HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - No. 2008-238RESOLUTION NO. 2008-238
A RESOLUTIONOF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING
THE FINAL REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(EIR-03-01) RELATING TO THE LODI SHOPPING CENTER
PROJECT; STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2003042113
WHEREAS, an application was filed by Browman Development Company for a commercial
shopping center at 2640 W. Kettleman Lane more particularly described as
Assessor's Parcel numbers 058-030-08 and 058-030-02, and a portion of 058-
030-09; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director made a determination that the project may
have a potentially significant impact on the environment and ordered the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and
WHEREAS, the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Draft EIR was prepared and distributed to
reviewing agencies on April 14, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was released for circulation on
August 5,2004; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi, after ten (10) days published notice
held a study session and public hearing on September 9, 2004. Public comments
on the DEIR were taken at this hearing; and
WHEREAS. a Final EIR (FEIR) responding to all public comments on the DEIR submitted prior
to the expiration of the comment period was prepared and released to the public
and commenting agencies on November 22,2004; and
WHEREAS, on December 8, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi, after ten (10)
days published notice held a public hearing before said Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi reviewed and certified the Final
Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project; and
WHEREAS, that certification and approval was appealed to the Lodi City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Lodi City Council, on appeal, reviewed and certified the FEIR prepared for the
project (Resolution No. 2005-26, February 3, 2005); and
WHEREAS, the Lodi City Council rescinded the certification of the FEIR and approval of the
project on May 3, 2006, pursuant to Superior Court Order of December 19, 2005,
which order directed revisions to be made to the EIR; and
WHEREAS. in response to the Court Order, the City prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP)
for the Revisions to the Environmental Impact Report (REIR) and distributed it to
reviewing agencies on September 25, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Revisions to the Environmental Impact Report (DREIR) was released
and circulated on October 17, 2007, for public comment and review; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi, after ten (10) days published notice
held a study session and public hearing on November 14, 2007. Public
comments on the DREIR were received at this hearing; and
WHEREAS, a Final Revisions to the EIR (FREIR), which includes the DREIR, as revised, and
responses to all public comments on the DREIR submitted prior to the expiration
of the comment period was prepared and released to the public and commenting
agencies on August 26, 2008; and
WHEREAS, on October 8, 2008 the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi held a hearing on
the adequacy of the FREIR, and the Planning Commission declined to certify the
FREIR; and
WHEREAS, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Browman Development Company have each filed
timely appeals of the Planning Commission's denial of the FREIR to the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that, in connection with
the approval of a project for which an EIR has been prepared which identifies one
or more significant effects, the decision-making agency make certain findings
regarding those effects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED, as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
2. THAT THE CITY COUNCIL hereby finds that full and fair public hearings have been held on
the FREIR and the City Council having considered all comments received thereon, said
FREIR is hereby determined to be adequate and complete; and said FREER is hereby
incorporated herein by reference.
3. THAT THE CITY COUNCIL hereby determines, in connection with the proposed project
identified in the FREIR, which includes a Use Permit and Tentative Map for the Lodi
Shopping Center, that the Final Revisions to the Environmental Impact Report (FREIR) has
been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
state and local environmental guidelines and regulations, that it has independently reviewed
and analyzed the information contained therein, including the written comments received
during the Draft REIR review period and the oral comments received at the public hearings,
and that the Final REIR represents the independent judgment of the City of Lodi as Lead
Agency for the project.
4. THAT THE CITY COUNCIL does hereby find and recognize that the Final REIR contains
additions, clarifications, modifications and other information in its responses to comments on
the DREIR and also incorporates text changes to the Draft REIR based on information
obtained from the City since the Draft REIR was issued. The City Council does hereby find
and determine that such changes and additional information are not significant new
information as that term is defined under the provisions of the CEQA because such changes
and additional information do not indicate that any new significant environmental impacts not
2
already evaluated would result from the project and they do not reflect any substantial
increase in the severity of any environmental impact; no feasible mitigation measures
considerably different from those previously analyzed in the DREIR have been proposed
that would either lessen a significant environmental impact of the project or result in a new,
substantial environmental impact; no feasible alternatives considerably different from those
analyzed in the DREIR have been proposed that would lessen the significant environmental
impacts of the project; and the DREIR was adequate. Accordingly, the City Council hereby
finds and determines that recirculation of the Final REIR for further public review and
comment is not warranted. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5).
5. THAT THE CITY COUNCIL does hereby make the following findings with respect to the
significant effects on the environment resulting from the project, as identified in the
hereinbefore mentioned Final REIR, with the stipulation that (i) all information in these
findings is intended as a summary of the full administrative record supporting the Final
REIR, which full administrative record is available for review through the Director of
Community Development at his office in City Hall at 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, 95241, and
(ii) any mitigation measures and/or alternatives that were suggested by the commentators
on the Draft REIR and were not adopted as part of the Final REIR are hereby expressly
rejected for the reasons stated in the responses to comments set forth in the Final REIR and
elsewhere in the record.
I. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
A. LOSS OF PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND
1. Impact: The project would convert approximately 40 acres of prime agricultural land to
urban uses. While the severity of this impact can be reduced somewhat, no mitigation
is available which would reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level except an
outright prohibition of all development on prime agricultural lands. (Significant and
Unavoidable Impact)
2. Mitigation: The applicant shall obtain a permanent Agricultural Conservation Easement
over 40 acres of prime farmland (1:1 mitigation ratio). The agricultural conservation
easement shall consist of a single parcel of land of at least 40 acres. This easement
shall be located in San Joaquin County (excluding the Delta Primary Zone as currently
defined by State law). The easement shall be in current agricultural use; if it is not in
current agricultural use, the easement shall be required to be put into agricultural
production as a result of the conservation easement transaction. The lands subject to
the easement shall be placed under permanent restrictions on land use to ensure its
continued agricultural production capacity by limiting non -faun development and other
uses that are inconsistent with commercial agriculture. The easement shall be held by
the City or a qualified entity (i.e., land trust) approved by the City. The applicant shall
pay a fee (in an amount to be determined by the City) for purposes of establishing an
endowment to provide for adequate administration, monitoring, and maintenance of
the easement in perpetuity.
3. Finding: The acquisition of an off-site agricultural conservation easement would
provide partial mitigation for the loss of prime farmland resulting form the project, but
it would not reduce the impact to a less -than -significant level. There are no feasible
mitigation measures available that would avoid the significant loss of agricultural land
if the project is implemented. Specific economic, legal, social., technological or other
considerations make mitigation of this impact infeasible. In particular, mitigation is
infeasible because it is not possible to re-create prime farmland on other lands that
do not consist of prime agricultural soils. This impact, therefore, remains significant
and unavoidable.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact is
significant and unavoidable.
As discussed in the Draft REIR and Final REIR, there are no feasible alternatives or
mitigation measures that would reduce the impact of loss of prime agricultural land
resulting from the project to a less -than -significant level. The project's significant and
unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources could be avoided by denying the
project or lessened by requiring a substantially reduced project, which would prevent
the conversion of all or a major portion of the site to urban uses. However, this
action would not meet the fundamental objective of the applicant or the City of Lodi
of developing the site for a commercial retail shopping plaza in conformance with the
General Plan and zoning designations applicable to the site. In addition, denial of
the project would not constitute a "feasible mitigation," and therefore would not be
required under Section 15126.4 of the state CEQA Guidelines.
Although project -specific impacts to prime farmland cannot be feasibly mitigated to
less -than -significant levels, the City has minimized and substantially lessened the
significant effects of the proposed project on prime agricultural land through the
requirement that an off-site agricultural conservation easement be acquired by the
project applicant. The City has also generally minimized the significant effects of
development on prime agricultural land through the policies of its adopted General
Plan. A principal purpose of the City's General Plan regulatory scheme is to
minimize the impact on prime agricultural land resulting from the City's urban
expansion. The City of Lodi is recognized for its compact growth pattern and clearly
defined urban boundaries, its emphasis on infill development, and its deliberate and
considered approach to urban expansion to accommodate housing and other long-
term development needs. These guiding principles serve to minimize and forestall
conversion of agricultural lands within the City's growth boundaries.
The General Plan policies related to agricultural preservation and protection are
intended, and have been successful, in maintaining the productivity of prime
agricultural land surrounding the City by controlling urban expansion in a manner
which has the least impact on prime agricultural lands. In addition to maintaining
compact and defined urban growth boundaries, agricultural preservation and
protection is primarily accomplished through the City's Growth Management Plan for
Residential Development, which limits housing development to a growth rate of two
percent per year, and which gives priority to proposed residential developments with
the least impact on agricultural land, in accordance with General Plan policy.
The General Plan implementation program includes a directive to "identify and
designate an agricultural and open space greenbelt around the urbanized area of the
City" (Land Use and Growth Management Implementation Program 10). This buffer
zone is intended to provide a well-defined edge to the urban area, and to minimize
conflicts at the urban -agricultural interface by providing a transition zone separating
urban from agricultural uses, and to remove uncertainty for agricultural operations
near the urban fringe. The greenbelt will perform an important function in minimizing
4
urban -agricultural conflicts and promote the preservation of prime agricultural land
beyond the greenbelt; however, it will not constitute mitigation for loss of farmland
since it cannot itself replace land lost to development. The City is continuing to study
the implementation of a greenbelt area between Stockton and Lodi, and is committed
to the implementation of such a greenbelt.
In summary, the City of Lodi has attempted to reduce the impact for the loss of prime
agricultural land at the project site through the required acquisition of off-site
agricultural conservation easements, and also through its extensive efforts to avoid
the loss of prime farmland through its careful planning of urban areas. Nevertheless,
the City recognizes that there is no feasible mitigation available to reduce this impact
on the project site to a less -than -significant level and, therefore, the impact remains
significant and unavoidable. These facts support the City's finding.
5. Statement of Overriding Considerations: The following is a summary of the benefits
that the City Council has found to outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts of the
project, the full discussion of which can be found in the "Statement of Overriding
Considerations" at the end of this document. The project is expected to provide
substantial revenue for the City of Lodi General Fund through increased sales tax
and property tax, and will generate employment opportunities for Lodi residents. The
project will cause vital municipal infrastructure improvements to be implemented in
the project vicinity, and development impact fees paid by the applicant will help fund
the project's proportionate share of contributions towards public services throughout
the City of Lodi. The project will implement adopted City plans and policies by
accomplishing the City of Lodi's long-term development plans for commercial use at
the project site, consistent with City's growth control measures prioritizing in -fill
development within the existing City boundaries. The project will reflect a high
quality of design, through the on-site implementation of the City's Design Guidelines
for Large Commercial Establishments, which will be particularly important at this
visually prominent western gateway into the City.
II. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
A. SEISMIC HAZARD FROM GROUND SHAKING
1. Impact: Strong ground shaking occurring on the site during a major earthquake event
could cause severe damage to project buildings and structures. (Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: Structural damage to buildings resulting from ground shaking shall be
minimized by following the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, and
implementing the recommendations of the project geotechnical engineer.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will
be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
All portions of the project will be designed and constructed in accordance with the
Uniform Building Code guidelines for Seismic Zone 3 to avoid or minimize potential
5
damage from seismic shaking at the site. Conformance with these requirements will
be ensured by the Building Division through its routine inspection and permitting
functions. These facts support the City's findings.
B. SEISMICALLY -INDUCED GROUND SETTLEMENTS
Impact: There is a potential for seismically -induced ground settlements at the site,
which could result in damage to project foundations and structures. (Significant
Impact)
2. • Mitigation: If subsequent design -level geotechnical studies indicate unacceptable
levels of potential seismic settlement, available measures to reduce the effects of such
settlements would include replacement of near -surface soils with engineered fill, or
supporting structures on quasi -rigid foundations, as recommended by the project
geotechnical engineer.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will
be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
As part of the mitigation for this impact, geotechnical investigations will be completed
prior to the approval of building permits for specific buildings, and these buildings will
be designed in conformance with the geotechnical report's recommendations to
reduce this potential hazard. Implementation of the recommendations will be
ensured by the Public Works Department and Building. Division through their routine
inspection and permitting functions. These.facts support the City's findings.
C. STORMWATER BASIN BANK INSTABILITY
1. Impact: There is a potential for bank instability along the banks of the proposed basin.
(Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: Design -level geotechnical studies shall investigate the potential of bank
instability at the proposed basin and recommend appropriate setbacks, if warranted.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will
be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
As part of the mitigation for this impact, geotechnical investigations will be completed
along with the design -level improvement plans for the stormwater basin, and the
Public Works Director will ensure that the basin is constructed in conformance with
the geotechnical report's recommendations to reduce this potential hazard. These
facts support the City's findings.
0
D. SOIL CONSOLIDATION AND COLLAPSE
1. Impact: Soils present on the site are subject to moisture -induced collapse, which
could result in damage to structures. (Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: The effects of soil consolidation and collapse can be mitigated by placing
shallow spread foundations on a uniform thickness of engineered fill; specific
measures shall be specified by an engineering geologist, as appropriate, in response
to localized conditions.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will
be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
As part of the mitigation for this impact, geotechnical investigations will be completed
prior to the approval of building permits for specific buildings, and the Public Works
Department and Building Division will ensure that these buildings are be designed in
conformance with the geotechnical report's recommendations to reduce this potential
hazard. These facts support the City's finding.
E. EXPANSIVE SOILS
Impact: There is a low, but not necessarily insignificant, potential for soils expansion
at the site, which could result in differential subgrade movements and cracking of
foundations. (Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: The potential damage from soils expansion would be reduced by
placement of non -expansive engineered fill below foundation slabs, or other
measures as recommended by the geotechnical engineer.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will
be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
As part of the mitigation for this impact, geotechnical investigations will be completed
prior to the approval of building permits for specific buildings, and the Public Works
Department and Building Division will ensure that these buildings are be designed in
conformance with the geotechnical report's recommendations to reduce this potential
hazard. These facts support the City's finding.
F. SOIL CORROSIVITY
1. Impact: The corrosion potential of the on-site soils could result in damage to buried
utilities and foundation systems. (Significant Impact)
7
2. Mitigation: The potential damage from soil corrosivity can be mitigated by using
corrosion -resistant materials for buried utilities and systems; specific measures shall
be specified by an engineering geologist as appropriate in response to localized
conditions.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will
be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
As part of the mitigation for this impact, geotechnical investigations will be completed
prior to the City's approval specific buried utilities and foundation systems for
buildings, and these features will be designed in conformance with the geotechnical
report's recommendations to reduce this potential hazard. These facts support the
City's finding.
111. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
A. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION DURING CONSTRUCTION
1. Impact: During grading and construction, erosion of exposed soils and pollutants from
equipment may result in water quality impacts to downstream water bodies.
(Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: A comprehensive erosion control and water pollution prevention program
shall be implemented during grading and construction. Typical measures required by
the City of Lodi to be implemented during the grading and construction phase include
the following:
• Schedule earthwork to occur primarily during the dry season to prevent most runoff
erosion.
• Stabilize exposed soils by the end of October in any given year by revegetating
disturbed areas or applying hydromulch with tetra -foam or other adhesive material.
• Convey runoff from areas of exposed soils to temporary siltation basins to provide
for settling of eroded sediments.
• Protect drainages and storm drain inlets from sedimentation with berms or filtration
barriers, such as filter fabric fences or rock bags or filter screens.
• Apply water to exposed soils and on-site dirt roads regularly during the dry season
to prevent wind erosion.
• Stabilize stockpiles of topsoil and fill material by watering daily, or by the use of
chemical agents.
• Install gravel construction entrances to reduce tracking of sediment onto adjoining
streets.
1l
• Sweep on-site paved surfaces and surrounding streets regularly with a wet
sweeper to collect sediment before it is washed into the storm drains or channels.
• Store all construction equipment and material in designated areas away from
waterways and storm drain inlets. Surround construction staging areas with
earthen berms or dikes.
Wash and maintain equipment and vehicles in a separate bermed area, with runoff
directed to a lined retention basin.
• Collect construction waste daily and deposit in covered dumpsters.
After construction is completed, clean all drainage culverts of accumulated
sediment and debris.
The project also is required to comply with NPDES permit requirements, file a Notice
of Intent with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and prepare a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will
be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
The above mitigation measures are derived from Best Management Practices
(BMPs) recommended by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and are to be.
included in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to be prepared and
implemented by the project proponent in conformance with the state's General
Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. In
addition, the project grading plans will conform to the drainage and erosion control
standards of the City of Lodi, and will be incorporated into the project Improvement
Plans to be approved by the City. Implementation of the erosion control measures
will be monitored and enforced by City grading inspectors. These facts support the
City's finding.
B. WATER QUALITY IMPACTS FROM NON -POINT POLLUTANTS
1. Impact: The project would generate urban nonpoint contaminants which may be
carried in stormwater runoff from paved surfaces to downstream water bodies.
(Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: The project shall include stormwater controls to reduce nonpoint source
pollutant loads.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
E
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will
be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
In January 2003, the City adopted a Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) to
implement the provisions of its Phase li NPDES stormwater permit issued by the State
Water Resources Control Board. The SMP contains a comprehensive program for
the reduction of surface water pollution. The project includes feasible structural
BMPs (Best Management Practices) such as vegetated swales and a stormwater
basin. Much of the stormwater runoff generated in the northern and southern
portions of the site will be conveyed to vegetated swales or bioswales which will
provide partial filtering of pollutants and sediments. This partially treated runoff,
along with all other parking lot and roof runoff from the project will be conveyed to the
3.65 -acre stormwater basin planned adjacent to the southwest corner of the site.
The basin would serve as a settling pond where suspended sediments and urban
pollutants would settle out prior to discharge of the collected stormwater into the
City's storm drain system, thereby reducing potential surface water quality impacts to
drainages and water bodies. The pump intake for the basin will be located two feet
above the bottom to provide for accumulation of sediments which would be cleaned
out on a regular basis.
Non-structural BMPs typically required by the City include the implementation of
regular maintenance activities (e.g., damp sweeping of paved areas; inspection and
cleaning of storm drain inlets; litter control) at the site to prevent soil, grease, and
litter from accumulating on the project site and contaminating surface runoff.
Stormwater catch basins will be required to be stenciled to discourage illegal
dumping. In the landscaped areas, chemicals and irrigation water will be required to
be applied at rates specified by the project landscape architect to minimize potential
for contaminated runoff. Additional BMPs, as identified from a set of model practices
developed by the state, may be required as appropriate at the time of Improvement
Plan approval. These facts support the City's finding.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
A. LOSS OF HABITAT FOR SPECIAL -STATUS SPECIES
1. Impact: The project would result in the loss of approximately 40 acres of foraging
habitat for three protected bird species, and could result in the loss of breeding habitat
for two protected bird species. (Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: In accordance with the San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat
Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) and City of Lodi requirements, the
project proponent will pay the applicable in -lieu mitigation fees to compensate for
loss of open space and habitat resulting from development of the project site, and
will ensure the completion of preconstruction surveys for Swainson's hawks,
burrowing owls, and California horned larks, as well as the implementation of
specified measures if any of these species are found on the site.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
10
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will
be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
The in -lieu mitigation fees prescribed under the SJMSCP vary depending on the
location of the site, its designation under the SJMSCP, and annual adjustments. The
project site is covered by two designations or pay zones under the SJMSCP. The
20.5 -acre eastern portion of the shopping center site, is designated "Multi -Purpose
Open Space Lands," where in -lieu fees are currently $6,165 per acre (2008). The
19.5 -acre western portion of the site, which includes the proposed stormwater basin, is
designated "Agricultural Habitat and Natural Lands," where in -lieu fees are currently
$12,329 per acre (2008). The compliance with the provisions of the SJMSCP, along
with the prescribed preconstruction surveys and any required follow-up measures
prescribed at that time, would fully mitigate the small reduction in foraging habitat
resulting from development of the project site. The applicant's duty to mitigate the loss
of agricultural land at a 1:1 ratio will further mitigate the loss of foraging habitat. These
facts support the City's finding of less -than -significant after mitigation.
B. IMPACTS TO BURROWING OWLS AND RAPTORS
1. Impact: The project could adversely affect any burrowing owls that may occupy the
site prior to construction, and could also adversely affect any tree -nesting raptor that
may establish nests in trees along the project boundaries prior to construction.
(Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: The following measures shall be implemented to ensure that raptors
(hawks and owls) are not disturbed during the breeding season:
If ground disturbance is to occur during the breeding season (February 1 to
August 31), a qualified ornithologist shall conduct a pre -construction survey for
nesting raptors (including both tree- and ground -nesting raptors) on site within 30
days of the onset of ground disturbance. These surveys will be based on the
accepted protocols (e.g., as for the burrowing owl) for the target species. If a
nesting raptor is detected, then the ornithologist will, in consultation with CDFG,
determine an appropriate disturbance -free zone (usually a minimum of 250 feet)
around the tree that contains the nest or the burrow in which the owl is nesting.
The actual size of the buffer would depend on species, topography, and type of
construction activity that would occur in the vicinity of the nest. The setback area
must be temporarily fenced, and construction equipment and workers shall not
enter the enclosed setback area until the conclusion of the breeding season.
Once the raptor abandons its nest and all young have fledged, construction can
begin within the boundaries of the buffer.
If ground disturbance is to occur during the non -breeding season (September 1
to January 31), a qualified ornithologist will conduct pre -construction surveys for
burrowing owls only. (Pre -construction surveys during the non -breeding season
are not necessary for tree nesting raptors since these species would be expected
to abandon their nests voluntarily during construction.) If burrowing owls are
detected during the non -breeding season, they can be passively relocated by
placing one-way doors in the burrows and leaving them in place for a minimum of
three days. Once it has been determined that owls have vacated the site, the
burrows can be collapsed and ground disturbance can proceed.
11
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will
be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
While none of these species are currently on the project site, this mitigation measure
is included as a contingency to be implemented in the event nesting occurs prior to
construction. As specified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
attached to this document, the Community Development Director will ensure that the
pre -construction surveys are undertaken and that a report of the survey findings is
submitted to the City prior to the approval of the project Improvement Plans. If any of
the species are found on-site during the surveys, the Public Works Director will
ensure that the required setback zones are established. No grading or construction
in the vicinity of the nests would be permitted until the project biologist is satisfied
that impacts to the species are mitigated or avoided. Relocation of burrowing owls
would be allowed to occur only under the direction of the California Department of
Fish and Game. These facts support the City's finding.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. IMPACTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Impact: It is possible that previously undiscovered cultural materials may be buried on
the site which could be adversely affected by grading and construction for the project.
(Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: Implementation of the following measures will mitigate any potential
impacts to cultural resources:
• In the event that prehistoric or historic archaeological materials are exposed or
discovered during site clearing, grading or subsurface construction, work within a
25400t radius of the find shall be halted and a qualified professional
archaeologist contacted for further review and recommendations. Potential
recommendations could include evaluation, collection, recordation, and analysis
of any significant cultural materials followed by a professional report.
• In the event that fossils are exposed during site clearing, grading or subsurface
construction, work within a 25 -foot radius of the find shall be halted and a
qualified professional paleontologist contacted for further review and
recommendations. Potential recommendations could include evaluation,
collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant paleontological materials
followed by a professional report.
• If human remains are discovered, the San Joaquin County Coroner shall be
notified. The Coroner would determine whether or not the remains are Native
American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his
authority, he will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, who would
identify a most likely descendant to make recommendations to the land owner for
dealing with the human remains and any associated grave goods, as provided in
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
12
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will
be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
While the detailed site reconnaissance by Basin Research Associates indicated that
there is no evidence to suggest that cultural resources may be buried on site, the
mitigation measure is a standard contingency that is applied in all but the least
archaeologically sensitive areas. In the unlikely event artifacts are encountered
during grading or excavation, the Public Works Director will enforce any required
work stoppages, and the Community Development Director will contact the project
archaeologist and will ensure that the archaeologist's recommendations are
implemented. These facts support the City's finding.
Vl. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
A. NEAR TERM PLUS PROJECT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
1. Impact: The addition of project -generated traffic would exacerbate LOS F operations
at the intersection of Lower Sacramento Road 1 Harney Lane during both a.m. and
p.m. peak hour conditions. (Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: The project shall contribute its fair share cost to the installation of a traffic
signal at Lower Sacramento Road and Harney Lane.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will
be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
The traffic report prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates calculated that with the
above mitigation in place, the level of service at the affected intersection would rise
to Level of Service C and thus meet the service standards of the City of Lodi. These
facts support the City's finding.
B. CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT ACCESS CONDITIONS AT SIGNALIZED ACCESS
DRIVE PROPOSED ALONG LOWER SACRAMENTO ROAD FRONTAGE
1. Impact: During the p.m. peak hour, the eastbound left -turn queue length of 250 feet
(average queue) to 375 feet (9e Percentile queue) of exiting vehicles would extend
west to the internal intersection located south of Pad 10. (Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: Modify the project site plan to provide dual eastbound left -turn
movements out of the project site onto northbound Lower Sacramento Road,
consisting of a 150 -foot left -turn pocket and a full travel lane back to the internal
project site intersection. In the eastbound direction, a left -turn pocket and a full travel
13
lane back to the signalized intersection will provide adequate capacity for inbound
traffic. In addition, STOP signs shall be installed on all approaches at the on-site
intersections adjacent to Pads 10 and 11, except the westbound approaches to
provide continuous traffic flow into the project site and eliminate the potential for
backups onto Lower Sacramento Road. On the Food 4 Less approach, a 100 -foot
left -turn pocket will be provided at the signalized intersection.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will
be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
The traffic report prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates indicates that with the above
mitigations in place, the potential for traffic conflicts at this intersection would be
eliminated. These facts support the City's finding.
C. CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT ACCESS CONDITIONS AT NORTHERN
UNSIGNALIZED ACCESS DRIVE PROPOSED ALONG LOWER SACRAMENTO
ROAD
1. Impact: The addition of a northbound left -turn lane under Access Alternative B would
result in Level of Service F conditions at this unsignalized intersection. (This
condition does not occur under Access Alternative A where no northbound left -turn
movement would occur.) In addition, a non-standard 60 -foot back-to-back taper is
provided between the northbound left -turn lane (Alternative B) at the northern
unsignalized access drive and the southbound left -turn lane at the signalized project
entrance. (Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: The following mitigations shall be implemented:
a. Extend a third southbound travel lane on Lower Sacramento Road from its
current planned terminus at the signalized project driveway to the southern
boundary of the project site;
b. Construct a 100 -foot southbound right -turn lane at the signalized project
driveway;
c. Extend the southbound left -turn pocket by 100 feet;
d. Extend the taper from 60 feet to a City standard 120 -foot taper;
e. Eliminate the northbound left -turn lane into the northern driveway.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will
be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
14
The traffic report prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates indicates that with the above
mitigations in place, the potential for traffic conflicts at this intersection would be
eliminated. These facts support the City's finding.
D. INADEQUATE LEFT -TURN LANE TAPER ON WESTGATE DRIVE
1. Impact: On Westgate Drive, a non -City standard 64 -foot back-to-back taper is
proposed between the northbound left -turn lane at W. Kettleman Lane and the
southbound left -turn lane at the northern project driveway. (Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: The project site plan shall be modified to move the north project driveway
on Westgate Drive south by 25 feet in order to accommodate the required 90 -foot
taper length.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will
be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
The traffic report prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates indicates that with the above
mitigation in place, the potential for traffic conflicts arising from inadequate queuing
capacity on Westgate Drive would be eliminated. These facts support the City's
finding.
E. INADEQUATE LEFT -TURN LANE TAPER ON LOWER SACRAMENTO ROAD
1. Impact: On Lower Sacramento Road, a non -City standard 70 -foot back-to-back
taper is proposed between the dual northbound left -turn lanes at W. Kettleman Lane
and the southbound left -turn lane at the middle Food 4 Less Driveway. (Significant
Impact)
2. Mitigation: The project site plan shall be modified to extend the northbound left -turn
pocket to 250 feet, and to extend the taper from 70 feet to a City standard 120 -foot
taper. .
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will
be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
While the traffic report by Fehr & Peers indicated that mitigation for this impact would
need to be achieved through closure of the southbound left -turn lane at the middle
Food 4 Less Driveway, the applicant instead proposes to provide additional roadway
right-of-way along the project frontage on Lower Sacramento Road to accommodate
side-by-side left -turn lanes (instead of the back-to-back turn pockets as originally
proposed). This would allow the mitigation to be implemented as specified while also
maintaining the existing southbound left turn. Fehr & Peers Associates has reviewed
15
the proposed roadway configuration and concurs that it would serve as adequate
mitigation for the deficiencies noted in the El traffic impact report. Therefore, Fehr
& Peers Associates concludes that with the above mitigation in place, the potential
for traffic conflicts at this intersection would be eliminated. These facts support the
City's finding.
F. PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE
1. Impact: Development of the project would create a demand for increased public
transit service above that which is currently provided or planned. (Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: The project applicant shall work with and provide fair share funding to the
City of Lodi Grapeline Service and the San Joaquin Regional Transit District to
expand transit service to the project.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will
be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
The traffic report prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates indicates that with the above
mitigation in place, the additional demand for transit service generated by the project
would not exceed the capacity of the transit system. These facts support the City's
finding.
G. PUBLIC TRANSIT STOP
1. Impact: Development of the project would create an unmet demand for public transit
service which would not be met by the single transit stop proposed for the northwest
portion of the project. (Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: Modify the project site plan to: 1) provide a bus bay and passenger
shelter at the proposed transit stop; and 2) include a second transit stop and
passenger shelter in the eastern portion of the project near Lower Sacramento Road.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will
be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
The traffic report prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates indicates that with the above
mitigations in place, the transit service to the site would be adequate to meet
ridership demand and would be provided in a manner which is convenient to transit
riders, and which avoids traffic and circulation conflicts or congestion. These facts
support the City's finding.
16
H. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
1. impact: Development of the project would create an unmet demand for pedestrian
facilities along West Kettieman Lane, Lower Sacramento Road and Westgate Drive,
and internally between the different areas of the project site. (Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: Pedestrian walkways and crosswalks shall be provided to serve Pads 8,
9, and 12 in order to complete the internal pedestrian circulation system.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level_
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will
be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
The traffic report prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates indicates that with the above
mitigations in place, the pedestrian facilities provided in the project would be
adequate to meet demand and provide for safe pedestrian movement throughout the
project. These facts support the City's finding.
Vli. NOISE
A. NOISE FROM PROJECT ACTIVITY
1. Impact: Noise generated by activity associated with the project would elevate off-site
noise levels at existing and future residences in the vicinity. (Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: The following noise mitigations are identified as appropriate for the various
types of project activities, to reduce project noise at both existing and planned future
adjacent development:
Rooftop Mechanical Equipment. To ensure that the potential noise impact of
mechanical equipment is reduced to less -than -significant levels, the applicant shall
submit engineering and acoustical specifications for project mechanical equipment, for
review prior to issuance of building permits for each retail building, demonstrating that
the equipment design (types, location, enclosure specifications), combined with any
parapets and/or screen walls, will not result in noise levels exceeding 45 dBA (L.,,, -
hour) for any residential yards.
Parking Lot Cleaning. To assure compliance with the City of Lodi Noise Regulations
regarding occasional excessive noise, leaf blowing in the southeast comer of the
project site shall be limited to operating during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will
be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
17
The City of Lodi Building Official will require demonstration of compliance with noise
specifications for rooftop mechanical equipment in conjunction with each individual
building permit required for the project. The enforcement of the City Noise
Regulations with respect to leaf blower noise will be the responsibility of the
Community Development Director, who may enforce the noise restrictions with or
without a citizen complaint from a nearby resident. These facts support the City's
finding.
B. NOISE FROM STORMWATER BASIN PUMP
1. Impact: Occasional pumping of water from the stormwater basin would generate
noise at the planned future residential areas to the south and west of the basin.
(Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: The following measures shall be implemented to mitigate potential noise
generated by the stormwater basin pump:
1) The pump shall be located as far as is feasible from the nearest future planned
residential development. In addition, the pump facility shall be designed so that
noise levels do not exceed 45 dBA at the nearest residential property lines. The
pump may need to be enclosed to meet this noise level. Pians and specifications
for the pump facility shall be included in the Improvement Plans for the project
and reviewed for compliance with this noise criterion.
2) In order to avoid creating a noise nuisance during nighttime hours, pump
operations shall be restricted to the hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., except under
emergency conditions (e.g., when the basin needs to be emptied immediately to
accommodate flows from an imminent storm).
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will
be reduced to a less -than significant level.
The City of Lodi Public Works Director will require demonstration of compliance with
noise specifications for the basin pump in conjunction with the Improvement Plans
for the project. The enforcement of the City Noise Regulations with respect to the
hours of pump operation will be the responsibility of the Community Development
Director, who may enforce the noise restrictions with or without a citizen complaint
from a nearby resident. These facts support the City's finding.
C. CONSTRUCTION NOISE
1. impact: Noise levels would be temporarily elevated during grading and construction.
(Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: Short-term construction noise impacts shall be reduced through
implementation of the following measures:
18
Construction Scheduling. The applicanticontractor shall limit noise -generating
construction activities to daytime, weekday, (non -holiday) hours of 7:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m.
Construction E ui ment Mufflers and Maintenance. The applicant/contractor
shall properly muffle and maintain all construction equipment powered by internal
combustion engines.
Idling Prohibitions. The applicant/contractor shall prohibit unnecessary idling of
internal combustion engines.
E ui ment Location and Shielding . The applicant/contractor shall locate all
stationary noise -generating construction equipment such as air compressors as
far as practicable from existing nearby residences. Acoustically shield such
equipment as required to achieve continuous noise levels of 55 dBA or lower at
the property line.
Quiet Equipment election. The applicant/eontractor shall select quiet
construction equipmOnt, particularly air compressors, whenever possible. Fit
motorized equipment with proper mufflers in good working order.
Notification. The applicant/contractor shall notify neighbors located adjacent to,
and across the major roadways from, the project site of the construction schedule
in writing.
Noise Disturbance Coordinator. The applicanttoontractor shall designate a
"noise disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any
local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would
notify the City, determine the cause of the noise complaints (e.g., starting too
early, bad muffler, etc.) and would institute reasonable measures to correct the
problem. Applicant/contractor shall conspicuously post a telephone number for
the disturbance coordinator at the construction site, and include it in the notice
sent to neighboring property owners regarding construction schedule. All
complaints and remedial actions shall be reported to the City of Lodi by the noise
disturbance coordinator.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will
be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
Each phase of grading and construction will be required to implement the above
noise control measures and other measures which may be required by the City of
Lodi. The construction noise control measures will be required to be included as part
of the General Notes on the project Improvement Plans, which must be approved by
the City Public Works Department prior to commencement of grading. Although
there are noise sensitive uses such as residential neighborhoods in the vicinity of the
project site, most existing dwellings would be at least 200 feet away from the nearest
grading and construction activity. This distance separation from the noise sources
19
and the effective implementation of the above mitigation measures by the
contractors, as monitored and enforced by City Public Works Department and
Building Division, would reduce the noise levels from this temporary source to
acceptable levels. These facts support the City's finding.
Vlll. AIR QUALITY
A. CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
1. Impact: Construction and grading for the project would generate dust and exhaust
emissions that could adversely affect local and regional air quality. (Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: Dust control measures, in addition to those described in the FEIR, shall be
implemented to reduce PM1fl emissions during grading and construction, as required
by the City of Lodi and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Air
District). (See Original Draft EIR, p.120).
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will
be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
Each phase of grading and construction will be required to implement the dust
control measures specified in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District's
Regulation VIII, as well as additional practices itemized in the FEIR and as otherwise
required by the City of Lodi. The dust control measures will be required to be
included as part of the General Notes on the project Improvement Plans, which must
be approved by the City Public Works Department prior to commencement of
grading. The Public Works Department will monitor and enforce the dust
suppression requirements as part of their site inspection duties. Violations of the
requirements of Regulation VIII are also subject to enforcement action by the Air
District. Violations are indicated by the generation of visible dust clouds and/or
generation of complaints. These facts support the City's finding.
B. REGIONAL AIR QUALITY
1. Impact: Emissions from project -generated traffic would result in air pollutant
emissions affecting the entire air basin. (Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: Project design measures shall be implemented to reduce project area
source emissions, and a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan should be
implemented to reduce project traffic and resulting air emissions, including those
measures described in the FEIR; however, these measures would not reduce the
impact to a less -than -significant level.
3. Finding: While the implementation of specified design measures and a TDM plan in
conjunction with the project would reduce the level of the air quality impact, the
impact would not be reduced to less -than -significant level. Therefore, the impact is
significant and unavoidable.
Qi7
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact is
significant and unavoidable.
Due to the large size of the project and the very low thresholds for significance
established by the Air District for the emission of Reactive Organic Gases, Nitrogen
Oxides, and fine Particulate Matter, the air quality report by Donald Ballanti
concluded that the project would exceed the significance thresholds established for
these pollutants. In addition, large commercial shopping centers attract high
volumes of personal vehicles, and transportation alternatives such as public transit,
carpooling, and bicycling have limited effectiveness in reducing automobile traffic
generated by this type of project. Thus, although the City will require the
implementation of selected Transportation Demand Management measures, as
appropriate, it is estimated by Donald Ballanti that such measures would reduce
project -generated traffic by no more than five percent. The small reduction in
associated emissions would not reduce overall regional air quality impacts to less -
than -significant levels. These facts support the City's finding.
5. Statement of Overriding Considerations: The following is a summary of the benefits
that the City Council has found to outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts of the
project, the full discussion of which can be found in the "Statement of Overriding
Considerations" at the end of this document. The project is expected to provide
substantial revenues for the City of Lodi General Fund through increased sales tax
and property tax, and will generate employment opportunities for City residents. The
project will implement vital municipal infrastructure improvements in the project
vicinity, and impact fees paid by the project will help fund its pro -rata share of public
services throughout the City of Lodi. The project will implement adopted City plans
and policies by accomplishing the City of Lodi long-term development plans for
commercial use at the project site. The project will reflect a high quality of design,
through the on-site implementation of the City's Design Guidelines for Large
Commercial Establishments, which will be particularly important at this visually
prominent western gateway into the City.
C. RESTAURANT ODORS
1. Impact: The restaurant uses in the project could release cooking exhausts which
could result in noticeable odors beyond project boundaries. (Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: All restaurant uses within the project shall locate kitchen exhaust vents in
accordance with accepted engineering practice and shall install exhaust filtration
systems or other accepted methods of odor reduction.
3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will
be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
While the nature and location of restaurants within the project has not been
determined, this mitigation requirement will ensure that cooking odors from any on -
21
site restaurants will not result in annoyance or nuisance conditions. The Building
Official will ensure that the required equipment is included on the plans, and will
ensure that the equipment is properly installed and functioning. These facts support
the City's finding.
IX. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
A. AGRICULTURAL LAND CONVERSION
1. Impact: The conversion of prime agricultural land at the project site, combined with
the agricultural conversion associated with other foreseeable projects in the area,
would result in a cumulatively substantial impact to agricultural resources. (Significant
impact)
2. Mitigation: The applicant shall obtain a permanent Agricultural Conservation
Easement over 40 acres of prime farmland (1:1 mitigation ratio). The agricultural
conservation easement shall consist of a single parcel of land of at least 40 acres.
This easement shall be located in San Joaquin County (excluding the Delta Primary
Zone as currently defined by State law). The easement shall be in current agricultural
use, if it is not in current agricultural use, the easement shall be required to be put into
agricultural production as a result of the conservation easement transaction. The
lands subject to the easement shall be placed under permanent restrictions on land
use to ensure its continued agricultural production capacity by limiting non-farm
development and other uses that are inconsistent with commercial agriculture. The
easement shall be held by the City or a qualified entity (i.e., land trust) approved by the
City. The applicant shall pay a fee (in an amount to be determined by the City) for
purposes of establishing an endowment to provide for adequate administration,
monitoring, and maintenance of the easement in perpetuity.
3. Finding: It is the City's current practice to require development projects to acquire
off-site conservation easements to off -set the loss of prime farmland. The acquisition
of an off-site agricultural conservation easement would provide partial mitigation for
the cumulative loss of prime farmland resulting from development projects, but it
would not reduce the impact to a less -than -significant level. As with the project -
specific agricultural impacts, there is no feasible mitigation measure available that
would reduce or avoid the significant cumulative loss of agricultural land resulting
from development of the proposed project and other foreseeable projects in the area.
Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make
mitigation of this impact infeasible. In particular, mitigation is infeasible because it is
not possible to re-create prime farmland on other lands that do not consist of prime
agricultural soils. This impact therefore remains significant and unavoidable.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact is
significant and unavoidable.
As discussed in the Draft REIR and Final REIR, there are no feasible measures that
would reduce the impact of loss of prime agricultural land to a less -than -significant
level. Although impacts to prime farmland cannot be feasibly mitigated to less -than -
significant levels, the City has in fact minimized and substantially lessened the
significant effects of development on prime agricultural land through requirements
22
that an off-site agricultural conservation easement be acquired by project applicants.
The City has also generally minimized the significant effects of development on
prime agricultural land through the policies of its adopted General Plan. A principal
purpose of the City's General Plan regulatory scheme is to minimize the impact on
prime agricultural land resulting from the City's urban expansion. The City of Lodi is
recognized for its compact growth pattern and clearly defined urban boundaries, its
emphasis on infill development, and its deliberate and considered approach to urban
expansion to accommodate housing and other long-term development needs. These
guiding principles serve to minimize and forestall conversion of agricultural lands within
the City's growth boundaries.
The General Plan policies related to agricultural preservation and protection are
intended, and have been successful, in maintaining the productivity of prime
agricultural land surrounding the City by controlling urban expansion in a manner
which has the least impact on prime agricultural lands. In addition to maintaining
compact and defined urban growth boundaries, agricultural preservation and
protection are primarily accomplished through the City's Growth Management Plan
for Residential Development, which limits housing development to a growth rate of
two percent per year, and which gives priority to proposed residential developments
with the least impact on agricultural land, in accordance with General Plan policy.
The General Plan implementation program includes a directive to "identify and
designate an agricultural and open space greenbelt around the urbanized area of the
City' (Land Use and Growth Management Implementation Program 10). This buffer
zone is intended to provide a well-defined edge to the urban area, and to minimize
conflicts at the urban -agricultural interface by providing a transition zone separating
urban from agricultural uses, and to remove uncertainty for agricultural operations
near the urban fringe. The greenbelt will perform an important function in minimizing
urban -agricultural conflicts and promote the preservation of prime agricultural land
beyond the greenbelt; however, it will not constitute mitigation for loss of farmland
since it cannot itself replace land lost to development. In addition, the City is
continuing to study the implementation of a greenbelt area between Stockton and
Lodi, and is committed to the implementation of such a greenbelt.
In summary, the City of Lodi has applied feasible mitigation measures for loss of
prime agricultural land at the cumulative project sites through the required acquisition
of off-site agricultural conservation easements, and also through its extensive efforts
to avoid the loss of prime farmland through its careful planning of urban areas within
its boundaries. Nevertheless, the City recognizes that there is no feasible mitigation
available to reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level on a project -specific or
cumulative basis and, therefore, the impact remains cumulatively significant and
unavoidable. These facts support the City's finding.
5. Statement of Overriding Considerations: The following is a summary of the benefits
that the City Council has found to outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts of
the project, the full discussion of which can be found in the "Statement of Overriding
Considerations at the end of this document. The project is expected to provide
substantial revenues for the City of Lodi General Fund through increased sales tax
and property tax, and will generate employment opportunities for Lodi residents.
The project will cause vital municipal infrastructure improvements to be
implemented in the project vicinity, and development impact fees paid by the
23
applicant will help fund the project's proportionate share of contributions towards
public services throughout the City of Lodi. The project will implement adopted City
plans and policies by accomplishing the City of Lodi's long-term development plans
for commercial use at the project site, consistent with the City's growth control
measures prioritizing in -fill development within the existing City boundaries. The
project will reflect a high quality of design, through the on-site implementation of the
City's Design Guidelines for Large Commercial Establishments, which will be
particularly important at this visually prominent western gateway into the City.
B. REGIONAL AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
Impact: Emissions from project -generated traffic, combined with the emissions of
other foreseeable projects in the area, would result in air pollutant emissions
affecting the entire air basin. (Significant Cumulative Impact)
2. Mitigation: For the proposed project, design measures shall be implemented to
reduce project area source emissions, and a Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) plan should be implemented to reduce project traffic and resulting air
emissions. However, these measures would not reduce the impact to a less -than -
significant level, either on a project -specific basis or on a cumulative basis.
3. Finding: While the implementation of specified design measures and a TDM plan in
conjunction with the project would reduce the level of the air quality impact, the
impact would not be reduced to less -than -significant level. This impact would be
exacerbated by emissions from other foreseeable projects in the area. Therefore,
the cumulative impact is significant and unavoidable.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact is
significant and unavoidable.
Due to the large size of the project and the very low thresholds for significance
established by the Air District for the emission of Reactive Organic Gases, Nitrogen
Oxides, and fine Particulate Matter, the air quality report by environmental
consultant, Donald Ballanti, concluded that the project would far exceed the
significance thresholds established for these pollutants. In addition, large
commercial shopping centers attract high volumes of personal vehicles, and
transportation alternatives such as public transit, carpooling, and bicycling have
limited effectiveness in reducing automobile traffic generated by this type of project.
Thus, although the City will require the implementation of selected Transportation
Demand Management measures, as appropriate, it is estimated by Donald Ballanti
that such measures would reduce project -generated traffic by no more than five
percent. The small reduction in associated emissions would not reduce overall
regional air quality impacts resulting from the proposed project to less -than -
significant levels. Other foreseeable projects in the area may be more suitable for
the implementation of TDM measures to reduce emissions on an individual project
basis; however, the cumulative impact would not be reduced to a less -than -
significant level. These facts support the City's finding.
5. Statement of Overriding Considerations: The following is a summary of the benefits
that the City Council has found to outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts of the
project, the full discussion of which can be found in the "Statement of Overriding
24
Considerations" at the end of this document. The project is expected to provide
substantial revenues for the City of Lodi General Fund through increased sales tax
and property tax, and will generate employment opportunities for City residents. The
project will implement vital municipal infrastructure improvements in the project
vicinity, and impact fees paid by the project will help fund its pro -rata share of public
services throughout the City of Lodi. The project will implement adopted City plans
and policies by accomplishing the City of Lodi's long-term development plans for
commercial use at the project site, consistent with City's growth control measures
prioritizing infill development within the existing City boundaries. The project will
reflect a high quality of design, through the on-site implementation of the City's
Design Guidelines for Large Commercial Establishments, which will be particularly
important at this visually prominent western gateway into the City.
IMPACTS ANALYZED IN THE REIR FOUND TO BE LESS LESS -THAN -SIGNIFICANT.
CEQA does not require that findings be made on impacts found to be less -than -
significant (See CEQA Guideline § 15091 (requiring findings on impacts found to be
significant)). Nonetheless, set forth below is a summary of the City's conclusions on
new items analyzed in the REIR for which impacts were found to be less -than -
significant.
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING — SOCIOECONOMIC/URBAN DECAY IMPACTS
Urban decay is the product of an economic chain reaction that results in the closures of
retail businesses as a result of a project, such as a shopping center, which in turn leads
to physical deterioration of the surrounding neighborhood and businesses. See
Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of B kersfield, 124 Cal.App.4th 1184
(2004)). An EIR need only disclose and analyze the direct and reasonably foreseeable
indirect environmental impacts of a proposed project if they are significant. (Guidelines,
§§ 15126.2, 15064(d)(3)). An impact 'Which is speculative or unlikely to occur is not
reasonably foreseeable." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(d)(3)). Mere economic and social
impacts of proposed projects are outside CEQA's purview. However, when there is
evidence that economic and social effects caused by a project, such as a shopping
center, could result in a reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental impact, such as
urban decay or deterioration, then the CEQA lead agency is obligated to assess this
indirect environmental impact. See Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson 130
Cal. App. e 1137 (2005). As summarized below, urban decay impacts of the Project
are found to be less -than -significant.
A. POTENTIAL FOR URBAN DECAY DUE TO SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
1. Impact: The Project would include new retailers who would compete with existing
retailers in the City of Lodi; however, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that
this increased competition would result in business closures, and consequently
would not indirectly result in substantial physical deterioration of properties, or
urban decay (Less -than -Significant Impact).
2. Mitigation: None Required.
3. Findings: The above impact is less than significant.
1•.7
4. Facts in Support of Findings: The DREIR, the FREIR, the BAE study and
analysis Included with the DREIR and the supplemental BAE Supplemental
Report dated October 1, 2008, which are incorporated herein by reference,
discuss the potential for urban decay. The analysis considered the economic
effects of the project on local supermarkets general merchandise outlets, and
businesses in Downtown Lodi. As explained further in the REIR and the BAE
analyses, the evidence gathered as part of the economic analysis is insufficient
to support a finding that the project alone would result in or contribute to business
vacancies or a downward spiral resulting in physical deterioration or urban
decay. While there may be some decline in sales of competing supermarkets,
supermarket store closures are not reasonably foreseeable. Sales are expected
to decline for general merchandise stores such as Target and Kmart. The Kmart
store is at risk of closure. However, the owners of the Kmart site indicate that
they feel they could find new tenants should Kmart close and cease operation,
thus minimizing the prospect of long term vacancies or total neglect leading to
urban decay. Furthermore, the City Council has directed diligent code
enforcement, which will assist in the prevention of urban decay. The City is
entitled to rely on the effectiveness of its Code Enforcement program to prevent
code violations. (See City Municipal Code Section 1.10.010 et seq.; Cal. Health
and Safety Code Sections 17980-17992). Downtown Lodi has shifted its retail
mix to specialty stores, entertainment, and restaurants which are less directly
competitive with the proposed project and therefore not anticipated to realize
urban decay because of the Project. With respect to the closure of the existing
Wal-Mart store in conjunction with the project, conditions would be imposed on
the project requiring, prior to the issuance of a building permit, either re -tenanting
by a retailer, sale to a retailer, or demolition of the structure to minimize the
possibility of urban decay resulting from its closure.
In summary, even if the project were to result in the failure of one or more
existing competing businesses, any resulting vacancy would not necessarily lead
to urban decay. Other contributing factors would need to occur to result in urban
decay, such as the failure of surrounding businesses, combined with little or no
effort on the part of property owners to maintain or improve their properties to a
condition suitable for leasing. To reach a condition recognized as a physical
impact under CEQA would require total neglect or abandonment of these
properties by their owners for an extended period such that substantial physical
deterioration or urban decay would ensue. Such a conclusion is not reasonably
foreseeable. Moreover, the City Council has directed staff to pursue diligent code
enforcement, and such an urban decay impact is not supported by substantial
evidence in the record. Accordingly, this impact is found to be less -than -
significant.
B. POTENTIAL FOR URBAN DECAY DUE TO CUMULATIVE ECONOMIC EFFECTS
OF COMPETING RETAIL PROJECTS
1. Impact: When the effects of the project are combined with those of the other
approved, pending, or probable future retail project in the project trade area (e.g.,
Reynolds Ranch), there is a likelihood existing retail centers in Lodi would be
subject to reduction in sales. Consequently, it is possible, but not reasonably
foreseeable, that one or more business closures could result, and that the affected
properties could be subject to long-term vacancies under cumulative conditions,
26
but not total neglect or abandonment. Moreover, aggressive enforcement action
by the City of Lodi under existing municipal code and state law provisions relating
to nuisance abatement is expected to prevent conditions which would result in
substantial physical deterioration of potentially affected properties. Therefore, no
urban decay is expected to occur under cumulative conditions. (Less -than -
Significant Cumulative Impact)
2. Mitigation: None Required.
3. Findings: The above impact is less than cumulatively significant.
4. Facts in Support of Findings: The DREIR, the FREIR, the BAE study and
analysis included with the DREIR and the supplemental BAE Supplemental
Report dated October 1, 2008, which are incorporated herein by reference,
discuss the potential for urban decay. The analysis considered the proposed
Reynolds Ranch development and other existing retail within the City, including,
the Target Center (which includes a Target and a Safeway), the Cherokee Retail
Center (which includes a Kmart and OSH store), the Sunwest Plaza (which
includes the existing Wal-Mart and a Food 4 Less Supermarket), Vineyard
Shopping Center (which includes a Mervyns and Ace Hardware), Vintner's
Square Center (which includes a Lowe's), retail at Lodi and Hutchins (which
includes the former Albertsons, which is now an S -Mart, and a Rite Aid),
Westgate Shopping Center (which includes a Raley's), Lakewood Mall (which
includes local -serving tenants) the Lockeford Payless IGA/True Value Hardware,
the Downtown Lodi retail, as well as retail outside the Lodi Shopping Center
Trade Area. The REIR also considered the then planned Wal-Mart supercenters
in Stockton (as well as the existing store in Stockton on Hammer Lane) and Galt.
The Stockton and Gait stores are not expected to have a cumulative economic
impact within the Trade Area defined for the proposed project because the Trade
Areas are not expected to overlap to any great degree. This is especially true
considering Stockton's Ordinance No. 018-07 C.S. (August 14, 2007).
While it is possible that the project, in combination with the Reynolds Ranch
project, will result one or more business closures, it is not reasonably foreseeable
that such closures would lead to total neglect or abandonment of the business or
urban decay. Should there be a business closure, the potential for physical
deterioration will depend largely on the commitment of the property owner to
maintain the property. Should the owner fail to maintain the property, City code
enforcement staff would pursue active and aggressive enforcement as previously
directed by City Council.
As discussed previously, Downtown has shifted to a specialty niche market,
concentrated on entertainment and dining as well as unique, locally owned
shops. Under cumulative conditions, the impacts to Downtown marry include a
reduction in sales and some additional limitation on Downtown's ability to expand
its niche, particularly if Reynolds Ranch included boutique -style stores and
restaurants. However, no closures of downtown business, including the
downtown Long's Drugstore, are anticipated to occur under cumulative
conditions with the assumed general tenant mix for the Reynolds Ranch project.
Thus, in the absence of anticipated store closures, there is no potential for urban
decay in the Downtown under cumulative conditions.
27
Accordingly and as further explained in the REIR, even assuming a reasonable
worst-case scenario that results in one or more business closure, urban decay
impacts of the Lodi Shopping Center, when combined with the economic effects
of projects such as Reynolds Ranch, would result in a less -than -significant
cumulative urban decay impact:
11. ENERGY
Appendix F to the CEQA Guidelines provides than an EIR should consider potentially
significant energy implications. (See also Pub. Res. Code § 21100(b)(3); CEQA
Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1) (energy mitigation measures should be discussed when
relevant)). As summarized below, energy impacts of the Project are found to be less -
than -significant.
A. ENERGY CONSUMPTION
impact: The project would increase energy consumption in the construction and
operational phases of the project. However, energy conservation measures
incorporated into the design, construction and operation of the project would avoid
wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy. (Less -than -Significant
Impact)
2. Mitigation: None Required.
3. Findings: The above impact is less than significant.
4. Facts in Support of f=indings: The operation of the project would result in the
consumption of about 162 billion BTU of electricity, natural gas, and
transportation fuel per year. This is over 500 times more energy than the
estimated 0.3 billion BTU in annual energy inputs that would be applied in an
agricultural operation on the site. The energy consumed by the project operation
would represent 1.9 percent of the total annual energy consumption in the City of
Lodi of about 8,634 billion BTU, and about 0.002 percent of statewide energy
consumption. However, there are a number of energy conservation measures
beyond those required by Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, which
will be incorporated into the design, construction, and operational aspects of the
project, as discussed in the REIR, which would result in a considerable reduction
in project energy consumption, particularly electricity. These measures include
the use of skylights, energy-efficient HVAC units, solar -reflective roofing
materials, energy-efficient lighting systems, and the reclamation of the "heat of
rejection" from refrigeration equipment to generate hot water.
Fuel energy consumed during construction would be temporary and would not
present a significant demand upon energy resources. Some incidental energy
conservation would occur during construction through implementation of the
noise mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR such as fuel savings from
the prohibition of unnecessary idling of vehicles and equipment. The incremental
increase in the use of energy bound in construction materials would not
substantially increase demand for energy compared to overall local and regional
demand for construction materials.
28
The project demand for electricity would be approximately 4.42 gigawatt -hours
per year during the operational phase; however, compared to the total electrical
demand for the City of approximately 470 gigawatt -hours during 2005, the project
would represent less than one percent of the total electrical demand in the City.
The project demand for natural gas would be approximately 12.6 million cubic
feet per year during the operational phase; however, compared with the total
natural gas year demand for the City of approximately 3,892 million cubic feet
during 2005, the project would represent about 0.3 percent of total gas demand.
The project would not result in a significant impact to energy resources since it
would result in the consumption of relatively small amounts of energy, compared
to statewide and local consumption rates, in both the construction and
operational phases, and because the energy conservation measures
incorporated into the design and operation of the project would avoid wasteful,
inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy.
B. IMPACT ON ENERGY SUPPLIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
1. Impact: The increased demand for energy resulting from the project would not be
substantial enough to require new or expanded sources of supply or the
construction of new or expanded energy delivery systems or infrastructure
capacity. (Less -than -Significant Impact)
2. Mitigation: None Required.
3. Findings: The above impact is less than cumulatively significant.
4. Facts in Support of Findings: The energy requirements associated with the
project would not exceed the energy supplies available to the project or exceed
the ability of the various energy infrastructures to provide adequate supplies of
energy to the project, during normal and peak demand periods, for the
foreseeable future. As such, no new energy supplies would need to be
developed to serve the project, and no system improvements would be needed
to the energy delivery infrastructure to serve the project. Therefore, the impact of
the project upon energy supplies and energy delivery infrastructure would be less
than significant.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS — GLOBAL WARMING
The issue of global warming has been raised in the processing of the REIR. At the time
the initial EIR was prepared and certified in 2005, no commenter raised the issue of
climate change despite there being general awareness of the issue within the scientific
and environmental communities. At that time, CEQA also did not require an analysis of
global warming impacts. Assembly Bill 32 ("AB 30), known as the California Global
Warming Solutions Act, Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 38500 et seq., was passed in
September 2006 and became effective on January 1, 2007. AB 32 sets a statewide goal
to decrease greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, and it directs
the California Air Resources Board to develop regulations on greenhouse gas emissions
verification and monitoring. Senate Bill 97 ("SB 97"), enacting Public Resources Code
section 21083.05, was passed in August of 2007, and became effective January 1,
2008. SB 97 directs the Governor's Office of Planning and Research to prepare,
29
develop, and transmit to the Resources Agency guidelines for feasible mitigation of
greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, by July 1, 2009.
It further directs that the Resources Agency certify or adopt those guidelines by January
1, 2010.
Both AB 32 and SB 97 were passed after the certification of the initial EIR, which
occurred in February 2005. However, the issue of global warming is not a new concept,
and it was known at the time the original EIR was certified in 2005. Comments
concerning global warming impacts could have been, but were not, made on the initial
EIR certified in 2005. Since no comments were made on the topic of global warming at
the time the original EIR was circulated for public review, and because the Court did not
order analysis of global warming impacts, the City is not required to analyze global
warming impacts in this EIR. Additionally, AB 32 and SB 97 are not the type of new
information contemplated by Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA
Guidelines section 15162 that would require revisions to an EIR.
The City finds that it is not required to conduct an analysis of global warming in the
FREIR, in part, because it is outside the scope of the FREIR prepared on remained and
in response to the Superior Court's decision.. Nonetheless, the City notes that evidence
and materials submitted by the applicant indicate that global warming impacts would be
less than significant in any event and speculative on a cumulative level of analysis.
FINDINGS CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES
Under CEQA, an EIR must describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the
location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the objectives of the project but would
avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the
comparative merits of the alternatives. Even if a project alternative will avoid or substantially
lessen any of the significant environmental effects of the project, the decision -makers may reject
the alternative if they determine that specific considerations make the altemative infeasible. The
findings with respect to the alternatives identified in the Final REIR are described below.
1. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
A. Description of the Alternative: The No Project alternative consists of not building on the
project site and possibly resuming agricultural cultivation of the property for oats, hay, or
row crops.
B. Comparison to the Project: The No Project alternative would avoid some of the significant
unmitigable effects of the proposed project, such as conversion of prime farmland and
regional air quality impacts. For all other areas of concern, the differences in impacts
between the No Project alternative and the proposed project would not be significant
because the project impacts could be reduced to less -than -significant levels through
feasible mitigation measures. On balance, the No Project alternative would be superior to
the proposed project because it would not result in the significant unavoidable impacts to
agricultural resources and air quality which are associated with the proposed project, and
because it would result in little or no impact in the other impact categories.
30
C. Finding: This alternative is hereby rejected for the reasons set forth below.
The substantial revenues for the City of Lodi General Fund through increased sales tax
and property tax that would be generated by the project would be lost, as would the
employment opportunities for City residents created by the project. The vital municipal
infrastructure improvements that would be constructed by the project would be foregone,
as would the development impact fees paid by the applicant which would help fund the
project's proportionate share of contributions towards vital public services throughout the
City of Lodi. Unlike the proposed project, the No Project alternative would not implement
adopted City plans and policies by accomplishing the City of Lodi long-term development
plans for commercial use at the project site, consistent with City's growth control
measures prioritizing in -fill development within the existing City boundaries, or the
objective of meeting unmet retail demand from existing and future residents of Lodi. The
No Project alternative also would not implement the high quality of design reflected in
the proposed project for this visually prominent western gateway into the City. For the
reasons mentioned above, because the No Project alternative would not meet the
project objectives, and because the No Project alternative would not provide the same
benefits as the proposed project, it is not a feasible alternative.
II. REDUCED PROJECT SIZE ALTERNATIVE
A. Description of the Alternative: This alternative would consist of a substantially reduced
project site of approximately 24 acres, including about 22 gross acres for retail
development and 2 acres for the stormwater basin. This would represent approximately
60 percent of the proposed project size of 40 acres. This alternative would include the
Wal-Mart Supercenter, as proposed, but would not include any of the ancillary retail pads
proposed in the project.
B. Comparison to the Project: The Reduced Project Size alternative would result in a slight
reduction in the levels of impact associated with the proposed project in several topic
areas, although these impacts would be mitigated to less -than -significant levels under the
proposed project. For the two significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the
proposed project — impacts to agricultural resources and regional air quality — the Reduced
Project Size alternative would lessen these impacts but would not avoid them or reduce
them to less -than -significant levels. Thus, although the Reduced Project Size alternative
would be slightly superior to the proposed project, it would not achieve the CEQA objective
of avoiding the significant impacts associated with the project.
C. Finding: This alternative is hereby rejected for the reasons set forth below.
The revenues for the City of Lodi General Fund that would be generated by the project
would be substantially reduced, as would the number of employment opportunities for
City residents created by the project. This alternative would not complete the vital
municipal infrastructure improvements that would be constructed by the project, and
would substantially reduce the development impact fees paid by the applicant to help
fund the project's proportionate share of contributions towards vital public services
throughout the City of Lodi. This alternative would lessen the City's ability to implement
adopted City plans and policies for accomplishing long-term development plans for
commercial use at the project site. This alternative would also compromise the City's
ability to implement the high quality of design reflected in the proposed project for this
visually prominent western gateway into the City and for these reasons is not a feasible
alternative. For the reasons mentioned above, because the Reduced Project alternative
31
would not meet the project objectives, and because the Reduced Project alternative
would not provide the same benefits as the proposed project, it is not a feasible
alternative.
III. ALTERNATIVE PROJECT LOCATION
A. Description of the Alternative: An alternative project site was identified in the
unincorporated area of San Joaquin County known as Flag City, consisting of
approximately 36 gross acres in the northeast quadrant of Highway 12 and Thornton
Road, just east of 1-5. To allow direct comparison, it was assumed that a 36 -acre portion
of the lands at this location would be developed with roughly the same land use
configuration and intensity as the proposed project.
B. Comparison to the Project: The impacts associated with development of the Flag City site
would be somewhat greater than for the proposed project site. Although the impacts for
many categories would be similar for both project locations, development of the Flag City
site would result in negative effects in terms of land use policy, and the resulting potential
for growth inducement, which would not occur with the proposed project site. Traffic
impacts would be greater for the Flag City site, as would impacts to utilities and public
services, although these impacts would be less than significant or could be fully mitigated.
More importantly, the alternative project site would result in the same significant and
unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources and air quality as are associated with the
proposed project. Therefore, the alternative site would not lessen or avoid the significant
and unavoidable impacts of the project.
C. Finding: This alternative is hereby rejected for the reasons set forth below.
The alternative project site is not environmentally superior to the proposed project site. In
addition, due to its location outside the City of Lodi, the alternative site would not provide
the benefits associated with the proposed project including increased municipal revenues
and development impact fees for providing services, creation of employment opportunities
for Lodi residents, meeting unmet retail demand from existing and future Lodi residents,
construction of the project's proportionate share of vital municipal infrastructure
improvements, and the opportunity to implement City goals and policies with respect to the
commercial development of the project site (consistent with City's growth control
measures prioritizing in -fill development within the existing City boundaries), and the
chance to provide a high quality development at the western gateway to the City. For the
reasons listed above, this alternative is infeasible.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Of the three project alternatives considered, only the No Project alternative would avoid or
substantially lessen the significant impacts of the project. The significant and unavoidable
impacts to agricultural resources and air quality associated with the proposed project would both
be avoided by the No Project alternative. Since all other project impacts are either less than
significant or can be reduced to less -than -significant levels through the implementation of feasible
mitigation measures, the No Project alternative would not offer substantial reductions in impact
levels under the other impact categories. Therefore, the No Project alternative would represent
the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project. The No Project alternative was
not selected because it would not meet the applicant's objective of developing the site for
shopping center uses; nor would it meet the City's goals of enhancing its revenue base, creating
jobs, providing vital municipal infrastructure, and implementing the City's policy objective of
developing the site with commercial retail uses.
32
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires that if the environmentally superior alternative is
the No Project alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative from
among the other alternatives. The Reduced Project Size alternative was found to result in the
same significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources and air quality as the proposed
project. However, it would result in slightly lower levels of impact in several impact categories,
although these impacts would all be reduced to less -than -significant levels in conjunction with the
proposed project. Therefore, the Reduced Project Size alternative represents the environmentally
superior alternative. The Reduced Project Size alternative was not selected because it would not
entirely fulfill the project objective of developing the proposed project site with a regional shopping
center in conformance with the City of Lodi General Plan and zoning regulations, and because it
would be substantially less effective than the proposed project in fulfilling the project objective of
meeting unmet retail demand from existing and future residents of Lodi. It also would be
substantially less effective than the proposed project in fulfilling the City's objective of enhancing
its fiscal resources through increased sales tax and property tax revenues, or in meeting the
objectives of creating new jobs, and providing a pro -rata share of vital municipal infrastructure.
In conclusion, there are no alternatives to the project which could feasibly attain most of the basic
objectives of the project, but also avoid or reduce the significant impacts associated with the
proposed project to less -than -significant levels.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Attached to this resolution and incorporated and adopted as part thereof, is the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Lodi Shopping Center project. The Program
identifies the mitigation measures to be implemented in conjunction with the project, and
designates responsibility for the implementation and monitoring of the mitigation measures, as
well as the required timing of their implementation.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091-
15093, the City Council of the City of Lodi hereby adopts and makes the following Statement of
Overriding Considerations regarding the remaining significant and unavoidable impacts of the
project and the anticipated economic, social and other benefits of the project.
A. Significant Unavoidable Impacts
With respect to the foregoing findings and in recognition of those facts which are included in the
record, the City Council has determined that the project would result in significant unavoidable
impacts to prime agricultural land and regional air quality. While mitigation measures have been
identified which will reduce these impacts, they cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant
level by feasible changes or alterations to the project.
B. Overriding Considerations
The City Council specifically adopts and makes this Statement of Overriding Considerations that
this project has eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment
where feasible, and finds that the remaining significant, unavoidable impacts of the project are
acceptable in light of environmental, economic, social or other considerations set forth herein
because the benefits of the project outweigh the significant and adverse effects of the project.
The City Council has considered the EIR, the public record of proceedings on the proposed
project and other written materials presented to the City, as well as oral and written testimony
33
received, and does hereby determine that implementation of the project as specifically provided
in the project documents would result in the following substantial public benefits:
1. Prolect Will Generate City Taxes. The sales generated by the Lodi Shopping Center will
generate additional sales tax and property tax revenues for the City, which would
otherwise not be generated by the undeveloped site. These revenues go to the City's
General Fund which is the primary funding source for the construction, operation and
maintenance of a number of essential City services, programs and facilities including fire
and police services, recreation programs, transit operations, library services, public
infrastructure such as water and sanitary sewer service, and administrative functions,
among other things.
2. Pro'ect Creates Employment Opportunities for City Residents. The Lodi Shopping
Center project will generate both temporary construction jobs as well as hundreds of
permanent full-time and part-time jobs. The vast majority of the permanent jobs will not
require special skills and therefore could be filled by existing local residents. Thus, with
the exception of a very few management positions which will likely be filled by
transferees from other localities, no specially -skilled workers would need to be
"imported" from outside the City. Consequently, it is expected that City residents would
benefit from added employment opportunities offered by the Lodi Shopping Center
project.
3. Proiect Will implement Vital Municipal Infrastructure Imi2roveme,nts. Through the
development of the project, a number of public infrastructure projects will be constructed
on the project site and the project vicinity. As described on page 15 of the Draft EIR, the
project will construct planned roadway improvements along the portions of Lower
Sacramento Road and State Route 1211(ettleman Lane that front the project site, and as
well as Westgate Drive to its full design width along the western project boundary. This
is an economic benefit of the project in that these improvements would otherwise not be
made without approval and implementation of the project. The project will also be
conditioned to pay impact fees to the City in accordance with City's adopted
Development Impact Fee program, which can be applied toward it's pro -rata share of
municipal improvements such as water, sewer, storm drainage, and streets, as well as
police, fire, parks and recreation, and general City government. These are vital
municipal improvements necessary to the function of the City and the quality of life for
City residents, providing another economic benefit as well as social benefit of the
project.
4. Proiect Implements Adopted City Pians. The project is situated within Lodi City limits
and has been planned for commercial development in the current City of Lodi General
Plan since its adoption in 1991. Therefore, the project implements adopted City plans
and policies by accomplishing the City of Lodi long-term development plans for
commercial use at the project site, consistent with City's growth control measures
prioritizing in -fill development within the existing City boundaries. In addition, the project
completes the development of the "Four Corners" area by providing a large-scale retail
center on the last remaining undeveloped site at the Lower Sacramento Road/Kettleman
Lane intersection consistent with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance.
5. Creates High Quality Design at Western Gat@Aay to, the . The Lodi Shopping Center
has been designed in conformance with the City's Design Standards for Large Retail
Establishments which will ensure a consistent high quality of design throughout the
34
project site. This is a particularly important consideration given the project's visually
prominent location at the western gateway to the City, and will effectively implement the
General Plan goal and policies which call for the establishment of identifiable, visually
appealing, and memorable entrances along the principal roads into the City.
6. Protect Features Numerous Energy Conserving Measures. The project proposes to
include energy efficient and sustainable features as part of the project designs,
including, for example, automated control system for heating/air conditioning, lighting
controls, energy efficient lighting, and light colored roof materials to reflect heat.
In making the statement of overriding consideration in support of the findings of fact and this
project, the City Council has weighed the above economic and social benefits of the
proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks and adverse environmental
effects identified in the EIR and hereby determines that those benefits outweigh the risks
and adverse environmental effects and, therefore, further determines that these risks and
adverse environmental effects are acceptable.
CONCLUSION
The Final Revisions to the Environmental Impact Report for the Lodi Shopping Center
project was completed in compliance with CEQA, has been reviewed and considered by the
City Council, and represents the City Council's independent judgment and analysis.
The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Lodi Shopping Center project, as amended
by the Final Revisions to the Environmental Impact Report, is hereby certified pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act. All feasible mitigation measures for the project
identified in the Environmental Impact Report and accompanying studies are hereby
incorporated into this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DETERMINED AND RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Lodi that the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report (EIR-03-01) relating to the Lodi
Shopping Center project; State Clearinghouse No. 2003042113 is hereby certified, and the City
Council hereby adopts the findings, statements of overriding considerations, and other matters
set forth in this resolution.
Dated: December 10, 2008
- _ I hereby certify that Resolution No. 2008-238 was passed and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Lodi in a special meeting held December 10 2008, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCIL MEMBERS - Johnson, Katzakian, and Mayor Hansen
COUNCIL MEMBERS - Hitchcock and Mounce
COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
2008-238
35