HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - No. 2009-58RESOLUTION NO. 2009-58
A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL APPROVING USE PERMIT
FILE NO. U-02-12 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OFA COMMERCIAL
SHOPPING CENTER IN THE C -S ZONE AND ALLOW THE SALE OF
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AT THE WAL-MART SUPERCENTER;
APPROVING THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 03-P-001 TO CREATE 12
PARCELS FOR THE PROJECT RELATING TO THE LODI SHOPPING
CENTER; AND PROVIDING THE ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL OF A NEW
COMMERCIAL BUILDING TO BE CONSTRUCTEDAT 2640 WEST
KETTLEMAN LANE (WAL-MART), AND MAKING FINDINGSAND
STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PURSUANTTO
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
---
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 portion of 058-030-09; and
WHEREAS, the application is for the following approvals: Use Permits for the
construction of commercial structures as required by the C -S Commercial Shopping District and
for the sale of alcoholic beverages, a Vesting Tentative Map to create 12 parcels for the project,
and architectural approval of a new commercial building including elevations and colors to be
used for the construction of a Wal-Mart store located at 2640 W. Kettleman Lane (the
"Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi, after more than ten (10) days
published notice, held a public hearing before said Commission on April 8, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted 3-3 on a motion to approve the requests
and make the findings, which resulted in a denial of the Project approvals; and
WHEREAS, the Project is consistent with all elements of the General Plan, and in
particular, the following General Plan Goals and Policies:
A. Land Use and Growth Management Element, Goal E, "To provide adequate
land and support for the development of commercial uses providing goods
and services to Lodi residents and Lodi's market share."
B. Land Use and Growth Management Element, Goal E, Policy 7, "In approving
new commercial projects, the City shall seek to ensure that such projects
reflectthe City's concern for achieving and maintaining high quality."
C. Land Use and Growth Management Element, Goal E, Policy 3, "The City
shall encourage new large-scale commercial centers to be located along
major arterials and at the intersectians of major arterials and freeways."
D. Housing Element, Goal C, "To ensure the provision of adequate public
facilities and services to support existing and future residential development".
E. Circulation Element, Goal G, "To encourage a reduction in regional vehicle
miles traveled."
F. Circulation Element, Goal A, Policy 1, "The City shall strive to maintain Level
of Service C on local streets and intersections. The acceptable level of
service goal will be consistent with financial resources available and the limits
of technical feasibility."
G. Noise Element, Goal A, "To ensure that City residents are protected from
excessive noise."
H. Conservation Element, Goal C, Policy 1, "The City shall ensure, in approving
urban development near existing agricultural lands, that such development
will not constrain agricultural practices or adversely affect the economic
viability of adjacent agricultural practices."
I. Health and Safety Element, Goals A, B, C, and D, "To prevent loss of lives,
injury and property damage due to flooding." To prevent loss cf lives, injury,
and property damage due to the collapse of buildings and critical facilities
and to prevent disruption of essential services in the event of an earthquake.
To prevent loss of lives, injury, and property damage due to urban fires. To
prevent crime and promote the personal security of Lodi residents.
J. Urban Design and Cultural resources, Goal C, "To maintain and enhance the
aesthetic quality of major streets and public/civic areas."
WHEREAS, the design and improvement of the site is consistent with all applicable
standards adopted by the City. Specifically, the project has met the requirements of the Lodi
Zoning Ordinance with particular emphasis on the standards for large retail establishments; and
WHEREAS, the design of the proposed project and type of improvements are not likely
to cause public health or safety problems in that all improvements will be constructed to the City
of Lodi standards; and
WHEREAS, these findings, as well as the findings made within City Council Resolution
No. 2009-27 certifying Final Revised Environmental Impact Report EIR-03-01, are supported by
substantial evidence in the record of this proceeding and before this body; and
WHEREAS, approval of the requested architectural drawings will allow the construction
of a commercial building that will comply with the City's Zoning Ordinance and Building Code
regulations; and
WHEREAS, the design of the proposed project and type of improvements are not likely
to cause public health or safety problems in that all improvementswill be constructed to the City
of Lodi standards; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lodi has invested over sixteen million dollars in its Downtown
area to revitalize and create a specialty retail and commercial destination within the City; and
WHEREAS, the Lodi Shopping Center will create retail and commercial shopping
opportunities outside of the Downtown area; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lodi is committed to revitalizing its Downtown area and is
requiring that all new retail and commercial developments contribute to that effort; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lodi recognizes that the applicant will make an in kind
contribution to the redevelopment of the Downtown area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED that the Lodi
City Council does hereby approve the Project subject to the following findings, conclusions, and
conditions of approval:
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
2. The City Council incorporates herein by reference City Council Resolution No. 09-27, dated
March 11, 2009 certifying the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report ("EIR) for the
Project and finds that the EIR, as revised, adequately identifies all significant environmental
effects of the project pursuantto CEQA.
3. As provided by Public Resources Code section 21081, CEQA Guidelines sections 15091,
15092, and 15093, and other relevant provisions of CEQA, the City Council hereby makes
and adopts those Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ("Findings")
set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The City
Council, exercising its own independent judgment, determines that such Findings are
supported by substantial evidence in the record including, but not limited to, the information
and materials contained in the EIR, as revised, all notices and other documents related
thereto, those documents and materials described in California Public Resources Code
section 21167.6(e), and those documents and materials referenced in the Findings.
4. The City Council hereby approves and adopts each and every mitigation measure
proposed in the EIR, as revised, (and as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto) and makes
such mitigation measures a required component of and incorporated into approval of the
Project. The City Council further finds that, except as to impacts found by the EIR to be
significant and unavoidable, implementation of the mitigation measures identified and
discussed in the EIR will avoid or lessen to a level of less than significant those
environmental effects identified in the EIR for which a mitigation measure is identified.
5. Pursuantto Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby approves and
adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto as Exhibit B and
incorporated herein by reference, which was prepared in conjunction with the EIR. The
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is made a required component and condition
of approval of the Project.
6. Because the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures will not substantially lessen or
avoid all significant adverse environmental effects caused by the project, the City Council
adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations concerning the Project's unavoidable
significant impacts to explain why the Project's benefits override and outweigh its
unavoidable impacts on the environment as set forth in ExhibitA.
7. The City Council does hereby make its findings with respect to the significant effects on the
environment resulting from the Project, as identified herein and in the hereinbefore
mentioned EIR, with the stipulation that all information in the findings is intended as a
summary of the full administrative record supporting the EIR, which full administrative
3
record is available for review through the Director of Community Development at his office
in Lodi City Hall at 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, 95241.
8. Having reviewed and considered the Draft and Final EIR for the Project, as revised, and
other relevant materials and information in the record, the City Council hereby approves the
Project and makesthe following specific findings relative thereto.
Use Permit andTentative Map
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
2. Said Tentative Map complies with the requirements of the City Subdivision Ordinance, and
the Subdivision Map Act.
3. Said Site Plan complies with the requirements of the Commercial Shopping (C -S) Zoning
District.
4. The submitted plans, including site plot plan and architectural elevations for the major
anchor building, for the project is approved subject to the following conditions.
A. The approval of the Use Permit expires within 24 months from the date of this
Resolution. Should any litigation be filed or continued regarding this project, the time
limit shown shall be tolled during the pendency of the litigation. Final Parcel Map(s)
conforming to this conditionally approved Tentative Parcel Map shall be filed with the
Public Works Department in time so that the Public Works Department may approve
said map before its expiration pursuant to City Council Resolution 2008-125, unless
prior to that date, the Planning Commission or City Council subsequently grants a time
extension for the filing of the Final Parcel Map, as provided for in the City's Subdivision
Ordinance and the Subdivision Map Act. The Public Works Department shall notify
the City Council of any such approvals. It is the developer's responsibilityto track the
expiration date. Failure to request an extension will result in a refilling of the Tentative
Map and new review processing of the map. Pursuant to Government Code section
66456.1, the applicant may seek multiple/phased final maps.
