HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - November 6, 2002 G-03 PHAGENDA TITLE: Conduct Public Hearing to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval to the City Council for a General Plan Amendment and Prezoning for 1243,
1301, 1335, & 1477 East Harney Lane. The General Plan Amendment is from PR,
Planned Residential to LDR, Low Density Residential, and the prezoning from San
Joaquin County AU -20 to R-2, Single Family Residential; the request also includes a
recommendation that the City Council certify Negative Declaration ND -02-04 as
adequate environmental documentation for the project; and to initiate annexation of the
properties into the City of Lodi.
MEETING DATE: November 6, 2002
PREPARED BY: Community Development Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council approve the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval for a General Plan Amendment and Prezoning for 1243, 1301, 1335, &
1477 East Harney Lane. The General Plan Amendment is from PR, Planned
Residential to LDR, Low Density Residential, and the prezoning from San
Joaquin County AU -20 to R-2, Single Family Residential. That the City Council also approves the recommen-
dation to certify Negative Declaration ND -02-04 as adequate environmental documentation for the project and
initiate annexation of the properties into the City of Lodi.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Planning Commission at its Public Hearing of September 12, 2002
reviewed and approved the recommendations of staff for a recommendation
of approval of the requested actions above to the City Council. At this
meeting staff explained that the proposed area of annexation includes four
parcels totaling 28.15 acres near the southwest corner of Lodi bounded by the developing Century Meadows IV
single family residential subdivision to the north, the recently approved Legacy Estates single family subdivision to
the west, the developing Century Meadows II subdivision to the east, and a number of rural residences across
Harney Lane to the south. Please note that there is a fifth property in the project area at 1443 East Harney Lane that
is not included in this action. The owner of the property was sent notification on more than one occasion regarding
the pending actions and their was no response.
The recommended General Plan Amendment changes the existing General Plan designation of PR, Planned
Residential, to LDR, Low Density Residential and the subsequent zoning change is from AU -20, Agriculture Urban
Reserve (County zoning), to R-2, Single -Family Residential. The R-2 zoning designation was found by the
Planning Commission to be consistent with the Low -Density Residential General Plan land use designation. The
eventual development of the four properties is anticipated to be single-family residences at approximately 5 -units
per acre, which amounts to approximately 141 homes.
The General Plan defines PR, Planned Residential as follows: "This designation provides for single family detached
and attached homes, secondary residential units, multifamily residential units, parks, open space, public and quasi -
public uses, and similar and compatible uses and is applied to largely undeveloped areas in the unincorporated area
of the GP." Planned Residential is anticipated to be re -designated during the annexation process. The Planning
Commission found that the proposed LDR, Low Density Residential is consistent with PR as defined. In addition,
APPROVED:
N. Dix n Flynn -- City Manager
lackyard council communication.doc 10/29/02
Council Communication
Meeting Date: November 6, 2002
Page 2
they found that the proposed zoning designation of R-2, single-family residential is consistent with the proposed
General Plan land use designation and the surrounding R-2 zoning to the west, north and east.
The City's Growth Management Ordinance requires staff to appropriately time the annexation of new land for
residential development; staff finds that this request is appropriate. The area of annexation is ranked the second
most desirable for development by the Growth Management Ordinance, or what is know as "Priority Area 2." The
developed and developing areas adjacent to the north and east are within either Priority Area 1 or 2. In fact, there is
no additional Priority Area 1 land left in or around the project area that does not already have an approved
development on it. Given that Priority Areas are ranked based on availability of utilities and adjacency to existing
development, this land could be considered Priority 1.
Staff finds that the proposed annexation is a logical extension of the City's boundary. The four properties are
contiguous to the existing City limits on three sides and the City has anticipated annexing this land from the County
as evidenced by the existing PR, Planned Residential General Plan land use designation. Furthermore, the City has
planned and is prepared to provide services to this area pending the completion of the Harney Lane wastewater lift
station and other routine utility extensions into the project area.
The California Environmental Quality Act requires that projects be reviewed for their potential to create
environmental impacts. The process requires that potential areas of impact are identified and a level of significance
assessed. This project was found to have impacts that could be found significant if not mitigated. Statements and
specific mitigations are provided in the attached mitigated negative declaration (ND -02-04) which has been
reviewed by the Planning Commission and found to adequately address and mitigate potential environmental
impacts of the project.
FUNDING: None required e�
Konradt Bartlam
Community Development Director
Prepared by: Associate Planner, Mark Meissner
039
Attachments
(9)
MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Community Development Department
To: Planning Commission
From: Community Development Department
Date: September 12, 2002
Subject: The request of L.P. Properties, LLC for the Planning Commission's recommendation
of approval to the City Council for a General Plan Amendment and Prezoning for
1243, 1301, 1335, & 1477 East Harney Lane. The General Plan Amendment is from
PR, Planned Residential to LDR, Low Density Residential, and the prezoning from
San Joaquin County AU -20 to R-2, Single Family Residential. The request also
includes a recommendation that the City Council certify Negative Declaration ND -
02 -04 as adequate environmental documentation for the project.
SUMMARY
The request of the applicant for a General Plan Amendment and Prezoning of the subject parcels is
the first step in the annexation process. The proposed area of annexation includes four parcels
totaling 28.15 acres near the southwest corner of Lodi bounded by the developing Century Meadows
IV single family residential subdivision to the north, the recently approved Legacy Estates single
family subdivision to the west, the developing Century Meadows II subdivision to the east, and a
number of rural residences across Harney Lane to the south.
The General Plan Amendment will change the existing General Plan designation of PR, Planned
Residential, to LDR, Low Density Residential. The subsequent zoning change will be from AU -20,
Agriculture Urban Reserve (County zoning), to R-2, Single -Family Residential. The R-2 zoning
designation is consistent with the Low -Density Residential General Plan land use designation. The
proposed development of the three properties is single-family residences at approximately 5 -units
per acre, which amounts to approximately 141 homes. (See Vicinity Map)
BACKGROUND
The City's General Plan is required by State Law to provide information and analysis of seven
different aspects of development; these aspects are referred to as elements. The required elements
include Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety. The City's
General Plan includes these required elements and has added Growth Management and Urban
Design and Cultural Resources. Each element of the General Plan is required to be equally
weighted, integrated, internally consistent, and compatible. The two most relative elements to the
annexation process are the Land Use Element, which in this case is being amended to establish a
permanent designation, and the Growth Management Element, which provided direction leading to
the establishment of the City's Growth Management Ordinance.
When Lodi's General Plan was adopted by the City Council in 1991 the subject properties were
designated in the Land Use Element to be PR, Planned Residential. The City's Growth Management
Ordinance, also adopted in 1991, has designated this area for residential development with a
"Priority Area 2" status. Priority Area 2 is the middle of three statuses, established based on the
ability of a land area to connect to existing City utilities.
Z-02-03.doc
The Planning Commission may have noticed the increased activity within the areas immediately to
the north and east of the project site. This activity is due to previously approved developments that
have been waiting for an improved housing market, and for the projects to the east, the installation of
the sewer lift station at Mills Avenue and Harney Lane. The sewer lift station is under construction
and should be completed within the next few months to service the area of annexation, the areas to
the east and west, and portions of the City's residential reserve to the south of Harney Lane.
The Century Meadows IV single-family residential subdivision is adjacent to the north of the
proposed annexation. Century Meadows IV is under development and should be completed within
the next year. To the east the Century Meadows III single-family subdivision across the recently
completed extension of Mills Avenue to Harney Lane is developing the remainder of its project area
to Harney Lane. Moving east, Century Meadows II is showing no signs of developing, but could
develop at any time given its approved tentative subdivision map. Finally, Century Meadows 1,
adjacent to the WID canal, is grading for roadway improvements and development within the very
near future.
