The area between
the subject property and Lower Sacramento Road is already developed
with a service station and 9-10 residential lots. These existing uses
probably already affect the agricultural activities on the surrounding
properties.
The additional traffic generated by the project can be mitigated by
careful design of the project circulation system. Kettleman Lane can
adequately handle the additional traffic. When fully developed,
Century Boulevard to the south will also be devsigned to handle
substantial levels of traffic. Mills Avenue and the yet unnamed
north -south street through Lobaugh Meadows will serve adequately to
connect the two major streets.
Limiting. driveway and street access on to the major streets will
reduce traffic hazards and congestion. There is only one project
street entering Kettleman Lane. Parcels that front on Kettleman Lane
will also have limited driveway access onto Kettleman Lane.
On the south side, there are only two project streets intersecting
with Century Boulevard. There are, however, numerous single-family
lots fronting on the street. One solution to reducing trasfie
congestion would be to reverse the frontage of the lots to face them
on an interior project street. A uniform fence could be constructed
along the rear of the lots adjacent to Century Boulevard. This method
of backing the lots onto the major street has been used successfully
on Hutchins Street and Ham Lane in Lodi. This would require some
redesign of the project, but this should not be a major problem.
In order to mitigate storm drainage problem, some provision must be
made for the project's storm water runoff. The easiest solution would
be to limit development on the property to the acreage that is covered
under a storm drainage agreement. This would allow development only
on the 20 acres adjacent to Kettleman Lane. This acreage has
provisions for storm drainage by agreement with the adjacent Lakeshore
Village Subdivision, utilizing the lake as a temporary basin. The
remainder of the property would not be developed until the City can
provide storm drainage in this area.
An alternative mitigation would be for the developer to provide a
storm drainage solution for the entire property. This could be in the
form of a temporary basin constructed on-site. This basin would serve
as a temporary ponding basin and would be eliminated at some future
date when the City constructs a permanent basin to serve the area.
This solution would have to be approved by the City Council.
Temporary basins are generally discouraged by current City policy.
-15-
The impact of the additional students on the LUSD can be mitigated in
one of two ways. The project map shows an elementary school site. If
this site is accepted by the District, it would eventually contain a
school for the neighborhood children. This would provide classroom
space for at least the elementary school -aged children generated by
the development.
If the LUSD decides that they do not want the school site, the
developer would then pay the school bedroom fee of $200 per bedroom.
This money would be used by the District to provide additional
temporary classroom space. The money could be paid to the District
either through a direct agreement between the developer and the
District or by payment to the City at the time building permits are
issued. The money would then be transferred from the City to the
LUSD.
C. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJELT
The principle alternative to the proposed project would be a "no
build" alternative. This would maintain the existing agricultural use
of the land and eliminate the adverse impacts resulting from the
proposed project.
Another alternative would be a different type of project. This could
involve a different combination of land uses, e.g., more
single-family/multi-family or more office uses/less residential.
Ultimately, this alternative would not significantly change the
impacts resulting from the project. The primary impact, the loss of
agricultural land would result regardless of the project mix. The
other impacts, traffic, air quality, noise and school children would
change slightly according to the mix, but not enough to make a
significant difference.
D. IRREVERSIBLE AND LONG TERM IMPACTS
The loss of agricultural land will be an irreversible and long-term
impact. Once the land is developed with homes and businesses, there
is little likelihood that the land will ever be used again for
agricultural purposes.
E. CUMULATIVE IMPACT
The project will have a cumulative impact on the loss of agricultural
land. In the past 5 years, several hundred acres of agricultural land
has been developed with various urban uses in the City of Lodi.
Another 140± acres has been approved for projects that have not yet
been constructed.
Unfortunately, all land in and around the City of Lodi is designated
prime agricultural land. The entire area surrounding the City is in
agricultural use. Almost every development, large or small, must
utilize agricultural land. There is no land around the City that is
not prime agricultural soil. The natural residential, commercial and
-16-
industrial growth of the City and its residents necessitate some
urbanization of agricultural land.
The other significant cumulative impact is the impact of the LUSO.
LUSD estimates place the number of new students generated by
developments within the District at 5000± in the next few years. Many
of the developments are in North Stockton. These students place a
strain on the District's ability to provide classroom space,
particularly in light of the fiscal problems facing the District.
Currently, developers both in Lodi
with the LUSD to provide funds for
will help to alleviate some of the
schools.
F. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
and in Stockton have
additional classroom
short-term problems
been working
space. This
facing the
The project will have a limited growth -inducing impact on the area.
Although the area to the south and west is currently undeveloped, that
area is also in the "Green Belt" area. As it stands now, no
development would be permitted in the "Green Belt" area without the
approval.of the voters. It does not appear that the voters are likely
to approve additional developments at this particular date, although
this could change in future years.
The installation of various public utilities, particularly storm
drainage could encourage development of the area. The availability of
streets, water, sewer, etc. will make development easier for adjacent
parcels. Whether or not the City allows some type of temporary storm
drainage facility. This could affect other properties with a similar
storm drainage problem. The area is, however, within the planning
area of the City and has been designated for residential development
for many years. The property is adjacent to areas of the City that
are developed under development.
G. ENERGY CONSERVATION
Structures in the project will conform to the new State of California
Energy Standards. These will include provisions for solar heating and
cooling, additional insulation, reduced window area, solar orientation
of buildings, and energy efficient appliances. The standards will
increase the energy efficiency of the structures, thereby, reducing
energ consumption.
The project will contain significant areas of multiple -family
development. The increased density of the development will improve
energy efficiency. By clustering the units there wV'I be fewer feet
of streets, utility lines, etc. per unit, saving some of the energy
needed to construct these facilities.
Additionally, cluster developers tend to be somewhat more energy
efficient. They are generally smaller, share common wall areas,
-17-
thereby saving heating and cooling requirements and are easier to site
to take advantage of solar orientation.
The cluster developments will also be easier to serve with public
transportation if the City ever develops a bus system.
-18-
A-1 ADDENDU14
i
ADDENDUM
i
l
1 OF
' ,
ClI MMY
I
1•
-
35
J
- ..
v.t
�"�Z
[ O I L
y h
T LN
- - ---
EXISTING CITY LIMITS
REMOVED FROM LAND
USE ELEMENT OF CITY
LIMIT OF UTILITY
PLANNINGAREA
GENERAL PLAN 8-25-81
�1r�l:1
Hj
ii
j
�p
X11,09
Bills
A-1 ADDENDU14
ClI MMY
i.
�n ��.11
1•
-
35
J
- ..
v.t
�"�Z
[ O I L
y h
T LN
- - ---
EXISTING CITY LIMITS
REMOVED FROM LAND
USE ELEMENT OF CITY
LIMIT OF UTILITY
PLANNINGAREA
GENERAL PLAN 8-25-81
A-1 ADDENDU14
Pre'esed Onlhaoeo to be wbmittad to the 9 ousters of the City
all Lsdf at s Special Election to be hdd August 4S, 1981.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LODI, CALIFORNIA DO
ORDAIN AS F0114WS:
1. It shall be the policy of the City of Lodi to protect land in the
Green Bok area in order to preserve and protect agricultural land.
prom ve the sank rs
vah» of the a, protect wUd M habitat and natural
reeouroa and to protect the mull city character of Lodi.
g. The Green Belt area shall be designated a the area between the
outer limbs of the incorporated city and the outer limits of the adopted
spbere of influence at the adoption of this ordinance.
8. To affect the pocky of aho City of Lodi to protect Ind in the
Green Bek area. non-agrktnitural development in the City of Lodi which
Use adjacent to the Green Belt am shall be permitted only after a
finding by the City Council that such am-agrieultural development will
not interfere with the continued productive use of agricultural land in the
Green Belt area or that an adequate buffer or mitigation two exists to
assure continued productive use of agricultural Ind in the Green Belt
arse.
4. At the time of adoption of this ordinance, the Green Belt area
Ad be removed from the existing Land Use Element of the General
Plan of the City of Lodi.
5. Bofors land In the Green Belt area can be annexed by the City if
Loa an amendment to the City's Land Use Element of the General Plan
must be made and approved by a majority of the people voting In a
city-wide election.
G. Before any annexation proposal an be approved. the City Council
moat make the finding that the proposed annexation is contiguous to
existing thy boundaries and the projected demand from the proposed
development in the area to be annexed will not exceed the service
capacity of existing municipal utilities and services, the school district.
and existing roadways.
T. Water. sewer, and electrical feeilitles shall not be expanded or
extended until the City Council makes the finding that a proposed expan-
don or extension is consistent with the goals, policies and land use
dasignati ns of the Gonial Plan and this ordinance.
S. The City of Lodi mar hold elections In consolidation with other
admdaMd Clow In the City for the purpose of allowing voter to voice
`m
opinions on amendments to the City's Lard Use Element of the
Plan.
