HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - May 2, 2018 G-04 PHCITY OF LODI
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
3-4
TM
AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing to Consider Appeal of Erik and Staci Jones Regarding Public Works
Department's Denial of Encroachment Permit for 3031 Celebration Drive, Lodi
MEETING DATE: May 2, 2018
PREPARED BY: Public Works Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Public hearing to consider appeal of Erik and Staci Jones regarding
Public Works Department's denial of encroachment permit for 3031
Celebration Drive, Lodi.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Pursuant to Lodi Municipal Code 12.04.100, Erik and Staci Jones
are appealing the Public Works Department October 26, 2017
denial of an encroachment permit application for approval of
modifications to the driveway at their residence located at 3031 Celebration Drive.
On March 3, 2017, Staci Jones applied for an encroachment permit (Exhibit A) to widen the driveway
approach at her residence, 3031 Celebration Drive, located in the RoseGate subdivision. The Joneses
residence has a three -car garage with a two -car approach, which is standard for the subdivision where
her residence is located. The encroachment permit application was denied based on numerous factors,
including structural integrity of the pavement, sidewalk, curb, and gutter, and on -street parking
allowances.
Subsequent to the first encroachment permit denial; there were numerous communications between City
Staff and representatives from the Hughey Law Group regarding the City's basis of denial. The Hughey
Law Group is representing Mrs. Jones in the appeal.
On October 10, 2017, Mrs. Jones again submitted an application for an encroachment permit (Exhibit B)
for the same work previously applied for in the encroachment permit dated March 3, 2017. For the same
reasons the original permit was denied, the second permit application was also denied.
On March 20, 2018, The City Council received the "Appeal of Encroachment Permit Denial 3031
Celebration Drive, Lodi, California" (Appeal) from Kevin Hughey of the Hughey Law Group (Exhibit C).
This 15 page appeal letter (not including exhibits) alleges that both Frontier Land Companies (Developer)
and the City of Lodi constructed, or allowed to be constructed, "defects" causing the Joneses "significant
risks of harm or injury to individuals and vehicles, as well as causing reduced property value."
The subdivision public improvements (including the driveways) were constructed using the City's
adopted design and construction standards. The City's professional engineering staff has reviewed and
approved the design standards. In fact, the standard has also been applied in other subdivisions in Lodi,
such as Sunwest Meadows, which was constructed in the early 2000's. Of the 26 houses with a three -
car garage in the RoseGate subdivision, all driveways have been generally aligned with the main two -car
portion of the garage. To date there have been no incidents or complaints reported to City staff or the
Developer, other than the Appeal, in either RoseGate or Sunwest Meadows. The public improvements
were accepted by the City Council on November 8, 2015. Contrary to the Appeals claims, there is no
APPROVED:
S r phen Sth - bauer, City Manager
K:\WP\COUNCIL\2018\PH 3031 Celebration Drive doc 4/25/2018
Public Hearing to Consider Appeal of Erik and Staci Jones Regarding Public Works Departments Denial of Encroachment Permit for 3031 Celebration Drive, Lodi
May 2, 2018
Page 2
"defect" in the Developer's design and construction, nor is there any evidence presented that the
"significant risks of harm or injury to individuals and vehicles, as well as causing reduced property value"
could not be remedied by simply adjusting the location of the vehicles within the driveway, as reflected in
Exhibit D.
As reflected in the Developer's Information & Disclosure Statement (Exhibit E) that was initialed and
signed by the Joneses on October 25, 2015, the Joneses were made aware of potential issues related to
the two -car driveway condition relative to their three -car garage home. In Paragraph 4.7
"Garage/Driveway Limitations on Use and Access" it is disclosed, and the Joneses acknowledge, that
some vehicles may be too large to access the property driveway and/or garage, and that the
governmental authority (City of Lodi) may prohibit increasing the size or location of the driveway.
Additionally, the Joneses initialed two separate site plans (Exhibit F and Exhibit G) that clearly represent
the configuration of the driveway and garage relationship, as a condition of sale.
The primary basis of the Public Works denial is as follows:
Developer requested driveway modifications:
The Rose Gate development is designed on an irregular shaped parcel. City design standards require
the driveway locations for all lots be established during the subdivision improvement plan design and
approval process to maximize parking and to minimize vehicle conflicts. Typically, the improvement
plans are approved (along with the advanced location of each two -car driveway) long before the final
house plan is located on each lot. It is not practical to expect any developer to assign the appropriate
house models to each lot with 100 percent accuracy. In this case, the Developer requested to relocate
five driveways (with no extensions) to accommodate a particular model/lot configuration. Of the three
cases where driveways were extended, one was extended so it could be shared between two lots to
minimize on street parking impacts. The second was extended because the lot frontage was just under
90 feet wide. The third was slightly widened without permission of the City, but was allowed to remain in
order to avoid additional pavement damage. For the RoseGate Subdivision, Staff allowed eight
developer requested driveway modifications only. No private resident requested driveway modifications
have been allowed to date. The driveway modification request from the Joneses is the only private
request received to date.
Residential parking:
Three car garage configurations with a two -car driveway represent 26 of the 230 homes/lot in the
RoseGate Subdivision. Three car driveway approaches are discouraged because they reduce on -street
parking in neighborhoods with minimal on -street parking available.
Preserving the useful life of the roadway:
In order to preserve the streets in new subdivisions, the City maintains a practice to minimize the number
of cuts being made into new pavement. To re -enforce this practice, on February 7, 2018, Council
authorized a modification to the Lodi Municipal Code Section 12.04 that prohibits pavement cuts on
pavement that is Tess than five years old.
To modify existing driveways, or curb and gutter, the asphalt must be saw -cut, removed, and replaced
along the entire length of the newly placed driveway, per City construction standards. This pavement cut
compromises the integrity of the new roadway by allowing a potential path for water to enter the
subgrade structure below the paved surface. It is commonly known that water intrusion is detrimental to
paved roadways and will contribute toward decreasing the life expectancy of the street improvements.
Often, pavement failures are more exaggerated along the curb and gutter since this is the primary route
of heavy garbage trucks.
K:\WP\COUNCIL\2018\PH 3031 Celebration Drive.doc 4/25/2018
Public Hearing to Consider Appeal of Erik and Staci Jones Regarding Public Works Department's Denial of Encroachment Permit for 3031 Celebration Drive, Lodi
May 2, 2018
Page 3
For the reasons noted above, Staff recommends Council uphold the denial of the encroachment permit
application from Mr. and Mrs. Jones for driveway modifications located at 3031 Celebration drive in the
Rose Gate Subdivision.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
FUNDING AVAILABLE: Not applicable.
Charles E. Swimley, Jr.
Public Works Director
CES/CES/tdb
Attachments
cc: The Hugey Law Group
Tom Doucette, FCB Homes
K:\WP\COUNCIL\2018\PH 3031 Celebration Drive.doc 4/25/2018
City of Lodi
Public Works Department
Encroachment Permit
Application (Construction)
Permission is requested to encroach on the City of Lodi's Right of Way as follows: (Complete all
items. Use NA, if not applicable. Application is not complete until all required attachments are incuded.)
1. Permit Address or Street Name 3 I Ce le cat ay, N,1f -
2. Cross Street (Distance and direction from site)
3. Applicant Sia t
Name
4. Contractor Rr .« ,n (1<; t lS
Name
209 112
Office Phone No.
AcyNe? C�1�ei br�Ycq ArJwll
Add
PO—BSt�9--Buy S
ress
State
Address Cify ' State)
2( l boy• t�IZ
Cellular Phone No.
-2 X12 20,37. (0.715`
ip Phone No.
CA 922
Zip
-:11 lc 22 1
License No.
5. Estimated Start Date Estimated Completion Date
6. Estimated Cost in City Right -of -Way (Excluding material costs)
7. Work Description (Fully describe work within City's Right -of -Way, including any street or lane closures.
Attach separate sheet if necessary, Attach complete plans, specifications, calculations, maps, etc.,
where applicable.):
Pyi,' kla 1 el (pi, b :s TI -14.1r d94'' - ,• • • 1)L.4
4a- k._LJ4-u -(23e cAv.�L�t
,� cy�t.( L,..._v u
- �urev• 1 r�� , JP
Ce y,ACy e4 • AY ,tel le,cn.,e f c Lr�b '1r- Qtrz� r 3' - c-
kl
8. Additional Information ( i. heck one or more of the following):
❑ Sidewalk Replacement/ Installation: Length Lineal feet Sidewalk Width feet (Excluding curb)
D riveway Replacement/ Installation (Check one):
Ry
Residential VVidlh Lineal feet
0 Commercial Width Lineal feet
Gutter Type (Check one if applicable):
❑ Square (15" gutter) [Vertical (24" gutter) e`�i 5i-. rtG`
❑ Rolled [9f DrivewayNecg.% 0 Other.
❑ Utility Work
O Excavation 0 Directional Boring 0 Other
Max. Depth Avg. Depth_ ....._.. _ Avg. Width Length
Surface Type Conduit: Type Diameter
❑ Other (Describe):
The undersigned agrees to indemnify and save the City of Lodi free and harmless from any liability in accordance with the provisions of
Lodi Municipal Code (LMC) Sec. 12.04.040. Permittee is specifically aware of LMC Sec. 12.04.290 thereof relating to the relocation or
removal of said encroachment if future construction requires such relocation. Permit void if work not started within 6 months of permit
date. The undersigned agrees and understands that a permit can be denied or a bond required for non-payment of prior or present
permit fees, that the work will be done in accordance with City of Lodi rules and regulations subject to inspection and approval. Permit
application fees are non-refundable. If the work for which this permit has been issued has not been completed within 6 months of permit
date, the City of Lodi shall have the right to complete the work, and to file a Cause of Action to recoup the City's expenses in completing
the work and for all other costs and fees in accordance with fila provisions ofthe Lodi Municipal Code Section 12.04.120.
tri
t:)
DATE 3/3 f 1 4 SIGNED
:lA
OFFICE USE ONLY
PERMI 1 S FAl
PERMIT NO- ❑PENDING ❑FINAL
DATE & TIME RECEIVED DENIEDANITl (DRAWN
FEE
Minimum amount (Balance to be collected al permit issuance)
TOTAL FEE:
EncroachmentPermitApp.doc 3/12/2004
5-
S
4
City of Lodi
Public Works Department
C
Encroachment Permit
Application (Construction)
Permission is requested to encroach on the City of Lodi's Right of Way as follows: (Complete all
items. Use NA, if not applicable. Application is not complete until all required attachments are included.)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Permit Address or Street Name 3031 Celebration Drive
Cross Street (Distance and
Applicant Staci Jones
Name
Contractor Brian Gates
Name
209.772.2171
direction from site)
3031 Celebration Dr. Lodi CA 95242 209.747.6715
Address City State Zip Phone No.
PO Box 69 Burson CA 95225
Address City State Zip
209.304.1212 776221
Office Phone No.
Cellular Phone No. License No.
Estimated Start Date 11/1/17 Estimated Completion Date 11/8/17
Estimated Cost in City Right -of -Way (Excluding material costs)
$1500
Work Description (Fully describe work within City's Right -of -Way, including any street or lane closures.
Attach separate sheet if necessary. Attach complete plans, specifications, calculations, maps, etc.,
where applicable.):
Remove and relocate driveway.
8. Additional Information (Check one or more of the following):
❑ Sidewalk Replacement/ Installation: Length Lineal feet
O Driveway Replacement/ Installation (Check one):
Residential
❑ Commercial Width
Gutter Type (Check one if applicable):
❑ Square (15" gutter) Vertical (24" gutter)
❑ Rolled 0 Driveway ❑ Other
O Utility Work
❑ Excavation ❑ Directional Boring
Max. Depth Avg. Depth
Surface Type Conduit: Type
0 Other (Describe):
The undersigned agrees to indemnify and save the City of Lodi free and harmless from any liability in accordance with the provisions of
Lodi Municipal Code (LMC) Sec. 12.04.040. Permittee is specifically aware of LMC Sec. 12.04 290 thereof relating to the relocation or
removal of said encroachment if future construction requires such relocation. Permit void if work not started within 6 months of permit
date. The undersigned agrees and understands that a permit can be denied or a bond required for non-payment of prior or present
permit fees, that the work will be done in accordance with City of Lodi rules and regulations subject to inspection and approval. Permit
application fees are non-refundable. If the work for which this permit has been issued has not been completed within 6 months of permit
date, the City of Lodi shall have the right to complete the work, and to file : use of Action to recoup the City's expenses in completing
the work and for all other costs and fees in a .or. ance with the provisio e Lodi Municipal Code Section 12.04.120.
Sidewalk Width feet (Excluding curb)
Width 15 Lineal feet
Lineal feet
0 Other
Avg. Width Length
Diameter
DATE 10/10/17 SIGNED
OFFICE USE ONLY
PERMIT STATUS:
PERMIT NO. ❑PENDING ❑FINAL
DATE & TIME RECEIVED ❑DENIEDNVITHDRAWN
FEE:
Minimum amount (Balance to be collected at permit issuance)
TOTAL FEE:
EncroachmentPermitApp.doc 3/12/2004
1-1I I1 520 9th Street, Suite 230, Sacramento, CA 95814
0: 916,758.2100 1 F: 916.758.2200
LAW GROUP www.hugheylawgroup.com
March 20, 2018
Via Email and U.S. Postal
Lodi City Council
c/o Lodi City Clerk's Office
P.O. Box 3006
Lodi, CA 95241-1910
C ityclerkr]a,lod i.gov
Re: Appeal of Encroachment Permit Denial
3031 Celebration Drive, Lodi, California
To the Honorable Alan Nakanishi, Joanne Mounce, Mark Chandler, Robert Johnson and Doug
Kuehne:
We represent City of Lodi citizens Erik and Staci Jones, who reside at 3031 Celebration
Drive, and we write to appeal from Lodi Public Works Department's October 26, 2017 denial of
the Joneses' October 10, 2017 encroachment permit application for approval of minor
modifications to their driveway. Though the requested modifications are minor, the driveway or
curb cut defects for which the Joneses' seek modification have and continue causing significant
risks of harm or injury to individuals and vehicles, as well as causing reduced property value.
