HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - November 6, 2002 G-04 PHCITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
AGENDA T1TLE: Conduct public hearing to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval to
the City Council for an Annexation, General Plan Amendment and Prezoning for 13814 Lower
Sacramento Road and a 4 -acre portion of 302 East Highway 12. The General Plan Amendment
for 13814 Lower Sacramento Road is from PR, Planned Residential to LDR, Low Density
Residential, and the prezoning from R -VL (County), Residential Very Low Density to R -LD,
Residential Low Density. The General Plan Amendment for 302 East Highway 12 is from PR,
Planned Residential to PQP, Public/Quasi Public, and the prezoning from AU -20 (County),
Agriculture -Urban Reserve to PUB, Public. The request also includes a recommendation that
the City Council certify Negative Declaration ND -02-07 as adequate environmental
documentation for this project.
MEETING DATE: November 6, 2002
PREPARED BY: Mark Meissner, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council approve the Planning Commission's
recommendation for an Annexation, General Plan Amendment and
Prezoning for 13814 Lower Sacramento Road and a 4 -acre portion of 302
East Highway 12. The General Plan Amendment for 13814 Lower
Sacramento Road is from PR, Planned Residential to LDR Low Density Residential, and the prezoning from R -VL
(County), Residential Very Low Density to R -LD, Residential Low Density. The General Plan Amendment for 302
East Highway 12 is from PR, Planned Residential to PQP, Public/Quasi Public, and the prezoning from AU -20
(County), Agriculture -Urban Reserve to PUB, Public. There is also the request that the City Council approve the
recommendation of the Planning Commission to certify Negative Declaration ND -02-07 as adequate environmental
documentation for this project.
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 from the City Council of the requested actions above. At this meeting
staff explained that the proposed areas of annexation include two non-
contiguous parcels with separate requests and separate applicants. The two items were presented to the Planning
Commission as one in order.to reduce the application fees charged by the City and by the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO), whose jurisdiction it is to approve annexations.
The first of the two project areas is referred to as the Van Ruiten and Zunino (VR&Z) parcel. The VR&Z property is a
3.92 -acre parcel at 13814 Lower Sacramento Road, which is approximately 1,000 -feet north of the intersection of
Harney Lane on the east side of the road. This project site is bounded by the DeBenedetti Park to the north, an existing
rural residence and cherry orchard across Lower Sacramento Road in the County to the west, a future Lodi Unified
Elementary School to the east, and the Sunnyside Estates single-family residential subdivision in the County to the
south.
The General Plan Amendment will change the existing General Plan designation of PR, Planned Residential, to LDR,
Low Density Residential for the VR&Z property. The subsequent zoning change will be from R -VL, Residential Very
Low Density to R -LD, Residential Low Density. This zoning designation would be consistent with the General Plan.
APPROVED•
H. Dixon Flynn -- eity Manager
substation council set report.doc 10/29/02
Council Communication
Meeting Date: November 6, 2002
Page 2
The second project area is a City -owned property that the City's Electrical Utility Department will be developing as an
electrical substation, and is referred to in this document as the City property. This property is a 4 -acre parcel at 320
East Highway 12, which is approximately a quarter -mile west of the intersection of Lower Sacramento Road on the
south side of the highway. This project site is bounded by undeveloped agricultural land across Hwy. 12 in the County
to the north, undeveloped agricultural land in the County to the west and south, and a future shopping center in the
City to the east and northeast.
The General Plan Amendment will change the existing designation of PR, Planned Residential, to PQP, Public/Quasi
Public for the substation property. The zoning designation for the substation would change from AU -20, Agriculture
Urban Reserve to PUB, Public. The PUB zoning designations is consistent with their proposed General Plan land use
designation for the site.
No other policies of the General Plan will be impacted by either of the proposed amendments. The proposed
development of the VR&Z property on Lower Sacramento Road is residential at a density at or less than 7 -units per
acre or a maximum of 27 dwelling units, and the City property on Kettleman Lane will develop as an electrical
substation.
The two project areas share the same General Plan designation of PR, Planned Residential which is defined 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 and PQP, Public/Quasi
Public amendments are consistent with PR as defined. In addition, we find that the subsequent zoning designations of
R -LD, residential low density and PUB, Public are consistent with the proposed General Plan land use designations.
One of the recommended actions of the City Council is to certify that the attached negative declaration is adequate
environmental documentation for this project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 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 no significant impacts.
Statements to attest to this are provided in the attached document.
The Planning Commission found that that the proposed annexations are logical extensions of the City's boundary's,
that the project areas are contiguous to the existing City limits, and that the City has anticipated annexing the land from
the County as evidenced by its PR, Planned Residential General Plan land use designation. Furthermore, that the City
has planned and is prepared to provide services to these areas.
FUNDING: None required
Konradt Bartlam
Community Development Director
Prepared by: Mark Meissner, Associate Planner
(1)
MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Community Development Department
To: Planning Commission
From: Community Development Department
Date: September 12, 2002
Subject: The request of VR&Z Partnership and the City of Lodi Electric Utility Department for
the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval to the City Council for an
Annexation, General Plan Amendment and Prezoning for 13814 Lower Sacramento Road
and 4 -acre portion of 302 East Highway 12. The General Plan Amendment for 13814
Lower Sacramento Road is from PR, Planned Residential to LDR, Low Density
Residential; and the prezoning from R -VL (County), Residential Very Low Density to R -
LD, Residential Low Density. The General Plan Amendment for 302 East Highway 12 is
from PR, Planned Residential to PQP, Public/Quasi Public, and the prezoning from AU -
20 (County), Agriculture -Urban Reserve to PUB, Public. The request also includes a
recommendation that the City Council certify Negative Declaration ND -02-07 as
adequate environmental documentation for this project.
SUMMARY
The proposed areas of annexation include two non-contiguous parcels in the County totaling 7.92 acres.
The Van Ruiten & Zunino (VR&Z) property is a 3.92 -acre parcel at 13814 Lower Sacramento Road,
which is approximately 1,000 -feet north of the intersection of Harney Lane on the east side of the road.
This project site is bounded by the DeBenedetti Park to the north, an existing rural residence and cherry
orchard across Lower Sacramento Road in the County to the west, a future Lodi Unified Elementary
School to the east, and the Sunnyside Estates single-family residential subdivision in the County to the
south.
The City of Lodi substation property is a 4 -acre parcel at 320 East Highway 12, which is approximately a
quarter -mile west of the intersection of Lower Sacramento Road on the south side of the highway. This
project site is bounded by undeveloped agricultural land across Hwy. 12 in the County to the north,
undeveloped agricultural land in the County to the west and south, and a future shopping center in the
City to the east and northeast.
The General Plan Amendments will change the existing General Plan designation of PR, Planned
Residential, to LDR, Low Density Residential for the VR&Z property, and PQP, Public/Quasi Public for
the City property. The subsequent zoning changes will be from R -VL, Residential Very Low Density to
R -LD, Residential Low Density for the VR&Z property, and AU -20, Agriculture Urban Reserve to PUB,
Public for the City property. Both R -LD and PUB zoning designations are consistent with their proposed
General Plan land use designations. The proposed development of the VR&Z property is residential at a
density at or less than 7 -units per acre or a maximum of 27 dwelling units, and the City property will
develop as an electrical substation (See Vicinity Map.)
BACKGROUND
As stated in a previous staff report memo, 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 relative elements to the
AX-02-02.doc
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 was also adopted in 1991. This ordinance has designated the VR&Z property with a Priority
Area 2 status and the City property as Priority Area 3, which is inconsequential because the City property
will not develop as residences. As you may already know, the priority areas are established based on a
land areas ability to connect to existing utilities and its adjacency to existing or planned development.
There are three levels of priority, one being the highest and three being the lowest.
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
and PQP, Public/Quasi Public amendments are consistent with PR as defined. In addition, we find that
the subsequent zoning designations of R -LD, residential low density and PUB, Public are consistent with
the proposed General Plan land use designations.
Residential Low Density (R -LD) zoning may not be familiar to the Planning Commission because low-
density projects are usually approved under an R-1 or R-2 zoning designation. The difference is that R -
LD zoning allows one family to four family dwellings with the stipulation that for every multi -family
structure there is at least one single family home. Furthermore, the whole development could be single-
family homes if desired. The density or placement of multi family units is established during the
subdivision map approval, and may not exceed seven units per acre as restricted by the Low Density
Residential General Plan land use designation. Staff finds this zoning to be an effective way of
increasing density and providing a variety of housing types and opportunities within a development. The
few existing developments in Lodi that are zoned R -LD can be found on Kenway Court on the west side
of South Mills Avenue just north of West Lodi Avenue, the western half of the Mokelumne Village
subdivision north of East Turner Road at the north end of Stockton Street, and on Huntington Drive just
west of South Ham Lane off of West Tokay Street.
The City's Growth Management Ordinance requires staff to appropriately time the annexation of new
land for residential development; staff finds the VR&Z project area request is appropriate. This land has
been designated Priority Area 2 and is adjacent to pending development on two sides and existing
development on its south side. With the small amount of undeveloped acreage left in either priority 1 or
2, further development of land within priority area 2 is more likely, and development within priority area
3 is imminent. As lands within Priority Area 1 develop, the infrastructure required to develop land
within Priority Areas 2 and 3 become available.
In the case of the VR&Z property, its development is contingent on the completion of the wastewater lift
station being installed at the intersection of Mills Avenue and Harney Lane and the widening of Lower
Sacramento Road between Kettleman Lane and Harney Lane to 4 lanes with a raised median. The
widening is scheduled for July of 2003 as well as the connection of Century Boulevard to Lower
Sacramento Road.
Annexation is the first step in the development process for this parcel. The Planning Commission will
have the opportunity to review the development of the project site in detail when application is made for
growth management development plan review and building permit allocation request, and subsequently
AX-02-02.doc
during tentative subdivision map review. The soonest the City can accept an application for growth
management development plan review and allocation is May of 2003. Typically, development plans are
approved and allocated November of the same year, and the tentative subdivision maps are approved
early the following year. With the typical time frame, the earliest staff would expect this site to develop
is around the middle of 2004. During that time, development of the school site to the east and
DeBenedetti Park to the north should be under way with the improvements to Lower Sacramento Road
completed.
As far as the City property is concerned, the electrical substation parcel is within a rapidly urbanizing
area of Lodi. The City of Lodi is currently processing plans for a large shopping center immediately east
of this site. To the north, across Kettleman Lane, the City is reviewing plans for another large shopping
center and a single-family subdivision. These developments are within the Westside Facilities Master
Plan a public facilities plan for 390 acres of planned growth in Lodi. As such, the substation is
strategically located to accommodate Lodi's planned growth in this area of its current Sphere of
Influence.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 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 no significant impacts. Statements to
attest to this are provided in the attached document.
The loss of agricultural land classified as Prime Farmland is a concern of Lodi's; however, the
development of both parcels is considered less than significant under the Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment model (LESA) developed by the State Department of Conservation. Therefore, no
mitigation is required for either project area. Staff finds that the attached negative declaration (ND -02-
07) is adequate environmental documentation for the project.
Staff finds that the proposed annexations are logical extensions of the City's boundary's. The project
areas are contiguous to the existing City limits and the City has anticipated annexing the land from the
County as evidenced by its PR, Planned Residential General Plan land use designation. Furthermore, the
City has planned and is prepared to provide services to these areas.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommends approval to the City Council of the request
of VR&Z Partnership and the City of Lodi Electric Utility for their requested Annexations, General Plan
Amendments, and Prezonings for 13814 Lower Sacramento Road and 320 East Highway 12, and a
recommendation that the City Council certify Negative Declaration ND -02-07 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
Respectf Submitted, Reviewed and Concur,
Mark M issner J.D. Hightower
Associate Planner City Planner
MGM
AX-02-02.doc
CITY OF LODI
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
MEETING DATE:
September 12, 2002
APPLICATION NO'S:
Van Ruiten & Zunino Annexation, AX -02-02
Rezone No. Z-02-05
General Plan Amendment, GPA -LU -02-05.
REQUEST:
The request of VR&Z Partnership and the City of Lodi Electric Utility
Department for the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval to the City Council for an Annexation, General Plan
Amendment and Prezoning for 13814 Lower Sacramento Road and 4 -
acre portion of 302 East Highway 12. The General Plan Amendment
for 13814 Lower Sacramento Road is from PR, Planned Residential to
LDR, Low Density Residential, and the prezoning from R -VL
(County), Residential Very Low Density to R -LD, Residential Low
Density. The General Plan Amendment for 302 East Highway 12 is
from PR, Planned Residential to PQP, Public/Quasi Public, and the
prezoning from AU -20 (County), Agriculture -Urban Reserve to PUB,
Public. The request also includes a recommendation that the City
Council certify Negative Declaration ND -02-07 as adequate
environmental documentation for this project.
LOCATION:
13814 Lower Sacramento Road & 320 East Highway 12 (058-230-03,
& 058-030-07)
APPLICANT:
VR&Z Partnership Lodi Electric Utility
4240 East Acampo Road 1331 South Ham Lane
Acampo, CA 95220 Lodi, CA 95242
OWNERS:
Parcel (058-230-03) Parcel (058-030-07)
VR&Z Partnership City of Lodi
4240 East Acampo Road c/o Office of the City Clerk
Acampo, CA 95220 221 West Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
Site Characteristics: The VR&Z Partnership property is a 3.92 -acre lot on the east side of
Lower Sacramento Road, approximately 1,000 feet north of the
intersection of Hamey Lane. This property is currently improved with
a single family dwelling unit and related farm buildings. The property
is contiguous to the existing City of Lodi city Iimits to the east and
north.
The City of Lodi Electrical Utility District substation site is a four -acre
site on the south side of Highway 12/Kettleman Lane, approximately
1290 feet west of the intersection of Lower Sacramento Road. This
site is adjacent to Lodi city limits to the west. The property is currently
vacant.
General Plan Designation: VR&Z Property: PR, Planned Residential (City); R -VL, Residential
Very Low Density (County)
City Property: PR, Planned Residential (City); AU -20, Agricultural
Urban Reserve (County).
Zoning Designation: VR&Z Property: R -VL, Residential Very Low Density (County)
City Property: AU -20, Agricultural Urban Reserve (County)
Property Size: Two non-contiguous parcels totaling 7.92 acres.
AX-02-02r.doc
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North: VR&Z Property: PUB, Public (City)
City of Lodi Site: AU -20, Agricultural Urban Reserve (County) & C -S, Commercial
Shopping (City)
South: VR&Z Property: R -VL, Residential Very Low Density (County)
City of Lodi Site: AU -20, Agricultural Urban Reserve (County)
East: VR&Z Property: R-2, Single Family Residential (City)
City of Lodi Site: AU -20, Agricultural Urban Reserve (County)
West: VR&Z Property: AU -20, Agricultural Urban Reserve (County)
City of Lodi Site: AU -20, Agricultural Urban Reserve (County)
Neiehborhood Characteristics:
VR&Z property: To the south of the project site is an urban subdivision, Sunnyside Estates that is
currently under San Joaquin County jurisdiction. Urban development is taking place immediately to
the east of the site with a planned Lodi Unified School District elementary school. To the north is the
planned DeBenedetti Park site that will be a forty-nine acre active park.
City of Lodi site: This parcel is within a rapidly urbanizing area of Lodi. The City of Lodi is
currently processing plans for a large shopping center immediately east of this site. To the north,
across Kettleman Lane, the City is reviewing plans for another large shopping center and a
single-family subdivision. These developments are within the Westside Facilities Plan a public
facilities plan for 390 acres of planned growth in Lodi.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS:
Negative Declaration ND -02-07 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 24 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 recommends approval to the City Council of the
request of VR&Z Partnership and the City of Lodi Electric Utility for their requested Annexations,
General Plan Amendments, and Prezonings for 13814 Lower Sacramento Road and 320 East
Highway 12, and a recommendation that the City Council certify Negative Declaration ND -02-07 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
AX-02-02r.doc
U
1O 3 Tiende Or.
J
r�
! E 1 e
HWY 12
KETTLEMAN LN
� 41,wL
O n
_ {parrei 1. En 4V 4
,-%
opine Q O.,(>
n v
1 9 ! R ! xs
w+
=r= -o _
cz:D CD
co
0 ® ✓
i) b
a
CENTURY BLVD
5
own
G d$�3i3 9:fEf?
o Basin ye a ow ire r }
: C
a
s` $ $$$$ rp t ie$6r99Zif
ur �
w
3 °
rrbro
$4is4
n £ i
len
L TT7 I HA N
£ $
VICINITY MAP
�ZOn1nGWawsnpnWME@Dwp, 06f89lM0Z 03:M.w R1, 3:0.995086
NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. ND -02-07
FOR
The annexation of the VR&Z Property and
future site of the Lodi Electrical Utility District
Substation
File No.: AX 02-02
APPLICANT: VR&Z Partnership and City of
Lodi
PREPARED BY:
CITY OF LODI
Community Development Department
P.O. BOX 3006
LODI, CA 95241
Date July 18, 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
PROJECTDESCRIPTION.....................................................................................................................3
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM..............................................................................................4
DETERMINATION:..............................................................................................................................10
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS...............................................................................................11
VICINITYMAP.....................................................................................................................................20
4
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR THE VR&Z PARTNERSHIP AND CITY OF LODI
ELECTRICAL UTILITY DISTRICT ADDITION TO LODI
The VR&Z Partnership and City of Lodi Electrical Utility District Addition to Lodi
comprises the annexation of two separate, non-contiguous properties to the City of Lodi.
Taken together, this proposed annexation total is 7.92 acres.
The VR&Z Partnership property is a 3.92 acre lot on the east side of Lower Sacramento
Road, approximately 100 feet north of the intersection of Kristen Court. The property has
a General Plan designation of Planned Residential with a maximum density of 7.0
dwelling units to the acre. This property is currently improved with a single family
dwelling unit and related farm buildings. The property is contiguous to the existing City
of Lodi city limits to the east and north. To the south is an urban subdivision, Sunnyside
Estates, that is currently under San Joaquin County jurisdiction. Urban development is
taking place immediately to the east of the site with a planned Lodi Unified School
District elementary school being located adjacent to the site. To the north is the planned
DeBenedetti Park site that will be a forty-nine acre active park. All needed utilities are
located in Lower Sacramento Road. Thus, the annexation of the VR&Z property is a
logical annexation with all needed services in the immediate area.
The City of Lodi Electrical Utility District substation site is a four acre site on the south
side of Highway 12/Kettleman Lane, approximately 1290 feet west of the intersection of
Lower Sacramento Road. This property, like the VR&Z property, has a General Plan
designation of Planned Residential. This site adjacent to Lodi city limits to the west. The
property is currently vacant. However, this parcel is within a rapidly urbanizing area of
Lodi. The City of Lodi is currently processing plans for a large shopping center
immediately east of this site. To the north, across Kettleman Lane, the City is reviewing
plans for another large shopping center and a single family subdivision. These
developments are within the Westside Facilities Plan a public facilities plan for 390 acres
of planned growth in Lodi. As such the substation is strategically located to
accommodate Lodi's planned growth in this area of its current Sphere of Influence.
Accompanying the annexation are General Plan Amendments and Pre -zoning for these
sites. The VR&Z site is proposed to have a General Plan Designation of Low Density
Residential and a Pre -Zoning designation of Residential -- Low Density (R -LD) which is
the implementing zone of the Low Density Residential General Plan Designation. The
substation site is proposed with a General Plan Designation of Public/Quasi-Public (PQP)
with a Pre -Zoning of Public (PUB). The Public zoning district is the implementing zone
of the Public/Quasi-Public General Plan designation. Thus the proposed Pre -Zonings are
consistent with the adopted City of Lodi Land Use Element of the General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project title:
VR&Z/City of Lodi Electrical Utility Addition to Lodi
2. Lead agency name and address:
City of Lodi -Community Development Department
Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241
3. Contact person and phone number:
J.D. Hightower
(209)333-6711
4. Project location:
Lodi, San Joaquin County, CA.;
Two sites, one site is on the east side of Lower Sacramento Road approximately 100 feet
north of the intersection of Kristen Court; second site is on the south side of Highway 12
approximately 1290 feet west of the intersection of Lower Sacramento Road.
5. Project sponsor's name and address:
VR&Z Partnership, 12620 North Davis Road, Lodi, CA 95242
City of Lodi, Electrical Utility District, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95241
6. General Plan designation: Both properties are currently "Planned Residential" (PR). The
VR&Z site is proposed to be amended to Low Density Residential under the Land Use Element
and the substation site is proposed to be amended to a Public/Quasi-Public desigation.
7. Zoning: VR&Z prezone to Low Density Residential (R -LD); City of Lodi prezone to PUB.
8. Description of project: See attached "Project Description"
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: VR&Z property: north future park site, south existing low
density residential land use currently under county jurisdiction, east future park site, west
existing single family residential under county jurisdiction and Planned Residential. City of
Lodi site: vacant land uses to north, south and east, agricultural vineyard/winery operation to
west.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: 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 0 Transportation/Circulation D Public Services
❑ Population and Housing ❑ Biological Resources [3 Utilities and Service Systems
DGeological Problems
0 Water
DAir Quality
❑ Energy and Mineral Resources
❑ Hazards
❑ Noise
❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance
, ..
❑ Aesthetics
❑ Cultural Resources
0 Recreation
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
❑
Potentially
❑ 0
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g.,
❑
❑
Significant
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
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people
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?
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
❑
O
❑ 0
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
❑
❑
❑
0
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or
❑
❑
❑
0
farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
❑ 0
g) Subsidence of land?
❑
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
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people
to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?
❑
❑
❑ 0
b) Seismic ground shaking?
❑
0
❑ 0
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
❑
O
❑ 0
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
❑
❑
❑ 0
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading or fill?
❑
❑
❑ 0
g) Subsidence of land?
❑
0
❑ 0
h) Expansive soils?
❑
❑
❑ 0
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
❑
❑
❑ 0
5
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
❑
Potentially
❑
0
air quality violation?
Significant
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
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
❑
❑
O
0
surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as
❑
❑
❑
0
flooding?
0
❑
13
0
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
0
❑
0
withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavation
❑
❑
❑
0
or through substantial loss of ground water recharge capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
❑
❑
0
0
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
0
0
0
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
❑
0
air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
❑
0
❑
0
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in
❑
❑
❑
0
climate?
d) Create objectionable odors?
❑
0
❑
0
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. mould the proposal result in:
All "No" Reference Source: See Project Description
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
0
❑
13
0
b) Hazards to safety from design feature, (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
0
❑
0
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
13
0
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g.,
❑
❑
❑
0
bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
❑
❑
❑
0
6
1
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not
limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds?
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal
habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal migration corridors?
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
Potentially
❑
❑
0
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less than
❑
Significant
mitigation
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
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
❑
❑
❑
0
evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard?
❑
❑
❑
0
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards?
❑
❑
0
0
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees?
❑
❑
❑
0
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?
❑
❑
p
0
b) Police protection?
13
0
p
EJf
c) Schools?
®
p
O
�(
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
❑
❑
❑
0
e) Other government services?
❑
❑
❑
0
7
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a
❑
Potentially
❑ 0
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following
❑
Significant
c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique
❑
utilide:s
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Significant
mitigation
Significant
No
impact area?
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
a) Power or natural gas?
❑
❑
❑
1(
b) Communications systems?
❑
❑
❑
0
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities?
❑
❑
❑
0
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
❑
❑
❑
0
e) Storm water drainage?
❑
❑
❑
0
f) Solid waste disposal?
❑
❑
❑
0
g) Local or regional water supplies?
❑
❑
❑
1z
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
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 0
recreational facilities?
b) Affect recreation opportunities?
❑
❑
0 0
8
T .
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless
Significant mitigation
Impact Incorporated
Less than
Significant No
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 of 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?
❑ ❑ ❑
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals?
❑ 0 0
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.
'❑
N
0 0 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 an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In case a discussion should identify the following or attached sheets.
a) Earlier analyses used.
1. June 1991. City of Lodi General Plan EIR
2. January 1993. Helmle Addition, Negative Declaration, File No., ND -93-01
3. February 1997. Sunwest XIV, Unit No. 1, Negative Declaration, File No., ND -97-01
b) Mitigation measures. See attached Summary for discussion.
9
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE declaration will be prepared.
❑ 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
measures that are imposed- on the proposed project
Signature: Date: 0
Printed Name: For: City of Lodi
10
Discussion of Land Use and Planning Finding
No Impact (a, b, c, e)
Both projects are consistent with their respective General Plan Designation of Planned
Residential in that the VR&Z project site is proposed to be prezoned "Low Density
Residential" (R -LD) while the City of Lodi Electrical Utility District site is proposed to
be prezoned as "Public Facility" (PUB). The VR&Z property is foreseen as being
developed within the density limit of 7 dwelling units per acre as mandated by the
General Plan. No variance from established City of Lodi adopted policies or standards
are being proposed by the project. Therefore, land use impacts created by the project are
expected to by minimal. The City of Lodi Electric Utility substation site is approximately
4 acres in size within the Planned Residential designation of the General Plan. The
Public Facility zone classification is allowed within this General Plan designation as this
document specifies that public and quasi -public uses are permissibel in Planned
Residential areas. Both proposed project areas would be compatible with adjacent land
uses in that the VR&Z property is adjacent to existing single family dwelling units and a
planned public park while the electrical substation site will be adjacent to planned
residential and commercial land uses. No structures are present on either site, therefore,
the projects are not expected to disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community. Some conflicts could arise from urban and agricultural
operations, however, in both cases this conflict will be less than significant. Minimizing
this impact on the VR&Z property is the City of Lodi's Right to Farm Ordinance which
requires full disclosure of agricultural operations to perspective homeowners. The
electrical substation site is considered compatible with planned residential land and
commercial land uses that are immediately existing agricultural operations. Thus the
impact upon agricultural operations resulting from the project is expected to be less than
significant.
Less than Significant (d)
Both sites are located on land identified as Prime Farmland by the United States
Department of Agriculture. The soil types for the VR&Z property is evenly split amongst
Tokay fine sandy loam and Tokay fine sandy loam, hardpan substratum. The soil at the
City of Lodi Electrical Utility District substation is classified as Tokay fine sandy loam.
Although this loss of a non-renewable resource is notable, the loss of this soil type is less
than significance for these particular cases. One factor reducing this impact is the scale of
the individual projects. At 3.92 and 4 acres respectively, neither project site is capable of
sustainable agricultural production. This non -sustainability is due to the already present
development pressure on these sites and urban/rural land use conflicts that will make
agricultural production infeasible in the future. The economic yield on a small acre farm,
tends to make capital investment necessary for continued agricultural operations
infeasible. Further protecting agricultural resources in the area is Lodi's historic efficient
use of land that minimizes loss of farmland. According to the 2000 Census, Lodi has
1,747 dwelling units per square mile and 4,657.9 people per square mile, well above the
county -wide averages of 1,163 and 3,430.2 respectively. This relatively intensive growth
m
pattern has and will continue to protect agricultural resources in the general area. To
insure sustainable agricultural interests in the area, the City of Lodi is in the process of
studying the formation of a community separator program with San Joaquin County. It is
anticipated that this effort will provide the necessary framework for long-term
agricultural production in the Lodi area. Thus, in these particular cases, the combined
loss of 8.92 acres of Prime Farmland soil is expected to be less than significant.
Discussion of Population and Housing Finding
No Impact (a, b, c)
Both projects are consistent with the General Plan designation of Planned Residential.
The VR&Z property will be developed at a maximum density of 7 dwelling units per
acre, or a maximum of 27 dwelling units on the site. The Electrical Utility District
substation site will not have an impact upon existing housing but rather will insure
service delivery in the area. Therefore, the project will not exceed regional or local
population projections. Due relatively small scale of these project sites with a combined
theoretical limit of 27 units and the existing development in the area, no new major
infrastructure extension will be needed to service the VR&Z project site. Therefore,
neither project will induce substantial growth in the Lodi area either directly or indirectly.
There are no dwelling units on the substation site, however, there is one on the VR&Z
project site. No determination has been made as to whether this dwelling unit would be
destroyed to facilitate future development of the site. The annexation in itself will not
require demolition of this dwelling unit. Therefore, neither project site is foreseen as
displacing or dividing a community.
Discussion of Geologic Problems Finding
No Impact: a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i
In general Lodi is considered to be an area of relatively low seismicity in a state characterized by
moderate -to -high seismic activity. There are several fault zones within San Joaquin County and
neighboring counties that could affect proposed project. These include the concealed Tracy -Stockton
Fault approximately 12 miles to the southwest and the concealed Midland Fault zone, approximately 20
miles to the west. The Melones Fault is 36 miles to the east, and the Green Valley -Concord and
Hayward faults are 46 and 52 miles, respectively to the west. Therefore, no impacts created by fault
rapture are expected as a result of the project. The project area is located in Seismic Area 3 pursuant to
the Uniform Building Code. Pursuant to the routine implementation of City of Lodi policy, all proposed
structures shall be built in accordance with the Uniform Building Code for this seismic area. Therefore
no impacts resulting from ground shaking is expected as a result of this project. The soil type within the
project area is classified as Tokay fine sandy loam, hardpan substratum. This soil classification has a
fair strength value according to the AASHO standard. Therefore, no seismic ground failure is expected
as a result of this project. The nearest waterbody to the project site is the Mokelumne River,
approximately 2 miles north of the site. Therefore, no impacts associated with the risk of upset created
12
by seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazards are expected as a result of this project. In addition to a fair
AASHO strength standard, the Tokay fine sandy loam in the area has a low shrink -swell potential,
making the soil suitable for cutting or filling. Given the close proximity of the Mokelumne River, no
impacts created by the subsidence of land are expected with this project. Neither the Tokay fine sandy
loam or Tokay fine sandy loam with hardpan substrate are expansive soil types nor are there any unique
geologic or physical features present on either project site.
Discussion of Water Finding
No Impact: b, c, d, e, f, g,h,I
Both sites are within Zone X of the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Map,
Community Panel Number 060300 0001 E prepared on May 7, 2002. Zone X reflects
areas within the 500 year flood; areas of 100 year flood with average depths of less than 1
foot. This reflects the distance from the Mokelumne River which is approximately 2
miles north of substation site and 3 miles from the VR&Z project site. Thus neither
project is expected to expose people or property to water related hazards such as flooding.
Both project sites will drain into the "G" Basin for storm water management. This basin
allows for storm water collection and then pumps the storm water through a meter into
Woodbridge Irrigation District canals which in turn transports the water to the San
Joaquin Delta. This process aerates the water and removes turbidity without an increase
in the temperature of the water. Therefore, the project is not expected to alter the surface
water quality of the Delta. Because stormwater is metered into Woodbridge Irrigation
District pipelines, the project is not expected to change the amount of surface water in
any water body. There is no water body present on either site, therefore, the projects will
not result in the change of currents or the course or direction of water movement.
Because of the relatively small size of the two projects 3.92 and 4 acres respectively, the
projects will have an imperceptible change of the quantity of groundwater available in the
area. The substation site will only use ground water for landscape irrigation while the
VR&Z site could foreseeably require up to approximately 3,240 gallons of water per day
(120 gallons per dwelling unit per day X 27 maximum dwelling units). The City of Lodi'
water system currently has capacity to service these requirements. Therefore, no impact
to the quantity of ground water is expected as a result of this project. Although
cumulatively these impacts may be significant, the water supply available to the City of
Lodi has matched the historic growth rate of I% over the past twenty years. The
groundwater basin in the area generally flows towards the south because of the over -
drafting of water in the Stockton area. This project will not alter this general movement
of groundwater. Adherence to standard engineering practice will reduce the risk factor
associated with hazardous waste and quality impacts associated with storm water runoff.
Expected storm run-off quantities are expected to be mitigated though the scrubbing
process associated with the city's storm water collection system. Therefore, no impacts
to groundwater quality are expected as a result of this project. Because of the project's
consistency with the general plan, the project is not expected to result in a substantial
reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public use.
13
Discussion of Air Ouality Findin
Less than Significant: a, b, c, d
The proposed substation is not expected to generate less than one trip per day, as the only
trips generated by this use will be for maintenance purposes only. The proposed VR&Z
annexation would at the maximum lead to the construction of 27 dwelling units and 270
projected Average Daily Trips. This figure falls under the threshold of the Small Project
Analysis Level set by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. In
the Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, Table 5-2, the District sets a
standard of 1,453 Average Daily Trips; and Table 5-3 sets a standard of 152 units as the
threshold for projects that require further investigation and evaluation. Therefore, neither
proposed project is expected to have a less than significant impact to the existing air
quality violation that the District currently experiences with Ozone and PM10 standards.
The proposed project is further from any of the listed uses on Table 4-2 of the Guidelines,
therefore, the project is not expected to expose people to pollutants or odors. Neither
project is expected to significantly alter air movement patterns as the resulting height and
bulk of structures in both project areas will not be significant. Ambient temperature
levels could raise due to heat generated by electrical transformers and paving of streets in
the area. However, substation will have significant landscaping around the perimeter of
the site helping reduce ambient heat. The VR&Z Partnership project could lead to the
paving of new streets which in turn could increase the ambient heat of the immediate
area. The routine implementation of the City of Lodi street standards that specify street
trees as part of the routine construction of new streets. The shading created by the street
trees is expected to reduce the temperature change to a level of less than significant.
Neither of the proposed project is expected to create any objectionable odors.
Discussion of Traffic/Circulation Findin
No Impact: a, b c, d, e, f, g
Neither project will generate a significant amount of traffic. The electrical substation will generate less
than one average daily trip as the only trips generated by the site will be maintenance related. The
VR&Z Partnership project will produce at maximum 270 average daily trips. Neither project will create
situations that violate driver expectations nor create traffic hazards. The project is approximately two
miles from Fire Station #3 and 1.3 miles from Fire Station #4. The Fire Department has a response time
goal of three minutes and this site is within a three minute response time from either of these two
stations. The Lodi Police Department provides beat service to the area and has a service goal of 3 to 40
minutes. The routine implementation of the City of Lodi Police and Fire fee ordinances will mitigate
any impact to these emergency response providers. Therefore the project will not result in inadequate
emergency access or prevent emergency access to other nearby uses. The substation will be accessible
from Kettleman Lane and maintenance vehicles will be able to park to maintain the station. However,
no striped and dedicated off-street parking spaces are required for this use. The parking demand created
by the foreseeable development of the VR&Z project site will be mitigated through the routine
implementation of the Zoning Ordinance. City standards require two off-street parking spaces for each
14
dwelling unit, these spaces plus the driveway provide each lot with four off-street parking spaces.
Therefore, the project will not result in insufficient parking capacity either onsite or offsite. Routine
implementation of the City of Lodi traffic standards will mitigate pedestrian circulation impacts created
by each project. The substation is not seen as an activity generator, hence routine street frontage
improvements that include curb, gutter and sidewalk will mitigate any impacts to pedestrian circulation
or create transit demand. The VR&Z project area is directly serviced by SMART Route #20 and is
adjacent to a future park site. Thus the VR&Z project, by complying with adopted City policies, will not
impact pedestrian circulation. This area is serviced by existing transit service and complies with City of
Lodi alternative transportation policies. There are no rail or waterborne transportation facilities in the
area, thus no conflicts are expected with these forms of transportation. The substation site is not a noise
sensitive receptor, and the VR&Z project site is not located within a noise contour or regular flight path
of an airport. Therefore, no impacts to air traffic is expected as a result of this project.
Discussion of Biological Resources Finding
Less than Significant Impact: a, b, c, d, e
The proposed projects are 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.sicog.org. The substation is located within pay area "C" while the VR&Z Partnership
project is within an exempt pay zone.
Discussion ofEnerry and Mineral Resources Finding
No Impact a, b, c
The electrical substation is consistent with the master electrical utility plan for Lodi. As
such, the substation is consistent with local energy conservation plans. The routine
implementation of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code insure that the
proposed dwelling units, that are a foreseeable result of the VR&Z Partnership project,
are consistent with energy conservation standards of the City of Lodi. The conversion of
agricultural land represents a loss of a non-renewable resource, however, this loss was
anticipated within the General Plan of the City and the project proposes a maximum
density of 7.0 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, the loss of a non-renewable resource is
not in a wasteful or inefficient manner. There are no known mineral deposits on either
site, therefore, the project will not result in a loss of availability of any known mineral
resource.
15
Discussion of Hazards Findinie
No Impacts: a, b, c, d, e
The design of the electrical substation adhere to best engineering practices and be
constructed to all federal, state and local codes. The routine implementation of design
and construction standards are expected to manage the risk factors associated with
electrical operations to a level beneath significant. The VR&Z proposed annexation
could potentially result in the construction of 27 dwelling units. These dwelling units are
not expected to result in an increase of risk associated with an explosion or release of
hazardous substances. The routine implementation of the Police and Fire impact fee will
insure that the VR&Z project will not interfere with emergency response plans in the
area. Upset conditions may arise from periodic flood conditions resulting from the
Mokelumne River, however this river is approximately three miles north of both sites and
neither project is not expected to impact an identified evacuation route.
Discussion of Noise Finding
No Impact: b
The electrical substation is not a noise sensitive receptor or a significant noise generator.
The VR&Z project is located off of Lower Sacramento Road. The annexation in itselt
will not generate additional ambient noise in the area. The Noise Element of the General
Plan states that the noise level on Lower Sacramento Road is expected to be 65 to 70 dB
100 feet from the centerline of Lower Sacramento Road. After dedicated improvements,
the centerline of Lower Sacramento Road will be 85 feet from the nearest property. After
taking into account the required 20 foot setback from property line in the residential
zoning district, the nearest structure will be approximately 95 to 105 feet from the
centerline of Lower Sacramento Road. This makes the proposed residential Iand use
normally unacceptable pursuant to the Noise Element of the General Plan. However,
there is an existing residence on the property and future development may or may not
require this structure to be demolished or relocated. The Noise Element requires that the
City find that the proposed residential land use "will not create or significantly contribute
to noise problems on other properties." In this case, there is an existing residence on the
property and there are existing residential land uses immediately south of the project site
on Lower Sacramento Road, therefore, the project will not significantly contribute to
noise problems in the area and will not expose people to severe noise levels.
Discussion of Public Services Findiniz
No Impact a, b, c, d, e
The routine implementation of City of Lodi ordinances regarding the construction and/or
payment of appropriate facilities and impact fees will insure that adequate public services
are available at the time of occupancy of the first permit on the VR&Z property. The
electrical substation is not seen as increasing the demand for any public service.
16
Discussion of Utilities and Service Systems Finding
No Impact: a, b, c, d, e, f, g
The electrical substation is consistent with the master facilities plan for the Electrical
Utility District. The facility is necessary to insure consistent service delivery. As such
the substation plays an important role in the overall customer service plan for the City of
Lodi. The VR&Z annexation is located on the east side of Lower Sacramento Road. The
annexation in itself will not generate a need for additional utilities in the area. The
foreseeable impact created by a maximum of 27 units is expected to be less than
significant. This is because all utilities are present in Lower Sacramento Road with
existing urban land uses taking place immediately north and south of the site. Pacific Gas
and Electric provides gas in the area; Pacific Bell supplies communications; AT&T
provides cable television while the City of Lodi provides all other utility services either
directly or through contractual services. Therefore, no substantial alterations to utility
systems will be required as a result of this project.
Discussion of Aesthetics Finding
No Impact: a, b
The proposed electrical substation is located approximately 1,290 feet west of the intersection of State
Highway 4 and Lower Sacramento Road. As such the substation is in a very visible location of the City.
While a electrical substation has a potential to negatively impact the aesthetics of an area, it will not in
this particular case. The actual size of the substation will be approximately three acres in size. The four
acre parcel was selected so that a significant amount of landscaping could be added around the site. The
landscaping will soften the view of the electrical substation and is anticipated to screen from general
view the equipment within the substation. Neither of Lower Sacramento Road or State Highway 12 are
classified as scenic highways. The general view towards the west from both sites is agricultural with
Mount Diablo in the southwest background. From the substation there are existing urban land uses to
the east, agricultural land to the north, and agricultural land towards the south. At the VR&Z project the
view to the north and east is towards a future park and urban land uses, to the south urban land use.
Thus, no impacts to scenic vistas are expected as a result of either project. The annexations will not lead
to an increase in ambient light in their respective areas. The electrical substation will have exterior
lights for necessary night work. This impact will be mitigated through the landscaping area discussed
above. The VR&Z project could foreseeable result in the need for additional lights. The routine
implementation of the City of Lodi adopted street lighting standards will mitigate this impact by insuring
minimal spillover of light beyond the public right-of-way.
17
Discussion of Cultural Resources Findin-a
No Impact: a, b, c, d
Based on available information, it has been determined that no known paleontological or
archaeological resources exist on either site. There are no unique geologic conditions on
site that would suggest an impact to cultural values or religious or sacred uses that may
have occurred on the sites. If buried resources, such as chipped or ground stone, historic
debris, building foundations, or human bone, are inadvertently discovered during ground
disturbing activities, the routine implementation of City of Lodi standard policy will
mitigate impacts to cultural resources to a level less than significant. This standard policy
requires that work stop in the immediate area and within 100 feet of the find until a
qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. If necessary, the
archaeologist will develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City of
Lodi Public Works Department, State Office of Historic Preservation, and other
appropriate agencies. If human remains of Native American origin are discovered during
project construction, it will be necessary to comply with state laws relating to the
disposition of Native American burials, which fall within the jurisdiction of the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) (Public Resources Code, Section 5097). If any
human remains are discovered or recognized in any location other than a dedicated
cemetery, there will be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area
reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until:
1. The San Joaquin County Coroner has been informed and has determined that no
investigation of the cause of death is required; and
2. If the remains are of Native American origin:
a. The descendents of the deceased Native Americans have made a
recommendation to the landowner or the person responsible for the
excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate
dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in
Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98; or
b. NAHC was unable to identify a descendant or the descendant failed to
make a recommendation within 24 hours of being notified by the NAHC.
According to California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one
location constitute a cemetery (Section 8100), and disturbance of Native American
cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052). Section 7050.5 requires that construction or
excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner van
determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If the remains are
determined to be Native American, the coroner must contact NAHC. No human remains
are known to be located within the project site.
18
Discussion of Recreation Findin-a
No Impact: a, b
Neither site is identified as a potential park site within the general plan or any specific
plan. The electrical substation will not increase the demand for additional park land. The
annexation of the VR&Z property will not increase the demand for parkland. If
developed, the routine implementation of the City of Lodi impact fee program will insure
that the increased demand for recreational facilities are met. Additionally, the future
DeBennedetti Park is immediately adjacent to the site. It is anticipated that this park will
provide open space for this future development. Therefore, no impacts to recreational
opportunities are expected as a result of this project.
19
° f TJOWS Dr.
� Lt; _ f
� I[ ` f ... 777� -I f
f 3
mm
O
e
c
Basin
Ag
VICINITY MAP
Rt, 1:0.995Df6
fim
RESOLUTION NO. P.C. 02-36
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LODI
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST OF VAN RUITEN & ZUNINIO, AND
THE CITY OF LODI ELECTRIC UTILITY DEPARTMENT FOR GENERAL PLAN LAND
USE AMENDMENT 02-05 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 13814 Lower Sacramento Road & 320 East
Highway 12 (058-230-03, & 058-030-07);
WHEREAS, the project proponents are VR&Z Partnership, 4240 East Acampo Road,
Acampo, CA 95220 & Lodi Electric Utility, 1331 South Ham Lane, Lodi, CA 95242;
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 -02-07 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.
1. It is found that the parcels to be re -designated are the parcels located at 13814 Lower
Sacramento Road & 320 East Highway 12 (058-230-03, & 058-030-07).
2. It is found that the requested General Plan Land Use Amendments from PR, Planned
Residential to LDR, Low Density Residential & PQP, Public/Quasi Public provides for the
orderly development of the City and will serve sound Planning practice.
The proposed amendment to the Land Use Diagrarn of the General Pian is consistent with all
Elements of the General Plan; specifically the proposed amendments implement the
following policies:
A) Land Use and Growth Management Element - Goal C, Policy 1, in that the project will
annex 3.92 acres of residential land, which necessary to maintain an adequate supply of
housing to accommodate the City's 2 percent per year housing growth rate.
B) Land Use and Growth Management Element — Goal H, Policy 3, "The City shall
designate adequate, appropriately located land for quasi -public uses such as hospitals,
churches, private school facilities, and utility uses."
C) Housing Element - Goal A, Policy 9, in that the project is the first step of the adopted
approval process for this residential development.
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 1, in that the project has existing or pending
development on three sides including the Sunnyside Estates subdivision in the County to
Res0236.doc
the south, the DeBenedetti park to the north, and the Lodi Unified Elementary School to
the east.
F) Safety Element - Goal C, Policy 7, in that the nearest fire station to the VR&Z property
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.
3. It is hereby found that the project site is physically suitable for the proposed type of
development.
4. It is hereby found that the projects will have a less than significant impact on Prime
Farmland as defined by the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment system of the California
State Department of Conservation.
5. The Planning Commission of the City of Lodi hereby recommends approval of General Plan
Land Use Amendment 02-05 to the City Council of the City of Lodi.
6. 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. 02-36 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: Beckman, Haugan, White, and Chairman Heinitz
NOES: Commissioners: Phillips and Mattheis
ABSENT: Commissioners:
ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Crabtree
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
Res0236.doc 2
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DIAGRAM
07-OSdwp, 03/CW]002 313T:58 AM, 1:Q9816ii
LtULNL)
RESIDENTIAL:
LDR -LOW DENSITY RESID°NTIAL
MDR - MEDIUM DENSX RESiOENTIAL
HDR - HIGH DENSITY RESIDE"
ER - ASTSIDE RESIDENTMI
PR - PLANNED RESIDENTML
COMMERCIAL:
NCC - NEIGHBORHOOD/COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
CC - GENERAL COMMERCML
DC - DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL
0 - OFFICE
OTHER:
POP - PUBLIC/OVASI PUBLIC
DBP - DETENTION BASTNS AND PARKS
A - ACRICULTURE
RESOLUTION NO. P.C. 02-37
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LODI
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST OF VAN RUITEN & ZUNINIO, AND THE
CITY OF LODI ELECTRIC UTILITY DEPARTMENT FOR PREZONING Z-02-05 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 13814 Lower Sacramento Road & 320 East
Highway 12 (058-230-03, & 058-030-07);
WHEREAS, the project proponents are VR&Z Partnership, 4240 East Acampo Road,
Acampo, CA 95220 & Lodi Electric Utility, 1331 South Ham Lane, Lodi, CA 95242;
WHEREAS, the properties have zoning designations of R -VL, Residential Very Low Density, and
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 -02-07 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 13814 Lower Sacramento Road &
320 East Highway 12 (058-230-03, & 058-030-07).
3. It is found that the requested prezoning of R -LD, Residential Low Density and PUB, Public are not in
conflict with adopted plans or policies of the General Plan of the City and will serve sound PIanning
practice.
4. It is further found that the parcels of the proposed rezoning are physically suitable for the development
of a residential subdivision and electrical substation.
5. The Planning'Commission of the City of Lodi hereby recommends approval of Rezone Z-02-05 to the
City Council of the City of Lodi.
Dated: September 12, 2002
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 02-37 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: Beckman, Haugan, White, and Chairman Heinitz
NOES: Commissioners: Phillips and Mattheis
ABSENT: Commissioners:
ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Crabtree
ATTEST:
try,Planning Commission
LEGEND
• RESIDENTIAL ZONES:
4,•SPLSgN14Y
W.A Ct2SM�LY
S1P SOn•Ob1fIM
SG.G,SpSXXWTMFM
ShcD.wllOgy., 06tSITYWARfAWp
R•IIP WOIOSXSM WMAiXiI
/-0• nw•MD p(V /LO/buLvi
4f•- WgS.fANS.YRASiSpp
COMMERCIAL ZONES:
/c�nn/a�wornm
ucr-//oncsavX. on�caw.noe
C. •wcXwngoo
ci
ci. S„ornccr,ncrt
PROPOSED
ZONING
MAP
°TMZ°"�
�.X./�Xaa�
v.n000/wX
w/..:�nwaar mmsay, anwmai u:u:�3 a�, i:oa,c»
nn -nm,[
DRAFT
Minutes from September 12, 2002
The request of VR&Z Partnership and the City of Lodi Electric Utility Department
for the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval to the City Council for
an Annexation, General Plan Amendment and Prezoning for 13814 Lower
Sacramento Road and 4 -acre portion of 302 East Highway 12. The General Plan
Amendment for 13814 Lower Sacramento Road is from PR, Planned Residential to
LDR, Low Density Residential, and the prezoning from R -VL (County), Residential
Very Low Density to R -LD, Residential Low Density. The General Plan
Amendment for 302 East Highway 12 is from PR, Planned Residential to PQP,
Public/Quasi Public, and the prezoning from AU -20 (County), Agriculture -Urban
Reserve to PUB, Public. The request also includes a recommendation that the City
Council certify Negative Declaration ND -02-07 as adequate environmental
documentation for this project. This item was presented to the Commission by
Associate Planner Meissner. The areas of annexation included two non contiguous
parcels totaling 7.92 acres near the south west corner of Lodi. The Van Ruiten & Zunino
property is a 3.92 -acre parcel fronting Lower Sacramento Road and the City of Lodi
property is a 4 -acre parcel on East Highway 12. The proposed Van Ruiten & Zunino
property will be residential with a density of less than 7 -units per acre, and the City
property will develop as an electrical substation. Staff found the proposed annexations to
be logical extensions of the City's boundaries and the City is ready to provide services to
these parcels.
Commissioner Phillips asked why two separate non contiguous parcels were being
considered on the same application? Mr. Bartlam replied that the City was limited to the
number of General Plan Amendments it could entertain and when the environmental
document goes to LAFCO it will save thousands of dollars in application fees.
Commissioner Mattheis asked why the substation needed to be annexed into the City
when the sewer lift station located on Harney Lane was not located within the City limits.
Mr. Bartlam replied that it did not need to be annexed; however, it is in the City's Sphere
of Influence and General Plan. Commissioner Mattheis asked why the substation was
being located on Highway 12 within the public's view. Mr. Bartlam replied that the
location was determined because it will connect with existing power lines running along
Highway 12 rather than being pushed back into a residential neighborhoods. The
transmission lines could be placed underground but the cost would be too great.
Hearing Opened to the Public
John Zunino, 4240 E. Acampo Road, Acampo, CA. Mr. Zunino was in agreement to the
annexation; however he had a concern about the certification of the Negative Declaration
as it pertains to the substation. The Negative Declaration did not state the esthetics of the
transmission lines. His winery fronts onto Kettleman Lane and the transmission lines
would be esthetically damaging to his business.
Commissioner Phillips was very concerned about the location of the substation. Mr.
Bartlam replied that there were no new transmission lines being proposed. The
substation site will access the City's existing grid at the corner of Lower Sacramento
Road and Kettleman Lane. That grid will provide the power line, as it does now, to the
substation. There is an existing transmission line on the south side of Kettleman Lane
from Lower Sacramento Road to the substation. If transmission lines are proposed in the
future, it will require tthat a separate environmental document be prepared.
Hearing Opened to the Public
Mr. Kabota, 1500 Vista Drive, Lodi. Mr. Kabota wanted to know why his property
located next to 13814 Lower Sacramento Road was not included with the annexation.
Mr. Bartlam replied he had called Mr. Kabota and left a message, but he did not receive a
reply. He let Mr. Kabota know that he could be included in the next annexation in his
area.
Lace Nordwick, 895 Kirsten Court, Sunnyside Estates, Lodi. When Ms. Lace bought her
home, she was told that when the subject property developed, they too would be 1/3 acre
lots, which is the same as her property. She appreciates the City's water but felt several
issues such as traffic and the density of homes per lot needed to be addressed.
Floyd Nordwick, 895 Kirsten Court, Sunnyside Estates, Lodi. Mr. Nordwick emphasized
the point that the subject property is a very small piece of land and will become a
passageway to the new school. Traffic is very heavy on Lower Sacramento Road and he
wanted to keep the new homes compatible with the existing houses in the area.
Fred Vaugh, 805 Kirsten Court, Lodi. Mr. Vaugh bought his house with the impression
that the land next to them would develop as a low-density project. He asked that the
Commission keep the zoning of the proposed project low-density so the character of the
neighborhood remains unchanged.
Bill Neumann, 865 Kirsten Court, Lodi. Mr. Neumann has owned his home for 7 years
and would like to see a low-density project developed next to his property.
Colleen Donovan, 820 Mariposa Way, Lodi. Ms. Donovan was troubled by the location
of the substation. It is in the gateway to the City and will have a negative ascetic impact
to the area. She was concerned that the need for the substation was based on assumptions
made about what was going to happen on the big parcels located on the west side of
Lower Sacramento Road.
Hearing Closed to the Public
Commissioner Phillips felt that the two properties being annexed should not be
considered together and reviewed separately. Mr. Bartlam replied that a Resolution could
be drawn for each property if that was what the Commission wanted.
Commissioner Mattheis noted that the property located on Lower Sacramento Road
would be consistent with what is already out there. Mr. Bartlam pointed out that the low-
density designation of the City's General Plan constitutes a range of 0 to 6.99 units per
acre, which does not reflect what is already out there.
Commissioner Haugan made a motion to approve the request. This motion died for lack
of a second.
After a brief discussion the Planning Commission on motion of Commissioner Beckman,
Haugan second voted to approve the request of VR&Z Partnership and the City of Lodi
Electric Utility Department for the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval
to the City Council for an Annexation, General Plan Amendment and Prezoning for
13814 Lower Sacramento Road and 4 -acre portion of 302 East Highway 12. The General
Plan Amendment for 13814 Lower Sacramento Road is from PR, Planned Residential to
LDR, Low Density Residential, and the prezoning from R -VL (County), Residential Very
Low Density to R -LD, Residential Low Density. The General Plan Amendment for 302
East Highway 12 is from PR, Planned Residential to PQP, Public/Quasi Public, and the
prezoning from AU -20 (County), Agriculture -Urban Reserve to PUB, Public. The
request also includes a recommendation that the City Council certify Negative
Declaration ND -02-07 as adequate environmental documentation for this project by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Beckman, Haugan, White, and Chairman Heinitz
NOES: Commissioners: Phillips and Mattheis
ABSENT: Commissioners:
ABSTAIN: Commissioners Crabtree
ORDINANCE NO.
Z)RA&r
AN ORDINANCE OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE
OFFICIAL DISTRICT MAP OF THE CITY OF LODI AND THEREBY
PREZONING THE PARCEL LOCATED AT 13814 LOWER
SACRAMENTO ROAD (APN 058-230-03) FROM R -VL (COUNTY),
RESIDENTIAL VERY LOW DENSITY TO R -LD, RESIDENTIAL LOW
DENSITY; AND FURTHER PREZONING A 4 -ACRE PORTION OF 302
EAST HIGHWAY 12 (058-030-07) FROM AU -20 (COUNTY),
AGRICULTURE -URBAN RESERVE TO PUB, PUBLIC
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 parcel located at 13814 Lower Sacramento Road (APN 058-230-03), and a 4 -acre
portion of 302 East Highway 12 (APN 058-030-07) is hereby prezoned as follows:
3.92 -acres — 13814 Lower Sacramento Road (APN 058-230-03) from R -VL
(County), Residential Very Low Density to R -LD, Residential
Low Density;
4.0 —acres - A 4 -acre portion of 302 East Highway 12 (058-030-07) from
AU -20 (County), Agriculture -Urban Reserve to PUB, Public,
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 —
I 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:
x;�
RANDALL A. HAYS
City Attorney
PROPOSED ZONING MAP
M1DOTn6lprn�i.gNlewre ZRM-G`9. aS�Bi/!OM II:Rf:I] rl. (H.N16>7
LEGEND
RESIDENTIAL ZONES:
R•L frac rw.rir
n-feRa(rrar
uoRavooRar
R.a.euaK.MRnwcer
w•o+ReweR.lmw)xun+n
R+lo Illdl arf1N wMntiM1
re.n.mYaaaoru..v
L1•. SnLI4rA lYMSISitp
COMMERCIAL ZONES:
R.(). )RO)tlPQttIRCX)RO
R{P•)IgrltlpYµ CNICtl W)fgp
(A..MplpiRgpp
CJ•GI.NiMI
C•S•11p .�tSx1SR
OTHER ZONES,
I.R. uxn+sRrRa rro�a..r.
Y�OtK1iL11P4�U
,.n000nrx
nR. n+wc
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-219
A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE LAND
USE ELEMENT OF THE LODI GENERAL PLAN BY REDESIGNATING
THE FOUR -ACRE PORTION OF 302 EAST HIGHWAY 12 (APN 058-
230-03) FROM PR, PLANNED RESIDENTIAL TO PQP, PUBLIC/QUASI
PUBLIC, AND FURTHER REDESIGNATING 3.92 ACRES LOCATED AT
13814 LOWER SACRAMENTO ROAD 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 h ereby a mended b y r edesignating t he f our -acre
portion of 302 East Highway 12 (APN 058-030-07) from PR, Planned Residential to
PQP, Public/Quasi Public, and further redesignating 3.92 acres located at 13814 Lower
Sacramento Road (058-230-03) 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 -02-07 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. 02-36 through 02-37.
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 302 East Highway 12 and 13814 Lower
Sacramento Road.
Dated: November 6, 2002
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 2002-219 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
2002-219
3
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DIAGRAM
LEGEND
RESIDENTIAL:
enn -tar oeMSTM �tsto5met
gat -
ton m"y o moluu
- mm � c wVsrm Ws a ft
R KA MM R45wwat
COMMERCIAL-
cc
OMMERCIAL:a - anER�t cOVeMllteti
a - arw+rowtt eot.e[ricw
o - arm
OTHER:
- .61pC xTuotE
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-220
A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL FOR APPLICATION
TO THE SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION
COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF THE VAN RUITEN & ZUNINO
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 7.92 acres more or less adjacent to the City
limits located at 13814 Lower Sacramento Road and 302 East Highway 12; and
withdrawal of said 7.92 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 058-230-03 and
058-030-07); as described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference; and
WHEREAS, t he s ubject a rea p roposed 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 modem 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 "Van Ruiten & Zunino Annexation," which includes annexation of 7.92
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. 2002-220 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
2002-220
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
the County of San Joaquin, State of California,
under the date of May 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 ...... 2002..........
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
19
Dated at Lodi, California, this ..................day of
October 2002
...........................................................................................
,W . `n .......................
ignature
PROOF OF
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
RE( RLCEIVE'D
2002 n ffl2 PrT 22 N If '?: 22
CIT) CF;-,"
CITY CITY OV LOPil
Proof of Publication of
Public Hearing—Annexation, General Plan
.............. .............................. ...................... .............................. I......
Amendment, and Pre—zoning For 13814
......... ............................ ........................................................ .......... I
Lower Sacramento Road
.......................................................................................................
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 con-
sider the following matter:
a) Planning Commission's recommendation
of approval to the City Council for an
Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and
prezoning for 13814 Lower Sacramento
Road and a four -acre portion of 302 East
Highway 12; the General Plan Amendment
for 13814 Lower Sacramento Road is from
PR, Plar>rhed Residential to LOR, Low
Density Residential, and the prezoning from
A -VL (County), Residential Very Low
Density to R -LD, Residential Low Density:
the General Plan Amendment for 302 East
Highway 12 is from PR, Planned Residential
to POP, Public/Quasi Public, and the pre -
zoning from AU -20 (County), Agriculture -
Urban Reserve to PUB, Public; the request
also includes a recommendation that the
City Council certify Negative Declaration
ND -02-07 as adequate environmental docu-
mentation for this project.
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 tiled 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
PUBLICATIO Dated: October 16, 2002
Approved as to form:
Randall A. Hays
City Attorney
Oct- 19. 2002 - 4837
I
CITY OF LODI 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 an Annexation, General
Plan Amendment, and prezoning for 13814 Lower Sacramento Road and a four -acre portion of 302
East Highway 12; the General Plan Amendment for 13814 Lower Sacramento Road is from PR,
Planned Residential to LDR, Low Density Residential, and the prezoning from R -VL (County),
Residential Very Low Density to R -LD, Residential Low Density; the General Plan Amendment for
302 East Highway 12 is from PR, Planned Residential to PQP, Public/Quasi Public, and the
prezoning from AU -20 (County), Agriculture -Urban Reserve to PUB, Public; the request also
includes a recommendation that the City Council certify Negative Declaration ND -02-07 as
adequate environmental documentation for this project.
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
�pp� to form:
Randall A. Hays
City Attorney
J:%CITYCLRKIFORMSWotcddplan.doc 10116102
DECLARATION OF POSTING
SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR NOVEMBER 6, 2002 TO CONSIDER THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AN
ANNEXATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, AND PREZONING FOR 13814 LOWER
SACRAMENTO ROAD AND A FOUR -ACRE PORTION OF 302 EAST HIGHWAY 12
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
I
Jennifer M. Perrin
Deputy City Clerk
(D
DECLARATION OF MAILING
SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR NOVEMBER 6, 2002 TO CONSIDER THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AN
ANNEXATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, AND PREZONING FOR 13814 LOWER
SACRAMENTO ROAD AND A FOUR -ACRE PORTION OF 302 EAST HIGHWAY 12
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:
G.'ai
UE E L. T L R
DEP TY I Y CL RK
PATRICIA OCHOA
ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK
Forms/decmail.doc
ORDERED BY:
SUSAN BLACKSTON
CITY CLERK, CITY OF LODI
JENNIFER M. PERRIN
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
13814 Lower Sacramento Road and 302 E. Highway 12
1) 02705023;GEWEKE FAMILY PTP ;PO BOX 1210 ;LODI ;CA;95241
2) 05803002;LODI SOUTHWEST ASSOCIATES LP ;301 S HAM LN SUITE A ;LODI
;CA;95242
3) 05803001;REICHMUTH, CAROLYN HINES ;1358 MIDVALE RD ;LODI ;CA;95240
4) 02703012;MAXINE CHRISTESEN FAMILY LP ;179 E TAYLOR RD ;LODI ;CA;95242
5) 02705015;DOLLINGER, DAVID L ;101 E HWY 12 ;LODI ;CA;95240
6) 02705016;BROWN, BOB K & JUDITH ;35 E HIGHWAY 12 ;LODI ;CA;95242
7) 02705018;DOLLINGER, LEROY L & G D ;101 E HWY 12 ;LODI ;CA;95240
8) 02705020;HEDRICK, LAMAR A & JOANN A TR ;209 E HWY 12 ;LODI ;CA;95242
9) 02705021;MEXICAN AMER CATHOLIC FED ;PO.BOX 553 ;LODI ;CA;95241
10) 05803003;VAN RUITEN RANCH LTD ;463 W TURNER RD ;LODI ;CA;95240
11) 05823011;GRILLI, SELMA M TR ETAL ;% PO BOX 20 ;STOCKTON ;CA;95201
12) 05804002;SCHUMACHER, WELDON & BONNIE TR;1303 RIVERGATE DR ;LODI ;CA;95240
13) 05822001;MARTIN, MARILYN ANN ;2150 OXFORD WAY ;LODI ;CA;95242
14) 05822002;VAUGHN, FRED L & KHRISTINA L ;805 KRISTEN CT ;LODI ;CA;95242
15) 05822004;NEUMANN, WILLIAM D & BONNIE ;865 E KRISTEN CT ;LODI ;CA;95242
16) 05822005;NORDWICK, FLOYD H & LACE A TR ;895 KRISTEN CT ;LODI ;CA;95242
17) 05822006;AZEVEDO, STEVEN A & KIM HUTSON;909 KRISTEN CT ;LODI ;CA;95242
18) 05822008;LOUIE, SAM K & LORNA L ;910 KRISTEN CT ;LODI ;CA;95240
19) 05822009;YAMASHITA, KENNETH K & Y ;884 KRISTEN CT ;LODI ;CA;95240
20) 05822010;FAUGHT, MICHAEL & T ;860 E KRISTEN CT ;LODI ;CA;95242
21) 05822011;LANGWORTHY, ELMER D & S M ;13710 HARTLEY LN ;LODI ;CA;95240
22) 05823003;ROGAN, WILLIAM & A ETL ;12620 N DAVIS RD ;LODI ;CA;95242
23) 05823004;KUBOTA, TSUGIO TR ETAL ;1500 VISTA DR ;LODI ;CA;95242
24) 05823005;GERLACK, JOHN D & B TRS ;101 N LOMA DR ;LODI ;CA;95240
25) 05922003;FUJINAKA, STEVE & BARBARA TR E;2016 E ARMSTRONG RD ;LODI
;CA;95242
26) VR&Z Partnership, 4240 E. Acampo Road, Acampo, CA 95220