9. If any portion of this ordinance is hereafter determined to be
brrnlid. all remaining portions of this ordinance shall remain in farce and
eBftt sad to this extent the provisions of this ordinance an seperable.
Approv" August 259 1981
THE FOLLOWING IS AN ANALYSIS OF
THE PROPOSED IMT'LATIVE ORDINANCE
U the proposed initiative is enacted:
(1) The Land Use Element of the City General Plan as adopted
October b. 1956, will be amended to remove from the Land Use Element
any area not within the corporate limits of the City on the date of the
adoption of the ordinance and will rec.uire a vote of the people to again
include this area in the Land Use Element. The area to be removed
would include all land bordering the entire City at its city limits and
continuing outward therefrom 1 mile In all directions, this area being the
area defined by the Local Agency Formation Commission as the Sphere
of Influence.
(2) It will add a condition to the procedures for annexation by re-
quiring that Ind sought to be annexed into the City must be brought
within the Lend Use Element by a vote of the people prior to the
completion of the annexation procedure.
(3) It will condition the City Council approval of annexations by
requiring that the City Council:
(a) be aware of the development plan in the area to be annexed:
(b) find that the proposed development will not require additional
servlee capacity of any municipal utility or municipal service:
and will not require enlargement of the service capacity of the
School. District; and further will not require extension of or
increases in the size of existing roadways.
(4) It will require the City to amend all nine elements of the General
Plan so that they am internally consistent as required by Government
Code Section 86800.6.
(5) There could be no planning for. or any extension or expansion of
water. sewer. or electrical facilities beyond the boundaries of the intia-
tive-approved land use designation unless theca was an amendment to
the Land Use E.ement voted on by the people, and the City Council finds
that the extension or expansion would not interfere with the continued
productive use of agricultural land adjacent to the City.
(6) It will condition the use and development of land within the City
of Lodi adjacent to the land which has been removed from the Land Use
Element. by prohibiting development of this land unless the City Council
finds. either that the development sed use will not Interfere with the
continued productivity of the agricultural land in the County. or that
mitigation measures will be taken to protect the continued productivity
of the agricultural land in the County.
Respectfully submitted.
RONALD M. STEIN
CITY ATTORNEY
CIO t•tt F .
t-�
SiN3WW03
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
STORM DRAINAGE - LAKE ALTERNATIVE
As noted in the Draft EIR, providing storm drainage for the project is a
potential obstacle for full development of the project. At present only
20 acres of the project has an acceptable storm drainage solution. The
remaining 70+ acres could not be developed until a drainage solution is
provided.
The alternative of using an artificial lake as a temporary storm drainage
basin has been suggested by the developer. This was not discussed in the
Draft EIR because it was not submitted as a part of the developer's
original plans. Constructing a 20' acre lake on the project site would
require a major redesign of the project layout and street system.
DESCRIPTION
Since no �.pccific design for the lake has been submitted, assumptions are
based on the Lakeshore Village Lake. The Lakeshore Village Lake served a
drainage area of roughly comparable size and with similar storm drainage
conditions. This would mean that the lake would be approximately 20 acres
In size and have a capacity of approximately 110 - 120 acre feet of water.
Because of the narrow width of the Lobaugh property, the lake would need
to have a long, narrow configuration. The hydraulics of the property would
require the lake to be located in the southern portion of the property.
Because of the existing utility lines In Mills Avenue, the lake could
not cross the Mills Avenue right-of-way.
The lake would function in the same way the Lakeshore Village lake does.
During non -storm runoff periods, the lake would serve a limited
recreational/aesthetic function. During runoff periods the lake would have
sufficient freeboard to serve as a holding basin for the storm drainage.
As the storm runoff subsides and Beckman Park/Basin empties, the storm water
from the lake would be pumped to Beckman Park via the Mills Avenue/Century
Blvd. storm drainage line.
IMPACTS
The lake would require approximately 20 acres of the subject property.
This would require a substantial redesign of the lot and street layout.
The current plan has an overall density of 10 units/acre including the
school acreage. If the lake is constructed, one of two things would happen.
If the overall density of 10 units per acre is maintained, the density on the
residential acreages would have to be increased. This could be done by
deleting some single-family lots and adding multiple -family acreage or by
simply increasing the density on the multiple -family lots.
-1-
The other possibility would be a reduction in the overall project density.
This would result if the loss of land required for the lake was not off-
set by an increased density on the remaining property.
Depending on the final number of units constructed, there could be some
change in the project's Impacts. An increase in the number of units would
result in additional levels of traffic and potentially increased numbers
of school aged children. Conversely, a reduction in the number of units
would have the opposite affect. in either case, unless the number of units
Is substantially changed, the difference in impacts would not be signi-
ficant.
The lake/basin would be a departure from the City's policy of allowing
development only in areas served by City storm drainage. The policy is
that the developer- would pay into a Master Storm Drain System Fund. The
Fund would be used to construct storm drainage basins, major tines (30
inches and larger) and pumping stations. These facilities would be constructed
according to a Master flan and as money from they Fund was available.
A lake/basin in lobaugh Meadows would allow development in an area without
a permanent City storm drainage basin. There_ is a basin site (G -South)
but no funds to construct the basin. The City did, however, allow Lake-
shore Village to be constructed under similar circumstances.
S Ri
EOMVNO G. BNOWN JR.
00dSNNOR
-'&ttttr of California
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO 95914
August 6, 1982
David Morimoto
City of Lodi
221 W. Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
SUBJECT: SCH! 82062417 Lobaugh Meadows
Dear Mr. Morimoto:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document
to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and
none of the state agencies have comments.
This letter certifies only that you have complied with the State Clear-
inghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act (EIR Guidelines, Section 15161.5).
Where applicable, this should not be construed as a waiver of any jurisdictional
authority or title interests of the State of California.
Tle project may still require approval from state agencies with permit authority
or jurisdiction by law. If so, the state agencies will have to use the environ-
mental document in their decision-making. Please contact them immediately
after the document is finalized with a copy of the final document, the Notice
of Determination, adopted mitigation measures, and any statements of overriding
considerations.
Once the document is adopted (negative declaration) or certified (final EIR) and
if a decision is made to approve the project, a Notice of Determination must be
filed with the County Clerk. If the project requires discretionary approval from
any state agency, the Notice of Determination must also be filed with the Secretary
for Res Ines, Sections 15483 (f) and 15085 (h) ). '
Si er
Charles E. Bra
Deputy Director for Project Coordination1`"ta Cyf
AUG 09 SE?
r G01ir:nr:IT�
DEVEUP, UNT
DEPARMST
MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Public Works Department
TO: Comaunity Development Director
FROM: Public Works Director
DATE: August 2, 1952
SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Report for t_obaugh Meadows (E.I.R. 82-1)
This office has reviewed the Draft E.I.R. for Lobaugh Meadows development.
Alone with the minor notations made on the attached copy, we are recommending
that the following torments be Included and/or misidered.
1. On page Iv, the last sentence under item 4 of Mitigation Measures,
should read, "The remainder of the property cannot develop until
an Improved drainage solution can be provided."
2. On pages 7 and 8, under Storm Drainage, the Public Works Department
has the following corfinent. Temporary basins greatly add to the
total maintenance and difficulty to Insure proper discharge of all
stored water in the: system. it is not recorr..*nded that additional
temporary stoma drainage be constructed.
3.. Under Storm Drainage, the lake concept has not been addressed. it
Is our understanding in talking with the developer's engineer, that
it is being considered. If this .is the case, it should be addressed.
as part of this E.I.R. If the lake concept is added at a later data,
It is felt that an E.I.R. addendum should be prepared, circulated,
and approved to cover this possible drainage solution.
4. On pge 9, under Streets and Circulation. it is not felt that the
major north -south street in this proposed development should be a
60 -foot right-of-way collector. It is fait that a standard 55 -foot
residential street would suffice.
5. It is felt that in the half mile between Kettleroan Lane and Century
Boulevard, provisions for an oast -west street to the west she uld be
provided. It appears that it would be reasonable to make this westerly
street extension to tie into the private street called Olive which
takes access off of Lower Sacramento Road, approximately midway be-
tween Kettleman Lane and Century Boulevard.
It is felt that the drainage solution concept for each phase of development
must be approved by the City of Lodi prior to the filing of a tentative map.
If you have any questions concerning these coc-"nts, please contact re.
Jack L. Ronsko
Pubi is Works D 1 rector
Attachment
Ce: City Manager
Glantz-Deimler-Dorman Consulting Engineers
JLVmeq
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM LODi UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
FACILITIES AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mary Joan Starr. Facility Pianner
TO: City of Lodi
Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Draft EIR 82-1 - Lobaugh Meadows
DATED: August 10, 1982 RECEIVED: August 17, 1982
P. iv, P. 314 - Experience in other areas of the District has shown
that new residential units generate an average of one pupil
per unit, which would yield 687 pupils when all units are
occupied.
p. iv, P. 415 - The State Government Code provides for interim facili-
ties and the collection of development fees to pay for these
facilities. Specific mitigation measures set forth in the
code are collection of fees for lease portables (or trailers)
and developer -provided facilities. Reservation of a school
site is not considered a mitigation measure but a planning require-
ment in anticipation of future needs. Development fees can
not be used for purchase of the site or construction of perm vent
buildings unless provided through a developer/LUSD agreement.
An agreement was signed by representatives of the developer
and the District on April 7, 1981 with three points of mitiga-
tion: 1) compliance with the requirements of the County
Task Force; 2) direct payment of fees to the District;
3) reservation of a site.
P. ii Are there any impacts (cumulative or specific) which might
be expected with high density on all parcels in the western
portion of the subdivision? What is the alternative use of
the 9+ acres planned for the school in the event that the school
does not materialize (discussed be)ow)7 if planned for high
density development, what are the impacts of additional units
on the subdivision's circulation in this area?
P. 5 What is the anticipated traffic volumes for Milds Avenue and
the anticipated noise levels? Will there be a potential adverse
affect on the school or other sensitive land uses? Will any
of the residences or the school fall within the projected
unacceptable decibel levels of Century Boulevard?
p. 10 C. The subject property is currently within the Vinewood Elementary
School attendance area. Vinewood School Is -currently an "im-
pacted" school, meaning that the number of pupils exceed the
capacity of the school (excluding extended capacity using
portables, etc.).
-1-
It is noted that the development fee is designed to mitigate
the immediate impact of new development. It is in no way intended
to provide for long-term housing of students. The Leroy F.
Greene Lease Purchase Program of 1976 is designed to give
local districts relief in providing permanent school facilities.
This District is participating in this program with construction
of the English Oaks School scheduled for future funding. Funding
has been received for planning purposes.
p. 11 P 2 As noted above, there is an agreement with the District; however,
It provides for the reservation of a sit^ and not dedication.
Presumably the reservation of a site could be done through the
'bid" process as a condition of development under the Subdivision
Map Act. As noted temporary classrooms were not a provision of
the agreement. Although there is some question regarding the
legality of the District notacceptingsite reservation considering
the legally -executed agreement, it is the opinion of the District
at this time that reservation of a site in this subdivision at
this time is not necessary.
On February 16, 1982 the Board of Trustees unanimously approved
an amendment to the Facilities Master Plan of 1981 to indicate
that English Oaks be the school site for South Lodi. The
District is proceeding with application for construction of.
that school. At a recent meeting of the Superintendent's staff
It was recognized that there will be capacity in Leroy Nichols
School north of Kettleman Lane when the new schools are constructed
In the southern portion of the District. It was also recognized
that in all probability a second elementary school would be
needed to serve the south Lodi area in addition to Nichols and
English Oaks. Staff also took into consideration the current
restrictions of the Greenbelt Initiative. At this time it appears
that Nichols and English Oaks will be sufficient and that the
"third" school should be located in the area south of the Lobaugh
Development if and when that area is restored in the General Plan
and considered for development.
A complete revision of the Facilities Master Plan is anticipated
within the next school year.
p. 11 P 4 The District will be contracting for services on the County's
new School Computer. At that time it is anticipated that an
accurate accounting of all students by residence, grade level
and school of attendance can be made. It is also anticipated that
an accurate figure for pupil projects in planned and developing
areas can be made.
P. 15 last P - The developer will be required to pay the development
fees directly to the District per agreement (at the prevailing
rate).
-2-
I
p. 16 last P - All efforts have concentrated on the provision of funds
that can be applied towards temporary space. The District is
requesting that all developers enter into an agreement with the
District for 3irect payment of fees, which nivel the District
greater latitude in meeting housing needs of a long-term and
short-term nature.
NOTE FROM CITY STAFF: letter received too late for response.
v.
tl
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR
HAM LANE PROFESSIONAL COMPLEX
APPLICANT
Consolidated Investors
(c/o Charles Wentland)
1601 West Lodi Avenue
Lodi ,' CA 95240
(209) 334-0625
AGENCY PREPARING EIR
City of Lodi
Community Development Departaent
221 West Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
The project site is 9.96 acres located at the southwest
corner of Ham and Lodi Avenue. The current zoning of this
parcel is R -GA, residential -garden apartments. The
applicant, Consolidated Investors, is requesting a zoning
of R -CP, residential -commercial -professional, and a
general pian designation of office institutional. The
applicant proposes a change in order to construct an 11 -building,
60,000 squ;:re foot office complex.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
VICINITY MAP ..............................................
i
PROJECTMAP ..............................................
ZONING NAP ..............................................
REGIONAL MAP ...............................................
iv
SUMMARY..............................................
v
I. PROJECT
A. Location
1
B. Description
1
C. Existing Land Uses
2
II. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
A. Topography
2
B. Hydraulics
2
C. Soil Conditions
3
D. Seismic Hazard
3
E. Biotic Conditions
3
F. Noise
3
G. Atmospheric Conditions
4
III. UTILITIES
A. Storm Drainage
5�
B. Water
5
C. Sanitary Sewer
5
D. Electricity, Natural Gas and Telephone Service
5
IV. COMMUNITY SERVICES
A. Streets and Circulation
5
B. Police and Fire
6
C. Recreation
6
D. Solid Waste
6
E. Historic and Archeological Site
7
V. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Environmental Impacts
7
B. Mitigation Measures
8
C. Alternatives to the Project
8
D. Irreversible and long -Term Impacts
9
- E. Cumulative Impacts
9
F. Growth -Inducing Impacts
9
G. Energy Conservation
9
F�
III
u
133b1S AyNol
t !
1 �
i
i
m ddw 133POUd
m
r
T
N 1 (1N3W3dO13N34 Mind)
vl i
3nN3Ad 1001
'4
a
dVIN ONINOZ
AiINIDIA
1
3.atlU u Y1t1A
'
--1
Mr.
��
d
-L Ll
wv �.n. • Q
I
►
d3a
0 1-a
:~
rt AIAf
.� ..rw
i�
1b ow 4mmm Ono
lu'v
'4
a
dVIN ONINOZ
AiINIDIA
AI
4
i
SUMMARY
HAM LANE PROFESSIONAL C014PLEX
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The project is located at the southwest corner of Lodi Avenue and Ham Lane.
The parcel is a portion of the Homestead Manor Subdivision.
The applicant, Consolidated Investors, are requesting a change in zoning
and a general plan amendment for a 9.96 acre parcel. They are requesting a
change from the existing general plan designation of medium density
residential to office institutional. The zoning change would be from R -GA,
residential -garden apartment to R -CP, residential -commercial-professional.
Plans are for development of the 7.593 acres along Ham Lane. There are no
current plans for the remaining acreage. Tentative plans are for an
11 -building office complex containing 60,000 square of offices.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) Loss of 9.96 acres of prime agricultural soil.
2) Increase in traffic in the project area. Possible added congestion on
streets from vehicles entering and exiting the project.
MITIGATION MEASURES
1) "No build" alternative would eliminate all impacts of the proposed
project.
2) Residential development of the property would result in the same
impacts plus an added impact of additional students on the Lodi
Unified Sch:at District.
IRREVERSIBLE AND LONG-TERM IMPACTS
Loss of prime agricultural soil will be irreversible and long term impact.
GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS
Project will have limited growth -inducing impact. Most of the surrounding
area is already fully developed. Streets and utilities are already
constructed and no new constructior, would be required.
v
HAM LANE PROFESSIONAL COMPLEX
I. PROJECT
A. PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed project is located at the southwest corner of Lodi Avenue
and Ham Lane. The parcel fronts on Ham Lane and extends from Lodi
Avenue on the north to Tokay Street to the south (see Vicinity Map).
The parcels are designated as San Joaquin County Assessor's Parcels
033-040-36, 033-230-46, 033-240-52 and parcels 033-260-01 through 41.
The property is a portion of the Homestead Manor Subdivision and the
Las Casitas Subdivision.
R. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicants, Consolidated Investors (c/o Charles Wentland), are
requesting a rezoning and general plan amendment for a 9.96 acre piece
of land. The applicants are requesting the zoning change in order to
construct a professional office complex with approximately 60,000
total square feet of offices. Tentative plans are for an 11 building
complex with adjoining parking areas. The buildings would be
single -story structures with 5000 square feet to 6250 square feet in
each building. It is anticipated that the primary tenants will be
those in the medical and related professions (see Project Map).
The subject property was originally a part of the Homestead Manor
Subdivision. This subdivision which was approved in 1976 had a total
of 46.9 acres, including the subject property. The subdivision
contained 125 single-family lots; 22 duplex lots; 4.56 acres for
commercial professional development; 9.96 acres of multiple family
development. The multiple family acreage had a zoning of R -GA,
residential -garden apartment (20 UPA) which would permit 199 units on
this parcel.
The single-family and duplex portion of Homestead Manor is
approximately 75% developed with homes. The 4.56 acre
commercial -professional acreage is still undeveloped. The subject
property is the 9.96 acres that was approved for multiple -family
development.
In 1979, Las Casitas, a 92 -unit planned unit development (zero -lot
line) was approved for the 9.96 acre multiple -family property. A
*entative and final map were approved for the first 40 -units of the
project. This project was never constructed.
The proposed Ham Lane Professional complex is proposed for this
multiple -family property. The rezoning and General Plan Amendment
includes the entire 9.96 acre property although current development
-1-
plans are only for the 7.591 acres along Ham Lane. The remaining
acreage along Lodi Avenue does not have a specific plan as of this
date.
The applicants are requesting a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning.
The current General Plan designation is medium density residential and
the zoning is residential -garden apartments (R -GA). The request is
for a change to a general plan designation of office -institutional and
a zoning of residential -commercial -professional (R -C -P). This would
permit commercial and professional office uses, institutional uses
(i.e. nursing homes, convalescent hospitals, etc.) and residential
uses to a maximum density of 10 UPA.
C. EXISTING LAND USES
The subject property is currently vacant. The property was cleared of
vineyards 4 to 5 years ago as a part of the Homestead Manor
development. A six-foot masonry fence was constructed along the west
property line separating this property from the residential
subdivision to the west (Homestead Manor Unit No. 1, 2 and 3) and from
the one older single-family residence along Lodi Avenue (Mullen
residence).
The surrounding land uses are primarily residential. To the west is
Homestead Manor Subdivision of single-family and duplex residences.
To the north is a large single-family home and a church. Across Lodi
Avenue is an apartment complex, several residences and the campus of
Lodi High School. To the east is a mix of residential and
commercial -professional uses including medical offices, churches,
apartments, business offices as well as single-family residences. To
the south are residences as well as several vacant
commercial -professional properties. Three blocks to the southeast is
Lodi Memorial Hospital. The hospital is the focal point for numerous
medical offices along Fairmont Avenue, Ham Lane, Tokay Street and Vine
Street.
II. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
A. TOPOGRAPHY
The project site is generally flat with elevations of approximately
30 to 50 feet above sea level. The site is currently bare but was
probably graded sometime in the past to facilitate vineyard
irrigation. The area slopes slightly 1-2% in a southwesterly
direction.
R. HYDRAULICS
There are no natural water channels or other bodies of water located
on the project site. The Hokelumne River is located approximately 2
miles to the north. The project site is not within the 100 year
floodplain of the Mokelumne River.
-2-
The groundwater level in the subject area is approximately 45' to 65'
below the surface ground level. Groundwater will not be a factor in
grading or design/construction of the project.
C. SOIL CONDITIONS
T`-_ soil type on the project site is Hanford Sandy Loam. The surface
soil of the Hanford Sandy Loam consists of an 8" to 14" layer of light
grayish brown, soft friable sandy loam which has a distinct grayish
cast when thoroughly dry. The material grades downward into a subsoil
of slightly darker and richer brown soil. The site has been mapped by
the U.S. Geologicai Survey (U.S.G.S. OFR 79-933) as being directly
underlain by an upper member of Pleistocene Modesto Formation, an
alluvial deposit associated with the Mokelumne River Drainage. The
uppermost soil extends from the ground surface to variable depth 2 to
9 feet over the site and is comprised of very fine to fine silty sand
and very fine sandy silt.
Agriculturally, Hanford Sandy Loam is one of the best soils. It is
used in the production of orchards, vineyard and other intensive
perennial crops. In the Lodi area this soil is primarily used for
grape vineyards. The soil conservation service rates Hanford Sandy
Loam as Class 1 (the highest rating) and the Storie Index rates it at
95 percent for the ability tt) produce crops.
The soil is also rated good for construction purposes. The bearing
capacity of the soil is 2,000 lbs. per square foot. It does not have
expansive qualities and will support most structural building loads.
D. SEISMIC HAZARD
Earthquake faults are not found in the immediate vicinity of the
subject parcel. The nearest faults are approximately 14 miles to the
south and west. The most probable sources of strong ground motion are
from the San Andreas Fault, Hayward Fault, the Livermore Fault and the
Calaveras Fault, all located in the San Francisco Bay area. More
detailed information can be obtained from the City of Lodi
SAFETY/SEISMIC SAFETY ELEMENT, 1980, available at the Lodi City Hall.
E. BIOTIC CONDITIONS
The project parcel was at one-time part of a vineyard operation.
Approximately 5 years ago the vineyard was removed for construction of
the Homestead Manor Subdivision. The site is currently void of all
vegetation except for common weeds which are periodically disced for
fire control.
The type of plants and wildlife found on the site are common to vacant
parcels in the Lodi area. There are no known 'rare or endangered
species of plant or animal located on the project site.
F. NOISE
The major source of noise in the project area is vehicular traffic on
Ham Lade and Lodi Avenue. Both are major collector streets. Lodi
-3-
G.
Avenue has an average daily traffic volume (A.D.T.) of I0,000 vehicle
trips. The Nam Lane A.D.T. at the subject location is approximately
11,500. Additionally, there is a traffic signal system at the
intersection of these two streets that increases noises from braking
and acceleration.
Portions of the property along the two streets will be in areas above
the 65 CNEL contour. This level of noise is considered acceptable for
daytime office uses.
ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS
Air Quality in the San Joaquin Valley is affected by a combination of
climatology and topography. Topographically, San Joaquin County is
located approximately in the middle of the Sacramento/San Joaquin
Valley. The valley has a trough-like configuration that acts as a
trap for pollutants. Mountain ranges surrounding the valley restrict
horizontal air movement and frequent temperature inversions prevent
vertical air movement. The inversion forms a lid over the valley
trough, preventing the escape of pollutants.
Climatology also affects the air quality. High summer temperatures
accelerate the formation of smog. This, combined with summer high
pressures which create low wind speeds and summer temperature
inversions to create the potential for high smog concentrations.
San Joaquin County air quality is not in compliance with National Air
Quality Standards.
Pollutant
Ozone
Carbon Monoxide
Particulate Matter
Total suspended
Sulfure-dioxide
Nat. Air Quality
Standard
0.12 ppm (1 hr. av )
9.0 ppm (8 hr. avg�
75 ug/m3 (AGM)
365 ug/m3 (24 hr. av )
80 ug/m3 (annual avg�
San Joaquin
Quality
0.17 Ppm
14.4 ppm
81 (highest (AGM)
no measurement
The primary source of air pollution generated by the development will
be from vehicular traffic. The trip generation estimates are based on
data from the Cal Trans District 4, Trip End Generation Research
Report and RGM Association, Traffic Engineers, Newsletter #21.
Medical Offices - 60,000 square feet.
Average office space of 1200 square feet - 50 offices. Estimate of
50% medical offices and 50% commercial/business offices.
-4-
Medical office trip generation based on 43 trip ends{office.
(43 trip ends x 25 offices) - 1,075 trip ends.
Commercial/business office trip generation based on 15 trip
ends/office.
(15 trip ends x 25 offices) - 375 vehicle trips.
TOTAL - 1450 vehicle trips
III. UTILITIES
A. STORM DRAINAGE.
There are existing major storm drain lines in both Ham Lane and Tokay
Street. These lines are adequate to handle the runoff from this
project. The storm water can flow to the Vinewood Basin -park located
1/2 mile to the west where it can be stored until it can be pumped
into the Woodbridge Irrigation Canal.
The Public Works Department notes that office developments increase
the storm drainage runoff by approximately 60% over the same acreage
developed in residential uses. The B-1 drainage area is now
considered critical and the existing pumps at Shady Acres in the
Vinewood Basin do not have additional capacity.
B. WATER
There are existing 10" water lines in Lodi Avenue and in Tokay Street,
and an 6" line in Ham Lane. These lines are adequate to provide water
service to the proposed project.
C. SANITARY SEWER
There is an existing 10" sanitary sewer line in Lodi Avenue, a 14"
line in Ham Lane and a 12" line in Tokay Street. The lines can
adequately serve the proposed project.
The City's White Slough Waste Water Treatment Facility has adequate
capacity to handle any sewage generated from this project.
D. ELECTRICITY, NATURAL GAS AND TELEPHONE SERVICE
Electricity will be provided by the City of Lodi, natural gas by
P.G.3E., and telephone service by Pacific Telephone. All services can
be adequately supplied to the project with normal line extensions.
IV. CONC44ITY SERVICES
A. STREETS AND CIRCULATION
The street access to the proposed project will be from the three
surrounding streets, Lodi Avenue, Ham Lane and Tokay Street. All
three streets are fully developed and no additional public streets
will be constructed as a part of this project.
-5-
The proposed plan calls for one driveway on Lodi Avenue, one driveway
on Tokay Street, and three driveways on Ham Lane. These driveways
will provide ingress and egress to the project from the adjacent
streets. The City will review the driveway locations in detail when
final plans are submitted to assure traffic safety. Driveways will be
required to maintain adequate distances from intersections,
particularly the Ham/Lodi Avenue intersection. This is to maintain
adequate traffic flow on the street and to reduce conflicts with
vehicles turning in and out of the project. Driveways may have to be
restricted to right-hand turns only in certain locations.
The project will generate approximately 1,450 additional vehicle trips
per day. The adjacent streets are adequate to handle the increased
traffic volume.
H. POLICE AND FIRE
The City of Lodi will provide police and fire protection to the
proposed development.
The project is totally surrounded by existing development and is
within the regular patrol beat of the police department. The three
adjacent streets will make it easier for passing patrol cars to
provide surveillance on the project.
The Chief of Police will review the project plans to ensure that the
street lighting system and the building design and layout permit
adequate project security.
The nearest fire station to the project site is the Main Fire Station
at Elm and Church Street. This is approximately 11 miles from the
project and within adequate response distance.
The Fire Chief will review all plans to assure adequate fire
protection. He will work with the developer on the number and
location of fire hydrants and will review the project plan to ensure
adequate accessibility for fire equipment.
C. RECREATION
The proposed project does not have any public recreational areas,
however, because the project is non residential, it will not generate
any direct demand. The developer will pay a storm drainage acreage
for that help pay for the construction of storm drainage basin/parks
like Vinewood Park. These parks provide recreational facilities
during non runoff periods.
D. SOLID WASTE
Existing collection of residential solid waste within the City of Lodi
is on a weekly basis by a franchise collector. The refuse is hauled
to a newly constructed transfer station on the outskirts of Lodi. The
refuse is sorted and some materials removed for recycling.
-6-
The remaining material is consolidated and hauled to the Harney Lane
Sanitary Landfill, a Class II -2 disposal site. The refuse company has
future plans for expanded resource recovery facilities, including a
composting operation for leaves and garden materials collected.
Current and proposed operations are consistent with the San Joaquin
County Solid Waste Management Plan, June, 1979. The subject area is
within County Refuse Service Number 3 and the North County Disposal
Area, which is served by the Harney Lane site. The Harney Lane site
is nearing capacity and plans for a new landfill site in the same
general area are in the final stages of review.
The subject area was within the planned urban growth area of the City
of Lodi at the time the County Solid Waste Management Plan was
developed and adopted. Solid waste volume projections used in the
plan were based on future urban development, which included the
subject area. Following are solid waste estimates based on planned
and projected residential densities.
The volume of solid waste which will be generated by the proposed
office/professional area is considered insignificant in terms of its
impact on the existing and future disposal.and collection systems.
E. HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE
There are no sites or buildings on the subject property that are
designated as historical landmarks by any Federal, State or local
agencies. The nearest recorded landmarks are in the community of
Woodbridge, 2 miles to the north and the Lodi Arch 2 miles to the
east.
Although there are no recorded archeological surveys of the site, it
is doubtful that there are any archeological sites on the property.
Known Indian sites in the Lodi area are usually located along the
banks of the Mokelumne River, 3 miles to the north.
The property has been extensively cultivated for many years. There is
no record of any items of antiquity ever being unearthed on the site.
Additionally, the extensive digging and plowing to cultivate the
vineyards and the trenching to install irrigation lines would have
destroyed any archeological material.
If, during construction, some article of possible archeological
interest should be unearthed, work will be halted and a qualified
archeologist called in to examine the findings.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The proposed project will result in the loss of 9.96± acres of prime
agricultural soil to urban development. The project site is made up
of Hanford Sandy Loam which is rated as Class I soil for agricultural
production. In the Lodi area this type of soil is well suited for the
growing of grapes.
-7-
B.
C.
The project site is, however, totally surrounded by urban development.
The land has been cleared and has not been in agricultural use for
several years. The size and location of the property would make
agricultural use of the site extremely difficult. Because of the
proximity of adjacent residential uses, normal farming practices would
be greatly restricted.
The project will increase traffic on adjacent streets. It is
estimated that the project will generate approximately 1,450
additional vehicle trips per day. Although the streets can easily
handle the increased traffic volume, the turning movements in and out
of the project will increase traffic congestion on the streets. This
will be particularly true on Nam Lane and Lodi Avenue. Both are
4 -lane streets with relatively high traffic volumes. Neither street
has a center turn lane except at the intersection. Vehicles waiting
to turn into the project could create slight delays in the normal flow
along these streets.
MITIGATION MEASURES
If the proposed project is approved and constructed, the 9.96 acres of
primate agricultural land will be removed from further agricultural
use. There is no practical way to mitigate this impact once the
decision to develop this property is made.
The property is in the center of the City and has been designated for
urban uses for many years. The surrounding area is totally developed
and an agricultural use of the property is probably not a practical
possibility.
The additional traffic generated by the project can be mitigated by
careful design of the project driveway system. Limiting the number of
driveways on to the adjacent streets will help reduce traffic hazards
and congestion created by vehicles entering and exiting the project.
Driveways should also be located a sufficient distance from the
corners to prevent congestion of the intersection.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
The principle alternative to the project would be a "no build"
alternative. This would maintain the existing vacant parcel and
eliminate the adverse impacts resulting from the proposed project.
If the rezoning and general pian amendment are not approved, the
property would still have an R -GA, residential -garden apartment
zoning. This zoning would permit residential development to a maximum
density of 20 units per acre. The total 9.963 acres could have a
maximum of 199 units.
Developing the property with the existing R -GA zoning would create the
same impacts as the proposed development. There would be the
development of the prime agricultural land and the additional
vehicular traffic. With a residential use there could also be an
impact on the Lodi Unified School District (LUSD) if the project
generated additional school -aged children.
10
The proposed R -C -P zoning would also permit residential development to
a maximum density of 10 units per acre. The 9.96 acre parcel could
have a maximum of 100 residential units. The impacts would be similar
to the R -GA zoning.
D. IRREVERSIBLE AND LONG-TERM IMPACTS
The loss of the prime agricultural land will be an irreversible and
long-term impact. Once the land is developed with homes and
businesses, there is little likelihood that the land will ever be used
again for agricultural purposes.
This particular parcel has not been in agricultural use for a number
of years. The land is vacant and is totally surrounded by existing
urban uses. It is questionable whether this land would ever be used
for agricultural purposes.
E. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The project will not have a cumulative impact.
F. GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS
The project will have a limited growth -inducing impact on the areas.
Most of the land in the surrounding area is totally developed with
residential, office or institutional uses. There is approximately 10
acres of vacant land south of the project area that could be
developed. Some of this acreage already has some type of tentative
development plan. All of the acreage would develop eventually whether
or not the subject project was constructed.
Utilities, streets, zoning and other things that might encourage
growth are already in existence and would not be significantly
affected by this project.
G. ENERGY CONSERVATION
Structures in the project will conform to all State and local energy
conservation standards. Additional insulation, energy efficient
equipment, etc. will help the project conserve energy.
The project is located near the center of Lodi. It is close to
residences, offices, the hospital and commercial area. The central
location will reduce the distance people will have to drive between
home and work or between the office and other businesses. The reduced
driving mileage will help conserve energy.
10
S1N3NWO3
MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Public Works Department
TO Community Development Director
FROM: Public Works Director
DATE: August 2, 1982
SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Report for Ham Lane Professional Complex
(EIR 82-2)
This office has reviewed the draft EIR for the Ham Lane Professional Complex
Development. Along with the minor notations made on the attached copy, we
are recommending that the following comments be included or considered in the
final EIR:
1. On Page 1, under the fourth paragraph, it is felt that it should be
explained that the Las Casitas Unit #1 not only has an approved final
map but also has an approved twelve month extension.
2. On Page 4, under the first paragraph under Noise, the Lodi Avenue
traffic is 10,000 ADT not 1,000 ADT. Ham Lane ADT at the sub;ect
location is approximately 11,500.
3. Page 5, under Storm Drainage, it should be pointed out that this
type of development over residential will increase the storm runnoff
by 60%. The B-1 drainage area is now considered critical and the
existing pumps at Shady Acres in the Vinewood basin do not have
additional capacity and cannot be considered "adequate."
4. On Page 5, under Street Circulation, the proposed plan has one more
driveway proposed on Ham Lane than on the approved Las Casitas plan.
This will have sone affect and influence on flow and capacity of Ham
Lane: regardless of their location.
If you havep7 questions concerning these comments, please contact me.
1
Jack L. Ronsko
Publ�c Works Director
Attachment
JI.R/meq
a*1LIC
t
/. coy.=:�yltr f
�•� DEO'ElQ?ttEN�
�� DFFAEtT4E�it
FACILITIES end PLANNING, tib W. LOCKEFORO ST., LOOT, CA. 95240 (209) 369-7411 -166.0963
August 9, 1982
City of Lodi
Community Development Department
221 W. Pine
Lodi, California 95240
Dear Mr. Mrimoto:
RE: Draft EIR 82-2/Ham Lane Professional Complex
I have reviewed the aforementioned EIR and (on b^.half of the L.U.S.D.) submit
the following comments for your consideration:
Vicinity Map - Lodi High School - delete "Union"
P. V. Mitigation 2) - Is it assumed that the prop, project will mitigate
the impact of "no project" by decreasing the number
of potential students?
