Connecting You to Your Community
Lodi, California •

Indexes

November 2nd, 2009
November 7th, 2009
November 6th, 2009
November 5th, 2009
November 4th, 2009
November 3rd, 2009
November 2nd, 2009
ADVERTISEMENT
Wednesday night's Lodi City Council meeting could determine whether the Reynolds Ranch project can double its retail component. (Brian Feulner/News-Sentinel)

Proposal divides city leaders

Questioned by some, Reynolds Ranch changes up for council vote Wednesday

By Chris Nichols
News-Sentinel Staff Writer
Monday, September 15, 2008 11:27 PM PDT

More shopping, but also more traffic.

Additional sales tax revenue, a new hotel and senior care center, but also angry residents right next door.

Those are a few topics the Lodi City Council will debate Wednesday night as it considers a request to make Reynolds Ranch a more compact, retail-focused center.

The council OK'd the project two years ago, making way for the largest mixed-use project in Lodi's history.

It's partially under construction along Harney Lane, just west of Highway 99.

Initial plans called for nearly 100 acres of homes, a K-12 school and 40.5 acres of commercial space, plus the nearly complete Blue Shield office building.

But with the crumbling housing market, developer Dale Gillespie has asked to slice away nearly 19 acres of homes, and has also cut plans for the school.

In their place, he's asked to expand the retail area to 75.6 acres, build senior homes and a graduated senior care center.

It's a proposal that has split city leaders.

City Council members Phil Katzakian and Susan Hitchcock provide perhaps the most stark contrast:

"Obviously, there's no interest in homes. You've got to be able to adapt to these things," Katzakian said from his office at Lodi Printing Co., several phones ringing in the background.

" ... If there's a need for retail, yeah. Let's accommodate them. I think it's the right thing to do there," Katzakian added.

Hitchcock, who opposed Reynolds Ranch's initial plans, said the proposed changes amount to "piecemeal" planning.

She went on to describe them as "planning at its worst."

"This is like planning at the dais rather than planning for the future — and I have a problem with that," the councilwoman said by cell phone, as she drove home from her job as a principal at a north Stockton elementary school.

The changes would allow for 750,000 square-feet of retail space, 400,000 square-feet more than first planned.

They'd also create a lot more traffic: Daily vehicle trips generated by the project would jump to 50,000, up from 28,000.

Lodi's planning commissioners were divided on Gillespie's request earlier this summer. Four voted to recommend it for approval, while three expressed concerns that the alterations were too drastic.

Several residents who live near the site on Stockton Street have spoken against the plans to add more retail. They thought new homes, not big box stores, would surround their small, rural neighborhood. Others have said they simply want to leave the area regardless of what Reynolds Ranch becomes.

While there are questions about the proposals, such requests to significantly change a project are "not uncommon," said Lodi's interim development chief, Rad Bartlam. "Two years ago, when Reynolds Ranch was approved, who could have predicted how crazy the economic markets would be?," Bartlam asked.

With many city leaders advocating for more retail in Lodi, Bartlam said approving Reynolds Ranch's expansion plans is a smart move. Gillespie has said two anchor retailers are lined up to join the development, though he has not named which ones.

Bartlam noted an expansion of retail space at Reynolds Ranch will not cut into the commercial acreage set aside in Lodi's next General Plan — a document that maps out future growth.

Bartlam will recommend to city leaders a preferred land use map for the General Plan later this fall.

Writing in a report on the Reynolds Ranch request, Bartlam said:

" ... there is currently strong interest on the part of the retail sector in this site. The applicant is attempting to take advantage of this opportunity which the city feels is very positive from both a revenue standpoint and the additional goods and services ...

... We believe that it is good planning to be able to provide the variety of retail outlets that folks in Lodi are now traveling elsewhere to access."

The council meets at 7 p.m. Wednesday, at Carnegie Forum, 305 W. Pine St.

Contact reporter Chris Nichols at chrisn@lodinews.com.

Reader Feedback

edumacation wrote on Sep 17, 2008 4:13 PM:

" To falcon: If you are a builder of single family residences you should be proud of your craftsmanship. Explain the requirements for binding arbitration, if the buyer learns that there are major structural defects. I know the game, the builder claims " the county in inspector signed off on it- so it must be okay". Yeah right?! You must think wee are stupid/

What about the trick with seller financing? IS ALWAYS A BAD DEAL FOR THE BUYER. Lets talk about the legal loopholes that CAN make you BIG profits for LOUSY craftsmanship? You know the scams, have your builders associations stop it. LOL Yeah right! I love the part about the "free upgrades" to promote seller financing. Tell me about the RESPA games and why with so many violations, no one goes to prison?

