Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Report - December 17, 1986 PH
CITY WXCII. M1=NG DBCDEER 17, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS HUTCHINS STREET f IMPROVIIKQVT PROTECT - RIMBY TO VINE STREET Notice thereof having been published according to law, an affidavit of publication of which is on file in the office CC -45(a) of the City Clerk, Mayor Reid called for the Public Hearing to consider the Environmental Impact Report Update and q Project Alternates, Hutchins Street Improvement Project - 1 Rimby to Vine Street, Dodi. A history of the project was presented by Public Works Director Ronsko. Mr. Ronsko informed the Council that the City of Lodi is moving ahead with the next phase of the Hutchins Street Improvement Project - the segment between Rimby Avenue and Vine Street. The project approved in 1981 and budgeted for construction in 1986 consisted of reconstructing the street within existing curbs with one travel lane in each direction, parking on both sides, and a left turn lane at Vine Street. At the request of the Lodi District Chamber of Caaneree, the City Council directed staff to study the possible addition of a continuous left turn lane. On September 17, 1986, the Council heard a staff presentation on left turn laiie alternates for the Hutchins Street project. They were: Alternate I - Reconstruct the street within existing curbs and install one travel lane in each direction, a two-way left turn lane, and no parking on the west side. Alternate II - Widen the street on the west side by acquiring five feet of right-of-way plus utility easements and reconstruct the street with one travel lane in each direction, a'two-way left turn mane, and parking on both sides. The City has prepared an update on the 1981 E n-Aromental Impact Report (EIR) on the Hutchins Street Improvement Project. The update covers the portion of the project from Rimby Avenue to Vine Street. Senior Civil Ehgireer Richard Prima reviewed the EIR Addend= and responded to questions as were posed by the Council. Mr. Cecil Dillon, presenting re t: the Lodi District Chamber of COMMerne, spoke in favor of alternate II. The following persons spoke on the matter, for the most Part speaking in opposition to the Project, either Alternate I and Alternate II: 5 } 1) Dorothy Nantt, 1315 South Hutchins Street, Lodi, speaking on behalf of her parents. 2) John R. Bredeson, 1001 South Hutchins Street, Lodi 3) Curtis Kelly, 12 South Hutchins Street, Lodi 4) Myrna White, 500 Ribier Street, Lodi 5) Amos Parker, 430 West Elm Street, Lodi 6) Ted Wittmayer, 921 South Hutchins Street, Lodi 7) Joyce Kelly, 12 South Hutchins Street, Lodi 8) Marie Vaz, 931 South Hutchins Street, Lodi 9) Mary Cn=, 431 West Elm Street, Lodi 10) Enoch Nantt, 1315 South Hutchins Street, Lodi 11) Robert Kidd, 427 West Oak- Street, Lodi There being no other persons in the audience wishing to speak on the matter, the public portion of the hearing was closed. A very lengthy discussion followed with questions being directed to Staff. On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Olson, Hinchman second, Council certified as adequate the subject Environmental Lipact Report. Council Member Pinkerton then moved to reject both alternates and to only resurface the subject street section. The motion was seconded by Mayor Reid, but was defeated by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members - Pinkerton Noes: Council Members - Hinchman, Olson, Snider, and Reid (Mayor) Absent: Council Members - None On motion of Council Member Hinchman, Snider second, Council approved Alternate II - widening the subject street on the west side by acquiring 5 feet of right-of-way plus utility easements and reconstruct the street with one travel lane in each direction:# a two-way left turn lane, and parking on both sides with the appropriate mitigating measures. The motion carried by the following vote: r Ayes: Council Members - Hinchman, Olson, and Snider Nces: Council Members - Pinkerton and Reid Absent: Council Members - None CITY.OF LODI COUNCIL COWNI NICATION PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO: City Council FROM:. City Manager MEETING DATE: December 17, 1987 AGENDA TITLE: Consider the Environmental Impact Report Update and Project Alternates for Hutchins Street Improvement Project, Rimby to Vine Streets RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council provide staff with direction on this project following the Public Hearing. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Copies of the Environmental Impact Report Update were previously istributed to the Council. The attached notice, which explains the project alternates to be considered, was hand -delivered to residents/businesses and mailed to absentee property owners in the subject area. ZC •� . L. Ron o � k Public Works Director � ��4E�iyw.�.^R}W�F�» n .�+•<!r.:A ,4'.v w�....53 r . Yc %ry. ... as: ;.-.. � _ - CITY COUNCIL FRED M REID. Mayor EVELYN M OLSON Mayor Pro Tempore DAVID .tit HINCHMAN JAMES W PINKERTON. Ir IOHN R (Randy! SNIDER CITY OF LORI CITY HALL. 221 WEST PINE STREET CALL BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 (209) 334-5634 November 10, 1986 PUBLIC NEARING NOTICE HUTCHINS STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RIMBY AVENUE TO VINE STREET THOMAS A PETERSON City Manager ALICE M REIMCHE City Clerk - RONALD M STEIN City Attornev The City of Lodi is moving ahead with the next phase of the Hutchins Street Improvement Project - the segment between Rimby Avenue and Vine Street. The project approved in 1981 and budgeted for construction in 1986 consisted of reconstructing the street within existing curbs with one travel lane in each direction, parking on both sides, and a left turn lane at Vine Street. At the request of the Lodi Chamber of Commerce, the City Council directed staff to study the possible addition of a continuous left turn lane. On September 17, 1986, the Council heard a staff presentation on left turn lane alternates for the Hutchins Street project. They were: Alternate I - Reconstruct the street within existing curbs and n`staTT one travel lane in each direction, a two-way left turn lane, and no parking on the west side. Alternate II - 'Widen the street on the west side by acquiring five feet of right-of-way plus utility easements and reconstruct the street with one travel lane in each direction, a two-way left turn lane, and parking on both sides. The City has prepared an update on the 1981 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the Hutchins Street Improvement Project. The update covers the portion of the project from Rimby Avenue to Vine Street. A Public Hearing on the project will be held on Wednesday, December 17, 1986, at 7:30 p.m., at the Lodi City Council Chambers, 221 W. Pine Street. If you have any questions on the project or wish to obtain a copy of the EIR update, please contact Richard Prima at City Hall, 333-6706. Copies of the EIR update are available at City Hall and at the refer a desk at the Lodi Public Library, 201 W. Locust Street. ck L. Ronsko Public Works Director NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY TETE LODI CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THE ENVIRONME am I1pACT REPORT Ur- ATE AND T{'F' PRaTDCT ALTF, mTE5, HUTCHINS STREET IMPROVEMENT PR0= - RIMY TO VINE STRELIT, LODI NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, the 17th day of December, 1986, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., the Lodi City Council will conduct a Public Hearing in the Chambers of the Lodi City Council at 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California, to consider the Envi--onmental Impact Report Update and the project alternates, Hutchins Street Improvement Project - Rimby to vine Street, Lodi. Information regarding this item may be obtained from Richard Prima, Senior Civil Engineer, City of TAdi, Public Works Department, telephone - 333-6706. 