P. 2 para. 1 - Presumably the acreage not included in the specific plan
will eventually develop consistent with the RCP zone (10 du/ac
or offices)
P. 6 para. 6 - What is the impact of the proposed fire station 14 re: future
time and distance to proposed project?
P. 7, E - para. 1 - The Lodi Arch is now on the National Register as an
historic structure.
P. 8, C para. I - Is "no build" even an alternative given existing zoning,
etc.?
P. 9, C para. 1 - The Lodi Unified School District assumes an average of one
student per new residential unit; therefore, we would anti-
cipate approximately the same number of children as units.
Accepting this assumption, it is concluded that the impact
of the proposed project on the L.U.S.D. will be equal to
that of the approved Las Casitas development (assuming con-
struction of residences and not offices. These figures are
substantially less than the number of students anticipated
if the current zoning were utilized to the maximum capacity.
The construction of offices will eliminate the potential
problems of additional students.
P. 9, D - Considering the past and current non agricultural use of the subject
property and its location relative to -surrounding urban uses apart
from the class I soil, is it reasonable to define this as prime
agricultural land, using accepted defini W-nsT Q -ti 's
property is extremely unlikely.IN( �`; $ M
AUG 11 i"2c?
COI&IMITY
DEYEtOPilENENT
DEPARiMEliT
Mr. David hbrimoto
Page 2
August 9, 1982
P. 9, E e It would appear that a significant cumulative effect of this
project would be the effect of an increased amount of RCR land.
Is additional acreage needed and Khat are the effects of rezoning
and building offices which remain vacant or cause the existing
vacancy rate to increase or already zone land to remain unbuilt?
Thank you for referring this EIR to the Lodi Unified School District. Please call
if we may be of further assistance to you.
Ma arr, AICP
Fac 1 ty Planner
MJS/py
Mayor: Is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the project?
Please come forward and give us your name and address.
My name is Charles Duncan, I live at 1214 West Lodi Avenue. Many of the things
which I had wanted to talk about have already been mentioned tonight, however, if you'll
bear with me because I would like to go through some of this to keep my own thinking in
continuity. Number 1, let us consider for a moment the property we're discussing,
this is not just any piece of property, it's a piece of property that's located at
the southwest corner of Lodi Avenue and Ham Lane. It is a 9.6 acre parcel in a prime
location. Not too many years, it was a beautiful vineyard, however, the city surrounded
it and it became too expensive for the purpose it was being used for. Some of you,
as well as myself, watched the land being cleared and made ready to be built on. A guy
in San Francisco decided to build some small residential units. They submitted plans
for approval that wou:d have supplied lower rental housing in Lodi. It was at this
point a strange thing happened. Several people seemed to realize that an outside
company had picked one of Lodi's nice plums and they would like to have it back for
themselves. At this point what happened to be one unorganized little individual who
was yelling there is a dragon in the street and he's leaving a trail of old chevies
with cotton balls hanging from the mirrors, and bumper stickers praising
(sounds like alley anti cervese) and loaded with dirty pampers. Now Mr. eFlentland toTcT--
the planning commission how he relentlessly worked to run this hawaiian San Francisco
dragon out of town. How was this accomplished? It seems that the one little organized
individual was only the tip of the iceberg and the citizens of the town were scared into
an election that cost the taxpayers lots of money. But they were also successful in
running Hawaiian San Francisco out of town. Why7 because property was rezoned and
became too expensive for what the planners must put on it at that time. Was this a
victory for the town? I don't think so, I feel it was the loss of an opportunity for
the retired people and the elderly on fixed incomes to have a nice place to live and
be centrally located to all the services they need, and be within walking distance to
all the necessary services. Without this they are now forced to live in alley houses
and other not so nice places because of the lack of availability of something nicer and
more affordable. That's what left town with the Hawaiian San Francisco Dragon. Now
when Mr. Wentland worked to get Hawaiian San Francisco out of town he also points with
pride at what he has built. I must say he makes a very nice front for his organization
and is a very good and convincing speaker. But, I'm also reminded of a mother who kept
pushing her baby in front of everyone and asking if they didn't think it was beautiful
until finally one individual told her. Madam, I don't share your feelings but I do try
to understand your pride of ownership. That always makes a difference. Anyway, at this
point, we have a parcel of property that has cost the city lots of money to get it zoned
to the zoning it now has, which is residential. Now, that doesn't seem too far fetched
since there are residence to the east. west. north and south and I can't by any stretch
of my imagination should see why it should be any other way. I was at the planning
commission meeting a few weeks back, I had intended to say something that night, however
it was too interesting to watch and see how people came up with the right answers to
benefit the town as a whole. We had an EIR report that says the project will add a
conservative figure of 1500 cars per day through this all residential neighborhood.
How many of you would vote to put 1500 cars per day passed your day in your residential
neighborhood? The only thing that even looks like a plan for building shows approximately
700 spaces, this would make quite a used car lot to be put into an already built up
residential neighborhood. They might want it over at maybe Ham Lane and Greenwood.
Also, we heard a speech about the 100 year storm and the tolerances the city engineers
have to work with. This project would double the water runoff if it is completed. And
we have a pL:np that is not working now and we have areas that are backing up at the
present time as it is. We hear things like, we now have a 7 or 8 inch in the tolerance
in the overworked catch basin at the present time. And this project would raise the
catch basin level by at least one inch, and that is double what it would cause under
its present zoning. All the things in the EIR report should have been a no vote, it
would seem to me. Now someone asked a direct question, Will the basin handle the job?
IR
the answer. yes. But I ask myself what about; the. al -ready flooding, I guess a little
more won't hurt anything. Whatabout•the- other t projects if this one gets more than
its share, either the City comes up with more catch basin costs or someone else has
to do without at another point.in=;time.At voting time,, om of the planners said he
had come to the meeting with the.intention!of voting against the project, Dut'since
he had heard all the'good stuff; he feltihe should give his ok to. go ahead:`'What'he
had done was to listen to Mr. Wentland's very convincing sales talk and'completely
ignored the facts. I talked to�one of the men in the Planning and he told`me that
he had advised Mr. Wentland not to buy this property for the group. However, he'had
gone ahead and bought it anyway with the zoning the.way it Now,, why change it
now lest this was the ultimate plot behind getting rid of Hawaiian. San Francisco
out of town. Mr. Westlandtalks about. business and professional zoning mostly they
talk about Dr's. offices. Also they have enough money to build one segment of it
and then in the next breath he`s talking -about travel agencies and pharmades:
Would they build part now and come back later for more rezoning. One of the questions
in my mind is what about the part on Lodi Avenue marked future planning. T think
every residential neighborhood should have a bank or savings or loan sitting -right in
the middle of it, don't you? Then we could have another 1.500 cars per day added, to the
other 1500. The vacancy factor in a town, if you've driven around and see how many
vacancies there are, you know that it isn't something we have to have. Moss and Craig
who are very active in -commercial, tell me 12% vacancy,would be a very conservative
figure. There is no -big need to change the zoning. except for a group of high income
investors to be able to own a complex free. Paid for by tax money, that -should be
going to help deplete .the national debt. This is all I have to say -about it.
Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Is there anyone else wishing to speak in opposition
to this project? If not, then I'll close it to the floor.
Mayor: Is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the project?
Please come forward and give us your name and address.
My name is Charles Duncan, I live at 1214 West Lodi Avenue. Many of the things
which I had wanted to talk about have already been mentioned tonight, however, if you'll
bear with me because I would like to go through some of this to keep my own thinking in
continuity. Number 1, let us consider for a moment the property we're discussing,
this is not just any piece of property, it's a piece of property that's located at
the southwest corner of Lodi Avenue and Ham Lane. It is a 9.6 acre parcel in a prime
location. Not too many years, it was a beautiful vineyard, however, the city surrounded
it and it became too expensive for the purpose it was be -Ing used for. Some of you,
as well as myself, watched the land being cleared and made ready to be built on. A guy
in San Francisco decided to build some small residential units. They submitted plans
for approval that would have supplied lower rental housing in Lodi. It was at this
point a strange thing happened. Several people seemed to realize that an outside
company had picked one of Lodi's nice plums and they would like to have it back for
themselves. At this point what happened to be one unorganized little individual who
was yelling there is a dragon in the street and he's leaving a trail of old chevies
with cotton balls hanging from the mirrors, and bumper stickers praising
(sounds like alley anti cervese) and loaded with dirty pampers. Now Mr. Wentland told
theplanning commission how he relentlessly worked to run this hawaiian San Francisco
dragon out of town. How was this accomplished? It seems that the one little organized
individual was only the tip of the iceberg and the citizens of the town were scared into
an election that cost the taxpayers lots of money. But they were also successful in
running Hawaiian San Francisco out of town. Why? because property was rezoned and
became too expensive for what the planners must put on it at that time. Was this a
victory for the town? I don't think so. I feel it was the loss of an opportunity for
the retired people and the elderly on fixed incomes to have a nice p1aLe to live and
be centrally located to all the services they creed, and be within walking distance to
all the necessary services. Without this they are now forced to live in alley houses
and other not so nice places because of the lack of availability of something nicer and
more affordable. That's what left town with the Hawaiian San Francisco Dragon. Now
when Mr. W2ntland worked to get Hawaiian San Francisco out of town he also points with
pride at what he has built. I must say he makes a very nice front for his organization
and is a very good and convincing speaker. But, I'm also reminded of a mother who kept
pushing her baby in front of everyone and asking if they -Aoun't think it was beautiful
until final'y one individual told her. Madam, I don't share your feelings tut I do try
to understand your pride of ownership. That always makes a difference. Anyway, at this
point, we have a parcel of property that has cost the city lots of money to get it zoned
to the zoning it now has, which is residential. Now, that doesn't seem too far fetched
since there are residence to the east, west, north and south and I can't by any stretch
of my imagination should see why it should be any other way. I was at the planning
commission meeting a few weeks back, I had intended to say something that night, however
it was too interesting to watch and see how people came up with the right answers to
benefit the town as a whole. We had an EIR report that says the project will add a
conservative figure of 1500 cars per day through this all residential neighborhood.
How ;many of you would vote to put 1500 cars per day passed your day in your residential
neighborhood? The only thing that even looks like a plan for building shows approximately
700 spaces, this would make quite a used car lot to be put into an already built up
residential neighborhood. They might want it over at maybe Ham Lane and Greenwood.
Also, we heard a speech about the 100 year storm and the tolerances the city engineers
have to work with. This project would double the water runoff if it is completed. And
we have a pump that is not working now and we have areas that are backing up at the
present time as it is. We hear things like, we now have a 7 or 8 inch in the tolerance
in the overworked catch basin at the present time. And this project would raise the
catch basin level by at least one inch, and that is double what it would cause under
its present zoning. All the things in the EIR report should have been a no vote, it
would seem to me. Now someone asked a direct question, Will the basin handle the job?
-2 -
the answer, yes. But I ask myself what about the already flooding, I guess a little
more won't hurt anything. What about the other projects if this one gets more than
its share, either the City comes up with more catch basin costs or someone else has
to do without at another point in time. At voting time, one of the planners said he
had come to the meeting with the intention of voting against the project, but since
he had heard all the good stuff, he felt he should give his ok to go ahead. What he
had done was to listen to Mr. Wentland's very convincing sales talk and completely
ignored the facts. I talked to one of the men in the Planning and he told me that
he had advised Mr. Wentland not to buy this property for the group. However, he had
gone ahead and bought it anyway with the zoning the way it is. Now., why change it
now lest this was the ultimate plot behind getting rid of Hawaiian San Francisco
out of town. Mr. Wentland talks about business and professional zoning mostly they
talk about Dr's. offices. Also they have enough money to build one segment of it
and then in the next breath he's talking about travel agencies and pharmacies.
Would they build part now and come back later for more rezoning. One of the questions
in my mind is what about the part on Lodi Avenue marked future planning. I think
every residential nei?hborhood should have a bank or savings or loan sitting right in
the middle of it, don t you? Then we could have another 1900 cars per day added to the
other 1500. The vacancy factor in a town, if you've driven around and see how many
vacancies there are, you know that it isn't something wa have to have. Moss and Craig
who are very active in commercial, tell me 12% vacancy would be a very conservative
figure. There is no big need to change the coning except for a group of high income
investors to be able to own a complex free. Paid for by tax money that should be
going to help deplete the rational debt. This is all I have to say about it.
Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Is there anyone else wishing to speak in opposition
to this project? If not, then I'll close it to the floor.
Mayor: Is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the project?
Please come forward and give us your name and address.
My name is Charles Duncan, I live at 1214 West Lodi Avenue. Many of the things
which I had wanted to talk about have already been mentioned tonight, however, if you'll
bear with me because I would like to go through some of this to keep my own thinking in
continuity. Number 1, let us consider for a moment the property we're discussing,
_ this is not just any piece of property, it's a piece of property that's located at
the southwest corner of Lodi Avenue and Ham Lane. It is a 9.6 acre parcel in a prime
location. Not too many years, it was a beautiful vineyard, however, the city surrounded
it and it became too expensive for the purpose it was being used for. Some of you,
as well as myself, watched the land being cleared and made ready to be built on. A guy
in San Francisco decided to build some small residential units. They submitted plans
for approval that would have supplied lower rental housing in Lodi. It was at this
point a strange thing happened. Several people seemed to realize that an outside
company had picked one of Lodi's nice plums and they would like to have it back for
themselves. At this point what happened to be one unorganized little individual who
was yelling there is a dragon in the street and he's leaving a trail of old chevies
with cotton balls hanging from the mirrors, and buffer stickers praising
(sounds like alley anti cervese) and loaded with dirty pampers. Now Mr. Wentland told
the planning commission how he relentlessly worked to run this hawaiian San Francisco
dragon out of town. How was this accomplished? It seems that the one little organized
individual was only the tip of the iceberg and the citizens of the town were scared into
an election that cost the taxpayers lots of money. But they were also successful in
running Hawaiian San Francisco out of town. Why? because property was rezoned and
became too expensive for what the planners must put on it at that time. Was this a
victory for the town? I don't think so, I feel it was the loss of an opportunity for
the retired people and the elderly on fixed incomes to have a nice place to live and
be centrally located to all the services they need, and be within walking distance to
all the necessary services. Without this they are now forced to live in alley houses
and other not so nice places because of the lack of availability of something nicer and
more affordable. That's what left town with the Hawaiian San Francisco Dragon. Now
when Mr. Wentland worked to get Hawaiian San Francisco out of town he also points with
pride at what he has built. I must say he makes a very nice front for his organization
and is a very good and convincing speaker. But, I'm also reminded of a mother who kept
pushing her baby in front of everyone and asking if they didn't think it was beautiful
until finally one individual told her, Madam, I don't share your feelings but I do try
to_ understand your pride of ownership. That always makes a difference. Anyway, at this
point, we have a parcel of property that has cost the city lots of money to get it zoned
to the zoning it now has, which is residential. Now, that doesn't seem too far fetched
si=nce there are residence to the east, west, north and south and I can't by any stretch
of may imagination should see why it should be any other way. I was at the planning
commission meeting a Few weeks back, I had intended to say something that night, however
it was too interesting to watch and see how people came up with the right answers to
benefit the town as a whole. We had an EIR report that says the project will add a
conseryative figure of 1500 cars per day through this all residential neighborhood.
How many of you would vote to put 1500 cars per day passed your day in your residential
neighborhood? The only thing that even looks like a plan for building shows approximately
700 spaces, this would make quite a used car lot to be put into an already built up
residential neighborhood. They might want it over at maybe Ham Lane and Greenwood.
Also, we heard a speech about the 100 year storm and the tolerances the city engineers
have to work with. This project would double the water runoff if it is completed. And
we have a pump that is not working now and we have areas that are backing up at the
present time as it is. We hear things like, we now have a 7 or 8 inch in the tolerance
in the overworked catch basin at the present time. And this project would raise the
catch basin level by at least one inch, and that is double what it would cause under
its present zoning. All the things in the EIR report should have been a no vote, it
would seem to me. Now someone asked a direct question, Will the basin handle the job?
-2-
the answer, yes. But I ask myself what about the already flooding, I guess a little
more won't brt anything. What about the other projects if this one gets more than
its share, either the City comes up with more catch basin costs or someone else has
to do without at another point in time. At voting time, one of the planners said he
had come to the meeting with the intention of voting against the project, but since
he had heard all the good stuff, he felt he should give his ok to go ahead. What he
had done was to listen to Mr. Wentland's very convincing sales talk and completely
ignored the facts. I talked to one of the men in the Planning and he told me that
he had advised Mr. Wentland not to buy this property for the group. However, he had
gone ahead and bought it anyway with the zoning the way it is. Now, why change it
now lest this was the ultimate plot behind getting rid of Hawaiian San Francisco
out of town. Mr. Wentland talks about business and professional zoning mostly they
talk about Dr's. offices. Also they have enough money to build one segment of it
and then in the next breath he's talking about travel agencies and pharmacies.
Would they build part now and come back later for more rezoning. One of the questions
in my mind is what about the part on Lodi Avenue marked future planning. I think
every residential neighborhood should have a bank or savings or loan-sitting right in
the middle of it, don't you? Then we could have another 1900 cars per day added to the
other 1500. The vacancy factor in a town, if you've driven around and see how many
vacancies there are, you know that it isn't something we have to have. Moss and Craig
who are very active in commercial, tell me 12% vacancy would be a very conservative
figure. There is no big need to change the zoning except for a group of high income
investors to be able to own a complex free. Paid for by tax money that should be
going to help deplete the national debt. This is all I have to say about it.
Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Is there anyone else wishing to speak in opposition
to this project? If not, then I'll close it to the floor.
Condidated Awaton
TELEPHONE 00 774-0625 - 1601 WEST LODI AVENUE - LODI, CALIFORNIA 95240
September 3, 1982
Mrs. Alice Reimche
City Clerk
City of Lodi
Lodi, CA. 95240
Dear Mrs. Reimche:
On May 25, 1982 the attached letter was mailed to 82
property owners concerning my application to rezone the 9.96
acres of bare land on Ham Lane between Lodi Avenue and Tokay
Street. The 82 property owners are the same people that would
receive official notice of the rezoning from the City of Lodi.
On August 23rd, this application came before the City
Planning Commission and the application to amend the Master Plan,
the EIR and the redesignation of this property from RGA to RCP
was passed and is to be heard before the City Council on
September 15th.
I recall that years ago, the Council received information
as to the agenda for the next meeting, days in advance (I used to
deliver the packages) and I would like the attached letter to become
a part of that package, if it is possible. The letter, I believe,
indicates my plan for this project and perhaps would give the
Council time to review the content, rather than just at the meeting.
Since my letter was sent, I have had several property
owners contact me, including many of the professional people on
Tokay Street. Everyone has given me full support and have offered
to testify. However, having had no opposition from anyone it
appears that is not necessary.
I might add that as the managing partner of Fairmont
Medical Center, located just north of Lodi Memorial Hospital, we
have over 60,000 square feet of medical space, including the 15,000
feet recently constructed on land leased from Lodi Memorial Hospital.
At the present time, we have no available space, but we have physicians
asking for space.
As you know, most physicians prefer to be located near
on another and to be near the ancillary services. If the Ham Lane
property is rezoned to RCP, I shall immediately begin construction
of office suites, half of which shall be devoted to medical and
related offices. we intend to construct and rent about 30,000 square
feet within a year.
0
Sometime back, when the City Council voted to permit
additional medical construction and/or parking in the residential
area east of Fairmont Avenue, one of the Councilmen indicated that
the physicians should look at available land on Ham Lane in the
future. While that is not the reason for this rezoning application,
the reason is the need for space near the hospital, this rezoning
application should take care of the immediate needs for medical
space in this particular area.
In any event, I shall be at the September 15th meeting
and if possible willansw er any questions the Council members or
Mr. Glaves may have, meanwhile, if it is possible to pass this
material along to the council it would be appreciated.
S i ncerel v 1 /1
C: A.
Comokidated gnyestoxg
TELEPHONE Oft 334-0621 - 1601 WEST LOOI AVENUE - LOBI. CALIFORNIA 95240
May 25, 1982
Dear Neighbor and Property Owner:
In 1981 some friends and I purchased the eleven acres
of bare land on the west side of Ham Lane between Lodi Avenue and
Tokay Street from Hawaii -San Francisco Development Company and
Homestead Savings. The purchase was not a spur of the moment thing,
rather, we had looked at theroperty for some time; and living
nearby (1601 West Lodi Avenue I always wondered what type develop-
ment it would become and just how it might affect me as a property
and homeowner nearby. This letter is written to you, as a land
owner in the area to inform you as to what we would like to do
with the land.
During negotiations with Ben Schaffer, we learned that
the present zoning is RGA, which allows for apartments on the land.
Further, Hawaii -San Francisco Development Company had prepared plans
and received approve? from the City of Lodi to construct 92 condo-
minium units on the property. At the present time we could construct
those units without furter approval, after filing a building permit.
However, in studying the plans closely, we are convinced
that 92 condominium units are not the best plans for the property,
or the surrounding property. You may recall that Hawaii -San Francisco
originally intended to build about 450 apartments on this land, and
some of the land to the west which is now Huntington and Nevins Drive,
but under a Voters Initiative, many of us voted against their plan,
which forbid such heavy denisity. The City of Lodi then rezoned the
area to R-1, R-2 and RGA on our land, which now allows up to 20
apartments to an acre.
Hawaii -San Francisco named the 92 condominium project
"Las Casitas" which translates to "Little Houses" and I am afraid
that is what it would be.
Therefore, we would like to ask the City of Lodi to rezone
some of this property to RCP. With your help, that could be done.
With RCP zoning, we would construct professional office
buildings from Tokay Street to Lodi Avenue. In our view, professional
offices which are open about 55 hours a week, are more desireable
than two story apartment buildings which are used 168 hours a week
with all the attendant vehicles, nn:se, people and problems found in
some complexes. We could even regulate the parking and after hours
traffic that cannot be controlled in most apartment projects.
From the investment standpoint, apartments would return
more dollars to us than any other type construction. The potential
for apartments is excellent, given the location and present zoning,
however, we would rather build neat, clean professional offices under
RCP, unless the zoning cannot be changed.
RCP zoning allows such firms as accountants, architects,
attorneys, chiropractors, dentists, doctors, insurance agents, real
estate, finance company, government agencies and similar type offices.
It does not permit grocery or 7-11 type commercial -retail stores, nor
would -fie want that type establishment in the area.
To change the zoning from apartments (RGA) to offices (RCP)
the City Master Plan must be changed. That requires public hearings
before the Planning Commission and City Council. The Master Plan
may be changed only three times a year. We have recently submitted
our application for this change and wish to bring this matter to your
attention now, and to ask for your support when it comes to a public
hearing, for we believe you, like us, would rather see offices on
that land rather than apartments.
Some years ago, I purchased four acres of land on Crescent
Avenue just south of Lodi Avenue. I then built Crescent Terrace
Apartments and the office complex which houses the Social Security
Office, some insurance offices, several accountant offices,'a dentist
and a travel agency. We think you will agree that the office complex
is better for the area than the apartment complex.
Attached you will find three exhibits. Exhibit A show the
plan approved by the City for the two story condominiums. Exhibit B
shows the plan for 146 apartment units. Finally, Exhibit C shows
our suggested plan for one story professional offices.
Frankly, as a homeowner in the area and one who has lived
in Lodi 40 years, I would rather see the property developed under
Exhibit C. as I feel it would be better for the area than under
present zoning. Apartments seem to spawn more problems - costs to
the City; more people in the area; school impaction and other matters
all of which tend to deteriorate the area and reduce our home value,
the value of other property in the immediate vicinity and have a great
affect on all of us (Avenue West and La Espana are certainly exceptions).
I think we have enough apartments in Lodi as it is.
I would be happy to hear from you, or to meet with you to
discuss these plans and to hear your views. I feel that if you are
aware that 200 apartments could be built on the property under the
present zoning, and that perhaps 500 people could become tenants on
the lane, that you will support our request.
Think you for taking time to read this letter. If you have
any question please conj4ct me.
. A. (yuck) Wentl
I I,
!i I,�jll lI
'
"!� •', ,!j� iii
1. • . i :i.µ•iii�iififhjiiii jib+-•--•
ill •;r.. :: .:: ,.rN••. •�+r�y... .. •••.
..3r.,..r: • :t!=��I:iii�s�l:list,%;,2 !
tt ,
:i{11i�i�::>f'�{�tifliiii�•�iti:i;i�hii;
t�••t•,••jj�;i=it••it�ii�jiii�j1�t%li i
V 1I9IHX3
i •:... .may
L6
! i.h
i< ?
9 1191HY3
XV
4
I
3 1181HU-1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .F.
XV
4
I
3 1181HU-1
(qa2e�.I.
shdo IN
L)
RAND ASSOMM
A SERVICE OF FINANCIAL CORPORATION OF AMERICA
300 N. Harrison St. • P.O. Drawer D • Stockton, Caiitomia 95201
(209) 941-2873
HEAL ESTATE ASSET MANAGEMENT DrMION
The City Council
City of Lodi
221 West Pine Street
Lodi, California 95240
Attention: Alice H. Reimche
City Clerk
Ladies and Gentlemen:
September 15, 1982
Re: Land Use Element Application
No. GPA -LU -82-2: Section 2
With reference to the above matter to be heard by you on this date, as
owners of residential properties adjacent to this rezoning request on
Huntington Drive, we are in accord with the requested rezoning. How-
ever, we request that you consider incorporating certain building con-
ditions at this time or during your review of building plans:
1. That the proposed office complex is not to exceed one story as
the rear property line is adjacent to residential property which
we own.
2. That the developer provide a mature landscape buffer on the rear
property line to maintain a privacy factor to the residential
property, above the height of the existing wall.
3. That there be adequate security lighting in the rear and yet
not over -done that it would interfere with the owner'a Privacy
in the residential units.
4. Adequate security to be provided to protect the adjacent resi-
dential properties from undue intrusion.
If you have any questions pertaining to the above do not hesitate to call
or contact the undersigned.
RICHARD S. FRANZA
Senior Project Officer
RS F : dw