If you are a developer, do you want me to talk about developer scams? "

edumacation wrote on Sep 17, 2008 3:54 PM:

" To falcon: I have NO malice towards Realtors, developers, or builders. I do have experience "in the business". I see FIRST hand the lying, cheating and conniving that is in these businesses. But the regulators don't regulate. If they did we would have to build new prisons to hold all the crooks.

The tone of your comment sounds like a Realtor. Read the weekly pronouncements of the NAR. What did they say last week and the week before and the year before and the year before that? "There is NO real estate bubble", "this is only a temporary correction and we have reached the bottom". Tell that to all the NO MONEY DOWN buyers who have walked! Why does the NAR actively promote NO MONEY DOWN mortgages, DPA programs and NO UNDERWRITING?

Would you recommend that your family members buy at these outrageously high prices? This is supposed to be a buyers market? NOT! If there is a deal, a broker will buy it BEFORE listing it, but ONLY if it is at a "wholesale price". All buyers should do the same. "

falcon wrote on Sep 16, 2008 8:40 PM:

" Man oh Man edumacation, you are off the reservation. I am really sorry that you harbor such hatred toward the development and real estate people. Your anger about the cost of real estate prices going up and down are founded in (I dont like using the word). I am not going to be disrespectful. Selling agents are trying to get the best price for their clients, that is their job! Just like buyers agents are trying to get the lowest price. Your anger at the agents would be like you getting mad at the ambulance driver for driving too fast when he is taking you to the hospital. Easy ed, have faith in that the final product will look good and will be something that the city will be proud of. Just think, commercial development will just take traffic away from other areas while residential traffic will add to the mix. It might just be a blessing in disguise. It will also help by not adding more homes to the supply side of the equation, thus helping support the price. "

Zinfandel wrote on Sep 16, 2008 7:39 PM:

" edumation, I don't have much faith in our grand jury. A few years ago complaints were sent in regarding one of the cc members and nothing ever came of it. And look at Delta College....a slap on the wrist. "

edumacation wrote on Sep 16, 2008 7:20 PM:

" To Falcon: "common business sense"? Give me a break. There is nothing about capitalism that supports lying cheating and stealing! If you lie, you are a liar. Just because you make a profit because of the lie doesn't make it right. Profits at ANY amount is a good thing, but ONLY if the profits are based on a lie. Thats why I like Grand Juries. The promoters and circus performers suddenly get quiet when thney are legally held accountable for their promises. It is NOT a "negotiation", if there NEVER was an intent to follow through on an agreement. This type of an agreement is based on false pretenses. Is that what you call capitalism? When Grand Juries start cooking the rats start running off the ship. Can you explain why? Don't confuse good old American Capitalism with cheating. I prefer the sworn statement to the yakkety yak and false promises of the promoter or salesman. Why are these "investors" a big secret? "

Zinfandel wrote on Sep 16, 2008 6:14 PM:

" I still say it's a good thing! "

Timothy wrote on Sep 16, 2008 6:06 PM:

" It should read
I find your assumption that 28,000 car trips per day is equal to 50,000 trips per day is flawed. "

Timothy wrote on Sep 16, 2008 6:04 PM:

" commonsense, I find your assumption that 28,000 car trips per day is equal to 50,000 trips per day. Obviously you are supporting this mess because it is not being built in your backyard.

I know the people living in the area have a different opinion. I still believe the drastic change warrants a new EIR.

This switch is hardly what we Lodians agreed to. "

falcon wrote on Sep 16, 2008 4:59 PM:

" Thank God there is a Falcon to inject some common business sense into all of the anti free market, anti business, stooge club members, blogs.

