HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - September 16, 2020 G-04 PHAGENDA ITEM a-4
Grrv or Loor
Gou ruc¡l Gorur Mu N tcATtoN
TM
AGENDA TITLE:Public Hearing to consider Adopting a Resolution Approving the plannÍng
commission's Recommendation to Authorize 39 Low-Density and 111 Medium-
Density 2020 Residential Growth Management Allocations and Approve Planned
Development Standards and Guidelines for the Reynolds Ranch Tentative Tract
Map (Bennett)
IVIEETING DATE: September 16,2020
PREPARED BY: Community Development Director
RECOMMENDED AGTION: Public hearing to consider adopting a resolution approving the
Planning Commission's recommendation to authorize 39 Low-
Density and 111 Medium-Density 2020 Residential Growth
Management Allocations and approve Planned Development Standards and Guidelines for the Reynolds
Ranch Tentative Tract Map (Bennett).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As part of the City's Growth Management program, the Planning
Commissíon reviews allocation requests for new housing
developments. Following a public hearing, the Commission makes
a recommendation for City Council consideration, The Commission also reviewed and recommended for
approval comprehensive Development Standards and Guidelines for the Reynolds Ranch Tentative
Tract Map.
On August 12, 2A20, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the applicant's requestfor a 2020 Residential Growth Management Development Allocation and to review proposed
Development Standards and Guidelines.
At the conclusion of this hearing the Planning Commission:
1) Reviewed a request by Dennis Bennettfor3g Low-Densíty and 111 Medium-Density Residential
Growth Management Allocations for the applicant's Reynolds Ranch Subdivision, a 28.2-acre
subdivision to create 150 lots for single family homes, The Commission voted 6-0 to recommend
the City Council approve the applicant's request lor 2Q2O growth allocations.
2l Reviewed the proposed Development Standards and Guidelines for the project. The Commission
voted 6-0 to recommend the City Council approve the Development Standards and Guidelines.
The applicant, Dennis Bennett, is requesting growth allocations in order to develop this project.
EX¡STI NG CONDITIONS/ANALYSIS
A detailed discussion of exísting conditions and the requested growth allocation are provided in the
attached Planning Commission staff report.
A''ROVEO. Steve Schwabauer
..
Stephen Schwabauer, City Manager
PH Reynolds Ranch GM Allocations and Development Standards and Guidelines
Page 2 of 3
REQUESTED GROWTH ALLOCATION
A summary of the status of existing available growth allocations and the appl¡cant's request is shown
below. Granting the requested allocation would leave a total of 2,752 allocations available for other
projects.
Category Unused
Alloca-
tionsl
Add 2020
Alloca-
tions
Deduct
2020
Allocations
Already
Granted
Total
Available
Allocations
lor 2020
Requested
Reynolds
Ranch
Allocations
Totalwith
Reynolds
Ranch
Allocations
Deducted
Low
Density
(Up to 7
DU/Acre)
1,257 210 <186>1,291 <39>1,242
Medium
Density
(7.1 - 20
DU/Acre)
634 134 <75>693 <111>582
High
Density
(20.1 - 30
DU/Acre)
794 134 0 928 928
Totals:2,685 478 <261>2,902 <150>2,752
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
The Development Standards and Guidelines (DSG) will be used in the future by staff and the planning
Commission when detailed plans for the development of homes in the subdivision are submitted.
Submission of standards and guidelines is required by the Reynolds Ranch Planned Development
document.
The DSG document provides both specific development standards (lot sizes, setbacks, etc.) and
architectural and other design standards and guidelines to ensure that quality development will take
place. At this time, Mr. Bennett intends to sell the subdivision to another party who will submit designs for
the homes and construct the project.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
The DSG document provides standards and guidelines covering the following topics:
o Land Use - Land uses and development standards
¡ Architecture - Architectural standards and guidelines
¡ Circulation - Roadway cross-sections and designs
o Community - Designs for community features and items in the public realm (street lights,
benches, etc.)
PH Reynolds Ranch GM Allocations and Development Standards and Guidelines
Page 3 of 3
A comparison of the proposed development standards with the RMD zoning district standards is provided
below
Lot Configuration Reynolds Ranch
DSG Document
LodiZoning
Code RMD
Minimum Lot Area (square feet)5,000 5,000
Maximum Lot Coverage 50%50%
Minimum Lot Width, lnterior Lots 50'50'
Minimum Lot Width, Corner Lots 55 N/A
Minimum Lot Frontage along Public Streets on
cul-de-sacs
35 N/A
Setbacks Reynolds Ranch
DSG Document
LodiZoning
Code RMD
Minimum Front Setback to Garage 20'20'
Minimum Front Setback to Living Area 15'1'',
Minimum Front Setback to Porch or Entry 1s',N/A
Minimum Side Setback to Public Street (corner tot)10'10'
Minimum Side Setback to Lot Line (adjacent Lot)5 5'
Minimum Rear Setback to Living Area 10'10'
Minimum Rear Setback to Covered Patio 10'N/A
Maximum Building Height 35',35',
CONCLUSION
The Planning Commission reviewed the project in its entirety and recommended that the City Council:
1) Grant the applicant 39 Low-Density and 111 Medium-Density 2O2O Residential Growth
Management Allocations; and
2) Approve the proposed Development Standards and Guidelines
FISCAL IMPACT Not applicable.
Not applicable.
John R lla Monica Jr
Comm ity Development Di
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Staff Report2. Proposed Development Standards and Guidelines3. Draft Resolution
FUNDING AVAILABLE:
1
CITY OF LODI
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
MEETING DATE: August 12, 2020
APPLICATION NO: Tentative Tract Map: PL2020-016
REQUEST: Request for:
1) Planning Commission approval of a Tentative Tract Map to divide
three parcels into 150 single family lots in the northwest quadrant of
the Reynolds Ranch Planned Development (south of Harney Lane
and west of S Stockton Street);
2) Recommendation to the City Council to approve a 2020 growth
allocation of 39 low density and 111 medium density units and
approve a set of Development Standards and Guidelines to
regulate development and design in the proposed subdivision.
Applicant: Bennett Homes Inc., P.O. Box 1597, Lodi CA 95241; CEQA
Determination: Impacts have been addressed by the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Reynolds Ranch Project (CEQA
Section 15162)
LOCATION: Southeast quadrant of Harney Lane and S Stockton Street
APN 058-130-21, -22 and -25
APPLICANT: Bennett Homes, Inc.
P.O. Box 1597
Lodi, CA 95241
PROPERTY OWNERS: David and Linda Seeman Revocable Trust (APN 058-130-21)
2299 Greenbriar Ct, Yuba City, CA 95993
Pucinelli Revocable Trust (APN 058-130-22)
2719 S Stockton St, Lodi, CA 95240
Gary and Joyce Tsutumi 2011 Trust (APN 058-130-25)
3725 E Armstrong Rd, Lodi, CA 95240
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide
three parcels into 150 single family lots, subject to conditions of approval.
Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval by the City Council of
the proposed Development Standards and Guidelines and the requested Growth Allocation.
2
TOPICS IN THIS REPORT
This report addresses the following major topics:
• Project Site and Vicinity Description Page 2
• Background/Existing Setting Page 5
• Proposed Tentative Tract Map Page 11
• Tentative Tract Analysis Page 13
• Tentative Tract Map Findings Page 15
• Development Standards and Guidelines Page 17
• Growth Allocation Page 19
• Environmental Assessment Page 26
• Recommended Motion Page 28
PROJECT SITE AND VICINITY DESCRIPTION
General Plan Designation: Medium Density and Low Density Residential
Zoning Designation: PD 39 (Reynolds Ranch)
Property Size: 28.2 acres
ADJACENT ZONING DESIGNATIONS AND LAND USES
GENERAL PLAN ZONING CLASSIFICATION EXISTING LAND USE
Project Site Medium Density Residential
Low Density Residential
PD 39*
(Reynolds Ranch) Vineyard
North Industrial M (Industrial)
Vacant and
Light Industrial
(north of Harney
Lane)
South Medium Density Residential Low Density Residential Single Family
Homes
East Low Density Residential
Commercial Low Density Residential Reynolds Ranch
Retail Center
West Industrial Low Density Residential Vacant, Railroad
* - See additional detail below
General Plan and Zoning maps for the project site and vicinity are shown below. As shown in
Figure 1, portions of the site are designated for Low and Medium density residential development;
approximately 19.3 acres are designated Medium, with the remaining 8.7 acres designated as
Low.
3
Figure 1: General Plan Land Use Map
SITE
4
Figure 2: Zoning Map
Figure 3: PD 39 Land Use Diagram
SITE
PD35
PD36
RLD
M
PD39
PD43
PD10
GC
OS
SITE
5
The Reynolds Ranch Planned Development (PD 39) as adopted in 2006 and amended in 2008 did
not include development standards for the residential area. These standards were required as a
condition of approval of the original approval of PD 39 to be submitted with a request for a tentative
map and growth allocation.
At the moment, therefore, there are no development standards for the area of the proposed
tentative map. The applicant is proposing standards as part of a set of Planned Development
Standards and Guidelines submitted with the map (see the discussion later in this report).
BACKGROUND/EXISTING SETTING
The proposed subdivision is located in the northeast portion of the Reynolds Ranch Planned
Development (PD 39), a mixed-use residential/commercial/office project originally approved and
annexed to the city in 2006.
The project site is designated in PD 39 for medium density and low density development, as
shown in Figure #, above.
To date, much of the Reynolds Ranch project has been developed, including:
• Blue Shield office complex
• Costco, Home Depot and related retail
• Sprouts Farmers Market and related retail
• Fairfield Inn and Suites (under construction)
• Single family homes
• Rubicon apartments
• Oakmont Senior Living
• Orchard Lane Park
A recent (2019) aerial photo of the Reynolds Ranch area is shown below.
6
Figure 4: Reynolds Ranch Aerial Photo
Photos of the project site are provided below.
SITE
7
Figure 5: Project Site Aerial Photo
8
Figure 6: Project Site Photos
View of the site looking northeast toward Harney Lane
View of the site looking east toward Stockton Street
9
Existing vineyards
As shown in the photos above, the project site is mostly vacant. Portions of the site are planted
with vineyards.
West of the project site is an active rail line (shown below). Potential noise from this rail line is
discussed in more detail in the Analysis section of this report.
Figure 7: Existing Rail Line
Also located within the project site are several existing homes on the west side of Stockton Street.
These homes, which would be removed prior to development of the proposed subdivision, are
shown below.
10
Figure 8: Photos of Existing Homes
Aerial view of existing homes (to be removed)
View of existing homes (to be removed) from Stockton Street
11
PROPOSED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
The proposed subdivision is shown in Figure 9, below. A more detailed version of the Tentative
Tract Map is included in the attachments to this report.
The applicant is proposing a standard tentative subdivision map (not a Vesting Map).
Figure 9: Proposed Tentative Map
The proposed subdivision would create 150 lots for single family homes, plus lots for landscaping,
trails and an on-site park.
Most of the proposed lots are 5,000 square feet in size (generally 50x100 feet; some lots are
smaller, some are larger). Lot sizes would be similar than in the existing subdivision to the south.
The average of all lots in the subdivision is 5,314 square feet. The largest lot is 9,453 square feet.
A summary of the sizes and dimensions of all lots in the subdivision is included in the attachments
to this report.
12
All of the proposed lots meet the size and dimension standards proposed by the applicant for this
tract:
Dimension Minimum
Lot Size 5,000 square feet
Lot Width 50 feet
Lot Width, Corner Lots 35 feet
Lot Frontage Cul-de-Sac Lots 35 feet
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP ANALYSIS
The properties are currently zoned Low Density Residence (LDR) and designated Low Density
Residential (1-8 units per acre) in the General Plan. As proposed, the lots will exceed minimum lot
size and width and comply with land use density standards.
General Plan Conformance
The subject property is currently designated Low Density Residential (2-8 DU/ acre) and Medium
Density Residential (8-20 DU/acre) on the Land Use Map of the General Plan. The following
General Plan Land Use and Community Design and Livability (CDL) goals and policies are
applicable to the proposed subdivision:
The overall net density of the project, excluding areas set aside for roadways and the flood
detention basin1, is 8.2 dwelling units per acre, which substantially complies with the density
ranges of the Low Density Residential (2-8 DU/acre) and Medium Density Residential (8-20
DU/acre) General Plan land use categories.
The General Plan requires that residential developments be at least as dense as the minimum for
each land use category:
LU-P3 Do not allow development at less than the minimum density prescribed by each
residential land use category, without rebalancing the overall plan to comply with the “no net
loss provisions of state housing law.”
As discussed above, the proposed project meets the density requirements for the Low- and
Medium Density Residential land use categories, consistent with Policy LU-P3.
1 Per the General Plan: “Residential density is expressed as housing units per net acre (excluding existing and
proposed public streets and other rights of way).” [General Plan, page 2-7]
13
Zoning Compliance
All of the proposed lots meet the development standards proposed for the project, which are:
Dimension Minimum Complies?
Size 5,000 square feet Yes
Frontage 50 feet Yes
Depth No standard N/A
Design
The Lodi Zoning Code provides basic guidelines for the design of residential subdivisions:
“The guidelines provided here are intended to assist project designers and property owners
in understanding and implementing the city's goals for attaining high quality residential
development. They are also intended to help preserve the traditional character of the city's
older neighborhoods.”
These guidelines are intended to encourage well designed residential neighborhoods that
people enjoy living in, which: reduce the visual dominance of the automobile; promote
pedestrian activity; create variety and interest in the appearance of residential streets;
provide community open space; and protect significant features of the natural environment.
[Zoning Code 17.18.050.A]
The guidelines in the Zoning Code address two basic topics: 1) Street Layout and 2) Open Space
and Natural Features. The suggested guidelines, and staff’s analysis of each, are shown below.
Street Layout
i. Pedestrian orientation. Subdivision design should emphasize pedestrian connectivity within
each project, to adjacent neighborhoods, nearby schools and parks, and to transit stops
within one-quarter-mile of planned residential areas. All streets and walkways should be
designed to provide safe and pleasant conditions for pedestrians, including the disabled,
and cyclists.
Staff’s Analysis: The proposed subidivision provides direct pedestrian access to the nearby
retail area to the east and to the public park to the south. All of the streets in the subdivision
have sidewalks on both sides (except the streets and the north and west edges of the tract,
which are have homes and sidewalks only on one side).
ii. Block Length. The length of block faces between intersecting streets should be as short as
possible, ideally no more than four hundred feet, to provide pedestrian connectivity.
Staff’s Analysis: The longest block faces are 750-900 feet long, which exceeds the
recommended length. However, these blocks are oriented in the direction in which most
pedestrians will want to travel (east toward the nearby retail center). Direct pedestrian
access is provided to the public park south of the project. Staff feels that the design
provides sufficient pedestrian access.
iii. Street Width and Design Speed. Streets within neighborhoods should be no wider than
needed to accommodate parking and two low-speed travel lanes. Streets in new
14
subdivisions should be designed to accommodate traffic speeds of twenty-five miles per
hour or less, with most streets in a subdivision designed for lower speeds.
Staff’s Analysis: The streets in the proposed subdivision comply with City of Lodi standards
for local public streets.
iv. Parkway/Planting Strips. Sidewalks should be separated from curbs by parkway strips of at
least five feet in width. The parkways should be planted with canopy trees at a twenty-foot
interval, or as appropriate to the species of the selected street tree, to produce a
continuously shaded sidewalk. The parkways should also be planted with ground covers
and other plant materials that will withstand pedestrian traffic.
Staff’s Analysis: The
v. Access to Open Areas. Single-loaded streets (those with residential development on one
side and open space on the other) should be used to provide public access to, and visibility
of natural open spaces, public parks, and neighborhood schools, as well as a means for
buffering homes from parks and schools.
Staff’s Analysis: None of the situations noted apply to this project.
Open Space
i. Natural amenities (such as views, mature trees, creeks, riparian corridors, and similar
features) should be preserved and incorporated into proposed development to the greatest
extent feasible.
Staff’s Analysis: None of the situations noted apply to this project.
ii. Development adjacent to parks or other public open spaces should be designed to provide
maximum visibility of these areas.
Staff’s Analysis: The project is adjacent to an existing park (Orchard Lane Park) and
proposes an approximately 1.6-acre addition to that park as part of this project. The existing
and expanded park are visible from Kordia Lane, satisfying this requirement.
Noise from Harney Lane and Nearby Rail Line
Two potential sources of noise—Harney Lane and an active rail line—are located near the project
site. Potential impacts to homes created by noise from Harney Lane and the railway were identified
in the environmental impact report (EIR) for the Reynolds Ranch Planned Development. Because
the roadway and railway were identified to have the potential to create unacceptable levels of
noise, the following mitigation measures were included in the Reynolds Ranch EIR:
Habitable second-story residential space, located within 245 feet of the Harney Lane
centerline, must have upgraded structural protection including dual-paned windows and
supplemental ventilation (air conditioning) to allow for window closure, in compliance with
the City of Lodi Compatibility Standards. (Final EIR Mitigation Measure 3.8.3)
Outdoor recreational space within 145 feet of the Harney Lane centerline must be shielded
by solid perimeter walls of 6-7 feet in height or landscape berming, or any combination of
the two to achieve the desired noise attenuation. (Final EIR Mitigation Measure 3.8.4)
15
New residential development both north and south of Harney Lane shall require installation
of 6-7 foot high sound walls or landscape berming, or any combination of the two to achieve
the desired noise attenuation. (Final EIR Mitigation Measure 3.8.5)
Homes situated adjacent to the train tracks require either a setback distance of 430 feet or a
6 foot sound wall, landscape berming, or any combination of the two to mitigate train noise
to 65 dB at the residential exterior and ground floor interior. This attenuation may be
achieved by the design of the min storage facility. An interior noise analysis should be
submitted in conjunction with building plan check, to verify that structural noise reduction will
be achieved in a livable upstairs space, at the perimeter tier of homes by the specified
structural components (windows, walls, doors, roof/ceiling assembly) shown on building
plans. Disclosure of the presence of the tracks should be included in all real estate transfer
documents to anyone buying or leasing a property within 500 feet of the train tracks. (Final
EIR Mitigation Measure 3.8.6)
All of these mitigation measures would apply to the project, for the following reasons:
• Homes are within 245 feet of the Harney Lane centerline. This generally affects lots 117-
126 and 133-137.
• Rear yards of some homes (defined as “outdoor recreational space”) are within 145 feet
the Harney Lane centerline. This affects lots 118, 125, 134, and 135.
• Homes are proposed near the train tracks.
All of these mitigation measures are included in the proposed conditions of approval.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FINDINGS
In order to approve the proposed tentative tract map, the proposed subdivision must be found
consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Code, and the Subdivision Map Act2.
The following are the required findings for approval of a subdivision, and staff’s analysis for each. If
any of the findings can be made, the map cannot be approved; staff’s recommendation is that the
map can be approved.
1. The proposed subdivision including design and improvements is not consistent with the
General Plan or any applicable Specific Plan.
Staff’s Analysis: The overall density of the project, excluding areas set aside for roadways
and the flood detention basin, is 8.2 dwelling units per acre, which substantially complies
with the density ranges of the Low Density Residential (2-8 DU/acre) and Medium Density
Residential (8-20 DU/acre) General Plan land use categories. The proposed map is
consistent with the General Plan density requirements. The project is not located in a
Specific Plan.
2. The site is not physically suitable for the type or proposed density of development.
Staff’s Analysis: No unusual topographic features are present onsite that would prohibit
development of the proposed subdivision. The site is generally flat, with no regulated
2 Lodi Zoning Code Section 17.52.070
16
sensitive areas or other limiting topographic features. The subdivision would create lots with
adequate land area to support 150 detached single-family lots that meet the size and width
standards of the Zoning Code.
3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
Staff’s Analysis: The project site is not located in a sensitive environment. The entire site
has been cleared of native vegetation or planted with a vineyard. No wildlife habitat will be
affected. To ensure that protected species are not affected, the proposed conditions of
approval require pre-grading surveys for a variety of protected bird species. No fish habitat
is present on-site.
4. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public
health or safety problems.
Staff’s Analysis: The proposed subdivision has been reviewed by the Public Works
Department and meets all applicable design and improvement standards. The lots being
created will comply with all applicable single-family sanitary sewer service and stormwater
runoff treatment requirements, as well as other similar environmental and life safety
regulations and standards.
5. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large for access through or use of, property within the proposed
subdivision. This finding may not be made if the Commission finds that alternate easements
for access or use will be provided, and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones
previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record, or to
easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, and no authority is
hereby granted to the review authority to determine that the public at large has acquired
easements of access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
Staff’s Analysis: There are no public easements that currently encumber the properties to be
subdivided, and all modifications made to the existing public improvements fronting the
project site will be required to be reconstructed to current City standards.
6. The discharge of wastewater from the proposed subdivision into the community wastewater
system would result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Staff’s Analysis: The site will be served by the City of Lodi wastewater system. No
discharges of wastewater will occur that could result in violation of existing requirements
prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.
7. Information available to the City indicates adverse soil or geological conditions and the
subdivider has failed to provide sufficient information to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Director or the Commission that the conditions can be corrected in the plan for the
development.
Staff’s Analysis: No information has been found to indicate the project site is considered
contaminated, or may contain contaminant particles. A condition of approval requires the
completion of detailed studies of on-site soils to ensure that no contamination is present
before grading permits are issued.
17
8. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with all applicable provisions of this Title, any
other applicable provision of the Municipal Code, and the Subdivision Map Act.
Comment: The procedural requirements of the Map Act are being followed. The proposed
lots will comply with the applicable engineering and zoning standards pertaining to grading,
drainage, utility connections, lot size (as proposed by the applicant) and density.
Based on the analysis above, staff recommends approval of the Tentative Parcel Map subject to
the findings and conditions of approval contained in the staff report.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
To provide development standards for the area covered by the proposed subdivision and regulate
the design of homes and other improvements (street signs, landscaping, etc.), the applicant has
submitted a set of proposed “Development Standards and Guidelines,” (DSG) included in the
attachments to this report.
The DSG document includes the following sections:
1. Introduction – Including how the DSG document will be implemented and its relationship to
the Lodi Zoning Code
2. Land Use – Land uses and development standards
3. Architecture – Architectural standards and guidelines
4. Circulation – Roadway cross-sections and designs
5. Community – Designs for community features and items in the public realm (street lights,
benches, etc.)
The proposed DSG document provides several key items:
• Development standards, including lot size and dimension standards and setbacks (with
minor exceptions the same as the City’s RMD single family zoning district). A comparison of
proposed development standards in the DSG and in the RMD zoning district is shown
below:
Lot Configuration Reynolds Ranch
DSG Document
Lodi Zoning
Code RMD
Minimum Lot Area (square feet) 5,000 5,000
Maximum Lot Coverage 50% 50%
Minimum Lot Width, Interior Lots 50’ 50’
Minimum Lot Width, Corner Lots 55’ N/A
Minimum Lot Frontage along Public Streets on
cul-de-sacs
35’ N/A
Setbacks Reynolds Ranch
DSG Document
Lodi Zoning
Code RMD
Minimum Front Setback to Garage 20’ 20’
Minimum Front Setback to Living Area 15’ 15’
18
Minimum Front Setback to Porch or Entry 15’ N/A
Minimum Side Setback to Public Street (corner lot) 10’ 10’
Minimum Side Setback to Lot Line (adjacent Lot) 5’ 5’
Minimum Rear Setback to Living Area 10’ 10’
Minimum Rear Setback to Covered Patio 10’ N/A
Maximum Building Height 35’ 35’
N/A – No standard in the RMD zoning district
As shown, the proposed DSG provides standards not included in the Lodi Zoning Code for
front porch setbacks, rear yard patios, and lots on cul-de-sacs. All other standards are the
same as the RMD zoning district. Permitted land uses, project processing procedures,
variances and deviations from setbacks, etc., will all be per the Lodi Zoning Code and the
RMD zoning district.
• Architectural guidelines which establish both both standards and guidelines to establish a
level of quality for the design of homes (which will be reviewed by the Site Plan and
Architectural Committee):
o Standards are mandatory regulations which must be complied with, and generally
include words such as “shall” or “must”
o Guidelines are recommendations that are not required to be complied with, and
generally include words such as “should” or “encourage”
The DSG document makes extensive use of photographs to show the level of quality which
will be expected in the proposed designs for homes in the subdivision:
19
Staff feels that the text and illustrations will give staff and the SPARC sufficient grounds to
ensure that homes built in the subdivision will meet the City’s expectations for quality.
• Roadway cross-sections which define how the roads will be built and landscaped
• Streetscape, open space, and park designs showing how these features will be
constructed and landscapes. The DSG document also includes designs for fences, walls,
street signs, etc., which mirror the designs already in place in the adjacent subdivision to the
south.
The DSG document, which will be sent to the City Council for review and approval, will form the
“zoning” for the site except for any issues not specifically included in the DSG, in which case the
Lodi Zoning Code will apply.
GROWTH ALLOCATION
The applicant is requesting a 2020 allocation of 111 Medium Density units and 39 Low Density
units. The following sections provide background on the Growth Allocation process, the current
status of allocations granted by the City and available for 2020 projects, and staff’s analysis of the
applicant’s request.
Background and History of Growth Allocation
The following is provided for context and to update the Planning Commission on recent action by
the City Council related to the Growth Allocation process.
20
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, there was widespread concern about growth in Lodi, sparked in
part growth in San Joaquin County, which at the time was one of the fastest-growing regions in the
United States. The City feared “[r]apid uncontrolled growth” that would be “… a direct cause of
serious adverse environmental and economic effects.” [City of Lodi Ordinance No. 1521, adopted
1991]
In response, the City Council adopted a “Growth Management Plan”3 to give the Council more
control over the timing, location, and quality of future residential development.
The City’s growth allocation process was intended to,
“… provide a growth management system to regulate the character, location, amount
and timing of future development so as to achieve the policies stated in the Lodi
General Plan. It is further the purpose of this Chapter to provide for increased
housing opportunities for all segments of society and to promote and protect the
public health, safety and welfare be regulating the future use and development of
land in the City of Lodi.” [Lodi Ordinance No. 1521]
The growth management system was intended to ensure that Lodi’s population did not grow more
than 2% per year.
Via a separate Resolution, the City Council in 1991 (City Council Resolution No. 91-170)
established a “point system” to be used to review proposed residential projects. The point system
measured each project’s performance in a variety of areas, including:
• Agriculture Land Conflicts
• On-Site Agricultural Land Mitigation
• General Location (with regard to “Priority Areas” to be established by the City Council)
• Relation to Public Services (water, sewer, drainage, etc.)
• Traffic
• Housing
• Schools
• Fire Protection
Finally, the City Council in 1991 also adopted Resolution No. 1991-171, which established the
requirements for a “Development Plan” that was required by Ordinance No. 1521 to be submitted
with proposed tentative parcel maps and tentative tract maps. The Development Plan was to
include a schedule which estimated the time period over which the project would be developed, so
that growth allocations could be apportioned over several years.
Resolution 1991-171 also established a once-a-year schedule for considering the allocation of
growth by the City Council, which was to occur each year in November. If a project did not receive
an allocation in November of any given year, it would have to wait until the following year to
reapply.
3 Some readers may be aware that the state Housing Crisis Act of 2019 has invalidated some growth
control/management programs, and now makes it illegal for cities to enact new growth control/ management plans.
Lodi’s plan, due to its adoption date in 1991, is exempt from these restrictions and can remain in force. If the City
wished to enact a new growth control/management plan today, state law would prevent it from doing so.
21
In addition to these three foundational actions to establish and implement the Growth Management
Program, the City Council took various actions to adjust the Program:
• Resolution No. 2006-141 (adopted July 19, 2006) made a one-year adjustment to the
timing for submittal of Growth Allocation applications.
• Ordinance No. 1877 (adopted June 5, 2013) expired unused allocations and suspended
the provisions of Resolution No. 91-171 from 2013 through December 31, 2019. This
effectively eliminated the requirement for the submittal of a development plan. It also
eliminated the once-a-year schedule for considering growth allocations.
The result of these latest actions was that projects could file for a growth allocation at any time,
and the City Council could approve an allocation at any time during the year.
With the expiration of Ordinance No. 1877 at the end of 2019, the once-a-year allocation schedule
returned, as did the requirement to submit a development plan. This had the effect of making it
more difficult to submit tentative subdivision maps, since the next scheduled allocation of units
would not occur until November 2020.
At the City Council meeting of June 3, 2020, the Council reinstated the provisions of Ordinance No.
1877 that had expired on December 31, 2019. This allows the processing of the proposed
Reynolds Ranch tentative map prior to receiving a growth allocation, and allows the City Council to
approve a growth allocation for the map at any time during the year.
Analysis
The following analysis examines several factors:
• Relationship of the project to the Priority Areas defined by the City Council
• Relationship of the project to the amount of growth allowed by the Growth Allocation
process
• Growth Allocation Points System
Priority Areas
The Lodi General Plan includes a map (General Plan Figure 3-1, excerpted below) which identifies
Phase I, II and III areas for growth.
22
Figure #: General Plan “Development Phases” Map (excerpt)
While the project site is not specifically shown as being in a particular Development Phase, the City
has historically defined Phase I as including “infill development,” a category which includes sites
such as the proposed Reynolds Ranch tentative map, which is surrounded on all sides by existing
development. From the General Plan:
“Phase I development includes: …
2. Infill development and redevelopment downtown, along the city’s major corridors,
and in the eastern industrial areas.” [General Plan Chapter 3, page 3-5]
Relationship to Projected Growth
When the City initiated the Growth Allocation process, a major component was to limit population
growth in the city to 2 percent per year. From Ordinance 1521:
23
“The number of residential units approved by the City shall reflect a two percent
(2%) yearly limitation on growth based on population, to be compounded annually.
Calculations for residential building approval shall be based on a population figure of
50,900 as of September 1, 1989, and assuming an average number of persons per
residential unit as determined annually by the State [of California] Department of
Finance.”
Had the City received and approved applications to grow at 2% per year every year since adoption
of the Growth Allocation process, applying a compounded two percent annual growth rate to the
starting figure of 50,900, the population of Lodi as of 2020 would be significantly higher than the
current population could have been achieved.
However, annual applications have historically lagged behind the maximum permitted annual
growth. The City Council has also on several occasions “expired” unused allocations, effectively re-
setting and lowering the maximum size of the city.
As of January 1, 2020, the California Department of Finance estimated the population of Lodi at
67,9304. A summary of the city’s population growth over the past ten years is shown below.
Year
Dept. of Finance
Revised Population
Estimate
Growth
Rate
Percentage,
Year to
Year
2010 62,134
2011 63,317 1.9%
2012 63,447 0.21%
2013 63,788 0.54%
2014 63,975 0.29%
2015 64,415 0.69%
2016 64,920 0.78%
2017 65,911 1.53%
2018 67,121 1.84%
2019 67,430 0.46%
2020 67,930 0.74%
The average annual growth for the period from 2010 to 2020 has been 0.89%, well below the
maximum 2% annual growth allowed by the Growth Allocation process.
Growth Allocations issued to projects from 2013 to 2019 are summarized below.
4 State of California, Department of Finance, E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual
Percent Change — January 1, 2019 and 2020. Sacramento, California, May 2020
24
ISSUED GROWTH ALLOCATIONS 2013-2019
Project Low (0.1-7) Medium (7.1-20) High (20.1-30) TOTAL
Bennett Interlaken Dr. 25
Camper - Sac 28 28
Garfield 6 6
Gateway North 107 98 329 534
Gateway South 560 0 0 560
Gianoni / Baker 18 18
Harvest Crossing 42 42
Iris Drive 9 9
Luca Place 17 17
Miller Property 65 65
Reynolds Ranch 227 330 557
Rose Gate 232 232
Rose Gate II 250 95 180 525
Sunwest Cottages 12
Tienda Square 8 8
Twin Arbors 27
Van Ruiten Ranch 145 55 88 288
Villa Fiore (VRR) 67 67
Vineyard Terrace 235 235
Vintner Square 57 57
TOTAL 1,520 871 939 3,330
Average Per Year: 253 145 156 555
As of the end of 2019, considering the expiring of unused allocations from prior years and the
granting of allocations for 2019, the City had an available balance of 2,685 allocations available, in
the following categories:
• Low density (Up to 7 DU/acre): 1,257 Units
• Medium density (7.1 to 20 DU/acre): 634 Unit
• High density (20.1 to 30 DU/acre): 794 Units
To calculate available allocations for 2020, these 2,685 available units are added to the 477 units
which can be issued in 2020 based on limiting growth to 2% from 2019-2020. Growth from 2019 to
2020 is calculated as follows:
1. Two percent of the City’s current population: 67,930 x 2% = 1,359
2. Divide 1,359 by the average number of persons per household 1,359/2.85 = 477
3. Divide the 477 (477 du) units into the three housing types:
25
44 percent low density = 210 units
28 percent medium density = 134 units
28 percent high density = 134 units
Finally, Growth Allocations already issued for 2020 in prior years for the Gateway South (186 low
density units), Bennett/Iris Drive (9 low density units) and Vineyard (75 medium density units)
projects are deducted.
The resulting total number of Growth Allocations available for 2020 are:
Category Unused
Allocations1
Add 2020
Allocations
Deduct
2020
Allocations
Already
Granted
Total Available
Allocations for
2020
Low Density
(Up to 7
DU/Acre)
1,257 210 <186> 1,281
Medium Density
(7.1 – 20
DU/Acre)
634 134 <75> 693
High Density
(20.1 – 30
DU/Acre)
794
134 0 928
Totals: 2,685 478 <261> 2,902
Growth Allocation Points System
Ordinance 1521 called for the establishment of a “points system/criteria schedule to be established
by Council resolution.” The points system was to be used only if more allocations were requested
than could be issued in any given year.
Because the City is not approaching the maximum number of applications for growth allocation
(the Reynolds Ranch project is the only current application), the points system does not apply and
is not analyzed.
Growth Allocation Analysis
Based on staff’s review of the applicable portions of the Growth Allocation process (as revised by
the City Council in May 2020), staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend
allocation of 150 units of growth by the City Council, including 111 Medium Density units and 39
Low Density units. Staff’s reasoning is as follows:
• The Reynolds Ranch site is in a Priority Area as an “infill” project.
26
• The requested allocation of 111 Medium Density units and 39 Low Density Units is less than
the amount of allocations available for issuance in 2020 (693 Medium Density and 1,281
Low Density).
• Review of Growth Allocation points is not necessary, because the number of allocations
requested does not exceed the number of available allocations for 2020.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
An environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared for the Reynolds Ranch Planned Development
in 2006. In 2008, an addendum to the original EIR was prepared when the Planned Development
was amended.
The California Environmental Quality Act (Section 15162) allows the use of a prior EIR so long as
none of the following findings can be made. Staff’s analysis follows each potential finding.
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects;
Staff’s Analysis: The proposed tentative subdivision map is consistent with the land use
designations shown in the Reynolds Ranch Planned Development, and which was
considered in the 2006 Final Environmental Impact Report and the 2008 Addendum.
Because the land use and density of development proposed (single family homes at Low
and Medium densities) are the same as the project examined in those documents, there is
no evidence that any of the impacts identified would be substantially increased or made
more severe.
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration
due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
Staff’s Analysis: The setting in which the project is proposed—the southeastern portion of
Lodi and the City in general—have not changed substantially since the certification of the
2006 Final EIR and the approval of 2008 Addendum. At that time, development north of
Harney Lane had already taken place (see photos below from 2006 and 2018) while the
Reynolds Ranch Planned Development was vacant.
27
September 2006 August 2018
Image source: Google Earth
Development which has occurred since 2006 is consistent with the assumptions included in
the Final EIR and Addendum, including development within the Reynolds Ranch Specific
Plan. No major changes in land use which would have resulted in changes in traffic, noise,
or other impacts have taken place. Cumulative growth assumptions made in the 2006 Final
EIR and 2008 Addendum remain valid.
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified
as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or
negative declaration;
Staff’s Analysis: Because the project is consistent with the Reynolds Ranch Planned
Development (low- and medium-density residential) is consistent with the project examined
in the 2006 Final EIR and 2008 Addendum, it is not expected that any impacts would result
that were not examined in the prior environmental analyses.
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in
the previous EIR;
Staff’s Analysis: Because the project is consistent with the Reynolds Ranch Planned
Development (low- and medium-density residential) is consistent with the project examined
in the 2006 Final EIR and 2008 Addendum, it is not expected that any impacts would result
which are more severe than those examined in the prior environmental analyses.
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the
project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
Staff’s Analysis: None of the mitigation measures in the 2006 Final EIR have been found to
be infeasible. All of the mitigation measures from the 2006 Final EIR which apply to the
proposed project are included in the conditions of approval for the Reynolds Ranch tentative
map.
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed
in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
28
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative.
Staff’s Analysis: None of the mitigation measures included in the 2006 Final EIR have been
determined to be infeasible or ineffective. Impacts have been consistent with those
examined in the 2006 Final EIR and the 2008 Addendum, and the City has not needed to
identify either new mitigation measures or project alternatives to reduce impacts further.
Based on the analyses above, none of the findings in CEQA section 15162 can be made, and the
2006 Final EIR and 2008 Addendum can be relied upon to be a complete and adequate
environmental analysis for the proposed Reynolds Ranch tentative tract map.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Legal Notice for the Use Permit was published in the Lodi News Sentinel on Saturday, August 1,
2020. Sixty (60) public hearing notices were sent to all property owners of record within a 300-foot
radius of the project site as required by California State Law §65091 (a) 3. Public notice also was
mailed to interested parties who had expressed their interest of the project.
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS
Should the Planning Commission agree with staff’s recommendation, the following motions are
suggested:
“I move that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution: 1) finding that the impacts of the
proposed are fully addressed by the 2006 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Reynolds
Ranch Planned Development and the 2008 Addendum to the 2006 Final Environmental Impact
Report project per CEQA section 15162, 2) approving the Reynolds Ranch Tentative Parcel Map
to subdivide three parcels into 150 lots for single family homes and two parcels for drainage and
other purposes, subject to the conditions outlined in the draft resolution, 3) recommending that the
City Council approve the Development Standards and Guidelines for Reynolds Ranch Site A; and
4) recommending that the City Council approve a Growth Allocation of 111 Medium Density units
and 39 Low Density units.”
29
ALTERNATIVE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS:
Tentative Map
• Approve the proposed tentative map
• Approved the proposed tentative map with revised conditions of approval
• Deny the proposed tentative map
• Direct staff and/or the applicant to provide additional information and/or changes in the
project and continue the item to a future meeting.
Design Standards and Guidelines
• Recommend approval by the City Council
• Recommend approval with revisions
• Recommend denial by the City Council
• Direct staff and/or the applicant to provide additional information and/or changes and
continue the item to a future meeting
Growth Allocation
• Recommend approval by the City Council
• Recommend approval of a different level of Growth Allocation
• Recommend denial by the City Council
Respectfully Submitted, Concur,
Eric Norris John Della Monica
Contract Planner Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Tentative Map
B. Development Standards and Guidelines
C. Lot Summary
D. Public Comment Letters
E. Draft Resolution and Conditions of Approval
Reynolds Ranch – Site A
Planned Development
Standards and Guidelines
Bennett Homes, Inc.
Prepared By:
KLA, Inc.
NorthStar Engineering
August 2020
Reynolds Ranch Tentative Tract Map ATTACHMENT B
Lot Summary
1 of 5
Reynolds Ranch Tentative Map
Lot # Width Depth Area ()
Red=Irregular shaped or corner lots.
1 42' 100' 5,417
2 50' 100' 5,000
3 52' 93' 5,106
4 58' 93' 5,077
5 54' 123' 6,642
6 59' 92' 5,000
7 51' 101' 5,004
8 50' 101' 5,050
9 50' 101' 5,050
10 50' 101' 5,050
11 50' 101' 5,050
12 50' 101' 5,050
13 50' 101' 5,050
14 50' 101' 5,050
15 50' 101' 5,050
16 50' 101' 5,050
17 50' 101' 5,050
18 50' 101' 5,050
19 43' 101' 5,496
20 40' 100' 7,497
21 50' 100' 5,000
22 50' 100' 5,000
23 50' 100' 5,000
24 50' 100' 5,000
25 50' 100' 5,000
26 50' 100' 5,000
27 50' 100' 5,000
28 50' 100' 5,000
29 50' 100' 5,000
30 50' 100' 5,000
31 50' 100' 5,000
32 50' 100' 5,000
33 42' 100' 5,545
34 46' 100' 5,719
35 50' 100' 5,000
36 50' 100' 5,000
Reynolds Ranch Tentative Tract Map ATTACHMENT B
Lot Summary
2 of 5
Reynolds Ranch Tentative Map
Lot # Width Depth Area ()
Red=Irregular shaped or corner lots.
37 50' 100' 5,000
38 50' 100' 5,000
39 50' 100' 5,000
40 50' 100' 5,000
41 50' 100' 5,000
42 50' 100' 5,000
43 50' 100' 5,000
44 50' 100' 5,000
45 50' 100' 5,000
46 50' 100' 5,000
47 50' 100' 5,000
48 50' 100' 5,000
49 56' 100' 9,543
50 51' 102' 7,823
51 50' 102' 5,026
52 50' 100' 5,000
53 50' 100' 5,000
54 50' 100' 5,000
55 50' 100' 5,000
56 50' 100' 5,000
57 50' 100' 5,000
58 50' 100' 5,000
59 50' 100' 5,000
60 50' 100' 5,000
61 50' 100' 5,000
62 50' 100' 5,000
63 50' 100' 5,000
64 50' 100' 5,000
65 44' 100' 5,670
66 48' 100' 5,940
67 50' 100' 5,000
68 50' 100' 5,000
69 50' 100' 5,000
70 50' 100' 5,000
71 50' 100' 5,000
72 50' 100' 5,000
73 50' 100' 5,000
Reynolds Ranch Tentative Tract Map ATTACHMENT B
Lot Summary
3 of 5
Reynolds Ranch Tentative Map
Lot # Width Depth Area ()
Red=Irregular shaped or corner lots.