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. If you challenge the above matter in Court you may be limited to raising only those issues you or scm one else raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the Public Hearing. By Order of the Lodi City Council A c MI�1, ce M. . City Clerk Dated: November 5, 1986 LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE LODI CITY COUNCIL TO OONSIDER TH-- amiRmonAL IlmpACT REPORT UPDATE AND THE PRfw= ALTERNATES, HUTCHINS STREET IMPROVIIMENr PRO= - RIMY TO VINE STREET, LODI NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, the 17th day of December, 1986, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., the Lodi City Council will conduct a Public Hearing in the Chambers of the Lodi City Council at 221 West Pine Street, Dodi., California, to consider the Environmental Impact Report Update and the project alternates, Hutchins Street Improvement Project - Rimby to Vine Street, Lodi. Information regarding this item may be obtained from Richard Prima, Senior Civil Engineer, City of Tedi, Public Works Department, telephone - 333-6706. 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. If you challenge the above matter in Court you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the Public Hearing. By Order of the Lodi City Council 1 ce im ce M. e City Clerk Dated: November 5, 1986 a PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of San Joaquin. I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above - entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the Lodi News -Sentinel, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published daily, except Sundays and holidays, in the City of Lodi, California, County of San Joaquin, and which news- paper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court, Department 3, of the County of San Joaquin, State of California, under the date of May 26th, 1953, Case Number 65990; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than non - pared), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any. sup- plement thereof on the following dates, to -wit: .._.............November...24.......... ....................................... all in the year 19....86 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Lodi, California, this ...20th... day of NovembAignature 19 8b ..... . .............................................. This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp ALICE MREWIM-: CITY CLERK CITY OF 1_00i Proof of Publication of Notice of Public Hearing By The Lodi ..............................................:..................... . .................. __-... City Council To Consider The Environmental Impact Report Update and The Project A}.tesaater.,.._Hutchius..Stree.t..Impzovome-nt .. Project - Rimby to Vine Street, Lodi 6EDAi. Norfu "oM OF IUwie NEARIND RT no LOW Cr" COUNM TO COMMON no MvUONM01- VAL UAIACT ReIORT UMATE AND .M IRC• :,SECT AITWMATEf. "UTC -of fTRM U 4 . , /MOVEMENT IR08CT tlRIMRT TO van .WMO a ""my OtvEN lite M w�sdor. 'h . ly* der of Deceenbyer. /vee. a. " hour d 7:30 P.M.. #0 Lodi toundf wiR oondocr e �ry,� �Chanb.r. ei rh. ted uM *'w WWWM e4a bopod Repo" Uld— per, 011040 to*. NUNCIO—SWOON Mn. �'"" bbi "Genn Ener R,pn kbwd PrMn s«rwr Cidf Enpin..r. aW of LOA. PM►Mc work. D.PoAN n». 106pbon. — � AMw�wr..i.d Pur POW—. w"xNn aN. abo »n* bob. !Ipww M r.d»0a• h a.rb a.nr rwn. pr+or to *,. mewW4 %dr& + h.nM+ and arol .team.nM nAl be viede .dM aln*,ew 'C", 'I atTa .YOM ,. eke �*W Pubik �.orMq d..nih.d M tM nN�u ori a ono d.", a Cny PW NO. ft nHoaw °.1*WLOM "C -*a tm}t�4�riont il Ahm M. R.Mnch.. CMr CMrk ;13�i' ti�ij gee " ►w sDDOW: D«NOis S. itt'.Rtr-`*a PROOF OF PUBLICATION DECLARATION -OF SERVICE On November 1.4, 1986, in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, I, Rick Kiriu, Engineering Technician II of the City of Lodi, served a. copy of the notice attached hereto marked Exhibit A by hanging it on the doors of the properties listed in Exhibit B attached hereto. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November 14, 1986, at Lodi, California. Vick KKiriu On November 14, 1986, in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, I deposited in the United States mail, envelopes with first-class postage prepaid thereon, containing a copy of the notice attachea hereto marked Exhibit A; said envelopes were addressed as is more particularly shown on Exhibit B attached hereto. There is a regular daily communication by mail between the City of Lodi, California, and the places to which said envelopes were addressed. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November 14, 1986, at Lodi, California. /V dn_�� i CITY OF LODI >.. o n[ %tC `=i .. : IT} HNLi 221 'A EST P'NE STREE' CALL BOX K'ko, Rol, ;D \t S T E 1% LODI. CALIFOR'%LA 95241.1910 C=tN •Arco ^e. ,\.,SER (2091334-5634 November iC, 198E PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE HUTCHINS STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RIMBY AVENUE TO VINE STREET The City of Lodi is moving ahead with the next phase of the Hutchins Street Improvement Project - the segment between Rimby Avenue and Vine Street. The project approved in 1981'and budgeted for construction in. 1986 consisted of reconstructing the street within existing curbs with one travel '.ane in each direction, parking on both sides, and a 1�,ft turn lane at dine Street. At the request of the Lodi Chamber of Commerce, the City Council directed staff -o study the possible addition of a continuous left turn lane. On Septen"Der 17, 1986, the Council heard a staff presentation on left turn lane alternates for the Hutchins Street project. They were: Alternate I - Reconstruct the street within existine curbs and instaTT one travel lane in each direction, a two-way left turn lane, and no parking on the west side. Alternate II - Wider the street on the west side by acquiring feet of right-of-way plus utility easements and reconstruct the street with one travel lane in each direction, a two-way left turn lane, and parking on both sides.:: The City has prepared an update on the 1981 Environmental Impact Report (EIR.) on the Hutchins Street Improvement Project. The update covers the portion of the project from Rimby Avenue to Vine Street. A Public Nearing on the project will be held on Wednesday, December 17, 1986, at 1:30 p.m., at the Lodi City Council Chambers, 221 W. Pine Street. If you have any questions on the project or wish to obtain a copy of the EIR update, please contact Richard Prima at City Hall, 333-6706. F . Copies of the EIR update are available at City Hall and at the A refer a desk at the Lodi Public Library, 201 W. Locust Street. i Fuck L. Ronsko "Put,llc Woks Girec'or , r. Exhibit A LEASAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC rTARING BY TEE LODI CIT)' COUNCIL TO CONSIDER 7a 13.11IRM-S- TAL I^IPACT REPORT UPDATE AND THE PRWWr ALTERNATES, H=ars STREET imPROVamgr PR0;7ECT - Rimy Td VINE STREET, LODI NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, the 17th day of December, 1986, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., the Lodi City Council will conduct a Pubic Hearing in the Chambers of the Lodi City Council at 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California, to consider the Environmental Impact Report Update and the project alternates, Hutchins Street Inprovement Project - Rimby to Vine Street, Lodi. Ir.formation regarding this item may be obtained from Richard Prima, Senior Civil Engineer, City of Lodi, Public Works Department, telephor* - 333-6706. 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. If you challenge the above matter in Court you may be limited to r:.ising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the Public Hearing. By Order of the Lodi City Council Ace: Fl � " ' ?,he�c/ City Clerk Dated: November 5, 1986 p (Pagea0f Z) %� , k V, K P It, Ano IQ MAILING LIST FOR: llllrelllAl-,!� IeIASY— 111WAF, 019 ADPENOUM FILE Eich gr' API OWNERS NAME MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP z 9.11 "S-110-33 NOSHMA. TAI)A F--rAL- 9 -*//g w. vipas EA146 i M17 34 ObVUWk. VIU-A!--ll,%bxbg qrZ S;4 & 15355 N. FOE ob f A. 1.6240 K171 IZ4 4- fi2g COMIC FT - K17 2.9 4INTEIC. 6001-b H. 0 /000 $- sAhte ds -sims 97 v,4-.rO.VA#i,4�.#&PISli�_6. -J;, /00 .6 Aso I mou-V R. 117 27 iliar-11, -my- /10/2- P.O. Buy, fly /0 11 J17 fcZAL- tol 09FES #A 4;5,n 6 4 X Ca ?5 0 7 117 /1 I I -T A! SCOM NAITigg S. V/.o w, PWAA 5r Ch .Til z� -zAmojtAl,,7s,�.RovExrmK AlIVER&ATZ -/-Ob/ A —'-,# H 17 74 MJ04 Ah#*D,! &s- 9 1uDY /AZ 0. 0,2A &75 1 fj.",01410 j: A -75A 41 2 zI NU Ao .4,#d A. jff9.qA • 6 1 1--L C) I mls-130- i -d UID,s CPL. 01AMS K -P. t 41JAMOTS., CA IL 01 35 imader4immwX 0 0. 