B. Prior to submittal of any further plan check or within 90 days of the approval of this
project, whichever occurs first, the applicant and all property owners shall sign a
notarized affidavit stating that "I (we), , the owner(s) or the owner's representative
have read, understand, and agree to implement all mitigation measures identified in
the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Lodi Shopping Center and the
conditions of the City Council approving U-02-12 and 03-P-001." Immediately
following this statement will appear a signature block for the owner or the owner's
representative, which shall be signed. Signature blocks for the Community
Development Director and City Engineer shall also appear on this page. The affidavit
shall be approved by the City prior to any improvement plan or final map submittal.
C. Prior to issuance of any building permit on the site, each building shall be reviewed by
the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee for consistency with this resolution
as well as all applicable standards of the City.
D. All applications for Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee consideration shall
comply with the following conditions:
4
1. All buildings shall comply with the requirements of C -S zoning district and meet
setback requirements from the right of way shown on the site plan. All
buildings shall implement building elements and materials illustrated on the
submitted elevation or otherwise consistent with the architectural theme
presented on the submitted elevation of the major tenant building.
2. Submit a construction landscape plan consistent with the submitted conceptual
landscape plan. The applicant shall also insure that the overall ratio of trees,
including perimeter landscaping is equal to one tree for every four parking
spaces. Further, said plan shall demonstrate that the City's requirement for
parking lot shading is met.
3. The applicant shall select and note on all plans common tree species for the
parking lot and perimeter areas from the list of large trees as identified in the
Local Government Commission's "Tree Guidelines for the San Joaquin Valley".
4. All drive-through eating facilities shall have a "double service window"
configuration and pullout lane to minimize auto emissions.
5. Cart corrals shall to be provided in the parking lot adjacent to Wal-Mart and
distributed evenly throughout the lots rather than concentrated along the main
drive aisle. In addition, a cart corral shall be provided as close as possible to
the two bus stop/shelters provided on-site. Further, cart corrals shall be
permanent with a design that is consistent with the theme of the center.
Portable metal corrals shall be prohibited. Developer shall install landscaping,
curbing and other features to discourage removal of carts from the site.
However, if such features prove ineffective, the Planning Director may require
the installation of a cartwheel locking system.
6. Trash enclosures shall be designed to accommodate separate facilities for
trash and recyclable materials. Trash enclosures having connections to the
wastewater system shall install a sand/grease trap conforming to Standard
Plan 205 and shall be covered.
7. Hardscape items, including tables, benches/seats, trashcans, bike racks,
drinking fountains, etc. shall be uniform for all stores throughout the shopping
center.
8. All signage shall be in compliance with a detailed Sign Program that shall be
submitted to SPARC for review and approval with the first building plan review.
9. Said program shall require all signs to be individual channel letter at the
standards provided by the zoning ordinance.
10. Any bollards installed in a storefront location shall be decorative in style and
consistent with the theme of the shopping center. Plain concrete bollards, or
concrete filled steel pipe bollards shall not be permitted.
E. All landscaped area shall be kept free from weeds and debris, maintained in a
healthy growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and
trimming. Unhealthy, dead, or damaged plant materials shall be removed and
replaced within 30 days following written notice from the Community Development
Director.
F. The following items are conditions of approval for the vesting tentative parcel map, all
to be accomplished prior to, or concurrent with, final parcel map filing unless noted
otherwise:
1. Project must receive and comply with all terms of the Cal Trans encroachment
Permit necessary for access to Highway 12 directly from the Project and from
Westgate Drive. Any conditions imposed by Cal Trans for the encroachment
permit that result in site plan modifications shall be reviewed by City staff for
consistency with Project approvals.
2. Dedication of street right-of-way as shown on the parcel map with the following
changes/additions:
a) Street right-of-way dedications on Westgate Drive shall be in conformance
with the lane geometries, transitions and turn pocket configurations
resulting from Item #1 above. The dedications shall be to the approval of
the Public Works Department.
b) Right-of-way dedications on Lower Sacramento Road and Kettleman Lane
shall be in conformance with the lane geometries resulting from Item #1
above and City of Lodi street geometric requirements for this project and to
the approval of the Public Works Department and Caltrans. Right-of-way
dedications on Kettleman Lane shall be made to Caltrans in conformance
with their requirements. Separate parcels shall be created for Caltrans
dedications. It should be anticipated that Caltrans will require street
widening improvements west of the project boundary. Acquisition of any
right-of-way necessary to meet Caltrans requirements shall be the
responsibility of the developer.
c) Lower Sacramento Road is an established STAA route and turning
movements to and from the roadway into private driveways and
intersecting streets are required to demonstrate that accommodation has
been made for the truck turning movement in conformance with Public
Works requirements.
d) The right-of-way dedication and driveway design at the south project
driveway on Lower Sacramento Road shall accommodate and be in
conformance with the California Semitrailer wheel track (18m/60ft radius)
turning template.
e) Right-of-way dedications at all proposed project driveway locations shall be
sufficient to accommodate the handicap ramps and public sidewalks at the
crosswalk locations. In addition, the right-of-way dedication at the
proposed traffic signal location on Lower Sacramento Road shall be
sufficient to allow installation of the traffic signal improvements within the
public right-of-way.
3. Dedication of public utility easements as required by the various utility
companies and the City of Lodi, including, but not limited to, the following:
a) A PUE along the southerly property line sufficient to accommodate the
installation cf electric utility overhead transmission lines and underground
conduit bank which may be outside proposed landscape areas, and the
extension of water, wastewater and industrial waste transmission lines
between Lower Sacramento Road and Westgate Drive. We anticipate the
6
required PUE along the south project boundarywill be on the order of 65 to
75 feet. It may be possible to reduce the width of the PUE by realigning
some of the pipes through the shopping center site. The actual alignment
and width will be to the approval of the Public Works Department and City
of Lodi Electric Utility.
b) A PUE at the proposed signalized project driveway to accommodate the
installation of traffic signal loops.
c) A PUE at the existing southerly Sunwest Plaza (Food 4 Less) driveway to
accommodate the installation of traffic signal loops. Acquisition of the PUE
is the responsibility of the developer and must be accomplished prior to
recordation of any final parcel map.
4. Provide a private access easement providing a clear path of travel for
pedestrian traffic from the public right-of-way to all parcels within the boundaries
of the map in conformance with ADA requirements.
5. In order to assist the City in providing an adequate water supply, the property
owner is required to enter into an agreement with the City that the City of Lodi
be appointed as its agent for the exercise of any and all overlying water rights
appurtenant to the proposed Lodi Shopping Center, and that the City may
charge fees for the delivery of such water in accordance with City rate policies.
The agreement establishes conditions and covenants running with the land for
all lots in the parcel map and provides deed provisions to be included in each
conveyance.
Submit final map per City requirements including the following:
a) Preliminary title report.
b) Standard note regarding requirements to be met at subsequent date.
6. Payment of the following:
a) Filing and processing fees and charges for services performed by City
forces per the Public Works Fee and Service Charge Schedule.
G. The following items are conditions of approval for the vesting tentative parcel map and
use permit that will be deferred until the time of development:
Engineering and preparation of improvement plans and estimate per City Public
Improvement Design Standards for all public improvements for all parcels at the
time of development of the first parcel. Plans to include:
a) Detailed utility master plans and design calculations for all phases of the
development, including the proposed temporary storm drainage detention
basin. Detailed utility master plans have not been developed for the area
between Kettleman Lane on the north, Harney Lane on the south, Lower
Sacramento Road on the east and the current General Plan boundary on
the west. The project site is at the upstream boundary of the storm drain
and wastewater utilities for this area. The developer's engineer shall
provide a detailed drainage master plan, including engineering calculations,
for the entire area as well as all phases of the proposed project. The
developer's engineer shall prepare and submit a work plan/scope for
master plan preparation for approval by the City Engineer prior to start of
7
master plan work. Master plans need to be coordinated with the Southwest
Gateway development. City staff will assist in the master planning process
to the extent practicable. Should City staff be unable to meet developer's
schedule, developer shall have the option to pay the City to contract for
supplemental outside consultant services to expedite review and approval
of the master planning work.
b) Current soils report. If the soils report was not issued within the past three
(3) years, provide an updated soils report from a licensed geotechnical
engineer.
c) Grading, drainage and erosion control plan.
d) Copy of Notice of Intent for NPDES permit, including storm water pollution
prevention plan (SWPPP).
e) All utilities, including street lights and electrical, gas, telephone and cable
television facilities.
f) Landscaping and irrigation plans for street medians and parkway areas in
the public right-of-way.
g) Undergrounding of existing overhead utilities, excluding transmission lines.
h) Installation of the proposed traffic signal at the main project driveway on
Lower Sacramento Road. The traffic signal shall be designed to operate as
an eight phase signal.
i) Modification of the existing southerly Sunwest Plaza (Food 4 Less)
driveway to widen the driveway to the approval of the Public Works
Department.
j) Installation/modification of the traffic signal at the Kettleman Lane/Westgate
Drive intersection as required by the project.
k) Traffic striping for Lower Sacramento Road, Westgate Drive and Kettleman
Lane.
A complete plan check submittal package, including all the items listed above
plus the Map/Improvement Plan Submittal cover letter, Improvement Plan
Checklist and engineering plan check fees, is required to initiate the Public
Works Department plan review process for the engineered improvement plans.
2. There is limited wastewater capacity in the wastewater main in Lower
Sacramento Road. The area of the shopping center site containing the
proposed Walmart store lies outside the service area for the Lower Sacramento
Road wastewater line. Developer shall perform a capacity analysis using
approved flow monitoring protocols to assess the viability of utilizing the Lower
Sacramento Road wastewater line on an interim basis. Wastewater facilities
outside the Lower Sacramento Road service area shall be designed to allow
future connection to the wastewater main in Westgate Drive. If the capacity
analysis indicates that interim capacity in the Lower Sacramento Road
wastewater line is not available, wastewater collection facilities shall be
constructed to serve the project to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
3. Installation of all public utilities and street improvements in conformance with
City of Lodi master plans and design standards and specifications, including,
but not limited to, the following:
a) Installation of all curb, gutter, sidewalk, traffic signal and appurtenant
facilities, traffic control or other regulatory/street signs, street lights, medians
and landscaping and irrigation systems in Westgate Drive, Kettleman Lane
and Lower Sacramento Road.
b) All improvements on Kettleman Lane shall be in conformance with City of
Lodi and Caltrans requirements and require a Caltrans encroachment permit.
The Caltrans encroachment permit submittal package shall include a terminal
access route application for STAA trucks. Additional right-of-way acquisition
outside the limits cf the map may be required. The City of Lodi will assist the
developer in obtaining the additional right-of-way that may be required.
Design and construction staking for the Kettleman Lane improvements wil I be
performed by the City at the Developer's expense.
c) Street improvements in Westgate Drive shall be in conformance with the lane
geometries, transitions and turn pocket configurations resulting from Item #1
above and landscaped median, parkway and sidewalk improvements required
by the City. Developer shall have no obligation to do any work on Westgate
Drive west cf the westernmost curb.
d) Modification of the existing southerly Sunwest Plaza (Food 4 Less) driveway to
construct a driveway to the approval of the Public Works Director. Acquisition
of additional right-of-way and construction easements from the adjacent
property to the south (APN # 058-140-04) may be necessary to accomplish this
work and shall be the responsibility of the developer.
e) The extension/installation of all public utilities, including, but not limited to, the
extension/installation of master plan water, wastewater, storm drainage and
recycled water mains to the south end of Westgate Drive, the extension of
water, wastewater and industrial waste transmission lines through the
shopping center site from Lower Sacramento Road to Westgate Drive and
the installation of recycled water main in Lower Sacramento Road and
Westgate Drive from Kettleman Lane to the south project boundary. The
cost of extending or installing recycled water mains shall be eligible for
reimbursement. The developer's engineer shall work with Public Works
Department staff to resolve public utility design issues.
f) Relocation of existing utilities, as necessary, and undergrounding of existing
overhead lines, excluding electric (64 kv) transmission lines.
g) Project design and construction shall be in compliance with applicable terms
and conditions of the City's Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) approved
by the City Council on March 5, 2003, and shall employ the Best
Management Practices (BMPs) identified in the SMP.
i) The City's adopted Stormwater Development Standards for new projects
in conformance with the conditions of the City's Stormwater Discharge
Permit. The design of projects containing more than 5,000 square feet of
impervious area, retail gasoline outlets and trash enclosures is
significantly affected by these Standards. The project shall be required to
comply with the requirements of the Standards.
9
ii) State -mandated construction site inspections to assure compliance with
the City of Lodi Storm Discharge Permit are required. The fee for the
inspections is the responsibility of the developer and must be paid prior to
commencement of site grading and/or construction operations.
iii) if bioswales are to be used, they need to be clearly delineated and
detailed on the site plan and the landscape plan. Most trees are not
compatiblewith bioswales.
The City and Applicant shall enter into an improvement agreement for the installation
of public improvements required as part of the Project prior to the development of
the first parcel.
4. The proposed temporary storm drainage basin shall be designed in
conformance with City of Lodi Design Standards 53.700 and must be approved
by the City's Public Works Department. Acquisition of property to
accommodate the construction of the temporary drainage basin is the
responsibility of the developer. All drainage improvements shall be designed for
future connection to permanent public drainage facilities when they become
available. In the event the Utility Master Plan referenced in paragraph
4(G)(1)(a) locates the permanent storm drainage basin in the same location as
the temporary storm drainage basin, Project shall be entitled to reimbursement
for its construction costs minus any cost to retrofit the temporary basin to serve
as a permanent basin and meet public works permanent basin standards and
specifications. Project's Stormwater Impact Fee shall be deferred pursuant to a
Deferred Fee Payment Agreement as provided in Lodi Municipal Code Section
15.64.040 until such time as the reimbursement contingency set forth in this
paragraph is resolved.
5. A Caltrans encroachment permit is required for all work in the Kettleman Lane
right-of-way, including landscape and irrigation improvements in the median and
parkway along the site frontage. Based on past experience, Caltrans will not
allow landscape and irrigation improvements within their right-of-way unless the
City enters into an agreement with Caltrans covering maintenance
responsibilities for those improvements. The City is willing to execute such an
agreement; however, the developer will be required to execute a similar
landscape maintenance agreement with the City assuming the city's
responsibilitiesfor the landscape and irrigation improvements in the parkways.
6. Design and installation of public improvements to be in accordance with City
master plans and the detailed utility master plans as previously referenced
above.
Note that the developer may be eligible for reimbursement from others for the
cost of certain improvements. It is the developer's responsibility to request
reimbursement and submit the appropriate information per the Lodi Municipal
Code (LMC) 516.40
7. All project design and construction shall be in compliance with the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA). Project compliance with ADA standards is the
developer's responsibility.
10
8. The following improvements shall be constructed with the development of the
first parcel zoned for commercial development:
a) Installation of all street improvements on Lower Sacramento Road,
Kettleman Lane and Westgate Drive. Street improvements for Lower
Sacramento Road and Westgate Drive shall be constructed from the
signalized intersections on Kettleman Lane to the south boundary of the
parcel map. Street improvements along the frontages of Parcels 1, 12 and
"A" shall extend to and include the installation of the westerly curb and gutter.
b) Modification of the existing southerly Sunwest Plaza (Food 4 Less) driveway
to widen the driveway to the south as shown on the site plan and construct a
driveway to the satisfaction of the City's Public Works Department.
c) The extension/installation of all public utilities necessary to serve the
commercial development and/or required as a condition of development.
d) Temporary storm drainage detention basin to serve the project.
9. Acquisition of street right-of-way, public utility easements and/or construction
easements outside the limits of the map to allow the installation of required
improvements on Kettleman Lane, Lower Sacramento Road and Westgate
Drive.
10. All property dedicated to the City of Lodi shall be free and clear of all liens and
encumbrances and without cost to the City of Lodi and free and clear of
environmental hazards, hazardous materials or hazardous waste. Developer
shall prepare and submit a hazardous materials report and all property owners
shall indemnify the City against any and all hazardous materials and/or ground
water contamination existing on their individual property at the time of dedication
for all property/easements dedicated to the City.
11. Abandonment/removal of wells, septic systems and underground tanks in
conformance with applicable City and County requirements and codes prior to
approval of public improvement plans.
12. The project shall provide for a prorated share of the on-going maintenance costs
of median landscape improvements in Kettleman Lane, Lower Sacramento Road
and Westgate Drive by annexation to the Lodi Consolidated Landscape and
Maintenance District 2003-1 prior to acceptance of the public improvements. All
costs associated with annexation to the District shall be the Developer's
responsibility.
13. Payment of the following:
a) Filing and processing fees and charges for services performed by City forces
per the PublicWorks Fee and Service Charge Schedule.
b) Development Impact Mitigation Fees per the Public Works Fee and Service
Charge Schedule at the time of building permit issuance.
c) Wastewater capacity impact fee at the time of building permit issuance.
d) County Facilities Fees at the time of building permit issuance.
e) Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) at the time of building permit
issuance.
11
f) The City is currently developing a Water Capacity Impact Fee to pay for the
costs to construct a water treatment plant necessary to provide water to the
Project. In lieu of paying the fee as ultimately adopted, Project has agreed to
pay a current fee estimate of $765,050 (1.43 times project Sewer Service
Units (SSU's) times $5,000) prior to the development of the first parcel. The
purpose of paying a fee now is to obtain certainty of costs and the Project
shall not be subject to future assessment or refund in the event the fee is
ultimately higher or lower than the amount set forth above.
g) Stormwater compliance inspection fee prior to commencement of site
grading and/or construction operations.
h) Reimbursementfees per existing agreements:
i. Reimbursement Agreement RA -02-02. The reimbursement fee for 2009
is $40,469.03. The fee is adjusted annually on January 1. The fee to be
paid will be that in effect at the time of payment. The fee shall be paid
prior to approval of the public improvement plans.
ii. Resolution No. 2007-52 establishing an area of benefit and reimbursable
costs for Lower Sacramento Road (Kettleman Lane to Harney Lane)
improvements. The reimbursement fee for 2009 is $90,042.73. The fee
is adjusted annually on January 1. The fee to be paid will be that in
effect at the time of payment. The fee shall be paid prior to approval of
the public improvement plans.
iii. Reimbursement Agreement RA 08-01. The reimbursement fee for 2009
is $222,498.63. The fee is adjusted annually on January 1. The fee to be
paid will be that in effect at the time of payment. The fee shall be paid
prior to approval of the public improvement plans.
i) City Resolution 2006-234, adopted on December 20, 2006 amended the
Electric Utility Department's Rules & Regulations 13, 15 and 16 and requires
new development and this Project to pay the full cost of extending electric
facilities to serve the Project.
The above fees are subject to periodic adjustment as provided by the
implementing ordinance/resolution. The fee charged will be that in effect at the
time of collection indicated above.
14. Obtain the following permits:
a) San Joaquin County well/septic abandonment permit.
b) Caltrans Encroachment Permit for work in Caltrans right-of-way.
15. The City will participate in the cost of the following improvements in conformance
with LMC §16.40 Reimbursements for Construction:
a) Master plan storm drain facilities and lines.
b) Master plan water mains.
c) Master plan reclaimed water mains.
d) industrialwaste lines.
Please note that construction of master plan wastewater facilities to serve the
project site is not included in the City's Development Impact Mitigation Fee
Program and is not subject to impact mitigation fee credits for sewer facilities or
reimbursement by the City.
12
H. Install fire hydrants at locations approved by the Fire Marshal.
I. Shopping carts shall be stored inside the buildings or stored in a cart storage area
adjacent to the entrance of the building.
J. No outdoor storage or display of merchandise shall be permitted at the project
unless a specific plan for such display is approved by SPARC. At no time shall
outdoor storage or display be allowed within the parking area, drive aisle or required
sidewalks of the center.
K. Vending machines, video games, amusement games, children's rides, recycling
machines, vendor carts or similar items shall be prohibited in the outside area of all
storefronts. The storefront placement of public telephones, drinking fountains and
ATM machines shall be permitted subject to the review and approval of the
Community Development Director.
L. All storage of cardboard bales and pallets shall be contained within the area
designated at the rear of the Wal-Mart building for such use. No storage of
cardboard or pallets may exceed the height of the masonry enclosure at any time.
M. The loading area shown in front of the Wal-Mart building shall be stripped and
posted with "NO PARKING — LOADING ONLY signs to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director.
N. A photometric exterior lighting plan and fixture specification shall be submitted for
review and approval of the Community development Director prior to the issuance of
any building permit. Said plans and specification shall address the following:
1. All project lighting shall be confined to the premises. No spillover beyond the
property line is permitted.
2. The equivalent of one (1) foot-candle of illumination shall be maintained
throughout the parking area.
O. Exterior lighting fixtures on the face of the buildings shall be consistent with the
theme of the center. No wallpacks or other floodlights shall be permitted. All building
mounted lighting shall have a 90 -degree horizontal flat cut-off lens unless the fixture
is for decorative purposes.
P. All parking light fixtures shall be a maximum of 25 feet in height. All fixtures shall be
consistent throughout the center.
Q. All construction activity shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Monday through Saturday: No exterior construction activity is permitted on Sundays
or legal holidays.
R. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the new Wal-Mart Supercenter, the
applicant shall ensure one of the following with respect to the existing Wal-Mart
building located at 2350 West Kettleman Lane ("Building"):
a) The owner of the Building shall have entered into signed lease(s) with bona -fide
tenant(s) for at least 50% of the Building square footage (not including the
fenced, outdoor garden center). The signed lease(s) required hereunder shall
include a lease(s) with a bona -fide retailer(s) or restaurantfor a minimum of two-
thirds of the Building frontage (not including the fenced, outdoor garden center);
or
13
b) The owner of the Building shall have entered into a fully executed purchase
agreement for the Building with a bona -fide retailer; or
c) The Applicant shall present to the City a cash escrow account, subject to the
approval of the City Attorney, which account shall be for the purpose of securing
applicant's obligation to demolish the Building not later than 90 days after the
opening to the general public of the new Wal-Mart Supercenter (the "Opening
Date"). The amount of the deposit shall be equal to the City estimated
reasonable costs to demolish the Building (based on a licensed contractor
estimate) plus $100,000. The escrow account shall be paid to City in the event
that Option (a), (b) or (c) is not satisfied within 90 days of the Opening Date. If
Option (a), (b) or (c) is satisfied within 90 days after the Opening Date, the cash
in the escrow account shall be refunded in full to the Applicant.
If the Applicant does not satisfy this condition under Option (a), (b) or (c) within
90 days after the Opening Date, the City shall use the funds to demolish the
Building with any balance reverting to the City as compensation for its expense
and inconvenience incurred to demolish the Building. The owner of the Building
shall present evidence that any lender on the Building consents to the demolition
in a form subject to the approval of the City Attorney. This condition shall be
recorded against the property as a deed restriction, which runs with the land.
Applicant and Wal-Mart agree to enter into any agreements that are necessary in
order to implement this condition.
S. No materials within the garden or seasonal sales area shall be stored higher than
the screen provided.
T. Wal-Mart shall operate and abide by the conditions of the State of California
Alcoholic Beverage Control license Type 21, off sale -general.
U. Wal-Mart shall insure that the sale of beer and wine does not cause any condition
that will result in repeated activities that are harmful to the health, peace or safety of
persons residing or working in the surrounding area. This includes, but is not limited
to: disturbances of the peace, illegal drug activity, public drunkenness, drinking in
public, harassment of passerby, assaults, batteries, acts of vandalism, loitering,
illegal parking, excessive or loud noise, traffic violations, lewd conduct, or police
detention and arrests.