74 50' 100' 5,000
75 50' 100' 5,000
76 50' 100' 5,000
77 50' 100' 5,000
78 50' 100' 5,000
79 50' 100' 5,000
80 50' 100' 5,000
81 50' 100' 5,000
82 51' 100' 6,713
83 63' 100' 7,146
84 50' 100' 5,000
85 50' 100' 5,000
86 50' 100' 5,000
87 50' 100' 5,000
88 50' 100' 5,000
89 50' 100' 5,000
90 50' 100' 5,000
91 50' 100' 5,000
92 50' 100' 5,000
93 50' 100' 5,000
94 50' 100' 4,997
95 47' 100' 6,049
96 51' 100' 6,266
97 50' 100' 5,000
98 50' 100' 5,000
99 50' 100' 5,000
100 50' 100' 5,000
101 50' 100' 5,000
102 50' 100' 5,000
103 50' 100' 5,000
104 50' 100' 5,000
105 50' 100' 5,000
106 50' 100' 5,000
107 50' 100' 5,000
108 47' 100' 6,253
109 55' 102' 6,643
110 50' 102' 5,101
Reynolds Ranch Tentative Tract Map ATTACHMENT B
Lot Summary
4 of 5
Reynolds Ranch Tentative Map
Lot # Width Depth Area ()
Red=Irregular shaped or corner lots.
111 50' 102' 5,101
112 50' 102' 5,101
113 50' 102' 5,101
114 50' 102' 5,101
115 47' 100' 5,999
116 55' 100' 5,500
117 55' 100' 5,500
118 64' 100' 6,861
119 51' 120' 6,223
120 50' 120' 5,780
121 50' 112' 5,524
122 50' 109' 5,408
123 50' 107' 5,301
124 34' 105' 6,019
125 42' 100' 6,256
126 50' 100' 5,000
127 50' 100' 5,000
128 50' 100' 5,000
129 44' 100' 5,503
130 47' 100' 5,964
131 53' 100' 5,300
132 53' 100' 5,300
133 53' 100' 5,300
134 48' 100' 6,632
135 44' 106' 7,436
136 53' 106' 5,361
137 53' 100' 5,300
138 53' 100' 5,300
139 53' 100' 5,300
140 53' 100' 5,300
141 53' 100' 5,300
142 53' 100' 5,300
143 53' 100' 5,300
144 53' 100' 5,300
145 53' 100' 6,259
146 50' 90' 5,970
147 56' 91' 5,005
Reynolds Ranch Tentative Tract Map ATTACHMENT B
Lot Summary
5 of 5
Reynolds Ranch Tentative Map
Lot # Width Depth Area ()
Red=Irregular shaped or corner lots.
148 52' 100' 5,050
149 50' 100' 5,000
150 46' 100' 5,693
Average: 5,314
1
Kari Chadwick
From:Kevin <spdmotor1@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, July 01, 2020 1:41 PM
To:Planning Commission Comments
Subject:Reynolds Ranch additional homes
Hello, I am writing in regards to the proposed additional 150 homes in the Reynolds Ranch area adjacent to the Orchard Lane
development.
First question/comment I have is, will these be low income or HUD homes? And if so this would be a huge disappointment for
most of the Orchard Lane owners. We have invested a lot to own homes in this area and to do that would be a huge problem
for myself and other homeowners here. We purchased homes here under the belief that we would be the only community
built in the area.
I’d would also like to mention the impact these homes would have on traffic congestion. This also brings up the issue of
schools. There are not enough schools to support what is already built here and adding more homes would imply the school
issues even more. If I could cast a vote on these homes that would count, I would vote No! Thank you for your consideration in
this matter.
Kevin Hachler
Sent from my iPhone
7/6/20
Lodi Planning Division
John R. Della Monica Jr.
On June 29, 2020, we received a Notice of Public Hearing informing us of a public
hearing on 7/8/20 @7PM. The letter stated that this meeting is a request for approval a
division of three parcels of land into lots for 150 single family homes. And, an approval
for ‘growth allocation’ (not sure of meaning) for this proposed tentative tract. Also, that
those interested could only view and listen on your Facebook live stream.
As a homeowners and taxpayers residing at 155 Merton Way in this great city of Lodi,
we have some concerns as to what due diligence has taken place to come a decision that
considers the well-being for citizens as well as for the City of Lodi.
If there were an Environmental Impact report completed, as stated, where can we
(citizens) read this? It seems transparency is lacking for the public.
When we received this notice on the evening of 6/29, I called for more info on the
morning of 6/30 to find more info. I was informed that there had been a ‘shirt sleeve’ (not
sure what this means) meeting that morning at 7AM to approve this development. We are
not sure why we were not given any notice so that we could speak at an open meeting.
Because we were told by your office that we could only participate by letter or email, we
feel that our views have little value and that these decisions have already been made
without our concerns being heard. We have many concerns that we trust will be taken
seriously.
First and foremost, Orchard Lane is a quiet family-oriented neighborhood with little
safety concerns because direct access is limited to our neighborhood via two entrances
one main LeBaron Blvd and now on Stockton St. From your map, it looks like you will
be opening up Kordia Ave. which will completely change the dynamic of this
community-minded neighborhood. It will go from quiet neighborhood to a through way
to LeBaron and most likely Merton will be affected too. If you do not know, these streets
are so narrow that only one car can pass if there are cars parked. These streets were not
meant for through access, only neighborhood traffic.
Also, when we purchased our home from FCB homes, we were informed that the train
that is within ½ mile from our house (closer for our neighbors) was only a few per day.
After living here for three years, we know that there are on most days, an average of 20
trains that are not only during the day but run all hours (mostly between 12AM to 6AM.)
And that our house shakes…so much so that my computer screen jiggles violently on my
desk, our windows creek and pictures bang on the wall! This has caused us to wonder if
this is doing something to the structure of our home. Our guess is that this land was very
inexpensive at most. Profits over well-being!
I’m sure if you took a survey of satisfaction you would find most homeowners unhappy
with this aspect. Our quiet traffic at least makes it bearable. Now, you want to upset that
dynamic by allowing this new subdivision.
The building of the commercial property south-east from us has been a big
disappointment too. The three-story building that towers over our beautiful landscape
seems rushed as a development. And since they have not opened any of these buildings
yet, we do not even know what the traffic impact surrounding us will be yet. This seems
like a nightmare with parking and such.
Secondly, we are wondering about the proposed builders Bennett Homes Inc. We
researched them and were concerned that there were no pictures of any past subdivision
homes on their web page or FaceBook page. There was an article from the Lodi News
stating that in 2014 this builder was to build 288 homes on 74 acres between Lower
Sacramento and Davis Rd. We could not find any homes there. Just wondering what
happened with that proposal. Also, we read of some of comments of previous home
buyers and most were not favorable in vivid detail of the disappointing quality of homes
purchased. In addition, after checking with BBB, we found Bennett Homes Inc.is not
listed as a member.
For the past two years there has been so much noise with the commercial construction on
Stockton St that our quality of life is greatly compromised. Now you are asking us to live
through another two or so years of more construction.
With the looming Covid 19 situation, just wondering how this is going to play out. Will
this builder be able to bring this to completion in a timely manner? And with the
economic burden of this virus how can people continue to afford new housing? Just
because you can build homes doesn’t mean you should before all these important issues
are considered
In peace and fairness for all.
Thank you for your consideration,
Judith Costa
155 Merton Way
Lodi, CA 95240
Recipient:City of Lodi Planning Commision members
Letter:Greetings,
The citizens that have signed this petition would value your consideration
for our concerns.
Signatures
Name Location Date
Judith Costa US 2020-08-04
Bradley Byrd Lodi, CA 2020-08-08
Kyle DeVusser Lodi, CA 2020-08-08
Ryan Cerezo Lodi, CA 2020-08-08
Tim Ivey Lodi, CA 2020-08-08
Alexis Papachristos San Diego, CA 2020-08-08
Jacquelyn Keigley Lodi, CA 2020-08-08
Elisa Bubak Lodi, CA 2020-08-08
Sara Angoletta Lodi, CA 2020-08-08
Chris Carey Sacramento, CA 2020-08-08
Lexi Tiago Lodi, CA 2020-08-08
Brieanne Baumbach Lodi, CA 2020-08-08
Connie Hinton Lodi, CA 2020-08-08
Bronc Hughes Lodi, CA 2020-08-08
Daisy Dickens Lodi, CA 2020-08-08
Jeff Verstl Lodi, CA 2020-08-08
Tania Deleva Rohnert Park, CA 2020-08-08
Andrew Dickens Lodi, CA 2020-08-09
Casey Leyva Lodi, CA 2020-08-09
Julia Tanaka Lodi, CA 2020-08-09
Name Location Date
Brian Perez Lodi, CA 2020-08-09
Cynthia Billings Brentwood, CA 2020-08-09
Tiffany Ivey Lodi, CA 2020-08-09
Yuli Llamas Lodi, CA 2020-08-09
Wesley Kurz Lodi, CA 2020-08-09
Lacey Rosewall Los Angeles, CA 2020-08-09
Malou Adams Lodi, CA 2020-08-09
Yogesh Patel Lodi, CA 2020-08-09
Shawna Souza Lodi, CA 2020-08-10
Larry Way Lodi, CA 2020-08-10
Lidia Huiltron Stockton, CA 2020-08-10
Neelam Akbar US 2020-08-10
Elaine Gutierrez Lodi, CA 2020-08-10
Nassdira Solorzano Lodi, CA 2020-08-10
Jaclyn Guzman El Dorado Hills, CA 2020-08-10
Alfredo Solorzano Lodi, CA 2020-08-10
Sherri Reese Waltham, MA 2020-08-10
Marco Gutierrez Lodi, CA 2020-08-10
Angela Gomez Stockton, CA 2020-08-11
Deona Jaramillo Lodi, CA 2020-08-11
Jesus Martinez Lodi, CA 2020-08-11
Travis Hager Lodi, CA 2020-08-11
Name Location Date
Ching-Cheng Chan Lodi, CA 2020-08-12
Vladislav Romanyuk Lodi, CA 2020-08-12
Damon Duncan Lodi, CA 2020-08-12
Recipient:City of Lodi Planning Commision members
Letter:Greetings,
The citizens that have signed this petition would value your consideration
for our concerns.
Comments
Name Location Date Comment
Casey Leyva Lodi, CA 2020-08-09 "Our schools are too over crowded. We need more schools to
accommodate all of the new developments in Lodi. Lodi used to
have one of the better school districts now we are one of the worst."
Yogesh Patel Lodi, CA 2020-08-09 "I live at 173 Merton way and I prefer that the new community is
constructed with isolation from orchard lane. The traffic should not
be shared between the communities"
Neelam Akbar US 2020-08-10 "We are entitled to our privacy and a peaceful neighborhood.
The plans they have don’t make sense especially during these
economically uncertain times."
1
Kari Chadwick
From:Brian Perez <brian.m.perez@att.net>
Sent:Tuesday, July 07, 2020 10:34 AM
To:Planning Commission Comments
Subject:Concerns over projected development near Reynolds Ranch
Hello,
My name is Brian Perez and I live in the Orchard Lane community off Reynolds Ranch. I would like to voice some concerns over
the proposed new housing and commercial storage development in the Reynolds Ranch area. I believe the commercial storage
located in a residential area will create unwanted and unnecessary traffic in what are already narrow streets. There will be
constant use of trucks with trailers and moving vehicles coming in and out of the area. Next, the addition of 150 houses will
seem to cause a lot more congestion in this already congested area. Coming in and out of the Costco complex is already a
nightmare and I can only imagine what it will be like with 150 houses added. Also, with an already impacted school system in
Lodi, will there be a new school built? It seems more and more housing is being built in Lodi, for example, in the area by Wal‐
Mart off Kettleman; yet no new schools for these families. Finally, I think this is a horrible time to plan for this development.
With the pandemic going on, the economy not doing great (unemployment in the millions) and civil unrest throughout the
country, I think there should be other priorities met in Lodi before the need to build new houses. Thank you for your time and
thank you for listening to my concerns.
Sent from my iPhone
1
Kari Chadwick
From:Julia Tanaka <tanaka_julia2010@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 4:12 PM
To:Planning Commission Comments
Subject:Fw: New proposed housing behind Merton
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Julia Tanaka" <tanaka_julia2010@yahoo.com>
To: "pcomments@lodi.gov" <pcomments@lodi.gov>
Sent: Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 3:21 PM
Subject: New proposed housing behind Merton
To Whom it May Concern,
Hello, as a resident of Orchard Lane, I do not agree that putting in additional houses and storage unit is a good idea. I
live on Merton and the streets are already so narrow. Only one car at a time can travel going in one dorection because
there are always cars parked in the streets. Additional traffic in congested areas is not a welcomed idea.
I also wonder what the plan is for additional schools. With an influx of 150 additional houses how will the, already
crowded schools be addressed?
More houses will bring in more people that do not live in the neighborhood causing crimes. We currently have people
scoping out or neighborhood and cars being broken into and delivery packages being stolen.
Thank you for your time,
Julia Tanaka
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
1
Kari Chadwick
From:Julia Tanaka <tanaka_julia2010@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 4:20 PM
To:Planning Commission Comments
Subject:New housing development
To Whom it May Concern,
My name is Julia Tanaka and I oppose the planned development of 150 homes on the northwest quadrant of Reynolds
Ranch. I'm concerned about the potential impact of this project on our neighborhood and I'm most concerned about
our inability to speak on the issue due to Covid. I urge you to oppose this project.
Sincerely,
Julia Tanaka
131 Merton Way
tanaka_julia2010@yahoo.com
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
1
Kari Chadwick
From:chrisroblesconsulting@gmail.com
Sent:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 6:52 PM
To:Planning Commission Comments
Cc:John Della Monica; 'Dennis Bennett'; drjeffsaladin@gmail.com
Subject:7/22/20 PC agenda Item 4A, Tentative Tract Map for 150 lots
Dear Planning Commission Chair Cummins and Planning Commissioners:
On behalf Jeffrey Saladin the buyer who holds the options to purchase the Tentative Tract Map for 150 lots in the northwest
quadrant of Reynolds Ranch we request that this item be continued to the next available Planning Commission meeting. As
the project developer we received for the first time this morning thirty new conditions of approval. While we do not have
concerns with most of the conditions, we do have significant concerns with some of the conditions. Given the late arrival of
the conditions we have not had the opportunity to discuss these conditions with staff.
In addition, a new condition has been added requiring project Design Guidelines to be approved by the Planning Commission.
This condition has come as a surprise as we have submitted the Design Guidelines to the city some time ago and we have been
informed that their lack of inclusion is a result of an internal staff mix up. We believe a continuation would allow us time to
resolve any questions on the conditions and allow staff to include the Design Guidelines with the project so the Planning
Commission could benefit from a complete review of the project. Thanks you for your consideration.
Best regards,
Chris Robles
President
Chris Robles Consulting LLC
(916) 759‐5940
1
RESOLUTION NO. P.C. 20-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LODI
1) APPROVING THE REQUEST OF BENNETT HOMES, INC., FOR A TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP TO SUBDIVIDE THREE PARCELS (APN 058-130-21, -22, AND -25)
COMPRISING 28.2 ACRES INTO 150 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND TWO PARCELS FOR
LANDSCAPING AND PARK PURPOSES, 2) RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A 2020
GROWTH ALLOCATION OF 39 LOW DENSITY AND 111 MEDIUM DENSITY UNITS
FOR THIS PROJECT; AND 3) RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR THIS PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi has heretofore held a duly
noticed public hearing, as required by law, in accordance with the Lodi
Municipal Code, Section 17.74; and
WHEREAS, the project proponent is Bennett Homes, Inc., P.O. Box 1597, Lodi, CA
95241; and
WHEREAS, the project parcels are owned by:
David and Linda Seeman Revocable Trust, 2299 Greenbriar Ct, Yuba City,
CA 95993 (APN 058-130-21)
Pucinelli Revocable Trust, 2719 S Stockton St, Lodi, CA 95240 (APN 058-
130-22)
Gary and Joyce Tsutumi 2011 Trust, 3725 E Armstrong Rd, Lodi, CA 95240
(APN 058-130-25); and
WHEREAS, the project is located at the southwest quadrant of E Harney Lane and S
Stockton Street (APN 058-130-21, -22, and -25); and
WHEREAS, the property has a General Plan designation of Low Density Residential
and Medium Density Residential and is zoned PD39 (Reynolds Ranch
Planned Development), which designates the site for Low and Medium
density residential development; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred;
and
Based upon the evidence within the staff report and project file the Planning
Commission finds:
Environmental Analysis
1. The impacts of the proposed tentative map were examined in the 2006 Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Reynolds Ranch Planned Development and the
2008 Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report and there are no new
facts supporting the findings in CEQA, California Code of Regulations, Title 14,
section 15162, which would require the preparation of a new or updated
environmental analysis, as follows:
a. The proposed tentative subdivision map is consistent with the land use
designations shown in the Reynolds Ranch Planned Development, and which
2
was considered in the 2006 Final Environmental Impact Report and the 2008
Addendum. Because the land use and density of development proposed (single
family homes at Low and Medium densities) are the same as the project
examined in those documents, there is no evidence that any of the impacts
identified would be substantially increased or made more severe. The finding in
CEQA Section 15162(a)(1) can not be made.
b. Development which has occurred since 2006 is consistent with the assumptions
included in the Final EIR and Addendum, including development within the
Reynolds Ranch Specific Plan. No major changes in land use which would have
resulted in changes in traffic, noise, or other impacts have taken place.
Cumulative growth assumptions made in the 2006 Final EIR and 2008
Addendum remain valid. The finding in CEQA Section 15161(a)(2) can not be
made.
c. Because the project is consistent with the Reynolds Ranch Planned
Development (low- and medium-density residential) is consistent with the project
examined in the 2006 Final EIR and 2008 Addendum, it is not expected that any
impacts would result that were not examined in the prior environmental analyses.
The finding in CEQA Section 15162(a)(3)(A) can not be made.
d. Because the project is consistent with the Reynolds Ranch Planned
Development (low- and medium-density residential) is consistent with the project
examined in the 2006 Final EIR and 2008 Addendum, it is not expected that any
impacts would result which are more severe than those examined in the prior
environmental analyses. The finding in CEQA Section 15162(a)(3)(B) can not be
made.
e. None of the mitigation measures in the 2006 Final EIR have been found to be
infeasible. All of the mitigation measures from the 2006 Final EIR which apply to
the proposed project are included in the conditions of approval for the Reynolds
Ranch tentative map. The finding in CEQA Section 15162(a)(3)(C) can not be
made.
f. None of the mitigation measures included in the 2006 Final EIR have been
determined to be infeasible or ineffective. Impacts have been consistent with
those examined in the 2006 Final EIR and the 2008 Addendum, and the City has
not needed to identify either new mitigation measures or project alternatives to
reduce impacts further. The finding in CEQA Section 15162(a)(3)(D) can not be
made.
Tentative Map
2. The site is designated by the General Plan for Low Density Residential and Medium
Density Residential, reserved primarily for single-family residences and compatible
uses. The density range allowed in the Low Density Residential General Plan
designation is 2 to 8 dwelling units per net acre. The density range allowed in the
Medium Density Residential General Plan designation is 8 to 20 dwelling units per
net acre. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan in that creation of
150 lots for single-family homes is within the overall maximum density for the site
3
permitted by the combination of the Low Density and Medium Density land use
designations.
3. No unusual topographic features are present onsite that would prohibit development
of the proposed subdivision. The site is generally flat, with no regulated sensitive
areas or other limiting topographic features. The subdivision would create lots with
adequate land area to support 150 detached single-family lots that meet the size and
width standards of the Design Standards and Guidelines proposed for the site. A
condition of approval requires that the Design Standards and Guidelines be
approved as a condition of approval of the Tentative Tract Map.
4. The project site is not located in a sensitive environment. The entire site has been
cleared of native vegetation or planted with a vineyard. No wildlife habitat will be
affected. To ensure that protected species are not affected, the proposed conditions
of approval require pre-grading surveys for a variety of protected bird species. No
fish habitat is present on-site.
5. The proposed subdivision has been reviewed by the Public Works Department and
meets all applicable design and improvement standards. The lots being created will
comply with all applicable single-family sanitary sewer service and stormwater runoff
treatment requirements, as well as other similar environmental and life safety
regulations and standards.
6. There are no public easements that currently encumber the properties to be
subdivided, and all modifications made to the existing public improvements fronting
the project site will be required to be reconstructed to current City standards.
7. The site will be served by the City of Lodi wastewater system. No discharges of
wastewater will occur that could result in violation of existing requirements
prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.
8. No information has been found to indicate the project site is considered
contaminated or may contain contaminant particles. A condition of approval requires
the completion of detailed studies of on-site soils to ensure that no contamination is
present before grading permits are issued.
9. The procedural requirements of the Map Act are being followed. The proposed lots
will comply with the applicable engineering and zoning standards pertaining to
grading, drainage, utility connections, lot size and density.
Growth Allocation
10. The proposed map is consistent with the Growth Allocation process, and qualifies for
a 2020 growth allocation, as follows:
a. The proposed project is an “infill project” and therefore considered to be within a
Priority 1 area for development; and
b. Assuming an average household size of 2.8 persons (per the Housing Element of
the General Plan), the proposed tentative map would generate approximately
420 residents. Adding these residents to the existing population would allow the
city to remain below the maximum year-to-year growth rate of two percent; and
4
c. Because the City is not approaching the maximum number of applications for
growth allocation (the Reynolds Ranch project is the only current 2020
application), the points system does not apply.
Planned Development Standards and Guidelines
11. The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed Planned Development
Standards and Guidelines to ensure that they meet the City’s expectations for quality
development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DETERMINED AND RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Lodi that:
1. The environmental impacts of the proposed project are fully considered in the 2006
Final EIR for the Reynolds Ranch Planned Development and the 2008 Addendum to
the Final EIR, and all applicable mitigation measures from the Final EIR have been
applied via conditions of approval.
2. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is hereby approved, subject to the attached
conditions of approval, which are hereby incorporated in this resolution by reference.
3. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve a
2020 Growth Allocation of 39 low density and 111 medium density units for the
proposed Reynolds Ranch tentative tract map.
4. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the
proposed Planned Development Standards and Guidelines for the project.
I certify that Resolution No. 20-___ was passed and adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Lodi at a regular meeting held on August 12, 2020 by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioners:
NOES: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
ATTEST______________________________
Secretary, Planning Commission
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Project No. PL2020-016 S – Reynolds Ranch Residential Subdivision to subdivide an approximately 28.2-acre site into 150
single family lots. The site is located south of E Harney Lane and west of S Stockton Street in the Reynolds Ranch Planned
Development (PD 39).
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 058-130-21, -22, and -25
Planning Commission Approval Date: August 12, 2020
Conditions of Approval Timing/
Implementation
Enforcement/
Monitoring
Verification
(Date and
Signature)
General Conditions/Conditions Prior to Final Map
Planning Commission approved Conditions of
Approval were appealed on August 20, 2020. These
Conditions will be replaced with the final approved
conditions once action has been taken on them.
Reynolds Ranch – Site A
Planned Development
Standards and Guidelines
Bennett Homes, Inc.
Prepared By:
KLA, Inc.
NorthStar Engineering
August 2020
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 2
August 2020
Table of Contents
Section 1 - Introduction 4
1.1 Overview 4
1.2 Location 6
1.3 Context and Vision 8
Section 2 - Land Use 10
2.1 Project 10
Figure 2.1 – Proposed Tentative Tract 10
Table 2.1 – Lot Configuration and Setback Table 11
Figure 2.1.1 - Lot Configuration and Setback Plan 12
2.2 Open Space 12
2.2.1 Streetscape 12
2.2.2 Park 12
2.2.3 Linear Park 13
Section 3 - Architecture 14
3.1 Overview 14
3.2 Architectural Standards and Guidelines 14
3.2.1 Street Presence and Orientation 15
3.2.2 Architectural Forms and Overall Character 16
3.2.3 Materials 18
3.2.4 Elevations and Projections 19
3.2.5 Garages and Driveways 20
3.2.6 Colors 21
Section 4 - Circulation 22
4.1 Overview 22
Figure 4.1 – Circulation Plan 23
4.2 Streets 24
4.2.1 S. Stockton Street 24
Figure 4.2.1a – S. Stockton St. – North of Street D 24
Figure 4.2.1b – S. Stockton St. – South of Street D 24
4.2.2 Street D - Entry Drive and Residential 25
Figure 4.2.2a – Street D – Entry Drive 25
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 3
August 2020
Figure 4.2.2b – Street D – Residential Street 25
4.2.3 Local Streets with Open Space 25
Figure 4.2.3a – Local Street Parallel to Harney Lane 26
Figure 4.2.3b – Local Street Parallel to Railroad 26
Figure 4.2.3c – Local Street Adjacent to Park 26
4.2.4 Local (Residential) Streets 27
Figure 4.2.4a – Local (Res.) Streets – Front Yard 27
Figure 4.2.4b – Local (res.) Streets – Side Yard 27
4.3 Non-Vehicular Circulation 28
Section 5 - Community 29
5.1 Overview 29
Figure 5.1 – Community Plan 29
5.2 Neighborhood Entry and Streetscape 30
5.2.1 Neighborhood Entry 30
Figure 5.2.1a – Neighborhood Entry Drive (St. D) 30
Figure 5.2.1b – Entry Wall Example 31
Figure 5.2.1c – Entry Wall and Pilaster Materials 31
5.2.2 Streetscape 32
Figure 5.2.2 – Streetscape Plan 32
5.3 Open Space / Parks 33
5.3.1 Park / Open Space 34
Figure 5.3.1 – Recreation Park - Open Space 35
5.3.2 Linear Parks 36
Figure 5.3.2 – Linear Parks 36
5.4 Walls and Fences 37
Figure 5.4 – Wall and Fence Plan 37
5.4.1 Masonry Wall (Streetscape) 38
Figure 5.4.1 – Masonry Wall and Enhanced Pilaster 38
5.4.2 Enhanced Fence 38
Figure 5.4.2 – Example of Upgraded Fence 38
5.4.3 Lot Line Fences 39
5.4.4 Masonry Wall / Fence 39
5.4.5 Low Rail Fence 39
5.5 Street Lights and Street Signs 40
5.6 Cluster Mailboxes 41
5.7 Site Furnishings 41
5.8 Landscape and Irrigation 43
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 4
August 2020
Section 1 - INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview
These Planned Development Standards and Guidelines have been provided to
establish the development and design standards for Reynolds Ranch - Site A
within the framework of City of Lodi standards and requirements and to ensure
a high-quality project that meets the development objectives of the City and the
desire to create a livable community that fits within the fabric of the existing
surrounding land uses and is compatible with the design style of the rest of
Reynolds Ranch.
This document provides specific direction that shall be followed in conjunction
with the approved tentative map in the development of Reynolds Ranch – Site A
and are listed as standards. This document also provides guidance and
direction that is intended to provide direction, while not stifling creativity, in the
proposed development of Reynolds Ranch – Site A.
These guidelines and standards shall be applied to all development within the
project boundary to ensure the project develops as a cohesive community.
Once these guidelines have been approved, they shall be implemented.
Development shall be consistent with these guidelines, the City of Lodi
Municipal Code (LMC), and all applicable City standards and specifications.
Where is document provides specific direction it shall take precedence, where it
is silent the LMC shall apply.
This document is provided in five sections to provide guidance in development:
Section 1 – Introduction – Provides background of the project, adjacency,
and goals and vision for the project.
Section 2 - Land Use – Shows the single-family residential lots, streets,
and open space. Also provides information about
conformance with City zoning, setbacks, and home
placement on the lots.
Section 3 - Architecture – Overall design direction, character, and style of
the proposed homes with description of materials.
Section 4 - Circulation – Project street cross-sections with landscape and
layout of proposed streets as well as non-vehicular
circulation.
Section 5 - Community – This section provides guidelines for
development of the project as a whole. It establishes the
community identity through the design of walls and fences,
entries, landscape (streetscape), and other community
elements such as signage, lighting, and cluster mailboxes.
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 5
August 2020
Zoning Document – Once approved, the Reynolds Ranch – Site A Planned
Development Standards and Guidelines will be the zoning document for the
project area. The LMC and RMD zoning district shall provide specific
allowances for permitted land uses, etc., and this document provides for the
allowable design of the permitted land uses within the project area.
▪ This design standards and guidelines document incorporates zoning
provisions that vary from and supersede those included in the Lodi
Zoning Code (LZC), as well as introduces additional provisions not
currently provided in the LZC.
▪ This design standards and guidelines document references regulations
in the LZC. Where the Zoning Code is referenced, the Zoning Code
that is in place at the time of a project development submittal shall be
used.
▪ Where this design standards and guidelines document is silent on any
issue, the applicable standard in the LZC in place at the time of a
project development submittal shall be used.
▪ The submittal process of a specific project development shall follow the
process and requirements as spelled out in the LZC and as directed by
the City of Lodi. The design and placement of single-family homes will
require review and approval by the Site Plan and Architectural
Committee (SPARC).
▪ Off-site improvement plans such as streetscape, parks, linear parks, etc.
shall follow the standard improvement plan submittal and approval
process of the City of Lodi and shall be subject to City standards and
specifications.
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 6
August 2020
1.2 Location
The proposed Reynolds Ranch - Site A project is located in southeast Lodi
and forms a natural extension of the residential communities in that portion
of town. Site A is in the northwest corner of the Reynolds Ranch mixed-use
development and is a natural expansion north of the existing single-family
homes and open space (basins and park space) to the south of Site A.
Reynolds Ranch - Site A provides for the infill of land that is currently used
for agriculture at the southeast corner of Harney Lane and the Union Pacific
Railroad. The community will be serviced by South Stockton Street that
connects to Harney Lane to the north. The entry drive to the new
community connects to S. Stockton St. between existing-to-remain homes
that front on S. Stockton St. The north edge of Reynolds Ranch - Site A
consists of the slope on the south side of Harney Lane as it ascends in
elevation to cross over the railroad tracks. The west is an existing railroad;
railroad line are approximately 190 feet west of the western edge of the
project boundary.
Internal streets within the overall Reynolds Ranch mixed-use development
connect Site A to the shopping, apartments, and senior living facility without
having to access Harney Lane.
Reynolds Ranch - Site A will contribute to the City through the fees that will
be paid in compliance with the Quimby Act.
Aerial photo of the site with north up
Project Information
Project size: 28.2± acres
Existing Zoning designation: Planned Development
Proposed Zoning Designation: Planned Development
Existing Land Use: Agriculture
Proposed Land Use: Single-Family Residential
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 058-130-21, 22, and 25
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 7
August 2020
Project Location Maps
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 8
August 2020
1.3 Context and Vision
Reynolds Ranch - Site A provides for a continuation of Lodi’s high quality of
life and small-town character. The goal of the project is to create a new
community that embraces the quality of traditional small towns. The overall
character and theme is to be a continuation of the Reynolds Ranch design
style and concepts.
Reynolds Ranch – Site A is within the overall mixed-use development and
will be directly adjacent to shopping and jobs that are within walking
distance. Internal streets within Reynolds Ranch connect the project site to
the shopping, apartments, and senior living facility. The housing
component provides for a logical and complementary addition to the
mixed-use Reynolds Ranch development.
The project is also directly adjacent to the recently built residential
subdivision to the south. The street pattern is an extension/expansion of the
adjacent subdivision. The streetscape on South Stockton Street will extend
the existing streetscape planting and wall design. And the basin and linear
parks/open space tie into the existing park basin and open space to the
south. The linear park along the west and north sides of Site A provide for
a multi-use path that connects the west side of Reynolds Ranch (including
Site A) to Harney Lane and the rest of Lodi.
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 9
August 2020
Reynolds Ranch - Site A implements the City’s goals as expressed in the City
of Lodi General Plan. The following objectives, from the City of Lodi
General Plan, are provided for in the Reynolds Ranch - Site A Planned
Development Standards and Guidelines:
o Provide for an in-fill development that does not extend beyond the
urban edge and fits within the existing surrounding land use.
o Promote compact development and mixed housing types that are in
close proximity to exiting regional transportation.
o Create a livable, walkable, and safe neighborhood that has a
distinct sense of community and place.
o Create inviting and neighborly streetscapes that promote walking
and neighbor interaction as well as links to the regional pedestrian
and non-vehicular circulation.
o Provide for housing that is in close proximity to existing shopping,
parks, and schools.
o Encourage high quality architecture and community design.
Aerial with Site Plan Overlay
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 10
August 2020
Section 2 - LAND USE
2.1 Project
The property on which Reynolds Ranch - Site A is proposed is currently
zoned as Planned Development with medium and low-density residential
land-use. The proposed use within this project is consistent with the
existing zoning and land-use designation.
Reynolds Ranch - Site A proposes to maintain Planned Development zoning
for the full project property. The land-use is proposed to consist of 150
single-family residential lots on 5,000 sf lots.
Figure 2.1 – Proposed Tentative Tract
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 11
August 2020
Lot Configuration Site A
Minimum Lot Area (square feet) 5,000
Maximum Lot Coverage3 50%
X Minimum Lot Width1, Interior Lots 50’
Y Minimum Lot Width1, Corner Lots 55’
Minimum Lot Frontage along Public Streets (knuckles)4 35’
Setbacks Site A
A Minimum Front2 Setback to Garage 20’
B Minimum Front2 Setback to Living Area 15’
Minimum Front2 Setback to Porch or Entry 15’
C Minimum Side Setback to Public Street (corner lot) 10’
D Minimum Side Setback to Lot Line (adjacent Lot) 5’
E Minimum Rear Setback to Living Area 10’
F Minimum Rear Setback to Covered Patio 10’
Maximum Building Height 35’
Setbacks for Accessory Structures and Accessory
Dwelling Units are per the LZC
Projections into yards are per the LZC
Parking shall be provided per the LZC
Table 2.1 – Lot Configuration and Setback Table
LZC – Lodi Zoning Code
RMD – Residential Mid-Density zoning designation
1. Lot width and depth shall be measured as defined in the Lodi Zoning Code
2. Front lot line shall be determined per the Lodi Zoning Code
3. Lot coverage shall be calculated per the Lodi Zoning Code
4. Lot width for knuckle lots shall be measured at the front yard setback line
5. Encroachments/projections into required yards shall be per the Lodi Zoning Code
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 12
August 2020
Figure 2.1.1 – Lot Configuration and Setbacks Plan
2.2 Open Space
Reynolds Ranch – Site A provides for community open space as streetscape
along S. Stockton St. as well as park and linear parkways along the west
and north edges of the project. Following is a brief description of the open
space components of Site A, but the open space is described in greater
detail in Section 5 – Community.
2.2.1 - Streetscape – The S. Stockton St. frontage provides for sidewalk,
street trees, and landscape buffer that is a continuation of the same
streetscape in the existing residential to the south. This provides sidewalk
connections from all of the sidewalks within Reynolds Ranch – Site A to all
of the rest of Reynolds Ranch which includes shopping, transit, and
employment. All portions of Reynolds Ranch are easily accessible via
sidewalks.
2.2.2 - Park – There is a proposed recreation park at the southwest portion
of the project that abuts the existing park associated with the residential
subdivision to the south. This location provides for a cohesive continuation
of the existing park and open space. The landscape treatment for the park
associated with Site A shall be similar in design and plant species to what
has already been installed. This will provide for a seamless park / open
space connection between the two projects and is further described in
Section 5 – Community.
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 13
August 2020
2.2.3 - Linear Park – There are linear open spaces along the west and
north edges of Site A that include screening landscape to buffer the railroad
to the west as well as a continuous multi-use path between the park to the
south and Harney Lane to the north. This provides ease of access for
pedestrians and other non-motorized vehicles to be able to access the
regional bike lanes and recreational opportunities without crossing
residential streets. The linear park is landscaped with shade trees, attractive
shrub and groundcover plantings, and site furnishings – benches, picnic
tables, trash receptacles, and pet waste stations. This is further described in
Section 5 – Community.
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 14
August 2020
Section 3 - ARCHITECTURE
3.1 Overview
This section focuses on the overall appearance of the homes to show
compliance with City of Lodi standards and the expectation that the
proposed project area will fit within the overall Reynolds Ranch
development. The goal of the project (as described in Section 1.3) is to
create a livable community that uses a variety of materials and colors to
reflect the small-town character of Lodi. Homes within Reynolds Ranch -
Site A shall be developed with several different architectural styles and these
guidelines encourage variation in building form, materials, and overall
character. The standards and guidelines that follow have been developed
to inspire creativity of design, encourage use of color, and require quality
materials that blend with the surrounding community as a whole to promote
a strong neighborhood that is safe, comfortable, and inviting.
The community consists entirely of detached single-family residences with
both front doors and driveway accessed from the residential street in front
of the homes (no alleys) and falls under the Residential Mid-Density (RMD)
zoning designation.
3.2 Architectural Standards and Guidelines
The following standards and guidelines have been developed to ensure that
the architecture meets the goals as set forth in Section 1.3, provides a
quality comfortable and livable neighborhood, and will be an asset to the
City of Lodi that blends with the existing architecture of Reynolds Ranch.
The bullets shown with an empty circle (○) are required standards and those
with a filled-in circle (•) are guidelines.
The overall style and character of the homes within Reynolds Ranch consists
of a modern interpretation of traditional California styles such as
Craftsman, Farmhouse/Ranch, and California Classic. The design of
Reynolds Ranch shall follow the architectural themes that have already been
established and shall provide variety in form, color, and materials while
maintaining a consistency in style and character.
The above is an example showing a variety of color and form and not project-specific homes
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 15
August 2020
3.2.1 – Street Presence and Orientation
o Variable plan types and elevations shall be incorporated along
streets to create visual diversity and interesting streetscapes. There
shall be a minimum of three plan types for the community and
each plan type shall include at least three distinct elevations
(styles).
o A particular elevation shall not be repeated more than every
fourth home. Use of the same elevation style, even on different
plan types, on side-by-side homes is to be avoided unless the form
of the plan creates a strong diversity between the two. Adding or
deleting minimal elevation treatments such as false shutters or
similar types of minimal elevation changes will not suffice as
meeting the ‘distinct’ elevation diversity that is required.
o The use and incorporation of porches, trellis, roof overhangs, and
patios shall be provided to add interest and a sense of community
liveliness to the streetscape.
o Common materials shall be used throughout Site A to provide for
repeating forms, colors, and textures to tie the whole community
together.
o Projections and recesses shall be applied to provide shadow and
depth.
• Combinations of one- and two-story elements are encouraged to
vary mass and enhance building articulation.
• Variation in the setback off of the street is encouraged, but not
required.
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 16
August 2020
3.2.2 – Architectural Forms and Overall Character
Homes within Reynolds Ranch – Site A shall provide for a variety of
materials and colors to complement the overall style and character of
the Reynolds Ranch community.
The following photos are examples of style and character – they are not
intended to be specific direction, but to offer inspiration for design and
development. Creativity in form, colors, and materials are encouraged
with the goal of creating a warm and inviting community that is
cohesive with the existing residential community to the south and creates
a natural progression of the overall design style of Reynolds Ranch.
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 17
August 2020
The above and preceding pages represent an example as to the variety of design styles of homes
and is not intended to show exact home designs and materials. Designs shall complement the
overall Reynolds Ranch style and the existing homes to the south.
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 18
August 2020
3.2.3 – Materials
o Use of high-quality, durable materials shall be provided in the
main body of the homes. These following materials fit within the
framework of Lodi as a whole.
▪ Stucco
▪ Brick or Stone (natural or manufactured)
▪ Wood Siding (natural, composite, and concrete board)
▪ Other high-quality, durable materials may also be used,
subject to City approval
o Accent materials shall be provided and shall include one or a
combination of stone veneer, brick veneer, painted wood trim,
upgraded garage doors, and shutters, as well as others that
promote the style and character of the home.
o Accent materials shall be used in manner that accentuates the
character of the home.
o Wainscot, wall projections, and entry treatment such as columns
and projections should use materials in a clean and simple
manner that reinforces the character and is not distracting.
o Accent materials shall reinforce the form and projections by
wrapping corners to a logical break or change in material (such
as a fence, window, fireplace projection, etc.) and complementing
eaves, columns, etc. High quality design solutions are
encouraged to create attractive and functional homes.
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 19
August 2020
3.2.4 – Elevations and Projections
The above is an example showing a variety of color and form and not project-specific homes
o All elevations shall be made interesting by the use of articulated
facades, varied roof lines, window placement and shape, and a
variety of exterior finishes, detailing, and colors.
o All elevations shall be enhanced similar to the front elevation.
Window treatment, roof lines, materials, and colors shall be
consistent on all elevations.
o Mechanical equipment such as air conditions, heaters, etc. shall
not be placed in locations that are visible from the street.
o Roof-mounted equipment is discouraged, but if used, shall be
placed in areas that are not visible from public streets.
o The pitch, style, and materials of the roof is to be consistent with
the architectural style of the home.
• Roof lines may use gables, hips, dormers, and varied roof planes
to create visual interest and diversity of form.
• The form, trim, and placement of the windows should follow the
architectural character of the elevation style.
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 20
August 2020
• While diversity is encouraged, materials should be limited to no
more than three on any single elevation and the materials and
colors are to be carried through and consistent on all elevations.
3.2.5 – Garages and Driveways
o Garages and garage doors shall be designed to minimize the
visual impact of the garage doors on the streetscape.
o Garages shall not exceed the width of a two-car garage door.
Three-car garages are allowed, but only with the third car being a
tandem.
o The driveway shall be no wider than 12” wider than the width of
the garage door.
• Garage door material and color diversity is encouraged to avoid
the appearance of a garage-dominate streetscape.
• Alternate driveway treatments (other than scored natural gray
concrete) such as colored concrete, ‘Hollywood’ strips, stamped
concrete, pavers, or other enhanced treatments are allowed, but
shall not be distracting from the front of the home.
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 21
August 2020
3.2.6 – Colors
o Color palettes for the community shall avoid monotony and
provide a variety of schemes that will promote visual diversity
while being within an overall community-wide harmonious range.
o The color palette for homes shall be comprised of two or more
complementary options that include a base color, trim color, and
accent color. Not more than four different colors may be used on
an elevation.
• Within neighborhoods, color schemes should appropriately reflect
the style of a home. Variation in the colors of homes (within a
palette range) on a block is encouraged.
• Gloss paints are discouraged on the body of the house.
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 22
August 2020
Section 4 - CIRCULATION
4.1 Overview
The circulation system for Reynolds Ranch - Site A has been designed to
provide for the safe and efficient movement of people to and through the
project site and to enhance the existing street network in the overall
Reynolds Ranch development area. The project uses a modified-grid street
pattern and landscaped multi-use pedestrian paths to guide both vehicular
and non-vehicular uses into and through the site and disperse into the
residential streets.
Reynolds Ranch – Site A fits within an existing street network with Harney
Lane to the north, S. Stockton St. to the east, a new subdivision with
residential streets that connects to Site A to the south, and the Union Pacific
Railroad to the west that creates a complete circulation barrier (other than
the Harney Lane over-crossing). Highway 99 is readily accessible to the
project via Harney Lane via the interchange to the east for regional
vehicular connectivity that is about a half mile away from Site A.
The shopping and employment opportunities of Reynolds Ranch are easily
accessed through internal streets within Reynolds Ranch. From Site A the
eastern (shopping) portion of Reynolds Ranch can be accessed via S.
Stockton St. to Rocky Lane or south on Kordia Ave. through the new
subdivision to LeBaron Blvd. connecting to Reynolds Ranch Blvd. These
internal streets allow connectivity without having to use Harney Lane. They
also provide access within Reynolds Ranch for pedestrians and other non-
vehicular use.
Aerial with Site Plan Overlay
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 23
August 2020
Figure 4.1 – Circulation Plan
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 24
August 2020
4.2 Streets
4.2.1 - S. Stockton Street
S. Stockton St. is a minor collector that connects Reynolds Ranch – Site A as
well as the existing subdivision to the south to Harney Lane. There are
existing homes that front S. Stockton St. and the main entry drive to Site A is
located on S. Stockton St. just south of Rocky Lane. The streetscape has Site
A homes that back up to S. Stockton St. with a masonry wall, shrubs and
groundcover, and street trees. North of the entry has a sidewalk contiguous
with the curb and south of the entry has a meandering sidewalk and
parkway strip that matches the existing streetscape to the south.
Figure 4.2.1a – South Stockton Street – North of Street D (looking north)
Figure 4.2.1b – South Stockton Street – South of Street D (looking north)
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 25
August 2020
4.2.2 - Street D - Entry Drive and Residential Frontage
The community entry street is a 60’ wide Right-of-Way off of S. Stockton St.
and consists of sidewalks on both sides with shrubs, accent plants, and
street trees between the sidewalk and enhanced side yard fence (5.4.2).
Figure 4.2.2a – Street D – Entry Drive
Figure 4.2.2b – Street D – Residential Street
4.2.3 - Local Streets with Open Space
The north and west edges of Reynolds Ranch – Site A provide for open
space between the local residential street and project boundary. The street
width and the side of the street that has homes fronting or siding varies
between 36’ and 40’ wide roadway width as shown on the approved
tentative map and the following sections. The ‘edge’ streets described in
this section are the same as residential streets except they have open space
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 26
August 2020
on one side and do not have a contiguous sidewalk at the back of curb on
the non-home side. The pedestrian access is provided on the meandering
multi-use path that runs parallel to the street with connections that align
with street corners (curb ramps).
Figure 4.2.3a – Local Street Parallel to Harney Lane (looking east)
Figure 4.2.3b – Local Street Parallel to Railroad north of Park (looking north)
Figure 4.2.3c – Local Street Adjacent to Park (looking north)
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 27
August 2020
4.2.4 - Local (Residential) Streets
The remainder of the streets throughout Reynolds Ranch - Site A are local
residential streets with monolithic sidewalks (contiguous with curb). Streets
to meet the City of Lodi standards. Street trees provided throughout as part
of the installation of the front yards of the homes. Street width dimensions
are shown to the face of the curb (gutter flow-line) as indicated on the
approved tentative map.
Figure 4.2.4a – Local (Residential) Streets – Front yards
Front yard condition shown on both sides
Figure 4.2.4b – Local (Residential) Streets – Side yards
Side yard condition shown on both sides
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 28
August 2020
4.3 Non-Vehicular Circulation
Reynolds Ranch – Site A provides
sidewalks on both sides of all
residential streets to provide
pedestrian access to all
residences. Sidewalks are then
connected to all other sidewalks
on adjacent and connecting
streets for a completely
interconnected pedestrian
network within Reynolds Ranch
and beyond. Site A also provides
an 8’ wide multi-use path along
the north and west sides of the
project. This path provides for
non-vehicular circulation from
Harney Lane to the north to the
existing park that was installed
with the subdivision to the south. The multi-use path crosses no streets
within Site A so there are no pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. It allows residents
of Site A as well as the community to the south to access the regional
bicycle lane network via the Class II bike lane on Harney Lane without any
street crossings.
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 29
August 2020
Section 5 - COMMUNITY
5.1 Overview
Streetscape, perimeter fencing, sidewalks, street lights, and site furnishings
are all proposed to enhance the aesthetic of Reynolds Ranch - Site A and to
create a sense of place and a livable, distinctive, and comfortable
community. All of these items are proposed to create a cohesive palette
that provides for a comfortable community while fitting into the existing
pattern of Lodi and complementing the overall Reynolds Ranch Mixed-Use
development.
Figure 5.1 – Community Plan
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 30
August 2020
5.2 Neighborhood Entry and Streetscape
5.2.1 – Neighborhood Entry
The entry drive includes diagonal masonry walls with stone veneer pilasters
and precast caps to match the style that has already been installed with the
community to the south. The entry drive consists of narrow upright street
trees with accent planting between the back of sidewalk and the enhanced
lot line fencing. The accent planting is to extend north and south along the
S. Stockton St. frontage to accentuate the location of the entry along S.
Stockton St. There is an option of providing community signage on the
diagonal portion of the wall at the corner. Signage is regulated by Title 17,
Chapter 17.34 of the City of Lodi Development Code and is subject to the
permitting requirements of the City.
See also the cross-section in Figure 4.2.2a.
Figure 5.2.1a – Neighborhood Entry Drive (Street D)
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 31
August 2020
The following is a photo of the existing corner wall treatement to the south
to show the relationship of the masonry block walls, block wall cap (regal
cap), stone veneer pilasters, and precast pilaster cap. The walls and corner
treatment for Reynolds Ranch – Site A is to match the same materials.
There is an option of not installing the vines on the diagonal, but instead
providing for a community name and/or logo sign. If the sign is not
installed, the vines are to be installed. The materials as listed in Figure
5.2.1c are to provide direction, but the materials are to match existing.
Figure 5.2.1b – Entry Wall Example
Figure 5.2.1c – Entry Wall and Pilaster Materials
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 32
August 2020
5.2.2 – Streetscape
The streetscape on S. Stockton St. that fronts the improved portion of
Reynolds Ranch – Site A shall be installed using the same wall, sidewalk,
and landscape design and materials as is existing on S. Stockton St. to the
south. See the materials as shown in Figure 5.2.1c preceding as a
reference, but the materials are to match existing. The layout of the
sidewalk shall be modified on each side of the entry drive at Street D to
announce the entry drive as is shown in Figure 5.2.1a. The paved portion
of S. Stockton St. gets wider as it travels north toward Harney Lane. The
portion of the streetscape north of the three entry drive accent trees remains
contiguous with the back of curb – See Cross-Section 4.2.1a. The following
figure shows the streetscape south of Street D.
Figure 5.2.2 – Streetscape Plan
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 33
August 2020
5.3 Open Space / Parks
The park and linear park shall be located to provide valuable recreation
and pedestrian circulation to and through Reynolds Ranch – Site A. The
open space shall be provided to function for passive and active recreation
while also providing an opportunity for landscape to be used to screen Site
A from the railroad and Harney Lane.
View from existing basin park looking north toward Site A
Existing fence and trees along west edge (see Existing rail fence along north edge
Section 5.4 for req. fencing (masonry)) of existing basin park (to be removed)
Existing play area / shade structure in park to the south – Connected by the Multi-use path
5.3.1 - Park / Open Space
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 34
August 2020
The park area proposed at the southwest corner of the project is an
extension of the existing park that was installed as part of the residential
community to the south. The existing park to the south has park amenities
which includes play equipment, picnic gathering areas, shade structure, and
site furnishings that include benches, picnic tables, grills, bike racks, and
trash receptacles. Those amenities already existing and do not need to be
replicated with Site A development. The Site A park is a natural extension
of the existing park and shall be constructed with plant species that
complements the existing park.
o Masonry wall/fence along the west edge of the basin and linear park
– See section 5.4.
o A combination of upright evergreen (coniferous) and deciduous
screen trees and shrub groupings to provide a buffer along the
railroad. Trees in Reynolds Ranch – Site A may be installed in a more
informal pattern to reflect the meandering multi-use path that runs
along the linear park – Average one tree per 25 linear feet.
o Masses of evergreen shrubs along the masonry wall/fence to screen
the fence and railroad.
o Small seating / picnic area using the same model of park furniture
that is used in the existing park (see section 5.7).
o When Reynolds Ranch – Site A is developed the existing rail fence that
creates the north edge of the existing park to the south shall be
removed and new lawn shall be installed to join flush and contiguous
with the existing large lawn area to the south.
o The wider portion of the park shall provide for lawn recreational
activities. The lawn area provided in Site A in conjunction with the
existing lawn to the south will provide a large lawn space for active
recreational activities.
o The City of Lodi Parks Dept. is to review the park and linear park
design and may provide for additional direction with regard to
amenities and site furnishings to complement the open space lawn
activities.
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 35
August 2020
Figure 5.3.1 – Recreation Park – Open Space
Concept only. Final design subject to review and approval by the City of Lod i
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 36
August 2020
5.3.2 - Linear Parks
There are linear parkways located along the north and west edge of the
project. These areas offer an opportunity for a multi-use path (see Section
4.3), passive recreation areas, and aesthetically appealing buffer landscape
planting to screen the project from the railroad and Harney Lane.
Figure 5.3.2 – Linear Parks
Concept only. Final design subject to review and approval by the City of Lod i
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 37
August 2020
5.4 Walls and Fences
Walls and fences are intended to provide screening and buffering between
different land uses, to define the edges of roadways and public landscape,
to provide privacy and security for private homes, and to comply with the
acoustical direction provided in the project EIR. Masonry sound and safety
walls are provided along the edges of the primary roadway (S. Stockton St.)
and between homes and the railroad to the west and Harney Lane to the
north. The street frontage masonry walls also provide for the entry features
and potential signage that are described in preceding Section 5.2.
Enhanced fencing is provided along the main entry drives within the project
as well as side yards that front streets. There is also lot line fencing between
homes. There is existing wood lot line fencing along the existing
development to the south and that existing fencing is in good condition and
may remain as is.
Figure 5.4 – Wall and Fence Plan
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 38
August 2020
5.4.1 - Masonry Wall (Streetscape)
The sound wall along S. Stockton St. is to match the existing block wall and
pilasters to the south. It shall be a vine covered split-face CMU (concrete
masonry unit) wall with a precast ‘regal’ cap. The spilt-face portion of the
wall will be planted with clinging vines. There are enhanced stone pilasters
at approximately 100’ on center. Height of wall along major roadways per
the acoustic report in the EIR; otherwise wall height is 7’-0”. See also Figure
5.2.1c. This same wall shall be used on each side of Street D between
Stockton St. and Street G and is to be placed on the right-of-way line.
Figure 5.4.1 – Masonry Wall and Enhanced Pilaster
5.4.2 - Enhanced Fence (side yard fence)
The fences in visible locations at side-lots are proposed to be upgraded
fencing with accent top. This fencing is to blend with landscape, provide
privacy for the homes,
and continue the
enhanced wall/ fence
treatment of the
existing community to
the south. Side yard
fence to be set back
36” from right-on-way
as shown on Figure
4.2.4b.
Figure 5.4.2 – Example of Upgraded Fence
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 39
August 2020
5.4.3 – Lot Line Fences
Fencing between homes is to be provided to create private back yards and
is to be installed per standard City requirements and per typical lot line
fence practices of the developer. Gates that match the fences shall be
provided along the garage side of the home. All fences visible from the
public way shall be installed as described in Section 5.4.2 – Enhanced
Fence.
5.4.4 – Masonry Wall / Fence
The fence along the west edge of Site A (along the railroad frontage) and
the side yards closest to Harney Ln. shall be masonry wall that generally
matches the S. Stockton St.
streetscape (Section 5.4.1). For
the fence along the railroad
frontage, trees, shrubs, vines, and
groundcover are to be planted in
front of the fence to screen it and
the railroad from the meandering
path and the adjacent residences.
For the fence at the residences that
have a side yard adjacent to the
Harney frontage, the masonry
fence shall be set 36” behind the
right-of-way line.
5.4.5 – Low Rail Fence
For areas along the north side of
Site A, a white or off-white 3-rail
vinyl fence may be incorporated
into the design within the
landscape to create a buffer
between the street and the
meandering path. This same type
of rail fence may also be used at
the north limit of landscape
improvements associated with Site
A to create separation between the
linear park and the base of the
slope on the south side of Harney
Lane. See Figure 4.2.3a
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 40
August 2020
5.5 Street Lights and Street Signs
Reynolds Ranch - Site A street lights shall be
provided throughout the street network as needed
to meet foot-candle requirements of the City.
Locations shall be reviewed and approved by the
City. Special consideration is to be paid to locate
lights near intersections, cluster mailbox locations,
and along pedestrian paths. Light fixtures shall
be upgraded lights that are allowed by the City
and shall match the street lights installed in the
community to the south.
Street signs and regulatory signs shall be located
as needed to provide for the safety of all users
and aid in traveling through Reynolds Ranch.
Street signs to be located at intersections per City
standards. Regulatory signs to be kept to a
minimum and only as required by the City.
Locations shall not obstruct views, interfere with
community elements, or compete with street tree
locations.
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 41
August 2020
5.6 Cluster Mailboxes
Cluster mailboxes shall be
provided throughout the
community and shall meet the
requirements of the United
States Postal Service (USPS)
and shall be approved by the
local post-master. Mailboxes
to be located near street lights
and in locations that do not
compete with driveways or are
too close to street intersections
(for parking). Side lot
locations are preferred.
Cluster mailboxes to match
those installed with the
community to the south.
5.7 Site Furnishings
The linear parks and the perimeter of the basin shall include site furnishings
to match and/or complement the furnishings provided in the park to the
south and shall be bronze in color. Placement of the furniture shall be
determined with the final design and per the direction of the City, but
generally close to street lights and/or access points to the meandering
pathway. Site furnishings are not proposed or desired along S. Stockton St.
or the residential streets – only adjacent to the park and linear parks.
Benches shall be placed so benches are no
more than 500’ apart and shall be provided
with code-compliant accessible companion
seating. Trash receptacles shall match the
style and color of the bench and shall be
placed for ease of access and servicing and
no more than 1000’ apart (or as directed
by the City). Picnic tables (at least two) shall
also match the style and color of the
benches and shall be placed in at least one
picnic location. At least one of the picnic
tables shall provide accessible seating per
code requirements. Pet waste stations shall
be provided in key locations for ease of use
and generally near the trash receptacles.
Trash Receptacle – Bronze color
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 42
August 2020
Bench – Bronze color
Picnic Tables – Bronze color
Bike Racks – Bronze color
Pet Waste Station
Reynolds Ranch – Site A 43
August 2020
5.8 Landscape and Irrigation
Planting will create the consistent fabric that ties the community together. A
cohesive palette of trees, vines, shrubs, and groundcover shall be provided
in public open space and streetscape locations. Street trees shall be
provided as part of the streetscape improvements as shown in section 4.2.
They shall also be provided with the construction of each home to maximize
quantity of trees to create a shady overhead canopy of residential streets.
Trees need to be planted adequately clear of utilities and shall not impede
visual safety at street intersections, but should otherwise be maximized to
the greatest extent possible. See Figure 5.1 for overall project tree
placement and intent.
Shrubs, vines, and groundcover shall be provided throughout the
community to enhance project entries, provide cover for walls (anti-graffiti),
enhance safety of pedestrians at separated sidewalks, and aid in the
buffering of fencing for the privacy of homes. Plantings shall not interfere
with the safety of drivers and shall not create hiding places or create other
safety concerns.
Linear Park and Park planting shall complement the species and overall
design that has been provided in the existing park to the south. The final
planting design for the linear parks shall provide for a variety of species
that will function to screen the masonry wall / fence and the railroad and
Harney Lane in an informal pattern using sweeping masses of plants with a
variety of leaf color, form, and texture. Shrub and groundcover planting
shall be provided that reflects the meandering nature of the path through
the linear parks.
Irrigation and planting design shall be provided to meet the requirements of
the City of Lodi and shall meet the requirements of the Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance (WELO). Plants shall be predominately low water-
use, be correctly sized and spaced for the use (to require minimal regular
pruning to keep its size where desired), and shall be hardy to the climate.
Irrigation shall be highly efficient, and shall be of durable quality that meets
City standards and details. Irrigation controller(s) shall be multi-
programmable and shall use a soil moisture sensor or weather sensor.
Reynolds Ranch Tentative Tract
Development Standards/Guidelines
and
Growth Allocation
Applicant: Bennett Homes
September 16, 2020
PROPOSED PROJECT City Council
The applicant is seeking City Council approval of:
•Development Standards and Guidelines for the
proposed Reynolds Ranch Subdivision
•A 2020 Growth Allocation of 39 Low-Density and
111 Medium-Density Units
The Planning Commission has already approved a
Tentative Tract Map to create 150 single family lots.
The Growth Allocation is needed to allow development
of the homes.
AERIAL PHOTO City Council
SITE
Tentative Subdivision Map
(Approved by Planning Commission)
PROPOSED MAP City Council
Design Standards and Guidelines
STANDARDS/GUIDELINES City Council
The applicant has prepared proposed Development
Standards and Guidelines to guide development of the
proposed tentative tract. These include:
•Development Standards (setbacks, lot dimensions,
etc.)
•Architectural Standards and Guidelines
•Circulation (roadway cross-sections, etc.)
•Community (walls and fences, street lights, etc.)
The Planning Commission recommended approval of
the Development Standards and Guidelines
STANDARDS/GUIDELINES City Council
Lot Configuration Reynolds Ranch DSG Document Lodi Zoning Code RMD
Minimum Lot Area (square feet)5,000 5,000
Maximum Lot Coverage 50%50%
Minimum Lot Width, Interior Lots 50’50’
Minimum Lot Width, Corner Lots 55’N/A
Minimum Lot Frontage along Public Streets on cul-de-sacs 35’N/A
Setbacks
Minimum Front Setback to Garage 20’20’
Minimum Front Setback to Living Area 15’15’
Minimum Front Setback to Porch or Entry 15’N/A
Minimum Side Setback to Public Street (corner lot)10’10’
Minimum Side Setback to Lot Line (adjacent Lot)5’5’
Minimum Rear Setback to Living Area 10’10’
Minimum Rear Setback to Covered Patio 10’N/A
Maximum Building Height 35’35’
STANDARDS/GUIDELINES City Council
STANDARDS/GUIDELINES City Council
Example Standards:
•“Variable plan types and elevations shall be incorporated
along streets to create visual diversity and interesting
streetscapes. There shall be a minimum of three plan
types for the community and each plan type shall include
at least three distinct elevations (styles).”
•“A particular elevation shall not be repeated more than
every fourth home. Use of the same elevation style, even
on different plan types, on side-by-side homes is to be
avoided unless the form of the plan creates a strong
diversity between the two.”
Growth Allocation
GROWTH ALLOCATION City Council
Growth Allocation: The proposed subdivision
requires approval of a Growth Allocation by the City
Council.
Allocation review involves 3 basic factors:
•Relationship to Priority Areas
•Relationship to maximum 2% annual growth rate
•Growth Allocation Points System
GROWTH ALLOCATION City Council
Priority Areas: The
map is not in a
Priority Area, but
qualifies as “infill
development”
Staff Analysis:
Consistent with
Growth Allocation
requirements
GROWTH ALLOCATION City Council
Maximum Annual Growth: Growth Allocation limits
annual growth to 2% per year, starting in 1989.
•Applying 2% annual growth to the 2019 population,
Lodi could grow by 1,349 persons in 2020.
•Average growth rate 2010-2020: 0.74%
•Assuming 2.8 persons per household, 150 homes
would generate 420 residents.
Staff Analysis: Consistent with Growth Allocation
requirements
GROWTH ALLOCATION City Council
Category
Unused
“Rollover”
Allocations
Add 2020
Allocations
Deduct 2020
Allocations
Already
Granted
Total Available
Allocations for
2020
Low Density
(Up to 7
DU/Acre)
1,257 +210 <186>1,281
Medium
Density
(7.1 –20
DU/Acre)
634 +134 <75>693
High Density
(20.1 –30
DU/Acre)
794 +134 0 928
Totals:2,685 +478 <261>2,902
Available 2020 Allocations
GROWTH ALLOCATION City Council
Category Unused
Alloca-
tions
Add 2020
Alloca-
tions
Deduct
2020
Alloca-
tions
Already
Granted
Total
Available
Allocations
for 2020
Reynolds
Ranch
Allocations
Balance
with
Reynolds
Ranch
Deductions
Low
Density
(Up to 7
DU/Acre)
1,257 +210 <186>1,281 <39>1,242
Medium
Density
(7.1 –20
DU/Acre)
634 +134 <75>693 <111>582
High
Density
(20.1 –30
DU/Acre)
794 +134 0 928 0 928
Totals:2,685 +478 <261>2,902 <150>2,752
Remaining 2020 Allocations
GROWTH ALLOCATION City Council
Points System: Growth Allocation system provides
use of a points system when the number of allocations
requested exceeds the maximum annual amount.
Projects compete for allocations based on points.
This is the only active Growth Allocation request, so
the Points System is not needed.
Staff Analysis: Consistent with Growth Allocation
requirements
GROWTH ALLOCATION City Council
Growth Allocation Summary:
•39 Low Density units
•111 Medium Density units
The Planning Commission recommended approval of
the requested 2020 Growth Allocations.
Environmental Analysis
ENVIRONMENTAL City Council
CEQA Review: An environmental impact report (EIR)
was prepared for the Reynolds Ranch Planned
Development in 2006. In 2008, an addendum to the
original EIR was prepared when the Planned
Development was amended.
CEQA Section 15162 allows the use of a prior EIR
subject to specific findings. Staff’s analysis is that the
prior EIR can be used, per state law.
Recommendation
MOTION City Council
The Planning Commission recommended
approval of the requested 2020 Growth Allocation
and approval of the Development Standards and
Guidelines.
MOTION City Council
Recommended Motion:
“I move that the City Council adopt a Resolution:
1)Finding that the impacts of the proposed are fully
addressed by the 2006 Final Environmental Impact
Report for the Reynolds Ranch Planned
Development and the 2008 Addendum to the 2006
Final Environmental Impact Report project per
CEQA section 15162,
2)Approving a 2020 Growth Allocation of 39 Low
Density and 111 Medium Density units, and
3)Approving Development Standards and Guidelines
for the proposed project.”
ALTERNATIVES City Council
Alternative Actions:
•Deny or the Development Standards and/or Growth
Allocation application
•Direct staff and/or the applicant to provide additional
information and/or changes in the project and
continue the item to a future meeting.
End of Presentation
PUBLIC COMMENTS
RECEIVED BY 5:00 PM
Attachment C
7/6120
Lodi Planning Division
.lohn R. Della Monica Jr
On June 29'2020, we received a Notice of Public Hearing informing us of a public
hearing on 718120 @7PM. The letter stated that this meeting is a request for approval a
division of three parcels of land into lots for 150 single family homes. And, an approval
for'growth allocation' (not sure of meaning) for this proposed tentative tract. Also, that
those interested could only view and listen on your Facebook live stream.
As a homeowners and taxpayers residing at 155 Merton Way in this great city of Lodi,
we have some concerns as to what due diligence has taken place to come a decision that
considers the well-being for citizens as well as for the City of Lodi.
If there were an Environmental hnpact report completed, as stated, where can we
(citizens) read this? It seems transparency is lacking for the public.
When we received this notice on the everiing of 6129,1 called for more info on the
morning of 6130 to find more info. I was infonned that there had been a 'shirt sleeve' (not
sure what this means) meeting that morning at 7AM to approve this development. We are
not sure why we were not given any notice so that we could speak at an open meeting.
Because we were told by your office that we could only participate by letter or email, we
feel that our views have little value and that these decisions have already been made
without our concerns being heard. We have many concerns that we trust will be taken
seriously.
First and foremost, Orchard Lane is a quiet farnily-orierited rieighborhood with little
safety concerns because direct access is limited to our neighborhood via two entrances
one main LeBaron Blvd and now on Stockton St. From your map, it looks like you will
be opening up Kordia Ave. which will cornpletely change the dynarnic of this
community-minded neighborhood. It will go from quiet neighborhood to a through way
to LeBaron and most likely Merton willbe affected too. If you do not know, these streets
are so narrow that only one car can pass ifthere are cars parked. These streets were not
meant for through access, only neighborhood fraffic.
Also, r.r,hen we purchased our home from FCB homes, we were informed that the train
that is within % mile from our house (closer for our neighbors) was only a few per day.
After living here for three years, we know that there are on most days, an average of 20
trains that are not only during the day but run all hours (mostly between l2AM to 6AM.)
And that our house shakes...so much so that rny computer screen jiggles violently on my
desk, our windows creek and pictures bang on the wall! This has caused us to wonder if
this is doing something to the structure of our home. Our guess is that this land was very
inexpensive at most. Profits over well-being!
I'm sure if you took a survey of satisfaction you would find most homeowners unhappy
with this aspect. Our quiet traffic at least makes it bearable. Now, you want to upset that
dynamic by allowing this new subdivision.
The building of the commercial property south-east from us has been a big
Cisappointment too. The three-story building that towers over our beautiful landscape
seems rushed as a development. And since they have not opened any of these buildings
yet, we do not even know what the traffic impact surrounding us will be yet. This seems
like a nightmare with parking and such.
Secondly, we are wondering about the proposed builders Bennett Homes Inc. We
researched them and were concemed that there were no pictures of any past subdivision
homes on their web page or FaceBook page. There was an afticle from the Lodi News
stating that in 2014 this builder was to build 288 homes on74 acres between Lower
Sacramento and Davis Rd. We could not find any homes there. Just wondering what
happened with that proposal. Also, we read of some of comments of previous home
buyers and most were not favorable in vivid detail of the disappointing quality of homes
purchased. In addition, after checking with BBB, we found Bennett Homes Inc.is not
listed as a member.
For the past two years there has been so much noise with the commercial construction on
Stockton St that our quality of life is greatly compromised. Now you are asking us to live
through another two or so years of more construction.
With the looming Covid l9 situation, just wondering how this is going to play out. Will
this builder be able to bring this to completion in a timely manner? And with the
economìc burden of this virus how can people continue to afford new housing? Just
because you can build homes doesn't mean you should before all these important issues
are considered
In peace and fairness for all.
Thank you lor your consideration.
Judith Costa
155 Merton Way
Lodi, CA 95240