HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - May 15, 2002 G-01 PHCITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
AGENDA TITLE: Conduct Public Hearing to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation
that the City Council adopt an amended 2001 Growth Management Allocation
schedule adding the 77 low-density allocations of the Luckey/Lackyard Development
Plan
MEETING DATE: May 15, 2002
PREPARED BY: Community Development Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the Planning Commission's recommendation that the
City Council adopt an amended 2001 Growth Management
Allocation schedule adding the 77 low-density allocations of the
Luckey/Lackyard Development Plan.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Each year the City allocates residential building permits for a
projected 2% growth in population for the current year. The 2001
Growth Allocation Schedule provided 432 residential building
permits to allocate. Of the 432 permits, 65% or 281 are for
low-density residential units, 10% or 43 are for medium -density residential units such as duplexes and
townhouses, and 25% or 108 are for high-density residential units such as apartments. As you will see
on the "Planning Commission Recommended Building Permit Allocation Schedule" there are now two
projects; Almond Wood Estates, and Luckey/Lackyard. Almond Wood Estates has already received its
74 low-density allocations, and the Luckey/Lackyard project is requesting 77 low-density allocations.
There are 1,012 low-density allocations available. The number 1,012 is the sum of the 281 allocations
from this year and the 741 unused low-density allocations remaining from previous year's allotments and
expirations of undeveloped projects. There were no requests for medium or high-density allocations.
In order to obtain building permit allocations, developers submit an application stating the number they
are seeking. The number requested corresponds to an approved development plan. Development plans
are scored on a set of criteria established by City ordinance. The highest scoring development plans
have the greatest chance of receiving their allocation request, the lowest scoring the least chance. The
2001 allocation requests did not exceed the amount available. Competitive scoring, in this instance, did
not affect the ability of the development plan to obtain allocations.
Following their Public Hearing, the Planning Commission adopted the Growth Management allocation list
below:
Requested Recommended
2001 Allocations 2001 Allocations
Almond Wood Estates 74 74
Luckey/Lackyard 77 77
TOTAL 151 151
APPROVED:
H. Dlxo Flynn -- City anager
0212.doc 05!07102
Council Communication
Meeting Date: May 15, 2002
Page 2
Luckey/Lackyard: The Luckey/Lackyard Property Development Plan is located at 1041 & 1171 East
Harney Lane. The project is generally located in the southwest corner of the City, north of Harney Lane,
south of Century Boulevard, east of Lower Sacramento Road, and west of the southern extension of Mills
Avenue (see vicinity map). The area of the development plan includes two separate properties that
encompass approximately 15.8 -acres of land zoned R-2, Single -Family Residential, and is proposed to
develop as a 77 -lot, single-family residential subdivision.
The project area was annexed to the City as part of the Luckey Company Annexation approved in
August of 2001. The area was annexed with the intent of development as single-family residences and a
Lodi Unified School District (LUSD) K-6 elementary school.
The applicant submitted this development plan for review as part of the 2001 Growth Management
process, but due to the immediate adjacency of the future 13.6 -acre elementary school to the north a
traffic circulation analysis was required to determine the impact the school's traffic would have on the
area. Although not a part of the approved development plan, the proposed K-6 elementary school will
have an impact on traffic within and around it. The circulation analysis was used to identify the
infrastructure necessary to accommodate the higher traffic volumes, and the development plan was
adequately revised.
FUNDING: None required
Konradt Bartlam
Community Development Director
Prepared by: Mark Meissner, Associate Planner
MM
Attachment
MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Community Development Department
MQ
To: Planning Commission
From: Community Development Department
Date: April 10, 2002
Subject: The request of Baumbach and Piazza, Inc. for approval of the Luckey/Lackyard
Property Growth Management Development Plan for 77 single-family residences
at 1041 & 1171 East Harney Lane, and a recommendation of approval to the City
Council to award 77 building permit allocations.
SUMMARY
The Luckey/Lackyard Property Development Plan is located at 1041 & 1171 East Harney Lane. The
project is generally located in the southwest corner of the City, north of Harney Lane, south of Century
Boulevard, east of Lower Sacramento Road, and west of the southern extension of Mills Avenue (see
vicinity map). The area of the development plan includes two separate properties that encompass
approximately 15.8 -acres of land zoned R-2, Single -Family Residential, and is proposed to develop as a
77 -lot, single-family residential subdivision.
The applicant submitted this development plan for review as part of the 2001 Growth Management
process; but due to the immediate adjacency of the future 13.6 -acre elementary school to the north a
traffic circulation analysis was required to determine the impact the school's traffic would have on the
area. Although not a part of this approval, the proposed K-6 elementary school will have an impact on
traffic within and around this development plan. The circulation analysis was used to identify the
infrastructure necessary to accommodate the higher traffic volumes, and the development plan was
adequately revised.
BACKGROUND
The City has established a residential growth cap of a 2% population increase per year. In order to
provide adequate housing for this projected increase, the City awards residential building permit
allocations to project applicants. In order for a developer to receive these allocations they must make an
application, which includes a development plan. The development plans are reviewed by staff
(Community Development, Public Works, Fire, etc.) for their ability to meet basic engineering, zoning,
and land use requirements. The City has a limit on the amount of building permits that can be allocated,
and for this reason the projects are competitively scored on 13 different criteria. The criteria are based
primarily on a proposed project's location to existing City services. Projects scoring highest may receive
a greater recommendation or what can amount to a higher number of allocations than lower scoring
projects.
This year the City has 432 residential building permits to allocate. Of the 432 permits, 65% or 281 are
for single-family residential units, 10% or 43 are for medium -density residential units such as duplexes
and townhouses, and 25% or 108 are for high-density residential units such as apartments. As you will
see on the "Staff Recommended Building Permit Allocation Schedule" there are two projects, which
have requested single-family allocations. The City has received 151 single-family allocation requests
and there are 1,012 available. Please note: The Almond Wood Estates Development Plan has already
been reviewed and approved by the Commission and City Council.
The project area was annexed to the City as part of the Luckey Company Annexation approved in August
of 2001. The area was annexed with the intent of development as single-family residences and a Lodi
Unified School District (LUSD) K-6 elementary school, which is evident by its General Plan land use
designations and zoning.
GM0102Luckey.doc
The northern 13.6 acres of the two properties is to be developed by the LUSD as a K-6 elementary
school. Further to the north is the undeveloped G-Basin/DeBenedetti Park that fronts on Lower
Sacramento Road and Century Boulevard. To the northeast is the developing Century Meadows Four
single-family residential subdivision. To the south across Harney Lane are a number of rural residences.
To the west is the existing Sunnyside Estates single-family residential neighborhood in the County. To
the east are five rural residential parcels in the County.
ANALYSIS
The Growth Management Ordinance was written to establish orderly development at a rate no greater
than two percent per year, and to create competition between projects vying for available building permit
allocations. Since the establishment of the Growth Management Ordinance in 1991, the City has grown
at an average of 1.2% per year. Given that there are only two small projects this year, there is a surplus
of building permit allocations and essentially no competition. As required, the projects have been
scored; but pending a recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission and subsequent
approval from the City Council, this project will be fully allocated and ready to obtain a tentative
subdivision map.
This project is within Priority Area Two. Priority Areas One, Two and Three were established with the
adoption of the Growth Management Ordinance and were ranked based on the area's proximity to
existing development and its ability to connect to existing utilities. The City began approving projects
within the 326 -acres of Priority Area Two with the Bridgetown, Century Meadows One and Three
development plans in 1995. There is about 85.19 -acres of the original 473 -acres of Priority Area One
land remaining. There is approximately 47.52 -acres of Priority Area One contained in 11 parcels to the
south of the Sunwest Shopping Center fronting Lower Sacramento Road, about 18.22 -acres contained in
four parcels at the southeast corner of Lodi Fronting Harney Lane and Cherokee Lane, and 1.9.45 -acres in
5 parcels at the northeast corner of South Stockton Street and Almond Drive. The majority (65.74 -acres
at Lower Sac and Cherokee) of the remaining Priority Area One land is not within the City Limits, and
although it would be appropriate to develop this land first, there is no mechanism other than the
competitive elements of the Growth Management scoring system to influence it.
The main access to the development plan is from Harney Lane at its south boundary. Lower Sacramento
Road will be accessible through the Sunnyside Estates along Tehama Drive to the west. Upon
development of the school the Lodi Unified School District will be required to make a connection to
Mills Avenue. Century Boulevard will be accessible to bikes and pedestrians by a pathway connecting
this development and school to Heavenly Way to the north.
This Development Plan is designed to build out at approximately 4.9 dwelling units per acre with an
average lot size of around 6,300 square -feet. This density and lot size is consistent with the R-2, single-
family zoning of this property and the developments to the north and east.
As with all residential subdivisions that rear to a street, the City requires a reverse frontage wall and
landscaping. This project is conditioned to provide a 15 -foot area at the Harney Lane frontage that
contains the curb, landscaping, meandering sidewalk, and 7 -foot tall decorative masonry wall. Staff is
also recommending the standard residential street design, which includes a parkway and bow -outs at
various intersections.
With the southern portions of the three Century Meadows developments to the east preparing for
development in the near future, staff finds the addition of the Luckey/Lackyard Property Development
Plan appropriate and timely. Each of the Century Meadows developments have been delayed because of
the expense of the installation of the required sewer lift -station to be located on the southeast corner of
the intersection of Mills Avenue and Harney Lane. Staff finds that the Luckey/Lackyard Property
Development Plan will be a welcomed contributor to this necessary infrastructure.
As mentioned in the summary, the processing of this growth management development plan is out of
svnc given that the application was made in 2001 and is recommended for approval in 2002. We find
that the traffic study to determine the schools impacts delayed approval of the residential project area,
GM0102Luckey.doc
and that the delay should not penalize the project to be reviewed as part of the 2002 growth management
process. Furthermore, with the number of unused allocations and no anticipated low-density projects for
2002, we felt comfortable moving forward.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Luckey/Lackyard Property Development
Plan, and recommend approval of the requested allocations to the City Council, subject to the conditions
set forth in the attached Resolution.
ALTERNATIVE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS:
• Approve the Luckey/Lackyard Property Development Plan with Alternate Conditions
• Deny the Development Plan
• Continue the Request
Respectfully Submitted,
Mark Meissner
Associate Planner
MGM/mgm
GM0I 02Luckey. doc
Rev'ewed and Concur,
Monradt tBartla�m
Community Development Director
CITY OF LODI
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
MEETING DATE: April 10, 2002
APPLICATION NO'S: Growth Management Development Plan GM -01-002
REQUEST: The request of Baumbach and Piazza, Inc. for approval of the
Luckey/Lackyard Property Growth Management Development
Plan for 77 single-family residences at 1041 & 1171 East
Harney Lane, and a recommendation of approval to the City
Council to award 77 building permit allocations.
LOCATION: 1041 & 1171 East Harney Lane (058-230-11 & 12)
APPLICANT: Baumbach and Piazza
323 West Elm Street
Lodi, CA 95240
OWNERS: Parcel (058-230-11) Parcel (058-230-12)
Selma Grilli, Revocable Trust Susan Lackyard
c/o David Grilli 1477 East Harney Lane
2495 West March Lane Lodi, CA 95240
Stockton, CA 95207
Site Characteristics: The subject properties sit within the City of Lodi and are
generally located north of Harney Lane, Century Boulevard, east
of Lower Sacramento Road, and west of the future extension of
Mills Avenue to Harney Lane. More specifically the project site
is south of the existing undeveloped DeBenedetti City Park, east
of the Sunnyside Estates single family residential subdivision in
the County, west of a vacant 8.4 -acre parcel and a 1.4 -acre
parcel with a single family home in the County, and north of a
number of rural residences across Harney. The properties are
relatively flat with no unusual or extraordinary topographic
features. Parcel 11 has historically been used for agricultural
purposes and parcel 12 is a fallow vineyard with the portion
closest to Harney Lane used as a rural residence.
General Plan Designation: LDR, Low Density Residential
Zoning Designation: R-2, Residential Single -Family
Property Size: Two parcels totaling 29.43 acres. Project Area: 15.8 acres.
Adiacent Zoning and Land Use:
North: PUB, Public; PQP, Public/Quasi Public
South: AG -40, General Agriculture (County). PRR, Planned Residential Reserve.
East: AU -20, Agriculture Urban Reserve (County). PR, Planned Residential.
West: R -VL, Very Low Density Residential (County). LDR, Low Density Residential.
GM0102rLuckey.doc
Neighborhood Characteristics:
The project site is south of the existing undeveloped DeBenedetti City Park and a future Lodi
Unified School District K-6 elementary school, east of the Sunnyside Estates single family
residential subdivision in the County, west of a vacant 8.4 -acre parcel and a 1.4 -acre parcel with
a single family home in the County, and north of a number of rural residences across Harney
Lane.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS:
Negative Declaration ND -01-08 has been prepared in accordance with CEQA. This document
adequately addresses possible adverse environmental effects of this project. No significant
impacts are anticipated; however, mitigation measures have been provided.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE:
Legal Notice for the Annexation and Prezone was published on March 30, 2002. A total of
45 notices were sent to all property owners of record within a 300 -foot radius of the subject
property.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the request of Baumbach & Piazza for
the Luckey/Lackyard Property Growth Management Development Plan for 77 single-family
residences at 1041 & 1171 East Harney Lane, and recommend approval to the City Council to
award 77 building permit allocations, subject to the conditions set forth in the attached
resolutions.
ALTERNATIVE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS:
• Approve the Luckey/Lackyard Property Development Plan with Alternate Conditions
• Deny the Development Plan
• Continue the Request
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Development Plan Map
3. City of Lodi Residential Growth Management Schedule
4. Staff Recommended Building Permit Allocation Schedule
5. City Council Awarded Building Permit Allocations
6. Development Plan Scoring Summary
7. Draft Resolutions
8. Negative Declaration
GM0102rLuckey.doc
ta1 tw ,9a2B o u \ L C.om hOf Wy.
P D
Q 95 193 9
1-95 19
t9
W10
1961 ] ) 19DB \90 O N - - - -
J 190 ^ �f
1 D �� 1 1807 19,2 ,91 1912m -
-
,9]S I001 t�.tij 1915 1918 ;;ti'
m m _ 9] 1976 t999 1192 - - m m o
97
3 I � 192 1821 4 mmmDer r ep r -�
m $ 1927
r � �,\B
N N ort wr m ZRD z� r. `911!020 2159 mem
m � ]ZI 188 2,65
1 r 21 172 2,96 217 `
Rm a% a In n04 r]
o Basin I Ne «r now r b^ r 22,x6 220 m f rW X22220 O m imr
s a m
225-
z 213 1' Iz 220 236 2217
248 2229
PUB 'z'1 ,z a n a' rove pence -
1J 10 ,IL n N _ -----
U)
LLJh momtsownm--- �----
O - 2311 31D 2309 23% 23,5 }f0 33
J - 23t 23,6 231 2311 2321 2316 23
2316 2322319 2320
322 2722 2327 23222'
2
3 32 2}26 332 232 2733 126 2]
2B
2JN 2335 2311 M1� ?`]JB 2339 SN 2.,
+' 2315 c: 2340 22
3751' 236 22
r sten t.
c �
0
=I enomo Dr.
T,
1041 1171
WAPNF
VICINITY MAP
;rv;;n CIA N", <IM� NrAM�"; + II
,
c
I
I
^- 1
I
h
-
I
I
I
r ,
!
r—
iF
I
y
I
I
1H 11Y6181
_
.
! A
;rv;;n CIA N", <IM� NrAM�"; + II
City of Lodi Residential Growth Management Schedule 2001
Adopted: September 18, 1991 under Ordinance #1521
Year
Population
%Actual
2% Pop.
Persons/ Total units
Single Fam.@ ; Med density @ High Density @
Growth
projection
Household I per year
65% 10%
25%
'* Sep -89
50,990
1,020
2.572
397
258
40
99
Sep -90
52,010
2.00%;
1,040
2.567
404
263:
40
101
Sep -91
53,050
2.00%.
1,061
2.630:
403
262
40
101
Jan -92
53,186.
0.26%
1,064
2.664:
399
259
40
100
Jan -93
. 53,701
0.97%;
1,074
2.680 i
401
261
40
100
Jan -94
53,903
0.38%
1,078:
2.680
402
261
40
101
Jan -95
54,694
1.47%.
1,094
2.697
406
264
41
102
Jan -96
54,473
-0.40%
1,089.
2.662:
409
266
41
102
Jan -97
54,812
0.62%
1,096
2.659.
412
268.
41
103
Jan -98
55,681
1.59%
1,114
2.684
415
270
42
104
v
Jan -99
56,926:
2.24%
1,139
2.695
423
275
42
106
°
Jan 00
57,935
1.77%
1,159
2.709 '
428
278
43 I
107
L
p2n 01
f 8.6b�
o"1 15°� I 1,1732 fii
Wit. fes: _ _ _ _ _
f 2 71 Q:#, `
X4,3 T '.t Z 1 J 1 x 43 r
-� f
3
Jan -02
_ _ _
59,772
2.00%?
_
1,195
Est. 2.7101
441
_i..�_
287
44
110
m
Jan -03
60,967
2.00%
1,219
Est, 2.710
450
293.
45
113
o
Jan -04
62,186
2.00%
1,244
Est. 2.710
459
298
46
115
z
Jan -05
63,430:
2.00%:
1,269
Est. 2.710:
468
304
47
117
Jan -06
64,699
2.00%'
1,294
Est. 2.710
477
310
48
119
Jan -07
65,993
2.00%
1,320
Est. 2.710
487
317
49
122
TOTALS:
8,113
5,273
811
2,028
** Sep '89
population number
equals 2/3 of the population
difference of Jan '89 and Jan
'90 added to Jan '89
NOTE:
Population and persons per household per State
Department of Finance.
Actual percentage increases
in population may be higher
or lower than 2%.
Calculation of building permit allocations
is based
on a 2% increase of
the current year population
figure.
STAFF RECOMMENDED BUILDING PERMIT ALLOCATION SCHEDULE 2001
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO BE ALLOCATED FOR 2001 = 432
* 731 allocations from expirations and unused allocations from previous years are available.
MEDIUM DENSITY 10%=337 UNITS*
There are no projects to request the 43, year 2001 allocations for mediurn density units.
* 294 allocations from expirations and unused allocations from previous years are available.
HIGH DENSITY 25%=1,333 UNITS *
There are no projects to request the 108, year 2001 allocations for high density units.
* 1,225 Allocations from the previous years ('89-'00) are available.
NO. TENTATIVE
NO. FINAL MAP
ALLOCATIONS
ALLOC. NEEDED
REQUESTED
I RECOMMENDED
PROJECT MAP UNITS I
UNITS
I RECEIVED '89-'00 I
TO COMPLETE
ALLOC. 2001
ALLOC. 2001
LUCKEY/LACKYARD PROPERTY 01
01
0
—77T
77
77
ALMOND WOOD ESTATES 01
01
01
74 1
74
1 74
01
01
01
151 1
151
1 151
* 731 allocations from expirations and unused allocations from previous years are available.
MEDIUM DENSITY 10%=337 UNITS*
There are no projects to request the 43, year 2001 allocations for mediurn density units.
* 294 allocations from expirations and unused allocations from previous years are available.
HIGH DENSITY 25%=1,333 UNITS *
There are no projects to request the 108, year 2001 allocations for high density units.
* 1,225 Allocations from the previous years ('89-'00) are available.
CITY COUNCIL AWARDED BUILDING PERMIT ALLOCATIONS 1989-2000
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS (1989-2000)=4,899
ISINGLE FAMILY •
PROJECT
ALLOC.'S
REC. '89
ALLOC.'S
REC. '90
101
ALLOC.'S
REC. '91
ALLOC.'S
REC. '9Z
ALLOC.'S
REC. '93
ALLOC.'SALLOC.'S
REC. '94 *
REC. '95 **
ALLOC.'S
REC. '96'f
ALLOC.'S
REC. '97
ALLOC.'S
REC. '98
ALLOC.'S
REC. '99
ALLOC.'S
REC. '00
ALLOCATION
TOTALS
BANG'S RANCH
34
35
35
0
0
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
123
BECKMAN PROPERTY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
46
BRIDGETOWN
0
0
0
0
0
0
53
51
36
0
0
0
140
CENTURY MEADOWS 1
16
16
16
0
0
0
52
55
45
0
0
0
200
CENTURY MEADOWS 2
25
26
25
0
29
0
0
0
60
0
0
0
165
CENTURY MEADOWS 3
24
24
25
0
29
0
51
50
0
0
0
0
203
CENTURY MEADOWS 4
29
29
29
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
137
COLVIN RANCH
20
20
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
101513pffl
'-&�.�a4k.,�:�3.�.�.....M�a.__. §.��z, '� ° �, . 49R ^�, ;;�'�.�.'•" `��i� � � �:� „"� a �.``n. � " '" S _ � e� ;
�
v� � tiy.
JOHNSON RANCH 2
43
43
43
44
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
173
LODI WEST
26
27
27
80 55 69
0 0 53
41
0
0
378
PARISIS PROPERTY
0
0
0
0
0
0
39
0
0
0
0
0
39
PERLEGOS PROPERTY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57
57
RICHARDS RANCH €
0
0
0
0
34
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
49
RIVERPOINTE
0
0
0
0
0
44
0
0
0
01
0
0
44
SASAKI PROPERTY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
0
0
60
SUNWEST XIV
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
36
0
0
0
67
THAYER PROPERTY
0
0
0
0
0
0
34
0
0
0
0
0
34
TSUTAOKA PROPERTY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
63
0
0
0
0
63
1OWNE RANCH 11
35
36
36
56
52
151
37
0
G
6
01
0
415
11
258
1 263 1
2621
259 1
204 1
3181
266
1 265 1
236 1
2 1
171
1031F----27-,-4-53
* 57 allocations remained from the '93 allocation year, giving the City a total of 318 single family units to allocate for 1994.
** One, 1996 single family allocation was granted to the Parisis properly project in '95.
€ Fifteen, 1996 single family allocations were awarded to the Richard's Ranch Project by resolution #96-40.
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL AWARDED BUILDING PERMIT ALLOCATIONS 1989-2000
TC)TAI RFSIf4FNTIAI t JNITc,(1989-?nnn)=4.899
:MEDIUM DENSITY 10%=490
PROJECT
UNITS
ALLOC.'S
REC. '89
ALLOC.'S
REC. '90
111
ALLOC.'S
REC. '91 1
ALLOC.'S
REC. '92
ALLOC.'S
REC. '93
ALLOC.'S
REC. '94
ALLOC.'S
REC. '95
ALLOC.'S
REC. '96
ALLOC.'S
REC. '97
ALLOC.'S
REC. '98
ALLOC.'S
REC. '99
ALLOC.'S
REC. '00
ALLOCATION
TOTALS
BANG'S RANCH **
18
18
U
0
0
-36
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LODI WEST
0
U
0
0
57
0
0
0
0
-57
0
0
0
LODI ESTATES **
0
0
22
0
0
. �
4k m� ...�; .. a........�...
-22 0 0 0 0
0
0
0
SASAKI PROPERTY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
3
0
0
103
SUNWEST GARDEN
ol
01
01
01
01
0 1
0
01
181
0
0
0
18
WOODHAVEN PARK
01
ol
011
75 1
01
01
01
U
0
0
75
11
40
401
281
01
132
-581
01
01
118
-1041
01
0
196
* In'93 the Planning Commission awarded 40, 1994 medium density allocations to the Lodi West project,
** The Bangs Ranch and Lodi Estates projects each were awarded single farnily allocations in place of their medium density allocations.
REC. 89 I ALLOC.'S I REC. 91S I REC. 92S I RECO. 93 I RECO. 94 I REC. 95 I RECO. )G I REC. 97 I REC.'9 I RECO99 I REC. 00 II ALLOCATION
ULNNL I I& CUMF I UN 1 991 45 1 01 0 -144 1 01 01 01 01 01 1 0 1 0
11 991 45 T 01 0 -144 101 01 01 01 01 01 —01 0
* The Bennett and Compton project was awarded 75 mediwn density allocations under the project name of Woodhaven Park.
Page 2 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. P.C. 02-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LODI
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE BUILDING
PERMIT ALLOCATION SCHEDULE FOR 2001.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi has heretofore held a duly
noticed meeting on the Growth Management Development Plan Allocation Schedule which
includes Growth Management Application Number GM -01-001 & 2, in accordance with City
Ordinance number 1521, and Resolution number 91-171.
WHEREAS, the project area is made up of the following properties:
1640 South Stockton Street & 1041 E. Harney Lane;
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the approval of this request have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi
as follows:
1. Negative Declarations have been prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines provided thereunder.
Further, the Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in these
Negative Declarations with respect to the projects identified in this Resolution.
2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council, approval of a
resolution adopting the Building Permit Allocation Schedule 2001 as identified in this
Resolution.
Dated: April 10, 2002
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 02-11 was passed and adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Lodi at a regular meeting held on April 10, 2002, by the following
vote:
AYES: Beckman, Mattheis, McGladdery, Phillips, White, and Chairman
Crabtree
NOES:
ABSENT: Heinitz
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
Res0211.doc
STAFF RECOMMENDED BUILDING PERMIT ALLOCATION SCHEDULE 2001
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO BE ALLOCATED FOR 2001 = 432
TENTATIVE I
NO. FINAL MAP
ALLOCATIORECEI
ALLOC.
RECOMMENDE D
PROJECT 1I NOMAP UNITS
UNITS
I ED 9NOOI
TO COMPLS ETED'
ALLOC. 2001
I ALLLOC. 2001
LUCKEY/LACKYARD PROPERTY 0L-=
01
77 1
77
1 77
ALMOND WOOD ESTATES 01
01
01
741
74
1 74
11 01
01
01
151 1
151
1 151
* 731 allocations from expirations and unused allocations from previous years are available.
MR)IUM DENSITY '10%=337 UNIT54:
There are no projects to request the 43, year 2001 allocations for medium density units.
* 294 allocations from expirations and umised allocations from previous years are available.
HIGH DFNSITY 25%=1,333 UNITS
There are no projects to request the 1013, year 2001 allocations for high density units.
* 1,225 Allocations from the previous years ('89-'00) are available.
RESOLUTION NO. PC. 02-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LODI
APPROVING THE REQUEST OF BAUMBACH AND PIAZZA FOR THE
LUCKEY/LACKYARD PROPERTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AT 1041 & 1171 EAST HARNEY LANE.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi has heretofore held a duly noticed
meeting, as required by law, on the requested development plan to create the Luckey/Lackyard
Property Development Plan in accordance with City Ordinance number 1521; Resolution number 91-
170.
WHEREAS, the project proponent is Baumbach and Piazza, Inc., 323 West Elm Street, Lodi,
CA 95240;
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the approval of this request have occurred;
WHEREAS, the property is zoned R-2, Single -Family Residential;
WHEREAS, the properties are located at 1041 & 1171 East Harney Lane
(APN's 058-230-11 & 12).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FOUND, DETERMINED AND RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Lodi as follows:
1) Negative Declaration File No. ND -01-08 has been prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines provided thereunder.
2) It is found that approval of the development plan will result in good planning practice.
3) It is hereby found that neither the design nor planned improvements are likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
4) It is hereby found that the development plan is unlikely to cause public health problems.
5) It is further found that approval of the development plan will not conflict with easements acquired
by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed parcel.
6) Growth Management Application No. GM -01-002 is hereby approved, subject to the following
conditions:
A) The street layout and right-of-way widths shown on the revised plan within the
Luckey/Lackyard development boundaries are acceptable. The possible future subdivision
layout shown for the adjacent property to the east was reviewed only in the context of the
future street connections to Mills Avenue and Heavenly Way that affect the layout for the
Luckey/Lackyard property. No approval of the subdivision layout shown for the adjacent
property should be inferred.
B) Construction of pavement transitions are required on Harney Lane. This will require
acquisition of street easements from the parcels east and west of the site. Acquisition of the
street easements is the responsibility of the developer.
Res0212.doc
C) Construction of the Harney Lane Lift Station at the future intersection of Harney Lane and
Mills Avenue and the associated trunk lines and force mains in Harney Lane and Mills
Avenue, respectively, is required to provide wastewater service for this development.
D) If this project is developed in phases, the following improvements shall be constructed with
the first phase:
i) Street and public utility improvements along the entire Harney Lane frontage, including
under grounding of existing overhead utilities and installation of a reverse frontage wall,
landscaping and irrigation.
ii) The extension of public utility improvements within the project between Heavenly Way
and the new street intersecting Harney Lane.
iii) Extension of the existing water main in Mills Avenue to Harney Lane and westerly in
Harney Lane to the west development boundary. The public water system shall be
looped from Harney Lane through the proposed street alignments to the existing public
water main in Heavenly Way.
iv) Traffic striping modifications in Harney Lane.
E) The extension of Heavenly Way and construction of a street connection to Mills Avenue
through the adjacent property to the east will be required at the time of development of the
proposed school site.
F) The proposed pedestrian/bike path and public utility easement (PUE) along the easterly
boundary of the school reserve shall be a minimum of 25 feet in width. The actual width
shall be determined when the plans for the underground utilities are available.
G) The reverse frontage wall and landscaping on Harney Lane shall be to the approval of the
Public Works Director and Community Development Department. The design of the wall
shall be compatible with the existing reverse frontage walls on Harney Lane.
Dated: April 10, 2002
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 02-12 was passed and adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Lodi at its meeting held on April 10, 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Beckman, Mattheis, McGladdery, Phillips, White, and
Chairman Crabtree
NOES: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners: Heinitz
ABSTAIN: Commissioners:
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
Res0212.doc
NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 01-08
FOR
Growth Management Development Plan
for
The Luckey/ Lackyard Property
File No.:
GM -01-002
APPLICANT: Baumbach & Piazza
PREPARED BY:
CITY OF LODI
Community Development Department
P.O. BOX 3006
LODI, CA 95241
August 2001
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
PROJECTDESCRIPTION.....................................................................................................................2
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM.............................................................................................. 3
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS................................................................................................ 8
DETERMINATION:.............................................................................................................................12
VICINITYMAP....................................................................................................................................1 S
1
•
CITY OF LODI
Growth Management Development Plan for The Luckey/Lackyard Property
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Luckey/Lackyard Property Development Plan contains a total of approximately
15.8 acres and is located on two contiguous properties: 1041 & 1171 East Harney
Lane (APN's 058-230-11 & 12). The project site is near the southwest corner of
Lodi. The development plan is within the Lodi City Limits and is zoned R-2, Single -
Family Residential with a General Plan Land Use designation of LDR, Low Density
Residential. The Luckey/Lackyard Property Development Plan proposes to develop
as a 77 -lot residential single-family subdivision at a density of 4.9 units per acre.
The Development Plan is south of the existing undeveloped DeBenedetti City Park,
east of the Sunnyside Estates single family residential subdivision in the County,
west of a vacant 8.4 -acre parcel and a 1.4 -acre parcel with a single family home in
the County, and north of a number of rural residences across Harney Lane.
As stated above the zoning of the project site is R-2 and has a General Plan land use
designation of LDR, which is entirely consistent with the proposed project. No
modifications to the zoning or general plan land use are necessary.
OA
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project title:
Growth Management Development Plan for The Luckey/Lackyard Property
2. Lead agency name and address:
City of Lodi -Community Development Department
Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241
3. Contact person and phone number:
Mark Meissner
Associate Planner
(209) 333-6711
4. Project location:
San Joaquin County, CA.;
Addresses and Parcel Numbers listed above in Project Description
Lodi, CA 95240.
5 Project sponsor's name and address:
Baumbach & Piazza
323 West Elm Street
Lodi, CA 95240
6. General plan designation: LDR, Low Density Residential
7. Zoning: R-2, Residential Single Family
8. Description of project: See "Project Description" section above.
Surrounding land uses and setting: The subject properties sit within the City of Lodi
and are generally located north of Harney Lane, Century Boulevard, east of Lower
Sacramento Road, and west of the future extension of Mills Avenue to Harney Lane.
More specifically the project site is south of the existing undeveloped DeBenedetti City
Park, east of the Sunnyside Estates single family residential subdivision in the County,
west of a vacant 8.4 -acre parcel and a 1.4 -acre parcel with a single family home in the
County, and north of a number of rural residences across Harney. The properties are
relatively flat with no unusall or extraordinary topographic features. Parcel 11 is
agricultural land prepared for row crops and parcel 12 is a fallow vineyard with the
portion closest to Harney lane used as a rural residence.
9 Other public agencies whose approval is required: None
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a ("Potentially Significant Impact" by the checklist on
the following pages.
❑ Land Use and Planning
O Population and Housing
0 Geological Problems
0 Water
0 Air Quality
0 Transportation/Circulation
0 Biological Resources
❑ Energy and Mineral Resources
0 Hazards
p Noise
0 Public Services
0 Utilities and Service Systems
13 Aesthetics
0 Cultural Resources
0 Recreation
❑ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
3
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
❑
Potentially
❑
0
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g.,
❑
Significant
❑
0
through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major
Potentially
Unless
Less than
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposed:
Significant
mitigation
Significant
No
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
❑
❑
❑
0
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by
❑
❑
❑
0
agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
❑
❑
❑
0
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
®
❑
13
0
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or
0
❑
❑
0
farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
❑
❑
❑
0
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
❑
❑
❑
0
community (including a low-income or minority community)?
❑
❑
❑
0
II POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections?
❑
❑
❑
0
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g.,
❑
❑
❑
0
through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
0
0
A
0
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people
to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?
❑
❑
❑
0
b) Seismic ground shaking?
❑
0
❑
❑
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
❑
❑
❑
0
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
❑
❑
❑
0
Q Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading or fill?
❑
❑
❑
0
g) Subsidence of land?
❑
❑
❑
0
h) Expansive soils?
❑
❑
❑
0
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
❑
❑
❑
0
4
•
0
0
❑ ❑
air quality violation?
b) Hazards to safety from design feature, (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
❑
Potentially
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
❑
❑
❑ 0
Significant
❑
❑
❑ 0
Potentially
Unless
Less than
0
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
Significant
mitigation
Significant
No
All "No" - Reference Source: See Project Description
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of
❑
❑
0
❑
surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as
❑
❑
❑
0
flooding?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality
❑
❑
❑
0
(e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body?
❑
❑
❑
0
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements?
❑
❑
❑
0
f) Change in the quantity of ground water, either through direct additions or
❑
0
❑
❑
withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavation
or through substantial loss of ground water recharge capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
❑
❑
❑
0
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
❑
❑
❑
0
I) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for
❑
0
❑
❑
public water supplies?
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal.
All "No" Reference Source. Appendix H, #25 & Environmental Setting, Sec 3.3:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected
❑
0
❑ ❑
air quality violation?
b) Hazards to safety from design feature, (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
❑
❑
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
❑
❑
❑ 0
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in
❑
❑
❑ 0
climate?
❑
❑
0
d) Create objectionable odors?
❑
❑
❑ 0
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
All "No" Reference Source: See Project Description
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
❑
0
❑
❑
b) Hazards to safety from design feature, (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
❑
❑
❑
0
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
❑
❑
❑
0
d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite?
❑
❑
❑
0
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
❑
❑
❑
0
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g.,
❑
❑
❑
0
bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
❑
❑
❑
0
5
•
i
Potentially
Significant
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to:
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Significant
mitigation
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not
❑
❑
❑
0
limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds?
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)?
❑
❑
❑
E(
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal
❑
❑
❑
0
habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)?
❑
❑
❑
0
e) Wildlife dispersal migration corridors?
❑
❑
❑
0
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plan?
❑
❑
❑
0
b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner?
❑
❑
❑
0
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be
❑
❑
❑
0
of future value to the region and the residents of the State?
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances
❑
❑
❑
0
(including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency
13
❑
❑
0
evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard?
❑
❑
❑
El
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards?
❑
❑
❑
0
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees?
❑
❑
❑
El
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels?
❑
❑
❑
0
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
❑
❑
❑
0
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposed have an effect upon, or result in
a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection?
❑
❑
0
❑
b) Police protection?
❑
❑
0
❑
c) Schools?
❑
0
❑
❑
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
❑
❑
❑
0
e) Other government services?
❑
❑
❑
0
0
El
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a
need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following
utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?
b) Communications systems?
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage?
f) Solid waste disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies?
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
Potentially
❑
❑
0
Significant
❑
❑
Potentially
Unless
Less than
❑
Significant
mitigation
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
❑
J
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
❑
❑
❑
0
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
❑
❑
❑
0
c) Create light or glare?
❑
❑
❑
0
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
❑
❑
❑
0
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
❑
❑
❑
0
c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique
❑
❑
❑
0
ethnic cultural values?
d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
❑
❑
❑
0
impact area?
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other
❑
❑
0
❑
recreational facilities?
b) Affect recreation opportunities?
❑
❑
❑
0
7
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Significant mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or pre -history?
❑ 13 ❑ 0
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly.
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).
Earlier analyses used.
June 1991. City of Lodi General Plan EIR. This area was identified in the Lodi General Plan and discussed
in the Environmental Impact Report SCH# 9020206
File No: ND -00-12; Notice of Determination filed June 8, 2001, The Luckey Company Annexation, General
Plan Amendment and Pre -zoning. Negative Declaration 01-12, studied the potential impacts of the annexation
and zoning of 1041 & 1477 East Harney Lane. The zoning was established as R-2, Single Family Residential.
This negative declaration and initial study identified potential impacts for the build -out of the area as a 13.6 acre
K-6 elementary school, and a low-density residential subdivision.
a) Mitigation measures. See Attached Summary for discussion.
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
An explanation of potentially significant impacts follows. Measures included in this
summary shall be treated as mitigation where indicated.
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
III b) The Project area is located in the San Joaquin Valley portion of the Central
Valley of California. A sequence of sedimentary rocks up to 60,000 feet
thick has filled the valley. Basement rocks composed of meta -sediments,
volcanics, and granites underlie these deposits. The Midland Fault Zone is
the nearest seismic area, and lies approximately 20 miles west of Lodi.
8
Based upon the inactive status of this fault, the area has not been identified as
a Special Studies Zone within the definitions of the Alquist-Priolo Act.
However, appropriate construction standards will be utilized to conform to
Seismic Zone 3 requirements.
WATER
IV. f & i) This project by itself will not substantially reduce the amount of
groundwater available for public water supplies; however, approval of the
Luckey/Lackyard Property Development Plan for the development of 77
single-family residences will contribute to the existing decline in the quantity
of ground water by creating additional demand on the groundwater basin.
According to the City's "Urban Water Management Plan, June 2001," the
City of Lodi obtains all of its fresh water supply from 24 existing water wells
that pump groundwater from the Longer San Joaquin Valley Groundwater
Basin. The Plan states that the City has been over drafting the groundwater
basin, which is the cause of the gradual but continued decrease in
groundwater levels. "Overall, the average annual decrease in groundwater
levels from 1927 to 2000 has been 0.35 feet per year. Generally,
groundwater elevations have decreased with the increase in population and
water production."
At the time the General Plan was drafted in 1987, water demand stood at 13.7
MGD. In 1991, it had grown to 14.1 MGD. According to estimates prepared
in 1991, development provided for by the General Plan would create demand
for approximately 7.8 MGD of water, or 76 percent more than the current
amount. The "Urban Water Management Plan" provides many
recommendations the City could implement to ensure that the City maintains
an adequate supply of fresh water. These recommendations include:
Developing a conjunctive use program to reduce overall pumping of
groundwater, recycling waste water, continuing current water conservation
efforts, and adopting many "Best Management Practices" (BMP) water
conservation processes established by the California Urban Water
Conservation Council. The basic finding of the report is that if the City is
going to continue its sole reliance on groundwater, it must establish
additional conservation programs or the City will eventually run out of
groundwater.
The Luckey/Lackyard Property development plan is under review by the City
as required by the City's Growth Management Program. Because of this
program, growth within the City of Lodi has not exceeded the limit of
providing housing for a 2% population increase per year. In fact, population
growth has occurred at an average rate of 1.2% per year since the
establishment of the Growth Management Program in 1991. This has
reduced the anticipated per capita consumption of water. In addition,
0
increased water conservation efforts by the City beginning in 1995 have also
reduced the per capita consumption of water to less than expected levels.
Even with the existing efforts of the City, water usage of existing homes,
businesses, and industry are continuing to overdraft the groundwater basin.
For this reason, the City is actively pursuing each of the recommendations
cited in the Urban Water Management Plan; however, these recommended
efforts are comprehensive to the City as a whole. At this time the City has
not established a mechanism to mitigate by compensation or other means the
cumulative impact on the City's fresh water supply at the individual project
level. For this reason the City of Lodi finds that the Luckey/Lackyard
Property development shall, at the time of establishment of the mechanism
for compensation, be required to compensate the City on a "fair share" basis
for the difference in water consumption between the original use of the land
as an irrigated crop and 76 single-family residences. We find that the
preceding sentence as well as the continuing effort of the City to regulate
water usage and promote water conservation, shall suffice as mitigation to
reduce the impacts of the Luckey/Lackyard Property Development Plan on
groundwater supply to less than significant.
AIR QUALITY
V.a) The ultimate conversion of the project site to a 77 -lot single-family
residential subdivision may cause a small decrease in ambient air quality
standards and increase air emissions. Increased vehicle trips and emissions in
the project area could be considered a substantial impact to an area that was
vacant property. Chapter 15, Air Quality, of the City of Lodi General Plan
Environmental Impact Report states that "the City of Lodi will coordinate
development project review with the San Joaquin County APCD in order to
minimize future increases in vehicle travel and to assist in implementing any
indirect source regulations adopted by the APCD."
The City of Lodi shall implement a number of impact reducing measures
prescribed by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
in order to reduce the potential impact from fugitive dust due to earth moving
and other construction activities. The measures are listed as follows:
• All material excavated or graded should be sufficiently watered to prevent
excessive amounts of dust. Watering should occur at least twice a day with
complete coverage, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for
the day.
• All clearing, grading earth moving or excavation activities shall cease during
periods of high winds greater than 20 mph average over one hour.
10
• All material transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or
securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
• The area disturbed by clearing, earth moving, or excavation activities, should
be minimized at all times.
• On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to I5 mph.
By implementing the measures above, the temporary impacts from
construction on air quality will be reduced to less than significant levels. In
addition, the City is reducing impacts from vehicle emissions by
implementing programs for alternate transportation. Programs such as the
City's Dial -A -Ride system, which is a door to door service; or the Grape
Line, which is a fixed route transit system; or even the City's Bicycle
Transportation Master Plan; help to reduce vehicle emissions. The City has
recently constructed a Multi -modal station to reestablish train service in Lodi
and to centralize the above transportation alternatives in one location. The
City's programs along with the programs at the Federal, State, and County
levels will help to reduce vehicle emissions created by this project to less
than significant levels.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
VI. a) Additional vehicle trips will effect transportation patterns relative to existing
traffic loads and street capacity in the immediate project area. In order to
reduce impacts from additional traffic, "The City shall review new
developments for consistency with the General Plan Circulation Element and
the Capital Improvements Program. Those developments found to be
consistent with the Circulation Element shall be required to pay their fair
share of traffic impact fees. Those developments found to be generating
more traffic than that assumed in the Circulation Element shall be required to
prepare a site-specific traffic study and fund needed improvements not
identified in the capital improvements program in addition to paying their fair
share of the traffic impact fees." The traffic impact fee will be used to
finance future improvements such as traffic signals and street widening
projects for older intersections and streets congested by new development.
The entire project site was originally designated in the City's General Plan as
PR, Planned Residential so its circulation needs were projected for residential
development, which is what is proposed. According to the City's Traffic
Engineering of the Public Works Department, the trip rate for single-family
residential dwelling units is 10 trips per dwelling unit. The 15.8 -acre site will
contain 77 dwelling units and generate around 770 daily trips.
Harney Lane adjacent to the south is the main access points to the project
area. Harney Lane is planned in the City's Street Master Plan as a minor
11
arterial designed to accommodate the anticipated residential development of
the remaining vacant land in this area. The planned improvements to Harney
Lane include right-of-way dedications that will increase the width to four
lanes, parking, curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, and reverse frontage wall.
These improvements will take place generally along the frontage of the
project site. Included in the Street Master Plan are improvements to the
remainder of Harney Lane; however, these improvements typically only take
place upon development of properties fronting the street being improved.
A "Circulation Analysis for the Luckey/Lackyard Project and Southwest Lodi
Elementary School Site" was prepared to identify improvements necessary
within the Luckey/Lackyard Project due to school site traffic.
We believe that implementation of the City's Circulation Master Plan based
on the General Plan Circulation Element and EIR, specifically the items as
listed above, and implementation of design recommendations identified in the
Circulation Analysis referenced above, will adequately reduce traffic impacts
in the immediate area to less than significant levels.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
VII. a) No State or Federally listed threatened or endangered taxa are found within
the immediate project area. However, a check of the California Natural
Diversity database indicates the presence within close proximity to the study
area of three species with State and/or Federal protective status. The three
species are: Swainson's Hawk, California Black Rail, and the Giant Garter
Snake. The California Department of Fish and Game lists all three species as
"Threatened" species under the California Endangered Species Act. The
Black Rail is also listed as a "Federal Candidate Species - Category 2" under
the Federal Endangered Species Act. The Giant Garter Snake is also listed as
a "Federal Threatened" species.
PUBLIC SERVICES
XI. a, b ,& c) Public services such as police, fire, and schools are currently available for
the project area. When the project develops as a residential subdivision, the
service needs for the area will increase. In order to provide the expanded
service levels for newly development areas, the City assesses development
impact mitigation fees.
Funding for added personnel, equipment and facilities to maintain targeted
response times and other service levels, reduces the impact on fire and police
protection to less than significant levels. The nearest fire station to the
project site is Fire Station No.: 3 at 2141 South Ham Lane, which is 1.15
miles from the project site.
12
0 •
A residential project of this size may produce a significant amount of school
age children. The new students will attend schools in the Lodi Unified
School District. Many of the new students will attend a future elementary
school planned for development on the property adjacent to the north of the
project site.
In order to alleviate school overcrowding, the developer will be required to
pay any school impaction fees that may be in effect at the time of approval.
Payment of the school impaction fees will help reduce the impact on school
facilities to a less than significant level by providing funding for increased
staffing, equipment and facilities. The Lodi Unified School District will
enter into an agreement with the owner of the property to pay the required
fees. The School District finds these fees to be adequate mitigation for this
project's potential impact on existing facilities.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
XII. g) The project area was recently annexed to the City so the necessary utilities
infrastructure have not been installed. The City's Utilities Master Plan does;
however, include the project area in its calculations and design. In order for
the project to be approved and constructed, all of the necessary utilities shall
be installed according to the City's Utilities Master Plan. Sewer, water,
electricity, storm drainage, and phone service are available to the project site
by extending existing lines into the area.
The City's Public Works Department will condition the project to design and
install all of the necessary utilities and infrastructure. The conditions will be
made by resolution of the City's Planning Commission and will be written to
require a master plan with design calculations that shall be approved by the
Public Works Director prior to development. Approval of a utility master
plan for this project and its implementation will reduce utilities and service
systems impacts to a less than significant level.
The General Plan EIR points out on page 10-2 that at the time the General
Plan was prepared in 1989, there was a design sewer/wastewater treatment
capacity of 6.2 MGD. A planned (and later completed) expansion increased
capacity to 8.5 MGD in 1991. Assuming that growth was going to continue
at the planned two (2) percent annual rate, and that flows would increase at a
proportionate rate, the City's White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility
(WSWPCF) has adequate capacity for the life of the 20 year plan. Since
1991 when the Growth Management program was first implemented, the
residential growth has not reached the two 2% mark. Growth has not even
approached two percent, but rather has averaged 1.2% in that time. This
being the case, there is estimated to be excess carrying capacity at the
WSWPCF, enough to mitigate any impacts of the proposed subdivision to
less than significant levels.
13
9 i
The General Plan EIR, page 10-3 outlines the City's storm water collection,
distribution, and disposal system. In Lodi, storm water is discharged to the
Mokelumne River and the Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) Canal. Due
to the predominant slope to the southwest, most of the drainage flows to the
canal. An agreement with the irrigation district limits the discharge rate to
the canal to 80 cubic feet per second (cfs). In order to hold the water during
peak periods, the City of Lodi employs the use of storm water detention
basins, which also double as public parks. In order to meet the increased
demand generated by new development, new basins are added as needed.
In the case of the Luckey/Lackyard Property Development Plan, storm water
runoff will flow to the DeBenedetti Park/G-Basin located approximately six -
hundred feet to the north. By all accounts, sufficient capacity will remain in
the City's system to absorb additional runoff from the proposed project,
thereby reducing potential adverse impacts from increased storm runoff to
less than significant.
Page 10-1 of the General Plan EIR explains that the water supply for the
entire City is provided by a groundwater aquifer, tapped into by a system of
interconnected City wells. According to our standards, one water well shall
be maintained per each 2,000 population. New wells are drilled as necessary
to provide an adequate supply commensurate with growth. Further
augmenting the City's ability to meet demand, especially during peak
periods, is a one million gallon storage tank located east of Highway 99 in the
City's industrial district. This tank can be filled during off peak periods and
made available during periods of excessive usage. With 24 water wells
currently in operation, there is estimated to be a sufficient water delivery
system.
Considering the mitigating factors declared in section IV, "Water" above, any
impacts on the water supply created as a result of the construction of the
proposed Luckey/Lackyard single family residential subdivision are reduced
to less than significant levels.
14
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE declaration will be prepared.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets' if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated."
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a)
have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have
been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation
measu4Mar
imposed on the proposed project
Signature: Date:
Printed NaMeissner For: City of Lodi
15
w
w
3
O
0
0
F -
z
w
2
U
Q
N
LJ
3
0
J
91
G
Basin
1171
VICINITY MAP
Jerry Wisenor, 808 E. Tehama Drive, Lodi. Mr. Wisenor asked what the average lot size
would be for the subject project. Mr. Meissner responded approximately 6,000 square feet.
The Planning Commission on motion of Commissioner McGladdery, Mattheis second,
approved the request of Concord Development for approval of a Vesting Tentative Subdivision
Map for Almond Wood Estates, a 14.5 -acre, 74 -lot, Single Family Residential Subdivision at
1640 South Stockton Street by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Beckman, Mattheis, McGladdery, Phillips, White, and
Chairman Crabtree
NOES: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners: Heinitz
ABSTAIN: Commissioners
The request of Baumbach and Piazza, Inc. for approval of the Luckey/Lackyard Property
Growth Management Development Plan for 77 single-family residences at 1041 & 1171
East Harney Lane, and a recommendation of approval to the City Council to award 77
building permit allocations. Associate Planner Meissner presented the item to the
commission. The area of the Development Plan is located in the southwest portion of Lodi and
included two separate properties that encompass approximately 15.8 acres of land zoned R-2.
Each year the City allocates building permits to keep in check with their 2% growth cap.
Currently there are 938 allocations for the year 2001. The northern 13.6 acres of the project
has been dedicated for a school. The project will develop at 4.9 units per acre with an average
lot size of 6,300 square feet. The subdivision will contain typical subdivision standards with
the parkway street design. Developments to the east of the project are preparing for
development in the near future and staff found the proposed project to be appropriate and
timely and it will be a welcomed contributor to the necessary infrastructure in the area. Staff
was in favor of the project.
Commissioner Mattheis asked if Tehama Drive, located just west of the project, would connect
to the subdivision. Mr. Bartlam responded that Tehama Drive did stub at the property line of
the project and it will be connected to the project for better traffic circulation.
Commissioner Phillips asked why Sunnyside Estates was not being included in the annexation.
Mr. Bartlam responded that the City would annex properties into the City only if the property
owners decide to be annexed.
Commissioner Beckman asked where the City was on issuing high-density allocations. Mr.
Bartlam replied that there had been no high-density allocations requested or made since the
inception of the Growth Management Program. He noted that in the future he would be
making a presentation regarding the matter to the Commission.
Hearing Opened to the Public
Jerry Wisenor, 808 E. Tehama Drive, Lodi. Mr. Wisenor has lived on Tehama Drive for the
past 30 years. Mr. Wisenor's main concern was that duplexes not be allowed within the
subdivision. Mr. Luckey, the developer, has reassured him that there will only be single family
dwellings built upon the lots. Mr. Wisenor shared that he will be traveling east to gain access
to Harney Lane rather than trying to fight traffic on Lower Sacramento Road.
Robert Hathaway, 890 Tehama Drive, Lodi. Mr. Hathaway would like to tie into the City's
sewer system that will be installed with the new project.
Terry Piazza, 323 W. Elm Street, Lodi. Mr. Piazza is the Engineer for the project. He noted
that the plan being presented was revised as requested by the City Council.
Commissioner Phillips asked what type of homes would be built within the subdivision. Mr.
Piazza responded that as far as he knew, it would be single family dwellings and no duplexes.
4-10.doc 3
Maime Starr, Assistant Superintendent of Facilities for LUSD. Ms. Starr stated that they are
anxious for the project to move forward so the school could be built.
Gail Lund, Tehama Drive, Lodi. Ms. Lund shared that Sunnyside Estates is an upscale County
area consisting of 20 homes with each lot being 113 acre in size. She did not want Tehama
Drive connected to the new subdivision. She was concerned that housing values would be
decreased with the increased traffic.
Alice Zimmerman, 931 E. Harney Lane, Lodi. Ms. Zimmerman's property is located directly
next to the project and she had questions regarding fencing and the future widening of Harney
Lane. Mr. Bartlam responded there would be a typical 6 to 7 -foot fence between the
properties. Mr Bartlam suggested that she speak with the developer to gain more information.
He shared that Harney Lane will be widened on the north side. He invited her to come to City
Hall and speak with himself and the City Engineer regarding the street plan for Harney Lane.
Hearing Closed to the Public
The Planning Commission on motion of Commissioner McGladdery, Mattheis second,
approved the request of Baumbach and Piazza, Inc. for approval of the Luckey/Lackyard
Property Growth Management Development Plan for 77 single-family residences at 1041 &
1171 East Harney Lane, and a recommendation of approval to the City Council to award 77
building permit allocations by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Beckman, Mattheis, McGladdery, Phillips, White and
Chairman Crabtree
NOES: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners: Heinitz
ABSTAIN: Commissioners:
Announcements and Correspondence
Community Development Director Bartlam introduced J.D. Hightower, our new City Planner,
to the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
As there was no further business to be brought before the Planning Commission, Chairman Crabtree
adjourned the session at 7:50 p.m.
Respec lly submitted,
L
Lisa Warner
Secretary
4-10.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-100
A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL RESCINDING
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-56, AND HEREBY APPROVING THE
AMENDED 2001 GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOCATIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2002-04 at its meeting of January
2, 2002 approving the 2001 Growth Management Allocations; and
WHEREAS, due to a procedural oversight, this matter was required to be returned back
to the Planning Commission and City Council for further review and public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a second public hearing on March 20, 2002 to receive
public input on the proposed 2001 Growth Management Allocations; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting of March 20, 2002 the City Council rescinded Resolution No.
2002-04 and adopted Resolution No. 2002-56 approving the 2001 Growth Management
Allocations; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends approving the Planning Commission's recommendation
that the City Council adopt an amended 2001 Growth Management Allocation schedule adding
77 low-density allocations of the Luckey/Lackyard Development Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Lodi City Council does hereby rescind
Resolution No. 2002-56; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Lodi City Council does hereby approve the
amended 2001 Growth Management Allocations as recommended by the Lodi Planning
Commission, as shown as follows:
Requested Recommended
2001 Allocations 2001 Allocations
Almond Wood Estates 74 74
Luckey/Lackyard 77 77
TOTAL 151 151
Dated: May 15, 2002
-------------------
-------------------
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 2002-100 was passed and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held May 15, 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Howard, Land, Nakanishi, and Mayor Pennino
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Hitchcock
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None
SUSAN J. BLACKSTON
City Clerk
2002-100
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED BUILDING PERMIT ALLOCATION SCHEDULE 2001
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO BE ALLOCATED FOR 2001 = 432
11
NO. TENTATIVE
NO. FINAL MAP
ALLOCATIONS
ALLOC. NEEDED I
REQUESTED
RECOMMENDED
PROJECT 11
MAP UNITS
UNITS
RECEIVED'89 '00
TO COMPLETE I
ALLOC. 2001
I ALLOC. 2001
LUCKEYILACKYARD PROPERTY
01
01
01
771
77
77
ALMOND WOOD ESTATES
01
0 1
01
741
74
74
01
0
1 01
151 1
151
1 151
* 731 allocations from expirations and unused allocations from previous years are available.
There are no projects to request the 43, year 2001 allocations for medium density units.
* 294 allocations from expirations and unused allocations from previous years are available.
There are no projects to request the 108, year 2001 allocations for high density.units.
* 1,225 Allocations from the previous years ('89-'00) are available.
Please immediately confirm receipt
of this fax by calling 333-6702
CITY OF LODI
P. O. BOX 3006
LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910
ADVERTISING INSTRUCTIONS
SUBJECT: Set Public Hearing for May 15, 2002 to consider Planning Commission
recommendation that Council adopt amended 2001 Growth Management
Allocation schedule adding the 77 low-density allocations of the
Luckey/Lackyard Development plan
PUBLISH DATE: SATURDAY, MAY 4, 2002
TEAR SHEETS WANTED: Three (3) please
SEND AFFIDAVIT AND BILL TO: SUSAN BLACKSTON, CITY CLERK
City of Lodi
P.O. Box 3006
Lodi, CA 95241-1910
DATED: THURSDAY, MAY 2, 2002
ORDERED BY:
JACQUELINE L. TAYLOR
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Q 2A ;�� j !�4� \
AfiNIFERV4. P RRIN
"BEPUTY CITY CLERK
Faxed to the Sentinel at 369-1084 at (time) on (date) (pages)
Kelsey Phoned to confirm receipt of all panes at (time) Jac Jen (initials)
forms\advins.doc
CITY OF LODI NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Carnegie Forum Date: May 15, 2002
s , • 305 West Pine Street, Lodi Time: 7:00 p.m.
For information regarding this notice please contact:
Susan J. Blackston
City Clerk
Telephone: (209) 333.6702
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 at the hour of 7:00 p.m., or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council will conduct a Public Hearing at the Carnegie Forum,
305 West Pine Street, Lodi, to consider the following matter:
a) Planning Commission's recommendation that the City Council adopt an amended 2001 Growth
Management Allocation schedule adding the 77 low-density allocations of the Luckey/Lackyard
Development plan,
Information regarding this item may be obtained in the office of the Community Development Department
Director, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California. All interested persons are invited to present their views and
comments on this matter. Written statements may be filed with the City Clerk at any time prior to the hearing
scheduled herein, and oral statements may be made at said hearing.
If you challenge the subject matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone
else raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City
Clerk, 221 West Pine Street, at or prior to the Public Hearing.
By Order of the Lodi City Council:
Susan J. Blackston
City Clerk
Dated: May 1, 2002
Approved as to form:
14�
Randall A. Hays
City Attorney
J iCITYCI RK\FORMS\Notcddplan? doc 5/1102
(i) DECLARATION OF POSTING
Set Public Hearing for May 15, 2002 to consider Planning Commission
recommendation that Council adopt amended 2001 Growth Management
Allocation schedule adding the 77 low-density allocations of the
Luckey/Lackhard Development Plan
On Thursday, May 2, 2002 in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, a copy of
Notice of Public Hearing of the City Council of the City of Lodi to consider amending
2001 Growth Management Allocation - Luckey/Lackyard Development Plan (attached
hereto, marked Exhibit 'W') was posted at the following four locations:
Lodi Public Library
Lodi City Clerk's Office
Lodi City Hall Lobby
Lodi Carnegie Forum
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 2, 2002 at Lodi, California.
ORDERED BY:
SUSANJ.BLACKSTON
CITY CLERK
Jacqueline L. Taylor
Deputy City Clerk
A A ?U I D"Sffi
Jennif M. Perrin)
Deputy City Clerk
forms\decpost.doc
DECLARATION OF MAILING
Set Public Hearing for May 15, 2002 to consider Planning Commission
recommendation that Council adopt amended 2001 Growth Management
Allocation schedule.' adding the 77 low-density allocations of the
Luckey/Lackyard Development Plan
On May 2, 2002 in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, I deposited in the
United States mail, envelopes with first-class postage prepaid thereon, containing a
notification of public hearing to be held on March 20, 2002 regarding Planning Commission
recommendation that Council adopt amended 2001 Growth Management Allocations
regarding Luckey/Lackyard Development Plan, marked Exhibit "A"; said envelopes were
addressed as is more particularly shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto.
There is a regular daily communication by mail between the City of Lodi, California, and the
places to which said envelopes were addressed.
declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 2, 2002, at Lodi, California.
ORDERED BY:
JACQUELINE L. TAYLOR
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
decmaiFforms
ORDERED BY:
SUSAN BLACKSTON
CITY CLERK, CITY OF LODI
NIFER P RRIN
PUTY CI Y CLERK
�'s-
Luckey/Lackyard Growth Management Allocations
Terry Piazza, Baumbach & Piazza, 323 W. Elm Street, Lodi, CA 95240
Susan Lackyard, 1477 East Harney Lane, Lodi, CA 95240
Tom Luckey, c/o Luckey Properties, 6280 Amande Court, Stockton, CA 95212