As outlined below, the Joneses have been, and continue to be, substantially damaged by
the defective condition of their driveway and the Public Works Department's refusal to grant a
rather minor, yet quite meaningful, encroachment permit to remedy the defective condition.
Lodi Municipal Code section 12.04.060 deems it unlawful for a person to make any of the
required alterations without first obtaining a permit, therefore the application process is the only
means by which the Joneses may obtain the desired and much needed relief Further, granting a
permit in this instance will not in any way cause a detriment to the public interest, safety, health
and welfare or be injurious to other property. In fact, granting the permit will provide the
opposite effect, as it will alleviate an already dangerous and harmful condition for which the City
of Lodi is responsible.
A. Pertinent Factual and Procedural Background
The Joneses purchased their home from Frontier Land Companies ("FCB") on October
25, 2015, and they explicitly made clear their desire, intent and expectation to purchase a home
with a three -car garage and use it as such — for three vehicles, and FCB directed them to the 3031
Celebration property floorplan, referenced in initial transaction documents as "Structural
Selection, Plan 302" and featuring a "Standard 3 Car Garage." The Joneses specifically chose
the model containing the third garage bay over other options, such as receiving an additional den
Kevin Hughey
khughey@hugheylawgroup.com
with added amenities, due to their future need to accommodate vehicles for their growing
children. The Joneses purchased the home under the reasonable and good -faith belief that FCB
would construct and deliver a fully functioning driveway that would provide safe, clear
accessible to all three garage bays included in the improvement plans.
It was not until the Joneses finalized the purchase and moved in to the home on May 28,
2016 that they discovered that the garage was impossible to safely access from the street, and
that the driveway and curb cuts did not align with the garage layout. In order to utilize one of the
garage bays for its intended use — vehicle parking, the Joneses are required to maneuver as
follows:
1. Drive and stop their vehicle at an angle partially perpendicular to their home front
on Celebration Drive;
2. Reverse the vehicle away from the home to create an angle directly perpendicular
to their home, which requires that they reverse into the middle of the public street (blocking all
forms of traffic on the public street);
3. Reposition the vehicle forward to face the home directly perpendicularly and
create a straight line to the third garage bay;
4. Literally drive up onto and over the public curb;
5. Drive the vehicle forward over the public sidewalk and across what were
supposed to be their front planter areas, which they already were forced to remove; and
6. Proceed forward until the vehicle is fully housed in the garage.
On a daily basis, the Joneses must repeat the same order of maneuvers each and every time they
seek to utilize the third bay of their garage. To simply utilize their third garage bay, therefore,
the Joneses must create unreasonable and dangerous health and welfare conditions for
themselves, all adult and child vehicular, bicycle, skateboard and skate, scooter, pedestrian, etc.,
users of both the public street and sidewalk. In addition, the Joneses are risking or already
causing harm to the vehicles which they must drive up and down curbs during ingress and
egress.
Of course, the Joneses reasonably and in good faith believed that should FCB fail to
deliver, originally or by modification, safe, clear access from the Lodi city street to their three
garage bays, Lodi would require FCB to correct any such defect. The Joneses also reasonably
and in good faith believed that, once the defect was discovered, Lodi would issue permitting
necessary to correct FCB's defective design and construction. Thus far, Lodi has failed on
multiple occasions to correct the defect and has left the Joneses with unsafe ingress and egress to
their garage bays, which includes having to literally block the sidewalk and street and create
unreasonable and unforeseen dangers to drivers, cyclists, pedestrians, etc.
2
On multiple occasions, the Joneses complained to FCB about FCB, who apparently with
Lodi's knowledge and consent, sold the Joneses a home with a three -car garage but no driveway
actually allowing the Joneses to safely, reasonably and adequately use the three -car garage.
FCB, however, has and continues blaming entirely the City of Lodi. For instance, in early
November 2016, FCB informed the Joneses it was aware of the defective conditions of the
Joneses' property, as well as the same or similar defective conditions of other homes in FCB's
Rose Gate subdivision and that it was attempting to work with Lodi Public Works to obtain a
variance to cure the defects. On November 15, 2016, FCB represented to the Joneses that their
property is plotted in a "conventional manner" and that Public Works did not see "special
circumstances" warranting a driveway or curb cut modification. Much to the Joneses surprise
and disappointment, FCB concluded the discussion by telling the Joneses it "never hurts" for Mr.
and Mrs. Jones to seek a variance on their own. In sum, in November 2016, FCB admitted and
acknowledged the defects of the Joneses' property, admitted and acknowledged that it should
and would take the responsibility of correcting the defects by obtaining appropriate city permits,
failed to obtain appropriate permits, and then instructed the Joneses to attempt to cure the defects
on their own.
On February 21, 2017, FCB representative Geoff Armstrong represented to the Joneses
that the driveways for "five or six" homes were deliberately moved (i.e., corrected from original
defective design and placement) because of irregularities with the lots in relation to the curb cuts
and indicated that Public Works "may sign off' on an encroachment permit to cure the Joneses'
property defect.
On April 3, 2017, FCB expressed to the Joneses that it was "incomprehensible that the
city would allow a foreseeable problem to be constructed" (i.e., the defective driveway and curb
cut conditions) yet offered no indication how or why Lodi permitted the construction with
obvious, material defects. Much to the Joneses' surprise, especially following the April 3
representations from FCB, on April 4, 2017, a Lodi Senior Engineer informed the Joneses that
their former encroachment permit application was denied.
Throughout spring 2017, the Joneses continued in earnest trying to work with FCB and
the City of Lodi to pursue any possible remedies for the property defects. The Joneses also had
numerous discussions with several other Rose Gate purchasers and residents, conducted their
own due diligence, and learned the following: (1) FCB friends and associates who purchased
Rose Gate homes were permitted, with Lodi's knowledge and consent, and provided custom and
corrected driveways and curb cuts; (2) with Lodi's knowledge and consent, FCB constructed
several Rose Gate properties with defective driveway or curb cut conditions; (3) FCB claims to
have obtained from Lodi a small, limited number of driveway or curb cut correction permits (and
we have yet to locate written support for the claim); (4) all of the alleged correction or variance
permits issued by Lodi have somehow already been allocated to certain Rose Gate property
owners; and (5) without support or authority, Lodi claims, regardless of particular circumstances
or property conditions, not to mention Lodi's inherent authority as a municipality, Lodi had only
a limited number of encroachment permits it could issue for the Rose Gate development.
3
Lodi, through application of its permit evaluation and issuance policies and practices, has
and continues treating Rose Gate residents disparately and depriving them of due process and
equal protection of the laws. The Joneses are aware of and have communicated with several
formerly prospective and current Rose Gate property owners who either feel misled about
driveway and curb cut issues by FCB when purchasing their homes or who, after learning of the
defects, declined to move forward with purchasing in Rose Gate. Addresses of homes with
misaligned driveways or curb cuts for certain of those formerly prospective or current owners
include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. 3031 Celebration Drive (the Joneses');
2. 3045 Celebration Drive;
3. 3039 Celebration Drive;
4. 3041 Lombard Street;
5. 3049 Lombard Street;
6. 55 Nobel Avenue; and
7. 90 Nobel Avenue.
Addresses of Rose Gate homes the Joneses are aware formerly had misaligned driveways
or curb cuts but for whom Lodi issued encroachment permits for corrective activity include, but
are not limited to, the following:
1. 202 Jubilee Lane;
2. 2776 Ambrosia Lane;
3. 3035 Belmont Drive;
4. 198 Cottage Lane; and
5. 58 Nobel Avenue.
In August 2017, we spoke by telephone and exchanged email with Lodi City Manager
Steve Schwabauer. We explained to Mr. Schwabauer the nature and degree of FCB's defective
design and construction, the significant impact on the Joneses from FCB's defective work and
Lodi's failure to issue an encroachment permit, and our thoughts and hopes for very simple
corrective measure by Lodi — an encroachment permit.
After our initial communications with Mr. Schwabauer, he represented to us that, to his
credit, he personally took the matter out into the field and conducted a thorough investigation,
which, according to his August 30, 2017 email correspondence with us, attached hereto as
4
Exhibit A, included the following analyses personally conducted by him and conclusions of
facts and law personally ascertained by him:
1. Purported personal review, evaluation and legal analyses, presumably stemming
from his 10 years as Lodi City Attorney, of portions of the Joneses' purchase and sale agreement
package with FCB, which apparently he obtained from FCB, which has absolutely nothing to do
with Lodi's encroachment permit denial and, therefore, prohibition on the Joneses' efforts to
cure FCB's defective design and construction.
2. Based on his purported review of unknown purchase and sale agreement materials
he obtained from FCB, Mr. Schwabauer reached the legal conclusion, without speaking further
with us or ever with the Joneses, that the Joneses allegedly executed some kind of waiver,
acknowledgement or consent to the defective driveways and curb cuts -- because FCB said so,
notwithstanding that we already explicitly communicated to him by telephone the Joneses had
done no such thing, which, even if true, also has nothing to do with Lodi's encroachment
permit denial.
3. Mr. Schwabauer's purported findings, in his words, that "I also confirmed that
models were constructed and available for view with the two car width approach prior to your
client's [sic] purchase" -- notwithstanding that we already explicitly communicated to him by
telephone the Joneses had not been made aware of FCB's defective design and construction
until after they moved into the home, and which has nothing to do with Lodi's encroachment
permit denial.
4. His own personal parking experiment, purportedly at a Rose Gate home with
three garage bays and similarly defective driveway and curb cuts, after which he rendered his
expert opinion that the Joneses are either dishonest or totally incompetent drivers because, in his
words, "I did my own site tour and was able to park a Chevy Tahoe in one of the third stall units
with a two car width approach. I will admit that I had to take my time but I did not have to make
any three point turns or leave the concrete driveway to either enter or exit the single stall[,]"
which has nothing to do with Lodi's encroachment permit denial.
5. His opinions regarding new construction survey and market data, traffic pattern
analyses, and parking data, as follows:
The three car garage scenario with a twenty foot approach is quite
common in both Rosegate and many of our newer but established
neighborhoods (Sun west Meadows is a good example). Adding a
three car approach may make garage access easier but also
significantly reduces street parking in neighborhoods with
relatively tight streetscapes. This is a function of the cost conscious
drive toward smaller lot subdivisions common through many of the
current designs on the market.
And none of the vague, unidentified purported market information or traffic and parking data
has anything to do with Lodi's encroachment permit denial.
5
6. Mr. Schwabauer's personal review and evaluation of specific historical permit
issuance in Rose Gate, as well as apparently his firsthand knowledge, from site inspections and
investigations, and legal conclusions that he is absolutely certain, beyond any doubt whatsoever,
that Lodi did not issue any encroachment permits for driveway or curb cut corrections to any
"standard rectangle" lot or to FCB owner, representative, employee, contractor or friend,
obtained any encroachment permit from Lodi for correction of misaligned driveway or curb cuts,
and, in his words:
While I do acknowledge that the City provided a limited number of
encroachment permits at the beginning of construction to be used
by the developer on odd shaped lots to install a wider approach
than standard, I have toured the subdivision and believe those
exceptions were applied only to odd shaped lots. Your client's lot
is a standard rectangle so no unusual approach angles exist there. I
also toured the frontage of the property owned by the developer's
employee and confirmed that it has a standard twenty foot
approach for a two car garage. No special dispensation was granted
that individual.
7. He offers his opinions on concrete construction and engineering matters as
follows: "Adding new curb cuts at this date will decrease the life expectancy of the curb, gutter,
sidewalk and street improvements. The improvements were installed monolithically. Cutting into
them now increases the risk of water intrusion and mismatched soil compaction." Of note,
however, Mr. Schwabauer neglects to explain how, on the one hand, modification to curbs and
sidewalks will have a severely deleterious or completely destructive effect on those curbs and
sidewalks, but, on the other hand, he believes the very same deleterious or destructive effect does
not exist or is a non -issue where Lodi purportedly issued encroachment permits for "odd shaped
lots." How is that curb or sidewalk curative modifications are impossible or unacceptable in
front of standard rectangle lots, but entirely possible and acceptable in front of odd -shaped
lots?
Rightfully so, the Joneses were surprised and extremely disappointed with Mr.
Schwabauer's response to their legitimate, troubling and costly problem, especially given the
issues are not of their making. Mr. Schwabauer did not address the issues of (1) FCB's defective
design and construction, (2) Lodi's advance approval of FCB's defective and design and
construction, or Lodi's subsequent ratification and agreement with FCB, (3) Lodi's failure to
develop, approve or implement a remotely acceptable or workable solution for Rose Gate
residents affected by FCB's defective work and Lodi's approval of it, (4) Lodi's apparent
arbitrary and capricious or disparate treatment of Rose Gate residents seeking encroachment
permits to remedy grossly misaligned driveways or curb cuts, or (5) any other factors or
scenarios under which FCB, Lodi, or both, take any meaningful responsibility for the
unreasonable, troubling and costly situation facing the Joneses and other Rose Gate residents
saddled with misaligned driveways and curb cuts that result in garage bays they cannot use
safely or as intended. Instead, Mr. Schwabauer went to great lengths to shield FCB from its
mistakes, avoid relevant discussion of Lodi Municipal Code provisions and application of those
provisions to the instant matter, and exhaust every opportunity to point the finger and blame the
6
Joneses for FCB's poor work and Lodi's approval of same. Mr. Schwabauer's entire position is
one of deflection and avoidance.
By email dated August 30, 2017, we followed up with Mr. Schwabauer, thanked him for
his work on this matter, and posed several necessary follow-up questions to his many opinions
and conclusions, many of which were quite curious or otherwise obviously fall outside his
expertise.
Sadly, by email dated August 31, 2017, Mr. Schwabauer suddenly -- and incorrectly --
felt he was under "threat of litigation," being subjected to a "series of interrogatories," refused to
speak with us further and directed us to the Lodi City Attorney.
A true and correct copy of the entire email thread between our firm and Mr.
Schwabauer's office is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
Prior to our communications with Mr. Schwabauer, we had been working quite
cooperatively and effectively with the Lodi City Clerk in submitting and receiving timely and
thorough responses to California Public Records Act requests. Following our communications
with Mr. Schwabauer, however, we were informed that any and all remaining Public Records
Act requests and responses must go through and be handled by the Lodi City Attorney's Office.
We sent a follow-up Public Records Act request to Lodi on October 17, 2017, and by
statute response was due by October 27. John Fukasawa from the City Attorney's Office
contacted us to request an extension of time to respond, and of course we were happy to grant the
extension. On November 9, we received what purported to be a response to our October 17
request, but upon review discovered the response was incomplete in some areas and totally
lacking in others, especially as relating to information and materials about encroachment permits
issued to Rose Gate residents for purposes of curing misaligned driveways and curb -cuts. We
followed up with Mr. Fukasawa about the non-compliant and incomplete response, offered to
assist Lodi by further narrowing the scope of our already narrowly tailored request, and asked for
complete response the second time around. On December 5, Mr. Fukasawa asked for still more
time to respond, and we again obliged. Mr. Fukasawa assured us the Lodi City Attorney's
Office was working with Public Works and other departments and that he would respond to us
with further responses. Having not heard back from Mr. Fukasawa for months, our office sent a
follow-up communication. Mr. Fukasawa responded on March 13, 2018, again with a partial
answer to the already extremely narrowly tailored inquiry, failing to answer one of only two
requests and directing our office to visit the Lodi City website for more information.
Lodi's failure to provide us with statutory compliant and complete Public Records Act
responses is particularly problematic because Lodi has actual knowledge that the information and
materials requested under the October 17 request are necessary or appropriate for the Joneses in
pursuing their appeal of the October 26 permit denial, as well as other administrative or court
remedies.
7
B. Appeal of Permit Denial and Grounds for City Council Issuance
Lodi Public Works Department denied the Joneses' encroachment permit application on
October 26, 2017. Lodi Municipal Code section 12.04.100 provides that "[a]ny person
aggrieved by the refusal of a permit required by this article may appeal to the city council."
Upon appeal, Municipal Code section 12.04.100 provides that if the City Council finds the
following to be true, then a permit shall be granted:
1. "The applicant will be substantially damaged by the refusal to grant the
permit as requested;
2. No other reasonable method of obtaining the desired result is available
except as proposed by the applicant; and
3. The granting of the permit will not be materially detrimental to the public
interest, safety, health and welfare or injurious to other property."
1. The Joneses Have and Will Continue to Be Substantially Damaged by Lodi's
Refusal to Issue Permit
In order to access one of the garage bays for its intended use, the Joneses are required to
drive and first stop one of their vehicles on the public street in front of the home, reverse the
vehicle away from the home and then, while completely blocking the public street, reposition the
vehicle to face the home and create a straight angle to the third garage bay. They then must drive
up and over the public curb and sidewalk into the bay, essentially doing a three-point turn in the
middle of and blocking the public street in a residential neighborhood.
This elaborate requirement, necessary just for the Joneses to use their driveway, creates
unreasonable and dangerous health and welfare conditions for themselves, all vehicular, bicycle
and pedestrian users of that public street, as well as bicycle, pedestrian and other forms of users
of the public sidewalk in front of their home.
As an additional consequence, the Joneses have suffered and continue to suffer ongoing
harm to their vehicles and loss of home value, and continue to expose their neighbors and other
pedestrians to danger and increase their own potential liability for that danger.
a. Safety of the Joneses and Neighbors
The Rose Gate community is active, comprised of working, middle and upper -middle
class families who, like the Joneses, have small or school -aged children. Homeowners frequent
the streets during morning and evening work commutes. Parents walk, run, bike, skate, scoot,
etc., with their kids during evenings and weekends. Of note, the Joneses' home is situated just
two blocks from Rose Gate Park, in the heart of the Rose Gate community, where families walk,
jog, bike, etc., to play outdoors.
8
As described above, simply utilizing their third garage bay for the purpose it was
obviously intended requires the Joneses to create significant pedestrian and vehicle traffic
dangers to themselves and others in the community on sidewalks and streets for which Lodi is
responsible. Due entirely to FCB's defective construction and Lodi's refusal to issue permitting
necessary to remedy FCB's defective work and, consequential, inherently dangerous conditions,
in order for the Joneses to park their vehicle in the third garage bay, they must maneuver as
follows:
i. Drive and stop their vehicle at an angle partially perpendicular to
their home in front of Celebration Drive;
ii. Reverse the vehicle away from the home to create an angle directly
perpendicular to their home, which requires that they reverse into the middle of the public street
(blocking all forms of traffic on the public street);
iii. Reposition the vehicle forward to face the home directly
perpendicularly and create a straight line to the third garage bay;
iv. Literally drive up onto and over the public curb;
v. Drive the vehicle forward over the public sidewalk and across what
were supposed to be their front planter areas, which they already were forced to remove; and
vi. Proceed forward until the vehicle is fully housed in the garage.
Getting their vehicle out of the third bay can create even greater dangers. The Joneses
are required to reverse out of the garage and over their property, continue in reverse over the
public sidewalk, over and down the curb, and into Celebration Drive before being able to change
direction and move forward on Celebration Drive.
It is indisputable that the maneuvering required by the Joneses to simply use their third
garage bay is dangerous to themselves and others, and equally indisputable that the direct causes
are FCB's defective construction and Lodi's refusal to issue permitting necessary to remedy
FCB's defective work and, consequential, inherently dangerous conditions.
The above-described daily vehicle maneuvering by the Joneses not only has and
continues creating substantial damage to the Joneses, it creates unreasonable, totally unnecessary
and avoidable substantial risk of extreme injury or damage to the Joneses or other community
residents. The City of Lodi had constructive or actual knowledge of the foreseeable, unnecessary
risk of harm since approving FCB's subdivision plans, and Lodi has and maintains actual
knowledge of unreasonable and avoidable daily substantial risk of harm since the Joneses moved
into the home and first brought the matter to the attention of both FCB and Lodi.
9
b. Diminution or Loss of Home Value
Again, the Joneses specifically chose the three -car garage model at Rose Gate over the
option to have an additional office or bedroom. By effectively rendering the use of the third
garage bay unusable for its intended purpose or use, the Joneses are being denied the benefit of
their purchase, which can be valued at $35,044.35 when accounting for the loss of not just use of
200 square feet, but 200 square feet of space in the form of a highly desirable third garage bay.
c. Harm to the Vehicle
Each time the Joneses are required to park their vehicle in their driveway, it becomes
exposed to abnormal wear and tear that would not occur if the driveway were configured
correctly and afforded the Joneses proper shape and form of ingress and egress. The harm to the
Joneses' vehicle is ongoing. They were informed by their auto mechanic that use of their vehicle
in this manner is causing damage upwards of $7,500, depending on degree of harm to the front
end, ball joints, springs, contortion bars, etc. The vehicle damage will continue and worsen as a
direct result of the Joneses being required to continuously drive their vehicle up on over the curb
simply to gain proper access to their garage.
Due to the actual and potentially substantial costs incurred, including diminution in
property value and vehicle damage, which already totals in excess of $40,000, and the risks
involved of even greater loss or harm to the Joneses, especially in the event of an accident
stemming from continued use of a defective driveway, the Joneses are substantially damaged by
the decision to deny reasonable modifications to their driveway.
2. Issuance of Encroachment Permit is Only Reasonable Method for Relief
The Joneses have made reasonable attempts to resolve this issue, first contacting FCB, to
ask that their driveway be modified slightly in order to provide safe and reasonable access and
use of their third garage bay. FCB refuses to take responsibility for its defective work, instead
blaming the City of Lodi.
The Joneses have made numerous informal and formal requests with various Lodi
departments. Municipal Code provisions 12.04.060 and 12.04.080 require an encroachment
permit or approvals to cure and correct the grossly misaligned driveway and curb cuts. Since
establishing of Rose Gate subdivision, Lodi has issued no fewer than five (5) approved
encroachment permits for driveway modifications (for properties located at 3035 Belmont Drive,
198 Cottage Lane, 202 Jubilee Lane, 3081 Lombard Street and 58 Nobel Avenue). Additionally,
attached hereto as Exhibit C are the copies of several other applications that have been filed and
either decided upon or awaiting decision.
Lodi acknowledges the reasonableness of issuing encroachment permits to cure FCB's
defective driveway design and construction work in Rose Gate. By their October 10, 2017
permit application, the Joneses simply ask of Lodi the very same remedy and authorization that
Lodi has already provided other Rose Gate residents to cure precisely the same driveway or curb
cut misalignments.
10
3. Issuance of Permit Will Not Be Materially Detrimental to Public Interest,
Safety, Health, etc., but Failure to Issue Permit Will Be
The Joneses are unaware of any material detriment whatsoever to the public interest,
safety, health, etc., that would result from Lodi issuing an encroachment permit, which it has
already done on multiple occasions to other Rose Gate residents, to cure FCB's defective
driveway design and construction.
As described more fully above, however, there is and will continue material detriment to
health, safety and welfare of Rose Gate residents in the event Lodi refuses the Joneses'
encroachment permit application. The Rose Gate community is busy with commute traffic,
family pedestrian and other activities, park traffic, etc. Again, the maneuvering required by the
Joneses to simply use their third garage bay creates totally unnecessary and avoidable substantial
risk of extreme injury or damage to the Joneses and other community residents, and without an
encroachment permit from Lodi the risks and dangers will continue.
Moreover, the Joneses being required to drive up and over the curb and sidewalk on a
daily basis is and undoubtedly will continue damaging curb, thereby increasing the likelihood
and virtually ensuring expedited curb and sidewalk degradation and destruction.
Presently, the depth of the sidewalk attached to the Joneses driveway is 1% " thick.
However, the depth of the concrete of the sidewalk immediately to the side of the driveway, and
the portion on and over which the Joneses are forced to traverse daily, measures at a depth of
6%2". The depth difference creates a space for the Joneses' vehicles to either slam down upon or
rub against the curb in a violent manner, not only causing damage to the vehicles but also
damage to the sidewalk and curb. With that constant rub, collision and pressure, the integrity of
the sidewalk and curb will be compromised at an accelerated rate and will hasten unsafe
pedestrian conditions, drainage and runoff issues, reduced parking availability, and unsafe traffic
conditions.
Lodi, and Rose Gate community, in particular, public interest, health, safety and welfare
weigh very heavily in favor of Lodi granting the Joneses' permit application.
C. Variance as Suitable Alternative for the Joneses
We believe the facts and circumstances of the Joneses' encroachment permit application
support very strongly the City Council granting this appeal and authorizing an encroachment
permit. In the event the City Council is inclined otherwise, the Joneses' situation is perfectly
suited for a one-time code variance.
Lodi Municipal Code section 17.40.050 allows for the grant of Variances and
Administrative Deviations "when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property,
including location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other conditions, the strict
application of [the] development code denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other
property owners" or "creates an unnecessary, and non -self created, hardship or unreasonable
11
regulation which makes it obviously impractical to require compliance with the development
standards." In addition, a variance must:
1. Be necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights
possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zoning district, and denied to the
subject property owner;
2. Be consistent with the actions, goals, objectives, and policies of the general plan
and any applicable specific plan;
3. Not allow a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the
regulations governing the subject parcel and will not constitute a grant of special privileges
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning
district; and
4. Not be materially detrimental to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and land use district which
the property is located.
1. Variance is Reasonable and Appropriate
For all those reasons already outlined above, a variance allowing the Joneses to cure
FCB's defective work is entirely reasonable and appropriate. Not only would a variance have
virtually zero detrimental effect or impact on Lodi or the Rose Gate residents, granting a
variance would (a) move Lodi in line with more consistent and reasonable application of its code
provisions, (b) improve Rose Gate property values for current and prospective future purchasers,
and (c) greatly improve the Joneses' day-to-day quality of life.
2. Variance Will Increase Safety and Reduce Lodi Liability Exposure
As described above, simply utilizing their third garage bay for the purpose it was
obviously intended requires the Joneses to create significant pedestrian and vehicle traffic
dangers to themselves and others in the community on sidewalks and streets for which Lodi is
responsible. Due entirely to FCB's defective construction and Lodi's refusal to issue permitting
necessary to remedy FCB's defective work and, consequential, inherently dangerous conditions,
in order for the Joneses to park their vehicle in the third garage bay, they must maneuver as
follows:
a. Drive and stop their vehicle at an angle partially perpendicular to their
home in front of Celebration Drive;
b. Reverse the vehicle away from the home to create an angle directly
perpendicular to their home, which requires that they reverse into the middle of the public street
(blocking all forms of traffic on the public street);
12
c. Reposition the vehicle forward to face the home directly perpendicularly
and create a straight line to the third garage bay;
d. Literally drive up onto and over the public curb;
e. Drive the vehicle forward over the public sidewalk and across what were
supposed to be their front planter areas, which they already were forced to remove; and
f. Proceed forward until the vehicle is fully housed in the garage.
