HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - January 19, 2005 I-01 Supplemental PHCity Clerk's Note:
The attached documents pertain to Item I-1 on
the January 19, 2005 City Council agenda.
They include the following supplemental
background/reference material (which is not
included in the e -agenda packet):
1. Computer image of proposed Wal-Mart
Supercenter;
2. Draft Environmental Impact Report, Lodi
Shopping Center—Volume I;
3. Draft Environmental Impact Report, Lodi
Shopping Center — Volume II;
4. Final Environmental Impact report, Lodi
Shopping Center
I. Public Hearings
I-1 Public hearing to consider two appeals of the Planning Commission's
decision regarding the Lodi Shopping Center project (Wal-Mart
Supercenter) located at 2640 West Kettleman Lane (CD)
Res. a) Appeal filed on 12110104, by Natalie Weber of the firm Herum,
Crabtree, Brown to the Planning Commission decision on 12/08/04
certifying Final EIR 03-01, approving Use Permit U-02-12, and
Tentative Parcel Map 03-P-001
Res. b) Appeal filed on 12113104, by Timothy Cremin of the firm Steefel,
Levitt & Weiss to the Planning Commission decision on 12/08/04
regarding two conditions: 1) Condition R of the use permit and
tentative map approval resolution requiring signed leases for 50% of
the existing Wal-Mart store before a building permit is issued for the
new Supercenter and prohibits tenant restrictions; and 2) Condition
requiring the project developer to fiend the commercial linkage fee
nexus study under Program 11 of the Housing Element and pay any
adopted fees
Perspective 1
View Lookmg Northwest
.�1,
NC A wm r o? fj2�
-------------'
`^~°^*
r"
IDC
WAIP
WAL,*MART
| "di. California
°'*, w" 1789- 0,
Sheet 2o[7
'--------'--
William p^,""/`
` . .^.�"..^.
^
Perspective 3
View Looking. Southwest
Pmle[I1.
1"WMT -42.0201
scale.
..;r
RM
aiere anad�
e., a".
p d 6y.
L this L sign
ev
PLk
Lx
}NAV
WAL*MART
I odi, California
Yore No 1789-01
Sheet 4 of 7
ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT REPORT
LODI SHOPPING CENTER
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE No,, 2003042113
Prepared for
CITY OF LODI
Prepared by
1pmc
PACIFIC MUNICIPAL
C O N S U L T A N T S
AUGUST 2004
VOLUME I OF 11
EIR TEXT AND APPENDIX A
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
LODI SHOPPING CENTER
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE No,, 2003042113
Prepared for
CITY OF LODI
CITY HALL, 21 WEST PINE STREET
P.O. Box 3006
LODI, CA 95241-1919
(209) 333-6711
USE PERMIT FILE No. UO2-12
Prepared by
PACIFIC MUNICIPAL CONSULTANTS (PMC)
10461 OLD PLACERVILLE ROAD, SUITE 110
RANCHO CORDOVA, CALIFORNIA 95827
AUGUST 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS - 1
VOLUME I - EIR TEXT
INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................v
SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................................. vlll
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................................... l
A. LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION......................................................................................1
Be DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT........................................................................1
C. PROJECT OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................15
D. USES OF THIS EIR.....................................................................................................................16
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES ............................17
A.
LAND USE AND PLANNING...................................................................................................17
Be
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES...............................................................................................26
C.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS.............................................................................................................
35
D.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.................................................................................42
E.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES......................................................................................................49
F.
CULTURAL RESOURCES........................................................................................................65
G.
AESTHETICS..............................................................................................................................68
H.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION...............................................................................................71
I.
NOISE ............................................ 0 0 0 0............... ................. ............... ................ Seem ... ... 0 0 .... 0 0 ...... 0..98
J.
AIR QUALITY..........................................................................................................................112
K.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS...................................................................................................126
L.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS...................................................................................13
0
M.
PUBLIC SERVICES..................................................................................................................134
III. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS..............................................................................................................139
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT......................................................................145
A. OVERVIEW ..........................9...0000.0.00000....0000.....•................. ......................................09•.....•9..0.. 145
Be SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES TO BE EVALUATED ...................................................145
C. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE...............................................................................................148
D. REDUCED PROJECT SIZE ALTERNATIVE.........................................................................15 0
E. ALTERNATIVE PROJECT LOCATION.................................................................................153
F. SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE ...................................159
V. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS..................................................................................160
VI. GROWTH -INDUCING EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT.................................................161
VII. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES ..............................................163
VIII. REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................164
IX. EIR AUTHOR AND CONSULTANTS...........................................................................................166
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS - 2
APPENDIX
A. NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) AND RESPONSES
VOLUME II -TECHNICAL APPENDICES
APPENDICES
B. SOCIOECONOMIC REPORTS
C. GEOLOGY AND SOILS REPORT
D. HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE REPORT
E. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT
F. CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT
G. TRAFFIC REPORT
H. NOISE ASSESSMENT
I. AIR QUALITY REPORT
J. PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
P�
1. SPECIAL -STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD POTENTIALLY OCCUR
IN THE PROJECT VICINITY............................................................................................................52
2. LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) CRITERIA............................................................................................74
3. EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE.........................................................................75
4. EXISTING PLUS NEAR TERM INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE.......................................81
5. TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES — LODI SHOPPING CENTER..................................................83
6. NEAR TERM AND FUTURE PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE..............86
7. CUMULATIVE AND CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION
LEVELOF SERVICE..........................................................................................................................90
8. AVERAGE CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS BY PHASE .........................................................110
9. FEDERAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS .............................................113
10. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY AT STOCKTON MONITORING SITES, 2001-2003 ..........................117
11. PROJECT REGIONAL EMISSIONS................................................................................................122
12. LIST OF APPROVED PROJECTS....................................................................................................140
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
iii
LIST OF FIGURES ..
Figure
P.�
I. REGIONAL LOCATION.................................................................................................................... 3
2. PROJECT LOCATION.......................................................................................................................4
3. VICINITY MAP..................................................................................................................................5
4. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH/LAND USE..............................................................................................6
5A. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS.......................................................................................................................7
SITEPHOTOGRAPHS.......................................................................................................................8
6. SITE PLAN.........................................................................................................................................9
7A. BUILDING ELEVATIONS..............................................................................................................10
7B. BUILDING ELEVATIONS..............................................................................................................11
8. CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN.............................................................................................12
9A. STUDY INTERSECTIONS — NEAR-TERM/PROJECT CONDITONS.........................................72
9A. STUDY INTERSECTIONS — FAR-TERM/CUMULATIVE CONDITONS................................... 87
10. ALTERNATIVE PROJECT LOCATION......................................................................................154
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
iv
Introduction
INTRODUCTION
Legal Basis of the EIR
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared by the City of Lodi as Lead Agency in
conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, to inform
public decision -makers and the public of the projects and plans that they propose to consider.
The following sections from the CEQA Guidelines define the role and purpose of an EIR:
§15121(a) Informational Document. An EIR is an informational document which will inform
public agency decision -makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effect of
a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable
alternatives to the project. The public agency shall consider the information in the EIR along
with other information which may be presented to the agency.
§15151 Standards of Adequacy of an EIR. An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient
degree of analysis to provide decision -makers with information which enables them to make a
decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the
environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR
is reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make
an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among
experts. The courts have not looked for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good
faith effort at full disclosure.
Environmental Topics Covered in This EIR
Section 15126 of the CEQA Guidelines states that an EIR shall identify and focus on the significant
environmental effects of a proposed project. The potentially significant impacts that could result from
the project were identified through preparation of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), and from written
comments received on the NOP. (The NOP and written comments received are contained in Appendix
A.) Based on this initial scoping and coordination effort, the City of Lodi staff identified the following
environmental topics to be addressed in this EIR:
Land Use and Planning
Agricultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hydrology and Water Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Aesthetics
Effects Found Not to be Significant
Traffic and Circulation
Noise
Air Quality
Hazardous Materials
Utilities and Service Systems
Public Services
The initial scoping effort identified several environmental topics or issues where potentially significant
impacts would not be associated with the project. The issues for which the potential project effects were
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
v
Introduction
found not to be significant are listed below, along with a brief discussion of the reasons why these issues
were found not to be significant.
Mineral Resources: No mineral resources of regional or statewide importance exist in the City of
Lodi, including the project site. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of
such resources.
Population and Housing: The project site is currently vacant of buildings and structures. As such,
the project will not displace substantial numbers of houses or people. The potential for the project to
induce population growth is addressed in the EIR in Section VI. Growth -Inducing Effects of the
Proposed Project.
Recreation: The project does not include a residential component which could result in increased use
of or demand for neighborhood or regional parks, or other recreational facilities. The project also
does not include the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, nor are there recreational
facilities in the project vicinity which could be adversely affected by the project.
Environmental Review Process
The review and certification of the EIR will involve the following procedural steps:
Notice of Preparation (NOP): Upon the City's determination that an EIR was required for this project, a
Notice of Preparation was made available to the public and public agencies to solicit input on issues of
concern that should be addressed in the EIR. The NOP included a project description, project location,
and a brief overview of the topics to be covered in the EIR.
Notice of Completion (NOC): Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City will file a Notice of
Completion with the State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research, along with the Draft EIR, to
begin the public and agency review period for the Draft EIR.
Public Notice/Public Review: Concurrent with filing the NOC, the City will publish and distribute the
Notice of Availability of the DEIR, and invite comment from the general public, agencies, organizations,
and other interested parties. The length of the public review period is 45 days, during which time written
comments on the DEIR will be accepted. The Planning Commission will hold a public meeting during
the 45 -day review period to receive oral comments on the DEIR.
Response to Comments: After the close of the public review period, the City will prepare formal
responses to the written comments received, along with an addendum section indicating any revisions
made to the EIR. A Final EIR will be prepared which contains the comment letters, responses to
comments, and the addendum. The Draft EIR will remain a separately bound volume, and will be
incorporated into the Final EIR by reference only.
Certification of the EIR: The Planning Commission will hold a second hearing to consider the
completeness of the EIR under CEQA (see `Standards of Adequacy of an EIR' above), and will adopt a
resolution to certify the EIR. Once the EIR is certified, the Planning Commission may consider the
project for approval.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
vi
Introduction
Project Approval: Since the project will not require a General Plan amendment or Rezoning which
would require City Council approval, the project will require approval only by the Planning Commission,
unless the approval is appealed to the City Council. If appealed, the City Council will be the final
decision-making body on the EIR certification and the project approval.
Notice of Determination (NOD): Within five working days of project approval, CEQA requires that the
City file an NOD with the County Clerk, which certifies that the project has been approved. This filing
begins the running of a 30 -day Statute of Limitations period during which legal challenges to the EIR
may be filed in Superior Court.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: Upon certification of the EIR, the Planning Commission
will also adopt a program for monitoring and reporting on the measures it has imposed to mitigate, avoid,
or substantially lessen the significant impacts of the project. These measures will be fully enforceable
through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. The City of Lodi will be responsible for
ensuring that implementation of the mitigation measures occurs in accordance with the program.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
vii
Summary
SUMMARY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Site Location and Description
The proposed Lodi Shopping Center ("project") consists of an approximately 36 -acre site located
at the southwest corner of West Kettleman Lane/State Route 12 and Lower Sacramento Road in
west Lodi. The site was previously in agricultural cultivation for row crops and is currently
fallow (albeit disced for weed control, except for approximately four acres in the southwest
corner of the site (stormwater basin site) which are planted in alfalfa. There are no structures on
the project site with the exception of two agricultural wells.
Project Overview
The proposed project includes the construction of approximately 339,966 square feet of
commercial retail uses, representing a variety of retail sales and services, to be contained in 13
buildings of varying sizes. The primary user will be Wal-Mart which will occupy approximately
226,868 square feet of floor area, including approximately 70,000 square feet for grocery sales,
19,889 square feet for a garden center (including outdoor fenced area), and 6,437 square feet for
an auto service shop. The Wal-Mart store will not include the use of outdoor metal storage
containers, and will not include a seasonal sales area in the parking lot.
A moderate sized retailer will occupy approximately 35,000 square feet on Pad 12 in the
southeast corner of the site. The remaining 11 buildings will range in size from 3,200 square feet
to 14,788 square feet, three of which will be occupied by fast food franchises, with another two
users consisting of sit-down restaurants, and the remaining seven buildings occupied by such
retail uses as pharmacy, financial services/bank, professional/business services, and other retail
sales and services.
Since the project is consistent with the current General Plan and zoning designations for the site, the
main discretionary City actions requested for the project consist of use permit and parcel map
approval.
The following is a brief summary of project impacts and mitigation measures addressed in the
main body of this EIR. The complete project description and discussion of impacts and mitigations
is contained in the main text of the EIR.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
viii
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS
TMP A CTIR
MITIGATION
A. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Al. Consistency with General Plan and Zoning Al. No mitigation required.
Ordinance. The proposed retail shopping center is
consistent with the governing designations of the
City of Lodi General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
(Less -than -Significant Impact)
A2. Land Use Compatibility. The project would A2. No mitigation required.
constitute a substantial change in land use on the
site; however, it would not result in significant
conflicts or incompatibility with adjacent or
nearby land uses. (Less -than -Significant Impact
A3. Potential for Blight Due to Socioeconomic
Lmpacts. The project would include new retailers
who would compete with existing retailers in the
City of Lodi; however, this increased competition
would not result in any business closures and
consequently would not indirectly result in
substantial physical deterioration of properties, or
blight. (Less -than -Significant Impact)
A3. No mitigation required.
B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
B 1. Agricultural Land Conversion. The project would
convert approximately 40 acres of prime
agricultural land to urban uses. As stated in the
City's General Plan, no mitigation is available
which would reduce this impact to a less -than -
significant level except an outright prohibition of
all development on prime agricultural lands.
(Significant and Unavoidable Impact)
Summary
B 1. There are no feasible mitigation measures
available to reduce the impact of agricultural land
conversion a less -than -significant level.
(Significant and Unavoidable Impact)
B2. Agricultural -Urban Land Use Conflicts. B2. No mitigation required.
Development of the project site could create minor
land use conflicts with nearby agricultural
operations. (Less -than -Significant Impact)
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
lx
Draft August 2004
TMP A CTR
C. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
MITIGATION
Summary
C 1. Seismic Ground Shaking. Strong ground shaking C1. Structural damage to buildings resulting from
occurring on the site during a major earthquake ground shaking shall be minimized by following
event could cause severe damage to project the requirements of the Uniform Building Code,
buildings and structures. (Significant Impact) and implementing the recommendations of the
project geotechnical engineer. (Less -than -
Significant Impact with Mitigation)
C2. Seismic Settlement. There is a potential for
seismically -induced ground settlements at the site,
which could result in damage to project foundations
and structures. (Significant Impact)
C2. If subsequent geotechnical studies indicate
unacceptable levels of potential seismic
settlement, available measures to reduce the
effects of such settlements would include
replacement of near -surface soils with engineered
fill, or supporting structures on quasi -rigid
foundations, as recommended by the project
geotechnical engineer. (Less -than -Significant
with Mitigation)
C3. Stormwater Basin Bank Instability. There is a C3. Design -level geotechnical studies shall
potential for bank instability along the banks of the investigate the potential of bank instability at the
proposed basin. (Significant Impact) proposed basin and recommend appropriate
setbacks, if warranted. (Less -than -Significant
Impact with Mitigation)
C4. Soil Consolidation and Collapse. Soils present on C4.
the site are subject to moisture -induced collapse,
which could result in damage to structures.
(Significant Impact)
The effects of soil consolidation and collapse can
be mitigated by placing shallow spread
foundations on a uniform thickness of engineered
fill; specific measures shall be specified by an
engineering geologist as appropriate in response
to localize conditions. (Less -than -Significant
Impact with Mitigation)
C5. Expansive Soils. There is a low potential for soils C5. The potential damage from soils expansion
expansion at the site, which could result in would be reduced by placement of non-
differential subgrade movements and cracking of expansive engineered fill below foundation
foundations. (Significant Impact) slabs, or other measure as recommended by the
geotechnical engineer. (Less -than -Significant
Impact with Mitigation)
C6. Soil Corrosivity. The corrosion potential of the on- C6.
site soils could result in damage to buried utilities
and foundation systems. (Significant Impact)
The potential damage from soil corrosivity can
be mitigated by using corrosion -resistant
materials for buried utilities and systems;
specific measures shall be specified by an
engineering geologist as appropriate in response
to localized conditions. (Less -than -Significant
Impact with Mitigation)
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
X
Summary
IMPACTV,
MITIGATION
D. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
D 1. Increased Stormwater Runoff. The proj ect would
result in a substantial increase in stormwater runoff
generated at the site compared to existing
conditions; however, the planned on-site
stormwater basin and regulated discharges to the
City of Lodi storm drain system and the
Woodbridge Irrigation District Canal would avoid
downstream flooding and drainage impacts. (Less -
than -Significant Impact)
D 1. No mitigation required.
D2. Flooding. During the 100 -year storm event, the D2. No mitigation required.
project site may be subject to shallow flooding to
depths of less than one foot; however, all finished
floors will be on raised pads at least one foot above
existing ground elevations to prevent flooding of
retail buildings. (Less -than -Significant Impact)
D3. Erosion and Sedimentation. During grading and D3. A comprehensive erosion control and water
construction, erosion of exposed soils and pollution prevention program shall be
pollutants from equipment may result in water implemented during grading and construction.
quality impacts to downstream water bodies. (See EIR text for details.) (Less -than -
(Significant Impact) Significant Impact with Mitigation)
D4. Urban Nonpoint Source Pollution. The project D4. The project shall include stormwater controls to
would generate urban nonpoint contaminants which reduce nonpoint pollutant loads. (See EIR text
may be carried in stormwater runoff from paved for details.) (Less -than -Significant Impact with
surfaces to downstream water bodies. (Significant Mitigation)
Impact)
E. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
El. Loss of Habitat for Wildlife Species. The project E 1. No mitigation required.
would result in the loss of approximately 40 acres
of ruderal habitat. (Less -than -Significant Impact)
E2. Interference with Movement of Native Wildlife.
Development projects can interfere with the
movement of wildlife through an area; however, the
project site does not function as an animal
movement corridor, and site development would
not act as a substantial barrier to animal movement
through the area. (Less -than -Significant Impact)
E2. No mitigation required.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
Xi
IMPACTS
MTTM A TTON
E. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (CONT91))
E3. Loss of Habitat for Special Status Animals. E3. No mitigation required.
The project would result in the loss of
approximately 40 acres of foraging habitat for
three protected bird species, and could result in
the loss of breeding habitat for two protected
bird species. (Significant Impact)
E4. Disturbance to Burrowinp, Owls and Raptors.
The project could adversely affect any
burrowing owls that may occupy the site prior
to construction, and could also adversely affect
any tree -nesting raptors that may establish
nests in trees along the project boundaries prior
to construction. (Significant Impact)
Summary
E4. The following measures shall be implemented to
ensure that raptors (hawks and owls) are not
disturbed during the breeding season:
• If ground disturbance is to occur during the
breeding season (Feb. 1 to Aug. 31), a qualified
ornithologist shall conduct a pre -construction
survey for nesting raptors (including both tree -
and ground -nesting raptors) on site within 30
days of the onset of ground disturbance. These
surveys will be based on the accepted protocols
(e.g., as for the burrowing owl) for the target
species. If a nesting raptor is detected, then the
ornithologist will, in consultation with CDFG,
determine an appropriate ground disturbance -
free zone (usually a minimum of 250 feet)
around the tree that contains the nest or the
burrow in which the owl is nesting. The actual
size of the buffer would depend on species,
topography, and type of construction activity
that would occur in the vicinity of the nest. The
setback area must be temporarily fenced, and
construction equipment and workers shall not
enter the enclosed setback area until the
conclusion of the breeding season. Once the
raptor abandons its nest and all young have
fledged, construction can begin within the
boundaries of the buffer.
If ground disturbance is to occur during the non -
breeding season (September 1 to January 31), a
qualified ornithologist will conduct pre -
construction surveys for burrowing owls only.
(Pre -construction surveys during the non -
breeding season are not necessary for tree
nesting raptors since these species would be
expected to abandon their nests voluntarily
during construction.) (Continued on next page.)
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
X11
Summary
TMP A CTIS MTTTCTA TTON
E. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (CONT91))
E4. (Continued from preceding page.)
• If ground disturbance is to occur during the
non -breeding season (September 1 to January
31), a qualified ornithologist will conduct pre -
construction surveys for burrowing owls only.
(Pre -construction surveys during the non -
breeding season are not necessary for tree
nesting raptors since these species would be
expected to abandon their nests voluntarily
during construction.) If burrowing owls are
detected during the non -breeding season, they
can be passively relocated by placing one-way
doors in the burrows and leaving them in place
for a minimum of three days. Once it has been
determined that owls have vacated the site, the
burrows can be collapsed and ground
disturbance can proceed.
(Less -than -Significant Impact with Mitigation)
F. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Fl. Disturbance to Buried Cultural Resources. It is Fl.
possible that previously undiscovered cultural
materials may be buried on the site which
could be adversely affected by grading and
construction for the project. (Significant
Impact)
Implementation of the following measures will
mitigate any potential impacts to cultural resources.
• In the event that prehistoric or historic
archaeological materials are exposed or
discovered during site clearing, grading or
subsurface construction, work within a 25 -foot
radius of the find shall be halted and a qualified
professional archaeologist contacted for further
review and recommendations. Potential
recommendations could include evaluation,
collection, recordation, and analysis of any
significant cultural materials followed by a
professional report.
(Continued on next page.)
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
xiii
IMPACTS
Summary
MITIGATION
F. CULTURAL RESOURCES (CONT91))
F1. (Continued from preceding page.)
• In the event that fossils are exposed during site
clearing, grading or subsurface construction,
work within a 25 -foot radius of the find shall be
halted and a qualified professional
paleontologist contacted for further review and
recommendations. Potential recommendations
could include evaluation, collection, recordation,
and analysis of any significant paleontological
materials followed by a professional report.
If human remains are discovered, the San
Joaquin County Coroner shall be notified. The
Coroner would determine whether or not the
remains are Native American. If the Coroner
determines that the remains are not subject to his
authority, he will notify the Native American
Heritage Commission, who would identify a
most likely descendant to make
recommendations to the land owner for dealing
with the human remains and any associated
grave goods, as provided in Public Resources
Code Section 5097.98.
(Less -than -Significant Impact with Mitigation)
G. AESTHETICS
G 1. Visual Change Resulting From Project. The G 1. No mitigation required.
project would result in a substantial change in
the visual character of the site; however, this
would not represent a significant adverse
visual impact. (Less -than -Significant
Impact)
G2. Lighting and Glare. Lighting for the project
buildings, parking lot, and loading areas could
produce light and glare at off-site locations;
however, this would be avoided by
implementation of the City's lighting
requirements. (Less -than -Significant
Impact)
G2. No mitigation required.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
X1V
TMP A CTq
Summary
MITIGATION
H. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
H1. Future Plus Project Signalized Intersection
Operations (Access Alternative A and Access
Alternative B). With the addition of project -
generated traffic, study intersection Level of
Service would remain unchanged from Future
No Project conditions. There would be minor
increases in average vehicle delays, ranging
from 1 to 9 seconds at certain study
intersections, which is not considered a
significant and adverse change. (Less -than -
Significant Impact
H2. Future Plus Project Unsignalized Intersection
Operations (Access Alternative A and Access
Alternative B). The addition of project -
generated traffic would exacerbate LOS F
operations at the intersection of Lower
Sacramento Road / Harney Lane during both
a.m. and p.m. peak hour conditions.
(Significant Impact)
H3. Cumulative Plus Project Signalized
Intersection Operations (Access Alternative
A and Access Alternative B). With the
addition of project -generated traffic, all seven
signalized study intersections would continue
to operate at acceptable Level of Service
Conditions. There would be minor increases
in average vehicle delays, ranging from 2 to 9
seconds at certain study intersections, which
is not considered a significant and adverse
change. (Less -than -Significant Impact)
H4. Cumulative Plus Project Access Conditions at
the Signalized Access Drive Proposed Along
the Lower Sacramento Road frontage.
During the p.m. peak hour, the eastbound
left -turn queue length of 250 feet (average
queue) to 375 feet (95 Percentile queue) of
exiting vehicles would extend west to the
internal intersection located south of Pad 10
(applies to both Access Alternative A and B).
(Significant Impact)
Hl. No mitigation required.
H2. The project shall contribute its fair share cost to the
installation of a traffic signal at Lower Sacramento
Road and Harney Lane. (Less -than -Significant
Impact with Mitigation)
H3. No mitigation required.
H4. Modify the project site plan to provide dual
eastbound left -turn movements out of the project site
onto northbound Lower Sacramento Road,
consisting of a 150 -foot left -turn pocket and a full
travel lane back to the internal project site
intersection. In the eastbound direction, a left -turn
pocket and a full travel lane back to the signalized
intersection will provide adequate capacity for
inbound traffic. In addition, STOP signs shall be
installed on all approaches except the westbound to
provide continuous traffic flow into the project site
and eliminate the potential for backups onto Lower
Sacramento Road. On the Food 4 Less approach, a
100 -foot left -turn pocket will be provided at the
signalized intersection. (Less -than -Significant
Impact with Mitigation)
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
XV
IMP A C''TR
MITIGATION
H. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION (CONT91))
H5. Cumulative Plus Project Access Conditions at
Northern Unsignalized Access Drive Along Lower
Sacramento Road. The addition of a northbound
left -turn lane under Access Alternative B would
result in Level of Service F conditions at this
unsignalized intersection. (This condition does not
occur under Access Alternative A where no
northbound left -turn movement would occur.) In
addition, a non-standard 60 -foot back-to-back taper
is provided between the northbound left -turn lane
(Alternative B) at the northern unsignalized access
drive and the southbound left -turn lane at the
signalized project entrance. (Significant Impact)
Summary
H5. The following mitigations shall be
implemented:
A) Extend a third southbound travel lane on
Lower Sacramento Road from its current
planned terminus at the signalized project
driveway to the southern boundary of the
project site;
B) Construct a 100 -foot southbound right -
turn lane at the signalized project
driveway;
C) Extend the southbound left -turn pocket by
100 feet;
D) Extend the taper from 60 feet to a City
standard 120 -foot taper;
E) Eliminate the northbound left -turn lane
into the northern project driveway (under
Alternative B).
(Less -than -Significant Impact with
Mitigation)
H6. Inadequate Left -turn Lane Taper on Westgate Drive. H6. The project site plan shall be modified to
On Westgate Drive, a non -City standard 64 foot move the north project driveway on Westgate
back-to-back taper is proposed between the Drive south by 25 feet in order to
northbound left -turn lane at W. Kettleman Lane and accommodate the required 90 -foot taper
the southbound left -turn lane at the northern project length. (Less -than -Significant Impact with
driveway. (Significant Impact) Mitigation)
H7. Inadequate Left -turn Lane Taper on Lower
Sacramento Road. On Lower Sacramento Road, a
non -City standard 70 foot back-to-back taper is
proposed between the dual northbound left -turn
lanes at W. Kettleman Lane and the southbound left -
turn lane at the middle Food 4 Less Driveway.
(Significant Impact)
H8. Public Transit Service. Development of the project
would create a demand for increased public transit
service above that which is currently provided or
planned. (Significant Impact)
H7. The project site plan shall be modified to
eliminate the southbound left -turn lane into
the middle Food 4 Less Driveway. (Less -
than -Significant Impact with Mitigation)
H8. The project applicant shall work with and
provide fair share funding to the City of Lodi
Grapeline Service and the San Joaquin
Regional Transit District to expand transit
service to the project. (Less -than -
Significant Impact with Mitigation)
H9. Public Transit Stop. Development of the project H9. Modify the project site plan to: 1) provide a
would create an unmet demand for public transit bus bay and passenger shelter at the proposed
service which would not be met by the single transit transit stop; and 2) include a second transit
stop proposed for the northwest portion of the stop in the eastern portion of the project near
project. (Significant Impact) Lower Sacramento Road. (Less -than -
Significant Impact with Mitigation)
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
Xv 1
Draft August 2004
Summary
MITIGATION
H. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION (CONT9D)
H10. Bicycle Facilities. Development of the project
would create a demand for bicycle facilities
along West Kettleman Lane, Lower Sacramento
Road, and Westgate Drive. (Less -than -
Significant Impact)
HI 1. Pedestrian Facilities. Development of the
project would create an unmet demand for
pedestrian facilities along West Kettleman Lane,
Lower Sacramento Road and Westgate Drive,
and internally between the different areas of the
project site. (Significant Impact)
H12. Parkin . Development of the project would
create a demand for off-street parking spaces.
(Less -than -Significant Impact)
H13. Truck Access and Circulation. Development of
the project would create a demand for on-site
truck circulation and site access from W.
Kettleman Lane, Lower Sacramento Road, and
Westgate Drive; however, the project site plan
indicates that adequate lane widths would be
provided within the project site and that
adequate curb radii are planned at the project
driveway entrances and within the project for all
types of trucks. (Less -than -Significant
Impact)
H10. No mitigation required.
HI 1. Pedestrian walkways and crosswalks shall be
provided to serve Pads 8, 9, and 12 in order
to complete the internal pedestrian
circulation system. (Less -than -Significant
Impact with Mitigation).
H12. No mitigation required.
H13. No mitigation required.
I. NOISE
Il. Existing Off -Site Noise Sources. The project Il. No mitigation required.
noise environment would be affected by existing
off-site noise sources. (Less -than -Significant
Impact)
12. Project Traffic Noise. Traffic generated by the I2. No mitigation required.
project would increase noise levels at the
residential properties in the vicinity. (Less -than -
Significant Impact)
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
XV Il
IMPACTS
I. NOISE (CONT'D)
I3. Noise from Project Activity. Noise generated by I3.
activity associated with the project would elevate
off-site noise levels at existing and future
residences in the vicinity. (Significant Impact)_
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
Xvlll
Summary
MITIGATION
The following noise mitigations are identified as
appropriate for the various types of project
activities, to reduce project noise at both existing
and planned future adjacent development:
Parking Lot Activity. No mitigation is required
for existing dwellings or for planned future
residential development in the vicinity.
Delivery Truck Movements. No mitigation is
required for existing dwellings or for planned
future residential development in the vicinity.
Loading Dock/Material Movement Activitx. No
mitigation is required for existing dwellings or
for planned future residential development in the
vicinity.
Trash Compactors. No mitigation is required for
existing dwellings in the vicinity or for planned
future residential development in the vicinity.
Rooftop Mechanical Equipment. To ensure that
the potential noise impact of mechanical
equipment is reduced to less -than -significant
levels, the applicant shall submit engineering and
acoustical specifications for project mechanical
equipment, for review prior to issuance of
building permits for each retail building,
demonstrating that the equipment design (types,
location, enclosure specifications), combined
with any parapets and/or screen walls, will not
result in noise levels exceeding 45 dBA (Leq-
hour) for any residential yards.
Automotive Service Bays. No mitigation is
required for existing dwellings in the vicinity or
for planned future residential development in the
vicinity.
Parking Lot Cleaning. To assure compliance
with the City of Lodi Noise Regulations
regarding occasional excessive noise, leaf
blowing in the southeast corner of the project
site shall be limited to operating during the hours
of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
(Less -than -Significant Impact with
Mitigation)
Draft August 2004
IMPACTS
J. NOISE (CONT'D)
I4. Noise from Stormwater Basin Pump. Occasional I4.
pumping of water from the stormwater basin
would generate noise at the planned future
residential areas to the south and west of the basin.
(Significant Impact)
I5. Construction Noise. Noise levels would be
temporarily elevated during grading and
construction. (Significant Impact)
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
X1X
Summary
MITIGATION
The following measures shall be implemented to
mitigate potential noise generated by the
stormwater basin pump:
1) The pump shall be located as far as is feasible
from the nearest future planned residential
development. In addition, the noise levels
generated by pump shall be specified to
produce noise levels no greater than 45 dBA
Leq at the nearest residential property lines.
The pump facility shall be designed so that
noise levels do not exceed 45 dBA at the
nearest residential property lines. The pump
may need to be enclosed to meet this noise
level. Plans and specifications for the
pump facility shall be included in the
Improvement Plans for the project and
reviewed for compliance with this noise
criterion.
2) In order to avoid creating a noise nuisance
during nighttime hours, pump operations
shall be restricted to the hours of 7 a.m. to 10
p.m., except under emergency conditions
(e.g., when the basin needs to be emptied
immediately to accommodate flows from
another imminent storm)
(Less -than -Significant Impact with
Mitigation)
I5. Short-term noise impacts shall be reduced
through implementation of the following
measures: limiting the hours of construction;
proper muffling and maintenance of equipment;
prohibition of unnecessary idling; noise shielding
of stationary equipment and location of such
equipment away from sensitive receptors;
selection of quiet equipment; notification to
neighbors of construction schedule, and
designation of a `noise disturbance coordinator'
to respond to noise complaints. (See EIR text
for details.) (Less -than -Significant Impact
with Mitigation)
Draft August 2004
TMP A CFTC
J. AIR QUALITY
J1. Construction Emissions. Construction and grading J 1.
for the project would generate dust and exhaust
emissions that could adversely affect local and
regional air quality. (Significant Impact)
Summary
MITIGATION
Dust control measures shall be implemented
to reduce PMIO emissions during grading
and construction, as required by the City of
Lodi and the San Joaquin Valley Unified
Air Pollution Control District. (See EIR
text for details.)
(Less -than -Significant Impact with
Mitigation)
J2. Carbon Monoxide Emissions. Traffic generated by J2. No mitigation required.
the project would increase carbon monoxide
emissions at local roadways and intersections;
however, the resulting carbon monoxide
concentrations would not exceed applicable
thresholds. (Less -than -Significant Impact)
B. Regional Air Quality. Emissions from project- J3.
generated traffic would result in air pollutant
emissions affecting the entire air basin. (Significant
and Unavoidable Impact)
J4. Diesel Exhaust. The project diesel delivery trucks J4.
could result in the emission of Toxic Air
Contaminants (TACs). (Less than Significant)
J5. Emissions from Automotive Products. A number of J5.
products used in automobile maintenance and repair
operations are considered hazardous materials, but
none are classified as Toxic Air Contaminants
(TACs); therefore, the project will not pose a health
and safety threat from TACs. (Less -than -
Significant Impact)
J6. Restaurant Odors. The restaurant uses in the project J6.
could release cooking exhausts which could result in
noticeable odors beyond project boundaries.
(Significant Impact)
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
XX
Project design measures should be
implemented to reduce project area source
emissions, and a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) plan should be
implemented to reduce project traffic and
resulting air emissions; however, these
measures would not reduce the impact to a
less -than -significant level. (Significant
and Unavoidable Impact)
No mitigation required.
No mitigation required.
All restaurant uses within the project shall
locate kitchen exhaust vents in accordance
with accepted engineering practice and
shall install exhaust filtration systems or
other accepted methods of odor reduction.
(Less -than -Significant Impact with
Mitigation)
Draft August 2004
TMP A C^ T
Summary
MITIGATION
K. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
K1. Existing Contaminant Sources. The PCBs in the
existing transformers pose a potential health hazard;
however, the transformers would be removed from
the site, during the normal course of site development.
The agricultural wells on the site could act as conduits
for groundwater contamination; however, these wells
would be properly destroyed prior to site
development. (Less -than -Significant Impact)
K2. Hazardous Automotive Products. The petroleum-
based products, cleaning solvents, car batteries, and
other materials routinely used in conjunction with
Wal -Mart's automotive service shop could pose a
potential health and safety hazard; however, these
materials would be handled and stored in accordance
with existing state law requirements to minimize such
potential impacts. (Less -than -Significant Impact)
K3. Sale of Household Hazardous Products. Household
cleaners, fertilizers, pesticides, oil, automobile
products, and other household hazardous materials
would be sold by Wal-Mart and other retailers in the
project. These products would be safely packaged to
prevent harm to employees and consumers, and
would be handled, stored, and transported in
accordance with applicable federal, state, and local
regulations. (Less -than -Significant Impact)
K1. No mitigation required.
K2. No mitigation required.
K3. No mitigation required.
L. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Ll. Domestic Water Supply. The project would result in Ll. No mitigation required.
increased demand for domestic water service;
however, existing water resources and infrastructure
are adequate to serve the project. (Less -than -
Significant Impact)
L2. Wastewater Collection and Treatment. The project L2.
would increase the demand for wastewater
collection, treatment and disposal facilities serving
the site; however, there is sufficient capacity in the
City's wastewater collection and treatment system to
serve the project without expansion of existing
infrastructure. (Less -than -Significant Impact)
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
XXl
No mitigation required.
Draft August 2004
Summary
IMPACTS MITIGATION
M. PUBLIC SERVICES
MI. Fire, Police, and Solid Waste. The project would mi. No mitigation required.
increase the need for fire and police protection
services, as well as the demand for solid waste
collection and disposal service; however, these
increased demands would not degrade service levels
or result in the need for new or altered facilities.
(Less -than -Significant Impact)
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
When combined with other identified approved, pending, and probable future development, the project
would contribute to the following cumulatively considerable impacts:
• Conversion of prime agricultural land to urban uses.
• Traffic -generated emissions of regional air pollutants, specifically ozone precursors such as Reactive
Organic Gases (ROG) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), as well as Particulate Matter (PM10).
SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The following significant impacts resulting from the project cannot be avoided or reduced to less -than -
significant levels by feasible mitigation measures. Therefore, they represent significant unavoidable
impacts of the project.
• Significant impacts to agricultural resources;
• Significant impacts to regional air quality;
• Significant cumulative impacts to agricultural resources; and
• Significant cumulative impacts to regional air quality.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Chapter IV of this EIR presents the following discussions in the evaluation of project alternatives: the
factors applied in selecting alternatives for detailed analysis; identification of the alternatives considered
for evaluation and discussion of the rationale for including or not including them in the detailed
alternatives analysis; description and evaluation of the environmental impacts associated with the
selected project alternatives, including discussion of the ability of each alternative to meet the project
objectives. The following alternatives were selected for full analysis in the, EIR:
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
XXII
Summary
• No Project Alternative (no build scenario);
Reduced Project Size Alternative (i.e., Wal-Mart only on a 24 -acre site)
• Alternative Project Location (northeast quadrant of Highway 12 and Thornton Road in San Joaquin
County).
Based on the alternatives analysis, it was determined that the Reduced Project Size alternative was the
slightly superior alternative although it would not avoid or reduce the significant and unavoidable
agricultural and air quality impacts of the proposed project to less -than -significant levels.
GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS
The proposed Lodi Shopping Center would have a less -than -significant growth -inducing effect by way of
producing a minor economic stimulus locally. This would occur through direct employment, as well as
indirect growth through demand for local goods and services. This could in turn contribute to incremental
secondary effects such as increased hiring by suppliers. To the extent that the new employees are drawn
from outside the local area, there could be a minor increase in local housing demand. The shopping center
project would also generate significant sales tax revenue for the City, enabling expenditures on capital
improvement projects that would also stimulate secondary economic activity. During the construction
phase, temporary jobs would be created and others supported in the purchase of materials.
As discussed in Section VI. Growth -Inducing Effects of the Proposed Project, the project would not result
in significant growth inducement by way of setting a precedent for further urban expansion, by creating
excess infrastructure capacities, or by removing obstacles to further growth.
AREAS OF POTENTIAL CONTROVERSY
In response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP), contained in Appendix A, comment letters were received
from only the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District (SJVUAPD). These letters, which are also included in Appendix A, primarily
outline each agency's recommendations with respect to the EIRs content and methodologies to be
employed in the analysis of subjects under their purview. No particular concerns are raised in either
letter with respect to environmental issues which could give rise to potential controversy.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
As required under Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP) will be prepared and adopted for the proposed project. The MMRP is intended to
ensure that the mitigation measures identified in this EIR are carried out, and will be primarily
implemented by the developer and confirmed through inspections and oversight by the responsible City
departments. The MMRP will be adopted by the City of Lodi concurrently with the adoption of findings
and prior to approval of the proposed project.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
xxiii
I. Project Description
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION
Project Site
The proposed Lodi Shopping Center ("project") consists of a 36.18 -acre site located at the southwest
corner of West Kettleman Lane (State Route 12) and Lower Sacramento Road in the western portion of
the City of Lodi (see Figures 1 through 3). This includes 33.1 acres for the proposed shopping center,
and 3.08 acres for dedicated public street right-of-way. In addition, the project will require a temporary
stormwater basin of about 3.65 acres, which will be located within an easement area west of the
southwest portion of the shopping center site. The proposed shopping center is located entirely within
the incorporated limits of the City of Lodi, and the basin site is located outside the City limits in the
unincorporated area of San Joaquin County. The combined acreage of the shopping center project and
the stormwater basin is 39.83 acres. (For purposes of this EIR, the project site is considered to consist of
this combined area of approximately 40 acres.)
The project site was previously in agricultural cultivation for row crops and is currently fallow (albeit
disced for weed control) except for the planned stormwater basin site, which is planted in alfalfa. There
are no structures on the site with the exception of two agricultural wells and associated concrete
standpipes and electrical services. The wells formerly fed an agricultural irrigation ditch which runs
across the west -central portion of the site in a north -south direction and along portions of the north and
south site boundaries.
The site is largely absent of woody vegetation with the exception of three mature California walnut trees
and two almond trees located at intervals along the south site boundary, and two small walnut trees and a
young coast live oak along the Lower Sacramento Road site frontage.
Surrounding Land Use
The project site is located at the western edge of the urbanized area of Lodi, and is surrounded by a mix
of urban and rural land uses (see Figures 4 and 5). The lands to the east and northeast are occupied by
two commercial retail shopping centers, including the Target/Safeway shopping center located at the
northeast corner of Kettleman Lane and Lower Sacramento Road, and the Sunwest Plaza located to the
east across Lower Sacramento Road from the project site. To the south of the Sunwest Plaza and across
from the southeastern portion of the project site are 10 single-family dwellings in an unincorporated area
of the County. Four of these residential properties have frontage on Lower Sacramento Road, with the
remaining six homes fronting on Olive Avenue which runs east from Lower Sacramento Road. The
lands adjacent to the south of the project site are occupied by vineyards associated with the Van Ruiten-
Taylor Winery, with the nearest winery buildings located approximately 300 feet south of the project
site. The lands to the west are in cultivation for hay. The property to the north across Kettleman Lane is
currently under development for the Vintner's Square retail shopping center. There are two or three rural
residences located approximately 600 feet west of the site along the north side of Kettleman Lane. All of
the lands to the south and west of the project site currently lie outside the incorporated boundaries of the
City of Lodi.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
I. Project Description
B. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The following description of the proposed project is based on project plans and information provided by
the project applicant.
Project Overview
The proposed project includes the construction of approximately 339,966 square feet of commercial
retail uses, representing a variety of retail sales and services, to be contained in 13 buildings of varying
sizes on the 40 -acre project site (see Figure 6) (see `A. Location and Site Description' above for a
detailed breakdown of the site acreage). The primary user will be Wal-Mart which will occupy
approximately 226,868 square feet of floor area, including approximately 70,000 square feet for grocery
sales, 19,889 square feet for a garden center (of which 10,656 square feet will be outdoor fenced area),
and 6,437 square feet for an auto service shop. The Wal-Mart store will be open 24 hours/7 days per
week; however, all truck deliveries will occur between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM per the City of Lodi
Noise Regulations. The Wal-Mart operation will not include the use of outdoor metal storage containers,
and will not include a seasonal sales area in the parking lot.
A moderate sized retailer will occupy approximately 35,000 square feet on Pad 12 in the southeast corner
of the site. The remaining 11 buildings will range in size from 3,200 square feet to 14,788 square feet,
three of which will be occupied by fast food franchises, with another two users consisting of sit-down
restaurants, and the remaining six buildings to be occupied by such retail uses as pharmacy/drugstore,
financial services/bank, personal services, business/professional services, and other retail uses. The
planned floor areas are shown in Figure 6 and may be subject to minor refinements to meet City and
tenant requirements.
The project will include a 10 -foot high masonry wall along the west side of the Wal-Mart store to
provide visual and noise screening for the loading and delivery truck circulation area. An 8 -foot high
masonry wall will also be constructed along the entire length of the southern project boundary.
The project will connect to existing sanitary sewer and domestic water mains in the vicinity which have
sufficient capacity to serve the project (see Section II. L. Utilities and Service Systems).
The project is planned to commence construction in early 2005, with completion and opening scheduled for
the fall of 2005. The project will be constructed in a single phase.
Since the project is consistent with the current General Plan and zoning designations for the site, the main
discretionary City actions requested for the project consist of use permit and tentative parcel map approval.
The use permit will also constitute the City's approval for the sale of alcoholic beverages (for off-site
consumption) at the Wal-Mart store.
Access and Circulation
Vehicular access to the project site will be provided from three entrances on Lower Sacramento Road,
one entrance on West Kettleman Lane, and two entrances from Westgate Drive, a new City street
flanking the west side of the project site (see Figure 6). The portion of Westgate Drive running along the
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
2
o e.o goo FIGURE 1
SCALE IN MILES N
REGIONAL LOCATION
I3PACIFIC MUNICIPAL
C 0 N s U I. r A m r 3
..�..,:,.. wY ,. « ...,.:
..., ., � flu i11 1 �1Li# #Lla`�f t3 r : w�vwre w s v
,SS n
rn tVATflA,4S
,. . . . . . . . . . . . .----- ---------------
ROAD:
9 :,AIRMORT
CAD
,�
::
..:: ':� ... :: is
:'if
..
:E+/jy��, :.
:..
...
ELFt.:.
f�}R
ST; :.:VEWC LAR .
PFC.a',
-El
.'.
!�0
RD cc
,ECp�
�i71f
. . . . . . .
n�
)WAY R.D..
•S�
'
71RI
mu.ma
W
cc
_.-
SET
.CCr
INGH
w RD_,
�
v;
,
Z
'.�.
,ems
f
RANCH0
AAMETA
21
L
M
W.
.9
x
. �
s
s
•�w.RYFR
yy ..
Ell
ROVE IL
Ipmc
14• �"'
PACIFIC MUNICIPAL
C 0 N$ U t! A N Y S
CAD
::
..:: ':� ... :: is
:::..: ':V ••.::..:. - .. ,.:..
..
:E+/jy��, :.
:..
...
..
f�}R
ST; :.:VEWC LAR .
PFC.a',
,ECp�
�i71f
. . . . . . .
n�
•S�
'
mu.ma
.1R1
R,/..
S1 .. :36-
p I))N.
�
v;
,
Z
'.�.
RANCH0
AAMETA
A#*"T
W.
Ell
ROVE IL
:Fi
io
&)
ANi/'i.7[ T f
/R
Hid
S.
�r
Ipmc
14• �"'
PACIFIC MUNICIPAL
C 0 N$ U t! A N Y S
0 om 0.50
SCALE IN MILES N
FIGURE 3
VICINITY MAP
pmc
5 ..r�
PACIFIC MUNICIPAL
coNsU1tA"Its
tiO/OZ/9 aao*3sn aWl-MOHd -ma3V%s3anoij T soiHwuE)%iao-h:M
6
Qz
In
IiLU
i
IN =
W
0
U
IL
Vz
z M
L)
VN
a2
�0
�u
M
O
GO
N
it
U
C6
O
H
O
2
a
Q
W
it
D
0
LL
co
W
It
D
C7
LL
0
z
Q
U_
a
a
Q
0
0
1. Southward View from Northeast Corner of Site
PHOTO DATE. OCTOBER 10, 2003
2. Southward View from Southeast Corner of Site
FIGURE 5A
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
PMC
7 PACIFIC MUNICIPAL
C O N S U L T A N T S
1,, Southward View from Northeast Corner of bite
PHOTo DATA. OCTOBER 10, 2003
2. Southward View from Southeast Corner of Site
7
:W
Al
Wilk
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
I'`wVI C ;
1 Eastward View along State Route 12 / W. Kettleman Lane with Project Site on the Right
PHOTO DATE.- OCTOBER 101, 2003
2, Eastward View from Site to Existing Dwellings Across Lower Sacramento Road
8
I
----\,.'---------- 1Z !
a:1 SLOPE
Z N t OFF --SITE
STORM WATER DETENTION I
(3.65* ACRES) % f
BASIN -19.50
U)
0)
w 1E
f } ! 359'
LL I ;'
! _ ; t
--------------- ;- -- ;- -----
Cn
U! 1 ------------------ - I
_---------------------------------------- -- ------------------... _- --------------
EL
TOP,29.50 - 10' ACCESS ROAD ^ _ -
C�
0
O
J
SOURCE: PHILLIPPI EN,
0 85 170
SCALE IN FEET N
4
-----------------
PAD
PAD 2
11,700 SF8,000 PAD 5
7,500 SF
♦ ■ j. �,PAD 6
\., �i .r....14,788 SF
•
♦ • ♦ ♦ •
• �i1i�hl1CYIC11iiY�71R11! p'; "' • •`
FENCED 5,000 SF 5,000
6,533 SF
. N
SEASONAL
9,233 SF
�-
BATTERY STORAGE GARDEN CENTER
•.
j
PAD 10
• ••• SF
10' SIDEWALK
PAD 11
T I I W-111 I 1�� -1-1 1'j I I liffli 1] 4,260 SF
WAL MART
NEI
.:.: SF1e
I
8• MASONRY WALL
PARKING SUMMARY
LOCATION
TOTAL
BLDG SIZE
SPACES
PROVIDED
AVERAGE
PER 1000
PAD 1
3,200
32
10.00
PAD 2
11,700
56
4.79
PAD 3
3,490
53
15.19
PAD 4
8,000
78
9.75
PAD 5
7,500
72
9.60
PAD 6
140788
69
4.67
PAD 7
5,160
42
8.14
PAD 8
5,000
28
5.60
PAD 9
51000
25
5.00
PAD 10
10,000
47
4.70
PAD 11
4,260
8
1.88
PAD 12
35,000
135
3.86
WAL-MART (includes
TLE & Garden Center)H3391966
26,868
996
4.39
TOTALS
1v641
4.83
0
FIGURE 6
SITE PLAN
PACIFIC MUNICIPAL
C O N S U L T A N T S
Wal-Mart Front/East Elevation
Wal-Mart Right/North Elevation
Wal-Mart Left/South Elevation
��d for the layout, therefore, scale may vary between perspectives
NOTE Size of the individual images are maximize I : 1. .
Wal-Mart Rear/West Elevation
f; :{::$+iif? {{:+•
f?%{:?$yam?f i. {'.
.•. "
{
i:v:•
:f{: itis: h:;: rv.;
.::
..
.. '.
: :• r.
...,,..
::....:::::::::. may; :•:
..
....
.f
}
�:Ylr fpy��
:?�•.
............
v....:.:.,,v,,,"'9.0t...{•.,rr..•.w::;�:w.......
:.:...{S.r•�.;{:xt�:;:r�r$$$F.:r�H.'•:a:Y,.:{{{{o}:•>Y:.:•»rr�... a. fi.�' ...
4 �+
al -Mart Front Persnective - Ne
..... n....., . " �$:.... r.......��..nf?$?. F... ?ri:•}:Y.$ri}n x$;}:4:4:4:6:4:6:4:4:• /f.. ....
S
.':: : ;....••.:.:... if: ::}x ?i .$::•ffi
$$ nf.. ... >..::............. : ::.:: ?:.:::. {::: :x6:h 'L:$$;, x:.
. ........
;; : ... .. . :. ::............
h$$$$;{++}..i}:4:6:•$$$$$$$$$$$ tri:{.}:41:4:6:4: , . ........ f.:' :. ...... .:.: . .
"i
...
. .......
... ........
+:•$:•1$1:•}$•.}1$:•1}:^'4:4:4:4:4:•{:•: ................ .
.
:. :. .. '. :::111111:4:
:: $::'$:
•tri: 11:4:4:4 :. .,0.'.
^11::4:41:4:411 .i:':: .:. :. .':: :•
'F
.. fV. .. .... ..
..... :. ? 0 0b3?A:: n . ... .....:. 6 POOOOO Ar
$$
q
MP
•
.: •::::: }:: is :•i$r? " .pi :• .: ::::. :: }?6 : % ....: : ,....::.. :. :.... .::::: ::.
''• ?rx9)? } Y''6 .. } .. k 4 }>:•::;:4::}:.}'.:.. '::: ? 4: ::::W{':.9..; .. °SF . .....ht
....r......, . .}y�:}.:................{� ::•. •:::::::. �� . ..'� .: :::. :;....: ...... .....,:.::::}.::;;;:{,;;}:;;111::::::::.
.6.�..........{:.4:.M:'?.i...�.............n.. }}i......... n..... :: : ':�,4n n.... /.t. ....6.�f:{{{rr]OiPPP?.... ..6G§tr...... +�tr. ......... ..... .. �i::S.i: is •• :.. .. ................. ......... .........
Wll
art Front Persnective - 5c
FIGURE 1U
BUILDING ELEVATIONS
' rt �� r ��� 1• i E 1 `
I Lol
03 i:r 1'1 �y
1114,
IPF*'": r
T raur�... raw. _+rr.• lot, �►. J` E� J �` x>
� � � . 4'ie• p►►, «� phi r► p►1 1� ♦� ir, r, ��, ,�„�.. � � �A �,�'� �i � � � ����
��.r. _ ... = .1 111.. ► i. ° t-,� � ► •� -
t I ME
IIid
.�,
III
ddhI AMI
EII� t:O= E117 t _ �` J I .. .. .�� ♦Ei •�. �. r ' :' 1 �H moi,
•. 4'' r `�► �. t ��jE� fir. _ �: :�
i 's d
IMP+� ► ., ►� :% 111, 1► a
f r ♦
Lip
\� 70, \. '01
\ dGl • �_ _ .� � �'- i �_C+� • o : =� 1 . � i
/�► S� rR'
� // � � !►���' \ /, � '� 1, '\ 1.. � J, •♦ 1, � •\ / � ® ..._
i - � - r I r• f gel
. r
�N
%moili 'V"• fir.
;/%;� �';� . \ � : •;\ r . \ f�; . � r , .:\ � .•\ � _ :;.�r .. ,�,; � - � -�•.
/ i// �;//�/// lo-, /�� '� �� ii; .� .i ► moi; �. ii_ '� i►. .► ii;- .� moi;
�/,//,•�//j.�/��/,i�� / yi il, _�� _� �� -moi.• �i -�1 ,. I I �'
�:/ �/i//�////� �/�i/%//i, s ,//%�/�/ /ij///, ;r'� '� 1 \ �l �` � ` I \• /r \ r. 1 ♦ r, i \, r (♦ ter,11 \. � �` /�%iii.
11,
/�'%/.
7711 .. l
. f . ���/ //i�i/f„/,,,i;,,�'./,/cam!%.: �// /,.�j�',,•i,�i /, ,/ � / �/,ii,//,, , / i. � - ...,�,
•1
IF
•� � �
%' ���/� /,� /.�•, /i;, :•/././/��/i/ //�/ / /�/..i/, , � /„�/ `i � '�'a.. �r �.�r �r .ter -� � � /ii,/i,�.
