Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - March 17, 2004 G-01 PHCITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Pli RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council approve the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval for a Prezoning for 5952 E. Pine Street, The Prezoning will be from San Joaquin County AU -20 to City of Lodi M-2, Heavy Industrial, That the City Council also approves the recommendation to cerfify Negative Declaration ND -03413 as adequate environmental documentation for the project and initiate annexation of the property into the City of Lodi. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The 10 -acre Galantine property is located on the eastern edge of the City limits, The property is bare except for an older farmhouse and barn adjacent to Pine Street. The property is currently fallow although it was farmed in past years. Most of the properties in the surrounding area are in the City limits and are developed with a variety of industrial or commercial uses. Of the properties on the west side: of the Central California Traction Line, there are only 4 properties in this area that are not in the City limits. These properties include the Galantine property, a small residential property to the south, and the two properties owned by the Lodi Memorial Cemetery immediately to the west. The cemetery properties have chosen to stay in the County, probably because they are already substantially developed and their type of activity does not currently require City services. The residential property to the south has also not expressed any interest in annexing. The property is already developed with a single-family residence and there is limited potential to further develop because of its small size and limited access. The area to the east, across the railroad line is in the County and is primarily in agricultural use. There is a large fruit packing building and a winery northeast of the Galantine property that are in the County The two cemetery properties to the west will be somewhat isolated from the County except for a narrow connection through the triangular shaped residential property south of the Galantine property, Ordinarily this might be an issue regarding the ability of the County to service the two properties. In this particular situation, it should not be a significant problem. The area is at the edge of the City limits, with the County located just west across the CCT line. The County would only have to cross a few hundred feet of the City to got to the cemetery properties, Additionally, because property is a cemetery, the demand for set -vice for either the sheriff or fire protection should be very low, Even now, the fastest way to get to the property is by way of Victor Rd./Hwy. 12 and Guild Ave., both, which are in the City limits. ENNEMME ager Council Communication March 17, 2004 Fuge The Galantine property is currently shown on the City's General Man and is designated HI, Heavy industrial. The recommended prezoning ning from AU -20 to M-2, Heavy industrial will make the zoning consistent with the General Flan. The zoning will allow the property to be developed with industrial uses consistent with surrounding development. The subsequent annexation of the property will allow the property to be developer with City utilities and services, as apposed to County services and a private well, septic system and storm cocain pond. The proposal is a reasonable recivest and will permit the orderly'devel pment of the property consistent with the surrounding area. FUNDING: None $onradt Bartlam Community Development Director KWOMilw Attachments ant-Ine Annexation Negative Declaration 1,552 East- Pine Streef ND -03-13' NWMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Community Development Department To. Planning Commission `row: Comm unity Development Depaftment Date; January 28, 2004 Subject: `The request of Richard Galantine for the planning Commission's recommendation of approval to the City Council for an AnnQxation and prezoning for 5952 East pine Street. The prezoning is frorn AU, Agriculture -Urban Reserve (County), to M-2, heavy Industrial (City). The request also includes a rfzommQMation that the City Council certify Negative Declaration ND -03-13 as adequate environmental docs incritation for this project. SUMMARY The proposed annexation is a I0 -acre parcel currently in the County. The property is bounded. by Fire. Street on the north, the Central California Traction Line (CCT) on the east, a residential parcel on the south and a vacant parcel owned by the neighboring Lodi Memorial Cemetery on the west, The cemetery, properties and the residential property to the south are in the County and have elected not to be inOuded in the annexation. The area north of the Galantine property is in the City limits. The. proposed w-inexation will bring the property into the City limits. This, coupied with a change in tonin- from the current County zoning of AU, Agriculture -Urban Deserve to a City Zon np; of M-2, Heavy Industrial will allow the applicant to develop the property with industrial Uses, l3ACKCi .QLllvl? The I 0 -acre Galantine property is located on the eastern edge of the City timits. Most of the properties in the surrounding area are in the City limits and are developed with a variety of industrial or commercial rises. Of the properties on the west side of the CCT, there are only 4 properties ies in this area that are not in the City limits. These properties include the Gatantine properly, a residential property to the south, and the two properties owned by the Lodi Memorial Cernetery immediately to the west. The cemetery properties have chosen to stay in the County, probably because they are already developed on their larger parcel and that their type of activity does not require City utilities, The residential property to the south has also not expressed any interest in annexing into the City. The property is already developed with a single-family Doane and there is limited potential to develop further because of limited street access. The area to the east, across the traction line, is in the County and is primarily in agricultural use, There is a lame tisAit packing shed and a winery just; northeast of the Galantine property that is also in the County. .'hose properties will remain in the County. Mr, Galantine would .tike to develop the property with industrial uses similar to surrounding uses. I Ie could develop in the County but he would be much more limited in what types of uses be could have on the. property. The County could not provide public water, sanitary sewage or sterna drainage;. If he can develop in the City, he can connect to the necessary public utilities and also obtain City police and fire protection. r A-d3-0l..doc;,doQ The proposed annexation of the Galantine propea y to the City of Lodi appears to be Ga reasonable teaIs:on �� spy : C1, hnaits. C:arrent:iy, tIvc CCT line foral2s the eastern boundary of the City Moth north.. and south of the subject. property. The only unusual aspect of the proposal is that the 2 CegIet-ry IOpel-Iles to the .vcst and flie residential property to the south vv -ill remain in the Couniv, creating a pocl el. 0i County land" a.tmost encoz .passt:d by the City. Ordinarily this rniaht bt an ;ssta_e rc,--arditig thy. ability of thy. County 1'o provide service to the pr`oporties par ticularly L-Ifire and police hroloctioli, In this situation, it should not be to sig nihcant prob.ican. 'I'lic area is at file edge of th,, City limits. and the County prowides po ice aad lire sei'vicc to prOI)eYtios just ac os`i this r a,I.r ad trLICI on Nlw Street and Sar-e.nt Road, ancludino a Iarge :irtillt packing operda:tio.n gist cast of=thy; Ga.lartine properly. It would not b(� a si n1ficant problen-i to drive a few I;und.1- "I 1°� et ihroukyh "he City to s�ervicb a County property, additionally, because, the properties sane an� c.ornetery, the potential derti.and for County sci-vices is Iimited. There are a f6w b �i c�l aa- cant � properf y, but otfhorwise 4i�c Iarad is planted ;n grass acid tree -s i�nt�erspersed ��%ith uravesiEes, -11-san-I.c is i -rue for police scrv-ice_ The ceanetery docs not.gencrate a significant demand for Sheriffs' because of the €?ature of the land usc. Evcn now, if there was a. call f'or a si erif s squad car, he t:astcst way to the cemetery is probably by way of City streets. It ,,vould Ise. reasonable for the Galantine property to be able to develop in the City with full City Utilities and sfrect ial-111rovements as opposed to developing, m the County with private water, scwQY and storrn drainaoe.. The on-,Zo ng to -2? lkavy Industrial is a reasonable request. The zoning will match. the existing zoninc, on surroundIna, City properties and allow development consistent with SUITOundin.g Uses. The property has a. current City General Plan designation of 11-I, Heavy todatstrial and the City has planned (lie ar--a for i dustrial development, ;: lie City bas reviewed the project for potential environ mental m.pacts. The process requires that potential areas of innpaci: arc identihcd and a level of significance assessed. This project was found to have no significant impacts. Documents to attest to this are provided in the attached documents. A Negative Declaration (ND -03-13) has been determined to be adequate envar onmontal documentation for this proj=t. R ECOM.Ip!IENTD TION Siff vc;Qf)D-Anerids that the Plauning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the request of Richard Galantine for his requested annexation and prezoning for 5952 East Pirie Street, and a rec,:ornnienda ion that the City Co=cil certify Negative Declaration 1vT--03-13 as adequate ellViranMental doc.urntnta.tion for the project. The roQommen ations shall be subject to the conditions listed in the attached resolution, spec:tfully Submitted, David Morimoto Senior Planner AX-03-OhmQmol .doe Rev- eWecl and Concur, Konradt Bartlam Cowunaunity Development Director (QTY OF LODI PLANNING COMMISSION Staff ,E r MEETING A E' January 28, 2004 APPLICATION NO. Galantine Annexation, AX -03-01 Prezone No. Z-03-02 REQUESTThe request of Richard Galantine for the Planning Commission's recorn endation of the approval to the City Council for an Annexation and Prezoning for 5952 Fast Pine Street. The property has a Cit} GeneralPlan designation of R-1, Heavy Industrial and a County zoning of A -U, Agricultural - Urban Deserve. The request is to prezone the property to M-2, Heavy industrial to make it consistent with the General Plan designatiolL LOC TIOM 5952 East Piave Street (APP 049-090-13). APPLICANT. Richard Galantine 901. South Cherokee Lane Lodi, CA 95240 PROPERTY OWN ERa Richard Galantine, Site Clea atristis: The i ro erty is a 10 -acre parcel that is currently vacant except for an older residence adjacent to Pipe Street, The property appears to have been fan -tied in the past but is currently not planted with any crops. General Plan Designation: H-1, Heavy Industrial (Cit}) and L -I, Limited -Industrial (&J Co.) Zoning Designation: A -Ll, Agricultural -Urban Deserve (S.J, Co. designation) Property Size 10 acres. Adiacent Zonine and Land Use: North: -2, Ple vy Industrial on the north side of Pine Street.. Dart ContainerS I-jas ar large manufacturing focality northwest of the site; with plans for a possible expansion. There is also some vacant indtastria.l acreage. South: A -U, Agricultural -Urban Reserve (S1 Co.) and M-2, Heavy Industrial. There is a 1.7 -acre pig; -shaped parcel directly south of the Galantine property that is in the county and zoned A -U. The property has a single-family residence. Further south, across the Central California Traction Line (CCT) is a. large industrial warehouse and other industrial asses. Taste AG -40, Genend Agriculture (S..I. Co.), directly east across the CCT railroad and I -L, Limited Industrial (S.J. Co.) to the northeast, On the 03-P-0 1 Or east, the land uses are agriculture, with scattered residences. To the northeast, just outside the City limits is a large fret packing operation that fronts on. line Street and north of that a winery that fronts on Victor Road/Hwy 1.2 east. West" M-2), Heavy Industrial, P -F, Public Facility (SJC) and A -U, Agriculture -Urban Deserve (SJC). The two properties immediately to west of the subject property are owned by the Lodi Memorial Cemetery. The western. most property contains the cemetery and related buildings and is zoned P -F (public Facilities) by the County. The other property located between the Galantine property and the cemetery is vacant and will be used for future expansion of the cen-iotery and is zoned A -U. Further to the west are parcels in the City limit that are developed with various industrial and commercial uses. Sjighborhood Characteristics: 'rhe Galantine, property is at the °astern edge of Lodi. The CCT that runs along the east side; of the property generally forms the eastern edge of the Coity limits. properties to the west are generally in the City and properties east of the CCT line are generally outside of the City, The su ect area is one of the last pockets of County land west of the tracks. The adjoining two cemetery properties to the west and a small residential property to the south are the only properties west of the tracks that will remain in the County if the Gahintine property is winexedo These properties have chosen not to be included in the annexation. Except for the cemetery properties and the small residenti RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the request of Richard Galantine for a 1 `I -acre annexation to the City of Lodi and the prezoning of the property to Mh2, Heavy Industrial. ALTERNATIVE SAN ING COMMISSION ISSION ACTIO S, Deny the Request Approve the Request Continue the Request ATTACHMENTS: I. Vicinity leap 2, Negative Declaration 3. Draft Resolution WEDNESDAY January 2 , 2004 7:00 FoM The Planning Commission met and was called to order by Chairman Mattheis, Commissioners present: Addie Aguirre, Dennis I augan, Randall Heinitz, Gina Moran, David ROLL CALL Phillips, Dennis White, and Chairman, Mattheis Commissioners Absent: Norge Others .Present: Korwadt Bartlarn, Community development Director, Mark Meisssler, Associate Planner, and Lisa Wagner, Secretary. PIT IC HEARINGS The request o.f Richard Galantine for the Planning Commission's recommendation of the approval to the City Council for an Annexation and Prezoning for 5952 East Fine Street. Community Development Director BartlaYl'] presented the i:tern to the Commission, The property had a City General Plan designation of a -t, Heavy Industrial and a County zoning of I -T.;, Limited Industrial. The request was to Prezone the property to .MM2, Heavy Industrial to crake it consistent with the General Ilan designation. The subject property was a I 0 -acre parcel located just east of the Lodi Memorial Cemetery. The request for annexation would be going through the L A CO process once it is approved by the City Council. When the property is developed it will be, an. zrb.Iill project surrounded by other industrial uses. Staff was recommending approval of the requests. Comrni siorrcr Heinitz asked if the cor etery would remain in the County? Mr. Bartlain replied that it would remain in the County since they were reluctant to be a.nDexed'into the city. Hearing Opened to the Public No one caRie forward to speak on the matter, Hearing Closed to the Public The Planning Commission on motion of Commissioner Heinitz, Haugan. second vested to approve the request of Richard Ga.lanth e and to recommend approval to the City Counci (`for the Annexation and Prezoning for 5952 East .Pine Street by the following vete: AYES: Commissioners: Aguirre, Ham an, Heinitz, Moran, Phillips, and Chairman Mattheis NOES: Comrnissioners. ABSENT: T: Commissioners: White ABSTAIN: Commissioners 1-2s.doQ M, CM OF LORI Community Development Department P.O. BOX 3006 LORI, CA 95241 October,2003 'TABLE OF CGN` FNTS l)1t 4C'rION PROJECT D SC RIF'"1'IO11j .......................•....,.- LYWIRUIVMENTAA CHECKLIST CKLIS'T L(3RM.................................................. SU%fih' ARYC). IF'OTENTIAL IMPAC -TS .................................................... DEET-A,fJ, 4'TI0Al':......................._..,..:.........,.......••..................•..... --- 111Ch%ITYMA1'..............._.....................,........................ --- ..... .............. . ATTACHA4EAIT5. ... ...... --- ......... ......._............................. .......... .......... PDGF I TY OF LODI x PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Galantine Annexation is a proposal to annex, amend the general plea land use designation, and pre -zone a 10 -acre property on the south side of East Pine Street, oast west of the Central California Traction Line. More specifically, the. property is located at 5952 1-0 , Pine Street, at the eastern edge of Lodi, Assessor MarcelNumber: (049-010-13). 2 , Project title; The Galantine Annexation 2e Lead agency name and address: 'sty of Lodi -Comm unity Development Department Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241. 3. Contact person and phone number: David I orimoto Senior Planner (209,) 333-6711 4. Pref imt location'. Sari Joaquin County, CA., $952 E Pine Street (APN) 049-090-13 Lodi, CA 95240< . Project sponsor's name and address: Richard Gatautine 901 S. Cherokee ee Laine Lodi, CA 95240 . General plan d: si ation: (existing S.J. Co.) I -L, Limited Industrial Zone. (existing City) M-2, Heavy Industrial. 7. Zoning designation; (existing S.J. Co,) AU, Agriculture -Urban Deserve. Proposed (City) -2, heavy -industrial, . Description of project, See "Project Description" section on page 2. 9. Surrounding laird uses and setting, The subject property has been used for farming and contains a residence and related out buildings. Currently tbe:property does not appear to be actively farmed and has been cleared of all vines or other craps. The area surrounding the subject property has a variety of land uses. Immediately to the west is Lodi Memorial Cemetery, an established cemetery. The cemetery owns approximately 27.25 acres, 20 acres that is developed and 7.16 acres adjacent to the subject property for future expansion, This facility is also outside the luny limits and has not expressed any interest in annexing to the City. Further to the west are numerous industrial building, North of the subject site is Dart Containers, a Styrofoam product manufacturing facility. They also have undeveloped land for future expansion. On the south is a small triangular shaped parcel that is vacant and bordered by the Central California Traction Line on two sides. South across the rail line is a lame warehouse and other industrial buildings. and properties. On the cast, the CTT Hire borders the property. Properties east of the traction lure are primarily in agricultural use with scattered residences. Northeast of the project site are two large fruit parking operations with extensive packing and warehouse facilities. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Safi Joaquin County Local agency Formation Commission (L FC O) 11 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at bast one impact that is a ("Potentially Significant Impact" by the checklist on the following page. Land Use and 0 Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services Planning 13 Population and 0 Biological Resources E3 Utilities and Service Housing Systems El Geological Problems 0 Energy and Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics Cl eater 0 Hazards 13 Cultural Resources Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance F,NVIRONMEN'TAt..IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Potentially Carless Less than I, L. l s PLANNING. Significant Mitigation Sta g tficant Na Would the proposed: Impact Incorporated taaapacf. Iraa.paac€ aa) t.on lief with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental playas or policies adapted by ageneit s with jurissltttion over tilt project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) AMO agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or fa€rl loads, or impacts from ince npatihie land uses)? e) Disrupt ar divide the physical arrangement of an established Community (including a low-income or minority community)? .l POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the pro p[3Ca a) Cs niulatively exceed official regional or local population projecticros? la) induce substantial growth in an area eithv.r directly or indirectly (e.g., t .ratryh protects in an undeveloped area or extension of major is fr°s€azul cture)? C) Displacee existing housing, especially affordable housing? III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS, Would the proposid pevu t rn or expose People to Potential impacts inv awing, a) 6'ault rupture? h) Seismic ground shaking? 11 13 10 c) Sersmic ground failure, including liquefaction`s 11 11 0 d) Seiclae, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? 13 11 11 0 4 e) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from R excavation, grading or MIT 11 11 11 0 Subsidence of land`' g) Expansive soils? la) Unique geologic or physical features? 13 11 ID potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than IV. WATER. Significant alitigation Significant No Would the proposal result rra: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of 13 0 13 0 surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any wafter beady? El 11 0 c) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? El f) Change in the quantity of ground water, either through direct additions or 13 withdrawals, or through satterception of aan a€ uiftr by cuts or excavation €ar through substantial isms of ground mater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rake of flow of groundwater? h) dpacts to groundwater quality? f) Substsa€atiaal reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for 0 13 to public water supplies? V, AIR-QUALITY Would fife proposal., ) Violate assay air quality standard or contribute to an existing or protected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change azo El 11 R1 Climate? d) arcate objectionable odors? Ef V1. 'E`t ANSA )R7`A"f'IONICIfiCTLATION, IY'saW the Proposal r'Naati ill, a) Increased vehic=le trips or traffic congestion? 13 11 0 b) Hnzards to safety from design feature, (e..g., sharp curves or dangerous 13 13 10 int"sections) or incompatible asses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby eases? 