1 403 A W-Afq SMa7VAI- eA 2-Z, ol L 37 Am fziu /&/* Xd7 4.01) 1. . :� 1". .4 /J. 21q Zi N14 ri I PVS-130- 17 I/ I., c elroq L- /Z30 / 5/3 C00019 Sr. 40 CA qs Z41 M 14 gi*tjo - jg-GMA VVA INX zz k I 2q DML. P149CE M f N t- • /z#o s. "I.PrellA.'s WAL*0P-- AWYf4OtJb i A.P. Log 6 oww 146 AL 23 imrZAKfA 591m i L q/0 VJ AL AWE 3 C Od CA M 24C a (JU-S N. ic . F. --.,o 0309 4-5,0*e IV ZI/ 71 Cl "7W twv/b i ly 4. lsg4 Z 640 L. WACW--Y I -Al - . lVASb&, CaNN 4. 0 A. .- TAME Is ol r3 .0 SiTIIS ctLfl b 11 t3d 6.*. 06 clo. u • •..�_. 1 Ny 1 4 �i/i�;�j �fi �^ i`��XCC.ea.�� t,,, ♦i.. � ,; - qq -.�Ha '�-. ....�- � rte- ,.�--! ...r �--•., . J�1s..s�..,.... ar►........_-.� . _ � f _ Y .._�_ _ _._ _., :.. �... v... ,._...�x _ 4 . �C�.._j t _ _._ . �_ ���� CITY OF LODI CITY HALL 221 WEST PINE ST. LOD I , CA 95241--1910 ( 209 ) 334-5634 Decewber 16, 1986 DEAR FRED M. REID, MAYOR, I would like to make a recommendation to you concerning the Hutchins Street Improvement Project - Rimby to Vine. But first I would like to call your attention to a few quotes from the Draft Environmental Impact Report Addendum, Hutchins Street Improvement Project - Rimby to Vine, City of Lodi, California, prepared by Kate Burdick, October 1966. "The City of Lodi General Plan designates most of the corridor- as residential with commercial areaslocated on the corner of Park Street." "A majority of the uses are older single-family detached units with some duplex and apartment uses." "Thus, although the use of the street does not imply an intimate residential character, the distance of the housea from the street and the relative density of intervening vegetation creates a pleasant residential atmosphere which is quite different from the "boulevard" feeling envoked by the widened section of Hutchins located south of Kettleman." "The trees, though not a valuable wildlife habitat, do contribute significantly to both the visual atmosphere of the street and to the perceived quafit; of life for those who live along the street." 4 Y "The character of the neighborhood will also be significantly altered when the travel lanes are moved cl--•=:er to the houses lining Hutchins.' "This, coupled with the loss of streetside vegetation, will F constitute a significant change. This change will be experienced primarily by residents as travellers are less likely to perceive the improved travel lanes as a degradation in quality of life." "Significant change in neighborhood characteristics." 3 "Alteration of neighborhood character as a result of street widening and street tree logs." "The approximate capacity of the present street is 800 vehicles per hour in one direction. This level of traffic will likely be reached by the year 2000." If the neighborhood characteristics are altered - the City of = Lodi's character will also be altered. -- PAGE 2 -- ` ( ' � Therefore, after review of the EIR, l would recommend to you | � � "Alternate I'° "Alternate I consists of the provision of two travel � lanes and a two-way left -turn lane, with no widening' This would result in the elimination of parking on the west o+ the roadway." "All but one parcel on the west side are corner lots and have side street parking." Sincerely, ' / ' � � Richard Katmwski � � Lodi Resident (20?) 368-2655 ' ' P.S. A street "currently in need of repair over its entire length" is � Cherokee Lane. � � '~ ,^ !� � 46 REOVED Iga5 aLC t 5 R!1 ^4 ALI�r ; j,umCH'.E CITY CLERK Ci'i Y OF Ilpfa 7ea �is.c�t a� S a�h.�.� a tact, o •a- yr %7-4 c� --�---- i7 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM HUTCHINS STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RIMBY TO VINE CITY OF LODI, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY KATE BURDICK DECEMBER, 1986 The public was notified that the Draft EIR Addendum was available for review on November 10, 1986. The public hearing is on December 17, 1986. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM u TC11 r WE, the undersigned, Strrongly oppose action being considered to reconstruct Hutchins Street, in any way, for the following reasons: The people of Lodi and Hutchins Street have already made their widhes known on the previous attempt to alter Hutchins Street - we want to affirm those wishes- no change of attitude has taken place!! (We recognize the attack plan of scheduling charges, block by block, in an attempt to fragment our united front! ! ) Widening will make a bad situation worse: higher speed in a residential area! We do not wanVneed a freeway type road through the center of Lodi! The proposals are a needless change that will reduce property use to the extent that three homes will have driveways too short for even one car ! TAXES are already extremely high without adding the cost of this needless project to our tax problem! Drastic reduction of property values due to noise increase, traffic increase, and danger to pedestrians! ! ALTERNATE III: NO BUILD (No changes! ! ! ! !) NAME A DDRESS - s - :4 134(tit DOI rPo4v,Ji f I L 1.206 5 rW111A6 z OR , WE, the undersigned, Strongly oppose action being considered to reconstruct Hutchins Street, in any way, for the following reasons: The people of Lodi and Hutchins Street have already made their widhes known on the previous attempt to alter Hutchins Street - we want to affirm those t wishes- no change of attitude has taken place! ! (We rf-cognize the attack plan of scheduling charges, block by block, in an attempt to fragment our united front! !) Widening will make a bad situation worse: higher speed in a residential area! We do not wanVaeed a freeway type road through the center of Lodi! The proposals are a needless change that will reduce property use to the extent that three homes will have driveways too short for even one car! I! TAXES are already extremely high without adding the cost of this needless project to our tax problem! Drastic reduction of property values due to noise increase, traffic increase, and danger to pedestrians! ! ALTERNATE III: NO BUILD (No changes! ! !! 1) NAME ADDRESS at IF _. 1 lei _ F i'75 ,�� /.yam ��,- fir /C1: ���f�C nr►1 �-• '; �, 10 ,� 1 l:� cr,WIV d. t WE, the undersigned. Strongly oppose action being considered to reconstruct Hutchins Street, in any way, for the following reasons: The people of Lodi and Hutchins Street have already made their widhes known on the previous attempt to alter Hutchins Street - we want to affirm those wishes- no change of attitude has taken place! ! (We recognize the attack plan of scheduling charges, block by block, in an attempt to fragment our united front! ! ) Widening will make a bad situation worse: higher speed in a residential area! We do not want/need a freeway type road through the center of Lodi! The proposals are a needless change that will reduce property use to the extent that three homes will have driveways too short for even one car ! ! ! TAXES are already extremely high without adding the cost of this needless project to our tax problem! Drastic reduction of property ••alues due to noise increase, traffic increase, and danger to pedestrians!! ALTERNATE III: NO BUILD (No changes! ! ! ! !) NAME ADDRESS I :r WE, the undersigned. Strongly oppose action being considered to reconstruct Hutchins Street, in any way, for the following reasons: The people of Lodi and Hutchins Street have already made their widhes known on the previous attempt to alter Hutchins Street - we want to affirm those wishes- no change of attitude has taken place! ! (We recognize the attack plan of scheduling charges, block by block, in an attempt to fragment our united front! ! ) Widening will make a bad situation worse: higher speed in a residential area! We do not want/need a freeway type road through the center of Lodi! The proposals are a needless change that will reduce property use to the extent that three homes will have driveways too short for even one car ! ! ! TAXES are already extremely high without adding the cost of this needless project to our tax problem! Drastic reduction of property ••alues due to noise increase, traffic increase, and danger to pedestrians!! ALTERNATE III: NO BUILD (No changes! ! ! ! !) NAME ADDRESS I or i WE, the undersigned, st-rongly oppose action being considered to reconstruct Hutchins Street, in any way. for the following reasons: The people of Lodi and Hutchins Street have already made their widhes known on the previous attempt to alter Hutchins Street - we want to affirm those wishes- no change of attitude has taken place!! (We recognize the attack plan of scheduling charges, block by block, in an attempt to fragment our united front! ! ) Widening will make a bad situation worse: higher speed in a residential area! We do not want/need a freeway type road through the center of Lodi! The proposals are a needless change that will reduce property use to the extent &-hat three homes will have driveways too short for even one car ! ! ! TAXES are already extremely high without adding the cost of this needless project to our tax problem! Drastic reduction of property values due to noise increase, traffic increase, and danger to pedestrians!! ALTERNATE III: NO BUILD (No changes! ! ! ! !) NAME ADDRESS £ 4. ' /-7 /���� - O � " ' /-7 /���� - O � RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Comments represent opinions and therefore do not need any response. i Ak Comments represent opinions and therefore do not need any response. i I' J 1A7C WF, the undersigned, Strongly oppose action being considered to reconstruct Hutchins Street, in any way, for the following reasons: The people of Lodi and Hutchins Street have already made their widhes known on the previous attempt to alter Hutchins Street - we want to affirm those wishes- no change of attitude has taken place!! (We recognize the attack plan of scheduling charges, block by block, in an attempt to fragment our united front! ! ) Widening will make a bad situation worse: higher speed in a residential area! We do not wanvneed a freeway type road through the center of Lodi! The proposals are a needless change that will reduce property use to the extent that three homes will have driveways too short for even one car ! ! ! TAXES are already extremely high without adding the cost of this needless project to our tax problem! Drastic reduction of property values due to noise increase, traffic increase, and danger to pedestrians! ! ALTERNATE III: NO BUILD (No changest ! ! ! !) NAM E ADDRESS - 3iS ~� E AtA- APAJr. _; _ .. 1 tire• I..%G�:��// 7 .-�C^ `— t.' '--I-LC) ' - �h, WE, the undersigned, strongly oppose action being considered to reconstruct Hutchins Street, in any way, for the following reasons: The people of Lodi and Hutchins Street have already made their widhes known on the previous attempt to alter Hutchins Street - we want to affirm those wishes- no change of attitude has taken place!! (We recognize the attack plan of scheduling charges, block by block, in an attempt to fragment our united front! ! ) Widening will make a bad situation worse: higher speed in a residential area! We do not want/need a freeway type road through the center of Lodi! The proposals are a needless change that will reduce property use to the extent that three homes will have driveways too short for even one car ! i ! TAXES are already extremely high without adding the cost of this needless project to our tax problem! Drastic reduction of property values due to noise increase, traffic increase, and danger to pedestrians!! _ ALTERNATE III: NO BUILD (No changes! ! ! ! !) NA M E ADDRESS ?t f ,T n. t .� '" 1 � 1 ? .1(a l: t � �._�^ ! ' �`/' \• . IIy��{ •1,t�,t=JA A - ��r`' ' Y '444,V Ow WE, the undersigned, strongly oppose action being considered to reconstruct Hutchins Street, in any way, for the following reasons: The people of Lodi and Hutchins Street have already made their widhes known on the previous attempt to alter Hutchins Street - we want to affirm those wishes- no change of attitude has taken place! ! (We recognize the attack plan of scheduling charges, block by block, in an attempt to fragment our united front! ! ) Widening will make a bad situation worse: higher speed in a residential area! We do not wanVneed a freeway type road through the center of Lodi! The proposals are a needless change that will reduce property use to the extent that three homes will have driveways too short for even one car ! ! TAXES are already extremely high without adding the cost of this needless project to our tax problem! Drastic reduction of property values due to noise increase, traffic increase, and danger to pedestrians!! ALTERNATE III: NO BUILD (No changes!!! 1!) NAME A DDR ESS 74 ajtl-�•/� `} WE, the undersigned, gtrongly oppose action being considered to reconstruct Hutchins Street, in any way, for the following reasons: The people of Lodi and Hutchins Street have already made their widhes known on the previous attempt to alter Hutchins Street - we want to affirm those wishes- no change of attitude has taken place!! (We recognize the attack plan of scheduling charges, block by block, in an attempt to fragment our united front! ! } Widening will make a bad situation worse: higher speed in a residential area! We do not warm/meed a freeway type road through the center of Lodi! The proposals are a needless change that will reduce property use to the extent that three homes will have driveways too short for even one car ! ! ! TAXES are already extremely high without adding the cost of this needless project to our tax problem! Drastic reduction of property values due to noise increase, traffic increase, and danger to pedestrians! ! ALTERNATE III: NO BUILD (No changes! ! ! ! !) NAME ADDRESS � ®: KATE BlJRD1�K P(AINNING &LAND. USE 1545 SHMANDVACT` icy; M t L� _, gob-823A4i ow '-4a� u DRAFT ENVI�2Q�EI�At�IMP� r .�1, -. +_% k F x 'P" a.'�.� 3r + - d'2.t r� t U �, a' x [ `,yam e • s 4 �� i � �r �r-, r4.n .1..�• ..a P' "`�d'x 4� � �.1. ct '�', i� � ,� .:. L`i,. 'iwl •�s s�x.i _ ,�'�fy S ori ; � :"P� t.�,y, _' `§ Y � 3fi� n.d +�is�..'... .. �!'1 .5.�'�+� ,. ,i4 ,�.'•i.,, a_. x r ., �'." -:` a. ARF, �.;-„^�. ,.. .., s ���,L`�,i..r.. .:- ���kry ''fir.. :.. .r.<�•lW=k ..fie .... � ,k ,'}`CCd__ 37'x%' "�1i {�-�.t� , ,r � a�.�, e4"a ^�•ni'+�'i �t 't R -i c °-.� _tf, '.+�:! `�tvf,�.�b..x, to * `� S i, t ' .,•�n��. t r.�{2.,', X. >TREET (M'�ZC? :ENT 3PRQ 3" sW4, ` y $ { mow?'} ,y4xa `j.,.e •�-•,:,ac x'�,. Y u^.. 3 - .j $} c. d- `r`.J e %. \\« - \ � \`j . m § ^ / < e %. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SORT - \ ADDENDUM . m HUTCel■S STS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT e RIMBY TO VIS �^ CITY OF LODI, CALIFORNIA § . PREP ARED BY ° \ \\a RATE BURDICK \ <±\ . \« �.. ocTos�, 1886 � e 59 C A INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Project Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Project Background . . . . . . . . . . . . Project Purpose . ... . . . . . . . . . The Proposed Project . . . . . . . . . . . ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS . . . . . Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Land Use and Neighborhood Characteristics . . . . . UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Insignificant Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unavoidable Adverse Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . Growth Inducement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Project Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REPORT STAFF . . . . . . . . . .. . . FIGURES 1 Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Street Cross Sections . . . . . . . . . 3 Alternate II Street Layout . . . . . . . 4 Traffic Volumes (1975-2005) . . • • • . . • 5 Land Use Map . . . . . . . . # . . . . . TABLES 1 Level of Service Definitions . . . . . . . . . . 2 Parking Survey Results . . . . . . . .. 3 Existing Noise Levels Along Hutchins Street . 4 Existing Versus Future Noise. Levels Along Hutchins Street . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 7 7 7 9 12 13 19 23 26 26 26 27 28 30 7 10 11 14 24 15 17 20 21 RArx _unTYwn The purpose of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Addendum is to evaluate two alternate proposals for improving Hutchins Street from Rimby to Vine. In 1981 an Environmental Impact Report and Traffic Study was done on Hutchins Street from Kettleman Lane to Lockeford Street. Various alternatives were studied ranging from no change up to widening to 64' curb to curb (4 travel lanes and parking) in an 80 foot right-of-way. The "Minimum Recommended Project" in the vicinity of Rimby to Vine called for 10 feet of right-of-way acquisition and widening to 56 feet curb to curb. This would have provided two travel lanes plus a left -turn lane and parking on both sides. Ultikately the street would be striped for four lanes and no parking except during off-peak hours (limited parking). The City Council adopted a plan with the following features. Actions taken to date are shown in parentheses. 1) Maintain 80 foot ultimate right-of-way for future developments 2) Reconstruct within existing curbs Lodi to Lockeford 3) Minor widening south of Lodi Avenue (Preliminary engineering and right-of-way budgeted for 1986) 4) Reconstruct within existing curbs - Rimby to Lodi (Vine - to Tokay reconstructed 1983, Rimby to Vine budgeted 1985,'. Tokay to Lodi, schedu:.ed for 1987 with minor widening S/Lodi) 5) Minor widening - Kettleman to Rimby (constructed 1983) As the design for the reconstruction between Rimby and Vine neared completion in early 1986, staff was requested by the City G Council to study the need for a two-way left -turn lane. This request came from a concern of the Chamber's Highway and Trans- portation Committee. Their concern was that two travel lanes and a two-way left -turn lane was needed throughout Hutchins Street from Kettleman to Lodi. They felt that reconstruction between © Rimby and Vine should not take place without provisions for a left -turn lane.. On September 17, 1986 the City Council directed staff to prepare the necessary environmental documentation and project report for the installation of a left -turn lane. Currently this segment of Hutchins Street has a developed width of 40 feet and a right-of-way of 60 feet. The street is oper- ating at an acceptable level but, with projected growth in Lodi, the street will eventually operate below acceptable levels. The 1 n 7 .� 40 street is also currently in need of repair over its entire leng th . THE PROPOSED PRA7ECT The proposed project consists of reconstructing the street and providing one travel lane in each direction plus a two-way left - turn lane. Two alternates accomplish this: Alternate I consists of the provision of two travel lanes and a two-way left -turn lane, with no widening. This would result in the elimination of parking on the west of the roadway. Alternative II consists of widening on the west side of Hutchins Street to the ultimate right-of-way and utilizing two feet of the normal 2.5 foot space between the back of the sidewalk and the right-of-way. This would provide sufficient width for two travel lanes, a two-way left -turn lane and parking on both sides of the street. POTENTIAL IMPACTS The following list summarizes the potential impacts of the project. This list does not include impacts which were deemed insignificant as a result of evaluation in this EIR. o Loss of mature shade trees on west side of street o Alteration of neighborhood character as.a result of street widening and street tree loss INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE Following a careful review of the 1981 EIR on the larger project on Hutchins Street, prepared by CH2M-Hill, it has been determined that large portions of the text is sufficient for use in evalu- ating the current project. Therefore, this EIR Addendum will be a focused EIR addressing only Traffic, Noise and Land Use/Neighborhood characteristics. Sections dealing with Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Plants and Animals, Public Services and Air Quality from the 1981 EIR are, therefore, incorporated into this document by reference. The referenced pages are as follows: Geology and Soils (p. 2-1), Hydrology and Water Quality (p. 2-1), Plants and Animals (p. 2-2), and Air Quality (p. 2-6). The 1981 EIR document is available for review at the City of Lodi Department of Public Works. In addition, the Noise Appendix (pp. B-1 through B-7) is also incorporated by reference. 3 - E PROJECT PHASING It should be noted that the adoption of either Alternate does not negate the necessity for ultimately widening all or part of the street. n, Summary of Environmental Impacts The projects under consideration are two alternative methods for improving traffic flow on Hutchins Street. Alternate I includes improvement but no widening while Alternate II includes improve- ment with widening. A full description of the proposed project is presented in the Project Description section of this report. The following list itemizes all impacts, both significant and insignificant, that were identified during the course of this focused environmental analysis. The "evel of significance of each impact is presented, both with and without suggested mitiga- tion measures. The mitigated impact implies that all identified mitigations should be followed, unless otherwise indicated in this Summary. Adverse impacts that are unavoidable and which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance are noted. This Summary should be used in conjunction with a thorough reading of the report. The Summary is intended only as an over- view; the report serves as the technical and support basis for this Summary. The Summary presents the impacts identified in the text including traffic, noise resources and neighborhood compatibility. other issues are addressed in the 1981 EIR which has been incorporated by reference. Additional issues were not addressed as they are not affected by the project. Project Mitigated Impact Impact Potential Impact/Impact Issue Traffic I I -- No decrease in pedestrian safety due to increased street width and vehicle speeds Mitigation 1) No mitigation required S Significant M = Moderate I - insignificant 4 'B Project Mitigated Impact Impact Potential Impact/Iinpact Issue I I -- Loss of on -street parking (Alternate I .only) Mitigation 2) Provide that any future development has adequate off-street parking M M -- Reduced driveway length (Alternate II only) Mitigation 3) Provide electric garage door openers to affected residences to facilitate entry I I -- Reduced backing distance at driveways (Alternate I only) Mitigation None Noise M M -- Incremental increase in noise levels due to changed street configuration and increased volumes _Mitigation �G 4) Strict enforcement of speed limit 5) Enforce laws on modified mufflers on autos and motorcycles f 54 6) Require wider setbacks and good sound insulation before allowing any new single- or multi -family residences to be built on street go 9 iv .F' k" s 'ri.-a✓ t ti,.. '^t Mer w. ,c.. .., ::,... ... .. .. „ f �k Y Project Mitigated Impact Impact Potential Impact/Impact Issue Land Use and Neighborhood Characteristics M M -- Alteration of neighborhood character due to street widening and loss of street trees Mitigation 7) Replant with 15+ gallon trees and shrubs as soon as possible. Use species of identical or equivalent visual values 6 •�.+ifi�f&o aiLt.Fsi .,�.3C1A�' � �..•s sfityry-+€✓-+. �-43e.e .. - .. - .. ... 4' g C F p PROJECT LOCATION Hutchins Street runs north -south through the City of Lodi and is located approximately midway between Ham Lane (to the west) and Stockton Street (to the east). The proposed project lies between Rimby on the south and Vine Street to the north. The project includes approximately 8 blocks (approximately 1/2 mile). Major intersections along the route includes Hutchins Street at Vine Street (see Figure 1). PROJECT BACKGROUND Hutchins Street is a major north -south connector street in Lodi. Hutchins Street terminates at California Street north of Locke - ford Street and becomes West Lane south of the Lodi City limits. West Lane is an alternative north -south route to Highway 99 and Interstate 5. The two alternates proposed for the subject portion of Hutchins Street are: o Rebuild within existing curbs (Alternate I). Utilizing the existing right-of-way, improvements would include re - striping to add a continuous two-way left -turn lane and. the removal of on -street parking on the west side. o Widen on west side (Alternate II). Alternate II consists of widening on the went side of Hutchins Street to the `- ultimate right-of-way and utilizing two feet of the normal 2.5 foot space between the back of the sidewalk and the right-of-way. This would provide sufficient width for two travel lanes (one in each direction), a continuous two-way left -turn lane and parking on both sides of the street. PROJECT PURPOSE j -G The purpose of the project is to replace the failing section of the street. City policy has been to consider future traffic volumes in a major reconstruction project and make provisions for future growth. 0 n- ,E7 ._ Figure 1 CITY F L Project Area Map PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 0 2 U a 0 THE PROPOSED PROTECT The City will select a project following public review of the options. Because Alternate I generates relatively few impacts, Alternate II has been used throughout this report to provide a "worst case' evaluation except where noted. The 1981 EIR ad- dressed the impacts of widening to 80 -foot right-of-way. Alternate II improvements would include: widening by 5 feet on the west side, use of two of the 2.5 foot space between the back of sidewalk and right-of-way, creation of one travel lane in each direction with a two-way left -turn lane, and parking on both sides of the street. Alternate I provides for one travel lane in each direction and a two-way left -turn lane with no widening and elimination of approximately 55 parking spaces on the west side (see Figures 2 and 3). It should be noted that the implementation of either Alternate does not preclude the ultimate necessity of widening the street. Alternate II would accomplish that portion of the ultimate project which requires widening on the west side of the street. Therefore, Alternate II not only serves to alleviate existing congestion but also accomplishes a significant portion of future improvements required for the roadway. Q5' WIDCN VON WE5T WITH LEFT TURN LANE PARKING Figure 2- ALTERNATE R CITY OF LODI HUTHIN5 ST.-RIHBYto'VINE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CROSS 3ECTiON5 n 7 DQS{r t+o. Dote Revision JAW. Approved By i CD. -� 12' to RC E LANE- LEFT TU KI1 I LANE + PARKIN4 No PARKING 60' 95' � 251 k 2-q* a ZS': (p't 9 25 5' (' f Davy. n (Wr-ST R/w M15T{N6 5TMF-T WITH LEFT TURN LANES No FAST R/w PARKING ON WEST SIDE ALTERNATE I o - i ZIP I� 19' I LANE + PARKING LEFT TURN i LANE t PARKING� . Q5' WIDCN VON WE5T WITH LEFT TURN LANE PARKING ON BOTH 51 DCS ALTERNATE R 7 DQS{r t+o. Dote Revision JAW. Approved By i CD. ?- Dote7,S6 public Works Director Dote RC E Ribi¢r t/inc 5y4 32' 27 4O' Propos¢o' R/W� 27.5 /95 t 35` 25 35 Provos¢d � = I 34` ` Foc e of curb 34` Windsor Ali c'o�f . AIW (Ex) 4 O` Face of curb (ek) 9.5 � d C Tamorock York cc o � - I I 35` 25 ,a 4 D� -x R irriby- A fork st. . I i Mate: Corn a,- cut-o{r and curb returns not I 34' /95 Shown on proposed ' Ka"Z mon I = 9 L. CarJ?/ I 27.5 /95 Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigations The 1981 Final Environmental Impact Report on the Hutchins Street Road Improvement project to herewith incorporated by reference for those sections dealing with Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Plants and Animals, Public Services and Air Quali- ty. The 1981 EIR is available for review at the City of Lodi Q Department of Publig Works. These sections are incorporated by reference and not reprinted here because no impacts to these areas/issues result from either Alternate I or Alternate II. W R e❑ 0 12 Traffic The following section presents the existing conditions for each 171 area of concern. Potential impacts of the project are then identified and discussed. Measures to minimize identified effects are also presented. TRAFFIC SETTING Hutchins Street from Rimby Avenue to Vine Street is a two-lane roadway with a street width of approximately 40 feet toe -to -toe. The existing right-of-way (ROW) varies from 60 feet to 65 feet. The street width north of Vine Street is approximately 60 feet (75 feet ROW) and south of Rimby Avenue is 54 feet (65 feet ROW). Total daily traffic volumes in the segment of Hutchins Street from Rimby to Vine have grown from approximately 8,000 in 1975 to 12,500. Single direction, peak hour volumes have increased at a slightly lower rate from 400 to 600. Peak volumes are slightly higher. This information is shown graphically in Figure 4. This Figure also shows a straight line projection of volumes to the year 2005. Actual traffic growth rate will depend on many factors including overall development in the City and redevelop- ment in the center of City. The approximate capacity of the present street is 800 vehicles per hour in one direction. This level of traffic will likely, be reached by the year 2000. The existing Level of Service (LOS) is C, stable operations and light congestion. Table 1 presents the definitions of LOS. The addition of a two-way left -turn lane ® will increase the capacity approximately 158. In addition to total and directional traffic, peak hour turning movements were checked at Hutchins and Park. There were 19 left - turning vehicles or 2% of the -total. This left -turn volume is relatively low. Other than relying on "professional judgment," ® thera are no generally accepted criteria for the installation of two-way left -turn lanes. Two articles have appeared in recent issues of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal sug- gesting quantitative means of evaluating such installations. In both cases, with present volumes, the analysis shows little benefit. 13 I t Figure 4 20,000 o a I5,000 - --- — - -- - _ - - 13,500 I 8000 d •t120 I vN,700 { 10,000-�g000.__ggQ0 ... 'WOO 0 9,600 i > • AGTUPAL. TOTAL VOLUMM -CvUNT -� •b oo -- C ALGU LATE D COUNT Cl Ei,000 1,000 ---r . ! rAPAL,{j-r Z LA.NE4- LGF'T TURN LANF- 900. 900 _.. .._. _.. d CAF'AGfTY Z LANE STREeT Er• Wo -. _. — — —, — -- --- — — — -- — o 600 ____ _ _- _ 630+ s +550 + ACTUAL ONE WA`( COUN-T a G 400 - ' o'}w70 f !.A(_GULATED COUNTSW i �-3so 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 ZOO.' 2005 2010 Yaar Table 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONSI Level of Service Traffic Flow Characteristics A Free-flowing with no congestion. Vehicles are com- pletely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream (average overall travel speed of 35 mph or more). B Free-flowing conditions. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted and stopped delays are not bothersome. Drivers are not subjected to appreciable tension (average overall travel speed of 28 mph or more). C Stable operations and light congestion. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream and select an operating speed is affected by the presence of other vehicles. Motorists will experience an appreciable tension while driving (average overall travel speed of 22 mph or more). D Significant congestion and unstable flow. Speeds and ability to maneuver are severely restricted because of traffic congestion (average overall travel speed n of 17 mph or more). E Severe congestion. operations at or near capacity "capacity" Lnd flow is quite unstable (average overall travel speed of 13 mph or more). F Forced or break -down flow (average overall travel speed of less than 13 mph) . lLevels of Service are designated by the Letters A through F. "A" Level of Service m(.ins there is very little congestion and the traffic can move easily. "F" Level of Service, at the other extreme, means the road is over capacity, with very little move- ment and considerable congestion. ;4 Adapted from Transportation Research Board, flighway Capacity Manual - 1985. 15 However, in the judgment of City staff, there is some benefit to a two-way left -turn lane in this segment of Hutchins Street and there will be even more benefits as traffic volumes increase. Accidents A five-year accident history for this segment of Hutchins Street was evaluated. The following points can be made from this data. 0 17 of the 39 accidents (448) are rear end accidents. 0 8 accidents (218) are sideswipe accident.&. o The overall accident rate - 7.6 accidents per million vehicle miles - is near the average for all the streets recently studied for speed zones. Thus the overall acci- dent rate is not a significant problem. However, it can be assumed that most of the sideswipe and rear end accidents should be eliminated with a two-way left -turn lane. This would provide a significant reduction in the accident rate. IMPACT Pedestrian Safety In the previous EIR a concern was raised about decreased pedes- trian safety due to increased vehicle speeds and increased road widths. As Alternate II adds only 7 feet in width and traffic speeds are not expected to increase due to the relatively narrow lane widths (Prima, verbal communication based on Ham Lane north of Lodi), this is not a concern of this project. Mitigation 1) No mitigation required. On -Street Parking Alternate II does not result in the loss of any parking spaces. Alternate I results in the loss of 55 spaces on the west side of the street. However, a survey of on -street parking was conducted along the entire street between October 17-23, 1986. This survey, shown below, indicates that a maximum of 5 spaces were in use on this side of the street. All but one parcel on the west side are corner lots and have side street parking. There is also available parking on the east side of the street. 16 0 Y DATE PARKING TIME Table SURVEY 2 RESULTS NUMBER OF PARKED CARS -----SIDE ----- WEL i EAST 10/17/86 2:00 PM 4 10 10/21/86 9:15 AM 1 6 10/21/86 2:00 PM 5* 8 10/21/86 8:05 PM. 2 15 10/22/86 9:20 AM 1- - 10 10/22/86 2:50 PM 5* 9 10/22/86 6:20 PM 2 18 10/23/86 9:35 AM 1 10 10/23/86 2:05 PM 3 3 10/23/86 10:00 PM 1 20* *Highest observation TOTAL AVAILABLE PARKING SPACES 55 (west side) 57 (east side) Mitigation 2) Provide that all future developments have adequate off- street parking. Reduced Backing Distance at Driveways As a result of the removal of parking on the west side under Alternate I, the traffic will be closer to the curb resulting in increased difficulty in backing out of the driveways during peak 17 s: hours. This affects 11 driveways. One additional driveway is for a parking lot and would not be so affected. Since more residential exiting is done in the morning than the late after- noon and the morning southbound volumes are approximately half of the late afternoon peak volumes, this should not be a significant problem. Mitigation None Reduced Driveway Length As a result of the road widening under Alternate II, all of the driveways will be shortened by 7 feet. Three driveways are presently 181, 19' and 201 ling. The widening will result in lengths of 111, 12' and 13' which is too short for a car. Thus n residents will have to park on the side street or Hutchins Street or in their garage to avoid blocking the sidewalk. This impact would also occur under the ultimate widening although the drive- ways would be shortened 5 feet instead of 7. Mitigation 3) Provide electric garage door openers to affected resi- dences to facilitate entry. sk �_� i 18 w Noise SETTING Hutchins Street is Defined as a "problem" noise route in the County Noise Element. Generally, problem noise routes carry 100 to 300 trucks per day and/or over lo,0o0 vehicles per day on an annual average. The existing volume of traffic on Hutchins is 12,500 vehicles per day. In this case, the noise problem is characterized by noise disturbances during the day and early evening with some sleep disruption in the later evening hours. Noise levels on Hutchins are a function of automobilez; trucks, and motorcycle traffic. However, noise complaints registered by Hutchins Street residents usually specify speeding cars or cars with modified mufflers as the -cause -of the problem -2 Noise on Hutchins Street was measured for the previous EIR to provide an accurate assessment of existing noise levels. A Friday afternoon and evening were chosen for the monitoring period since this is when most complaints have been registered. Using the noise measurements, average day/night noise levels (Ldnl on Hutchins Street were calculated for a typical 24-hour day. For a discussion of the noise monitoring survey and the calculation of noise levels, see Appendix B in the 1981 LIR. Discussions with the noise consultant indicate that the results of the survey are still valid given recent traffic counts. 1San Joaquin County Council of Governments Noise Eleirent, adopted July 23, 1974 2Noise complaints by Hutchins Street residents have been regis- tered over the years by the City of Lodi. These date back as far as 1973 when a noise survey of Lodi for the County N:,ise Element was conducted and as recent as July 1981 when a public informa- tional meeting was held for the Hutchins Street improvement project. 3Noise levels and noise standards are expressed in day/night average levels (Ldn). Ldn means the average equivalent A - weighted sound level in decibels (dB) during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels in the night. after 10:00 PM and before 7:00 PM. 19 °'i Table 3 shows the results of .the measured and calculated existing noise levels in the segment including Rimby to Vine. Table 3 EXISTING NOISE LEVELS ALONG HUTCHINS STREETa Measuredb Calculated n Hutchins Street Peak Period Average Day/Night Segment Noise Levels Noise Levels (in Ldn) Kettleman to Lodi 68 dBc 65 dB aAll noise levels are for common point 50 feet from the street centerline. bPeak period is a Friday afternoon between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. cdB = decibels. --, The City of Lodi has adopted exterior design noise standards for r various land uses. These standards are used to determine traffic noise impacts and the need for abatement measures. The standards (in Ldn) are 60 dB for single-family uses, 65 dB for multi -family uses (i.e., apartments), and 70 dB for commercial and office uses. Hutchins Street is presently bordered by all of the above land uses, but is lined mainly with single- and multi -family resi- dences. Comparing existing noise levels in Table 3 to the City's stan- dards shows where noise problems are occurring. Along Hutchins, F between Kettleman and Lodi, the standards for single- and multi- �, family land uses (only) are being exceeded today. (An actual #f lot -by -lot land use analysis was not performed. For locations of: land uses on Hutchins, see Figure 5 in the Land Use section of this report.) f 4 20 s ;; Traff is on Hutchins Street is projected to increase by the year 2000. However, there will be only a minor corresponding increase in future noise levels as shown in Table 4. Table 4 EXISTING VERSUS FUTURE NOISE LEVELS ALONG HUTCHINS STREET`'' Hutchins Street Existing Future Segment Noise Levels Noise Levelsr Kettleman to Lodi 65 dB 65 dB no widening !' 68 dB widening to ultimate alloise levels calculated as day/night average levels (Ldn) for a n common point 50 feet from the street centerline. bFuture noise levels year 2000. 21 IMPACTS The projected increase in Hutchins Street traffic will occur at the same rate with or without the street improvement project. Therefore, the improvement will not add to traffic -generated noise. However, the proposed street widening will move vehicle traffic, and therefore, noise close to the noise receptors (i.e., residences), in effect increasing noise levels at those loca- tions. Both Alternate I and II will put the southbound travel lane at approximately the same location relative to the resi- dences as the ultimate widening described in the 1981 EIR. Table 4 shows that on Hutchins Street, between Rimby and Vine, a 3 dB increase in day/night average levels (Ldn) will result from the project. This increase will add to the noise level that already exceeds the City's standards for single- (60 dB) and multi -family (65 dB) land uses. The 3 dB increase will not cause any new violations of noise standards for other adjacent land uses. This increase should not be noticeable because an increase 21 of less than 4 dB cannot be perceived by the human ear (San Joaquin County Noise Element, 1974). Mitigation Mitigation measures for noise impacts are usually dis- cussed in terms of reducing the sound at the source (reducing vehicle noise), insulating the receptor from the sound (building insulation), and shielding the recep- tor from the sound wave path (sound walls). However, the practical value of these measures is questionable. For example, sound walls would have openings for walks and driveways, rendering them ineffective. 4) Strictly enforce the speed limit (35 mph) for Hutchins Street at all times of the day. 5) Enforce laws on modified mufflers on autos and motor- cycles. 6) Require wider setbacks and good sound insulation before allowing any new single- or multi -family resi- dences to be built on the street. Sound insulation methods will meet the State of California's Noise 3� Insulation Standards (California Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter 1, Article 4). i 22 x Land Use SETTING Current land uses along this segment of Hutchins Street vary from low and medium density residential to commercial. A majority of the uses are older single-family detached units with some duplex and apartment. uses. Commercial sites are located on the corner of Hutchins and Park. The uses of this site includes a health r, club and barber and beauty salons. The City of Lodi General Plan designates most of the corridor as residential with commercial areas located on the corner of Park Street. The residential designations are for Medium Density Residential on both sides of the street from Kettleman to Park, with low density on the west side of Hutchins from Park to Lodi and Medium Density Residential on the east side of Hutchins from Park to Lodi. The houses along Hutchins are set well out of the roadway cor- ridor. Few residences are readily visible from the road as most of the houses have at least one, and in several cases, many street trees. Thus, although the use of the street does not imply an intimate residential character, the distance of the houses from the street and the relative density of intervening vegetation creates a pleasant res=dential atmosphere which is quite different from the "boulevard" feeling evoked by, the widened section of Hutchins located south of Kettlemari. IMPACT Neiqhborhood Character Widening of the street will require the removal of approximately 10 to 15 mature street trees. The trees, though not a valuable wildlife habitat, do contribute significantly to both the visual atmosphere of the street and to the perceived quality of life for those who live along the street. The loss of these trees will result in the houses being more visible to, and from, the street. r Residents will, 'most probably, be more aware of the traffic along the street as the privacy afforded by these trees is removed. The character of the neighborhood will also be significantly altered when the travel lanes are moved closer to the houses lining Hutchins. The distance between the front door and the 23 mk.,. q n 4 Figure 5 CITY O F L O D t Land Use Map PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1 G I 1 2 t I R-2 i t � o ► C1� 21 1 `fit t M-2 1fLi11B t- i �ccro..•.,1 I o I ( 'ayt- soo Sod i IpIL ' 1 1 O ► 1 � ! A� �_ l•� i:(tr CM2 ( � R -i R -MQ 1 l t _ I o —sill A — --- _ — • Y w S l — ° M-2 t cAmos"At i R-2 t s. 1 vlotVAAO sool-hwo ce"fe11 P -p (15) LEGEND _ I ItsocwnAL sows w .IAA• piV I � A-� fa4f I�IRt ioo C- s—t--.--- —L — .— C=3 c- owces 1 t�: p�pas • «o»«s com C -S � _ I LMT'S/►AT t &Svc I wc000kow O C-2 �'� I IRWIN* cemytY t POMYNAL zohcs. ! f R-M.D ( < wf I..vr I ° R-2 OTHER 2auS ` � � 1 " O u+l • wcusSlr�o Ilao..a 110 t IAAwiCu�71AK) t t 1 G I 1 2 t I R-2 i t � o ► C1� 21 1 `fit t M-2 1fLi11B t- i �ccro..•.,1 I o I ( 'ayt- soo Sod i IpIL ' 1 1 O ► 1 � ! A� �_ l•� i:(tr CM2 ( � R -i R -MQ 1 l t _ I o —sill A — --- _ — • Y w S l — ° M-2 t cAmos"At i R-2 t s. 1 vlotVAAO sool-hwo ce"fe11 P -p (15) LEGEND _ I ItsocwnAL sows w .IAA• piV I � A-� fa4f I�IRt ioo C- s—t--.--- —L — .— C=3 c- owces 1 t�: p�pas • «o»«s com C -S � _ I LMT'S/►AT t &Svc I wc000kow O C-2 �'� I IRWIN* cemytY t POMYNAL zohcs. ! f R-M.D ( < wf I..vr I ° R-2 OTHER 2auS ` � � 1 " O u+l • wcusSlr�o Ilao..a 110 t IAAwiCu�71AK) n back of the sidewalk will be reduced by 7 feet. This, coupled with the loss of streetside vegetation, will constitute a signi- ficant change. This change will be experienced primarily by residents as travellers are less likely to perceive the improved travel lanes as a degradation in quality of life. Mitigation 7) Replant with 15 -gallon or larger size street trees and shrubs as soon as possible. Use species compatible with/or identical to the existing vegetative cover. 8) No effective mitigations exist to minimize the effects of reduced front -yard width. The use of sound walls or visual barriers would be effective for future construc- tion but would not be appropriate given the setback of existing structure3. The only real method to regain front -yard amenities would be to move the houses backwards on the lot (a costly and disruptive activity). General Plans and Policies The proposed project is consistent with the Lodi General Plan and Circulation Element. Mitigation 9) No mitigation required. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts INSIGNIFICANT EFFECTS The following effects/impacts were deemed insignificant as a result of project review. o Coverage of onsite soil with increased impervious sur- faces o Presence of expansive soils o Generation of increased stormwater runoff o Loss of wildlife habitat o Disruption of public services during construction o Generation of vehicular emissions A o Generation of increased particulates/dust during con- struction o Compatibility of the project with existing General Plan UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS Listed below are the unavoidable impacts that would occur if the project were constructed. These are.impacts which would occur regardless of the mitigation measures incorporated into the pro- ject design. o There will be temporary increases in some pollutants _ during construction of the street improvements. o Future noise levels will continue to grow as traffic volumes increase. o Loss of some on -street parking (Alternate I). o Loss of street trees resulting in alteration of visual values and neighborhood characteristics. 43 26 A xa GROWTH INDUCEMENT Residential growth in Lodi is the result of General Plan designa- tions and densities rather than the level of service on the affected street. Therefore, improvement of Hutchins Street will accommodate planned development rather than generate growth itself. The decision to allow land elsewhere in Lodi to develop, or for uses along Hutchins Street to change (i.e., single family to multiple family, single family to commercial, is a function of the city's planning process, not of the improvement of indivi- dual streets or intersections. So, although the improved street section will accommodate increased growth, it will not result in the creation of a facility which would generate growth. VA a A NO BUILD This alternative would result in roadway and striping remaining as currently constructed and marked. The decision to leave the roadway essentially "as is" would result in: a) Continued decrease in LOS and increase in congestion and delay within next 10 to 15 years (roadway LOS would lower to E by 2000), necessitating additional improvements. b) Potential for increased traffic hazard as volumes increase. c) Continuation of existing on -street parking patterns d) Retention of mature street trees e) Elimination of land use impacts f) Create potential for fragmented approach to street plan- ning and reconstruction (i.e., solve each problem as it arises without integration of overall design) g) Increased maintenance costs and cost to vehicle owners due to poor condition of street REBUILD AND RESTRIPE EXISTING STREET As identified in the 1981 EIR and adopted by .the City Council, this would include utilizing the existing right-of-way, curb to curb width and lane striping. Implementation of this alternative would: a) Same as a through f above b) Alleviate roadway deterioration by reconstruction 28 BUILD STREET TO "MINIMUM RECOMMENDED PROJECT" STANDARDS (56 FOOT PAVEMENT IN 72 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY) This is the minimum recommended project proposed in the 1981 EIR. The 56 foot project consisting of rebuilding and widening the street from Kettleman to Lodi, would result in: a) Significant street tree loss b) Increase in future noise levels c) Loss of some onstreet parking d) Slight increase in vehicle speeds e) Significant change in neighborhood characteristics BUILD STREET TO FULL 64 FOOT PAVEMENT IN 80 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY This is the project proposed in the 1981 EIR. Following review of this project the City Council elected to pursue a smaller project, resulting in this EIR Addendum. The 64 foot project, consisting of rebuilding and widening the street from Kettleman to Lodi, would result in: a) Significant street tree loss b) Increase in future noise levels c) Loss of some onstreet parking d) Slight increase in vehicle speeds e) Significant change in neighborhood characteristics F to 29 Report Authors, Persons Contacted, and References