:/ //���i///'/ / i.. ,/ii /,://f%//,,//�////. iii/%////�i/i/� r I,► r�. i �., r,.. ,.. 1,, r`. :�'a
,,//, / �, moi„ / // / i , ,,/,,�//�ii•.�i//:,/iii/��/. ,,,//���,,/ /„ , •1 \ i 1 \ / 1 \ 1 \ i 1 \ i I \ i I \ i:. „� .
.f� 1 i�%, �i %/-;4,��i�";.;, /ii✓%i �,//�%/%%,i%!�/i�/��;%�'i /�/i/.:��// ��� %/.,,/i, /moi , �. � � � , ;.{i � /' f��i•
LL
�/,,,,.
% $.s
'• // �tii, / 'yam c!iii% / ; /// i / ,,/
/ . •; /�/' %i'/i///.sem Vii/ /�/j/ /////�� �/i/// � � j % ��/ j %
/ � � i y�i / i / /i �// j/i i �/ i /� �//�/��/i „ � ■ Jam/
_ � ///�, � '�v/ � /i�/�/ice/, // �/�i��•� �%� %// /;� i�// ,, ,,, i • _ ..rte. erg . .+r•! .^sar..atr. - � '+� p S
j��i%/'/ j ///.��/jig!/ j� /i: /. //i/�'i% % %i/ :%/,/���/"� /; j'o� � �r-�a M►•� a ur �r ar a� m i •rr rs �;, '0
MEOW
/,,,/i i./�i,/..//��/r./-/: / ///// / // i/ //%/ % / _ . 11 i f • it i j7, it • 11 �-
/,/ / i // : ,ii i! /� ///��' �'.�_�,�•. -9 �V .�.�.-� +�.- �� . .► •
� - - - --
•
!'///
0,
/�, �%iii/ / ////or/��� � % //�� ///• / % //� � iv,
i�/;,,, /
i ..,�r•. .ra . r+ Vii"
q' j� '�/%;;ii'ii::y%�:�i//,��: �/%%��/'"//j/%%"i/.,��/ j ///,%//// / �•� ` i� �'J \'1 � i�J \ �t� \''J ,\ � \ �\ �, � �E1 _��
a •y /i,/� i / /� �/ /l/, /;a //ii/!/ ,// /i////� //. %�//i�. mar �r �v �"�r 'ir � sir sir -ir � ! awl
¢� /'•� is ., /",,.%i//' /, .i /�'/i // ///�/�// / �/ r. 1 �• r• r ► • �. r. 1 - r. . ►. I �, r. ► r� i
"pill ,. 1 \;• 1 � 1 \. 1 � 1 \' �: �1 ! � � � �� �,
yr 1 �%�i�./ ..// /// i �� //% ��//:%i����� /��j� �!Y /// � �// ///' �• 3 .a _ %�9.
/�// � ..i , �i/, : /! iii/ � � •�/ /. �j/ /�// - � v � Gi,,
�a
��"iii///���/%/%���'�j�l�j / ///�i/� � / /i�//�//�" �1 rl � - h'\ il,•i �� �� �, t1 11 r . C� 11�. =1 JI � - G\� llfi 'a:°
40, ts PFA� _: �„Eir��l�, �.i�ll�� [:�i�11����i��1�v���14�� L�►i�i����:•illl�� i l\► ��
„/ me ,,;%/
,
'�
LAN UbUAP
D 75 150 A
a
:IIl:gf_11,1 ITTU !l 2 0111IMC4:10111119I41I0
FIGURE E
DNCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
I. Project Description
west project frontage will be constructed to its full design width in conjunction with the project. Primary
access from Lower Sacramento Road will be from a new signalized intersection located opposite the
Food 4 Less loading entrance, with additional access provided by unsignalized driveways to the north
and south. Along Kettleman Lane there will be a right -in, right -out only entrance driveway at about the
mid -point of the north project frontage. The new intersection at Kettleman Lane and Westgate Drive at
the northwest corner of the project will be fully signalized, and will feed traffic to two vehicular
entrances along the western site boundary. Primary internal project circulation will be provided by an
east -west running driveway, and two north -south driveways which will provide access to east -west
oriented parking aisles in the central portion of the project. The project will include a total of 1,641
parking stalls, as well as bicycle racks at each retail pad.
Project Design
As shown in the conceptual building elevations (Figures 7A and 7B), the retail buildings as proposed will
be designed using elements of the California Bungalow style, and will emphasize earth tones and
exposed timber. Architectural details will include brackets, siding, columns, wall and soffit treatments,
and decorative lighting. The Wal-Mart store will include distinguishing design elements such as pitched
roof entry features supported by columns of stone veneer, extended eaves and colonnaded roof
overhangs, as well as the bracketed roof cornices. Design elements included to provide pedestrian scale
include low screen walls, planter boxes, trellis elements, extended canopies, variations in building mass
and footprint, and variations in texture and color to reduce the perceived building mass. The other retail
buildings are not intended to be identical in style, but will be architecturally compatible and recognizable
as part of a common design theme. Maximum building heights will be two stories or 35 feet, per the
City's requirements for the C -S zoning district (see Section H. A. Land Use and Planning). The project
will incorporate the requirements of the City's recently adopted Design Standards for Large Retail
Establishments.
Landscaping
As shown in the Conceptual Landscape Plan (Figure 8), almost 500 trees are to be planted in the project,
including extensive planting along the project perimeter and throughout the project interior. The overall
number of trees planted will meet the City requirement of at least one tree for every four parking spaces.
Landscaped setback areas will be provided along all exterior site boundaries. Primary tree species will
include sycamore and coast redwood along the Kettleman Lane frontage, tulip trees along Lower
Sacramento Road, and tulip trees and crepe myrtle along Westgate Drive. Within the main parking areas,
trees will be planted at close intervals to provide shade, with primary species to include hackberry and
ash. Along the project roadway frontages, a combination of berms and shrubbery is planned to be
provided for continuous screening of headlight glare from vehicles parked along the site perimeter or
moving through the fast-food drive-thru lanes. The southern site boundary will be planted with closely
spaced coast redwoods to provide visual screening. All landscaping will be required to be in compliance
with the City of Lodi Water Use Landscaping Guidelines.
Lighting
Night lighting for the project is to be sufficiently bright to provide for security and safety purposes, but is
intended to avoid direct illumination beyond the shopping center boundaries. This would be accomplished
through the use of recessed light fixtures and cut-off shields to direct light downward. Parking lot light
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
13
I. Project Description
poles would not exceed a height of 25 feet as specified in the City's Design Standards for Large Retail
Establishments. Lighting for the rear and sides of the stores would be by wall -mounted light fixtures which
also would be shielded to prevent light spill beyond the project boundaries. All exterior project lighting
would subject to the approval of the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee.
Signage
Primary signage for the project will consist of two pylon signs, with one located at the main project
entrance on Lower Sacramento Road, and the other located near the project entrance on West Kettleman
Lane. The pylon signs would be no taller than 35 feet, in conformance with the City zoning ordinance.
Other signage will include identification signs on the retail buildings, which will be internally
illuminated, as well as wall signs for the Wal-Mart store indicating major functions such as "Food
Center," "Optical," "Pharmacy," etc. All project signage will conform to the sign requirements of the
City zoning ordinance, and will be subject to the approval of the Site Plan and Architectural Review
Committee.
Grading and Drainage
Site grading will provide gradients necessary for positive surface drainage throughout the site. In
addition, building pads will be raised such that finished floors are least one foot above existing ground
elevations (see Section II. D. Hydrology and Drainage for further discussion). All earthwork within the
shopping center site is planned to be balanced on the site with no import or export of fill material. The
soil excavated for the temporary stormwater basin, described below, will be distributed on the adjacent
field to the west, and will be reused in the future to backfill the basin once the permanent storm drainage
facilities serving the project area are installed to the west.
Site drainage will be directed to catch basins located throughout the project and will be conveyed via
underground storm drains to the temporary stormwater basin located to the west of the project site
(described below). In the northern and southern portions of the project, drainage will be directed to
vegetated swales (bioswales) to provide initial removal of surface water pollutants before entering the
project storm drain system. Roof drainage will be conveyed via downspouts directly to underground
storm drains.
In order to accommodate increased stormwater runoff generated by the project, a temporary stormwater
basin will be constructed on a 3.65 -acre easement area located across Westgate Drive from the southwest
corner of the project site, just outside the City limits in the unincorporated County of San Joaquin (see
Figure 6). The basin will be about 10 feet deep and will have side slopes of 4:1 (horizontal: vertical), per
City of Lodi standards. The basin will have a 10 -foot wide access road and a 10 -foot wide landscaped
setback area between the edge of the basin and the perimeter fence enclosing the basin site. After each
storm, flows from the basin will be pumped east through an underground pipeline to be installed along the
southern project boundary to an existing 21 -inch City storm drain in Lower Sacramento Road. The area
planned for the stormwater basin is currently in the unincorporated County of San Joaquin. However, this
area is planned to be annexed to the City in conjunction with the Southwest Gateway Annexation, currently
in process (see Section III. Cumulative Impacts for further description of the full annexation area). Since
the annexation is anticipated to be complete by the time construction of the stormwater basin would likely
commence, the basin will be designed to City standards and will not require any County approvals or
permits. The basin will be operated and maintained by the property owners until stormwater collection
system can be connected to a future City system and conveyed to the future permanent City stormwater
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
14
I. Project Description
basin planned to the west of the project site. (See Section II. D. Hydrology and Water Quality for further
discussion.)
Roadway Improvements
The project includes construction of frontage improvements to City of Lodi standards, including roadway
widening and construction, curb and gutter, sidewalks, right-of-way landscaping, and street lighting, as well
as installation of underground utilities and services. This includes frontage improvements along Kettleman
Lane and Lower Sacramento Road adjacent to the project site, as well as construction of Westgate Drive to
its full design width along the eastern site boundary and to the curb on the west side of the roadway. The
project will also be responsible for installation of full traffic signals at the main project entrance on Lower
Sacramento Road, and will contribute its fair share for the construction of new traffic signals at Kettleman
Lane and Westgate Drive, which are to be installed in conjunction with the Vintner's Square project to the
north, which is currently under construction.
It should be noted that the land area addressed in this EIR includes the future right-of-way areas for
roadways along the project frontage including State Route 12/West Kettleman Lane, Lower Sacramento
Road, and Westgate Drive. These future right-of-way areas are included in the land-based technical impact
assessments related to geology and soils, hydrology and drainage, biological resources, cultural resources,
and hazardous materials.
C. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b) indicates that an EIR should include:
"A statement of objectives sought by the proposed project. A clearly written statement of
objectives will help the lead agency develop a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in the
EIR and will aid the decision makers in preparing findings of a statement of overriding
considerations, if necessary. The statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose
of the project."
The objectives of the proposed project, as stated by the applicant, are as follows:
• To provide a retail development which meets the current unmet demand of consumers residing
within the City of Lodi and demand from planned future residential development in the City;
• To provide a commercial center that serves both the local and regional market area to attract
customers and new retailers into the City of Lodi;
• To provide a commercial development that results in a net fiscal benefit to the City of Lodi by
providing new sales tax revenue and increasing property tax revenues;
• To provide a commercial center on a large, undeveloped lot in close proximity to an existing
highway, and near other commercial centers to minimize travel lengths and utilize existing
infrastructure to the extent possible;
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
15
Draft August 2004
I. Project Description
• To provide a commercial center consisting of at least 30 net acres to provide sufficient
development area to allow a mixture of uses in outlying parcels in addition to a major anchor
tenant to create a destination commercial center which will attract various types of customers to
the City.
• To provide a commercial development that can be adequately served by public services and
utilities;
• To provide large scale retail activities that will compliment existing smaller scale retail activities
located throughout the City of Lodi;
• To provide commercial development that creates new jobs for City residents; and
• To complete the development of the "Fours Corners" area by providing a large scale retail center
on the last remaining undeveloped site consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan
and zoning regulations.
D. USES OF THIS EIR
The primary purpose of this EIR is to provide the City of Lodi decision -makers and the general public with
a thorough analysis of environmental impacts associated with the proposed Lodi Shopping Center. The EIR
will be used for the following discretionary approvals by the City for the project:
Use Permit
Tentative and Final Parcel Maps
Site Plan and Architectural Review
Improvement Plan Approval (includes grading permit)
Building Permits
In addition, the EIR will be used by the following responsible state and regional agencies for their separate
permit and review processes:
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans: Approval of improvements within the State right-
of-way along State Route 12/West Kettleman Lane, as well as encroachment permits for such
improvements.
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB): Administration of General
Permit for Storm Water Discharges Related to Construction Activities under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
16
Draft August 2004
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Land Use and Planning
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
This chapter presents the environmental setting of the project for the various impact topics of concern,
evaluates potential impacts associated with the development of the proposed project, and identifies feasible
mitigation measures, as available, to avoid the impacts or to reduce their severity to less -than -significant
levels.
A. LAND USE AND PLANNING
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
On -Site Land Use
The 40 -acre project site was previously in agricultural cultivation for row crops. Most of the site is now
fallow (albeit disked for weed control), except for the stormwater basin site which is planted in alfalfa.
There are no structures on the site with the exception of two agricultural wells and associated concrete
standpipes and electrical services. The wells formerly fed an agricultural irrigation ditch which runs
across the west -central portion of the site in a north -south direction and along portions of the north and
south site boundaries.
The site is largely absent of woody vegetation with the exception of three mature California walnut trees
and two almond trees located at intervals along the south site boundary, and two small walnut trees and a
young coast live oak along the Lower Sacramento Road site frontage.
Surrounding Land Use
The project site is located at the western edge of the urbanized area of Lodi, and is surrounded by a mix
of urban and rural land uses (see Figures 4 and 5). The lands to the east and northeast are occupied by
two commercial retail shopping centers, including the Target/Safeway shopping center located at the
northeast corner of Kettleman Lane and Lower Sacramento Road, and the Sunwest Plaza located to the
east across Lower Sacramento Road from the project site. To the south of the Sunwest Plaza and across
from the southeastern portion of the project site is an enclave of 10 single-family dwellings which lie in
an unincorporated area of the County. Four of these residences front directly onto Lower Sacramento
Road, with the remaining six homes fronting on Olive Avenue which runs east from Lower Sacramento
Road. The lands adjacent to the south of the project site are occupied by vineyards associated with the
Van Ruiten-Taylor Winery, with the nearest winery buildings located approximately 300 feet south of the
project site. The lands to the west are in cultivation for hay. The property to the north across West
Kettleman Lane is currently under development for the Vintner's Square retail shopping center. There
are two or three rural residences located approximately 600 feet west of the project site along the north
side of Kettleman Lane. All of the lands to the south and west of the project site currently lie outside the
incorporated boundaries of the City of Lodi.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
17
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Land Use and Planning
REGULATORY SETTING
General Plan
The current General Plan land use designation in effect on the entire project site is `NCC
Neighborhood/Community Commercial'. This land use designation is defined in the General Plan as
follows:
"This designation provides for neighborhood and locally oriented retail and service uses,
multifamily residential units, public and quasi -public uses, and similar and compatible uses. The
FAR shall not exceed 0.40 for commercial uses, and residential densities shall be in the range of
7.1 — 20.0 units per gross acre. This designation assumes an average of 2.25 persons per
household for residential uses."
The lands immediately to the west and south of the project site are designated `PR Planned Residential'
which provides for a mix of residential development types ranging from single-family to high density, as
well as compatible uses such as parks, open space, and public and quasi -public uses.
The following General Plan goal and policies on land use are relevant to the proposed project are listed
below.
Section 3. Land Use and Growth Management Element
Goal E: To provide adequate land and support for the development of commercial uses providing
goods and services to Lodi residents and Lodi's market area.
Policy 1. The City shall promote and assist in the maintenance and expansion of Lodi's
commercial sector to meet the needs of both Lodi residents and visitors.
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.
Policy 6. The City shall ensure the availability of adequate sites for new commercial development.
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 development.
Section 10. Urban Design and Cultural Resources Element
Policy 1. The City shall develop special design standards to upgrade roadways, including SR 12 and
SR 99: Such standards shall include provisions for setbacks, signs, landscaping, parking,
and upgrading commercial development along these streets, and screening of visually
unattractive commercial and industrial uses.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
18
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Land Use and Planning
Zoning
The entire project site is zoned "C -S Commercial Shopping." As set forth in Section 17.30.020 of the
City of Lodi Municipal Code, the stated purpose of the C -S zoning district which is "...to permit the
development of commercial shopping facilities in locations outside the central business district. These
regulations are established to guide the development of such facilities in adherence to the following
principles: protecting nearby residential areas from disturbances and adverse influences, minimizing the
effect of these commercial facilities on the safety and traffic capacity of the adjacent streets, promoting
the grouping of commercial facilities rather than extending them in a strip development, encouraging the
location of these facilities in accordance with the master plan and requiring prompt and orderly
development of these commercially zoned areas."
The land uses permitted in the C -S zoning district include a variety of commercial retail, office, and
service enterprises undertaken for the purpose of rendering neighborhood service. Permitted uses also
include department stores, small theaters, and cocktail lounges operated in conjunction with restaurants.
Residential uses of any type are prohibited. Maximum building height permitted in the C -S zone is two
stories or 35 feet, and maximum building coverage is 25 percent of net site area.
Design Standards for Large Retail Establishments
The project is subject to the Design Standards for Large Retail Establishments, which was adopted by City
Council on April 7, 2004. The purpose of the Design Standards is to supplement the existing City zoning
and design review requirements by providing clear and enforceable standards to mitigate visual impacts
associated with large-scale retail development. The issues addressed in the Standards include: site layout,
architectural design and detailing; minimum and maximum number of parking spaces; lighting and
landscaping of parking areas; screening of loading and outdoor storage areas; and pedestrian and bicycle
access and circulation. In addition to visual mitigation, the objective of the Standards is to enhance visual
quality of development by promoting architectural features and patterns that provide visual interest at the
scale of the pedestrian, that reduce massive aesthetic effects, and that recognize local character. The
Standards are initially implemented through staff review of project applications and ultimately through the
formal design review process of the City's Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC).
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
For purposes of this EIR, the project would be considered to result in a significant land use and planning
impact if it would:
• Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project.
Result in conflicts with existing land uses or planned developments in the vicinity.
• Result in a secondary socioeconomic impact which could result in building vacancies and ultimately
in blight conditions.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
19
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Land Use and Planning
IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS
Impact Al. Consistency with General Plan and ZoninLy Ordinance. The proposed retail shopping
center is consistent with the governing designations of the City of Lodi General Plan
and Zoning Ordinance. (Less -than -Significant Impact)
General Plan
The retail commercial enterprises planned for the project include a large general
merchandize discount store with grocery sales and an auto service shop, three fast-food
restaurants, two sit-down restaurants, a drug store/pharmacy, a financial institution, and
other retail uses. It has long been City of Lodi policy and practice that the types of retail
uses proposed for the project are interpreted to be permitted under the `NCC
Neighborhood/Community Commercial' General Plan designation applicable to the site.
This designation also applies to the existing shopping centers on the east side of Lower
Sacramento Road, which many of the same types of retail uses as those proposed for the
project.
The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) reflected in the project site plan is 0.23, which is
significantly lower than the 0.40 FAR permitted under the `NCC' land use designation.
The project would meet the General Plan goals and policies which seek to accommodate
large-scale commercial developments and to have them located along major arterial
roads. The project will be subject to the recently adopted Design Standards for Large
Retail Establishments, which will ensure that the project meets the General Plan goal and
policies for high quality of development in commercial projects.
Throughout this EIR, the applicable General Plan goals and policies are listed in each of
the individual topic sections. With the implementation of mitigation measures identified
in this EIR, the proposed project will be consistent with all of the applicable General
Plan goals and policies.
Zoning
The proposed commercial activities in the project are all permitted under the applicable
`C -S Commercial Shopping' zoning district, which also applies to the existing shopping
centers on the east side of Lower Sacramento Road and the approved Vintner's Square
Shopping Center project on the north side of Kettleman Lane across from the project
site. The project buildings will cover approximately 23 percent of the net site area,
which meets the 25 percent coverage limit under the C -S zoning. All project buildings
will be within the maximum 35 -foot height limit of the C -S zone. The intent of the C -S
zoning district to provide for orderly commercial development will be met through
application of the Design Standards for Large Retail Establishments to project site
planning and design, the implementation of which will be assured through the City's Site
Plan and Architectural Review process.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
20
Draft August 2004
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Land Use and Planning
In summary, the proposed project will be consistent with all General Plan and zoning
provisions applicable to the site.
Mitigation. No mitigation required.
Impact A2. Land Use Compatibility. The project would constitute a substantial change in land
use on the site; however, it would not result in significant conflicts or incompatibility
with adjacent or nearby land uses. (Less -than -Significant Impact)
The proposed project would alter the use of the site from agricultural open space to a retail
shopping center, which represents a substantial change. However, as discussed below, this
change would not result in significant land use conflicts or incompatibility with adjacent
land uses.
The project site is surrounded on two sides by existing or developing shopping center uses,
and would be compatible with those uses. Development of the project site could be
considered a logical extension of contiguous urban development on the urban fringe, as
provided for in the General Plan. In addition, the project would include landscaped setback
areas as well as landscaping throughout the development which, combined with a
consistently high quality of building design throughout the project (as ensured through
implementation of the City's Design Standards for Large Retail Establishments), is
intended to provide an aesthetically attractive entry statement at this western gateway to the
City.
Analysis of land use compatibility is largely a function of other environmental factors such
as aesthetics, noise from project operations and traffic, and other potential nuisances, as
discussed below.
Potential effects from night lighting of parking lots and buildings could produce unwanted
light and glare, particularly at the existing residences across Lower Sacramento Road to the
east. Potential lighting and glare impacts would be reduced by using cut-off shields to
prevent direct illumination beyond project boundaries. Combined with the screening
effects of extensive landscaping along the site boundaries and throughout the project, the
project would not result in adverse light and glare impacts. (See Section II. G. Aesthetics
for further discussion.)
As discussed in Section II. I. Noise, the development of the project site would not result in
significant noise impacts to the adjacent and surrounding land uses. Noise sources
associated with the project would include parking lot activity, delivery truck circulation and
loading activity, mechanical equipment, trash compactors, and parking lot cleaning. At the
nearest noise -sensitive land uses, the residences across Lower Sacramento Road to the east,
these noise sources would be generally inaudible over the ambient traffic noise on the
intervening roadway. Similarly, the traffic generated by project would not result in
significant increases in noise levels on surrounding roadways.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
21
Draft August 2004
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Land Use and Planning
Since the project site is adjacent to ongoing agricultural operations to the west and south,
there is a potential for conflicts with agricultural uses. This potential is somewhat reduced
because the commercial uses of the project would be less sensitive to agricultural dust
generation, noise, odors, or other effects than residential development would be. However,
plowing activities would generate dust which could be carried to the site, although the
potential for dust generation would occur only occasionally when fields are plowed or
exposed under high wind conditions. This effect would be somewhat reduced by the fact
that the lands adjacent to the southwest portion of the site will be occupied by the
stormwater basin for the project, and the lands adjacent to the northwest portion of the site
are planned as the site of a new electric power substation and municipal water storage tank.
These facilities will essentially provide a buffer zone approximately 400 to 600 feet wide
along much of the western project boundary. In addition, Westgate Drive will run along
the western site boundary and provide a minimum 72 -foot buffer west of the central portion
of the project. The project itself will include a 10 -foot high masonry screening wall along
southerly two-thirds of the western site boundary, which will provide additional screening
from any windblown dust.
Although the project will be directly adjacent to cultivated vineyards to the south, potential
conflicts will be reduced by the 8 -foot high masonry wall planned for the entire length of
the southern project boundary. Given the prevailing wind direction from the northwest, the
potential for dustfall will be reduced since the project is located north of the vineyards. In
addition, the lands to the south and west are designated for residential development in the
City's General Plan, so any urban -agricultural conflicts would be limited in duration until
those lands are developed. (As discussed in Section III. Cumulative Impacts, the adjacent
lands to the west and south are the subject of a proposal for annexation that was filed with
the City of Lodi in early 2004.) In light of the above factors and considerations, the
potential impacts due to agricultural -urban conflicts associated with the project would be
less -than -significant. (See Section II. B. Agricultural Resources for further discussion.)
Mitigation. No mitigation required.
Impact A3. Potential for Blight Due to Socioeconomic Impacts. The project would include new
retailers who would compete with existing retailers in the City of Lodi; however,
there is no evidence to suggest that this increased competition would result in any
business closures and consequently would not indirectly result in substantial physical
deterioration of properties, or blight. (Less -than -Significant Impact)
Background Discussion
Under CEQA, only direct and indirect physical effects of projects are to be considered.
Section 15064(d) of the state CEQA Guidelines provides: `In evaluating the significance of
the environmental effect of a project, the lead agency shall consider direct physical changes
in the environment which is caused by and immediately related to the project." Section
15064(d)(3) further states: "An indirect physical impact is to be considered only if that
change is a reasonably foreseeable impact which may be caused by the project. A change
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
22
Draft August 2004
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Land Use and Planning
which is speculative or unlikely to occur is not reasonably foreseeable." In addition,
CEQA requires that a determination that a project may have a significant environmental
effect must be based on substantial evidence (CEQA Guidelines § 150640.
With respect to secondary socioeconomic effects of projects, Section 15131(a) of the
CEQA Guidelines states: "Economic and social effects of a project shall not be treated as
significant effects on the environment. An EIR may trace a chain of cause and effect from
a proposed decision on a project through anticipated economic or social changes resulting
from the project to physical changes caused in turn by the economic or social changes. The
intermediate economic or social changes need not be analyzed in any detail greater than
necessary to trace the chain of cause and effect. The focus of the analysis shall be on the
physical changes." In other words, economic and social changes are not, in themselves,
considered under CEQA to be significant effects on the environment.
Since only physical effects are to be considered under CEQA, economic and social changes
resulting from a project may be considered if they in turn produce changes in the physical
environment. In this context, the specific physical effect that would be expected to occur as
a result of a negative socioeconomic effect would be a physical deterioration of the built
environment, or "blight." "Blight" has a generally accepted meaning in California law.
Under California Health and Safety Code Sections 33030 through 33032, a "blighted area"
is characterized by certain conditions "causing a reduction of, or lack of, proper utilization
of an area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical, social, or economic burden
on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by
private enterprise acting alone." Among the conditions described for blight are buildings
and structures "which are unfit or unsafe to occupy... and are conducive to ill health,
transmission of disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency and crime" because of
certain enumerated factors.
In light of the above, even if it could be shown that the project would likely result in the
failure of an existing competing business or businesses, the resulting building vacancy
alone would not meet the above definition of blight. As such, a building vacancy alone
would not meet the CEQA threshold of significance for a physical change to the
environment. To cause a significant physical impact, other contributing factors would need
to occur such as the failure of surrounding businesses, combined with little or no effort on
the part of property owners to maintain or improve their properties to a condition suitable
for leasing. To reach a condition recognized as a physical impact under CEQA would
require total neglect or abandonment of these properties by their owners for an extended
period such that substantial physical deterioration or blight would ensue. As stated above,
such an indirect physical impact must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the project,
requiring a showing of cause and effect, with the finding of such an impact supported by
substantial evidence.
Although CEQA does not require analysis of economic impacts of the project, the
following socioeconomic analysis is presented as supporting evidence for subsequent
conclusions on whether the project would result in potentially significant adverse physical
changes due to economic effects on businesses in Lodi.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
23
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Land Use and Planning
Socioeconomic Anal
In order to determine the potential economic impact of the proposed project occupants
upon existing competing businesses in Lodi, two socioeconomic studies where undertaken
by Applied Development Economics (ADE). The first study was focused on the potential
project impacts upon Lodi's downtown businesses, and the second study considered the
impacts to competing businesses City-wide. Both studies are contained in Appendix B of
this EIR, and briefly summarized below.
In the analysis of the project's economic impacts on downtown business, ADE found that
the overall effect on downtown businesses would be a one percent loss of annual sales to
the Lodi Shopping Center. The study found that the effect would be confined to a few
retail categories and that most retailers would not be affected, primarily because most
downtown businesses have already adjusted to competition from national discount retailers
by finding and occupying a niche, establishing quality customer relations, and maintaining
customer loyalty. It was found that the only categories which would lose business as a
result of the project include pharmacies, sit-down restaurants, and fast-food restaurants.
Downtown pharmacies would lose approximately 2 percent of their sales to the project.
Existing sit-down restaurants in downtown would lose 4 percent of their business, and fast-
food restaurants in the downtown area would experience a 2 percent drop in sales as a
result of competition from similar outlets at the project. These percentages of lost sales are
relatively low and would not be expected to result in any business closures.
In the second economic study, ADE studied the effects of the project's likely occupants
upon established businesses in the same retail categories City-wide. The categories that
were studied included discount stores (e.g., K -Mart, Target), groceries/supermarkets (e.g.,
Safeway, Raley's, Albertson's, Food 4 Less, etc.), pharmacies/drugstores, other retailers
(e.g., apparel, specialty retail, home furnishings, building materials), fast-food restaurants,
sit-down restaurants, and non -retail uses such as personal services, business and
professional services, and financial institutions.
In the aggregate, the study found that the project's retailers would take away approximately
8.5 percent of total sales from Lodi's established stores in the near term, which would
represent approximately 55 percent of the new sales at the project. (The remaining 45
percent of new sales at the project would represent current spending leakages to non -Lodi
businesses which would be captured by the project.) The percentage of sales lost would
vary by retail category as follows: discount stores — 6 percent; grocery stores/supermarkets
— 11 percent; pharmacies/drugstores — 12 percent; other retail — 5 percent; fast-food
restaurants — 9 percent; sit-down restaurants — 20 percent; personal services, business and
professional services, and financial institutions — 0 percent. Given the relatively low
percentage of lost business for the affected retail categories, ADE concluded that the
project is unlikely to result in the closure of established businesses in Lodi. With respect to
the eight existing supermarkets in Lodi, it was further concluded by ADE that the lost sales
would be temporary, and that future population and housing growth in Lodi should allow
these established supermarkets to regain their lost sales.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
24
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Land Use and Planning
Given the conclusions of the socioeconomic reports that no business closures are likely to
occur as a result of the project, there is no evidence to suggest that building vacancies
would occur or that a chain of causation would ensue that would result in substantial
physical deterioration of properties, or blight. Therefore, the project would not result in a
socioeconomic impact which would indirectly result in a significant physical or land use
impact.
Closure of Existing Wal-Mart Store
When the Wal-Mart Superstore at the proposed project is completed, the existing Wal-Mart
store in the adjacent Sunwest Plaza will be closed. This will result in a building vacancy of
about 120,000 square feet. The project applicant, who is also the owner of the Sunwest
Plaza, will assume ownership of the vacant Wal-Mart space. Given that the other tenants of
the plaza could be adversely affected by a prolonged vacancy, the applicant has a strong
financial incentive to re -tenant the space. To that end, the applicant has an economic
interest in maintaining the vacant space in good condition in order to attract a new occupant
or occupants. According to ADE, it is reasonable to assume that the applicant will succeed
in attracting national brand name store tenant(s) based on his experience and proven track
record. In this regard, the applicant has indicated to the City that there is strong interest in
the property by several prospective tenants, and it is expected that a Letter of Intent will be
signed imminently. In consideration of the above, it is unlikely that the closure of the
existing Wal-Mart store would result in a prolonged vacancy of that retail space, or that the
owner would neglect or abandon the property to the extent that substantial physical
deterioration or blight would occur. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that the
closure of the existing Wal-Mart resulting from the project would cause a socioeconomic
impact which would indirectly result in a significant physical or land use impact.
In summary, neither the loss of sales to established business resulting from the project, nor
the closure of the existing Wal-Mart store as a result of the project, would cause
socioeconomic effects which would in turn result in a significant indirect physical impact.
Mitigation. No mitigation required.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
25
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
B. Agricultural Resources
B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site consists of agricultural land which was previously in cultivation for hay and oats, with
crops grown on the site in the past including corn, grain, and miscellaneous truck crops. These crops
were irrigated with water pumped from on-site agricultural wells. Under current conditions, most of the
site is fallow and is disked annually to discourage weed growth. The portion of the site west of future
Westwood Drive, consisting of the 4 -acre stormwater basin site, is currently in cultivation for alfalfa.
Prime Agricultural Land
Under Government Code Section 51201(c), `prime agricultural land' is defined as any one or more of the
following:
1) All land which qualifies for rating as class I or II in the Soil Conservation Service (now Natural
Resources Conservation Service) land capability classifications.
2) Land which qualifies for rating 80 through 100 in the Storie Index Rating.
3) Land which supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and which has an annual
capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the USDA.
4) Land planted with fruit- or nut -bearing trees, vines, bushes or crops which have a nonbearing
period of less than 5 years and which will normally return during the commercial bearing period
on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production of not less
than $200 per acre.
5) Land which has returned from the production of unprocessed plant products an annual gross
value of not less than $200 per acre for 3 of the previous 5 years.
The applicability of each of these five criteria to the project site is discussed below.
1) NRCS Land Capability
Under the soils classification system of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), soils are
classified according to eight broad `Land Capability' classes, with Class I and II soils being the most
fertile and well suited for cultivation. The NRCS soil survey for San Joaquin County indicates that the
soils covering most of the project site consist of Acampo sandy loam with some areas of Tokay fine sandy
loam found in the north -central portion of the site. The Acampo sandy loam has a land capability
classification of Class H as irrigated land and Class IV as non -irrigated land. Tokay fine sandy loam has a
land capability classification of Class I as irrigated land and Class IV as non -irrigated land. Since all of the
subject lands were irrigated while under cultivation, both soil types would be defined as prime farmland
under this criterion.
2) Storie Index Ratings
A second land capability system applied by NRCS, called the Storie Index, is specific to California.
Soils with a Storie Index rating of 80 or greater are classified as Grade 1 or prime soils. According to the
NRCS, the Acampo sandy loam has a Storie Index rating of 57 (or Grade 3), and the Tokay fine sandy loam
has a rating of 95 (or Grade 1). As such, the ma j ority of the site is classified as Grade 3 or non -prime
soils under the Storie Index. Therefore, most of project site would be considered non -prime farmland
under this criterion.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
26
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
B. Agricultural Resources
3) Livestock carrying capacity
This criterion does not apply since the project site was not used for raising of livestock.
4) Fruit or Nut Crop Value
This criterion does not apply since fruit or nut cultivation has not occurred on the project site in the
recent past.
5) Value of Unprocessed Agricultural Products
During the final years that the site was cultivated, the annual gross income from hay and oat production
on the site was approximately $200 per acre. This meets the applicable $200 per acre threshold value.
However, under this criterion, this yield value must have been obtained for at least three of the past five
years. Since the project site has not been in agricultural production for several years, this criterion would
not be met.
In summary, lands within the project site would meet one of the three criteria applicable to the site (e.g.,
NRCS Land Capability), which would define them as prime agricultural land under the Government
Code. Although the majority of the on-site soils would not meet the Storie Index criterion, only one
criterion is required to be met to meet the definition of prime agricultural land.
Important Farmlands Mapping
All of the lands within the project site are designated as prime farmlands on the map of San Joaquin
County Important Farmlands prepared by the California Department of Conservation in 2002.
Williamson Act
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, enables
local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific
parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use. In return, landowners receive property tax
assessments which are much lower than normal because they are based upon farming and open space
uses as opposed to full market value. The project site includes no lands which are subject to a
Williamson Act contract:
REGULATORY SETTING
General Plan
The following City of Lodi General Plan goals and policies on agricultural resources are relevant to the
project:
Section 3. Land Use and Growth Management Element
Goal B: To preserve agricultural land surrounding Lodi and discourage premature development of
agricultural land with nonagricultural uses, while providing for urban needs.
Policy 1. The City shall encourage the preservation of agricultural land surrounding the City.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
27
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
B. Agricultural Resources
Policy 2. The City should designate a continuous open space greenbelt around the urbanized area of
Lodi to maintain and enhance the agricultural economy.
Policy 3. The City shall cooperate with San Joaquin County and the San Joaquin County Local
Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to ensure that the greenbelt is maintained.
Policy 4. The City shall support the continuation of agricultural uses on lands designated for urban
uses until urban development is imminent.
Policy 5. The City shall promote land use decisions within the designated urbanized area that allow
and encourage the continuation of viable agricultural activity around the City.
Policy 6. The City shall encourage San Joaquin County to retain agricultural uses on lands adjacent
to the City.
Section 7. Conservation Element
Goal C: To promote the economic viability of agriculture in and surrounding Lodi and to discourage
the premature conversion of agricultural lands with nonagricultural uses, while providing
for urban needs.
Policy 1. The City shall ensure, in approving urban development near existing agricultural lands, that
such development will not constrain agricultural practices or adversely affect the economic
viability of adjacent agricultural practices.
Policy 2. The City shall require new development to establish buffers between urban development
and productive agricultural uses consistent with the recommendations of the San Joaquin
County Department of Agriculture.
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
For purposes of this EIR, the project would be considered to have a significant impact upon agricultural
resources if it would:
Convert prime agricultural land, as defined in state law, to non-agricultural use.
• Result in interface conflicts between urban and agricultural land uses such that the viability of
existing agricultural operations may be impaired.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact B1. Agricultural Land Conversion. The project would convert approximately 40 acres of
prime agricultural land to urban uses. As stated in the City's General Plan, no
mitigation is available which would reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
28
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
B. Agricultural Resources
except an outright prohibition of all development on prime agricultural lands.
(Significant and Unavoidable Impact)
As discussed under `Environmental Setting' above, the entire project site meets the
Government Code definition of prime agricultural land. The conversion of this prime
agricultural land to urban uses, as proposed in the project, represents a significant
environmental impact.
The EIR on the City's General Plan found that the implementation of the General Plan
would result in the loss of 1,550 acres of prime farmland, which included the 40 acres on
the project site. This was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact of the General
Plan.
Mitigation B1. There are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce the impact of
agricultural land conversion a less -than -significant level.
The impact of the urban development on prime agricultural land is an unavoidable
impact. Development of buildings, paved surfaces, and landscaping necessarily removes
the land from agricultural production, and the affected land cannot be recreated or
reproduced elsewhere. The land, once converted, loses its character as agricultural land
and is removed from the stock of agricultural land.
The project's significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources could be
avoided by denying the project or requiring a reduced project, which would prevent the
conversion of all or a portion of the site to urban uses. However, this action would not
meet the objective of the applicant or the City of Lodi of developing the site for a
commercial retail shopping plaza in conformance with the General Plan and zoning
designations applicable to the site. In addition, denial of the project would not constitute a
"feasible mitigation," and therefore would not be required under Section 15126.4 of the
state CEQA Guidelines.
The City of Lodi General Plan contains no policies or implementation programs which
require mitigation or offsets for the conversion of prime farmland. Likewise, the EIR
prepared on the General Plan identified no measures to be implemented to offset the
conversion of prime farmland.
Although the conversion of prime agricultural land to urban uses cannot be mitigated or
lessened, there are a number of measures available for the overall protection of existing
agricultural land, some of which are implemented by the City of Lodi as a matter of policy.
These measures are discussed below for informational purposes only, given that none of
these measures would mitigate or lessen the project's significant unmitigable impact upon
agricultural resources.
Program -level Agricultural Protection through the City's General Plan
Although proj ect- specific impacts to prime farmland cannot be feasibly mitigated to less -
than -significant levels, the City has in fact minimized and substantially lessened the
significant effects of development on prime agricultural land through the policies of its
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
Draft August 2004
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
B. Agricultural Resources
adopted General Plan. A principal purpose of the City's General Plan regulatory scheme
is to minimize the impact on prime agricultural land resulting from the City's urban
expansion. The City of Lodi is recognized for its compact growth pattern and clearly
defined urban boundaries, its emphasis on infill development, and its deliberate and
considered approach to urban expansion to accommodate housing and other long-term
development needs. These guiding principles serve to minimize and forestall conversion of
agricultural lands within the City's growth boundaries.
Growth Management Policies
The General Plan policies related to agricultural preservation and protection are
intended, and have been successful, in maintaining the productivity of prime agricultural
land surrounding the City by controlling urban expansion in a manner which has the least
impact on prime agricultural lands. In addition to maintaining compact and defined
urban growth boundaries, this is primarily accomplished through the City's Growth
Management Plan for Residential Development, which limits housing development to a
growth rate of two percent per year, and which gives priority to proposed residential
developments with the least impact on agricultural land, in accordance with General Plan
policy.
Establishment of an Agricultural Buffer Zone/Greenbelt
The General Plan implementation program includes a directive to "identify and designate
an agricultural and open space greenbelt around the urbanized area of the City" (Land
Use and Growth Management Implementation Program 10). This buffer zone is intended
to provide a well-defined edge to the urban area, and to minimize conflicts at the urban -
agricultural interface by providing a transition zone separating urban from agricultural
uses, and to remove uncertainty for agricultural operations near the urban fringe. The
implementation of the greenbelt will involve the dedication of setback zones of varying
widths between the edge of development and adjacent agricultural land. The City of
Lodi has initiated the creation of the greenbelt through the Westside Facilities Master
Plan, which encompasses the largely undeveloped lands adjacent to the northwest
portion of the City and extends westward approximately one-half mile west of Lower
Sacramento Road. The designated greenbelt is located along the western edge of the
Master Plan area and varies in width from 200 feet to approximately 350 feet. The
greenbelt will perform an important function in minimizing urban -agricultural conflicts
and promote the preservation of prime agricultural land west of the greenbelt; however,
it will not constitute mitigation for loss of farmland since it cannot itself be farmed. In
addition, the City is continuing to study the implementation of a greenbelt area between
Stockton and Lodi, and is committed to the implementation of such a greenbelt.
Project -specific Agricultural Protection Measures
While the significant agricultural impacts of the project cannot be feasibly reduced to
less -than -significant levels, Section 15126(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an
EIR include a discussion of measures which could "minimize" significant adverse
impacts. There are several project -specific measures available that address the
protection of prime agricultural land. Since none of these measures can create new
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
30
Draft August 2004
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
B. Agricultural Resources
prime farmland, they cannot avoid or reduce the impact of farmland conversion to a less -
than -significant level. Therefore, implementation of any or all of the following measures
would not avoid the significant unavoidable impact to agricultural resources resulting
from the development of the proposed project.
Agricultural Conservation Easements
The objective of programs to acquire agricultural land or agricultural conservation
easements is to offset or "compensate" for the loss of prime agricultural land to urban
development by preserving or providing long-term protection to an equivalent amount of
prime agricultural land on another property. This is accomplished by extinguishing the
development rights on the equivalent property, through the acquisition and recordation of
an agricultural conservation easement which restricts the equivalent property to
agricultural use in the future, or by outright purchase of fee title to the equivalent land
with the imposition of similar restrictions. Acquisition of a conservation easement (or
fee title) involves payment of an agreed-upon price to the owner of the equivalent land.
While agricultural easements are sometimes accepted as mitigation for the conversion of
prime agricultural lands, they do not constitute true mitigation since they do not create
replacement acreage of prime farmland. In some sense, the acquisition of such
"mitigation lands" may be confused with the acquisition of replacement habitat for loss
of wildlife habitat. However, such habitat replacement mitigation actually involves the
creation of new habitat to replace the habitat lost through conversion, and as such
constitutes true mitigation. Therefore, the requirement for off-site mitigation for
agricultural conversion is not analogous to off-site mitigation for habitat conversion
since no new agricultural land would be created thereby.
For the City of Lodi, the consideration of agricultural easements poses a number of
complex and unresolved issues. Substantial questions exist concerning which lands to
acquire for preservation, and the appropriate amount of any acquisition fee where the
land would not be acquired by the applicant directly. With respect to the location of
equivalent land to preserve, it would clearly not be prudent or appropriate to target lands
within the City's General Plan area, because these lands will be required for the City's
urban expansion over the coming years. With regard to the amount of a fee to be
assessed to project proponents, the law requires a nexus and "rough proportionality"
between the amount of the fee and the burden of the project. Difficulties arise when the
land to be converted has a much higher value than the equivalent amount of any land
beyond the urban growth boundaries which might be considered to be placed under a
conservation easement.
The City of Lodi General Plan currently contains no policy or implementation language
regarding the establishment of agricultural easements. Additionally, neither the City nor
San Joaquin County has a program for administering agricultural easements. Such a
program would provide a process for selection and acquisition of appropriate lands,
establishment of fees, and other procedural elements that would need to be in place to
ensure consistent implementation and management. Moreover, such action not be
warranted in any event, and would not meet the CEQA nexus requirement, since it would
have no effect in terms of lessening the impact of the agricultural conversion.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
31
Draft August 2004
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
B. Agricultural Resources
In this context, it is worthwhile noting that the applicant for the Vintner's Square
Shopping Center project, currently under construction on the north side of Kettleman
Lane across from the project site, has voluntarily offered to acquire an equivalent
acreage of prime agricultural land elsewhere in the unincorporated County of San
Joaquin as an offset for the convey sion of prime agricultural land at the Vintner's Square
site. The City of Lodi has acknowledged this offset as a voluntary condition of the
applicant; however, it should be emphasized that this offset is not considered by the City
to constitute mitigation for converting the site from prime farmland to urban uses, and as
such was not required by the City as condition of project approval, and is explicitly not
to be construed as such, for the reasons discussed above.
Farmland Securi . Zones
Government Code Section 51296 and following provides for the establishment of
"farmland security zones" within designated agricultural preserves. Legislation
authorizing farmland security zones was enacted to expand the options available to
landowners by providing for the creation of longer term voluntary enforceable
restrictions within agricultural preserves. Essentially, farmland security zones provide
tax benefits for agricultural landowners for longer term contracts than exist under the
Williamson Act (20 years as opposed to 10 years), and slightly different terms related to
the administration of those contracts. No land can be included in a farmland security
zone unless requested by the landowner, and any land located within a city's sphere of
influence cannot be included unless the creation has been approved by the city with
jurisdiction within the sphere of influence.
The County of San Joaquin has enacted a program for administering farmland security
zones within its boundaries, and some participation by landowners has occurred to date.
However, these properties generally must be located outside the urban growth
boundaries of incorporated cities, and most of the properties currently in the program are
far from urban areas and not under threat for imminent conversion to urban uses. (No
-farmland security zones have been established within the City of Lodi Sphere of Influence.)
Although farmland security zones provide for longer term protection of agricultural land
than Williamson Act contracts, they still represent a relatively short-term approach and
do not represent a feasible means for permanent protection of agricultural land.
Right -to -Farm Deed Restrictions
This measure requires the developer to record a deed restriction that specifically notifies
all future owners that they are in proximity to agricultural uses, and lists the types of
operations and possible nuisances or inconveniences associated with farming such as
dust, noise, smoke, odors, pesticides, insects and rodents. Future purchasers are thereby
notified that they must accept such annoyances unless they are of such. a magnitude as to
meet the state law definition of nuisance. The requirement for such deed restrictions
must be mandated by right -to -farm ordinances adopted by the local jurisdiction. The
ordinances typically include provisions for dispute resolution between landowners- and
agricultural users. Right -to -farm deed restrictions help to avoid premature conversion of
farmland near the urban edge and help maintain the viability of such agricultural
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
32
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
B. Agricultural Resources
operations. As with the other measures discussed above, right -to -farm deed restrictions
do not constitute mitigation for the loss of farmland per se, but enhance the continued
viability of existing operations. The City of Lodi's a right -to -farm ordinance requires
that disclosure statements be delivered and signed by buyers of property or applicants for
building permits in the vicinity of agricultural operations (City of Lodi Municipal Code,
Title 8 - Health and Safety, Chapter 8.18).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the City has in fact minimized and substantially lessened the significant
effects of development on prime agricultural land where feasible through the policies of
its adopted General Plan. These policies are intended to ensure that prime agricultural
land is not prematurely converted for development and that its productivity is maintained
for as long as is feasible.
Under CEQA, the City's General Plan regulatory scheme and policies constitute
"mitigation" as defined in the CEQA Guidelines in two respects: By "[m]inimizing
impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation," and
[b]y reducing ... the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during
the life of the action" (CEQA Guidelines section 15370(b) and (d). This mitigation has
proved feasible and effective. Additional mitigation for the project -specific impacts has
been found by the City to be unnecessary or infeasible for the reasons set forth above.
Significance after Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable Impact.
Impact B2. Agricultural -Urban Land Use Conflicts. Development of the project site could create
minor land use conflicts with nearby agricultural operations. (Less -than -Significant
Impact)
Existing agricultural operations occur on adjacent lands to the west and south of the project
site. Urban impacts on agriculture can include trespassing, vandalism, air pollution and
noise from increased traffic. The potential for accidents between slow-moving farm
vehicles and fast-moving cars and trucks can also increase. The use of pesticides and other
agricultural chemicals is often restricted in proximity to urban uses, particularly aerial
application or crop dusting. Agricultural impacts on urban uses include noise, dust, and
pesticide drift, although the proposed commercial retail plaza would be less sensitive to
such activities than residential uses would be.
The potential for project impacts to adjacent agricultural operations are reduced because of
the urbanized nature of the project vicinity at the western edge of urbanized Lodi, where
the potential for urban -rural conflicts already exists. Non -rural land uses in the vicinity
include the existing commercial and residential uses immediately to the east, the approved
Vintner's Square project which is under construction immediately to the north, and the
busy transportation corridors along the east and north site boundaries (Lower Sacramento
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
33
Draft August 2004
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
B. Agricultural Resources
Road and State Route 12/West Kettleman Lane). Thus agricultural operations in the area
have already had to adjust to the intrusion of urban uses and related traffic.
The existing agricultural operations could potentially affect the proposed commercial retail
uses. In particular, plowing activities would generate dust which could be carried to the
site. However, the potential for dust generation would occur only occasionally when fields
are plowed or when bare soils are exposed under high wind conditions. This effect will be
somewhat reduced because the commercial uses of the project would be less sensitive to
agricultural dust generation than residential development would be. In addition, the lands
adjacent to the southwest portion of the site will be occupied by the stormwater basin for
the project, and the lands adjacent to the northwest portion of the site are planned as the site
of a new electric power substation and municipal water storage tank. These facilities will
essentially provide a buffer zone approximately 400 to 600 feet wide along much of the
western project boundary. In addition, Westgate Drive will run along the western site
boundary and provide a minimum 72 -foot buffer west of the central portion of the project.
The project itself will include a 10 -foot high masonry wall along southerly two-thirds of the
western site boundary, which will provide additional screening from windblown dust.
Although the project will be directly adjacent to cultivated vineyards to the south, potential
conflicts will be reduced by the 8 -foot high masonry wall planned for the entire length of
the southern project boundary. Although pesticides would be applied to the vineyards, the
application would not be by aerial spraying, given the proximity of commercial and
residential development. Therefore, the potential for pesticide drift would be minimal.
Given the prevailing wind direction from the northwest, the potential for dustfall due to
occasional plowing would be reduced since the project is located north of the vineyards. In
addition, the lands to the south and west are designated for residential development in the
City's General Plan and are the subject of a pending annexation application, so any urban -
agricultural conflicts would be limited in duration until those lands are developed. In light
of the above factors and considerations, the potential impacts due to agricultural -urban
conflicts associated with the project would be less -than -significant.
Mitigation. No mitigation required.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
34
Draft August 2004
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
C. Geology and Soils
C. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The discussion in this section is based on the geologic and geotechnical feasibility study prepared by
Twining Laboratories in May 2004. The geological report is contained in Appendix B of this EIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Geologic Setting
The project site is located in the southern portion of the Sacramento Valley, which is bordered by Sierra
Nevada Range to the east and the Diablo Range tier of the Coast Ranges to the west. Large coalescing
alluvial fans have developed along each side of the valley. The larger and more gently sloping fans occur on
the east side and consist of deposits derived from the crystalline rock sources of the Sierra Nevada. Lodi is
predominantly located on recent alluvial fan deposits of the Mokelumne River. Surface soils in the Lodi
area also comprise small areas of Recent stream channel deposits along the current channel of the
Mokelumne River (see `Soils' below). The site is essentially level, with Bound surface elevations ranging
from 29 to 32 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). There are no unique geological features
within the project site.
Tectonics and Seismicity
The project site is located in a seismically active region, with numerous active and potentially active faults
associated with the Sierra Nevada to the east and the Coast Ranges to the west.
The western San Joaquin Valley is traversed by a series of faults known collectively as the Great Valley
Fault System (GVFS), which is believed to be the fundamental tectonic boundary between the Coast Range
province and the Sierran block. The 6.7 magnitude Coalinga Earthquake of 1983 occurred within this fault
complex. It is estimated that the nearest segment of the GVFS lies approximately 24 miles west of the site.
Maximum magnitude earthquakes ranging from 6.3 to 6.7 are estimated to occur along this fault system.
The Foothills Fault System, a complex of fault zones located approximately 26 miles east of the site along
the eastern margin of the Sierra Nevada, produced an earthquake with a magnitude of 5.7 at Oroville in
1975.
Other active faults capable of producing ground shaking at the site include the Greenville (33 miles
southwest), Concord -Green Valley (40 miles west), Calaveras (44 miles southwest), Hayward (52 miles
southwest), Ortigalita (58 miles south), West Napa (51 miles northwest), Hunting Creek-Berryessa (54
miles northwest), Rodgers Creek (56 miles west), and San Andreas (71 miles west), with maximum
magnitudes ranging from 6.1 to 7.9.
Seismic Hazards
The potential seismic hazards of concern to the project include groundshaking, ground rupture, liquefaction,
and seismic settlement. These are discussed in turn below.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
35
R. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
C. Geology and Soils
Ground Shaking
There are 24 faults and fault segments within approximately 75 miles of the site which could result in
groundshaking at the project. The ground acceleration with a 10 percent probability of occurring in 100
years was determined to be 0.27g (g =the force of gravity). The California Building Code designates the
site as lying within seismic Zone 3, and specifies corresponding design criteria applicable to new
construction in this zone.
Ground Rupture
Damage resulting from fault rupture occurs only where structures are located astride fault traces that move
during earthquakes. The project site is not located in a state -designated fault rupture zone under the Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. The potential for surface rupture at the site is low.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the phenomenon in which a saturated, cohesionless soil losses structural strength during an
earthquake as a result of induced shearing strains, which essentially transforms the soil to a liquid state
resulting in ground failure or surface deformation. Conditions required for liquefaction include fine, well -
sorted, loose sandy soil, high groundwater, higher intensity earthquakes, and particularly long duration of
ground shaking. Ground accelerations of at least O. l Og and ground shaking durations of at least 3 0 seconds
are needed to initiate liquefaction. The soils of the project site consist of silty sands and sandy silts, with the
depth to groundwater at 40 feet below ground surface or lower. Due to the depth of groundwater at the site,
the potential for surface deformation resulting from liquefaction is low. In addition, the site is not located
within a Seismic Hazard Zone for liquefaction hazards as specified by the State of California (Seismic
Hazard Mapping Act of 1990).
Seismic Settlement
Seismic settlement can occur in both saturated and unsaturated granular soils, and results from the
rearrangement of granular soils during cyclic loading induced by ground shaking, resulting in volume
reduction and surface deformation. Sites along the eastern portion of the Central Valley are generally not
susceptible to significant seismic settlement. The soils of the site are susceptible to seismic settlements of
'A to 1/2 inch, which is considered acceptable for structures. However, subsequent design -level geotechnical
investigations could produce seismic settlement estimates that exceed tolerable limits for the building types
planned.
