Indexes
November 30th, 2008
November 29th, 2008
November 28th, 2008
November 27th, 2008
November 26th, 2008
November 25th, 2008
November 24th, 2008
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)
ADVERTISEMENT
Lodi council to consider revisions on Reynolds Ranch project tonight
Updated: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 12:25 AM PDT
A proposal to add substantial commercial space to the Reynolds Ranch project in southeast Lodi is being heard by the City Council tonight at 7 p.m. at Carnegie Forum, 305 W. Pine St.
Initial plans called for nearly100 acres of homes, a K-12 school and 40.5 acres of commercial space, plus the nearly complete Blue Shield office building.
Developer Dale Gillespie is asking to remove 19 acres of homes, and has also cut plans for the school. He has asked to expand the retail area to 75.6 acres, build senior homes and a graduated senior care center.
Lodi's planning commissioners were divided on the request earlier this summer. Four voted to recommend it for approval, while three expressed concerns that the alterations were too drastic.
It is the largest mixed-use project ever proposed for Lodi.
Councilwoman Susan Hitchcock has questioned the proposal, saying it amounts to "piecemeal planning." She favors waiting for the general plan to be updated before approving a change of this scale.
Several homeowners near the project are concerned about commercial development close to their homes.
Others, including Councilman Phil Katzakian, say the developers' shift to more commercial development may be sensible in light of the changing economy and the tattered housing market.
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
t&c attacks wrote on Sep 17, 2008 10:09 PM:
t&c attacks wrote on Sep 17, 2008 9:50 PM:
Whoa Nellie! wrote on Sep 17, 2008 9:24 PM:
I suggest that everyone read today's stockton record, columnist Fitzgerald. He takes on the developers group who is now trying to take on city hall since they have finally said enough is enough to big dollar builders like Spanos, Grupe, etc.... "
Whoa Nellie! wrote on Sep 17, 2008 8:35 PM:
Hitchcock and Mounce go at it again... "
Timothy wrote on Sep 17, 2008 5:51 PM:
I drove around yesterday looking at empty retail stores. Lodi is hardly screaming for more retail store spaces.
The Lowes Center is gorgeous and has easy access. If a retail store or a restaurant cannot make it there why would anyone think they would thrive in Reynolds Ranch? "
dogs4you wrote on Sep 17, 2008 5:37 PM:
dogs4you wrote on Sep 17, 2008 5:23 PM:
Zinfandel wrote on Sep 17, 2008 4:36 PM:
Yes, it is available, but Reynolds Ranch Development is already started. The area located at Hwy. 12/Lower Sac. is still just bare land. And besides, the westside of town has plenty of stores. The eastside is underserved and deserves to have commerical stores located near their homes. "
Zinfandel wrote on Sep 17, 2008 4:26 PM:
" flowerchild: I`m not sure what it would take to get a good sit-down restauants to risk coming into that area.
dogs4you, what do you mean exactly by "risk coming into that area". Can you tell me what you mean by your statement? "
dogs4you wrote on Sep 17, 2008 4:20 PM:
flowerchild wrote on Sep 17, 2008 12:54 PM:
marzo2008 wrote on Sep 17, 2008 12:49 PM:
judy wrote on Sep 17, 2008 12:00 PM:
commonsense1 wrote on Sep 17, 2008 9:40 AM:
edumacation wrote on Sep 17, 2008 9:23 AM:
edumacation wrote on Sep 17, 2008 9:22 AM:
edumacation wrote on Sep 17, 2008 9:20 AM:
Whoa Nellie! wrote on Sep 17, 2008 9:04 AM:
Edmu- t&c's one of many alter-egos rears its ugly head once again.
I STILL SAY SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE. "
El Rushbo wrote on Sep 17, 2008 8:49 AM:
edumacation wrote on Sep 17, 2008 8:30 AM:
Lets put these "high rollers", and multiple named entities on sworn statements not sales hype. If you don't make affirmations under the penalties of perjury about your projects---its a LIE.
Lets try this tactic to force the truth out of these schemers. Why will the GOB cheerleaders get upset with the truth?
The threat of Perjury charges will keep these promoters from making more false promises. If we had a state law about this, our statte government probably wouldn't be facing a budget deficit. "
Comments on this story are now closed.