It is indisputable that the maneuvering required by the Joneses to simply use their third
garage bay is dangerous to themselves and others, and equally indisputable that the direct causes
are FCB's defective construction and Lodi's refusal to issue permitting necessary to remedy
FCB's defective work and, consequential, inherently dangerous conditions.
The above-described daily vehicle maneuvering by the Joneses not only has and
continues creating substantial damage to the Joneses, it creates unreasonable, totally unnecessary
and avoidable substantial risk of extreme injury or damage to the Joneses or other community
residents. The City of Lodi had constructive or actual knowledge of the foreseeable, unnecessary
risk of harm since approving FCB's subdivision plans, and Lodi has and maintains actual
knowledge of unreasonable and avoidable daily substantial risk of harm since the Joneses moved
into the home and first brought the matter to the attention of both FCB and Lodi.
"[A] public entity may be held liable for injury proximately caused by a dangerous
condition of its property if the risk of injury was reasonably foreseeable and the entity had
sufficient notice of the danger to take corrective measures." Cal. Gov't Code § 835. "[A] public
entity may be liable for a dangerous condition of public property even when the immediate cause
of a plaintiff's injury is a third party's negligent or illegal act (such as a motorist's negligent
driving), if some physical characteristic of the property exposes its users to increased danger
from third party negligence or criminality. Public entity liability lies under section 835 when
some feature of the property increased or intensified the danger to users from third party
conduct." Castro v. City of Thousand Oaks (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1451, 1457-58 (internal
citation omitted).
Public entity defendant does not have total immunity from liability under Government
Code section 835 for personal injury stemming from plan or design of construction of public
property or public improvements (like city streets and sidewalks). Public entity may have
immunity only as follows:
[W]here such plan or design has been approved in advance of the
construction or improvement by the legislative body of the public
entity or by some other body or employee exercising discretionary
authority to give such approval or where such plan or design is
prepared in conformity with standards previously so approved, if
the ... court determines that there is any substantial evidence upon
the basis of which (a) a reasonable public employee could have
13
adopted the plan or design or the standards therefor or (b) a
reasonable legislative body or other body or employee could have
approved the plan or design or the standards therefor.
Cal. Gov't Code § 830.6.
Here, in the event of major injury of the Joneses or other Rose Gate residents caused
from the Joneses being forced to make the three-point turn across Celebration Drive and the
sidewalk each and every time they use their garage third bay, it seems unlikely the courts would
find either of the following:
a. That FCB's construction defect or grossly misaligned driveways and curb
cuts were "approved in advance of the construction or improvement" by Lodi City Council or
other body; or
b. Substantial evidence that a "reasonable public employee could have
adopted the plan or design or the standards therefor" or "reasonable legislative body or other
body or employee could have approved the plan or design or the standards therefor."
Lodi would -- and rightfully so should -- have a difficult time proving with competent
evidence, much less substantial evidence, that any reasonable Lodi official or legislative body
did or could have adopted the Rose Gate construction plan involving a multitude of grossly
misaligned driveways or curb cuts that require residents, like the Joneses, to endanger
themselves and others by making three-point turns across Lodi city streets and sidewalks on a
daily basis each and every time they wish to use all or parts of their garages. Additionally, Lodi
necessarily would be required to prove the prior approval and reasonableness of its stated
position or policy of issuing only limited encroachment permits to Rose Gate residents
attempting to cure FCB's construction defects. We have obtained and evaluated substantial
documents and information from Lodi on planning, design, construction and development of the
Rose Gate community and we are unware of competent evidence, not to mention substantial
evidence, of any of the following:
a. A Lodi official or legislative body adopting a specific plan involving FCB
constructing multiple homes with multiple defects, including grossly misaligned driveways and
curb cuts;
b. A Lodi official or legislative body adopting a specific plan that includes
Lodi choosing to issue only limited encroachment permits to Rose Gate residents attempting to
cure FCB's construction defects and make their homes and city streets and sidewalks safer;
c. A Lodi official or legislative body adopting a plan involving FCB
planning, design, construction and development that necessarily would -- and did -- result in
Lodi public entity liability exposure; or
d. Any reasonable public entity official or legislative body would have
agreed or adopted the same design or construction plans.
14
And what of Mr. Schwabauer's opinion that "on balance the negative impacts to the
neighborhood [to simply issue a permit and allow proper driveway alignment] outweigh the
increased care required to park a larger utility vehicle in the third bay?" Is that going to be
Lodi's formal opinion or position if or when, God forbid, as a result of FCB's defective work
causing daily vehicle maneuvering by the Joneses, which creates totally unnecessary and
avoidable substantial risk, the Joneses or other community residents are injured?
D. Conclusion
For the many good reasons described above, the Joneses respectfully request that the City
Council grant this appeal under Municipal Code section 12.04.100 and issue an encroachment
permit adequate to allow correction of their misaligned driveway and curb cuts.
Should the City Council for some reason be disinclined to grant this appeal and issue a
permit, the Joneses respectfully request a one-time code variance under section 17.40.050
adequate to allow correction of their misaligned driveway and curb cuts.
We thank the City Council for its time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
HUGHEY LAW GROUP
1(esin
KEVIN HUGHEY
15
EXHIBIT "A"
9/7/2017 Hughey Law Group Mail - Encroachment Permit Issue with Rose Gate
Grail
Encroachment Permit Issue with Rose Gate
Tristan Hills <thills@hugheylawgroup.com>
Steve Schwabauer <sschwabauer@lodi.gov>
To: Tristan Hills <thills@hugheylawgroup.com>
Cc: Janice Magdich <jmagdich@lodi.gov>, Charles Swimley <Cswimley@lodi.gov>
Dear Mr. Hills:
Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:44 AM
Thank you for the opportunity to look into your client's concerns regarding the three car garage bays in the Rosegate
Subdivision in the City of Lodi. The City prides itself on the housing stock constructed here and desires to be
responsive to the needs of our residents. Unfortunately I do not see a solution that the City can offer to your client in
this case. I do not come to that conclusion lightly and did spend a significant amount of time reviewing the project
before coming to that conclusion and would like to share with you my concerns about your proposed solution.
1) The three car garage scenario with a twenty foot approach is quite common in both Rosegate and many of
our newer but established neighborhoods (Sun west Meadows is a good example). Adding a three car approach may
make garage access easier but also significantly reduces street parking in neighborhoods with relatively tight
streetscapes. This is a function of the cost conscious drive toward smaller lot subdivisions common through many of
the current designs on the market.
2) Adding new curb cuts at this date will decrease the life expectancy of the curb, gutter, sidewalk and street
improvements. The improvements were installed monolithically. Cutting into them now increases the risk of water
intrusion and mismatched soil compaction.
3) I did my own site tour and was able to park a Chevy Tahoe in one of the third stall units with a two car width
approach. I will admit that I had to take my time but I did not have to make any three point turns or leave the
concrete driveway to either enter or exit the single stall.
4) I contacted the developer and asked whether the sales agreement included any disclosures regarding the
tight nature of the third bay. He provided a copy of a disclosure signed by your client acknowledging the matter and
waiving any claims regarding it. I also confirmed that models were constructed and available for view with the two
car width approach prior to your client's purchase.
5) While I do acknowledge that the City provided a limited number of encroachment permits at the beginning
of construction to be used by the developer on odd shaped lots to install a wider approach than standard, I have
toured the subdivision and believe those exceptions were applied only to odd shaped lots. Your client's lot is a
standard rectangle so no unusual approach angles exist there. I also toured the frontage of the property owned by
the developer's employee and confirmed that it has a standard twenty foot approach for a two car garage. No special
dispensation was granted that individual.
Although I do regret your client's disappointment with the final product, on balance the negative impacts to the
neighborhood outweigh the increased care required to park a larger utility vehicle in the third bay. This is especially
true in light of the disclosure and waiver signed by your client. Again, my regrets that I cannot find a solution to your
client's concerns. If anything above is in error I would be happy to discuss it further.
haps://mMI.google.com/mail/u/ORui=2&Ik=ac2G57b133&jsver=EIWGK3tyASk.en.&view=pi&msg=15e3347549a99709f&search=inbox&siml= 504754%99709f 1/3
9/7/2017 Hughey Law Group Mail - Encroachment Permit Issue with Rose Gate
Steve Schwabauer
Lodi City Manager
From: Tristan Hills [mailto:thills@hugheylawgroup.com]
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 1:58 PM
To: Steve Schwabauer
Subject: Re: Encroachment Permit Issue with Rose Gate
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
Hughey Law Group
520 9th Street, Suite 102
Sacramento, CA 95814
0: 916.758.2100 ext. 107
F: 916.758.2200
thills@hugheylawgroup.com
www.hugheylawgroup.com
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient. Unauthorized interception, review, use, or disclosure is prohibited
and may violate applicable laws including, but not limited to, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the
intended recipient, please immediately contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.
Tristan Hills
Due Diligence Director
baps://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=ec2657bf33&jsver=EIWGX3tyA5k.eei.&view=pi&msgWlye347549a99709r&search=inbox&siml=lSe.347549a99709{ 2/3
EXHIBIT "B"
GM1I
Fwd: Encroachment Permit Issue with Rose Gate
Mary Lao <mlao@hugheylawgroup.com>
Kevin Hughey <khughey@hugheylawgroup.com> Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 7:14 PM
To: Steve Schwabauer <sschwabauer@lodi.gov>
Cc: Janice Magdich <jmagdich@lodi.gov>, Charles Swimley <Cswimley@lodi.gov>, Tristan Hills
<thills@hugheylawgroup.com>, Mary Lao <mlao@hugheylawgroup.com>, Galen Gentry <ggentry@hugheylawgroup.com>
No interrogatories or threats, just requests for information supporting your many factual and legal conclusions you set
forth to blame the Jones' for FCB's wrongful acts and omissions. We'd hoped for unbiased, independent, and meaningful
evaluation from your office.
Going forward, we're happy to work with Ms. Magdich.
Thanks, Steve.
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Steve Schwabauer <sschwabauer@lodi.gov> wrote:
Mr. Hughey:
1 can only interpret a lawyer's reference to further action, followed by a series of interrogatories to be a threat of
litigation. Accordingly, I must regretfully, but cordially decline to address your questions and ask that you refer all
further correspondence in this matter to Janice Magdich, legal counsel for the City. Ms. Magdich is copied above.
Steve Schwabauer
From: Kevin Hughey [mailto:khughey@hugheylawgroup.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 5:44 PM
To: Steve Schwabauer
Cc: Janice Magdich; Charles Swimley; Tristan Hills; Mary Lao; Galen Gentry
Subject: Fwd: Encroachment Permit Issue with Rose Gate
Hello, Steve. Thanks very much for responding to our inquiries and concerns regarding FCB's construction defects, the
impact of same on our clients and others in the Rose Gate community, and the City of Lodi's position and opinion.
Tristan Hills is locked up in a conference this afternoon and your email was forwarded to me for quick response.
Now that we have official response from the City of Lodi, we anticipate taking further action. In the meantime, kindly
see our follow-up questions or concerns below in red. We appreciate very much your continued attention to this matter
and ask for prompt response to the follow-up questions and concerns below.
In addition to the below, kindly provide us the names of all FCB representatives with whom you spoke or corresponded
during your evaluation described below, as well as dates of meetings and conversations.
Again, can't thank you enough for your time and effort on this important matter. We look forward to working together
much more on this dispute and these issues. Thanks.
-------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Tristan Hills <thills@hugheylawgroup.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 12:49 PM
Subject: Fwd: Encroachment Permit Issue with Rose Gate
To: Kevin Hughey <khughey@hugheylawgroup.com>, Galen Gentry <ggentry@hugheylawgroup.com>, Mary Lao
<mlao@hugheylawgroup.com>
From: Steve Schwabauer <sschwabauer@lodi.gov>
Date: August 30, 2017 at 11:44:10 AM PDT
To: 'Tristan Hills' <thills@hugheylawgroup.com>
Cc: Janice Magdich <jmagdich@lodi.gov>, Charles Swimley <Cswimley@lodi.gov>
Subject: RE: Encroachment Permit Issue with Rose Gate
Dear Mr. Hills:
Thank you for the opportunity to look into your client's concerns regarding the three car garage bays
in the Rosegate Subdivision in the City of Lodi. The City prides itself on the housing stock constructed
here and desires to be responsive to the needs of our residents. Unfortunately I do not see a solution
that the City can offer to your client in this case. I do not come to that conclusion lightly and did
spend a significant amount of time reviewing the project before coming to that conclusion and would
like to share with you my concerns about your proposed solution.
1) The three car garage scenario with a twenty foot approach is quite common in both Rosegate
and many of our newer but established neighborhoods (Sun west Meadows is a good example).
Adding a three car approach may make garage access easier but also significantly reduces street
parking in neighborhoods with relatively tight streetscapes. This is a function of the cost conscious
drive toward smaller lot subdivisions common through many of the current designs on the
market.
Kindly advise the bases and expertise used to reach your determinations and opinions, including the
nexus between "cost conscious drive toward smaller lot subdivisions" and totally misaligned and
defective driveway and curb cuts. Smaller lots, if even relevant in this case, do not seem related or
relevant to misaligned and defective driveway curb cuts. Driveway and curbs are defective, period,
and the whether or not cured by FCB the lot size remains the same.
Also, kindly explain how misaligned and defective driveway curb cuts are related or relevant to
"current designs on the market."
Last, kindly explain how generalized planning or building in hypothetical or other projects is related or
relevant to our clients' misaligned and defective driveway curb cuts.
2) Adding new curb cuts at this date will decrease the life expectancy of the curb, gutter,
sidewalk and street improvements. The improvements were installed monolithically. Cutting into
them now increases the risk of water intrusion and mismatched soil compaction.
Kindly advise the bases and expertise used to reach your determinations and opinions, including
life expectancy analysis, water intrusion risk, etc., and any expert advice or opinion you obtained in
connection with same.
3) I did my own site tour and was able to park a Chevy Tahoe in one of the third stall units with
a two car width approach. I will admit that I had to take my time but I did not have to make any three
point turns or leave the concrete driveway to either enter or exit the single stall.
Kindly advise the bases and expertise used to reach your determinations and opinions, including the
dates of your tour and the specific properties you visited, the home in which you parked your vehicle,
and anyone who was present or witnessed.
4) I contacted the developer and asked whether the sales agreement included any disclosures
regarding the tight nature of the third bay. He provided a copy of a disclosure signed by your client
acknowledging the matter and waiving any claims regarding it. I also confirmed that models were
constructed and available for view with the two car width approach prior to your client's purchase.
Adequate or any disclosure is one of the factual issues in this dispute. FCB claiming waiver
or acknowledgment is a conclusory contention from only one party to the dispute, our clients contend
otherwise. Kindly advise the FCB individuals with whom you spoke regarding alleged disclosure.
Waiver or acknowledgement is a legal conclusion, even assuming some kind of disclosure, advancing
only FCB's version of events, which conveniently also better serves the City of Lodi. Kindly advise how
you reached the legal conclusion of waiver of acknowledgement, as well as the identify of counsel you
may have consulted as part of same.
Kindly explain how and to what degree you "also confirmed that models were constructed and
available for view with the two car width approach prior to your client's purchase," as well as how
that is relevant to our clients' specific and actual misaligned and defective driveway curb cuts
5) While I do acknowledge that the City provided a limited number of encroachment permits at
the beginning of construction to be used by the developer on odd shaped lots to install a wider
approach than standard, I have toured the subdivision and believe those exceptions were applied only
to odd shaped lots. Your client's lot is a standard rectangle so no unusual approach angles exist
there. I also toured the frontage of the property owned by the developer's employee and confirmed
that it has a standard twenty foot approach for a two car garage. No special dispensation was granted
that individual.
Kindly advise the bases and expertise used to reach your determinations and opinions, including the
dates of your tour and the specific properties you visited.
Although I do regret your client's disappointment with the final product, on balance the negative
impacts to the neighborhood outweigh the increased care required to park a larger utility vehicle in
the third bay. This is especially true in light of the disclosure and waiver signed by your client. Again,
my regrets that I cannot find a solution to your client's concerns. If anything above is in error I would
be happy to discuss it further.
First, "negative impacts to the neighborhood outweigh the increased care required to park a larger
utility vehicle in the third bay" doesn't appear relevant to FCB's contention that it provided some kind
of waiver and acknowledgement allegedly adopted by our clients. Kindly explain the nexus if we're
missing it.
Second, please explain how you reach your conclusion on the outcome of the balance you describe.
Steve Schwabauer
Lodi City Manager
From: Tristan Hills [mailto:thills@hugheylawgroup.com]
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 1:58 PM
To: Steve Schwabauer
Subject: Re: Encroachment Permit Issue with Rose Gate
Hi Steve,
I wanted to follow up with you regarding the FCB Rose Gate matter and see if you've had a chance to
speak to Public Works. If it is convenient for you, I can give you a call to discuss what you have
discovered and get your take on the situation.
Best,
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Steve Schwabauer <sschwabauer@lodi.gov> wrote:
Thank you Mr. Hills. I will follow up with Public Works Staff. If you have not heard from me within ten
business days, please get back in touch with me.
Steve
From: Tristan Hills [mailto:thills@hugheylawgroup.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 4:50 PM
To: Steve Schwabauer
Subject: Encroachment Permit Issue with Rose Gate
Mr. Schwabauer,
You spoke with Kevin Hughey and our office a couple weeks ago regarding an encroachment permit
issue with one of our clients and asked that we send a follow-up email for you to investigate.
To recap as briefly as possible, our client purchased a home in the Rose Gate development last year and
was told that her family would be receiving a fully functioning and accessible driveway to a three -car
garage. It was quickly discovered that, due to the sidewalk location and driveway configuration, it was
impossible to navigate any typical car into the third garage bay without driving over the sidewalk and
damaging the vehicle. We reviewed the property (3031 Celebration Drive) and it does appear that the
driveway has been constructed in a poor manner, restricting the usual/expected usage of a driveway.
Our client made multiple requests for FCB to modify the driveway and they indicated that she must go
through the city, but told her it wouldn't be a problem. Her encroachment permit was, as expected,
denied. Since, she became aware of 4-6 driveway modification permits having been approved for homes
in Rose Gate. Concerned, she contacted our office a few months ago.
Prior to contacting you, I have had conversations with Denise Wyman and Lyman Chang about the
encroachment process (the general "moratorium", 50% frontage requirements, etc.) and reviewed the
multiple encroachment permits that were submitted by FCB and approved.
Our client, through her own investigation has found multiple homes with the issue, and spoken to various
other buyers who are either upset or have refused to purchase homes in Rose Gate due to this specific
issue. The homes that we are aware of with this issue are located at:
• 3045 Celebration Drive
• 3039 Celebration Drive
• 3041 Lombard Street
• 3049 Lombard Street
• 55 Nobel Avenue
• 90 Nobel Avenue
Presently, the homes that have been modified that we are aware of are:
• 202 Jubilee Lane
• 2776 Ambrosia Lane
• 3035 Belmont Drive
Our hope is to figure out an administrative solution for making rather minor modifications to the driveway
and sidewalk so that our client and her family can enjoy the use of their home.
Feel free to call (916.758.2100 ext. 107) or email (thills@hugheylawgroup.com) if you need any additional
information to look into this matter. If you have any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them.
Best.
Tristan Hills
Due Diligence Director
Hughey Law Group
520 9th Street, Suite 102
Sacramento, CA 95814
0: 916.758.2100 ext. 107
F: 916.758.2200
thills@hugheylawgroup.com
www.hugheylawgroup.com
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally
privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient. Unauthorized interception, review,
use, or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including, but not limited to, the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately contact the sender
and destroy all copies of the communication.
Tristan Hills
Due Diligence Director
Hughey Law Group
520 9th Street, Suite 102
EXHIBIT "C"
City of Lodi
Public Works Department
Encroachment Permit
Application (Construction)
Permission is requested to encroach on the City of Lodi's Right of Way as follows: (Complete all
items. Use NA, if not applicable. Application is not complete until all required attachments are included.)
l
1. Permit Address or Street Name 'i❑ 3 1 i . le c : I t L y . , ;
2. Cross Street (Distance and direction from site)
�i C.e :ers+fioq4;
ti
3. Applicant -�'c C. �r�r��'� 3C 31 l]t jrui I A 1..c2 L /2 • bj• !'i 7, 4/7/5 —
Name Address, a City State Zip Phone No
4. Contractor lir ,an GE, is Poji,x t, 9 ,A. f s r+n C A q'.- 2-a
Name Address Cify j r State) Zip
201 112 2I1t 200t•104.t71i /1L221
Office Phone No, Cellular Phone No. License No
5. Estimated Start Date
Estimated Completion Date
6. Estimated Cost in City Right -of -Way (Excluding material Casis) lr r {'}
7. Work Description (Fully describe work within City's Right -of -Way, including any street or lane closures.
Attach separate sheet if necessary. Attach complete plans, specifications, calculations, maps, etc.,
where applicable.):
e,.i -
' J(t_ O4. )1 lG
� L..- (6 Lk: -(2,t, ('1Lv r 51 P Gk 1.) p c:c i. c- L., CLA v i e t ri J t J.P UJ i'I of k:
Ct. vvk v e (1 ' (iv , •..• r r. c r,.i e y CL,.... b r ') t, r2 trLt (r 3 t c` V
h c>L L
8. Additional Information (heck one or more of the following):
❑ Sidewalk Replacement/ Installation: Length
D riveway Replacement/ Installation (Check one):
gy
Residential Width 1 Lineal feet
0 Commercial Width ,Lineal feet
Gutter Type (Check one if applicable):
❑ Square (15" gutter) ((Vertical (24" gutter) e`it 5i--:%. A G�
❑ Rolled at DrivewaysCt.J ❑ Other__...
❑ Utility Work
❑ Excavation 0 Directional Boring [D Other
Max. Depth Avg. Depth _ Avg. Width Length
Surface Type Conduit: Type Diameter
❑ Other (Describe):
The undersigned agrees to indemnify and save the City of Lodi free and harmless from any liability in accordance with the provisions of
Lodi Municipal Code (LMC) Sec. 12.04.040. Permittee is specifically aware of LMC Sec. 12.04.290 thereof relating to the relocation or
removal of said encroachment if future construction requires such relocation. Permit void if work not started within 6 months of permit
date. The undersigned agrees and understands that a permit can be denied ora bond required for non -payment of prior or present
permit fees, that the work will be done in accordance with City of Lodi rules and regulations subject to Inspection and approval. Permit
application fees are non-refundable. if the work for which this permit has been issued has not been completed within 6 months of permit
date, the City of Lodi shall have the right to complete the work, and to file a Cause of Action to recoup the City's expenses in completing
the work and for all other costs and fees in accordance with the provisions of the Lodi Municipal Code Section 12.04.120.
Lineal feet Sidewalk Width feet (Excluding curb)
DATE 3'3 1 r SIGNED
LcA
OFFICE -USE ONLY
PERMIT STAT) S:
PERMIT NO :PENDING ❑FINAL
DATE & TIME RECEIVED ®DENIEDN THDRAVNV
FEE:
Minimum amount (Balance to be collected al permit issuance)
TOTAL FEE:
EncroachmentPermitApp.doc 3/12/2004
City of Lodi
Public Works Department
Encroachment Permit
Application (Construction)
Permission is requested to encroach on the City of Lodi's Right of Way as follows: (Complete all
items. Use NA, if not applicable. Application is not complete until all required attachments are included.)
1. Permit Address or Street Name 3031 Celebration Drive
2. Cross Street (Distance and direction from site)
3. Applicant Staci Jones 3031 Celebration Dr. Lodi CA 95242 209.747.6715
Name Address City State Zip Phone No.
4. Contractor Brian Gates PO Box 69 Burson CA 95225
Name Address City State Zip
209.772.2171 209.304.1212 776221
Office Phone No Cellular Phone No. License No
5. Estimated Start Date 11/1/17 Estimated Completion Date 11/8/17
6. Estimated Cost in City Right -of -Way (Excluding material costs) $1500
7. Work Description (Fully describe work within City's Right -of -Way, including any street or lane closures.
Attach separate sheet if necessary. Attach complete plans, specifications, calculations, maps, etc.,
where applicable.):
Remove and relocate driveway.
8. Additional Information (Check one or more of the following):
❑ Sidewalk Replacement/ Installation: Length Lineal feet Sidewalk Width feet (Excluding curb)
❑ Driveway Replacement/ Installation (Check one):
Residential 15 Lineal feet
El Commercial WidthWidth Lineal feet
Gutter Type (Check one if applicable):
❑ Square (15" gutter) al Vertical (24" gutter)
❑ Rolled 0 Driveway 0 Other
❑ Utility Work
❑ Excavation 0 Directional Boring 0 Other
Max. Depth Avg. Depth Avg. Width Length
Surface Type Conduit: Type Diameter
❑ Other (Describe+:
The undersigned agrees to indemnify and save the City of Lodi free and harmless from any liability in accordance with the provisions of
Lodi Municipal Code (LMC) Sec. 12.04.040. Permittee is specifically aware of LMC Sec. 12.04.290 thereof relating to the relocation or
removal of said encroachment if future construction requires such relocation. Permit void if work not started within 6 months of permit
date. The undersigned agrees and understands that a permit can be denied or a bond required for non-payment of prior or present
permit fees, that the work will be done in accordance with City of Lodi rules and regulations subject to inspection and approval. Permit
application fees are non-refundable. If the work for which this permit has been issued has not been completed within 6 months of permit
date, the City of Lodi shall have the right to complete the work, and to file - use of Action to recoup the City's expenses in completing
the work and for all other costs and fees in a..ar.ance with the provisio • e Lodi Municipal Code Section 12.04.120.
DATE 10/10/17 SIGNED
OFFICE USE ONLY PERMIT STATUS:
PERMIT NO. ['PENDING ['FINAL
DATE & TIME RECEIVED ❑DENIED/WITHDRAWN
FEE:
Minimum amount (Balance to be collected at permit issuance)
TOTAL FEE:
EncroachmentPermitApp.doc 3/12/2004
ROSE GATE
INFORMATION & DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
ROSE GATE
City of Lodi
This Disclosure Statement ("Disclosure Statement") is made in reference to, and shall be deemed a part,
of Rose Gate New Home Purchase Contract (the "Agreement") entered into by and between -
h+ c �n�., 2 (collectively, "Buyer" or "You") and W.L. Investors
LP, a California limited parte ("Seller") for the purchase by Buyer and the sale by Seller of the "Property"
described in the Agreement. apitalized terms not defined in this Disclosure Statement shall have the same
meaning given to those same terms in the Agreement.
Buyer should carefully read and review the enclosed information, which could be material to Buyer's
decision to purchase a home at the Rose Gate project (the "Project"). This General Disclosure Statement is by no
means intended to be all-inclusive and does not relieve or otherwise modify Buyer's obligations to review other
documents provided by Seller, or to diligently perform a thorough physical inspection of the Property and the
surrounding areas, and to satisfy himself/herself that the physical conditions are acceptable as they pertain to the
intended uses of the Property.
To Seller's actual knowledge, the information in this Disclosure Statement is current as of the issue date of
this statement. However, Buyer should read all documents provided by Seller as a part of the Agreement, including
but not limited to this Disclosure Statement, Rose Gate Subdivision, Lodi, California, Protective Restrictions, which
were recorded in the Official Records of the County of San Joaquin, State of California as Document Number 2015-
038063 (the "CC&R's"), the Amended and Restated Master Declaration for Title 7 & Dispute Resolution for Rose
Gate (the "Master Title 7 Declaration"), and the Preliminary Title Report before Buyer enters into the Agreement.
Further, Buyer should independently verify the information regarding any matter of concern to Buyer regarding this
purchase. Because much of the information included in this Disclosure Statement has been obtained from other
sources (e.g., governmental and other public agencies, public records, etc.) and because the information is subject to
change for reasons beyond Seller's control, Seller cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information
disclosed. Further, Seller has no obligation to advise Buyer of any such changes, and Buyer should contact the
appropriate agency directly for the most up-to-date information.
Buyer is advised to visit the Project and to drive around the general vicinity surrounding the Project on
several occasions on different days and at different times to become familiar with physical and other conditions, and
to determine if there are material factors that might affect Buyer's decision to purchase a home in the Project.
It is Buyer's responsibility, before signing the Agreement, to carefully review all documents provided by
Seller and to seek additional information from other sources (including, but not limited to, appropriate consultants,
the City of Lodi (the "City"), the County of San Joaquin (the "County"), and/or other governmental jurisdictions
and agencies) as may be reasonably necessary to confirm the information in such documents is true and correct and
to determine what additional facts or conditions may affect the Property or the Project. By signing the Agreement,
Buyer acknowledges that Buyer has conducted or will conduct within seven (7) days after Seller accepts Buyers
signed Offer, its own due diligence investigation of the Property such that Buyer is aware of circumstances,
conditions, and situations that might impact the Property or Buyer's lifestyle on the Property.
By placing Buyer's initials on the bottom of each page, Buyer acknowledges that Buyer has read,
understands and agrees with, and waives any claims against Seller arising out of, the matters disclosed therein.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. THE ROSE GATE PROJECT 2
1.1 VARIATIONS FROM PLANS AND MAPS 2
1.2 VIEWS 2
1.3 MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY AND STREET TREES 2
1.4 MAIL AND MAILBOXES 2
1.5 LEASE OF DWELLINGS 2
2. THE COMMUNITY AND SURROUNDING AREA 2
2.1 NOISE 2
3. NATURAL CONDITIONS 3
3.1 SOILS CONDITIONS 3
3.2 EARTHQUAKE INFORMATION 3
3.3 INSECTS, PESTS, RODENTS 3
4. THE HOME/LOT 3
4.1 FOUNDATIONS 3
4.2 WATER -CONSERVING PLUMBING FIXTURES 3
4.3 WATER -CONSERVING IRRIGATION SYSTEM 3
4.4 LAUNDRY FACILITIES 4
4.5 FORMALDEHYDE 4
4.6 DRAINAGE AND GRADING 4
4.7 GARAGE / DRIVEWAY LIMITATIONS ON USE AND ACCESS 4
Project: Rose Gate
Document: General Disclosures
Revision Date: October 7, 2015
1
BUYER'S Initials
ROSE GATE
5. BUYER MODIFICATIONS AND/OR IMPROVEMENTS 4
5.1 NO RELIANCE ON SELLER FOR BUYER'S IMPROVEMENTS 4
5.2 BUYER'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPROVEMENTS 5
6. RECORDED DOCUMENTS / RESTRICTIONS ON USE 5
6.1 CC&Rs 5
6.2 SELLER NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CC&R ENFORCEMENT 5
6.3 EASEMENTS/RESTRICTIONS ON USE 5
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 5
7.1 ONGOING CONSTRUCTION 5
7.2 COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION 6
7.3 PUBLIC SCHOOLS 6
7.4 UTILITIES AND SERVICES 6
7.5 MATERIALS AVAILABLE FOR BUYER'S REVIEW 6
1. THE ROSE GATE PROJECT
1.1 VARIATIONS FROM PLANS AND MAPS
The plotting of homes on the lots, as shown on any sales map, preliminary plot plan. and/or other plans or
maps are preliminary and are subject to change. Similarly all measurements on such plans or maps are approximate.
There may be some variations between depiction and actual construction with respect to side, rear and front
dimensions as a consequence of various factors, including City building ordinances. Field conditions may also
require Seller to move fences, fence posts, retaining walls, utility structures, mailboxes, and/or other improvements
from the locations shown on plans or maps.
1.2 VIEWS
Seller does not warrant any privacy or protected views within the community or on adjacent property and
no home or lot is assured privacy or the existence or unobstructed continuation of any particular view. Any view
from the Project, whether developed or undeveloped, is not intended as part of the value of the Property and is not
guaranteed.
1.3 MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY AND STREET TREES
While many people assume that the City has the responsibility to maintain the City sidewalk, state law
provides otherwise. Streets and Highway Code Sections 5600, et seq., and particularly Section 5610, places that
responsibility on the owners of adjacent property. Buyer is likewise responsible for maintaining the curb and any
parkway strip between the sidewalk and curb in front of Buyer's home. Buyer must not alter the landscaping
materials, including, but not limited to the trees and other vegetation, located in the parkway strip without the
consent of the City.
1.4 MAIL AND MAILBOXES
The U.S. Postmaster may require the use of cluster mailboxes within the Project for efficiency of mail
service. The Postmaster determines the location and grouping of these cluster mailboxes on various lots within the
Project. If you have any questions, please call or visit a U.S. Post Office. Seller reserves the right to modify
mailbox configurations and makes no representation or warranty regarding the number of mailboxes at a given a
location or the distance from a particular home to its assigned mailbox. Seller may locate a cluster mailbox on the
Property, in which case Buyer's use of the Property may be impacted or restricted by the presence of such mailbox.
1.5 LEASE OF DWELLINGS
Although Seller desires to sell all of the homes to be built, circumstances may lead Seller to rent or lease
one or more of the homes at the Project on a short or long term basis. Seller therefore reserves the right to lease
homes in the Project and makes no representation that Buyer has any similar right to lease.
2. THE COMMUNITY AND SURROUNDING AREA
2.1 NOISE
Buyer may experience various levels of ambient and/or interrnittent noise at the Property at any time, twenty-four
hours a day, seven days a week. Commercial, residential, industrial and agricultural uses of property in the vicinity
of the Property may be the sources of such noise. Seller has no way of knowing or predicting the noise that may be
experience while occupying the Property. If Buyer is concerned about noise levels at the Property, Buyer should
undertake its own investigation and be satisfied before executing the Agreement or purchasing the Property.
Project: Rose Gate
Document: General Disclosures
Revision Date: October 7, 2015
2
BUYER'S Initials
ROSE GATE
3. NATURAL CONDITIONS
3.1 SOILS CONDITIONS
One or more soil reports have been prepared for the Project and are available for review in the Seller's sales
office. According to the `Geotechnical Exploration Report' prepared by ENGEO Incorporated, dated November 19,
2013 (the "Soils Report"), with some exceptions, "the near -surface soils encountered consisted predominantly of
very loose to medium dense silty and clayey sands..." Buyer is strongly encouraged to review such soils reports
prior to executing the Agreement. Buyer should give special consideration and attention to the soils conditions and
soil composition when planning and/or installing improvements such as masonry walls, planters, concrete slabs,
spas, decking, and other concrete or masonry improvements, particularly when these improvements are installed
near the home's foundation and/or retaining walls. Before constructing any improvements, be sure that adequate
precautions have been incorporated into the design, including, but not limited to, adequate drainage and structural
provisions. Damage to improvements, including but not limited to the home's foundation and retaining walls, as
well as neighboring property owners' improvements, may result from soils expanding and/or shrinking if sufficient
precautions are not used.
3.2 EARTHQUAKE INFORMATION
The Project is located near the San Francisco Bay Area, which is considered one of the most seismically
active regions in the United States. Significant earthquakes have occurred in the San Francisco Bay Area and are
believed to be associated with crustal movements along a system of sub -parallel fault zones that generally trend in a
northwesterly direction. Buyer's home is not warranted against damage due to earthquakes. Each Buyer is
responsible for conducting his or her own investigation, if any, regarding the potential for earthquakes. If Buyer
elects to obtain earthquake insurance for Buyer's Property, Buyer is advised to contact his/her own earthquake
insurance carrier. For additional Information, please refer to the Natural Hazards Disclosure.
3.3 INSECTS, PESTS, RODENTS
All construction sites represent some levet of disturbance to the ecosystems and soils at the construction
site. Buyer is advised that due to the proximity of the Subdivision to open space and/or agricultural land, wild
animals, rodents, and pests including but not limited to skunks, raccoons, opossums, dogs, cats, snakes, rats, mice,
ants, bees, wasps, roaches and other insects are expected to be found in or around the Subdivision and the Property
and may be disturbed or displaced and seek new locations Buyer is hereby advised of the potential danger and
inconvenience that may be caused by such creatures. Buyer should provide appropriate safeguards and take
sufficient mitigation or remediation measures should this problem occur on the Property. The occurrence of such
insects, pests, rodents or vermin are not covered under the Seller's Warranty.
4. THE HOME/LOT
4.1 FOUNDATIONS
The foundations of the homes are described as either slab -on -grade, post -tensioned slab, pier and grade
beam, spread footings, or thickened mat -type slabs, or some combination thereof. Changes to foundations should be
undertaken only under the advice and supervision of competent and licensed geotechnical and structural engineers.
Changes to the foundation may destroy the structural integrity of the foundation and the home, and may void any
warranty under which Buyer would otherwise be covered. Be advised that any changes Buyer makes to the
foundation of Buyer's home will relieve Seller of any liability for damage resulting therefrom.
Some level of foundation settlement may occur as the soil beneath the foundation expands or contracts over
time. Such settlement occurs in virtually all construction. During this process, natural phenomena such as hairline
cracks, shrinkage, joint separations, and slight re -alignments of molding, trims and door jams may appear in your
home. In addition, various appliances and operating components of your home may also require fine-tuning or
adjustment after initial move -in.
4.2 WATER -CONSERVING PLUMBING FIXTURES
Each home is fitted with low -flow toilets and showerheads for water conservation purposes. These fixtures
may provide less water pressure than Buyer may be accustomed to, but are fully functional. Low -flow toilets may
require two flushes in normal use, and are subject to some degree of special care. No item other than those
specifically meant for toilet disposal should be flushed. Paper towels, excessive tissue, feminine hygiene products,
cat litter, and other flushed matter may cause a stoppage. In the event of stoppage caused by improper use, the use
of Seller's plumbing contractor may result in a charge for a service call. If evidence indicates improper usage of the
toilet and/or damage to floors, etc., has occurred, neither Seller, nor Seller's plumbing contractor shall be held
responsible.
4.3 WATER -CONSERVING IRRIGATION SYSTEM
Homes in the Project may be constructed with drip irrigation in the planter beds, weather sensor irrigation
timers, drought tolerant plant materials, and other potential water conserving irrigation and landscaping features.
Project: Rose Gate
Document: General Disclosures
Revision Date: October 7, 2015
3
BUYER'S Initials
�i'
ROSE GATE
4.4 LAUNDRY FACILITIES
Prior to purchasing a clothes washer or dryer, Buyer should ensure that the laundry room area in Buyer's
home offers sufficient clearance to accommodate the proposed appliance(s). In this regard, Seller makes no
representations or warranties that any such appliances Buyer currently owns may be accommodated within Buyer's
new home in the Project.
4.5 FORMALDEHYDE
WARNING! MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THESE HOMES WILL
EXPOSE BUYER TO FORMALDEHYDE, A SUBSTANCE KNOWN TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TO CAUSE CANCER.
The following information is intended to explain the warning furnished by Seller for exposures to
formaldehyde, a substance known to the State of California to cause cancer.
The homes in the Project have not been tested for formaldehyde levels. Most homes that have been tested
elsewhere do contain formaldehyde, although the concentrations vary from home to home with no obvious
explanation for the differences. One of the problems is that many suppliers of building materials and home products
do not provide information on chemical ingredients to builders. In the absence of specific information on these
homes, and in light of the materials used in their construction, we believe that a warning is warranted.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency, the California Air Resources Board, and other
agencies have measured the presence of formaldehyde in the indoor air of homes in California. Levels of
formaldehyde that present significant cancer risks have been measured in most homes. Formaldehyde is present in
the air because it is emitted by a variety of building materials and home products purchased by the builder from
material suppliers. The materials and products include carpeting, pressed wood products, insulation, plastics, and
glue.
Buyer may have further questions about these issues. Seller is willing to share any further information it
has obtained and will provide, upon request, a list of known material suppliers that may be contacted for further
information. For further information on Proposition 65, Buyer may contact the State of California Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Agency at (916) 445-6903.
4.6 DRAINAGE AND GRADING
Prior to beginning construction of the Project, qualified professionals were retained to provide
recommendations for the proper design and grading of the Property with respect to drainage. Any change in the
grading to install landscaping or other improvements, may adversely affect drainage and damage the home, as well
as adjacent homes. Before planning any improvements on the Property, Buyer should consult with a qualified
professional The proposed improvements must not interfere with the existing lot drainage, existing lot grading,
slopes or retaining walls. Furthermore, no changes may be made to the grading, contours or drainage, and no new
work of improvement may be made without obtaining prior approval of appropriate .governmental authorities.
Permits may also be required depending upon the extent of the work. All improvements are subject to the
requirements of the CC&Rs.
Because the soils beneath Buyer's home may expand or contract with changing moisture Levels, adequate
and proper drainage is critical in order to ensure that these expected movements stay within serviceability criteria
For this reason, it is particularly important to maintain proper drainage away from your home's foundation and away
from any improvements constructed by you an your lot. Buyer must maintain the slope of the finished grade away
from building exteriors, and maintain and keep clean and clear of any obstruction any drainage facility or system not
otherwise maintained by the City, including, but not limited to, drainage ditches, swales, subdrains, downspouts,
roof gutters, and similar systems.
Seller shall have no liability or responsibility in connection with any lot grading or lot drainage
modifications or any lot improvements that are made after Buyer occupies the home. This includes, but is not be
limited to, any cracking which may occur to foundations/slabs or other structures/improvements as a result of the
improvements installed by Buyer.
4.7 GARAGE / DRIVEWAY LIMITATIONS ON USE AND ACCESS
Buyer acknowledges that some vehicles may be too large to access the Property's driveway and/or garage. Buyer is
advised to carefully consider the size of the Property's garage as well as the driveway's accessibility and to
determine, prior to signing the Addendum #1 and purchasing the Home, the acceptability of the Property's garage
and driveway for Buyer's intended use. Buyer is further advised that governmental authorities may prohibit
increasing the size or location of the driveway.
5. BUYER MODIFICATIONS AND/OR IMPROVEMENTS
5.1 NO RELIANCE ON SELLER FOR BUYER'S IMPROVEMENTS
Buyer will not rely upon or make the decision to purchase Property based upon any statements made to
Buyer by Seller or its representatives concerning the placement, style, height, size or any other feature of any
Project: Rose Gate
Document: General Disclosures
Revision Date: October 7, 2015
4
BUYER'S Initials
ROSE GATE
structure, flatwork, or landscaping which Buyer may contemplate placing on the Property following acquisition of
the Property. For more information on improvements, please refer to the CC&Rs.
5.2 BUYER'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Buyer acknowledges and agrees that Seller shall not be liable or responsible for any damage to
improvements constructed by Seller that have been subsequently altered or modified by Buyer or that is the result of
improvements that have been constructed by Buyer, or for any improvements constructed by Buyer in like style to
those constructed by Seller. Improvements constructed by Buyer should not be installed, constructed or modified
without the assistance of qualified consultants in addition to proper government permits and must conform to the
requirements of the CC&Rs. Professional soils and structural engineers should be consulted to determine existing
soils conditions and the impact such conditions may have upon the proposed improvements. Any soils information
acquired by Seller for the construction of improvements within the Project is NOT available as a primary source
document for improvements contemplated by Buyer. Any building plans used by Seller for purposes of construction
of structures upon Buyer's Property are NOT available for Buyer to use for improvements contemplated by Buyer.
6. RECORDED DOCUMENTS / RESTRICTIONS ON USE
6.1 CC&Rs
All lots within the Rose Gate will be encumbered by its CC&Rs. This document will be recorded in the
County Recorder's Office prior to the close of escrow on the first lot sale within the Project.
This Disclosure Statement is a summary and highlight of information, some of which is included in the
CC&Rs, which contain several covenants, conditions and restrictions. In the event of any conflicts between this
Disclosure Statement and the CC&Rs, the CC&Rs takes precedence.
BY PURCHASING A HOME IN THE PROJECT, BUYER IS AGREEING TO THE
RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED IN THE ROSE GATE CC&Rs, WHICH INVOLVE THE USE OF
BUYER'S PROPERTY AND ANY IMPROVEMENTS OR ALTERATIONS TO THE SAME. FOR
INFORMATION AS TO BUYER'S RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS, BUYER SHOULD READ AND
UNDERSTAND THE CC&Rs.
6.2 SELLER NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CC&Rs ENFORCEMENT
Seller is NOT the enforcement agency of the Rose Gate CC&Rs. The CC&Rs state how an owner is to
proceed to enforce alleged violations of the CC&Rs.
6.3 EASEMENTS/RESTRICTIONS ON USE
Buyer should thoroughly review the Preliminary Title Report and should carefully analyze the easements
and restrictions contained therein. In addition, Buyer should evaluate the limitations and restrictions imposed on the
use of the Property by the owners of said easements.
Title to the Property shall be subject to all items of record as set forth in a title policy for the Property that
will be delivered to Buyer through escrow, as well as to all easements, restrictions, covenants, conditions, bonds,
liens and encumbrances shown on the Final Map, the plot plan, the CC&Rs, or that are necessary for the
improvement, development, and/or maintenance of the Project. Buyer may have been given a Preliminary Title
Report, which is not final. Utility easements for electrical transmission, communication, conununity water systems,
irrigation, sewer, and drainage are typical easements to be expected to affect the Property. The Property may also
subject to recorded reciprocal use agreements and/or easements.
Seller retains the right to obtain and record future easements or necessary maintenance areas for structures,
pipes, drains, landscaping, access -ways, fences, etc., on the Property, provided such easements do not materially or
substantially affect the continued use of the Property
ANY DIGGING IN OR AROUND EASEMENT AREAS, OR AREAS WHERE UNDERGROUND
UTILITIES MAY BE PRESENT, COULD RESULT IN SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH IF NOT DONE
PROPERLY. (PLEASE CONTACT UNDERGROUIVD SERVICE ALERT AT 1-800-227-2600 AT LEAST
48 HOURS BEFORE THE INTENDED DIGGING DATE AND THEY WILL SEND PEOPLE FROM ALL
OF THE PROSPECTIVE AGENCIES TO LOCATE THE UNDERGROUND SERVICES.)
7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
7.1 ONGOING CONSTRUCTION
Ongoing construction activity will continue until the Project is complete. Buyer may be impacted by
construction or street improvements or similar such activities, as well as the traffic, vibration, noise, dust, and debris
(including but not limited to nails, screws, sheetrock, wood, and other related materials in the roadway or otherwise)
that generally accompanies such construction. Generally, construction activities may take place between the hours
of 7 a.m, to 6 p.m. Monday through Sunday and on holidays.
Project: Rose Gate
Document: General Disclosures
Revision Date: October 7, 2015
5
BUYER'S Initials
ROSE GATE
7.2 COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION
Seller shall use reasonable efforts to complete the required public and private improvements affecting the
Property to allow Buyer to occupy the Property at the Close of Escrow. If Seller is unable to timely complete
exterior improvements such as finish grading, landscaping and fencing, Buyer agrees that Escrow may close and all
documents may be recorded without installation of such improvements, provided a certificate of occupancy for the
home (whether temporary or fmal) is issued by the governmental agency with jurisdiction over the Property, and
that such improvements are thereafter installed without additional cost to Buyer. Buyer shall take all reasonable
efforts necessary to initiate utility services at the Property, such as gas, electric, cable TV, and telephone services
immediately following the Close of Escrow. Buyer understands and agrees that Seller shall not be responsible for
scheduling of such utility services and that the Close of Escrow is not dependent upon utility activation. The Seller
will disconnect all utility services not already transferred into Buyer's name within 3 business days following the
close of escrow.
7.3 PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Seller makes no representations to Buyer that Buyer, or Buyer's children, are guaranteed enrollment now,
or at any time at a specific school within the local school districts.
However, Buyer should contact the school district listed above at (209) 331-7000 for complete details
regarding the schools and to confirm the enrollment of students from this Project. Seller strongly recommends that
Buyer contact the school district(s) directly for the most up-to-date information regarding placement at public
schools. School districts have the right to relocate children from one school to another at their sole discretion.
School districts may provide bus service, but Buyer should contact the school districts for verification and details.
For information on individual school scores, visit the STAR (Standardized Testing and Reporting) Results website
at http://star.cde.ca.gov. Seller makes no representations regarding the accuracy or currency of any information
listed on the STAR Results website.
7.4 UTILITIES AND SERVICES
Buyer is advised to contact the appropriate companies and/or agencies sufficiently in advance of the close
of escrow to determine the amount of such fees and to allow for scheduling of necessary utility meters and hookups.
Some cities and counties may require certain approvals prior to authorizing installation of gas meters or the
provision of other utilities. Buyer acknowledges that Seller has no control over the City or County processing of
such authorizations or the scheduling or workload of utility providers and as a result, gas or other utility services
may not be "connected" or "turned on" at the close of escrow. Buyer agrees that the lack of utility service will not
delay or extend the close of escrow. In addition, Seller has made no representation or warranty regarding the size or
location of utility easements, utility meters, boxes, pedestals, or other equipment on or near the Property. Buyer
acknowledges that the Seller will disconnect all utilities in their name oat the end of the third business day following
the close of escrow.
Seller was informed that the following utility and/or service providers may be servicing the Project:
• PG&E (Gas) (800) 743-5000
• AT&T U -verse (Cable TV, internet and phone) (800) 288-2020
• Lodi Utility (Water, sewer and electric) (209) 333-6719
• Lodi Public Works (Garbage) (209) 333-6706
However, Buyer should contact the utility and/or service providers directly for complete details regarding
such services and to confirm that such utility and/or service providers will be servicing Buyer's home. Seller makes
no warranty regarding the availability of any of the utilities/services set forth above, or as to whether or not such
utility/service providers will serve Buyer's home, or about the accuracy of the above information, which is provided
for Buyer's convenience.
Project: Rose Gate
Document: General Disclosures
Revision Date: October 7, 2015
6
BUYER'S Initials
ROSE GATE
7.5 MATERIALS AVAILABLE FOR BUYER'S REVIEW
Various materials concerning the Project and the Property are available for Buyer's review at the Seller's
sales office. Buyer is strongly encouraged to visit Seller's sales office before executing the Agreement to review all
of the materials regarding the Project and the Property.
4)Z -A -A
BUYER
LOT NO. /95 ADDRESS
CITY �j [r
257
DATE
DATE
lo�tsllS
J / 4 4 Q,4
c'/ 3
SELLER'S SALES REPRESENTATIVE
, CA TRACT NO.
Project: Rose Gate 7
Document: General Disclosures
Revision Date: October 7, 2015
/2/2 /a
DATE
LOT 19
LOT 208
939. 12'20"E
60.00'
I I N00'47'40"E 100.00'
_
R
LOT 195
6,000 S.F.
�
J
5'
V
V
V
V
--�— - — —— qC5•r
V
V
V
V
— —
5' —
Y
>K
a`
�
N -j
w
a a A �� a
. —
AI
,, «S89"1220
60,00.
LOT 196
0
0
N00'47'40"E
CELEBRATION DRIVE 2. ELATER METER = 1"
ECTRICAL SERVICE PANEL = 200 AMP
DATE: JUNE 15, 2015 3. POST CONSTRUCTION BMPS PER SWPP
WDID# 5539C369372
4. EX. DRIVEWAY APPROACH TO REMAIN U.O.N.
REVISED: NOVEMBER 2, 2015
NOTES:
1. ALL GROUND SHALL SLOPE AWAY FROM BUILDING WITH A DRAINAGE SWALE CONSTRUCTED TO MAINTAIN POSITIVE DRAINAGE.
2. ROOF DRAINS ARE TO BE DIRECTED TO A PERMEABLE AREA OR INFILTRATION TRENCH BEFORE ENTERING CITY OF LODI MUNICIPAL STORM
WATER SYSTEM. THE CAPTURE AND REUSE FOR SAME INITIAL FLOW VOLUME IS ALSO AN ACCEPTABLE BMP.
3. ELECTRICAL, CABLE, AND/OR TELEPHONE BOXES MAY BE LOCATED ON THIS LOT,
4. HOME CONTRACTOR TO COMPLY WITH CALIFORNIA CODE SECTION R401.3 AND SOILS REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS.
5. THE ROSE GATE SWPPP WDID# 5S39C369372 IS INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE,
m
LEGEND
TELEPHONE BOX
0 ® DRY UTILITY BOX
❑W WATER METER
• SEWER CLEANOUT
PER STD. PLAN 201
o CABLE UTILITY
PUE PUBLIC UTILITY
EASEMENT
DIRECTION OF
DRAINAGE
WATER LINE
LATERAL
SEWER LINE
LATERAL
ELECTRICAL
SERVICE
FIRE HYDRANT
ELECTROLIER
1A1 PAD MOUNT
TRANSFORMER
0
10
20
MASTER PLAN: 20143649
GARAGE SPACE: 623 S.F.
LOT COVERAGE AREA: 3,330 SF
ADDRESS: 3031 CELEBRATION DRIVE
PLAN & ELEVATION: 302A- EUROPEAN COTTAGE
PORCH SPACE: 37 S.F.
LOT COVERAGE:55.5%
DRAWN: RP
IIICRMCR ENGINEERING, INC.
1242 DUPONT COURT
MANA , CA 95336
ENGINEERING EL: ( 209) 239-6229
FAX : ( 209) 239 - 8839
w,wtyv:r_tm c•r e n g. c o m
LIVING SPACE: 2,335 S.F.
OPTIONS: 3 BEDROOM, CALIFORNIA ROOM
LOT NO.: 195
CHECKED: SLS
y
LODI, CALIFORNIA
FCB HOMES
PRIVACY FENCE
LOT 195
z
W
zz
W O
CONCRETE PAVING
4' 3,-9„
^/ I
•
PRIVACY FENCE
AND GATE
•
Nf
DRIVEWAY CUT, SCD
PLANTING
ROSE GATE: LOT 195
PAVING PLAN
Prepared By:
LEVESQUE DESIGN
1414 BAY STREET, SUITE 100
ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA 94501
(510) 521 6700
PROJECT: 15-101
DATE: 03.14.2016
SCALE: 1" = 10'-0"
5 10
20 30
Jennifer Ferraiolo
G-4
From: Jennifer Ferraiolo
Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2018 12:14 PM
To: 'Mary Lao'
Cc: Kevin Hughey; Tristan Hills; Galen Gentry; City Council; Steve Schwabauer; Janice
Magdich; John P. Fukasawa; Charles Swimley
Subject: RE: Request to Continue Hearing on Appeal of Encroachment Permit Denial re 3031
Celebration Drive
Thank you for your email. It was received by the City Council and forwarded to the City Manager's office and Public
Works Department for information, response, and/or handling. In addition, your correspondence will be provided to
Council as a Blue Sheet item for tonight's meeting. Council will be asked to continue the public hearing to May 16.
Jennifer M. Ferraiolo, MMC
City Clerk
P.O. Box 3006
Lodi, CA 95241-1910
(209) 333-6702
(209) 333-6807 FAX
From: Mary Lao [mailto:mlao@hugheylawgroup.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2018 12:03 PM
To: Jennifer Ferraiolo <jferraiolo@lodi.gov>
Cc: Kevin Hughey <khughey@hugheylawgroup.com>; Tristan Hills <thills@hugheylawgroup.com>; Galen Gentry
<ggentry@hugheylawgroup.com>
Subject: Request to Continue Hearing on Appeal of Encroachment Permit Denial re 3031 Celebration Drive
Dear Ms. Ferraiolo:
Our office represents appellants Erik and Staci Jones in the above -entitled matter, currently scheduled for
hearing today, May 2, 2018, at 7 p.m. We hereby request that the hearing be continued to May 16, 2018. Please
provide confirmation of the continuance.
Thank you,
Mary Lao
Operations Director
Certified Paralegal
HUGHEYL,
LAW GROUP
lj
1
Hughey Law Group
520 9th Street, Suite 230
Sacramento, CA 95814
0: 916.758.2100 ext. 110
F: 916.758.2200
mlao@ hugheylawgroup.com
www.hugheylawgroup.com
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is
solely for the use of the intended recipient. Unauthorized interception, review, use, or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable
laws including, but not limited to, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately
contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.
2
CITY COUNCIL
ALAN NAKANISHI, Mayor
JOANNE MOUNCE,
Mayor Pro Tempore
MARK CHANDLER
BOB JOHNSON
DOUG KUEHNE
CITY OF LODI
Kevin Hughey
Hughey Law Group
520 9th Street, Suite 230
Sacramento, CA 95814
CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET
P.O. BOX 3006
LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910
(209) 333-6702 / FAX (209) 333-6807
www.lodi.nov cityclefk�a lodi r ov
April 26, 2018
RE: APPEAL OF ENCROACHMENT PERMIT DENIAL
Regarding 3031 Celebration Drive, Lodi, CA
STEPHEN SCHWABAUER
City Manager
JENNIFER M. FERRAIOLO
City Clerk
JANICE D. MAGDICH
City Attorney
This letter is to notify you that a public hearing will be held by the City Council at a
Regular Meeting on Wednesday, May 2, 2018, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as
the matter can be heard, at Carnegie Forum located at 305 West Pine Street in the City
of Lodi.
This hearing is being held to consider your appeal of the Public Works Department's
encroachment permit denial for the property located at 3031 Celebration Drive. Enclosed
is a copy of the May 2, 2018, City Council agenda and staff report related to Public
Hearing Item G-4.
If you challenge the proposed action 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 Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
NOTE: Written correspondence for the City Council may be mailed in c/o the City Clerk's
Office, P.O. Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241-1910, or delivered to the City Clerk at 221 West
Pine Street, Lodi, California.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (209) 333-6702 and/or
Public Works at (209) 333-6706.
Sincerely,
►� i.,?re..dtkettig
�
nifer erraiolo, MMC
City Clerk
JMF
Enclosure
cc: Public Works Director
Community Development Department
DECLARATION OF POSTING
NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPEAL OF
ERIK AND STACI JONES REGARDING PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT'S
DENIAL OF ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR 3031 CELEBRATION DRIVE, LODI
On Thursday, May 3, 2018, in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, a copy of
a Notice of Continued Public Hearing to consider appeal of Erik and Staci Jones
regarding Public Works Department's denial of encroachment permit for
3031 Celebration Drive, Lodi (attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A") was posted at the
following locations:
Lodi City Clerk's Office
Lodi City Hall Lobby
Lodi Carnegie Forum
WorkNet Office
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 3, 2018, at Lodi, California.
PAMELA FARRIS
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
ORDERED BY:
JENNIFER M. FERRAIOLO
CITY CLERK
ELIZABETH BURGOS
ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK
N:\Administration\CLERK\Public Hearings\AFFADAVITS\DECPOST1.DOC
CITY OF LODI
Carnegie Forum
305 West Pine Street, Lodi
NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Date: May 16, 2018
Time: 7:00 p.m.
For information regarding this notice please contact:
Jennifer M. Ferraiolo
City Clerk
Telephone: (209) 333-6702
I- . ,, . _
EX II ibi: A
NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, May 16, 2018, at the hour of
7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council will
conduct a continued public hearing at the Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi,
to consider the following item:
a) Appeal of Erik and Staci Jones regarding Public Works
Department's denial of encroachment permit for
3031 Celebration Drive, Lodi.
Information regarding this item may be obtained in the Public Works Department,
221 West Pine Street, Lodi, (209) 333-6706. All interested persons are invited to
present their views and comments on this matter. Written statements may be filed with
the City Clerk, City Hall, 221 West Pine Street, 2"d Floor, Lodi, 95240, at any time prior
to the hearing scheduled herein, and oral statements nay 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, at or prior to
the close of the public hearing.
By Order of the Lodi City Council:
,r1.2fa
nifer M. rraiolo
ity Clerk
Dated: May 2, 2018
Appro ed7 t form:
John Fukasawa
Deputy City Attorney
AVISO: Para obtener ayuda interpretative con esta noticia, por favor Ilame a la oficina de la
Secretaria Municipal, a las (209) 333-6702.
CLERK\PUBHEAR\NOTICES\NOT_Appeel doc 5/2118
EXHIBIT B
MAILING LIST
Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Appeal of
Erik and Staci Jones Regarding Public Works Department's
Denial of Encroachment Permit for 3031 Celebration Drive, Lodi
Name
Address
Kevin Hughey
Hughey Law Group
520 9V' Street, Suite 230
Sacramento, CA 95814
Erik and Staci Jones
3031 Celebration Drive
Lodi, CA 95242
CITY COUNCIL
ALAN NAKANISHI, Mayor
JOANNE MOUNCE,
Mayor Pro Tempore
MARK CHANDLER
BOB JOHNSON
DOUG KUEHNE
CITY OF LODI
Kevin Hughey
Hughey Law Group
520 9th Street, Suite 230
Sacramento, CA 95814
CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET
P.O. BOX 3006
LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910
(209) 333-6702 / FAX (209) 333-6807
www.lodi.gov cityclerk a[�lodi.00v
March 29, 2018
STEPHEN SCHWABAUER
City Manager
JENNIFER M. FERRAIOLO
City Clerk
JANICE D. MAGDICH
City Attorney
RE: APPEAL OF ENCROACHMENT PERMIT DENIAL
Regarding 3031 Celebration Drive, Lodi, CA
This is to notify you that at the City Council meeting of April 4, 2018, at 7:00 p.m., or as
soon thereafter as the matter can be heard, in the Council Chamber, at the Carnegie
Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, the Council will consider setting the date for the
public hearing pertaining to the above matter.
Enclosed is a copy of the April 4, 2018, City Council agenda and staff report related to
Consent Calendar Item C-13. Please note that prior to voting on the Consent Calendar
the Mayor will offer an opportunity to the public to make comments. Should you wish to
do so, please submit a "Request to Speak" card (available in the Carnegie Forum) to the
City Clerk prior to the opening of the meeting; otherwise, testimony regarding the matter
will be received at the public hearing.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
JMF
Enclosures
cc: Public Works Director
Community Development Department
ifer M.
y Clerk
raiolo, MMC
CITY COUNCIL
ALAN NAKANISHI, Mayor
JOANNE MOUNCE,
Mayor Pro Tempore
MARK CHANDLER
BOB JOHNSON
DOUG KUEHNE
CITY OF LODI
Kevin Hughey
Hughey Law Group
520 9th Street, Suite 230
Sacramento, CA 95814
CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET
P.O. BOX 3006
LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910
(209) 333-6702 / FAX (209) 333-6807
www.lodi.00v citvclerk(o]io.d1.00v
March 26, 2018
RE: APPEAL OF ENCROACHMENT PERMIT DENIAL
Regarding 3031 Celebration Drive, Lodi, CA
STEPHEN SCHWABAUER
City Manager
JENNIFER M. FERRAIOLO
City Clerk
JANICE D. MAGDICH
City Attorney
Please note that your correspondence received on March 21, 2018, regarding the
above -referenced subject matter, was filed in accordance with Lodi Municipal
Code Section 12.04.100. In addition, a copy of the submitted documentation was
provided to the City Council and the following departments for information,
referral, and/or or response: 1) City Manager, 2) City Attorney, 3) Public Works
Department, and 4) Community Development Department.
You will be notified in writing of the date this matter will be considered by the City
Council.
In the interim, please feel free to give me a call at (209) 333-6702 should you
have any questions and/or concerns regarding the above.
cc w/enclosure;
Sincerely,
y
Clerk
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
Public Works Department
Community Development Department
a ola MMC
SUBJECT:
Please immediately confirm receipt
of this fax by calling 333-6702
CITY OF LODI
P. O. BOX 3006
LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910
ADVERTISING INSTRUCTIONS
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPEAL OF ERIK AND STACI JONES
REGARDING PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT'S DENIAL OF
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR 3031 CELEBRATION DRIVE, LODI
PUBLISH DATE: SATURDAY, APRIL 7, 2018
LEGAL AD
TEAR SHEETS WANTED: One (1) please
SEND AFFIDAVIT AND BILL TO:
LNS ACCT. #0510052
DATED: THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 2018
JENNIFER M. FERRAIOLO, CITY CLERK
City of Lodi
P.O. Box 3006
Lodi, CA 95241-1910
ORDERED BY: JENNIFER M. FERRAIOLO
CITY CLERK
MELA M.W RRIS
EPUTY CI CLERK
")-
ELIZABETH BURGOS
ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK
Verify Appearance of this Legal in the Newspaper — Copy to File
Emailed to the Sentinel at classified)@lodinews.com at (time) on
(date) (pages)
LNS Phoned to confirm receipt of all pages at (time) EB PMF (initials)
.forms\advins.doc
DECLARATION OF POSTING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPEAL OF
ERIK AND STACI JONES REGARDING PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT'S
DENIAL OF ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR 3031 CELEBRATION DRIVE, LODI
On Thursday, April 5, 2018, in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, a copy
of a Notice of Public Hearing to consider appeal of Erik and Staci Jones regarding
Public Works Department's denial of encroachment permit for 3031 Celebration Drive,
Lodi (attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A") was posted at the following locations:
Lodi City Clerk's Office
Lodi City Hall Lobby
Lodi Carnegie Forum
WorkNet Office
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on April 5, 2018, at Lodi, California.
ORDERED BY:
JENNIFER M. FERRAIOLO
CITY CLERK
CM,f--1,t/lii.
PMELA FIS RES ELIZABETH BURGOS
EPUTY C CLERK ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK
N:\Administration\CLERK\Public Hearings \AFFADAVITS\DECPOST 1.DOC
DECLARATION OF MAILING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPEAL OF
ERIK AND STACI JONES REGARDING PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT'S
DENIAL OF ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR 3031 CELEBRATION DRIVE
On April 5, 2018, 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 Notice of Public
Hearing to consider appeal of Erik and Staci Jones regarding Public Works Department's denial
of encroachment permit for 3031 Celebration Drive, attached hereto Marked Exhibit A. The
mailing list for said matter is attached hereto, marked Exhibit B.
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 April 5, 2018, at Lodi, California.
MELA F 1 IS
DEPUTY crr CLERK
Forms/decmail.doc
ORDERED BY.
JENNIFER M. FERRAIOLO
CITY CLERK, CITY OF LODI
ELIZABETH BURGOS
ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK
Carnegie Forum
305 West Pine Street, Lodi
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Date: May 2, 2018
Time: 7:00 p.m.
]
For information regarding this notice please contact:
Jennifer M. Ferraiolo
City Clerk
Telephone: (209) 333-6702
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, May 2, 2018, at the hour of
7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council will
conduct a public hearing at the Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, to consider
the following item:
a) Appeal of Erik and Staci Jones regarding Public Works
Department's denial of encroachment permit for
3031 Celebration Drive, Lodi.
Information regarding this item may be obtained in the Public Works Department,
221 West Pine Street, Lodi, (209) 333-6706. All interested persons are invited to
present their views and comments on this matter. Written statements may be filed with
the City Clerk, City Hall, 221 West Pine Street, 2"d Floor, Lodi, 95240, 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, at or prior to
the close of the public hearing.
By Order of the Lodi City Council:
•1' -)1rN ,-)----bkA
40 nifer M. F rraialo
ity Clerk
Dated: April 4, 2018
Approved as to form:
Janice D. Magdich
City Attorney
AVISO: Para obtener ayuda interpretativa con esta noticia, por favor (lame a la oficina de la
Secretaria Municipal, a las (209) 333-6702.
CLERK\PUBHEAR\NOTICES\NOT_Appeal doc 3/29/18
EXHIBIT B
MAILING LIST
Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Appeal of
Erik and Staci Jones Regarding Public Works Department's
Denial of Encroachment Permit for 3031 Celebration Drive, Lodi
Name
Address
Kevin Hughey
Hughey Law Group
520 9tn Street, Suite 230
Sacramento, CA 95814
Erik and Staci Jones
3031 Celebration Drive
Lodi, CA 95242