I nnrlclidP.c
Due to the relatively level topography of the site, the potential for landslides of native slopes is low. The
site is not located within a Seismic Hazard Zone for seismically -induced landslides as specified by the state
Seismic Hazard Mapping Act of 1990.
Lateral Spreading or Slumping
Lateral spreading is the lateral displacement of flat -lying alluvial material toward an open area or a free face
such as a steep bank of a stream channel. It can occur with seismic ground shaking on slopes with saturated
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
36
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
C. Geology and Soils
soils. Since the project is virtually flat, the potential for lateral spreading is considered to be low. However,
there may be a potential for bank instability at the stormwater basin proposed for the project.
Soils
According to information provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), the soils
covering most of the project site consist of Acampo sandy loam with some areas of Tokay fine sandy loam
found in the north -central portion of the site.
The Acampo sandy loam has a low shrink -swell potential, moderately rapid permeability, and low erosion
potential. It has a land capability classification of Class II as irrigated land and Class IV as non -irrigated
land, with a Storie Index agricultural rating as 57, or Grade 3. (See Section II. B. Agricultural Resources for
further discussion.)
Tokay fine sandy loam is characterized as having a low shrink -swell potential, moderately rapid
permeability, low erosion potential, and high corrosivity to steel and moderate corrosivity to concrete. It has
a land capability classification of Class I as irrigated land and Class IV as non -irrigated land, with a Storie
Index rating of 95, or Grade 1.
The geotechnical feasibility study conducted by Twining Labs found soil characteristics to be similar to
those identified by the NRCS. The near surface soils are anticipated to exhibit low to moderate
compressibility and collapse characteristics (abrupt settlement upon wetting of soils - "moisture -induced
collapse"), high shear strength, and fair to good support characteristics for pavements. The study found that
the soils exhibit a mildly corrosion potential to buried metal objects.
Groundwater Conditions
Historical groundwater data from one of the on-site wells indicates that groundwater levels ranged from
about 42 feet to 54 feet below the ground surface over the past 10 years.
Mineral Resources
Review of the California Geologic Survey publications list indicates that the project site does not include
locally important or other known mineral resources.
REGULATORY SETTING
General Plan
The following City of Lodi General Plan goals and policies on geology and soils are relevant to the project:
Section 7: Conservation Element
Goal D: To conserve soil resources.
Policy 1. The City shall require developers to prepare an erosion and sediment control plan, prior to
approving development, that includes features such as mitigation of sediment runoff
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
37
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
C. Geology and Soils
beyond proposed project boundaries and complete revegetation and stabilization of all
disturbed soils (including details regarding seed material, fertilizer, and mulching).
Section 9. Health and Safety Element
Goal B: To prevent loss of lives, injury, and property damage due to the collapse of buildings and
critical facilities and to prevent disruption of essential services in the event of an
earthquake.
Policy 3. The City shall ensure that all public facilities, such as buildings, water tanks, underground
utilities, and levees, are structurally sound and able to withstand seismic activity.
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
For purposes of this EIR, the project would be considered to result in a significant geology and soils impact
if it would:
Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault;
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking;
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction;
iv) Landslides.
• Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
• Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse.
Be located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact C1. Seismic Ground Shaking. Strong ground shaking occurring on the site during a
major earthquake event could cause severe damage to project buildings and
structures. (Significant Impact)
Historically, major earthquakes centered on an area faults have resulted in moderate to
severe ground shaking at the project site. It is expected that a major earthquake will result
in severe ground shaking at the site during the life of the project.
Ground shaking will cause dynamic loading resulting in stress to buildings and structures.
However, structures designed and built in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, as
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
38
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
C. Geology and Soils
required by the City of Lodi, and designed using a Z factor of 0.3 should respond well
except during the most severe potential ground shaking.
Since there is no evidence indicating the presence of faults on the site, the potential for
fault rupture at the site is extremely low.
Mitigation C1. Structural damage to buildings resulting from ground shaking shall be minimized by
following the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, and implementing the
recommendations of the project geotechnical engineer.
Structures at the site would be designed and constructed to withstand anticipated
earthquake loads. A structural engineer, experienced in the design and construction of
commercial structures within areas of high seismicity, would be retained to provide design
and construction recommendations.
Significance after Mitigation: Less -than -Significant Impact.
Impact C2. Seismic Settlement. There is a potential for seismically -induced ground settlements at
the site, which could result in damage to project foundations and structures.
(Significant Impact)
Soils investigations undertaken at the site to date indicate that maximum seismic
settlements of 1/4 to 1/2 inch can be expected. These settlements are not anticipated to
exceed the tolerances for conventional shallow spread foundations or slabs on grade.
However, if subsequent design -level geotechnical investigations produce seismic settlement
estimates that exceed the tolerable limits for the building types planned, unacceptable
settlements could occur during seismic events.
Mitigation C2. If design -level geotechnical studies indicate unacceptable levels of potential seismic
settlement, available measures to reduce the effects of such settlements would include
replacement of near -surface soils with engineered fill, or supporting structures on
quasi -rigid foundations, as recommended by the project geotechnical engineer.
All construction proposed within the project site will be subject to design -level
geotechnical investigations required at the time of use permit application. These
subsurface studies will involve detailed evaluations of on-site soil conditions and provide
construction -level recommendations for potential settlements. If predicted settlements are
predominantly the result of near surface loose soils, these soils could be entirely or partially
removed from beneath the planned footings and replaced with engineered fill. If seismic
settlements are predominantly the result of relatively deep loose soils (liquefaction below
the water table), measures to reduce the effects of differential settlements would include
supporting structures on quasi -rigid systems such as mat foundations and grade beams, or
deep foundation systems such as piles. The recommendations of the geotechnical engineer
will be implemented, as required by the City of Lodi.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
39
Draft August 2004
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
C. Geology and Soils
Significance after Mitigation: Less -than -Significant Impact.
Impact C3. Stormwater Basin Bank Instability. There is a potential for bank instability along the
banks of the proposed basin. (Significant Impact)
The potential for bank instability would be investigated as part of the design -level
geotechnical study. The study could result in a recommended establishment of a setback
zone from the basin. Preliminary estimates suggest that setbacks would be on the order of
30 to 60 feet for buildings with typical shallow spread foundations.
The project site plan indicates that the nearest buildings in the proposed project would be
located approximately 180 feet from the basin.
Mitigation C3. Design -level geotechnical studies shall investigate the potential of bank instability at
the proposed stormwater basin and recommend appropriate setbacks, if warranted.
The recommendations of the geotechnical engineer will be implemented, as required by the
City of Lodi.
Significance after Mitigation: Less -than -Significant Impact.
Impact C4. Soil Consolidation and Collapse. Soils present on the site are subject to moisture -
induced collapse, which could result in damage to structures. (Significant Impact)
Testing conducted by Twining Labs indicated that the near surface soils exhibit moderate
potential for "moisture -induced collapse" or abrupt settlement upon wetting of the soils.
Mitigation C4. The effects of soil consolidation and collapse can be mitigated by placing shallow
spread foundations on a uniform thickness of engineered fill; design -level
geotechnical investigations shall identify specific measures as appropriate to mitigate
these conditions in response to localized site conditions.
All construction proposed within the project site will be subject to design -level
geotechnical investigations required at the time of use permit application. Based on
project -specific soil conditions, the geotechnical engineer will make construction -level
recommendations for minimizing the potential for moisture -induced collapse. The
recommendations of the geotechnical engineer will be implemented, as required by the City
of Lodi.
Significance after Mitigation: Less -than -Significant Impact.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
40
Draft August 2004
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
C. Geology and Soils
Impact C5. Expansive Soils. There is a low, but not necessarily insignificant, potential for soils
expansion at the site, which could result in differential subgrade movements and
cracking of foundations. (Significant Impact)
Expansive soils are subject to shrinking and swelling during seasonal wetting and drying
cycles. The resulting changes in soil volume can cause cracking of foundations and floor
slabs. The NRCS soils survey indicates that the near -surface soils at the project site have a
low shrink -swell potential. However, soil conditions can be highly variable within short
distances, and localized pockets of expansive soils may be present on the site.
Mitigation C5. The potential damage from soils expansion would be reduced by placement of non -
expansive engineered fill below foundation slabs, or other measures as shall be
determined by design -level geotechnical studies.
This would include placing the bottoms of foundations below the zone of seasonal
moisture fluctuation, placing interior and exterior slabs on a uniform thickness of non -
expansive engineered fill, and by moisture conditioning the fill soils. The geotechnical
report to be prepared at the engineering design stage would prescribe minimum footing
depths and minimum thickness of engineered fill below slabs.
Significance after Mitigation: Less -than -Significant Impact.
Impact C6. Soil Corrosivity. The corrosion potential of the on-site soils could result in damage to
buried utilities and foundation systems. (Significant Impact)
The NRCS soils survey indicates that both on-site soil types exhibit a high corrosivity to
steel and a moderate corrosivity to concrete. Geotechnical studies to be undertaken at the
engineering design stage will determine more specifically the corrosive properties of the
site soils.
Mitigation C6. The potential damage from soil corrosivity can be mitigated by using corrosion -
resistant materials for buried utilities and systems; specific measures shall be
specified by an engineering geologist as appropriate in response to localized
conditions.
Specific measures would include using corrosion -resistant coatings and cathodic
protection for buried steel, and using sulfate -resistant material to prevent erosion of
concrete. The geotechnical report to be prepared at the engineering design stage would
prescribe specifications for corrosion protection.
Significance after Mitigation: Less -than -Significant Impact.
[Note: Erosion and siltation impacts are addressed in Section R. D. Hydrology and Water Quality.]
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
41
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
D. Hydrology and Water Quality
D. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The following discussion is partially based on a drainage report prepared by Phillippi Engineering in May
2004. The drainage report is contained in Appendix D of this EIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Stormwater runoff within the city is managed by the City of Lodi through a system of storm drain lines,
drainage ditches, stormwater basins, and pump stations. Approximately half of the City's storm drainage is
discharged to the Mokelumne River to the north. However, since the topography predominantly slopes to
the southwest away from the river, the remaining storm drainage is conveyed to the Woodbridge Irrigation
District (WID) Canal which runs through the southern and western portions of the City from southeast to
northwest. However, due to capacity limitations in the canal, the City's overall discharge rate to the canal is
limited to 160 cubic feet per second (cfs) during the winter, with a maximum rate of 60 cfs per discharge
site. Since this is only a small fraction of the peak storm runoff rate, the excess must be temporarily stored
in a system of stormwater basins. Most of these basins also serve as City parks and playing fields.
Runoff from developed areas in the project vicinity is conveyed eastward to a 60 -inch pipe which flows
south in Sylvan Way and Sage Way and connects to a 48 -inch pipe in West Century Boulevard. This pipe
carries flows east to Beckman Park where it is discharged for temporary storage. Beckman Park functions
as a stormwater basin in conjunction with DeBennedetti Park to the west, which provides temporary
overflow storage for the Beckman Park facility. Stormwater from Beckman Park is discharged to the WID
Canal at a regulated rate after the peak flows in the canal have passed through. Flows in the WID Canal are
ultimately carried to the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta.
Site Drainage
Under current conditions, the undeveloped project site is not served by any improved storm drainage
facilities. There is a City 12 -inch storm drain in Lower Sacramento Road which stubs out to the property,
but no site drainage enters this pipe under existing conditions. Most rain falling on the site is either
absorbed into the soil or evaporates into the atmosphere. Storm flows from major storm events tend to
migrate with the natural site gradient in a southerly direction, with the drainage collected in a ditch along
Lower Sacramento Road and conveyed south.
The estimated peak runoff rate from the site for the 10 -year storm event under pre -development conditions
is 6.27 cfs.
Flooding Potential
According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) covering the project area, the project site lies within
flood zone B. This zone includes areas subject to flooding during storms between the 100 -year and 500 -
year events, or certain areas subject to 100 year flooding with depths of less than one foot; or where the
contributing area is less than one square mile; or areas protected by levees from the base flood. Most of
Lodi is protected from 100 -year flooding by the levee system along the Mokelumne River, and only lands
within the immediate vicinity of the river are subject to inundation during the 100 -year event. Much of the
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
42
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
D. Hydrology and Water Quality
City, including the project site, would be flooded during the 500 -year event, although flood depths for the
500 -year flood event have not been established.
REGULATORY SETTING
General Plan
The following City of Lodi General Plan goals and policies on hydrology and water quality are relevant to
the project:
Section 3. Land Use and Growth Management Element
Goal J: To maintain an adequate level of service in the City's water, sewer collection and disposal,
and drainage system to meet the needs of existing and projected development.
Policy 1. The City shall develop new facilities, as necessary, to serve new development in
accordance with the City's Water, Wastewater, and Drainage Master Plans.
Policy 2. The City shall assess water, wastewater, and drainage development fees on all new
residential, commercial, office, and industrial development sufficient to fund required
systemwide improvements.
Section 7. Conservation Element
Goal D: To conserve soil resources.
Policy 1. The City shall require developers to prepare an erosion and sediment control plan, prior to
approving development, that includes features such as mitigation of sediment runoff
beyond proposed project boundaries and complete revegetation and stabilization of all
disturbed soils (including details regarding seed material, fertilizer, and mulching).
Section 9: Health and Safety Element
Goal A: To prevent loss of lives, injury, and property damage due to flooding.
Policy 2. The City shall ensure that storm drainage facilities are constructed to serve new
development adequate to store runoff generated by a 100 -year storm.
Policy 3. The City shall ensure that storm drainage facilities are provided for all new development to
make certain that all surface runoff generated by new the development is adequately
handled.
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
For purposes of this EIR, the project would be considered to result in a significant hydrological or water
quality impact if it would:
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
43
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
D. Hydrology and Water Quality
Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or result in flooding on- or off-site.
• Create or contribute runoff water which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site,
or which would substantially degrade water quality through the generation of urban runoff pollutants.
• Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; or place within a 100 -year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood flows.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact D1. Increased Stormwater Runoff. The project would result in a substantial increase in
stormwater runoff generated at the site compared to existing conditions; however, the
planned stormwater basin and regulated discharges to the City of Lodi storm drain
system and the Woodbridge Irrigation District Canal would avoid downstream
flooding and drainage impacts. (Less -than -Significant Impact)
The development of the project would result in the coverage of approximately 85 percent of
the main project site (not including the stormwater basin) with impervious surfaces, and
therefore would increase the volume and velocity of peak runoff leaving the site. Peak
runoff rates for the 10 -year event would increase from 6.77 cfs under current conditions to
44.72 cfs under project conditions, an increase of about 560 percent.
As discussed under `Environmental Setting,' the City of Lodi controls most of the
stormwater runoff generated in the urbanized area through a series of stormwater basins.
The basins in the southwestern portion of the City provide temporary storage of stormwater
prior to discharge to the Woodbridge Irrigation District Canal at controlled rates after peak
flood flows in the canal have passed.
At the present time, the project area is not served by a City -operated stormwater basin,
although such a facility is planned to be constructed to the west of the project site in the
future. The general intent is to construct a series of stormwater basins within a greenbelt
area along the City's western growth boundary, located one-half mile to the west, similar to
the concept contained in the Westside Facilities Plan for the lands north of Kettleman Lane.
These basins would be constructed in conjunction with the private development of the
lands to the west for residential uses, as specified in the City's General Plan. While the
timing of this development is unknown, there is a pending annexation application for this
area, so it could occur within the next several years. (See Section III. Cumulative Impacts
for a detailed discussion of this proposed annexation area.) In the meantime, the City is
requiring developers to provide temporary stormwater basins to accommodate the increased
stormwater runoff from their projects until such time as the permanent City -operated
facilities are completed. The project includes the construction of a temporary stormwater
basin for the project as described below.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
44
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
D. Hydrology and Water Quality
The runoff generated by the project will be collected by a system of storm drain inlets,
underground storm drains, and vegetated swales (bioswales)(see Figure 8), and piped to a
temporary stormwater basin planned fora 3.65 -acre site adjacent to the southwest corner of
the main project site. Based on City requirements that the temporary basin be designed to
accommodate the flow volume generated by a 100 -year 48-hour storm, the basin will be
designed with a 15.03 acre-foot capacity (see Drainage Study in Appendix C for
calculations). Once each storm event has passed, stored runoff will be pumped east to
Lower Sacramento Road through an underground pipeline to be installed along the
southern project boundary. The drainage flows will enter the existing 21 -inch City storm
drain in Lower Sacramento Road. This line heads east through the Sunwest Shopping
Center and ultimately joins the 60 -inch trunk line in Sylvan Way which conveys flows to
the City stormwater basins at Beckman Park and the future DeBennedetti Park site prior to
discharge to the Woodbridge Irrigation District Canal.
The stormwater basin will be about 10 feet deep and will have side slopes of 4:1
(horizontal: vertical), per City of Lodi standards. The basin will have a 10 -foot wide access
road and a 10 -foot wide landscaped setback area between the edge of the basin and the
perimeter fence enclosing the basin site. The basin would be operated and maintained by
the property owners until the project stormwater collection system can be connected to a
future City system and conveyed to the future permanent City stormwater basin planned to
the west of the project site. Once the permanent City facility is in place, the temporary
basin serving the project would be backfilled and brought to a condition suitable for the
residential development designated for these lands in the General Plan.
Mitigation. No mitigation required.
Impact D2. Flooding. During the 100 -year storm event, the project site may be subject to shallow
flooding to depths of less than one foot; however, all finished floors will be on raised
pads at least one foot above existing ground elevations to prevent flooding of retail
buildings. (Less -than -Significant Impact)
To facilitate positive site drainage, the building pads will be raised to one foot above
existing ground elevations, with grades sloping away from the building pads toward storm
drain inlets in the parking areas or vegetated swales along the north and south perimeters of
the project site. The elevated building pads will provide flood projection from shallow
flooding which may occur on the site during the 100 -year event.
Mitigation. No mitigation required.
Impact D3.
Frosinn and Sedimentation During arnding and construction erosion of ex need
soils and pollutants from
downstream water bodies.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
i equipment may result in water quality impacts to
(Significant Impact)
45
Draft August 2004
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
D. Hydrology and Water Quality
The development of the project site would involve site clearing, mass grading, excavation,
trenching, and final grading for roads, utilities, building pads, and the stormwater basin.
While soils are exposed, the potential for erosion and sedimentation would be high.
Discharge of hydrocarbons and other toxic substances can also occur during the
construction phase if fuels, oils or washwater from equipment washing or sanitary facilities
leak or are spilled. These and other construction -related pollutants would potentially be
carried by runoff to nearby drainage courses.
Mitigation D3. A comprehensive erosion control and water pollution prevention program shall be
implemented during grading and construction, to be specified by the City of Lodi.
Typical measures required by the City of Lodi to be implemented during the grading and
construction phase include the following:
• Schedule earthwork to occur primarily during the dry season to prevent most runoff
erosion.
Stabilize exposed soils by the end of October in any given year by revegetating
disturbed areas or applying hydromulch with tetra -foam or other adhesive material.
Convey runoff from areas of exposed soils to temporary siltation basins to provide for
settling of eroded sediments.
Protect drainages and storm drain inlets from sedimentation with berms or filtration
barriers, such as filter fabric fences or rock bags or filter screens.
Apply water to exposed soils and on-site dirt roads regularly during the dry season to
prevent wind erosion.
Stabilize stockpiles of topsoil and fill material by watering daily, or by the use of
chemical agents.
Install gravel construction entrances to reduce tracking of sediment onto adjoining
streets.
• Sweep on-site paved surfaces and surrounding streets regularly with a wet sweeper to
collect sediment before it is washed into the storm drains or channels.
• Store all construction equipment and material in designated areas away from
waterways and storm drain inlets. Surround construction staging areas with earthen
berms or dikes.
• Wash and maintain equipment and vehicles in a separate bermed area, with runoff
directed to a lined retention basin.
Collect construction waste daily and deposit in covered dumpsters.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
46
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
D. Hydrology and Water Quality
• After construction is completed, clean all drainage culverts of accumulated sediment
and debris.
In conjunction with approval of the Improvement Plans for the project, the City of Lodi will
require preparation of a grading, drainage, and erosion control plan which includes features
such as mitigation of sediment runoff beyond proposed project boundaries and complete
revegetation and stabilization of all disturbed soils.
Additionally, the project will comply with EPA's National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for construction activities. These are
implemented at the state level through the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water
Associated with Construction Activity, as administered by the State Water Resources
Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Prior to construction
grading for the project, the applicant will be required to file a "Notice of Intent" (NOI)
with the Regional Board to comply with the General Permit and prepare a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which addresses measures to be included in the
project to minimize and control construction and post -construction runoff. The SWPPP
must address water quality mitigation for both the construction and post -construction
periods, and include provisions for monitoring of discharges to stormwater systems. The
SWPPP is to be kept on-site during construction, and is to be updated each year as site
development proceeds.
The construction period water quality protection measures contained in the SWPPP will
include many of the items listed above including: soil stabilization practices, sediment
control practices, sediment tracking control practices, wind erosion control practices, and
non-stormwater management, vehicle and equipment fueling and maintenance practices,
and waste management and disposal control practices, among other things.
Significance after Mitigation: Less -than -Significant Impact.
Impact D4. Urban Nonpoint Source Pollution. The project would generate urban nonpoint
contaminants which may be carried in stormwater runoff from paved surfaces to
downstream water bodies. (Significant Impact)
After completion of site development, the parking and circulation areas within the project
site would accumulate hydrocarbon by-products, heavy metals, and sediments from
automobiles which would be flushed into the storm drainage system. In addition, the
pesticides and fertilizers applied within the landscaped areas could be washed away during
rainstorms or as a result of over -irrigation. Unless controlled, these pollutants would
contribute to cumulative nonpoint contaminant loads in downstream drainages and water
bodies.
Mitigation D4. The project shall include structural and non-structural controls, to be specified by the
City of Lodi, in order to reduce nonpoint source pollutant loads.
In January 2003, the City adopted a Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) to implement the
provisions of its Phase II NPDES stormwater permit issued by the State Water Resources
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
47
Draft August 2004
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
D. Hydrology and Water Quality
Control Board. The SMP contains a comprehensive program for the reduction of surface
water pollution. The program areas most applicable to the project are post -construction
runoff control and pollution prevention/good housekeeping.
As discussed in the Section I. B. Description of the Proposed Project, the project
includes feasible structural BMPs (Best Management Practices) such as vegetated swales
and a stormwater basin. Much of the stormwater runoff generated in the northern and
southern portions of the site will be conveyed to vegetated swales or bioswales which
will provide partial filtering of pollutants and sediments. This partially treated runoff,
along with all other parking lot and roof runoff from the project will be conveyed to the
3.65 -acre stormwater basin planned adjacent to the southwest corner of the site. The
basin would serve as a settling pond where suspended sediments and urban pollutants
would settle out prior to discharge of the collected stormwater into the City's storm drain
system, thereby reducing potential surface water quality impacts to drainages and water
bodies. The pump intake for the basin will be located two feet above the bottom to
provide for accumulation of sediments which would be cleaned out on a regular basis.
Non-structural BMPs typically required by the City include the implementation of
regular maintenance activities (e.g., damp sweeping of paved areas; inspection and
cleaning of storm drain inlets; litter control) at the site to prevent soil, grease, and litter
from accumulating on the project site and contaminating surface runoff. Stormwater
catch basins will be required to be stenciled to discourage illegal dumping. In the
landscaped areas, chemicals and irrigation water will be required to be applied at rates
specified by the project landscape architect to minimize potential for contaminated
runoff. Additional BMPs, as identified from a set of model practices developed by the
state, may be required as appropriate at the time of Improvement Plan approval.
Significance after Mitigation: Less -than -Significant Impact.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
48
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
E. Biological Resources
E. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This discussion is based on the biological resources assessment prepared by Live Oak Associates (LOA) in
July 2004. The biological report is contained in Appendix E of this EIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Biotic Habitats
One biotic habitat, consisting of ruderal (weedy) habitat, occurs on the project site. Also, an agricultural
irrigation ditch runs in a north to south direction through the western portion of the site and along portions
of the northern and southern boundaries of the site.
Ruderal Habitats
Ruderal habitats, consisting of disturbed land, usually support low species diversity. The term "ruderal"
refers to areas which are periodically disturbed by anthropogenic (human) influences. These habitats are
characterized by a predominance of non-native grasses and forbs of European origin. Native vegetation
is typically sparse to non-existent. At the time of the biological field survey in February 2003, this
habitat was surrounded along the site boundaries by small drainage and irrigation ditches which
contained little to no water.
Dominant vegetation observed within this habitat on the site included non-native grasses such as wild
oats, barnyard barley, ripgut brome, and annual bluegrass. Common exotic forbs occurring in this habitat
include clovers, fiddlenecks, redstem filaree, shepherd's -purse, common chickweed, plantains, Persian
speedwell, henbit, birdsrape mustard, radish, Russian thistle, yellow star thistle, mallow and the native
miner's lettuce.
Few trees occur on the project site or the immediate vicinity. A small patch of young cottonwoods
occurs in the irrigation ditch on the northern boundary of the site. Eight mature trees are located along
and within the eastern and southern boundaries of the site. These include two small walnut trees and a
young coast live oak along the eastern boundary and Lower Sacramento Road, and five larger trees along
the southern boundary including two almonds and three walnuts. Directly west of the site, there are an
additional seven trees (walnuts, almond, and coast live oaks) along the southern boundary of the ruderal
habitat. There are also four mature trees adjacent to the small pond to the west of the project site.
Disturbed land provides very little habitat for terrestrial vertebrates. Native and non-native animals use
ruderal habitat primarily for cover and foraging. The study area had been recently disked at the time of
the field survey, which left the land barren of vegetation and therefore provided little cover for most
terrestrial vertebrates.
Disturbed land may be used as foraging habitat by a variety of birds including killdeer, American crows,
western meadowlarks, Brewer's blackbirds, and European starlings. Migratory birds could include
western kingbirds in the summer and American pipits and savannah sparrows in the winter. Avian
predators such as American kestrels, white-tailed kites, red-tailed hawks, Swainson's hawks, merlins,
northern harriers, and loggerhead shrikes are likely to be seen foraging over ruderal and agricultural
lands of the Lodi area.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
49
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
E. Biological Resources
Small mammals common to ruderal habitat include California ground squirrels, house mice, deer mice,
and Botta's pocket gophers, among others. Coyotes are also attracted to such habitats by the many small
mammals that occur in them. Portions of the site with little vegetation are probably visited by feral and
household cats and domestic dogs. None of the above mammalian species were observed on the project
site during the field survey, although a few ground squirrel burrows were observed around the perimeter
of this habitat. Reptiles that are expected to occur on the study site include gopher snakes, western fence
lizards, and southern alligator lizards.
Agricultural Irrigation and Drainage Ditches
An agricultural irrigation drainage ditch runs in a north to south direction through the western portion of
the project site, and along portions of the northern and southern site boundaries. A shallow human -made
drainage ditch also runs along portions of the northern and eastern site boundaries. At the time of the
field survey, water was absent from the ditch, and vegetation was consistent with that of the surrounding
ruderal habitat.
Movement Corridors
Many terrestrial animals need more than one biotic habitat in order to complete all of their biological
activities. With increasing encroachment of humans on wildlife habitats, it has become important to
establish and maintain linkages for animals to be able to access locations containing different biotic
resources that are essential to maintaining their life cycles. Terrestrial animals use ridges, canyons,
riparian areas, and open spaces for movement between their required habitats.
The importance of an area as a "movement corridor" depends on the species in question. Animal
movements generally can be divided into three major behavioral categories:
• Movements within a home range or territory.
• Movements during migration.
• Movements during dispersal.
No identified or known "animal corridor" presently exists on the site. However, development of open
parcels can result in secondary effects on regional wildlife populations by fragmenting habitats in ways
that either create barriers to movement or substantially alter the ability of wildlife to move through a
region in order to access more suitable habitats. Even poor quality habitat (in this case ruderal habitat)
can and is used by species as movement corridors. The proposed project site, however, does not
facilitate regional movement of wildlife in a disproportionate way.
Special Status Plants and Animals
Several species of plants and animals within the state of California have low populations, limited
distributions, or both. Such species may be considered "rare" and are vulnerable to extirpation as the
state's human population grows and the habitats these species occupy are converted to agricultural and
urban uses. As described subsequently under `Regulatory Context', state and federal laws have provided
the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
with a mechanism for conserving and protecting the diversity of plant and animal species native to the
state. A sizable number of native plants and animals have been formally designated as threatened or
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
50
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
E. Biological Resources
endangered under state and federal endangered species legislation. Others have been designated as
"candidates" for such listing. Still others have been designated as "species of special concern" by the
CDFG. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) has developed its own set of lists of native plants
considered rare, threatened or endangered. Collectively, these plants and animals are referred to as
"special status species."
A number of special status plants and animals occur in the vicinity of the project site. These species, and
their potential to occur in the study area, are listed in Table 1, beginning on the following pages.
Special -Status Plant Species
Of the 14 special -status vascular plant species known to occur in the general project vicinity, as listed in
Table 1, the habitats required for all 14 of these special -status plants are absent from the site.
Special -Status Animal Species
A total of 11 out of the 23 animal species that occur regionally are considered to be possible occupants or
visitors to the site. These include seven raptor species, two songbirds, and two bats species. Five of the
seven raptors (white-tailed kite, northern harrier, merlin, golden eagle, and prairie falcon) and one of the
two song birds (loggerhead shrike), and the two bat species (Pacific western big -eared bat and California
mastiff bat) are expected to forage on the site, but there is no nesting habitat present on the proposed
project site for any of these species.
The remaining three species that have the potential to occur on site (two raptors and one songbird)
include the Swainson's hawk (California threatened), the burrowing owl (California species of special
concern), and the California horned lark (California species of special concern). These species, and the
suitability of the site to support them, are discussed in turn below.
Swainson's Hawk
Swainson's hawk is listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act but is not protected
under the federal Endangered Species Act. Their population has been greatly reduced due to habitat loss
(development, conversion of open farm lands into vineyards and orchards, etc.), and also through
hunting, pesticides, and competition. The significance of the Swainson's hawk has been recognized
locally since before 1990, when the City of Stockton developed a habitat conservation plan for the
species. The conservation of the species is also one of the primary objectives of the San Joaquin County
Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), discussed subsequently.
The Swainson's hawk is a medium-sized hawk that requires areas that contain both suitable foraging and
nesting habitat. Foraging habitat consists of grasslands, pastures, and low croplands. Nesting habitat
consists of riparian habitat or groves of trees, or sometimes in isolated trees. The best habitat is
concentrated along permanent waterways with a continuous canopy of large trees for nesting and
grassland, irrigated pasture, or alfalfa or grain fields nearby for foraging. Swainson's hawks breed in
California in the summer months, and winter in Mexico and South America.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
51
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
E. Biological Resources
TABLE 1
SPECIAL -STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD POTENTIALLY OCCUR IN THE PROJECT VICINITY
Plants
Species Listed as Threatened or Endangered under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Act
5ecie
Status
Status
H bi.
Occurrence in the Stud Area
Succulent Owl's -Clover
Brackish or freshwater marshes
FT, CE,
Vernal pools that are
Absent. Suitable habitat does not
(Castilleja campestris ssp.
exist on the study area.
CNPS 1B
often acidic.
exist on the study area.
succulents
(Astragalus tener var.
foothill grasslands, and alkaline
exist on the study area.
Delta Button -Celery
CE,
Found in riparian scrub in
Absent. Suitable habitat does not
(Eryngium racemosum)
Coastal prairies, lake margins of
CNPS 1B
vernally mesic clay
exist on the study area.
marshes and swamps, and valley
exist on the study area.
depressions.
and foothill grasslands.
Mason's Lilaeopsis
Slough Thistle
CR,
Brackish or freshwater
Absent. Suitable habitat does not
(Lilaeopsis masonii)
CNPS 1B
marshes and swamps, and
exist on the study area.
scrub.
riparian scrub.
CNPS 2
Other special status plants listed by CNPS
Species,:
Status
Habitat
Occurrence in the Stud Area's
Suisun Marsh Aster
CNPS IB
Brackish or freshwater marshes
Absent. Suitable habitat does not
(Aster lentus)
and swamps.
exist on the study area.
Alkali Milk -Vetch
CNPS 1B
Playas, adobe clay valley and
Absent. Suitable habitat does not
(Astragalus tener var.
foothill grasslands, and alkaline
exist on the study area.
tener)
vernal pools.
Bristly Sedge
CNPS 2
Coastal prairies, lake margins of
Absent. Suitable habitat does not
(Carex comosa)
marshes and swamps, and valley
exist on the study area.
and foothill grasslands.
Slough Thistle
CNPS 1B
Chenopod scrub, marshes and
Absent. Suitable habitat does not
(Cirsium crassicaule)
swamps (sloughs), and riparian
exist on the study area.
scrub.
Round -Leaved Filaree
CNPS 2
Cismontane woodlands and clay
Absent. Suitable habitat does not
(Erodium macro h llum)
valley and foothill grasslands.
exist on the study area.
Rose -Mallow
CNPS 2
Freshwater marshes and swamps.
Absent. Suitable habitat does not
Hibiscus lasiocar us
exist on the stud area.
Delta Tule Pea
CNPS 1B
Brackish or freshwater marshes
Absent. Suitable habitat does not
(Lath rus 'e sonii)
and swamps.
exist on the study area.
Legenere
CNPS 1B
Vernal pools.
Absent. Suitable habitat does not
(Le enere limosa)
exist on the study area.
Delta Mudwort
CNPS 2
Marshes and swamps.
Absent. Suitable habitat does not
(Limosella subulata)
exist on the study area.
Sanford's Arrowhead
CNPS 1B
Assorted shallow freshwater
Absent. Suitable habitat does not
(Sa ittaria san ordii)
marshes and swamps.
exist on the study area.
Blue Skullcap
CNPS 2
Mesic meadows and seeps and
Absent. Suitable habitat does not
(Scutellaria laterflora)
marshes and swamps.----
exist on the study area.
See last page oj- Table I for detail ed jootnote.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
52
Draft August 2004
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
E. Biological Resources
TABLE 1 (CONT'D)
SPECIAL -STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD POTENTIALLY OCCUR IN THE PROJECT VICINITY
Animals
Species Listed as Threatened or Endangered under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Act
eci
Status
Habitat
Occurrence !in the Study Area
Valley Elderberry Longhorn
FT
Lives in mature elderberry
Absent. Suitable habitat for this species
Beetle
shrubs of California's
does not exist in the form of elderberry
(Desmocerus californicus
Central Valley and Sierra
shrubs on the study area.
dimor hus)
Foothills.
California Red -legged Frog
FT,
Rivers, creeks and stock
Absent. Suitable habitat for this species
(Rana aurora draytonii)
CSC
ponds of the Sierra
does not exist on the study area.
foothills and coast range,
preferring pools with
overhanging vegetation.
California Tiger Salamander
FC,
Vernal pools and stock
Absent. Suitable habitat for this species
(Ambystoma californiense)
CSC
ponds of central
does not exist on the study area. The
California.
pond on the adjacent parcel does not
support suitable breeding habitat for this
species due to the hydrologic conditions
(pond does not appear to support water
for the necessary period of time) and
steep sloped banks.
Giant Garter Snake
FT,CT
Occurs in slow-moving
Absent. Suitable habitat for this species
(Thamnophis gigas)
water of emergent
does not exist on the study area.
wetlands in the San
Joaquin and lower
Sacramento Valleys.
Swainson's Hawk
CT
Forages in open
Possible. This species may forage on the
(Buteo swainsoni)
grasslands of the Central
study area, but no nesting habitat is
Valley. Requires large
present. There have been two CNDDB
trees nearby for nesting.
occurrences of this species within a three
mile radius of the study area.
San Joaquin Kit Fox
FE, CT
Saltbush scrub, grassland,
Absent. Suitable habitat for this species
(Vulpes macrotis mutica)
oak woodlands, savanna,
does not exist on the study area. The
and freshwater marsh.
nearest CNDDB or USFWS documented
occurrence is greater than ten miles from
the site.
Federal Candidate Species and State Species of Special Concern
Species
Status
Habitat
Occurrence in the Study Area*
Western Pond Turtle
CSC
Open slow-moving water
Absent. Suitable habitat for this species
(Clemmys marmorata)
of rivers and creeks of
does not exist on the study area.
central California with
rocks and logs for
basking.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
53
Draft August 2004
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
E. Biological Resources
TABLE 1 (CONT'D)
SPECIAL -STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD POTENTIALLY OCCUR IN THE PROJECT VICINITY
Animals
Federal Candidate Species and State Species of Special Concern (cont'd)
ees
StatusabYtat
Occurrence! in the stud Area
Foothill Yellow -legged Frog
CSC
Found primarily in swiftly
Absent. Suitable habitat for this species
(Rana boylii)
flowing creeks.
does not exist on the study area.
Absent. Suitable habitat for this species
Western Spadefoot Toad
CSC
Open grasslands, savannahs,
and chaparral with sandy to
does not exist on the study area.
gravelly soil. Breeds in
vernal pools or intermittent
streams.
Possible. This species may forage on the
White-tailed Kite
CSC
Open grasslands and
(Elanus caeruleus)
agricultural areas throughout
study area, but nesting habitat is
central California.
marginal to non-existent.
Possible. This species may forage on the
Northern Harrier
CSC
Frequents meadows,
(Circus cyaneus)
grasslands, open rangelands,
study area, but no nesting habitat is
freshwater emergent
present on-site.
wetlands; uncommon in
wooded habitats.
Absent. Foraging and nesting habitat are
Sharp -shinned Hawk
CSC
Breeds in the mixed conifer
(Accipiter striatus)
forests of the northern Sierra
absent from the study area.
Nevada. This species winters
in a variety of habitats of the
state.
Absent. Foraging and nesting habitat are
Cooper's Hawk
CSC
Breeds in oak woodlands,
(Accipiter cooperii)
riparian forests and mixed
absent from the study area.
conifer forest of the Sierra
Nevada, but winters in a
variety of lowland habitats.
Possible. This species may forage on the
Merlin
CSC
This falcon, which breeds in
(Falco columbarius)
Canada, winters in a variety
study area, but no nesting habitat is
of California habitats,
present on-site.
including grasslands,
savannas, wetlands, etc.
Possible. This species may forage on the
Prairie Falcon
CSC
Distributed from annual
(Falco mexicanus)
grasslands to alpine
study area, but no nesting habitat is
meadows; requires cliffs or
present on-site.
rock outcroppings for
nesting.
Possible. This species may forage on the
Golden Eagle
CSC
Typically frequents rolling
(Aquila chrysaetos)
foothills, mountain areas,
study area, but no nesting habitat is
]iG iry _ 7 r, T i 1 1 7 7
.7 n
sage -juniper flats and desert.
present on-site.
bee tusc pine of 1 ante 1 Jor aetaileajootnote.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
54
Draft August 2004
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
E. Biological Resources
TABLE I (CONT'D)
SPECIAL -STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD POTENTIALLY OCCUR IN THE PROJECT VICINITY
Animals
Federal Candidate Species and State Species of Special Concern (cont'd)
S.'ecYs
S.t...
�Iabitat
Occurrence in the' Stud Area*
Burrowing Owl
CSC
Found in open, dry grasslands,
Possible. Burrowing owls breed
(Athene cunicularia)
deserts and ruderal areas.
locally and could forage on the site if
Requires suitable burrows.
breeding nearby. Limited nesting
This species is often associated
habitat is present on the site in the
with California ground
form of ground squirrel burrows. No
squirrels.
individuals were observed during the
February 2003 field visit.
Loggerhead Shrike
CSC
Nests in tall shrubs and dense
Possible. This species may forage on
(Lanius ludovicianus)
trees, forages in grasslands,
the study area, but no nesting habitat
marshes, and ruderal habitats.
is present on-site.
California Horned Lark
CSC
Short -grass prairie, annual
Possible. This species inhabits a
(Eremophila alpestris actia)
grasslands, coastal plains, open
variety of open habitats, usually
fields.
lacking in trees and shrubs. It is
possible that this bird could nest or
forage on-site.
Tricolored Blackbird
CSC
Breeds near fresh water in
Absent. Suitable habitat for this
(Agelaius tricolor)
dense emergent vegetation.
species does not exist on the study
area.
Pacific Western Big -eared
CSC
Primarily a cave -dwelling bat
Possible. The site does not provide
Bat
that may also roost in buildings.
suitable roosting habitat; the species
(Plecotus townsendii
Occurs in a variety of habitats
may rarely to occasionally forage
townsendii)
of the state.
over the site.
California Mastiff Bat
CSC
Forages over many habitats,
Possible. The site does not provide
(Eumops perosis
requires tall cliffs or buildings
suitable roosting habitat; the species
californicus)
for roosting.
may rarely to occasionally forage
over the site.
Ringtail
CP
Occurs in riparian and heavily
Absent. Suitable habitat for this
(Bassariscus astutus)
wooded habitats near water.
species does not exist on the study
area.
* See last page of Table I for detailed footnote.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
55
Draft August 2004
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
E. Biological Resources
Table 1 notes
*Present: Species observed on the site at time of field surveys or during recent past.
Possible: Species not observed on the site, but it could occur there from time to time.
Unlikely: Species not observed on the site, and would not be expected to occur there except, perhaps, as a transient.
Absent: Species not observed on the site, and precluded from occurring there because habitat requirements not met.
STATUS CODES
FE
Federally Endangered
CE
California Endangered
FT
Federally Threatened
CT
California Threatened
FPE
Federally Proposed Endangered
CSC
California Species of Special Concern
FC
Federal Candidate
CR
California Rare
CP
California Protected
CNPS
California Native Plant Society Listing
lA
Plants Presumed Extinct in California
1B
Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in
California and elsewhere
20
Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in
California, but more common elsewhere
3
Plants about which we need more
information — a review list
4
Plants of limited distribution — a watch list
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
56
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
E. Biological Resources
Swainson's hawks historically were found throughout the lowlands of California with the exception of
portions of the desert regions. Currently, there range is limited to a few areas in the Central Valley and
Great Basin regions. The conversion of natural lands and low-lying croplands into commercial and
residential development and into high -standing croplands such as vineyards, orchards, corn, and rice has
reduced the available habitat for this species.
There are two documented occurrences of the Swainson's hawk within a three mile radius of theJro' ect
p
site (i.e., one mile south and 2.5 miles southwest). The Swainson's hawk is expected to onlyeriodicall
p Y
forage or pass over the project site. The relatively low number of small mammal burrows on the site
limits the likelihood that this species would be a frequent forager. Suitable nesting habitat is absent on or
adjacent to the site.
Burrowing Owl
The burrowing owl is a California species of special concern, but is not protected under the provisions of
either the state or federal Endangered Species Acts. The western subspecies of the burrowing owl lives
west of the Mississippi to the Pacific Coast and from southern Canada into northern Mexico. In
California, these birds typically occur in the Central and Imperial Valleys, primarily utilizing ground
squirrel burrows (or the burrows of other animals, e.g., badgers, prairie dogs and kangaroo rats) found in
grasslands, open shrub lands, deserts, and to a lesser extent, grazing and agricultural lands. Burrowing
owls in this region are typically found in lower elevations, and have strong site fidelity. Pairs have been
known to return to the same area year after year, and some pairs are known to utilize the same burrow as
the previous year.
Burrowing owls feed on various small mammals including deer mice, voles, and rats. They alsore on
p Y
various invertebrates including crickets, beetles, grasshoppers, spiders, centipedes, scorpions and
crayfish. The breeding season for the burrowing owl runs from February to August, with a peak between
April and July.
Burrowing owls are subject to predation by larger mammals (e.g., feral cats, bobcats, fox and coyotes)
and birds (e.g., great horned owl, northern harrier). They are also susceptible to human activity such as
collisions with automobiles, and destruction or disruption of their nests, especially during the breeding
season. Burrowing owl has been in decline in California over the past 30 to 40 years, and is disappearing
as a breeding bird from a substantial portion of its former range. Loss of habitat and agricultural
practices eradicating the burrowing mammals upon which burrowing owls depend for nesting habitat are
the primary suspected causes of this decline.
Burrowing owls are able to adapt to some human -altered landscapes and are currently found in dry open
grassland, the perimeters of agricultural fields, irrigation ditches, fallow agricultural fields, open fields
prepared for development, airports, golf courses, military bases, and parks.
The project contains ground squirrel burrows along the boundaries of the site which provide suitable
nesting habitat for this species. No burrowing owls or evidence of them were observed during the field
survey conducted by Live Oak Associates in February 2003, but this species could occur on or near the
project site in the future.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
57
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
E. Biological Resources
California Horned Lark
The California horned lark is a California species of special concern, but is not listed as endangered or
threatened under the state or federal Endangered Species Acts. California horned lark's population levels
are decreasing due to habitat destruction and predation by mammals, snakes, and domestic and feral cats.
The California horned lark is a small, ground nesting bird that historically occurred from northern coastal
California, south to Mexico, and east to the Central Valley. Their current distribution is unknown. This
species prefers grasslands and open woodlands with sparse vegetation and uses the vegetation and rocks
as a means of cover while foraging on the ground. California horned larks feed on seeds, plant matter,
insects, spiders, and snails during daylight hours. This species walks along the ground while feeding.
The breeding season for the California horned lark runs from March to July, with a peak in May. Nests
are built in the open and are made up of grasses.
California horned larks are subject to predation by larger mammals (e.g., domestic and feral cats,
bobcats, fox and coyotes) and snakes. They are also susceptible to human effects such as destruction or
disruption of their nests, especially during the breeding season, and habitat destruction.
It is possible that the California horned lark could occur on the project site. This species prefers a variety
of open space habitats, including agricultural fields that are not continually disturbed. No individuals or
evidence of the California horned lark were observed during the field survey conducted by Live Oak
Associates in February 2003.
REGULATORY SETTING
Federal, State and Regional Protection
Threatened and Endangered _ Species
State and federal "endangered species" legislation has provided the California Department of Fish and
Game (CDFG) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with a mechanism for conserving and
protecting plant and animal species of limited distribution and/or low or declining populations. Species
listed as threatened or endangered under provisions of the state and federal endangered species acts,
candidate species for such listing, state species of special concern, and some plants listed as endangered
by the California Native Plant Society are collectively referred to as "species of special status." Permits
may be required from CDFG and/or USFWS if activities associated with a proposed project will result in
the "take" of a listed species. "Take" is defined by the state of California as "to hunt, pursue, catch,
capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill" (California Fish and Game Code,
Section 86). "Take" is more broadly defined by the federal Endangered Species Act to include "harm"
(16 USC, Section 1532(19), 50 CFR, Section 17.3). The burrowing owl and Swainson's hawk are both
protected under the state act.
In addition, the CDFG and the USFWS are responding agencies under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). Both agencies review CEQA documents in order to determine the adequacy of
their treatment of endangered species issues and to make project -specific recommendations for their
conservation.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
58
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
E. Biological Resources
Migratory Birds
Most birds are also protected by state and federal law. The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA:
16 U.S.C., sec. 703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This act encompasses whole
birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Both the burrowing owl and Swainson's hawk are
protected under the MBTA.
Birds of Prey
Birds of prey are also protected in California under provisions of the state Fish and Game Code, Section
3503.55 1992), which states that it is "unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order
Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such
bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto." Construction
disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or
otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of
reproductive effort is considered "taking" by the CDFG. Both the burrowing owl and Swainson's hawk
are protected under this provision of the Fish and Game Code.
San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCPJ
The project site is located within the area subject to the San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat
Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP). The stated purpose of the SJMSCP is to provide a
strategy for balancing conservation of open space and non -open space uses while providing for the long-
term management of plant, fish and wildlife species, especially those that are currently listed, or may be
listed in the future, under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or the California Endangered
Species Act (CESA).
The SJMSCP was adopted in 2000 and resulted from the San Joaquin Council of Governments' efforts to
develop a regional approach to managing the biological resources of the County. The planning process
included participation from local governments, state and federal agencies, business groups and
environmental organizations. The plan followed previous habitat conservation plans that had been
developed for individual species, including the City of Stockton's 1990 plan for the Swainson's hawk,
and San Joaquin County's 1993 plan for the San Joaquin kit fox. These were succeeded by the multi -
species plan which was intended to result in a more comprehensive and effective approach to habitat
conservation in the County.
The SJMSCP includes mitigation procedures for the loss of habitat and associated "take" of species listed
in the Plan. The provisions of the SJMSCP are implemented by the individual local governments,
including the City of Lodi. Mitigation of unavoidable impacts to species covered in the SJMSCP
emphasizes compensation for habitat losses through the establishment, enhancement and management of
habitat preserves, which are normally located *outside of designated existing and planned urban
boundaries. Acquisition of preserve lands is accomplished primarily through the purchase of
conservation easements from willing sellers. As an alternative to the direct acquisition of conservation
easements by project proponents, the Plan provides for the payment of in -lieu fees on a per -acre basis,
based on the type of habitat that is to be converted to non -open space uses.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
59
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
E. Biological Resources
Wetlands and Other "Jurisdictional Waters"
Natural drainage channels and wetlands are considered "Waters of the United States" (hereafter referred
to as "jurisdictional waters"). The filling or grading of such waters is regulated by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) by authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The extent of jurisdiction
within drainage channels is defined by "ordinary high water marks" on opposing channel banks.
Wetlands are habitats with soils which are intermittently or permanently saturated, or inundated. The
resulting anaerobic conditions select for plant species known as hydrophytes, which show a high degree
of fidelity to such soils. Wetlands are identified by the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils
(soils saturated intermittently or permanently saturated by water), and wetland hydrology according to
methodologies outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
All activities involving the discharge of fill into jurisdictional waters are subject to the permit
requirements of the USACE. Such permits are typically issued on the condition that the applicant agrees
to provide mitigation, which results in no net loss of wetland functions or values. No permit can be
issued until the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issues a certification (or waiver of
such certification) that the proposed activity will meet state water quality standards.
Since there is no evidence that the on-site irrigation or drainage ditches replaced natural drainage
channels, the Corps of Engineers would have no permit jurisdiction under Section 404 of the federal
Clean Water Act for alteration or filling of the existing on-site ditches. Similarly, no water quality
certification from the Regional Board would be required under the Clean Water Act
California Department of Fish and Game
The California Department of Fish and Game has jurisdiction over the bed and bank of natural drainages
under Section 1601 through 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code. Activities potentially
disturbing these drainages are regulated by the CDFG via a Streambed Alteration Permit. Such a permit
typically includes conditions that certain measures will be implemented for the protection of the habitat
values of the drainage in question. Since there is no evidence that the on-site irrigation or drainage
ditches replaced natural drainage channels, and since there is no riparian vegetation or habitat associated
with the ditches, no Streambed Alteration Permit would be required from CDFG for alteration or filling
of the existing on-site ditches in conjunction with the project.
General Plan
The following City of Lodi General Plan goal and policies on biological resources are relevant to the
project:
Section Z Conservation Element
Goal E: To protect sensitive native vegetation and wildlife habitats and fisheries resources.
Policy 3. New development shall be sited to maximize the protection of native tree species and
sensitive plants and wildlife habitat.
Policy 4. The City shall encourage the use of native plant species for landscaping roadsides, parks,
and urban developments.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
role]
Draft August 2004
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
E. Biological Resources
Policy 5. The City shall require site-specific surveys to identify significant vegetation and wildlife
habitat for development projects located in or near sensitive habitat areas.
Policy 6. The City shall support federal and state laws and policies preserving rare, threatened, and
endangered species by ensuring that development does not adversely affect such species or
by fully mitigating adverse effects consistent with the recommendations of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game.
Policy 14. The City should work with the California Department of Fish and Game in identifying an
area or areas suitable for Swainson's hawk and burrowing owl habitat; this land should be
preserved or put into a mitigation land bank to mitigate impacts on existing habitat for these
species. A mechanism should be established for developer funding of acquisition and
management of lands in the mitigation bank.
Policy 15. The City shall manage portions of storm drainage detention ponds and drainage ponds and
other appropriate areas as wildlife habitat.
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
For purposes of this EIR, the project would be considered to have a significant impact on biological
resources if it would:
• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
• Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
• Have a substantial adverse effect on federally -protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
• Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites.
• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance.
• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
61
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact E1.
Mitigation.
Impact E2.
Mitigation.
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
E. Biological Resources
Loss of Habitat for Wildlife Species. The project would result in the loss of
approximately 40 acres of ruderal habitat. (Less -than -Significant Impact)
Ruderal habitat has low wildlife values and is relatively unimportant for local wildlife.
Some species may disperse through the site, but most wildlife currently using the site do
so as part of their normal movements for foraging, mating, and caring for young. In
other words, the site falls within the wildlife's home range or territory. Individuals of
the various amphibian, reptile, and small mammal species that presently occupy the site
would be displaced or lost from the development areas. The loss of this habitat for
common species of wildlife would represent a less -than -significant impact. Potential
impacts to special -status species are discussed subsequently.
No mitigation required.
Interference with Movement of Native Wildlife. Development projects can interfere
with the movement of wildlife through an area; however, the project site does not
function as an animal movement corridor, and site development would not act as a
substantial barrier to animal movement through the area. (Less -than -Significant
Impact)
As noted under `Environmental Setting' above, no identified or known "animal corridor"
presently exists on the site. As such, development of the project site will not create a
barrier to animal movement or migration, nor would it will interfere with the functioning
of such a corridor.
While development of the project site would convert some natural ruderal habitats to
urban uses, it would not act as a "substantial" barrier for wildlife species that currently
use these habitats. In other words, as with most open space parcels, wildlife will move
through the site from time to time, and development of the site will not substantially alter
the opportunities that local wildlife have to move regionally; therefore, this project's
impact on the movement of native wildlife would be less than significant.
No mitigation required.
Impact E3. Loss of Habitat for Special Status Animals. The project would result in the loss of
approximately 40 acres of foraging habitat for three protected bird species, and could
result in the loss of breeding habitat for two protected bird species. (Significant
Impact)
Of the 23 special -status animal species that occur, or once occurred, regionally, 12
species are absent or unlikely to occur on the project site. Nine other species may rarely
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
62
Draft August 2004
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
E. Biological Resources
or occasionally occur on site as foragers. These include five raptor, two songbird, and
two bat species. The proposed project would have no effect on the breeding success of
any of these species, and would only result (at most) in a small reduction of foraging
and/or roosting habitat available to them regionally.
The three remaining species, the Swainson's hawk, burrowing owl, and California
horned lark, are more likely to occur on the site. While the burrowing owl and
California horned lark are currently absent from the site, they could breed on the site in
the future. Swainson's hawk would not nest on or adjacent to the project site, but could
occasionally forage on the site, based on the proximity of documented occurrences in the
area (e.g., one mile south and 2.5 miles southwest). In addition, other raptors listed in
the SJMSCP, including the white-tailed kite, northern harrier, merlin, prairie falcon, and
golden eagle, may also forage on the project site.
Mitigation E3. In accordance with the SJMSCP and City of Lodi requirements, the project
proponent will pay the applicable in -lieu mitigation fees to compensate for loss of
open space and habitat resulting from development of the project site, and will
ensure the completion of preconstruction surveys for Swainson's hawks, burrowing
owls, and California horned larks, as well as the implementation of specified
measures if any of these species are found on the site.