In general the northern halves of Century Meadows I -III subdivisions are completed while the
southern halves are now developing or will be in the near future. Their completion will provide the
widening and frontage improvements at Harney Lane between the WID canal on the east and the
extension of Mills Avenue. The entire area bounded by Lower Sacramento Road, Century
Boulevard, Harney Lane and the Woodbridge Irrigation Canal on the east is identified in the General
Plan to develop as residences.
The area of annexation is adjacent to the east of the recently approved Legacy Estates, Unit I
subdivision. The Planning Commission may remember their concern over the connection of Legacy
Way and Heavenly way. Staff explained that these two roads would not connect in order to reduce
traffic and speed in the neighborhood and around the school, and because the City's street design
standards prohibited long straight residential streets when between existing thoroughfares designed
to handle heavy traffic demands. Staff also explained that a traffic analysis recommended that traffic
from the Legacy Estates project would connect with roadways to the north after first traveling
eastward to Mills Avenue. The connection to the east is conditioned upon development of the
proposed K-6 elementary school. The two larger properties of this annexation are the ones that will
provide the land necessary to make the connection of Legacy Estates and elementary school with
Mills Avenue.
ANALYSIS
The General Plan defines PR, Planned Residential as follows: "This designation provides for single
family detached and attached homes, secondary residential units, multifamily residential units, parks,
open space, public and quasi -public uses, and similar and compatible uses and is applied to largely
undeveloped areas in the unincorporated area of the GP." Planned Residential is anticipated to be re-
designated during the annexation process. Staff finds that the proposed LDR, Low Density
Residential is consistent with PR as defined. In addition, we find that the proposed zoning
designation of R-2, single-family residential is consistent with the proposed General Plan land use
designation.
The City's Growth Management Ordinance requires staff to appropriately time the annexation of
new land for residential development; staff finds that this request is appropriate. As stated above, the
area of annexation is within "Priority Area 2." Century Meadows IV and the fully developed
northern portions of the Century Meadows I -III subdivisions are all within "Priority Area 1," the
Z-02-03.doc
southern portions that are approved and pending development are within "Priority Area 2." There is
no additional "Priority Area 1" land left within the project area that does not already have an
approved development on it. For all intents and purposes, with the completion of the sewer lift
station and the immediate adjacency of existing development, this land could be considered "Priority
Area l."
As stated in the summary, annexation is the first step in the development process for this land. The
Planning Commission will have the opportunity to review the development of the project site
separately when application is made for growth management development plan review and building
permit allocation request, and also at the tentative subdivision map review.
Staff finds that the proposed annexation is a logical extension of the City's boundary. The three
properties are contiguous to the existing City limits on three sides and the City has anticipated
annexing this land from the County as evidenced by the existing PR, Planned Residential General
Plan land use designation. Furthermore, the City has planned and is prepared to provide services to
this area pending the completion of the sewer lift station and routine utility extensions into the
project area.
The California Environmental Quality Act requires that projects be reviewed for their potential to
create environmental impacts. The process requires that potential areas of impact are identified and
a level of significance assessed. This project was found to have impacts that could be found
significant if not mitigated. Statements and specific mitigations are provided in the attached
document. In conclusion, staff finds that the attached mitigated negative declaration (ND -02-04)
adequately addresses and mitigates potential environmental impacts of the project.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the
request of L.P. Properties, LLC for a General Plan Amendment and Piezoning for 1243, 1301, 1335,
& 1477 East Harney Lane, and a recommendation that the City Council certify Negative Declaration
ND -02-04 as adequate environmental documentation for the project. The recommendations shall be
subject to the conditions listed in the attached resolutions.
ALTERNATIVE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS
Approve the Requests with Alternate Conditions
Deny the Requests
Continue the Requests
Respectfully Submitted,
Mark eissner
Associate Planner
MGM
Z-02-03.doc
Reviewed and Concur,
- / ---
J.D. Hightower
City Planner
CITY OF LODI
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
MEETING DATE:
September 12, 2002
APPLICATION NO'S:
Lackyard Annexation, AX -02-01
Rezone No. Z-02-03
General Plan Amendment, GPA -LU -02-03.
REQUEST:
The request of L.P. Properties, LLC for the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval to the City Council for a General Plan
Amendment and Prezoning for 1243, 1301, 1335, and 1477 East
Harney Lane. The General Plan Amendment is from PR, Planned
Residential to LDR, Low Density Residential, and the prezoning
from San Joaquin County AU -20 to R-2, Single Family Residential.
The request also includes a recommendation that the City Council
certify Negative Declaration ND -02-04 as adequate environmental
documentation for the project.
LOCATION:
1243, 1301, 1335, & 1477 East Harney Lane (058-230-14, 13, 22,
& 21)
APPLICANT:
L.P. Properties, LLC
6280 Amanda Court
Stockton, CA 95212
OWNERS:
Parcel (058-230-14) Parcel (058-230-13)
Kenneth C. Tate, Jr. Raymond Everitt
1243 East Harney Lane c/o Pamela Anundson
Lodi, CA 95240 1320 East Harney Lane
Lodi, CA 95240
Parcel (058-230-22) Parcel (058-230-21)
Guiseppe Nepote Susan Lackyard
c/o Susan Lackyard 1477 East Harney Lane
1477 East Harney Lane Lodi, CA 95240
Lodi, CA 95240
Site Characteristics:
The subject properties sit within San Joaquin County and are
generally located north of Harney Lane, south of the Century
Boulevard, east of Lower Sacramento Road, and west of Mills
Avenue. The properties are relatively flat with no unusal or
extraordinary topographic features. Parcel 13 is 8.4 -acres of vacant
land, Parcel 22 is a 17.35 -acre vineyard with a rural residence
fronting Harney lane, Parcel 14 is a 1.4 -acre rural residence, and
Parcel 21 is a 1.23 -acre rural residence with the north half being an
old vineyard.
General Plan Designation:
PR, Planned Residential (City); R -L, Residential Low Density
(County)
Zoning Designation:
AU -20, Agricultural Urban Reserve (San Joaquin County zoning
designation)
Property Size:
Four parcels totaling 28.15 acres.
LW JACommunity Development\Planning\STAFFRPT\2002\Z-02-03r.doc
Adiacent Zoning and Land Use:
North: R-2, Residential Single -Family; LDR, Low Density Residential.
South: AG -40, General Agriculture (County). PRR, Planned Residential Reserve.
East: R-2, Residential Single -Family; LDR, Low Density Residential.
West: R-2, Residential Single -Family; LDR, Low Density Residential.
Neighborhood Characteristics:
The project site is south of the existing and developing Century Meadows 4 residential
subdivision, southeast of the undeveloped DeBenedetti City Park, east of a 13.6 acre Lodi
Unified School District K-6 elementary School and the recently approved 77 -lot Legacy Estates
residential subdivision, west of Mills Avenue and the developing Century Meadows 3 residential
subdivision, and north of a number of rural residences across Harney Lane.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS:
Negative Declaration ND -02-04 has been prepared in accordance with CEQA. This document
adequately addresses possible adverse environmental effects of this project. No significant
impacts are anticipated.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE:
Legal Notice for the Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone was published on
August 31, 2002. A total of 21 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 recommend approval to the City Council of the
request of L.P. Properties, LLC for a General Plan Amendment and Prezoning for 1243, 1301,
1335 & 1477 East Harney Lane, and a recommendation that the City Council certify Negative
Declaration ND -02-04 as adequate environmental documentation for the project. The
recommendations shall be subject to the conditions listed in the attached resolutions.
ALTERNATIVE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS:
• Approve the Requests with Alternate Conditions
• Deny the Requests
• Continue the Requests
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Negative Declaration
3. Draft Resolutions
LW JACommunity Development\Planning\STAFFRPTl2002\Z-02-03r.doc 2
t�5] 195E Q� � ° 191 tE1 ,63E
Q $ ® yn
—
ly
W ,9W 1962 van 193, Y g
,9& ,e93 ,991 N R o 9
w 7-
J , ° za95 V `•r.✓ ,99x ,qs ,9n C 91a ` R R—
ftJ{ l�J
— ,9ZE 1939 —
TUR"@tblfl
9 „0
4.
�Raa��m.s'
r I „E or c own r. ❑ , ° 2,39
E,],
�zv a d N xzn ztn
p �] z,E3 0
Basin `I naw .r F.x 2211
EW
' Je � R ms's R � R zzu E� R R zzm zzos �
Z E,mLu C` _ uEs zm szn
cL 1'103
Q °Anrp Wv row eni gig
- -
Q w 33 N
It
cn =
w 9- aures owri r. - -
Oto A 2311
J N ESI] 23,E m,3 E311
3321 � 39
C O t6 23m= 322 2319 tam —
St3
jmze sam 2sz.9J� �.jE'-am 2331 C Sz.
2335 2—LLJ LIT
231, E]a0 m95
� rook Dr. -
�.
am m 2.,E
ns en "-
c
d
c
m
e ama Dr.
o LD co r
I
I
I
I
VICINITY MAP
ZONINGW.awinp,M+i0m3.dvq, 0]RS/2002 11:5.:39 My 1'.1
NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 02-04
FOR
Lackyard Annexation
APPLICANT: L.P. Properties L.L.C.
PREPARED BY:
CITY OF LODI
Community Development Department
P.O. BOX 3006
LODI, CA 95241
May, 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
PROJECTDESCRIPTION.....................................................................................................................2
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM..............................................................................................3
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS................................................................................................ 8
DETERMINATION............................................................................................................................... 16
VICINITYMAP....................................................................................................................................17
ATTACHMF,NTS................................................................................................................................... 18
1
CITY OF LODI
The Lackyard Annexation
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Lackyard Annexation is a proposal to annex, amend the general plan land use
designation, and pre -zone two properties totaling 25.75 -acres near the southwest
corner of Lodi. There is also the potential to annex, amend the general plan land
use designation, and pre -zone three additional adjacent properties totaling 3.63 -
acres. All five properties are located at 1243, 1301, 1335, 1443, and 1477 East
Harney Lane, Assessor Parcel Numbers: (058-230-14, 13, 22, 17, & 21).
At present, the subject parcels are outside the City of Lodi boundaries in San
Joaquin County. The properties have a San Joaquin County General Plan
Designation of R/L, Residential Low Density, and a County Zoning designation of
AU -20, Agriculture Urban Reserve.
In order to develop within the City of Lodi, L.P. Properties has applied for
Annexation, a General Plan Amendment, and for Pre -zoning. The General Plan
Amendment will change the existing City General Plan designation of PR, Planned
Residential, to the more specific designation of LDR, Low Density Residential. The
subsequent zoning will be established as R-2, Single -Family Residential. The R-2
zoning designation is consistent with the proposed LDR, low-density residential
General Plan land use designation. The proposed development of the two primary
properties is single-family residences at approximately 5 -units per acre, which
amounts to approximately 129 homes. The three smaller properties have the
potential to be included as part of the larger project and could contribute an
additional 18 units.
2
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project title:
The Lackyard Annexation
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:
L.P. Properties L.L.C.
6280 Amanda Court
Stockton, CA 95212
6. General plan designation: PR, Planned Residential
7. Zoning: AU -20 Agricultural Urban Reserve, (County Zoning).
8. Description of project: See "Project Description" section above.
Surrounding land uses and setting: The subject properties are within San Joaquin
County and are generally located north of Harney Lane, south of the existing City
Limits, 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
developing Century Meadows 4 single-family residential subdivision, east of the
Luckey single-family residential development and future K-6 elementary school site,
west of the developing Century Meadows 3 single-family residential subdivision, and
north of a few rural residences north of and across Harney Lane. The properties are
relatively flat with no unusall or extraordinary topographic features. Parcel 13 is 8.4 -
acres of vacant land, Parcel 22 is a 17.35 -acre vineyard with a rural residence fronting
Harney lane, Parcel 14 is a 1.4 -acre rural residence, Parcel 17 is 1.23 -acres with the
northern half vineyard and a rural residence fronting Harney lane, and Parcel 21 is 1 -
acre also with the northern half vineyard and a rural residence fronting Harney lane.
9 Other public agencies whose approval is required:
San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)
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.
0 Land Use and Planning
❑ Population and Housing
0 Geological Problems
0 Water
0 Air Quality
0 Transportation/Circulation
0 Biological Resources
❑ Energy and Mineral Resources
❑ Hazards
❑ Noise
0 Public Services
0 Utilities and Service Systems
❑ Aesthetics
❑ Cultural Resources
❑ Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of
Significance
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
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproposed-
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?
0
❑
❑
0
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or
❑
❑
0
❑
farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
❑
❑
❑
0
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
❑
❑
0
0
community (including a low-income or minority community)?
0
❑
❑
0
II POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposak
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
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people
to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?
❑
❑
❑
0
b) Seismic ground shaking?
❑
❑
❑
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
❑
❑
❑
El
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
❑
❑
❑
0
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading or fill?
0
❑
❑
0
g) Subsidence of land?
❑
❑
❑
0
h) Expansive soils?
❑
0
❑
0
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
❑
❑
❑
0
4
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
All "No" Reference Source: Appendix: H, 925 & Environmental Setting, Sea 3.3:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected
❑
Potentially
❑
❑
air quality violation?
❑
Significant
❑
0
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Q
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
❑
❑
Q
❑
surface runoff?
❑
❑
❑
Q
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as
❑
❑
❑
Q
flooding?
❑
❑
❑
Q
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality
❑
❑
❑
Q
(e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body?
❑
❑
Q
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements?
❑
❑
❑
Q
f) Change in the quantity of ground water, either through direct additions or
❑
Q
❑
❑
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?
❑
❑
❑
Q
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
❑
❑
❑
Q
I) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available
❑
El
❑
❑
for
public water supplies?
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
All "No" Reference Source: Appendix: H, 925 & Environmental Setting, Sea 3.3:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected
❑
Q
❑
❑
air quality violation?
❑
❑
❑
0
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
❑
❑
❑
Q
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in
❑
❑
❑
Q
climate?
❑
❑
❑
Q
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?
❑
Q
❑
❑
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?
❑
❑
❑
Q
d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite?
❑
❑
❑
Q
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
❑
❑
❑
Q
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g.,
❑
❑
❑
Q
bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
❑
❑
❑
Q
Potentially
Significant
5
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plan?
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Q
b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner?
Significant
mitigation
Significant
No
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to:
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not
❑
13
a
0
limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds?
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)?
❑
❑
Q
❑
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal
❑
❑
Elf
❑
habitat, etc.)?
0
❑
0
H
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)?
❑
❑
El
13
e) Wildlife dispersal migration corridors?
0
❑
Q
❑
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plan?
❑
❑
0
Q
b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner?
❑
0
0
Q
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be
❑
13
❑
Q
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
❑
❑
❑
Q
(including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency
0
❑
0
H
evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard?
❑
❑
0
Elf
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards?
❑
❑
❑
Q
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees?
❑
Q
❑
�(
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels?
❑
0
❑
Q
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
❑
❑
❑
Q
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?
❑
❑
Q
❑
b) Police protection?
❑
0
Q
❑
c) Schools?
❑
Q
❑
❑
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
❑
❑
❑
Q
e) Other government services?
❑
0
❑
Q
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?
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare?
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area?
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other
recreational facilities?
b) Affect recreation opportunities?
T
❑ 1
Potentially
Q
❑ 1
❑
Significant
❑ 0
❑
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Q
Significant
mitigation
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑
❑
Q
0
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑
0
❑
Q
❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑ 1
❑
Q
❑ 1
❑
Q
❑ 0
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑
13
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑ 0 Q 13
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
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 0 Q
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals?
❑ ❑ 13 Q
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 ❑ 0
d) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
❑ ❑ 0 El
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 analvses 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
a) Mitigation measures. See Attached Summary for discussion.
SUNIMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
An explanation of potentially significant impacts follows. Measures included in this
summary shall be treated as mitigation where indicated.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
I. a) The properties in question are currently designated as PR, Planned
Residential. The General Plan defines PR as follows: "This designation
provides for single family detached and attached homes, secondary
residential units, multifamily residential units, parks, open space, public and
quasi -public uses, and similar and compatible uses and is applied to largely
undeveloped areas in the unincorporated area of the GP area." Planned
Residential is intended to be re -designated during the annexation process.
The entire project area is to be designated, LDR, Low Density Residential,
which is consistent with PR as defined above.
The zoning is currently a San Joaquin County zoning, having a designation of
AU -20, Agricultural Urban Reserve, and a County General Plan Designation
N
_.. . _ _... ..._.. 1
of R -L, Low Density Residential. It is the opinion of the Lodi Community
Development Department that the City's proposed General Plan designation
is consistent with County's, and is essentially the implementation of the
County's General Plan.
For consistency with the proposed General Plan designations, the project will
be rezoned to R-2, single-family residential. Action by the City Council to
make the requested changes will mitigate inconsistencies with the General
Plan and Zoning to less than significant levels.
d) The subject properties total approximately 29.38 -acres of residential
and agricultural land (vineyard).
Page 3-2 of the General Plan Policy Document identifies the conversion of
agricultural land as an adverse impact of residential, commercial and
industrial development. In order to mitigate the adverse impacts of
converting farmland to urban uses, Chapter Three of the General Plan Policy
Document specifies on page 3-4, among other things, that the City shall
encourage the preservation of agricultural uses surrounding the city and to
discourage any premature urbanization of farmland. Specific policies in the
Conservation Element are aimed at delaying the loss of prime agricultural
lands and facilitating their continued use, including: 1. Designating an open
space greenbelt around the urbanized area of the City. The City of Lodi is a
participant with the County in establishing a greenbelt area between Stockton
and Lodi, for which the Lodi City Council has authorized up to $25,000 for
further study of the area. 2. Support the continuation of agricultural uses on
lands designated for urban uses until such time that urban development is
imminent. 3. Allow the continuation of viable agricultural activities around
the City.
The following statement is quoted from the Lodi Municipal Code Chapter
8.18 "NOTICE OF AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AFFECTING
OTHER PROPERTY," Section 010 "Policy statement":
"It is the policy of the city to protect, preserve and encourage the use of
viable agricultural lands for the production of food and other agricultural
products. When nonagricultural land uses extend into or encroach upon
agricultural areas, it is likely that conflicts will arise between such land uses
and the agricultural operations. These conflicts often result in an involuntary
curtailment or cessation of agricultural operations, are detrimental to the local
economy, and discourage investment in such agricultural operations. The
purpose of this chapter is to reduce the occurrence of conflict between
agricultural and non-agricultural land uses within the city."
This section of the Municipal Code requires that the seller of a property near
an agricultural area provide a disclosure statement to the buyer that there is
agricultural activity nearby and that the buyer sign to the following: "The
City of Lodi permits operation of properly conducted agricultural operations
within the city limits, including those that utilize chemical fertilizers and
pesticides. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE PROPERTY YOU
ARE PURCHASING MAY BE LOCATED CLOSE TO AGRICULTURAL
E
LANDS AND OPERATIONS. YOU MAY BE SUBJECT TO
INCONVENIENCE OR DISCOMFORT ARISING FROM THE LAWFUL
AND PROPER USE OF CHEMICALS AND AGRICULTURAL
CHEMICALS AND PESTICIDES AND FROM OTHER AGRICULTURAL
ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, CULTIVATION,
PLOWING, SPRAYING, IRRIGATION, PRUNING, HARVESTING,
BURNING OF AGRICULTURAL WASTE PRODUCTS, PROTECTION
OF CROPS AND ANIMALS FROM DEPREDATION, AND OTHER
ACTIVITIES WHICH OCCASIONALLY GENERATE DUST, SMOKE,
NOISE, AND ODOR. Consequently, depending on the location of your
property, it may be necessary that you be prepared to accept such
inconveniences or discomfort as a normal and necessary aspect of living in an
agriculturally active region."
Annexing the Lackyard Annexation project area will take roughly 29.38 -
acres of agricultural land out of production; however, its proximity to land
within the City limits on three of four sides reduces its suitability for
continued farming. Inappropriate and premature conversion of productive
agricultural land would occur if "leap frog" development were taking place,
involving development of land not adjacent to the existing City limits.
Annexing and developing the subject land as a residential subdivision is in
keeping with the City's General Plan policies and ordinances promoting
orderly and planned growth. Through continued efforts of the City to
establish a greenbelt, continued participation in the San Joaquin County
Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan, continued
implementation of the City's Growth Management practices, and continued
enforcement of the City's "Right to Farm" ordinance, the City will remain
the most compact city in County, and one of the most compact cities in the
State.
The San Joaquin County Community Development Department has
submitted comments regarding the project as related to loss of agricultural
land. Please see the attached response from the City of Lodi.
Impacts associated with the conversion of the subject property from
agricultural to urban uses are deemed less than significant.
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.
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.
10
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
Lackyard Annexation for low density residential development 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 land of the Lackyard Annexation is anticipated to develop in the near
future as a low-density residential subdivision similar to those projects to the
west, north, and east. Prior to development the City will require a
development plan review as provided 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, 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
11
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 future development of the
Lackyard Annexation project area 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 and a low density residential development. 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 future development of the Lackyard Annexation
project area on groundwater supply to less than significant.
AIR QUALITY
V.a) The ultimate conversion of the project site to a 5 -unit per acre 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
relatively 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.
• 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 15 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 the City's Bicycle
Transportation Master Plan; or even the recent introduction of Amtrak rail
12
service to the City's Multi -Modal station will help to reduce vehicle
emissions. 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 29.38 -acre site
could contain as many as 7 -units per acre or 206 dwelling units, but will
more realistically be around 5 -units per acre or 147 dwelling units. This
number of homes will generate around 1,470 daily trips.
Harney Lane adjacent to the south and Mills Avenue to the east are the main
access points to the project area. Harney Lane is planned in the City's Street
Master Plan as a minor arterial and Mills Avenue is planned as a Major
Collector. Both are designed to accommodate the anticipated residential
development of the remaining vacant land in this area. 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. Planned improvements to Mills Avenue include
right-of-way dedications that will increase the width to two lanes with a left
turn median, parking, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and landscaping. These
improvements will take place generally along the frontages 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.
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, will adequately reduce traffic impacts in the immediate area to
less than significant levels.
13
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
VII. The proposed project is consistent with the San Joaquin County Multi -
Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), as amended,
as reflected in the conditions of project approval for this proposal. Pursuant
to the Final EIR/EIS for the San Joaquin county Multi -Species Habitat
Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), dated November 15, 2000,
and certified by the San Joaquin Council of Governments on December 7,
2000, implementation of the SJMSCP is expected to reduce impacts to
biological resources resulting from the proposed project to a level of less-
than—significant. That document is hereby incorporated by reference and is
available for review during regular business hours at the San Joaquin Council
of Governments (6 S. El Dorado St., Suite 400/Stockton, CA 95202) or
online at: www.sjcog.org.
PUBLIC SERVICES
XI. a), b) The change from County agricultural land to the eventual
development of single-family homes will generate the need for additional fire
and/or police services. The Citywide Development Impact Mitigation Fee
schedule was adopted to insure that new development generates sufficient
revenue to maintain specified levels of service in town.
Page 9-5 of the General Plan Policy Document states that the City shall add
personnel, equipment, or facilities necessary to maintain a minimum three (3)
minute travel time for fire calls. Page 9-6 of the Policy Document goes on to
state that the City shall also strive to maintain a staff ratio of 3.1 police
officers per 1,000 population with response times averaging three (3) minutes
for emergency calls and 40 minutes for non emergency calls. Impact fees are
calculated on new development to generate enough revenue to preserve these
service levels, thereby mitigating any potential adverse impacts on fire and/or
police protection to less than significant levels.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
XII. d) 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 treatment capacity of
6.2 MGD. A planned (and later completed) expansion increased capacity to
8.5 MGD in 1991. Assuming that residential 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. In fact,
residential growth has not reached the two (2) percent mark since the plan
was adopted. Over the last five (5) years, growth has averaged 1.63%. This
being the case, there is estimated to be excess carrying capacity at the
WSWPCF, enough to mitigate any impacts of the new homes and school site
to less than significant levels.
e) 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
14
(WID) Canal. Due to the project area's adjacency to the DeBenedetti Park/G-
Basin drainage basin, the drainage will flow to this facility. The G -Basin was
engineered with a capacity to handle storm water runoff from a 48-hour, 100 -
year storm. Storm runoff from the development of the project site will not
impact the City's existing drainage basins, which reduces impacts to less than
significant.
g) 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 Lodi 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. 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 67 percent more than the current
amount.
As stated previously in this Negative Declaration, due to the affect of the
City's Growth Management Program, growth has not reached the levels
anticipated in 1991, reducing the anticipated per capita consumption of water.
In addition, increased water conservation efforts by the City beginning in
1995 have also reduced the per capita consumption of water to less than
expected levels. With 26 water wells currently in operation there is estimated
to be a sufficient supply of water.
Considering the aforementioned mitigating factors, any impacts on the water
supply created as a result of the Lackyard Annexation/reorganization are
reduced to less than significant levels.
15
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.
E! 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.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
❑ 1 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."
p 1 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
measures that ar imposed upon the proposed project
Signature: Date:��-
Printed Name: Mark Meissner For: City of Lodi
16
U
40'SN TRW
A
j� t�aa t z �V3{l ,ao• ,eW ,W+ l0 e R o! 7 — _
>O t.xw taw
ta9x ��r-/_ R
J two +� ,a+x 1911 O tatx " R
,m ,92. � mer ea "
4 -_I =RRa
tan taw CI_ 'I.
TUR'O tt'
g gg 77 pp
Yorktown Dr.
txR � I R R R � 2L � `� � � a d �^ Z• +m las
p fta F R 2t]6 Stas a R y 22a 2,n 8
Basin 1z ' now !r r. 2- zzw I C2zx 2,w
e e g e
�
cc
Z 2:Y 21 2A gg2a " I q =7
.1m 12_
RIR zx�R R a�: �d ma
Qencp Wvrov! ence �_
alalmjg! I
ml's
Q I" 22 l_____
owri ur. - " -
Oy 2311 . ]10 2W 2- 2x15 2a
J n 211 `2],6 2]t3 2x1. x21 L
= O i6 2- 222 x]t9 2w 2227
E
> Incline Dr. I 332 2LL 2Ji8 5329 2]20 223 C 22
23.�-in
2]e � � 2xx➢ �t
22N0 2x1 7
K,
2.
2s, zx
� b o2ok� •� & �� -
i
ns en t.
c
I
m
e aura r.
i
A
I I
1
I
i
i
I
VICINITY MAP
nGWr9.1n2a1Mx0203.aq, 06103(1002 Ox W:.6 AM, 1:1
RESOLUTION NO. P.C. 02-34
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LODI
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST OF L.P. PROPERTIES, LLC FOR PREZONING
Z-02-03 TO THE LODI CITY COUNCIL.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi has heretofore held a duly noticed
public hearing, as required by law, on the requested Prezoning in accordance with the Government Code
and Lodi Municipal Code Chapter 17.84, Amendments;
WHEREAS, the properties are located at 1243, 1301, 1335, & 1477 East Harney Lane, Lodi, CA
95242, Assessor's Parcel No's: 058-230-14, 13, 22 & 21;
WHEREAS, the project proponents are L.P. Properties, LLC, 6280 Amanda Court, Stockton, CA
95212;
WHEREAS, the property has a Zoning designation of AU -20, Agricultural Urban Reserve (San
Joaquin County);
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the approval of this request have occurred
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 -02-04 has been prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines provided there under. Further, the
Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with
respect to the project identified in this Resolution.
2. It is found that the parcels to be prezoned are the parcels located at 1243, 1301, 1335, & 1477 East
Harney Lane, Lodi, CA 95242, Assessor's Parcel No's: 058-230-14, 13, 22 & 21.
3. It is found that the requested prezoning of R-2, Residential Single Family is not m conflict with adopted
plans or policies of the General Plan of the City and will serve sound Planning practice.
4. It is further found that the land of the proposed rezone is physically suitable for the development of a
single-family residential subdivision.
5. The Planning Commission of the City of Lodi hereby recommends approval of Rezone Z-02-03 to the
City Council of the City of Lodi.
Dated: September 12, 2002
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 02-34 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of
the City of Lodi at a special meeting held on September 12, 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners:
NOES: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
ABSTAIN: Commissioners:
Res0234.doc
Crabtree, Haugan, Mattheis, White, and Heinitz
Beckman and Phillips
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
■
PUB
AU -2C
to P-
R-2
PROPOSED ZONING MAP
nvnpylPgorie 20103.O+n. Q7R5/]D02 �Z�m�S� Rn. �-i
F.
,EGEND
RESIDENTIAL ZONES:
R -Y - SWGIE FA LT
R -ID- IAN DENSITY
R -GA- GARDEN APAXTZMT
R -ND- YEDIUY DENSDY fATARTYEI:Y/
R -m- MIGH DE161TC fAPARTYEHQ
P -D - PLUINED DEVYIDPYEN7
R-:•- 91NCIE-TAYILT (E4ST51D1)
COMMERCIAL ZONES: 1
.R -CF- PROFESSIONAL OPFICCS
P -CP•- PitOFESSpNA1 OFFICES (EASTSIDE)
C-1 - NZIGHBOOD
C-ORH
2 - GENERN.
C -S - SAO mo GETTLD
OTHER ZONES:
V -R - UNCU351F1ED AOLDING
F -P - FIDDD PWN N
PUB - PUBUC
2
RESOLUTION INTO. P.C. 02-35
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LODI
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST OF L.P. PROPERTIES, LLC FOR
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT 02-03 TO THE LODI CITY COUNCIL.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi has heretofore held a duly
noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the requested General Plan Land Use Amendment
in accordance with the Government Code and Lodi Municipal Code Chapter 17.84,
Amendments;
WHEREAS, the properties are located at 1243, 1301, 1335, & 1477 East Harney Lane,
Lodi, CA 95242, Assessor's Parcel No's: 058-230-14,13, 22, & 21;
WHEREAS, the project proponents are L.P. Properties, LLC, 6280 Amanda Court,
Stockton, CA 95212;
WHEREAS, the properties have a General Plan designation of PR, Planned Residential;
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the approval of this request have occurred.
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 -02-04 has been prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines provided
there under. Further, the Commission has reviewed and considered the information
contained in said Negative Declaration with respect to the project identified in this
Resolution.
2. It is found that the parcels to be re -designated are the parcels located at 1243, 1301, 1335 &
1477 East Harney Lane, Lodi, CA 95242, Assessor's Parcel No's: 058-230-14,13, 22, & 21.
3. It is found that the requested General Plan Land Use Amendment from PR, Planned
Residential to LDR, Low Density Residential provides for the orderly development of the
City and will serve sound Planning practice.
4. The proposed amendment to the Land Use Diagram of the General Plan is consistent with all
Elements of the General Plan; specifically the proposed amendment implements the
following policies:
a. Land Use and Growth Management Element - Goal C, Policy 1, in that the project
will annex 28.15 acres of residential land to the City, which is necessary to maintain
an adequate supply to accommodate the City's 2 percent per year housing growth
rate.
b. Housing Element - Goal A, Policy 9, in that the project is the first step of the adopted
approval process for this residential development.
c. Circulation Element - Goal A, Policy 6, in that the projects future circulation system
will further advance adequate access for emergency response to the area.
d. Noise Element - Goal A, Policy 7, in that the area is not impacted by unacceptable
noise levels as illustrated on figure 6-3.
e. Conservation Element - Goal C, Policy I, in that the project is surrounded on three
sides by annexed land that is scheduled for residential development.
Res0235.doc
f. Safety Element - Goal C, Policy 7, in that the nearest fire station is located at Ham &
Beckman Park that is within a 3 minute response time.
g. Urban Design and Cultural Resources Element - Goal F, Policy 1, in that the pre -
zoning of the site to R-2 will insure that the scale of development is consistent with
surrounding land uses.
5. It is hereby found that the project site is physically suitable for the proposed type of
development.
6. The Planning Corrunission of the City of Lodi hereby recommends approval of General Plan
Land Use Amendment 02-03 to the City Council of the City of Lodi.
7. No variance from any City of Lodi adopted code, policy or specification is granted or
implied by the approval of this resolution.
Dated: September 12, 2002
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 02-35 was passed and adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Lodi at a special meeting held on September 12, 2002, by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Crabtree, Haugan, Mattheis, White and Heinitz
NOES: Commissioners: Beckman and Phillips
ABSENT: Commissioners:
ABSTAIN: Commissioners:
ATTEST-
eeretary, Planning Commission
Res0235.doc
2
PROPOSED
LAND USE
PI:120-1wosrw pAvuI ArmnC 0202Awp, 5285/2002 02:22:5. m 3:1
GENERAL PLAN
DIAGRAM
LEGEND
RESIDENTIAL:
MDR - lDW DENSRY REBIDENTMM
MDR DENSITY RESIDENTM
HDR - MCH DENSITY RESMNTNL
°R - EASTSIDE REST DENTw,
PR - PLANNED RESIDEMIAL
COMMERCIAL:
NCC - NEIGNBORNODD/COMMVNRY COUMERCML
CC - GENERAL COMMERCIAL
DC
0 - - DfYMONN COMMERCE
DOWNT
OTHER:
POP - PUI! C/QUASI PV@LM
DBP - DETENTION @R,S" S AND PiRKS
A - AGRICVLTURE
DRAFT
Minutes from September 12, 2002
The request of L.P. Properties, LLC for the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval to the City Council for a General Plan Amendment
and Prezoning for 1243, 1301, 1335, & 1477 East Harney Lane. The General Plan
Amendment is from PR, Planned Residential to LDR, Low Density Residential, and
the Prezoning from San Joaquin County AU -20 to R-2, Single Family Residential.
The request also includes a recommendation that the City Council certify Negative
Declaration ND -02-04 as adequate environmental documentation for the project.
Associate Planner Meissner presented the matter to the Commission. The subject area is
made up of 4 parcels totaling 28.15 acres in the southwest corner of Lodi fronting onto
Harney Lane. The development of the parcels is for single family homes at 5 units per
acre, which amounts to 141 homes. The proposed prezoning and General Plan
designations are both consistent with the General Plan. Since there was no additional
Priority Area 1 land remaining around the project, the land while being a Priority Area 2
could be considered Priority 1. After the annexation process, there will be an opportunity
to review the development of the project at the Growth Management Development Plan
stage. Staff felt the proposed annexation was logical and the City was prepared to
provide services to the area.
Commissioner Crabtree questioned water issues noted in the Negative Declaration. He
wanted to know the status of when the Commission could start to apply water mitigation
measures to new projects. Community Development Director Bartlam replied that the
City Council had yet to adopt water mitigation measures. The City has an ample water
supply through various wells. In a long-term view, additional water supply or decreasing
existing water consumption will be necessary.
Commissioner Phillips asked if other cities prepare a Negative Declaration rather than an
Environmental Impact Review (EIR) when they annex agricultural lands into the City
limits. Mr. Bartlam replied that it was common when the annexation is consistent with
the General Plan Policy. The area in question had an EIR done at the time the General
Plan was adopted in 1991.
Commissioner Mattheis asked why the property at 1443 E. Harney Lane was not being
included in the annexation. City Planner Hightower replied that staff tried to make
contact with the owner, but the owner never responded.
Commissioner Heinitz asked for an update on the sewer lift station located on Harney
Lane. Mr. Bartlam replied the construction of the lift station was underway and
necessary for development of the proposed annexation as well as the properties located
both east and west of the subject properties.
Commissioner Phillips asked if the lift station had already been annexed into the City.
Mr. Bartlam replied "no," that it did not need to be annexed since it is a public utility and
has a very specific use.
Commissioner Crabtree asked when the last possible point in the development process
could the Commission approve a project with mitigation to the water issue. Mr. Bartlam
replied the appropriate time would be during the development plan stage.
Hearing Opened to the Public
Josh Elson, Project Engineer, Baumbach & Piazza, 323 W
that there had been an extensive traffic study for the area.
conditions set forth in the resolution.
Hearing Closed to the Public
. Elm Street. Mr. Elson noted
He was agreeable to the
Commissioner Mattheis felt the project was a logical extension of the area and made a
motion to approve the request.
Commissioner Beckman voiced concern about the conversion of prime farmland to
residential use. He noted that the General Plan directs City policy makers to discourage
and delay the loss of prime farmland. He was disappointed that the City Council had not
adopted a policy on water issues. He would be more in favor of a medium -density land
use, rather than a low-density land use.
Commissioner Phillips agreed with Commissioner Beckman. He did not like seeing the
sewer lift station already being constructed on the south side of Harney Lane on
farmland. He was also in favor of seeing medium -density housing rather than low-
density.
Commissioner Mattheis felt the project would complete the plan for the area. He noted
that the sewer lift station was already in place and was not able to be moved. He asked
staff to define the difference between low-density and medium -density. Mr. Bartlam
replied low-density was 5 units per acre and medium -density was 7 units per acre. He
felt at this stage it was not the right time to change from low-density to medium -density
since the surrounding developed subdivisions were all zoned as low-density projects.
The Planning Commission on motion of Commissioner Mattheis, Crabtree second, voted
to approve the request of L.P. Properties, LLC for the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval to the City Council for a General Plan Amendment and
Prezoning for 1243, 1301, 1335, & 1477 East Harney Lane. The General Plan
Amendment is from PR, Planned Residential to LDR, Low Density Residential, and the
Prezoning from San Joaquin County AU -20 to R-2, Single Family Residential. The
request also includes a recommendation that the City Council certify Negative
Declaration ND -02-04 as adequate environmental documentation for the project by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Crabtree, Haugan, Mattheis, White, and Chairman
Heinitz
NOES: Commissioners: Beckman and Phillips
ABSENT: Commissioners:
ABSTAIN: Commissioners
ORDINANCE NO. ORAFT
AN ORDINANCE OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE
OFFICIAL DISTRICT MAP OF THE CITY OF LODI AND THEREBY
PREZONING THE PARCELS LOCATED AT 1243, 1301, 1335, & 1477
EAST HARNEY LANE (APN 058-230-14, 13, 22 & 21) FROM SAN
JOAQUIN COUNTY AU -20 TO R-2, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE LODI CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Official District Map of the City of Lodi adopted by Title 17 of the Lodi
Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:
The parcels located at 1243, 1301, 1335, and 1477 East Harney Lane (APN 058-230-
14, 13, 22 & 21) is hereby prezoned as follows:
28.15 -acres — San Joaquin County AU -20 to R-2, Single Family
Residential, as shown on the Vicinity Map, on file in the office of the City
Clerk.
Section 2. The alterations, changes, and amendments of said Official District Map of
the City of Lodi herein set forth have been approved by the City Planning Commission
and by the City Council of this City after public hearings held in conformance with
provisions of Title 17 of the Lodi Municipal Code and the laws of the State of California
applicable thereto.
Section 3 - No Mandatory Duty of Care. This ordinance is not intended to and shall not
be construed or given effect in a manner which imposes upon the City, or any officer or
employee thereof, a mandatory duty of care towards persons or property within the City
or outside of the City so as to provide a basis of civil liability for damages, except as
otherwise imposed by law.
Section 4 - Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to
any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other
provisions or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid
provision or application. To this end, the provisions of this ordinance are severable.
The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance irrespective
of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof.
Section 5. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are repealed
insofar as such conflict may exist.
Section 6. This ordinance shall be published one time in the "Lodi News Sentinel', a
daily newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the City of Lodi and shall
be in force and take effect thirty days from and after its passage and approval.
Approved this day of , 2002
PHILLIP A. PENNINO
Mayor
Attest:
SUSAN J. BLACKSTON
City Clerk
State of California
County of San Joaquin, ss.
I, Susan J. Blackston, City Clerk of the City of Lodi, do hereby certify that Ordinance No.
was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lodi held
November 6, 2002 and was thereafter passed, adopted and ordered to print at a regular
meeting of said Council held by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS —
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS —
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS —
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS —
further certify that Ordinance No. was approved and signed by the Mayor on the
date of its passage and the same has been published pursuant to law.
SUSAN J. BLACKSTON
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
RA DALL A. HAYS
City Attorney
i
var �c
(� m e eaT W v.
fiITUR"-&—D
0
0
Basin
z
w
Q
U
Q
w
O
J
■ so,
AU -20
to P
Y/
R-2
\ PROPOSED ZONING MAP
LEGEND
RESIDENTIAL ZONES:
R -r - smcrE rtwL�
R -C -SINGLE tmLY
R -ID- W DCNSIn
R -CM CAPDEN t➢ARTYENT
R -YD- NCDIVY DENSTIY (.TPAxryLj: r)
R -ND- RICH D[NSITt fAPARMKI7
P -D - PUNNCD DE�'[LDPNCNf
R_.•- SMCIt-TAIr1LY (Et21SlDC)
COMMERCIAL ZONES
x -Er- PRDRsswxlwL omcDs
R -c>>•- xRoressloP+u. omm rttsrnoc)
:-1 - NflCRBpRROCD
C-R - CMERtD
' C -S - SNOPPRIC CEI:tLp
OTHER ZONES:
u -x - uxclwssrtlx:n xunlNc
i -P - rIDDD pum
PUB - PURI![
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-217
A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL AMENDING
THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE LODI GENERAL PLAN
BY REDESIGNATING THE 28.15 ACRES LOCATED AT
1243, 1301, 1335, AND 1477 EAST HARNEY LANE
(APN 058-230-14,13,22, AND 21) FROM PR, PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL TO LDR, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Lodi, that the Land Use
Element of the Lodi General Plan is hereby amended by redesignating 28.15 acres
located at 1243, 1301, 1335, and 1477 E. Harney Lane (APN 058-230-14, 13, 22, and
21) from PR, Planned Residential to LDR, Low Density Residential, as shown on Exhibit
"A" attached, which is on file in the office of the Lodi City Clerk; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a Negative Declaration ND -02-04 has been
prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as
amended, and the Guidelines provided thereunder. Further, the Planning Commission
has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration
with respect to the project identified in its Resolution Nos. P.C. 02-34 through 02-35.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council has reviewed all
documentation and hereby certifies the Negative Declaration as adequate environmental
documentation for this project located at 1243, 1301, 1335, and 1477 E. Harney Lane.
Dated: November 6, 2002
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 2002-217 was passed and adopted by the
Lodi City Council in a regular meeting held November 6, 2002 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Hitchcock, Howard, Land, Nakanishi, and
Mayor Pennino
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None
SUSAN J. BLACKSTON
City Clerk
2002-217
_. t
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DIAGRAM
LEGEND
RESIDENTIAL:
toll -EOM O.MSMI' astxlnl/�
Mal - MEQ aulsnr Ilse
u - rEksmK s .Si w�w�a"""`
M - FLAW= MSIOEMIK
COMMERCIAL:
ccCC
E
OTHER:
.er - .lMl C,gMSI .IISEIC
Mo - OEIEMRIM Pu MN ►MRS
4 � M.M�C1RAlllE
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-218
A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL FOR APPLICATION TO
THE SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION
COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF THE LACKYARD ANNEXATION,
INCLUDING THE DETACHMENT OF CERTAIN TERRITORY WITHIN
THE AREA PROPOSED FOR ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF LODI
WHEREAS, this proposal is made pursuant to the Local Government
Reorganization Act; and
WHEREAS, the nature of the proposed change of organization is the annexation
to the City of Lodi of an area comprising of 28.15 acres more or less adjacent to the City
limits located at 1243, 1301, 1335, and 1477 East Harney Lane; and withdrawal of said
28.15 acres from the Woodbridge Rural Fire Protection District, the Woodbridge
Irrigation District, and the San Joaquin County Resource Conservation District, located
within the area to be annexed to the City of Lodi, (APN's 058-230-14, 13, 22, and 21),
as described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the s ubject a rea proposed to be annexed to the City of Lodi and
detached from the Woodbridge Rural Fire Protection District, the Woodbridge Irrigation
District, and the San Joaquin County Resource Conservation District is uninhabited; and
and
WHEREAS, no new districts are proposed to be formed by this reorganization;
WHEREAS, the reasons for this proposal are as follows:
(1) The uninhabited subject area is within the urban confines of the City and
will generate service needs substantially similar to that of other incorporated urban
areas which require municipal government service;
(2) Annexation to the City of Lodi of the subject area will result in improved
economics of scale in government operations while improving coordination in the
delivery of planning services;
(3) The residents and taxpayers of the County o f S an J oaquin w ill b enefit
from the proposed reorganization as a result of savings to the County by reduction of
County required services in unincorporated but urban oriented area;
(4) The subject area proposed to be annexed to the City of Lodi is
geographically, socially, economically and politically part of the same urban area of
which the City of Lodi is also a part;
(5) The subject area is within the Lodi Sphere of Influence; and
(6) Future inhabitants in the subject area will gain immediate response in
regard to police and fire protection, unlimited City garbage and trash collection service,
street lighting service, a modern sewer system, other municipal services, and
improvement of property values.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Lodi City Council that the San
Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission is hereby requested to approve
the proposed "Lackyard Annexation" which includes annexation of 28.15 acres more or
less, and detachment from the Woodbridge Rural Fire Protection District, the
Woodbridge Irrigation District, and the San Joaquin County Resource Conservation
District as described in Exhibit A attached hereto. This is all subject to the
aforementioned terms and conditions.
Dated: November 6, 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 2002-218 was passed and adopted by the
City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held November 6, 2002 by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Hitchcock, Howard, Land,
Nakanishi, and Mayor Pennino
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None
SUSAN J. BLACKSTON
City Clerk
2002-218
V -L -L4 -L -U-1 I I I I IN
VICINITY MAP
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Joaquin
I am a citizen. of the United States and a resident of
{ the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the
printer of the Lodi News -Sentinel, a newspaper of
general circulation, printed and published daily,
except Sundays and holidays, in the City of Lodi,
California, County of San Joaquin and which news-
paper has been adjudged a newspaper of general
circulation by the Superior Court, Department 3, of
i the County of San Joaquin, State of California,
under the date of ivtav 26th, 1953. Case Number
65990; that the notice of which the annexed is a
printed copy (set in type not smaller than non-
pareil), has been published in each regular and
entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates to -wit::
October 19
..................................................................................
all in the year ........ 2.R0.2........
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at Lodi, California, this ..........1....9
.... of
................... O,ct.oher.................... 20.02.........................
:1.:- j..........�.:�......................
5ippnature
O
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
REG:li
►.it
2002 0CT 4 -
CIT y
CITY
Proof of Publication of
Public Hearing -Plan Amendment and
........................................................................................................
Pre -zoning For 1243, 1301, 1335, and
1477 East Harney Lane
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on
Wednesday, November 6, 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
Forufh, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, to con-
sider the following matter:
a) Planning Commission's recommendation
of approval to the City Council for a General
Plan Amendment and Prezoning for 1243,
1301, 1335, and 1477 East Harney Lane;
the General Plan Amendment is from PR,
Planned Residential to LDR, Low Density
Residential, and the Prezoning from San
Joaquin County AU -20 to R-2, Single Family
Residential; the request also includes a rec-
ommendation that the City Council certify
Negative Declaration ND -02-04 as adequate
environmental documentation for the project
and initiate annexation of the properties Into
the City.
Information regarding this item may be
obtained in the office of the Community
Development Department Director, 221
West Pine Street, Lodi, California. All inter-
ested 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 b 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 also 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:Octobef 16, 2002 "
Approved as to form:
Randall A. Hays
City Attorney
Oct. 19, 2002 —4838
'UBLICATION
CITY OF LORI NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Date: November 6, 2002
Carnegie Forum
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, November 6, 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 of approval to the City Council for a General Plan
Amendment and Prezoning for 1243, 1301, 1335, and 1477 East Harney Lane; the General Plan
Amendment is from PR, Planned Residential to LDR, Low Density Residential, and the Prezoning
from San Joaquin County AU -20 to R-2, Single Family Residential; the request also includes a
recommendation that the City Council certify Negative Declaration ND -02-04 as adequate
environmental documentation for the project and initiate annexation of the properties into the City.
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: October 16, 2002
Approved as to form:
Randall A. Hays
City Attorney
J:NCITYCLRKSFORMSWolcddplan2.doc 10116/02
DECLARATION OF POSTING
SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR NOVEMBER 6, 2002 TO CONSIDER THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR A
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND PREZONING FOR 1243, 1301, 1335, AND 1477 EAST
HARNEY LANE
On Thursday, October 17, 2002 in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, a
copy of the Public Hearing Notice referenced above (and attached hereto, marked
Exhibit "A") 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 October 17, 2002 at Lodi, California.
Patricia Ochoa
Administrative Clerk
forms\decpost.doc
ORDERED BY:
SUSAN J. BLACKSTON
CITY CLERK
Jennifer M. Perrin
Deputy City Clerk
�y � �Op
U DECLARATION OF MAILING
SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR NOVEMBER 6, 2002 TO CONSIDER THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR A GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT AND PREZONING FOR 1243, 1301, 1335, AND 1477 EAST HARNEY LANE
On October 17, 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 notice
of public hearing as referenced above, 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.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on October 17, 2002, 2002, at Lodi, California.
ORDERED BY:
PATRICIA OCHOA
ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK
Focros/decmail.doc
ORDERED BY:
SUSAN BLACKSTON
CITY CLERK, CITY OF LODI
JENNIFER M. PERRIN
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
1243, 1301, 1335 & 1477 East Harney Lane
1) 05823012;NEPOTE, GUISEPPE 0 EST ;1477 E HARNEY LN ;LODI ;CA;95240
2) 05821029;HARNEY DEVELOPMENT LLC ;777 S HAM LN SUITE L ;LODI
;CA;95242
3) 05823019;CENTURY BUILDING PARTNERS I LP;3247 W MARCH LN SUITE 220
;STOCKTON ;CA;95219
4) 05842047;RUIZ, STEPHEN D & JOLIE M ;1968 JAMESTOWN DRIVE ;LODI
;CA;95242
5) 05842048;BAUMGARTNER, MARY JO ;1974 JAMESTOWN DR ;LODI ;CA;95242
6) 05845022;BIANCHI, PATRICIA A ;PO BOX 696 ;GALT ;CA;95632
7) 05845023;VILLATA, FRANK J & ONNA LEE ;2329 PORTMOUTH DR ;LODI
;CA;95242
8) 05845024;RODRIGUEZ, RUBEN A ;2323 PORTSMOUTH DR ;LODI ;CA;95242
9) 05845025;PRICE, ARTHUR B & BARBARA A ;2317 PORTSMOUTH DR ;LODI
;CA;95242
10) 05845026;MEURRIER, MICHELLE ;2316 S MILLS AVE ;LODI ;CA;95242
11) 05845027;DIXON, HISAE ;2322 S MILLS AVE ;LODI ;CA;95242
12) 05845028;GUERRERO, TINA M ;2328 MILLS AVE ;LODI ;CA;95242
1 3) 05845029;BIAGI, DAVID & LINDA ;2334 S MILLS AVE ;LODI ;CA;95242
14) 05823013;ANUNDSON, PAMELA;1320 E HARNEY LN;LODI;CA;95240
1 5) 05809001;TAMURA, S T & E TRS ETL ;1220 E HARNEY LANE ;LODI
;CA;95242
16) 05809002;TANABE, JOYCE T ETAL ;1040 W KETTLEMAN LN 1B PMB 308
;LODI ;CA;95240
17) 05809003;EVERITT, RAYMOND E TR ;1320 E HARNEY LN ;LODI ;CA;95242
18) 05809004;MANASSERO, MICHAEL & PATRICIA ;1490 E HARNEY LN ;LODI
;CA;95242
19) 05810021;PERRIN RANCH LLC ;18989 N DAVIS RD ;LODI ;CA;95242
20) 05823017;AWNALLAH, ALI MOSSED ;1443 E HARNEY LA ;LODI ;CA;95240
21) L.P Properties, 6280 Amanda Court, Stockton, CA 95212
22) Susan Lackyard, 1477 E. Harney Lane, Lodi, CA 95242
23) Kenneth Tate Jr., 1243 Harney lane, Lodi, CA 95242