Indexes
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Students 'protest' the eating of turkeys on Thanksgiving (78)
- Does citing the facts on immigration mean I am a hate-monger? (72)
- Minister takes to the streets to recruit new members (59)
- Huber upsets Sieglock in 10th Assembly race (33)
- Former gang member hopes to make a difference in Lodi (33)
- Is the U.S. Constitution obsolete? (30)
- Automakers need a simple car (24)
- Lodi fills position of deputy city manager (17)
- Update: Huber appears to have made comeback victory (16)
- Galt Boys and Girls Club in danger of closing (14)
Reynolds Ranch wins 3-2 approval
News-Sentinel Staff Writer
Reynolds Ranch was approved in a 3-2 vote Wednesday night after more than five hours of discussion by the Lodi City Council.
In each of five matters of business — approving the final Environmental Impact Report, making a general plan amendment to include Reynolds Ranch, accepting the development agreement between the city and San Joaquin Valley Development, annexing the land the project will be built upon and rezoning the area for development — both Mayor Susan Hitchcock and Councilwoman JoAnne Mounce voted to deny approval.
Hitchcock had some points of contention with the plan, in particular with the housing density proposals because she said it broke from the general plan guidelines of 65 percent low-density housing, 10 percent medium-density and 25 percent high density.
"When the general plan was formed these were figures the public embraced," Hithcock said. "I realize we can amend the general plan but with this proposal we're wholesaling it."
In the proposal, the low-density housing figure was lowered from 65 percent to 11 percent, however the plan still fulfills the second part of the guideline of only 7 housing units per acre.
Mounce, meanwhile, was concerned that development fees would not be used to enhance the Eastside and downtown as proposed, but instead go to other projects already waiting for funding.
Several members of the public also spoke at the meeting, including a number of employees from Blue Shield of California — a major stakeholder in the project.
While Blue Shield employees were united in their opinion on Reynolds Ranch, farmers were divided about whether the project should be approved.
The Lodi City Council had still made no decision by midnight, after a more than five-hour meeting had been under way.
One after one, Blue Shield employees stood and echoed the mantra, "We need our jobs," in response to comments made earlier in the meeting by Hitchcock.
Meanwhile, farmers in the audience stood carrying signs that read, "If you fed your child today hug a farmer," and "Save the family farm."
Rosemary Atkinson, a representative of Campaign for Common Ground, made the trip from Stockton to voice her opinion about the project.
Next step
The annexation proposal for Reynolds Ranch must now be reviewed by the Local Agency Formation Commission, which has been established to discourage urban sprawl, preserve agricultural land and encourage orderly development.LAFCO will hold a special meeting on Sept. 22 at 10 a.m. to vote whether to approve the project, but must first decide whether the plan demonstrates an ability to provide municipal services, meets LAFCO guidelines and is a logical annexation.
Source: Bruce Baracco, LAFCO executive officer.
"For years Lodi has been concerned about Stockton deciding to make a move north into the city and has supported a greenbelt," she said. "So I'm surprised and sad to see that Lodi is now making the first move out of city boundaries."
Others who said they disapproved of the project upon arrival, like Mike Manna, owner of Manna Farms and member of the Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission, said they had changed their minds during the course of the meeting.
An effort by the San Joaquin Land Company, the developers behind Reynolds Ranch, to include agricultural buffers in the project plans was largely responsible for the change of perspective, Manna said.
"As soon as I heard about this project I told myself 'That's not gonna fly,'" Manna said, "But I've come to agree with the project because of the buffer zones discussed. If more projects were thought out in this way I don't think you'd see so much resistance from farmers."
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 a 20-acre office complex for Blue Shield.
The health insurer, whose participation is key to the success of the project, employs about 600 people in three locations in Lodi and has plans to add hundreds of new jobs at the new location.
The adoption and development agreement, which includes developer investments in other parts of the community like the Eastside, downtown and a one to one agricultural mitigation area, was also approved by Citizens for Open Government. The group mounted an unsuccessful lawsuit against the Wal-Mart Supercenter proposal and sought to include agricultural mitigation in the Reynolds Ranch project to avoid another court battle.
The approval by City Council means the project will now move to the Local Agency Formation Commission for approval of the annexation proposal. LAFCO will meet Sept. 22 to discuss the merits of the plan.
Contact reporter Rebecca Adler at rebeccaa@lodinews.com.
First published: Thursday, August 31, 2006

Reader Feedback
well wrote on Sep 13, 2006 9:52 PM:
well wrote on Sep 13, 2006 9:42 PM:
patton wrote on Sep 13, 2006 5:53 PM:
To Patton wrote on Sep 13, 2006 3:39 PM:
patton wrote on Sep 13, 2006 12:01 PM:
blogger: wrote on Sep 12, 2006 5:01 PM:
patton wrote on Sep 12, 2006 2:51 PM:
OTH wrote on Sep 12, 2006 10:59 AM:
T & C wrote on Sep 12, 2006 10:29 AM:
T & C wrote on Sep 12, 2006 10:08 AM:
patton wrote on Sep 12, 2006 8:35 AM:
patton wrote on Sep 12, 2006 8:31 AM:
OTH wrote on Sep 12, 2006 8:15 AM:
guess wrote on Sep 11, 2006 11:03 PM:
guess wrote on Sep 11, 2006 10:58 PM:
Just a question... wrote on Sep 11, 2006 8:47 PM:
OTH wrote on Sep 11, 2006 7:00 PM:
THANKS PATTON wrote on Sep 11, 2006 6:56 PM:
T & C wrote on Sep 11, 2006 6:42 PM:
Caspian wrote on Sep 11, 2006 5:37 PM:
Thanks Patton wrote on Sep 11, 2006 3:37 PM:
patton wrote on Sep 11, 2006 11:55 AM:
T & C wrote on Sep 11, 2006 10:06 AM:
To Just a Question wrote on Sep 11, 2006 8:36 AM:
Just a question... wrote on Sep 10, 2006 9:17 PM:
Lodi Businessperson wrote on Sep 10, 2006 6:57 PM:
patton wrote on Sep 10, 2006 6:42 PM:
patton wrote on Sep 10, 2006 6:41 PM:
Sam wrote on Sep 10, 2006 3:16 PM:
Sam wrote on Sep 10, 2006 3:02 PM:
Sam wrote on Sep 10, 2006 3:00 PM:
OTH wrote on Sep 10, 2006 1:10 PM:
T & C wrote on Sep 10, 2006 9:40 AM:
Let's talk some sense wrote on Sep 9, 2006 2:26 PM:
Let's talk some sense wrote on Sep 9, 2006 2:25 PM:
guess wrote on Sep 9, 2006 1:24 AM:
patton wrote on Sep 8, 2006 9:53 PM:
Caspian wrote on Sep 8, 2006 9:40 PM:
OTH wrote on Sep 8, 2006 6:54 PM:
patton wrote on Sep 8, 2006 4:39 PM:
blogger wrote on Sep 8, 2006 4:14 PM:
OTH wrote on Sep 8, 2006 3:41 PM:
T & C wrote on Sep 7, 2006 7:06 PM:
Sam wrote on Sep 7, 2006 5:33 PM:
LodiCitizen wrote on Sep 7, 2006 4:46 PM:
LodiCitizen wrote on Sep 7, 2006 12:43 PM:
patton wrote on Sep 7, 2006 12:38 PM:
Ike wrote on Sep 7, 2006 12:20 PM:
LodiCitizen wrote on Sep 7, 2006 11:56 AM:
T & C wrote on Sep 7, 2006 10:21 AM:
patton wrote on Sep 7, 2006 9:24 AM:
patton wrote on Sep 7, 2006 9:22 AM:
wiley wrote on Sep 7, 2006 9:19 AM:
Sam wrote on Sep 7, 2006 8:30 AM:
LodiCitizen wrote on Sep 7, 2006 8:28 AM:
Ike wrote on Sep 7, 2006 7:02 AM:
Ike wrote on Sep 7, 2006 6:34 AM:
patton wrote on Sep 6, 2006 11:35 PM:
Guess wrote on Sep 6, 2006 9:11 PM:
guess wrote on Sep 6, 2006 9:10 PM:
guess wrote on Sep 6, 2006 8:46 PM:
Ashamed Of wrote on Sep 6, 2006 5:37 PM:
You Can't See Me wrote on Sep 6, 2006 5:33 PM:
Sam wrote on Sep 6, 2006 4:55 PM:
patton wrote on Sep 6, 2006 3:01 PM:
Caveman wrote on Sep 6, 2006 12:28 PM:
T & C wrote on Sep 6, 2006 10:33 AM:
blogger wrote on Sep 6, 2006 10:31 AM:
patton wrote on Sep 6, 2006 9:30 AM:
Caspian wrote on Sep 6, 2006 7:50 AM:
guess wrote on Sep 6, 2006 12:44 AM:
guess wrote on Sep 6, 2006 12:30 AM:
guess wrote on Sep 6, 2006 12:23 AM:
Attorney wrote on Sep 5, 2006 9:02 PM:
Caveman wrote on Sep 5, 2006 7:17 PM:
ARZ wrote on Sep 5, 2006 4:46 PM:
ARZ wrote on Sep 5, 2006 4:43 PM:
Sam wrote on Sep 5, 2006 3:52 PM:
Sam wrote on Sep 5, 2006 3:47 PM:
rv wrote on Sep 5, 2006 3:28 PM:
Attorney wrote on Sep 5, 2006 2:12 PM:
LodiCitizen wrote on Sep 5, 2006 12:24 PM:
HELLO wrote on Sep 5, 2006 12:09 PM:
T & C wrote on Sep 5, 2006 9:06 AM:
GuessWhat wrote on Sep 5, 2006 8:56 AM:
Sam wrote on Sep 5, 2006 8:15 AM:
wiley wrote on Sep 5, 2006 7:39 AM:
guess wrote on Sep 5, 2006 12:04 AM:
LoveIt wrote on Sep 4, 2006 9:55 PM:
Sam wrote on Sep 4, 2006 6:14 PM:
Meanie wrote on Sep 4, 2006 4:08 PM:
T & C wrote on Sep 4, 2006 3:57 PM:
T & C wrote on Sep 4, 2006 3:49 PM:
OTH wrote on Sep 4, 2006 3:17 PM:
LodiCitizen wrote on Sep 4, 2006 1:46 PM:
Lodi Girl: wrote on Sep 4, 2006 1:05 PM:
Lodi Girl: wrote on Sep 4, 2006 1:05 PM:
Employee wrote on Sep 4, 2006 12:43 PM:
T & C wrote on Sep 4, 2006 11:51 AM:
patton wrote on Sep 4, 2006 8:57 AM:
Lodi Girl: wrote on Sep 3, 2006 8:45 PM:
Lodi Girl: wrote on Sep 3, 2006 8:38 PM:
OTH wrote on Sep 3, 2006 8:10 PM:
ORT wrote on Sep 3, 2006 1:56 PM:
HELLO Lodicitizen, MIMI wrote on Sep 2, 2006 8:22 PM:
to: lodicitizen2 wrote on Sep 2, 2006 8:12 PM:
Sam wrote on Sep 2, 2006 7:56 PM:
LoveIt wrote on Sep 2, 2006 5:30 PM:
TO "TO" wrote on Sep 2, 2006 11:21 AM:
In Honor wrote on Sep 2, 2006 10:28 AM:
enough wrote on Sep 2, 2006 9:05 AM:
T & C wrote on Sep 2, 2006 8:40 AM:
T & C wrote on Sep 1, 2006 10:36 PM:
T & C wrote on Sep 1, 2006 10:14 PM:
patton wrote on Sep 1, 2006 9:32 PM:
OTH wrote on Sep 1, 2006 6:21 PM:
Roger wrote on Sep 1, 2006 5:44 PM: