Connecting You to Your Community
Lodi, California •

Indexes


November 21st, 2009
November 20th, 2009
November 19th, 2009
November 18th, 2009
November 17th, 2009
November 16th, 2009
November 14th, 2009
ADVERTISEMENT

Agreement would protect Reynolds Ranch from lawsuit

By Jake Armstrong
News-Sentinel Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 30, 2006 5:52 PM PDT

Comments (40 comment(s))

An agreement that would shield the 220-acre Reynolds Ranch project from being scuttled by a lawsuit from a citizens' group is headed to the Lodi City Council for approval at a special meeting Wednesday night.

The city and Citizens for Open Government reached an accord that the group will not sue if the development agreement for Reynolds Ranch, which includes incentives for the city in the form of additional fees and services, is approved by the council as presented, City Manager Blair King said Friday.

The development agreement up for approval includes a mechanism that would require the developer, San Joaquin Valley land Co., to purchase and set aside 200 acres of agricultural land in perpetuity, King said. The land would need to be somewhere in San Joaquin County and not be further than 15 miles from the project site.

Citizens for Open Government, which mounted an unsuccessful lawsuit against the Wal-Mart Supercenter proposal, was concerned with the project's plan for preserving agricultural land, King said.

The environmental impact report for that project was invalidated by a legal challenge from another group, Lodi First, and the development is still on hiatus as another environmental report is prepared.

A representative for Citizens for Open Government, attorney Ann Cerney, could not be reached for comment Friday afternoon.

Reynolds Ranch consists of 1,084 homes of various densities, 350,000 square feet of commercial space on 40 acres, public areas and buildings, and the office complex.

King said the agreement accommodates both citizens' concerns and the importance of keeping jobs in Lodi. A 20-acre office site in the project would create a new home for Blue Shield of California.

"I think it represented cooperation," King said of the accord.

The health insurer employs about 600 people in three locations in Lodi and has plans to add hundreds of new jobs at the larger location. City officials and the developer have said the project hinges on the Blue Shield complex being a part.

The council will also consider certifying the project's environmental impact report, development agreement, annexation and zone change.

The Lodi Planning Commission deadlocked 3-3 on whether to recommend the project for council approval. The council will also hear the developer's appeal of that indecision.

The council meets at 7 p.m. at Carnegie Forum, 305 W. Pine St. For more information, call the City Clerk's Office at 333-6702.

Contact reporter Jake Armstrong at jakea@lodinews.com.

First published: Saturday, August 26, 2006

This story was updated at 5:50 p.m. Aug. 30, 2006, to correct the allowable distance from the project site that developers must set aside farmland.

Reader Feedback

ArmstrongFarmer wrote on Aug 28, 2006 5:21 PM:

" I have learned from the Lodi CC, that , not if, but when I choose to plant houses in my vineyard, all I need to do is call a slick developer to be my partner! I had one developer tell me that they "have the lawyers to get this done." "

Report Abuse

Sam wrote on Aug 28, 2006 8:23 AM:

" Ann, NEVER EVER let me hear you say you want to preserve farmland on Armstrong. Just pave it over with green cement and you will have your "greenbelt"! "

Report Abuse

SAD wrote on Aug 28, 2006 8:10 AM:

" I am extremely disappointed in Ann Cerney's organization. I thought this issue was about the general plan, air quality, traffic congestion and a host of other quality of life issues. She is no different than the project developers. She gets her money and a face saving consession regarding farm land that is probably unenforceable and now she will speak in favor of the project. Did those other issues go away because her legal fees were paid? I don't think so. "

Report Abuse

T & C wrote on Aug 27, 2006 6:59 PM:

" Webmaster, I apologize for overlooking the post that I made on a different subject. I did that all by myself and please accept my apologies. T & C "

Report Abuse

Webmaster wrote on Aug 27, 2006 6:28 PM:

" To T & C: If you're referring to your comment that begins, "It's a well known fact that Diede has a working agreement with the city of Lodi..." you posted the comment on Joe Guzzardi's column, not this story. It is still there, if you look. No one is deleting your posts if they do not violate our rules. "