Come back around folks! Embrace new projects, embrace profit, embrace market freedom. Our city will look newer, there will be more jobs, and we will all be better off. "

falcon wrote on Sep 16, 2008 4:51 PM:

" I have to laugh at all of you. ed, zin, tim, wtf,... etc. etc... You all sound like a bunch of bitter begrudging disgruntled factory workers that just found out that the company made a profit. You all are mad at the big bad develop-uh that wants to change his mix because the market has changed. How stupid would it be for them, and the community to construct a bunch of new houses when the market is in the toilet? Why would they? The land would just sit bare. Is that what you want? That is it. You want the developer to go through with what he planned, even though he could change it, put in the infrastructure for new homes, then, not build, and loose money. Instead of being happy for them to make money, you are happy when the developer looses money. How pathetic is that? "

wtf wrote on Sep 16, 2008 3:56 PM:

" The school should still be built. Whatever happened to the promise of class size reduction? Smaller classes would improve the teacher to student ratio and maybe the U.S. could start climbing back up in education results. "

commonsense1 wrote on Sep 16, 2008 3:43 PM:

" JF.....I know this is a silly question; Have you picked up the phone and called Gillespie? How many times did you call when he made the last offer? I would bet, the same number as today. You called yourself "STUPID me". I hope you're not looking for someone to disagree with you. "

wtf wrote on Sep 16, 2008 3:37 PM:

" Some food for thought given some of our water woes locally....

The Corporate Control of Water Takes an Unexpected Twist

http://sroachart.com/blog/category/comics-and-funny-stuff/politics/ "

commonsense1 wrote on Sep 16, 2008 3:30 PM:

" Observer...This is amusing. You are right on the money about the past oposition to residential development. I think people need to read the existing EIR before demanding another one. Concerns with traffic demands were addressed long ago. Would be interesting to hear the argument for building a new school when enrollment in LUSD is falling. What's the downside to more revenue for the city and shopping opportunities for all of us.
Edumacation must think this is Comedy Central, calling for his alter ego TandC to contact the Grand Jury. Just using this as another opportunity to call people names. "

JF wrote on Sep 16, 2008 2:59 PM:

" Hey Dale, This article reports: "Gillespie has said two anchor retailers are lined up to join the development, though he has not named which ones". So I would be safe to say if we call you privately you will tell us everything you have planned, right? Just like Commonsense said you would about the Victor Campus plan? Now that would never change either, right? STUPID me, unless the "business model" says you need too. LMAO! "

OTH wrote on Sep 16, 2008 2:17 PM:

" Katazkian has made real real progress as a councilman. Comes in admitting he doesn't know much about city government. A few months later he's learned the magic phrase"if they want give it to them." What a champ. "

edumacation wrote on Sep 16, 2008 2:17 PM:

" What happens when you put a salesman or developer under oath? You get the truth or they go to jail. "

OTH wrote on Sep 16, 2008 2:15 PM:

" Sam

Do you think you honestly stand a chance of the streets not being lengthened? Go back and read certain comments carefully, this has been in the mix for a long time. If they want it, they will get it. It's just a question of whose fanny they use the feather on first.

I wouldn't want to be a neighbor to that mess with all the transient traffic.

And to put seniors out there where there is going to be a lot of extra traffic? I'd say Gillespie is a real swell. "

edumacation wrote on Sep 16, 2008 2:14 PM:

" To T AND C: It seems to me that with all these legal questions and speculations about potential wrong doing and double dealing, we need to bring in a County or state Grand Jury to find out the REAL facts! I guess that means sworn testimony not sales puffery? "

Zinfandel wrote on Sep 16, 2008 1:36 PM:

" Observer wrote on Sep 16, 2008 1:30 PM:

" I knew this was going to be a fascinating issue. The initial . I can also assure you that the developer has no choice to build or not build a school. That is the requirement of the school district. "

The school issue was brought up and discussed at the 1st planning commission meeting. The developer informed the PC that he has spoken with LUSD. "

Observer wrote on Sep 16, 2008 1:30 PM:

" I knew this was going to be a fascinating issue. The initial opposition to this project was the residential part. "Build the office/retail but don't build the residential". Now the objection is the reduction of the residential. I can also assure you that the developer has no choice to build or not build a school. That is the requirement of the school district. "

Zinfandel wrote on Sep 16, 2008 1:04 PM:

" sam wrote on Sep 16, 2008 12:53 PM:
sam wrote on Sep 16, 2008 12:53 PM:

" Zin, you are forgetting a very important thing, Lodi has no say on any land or streets south of Reynolds Ranch, or from Scottsdale Road south.

They do not have the right nor the money to do it. "

Sam, I did not "forget". If Lodi was smart, they would talk to the county supervisors and ask to work with them on this. The county supervisors will soon begin work on updating the county's general plan. If there is any possibility of happening, now would be the time. "

sam wrote on Sep 16, 2008 12:53 PM:

" Zin, you are forgetting a very important thing, Lodi has no say on any land or streets south of Reynolds Ranch, or from Scottsdale Road south.

They do not have the right nor the money to do it. "

edumacation wrote on Sep 16, 2008 12:30 PM:

" To "reality": What happened to the local GOB rant "If we build it, they will come" and "Last I heard they ain't making property any more". Faux -Intelligent remarks from local Realtors. Are you telling us that the old 1920 800 sq ft East side estates are REALLY not worth the $399,000 that you were selling them for? I thought Real estate prices ALWAYS went up? But hasn't the NAR been claiming FOR EVERY MONTH OF THE LAST TWO YEARS that we are seeing the bottom of the "correction"?

I have been watching houses flip on the way up[ the ladder and FORECLOSE or walk away on the way down. Lets all go out and buy our way to poverty by buying even more of this junk. Its amusing watching the new buyers move into houses one day and move out months later. But didn't some enterprising salesman get a BIG commission each time?

Oh I forgot, "NOW is the best time to buy", was chanted in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. Do you have any more cheers for us to sing? LOL ROFL. "

Zinfandel wrote on Sep 16, 2008 12:29 PM:

" Traffic concerns can easily be alleviated. Open Stockton St up all the way to Micke Grove. Future plans show that Micke Grove eventually will be a four lane road. Which in turn is going to connect to Holman Rd. This will solve the traffic conerns and also alleviate traffic in the proposed development as lessen traffic on West Ln and Hwy 99. "

Zinfandel wrote on Sep 16, 2008 12:25 PM:

" I personally think the expanded commerical/retail is just what the south eastside of town needs. Seniors have shopping located within walking distance. A hotel for children/relatives who live out of town to stay in while visiting their elderly relatives are all a plus as far as I'm concerned. "

Zinfandel wrote on Sep 16, 2008 12:16 PM:

" With senior housing proposed for the majority of the residential protion, a school is no longer necessary for the development. At the 1st PC meeting the developer stated that he had discussed this with LUSD and everyone knows that enrollment has declined. "

sam wrote on Sep 16, 2008 12:11 PM:

" You people on Stockton Street should ban together. I discovered that you can sue when someone builds something that devalues your property. You don't need a land attorney, a civil attorney would take it.

The one I have been talking to just won a huge case against the Port of Stockton. "

sam wrote on Sep 16, 2008 12:07 PM:

" Tim, you are right. A new EIR is needed. The traffic alone is going to make living in that area a nightmare. "

sam wrote on Sep 16, 2008 12:05 PM:

" Mad Dog, nice ! "

reality wrote on Sep 16, 2008 11:53 AM:

" everyone is uptight over the school being dropped from the plan. you dont hear the school district complainig do you. school enrollment is dropping - the growth is in north stockton not lodi. with the majority of the new site going to senior proejcts and a lack of enrollment, we dont need a school there "

wtf wrote on Sep 16, 2008 10:32 AM:

" However, with the economy tanking, all the above, as well as Gillespie plan 1 and plan 2, really arent feasible at this time. Also, the CC might want to shelve their Redevelopment scam. It looks like we now have a California State budget however, the budget would siphon some $350 million from redevelopment agencies around the state.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10472781

While another article states: The budget compromise also includes a proposal to take $675 million over the next three years from redevelopment agencies.

http://www.whittierdailynews.com/news/ci_10474152

Like Ive said before, Lodi doesnt want to end up like Vallejo; they, too, counted their chickens before they hatched and greedily planned for all that revenue from redevelopment. "

wtf wrote on Sep 16, 2008 10:32 AM:

" In a better economy this wouldnt be a bad thingthe new businesses could provide jobs and, as mentioned in the article, more tax revenue for Lodi.

That said, I dont think its so much the proposed idea as the **way** it was proposed - almost like a classic bait n switch scam.

If the CC wants to approve this project, I would put in the following stipulations and make sure theyre enforced:

1. Entire shopping complex is filled with retailers - names and contracts **must** be provided prior to approval or some other window of time - again ENFORCE this -NO exceptions and NO MORE changes

2. New EIR

3. Gillespie has to improve the roads surrounding entire project

4. Keep the school that was in the original plan "

Peeps wrote on Sep 16, 2008 9:44 AM:

" Whoa Nellie! - I agree. The plans should still include a school. He should not be allowed to drop this from the plans. "

Whoa Nellie! wrote on Sep 16, 2008 9:34 AM:

" Perhaps DG is shooting high with the expansion of Commercial acreage thinking that if he gets half he'd be happy, and if he fools the CC into the entire expansion change he'll get his golden egg.

ITS CALLED NEGOTIATION. What's wrong with splitting the difference in the middle? Granted, residential housing is in the toilet now, but we MUST look to the future. Allowing too much commercial now will only result in empty storefronts. And with this economy I find it hard to believe that DG has some major anchor tenants lined up and ready to build a major store. No matter what, a school site should not be dropped.

I say amend DG's application and give him half of what he has asked for. It's a win-win for everybody now and in the future. "

Neo wrote on Sep 16, 2008 9:16 AM:

" Mounce knows there`s 3 votes for this, Johnson, Hanson and the puppet Katzakian. She`ll sound all offended that DG would do this then vote no. If there was any question whether her vote would matter rest assured she would vote for it in a heartbeat. "

reality wrote on Sep 16, 2008 9:07 AM:

" hey old guy congratulations. somebody had finally recognized that the Mayor waffles more in the breeze than a flag. you cant take anything she says to the bank. "

oldguy wrote on Sep 16, 2008 8:34 AM:

" This is an absolute no-brainer for the Council. The three Amigos will fall over themselves to see who is the first to move approval of this debacle. You know where Susan is on this. It all depends on how JoAnne feels her election is doing. She is so afraid of offending the developers she has changed spots on a couple of key issues. Hope she maintains her integrity and intellectual honesty. "

El Rushbo wrote on Sep 16, 2008 8:19 AM:

" Forget the Redevelopment referendum, the people of Lodi should look into recalling whichever council members vote for this change! It`s like the Grand Poobah of the Good `Ol Boys Club, "Lodi Chapter" aka, Dale Gillespie is running the city!! "

Timothy wrote on Sep 16, 2008 8:19 AM:

" El Rushbo, I have to agree that this whole thing smells.

Now is the time to watch our City Council closely. Do they work for us? Or are they puppets for the developers? "

El Rushbo wrote on Sep 16, 2008 8:13 AM:

" "strong interest" in retailors to locate at Reynolds Ranch??? Are you kidding me!! It was approved in 2006 and NOT ONE retailor has announced their intention to build there!! This whole thing smells!! "

edumacation wrote on Sep 16, 2008 8:04 AM:

" To timothy: You have a good point! What happened to integrity and honesty? Maybe it was NEVER there, and we are just waking up to reality. Why do we have to have a knife at our back to learn the truth? "

Timothy wrote on Sep 16, 2008 7:58 AM:

" This is wrong. The plan is being changed so the company can make a larger profit. The plan was passed with the housing, the school, less commercial. Half way through a project is not the time for the developer to "Threaten" Lodi, "change to all commercial or we will not do it."

Where is the integrity? Where is the honesty? Follow through on what was promised.

If the CC ok's this project, they need to demand a new EIR. The change in traffic alone requires it. "

edumacation wrote on Sep 16, 2008 7:51 AM:

" To "secret investors": Ahh the Hubris! I am waiting for you to ask us to shine your shoes while you start ordering us to change YOUR plans. Who is the boss? Mr. "fixer" himself or the Lodi CC?

You promised a school, and a school it shall be. You have planners and money , you need to suffer the consequences of YOUR decisions.

Developers want gain at our pain. You can't have it BOTH ways. Developers must be responsible and accountable for their decisions. The next time you come to the city council pleading for help we might believe you.

I have heard too many excuses and fast talking. It reminds me of a kid who blames a dog for eating his homework.

Life is not fair and things always aren't going to go your way. Lodi taxpayers always end up with the short end. Why? "

Zinfandel wrote on Sep 16, 2008 7:41 AM:

" As Martha Stewart would say "It's a good thing"! "

edumacation wrote on Sep 16, 2008 7:14 AM:

" To Rad Bartlam: What ever happened to the BIG Sacramento Developer that you worked for? Was it bankruptcy because of poor planning? Sid wasn't big enough to fool the market. Why do you think Pericoat junction developers are any wiser? "

judy wrote on Sep 16, 2008 6:40 AM:

" How can such a drastic change be made without a new Environmental Impact Report being done? "

Mad Dog wrote on Sep 16, 2008 5:39 AM:

" That is just what we need...more shopping centers and fewer schools. How about adding a prison? Then all the bases will be covered. "

KenH wrote on Sep 16, 2008 5:06 AM:

" the councilwoman said by cell phone, as she drove home from her job as a principal at a north Stockton elementary school.

-whistles a tune- "

Comments on this story are now closed.