Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - October 14, 1987 (71)L •air -_. , CITY CO13PUL Mittssnta OCTOBER 14, 1987 r been published according to law, an PUBLIC HEARINGS Notice thereof having is an file in the office of affidavit of which p APARTMENT the City Clerk Mayor Olson called for the Public F�?a;'1 ng MORITORIUM to consider the Planning Commissions recommendatArea (EASTSIDE STUDY that the boundaries of the Apartment Moratorium AREA) 1) be ex anded to include 309 North (Eastside Study Area) p Stockton Street and 115 and I21 East Lockeford Street CC"53(a) (i.e. APN 041.230-33, 34 and 3 ) CC -149 +he Final Enviromental that the 2) City Council certify Impact Report of the Apartment Moratoriu�► Area (Eastside Study Area) as adequate F the General Plan be 3) that the Land Use Element of Moratorium Area amended to designate the apartmentMoratorium Area (Eastside Study Area) for Low Density ilY with certain exceptions A. L t a sx'� r tta F � e caa Sg �� �'�� �'a4r -.:xr.� _ t { fl=. 1 The matter Was introduced by Community Development Director Schroeder who presented diagrams of the subject area and responded to questions as were posed by the Council. Addressing the Council regarding section (1) of the Public Hearing as set forth above was: A) Mr. Robert Riggle, 712 North Cross Street, Lodi. Mr. Riggle asked that the boundaries of the Apartment Moratorium Area (Eastside Study area) be expanded to include the 300 block of North Stockton Street. There being no other persons wishing to address the Council on Section (1), the public portion of this segment of the hearing was closed. There were no persons in the audience wishing to give testimony on section (2), as set forth above, of the public hearing. The public portion of this segment of the hearing was closed. The following persons addressed the Council regarding section (3) of the public hearing as outlined above: A) Mr. Frank Goodell, 8 North Rose Street, Lodi 8) Ms. Maria Elena Serna, 801 West Elm Street, Lodi C) Mr. Frank Moehring, 315 East Locust Street, Lodi D) Ms. Carolyn Relei, 327 Poplar Street, Lodi E) Mr. Oscar Hess, 838 Virginia Avenue, Lodi F) Mr. John May, 437 Eden Street, Lodi There being no other persons wishing to address the Council regarding the matter, the public portion of the hearing was closed. On motion of Council Member Pinkerton, Reid second, Council requested that the request of Mr. Robert Riggle, 712 Cross Street, Lodi, to expand the boundaries of the Apartment Moratorium Area (Eastside Study Area) to include the 300 block of North Stockton Street, Lodi, be placed on the agenda for the Regular Meeting of October 21, 1987, The City Clerk was directed to give appropriate notification of this matter to property owners in the subject area. On motion of Council Member Reid, Hinchman second, Council determined that the boundaries of the Apartment Moratorium Area (Eastside Study Area) be expanded to include 309 North B Stockton Street and 335 and 321 East Lockeford Street (i.e. APN 041-230-33, 34,and 35). The motion carried by unanimous vote. On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Snider, Hinchman second, Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report of the Apartment Moratorium Area (Eastside Study Area) as adequate and established the Following findings: FINDINGS OF APPROVAL FOR EAST SIDE PLAN ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, OPTION 2: MORATORIUM ZONING ALTERNATIVE- EIR 87-1 A. 1) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Rezoning the study area to R-1 will conflict with the adopted housing policies promoting the construction of a variety of housing in the East Side Neighborhood (Table 3-1, p. 3). Finding TTe adopted housing policies have tended to promote the conversion of single-family homes to multi-fe-Ily units at an average rate of 6.5 to I. Rezoning to R-1 would halt any more conversions in the area. Overriding Considerations e continuance of the a opted housing policies will strain current infrastucture in the area in question. Additional high-density development will further result in increased traffic, circulation, and parking problems, and the increased demand for public services and facilities. A variety of housing can be constructed elsewhere in Lodi, especially in areas that are better suited for it (in terms of infrastructure capacity). 2) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The moratorium zoning alternative conflicts with the adopted housing policies dealing with the San Joaquin Council of Governments Fair Share Housing Allocation Plan since no new additions to the hour ing stock in the East Side Area would occur. ' a�ie 3-1, p.4) Finding Conversions in the study have tended to be of low -quality that have barely met the standards for adequacy. Adequate housing can be constructed elsewhere in Lodi that will meet the requirements of the Fair Share Housing AIlocation Plan. 3) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Rezoning the study area to R-1 will preserve the low-density character of the East Side Neighborhood. (Table 3-1, p. 14) Findin This is a beneficial impact. By eliminating any further conversions to higher densities, the rezoning would halt any further loss of single-family homes and slow the shift in neighborhood demographics. B. ALTERNATIVES TO OPTION 2 The EIR discusses three alternatives to Option 2. The findings on each are as follows: Alternative I 0 tion 1: Pre -moratorium Zonin Alternative This a ternative would allow the zoning prior to implementation of the moratorium to continue (p. 2-5) FFiinFinding'his alternative would allow for the eventual conversion of 2,643 single-family homes to 17,180 multi -family units and creates additional problems with illegal parking and the resultant inadequacy of the existing infrastructure. $17.9 million in capital improvements to the City's water sewerage and drainage systems would be required to serve the full build -out of this area under the prior zoning. Demographic: shifts to a younger and more transient population would further change the character of the neighborhood. Alternative 2 (Option 3: Multi-plex Alternative) All zoning under this alternative would be reduced to single-family (R-1), duplex (R-2), triplex (R-3), or fourplex (R-4) except in commercial or industrial designations. (p_ 2-6) Findon tT is alternative would have a slower conversion rate than Alternative 1 ;10,572 compared to ?7,180 multi -family units). Full buildout under this alternative would require $15 million in capital improvements. The low-density character and the demographic make-up of the East Side will continue to change although at a much slower rate. Alternative 3 (0 tion 4: Concentrated Multi -family Zoning Alternative This alternative would only allow single-family conversions in three target areas while the rest of the study area is reds -ed to R-1. (p. 2-6) Finding Full buildout under this alternative would result in the conversion of 341 single-family homes to 2,217 multi -family units. Capital improvements to the area infrastructure would cost $6.2 million. All the other problems associated with apartment construction (i.e. parking, demographic change, loss of low-density character, etc.) would still occur in the target areas and areas imnediateiy adjacent to it. C. GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACT The moratorium zoning alternative would not have a growth -inducing impact in the study area but would create such pressure outside the study area. Findtn9 The study area is the area originally determined to suffer the most from continued high-density development. High density development outside the area is considered more desirable since their impacts are spread out over a wider area and because these areas are typically better equipped to handle the increased capacity caused by higher densities. A lengthy discussion followed With Council responding as follows to a number of questions posed by the City Attorney. Based on these responses the City Attorney was directed to prepare a draft ordinance for Council consideration at the next regular Council Meeting. On motion of Council Member Hinchman, Pinkerton second, Council indicated it wished to exclude apartment conversions from C-1, C-2, C -M and R -C -P zones. A motion by Council Member Reid, Hinchman second, to provide in the ordinance the ability in C-2 and C -M zones to have living units on the second floor and above, failed to pass. On motion of Council Member Pinkerton, Hinchman second, P Council determined that the Ordinance should include rezoning the residential areas to single family with the exception that the existing multi-famiy uses can be built back up to what they have as of today with a use permit. _ STT"*r.,T CO NVNiiTNICATI(, '. TO: THE CITY CoUlICIL LAS: FROM. THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE ctoher I4 1487 SUBJECT: TO CONSIDER THE PLANKING COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION FOR Ti;E BOUNDARIES OF THE APARTMENT MORATORIUM AREA (EASTSIDE STUDY AREA) �r INDICATED ACTION At its meeting of Monday, September 28, 1987, the Planning Commission recommended the following actions to the City Council: 1. Recommended that the boundaries of the Apartment Moratorium Area (Eastside Study Areal he expanded to include 309 North Stockton Street and 115 and 121 East Lockeford Street, Lodi (i.e. APN n 041-230-33, 34 and 35). 2. Recommended that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report of the Apartment Moratorium Area (Eastside Study Area) as adequate. 3. Recommended that the Land Use Element of the General Plan be amended to designate the Apartment Moratorium Area (Eastside Study Area) for Low Density Single -Family with certain exceptions. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 309 North Stockton Street -contains two single-family dwellings and 115 and 121 East Lockeford Street are the sites for apartment houses. All three parcels are zoned M-1, Light Industrial which makes it difficult to acquire mortgages in the event of a sale.. The Planning Commission felt it was better to include these parcels in the Eastside Study Area rather than to rezone them to R -HD or R -MD. The exceptions recommended by the Planning Commission are (1) to - leave all commercial zones in the study area commercial, and (2) make all existing multiple -family uses conforming under the rezoning ordinance so that they could be rebuilt if a disaster should occur. James B. Schroeder Community Development Director CC9/TXTD.OIB Ica t. LODI CITY COUNCIL 221 W. Pine Street Lodi, -CA 95240 E, C% �ti Liz ` � MY CIEP.K Mr. Mayor, Members of the City Council: Regarding the Eastside zoning question, I am generally in agreement with the Planning Commission's views. I do, however, have some reservation. I sincerely feel tha is not right to adopt one rule to cover all circumstances. I feel there are conditions that need to be dealt with in a more practical i. and fair manner. For example, my mother's home which is situated on a lot 190' x 53'. Her home is facing Forrest Avenue and takes up approximately 90' x 53', leaving an emply back lot 100' x 53' facing the alley between Forrest Avenue and gals QA JL Daisy Street. 1� block this home would be outside the planning area in question. Before the moriturium, the city would have permitted 3 apartments to be constructed on this lot. Now, based on the Planning Commission's recommend— ation, there will be no construction of any type on this property even though there are homes facing the alley including one built some years ago. There is 1 also located on the alley two commercial businesses that have been there for Y years. I sincerely feel that circumstances such as this should be given some consideration. I feel that this property and properties like it should be qr Lest" given permission to constructALa single family residence (low cost housing) facing the alley or if one of the commercial businesses have a need, that said business could make some use of the empty lot. My father planted a garden, but when he passed away thin; was no longer possible. The area has become a controlled weed patch. r If in my opinion you totally agree with the Planning Commission, it means that the value of the property is greatly reduced. The homestead is quite old, and it might not be wise to remodel or spend a great deal of money on a home in an old neighborhood. I cannot see someone purchasing this property, removing the old home and building a new structure of any consequence in this area. I agree that there are several areas on the Eastside that were poorly planned but, I cant,ot believe that the intent of the Planning Commission was to create a hardship in certain circumstances such as this. The intent, as I understand, is to cut back on apartment construction, r.nd as I said, I generally agree with this. However, there are circumstances for which there should be some alternative that is more palatable. Hopefully, you will give situations such as this some serious consideration, or look for a better solution before closing down on all possible uses of areas that might be used to an advantage. Sincerely, A;az"`�r' •- : T��r�TT C'OM'1 U ICATIO s TO THE CITY COUNCIL FRONS. THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE ?vr0 . SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER VARIQUS RECOMMENDATIONS OF l:iE ' ?Nivw1�.G COMMISSION PERTAINING TO THE APARTMENT MORATORIUM AREA (EASTSIDE _ STUDY ARRA',- PREPARED RRA) PREPARED BY: City Attorney RECOMMENDED ACTION: The recommendation of the Planning Commission is: (I) To down -zone the area to R-2 Single -Family Residence, with the exception of areas zoned C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District, C-2 General Commercial District, and R -C -P Residential -commercial-professional Office District. (2) That existing residential uses above single-family can be replaced if destroyed if first, a .use permit is obtai►ted. RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is the recommendation of staff that upon the conclusion of the public hearing, that the hearing be closed and that the public hearing be continued to the October 21, 1987 City Council regular meeting, so that the City Attorney can prepare the ordinance after the City Council has answered the following questions: QUESTIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.: (1) Do we permit multiple family development in the C-1, C-2 and R -C -P zoning classifications in the East side area? (2) Do we permit senior citizen housing in these areas? The staff firmly believes the City should not permit additional conversions to apartment houses, but should approve senior citizen housing projects. (3) What is Council's direction on single- family homes surrounded on two to three sides with existing multiple -family structures? It is staff's recommendation that any action in this regard be held in abeyance until the General Plan is completed, in order to decide the future course of action. Respectfully submitted, BONIAL ) M. STEIN ccc©asts..ide/t..ta. U!%, CITY AT OPNEY CITY OF LODI 221 W. Pine Street Lodi, California 95240 ADVERTISING INSTRUCTIONS Subject: L AL INMICE Publish Dates: Saturday, October 3, 1987 Tear Sheets Wanted: Three:_` Affidavit and Sill to: ALICE M. REIMCHE, CITY CLERK Date: 1p jl j8 7 Ordered by: ALICE Mme— R - HE CITY CLERK LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE LODI CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LODI TO CONSIDER VARIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION PERTAINING TO THE APARTMENT MORATORIUM AREA (EASTSIDE STUDY AREA) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on the 14th day of October, 1987, at the hour of 7:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the Lodi City Council will conduct a public hearing in the chambers of the Lodi City Council at 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California, to consider the Planning Commissions recommendations: 1. that the boundaries of the Apartment Moratorium Area (Eastside Study Area) be expanded to include 309 North Stockton Street and 115 and 121 East Lockeford Street (i.e. APN 041-230-33, 34 and 35). 2. that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report of the Apartment Moratorium Area (Eastside Study Area) as adequate. 3. that the Land Use Element of the General Plan be amended to ' designate the apartment Moratorium Area (Eastside Study Area) for Low Density Single -Family with certain exceptions. Information regarding this 'item may be obtained in the office of the City Clerk at 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California. All interested persons are invited to present their views either for or against the above proposal. Written statements may be filed with the City Clerk at any time prior to the hearing scheduled herein and oral statements may be made at said hearing. Y If you challenge the subject matter in court you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, at, or prior to, the public hearing. Dated: September 30, 1987 By Order of the Lodi City Council Alice M. Reimche City Clerk PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE LODI CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER VARIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE LODI PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING THE APARTMENT MORATORIUM AREA (EASTSIDE STUDY AREA) The Lodi city Council will conduct a public hearing on Wednesday, October 14, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, to consider the following recommendations of the Planning Commission regarding the Apartment Moratorium (Eastside Study Area: 1. that the boundaries of the Apartment Moratorium Area (Eastside Study Area) be expanded to include 309 North Stockton Street and 115 and 121 East Lockeford Street (i.e. APR 041-230-33, 34 and 35). 2. that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report of the Apartment Moratorium Area (Eastside Study Area) as adequate. 3. that the Land Use Element of the General Plan be amended to designate the apartment Moratorium Area (Eastside Study Area) for Low Density Single -Family with certain exceptions. Information regarding this matter may be obtained in the office of the Community Develont Director, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, or by telephoning (209r 333-6711. Dated: September 9, 1987 /11 Alice M. Reimc City Clerk CITY COUNCIL EVELYN M. OLSON. Mayor JOHN R. (Randy) SNIDER Mayor Pro Tempore DAVID M HINCHMAN )AMFS W PINKERTON. it, FRED M. REID Dear Property Owner: CITY OF LODI CITY HALL. 221 WEST PINE STREET CALL BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 (209) 334-5634 T F L E C OPI E R- (209) 333.6795 October 15, 1987 THO,vmAS A. PETERSON ALICE M REIMCHE City Clerk RONALD tit STEIN City Attorney On November 6, 1985, the Lodi City Council enacted a temporary building moratorium banning multi -family construction in an area bounded by Turner Road on the north, State Route 99 on the east, Kettleman Lane/State Route 12 on the south and Crescent Avenue on the west. (see copy of map depicting the area attached) The moratorium was enacted because the City had many requests for building permits to convert single-family residential 'units to multi -family units. This increase in apartment construction and occupancy led to several changes in the character of the subject area including: increased traffic, circulation, and parking problems • increased demand for public services and facilities • shift in neighborhood demographics • loss of single-family residences • change in neighborhood aesthetic character, and • encouragement of additional conversions to multi -family housing The moratorium's purpose was to give City staff the opportunity to analyze infrastructure capacity and to develop planning strategies for the Study Area that focus on solutiors to both problems and potential future conversions. October 15, 1987 Page 2 Following the in-depth study, review and recommendation from the Planning Commission, Council took the following actions at its October 14, 1987 meeting regarding this matter. 1. Expanded the Apartment Moratorium Area (Eastside Study Area) to include 309 North Stockton Street and 115 and 121 East Lockeford Street. 2. Certified the Final Environmental Impact Report of the Apartment Moratorium Area and establishing findings. At the October 14, 1987, Council meting, Mr. Robert Riggle, 712 Cross Street, Lodi, addressed the Council requesting that the boundaries of the Apartment Moratorium Area be expanded to include all of the 300 block of North Stockton Street. s THE LODI CITY COUNCIL WILL BE CONSIDERING THIS REQUEST AT ITS REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 21, 1987. THE COUNCIL MEETING WILL COMMENCE AT 7:30 P.M. AND WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 221 W. PINE STREET, LODI. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact my office, telephone 333-6702. Very truly yours, Alice M. Reimche City Clerk AMR:br Attachment September 15. 198; We, the undersigned, do hereby petition the Lodi City Council and the Lodi Planning Commission to rezone the Eastside Lodi Study Area to Residential Single Family Dwellings, otherwise known as Option 2 of the Environmental Impact Report. Name Address V1145:7 SeDten,Lie,, We, the undersigned, do hereby petition the Lodi City Council and the Lodi Planning Commission to rezor. the Eastside Lodi Study Area to Residential Sinal,e Family Dwellings, otherwise known as Option 2 of the Environmental Impact Report. 11 �52A.2 s � J l t: Se -,t pm'-`er 11, t h e. jnder= rQ Eastside Lodi St-ocly Area rc-, -L Dwellincs, otherwise known as Option 2 o the Environmental Impact Report. Name Address 3o -5 t September 15, 1-9,"k7 We, the undersigned, do hereby petition the Lodi City Council and the Lodi Planning Commission to rezone the Eastside Lodi Study Area to Residential Single Family Dwellings, otherwise known as Option 2 of the Environmental Impact Report. Name Address 14( September 15, 198 - We, the undersigned, do her_ebv petition the Lodi City Council and the :,odi Planning Commission to rezone the Eastside Lodi Study Area tc P,esidential Single Family Dwellings, otherwise known as option 2 of the Environmental Impact Report. Name _ _ Address !�%..cam• �� 3 _� s c:6i'�: yG..._ .SL B 7 We, the undersigne, -do hereby pet -'t ;or' the Loc',; City Council and the Lodi Planning Commission to rezone the Eastside Lodi Study Area to Residcnllia'- Sinqle Family Dwellings, otherwise known as Option --' of the Environmental Impact Report. 141`' __A LOYft)IS-Ak" d '4 L -114) -Av lifl .3o a-.,J6w-1o, 6' so 57 Zo 1 C ak' September: !, 198'7 We, the *undersigned, do hereby petition the Lodi City Counciland the Lodi Planning Commission to rezone the Eastside Lodi Study Area to Residential Single Family Dwellings, otherwise known as Option 2 of the Environmental Impact Report. Na rpe Address ,P L 2, -t- t4ijc- J- September 15, 1987 We, the undersigned, do hereby petition the Lodi City Council and the Lodi Planning Commission to rezone the Eastside Lodi Study Area to Residential Single Family Dwellinas, otherwise known as Option 2 of the Environmental YmDact Report. Name !��%' i��nC Address �C< .<Y � . C 1 �`t A s SrZ 0 M- I DCF) r `� Z September 15, 1987 We, the undersigned, do hereby petition the Lodi City Council and the Lodi Planning Commission to rezone the Eastside Lodi Study Area to Residertial Single Family Dwellings, otherwise known as Option 2 of the Environmental Impact Report. Name rddress Z7 A CJ S e P t e r, b e We, 6noe�-S-- 7� n- an c Ez, 5 -1 s ide Lodi St u6 AE n D-wel I inas, otherwise 1). -Mown as Option i of he ET11,71 r 0 P.MenL Impact Report. Name Address 7- -------�-�--_� --err---.�_ �,j 1, -P AJ DECLARATION OF MAILING On October 1, 1987 in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, I deposited in the United States mail, envelopes with first-class postage prepaid thereon, containing a copy of the Notice attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A"; said envelopes were addressed as is more particularly shown on Exhibit "8" attached hereto. There is a regular daily communication by mail between the City of Lodi, California, and the places to which said envelopes were addressed. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 1, 1987, at Lodi, California. DEC/O1 TXTA.O2D LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE LODI CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LODI TO CONSIDER VARIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION PERTAINING TO THE APARTMENT MORATORIUM AREA (EASTSIDE STUDY AREA) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on the 14th day of October, 1987, at the hour of 7:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter a,, the matter may be heard, the Lodi City Council will conduct a public hearing in the chambers of the Lodi City Council at 221 West Pine Strcct, Lodi, California, to consider the Planning Commissions recommendations: 1. that the boundaries of the Apartment Moratorium Area (Eastside Study Area) be expanded to include 309 North Stockton Street and 115 and 121 East Lockeford Street (i.e. APN 041-230-33, 34 and 35). 2. that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report of the Apartment Moratorium Area (Eastside Study Area) as adequate. 3. that the Land Use Element of the General Plan be amended to designate the apartment Moratorium Area (Eastside Study Area) for Low Density Single -Family with certain exceptions. Information regarding this item may be obtained in the office of the City Clerk at 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California. All interested persons are invited to present their views either for or against the above proposal. Written statements may be filed with the City Clerk at any time prior to the hearing scheduled herein and oral statements may be made at said hearing. If you challenge the subject matter in court you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, at, or prior to,, the public hearing. Dated: September 30, 1987 By Order of the Lodi City Council Alice M. Reimche City Clerk M. Huddleston 2-37 Mission Lodi, CA 95240 Elsa Schnaible 728 S. Washington Lodi, CA 95240 Eileen M. St. Yves 310 S. Orange #60 Martha Salaun 431 E. Lodi Avenue Lodi, CA 95240 Cora Wahl 428 E. Walnut Street Lodi, CA 95240 Ben Kauk 209 Maple Street Lodi, CA 95240 Ida & Joe Richter 512 E. Tokay Street Lodi, CA 95240 Bertha & Robert J. Baker 309 Concord Street Lodi, CA 95240 Laurie CotelIo`and Rick Ling 9 N. California Street Lodi, CA 95240 Mike Weyand 229 S. Pleasant Avenue Lodi, CA 95240 Barry Clark 715 N. School Street Lodi, CA 95240 Otto Becker 333 Mission Lodi, CA 95240 Anne Meyers 131 S. Avena Lodi, CA 95240 Mac Goodell 8 N. Rose Street LISTPC4/TXTD.OIB Lodi, CA 95240 Kimberly Christolos 237 S. Pleasant Avenue Lodi, CA 95240 Carol Grenko 233 S. Pleasant Avenue Lodi, CA 95240 Frank Moehring 315 E. Locust Street Lodi, CA 95240 Teresa F. Puglia 242 Watson Lodi, CA 95240 Jerry Snow 1051 S. Central Lodi, CA 95240 Gary Babcock 318 E. Vine St Lodi, CA 95240 Edwin A. Janke 337 Concord Street Lodi, CA 95240 R. Meleken 1101 S. Central Avenue Lodi, CA 95240 G. Westerberg 335 Poplar Street Lodi, CA 95240 Debbie Dosier 339 Poplar Street Lodi, CA 95240 Ellwood Ross 1318 S. Central Avenue Lodi, CA 95240 Marcel Grondahl 336 Watson Street Lodi, CA 95240 Maria Elena Serna Larry Redmond 801 W. Elm Street Lodi, CA 95240 L15TPC4JTXTD.OIB Fred Mohr 416 Concord Street Lodi, CA 95240 Fred Erickson 925 S. Central Lodi, CA 95240 Carolyn Relei Robert Harr 327 Poplar Street Lodi, CA 95240 Ann Cerney 900 W. Vine Street Lodi, CA 95240 Richard L. Simpson 1011 S. Central Avenue Lcdi, CA 95240 Andis & Pam Lane 300 E. Vine Street Lodi, CA 95240 Ron Turner 1324 S. Central Avenue Lodi, CA 95240 John & Roxanne May 437 E. Eden Lodi, CA 95240 Palma Zwingleberg 236 Charles Street Lodi, CA 95240 Ernie Bettencourt 219 Rush Street Lodi, CA 95240 ITSTPC41?XTD.OlB Mc.MORA.NDUM, City of Lodi, Community Development Department TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: DAVID MORIMOTO, Associate Planner DATE: OCTOBER 1, 1987 SUBJECT: EASTSIDE APARTMENT STUDY IMPACTED LOTS Staff has examined the land use within the Eastside Moratorium area. The study was done to try to determine the number of single-family lots that were surrounded on two or more sides by multiple -family units. For the purpose of this study a multiple -family lot was defined as any lot containing 3 or more residential units. Data for this study was obtained from County Assessor's land use information generated earlier this year. The Eastside Moratorium area contains a total of 2,625 residential lots. There are also a significant number of lots that contain either commercial or industrial uses. The non-residential lots were not included in the study. The 2,625 residential lots are broken down as follows: Lots with a single residential unit Lots with 2 residential units (duplex or two single-family houses) Lots with 3 or 4 residential units Lots with 5 or more residential units TOTAL NUMBER OF PERCENT OF LOTS LOTS 2090 79.6% 248 9.5% 124 4.7% 163 6.2% 2625 Based on this data we have derived the following information: 1) There are approximately 22 single-family lots that are "sandwiched" between two existing multiple -family lots (multiple -family lots on both sides); 2) There are also approximately 21 single-family lots that have a multiple -family lot on one side and a multiple lot to the rear; MEMORANDUM TO: JAMES B. SCHROEDER FROM: DAVID MORIMOTO October 1, 1987 Page 2 3) There are also a number of situations (no specific count) where there are single-family lots that have duplexes on both sides or have a duplex on one side and a multiple -family urit on the other side. It would appear that there are less than 50 single-family lots in the moratorium area that are severely impacted (multiple -family lot on two sides. There are, however, many other lots that are borderline. The borderline lots are the ones that will be the most difficult to deal with unless very specific guidelines are established. The guidelines will need to establish which lots can be developed with something other than a single-family dwelling.