13 13 d) Iras€afficient parking capacity onsite or offsite` 0 11 e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclistO f) Co" lists with adopted policies suppiwting alternative transportation (e.g,, 13 M lases turnouts, bicycle racks)? la) Rail, w€aterboraw or ail' traffic iatapacts? 6.®6 R 'mill. ENERGY AND MINERAL RFSOURCES, Would fleeproposal: ai) Conflict nflict with adopted energy conservation plan? b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 13 0 c) fdessait in tine kiss sof avail.ability of'a known mineral resource than would be of future value to the region and the residents sof the State? IX, HAZARDS. Potentially Would Me proposal iovolve. Significant a) A risk of accidental explca0ou or release of hazardous substances 13 VIl. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Potentially Unless Less than 11 0 Would 9he proposal re'vUlt in i uracfs to: Significant ansti��tiaia S gn`s�C�aat No 13 eWacaaaafaorn plan? Impact incorporated Impact Impact a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not 0 ) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? 13 limited to plants, fish, inncts, animals, and birds? e) lucrimsed Etre hazard in areas with flammable brush, grassy or trees? b) Locally designated species (e-�., heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities munities (e.g., oak forest, coastal has hitat,. ete')? ) Wetland haalaatat (e,g<q marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)7 c) Wildlife, dispersal migration corridors? 'mill. ENERGY AND MINERAL RFSOURCES, Would fleeproposal: ai) Conflict nflict with adopted energy conservation plan? b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 13 0 c) fdessait in tine kiss sof avail.ability of'a known mineral resource than would be of future value to the region and the residents sof the State? IX, HAZARDS. Would Me proposal iovolve. a) A risk of accidental explca0ou or release of hazardous substances 13 (anduding, but not limited to, oral, pesticides, ch*�micaals, or radiation)? 13 11 0 b) Pose. Ebb; inter'fere'nce with an emergency response plan or emergency 0 El Ef 13 eWacaaaafaorn plan? 13 c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? 0 ) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? 13 e) lucrimsed Etre hazard in areas with flammable brush, grassy or trees? X. NOISE. ff'ould the taropo-v al result in: ae) Increase in existing aaoise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 14 PUBLIC SERVICES, Would the proposed l aiv agar affect aap aaa, or rectaft in a need.for nem? or altered goveriaaitent services in sail;, of the fcrllsawing areas., a) Fire protection? 13 11 0 b) Police protection? 0 El Ef 13 c) Schools? 13 ) Maintenance of public facilities, including road&? e) Other government servicers, 13 I Potentially Significant X11. U CEI.I'I'IES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS, potentially Unless Less tlaoat Would the proposal result in a need fo r new sj sremv or suit pjj.f.i, or substanix.a.1 5igftirwaNt mitigation Siguirettaat Na atteralldns to the.followhtg ul fltaesr Impact Ineorp orated Impact I€€tpsact a) Power or natural gas? 13 13 b) Communications systeaxss? El 1 0 [local or region -91 mater &eatmoit or distribution facilities? 13 0 d) Seger or septic tanks? 11. 11 e) Storm water drainage? El 13 f) Solid wasEo disposal? 11 13 0 g) Local or regional water supplies? XIII. AESTHETICS, Would the proposal. a) affect a scenic vista or scenic nighway? t®.1 b) Haw a demonstrable uegative aesthetic effect`; C) create light of, gyre? 13 0 Iii. CULTURAL RESOURCES, Would the pro p€asub a) uist€arb paleontological resources? 13 13 11 0 b) Disturb archaeologickal€esourc�s? 13 13 0 c} Have the Weaatisal to cause a physical change, which would affect unique 1 ethnic cultural values? d) Restrict existing religious or sacred asses within the potential 13 0 13 0 impact area? XV. RECREATION, Would 'the prep.vala 0) Ixacrease the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other 11 13 El re"eafional facilities? h) Affect recreation opportunities? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less thin XV). MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Significant mitigation gsig.nifimnt No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact aa) Does tate 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 vw•ildUfe population to drop below self-sustaining, levels, threaten to elitninate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or aminal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or pre -history? 13 13 0 13 la) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) noes the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively ctaals deralsle" means utast file incremental effects of a$ project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of either current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) d) Danes the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly'? tit, EARLIER ANALYSES, Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CUBA process, one or more effects have beett adequately analyzed in earlier MR, or negative declaratiaiaa, Section 15063(c)(3)(D)• Earlier analyses used. .ta€ata^ 1493. City of Lodi Generai Plan EIR. This area was identified in the Lodi General Phan and discussed in the Envh,onmeotaal Impact Report SCH9 9020206 a) MWTAtion measures. See Attached Summary for € iscussion. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS Responses to items cheeped with something other than "No Impact". L LAND USE AND PLANNING As stated in the project description the project is a change in jurisdiction from San. Joaquin County to the City of 1,odi, and establishing City land use designations. The Community Development Department finds that the proposed actions of the City will not have a physical effect on the environment. We do however, acknowledge that the actions anticipate future development of the property for industrial development. When the City receives application for development of this parcel it would be a new project and would tbere:fore be subject to a separate and more detailed environmental. review. Items (c) and (d), The property in question. is currently designated I-II, heavy Industrial, in the City's General Plan. The prezoning to M-2, Meavy Industrial will bring the Property into conformance with the General plan. 'chis designation will also be consistent with the County General flan, the County zoning designation of AU', Agriculture -Urban Reserve and the County zoning of 1-1, Limited Industrial. These designations anticipate industrial development taking place in an orderly, compact M manner wheal needed public services and facilities are available. The sul;?jeet property is adjacent to developed properties on three sides and fronts on a paved public street.. Utility extensions and further street improvements will be made when the property is developed in the future. The prqject will convert nine -acres of agricultural land to a non-agricultural use, One acre has already been developed with the existing farmhouse and related structures. Although this represents a lass of prime agricultural land, the lass of this nine -acres is not considered a significant loss of agricultural land. The property in question is bordered on throe sides by non-agricultural development and on the forth side by a railroad track. Because of this location, the property is already isolated from other farming operations, Also, because of the small size of the property, economically farming the parcel would be very difficult. In fact, it appears that the parcel has not beer) actively farmed for a number of Years. A.11 of the land in and around Lodi is prime agricultural land. Consequently, it is not possible to develop arty property in Lodi without removing farmland. Over the years Lodi has implemented a policy of developing incrementally out from our core to avoid leapfrog deve;lopmen!'that would prey aturely impact agriculture. The result has been. that l,odi. has very clear edges to our City limits. On the eastern edge of Lodi, the Central California Traction fine forms the City limit line and. the General Plan boundary for most of the City. Lodi's policy of contiguous development aloe with a 2% residential growth limit has made Lodi one of the most compact cities in the Central Malley. This has reduced the prernature conversion of Earn- land and helped mitigate the lass of prime agricultural land. 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING The project will have no impact on population or housing, 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS The Project area is located in the San Joaquin Valley portion of the Central Valley o California. A sequence of sedimentary racks up to 60,000 feet thick has filled the valley. Basement rocks composedof meta -sediments, volcanic, and granites undertie these deposits. The TMIdland Fault Zone is the nearest seismic arca, and lies approximately 20 miles west of Lodi. Based upon the inactive status of this fault, the area has not been identified as a. Special Studies Zone within the definitions of the Alquist-Priolo Act, Appropriate construction standards will be utilized to conform to Seismic Zone 3 requirer eats. Ther; are no significant impacts, IVa WATER At present, the applicant docs not have as specific use for the property. Given the General :plan and keening designation for the property, it will probably develop with industrial uses. Depending on the type of industrial development, it is possible that when developed, the 10 acres could result in less water usage there if the property were used for agricultural purposes. When. a specific development plan is submitted for the property, a project specific environmental review will be conducted. The City Moes not anticipate any problem providing adequate water to the property. V, AIS: QUALITY Annexation, amending the general plan land use designation, and prezoning of this property will not have an effect on the envirom-hent. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) was consulted in this regard and they have confirmed thatthe proposed project will not have an impact on the environment. The future development of the project site may cause a small decrease in ambient air quality standards and increase air emissions. Chapter 15, Air Quality, of the City of Lodi Cfeneral Plan Environmental Impact Report states that the City of Lodi will coordinate development project review with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) in order to minimize future increases in vehicle travel and to assist in implernenting any indirect source regulations adopted by the SJVAPCD, In order to determine the significance of potential air quality impacts we have utilized the SJVAPCD "Guide for assessing and mitigating air quality impacts." According to this document, we have determined that the project falls within the "Small Project Analysis Level (SPAL)," and does not require further air quality analysis. Although the project sloes not involve any development at this point, the City of Dodi will implement impact - reducing measures prescribed by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District in order to reduce the potential impact from fugitive dust (PM -10) due to earth moving and other construction activities, 'The "Regulation VII1 control measures" are listed as fellows: ® All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized ofdust emissions using water, cher ical stabilizer/suppressant:, covered with a tarp or other suitable cover or vegetative ground cover, All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilised of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. All lard clearing., grubbing, scraping, excavation., land leveling, grading, cut & fills, and dcraolition activities shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust einissions Utilizing application of water or by presoaking, With the demolition of buildings tip to six stories in height, all exterior surfaces of the building shall be wetted during demolition. When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions and at least six inches of freeboard space; from the top of the container shall be maintained. All operations shall lia it or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from acgacent public streets at the end of each work -day. (The use ref dry rotary, brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sulficieni -vetting 1,o limit the visible dust emissions.) (Use (?f blower devices is expressly . Barb rddene; a Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant, * Within urban areas, trackout shall be immediately removed when it extends 50 or more feet from the site and at the end of each workday. * Any site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day shall prevent carryout and trackout. -3y implementing thc measures above, the temporary impacts frons construction (primary impacts) on air quality will be reduced to less than significant levels. In addition, the City is reducing impacts from vehicle emissions (secondary impacts) by implementing programs for alternate transportation. Programs such as the City's Ilial -Ad bide system,, which is a door-to-door service; or the Grape Lime, which is a fixed rotate transit systema; or the City's bicycle Transportation Master Plan; or evert the recent introduction of Arntrak rail service to the City's Multi -Modal station will help to reduce vehi0c, emissions, 'floe City's programs along with the programs at the Federal, State, and County levels will help to reduce vehicle Missions created by this project to less than significant levels. V1. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Additional vehicle trips will affect transportation patterns relative to existing traffic loads and street capacity in the immediate project area. In order to reduce impacts from additional traffic, "The City shall review new developments for consistency with th-, General Playa Circulation Element and the Capital Improvements, Programa, Those developments found to be consistent with. the Circulation Element shall be required to pay their fair share of traffic impact fees. Those developments found to be generating more traffic than that assumed in the Circulation Element shall be required to prepare a site-specific traffic; study and fund needed improvements not identified in. the capital improvements program in addition to paying their fair share of the traffic impact fees." The traffic impact fee will be used to finance future improvements such as traffic signals and street widening projects for older intersections and streets congested by new development. When the property is developed, floe builder will be required to install all necessary street improvements along the Pine Street frontage, including curb, gutter and sidewalk and to make all necessary street dedications. i IL BIOLOGICAL ESOU C S Development of the project site is subject to the payment of fees in accordance with the San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation. and Open Space Flan. The proposed pro�jeet is consistent with the Sara 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 EIRfEIS for the San Joaquin county Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Placa (SJMSCP), dated November 15, 2000, and certified by the Sara Joaquin Council of Governments on December 7„ 2000, implementation of` the SJMSCP is expectQd to reduce impacts to biological resources resulting froom the proposed project to a level of fess-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 So El Dorado St., Smite 400/Stockton, CA 95202) or online at:: N ww.sico�.o:� �. VIII. ENERGYAND MINERAL RESOURCES Development of the project site will require review by the Building Division of the, Community .Development Department, who will ensure that the construction adheres to provisions of 2001 Title 24, fart 6 California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings were established in. 