Report Abuse

Sam wrote on Aug 27, 2006 6:24 PM:

" With Diede's 10 acres of trucks next to Reynolds Ranch the RR EIR SHOULD BE invalidated!!! You cannot tell me that 10 acres of semi trucks will have no effect on the traffic and air pollution at RR. Lodi CC is disgusting!!!!! "

Report Abuse

Cycloray wrote on Aug 27, 2006 4:15 PM:

" You should recognize she is fighting a General Manager who is using your hard earned Tax Dollars to pounce on your back. He has no compassion what’s so ever he is willing to walk over you. Wake up!! There will be nothing livable here in Lodi!! You’ll be left praying for relief one day!!! King will be long gone from his position!! "

Report Abuse

Cycloray wrote on Aug 27, 2006 4:15 PM:

" Not fair to back talk someone like Ann Cerney LRR I have met with her regarding an issue I am having with the city and I can tell you She is an outstanding citizen. I don’t see you giving up your time or profession!! with out a grantee of repayment!! a law firm!! has High Overhead. You should be supporting a person committed to your environment. I can tell you she’s not on an agenda. "

Report Abuse

commonsense wrote on Aug 27, 2006 10:27 AM:

" Capt. America you are amazing!..I knew you would be in this blog. You have an incredible inside source for information, regardless of the project. You're like the CIA or FBI. If it's not secret, let us know who to call, so we can all get the most recent dribble. Come on Capt. make up some more "facts" for us. "

Report Abuse

LodiNative wrote on Aug 27, 2006 10:21 AM:

" If this isn't the perfect example of extortion and blackmail nothing is. The developer is putting at risk millions of dollars. Down the line, those costs have to be passed on to all of us. Do you think Cerney did us a favor? It's interesting to see how people who don't own the land, want to dictate who buys, what they build, etc. What ground is available in Lodi? "

Report Abuse

T & C wrote on Aug 27, 2006 9:23 AM:

" Stockton Record mentions a previous agreement between Lodi and San Joaquin Land Co? When did this take place? And when? Is that what that $100,000 was for was dinner and drink money for the CC to keep making these under the table deals with the same people that're involved in every questionable farmland scheme in Lodi in the last 15 years? This CC wants to expedite this project through before they're ALL voted from CC. "

Report Abuse

patton wrote on Aug 27, 2006 7:50 AM:

" T&C, The eir was not invalidated. To date, there were just several comments most of them were Cerney's. Guess she feels the eir is fine now. "

Report Abuse

Joe Scmole wrote on Aug 27, 2006 1:00 AM:

" I know about this practice of land deal but not completely.Stockton did it with Cortopassi.Guess were the Ducks swim! "

Report Abuse

To the Captain: wrote on Aug 26, 2006 10:46 PM:

" Is there a Realtor's Commission that that those actions should be reported to? "

Report Abuse

Sam wrote on Aug 26, 2006 9:12 PM:

" I am convinced that Lodi CC does not care about farmers and farm land. If they are willing to let Diede put a 10 acre truck terminal on Ag40 land that they CLAIM needs to be a greenbelt, they are hypocrites. They want a border to separate Lodi from Stockton, not farmland. The greenbelt is becoming a dead issue!!! "

Report Abuse

T & C wrote on Aug 26, 2006 9:10 PM:

" Sorry, Linda, but try again. I'm just a Lodi citizen since 1987 who's been on certain vendettas against certain CC and staff members and business that have bullied and bought their way around Lodi. Right now it's the San Joaquin Land Co. and their $100,000 advance to Lodi CC to do their leg work for them. "

Report Abuse

T & C wrote on Aug 26, 2006 9:04 PM:

" Thanks oth. Linda's thought process must be getting worn down. Just being accused of being Hitchcock gave me a great power rush. I'm now faster than a speeding bullet! LOL "

Report Abuse

t & c wrote on Aug 26, 2006 8:53 PM:

" Quit deleting my harmless blogs LNS. The Stockton record tells the truth today, not you. AGAIN! "

Report Abuse

T & C wrote on Aug 26, 2006 8:46 PM:

" Thanks LNS for deleting my blog about Diede Construction and their $185,000 bus stop at Loel center from this afternoon. I've made this same statement before twice and you've printed it and now you decide you don't want to. Diede has deep ties with the City of Lodi. They're also being picketed for substandard wages and working conditions. "

Report Abuse

LRR wrote on Aug 26, 2006 6:38 PM:

" Look, this is no different than what Cerney, etal did on the Lowes project. When the developers paid off her legal fees and the grocers union was satisfied that there would not be a non-union grocery store.....the problems went away. It was never about ag land. It was about Cerney's blackmail and the grocers union. Both sides of this current issue are pathetic. "

Report Abuse

OTH wrote on Aug 26, 2006 4:50 PM:

" TO Linda & Election Central.......T&C is not Hitchcock. "

Report Abuse

lodiguy wrote on Aug 26, 2006 4:38 PM:

" Unlike T&C, I appreciate what the City made the developers provide, and further, what Ms. Cerney's group added in the way of requirements. If the developers are willing to do this, so what if they get a 1,000 residential units that are declining in value daily-Lodi gets jobs and some other benefits as a result of this project. "

Report Abuse

Election Central wrote on Aug 26, 2006 3:20 PM:

" It is time to get Hitchcock (T&C) out of office. The north, south and east sides of our community will be lined with NO HITCHCOCK signs. Her back room management of the process is over the top! "

Report Abuse

Linda wrote on Aug 26, 2006 1:16 PM:

" T&C, I'll tell you what is low politics by the City Council. It's hiding behind the name T&C and criticizing your fellow Councilmembers. We know you Susan, you may be able to fool some of the people but you can not fool all the people. "

Report Abuse

T & C wrote on Aug 26, 2006 1:06 PM:

" Why would Reynolds Ranch have to be protected from a lawsuit? Are they planning something devious? Or have they already done that? Why should Lodi offer Gillespie and friends something others don't get? Someone has got to stand and tell the truth about this project. It stinks. Why do they keep using Blue Shield as an excuse to build 1,000+ homes? "

Report Abuse

LodiCitizen wrote on Aug 26, 2006 12:26 PM:

" What costs and expenses did Anne Cerney incur representing Citizens for Open Government that cost $20,000.00. And who are this group who wish to remain anonymous? I think the citizens of Lodi have a right to know who they are? Could it be Hitchcock and Cerney? Who else?...the citizens of Lodi have a right to know!!!Don't hide behind anonymous...that is a cowards way!!! "

Report Abuse

Captain America wrote on Aug 26, 2006 12:25 PM:

" I am seeing a pattern, The city council selects a partner in the San Joaquin Valley Land Company to be a member of their task force to find a site for the college, this same firm purchases property adjacent to the site for 1/2 what the college paid? Plus he gets commissions on all these sales too? WHAT!!!!! ARE YOU KIDDING ME "

Report Abuse

Captain America wrote on Aug 26, 2006 12:20 PM:

" HELLO, San Joaquin Valley Land Co. is the same band of swindlers that is behind the Delta College deal. HOLY LODI! Set Aside? One can only imagine the pristine property such straight forward business people like these would GIVE to avoid a lawsuit. sarcasm intended! "

Report Abuse

LodiCitizen wrote on Aug 26, 2006 12:19 PM:

" Here we go again, King and the LNS lying to the public. The purchase of permanent easements on 200 acres MUST be within 15 miles of Reynolds Ranch. NOT somewhere in San Joaquin County and not further than 50 miles. Read todays' Stockon Record for the facts...as usual, you can't get the truth from LNS. "

Report Abuse

Scottsdale Dweller wrote on Aug 26, 2006 10:35 AM:

" T&C, did you know that Diede Construction is putting in a 10 acre industrial Truck Terminal just south of the Reynold Ranch project. This land is zoned AG 40 and in Lodi's proposed greenbelt. We got the notice in the mail yesterday. "

Report Abuse

Sam wrote on Aug 26, 2006 9:49 AM:

" This truck terminal is going SOUTH of Reynolds Ranch. Be FAIR!!! Is Lodi considering all those huge semi trucks in their RR environmental report... or are they just playing dumb to the addition of a 10 acrea truck terminal. Can you imagine the pollution. WAKE UP Lodi. "

Report Abuse

Sam wrote on Aug 26, 2006 9:47 AM:

" "Diede Construction is putting a 10 acre Industrial Truck Terminal in Lodi's proposed greenbelt... south of Scottsdale, north of Armstrong, west of 99 highway. ZONED AG 40. Why is this allowed to got in next to our vineyards???? Hitchcock swears she "knows nothing about it." Who is greasing whose palm???" "

Report Abuse

Yes!! wrote on Aug 26, 2006 9:20 AM:

" Way to go Ann!!! Keep up the good, no, great work!!! "

Report Abuse

T & C wrote on Aug 26, 2006 8:37 AM:

" With approximately 450 properties for sale in the Lodi area this week, it doesn't look like it's time to be building any new homes at all, but to get the City Council and Chamber of Commerce off their duffs and bring some decent paying jobs that'd allow Lodians to buy one of the overpriced matchstick tract homes they're building in this area. "

Report Abuse

T & C wrote on Aug 26, 2006 8:33 AM:

" Without a firm commitment from Blue Shield and an approved and active environmental report approval of this silly agreement, we'll really see who has the interests of the citizens in mind. And RR developers demanding to build, even during a future moratorium, is utterly ridiculous. Let's build BS and let RR worry about their own "dirty money and work" and find their own land. "

Report Abuse

T & C wrote on Aug 26, 2006 8:28 AM:

" What about the super Walmart? How about Costco? Let's complete these first. The CC said over a month ago that BS had to have an answer right away or they were going to Stockton and now they're just barely mentioned as a very small phase in RR with all the time in the world to make a decision. "

Report Abuse

T & C wrote on Aug 26, 2006 8:22 AM:

" And what about the impact report that has been invalidated? Why would the CC pass anything without a valid impact report? We need to get that Modesto city corruption grand jury here to Lodi for some truth to be brought out. Now RR wants to "fix" the EIR to their and the CC's own liking. Fix, alright. "

Report Abuse

T & C wrote on Aug 26, 2006 8:18 AM:

" What about Hansen, Beckman and Johnson telling us it's for the jobs at BS to stay in Lodi, yet it's proven just to be a developers' money grab at Lodi citizens' expense. Shame on you three! Give Gillespie his $100,000 back and let him do his own dirty work. This is the lowest the CC has ever sunk. Just where did all these "new" conditions get agreed upon? More phone and backdoor meetings with the developers? "

Report Abuse

T & C wrote on Aug 26, 2006 8:12 AM:

" So Blue Shield is not really the project? This article portrays RR as the project and BS as merely a smallcomponent. Is this what the $100,000 front money San Joaquin Land (Gillespie) gave to Lodi to do their work for them got us? "

Report Abuse

Too Bad wrote on Aug 26, 2006 7:58 AM:

" Well, if this isn't blackmail at its best and worse yet, the RR developers have bought into it. Doesn't show me much class or integrity on either side of the issue. "

Report Abuse

Comments on this story are now closed.

Special Sections

Photo Reprints

Find Ads




Leaf Pickup

Services

Contact Us

Office

125 N. Church St.
P.O. Box 1360
Lodi, CA 95241
(209) 369-2761
Fax: (209) 369-1084

Newsroom

E-mail

(209) 369-7035
Fax: (209) 369-6706

Subscriptions

Subscribe

Problems with your subscription?
(209) 333-1400

Advertising

E-mail

(209) 369-2761
Fax: (209) 369-1084

Classifieds

Place an ad E-mail

(209) 333-1111
Fax: (209) 369-1084