V. This Use Permit is subject to periodic review to monitor potential problems
associated to the sale of alcoholic beverages.
W. Prior to the issuance of a Type 21 license by the State of California Alcoholic
Beverage Control Department, the management of the Wal-Mart store shall
complete the Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs (LEAD) as provided by the
State Alcoholic Beverage Control Department. In the event that Wal-Mart has
training that is equivalent to the LEAD program, such documentation shall be
submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval.
X. The project shall incorporate all mitigation measures as specified in the adopted
Final Revised Environmental Impact Report EIR-03-01 and attached CEQA findings
for the project.
Y. The submitted Use Permit, Tentative Map and associated plot plan are hereby
approved subject to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
14
Z. No variance from any City of Lodi adopted code; policy or specification is granted or
implied by the approval of this Resolution.
AA. The sliding gates that are shown in the rear of the Wal-Mart building shall have a
knox box system at each gate for Fire Department access.
BB. Buildings, which are fire sprinkled, shall have Fire Department connections within 50
feet of a fire hydrant, subject to the Fire Marshall's approval.
CC. Fire lanes shall be identified per Lodi Municipal Code 10.40.100 and marked in
locations specified by the Fire Marshall. All fire lanes shall be a minimum of 24 -foot -
wide.
DD. The water supply for the project shall meet the requirements for fire hydrants and
fire sprinkler demand and system approved by the Fire Marshall.
EE. Developer shall pay for the linkage study that the City is required to do based on
Program 11 of the recently adopted Housing Element of the General Plan. The
developer shall receive a credit for the amount paid against the final fee as adopted
by the City Council.
FF. Wal-Mart shall provide proof of sale, to a non Wal-Mart related entity, of the existing
Wal-Mart property located at 2350 W. Kettleman Lane prior to the issuance of the
building permit for the new Wal-Mart Supercenter without condition on the right of
purchaser to lease or sell the existing Wal-Mart building.
GG. Wal- Mart shall not allow overnight camping of any type (i. e. campers, recreational
vehicles, tents) within the parking lot or site.
HH. The developer shall invest in a building and/or capital improvements within the
Downtown area, as defined by the Community Development Director, but no smaller
than the area described in the June 1997 Downtown Development Standards and
Guidelines plus the Pine Street Corridor extending to Washington. Investment shall
be defined as supporting construction, rehabilitation, acquisition, tenant
improvements and other improvements. The developer may make or
support improvements to commercial buildings or property it owns or rents
independently or in partnership with others, or to commercial property owned by
others in partnershipwith owners and/or tenants. The downtown investment must
be made no later than seven and a half (7.5) years from the issuance of final
certificate of occupancy for the largest retail tenant. The total aggregate value of the
capital improvements resulting from developer's investment must exceed $700,000.
ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
2. The submitted Site Plan complies with the requirements of the Commercial Shopping (C-
S) Zoning District.
3. The submitted plans, including site plot plan and architectural elevations for the major
anchor building, for the project is approved subject to the following conditions:
a. All conditions set for the above shall apply to this approval.
b. The proposed building shall comply with all zoning and building code regulations.
c. The finished building shall be consistent with the plans approved by the City Council.
15
d. The applicant shall submit appropriate plans to the Community Development
Department for plan check and building permit. The final plans shall include the
architectural features such as the approved colors, the building elevations including
the cornice, trim caps, and curbed canopy, and other elements approved by the City
Council. Any significant alteration to the building elevations as approved by the City
Council shall require approval by the Planning Commission. Signage shall be
individual letters.
e. Further architectural treatment shall occur on the west elevation. Such treatment
shall result in a visual break in the elevation.
f. The proposed building must comply with all City Council requirements; as well as the
requirements of the Community Development, the Public Works, the Electric Utility
and the Fire Departments; and all other utility agencies.
g. No variance from any City of Lodi adopted code, policy or specification is granted or
implied by the approval of this resolution.
h. The Developer shall pay for Electric Utility Department charges in accordance with
the Electric Department's Rules and Regulations.
1. The applicant shall submit load calculations and Electric drawings to Electric Utility as
part of a building permit process. Load calculations and Electric drawings are needed
for service equipment location, PUE requirements, and service sizing. Should the
load calculations and Electric drawings require a change of site plan, the Planning
Department shall forward the site plan to the Planning Commission for review and
approval.
j. This resolution does not constitute a complete plan check. Complete plan check shall
be completed during building permit process.
k. Wal-Mart shall employ the energy efficient measures proven effective, at the time of
Plan Check submittal, by its High Efficiency (HE) program in the building design and
construction. However, the measures used shall, at a minimum, be as energy
efficient as those proven energy efficiency measures, or comparable measures,
outlined more fully in the letter addressed to the City of Lodi from J. Kelly Collier,
Senior Design Managerfor Wal-Mart Real Estate and Design dated October 6, 2008
and presented to the Planning Commission at its October 8, 2008 meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DETERMINED AND RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Lodi that Use Permit U-02-12, Vesting Tentative Map 03-P-001, and Site Plan and
Architectural review relating to the Lodi Shopping Center project; State Clearinghouse
No. 2003042113 is hereby approved, and the City Council hereby adopts the findings,
statements of overriding considerations and other matters set forth in this resolution.
Dated: May 13, 2009
16
hereby certify that Resolution No. 2009-58 was passed and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Lodi in a special meeting held May 13, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS—Johnson, Katzakian, and Mayor Hansen
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS— Hitchcockand Mounce
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS— None
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS— None
RA JOHL
City Clerk
2009-58
17
ExhibitA
(CEQA Findings)
915101.2 11233.26
CITY OF LODI FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PURSUANTTO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
FOR THE LODI SHOPPING CENTER
Under the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code, sections
21000 et seq. ("CEQA"), for each significant environmental effect identified in an environmental
impact report ("EIR) for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a finding
reaching one or more of three allowable conclusions in conjunction with approval of the project.
The first allowable finding is that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment.
The second allowable finding is that those changes or alterations are within the responsibility
and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the
other agency. The third allowable finding is that specific economic, legal, social, technological,
or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities
for highly trained workers, made infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in
the environmental impact report. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21081; CEQA Guideline§ 15091).
CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible,
to avoid or substantially reduce significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur.
Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where they are infeasible or
where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency (CEQA
Guidelines, § 15091). Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean
"capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time,
taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." CEQA
Guidelines section 15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations. See also Citizens of
Goleta Vallev v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal. 3d 553, 565 (1990)).
In situations in which significant impacts are not at least "substantially mitigated," the agency,
after adopting the findings, may approve the project if it adopts a statement of overriding
considerations setting forth the reasons why the agency found that the project's benefits render
acceptable its unavoidable adverse environmental effects (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15093, 15043).
The California Supreme Court has stated that, "[t]he wisdom of approving... any development
project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound
discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions.
The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and
therefore balanced." (Citizens of Goleta Valley, supra, 52 Cal. 3d at 576).
The Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth below ("Findings") provide
the written analysis and conclusions of the City regarding the Project's environmental impacts,
mitigation measures, alternativesto the Project, and the overriding considerations and presents
an explanation to supply the logical step between the Finding and the facts in the record.
(CEQA Guidelines § 15091.) To the extent that these Findings conclude that various proposed
mitigation measures outlined in the EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded
or withdrawn, the City hereby commits to implementing these measures. These Findings, in
other words, are not merely informational, but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that
will come into effect as part of the Project approval. The mitigation measures are referenced in
the Mitigation Monitoring Program, adopted concurrently with these Findings, and will be
effective through the process of constructing and implementing the project.
I. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
A. LOSS OF PRIMEAGRICULTURAL 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-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: 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
projector 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
2
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 nearthe 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. 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
3
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-significantlevel.
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
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-significantlevel.
4
As part of the mitigation for this impact, geotechnical investigations will be completed
priorto the approval of building permitsfor specific buildings, and these buildingswill
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 cf Finding: The following facts indicatethat 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.
D. SM CONSOLIDATIONAND 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 cE Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact
will be reduced to a less-than-significantlevel.
As part of the mitigation for this impact, geotechnical investigationswill 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.
P
E. EXPANSIVE SOILS
1. limpact: 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 supportthe 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)
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 -sig n ificant 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 investigationswill 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.
2
III. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
A. EROSIONAND SEDIMENTATION DURING CONSTRUCTION
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 earthworkto 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 hydromulchwith 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.
• 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.
7
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-significantlevel.
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
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-significantlevel.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact
will be reduced to a less-than-significantlevel.
In January 2003, the City adopted a Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) to
implement the provisions of its Phase I I 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.
8
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 identifiedfrom 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
habitatfor 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.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact
will be reduced to a less -than -sig n ificant 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 applicants duty to mitigate the loss
of agricultural land ata 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
0
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.
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 cf 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 Directorwill 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.
10
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A IMPACTSTO CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Impact: It is possible that previously undiscovered cultural materials maybe 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
25 -foot 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.
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-significantlevel.
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.
VI. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
A NEAR TERM PLUS PROJECT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
11
Impact: The addition of project -generated traffic would exacerbate LOS F
operations at the intersection of Lower Sacramento Road / 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 PROPOSEDALONG 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 (95th 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 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-significantlevel.
4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicatethat 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
12
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.
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-significantlevel.
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.
13
E. INADEQUATE LEFT -TURN LANE TAPER ON LOWER SACRAMENTO ROAD
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 the proposed roadway configuration and concurs that it
would serve as adequate mitigation for the deficiencies noted in the EIR 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-significantlevel.
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.
14
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.
H. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
1. Impact: Development of the project would create an unmet demand for pedestrian
facilities along West Kettleman 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.
VII. NOISE
A. NOISE FROM PROJECTACTIVITY
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)
15
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.
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
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 )oThe 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. Plans 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).
16
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:
Construction Scheduling. The applicantkontractor shall limit noise -generating
construction activities to daytime, weekday, (non -holiday) hours of 7:00 a.m. to
6:00 P.M.
Construction Equipment Mufflers and Maintenance. The applicantkontractor
shall properly muffle and maintain all construction equipment powered by internal
combustion engines.
Idling Prohibitions. The applicantkontractor shall prohibit unnecessary idling of
internal combustion engines.
Equipment Location and Shielding. The applicanticontractor 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 Selection. The applicantkontractor shall select quiet
construction equipment, particularly air compressors, whenever possible. Fit
motorized equipment with proper mufflers in good working order.
Notification. The applicantkontractor 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 applicantkontractor 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
17
problem. Applicanticontractor 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 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.
VIII. 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 PM,o 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
18
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. REGIONALAIR 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
impactto 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.
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 prom i nent western gateway into the City.
19
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 -sig n ificant level.
While the nature and location of restaurants within the project has not been
determined, this mitigation requirementwill ensure that cooking odors from any on-
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
20
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
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 cf 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.
21
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 recognizesthat 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
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
projectwill 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 prom i nent western gateway into the City.
B. REGIONALAIR 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 cf 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
22
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 supportthe 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'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.
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 Bakersfield, 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
23
indirect environmental impact. (See Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson, 130
Cal. App. 0 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.
4. Facts in Support of Findings: The DREIR, the FREIR, the BAE study and
analysis included with the DREIR and the supplemental BAE Supplemental
Reports dated October 1, 2008 and March 11, 2009, 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
24
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
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,
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
Reports dated October 1, 2008 and March 11, 2009, 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 -sewing 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 Gait. The Stockton and Galt 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
25
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 many 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.
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.
II. 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
1. 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 Findings: 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 cf 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
a
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.
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 -Sig n ificant I m pact)
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
27
of the project upon energy supplies and energy delivery infrastructure would be
less than significant.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. 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 32"), 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, 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 ResourcesAgency 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.
B. WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
By letter dated December 10, 2008, the Herum Crabtree law firm suggests that a water
supply assessment is required for the Project pursuant to California Water Code
sections 10910, 10912, 10911 and Public Resources Code section 21159.9. Because
this issue could have been raised at the time the initial EIR was prepared and certified in
2005, but was not raised, the commenter is precluded from raising the issue now under
the legal doctrine of res judicata, and the City is not required to analyze this issue at
this time. Nonetheless, the City notes that this Project does not satisfy the criteria for
requiring a water supply study under the applicable statutes. Water supply
assessments are required for projects meeting the following criteria:
28
(1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units.
(2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more
than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor
space.
(3) A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000
persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space.
(4) A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms.
(5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial
park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40
acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area.
(6) A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in
this subdivision.
(7) A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater
than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project.
(Cal. Water Code § 10912)
Based on evidence in the record, including evidence and testimony from the applicant
concerning the size and nature of the Project, the City concludes that the proposed
Project does not meet the square footage or water demand requirements set forth
above. The project is an approximately 326,000 shopping center anticipated to employ
less than 1,000 person. (See Sheppard Mullin letter of March 10, 2009). The City,
therefore, concludes that it is not required to conduct a water supply assessment for the
Project for the reasons that: (1) the issue was not raised during consideration of the EIR
in 2005 and is now barred under the legal doctrine of res judicata; and (2) the Project
does not meet the statutory criteria for requiring a water supply assessment.
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 alternative infeasible. The
findings with respectto the alternatives identified in the Final REIR are described below.
I. 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
29
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.
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
cf 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 c£ 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— impactsto 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 superiorto 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 cf 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
30
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
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 14 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 opportunityto 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
3L
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.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requiresthat 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.
Additional alternatives recently suggested in a letter dated December 10, 2008 from the law firm
of Herum Crabtree include: 4( la$'Reynolds Ranch" alternative; (2) an "East Lodi/Redevelopment
Area" alternative; (3) a "Proportionately Reduced Size" alternative; and (4) a "High Efficiency"
alternative. As noted above, the EIR must identify a reasonable range of alternatives which
would feasibly attain most of the Project's objectives and would avoid or substantially lessen any
of the significant effects of the project. The lead agency need not consider every conceivable
alternative, and it has discretion to determine how many alternatives constitute a reasonable
range. The EIR's discussion and analysis of alternatives satisfies the requirement in its of
analyzing a reasonable range of alternatives. The additionally proposed alternatives need not
be considered at this time. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that these additionally
proposed alternatives would meet most of the project objectives and also avoid or substantially
lessen the environmental effects of the Project. Based on materials in the record, including a
letter dated March 10, 2009 from the law firm of Sheppard Mullin, the Reynolds Ranch, East
Lodi/Redevelopment Area and Proportionately Reduced Size alternatives appear infeasible.
Components of the High Efficiency alternative are included as part of the Project conditions, and
thus, it has not been shown that the High Efficiency alternative would most of the project
objectives and also avoid or substantially lessen the environmental effects of the Project.
In conclusion, the City finds that there are no alternativesto the Projectwhich could feasibly attain
most of the basic objectives of the project and also avoid or reduce the significant impacts
associated with the proposed projectto less-than-significantlevels.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Attached hereto and incorporated and adopted herewith, 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.
32
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
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. Proiect 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. Proiect 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-timejobs. The vast majority of the permanentjobs 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 Improvements. 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
33
Sacramento Road and State Route 12/Kettleman 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 Citv Plans. 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 Hiqh Quality Design at Western Gateway to the City. 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 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 implementthe
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. Proiect Features Numerous Enerqv 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 materialsto 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.
34
ExhibitB
(Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program)
rXXV111-011
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
LODI SHOPPING CENTER
CITY OF LODI
APRIL 2009
887538.4 77233.26
PARTY
(To be completed by
responsible party)
DATE
INITIALS
B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Project Applicant with
Prior to
B 1, Agricultural
B 1. The applicant shall obtain a permanent Agricultural Conservation
0&%kkpWkUftQ1R7ith
04M®e of
Land onversion
Easement over 40 acres of prime farmland (1:1 mitigation ratio). The
agricultural conservation easement shall consist of a single parcel of
c"b0 l yof
DodWBpri l ector.
ONURMW
icy
land of at least 40 acres. This easement shall be located in San
Development Director.
permits.
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.
887538.4 77233.26
EXHIBIT B
?�a; `% �tk�1?`•�'"��
IMPAC
i"(S+' �. i� {,.,�;<jYi7�y1N ",�iatr'�*�N�*'k,� ��}��iw�;,�l?xy' #'�$�m;itr� s� iwle,^.��'<aaxnn
7-„�?�.k�' t+�Sia�.ti5 5 r✓'2'�v
�,.� � F41.,:%�
,,� ,{o
PARTY
(To be completed by
responsible party)
DATE
INITIALS
C. GEOLOGYAND SOILS
Cl. Seismic
C1. Structural damage to buildings resulting from ground shaking
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Ground Shaking
shall be minimized by following the requirements of the Uniform
Building Code, and implementing the recommendations of the project
approvalby City of
Lodi Building Official
issuance of
grading
geotechnical engineer.
and Lodi Public Works
permits.
Director.
C2. Seismic
C2. If subsequent geotechnical studies indicate unacceptable levels of
Project Applicant with
Prior to
ettlern
potential seismic settlement, available measures to reduce the effects
approval by City of
issuance of
of such settlements would include replacement of near -surface soils
Lodi Building Official
grading
with engineered fill, or supporting structures on quasi -rigid
and Lodi Public Works
permits.
foundations, as recommendedby the project geotechnical engineer.
Director.
C3. Stormwater
C3. Design -level geotechnical studies shall investigate the potential of
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Bank Stabili1y
bank instability at the proposed basin and recommend appropriate
approval of City of
issuance of
setbacks, if warranted.
Lodi Public Works
grading
Director.
permits.
C4. Soil
C4. The effects of soil consolidation and collapse can be mitigated by
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Consolidation
placing shallow spread foundations on a uniform thickness of
approval of City of
issuance of
and Colla se
engineered fill; specific measures shall be specified by an engineering
Lodi Public Works
grading
geologist as appropriate in response to localized conditions.
Director and Building
permits.
Official.
C5. Expansive
C5. The potential damage from soils expansion would be reduced
Project Applicantwith
Prior to
Snits
by placement of non -expansive engineered fill below foundation
approval of Lodi Public
issuance of
slabs, or other measures as recommended by the geotechnical
Works Director and
grading
engineer.
Building Official.
permits.
887538.4 11233.26
EXHIBIT B
IIVIFACTS
1VItT GATIC�IY MEASURES
!i
REFb�B
L'if'
TI1VtTlU'
PARTY
(To be completed by
responsible party)
INITIALS
C. GEOLOGY AND SOILS (Cont'd)
C6. Soil
C6. The potential damage from soil corrosivity can be mitigatedby
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Corrosivity
using corrosion-resistantmaterials for buried utilities and systems;
approval of City of
issuance of
specific measures shall be specifiedby an engineering geologist as
Lodi Public Works
grading
appropriate in response to localized conditions.
Director.
permits.
D. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
D3. Erosion and
D3. A comprehensive erosion control and water pollution prevention
Project Applicant with
Throughout
Sedimentation
program shall be implemented during grading and construction. (See
approval by City of
grading and
EIR text for details.)
Lodi Public Works
construction of
Director.
the project.
D4. Urban
D4. The project shall include stormwater controls to reduce nonpoint
Project Applicant with
Throughout
Non -Point
pollutant loads. (See EIR text for details.)
final approval by City
construction
Pollution
of Lodi Public Works
and operation
Director.
of project.
E. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
E3. Loss of
E3. In accordance with the SJMSCP and City of Lodi requirements,
Project Applicant, in
Prior to
Habitat f r
the project proponent will pay the applicable in -lieu mitigation fees
accordance with
issuance of
Special Status
to compensate for loss of open space and habitat resulting from
SJMSCP, and with
grading
Animals
development of the project site, and will ensure the completion of
approval of City of
permits.
preconstruction surveys for Swainson's hawks, burrowing owls, and
Lodi Community
California homed larks, as well as the implementation of specified
Development Director.
measures if any of these species are found on the site.
881538.4 11233.26
EXHIBIT B
�
IMPACTS
MI1.1( A 1 UN MEXi b RE
gig 9 /�+N �::
1 ES !01 'L
't'�r„' l+" ' �rA''U.f67Yma,,ji
T ' "°
�lF F'�n,�.^i•3rxf"cy,�"^ 'u�s"`�, : , xf M`I�)u Ft+.,+
IIVIPL�`iVIENT 'I`IO
PARTY
(To be completed by
responsible party)
DATE
INITIALS
E. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (Cont'd)
Ed. Disturbance
E4. The following measures shall be implemented to ensure that
Project Applicant, in
Prior to
b Burrowm
raptors (hawks and owls) are not disturbed during the breeding
consultation with
issuance of
Owls an
season:
CDFG, and with
grading
Raptors
• If ground disturbance is to occur during the breeding season (Feb.
approval of City of
pen -nits.
1 to Aug. 31), a qualified ornithologist shall conduct a pre-
Lodi Community
construction survey for nesting raptors (including both tree- and
Development Director.
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,
constructioncan 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.
(Continued on next page.)
887538.4 11233.26
EXHIBIT B
I1VIpACT51VIIT`IGAT)rON
1VIASUI2ES°
RESPbNSIBL ; ;
; 4T1VIYI
:l'
PARTY
(To be completed by
responsible party)
DATE
INITIALS
E. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (Cont'd)
E4. (Cont'd)
Once it has been determined that owls have vacated the site, the
burrows can be collapsed and Found disturbance can proceed.
R CULTURALRESOURCES
F 1. Disturbance
F1. Implementation of the following measures will mitigate any
Project Applicant in
Throughout
to Buried
potential impacts to cultural resources.
consultation with a
grading and
Cultural
• In the event that prehistoric or historic archaeological materials
qualified archaeologist
construction of
Resources
are exposed or discovered during site clearing, grading or
and/or qualified
project.
subsurface construction, work within a 25 -foot radius of the find
paleontologist, as
shall be halted and a qualified professional archaeologist
applicable, with
contacted for further review and recommendations. Potential
verification of
recommendations could include evaluation, collection,
mitigation by City of
recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials
Lodi Community
followed by a professional report.
Development Director.
• In the event that fossils ate 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 followedby a professional report. (Cont'd next page.)