The in -lieu mitigation fees prescribed under the SJMSCP vary depending on the location of
the site, its designation under the Plan, and annual adjustments. The project site is covered
by two designations or pay zones under the Plan. The 20.5 -acre eastern portion of the
shopping center site, is designated "Multi -Purpose Open Space Lands," where in -lieu fees
are currently $862 per acre (2004). The 19.5 -acre western portion of the site, which
includes the temporary stormwater basin, is designated "Agricultural Habitat and Natural
Lands," where in -lieu fees are currently $1,724 per acre (2004).
The compliance with the provisions of the SJMSCP would fully mitigate the small
reduction in foraging habitat resulting from development of the project site.
Preconstruction surveys will also be required under the Plan for Swainson's hawks,
burrowing owls, and California horned larks in order to determine whether these species
have occupied the site since the time of the field surveys by Live Oak Associates in
February 2003. The guidelines for the preconstruction surveys are described in Mitigation
4, along with the measures to be implemented if these any of these species are found on the
site. Although these preconstruction guidelines are primarily intended for raptors, they
would also apply to the California horned lark in this context.
Significance after Mitigation. Less -than -Significant Impact.
Impact E4. Disturbance of Nestiny, Burrowing Owls and Raptors. The project could adversely
affect any burrowing owls that may occupy the site prior to construction, and could
also adversely affect any tree -nesting raptors that may establish nests in trees along
the project boundaries prior to construction. (Significant Impact)
A few trees that could provide nesting habitat for more common raptors (e.g., red-tailed
hawks and red -shouldered hawks) are found sparsely around the eastern and southern
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
63
Draft August 2004
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
E. Biological Resources
boundaries of the project site and off-site. It is not expected that any of the special -status
raptors listed in Table 1 would nest in any of these trees.
Suitable nesting habitat for burrowing owls in the form of California ground squirrel
burrows is also available along the site boundaries. Additionally, construction activities
that would harm or kill a burrowing owl during the non -breeding season, would also
constitute a significant impact. While legal prohibitions also exist for harm to tree -
nesting raptors, these birds are not subject to unintended harm or injury during the non -
breeding season, as they roost in trees and can evacuate when threatened.
Although no nesting raptors were observed during the February 2003 field surveys,
raptors could nest on or adjacent to the site prior to project development. If so,
construction activities could result in the abandonment of active nests or direct mortality
to these birds. Construction activities that adversely affect nesting (even off-site), or
result in mortality of individual birds, would be a violation of state and federal law (see
`Regulatory Context' above).
Mitigation E4. The following measures shall be implemented to ensure that raptors (hawks and
owls) are not disturbed during the breeding season:
If ground disturbance is to occur during the breeding season (February 1 to
August 31), a qualified ornithologist shall conduct a pre -construction survey for
nesting raptors (including both tree- and ground -nesting raptors) on site and
within 250 feet of the site boundaries, within 30 days of the onset of ground
disturbance. These surveys will be based on the accepted protocols (e.g., as for
the burrowing owl) for the target species. If a nesting raptor is detected, then
the ornithologist will, in consultation with CDFG, determine an appropriate
ground disturbance -free zone (usually a minimum of 250 feet) around the tree
that contains the nest or the burrow in which the owl is nesting. The actual size
of the buffer would depend on species, topography, and type of construction
activity that would occur in the vicinity of the nest. The setback area must be
temporarily fenced, and construction equipment and workers shall not enter
the enclosed setback area until the conclusion of the breeding season. Once the
raptor abandons its nest and all young have fledged, construction can begin
within the boundaries of the buffer.
If ground disturbance is to occur during the non -breeding season (September 1
to January 31), a qualified ornithologist will conduct pre -construction surveys
for burrowing owls only. (Pre -construction surveys during the non -breeding
season are not necessary for tree nesting raptors since these species would be
expected to abandon their nests voluntarily during construction.) If burrowing
owls are detected during the non -breeding season, they can be passively
relocated by placing one-way doors in the burrows and leaving them in place
for a minimum of three days. Once it has been determined that owls have
vacated the site, the burrows can be collapsed and ground disturbance can
proceed.
Significance after Mitigation. Less -than -Significant Impact.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
64
Draft August 2004
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
F. Cultural Resources
F. CULTURAL RESOURCES
This discussion is based on the cultural resources report prepared by Basin Research Associates in May
2004, which is contained in Appendix F.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Prehistoric Archaeology
The literature search by Basin Research revealed that there are no recorded prehistoric archaeological sites
are located within the project site or adjacent areas. Likewise, no prehistoric materials were observed
during the intensive field inventory of the project site conducted by Basin Research in February 2003.
These findings of the archival research and field survey suggest that there is minimal potential for buried
prehistoric archaeological resources to exist within or adjacent to the project site.
Basin Research contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHQ about the project, and it
responded that the Sacred Lands file record search failed to indicate the presence of Native American
cultural resources in the immediate project area, although this does not necessarily indicate the absence of
cultural resources. The California Valley Miwok Tribe was also contacted, and its representative indicated
that the tribe has no issues with the project but requested to be kept apprised of any Miwok artifacts that
might be found.
Paleontological Resources
Paleontology is the science of forms of life existing in former geological periods, as represented by their
fossils, and encompasses the study of vertebrate, invertebrate, and paleobotanical fossils. The surficial
sediments of the project site are mapped as Recent (Holocene) and Pliestocene alluvial fan deposits of
unknown depth. No vertebrate fossil localities are recorded at the project site based on records at the
University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) at Berkeley. Given the existence of post-
Pliestocene sediments in the upper strata near the ground surface, the potential for paleontological resources
to be encountered during project grading and excavation is low.
Historic/Architectural Resources
The project site is completely vacant of buildings and structures, except for two agricultural wells and
associated siphons. The field survey conducted by Basin Research in February 2003 found no evidence of
any former structures or habitation on the ground surface, and concluded that there is minimal potential for
historical archaeological resources to be present within or adjacent to the project site.
No historic or architecturally significant structures, landmarks, or points of interest have been recorded,
reported, or identified within or adjacent to the project site. The nearest historic property is the Beckman
Ranch House, a California Point of Historical Interest, which is located approximately one mile west of the
project site on West Kettleman Lane at Ham Lane.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
65
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
F. Cultural Resources
REGULATORY SETTING
General Plan
The following City of Lodi General Plan goal and policy on cultural resources are relevant to the project:
►Section 10. Urban Design and Cultural Resources Element
Goal J: To preserve and enhance Lodi's historical heritage.
Policy 4. The City shall consult with the California Archaeological Inventory, Central Valley
Information Center, at Stanislaus State University, on any project that could have an impact
on cultural resources and implement the center's recommended mitigation measures.
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
For purposes of this EIR, the project would be considered to result in a significant impact to cultural
resources if it would:
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section
15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in
Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
• Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Imuact Fl. Disturbance of Buried Cultural Resources. It is possible that previously undiscovered
cultural materials may be buried on the site which could be adversely affected by
grading and construction for the project. (Significant Impact)
Significant prehistoric cultural resources are defined as human burials, features or other
clusterings of finds made, modified or used by Native American peoples in the past. The
prehistoric and protohistoric indicators of prior cultural occupation by Native Americans
include artifacts and human bone, as well as soil discoloration, shell, animal bone,
sandstone cobbles, ashy clays, and baked or vitrified clays. Prehistoric materials may
include:
Human bone - either isolated or intact burials.
• Habitation (occupation or ceremonial structures as interpreted from rock rings/features,
distinct ground depressions, differences in compaction (e.g., house floors).
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
66
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
E Cultural Resources
• Artifacts including chipped stone objects such as projectile points and bifaces;
groundstone artifacts such as manos, metates, mortars, pestles, grinding stones, pitted
hammerstones; and shell and bone artifacts including ornaments and beads.
• Various features and samples including hearths (fire -cracked rock, baked and vitrified
clay), artifact caches, faunal and shellfish remains (which may permit dietary
reconstruction), distinctive changes in soil stratigraphy indicative of prehistoric
activities.
• Isolated artifacts.
Due to the absence of any evidence that any archaeological or paleontological resources are
present at the site, the probability that such resources exist is very low. Therefore, no
further archaeological or paleontological investigation is recommended prior to site
grading. Likewise, no archaeological or paleontological monitoring is recommended
during site grading and construction.
Mitigation F1. Implementation of the following measures will mitigate any potential impacts to
cultural resources.
In the event that prehistoric or historic archaeological materials are exposed or
discovered during site clearing, grading or subsurface construction, work
within a 25 -foot radius of the find shall be halted and a qualified professional
archaeologist contacted for further review and recommendations. Potential
recommendations could include evaluation, collection, recordation, and analysis
of any significant cultural materials followed by a professional report.
In the event that fossils are exposed during site clearing, grading or subsurface
construction, work within a 25 -foot radius of the find shall be halted and a
qualified professional paleontologist contacted for further review and
recommendations. Potential recommendations could include evaluation,
collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant paleontological materials
followed by a professional report.
If human remains are discovered, the San Joaquin County Coroner shall be
notified. The Coroner would determine whether or not the remains are Native
American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his
authority, he will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, who would
identify a most likely descendant to make recommendations to the land owner
for dealing with the human remains and any associated grave goods, as
provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
Significance after Mitigation. Less -than -Significant Impact.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
67
Draft August 2004
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
G. Aesthetics
G. AESTHETICS
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is located at the western gateway of Lodi along State Route 12/Kettleman Lane, and as such
is visually prominent to motorists entering and leaving Lodi.
From the principal off-site vantage points along Highway 12/Kettleman Lane and Lower Sacramento Road,
the project site generally appears as a flat featureless agricultural field devoid of buildings or significant
trees (see Figures 5A and 5B). As one travels eastward past Lower Sacramento Road, the scene changes
from agricultural fields and vineyards to an urban scene dominated by commercial retail development. (See
Section II. A. Land Use and Planning for a full description of land uses in the vicinity of the project site.)
The residential uses in the vicinity with direct views into the project site consist of four existing dwellings
along the east side of Lower Sacramento Road, across from the project site. Some of the additional six
dwellings along Olive Avenue in the same area may have partial views into the project. There are also two
or three rural residential dwellings on the north side of Highway 12, west of the project site, which may
have partial views into the project.
There are no designated scenic highways or routes in the project vicinity, nor are there any recognized
scenic resources or vistas in the site area.
REGULATORY SETTING
General Plan
The following City of Lodi General Plan goals and policies related to aesthetics are relevant to the project:
Section 10. Urban Design and Cultural Resources Element
Goal B: To establish identifiable, visually appealing, and memorable entrances to the City.
Policy 1. The City shall upgrade the principal roads entering the City at strategic entry points through
landscaping, signage, light standards, and other physical elements that identify and enhance
them as gateways to the community. Entry points should be identified and designated on
SR 99; SR 12; Kettleman Lane; Lodi Avenue; Lower Sacramento Road; Pine Street;
Turner Road, and Hutchins Street.
Goal C: To maintain and enhance the aesthetic quality of major streets and public/civic areas.
Policy 1. The City shall develop special design standards to upgrade roadways, including SR 12 and
SR 99. Such standards shall include provisions for setbacks, signs, landscaping, parking,
and upgrading commercial development along these streets, and screening of visually
unattractive commercial and industrial uses.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
68
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
G. Aesthetics
Design Standards for Large Retail Establishments
The project is subject to the Design Standards for Large Retail Establishments, which was adopted by City
Council on April 7, 2004. The purpose of the Design Standards is to supplement the existing City zoning
and design review requirements by providing clear and enforceable standards to mitigate visual impacts
associated with large-scale retail development. The issues addressed in the Standards include: site layout,
architectural design and detailing; minimum and maximum parking spaces; lighting and landscaping of
parking areas; screening of loading and outdoor storage areas; and pedestrian and bicycle access and
circulation. In addition to visual mitigation, the obj ective of the Standards is to enhance visual quality of
development by promoting architectural features and patterns that provide visual interest at the scale of the
pedestrian, that reduce massive aesthetic effects, and that recognize local character. The Standards are
initially implemented through staff review of project applications and ultimately through the formal design
review process of the City's Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC).
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
For purposes of this EIR, the project would be considered to have a significant aesthetic impact if it would:
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
• Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
• Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
• Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact G1. Visual Change Resulting from Project. The project would result in a substantial
change in the visual character of the site; however, this would not represent a
significant adverse visual impact. (Less -than -Significant Impact)
The project would alter the rural open space character of the site to one which is essentially
urban and commercial in nature. However, the impact of this change is substantially
diminished given the presence of existing urban land uses and heavily used transportation
corridors adjacent to the site. The project site is across the street from existing retail
commercial development to the east and northeast, and a developing shopping center
directly to the north. These urban -intensity land uses have already degraded the rural
scenic quality of the project setting. Therefore, the project would not have the visual effect
associated with intrusion of new urbanization into an area characterized by pristine rural
open space.
In addition to travelers viewing the site along Highway 12/Kettleman Lane and Lower
Sacramento Road, the existing residents on the east side of Lower Sacramento Road would
be subject to substantial alteration of their visual setting. The view from the fronts of these
dwellings would change from one where fallow fields are the primary element into views
dominated by a commercial retail center. However, this effect would be primarily limited
to the four existing residences fronting onto Lower Sacramento Road, and to a lesser extent
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
69
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
G. Aesthetics
those dwellings along Olive Avenue with partial views into the site. The two or three rural
residences across Highway 12 to the northwest, which have oblique views into the site,
would also undergo a change in their visual setting.
The visual effect upon these nearby dwellings would be reduced by the extensive berming
and landscaping to be installed along the project frontage and throughout the parking areas.
In addition, the implementation of the City's new Design Standards for Large Retail
Establishments will effectively enhance visual quality of the project by promoting
architectural features and patterns that provide visual interest at the scale of the pedestrian,
that reduce massive aesthetic effects, and that recognize local character. In addition, no
pylon signs are planned in the vicinity of the existing residences, and the project lighting
will be designed such that no direct illumination would reach these dwellings. Thus, while
the existing residences will be subject to a substantial change in setting, the project will not
result in a significant adverse visual impact to those dwellings.
Mitigation. No mitigation required.
Impact G2. Lighting and Glare. Lighting for the project buildings, parking lot, and loading areas
could produce light and glare at off-site locations; however, this would be avoided by
implementation of the City's lighting requirements. (Less -than -Significant Impact)
The project will require full -coverage lighting throughout the parking areas, and lighting to
illuminate buildings and signage. Potentially sensitive receptors to unwanted illumination
and glare from the project include the existing residences on the east side of Lower
Sacramento Road and north of Highway 12, as well as motorists using these roadways.
The project lighting would be sufficiently bright for security and safety purposes, but
would avoid direct illumination of off-site locations. This would be accomplished through
the use of recessed fixtures and cut-off shields on light standards and light fixtures on
buildings to block direct illumination beyond the project boundaries. In accordance with
City requirements, lighting plans would be submitted for review by the Site Plan and
Architectural Review Committee demonstrating that no direct light would spill over beyond
the exterior boundaries of the shopping center.
With the large numbers of vehicles that would park and circulate through the shopping
center, there is a potential for daytime glare from reflected sunlight off car windshields.
There is also a potential for nighttime intrusion of headlight glare from vehicles parked
along the southeast boundary and facing toward the existing dwellings, as well as motorists
using the adjacent roadways. Both of these effects would be minimized through the
extensive landscaping to be installed along the project perimeter and throughout the
parking areas. Along the project roadway frontages, a combination of berms and
shrubbery is proposed for continuous screening of headlight glare from vehicles parked
along the site perimeter or moving through the fast-food drive-thru lanes.
In summary, the design features proposed for the project would effectively minimize
illumination of adjacent properties and reduce glare. Therefore, the potential lighting and
glare impacts associated with the project would be less -than -significant.
Mitigation. No mitigation required.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
70
Draft August 2004
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
H. Traffic and Circulation
H. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
The following is a summary of the traffic impact analysis prepared on the Lodi Shopping Center project by
Fehr & Peers Associates in July 2004. The traffic report is contained in Appendix G of this EIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Existing Roadway System
The project site is served by a circulation system comprised of regional highways, arterials and collector
streets, which are illustrated in Figure 9. The main roadways serving the project site are discussed below.
Interstate 5 is a north -south interstate freeway that extends from Southern California into Oregon
and Washington. I-5 has six lanes in the immediate vicinity of the project site and four lanes north of
State Route 12. Access to and from I-5 in the study area is provided by the State Route 12 interchange.
West Kettleman Lane / State Route 12 (SR 12) is a state highway located immediately north of the
project site that extends west toward Interstate 5, Rio Vista, and Fairfield. The I-5/SR 12 interchange
consists of northbound and southbound diagonal ramps and a southbound loop on-ramp. SR 12 has two
lanes in each direction from Thornton Road to west of I-5 and one lane in each direction further west.
SR 12 extends eastward for a distance of about five miles to Lodi and on to State Route 99. SR 12 has
one lane in each direction with turn pockets at major intersections between Thornton Road and Lower
Sacramento Road. East of Lower Sacramento Road, SR 12 / West Kettleman Lane widens to provide
two eastbound lanes and one westbound lane (and a two-way left -turn lane) as it extends past South Mills
Avenue.
Lower Sacramento Road is a north -south roadway located immediately east of the project site. North of
Kettleman Lane, Lower Sacramento Road consists of four lanes (two lanes in each direction), a raised
median, and left -turn lanes at major intersections. This roadway narrows to a two-lane undivided facility
south of Kettleman Lane.
Tienda Drive is a two-lane roadway that extends northward from Kettleman Lane and turns eastward to
South Mills Avenue where it provides access to commercial -retail development. East of South Mills
Avenue, Tienda Drive becomes a two-lane residential street.
Mills Avenue is a north -south roadway that extends from Turner Road to Harney Lane. North of
Kettleman Lane, Mills Avenue is two lanes wide and provides access to residential neighborhoods.
South of Kettleman Lane, Mills Avenue has a raised median and provides access to residential and
commercial uses.
Harney Lane is an east -west roadway located south of the project site. Harney Lane extends east toward
SR 99 and west toward I-5. Harney Lane is a two-lane road in the vicinity of the project site.
West Century Boulevard is a two-lane east -west roadway that extends westward from South Church
Street and terminates just west of Mills Avenue. West Century Boulevard is planned to be extended
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
71
NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 9A
STUDY INTERSECTIONS - NEAR-TERM/PROJECT CONDITIONS
72
1?mc
P A c i r i c MUNICIPAL
C 0 N S U t T A N T S
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
H. Traffic and Circulation
westward past Lower Sacramento Road and connect with the future southern extension of Westgate
Drive.
Westgate Drive is a planned two-lane north -south roadway that will extend southward from Lodi Avenue
to Harney Lane. The section of Westgate Drive from W. Kettleman Lane to Taylor Road that forms the
west frontage of the Vintner's Square Project is being constructed in conjunction with the Vintner's
Square Project, with a signalized intersection at W. Kettleman Lane / Westgate Drive. The proposed
project would construct the section of Westgate Drive south of W. Kettleman Lane that forms the west
frontage of the Lodi Shopping Center Project and add the fourth leg to the signalized intersection at
Kettleman Lane.
Intersection Level of Service Operations
The intersections of the study roadways are a key component of the roadway system. These are the
"nodes" that connect each segment of the system. Intersections are usually the critical elements of the
roadway system in assuring adequate capacity, minimizing delays, maximizing safety, and minimizing
level of service impacts. Therefore, the analysis of project impacts on the roadway system focuses on
intersection operations.
The operating condition of an intersection is typically described in terms of "Level of Service" (LOS,
which is a quantitative measurement of the effect of various factors on traffic operating conditions,
including travel speed, travel time, delay, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort, and
convenience. LOS is measured on a qualitative scale ranging from LOS A (the best) to LOS F (the
worst). Empirical LOS criteria and methods of calculation have been developed by the Transportation
Research Board (TRB) and are documented in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). These LOS
definitions and calculation methods are the prevailing measurement standard used throughout the United
States and are used in this study. The use of the 2000 HCM methodology is consistent with Caltrans
guidelines.
The LOS at signalized and all -way STOP -controlled intersections is based on the average control delay
for all vehicles passing through the intersection. The 2000 HCM specifies that the LOS for minor -street
STOP -controlled intersections be based on the delay for vehicles on the minor -street approach only.
Table 2 shows the average control delay range for each LOS category for signalized and unsignalized
intersections.
Existing Conditions
The following six intersections were studied to establish existing level of service conditions in the
vicinity of the project site:
1) West Kettleman Lane (SR 12) /Lower Sacramento Road
2) West Kettleman Lane / Tienda Drive
3) West Kettleman Lane /Mills Avenue
4) Lower Sacramento Road /Safeway Driveway
5) Lower Sacramento Road /Middle Food 4 Less Driveway
6) Lower Sacramento Road /Harney Lane
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
73
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
H. Traffic and Circulation
TABLE 2
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) CRITERIA
B
Minor street approach begins to
10.1-15.0
Very light congestion; an
10.1-20.0
notice presence of available
occasional phase is fully utilized.
gaps.
C
Minor street approach begins
15.1-25.0
Light congestion; occasional
20.1-35.0
experiencing delay while waiting
queues on approaches.
for available gaps.
D
Minor street approach
25.1-35.0
Significant congestion on critical
35.1 —55.0
experiences queuing due to a
approaches, but intersection is
reduction in available gaps.
functional.
E
Extensive minor street queuing
35.1-50.0
Severe congestion with some
55.1 -80.0
due to insufficient gaps.
longstanding queues on critical
approaches.
F Insufficient gaps of suitable size > 50.0 Total breakdown, stop -and -go > 80.0
to allow minor street traffic to operation.
safely cross through major traffic
stream.
Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board)
The three West Kettleman Lane intersections and the Lower Sacramento Road / Safeway Driveway
intersection are signalized. The Lower Sacramento Road/Food 4 Less Driveway intersection is STOP
controlled on the minor -street approach, and the intersection of Lower Sacramento Road and Harney
Lane is all -way stop controlled.
Table 3 shows the existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour average delay and level of service at each study
intersection. The level of service for minor -street STOP -controlled intersections is determined by the
STOP -controlled approach with greater delay (in cases where the intersection features two minor streets).
This table also displays the results of a traffic signal warrant analysis of each unsignalized study
intersection. For each intersection, the eight (8) Signal Warrants identified in the MUTCD 2003
California Supplement were evaluated for the unsignalized intersections within the project study area.
The Peak Hour Volume Warrant is met at an intersection when certain predetermined traffic volume and
delay thresholds are met.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
74
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
H. Traffic and Circulation
TABLE 3
EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (AM AND PM PEAK HOUR)
#
Intersection
Traffic
Peak
Average
Level of
Traffic Signal
Control
Hour
Control
Service
Warrants Met?
Decay
1
West Kettleman Lane (SR 12) /
Traffic
AM
20.8
C
Not Applicable
Lower Sacramento Road
Signal
PM
26.7
C
2
West Kettleman Lane /
Traffic
AM
20.0
B
Not Applicable
Tienda Drive
Signal
PM
29.9
C
3
West Kettleman Lane /
Traffic
AM
24.3
C
Not Applicable
Mills Avenue
Signal
PM
33.8
C
4
Lower Sacramento Road /
Traffic
AM
10.2
B
Not Applicable
Safeway Driveway
Signal
PM
11.6
B
5
Lower Sacramento Road /
Minor -Street
AM
28.6
D
None
Food 4 Less Driveway
STOP
PM
> 50
F
Warrants Are Met
6
Lower Sacramento Road /
All -Way
AM
> 50
F
Four Hour Volume,
Harney Lane
STOP
PM
> 50
F
Peak Hour Volume
Notes: For intersections with all -way STOP -control or a traffic signal, average delay is for all vehicles entering the intersection.
For intersections with minor -street stop -control, average delay is for vehicles on the minor -street approach only.
Source: Fehr & Peers Associates.
Table 3 shows that the four signalized study intersection all operate at LOS C conditions or better for
both a.m. and p.m. peak hour conditions. In addition, Table 3 shows that the all -way STOP -controlled
intersection of Lower Sacramento Road / Harney Lane operates at LOS F conditions and meets the Four
Hour Volume and Peak Hour Volume warrants for both a.m. and p.m. peak hour conditions.
Transit System
The Lodi Grapeline provides transit service in the City of Lodi, and the San Joaquin Regional Transit
District provides transit service within the City of Stockton and unincorporated San Joaquin County.
Both providers offer Fixed -Route and Dial -A -Ride services. Regional transit service between Lodi, Galt,
and Sacramento is provided by South Sacramento County Transit (SCT Link).
The Lodi Grapeline operates five local and three express bus routes within the City of Lodi. Grapeline
Routes 1 and 2 provide service to the commercial developments on both sides of Kettleman Lane just
east of Lower Sacramento Road. San Joaquin Bus Routes 23 and 93 provide service from Stockton to the
Lodi Transportation Station and operate on Lower Sacramento Road and Kettleman Lane past the project
site to the south and west, respectively.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
75
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
H. Trac and Circulation
Bicycle and Pedestrian System
Bicycle facilities comprise bike paths (Class I facilities), bike lanes (Class II facilities), and bike routes
(Class III facilities). Bike paths are paved trails that are separated from the roadways. Bike lanes are
lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles by striping, pavement legends, and signs. Bike routes
are roadways that are designated for bicycle use with signs but have no designated lanes.
Bicycle lanes are provided on Lower Sacramento Road north of Kettleman Lane, Kettleman Lane east of
Lower Sacramento Road, West Century Boulevard east of Sage Way, and Mills Avenue. Future bicycle
lanes are planned on Lower Sacramento Road from Kettleman Lane to Harney Lane, and West Century
Boulevard from Lower Sacramento Road to Sage Way.
Pedestrian facilities comprise sidewalks, pedestrian paths, crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and other
pedestrian amenities. There are no existing sidewalks on the segments of Kettleman Lane and Lower
Sacramento Road along the frontage of the project site. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of
Kettleman Lane between Lower Sacramento Road and Tienda Drive. East of Tienda Drive,
discontinuous sidewalks are provided on the north side of Kettleman Lane. As part of the Kettleman lane
Gap Closure Project, continuous sidewalks will be constructed on the north side of Kettleman Lane
between Tienda Drive and Ham Lane. Sidewalks are provided on the east side of Lower Sacramento
Road from Food 4 Less to north of its intersection with the Safeway driveway. Crosswalks and
pedestrian signals with push buttons are provided at all signalized study intersections.
REGULATORY SETTING
General Plan
The following City of Lodi General Plan goals and policies related to traffic and circulation are relevant to
the project:
Section 3. Circulation Element
Goal A: To provide for a circulation system that accommodates existing and proposed land uses
and provides for the efficient movement of people, goods, and services within and
through Lodi.
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.
Policy 2. The City shall time the construction of new development such that the time frame for
completion of the needed circulation improvements will not cause the level of service
goals to be exceeded.
Policy 4. The City shall require dedication, widening, extension, and construction of public streets
in accordance with the City's street standards. Major street improvements shall be
completed as abutting land develop or redevelop. In currently developed areas, the City
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
76
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
H. Traffic and Circulation
may determine that improvements necessary to meet City standards are either infeasible
or undesirable.
Policy 5. The City shall review new developments for consistency with the General Plan
Circulation Element and the capital improvements program. Those developments found
to be consistent with the Circulation Element shall be required to pay their fair share of
traffic impact fees and/or charges. Those developments found to be generating more
traffic than assumed in the Circulation Element shall be required to a prepare 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 fee
and/or charges.
Policy 7. The City shall require that public and private street design and new development access
meet applicable City street standards and minimize accident hazards.
Goal B: To ensure the adequate provision of both on -street and off-street parking.
Policy 1. The City shall require new developments to provide an adequate number of off-street
parking spaces in accordance with City parking standards. These parking standards should
be periodically reviewed and updated.
Goal C: To encourage use of transit where feasible.
Policy 1. The City shall continue to provide Dial -A -Ride services to local, transit -dependent
residents.
Policy 2. The City shall provide information to local residents on transit services available for
regional trips (such as Greyhound).
Policy 3. The City shall consider expanding its transit service to include limited fixed -route
services if sufficient demand exists and if the cost is economically feasible..
Goal D: To provide for a safe and convenient pedestrian circulation system.
Policy 1. The City shall require sidewalks for all developments in accordance with City design
standards and encourage additional pedestrian access where applicable.
Goal E: To encourage the use of bicycles as an alternative mode of transportation.
Policy 1. The City shall encourage new commercial developments to provide bicycle racks.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
77
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
H. Traffic and Circulation
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
For purposes of this EIR, the project would be considered to result in a significant traffic and circulation
impact if it would:
Roadways
• Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume
to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections).
As noted above, Goal A, Policy 1 of the City's General Plan Circulation Element states: "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."
Based on a determination by City staff in conjunction with the Vintner's Square Shopping Center EIR
(certified May 2003), West Kettleman Lane and Lower Sacramento Road are not considered to be "local
streets." Rather, they are considered to be major arterial/highways providing regional east -west and
north -south access between the City of Lodi and San Joaquin County. (Vintner's Square Draft EIR, p.
3.2-11.)
According to Caltrans' guidelines: "Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition
between LOS C and LOS D on State Highway facilities; however, Caltrans acknowledges that this may
not always be feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the
appropriate target LOS." (Vintner's Square Draft EIR, p. 3.2-11.)
Based on meeting with Caltrans and the City of Lodi staff regarding the Vintner's Square Shopping
Center project, a finding of LOS D along these major routes would not be considered significant given
cumulative build -out of the City of Lodi General Plan and San Joaquin County General Plan. (Vintner's
Square Draft EIR, p. 3.2-11.)
Transit Facilities
• Create the demand for public transit service above that which is provided, or planned to be provided;
• Disrupt or interfere with existing or planned public transit services or facilities; or
• Create an inconsistency with policies concerning transit systems set forth in the General Plan for the
City of Lodi.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
• Disrupt or interfere with existing or planned bicycle or pedestrian facilities;
• Create an unmet need for bicycle or pedestrian facilities; or
• Create an inconsistency with policies related to bicycle or pedestrian systems in the General Plan of
the City of Lodi.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
78
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
H. Trac and Circulation
Parkin
• Result in inadequate parking capacity.
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following is a detailed analysis and discussion of potential project impacts on the roadway system,
based on the Fehr & Peers report in Appendix G. This discussion is followed by the enumeration of
specific project impacts upon the transportation system, along with corresponding mitigation measures as
appropriate.
Near Term (Existing plus Approved) Conditions
Near Term conditions represent traffic conditions prior to completion of the proposed development.
Traffic volumes for Near Term Conditions comprise volumes from existing traffic counts plus traffic
generated by approved, but not yet constructed, developments in the area. The list of approved
developments is contained in Table 12 in Section III. Cumulative Impacts, and was developed based on
input from City staff.
Approved Projects
The traffic associated with the approved developments was obtained from traffic reports prepared or
estimated based on trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip
Generation (7t" edition). The trips associated with each development were then assigned to the roadway
network based on the relative locations of complementary land uses and existing travel patterns through
the project study area.
Near Term Circulation Improvements
Under Near Term Conditions, the following roadway improvement projects are assumed to be
completed:
Kettleman Lane Gap Closure Project
The planned Kettleman Lane Gap Closure Project involves the widening of Kettleman Lane between
Tienda Drive and Ham Lane to add an additional westbound through lane and a raised median island.
This project is estimated to be completed by the end of 2004. This project would change the lane
configurations at the following intersections:
West Kettleman Lane / Tienda Drive — A second westbound left -turn lane will be added. The eastbound
right -turn pocket will be converted into a shared through/right-turn lane. The northbound lane
configurations will consist of a shared left-turn/through lane and an exclusive right -turn lane.
West Kettleman Lane /Mills Avenue — A second westbound through lane will be added.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
79
Draft August 2004
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
H. Traffic and Circulation
Vintner's Square Roadway Improvements
The following improvements will be constructed with development of the approved Vintner's Square
Shopping Center located on the northwest corner of West Kettleman Lane / Lower Sacramento Road:
Lower Sacramento Road /Safeway -Vintner's Square Driveways —The eastbound leg of this intersection
would be constructed to provide one shared left-turn/through lane and one right -turn lane. The
southbound through lane would be converted into a shared through/right-turn lane. The westbound
approach would be modified to provide a shared left-turn/through lane and one right -turn lane.
West Kettleman Lane / Lower Sacramento Road — A southbound right -turn pocket that extends back
approximately 250 feet to the southernmost Vintner's Square driveway will be constructed.
West Kettleman Lane / Westgate Drive — Westgate Drive will be constructed as a two-lane roadway
between Taylor Road and Kettleman Lane on Vintner's Square's west frontage site boundary. Westgate
Drive will form a signalized T -intersection with West Kettleman Lane. One left -turn lane and two
through lanes will be provided on eastbound West Kettleman Lane. One left -turn and one right -turn lane
will be provided on the southbound approach.
Near Term Intersection Operations
Table 4 presents the intersection operations under Existing and Near Term Conditions, and shows that
the addition of the 19 approved projects and the planned circulation improvements identified above will
result in all four signalized study intersections to continue to operate at LOS C conditions or better
during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The new signalized T -intersection of West Kettleman Lane /
Westgate Drive is also projected to operate at LOS C conditions during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
Table 4 shows that with the addition of approved projects, the all -way STOP -controlled intersection of
Lower Sacramento Road / Harney Lane will continue to operate at LOS F conditions and meets the Four -
Hour Vehicular Volume and Peak Hour Volume warrants for both a.m. and p.m. peak hour conditions.
Approved projects are estimated to add 193 a.m. peak hour and 265 p.m. peak hour trips to the Lower
Sacramento Road / Harney Lane intersection.
Project Access Alternatives
For purposes of this analysis, two alternative configurations for providing vehicular access to the project
site were evaluated, as described below. (See the full traffic report in Appendix G for a diagram showing
the access configurations.)
Access Alternative A
Under this alternative, access to the proposed project would be provided via the following access points:
1) One full access signalized intersection on Lower Sacramento Road (Study Intersection # 9);
2) Two right -turn in /right -turn out driveways on Lower Sacramento Road (Study Intersections # 5
and # 10);
3) Aright -turn in /right -turn out driveway on Kettleman Lane (Study Intersection # 8);
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
80
Draft August 2004
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
H. Traffic and Circulation
4) A full access driveway on Westgate Drive (Study Intersection # 11);
5) Aright -turn in /right -turn out driveway on Westgate Drive (Study Intersection # 12);
Under this alternative, a 90 -foot southbound left -turn pocket into the existing Food 4 Less site located on
the east side of Lower Sacramento Road would be provided opposite both Project Driveway # 1
(signalized) and Project Driveway # 2 (unsignalized).
Access Alternative B
The primary difference between Access Alternative A and B is that a 120 -foot northbound left -turn lane
at Project Driveway # 2 (unsignalized) would be provided. All other access points would be the same as
in Access Alternative A.
TABLE 4
EXISTING PLUS NEAR TERM INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (AM AND PM PEAK HOUR)
Notes: LOS = Level of Service.
For intersections with all -way STOP -control or a traffic signal, average delay is for all vehicles entering the intersection.
For intersections with minor -street STOP -control, average delay is for vehicles on the minor -street approach only.
Source: Fehr & Peers Associates, 2004.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
81
Near Term
Existing Conditions
Conditions
Average
T...
Peek"AN
erageontro'
Intersection
.ol
Co...In.1.ntr...
Hour
Control Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
1
SR 12/W.Kettleman Ln./
Traffic
AM
20.8
C
22.5
C
Lower Sacramento Rd
Signal
PM
26.7
C
30.2
C
2
W. Kettleman Ln./
Traffic
AM
20.0
B
17.4
B
Tienda Dr.
Signal
PM
29.9
C
26.0
C
3
W. Kettleman Ln./
Traffic
AM
24.3
C
22.6
C
Mills Ave.
Signal
PM
33.8
C
26.6
C
4
Lower Sacramento Rd./
Traffic
AM
10.2
B
14.3
B
Safeway Dwy.
Signal
PM
11.6
B
17.9
B
5
Lower Sacramento Rd./
Minor-
AM
28.6
D
40.7
E
Project Dwy. #I (Middle
Street
PM
> 50
F
> 50
F
Food 4 Less Dwy.)
STOP
6
Lower Sacramento Rd./
All -Way
AM
> 50
F
> 50
F
Harney Ln.
STOP
PM
> 50
F
> 50
F
7
W. Kettleman Ln./
Traffic
AM
21.6
C
Not Applicable
Westgate Ave.
g
Signal
g
PM
24.7
C
Notes: LOS = Level of Service.
For intersections with all -way STOP -control or a traffic signal, average delay is for all vehicles entering the intersection.
For intersections with minor -street STOP -control, average delay is for vehicles on the minor -street approach only.
Source: Fehr & Peers Associates, 2004.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
81
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
H. Trac and Circulation
Trip Generation
The amount of traffic generated by the proposed project was estimated using appropriate trip generation
rates from Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 7th Edition, 2003) for the various
commercial land uses proposed for the project. Trip generation rates for "Free Standing Discount Store",
"Shopping Center," "Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Through," "High Turnover Sit Down Restaurant,"
"Pharmacy with Drive Through," and "Walk In Bank" land uses were applied to the floor areas of the
appropriate building pads.
For the proposed Wal-Mart, Land Use Category 815 "Free Standing Discount Store" was used to
estimate the trip generating characteristics for both a.m. and p.m. peak hour conditions. The discount
stores that were surveyed across the United States are described as free-standing stores with off-street
parking. They usually offer a variety of customer services, centralized cashiering and a wide range of
products. They typically maintain long hours seven (7) days a week.
Table 5 presents the trip generation estimates for the proposed project. The trip generation estimates also
accounted for pass -by trips. Pass -by trips are trips to the site made by vehicles already traveling by the
site on the adjacent street (i.e., these vehicles make an interim stop between their primary origin and
destination). Pass -by reductions for each land use are noted in Table 5. Pass -by trips are included in the
analysis of traffic that enters and exits the project site, but are not considered "new" trips added to the
street system by the project.
The project is estimated to generate 23,843 net new daily trips, 682 net new AM peak -hour trips (394
inbound and 682 outbound), and 1,494 net new PM peak -hour trips (756 inbound and 738 outbound).
Trip Distribution and Assignment
The expected distribution of project trips was based on San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG)
Existing Year 2000 Travel Demand Model and existing travel patterns through the study area. The net
new peak -hour trips generated by the proposed project were then assigned to the roadway system based
on the trip distribution pattern established. (See the traffic report in Appendix G for detailed discussion
and illustrations.)
Planned Near Term Plus Project Circulation Improvements
The proposed project will incorporate the following changes to the roadway system along the project's
frontage:
West Kettleman Lane / Westgate Drive — Construct Westgate Drive as a two-lane roadway along the
project's western boundary. This roadway would form the south leg of the West Kettleman Lane /
Westgate Drive signalized intersection. The lane configuration at the Westgate Drive / Kettleman Lane
intersection would consist of one left -turn lane, one through lane, and one right -turn lane on the
northbound and southbound approaches. The eastbound approach would consist of one left -turn lane,
one through lane, and one shared through -right -turn lane. The westbound approach would contain one
left -turn lane, two through lanes, and one right -turn lane.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
82
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
H. Trac and Circulation
TABLE 5
TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES — LODI SHOPPING CENTER
Turnover
Restaurant3
Less Pass -by (43% PM)
Daily
A.11i. Peak our..
P'.1V. Peak Dour
(18)
(18)
(36)
Pharmacy
14.788
88.16
15304
2.66
'otal
17
39
8.62
Total
Land:Use
SizeIzsf)
Rate
Trips
Rate
In
Uut'
Trips
Rate
In
Out
Trips
Wal-Mart
226.868
56.02
125709
0.84
130
61
191
5.06
574
574
1,148
Less Pass -by (17% PM)
Less Pass -by (47% PM)
(99)
(99)
(198)
Retail'
75.96
42.94
39262
1.03
46
31
77
3.75
137
149
286
Less Pass -by (34% PM)
(123)
(123)
(246)
(328)
(328)
(53)
(53)
(106)
Fast Food
9.69
496.12
45807
53.11
262
252
514
34.64
175
161
336
Restaurant2
Less Pass -by
(123)
(123)
(246)
(85)
(85)
(170)
(49%AM3 51 % PM)
High
i 7.5
127.15
1 954
11.52
45
41
86
10.92
50
32
82
Turnover
Restaurant3
Less Pass -by (43% PM)
(18)
(18)
(36)
Pharmacy
14.788
88.16
15304
2.66
22
17
39
8.62
62
65
127
Less Pass -by (49% PM)
(32)
(32)
(64)
Banks
5.16
156.48
807
4.07
12
9
21
33.15
86
85
171
Less Pass -by (47% PM)
(41)
(41)
(82)
Total Gross Trips
235843
517
411
928
13084
106
2,150
Total Pass -by Trips
(123)
(123)
(246)
(328)
(328)
(656)
Net New Trips
235843
394
288
682
756
738
1,494
Notes: 1 Retail uses assumed for parcels 2, 4 (5,000 single-family), 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12.
2 Fast food restaurant use assumed for parcels 1, 3, and 4 (3,000 single-family).
3 High turnover restaurant use assumed for parcel 5.
4 Pharmacy use assumed for parcel 6.
S Bank use assumed for parcel 7.
Source: Fehr & Peers Associates.
Westgate Drive Project Driveways -Add two project driveways on the extension of Westgate Drive. The
northern Westgate Drive driveway would be located approximately 340 feet south of Kettleman Lane and
provide full access (left and right -turns in and out) to the project site. The lane configuration for this
intersection is one shared through/right-turn lane for the northbound approach, one left -turn lane and one
through lane for the southbound approach, and one shared left and right -turn lane for the westbound
approach. The southern Westgate Drive driveway is located 800 feet south of Kettleman Larne and will
be limited to right -turns in and out only.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
83
Draft August 2004
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
H. Trac and Circulation
West Kettleman Lane Project Driveway - Add one project driveway on West Kettleman Lane located
approximately 600 feet west of Lower Sacramento Road and provide right -turns in / right -turns out of the
project site. Three eastbound through lanes and a 200 foot right -turn lane would be provided in the
eastbound approach. A 285 -foot right -turn lane will be provided in the northbound approach.
West Kettleman Lane / Lower Sacramento Road - West Kettleman Lane would be widened eastbound
from Westgate Drive to Lower Sacramento Road to provide three eastbound through lanes, dual left -turn
lanes, and a 200 foot right turn lane.
Lower Sacramento Road -Lower Sacramento Road would be widened southbound from West Kettleman
Lane to the signalized project driveway located approximately 650 feet south of West Kettleman Lane.
At the middle (unsignalized) project driveway (study intersection # 5), two access alternatives were
considered, as discussed above. Access Alternative A would include a dedicated 100 -foot southbound
right turn lane and a 90 -foot southbound left -turn lane. No northbound left -turn movements would be
allowed into the project site and would be prevented by a raised center median. Under Access
Alternative B, in addition to the dedicated 100 -foot southbound right turn lane and a 90 -foot southbound
left -turn lane, a 120 -foot northbound left -turn lane would also be provided at this project driveway.
A 95 -foot southbound left -turn lane and a 225 -foot northbound left -turn lane would be provided at the
signalized project driveway (study intersection # 9). The third southbound travel lane would become a
trap right -turn lane at the signalized project driveway. South of the signalized intersection, two travel
lanes would continue on Lower Sacramento Road and match the proposed design from the Lower
Sacramento Widening Project that is currently under design by the City of Lodi.
Near Term Plus Project Intersection Operations
Access Alternative A
Table 6 shows the results of the Near Term Plus Project Conditions with the addition of project -
generated traffic under Access Alternative A. The table shows that the project will have a less -than -
significant impact on intersection operations at the four existing signalized intersections during both a.m.
and p.m. peak hour conditions. The proposed signalized intersection on Lower Sacramento Road will
also operate at LOS C conditions during both peak hours.
Table 6 shows that with the addition of project -generated traffic, the all -way STOP -controlled
intersection of Lower Sacramento Road / Harney Lane will continue to operate at LOS F conditions and
meets the Peak Hour Volume and Peak Hour Delay signal warrants for both a.m. and p.m. peak hour
conditions. A total of 151 a.m. peak hour and 324 p.m. peak hour vehicle trips are projected to travel
through the Lower Sacramento Road / Harney Lane intersection.
The five side street STOP -controlled driveway intersections will all operate with low to average delays
for vehicles waiting to exit the project site.
Access Alternative B
Under Access Alternative B, the results of the analysis of Near Term Plus Project Conditions would be
the same as for Access Alternative A except for the two northerly intersections on Lower Sacramento
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
84
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
H. Traffic and Circulation
Road. Table 6 shows that under Access Alternative B, the construction of the northbound left -turn lane
at the northern Lower Sacramento Road driveway would result in traffic that would otherwise use the
signalized project driveway under Access Alternative A to divert to the northern unsignalized
intersection. This would result in the following effects:
1) A minor reduction in average vehicle delay at the signalized Lower Sacramento Road /Project
Driveway. But the intersection would continue to operate at LOS B during a.m. and LOS C
during p.m. peak hour conditions.
2) The northbound left -turn at the unsignalized driveway (study intersection # 5) would operate at
LOS B during both a.m. and p.m. peak hour conditions. During the a.m. peak hour, approximately
175 southbound right -turn vehicles would enter the project site from Lower Sacramento Road.
Signal operations at the West Kettleman Lane /Lower Sacramento Road intersection and Near
Term Plus Project traffic volumes on southbound Lower Sacramento Road provide sufficient gaps
in traffic for northbound left -turning vehicles to safely cross three lanes of traffic during a.m. peak
hour conditions. During the p.m. peak hour, it is projected that approximately 350 southbound
right -turn vehicles would enter the project site from Lower Sacramento Road. The northbound left -
turn would operate at LOS C, but the number of available gaps to safely make the northbound left -
turn would be reduced.
Cumulative Conditions
The analysis of traffic operations under cumulative conditions in 2020 was undertaken to determine if the
addition of project traffic in combination with other traffic growth would result in cumulative adverse
impacts. The following describes the planned roadway improvements, and the resulting traffic
operations at the study intersections. (See the traffic report in Appendix G for a detailed discussion of
the travel forecasting methodology used in this analysis.)
Planned Cumulative Roadway Improvements
Consistent with previous studies, the following roadway improvements were assumed for cumulative
analysis. These roadways and the cumulative study intersections are shown in Figure 9B.
Lower Sacramento Road will be widened to provide additional travel lanes between Kettleman Lane and
Harney Lane. Six through lanes are assumed on Lower Sacramento Road between Kettleman Lane and
the signalized project driveway (southern Food 4 Less driveway). Four lanes are assumed on Lower
Sacramento Road between the signalized project driveway (southern Food 4 Less driveway) and Harney
Lane.
The City of Lodi is completing the final design of Improvement Plans for the Lower Sacramento Road
Widening from Harney Lane to Kettleman Road (March 2004), and will begin construction by the end of
2004, with completion anticipated by 2006. The planned improvements to Lower Sacramento Road
include two travel lanes in each direction from south of Kettleman Lane to just north of Harney Lane
with the following design elements:
a) Dual 250 -foot northbound left -turn pockets with a 120 -foot taper at W. Kettleman Lane;
b) A 110 -foot southbound left -turn lane with a 100 -foot taper at the southern Food 4 Less
Driveway;
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
85
Draft August 2004
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
H. Traffic and Circulation
TABLE 6
NEAR TERM AND NEAR TERM PLUS PROJECT
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (AM AND PM PEAK HOUR)
Notes: LOS = Level of Service.
For intersections with all -way stop -control or a traffic signal, average delay is for all vehicles entering the intersection.
For intersections with minor -street stop -control, average delay is for vehicles on the minor -street approach only.
1 Level of service operations under Access Alternative B conditions.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
86
Near Term Plus
bear T+C
erm onditions
Project Conditions
Average
Traffic
Perak
Average,Control
Intersection
COntral
Hour
Control Delay
LOS;
Delay
LOS
1
SR 12/W.Kettleman Ln./
Traffic
AM
22.5
C
25.0
C
Lower Sacramento Rd.
Signal
PM
30.2
C
35.9
C
2
W. Kettleman Ln./
Traffic
AM
17.4
B
17.1
B
Tienda Dr.
Signal
PM
26.0
C
29.5
C
3
W. Kettleman Ln./
Traffic
AM
22.6
C
22.9
C
Mills Ave.
Signal
PM
26.6
C
30.8
C
4
Lower Sacramento Rd./
Traffic
AM
14.3
B
14.0
B
Safeway Dwy.
Signal
PM
17.9
B
19.1
B
5
Lower Sacramento Rd./
Minor-
AM
40.7
E
8.3 (13.4 1)
1
A(B )
Pro' ect D . #I ( Food 4
J
Street Stop
P
PM
> 50
F
12721 8 1
( )
B(C)
Less D
SBL NBLI
6
Lower Sacramento Rd./
All -Way
AM
> 50
F
> 50
F
Harney Ln.
Stop
PM
> 50
F
> 50
F
7
W. Kettleman Ln./
Traffic
AM
21.6
C
30.6
C
Westgate Ave.
Signal
PM
24.7
C
34.4
C
8
W. Kettleman Ln./
Minor-
AM
10.3
B
Not Applicable
Project D . # 1
J �'Y
Street Stop
p
pM
13.5
B
9
Lower Sacramento Rd./
Traffic
AM
11.010.4 1
( )
B(B)
ect D . #2 Food 4
Pro' � (
J
Signal
g
PM
Not A
Applicable
31.6 29.5 1 )
C C1 )
Less D �'Y.)
10
Lower Sacramento Rd./
Minor-
AM
16.1
C
Not Applicable
Project D . #3
J �'�Y
Street Stop
p
pM
21.6
C
11
Westgate Ave./
Minor-
AM
8.8
A
Not Applicable
Project ect D . #4 north
J �'�'y (north)
Street Stop
p
PM
9.5
A
12
Westgate Ave.
Minor-
AM
8.4
A
/Project D . #5 south
J �'Y (south)
Street Stop
p
PM
Not Applicable
8.5
A
Notes: LOS = Level of Service.
For intersections with all -way stop -control or a traffic signal, average delay is for all vehicles entering the intersection.
For intersections with minor -street stop -control, average delay is for vehicles on the minor -street approach only.
1 Level of service operations under Access Alternative B conditions.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
86
NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 9B
STUDY INTERSECTIONS -.FAR-TERM/CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS
87
PACIFIC MUNICIPAL
C 0 N S Q t T A N T S
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
H. Trac and Circulation
c) Planted center median along the entire length of Lower Sacramento Road;
d) No southbound left -turn at the middle Food 4 Less unsignalized driveway.
Kettleman Lane would be widened to six travel lanes between Lower Sacramento Road and Mills
Avenue.
West Century Boulevard will be extended westward across Lower Sacramento Road to the Westgate
Drive extension. The intersection of West Century Boulevard and Lower Sacramento Road will be
signalized.
Westgate Drive will be extended southward to Harney Lane and will intersect with the West Century
Boulevard extension.
As a result of the roadway improvement projects listed above, the following lane configurations would
change at the study intersections:
Kettleman Lane / Tienda Drive — The westbound right -turn lane will be converted into a shared
through/right-turn lane.
Kettleman Lane / Mills Avenue - The eastbound and westbound right -turn lanes will be converted into a
shared through/right-turn lane.
Lower Sacramento Road / West Century Boulevard — The intersection will be signalized and the
following lane configuration is assumed: one left -turn lane and one shared through/right-turn lane on east
and west approaches; and one left -turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane on
north and south approaches.
Lower Sacramento Road / Harney Lane — The intersection will be signalized and the following lane
configuration is assumed:
Northbound: one left -turn lane, two through lanes, one right -turn lane;
Southbound: one left -turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right-turn lane;
Eastbound: one left -turn lane, one shared through/right-turn lane;
Westbound: one left -turn lane, one through lane, two right -turn lanes.
Kettleman Lane / Westgate Drive — A third eastbound through lane will be added. The westbound right -
turn lane will be converted into a shared through/right-turn lane.
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
Due to the addition of new roadway segments under cumulative conditions (e.g., extension of Westgate
Drive south to Harney Lane, and extension of West Century Blvd. west to Westgate Drive), the trip
distribution and assignment was modified from the one used in the Future Plus Project analysis above.
(See the traffic report in Appendix G for a detailed discussion and illustrations.)
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
88
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
H. Traffic and Circulation
Cumulative No Project Intersection Operations
Table 7 presents the results of the Cumulative No Project Conditions operations analysis. The results of
the analysis show that the projected build -out of the City of Lodi General Plan, San Joaquin County
General Plan and regional traffic on West Kettleman Lane (SR 12) will result in the intersection of West
Kettleman Lane / Lower Sacramento Road operating at LOS D conditions during both a.m. and p.m. peak
hour conditions. In addition, the intersection of West Kettleman Lane / Tienda drive is also projected to
operate at LOS D under p.m. peak hour conditions.
The new signalized intersection of Lower Sacramento Road / West Century Boulevard is projected to
operate at LOS B under both a.m. and p.m. peak hour conditions. The widened and signalized
intersection of Lower Sacramento Road / Harney Lane is projected to operate at LOS C under both a.m.
and p.m. peak hour conditions.
The existing Food 4 Less driveway, located approximately 450 feet south of West Kettleman Lane, is
projected to operate at unacceptable LOS F conditions for the driveway stop -controlled intersection. But
similar to existing conditions, the driveway would not meet any of Caltrans' signal warrants.
Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Operations
Access Alternative A
Table 7 also presents the results of the Cumulative Plus Project operations analysis for Access
Alternative A. The results indicate that the seven signalized study intersection will all continue to
operate at LOS D s or better during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour.
During the a.m. peak hour, the addition of proj ect-generated traffic will result in a I to 6 second increase
in average vehicle delays at the seven signalized study intersections. During the p.m. peak hour, the
addition of proj ect-generated traffic will result in a 2 to 9 second increase in average vehicle delays at the
seven signalized study intersections.
The proposed signalized intersection on Lower Sacramento Road at the project will operate at LOS C
conditions during both peak hours.
The five side street STOP -controlled driveway intersections will all operate with low to average delays
for vehicles waiting to exit the project site during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
Access Alternative B
Under Access Alternative B, the results of the analysis of Cumulative Plus Project Conditions would be
the same as for Access Alternative A except for the two northerly intersections on Lower Sacramento
Road. Table 7 shows that under Alternative B, the construction of the northbound left -turn lane at the
northern Lower Sacramento Road driveway will result in traffic that would otherwise use the signalized
project driveway under Access Alternative A to divert to the northern intersection. Heavy southbound
traffic volumes on Lower Sacramento Road in the p.m. peak hour would result in vehicles backing up in
the two southbound travel lanes when the signal is red to serve vehicles exiting the project site and the
Food 4 Less Driveway. The vehicle queue would block northbound left -turning vehicles from safely
entering the project site between Pads 8 and 7 and result in LOS F conditions. (See the traffic report in
Appendix G for a detailed analysis of the impact of Access Alternative B.)
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
89
II Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
H. Traffic and Circulation
TABLE
CUMULATIVE AND CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
Notes: LOS = Level of Service.
For intersections with all -way stop -control or a traffic signal, average delay is for all vehicles entering the intersection.
For intersections with minor -street stop -control, average delay is for vehicles on the minor -street approach only.
I Level of service operations under Access Alternative B conditions.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
a
. . . . ......
