HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - No. 2004-181...... . . . . . . .
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi has heretofore held a
duly noticed public hearing on August 11, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lodi Planning Commission, having reviewed and
considered the information contained in the Final Program Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility, adopted Resolution No. P.C.
04-39 at the August 11, 2004, public hearing, approving the EIR for certification; and
WHEREAS, notice thereof having been given according to law, an affidavit of
which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, a public hearing was held September 1,
2004, by the Lodi City Council to consider the certification of the Final Program EIR for
the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED as
follows:
1, The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
2. The Lodi City Council certifies that the Final EIR was completed in
compliance with CEQA, that the Final EIR was presented to the Lodi City
Council (the decision-making body of the City of Lodi), that the Lodi City
Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the
Final EIR, that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and
analysis of the Lodi City Council, and the Lodi City Council does hereby
approve certification of the Final EIR for the White Slough Water
Pollution Control Facility pursuant to the CEQA.
3. All mitigation measures as specified in the Final EIR and the
accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Final EIR are hereby
approved, adopted, and incorporated into this Resolution.
4. The separate document entitled "Findings of Fact and Statement of
Overriding Consideration for the City of Lodi White Slough Water
Pollution Control Facility Sphere of Influence Program" is hereby
approved, adopted, and attached to this Resolution, marked Exhibit A.
5. The Lodi City Council hereby approves, adopts, and incorporates herein
the Mitigation Monitoring Program accompanying the Final EIR.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Lodi City Council hereby authorizes and
directs staff to make application to the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation
Commission to designate the Sphere of Influence discussed in the EIR.
Dated: September 1, 2004
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 2004-181 was passed and adopted by ti
City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held September 1, 2004, by t
following vote: I
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Beckman, Hitchcock, Howard, and
Mayor Hansen
SUSAN J. BI ACKSTON
City Clerk
• • EXHIBiTA
FINDINGS OF FACTAND STATEMENT OF` OVERRIDING CONSIDIERATMS
FOR THE CITY of Low
WHITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITYSPI]ERE OF INFLUENCE PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
This document provides the Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
approval . of the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) Spherv, of Influence Program
(Project), as proposed by the City of Lodi (Lodi) and as described in the Draft EIR (DEIR) and Final
EIR (FEIR) on the Project.
Tire DEIR and FEIR include a detailed description. of the Project, an analysis of its potential
environmental effects, and an analysis of the effects of alternatives to the Project. The Draft EIR was
circulated for public review and comment pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Qu. ality Act (CEQA). Lodi received comments on the DEM and provided responses to comments,
which are contained in the FBIK
2. PROjEcT DEscRiPTION AND OBJECTIVES
Lodi is proposing a 5,280 acre (includes the 1,040 acres of the existing WPCF) Sphere of Influence
around the White Slough WPCF to assure that sufficient area for future construction of land disposal,
storage facilities, and buffer spate are available to serve the long-term future growth under the
existing General Plan of the City of Lodi. The proposed White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence
I
is intended to provide guidance to the San. Joaquin County LAFCO for. individual proposals
involving the City of Lodi and surrounding area special d'istrict's jurisdictional changes.
The proposed White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence program has been designed to meet the
following primary objectives:
Is Assure that sufficient area for future construction of land disposal and storage facilities are
available to serve the long-tenn future growth of the City of Lodi [the City's 1990 General Plan
build out flow is estimated to be approximately 11 .6 million gallons per day (MGD)].
Provide guidance to the San Joaquin County LAFCO 1br individual proposals involving the City
of Lodi and surrounding area special district's jurisdictional Changes.
Encourage efficient provisions of community services acrd prevent duplication of service
delivery.
avoid potential future land use conflicts associated with wastewater treatment facilities.
a
Increase local control and accountability over decisions affecting the community and its future
viability,
TIMM
For purposes of CIFQA and the findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings for Lodi's
decision on the Project approval includes the following. -
The Notice of Preparatioi) (NOP) of the DEIR for the Project-,
Any responses to the NCS';
x Other public notices in conjunction with the Project; ,
a The DEIR for the Project,
WA Any comments submitted by the public, other agencies, or other persons during the public
comment period on the DEIR;
01 The Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project;
H All findings and resolutions adopted by Lodi in connection with the Project;
Any reports, studies, memorwida, maps, and ollwr planning documents relating to the Project
prepared by Lodi, with respect to Lodi's compliance with the requirements of CRQA and
with respect to Lodi's action on. the Project;
Any minutes and/or transcripts of public meetings held by Lodi in connection with the
Prqjcct,-
utters of ccs on knowledge, to Lodi, including, but not limited to federal, state, and local
laws and regulations;
a Any materials described in Public Resources Code section 21167.6(c).
The custodian of the documents is Konradt Bardam, Community Development Director, City of
Lodi,
2
Under CEQA, for each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project,
ihe approving agency is to issue a written finding reaching one or marc of following duce allowable
conclusions, The first allowable finding is that "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lesson the significant effects on the
environment" (Public Resources Code (PRC), §,21081, subd. [a]). The second allowable finding
is that -fflhose changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency" (PRC, § 21081, subd. (b)).
The third allowable conclusion is that "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, te-Omblogical, or other
considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly
trained workers, made infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report" (PRC, § 21091, subd. [c]). CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt
mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to avoid, or substantially reduce significant
environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not
required, however, where they Ae infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project
lies with some other agency (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a), [3]), Public Resources Code
section 21061.1 defines `feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner
wlthin a reasonable, period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and
technological factors." CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations.
(See also Citizens of Goleta Valhcy v Board of Supervisors ["Goleta IT"] [1990]52, Cal.3d 553, 565
[276 Cal. Rptr. 410].).
in cases in which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency, after
adopting the findings, may approve the project if it adopts a statement of overriding considerations
setting forth the reasons why the agency found that the project's benefits are reordered acceptable
despite its unavoidable adverse environmental effects. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043, subd.
[b]). The California Supreme Court has stated that, "[t]he wisdom of approving. -any development
project, a delicate task which requires -a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound
discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The
law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore
balanced," (Goleta 11, 52 CAM SS3, 576 [276 Cal. Rptr. 401].)
This document presents Lodi's findings under CEQA, relies on substantial evidence in the record
in support of each of these findings, and presents an explanation to supply the logical step between
the finding and the facts in the record, (CEQA Guidelines, § 15(391).
5. E FFECTS oF FINDINGS
To the extent that these findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures outlined in the
ETR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded Or withdrawn, Lodi hereby commits to
iniplenwriting these i.neasures. These findings, in other words, are not merely informational, but
rather constitute a set of obligations that will come into effect when Lodi approves the Project.
3
6. MITIGATION MONITORING AND PORTING PROGRAM
A Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for the Project, as provided by Public
Resources Code (PRS"} section 21081,6. Lodi will use the MW to track compliance with adopted
mitigation measures. Lodi will consider the MMP during its certification of the FdP-
7, S3GNIFICANT EFFECTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND FINDINGS
The EIR identified the following significant or potentially significant impacts, For some impacts,
mitigation measures are available to reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. However, other
impacts remain significant and unavoidable. For these impacts, a rationale is provided explaining
why the impact cannot be avoided, and a Statement of Oven�ding Considerations is adopted,
4.1 hand Use/Agrirultural Resources.
OUEEIU=
Buildout of the proposed WPCF Spbere of Influencewould he
inconsistent with some provisions of the City of Lodi General Plan,
the San Joaquin County General Plan, the San Joaquin County Lodi
Community Plan, and provisions of the Cortese-Knox-Heftzberg Act
Significance
Significant
Mitigation Measures
461.1 as Implement conditions of the Son Joaquin County Local Agency
Formation Commission and Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act guidelines
and staDdards. regarding the protection of agricultural lands on future
WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects.
4.1,1b To the extent possible, future reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or
percolation basins shall not be located on lands that are designated as
Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmlands of Local
Significance, and shall avoid converting any Williamson Contract
lands. Future project applicants shall consult with the California
Department of Conservation regarding Williamson Act Contract
termination.
With Mitigation the Effects are found to be:
N significant 0 Not Significant
Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081:
4
0 Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate
or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a])
El Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and have been, or carr and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081,
subd, [b]).
Specific economic, legal, social, techrib,)ogical, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for higMy,trained w6rkers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental
impact report (PRC,'§ 21081, subd. [c]).
R-ationale:
The proposed program would meet City of Lodi General Plan Land Use and Growth
Management policies that require that the City maintain ample buffers between incompatible
land uses. The proposed White Slough 'PCF Sphere of Influence was designed to maximize
the benefits of an appropriate urban -open space interface, thus preserving open space, areas
amidst development and includes a WPCF odor buffer, mosquito buffer, a buffer to protect
sensitive receptors, and a buffer to reduce noxious weed growth. The proposed program
would also include provisions to provide adequate land for development of public uses to
support existing and new residential, commercial, anal ' industrial land uses; and would
provide for the maintenance of an adequate level of semice in the City's sewer collection and
disposal system to meet the needs of existing and projected development (City of Lodi
1991 a). The proposed program is somewhat inconsistent, however, with City of Lodi General
Plan policies to minimize conflicts with adjacent agricultural uses. The proposed sphere
limits are located almost entirely on agricultural land, of which most is designated as Prime
and Unique Farmland (San Joaquin County 2003). Some of the Prime and. Unique Farmlands
included in the proposed Sphere of Influence are currently under the protection of the
Williamson Act (CDFA 2003). It should be noted that most of the existing farmland could
be used for land application of wastewater and would not require a conversion to non-
agrieulLural uses. However, depending on the final method used for wastewater storage and
disposal, agriculturally -designated lands could be required for reuse wetlands, storage ponds,
and/or percolation basins, The CDFA indicated that the conversion of farmlands is
panicularly perdrieW to this prograrn, as the program has the potential to remove a barrier
to further urban growth onto Important farmlands. It should be noted that the proposed
Sphere of Influu-nce Planning Designation would also allow for the retention of row and field
crops and fallow fields and would prevent land conversion of important farmlands to
residential and other urban lands. Consistent with the San. Joaquin County Habitat
Conservation Plan, the CDFA recommended that the use of compensatory and strategically
located agricultural land conservation easements be considered, as well as the provisions
detailed in the San Joaquin County Habitat Conservation Plan (CDFA 2003). Additionally,
the CDFA recommended consultation with the CDC regarding Williamson Act Contract
termination, and the development of appropriate mitigation strategies.
.7753,)5.
The proposed program meets San Joaquin County 6eneral. Plan Managerrient Housing
Element policies, as the proposed Sphqrr, of InfWence was designed to maximize the
benefits of an appropriate urban -open space interface and would include buffers to
compatibly integrate into the neighborhoods it could ultimately serve. The propos6d
program is somev,,haf inconsistent however, with San Joaquin County General Plan
policies to provide for the protection of agricultural 'lands needed for the continuation of
commercial agricultural enterprises, small-scale farming operations, and the preservation
of open -space, recognition of agricultural lands that contain concentrations of small-scale
agricultural operations and dwellings, and to minimize the impact on agriculture in the
transition of agricultural areas to urban development. As previously stated, the proposed
program would be located almost entirely on agricultural land, of which most is
designated as Prime and Unique Farmland. However, most of the existing farmland could
be used for land application of wastewater and would not require a c6hversion to non-
agricultural uses. Under the Community Organization and Development Pattern Growth
Accommodation Element of the General Plan, Objective 3 provides for the minimization
of the effect of growth on agricultural lands and other environmental resources, while
providing far Orderly growth (San Joaquin County 1992a), The proposed program does,
to some extent, minimize effects of growfl) on agricultural land as existing farmland
could be used for land application of wastewater and would not require a conversion to
non-agricultural uses. However, agriculturally-desigriated land could be required for reuse
wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins, which would convert agriculturally -
designated land.
The proposed program is somewhat inconsistent with a portion of the San Joaquin
County Lodi Community Plan as it could impact agricultural lands between Eight Mile
Road in Stockton and Hamey Lane in Lodi (San Joaquin County 1992b) and eliminate a
portion of the open space between these communities that helps to define the, edges of
each City and provides both visual relief wid a sense of identity for each community (San
Joaquin County 1992b). If any of these lands were used for future storage ponds and/or
percolation basins, it would convert agricultural uses and eliminate a portion of the open
space bu.ffer. between Lodi and Stockton.
The proposed program is consistent with most of the policy elements of the Cortese -
Knox -Hertzberg Act and would promote planned, orderly and efficient development as
per Section 56377 of the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act, However, the proposed program
may not guide development away from prime agricultural lands uses if reuse wetlands,
storage ponds, andJor percolation basins were located on lands designated as such.
The proposed prograni is consistent. w%ith San Joaquin County LAFCO criteria and
guidelines.
In summary, the proposed program is inconsistent with some provisions of the City of
Lodi General Plan, tht San )oaquin County General Plan, the San Joaquin County Lodi
Conan unity Plan, and the Cortese-Knox-1-fertzberg Act.
6
LA
E
With no mitigation available beyond following the guidelines and policies of the San
3oaquin County LAFCO, provisions of the Corle-Knox-Flertzberg Act as closely as
possible and implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1.1b, this impact is considered
significant and unavoidable after mitigation.
OUNEU=
4.13 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in potential
land use conflicts with property owners within the proposed Sphere of
Influence limits and could require the acquisition of private lands.
Significance
Potentially Significant
Mitigation Measures
4.13 'Upou Sphere of Influence buildout, provide' appropriate compensation to
property owners as necessary, in compliance with federal and state law,
With Mitigation the Effects are found to be:
Significant a Not Significant
Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081:
W Changes or alterations have been required in., or incorporated into, the project which mitigate
or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a])
Cl Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081,
subd. [b]).
0 Specific econornic, legal, social, Whriological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental
impact report PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]),
4.1.4 Impact
4.1.4 The proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence includes agriculturally -designated
lands, including property under Williamson Act Contracts.
Mitigation Measures
4.1A Imple.ment Mitigation Measures 4,1,1a and 4.1'.1b on future WPC F Sphere of
Influence buildout projects.
With Mitigation the Effects are found to be:
Significant El Not Significant
Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081,
0 Changes oi-alterations have been required in. or incorporated into, the project which mitigate
or avoid ibe significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. (a])
0 Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081,
subd. [b]).
Specific ecoDomic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workors,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental
impact report (PRC, § 2 10 8 1, subd, c]).
&a-fionalq:
........ . .. ...
As discussed under Land Use/Agricultural Resources Impact 4.1.1, the proposed
program area would be almost entirely comprised of agricultural land, of which most
is designated as Prime and Unique Fan-n1and (San Joaquin County 2003). Some of the
Prime mid Unique Fannlands includca in the propose -d Spbere of Infltitnco are
currently under the protection of the Williamson Act (CDFA 2003). As also
previously discussed under Land Use/Agricultural Resources Impact 4.1.1, Sphere, of
Influence buildout would be inconsistent with some of the policies and guidelines of
the City of Lodi GeneraJ Plan, the San Joaquin County General Plan, the San Joaquin
County Lodi Community Plan, and the Cortese-KDox-Hertzberg Act, as it could
potentially include reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins on
agricultural lands.
Based on the City of Lodi General Plan EIR. Chapter 4, the development of
agricultural lands to urban land uses under the General Plan would allow for
conversion ol'approximately 1,550 acres of prime agricultural land. The General Plan
EIR identified that implementation of planned growth Linder the General Plan would
result in a significant and unavoidable impact to agricultural lands (City of Lodi
1990). The San Joaquin County General Plan EIR indicates that about 32,280 acres of
prime farmland would be removed from the C6,unty to accommodate: future
residential and employment growth. Similar to the City of Lodi General Plan,
implementation of planned growth under the County General Plan would also result
in significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural land (San Joaquin COurfty
1992c). Therefore, the conversion of agricultural land associated with future buildout
of the proposed Sphere of Influence would be consistent with growth accommodating
findings of both General Plan documents.
As previously discussed under Land Use/AgriculturRl Resources Impact 4.1.1, the
CDFA indicated that the conversion of farmlands'is particularly pertinent to this
program, as the program has the potential to i-emove a barrier to further urban growth
onto important farmlands (CDFA 2003), It should be noted that the proposed Sphere
of Influence Planning Designation would also allow for the retention of row and field
crops and fallow fields and would prevent land conversion of important farmlands to
residential and other urban lands. This is considered a beneficial impact.
Reconfiguring the proposed Sphere of Influence would not eliminate the future
impact on agriculturally -designated lands, as most of the lands in the vicinity of the
WPCF are agriculturally -designated lands and include pr6perty under Williamson Act
Contracts. This impact to agriculturally -designated lands, including property under
Williamson Act Contract, is considered significant.
Although it is not possible to provide for wastewater storage and disposal facilities for
City of Lodi General Plan buildout flow conditions ' without including agriculturally -
designated lands, this impact is still considered significant and unavoidable after
mitigation.
4.1.5 Impact
4.1.5 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in the
future conversion of agriculturally -designated lands, adding to the loss of
important farmland in San Joaquin County. Loss of production from these
lands could have an adverse effect on the overall agricultural economy.
Mi figation Measures
4.1.5a. Implement Mitigation Measures 4.1.1a and 4.1.1b on future WPCF Sphere of
Influence buildout projects.
4.1.5b Implement the use of Agriculture -Urban Reserve Zones and the use of San
Joaquin County guidelines for the conversion of agricultural land on future
WPCF Sphere of Innuence buildout projects.
11
With Mitigation the Effects are fouDd to be:
0 Significant 0 Not Significant
Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081:
0 Changes or alterations .have been required -i�, oT incorporated into, the project which mitigate
or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd, [a])
0 Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and. have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21091,
subd. [b]).
n Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or •other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of Qmployment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the, mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the emviroDnIental
impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]).
ia-tionale.
As previously described under Land Use/Agricultural Resources Impacts 4. 1. 1 and
4.1.4, buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in the loss of
farmland. The proposed program would be located almost entirely on agricultural
land, of which most is designated as Prime and Unique Farmland (San Joaquin
County 2003), Some of the Prime and Unique Farmlands included in the proposed
Sphere of Influence are currently under the protection of the Williamson Act (CDFA
2003). Most of the existing farmland could be used for land application of wastewater
and would not require a conversion to non-agricultural uses. This is considered a
beneficial impact of the proposed program, However, depending on the final method
used for wastewater Storage and disposal, agriculturally -designated land could be
required for reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins.
Based on the City of Lodi General Plan ETR, Chapter 4, the development of
agricultural lands to urban land uses under the General Plan would allow for
conversion of approximately 1,550 acres of prime agricultural land. The Sat) Joaquin
County General Plan EIR indicates that about 32,280 acres of prime farmland would
be removed from the County to accommodate future residential and employ-ment
growth. Therefore, the conversion of agricultural land associated with future buildout
of the proposed Sphere of Influence would be consistent with growth accommodating
findings of both General Plan documents. However, this conversion would be in
addition to anticipated farmland conversions associated with urban growth of the City
of Lodi, the City of Stockton, and San Joaquin County in general. It should be noted
that the potential future use of percolation basins is rural in nature and does not
preclude sites from being used as farmland in the future. This would be considered a
significant cumulative impact.
10
Under the Corninunity Organization and Deve) - opment Pattern Growth
Accommodation Element of the San Joaquin County General Plan, the minimization
of the effect of growth on agricultural lands and other, environmental resources, while
providing for orderly growth is provided for. Potential cumulative impacts on'
important farniland in the County would be minimized through the use of
Agriculture- Urban Resenv Zones and the use ofguidelines for the conversion of
agricultural land. I
Although it would not be possible to provide for wastewater storage and disposal
facilities for City of Lodi General -Plan buildout flow conditions without including
agr1cWturally-designated lands, this impact is still considered cumulatively
significant and unavoidable after mitigation,
4.2 Ceolo g Soils and S
4.11 Impact
4.2.1 Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF
Sphere of IDfluence on soils with building constraints could Impair the function
of the facilities and/or create hazards.
Significance
Potentially Significant
Mitigation Measures
4.2.1 Prior to final design and construction of facilities associated with buildout of
the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence, the City shall conduct a detailed
soils/geotechnical study. Recommendations from this study shall be
incorporated into the final design and construction for the project according
to accepted engineering practices.
With Mitigation the Effects are found to be:
0 Significant W Not Significant
Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081:
a Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate
or avoid the significant effects on the environment ('RC, § 21081, subd. [a])
0 Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081,
subd, [b]).
0 Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment'opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental
impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [cl).
4.2.2 Impact
4.2.2 Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF
Sphere of Influence could temporarily expose soils to wind and water erosion
within the proposed program area.
Significance
Pot6tially Significant
4.2.2 Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of
Influence shall obtain a Notice of,Inteut and comply with the Central Valley
Regional Water Quality Control Board's General Permit for Storm Water
Discharges associated with Construction Activities.
With Mitigation the Effects are found to be:
0 Significant a Not Significant
Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081:
1k Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate
or avoid the significant effects on the environment. (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a])
0 Tbose changes or alterations are, within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081,
subd. [b]).
0 Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of cniployment opportunities fOT highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental
impact report (PRC, § 21.081, subd. [c]).
4.7 Hxft ol.o =orad Suter JQUAU H-ty--
4.7.2 Impact
4.7,2 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of
Influence could result in flooding impacts.
12
"7=395 1
Significance
Potentially Significant
Mitigation Measures
4.7.2 Potential future NVPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of
Influence shall obtain all necessary approvals from the Central Valley Rigional
Water Quality Control Board and the issued Waste Discharge Requirements,
the Army Corps of Engineers., Federal Emergency Management Agency, and
San Joaquin County regarding flooding impacts.
With'1\4itigation the Effects are found to be:
0 significant a Not Significant
.Fin . ding(s) per -Public Resources Code, Section 2108 J;
in Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate,
or avoid the significant effects on the environment. (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a])
0 Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another Public
agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081,
subd. [b]).
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the crivirownental
impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]),
4.7.3 Impact
4.7.3 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of
Influence could result in impacts to groundwater.
Significauce
Potentially Significant
Mitigation Measures
4.7.3a Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of
Influence shall be located such that potential groundwater impacts are
avoided to the extent possible.
13
----- -----
4.7.31 The City shall comply with the 6ntral Valley Regional Water Quality Control
Boards anti -degradation policy with respect to groundwater. Such
requirements may include deli go criteria to maintain separation of wetland and
storage pond bottoms from groundwater, testing of wastewater prior to land
application to ensure that regulatory standards for reclaimed water are met,
monitoring wells, and/or a groundwater monitoring program..
With Mitigation the Effects are found to be:
0 Significant 91 Not Sipificant
Finding(s) per Piibli� Resources Code, Section, 21081:
a Changes or Aerations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate
or avoid the significant erfects on the environment (PRC, § 21091, subd. [a])
0 Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081,
subd. [b]).
0 Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment oppprtunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible -the mitigation measures, or altematfves identified in the environmental
impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [r]).
OWEN=
4,7,4 ConstruMon of facilities associated with b ' uildout of the proposed SCF Sphere
of Influence could result in impacts to surface water quality.
Significance
Potentially Sigilific=t
Mitigation Measures
4.7.4 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.2.2 on future WPCF Sphere of Influence
buildout projects.
With Mitigation the Effects are found to be:
0 Significant N Not Significant
Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Smuoil 21081:
14
a Changes Or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate
or avoid the significant effects on the environment'(P.RC, § 21081, sub& ta])
0 Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PSC, § 21081,
subd. [b]).
0 Specific economic, legal, social, technological,' or other considerations, including
Considerations for the Provision of emp)o'yment opportunities for highly trained workers,
,make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental
impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]).
4.7.5 Impact
4.7.5 From a regional standpoint, cumulative development in the City of Lodi and
San Joaquin County could expose people and structures to hazards
associated with local and regional flooding.
Significance
Potentially Significant
Mitigation Measures
4.7.5 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.7.2 on future' PCF Sphere of Influence
buildout projects.
With Mitigation the Effects are found to be:
0 Significant M Not Significant
Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Sec -tion 21081,
IN Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate
or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a])
0 Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
a,gency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081,
subd. [b]).
0 Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental
unpact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]),
4.7.6 Impact
4.7,6 From a regional perspective, cumulative development in the City of Lodi, the
City of Stockton, and San Joaquin County could increase the potential for
surface and groundwater degradation.
significance
Potentially Significant
Mitigation Measures
4.7.6a Potential future 'PCF projects that occur witbin the proposed Sphere of
Influence shall obtain all necessary Waste Discharge Requirements from the
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.
4-7-6b Implement Mitigation Measures 4.73a and 4.7.3b on future WPCF Sphere of
Influence buildout projects.
With Mitigation the Effects are found to be:
0 Significant N Not Significant
Fin . ding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081
a Cbanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigatc
or avoid the significant effects on the, environment (PRC, § 2108 1, subd. tal)
0 Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081,
sued, [b]).
0 Specific econornic, legal., social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of emplo)qnent opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or altematives identified in the envirown. ental
in pact report (PRC, § 21081, subd, [c]).
4.8 -Air uAV,
4,8.2 Impact
4.8.2 Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere
of Influence could generate short-term emissions from construction activities.
Significance
Significant
Mitigation Measures
4.8.2a Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of
influence shall coordinate with the San Joaquin Valley Unifled Air Pollution
Control District (SJVUAPCD) regarding the Authority to Construct and a
Permit to Operate.
4o&2b Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of
Influence shall be required to reduce particulate emissions by complying
with the SJVUAPCD's District Regulation V111 (Fugitive Dust Prohibitions),
including implementation of control strategies detailed under Rule 8.020
(Construction, Demolition, Excavation & Extraction Activities), 8030
(Handling and Storage of Bulk Materials), and 8060 (Paved and Unpaved
Roads. 4
4X2c Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of
Influence shall properly maintain equipment to reduce NOx levels.
With Mitigation the Effects are found to be:
0 Significant 0 Not Significant
Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 210$1:
9 Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate
or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd, [a])
13 Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and have been, or can and. should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081,
SUM, [b)).
0 Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental
impact report (PRC, 21081, subd. [c]),
4.83 Impact
4.8.3 Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF
Sphere of Influence could generate objectionable odors in the program
Vicinity.
17
,75395
significance
Potmtially Significant
Mitigation Measures
4.8.3 Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of
Influence shall include an odor buffer of approximately 500 feet to protect
development in the proximity of -the White Slough WPCF from odor in�apacts.
With Mitigation the Effects are found to be:
0 significant R Not Significant
Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081:
a
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the projmt which mitigate
or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a])
I
0 Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081,
subd. [b)),
0 Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the initigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental
impact. report. (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c)).
4,8.4 1 nip act
4X4 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence would accommodate
increased growth associated with the buildout of the City of Lodi General
Plan, resulting in increased urban development and a continuing pattern of
urbanization in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The overall cumulative
effect of new development tbrougbout (be air basin would slow the rate of
improvement aud/or require enactment of more stringent control measures
throughout the basins.
Significance
Significant
Mitigation Measure's
4.8.4 Implement the City of Lodi General Plan air quality policies, the San
Joaquin Valle), Elided Air Pollution Control policies, the 1994 Ozone
18
7?5393,1
11
11
Attainment Demonstration Plan qndkmended 2002 and 2005.Rate of
Progress Plan, and the California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report
and Plan on future WPC F Sphere of Influence buildout projects.
With Mitigation the Effects are found to be:
0 sIgnificant. M - Not SignificAnt
Fffiding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081 -
X Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate
or avoid the significant effects on -the environmew (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a])
0 Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC,, § 21081,
subd. [b]). f
0 Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental
impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd, [c]).
4.9 Hazardous Mateiials/flealfl-'
ME=
4,9.3 The potential future land application of wastewater within the proposed
WPCF Sphere of Influence limits could involve the growing of crops that are
irrigated with treated wastewater, which creates a concern that the public
could be exposed to health threats associated with the treated effluent.
Significance
Potentially Significant
Mitigation Measures
4.9.3 Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of
Influence shall obtain all neeessai7y approvals from the Department of Health
Services and The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, in
accordance with Section 60323 of the Water Recycling Criteria, Article 7,
Chapter 3, Division 4, Title .2.2, California Code of Regulations.
WithMitigationthe Effects are found to be:
11 Significant
775395 1
Not Significant
19
Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate
or avoid the s.ignifi€:arrt effects on the envirortment (PRC, § 21081, subd, [a)j
0 Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility arta jurisdiction of another public
agency and have been, or can arta should be, adopt&d by the other agency (PRC, § .2108 1,
subd. [b]).
I Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for t o provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental
impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. c]).
4.9.4 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of
lu uence could expose pro r°arn area residents to discornfoM nuisances, and
potential adverse health-related effects by exposing therm to mosquitoes,
which can carry serious bun -tan illnesses.
i htrica ce
Potentially Significant
4.9.4 Potential fuWre WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of
lu luence small include a buffer zone around mosquito -breeding habitat to
address health-related effects associated with mosquitroes,
With Mitigation the Effects are found to be:
0 Significant 0 Not Significant
Finding(s) per Nblic Resources Code, Section 21081:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate
or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. a])
D Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PR.C, § 21081,
subd. [b]).
20
® Specific economic, legal, social, technolo&al, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for hiihly trained workers,
make infeasible the relitigation measures or altdrnatives identified in the environmental
impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [pl)..
4.9.5 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of ,
influence could interfere with designated aircraft flight patterns at the
Kingdon Drag Strip and the Lodi Air Parr as a result of migratory birds,
Significance
Potentially Significant
Mitigation Measures
4,9.5 Potential future WPCF projects that otcur,within the proposed Sphere of
Influence Miall include a separiati6n distance between airport facilities and
.any open water that provides habitat for migratory birds.
With Mitigation the Effects are found to be;
0 Significant 0 Not Significant
Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate
or avoid the significant effects an the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a])
® Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and have been, or can and should be, adapted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081,
subd. [b]).
❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, ar other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
mare infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental
impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]).
4.1.0 Biolo ical Resources.
4.10.5 Impact
4.10.5 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence
could result in the loss of wetlands.
21
Significance
Potentially Significant
Mitigation Measures
4A0.5a As a condition of issuance of a grading permit associated with
potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed
Sphere of Influence, the City of Lodi shall require avoidance of
sensitive biological resources, including wetlands and "waters of the
U.S." (see Figure 4.14-1). If full avoidance of sensitive resources is not
possible, the City of Lodi shall design the project to minitnize impacts
on sensitive biological resources.
4.1.0,5b For poteiffial future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed
Sphere of Influence that result in unavoidable impacts to wetlands
and "waters of the U&,F' the City of Lodi shall obtain and comply
with the following permits prior to issuance of the grading permit: a
Section 401 water quality certification or waiver from the Central
Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board; a Section 404 wetland
permit from the Army Corps of Engineers; and a Section 1601
Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of
Fish and Game.
The above permits are likely to contain stipulations that require the
City to complete some or all of the following;
Minimization of impacts to sensitive biological resources;
Construction -related avoidance and protection of onsite sensitive
biological resources (i.e. construction worker training, installation
of protective signage and fencing, onsite monitoring, designation
of construction sites and access roads near scusiflye resources);
On- or offsite compeasation for unavoidable impacts to sensitive
biological resources. Typical compensatory mitigation
requirements would include two to three acres of preserved and
restored habitats for each acre of impacted habitat. There is a
fortuitous compatibility of onsite habitat preservation and
restoration opportunities associated with the CDFG preserve area.
lit addition, the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG,
Inc.) is implementing a Habitat and Open Space Conservation
Program that could complete offsite habitat restoration and
preservation on behalf of the City of Lodi,
22
77t395. 1
Final compensator), mitigation requirements for future WPCF project
associated with proposed Sphere of Influence buildout would be
developed as conditions of the permits referred to above. In the event
of unavoidable impacts on sensitive biological resources, the City of
Lodi shall contact the individual regulatory agencies for more details
regarding final compensatory mitigation requirements for the project.
The City shall comply with stipulations included in permits required
for the proposed project. I
With Mitigation the Effects are found to be:
0 Significant 0 Not Significant
Fin.ding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081:
0 Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the projtct which mitigate
or avoid the sipifficant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21.081, subd. [a])
0 Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21.081,
subd. [b]).
0 Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of en-iployment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental
impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c)).
OMEEM
4,10,6 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of
Influence could reduce or eliminate special -status plant or wildlife species.
Significance
Potentially Significant
Mitigation Measures
4.10.6a I'he City of Lodi shall complete detailed special -status species surveys
of facility, expansion sites, once these sites -under proposed Sphere of
lulluence buildout are determined. Where special -status species are
found to be present, the City shall avoid the species and their habitats
through re -design to the extent feasible. Where full avoidance of a
special -status species and its habitat is not possible, the City of Lodi
shall redesign The project to minimize impacts.
23
77531)5.1
4,10,6b For unavoidable impacts to listed special -status species associated
with future WPCF projects tbai occur within the proposed Sphere of
Influence, the City of Lodi shall obtain and comply with the following
permits prior to issuance of the grading permit.- an Incidental Take
permit from the California Department of Fish and Game for impacts
to state listed species; and a Section 7 or 10 biological opinion or
incidental take permit fro ' rn the United Stated Fish and Wildlife
Service for impacts to federally listed species or their habitats.
The ' above permits are likely to contain stipulations that require the
City to complete some or all of the following:
* Minimization of impacts to special -status plant and wildlife
specils;
* Construction,related avoidance and protection of onsite s special -
status plant and wildlife species (i.e. construction worker training,
rL,strictions on the timing and duration of construction activities,
installation of protective signage and fencing, onsite monitoring,
designation of construction sites and access roads near sensitive
resources);
* On- or offsite compensation for unavoidable impacts to special -
status plant and wildlife species., Typical compensatory mitigation
requirements would require the City to passively or actively
relocate some species, create or enhance habitat for the species, or
preserve and restore on -or of habitat for the species. There is
a fortuitous compatibility of onsite special -status species
preservation and restoration opportunities associated with the
California Department of Fish and Game preserve area. In
addition, the San Joaquin Council of Governments, Inc. is
implementing a Habitat and Open Space Conservation Program
that could conduct offsite special -status species habitat restoration
and preservation on behalf of the City of Lodi.
-Final compensatory mitigation requirements for future WPCF project
associated with proposed Sphere of Influence buildout would be
developed as conditions of the permits referred to above. In the event
of unavoidable impacts on special -status species, the City of Lodi shall
contact the individual regulatory agencies for more details regarding
final compensatory mitigation requirements for the project.
For unavoidable impacts to non -listed special -status species, the City
of Lodi shall consult with the appropriate resource agency (i.e., CDFG
or USFWS) concerning recommended mitigation to compensate for
species impacts. Mitigation may include restrictions on the timing
24
775395 1
and duration of construction activities, onsite monitoring, the
implementation of.constructioB best management practices, etc.
With Mitigation the Effects ate found to be:
0 Significant 9 Not Significant
Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081,
a Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate
or avoid the significant effects on the,environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a))
El Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another, public
agency and have been, or can and should be, adoptedby the other agency (PRC, § 2108 1,
subd, [b]).
0 Specific. economic, legal, socia), lecbnological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures of alternatives identified in the environmental
in-ipact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]).
4.10.7 Impact
4.10.7 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of
Influence could disturb nesting raptors and other migratory birds.
Umm=
Potentially Significant
Mitigation Measures
4.10.7a The City of Lodi shall require nesting bird surveys of facility
expansion sites, once these sites are determined under future Sphere
of Influence buildout projects. Where bird nests are found to be
present, the City shall require the contractor to conduct construction
activities outside the bird nesting season (typically January 15
through August 15 of each year).
4.10.7b if construction activides cannot be completed within the specified
non -breeding season of August 16'b to January 14'h of each year, the
City of Lodi shall contact The California Department of Fish and
Game to develop measures to avoid or minimize disturbance to the
nests. The California Department of Fish and Game may also require
the City to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding or
M
Management Agreement o reduce and potentially 911set Impacts to
nesting raptors.
At a minimum the City -shall conduct the following when nesting -
raptors are in close proximity to a future Sphere ofInfluence buildout
project site:
• Conduct a nesting raptor survey to identify active raptor -nests.
• Establish a buffer area around active raptor nests (typically 1/4
mile, but ran be reduced through negotiations with CDFG);
• Prohibit contractor from conducting work within the buffer area
until young in nest are fledged.
• Allow contractor to remove tree in its entirety only after young
have fledged (as verified by CDFG and/or a qualified biologist).
• Restore lost native trees by requiring onsite re -planting of the
same species at a minimum ratio of three seedlings for each nest
tree eliminated.
With Mitigation the Effects are found to be:
0 Significant It Not Significant
Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081;
n Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate
or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a])
0 Those changes or aitt-rations are within the, responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081,
subd. [b]).
0 Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental
impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd, [c]).
Impact 4.10.8
4.10.8 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of
Influence could eliminate or degrade riparian habitats or native trees.
signifleance
'Potentially Significant
Mitigation Measures
26
-7-S3145.i
4.f 0. To offset the incremental effect of loss of native trees and loss"or degradation
of riparian woodland habitat associated with future projects under proposed
Sphere of Influence buildout, the City of Lodi shall conduct a tree survey to
identity locations of native trees near planned facilities and shall cond , uct
some or all of the followiuga
Avoid impacts to native trees -
Where avoidance is not possible, minimize habitat fragmentation and
individual tree loss through a combination,of project design and
construction -related avoidance of native trees. Construction -related
avoidance and protection of trees would include the installation of
protective signage and fencing to designate construction sites and access
roads near nativib trfts to be retained;
Conduct onsite compensatory plantings of native trees to offset the loss of
native trees and riparian habitats. Typical compensatory mitigation
requirements would include planting a minimum of three trees of the
same species as that eliminated. Riparian plantings shall be made
adjacent to existing riparian habitats to establish larger riparian habitat
area& There is a fortuitous compatibility of onsite habitat preservation
and restoration opportunities associated with the California Department
of Fish and Game preserve area. The City of Lodi shall contact the
California Department of Fish and Game for recommendations for final
native tree compensation approaches.
With Mitigation The Effects are found to be:
0 Significant M Not Significant
Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 2.1081:
8 Changes or altcrafions have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate
or avoid the significant effects on, the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. (a])
Cl Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 2 108 1,
subd. (b]).
Cl Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental
impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd, [c]),
4.11 K:ulturyl _Rcsources.
27
4,11.1 Buildout of the proposed W.PCF Sphere of Influence could impact standing
structures with potential bi,storical significance.
Significance
Potentially Significant
Mitigation Measures
.11x1 Sita -specific archival research and architectural field surveys would be
required prig to undertaking any future profi is within the 'PCS` Sphere
of Inhuence that could impact the potential historical significance of standing
structures within the program area.
With Mitigation the Effects are found to be:
C7 Significant Not Significant
Finding(s) Per Public Resources Code, Section 21081:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate
or avoid the sigraifie t effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a))
Cl Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and have been, or can and should be, adapted by the ether agency (PICC, § 21081,
subd. b).
0 Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or ether considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employrnerrt opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental
in-tpact report (PRC, § 210819 subd. (c]).
4.11.2 Impact
4.11.2 Ground-distur birr.g actions associated with future huildout of the proposed
WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in the accidental destruction of
previously undiscovered archaeological or historical resources, or could result
in the uncovering of Native American human remains.
Significance
Potentially ,Significant
Mitigation :measures
28
""395.
4A 1.2a Site-specific archival research, archaeological surveys, and
couNultation with the Native American Heritage Commission and
designated Native American representatives shall be required prior to
undertaking any ground disturbing projects within the Sphere of
Influence in the future.
4.11.2b Contractors and construction personnel involved in any form of
ground disturbance (i.e., trenching, grading, etc.) sbalt be advised of
the possibility of encountering subsurface cultural resources or
human
an remains. If such resources are encountered or suspected,
work within 100 feet of the dis6very shall be baited immediately and
the City of Lodi Community Development Department shall be
notified, In accordance with CCR Section 15064 (f) and PRC Section
21083.2(1?, a qualified professional arebacologist shall be consulted.
wbo shall assess any discoveries and develop appropriate management
recommendations for treatment of the resource.
4J 1.2c If bone is encountered and appears to be human, California Law requires
that potentially destructive construction work is halted and the Son
Joaquin County Coroner is contacteda If the Coroner determines the
barman remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must contact
the Native American Heritage Commission. The Native American
Heritage Commission will attempt to identify the most likely
descendant(s), and recommendations will be developed for the proper
treatment and disposition of the remains in accordance with CCR
Section 15064.5(e) and PRC Section 5097.98. A note to this effect shall
be included on all construction plans and specirications.
With Mitigation the Effects are found to be:
El Si if Not Significant
icant 0
Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081:
0 Changes or alterations have be required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate
or avoid the significant effects on the enviroment (PRC, § 21081, subd, [a])
El Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and Jurisdiction of another public
agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081,
subd. [b]),
0 Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
29
?75;45.1
make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental
impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]).
8. fncT ALTERNATIVES
Because the project will potentially cause significant environrnental effects, as outlined above, Lodi
Considers the feasibility of any environmentally superior alternatives to the Project, as proposed,
Pur . suant to CEQA Guideline section 15126.6(e), Lodi is to' consider among the alternatives to the
Project a "No Project" alternative. Lodi evaluates whether one or more of these alternatives could
avoid or substantially lessen the project's unavoidable significant environmental effects. (Citizens
foo- . Quality Growxh v, City of Mount Shasto [ 1988]198 Cal.App.3d 433, 443-445 [243 Cal.Rptr.
7271; see also Public Resources Code, § 21001),
The Elft examines the following two alternatives to the proposed project to determine whether these
alternatives could meet the project's objectives, while avoiding or substantially lessening its
significant impacts.
• Alternative l: Reduced Acreage Alternative (4,240 Acres).
• Alternative 2: No Project Alternative.
&I Reduced Acreage Alternative (4,240 Acres)
The Reduced Acreage Alternative was developed in response to the California Department of Food
and Agriculture (CDFA) letter on the proposed program NOP requesting that a reduced acreage
Atomative be developed to address future, potential impacts on agricultural lands (See Appendix A
to DEIR, CDFA letter)(CDFA 2003). The Reduced Acreage Altdrnative of 4,240 acres would allow
for all of the wastewater storage and disposal methods described under the three Land Disposal and
Storage Options, however this alternative would not include any land buffer areas. Acreage is
included in the Reduced Acreage Alternative such that property lines would not be split.
Chapter 5 of the DER provides a discussion of the Reduced Acreage Alternative, which discussion
Is incorporated herein by reference. As discussed in Chapter 5, the Reduced Acreage Alternative
would result in similar impacts under buildout as the proposed Sphere of Influence, program. The
Reduced Acreage Alternative would however eliminate the surrounding agricultural land buffers,
wbich could potentially result in the loss of more farmland, including Prime and Unique Farmlands
and lands currently under the protection of the Williamson Act, than the proposed program. The
agricultural buffers proposed under the, proposed program would ensure that existing f"and would
be retained in farmland. This would not occur under the Reduced Acreage Alternative. The
Reduced Acreage Alternative would also result in greater land use impacts, air quality impacts, and
health risks than the proposed program, as it would not include the urban -open space interface
including an odor buffer, a mosquito buffer, protection of sensitive receptors, and a reduction in
noxious weed growth. The Reduced Acreage Altemative would also not result in as much beneficial
habitat retention for common wildlife species and special -status species as the proposed program.
For these reasons, and those further discussed in the EIR, the Reduced Acreage Alternative is
rejected,
30
??5395.1
8.2 No Project Alternative
Consideration of the No Project Alternative is required by Section 15126.6(c) of the CEQA
Guidelines, The purpose of evaluating this alternative is to determine the impacts that could occur
withow implementation of the proposed program_
Underthe No Project Alternative., sufficient area for future construction of land disposal and.storage
areas to serve the lorig-term future growth of the City of Lodi (the buildout flow is estimated to be
approximately 11,6 MGD per the 1.990 City of Lodi General Plan) would not be provided for within
a Sphere of Influence. It should be rated, however, that additional lands may still be needed f6r
future land disposal and storage areas if Sphere of Influence lands were not made available. Under
the No Project Alternative, the San Joaquin County LAFCO could lack guidance for individual
proposals involving the City of Lodi and surrounding, area special district's jurisdictional changes.
The potential for future land use conflicts associated with wastewater facilities could also occur if
the WPCF Sphere of Influence inot created.
Chapter 5 of the DEER provides a discussion of the No Prqjw Alternative, which discussion is
incorporated herein by reference. As discussed in Chapter 5, under the No Project Alternative, a
Sphere of Influence would not be created for future wastewater land disposal and storage needs,
however lands may still be required for future land disposal and storage needs under the City of Lodi
General Plan buildout. The No Project Alternative would not include the surrounding agricultural
land buffers, as proposed under the proposed program, which could potentially result in the lass of
more farmland than the proposed program. The No Project Alternative could also result in a greater
impact to wastewater services due to inadequate land disposal area to ultimately serve future growth
discussed in the City of Lodi General Plan. The No Project Alternative would not assist in
considering making lands available to comply with future Water Discharge Requirements issued by
the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and would fail to develop a coordinated
approach to planning for the future infrastructure needed to adequately store and dispose of
wastewater In the City of Lodi. The No Project Alternative would result in greater land use impacts,
public service and utility impacts, hydrology and water quality impacts, air quality impacts, and
health risks over the proposed program. As the No Project Alternative would not create a Sphere
of Influence planning designation and would not eliminate the possibility of land conversion to
residential and other uses within the planning area, the beneficial impact on biological resources
cannot be considered. Additionally, the No Project Alternative fails to specifically meet the
identified program objectives. For these reasons, and those further discussed in the ETR, the No
Project Alternative is rejected.
9. STATEMENT Of OVFRRII)ING CONSIDERATIONS
When a project results in significant unavoidable adverse environmental effects, CEQA. provides that
the, decision making body of the lead agency is to balance the benefits of the project against its
unavoidable adverse effects in determining whether to approve The project. If the agency finds that
the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse
effects matin be considered acceptable. CEQA provides that the lead agency state in writing the
31
7?531)5,1
reasons supporting the Project approval, despite its impacts, by way of a statement of Overriding
considerations. (See PRC § 21081(b); CEQA Guide -line §'1.5093).
The.Proposed Project would have the following significant unavoidable impact:
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
4.1.1 lRuildout of the proposed "AIPCF Sphere of Influence would be inconsistent with
some provisions of the City. of Lodi General Plan, the Son Joaquin County
General Plan, the San Joaquin County Lodi Community Plan, and provisions
of the Cortese-Knox-HeMberg Act,
4.1.4 The proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence includes agriculturally -designated
lands, including property under Williamson Act Contracts.
43.5 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in the future
conversion of agriculturally -designated lands, adding to the loss of important
farmland in San Joaquin County. Loss of production from these lands could
have an adverse effect on the overall agricultural economy.
Lodi has determined that, even with mitigation, these impact remains signYticant and unavoidable.
Additionally Lodi has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project. Based on this
examination, Lodi bas determined that none of these alternatives satisfies the following three, criteria -
(1) clearly meets project objectives, (2) is clearly environmentally preferable to the Proposed Project,
and (3) is economically feasible.
As a result, to approve the Project, Lodi is to adopt this Statement of Overriding Considerations
pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines sections 15043 and
15093, The Statement of Overriding Considerations allows a lead agency to cite a project's general
economic, social, or other benefits as a justification for choosing to allow the occurrence of specified
significant environmental effects that have not been at least substantially mitigated. The statement
explains why, in the agency's Judgment, the project's benefits outweigh its unavoidable significant
effect.
Lodi finds that the Project would have the following benefits-,
ip Assure that sufficient area for future construction of laud disposal and storage facilities are
available to serve the long -teed future growth of the City of Lodi [the City's 1990 General Plan
build out flwA, is estimated to be approximately 11,6 million gallons per day (MGD)I.
It Provide guidance to the San Joaquin County LAFCO for individual proposals involving the City
of Lodi and surrounding area special district's jurisdictional changes.
32
J75395,1
Encouraefficient provisions of community services and prevent duplication of service
ge
delivery.
Avoid potential fware land use conflicts,associated with wastewater treatment facilities.
'Increase local control and accountability over decisions affecting the community and its future
viability.
Facilities associated with buildout Of the Proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence would likely
increase habitat quality for common wildlife species, (See DETR Chapter 4, Impact 4.10.2).
The proposed ATCF Sphere of Influence Planning Ddsignation would result in habitat protection
for special -status species, (See DEIR Chapter 4, Impact 4,10.4).
Lodi finds that the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts are acceptable in light of the
benefits of the Project, that the benefits of the Project outweigh and override the significant and
unavoidable impacts of the Project, and Lodi hereby adopts d makes this Statement of
overriding Considerations.
M INDEPENDENT RyviEW AND ANALYSIS
Under CEQA, the lead agency must circulate draft documents, independently review and consider
the EIR, and as par( of the certification of an EIR, find that The EIR reflects the, independent
judgment of the lead agency.
Lodi circulated the DEIR, responded to comments to the DEIR, independently reviewed and
considered the EIR, and deten-nined that the EIR reflects its independent judgment.
33
77�39�' 1