887538.4119 .26
9Z'££ZII b'8£SL88
S.LISIHX.V
•uogoasza;ul paztlea!s ag;;e papieoid aq Ipmjoxood um; -gal
poj-001 a `goeoaddu sso-1 t, pooq aq; up •peo21 o;uaux OUS JOtAoll
a e;uog pro -d
o;uo sdn:4oeq ao3 lequa;od aq; a;eua=lo pun ous ;oafoid a p o;ui
o;uoumms
PAOU otjex; snonuquoo apinoid o; punoq;sam ag; ;dooms sagoeoadde
aamo-1 au;
[It' uo Palfnsml aq 1pgs suds dOZS `uonrppe ul •og3e4 punoquT
SuojV Paso oad
zoj Apedeo a;enbope ap[noid Illm uomosia;ul pazilu !s aq;
anuQ ssaood
o; 3lot'q suet IaAug IIn3 a pule ;a3lood uxn; }Ial a `uouoat►p punoq;sea
paztle�utS a
s;iuuad
zo;oanQ
DID uI uouoasia;uT a;is ;oafoid Inuia;ul oT o; 31aeq aural Ianem
;e suouipuoz)
Aauedn000
s3ltoA4, oilgnd IPo I
[Inj le pun lopod um;-3jal;ooj-091 a jo ftW!suoo `pno-d o;uoumoleS
ssaood
;o aouenssz
jo,,4!0 Xq Ienoidde
zamo7 punoggvou o;uo avis Pafoid ag; jo ;no s;uauzanow
;oa•oT dsnld
o; aorta
u;im;uleotIddV loofozd
Muq-gal punoq;sea Ienp spino-ld o; ueld a;is;oafosd alp Apoyq •{,H
a^uslnUMD 'i7H
suo
•s;ttuaad
ao;oaatQ
uoi;oosaa;ul
Aouedn000
slaoM otlgnd ipo I
paz►leu isufl
jo aouenssl
jo A4To Kq Ienoaddu
•auul AauaeH put' pleog o;uaum=S aamoZ;e f9ajS ogJt's; a Jo
;oafoad
o; sorsa
q;im;ueoilddV;oaford
uouellMsut ag; o;;soo amgs aze3 s;i a;nqu;uoo Reqs;oafoad ag,L ZH
snId 031nd 'ZH
MOLLV'IADIIID (INV JIAAYHJL 'H
'86•L605; uogoaS apoD saoanosag
ollgnd u! papznoad se `spool anlea pa;eioosse Niue pue su[euzaa
ueuznq oq; xu!m Sutlt'ap ao3 aaumo puel oq; o; suogepuoutwoom
aVw o; ;uepuaosap ,ila�I.1 Isom le Ajnuopi pinom
oqm `uotsstunwo 01314taaH ueotaautV aeuMN aq; AJUOu II?m
aq `,14poq;rale s q o; pafgns jou ate summoi oxp ;eq{ saupma;ap
zauoaoD ag; 3I ueouauzV anueN are suteuzaa aq; ;ou ao
zaq;agm ou!=Nop pinom muojoo aq,L pognou aq llt'gs aauoaoo
f4unoo utnbt'or ut's aq; `patanoosip sae sweutai umunq 3I •
(P<luOD)'la
i
(P.3uoa) Szz)uaoSzI 7VIM.Lifn '3
SZVIZINI
g.LVQ
(Aped olglsuodso i
Sq pnoldutoo aq o,L)
AJLHVd.
; 1�In'TIxL 7ATfT»iG Li�Trk
qq.5y �f�ll",A"T ,�d
&&$1 'hlkhhf4 06y `6
-°I.-
S f1S� lir�I I�IQI �I1JW
Sx,a�'dIAII
S.LISIHX.V
EXHIBIT
887538.411 .26
PARTY
(To be completed by
responsible party)
DATE
INITIALS
H. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION (Cont'd)
H5. Cumulative
H5. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Plus Proiect
A) Extend a third southboundtravel lane on Lower Sacramento
final approval by City
issuance of
Access
Road from its current planned terminus at the signalizedproject
of Lodi Public Works
occupancy
Conditions at
drivewayto the southemboundary of the project site;
Director.
permits.
Northe
Unsimalized
B) Construct a 100 -foot southbound right -turn lane at the signalized
AccesDri
s v
project driveway;
Alone Lower
C) Extend the southbound left -turn pocket by 100 feet;
Sacram
D) Extend the taper from 60 feet to a City standard 120-foottaper;
Road
E) Eliminate the northbound left -tum lane into the northern proj ect
driveway (under Alternative B).
H6. Inadequate
H6. The project site plan shall be modified to move the north project
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Left -tum Lane
driveway on Westgate Drive south by 25 feet in order to
accommodatethe required 90-foottaper length.
approval of City of
Lodi Public Works
issuance of
occupancy
Taper on
Westeate Drive
Director.
permits.
H7. Inadequate
H7. The project site plan shall be modified to extend the northbound
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Left -tum Lane
left -tum pocket to 250 feet, and extend the taper from 70 to a City
approvalby City of
issuance of
Taper on Lower
standard 120-foottaper.
Lodi Public Works
Director.
occupancy
permits.
Sacramento
Road
H8. Public
H8. The project applicant shall work with and provide fair share
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Transit Service
funding to the City of Lodi Grapeline Service and the San Joaquin
Regional Transit District to expand transit service to the project.
final approval by City
of Lodi Public Works
issuance of
occupancy
Director.
permits.
887538.411 .26
EXHIBIT B
H9. Public
H9. Modify the project site plan to: 1) provide a bus bay and
Project Applicant, in
Prior to
Transit Stop
passenger shelter at the proposed transit stop; and 2) include a
consultation with City
issuance of
second transit stop in the eastern portion of the project near Lower
of Lodi Grapeline
grading
Sacramento Road.
Service, and with
permits.
approval of City of
Lodi Public Works
Director.
H 11. Pedestrian
H 11. Pedestrian walkways and crosswalks shall be provided to serve
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Facilities
Pads 8, 9, and 12 in order to complete the internal pedestrian
approval of City of
issuance of
circulation system.
Lodi Community
grading
Development Director.
permits.
I. NOISE
13. Noise from
13. The following noise mitigation measures are identified as
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Project Activity
appropriate for the various types of project activities, to reduce project
noise at both existing and planned future adjacent development:
approval of City of
Lodi Community
issuance of
building
Rooft Mechanical E ui ment. To ensure that the potential noise
Development Director.
permits.
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 vnth any parapets and/or screen walls, will not result in
noise levels exceeding45 dBA (Leq-hour) for any residentialyards.
Parkin2 Lot Cleanin . To assure compliance with the City of Lodi
Noise Regulations regarding occasional excessive noise, leaf blowing
in the southeast corner of the project site shall be limited to operating
during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
887538.4 11233.26
EXHIBIT B
�1VIlE'A�"CTS �
,-1r �' . � �'�' �''"3VI 'i'I _ T�I()1�1 1VrEAS1JI�YS t '„�� �
''I��ESY'�N�'I�'Ll✓ ` ��
� n "�I11?131`f��J
T1VY�it'��11�E�TTAT'IOlv,,k
PARTY
(To be completed by
responsible party)
DATE
INITIALS
I. NOISE (Cont'd)
14. Noise from
14. The following measures shall be implemented to mitigate
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Stormwater
potential noise generatedby the stormwaterbasin pump:
approval of City of
issuance of
Basin Pum
1) The pump shall be located as far as is feasible from the nearest
Lodi Community
grading
future planned residential development. In addition, the noise
Development Director.
permits.
levels generated by pump shall be specified to produce noise
levels no greater than 45 dBA L,,y at the nearest residential
property lines. 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. Plans 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 another imminent storm).
15. Construction
H5, Short-term noise impacts shall be reduced through
Project Applicant, to be
Throughout
Noise
implementation of the following measures: limiting the hours of
verified by the City of
grading and
construction; proper muffling and maintenance of equipment;
Lodi Building Official
construction.
prohibition of unnecessary idling; noise shielding of stationary
and City of Lodi
equipment and location of such equipment away from sensitive
Community
receptors; selection of quiet equipment; notification to neighbors of
Development Director.
construction schedule, and designation of a `noise disturbance
coordinator' to respond to noise complaints. (See EIR text for details.)
887538.4 11233.26
I AV I N&�i]
887538.4 11233.26 10
a,SjY
thy 1 fK'�I�V •.ff.fy
A
PARTY
(PDbe completed by
responsible PaM)
DATE
INITIALS
I AIRQUALITY
JI. Construction
JI. Dust control measures shall be implemented to reduce PMIo
Project Applicant, to be
Throughout
Emissions
emissions during grading and construction, as required by the City of
verified by the City of
grading and
Lodi and the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
Lodi Public Works
construction.
District. (See EIR text for details.)
Director and City of
Lodi Community
Development Director.
J3. Reeionat
J3 Project design measures shall be implemented to reduce project
Project Applicant, to be
Prior to
Air Quality
area source emissions, and a Transportation Demand Management
verified by the City of
issuance of
(TDM) plan should be implemented to reduce project traffic and
Lodi Building Official
building
resulting air emissions; however, these measures would not reduce
and City of Lodi
permits.
the impact to a less-than-significantlevel.
Community
Development Director.
J6. Restaurant
J5. All restaurant uses within the project shall locate kitchen exhaust
Project Applicant with
Prior to
Odors
vents in accordance with accepted engineering practice and shall
approval of City of
issuance of
install exhaust filtration systems or other accepted methods of odor
Lodi Building Official
building
reduction.
and City of Lodi
permits.
Community
Development Director.
887538.4 11233.26 10