......
.. . ...... .. .. .. ... .. ......
. ......
...
e�
UmUlativPlus
... . . . .. .....
. .....
..... 1alive Conaltions
......
.... ....... ......... .
�di ions
PToiect Conditions:
... . . ....... .
. ...... . ...... ....... ..
......
ver
Average
TraffiC
Pea k
Average �
Control
Intersection
Control
....
Hour:
Control D lay
LOS
Delay
LOS
I
SR 12/W.Kettleman Ln./
Traffic
AM
39.2
D
44.0
D
Lower Sacramento Rd
Signal
PM
37.1
D
40.9
D
2
W. Kettleman Ln./
Traffic
AM
27.5
C
27.1
C
Tienda Dr.
Signal
PM
45.2
D
48.2
D
3
W. Kettleman Ln./
Traffic
AM
30.1
C
31.2
C
Mills Ave.
Signal
PM
32.6
C
41.9
D
4
Lower Sacramento Rd./
Traffic
AM
15.0
B
15.0
B
Safeway Dwy.
Signal
PM
22.7
C
25.8
C
5
Lower Sacramento Rd./
Minor-
AM
> 50
F
14.3 (13.4
B(B)
Project Dwy. #I (Food 4
Street Stop
PM
> 50
F
27.2 (> 50
D(F')
Less Dwy.)
SBL (NBL')
6
Lower Sacramento Rd./
All -Way
AM
26.8
C
27.5
C
Harney Ln.
Stop
PM
24.5
C
28.4
C
7
W. Kettleman Ln./
Traffic
AM
27.2
C
33.4
C
Westgate Drive
Signal
PM
29.4
C
38.2
D
8
W. Kettleman Ln./
Minor-
AM
10.6
B
Not Applicable
Project Dwy. #I
Street Stop
PM
15.6
C
9
Lower Sacramento Rd./
Traffic
AM
12.0 (10.11)
B(B1)
Pro ect Dwy. #2 (Food 4
j
Signal
PM
Not Applicable
28.7 (24.5')
C(C)
Less Dwy.)
10
Lower Sacramento Rd./
Minor-
AM
11.5
B
Not Applicable
Pro
Pro' ect Dwy. #3
Street Stop
PM
10.6
B
11
Westgate Drive/
Minor-
AM
10.9
B
.
Not Applicable
Pro ect Dwy. #5 (north)
J
Street Stop
PM
12.8
B
12
Westgate Ave./Project
Minor-
AM
Not Applicable
9.5
A
Dwy. #5 (south)
Street Stop
PM
9.2
A
13
Lower Sacramento
Traffic
AM
17.2
B
18.1
B
Rd./W. Century Blvd.
Signal
PM
19.8
B
22.5
C
Notes: LOS = Level of Service.
For intersections with all -way stop -control or a traffic signal, average delay is for all vehicles entering the intersection.
For intersections with minor -street stop -control, average delay is for vehicles on the minor -street approach only.
I Level of service operations under Access Alternative B conditions.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
a
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
H. Traffic and Circulation
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
The following summarizes the potentially significant impacts of the project on the roadway, transit, and
bicycle/pedestrian systems. The impact statements are followed by mitigation measures intended to
reduce the impacts to less -than -significant levels.
Impact H1. Near Term Plus Project Signalized Intersection Operations (Access Alternative A
and Access Alternative B). With the addition of project -generated traffic, study
intersection Level of Service would remain unchanged from Near Term No Project
conditions. There would be minor increases in average vehicle delays, ranging
from 1 to 9 seconds at certain study intersections, which is not considered a
significant and adverse change. (Less -than -Significant Impact)
Mitigation. No mitigation required.
Impact H2. Near Term Plus Project Unsignalized Intersection Operations (Access Alternative
A and Access Alternative B). The addition of project -generated traffic would
exacerbate LOS F operations at the intersection of Lower Sacramento Road /
Harney Lane during both a.m. and p.m. peak hour conditions. (Significant Impact)
The all -way STOP -controlled intersection of Lower Sacramento Road / Harney Lane
currently operates at LOS F conditions and meets the Four Hour Volume and Peak Hour
Volume and Delay warrants for both a.m. and p.m. peak hour conditions. Under existing
a.m. peak hour conditions, a total of 1,495 vehicles travel through the unsignalized
intersection. Approved projects are estimated to add 193 a.m. peak hour vehicle trips
and the proposed project would add a total of 151 a.m. peak hour trips. Under existing
p.m. peak hour conditions, a total of 1,690 vehicles travel through the unsignalized
intersection. Approved projects are estimated to add 265 p.m. peak hour and the
proposed project would add a total of 324 p.m. peak hour vehicle trips.
The Lower Sacramento Road Widening Project will provide two northbound and two
southbound travel lanes on Lower Sacramento Road between the southern boundary of
the project site and just north of Harney Lane. In addition, the southbound approach
would be improved to provide a left -turn lane, a through lane, and a right -turn lane. But
even with these improvements, the intersection will continue to operate at unacceptable
LOS F conditions as either an unsignalized all -way STOP controlled intersection or with
a temporary signal.
Mitigation H2. The project shall contribute its fair share cost to the installation of a permanent
traffic signal at Lower Sacramento Road and Harney Lane. Until the intersection
improvements are made and traffic signals are installed, the project applicant shall
contribute its fair share cost for the installation of a temporary traffic signal with
left -turn pockets on all four approaches to the Lower Sacramento Road/Harney
Lane intersection.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
91
Draft August 2004
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
H. Traffic and Circulation
Installation of a traffic signal and construction of left turn pockets on all four approaches
would improve operations to LOS C conditions or better during a.m. and p.m. peak hour
under Near Term Plus Project conditions for both Access Alternatives.
It should be noted that San Joaquin County is currently developing a Request for
Proposals to develop improvements to the Lower Sacramento Road / Harney Lane
intersection. Preliminary discussions with County staff indicate that improvements to
the northbound, westbound and eastbound legs of the intersection would be completed
by 2007, but no intersection designs have been developed to date.
In order to mitigate unacceptable level of service conditions which the proposed project
would exacerbate, the project applicant shall contribute its fair share cost for the
installation of a temporary traffic signal with left -turn pockets on all four approaches to
the Lower Sacramento Road / Harney Lane intersection.
Significance after Mitigation. Less -than -Significant Impact.
Impact H3. Cumulative Plus Project Signalized Intersection Operations (Access Alternative A
and Access Alternative B). With the addition of project -generated traffic, all seven
signalized study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable Level of
Service Conditions. There would be minor increases in average vehicle delays,
ranging from 2 to 9 seconds at certain study intersections, which is not considered a
significant and adverse change. (Less -than -Significant Impact)
Mitigation. No mitigation required.
Impact H4. Cumulative Plus Project Access Conditions at the Signalized Access Driveway
Proposed Along the Lower Sacramento Road frontage. During the p.m. peak hour,
the eastbound left -turn queue length of 250 feet (average queue) to 375 feet (95tH
Percentile queue) of exiting vehicles would extend west to the internal intersection
located south of Pad 10 (applies to both Access Alternative A and B). (Significant
Impact)
Heavy eastbound left -turn traffic volumes exiting the project site, in excess of 275
vehicles during p.m. peak hour conditions, onto northbound Lower Sacramento Road,
would back up into the internal circulation intersection. Signal operations at the Lower
Sacramento Road / Project Driveway / Southern Food 4 Less intersection would provide
sufficient green time to serve the heavy -left -turning volume, but proposed storage length
is inadequate to prevent the potential for congestion on the internal circulation system.
Mitigation H4. Modify the project site plan to provide dual eastbound left -turn movements out of
the project site onto northbound Lower Sacramento Road, consisting of a 150 -foot
left -turn pocket and a full travel lane back to the internal project site intersection.
In the westbound direction, a left -turn pocket and a full travel lane will provide
adequate capacity for inbound traffic. In addition, STOP signs shall be installed on
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
92
Draft August 2004
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
H. Trac and Circulation
all approaches at the on-site intersection adjacent to Pads 10 and 11, except the
westbound approach, to provide continuous traffic flow into the project site and
eliminate the potential for backups onto Lower Sacramento Road. On the Food 4
Less approach, a 100 -foot left -turn pocket will 'be provided at the signalized
intersection.
With dual left -turn lanes in the eastbound direction, protected left -turn movements for
eastbound (out of the proposed shopping center) and westbound (out of the Food 4 Less
Driveway) approaches are required to eliminate the potential for accidents. In addition,
the site plan modification to the Food 4 Less property will be reviewed by the City of
Lodi to ensure that vehicle and trucks entering the driveway do not result in vehicle
queues backing up onto Lower Sacramento Road.
Significance after Mitigation. Less -than -Significant Impact.
Impact 115. Cumulative Plus Pro'ect Access Conditions at Northern Unsi nalized Access Drive
AlonLy Lower Sacramento Road. The addition of a northbound left -turn lane under
Access Alternative B would result in Level of Service F conditions at this
unsignalized intersection. (This condition does not occur under Access Alternative
A where no northbound left -turn movement would occur.) In addition, a non-
standard 60 -foot back-to-back taper is provided between the northbound left -turn
lane (Alternative B) at the northern unsignalized access drive and the southbound
left -turn lane at the signalized project entrance. (Significant Impact)
Signal operations at the proposed Lower Sacramento Road / Project Driveway / Food 4
Less intersection, located approximately 625 feet south of Kettleman Lane would result
in vehicle queues that would block vehicles from making the northbound left -turn
movement into the project safely at the unsignalized intersection. Heavy southbound
traffic volumes on Lower Sacramento Road would stop at the signal to the south
resulting in vehicles backing up in the two southbound travel lanes. The vehicle queue
would extend north through the unsignalized intersection and block northbound left -
turning vehicles from safely entering the project site between Pads 8 and 7 and result in
LOS F conditions.
Mitigation H5. The following mitigations shall be implemented:
A) Extend a third southbound travel lane on Lower Sacramento Road from its
current planned terminus at the signalized project driveway to the southern
boundary of the project site;
B) Construct a 100 -foot southbound right -turn lane at the signalized project
driveway;
C) Extend the southbound left -turn pocket by 100 feet;
D) Extend the taper from 60 feet to a City standard 120 -foot taper;
E) Eliminate the northbound left -turn lane into the northern project driveway
(under Alternative B),
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
93
Draft August 2004
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
H. Traffic and Circulation
With the implementation of this mitigation measure, vehicles entering the project site at
the signalized driveway will have a dedicated right -turn pocket and would not impact
traffic flow on southbound Lower Sacramento Road. In addition, the extension of the
third southbound travel lane will reduce southbound queuing at the signalized project
driveway and improve egress from the northern right -turn out project driveway located
320 feet south of the W. Kettleman Lane / Lower Sacramento Road intersection.
Significance after Mitigation. Less -than -Significant Impact.
Impact H6. On Westgate Drive, anon -City standard 64 foot back-to-back taper is proposed
between the northbound left -turn lane at W. Kettleman Lane and the southbound
left -turn lane at the northern project driveway. (Significant Impact)
The proposed site plan shows a distance of 340 feet between the intersections. Based on
the traffic analysis, a total distance of 365 feet between the intersections would be
required, assuming a City standard 90 -foot taper for this roadway.
Mitigation 116. The project site plan shall be modified to move the north project driveway on
Westgate Drive south by 25 feet in order to accommodate the required 90 -foot
taper length.
Significance after Mitigation. Less -than -Significant Impact.
Impact 117. On Lower Sacramento Road, anon -City standard 70 foot back-to-back taper is
proposed between the dual northbound left -turn lanes at W. Kettleman Lane and
the southbound left -turn lane at the middle Food 4 Less Driveway. (Significant
Impact)
The proposed site plan shows a distance of 360 feet between the intersections. Based on
the traffic analysis, a total distance of 450 feet between the intersections would be
required, assuming a standard 120 -foot taper for this roadway. It is not feasible to
provide this required distance between the two intersections, primarily because
both intersection locations are fixed by existing conditions (i.e., this project
entrance must be located opposite the middle Food 4 Less driveway).
Mitigation 117. The project site plan shall be modified to eliminate the southbound left -turn lane
into the middle Food 4 Less Driveway.
Significance after Mitigation. Less -than -Significant Impact.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
94
Draft August 2004
Impact H8.
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
H. Traffic and Circulation
Public Transit Service. Development of the project would create a demand for
increased public transit service above that which is currently provided or planned.
(Significant Impact)
The retail businesses at the project would attract residents from Lodi and San Joaquin
County, some of whom would use public transit, if available, to access the site. The
existing transit service may not be sufficient to serve existing and approved land uses in
the area, as well as the proposed project. Based on a transit ridership analysis completed
by the City of Lodi, the addition of the Wal-Mart Supercenter along with the other
stores in the proposed shopping center would result in a 20 percent increase in
demand on transit. This would exceed the capacity of the existing transit system and
would require the purchase of an additional transit vehicle.
Mitigation H8. The project applicant shall work with and provide fair share funding to the City of
Lodi Grapeline Service and the San Joaquin Regional Transit District to expand
transit service to the project.
Significance after Mitigation. Less -than -Significant Impact.
Impact 119. Public Transit Stop. Development of the project would create an unmet demand
for public transit service which would not be met by the single transit stop
proposed for the northwest portion of the project. (Significant Impact)
The retail businesses at the project would create the demand for public transit service to
the project site. To accommodate transit service, one on-site transit stop is proposed at
the southwest corner of the internal site intersection (between Wal-Mart and Pad 3 ).
However, the proposed transit stop does not include a bus bay and thus could result in
transit vehicles blocking the internal intersection while dropping off or picking up
passengers.
Based on the size of the project, a second transit stop located within the project site and
near Lower Sacramento Road would be needed.
Mitigation H9. Modify the project site plan to: 1) provide a bus bay and passenger shelter at the
proposed transit stop; and 2) include a second transit stop in the eastern portion of
the project near Lower Sacramento Road.
The transit stop shall be modified to provide a bus bay to eliminate the potential for a
transit vehicle blocking the internal intersection while dropping off or picking up
passengers. In addition, a sheltered transit stop shall be provided for inclement weather
or high temperatures.
Based on the size of the project, a second transit stop located within the project site and
near Lower Sacramento Road is required. The second transit stop shall be located next
to Pad 10 and would require elimination of eight parking spaces to provide a bus bay and
sheltered transit stop.
Significance after Mitigation. Less -than -Significant Impact.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
95
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
H. Traffic and Circulation
Impact H10. Bicycle Facilities. Development of the project would create a demand for bicycle
facilities along West Kettleman Lane, Lower Sacramento Road, and Westgate
Drive. (Less -than -Significant Impact)
The project would create a demand for bicycle facilities along West Kettleman Lane and
Lower Sacramento Road. The project site plan shows that a Class II on -street bicycle
lane will be constructed along the project frontages on Kettleman Lane and Lower
Sacramento Road, and on both sides of Westgate Drive along the project frontage in
conjunction with the project.
The project applicant will provide bicycle racks in front of all 13 retail buildings in
accordance with City zoning requirements.
Mitigation. No mitigation required.
Impact H11. Pedestrian Facilities. Development of the project would create an unmet demand
for pedestrian facilities along West Kettleman Lane, Lower Sacramento Road and
Westgate Drive, and internally between the different areas of the project site.
(Significant Impact)
The project site plan shows that sidewalks will be constructed on the segments of
Kettleman Lane, Lower Sacramento Road, and Westgate Drive along the frontage of the
project site. In addition, pedestrian walkways and crosswalks are proposed between
Wal-Mart and the majority of pads within the project site. However, gaps in the internal
pedestrian circulation system serving Pads 8, 9, and 12 were identified on the project site
plan.
Mitigation. Pedestrian walkways and crosswalks shall be provided to serve Pads 8, 9, and 12 in
order to complete the internal pedestrian circulation system..
Significance after Mitigation. Less -than -Significant Impact.
Impact 1112. Parking, Development of the project would create a demand for off-street parking
spaces. (Less -than -Significant Impact)
City of Lodi General Plan requires new developments to provide an adequate number of
off-street parking spaces in accordance with City parking standards. As specified City's
Design Standards for Large Retail Establishments (adopted April 7, 2004), the minimum
number of off-street parking spaces to be provided by a large-scale retail operation shall
be 2 spaces for every 1,000 square feet of building space. The maximum number of off-
street parking spaces shall not exceed live (5) spaces for every 1,000 square feet of
building space.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
we
Draft August 2004
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
H. Trac and Circulation
The proposed site plan provides 1,641 off-street parking spaces for 339,966 square feet
of building space. This corresponds to 4.83 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building
space, which falls over the minimum and under the maximum permitted by the design
standards.
Mitigation. No mitigation required.
Impact H13 Development of the project would create a demand for on-site truck circulation and
site access from W. Kettleman Lane, Lower Sacramento Road, and Westgate Drive;
however, the project site plan indicates that adequate lane widths would be
provided within the project site and that adequate curb radii are planned at the
project driveway entrances and within the project for all types of trucks. (Less -
than -Significant Impact)
The City of Lodi General Plan requires new developments to provide adequate width of
on-site travel lanes and curb radii for on-site truck circulation. In addition, adequate
access and egress from the surrounding roadway system must be provided for truck
traffic without impacting traffic flow on W. Kettleman Lane, Lower Sacramento Road,
and Westgate Drive.
The proposed site plan was reviewed for both on-site truck circulation and site access
from the surrounding roadway system. It was determined that adequate width was
provided for on-site travel lanes to serve both single unit (WB -20) and tractor -trailer unit
(WB -40) trucks. In addition, it was determined that the project driveways (e.g., two on
Westgate Drive, one on W. Kettleman Lane, and three on Lower Sacramento Road) all
provide sufficient curb radii to serve project -generated truck traffic entering and exiting
the project site.
As discussed above under Mitigations H4, H6, H7, H9, and H 11, modifications to the
site plan are required to mitigate identified transportation impacts resulting from the
project as proposed. For purposes of this analysis, it is reasonable to expect that the City
of Lodi will ensure that the required project design changes do not result in deficiencies
with regard to adequate lane widths and turn radii for truck access and internal
circulation. As such, the project is not expected to result in a significant impact in terms
of truck access and circulation.
Mitigation. No mitigation required.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
97
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
I. Noise
I. NOISE
The following discussion is based on the Environmental Noise Assessment prepared by Illingworth &
Rodkin in July 2004. The full noise report is contained in Appendix H of this EIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Background Information on Acoustics and Noise Measurement
Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation of air pressure above and
below atmospheric pressure. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB) with 0
dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing. On this scale, noise at zero decibels is barely
audible, while noise at 120 to 140 decibels is painful and may cause hearing damage.
Noise measurement equipment includes an electrical filter to reflect the fact that human hearing is less
sensitive to low and very high frequencies than sound frequencies in the mid-range. The sound levels
measured in this manner are called A -weighted sound levels and are expressed as dBA.
Since environmental sound levels vary over time, noise levels are described by various statistical noise
descriptors that correspond to varying time periods. Thus the noise levels exceeded during 10 percent of
the time are expressed as L10 , with noise levels exceeded 50 percent of the time expressed as L50 , and so
on. The Lea is the average A -weighted noise level during a specified period of time.
Since the sensitivity to noise increases during the evening and at night (because excessive noise interferes
with the abilityto sleep), 24-hour descriptors have been developed that incorporate artificial noise penalties
added to quiet -time noise events. The Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL, is a measure of the
cumulative noise exposure in a community, with a 5 dB penalty added to evening (7:00 pm to 10:00 pm)
and a 10 dBenal added to nighttime (10:00 pm to 7:00 am) noise levels. The Day/Night Average Sound
p tY
Level, Lam, is essentially the same as CNEL, with the exception that the evening time period is dropped and
all occurrences during this three-hour period are grouped into the daytime period.
For a detailed background discussion of environmental noise, see the noise study in Appendix G of this
EIR.
Existing Noise Environment
TheJro' ect site is bounded on the north by State Route 12/West Kettleman Lane and on the east by
p
Lower Sacramento Road. In the vicinity of the site, both roadways produce noise levels of 65 dB CNEL
org reater at 100 feet as noted in the Noise Element of the Lodi General Plan. To the south and west, the
site is bounded by agricultural lands which are designated for residential use in the City's General Plan.
The nearest existing residences include three rural residences to the northwest of the project site across
wa
Hi h 12, and 10 single-family dwellings located across Lower Sacramento Road to the east of the
Highway
site( g see Figure 4). Other noise sensitive receptors are also present at greater distances from the site along the major arterial streets. Throughout the project site and the surrounding area, the dominant
existing noise source is traffic noise from the two adjacent arterial streets.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
98
Draft August 2004
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
I. Noise
To quantify the existing noise environment, a series of noise level measurements were conducted at the
project site and immediately surrounding area. These measurements established the existing noise levels
at three locations including: 1) the rural residential residences to the north across Highway 12; 2) the
single-family dwellings to the east across Lower Sacramento Road; and 3) an on-site location at the
southern project boundary approximately 1,200 feet west of Lower Sacramento Road. The noise
measurements indicated that 24-hour noise levels average about 64 dBA Ldn (and 64 dBA CNEL) at the
rural residences north of Highway 12, and about 60 dBA Ldn (or 61 dBA CNEL) at the single-family
dwellings east of Lower Sacramento Road. Both of these locations exceed 60 dBA Ldn/CNEL, the upper
General Plan threshold for acceptable noise levels for residential uses, these noise levels are considered
to be "Conditionally Acceptable" according to the noise compatibility guidelines of the City of Lodi
General Plan (see discussion under `General Plan' below). At the third measurement site, along the
southern project boundary, the 24-hour noise levels about 56 Ldn/CNEL, although the measurements did
indicate several higher noise intrusions which were probably related to the operation of farm machinery
in the adjacent vineyard.
REGULATORY SETTING
General Plan
The following City of Lodi General Plan goal and policies on noise are relevant to the project:
Section 6. Noise
Goal A: To ensure that City residents are protected from excessive noise.
Policy 1. The City shall use the outdoor CNEL criteria on the land use compatibility chart (General Plan
Figure 6-4) as a primary guide to determine whether all or part of an existing or proposed
development site should be considered "noise impacted"; areas shall be considered noise
impacted if current or projected exterior noise levels would classify the area as "conditionally
acceptable," "normally unacceptable," or "presumed to be unacceptable" for the existing or
proposed use.
[Figure 6-4 of the Noise Element contains guidelines, based on the State Noise Standards,
which establish noise thresholds for various land uses. These guidelines are typically applied
to establish when noise levels will result in impacts, and when project noise should be
mitigated or when mitigation may not be feasible. The Guidelines include four categories of
noise including noise levels which are "Presumed to be acceptable" (requiring no
mitigation), "Conditionally Acceptable" (with acceptability depending on the land use and
extent of mitigation provided), "Normally Unacceptable" (new construction or development
should be discouraged, although mitigation may be possible), and "Clearly Unacceptable"
(mitigation measures unlikely to be available). For the commercial uses proposed in the
project, average daily noise levels of up to 65 dB (Ldn or CNEL) are "presumed to be
acceptable," and noise levels from 65 dB to 75 dB are "conditionally acceptable." For the
noise sensitive existing single-family dwellings in the immediate project vicinity, noise
levels of up to 65 dB are "presumed to be acceptable," and noise levels from 60 dB to 65 dB
are "conditionally acceptable," and noise levels from 65 dB to 75 dB are "normally
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
99
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
I. Noise
unacceptable." (For the City's complete Land Use Compatibility Chart, see the
Environmental Noise Study in Appendix H of this EIR.)]
Policy 2. The City shall recognize that a CNEL measure does not adequately reflect the disturbance
effects of intermittent noise events or noise sources that operate for only part of a day.
Intermittent or discontinuous noise sources should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to
determine appropriate land use compatibility classifications.
Noise Regulations
The City of Lodi Municipal Code includes Noise Regulations which prohibit "public nuisance noise"
which "disturbs the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to
any reasonable person of normal noise sensitivity." There are a number of considerations to be applied
in determining whether a noise constitutes a public nuisance (e.g., volume, intensity, duration, time of
day, proximity of residential, etc.), although no specific decibel thresholds are included. Section
9.24.020(B) of the Noise Regulations state that "...the standards which shall be considered in
determining whether a violation of the provision of this section exists shall include, but not be limited to,
the following:
I . The volume of the noise;
2. The intensity of the noise;
3. Whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual for the area and hour;
4. Whether the origin of the noise is natural or unnatural;
5. The volume and intensity of the background noise, if any;
6. The proximity of the noise to residential sleeping facilities;
7. The nature and the zoning of the area within which the noise emanates;
8. The density of the inhabitation of the area within which the noise emanates;
9. The time of day or night the noise occurs;
10. Whether the noise is produced by a commercial or noncommercial activity.
The Noise Regulations also prohibit "excessive, offensive or disturbing noise" which includes sound
from equipment or instruments (e.g., drum, radio, phonograph, loudspeaker, sound amplifier, stereo,
television, or similar sound system) that is clearly audible at a distance of 50 feet. Section 9.24.030(C) of
the regulations states in part: [i]t is unlawful ... to cause, permit, or generate any sound as described
herein between the hours of ten p.m. and seven a.m. which exceeds the ambient noise level at the
property line of any residential property... by more than five decibels. This section shall be applicable
whether such noise or sound is of a commercial or non-commercial nature." The City of Lodi also
applies this section of the Noise Regulations to any activity which causes excessive nighttime noise.
Therefore, an excessive, offensive, or disturbing noise from the proposed development would be subject
to this noise restriction.
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
For purposes of this EIR, the project would be considered to have a significant noise impact if it would
result in:
• Exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of those established in the General Plan Noise Element
or allowed by the City's Noise Regulations;
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
100
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
I. Noise
The applicable standards and criteria are described above under `General Plan' and `Noise
Regulations.'
• A substantial, permanent increase in the ambient noise levels in the areas adjoining the project area.
A permanent increase of 3 dB is considered substantial for areas subject to existing noise levels of 60
dBA or greater, and a permanent increase of 5 dB is considered substantial where current noise levels
are under 60 dB. (Noise increases of less than 3 dB are normally not noticeable or perceptible to
human hearing.) This is applied to the noise generated on-site by the project and noise generated by
increased traffic due to the project. It is typically evaluated on atime-averaged basis such as CNEL
or hourly Leq depending on the nature of the noise.
Substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels in the areas adjoining the project.
For development projects, this applies to construction -related activity. The same 3 dB and 5 dB
thresholds of significance as discussed above would apply to noise level increases from these
sources.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
The following discussion of noise impacts and mitigation measures addresses noise impacts that the
proposed project would generate or be subj ect to in the near-term. For a discussion of impacts under
cumulative conditions with General Plan buildout, see Section III. Cumulative Impacts.
Impact I1. Existine Noise from Off -Site Sources. The project noise environment would be
affected by existing off-site noise sources. (Less -than -Significant Impact)
The project site fronts onto two major arterial roads, SR 12/West Kettleman Lane and
Lower Sacramento Road, which are major sources of traffic noise. The existing noise
levels measured on the site exceed 65 dBA CNEL within 200 feet of SR 12/West
Kettleman Lane, and would be in the range of "Conditionally Acceptable" under the
City's General Plan noise criteria. The remaining areas of the site experience noise
levels lower than 65 dBA CNEL, which is considered "Acceptable" under the noise
criteria.
Upon completion of the project, the traffic generated by the project and other pending
projects in the vicinity would increase overall traffic volumes on West Kettleman Lane
and Lower Sacramento Road. However, the resulting increase in noise levels would be
one dB or less relative to baseline levels without the project, which would not be
noticeable.
The General Plan designation for the project site is "NCC Neighborhood/Community
Commercial" and the zoning is "Commercial Shopping." These are land use categories
where the permitted uses are intended to be those that are relatively insensitive to traffic
noise and are therefore compatible with the adjacent arterial roadways. As such, the
existing traffic noise on the adjacent roadways, combined with the additional traffic
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
101
Draft August 2004
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
I. Noise
noise generated by pending projects and the proposed project, would not have a
significant impact on the project.
Mitigation. No mitigation required.
Impact 12. Project Traffic Noise. Traffic generated by the project would increase noise levels at
the residential properties in the vicinity. (Less -than -Significant Impact)
Existing noise sensitive residential uses in the project vicinity are located on the north
side of SR 12/West Kettleman Lane and the east side of Lower Sacramento Road.
Traffic generated by the project would not result in a measurable change in noise levels
along these nearby road segments, where the increase in traffic noise from background
trips and project trips would be less than 1 dBA. This is less than the 3 decibel noise
increase criteria used to define a significant noise impact where ambient noise levels
exceed 60 dBA CNEL. (A 3 dBA increase in noise levels generally results from a
doubling of traffic volume.) Therefore, the nearby residential uses would not be subject
to significant noise impacts as a result of project -generated traffic.
Mitigation. No mitigation required.
Impact 13. Noise from Proiect Activity. Noise generated by activity associated with the project
would elevate off-site noise levels at existing and future residences in the vicinity.
(Significant Impact)
Onsite noise sources associated with the Lodi Shopping Center will include: (1) parking
lot activity, (2) delivery truck activity, (3) loading dock activity, (4) trash compactors, (5)
mechanical equipment, (6) automotive service activities, and (7) parking lot cleaning
activities. Based on noise measurement data collected from operations at similar
completed projects, the noise levels generated by each of these project activities were
determined, along with the associated environmental impacts.
1) Parking Lot Activity. Major noise sources in project parking lot will include, in order
of magnitude, the starting of engines, car horns, door slams, low speed moving vehicles,
and human voices. The proposed parking areas nearest to the existing residential
neighbors would be located in the southeast corner of the project, and would be about
160 feet away from the nearest dwellings across Lower Sacramento Road to the east.
The majority of these dwellings are located at least 200 feet from the nearest planned
parking stalls. The central portion of the major parking area would be more than 500
feet away these dwellings, with Lower Sacramento Road and retail buildings in between,
The nearest existing dwellings to the northwest would be at least 500 feet from the
nearest parking and would have Highway 12 in between. Along the southern boundary,
the nearest parking spaces would be within 15 feet of future residential property lines;
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
102
Draft August 2004
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
I. Noise
however, the planned residential uses to south would be screened from the parking area
by an 8 -foot masonry sound wall.
All noises generated in the parking lot would be of short to very short duration. The
sound of starting vehicle tends to last a few seconds and produces levels of the order of
55 dBA at 200 feet. Impulsive horn sounds occur mostly due to remote door locking
systems that give a short "beep" to signify the doors are locked. These very short beeps
can produce maximum levels of 50 dBA at distances of 200 feet. More intentional horn
usage can produce levels on the order of 5 5 dBA at 200 ft. Low speed, light vehicle
movements typically produce noise levels of about 44 dBA at 200 feet. Door slams
create very short duration noise which can also produce maximum noise levels as high as
44 dBA. The hourly average noise level Leq resulting from all of these noise -generating
activities in a busy shopping center parking lot could range from 35 to 40 dBA 200 feet
from the path of the vehicles. Parking lot noise may be heard occasionally outside of the
nearest residences, but noise levels would not measurably alter the existing traffic -
dominated noise levels for these existing residences. For these residences, the noise
impact associated with parking lot activity would be less than significant.
Residential development is also planned between the stormwater basin and the electrical
substation on the west side of the shopping center. The proposed new Westgate Drive (a
72 -foot wide roadway) would be located between this residential development and the
shopping center. Noise levels within this future residential area would be dominated by
traffic on this new street. According to the City of Lodi Community Development
Department, this future residential development would consist of multi -family units
facing Westgate Drive. Since the outdoor activity areas would be to the rear of the units,
the buildings themselves would provide shielding from street noise and would also serve
to reduce noise emanating from proposed shopping center. Since the speed of the cars
on the street would be much greater than the speed of the cars in the parking lot and the
distance between the new homes and any parking spaces would be over 150 feet, it is not
likely that the noise levels from the parking lot would be noticeable at these new
residences. In any case, parking lot activity would not add to the noise level generated
by traffic on the new street.
2) Delivery Truck Movements. Loading docks are proposed for the Wal-Mart and the
retail store on Pad 12 in the southeast corner of the site. The loading dock for the Wal-
Mart would be on the west side of the building facing the future Westgate Drive. The
future residential development to the south would be screened from activity and noise
from this area by the Wal-Mart building itself and the proposed masonry walls along the
south and west sides of the shopping center. The future residential area to the west of
the Wal-Mart building would be screened from the loading area by a 10 -foot masonry
wall to be constructed along the west side of the Wal-Mart building. The proposed
loading dock of the store on Pad 12 would be located near the south property line
adjacent to the future residential development, which would receive screening from the
8 -foot masonry wall planned along the southern site boundary. Noise generated by
delivery trucks at this location would depend on the type of truck and frequency of
deliveries.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
103
Draft August 2004
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
I. Noise
Anticipated Delivery Activities. Wal-Mart will receive eight to 10 large truck deliveries
for general merchandise, and two to three large refrigerated trucks per day for the
grocery component. It will also receive eight to 10 deliveries per day by medium-sized
vendor owned trucks. All deliveries must occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10
PM, in order to meet the City of Lodi Noise Regulations.
The store on Pad 12 is expected to receive about seven deliveries per day. These would
be by either medium or large trucks between 7:00 AM and noon, approximately one
delivery per hour.
Typical Truck Noise. From the noise measurements taken at similar operations, a typical
average level for low speed, heavy truck movement on-site into and out of loading dock
areas is 66 dBA at 150 feet. For medium size delivery trucks, the typical noise level is
about 63 dBA at 150 feet. Truck refrigeration equipment generates a maximum noise
level of 67 to 70 dBA at a distance of 150 feet.
Given the low volume of truck traffic that would likely be generated by the store on Pad
12, and the proximity of the loading dock area to Lower Sacramento Road, intermittent
noise from truck operations are calculated to not increase the CNEL outside of the
nearest existing dwellings across Lower Sacramento Road to the east or the closest
future homes adjacent to the south. Since no truck movements are anticipated for this
loading dock area at night, no sleep disturbance would be expected and no violations of
the City of Lodi Noise Regulations would be likely to occur. The presence of the 8 -foot
masonry wall at this location would further reduce noise from the loading dock area to a
level that would be indistinguishable from traffic noise on Lower Sacramento Road.
Future development located to the west of the shopping center would be screened from
the loading dock area of the Wal-Mart by a 10 -foot masonry sound wall. Additionally,
this residential area would be separated from the proposed shopping center by the
presence of future Westgate Drive. The 10 -foot high masonry sound wall would reduce
noise generated by activity in the loading dock area of Wal-Mart to a level at or below
that generated by traffic on Westgate Drive. This activity would not be a significant
noise source to the future residential development.
The project site plan shows a continuous drive aisle along the southern site boundary,
which would allow delivery trucks bound for Wal-Mart to enter at the southern entrance
driveway on Lower Sacramento Road and travel westward along the southern site
boundary to the Wal-Mart loading docks. Since the exhaust pipes on large delivery
trucks typically extend upward to 11 feet above ground level, the 8 -foot high masonry
wall planned along the southern site boundary would not provide attenuation of exhaust
noise for the future adjacent residential units whose rear yards would abut this wall. For
any large Wal-Mart delivery trucks that may travel along the southern boundary outside
of the City -authorized hours of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM, this exhaust noise would violate
the City's Noise Regulations and result in a significant noise impact to the future
adjacent residents to the south.
3) Loading Dock/Material Movement Activity. In addition to the truck movements to
and from the project loading docks, loading activities at the docks themselves could also
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
104
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
I. Noise
generate adverse noise impacts. However, the loading docks for "big -box" retail centers
are typically designed so that larger delivery trucks must back up to a rubber gasket
against the opening of the building, with all unloading done directly into the building.
The rubber gasket type of loading dock provides a tight connection between the truck
and the building specifically for noise abatement purposes. Field observations made at
similar facilities indicate that noise from this loading dock type is generally not audible
or measurable from surrounding off-site locations.
In addition to unloading operations, other activities are expected in the vicinity of the
loading docks and adjacent storage containers that may generate noise. Some forklift
operations are expected for movement of pallets around the loading area. For typical
propane fueled fork lifts, levels for these types of operations are expected to generate
maximum noise levels of about 56 dBA at 150 feet.
Given the location of nearest existing residences 1,000 feet to the north across Highway
12 and 1,300 feet to east across Lower Sacramento Road, these existing residences
would not be subject to a significant noise impact due to loading dock and material
movement activities at the Wal-Mart store.
Activity within the loading and truck circulation area on the west side of Wal-Mart
would be conducted behind a 10 -foot high sound wall along the west site boundary and
an 8 -foot high wall along the south boundary. At the closest point, this activity would be
about 100 feet from the nearest future residences to the south and the west. Maximum
noise level at these locations would be expected to be less than 60 dBA and typically less
than 50 dBA. Since this activity would be confined to the daytime and maximum noise
levels would be typical of existing maximum noise levels in the area, no noise impacts
would be expected on future residential development.
For planned residential uses to the south of the shopping center, the property lines of the
nearest residences could be quite close to loading dock and material movement activities
at the rear of the store on Pad 12. Noise sources associated with this activity would be
banging and clanging of metal occasionally (closing rollup doors, rolling carts, etc.), and
loud voices. However, the 8 -foot masonry wall planned for the south project boundary
would reduce noise levels in the nearest rear yards to below 70 dBA, which would be
typical of maximum noise levels generated by traffic emanating from Lower Sacramento
Road in this area. In addition, the noise from the activity at this loading dock would not
be expected to be audible outside of the existing homes on the east side of Lower
Sacramento Road due to the distance from the loading dock and the noise generated by
traffic on Lower Sacramento Road.
4) Trash Compactors. Trash compactors generate maximum noise levels of 40 to 50
dBA at 150 feet, depending on the power rating and enclosure characteristics. Based on
the project site plan, trash compactors would be located on the site on the north and
south sides of the Wal-Mart loading dock areas. At these locations, future residential
property lines could be located as close as about 100 feet to the west and 270 feet to the
south and would be subject to noise levels from 30 to 40 dBA with the intervening
masonry walls. Therefore, the noise generated by the trash compactors would represent
a less -than -significant impact.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
105
Draft August 2004
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
I. Noise
5) Mechanical Equipment. Mechanical equipment typically includes heating,
ventilating, air conditioning, and refrigeration equipment. Noise generated by rooftop
mounted mechanical equipment varies significantly depending upon the equipment type
and size. However, based on measurements made at other similar commercial centers
and large supermarkets in the region, noise levels of 60 to 70 dBA at 15 feet from
external mechanical systems can be anticipated from the project. Noise levels would be
somewhat reduced due to shielding from the roofs and distance. In addition, the
applicant has indicated that parapet walls are planned for Wal-Mart and the other retail
buildings, including the store on Pad 12. The heights of the parapets would range from
about six to eight feet, and would not exceed 10 feet in height. The intent is to design
the parapets to break the line of sight between the rooftop mechanical equipment and the
nearest existing and future residences. For any instances where the parapet walls are not
sufficiently high to break the line of sight, individual screen walls would be installed
around each mechanical unit. The potential noise impacts associated with the
mechanical equipment upon the nearest existing and future residents, assuming
installation of solid parapets and/or screen walls, is evaluated below.
The nearest existing residences on the east side of Lower Sacramento Road would be at
least 300 feet from the mechanical equipment on the roof of the building on Pad 12.
Equipment noise levels are expected to be reduced to less than 45 dBA at the nearest
existing residences due to the intervening distance and shielding provided by the
building and parapets.
For planned future residences to the south of the project, the nearest property lines could
be as close as 130 feet from the rooftop mechanical equipment on the Wal-Mart building,
and as close as 60 feet from the rooftop equipment on the building on Pad 12. The
planned masonry wall between the shopping center and potential future residences would
likely be too low to provide any attenuation from the rooftop to the yards of the
residences. However, the solid parapet walls planned for Wal-Mart store and the
building on Pad 12 would provide sufficient screening to reduce average daily noise
levels to less than 60 dB CNEL in both cases. Assuming the parapet walls and/or screen
walls are effective in reducing mechanical noise, the impact to the nearest future
residences to the south should be less than significant.
The future residential development to the west of the project would be at least 200 feet
from the nearest rooftop mechanical equipment on the Wal-Mart store. Noise levels
would be reduced to well under 60 dB CNEL at these future residences by the distance
separation, the screening effect of the parapet walls, and due to the fact that the outdoor
use areas for the nearest units would be to the west of the dwellings and screened by the
residential buildings themselves. Therefore, for the planned residential development to
the west of the project, rooftop mechanical equipment would represent a less -than -
significant noise impact.
Based on the above analysis, the noise impact to the nearest existing and future
residences would be less than significant if all rooftop mechanical equipment is fully
screened as indicated by the applicant. However, building plans showing these parapets
and screen walls have not been completed and therefore were not available for review in
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
106
Draft August 2004
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
I. Noise
this analysis. Until such plans are submitted and reviewed for adequacy of noise
mitigation, it must be concluded that the mechanical equipment may result in a
potentially significant impact to some nearby residences, particularly the future
dwellings planned along the south project boundary.
In addition to the rooftop mechanical equipment, the Wal-Mart store will include two
condenser units for refrigeration equipment to serve the grocery sales area in the
southern portion of the store. The units will be located along the south wall of the store
and will be enclosed by 16 -foot high CMU walls which will extend at least two feet
above the condenser units. The south -facing doors of the enclosure will also be
composed of solid material. Ventilation louvers will likely be included on the east and
west facing walls of the enclosure, and will include sound insulating material as needed.
Refrigeration condenser units typically produce maximum noise levels of 65 dB at 25
feet. The only potentially affected residential areas would be the planned future
residential adjacent to the south where the rear yards of the nearest dwellings would be
as close as 110 feet to the condenser units. The noise levels in these rear yards would be
reduced somewhat by this distance separation, and substantial noise attenuation would be
provided by the solid enclosures surrounding the condenser units and the 8 -foot high
masonry wall along the southern project boundary. The resulting average daily noise
levels from the condenser units in the nearest rear yards is projected to be 35 dB CNEL.
This would be well under the City's 60 dB CNEL threshold for residential outdoor use
areas, and therefore would represent a less -than -significant impact.
6) Automotive Service Bays. The Wal-Mart store would include an auto service shop in
its southwest corner. Noise generating activities at auto maintenance shops typically
include the use of power tools, air compressors, slamming of doors and hoods, engine
startups, and people's voices. Based on field studies of similar operations, pneumatic
tool usage was the only activity that was faintly audible at a distance of 200 feet from the
outside of the facility. At this distance, the noise levels generated by these activities are
typically not measurable above the ambient of 45 dBA. All existing residences would be
over 800 feet away from the planned auto service shop with intervening arterial streets.
Future residential property lines to the south would be over 600 feet from this facility,
and would also receive sound blocking from the Wal-Mart store itself and the 8 -foot
masonry wall along the south project boundary. At this distance, the noise reaching this
area is expected to be inaudible. Future residential development to the west would be at
least 200 feet away, with an intervening 10 -foot masonry wall along the west side of the
Wal-Mart site. With the attenuating effects of the distance separation and intervening
sound wall, and the presence of ambient traffic noise along Westgate Drive, the noise
reaching this area from the auto service shop is also expected to be inaudible. Therefore,
.noise generated by activities at the auto service shop is not expected to result in a
significant adverse noise impact.
7) Parking Lot Cleaning. Typically, the parking area surface at shopping centers is
periodically cleaned using small mechanical parking lot sweepers and hand-held, back -
mounted leaf blowers. Based on measurements taken at a similar operation, it was
determined that at a distance of 150 feet, the noise generated by mechanical parking lot
sweepers is not significant. However, the noise of the back -mounted leaf blowers was
found to be significant. Leaf blower noise levels range from 60 to 70 dBA at a distance
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
107
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
I. Noise
of 150 feet, depending on the type of leaf blower. Such equipment could probably be
operated throughout the project site without resulting in noise impacts, with the possible
exception of the parking spaces along the perimeter of the southeast corner of the site,
where the nearest existing dwellings are 160 feet away. While the average daily noise
levels due to leaf blowing activity are unlikely to exceed the 60 dB CNEL threshold, the
maximum noise levels would violate the City's Noise Regulations if leaf blowing is
conducted in southeast corner of the project site between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.
Therefore, for the nearest existing residences on the east side of Lower Sacramento
Road, any leaf blowing activity in the southeast corner of the project site would result in
a potentially significant noise impact.
Mitigation I3. The following noise mitigations are identified as appropriate for the various types of
project activities, to reduce project noise at both existing and planned future adjacent
development:
Parking Lot Activity. No mitigation is required for existing dwellings or for
planned future residential development in the vicinity.
Delivery Truck Movements. No mitigation is required for existing dwellings. In
order to avoid noise impacts to future residences adjacent to the southern site
boundary resulting from the movement of large delivery trucks along the southern
drive aisle, no delivery trucks (except those bound for Pad 12) will be permitted to
enter the site from the southern project entrance on Lower Sacramento Road. This
restriction will be implemented by signage and/or design features incorporated into
the southern drive aisle, or other measures determined appropriate by the City,
which will discourage through truck movements along the southern site boundary.
The specific measures to be implemented will be determined by the City at the
design review stage of project approval.
Loading Dock/Material Movement Activity. No mitigation is required for existing
dwellings or for planned future residential development in the vicinity.
Trash Compactors. No mitigation is required for existing dwellings in the vicinity
or for planned future residential development in the vicinity.
Rooftop Mechanical Equipment. To ensure that the potential noise impact of
mechanical equipment is reduced to less -than -significant levels, the applicant shall
submit engineering and acoustical specifications for project mechanical equipment,
for review prior to issuance of building permits for each retail building,
demonstrating that the equipment design (types, location, enclosure specifications),
combined with any parapets and/or screen walls, will not result in noise levels
exceeding 45 dBA (L,q-hour) for any residential yards.
Automotive Service Bays. No mitigation is required for existing dwellings in the
vicinity or for planned future residential development in the vicinity.
Parking Lot Cleaning. To assure compliance with the City of Lodi Noise
Regulations regarding occasional excessive noise, the use of leaf blowers and other
loud cleaning equipment, such as vacuum trucks, shall be limited to operating
during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
108
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
I. Noise
Significance after Mitigation. Less -than -Significant Impact.
Impact I4. Noise from Stormwater Basin Pump. Occasional pumping of water from the
stormwater basin would generate noise at the planned future residential areas to the
south and west of the basin. (Significant Impact)
The stormwater basin is planned to be located just west of the southwest corner of the
shopping center project (see Figure 6). This basin will include a 5 to 10 horsepower (hp)
pump to remove water from the basin after each winter storm. The location of the pump
has not yet been determined. If this pump is located on the south, west, or north side of
the basin, it could be as close as 50 feet to future residential development planned for
those adjacent areas. Depending on the size of the pump, noise levels could range from
68 to 80 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the source. Therefore, even at the lower end
of this range, the noise from a pump located in a worst-case location along the south,
west, or north side of the basin would result in significant impacts to the nearest future
dwellings. The pump would not be audible from existing dwellings to the north of
Highway 12 and east of Lower Sacramento Road which would be at least 800 feet to the
north and 1,400 feet east of the basin, respectively.
If the pump were located at the east side of the basin, midway between the future
residential areas to the north and south (i.e., as far as possible from future planned
residences), the additional distance separation would provide a noise reduction of about
12 dBA, resulting in noise levels of up to 56 dBA outside the nearest homes. Even at
these levels, the pump may create a significant noise impact based on the operating cycle
and frequency of operation, although the overall effect during daytime hours would be
masked by traffic noise along Westgate Drive. Since ambient nighttime noise levels in
these residential areas is expected to be 40 to 41 dBA, the resulting noise levels would be
up to 16 dBA over ambient at the nearest future dwellings. For nighttime operation, this
level of noise would exceed the noise restrictions of the City Noise Regulations, which
only allow an increase of up to 5 dBA over ambient at night. Therefore, noise generated
by the basin pump would represent a potentially significant impact for future residential
land uses in the vicinity.
Mitigation I4. The following measures shall be implemented to mitigate potential noise generated by
the stormwater basin pump:
1) The pump shall be located as far as is feasible from the nearest future planned
residential development. In addition, the pump facility shall be designed so that
noise levels do not exceed 45 dBA at the nearest residential property lines. The
pump may need to be enclosed to meet this noise level. Plans and specifications
for the pump facility shall be included in the Improvement Plans for the project
and reviewed for compliance with this noise criterion.
2) In order to avoid creating a noise nuisance during nighttime hours, pump
operations shall be restricted to the hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., except under
emergency conditions (e.g., when the basin needs to be emptied immediately to
accommodate flows from another imminent storm).
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
109
Draft August 2004
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
I. Noise
Significance after Mitigation. Less -than -Significant Impact.
Impact I5. Construction Noise. Noise levels would be temporarily elevated during grading and
construction. (Significant Impact)
Each phase of project construction would involve several noise -generating activities.
The first construction phase would typically involve ground clearing, site grading,
installation of infrastructure, and paving. Subsequent phases would include site
improvements and the construction of the various shopping center buildings. The typical
range of average hourly noise levels during various phases of construction ranges from
81 to 88 dBA, as shown in Table 8. Average noise levels above 60 dBA begin
interfering with speech communication.
For existing residences along Highway 12 to the northwest of the site, construction
activities would range in distance from 800 to 2200 feet. At these distances, the highest
levels of construction noise would range from 55 to 64 dBA on an average hourly basis.
Depending on location, the construction activities could exceed the current average noise
levels by up 7 dB and create periods of speech inference. For the existing residences to
the east of the site across Lower Sacramento Road, distance from construction activity
would range from 160 and 1200 feet resulting in noise levels ranging from 60 to 76 dBA.
These levels would exceed the current hourly average levels by up to 15 dB. Therefore,
depending on the phase of construction, associated noise intrusion into residential areas
adjacent to the project site would intermittently interfere with typical residential
activities. These intrusions would result in potentially significant short-term impacts.
TABLE S
AVERAGE CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS BY PHASE
Source: U.S. EPA 1971
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
110
Draft August 2004
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
I. Noise
Mitigation I5. Short-term construction noise impacts shall be reduced through implementation of
the following measures:
Construction Scheduling. The applicant/contractor shall limit noise -generating
construction activities to daytime, weekday, (non -holiday) hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00
PM.
Construction Eg uipment Mufflers and Maintenance. The applicant/contractor
shall properly muffle and maintain all construction equipment powered by internal
combustion engines.
Idling Prohibitions. The applicant/contractor shall prohibit unnecessary idling of
internal combustion engines.
Equipment Location and Shielding. The applicant/contractor shall locate all
stationary noise -generating construction equipment such as air compressors as far
as practicable from existing nearby residences. Acoustically shield such equipment
as required to achieve continuous noise levels of 55 dBA or lower at the property
line.
Quiet Equipment Selection. The applicant/contractor shall select quiet
construction equipment, particularly air compressors, whenever possible. Fit
motorized equipment with proper mufflers in good working order.
Notification. The applicant/contractor shall notify neighbors located adjacent to,
and across the major roadways from, the project site of the construction schedule
in writing.
Noise Disturbance Coordinator. The applicant/contractor shall designate a "noise
disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any local
complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would notify the
City, determine the cause of the noise complaints (e.g., starting too early, bad
muffler, etc.) and would institute reasonable measures to correct the problem.
Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the
construction site, and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding
construction schedule. All complaints and remedial actions shall be reported to the
City of Lodi.
Significance after Mitigation. Less -than -Significant Impact.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
111
Draft August 2004
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
J. Air Quality
J. AIR QUALITY
The following discussion is based on the Air Quality Impact Analysis prepared for the project by Donald
Ballanti in July 2004. The air quality report is contained in Appendix I of this EIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY SETTING
Air Pollution Climatology
The project is located in the San Joaquin Valley air basin, which is defined by the Sierra Nevada in the
east, the Coast Ranges in the west, and the Tehachapi mountains in the south. The surrounding
topographic features restrict air movement through and out of the basin and, as a result, impede the
dispersion of pollutants from the basin. Inversion layers are formed in the San Joaquin Valley air basin
throughout the year. (An inversion layer is created when a mass of warm dry air sits over cooler air near
the ground, preventing vertical dispersion of pollutants from the air mass below). During the summer,
the San Joaquin Valley experiences daytime temperature inversions at elevations from 2,000 to 2,500
feet above the valley floor. During the winter months, inversions occur from 500 to 1,000 feet above the
valley floor.
The climate of the project area is typical of inland valleys in California, with hot dry summers and cool,
mild winters. Daytime temperatures in the summer often exceed 100 degrees, with lows in the 60s. In
winter, daytime temperatures are usually in the 50s, with lows around 35 degrees. Radiation fog is
common in the winter, and may persist for days. Winds are predominantly up -valley (from the north-
northwest) in all seasons, but more so in the summer and spring months. Winds in the fall and winter are
generally lighter and more variable in direction.
The pollution potential of the San Joaquin Valley is very high. Surrounding elevated terrain in
conjunction with temperature inversions frequently restrict lateral and vertical dilution of pollutants.
Abundant sunshine and warm temperatures in summer are ideal conditions for the formation of
photochemical oxidant, and the Valley is frequently subject to photochemical pollution.
Ambient Air Quality Standards
The federal and California state ambient air quality standards are summarized in Table 9 for important
pollutants. The federal and state ambient standards were developed independently with differing
purposes and methods, although both processes attempted to avoid health-related effects. As a result, the
federal and state standards differ in some cases. In general, the California state standards are more
stringent. This is particularly true for ozone and PM10.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) established new national air quality standards for
ground -level ozone and for fine particulate matter in 1997. Implementation of these standards was
delayed by litigation, but they were determined to be valid and enforceable by the U. S. Supreme Court in
a decision issued in February of 2001. Complete implementation will not occur until the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has issued court -approved guidance.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
112
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
J. Air Quality
TABLE 9
FEDERAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Federal
Follutant Averaging Primary State...
Time Standard Standard
Ozone
1 -Hour
0.12 PPM
0.09 PPM
8 -Hour
0.08 PPM
--
Carbon Monoxide
8 -Hour
9.0 PPM
9.0 PPM
1 -Hour
35.0 PPM
20.0 PPM
Nitrogen Dioxide
Annual Average
0.05 PPM
--
1-Hour
--
0.25 PPM
Sulfur Dioxide
Annual Average
0.03 PPM
--
24-Hour
0.14 PPM
0.05 PPM
1 -Hour
--
0.5 PPM
PM,o
Annual Average
50 µg/m3
20 µg/m3
24 -Hour
150 µg/m3
50 µg/m3
PM2,5
Annual Average
15 µg/m3
12 µg/m3
24 -Hour
65 µg/m3
--
Lead 30 -Day Avg. -- 1.5 µg/m3
Month Avg. 1.5 µg/m3 --
Source: Donald Ballanti
PPM = Parts per Million
µg/m3 = Micrograms per Cubic Meter
The State of California regularly reviews scientific literature regarding the health effects and exposure to
PM and other pollutants. On May 3, 2002, the California Air Resources Board (GARB) staff
recommended lowering the level of the annual standard for PM10 and establishing a new annual standard
for PM2.5 (particulate matter 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller). The new standards became
effective on July 5, 2003.
In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, Toxic Air Contaminants (YACs) are another group
of pollutants of concern. Toxic Air Contaminants (YACs) are injurious in small quantities and are
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
113
Draft August 2004
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
J. Air Quality
regulated despite the absence of criteria documents. The identification, regulation and monitoring of
TACs is relatively recent compared to that for criteria pollutants.
