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? (77)
- Minister takes to the streets to recruit new members (49)
- Bring Trader Joe's store to Lodi (35)
- Huber upsets Sieglock in 10th Assembly race (33)
- Is the U.S. Constitution obsolete? (30)
- Major cuts loom (29)
- First the banks, now the automakers (27)
- Former gang member hopes to make a difference in Lodi (26)
- Lodi Cricket Club delighted with Beckman Park field (22)
Proposal divides city leaders
Questioned by some, Reynolds Ranch changes up for council vote Wednesday
News-Sentinel Staff Writer
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:
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:
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:
Zinfandel wrote on Sep 16, 2008 7:39 PM:
edumacation wrote on Sep 16, 2008 7:20 PM:
Zinfandel wrote on Sep 16, 2008 6:14 PM:
Timothy wrote on Sep 16, 2008 6:06 PM:
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:
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:
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:
wtf wrote on Sep 16, 2008 3:56 PM:
commonsense1 wrote on Sep 16, 2008 3:43 PM:
wtf wrote on Sep 16, 2008 3:37 PM:
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:
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:
OTH wrote on Sep 16, 2008 2:17 PM:
edumacation wrote on Sep 16, 2008 2:17 PM:
OTH wrote on Sep 16, 2008 2:15 PM:
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:
Zinfandel wrote on Sep 16, 2008 1:36 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:
Zinfandel wrote on Sep 16, 2008 1:04 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:
They do not have the right nor the money to do it. "
edumacation wrote on Sep 16, 2008 12:30 PM:
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:
Zinfandel wrote on Sep 16, 2008 12:25 PM:
Zinfandel wrote on Sep 16, 2008 12:16 PM:
sam wrote on Sep 16, 2008 12:11 PM:
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:
sam wrote on Sep 16, 2008 12:05 PM:
reality wrote on Sep 16, 2008 11:53 AM:
wtf wrote on Sep 16, 2008 10:32 AM:
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:
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! wrote on Sep 16, 2008 9:34 AM:
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:
reality wrote on Sep 16, 2008 9:07 AM:
oldguy wrote on Sep 16, 2008 8:34 AM:
El Rushbo wrote on Sep 16, 2008 8:19 AM:
Timothy wrote on Sep 16, 2008 8:19 AM:
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:
edumacation wrote on Sep 16, 2008 8:04 AM:
Timothy wrote on Sep 16, 2008 7:58 AM:
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:
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:
edumacation wrote on Sep 16, 2008 7:14 AM:
judy wrote on Sep 16, 2008 6:40 AM:
Mad Dog wrote on Sep 16, 2008 5:39 AM:
KenH wrote on Sep 16, 2008 5:06 AM:
-whistles a tune- "
Comments on this story are now closed.