Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - July 2, 2003 G-01 PHaCITYOF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION GE:" A `TITLE: Public Hearing to consider the appeal of G -REM regarding the Planning Cornml ;sioWdenial of the request to amand Resolution 03-12 adding a condition CC approval to the VinLIfer'S Square Shopping Center. located at the northwest corner of Lower Sacramento road and Kettlea an Lane MEET;nNG DATE: July 2,2003 PREPARED BY: Community Development Director RECOMMENDED ACw .T .IO : Reversc the Planning Commission action and approve the added condition of approval to Resolution 03--12 for property located at the northwest comer of Kettleman Lane and Lower Sacramento Road. AC.KGRClstTND MORMATIOM The Plawiing Commission met on June 11, 2003 to consider the request of G -REM to add a condition to the Resolution approving the Vintner's Square Shopping Center and Final Environmental Impact Report. The condition would read as follows: 17ia° project applicant shrill cause a perpetual agricultural con.sen cation, easement to he imposed over not less than 22.39 ac=res of ccarrfrquou.s active ragrictiltural acreage elseivher-e within the Lodi A VA of San Joaquin C°o an(y. These soils shali be perynanently I)rotec:ted frona,futuredeveloprnent via errforcerahle Gleed restrictions. Acreage € etween Lodi and Stockton shall he targeted. Sails andfunning conditions shall he equivalew or superior to the project area. Protected acreage shall he set-aside within orae (1) year Cf the CorllrnenCenlent elf any construction ractiviry within the development. `The applicant proposed this condition as a means to assuage concerns raised by the opposition group to the commercialpr(iect. The hope, was to have, the Hanning Commission enact the condition on their previously approved resolaanon p6or to the City Council consideration of the appeal filed by the same opposition group. The Planning Commission denied the applicant's request. Its short, I believe the Commission felt uncomfortabie with what they thought was a policy question better left with the City Council. Staff advised the Planning Commission drat thein- action would be neither precedent nor poky setting. Nonetheless, they chose to not add the condition. Unfortuti ately, the opposition group, led by Ann Cerney. submitted a letter to the Planning Commission during the public hearing requestitlg several amendments to the condition language. This opposition to the condition that the group ofiginally wattled further complicated the issue. That letter is included on your attach meets. In response to the lever's three points, staff would offcx the following thoughts: 1,) It is prQu)ature to specify an endowrrjent as a land trust, or other qualified holder of the easement has not been designated. The applicant may find a benefactor that does not require any further funding. The condition, as proposed, very clearly state.; the easement shall be in perpetuity and permanently protect that acreage from. 1,11u re, developa r;nt_ APPROVED _. f,. a io lira�r s n G -REM Appew doc 06124103 Council Communication Meeting Date: July 2, 2003 Fags 2 . It is also premature to identify the land trust by July 1 t , 2003 as the land identification may have some impact to this condition. The tirac frame for implementing the proposed condition is clear, Further, this point assumes the project is going forward by July 11, 2003, perhaps prior to any permit issuance. 3.) The proposed condition was based on language submitted by W. Cemey to the Planning Commission. Thai language was obviously acceptable on May 14€€' but is today inadequate, Specific to this point, the project site is not Pear the southern border of Lodi. Its fact. it is nearly one mile from blarney Lane., the City's current southern border. The opponent has previously argued for the condition on the basis of the loss of Prime Farmland, It appears that the real motive i s to create a separation between the cities of Lodi and Stockton. Finally, I would note that the proposed condition does suggest that land between Lodi and Stockton he targeted. The condition is € of meant to create a separator, but rather to offset the development of Prime Farmland. This must he thought of as rwo different, but related i isues. As I mentioned in the staff report to the Planning Commission, the applicant has shown a good faith effort to resolve the conflict with Ms. Cemey and her group Attach€yients: Letter of Appeal Planning C°o€nn-fission Staff Report, Resolution and Draft Minutes from June 11, 2003 Letter to Planning Commission from Remy, Thomas, Moose and Manley, LLC dated June 11, 2003 t Fal rf'a' s^: T June 12, 2403 Ms, Susan l lackst:an :iter CIer City of Lodi 221 WPnc Street Lodi, CA 95240 1 � ,appeal of Planning Commision Decision -Vintner's Square Shopping Center Dear Ms. lacstona This letter, with the $250. fee attached, shall serve notice of our appeal. of the Planning Commission's decision to deny our request for ars amended condition of approval during list night's, (June 11, ` 003), Planning Ca naussion meeting. To prevent ftu°th r delays in the development of the Vintner's Square project, I request that this item be placed on the earliest possible City Council agenda. I further request, assurnmg our appeal cannot be heard as sear€ as the next Council cil meeting of June 1 S'h, that the appeal fi°orra Ann M. Cemey and Citizens for Open Government, set for hearing by the € ouncil on Jane l 1 be continued so as to be heard and decided during. the same meeting as our appeal, Please call me should you require any additional information. Sl11cerely, Bale N. Gillespie cc; Rad Bartlarn, Community Development Director Jim Manion, Lowe's PO Box 1210, 9 5241 � 2475 MAGGIO CIRCLE e LORI, CA 95240 (1)MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Community Development Department Tw Planning Commission From: Community Development Director Date- June 11, 2003 Subject: 'The request of G -REM and Sim Manion, on behalf of Lowe's, to add a condition of approval to Planning Commission Resolution No. 03-12 for property located at the northwest corner of Lower Sacramento Road and Kettleman Lane (Vintner's ____ care Shopping Center). summarv: Fhe Planning Commission certified the Proal Environmental Impact Report for the Vintner's Square Shopping Center on May 14, 2003. At that meeting, the only opposition came from Ms. Ann Cerney and her attorney representing "Citizens for Open Government". At the meeting, Ms. Meserve, representing Ms. Cerney, submitted the attached letter requesting that the City include a mitigation measure that would require the applicant to reduce the significant effect of the loss of prime farmland. The opponents have submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission action for City Council consideration. Discussion: ;he applicant, G -REM, has been working with "Citizens for Open Government" to try to settle their issues. Although, to our knowledge, the parties have not reached an agreement, the applicant is nonetheless now requesting that the City add a condition of approval to the project resolution that will call for the conservation of prime farmland. G -REM believes that this condition will satisfy Ms. Cemey's stated desire for the conservation of prime farmland on a 1: ratio. Based on the applicant's desire to add the condition, staff does not have any problem with the request. In fact, Mr_ Gillespie is suggesting Ianguage that would be similar to that submitted by Ms. Cerney's counsel in her May 14r' letter. Therefore, staff would recommend the following uendition be added to Resolution 03-12, as follows: The project applicant shall cause a perpetual agricultural conservation easement to be imposed over not less than 22.39 acres of contiguous active agricultural acreage elsewhere within the Lodi AVA of San Joaquin County. These soils shall be permanently protected from future development via enforceable deed restrictions. Acreage between Lodi and Stockton shall be targeted. Soils and farming conditions shall be equivalent or superior to the project. area. Protected acreage shall be set-aside within one (1) year of the commencement of any construction activity within the development. Staff believes that the applicant has shown a good faith effort to not only resolve their opposition's issue, but also should be congratulated for stepping forward and initiating the condit. on with the Planning Commission. Re -*ectfully Submitted: konradt Burnam Community Development Department Attachments: Letter from G -REM dated, May 29, 2003 Letter to the Planning Commission from Remy, Thomas, Moose & Manley, LLP, dated May 14, 2003 Amended Resolution No. 03-12 May -29, 2003 Mr. Rad I3artlam Con-ananity Development Director City of Lodi P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, CCA 95241-1920 MAY C OielMUNITY DEE IELOP ENT DEP ni RF,: Vintner's Square Shopping Center-EiR Comments by Ann Cerney et al This letter concerns the letter received by the Planning Commission during their May 14, 2003 meeting, at which the EIR for the Vintner's Square shopping center was certified and the Use Permit application approved. The letter, presented by an attorney representing Ann Cerney and a group called `Citizens for Open Government', raised concerns primarily regarding the loss of prime farmland impacts, The letter goes on to suggest that mitigation of these impacts is feasible, referring to the cities of Woodland and Davis and their respective ordinances that require mitigation of prime farmland. We have been in contact with Ms, Cerney's legal counsel in an effort to satisfy her concerns, and it is apparent that this proposed mitigation is one of their primary goals. It is unfortunate that we were not made aware of this goal in sufficient advance of the May 14`x' Planning Commission meeting, as we would have supported such a condition. To this end, I would like to request that the Planning Commission consider, at the earliest possible date, and amendment to the conditions of approval, incorporating 1:1 mitigation of the Vintner's Square project's 22.39 acres, in the form of either fee title or conservation easements/restrictions consisting of active farmland. I would like an opportunity to review the proposed condition language so I can review it with our legal counsel in advance of the meeting. The language contained in the Woodland ordinance supplied by Ms. Cerney's counsel is generally agreeable to us. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss this request. I am hopeful that this amendment can be heard at the dune l 1`h Planning Commission meeting. Sincerely, `bale N, Gillespie PO, Box 1210, 95241 > 2475 MAGGIO CIRCLE • LODI, CA 95240 (209) 3;33-4565 • FAX (209) 334-1829 e WW W.G-REM.COM RENIY, THOMAS, (`4100SE and TNIANLEY, LLP A TT0RNF'.VC ATT AXV MICHAEL H- REhIY 1944 -2003 TINA A. rHoMAS ;A,, ES G'_ MOOSE WHITMAN F MANLEY ANDREA A. MArARAZZ,O BRIAN 7. PLANT DF 11:0�Nsn City of Lodi Planning Commission 221 'Nest Pine St, I,odi, CA 95240 455 CAPITOL. MALL„ SUITE 216 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 Telephone:(9I6) 441-2745 Facsimile: (916+) 443-9017 E-mail, info@d'tmmia�a.co�n blip://Www_rtlnmlaw.com May 14, 2003 OSHA R. MESERVE JENNIFER S.HOLMAN ANDREA K. LEISY TIFFANY K. WRIGHT WILL 1AM C. BURKE CHRISTOPHER H. CALFFE ASHLET.CROCKER MARY E. HANDEL SABRINA V. TELLER DIANA L. RACHAL Re: Final Environmental impact Report for Vintner's Square Shopping Center Dear Con-unissIoners: This firnz represents Ann Ivl. Conley and Citizens for Ogen Goverrunent and provided comments on the Draft EIR for the Vintner's Square Shopping Center on April 17, 2003, Despite the changes made: to the Final EIR and the decision of the City to ocoz=n mend approval of Alternative 2, the environmental review for the project does not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, §21000 et seq. (` CEQA"}). The project description, significant impact analysis, growthinducing mpac+ discussion, cnnn�alative impact analysis, mitigation measures, and responses to comments, among other sections of the EIR, are inadequate, The City's conclusion that there is no mitigation to reduce the Loss of Prime 1 anUland impact to less than significant is especially suspect. The lead agency cannot avoid the duty to devise appropriate ;mitigation for an impact simply by concluding that he impar.+ is significant and unavoidable. (Berkeley Deep ,rets Over the Bay C:onznaittee v. Board of port Commissioners (2001) 91 Cal.AppAth 1.344, 1354-1355.) Even if the mpacts cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance, where potentially significant Impacts are identified, all feasible mitigation measures must be adopted, such as offsite preservation of agricultural lands. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4.) I have attached copies of the City of Davis Ordinance requiring 2:1 mitigation for agricultural land conversion and an example mitigation measure from another commercial project in Woodland requiring 1:1 mitigation for farmland loss. These examples show that such .nxib-Zation is feasible. The City's response to the suggested mitigation (located in co,aiment 4-14 of the HEIR) is therefore inadequate as it does not explain why the �Itigal o n suggested is not feasible. (See Los An tiles Unified School District v. City of Los irgeies (1997) 54 Cal App.4th 1019, 1029 ("an adequate EIR must respond to sPecific suggestions for mitigating a significant environmental impact unless the City of Lodi. Planning Commission stay 1A20(13 Page'? suggested mitigation is fiiciatly infeasible").) Moreover, the fact that the General Plan contemplated development of the project area does not excuse the City from considering feasible mitigation io reduce this projecI's significant effects. (See Commu.nities,for a Better Ini4roninen, v. California Recourses Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 1.23 (overturning CEQA Guidelines, §15152, subd. (f)(3)(C).) GVe therefore request. that the Planning Commission not certify the EIR and not 2aant Me pa°Qect approvals requested by the project applicant until an adequate EIR is prepared. Very Truly /Y ours, VC- l U— Osha Rose Mesezve 15J'I:!m rIM aptrs, 40A,0-, 03 Agncultural land. mitigation requirements. Davis Municipal Code- City of Davis page i of i cit Davis"Municipal Code Search NUu mk_pai_Cod_e rot ,_ip I,CodE Marin index Sack to Chap e!_ u_A Chapter 40A RIGHT TO FARM AND FARMLAND PRESERVATION 40A.03,030 Agricultural land mitigation requirements. (a) Beginning on November 1, 1995, the city shall require agricultural mitigation by applicants for zoning changes or any other discretionary entitlement which will change the use of agricultural land to any nonagricultural zone or use. (bj Agricuturat ;mitigation shall be satisfied by: (1) Granting a farmland conservation easement, a farmland deed restriction or other farmland conservation mechanism to or for the benefit of the city and/or a qualifying entity approved by the city. Mitigation shall only be required for that portion of the tand which no longer will be designated agricultural land, including any portion of the land used for park and recreation purposes. One time as many acres of agricultural land shalt be protected as was changed to a nonagricultural use in order to mitigate the toss of agricultural land; or (2) In lieu of conserving land as provided above, agricultural mitigation may be satisfied by the payment of a fee based upon a one to one replacement for a farmland conservation easement, or farmland deed restriction established by the city councit by resolution or through an enforceable agreement with the developer, The in lieu fee option must be approved by the city councit, -rhe fee shalt be equal to or greater than the value of a previous farmland conservation transaction in the planning area plus the estimated cost of legal, appraisal and other costs, including staff time, to acquire property for agricultural ;mitigation. The in lieu fee, paid to the city, shall be used for farmland mitigation purposes, with priority given to Lands with prime agricultural soils and habitat value. � `c -t The land inctuded within the one hundred feet agricultural buffer required by section 40A,01.050(c) shalt not be included in the calculation for the purposes of determining the amount of land that is required for mitigation. (d) n is the intent of this program to work in a coordinated fashion with the habitat conservation objectives of the Yoto County habil 'at management program, and, therefore, farmland conservation easement areas may overlap partially or completely with habitat easement areas approved by the State Department of Fish and Game and/or the Yolo County habitat management program. Up to twenty percent of the farmland conservation easement area may be enhanced for wildlife habitat purposes as per the requirements of the State Department of Fish and Game and/or Yolo County habitat management program; appropriate ntaintenarice, processing or other fees may be required by the habitat program in additic- to the requirennents set forth herein. (Ord. No. 1823) § 1 (part),] Chapter 40A_ -Jump to- - Printer Friendly Version tt)://WWW.ci v.dati,is.ca.Lis2'emolcitvcode/detaii.cfm?n=40A&u=2042 tt1a/?nftz RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Turn of the Century Specific Plan (SCH# 99022069) Prepared for the Community Development Department A S S 0 C 1 A T R S October 1999 10149 'FABLLS 3-1 SUMMARY OFtMPACPS AND NIHIGAT3ON MEASURES OR (b) The annexation of the Specific. Plan shall be staged to include all of the project site, except the T46,4 ,awes acreage that wih-Fs remains under W iI110msDm Act contact asratii-3993, OR (c) LA3 t O shalt defemunv that the applicable facts slid circumstances support a finding of suh ianttai conformity with LAi CO Policy IV i) which would allow for annexation of the entire site 2:Aricu,Stural Resnumes„�, i _ n. r` aL 4.2-1 Development of the proposed project would resadt S S 4.2-; _ -- .5U:-. gU in the toss of 94€3 acres of Important Farmland. (A/B) -Fie project applicant shall set aside in perpetuity all equal amount (940 acres of the Plan Area plus Important * arinkind converted for offsite infrastructure) of contiguous, active agricultaual acreage elsewhere in Met County through die purchase of development lights and execution of irreversible conservation or agricultural i easement. "these soils shall be permanently protected from future development via enforceable deed restrictions. Acreage between Woodland and Davis, already experiencing, or likely to experience, growth pressures shall be targeted. Soils and farming conditions shall be equivalent or superior to the project area. Protected acreage equal to file total acreage of any particular development o r-` shall be, set aside prior to eoinmeneenteni of any devc3opneni w N activity within that development. ++eoranciuvs+awasreomcssueazsa.noiHuR%Suna rAare uac 3-5 4.2-4 4.2-5 "➢-A f3 L L 3- t SUNIUMARY GP' EMPACTS AND NUTPGAT90N MEASORES Acreage set acid; required by Nfidgraha f N3easttre 4.54 for loss of Sweinson's hawk foraging bath tat (see Section 4.5, Biological Resources) rimy be used jointly to satisfy all or a portion of dais mitigedrol requiremen#, so fang ¢s 11 meets the habitat needs of d,e species and is retained in active agricultural uses. "flit land shall be managed via ata agreement satisfactory to tate City and Denartmcot of Fish and Game, governing operations such that it remains agricu#turally productive and also provides hawk habitat. Laird haat does not meet fire intent of both measures can not bt used as Joint clidgation, it, which case inree acreage worms be needed in or=der to satisfy both mitigations- conflict with or result in the cancellatio❑ of I {A/14) A Williamson Act contract and conservation casenoent shah be Willinn son Act coutracts. established on 162acresof land outside of the project site, or aiu gtcif land is removed from Williamson Act contract for the regwred detrstttanlretenfton basin, to the satisfaction ofthe City. Development of the proposed project could result 57"S STS 4.2-3 in incompatlb fiihis between active agricultural (AID) uses and future residential uses. La� Implement Mitigation Measure 4.1-I. (bl l-hc Cityof Woodland shall consider adopting a Right to Farm -- Ordinance to address interim land rise conflicts that could occur between new dtat rnav Development of etre proposed project could S S 42-4 adversely affect agricultural viability, (Pdl}) "hie Specific Plan shall be revised to require a 540 -foot buffer within the, project site adjacent to active agriculittod uses to the __ ___ snuzh of Road 2SA. The proposed project may bo incausistent wifh — S — - S 4.2-5 -------------- ---- General Plan policies. (AfB') (a) Implement Mitigation Measures 42-1, 42-2, and 424. �V_ivartGKYSVDOCS�PAOJ6CTS'f W"i9 00. ArcFEABISUM I A91.£.DOC ,AND (b) For General Plan Policies 7.1.4 and i.1 t, the City shall ingternent one of the following measures; 3-6 L9 I I'S I1IRP ¢,2-6 Development of the proposed project, in conibination with ofber Cumulative development, would contribute to the toss of important Farmland, 4.2-7 Development of ---the proposed project, in Combination with other cumulative deveiopaneiat, could adversely affect agricultural viability, 'FAS4,E 3-1 Y OF iMYACIS AND o21_1' (CATI10N MEASURES }:tad that the propfrsed project is essentially consistent -,vita tine direction of for i3erreial Plan Policie's (it) Amend the General flan Policies to confosni with the _ inc>nvsvten,ae� Identified d Aff3) 4np1 . teas[ Mitieatu>n M astat 4.2-1 and/or 42-2, (,Alb) hnplement Maigation Measure 4.2-4, E I'S _o . ._,.._ ,,.NIA .:-i People and property could be subject to seismic LS LS 4.3-3 No niitigatk>n treasures would be required to reduce ct avoid N.4 NA hazards snot as groundshoking, lurch crackisa g, sign sfluant envlron�nen{ai effects liquefaction, or sntileinetaT 4.3-2 Structures would be situated in locations LS LS 4 3-2 No mitigation measures would be regasred to reduce or avoid NA NA underlain by expansive soils. __ significant environmental effects, 4.3-3 {'lie proposed project would ai&er s#fe _,.-. -- —___ _._ e fopograpiay, LS i,S _- 4.3-3 No mifigation measures would l'>e required to reduce or avoidJNA--NA-_ NA __ _ which cold affect the rate or extent of erosion. _ _ significant erivironneiitai effects. f 4-3-4 [Inderground pipeline 3nsta91a9:ioa could aesult in LS LS 4.3-d No nnflgation measures; would be required to reduce or avoidUnstable soils or pipes could be exposed to significant environmental effcts. excessively wet soil conditions, which could affectpipeline integrity. 4.3-5 Groundwater withdrawal due to operafioa of 4.3513o mitigation measures would 6e required toreduceoravoid NA project water supply wells could incrementally significant environmental effects, contribute to localized land subsidence, which could affect structures on the pi oject site. _.---------- --- -'---- -- ---- -- --------- --- --.._ .._-N]-A-----._._--- �{ i-6 '{lie proposed pa oject jvoiafd Stave no impaCf un � NI NI #.? tc iJa aiitigataon mensures would be rea]uired to reduce or avoid NA mineral resources, s gnifica.ait en a�runnaenlal effects. 4-T -7 City of Woodland General Plan policies regarding t .7 7 No mitigation measures would be required to reduce or avoid NNA p { p 3 Y significant environmental effects, geotechnical issues. ❑i'SnrirSYSrDOCSNkOi(1CTSil01 %]AAON[litASUMTAa� £.DOG 3-7 AMENDED RESOLUTION NO. PX. 03-I2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LODI CERTIFYING A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PURSUANT 'rO THE; CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ANIS APPROVING A USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES IN THE COMMERCIAL SHOPPING DISTRICT, A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW PARKING FOR COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE LOW DENSITY (R-2) ZONING DISTRICT AND APPROVING AN S LOT TENTATIVE PARCEL MAI'. Case Number: 02-P-408, and U-02-01. WHEREAS, on December 19, 2401, Jim Manion representing Lawes, filed an application for a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Tentative Parcel Map, and Use Permit with the City of Lodi, to construct 297,015 square feet of commercial retail space on 28.91 acres at the northwest corner of the intersection of Lower Sacramento Road and Kettlernan Lane within an area more particularly described as: A portion of Lots 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the Taylor Tract, Assessor Parcel Numbers 027-050-14, 23. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department did study and recommend approval of said rcquest; and WHEREAS, on September 12, 2002, the Planning Commission did consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA; and WHEREAS, after due consideration the Planning Commission did direct staff to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act a Notice of Preparation for an Environmental Impact Report was prepared and posted on December 18, 2002, and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act a Notice of Completion for a Draft Environmental as prepared and posted on March 3, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Notice of Availability for the Draft Environmental Impact Report was posted with the County Recorder on March 3, 2003 and there was a public review period from March 3, 2003 to April 18, 2003; and WHEREAS, on April 9, 2003, the Planning Commission gave the public an opportunity to make verbal comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report; and 03-1 Ldoc WHEREAS. there was public comment, both written and verbal that was generated by the Draft Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, the City of Lodi Planning Division staff did respond to each comment received concerning the Draft Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report was presented to the City of Lodi Planning Commission on May 14, 2002; and WHEREAS, the City of Lodi Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained and referenced in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Vintner's Square Shopping Center prior to approving the project and WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report reflects the City of Lodi's independent judgement and analysis regarding the Vintner's Square Shopping Centers and WHEREAS, a copy of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Vintner's Square Shopping Center is kept on file for public review within the Community Development Department by the City Planner at 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA; and WHEREAS, the required public hearing on May 14, 2003, was duly advertised and held in the manner prescribed by law; and WHEREAS, the project applicant has requested an additional condition be added to the original Resolution 03-12 and is incorporated herein as #23; and WHEREAS, the project identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report, including the Use permit and Tentative Parcel Map, is consistent with all elements of the General Plan. Specifically, that the project is consistent with the following General Plan Goals and Policies: A. Land Use and Growth Management Element, Goat E, "To provide adequate land and support for the development of commercial uses providing goods and services to Lodi residents and Lodi's market share" in that the project will result in an establishment that will meet a consumer demand that is not currently being met locally. 13_ Land Use and Growth Management Element, Goal E, Policy 7, "In approving new commercial projects, the City shall seek to ensure that such projects reflect the City's concern for achieving and maintaining high quality" in that the center go under design review by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee.. C. Housing Element, Goal C, "To ensure the provision of adequate services to support existing and future residential development' in that by providing commercial shopping opportunities, the project will help ensure 03-1 iAm 2 that adequate services a available to support existing and future residential development. D. Circulation Element, Goal G, "To encourage a reduction in regional vehicle miles traveled" in that by providing an unmet consumer demand within the community, the construction of a shopping center with a major home improvement center will ensure a reduction in regional vehicle miles traveled. E. Circulation Element, Goal A, Policy 1, "The City shall strive to maintain Level of Service C on local streets and at intersections. The acceptable level of service goal will be Consistent with the financial resources available and the limits of technical feasibility" in that the project will make improvements to the intersection of Lower Sacramento Road and Kettleman L.ane/I-Lighway 12 and will provide a signal at the planned Road "A" and Kettleman Lane/Highway 12. While the resulting improvements will reduce the level of service provided to LOS "D", obtaining a LOS "C" is not within the financial resources available and is contrary to providing an inviting and comfortable pedestrian environment. F. Noise Element, Goal A, "To ensure that City residents are protected from excessive noise' in that the commercial shopping center will act as a buffer between future residential development to the north from the noise generated at the intersection of Lower Sacramento Road and Kettleman Lanc. Additionally, the amendment to the General Pian removing residentially designated land from the future Road "A" and it's expected noise contour is consistent with this goal. G. Conservation Element, Goal F, -To promote and, insofar as possible, improve air quality in Lodi and the region" in that the project is expected to result in a reduction of regional vehicle miles traveled and there will be regularly schedule transit service to and from the center from both SMART` and the Lodi Grapevine, 1i. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element, Policy A.&, "The City shall consider the need for an interconnected system of pedestrian and bicycle paths linking the City paries and opens space areas with other uses" in that the project will construct sidewalks and bicycle lanes on Lower Sacramento Road, Kettleman Lane and the future Road "A" frontages in accordance with the Bicycle Transportation Master Plan as well as link the internal uses within the center with the overall pedestrian and bicycle circulation system; and 1. Health and Safety Element, Policy C.7, "The goal for travel time by the fire department in responding to an emergency shall be 3 minutes" in that the project site is within a 3 minute response time from the fire stations #3 and #4; and J. Urban Design and Cultural Resources, Goal C, "To maintain and enhance the aesthetic quality of major streets and public/civic areas" in that by undergoing the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee approval process, the project is expected to enhance the aesthetic quality of both Lower Sacramento Road and Kettleman Lane, K, The submitted use permit complies with the General Pian Land Use Diagram and Standards in that the Neighborhood/Community Commercial 03-1 I.doc 3 designation states a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 0.40 while Alternative 2 has a Floor Area Ratio of 0.22. L. The project at this location is consistent with General Flan Land Use and Growth Management Element Goal E, Policy 3, "The City shall encourage new large-scale commercial centers to be located along major arterials and at the intersections of major arterials and freeways" in that the Figure 2-1 of the. Land Use/Circulation Diagrams and Standards classifies Lower Sacramento Road as a.4lane undivided arterial and Kettleman Lane/State Highway 12 as a 6 lane divided arterial. WHEREAS, the. City of Lodi has a demonstrated commitment towards implementing General flan programs such as on-going transit operations utilizing compressed natural gas buses, purchasing alternative fuel vehicles, pursuing agricultural preservation and enhancement activities and improving the downtown and Cherokee Lane areas of the City. WHEREAS, the proposed design and improvement of the site is consistent with all applicable standards adopted by the City. Specifically, the project, as conditioned, conforms to the standards and improvements mandated by the adopted Westside Facilities Plan, City of Lodi Public Works Department Standards and Specifications, Zoning Ordinance as well as all other applicable standards. WHEREAS, the design of the proposed project and type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems in that all public improvements will he built per City standards and all improvements will be built per the Uniform Building Code. WHEREAS, the design of the proposed project and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at Iarge for access through or use of property within the proposed project. Specifically, dedication of adequate right-of-way for State Highway 12 and Lower Sacramento Road improvements have been provided in the project design. WHEREAS, as identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report, the project will not lead to a general condition of blight within Lodi, furthermore, the project is expected to help finance programs that will lead to home rehabilitation, fagade mprovements and other projects to insure the livability of Lodi. WHEREAS, the alternative identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report as "Alternative 2" would achieve the project objectives and would reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts of the proposed project. WHEREAS, these findings and all findings incorporated herein by reference are supported by substantial evidence in the record of this proceeding and before this body. 01-1l.doc NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED, as follows. The foregoing recitals are true and correct, Said Tentative Parcel Map complies with the requirements of the City Subdivision Ordinance, and the Subdivision Map Act. 3. Said Site Plan complies with the requirements of the Commercial Shopping (C -S) Zoning District. d. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Vintner's Square Shopping Center is hereby certified pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. All feasible mitigation measures for the project identified in the Environmental Impact Report and accompanying studies are hereby incorporated into this approval where such measures are applicable to the approved environmentally superior alternative (Alternative 2). 5, Alternative 2 as identified and evaluated within the Draft Environmental Impact Report is selected for approval because it meets project objectives while reducing or avoiding potentially significant environmental impacts. d. Although Alternative 2 substantially lessens some significant environmental effects of the project, feasible mitigation measures that will further reduce or avoid some potentially significant environmental impacts of Alternative 2 are hereby incorporated and made conditions of approval. Said mitigation measures arewithin the jurisdiction of the City of Lodi to implement or require. However, it is reasonably foreseeable that unavoidable significant environmental impacts will result with Alternative 2. Specific economic, legal, social, technological and other considerations make the approval of Alternative 2 acceptable due to the following overriding considerations: a. The project will implement vital municipal infrastructure improvements, b. The project implements adopted City plans. C, The project captures sales leakage and increases the quality of life of local residents. d. The project will generate City sales taxes. e. The project creates part-time construction and permanent employment for local residents. f. The project creates a desirable gateway design into the City. b. The separate document entitled "Findings for the Vintner Square Shopping Center Project' are hereby incorporated into this resolution. q. Said project identified as Alternative'-? within the Final Environmental Impact Report, including accompanying Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map, are hereby approved pursuant to the City Ordinances and no waiver of any 03-1 ] aloe requirement of said Ordinances are intended or implied except as specifically set forth in this Resolution. 10. The submitted plans, including site plot plan, landscape, and architectural elevations for the major anchor building, for the project are approved subject to the following conditions. I I The approval of the use permit expires within 24 months from the date of this Resolution. The Final Parcel Map conforming to this conditionally approved Tentative Parcel Map shall be filed with the City Council in time so that the Council may approve said map before its expiration, unless prior to that date, the Planning Commission or City Council subsequently grants a time extension for the filing of the final map, as provided for in the City's Subdivision Ordinance and the Subdivision Map Act. It is the developer's responsibility to track the expiration date. Failure to request an extension will result in a refilling of the Tentative Parcel Map and new review processing of the reap. 12. Prior to submittal of any further plan check or within 90 days of the approval of this project, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall sign a notarized affidavit stating that "I(we), _____, the owner(s) or the owner's representative have react, understand, and agree to implement all mitigation measures identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Vintner Square Shopping Center and the conditions of the Planning Commission approving 02-P-008, and U-02-01." Immediately following this statement will appear a signature block for the owner or the owner's representative which shall be signed. Signature blocks for the City Planner and City Engineer shall also appear on this page. The affidavit shall be approved by the City prior to any improvement plan or final map submittal. 13. Prior to issuance of any building permit on the site, each building shall be reviewed by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee for consistency with this resolution as well as all applicable policies of the City. 14. All applications for Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee consideration shall comply with the following conditions: A. All buildings shall meet the required setbacks for the C -S zoning district. B. All buildings shall implement building elements and materials illustrated on thee submitted elevation or otherwise consistent with the architectural theme presented on the submitted elevation of the major tenant building, dated May 5, 2003. SPARC shall find that there is sufficient articulation of primary fapade elevations. C. The southernmost driveway on Lower Sacramento Road shall be limited to a right-in/right-out turning movement and be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the driveway will not interfere with driver expectations for the intersection of Lower Sacramento Road and Kettleman Lane. D. Developmrent on Parcel 4 shall include pedestrian features within the area of the southeast corner of the parcel. E. Submit a construction landscape plan consistent with the submitted conceptual landscape pian. The applicant shall also insure that the overall 03-11.doc 6 ratio of trees, including perimeter Iandscaping is equal to one tree for every four parking spaces. F. The applicant shall select and note on all plans a common tree specie for the parking lot and perimeter areas from the list of large trees as identified in the Local Government Commission's "Tree Guidelines for the San Joaquin Valley" G. All drive-through facilities shall have a "double service window" configuration and pull-out lane to minimize auto emissions. H. Cart corrals shalt to be provided in the parking lot adjacent to Lowes and distributed evenly throughout the lots rather than concentrated along the main drive aisle. In addition, a cart corral shall be provided as close as possible to the bus stop/shelter on Lower Sacramento Road. L Trash enclosures shall be designed to accommodate separate facilities for trash and recyclable materials. Trash enclosures having connections to the wastewater system shall install a sand/grease trap conforming to Standard Flan 205 and shall be covered. 1. A bus stop shall be provided on Lower Sacramento Road. A bus turnout as shown on the plot plan is not approved. The bus stop shall be located north of the signalized driveway and shall include a concrete bus pad and a bus shelter to the approval of the Public Works Department and Community Development Department. An at grade pedestrian walkway shall be provided from the bus stop to the east side of the proposed Lowe's store to accommodate transit passengers. 15. Prior to approval of the final parcel map for the project, the applicant shall comply with the following conditions: A. Dedication of street right-of-way as shown on the tentative snap with the following changes/additions: L Street right-of-way dedication of 5 feet and corner cutoffs is required on the south side of Taylor Road. The existing right-of- way on Taylor Road is 50 feet. The required street right-of-way is 55 feet. ri. Right-of-way dedications on Lower Sacramento Road and Kettleman Lane shall be in conformance with the recommendations of the street geometric study currently being performed by Mark Thomas & Company for this project and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Caltrans. Right-of-way dedications on Kettleman Lane shall be made to Caltrans in conformance with all applicable requirements. S. Note on map that all parcels enjoy reciprocal parking and access to and from each other. C. Dedication of public utility easements as required by the various utility providers and the City of Lodi. D. Submit final map per City requirements including a preliminary title report and the standard note regarding requirements to be met at subsequent date. Os-ll.doc E. payment of the filing and processing fees and charges for services performed by City forces per the Public Works Fee and Service Charge Schedule, This fee is subject to periodic adjustment as provided by the implementing ordinance/resolution. The fee charged will be that in effect at the time of collection indicated above. F. Note that parcels 1 through 7 are zoned C -S to allow development of a commercial shopping center and that the conditions of this resolution are applicable to these parcels. G. Note that Parcel 8 is zoned R-2 for single-family residential development and that the development of Parcel 8 shall be in conformance any future conditions of approval for a Growth Management Development Plan and tentative map required for the development of a residential subdivision. fi, Payment of the Filing and processing fees and charges for services performed by City forces per the Public Works Fee and Service Charge Schedule. 1. Payment of Development Impact Mitigation Fees. A Fee Payment Agreement covering Development impact Mitigation Fees for the proposed parcels was recorded in the Official Records of San Joaquin County on February 22, 2002, as Instrument No. 2002-02418 1. This fee is subject to periodic adjustment as provided by the implementing ordinance/resolution, The fee charged will be that in effect at the time of collection indicated above. The endorsements on the final map shall idemnify and hold harmless all officials and employees of the City of Lodi. R. A detailed construction landscape improvement and irrigation plant for the center shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Planner, L. Minor amendment to the Tentative Parcel Map may be approved by the City Engineer and City Planner, provided that the Map is still in substantial conformance with this original approval. M. The developer shall coordinate with the Fire Department on all hydrant locations. M All easements, right-of-way and other public land as shown on the Tentative Map shall be. dedicated to City of Lodi policy. All property or property interest shall be granted to the City free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the City of Lodi and free and clear of environmental hazards, hazardous materials or hazardous waste. 16. prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall comply with the following conditions: 03-11.doc A. Submit engineering calculations and preparation of improvement plans and estimate per City Public Improvement Design Standards for all public improvements for all parcels at the time of development of the first parcel. Said plans shall include: 1. Detailed utility master plans and design calculations for all phases of the development. Master plans shall include off-site areas as appropriate. Developer's engineer shall establish reasonable master pian area boundaries to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. it. A current soils report. If the soils report was not issued within the past three (3) years, provide an updated soils report from a licensed geotechnical engineer. in, Grading, drainage and erosion control plan. iv. Copy of Notice of Intent for NPDPS permit, including storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). V, All utilities, including street lights and electrical, gas, telephone and cable television facilities. vi. L?ndergrounding of existing overhead utilities, excluding transmission Ines. vii. Installation of a traffic signal at the Kettleman Lane/Road "A" intersection. viii. Traffic striping for Lower Sacramento Road, Road "A" and Kettleman Lane. ix, A complete plan check submittal package including all the items listed above plus engineering plan check fees is required to initiate the Public Works Department pian review process for the engineered improvement plans. P. Abandon and/or remove all wells, septic systems and underground tanks in conformance with applicable City and County requirements and codes prior to approval of public improvement plans. C. Install all public utilities and street improvements in conformance with City of Lodi master plans and design standards and specifications, including, but not limited to, the following: i. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, traffic signal, street lights, medians and landscaping and irrigation systems. All improvements on Kettleman Lane require Caltrans approval. Additional right-of- way acquisition outside the limits of the map may be required and shall be the responsibility of the developer. ii. The extension/installation of all public utilities, including the extension of roaster plan water and wastewater mains to the south side of Kettleman Lane. iii. Note that trench cuts on Lower Sacramento Road will not be allowed to provide new utility connections. iv. ;Note that it is the applicants responsibility to meet all public utility design issues and requirements to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Work. 03-= l.doc 9 Relocate existing utilities, as necessary, and place all existing overhead lines underground, excluding electric (64 kv) transmission lines. The public storm drain system improvements shall be in compliance with applicable terms and conditions of the City's Phase 11 NPI)ES storm water permit, as approved and amended. D. The right-of-way and lane configuration for Road "A" shall be consistent with the West Side Facility Master Plan. The street improvements will includo a landscaped median and parkways. Improvements to the west side of Road "A" shall extend to and include the installation of curb and gutter. Acquisition of street and public utility easements from the adjoining properties may be necessary to allow this construction and shall be the responsibility of the developer. Street improvements for Road "A" shall be constructed from the signalized intersection on Kettleman Lane to the north side of Taylor Road, E. All public improvements to be installed under the terms of an improvement agreement to be approved by the City Council prior to development of the first parcel. F. resign and installation of public improvements to be in accordance with City master plans and the detailed utility master plans. C, Note that the developer may be eligible for reimbursement from others for the cost of certain improvements. 11 is the developers responsibility to request reimbursement and submit the appropriate information per the Lodi Municipal Code (LMC) §16A0. EI, Acquire street right-of-way, public utility easements and/or construction easements outside the limits of the map to allow the installation of required improvements on Kettleman Lane and Road "A". L Payment of the Wastewater capacity fee necessary for each building permit. 'Phis fee is subject to periodic adjustment as provided by the implementing ordinance/resolution. The fee charged will be that in effect at the time of collection indicated above. 3. Obtain a San .Joaquin County well/septic abandonment permit and abandon the existing well on parcel 8 and any septic tanks or other underground tanks that may be encountered to the satisfaction of San Joaquin County. K. Obtain a Caltrans Encroachment Permit for work within Kettleman Lanelliighway 12 right-of-way. L. Drainage easements shall be granted between private property owners concurrently with the transfer of title where lots drain onto adjacent or abutting lots. 03-1 Luce 10 M. Install fire hydrants at locations approved by the Fire Marshall. N. The Engineer of record shall certify that all grading and construction of grading related improvements (erosion control, storm drains, eet.,) have bee in substantial conformance with the approved plans, reports, and standards. 0, This development is subject to the approval of the Lodi Unified School District and the payment of school fees prior to the issuance of building permits in accordance with Government Code Section 53080. All building roofs shall be finished with a reflective roofing system that will minimize the ambient heat radiated from the building. Q. If construction of the on-site improvements is to be phased, a phased development plan shall be submitted showing the phased construction of water, wastewater, story drainage and traffic circulation improvements. The phasing plan may be subject to further conditions. Should the developer decide to develop phases out of numerical sequence with the approved phasing as shown on the plan, all conditions required of the preceding phases shall be completed unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and City Planner. Other conditions may be imposed by the City Engineer and City Planner. R. The mechanical plans shall show the use of HVAC equipment meeting the specifications of the acoustical analysis performed for buildings as approved by the Site Plan Architectural Review Committee. S. Incorporate an Air in Public Places project in partnership with the Arts in Public Places Advisory Board and make application for such partnership prior to approval of the building permit. 17. Prior to an encroachment permit for work within the Kettieman Lane( State Highway 12 right-of-way, the applicant shall comply with the following conditions: A. A traffic impact study will need to be completed in accordance with Caltrans Traffic Impact Study (TIS) guidelines. I3. All left turn pockets (at Road "A" and Lower Sacramento Road intersections) on SR 12 will need to have Min bay tapers, appropriate deceleration lengths based on posted speed li€nit and storage based on a completed and approved traffic study. C. The lane drop on westbound SR 12 west of road "A" will need to be designed in accordance with the Traffic Manual's figure 6-15 (Typical lane reduction transition). The placement of the W75 (Lane ends merge left) sign will have to be on westbound SR 12 west of the intersection with road "A" 03-11.doc D. The U-turn striping on westbound SR 12 at road "A" shall not be allowed. The proposed left turn pocket shall be striped as a painted island from the end of the raised median to the intersection. The left turn pocket shall be allowed and designed once the development on the southwest corner takes place. E. Submit the traffic study to the Traffic Operations Division in order for a determination as to the need for a right in/right out at the driveway east of road "A". F, The project shall be consistent with the alignment and striping changes being made by the Kettleman Lane Gap Closure project, EA 10-OG570K. G. Highway drainage shall be captured in a system along the highway and taken to the drainage system at the SR 121 Lower Sacramento road intersection. Any drainage inlets placed within the state right of way shall be type G-3 or GO and have a 600-12X grate. The applicant shall submit all drainage calculations to Caltrans, District IQ. H, Onsite drainage shall either be retained onsite or taken to the city system. The applicant shall submit to Caltrans a letter of approval from the city regarding the drainage system. The Letter should include approval of the onsite drainage calculations, and address issues such as attenuation of flows, onsite detention, oil/water separator, and available capacity of amain trunk Ime. 1. Submit to Caltrans, District 10, documentation that cultural (archaeological), biological, and hazardous waste surveys have been conducted within Caltrans right of way. Submit to Caltrans, District 10, cultural surveys that include a recent record search from the information center and an Archaeological Survey Report (ASR). K. Submit to Caltrans, District 10, a Natural Environment Study report that documents the results of biological surveys and the record search from the California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database. A qualified biologist shall conduct surveys at the appropriate time of year to determine if listed plant or animal species or wetlands occur in the area. Surveys should meet the protocol standards of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. L. Submit a copy of Attachment A, confirming that the land to be dedicated to Caltrans is free of hazardous waste. M. Contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) concerning the project. The results of the information from NAHC should be used to consult with Native American Tribes and groups regarding concerns within the project area. 03-1 Ldoc 12 18. During construction, the developer shall comply with the following conditions: A. The developer shall submit a traffic control plan for all phases of construction for approval by the City Engineer. Said plan shall include all traffic control devices. B. Paving of roads and parking lots shall be completed as early as possible to mitigate short team dust problems associated with construction, C. Grading, excavation or other related earth moving operations, including warm-up and maintenance activities, shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays or holidays. Applicant shall contact the Building Official and the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District to insure compliance with Mitigation Measures 3.3-A.I and 3.3-A.2. D. The developer shall construct erosion control devices of a type and size at locations approved by the City Engineer. Devices shall be installed and maintained in working condition during the rainy season (October I through May 1), E. Impacts created by dust shall be mitigated by the application of water on all non -vegetated and unpaved areas of the project site and implementation of all applicable provisions of the fugitive dust rule as adopted the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. F. All public streets leading from the site shall be cleaned daily to the satisfaction of the City of Lodz` Building Official and Director of Public Works. 19. prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for this project, the applicant shall comply with the following conditions: A. Install street improvements on Lower Sacramento Road, Kettleman Lane and Road "A". Street improvements for Lower Sacramento Road and Road "A" shall be constructed from the signalized intersections on Kettleman Lane to the north side of Taylor Road. Street improvements along the frontages of Parcel 8 shall extend to and include the installation of curb and gutter. B, Installation of public improvements on Lower Sacramento Road, Kettleman Lane and "Road A" shall be required with the first phase of the shopping center development, The improvements shall be installed in conformance with City of Lodi master plans and design standards and specifications and shall include, but are not limited to, the following: i. The extension/installation of all public utilities. Water, wastewater and storm drainage master plans and design calculations for the entire development will be required with the first phase of 03-I l.doe 113 development. The utility layout submitted with the site plan requires revision and should not be deemed approved as part of this submittal. The developer's engineer, Phillippi Engineering shall work with Public Works Department staff to resolve public utility design 'issues. ii. Relocation of existing utilities, as necessary, and undergrounding of existing overhead lines, excluding transmission lines. in, The NPDES Phase II storm water permit regulations require that the City develop a storm water management plan and obtain an NPDES permit for the public storm drain system by March 2003. The studies necessary to complete the NPDES Phase II permit application are currently underway. The public storm drain system improvements to be constructed with this development shall be in compliance with applicable terms and conditions of the City's NPDES permit. The developer's engineer shall work with Public Works Department staff to incorporate best management practices (EMPs) into the storm drainage design for the site, including pretreatment of runoff prior to discharge to the public storm drain system, iv- installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk, traffic signals, street lights, medians and landscaping and irrigation systems. All improvements on Kettleman Lane require Caltrans approval. Right-of-way dedications on Lower- Sacramento Road and Kettleman Lane shall be in conformance with the recommendations of the street geometric study currently being performed by Mark Thomas & Company for this project and to the approval of the Public Works Department and Caltrans. Additional right-of-way acquisition outside the limits of the project may be required and shall be the responsibility of the developer. C. The extension/installation of all public utilities, including utilities in Taylor Road, if necessary, to serve the commercial development. D. Payment of applicable reimbursement fees. A request for reimbursement has been submitted to the City by the developer of the Sunwest Marketplace shopping center in conformance with LMC 16.40 Reimbursements for Construction covering public improvements in Lower Sacramento Road and Kettleman Lane constructed with that development which benefit the subject project. The reimbursement agreement is being prepared by City staff and requires City Council approval. At the City Council meeting on September 4, 2002, staff will request that Council set a public hearing for October 2, 2002, to consider the reimbursement agreement Any reimbursement fees approved by the City Council will have to be paid in conjunction with the development of the first parcel subject to the fees. This fee is subject to periodic adjustment as provided by the implementing ordinance/resolution. The fee charged will be that in effect at the time of collection indicated above. 03-1I.doc 14 E. parcels I through 7 shall enter into a master agreement relating to parking area and landscape maintenance. All parking areas shall be kept in good repair with clearly marked parking spaces in accordance to adopted standards. All landscape areas shall be kept in a healthy, thriving condition, free of weeds, trash and debris. "As -Built" reproducible improvement plans shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer. "As -Built' plans shall reflect minor field changes and approved construction changes in accordance with City policy. `rhis plan set shall also include the as -built lay -out for all utilities (gas, telephone, electric, television, and street lighting) as depicted on the individual utilities plan sheets. G. All utilities fronting, abutting or within the project shall be placed underground with the exception of sixty (60) KVA or greater power lines. The placement of utilities underground shall take place prior to the surfacing of streets. H. Noise measurements from the property line showing compliance with the applicable provisions of the City of Lodi Noise Element and Noise Ordinance shall be submitted to the Building Official. 20. The City will participate in the cost of the following improvements in conformance with LIVIC § 16.40 Reimbursements for Construction: A. blaster plan sanitary sewer lines. B. Master plan storm drain lines. C. Master plan water mains. D. Master plan water main crossing of Kettleman Lane. E. Master plan wastewater main crossing of Kettleman Lane. 21. The project shall incorporate all mitigation measures as specified in the adopted Final Environmental Impact Report for the project. 22. 'The submitted Use Permit, Parcel Map and associated plot plan are hereby approved subject to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 23. The project applicant shalt cause a perpetual agricultural conservation easement to he imposed over not Iess than 22.39 acres of contiguous active agricultural acreage elsewhere within the Lodi AVA of San Joaquin County. These soils shall be permanently protected from future development via enforceable deed restrictions. Acreage between Lodi and Stockton shall be targeted. Soils and farming conditions shall be equivalent or superior to the project area. Protected acreage shall be set-aside within one (1) year of the commencement of any construction activity within the development. 03-11.doc 15 24. The Planning Commission hereby certifies that a copy of this resolution and Final Environmental Impact Deport are kept on file with the City of Lodi Community Development Department, 221 West mine Street, Lodi, CA 45240, .Dated: June H, 2003 I hereby certify that Amended Resolution No, 03-I2 was denied by the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi at a meeting held on June I I, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Aguirre, Haugan, White, and Heinitz NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: Crabtree, Niattheis, and Phillips ABSTAIN: Commissioners: 7 ATTE:S`I':�-- Secretary, Plann tg cammi"si®n 03-1 l.doc 16 MINUTES LODI CITY PLANNING COMMISSION CARNEGIE FORUM 305 WEST PINE STREET LODI, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY .Jenne 11, 2003 The Planning Commission met and was called to order by Chairman Heinitz. Commissioners Present: Eddie Aguirre, Steven Crabtree, Dennis Haugan, David Phillips, Dennis White, and Chairman Heinitz. Commissioners Absent: Tim Mattheis Others Present, Konradt Bardam, Community Development Director, Randy Hays, City Attorney, I.D. Hightower, City Planner, Eric Veerkarnp, Associate Planner, and Lisa Wagner, Secretary. The minutes of March 26, 2003 were approved. The minutes of April 9, 2003 were not approved due to lack of a quorum. PUBLIC HEARINGS The request of Duane Heinz for a Variance(s) to permit a substandard (one -ear) garage as well as reduced front, side, and rear yard setbacks to allow construction of a 1,127 square -foot single family home, located at 325 East Lodi Avenue. Associate Planner Veerkamp presented the matter to the Commission. The subject property was a smaller lot less than 1000 square feet in size. The new home would be 1,127 square feet with a loft on the property. Being that the lot was so small, the applicant was asking for the allowance of a one -car garage, a reduced front yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet, a rear yard and side yard zero lot line arrangement. The north and east side of the home would be built right on the alley. The hardship demonstrated for the Variance request was the extremely small size of the lot. Staff was recommending approval of the request. Cotnmissiner Crabtree was concerned about the home being built so close to an alley on a busy street. Mr. Veerkamp replied that he had checked with the Public Works Department and they did not express any concerns. Commissioner White inquired about off street parking in the area. Mr. Veerkamp replied the area residents' park their cars on Lodi Avenue and were not to park in the alley, although he had observed cars parked in the alley previously. Hearing Opened to the Public Duane Heinz, Applicant. Mr. Heinz bought the property for personal reasons. His son will be occupying the home for now and it will be sold at a later date. The lot originally was 5 -feet wider: but that 5 -feet was dedicated to the City for expansion of the alley. He noted that many surrounding homes didn't even have a garage so most of Pkinnins,Ninutes/2003%6-1 1 the neighborhood parks on their property or the street. Hearing Closed to the Public The Planning Commission on motion of Commissioner Phillips, Aguirre second, approved the request of Duane Heinz for a Variance(s) to permit a substandard (one - car) garage as well as reduced front, side, and rear yard setbacks to allow construction of a 1,12'7 square -foot: single family home, located at 325 East Lodi Avenue by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Aguirre, Crabtree, Haugan, Phillips, White, and Chairman Heiniz NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: Vtanneis ABSTAIN: Commissioners The request of I Jeffrey Kirst for a Tentative Parcel Map creating two new parcels from one parcel, located at 1443 East Harney Lane. Conunissioner White left the chamber due to a Conflict of Interest. City Planner Hightower presented the item to the Commission. The request was a simple lot split. The parcel was 1.23 acres with an existing home. The lot split will be frorn 1 lot to 2 lots with a northern parcel that wul be a flag lot. After the split, the lots would meet the requirements of the R-2 Zoning District. Staff was recommending approval of the project. Commissioner Crabtree asked if the widening of Harney Lane would affect the lot? City Planner replied that it would develop with the subdivision immediately west of the site. It was anticipated than when the frontage improvements to Harney Lane go in ,vest of the subject property, those improvements will continue to the new parcel that fronts Harney Lane. Mr. Hightower noted that any improvements to the back parcel would trigger frontage improvements to the front parcel. He also noted a revision to condition d. Lf on the resolution which read '°instead of under grounding existing overhead utilities, the applicant shall relocate the utility to the satisfaction of the City Engineer." Hearing Opened to the Public Jeffrey Kli st, 222 W, L,ockeford Street, Mr. Kirst was the applicant. He urged he (-,O"'mission to approve his project, fie explained the situation regarding the under grounding of existing overhead utilities. There was an existing PG&E power pole in front of the lot that fronts Harney Zane and once the City installs a planned high- voltage transmission line, those existing power lines will be transferred to the new City of Lodi joint pole. He was concerned about items 3 (b) and 6 (a) which concerned the transitions and acquiring easements from adjacent property owners who might be willing to do so. According to the Subdivision Map Act, the City would have to collie in and condemn those easements if he was not able to complete the transition. He would be coming [crack to subdivide the northern parcel with the adjacent Lucky P(annin,rMimateJ200316-I t Property. Hearing Closed to the Public The Planning Commission on motion of Commissioner Crabtree, Haugan second, approved the request of J. Jeffrey Kirst for a Tentative Parcel Map creating two new parcels from one parcel, located at 1443 East Harney Lane with a change to D)If on the resolution to read in accordance to memorandum presented by Planning staff by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Agurrie, Crabtree, Haugan, Philips, and Chairman Heinitz NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: Mattheis and White ABSTAIN: Commissioners The request of G -REM and Tim Manion, on behalf of Lowe's, to acid a condition of approval to Planning Commission Resolution leo. 03-12 for property located at the northwest corner of Lower Sacramento Road and Kettleman bane (Vintner's Square Shopping Center). Commissioners Crabtree and Phillips left the chamber due to Conflicts of Interest, Community Development Director Bartlam presented the matter to the Commission. The item was being revisited with an added condition to the Resolution that was approved on May 14, 2003, which was the meeting where final certification of the FEIR, and approval of two Use Permits, and a parcel map for the Vintner's Square Shopping Center, At that meeting a letter was delivered to the Commissioners that requested, among other things, a mitigation measure be added to the EiR concerning prime farmland. City staff took opposition to that mitigation measure and it was not added in the final action of the Commission. Since then, the applicant has been in discussion with FIs. Cerney's Counsel, a condition of that nature and has come to the conclusion that they would not have a problem with a condition being added to the approval. The added condition would read "The project applicant shall cause a perpetual agricultural conservation easement to be imposed over not less than 22.39 acres of contiguous active agricultural acreage elsewhere within the Lodi AVA San Joaquin County. These soils shall be permanently protected from future development via enforceable deed restrictions. Acreage between Lodi and Stockton shall b e targeted. Soils and farthing conditions shall be equivalent or superior to the project area. Protected acreage shall be set aside within one (1) year of the commencement of any construction activity within the development.,, Commissioner Aguirre asked if this requirement would preclude another developer from coming in without this mitigation. Mr. Bartlam replied the condition would only be in erect on this property. Is there was a subsequent development, that would be a whole other issue. Connnaissioner Haugan had several concerns. The project would be good for the City; however: if the condition is added to the project, would user a precedence for future projects? Mr. Bartlam replied there was a difference, since the applicant was Pianr„rtg"minutPsl2oo3./6-1 t projects`? Mr. Bartlarn replied there was a difference, since the applicant was requesting that the condition be added to resolution. His perspective was stili the same in terms that the EIR still stood as certified by the Commission and the added condition did not change the certification. He noted that no City policy was being enacted. Commismoner Haugan asked if the Planning Commission even needed to handle this issue. He questioned why the applicant and Citizens for Open Government could not handle this between themselves'? Mr. Barham replied that they could not come to terms with one another. The Planning Commission did not have to be involved, but the applicant was requesting the condition be added since an independent agreement was not moving forward. The applicant was hoping the added condition would satisfy the opposition's concern for some preservation of farmland elsewhere. The City doesn't have any enforcement capability if there was to be an independent agreement. Chairman Heintz asked if adding the condition would really please Citizens for Open Government? He pointed out a letter received from Citizens for Open Government just minutes prior to the meeting that listed additional modified language they wished to include on the project. Mr. Bartlarn replied that he also just received the letter and it appeared that the farmland condition did not satisfy Ms. Cerney's concern. Commissioner White asked Mr. Bartlam to explain what a perpetual agricultural conservation easement was. Mr. Bartlarn explained that it is an easement that is recorded an, easement in perpetuity that would run with the property and the owner would never have the ability to remove it. Hearing Opened to tate Public David I evy, Attorney for G -REM. Mr. Levy emphasized the applicant requested the additional condition on their own and not as a mitigation measure. He thanked staff for their time. Commissioner Haugan commended G -REM in their generosity for adding the condition, but still felt strongly about setting precedence for future projects. Ann Cerney, 900 W. Vine Street, Ms. Cerney represented herself and as the Spokeswoman for Citizens for Open Government. She appreciated the willingness of the City and developer to address the issue of retaining prime agricultural land. She went over additional points made in the letter delivered to the Commission that night. First, to make sure there is an endowment for transition costs, management, and monitoring to be paid by applicant. Second, that the applicant identifies the qualified land trust easement to the City by July 11, 2003. She has never opposed the project, it has been about reaching some sort of accommodation on the issue of retention of agricultural land to tie it in with the greenbelt separator between Stockton and Lodi. Commissioner Aguirre asked if there were any other properties that COG would be interested in? Ms. Cerney replied that they, her group of citizens, were concerned about all properties that would be developed_ She wanted all development going forward in the community to also purchase land to replace what was taken for development. The city Council had even expressed their desire to retain prime Pla�ningfbSenutesl2fl63f6-! S 4 farmland. Commissioner Aguiree asked if COG had any property in mind that would be available between Lodi and Stockton? Ms. Cerney did not have any specific properties in mind. COG members will help with finding land to be purchased for farthing easement rights. The land would already be planted and the farmer could only farm it forever. The farmland cannot be used for anything else but farmland. Chairman %leinitz asked Ms. Cerney if she was trying to set precedence for future projects as well as a solution to the greenbelt between Lodi and Stockton. Ms. Cerney replied that she never used the word precedence, she said she was hoping it would become a concept that would be popular and used. She felt that the citizens of Lodi would look at the condition tonight and think it was a good idea. Commission Haugan pointed out that the Westside Master pian has 341 acres contained within it. Would she be back requesting the same thing as what they were requesting tonight? He questioned the motives of her organization. He wanted to know where was everyone when the General Plan was approved in 1441? Ms. Cerney was only present to speak about the project being considered tonight, not other projects. She stated it's not over until the final action is taken by the entity that has the charge under the CEQA. Stan Ellsworth, 3071 Rutledge Drive, Lodi. Mr. Ellsworth noted the project would add needed tax dollars to City and create urban sprawl. He felt that since the applicant added the condition of purchasing prime farmland—what was the problem? He did not want to see Lodi and Stockton to become a massive urban sprawl. Setting aside a parcel of land to prevent this from happening is the right thing to do. Randy Snider, 2.328 Brittany Lane, Lodi. Mr. Snider is a partner in the property located at the southwest corner property on Lower Sacramento and Kettleman Lane. fle appreciated and understood what the applicant was offering, and what Ms. Cerney was trying to do. fie stood before both Stockton City Council and the Stockton Planning Commission begging them to come to the table to discuss the greenbelt. He felt that setting a policy like the one tonight needed to go through the proper channels, Property owners do not like to be told what they can and cannot do with their property. This would not be a simple task and it would set precedence. Jeffrey First, 222 W. Lockeford Street, Lodi. Mr. Kirst agreed with Mr. Snider. He felt it was policy and precedent setting and not good government. He has attended ninny meetings regarding the greenbelt and never saw a COG member there. The farriers were totally opposed to the idea. Jean May, 51-4 Connie Street, Lodi. Ms. May has lived in Lodi since 1448. She was concerned about a greenbelt between Stockton and Lodi for a long time. Stockton was not interested at in creating a greenbelt at this time. Hearing Closed to the Public Chairman Heinitz appreciated how generous G -REM had been throughout the project. He felt it was precedent setting and asked if this was going to happen every time a protect developed. He was absolutely against this condition and the City Council should make the final decision. Flanning.'MirnuLcs/2003/6-1 1 5 The Planning Commission on motion of Commissioner Haugan, White second, voted to deny the amended condition from G -REM by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Aguirre, Haugan, White, and Heintz NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: Crabtree, Mattheis, and Phillips ABSTAIN: Commissioners ADJOURNMENT T As there was no further business to be brought before the Planning Commission, Chairman Heinitz adjourned the session at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Wagner Secretary PlarninIg/Mi 11utes/200316-1 1 6 REMY,-FHOAUS, MOOSE and NLAXLEY. LLP WCHABL H, REMY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 19"-203 TINA A. THOMAS Was G. MOOSE WkUTYA.N F. &ONLE-V ANDUA A, AIMTAWZO BRIAN Y, PLANT OR CGUMP, VIX HAND DELITTERy 455 CAPITOL MALL, SDITE 210 SACRAIMENTO, CAL)poRh'IA 45816 TeJePhQM (916) 443,2745 FOCS=h: (91 69 443-9017 P -Md; irfO&IMMIAW'COM June "1, 2003 1JSHA R. MJT,�,RkRvE 1ENNIFER SOOLMAN ANDUA r, LeSy T(FFAW K. WMQHT WILLLAM C. BUKKE OWSTOMME1 CAUSE ASHLE T. CeocUR MARY E. KwDEL SABBINA Y. TELLER DIANA L, RACHAL Re: New Condition of Approval for Vintner's Square Shopping Cp ,mer Deu Commissioners: This firm represents Ann M. Ceracy and Citi mns for Open Government (,COC The condition now proposed by applicant to provide a conservation casement over replacement farmland is similar to what Cerney and COG requested in t their comments on the draft BIR on April 17, 2001 'the City was placed ou notice of ibe need for this feasible In't'garl" me'"We' well before the Planning Commission considered approval of die P--koJeCt on May 14, 2003, Moreover, providing so legally required, I ch mitigation is a minimal effort and is CemeY Pad COG generally that it be moed as follows: support the concept Of the condition Proposed, but request The condition should specify that an eDdOwmeat for transition costs, perpetual management and mo Also, nittiring mast be Provided by the appjicaut. the easement should be tralisferred to a qualified land trust. Otherwise, their isao assurance that the mitigation land will continue to serve the conservation Purposes for which it was obtained, 2, The aPPEcaut shall identify the ,aseme,ut to the City by July 11, 2001 qualified land trust which will hold the conservation P I City of Lod� Planning Commission June 11, 2003 Page 2 3. Since the proposed project is near the southern border of Lodi and development pressure between Stockton and Lodi is growing, the mitigation land must bo located in the area between the two cities. The courent language in the condition does riot require titis. The language should require the following: The replacement land must be located within the area bounded by Interstate 5 and Highway 99 on the west and cast, respectivety, and Armstrong Road and Eight Mile Road on the north and south, respectively. To the extent that Armstrong Road does not complete, this boundwy, the boundary shall be completed by an imaginary straight line extension OfArmstrong Road to the point that imaginary line intersects Intoo-state 5. Cerney and COG w1ninue to believe that the EIR prepared for the project is deficient under CEQA and maintain their pending appeal of the plantritia , Commission's certification of the EIR. and approval of the project, It is unfortunate that the City did not take Cemey and COG's comments seriously until after it approved the project based on a seriously flawed EIR. By delaying full consideration of this issue, the City bas precluded public review of the mitigation measures now proposed for the project, in the future, we hope that the City will take impacts Oil agriculture seriously and identify reoluired mitigation in the Draft EIR, as required by CEQA. (See CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15120, subl (c), 1`176.4, subd. (a),) Vdery Mily Yours, x_- 0sha RMesero'c 301031MM RESOLUTION NO, 2003-115 III 1111polliq111111 11111pligliptlipli 11,111111111,11111; Gou request to amend Resolution 03-12 adding a condition of approval to the Vintner's Square Shopping Center, located at the northwest corner of Lower Sacramento Road and Kettleman Lane. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Lodi City Council does hereby override the Planning Commission's decision, thereby approving the amendment to the Planning Commission Resolution No. 03-12, adding the following condition to the approval of the Vintner's Square Shopping Center: the Lodi AVA of San Joaquin County. These soils shall be deed restrictions. Acreage between Lodi and Stockton shall be targeted. Soils and farming conditions shall be equivalent or superior to the project area. Protected acreage shall be set aside within the development." Dated: July 2, 2003 AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Beckman, Hansen, Howard, Land and Mayor Hitchcock ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None SUSAN J. BLACKSTON City Clerk 2003-115 "To preserve our local identity and heritage, we need to make an attitude change. We must think of do velo 'p,we-atas crops, vegetables, fruits and nuts, seeds, livestock and poultry. Our farmland and natural habitats are highly developed areas we must protect in order to survive." President Land Utilization Trust Bocard cif Directors ,Jolly' Eilers, President Dall Cort, Vice President Inner -City Developer Judi,,, Root, Secretary -Treasurer Catherine Webster Educa4orlRanchcr Waldo Holt Environmentalist Steve Stocking Educator /Environmentalist Contact: John Filers, President (209) 887-2552 LaIld utill,�78tiofl ThIst 21355 Walnut Drive Linden, CA 95236 mobilizing to preserve what we have: San Joaquin County's agricultural, wildlife and inner-city resources. To expand public awareness of the value of healthy and diverse d land use. To preserve resources through the acquisition or acceptance of legal interests in land. To encourage public policies aimed at preserving land resources at risk. for scientific, historical, educational, ecological, scenic eopen opportunities affecting Sanjoaquin s7 I want to help. U Tease contact me regarding a conservation easement on my land. I want to become an associate member of Land. Utilization Trust. Enclosed is Land Utilization Trust, Incorporated, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, tax-exempt corporation. Contributions are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Date: July 2, 2003 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, July 2, 2003, 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) the appeal of G -REM regarding the Planning Commission's denial of the request to amend Resolution 03-12 adding a condition of approval to the Vintner's Square Shopping Center located at the northwest comer of Lower Sacramento Road and Kettleman Lane information regarding this item may be obtained in the office of the Community Development Department, 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 DatedJune 18, 2003 Approved as to form: Randall A. Hays City Attorney JACu`Y`CLRMF0RMS\N01CM)D0C 6/19103 Amendment to Lowe's Resolution A KA 1. 02704010;KIRIU, TOM & TERRY TRS ;1212 S LOWER SAC RD ;LODI ;CA;95242 'u, 02704011,VLAVIANOS, ROBERT ;1224 S LOWER SAC RD ;LODI ;CA;95242 3. 02704012;VALFNTINE, MENARDA TR ;22 POWERS AVE ;SAN FRANCISCO ;CA;94110 02704087;BROOKHURST SHOPPING CENTER LLC;1371 OAKLAND BLVD SUITE 200 ;WALNUT CREEK ;CA,94596 5 02704088;SUNWEST MARKETPLACE LODI LLC ;1801 OAKLAND BLVD #210 ;WALNUT CREEK ;CA;94596 6, 02704090;GILL LODI LLC ;GLENFIELD, LEICESTER LE35NG ;UNITED KINGDOM ; ;00000 7. 02705014;GEWEKE FAMILY PIP ;PO BOX 1210 ;LODI ;CA;95241 8. 02704089;OREGON FOOD STORES INC ;1801 OAKLAND BLVD SUITE 210 ;WALNUT CREEK ;CA;94596 9. 02733002;RIOS, jOSE �J & MARIA G ;PO BOX 722 ;ACAMPO ;CA;95220 10,02733003;TRACY, JEFFREY L & TAMRA ;2426 BRITTANY CT ;LODI ;CA;95242 11,02733004;mA,rHEWS, RICHARD E & DORENE ;2432 BRITTANY CT ;LODI ;CA;95242 12,02733005;SCHMIERER, MICHAEL H ;2438 BRITTANY CT ;LODI ;CA;95242 13,02733006;SHAH, STEPHANIE ;1273 VIENNA DR ;LODI ;CA;95242 14.02733009;RISHWAIN, MARK B & MICHELLE L ;2421 BRITTANY CT ,'LODI ;CA;95242 15,027330"6;SUNWES',T' HOMEOWNERS ASSN ;317 W LODI AVE ;LODI ;CA;95240 160558011002;DODI SOUTHWEST ASSOCIATES LP ;301 S HAM LN SUITE A ;LODI ;CA;95242 17.05814042;CHRISTIAN J KNOX & ASSOC INC ;633 E VICTOR RD SUITE E ;LODI ;CA;95240 18.05814044;PIRST LODI PLAZA ASSOCIATES ;100 SWAN WAY SUITE 206 ;OAKLAND ;CA;94621 19,05814001;TFSORO REFINING & MARKETING CO;PO BOX 16290 ;HOUSTON ;TX;77222 3.x,02705003;MEIER, EMMA ;345 E TAYLOR RD ;LODI ;CA;95242 2L02705010;PARISITS, ANGELOS S ;9949 FERNWOOD AVE ;STOCKTON ;CA;95212 22.027050--.!;KABA, MIYOKO ;2332 ROCKINGHAM CIR ;LODI ;CA;95242 23,02705020;HEDRICK, LAMAR A & JOANN A IT ;209 E HWY 12 ;LODI ;CA;95242 24.02701502!;MEXICAN AMER CATHOLIC FED ;PO BOX 553 ;LODI ;CA;95241 25,02-706001;GUTIERREZ, MERCED P & F P ;383 E TAYLOR RD ;LODI ;CA;95240 26.02706002;CULBERTSON, JAMES F & P IRS ;641 N PACIFIC AVE ;LODI ;CA;95242 27.02706003;CULBERTSON, STEVEN S & T E ETA0008 ROSEWOOD DR ;LODI ;CA;95242 28,02706005;MCNEIL, DANIEL R & S M ;441 TAYLOR RD ;LODI ;CA;95240 29,02706009;SANCHEZ, DOMINGO ;517 TAYLOR RD ;LODI 7CA;95240 30,02706010,FREY, LELAND G TR ETAL ;485 TAYLOR RD ;LODI ;CA;95242 31.02706012,REISWIG, KENNETH C ETAL ;246 NORTH LOMA ;LODI ;CA,,95240 32,02706013;ROBERSON, KENNETH A & RITA G ;619 TAYLOR RD ;LODI ;CA;95242 33,02706014;FINKELSTEIN, JAY & DONNA ;360 RANELAGH RD ;HILLSBOROUGH ;CA;94010 34.02706019;WACNER, LESTER V & M W ;15472 N HILDE LANE ;LODI ;CA;95240 35,02706024;MASON, EVERED J & BERNADINE K ;28499 N NICHOLS RD ;GALT ;CA;95632 36,02706025;WILBURN, LOREN ;15475 N LOWER SAC ;LODI ;CA;95242 37,02706027;V,XNDER HEIDEN. BEN & RENEE D f681 TAYLOR RD ;LODI ;CA;95242 38.02706028;SMITH, DANA C & DEANNA L ,211 S AVENA AVE ;LODI ;CA;95242 39.02706029;ZAPARA, RANDY K & M A i695 E TAYLOR RD ;LODI ;CA;95240 40,02706035;WILLIAMS, DAVE A & KATHLEEN R ;1100 INTERLAKEN DR ;LODI ;CA;95242 41,02706039;FREY, LELAND G & DEBRA M TR ;485 TAYLOR RD ;LODI ;CA;95242 4105803001;RDICHMUTH, CAROLYN HINES ;1358 MIDVALE RD ;LODI ;CA;95240 Nw� ,»k® IMMIS M1194-1all On Thursday, June 19, 2003, in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, a copy of the notice to a set Public Hearing for July 2, 2003 to consider the appeal of G -REM regarding the Planning Commission's denial of the request to amend Resolution 03-12 adding a condition of approval to the Vintners Square Shopping Center located at the northwest corner of Lower Sacramento Road and Kettleman Lane (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. A -I Patricia Ochoa Administrative Clerk fom",k&,POSIAOC ORDERED BY: Jacqueline L. Tay Deputy City Clerk Jennifer M. Perrin Deputy City Clerk UNDUMM M11 � AND KETTLEMAN LANE On June 19, 2003, 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 notice to consider the appeal of G -REM regarding the Planning Commission's denial of the request to amend resolution 03-12 adding a condition of approval to the Vintner's Square Shopping Center located at the northwest corner of Lower Sacramento Road and Kettleman Lane, 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. 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 19, 2003, at Lodi, California, JACQUELINE L. TAYLOR DEPUTY CITY CLERK PATRICIA OCHOA ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK rot ms/dc'mal Ldoc I i - 01 NOUN= �* MaRIORNW1111=19 >.Please immediately corn it receipt of this./ax bsy calling 333-6702 CITY OF LORI I'. 0. BOX 3006 LORI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 Elm i THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 2003 JACQUELINE L. TAYLOR DEPUTY CITY CLERK SUSAN BLACKSTON, CITY CLERK City of Lodi P.Q. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241-1910 (� t l PATRICIA OCHOA ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK f ri icc 0f tb! Lq 1 ire th NOA A apr capy to File fnrms\advFrs.doc 011 Y COUNCIL SUSAN HITCHCOCK, Mayor EIVILY HOWARD Mayor Pro Tempore JOHN BECKMAN LARRY D. HANSEN KEITH I -AND G -REM, Inc. Dale N, Gillespie P.O. Box 1210 2475 Maggio Circle Lodi, CA 95240 CITY CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET P.OBOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 (209) 333-6702 FAX (209) 333-6807 citycirk@lodi.gov H. DIXON FLYNN City Manager SUSAN J. BLACKSTON City Clerk RANDALL A. HAYS City Attorney This is to notify you that at the City Council meeting of July 2, 2003, the Council voted to reverse the Planning Commission action on June 11, 2003 and approve the added condition of approval to Planning Commission resolution 03-12 for property located at the northwest corner of Kettleman Lane and Lower Sacramento Road, A copy of the City Council resolution pertaining to this matter is attached for your records. Should you have any questions regarding this, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (209) 333-6702. gas= Susan J. Bla`cks City Clerk cc: Community Development Department