Health Effects of Pollutants
The primary air quality problems in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (Air Basin) are ozone and
particulate matter. Carbon monoxide has been a problem in the past within the Air Basin in larger cities
such as Fresno, Bakersfield, Modesto and Stockton. The following is a discussion of the health effects of
these important pollutants.
07nnP
Ozone is produced by chemical reactions, involving nitrogen oxides (NOj and reactive organic gases
(ROG), which are triggered by sunlight. Nitrogen oxides are created during combustion of fuels, while
reactive organic gases are emitted during combustion and evaporation of organic solvents. Since ozone
is not directly emitted to the atmosphere, but is formed as a result of photochemical reactions, it is
considered a secondary pollutant. In the Air Basin, ozone is a seasonal problem, occurring roughly from
April through October.
Ozone is a strong irritant that attacks the respiratory system, leading to the damage of lung tissue.
Asthma, bronchitis and other respiratory ailments as well as cardiovascular diseases are aggravated by
exposure to ozone. A healthy person exposed to high concentrations may become nauseated or dizzy,
may develop headache or cough, or may experience a burning sensation in the chest.
Research has shown that exposure to ozone damages the alveoli (the individual air sacs in the lung where
the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide between the air and blood takes place). Research has shown
that ozone also damages vegetation.
Suspended Particulate
Particulate matter (PM) is a complex mixture of tiny particles that consists of dry solid fragments, solid
cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets of liquid. Exposure to PM aggravates a number of
respiratory illnesses and may even cause early death in people with existing heart and lung disease.
PM is a mixture of substances that include elements such as carbon and metals; compounds such as
nitrates, organic compounds, and sulfates; and complex mixtures such as diesel exhaust and soil. Some
particles are emitted directly into the atmosphere. Others, referred to as secondary particles, result from
gases that are transformed into particles through physical and chemical processes in the atmosphere.
"Inhalable" PM consists of particles less than 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter, and is defined as
"suspended particulate matter" or "PMio." PMio includes the subgroup of finer particles with
aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns and smaller (PM2.5). These finer particles pose an increased health
risk because they can deposit deep in the lung and contain substances that are particularly harmful to
human health.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
114
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
J. Air Quality
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a local pollutant in that high concentrations occur only very near the source.
CO is a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas of which the major source is automobile traffic. Elevated
concentrations, therefore, are usually only found near areas of high traffic volumes.
Carbon monoxide's health effects are related to its affinity for hemoglobin in the blood. At high
concentrations, carbon monoxide reduces the amount of oxygen in the blood, causing heart difficulties in
people with chronic diseases, reduced lung capacity and impaired mental abilities.
Carbon monoxide concentrations are highly seasonal, with the highest concentrations occurring in the
winter. This is partly due to the fact that automobiles create more carbon monoxide in colder weather
and partly due to the very stable atmospheric conditions that exist on cold winter evenings when winds
are calm. Concentrations typically are highest during stagnant air periods within the period November
through January.
Regional Air Quality Planning
The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD or Air District) shares
responsibility with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for ensuring that the State and national
ambient air quality standards are met within San Joaquin County and the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin.
State law assigns local air districts the primary responsibility for control of air pollution from stationary
source while reserving to the CARB control of mobile sources. The District is responsible for
developing regulations governing emissions of air pollution, permitting and inspecting stationary sources,
monitoring air quality, and air quality planning activities.
Federal and state air quality laws require identification of areas not meeting the ambient air quality
standards. These areas must develop regional air quality plans to eventually attain the standards. Under
both the federal and state Clean Air Acts the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is a "nonattainment area"
(standards have not been attained) for ozone and PMIo. The Air Basin is either in attainment or
unclassified for other ambient standards.
The federal ozone non -attainment designation of the air basin was officially changed from "serious" to
"severe" on December 10, 2001. Under this designation, the San Joaquin Valley air basin is required to
meet the federal ozone standards by November 15, 2005. The most recent federal ozone plan (Amended
2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan for San Joaquin Valley Ozone, December 2002) determined that it
could not be demonstrated that the federal ozone standards could be met by the required date of
November 15, 2005. In December 2003, the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
requested that the U.S.EPA downgrade the Valley's ozone status from "severe" to "extreme" non -
attainment. The downgrade would extend the deadline for meeting attainment while avoiding automatic
sanctions, but requires implementation of stricter controls on existing and future air pollutant sources.
The air basin is designated as a "serious" non -attainment area for federal PMIo ambient air quality
standards. Under this designation, the air district is required to meet the 24-hour and annual PMIo
standards by December 31, 2006. Failure to meet the attainment deadline could result in increased offset
requirements for new industrial sources and potential sanctions including withholding of federal grants
for capacity -expanding transportation projects, new transportation planning requirements and can
ultimately stop all federally funded transportation projects in the District (except safety projects).
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
115
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
J. Air Quality
The U.S. EPA has designated the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin as a non -attainment area for the federal
8 -hour ozone standard. The California Air Resources Board and U.S. EPA are both recommending that
the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin be classified non -attainment for the federal PM2.5 standard. Final
designations for the PM2.5 standard are expected by December 15, 2004.
To meet California Clean Air Act requirements, the District is currently drafting the 2003 Triennial Plan
updating the Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP) addressing the California ozone standard. The
California Legislature, when it passed the California Clean Air Act in 1988, excluded PM10 from the
basic planning requirements of the Act. The Act did require the CARB to prepare a report to the
Legislature regarding the prospect of achieving the State ambient air quality standard for PMIo. This
report did not recommend imposing a planning process similar to that for ozone or other pollutants for
achievement of the standard within a certain period of time.
Current Air Quality
The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District and California Air Resources Board
(CARB) operate air monitoring sites throughout the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The closest
monitoring sites to the project are located in Stockton about 15 miles south. There are two monitoring
sites in Stockton, one on East Mariposa which measures only ozone, and another on Hazelton Street
which monitors ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide. Table 10, on the next
page, summarizes recorded exceedances of State and Federal standards at these monitoring sites for the
period 2000-2002. Table 10 shows that the federal/state standards for ozone and particulate matter are
frequently exceeded in the project area.
Sensitive Receptors
The SJVUAPCD defines a sensitive receptor as a location where human populations, especially children,
seniors, and sick persons are present and where there is a reasonable expectation of continuous human
exposure to pollutants. Examples of sensitive receptors include residences, hospitals and schools. The
nearest sensitive receptors to the site are the residences across Lower Sacramento Road from the project
site. Existing residences are also located just west of the site on the north side of Highway 12. Other
surrounding land uses are commercial and agricultural.
General Plan
The following City of Lodi General Plan goals and policies related to air quality are relevant to the project:
Section 3. Circulation Element
Goal G: To encourage reduction in regional vehicle miles traveled.
Policy 1. The City shall promote ridesharing to reduce peak -hour traffic congestion and help reduce
regional miles traveled.
Policy 2. The City shall promote employment opportunities within Lodi to reduce commuting to areas
outside of Lodi.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
116
Draft August 2004
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
J. Air Quality
Section 7. Conservation Element
Goal F: To promote and, insofar as possible, improve air quality in Lodi and the region.
Policy 1. The City shall promote travel by bicycle and foot within Lodi.
Policy 2. The City shall promote transit for trips within Lodi and for regional trips.
Policy 5. The City shall promote employment opportunities within Lodi to reduce commuting to areas
outside Lodi.
TABLE 10
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY AT STOCKTON MONITORING SITES, 2001-2003
.77
Days Exceeding Standard in:
P0I utant
Standard
2001
2002
2003
Mariposa Monitoring Site
FEast
Ozone
State 1 -Hour
5
5
-
Federal 1 -Hour
0
0
-
Federal 1 -Hour
1
1
-
Hazelton Street Monitoring Site
Ozone
State 1 -Hour
5
2
3
Federal 1 -Hour
0
0
0
Federal 1 -Hour
1
0
1
Carbon
State and Fed. 8 -Hour
0
0
0
Monoxide
State 1 Hour
0
0
0
Nitrogen Dioxide
State 1 -Hour
0
0
0
PM10
State 24 -Hour
11
10
3
Federal 24 -Hour
0
0
0
PM2.5
Federal 24 -Hour
2
0
0
Source: Donald Ballanti.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
117
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
J. Air Quality
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
For purposes of this EIR, the project would be considered to result in a significant air quality impact if it
would:
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
• Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation.
• Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
In addition, the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District has established the following
standards of significance:
• A project results in estimated carbon monoxide concentrations exceeding the California Ambient Air
Quality Standard of 9 parts per million averaged over 8 hours and 20 ppm for 1 -hour.
A project results in new direct or indirect emissions of ozone precursors (ROG or NOX) in excess of
10 tons per year.
• Any project with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors will
be deemed to have a significant impact.
Any project with the potential to expose sensitive receptors (including residential areas) or the
general public to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants would be deemed to have a potentially
significant impact.
While San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District CEQA guidance recognizes that PMIo is
a major air quality issue in the basin, it has to date not established numerical thresholds for significance
for PMIo. For the purposes of this analysis, a PMIo emission of 15 tons per year was used as a
significance threshold. This emission is the SJVAPCD threshold level at which new stationary sources
requiring permits from the District must provide emissions "offsets". This threshold of significance for
PMIo is consistent with the District's ROG and NOX thresholds of ten tons per year, which are also offset
thresholds for stationary sources.
Despite the establishment of both federal and state standards for PM2.5, the SJVAPCD has not developed
a threshold of significance for this pollutant. For this analysis, PM2.5 impacts would be considered
significant if project emissions of PMIo exceed 15 tons per year.
SJVAPCD CEQA guidance does not recommend quantitative analysis of construction emissions. The
SJVUAPCD significance threshold for construction dust impacts is based on the appropriateness of
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
118
Draft August 2004
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
J. Air Quality
construction dust controls. If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air
pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less than significant.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact Jl. Construction Emissions. Construction and grading for the project would generate
dust and exhaust emissions that could adversely affect local and regional air quality.
(Significant Impact)
Construction within the project site would result in numerous activities that would
generate fugitive dust. Grading, earthmoving and excavation comprise the major source
of construction dust emissions, but traffic and general disturbance of the soil also
generate significant dust emissions. The fine, silty soils in the project area and often
strong afternoon winds exacerbate the potential for dust, particularly in the summer
months. Impacts would be localized and variable. Construction impacts would last for a
period of months for any given parcel. Construction dust impacts are considered to be
potentially significant on a localized basis, and could result in nuisance complaints at the
residences located downwind of the site on the east side of Lower Sacramento Road.
Construction equipment and vehicles would also generate exhaust emissions during
active construction. Although operated temporarily at construction sites, construction
equipment is a substantial source category within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin,
generating ozone precursors as well as PM10.
During construction various diesel -powered vehicles and equipment would be in use on
the site. In 1998, the California Air Resources Board identified particulate matter from
diesel -fueled engines as a toxic air contaminant (TAC). CARB has completed a risk
management process that identified potential cancer risks for a range of activities using
diesel -fueled engines. High volume freeways, stationary diesel engines, and facilities
attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic (distribution centers, truck stops, etc.)
were identified as having the highest associated risk.
Health risks from Toxic Air Contaminants are function of both concentration and
duration of exposure. Unlike the above types of sources, construction diesel emissions
are temporary, affecting an area for a period of days or perhaps weeks. Additionally,
construction related sources are mobile and transient in nature, and the bulk of the
emission occurs within the project site at a substantial distance from nearby receptors.
Because of its short duration, health risks from construction emissions of diesel
particulate would represent a less -than -significant impact.
During construction various diesel -powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site
would create odors. These odors would be temporary and unlikely to be noticeable
beyond the project boundaries.
Construction activities are also a source of organic gas emissions. Solvents in adhesives,
non-waterbase paints, thinners, some insulating materials and caulking materials would
evaporate into the atmosphere and would participate in the photochemical reaction that
creates urban ozone. Asphalt used in paving is also a source of organic gases for a short
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
119
Draft August 2004
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
J. Air Quality
time after its application. The overall air quality impact resulting from the project due to
these sources is not considered significant.
Mitigation J1. Dust control measures shall be implemented to reduce PMio emissions during grading
and construction, as required by the City of Lodi and the San Joaquin Valley Unified
Air Pollution Control District,
The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, under its Regulation VIII,
requires the following in conjunction with construction activities:
• Effective dust suppression for land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land
leveling, grading, cut and fill and demolition activities.
• Effective stabilization of all disturbed areas of a construction site, including storage
piles, not used for seven or more days.
• Control of fugitive dust from on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access
roads.
• Removal of accumulations of mud or dirt at the end of the work day or once every 24
hours from public paved roads, shoulders and access ways adjacent to the site.
Beyond the requirements of the SJVUAPCD, the following additional dust control
measures, identified in the Air District's guidelines, shall be implemented:
• Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
• Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off all trucks and equipment
leaving the site.
• Suspend excavation and grading activities when winds exceed 20 mph.
• Limit size of area subject to excavation, grading or other construction activity at any
one time to avoid excessive dust.
• Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.
• Expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at
least once every 24 hours when operations are occurring.
The following are additional appropriate mitigation measures that would reduce exhaust
emissions during construction:
• Equipment not in use for more than ten minutes should be turned off.
• Limit the hours of operation of heavy duty equipment and/or the amount of
equipment in use.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
120
Draft August 2004
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
J. Air Quality
Whenever feasible and cost effective, use electrically driven equipment (provided
they are not run via a portable generator set).
Violations of the requirements of Regulation VIII are subject to enforcement action.
Violations are indicated by the generation of visible dust clouds and/or generation of
complaints.
The City of Lodi will require that the dust control measures be included as part of the
General Notes on the project Improvement Plans, which must be approved by the City
Public works Department prior to commencement of grading. In addition, the City
requires that paving of roads and parking lots shall be completed as early as possible to
mitigate short-term dust generation during construction.
Significance after Mitigation: Less -than -Significant Impact.
Impact J2.
Carbon Monoxide Emissions. Traffic generated by the project would increase
carbon monoxide emissions at local roadways and intersections; however, the
resulting carbon monoxide concentrations would not exceed applicable thresholds.
(Less -than -Significant Impact)
On the local scale, the pollutant of greatest interest is carbon monoxide. Concentrations
of this pollutant are related to the levels of traffic and congestion along streets and at
intersections.
The SJVAPCD provides screening criteria to identify situations where carbon monoxide
modeling is warranted. If neither of the following criteria is met at intersections affected
by the project, the project is concluded to have no potential to create a violation of the
carbon monoxide standards:
The Level of Service (LOS) on one or more streets or at one or more signalized
intersections in the project vicinity will be reduced to LOS E or F, (emphasis added)
or
The project will substantially worsen an already existing LOS F on one or more
streets or at one or more signalized intersections in the project vicinity.
The transportation impact analysis conducted for the proposed project found no roads or
signalized intersections forecast to operate at LOS E or F in the project vicinity under
existing, project, or cumulative conditions. Based on the SJVAPCD criteria and the
forecast Level of Service conditions on roads and intersections affected by project and
cumulative traffic, the project would have no potential to create a violation of the carbon
monoxide standards. Any carbon monoxide concentration increases resulting from the
proposed project would be less than significant.
Mitigation. No mitigation required.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
121
Draft August 2004
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
J. Air Quality
Impact J3. Regional Air Ouality. Emissions from project -generated traffic would result in air
pollutant emissions affecting the entire air basin. (Significant Impact)
Project traffic emissions would have an effect on air quality outside the project vicinity
and would result in air pollutant emissions within the air basin. The annual increase in
regional emissions from auto travel and area sources (landscaping activities, water and
space heating, etc.) is shown in Table 11 for reactive organic gases (hydrocarbons) and
oxides of nitrogen (the two precursors of ozone), and PMIo. As shown in Table 11,
project -related emissions of all three pollutants are well above the applicable thresholds
of significance, so project impacts on regional air quality would be significant. (As
discussed under `Significance Criteria' above, since the project would result in a regional
PMIo impact, it would also result in a regional PM2.5 impact.)
TABLE 11
PROJECT REGIONAL EMISSIONS (TONS PER YEAR)
F7Reactive
Organic
Nitrogen I
Particulate
Gases'
Oxides
Matter
(ROG
NOx)
(PMo
Auto Emissions
37.12
44.33
28.03
Area Source Emissions
0.08
0.55
0.00
Totals
37.20
44.88
28.03
Significance Threshold
10.0
10.0
15.0
Mitigation B. Project design measures shall be implemented to reduce project area source
emissions, and a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan should be
implemented to reduce project traffic and resulting air emissions; however, these
measures would not reduce the impact to a less -than -significant level.
Project Design Measures
In order to reduce project area source emissions, the project design should:
• Use energy efficient design including automated control system for heating/air
conditioning and energy efficiency, utilize lighting controls and energy-efficient
lighting in buildings and use light colored roof materials to reflect heat.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
122
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
J. Air Quality
• Provide deciduous trees on the south and westerly facing sides of buildings.
• Provide low nitrogen oxide (NOx) emitting and/or high efficiency water heaters.
Reserve appropriate easements to provide for future improvements such as bus
turnouts, loading areas, and shelters.
According to the project architect, a number of energy saving measures would be
incorporated into the design of the Wal-Mart store to conserve and manage energy.
These would include the use of skylights, energy-efficient HVAC units, solar -reflective
roofing materials, and energy-efficient lighting systems, among other things.
Transportation Demand Management
The project shall be subject to a Transportation Demand Management plan to reduce
single occupant vehicle commute trips by employees and promote non -auto travel by
both employees and patrons. The plan shall include the following components:
• Designation of an on-site TSM coordinator.
Implement a carpool/vanpool program (e.g., provide carpool ridematching for
employees, assistance with vanpool formation, provision of vanpool vehicles, etc.).
• Provide lockers for employees bicycling or walking to work (in addition, the
provision of showers in the Wal-Mart store is strongly encouraged but not required.
It is further recommended that any such showers be available to employees of the
other businesses in the shopping center).
The suburban location and character of the project area limits the potential for further
reducing regional air quality impacts. Available air quality mitigation strategies for
commercial development are most effective on work trips, which comprise a very small
fraction of total project trips. Parking restrictions or fees as a means of reducing vehicle
trips are impractical unless imposed regionally.
The upper limit of trip reduction through TSM measures, under ideal conditions, is about
20 percent. For the project, where TSM effectiveness is limited by several factors, noted
above, the effectiveness of the above air quality mitigation measures in reducing daily
trips is estimated to be no more than five percent. This would not reduce the project's
regional air quality impacts to a level that is less than significant.
Significance after Mitigation. Significant and Unavoidable Impact.
Impact J4. Diesel Exhaust. The project diesel delivery trucks could result in the emission of
Toxic Air Contaminants (YACs). (Less than Significant Impact)
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
123
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
J. Air Quality
The project would generate new diesel truck trips, increasing exposure to diesel
particulate. The California Air Resources Board has identified particulate emissions
from diesel -fueled engines as a Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC).
With CARB's identification of particulate from diesel exhaust as a TAC, it was required to
determine if there is a need for further control of these emissions. CARB recently
completed a risk management process that identifies cost-effective measures available to
reduce public exposure. A ban on diesel -fueled engines is not being considered. The risk
management program proposes the three following components:
• New regulatory standards for all new on -road vehicles that will result in a 90 percent
reduction in particulate emissions from diesel vehicles.
New retrofit requirements for existing on -road vehicles where determined to be
technically feasible and cost effective; and
• New diesel fuel regulations to reduce the sulfur content as needed by advanced diesel
emissions controls.
The projected emissions benefits are reductions in diesel exhaust particulate of 75 percent
by 2010 and 85 percent by 2020.
The majority of large truck trips generated by the project would go to the Wal-Mart
loading docks on the west side of the site. A lesser number of truck trips would be
generated by the retail users on Pad 12 in the southeast corner of the site. The Wal-Mart
loading docks are at least 1,000 feet from the closest existing residential property on the
north side of Kettleman Lane and the east side of Lower Sacramento Road. The existing
residences on the east side of Lower Sacramento Road would be closer to the small
loading dock for Pad 12, but truck traffic generated by this loading dock would be
limited. Future residential development planned for lands adjacent to the west and south
of the project would not be downwind of either loading dock during prevailing westerly
wind conditions. For these reasons, the release of diesel particulate into the atmosphere
from trucks on the project site would have a less -than -significant impact on the health
risks to nearby residents.
Mitigation. No mitigation required.
Impact J5. Emissions from Automotive Products. A number of products used in automobile
maintenance and repair operations are considered hazardous materials, but none are
classified as Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs); therefore, the project will not pose a
health and safety threat from TACs. (Less -than -Significant Impact)
As discussed in Section II. K. Hazardous Materials, which follows, the auto service shop
proposed in conjunction with the Wal-Mart store will utilize petroleum-based products,
cleaning agents and other fluids, many of which are considered hazardous materials.
Three of the cleaners and solvents have been classified as Toxic Air Contaminants. In
June 2001, the State of California adopted an Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATOM)
that controls certain chlorinated compound emissions from automotive consumer
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
124
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
J. Air Quality
products used in automobile maintenance and repair activities. The ATCM prohibits the
use of perchloroethylene, methylene chloride and trichloroethylene in brake cleaners,
engine degreasers, and general purpose degreasers sold, supplied, offered for sale or
manufactured for use in California. It also prohibits the use of cleaners and solvents
containing these compounds at automobile maintenance facilities or automobile repair
facilities.
The above regulations and procedures, already established and enforced statewide,
would ensure that any potential impacts due to project use of Toxic Air Contaminants
would be reduced to a level of insignificance.
Mitigation. No mitigation required.
Impact J6. Restaurant Odors. The restaurant uses in the project could release cooking
exhausts which could result in noticeable odors beyond project boundaries.
(Significant Impact)
The proposed project includes restaurants, which are a potential source of odors.
Reaction to cooking odors varies widely with individuals. Some people find them
objectionable, while others find them pleasant. Restaurant cooking odors have, in some
instances, been the subject of complaints.
Since the nature of any restaurants and location of kitchen exhaust vents have not been
determined, it is difficult to predict whether odors from project restaurants would cause
problems. A potential for odor nuisance exists during light wind conditions. This is
considered to be a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation J6. All restaurant uses within the project shall be required, as a condition of approval,
to locate kitchen exhaust vents in accordance with accepted engineering practice
and shall install exhaust filtration systems or other accepted methods of odor
reduction.
The combination of dilution and odor removal through filtration would effectively
reduce odor strength to undetectable levels.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
125
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
K Hazardous Materials
K. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The discussion in this section is largely based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared by
Twining Laboratories in December 2003. Twining's Phase I report includes a Limited Phase II
Environmental Site Assessment for soil contamination. The Twining report is contained in Appendix J of
this EIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Phase I assessment conducted by Twining Labs consisted of the following: visual inspections of the site
and surrounding areas; reviews of historic aerial photographs and other property data sources; reviews of
existing inventories maintained by federal, state and local agencies; and interviews with owners of the
property. The limited Phase II assessment by Twining included soil sampling and testing to determine
whether agricultural chemicals previously applied on the site are present in hazardous concentrations. The
findings of the Twining reports are summarized below.
On -Site Conditions
The project site consists of vacant land in most recently cultivated for row crops such as alfalfa. A review
of historical aerial photographs indicates that the site has been agriculturally developed since at least 1953,
and the landowners indicate that the site was in agricultural use from about 1908 to 1999. No buildings are
present on the site and none were observed in any of the historical aerial photos reviewed.
The property owners indicated that there is no current or former on-site hazardous materials use, storage, or
disposal, and knew of no former above -ground or underground storage tanks, or disposal areas on the site.
There are no known areas of the site where agricultural chemicals may have been stored or formulated.
The previous agricultural operations on the site included the use of pesticides and herbicides. Soil sampling
and testing conducted by Twining Labs as part of the limited Phase II soil investigation indicated no
detectable concentrations of agricultural chemicals in the soil.
There are two electrically powered irrigation water wells on the project site, one near the southwestern
corner of the site, and the other near the northeastern corner of the site. While water wells are not an
environmental concern themselves, they can provide a conduit for contaminants to enter the groundwater.
There are two pole -mounted transformers in the southern portion of the site that are owned and operated by
PG&E. Given the age of the transformers, they have the potential to contain PCB (Polychlorinated
biphenyl). No leaks or stains were observed in connection with the transformers during Twining's site
reconnaissance. Any damage caused by leaking or damaged transformers would be the responsibility of
PG&E, which indicated that most transformers with high PCB concentrations have been serviced to reduce
PCB concentrations.
The site reconnaissance conducted by Twining Labs did not observe any other evidence of hazardous
substances or wastes, solid waste, sumps or pits, pipes of unknown origin, surface indications of
contamination (e.g., stressed vegetation, degraded pavement), or any other potential source of
contamination.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
126
Draft August 2004
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
K Hazardous Materials
The project site does not appear on any regulatory lists, records, or inventories of known contamination
sites.
Off -Site Conditions
A review of regulatory lists by Twining Labs indicated that there are two noteworthy cases of site
contamination in the project vicinity, as described below.
Beacon Service Station #696: Located at 2448 West Kettleman Lane, approximately 240 feet northeast of
the project site, this service station had soil contamination resulting from leaking underground fuel storage
tanks. The tanks were removed and the site was remediated and subject to follow-up groundwater
monitoring and soil testing, to the satisfaction of the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department
and the Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region. There is no information indicating
that the impacted groundwater from beneath the service station has migrated to or toward the project site.
Since the direction of groundwater flow is to the southeast away from the project site, the risk is low that
groundwater contamination from this source has or will migrate to the project
Sunwest Liquors: .Located at 2449 West Kettleman Lane, approximately 240 feet northeast of the project
site, soil and groundwater contamination at this former service station site was discovered during the course
of the removal of three underground gasoline storage tanks. Ongoing groundwater monitoring indicates that
the groundwater beneath the service station site is still contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons, BTEX
(benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes), and MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether). Since the
direction of groundwater flow is to the southeast away from the project site, the risk is low that groundwater
contamination from this source has or will migrate to the project.
REGULATORY SETTING
General Plan
The following City of Lodi General Plan goal and policies on hazardous materials are relevant to the
project:
Section 9. Health and Safety Element
Goal E: To protect Lodi residents from the effects of hazardous substances.
Policy 1. The City shall consider the potential for the production use, storage, and transport of hazardous
materials in approving new development and provide for reasonable controls on such hazardous
materials.
Policy 2. Within its authority, the City shall regulate the production, use, storage, and transport of
hazardous materials to protect the health of Lodi residents.
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
For purposes of this EIR, the project would be considered to have a potentially significant hazardous
materials impact if it would:
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
127
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
K Hazardous Materials
Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials.
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
• Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact K1. Existing Contaminant Sources. The PCBs in the existing transformers pose a
potential health hazard; however, the transformers would be removed from the site,
during the normal course of site development. The agricultural wells on the site could
act as conduits for groundwater contamination; however, these wells would be
properly destroyed prior to site development. (Less -than -Significant Impact)
The existing pole -mounted transformers located in the southern portion of the site would be
removed by PG&E during site development in conjunction with undergrounding of project
utilities. This will remove the potential hazard from any PCBs contained in the
transformers.
The two on-site wells will be properly destroyed in accordance with state regulations and
the permit requirements of the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department.
This will eliminate the potential for the wells to act as conduits for hazardous materials to
enter the groundwater beneath the site.
Mitigation. No mitigation required.
Impact K2. Hazardous Automotive Products. The petroleum-based products, cleaning solvents,
car batteries, and other materials routinely used in conjunction with Wal -Mart's
automotive service shop could pose a potential health and safety hazard; however,
these materials would be handled and stored in accordance with existing state law
requirements to minimize such potential impacts. (Less -than -Significant Impact)
Mitigation. No mitigation required.
Under California Health and Safety Code Section 25503.5, any activity involving the
handling of hazardous materials requires the establishment and implementation of a
Hazardous Materials Business Response Plan. This process is administered by the San
Joaquin County Environmental Health Department, and includes provisions for emergency
response planning, double containment, monitoring, and financial responsibility.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
128
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
K Hazardous Materials
Impact K3. Sale of Household Hazardous Products. Household cleaners, fertilizers, pesticides,
oil, automobile products, and other household hazardous materials would be sold by
Wal-Mart and other retailers in the project. These products would be safely
packaged to prevent harm to employees and consumers, and would be handled,
stored, and transported in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local
regulations. (Less -than -Significant Impact)
Mitigation. No mitigation required.
The City of Lodi will require submittal of a hazardous materials inventory, along with all
pertinent Material Data Safety Sheets, to the Lodi Fire Department, prior to issuance of
building permits for each retail parcel.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
129
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
L. Utilities and Service Systems
L. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
This section describes existing conditions and addresses potential impacts to water demand and sanitary
sewer service (storm drainage is discussed in Section II. D. Hydrology and Water Quality). This discussion
is largely based on discussions with the City of Lodi Public Works Department staff.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Water Supply
The project site is vacant of structures and is not currently connected to domestic water service. There
are two agricultural wells in northern and southern portions of the site which formerly provided irrigation
water for the previous agricultural operation.
The Lodi Water Utility is the sole purveyor of domestic water in the City of Lodi. The Lodi Water
Utility relies entirely on groundwater supplies pumped from 25 wells located throughout the city. Two
new municipal wells are currently planned for the southwest portion of the City to meet projected
increases in demand. One of these new wells, along with a one million gallon water storage tank, is
planned for a site on the west side of Westgate Drive near West Kettleman Lane, across from the project
site, to serve the west side of the City. The new well will be constructed in conjunction with the
Vintner's Square project and water tank will be constructed as demands dictate.
The existing water supply system in the project vicinity includes a 10 -inch main located on the east side
of Lower Sacramento Road opposite the project site, and a 10 -inch main extending east along West
Kettleman Lane from Lower Sacramento Road. In addition, a new 10 -inch main is being installed within
the right-of-way of Westgate Drive, north of Kettleman Lane, and will be extended south across
Kettleman Lane, in conjunction with the Vintner's Square project.
Wastewater Collection and Treatment
There are no septic systems on the project site and the property is not currently connected to sanitary
sewer service.
The existing City of Lodi sanitary sewer mains adjacent to the project site include a 21 -inch main in
Lower Sacramento Road, and a parallel 30 -inch industrial waste line. These mains flow south to just
past the southern project boundary where they increase in size to 48 inches and 30 inches respectively
and then head southwesterly toward the City's wastewater treatment facility. In addition, a new 24 -inch
sanitary main is being installed within the right-of-way of Westgate Drive, north of Kettleman Lane, and
will be extended south across Kettleman Lane in conjunction with the Vintner's Square project.
Wastewater treatment for the City of Lodi is provided at the White Slough Water Pollution Control
Facility (WSWPCF) located five miles southwest of the project site on the east side of I-5. The facility is
operated by the City Public Works Department and has design capacity of 8.5 million gallons per day
(mgd) and a permitted capacity of 7.0 mgd, as specified by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
According to Del Kerlin, Assistant Water and Wastewater Superintendent for the City of Lodi, the
WSWPCF currently treats wastewater flows of approximately 6.4 mgd, which represents 75 percent of
design capacity and 91 percent of permitted capacity. The remaining permitted capacity is anticipated to
accommodate urban growth in the City of Lodi for the next five years. In addition, the City is currently
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
130
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
L. Utilities and Service Systems
constructing number of improvements, to be completed in late 2004, that are intended to increase the
permitted capacity of the WSWPCF from 7.0 to 8.5 mgd, which will be adequate to treat wastewater
flows generated at General Plan buildout. The treatment facility currently meets the water quality
standards established for the Delta region by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
REGULATORY SETTING
General Plan
The following City of Lodi General Plan goal and policies on utilities and service systems are relevant to
the project.
Section 3. Land Use and Growth Management Element
Goal J: To maintain an adequate level of service in the City's water, sewer collection and disposal,
and drainage system to meet the needs of existing and projected development.
Policy 1. The City shall develop new facilities, as necessary, to serve new development in
accordance with the City's Water, Wastewater, and Drainage Master Plans.
Policy 2. The City shall assess water, wastewater, and drainage development fees on all new
residential, commercial, office, and industrial development sufficient to fund required
systemwide improvements.
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
For purposes of this EIR, the project would be considered to result in a significant impact to utilities and
service systems if it would:
Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources.
Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities or infrastructure, the construction of which could result in significant
environmental effects.
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves the project that it does
not have adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's
existing commitments.
Exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
131
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
L. Utilities and Service Systems
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact L1. Domestic Water Supply. The project would result in increased demand for domestic
water service; however, existing water resources and infrastructure are adequate to
serve the project. (Less -than -Significant Impact) ,
It is expected that the project will have a domestic water demand rate of 0.10 gallons per
square foot of floor area per day, a rate which is typically applied to commercial uses.
Exterior water demand for landscaping irrigation is estimated to be about one-half the
interior consumption rate, assuming the incorporation of water conservation measures into
landscape design, as required by the City. This irrigation rate reflects higher applications
of water needed in the first five years for the establishment of landscaping, after which
irrigation requirements would decline by 15 to 20 percent. Based on these factors, it is
estimated that the project would require approximately 32,931 gallons per day (gpd) for
interior use and about 16,466 gpd for irrigation, for a total project water demand of 49,397
gpd.
According to City Engineer Wally Sandelin, the Lodi Water Utility has sufficient
existing water supply to serve the project without adding new municipal wells or water
storage facilities. Domestic water for the project will be conveyed to the site from the
existing 10 -inch main in Lower Sacramento Road and the new 10 -inch Lodi Water Utility
main to extended south within the right-of-way of Westgate Drive in conjunction with the
project. These mains would be connected by a new 10 -inch main that would run along the
southern project boundary to complete a loop in this part of the municipal water system.
These mains would feed new water lines to be constructed throughout the project site to
provide domestic service and fire flows to individual retail pads. The final design for the
water system would be determined by the Lodi Water Utility, with input from the Lodi
Fire Department for fire service.
The existing agricultural wells on the site would be properly destroyed per the San
Joaquin County Environmental Health Department requirements prior to site preparation
and grading for development.
Based on the above discussion, existing water resources and infrastructure are adequate
to serve the project. Therefore, the project would result in a less -than -significant impact
upon water supplies and water services.
Mitigation. No mitigation required.
Impact L2. Wastewater Collection and Treatment. The project would increase the demand for
wastewater collection, treatment and disposal facilities serving the site; however,
there is sufficient capacity in the City's wastewater collection and treatment system
to serve the project without expansion of existing infrastructure. (Less -than -
Significant Impact)
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
132
Draft August 2004
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
L. Utilities and Service Systems
The wastewater generated by the project would be collected in new sewer lines to be
installed throughout the project site and conveyed to the 24 -inch sanitary main to be
extended south within the right-of-way of Westgate Drive in conjunction with the
project. This main would be extended south approximately 800 feet of the project site
along the future southerly extension of Westgate Drive to join the existing 48 -inch trunk
line carrying flows to the City's White Slough treatment facility. Until the lands crossed
by the 800 -foot connecting pipe are developed, this connecting main will consist of an 8 -
inch pipe to serve only the proposed project and other approved development. As
development to the south is approved per the City General Plan, this interim connecting
sewer will be replaced by a permanent 24 -inch main to serve adjacent development.
For purposes of estimating wastewater flows from the project, a generation rate of 0.10
gallons per square foot of building floor area was applied. This is the same rate applied
to derive interior water demand (see `Impact Ll' above). Based on this factor, the
wastewater generation for the project is estimated to average 32,931 gallons per day
(gpd). According to City Engineer Wally Sandelin, the downstream sanitary main that
would serve the project has sufficient remaining capacity to accommodate the
wastewater flows added by the project.
The wastewater flows generated by the project would represent an increment of 0.5
percent to the average daily flows currently received by the City's wastewater treatment
facility. Given that the treatment plant is currently operating at about 91 percent of
permitted capacity, it has been confirmed by Mr. Sandelin that there is sufficient
permitted treatment capacity to serve the proposed project. In addition, once the
treatment plant improvements currently underway are completed in late 2004, it is
expected that Regional Board will increase the permitted treatment flows to the 8.5 mgd
design capacity, which will be sufficient to accommodate buildout under the General
Plan.
As required of all development projects, the project would be required to pay a
wastewater capacity fee to the City of Lodi.
In summary, there is currently sufficient capacity in the City's wastewater collection and
treatment system to accommodate wastewater flows generated by project without
expansion of existing infrastructure, apart from sanitary mains to be installed to serve the
project. Therefore, the project would have a less -than -significant impact on wastewater
services.
Mitigation. No mitigation required.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
133
Draft August 2004
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
M. Public Services
M. PUBLIC SERVICES
This section describes existing conditions and addresses potential impacts to fire and police protection
services, and solid waste collection and disposal. This discussion is largely based on information obtained
from the respective service providers.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Fire Protection Services
Fire protection for the project area is provided by the City of Lodi Fire Department. The Department has
four fire stations and a staff of 59. The nearest station to the project site is Fire Station 4, located 0.8
miles north at 180 North Lower Sacramento Road. The other three stations are located at South Ham
Lane and Arundel Court in south Lodi, at East Lodi Avenue and U.S. 99 in east Lodi, and on West Elm
Street in central Lodi. The Departments response time goals are four minutes from receipt of the call and
three minutes travel time. All firefighters are licensed Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) who are
trained to provide basic emergency medical services. The City of Lodi has an Insurance Services Office
(ISO) rating of Class 3, which indicates that the Fire Department has stations strategically placed
throughout the City and has more than adequate personnel, equipment, and expertise to serve the current
population. The City has mutual aid agreements with the Delta Fire Protection District and the
Woodbridge Fire Protection District, who would respond to a call for assistance from the Lodi Fire
Department.
Police Protection Services
Law enforcement services for the project site would be provided by the City of Lodi Police Department.
The police force currently includes 78 sworn officers assigned to five police districts covering the City.
The project site is located in the Southwest Police District where one to two units are assigned on to
provide patrols around the clock. All patrol units are dispatched from police headquarters at 215 West
Elm Street in central Lodi. Responses to emergency calls are handled by officers on patrol, and the
response time for individual calls depends on the location of the patrol car and the priority of the call in
terms of threat to life or property. According to the Lodi General Plan, the response time goals for the
Police Department are three minutes for emergency calls and 40 minutes for non -emergency calls.
The California Highway Patrol (CHP) provides law enforcement and traffic safety services on State
Route 12 (West Kettleman Lane) along the north project boundary, and is available to assist the Lodi
Police Department during emergencies when requested.
The San Joaquin County Sheriffs Department provides law enforcement services to the rural and
unincorporated areas of the County, including lands to the west and south of the project site, and is
available to assist the Lodi Police Department during emergencies when requested.
Solid Waste
Solid waste collection and disposal service in Lodi is provided by Central Valley Waste Services, a
subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc. Solid waste is taken to a transfer station and then hauled by large
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
134
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
M. Public Services
transfer vehicles to the North County Landfill located eight miles east of Lodi on East Harney Lane. The
North County Landfill is a Class III facility, which is owned and by San Joaquin County and operated by
the Public Works Department, Solid Waste Division. The North County Landfill has a permitted
capacity of 825 tons per day, and receives an average of 402 tons per day. Based on projected disposal
rates, the landfill is expected to close in 2035.
Central Valley Waste Services also provides curbside recycling service for residential customers, and
will contract with commercial customers to provide recycling bins and pick-up services.
REGULATORY SETTING
General Plan
The following City of Lodi General Plan goals and policies related to public services are relevant to the
proj ect.
Section 9. Health and Safety Element
Goal C: To prevent loss of lives, injury, and property damage due to urban fires.
Policy 1. The City shall promote the installation of automatic interior sprinkler systems in all new
developments.
Policy 2. The City shall require new development to comply with minimum fire now rates
determined jointly by the City Fire Department and the Public Works Department.
Policy 7. The City shall endeavor through adequate staffing and station locations to maintain
minimum feasible response time for fire and emergency calls. The goal for travel time by
the fire department in responding to an emergency shall be 3 minutes. As areas are
developed beyond the 3 -minute standard, additional fire stations, capital equipment, and
personnel shall be provided or alternative fire protection measures shall be required.
Policy 9. The City shall require attempt to offset the need for new fire department staff and
equipment to improve fire safety by promoting the installation of built-in fire protection
equipment in all new development.
Policy 10. The City shall assess development fees on all new residential, commercial, office, and
industrial development sufficient to fund capital improvements and equipment required to
provide fire protection.
Goal D: To prevent crime and promote the personal security of Lodi residents.
Policy 1. The City shall promote the installation of security equipment aimed at crime prevention in
new development.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
135
H. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
M. Public Services
Policy 3. The City shall encourage developers to incorporate site planning and structural design
features that deter crime in new development.
Policy 4. The Lodi Police Department shall continue to participate in the development review
process to ensure that crime prevention considerations are incorporated into the design of
new development.
Policy 5. The City shall endeavor through adequate staffing and patrol arrangements to maintain
minimum feasible police response time for police calls. The goal for average response time
for emergency calls shall be 3 minutes and no longer than 40 minutes for nonemergency
calls.
Policy 7. The City shall assess development fees on all new residential, commercial, office, and
industrial development sufficient to fund capital improvements and equipment required to
provide fire protection.
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
For purposes of this EIR, the project would be considered to result in a significant public services impact if
it would:
• Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public
services:
a) Fire Protection;
b) Police Protection; or
c) Solid Waste Collection and Disposal.
• Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact M1. Fire, Police, and Solid Waste. The project would increase the need for fire and police
protection services, as well as demand for solid waste collection and disposal service;
however, these increased demands would not degrade service levels or result in the
need for new or altered facilities. (Less -than -Significant Impact)
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
136
Draft August 2004
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
M. Public Services
Fire Prntecti nn
The project would increase overall demand for fire and first -response emergency medical
services. The calls originating from the site would primarily involve suppression of
structure fires, and medical emergencies related to automobile accidents or health
conditions. The first responding units would be from Fire Station 4 on North Lower
Sacramento Road, with Station 3 on South Ham Lane providing backup. According to
Fire Chief Michael Pretz, Station 4 has adequate staff and equipment to serve the project,
and would be able to respond to emergency calls from the site within the three-minute
travel -time goal of the Department. In addition, Chief Pretz indicated that providing fire
service to the project would not compromise the Department's ability to provide
adequate services to other parts the City within its response time goals, and therefore
would not cause the City's ISO rating of Class 3 to be downgraded to Class 4. In
addition, the City assesses development impact fees on all new commercial development
projects to fund capital improvements and equipment required to maintain an adequate
level of fire protection and emergency services.
The project would be constructed in accordance with the fire protection requirements of
the Uniform Building Code and the City of Lodi Fire Code. These codes require that the
shopping center be designed and built to include fire alarms, sprinklers, extinguishers,
hydrants, adequate water supply, fire walls, and other fire protection measures. The Fire
Department and the Building Division would review the project site plan and building
plans to ensure compliance with all code requirements.
City Engineer Wally Sandelin indicated that Lodi Water Utility's current water system
can provide sufficient volume and pressure for fire suppression at the project from the
existing main in Lower Sacramento Road.
The Lodi Fire Department is also responsible for emergency preparedness planning in
the event of a disaster such as an earthquake, dam failure, major flood, and the like.
Chief Pretz indicated that the project would not impair the implementation of, or
physically interfere with emergency response or evacuation in the area. Since the City of
Lodi has many escape routes leading to the surrounding countryside, the proposed
project is not considered to pose a potential impediment to evacuation.
Police Protection
The proposed project would result in an increased demand for police services. The most
frequent incidents requiring police involvement would likely be traffic violations, thefts,
vandalism, loitering, and assaults.
According to Police Captain David Main, the Lodi Police Department and the Southwest
Police District have adequate staff and equipment to respond to emergency calls
generated at the project. In addition, Captain Main indicated that the project would not
compromise the Police Department's ability to respond to emergency calls in other parts
of the City.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
137
Draft August 2004
II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
M. Public Services
The Police Department would also be involved in development review process for the
project to ensure that crime prevention measures are included in the project design.
These measures may include security alarms, surveillance equipment, security guards,
adequate lighting for parking lots and walkways, and landscaping and building design to
eliminate potential crime areas. In addition, the City assesses development impact fees
on all new commercial development projects to fund capital improvements and
equipment required to maintain an adequate level of police services.
�nlir� WaCtP.
The amount of solid waste generated by the project would vary by individual retail
tenant and type of business involved. However, a general estimate can be made based on
solid waste generation data compiled by the California Integrated Waste Management
Board. The rates cited that are applicable to the project include: department store — 3.12
lb/ 100 square feet per day; shopping center — 2.5 lb/ 100 square feet per day, and;
supermarket — 3.12 lb/ 100 square feet per day. By conservatively applying the higher
3.12 lb rate to the total project floor area, it is estimated that the project would generate
approximately 10,608 lbs (or 5.3 tons) of solid waste per day. Assuming that all of this
waste was to be landfilled, this amount would represent approximately one percent of the
average 402 tons of solid waste received daily by the North County Landfill. With the
addition of solid waste from the project, the landfill would remain well within its
permitted capacity of 825 tons per day. The incremental waste contributed by the project
would not appreciably shorten the remaining life of the landfill. Moreover, a substantial
portion of the solid waste generated by the project is expected to be diverted from the
waste stream through recycling, so the project contribution to the landfill would be lower
than the above estimate. Although the additional solid waste generated by the project
would increase demand for disposal, according to the Public Works Department the
project would not have a significant impact on remaining landfill capacity.
It is expected that the project tenants will contract with Central Valley Waste Services to
provide recycling bins and pickup service, and that the individual retail buildings will be
designed with sufficient space for recycling bins as well as trash bins. (It is anticipated
that the City of Lodi will require these provisions as conditions of project approval.) It is
expected that the waste oil generated by the Wal-Mart auto service shop would be stored
on-site and regularly pumped out by a commercial collection and disposal service.
Solid waste and recycling pickup service to the project would be readily added to the
existing commercial collection route serving the existing shopping centers in the
immediate vicinity. The project itself is not likely to result in the need for Central Valley
Waste Services to expand its staff and equipment. The addition of staff and equipment
would occur incrementally as needed and would be fully financed from fees generated by
new commercial customers. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant
impact to the solid waste collection and disposal service provider.
Mitigation. No mitigation required.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
138
III. Cumulative Impacts
III. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21083(b) requires that a project be identified as
having a significant impact if its possible effects "...are individually limited but cumulatively considerable."
The CEQA Guidelines Section 15355(b) states: "Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental
effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects..."
The discussion of cumulative impacts may consist of either: "(A) A list of past, present or reasonably
anticipated future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including those projects outside the
control of the agency, or (B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related
planning document which is designed to evaluate regional or areawide conditions." (CEQA Guidelines
§15130(b).)
The proposed action consists of a Use Permit and related discretionary actions such as Site Plan and
Architectural Review, Tentative and Final Map approval, Improvement Plan approvals, and building
permits. Since the project does not involve a General Plan Amendment, the cumulative impact analysis
should appropriately use the list approach to evaluate the cumulative effects of project construction. The
City of Lodi has identified the projects which have been approved but not yet constructed, for use in the
cumulative impact analysis. These cumulative projects, which include a broad range of residential,
commercial, and public facility projects, are listed in Table 12 on the next page. Table 12 does not include
residential subdivisions in far flung areas of the City which are almost built out and have only a few
undeveloped lots remaining.
In addition to the approved projects listed in Table 12, a major annexation application has been filed with
the City for an approximately 320 -acre area adjacent to the project site on the south and west. Known as the
Southwest Gateway Annexation, this area extends west one-half mile from Lower Sacramento Road and
south from West Kettleman Lane to Harney Lane. The proposed annexation area includes a 48 -acre
unincorporated County area on the east side of Lower Sacramento Road, including the existing dwellings on
both sides of Olive Avenue opposite the proposed project site. This area is included for annexation to avoid
the unlawful creation of an unincorporated County island within the City of Lodi. Although no formal
development application has been submitted for any portion of the annexation area, the City General Plan
designates the lands for residential uses at a variety of building densities. A total of up to 1,600 dwelling
units could ultimately be constructed in this area; however, any proposed development would be subject to
the City's Growth Management Plan for Residential Development which limits the number of residential
building permits issued City-wide to about 300 annually. Although no development applications have been
submitted for the annexation area, the general development of this area for residential uses is "reasonably
anticipated future project." As such, the cumulative effects of this development are considered in the
following discussion.
According to City staff, there are no other currently pending applications for development projects that
would warrant inclusion in the cumulative impact analysis. Likewise, there are no projects outside the
control of the City of Lodi, i.e., unincorporated San Joaquin County, which could contribute to a
considerable cumulative project effect.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
139
III. Cumulative Impacts
TABLE 12
LIST OF APPROVED DEVELOPMENTS
..........
Pt: N: ;
Location
ize/Land Ilse
Lodi Storage
Lodi Avenue, west of Lower Sacramento Road
78,345 s.f. mini -storage units
Mills Avenue Medical Offices
Mills Avenue, north of Kettleman Lane
45,000 s.f. medical office
Target Expansion
Kettleman Lane, east of Lower Sacramento Rd
2,741 s.f. shopping center
Tienda Public School
Tienda Drive, west of Mills Avenue
75 students
Sunwest Professional Center
Kettleman Lane, west of Mills Avenue
7,200 s.f. professional office
Westgate Plaza Expansion
Lower Sacramento Road, south of Lodi Avenue
27,200 shopping center
Bezug Lane Properties
Tienda Drive, west of Lakeshore Drive
7 residential units
Century Meadows One, Unit 2
Harney Lane, east of Mills Avenue
55 residential units
Century Meadows One, Unit 3
Harney Lane, east of Mills Avenue
74 residential units
Century Meadows Two, Unit 4
Harney Lane, east of Mills Avenue
60 residential units
Kirst Estates Unit No. 5
Harney Lane, west of Mills Avenue
6 residential units
Lalazar Estates
Lakeshore Drive, south of Kettleman Lane
9 residential units
Legacy Estates Subdivisions
Harney Lane, west of Mills Avenue
217 residential units
Mills Avenue Townhomes
Mills Avenue, south of Kettleman Lane
12 residential units
Millsbridge II
Tienda Drive, west of Lakeshore Drive
27 residential units
Sasaki Property
Tienda Drive, west of Lakeshore Drive
2 residential units (duplex)
Sunwest Cottages
Tienda Drive, west of Mills Avenue
9 apartment units
The Villas
Harney Lane, west of Highway 99 Frontage
Road
80 residential units
Vintner's Square
q
Northwest corner of Lower Sacramento Road
and Kettleman Lane
217,000 s.f. shopping center
Source: City of Lodi, May 2004.
Discussion of Cumulative Impacts
Land Use and Planning: In terms of land use compatibility and compliance with General Plan and zoning,
the proposed project and each of the cumulative projects are subject to the City's development review
process through which significant land use impacts would be reduced to less -than -significant levels.
Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to a cumulative land use impact in terms of land use
compatibility and compliance with General Plan and zoning.
In terms potential to result in socioeconomic impacts which in turn would result in an indirect land use
impact such as physical deterioration or blight, it was determined in Section II. A. Land Use and Planning
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
140
Draft August 2004
III. Cumulative Impacts
that the proposed project would result in no such impact. The, potential for a cumulatively substantial
socioeconomic effect and consequent indirect physical impact to occur would primarily depend on the
whether the other pending projects include retailers which would magnify or compound the competitive
effect of the project in any retail category. Apart from Vintner's Square, the total retail floor area included
in the cumulative projects is approximately 30,000 square feet, which is a relatively small number. The
Vintner's Square project includes an approximately 167,000 square -foot Lowe's home improvement center
and about 50,000 square feet of other retail uses, including fast-food restaurants. However, neither of the
major retail categories in the proposed project, e.g., general merchandise and groceries, are represented in
the other cumulative projects, including Vintner's Square, with the exception of minor expansions such as
the 2,700 square -foot addition proposed for the nearby Target store. Therefore, it is unlikely that the
combined effect of the project and the cumulative development would result in any business closures or
building vacancies, much less physical deterioration of property, or blight. Therefore, the project would not
contribute to a cumulatively considerable indirect physical effect.
Agricultural Resources: Since much of the vacant land in the Lodi planning area is prime farmland, the
development of some of the larger pending and approved projects, including the Southwest Gateway
Annexation area, would involve significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources. The
incremental loss of prime farmland at the project site would contribute to this impact which would be
cumulatively considerable.
Since several of these projects are located at the leading edge of Lodi's urban growth, new
urban/agricultural conflicts may be created at the urban/rural interface. These effects are considered to be
largely mitigated on a case-by-case basis by the City requirement that the effects of agricultural operations
be disclosed to buyers of property or applicants for building permits in the vicinity of agricultural
operations. In summary, the cumulative effects of urban/agricultural conflicts are not considered to be
cumulatively considerable, and the project would not contribute to such impacts.
Geology and Soils: Seismic hazards and adverse soil conditions are mitigated at the project -specific level
through building code requirements and design recommendations of geotechnical engineers. While these
measures would not completely avoid the potential for seismic damage, they would reduce the impact to
less -than -significant levels at both the project level and the cumulative level. The addition of the less -than -
significant geologic impacts associated with the project would therefore not contribute to a cumulative
considerable geologic impact.
Hydrology and Water Quality: The collective increases in runoff from the development of the cumulative
projects will be accommodated by existing stormwater basins in the City or through the construction of new
ponding basins by the City and/or individual private development, as appropriate. Since the effects of
increased storm runoff will be mitigated on a project -specific basis, the cumulative flooding impacts will not
be considerable. The addition of incremental runoff from the project site likewise would be accommodated
by a planned temporary stormwater basin in order to prevent increased flooding downstream. Thus the
cumulative drainage and flooding effects of the project and other cumulative projects in the City would be
mitigated to less -than -significant levels. Likewise, the potential water quality impacts resulting from soils
erosion and urban pollutants would be mitigated on a project -specific basis for all cumulative projects, as
required by the City and water agencies, and thus the cumulative water quality impacts would not be
considerable. Therefore, the addition of the less -than -significant water quality impacts resulting from the
project would not contribute to a cumulative impact.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
141
III. Cumulative Impacts
Biological Resources: It is expected that any impacts of the cumulative projects on wetlands, riparian
habitat, and mature trees will be mitigated on a project -specific basis, and that the combined effects of any
remaining residual impact to these biological resources will not be cumulatively considerable. The project
will have a less -than -significant impact on these resources, and therefore would not contribute to any
cumulative effect. The project and the larger cumulative projects, including future development of the
Southwest Gateway Annexation area, would have an adverse effect on habitat for protected species such as
Swainson's hawk. This potential impact will be mitigated on a regional basis through the implementation of
the San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), which
provides for the payment of mitigation fees by development projects toward the acquisition and protection
of habitat elsewhere in the County. As such, potential impacts associated with the project and the
cumulative projects would be reduced to the less -than -significant levels on a project -specific basis through
this mitigation program, and therefore the collective effect would not be cumulatively considerable.
Cultural Resources: The City of Lodi has a relatively low sensitivity for archaeological and paleontological
resources. Potential impacts to cultural resources resulting from development pf the cumulative projects
would be largely mitigated or avoided at the project level by feasible mitigations. The proposed project
would avoid impacts to historic resources and would fully mitigate any impacts to previously undiscovered
archaeological and paleontological resources. Therefore, the project would not contribute to cumulative
impacts to cultural resources.
Aesthetics: Development of the cumulative projects would result in visual changes to the settings of most
of the project sites. However, no recognized scenic resources would be adversely affected. Additionally,
any negative aesthetic effects resulting from the design of individual projects would be mitigated on a case-
by-case basis through the City's site plan and architectural review process. Therefore, the combined visual
effect associated with development of the cumulative projects would not be considerable. As discussed in
Section II. G. Aesthetics, the proposed project would not result in a significant visual impact. Therefore,
project would not contribute to a cumulative visual impact.
Traffic and Circulation: As discussed in Section II. H. Traffic and Circulation, the traffic generated by
approved but not yet constructed projects (as listed on Table 12) are included in the background or Near
Term condition for evaluation of project impacts. Probable future projects, such as development of the
Southwest Gateway Annexation area, are included in the General Plan buildout, or "cumulative" traffic
analysis. Under both scenarios, no level of service impacts were identified for any intersections subject to
project traffic, with the exception of the Lower Sacramento Road/Harney Lane intersection located south of
the proposed project in the unincorporated County area. This intersection is currently operating at LOS F
conditions, and project and cumulative traffic would exacerbate this condition. However, improvements are
planned to this intersection which would result in acceptable LOS C conditions. The proposed project and
other cumulative projects in the vicinity, including developments within the Southwest Gateway Annexation
area, would be required to contribute their fair share to the cost of these improvements. After installation of
the improvements, the cumulative traffic impacts would not be considerable, and the project contribution
would likewise not be significant.
Noise: Since the effects of noise are highly localized, cumulative noise impacts could occur if there other
projects in the immediate vicinity of the project which collectively result in increases in ambient noise
levels. In this case, the proposed project and the Vintner's Square project across West Kettleman Lane
would both generate substantial traffic which would increase noise levels on nearby streets and roadways.
As discussed in Section II. K Noise, since a change in community noise level of less than 3 dB CNEL is
normally not perceptible to human hearing, an increase of at least this amount is required to constitute a
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
142
III. Cumulative Impacts
significant noise impact. The traffic from both the proposed project and the Vintner's Square project would
result in a noise level increase of well under 1 dB for each project along the adjacent and nearby segments
of West Kettleman Lane and Lower Sacramento Road. (A 3 dBA increase in noise levels generally results
from a doubling of traffic volume. ) The added effects of traffic from other cumulative projects in the
vicinity would be negligible since these projects are relatively small in size and would not contribute
substantial traffic in relation to existing volumes on these roadways. Therefore, the cumulative noise
increase on the nearby roadways would likely be in the range of 1 dB, and certainly no more than 2 dB,
which would fall below the 3 dB increase required for a significant noise impact. Noise report in Appendix
I indicates that even with traffic volumes associated with General Plan buildout, noise levels would increase
by about 2 dBA on the nearby roadway segments of West Kettleman Lane, and about 1 dBA on the nearby
roadway segments of Lower Sacramento Road. Therefore, even with the addition of the future buildout of
the Southwest Gateway Annexation area, which is included in the noise evaluation of General Plan
buildout, a cumulatively considerable noise impact would not occur. Therefore, the cumulative noise
impact would not be substantial, and the project contribution likewise would be insignificant.
Air Quality: As discussed in Section II. J. Air Quality, the project itself would result in significant regional
air quality impacts due to substantial emissions of ozone precursors and particulate matter. Since these
emissions cannot be feasibly reduced to less -than -significant levels, this would represent a significant and
unavoidable impact of the project. For the cumulative projects, it is unlikely that any of the individual
projects (with the exception of the Vintner's Square project and the future buildout of the Southwest
Annexation Area) would result in a significant regional air quality impact on a project -specific basis.
However, the combined emissions of the cumulative projects would be cumulatively considerable. This
cumulative effect would be somewhat offset by stricter emissions standards, reformulated fuels and
improved fuel efficiency, which would eventually result in lower overall levels of air pollution. However,
until these measures take effect and substantially reduce emissions over time, the combined emissions of the
project and other pending and approved projects, would result in a cumulatively significant and unavoidable
impact to air quality. During their construction phases, the cumulative projects would generate dust,
although these effects are generally localized and would be largely suppressed through required dust
abatement measures. There could be a concern with dust emissions if two large adjacent projects, such as
the Vintner's Square project and the proposed project, were to undergo site grading at the same time;
however, the Vintner's Square project will likely be largely completed and operational before grading at the
proposed project site would commence. Therefore, cumulative dust emissions would not be considerable,
and project would contribute to a cumulative dust impact.
Hazardous Materials: Some of the cumulative project sites may contain residual contamination from
previous land uses such as agricultural operations. However, site assessments required for each project site
would identify remediation requirements to be implemented prior to construction, which would reduce the
individual project impacts to less -than -significant levels. Any development that would involve storage and
handling of significant quantities of hazardous materials would be subject to strict controls under state,
federal law, and local regulations. Therefore, the potential for unauthorized releases of hazardous materials
resulting from development of the cumulative projects would be low and would not be cumulatively
considerable. The project site is not subject to known sources of contamination, and would be subject to
strict regulatory control of hazardous materials used in Wal -Mart's auto service shop. Therefore, the project
would not contribute to a cumulative hazardous materials impact.
Utilities and Service Systems: There is sufficient wastewater collection and treatment capacity available to
serve the needs of all of the approved and pending cumulative projects, although development of the
Southwest Gateway Annexation area would likely require completion of treatment plant improvements,
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
143
III. Cumulative Impacts
currently under construction, which would increase the permitted treatment capacity of the City's White
Slough treatment facility. However, the increase in permitted capacity is likely to be approved by the
Regional Board prior to development of the Southwest Annexation Area. Water supply infrastructure such
as wells and storage facilities would be added as needed in conjunction with cumulative growth. Thus
collective service demands of the cumulative projects would not result in cumulatively considerable effects
to these services. The minor service demands resulting from the project would not contribute to a
cumulative impact to utilities and service systems.
Public Services: Added demands placed by the approved and pending cumulative development on fire and
police protection services, as well as solid waste collection and disposal services, would be accommodated
by incremental increases in service capacity. These improvements would be funded through development
fees and property and/or sales taxes revenue generated by the cumulative developments, or through user fees
in the case of solid waste service. For the full development of the Southwest Gateway Annexation Area, it
is possible that some physical improvements to service facilities, such as construction of a new fire station,
may be required. However, any such physical improvements would be sub j ect to environmental review
which would ensure that potential impacts are avoided or fully mitigated. Thus it is not expected that the
project, combined with other approved, pending, and probable future developments, would have a
cumulatively considerable effect on public services. The minor demand for public services generated by the
project would not contribute to a cumulative impact to public services.
In summary, the development of the identified approved, pending, and probable future projects, in addition
to development of the proposed project, would result in cumulatively significant impacts to agricultural
resources and regional air quality. Since these impacts cannot be feasibly mitigated to less -than -significant
levels, these effects would represent significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
144
IV. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. OVERVIEW
The CEQA Guidelines, at § 15126.6(A), stipulate the following with respect to consideration and evaluation
of project alternatives:
An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the
project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits
of the alternatives.
This chapter includes the following discussions related to project alternatives: the factors applied in
selecting alternatives for evaluation; identification of the alternatives considered for evaluation and
discussion of the rationale for including or not including them in the detailed alternatives analysis; and
description and evaluation of the environmental impacts associated with the selected project alternatives,
including discussion of the ability of each alternative to meet the project objectives. The discussion of
individual alternatives is followed by a summary discussion which compares the relative impacts of each
alternative to those of the project, and identifies the environmentally superior alternative as required by
CEQA.
B. SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES TO BE EVALUATED
Factors Applied in the Selection of Project Alternatives
The CEQA Guidelines state that an EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives
to be discussed, should identify the alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were
rejected as infeasible, and should briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency's determination
(CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(c)).
The alternatives addressed in this EIR were selected in consideration of one or more of the following
factors:
• The extent to which the alternative would accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project
(see Section I. C. Project Objectives).
• The extent to which the alternative would avoid or lessen any of the identified significant effects
of the project.
• The feasibility of the alternative, taking into account site suitability and parcel size, and
consistency with applicable public plans, polices, and regulations.
• The appropriateness of the alternative in contributing to a "reasonable range" of alternatives
necessary to permit a reasoned choice; and
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
145
IV. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Range of Alternatives Considered
The following is a brief description of project alternatives considered, along with the rationale for
including or not including each for further evaluation.
No Project Alternative
The CEQA guidelines require evaluation of the "no project" alternative in order "to allow
decisionmakers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not
approving the proposed project" (CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e)). Therefore, detailed evaluation of the
"no project" alternative is included in the analysis.
Alternative Land Use
Alternative land uses that could be considered for the project site might include business park/office
commercial or residential development. The General Plan designation of "NCC
Neighborhood/Community Commercial" would not permit business park/general office development but
would permit multifamily residential development. However, the project site lies within the "C -S
Commercial Shopping" zoning district, the stated purpose of which is "...to permit the development of
commercial shopping facilities in locations outside the central business district." Residential
development is specifically prohibited in this zoning district. Therefore, no land uses other than
shopping center would meet the selection factor of consistency with local plans, policies, and regulations.
As such, alternative land uses for the project site were not considered for further evaluation in the
alternatives analysis.
Reduced Density Alternative
Project alternatives which consider the reduction of project density are often included in alternatives
analyses as a means of reducing impacts such as traffic to less -than -significant levels. Such alternatives
are typically considered for higher density residential projects where the reduced density alternative
would provide a meaningful alternative for comparison. For residential development, a given land area
can be considered for a lower intensity of development since housing types are available for feasible
development at low, medium or high housing densities. However, retail shopping center development
lacks the flexibility of residential development and is limited to a narrow range of building types and
intensities. In suburban settings such as in Lodi, feasible retail shopping center development is limited to
single -story construction, and building coverages are effectively limited to about 25 percent of site area,
as dictated by parking, circulation, and landscaping requirements. (It should be noted that the
development intensity reflected in the project is consistent with General Plan limits on Floor Area Ratio,
and with zoning limits on building coverage.) To represent a meaningful alternative under CEQA, the
development intensity would need to be substantially reduced from that proposed. A project alternative
with a distinctly lower building intensity would have substantially reduced floor area and parking, and
substantially increased landscaped areas. However, such a reduced intensity retail shopping center
would not be economically feasible and would not be developed. Moreover, even an alternative
reflecting half the development intensity of the project would not reduce the two significant unmitigated
impacts of the project (e.g., agricultural resources and regional air quality) to less -than -significant levels.
In terms of land use planning, this alternative represents an inefficient use of land and would not
diminish the overall demand for commercial retail space but would merely shift the development
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
146
IV. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
pressure to other lands. This alternative would also be inconsistent with City policies which promote
compact and efficient development patterns, particularly in order to minimize conversion of agricultural
land and to make most efficient use of the City's capital investments in urban infrastructure. Therefore, a
project alternative reflecting a reduction in development intensity was not given further consideration.
Reduced Proi ect Size
In general, the only feasible way to reduce the intensity of shopping center development is to reduce the
acreage of the development area. In this case, the consideration of such an alternative may indicate a
reduction in the level of impacts, albeit not to less -than -significant levels, but would ultimately be
illusory since it would ignore the remaining acreage on the property which can still developed for
shopping center land use under the applicable General Plan designation and zoning district. In addition,
for a shopping center with a major anchor tenant, such as the proposed project, the potential reduction of
acreage would be limited due to the minimum development area required for feasible development. As
stated in Section I. C. Project Objectives, a minimum site size of approximately 30 net acres would be
required for feasibility of the proposed project. The net development area of the proposed project is
about 33 acres. An alternative consisting of a reduced project size with only three fewer acres, or 90
percent of the proposed site area, would not represent a meaningful alternative under CEQA since it
would not result in a substantial reduction or avoidance of significant impacts. Therefore, a reduced
project size alternative was not selected for further consideration.
Nevertheless, in order to present an alternative that would allow comparison of the project with a lower
level of development, the Reduced Project Size alternative was selected for further evaluation. This
alternative is described in greater detail under `Reduce Project Size Alternative' below.
Alternative Proi ect Location
As noted under `Overview' above, CEQA requires the consideration of alternatives to the location of a
project. Regarding alternative locations, Section 15126.6(f)(2)(A) of the CEQA Guidelines states:
"The key question and first step in the analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project
would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations
that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be
considered for inclusion in the EIR."
In considering alternative locations for the proposed project, the initial task was to identify any suitably
sized parcels which have the appropriate General Plan designation for shopping center development.
According to the City staff, the largest undeveloped parcel where shopping center development would be
permitted is an approximately 23 -acre site (with a net developable area of about 20 acres) located on the
east side of the City. Since this property would not meet the minimum site area of 30 net acres required
for project feasibility, it would not meet one of the basic project objectives, as set forth in Section 1. C of
this EIR. (Additionally, this site also consists of prime farmland, and even a 20 -acre shopping center
would result in significant and unavoidable regional air quality impacts. Therefore, apart from not
meeting the minimum project area requirement, this site would not avoid either of the two significant and
unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed project site.) As such, it was concluded that there are
no suitable or feasible alternative locations for the proposed project within the Lodi planning area.
Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(f)(2)B), no analysis of alternative locations is required if no
feasible alternative locations exist.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
147
IV. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Nevertheless, in order to present an alternative which would allow a comparison of locations, an
alternative project site was identified in the unincorporated area of San Joaquin County which would
meet most of the basic objectives of the project. The selected site consists of approximately 36 gross
acres in the northeast quadrant of Highway 12 and Thornton Road, just east of I-5. This alternative
location is described and evaluated in greater detail under `Alternative Project Location' below.
Summary
Based on the above preliminary evaluation of potential project alternatives, the following alternatives
were selected for further discussion and analysis:
1. No project alternative;
2. Reduce Project Size alternative;
3. Alternative Project Location (northeast quadrant of Highway 12 and Thornton Road)
These alternatives to the proposed project are described and evaluated in turn below.
C. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
The CEQA Guidelines state: "[t]he `no project' analysis shall discuss existing conditions...as well as
what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved..."
(Section 15126.6(e)(2)) (emphasis added). This section would require the discussion of two `no project'
alternatives: the `no build' alternative and the `reasonably foreseeable development' alternative, in cases
where these are not the same scenario. In this case, if the proposed project were not to move forward, it
is unlikely that any other form of development would occur here. This is due to the strong land use
policies and controls in place which restrict the permitted land uses to retail shopping center
development. Therefore, in this case both the `no development' and the `reasonably foreseeable
development' variants of the `no project' alternative are actually the same scenario, i.e., the no build
scenario.
The No Project alternative consists of not building on the project site and possibly resuming agricultural
cultivation of the property for oats, hay, or row crops. The potential impacts of this alternative are discussed
below, relative to the impacts associated with the proposed project.
Land Use and Planning: There would be no change in land use under the No Project alternative, and the
conversion of the site to urban uses would not occur. Although the proposed project would not result in
significant land use impacts, the No Project alternative would result in no impact.
Agricultural Resources: The No Project alternative would avoid the conversion of the prime farmland of
the project site to urban uses, which is a significant unavoidable impact of the proposed project.
Geology and Soils: Under the No Project alternative, the exposure to potential geologic and soils impacts
associated with the proposed project, while not significant, would be avoided.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
148
IV. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Hydrology and Water Quality: There would be no increase in storm runoff under the No Project alternative,
and the erosion impacts and potential for nonpoint pollution of surface water from urban pollutants would
be avoided. While these impacts are fully mitigated under the proposed project, they are completely
avoided under the No Project alternative.
Bioloizical Resources: The No Project alternative would avoid potential biological impacts associated with
project development, such as removal of foraging habitat for protected species such as Swainson's hawk.
While such impacts would be fully mitigated under the proposed project, they would be completely avoided
under the No Project alternative.
Cultural Resources: Since there are no known historic, archaeological or paleontological resources present
on the site, there would be no impacts to cultural resources associated with the proposed project. Although
the potential always exists that previously unknown cultural resources could be encountered during project
development, any such impacts would be mitigated through implementation of standard contingent
mitigations. Under the No Project alternative, the potential impacts to cultural resources would be avoided.
Aesthetics: Under the No Project alternative, there would be no visual change to the site. The proposed
project would change the character of the site from rural to urban, although the implementation of the City's
Design Standards for Large Retail Establishments, as well as the City's Site Plan and Architectural Review
process would ensure that any aesthetic impacts of the project would be less than significant. While the
visual impacts of the project would not be significant, the No Project alternative would avoid visual changes
to the site altogether.
Traffic and Circulation: The No Project alternative would result in no change in the very low levels of
traffic generated at the site under current conditions. The proposed project would generate substantial
traffic volumes along roadways in the vicinity. Although the impacts of the project -generated traffic would
be mitigated by improvements to the transportation network, the additional traffic would still represent a
substantial difference from the No Project alternative.
Noise: The No Project alternative would generate no detectable traffic noise although noise would
occasionally be produced by cultivation, harvesting and other agricultural activities. Although the proposed
project would result in increased traffic noise, the resulting noise levels would not represent a noticeable
increase over existing noise levels on the nearby roadways. Noise generated by on-site project activities
would be less -than -significant for most noise sources, and would be mitigated to less -than -significant levels
for potentially significant noise sources. Although the project would result in some noise generation, albeit
not significant, the No Project alternative would result in generally lower noise levels.
Air ualt: Assuming the project site would be returned to agricultural use under the No Project
alternative, some dust generation and emission of engine exhaust from farm machinery would occur under
this no build scenario. The emissions associated with the proposed project would be substantially greater,
and would exceed applicable standards for ozone precursors and particulate matter. This is a significant and
unavoidable air quality impact of the project that would be avoided under the No Project alternative.
Hazardous Materials: Since there are no known contaminant sources on the project site, there would be no
impacts from hazardous materials associated with either the No Project alternative or the proposed project.
The auto service shop proposed for the Wal-Mart store would involve the use of hazardous petroleum
products and solvents, although these would all be handled and disposed of in accordance with applicable
regulations. Under the No Project alternative, the use of such materials would be avoided altogether.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
149
IV. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Utilities and Service Systems: As a commercial development, the project would not be a heavy water user.
Water demand for the project is estimated to be approximately 1.5 acre-feet per acre per year, compared
with 1 or 2 acre-feet per acre per year for irrigation of hay or oat crops. Although the project would require
about the same water supply as the No Project alternative, direct comparison is tenuous since water supplies
for urban users are typically pumped from deep aquifers, while agricultural wells tend to draw from the
shallower aquifers. Since project water demand can be readily accommodated by the Lodi Water Utility,
there would be no water supply impacts associated with the project. Thus there would not be a significant
difference in impact between the proposed project and the No Project alternative in terms of water supply.
Under the No Project alternative, there would be no demand for wastewater collection and disposal. Under
the proposed project, the retail stores would be relatively low wastewater generators and would not result in
significant impacts to the City's sanitary sewer system or wastewater treatment facilities.
Public Services: The increased demand for fire protection, police service, and solid waste collection and
disposal service would not be significant for the proposed project, but would be avoided under the No
Project alternative.
In summary, the No Project alternative would avoid some of the significant unmitigable effects of the
proposed project, such as conversion of prime farmland and regional air quality impacts. For all other areas
of concern, the differences in impacts between the No Project alternative and the proposed project would
not be significant because the project impacts could be reduced to less -than -significant levels through
feasible mitigation measures. On balance, the No Project alternative would be superior to the proposed
project because it would not result in the significant unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources and air
quality which are associated with the proposed project, and because it would result in little or no impact in
the other impact categories. The No Project alternative was not selected by the applicant because it would
not fulfill the project objective of developing the site with a regional shopping center in conformance with
applicable General Plan policies and zoning and regulations. Nor would it fulfill the City's objective of
enhancing its fiscal resources through sales tax and property tax revenues that would be generated by the
project, or the objectives of creating new jobs or reversing retail sales leakage.
D. REDUCED PROJECT SIZE ALTERNATIVE
This alternative would consist of a substantially reduced project site of approximately 24 acres, including
about 22 gross acres for retail development and 2 acres for the stormwater basin. This would represent
approximately 60 percent of the proposed project size of 40 acres. Although this reduced project size would
not meet the stated objective of the applicant for a minimum 30 -acre project size, it is assumed for purposes
of this analysis that the proposed Wal-Mart supercenter could be constructed on a site of this size.
However, none of the other retail pads proposed for the project would be included in this alternative. It is
further assumed that the reduced project site would consist of a roughly square parcel (measuring
approximately 1,000 feet square) at the intersection of Kettleman Lane and Lower Sacramento Road.
The impacts associated with development of the Reduced Project Size alternative are discussed below and
compared to the impacts of project development at the proposed location.
Land Use and Planning: Since the Reduced Project Size alternative would include the same land use as the
proposed project, it would also be consistent with the governing General Plan and zoning designations for
the site. The reduced alternative would not be as close to the existing residential development on Olive
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
150
IV. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Avenue, and as such would not raise land use compatibility issues, although the project as proposed is not
incompatible with the existing residences under the proposed site design. The reduced size alternative also
would be adjacent to future commercial retail development to the south and west, unlike the proposed
project which is adjacent to lands designated for residential use in the City's General Plan. Although the
proposed project as designed would not be incompatible with these future adjacent residential uses, sound
walls and other design measures are needed to minimize adjacency impacts. The Reduced Project Size
alternative would have no potential conflicts or compatibility issues with future adjacent commercial
development and would not require design measures to improve land use compatibility. As such, the
Reduced Project Size alternative would result in a lower level of land use impact to surrounding uses
compared to the proposed project, although the impacts would not be significant for either alternative.
Agricultural Resources: The Reduced Project Size alternative would result in the conversion of about 24
acres of prime agricultural land to urban uses. While the acreage converted would be less than the 40 acres
to be converted under the proposed project, the impact would still be significant and unavoidable under this
alternative. Nevertheless, given the lower acreage involved, the Reduced Project Size alternative would
result in a relatively lower magnitude of impact to agricultural resources compared to the proposed project.
Geology and Soils: All geologic, soils, and seismic conditions and hazards affecting both the proposed
project and the Reduced Project Size alternative would be mitigated to less -than -significant levels through
geotechnical engineering measures. There would be no substantial difference between the proposed project
and the Reduced Project Size alternative with respect to geology and soils impacts.
Hydrology and Water Quality: Although the Reduced Project Size alternative would result in lower
volumes of stormwater runoff than the proposed project, the drainage impacts of both alternatives would be
mitigated to less -than -significant levels through the construction of appropriately -sized stormwater basins.
The erosion impacts and potential for nonpoint pollution of surface water from urban pollutants would be
similarly mitigated for both alternatives. As such, there would be no substantial difference between the
proposed project and the Reduced Project Size alternative in terms of hydrology and water quality impacts.
Biological Resources: The Reduced Project Size alternative would result in the removal of less foraging
habitat for protected species such as Swainson's hawk than would occur under the proposed project.
However, since this impact would be fully mitigated under both alternatives, there is no substantial
difference in impact between the proposed project and the Reduced Project Size alternative regarding
biological resources.
Cultural Resources: Since there are no known historic, archaeological or paleontological resources present
on the site, there would be no impacts to cultural resources associated with either alternative. In the event of
discovery of previously unknown resources on the site, contingent mitigations to be applied would reduce
impacts to less -than -significant levels for both alternatives. As such, there is no substantial difference in
impact between the proposed project and the Reduced Project Size alternative with respect to cultural
resources.
Aesthetics: The proposed project would change the character of the site from rural to urban, although the
implementation of the City's Design Standards for Large Retail Establishments, as well as the City's Site
Plan and Architectural Review process would ensure that any aesthetic impacts of the project would be less
than significant. Although the Reduced Project Size alternative would involve the conversion of 16 fewer
acres of rural land to urban uses, the overall aesthetic effect would not be substantially different from that of
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
151
IV. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
the proposed project, and would ultimately not be significant in either case. As such, there is no substantial
difference in aesthetic impact between the proposed project and the Reduced Project Size alternative.
Traffic and Circulation: The Reduced Project Size alternative with only a Wal-Mart supercenter would
generate approximately two-thirds traffic that would result from the proposed project. (Although the
Reduced Project Size would represent 60 percent of the proposed project acreage, it would generate 66
percent of the traffic estimated for the proposed project due to the higher net trip generation rate for Wal-
Mart compared to the other retail and restaurant uses planned for the proposed project.) The lower traffic
generation would likely result in less traffic congestion in the vicinity in the near-term, although the
proposed project would not result in significant traffic impacts with the implementation of proposed
improvements to the transportation system to be implemented in conjunction with the proposed project.
Moreover, under cumulative conditions with General Plan buildout, the remainder of the proposed project
site would be developed with commercial retail uses in any event, so there would be no difference in traffic
impacts between the two alternatives beyond the near-term future.
Noise: For the proposed project, noise generated by on-site project activities would be less -than -significant
for most noise sources, and would be mitigated to less -than -significant levels for potentially significant
noise sources. The areas subject to potential noise impacts include existing and future residential
development to the southeast, south and west of the site. Under the Reduced Project Size alternative, the
project would not be as close to these residential uses so the potential for operational noise impacts would
not likely arise. Therefore, the Reduced Project Size alternative would result in slightly lower levels of
noise impact compared to the proposed project alternative, although all potential noise impacts would
ultimately be less than significant under both alternatives.
AirQuality: The emissions associated with the proposed project would substantially exceed applicable
standards for ozone precursors and particulate matter, which is a significant and unavoidable regional air
quality impact of the project. The Reduced Project Size alternative would represent a reduction of these
emissions by approximately one-third. However, the resulting emissions levels would still far exceed the
applicable standards. As such, the Reduced Project Size alternative would lessen but not avoid the
significant and unavoidable regional air quality impacts associated with the project.
Hazardous Materials: Since there are no known contaminant sources on the project site, there would be no
impacts from hazardous materials associated with either the proposed project or the Reduced Project Size
alternative. In both cases, the auto service shop proposed for the Wal-Mart store would involve the use of
hazardous petroleum products and solvents, although these would all be handled and disposed of in
accordance with applicable regulations. As such, there is no substantial difference in terms of hazardous
materials impact between the proposed project and the Reduced Project Size alternative.
Utilities and Service Systems: As a commercial development, the proposed project would not be a heavy
water user and would be a relatively low generator of wastewater. Since project demands for domestic
water service and wastewater collection and treatment can be readily accommodated by existing facilities,
the project would not result in a significant impact to these utilities and service systems. Although the
Reduced Project Size alternative would generate a proportionately smaller demand for these services, the
reduction would be inconsequential to the service providers. As such, there is no substantial difference
between the proposed project and the Reduced Project Size alternative in terms of impacts to utilities and
service systems.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
152
IV. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Public Services: The increased demand for fire protection, police service, and solid waste collection and
disposal service would not be significant for the proposed project, and likewise would not be significant for
the Reduced Project Size alternative. As such, there is no substantial difference between the proposed
project and the Reduced Project Size alternative in terms of impacts to public services.
In summary, the Reduced Project Size alternative would result in a slight reduction in the levels of impact
associated with the proposed project in several topic areas, although these impacts would be mitigated to
less -than -significant levels under the proposed project. For the two significant and unavoidable impacts
associated with the proposed project — impacts to agricultural resources and regional air quality — the
Reduced Project Size alternative would lessen these impacts but would not avoid them or reduce them to
less -than -significant levels. Although the Reduced Project Size alternative would be slightly superior to the
proposed project, it would not achieve the CEQA objective of avoiding the significant impacts associated
with the project. The Reduced Project Size alternative was not selected by the applicant because it would
not fulfill the project objective of a 30 -acre minimum project size needed for project feasibility. It also
would be substantially less effective than the proposed project in fulfilling the City's objective of enhancing
its fiscal resources through sales tax and property tax, or in meeting the objectives of creating new jobs and
reversing retail sales leakage.
E. ALTERNATIVE PROJECT LOCATION
As discussed previously in this chapter, an alternative project location in the unincorporated area of San
Joaquin County at the northeast quadrant of Highway 12 and Thornton Road was selected for evaluation
and comparison with the proposed project site (see Figure 10). To allow direct comparison, it was
assumed that a 36 -acre portion of the lands at this location would be developed with roughly the same
land use configuration and intensity as the proposed project. Since the roadway frontages at the
alternative site would be to the west and south of the site, it is further assumed that the site layout would
be an inverted mirror image of that presented in proposed project site plan (i.e., the Wal-Mart store
would be located in the northeast portion of the site and would face west). The only exception would be
that the alternative project would wrap around the existing Burger King located on a small parcel at the
northeast corner of Highway 12 and Thornton Drive.
The alternative site is largely in cultivation for grapes, and is absent of buildings and structures. The site
is adjacent to the highway commercial complex at Flag City on the east side of 1-5. Nearby land uses at
the Flag City complex include: the Flying J truck stop on the west side of Thornton Road, opposite the
alternative site; and a hotel, three fast food outlets, and two gas stations in the southwest quadrant of
Highway 12 and Thornton Road, diagonally opposite the alternative site to the southwest.
The alternative site (hereinafter also referred to as the `Flag City site') would meet the objectives of the
project applicant for a minimum site area of 30 net acres, and site location on an existing highway in
proximity to an existing commercial center.
The existing County General Plan designation for the most of the alternative site is `General Agriculture'
and the zoning is `Agriculture (AG -40)', although several small parcels with frontage on Thornton Road
have General Plan designations of `Commercial Freeway Service' and are also zoned for highway
commercial. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that amendments to the County General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance would be approved on the agriculturally designated and zoned portions of the site to
allow the project. Additionally, it is assumed that the site would be annexed to the County Service Area 31
which provides the other commercial uses in Flag City with domestic water supply, wastewater collection
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
153
n4 -yam . , t11U. # #tt�i #ttt# , ,....,.^„.,
's'�Ei11 A # IVrt �{ `kca: 'j 1�rkt ,s d £L.: c5f} IIi
a> NATC}1V1fS .A1 EL. 1 95 .'�r�C�s ;� lh'
AIR PARK �.,.
Fair oaks50;
27 ,E I MARCONI AV f
I FORT
2 OLD, SHP 9 Ca
1chael
ROAD z, .SAc: FMA EWT F"i.. int? 3 j:...
CALIF
cr AfF?f70f?r 31 COVELL REC, AREA
�L. is '�' a rra 'r� o'
ME TPQ
RUSSELL BL, EL 45 Dais > r
..,.....,.... acral t
UNIVERSITY 050
AIRPORT �/' x_..r' af� - j -,, ��� ` - C,&
. t �) �+C Cc.
SACT
CALIF a El Macero Cr _Z
AT DAVIS
.....< i l Lu
EL. � EL. 1$0
CL TIDE ONT �i . Florin Rancho
RD.4 opo 0 cit Murieta
c5 .RrJ FLORIN i3. ,....,.,
�• EL. 110
Bon.
y. CLARKSf3[Ifif� E9 MURI TA
W. A ST tiiR 1 J8
Dixon AIRPORT'
EL, 50
WAY RD. Glarksbur s Elk cc
Grove
., 1 /Wilton
ELK DROVIw 8L. �
fx - `37 SK.Y�rANCH GSUNSET�t,.
SWAN "''AtRF7RT
BINGHAMTON 01 -loud
IEL. 10 ZA 21
-RD:
Liberty
4
Liffe 3 2 FRANKON .'' 22
r
Farms ` f'ELD ; ,
AIRPORT`
2.1 ,., CITIES 1
RD.C.�
Herald
3C D ,:► /' is
tit's Ef . 5 EL. ?0
EL, 51
halt „.,
-' ..�.
{ _, _;
# `
RYEVairiut J8 t4f-W r Ro, ,...-_'' „...,.� '' i IBERTY RD,
Lf R' Y'r r, Ryde Grove 'ti? 3;,E r. N,'
�' w's? fSLj:rvF ISLAND � EL, y .� � l �'`. % �t. �
Thornton
;. ; '1r :f } t 110 17
ti,, s
` `y ISLAND CJ sfj/, i
rz LODI � ,,.
'/IS TA .� RD_, ,`' } AIPI�ORT aArtafj
o:
. � � Alternative ,, EI~ -1ER - . ; I I . :
AtRPOR f , j1 2 X
. rn
#' y • ACA 4PO fii?. ��- , f Clerner�ts
��� =Prq act Site
J5 L. f .
EL. f .:: s "Isleton 1 ;� WOODBRIDGE. Rt3, . _ _ w � j �; � , Lockeford
ifils Landing ^ ' r'$?ji3�fdAf>f Et ,>.. _
[ i _ q} y
�' L7fi"#t sljhi�lY M •Y •T �7 .�#.�1ge '�J'�••+ /” /// 'E:L�./l'Q wf... e',✓^t
SIB fsLrfv L, ��r, .Oil Victor
52
, . t. 9 J1 Proposed
Ktt4�itX.�N • •
fSLArVLJ -tAIPPARK
�L�L�•� z � x� .. f ...� >�,fPF;JRT j ARK Pro ect Site
JS A11111
Rr';G'TAIRPORT
V�-lfitt � y i
ySt3ERr'�fAfs1 IStA�rf) �' f< w �' `i fS� Elh:'frsL 'y KIN,G res 1`�
i �f7ts1As . _ tfiu'ift5 , ISLAND
EIG It�IILE
p h
TRACT 0,
30Bethel
W.�r�� /� y "" s �4 Is
AMMER y��ri�r�E. '..,. Q EL. 87
w *- EL, 15 � ��� 4f ,., LindenC�
i 'airs /"
p
8TH. ST z��14
.`' CYPRESS Ria. 3 HOLLAND :t�r,•t70rr'°�;
Wyj OGCkl 1 rf4A 7 y., :Sr..;h�f�
i GL. 18 llf flJG .............` Z
_ • ygx v
i f
Li.".,74
can Brentwood n� s
Holt CHARTER
V, 7,1;�a�; :' FAA,'
_ �v x LL M
BiSCOIf£I"�l ,'
Bad L . 2;i ;; 32 k'�
r€ Byron
«" tai r .1
o . �,p. ~± . • ,! HOWARD ,,, French
2003 Caw fi
SOURCE: CSAR, %';'L%`�" r<<,, rir _ orf W_ its
0 3.3 6.6
SCALE IN MILES N
FIGURE 10
ALTERNATIVE PROJECT LOCATION
I?M—C
154
PACIPIC M U N' C I P A L
C 0 N S V L T A N T S
IV. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
and disposal service, stormwater drainage facilities, and street lighting. Although commercial development
of this site would be contrary to the County's policies of preserving agricultural land and directing growth to
established urban areas, a case could be made that due to the site's contiguity with existing highway
commercial uses and the availability of urban services, that it would not be an unsuitable location for
revenue generating retail development needed to support County services.
The impacts associated with development of the proposed shopping center at the Flag City site are discussed
below and compared to the impacts of project development at the proposed location.
Land Use: A shopping center developed at the Flag City site would not be consistent with the San Joaquin
General Plan which designates this property as `General Agriculture', and would not be consistent with the
applicable Agriculture (AG -40) zoning district. The conversion of the site to urban uses would also not be
consistent with the County's broad policies of encouraging preservation of agricultural land and of directing
urban land uses to established urban centers. Development of the project at the Flag City site could weaken
the effectiveness of these policies by setting a precedent for such land use approvals and encouraging
similar conversion of agricultural land in adjacent areas and elsewhere in the County. As such, this
alternative would result in potential growth inducement. By comparison, the proposed project site is
consistent with applicable General Plan and zoning designations, and would require no amendments.
Moreover, the proposed project fulfills the City's policy objective of completing the development of the
four corners of West Kettleman Lane and Lower Sacramento Road with retail development. Thus from a
land use policy perspective, the location of the project at the Flag City site would have a negative impact,
particularly due to its potentially growth -inducing impact, which is an impact that is not associated with the
proposed project site.
If the project were developed at the Flag City site, it would be compatible with the adjacent highway
commercial uses to the west and southwest, and would not be incompatible with the agricultural operations
to the north and east. Since the adjacent lands are in vineyards, dust from plowing activities would occur
rarely. In addition, the Flag City site is generally upwind of nearby agricultural lands, and the planned
shopping center uses would be relatively insensitive to dust. Although pesticides would be applied to the
vineyards, the application would not likely be by aerial spraying, given the proximity of other commercial
development. Therefore, the potential for pesticide drift would be minimal. The proposed project site
would be compatible and complementary to the adjacent commercial retail uses to the north and east, and
would not be incompatible with the adjacent agricultural operations, for the same reasons noted above for
the Flag City site. In summary, the surrounding land uses are similar at both the Flag City site and proposed
project site, and the land use compatibility impacts would be less than significant in both cases.
In terms of socioeconomic impacts due to increased retail competition, the Flag City site may result in
somewhat less in the way of lost sales for existing Lodi businesses compared the proposed site, given the
distance of the Flag City site from Lodi. However, no indirect physical impacts would result from the
project at either location, so there would be little or no difference between the sites in this respect.
In summary, the physical land use impacts of the project would be similar for both the proposed site and the
Flag City site. However, the negative impacts to land use policy associated with the Flag City site would
not result from development of the proposed project site.
Aaricultural Resources: The soils of the Flag City site consist entirely of Acampo sandy loam, which is
designated Class II when under irrigation and Class IV when not irrigated. Therefore, both the Flag City
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
155
IV. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
site and the proposed project site would result in conversion of the prime farmland to urban uses, an
unavoidable significant impact under both alternatives. However, since the Flag City site is currently in
cultivation for grapes and is under a Williamson Act Land Conservation contract, its value as agricultural
land is arguably greater than that of the project site, which has not been in agricultural production for
several years and has no Williamson Act contract. As such, the Flag City site would not avoid the
significant unavoidable project impacts resulting from the conversion of prime farmland. The potential for
conflicts between the development at the Flag City site and surrounding agricultural uses is similar to those
associated with proposed project site, as discussed under `Land Use' above, and would not be significant in
either case. Therefore, the alternative site would not result in substantially lower potential impacts related
to agricultural conflicts than would result at the proposed project site.
Geology and Soils: The Flag City site would be subject to very similar seismic hazards and soil conditions
as the proposed project site. Given that the potential impacts would be mitigated to less -than -significant
levels at either location, there would be no significant difference in geologic impacts between the two sites.
Hydrology and Water Quality: The project would produce the same volumes of stormwater runoff at the
Flag City site as it would at the proposed project site. At both locations the project runoff would be stored
in a stormwater basin and then conveyed to the delta via canal. Neither the proposed project site nor the
Flag City site would be subject to major flooding during a 100 -year event, although both sites would be
subject to shallow flooding of less than one foot depth. The potentially damaging effects of localized
shallow flooding would be avoided at both sites by padding up finished floors above flood elevations.
Similarly, the potential for erosion and siltation, as well as urban nonpoint source pollution, would be
mitigated at both the Flag City and the proposed project sites per City or County requirements. Since the
drainage, flooding, and water quality impacts would be similarly mitigated at either alternative site, there
would be no significant difference in hydrologic impact between the two sites.
Biological Resources: The Flag City site is largely covered with vineyards which provide some degree of
habitat value for common species adapted to monocultural environments. As with the proposed project site,
there are no wetlands, riparian habitats, or significant trees at the Flag City site. Similarly, both the Flag
City site and the proposed project site would result in reduction of foraging habitat for protected species
such as Swainson's hawk. These potential impacts would be mitigated at either alternative site through
payment of mitigation fees required under the County multi -species habitat conservation plan. In summary,
the impacts to biological resources would be similar for development of the project at either the Flag City
site or the proposed project site.
Cultural Resources: Although there are no known cultural resources present on either the Flag City site or
the proposed project site, any impacts to previously undiscovered buried resources encountered during site
development would be fully mitigated through standard contingent mitigations at either site. Thus,
development of the project at either the Flag City site or the proposed project site would result in less -than -
significant impacts to cultural resources.
Aesthetics: The Flag City site has aesthetic value due to its open space character and particularly because of
the amenity created by the vineyards covering most of the site. Development of this site would alter its
character as agricultural open space to an urbanized appearance. However, the existing visual quality of the
Flag City site is substantially diminished due to its close proximity to the adjacent highway commercial
uses. As such, development of the Flag City site would not result in a significant visual impact. Although
the County of San Joaquin would not likely require the high quality of site planning and design that the City
of Lodi is requiring at the proposed project site, the difference in design quality that would likely occur at
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
156
IV. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
the two sites would not constitute a substantial difference in overall visual impact. Thus development of the
shopping center project at the Flag City site would not result in a substantially greater visual impact than
development of the proposed project site.
Traffic and Circulation: Since the Flag City site would be developed with the same shopping center as
proposed for the project site, the volume of traffic generated would be the same for both sites. Primary
project access to the Flag City site would be provided by Highway 12 and Thornton Road. Under current
conditions, Highway 12 transitions from a four lane to a two lane highway along the site's southern
frontage, and the segment of Thornton Road along the west site frontage is a two-lane rural roadway
providing local service primarily to the Flying J truck stop. The volumes of traffic generated by the project
could not be accommodated by these existing roadway configurations. Although this impact would be
mitigable at the Flag City site through major roadway widenings and provision of protected turn pockets at
the project entrance driveways, the magnitude of the improvements required would be substantially greater
than required for the proposed project site. Although the traffic impacts resulting from development of the
proposed project at the Flag City site would be greater than those associated with the project site, given the
relatively small capacities of the existing roadways, these impacts could be reduced to less -than -significant
levels as they would be for the proposed project site.
Noise: The existing noise environment at the Flag City site is quite similar to that of the proposed project
site in that it is dominated by traffic noise from Highway 12. In both cases, the additional noise from
project traffic is unlikely to be noticeable above existing noise levels. In terms of operational noise, the Flag
City site has no adjacent or nearby sensitive receptors that would be subject to noise from parking activity,
truck circulation and loading, mechanical equipment, or parking lot cleaning. Although existing and future
residential uses adjacent to the proposed project site would be subject to some operational noise, the impact
would be reduced to less -than -significant levels through feasible mitigations. In summary, the level of noise
impacts associated with development of the project at the Flag City site would generally be lower than those
associated with the proposed project site, although the noise impacts would be less than significant at either
location.
Air Quality: The development of the project at the Flag City site would result in the same air emissions as
at the proposed project site. The levels of ozone precursors and particulate matter would exceed air quality
standards, which would represent a significant unavoidable impact. Thus the regional air quality impact
would be significant and unavoidable for both the Flag City site and the proposed project site. Construction
dust and exhaust emissions would be reduced to less -than -significant levels at either site through standard
dust suppression measures. Thus there would be no substantial difference in air quality impacts between the
Flag City site and the proposed project site.
Hazardous Materials: There are no known sources of hazardous materials at the Flag City site, although
there is a potential for residual contamination from previous use of currently banned pesticides that may
have been used in the vineyard operation. Any such contaminant sources would be investigated and
remediated prior to site development in accordance with state and local regulations. At the proposed project
site, there are no existing contaminant sources, so development of this site would pose no health or safety
hazard. However, the development of the project at either site would involve the use and storage of
hazardous automotive products at Wal -Mart's auto service shop, although any potential hazards would be
mitigated through compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Thus there would be no
substantial difference in hazardous materials impacts between the Flag City site and the proposed project
site, with any impacts reduced to less -than -significant levels at either site.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
157
IV. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Utilities and Service Systems: The development of the shopping center at the Flag City site would result in
the same demands for water supply and wastewater collection and treatment as it would at the proposed
project site. It is assumed that these services could be provided by the County Service Area (CSA) 31
which currently' serves the existing highway commercial development in Flag City, although a capacity
upgrade could be required at the wastewater treatment facility in order to serve the project. The required
water and sewer lines would be extended to the site from existing lines in the area. At the proposed project
site, water and sewer service is available from existing mains in the immediate vicinity, with available
capacity to serve the project demands. Therefore, with the possible exception of upgrades to the wastewater
treatment facility which might be needed for the Flag City site, the services and utilities impacts associated
with the Flag City site and the proposed project site would be similar.
Public Services: The development of the project at the Flag City site would result in the same demand for
fire, police, and solid waste collection service as the proposed project site. Given the location of a fire
station of the Delta Fire Protection District on the south side of Highway 12 in Flag City, response times for
structure fires and medical emergencies at the Flag City site would likely be shorter than response times
from the Lodi Fire Department to the proposed project site, although response time goals would be met in
both instances. However, response times by the County Sheriffs Department to calls from the Flag City
site would generally be longer than response times from the City Police Department to calls from the
proposed project site. The project would not result in the need for new or altered facilities in either case,
and therefore potentially significant impacts to public services would not be associated with either site.
Regarding solid waste collection, this service would be provided by Central Valley Waste Services at both
sites, and the company indicated it would not have difficulty serving either site with existing staff,
equipment, and facilities. The project's impact on the North County Landfill site would be the same for
both sites and would not be significant.
In summary, the impacts associated with development of the Flag City site would be somewhat greater than
for the proposed project site. Although the impacts for many categories would be similar for both project
locations, development of the Flag City site would result in negative effects in terms of land use policy, and
the resulting potential for growth inducement, which would not occur with the proposed project site. Traffic
impacts would be greater for the Flag City site, as would impacts to utilities and public services, although
these impacts would be less than significant or could be fully mitigable. More importantly, the alternative
project site would result in the same significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources and air
quality as are associated with the proposed project. Therefore, the alternative site would not lessen or avoid
the significant and unavoidable impacts of the project.
The alternative project site may meet some the applicant's objectives for the project, such as minimum
parcel size for economic feasibility and location on a highway in proximity to an existing commercial
center. However, due to its location outside the City of Lodi, the alternative site would not meet, and could
impede, the City's objectives for the project such as: attaining the City's goal of completing development of
the Four Corners area; creation of local jobs, and; increasing the local tax base. In addition, the location of
the project at this site would not reverse the current retail sales leakage from Lodi would likely ex acerbate
it.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
158
IV. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
F. SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Of the three project alternatives considered above, only the No Project alternative would avoid or
substantially lessen the significant impacts of the project. The significant and unavoidable impacts to
agricultural resources and air quality associated with the proposed project would both be avoided by the No
Project alternative. Since all other project impacts are either less than significant or can be reduced to less -
than -significant levels through the implementation of feasible mitigation measures, the No Project
alternative would not offer substantial reductions in impact levels under the other impact categories.
Therefore, the No Project alternative would represent the environmentally superior alternative to the
proposed project. The No Project alternative was not selected because it would not meet the applicant's
objective of developing the site for shopping center uses; nor would it meet the City's goals of enhancing its
revenue base, creating jobs, and reversing retail sales leakage.
The CEQA Guidelines, at Section 15126.6(e)(2), require that if the environmentally superior alternative is
the No Project alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among
the other alternatives. The Reduced Project Size alternative was found to result in the same significant and
unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources and air quality as the proposed project. However, it would
result in slightly lower levels of impact in several impact categories, although these impacts would all be
reduced to less -than -significant levels in conjunction with the proposed project. Therefore, the Reduced
Project Size alternative represents the environmentally superior alternative. The Reduced Proj ect Size
alternative was not selected by the applicant because it would not fulfill the project objective of a 30 -acre
minimum project size needed for project feasibility. It also would be substantially less effective than the
proposed project in fulfilling the City's objective of enhancing its fiscal resources through sales tax and
property tax revenues, or in meeting the objectives of creating new jobs and reversing retail sales leakage.
In conclusion, there are no feasible alternatives to the project which would avoid or reduce the significant
impacts associated with the proposed project to less -than -significant levels.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
159
IV. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
V. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Section 15126(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that EIRs identify "significant effects which cannot be
avoided if the proposal is implemented." This includes any significant impacts which can be mitigated but
not reduced to less -than -significant levels.
As discussed throughout Chapter II of this EIR, most of the potential impacts associated with the proposed
project can be avoided or reduced to less -than -significant levels through mitigation measures to be
implemented in conjunction with the project. However, there remain several significant impacts which
cannot be feasibly mitigated to less -than -significant levels. These significant and unavoidable impacts of
the projects are listed below.
Significant impacts to agricultural resources;
• Significant impacts to regional air quality;
• Significant cumulative impacts to agricultural resources; and
• Significant cumulative impacts to regional air quality.
As discussed in Chapter IV. Alternatives to the Proposed Project, there are no feasible alternatives to the
project which would avoid or reduce these impacts to less -than -significant levels.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
160
Draft August 2004
VI. Growth -Inducing Effects of the Proposed Project
VI. GROWTH -INDUCING EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines stipulates that the growth -inducing impact of a project be
addressed as follows: "[d]iscuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or
population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly in the surrounding
environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a major
expansion of a waste water treatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service
areas). Increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring the construction
of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects." The potential for the project to induce
additional growth is discussed below.
Precedent for Further Expansion of the Urban Area
The approval of the proposed project would not represent a new commitment of rural lands for urban
development. This site was essentially committed to urban uses through the designation of the site for retail
commercial uses in the City of Lodi General Plan. In fact, the City of Lodi is recognized for its compact
growth pattern and clearly defined urban boundaries, its emphasis on infill development, and its deliberate
and considered approach to urban expansion to accommodate housing and other long-term development
needs. The City has strong policies supporting the protection of agricultural lands outside its established
urban growth boundary and has planned for a greenbelt/buffer at the growth boundary to protect the long-
term viability of nearby agricultural operations outside the City's planning area. The proposed project
conforms to all land use goals and policies established by the City of Lodi for this site, and would not
require a General Plan amendment or other major policy change which could weaken the City's strong
policy commitment to orderly urban development within its planning area. Therefore, the approval of the
project would not establish a policy precedent for ad hoc urban expansion which was not planned through a
comprehensive planning process.
Growth Induced by Increased Infrastructure Capacities
The infrastructure required for development of the project either already exists in the capacities required
(e.g., sanitary sewer, domestic water), or has been planned and designed with only enough capacity to serve
the project and other approved or planned development (e.g., roadway widenings of West Kettleman Lane
and Lower Sacramento Road, and construction of Westgate Drive). Although the sanitary sewer to be
installed in Westgate Drive to serve the project will need to be extended south for 800 feet to join the
existing 48 -inch trunk line which carries flows to the City's wastewater treatment facility, the diameter of
the line will only be sufficient to carry flows from the project and other approved developments. As the
intervening lands are planned for residential development, in accordance with the City General Plan, this
connecting sanitary line will be replaced with a larger diameter main to serve the adjacent development.
Therefore, the project would not induce additional growth through increased infrastructure capacities.
Removal of Obstacles to Growth
The approval of the project would have no effect as far as facilitating premature development of adjacent
lands. The only lands upon which development could be facilitated by the project are those adjacent to the
west and south, which could benefit from roadway and utility improvements installed for the project.
However, these lands are all designated for residential development under the City's General Plan, and their
development would represent the completion of planned residential development on the west side of the
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
161
VI. Growth -Inducing Effects of the Proposed Project
City. These lands could be developed under the General Plan with or without the project. Although the
completion of a segment of Westgate Drive in conjunction with the proposed project would remove the
necessity of building this roadway for access to the lands immediately to the west, there would be nothing
preventing the installation of this roadway in conjunction with the development of this adjacent area if the
project were not approved. Moreover, any development proposals on those adjacent lands would be subject
to the City's Growth Management Plan for Residential Development under which all residential
developments proposed City-wide are required to compete for a limited allocation of residential building
permits each year. Therefore, development of the project would do nothing to remove obstacles to the
development of the adjacent lands or to hasten their development.
Stimulus for Economic Growth
The proposed retail shopping center would stimulate economic growth through direct employment, as well
as indirect growth through demand for goods and services. This could contribute to incremental secondary
effects such as increased hiring by suppliers. The retail establishments would also generate significant sales
tax revenue for the City, enabling expenditures on capital improvement projects that would also stimulate
secondary economic activity. During the construction phase, temporary jobs would be created and others
supported in the purchase of materials.
Population and Housing Growth
To the extent that new employees of the shopping center would not already live within easy commuting
range of the project, they could be induced to move into the area, thus creating a slight increase in housing
demand locally. However, this minor increase in potential housing demand would not be significant, and
could be readily absorbed by the local housing inventory.
In summary, the proposed Lodi Shopping Center would have a less -than -significant growth -inducing effect
by way of producing a minor economic stimulus locally. This would occur through direct employment at
the center, and through secondary demand for employees at local suppliers and service providers. The
project could also result in a slight increase in local housing demand.
The project would not result in significant growth inducement by way of setting a precedent for further
urban expansion, by creating excess infrastructure capacities, or by removing obstacles to further growth.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
162
V. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
VII. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
The development of the project site would result in irreversible environmental changes. The conversion of
the agricultural use of the site to urban uses would represent an essentially permanent change since it
unlikely the site would ever be returned to agriculture. Other irreversible changes resulting from the project
would include the consumption of non-renewable building materials and energy resources during the
construction phase, and the ongoing consumption of energy for lighting, air conditioning, space and water
heating, and for travel to and from the site during the life of the project.
Beneficial changes resulting from the project include the expanded choice and supply of retail goods and
services, fiscal benefits from increased property and sales tax revenues, benefits to the local economy from
business purchases of local goods, and the creation of employment opportunities.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
163
Draft August 2004
VIII. REFERENCES
Applied Development Economics (ADE), Socio -Economic Impact Analysis of the Proposed Lodi Shopping
Center, July 2004.
Applied Development Economics (ADE), Economic Impact Analysis of the Proposed Lodi Shopping Center
on Downtown Lodi, June 2004.
Ballanti, Donald, Air Quality Impact Analysis for the Lodi Shopping Center Project, City of Lodi, July 2004.
Basin Research Associates, Archaeological/Paleontological Resources Assessment, Lodi Shopping Center
Project, City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, May 2004.
California Department of Conservation, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service (MRCS), Soil Candidate Listing for Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide
Importance, San Joaquin County, 2002.
California Integrated Waste Management Board, Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates for Commercial
Establishments, 1999.
City of Lodi, City of Lodi General Plan - Policy Document, April 1991.
City of Lodi, City of Lodi Municipal Code, as amended through April 2004.
City of Lodi, Draft Environmental Impact Report -City of Lodi Draft General Plan, April 1990.
City of Lodi, Draft Background Report - City of Lodi Draft General Plan, January 1990.
City of Lodi, Stormwater Management Program, January 2003.
City of Lodi, Vintner's Square Shopping Center Environmental Impact Report — Draft, March 2003.
City of Lodi, Vintner's Square Shopping Center Environmental Impact Report — Responses to Comments,
May 2003.
City of Lodi, Westside Facilities Master Plan, January 2001.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRAII) for City of Lodi,
California, Community Panel Number 0602990285 B, Effective date May 7, 2002.
Fehr & Peers Associates, Transportation Engineers, Lodi Shopping Center Traffic Impact Study, July 2004.
Illingworth & Rodkin, Lodi Shopping Center Environmental Noise Study, Lodi, California, July 2004.
Live Oak Associates, Lodi Shopping Center Biological Evaluation, Lodi, San Joaquin County, California,
July 2004.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
164
Phillippi Engineering, Drainage Study for Lodi Center, Southwest Corner of Kettleman at Lower
Sacramento, May 2004.
San Joaquin County, San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan
(SJMSCP), November 2000.
Twining Laboratories, Geology and Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Proposed Lodi Shopping in Center, Lodi,
California, May 2004.
Twining Laboratories, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Southwest Corner o the Intersection o
f f
Highway 12 & Lower Sacramento Road, Lodi, California, December 2003.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), Soil Survey of San
Joaquin County, California, 1992.
Persons Contacted
Bartlam, Konradt, Community Development Director, City of Lodi, various dates in 2004.
Carroll, Michael, Senior Engineer, San Joaquin County Public Works Department, Solid Waste Division
May 28, 2004.
Clabaugh, James Ferguson, Landscape Architect, May 28, 2004.
Kerlin, Del, Assistant Wastewater Treatment Superintendent, City of Lodi Department of Public Works
May 27, 2004.
Main, David, Captain, Lodi Police Department, June 3, 2004.
Parish, William, Architect, WPIIDC, various dates in 2004.
Phillips, Trueman, Senior Civil Engineer, San Joaquin County Department of Public Works, Public
Services Division, May 28, 2004.
Pretz, Michael, Chief, Lodi Fire Department, June 1, 2004.
Sandelin, Wally, City Engineer, City of Lodi, various dates in 2004.
Van Buren, James, Senior Planner, San Joaquin County Community Development Department, May 28,
2004.
Weid, Christine M., Municipal Market Coordinator, Central Valley Waste Services, May 28, 2004.
Lodi Shopping Center EIR
165
Draft August 2004
IX. EIR AUTHOR AND CONSULTANTS
Author
City of Lodi Community Development Department
Konradt Bartlam, Community Development Director
Wally Sandelin, City Engineer
Sharon Welch, Senior Civil Engineer
Paula Fernandez, Senior Traffic Engineer
Consultants
Pacific Municipal Consultants (PMC)
Rancho Cordova, California
Tad Stearn, Principal -in -Charge
Bert Verrips, Project Manager/Environmental Analyst
Barbara Kinison-Brown, Graphics
Applied Development Economics (ADE)
Socioeconomic Analysis
Berkeley, California
Basin Research Associates
Cultural Resources
San Leandro, California
Donald Ballanti
Air Quality
El Cerrito, California
Fehr & Peers Associates
Transportation Engineers
Roseville, California
Illingworth & Rodkin
Acoustical Consultants
Petaluma, California
Live Oak Associates
Biological Consultants
San Jose, California
Phillippi Engineering
Civil Engineering
Fairfield, California
Twining Laboratories
Geology/Environmental Site Assessment
Fresno, California
Lodi Shopping Center EIR Draft August 2004
166
APPENDIX A
Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Responses
CITY COUNCIL
�le
`fiSAN HITCHCOCK, Mayor
O/OEMILY HOWARD
Mayor Pro Tempore
JOHN BECKMAN
LARRY D. HANSEN
KEITH LAND
H. DIXON FLYNN
City Manager
CITYOF L SUSAN J. BLACKSTON
City Clerk
CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET IVE[)-,� RANDALL A. HAYS
P.O. BOX 3006 City Attorney
LODICALIFORNIA
y tio APR 2 1 2003
Community
(209) 333-6714
FAX (209) 333-6842 COMMLINRY DEVELOPMEN l 'P
CITY 0F LUDi
NOTICE OF J
LLt1
PREPARATIO
�s f
• *I~3
..•"� sem` ....r'
San Joaquin County Recorder From: City of Lodi
6 S. El Dorado St, 2nd Floor 221 W. Pine Street
Stockton, CA 95202 Lodi, CA 9524
SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of A Draft Environmental Impact Re or -t
The City of Lodi will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report for�th�.
project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content
of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in
connection with the ro osed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our
P P
agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project.
The project description, location, and the potential environmental effects are contained inn the
attached materials. A copy of the Initial Study is not attached.
Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible
date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice.
Please send your response to J.D. Hightower, City Planner at the address shown above. We will
need the name for a contact person in your agency.
Project Title: Kettleman Lane/Lower Sacramento Road Commercial Center
Project Applicant, if any: --Browman Development Company, Inc.
100 Swan Way, Suite 206 '
Oakland, CA 94621-1459
Date: April 14, 2003 -
/I.D. Hightowev"O"
City Planner
(209) 333-6711
u't
A r 3
Gray Davis
Governor
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
'f
State Clearin91 Ouse
OF C0.0i
Notice of Preparation
April 16, 2003
To: Reviewing Agencies
Re: Kettleman Lane/Lower Sacramento Road Commercial Center
SCH# 2003042113
oSK�� °r -flys
fi
Tal Finney
Interim Director
EI�R .� 120,611
Attached for your review and comment is the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Kettleman Lane/Lower
Sacramento Road Commercial Center draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Responsible agencies must transmit their comments on the scope and content of the NOP, focusing on specific
information related to their own statutory responsibility, within 30 days of receipt of the NOP from the Lead AQe_ncy.
This is a courtesy notice provided by the'State Clearinghouse with a reminder for you to comment in a timely
manner. We encourage other agencies to also respond to this notice and express their concerns early in the
environmental review process.
Please direct your comments to:
J.D. Hightower
City of Lodi
P.O. Box 3006
221 West Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95241-1910
with a copy to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research. Please refer to the SCH number
noted above in all correspondence concerning this project:
If you have any questions about the environmental document review process, please call the State Clearinghouse at
(916) 445-0613.
Sincerely,
Philip Crimmins
Project Analyst, State Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc: Lead Agency
1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044
(916)445-0613 FAX(916)32.31)-_`3)0I8 \\rww.opr.ca. ov
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Bac`
SCH# 2003042113
Project Title Kettleman Lane/Lower Sacramento Road Commercial Center
Lead agency Lodi, City of
Type NOP Notice of Preparation
Description The proposed project involves the development of approximately 46 acres located at Kettleman Lane
(SR 12) and Lower Sacramento Road in west Lodi. Of the total site acreage, approximately 35 acres
will be devoted to retail shopping center, 6 acres will be occupied by a stormwater detention basin in
the southwest corner of the site, and the remaining 5 acres will be dedicated for public street
right-of-way. Since the project is consistent with the current General Plan and zoning designations for
the site, the discretionary City actions requested for the project consist of conditional use permit and
tentative map approval.
.Lead Agency Contact
Name J.D. Hightower
Agency City of Lodi
Phone 209-333-6714 Fax
email
Address P.O. Box 3006
221 West Pine Street
City Lodi State CA Zip 95241-1910
Project Location
County San Joaquin
City Lodi
Region
Cross Streets Kettleman Land (SR 12), Lower Sacramento Road
Parcel No.
Township Range Section Base
Proximity to:
Highways SR 12
Airports
Railways
Waterways
Schools
Land Use
Project Issues AestheticNisual; Agricultural Land; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Geologic/Seismic;
Toxic/Hazardous; Water Quality; Landuse; Noise; Public Services; Traffic/Circulation
Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Conservation; Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of
Agencies Water Resources; Department of Food and Agriculture; Department of Fish and Game, Region 2;
Native American Heritage Commission; State Lands Commission; Caltrans, District 10; California
Highway Patrol; Regional Water Quality Control Bd., Region 5 (Sacramento)
Date Received 04/16/2003 Start of Review 04/16/2003 End of Review 05/15/2003
0
' L
son 0
�.
Q G H O N Li) Lt)
` V L O C C C 4) v O
EE
47•- •- co
t•'� v ca L r° a� ai rn 'vrn O
yc cu � c c w� �s ov c
CC C .� .�
�' VEL N c`- tnV c° ° cc �� ° oc �� `� Q)ic�v co c c
a? d •- ,�' _ o, C� o rn [] m o- •c' w — ° — L c > w co m O o
_ ._
CG c c� fY ° ° c �-- m N ° — o o L. c� ap o ca
ca rn •�
LM a?C� L c x .CDU �� :� u �� m>m m> •CD mca� as ai
ca -- C -- >
... ° 4- .� O w O v N C L v� N iJ1 _. V O C� L O („�
° O �- ca r= O N 4? O V M O v m LO W C CY .�n, COO�
�..c�c c 4-F- mco mEcac mU r— (D > ccn C.a c CJOo m o
c � S' O oU c,c cLv _ tarn m. a� � � � a� m co � �•6 m.a mQ Ga'
N Qi L .fid _ C f .L' 72 LL L .Fd Q L cc
.:°0w ca oa m0 a mw � 'S c"oo eco°� � acn C -c �° �� C�c
LL' U CL' cn ix cn
O
o ❑ o �m a ❑
4 ❑ 19 ❑ ❑ D ❑
U E 0
c� 0 —
C) r N p as c
•_
fn
T) '—'% w Q U d V t3
0 0 o E? o 0 oN •o CL
cn CL N c_ y -o ..0 M N c L m o M (D a- 2 CD m •C
C C C 4) V > L' 8'f 'V c C d >, - to L- 4) Cl co d C
`L°� L Lr tCf v3= ❑� srn4' c=vo2 =C -•N ° °-E Oho cc L �•-
�- ° o H r F a L o� N ° , co o- s•• N Q. as a c m .0 a� o- ,,_, LL
m C) C%4 }-- ��o' 4,a� maw �--�� �0° y o.� �Y '� °Ec�a �o
O � ..... =Urn = _ _ �- — CO v.. m E 4� fl. '� •- o .5c
�,,; .V (/� •-- .� t0 >, G .O O O 4) C Q ,� C L .� C C Y E J c� C
CL .E u- .� ._ y t co .L •a •w. ° 0 .«• = -cu
° ,° Q H Y _ gyp, co O 'u =° o
4) 0 � d 0 .� aoi o ,v� CD � '''' c _ c — "� _ tz c � n. c > o _ � -0
-• o co o m m co E as o a� o c a C c �.
❑m0 ❑min .� s02 C?� C�JO F�tLU ❑�W �� ❑ ❑ C��t� tnm�a
o
C N= r N cn tf• tt� t� I`
'a c C'tfl C O O O O O p = C
.._ C
w ca ca >► cm E +'� ° .�+ .« :�. c o a
c N O = ;}, m y ca R= ca R! �cc
E a m 2 o 0 a °c. CL a. a. CL n. °o. °c.
.. �_E O�.r ��� `��� c co ccco cam, c� �� cc�
Q N E
S. C i i E i O cQ m 4) C
_ C 4.0 CD O � O ID H H ° H F- N 1= = 1= 1= F- E }= cOi�
>, L O O W S s. %. e- �. Z7 N•. > Cr? �- - •d. y.. in w. i co v- C i`� v- 'L. CO v. °
O cII p c CCI O �' tD d �"" V U O- v O . r
L ° cu o- w o w o c .�. c �. o M �., o m .... o m
O L d .V C .N _ _ 'y- +'' O •�C� Q t� a •= V� L 'O •i y,� V .L ,�,� .0 .� (� O •V
° viva°. .� G�C� p�C] °;� C�'t � ina6 G�0 Gino a_ --c 2n ja GCVO
o
C O C�
cu 2
0 t.. N M lm w N w cu OE 0 E E .N O C
co - E
2:es c� cE EE0 E Ea R U U cEa °c '� v = E •� Q °
�S m •- Ca C)
-tg° V
ad — V E .� go °€ °a od ° cc M 0 p > c
rn
C� p oar oUN ou-t"� LU
��' cLL.�v� E U. �cfl E wQco ° L' oQ.4a C ° � = cn L iS. c
o •-0C •mac .tC OEc O�c° pCc O>�cit pcv� Q �E.i— 3 a�
,i .�+ � •—o 4j- 4) ° r.S cu O �+ U Q T r.; 'L .� .i.: E O . � r.S z C '� O d O v cD -� t!i L y U
Q O > Q. C rn tZ C rn Q..0 •0 0. _ fl. z •� Q .O � > -O -- 4? 4) d m
to 4) U. c 4) o a) 4) co N 4) ° e 4� •- a� d o a� ° 4i c� � o � E •rn c cz E '� � -> ... E .Q .tic a � > OC �
aCl) w ❑C�� ❑mcr. ❑�� ❑gym ❑0X -a- ❑C x -a. ❑~ x - U AE°-� CL C V W z 0 0 0.Y-C�o�Su)
.. y
a .
.fid L
CD
Cl N tCf
•~
to 5
_ .ca
_ to v
i •a C L L� U
U o� m 3
d C NU O O .•.+ C i cm 0a O C!) O O IX
c L p ,►+
2 Q o o L c= Li c ca ° N c .0 , �=� °� _ E as a, v � ca
O° v 0 oF- o c ai s °� m.'c p o E� oQ o �-° � 'L az o
co m N y V aD L!. C m •- V E Q >. .Q ° U rn o
CD cu O c O ' r ° O `- w c O C.1 �- Q CD off = 4- 'L Q ,C LL
V L� p m E C O"*am_ `+--
° flG o E s� _ ° _ a� _ O Q o�S to
4) m C N N N tt G y V y G a Z 'O U m Ci3 "+ > ♦-' O� co ;' .�: N O
C O d O 4! L- i� R3 4! C m O p V'; 0� co v � O .� CD
o crZ ❑us dum ❑� ❑a.< yCLm ❑r..mwcn ix rn❑cn ❑=z s�r� •� � ,
O ji 0
o
3: ❑ U—
CITY COUNCIL
f;.
SUSAN HITCHCOCK, Mayor
EMILY HOWARD
CITY OF LODI
Mayor Pro Tempore
JOHN BECKMAN
CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET
LARRY D. HANSEN
P.O. BOX 3006
KEITH LAND
LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910
Community Development
(209) 333-6714
FAX (209) 333-6842
NOTICE OF
Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, CA 95 814
H. DIXON FLYNN
City Manager
SUSAN J. BLACKSTON
City Clerk
RAN DALL A. HAYS
City Attorney
PREPARATION
From: City of Lodi
221 W. Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of A Draft Environmental Impact Report
The City of Lodi will be the Lead Agency and willre are an environ
P P mental impact report for the
project identified below. We need to know the views of our agency as to t
of the environmental info Y b Y he scope and content
information which is germane to your ag
connection with the proposed ency's statutoryresponsibilities
project. Your agency res P sin
P J g y will need to use the EIR prepared by our
agency when considering your permit or other approval for theJro'ect.
P
The project description, location, and the potential environmental effects'
are contained in the
attached materials. A copy of the Initial Study is not attached.
Due to the time limits mandated b State law'. , y our response must be sent at the earliest possible
date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice.
Please send your response to J.D. Hightower, City Planner at the address shown above. We w111
need the name for a contact person in your agency.
Project Title: Kettleman Lane/Lower Sacramento Road Commercial Center
Project Applicant, if any: Browman Company, Development P p y, Inc.
100 Swan Way, Suite 206
Oakland, CA 94621-1459
Date: April 14,200
Hightower
g
City Planner
..
09\ 333-6711
Company
Dept.
Address2
City
State
PostalCode
Caltrans,
Transporta
P.O. Box
Stock
CA
95201
District 10
tion
2048
ton
Planning
San
Attn: John
4230
Mode
CA
95356
Joaquin
Cadrette
Kiernan
sto
Air
Avenue,
Pollution
Suite # 130
Control
District
San
6 S. El
Stock
CA
95202
Joaquin
Dorado
ton
Council of
Street
Governme
nts
San
6 S. El
Stock
CA
95202
Joaquin
Dorado St,
ton
County
2nd Floor
Recorder
Office of
1400
Sacra
CA
95814
Planning
Tenth
ment
and
Street,
o
Research
Room 121
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project involves the development of approximately 46 acres located at the southwest
corner of Kettleman Lane (SR 12) and Lower Sacramento Road in west Lodi. The project will consist of
an approximately 350,000 square -foot center, with one or more major discount retailers comprising
P g
approximately 220,000 square feet, and one to three additional major retailers occupyings varying
spaces rY g
from 20,000 to 60,000 square feet, with the remainder consisting of small retail shops and restaurants
(sit-down and fast-food). Of the total site acreage, approximately 35 acres will be devoted to retail
shopping center, 6 acres will be occupied by a stormwater detention basin in the southwest corner of the
site, and the remaining 5 acres will be dedicated forublic street right-of-way. S'n '
PSince the project is
consistent with the current General Plan and zoning designations for the site, the discretionaryCity
Y
actions requested for the project consist of conditional use permit and tentative map approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL TOPICS TO BE ADDRESSED IN EIR
Based on the City's preliminary review, the following topics are expected to be evaluated in the EIR.
Aesthetics
The potential visual impacts resulting from the project will be analyzed, with emphasis on changes in
views from adjacent lands and surrounding areas. This section will also address theP otential for
increased light and glare to result from the project.
Agricultural Resources
Potential impacts include the conversion of farmland to urban uses as well as potential conflicts between
the project and adjacent agricultural lands that will remain to the south and west (at least in the near-
term). The EIR will include a discussion of mitigations for conversion of agricultural land, including any
applicable General Plan policies and programs, such as the City's Right to Farm Ordinance.
Air Quality
Based on an air quality impact assessment prepared by a qualified expert, this analysis will address the
project's effects upon local and regional air quality, in particular upon localized carbon monoxide
concentrations. The potential for project emissions to exceed the thresholds of the Air District for
regional significance will also be evaluated through computer modeling. Mitigation measures for air
quality impacts will be identified as appropriate.
Biological Resources
Based on the findings of a survey report and impact assessment prepared by aualified biologist, this
q g
section will describe existing biological resources of the site, assess the project'sotential impacts to
P p
those resources, and identify mitigation measures as appropriate. The project site is covered by the San
Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) which provides for thep rotection of
Swalnson's Hawk and other special -status species. Any HCP requirements with P respect to pre -
construction surveys and the payment of a mitigation fees will be noted.
Cultural Resources
A qualified cultural resources consulting firm will conduct a literature and clearinghouse g search for
recorded cultural resource sites in the vicinity, and undertake an archaeological field survey. g y The
cultural resources report will serve as the basis for the EIR discussion ofotential impacts mpacts and
mitigations. Given the unlikelihood of finding archaeological materials at the site it is not expected that
further subsurface investigations or mitigation work will be required. However, in
q the event that
subsurface investigation are required based on the findings of the reconnaissance study, any such
investigations will be outside of this scope of work and subject to a contract amendment..
Geology and Soils
Based on a report prepared by a qualified geotechnical engineer, the EIR will evaluateoten '
p tial impacts
and hazards to the project due to on-site geologic and soils conditions. This discussion will focus on the
potential for liquefaction, response to ground shaking, erosion potential, and theresence of expansive
p p nsive
soils, with mitigation measures identified as appropriate.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Based on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared b qualified expert, this
Y a q p section will
discuss the potential for soil or groundwater contamination or
other sources of hazardous materials to be
present on the project site. Any recommendations for site remediation contained in the Phase I report
J
will be included in the EIR as project mitigation measures. p
g
Hydrology and Water Quality
Based on report prepared by a qualified hydrologist, the potential hydrology and drainage impacts
associated with the project will be addressed. The EIR will describe the storm stem drainage s planned
g y p ed
to address increased runoff generated by the project the project, includingthe planned detention
p basin.
The discussion of water quality will address potential impacts resultingfrom the '
project both during
construction and during project operation. Specific mitigation measures to control erosion during
construction will be discussed, as will the State requirement to prepare and implement a Storm Water
ater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
Land Use and Plannin
This section will evaluate the compatibility of the project with the existingand planned p d uses in the
vicinity. Also included will be an evaluation of the consistent of the project with th
Y p ro'� e City of Lodi
_ General Plan and zoning ordinance, as well as any other applicable Cit plans, policies and
Y p , p regulations.
In connection with the evaluation of land use impacts, the EIR will also consider the potential economic
effects of the project, and whether the project could potentially result in impacts to other commercial
retail areas of the city. This evaluation will be based on an economic impact stud to be prepared by
qualified economist.
p y
Noise
Based on a study report prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer, the EIR will evaluate the potential
impacts of the various on-site noise sources at the shopping center including: truck loading, trash
dumping and pick-up, parking lot cleaning, vehicle circulation, engines startin door
g g, s closing, and
2
mechanical equipment noise. The added noise from project traffic on surrounding roadways will also be
evaluated, as will the temporary noise generated during project construction. Based on the
recommendations of the noise report, the EIR will identify noise mitigation measures, as appropriate.
Aihlir. RPrviceq
The EIR discussion on public services will cover the issues of fire and police protection, and solid waste.
The fire and police departments will be contacted regarding the project's potential effects on service
levels, and and whether additional personnel and equipment may be required to serve the project. The
solid waste generated by the project will be estimated, and provisions for solid waste collection and
disposal within the project area will be described, and the remaining landfill capacity addressed. Any
provisions for recycling and waste reduction will be noted.
Transportation/Traffic
Based on the traffic report to be prepared by a qualified transportation engineer, this section will discuss
thep otential level of service impacts resulting from traffic generated by the project on the surrounding
roadway network. This section will also evaluate operational aspects such as: project access, internal
vehicular circulation, parking, truck circulation and loading, transit service, and pedestrian and bicycle
access. The level of service mitigations and operational recommendations identified in the traffic report
will be listed.
Utilities and Service Systems
TheP roject will require domestic water supply, sanitary sewer service and wastewater treatment, as well
as electric power, natural gas, and telephone service. The project demand for these utilities and services
will be evaluated relative to existing capacities and availability.
CEQA-Mandated Discussions
In addition to the above environmental topic discussions, the EIR will include the following discussions
required by CEQA: cumulative impacts; project alternatives; significant unavoidable impacts; significant
irreversible changes; and growth -inducing impacts.
3
San Joaquin Dalley
Air Pollution Control District
J. D. Hightower
City Planner
City of Lodi
P.O. Box 3006
Lodi, CA 94519
May 14, 2003
_ t l
ammk m �t� Axa Namr�-•; � 1 .a7�ac r_'s^iRw lswR" c�f��'•Z.,] a
�E
f OF L D"
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR KETTLEMAN LANE/LOWER SACRAMENTO ROAD
COMMERCIAL CENTER
Dear Mr. Hightower:
The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the
proposed project and offers the following comments:
The San Joaquin Valley's air quality has been designated nonattainment by the EPA
and by the Air Resources Board (ARB) for ozone and fine particulate matter (PM -10).
The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and the California Clean Air Act require areas that are
designated nonattainment to reduce emissions until standards are met.
The purpose project is larger than the Small Project Analysis Level (SPAL) as listed in
the District's Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMA Ql)
document and therefore requires further analysis. The District has established a
significance threshold of 10 tons per year for both oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and reactive
organic compounds (ROG or VOC). The District recommends using the URBEMIS 7G
program to calculate project area source and mobile source emissions and for
identifying mitigation measures to reduce. impacts. Based on the information provided in
the initial study this project will exceed District thresholds of significance and should
perform an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), utilizing the following format to address
air quality issues.
The District recommends that the air quality section of the EIR have three main
components. Section one should provide a description of the regulatory environment
and existing air quality conditions impacting the San Joaquin Valley. Section two
should provide estimates of existing emissions and projected pollutant emissions
related to any increases in population, vehicle use, and construction activities along with
an analysis of the effects of these increases. Section three should identify and discuss
all feasible mitigation measures which, after implementation, will reduce the. air quality
impacts generated by this project.
David L. Crow
Executive Director/Air Pollution Control Officer
Northern Region Office Central Region Office Southern Region Office
4230 Kiernan Avenue, Suite 130 1990 East Gettysburg Avenue 2700 M Street, Suite 275
Modesto, CA 95356-9322 Fresno, CA 93726-0244 Bakersfield, CA 93301-2373
(209) 557-6400 e FAX (209) 557-6475 (559) 230-6000 e FAX (559) 230-6061 (661) 326-6900 e FAX (661) 326-6985
www.valleyair.org
City of Lodi May 14, 2003
NOP Kettleman Lane/Lower Sacramento Road Page 2
Section 1: description of the regulatory environment and existing air quality
conditions of the San Joaquin Valley.
The District has several sources of information available to assist with the existing air
quality and regulatory environment section of the EIR. The District's Guide for
Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) contains discussions
regarding the existing air quality conditions and trends of the San Joaquin Valley Air
Basin, including those pollutants of particular concern: ozone, PM -10, and carbon
monoxide. In addition, it provides an overview of the regulatory environment governing
air quality at the federal, state, and regional levels. The GAMAQI provides air
monitoring data 8nd other relevant information for PM -10 and other. pollutants.
Section 2: projected pollutant emissions generated during the construction and
operational phases of the project.
The growth -inducing and cumulative impacts analyses should take into consideration
the existing and planned development both within the project area and in the
surrounding areas. The District recommends the use of the URBEMIS 7G modeling
program to calculate the pollutant emissions resulting from * motor vehicle trips
generated by this development project. Additional guidance is provided in the GAMAQI.
Additionally, the EIR should quantify emissions that are individually small but
cumulatively significant sources of pollution. This includes, but is not limited to,
emissions from natural gas combustion for space and water heating and emissions from
gas -powered lawn and garden maintenance equipment. URBEMIS 7G may also be
used to quantify these emissions.
Section.1 mitigation measures.
Mitigation measures must be included in the EIR that reduce the emissions of reactive
organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and PM -1 0 to the maximum
extent feasible. Site design and building construction measures that would reduce air
quality impacts should be included. In addition, measures #o reduce . cls trips, rni!es
traveled, and cold starts should be included in the project.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.. If you have any questions, please feel free to
contact me at (209) 557-6400.
Sincerely,
N
� Mfr � �p
John Cadrett
Air Quality Planner
Northern Region
APCD REF # 20030195
STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DAVIS. Governor
4
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 2048 (1976 E. CHARTER WAY)
STOCKTON, CA 95201
TTY: California Relay Service (800) 735-2929
PHONE (209) 941-1921
FAX (209) 948-7194
May 15, 2003 `
10-SJ-12PM 15.155
S C H # 2003042113
NOWEIR
Lodi Shopping Center
Mr. J.D. Hightower
Director
City of Lodi
Community Development Department
P.O. Box 3006
Lodi, CA 95241-1910
Re: Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
for the Lodi Shopping Center Development Project (Project) (April 2003)
Dear Mr. Hightower:
Flex your power!
Be energy efficient!
The California Department of Transportation (Department) appreciates the
opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) concerning the proposed Lodi Shopping Center
Development Project (Project) for the City of Lodi (City). It is situated at Kettleman
Lane/Lower Sacramento Road Commercial Center, a 46 acre site to be developed at
the corner of Kettleman Lane (SR 12) and Lower Sacramento Road in west Lodi.
The Department is looking forward to reviewing the draft environmental document
for this proposed commercial development Project and currently has the following
comments. An Encroachment Permit will be required, as well as a full traffic study,
prepared in accordance with Caltrans' Guide for the Preparation of Trac Impact
Studies (see Enclosure A).
Our Travel Forecasting Branch concurs with the Scope of Work submitted by
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., for the preparation of the traffic impact
analysis. We do, however, take exception to Task 7, Evaluation of Background
Conditions. We suggest that a complete, meaningful. analysis of project impacts can
be significantly underestimated when a project that does not have funding is
assumed. Therefore, we would like to see two scenarios analyzed in the Traffic
Impact Study: one with, and one without the Kettleman Lane Gap Closure Project.
"Caltrans improves mobility across California"
633901.S3.111GHTOWER.I.OD1 SHOPPING. CENTER PRO)ECLO'CONNORlCYEE
Mr. J.D. Hightower
May 15, 2003
Page 2
Any data used from previous studies in the project area, which assumed a Kettleman
Lane Gap Closure Project, should be revised to include a scenario without the gap
closure.
If Traffic Impact Studies/Models require work to be done on any State Route, an
Encroachment Permit may be required. Fair share money for work may include
funds for environmental work and/or mitigation.
This Project will increase the ambient air pollution problem existing in San Joaquin
County. Therefore, please be aware that any increase of negative air quality may
well impact negatively on future transportation projects. There may also be
cumulative impacts on the air quality by additional projects located in the Lodi area
that should be addressed within this CEQA document.
The use of California State highways for other than normal transportation purposes
may require written authorization from the Department in the form of an
Encroachment Permit. The application must include the environmental document
prepared for the project that addresses our right-of-way. At a minimum,
documentation of cultural, biological, and hazardous waste studies within state right-
of-way is required.
If right-of-way is being dedicated to the Department, the applicant is required to
submit a copy of Attachment A, confirming that the land to be dedicated to the
Department is free of hazardous waste. Even if right-of-way is not being dedicated,
it is a good practice to conduct a record search to obtain. known hazardous waste
locations.
The Department encourages contacting the Native American Heritage Commission
915 Capitol Mall, Room 364, Sacramento, California 95814, (916) 653-4082, (916)
657-5390 [FAX] for advice on consulting with Native Americans regarding any
cultural concerns within the project area.
The proposed Project may have an adverse effect on the highway drainage system.
Therefore, highway drainage will need to fully discussed in the environmental
document. Complete on-site drainage and grading plans need to be submitted during
the Encroachment Permit process, noting all of the existing highway drainage system
in the adjacent state right-of-way. On-site drainage will not be allowed to drain into
the state highway drainage system, therefore, on-site drainage will need to be handled
on-site.
"Caltrans improves mobility across California"
6++901.SJ.HIGHTONVER.LODI SHOPPING CENTER PROJECT.O'CONNOWYEE
Mr. J.D. Hightower
May 15, 2003
Page 3
Please forward all Final Conditions of Approval including any proposed mitigation
measures as well as any other documents and reports (i.e. environmental documents,
Traffic Impact Study Reports, site and Location Maps, etc) on this proposed Project
for our review, comment, and records. If you are aware of any controversy regarding
any of our requirements, please contact me as soon as possible so we may work
together to resolve them before submittal to your Board.
We look forward in continuing to work with you in a cooperative manner. If you
have any questions or would like to discuss these comments in more detail, please
contact Ms. Lynn O'Connor at (209) 948-7575 (email: loconnor@dot.ca.gov).
Sincerely,
To
Of
Enclosure
Ch f
ermo al Planning
c: State Clearinghouse: Phillip Crimmins
"Caltrans improves mobility across California"
633901.S3.111GHTOW'ER.LODI SHOPPING CE\'TER PRO)ECT.O'CONNOR/CYEE
ENCLOSURE A
sz� k j^c
.... .....
GUIDE FOR THE PREPARATION
OF
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
June 2001
PREFACE
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has developed this "Guide for the
Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies" in response to a survey of cities and counties in Ca lifof-nia.
Thepurpose of that survey was to improve the Caltrans local development review process (also
known as the Intergovernmental Review/California Environmental Quality Actor IGR/CEQA
process). The survey indicated Haat approximately 30 percen t of the respondents were not aware of
what Caltrans required in a traffic impact study (TIS).
In the early 1990s, the Caltrans District 6 offlce located in Fresno identified a need to provide
better quality and consistency in the analysis of traffic impacts generated by local development and
land use changeproposalsthat effect State highwayfacilities. Atthat time, District 6brought
together both public and private sector expertise to develop a traffic impact study guide. The
District 6 guide has proven to be successful at promoting consistency and uniformity in the
identification and analysis of traffic impacts generated by local development and land use changes.
The guide developed in Fresno was adapted for statewide use by d team of Headquarters and
district staff. The guide willprovide consistentguidancefor Caltrans staff who review local
development and land use change proposals as well as inform local agencies of the information
needed for Caltrans to analyze the traffic impacts to State highway facilities. Theguide will also
benefit local agencies and the development community by providing more expeditious review of
local developmentproposaJs.
Even though sound planning and engineering practices were used to adapt the Fresno TIS
.I� garde, it
as anticipated that changes will occur over time as new technologies and more e cwtractices
become available. 7' f� p
Tofa cil state these changes, Caltrans encourages all those who use this guide to
contact their nearest district office (i. e., IGRICEQA Coordinator) to coordinate any changes es with
the development team.
A CKNO WLEDGFME.NT,S
The District 6 traffic impact study guid e provided the impetus and a starting point for developing
the statewide guide. Special thanks is given to Marc Birnbaum for recognizing the need for a TIS
guide and for his valued experience and vast knowledge of land use plann ing to significantly
enhance the effort to adapt the District 6 guide for statewide use. Randy Treece from District 6
provided many hours of coordination, research and development of the original guide and should
be commended for his diligent efforts. Sharri Bender Ehlert ofDistrict 6 provided much of the
technical expertise in the adaptation of the District 6 guide and her efforts are greatly appreciated.
A special thanks is also given to all those Cities, Counties, Regional Agencies, Congestion
g g g
Management Agen cies, Consultan ts, and Caltrans Employees who reviewed thed
gu ide anpr ovided
input during the development of this Guide for the Preparation of Tri c Impact Studies.
.� p
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VI. MITIGATION MEASURES 6
Appendix "A" Minimum Contents of Traffic Imp act Study
App endix "B" M ethodology for Calculatin g Equ itable M itigation M easures
App endix "C" M easures of Effectiveness by Facility Typ e
Contents
Page Number
PREFACE and ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ll
I.
INTRODUCTION
1
II.
WHEN A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY IS NEEDED
1
A. Trip Generation Thresholds
2
B. Exceptions
C. Updating An Existing Traffic Impact Study
2
III.
SCOPE OF TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
2
A. Boundaries of the Traffic Impact Study
2
B. Traffic Analysis Scenarios
2
N.
TRAFFIC DATA
q.
A. Trip Generation
q,
B. Traffic Counts
q
C. Peak Hours
q.
D. Travel Forecasting (Transportation Modeling)
5
V.
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES
5
A. Freeway Sections
5
B. Weaving Areas
5
C. Ramps and Ramp Junctions
5
D. Muni -lane Rural and Urban Highways
5
E. Two-lane Highways
5
F. Signalized Intersections
5
G. Unsignalized Intersections
5
H. Transit Capacity
5
I. Pedestrians
5
J. Bicycles
5
K. Caltrans Criteria/Warrants
5
L. Channelization
5
VI. MITIGATION MEASURES 6
Appendix "A" Minimum Contents of Traffic Imp act Study
App endix "B" M ethodology for Calculatin g Equ itable M itigation M easures
App endix "C" M easures of Effectiveness by Facility Typ e
I. INTRODUCTION
Caltrans desires to provide a safe and efficient State transportation system for the citizens of
California pursuant to various Sections of the California Streets and Highway Code. This is
done in partnership with local and regional agencies through procedures established by the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and other land use planning processes. The
intent of this guide is to provide a starting point and a consistent basis in which Caltrans
evaluates traffic impacts to State highway facilities. The applicability of this guide for local
streets and roads (non -State highways) is at the discretion of the effected jurisdiction.
Caltrans reviews federal, State, and local agency development projects', and land use change
proposals for their potential impact to State highway facilities. The primary objectives of this
guide is to provide:
❑ guidance in det em- in in g i.f and when a traffic impact study (I'IS) is needed,
❑ consistency and uniformity in the identification of traffic generated impacts p ge d b y local land
use proposals,
❑ consistency and equity in the identification of measures to relitigate the traffic impacts
generated by land use p rap osals,
❑ lead agency officials with the information necessary'
t o make informed decisions ions re Bard to g
the existing and proposed transportation infrastructure (see A endix A Minimum. Content
pP � s
of a TIS)
❑ TIS requirements early in the planningphase of a project (i.e., initial study, notice of
preparation, or earlier) to el irnin ate potential delays later,
❑ a quality TIS by agreeing to the assumptions, data requirements, study scenarios and
analysts methodologies prior to beginning the TIS, and
❑ early coordination during the planning phases of a project to reduce the time and cost of
prep aring a TIS.
U. WHEN A TRAFFIC IlVIPACT S TUDY IS NED
The level of service (LOS) for operating State highway facilities is based upon measures of
effectiveness (M OEs). These M OEs (see Appendix "C-2") describe the measures best suited
for analyzing State highway facilities (i.e., freeway segments, signalized intersections on- or
off -ramp s, etc.). Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS
"C" and LOS "D" (see Appendix "C -T) on State highway facilities, however, Caltrans
acknowledges .that this may not always be feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult
� ,
with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS. If an existing State highway facility is
operating at less than the appropriate target LOS, the existingMOE should be maintained.
' "Project" refers to activities directly undertaken by govemment, financed by government, or requiringa p ermit or
other approval from government as defined in Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code p
and Section 15378 of the
California Code ofRegulations.
2 "Lead Agency" refers to the public agency that has the principal responsibility for
carrying out or approving a project.
Defined in Section 21165 ofthe Public Resources Code, the "California Environmental Quality Act, and Section 15367
of the Cali fornia Code o fRegulations.
3 "Level of service" as defined in the latest edition of the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council.
A. Trip Generation Thresholds
The following criterion is a starting point in determining when a TIS is needed. When a
project:
1. Generates over 100 peak hour trips assigned to a State hi hway facility
2. Generates 50 to 100 eak hour tri s assi ed to a State hiphwU facility — and
affected State highway facilities are exp erien cin g noticeable delay; approaching
unstable traffic flow conditions (LOS "C" or "D").
3. Generates 1 to 49 peak hour trips assigned to a State hi whwgy facility — the following
are examples that may require a full TIS or some lesser analysis4:
a. Affected State highway facilities experiencing significant delay; unstable or
forced traffic flow cond it ions (LOS "E" or "F").
b. The potential risk for a traffic incident is significantly increased (i.e., congestion
related collisions, non-standard sight distance considerations, increase in traffic
conflict points, etc.) .
c. Change in local circulation networks that imp act a State highway facility (i.e.,
direct access to State highway facility, a non-standard highway geometric design,
etc.).
Note: A traffic study may be as simple as providing a traffic count to as complex as a
microscopic simulation. The appropriate level of study is determined by the particulars of a
project, the p revailin g highway conditions, and the forecasted traffic.
B. Exceptions
Exceptions require consultation between the lead agency, Caltrans, and those prep aring the
TIS. When a project's traffic impact to a State highway facility can clearly be anticipated
without a study and all the p arties involved (lead agency, develop er, and the Caltrans district
office) are able to negotiate appropriate mitigation, a TIS may not be necessary.
C. Updating An Existing Traffic Impact Study
A TIS requires updating when the amount or character of traffic is significantly different
from an earlier study. Generally a TIS requires updating every two years. A TIS may
require updating sooner in rapidly developing areas and not as often in slower developing
areas. In these cases, consultation with Caltrans is strongly recommended.
M SCOPE OF TRAFFIC EMPACT STUDY
Consultation between the lead agency, Caltrans, and those p rep aring the TIS is recommended
before commencing work on the study to establish the appropriate scope. At a minimum, the
TIS should include the following.
A. Boundaries of the Traffic Impact Study
All State highway facilities impacted in accordance with the criteria in Section II should be
studied. Traffic impacts to local streets and roads can impact intersections with State
highway facilities. In these cases, the TIS should include an analysis of adjacent local
facilities, upstream and downstream, of the intersection (i.e., driveways, intersections, and
interchanges) with the State highway.
4 A "lesser analysis" may include obtaining traffic counts, preparing signal warrants, or a focused TIS etc.
B. Traffic Analysis Scenarios
Caltrans is int eres ted in the effects of general plan updates and amendments as well as the
effects of specific project entitlements (i.e., site plans, conditional use
divisions rezoninge p ermits ' sub-
divisions, that have the potential to impact a State highway facility. The
complexity or magnitude of the impacts of a'project will normally dictate the scenarios
necessary to analyze theproject. Consultation between the lead agency, Caltrans, and those
p rep aring the TIS is reco rnmend ed to determine the appropriate scenarios for the analysis.
The followingscenarios should be addressed
ssed u� the TIS when appropriate.
1. When only a general plan amendment or update is being sought, the following scenarios
are required:
a Existing Conditions -Current year traffic volumes and peak hour LOS analysis of
highway effected State hi facilities.
Y
Y
b) Prow os ed Proi ect O my with Select Link 5 Analysis - T rip generation and assignment
for build -out of general plan.
c) General Plan Build -out Only - Trip assignment and peak hour LOS analysis.
Include
current land uses and other pending general plan amendments.
d) General Plan Build -out Plus Proposed Project - Trip assignment andp eak hour LOS
analysis. Include proposed project and other p ending general plan amendments.
2. When a general plan amendment is not proposed and a proposed project is seeking
specific entitlements (i.e., site plans, conditional use permits, sub -division, rezoning
etc.), the following scenarios must be analyzed in the TIS:
a) Existin&Conditions - Current year traffic volumes and peak hour LO S analysis of
effected State highway facilities.
b) Proposed Project Only - Trip generation, distribution, and assi ent in the year the
� Y
project is anticip ated to complete construction.
c) Cumulative Conditions (Existing Conditions Plus Other Approved and Pending
Projects Without Proposed Project) - Trip assignment and peak hour LOS analysis in
the year theproject is anticipated to complete construction.
d) Cumulative Conditions Plus Proposed Project (Existing Conditions Plus Other
Approved and Pending Projects Plus Proposed Project) - Trip assignment andp eak
hour LOS analysis in the year the project is anticipated to complete construction.
e) Cumulative Conditions Plus Proposed Phases (Interim years) - Trip assignment and
peak hour LOS analysis in the years theproject p has es are anticipated to comp let e
construction.
3. In cases where the circulation element of the general plan is not consistent with, the land
use element or the general plan is outdated and not representative ent at ive o f current or future
p re
forecasted conditions, all scenarios from Sections III. B. 1. and 2. should be utilized with
the exception of duplicating of item 2.a.
s "Select link" analysis represents a project only trafic model
run, where the project's trips are distributed and assigned
along a loaded highway network. This procedure isolates the specific impact on the State highway network.
IV. TRAFFIC DATA
Prior to any fieldwork, consultation between the lead agency, Caltrans, and those preparing the
TIS is recommended to reach consensus on the data and assumptions necessary for the study.
The following elements are a starting point in that consideration.
A. Trip Generation
The latest edition of the Institute of Transp ort ation Engineers' (ITE) TRIP GENERATION
report should be used for trip generation forecasts. Local trip generation rates are also
accep table if ap p rap riate- validation is p rovided t o supp ort them.
1. Trip Generation Rates —When the land use has a limited number of studies to support
the trip generation rates or when the Coefficient of Determination (R) is below 0.75,
consultation between the lead agency, Caltrans and those preparing the TIS is
recomm ended.
2. Pass -by Trite — Pass -by trips are only considered for retail oriented develop ment .
o
Reductions greater than 15% requires consultation and acceptance by Caltrans. The
justification for exceeding a 15% reduction should be discussed in the TIS.
3. Captured Trips — Captured trip reductions greater than 5% requires consultation and
acceptance by Caltrans. The justification for exceeding a 5% reduction should be
discussed in the TIS.
4. Transportation Demand Management ,TDM) — Consultation between the lead agency
and Caltrans is essential before applying trip reduction for TDM strategies.
NOTE: Reasonable reductions to trip generation rates are considered when adjacent State
highway volumes are sufficient (at least 5000 ADT) to supe ort reductions for the land use.
B. Traffic Counts
Prior to field traffic counts, consultation between the lead agency, Caltrans and those
preparing the TIS is recommended to determine the level of detail (e.g., location, signal
timing travel speeds, turning movements, etc.) required at each traffic count site. All State
highway facilities within the boundaries of the TIS should be considered. Common rules for
counting vehicular traffic include but are not limit ed t o :
1. Vehicle counts should be conducted on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, or Thursdays during
weeks not containing a holiday and conducted in favorable weather conditions.
2. Vehi cle counts should be conducted durin g the ap p rcp riat e p eak hours (see p eak
hour discussion below) .
3. Seas ona 1 and weekend vari at ions in traffic should also be considered where
appropriate (i.e., recreational routes, tourist attractions) harvest season, etc.).
C. Peak Hours
To eliminate unnecessary analysis, consultation between the lead agency, Caltrans and those
p rep aring the TIS is recommended during the early planning stages of a project. In general,
the TIS should include a morning (a.m.) and an evening (p.m.) peak hour analyses. Other
peak hours (e.g., 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., weekend, holidays, etc.) may also be required to
determine the significance of the traffic impacts generated by a project.
6"Pass-by" trips are made as intermediate stops between an origin and a primary trip destination (.e., home to wo&, home to
shopping, etc.).
7" Captured Trips" are trips that do not enter orleave the driveways ofa project's boundaly within a mixed-use development.
D. Travel Forecasting (Transportation Modeling)
The local or regional traffic model should reflect the most current land use and planned
improvements (i.e., where programming or funding is secured). When a general plan build-
out model is not available, the closest forecast model year to build -out should be used. If a
traffic model is not available, historical growth rates and current trends can be used to
project futuretraffic volumes. The TIS should clearly describe any changes made in the
model to accommodate the analysis of a proposed project.
V. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AMHQDOI O GIES
Typ ically, the traffic analysis methodologies for the facility types indicated below are used by
Caltrans and will be accepted without prior consultation. When a State highway has saturated
flows, the use of a micro -simulation model is encouraged for the analysis. other analysis
methods may be accepted, however, consultation between the lead agency, Caltrans and those
p rep aring the T IS is reco mmend ed t o agr ee on the data nec es s ary for the analy sis .
A. Freeway Segments — Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)*, operational analysis
B. Weaving Areas — Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM)
C. Ramp s and Ram -Junctions — HCM *, cp erational analysis or Caltrans HDM, Caltrans Ranp
M et erig Guidelines (most recent edition)
D. M ulti-Lane Hi whway s -- HCM *, op erational analy s is
E. Two --lane Highways — HCM*, operational analysis
F. Si malized 'Intersections8 — HCM *, Highway Cap acity Software* *, erational analysis,
"IM -
T RAFFIX * *—
, Synchro * *, see footnote 8
G. Uns inial iz ed Intersections — HCM *, cp erational analysis, Caltrans Traffic Manual for signal
warrants if a signal is being considered
H. Transit — HCM*, operational analysis
I. Pedestrians — HCM
J. Bicycles —HCM*
K. Caltrans Criteria/Warrants -- Caltrans Traffic Manual (stop signs, traffic signals, freeway
lighting, conventional highway lighting, school crossings)
L. Channelization -- Caltransguidelines for Reconstruction of Intersections, August 1985,
Ichiro Fukutome
*The most current edition of the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board,
National Research Coun cit, should be used.
**NOTE: Caltrans does not officially advocate the use of any special software. However,
consistency with the HCM is advocated in most but not all cases. The Caltrans- local
development review units utilize the software mentioned above. If different software or
analytical techniques are used for the TIS then consultation between the lead agency, Caltrans
and those preparing the TIS is recommended. Results that are significantly different than those
produced with the analytical techniques above should be challenged.
s The procedures in the Highway Capacity Manual "do not explicitly address operations of closely p g spaced signalized
intersections. Under such conditions, several unique characteristics must be considered, including spill -back potential
from the downstream intersection to the upstream intersection, effects of downstream queues on upstream saturation
flow rate, and unusual platoon dispersion or compression between intersections. An example of such closely spaced
operations is signalized ramp terminals at urban interchanges. Queue interactions between closely spaced intersections
may seriously distort the procedures in" the HCM.
VL MITIGATION MEASURES
The TIS should provide the nexus [Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987, 483 U.S.
825 (108 S.Ct. 314)] between a project and the traffic impacts to State highway facilities. The
TIS should also establish the rough proportionality [Dolan v. City of Tigard, 1994, 512 U.S. 374
(114 S. Ct. 2309)] between the mitigation measures and the traffic imp acts. One method for
establishing the rough proportionality or aproject proponent's equitable responsibility for a
project's impacts is provided in Appendix "B." Consultation between the lead agency, Caltrans
and those prep wring the TIS is recommended to reach consensus on the mitigation measures and
who will be responsible.
Mitigation measures must be included in the traffic impact analysis. This determines if a
project's impacts can be eliminated or reduced to a level of insignificance. Eliminatingor
reducing impacts to a level of insignificance is the standard pursuant to CEQA and the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The lead agency is responsible for administering the CEQA
review process and has the principal authority for approving a local development proposal or
land use change. Caltrans, as a responsible agency, is responsible for reviewing the TIS for
errors and omissions that pertain to State highway facilities. However, the authority vested in
the lead agency under CEQA does not take precedence over other authorities in law.
If the mitigation measures require work in the State highway right-of-way an encroachment.
permit from Caltrans will be required. This work will also be subject to Caltrans standards and
specifications. Consultation between the lead agency, Caltrans and those preparing the TIS early
in the planningprocess is strongly recommended to expedite the review of local development
proposals and to reduce conflicts and misunderstandings in both the local agency CEQA review
process as well as the Caltrans encroachment permit process.
APPENDIX " A "
MINIMUM CONTENTS
OF A
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
MINIMUM CONTENTS OF TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDYREPORT
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
II. TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. List of Figures (Maps)
B. List of Tables
III. INTRODUCTION
A. Description ofthe praposedproject
B. Location of project
C. Site plan including all access to State highways (siteplan, map)
D. Circulation network including all access to State highways (vicinity map)
E. Land use and zoning
F. Phasingplan including proposed dates ofproject (phase) completion
G. Project sponsor and contact persons)
H. References to other traffic impact studies
IV. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
A. Clearly stated assumptions
B. Existing and projected traffic volumes (including turning movements), facility geometry
(including storage lengths), and traffic controls (including signal phasing and multi -
signal progression where appropriate) (figure)
C. Project trip generation including references (table)
D. Project generated trip distribution and assignment (figure)
E. LOS and warrant analyses -existing conditions, cumulative conditions, and full build of
general plan conditions with and without project
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. LOS and appropriate M OE quantities of impacted facilities with and without mitigation
measures
B. Mitigation phasing plan including dates of proposed mitigation measures
C. Define responsibilities for implementing mitigation measures
D. Cost estimates for mitigation measures and fmancingplan
VI. APPENDICES
A. Description of traffic data and how data was collected
B. Description of methodologies and as sump tions used in analyses
C. Worksheets used in analyses (i.e., signal warrant, LOS, traffic count information, etc.)
2
APPENDIX "B"
METHODOLOGY FOR
CALCULATING EQUITABLE
MITIGATION MEASURES
MET HOD FOR CALCULATING EQUITABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
The methodology below is neither intended as, nor does it establish, a legal standard for
det erminin g equ it able resp ons ibility and cost of a p ro j ect' s traffic impact, the intent is t op rovide:
1. A s t art ing point for early discussions to address traffic mit igat ion equitably.
2. A means for calculating the equitable share for mitigating traffic imp acts .
3. A means for establishing rough prop oitionality [Dolan v. City of Tigard, 1994, 512 U.S. 374
(114 S. Ct. 2309)].
The formulas should be used when:
• A project has impacts that do not immediately warrant mitigation, but their cumulative effects
are sl gnificant and will require mitigating in the future.
• A project has an immediate impact and the lead agency has assumed responsibility for
addressing operational improvements
NOTE: This formula is not intended for circumstances where a project proponent will be receiving
a substantial benefit from the identified mitigation measures. In these cases, (e.g., mid -block ac ces s
and sign alization to a shopping center) the project should take full responsibility to toward
providing the necessary infrastructure.
EQUITABLE SHARE RES PONS IBILIT Y: Equation C-1
NOTE: TE < TB, see explanation for TB below.
P =
T
TB- TE
Where:
P = The equitable share for the proposed project's traffic imp act .
T = The vehicle trip s generated by the project during the p eak hour of adjacent State highway facility
in
vehicles per hour, vp h.
� y y
TB= The forecasted traffic volume on an impacted State highway facility at the time of generalp lan
build -out (e.g., 20 year model or the furthest future model date feasible), vp h.
TE = The traffic volume existing on the impacted State highway facility plus other approvedJrojects that
p
will generate traffic that has yet to be construct ed/op ened, vp h.
EQUITABLE COST: Equation C-2
C = P (CT)
Where:
C = The equitable cost of traffic mitigation for the proposedproject, ($). (Rounded to nearest one
thousand dollars)
P = The equitable share for the project being considered.
CT= The total cost estimate for improvements necessary to mitigate the forecasted traffic demand on the
impacted State highway facility in question at general plan build -out, ($).
NOTES
1. Once the equitable share responsibility and equitable cost has been established on a per trip
basis, these values can be utilized for all projects on that State highway facility until the
forecasted general plan build -out model is revised.
2. Truck traffic should be converted to passenger car equivalents before utilizing these equations
(see the Highway Capacity Manual for converting to passenger car equivalents).
2
APPENDIX " C "
MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS
FACILITY TYP
E
MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS BY FACILITY TYPE
rIF TYPE OF FACILITY MEAS URE OF EFFECTIVENESS (MOE)
7RaTnp
ic Freewa Se ents Density
s Density (pc/mi/ln)
11 Ramp Terminals 11IDelav (sec/veh) 1
Multi -Lane Highways Density c/mi/lri
Two -Lane Highways Percent -Time -Following
Average Travel $peed mi/hr
Signalized Intersections Control Delay per Vehicle (sec/veh)
Unsignalized Intersections
Average Control Delay per Vehicle (sec/veh)
Urban Streets
11 Average Trav e
l Speed (mi/hr)
Measures of effectiveness for level of service definitions located in the
most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council.
2
Transition. between LOS "C" and LOS "D" Criteria
(Reference Highway Cap acit3T Manual)
BASIC FREEWAY SEGMENTS @ 65 mi/hr
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS and RAMP TERMINALS
LOS Control Delay
per Vehicle
(sec/veh)
MULTI -LANE HIGHWAYS @ 55 mi/hr
LOS
A <10
Minimum
B
> 10-20
rrwwrfr
C
> 20-35
v/c
D
rrrrr
>35-55
>55-80
> 80
E
F
MULTI -LANE HIGHWAYS @ 55 mi/hr
LOS
Maximum
Minimum
Maximum
Maximum
Density
Speed
v/c
Service
(pc/miAn)
(mph)
Flow Rate
(p.c/hr/In)
A
11
55.0
0.29
600
B
18
55.0
0.47
990
C
26
54.9
0.68
1430
D
35
52.9
0.88
1850
IL E t 41 51.2
1.00
2100 —11
x w a r 0 Dotted line represents the transition between LOS "C" and LOS "D"
TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS
LOS
Percent
Time -S nt-Followin
Average Travel Speed
mi/hr
A
<_35
>55
B
>35-50
>50-55
amamCox IVIVWWa>*1509, As a a anWIN NanIs raWanaa*aR>yIl55 *Mm a a a anNaNN
D
> 65-80
>40-45
E
> 80
<_ 40
Urban Street Class
Range of FFSof FFS
ME
Typical FFS
LO S
A
B
C
D
E
F
URBAN STREETS
I
II
III
Iv
55 to 45 mi/hr
45 to 35 mi/hr
35 to 30 mi/hr
35 to 25 mi/hr
50 mi/hr
40 mi/hr
35 mi/hr
30 mi/hr
Average Travel Speed mi/hr
>42
>35
>30
>25
> 34 - 42
> 28 -35
> 24 - 30
> 19-25
>27-34
>22-28
>18-24
>13-19
> 21-27
> 17-22
> 14-18
> Vaasa
-13
> 16-21
> 13 -17
> 10-14
> 7-9
<16
_513
<10
<7
■ M ■ M ■ Dotted line represents the transition between LOS "C" and LOS "D"
4
j
GRAY DAVIS
Governor
MARIA CONTRERAS-SWEET
Secretary
Business,, Transp ortation and Housing Agency
JEFF M ORALES
Director
California Department of Transportation
RANDELL H. IWA SAKI
Deputy Director
Maintenance and Operations
JOSEPH HECKER
Chief
Division of Traffic Operations
For additional copies of these guidelines, please contact Tom Persons @ email: