LODI PLANNING

Revised 10/2021 10/7/2021 5:26 PM

For information regarding this Agenda please contact: Kari Chadwick

Community Development Program Specialist Telephone: (209) 333-6711

1. ROLL CALL

2. MINUTES

a) None 3. COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC (NON-AGENDA ITEMS)

If you wish to address the Commission, please refer to the Notice at the beginning of this agenda. Individuals are limited to one appearance during this section of the Agenda.

4. PUBLIC HEARINGS

a) Request for Planning Commission approval to consider a recommendation to the City Council on the approval of 12 high-density growth allocations for 2021 for a proposed apartment development at 620 S. Central Avenue (Applicant: John Kautz; File Number: 2021-007 SP; CEQA Determination: Exempt Per Section 15332)

b) Request for Planning Commission approval to consider a recommendation to the City Council to introduce an ordinance amending the City’s accessory dwelling unit regulations (Lodi Municipal Code Section 17.36.130) (Applicant: City of Lodi; File Number: N/A; CEQA Determination: Exempt Per Section 15282(h))

NOTE: The above items are quasi-judicial hearings and require disclosure of ex parte communications as set forth in Resolution No. 2006-31 5. PLANNING MATTERS/FOLLOW-UP ITEMS 6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE

LODI PLANNING COMMISSION Carnegie Forum 305 West Pine Street, Lodi

Notice Regarding Public Comments Public Comment may be submitted in the following ways:

• In-person – The Carnegie Forum is open to the public in accordance with CDPH and CalOSHA guidelines.

• Zoom Webinar Meeting ID: 940 3630 0166 Passcode: 704086 Phone number: +1 669 900 9128 Link: https://zoom.us/j/94036300166?pwd=am9lVzA1bVB6cHQ2L2RYZ0RtdHdSdz09

• Email – [email protected] Received no later than two hours prior to the meeting

• Mail – Community Development Department, P.O. Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241 • Hand delivered to: Community Development Department, 221 W. Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240

Received no later than two hours prior to the meeting

AGENDA – Special Meeting Date: October 15, 2021 Time: 7:00 P.M.

mailto:[email protected]

PLANNING COMMISSION DATE October 15, 2021 PAGE TWO 7. ACTIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL 8. ACTIONS OF THE SITE PLAN ARCHITENCTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE 9. ACTIONS OF THE LODI ARTS COMMISSION 10. COMMENTS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS 11. REORGANIZATION

a) Planning Commission Chair & Vice Chair

b) Planning Commission Representative to SPARC 12. ADJOURNMENT Pursuant to Section 54956(a) of the Government Code of the State of California, this agenda was posted at least 24 hours in advance of the scheduled meeting at a public place freely accessible to the public 24 hours a day. ______________________________ Kari Chadwick Community Development Program Specialist **Notice: Pursuant to Government Code §54954.3(a), public comments may be directed to the legislative body concerning any item contained on the agenda for this meeting before (in the cast of Closed Session items) or during consideration of the item.

All staff reports or other written documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the agenda are on file in the Office of the City Clerk, located at 221 W. Pine Street, Lodi, and are available for public inspection. Agendas and staff reports are also posted on the City’s website at www.lodi.gov. If requested, the agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. To make a request for disability-related modification or accommodation contact the City Clerk’s Office as soon as possible and at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date. Language interpreter requests must be received at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting to help ensure availability. Contact Jennifer Cusmir at (209) 333-6702. Solicitudes de interpretación de idiomas deben ser recibidas por lo menos con 72 horas de anticipación a la reunión para ayudar a asegurar la disponibilidad. Llame a Jennifer Cusmir (209) 333-6702.

Members of the public may view and listen to the open session of this teleconference meeting at www.facebook.com/CityofLodi/ or https://zoom.us/j/94036300166?pwd=am9lVzA1bVB6cHQ2L2RYZ0RtdHdSdz09. Right of Appeal: If you disagree with the decision of the committee, you have a right of appeal. Only persons who participated in the review process by submitting written or oral testimony, or by attending the public hearing may appeal. Pursuant to Lodi Municipal Code Section 17.70.050, actions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by filing, within ten (10) business days, a written appeal with the City Clerk and payment of $300.00 appeal fee. The appeal shall be processed in accordance with Chapter 17.70, Appeals, of the Lodi Municipal Code. Contact: City Clerk, City Hall 2nd Floor, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California 95240 – Phone: (209) 333-6702.

http://www.lodi.gov/

http://www.facebook.com/CityofLodi/

https://zoom.us/j/94036300166?pwd=am9lVzA1bVB6cHQ2L2RYZ0RtdHdSdz09

Item 4a.

CITY OF LODI PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report

MEETING DATE: October 15, 2021

APPLICATION NO: Growth Management Allocation: PL2021-026 REQUEST: Request for Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council approval of the

request for Growth Management Allocations for 12 High Density Units at 620 S. Central Ave. (File No. 2021-026 SP), subject to the conditions of approval.

LOCATION: 620 S. Central Ave. Lodi, CA 95242 APN: 047-330-48 APPLICANT: John F Kautz 5252 Bear Creek Rd Lodi, CA 95240 PROPERTY OWNER: Saphire Creek, LLC 5252 Bear Creek Rd Lodi, CA 95258 RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the request for Growth Management Allocations for 12 High Density Units at 620 S. Central Ave. (File No. 2021-026 SP), subject to the conditions of approval. PROJECT/AREA DESCRIPTION

General Plan Designation: MC (Mixed Use Corridor) Zoning Designation: MCO (Mixed Use Corridor) Property Size: 0.34 acres

SUMMARY

The applicant proposes to construct a new 2-story, 12-unit apartment building and associated parking, landscaping and other improvements on a currently vacant parcel at 620 S. Central Ave. The units are proposed to be affordable to low-income households; a proposed condition of approval requires that a deed restriction guaranteeing that the units will remain affordable1 is recorded before building permits are issued. The proposed apartment development at 620 S. Central Avenue received approval of a site plan and architectural review by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) (4-0 Vote) on September 22, 2021. Before the applicant can obtain building permits, the City Council must issue growth allocations from the existing pool of available allocations.

1 Affordability is not a criteria for the issuance of Growth Allocations

October 15, 2021 Special Planning Commission Meeting 620 S Central Growth Allocations Page 2 of 10

2

The development of this apartment complex is subject to the State Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330), Housing Accountability Act (HAA), and State Density Bonus law (Cal. Gov’t Code §65915) because it qualifies as a housing development project and is providing deed-restricted affordable housing to low-income households. As discussed later in this report, the applicant is invoking state law to provide less parking than would normally be required per the Zoning Code. The Planning Commission does not need to take action on this request. BACKGROUND

Figures 1 and 2, below, show the site and the existing surrounding uses. Existing Land Use The site is currently vacant and unimproved. Until approximately 2010, the site was developed with a retail building, which was demolished. The site has been vacant since. The area around the project site is developed with retail, and residential.

Figure 1: Existing Site and Vicinity Aerial View


3

Figure 2: Existing Site, View to the South looking North

General Plan and Zoning The project site is designated Mixed Use Corridor on both the General Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning Map, as shown below.

TABLE A: General Plan, Zoning and Land Use

GENERAL PLAN ZONE LAND USE

North MC MCO Retail store South LDR LDR Residential East LDR LDR Residential West MC MCO Residential


4

Figure 3: General Plan Land Use Designations


5

Figure 4: Zoning Designations

GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOCATIONS

The applicant is requesting 12 high density residential growth allocations to develop the project. The growth allocation system gives priority through point assignments to projects that reduce impacts on services, infrastructure, and resources. The ordinance sets an annual growth limit of two percent of the City’s population, compounded annually. Once the number of allocable units is calculated, the units are distributed as follows:

• 44 percent low density, • 28 percent medium density and • 28 percent high density

The California Department of Finance (DOF) sets the City population for January 1st of each year2. A summary of the city’s population growth since 2011 is shown below:

2 State of California, Department of Finance, E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change — January 1, 2019 and 2020. Sacramento, California, May 2020


6

Table B: City Population

Year Dept. of Finance

Revised Population Estimate

Growth Rate

Percentage

2011 63,317 1.9 2012 63,447 0.2 2013 63,788 0.5 2014 63,975 0.3 2015 64,415 0.7 2016 64,920 0.7 2017 65,911 1.5 2018 67,121 1.8 2019 67,430 0.5 2020 67,930 0.7 2021 68,7511 1.2

1. Per State Department of Finance The average annual growth for the period from 2011 to 2021 has had an average growth rate of 0.91%, slightly less than 1% and well below the maximum 2% annual growth allowed by the Growth Allocation process. Growth Allocations issued to projects from 2013 to 2021 are summarized below.

Table C: Approved Growth Allocations 2013-2020

Project Low (0.1-7) Medium (7.1-20) High (20.1-30) TOTAL

Bennett Interlaken Dr. 25

Camper - Sac 28 28

Garfield 6 6

Gateway North 107 98 329 534

Gateway South 560 0 0 560

Gianoni / Baker 18 18

Harvest Crossing 42 42

Iris Drive 9 9

Luca Place 17 17

Miller Property 65 65

Reynolds Ranch 39 338 330 707

Rose Gate 232 232

Rose Gate II 250 95 180 525

Sunwest Cottages 12

The Benjamin 20 20


7

Tienda Square 8 8

Twin Arbors 27

Van Ruiten Ranch 145 55 108 308

Villa Fiore (VRR) 67 67

Vineyard Terrace 235 235

Vintner Square 57 57

TOTAL 1,559 982 979 3,500

Average Per Year: 222 140 122

The following calculation explains the current City population of 68,751 as of January 1, 2021 and 477 units available for 2020: 1. Calculate two percent of the City’s current population: 68,751 x 2% = 1,375.02

2. Divide 1,375 by the average number of persons per household 1 / 2.85 = 482.46

3. Divide the 482.46 (483 du) units into the 3 housing types:

44% low density = 213 units

28% medium density = 135 units

28% high density = 135 units. A summary of the status of existing available growth allocations and the applicant’s request is shown below. Granting the requested allocation would leave a total of 3,126 allocations available for other projects (3,156 - 12 = 3,136).

Table D: Growth Allocations 2021

Category Unused Alloca-tions1

(2020)

Add 2021 Alloca- tions

Deduct 2021

Allocations Already Granted

Total Available

Allocations for 2021

Requested 620 S

Central Allocations

Total with the 620 S Central

Allocations Deducted

Low Density (Up to 7 DU/Acre)

1257 213 <0> 1,470 -- 1,470

Medium Density

(7.1 – 20 DU/Acre)

634

135 <0> 769 -- 769

High Density (20.1 – 30 DU/Acre)

774 135 <0> 909 <12> 897

Totals: 2,665 483 <0> 3,148 <12> 3,136


8

Growth Allocation Point System and Analysis The Growth Management Ordinance includes a priority location area and a point system to assist the City with prioritizing issuance of growth management allocations. The priority location area designates lands available for development and provides development categories of one, two or three, with Priority Area 1 being the first priority area for development. The priority areas are based on availability of city services (e.g., water, wastewater, storm drains, streets, police, fire and parks). The proposed project site is classified as an “in-fill” project. For scoring purposes, in-fill projects are considered Priority Area 1 projects. The point system was established to rate projects based on various project merits in order to determine if one project should be approved before another, particularly if there are more allocation requests than there are available allocations. Conclusion

The proposed residential development aligns with the residential land use designations and densities assigned to site in the current General Plan. Granting growth allocations for the proposed project would allow the construction of an approved apartment building, and would be well within the number of units which can be approved per the Growth Allocation process. REDUCED PARKING PER STATE LAW

As discussed earlier, state law allows affordable housing to provide less parking than would normally be required. The section below describes how state law applies to this project.

Parking and Vehicle and Pedestrian Access

The proposed parking lot provides a total of 16 parking spaces that includes including 1 handicapped-accessible stall. A carport will provide covered parking to 12 of the 16 spaces.

The City of Lodi’s Zoning Code requires a total of 24 spaces for residents and 2 parking spaces for guests.

Because the project is providing 100% affordable housing to low-income household and is within 0.5 mile to a major transit stop, the parking provision in the State Density Bonus law (Cal. Gov’t Code §65915(p)(1)(3)(A)) overrides the City’s parking requirement. Major transit stop is defined as “… a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.” (Public Resources Code §21155). Bus stop for Bus Route 2 is directly in front of the project site. Figure 5, below, shows the location of transit service near the project site.

Under the State Density Bonus law, the project is required to a total of 6 parking spaces (0.5 space per unit). The proposed 16 parking spaces exceed this requirement.

The applicant’s submittal shows 12 bicycle parking spaces (2-racks). A total of 12 is required under the City of Lodi’s Zoning Code. State Density Bonus law does not have a requirement for bicycle parking.


9

Figure 5: Bus Stops Within One-Half Mile

The applicant is not requesting any concessions/incentives under the State Density Bonus law for this project. A proposed setback reduction along the side property line will be processed as an administrative deviation by the Director in compliance with Zoning Code Section 17.40.050.

Therefore, no findings of approval are needed under the State Density Bonus law because there are no concessions or incentives to be considered.

As mentioned above, the applicant is using the State’s parking standard for affordable housing, which overrides the City’s parking requirement. Therefore, no action is needed from the Planning Commission for a parking reduction.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The Class 32 “Infill” Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guideline Section 15332), hereafter referred to as the Class 32 Exemption, exempts infill development within urbanized areas if it meets certain criteria. The class consists of environmentally benign infill projects that are consistent with the General Plan and Zoning requirements. This class is not intended for projects that would result in any significant traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality impacts. This exemption is not limited to any use type and may apply to residential, commercial, industrial, public facility, and/or mixed-use projects.

The City Council, by Resolution No. 2010-41, which became effective on April 7, 2010, certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), State Clearinghouse No. 20009022075, for the City of Lodi General Plan. This General Plan designated the project site as Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential, Public / Quasi Public and Open Space.

No potential new impacts related to the Project have been identified that would necessitate further environmental review beyond the impacts and issues already disclosed and analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No increase in development density beyond what was anticipated in the General Plan for the Project


10

site would occur. No other special circumstances exist that would create a reasonable possibility that the proposed Project will have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

Therefore, the proposed Project qualifies for the exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 and no further environmental review is required.

PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE

Legal Notice for the Use Permit was published in the Lodi News Sentinel on October 4, 2021. 52 public hearing notices were sent to all property owners of record within a 300-foot radius of the project site as required by California State Law §65091(a)3. Public notice also was mailed to interested parties who had expressed their interest of the project.

RECOMMENDED MOTIONS

Should the Planning Commission agree with staff’s recommendation, the following motion is suggested:

“I move that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the request for Growth Management Allocations for 12 High Density Units at 620 S. Central Ave. (File No. 2021-026 SP), subject to the conditions of approval.”

Respectfully Submitted, Concur, Brian Garvey John R. Della Monica Jr. Contract Assistant City Planner Community Development Director Attachments:

SPARC Comment Letters

CITY COUNCIL

ALAN NAKANISHI, MayorMARK CHANDLER,

Mayor Pro TemporeMIKEY HOTHI

SHAK KHAN

DOUG KUEHNE

CITY OF LODI2015 "Wine Region of the Year"

Community Development DepartmentCITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET

P.O. BOX 3006LODr, CALTFORNIA 95241-1910

(209) 333-6711 - Planning

STEPHEN SCHWABAUERCity Manager

JENNIFER CUSMIRCity Clerk

JANICE D. MAGDICHCity Attorney

September t9,2O2t

RE: Proposed 620 S. Central Avenue Affordable Housing Apartment Development

The Cíty of Lodi Community Development Department has received concerns from residents that live near a proposedaffordable housing development on Central Avenue. Some of the concerns stated are that this will be a homeless shelter,which it is not. Affordable housing addresses the housing needs of low to moderate-income families. The City of Lodi currentlyhas several affordable housing apartment complexes interspersed amongst traditional rental un¡ts and there is no visualdifference.

Proiect Facts:o The proposed project is an allowable use ín its zoning designation of Mixed Use (MCO).o ln its revised state, the proposed project will provide 12 two-bedroom units designed forfamilies.¡ Although the proposed project has a height limitation of four stories tall, the project as designed will only be two

stories.o The proposed project reflects the residential character found within the general community.

ln an effort to live up to our t¡tle as lívable, loveable, Lodi, we need to do more to provide affordable and safe housing optionsfor people working in a range of professions within our community. Responsibility for affordable housing rests with everyone- all levels of government, housing developers and the community as a whole.

Affordable housing supports inclusivíty and diversity in our cíty. lt is important that the Community Development Departmentwork with developers to ensure that people on very low to moderate incomes have access to a safe and secure place to live.There are major economic benefits associated with delivering more affordable housing and many affordable housingdevelopments mimic market rate projects in their architectural appeal, and in this case will provide additional propertymanagement services to ensure the property is properly maintained.

The realíty remains that anyone can be in need of affordable rental housing during his or her life; this has been even moreprevalent since the COVID-19 Pandemic has affected many people's livelihoods. Affordable housing is for anyone in ourcommunity who is part of a very low to moderate-income household; this can include families, elderly, hospitality workers,students, and many others.

Numerous studies have proven that a safe home improves physical and mental health, personal relationships and quality offamily life, education and employment outcomes. This demonstrates that affordable housing is a benefit and allowsindividuals and families to fully partic¡pate in their community. Additional benefits will be gained through retain¡ng keyworkers, improving the livability of our city and enhancing economic benefits.

We thank you for taking the time to read this information, and hope we have assuaged some of the neighborhood concerns.Attached you will find an updated graphic of the proposed development based on feedback received at the previous Site PlanArchitectural Review Committee (SPARC) Meeting.lf you have any additional questions or you would like to receive this notice in Spanish, please email [email protected]

Respectfully,

JohnCom

il Monnity Development Díre r, City Lodi

Site Plan

1

Kari Chadwick

From: Kari Chadwick on behalf of SPARC - Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Comments

Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 5:11 PMTo: 'lorena caballero'Subject: RE: Petition to stop planning the affordable housing project at 620 S central Ave

Thank you Ms Caballero. The document will be added to the packet and become a permanent part of the record.

Kari Chadwick CDD Program Specialist Community Development 209-333-6711 or 209-269-4527

From: lorena caballero <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 4:49 PM To: SPARC ‐ Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Comments <[email protected]> Subject: Petition to stop planning the affordable housing project at 620 S central Ave

6

Sent from my iPhone

1

Kari Chadwick

From: Kari ChadwickSent: Friday, September 17, 2021 2:24 PMTo: '[email protected]'Subject: FW: 620 S Central Ave

Ms. Ruotolo, Thank you for the comments. They will be added to the file and become a part of the permanent record. Thank you,


From: Shak Khan <[email protected]> Date: September 16, 2021 at 11:15:44 PM PDT To: Steve Schwabauer <[email protected]>, John Della Monica <[email protected]>, Andrew Keys <[email protected]>, Dennis Canright <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: 620 S Central Ave

Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message:

From: kathy ruotolo <[email protected]> Date: September 16, 2021 at 7:56:44 PM PDT To: Shak Khan <[email protected]> Subject: 620 S Central Ave

I’m reaching out to you as a citizen who was born and raised here on the east side. We can’t have another apartment complex here on the east side of town you know that I have the signatures necessary to stop it … John Kautz only wants the money he lives on a mansion and this project is not going to happen … it’s only to benefit his pocket cook and you as growing up here on the east side knows that it is your obligation to make sure this doesn’t happen…. Feel free to call me 327-4644 I will do whatever I have to to stop this project from happening Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

1

Kari Chadwick


Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2021 11:04 AMTo: 'lorena caballero'Subject: RE: Petition to stop planning the affordable housing project at 620 S central AveAttachments: response letter and attach combined.pdf

Ms. Caballero, The attached response to your concerns was mailed out to the addresses within the city limits. Thank you again for your comments.


From: lorena caballero <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 4:49 PM To: SPARC ‐ Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Comments <[email protected]> Subject: Petition to stop planning the affordable housing project at 620 S central Ave

7

Sent from my iPhone

1

Kari Chadwick


Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2021 11:09 AMTo: 'Eunice Anaya'Subject: RE: Housing Project 620 S. Central Ave Lodi, CA File 2021-007Attachments: response letter and attach combined.pdf

Ms. Anaya, Thank you for your comments. The revised project that will be presented at the SPARC hearing on September 22, 2021 will be for a 2‐story apartment building with 12 2‐bedroom units which is different from the original submittal and what was discussed at the August 25th meeting. If you would like to read addition information regarding the project the link to the Agenda Packet is below: http://www.lodi.gov/AgendaCenter/Search/?term=&CIDs=4,&startDate=&endDate=&dateRange=&dateSelector= The attached response to your concerns was mailed out to the addresses that were on the petition within the city limits. Thank you again for your comments.


From: Eunice Anaya <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 17, 2021 12:02 AM To: SPARC ‐ Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Comments <[email protected]> Subject: Housing Project 620 S. Central Ave Lodi, CA File 2021‐007

Greetings, Lodi needs affordable housing. The project presented for 12 apartment project (1 bedroom 1 bath) at 620 S. Central Ave Lodi, CA is not a family friendly building and will not improve our community. The project as presented today, places children at risk of going to school next to a building that could easily become a homeless shelter. My concerned is for the 530 children that attend Heritage Elementary School (509 Eden St. Lodi, CA) located only 0.2 miles, a merely 400 steps from this project. Children that attend school in the community deserve to feel safe walking to school. Who is the target renters for these apartment? We have families who need affordable housing, lets give them the opportunity by improving this project. Is the City of Lodi Policy Department ready to protect the most vulnerable citizens 4-12 year old children/student walking to Heritage Elementary School? Street Parking at South Central Ave is challenging now, what should we expect with 12 apartments, approximately 2 cars per apartments. Where should we place these 24 additional cars? Clearly not enough street parking, this building plan doest not account for parking. We can do better. Eunice Godinez

2

Eureka Ave Lodi, CA 95240 Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

1

Kari Chadwick


Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2021 11:12 AMTo: 'Juan Ochoa'Subject: RE: Building proposal at 620 S Central Ave Lodi, CAAttachments: response letter and attach combined.pdf

Mr. Ochoa, Thank you for your comments. The revised project that will be presented at the SPARC hearing on September 22, 2021 will be for a 2‐story apartment building with 12 2‐bedroom units which will make it much more family friendly. If you would like to read addition information regarding the project the link to the Agenda Packet is below: http://www.lodi.gov/AgendaCenter/Search/?term=&CIDs=4,&startDate=&endDate=&dateRange=&dateSelector= The attached response to your concerns was mailed out to the addresses that were on the petition within the city limits. Thank you again for your comments. Kari Chadwick CDD Program Specialist Community Development 209‐333‐6711 or 209‐269‐4527 ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Juan Ochoa <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 17, 2021 8:53 PM To: SPARC ‐ Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Comments <[email protected]> Subject: Building proposal at 620 S Central Ave Lodi, CA Planning Commission I oppose the construction of a 2 story 12 unit building to be built at 620 S Central Ave. Lodi, CA. The project will bring more traffic to an already busy intersection making it more dangerous for pedestrians not to mention the young children that walk everyday to their school. Also, the project is to house homeless individuals, individuals with serious health problems, drugs and alcohol. Homeless people are always a big nuisance to the surrounding area due to their living habits. Homeless people would create a great safety hazard to the school children (K to 6) going to school, and to all the citizens in the surrounding area. Homeless people would be a nuisance to local and surrounding businesses. Businesses would be losing customers and their revenue would diminish to the extent that they might have to close. Property value would also diminished and create even more problems for the area. There would be more crime and the safety of the community would be jeopardized. This would be a real eye sore for the area, and the city of Lodi. Nobody wants this done to their community.

2

I am sure that the owner of this project wouldn’t want this project built near or next to his prominent businesses, or his neighborhood. I don’t think the owner would want his children or grandchildren being expose to the living habits the homeless tend to live by. I hope and pray that the Planning Commission find it in their heart to vote this project down, and protect the neighborhood and the citizens of this area and Lodi. Thank you, for your attention to this matter. Juan Ochoa Sent from my iPhone

1

Kari Chadwick

From: Kari ChadwickSent: Saturday, September 18, 2021 11:02 AMTo: '[email protected]'Subject: RE: 620 S Central AveAttachments: response letter and attach combined.pdf

Ms. Ruotolo, The attached response to your concerns was mailed out to the addresses within the city limits that were on the petition submitted by Lorena Caballero. Thank you again for your comments.


From: Kari Chadwick Sent: Friday, September 17, 2021 2:24 PM To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Subject: FW: 620 S Central Ave

Ms. Ruotolo, Thank you for the comments. They will be added to the file and become a part of the permanent record. Thank you,


From: Shak Khan <[email protected]> Date: September 16, 2021 at 11:15:44 PM PDT To: Steve Schwabauer <[email protected]>, John Della Monica <[email protected]>, Andrew Keys <[email protected]>, Dennis Canright <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: 620 S Central Ave

Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message:

2

From: kathy ruotolo <[email protected]> Date: September 16, 2021 at 7:56:44 PM PDT To: Shak Khan <[email protected]> Subject: 620 S Central Ave

I’m reaching out to you as a citizen who was born and raised here on the east side. We can’t have another apartment complex here on the east side of town you know that I have the signatures necessary to stop it … John Kautz only wants the money he lives on a mansion and this project is not going to happen … it’s only to benefit his pocket cook and you as growing up here on the east side knows that it is your obligation to make sure this doesn’t happen…. Feel free to call me 327-4644 I will do whatever I have to to stop this project from happening Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

1

Kari Chadwick


Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 5:44 PMTo: '[email protected]'Subject: RE: Site Plan and Architectural Rview for unit at 620 S. Central Ave, LodiAttachments: response letter and attach combined.pdf

Ms. Bertke, Thank you for your comments. Below please find the link to the meeting Agenda Packet: http://www.lodi.gov/AgendaCenter/Search/?term=&CIDs=4,&startDate=&endDate=&dateRange=&dateSelector= And attached please find the letter that was sent out in response to the petition that was received. Again, thank you for your comments. They will be read into the record at the meeting.


From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2021 10:41 PM To: SPARC ‐ Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Comments <[email protected]> Subject: Site Plan and Architectural Rview for unit at 620 S. Central Ave, Lodi

Please do not adopt the same failed policies of Sacramento and other CA communities. Visit those neighborhoods with "affordable housing projects" before and after implementation and you will observe a dramatic deterioration in the curb appeal, maintenance, cleanliness and safety of those neighborhoods. We've lived it first hand, up close and personal more than once and moved to Lodi to escape those poor policy decisions. The proposed project at 620 S. Central is not the ideal location for such a project, and until the Lodi City Council is willing to allocate resources for vagrancy, trash, and noise enforcement, this project should not be implemented. Monika Bertke E-mail: [email protected] 2443 MacArthur Pkwy Lodi, CA 95242

1

Kari Chadwick

From: Kari Chadwick on behalf of Planning Commission CommentsSent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 8:40 AMTo: 'Briza Aispuro'Subject: RE: Lodi Apartments - Central AveAttachments: response letter and attach combined.pdf

Ms. Aispuro, Thank you for your comments. The Planning Commission Meeting for this Growth Allocations has been cancelled. Would you like to have your comments read at the SPARC hearing instead? Additional information has been routed to the addresses that were on the petition. It is attached to this email. Below is the link to the SPARC Agenda Packet if you would like to learn a little more about the project. http://www.lodi.gov/AgendaCenter/Search/?term=&CIDs=4,&startDate=&endDate=&dateRange=&dateSelector= Thank you, Kari Chadwick CDD Program Specialist Community Development 209‐333‐6711 or 209‐269‐4527 ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Briza Aispuro <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 7:06 PM To: Planning Commission Comments <[email protected]> Subject: Lodi Apartments ‐ Central Ave To whom it may concern, My name is Briza Aispuro and I am writing because I would like to share my views on the proposed apartments on 620 S Central Ave. My aunt who I visit frequently lives on 611 Central Ave and has lived there for the past 28 years. I am concerned for how this new development will affect parking on the street. It is already hard enough to find parking and I find it extremely dangerous to cross the street when I travel with my younger siblings. Sometimes people don’t even respect the traffic laws so I prefer to park right in front of her house. I also feel like with the low income housing, it could bring up the crime rate in the area. I’m concerned for their safety as well as mine. I don’t want to feel unsafe as I walk outside of her house or even be scared while I visit. She has her grandchildren who live next door who love to play outside. I would hate to have them be locked in the house 24/7 for their safety. I hope you take this into consideration. — Briza Aispuro

1

Kari Chadwick

From: Kari Chadwick on behalf of Planning Commission CommentsSent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 8:45 AMTo: 'Stephanie Aispuro-Soler'Subject: RE: 620 S CENTRAL AVENUE PLANNING COMMISSIONAttachments: response letter and attach combined.pdf

Ms. Aispuro‐Soler, Thank you for your comments. The Planning Commission Meeting for this Growth Allocations has been cancelled. Would you like to have your comments read at the SPARC hearing instead? Additional information has been routed to the addresses that were on the petition. It is attached to this email. Below is the link to the SPARC Agenda Packet if you would like to learn a little more about the project. http://www.lodi.gov/AgendaCenter/Search/?term=&CIDs=4,&startDate=&endDate=&dateRange=&dateSelector= Thank you,


From: Stephanie Aispuro‐Soler <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 7:22 PM To: Planning Commission Comments <[email protected]> Subject: 620 S CENTRAL AVENUE PLANNING COMMISSION

To whom it may concern, I am a concerned citizen who often frequents that area of Lodi, since I have family that lives on that block and own a store there. Parking is already a nightmare there since that liquor store got put there and crime and homeless is also a big problem in the area. I feel that putting a low income housing development there would only aggravate the existing problem not solve anything. Please consider putting it in a different location, not where it would be so compacted. I also don't feel safe even being outside there going to my car with my special needs son as it often has people looting and smoking marijuana, I can only imagine the problem would get worse with the quality of people who would end up living in the building. Thank you for hearing me out, I hope to keep Lodi just as loveable as always. I was raised there and hope to someday purchase another home there.

Stephanie C Aispuro-Soler

1

Kari Chadwick


Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 11:02 AMTo: 'Gene Avakian'Subject: RE: 12 Unit AH at Central & Tokay

Thank you Mr. Avakian. Your comments will be read into the record at tonight’s meeting.


From: Gene Avakian <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 10:44 AM To: SPARC ‐ Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Comments <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 12 Unit AH at Central & Tokay I would like to say that I am very much in favor of this project as more of our Local vacant lots could be used for this purpose and help locals. The projects need to be sure and have guidelines that insist they are to house locals not people from outside the area coming in that is another problem/issue. Thank you

Gene Avakian SALES MANAGER NMLS ID#249478

P 209.379.4622 M 209.688.5656 F 209.992.4139

[email protected]

217 N. School Street, #2, Lodi, CA 95240 800.BAY.3703 • Bay Equity LLC • NMLS ID#76988

www.bayequityhomeloans.com

This message (and any attachments) contains information that may be confidential, legally privileged and protected from disclosure. It is intended for the use of the individual (s) to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or any parts of it, please contact the sender immediately and delete the message from your system. No other person is authorized to copy, forward, disclose, distribute or retain this message in any form. Any Interest Rate Information published in this message is subject to change without notice and does not constitute a commitment to make any loan at any specific rate. Thank you.. ...

1

Kari Chadwick


Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 2:46 PMTo: 'Beth Calder'Subject: RE: 12 unit on central

Thank you Ms. Calder for your comments. They will be read into the record at tonight's meeting.


From: Beth Calder <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 2:36 PM To: SPARC ‐ Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Comments <[email protected]> Subject: 12 unit on central

To whom it may concern; I truly believe the proposed project that includes affordable housing will improve the area. As far as I’ve ever seen the area is known for drug use and homeless. This would bring more affordable housing to Lodi, help reduce crime in this neighborhood and clean the area up.

Kind Regards,

Beth Calder Meridian Estates INC Broker [email protected] DRE# 01997949 (209)747-6798

1

Kari Chadwick


Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 1:56 PMTo: 'Joshua Carloni'Subject: RE: Central and tokay 12 unit proposal

Thank you Mr. Carloni for your comments. They will be read into the record at tonight's meeting. Kari Chadwick CDD Program Specialist Community Development 209‐333‐6711 or 209‐269‐4527 ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Joshua Carloni <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 11:50 AM To: SPARC ‐ Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Comments <[email protected]> Subject: Central and tokay 12 unit proposal Dear committee , I’am in favor of the 12 unit project at the corner of tokay and central proposed by Jack Kautz. This would improve the area and our city and allow affordable housing for those in need ! It would also clean up and improve the surrounding neighbors property values . Please allow this project to move forward ! Regards , Dr. Joshua M. Carloni D.C. Sent from my iPhone

1

Kari Chadwick


Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 2:44 PMTo: 'Lisa dentoni'Subject: RE: Central and tokay

Thank you Ms. Dentoni for your comment. It will be read into the record at tonight's meeting.

Kari Chadwick CDD Program Specialist Community Development 209-333-6711 or 209-269-4527 From: Lisa dentoni <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 2:23 PM To: SPARC ‐ Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Comments <[email protected]> Subject: Central and tokay

I am in support of Jack Kautz building a housing structure on the corner of Central and Tokay Street. Lisa Dentoni

1

Kari Chadwick


Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 2:07 PMTo: 'doughman.sara'Subject: RE: Jack Kautz

Thank you Ms. Dewalt for your comments. They will be read into the record at tonight's meeting.


From: doughman.sara <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 1:51 PM To: SPARC ‐ Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Comments <[email protected]> Subject: Jack Kautz

I am sending this email in regards to the proposed housing in the corner of Vine and Central in Lodi. I think this would be an absolutely amazing idea personally. Being in the property management business I am seeing more and more new housing vouchers for Section 8/HudVadh/Central Valley Housing and it seems as quick as they are approved they are losing their vouchers just as fast because there just really arent alot of landlords/owners that will accept it. Not to mention we are seeing more and more seniors getting housing and we all know Social Security does not award even a close amount of money monthly to where they can even pay for rents in this area without having some sort of subsidized housing. With that being said I hope this affordable housing complex will be strongly considered. Thank you for your time! Sara Dewalt Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note9, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone

1

Kari Chadwick


Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 2:00 PMTo: 'Chad Donley'Subject: RE: SPARC Comment

Thank you Mr. Donley for your comments. they will be read into the record at tonight's meeting.

Kari Chadwick CDD Program Specialist Community Development 209-333-6711 or 209-269-4527 From: Chad Donley <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 1:23 PM To: SPARC ‐ Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Comments <[email protected]> Subject: SPARC Comment

Sir or Ma'am I am sending this email as a resident and Christian Church Pastor here in Lodi in support of Mr. Jack Kautz's proposal of building a 12 unit, two bedroom, and one bath affordable housing on the corner of Central and Tokay. I have sat in on numerous committee meetings in both the city and church settings during my 10 years living and serving here in Lodi regarding the issue of the homeless. There has been much talk of good things to do but little actions taken that I have personally observed. I fully support Mr. Kautz's proactive proposal and believe it could do some real good in our community. V/R -- Chad Eric Donley Evangelist, Ham Lane Church of Christ Lodi, California 209-369-2817 "The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." ~ GK Chesterton.

1

Kari Chadwick


Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 2:08 PMTo: 'Sarah Duncan'Subject: RE: SPARC

Thank you Ms. Ehlers for your comments. They will be read into the record at tonight's meeting. Kari Chadwick CDD Program Specialist Community Development 209‐333‐6711 or 209‐269‐4527 ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Sarah Duncan <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 2:05 PM To: SPARC ‐ Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Comments <[email protected]> Subject: SPARC To whom it may concern, As we all know, affordable housing is virtually nonexistent within Lodi. This proposes a large problem for many of our community members. I am in full support of providing new affordable housing in order to help people in our community afford to stay and connect in the town we all love and appreciate. Thank you for your consideration, Sarah Ehlers Sent from my iPhone

1

Kari Chadwick


Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 1:50 PMTo: 'Mfoust'Subject: RE: CENTRAL -TOKAY-KAUTZ

Thank you Mr. Foust for your comment. It will be read into the record at tonight's meeting. Kari Chadwick CDD Program Specialist Community Development 209‐333‐6711 or 209‐269‐4527 ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Mfoust <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 11:33 AM To: SPARC ‐ Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Comments <[email protected]> Subject: CENTRAL ‐TOKAY‐KAUTZ To Whom it May Concern: As a life time Resident of Lodi and personal knowledge of Kautz, I believe he will see to it that this is a WIN WIN situation

for all who are involved ❗ Sincerely, Marlon Foust Sent from my iPhone

1

Kari Chadwick


Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 3:33 PMTo: 'Nene Anaya'Subject: RE: 620 S Central Ave.

Thank you Mr. Aispuro for your comments. They will be read into the record at tonight's meeting.

Kari Chadwick CDD Program Specialist Community Development 209-333-6711 or 209-269-4527 From: Nene Anaya <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 3:25 PM To: SPARC ‐ Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Comments <[email protected]> Subject: 620 S Central Ave.

Dear Lodi Trustees,

I am reaching out today in an effort to express my concerns regarding the 12-unit apartment proposal at 620 S. Central Ave. While I am pleased the Community Development Director’s letter (dated 9/19) made an attempt to clarify some of the concerns from the previous meeting, I am opposed to this project. The reality is more members of the community have realized how important it is to assist these city meetings that do make long lasting decisions. We plan not to be misled again as previous projects have affected our neighborhood in a very negative way.

Mr. Della Monica’s letter goes on to state that we need to make an effort to live up to our title as livable, loveable, Lodi. Will this option provide safe housing? Tell that to the same community that frequents late night fist fights, evidence of drug usage, homeless yelling obscene language in front of children and where 4 gunshots were dispersed this past Saturday outside of the proposal site. Most of the troubled traffic is not from this community, what guarantees this community that the same traffic won’t settle in these apartment complexes and families will?

Just about every Lodian has been gravely affected by the pandemic, their loved ones, business or their current home situations. We, the large part of this community, have contemplated how this facility will not be portable; it will be in our neighborhood permanently and likely remain for the next few decades. The location of these apartments will attract more instability to its current vulnerable state. Our patrol officers roam and will vouch for the dangers that do occur on a daily basis.

Important message to my community: if you are experiencing hardship due to COVID, there is relief programs like the following: SHARE program, CARE program, Medical Discount Program, HEAP program, PG&E COVID Relief Payment Plan, San Joaquin County Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP).

2

Numerous studies have proven low income communities are more susceptible to drug usage, alcoholism, crime and abuse. All, which has notably increased in this neighborhood where many students walk by themselves before and after school. Studies have also shown that students, especially in predominantly Hispanic communities, that are raised in close proximity to access to drugs and alcohol increases the chances of usage as young as a teenager.

While those 12 apartments may or may not benefit from a service like this. Without a doubt negatively affect the rest of the dozens of settled family homes that intersect this street. I entrust that the city council’s decision will consider the above factors and continue to display positive decisions that has made our city flourish as of recent years.

-Jerry Aispuro-

1

Kari Chadwick


Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 11:21 AMTo: 'Kevin Knutson'Subject: RE: Central and Tokay Housing

Thank you Mr. Knutson for your comments. They will be read into the record at tonight's meeting. Kari Chadwick CDD Program Specialist Community Development 209‐333‐6711 or 209‐269‐4527 ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Kevin Knutson <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 11:09 AM To: SPARC ‐ Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Comments <[email protected]> Subject: Central and Tokay Housing Hello, I support Jack Kautz and his effort to build affordable housing on the currently vacated lot of central and tokay. Thank you Kevin Knutson 209.810.8337 Sent from my iPhone

1

Kari Chadwick


Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 2:45 PMTo: 'Natalie Leventini'Subject: RE: Affordable Housing Project - Central Avenue and Tokay Street, Lodi, CA

Thank you Ms. Leventini for your comments. They will be read into the record at tonight's meeting. Kari Chadwick CDD Program Specialist Community Development 209‐333‐6711 or 209‐269‐4527 ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Natalie Leventini <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 2:32 PM To: SPARC ‐ Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Comments <[email protected]> Subject: Affordable Housing Project ‐ Central Avenue and Tokay Street, Lodi, CA To whom it may concern, I am writing in support of the affordable housing project on Central Avenue and Tokay Street in Lodi, CA. I think affordable housing is much needed in our area and would help give people a chance to have a home that otherwise would not. It is a “win” for the whole community. Thank you for your consideration in this project. Sincerely, Natalie Leventini Sent from my iPhone

1

Kari Chadwick


Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 11:23 AMTo: 'KEN LITTLETON'Subject: RE: Proposed 12 unit at central and Lodi

Thank you Mr. Littleton for your comments. They will be read into the record at tonight’s meeting.


From: KEN LITTLETON <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 11:19 AM To: SPARC ‐ Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Comments <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed 12 unit at central and Lodi

I would like to throw my support for the proposed development of tokay and central. There is such a need for affordable housing as everyone is aware of. This project is a positive step in taking a empty lot and creating a new and clean place for affordable housing. Thank you. Ken Littleton. ( Lodi resident and business owner ). Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

1

Kari Chadwick


Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 5:05 PMTo: 'Maria Anaya'Subject: RE: Proposed 620 site

Thank you Ms. Anaya for your comments. They will be read into the record at tonight's meeting. Kari Chadwick CDD Program Specialist Community Development 209‐333‐6711 or 209‐269‐4527 ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Maria Anaya <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 3:50 PM To: SPARC ‐ Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Comments <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed 620 site As a resident of the area for more than 30 years, I love this community. This is the community where I have raised my children and as just about a bit more than a year ago, I have felt insecure of leaving the house. I understand Mr. John Kautz desire of helping our neighborhood and I’m in agreement in the need for housing. I also know that he loves our beautiful city of Lodi and has the sincere intention to help it, but an apartment complex with 12 units will bring more problems than benefits. This area is very insecure, as of recent years crime has incremented substantially in this specific block. Homeless people, prostitution, drugs and excess of outside traffic. My suggestion is if you’d like to help our community, I am sure you have many employees that are deserving to have their own house. Help them complete their American dream and build houses in this property. Maria A. Aispuro Mary

1

Kari Chadwick


Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 1:45 PMTo: 'David Murdock'Subject: RE: Proposed City of Lodi Affordable Housing Unit

Thank you Mr. Murdock for your comments. They will be read into the record at tonight’s meeting.


From: David Murdock <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 11:25 AM To: SPARC ‐ Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Comments <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed City of Lodi Affordable Housing Unit

To whom it may concern, I think the proposed affordable housing unit at Tokay and Central could possibly help clean up the area, also it may just help people who want and need a chance to get off the streets. As we know, Lodi has a growing population of homeless that just wonder around the city streets and at times make people feel uncomfortable. Maybe this affordable housing unit is just a start of what Lodi needs to help mitigate some of the issues of getting them off the streets. Thank You, Dave

1

Kari Chadwick


Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 11:03 AMTo: 'Joe Murphy'Subject: RE: SPARC meeting

Thank you Mr. Murphy for your comments. They will be read into the record at tonight’s meeting.


From: Joe Murphy <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 10:49 AM To: SPARC ‐ Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Comments <[email protected]> Subject: SPARC meeting To all SPARC Committee members, I am aware of the project Jack Kautz is proposing on the corner of Central Avenue and Tokay Street. I think it would be a great improvement to the neighborhood and I fully support the project. As with most cities in the central valley, in‐fill projects should be welcomed and entry level housing options need to be expanded. I have seen some of the projects Mr. Kautz has built and he always does a great job. His projects always are an improvement to the neighborhood and I’m sure this project, if approved, will be also. Sincerely, Joe Murphy Joe Murphy

(209) 334‐6613 Office (209) 334‐0723 Fax www.dillonandmurphy.com

2

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may hav e been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

Joe Murphy Dillon & Murphy Engineering 209-334-6613 Office 209-334-0723 Fax

1

Kari Chadwick


Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 1:58 PMTo: 'Melissa Peters'Subject: RE: Housing project

Thank you Ms. Peters for your comments. They will be read into the record at tonight's meeting. Kari Chadwick CDD Program Specialist Community Development 209‐333‐6711 or 209‐269‐4527 ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Melissa Peters <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 12:35 PM To: SPARC ‐ Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Comments <[email protected]> Subject: Housing project I think a complex on the corner of Tokay and Central would be a great way to help low income people. Hopefully to be monitored and kept up nicely, with rent being paid at an affordable price so that it would provide incentive for these people to take care of the place they live, not homeless people. We need something that will be effective for that group of people who have enough money to spend on a reasonable amount of rent but can’t afford to buy a home or pay market price for rent. Maybe even a sort of transitional space where they can stay for an amount of time and then move on once they have gotten more established in a career or better providing job. Something temporary so that someone else could then take advantage of the same opportunity once they have moved on. Melissa Peters Sent from my iPhone

1

Kari Chadwick


Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 2:05 PMTo: 'Jon Pritikin'Subject: RE: Please Allow Comolex

Thank you Mr. Pritikin for your comments. They will be read into the record at tonight's meeting.


From: Jon Pritikin <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 1:28 PM To: SPARC ‐ Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Comments <[email protected]> Subject: Please Allow Comolex

I recently heard that a 12 unit complex is trying to be built on the corner of Central and Tokay. this low cost housing is so needed right now.

3

From the bottom of my heart please approve this project. Our community needs this. Your friend, Jon Jon Pritikin www.feelthepower.org P.O. Box 110 Lodi, CA 95241 +12093662659 office (Message sent from mobile device. Please excuse all typos and grammar errors)

1

Kari Chadwick


Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 10:54 AMTo: 'kathy ruotolo'; SPARC - Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee CommentsCc: Shak Khan; John Della MonicaSubject: RE: 620 S Central Street

Thank you Ms. Ruotolo for your comments. They will be read into the record at tonight’s meeting


From: kathy ruotolo <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 10:32 AM To: SPARC ‐ Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Comments <[email protected]> Cc: Shak Khan <[email protected]>; Kari Chadwick <[email protected]> Subject: 620 S Central Street

I am a home owner who is born and raised here on the East Side of Lodi and currently own and live at 422 E Tokay Street. I strongly believe that building a 12 unit complex at the corner of Central and Tokay would be detrimental to the area. It will increase traffic and bring down the value of every home in the area. We have too many apartment buildings now on Tokay Street. If you drive down Tokay going West you can see the increased traffic along with cars all over the streets associated with the multiple complexes on Tokay. I have seen 8 cars totaled here on Tokay in a matter of 36 mths. This unit will not accomodate the cars that will be associated with the Tenants. In addition to that it will also increase the drug trafficing that we experience on a daily basis along with the prostitution, the homeless and the illegal gambling that take place. I invite each and everyone of you to come and spend some time here on the corner and observe exactly what takes place. I have also lived on the West side and I didn't see where apartment complexes were going up at all. I dont believe the city would allow it nor the residents, however you seem to think that it is o.k. for this to go on here on the east side. I believe it would be more beneficial to build a few homes on that lot for low income folks which would nicely fit it with our neighborhood and the homes in the area. You state that you want to promote that Lodi be livable and lovable Lodi, however here on the east side it is barely safe and livable. If you want to put lovable back into the east side then you not need to allow another apartment complex to be build over here on the east side. If you have compassion for this side of town you will not vote to approve this project. Please think about the things I've said and find it in your heart to make Lodi lovable here on the east side.

2

Sincerely Kathy Ruotolo

1

Kari Chadwick


Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 2:47 PMTo: 'Gary Silva'Subject: RE: SPARC

Thank you Mr. Silva for your comments. They will be read into the record at tonight's meeting.

Kari Chadwick CDD Program Specialist Community Development 209-333-6711 or 209-269-4527 From: Gary Silva <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 2:43 PM To: SPARC ‐ Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Comments <[email protected]> Subject: SPARC

To whom it may concern: I would like share my endorsement for the proposed SPARC affordable housing project. In my opinion, this is a win win for the residents of the housing project and the community of Lodi. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Gary Silva DDS

1

Kari Chadwick


Sent: Monday, September 27, 2021 9:55 AMTo: 'Jason Spence'; SPARC - Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee CommentsSubject: RE: 12 Plex Lodi Central and Tokay

Thank you Mr. Spence for your comments. They will be added to the Planning Commission and City Council Meeting Packets as part of the records for the proposed project.


From: Jason Spence <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 5:07 PM To: SPARC ‐ Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Comments <[email protected]> Subject: [SUSPECTED SPAM] 12 Plex Lodi Central and Tokay

Dear Committee, Jack Kautz, is proposing a 12 unit complex on the corner of Central and Tokay. I feel this would benefit Lodi by having affordable housing in the area. Would get people off the streets and clean up the area. Need more people like Jack that are willing to make a difference in the community. Thanks,

44 N. San Joaquin Street, Suite 627 | Stockton, California 95202 | T 209 468 3113 | F 209 468 3694

Board of Supervisors Tom Patti, Chairman, Third District

Michael Anderson, Chief of Staff

September 22, 2021

To: Site Plan & Architectural Review Commission (SPARC) City of Lodi I support the proposal for a 12 unit, two bedroom, and one-bath units on the vacant corner of Central Avenue and Tokay Street in Lodi, California. I believe the current blight on this specific corner would be eliminated with the construction of this affordable housing project, which will also benefit our local citizens to be able to move off of the street and give them an opportunity of a nice home. Sincerely,

Supervisor Tom Patti, District 3 Chairman, San Joaquin Board of Supervisors

1

Kari Chadwick


Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 3:21 PMTo: 'Anderson, Michael [BOS]'Subject: RE: SPARC Support Letter

Thank you Mr. Anderson & Supervisor Patti for your comment letter. It will be read into the record at tonight's meeting.


From: Anderson, Michael [BOS] <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 3:17 PM To: SPARC ‐ Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Comments <[email protected]> Cc: Patti, Tom [BOS] <[email protected]> Subject: SPARC Support Letter Please the attached correspondence for Chairman Tom Patti for tonites SPARC Meeting. Thank You,

Mike Anderson Chief of Staff

Tom Patti, Supervisor, Third District Chairman, San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors 44 N. San Joaquin Street, Suite 627, Stockton, CA 95202 (209) 468-3113 Office | (209) 468-3694 Fax [email protected] | www.sjgov.org Supervisor Patti's Webpage

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO): This document may contain Personally Identifying Information (PII) covered by the Privacy Act of 1974. This information must be protected from unauthorized access/disclosure. Do not disseminate this e‐mail, or its contents, to anyone who does not have an official need for access. Any misuse or unauthorized access may result in both civil and criminal

penalties.

1

Kari Chadwick


Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 10:58 AMTo: 'pchris emanuellodi.com'Subject: RE: Public comment

Thank you Mr. Townsend for your comments. They will be read into the record at tonight's meeting. Kari Chadwick CDD Program Specialist Community Development 209‐333‐6711 or 209‐269‐4527 ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: pchris emanuellodi.com <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 10:42 AM To: SPARC ‐ Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Comments <[email protected]> Subject: Public comment Greetings, My name is Chris Townsend. Current property owner 423 W. Locust St. I am writing to share a favorable comment regarding the proposed affordable housing project at Central & Tokay. I am keenly aware of the lack of affordable housing in our lovable Lodi community. This proposed property development by the Kautz family would be an enhancement for Lodi. Pastor Chris, retired Emanuel Lutheran

1

Kari Chadwick


Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 1:55 PMTo: 'Corina Vasquez'Subject: RE: Central St Apts -2021

Thank you Ms. Vasquez for your comments. They will be read into the record at tonight’s meeting.


From: Corina Vasquez <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 11:34 AM To: SPARC ‐ Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Comments <[email protected]> Subject: Central St Apts ‐2021

Subject: Central St Apts ‐2021

City of Lodi Council Members,

I am in favor of proposed Apartment building on the Corner of Central Ave and Tokay Streets.

This would be a much improvement to this area that has gone downhill. I used to walk to Tokay High School on Tokay Street. Today I would be afraid to walk down this street.

The start of a new apartment complex would hopefully spark improvements in this area, that desperately needs it.

Please approve this project. We need our Eastside cleaned up!

Maria Vasquez

619 Corfino Lane

2

Lodi, CA 95240

1

Kari Chadwick


Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 2:03 PMTo: 'Tori Verber'Subject: RE: Tokay and Central

Thank you Ms Verber Salazar for your comments. They will be read into the record at tonight's meeting. Kari Chadwick CDD Program Specialist Community Development 209‐333‐6711 or 209‐269‐4527 ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Tori Verber <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 1:24 PM To: SPARC ‐ Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Comments <[email protected]> Subject: Tokay and Central Good afternoon, I am writing in support of the housing proposal located on Tokay and Central. Currently, San Joaquin County is working to increase housing opportunities for families, seniors, veterans and singles whose income level makes it difficult to provide housing and necessities. In order to meet the ever increasing demand there has to be housing generated specifically targeting these community members. Housing is critical to our community. I have seen first hand the difference a home can make to increase the safety and wellness of a community. Without housing resources such as this one, it is likely more will fall into dire economic hardship and unfortunately homelessness. By developing this proposal we can assist the community’s number one issue housing. I support this project and any other that can address the issue of housing. It is paramount we act swiftly and use reliable sources to build a pathway home. If I can be of further assistance please feel free to contact me at (209)663‐8072. Tori Verber Salazar Acampo resident

1

Kari Chadwick


Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 1:46 PMTo: 'Ron Weiss'Subject: RE: Central and Tokay

Thank you Mr. Weiss for your comment. It will be read into the record at tonight's meeting. Kari Chadwick CDD Program Specialist Community Development 209‐333‐6711 or 209‐269‐4527 ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Ron Weiss <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 11:26 AM To: SPARC ‐ Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Comments <[email protected]> Subject: Central and Tokay Jack Kautz What a great idea, this would benefit Lodi. Sent from my iPhone

STATEMENT TO BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD

September 22, 2021

By Lisa M. Craig, Lodi Site and Architectural Review Committee member

Pertaining to Application No. PL2021-007 - Request to consider Site Plan and Architectural Review for a new 2-story 12 unit affordable housing project at 620 S.

Central Avenue

Applicant John F. Kautz / Property Owner Saphire Creek, LLC

I’ve reviewed the committee packet, which includes the applicant’s design submission, a letter dated September 19, 2021 from Community Development Director John Della Monica, a community petition, and additional community comments. I’d like to reinforce with neighborhood residents, business owners, adjacent property owners and the applicant that the project as submitted by the applicant is being considered by me solely within the SPARC’s authority under Article 6, Section 17.66.050 of the Lodi City Code and to the purpose stated in Section 17.40.020 which outlines the purpose for site plan and architectural approval.

The SPARC has the authority to assist the Planning commission in reviewing site plans and architectural drawings and shall perform the duties and functions identified in the City of Lodi development code.

Article 6 goes on to establish the procedures for the city's review of the design aspects of proposed development. As stated, “these procedures are not intended to restrict imagination, innovation, or variety in design, but rather to focus on design issues and solutions that will have the greatest effect on community character and aesthetics, to encourage imaginative solutions, and high-quality urban design.” In doing so the SPARC must consider the purpose of these procedures, which area to:

1. Recognize the interdependence of land values and aesthetics and encourage the orderly and harmonious appearance of development within the community;

2. Ensure that new uses and structures enhance their sites and are compatible with the highest standards of improvement in the surrounding neighborhoods;

3. Better protect the increasing values, standards, and importance of land and development in the community;

4. Retain and strengthen the visual quality of the community; 5. Assist project developers in understanding the public's concerns for the aesthetics of

development; and 6. Ensure that development complies with all applicable city standards and guidelines,

and does not adversely affect community health, safety, aesthetics, or natural resources.

In considering these decision-making criteria, I’d also like to clarify my understanding of the project being proposed and respond to some very important terminology referenced in both the applicant’s submission, the Development Director’s letter and comments and petition language supplied to the Committee for consideration in our decision tonight.

Lodi City Code 17.78.020 defines an “affordable unit” as either ownership or rental housing units which is affordable by households with very low or low income. The Lodi Consolidated Plan defines “low-income as meeting the area median income (AMI) of 50-80%. Very low-income represents 30% to 50% of the AMI. In Lodi the Area Median Income as reported in 2019 was $58, 763. Thus, as defined by the City of Lodi, very low to low-income ranges between appx. $17, 629 - $47, 010. In addition, “homelessness” is defined as an annual income below $30 AMI or $17,629 or less.

A homeless or emergency shelter as defined in Section 576.2 of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations includes any facility, “the primary purpose of which is to provide a temporary shelter for the homeless in general or for specific populations of the homeless and which does not require occupants to sign leases or occupancy agreements.”

It is my understanding from the applicant that this is 100% affordable housing which is reiterated by the Community Development Director. It is not a homeless shelter as defined by state and federal regulations. That said, there is reference by Mr. Della Monica to property management services being provided to ensure the property is properly maintained.

Again, because the purview of the SPARC is the review of the design aspects of proposed development, my decision is based solely on how this design

• ensures that the building and site improvements enhance the site and are compatible with the highest stands of improvement in the surrounding neighborhood;

• supports land values and aesthetics through the orderly and harmonious appearance of the building and its site improvements;

• strengthens the visual quality of the community, and • does not adversely affect community aesthetics.

I also believe that by having continued the consideration of this project to this evening’s meeting, we also demonstrated sensitivity to the community’s concerns for the scale, design and visual impact of the property on the neighborhood. Therefore, we accomplished what I consider to be the most important purpose of our work, and that is to assist project developers in understanding the public's concerns for the aesthetics of development.

The project before us this evening is much altered from that proposed at the prior SPARC meeting. To the better. While I do believe the community has concerns beyond what is in our authority to review or discuss, I would encourage the owner to address in whatever way he can the concerns of the surrounding property owners, residents, and businesses.

Additional Comment

Letter that were received and read into

the record at the September 22, 2021

SPARC Meeting

kchadwick

Typewritten Text

These comments were added to this packet 10/14/21

1

Kari Chadwick

From: KIM SALAZAR <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 4:10 PMTo: SPARC - Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee CommentsSubject: 12 unit affordable housing

Hello, I would like to submit a public comment regarding the 12 unit affordable housing project being proposed. This project is an incredible opportunity for a lot of people. It will offer hope to those in need and who currently see no light at the end of the tunnel. This project will also clean up the Blythe that this corner is currently experiencing. This corner on Central and Tokay is infested with drug dealers and the homeless. The problem we continually face is, everyone wants to help but no one wants the solution erected in their neighborhoods. So we continue to kick the can down the road and turn the proverbial blind eye. I ask that this project be allowed to move forward and let it be the first steps in rectifying the homeless crisis Lodi is currently experiencing. Let’s be the solution. Thank you for your time. Best Regards, Kimberly Salazar Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

1

Kari Chadwick

From: Yolanda Nieves <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 4:28 PMTo: SPARC - Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee CommentsSubject: Hello

The reason for this email is regarding the project at 620 s central ave. I understand the good intentions of mr,kautz on making an affordable living for does unfortunate people that are struggling to find a home, i myself have analyzed the situation and I do not approve, there are a few reasons on why I think this project is not a good idea in this neighborhood,there are already a few businesses, homes that are on this street and having such a big building like that around will only bring more traffic and no place to park, unless im wrong and the building will provide enough parking space for the people living there? Family’s usually have two vehicles, the amount of cars that are parked on central on a daily is outrageous it even gets really hard for us residents to find a parking space for our own homes or we have people blocking our drive way. Something else that I would like to add is the delinquency in this area, there are so many homeless, drug users and prostitution on a daily.If mr, Kautz really wanted to make a better looking vacant space he can maybe make it smaller into a duplex, something that will make a positive impact on the neighborhood, I wish somebody actually took the time to analyze the situation on central and and got a better understanding on why we disagree on a building that big around our neighborhood. Sent from my iPhone

1

Kari Chadwick

From: Joe & Claudia Valente <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 4:30 PMTo: SPARC - Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee CommentsSubject: Affordable Housing

Spark Review Committee I fully support the proposed twelve unit affordable housing project on Central and Tokay. As Lodi continues to grow towards the west, taking our most fertile soils, out of agriculture production. This project provides not only affordable housing, but most importantly, it provides infill to the City of Lodi. This project is a benefit to all of Lodi and to Agriculture. Thanks Joe Valente

1

Kari Chadwick

From: Jer Moral <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 4:36 PMTo: SPARC - Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee CommentsSubject: 12 affordable units Central Ave

Respectable City Councils, I’m concerned regarding the 12 unit project at 620 S Central Avenue, I’ve been living pleasantly in this area for many years but lately the sale of drugs and delinquency has increased here. I disagree with this project because having families living in an insecure small place certainly will develop more problems in our neighborhood. Jer Rocha Sent from my iPhone

1

Kari Chadwick

From: lisa gypsy-bistro.com <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 4:39 PMTo: SPARC - Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee CommentsSubject: John Kautz Affordable Housing Proposal

To Whom It May Concern, This letter is in support of John Kautz's Affordable housing project being proposed on the corner of Central & Tokay. This area is in need of more affordable housing. This would provide an opportunity for many individuals or couples to change their lives around. I have known the Kautz family for many years and have seen many of their projects from start to finish. I have no doubt this project would be done with thoughtfulness and the best regard for the community. I believe this project would be beneficial to this area and support its approval. Thank you,

Lisa Freeman

[email protected]

Gypsy-bistro.com

C (209) 604.3912

1

Kari Chadwick

From: Leah-Gaye Mettler <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 4:51 PMTo: SPARC - Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee CommentsSubject: Kautz Project

SPARC- I hope that consideration will be given so that the Kautz project on Central/Tokay can move forward. As a local Realtor for over 2 decades, and being born and raised in the city of Lodi, it is most concerning to me how unaffordable housing is in Lodi. You have someone willing to help with that in John Kautz and I pray that you grant him the ability to use his resources and assist with this issue. Thank you, -- Leah Mettler-Reposa

Allison James Estates and Homes DRE# 01301688 209-810-0846

1

Kari Chadwick

From: SPARC - Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee CommentsSubject: FW: Public comment regarding agenda item 4(a) 12-unit affordable housing project

From: Ramon Yepez <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 5:00 PM To: SPARC ‐ Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Comments <[email protected]> Subject: Public comment regarding agenda item 4(a) 12‐unit affordable housing project

John Kautz is presenting himself as a philanthropist and a hero who is stepping up to do “something nice” for East Side residents (like myself) with this project. Thanks but no thanks. He’s claiming that you need to approve this project to provide affordable housing and also get rid of drug dealers and users who he claims have taken over the empty lot. His mention of drug use and needles on the ground at the last hearing is a scare tactic. The lot is just an empty lot - it isn’t being overtaken by drug dealers and users and there are no needles on the ground. If Mr. Kautz was as familiar with this neighborhood as he pretends to be, he would know that. Mr. Kautz stands to make a good amount of money off this real estate deal. Affordable housing units are subsidized, which, at the very least, guarantees rent will always be paid, if not by residents then by the government. We don’t know what other grants and tax write-offs and subsidies he will benefit from. But we do know that affordable housing will alter the character of the neighborhood and not in “nice” ways. As Commissioner Lisa Craig said at the last meeting, whatever project goes in the lot will anchor the neighborhood. I don’t want that to be affordable housing that will ruin the neighborhood. If the city of Lodi is interested in affordable housing, it needs to start considering neighborhoods other than the ones on the East Side. Why not consider areas around Harney Lane? Why is a city-wide problem always solved by placing the burden on the East Side? Ramon Yepez

1

Kari Chadwick

From: 1V Anaya <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 5:11 PMTo: SPARC - Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee CommentsSubject: Proposal Site on 620 S Central

I d like to comment on the 12 unit project proposed on 620 S Central Ave. I ve known the neighborhood a very long time and seeing how it is now in its present state I would disagree to this proposal. Currently Noticed parking is constantly full, certainly the 12-unit apartments will add to the traffic. The situation is, theres lots of Disruptive and obnoxious people using profanity. In addition many homeless people roaming around in night hours. As for the apartments, This is not and ideal place for kids to thrive.

Vinnie P

1

RESOLUTION NO. P.C. 21- __

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LODI RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOCATIONS FOR AN

ADDITIONAL 12 HIGH DENSITY UNITS FOR A PROPOSED AFFORDABLE APARTMENT PROJECT AT 620 S. CENTRAL AVENUE.

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi has heretofore held a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, in accordance with the Lodi Municipal Code, Section 17.74; and

WHEREAS, the project proponent is John F Kautz., 5252 Bear Creek Rd, Lodi, CA 95240; and WHEREAS, the project parcel is owned by: Saphire Creek, LLC, 5252 Bear Creek Rd, Lodi,

CA 95258; and WHEREAS, the project is located at 620 S. Century Ave. (APN 047-330-48); and WHEREAS, the property has a General Plan designation of MC (Mixed Use Corridor) and is

zoned MCO (Mixed Use Corridor) which designates the site for high density residential development.

WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred; and Based upon the evidence within the staff report and project file the Planning Commission finds: Environmental Analysis 1. The Class 32 “Infill” Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guideline Section 15332), hereafter

referred to as the Class 32 Exemption, exempts infill development within urbanized areas if it meets certain criteria. The class consists of environmentally benign infill projects that are consistent with the General Plan and Zoning requirements. This class is not intended for projects that would result in any significant traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality impacts. This exemption is not limited to any use type and may apply to residential, commercial, industrial, public facility, and/or mixed-use projects: The City Council, by Resolution No. 2010-41, which became effective on April 7, 2010, certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), State Clearinghouse No. 20009022075, for the City of Lodi General Plan. This General Plan designated the project site as Mixed Use (MC). No potential new impacts related to the Project have been identified that would necessitate further environmental review beyond the impacts and issues already disclosed and analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No increase in development density beyond what was anticipated in the General Plan for the Project site would occur. No other special circumstances exist that would create a reasonable possibility that the proposed Project will have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the proposed Project qualifies for the exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 and no further environmental review is required.

Growth Allocation 2. The proposed map is consistent with the Growth Allocation process, and qualifies for a 2021

growth allocation, as follows:

2

a. The proposed project is an “infill project” and therefore considered to be within a Priority 1 area for development; and

b. Assuming an average household size of 2.85 persons (per the Housing Element of the General Plan), The average annual growth for the period from 2013 to 2021 has had an average growth rate of 0.91%, slightly less than 1%, well below the maximum 2% annual growth allowed by the Growth Allocation process; and

c. Because the City is not approaching the maximum number of applications for growth allocation, the points system does not apply.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DETERMINED AND RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi that:

1. “I move that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the request for Growth Management Allocations for 12 High Density Units at 620 S. Central Ave. (File No. 2021-026 SP), subject to the conditions of approval.”

I certify that Resolution No. 21-__ was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi at a regular meeting held on October 15, 2021 by the following vote:

AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners:

ATTEST______________________________

Secretary, Planning Commission

Item 4b.

1

CITY OF LODI PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report

MEETING DATE: October 13, 2021 REQUEST: Consider Proposed Amendments to the City’s Accessory Dwelling

Unit (ADU) Regulations, Section 17.36.130 of the Lodi Municipal Code and Provide Recommendations for City Council Consideration

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending the City Council consider introducing an Ordinance amending accessory dwelling unit regulations Section 17.36.130 of the Lodi Municipal Code. BACKGROUND / ANALYSIS: In recent years, the Legislature has passed, and the Governor has signed into law, a number of bills to decrease barriers to housing development and opportunities in the State. The City is now further restricted in what it may require when reviewing and approving Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs), two types of dwelling units that exist on a property that already has at least one dwelling unit. Per the new legislation, if a jurisdiction's ADU/JADU Ordinance does not comply with the new laws, that ordinance becomes null and void as a matter of law. A city's ADU/JADU ordinance must be reviewed by the California Department of Housing Community Development ("HCD") for confirmation that the ordinance complies with state law. HCD is authorized to refer a violation to the Attorney General. The City of Lodi Municipal Code section 17.36.130 regulates the use of "second dwelling units," which are analogous to ADUs, and provides development standards for their placement and construction. Other sections of the Municipal Code Title 17 also refer to second dwelling unit use and development. The proposed Ordinance is to amend the City of Lodi Municipal Code to be compliant with State ADU/JADU law and to clarify ADU/JADU development standards within the City for efficient implementation. Staff sought and received confirmation from HCD that this proposed ordinance complies with State law. OVERVIEW OF POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS: The Ordinance proposes Section 17.36.130 be amended to allow the development of ADUs/JADUs in any area zoned to allow single-family or multifamily dwelling residential uses under the conditions detailed below. ADUs or JADUs in compliance with the Ordinance shall be subject to ministerial approval. The proposer will be required to obtain a building permit and the

2

City has 60 days to review and either issue deny the permit, unless the applicant requests a delay or the application is submitted with an application to create a new single-family dwelling. Unless specified in the Ordinance, the development of an ADU or JADU must comply with the development standards and regulations of the underlying zone in which it is to be located. An ADU or JADU must also comply with applicable Building and Fire Code Regulations, as well as other building codes adopted by the City. Further, an ADU or JADU must have the same architectural design, materials, and colors as the primary dwelling. The proposed Ordinance provides the following development standards:

An ADU is a dwelling unit of no more than 1,200 square feet with complete independent living facilities and may be attached or detached from the primary dwelling on the property.

A JADU is a dwelling unit of no more than 500 square feet with an efficiency kitchen, as defined, and must be attached to the primary dwelling and created from the existing primary dwelling structure.

An ADU or JADU must have a separate entrance to the outside. A property with an existing or proposed single-family dwelling may have up to one

ADU (attached or detached) and one JADU. A property with an existing or proposed multifamily dwelling may have up to two

detached ADUs and any number of attached ADUs created from existing non-habitable space up to 25% of the original number of units in the building.

ADU siting standards: • Minimum four foot rear and side yard setbacks. • Front setback and building separation per the underlying zone. • Detached ADUs cannot be more than sixteen feet tall. • Cannot be placed between the front lot line and the primary dwelling. • The total square footage of the primary dwelling may not increase by more than

50%, unless required to accommodate an ADU of at least 800 square feet. An ADU created from an existing structure, including a legal non-conforming structure,

shall not be subject to height, setback, or floor area ratio limitations so long as constructed in the exact same footprint.

Parking – One off-street parking space is required for the construction of each detached ADU, unless within 0.5 miles of public transit, within one block of a car share parking space, or within an area parking permits are required. The parking space may be in setback areas or in tandem parking arrangements. No parking is required for the construction of a JADU. Where an ADU or JADU converts existing garage parking spaces no replacement spaces can be required. Owner-Occupancy – All JADUs are subject to owner-occupancy limits, meaning the owner of the property must live in either the primary dwelling, a JADU, or an ADU on the property as their primary residence. The City may not impose owner-occupancy requirements on the development of ADUs until January 1, 2025. Impact Fees – The City may not charge impact fees for a JADU. The City may charge impact fees on an ADU larger than 750 square feet. If larger than 750 square feet, the City may charge impact fees proportionate to the square footage of the primary dwelling. An ADU may also be subject to utility connection fees. Deed Restriction – The underlying property shall be subject to a deed restriction that the JADU may not be sold separately from the primary dwelling.

3

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The amendments to the City’s ADU regulations are not subject to review under the California environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. ("CEQA"), pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.17 and CEQA Guidelines section 15282(h) for Ordinances Implementing Law Relating to Construction of Dwelling Units and Second Dwelling Units in accordance with to Government Code sections 65852.1 and 65852.2. This project is to approve an Ordinance to update the City's Municipal Code to comport with Government Code section 65852.2 and is, therefore, exempt from CEQA review. Amendments to the City’s ADU regulations are further exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15305 for Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations where the project is in an area with an average slope of less than 20%, and which do not result in any changes in land use or density. The Ordinance will apply City-wide and the average slope of the project area is less than 20%. There is no change to land use because ADUs and JADUs are only permitted in zones that already allow single-family or multifamily residential uses; ADUs and JADUs are a type of residential use. There is no change in density because, by definition, the building of an ADU or JADU does not count toward the allowable density on the parcel it is built on. Respectfully Submitted, Concur,

Paul Junker John R. Della Monica, Jr. Contract Planner Community Development Director

RESOLUTION NO. P.C. NO.____ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LODI

RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND SECTION 17.36.130 OF THE LODI MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND

JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ==========================================================================

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi has heretofore held a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the requested determination, in accordance with the California Government Code Section 65402.(a); and

WHEREAS, the project proponent is City of Lodi, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240; and

WHEREAS, California has a shortage of housing, and particularly affordable housing, and the State Legislature has in recent years undertaken a number of measures to incentivize the construction of additional housing stock to address this shortage; and

WHEREAS, Government Code section 65852 et seq. provides a mechanism for local agencies, like the City, to adopt ordinances related to accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) and junior accessory dwelling units (“JADUs”); and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends that the Lodi City Council repeal and reenact Section 17.36.130 of the Lodi Municipal Code to comply with State ADU and JADU laws; and

WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

Based upon the evidence in the staff report and project file, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi makes the following findings:

1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.

2. The amendments to the City’s ADU regulations are not subject to review under the California environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”), pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.17 and CEQA Guidelines section 15282(h) for Ordinances Implementing Law Relating to Construction of Dwelling Units and Second Dwelling Units in accordance with to Government Code sections 65852.1 and 65852.2. This project is to approve an Ordinance to update the City’s Municipal Code to comport with Government Code section 65852.2 and is, therefore, exempt from CEQA review.

3. Amendments to the City’s ADU regulations are further exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15305 for Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations where the project is in an area with an average slope of less than 20%, and which do not result in any changes in land use or density. The Ordinance will apply City-wide and the average slope of the project area is less than 20%. There is no change to land use because ADUs and JADUs are only permitted in zones that already allow single-family or multifamily residential uses; ADUs and JADUs are a type of residential use. There is no change in density because, by definition, the building of an ADU or JADU does not count toward the allowable density on the parcel it is built on.Proposed modifications to Section 17.36.130 – LMC will be consistent with State law.

4. Proposed modifications to Section 17.36.130 - LMC will be subject to the provisions of other laws or ordinances and will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the City or be detrimental or injurious to the health, safety, peace or general welfare of the City.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DETERMINED AND RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi that a Resolution is hereby adopted and the proposed amendments to Section 17.36.130 - LMC attached hereto in Exhibit A (entitled “An Ordinance Repealing and Reenacting Section 17.36.130 of the Lodi Municipal Code”), is made a part of this Resolution by reference, are hereby recommended for approval and adoption by the Lodi City Council. Dated: October 15, 2021 ======================================================================== I certify that P.C. Resolution No. ____ was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi at a regular meeting held on October 15, 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ATTEST: _________________________________ Secretary, Planning Commission

ORDINANCE NO. ____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF LODI REPEALING AND REENACTING SECTION 17.36.130 OF THE LODI MUNICIPAL CODE

================================================================== BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LODI AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

1. Government Code section 65852 et seq. provides a mechanism for local agencies, like the City of Lodi (“City”), to adopt ordinances related to accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) and junior accessory dwelling units (“JADUs”).

2. The Planning Commission of the City of Lodi did on October 15, 2021 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed amendments to the City of Lodi ADU regulations.

3. The Planning Commission recommends that the Lodi City Council repeal and reenact Section 17.36.130 of the Lodi Municipal Code to comply with State ADU laws.

4. The City Council of the City of Lodi did on _____________, 2021 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed amendments to the City of Lodi ADU regulations.

5. The amendments to the City’s ADU regulations are not subject to review under the California environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. ("CEQA"), pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.17 and CEQA Guidelines section 15282(h) for Ordinances Implementing Law Relating to Construction of Dwelling Units and Second Dwelling Units in accordance with to Government Code sections 65852.1 and 65852.2. This project is to approve an Ordinance to update the City's Municipal Code to comport with Government Code section 65852.2 and is, therefore, exempt from CEQA review.

6. Amendments to the City’s ADU regulations are further exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15305 for Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations where the project is in an area with an average slope of less than 20%, and which do not result in any changes in land use or density. The Ordinance will apply City-wide and the average slope of the project area is less than 20%. There is no change to land use because ADUs and JADUs are only permitted in zones that already allow single-family or multifamily residential uses; ADUs and JADUs are a type of residential use. There is no change in density because, by definition, the building of an ADU or JADU does not count toward the allowable density on the parcel it is built on.

SECTION 2. Determinations.

1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.

2. Proposed modifications to Section 17.36.130 – LMC will be consistent with State law.

3. Proposed modifications to Section 17.36.130 - LMC will be subject to the provisions of other laws or ordinances and will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the City or be detrimental or injurious to the health, safety, peace or general welfare of the City.

SECTION 3. Lodi Municipal Code Section 17.36.130– Accessory Dwelling Units is hereby repealed and reenacted in its entirety and shall read as follows:

2

17.36.130 Accessory Dwelling Units

A. Purpose and Intent. This section establishes regulations and a ministerial review process for Accessory Dwelling Units. Accessory Dwelling Units are intended to expand housing opportunities for low income and moderate income or elderly households by increasing the number of rental units available within existing neighborhoods while maintaining the architectural character of the area.

B. Applicability. This section applies to all Accessory Dwelling Units, including Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, as defined in subsection F below.

C. Where Permitted. Accessory dwelling units are permitted by right in any zoning district which permits single-family or multi-family homes.

D. General Plan and Zones Allowed

1. In accordance with Government Code section 65852.2, as may be amended from time to time, any ADU or JADU that conforms with the requirements of this section shall be deemed to be consistent with the General Plan designation and zoning for the parcel, regardless of any limitations on residential density imposed by the General Plan or zoning. An ADU or JADU shall not be counted when determining residential density for conformance with the General Plan or this code.

2. ADUs and JADUs shall be allowed in all areas zoned to allow single-family and multi-family residential uses in compliance with the development standards set forth in this section.

E. Permits and Approval

1. Ministerial Action. Approval or denial of an Accessory Dwelling Unit or Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit is a ministerial action and subject to compliance with the standards in this Section.

2. Building Permit. All Accessory Dwelling Unit or Junior Accessory Dwelling Units shall require a building permit, subject to all the standard application and processing fees and procedures that apply to building permits generally. No other separate planning-related permit is required.

3. Issuance of Permit. The City shall issue a building permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit within 60 calendar days from the date on which the City received a completed submittal package application for a location that includes an existing primary dwelling, unless either:

a. The applicant requests a delay, in which case the 60-day time period is put on hold for the period of the requested delay; or

b. The application to create an Accessory Dwelling Unit or Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit is submitted with an application to create a new single-unit dwelling on the parcel. The City may delay acting on the permit application for the Accessory Dwelling Unit or Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit until the City acts on the permit application to create the new single-unit dwelling.

F. Definitions

The following words and phrases shall, for the purposes of this chapter, have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section, as follows:

3

1. “Accessory Dwelling Unit or ADU.” An attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary dwelling. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation and shall be constructed on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling unit that is the primary dwelling unit or will be situated. An accessory dwelling unit also includes the following: (a) an efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health & Safety Code, as may be amended from time to time, and (b) a manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health & Safety Code, as may be amended from time to time. This definition shall be interpreted as consistent with and including the definition of accessory dwelling unit found in Government Code Section 65852.2, as may be amended from time to time.

2. “Efficiency Kitchen.” A cooking facility that includes all of the following:

a. A portable appliance for cooking.

b. A food preparation counter.

c. Food storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the JADU.

3. “Efficiency Unit.” As defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety Code, as may be amended from time to time.

4. “Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit” or “JADU.” A Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit means a unit that is contained entirely within a single-unit primary dwelling. This definition shall be interpreted as consistent with and including the definition of junior accessory dwelling unit found in Government Code Section 65852.22, as may be amended from time to time.

5. “Living Area.” The interior habitable area of a dwelling unit, including basements and attics, but does not include a garage or any accessory structure. This definition shall be interpreted as consistent with and including the definition of living area found in Government Code Section 65852.2, as may be amended from time to time.

6. “Passageway.” A pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street or alley to one entrance of the accessory dwelling unit. This definition shall be interpreted as consistent with and including the definition of passageway found in Government Code Section 65852.2, as may be amended from time to time.

7. “Primary Dwelling.” An existing or proposed residential structure on a lot with an accessory dwelling unit.

8. “Public Transit.” A location, including but not limited to a bus stop or train station, where the public may access buses, trains, and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public.

9. “Single-unit and multi-unit.” Single-unit means the same as a single-family dwelling and multi-unit means multi-family dwellings with two or more units.

10. “Tandem Parking.” Two or more automobiles parked on a driveway or in any other location on a parcel, lined up behind one another.

G. Types of Accessory Dwelling Units. The following are the two types of Accessory Dwelling Units:

4

1. Accessory Dwelling Units, Attached, Detached and JADU, shall meet the characteristics as described below for each subtype:

a. Attached ADU.

i. Attached to an existing or proposed primary dwelling, such as through a shared wall, floor, or ceiling, including attached garages, storage areas or similar uses, or within an accessory structure.

ii. Created by converting a portion of an existing primary dwelling, by constructing a new primary dwelling with an integral Accessory Dwelling Unit, or by constructing an addition to an existing primary dwelling.

b. Detached ADU.

i. Physically detached or separated from the primary dwelling.

ii. May include a second-story addition above an existing detached structure.

iii. Can be new construction or the conversion or expansion of an existing structure.

c. Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit. An attached Accessory Dwelling Unit that is a unit that meets the specified criteria below.

i. Maximum of 500 square feet in size.

ii. Contained entirely within a single-unit primary dwelling.

iii. Has a separate entrance from the main entrance to the primary dwelling.

iv. Has a bathroom that is either in the Junior ADU or in the primary dwelling.

v. Includes an efficiency kitchen.

vi. May include separate sanitation facilities or may share sanitation facilities with the primary dwelling.

H. Number of Accessory Dwelling Units or Junior Accessory Dwelling Units Per Lot or Parcel in Zones Which Allow Single Family Homes. The following number of Accessory Dwelling Units shall apply in all zoning districts that allow single family homes as a permitted use:

1. One attached or detached Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be allowed on a parcel with a primary dwelling unit.

2. One Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be allowed on a parcel with primary dwelling.

3. Up to one attached or detached Accessory Dwelling Unit and one Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be allowed on a single parcel.

I. Type and Number of Accessory Dwelling Units Per Lot with an Existing Multi-Family Home. The following apply to Accessory Dwelling Units in all zoning districts that allow multi-family homes as a permitted use:

5

1. Attached Accessory Dwelling Units.

a. At least one ADU shall be allowed within an existing multi-family dwelling, but shall not exceed a total of up to 25 percent of the number of units within an existing multi-family dwelling shall be allowed.

b. Attached Accessory Dwelling Units in a multi-family development may be created only through the conversion of parts of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages.

2. Detached Accessory Dwelling Units. Up to two detached Accessory Dwelling Units shall be allowed on a parcel with existing multi-family structures, subject to compliance with the development standards for Detached Accessory Dwelling Units in this Section.

J. Development Standards for Accessory Dwelling Units. The following standards apply to all types of Accessory Dwelling Units.

1. Attached Accessory Dwelling Units

a. Location. Attached Accessory Dwelling Units shall be located on the same lot or parcel as an existing or proposed primary dwelling unit and be attached to the primary dwelling unit by at least one wall or by a ceiling (above or below the primary dwelling unit) on a lot that is zoned to allow single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use and includes a proposed or existing dwelling.

b. Size. The total floor area of an Attached Accessory Dwelling Unit shall not exceed 850 square feet for a one-bedroom unit or 1,000 square feet for an Accessory Dwelling Unit that provides more than one bedroom. The total floor area of an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit shall not exceed 50 percent of the primary dwelling square footage. These limits do not include up to 150 square feet of area added to the primary dwelling for the sole purpose of providing ingress and egress to the Accessory Dwelling Unit.

c. Setbacks.

i. Front yard setback will follow the zoning district standard for the primary dwelling.

ii. Side yard setback will be a minimum of Four (4) feet

iii. Rear yard setback will be a minimum of Four (4) feet

iv. No setback shall be required for an existing living area or accessory structure or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure that is converted to an accessory dwelling unit or to a portion of an accessory dwelling unit.

d. Height. All attached ADUs shall comply with the zoning district standard for the height of the primary dwelling.

e. Access. An attached Accessory Dwelling Unit shall have direct exterior access separate from the main entrance to the primary dwelling.

f. Design. Accessory Dwelling Units shall incorporate the architectural style, materials, and colors of the primary dwelling unit. Variation in style, materials and colors may be

6

approved where staff determines the Accessory Dwelling Unit design is compatible with and complimentary to the primary dwelling unit.

g. Passageway. No passageway shall be required in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit.

h. Fire Sprinklers. An attached Accessory Dwelling Unit shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary dwelling.

i. Landscape. Landscaped areas within setbacks shall meet the requirements of this code.

j. Deed restriction. Before permit issuance, the City shall be provided with a copy of the recorded deed restriction for a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit, which shall run with the land, using the City’s form pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.2, as may be amended from time to time.

k. Allowed ADU. No provisions within this Section, including lot coverage or legal nonconformity, shall preclude an attached minimum 800 square foot accessory dwelling unit that is at least sixteen (16) feet in height with four-foot side yard and rear yard setbacks, and that is constructed in compliance with all other development standards.

2. Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit Development Standards

a. Location. Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be located on the same lot or parcel as an existing or proposed primary dwelling on a lot that is zoned to allow single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use.

b. Size. A Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit shall not exceed 850 square feet for a one-bedroom unit or 1,000 square feet for an Accessory Dwelling Unit that provides more than one bedroom.

c. Setbacks.

i. Front yard setback shall comply with the zoning district standard for the primary dwelling. A detached ADU shall not be located between the primary dwelling unit and the front lot line.

ii. Side yard shall be a minimum of Four (4) feet

iii. Rear yard shall be a minimum of Four (4) feet

d. Height. The maximum height of an Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be 16 feet for new structures built specifically as an Accessory Dwelling Unit. Existing structures taller than 16 feet can be converted to an Accessory Dwelling Unit where the Accessory Dwelling Unit is consistent with all other requirements of this Section.

e. Design. Accessory Dwelling Units shall incorporate the architectural style, materials, and colors of the primary dwelling unit. Variation in style, materials and colors may be approved where staff determines the Accessory Dwelling Unit design is compatible with and complimentary to the primary dwelling unit.

f. Passageway. No passageway shall be required in conjunction with the construction of an Accessory Dwelling Unit.

7

g. Fire Sprinklers. An attached Accessory Dwelling Unit shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary dwelling.

h. Landscape. All setback areas shall be landscaped as required by this code.

i. Deed Restriction. Before permit issuance, the City shall be provided with a copy of the recorded deed restriction, which shall run with the land, using the City’s form pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.2, as may be amended from time to time.

j. Building Separation. An accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the building separation requirements of the underlying zone, but in no case shall said requirement prohibit an accessory dwelling unit that is a minimum of 800 square feet, maximum of 16 feet in height with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks.

k. Authorized ADU. No provisions within this Section, including lot coverage or legal nonconformity, shall preclude a detached minimum 800 square foot accessory dwelling unit that is at least sixteen (16) feet in height with four-foot side yard and rear yard setbacks, and that is constructed in compliance with all other development standards.

3. Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit Development Standards

a. Location. Shall be within the walls of the primary single-family residence, including an attached garage, of the primary dwelling unit by at least one wall or by a ceiling. The Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit may be located above or below the primary dwelling unit.

b. Size. The JADU shall be not exceed a maximum of 500 square feet of living area.

c. Setbacks. If the primary dwelling unit is expanded for the sole purpose of providing ingress and egress to the Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit, the addition shall maintain setbacks of four feet from side and rear yards or the same setback as the existing structure, whichever is less. The front setback shall comply with the zoning district for the primary structure.

d. Access. A Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit shall have a separate entrance separate from the main entrance to the primary dwelling.

e. Kitchen. Each Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit shall include at least an efficiency kitchen.

f. Utilities.

i. A Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit shall not be considered a separate or new dwelling unit for the purposes of calculating connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, including water, sewer, or power service, or impact fees.

ii. No new or separate utility connection between the Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit and the utility shall be required, although the property owner may voluntarily install a submeter for the Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit.

iii. Any utility charges or fees shall be consistent with state law.

g. Parking. No additional off-street parking is required for a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit.

8

h. Owner Occupancy Requirements and Deed Restriction

i. A person with legal or equitable title to the primary dwelling shall reside on the property in either the primary dwelling or Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit as that person's legal domicile and permanent residence.

ii. The owner occupancy requirement does not apply if the property is entirely owned by a governmental agency, land trust, or non-profit housing organization.

iii. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit for a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit, a deed restriction shall be recorded in the chain of title of the primary single-unit property. The form of the deed restriction shall be reviewed by the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.2, as may be amended from time to time.

iv. The deed restriction shall run with the land and shall be enforced against future property owners.

K. Impact Fees

1. Impact Fee Requirements

a. No impact fees shall be charged for a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit. A Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit shall not be considered a separate or new dwelling unit for the purposes of calculating impact fees, connection fees, or capacity charges for utilities.

b. No City-imposed impact fees shall be charged for an Accessory Dwelling Unit that is less than 750 square feet in size.

c. For Accessory Dwelling Units 750 square feet or larger, City-imposed impact fees shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling.

d. An ADU may be subject to connection fees or capacity charges levied by a local agency, special district, or water corporation.

L. Required Parking for Accessory Dwelling Units.

1. Number of Parking Spaces. Parking for Accessory Dwelling Units shall be provided per the following:

a. One off-street parking space, covered or uncovered, is required for each Attached or Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit. These spaces may be provided as tandem parking on a driveway

b. Notwithstanding any other section, no off-street parking is required for an Attached or Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit if one or more of the following applies:

i. The Accessory Dwelling Unit is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit.

ii. The Accessory Dwelling Unit is part of the proposed or existing primary residence.

iii. The Accessory Dwelling Unit is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district.

9

c. Off-street parking shall be provided outside setback areas, unless no feasible location is available outside of setback areas, in which case parking is allowed in setback areas.

d. Tandem parking is allowed as off street parking for Accessory Dwelling Units.

2. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished to allow for the construction of an Accessory Dwelling Unit or for the conversion of a structure to an Accessory Dwelling Unit or Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit, it shall not be required to be replaced.

3. Guest parking spaces shall not be required for Accessory Dwelling Units or Junior Accessory Dwelling Units under any circumstances.

SECTION 4. No Mandatory Duty of Care. This ordinance is not intended to and shall not be construed or given effect in a manner which imposes upon the City, or any officer or employee thereof, a mandatory duty of care toward persons or property within the City or outside of the City so as to provide a basis of civil liability for damages, except as otherwise imposed by law. SECTION 5. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. To this end, the provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof. SECTION 6. Effective Date and Publication. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. In lieu of publication of the full text of the Ordinance within fifteen (15) days after its passage, a summary of the Ordinance may be published at least five (5) days prior to and fifteen (15) days after adoption by the City Council, and a certified copy shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk pursuant to Government Code section 36933(c)(1). Approved this____ day of _________, 2021 ___________________________________ ALAN NAKANISHI Attest: Mayor JENNIFER CUSMIR City Clerk ================================================================ State of California County of San Joaquin, ss.

I, Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk of the City of Lodi, do hereby certify that Ordinance No. ____ was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lodi held ___________, 2021, and was thereafter passed, adopted, and ordered to print at a regular meeting of said Council held _____________, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS – NOES; COUNCIL MEMBERS –

10

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS – ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS – I further certify that Ordinance No. ____ was approved and signed by the Mayor on the date of its passage and the same has been published pursuant to law. JENNIFER CUSMIR City Clerk Approved as to Form: JANICE D. MAGDICH City Attorney

LODI PLANNING

Documents

Transcript of LODI PLANNING