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods, New standards were adopted by the Commission in 2001 as m4ndated by Assembly Bill 970 to reduce Cabfornia`s electricity demand. The new standards sent into effect on Rine 1, 2€ 01. Construction under these standards should eliminate wasteful and inefficient use of nonrenewable resources. In addition, development of the Site is not expected to result in the loss of availability of any known rnineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State, There are no known mineral deposits within the area. The soil in the area is a sandy loam type, with hardpan approximately 6 to 8 feet beneath the surface, There is no indication that valuable minerals are located within the general arca. No impacts associated within the lass of minerals are expected because of the project. Imo® HAZARDS Where are no known natural or man -rade hazards existing on the site. All future development will comply with all. local, State and Federal safety regulations for both constmetion and operation of any business. The structures will be built to standards of the Uniform Building Coda and the Uniform Fire Code. X. NOISE Given the industrial nature of the area, the fixture development of the property should not significanily affect adjacent properties, There are no sensitive receptors in. the neighborhood and there are a variety of existing industrial uses surrounding the property. Additionally, the property is bordered on two sides by railroad tracks. Any future business will be required to comply with the City's Noise regulations, XL PUBLIC SERVICES The change from County jurisdiction to City jurisdiction will mean that the City will provide all necessary public services, including police and fire service and the maintenance of public facilities and streets. Adequate police and fire service is available to the property. When the property is developed, the developer will be required to construct all required street improvements, The City will theta provide ongoing maint:enwice, The Citywide Development Impact Mitigation. Fee schedule was adopted to insure that new development generates sufficient revenue: to maintain specified levels of service in f,odi. In addition., the I.,odi Unified School District has adopted a fee per 12 square foot that is intended to mitigate the cost of providing school services to new development. Page 9-5 of the General plan Policy Document states that the City shall add personnel, equipment, or facilities necessary- to maintain a minimum three (3) minute travel time for fire calls. page 9-6 of the Policy Document goes on to state that the City skull also strive to maintain a. staff ratio of 3.1 police officers per 1,000 population with response times averaging three (3) minutes for emergency calls and 40 minutes for non emergency calls. Impact .fees are calculated on .new development based on use and density to generate enough revenue to preserve adequate service levels, thereby mitigating potential adverse impacts on governmental .cervices to less than significant levels. XIII, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS The Gene-ral Plan EIR points out on page 10-2 that at the time the General Flan was prepared in 1989, there was a design treatment capacity of 6.2 MGD. A planned (and later completed) expansion increased capacity to 8.5 MGD in 1991. Assuming that residential growth was to continue at the planned two (2) percent annual rate, and that flows would increase- at a proportionate rat`., the City's White Slough Water Pollution Controi Facility (WS PCF) has adequate capacity for the life of the 20 year plan. In fact, residential growth has not reached the two (2) percent nark since the plan was adapted. Over the last f vQ- (S) years, growth has averaged 1.63%. This being the case, there is estimated to be excess carrying capacity at the WSWPCF, enough to mitigate, any impacts of the nein development to less than significant levels. The General Plan EIR, page 10-3 outlines the City's store water collection, distribution, and disposal systema. In Lodi.. storm water is discharged to the Mokelurnne river and the Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) Canal, The project area's storm drainage will flaw to the C -Basin drainage basin, The C -Basin was engineered with a capacity to handle storm water runoff from a 4$ -hour, 100 -year storm. Storm runoff from the development of the project site will not impact the City's existing drainage basins. Page 10-1 of the General. Placa EIR explains that the water supply for the entire City is provided by a groundwater aquifer, tapped into by a systema of interconnected City wells, According to Lodi standards, one water well shall be maintained per each 2,000 population. New wells are drilled as necessary to provide an adequate supply commensurate with growth. At the time the General Plan was drafted in 1987, water demand stood at 13.7 MOT), In 1991, it had grown to 14.1 MGD, According to estirriate;s prepared in 1991, development provided for by the General Plan. would create demand for approximately 7.8 MGD of water, or 67 percent more than the current amount, As stated previously in this initial study; duet to the affect of the City's Growth Management Programa, growth has not reached the levels anticipated in 1991, reducing the anticipated per capita consumption of water. In addition, increased water conservation efforts by the City beginning in 1995 have also reduced the per capita consumption of water to less than expected levels. With 26 water wells currently in pQ rat on there is estimated to be a suf f"acient supply of water, 13 Considering the aforementioned nnitigating factors, any impacts on the water supply created because of the Galantine Annexation/reorganization are reduced to less than significant levels. X111. AESTHETICS. Development of the project area would not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway because there are no known or reeognized scenic. views or highway-, in or immediately around. the project area. IV. CULTURAL URCE . Annexation and the establishment of land use regulations will not create a physical change of the prQject site. As stated many times in this document, by establishing land use regulations for the property there will be a potential for development at which time will be separately required to be reviewed under C QA. The Community Development Department will review aiiy proposed future development for its impact on cultural and archaeological values or resources, The property has been farmed for many years. It is rzniikely that any paleontological or archaeological artifacts survived the continuous cultivation of the property. If during future construction, artifacts are revealed, work will be stepped and a field study conducted, . RECREATION. '11 -ie fawre development of the project site will not increase the population of Lodi, and will not create an increase in the demand for recreational opportunities. rThe City's Parks Master plan adopted in January of 1994 has tal,,en into account the recreational reeds of Lodi, and has included the project area and its demand in its projections, The Parks Master Flan is a 15 -year plan that identifies improvements to existing parks and new park areas throughout Dodi including a neighborhood park less than ¥/4 mile to the northwest of the proj DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation, I fired that the proposed project WILL NOT have a significant effect on the environment, ent, and a NEGATIVE TIV CLARATION will be prepared. find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this ease because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the projecL A NE GA IVL' DECLARATION will be prepared. find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, nd an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. signaturcF Date- Printed ate: Pr° ted Name. David Morimoto For: C"its ®f Lodi 15 RESOLUTION NO. P.C, 04.10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LOM OMMEN ING APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST OF RICHARD GALANTINE FOR P _ZONING Z-03-02 TO THE _ O I CITY COUNCIL. WHEREAS, EAS, 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 Govement Cade and Lodi Municipal Code Chapter 17.94, Amendments; SEAS, the property is located at 5952 East Pine Street (APN 049-090-13); WHEREAS, the project proponent is Richard Galwitine, 901 S. Cherokee Larne, Lodi, CA. 95240, WHEREAS, the property has a zoning designation of A -U, Agriculture -Urban 'Deserve (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, NTS -03-13 has been prepared in compliance with the California Environ ental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines provided there under. Further, the Commission has reviewed and considered the inf rniation contained in said Negative Declaration with respect to the project identified its this Resolution. 2. It is found that the parcel to be prezoned is the parcel located at 5952 East fine Street AN 049-090®13). 3. It is found that the requested prezoning of M-2, Heavy Industrial is not in conflict with adopted plans or policies of the General Flan of the City and will serve sound Planning practice, 4. It is fur -her found that the parcel of the proposed reZOning is physically suitable for the development of an industrial development. Dated, January 28, 20014 I hereby certify that Resolution No. 04-10 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi at a meeting held on January 28, 20€14, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners. Aguirre, Hau an, Heinitz, loran, Phillips, White, and Chairman I attbeis NOES: Commissioners-. ABSENT: Commissioners', ABSTAIN' Commissioners, ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission AN ORDINANCE OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE OFFICIAL DISTRICT MAP OF THE CITY OF LODI AND THEREBY PREZONING THE PARCEL LOCATED AT 5952 EAST PINE STREET (APN 049-090-13) FROM SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY A -U, AGRICULTURAL URBAN RESERVE TO M-2, HEAVY INDUSTRIAL 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 5952 East Pine Street (APN 049-090-13) is hereby prezoned as follows: 10 -acre parcel - San Joaquin County A U, Agricultural Urban Reserve to M-2, Heavy Industrial, 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 be 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 , 2004 LARRY D. HANSEN 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 March 17, 2004, and was thereafter passed, adopted, and ordered to print at a regular meeting of said Council held , 2004, 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: D. STEPHEN SCHWABAUER Interim City Attorney WHEREAS, public hearings were held by the Planning Commission and Co Council on January 28 and March 17, 2004, respectively, on the following described project., Prezoning and Initiation of Annexation of ten acres located at 5952 E. Pine Street (APN 049-090-13). Prezoning from San Joaquin County AU, Agricultu ral Urban Reserve, to M-2, Heavy Industrial. WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration (ND -03-13) 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 No. P.C. 04-10; and WHEREAS, it is the Planning Commission's recommendation that City Council approve its finding that the Negative Declaration is adequate environmental documentation. 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 5952 E. Pine Street. Dated. March 17, 2004 I hereby certify that Resolution No. 2004-52 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held March 17, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Beckman, Hitchcock, Howard, Land, and Mayor Hansen ABSTAIN, COUNCIL MEMBERS ® None SUSAN J. BLAC'STON City Clerk 2004-52 ..... . . . . . 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 a ten -acre parcel more or less adjacent to the City limits located at 5952 East Pine Street; and withdrawal of said ten acres from the Mokelumne Fire District and the Northern San Joaquin County Water Conservation District, located within the area to be annexed to the City of Lodi (APN 049-090-13), as described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the subject area proposed to be annexed to the City of Lodi and detached from the Mokelumne Fire District and the Northern San Joaquin County Water Conservation District is uninhabited; 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 of San Joaquin will benefit from the proposed reorganization as a result of savings to the County by reduction of County required services in unincorporated but urban oriented area; (4) The subject area proposed to be annexed to the City of Lodi is geographically, socially, economically, and politically part of the same urban area of which the City of Lodi is also a part; (5) The subject area is within the Lodi Sphere of Influence; and (6) Future inhabitants in the subject area will gain immediate response in regard to police and fire protection, unlimited City garbage and trash collection service, street lighting service, a modern sewer system, other municipal services, and improvement of property values. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Lodi City Council that the San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission is hereby requested to approve the proposed "Galantine Annexation," which includes annexation of ten acres more or less, and detachment from the Mokelumne Fire District and the Northern San Joaquin County Water Conservation District as described in Exhibit A attached hereto. This is all subject to the aforementioned terms and conditions. Dated-. March 17, 2004 I hereby certify that Resolution No. 2004-53 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held March 17, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Beckman, Hitchcock, Howard, Land, and Mayor Hansen C S SUSAN J. SLAC TON City Clerk 2004-53 PROJECT DESC JRIP�rTQN The Galantine AnnexatiQn is a proposal to annex, amend the general:.p.14n land use g�a# desion,and pre -zone a 10 -acre property on the south side of Eal9t Pine Street, just WOO of the Centr4l California Traction U&P. More specifically, the, property is located -at 5952 E. kine Street, at the eastern edge of Lodi, Assessor Parcel Number. (049-09-043). At prp"nt, the subject parcel is in San Joaquin County adjacent to the eastern boundaries of the Lodi City limits. The property has a San Joaquin County General Plan dtsignation of I -L, Limited Industrial lone, a zone intended to provide for light manufacturing, warehousing, wholesaling, construction contracting and distribution. The County Zoning designation of AU, Agriculturo-Urban Reserve is intended to retain in agriculture those areas planned for future urban development in order to facilitate compact, orderly urban development and to assure the proper timing and economical provision of services and utilities. In order to develop within the City of Lodi, the applicant has applied for an Annexation and for Pre -zoning. When annexed to the City of Lodi, the property will retain the existing City General Plan designation of HT, Heavy Industrial and will be Pre -zoned to the City zoning designation of M-2, heavy industrial, to match the General Plan designation. At present the applicant has not indicated any specific development plan for the property. It is likely that the property will develop with some type of industrial use similar to the other properties in the surrounding area. 2 VICINITY MAP Galantine Annexation egative Deciaration 1552 East Pin(, St, NOTICE Or PUBLIC HEA14ING , NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 at the hour of ?;00 p,m., or as soon theroa€ter as the rrral- €or may be heard, the City Counoil will con dart a Publk; Heating a€ Me Garnogle, Forum, 305 Wvl qt Pine Simot, Lodi, to con- sIOK the Eollowinq mallac aj to c mildor the Planning Cgrnmissiari s rocommon€laliors of approval to Lhe City Council for Prozorling for 5= 52, Fp M Pine Straat: the Prozoninq is €rQ€1t ern Joaquin County A -LI, Agricultural Urban R4s6rvo to M-2, Heavy indoltia(, the requeM also includes a rec:onMandallon that the City Council carlily Negative Deciaralion ND -03- 13 as odequoln onviconnionitai docuiriontci- tion for lho projeet and initiate annexation of Ilio property Inco "to Cily. Inlormatfon regaading 11ris item may he obtained in the office o€ the Cornrolpoity Development ❑epailment, 221 WAM Pins Shoot, Lodi, Calitornls. All inloroslod per- sons arra invited 10 present. their views and caminants on Iltis Matter. VVrlBlen slaloments may be Mod will! the City Clark at any lime prier to the hearing sch€dulod.herein, and oral Slrilt}monI$ may bet made al said hear- ing. ti you chane 4gn Mea subjori €Haller in court, you may be limited to raising only those i55uos you nr tiOM One 0150- raised at the Public Nearing ctrascribed In INS npltco or ill wrillen correspondence dolivored to the City Clerk, 221 West !Dins ShrrDt, at or prior to she Public Tearing. By Order Of the Lodi City Council s: SUSAN J. 9LACi(ST0N City Clark Oiled: Match 4, 2004 Approved a5 to form: s: t0, STEPHEN .aCHWAFMUEIJ Interim City.Allorney. 10a,ph G< X)G4 — 6$64 40J9�fE QQa'i3Q�.�pN451NA1031>i27i�1.3.i�?�i' ;qujOjjv p,') wpalul jan geMLJOS uagdol 'd :wjol of so paAwddV VOOZ 'V g3je TWO �ja,o Alla uolspel'g ' uims r ;!!DII OO Allo !po1 aL!1 JO JopJO AS 6ulMOH o!1gtid oql of joud io le `lawjS ould lsaAA l6F 'gaol° Aa!o oql of paaaqap xuapuodsojaoo uallpm uj jo aollou s!q� u! poglaosap 6UPPaH al!clnd ac!a le p3910A 0910 auoatuos ao noA sanssl osogl Ajuo 6uls!ua of popw!! aq Aew noA 'linoo ul .ialleu: looigns oq; a6uepp no' it 'buueoq p!es le apew aq Aew sluowalels le'o pre 'u!ajaq palrlpOg33 butaeaq aql of aolad oul Aue le Naalo Xj!3 eql ql!m pe!y oq Aew sluawalels ugjj; jM 'ollew slgl uo sluawwoo pue sma!A siagl luasaid of pallAu! OR suosaad palsaaalul IIS °elu.rol!! } `!po-! `lao.jl; auldt 1SJSMi X77 'luagja adao luawdopAOO Al!unWWOO aql 30 ao1go aq u! paulelgo aq Aew wal! s!ql Gu!paeGai uo!lewao,'ul 41!0 aql o;ul Apadoid all to uopexaULle ale!ilu! pun loajoid aqi 101 uolleluawnoop 12luawuoalnua al-enbope se Ci -£o -(]N uo!lmeloo(! anlle60N Alpoo llounoo Allo aql legl uoilepuoww000j e sopnloul osle lsanbaa mil '!ewsnpul AneaH '�-N tai aAAa )Sail uega>j !ean;ln3!a6V 'n -v Alunoo u!nbeor ues wool S! 6u!uozoad aq! 'laaalS auld ISM9 N6q aal 6u!uozaad lal;lounoo 43 �qi of 1uwdde to uoljepuawww3aj S,u GSiwwO ;3u Uvald �ql fll i� :aaljew 6u!Malloj oql aap!suoo o} `lpoI 'loaJIS auld 1Sa,V. gOC 'wnJod a!6aweD aql ae 6u ROH ollgnd e lonpuoo !I!m !!ounoo Alio aql 'paeaq aq Am aap u: aqj se aalleaaaul uoos, se ao -w.d 00:L P anoq aqi le VOOZ 'L L qaM'AePseuPOM UG lull N Ai %0�1H S! 301ION 'V ali- ! 9 1 H '10 LV tp —ri� — - JNNV'-�H 11T)d JO 3MON valo 4 :loeluoa aseo!d gDpou s!ql bulpie6aa uollewiOlu! )OA THE PROPERTY INTO THE CITY On Thursday, March 4, 2004 in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, a copy of a Notice of Public Hearing to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval to the City Council for a Prezoning for 5952 East Pine Street; the Prezoning is from San Joaquin County A -U, Agricuitural Urban Reserve to M-2, Heavy Industrial; the request also includes a recommendation that the City Council certify Negative Declaration ND -03-13 as adequate environmental documentation for the project and initiate annexation o f t he p roperty i nto t he C ity (attached hereto, m arked E xhibit " 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 March 4, 2004, at Lodi, California, Ptrecia Ochoa Administrative Clerk lbrills"dcCimst. doc ORDERED BY: 61W "I, AWWWWW"WWWA CITY CLERK Jacqueline L. Taylor, CIVIC Deputy City Clerk Jennifer M, Perrin, CMC Deputy City Clerk APN;OWNER;ADDRESS;CITY;STA.TE;ZIP 04909013,,GALAN.'INL, RICHARD 901 S CHEROKEE LN ;LODI ;CA;95240 04912029; r` STATE PACKERS INC ;PO BOX 350 ;LODI ;CA; 95241 04912039;'-EN-ARAL CALIF TRACTION CO ;920 SE QUINCY ;TCPEEA ; ICS; 66612 04909012;UNIVERSAL MEMOR CENTERS V! INC; 5750 E PINE ST ;LODI ;CA; 95240 04925004;MEYERS, DONALD E ;5990 E SARGENT RD ;LODT ;CA; 95240 Please immediately ii i of thisf4x by calling333-6702 Y OF LODI. P, 0. BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 ADVERTISING PUBLISH DATE: Saturday, March 6, 2004 TEAR SHEETS WANTED, jhrgqjjLp1oase SEND AFFIDAVIT ASID BILL TO, SUSAN BLACKSTON, CITY CLERK City of Lodi P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241-1910 DATED: THURSDAY, MARDI 4, 2004 JACQUELINE L. TAYLOR, CMC DEPUTY SI`i'Y CLERK 1 ' TRICIA OI IaA ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK JENNIFER M, PERRIN, CMC € EPUTY CITY CLERK x the Sentinel i 369-1084 at a _(tin,� on i�(date) e (pages) LNS Phoned to confirm receipt of all pages at ! time) Jai z'ffricia Sen (initi Ss3 I nor€�is`�+��tns.dc:c (D DECLARATION OF MAILING On March 4, 2004, 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 Public Hearing to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval to the City Council for Prezoning for 5952 East Pine Street; the Prezoning is from San Joaquin County A -U, Agricultural Urban Reserve to M-2, Heavy Industrial; the request also includes a recommendation that the City Council certify Negative Declaration ND -03-13 as adequate environmental documentation for the project and initiate annexation of the property into the City , 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 March 4, 2004, at Lodi, California, ORDERED BY: JACQUELINE L. TAYLOR DEPUTY CiTY CLERK PIAT�RIG A ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK 1"Orms/dCC11110 1. d oc ORDERED BY, JENNIFER M. PERRIN DEPUTY CITY CLERK