HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - May 15, 2002 C-01 SMCITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA TITLE: Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lodi Approving and
Adopting the Report to the City Council on the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for
the Lodi Redevelopment Project No. 1, Submitting said Report and Proposed
Redevelopment Plan to the City Council, and Consenting to a Joint Public Hearing
on said Redevelopment Plan
MEETING DATE: May 15, 2002
PREPARED BY: Community Development Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Redevelopment Agency adopt the Resolution of the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lodi Approving and
Adopting the Report to the City Council on the Proposed
Redevelopment Plan for the Lodi Redevelopment Project No. 1, Submitting said Report and Proposed
Redevelopment Plan to the City Council, and Consenting to a Joint Public Hearing on said
Redevelopment Plan.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the Agency's last meeting, you referred the proposed
Redevelopment Plan to the Planning Commission and the Project
Area Committee (PAC) for review and comment. That Plan
contains all of the required legal verbage pursuant to State Law. The Report on the Plan before you with
this action contains the required analysis of the project area. The Report includes the basis and impacts of
the Plan. The majority of this document was previously approved in its preliminary form by the Agency
on February 6, 2002. This Report is now in its final form having been reviewed by the PAC, taxing
entities and the public at large.
Specifically, the Report must include the following:
Reasons for selecting the project area, a description of the specific projects proposed by the agency,
and an explanation of why redevelopment of the project area cannot be accomplished by private
enterprise acting alone.
• Description of the physical and economic conditions existing in the area, including specific blighting
conditions and a map showing where those conditions exist.
• An implementation plan describing agency goals and objectives, specific programs, including
potential projects, and estimated expenditures to be made within the first five years of the plan, and a
description of how these projects will improve or alleviate blighting conditions.
APPROVED: 25 �-Zd)SE,�
Dixon Flynn -- 416 Manager
0211.doc 05/07/02
Council Communication
Meeting Date: May 15, 2002
Page 2
• An explanation of why the elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the project area cannot
reasonably be expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone or by the legislative
body's use of financing alternatives other than tax increment financing.
• Proposed method of financing the project.
• Method for relocating persons and families.
• An analysis of the preliminary plan.
• The report and recommendation of the planning agency.
• Summary of the project area committee meetings.
• Report of the planning agency regarding acquisition of real property.
• The EIR.
• Report of the county fiscal officer.
• Neighborhood impact report if the project area contains low -or moderate -income housing.
• Analysis of the county fiscal officer's report, including a summary of the agency's consultations with
affected taxing agencies. If any taxing entities have expressed written objections or concerns with the
proposed project area as part of the agency's consultations with the taxing entities, the agency must
include a response to those concerns.
With this action, the Agency is also requesting that the City Council hold a joint public hearing on the
Redevelopment Plan along with the Final Environmental Impact Report on June 19, 2002. The actions
related to this public hearing will be the final actions on the adoption process.
FUNDING: None required
Konradt Bartlam
Community Development Director
Prepared by: Community Development Director
KB/lw
AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. RDA2002-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LODI
APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE
PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE LODI REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT NO. 1, SUBMITTING SAID REPORT AND PROPOSED
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL, AND CONSENTING
TO A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON SAID REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lodi (the "Agency") has prepared
a proposed Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Lodi Redevelopment
Project No. 1 (the `Project'); and
WHEREAS, the Agency has submitted the proposed Redevelopment Plan to the
Planning Commission of the City of Lodi for its report and recommendations, and the Planning
Commission, by Resolution No. 02-17, adopted on May 8, 2002, reviewed the proposed
Redevelopment Plan and recommended the approval and adoption of the proposed
Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 33352 of the California Community Redevelopment
Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.), the Agency has prepared a Report to the
City Council on the proposed Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, Section 33355 of the Community Redevelopment Law authorizes a joint
public hearing on the proposed Redevelopment Plan with the consent of the Agency and the
City Council of the City of Lodi.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lodi does hereby
resolve as follows:
Section 1. The Agency hereby approves and adopts the Report to the City Council
on the Redevelopment Plan for the Lodi Redevelopment Project No. 1 and hereby submits said
Report, together with the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Project, to the City Council.
Section 2. The Agency hereby consents to a joint public hearing on the proposed
Redevelopment Plan for the Project, and requests the City Council to call a joint public hearing
of the Agency and the City Council on June 19, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Carnegie Forum, 305
West Pine Street, Lodi, California, to consider and act upon the proposed Redevelopment Plan
and all documents and evidence pertaining thereto.
Section 3. The Secretary of the Agency shall, in cooperation with the Cleric of the
City of Lodi, prepare, publish, and mail such notices and documents and do all other acts as
may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this resolution.
Dated: May 15, 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hereby certify that Resolution No. RDA2002-03 was passed and adopted by the
Members of the Redevelopment Agency in a regular meeting held May 15, 2002 by the
following vote:
AYES: MEMBERS — Howard, Land, and Chairperson Pennino
NOES: MEMBERS — Nakanishi
ABSENT: MEMBERS — Hitchcock
ABSTAIN: MEMBERS — None
Attest:
SUSAN J. BLACKSTON
Secretary
0
`� IMALAAMP
I eFM 1—I&
PHILLIP A.TNNINO
Chairperson
At
-
RDA2002-03
2
REPORT ON THE PLAN
April 2002
for the
Lodi
Redevelopment
Project
Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project
r
Report Prepared By
Lodi Redevelopment Agency
221 West Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
(209) 333-6711
Seifel Consulting Inc.
1388 Sutter Street, Suite 520
San Francisco, CA 94109
(415) 931-9600
John B. Dykstra & Associates
6644 Ascot Drive
Oakland, CA 94611
(510) 530-7229
April 2002
Table of Contents
Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project
I. Introduction............................................................................................. I-1
A. Project Area Description..................................................................................................................................... I-1
B. Reasons for Selecting the Project Area............................................................................................................... I-4
C. Attainment of the Purposes of the California Community Redevelopment Law and Redevelopment Plan
Goals.................................................................................................................................................................... I-5
D. Redevelopment Project Actions.......................................................................................................................... I-6
E. Conformity with the City's General Plan........................................................................................................... I-7
F. Overview of the Redevelopment Plan Adoption Process..................................................................................1-7
G. Report on the Plan Requirements........................................................................................................................ I-8
H. Public Agency Actions to Date and Scheduled................................................................................................ I-11
II. Existing Conditions................................................................................ II -1
A.
Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................II-1
B.
Character of the Area as Predominantly Urbanized..........................................................................................II-1
C.
Characteristics of a Blighted Area.....................................................................................................................II-6
D.
Assessment of Existing Conditions....................................................................................................................II-7
E.
Adverse Physical Conditions...........................................................................................................................II-10
F.
Economic Conditions that Cause a Reduction of, or Lack of, Proper Use of the Proposed
ProjectArea......................................................................................................................................................II-28
G.
Necessity for Redevelopment...........................................................................................................................II-53
III.
Redevelopment Program Description .................................................
III -1
A.
Introduction........................................................................................................................................................III-1
B.
Relationship between Redevelopment Program and Alleviation of Blighting Conditions ............................III
-2
C.
Description of Non -Housing Redevelopment Program...................................................................................1114
IV. Proposed Methods of Financing and Feasibility..................................IV-1
A. Introduction....................................................................................................................................................... IV -1
i
Lodi Redevelopment Agency i Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
B.
Stimulation of Private Investment.................................................................................................................... IV4
C.
Potential Funding Sources Other than Tax Increment Financing...................................................................
IV -2
D.
Other Funding Sources Considered to Be Infeasible....................................................................................IV-12
Land Uses, Streets, Population and Building Standards................................................................................VII-1
E.
Tax Increment Financing: the Primary Source of Funding...........................................................................
IV -12
F.
Assumptions Used in Tax Increment Projections.........................................................................................
IV -15
G.
Tax Increment Projections..............................................................................................................................
IV -20
H.
Financial Feasibility of the Proposed Redevelopment Project.....................................................................
IV -23
1.
Reasons Why Tax Increment Financing Is Necessary ..................................................................................
IV -24
V. Implementation Plan (July 2003 to June 2008) ..................................... V-1
A. Background.........................................................................................................................................................V-1
B. Objectives of the Redevelopment Plan..............................................................................................................V-2
C. Adverse Physical and Economic Conditions and Elimination of Blight..........................................................V-2
D. Five Year Action Program for Non -Housing Redevelopment Activities.........................................................V-4
E. Housing Activities..............................................................................................................................................V-7
F. Statutory Requirements for Housing.................................................................................................................V-8
G. Housing Production Plan...................................................................................................................V-13
H. Housing Goals and Programs...........................................................................................................................V-15
VI. Method or Plan for Relocation of Families, Persons or Businesses Who
MayBe Displaced..................................................................................VI-1
A. Statutory Requirements.................................................................................................................................... VI -1
B. Analysis............................................................................................................................................................. VI -1
VII. Analysis of Preliminary Plan.............................................................. VII -1
A.
Statutory Requirements...................................................................................................................................
VII -1
B.
Boundaries of the Project Area.......................................................................................................................
VII -1
C.
Land Uses, Streets, Population and Building Standards................................................................................VII-1
D.
Attainment of Purposes of State Law.............................................................................................................
VII -2
E.
Conformity with the General Plan ..................................................................................................................
VII -3
F.
Consistency of Redevelopment Plan with Preliminary Plan .........................................................................
VII -3
G.
General Impacts upon Surrounding Neighborhoods......................................................................................VII-3
i
FJ
a
t
Lodi Redevelopment Agency ii Report on the Plan ,
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
VIII. Planning Commission Actions...........................................................VIII-1
A. Statutory Requirements..................................................................................................................................VIII-1
B. Analysis...........................................................................................................................................................VIII-1
IX. Summary of Public Review of the Proposed Plan................................IX-1
A. Statutory Requirements.................................................................................................................................... IX -1
B. Analysis................................................................................................................................................. ...IX -1
JX. Environmental Review........................................................................... X-1
A. Statutory Requirements............................................................................................................................... ...X-1
B. Analysis ...................................... ...
XI. Report of the County Fiscal Officer XI -1
A. Statutory Requirements.................................................................................................................................... XI -1
B. Total Assessed Valuation of all Taxable Property within the Project Area as Shown on the Base Year
AssessmentRoll................................................................................................................................................ XI -2
C. Identification of Each Taxing Entity Levying Property Taxes in the Project Area ....................................... XI -2
D. Ad Valorem Tax Revenues Derived by Each Taxing Entity from the Base Year Assessment Roll of the
fProject Area...................................................................................................................................................... XI -2
II E. Estimated First Year Taxes Available to the Redevelopment Agency........................................................... XI -3
XII. Summary of Consultations with Taxing Entities ............................... XII -1
A. Statutory Requirements...................................................................................................................................XII-1
B. Agency Contacts with Affected Taxing Entities............................................................................................ XII -1
C. Responses to Written Objections or Concerns of the Affected Taxing Entities ...........................................XII -2
XIII. Neighborhood Impact Report............................................................XIII-1
IA. Statutory Requirements..................................................................................................................................XIII-1
` B. Analysis...........................................................................................................................................................XIII-2
1 C. Impact of Plan on Housing...........................................................................................................................XIII-13
Lodi Redevelopment Agency iii Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
I�
Table of Contents (continued)
Tables
Lists of Figures, Tables and Graphs
Table H-1 Calculation of the l;,xtent of Urbanization Lodi Redevelopment Project......................................................11-4
Table 11-2 Building Conditions Assessment...................................................................................................................0-16
Fieures
Figure I-1 Project Area Boundary Map.............................................................................................................................
I-3
'
FigureII-1 Urbanization Map...........................................................................................................................................II-5
Table U-5 Historical Sales Tax Revenue to City by Subarea Lodi Redevelopment Project........................................1I-31
Table U-6 Sales Prices for Single Family Homes City of Lodi and Surrounding Area...............................................II-33
Figure 11-2 Building Condition Survey Areas..................................................................................................................11-9
Table 11-8 Annual Transient Occupancy Tax Per Room Lodi Redevelopment Project (in Constant 2000 Dollars) ... 11-37
Figure H-3 Location of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings, Downtown Lodi................................................................11-13
Table U-9 Summary of Commercial Lease Rates Lodi Market Area, January 2002 ...................................................11-41
Figure Ii-4 Average Building Conditions by Survey Area.......................
II-19
Table II -11 Prototypical Purchase and Rehabilitation Project Downtown - Mixed Use Office and Retail.................0-45
Figure II-5 Code Compliance Problems.........................................................................................................................II-20
Table II -12 Prototypical Purchase and Rehabilitation Project East Side Industrial Project.........................................B-46
Table II -13 Underutilized Properties by Subarea Central Railroad Commercial/IndustrW Corridor .........................II -47
Figure 11-6 Limits of Identified Soils and Groundwater Contamination Plumes............................... ...........................
Figure II-7 Limits of Major Soils and Groundwater Contamination Plumes................................................................II-23
R-22
Table II -15 Residential Overcrowding Redevelopment Project Area City of Lodi......................................................II-51
Figure II-8 Incompatible Uses, Adverse Impact of Traffic on Residences...................................................................1I-25
Table 11-16 Residential Overcrowding East Side Neighborhood City of Lodi.............................................................0-52
Figure II-9 Incompatible Uses, Adverse Impact of Industrial Uses on Residences......................................................II-26
Table 111-1 How Redevelopment Program Will Eliminate Adverse Conditions...........................................................III-3
Figure II-10 Location of Major Underutilized Properties Central Railroad Commercial/Industrial Corridor ............II-48
Table III -2 Projected Total Costs of Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Program
Non -Housing and Housing Activities................................................................................................111-9
Figure I1-11 Location of Major Underutilized Properties Cherokee Lane Commercial Corridor...............................0-50
Table IV -1 Estimated Net Cost to Agency of Redevelopment Program in Constant 2002 dollars ............................. IV -3
Graphs I
Graph IV -1 Projected Growth in Assessed Value Lodi Redevelopment Project Area ............................................... IV -17
Graph IV -2 Tax Increment Projections Lodi Redevelopment Project........................................................................ IV -21
Graph IV -3 Distribution of Tax Increment Revenues Proposed
Lodi Redevelopment Project (Constant 2002 Dollars).................................................................. IV -22
Graph II -1 Median Sale Price of Single Family Homes................................................................................................ H-34
Graph II -2 Median Sale Price of Multifamily Homes....................................................................................................0-35
Graph II -3 Annual Transient Occupancy Tax per Room Inside and Outside of Project Area.....................................II-38
Tables
Table H-1 Calculation of the l;,xtent of Urbanization Lodi Redevelopment Project......................................................11-4
Table 11-2 Building Conditions Assessment...................................................................................................................0-16
Table 11-3 Building Conditions Survey Results, Total Area..........................................................................................II-18
Table II -4 Sales Tax Receipts Comparison of Lodi Commercial Areas 6 -Year Trend (Adjusted for Inflation) ........0-30
Table U-5 Historical Sales Tax Revenue to City by Subarea Lodi Redevelopment Project........................................1I-31
Table U-6 Sales Prices for Single Family Homes City of Lodi and Surrounding Area...............................................II-33
Table lI-7 Lodging Establishments Lodi Redevelopment Project (in Constant 2000 Dollars)....................................11-37
Table 11-8 Annual Transient Occupancy Tax Per Room Lodi Redevelopment Project (in Constant 2000 Dollars) ... 11-37
Table U-9 Summary of Commercial Lease Rates Lodi Market Area, January 2002 ...................................................11-41
Table II -10 Size of Available Commercial Space in Lodi January 2002......................................................................11-42
Table II -11 Prototypical Purchase and Rehabilitation Project Downtown - Mixed Use Office and Retail.................0-45
Table II -12 Prototypical Purchase and Rehabilitation Project East Side Industrial Project.........................................B-46
Table II -13 Underutilized Properties by Subarea Central Railroad Commercial/IndustrW Corridor .........................II -47
Table II -14 Underutilized Properties by Subarea Cherokee Lane Commercial Corridor.............................................II-49
Table II -15 Residential Overcrowding Redevelopment Project Area City of Lodi......................................................II-51
Table 11-16 Residential Overcrowding East Side Neighborhood City of Lodi.............................................................0-52
Table 11-17 Part 1 Crime Incidence in 2000 Project Area Compared to Citywide Lodi Redevelopment Project....... 1I-53
Table 111-1 How Redevelopment Program Will Eliminate Adverse Conditions...........................................................III-3
Table III -2 Projected Total Costs of Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Program
Non -Housing and Housing Activities................................................................................................111-9
Table 111-3 Projected Costs of Proposed Redevelopment Program............................................................................. III -11
Table IV -1 Estimated Net Cost to Agency of Redevelopment Program in Constant 2002 dollars ............................. IV -3
Table IV -2 Property Tax Distribution Lodi Redevelopment Project Area.................................................................IV-14
Lodi Redevelopment Agency iv Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Table IV -3 Summary of Tax Increment Projections Lodi Redevelopment Project .................................................... IV -20
Table IV -4 Comparison of Estimated Tax Increment Revenues and Funding Requirements .................................... IV -24
Table V-1 How Redevelopment Program Will Eliminate Adverse Conditions.............................................................V-3
Table V-2 Projected Tax Increment Revenues.................................................................................................................V-5
Table V-3 Projected Non -Housing Program Expenditures..............................................................................................V-6
TableV-4 Affordable Housing Cost...............................................................................................................................V-10
Table V-5 SJCG Regional Fair Share Allocations.........................................................................................................V-11
TableV-6 Population by Age Category .........................................................................................................................V-11
Table V-7 Affordable Housing Production Obligation..................................................................................................V-14
Table V-8 Annual Deposits to Housing Set -Aside Fund...............................................................................................V-16
Table V-9 Estimate of Agency -Assisted Housing Units................................................................................................V-18
Table V-10 Housing Set -Aside Fund Distribution by Income Category ......................................................................V-18
Table V-11 Housing Set -Aside Fund Distribution by Age Category ............................................................................V-19
Table XI -1 Ad Valorem Tax Revenues Derived from Base Year FY 2001/02............................................................ XI -3
Table XI -2 Basic Property Tax Revenues Generated in Project Area and Totals for Taxing Entities Derived from
BaseYear FY 2001/02...................................................................................................................... XI -3
Appendices
Appendix A.
Sources
Appendix B.
Legal Description of the Project Area
Appendix C.
List of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings
Appendix D.
Building Conditions by Survey Areas and Subareas
Appendix E.
List of Code Compliance Problems
Appendix F.
Photographic Documentation of Existing Conditions
Appendix G.
County Fiscal Officer's Report San Joaquin County Auditor
Appendix H.
Tax Increment Projections
Appendix I.
Project Area Committee (PAC) Minutes and Public Notices
Lodi Redevelopment Agency v Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
I. Introduction
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lodi (Agency) is preparing a Redevelopment Plan for the Lodi
Redevelopment Project Area (Project Area). The Lodi City Council will consider approval of the Plan
during 2002. The proposed Project Area is comprised of approximately 1,184 acres of commercial,
industrial and residential land uses in the City of Lodi (City) and is primarily located north of
Kettleman Lane, south of Turner Road, east of Ham Lane and west of Commerce Street. This document is
the Report on the Plan for the proposed Lodi Redevelopment Plan, which is required by Section 33352 of
the California Community Redevelopment Law (CRL), a subsection of the California Health and Safety
Code.'
The Report on the Plan is the final major background document in the process leading to consideration of
the approval of the Lodi Redevelopment Plan (Redevelopment Plan). It is a public document designed to
provide background information on the Redevelopment Project to the Agency, the Lodi Project Area
Committee (PAC), and affected taxing entities. The Report on the Plan is of value to all participants in the
plan adoption process as a final statement of program needs, goals, activities and costs.
The adoption of the Redevelopment Plan will put into place a redevelopment program designed to
alleviate the Project Area's blighting conditions, which are documented in this Report on the Pian. The
Report on the Plan describes the projects and activities proposed to alleviate blight and promote economic
development, residential neighborhood conservation and areawide public improvements. Finally, the
Report on the Plan sets forth financing methods proposed to implement the Redevelopment Program.
This chapter is organized as follows:
A. Project Area Description
B. Reasons for Selecting the Project Area
C. Attainment of the Purposes of the California Community Redevelopment Law and Redevelopment
Plan Goals ,
D. Redevelopment Project Actions
E. Conformity with the City's General Plan
F. Overview of the Redevelopment Plan Adoption Process
G. Report on the Plan Requirements
H. Public Agency Actions to Date and Scheduled
A. Project Area Description
1. Project Area Boundaries
The proposed Project Area consists of approximately 1,184 acres located entirely within the City of Lodi,
California. The proposed Project Area boundary was developed based on a review of background
information, discussions with City staff, and an examination of available maps and aerial photographs.
Special consideration was given to the California Community Redevelopment Law (CRL) eligibility
1 The California Community Redevelopment Law is contained in Part I of Division 24, Community Development and Housing,
of the Health and Safety Code beginning at Section 33000. All further statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code
unless otherwise noted.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I-1 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
requirements. (For more information on these requirements, refer to Section G of this chapter and
Chapter II).
The proposed Project Area is comprised of a variety of residential, commercial and industrial land uses.
The proposed Project Area boundaries are shown in Figure I-1 (See Appendix B for the legal description
and map of the Project Area boundaries.)
proposed
The proposed Project Area is adjacent to Highways 12 and 99. Cherokee Lane, the location of the original
Highway 99 before it was upgraded and relocated to the east, traverses the proposed Project Area,
Highway 12, Kettleman Lane, runs near the southern border and the current Highway 99 runs near the
eastern border. The western border of the proposed Project Area is adjacent to Ham Lane.
The Project Area contains several commercial areas, including the Downtown. Downtown Lodi is
generally regarded as the area bounded by Lockeford Street to the north, Lodi Avenue to the south,
Church Street on the west, and Sacramento Street and the Union Pacific Railroad on the east. It has a land
area of approximately 40 acres, and includes approximately 400,000 square feet of first floor commercial
space. Historic buildings and storefront commercial development are concentrated along School Street. A
smaller mixed commercial and industrial area extends along the frontages of Main and Pine Streets, east
of the railroad. It is approximately 15 acres in area and contains approximately 110,000 square feet of
first floor commercial space .2 Another smaller commercial area extends west along Lodi Avenue to
Ham Lane.
'
Cherokee Lane is the gateway to Lodi from Highway 99, which is an important north -south route in the
Central Valley. Cherokee Lane stretches for approximately two miles between the northern and southern
Highway 99 off -ramps. Its frontage consists of a mixture of large and small-scale commercial businesses,
public facilities such as the fairgrounds and the vacant Lincoln School, as well as light industrial
development.'
Kettleman Lane, which forms the southern boundary of the proposed Project Area, is an important
commercial corridor in Lodi. Highway 12 provides the principal east -west access to the area and
coincides with Kettleman tane west of Highway 99. It then follows Highway 99 for about one mile north
before branching east as Victor Road.
As discussed in Chapter II, the location, scale and quality of the transportation improvements and
resulting land use patterns have negatively affected properties in the proposed Project Area. The negative
conditions exist particularly within the oldest areas of the City, which are located primarily within the
proposed Project Area. These negative conditions include impaired access and circulation; deteriorating
properties, buildings and infrastructure; incompatible land uses; outmoded and/or deficient buildings;
deficient and substandard public improvements; substandard lots; economic stagnation and depreciated
values; and residential overcrowding.
1
2 Freedman Tung and Bottomley, Central City Revitalization Program; Concept Development Phase, 1994, p. 6. '
' Ibid. p. 19.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I-2 Report on the Plan ,
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Lodi was first subdivided in 1869 by the Oakland -Sacramento Central Pacific Railroad Company, when
the town of Mokelumne was founded. The City was incorporated on December 6, 1906. Lodi's early
growth was attributed to an extensive network of passenger train services that once served the City.
Industries built warehouses and manufacturing plants to maximize railroad access and frontage.
Commercial districts were developed in close proximity to the railroad depot to capitalize on passenger '
patronage, and residential development occurred in areas beyond the commercial and industrial uses.'
Rail service has steadily declined since the 1950s and 1960s as the expanding freeway system replaced
rail transport with automobiles and trucks.' I
B. Reasons for Selecting the Project Area
The City Council recommended establishing a redevelopment project to accomplish the following goals:'
• Revitalize areas in Lodi that exhibit both physical and economic blight;
• Stimulate private investment in Lodi's commercial areas;
• Improve housing conditions and infrastructure in residential neighborhoods; and
• Provide tax increment funds for the redevelopment activities that are needed to alleviate blighting
conditions.
I. Substantial and Prevalent Blighting Conditions '
Both physical and economic conditions prevent the proposed Project Area from achieving its full
potential. Chapter II of this Report on the Plan documents the proposed Project Area's physical and
economic blighting conditions in accordance with the CRL. Existing conditions found in the proposed
Project Area include eight of the nine statutorily defined categories of physical and economic blight. The
blight documentation is based on field surveys, building condition ratings of 3,382 structures,
photographic evidence, independent environmental analyses, and economic data and analyses. I
4 Information taken from the Lodi Conference & Visitors Bureau website, located at www.visitlodi.com/history.html
' Environmental Science Associates, Lodi Multi -Modal Station: Initial Study/Negative Declaration, May 1999, p. 11.
6 Ibid., p. 3.
' Preliminary Plan for the Lodi Redevelopment Project, July 11, 2001.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I-4 Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
2. History of the Project Area
The historical growth of the City of Lodi has greatly influenced the existing physical and economic
conditions in the proposed Project Area, which encompasses the oldest commercial and industrial areas
and residential neighborhoods in Lodi.
,
Lodi's initial growth was primarily related to agriculture and the prime farming land that surrounds the
City. Lodi is located on the edge of the Sacramento Delta, an area of productive agricultural land. The
Miwok Indians, the area's earliest inhabitants, enjoyed a life of abundant plant life nurtured by the black
peat soil of the Delta. Lodi was once known as the watermelon capital, when trains would transport
watermelons from Lodi to cities all across the nation. Today, Lodi's cash crop is the wine grape. The Lodi
area produces more Zinfandel, Merlot, Cabernet Sauvignon, Chardonnay and Sauvignon Blanc grapes
than any other wine region in the state. The Lodi area also produces, processes and exports a wide variety
of vegetables, fruits and nuts. It has one of the largest cherry export operations in the country, shipping
primarily to Japan and other Pacific Rim countries'
Lodi was first subdivided in 1869 by the Oakland -Sacramento Central Pacific Railroad Company, when
the town of Mokelumne was founded. The City was incorporated on December 6, 1906. Lodi's early
growth was attributed to an extensive network of passenger train services that once served the City.
Industries built warehouses and manufacturing plants to maximize railroad access and frontage.
Commercial districts were developed in close proximity to the railroad depot to capitalize on passenger '
patronage, and residential development occurred in areas beyond the commercial and industrial uses.'
Rail service has steadily declined since the 1950s and 1960s as the expanding freeway system replaced
rail transport with automobiles and trucks.' I
B. Reasons for Selecting the Project Area
The City Council recommended establishing a redevelopment project to accomplish the following goals:'
• Revitalize areas in Lodi that exhibit both physical and economic blight;
• Stimulate private investment in Lodi's commercial areas;
• Improve housing conditions and infrastructure in residential neighborhoods; and
• Provide tax increment funds for the redevelopment activities that are needed to alleviate blighting
conditions.
I. Substantial and Prevalent Blighting Conditions '
Both physical and economic conditions prevent the proposed Project Area from achieving its full
potential. Chapter II of this Report on the Plan documents the proposed Project Area's physical and
economic blighting conditions in accordance with the CRL. Existing conditions found in the proposed
Project Area include eight of the nine statutorily defined categories of physical and economic blight. The
blight documentation is based on field surveys, building condition ratings of 3,382 structures,
photographic evidence, independent environmental analyses, and economic data and analyses. I
4 Information taken from the Lodi Conference & Visitors Bureau website, located at www.visitlodi.com/history.html
' Environmental Science Associates, Lodi Multi -Modal Station: Initial Study/Negative Declaration, May 1999, p. 11.
6 Ibid., p. 3.
' Preliminary Plan for the Lodi Redevelopment Project, July 11, 2001.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I-4 Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
The proposed Project Area suffers from physical and economic blighting conditions that need to be
alleviated to improve commercial and industrial areas and revitalize and conserve the residential areas.
The conditions of blight in the proposed Project Area include, but are not limited to:
• Deficient or deteriorated buildings
• Factors that inhibit proper use of buildings or lots
• Incompatible uses
• Substandard lots in multiple ownership
• Depreciated or stagnant values or impaired investments
• Economic indicators of distressed buildings or lots
• Residential overcrowding
• High crime rate
The blighting conditions within the proposed Project Area are substantial and prevalent, and have resulted
in deterioration and poor utilization of the area.
C. Attainment of the Purposes of the California Community
Redevelopment Law and Redevelopment Plan Goals
The proposed Plan Adoption will be undertaken to achieve the purposes of the CRL and the City's
General Plan, and to attain the following goals. The proposed Redevelopment Plan will be consistent with
the City's General Plan, and will adopt and incorporate the land use policies and standards of the General
Plan.
1. Goals
The primary goal of the Redevelopment Plan is to alleviate physical and economic blighting conditions in
the Project Area by improving the area's economic base while preserving and enhancing residential areas.
An important purpose of the proposed Redevelopment Project in Lodi is to protect and improve
residential areas, primarily the East Side neighborhood. Redevelopment activities would be designed to
preserve the residential character of the neighborhood and encourage renovation of single family and
multifamily housing.
Redevelopment would promote the economic revitalization of commercial areas, such as Downtown Lodi
and Cherokee Lane. The proposed Redevelopment Project would provide funding to promote investment
in commercial areas and capitalize on the changes resulting from the new multimodal Lodi Station.
Improving the economic vitality of these commercial and industrial areas will also enhance the appeal of
the East Side neighborhood as a place to live.
The following goals are based upon observed needs in the area, recommendations from previous studies
and the City's General Plan. The listing of the proposed goals does not indicate a hierarchy of relative
priority:
• The elimination of blighting influences and the correction of environmental deficiencies in the Project
Area, including, among others, buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or
work, small and irregular lots, faulty exterior spacing, obsolete and aged building types, mixed
character or shifting uses or vacancies, incompatible and uneconomic land uses, substandard alleys,
and inadequate or deteriorated public improvements, facilities, and utilities.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I-5 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
B These purposes were excerpted from the draft Redevelopment Plan for the Lodi Redevelopment Project, April 2002. 1
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I-6 Report on the Plan ,
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
• The assembly of land into parcels suitable for modem, integrated development with improved
pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the Project Area.
• The replanning, redesign, and development of portions of the Project Area which are stagnant or
improperly utilized.
• The provision of opportunities for participation by owners and tenants in the revitalization of their
properties.
• The strengthening of retail and other commercial functions in the Project Area.
• The strengthening of the economic base of the Project Area by stimulating new investment.
,
• The expansion of employment opportunities.
• The provision of an environment for social and economic growth.
• The expansion, improvement, and preservation of the community's supply of housing available to
low and moderate income persons and families.
• The installation of new or replacement of existing public improvements, facilities, and utilities in
,
areas that are currently inadequately served!
2. Achieving City Goals and Objectives
The Lodi Redevelopment Project will further several City goals and objectives, through alleviation of
physical and economic blighting conditions in the Project Area by improving the area's economic base
and preserving and enhancing residential areas. The Redevelopment Project will address these goals by
t
assisting in improving older areas and preparing for the future.
D. Redevelopment Project Actions
The Agency proposes to eliminate adverse physical and economic conditions and implement the goals of
the Redevelopment Plan through the following actions (excerpted from the draft Redevelopment Plan):
Site Assembly and Preparation
• Acquisition of real property and the assembly of adequate sites for the development and construction
,
of residential, commercial, and industrial facilities.
• Demolition or removal of buildings and improvements.
• Provision of relocation assistance to displaced Project occupants.
Conservation and Improvement of Residential Areas
• Conservation of residential properties through the establishment of a Residential Conservation Area
in the East Side neighborhood, as more particularly described in the Redevelopment Program
description in Chapter III of this Report.
,
Public Improvements
• Installation, construction, or reconstruction of streets, utilities, and other public improvements.
Agency Assistance for Redevelopment Purposes
• Management of any property acquired by and under the ownership and control of the Agency.
,
B These purposes were excerpted from the draft Redevelopment Plan for the Lodi Redevelopment Project, April 2002. 1
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I-6 Report on the Plan ,
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
• Provision for participation by owners and tenants presently located in the Project Area and the
extension of preferences to business occupants and other tenants desiring to remain or relocate within
the redeveloped Project Area.
• Disposition of property for uses in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan.
• Redevelopment of land by private enterprise or public agencies for uses in accordance with the
Redevelopment Plan.
• Rehabilitation of structures and improvements by present owners, their successors, and the Agency.
1. Providing Tax Increment Funds for Redevelopment Projects
The primary funding source for most redevelopment projects is tax increment revenue generated by
increased property values in a project area. Tax increment revenues would be used to leverage private
funds to undertake improvement projects and stimulate private investment in the proposed Project Area.
Preliminary analysis indicates that the proposed Project Area could generate substantial tax increment
revenues through the revitalization of the commercial and residential areas. This report provides initial
projections of potential tax increment in Chapter IV and Appendix H.
E. Conformity with the City's General Plan
As detailed in the July 2001 Preliminary Plan for the Lodi Redevelopment Project, the proposed
development and redevelopment will be in conformance with the adopted General Plan of the City of
Lodi, the City of Lodi Zoning Ordinance, and all other applicable state and local building codes and
guidelines. It will also be subject to all review and procedural requirements in effect as development and
redevelopment take place within the proposed Project Area boundaries.
The Preliminary Plan proposed a similar pattern of land uses to the General Plan, and included all
highways and public facilities indicated by the General Plan. The Redevelopment Plan will include
provisions that it will remain consistent with the General Plan as the General Plan is amended from time
to time. In concept, the proposed Redevelopment Program has received initial support from the City
Council and Planning Commission.
F. Overview of the Redevelopment Plan Adoption Process
Adopting a redevelopment pian involves complex, statutorily mandated procedures and documentation
designed to provide a community's legislative body with the necessary analysis and input to make
informed decisions about the purpose, scope and content of the proposed Redevelopment Plan and
ultimately, about whether to adopt the plan.
The following briefly describes the reports and steps in the Lodi Redevelopment Plan adoption process:
• Project Area Designation. The City Council designates the Survey Area, and the Planning
Commission selects boundaries for the proposed Project Area.
• Preliminary Plan. In cooperation with the Redevelopment Agency, the Planning Commission adopts
the Preliminary Plan, which provides a general description of land uses, redevelopment goals and
objectives, and a map and legal description of the proposed Project Area boundaries.
• Project Area Committee. The City Council authorizes and establishes procedures for the formation of
a project area committee (PAC) if the Agency contemplates actions that may potentially result in the
relocation or displacement of low and moderate income households. The PAC reviews and advises on
the proposed Redevelopment Plan. The PAC submits its report and recommendations on the Plan to
the Agency and City Council.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency 1-7 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
G. Report on the Plan Requirements
This Report on the Plan is designed to comply with the requirements of CRL Section 33352. A listing of
the Report on the Plan requirements and a description of how this Report on the Plan is organized to meet '
these requirements follows. (Excerpts from the CRL are italicized and referenced.)
1. Reasons for Selecting the Project Area
The reasons for the selection of the project area. Section 33352(a)
The reasons for selecting the proposed Project Area and the reasons for adopting a Redevelopment Plan
are presented in Chapter II, and summarized in Section B above.
2. Physical and Economic Conditions in the Project Area
A description of the physical and economic conditions specified in Section 33031 that exists in the
area that cause the project area to be blighted. The description shall include a list of the conditions
described in Section 33031 that exist within the project area and a map showing where in the project
the conditions exist. Section 33352(b)
The evidence provided in Chapter II of this Report and summarized in Section B above demonstrates that '
the proposed Project Area has adverse physical and economic conditions sufficient to support a finding
that the area is blighted in accordance with CRL Sections 3303l(a) and (b).
The documentation on the extent of urbanization in the Project Area is also provided in Chapter Il. The ,
documentation demonstrates that the Project Area meets the urbanization requirements specified in
Section 33320.1. The proposed Project Area contains no lands in agricultural use.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I-8 Report on the Plan ,
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
i
• Preliminary Report. The Preliminary Report describes the purpose and projected impact of the
proposed Redevelopment Plan. It is the first major background document in the process to the
approval of the Redevelopment Plan. The Preliminary Report is reviewed as a draft by staff and
Agency Board. The final version, as updated, is incorporated into the Report on the Plan.
• Environmental Impact Report. The adoption of the Redevelopment Plan requires the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
• Redevelopment Plan. The Agency prepares a final Redevelopment Plan, which will be the legal
document setting forth the basic goals, powers and limitations within which the Agency must conduct
'
its activities over the life of the Project. The Agency submits the final Redevelopment Plan to the
Planning Commission and the City Council in preparation for the public hearing and City Council
consideration of adoption of the Plan.
• Report on the Plan. The Report on the Plan is the report that accompanies the Redevelopment Plan,
designed to help the City Council make an informed decision on whether to adopt the Plan. It is
further described in the next section.
1
G. Report on the Plan Requirements
This Report on the Plan is designed to comply with the requirements of CRL Section 33352. A listing of
the Report on the Plan requirements and a description of how this Report on the Plan is organized to meet '
these requirements follows. (Excerpts from the CRL are italicized and referenced.)
1. Reasons for Selecting the Project Area
The reasons for the selection of the project area. Section 33352(a)
The reasons for selecting the proposed Project Area and the reasons for adopting a Redevelopment Plan
are presented in Chapter II, and summarized in Section B above.
2. Physical and Economic Conditions in the Project Area
A description of the physical and economic conditions specified in Section 33031 that exists in the
area that cause the project area to be blighted. The description shall include a list of the conditions
described in Section 33031 that exist within the project area and a map showing where in the project
the conditions exist. Section 33352(b)
The evidence provided in Chapter II of this Report and summarized in Section B above demonstrates that '
the proposed Project Area has adverse physical and economic conditions sufficient to support a finding
that the area is blighted in accordance with CRL Sections 3303l(a) and (b).
The documentation on the extent of urbanization in the Project Area is also provided in Chapter Il. The ,
documentation demonstrates that the Project Area meets the urbanization requirements specified in
Section 33320.1. The proposed Project Area contains no lands in agricultural use.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I-8 Report on the Plan ,
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
3. Proposed Projects and Blight Alleviation
A description of the specific projects then proposed by the agency, a description of how these projects
will improve or alleviate the conditions described in subdivision (b). Section 33352(a).
Chapter III of this Report on the Plan provides descriptions of the projects and activities proposed by the
Agency as a means to alleviate adverse conditions within the proposed Project Area. Preliminary cost
estimates covering these projects and activities are also provided.
In addition, Chapter III links proposed projects and activities with identified adverse conditions and
demonstrates how the Agency can use redevelopment to alleviate blighting conditions in the proposed
Project Area.
4. Proposed Method of Financing
An explanation of why the elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the project area cannot
reasonably be expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone or by the legislative
body's use of financing alternatives other than tax increment financing. Section 33352(d).
The proposed method offinancing the redevelopment of the project area. Section 33352(e)
Chapter IV of this Report on the Plan describes the proposed methods for financing the Redevelopment
Project. Estimated Redevelopment Program costs are presented with available funding sources. The
analysis demonstrates the economic feasibility of the Project and the reasons for including a provision for
the division of taxes (tax increment financing).
5. Implementation Plan
An implementation plan that describes specific goals and objectives of the agency, specific projects
then proposed by the agency, including a program of actions and expenditures proposed to be made
within the first five years of the plan, and a description of how these projects will improve or alleviate
the conditions described in Section 33031. Section 33352(c)
' A five year Implementation Plan for the Lodi Redevelopment Plan is provided in Chapter V of this
Report on the Plan. The Plan outlines statutory requirements for non -housing, as well as affordable
housing activities, and sets forth the Agency's primary goals, objectives, programs, and possible
expenditures during the first five years of the Plan.
6. Method or Plan for Relocation
A method or plan for the relocation offamilies and persons to be temporarily or permanently
displaced from housing facilities in the project area, which method or plan shall include the provision
required by Section 33411.1 that no persons or families of low and moderate income shall be
displaced unless and until there is a suitable housing unit available and ready for occupancy by the
displaced person or family at rents comparable to those at the time of their displacement.
' Section 333520
The Agency will propose a detailed method and plan for relocation of families and persons to be
displaced in connection with any Lodi Redevelopment Agency project prior to undertaking any actions
that would result in such displacement. The Agency relocation policy will comply with
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I-9 Report on the Plan
' Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
CRL Section 33367(d)(7), which requires a redevelopment agency to have a feasible relocation method or
plan if the agency's redevelopment plans are to result in the displacement of any households or businesses
in a project area.
The relocation requirement is described in Chapter VI. The chapter sets forth the general policies for the
administration of the relocation program with respect to the Redevelopment Plan for the Lodi Project
Area and the provision of services and benefits to displaced families, individuals, businesses, and
community institutions. It should be noted at the outset that the relocation of any households or
businesses would only be used if it were reasonably necessary to redevelop a property. Should relocation
be necessary to implement the Redevelopment Project, then all state guidelines will be followed. The
Agency anticipates that a minimal number of dwellings would be displaced over the life of the
Redevelopment Plan, although the Agency has no plans to relocate residents or businesses at this time. In
the off -chance that it should become necessary to use eminent domain in the future, the City and Agency
will follow all state guidelines and relocation requirements, and make every effort to relocate persons as
close as possible to their current place of residence or business. Furthermore, the Agency would not
commence any reasonably necessary relocation until it has firm commitments from public funding
sources or competent developers that the desired redevelopment of the areas will take place in a timely
manner and with the least disruption to existing homes and businesses.
7. Analysis of the Preliminary Plan
An analysis of the preliminary plan. Section 333520
'
Chapter VII of this report provides an analysis of the Preliminary Plan adopted by the Lodi Planning
Commission on July 11, 2001.
8. Planning Commission Actions
The Section 33352(h)
report and recommendations of the planning commission.
The report required by'Section 65402 * of the Government Code. Section 333520)
Chapter VIII of this report discusses the Planning Commission actions. The Planning Commission is
scheduled to consider the adoption of a resolution finding the Lodi Redevelopment Plan in conformance
with the Lodi General Plan at its regularly scheduled meeting on May 8, 2002.
9. Summary of Public Review of the Proposed Redevelopment Plan
The Section Section 33352(1)
summary referred to in 33387.
A summary of the meetings of the Lodi Project Area Committee (PAC) and other public meetings is
contained in Chapter IX of this report.
10. Environmental Review
*
The report required by Section 21151 of the Public Resources Code. Section 33352(k)
On March 12, 2002, the Redevelopment Agency released for public review, the Draft Environmental
Impact Report (Draft EIR). The document was distributed to all affected taxing entities, the PAC, the
'
Planning Commission and other entities as required by law. The public review period of the Draft EIR
was March 12, 2002 to April 25, 2002. A public hearing on the document was held on April 24, 2002 at
the regular Lodi Planning Commission Meeting. All written comments received during the public review
'
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I-10 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
period and comments received at the public hearing will be addressed in the Response to Comments
Document, which will also show relevant changes to the text of the Draft EIR.
The Final EIR is scheduled to be transmitted on May 31, 2002 to the City Council, the Planning
Commission and the PAC pursuant to Section 21151 of the Public Resources Code. At the joint public
hearing on the Redevelopment Plan Adoption scheduled for June 19, 2002, comments will be received on
the Final EIR.
Chapter X of this report summarizes the EIR process. A summary of the impacts of redevelopment
activities associated with the Plan adoption that are addressed in the EIR appears in the neighborhood
impact report, Chapter XIII of this report.
11. Report of the County Fiscal Officer and Analysis of the Report
The report of the countyfiscal officer as required by Section 33328. Section 33352(1)
An analysis by the agency of the report submitted by the county as required by Section 33328...
Section 33352(n)
The January 14, 2002 Report of the San Joaquin County Fiscal Officer on Assessed Valuation in the Lodi
Redevelopment Project (33328 Report) is provided as Appendix G. The analysis of the Report of the
County Fiscal Officer is included in Chapter XI of this report.
12. Summary of Consultations with Taxing Entities
An analysis by the agency of the report submitted by the county as required by Section 33328, which
shall include a summary of the consultation of the agency, or attempts to consult by the agency, with
each of the affected taxing entities as required by Section 33328. If any of the affected taxing entities
have expressed written objections or concerns with the proposed project area as part of these
consultations, the agency shall include a response to these concerns, additional information if any,
and, at the discretion df the agency, proposed or adopted mitigation measures. Section 33352(n)
A summary of consultations with affected taxing entities is contained in Chapter XII of this report.
13. Neighborhood Impact Report
If the project area contains low or moderate income housing, a neighborhood impact report which
describes in detail the impact of the project upon the residents of the project area and the
surrounding areas, in terms of relocation, traffic circulation, environmental quality, availability of
communityfacilities and services, effect on school population and quality of education, property
assessments and taxes, and other matters affecting the physical and social quality of the
neighborhood. Section 33352(m)
The neighborhood impact report is contained in Chapter XIII of this report.
H. Public Agency Actions to Date and Scheduled
The following major public agency actions related to the proposed Redevelopment Project have occurred
to date:
• On February 16, 2000, the City Council designated the Survey Area for the proposed Lodi
Redevelopment Project (Resolution 2000-23).
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I-11 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
0 On June 7, 2000, the Agency Board accepted the findings of the Feasibility Report for the proposed
Lodi Redevelopment Project Area (Resolution 2000-01).
• On March 28, 2001, the Planning Commission considered the Preliminary Plan for the Lodi
Redevelopment Project and the Project's preliminary boundaries. The Planning Commission
recommended expanding the Survey Area and Project Area Boundaries.
• On April 18, 2001, the City Council designated the revised Survey Area for the proposed Lodi
Redevelopment Project (Resolution 2001-93).
• On July 11, 2001 the Planning Commission adopted the Preliminary Plan for the Lodi
'
Redevelopment Project, designated the Project's preliminary boundaries, and forwarded the
Preliminary Plan to the Redevelopment Agency. The Commission found the Preliminary Plan in
conformity with the City of Lodi General Plan (General Plan), and found that the Preliminary Plan
met the criteria of Section 33324 by setting forth the boundaries of the proposed Project Area,
proposed general land uses, population density, and building intensity and standards.
• On September 5, 2001, the Agency accepted the Preliminary Plan and authorized forwarding the
Preliminary Plan to taxing entities.
• On September 5, 2001, the City Council adopted the Project Area Committee (PAC) Election and
Formation Procedures, and called for formation of the Lodi Redevelopment PAC.
• On September 15, 2001, the Agency mailed a written notice to all businesses, property owners,
residential tenants, and community organizations within the proposed Project Area announcing the
selection of the Project Area and the intention to form the PAC. The notice also invited businesses,
,
property owners, residential tenants, and community organizations within the proposed Project Area
to participate in the PAC and attend a September 25, 2001 Informational Meeting.
• On September 18, 2001, the Agency submitted documents required by CRL Section 33327 to affected
taxing entities and the county auditor, assessor, and tax collector. These documents contained a
statement that the Redevelopment Plan was being prepared, a description of the proposed Project
Area boundaries, and a map indicating the boundaries of the Project Area.
• On September 25, 2001, a public informational meeting was held to provide information on the
redevelopment process, formation of the Project Area Committee, and EIR scoping meeting.
• On October 1, 2001, the Agency mailed the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) to the County Clerk and the distribution list, which included affected or responsible
taxing agencies, local, regional, state, and federal government entities, and various other interested
individuals and organizations.
• On October 19, 2001, the PAC election was held. A list of PAC members is contained in Appendix I.
• On November 7, 2001, the City Council adopted a resolution certifying the PAC election.
,
• On November 27, 2001, the PAC held its first meeting.
• On February 6, 2002, the Agency approved the Preliminary Report and authorized it to be sent to
affected taxing entities.
• On March 12, 2002, the Notice of Completion (NOC) for the EIR was completed, authorizing the
Draft EIR to be sent to affected taxing entities and initiating the 45 -day public review period,
beginning March 12, 2002 and closing April 25, 2002.
• The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Draft EIR on April 24, 2002.
• On May 8, 2002 the Planning Commission is scheduled to review the Redevelopment Plan and
'
Draft EIR.
• On May 15, 2002 the Agency and the City Council are expected to schedule a June 19, 2002 joint
public hearing on the Redevelopment Plan.
'
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I-12 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
,
• On May 22, May 29, June 5 and June 12, 2002 the notice of the June 19, 2002 joint public hearing
will be published in the Lodi News Sentinel.
• On June 19, 2002, the Agency and the City Council are scheduled to hold a joint public hearing on
the Redevelopment Plan and Final EIR.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I-13 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
II. Existing Conditions
A. Introduction
This chapter of the Report on the Plan describes existing conditions in the Lodi Redevelopment Project
Area, including existing land uses, extent of urbanization and conditions of blight. Section B of this
chapter presents evidence that the Project Area is predominantly urbanized, in accordance with
Sections 33320.1 and 33344.5 of the California Community Redevelopment Law (CRL). Sections D and
E present adverse physical and economic conditions in the Project Area in accordance with
Sections 33030 and 33031. These physical and economic conditions have caused a reduction in the proper
use of the area and cannot be reversed or alleviated without the assistance of the Agency through the
authority of the CRL.
The CRL requires that a combination of adverse physical and economic conditions be prevalent and
substantial for an area to be designated as eligible for redevelopment. The adverse conditions found in the
Project Area are summarized in various exhibits throughout Chapter II and Appendices C through F,
which together constitute the adverse conditions description and map required by CRL Section 33352(b).
The map has been broken into submaps for ease of reading and reference since so much information is
provided about the geographic spread of adverse conditions throughout the Project Area. The submaps,
taken together, demonstrate that adverse conditions are substantial and prevalent, and adversely affect all
of the properties in the Project Area.
A survey of the Project Area, its land, building conditions, historical uses and economic conditions
indicate that the Project Area contains seven of the nine statutorily defined categories of blight. The
prevalence of adverse physical conditions is discussed primarily in terms of deficient or deteriorating
buildings, factors inhibiting the use of land and buildings, incompatible uses, substandard lots in multiple
ownership, and inadequate public improvements. The prevalence of adverse economic conditions is
discussed primarily in terms of depreciated property values, high vacancy rates, declining retail sales, low
commercial lease rates, hazardous materials sites, impaired investments, residential overcrowding and a
high crime rate.
B. Character of the Area as Predominantly Urbanized
1. Introduction
Under the CRL, a proposed project area must be both urbanized and blighted. This section provides
information on the extent of urbanization in the proposed Project Area.
2. Methodology
Conclusions regarding the extent of urbanization in the proposed Project Area are supported by;
• Extensive field reconnaissance surveys.
• Analysis of legal description maps covering the Project Area.
• Review of aerial photographs.
• Discussions with City staff.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -1 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Following completion of field reconnaissance surveys and the assembly and analysis of available '
background information, areas fitting into the various urbanization categories were outlined on maps and
a planimeter was used to calculate the total land area within each category.
3. Urbanization Requirements of the CRL '
a. Reporting Requirements
Section 33344.5(c) of the CRL requires a description of the Project Area that is sufficiently detailed to '
permit a determination that a proposed redevelopment project area is predominantly urbanized. This
section fulfills this requirement.
b. Definition of a Predominantly Urbanized Area - CRL Section 33320.1(b) and (c) ,
Relevant current provisions of the CRL pertaining to a definition of "predominantly urbanized" are as
follows: ,
(b) As used in this section, 'predominantly urbanized" means that not less than 80 percent of the land
in the project area:
(1) Has been or is developed for urban uses; or
(2) Is characterized by the condition described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of '
Section 330311; or
(3) Is an integral part of one or more areas developed for urban uses which are surrounded or
substantially surrounded by parcels which have been or are developed for urban uses.
'
Parcels separated by only an improved right-of-way shall be deemed adjacent for the
purpose of this subdivision.
(c) For the purposes of this section, a parcel ofproperty as shown on the official maps of the county
assessor is developed if that parcel is developed in a manner which is either consistent with
zoning or is otherwise permitted under law.
4. Extent of Urbanization in the Proposed Project Area
The analysis of the extent of urbanization presented on the following page clearly demonstrates that the ,
Project Area meets the urbanization requirements of the California Community Redevelopment Law.
The analysis supporting this conclusion is based upon the three categories used in the definition of '
"predominantly urbanized" contained in Section 33320.1(b) of the CRL (see above). This analysis,
presented in Table II -1, Calculation of the Extent of Urbanization, indicates that 100 percent of the '
Project Area is predominantly urbanized, thus meeting the requirement that at least 80 percent of the area
be urbanized.
The map presented as Figure II -1, Urbanization Map, shows the location of the various land use '
categories used in the urbanization analysis.
Paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 33031 states "The existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and shape and '
inadequate size for proper usefulness and development that are in multiple ownership."
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -2 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
5. Area that Has Been or Is Developed for Urban Uses
Nearly all the proposed Project Area has been or is developed for urban uses. This category includes
approximately 1,181 acres (or 99.7 percent) of the total land within the Project Area (1,184 acres). The
location of this area is shown on Figure 11-1, Urbanization Map.
6. Inclusion of Areas Characterized by the Conditions Described in
Subdivision (a)(4) of Section 33031
No area that meets this description has been included for the purpose of this urbanization analysis.
7. Inclusion of Areas that Are Integral Parts of Developed Areas
The proposed Project Area includes one area of approximately 3 acres (or 0.3 percent of the Project Area)
that has been designated as an integral part of an area developed for urban uses. Although this area is
currently undeveloped, it is surrounded by urbanized land and is an integral part of a fully urbanized
industrial area. The location of this area is shown on Figure II -1, Urbanization Map.
8. Inclusion of Unurbanized Land for Planning Purposes
No area that meets this description has been included for the purpose of this urbanization analysis.
9. Inclusion of Agricultural Land
The Report on the Plan must discuss the extent of agricultural land in the Project Area.
Section 33344.5(c)(3) of the CRL requires identification of lands in agricultural use.' There are no lands
in agricultural use, as defined in Section 51201(a) and (b) of the Government Code, within the boundaries
of the proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project.
2 As provided in the above cited section, "agricultural use" has the same meaning as defined in Section 51201(a) and (b) of the
Government Code which states: (a) "Agricultural commodity" means any and all plant and animal products produced in this
state for commercial purposes, and (b) "Agricultural use" means use of land for the purpose of producing an agricultural
commodity for commercial purposes.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -3 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Table II -1
Calculation of the Extent of Urbanization
Lodi Redevelopment Project
Urbanization Categories Acres Percent
1. Area that has been or is developed for urban uses 1,181 99.7%
2. Area that is characterized by the conditions described in subdivision (a)(4) 0 0.0%
of Section 33031
3. Area that is an integral part of an area developed for urban uses 3 0.3%
Total Predominantly Urbanized Area 1,184 100%
4. Unurbanized areas included for planning purposes 0 0.0%
Total Urbanized and Unurbanized 1,184 100%
Urbanized and Unurbanized Acres Percent
1. Predominantly urbanized land in agricultural use 0 0%
2. Unurbanized land in agricultural use 0 0%
Total Land in Agricultural Use 0 0%
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I1-4 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
i
C. Characteristics of a Blighted Area '
Relevant provisions of the California Community Redevelopment Law (CRL) describing the
characteristics of a blighted area are as follows: '
Section 33030
(a) It is found and declared that there exist in many communities blighted areas which constitute ,
physical and economic liabilities, requiring redevelopment in the interest of the health, safety,
and general welfare of the people of these communities and of the state.
(b) A blighted area is one that contains both of the following: '
(1) An area that is predominately urbanized, as that term is defined in Section 33320. 1, and is an
area in which the combination of conditions set forth in Section 33031 is so prevalent and so ,
substantial that it causes a reduction of, or lack of, proper utilization of the area to such an
extent that it constitutes a serious physical and economic burden on the community which
cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or
governmental action, or both, without redevelopment.
(2) An area that is characterized by either of the following:
(A) One or more conditions set forth in any paragraph of subdivision (a) of Section 33031
and one or more conditions set forth in any paragraph of subdivision (b) of Section '
33031.
(B) The condition described in paragraph (4) ofsubdivision (a) of Section 33031. '
(c) A blighted area also may be one that contains the conditions described in subdivision (b) and is,
in addition, characterized by the existence of inadequate public improvements, parking facilities,
or utilities. ,
Section 33031 of the CRL describes both physical and economic conditions that can be used to determine
if an area is blighted and in need of redevelopment. These factors are summarized as follows:
a. Adverse Physical Conditions, Section 33031(a) '
The CRL definition for physical blight is as follows:
Deficient or Deteriorated Buildings ,
Buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work. These conditions can be caused
by serious building code violations, dilapidation and deterioration, defective design or physical I construction, faulty or inadequate utilities, or other similar factors. 33031(a)(1)
Factors that Inhibit Proper Use of Buildings or Lots '
Factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of buildings or lots.
This condition can be caused by a substandard design, inadequate size given present standards and market
conditions, lack of parking, or other similar factors. 33031(a)(2) '
Lodi Redevelopment Agency 11-6 Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Incompatible Uses
Adjacent or nearby uses that are incompatible with each other and which prevent the economic
development of those parcels or other portions of the project area. 33031(a)(3)
Substandard Lots in Multiple Ownership
The existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness
and development that are in multiple ownership. 3303l (a)(4)
b. Adverse Economic Conditions, Section 33031 (b)
The CRL definition for economic blight is as follows:
Depreciated Values or Impaired Investments
Depreciated or stagnant property values or impaired investments, including, but not necessarily limited to,
those properties containing hazardous wastes that require the use of agency authority as specified in
Article 12.5 (commencing with Section 33459). 33031(b)(1)
Economic Indicators of Distressed Buildings or Lots
Abnormally high business vacancies, abnormally low lease rates, high turnover rates, abandoned
buildings, or excessive vacant lots within an area developed for urban use and served by utilities.
33031(b)(2)
Lack of Neighiborhood Commercial Facilities
A lack of necessary commercial facilities that are normally found in neighborhoods, including grocery
stores, drug stores, and banks and other lending institutions. 33031(b)(3)
Residential Overcrowding or Problem Businesses
Residential overcrowding or an excess of bars, liquor stores, or other businesses that cater exclusively to
adults, that has led to problems of public safety and welfare. 33031(b)(4)
A High Crime Rate
A high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to the public safety and welfare. 33031(b)(5)
The analysis in Sections D and E below demonstrates that adverse physical and economic conditions exist
throughout the Project Area.
D. Assessment of Existing Conditions
1. Standard for Assessment
The standard for the general assessment of physical and economic conditions are the provisions of the
CRL pertaining to the definition of a redevelopment project area and its characteristics as cited above.
2. Definition of Survey Areas
A total of eight survey areas have been defined as a means of facilitating the assembly and analysis of
data and the presentation of findings. The boundaries of the survey areas are shown on Figure II -2,
Building Conditions Survey Areas.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -7 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
3. Field Reconnaissance Surveys and Photography
Several major steps were taken to assess existing conditions in the proposed Project Area. These steps
include, but are not limited to the following:
a. Field Reconnaissance Surveys Leading to the Designation of Project Area
Early in the year 2000, a number of field reconnaissance surveys were conducted by the consultants as a
means of assessing existing conditions and the need for redevelopment in the community. Preliminary
Project Area boundaries were defined and extensive discussions with city staff were held. At the end of
this process, City staff recommended boundaries to the City Council for approval. In February 2000, the
City Council approved the Project Area.
b. Field Reconnaissance Surveys Supporting the Feasibility Report
Following approval of the Project Area, additional field reconnaissance surveys were conducted to further
assess the extent of adverse physical and economic conditions in the area. These conditions were then
described in the Feasibility Report, Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project, approved by the Lodi City
Council on June 7, 2000. The report also provided preliminary recommendations on redevelopment
project boundaries.
C. Building Conditions Survey
A comprehensive Building Conditions Survey was conducted in March and April 2000. The Building
Conditions Survey was later updated in September 2001. Approximately eleven working days were
required to complete the survey and update. More detail on the Building Conditions Survey is provided
below.
d. Photographic Documentation
Several more days of field survey work were required to complete the photographic documentation of
existing conditions in the Project Area. These photographs are presented in Appendix F: Photographic
Documentation of Existing Conditions.
e. Economic Analysis
Since early 2000, information on observed adverse economic conditions including vacancies, indicators
of disinvestment and residential overcrowding, and underutilization of properties has been gathered and
analyzed to document adverse economic conditions in the Project Area. The results of this analysis are
presented below.
11
1
t
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -8 Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
7
E. Adverse Physical Conditions I
1. Introduction '
This section describes adverse physical conditions within the boundaries of the proposed Lodi
Redevelopment Project Area. It describes'deficient or deteriorated buildings, factors that inhibit proper
use of buildings or lots, the presence of incompatible uses and substandard lots, and public improvement I deficiencies.
The information contained in this subsection responds directly to the characteristics of adverse physical
conditions described in Section 33031(a) of the CRL (as previously described in Section C,
Characteristics of a Blighted Area).
Adverse physical conditions found in the proposed Project Area fall within the four categories of physical
'
blight as specified in the CRL:
• Deficient or deteriorated buildings resulting in unsafe and unhealthy condition.
,
• Factors that inhibit proper use of buildings.
• Incompatible uses.
• Substandard lots.
'
2. Earthquake Hazards
a. Introduction
No active earthquake faults are known to cross the proposed Project Area. However, ground shaking from
an earthquake outside the Project Area may cause damage to structures inside the Project Area.
'
Earthquake damage may be more severe due to liquefaction! As discussed below, the entire Project Area
is susceptible to liquefaction.
b. Soils Conditions
'
The Project Area is underlain by thick alluvium and includes unconsolidated and semi -consolidated
material. The Project Area could experience strong seismic groundshaking and related effects (e.g.,
'
liquefaction) in the event of an earthquake on other faults in the region.
i
3 Draft EIR for the City of Lodi General Plan, Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. I
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -10 Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
C. Potentially Hazardous Buildings
Unreinforced Masonry Buildings
Unreinforced masonry buildings have proved to be particularly hazardous during an earthquake. Such
buildings are typically constructed of brick, hollow tile, or concrete block and often lack the structural
strength to resist a moderate to strong earthquake.
A post earthquake assessment of buildings after the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake confirmed the poor
performance of Unreinforced masonry buildings:
Unreinforced masonry (URDU buildings have once again proven -to be one of the most hazardous
forms of building construction. Many of these structures collapsed, either partially or completely.
Collapse of exterior walls also led to damage of neighboring structures. Seismically upgraded URM
buildings performed substantially better than non -retrofitted buildings.'
Identification and Strengthening of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings
The State of California now requires the identification of unreinforced masonry buildings. Counties, cities
and towns are also required to take steps to ensure the reinforcement of such buildings to a condition that
provides a reasonable level of safety during a seismic event. The City of Lodi is actively pursuing such a
program and is using a standard that is based upon the State Historical Building Code and the retrofitting
standards adopted by the City of Los Angeles. To date the Lodi City Hall and the Hotel Lodi have been
retrofitted in accordance with these standards.
Unreinforced Masonry Buildings in the Proposed Project Area
A recent field reconnaissance survey has identified approximately 66 unreinforced masonry brick
buildings in the downtown area. Many of these buildings are likely to be unsafe in the event of a major
earthquake.
The locations of these buildings are shown on the map presented as Figure H-3, Location of Unreinforced
Masonry Buildings, Downtown Lodi. A list of these buildings is presented as Appendix C.
Specific Examples of Potentially Hazardous Unreinforced Masonry Buildings
The photographs presented in Appendix F, Photographic Documentation, show a number of unreinforced
masonry brick buildings that are described as potentially hazardous, unsafe or unhealthy.s These include
the photographs presented on pages S (lower photograph), 6 (upper and lower photographs), 7 (upper and
lower photographs), 8 (upper photograph), 26 (upper photograph), and 28 (upper photograph).
3. Deficient or Deteriorated Buildings
a. Age of Buildings
The proposed Project Area has, within it boundaries, a wide range of building types and ages.
Within downtown, for example, there are several large commercial and hotel buildings that date back to
the late 19th Century. These buildings, located mainly on the blocks facing Main and Sacramento Streets,
were oriented to the railroad and are more than 100 years old. Most of these buildings are of unreinforced
4 The October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, Dames & Moore, 1989
5 Note: the descriptions contained in the captions for the photographs have been reviewed and approved for accuracy by the City
Community Development Department.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -11 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
masonry brick construction and are considered to be potentially hazardous in the event of a major
earthquake. Many suffer from deferred maintenance and neglect. Badly eroded mortar and cracks in brick
walls raise concerns about the structural stability of these old, often historically interesting buildings.
Later development in downtown began to focus on School Street where most of the remaining large
buildings were built in the first part of the 20th Century during the years 1900 through 1930. A number of
these building are also of unreinforced masonry brick construction and, because of this, are potentially
hazardous in the event of a major earthquake. Most of these buildings are more than 75 years old. Many
of these buildings also suffer from deferred maintenance and neglect.
Although building in downtown slowed during the depression that followed the economic collapse of
1929, a small number of buildings were added during the 1930s. These additions were followed by larger
commercial and bank buildings, mainly of one-story construction, in the period following World War H.
Some of the buildings built during this period are now more than 50 years old. Most of these buildings are
in relatively good condition.
Many of oldest residential buildings are located in the eastern part of the Project Area. These include a
scattering of architecturally and historically interesting Victorians, many homes built during the 1920s
and 1930s, and some homes built in the post World War lI era. Thus, residential buildings in the proposed
Project Area typically range in age from 40 years to more than 100 years old. A large number of these
residences suffer from deferred maintenance and neglect.
11
Lodi Redevelopment Agency 1I-12 Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
• • - .=-=-�ffffrrr.������
=m
LOCUST ST.
u
f
[ rn
Oi C1 V
H
ELM ST.
CITY
HALL
PINE ST,
1
OAK ST.
ui
a
Z
W
W
J
fl
WALNUT ST.
LODI AVE. �--,
Historic maos. Sanborn Man Comoanv. 1926.1960
Locations verified in field, April 2002, John S. Dykstra & Associates
�=j
LOCUST ST.
N
QZ
g N
0
t-
rn
ELM ST.
N�EIE
ff L
PINE ST.
t0 E
ic
[fl
Legend
- APPROXIMATE LOCATION,
UNREINFORCED MASONRY
BUILDINGS
OTOTAL NUMBER OF
BUILDINGS IN BLOCK
N
0 500
l
FEET
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOP'T'ION
FIGURE II -3: LOCATION OF UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDINGS, DOWNTOWN LODI
1
• Small Deteriorated Residential Units Located on Narrow Alleys. These units are to be found
i
b. Field Observations
Several field reconnaissance surveys conducted in 2000, 2001 and 2002 identified a wide range of
'
adverse physical conditions in the proposed Project Area. These conditions, which are described below,
'
provide substantial evidence of physical blight in terms of the redevelopment project eligibility
requirements of the California Community Redevelopment Law. These conditions include:
'
• Deteriorated Residential Structures. Such conditions include deteriorated roofing, siding,
,
foundations, stairs and decks, peeling paint, etc. Many of these residences are in a generally run-down
condition. These conditions are to be found at various locations in the proposed Project Area.
• Unoccupied, Dilapidated, and Abandoned Residential Structures. A number of these residences
are located in the proposed Project Area. In many cases deterioration is so extensive that it is likely
that the cost of repairs and code compliance would exceed the value of the building.
• Residential Structures with Informal and Potentially Substandard Construction. Parts of
,
structures affected by such conditions include foundations, cripple walls, walls, decks, stairs, roofs,
electrical wiring, plumbing, etc. These conditions are found in a very large number of residences in
the area.
• Small Deteriorated Residential Units Located on Narrow Alleys. These units are to be found
generally in the oldest residential neighborhoods bounded by Lockeford Street, Cherokee Lane,
Vine Street and Stockton Street.
• Structurally Unsound Residential Structures. These include residences with inadequate
'
foundations or other structural problems. Some may be unsafe to occupy.
• Deteriorated Commercial Structures. Such structures are concentrated mainly in downtown on
Sacramento Street or along the Cherokee Lane commercial corridor.
,
• Old, Badly Deteriorated Hotel Buildings in Downtown on Main and Sacramento Streets.
• An Abandoned Theater Building on Lodi Avenue.
• A Large, Dilapidated and Abandoned School on Cherokee Lane. This building, the old
Lincoln School, is potentially of architectural and historic interest.
• Unreinforced Masonry Brick Buildings of Questionable Structural Stability. Sixty-six of these
,
buildings have been identified in the downtown area. Conditions observed in these buildings include
serious mortar and brick erosion and cracking in bearing wails. Many are unoccupied or
underutilized. Several of these are of architectural and historical importance and should be, if at all
possible, retrofitted, rehabilitated, and put to economic use.
'
• Commercial Structures with Informal and Possibly Substandard Construction. These conditions
include informal additions and repairs. Many structures provide evidence of such conditions.
• Unoccupied and Apparently Abandoned Commercial Structures.
Further evidence of these observed conditions will be found in Appendix F, Photographic Documentation.
C. Building Conditions Survey
A comprehensive Building Conditions Survey was conducted to evaluate building conditions in the
proposed Project Area.
,
Methodology
The Building Conditions Survey was conducted primarily from an automobile. However, in some
'
locations, such as in downtown Lodi, the survey was conducted on foot. Interior inspections were
generally not conducted. However, in some cases where access to the interior was appropriate, informal
interior inspections were conducted.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -14 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Every major building was rated by the consultant on a scale of 1 (worst condition) to 5 (best condition).
Some buildings required a second examination. Appropriate changes were made to ratings when
warranted.
Professional Opinion
The building condition ratings represent the professional opinion of the consultant (John Dykstra).
Qualifications of the Consultant
The qualifications of the consultant include 4 years as a real estate appraiser and negotiator (commercial
and residential properties), 12 years as a redevelopment planner and administrator (San Francisco
Redevelopment Agency), 22 years in private practice (redevelopment planning, implementation, and
existing conditions assessment), and testimony in court and before public bodies as an expert witness (on
redevelopment plan adoption matters and existing conditions).
Standards and Criteria
The general standards and criteria used in assessing the physical condition of buildings are summarized in
Table II -2, Building Conditions Assessment, presented on the following page.
Building Condition Survey Results
Building condition ratings for individual buildings are tabulated, summarized, and presented for both the
proposed Redevelopment Project Area as a whole and for the eight survey areas. To protect the privacy of
property owners and building occupants, ratings for individual buildings are not reported.
Building conditions in the proposed Project Area range all the way from excellent to dilapidated. Some
buildings are new, and many other buildings have been rehabilitated to a very high standard. However,
many buildings in the area were built years ago, without benefit of building inspection, and a large
number of these suffer from age and neglect. As a result, a relatively high proportion of substandard and
deteriorated buildings can be found in the area.
A total of 3,382 buildings were evaluated. Of this total, 850 (or 25 percent) were found to be in the top
three building condition categories (which range from category 3, generally good condition to category 5,
generally excellent condition). The likely cost of correcting deficiencies in these buildings ranges from
"significant" (category 3) to "minor to low" (category 5).
Nevertheless, 2,532 buildings (or 75 percent) were found to be in the lower two rating categories, where
extensive physical deficiencies are present. The cost of correcting these deficiencies is likely to be high,
and economic rehabilitation of many of these buildings could be both difficult and expensive.
The results of the Building Condition Survey for the proposed Project Area are summarized in Table II -3,
Building Conditions Survey Results, Total Area. A map summarizing the average building condition
ratings for each of the eight survey areas is presented as Figure II4, Average Building Conditions by
Survey Area. These results clearly indicate that there is a prevalence of serious building deficiencies in
each of the eight survey areas.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency 11-15 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Table 11-2
Building Conditions Assessment
Specific Standard: The provisions of the California Community Redevelopment Law pertaining to
blight
General Standard: The relative cost of correcting building deficiencies, code compliance problems,
and seismic safety problems to a degree sufficient to ensure a relatively long-
term Dhvsical and economic life (i.e.. 20-40 vears)
I 2 I Extensive physical/structuralI High I Difficult I
deficienciesz
3 General good condition, some Significant Possible
deficiencies present3
4 Relatively few deficiencies present" Low to moderate Relatively easy
5 General excellent condition' Minor to low None required
1. Typical conditions present include Major Adverse Physical Conditions or a significant combination of Other Adverse
Physical Conditions. Nearly all of these buildings have conditions that make them unsafe or unhealthy for occupancy
2. Typical conditions present include a number of Other Adverse Physical Conditions or significant cumulative deferred
maintenance. Many of these buildings have conditions that make them unsafe or unhealthy for occupancy.
3. Typically some Other Adverse Physical Conditions are present.
4. Typically few Other Adverse Physical Conditions are present.
5. Typically no Other Adverse Physical Conditions are present.
6. To the "General Standard" set forth above.
7. Without redevelopment assistance.
Copyright: John B. Dykstra & Associates 2002
Major Adverse Physical Conditions
■ General dilapidation (very serious deterioration of
entire structure or major parts thereof)
■ Apparent abandonment (vandalized or boarded up
buildings)
■ Structural failure (tracking or subsided foundations,
sagging walls or roofs, etc.)
■ Structural weakness (buildings without adequate
foundations, substandard construction,
unreinforced masonry walls, etc.)
Other Adverse Physical Conditions
■ Potential seismic weakness
■ Deferred maintenance and neglect
■ Broken windows
■ Peeling or faded paint
■ Sagging porches
■ Dry rot in walls, window frames, door frames,
doors, roof rafters, and trim
■ Deteriorated, damaged, poorly repaired, or
excessive layers of roofing materials
■ Cracks or loose bricks in chimneys
■ Deteriorated, broken, or loose siding materials
■ Deteriorated or broken stucco walls
■ Rusted, deteriorated, or missing roof drainage
gutters or down spouts
■ Faulty wiring or plumbing
■ Old and possibly substandard and hazardous
electrical service
■ Eroded mortar or loose bricks in masonry walls
■ Informal or substandard construction
Relationship between Building Conditions and Health and Safety Problems
There is a strong relationship between the condition of buildings documented in the Building Conditions
Survey and health and safety problems in these same buildings. Buildings rated in category 1 (worst
condition) are buildings characterized by adverse conditions such as abandonment, dilapidation, very bad
deterioration, potentially hazardous structural problems (deteriorated, sagging, or failing wood, concrete,
or brick walls, for example), very extensive deferred maintenance, or a combination of problems, which,
taken in their totality, provide strong evidence of physical blight and the presence of health and safety
hazards. Buildings rated in category 2 are characterized by many of these same conditions, but to a lesser
degree. These conditions are depicted and described extensively in the 87 photographs presented as
Appendix F, Photographic Documentation.
Based upon the exterior Building Conditions Survey described above and in the professional judgement
of the consultant, it is possible to conclude that nearly all of the buildings rated as building conditions
category 1 and most of buildings rated as building conditions category 2 have conditions that render them,
to one degree or another, unsafe or unhealthy as places to live or work.
Specific Examples of Buildings with Potential Safety or Health Problems
The presence of potential safety and health problems in buildings within the proposed Project Area is
documented extensively in Appendix F, Photographic Documentation. These problems
are shown in the photographs presented on pages 4 (lower photograph), 5 (upper and lower photographs),
6 (upper and lower photographs), 7 (upper and lower photographs), 8 (upper photograph), 11 (lower
photograph), 12 (lower photograph), 14 (upper and lower photographs), 16 (lower photograph), 20 (upper
photograph), 21 (upper and lower photographs), 23 (upper and lower photographs), 24 (upper
photograph), 26 (upper photograph), 28 (upper photograph), 29 (lower photograph), 30 (upper
photograph), 31 (upper photograph), 32 (upper and lower photographs), 33 (lower photograph), 34 (upper
and lower photographs), 35 (lower photograph), 37 (lower photograph), 39 (lower photograph), 40 (lower
photograph), 42 (upper photograph), and 43 (upper and lower photographs).
Evidence of Code Compliance Problems
Further evidence of health and safety problems is provided in the summary of Community Improvement
Case Activity presented as Appendix E, List of Code Compliance Problems. This summary identifies
these enforcement actions by the following categories: (1) dangerous buildings, (2) housing problems,
(3) nuisances, (4) zoning violations, and (5) miscellaneous. The locations of these enforcement actions are
shown on Figure U-5, Code Compliance Problems.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency 11- 17 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Table II -3 ,
Lodi Redevelopment Project '
BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY RESULTS I TOTAL AREA
Average Building Conditions Ratings: 2.01
I
2.02
2.
1.94
1 . 9 8 �: �!1RPRI ugm"'!,:; • 2.
4. Factors that Inhibit the Proper Use of Land and Buildings
A review of available maps and extensive field reconnaissance surveys has permitted the identification of
several factors that inhibit the proper use of land and buildings. These factors, which are generally
prevalent throughout the area, include:
• Properties that Suffer from Soils and Groundwater Contamination. The extent of this
contamination is shown on Figure II -6, Limits of Identified Soils and Groundwater Contamination
Plumes and Figure II -7, Limits of Major Soils and Groundwater Contamination Plumes presented on
the following pages.
As is commonly known, the presence of subsurface contamination raises concerns about health and
safety, makes properties less desirable, and ultimately, adversely affects property values. In the case of
Lodi, it has also led to the shutdown of one city owned water well.
• Properties that Are Adjacent to Deteriorated, Vacant, or Abandoned Buildings. Deteriorated,
vacant, or abandoned buildings are present at various locations in the proposed Project Area. These
conditions adversely affect adjoining properties and when vacancies are present, vandalism and
illegal occupancy frequently occur.
For specific examples of deteriorated, vacant, or abandoned buildings reference should be made to the
following photographs presented in Appendix F, Photographic Documentation, on pages 8 (upper
photograph), 12 (lower photograph), 14 (upper and lower photographs), 16 (lower photograph), 20
(upper and lower photographs), 21 (upper photograph), 22 (upper and lower photographs), 23 (upper
and lower photographs), 27 (lower photograph), 28 (upper photograph), 29 (lower photograph), 30
(upper and lower photograph), 31 (upper and lower photograph), 32 (upper and lower photographs),
33 (lower photograph), 39 (lower photograph) and 43 (upper and lower photographs).
• Lots of Small Size or Irregular Shape that Are Difficult to Develop. Such lots are scattered
throughout the proposed Project Area.
• Properties that Are Adversely Affected by a Location Next to the Railroad.
• Commercial and Residential Lots Lacking Adequate Off -Street Parking.
• Commercial Uses along Lodi Avenue, Cherokee Lane, and Kettleman Lane that Are Adversely
Impacted by Fast Moving Traffic.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -21 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
r
5. Incompatible Uses
A number of incompatible uses have been identified in the proposed Project Area:
• Residential Uses in Proximity to the Railroad. Such uses are to be found along Sacramento and
Main Streets. They may be adversely affected by noise and vibration.
• Residential Uses Adversely Impacted by Heavy, Fast Moving Traffic. Although adverse traffic
impacts may be found at various locations in the proposed Project Area, the area of greatest impact is
Lodi Avenue between Stockton Street on the west and Cherokee Lane on the east (see Figure II -8,
Incompatible Uses, Adverse Impact of Traffic on Residences). Here the traffic is both heavy and fast
moving. Residences on both sides of the street are adversely affected. Many of these homes are
poorly maintained and several are dilapidated. In general the condition of homes along this street is
much worse than the condition of homes on quiet streets in surrounding neighborhoods.
• Residential Uses in Close Proximity to Active Industrial Uses. Such uses as these are located on
Sacramento Street between Lodi Avenue and Kettleman Lane (see Figure II -9, Incompatible Uses,
Adverse Impact of Industrial Uses on Residences). Adjacent residential uses are frequently affected
by industrial fork lift and truck movements which produce noise and safety hazards. In general, the
condition of occupied homes along Sacramento Street in proximity to active industrial uses is much
worse than the condition of homes one block to the west along School Street.
• Commercial and Residential Uses Located Adjacent to Dilapidated, Vacant, or Abandoned
Properties. (see discussion above in Subsection 4, Factors that Inhibit the Proper Use of Land and
Buildings)
Lodi Redevelopment Agency 11-24 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Nis
MINNIE
gill
■:�I�000 .. ,
---�. „,_�.� ��■n �■� ►�■■��i^11� !ice
W
3
W
Y
Y
O
w
v
SOURCE: Field Reconnaissance Survey, John B. Dykstra d Associates, April Z(Iu2
Legend
-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ADVERSELY
IMPACTED BY TRAFFIC ON LODI AVENUE
N
o T 500
I
FEET
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION
FIGURE II -8: INCOMPATIBLE USES, ADVERSE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC ON RESIDENCES
■
SOURCE: Field Reconnaissance Survey, John B. Dykstra d Associates, April Z(Iu2
Legend
-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ADVERSELY
IMPACTED BY TRAFFIC ON LODI AVENUE
N
o T 500
I
FEET
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION
FIGURE II -8: INCOMPATIBLE USES, ADVERSE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC ON RESIDENCES
LODI AVE
Ei® 1
I
_ a
I
O ST.
N I
J m
O
N � U
zi
IV
41
CI
® "I
a
N
� I
F
a Z
4 R
>3
oZ d
Gj
3
QI
I
�I
o I
. I
NI
i
,I
a' I Legend
_ RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ADVERSELY
I IMPACTED BY ACTIVE INDUSTRIAL USES
N
KETTLEMAN LN.
0 8D0
S I �
FEET
SOURCE: Field Reconnaissance Survey, John B. Dykstra & Associates, April 2002
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION
FIGURE II -9: INCOMPATIBLE USES, ADVERSE IMPACT OF INDUSTRIAL USES ON RESIDENCES
11
6. Substandard Lots in Multiple Ownership
The economic use and proper and timely development of property in the proposed Project Area is affected
by formal and informal subdivision practices that have, over the years, produced a large number of lots
that are, or are likely to be, substandard to economic development. Areas adversely impacted by the
presence of such lots include, but are not limited to:
• Small and Substandard Residential Lots. In many cases these lots front on alleys in the eastern part .
of the Project Area in the blocks bounded by Lockeford Street, Cherokee Lane, Vine Street and
Stockton Street.
• Small Commercial Lots in Downtown along Sacramento and School Streets.
• Small, Difficult to Develop Commercial Lots along Cherokee Lane.
These parcels are shown on the map presented as Figure 1-1, Redevelopment Project Area.
7. Public Improvement Deficiencies
Although the California Community Redevelopment Law no longer permits the use of deficient public
improvements as a determining, or "stand alone" blighting factor, such deficiencies can still be considered
when it can be demonstrated that they contribute to physical and economic blight in a project area.
The Project Area, and the East Side neighborhood in particular, contains aging, obsolete and inadequate
wastewater utilities. The City's wastewater collection system is reaching an age in which older lines
(primarily in the East Side) need to be replaced. Many of these lines are concrete pipes, which suffer from
chemical corrosion and do not have capacity for the present demand.b
Extensive field reconnaissance surveys have permitted the identification of a number of public
improvement deficiencies that contribute to blight in certain areas of the proposed Project Area. These
deficiencies include:
• Deteriorated Pavement Surfaces. These conditions were found at various locations in the proposed
Project Area.
• Unpaved or Poorly Paved Alleys.
• Narrow Alleys that Provide Substandard Access for Small, "Back Lot" Houses or Cottages.
• Aging and Frequently Inadequate Storm Drainage Systems.
• Lack of Public Community Facilities, such as Libraries and Community Centers in Residential
Areas.
• Parking Inadequacies Due to the Poor Location of Parking Resources in Relationship to
Parking Demand.
For further evidence of these conditions, reference should be made to the photographs contained in
Appendix F: Photographic Documentation of Existing Conditions:
e City of Lodi Financial Plan and Budget, 1999-2001.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -27 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
F. Economic Conditions that Cause a Reduction of, or Lack of,
Proper Use of the Proposed Project Area
1. Introduction
Economic blight is evidenced in the downtown by store frontages with "for rent" signs or paper in the
,
windows, despite considerable public and private investment in the streetscape. In the railroad oriented
'
industrial corridor, economic blight is evidenced by abandoned buildings and "property for rent" signs on
,
warehouses.
commercial areas in Lodi. Shopping centers along Kettleman Lane to the west of the Project Area
'
Adverse economic conditions found in the proposed Project Area fall within four categories of economic
,
blight as specified in the CRL and are generally described as:
• Depreciated values or impaired investments.
,
• Economic indicators of distressed buildings or lots.
• Residential overcrowding.
• A high crime rate.
,
a. Methodology
Economic blighting conditions were evaluated under the blight definitions contained in the CRL through
,
the following methods:
• Field surveys of physical and economic conditions in the Project Area.
• Review and analysis of technical documents and data from public and private agencies.
'
• Discussions with government staff and persons knowledgeable about the area.
,
Refer to Appendix A for a complete list of documents and data sources used in the economic blight
documentation.
b. Summary of Observed Economic Blight
Deteriorated residences, boarded -up commercial and residential buildings, vacancies, and other observed
physical and economic conditions provide substantial evidence of depreciated values and impaired
investments. Depreciated property values and impaired investments are evident in the four commercial
areas within the proposed Project Area: Downtown Lodi, Cherokee Lane, Lodi Avenue and
Kettleman Lane. Economic conditions in these commercial areas were historically linked to the railroad
when it was the focus of economic activity. The rail corridor has become almost devoid of commercial
'
activity since new modes of transportation have replaced trains.
Downtown Lodi is not as strong as other commercial areas of the City outside the Project Area. The
,
deteriorated appearance of a number of the Downtown's buildings and the lower level of retail activity
indicate that shoppers prefer to shop in other commercial areas (see retail sales tax analysis).
,
Commercial lease rates are tow in the Downtown and along Cherokee Lane compared to other
commercial areas in Lodi. Shopping centers along Kettleman Lane to the west of the Project Area
command significantly higher rents than the Downtown. Commercial rents are significantly lower in the
,
area east of the Union Pacific railroad tracks, where properties are more deteriorated, than they are west
of the railroad tracks.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I1-28 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
,
Disinvestment has been a problem along Cherokee Lane since the 1980s, when Highway 12
(Kettleman Lane) became the preferred location for commercial development, especially in the southwest
portion of the City. Cherokee Lane was Lodi's first highway commercial corridor, when commercial
businesses moved there from the Downtown in the 1960s to serve highway traffic. Highway 99 now
bypasses Cherokee Lane, channeling highway traffic away from commercial uses on Cherokee Lane. The
Cherokee Lane corridor reflects this past, with a mix of auto sales and services, motels, drive-in
restaurants, liquor stores, and the K-Mart/Orchard Supply shopping center. Auto sales, services and
lodging, oriented to highway traffic, remain the most prominent forms of development along the street.
Adverse economic -conditions observed during field reconnaissance surveys include, but are not limited
to, the following:
• Deteriorated or poorly maintained commercial properties that provide evidence of impaired
investments and depreciated property values. Such buildings are found at various locations in the
Downtown on Sacramento Street, and along Cherokee Lane.
• Vacant ground floor commercial spaces that are common in buildings located on the west side of
North and South Sacramento Street between West Elm and West Oak Streets and on the north side of
West Pine Street between North Sacramento and School Streets.
• Vacant second floor spaces in the Downtown in buildings that lack elevators and are poorly served by
substandard stairways.
• Underutilized properties.
• Large number of lots that are likely to be substandard to economic development.
• Outmoded, obsolescent buildings, such as the abandoned theater building on Lodi Avenue.
• Commercial buildings with marginal occupancy. These buildings, which are found throughout the
downtown and industrial areas, may not be delivering reasonable economic return to their owners or
investors.
• Deteriorated, dilapidated and abandoned residences. Such buildings, many of which are located in the
older residential area, often provide evidence of impaired investments.
For further evidence, refer to Appendix D: Building Conditions by Survey Areas and Subareas, and
Appendix F: Photographic Documentation of Existing Conditions.
2. Depreciated Values or Impaired Investments
This section documents the presence in the proposed Project Area of blighting conditions described in
CRL Section 33031(b)(1), including depreciated or stagnant property values, impaired investments and
properties containing hazardous materials. This section documents the presence of depreciated or stagnant
property values or impaired investments in the Project Area by reporting on the:
• Poor economic performance of retail businesses.
• Residential sale prices below comparable city properties.
• Lodging establishments with lower revenues per room as compared to establishments outside the
Project Area.
• Presence of hazardous materials.
a. Poor Economic Performance of Retail Businesses
Stagnant sales tax receipts in the Project Area, including the commercial subareas of Downtown,
East Kettleman Lane (the north side between Sacramento Street and Central Avenue), West Lodi Avenue
(to Ham Lane) and Cherokee Lane (divided between north and south subareas), are an indicator of
Lodi Redevelopment Agency 1I-29 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
depreciated values and impaired investments within the Project Area. Many retail businesses in the
Project Area experienced declining retail sales between 1994 and 2001. The retail sales analysis is based
on retail sales tax receipts data for retail businesses in the Project Area, the City of Lodi and
San Joaquin County for the six year period from FY 1994/95 to FY 2000/01.'
During the past six years, sales tax receipts have grown by 0.6 percent when adjusted for inflation in the
Project Area, while they have grown 2.5 percent in the City of Lodi and 4.4 percent in
San Joaquin County. Sales tax receipts in'the Project Area represented about 41 percent of total sales tax
revenues collected in Lodi.'
Table II -4
Sales Tax Receipts
Comparison of Lodi Commercial Areas
6 -Year Trend (Adjusted for Inflation)
Fiscal Year Ending
Sales Tax Receipts
Average Annual
Percent Change
1994/95
2000/01
Project Area Total
$2,796,953
$2,893,426
0.6%
City of Lodi Total
$51943,039
$6,992,051
2.5%
San Joaquin County
$45,412,243
$60,737,389
4.4%
Source: Historical sales tax revenue for all outlets based on data provided by HdL Coren and Cone,
November 2001.
The proposed Project Area generated retail sales tax receipts of about $2.8 million in 2001.9 Most of the
retail sales outside the Project Area are generated by businesses along West Kettleman Lane in
Sunwest Plaza, Target Center, and Vineyard Shopping Center, and on Ham Lane in Lakewood Mall.
Most of the retail sales in the Project Area are generated by businesses in Downtown, and along
East Kettleman Lane, North and South Cherokee Lane and West Lodi Avenue. The five commercial
subareas generated about $1.8 million in sales tax revenues, while all commercial establishments in the
Project Area generated approximately $2.8 million according to sales tax data provided by HdL Coren
and Cone (HdL). All five retail areas had retail sales trends below the City and County between 1992 and
2001. Table 11-5 shows trends in retail sales growth for all six retail areas in the Project Area.
During the past nine years, Cherokee Lane is the only commercial subarea where sales tax receipts grew
in the Project Area. Sales tax receipts in North Cherokee Lane grew by only 0.6 percent, and receipts in
South Cherokee Lane grew by only 0.2 percent, less than one-quarter the City rate.
As noted above in Section E.3.b Field Observations, Cherokee Lane and the Downtown, especially
Sacramento Street, also contain a significant number of commercial structures that exhibit physical
deterioration and possibly substandard construction, or are unoccupied or abandoned. Cherokee Lane is
also adversely affected by small lots in multiple ownership that are difficult to develop.
' Based on analysis of sales tax data for 1994 to 2001 provided by HdL Coren & Cone for all businesses in Lodi
' The sales tax trend analysis was calculated using constant 2001 dollars to adjust for inflation. The CPI for all urban consumers
for the San Francisco/Oakland MSA for the seven-year period between 1994 and 2001 was used to adjust the sales tax to
2001 constant dollars.
9 Based on the number of businesses that paid sales tax during the first quarter of 2001.
.1
Ci
11
11
-1
LJ
F
U
Lodi Redevelopment Agency 11-30 Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Table II -5
Historical Sales Tax Revenue to City by Subarea
Lodi Redevelopment Project
Location
1992/93
1993/94
1994/95
1995/96
1996/97
1997/98
1998/99
1999/00
2000/01
Average
Annual %
Change
East Kettleman Lane
$37,179
$35,854
$35,338
$34,377
$32,132
$31,858
$32,565
$32,855
$36,969
-0.1%
Downtown
$413,130
$405,220
$374,322
$371,815
$367,415
$365,136
$367,607
$371,974
$364,195
-1.6%
$247,381
West Lodi Avenue
$265,878
$224,357
$224,825
$231,582
$217,540
$209,324
$207,728
$186,197
-4.4%
South Cherokee Lane
$684,031
$694,762
$646,605
$676,699
$6331124
$643,994
$654,959
$681,295
$719,563
0.6%
North Cherokee Lane
$532,317
$472,665.
$398,016
$436,690
$439,052
$422,610
$384,275
$466,258
$540,277
0.2%
Source: Historical sales tax revenue for all outlets based on data provided by HdL Coren and Cone Retail Sales Tax Data, November 2001,
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
b. Housing Values
real estate service, housing values in the East Side are substantially lower than other parts of the City.
,
Single Family Home Sales
The majority of the sales in the proposed Project Area occurred in the oldest and largest residential area,
the East Side neighborhood, which contains housing built from the late 19th century onward. The
,
East Side neighborhood was a modest, yet stable, single-family neighborhood. Starting in the 1970s and
'
continuing through the mid-1980s, however, the area experienced a significant increase in the conversion
of single family homes to multifamily housing. The quality of this multifamily development was
,
generally poor, reducing the value of nearby owner -occupied, single family properties. This trend started
a process of disinvestment and instability, with single family houses converted into rental properties as
the number of apartments increased. In addition, the increase in occupancy has stressed the I neighborhood's aging public utility and services systems.
According to local residential real estate brokers and information obtained from DataQuick, an internet
real estate service, housing values in the East Side are substantially lower than other parts of the City.
,
Homes in East Side are averaging between $49,350 and $132,000 compared to $140,928 and $220,545
for similar homes in the Lodi vicinity. The price differential is the result of a variety of factors including
deteriorated housing conditions, the poor quality of existing multifamily development, overcrowding,
'
decreased property maintenance, as well as constrained street capacity and City sewer and water facilities.
Housing values in the proposed Project Area are substantially lower than in the rest of Lodi and the
,
surrounding area. The average listing price for one to four bedroom homes in the Project Area is about
$98,860 which is about 40 percent less than the $165,947 average price for homes in the remainder of
Lodi and the surrounding area.
,
As shown below in Table II -6, the median sale price of homes in the Project Area was 35 percent less
than comparable homes in the rest of the City.10 This analysis is based on 473 single family home sales in
Lodi in 2001, of which 93 were in the Project Area. The gap between median home values generally
increases with the size of homes, with the exception of two bedroom homes. There were no comparable
sales of one bedroom homds outside the Project Area. Two bedroom homes sold for 27 percent less in the
Project Area compared to other areas of the City, three bedroom homes sold for 24 percent less, and
four bedroom homes sold for 32 percent less.
n
10 DataQuick residential sales data included all homes. These sections analyzed only 1 to 4 bedroom homes, because no larger '
homes were sold in the Project Area in 2001.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I1-32 Report on the Plan ,
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Table II -6
Sales Prices for Single Family Homes
City of Lodi and Surrounding Area
Source: DataQuick Online Real Estate Data, 2001. Single family homes sold in the Lodi vicinity in 2001.
Graph II -1 compares the median sales price of single family homes in 2001 for the Project Area with the
rest of the City outside the Project Area.
Multifamily Unit Sales
As previously noted, the Project Area contains poor -quality multifamily housing, in addition to higher
density housing. Values for multifamily housing are substantially lower in the Project Area than in the
rest of the City. This analysis is based on 79 sales of multifamily properties in the Lodi vicinity during
2001. As shown in Graph II -2, the median sales price of duplexes in the Project Area was $105,000,
which is about 35 percent less than the $160,794 median price in the remainder of Lodi. For triplexes, the
median sales price was $141,500, which is about 20 percent less than the $177,500 median in the Lodi
vicinity.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -33 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Pro'ect Area
Lodi Vicinity
No.
Median
Sales Price
No.
Median Sales
Price
One Bedroom
10
$47,500
0
N/A
Two Bedroom
55
$99,500
105
$136,0 0
Three Bedroom
26
$123,000
236
$162,750
Four Bedroom
2
$132,000
39
$195,000
Total
93
$101,000
380
$156,000
Source: DataQuick Online Real Estate Data, 2001. Single family homes sold in the Lodi vicinity in 2001.
Graph II -1 compares the median sales price of single family homes in 2001 for the Project Area with the
rest of the City outside the Project Area.
Multifamily Unit Sales
As previously noted, the Project Area contains poor -quality multifamily housing, in addition to higher
density housing. Values for multifamily housing are substantially lower in the Project Area than in the
rest of the City. This analysis is based on 79 sales of multifamily properties in the Lodi vicinity during
2001. As shown in Graph II -2, the median sales price of duplexes in the Project Area was $105,000,
which is about 35 percent less than the $160,794 median price in the remainder of Lodi. For triplexes, the
median sales price was $141,500, which is about 20 percent less than the $177,500 median in the Lodi
vicinity.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -33 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
$200,000
$180,000
$160,000
$140,000
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
Graph II -1.
Median Sale Price of Single Family Homes in 2001
by Number of Bedrooms
City of Lodi
One Bedroom Two Bedroom Three Bedroom Four Bedroom
E3 Project Area
■ City
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
$180,000
$160,000
$140,000
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
Lodi Redevelopment Agency
Lodi Redevelopment Project
Graph II -2
Median Sale Price of Multifamily Units in 2001
City of Lodi
Duplex Triplex
........... .
09 Project Area,
■ City
Report on the Plan
April 2002
C. Lodging Establishments
Motels were located along Cherokee Lane when it was the main north—south artery of the old .Highway 99
'
through Lodi. Since the new Highway 99 bypass, many motels have been converted to multifamily
dwellings, although their rooms were not designed for permanent residence. The former motels provide
essential affordable housing for low-income and migrant residents. However, the cost to maintain or
'
upgrade these structures to comply with health code requirements for permanent dwelling units makes
'
their use as affordable housing challenging over the long term. As a result, many of these properties suffer
from deterioration and contribute to unsafe and unhealthy conditions for their occupants.
,
Based on data obtained from the City of Lodi Finance Department, sixteen of the eighteen lodging
establishments in the City of Lodi are located in the proposed Project Area. Of these sixteen, one has been
closed since early 1998 due to fire damage, and seven have been converted to permanent residences. In
'
addition, four of the sixteen establishments have both permanent and transient occupancy within the same
motel. (The City defines hotel transient occupancy as occupancy for 30 days or less.)
'
Facilities outside the Project Area tend to offer a greater variety of services than the smaller motels in the
Project Area. One is a 95 -room Holiday Inn Express, which has a pool, sauna, whirlpool, exercise room,
and a coin laundry facility for guests. The other facility, Wine & Roses, is a bed and breakfast inn located
on a five -acre estate, which is in the process of constructing additional rooms. Originally opened with ten
rooms, the Wine & Roses added 13 guest rooms during the Fall of 2001, and will open an additional 15
rooms (bringing the total to 38 rooms) in Spring 2002.
'
The lodging establishments in the Project Area tend to be very small, budget -class motels, most of which
offer limited to no guest services. Eleven of the motels have less than 30 rooms (including the motel that
,
was closed due to fire damage), three motels have between 30 and 45 rooms and two have between 45
and 55 rooms. The two largest motels in the Project Area, the Best Western Royal Host Inn and the
Comfort Inn, are the most comparable to the Holiday Inn and offer some of the guest services that are
available at the Holiday Inn, such as an outdoor pool and whirlpool. These three motels could be
'
considered comparable highway -oriented lodgings serving the traveler. However the published room rates
for the two motels in the Pfoject Area are not as high as for the Holiday Inn.
The lodging establishments outside the Project Area have published room rates between $85 and $165 per
night (double occupancy), compared to average "asking" room rates of $45 to $65 per night for most
motels in the Project Area." Comparing the Project Area's lodging facilities to establishments outside the
'
Project Area reveals a significant weakness in the Project Area's lodging market. The motels in the
Project Area total 415 rooms, or 80 percent of the City's total overnight lodging rooms. However,
transient occupancy tax (TOT) generated by the Project Area's motels represents only 50 percent of the
,
City's total TOT revenues. The annual transient occupancy tax per room for lodging rooms in the Project
Area is shown in Graph II -3. The average annual transient occupancy tax per room is significantly lower
inside the Project Area compared to outside the Project Area. This indicates both lower rates and lower I transient occupancy levels in the Project Area than outside, as discussed below.
Table II -7 shows the average nightly revenue per room in the Project for motels with less than 50 rooms '
that had transient lodging guests in 2000. This table shows that the average nightly revenue per room
ranged from $3 to $35, with an average of $16, based on analysis of transient occupancy tax receipts.
Only four of the sixteen motels in the Project Area publish their room rates with sources such as the Automobile Association of
America (AAA). Room rates for the remaining motels in the Project Area were obtained through a telephone survey conducted '
by Seifel Consulting [nc.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -36 Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Table II -7
Lodging Establishments
Lodi Redevelopment Project
(in Constant 2000 Dollars)
Source: City of Lodi Finance Department.
As discussed above, the "asking" daily room rates ranged from $45 to $65 per night, with an average of
$53 for Project Area motels with transient occupancy. The average revenue as a percentage of room
revenue for these motels is just over 30 percent, as compared to approximately 58 percent for motels
outside the Project Area. This suggests that Project Area motels have very low transient occupancy rates
(in combination with lower room rates) and are not able to capitalize on market demand captured by
motels outside the Project Area.
Moreover TOT receipts for motels have actually been decreasing over time, after adjusting for inflation
(average decrease of 2.9 percent per year between 1996 and 2000), while motels outside the Project Area
have increased significantly faster than inflation, as shown in Table 11-8 below. 12
Table II -8
Annual Transient Occupancy Tax Per Room
Lodi Redevelopment Project
(in Constant 2000 Dollars)
Average
Annual
Growth
Average
Daily
Revenue in
2000
Published/
"Asking"
Room Rate
in 2000
Avg. Daily
Revenue as
Percent of
Room Rate
Motel A
$16
$50
33%
Motel B
$12
$55
22%
Motel C
$15
$50
31%
Motel D
$3
$45
7%
Motel E
$15
$45
33%
Motel F
$3
$55
5%
Motel G
$5
$55
9%
Motel H
$35
$60
59%
Motel
$11
$50
22%
Total
$16
$53 t
31%
Source: City of Lodi Finance Department.
As discussed above, the "asking" daily room rates ranged from $45 to $65 per night, with an average of
$53 for Project Area motels with transient occupancy. The average revenue as a percentage of room
revenue for these motels is just over 30 percent, as compared to approximately 58 percent for motels
outside the Project Area. This suggests that Project Area motels have very low transient occupancy rates
(in combination with lower room rates) and are not able to capitalize on market demand captured by
motels outside the Project Area.
Moreover TOT receipts for motels have actually been decreasing over time, after adjusting for inflation
(average decrease of 2.9 percent per year between 1996 and 2000), while motels outside the Project Area
have increased significantly faster than inflation, as shown in Table 11-8 below. 12
Table II -8
Annual Transient Occupancy Tax Per Room
Lodi Redevelopment Project
(in Constant 2000 Dollars)
Average
Annual
Growth
Source: City of Lodi Finance Department.
12 For confidentiality reasons, the average annual transient occupancy tax per room for facilities outside the Project Area cannot
be published.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -37 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
1996-2000
Project Area Motels
$514
1 $447
$455
$399
$458
-2.9%
Source: City of Lodi Finance Department.
12 For confidentiality reasons, the average annual transient occupancy tax per room for facilities outside the Project Area cannot
be published.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -37 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
00
d. Hazardous Materials Sites
The remediation of toxic or hazardous waste is frequently costly and a major financial disincentive to
reinvestment or development. Sites that are abandoned or underutilized because of known or potential
environmental contamination are commonly referred to as brownfields. Often, in order for the
development of a brownfield to be feasible, public agency assistance is necessary. The fear of
environmental liability, in particular, uncertainty over changing response standards and costs, and the
high price of conducting environmental investigations are some of the leading reasons deterring the
beneficial development and use of urban sites. Developers fear that they will face liability under
environmental laws and that the cost of evaluating and remediating brownfields is both so uncertain and
so high that it could easily outweigh the market value of the property. Figures II -6 and II -7 indicate
portions of the Project Area with soils and groundwater contamination.
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and other laws, developers may be held liable for past
chemical releases, even though they were not directly responsible for the conditions that gave rise to the
liability. Therefore, prior to purchasing or entering into contract to develop a site, a developer must
undertake extensive environmental investigations to determine whether hazardous materials are present.
In addition, predicting the cost to conduct any potential remediation prior to development is uncertain.
Finally, there are often delays associated with obtaining governmental approvals before development may
begin.
Hazardous materials or waste have been used in the Project Area in commercial, industrial, and in a more
limited extent, residential areas. Three areas either partially or completely within the Project Area have
been identified as contamination hot spots. in 1989, the City of Lodi detected tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
and trichloroethylene (TCE) contamination in water samples, at concentrations above California's
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLS) for drinking water. The California Department of Toxic
Substance Control (DTSC) is the lead regulatory agency providing technical review of the groundwater
investigation being conducted by the City of Lodi. The Project Area falls within the DTSC-designated
Lodi Groundwater Area of Contamination. In the 1990s, DTSC funded a remedial investigation and a
Potentially Responsible Pahy (PRP) search to determine the exact sources of this contamination.
Contamination is generally thought to be associated with past dry cleaning operations. Additional
hazardous materials investigations have also been completed since that time. According to the most recent
studies conducted in 2001, the hot spots are:
• The area bounded by Walnut Street and Lodi Avenue on the north and south, and Pleasant Avenue
and Hutchins Street to the west and east;
• The area bounded by Lockeford and Locust Streets to the north and south, and Church and
Sacramento Streets to the west and east; and
• The area bounded by Locust and Elm Streets to the north and south, and Stockton and
Sacramento Streets to the west and east.
The City of Lodi anticipates that the federal court will exercise jurisdiction over the claims of the state
and the City concerning investigation and remediation of the Lodi Area of Contamination and will
execute a final, non -appealable order compelling a Responsible Party to perform all actions necessary to
develop and implement a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study and any Interim Remedial Actions
necessary to protect human health and the environment. If the federal court fails to enforce a final order,
the City of Lodi will take action. The City is required by state hazardous materials regulatory agencies,
under the purview of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, to clean up the groundwater
contamination. The City is currently involved in litigation with insurance companies representing prior
site occupants suspected of earlier contamination. Cleanup of suspected groundwater contamination
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I1-39 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
3. Economic Indicators of Distressed Buildings or Lots
This section documents the presence in the proposed Project Area of blighting conditions described in '
CRL Section 33031(b)(2), including abnormally high business vacancies, abnormally low lease rates,
high turnover rates, and excessive amounts of abandoned buildings and vacant lots. This section
documents the presence of these economic indicators in the Project Area by reporting on the:
• Low commercial and industrial lease rates.
• Abnormally high vacancies.
• Inability of commercial space to meet current user demands.
• Infeasibility of private sector to rehabilitate properties.
• Underutilized property.
a. Low Commercial and Industrial Lease Rates
Most lease rates for commercial and industrial space in the Project Area are lower than in other parts of ,
Lodi and the surrounding area. These relatively lower lease rates occur in areas with adverse physical
conditions as described in the previous sections. ,
Retail Lease Rates
According to local brokers, commercial lease rates in the Downtown are 30 to 50 percent below those in
'
sources will be undertaken pending a final decision in this litigation. However, new development could
'
disturb contaminated groundwater and cause migration of the contamination.13
in the Project Area also suffers from lower lease rates. Table 11-9 presents a summary of typical
,
The existence of this contamination, the possibility that development could disturb contaminated soils and
,
groundwater, and the uncertainty of the timing and the outcome of the litigation all serve as potential
impediments to development.
,
3. Economic Indicators of Distressed Buildings or Lots
This section documents the presence in the proposed Project Area of blighting conditions described in '
CRL Section 33031(b)(2), including abnormally high business vacancies, abnormally low lease rates,
high turnover rates, and excessive amounts of abandoned buildings and vacant lots. This section
documents the presence of these economic indicators in the Project Area by reporting on the:
• Low commercial and industrial lease rates.
• Abnormally high vacancies.
• Inability of commercial space to meet current user demands.
• Infeasibility of private sector to rehabilitate properties.
• Underutilized property.
a. Low Commercial and Industrial Lease Rates
Most lease rates for commercial and industrial space in the Project Area are lower than in other parts of ,
Lodi and the surrounding area. These relatively lower lease rates occur in areas with adverse physical
conditions as described in the previous sections. ,
Retail Lease Rates
According to local brokers, commercial lease rates in the Downtown are 30 to 50 percent below those in
other retail centers in Lodi and 50 to 70 percent lower than lease rates in retail centers in the southwestern
'
part of the City (closer to the newer residential neighborhoods). Commercial space along Cherokee Lane
in the Project Area also suffers from lower lease rates. Table 11-9 presents a summary of typical
commercial lease rates in the Lodi area. In the Downtown, retail space typically leases for $0.35 to $0.85
,
per square foot per month on a gross basis, which translates into triple net (NNN) rents of approximately
$0.22 to $0.60 per square foot. At the Cherokee Retail Center in the Project Area, commercial space is
currently on the market at $0.85 to $1.00 per square foot per month (NNN).
,
In contrast, lease rates at the Lakewood Mall at Elm and Ham Lane (considered by brokers to be most
comparable to downtown retail uses) average between $1.25 to $1.30 per square foot per month (NNN).
Retail development on West Kettleman Lane from Fairmont to Hutchins ranges from $1.40 to $1.60 per
,
square foot per month (NNN). Newer retail space along lower Sacramento Road and
West Kettleman Lane at the southwest end of town can command rents ranging from $1.90 to $2.00 per
square foot.
Office Lease Rates
Office lease rates are from 60 to 75 percent lower in the Downtown than in other parts of Lodi. Typical '
ground floor office space in the Downtown leases for between $0.45 and $0.50 per square foot per month
(full service). Upper floor office space in the Downtown is largely unleaseable, due to lack of elevator
service and outdated electrical and/plumbing space, and is therefore vacant. I
" Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Lodi Redevelopment Plan, Wagstaff & Associates. March 2002. 1
Lodi Redevelopment Agency 11-40 Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
In contrast, office space in competitive buildings on Ham Lane or West Kettleman Lane command lease
rates in the range of $1.50 to $2.00 per square foot per month (full service).
Industrial Lease Rates
While the northern portion of the Project Area does have some older industrial space served by the
railroad tracks, the majority of the more competitive industrial space is on the east side of the City along
Industrial Way and Thurman Streets, Many of the larger industrial users own and/or build their own
facilities. For example, General Mills owns its facility at West Turner Road, the Robert Mondavi Winery
owns its distribution facility on North Guild Avenue and Pacific Coast Producers recently constructed a
900,000 square foot canning facility on North Guild Avenue.
Table II -9
Summary of Commercial Lease Rates
Lodi Market Area, January 2002
[11 Retail rents in Downtown are typically quoted on a full-seryice basis, but have been converted to a triple
net basis for comparative purposes with other areas in the City.
Source: Broker interviews, Winter, 2002.
b. Abnormally High Vacancies
Commercial vacancies in the Downtown, including Sacramento Street, are abnormally high, particularly
as compared to other commercial areas in the City. The vacancy rate of ground floor commercial space in
the downtown is estimated between 20 and 25 percent, while upper floor space is estimated to be over
80 percent vacant, yielding an overall vacancy rate in excess of 30 percent. By comparison, there are
currently no vacancies at Lakewood Mall, while vacancies on West Kettleman Lane are minimal —
currently estimated at less than five percent.
C. Inability of Commercial Space to Meet Current User Demands
As previously noted in Section F.I .b, much of the commercial space in the Project Area is comprised of
older buildings that are constrained by their inability to meet modern design requirements for retail and
office space, as well as the limited size of commercial spaces. However, higher volume retailers, such as
Barnes and Noble, Crate -n -Barrel, Pottery Barn and Restoration Hardware, could help to catalyze the
retail district by serving as anchors.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency 1I-41 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Inside
Outside
RETAIL (NNN)
Project
Project
Area
Area
DowntownIll$0.2240.60Ra�t'i
Cherokee Retail Center
$.85-$1.00
Lakewood Mall
"$�
�,� � �
W.,g.:.:. `.,•.,_:.
$1.25-$130
W. Kettleman -Hutchins to Fairmont
$1.40-$1.60
W. Kettleman Lower Sacramento Road
$1.90-$2.00
Inside
Outside
OFFICE (Gross Full Service)
Project
Project
Area
Area
Downtown Office Space
$0.45-$0.50
N/A
Ham Lane Office Space
ff
°
a t(p$1.50-$2.00
$1.50-$2.00
West Kettleman Lane Office
[11 Retail rents in Downtown are typically quoted on a full-seryice basis, but have been converted to a triple
net basis for comparative purposes with other areas in the City.
Source: Broker interviews, Winter, 2002.
b. Abnormally High Vacancies
Commercial vacancies in the Downtown, including Sacramento Street, are abnormally high, particularly
as compared to other commercial areas in the City. The vacancy rate of ground floor commercial space in
the downtown is estimated between 20 and 25 percent, while upper floor space is estimated to be over
80 percent vacant, yielding an overall vacancy rate in excess of 30 percent. By comparison, there are
currently no vacancies at Lakewood Mall, while vacancies on West Kettleman Lane are minimal —
currently estimated at less than five percent.
C. Inability of Commercial Space to Meet Current User Demands
As previously noted in Section F.I .b, much of the commercial space in the Project Area is comprised of
older buildings that are constrained by their inability to meet modern design requirements for retail and
office space, as well as the limited size of commercial spaces. However, higher volume retailers, such as
Barnes and Noble, Crate -n -Barrel, Pottery Barn and Restoration Hardware, could help to catalyze the
retail district by serving as anchors.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency 1I-41 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
As shown in Table 11-10 below, the maximum amount of a single retail space available in the Downtown
is generally 2,000 square feet. In other parts of Lodi, the range of available retail space is much greater,
from 1,500 to 50,000 square feet. Any of the retailers that might act as a catalyst anchor for the downtown
would require between 5,000 and 20,000 square feet of space.
The same is true for office space. In the downtown, office space ranges from 300 to a maximum of
21000 square feet. In other parts of Lodi, office renters can find a wider range of office sizes, up to
5,000 square feet.
Older buildings also cannot provide flexibility in terms of space and the amenities found in newer
buildings. Modern shopping centers and malls can offer a variety of spaces, so that potential renters are
more likely to find a space that meets their size requirements. In addition, they have the option to expand
or reduce the amount of space they lease. New office space is generally designed to provide flexibility.
Table II -10
Size of Available
Commercial Space in Lodi
January 2002
Source: Broker interviews.
d. Infeasibility of Private Sector to Rehabilitate Properties
This section evaluates impaired investment in terns of a private investor's ability to rehabilitate
deteriorated, older buildings while achieving a reasonable return on investment. It examines the feasibility
of two prototypical rehabilitation projects: a mixed-use building in the Downtown and industrial space on
the East Side. The rehabilitation assumes extensive improvements such as those listed above, which are
often necessary in older buildings. The assumptions for this analysis were obtained from discussions with
local real estate owners and brokers, as well as comparable sales information on recent transactions.
The costs of preserving and upgrading historic and other older buildings are difficult to determine
precisely but, based on field surveys and discussions with business owners and brokers, would involve
some or all of the following:
• Structural preservation including building repairs and facade preservation;
• Installation of an elevator for second floor space;
• Electrical and plumbing and other code upgrades;
• Improvement to heating and ventilation systems;
• Interior remodeling for adaptive reuse.
This analysis begins with estimated project costs for the purchase and rehabilitation of older buildings in
poor condition based on comparable sales and the cost of undertaking substantial rehabilitation. This
i
i
i
t
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -42 Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Proposed
Project Area
Other Areas in
Lodi
Office
Minimum Square Footage
300
1,000
Maximum Square Footage
2,000
5,000
Retail
Minimum Square Footage
300
1,500
Maximum Square Foota e
2,000
50,000
Source: Broker interviews.
d. Infeasibility of Private Sector to Rehabilitate Properties
This section evaluates impaired investment in terns of a private investor's ability to rehabilitate
deteriorated, older buildings while achieving a reasonable return on investment. It examines the feasibility
of two prototypical rehabilitation projects: a mixed-use building in the Downtown and industrial space on
the East Side. The rehabilitation assumes extensive improvements such as those listed above, which are
often necessary in older buildings. The assumptions for this analysis were obtained from discussions with
local real estate owners and brokers, as well as comparable sales information on recent transactions.
The costs of preserving and upgrading historic and other older buildings are difficult to determine
precisely but, based on field surveys and discussions with business owners and brokers, would involve
some or all of the following:
• Structural preservation including building repairs and facade preservation;
• Installation of an elevator for second floor space;
• Electrical and plumbing and other code upgrades;
• Improvement to heating and ventilation systems;
• Interior remodeling for adaptive reuse.
This analysis begins with estimated project costs for the purchase and rehabilitation of older buildings in
poor condition based on comparable sales and the cost of undertaking substantial rehabilitation. This
i
i
i
t
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -42 Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
project cost is then compared with the loan and equity amounts that could be supported by projected rents
generated by each completed project. These prototypes are used for illustrative purposes to demonstrate
the impact of rental rates and property values on the economic value of the investment.
Private financing techniques alone will not likely be sufficient to undertake substantial rehabilitation of
typical buildings in certain areas still needing redevelopment attention. Below are two prototypical
purchase and rehabilitation projects in the area still needing redevelopment attention. The first project, a
two story freestanding historic building in the downtown, would likely need a subsidy of about $526,000
to be financially feasible for a developer. The second representative project, an industrial project on the
East Side, would need a subsidy of about $264,000. The ability of private developers to invest in
rehabilitation of substandard buildings is a measure of economic health within the Project Area. When
new rehabilitation is not feasible, needed building capital improvements are deferred and properties are
not upgraded and are poorly maintained.
Prototypical Rehabilitation Project I: Downtown Mixed Use Building
The prototypical project is a 10,000 square foot mixed-use building with about 4,250 square feet of
commercial space on the ground floor and 4,250 square feet of office space on the upper floor (common
area is assumed to be 1,500 square feet or about 15 percent). The project assumes installation of an
elevator, electrical and plumbing upgrades, fagade restoration, and interior remodeling.
Table 11-11 summarizes the estimated costs and projected revenues of this prototypical rehabilitation
project. The site acquisition cost would be approximately $350,000, assuming a cost of about $35 per
square foot, per recent building sales prices for comparable buildings. Rehabilitation construction costs
are estimated at $550,000, or approximately $55 per square foot. The total cost of the project, including
soft costs and contingency costs, would be about $1,065,000.
A typical commercial building of this size is projected to generate a gross income of $76,500 annually
given current market conditions, assuming rent for the second floor office at $0.50 per square foot and
$1.00 per square foot for the ground floor retail (full service).14 Subtracting a five percent vacancy loss
and operating expenses yields a net operating income of approximately $55,000 per year, before tax."
Lending institutions typically require that net operating incotne exceed debt service payment by
15 to 20 percent for mixed-use projects (a debt coverage ratio of 1.2 to 1.5). A 1.2 debt coverage ratio
yields about $45,500 available to cover debt service and an annual cash flow of about $9,100 (used to
provide the return to equity investors). The annual debt service amount could support a mortgage loan of
about $447,500. The annual cash flow would support about $91,000 in equity investment yielding a
10 percent interest rate. Thus, the total amount that developers could reasonably expect to raise from
private sources is about $538,700 resulting in a financing gap of approximately $526,000, or
approximately 49 percent of the total development cost.
Prototypical Rehabilitation Project II: East Side Industrial Project
The second prototypical project is an older industrial building on the East Side. Many of these buildings
suffer from physical deficiencies due to deferred maintenance, as well as outdated design, lack of
improved office space, and decayed parking areas. The prototypical project assumes 20,000 square feet of
industrial building. Rehabilitation requires potential code upgrades, interior office buildout (for a portion
of the space) and parking improvements.
14 Typical commercial rents range from $0.35 to $0.85 full service; this analysis assumes the highest market rent.
is An annual vacancy rate for a small project such as this is expected to vary. Accordingly, the five percent vacancy rate should
be viewed as an average over several years.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency 11-43 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
7
The private sector does not have sufficient financial incentive to undertake substantial rehabilitation '
projects in the Project Area. Prototypical purchase and rehabilitation projects in the Project Area would
require large subsidies to be financially feasible for a typical developer. With financial investment by the
Agency, however, the risk to the private sector is reduced and a positive incentive for new development is
created.
J
i
16 Modified gross rents assume the tenant pays utilities and janitorial, while the landlord covers property taxes, insurance and I maintenance of the roof and outer walls.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency 11-44 Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
'
Table 11-12 summarizes the estimated costs and projected revenues of this prototypical rehabilitation
project. The acquisition cost is estimated at $560,000 assuming a cost of about $28 per building
square foot, based on conversations with the brokerage community. Construction costs are primarily
assumed to cover the cost of potential code upgrades, improving a portion of the interior space for office
use and parking improvements, and are estimated at approximately $10 per square foot. The total cost of
the project, including soft costs and contingency costs, is estimated at $820,000.
,
Industrial space in the East Side of the Project Area is projected to generate a gross income of $72,000
annually given current market conditions, assuming industrial rents of $0.30 per square foot (modified
'
gross). 16 Subtracting a five percent vacancy loss and operating expenses yields a net operating income of
approximately $56,000 per year, before tax.
'
As discussed above, lending institutions typically require a debt coverage ratio of 1.2, which yields about
$47,000 available to cover debt service and an annual cash flow of about $9,400 (used to provide the
return to equity investors). The annual debt service amount could support a mortgage loan of about
$462,000. The annual cash flow would support about $100,000 in equity investment yielding a 10 percent
'
return on equity. Thus, the total amount that developers could reasonably expect to raise from private
sources is about $556,000 resulting in a financing gap of approximately $264,000, or 32 percent of
estimated development costs.
,
The private sector does not have sufficient financial incentive to undertake substantial rehabilitation '
projects in the Project Area. Prototypical purchase and rehabilitation projects in the Project Area would
require large subsidies to be financially feasible for a typical developer. With financial investment by the
Agency, however, the risk to the private sector is reduced and a positive incentive for new development is
created.
J
i
16 Modified gross rents assume the tenant pays utilities and janitorial, while the landlord covers property taxes, insurance and I maintenance of the roof and outer walls.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency 11-44 Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Table II -11
Prototypical Purchase & Rehabilitation Project
Downtown - Mixed Use Office and Retail
Estimated_Proiect Costs
Building Acquisition Cost
$350,000
Rehabilitation Cost
$550,000
Soft Costs @ 20%
$110,000
Contingency @ 10%
$55,000
Total Development Cost
$1,065,000
Estimated Income & Expenses
10.0%
Rental Income
$91,125
Ground Floor Retail
$51,000
Second Floor Office
$25,500
Gross Possible Income
$76,500
Vacancy Loss
5%
Total Vacancy Loss
$3,825
Operating Expenses
$18,000
Net Operating Income (NOI)
$54,675
Maximum Supportable Loan
Debt Coverage Ratio
1.20
NOI Available for Debt
$45,563
Maximum Loan
$447,541
Annual Cash Flow
$9,113
Return on Equity
10.0%
" Supportable Value of Equity
$91,125
Total Available for Project
$538,666
Proiected Financing Ga
Total Available for Project $538,666
Less Estimated Development Cost $1.065.000
Financing Gap ($526,334)
Percent of Development Cost 49%
Assumptions:
Income & Expenses
Building Square Feet
10,000
Leaseable SF (85%)
8,500
Ground Floor Retail Rent per SF (Gross)
$1.00
Second Floor Rent per SF (Gross)
$0.50
Landlord Operating Expenses per SF
$0.15
Loan Terms
Mortgage Interest Rate
9.0%
Term (years)
25
Estimated Project Costs
Site Acquisition Cost per SF
$35
Rehabilitation Hard Cost per SF
$55
Soft Cost % of Hard Cost
20%
Contingency % of Hard Cost
10%
Source: Broker Interviews Winter 2002
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Source: Broker Interviews Winter 2002
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Table II-12
Prototypical Purchase & Rehabilitation Project
'
East Side Industrial Project
Estimated Project Costs
Building Acquisition Cost
$560,000
Rehabilitation Cost
$200,000
Soft Costs @ 20%
$40,000
t
Contingency @ 10%
$20,000
Total Development Cost
$820,000
,
Estimated Income & Expenses
Rental Income
Industrial Rent
$72,000
Gross Possible Income
$72,000
Vacancy Loss
5%
Total Vacancy Loss
$3,600
Operating Expenses
$12,000
Net Operating Income (NOI)
$56,400
'
Maximum Supportable Loan
Debt Coverage Ratio
1.20
NOI Available for Debt
$47,000
'
Maximum Loan
$461,661
Annual Cash Flow
$9,400
Return on Equity
10.0%
'
Supportable Value of Equity
$94,000
Total Available for Project
$555,661
Projected Financing Gap
Total Available for Project
$555,661
Less Estimated Development Cost
$820,000
Financing Gap
($264,339)
Percent of Development Cost
32%
Assumptions•
Income & Expenses
Building Square Feet
20,000
Net Rentable SF (100%)
20,000
Industrial Rent per SF (Modified Gross)
$0.30
Landlord Operating Expenses per SF
$0.05
Loan Terms
'
Mortgage Interest Rate
9.0%
Term (years)
25
Estimated Project Costs
,
Site Acquisition Cost per Bdg SF
$28
Rehabilitation Hard Cost per SF
$l0
Soft Cost % of Hard Cost
20%
Contingency % of Hard Cost
10%
,
Source: Broker Interviews Winter 2002
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
e. Underutilized Property
During field reconnaissance surveys several areas of underutilized properties were identified. Figures II -6
and II -7 show the location of underutilized properties in the Central Railroad Commercial and Industrial
Corridor and the Cherokee Lane Commercial Corridor. Tables I1-13 and 11-14 describe the underutilized
properties.
Table II -13
Underutilized Properties by Subarea
Central Railroad Commercial/Industrial Corridor
Project
Area
Description
Area 1
Relatively small vacant parcel, prominent corner location, currently used for informal truck
parking. Unpaved, rainwater ponding.
Area 2
Large corner parcel partially occupied by a church. Abandoned automobiles, portable
buildings and debris are located on this property.
Area 3
Large parcel occupied by a dilapidated multi -story industrial building with broken
windows and a vintage automobile salvage yard.
Area 4
Large, underutilized storage yard, paved and fenced, serves an adjoining building.
Area 5
Underutilized parcel occupied by a dilapidated metal building and old automobiles.
Area 6
Large, vacant parcel, unpaved, rainwater ponding.
Area 7
Underutilized property, possible auto service use.
Area 8
Underutilized corner parcel, partially occupied by used car sales and auto dismantler.
Area 9
Underutilized parcel occupied by dilapidated steel tower, dilapidated buildings and debris
accumulation.
Area 10
Large underutilized property, partially occupied by an abandoned and dilapidated
corrugated metal building and a deteriorated concrete garage building.
Area 1 1
Lar e, vacant site, abandoned railroadspur tracks, rainwater ponding.
Area 12
Targe, underutilized parcel with small deteriorated building, corner location.
Area 13
Vacant used car lot.
Area 14
Vacant corner parcel, unpaved, informal parking, rainwater ponding.
Area 15
Large parcel, currently occupied by contractor's yard.
Area 16
Large, underutilized industrial parcel, partially occupied by a modern industrial building.
Approximately 80 percent of the parcel is vacant.
Area 17
Underutilized parcel with deteriorated and dilapidated commercial and residential
buildings.
Area 18
Large, vacant parcel, unpaved.
Area 19
An underutilized parcel occupied by deteriorated industrial -service buildings and small
cottages.
Area 20
Large, vacant parcel, prominent corner location, abandoned vineyard.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency 11-47 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
TU ER RD. LODI AVE
1, ® 114
12
II
I
LOUIE AVE 15zi
¢ 1
3 61
4 � 1
1
I SOFTBALL �® 1
COMPLEX
IJ 1 N
0 Z
i5
In
619 i HE �
1 U I
1 INE ST.
LOCK I r _ — ter, F I
Q R
I 10 a
I o N
o � I
_®
1
P0
INE ST,
1
2 ❑
® c
1 OAK ST® I
®� I 20
12 1 wALrour sr. ® I
13 I
I KF TTLEMAN LN.
UP. .R.
LODI AVE. See adjacent map for continuation of
See adjacent map for continuation of area above Lodi Avenue.
area below Lodi Avenue.
Legend
18 LOCATION OF UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTIES
I N
o ( 0 q) a00
c 1 I
FEET
SOURCE: John B. Dykstra & Associates
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION
FIGURE II -10: LOCATION OF MAJOR UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTIES,
CENTRAL RAILROAD COMMERCIAUINDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR
J
Table II -14
Underutilized Properties by Subarea
Cherokee Lane Commercial Corridor
Project
Area
Description
Area I
Former gasoline station used for auto repair. Dilapidated buildings and signage. Potential
source of soils and groundwater contamination.
Area 2
Large triangular-shaped, underutilized property. Currently occupied by a skating rink.
Cherokee Lane location. Visible from freeway.
Area 3
Small commercial property at prominent corner, occupied by deteriorated warehouse
buildings.
Area 4
Underutilized corner property, vacant except for boarded -up building.
Area 5
Underutilized site of a dilapidated elementary school Lincoln School).
Area 6
Large underutilized commercial property occupied in part by a deteriorated but
architecturally and historically interesting cream e /restaurant building.
Area 7
Large vacant site in developed industrial park.
Area 8
Underutilized corner parcel with badly deteriorated buildings.
Area 9
Large vacant commercial parcel.
Area 10
Very large underutilized property (former bowling alley). Site partially occupied by truck
and equipment sales. Main building used as banquet hall and church.
Area 11
Underutilized corner lot and adjacent abandoned residence.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I1-49 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
See adjacent map for continuation of
area above Lodi Avenue.
See adjacent map for continuation of
area above Lodi Avenue.
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION
FIGURE II -11: LOCATION OF MAJOR UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTIES,
CHEROKEE LANE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR
t
4. Residential Overcrowding
This section documents the presence in the proposed Project Area of blighting conditions described.in
CRL Section 33031(b)(4), including residential overcrowding and a high incidence of bars, liquor stores
and other establishments that cater exclusively to adults. This section documents the presence of
residential overcrowding in the Project Area.
Table II -15 shows that residential overcrowding is a significant problem among both renter and owner
households in the Project Area, compared to the rest of Lodi. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development defines residential overcrowding as households with over one person per room, and severe
overcrowding is defined as households with over 1.5 persons per room.
The most recent data on overcrowding is contained in the 1990 US Census. The Project Area lies within
four census tracts." Based on an analysis of US Census data of block groups, the total population of the
Project Area in 1990 was about 13,200 living in 4,483 households. Renter households made up about
68 percent of total households in the Project Area compared to about 46 percent in the City as a whole.
Table II -15
Residential Overcrowding
Redevelopment Project Area
City of Lodi
Project Area Total Outside
Households Total Owner Renter Total
Project Area
Owner
Renter
Overcrowded 380
Severely Overcrowded 474
56
73
324 460
401 328
148
69
312
259
Total Overcrowded 854
129
725 788
217
571
Total Households 4,483
1,455
3,028 14,518
8,862
5,656
3U C
Percent of Total
Households
Overcrowded
Severely Overcrowded
8.5%
10.6%
3.9%
5.0%
10.7%
13.2%
3.2%
2.3%
1.7%
0.8%
5.5%
4.6%
Total Overcrowded
19.0%
8.8%
23.9%
5.4%
2.5%
10.1%
Source: US Census, 1990, Census Block Groups 42.02-7, 44.01-2, 44.01-3, 44.01-4, 44.01-5, 45-3, 45-4 and portions
of42.02-4, 42.02-3, 44.01-6, 45-1, 45-2, 43.02-1, 43.02-4, 42.02-6 and 43.02-2.
According to the US Census, approximately 19.0 percent of households in the Project Area were
overcrowded, compared to 5.4 percent in the remainder of the City of Lodi. Overcrowding in the Project
Area is significantly more serious for renter households than owner households. Approximately
23.9 percent of renter households are overcrowded, compared to 8.8 percent of owner households. The
Census also indicates that about 10.6 percent of households in the Project Area are severely overcrowded
compared to 2.3 percent in the remainder of the City.
Overcrowding typically occurs in older structures that have not been renovated to keep pace with
changing lifestyles or demand. Overcrowded housing generally provides poor quality, and often unsafe
17 Census Tracts 42.02, 43.02, 44.01 and 45, including Block Groups 42.02-7, 44.01-2, 44.01-3, 44.01-4, 44.01-5, 45-3, 45-4 and
portions of 42.02-4, 42.02-3, 44.01-6, 45-1, 45-2, 43.02-1, 43.02-4, 42.02-6 and 43.02-2.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency 1I-51 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
and unhealthy housing for its residents. It can also lead to the deterioration of buildings by putting
additional wear and use on the structures. In some instances, in an attempt to accommodate additional
occupancy, make -shift modifications have been made to the structures that may be illegal, unsafe or
unhealthy, and a violation of building codes.
In the predominantly residential census tracts within the Project Area, overcrowding conditions are more
serious. The East Side Neighborhood is comprised of census block groups 44.01-2 through 44.01-6 and
45.00-1 through 45.00-4. Table II -16 indicates that in 1990, over 20 percent of the units in the East Side
neighborhood were overcrowded or severely overcrowded, more than 3 times the rate of 5.5 percent
outside the East Side neighborhood. Over 11.4 percent were severely overcrowded, almost 5 times the
rate of 2.3 percent outside. As described earlier, many garages and other structures have been converted
into living units. This has contributed to the overcrowded conditions.
Table II -16
Residential Overcrowding
East Side Neighborhood
City of Lodi
Households
East Side
Nei hborhood Outside East Side Neighborhood
Total
Owner
Renter Total
Owner
Renter
Overcrowded
Severely Overcrowded
355
446
53
71
302 485
375 356
151
71
334
285
Total Overcrowded
802
125
677 840
221
619
Total Households
3,840
1,266
2,574 15,161
9,051
6,111
- ,Y . 77
Percent of Total
Households
Overcrowded
Severely Overcrowded
9.2%
11.6%
4.2%
5.6%
11.7%
14.6%
3.2%
2.3%
1.7%
0.8%
5.5%
4.7%
Total Overcrowded ,
20.9%
9.8%
26.3%
5.5%
2.4%
10.1%
Source: 1990 US Census.
5. A High Crime Rate
This section demonstrates the presence in the proposed Project Area of blighting conditions described in
CRL Section 33031(b)(5) as a high crime'rate that creates a threat to the safety and welfare of the
community. This section documents the presence of a high crime rate in the Project Area.
High crime rates significantly affect the image of an area and can be a disincentive to commercial or
residential investment. Within commercial areas, crimes against persons and property discourage
businesses from locating in an area and add to the cost of doing business. In residential areas, crimes have
the effect of devaluing property, and discouraging sales and reinvestment. According to the Lodi Police
Department, the Project Area has a higher crime rate than the City as a whole. In 2000, there were
1,073 Part 1 crimes18 in the Project Area as compared to 2,841 citywide, as shown in Table 1I-17.
The estimated citywide population in 2000 (per the US Census) was 56,999. The most recent population
data for the Project Area is the 1990 US Census. (The 2000 US Census data is not yet available at the
census tract level.) Because the Project Area is largely built out, its population has probably not increased
18 Part 1 crimes include homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny and vehicle theft.
u
7
i
1
Lodi Redevelopment Agency 1I-52 Report on the Plan ,
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
significantly over the last decade. Assuming that the population of the Project Area grew at one quarter
the citywide growth rate of 9.9 percent, the 2000 Project Area population is conservatively estimated at
13,530, while the balance of the City (outside the Project Area) is estimated at 43,469 residents. Based on
these estimates, the Project Area has an incidence of 79.3 Type l crimes per 1,000 population, or almost
twice that of the balance of the City (outside the Project Area), at 40.7 Type 1 crimes per 1,000.
Table II -17
Part 1 Crime Incidence in 2000
Project Area Compared to Citywide
Lodi Redevelopment Project
# of Crime
Location Incidents
Per 1,000
Population
% of Citywide
Incidents
Project Area 1,073
79.31
38%
Outside Project Area 1,768
40.67
62%
Total Citywide 2,8411
49.84
1 100%
Source: City of Lodi Police Department.
6. Conclusion for Economic Blighting Conditions
The Project Area suffers from several simultaneous economic problems such as depreciated property
values, declining sales, business stagnation and residential overcrowding. Economic blight causes or
contributes to vacancies in, or underutilization of an area, health and safety hazards, lack of investment,
disinvestment, and the devaluation of neighboring properties.
The analysis of existing economic conditions in the Project Area concludes that these problems are so
substantial and prevalent that they constitute a finding of economic blight. Thus, redevelopment is
necessary for the Project Area to reach its full economic potential.
G. Necessity for Redevelopment
As it has been demonstrated, the physical and economic blighting conditions in the Project Area are so
prevalent and substantial that they cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed without redevelopment
assistance. These conditions have become a hindrance to the community that cannot be reversed or
alleviated without the assistance of the Agency through the authority of the CRL. As further described in
Section 1 below, these blighting conditions have caused a reduction of, or lack of, proper utilization of the
Project Area and constitutes a serious physical and economic burden on the community.
The private sector does not have sufficient financial incentive to invest in the Project Area, given the risks
and up -front costs to improve public infrastructure, encourage economic revitalization, provide affordable
housing, and mitigate against seismic safety and environmental problems. Without financial assistance to
help underwrite these costs, the private sector would be unlikely to undertake improvements in the Project
Area.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency 11-53 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
In summary, the proposed program to alleviate blighting conditions in the Project Area is not financially
feasible for the private sector acting alone. Without redevelopment, most of the program costs must be
borne solely by the private sector. Redevelopment is a necessary financing tool, which will be used to
support the Redevelopment Program costs as described in Chapter III of this report. With this investment
by the Agency, risk to the private sector is reduced, and incentive for private investment is created.
1. Significant Burden on the Community
This chapter has documented blighting conditions that have become a burden on the community. Project
Area properties are not being used to the same potential as properties in other parts of the community.
The reduction of, or lack of, proper utilization of the Project Area constitutes a serious physical and
economic burden on the community in at least the following respects:
• Deprives residents of the city and surrounding area of employment opportunities;
• Prevents adequate supply of affordable and other housing;
• Deprives property and business owners of a competitive return on their investments;
• Deprives residents of adequate public recreational facilities and lands;
• Hinders the enhancement of the physical environment;
• Prevents proper usefulness and development of land;
• Deprives the City, the County, the education districts, and other affected taxing entities of an
expanding tax base; and
• Hinders the development of a stronger economic base for the community.
2. Limitations of Other Governmental Action
Governmental action to alleviate the documented blighting conditions in the Project Area is limited by the
lack of a reliable flow of federal, state or local financial resources available to fund a comprehensive
revitalization program. The private sector's ability to alleviate the documented blighting conditions is
limited.
As will be described in Chapter IV, all other feasible sources of non -tax increment revenue will. be
applied toward Redevelopment Program costs. However, other governmental revenues are not sufficient
to pay for an effective program to alleviate blight in the Project Area. In this financial setting,
redevelopment assistance in the form of tax increment revenue is essential to fill the funding gap to
undertake an effective revitalization effort for the Lodi Redevelopment Project Area.
L
17
i
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -54 Report on the Plan ,
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
III. Redevelopment Program Description
A. Introduction
This chapter describes the Redevelopment Program proposed to implement the Lodi Redevelopment
Project. The projects and activities that make up the Redevelopment Program are designed to meet the
goals and objectives of the CRL and the Redevelopment Plan (described in Chapter 1). The Agency's cost
of implementing the Redevelopment Program is estimated to total about $36.5 million in constant
2002 dollars ($24.3 million for non -housing projects and about $12.15 million for affordable housing
projects).
Revenues generated by the Redevelopment Project could fund a number of potential redevelopment
activities in the proposed Project Area. Each of the proposed projects would help to alleviate conditions
of blight described in this report. The proposed Redevelopment Program would work in coordination with
Lodi's existing Central City Revitalization Program, a comprehensive revitalization package adopted by
the City that includes incentive programs, marketing strategies, and physical improvements. The City
Council adopted the alternative Catalyst Project for the Central City Revitalization Project in 1995. The
Revitalization Project will serve as a catalyst to begin the economic and commercial revitalization of the
Downtown and Cherokee Lane corridor, and the East Side neighborhood. The Revitalization Project is
one component of a comprehensive and detailed action program consisting of public improvements,
incentive programs, promotional programs, and marketing strategies.'
The proposed Redevelopment Program emphasizes the elimination of blighting conditions and constraints
that interfere with revitalization and conservation of the proposed Project Area by improving the
economic conditions and enhancing residential areas. In general, the proposed Redevelopment Program is
designed to:
• Revitalize areas that exhibit physical and economic blight;
• Stimulate private investment in the proposed Project Area's commercial areas;
• Improve housing conditions and infrastructure in residential neighborhoods; and
• Provide tax increment funds for the redevelopment activities that are needed to alleviate blighting
conditions.
The Redevelopment Program reflects adopted City goals and policies. Its formulation involved city staff,
elected officials, residents and consultants. Agency staff, city residents and business owners reviewed and
made recommendations on the proposed projects and activities. The Redevelopment Program also reflects
the goals and policies of the City's General Plan, Capital Improvements Program and economic
development studies.
The Redevelopment Program is organized broadly into six program categories that reflect the division of
tax increment revenues into funds which can be used for any redevelopment purpose and those
specifically related to the Agency's affordable housing endeavors. Program categories one through five
do not specifically address the provision, improvement or preservation of affordable housing while
program category six is specifically focused on the Agency's affordable housing activities. The numbers
The term 2002 dollars or constant 2002 dollars is used to indicate the present value of nominal dollars discounted back to
FY 2001/02. This amount does not include Agency administration costs for non -housing projects and activities.
z Engineer's Report for Lodi Central City Revitalization Assessment District No. 95-1, p. 6.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I11-1 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Section C of this chapter describes the five non -housing program categories and their respective projects ,
and activities. Section D describes the Agency's Affordable Housing Program. The sections are organized
as follows:
• Deficiencies to be corrected. ,
• Description of how the proposed projects and activities will reduce or eliminate blighting conditions
in the proposed Project Area.
• Cost estimate in constant 2002 dollars. (Refer to Chapter IV for a description of the funding sources
that may be used by the Agency to help fund the proposed projects and activities.)
B. Relationship between Redevelopment Program and Alleviation i
of Blighting Conditions
As indicated in Chapter 11, the Lodi Redevelopment Project Area suffers from a variety of physical and
economic blighting conditions that must be alleviated if the area is to be revitalized. The proposed Project
Area will benefit from a coherent economic development, neighborhood conservation and revitalization
strategy that is coordinated with the City's overall goals. '
The Redevelopment Program is designed to alleviate the blighting conditions identified in Chapter II, and
meet the Agency's affordable housing obligation, as well as the CRL requirement that Agency '
expenditures be linked to the elimination of blighting conditions. The proposed Redevelopment Program
will address the blighting conditions described in Chapter II. Furthermore, it will address the public
improvement deficiencies that contribute to physical and economic blight in the proposed Project Area. ,
Table III -I provides a matrix summarizing the blighting conditions described in Chapter II and the
proposed Redevelopment Program's activities designed to alleviate each blighting condition.
1
11
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I11-2 Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
1
assigned to each category are for identification purposes only, and are not intended to indicate a
category's relative priority for implementation:
1. Economic Development
,
2. Building Rehabilitation, Fagade Improvement, and/or Historic Preservation
3. Public Infrastructure and Facilities
,
4. Neighborhood Preservation, Circulation and Landscaping Improvements
5. Site Preparation and Development
6. Affordable Housing
,
Section C of this chapter describes the five non -housing program categories and their respective projects ,
and activities. Section D describes the Agency's Affordable Housing Program. The sections are organized
as follows:
• Deficiencies to be corrected. ,
• Description of how the proposed projects and activities will reduce or eliminate blighting conditions
in the proposed Project Area.
• Cost estimate in constant 2002 dollars. (Refer to Chapter IV for a description of the funding sources
that may be used by the Agency to help fund the proposed projects and activities.)
B. Relationship between Redevelopment Program and Alleviation i
of Blighting Conditions
As indicated in Chapter 11, the Lodi Redevelopment Project Area suffers from a variety of physical and
economic blighting conditions that must be alleviated if the area is to be revitalized. The proposed Project
Area will benefit from a coherent economic development, neighborhood conservation and revitalization
strategy that is coordinated with the City's overall goals. '
The Redevelopment Program is designed to alleviate the blighting conditions identified in Chapter II, and
meet the Agency's affordable housing obligation, as well as the CRL requirement that Agency '
expenditures be linked to the elimination of blighting conditions. The proposed Redevelopment Program
will address the blighting conditions described in Chapter II. Furthermore, it will address the public
improvement deficiencies that contribute to physical and economic blight in the proposed Project Area. ,
Table III -I provides a matrix summarizing the blighting conditions described in Chapter II and the
proposed Redevelopment Program's activities designed to alleviate each blighting condition.
1
11
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I11-2 Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
•!
C
U
v v
Affordable Housing
,o
■
■
■
■
■
■
Site Preparation
xn
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
E
0
P
Circulation and Landscaping
et
■
■
■
■
■
G
6
0
Public Facilities
M
■
■
■
■
�
W
Building Rehabilitation
N
■
■
■
■
■
Economic Developmen
r.
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
G
d
>
.a
aD
p
v
R
73
G
-p
Q
o
a
a
3
O
�
d
v
4)
Y
W
v%
a
0
7
711
A
a
>
a
r
w
o
O
.d
G
.O
LD
V)
y
Q
C0
F
U
U
0
c
u
E
8
U
Q
u
v
o
u
u
y
.G
,°'
C
O
o
v
x
°°
u
C
U
v v
a. Deficiencies to Be Corrected
Many portions of the proposed Project Area are suffering from economic decline and stagnation. Retail
,
C. Description of Non -Housing Redevelopment Program
This section describes the proposed Non -Housing Redevelopment Program, including the deficiencies to
be corrected, project descriptions, and the estimated project costs.' As they are implemented, these
'
projects may be modified over time to better serve the purposes of redevelopment. Cost estimates are
necessarily preliminary in nature and subject to considerable refinement as the Redevelopment Program
planning and implementation proceed. However, the cost estimates are adequate to provide reasonable
orders of magnitude for evaluating financial feasibility and the need for tax increment financing.
,
Table III -2 summarizes the total estimated cost of the proposed Lodi Redevelopment Program. It should
be noted that these costs do not include Agency administration expenses for non -housing activities, which
'
are discussed in greater detail in Chapter IV. Table III -3 summarizes the estimated Agency share of non-
housing and housing projects for the proposed Project Area.
1. Economic Development
a. Deficiencies to Be Corrected
Many portions of the proposed Project Area are suffering from economic decline and stagnation. Retail
,
businesses perform poorly, and lodging establishments have lower revenues per room as compared to
establishments outside the Project Area. In industrial areas, many warehouses are vacant, and several
buildings are abandoned. Depreciated property values and impaired investments are evident in the
'
commercial areas within the proposed Project Area, including Downtown Lodi and Cherokee Lane.
Downtown Lodi is a weak environment for commercial activity. Commercial lease rates are low there and
along Cherokee Lane as compared to other commercial areas in Lodi. Commercial rents are significantly
lower east of the Union Pacific railroad tracks, where properties are more deteriorated, than they are west
of the railroad tracks.
b. Description
'
As part of the economic development program, the following is proposed:
• Design and implement'a program to attract business and promote tourism, including assistance in the
preparation of marketing materials.
• Provide financial assistance to business organizations.
• Provide for a marketing study and strategy to attract and retain businesses to the Project Area.
• Encourage office uses in Downtown Lodi.
• Accommodate and encourage lodging, auto and support commercial buildings along Cherokee Lane.
• Encourage revitalization through business and developer incentives.
C. Estimated Program Costs
'
The estimated Agency share of the economic development program (Table III -3) is approximately
$3.6 million (in constant 2002 dollars).
3 The non -housing program includes some activities that will benefit housing, including building rehabilitation, seismic
strengthening and historic preservation.
'
Lodi Redevelopment Agency 111-4 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
,
2. Building Rehabilitation, Fagade Improvement and/or Historic
Preservation
a. Deficiencies to Be Corrected
As indicated in Chapter 11, 75 percent of the buildings in the proposed Project Area have significant
physical deficiencies. Many buildings show the effects of serious deterioration. Deficient or deteriorated
buildings are found in each of the eight areas surveyed. A large number of residences have informal,
substandard construction. Many residential buildings are dilapidated and unsound. The downtown
commercial area has several deteriorated commercial structures. Some of these buildings are structurally
unsound. Some industrial uses east of Highway 99 exhibit deterioration, with some dilapidation. Some of
the structures are functionally obsolete.
b. Description
As part of the building rehabilitation, fagade improvement and/or historic preservation program, the
following is proposed:
• Assist in rehabilitation, seismic strengthening and/or historic preservation of commercial, industrial
and residential buildings, through low interest loans and grant funds.
• Assist with facade improvements in the downtown and other areas.
• Establish development standards and design guidelines to improve the appearance of buildings and
businesses along Cherokee Lane.
• Redevelop dilapidated and abandoned buildings.
C. Estimated Program Costs
The estimated Agency share of the building rehabilitation, fagade improvement and/or historic
preservation program (Table III -3) is approximately $4.4 million (in constant 2002 dollars).
3. Public Infrastructure and Facilities
a. Deficiencies to Be Corrected
Commercial and residential lots lack adequate off-street parking. The storm and wastewater distribution
system is aging, obsolete and inadequate.
b. Description
As part of the public infrastructure and facilities program, the following is proposed:
• Provide parking improvements in commercial areas of the Project Area.
• Implement storm drain, wastewater and water distribution improvements in the East Side
neighborhood, along Cherokee Lane and Downtown.
• Assist in providing facilities to service residents in the proposed Project Area, such as a community
center, a library and an education and training center.
C. Estimated Program Costs
The estimated Agency share of the public infrastructure and facilities program (Table III -3) is
approximately $9.9 million (in constant 2002 dollars).
Lodi Redevelopment Agency III -5 Report on the Plan
' Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
4. Neighborhood Preservation, Circulation and Landscaping
Improvements
a. Deficiencies to Be Corrected
Several areas of the Project Area suffer from circulation and other deficiencies that impede the vitality of
neighborhoods and commercial areas. These include the lack of pedestrian and bicycle access, street
signs, street lighting, landscaping, and sidewalks. Another deficiency is inefficient traffic circulation,
particularly along Cherokee Lane.
,
b. Description
As part of the neighborhood preservation, circulation and landscaping improvements program, the
following is proposed:
• Create a comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle network, providing linkages and improving access to
Downtown from the proposed Multi -Modal Train Station and Transit Center.
,
• Provide pedestrian access to the Transit Center, including widen sidewalks and landscape street
frontages.
• Continue to landscape public parking lots and streets, improve street signs and streetlights in the
,
Downtown, neighborhoods and other areas.
• Continue to provide new sidewalks and/or widen sidewalks in the Downtown, neighborhoods and
other areas.
'
• Improve traffic signalization and traffic circulation at critical intersections, especially along
Cherokee Lane.
'
• Expand code enforcement efforts.
• Update development standards for multifamily residences.
Costs
C. Estimated Program
The estimated Agency share of the neighborhood preservation, circulation and landscaping improvements
program (Table III -3) is approximately $2.2 million (in constant 2002 dollars).
'
5. Site Preparation and Development
a. Deficiencies to Be Corrected
Some areas in the Project Area contain soil and/or groundwater contamination. A large number of lots are
substandard to economic development due to their small size or because they front on alleys. A number of
incompatible uses have been identified in the proposed Project Area, including residences close to the
railroad or industrial plants, and commercial and residential uses located adjacent to dilapidated, vacant or
abandoned properties.
b. Description
As part of the building rehabilitation program, the following is proposed:
• Facilitate a hazardous materials cleanup program.
• Acquire property and assemble sites, including acquisition of strategic properties to meet
redevelopment goals.
• Provide assistance to relocate incompatible uses.
1
Lodi Redevelopment Agency 111-6 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
,
C. Estimated Program Costs
The estimated Agency share of the site preparation and development program (Table III -3) is
approximately $4.3 million (in constant 2002 dollars).
6. Description of Affordable Housing Redevelopment Program
This section describes the proposed Affordable Housing Redevelopment Program, including the
deficiencies to be corrected, project descriptions, and estimated project costs.
a. Deficiencies to Be Corrected
The Agency will promote the revitalization of existing housing as well as the construction of well-
designed affordable and market -rate housing in the proposed Project Area in order to enhance the vitality
of the area and provide much-needed housing for the City. Residential overcrowding is a significant
problem among both renter and owner households in the proposed Project Area as compared to the rest of
the City. The Project Area contains structurally unsound residences, residential units with informal and
substandard construction, and deteriorated residential structures.
b. Description
The Agency will implement a key provision of the CRL: the enhancement of affordable housing
opportunities for households earning at or below 120 percent of median income, with particular emphasis
on those households earning at or below 50 percent of median income. Section 33334.2 of the CRL
requires that an agency utilize 20 percent of all tax increment revenue allocated to the Agency to increase
or enhance the community's supply of affordable housing.
The Agency may establish a range of housing programs that seek to enhance project design and leverage
federal, state, and private funding sources to develop high quality, attractive, and affordable housing
developments serving a diverse population. The funds directed toward this program will be used in a
flexible manner in order to respond to favorable development opportunities.
The type of financial assistance to be provided may include cost write-down and gap financing for
projects utilizing federal and state grant or loan funds to facilitate design enhancements, property
acquisition, construction and predevelopment. Appropriate uses of these funds include new affordable
rental and ownership housing construction, and assistance to homebuyers with acquiring affordable
housing.
As part of the Affordable Housing Redevelopment Program, the Agency will undertake the following
projects to correct the deficiencies in the proposed Project Area:
• Encourage homeownership and renovation.
• Facilitate development of new affordable housing.
• Provide funding assistance for rehabilitation of single and multi family housing for low and moderate
income households.
• Facilitate development of housing for the elderly.
• Spend affordable housing set-aside funds in accordance with CRL, in order to:
— Preserve and provide housing opportunities at all income levels in accordance with the CRL.
— Provide opportunities for homeowners earning at or below 120 percent of median income to
maintain and repair their homes and promote neighborhood revitalization.
— Provide homeownership opportunities for first time homebuyers earning less than 120 percent
of median income.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency III -7 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
C. Estimated Program Costs
The Agency cost for the Affordable Housing Program is projected to be $12.15 million in constant
2002 dollars. Refer to Chapter IV for further discussion regarding the projections of tax increment to be
set-aside for affordable housing.
11
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I11-8 Report on the Plan ,
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Table 1II-2
Projected Total Costs of Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Program
Non -Housing and Housing Activities
in Constant 2002 Dollars
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project 111-9 April 2002
Total Cost
Unit Cost/unit Yrs
1. Economic Development
$500,000
Lump Sum Estimate
A. Design and implement a program to attract business and promote
tourism, including assistance in the preparation of marketing materials
B. Provide financial assistance to business organizations
$1,500,000
1 $50,000 /year 30
C. Provide for a marketing study and strategy to attract and retain
$100,000
1 $100,000 /study N/A
businesses to the Project Area.
D Encourage office uses in Downtown Lodi
$500,000
1 $50,000 /year 10
Accommodate and encourage lodging, auto and support commercial
$500,000
1 $50,000 /year 10
E. buildings along Cherokee Lane
F. Encourage revitalization through business and developer incentives
$3,000,000
1 $100,000 /year 30
SUBTOTAL
7%
$6,100,000
2. Building & Site Rehabilitation, Facade Improvement and/or Historic
Preservation
A. Assist in rehabilitation, seismic strengthening and/or historic
$7,500,000
5 $50,000 /bldg 30
preservation of commercial, industrial and residential buildings, through
low interest loans and Brant funds
B. Assist with facade improvements in the Downtown and other areas.
$3,000,000
5 $20,000 /bldg 30
C. Establish development standards and design guidelines to improve the
$100,000
1 $100,000 /study N/A
appearance of buildines and businesses alone Cherokee Lane
D. Redevelop dilapidated and abandoned buildings
$6,750,000
3 $75,000 /bldg 30
SUBTOTAL
19%
$17,350,000
3. Public Infrastructure and Facilities
A. Provide parking improvements in commercial areas of the
$8,200,000
Lump Sum Estimate
Proiect Area
B. Implement storm drain, wastewater and water distribution
$30,300,000
Lump Sum Estimate
improvements in the Eastside neighborhood, along Cherokee Lane and
Downtown.
C. Assist in providing facilities to serdice residents in the Project Area,
$5,000,000
Lump Sum Estimate
such as community centers, libraries and education and training centers
SUBTOTAL
48%
$43,500,000
4• Neighborhood Preservation, Circulation and Landscaping
Imorovements
A. Create a comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle network, providing
$2,500,000
10 $250,000 /mile N/A
linkages and improving access to Downtown from the proposed Multi-
modal Train Station and Transit Center
B. Provide pedestrian access to the Transit Center, including widen
$500,000
Lump Sum Estimate
sidewalks and landscape street frontaees
C. Continue to landscape public parking lots and streets, improve street
$1,000,000
Lump Sum Estimate
signs and streetlights in the Downtown, Cherokee Lane, neighborhoods
and other areas.
D. Continue to provide new sidewalks and/or widen sidewalks in the
$500,000
Lump Sum Estimate
Downtown, neiehborhoods and other areas.
E. Improve traffic signalization and traffic circulation at critical
$750,000
5 $150,000 /signal 1
intersections, especially alone Cherokee Lane
F. Design and implement a neighborhood preservation program
$1,000,000
Lump Sum Estimate
G. Expand code enforcement efforts.
$500,000
1 $25,000 /year 20
H. Update development standards for multifamily residences
$100,000
1 $100,000 /study 1
SUBTOTAL
8%
$6,850,000
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project 111-9 April 2002
Table III -2
Projected Total Costs of Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Program
Non -Housing and Housing Activities
in Constant 2002 Dollars
Source: City of Lodi.
1
1
1
1
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project III.10 April 2002
Total Cost
Unit Cost/unit Yrs
5. Site Preparation and Development
A. Facilitate a hazardous materials cleanup program
$5,000,000
1 $250,000 /year 20
B. Property acquisition and site assembly, including acquisition of strategic
$10,000,000
Lump Sum Estimate
properties to meet redevelopment goals
C. Provide assistance to relocate incompatible uses
$1,000,000
1 $50,000 /reloc 20
SUBTOTAL
18%
$16,000,000
TOTAL NON -HOUSING
100%
$89,800,000
6. Affordable Housing
A. Encourage home ownership and renovation.
$800,000
1 $40,000 /year 20
B. Facilitate development of new affordable housing
$10,000,000
Lump Sum Estimate
C. Provide funding assistance for rehabilitation of single and multi -family
$16,500,000
1 $550,000 /year 30
housine for low and moderate income households
D. Facilitate development of housing for the elderly
$2,000,000
Lump Sum Estimate
SUBTOTAL
$29,300,000
TOTAL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
$119,100,000
Source: City of Lodi.
1
1
1
1
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project III.10 April 2002
Table III -3
Projected Costs of Proposed Redevelopment Program
Lodi Redevelopment Project Area
in Constant 2002 Dollars
REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
TotalFFOr
her
Source
Agency
Agency %,
Costs
ding
Assistance
of Total
1. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
A. Design and implement a program to attract business and promote
General Fund, Private
tourism, including assistance in the preparation of marketing materials
$500,000
$250,000
Sector
$250,000
50%
General Fund, Private
B. Provide financial assistance to business organizations
$1,500,000
$250,000
Sector
$1,250,000
83%,
C. Provide for a marketing study and strategy to attract and retain
businesses to the Project Area.
$100,000
$50,000
General Fund
$50,000
50%
General un rivate
D. Encourage office uses in Downtown Lodi
$500,000
$250,000
Sector
$250,000
50%,
E. Accommodate and encourage lodging, auto and support commercial
buildings along Cherokee Lane
$500,000
$250,000
General Fund
$250,000
50%
General Fund,
R Encourage revitalization through business and developer incentives
$3,000,0001
$1,500,000
Enterprise Fund
$1,500,000
50%
Subtotal
$6,100,000
$2,550,000
$3,550,000
58%
2. BUILDING REHABILITATION, FACADE IMPROVEMENT
AND/OR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
A. Assist to rehabilitation, seismic strengthening and/or historic
preservation of commercial, industrial and residential buildings, through
low interest loans and grant funds
$7,500,000
$5,625,000 Private Sector
$1,875,000
25%
B. Assist with aha a improvements in the Downtown and other areas.
$3,000,000
$2,250,000 rivate ector
$750,000
25%
C. Establish development standards and design guidelines to improve the
appearance of buildings and businesses along Cherokee Lane
$100,000
$50,000 Private Sector
$50,000
50
D. Redevelop dilapidated and abandoned buildings
1 $6,750,0001
$5,062,5001 Private Sector
$1,687,500
25%
Subtotal
$17,350,000
$12,987,500 1
$4,362,500
25%
a. .., :°Y .4£ ^:.'r..e fl.r fiYl« s.. 4L':r:Y:L nNCw,<.:.,_4.. Y s,•»d1 .X w..:,: e`O9.f.Yia .F e .:s ..
...fir.. . .. ,:.. •, ..::: ..<... <.
.<. ..
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project 111"1 April 2002
Table 11I-3
Projected Costs of Proposed Redevelopment Program
Lodi Redevelopment Project Area
in Constant 2002 Dollars
REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
Total
Other
Source
Agency
Agency %
Costs
Funding
Assistance
of Total
3. PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES
A. Provide parking improvements in commercial areas of the
Federal Funds, General
Project Area
$8,200,000
$5,600,000
Fund, Private Sector
$2,600,000
32%
B. Implement storm drain, wastewater and water distribution
improvements in the Eastside neighborhood, along Cherokee Lane and
Downtown.
$30,300,000
$24,240,000
Enterprise Funds
$6,060,000
20%
C. Assist in providing facilities to service residents in the Project Area,
General Fund, CDBG,
such as community centers, libraries and education and training centers
$5,000,000
$3,750,000
State, Private Sector
$1,250,000
25`%u
Subtotal
1 $43,500,000
$33,590,000
$9,910,000
23%
77777
4. NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION, CIRCULATION AND
LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS
A. Create a comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle network, providing
linkages and improving access to Downtown from the proposed Multi-
modal Train Station and Transit Center
$2,500,000
$1,875,000
TDA, Gas Tax
$625,000
25%
B. Provide pedestrian access to the Transit Center, including widen
sidewalks and landscape street frontages
$500,000
$250,000
TDA, Gas tax
$250,000
50%
C. Continue to landscape public parking lots and streets, improve street
signs and streetlights in the Downtown, Cherokee Lane, neighborhoods
and other areas.
$1,000,000
$500,000
Gas tax, General Fund
$500,000
50%
D. Continue to provide new sidewalks and/or widen sidewalks in the
Downtown, neighborhoods and other areas.
$500,000
$375,000
Gas tax, General Fund
$125,000
25%
E. Improve traffic signs ization and traff is circulation at critics
intersections, especially along Cherokee Lane
$750,000
$562,500
Gas tax, General Fund
$187,500
25%
F. Design and implement a neighborhood preservation program
$1,000,000
_ $750,000
General Fund
$250,000
25%
G. Expand code enforcement efforts.
1 $500,000
$250,000
CDBG, General Fund
$250,000
50%
H. Update development standards for multifamily residences
1 $100,000
$50,000
General Fund
$50,000
50%
Subtotal
1 $6,850,000
$4,612,500
1 $2,237,5001
33%
iZ
_':x
L kii Redevelopmenr Agency Report on the Plan
L(di Redevelopment Project Ill -12 April 2002
Table I11-3
Projected Costs of Proposed Redevelopment Program
Lodi Redevelopment Project Area
in Constant 2002 Dollars
REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES7
Total
Costs
Other
Funding
FSottrce Agency
Assistance
Agency %
of Total
5. SITE PREPARATION AND DEVELOPMENT
1 $36,460,000
A. Facilitate a hazardous materials cleanup program $5,000,000 $3,750,000 Private Sector, State $1,250,000
25%
B. Property acquisition and site assembly, including acquisition of strategic
properties to meet redevelopment goals $10,000,000 $7,500,000 Private Sector $2,500,000
25%
C. Provide assistance to relocate incompatible uses $1,000,000 $500,000 Private Sector $500,000
50%
Subtotal 1 $16,000,000 $11,750,0001 $4,250,000
27%
'^ i27 6@G t �. . ...,: "„�' ,. F.,Y.:yj..`W,.Y.i!U+� °c iib: ✓. 5,..°.: 'F . " ...x ..... 4 s
.�,3: s s.ti,. , LAZ
TOTAL NON -HOUSING PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES $89,800,0001 $65,490,0001 $24,310,000
27%
6. AFFORDABLE HOUSING
A. Encourage home ownership and renovation.
$800,000
$400,000
CDBG $400,000
50%
B. Facilitate development of new affordable housing
$10,000,000
$7,500,000
CDBG, HOME,
Private Sector $2,500,000
25%
C. Provide funding assistance for rehabilitation of single and multi -family
housing for low and moderate income households
$16,500,000
$8,250,000
CDBG, HOME,
Private Sector $8,250,000
50%
D. Facilitate development of housing for the elderly
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
CDBG, HOME,
Private Sources 1 $1,000,000
50%
TOTAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING
1 $29,300,000
$17,150,000
$12,150,000
41%
s°
TOTAL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
1 $119,100,0001
$82,640,0001
1 $36,460,000
31%
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project 111"13 April 2002
IV. Proposed Methods of Financing and Feasibility
A. Introduction
This chapter describes the public and private financing aspects of the Redevelopment Program for the
Lodi Redevelopment Project. It estimates total funding requirements, identifies potential resources and
methods of financing available to the Agency, projects tax increment and other revenues, and assesses the
general financial feasibility of the Redevelopment Project. The analysis in this chapter supports the
conclusion that tax increment financing is a necessary component of the Redevelopment Plan.
The following sections demonstrate why tax increment financing made possible through the
Redevelopment Plan is a necessary part of the overall financing program to eliminate blighting conditions
in the Project Area. As described in Chapter 11, the blighting conditions in the Project Area are
substantial, and a significant amount of capital investment will be required to alleviate them. While the
Agency will pursue all potential funding sources, these will not be sufficient to finance all of the activities
critical to alleviating the blighting conditions identified in the Project Area without the use of tax
increment. Improvements needed in the Project Area cannot be funded without the establishment of a
redevelopment project.
The estimated cost to the Agency of the Redevelopment Program described in Chapter III (excluding
Agency administrative costs for non -housing programs) totals approximately $36.5 million. The private
sector is unable to support this cost on its own. In addition, public revenue sources such as the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), federal grant funding, the City's General Fund and
Enterprise Funds, and other revenue sources are either unavailable, dwindling, or insufficient to cover the
cost of the projects and activities proposed by the Agency to eliminate blight and redevelop the Project
Area. Thus, a gap or shortfall exists for which no funding sources (other than tax increment financing) are
available or sufficient. Tax increment financing is the most reliable source of long term redevelopment
funding available to the Agency, and the only source of financing that will generate sufficient revenue to
meet the funding gap.
B. Stimulation of Private Investment
A major goal of the Redevelopment Program is to stimulate private investment within the Project Area.
Public investment in the form of redevelopment funding will be used to leverage private investment. It is
anticipated that private investment will include the rehabilitation and new construction of commercial,
industrial and residential buildings within the Project Area. Over time, such investment could be
significant. Projections of potential buildout in the Project Area indicate that the value of new
development financed by private investment is estimated to be almost $140 million (nominal dollars)
through the life of the Redevelopment Project.
However, the stimulation of private investment in the area will require the improvement of public
facilities, the elimination of blighting conditions, and the establishment of a positive climate for private
participation. Given the extent of blighting conditions and the need for improved public facilities,
effective implementation of the proposed Redevelopment Program provides the most reasonable
opportunity for stimulating private investment in the Project Area.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -1 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
i
1. Estimated Agency Funding Requirements for the Redevelopment
Program
'
Implementation of the Redevelopment Project will require substantial funding. The estimated net costs to
the Agency in constant dollars to complete the Redevelopment Program are summarized in Table IV -1.'
These estimates are drawn from the analysis in Chapter III and include items to be funded by the
'
proposed Redevelopment Program after subtracting offsetting funding sources. The estimates for these
offsetting funds are based on the analysis in Section C of this chapter.
'
C. Potential Funding Sources Other than Tax Increment
Financing
'
This section describes funding sources that, if available, could assist in financing the Redevelopment
Program for the Lodi Project Area. The Agency will use every effort to obtain alternative funding sources
as a means to accelerate the Redevelopment Program and to minimize the required investment of tax
increment revenue. Some alternative sources may actually generate more funds during implementation of
the proposed Redevelopment Plan than estimated, while others may generate less. On balance, the
estimates of available alternative revenues are seen as a best estimate order of magnitude at the
,
Redevelopment Plan adoption stage to determine the need for tax increment revenue (as discussed in
Sections C through G below).
,
Up to the present, the City has used available CDBG funds and assessment district proceeds, combined
with its General Fund and Enterprise Funds to fund economic development and revitalization activities
and necessary infrastructure improvements in the proposed Project Area. However, these funding sources
will be insufficient to finance a redevelopment program.
'
A redevelopment plan would authorize the City of Lodi to finance a redevelopment project using a variety
of sources, including funding from the federal government and the State of California, as well as bank
'
loan programs to meet the requirements of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Other local sources
could include donations, interest income, agency bonds, and loans from private institutions, the
sponsoring entities and other local public entities, as well as the sale and lease of Agency -owned property.
'
However, other funding sources are not likely to adequately meet the needs for public improvements and
revitalization in the Project Area.
i
' The term 2002 dollars or constant 2002 dollars is used to indicate the present value of nominal dollars discounted back to '
FY 2001102. Refer to discussion on present value assumption in section D. I of this chapter.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -2 Report on the Plan ,
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Table IV -1
Estimated Net Cost to Agency
of Redevelopment Program
in Constant 2002 dollars
Redevelopment Program Categories
Net Cost to
Agency
1. Economic Development
$3,550,000
2. Building Rehabilitation, Facade
Improvement and Historic Preservation
$4,362,500
3. Public Infrastructure and Facilities
$9,910,000
4. Neighborhood Preservation, Circulation
and Landscaping Improvements
$2,237,500
5. Site Preparation and Development
$4,250,000
Subtotal Projects
$24,310,000
Non -Housing Administration Costs
$2,900,000
Subtotal Housing Costs
$27,210,000
6. Affordable Housing
$12,150,000
TOTAL COSTS
$39,460,000
1. Federal -Funding Sources
While federal, state and county loan and grant programs could provide funding for some of the projects
proposed for the Project Area, funding levels have been curtailed for most of their economic development
programs.
a. Community Development Block Grants and HOME Funds
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) can be secured from the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) to fund activities such as public works; rehabilitation loans and grants;
land acquisition, demolition, and relocation for redevelopment; public services; and affordable housing,
social services and projects for the elderly or handicapped. CDBG-funded projects and activities must
principally benefit low and moderate income persons or aid in the prevention of elimination of slums or
blight.
Federal Home Ownership Partnerships Program (HOME) funds can also be obtained from HUD for
development and rehabilitation of affordable housing. As such, HOME can only be used for affordable
housing redevelopment activities.
CDBG and HOME funds typically provide a limited source of revenue for many redevelopment activities
in California. Lodi received approximately $750,000 in CDBG fiends and $200,000 in HOME funds in
FY 2000/01 and expects to receive a similar amount in FY 2001/02.
HOME funds are administered through San Joaquin County and are used solely for affordable housing.
Most of Lodi's CDBG funds in recent years have been used to construct and rehabilitate housing, and
provide needed services and facilities to lower-income residents. Given the competing needs in the City,
very little CDBG funds are available for public improvements. However, CDBG and HOME funds will
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -3 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
continue to be used to fund activities and programs for affordable housing activities identified in the
proposed redevelopment program to the extent feasible.
b. Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA -21)
The federal government's Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA -21) builds on the
initiatives established in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). TEA -21
provides federal transportation funding to San Joaquin County and local jurisdictions through programs
such as the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program, the Transportation Enhancement
Activities (TEA) Program, and the Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. Other sources of federal
transportation funding include Sections 5303, 5306, 5309, 5310 and 5311 of the Federal Transit Act and
the Railroad Grade Crossing Protection Program.
CMAQ funds may be used for projects and activities that contribute to attainment or maintenance of the
national ambient air quality standards for ozone and carbon monoxide.
TEA funding is provided to projects that innovatively incorporate surface transportation activities into
their surrounding communities. TEA projects must demonstrate a quality of life benefit, while providing
the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people.
Funding under both CMAQ and TEA is granted through a competitive process against other projects
throughout the region and/or state. Use of these federal funds requires coordination with regional
governance, the state and affected transit operators.
STP funds provide one of the most essential funding programs of TEA -21. Funds are allocated by
formula to counties and regional transit districts and to cities based on population percentage. Since STP
funds are "flexible", they can be spent on numerous types of transportation improvements, including
projects pertaining to roads, highways, bicycle facilities, mass transit and other pedestrian facilities. For
many regions, a majority of the funds are spent on local streets rehabilitation or reconstruction.
Lodi has used a variety of federal funding sources (leveraging local funds) for its transportation and
transit improvements. For dxample, the City is utilizing federal funding from the Section 5307 Program
and a federal earmark from TEA -21 to fund a portion of the multimodal station park and ride parking
structure currently under construction in the Downtown. These funds will continue to be sought and the
Agency will use redevelopment funds to leverage federal dollars, typically assumed at 25 percent local
match.
2. State and County Funding Sources
State of California Economic Development Programs
The primary economic development program of the State of California is redevelopment. The state does
not have any significant source of funding other than redevelopment to fund revitalization activities in the
City. While the state does provide technical assistance funds, such as for the Main Street program, it does
not have any source of significant capital funding for revitalization activities.
b. Transportation Development Act (TDA) Funds
Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds are generated statewide by one-quarter of all retail sales in
a county. TDA funds may be used for transit projects, special transit projects for disabled persons, and
bicycle and pedestrian purposes. TDA funds may be used, under certain conditions (if all the transit
funding needs are fully met), for streets and roads. The City of Lodi receives an annual TDA
apportionment to fund regional and municipal transit programs, bikeway improvements and other
i
n
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IVA Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
programs designed to reduce automobile usage. As available, TDA funds are also used for the City's
street maintenance projects. In 2000/01, the City's apportionment totaled $1.8 million, which was used
for transit operations and transit capital projects. TDA funds are assumed to be used (in combination with
gas tax revenues) to help fund transit -oriented improvements in the proposed redevelopment program.
C. County Measure K Sales Tax
Measure K sales tax is a 1/2 -cent sales tax in San Joaquin County that is utilized to help fund specific
transportation programs as outlined in the Measure K Expenditure Plan. The program was designed to
ease congestion in the county, provide transit options, increase railroad -crossing safety and improve the
county's air quality. In the past, Measure K has been used by the City of Lodi to leverage state and federal
funding sources, enabling the following projects to move forward:
Route 12/Kettleman Lane Interchange
The City of Lodi, in conjunction with Caltrans, completed construction of the interchange
improvements that widened Route 12 under the Route 99 overcrossing to four lanes, plus added
turn lanes, improved ramps and relocated Beckman Road.
Lodi Multimodal Station and Parking Structure
The City recently completed a multimodal terminal that provides connections for local, intercity
and interregional bus service, as well as future connections for rail service. The parking structure,
currently under construction, accommodates long-term parking for Lodi Station transit users and
provides for increased transit services in the future.
Lodi Lake Bike Path
Design was completed and funding sources were secured for Phase I of this bike path adjacent to
Lodi Lake.
Central City Rail Safety Project
Design is currently underway for this project that will remove unused and unsightly railroad
tracks on Lodi Avenue and will reactivate the Kentucky House Branch on Lockford Street.
Measure K will expire in the year 2011, and no revenue from that source is anticipated beyond that year.
The loss of Measure K revenues represents a significant loss for potential future projects, as evidenced by
the following statement from the 2001 San Joaquin Council of Governments' Regional Transportation
Plan:
"The demise of Measure K in 2011 will have a major impact on our ability to fund transportation:
system improvements. Measure K is used to support many regionally significant projects and provide
match money for State and Federal transportation funds. An alternative local source of match money
will have to be found to replace Measure K. "2
Measure K may only be used for specific improvements and programs as approved by the voter initiative,
including rail crossing improvements, congestion relief, rail and bus programs, and local street repair
programs. In 2000/01, the City of Lodi received $933,000 for local street repair. While in theory funding
provided for local street repair may be used by a local jurisdiction as a local match for major street
expansion programs (such as are proposed for the Project Area) there are other competing priorities
throughout the City for these funds. It is therefore not anticipated to provide a significant source of
funding for the proposed Redevelopment Program.
2 200 San Joaquin Council of Governments' Regional Transportation Plan, Chapter 5: Financing Transportation.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -5 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
d. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District's REMOVE Program
State law provides air pollution control districts that are designated as state "non -attainment areas" for
'
pollutants emitted by motor vehicles to receive a $4 motor vehicle registration surcharge fee to provide
funds to meet responsibilities mandated by the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). The California Health
and Safety Code states that the fees shall be used to support air district operated planning, monitoring,
'
enforcement and technical studies necessary to implement the CCAA. Additional uses allowed include
projects that reduce motor vehicle emissions such as those funded by the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) REMOVE (REduce Motor Vehicle Emissions) Program.
'
Each year the REMOVE Program Evaluation Committee for Motor Vehicle Emission Reduction Projects
(Evaluation Committee) prepares a request for proposal (RFP) for projects that will reduce motor vehicle '
emissions within the SJVAPCD. The purpose of the REMOVE Program RFP is to attract projects that
will assist the SJVAPCD in attaining the requirements of the CCAA. This is accomplished by allocating
funds to cost-effective projects that have the greatest motor vehicle emission reductions resulting in long-
range impacts on the air pollution problems in the San Joaquin Valley. The City of Lodi applied for and
received $317,000 in funding from the REMOVE Program toward the construction of the parking
structure to serve the new multimodal terminal in the Downtown. The projects and activities identified in '
the proposed Redevelopment Program do not qualify for funding under the REMOVE Program.
3. City of Lodi Funding Sources ,
The federal and state governments have continued to reduce funding and to shift costs of programs to
cities and counties. In addition, many funding programs have a limited duration and are intended to fund
only specific identified improvements. Unfortunately, cities and counties have only limited ability to raise ,
revenues to offset new costs or to replace other lost revenue. In addition to the limited ability to fund
ongoing essential functions such as police and fire services, the City of Lodi is faced with major capital
expenditures required to upgrade and maintain city facilities and infrastructure to meet the demands of '
growth. As a result, although some redevelopment activities may be partially supported with city funds,
the City's General Fund and Enterprise Funds and cannot be relied upon as a major source of funding.
Prior to the passage of the Proposition 13 property tax limitation initiative, local government entities in
'
California (including cities) were able to fund many of their -ongoing general operating and capital
improvement expenses by raising local property taxes. However, the restrictions placed on such practices
by this constitutional amendment have resulted in a situation whereby property tax revenues can no
longer be relied upon to offset increases in operating and capital costs attributable to inflation or demands
for additional services or facilities generated by population growth. This situation, combined with the
demise of federal revenue sharing programs in October 1986, and the problems inherent in competing for
financing assistance from federal and state government programs, has made it exceedingly difficult for
local government entities to collect sufficient annual revenues to finance long-term capital improvements.
a. Gas Tax
'
Gas taxes are generated statewide on gasoline sales and are allocated to local jurisdictions on a formula
based on population and other factors. Gas tax revenues may be used for street maintenance and
construction activities. The City's balance in its Gas Tax Fund at the beginning of FY 2000/01 was
'
$1,064,862. An estimated $1,047,540 is expected to be generated in FY 2001/02.
Gas taxes and TDA funds are the primary funds available to the City to fund circulation improvements.
,
The Redevelopment Program assumes that non -Agency sources, including Gas Tax and TDA funds will
provide up to 75 percent of the funding for transportation improvements while the Agency will provide
the balance of funding.
'
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -6 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
,
b. Enterprise Funds
City Enterprise Funds recover the cost of providing goods and/or services to the public primarily through
user charges. The City of Lodi has four enterprise funds: electric, water, wastewater and transit. While
enterprise funds are expected to set fees and rates at levels which fully cover the direct cost of operations,
capital outlay and debt service, the rate structures need to be sensitive to the ."market" for similar services,
as well as to smaller, infrequent users of the service and the influence rates and fees have on economic
development. This market restriction on cost recovery necessarily limits the level of capital repair and
replacement that might occur on deteriorating facilities, such as those in the proposed Project Area. The
City has historically used enterprise funds to fund necessary water distribution, storm drain and
wastewater improvements. The Redevelopment Program assumes that these enterprise funds will provide
up to 80 percent of the funding for water distribution, storm drain and wastewater infrastructure
improvements in the proposed Project Area.
C. Hotel Tax
A hotel tax (called "transient occupancy tax" or TOT) is paid to the City of Lodi by lodging
establishments based on 9 percent of room receipts (6 percent tax rate plus 3 percent surcharge) for
"transient" hotel guests (less than 30 day stay). In 2000, the City received $332,547 in TOT revenues,
which were entirely allocated to other programs, such as tourism and visitor attraction programs. Future
revenues are anticipated to be allocated to programs to attract visitors to the City of Lodi and are not
anticipated to be a major funding source for the proposed redevelopment program. Moreover, as noted in
the previous chapter, TOT revenues in the Project Area have been declining over the past few years.
d. Interest Income
Interest income may accrue to an agency front the investment of tax increment revenues and tax
increment bond proceeds. Actual income from this source is influenced by the amount of money available
for investment, term of the investment, and achievable interest rates.
Income from this source could be made available for a variety of redevelopment activities. However, such
income is normally used as an offset against the cost of borrowing money. Much, if not all, of the interest
income will likely be offset by the need for the Agency to pay interest on City loans and other
indebtedness, including Agency issued bonds.
4. Funds Generated by Private Sector and/or New Development
As permitted by law, in addition to local, state, and/or federal government funding sources, an agency can
utilize funds from other sources, such as those generated by the private sector and/or new development.
These funding sources and their potential applicability to the Lodi Redevelopment Project are discussed
in the following paragraphs.
a. Assessment Districts
Assessment districts enable a city to levy additional taxes on property within designated areas in order to
finance improvements directly benefiting those areas. Bonds are issued to finance local improvements
such as streets, sidewalks and parking facilities. In a typical case, an assessment district is formed to
undertake a particular public improvement, using the Improvement Act of 1911, and bonds are issued
under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915. Upon the issuance of bonds, the district has the power to
assess all property owners included in the district in order to repay the borrowed funds. An assessment
district can be established as its own jurisdiction, or it can be included under a city's taxing system,
assuming that the improvement is located entirely within a city's jurisdiction (in this case, it is termed an
assessment area). Assessment districts are not limited by Proposition 13 or by Proposition 4. They place
the costs of public facilities directly on the property owners who benefit.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -7 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
1
i
Assessment districts have become a common mechanism for funding certain community improvements
and could be a potential source of revenue for redevelopment activities in the Project Area, on a limited
scale. It should be noted, however, that assessment districts increase site-specific improvements and long-
term operating costs for private property owners. Furthermore, there is an inherent risk in forming an
assessment district in that it might discourage potential development activity in areas targeted for
revitalization and/or redevelopment. For these reasons, assessment districts are often a less desirable
'
funding mechanism than other available options.
and other street improvements on School Street, Pine Street, Oak Street and Cherokee Lane. The balance
of the $3.5 million cost of improvements was contributed by the City's Enterprise Funds. Where
Assessment districts are particularly problematic in older, developed areas like the Lodi Redevelopment
Project Area, where property values are stagnant, retail sales are declining, and many property owners and
businesses are operating on the economic margin with little or no room to add new financial obligations.
'
In addition to these practical economic limitations, Proposition 218 makes the likelihood of assessment
district financing even more problematic. Proposition 218, enacted in November 1996, limits the types of
improvements and activities that can be financed through assessment districts, by imposing several
,
conditions on new (and some existing) assessment districts. First, it requires local governments to
estimate the amount of special benefit (as distinguished from general benefit) landowners receive from
the improvements. Property owners may be charged for only the cost of this special benefit. Local
government must use general revenues to pay the remaining portion of the project or service's cost (i.e.,
general benefit portion). Second, local governments must ensure that no property owner's assessment is
greater than the cost of providing the improvement to the owner's property. Third, benefited public
properties are required to be included in assessment districts. Proposition 218 also creates a new mailed
ballot voter approval mechanism that essentially makes it easier for property owners to defeat assessment
'
district formations. Perhaps most importantly, Proposition 218 eliminates the ability of a city council to
'
form a district over property owner disapproval and shifts the burden of proof to local governments to
show that a challenged assessment is legal. In summary, Proposition 218 raises new legal hurdles that
make it even less likely that assessment district financing would be a viable funding mechanism for any
portion of the Lodi revitalization program.
The City of Lodi currently has an assessment district in the Downtown and along Cherokee Lane (Lodi
Central City Revitalization Assessment District No. 95-1), established in 1995 under the provisions of the
California Streets and Highways Code, Municipal Improvement Act of 1913. The District encompasses
approximately 273 acres, including streets and public rights of way, in the Downtown and along
Cherokee Lane. Properties within the District pay an annual assessment, which is used to repay
'
$2.8 million in bonds that were issued to partially fund the total $6.2 million cost of street furniture, trees
and other street improvements on School Street, Pine Street, Oak Street and Cherokee Lane. The balance
of the $3.5 million cost of improvements was contributed by the City's Enterprise Funds. Where
financially feasible, the Agency will encourage the formation of additional assessment districts to help
fund projects and activities outlined in the proposed redevelopment program.
'
The following paragraphs present some examples of other assessment and special districts that could be
formed as an additional source of funding for specific projects in Lodi, if found to be financially feasible.
b. Lighting, Landscaping, and Maintenance District
,
Defined under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, facility installation and maintenance can be
funded from the collection of special assessments on the land benefiting from the improvements.
Facilities may include landscaping, statuary, fountains or ornamental facilities, public lighting facilities,
and park or recreational equipment, including playground equipment, play courts, and public restrooms.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -8 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
'
C. Open Space Maintenance District
An open space maintenance district, as authorized in Government Code Sections 50575-50620, may
employ necessary labor and provide the required materials and equipment to maintain and operate
planned open space and recreation areas. A city must have complete supervision, charge and control of all
open space areas maintained. A city may also levy an annual ad valorem special assessment on the
valuation of taxable land and improvements within the maintenance area. State law limits the levy
amount.
d. Benefit Assessment Act of 1982
Cities, counties and special districts may establish zones of benefit within which an assessment is levied.
Benefit assessments can finance the maintenance and operation costs of drainage, flood control, and
streetlight services and the cost of installation and improvement of drainage or flood control facilities.
Maintenance of streets, roads and highways can also be funded.
e. Parking District
Authorized under the Parking District Law of 1943, a parking authority exists in every city and county in
the state, subject only to the activation by the city council or county board of supervisors. Once activated,
the parking authority can issue revenue bonds if a proposal for these bonds is approved by a majority of
the voters. The bonds are secured by a pledge of total parking revenues, including revenues from parking
meters, surface lots and parking structures.
E Mello -Roos Community Facilities District
The Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 authorizes the formation of a Community Facilities
District (CFD) to be used to finance capital improvement projects and to pay for ongoing operations and
maintenance of certain facilities. It is similar to an assessment district, but is authorized under separate
legislation with different regulations. A CFD may be established in conjunction with a redevelopment
project to undertake new public projects of joint benefit. A CFD can levy special taxes and issue bonds to
finance these improvements. The formation of a CFD would require Agency approval and would require
the affirmative vote of two thirds of the property owners (weighted vote based on acres owned).
Typically, Mello -Roos districts are difficult to form in urbanized areas such as Lodi given the two-thirds
approval requirements for formation.
g. Public Utility District
Utility districts, including districts for providing water, irrigation, gas and electricity, sewer, solid waste,
and hazardous waste facilities are generally empowered by California law to incur bonded indebtedness
according to the revenues received from their operations. Under the Municipal Utility District Act, a
municipal utility district that owns and operates an electrical distribution, water distribution, or sewage
disposal system may issue bonds to construct or improve any part of its system pursuant to the Revenue
Bond Law of 1941, which requires approval by majority vote of the residents of the district. According to
the provisions of the respective bond law, public utility districts may also issue the following kinds of
bonds: general obligation bonds, improvement bonds issued under the Improvement Act of 1911 or the
Improvement Bonds Act of 1915, special tax bonds under the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District
Act of 1982, revenue or bond anticipation notes, or certificates of participation. Special district issues of
improvement bonds issued under the proceedings described in the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913
must be approved by the legislative body of any city or county having direct jurisdiction over any portion
of the improvement district. As described earlier, the City of Lodi will continue to use this authority to
fund necessary water distribution, storm drain and wastewater improvements.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -9 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
PBIDs require the creation of an advisory committee of property and business owners, ensuring that those
who pay govern the district. Private property owners play an active role in the collaboration of the
reinvestment in depressed areas. Business groups organize and prioritize the issues identified by the
community. Once a majority of property owners reach consensus on a plan, it can be funded by PBID
revenues. Funds from the PBID can be leveraged with CDBG and redevelopment funds to realize greater
objectives. Funds can be used for capital costs although they are typically used for "clean and safe"
programs, district promotions and marketing costs. Funds need to be leveraged to achieve larger results.
L Development Impact Fees
The City of Lodi has a comprehensive development impact fee program to fund fire and public safety
,
h. Business Improvement District (BID)
,
A business improvement district (BID) allows business districts to establish an assessment that generates
'
revenue to support enhanced services, including maintenance, security, marketing and economic
development. Two types of BID mechanisms exist under California law: "Business Improvement Areas"
(BIAs) and "Property Based Improvement Districts" (PB1Ds). The Business Improvement Area has been
'
used widely in the state, and provides for an additional fee to be added to annual business licensing
,
charges. However, due to the limited income generated through the business license fee, BIAs have
typically had a relatively narrow scope of services.
The City currently has a BIA in the Downtown. Established in 1997 by City Ordinance Number 1654, the
Downtown Lodi Business Improvement Area (DLBIA) has a membership of approximately 220 business
owners, professionals and merchants and is governed by the on -profit Downtown Lodi Business
Partnership (DLBP). Businesses within the improvement area pay a mandatory annual assessment, which
varies based on the type of business and the benefit zone within which the business lies. Revenues for the
DLBP in 2001 were approximately $224,000, comprised of $36,000 in annual assessments, $47,000 from
the City's General Fund, $114,000 from special fund raising events and $27,000 carry-over of previous
year's funds. The DPBP funds cooperative advertising and marketing, promotional activities and special
events that benefit DLBIA members, such as See's Candy sales, the Farmers Market, Halloween Festival,
December Parade of Lights, and "Downtown Lodi Live." The DLBIA is not anticipated to be a funding
source for any of the proposed redevelopment programs or activities.
,
In 1994, the Property and Business Improvement District Law provided for an assessment on commercial
property, thereby paving the way for a new generation of PBIDs to eventually replace the existing BIAs.
PBIDs can fund a wide range of activities, such as security, maintenance, economic development,
promotion and management activities, as well as public improvements such as acquisition and
maintenance of parking facilities, benches, trash receptacles, street lighting, decorations, parks, and
fountains. The creation of a PBID requires petition support from businesses that would pay more than
50 percent of the annual fees to be collected in the proposed area. A PBID has a cap on assessments and a
five-year maximum life, requiring a new petition process to renew.
PBIDs require the creation of an advisory committee of property and business owners, ensuring that those
who pay govern the district. Private property owners play an active role in the collaboration of the
reinvestment in depressed areas. Business groups organize and prioritize the issues identified by the
community. Once a majority of property owners reach consensus on a plan, it can be funded by PBID
revenues. Funds from the PBID can be leveraged with CDBG and redevelopment funds to realize greater
objectives. Funds can be used for capital costs although they are typically used for "clean and safe"
programs, district promotions and marketing costs. Funds need to be leveraged to achieve larger results.
L Development Impact Fees
The City of Lodi has a comprehensive development impact fee program to fund fire and public safety
facilities, streets, water and wastewater improvements. Impact fees are charged on all new private
,
development in the city to help pay for the costs of public facilities and infrastructure to serve the needs
of future residents and businesses.
Under applicable state laws regarding the imposition of development impact fees, such fees can be
imposed on a new private development only to the extent that there is a direct nexus or relationship
between the need for public facilities caused by such new development and the level of fees imposed.
'
Such fees are specifically prohibited from being charged to alleviate existing deficiencies. The proposed
redevelopment program is largely designed to eliminate blighting conditions through the removal or
replacement of existing deficient improvements. Consequently, development impact fees collectable by
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -10 Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
the City will not be allowed to fund such improvements. To the extent proposed improvements are
intended to serve new development in the Project Area, development impact fees may be used as a
potential funding source, to the extent allowable by law.
The drawback of relying on fees as a source of funding is the timing of their collection and subsequent
availability, as compared to the funding need for the improvement. These fees can only be used on a pay-
as-you-go basis and cannot be bonded as they are likely to fluctuate greatly from year to year.
j. Developer and Property Owner Participation
In many communities, developer participation has become a much more common vehicle for obtaining
funds for redevelopment activities. For example, funds may be advanced to a redevelopment agency in
the form of a grant or loan for public improvements, which are then repaid during the course of project
implementation from tax increment revenues. These funds can contribute to selected projects; however,
they are dependent on the level of development activity in the Project Area.
Although the Agency is interested in pursuing such opportunities, such participation is speculative and
cannot be counted on. Furthermore, development within the Project Area is constrained by physical and
economic blighting conditions, and as a result, developer exactions are unlikely to generate any
significant amount of funding as an offset to public implementation costs. Within the context of the
forgoing considerations, it would not be prudent at this point for the Agency to base a long-term project
on the ability of one (or more) prospective developer(s) to advance funds for redevelopment activities.
However, the proposed Agency budget assumes private participation in certain of the redevelopment
program activities.
k. Private Donations
Private donations by individuals, civic booster organizations, or corporate sponsors could make a minor
contribution to the implementation of the Redevelopment Program. Donations could be used to fund all or
part of minor streetscape improvements such as benches, entrance signage, directional signs, bicycle
racks, or landscaping. However, in terms of the total funding needs of the Redevelopment Program,
donations may be expected to provide only a very small part of the funding needed for the
Redevelopment Program's'implementation.
1. Private Loan Assistance
Congress created the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to encourage banks to invest in their local
communities. The purpose of the CRA is to ensure that banks lend in all communities. All of the major
banks in California have significant CRA loan programs. Although the CRA will assure that loan funds
will be available for rehabilitation in the Project Area, banks will apply normal credit standards and do
not provide subsidies.
Other types of loan programs available through banks include the Federal Title 1 Program for housing
rehabilitation and Small Business Administration programs for business creation or expansion. The
purpose of Title 1 loans is to assist residential property owners to improve property and eliminate health
and safety problems. Title I loans are for single family homes (up to $25,000) and multifamily
developments (up to $60,000). Affordable housing loans and grants are also available through savings and
loans institutions.
In. Mills Act
An owner of an eligible historic property may enter into a ten-year contract with a participating city to
rehabilitate the building in exchange for a reduction in local property taxes. Owner occupied single family
residences or income producing commercial properties may qualify for the Mills Act program. However,
eligible properties must be listed on the National Register of Historic Places, be located in a National
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -11 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Register or local historic district, or be listed on a state, count or cit official register. While this could ,
g Y Y g
be an applicable source of funds for historic preservation projects, it would require significant start-up ,
cost and resource dedication from the City of Lodi, since the City would have to adopt the Mills Act.
n. Private Investment
Private investment in the Project Area has been limited in most areas, as indicated by the blighting
'
conditions. The private sector is unlikely to provide the extensive improvements necessary to revitalize
'
the area. The blighting conditions are likely to continue or become worse without significant private
investment in the Project Area.
D. Other Funding Sources Considered to Be Infeasible
,
The CRL imposes specific time and fiscal limits on particular Agency activities. These time limits affect
A variety of other funding sources were considered to fund the proposed Redevelopment Program, as
discussed in the previous sections. As permitted by law, funds can be from local, state and/or federal
government sources, and from private sector sources. However, to a large extent, existing resources for
the proposed redevelopment program have been maximized. Other sources are dwindling or have been
found to be clearly infeasible or to have little potential of generating measurable revenues. Due to the
infeasibility of other funding sources, the Agency will rely on tax increment revenue as a major funding
source for the proposed redevelopment program.
E. Tax Increment Financing: the Primary Source of Funding
'
1. Introduction
'
The primary source of financing for most redevelopment projects is tax increment revenue generated by
the increase in property values within a project area. The detailed tax increment projections for a
redevelopment project in the Project Area are contained in Appendix H of this report.
,
The CRL imposes specific time and fiscal limits on particular Agency activities. These time limits affect
the amount of tax increment revenue an agency can receive.
• Time Limit for Eminent Domain Powers
The Agency can exercise its eminent domain powers for 12 years from the adoption of the
redevelopment plan. Although this limit does not directly affect tax increment revenues, it could have
an impact on the agency's ability to implement its redevelopment program.
• Time Limit to Incur Debt
The Agency's ability to enter into new bonded indebtedness is limited to 20 years from the adoption
of the redevelopment plan.
• Time Limit to Receive Tax Increment and Repay Debt
The Agency can collect tax increment for 45 years to repay debt. Thus, the Agency has 25 years to
repay bonds issued in year 20, the last year for issuance of debt. The Agency can continue to repay
debt for 15 years after it has completed all project activities.
• Limit on Amount of Outstanding Bonded Indebtedness
The Redevelopment Plan must contain limits regarding the total amount of outstanding bonded
indebtedness secured by tax increment revenue. The Agency intends to limit the amount of
outstanding bonded indebtedness over the life of the Plan to $100 million.
'
Based on the assumptions outlined in this chapter, the tax increment available for the proposed
Redevelopment Program (both housing and non -housing activities) over the 45 year life of the
Redevelopment Plan would be sufficient to meet the costs of the Program, which cannot reasonably be
i
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -12 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
financed from other sources. Refer to the tables in Appendix H for detailed analysis of potential tax
increment revenues for the proposed Redevelopment Project.
The Redevelopment Agency may also accept financial or other assistance from any public or private
source for purposes of redevelopment consistent with the CRL and the Redevelopment Plan. However, as
described in the previous section, in the City of Lodi, funding from other reasonably available private and
public funding sources is available for only a portion of the proposed projects.
2. Using Tax Increment Revenue to Eliminate Blighting Conditions
The general purpose of redevelopment is the elimination of blighting conditions. The completion of a
redevelopment program results in a project area that is physically enhanced and economically stronger.
Substantial evidence of physical and economic blight within the proposed Project Area was provided in
Chapter 11. The Redevelopment Program described in Chapter III is specifically designed to stimulate
private investment and alleviate physical and economic blighting conditions in the Project Area. The use
of tax increment revenue is the most appropriate means of providing sufficient funding for the
Redevelopment Program.
3. Stabilizing and Enhancing the Property Tax Base
In many communities, the adoption and implementation of redevelopment programs has led to the
stabilization of tax rolls and tax receipts for taxing entities within project areas. As a result, these
communities have avoided declines in tax revenues due to worsening conditions and the erosion of
property values.
In most redevelopment project areas, the use of public redevelopment funds to provide public investment
to leverage private investment has resulted in substantial increases in property values over time due to
rehabilitation, new construction and property appreciation.
4. Establishing a Frozen Base
The first major step in the implementation of a tax increment financing program is accomplished at the
time of formal redevelopment plan adoption. The total value of taxable property within a project area's
boundaries at the time of adoption is determined, and a base year for tax increment purposes is
established. The tax roll used is formally called the "base year assessment roll", more commonly referred
to as the "frozen base". The establishment of a frozen base provides for a segregation of assessed values
between existing values and enhanced values deriving from future redevelopment of a project area. Future
property taxes related to increases over the frozen base assessed value are referred to as incremental taxes
or tax increment.
Tax increment revenues are projected by applying the property tax rate to the incremental assessed value
over the frozen base. The frozen base is the total assessed value of property in a project area, including
homeowners' exemptions, at the time the Redevelopment Plan is adopted.'
5. Distribution of Property Taxes during Project Implementation
Following adoption of a redevelopment plan, all of the entities that levy taxes in a project area, such as
the county, city, school districts, and special assessment districts, continue to receive all property tax
3 The official County Fiscal Officer's Report for the proposed Project Area is provided in Appendix G, and includes locally
assessed value plus homeowners' exemptions plus state -assessed property as reported by the State Board of Equalization.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency 1V-13 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
revenues accruable from the frozen base. In addition, they will receive a portion of the property tax
revenues generated from the increases in assessed value over the frozen base. These additional payments
are called "pass-through payments" (see Section F.5 for a detailed explanation of the calculation of pass-
through payments). Table IV -2 lists the taxing entities and percent distribution of property taxes among
the entities.
Table IV -2
Property Tax Distribution
Lodi Redevelopment Project Area
Taxing Entity
Percent Share
1. General Fund
2. County General Fund
16.4%
21.7%
3. Lodi Unified Schools
27.6%_
4. San Joaquin Delta Community College
3.9%
5. County Office of Education
1.4%
_
6. San Joaquin County Flood Control
_
0.2%
7. San Joaquin County Mosquito Abatement
8. North San Joaquin Water Conservation
0.8%�
0.5%
9. Education Revenue Augmentation Fund
27.6%
TOTAL
100.0%
Note: These factors are adjusted for the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF). The City
General Fund and County General Fund contribute to ERAF. Totals may not add up to 100 percent
due to rounding.
Source: San Joaquin County Auditor -Controller, January 2002.
Increased property tax revenues above the frozen base and after payment of obligations are allocated to
the sponsoring redevelopment agency to be used to fund the costs of implementing the Redevelopment
Program. The agency may pay for the project on an ongoing (pay-as-you-go) basis, or it may borrow
funds (issue bonds) to be repaid by future tax increment revenues.
6. Distribution of Property Taxes after Project Completion
When a redevelopment project is completed and loans or other indebtedness have been repaid, all
property taxes flow back to the respective taxing entities. These entities then benefit from increases in
property tax revenues resulting from a revitalized and redeveloped project area. In many communities,
such increases are substantial. In fact, over time, taxing entities can recoup sufficient revenues following
project completion to make up for the property tax revenue that was used for tax increment during the
redevelopment implementation period.
This would occur because the increases in assessed valuation from project area revitalization are
sufficiently greater under redevelopment than the assessed valuation increases that would realistically
occur without redevelopment. Thus, payments to the affected taxing entities resulting from new
development and reassessments at the time of property transfers can exceed the normal property taxes that
the taxing entities would receive from a slow growing assessed valuation roll without redevelopment.
i
i
i
J
i
1
Lodi Redevelopment Agency 1V-14 Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
F. Assumptions Used in Tax Increment Projections
The primary source of funding for the Lodi Redevelopment Project will be tax increment financing. It is
the most reliable source of long term funding and the only source that will generate enough funds to. meet
the cost of the proposed Redevelopment Program. Refer to the tables in Appendix H for a detailed
analysis of potential tax increment revenues for the proposed Redevelopment Project.
The projections in this report are based upon Seifel Consulting's understanding of the general assessment
practices of San Joaquin County. These practices are subject to policy changes, legislative changes, and
the individual appraiser's judgment. While Seifel Consulting believes its estimates are reasonable, taxable
values resulting from actual appraisals and adjustments are likely to vary from the amounts assumed in
the projections.
The tax increment projections are intended only as estimates, which are based on the best available
information as of January 2002. Actual tax increments may be higher or lower than indicated in the
model. The development projections shown in Appendix H are not intended to predict future
development, but rather to provide a reasonable estimate, on an annual basis, of potential tax increment
growth resulting from the increase in assessed value resulting from new development.
1. Present Value Assumptions
The analysis below provides estimates of tax increment revenues in both future value (nominal) dollars
and present value (constant) dollars. The purchasing power of nominal dollars would decline because of
inflation and/or the cost of borrowing. Therefore, it is important to convert the annual amounts to the
equivalent value in constant 2002 dollars before making a direct comparison between potential revenues
and project costs.
The present value in 2002 dollars was calculated by discounting future tax increment revenues by an
annual rate of 5.5 percent. As the discount rate increases, the present value figure decreases. This discount
rate is estimated to be equivalent to the average cost of funds for the City of Lodi and its Redevelopment
Agency. It accounts for thecost of inflation, as well as the cost of borrowing money, to approximate the
present value of future dollars. Most tax increment will be pledged to the issuance of debt, and only a
portion of tax increment will be used on a pay as you go basis.
2. Frozen Base
The base year for the proposed Project Area will be Fiscal Year (FY) 2001/02, as provided in the
San Joaquin County Fiscal Officer's Report (Section 33328 Report). The base year assessed value is
$540.2 million.
3. Growth Assumptions
Tax increment revenues are generated from the growth in assessed value above the frozen base. Growth
in assessed property values in the proposed Project Area is based upon the following three factors:
a. Annual Inflation Rate
The annual inflation rate is assumed at two percent per year for secured properties that remain in the same
ownership. Two percent is the maximum annual increase allowed by the California State Constitution as a
result of Proposition 13. This inflation factor is applied to the assessed value of secured property.
Unsecured and state -assessed property is conservatively assumed to remain constant.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -15 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
b. Reassessment Adjustment
An annual reassessment adjustment, assumed at one percent, represents the increases in assessed value
following property reassessment, which is triggered by: (1) the transfer (sale) of real property,
(2) upgrading of real property improvements due to rehabilitation or additions to existing buildings, or
(3) the reassessments of new development to market value once construction is completed. '
C. New Development
The projection for the incremental value from new development is based on estimates of growth that will ,
occur with new construction and redevelopment of residential, commercial and industrial properties.
These estimates conservatively assume that only 85 percent of the projected buildout for the Project Area,
as evaluated in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), will actually occur. (Refer to the development
tables in Appendix H for detailed annual development schedules in the Project Area.) Graph IV -1
illustrates the growth in assessed valuation based on these growth assumptions for the Project Area.
i
i
t
11
1
11
Lodi Redevelopment Agency 1V-16 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
1
k
O
Lit
i I Q Qi t
!WW.,�
I A
~' z m"n
CDi I �y I iJ (;kii
M ! t�q 1 N T &S 5
,�/ a u'1
b �+ ; W
41
V • �'_. 1 it I �,° k "�` as
•� 1 L
4wA
p y ! Cn 1 M-, S y
v tF h3 3 '*z 4 i in
co
cz
CD
s
• �j O I � 1 1 � s" � �� 'fir
1 1 1
1 1 1
N
Co CD 0 �}
C 1
C
o o C
N N -+
lb }
anjun passassd
4. Agency Tax Increment Obligations
Incremental property tax revenues are projected by applying the effective property tax rate, assumed at
one percent, to the estimated increased assessed value over the frozen base. The Agency must use the tax
increment revenues to fulfill the following obligations:
,
• County Retention Fee for Property Tax Administration
Counties typically retain fees for the administration of tax increment revenues. The projections in this
Report include this potential San Joaquin County administration fee deduction, assumed at
,
1.5 percent of gross tax revenues.
• Statutory Pass-through Payments
Each taxing entity deriving property tax revenue within the Lodi Project Area is guaranteed an annual
,
payment from the Agency. These payments are termed pass-through payments because the Agency
would forward this portion of tax increment revenues to the taxing entities. The CRL provides
standard formulas for the calculation of pass-through payments. Each entity would receive a payment
in proportion to its property tax levy within the Project Area at the time of Plan adoption. The pass-
through payments constitute the State Legislature's determination of the amount of payments
necessary to alleviate any financial burden of a redevelopment program to affected taxing entities.
Health and Safety Code Section 33607.5(f)(1)(B) states that statutory pass-through payments are the
exclusive payments that are required to be made by a redevelopment agency to affected taxing entities
during the term of a redevelopment plan. (See Section F.5 below for further details on these
payments.)
'
• Additional Payments to Basic Aid Entities
Basic aid school entities receive annual payments from an agency in addition to their standard pass-
through. No basic aid districts have been indicated in the Project Area.
• Set -Aside for Housing Program
Section 33334.2 of the CRL requires that 20 percent of the gross tax increment revenues collected by
'
the Redevelopment Agency be used for increasing and/or improving the community's supply of low
and moderate income housing. In other words, approximately 20 cents out of each tax dollar allocated
to the Agency during the life of the Project Area must be channeled into a Housing Set -Aside Fund to
finance the Agency's programs for affordable housing. Administrative costs related to the
implementation of the Housing Program are paid out of the Housing Set -Aside Fund.
• Debt Service Obligations
An agency must make annual debt service payments on outstanding indebtedness. Most agencies
issue bonds to undertake projects because sufficient tax increment revenues are not likely to be
generated for a number of years after initiating the Redevelopment Plan. The Agency will incur debt
obligations as a result of issuing bonds. The cost of paying off the principal and interest of this bond
debt is accounted for by applying a higher present value discount rate, which is equal approximately
to the cost of borrowing funds for the City. (Refer to the discussion of present value assumptions in
section D.1 of this chapter.)
,
• Agency Administration
Non -reimbursable Agency administrative costs are projected at 10 percent of tax increment for non-
housing projects. As mentioned above, this figure does not include the administrative costs for the
,
Affordable Housing Program.
After meeting the above obligations, the remaining tax increment revenues are available to the Agency to
fund the Non -Housing Redevelopment Program described in Chapter III of this Report.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -18 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
,
5. Calculation of Pass -Through Payments
Over the life of the Redevelopment Project, each taxing entity will receive its proportionate share of pass-
through payments, calculated for three tiers. Each taxing entity receives an amount equal to its property
tax levy multiplied by the increase in assessed value above the relevant pass-through base assessed value,
then multiplied by a mandated pass-through percentage for each of three tiers.
• Tier One
20 percent of the gross tax increment received by the Agency from assessed value growth above the
frozen base (equivalent to 25 percent of the net tax increment after the Agency's 20 percent of the
housing set-aside is deducted). This annual payment begins when the Agency first receives tax
increment revenues. Pass-throughs are the same as the Housing Set -Aside amount for the first
ten years of the Project.
The City of Lodi can elect to receive the tier one pass-through (its proportionate share of 20 percent
of gross tax increment). However, it then cannot participate in the tier two and tier three pass-
throughs. This Report on the Plan assumes that the City of Lodi will elect to receive its share of the
pass-through, although the City has the option to forego these pass-through payments. Over the life of
the proposed Redevelopment Plan, the City of Lodi's pass-through payments from tax increment are
projected to total almost $2 million in constant 2002 dollars.
Tier Two
16.8 percent of the gross tax increment received by the Agency from assessed value growth above the
tier two pass-through assessed value base, equal to the Project Area assessed value in the tenth year of
tax increment collection. This annual payment begins in the eleventh year during which the Agency
receives tax increment revenue. This tier two pass-through is added to the tier one payment and
continues through the life of the Redevelopment Project.
Tier Three
11.2 percent of the gross tax increment received by the Agency from assessed value growth above the
tier three assessed value base, equal to the Project Area assessed value in the thirtieth year of tax
increment collection. This annual payment begins the thirty-first year during which the Agency
receives tax increment revenue. This tier three pass-through is added to the tier one and tier two
payments and continues through the life of the project.
County Auditor -Controllers must contribute to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) on
behalf of certain taxing entities within their jurisdictions. To make these payments, an Auditor -Controller
may adjust the levies of taxing entities, resulting in a decrease in their share of the total property tax. The
remainder of property tax is forwarded to ERAF. Not all entities must contribute a share of their property
tax to ERAF in this way. For example, school districts and taxing entities whose boundaries extend across
multiple counties are not affected.
In San Joaquin County, the Auditor -Controller adjusts downward the levies for all entities in each tax rate
area that contribute to ERAF and creates a separate ERAF "levy" to reflect the sum of their contributions
to ERAF for each tax rate area. The preliminary County Fiscal Officer's Report contained in Appendix G
lists the property tax levies adjusted for ERAF for all of the affected taxing entities in the Project Area.
This Report on the Plan utilizes the property tax levies that are adjusted for ERAF for the purpose of
calculating pass-through payments, although State Law does not clearly indicate whether or not ERAF
adjusted or unadjusted property tax levies should be used. The distribution of the property taxes from the
base assessed value is based on these ERAF adjusted factors, after adjusting for the ERAF portion of the
County's contractual pass-through in the Original Area.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -19 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
4 Figures may not tally due to rounding.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency 1V-20 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
G. Tax Increment Projections
1. Incremental Tax Revenues
The assessed value of the Project Area is projected to grow by over $1.5 billion (over the base assessed
,
value of $540.2 million) during the 45 -year tax increment collection. Incremental tax revenues are
generated by the growth in the assessed value of the Project Area over the base assessed value.
Graph IV -I (shown previously) illustrates the projected growth over the base assessed value, attributable
to inflation on properties that remain in the same ownership, new development, and reassessments.
The projections shown in Table IV -3 represent total revenues to the Agency over the 45 -year life of the
Project. Tax increment revenues will actually accrue over time, with limited revenues in the early years of
implementation, which will grow as the assessed value of the Project Area increases.
Graph IV -2 illustrates the growth of tax increment revenues over time, in future value dollars. The graph
'
shows tax increment growth over the base year property taxes through the life of the Project. This graph
also shows the distribution of tax increment revenues over time among affected taxing entities, affordable
housing activities and non -affordable housing activities. Detailed annual tax increment projections are
,
presented in Appendix H.
Table IV -3
,
Summary of Tax Increment Projections
Lodi Redevelopment Project
Future Value Present Value
(Nominal Dollars)° (Constant 2002 Dollars)
Incremental Tax Revenues $290,600,000 $60,700,000
Less: County Property Tax Administration 4,400,000 900.000
,
Tax Revenues Remitted to Agency 286,300,000 59,800,000
Less: Pass-Throughs to Taxiing Entities 98,300,000 18,700,000
Less: Debt Obligation 0 0
'
TI Available to Agency After Obligations 187,900,000 41,100,000
Less: Housing Set -Aside 58.100.000 12.100.000
Tax Increment Available for Non -Housing Program 129,800,000 29,000,000
Less: Agency Administration Costs 13.000.000 2 90. 0,000
Tax Increment Available for Non -Housing Projects $116,900,000 $26,100,000
Graph IV -3 summarizes the distribution of tax increment revenues over the 45 -year life of the Project (in
constant 2002 dollars).
4 Figures may not tally due to rounding.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency 1V-20 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
1
1
t
- 1
� 1
IL
•
Pl
Cd
•
��
•
164
cu
•
r
•
•
s
Cd
••
.
fw
14
•
�
\1
1
.1
.1
:I
:I
:I
i�
CU
C13 d)
•
•
• •
•
•CD
• •
•
•
•
•
•
• •
• •
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
Graph IV -3
Distribution of Tax Increment Revenues
Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project Area
(Constant 2002 Dollars)
Housing Programs
20%
($12.1 Million)
Pass -Through Payments
31%
8.7 Million)
Non -Housing Projects
44%
($26.1 Million)
Agency Administration
(Non-Hsg)
S%
($2.9 Million)
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project IV -22 April 2002
2. Tax Increment Available for Affordable Housing Activities
About $58 million in nominal dollars, 20 percent of gross tax increment revenues, is projected to be
contributed to the Housing Set -Aside Fund. This amount is equivalent to about $12 million in constant
2002 dollars.
The 20 percent Housing Set -Aside funds will be the primary source of funding for affordable housing in
the Lodi Redevelopment Project. Any excess tax increment after debt service for the Non -Affordable
Housing Redevelopment Program will also be available to the Agency.
3. Tax Increment Available for Non -Housing Activities
After fulfilling its affordable housing, pass-through obligations, it is projected that tax increment revenues
available to fund the Agency's Non -Housing .Redevelopment Program and associated administrative costs
would be about $130 million in nominal dollars. This amount is equivalent to about $29 million in
constant 2002 dollars.
H. Financial Feasibility of the Proposed Redevelopment Project
This section demonstrates why tax increment revenue made possible through the proposed
Redevelopment Plan will be a necessary part of the overall financing program to eliminate blighting
conditions in the proposed Project Area. By utilizing tax increment revenue, the Agency has a feasible
plan for financing the redevelopment program to alleviate blight. Together with other public and private
revenue sources, tax increment financing will be a critical funding component in helping the City of Lodi
meet the costs required to implement the Redevelopment Program.
To evaluate the feasibility of the proposed Redevelopment Project, the following analysis compares the
Redevelopment Program's costs and tax increment revenues. As previously shown in Table IV -1, the net
cost to the Agency to complete the proposed Redevelopment Program (excluding non -housing Agency
administrative costs) is approximately $36.5 million in constant 2002 dollars.
The Agency is projected to receive about $41.1 million in tax increment revenue for the Redevelopment
Program (in constant 2002 dollars). The Agency is expected to require about $12.1 million for affordable
housing, $24.3 million for other non -housing activities, and $2.9 million for non -housing administration.
Thus, the Agency will have sufficient funds to support its Redevelopment Program, but little available
surplus as shown in Table IV -4.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -23 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Table IV -4
Comparison of Estimated Tax Increment Revenues
and Funding Requirements
(2002 dollars)
Tax Increment Available for Projects
$41.1 million
Less: Housing Program Fund Requirements
$12.1 million
Less: Projected Administration Expense for Non -Affordable
Housing Activities
$2.9 million
Less: Non -Housing Program Funding Requirements
$24.3 million
Funding Surplus
$1.8 million
Although the estimated project costs and the projected revenues will vary over time from those set forth
in the estimates and projections presented in this chapter, it is reasonable to conclude that the
Redevelopment Project is financially feasible within the 45 year duration of the Plan.'
I. Reasons Why Tax Increment Financing Is Necessary
This chapter demonstrates the general economic feasibility of the proposed Redevelopment Project and
the reason for including the provision for the division of taxes pursuant to Section 33670 in the
Redevelopment Plan, as required by law. As discussed in this chapter, the costs to alleviate documented
blighting conditions substantially exceed available funding from public and private sources. Tax
increment financing (as outlined in Section C of this chapter) is the only source available to the
community to fill the substantial gap between the costs of the Redevelopment Program and other public
and private revenue sources. Because these projects and activities are critical to the revitalization and
conservation of the Project Area, tax increment financing is needed to assist in funding these projects. Tax
increment financing has been and will continue to be the critical funding source that will help the City
fund the Redevelopment Program's cost.
The private sector alone cannot financially support the substantial costs of the proposed Redevelopment
Program. Because these projects and activities are critical to the revitalization and conservation of the
proposed Lodi Project Area, tax increment financing is needed to assist in funding these projects. Tax
increment financing will be the critical funding source that will help the City of Lodi fund the
Redevelopment Program's cost.
5 Present value of future tax increment revenues projected to be available for implementation of the Redevelopment Program
(includes housing, non -housing and non -housing administration costs). See Appendix H for details.
e See Table IV -1.
' The tax increment projections are intended only as estimates, which are based on the best available information as of
January 2002. Actual tax increments may be higher or lower than indicated in the model. The development projections shown
in Appendix H are not intended to predict future development, but rather to provide a reasonable estimate, on an average
annualized basis, of potential tax increment growth resulting from the increase in assessed value resulting from the new
development.
1
i
r]
r
s
Lodi Redevelopment Agency 1V-24 Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
V. Implementation Plan
(July 2003 to June 2008)
A. Background
Sections 33490 and 33352(c) of the CRL require that a redevelopment agency adopting a redevelopment
plan prepare and adopt a five-year implementation plan for a project area. The purpose of the
implementation plan is to describe:
• The specific goals and objectives of an agency for a project area.
• The specific projects proposed by the agency, including a program of both non -housing and
affordable housing actions and proposed expenditures within the first five years of the plan.
• How the agency's proposed objectives, projects, and expenditures will help to eliminate blight in the
project area (as described in Section 3303 1) and implement the affordable housing requirements (as
described in Sections 33334.2, 33334.4, 33334.6 and 33413).
This Implementation Plan is designed to guide the Agency's efforts in eliminating blighting conditions in
the Project Area while meeting other Agency objectives as required by the CRL. In addition, the
affordable housing component of the Implementation Plan provides a mechanism for the Agency to
monitor its progress in meeting its affordable housing obligations under the CRL. In effect, the
Implementation Plan is the Agency's general plan of action for the first five years, providing flexibility so
the Agency may adjust to changing circumstances and new opportunities. This plan also includes the
Agency's Affordable Housing Production Plan, also known as the AB 315 Plan, as required by
Section 33413 of the CRL.
The planning period specifically covered by this Implementation Plan for the Lodi Redevelopment Plan is
the period from July 2003 through June 2008. This period includes the first five years in which the
Agency would be entitled to receive tax increment revenue from the Project Area if the Redevelopment
Plan is adopted in the summer of 2002. In addition, information for later years is provided in the housing
component of this Implementation Plan as required by Section 33413. The affordable housing production
plan contained in Section H covers the five year period from July 2003 to June 2008, the ten-year period
through June of 2013, and a third period from July 2013 to the end of the Redevelopment Plan term.
The Implementation Plan is intended to be a program level document, therefore the implementation of
specific projects and activities over the five year period may vary in timing, location, cost, expenditure,
scope, and content from what is set forth in this document. The Agency will use this Implementation Plan
as a flexible guide as unforeseen constraints and opportunities will most likely arise while undertaking
this program.
Section B of this plan describes the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan. Section D summarizes the
five-year action program for non -housing activities. Sections E through H address affordable housing
obligations, production goals, activities, and proposed schedule of expenditures, as well as present the
Agency's Affordable Housing Production Plan (also known as the AB 315 Plan).
Assuming adoption in July 2002, the Agency can begin to receive tax increment in FY 2003/2004. The first installment of tax
increment would likely be allocated to the Agency in January 2004.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency V-1 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
B. Objectives of the Redevelopment Plan
The five year goals and objectives set forth below are based upon the statement of goals and actions
contained in the Redevelopment Plan for the Lodi Redevelopment Project which are incorporated into this
Implementation Plan by this reference. The goals and actions expressed in the Redevelopment Plan are
comprehensive in nature and pertain to the total redevelopment program that has an implementation '
period of 30 years. The goals and objectives of the proposed Redevelopment Project emphasize
eliminating physical and economic blighting conditions that interfere with successful revitalization of
commercial areas and the enhancement and conservation of residential neighborhoods within the Project I Area.
In general, the proposed Redevelopment Project would:
• Revitalize certain areas in Lodi that exhibit both physical and economic blight;
• Stimulate private investment in Lodi's commercial areas;
• Promote the conservation and enhancement of residential neighborhoods; and ,
• Provide tax increment funds for the redevelopment activities that are needed to alleviate blighting
conditions. '
C. Adverse Physical and Economic Conditions and Elimination of
Blight
The Implementation Plan is required to provide an explanation of how the goals, objectives, programs and
expenditures for the first five years will serve to eliminate blight in the Project Area. As background, it is
first useful to summarize the blighting influences that affect the Lodi Redevelopment Project Area (please
refer to Chapter II for a comprehensive discussion of blighting conditions). In summary, eight of the
nine blighting conditions, as defined by Section 33031(a) of the CRL, were found to exist in the Project ,
Area.
a. Adverse Physical Conditions
• Deficient or Deteriorated Buildings.
• Factors that Inhibit Proper Use of Buildings or Lots.
• Incompatible Uses.
• Substandard Lots in Multiple Ownership.
b. Adverse Economic Conditions
• Depreciated or Stagnant Values and Impaired Investments.
• Economic Indicators of Distressed Buildings or Lots.
• Residential Overcrowding or Problem Businesses.
• High crime rate.
,
As discussed in Section E below, the Redevelopment Program for the Lodi Project Area will alleviate the
blighting conditions described in Chapter II. Section E describes the deficiencies to be corrected by
projects proposed for the first five years of tax increment collection. The five-year action program shown
in Section E will initiate the process of improving the area and alleviating those blighting conditions.
Table V-1 provides a matrix summarizing the relationship between proposed projects and how they will
eliminate blight_
Lodi Redevelopment Agency V-2 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
,
Table V4
How Redevelopment Program Will Eliminate Adverse Conditions
Lodi Redevelopment Project Area
*Although not considered physical or economic blight under the CRL,
the existence of deficient public improvements is recognized as a deterrent to economic growth in the Project Area.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project V'3 April 2002
Redevelopment
Program
n
c
ADVERSE CONDITIONSGO
5
m
0
0
O
r
rfl
w
o -
CD
<y
CDtr
n
w
b
CD
x
rwY
n
D
as
T
O
Vi
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
Deficient or Deteriorated Buildings
■
■
■
■
Factors that Inhibit Proper Use of Building or Lots
■
■
■
■
■
■
Incompatible Uses
■
■
■
Substandard Lots in Multiple Ownership
■
■
■
Depreciated or Stagnant Values and Impaired Investments
■
■
■
■
■
Economic Indicators of Distressed Buildings or Lots
■
■
■
■
■
Residential Overcrowding
■
■
High Crime Rate
■
■
■
Deficient Public Improvements*
■
■
■
■
*Although not considered physical or economic blight under the CRL,
the existence of deficient public improvements is recognized as a deterrent to economic growth in the Project Area.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project V'3 April 2002
i
.1
D. Five Year Action Program for Non -Housing Redevelopment
'
Activities
This section describes the proposed Non -Housing Redevelopment Program, including the deficiencies to
,
be corrected, project descriptions, and the estimated project costs. As they are implemented, these projects
may be modified over time to better serve the purposes of redevelopment. The cost estimates are
preliminary and subject to refinement as the Redevelopment Program planning and implementation
proceed. Some of these projects may not be completed within the first five years of the Redevelopment
,
Program, and thus, related costs may not be incurred in the first five years. These activities are grouped in
the following categories:
1. Economic Development
'
2. Building & Site Rehabilitation, Facade Improvement and/or Historic Preservation
3. Public Infrastructure and Facilities
'
4. Neighborhood Preservation, Circulation and Landscaping Improvements
5. Site Preparation and Development
,
1. Description of Non -Housing Program
Economic Development
During the first five years of the project, the Agency will encourage office uses in Downtown Lodi, create
a strategy to attract and retain businesses to the Project Area and support commercial buildings and
lodging along Cherokee Lane.
Building & Site Rehabilitation, Fagade Improvement and/or Historic Preservation
'
The Agency will assist with facade improvement in the Downtown and other areas, establish development
standards and design guidelines to improve the appearance of buildings and businesses and support
rehabilitation, seismic improvement and historic preservation efforts.
Public Infrastructure and Facilities
The Agency will assist in public infrastructure and facilities improvements. The Agency will accomplish
these goals by implementing storm drain, wastewater and water distribution improvements in the Project
'
Area.
Neighborhood Preservation, Circulation and Landscaping Improvements
During the first five years of the project, the Agency will emphasize neighborhood preservation,
circulation and landscaping improvements by updating code enforcement efforts and development
standards for multifamily residences.
,
Site Preparation and Development
Based on available revenues during the first five years of the project, the Agency does not anticipate
expending funds on site preparation and development. However, to the extent additional revenues are
available, they may be applied to assembling sites, facilitating hazardous materials cleanup, and/or
relocating incompatible uses to facilitate the redevelopment program. I
Lodi Redevelopment Agency V-4 Report on the Plan ,
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
2. Five Year Implementation Plan Revenues
Based on tax increment projections presented in Chapter IV and Appendix H of this Report, the Agency is
projected to receive approximately $1.3 million dollars in tax increment revenues for non -housing
activities and administration during the five year Implementation Plan period (2003 to 2008) in constant
2002 dollars.' -
Table V-2 summarizes the funds available to cover projected non -housing program costs (net of Agency
non -Housing administrative expense) during the first five years of the Redevelopment Project.
Table V-2
Projected Tax Increment Revenues
For Non -Housing Activities'
FY 2003-2008
Lodi Redevelopment Project
Fiscal
Year
Nominal
Dollars
Constant
2002 Dollars
2003/04
$169,000
$152,000
2004/05
$245,000
$209,000
2005/06
$330,000
$267,000
2006/07
$419,000
$320,000
2007/08
$529,000
$384,000
Total
$1,692,000
$1,332,000
'These figures are net of Agency Non -Housing Administrative expenses.
Source: Seifel Consulting Inc.
3. Five Year Implementation Plan Expenditures
Table V-3 summarizes estimated Agency non -Housing program expenditures during the first five years of
the project. The nature and scope of the projects and expenditures have been shaped primarily by Agency
objectives for the Project Area, available revenues for funding projects and activities, and blighting
factors to be eliminated within the Project Area. Refer to Chapter III of this report for a more complete
description of the Redevelopment Program and estimated expenditures.
The estimated Agency expenditures included in Table V-3 represent an estimate based on reasonable
assumptions regarding potential tax increment revenues over the first five years of the Redevelopment
Plan, as described in Chapter 1V.
See Chapter IV for a detailed description of projected revenues and expenditures. Agency administration related to non -housing
projects will also be paid out of tax increment revenues and are netted out of figures shown above.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency V-5 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project " April 2002
Table V-3
Projected Non -Housing Program Expenditures
FY 2003-2008
Lodi Redevelopment Program
in Constant 2002 dollars
As indicated above, the Agency estimates expenditures of approximately $1.3 million in non -housing
programs during the first five years and is projected to receive approximately $1.3 million in tax
increment revenues to cover these programs. An additional $148,000 in Agency non -housing
administrative expense will also be covered through tax increment revenues. Thus, tax increment
revenues are projected to be sufficient to cover the Agency's planned expenditures for non -housing
projects over the first five years of tax increment collection.
i
J
0
11
Lodi Redevelopment Agency V-6 Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
PROGRAM CATEGORIES
Net Cost
to Agency
1.
Economic Development
$250,000
2.
Building & Site Rehabilitation, Facade
Improvement and/or Historic Preservation
$260,000
3.
Public Infrastructure and Facilities
$272,000
4.
Neighborhood Preservation, Circulation and
Landscaping Improvements
$250,000
5.
Site Preparation and Development
$0
6.
Recovery of City Advances to Agency
$300,000
Subtotal Non -Housing Costs
$1,332,000
Non -Housing Admin. Costs
$148,000
Total Non -Housing Costs
$1,480,000
As indicated above, the Agency estimates expenditures of approximately $1.3 million in non -housing
programs during the first five years and is projected to receive approximately $1.3 million in tax
increment revenues to cover these programs. An additional $148,000 in Agency non -housing
administrative expense will also be covered through tax increment revenues. Thus, tax increment
revenues are projected to be sufficient to cover the Agency's planned expenditures for non -housing
projects over the first five years of tax increment collection.
i
J
0
11
Lodi Redevelopment Agency V-6 Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
E. Housing Activities
Sections E through H of this chapter comprise the housing component of the Implementation Plan for the
Lodi Redevelopment Project, and summarize the Agency's housing obligations pursuant to
CRL Sections 33334.2, 33334.4, 33334.6, and 33341.3. These obligations include recent amendments to
the CRL under Assembly Bill 637 that are effective as of January 1, 2002. The following sections also
provide an overall framework for the Agency's housing goals, policies and programs.
Section F describes housing production requirements. Building upon CRL requirements and background
analysis, Section G outlines the Agency's proposed Housing Program over the five year Implementation
Plan period. Section H describes the five year program of housing goals and activities. This section and
Section H provide the context for the proposed five-year program.
1. Housing Requirements
The housing portion of an implementation plan sets forth specific goals and objectives in enough detail to
measure performance. The CRL requires that an implementation plan include the following affordable
housing planning components:'
• The total number of housing units projected to be developed, rehabilitated, price -restricted, assisted,
or destroyed for three time periods: 1) on an annual basis for the first five years, 2) in aggregate for
the second five years, and 3) in aggregate for years I I to the end of the Plan.
• Identification of proposed locations for replacement housing, which the Agency would be required to
produce if a planned project would result in the destruction of existing affordable housing.
• An explanation of how the goals, objectives, programs, and expenditures set forth in the
Implementation Plan will implement the housing requirements of the CRL, including a housing
program for each of the five years of the implementation plan.
• Estimates of deposits into the Housing Set -Aside Fund during the first five years, and the Agency's
plans for utilizing annual deposits to the Housing Set -Aside Fund.
2. Agency Approach to Meeting Housing Requirements
The Agency intends to implement relevant goals, objectives, policies, strategies and programs from the
General Plan Housing Element in the Project Area.' The following major goals of the Affordable Housing
Program of the Lodi Redevelopment Project are designed to be consistent with and help implement the
goals and policies of the General Plan:
• Encourage homeownership and renovation.
• Facilitate development of new affordable housing.
• Provide funding assistance for rehabilitation of single and multi family housing for low and moderate
income households.
• Facilitate development of housing for the elderly.
• Spend affordable housing set-aside funds in accordance with CRL, including:
— Preserve and provide housing opportunities at all income levels in accordance with the CRL.
' Affordable housing is used in this chapter to define housing which is affordable to households earning at or below 120 percent
of median income for San Joaquin County, assuming generally that 30 percent of household income is spent on housing.
' In March 1991, the City Council adopted the Housing Element of the General Plan. It identified the City's general housing
needs. and the objectives and priorities to guide planning decisions and policies. and established housing, community
developments, and emergency shelter goals for the City.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency V-7 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
– Provide opportunities for homeowners earning at or below 120 percent of median income to '
maintain and repair their homes and promote neighborhood revitalization. '
– Provide homeownership opportunities for first time homebuyers earning less than 120 percent
of median income.
One purpose of the housing program will be to implement a key provision of the CRL— the enhancement
,
of affordable housing opportunities for households earning at or below 120 percent of median income.
The Agency will utilize at least 20 percent of all tax increment revenue allocated to the Agency to
increase, improve and Lodi's supply of affordable housing.
preserve
The Agency may establish a range of housing programs, which seek to enhance project design and
leverage federal, state, and private funding sources to develop high quality, attractive, and affordable
'
housing developments serving a diverse population. The funds directed toward this project will be used in
a flexible manner in order to respond to favorable development opportunities.
The type of financial assistance for the affordable housing program may include cost write-down and gap
financing to allow design enhancements, property acquisition, construction costs, predevelopment costs,
and permit fees. Appropriate uses of these funds include new affordable rental and ownership housing
construction, assistance to homebuyers with acquiring affordable housing, and assistance for housing
,
rehabilitation.
F. Statutory Requirements for Housing
This section summarizes the Agency's affordable housing requirements under the CRL, and provides
background information and analysis regarding affordable housing needs and conditions in the Project
,
Area and the overall community. The major statutory requirements for affordable housing imposed on
redevelopment agencies by the CRL may be categorized generally as:
I . Housing Production Requirement (Section 33413). Agencies must make available specified minimum
,
percentages of new or substantially rehabilitated housing units in a project area at a legally defined
affordable housing costs
2. Housing Fund Requirement (Section 33334.2). Agencies are required to expend specified
,
percentages
of tax increment revenue for the provision of affordable housing.
3. Replacement Housing Requirement (Section 33413). Agencies must replace within four years,
housing units removed from the housing stock as a result of redevelopment activities.
These three requirements are described in greater detail in the following three sections. Relevant section
references to the CRL are included in parentheses.
r�
1
s The CRL defines "substantially rehabilitated" as rehabilitation of any Agency -assisted multifamily rental or single family
housing unit which has increased in value by at least 25 percent of the after -rehabilitation value of the dwelling (values include I the value of the land).
Lodi Redevelopment Agency V-8 Report on the Plan ,
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
1. Housing Production Requirement
As part of an implementation plan, an agency must adopt a plan for a project area showing how the
agency intends to meet its housing production requirement (the "Housing Production Plan"). The plan
must be consistent with the community's housing element (in Lodi known as the Housing Element), and
must cover the following time periods:
• Production over the first five years.
• Production over the first ten years.
• Production through the life of the plan.
The plan must include estimates of the number of new or substantially rehabilitated residential units
within a project area, and the number of affordable housing units, which will be developed in order to
meet the requirements of the CRL. Additionally, the plan must include estimates of the number of units
the Agency itself will develop during the time period of the plan, including the number of affordable
housing units. The plan must be reviewed every five years in conjunction with the update of a
community's housing element or with the implementation plan cycle. Section G of this chapter contains
the Agency's Housing Production Plan for the Lodi Redevelopment Project. (Section 33413.(b))
a. Agency Developed Housing
The CRL affordable housing obligation requires that at least 30 percent of all new or substantially
rehabilitated dwelling units developed directly by an agency must be available at affordable housing cost
to persons and families of very low, low, or moderate income. Of those units, at least 50 percent must be
affordable to very low-income households. The 50 percent requirement translates to 15 percent of the
total number of units developed or rehabilitated by the agency (50 percent of 30 percent equals
15 percent). This requirement applies only to units developed by an agency and does not apply to units
developed by housing developers pursuant to agreements with an agency. (Section 33413.(b)(1).) This
production requirement is not anticipated to apply to the Lodi Project Area because the Agency does not
anticipate directly developing units in the Project Area.
b. Housing Not Developed by the Agency
When new or substantially rehabilitated dwelling units are developed or substantially rehabilitated in a
project area by public or private entities other than a redevelopment agency, including entities receiving
agency assistance, at least 15 percent of these units must be affordable to very low, low, or moderate
income households. Of those units, at least 40 percent must be affordable to very low-income households.
This 40 percent requirement for very low-income households translates to 6 percent of the total number of
units developed and substantially rehabilitated by entities other than the Agency in a project area
(40 percent of 15 percent equals 6 percent). (Section 33413.(b)(2).) The Agency anticipates that this
production requirement will apply to the Project Area.
2. Housing Fund Requirement
The CRL requires an agency to set aside in a separate Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund (the
"Housing Set -Aside Fund") at least 20 percent of all tax increment revenue generated from its project
areas. The funds must be used for the purpose of increasing, improving, and preserving the community's
supply of affordable housing. Such housing must be available at affordable housing cost to persons and
families of very low, tow, or moderate income. (Sections 33334.2 and 33334.3)
Lodi Redevelopment Agency V-9 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
a. Fund Targeting: Income Levels and Affordable Housing Cost
Housing Fund moneys must be targeted to the following specific income levels: 6
Very Low Incomes up to 50 percent of area median income, adjusted for family size.
Low Incomes typically from 50 percent up to 80 percent of area median income,
adjusted for family size.'
Moderate Incomes typically from 80 percent up to 120 percent of area median
income, adjusted for family size.'
Housing assisted by Housing Set -Aside Fund moneys must be available at an affordable housing cost in
accordance with the CR1.9 Table V-4 shows the affordable housing cost definitions by income level and
type of tenure.
Table V-4
Affordable Housing Cost
Source: California Health and Safety Code, Section 50052.5.
b. Provision of Housing According to Need by Income and Age
Over the duration of each five-year implementation pian, Housing Set -Aside Fund moneys must be
expended to assist very low and low-income households in at least the same proportion to housing need
by income level.12 The proportion is calculated based on the number of housing units needed for very low,
low and moderate income households, minus any units being provided by other governmental programs,
divided by the total number of units needed for all three income levels (Section 33334.4).
1'he San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) sets forth the affordable housing need for the City in
the City's regional fair share allocation. Table V-5 shows the fair share allocation and the targeting
objective currently applicable to the City of Lodi Redevelopment Agency for housing affordable to
6 The Health and Safety Code defines low and moderate income in Section 50093, low income in Section 50079.5, and very low
income in Section 50105.
7 In any given year the definition can be different; income limits are published by California's Department of Housing and
Community Development based on data published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
pursuant to Heath and Safety Code 50079.5.
8 In any given year the definition can be different; income limits are published by the state's Department of Housing and
Community Development based on data published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
pursuant to Heath and Safety Code 50093.
9 Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5 includes the definition of affordable housing cost.
10 Rental housing costs include utility costs. Affordable housing costs are adjusted by family size.
' I But not less than 28 percent of actual income.
''- The CRL, as amended by AB 637, specifies that an agency must use the regional fair share allocation, as it may be adjusted by
the local Council of Governments and State HCD, to determine housing need.
i
i
1
Lodi Redevelopment Agency V-10 Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Rental Housin
10
Ownershi
p Housing
Income Level
% Income Spent
on Housing
% of Area
Median Income
% Income Spent
on Housing
% of Area
Median Income
Very Low
30 percent
50 percent
30 percent
50 percent
Low
30 percent
60 percent
30 percent
70 percent
Moderate
30 percent
110 percent
35percent"
110 percent
Source: California Health and Safety Code, Section 50052.5.
b. Provision of Housing According to Need by Income and Age
Over the duration of each five-year implementation pian, Housing Set -Aside Fund moneys must be
expended to assist very low and low-income households in at least the same proportion to housing need
by income level.12 The proportion is calculated based on the number of housing units needed for very low,
low and moderate income households, minus any units being provided by other governmental programs,
divided by the total number of units needed for all three income levels (Section 33334.4).
1'he San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) sets forth the affordable housing need for the City in
the City's regional fair share allocation. Table V-5 shows the fair share allocation and the targeting
objective currently applicable to the City of Lodi Redevelopment Agency for housing affordable to
6 The Health and Safety Code defines low and moderate income in Section 50093, low income in Section 50079.5, and very low
income in Section 50105.
7 In any given year the definition can be different; income limits are published by California's Department of Housing and
Community Development based on data published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
pursuant to Heath and Safety Code 50079.5.
8 In any given year the definition can be different; income limits are published by the state's Department of Housing and
Community Development based on data published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
pursuant to Heath and Safety Code 50093.
9 Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5 includes the definition of affordable housing cost.
10 Rental housing costs include utility costs. Affordable housing costs are adjusted by family size.
' I But not less than 28 percent of actual income.
''- The CRL, as amended by AB 637, specifies that an agency must use the regional fair share allocation, as it may be adjusted by
the local Council of Governments and State HCD, to determine housing need.
i
i
1
Lodi Redevelopment Agency V-10 Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
persons at or below 120 percent of median income. The Agency will use the Housing Set -Aside Fund to
meet these needs where feasible.
Table V-5
SJCG Regional Fair Share Allocations
Affordable Housing Need by Income Category13
City of Lodi
Income Category
Percent
Share
Very Low
40%
Low
28%
Moderate
32%
Total
100% 7771
Source: SJCOG Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, San Joaquin County, 2002.
The Agency will provide financial assistance in proportion to the need percentage shares shown in the last
column of Table V-5. In other words, at least 40 percent of funds will be spent on units affordable to very
low-income households, and at least 68 percent will be spent on units affordable to low or very low-
income households.
Starting January 1, 2002, an agency's Housing Set -Aside Fund expenditures must be targeted to assist
families in at least the same proportion as the population under 65 -years bears to the total population of
the City. The proportion is calculated as the percentage of the community's population that is under the
age of 65 based on the most recent census information. This requirement must be met over the duration of
the five-year implementation plan.
Table V-6 shows the age distribution and the targeting objective currently applicable to the City of .Lodi
Redevelopment Agency for housing affordable to families. Based on this data, the Agency will spend at
least 86 percent of its Housing Set -Aside Fund for families.
Table V-6
Population by Age Category
Based on Census 2000
City of Lodi
Age Category
Population
Percent
Share
Families: 0 — 65 years of age
48,858
86%
Seniors: 65 years or more
8,141
14%
Total
56,999
100%
Source: Census 2000
1' The San Joaquin Council of Government is mandated by California law to allocate housing needs for its local jurisdictions.
Table V-5 figures are draft projections and based on 1990 census data. The percent share is subject to updates by SJCOG when
Census 2000 becomes available.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency V-11 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
C. Duration of Affordability'
The CRL also requires the placement and recordation of affordability controls on any new or substantially
rehabilitated housing assisted by Housing Set -Aside Fund moneys. These controls on assisted housing
units require that the units remain affordable for the longest feasible time, but not less than certain
minimum time periods. The minimum periods of affordability are 55 years for rental housing and '
45 years for owner -occupied housing, with a shorter duration permitted if an agency recoups its Housing
Set -Aside Fund investment when an assisted owner -occupied unit is sold at a non -affordable price or to a
non -qualifying buyer (Section 33334.3). '
3. Replacement Housing Requirement
When residential units sheltering households earning at or below 120 percent of median income are
'
destroyed or removed, or are no longer affordable due to agency action, an agency must replace within
four years those units with an equal number of replacement units which have an equal or greater number
of bedrooms (Section 33413). At least thirty days prior to acquiring property or adopting an agreement
that will lead to the destruction or removal of low and moderate income housing units, an agency must
adopt by resolution a replacement housing plan that generally describes the location, timing, and method
by which replacement housing will be provided (Section 33413.5).
Replacement units may be located anywhere within the territorial jurisdiction of the agency
(Section 33413[a]). An agency may either construct replacement housing, or cause housing to be
constructed through agreements with housing developers. The basic income and affordability standards
'
for replacement housing are the same as those for use of Housing Fund moneys (described above). The
units must be available at affordable housing cost to households of low and moderate income. In addition,
the CRL requires that 100 percent of the replacement units be available at affordable housing cost to the
'
same income level of households as were displaced from the units removed or destroyed
(Section 33413[a]).
Replacement housing must remain affordable for the longest feasible duration, and for at least as long as
the land use controls of the redevelopment plan remain in effect (Section 33413[c]). The affordability
controls on such units must be made enforceable by recorded covenants or restrictions.
,
4. Goals, Objectives and Programs Requirement
An agency must provide an explanation of how the goals, objectives, programs, and expenditures set forth
,
in an implementation plan will implement the affordable housing requirements, including a housing
program for each of the five years of the implementation plan."
'
The objectives, programs, and expenditures for the Lodi Redevelopment Project that are related to
affordable housing requirements are discussed in Sections G and H.
14 After the adoption of the initial plan, the parts of the plan that address the affordable housing requirements must be adopted
every five years either in conjunction with the community's housing element cycle or the implementation plan cycle '
(Section 33490).
Lodi Redevelopment Agency V-12 Report on the Plan ,
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
G. Housing Production Plan
1. Housing Production (2003 through End of Redevelopment Plan)
The Agency projects that approximately 74 new housing units will be constructed and about 136 units
will be substantially rehabilitated in the Project Area during the life of the Redevelopment Plan.
Table V--8 shows the housing production.
Production (2003 through June 2008)
During the first five years, the Agency projects that 7 new housing units could be constructed and about
12 units substantially rehabilitated in the Project Area.
Production (2008 through June 2013)
Over the second five-year period, the Agency projects that approximately 20 new housing units are could
be constructed and 35 units substantially rehabilitated in the Project Area.
2013 to End
The Agency projects that an additional 47 housing units could potentially be constructed and 89 units
substantially rehabilitated in the Project Area through the end of the Plan.
2. Affordable Housing Production Obligation (2003-2013)
a. Affordable Housing Production Obligation
Based upon the forecasted 74 new and substantially rehabilitated housing units in the Project Area
between 2003 and 2013, the Agency would have an obligation to ensure that a total of 16 new affordable
units are developed. Of these, at least 7 units must be made available at affordable housing cost to very
low-income households, and 9 units must be affordable to very low, low and moderate -income
households. This housing obligation would be met by acquisition and substantial rehabilitation of single
family and multifamily hoysing within the Project Area.
b. Replacement Obligation
The Agency has no plans to destroy or remove any residential units at this time. No households are
expected to be displaced in the first five years of the Plan, and therefore the Agency would not incur a
replacement -housing obligation. In the event that residential units are destroyed or removed in the future,
the City and Agency will follow all state requirements for replacement housing and relocation.
3. Agency's Plan to Meet the Housing Obligation
During the first five years, the Agency projects that about 12 of 19 new or substantially rehabilitated
housing units will qualify as affordable housing units (3 units would be affordable to very low income
households and 9 units affordable units to very low, low or moderate income households), as shown on
Table V-7.
During the following five years (2008 to 2013), the Agency projects about 35 of 55 new or substantially
rehabilitated housing units will qualify as affordable housing units (14 units would be affordable to very
low income households and 21 units affordable units to very low, low or moderate income households).
Table V-7 shows that the Agency will exceed its housing obligation in the next ten years with these
47 affordable units.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency V-13 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Table V-7 also shows how the Agency anticipates meeting its housing production requirement over the
life of the Plan.
Table V-7
Affordable Housing Production Obligation
2003 to 2008, 2008 to 2013 and 2013 to End
Lodi
C
i
i
11
Notes: '
*Between 2003 and the end of plan, the Agency plans to assist in the substantial rehabilitation of
approximately 136 housing units within the Project Area.
*Percentages may not add up exactly due to rounding. CRL Affordable Housing Production Requirements are
rounded up to the nearest whole unit. '
Methodology
1. Total new units produced in the project area during the period.
2. Number of affordable units required based on the units produced (1).
3. Number of units projected to be built to satisfy CRL affordable housing obligation.
4. Remaining affordable surplus or obligation at the end of the ten-year period.
Income Levels I
Very Low- typically affordable to households earning up to 50 percent of median income.
Low- typically affordable to households earning between 51 and 80 percent of median income. ,
Moderate- typically affordable to households earning between 81 and 120 percent of median income.
Source: Lodi Redevelopment Agency, Lodi Planning Department, Draft EIR, Wagstaff & Associates.
1
Lodi Redevelopment Agency V-14 Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
2003-2008
2008-2013
2013 -End
Total
%
1. Housing Production
.............
New.Units......._...... _...................................................
............................._.7-
.... ._...... _...........20.
................... ....._47
....................... ...... 74
...................................................... _............. .................................................
...................................... »
........ ».......»».................
........ ... .............. »........
89
.......................... .......
t36
Substantial Rehabilitation*
Subtotal
12
19
35
55
136
5, a`3 � $ favF
--
2. CRL Affordable Housing Production Requirement
__ ..................y....................._ ..... _............................................................ ................................._...._.............. ....................
Ver Low 2 5
... .._-...... ..... ............
9
........... _.._»....__...._.».......................
16
6%
Very Low, Low or Moderate 3 6
14
23
9%
............ ...................................._._»............................................................................................__.._..__......................................._..__..__._..._..................».._..w-..___...._
Subtotal 5 11
23
39
..................... _........ -
15%
k : �'F' T { 3 ?k'6#k.k°ki - i i- -"_}i f i �;
K } .'. �
g
�. 4 A.,➢ 3�AME _ ;•'i'f �
"`.' � &k `�,�,.
3. Proposed Units that Will Meet CRL Requirement
.... _...................... ........................._...__-................................................................-.............._......--.................. ............ --
Very Low 3 14
. . ............................................. _._... _.._....................................................... ................................. _.__............................... _..
--.... -..........................
35
--........ ..........................
...... . _--_-....
55
........... .... ... W_ ...........
......................... .......
40%
... _.............. _............
Very Low, Low or Moderate 9 21
54
81
60%
............ »...._............. ............. .............................. _.._.».
Subtotal 12 35
.... ... .............................
89
__.-........ ____....... ........
136
.............. __.»..........
100%
..%n , . Y. . K '.D'�. , :.�"< SL .»'A . �wti'x v •Y4 * kR:
b e % . �a
.:,� x„..., ¢g�l,�
St "b,a
is ^ .c'&'s ^,v f{Y.,
F'.
4. Cumulative Production Surplus (Deficit)
...............y_.._................ ___..................................................................................__......................... .................
Ver Low 1 9
.............. ............ ..
26
...
39
-.............................................. ---------.....................-........................... ----._.......... .... ---_.- ......... ................ ------
Very Low, Low or Moderate 6 15
....................................
40
-.----._...................
59
;
3i
Subtotal
__......_.._._. -.._.._7 ...........
...............................66
_............................98
C
i
i
11
Notes: '
*Between 2003 and the end of plan, the Agency plans to assist in the substantial rehabilitation of
approximately 136 housing units within the Project Area.
*Percentages may not add up exactly due to rounding. CRL Affordable Housing Production Requirements are
rounded up to the nearest whole unit. '
Methodology
1. Total new units produced in the project area during the period.
2. Number of affordable units required based on the units produced (1).
3. Number of units projected to be built to satisfy CRL affordable housing obligation.
4. Remaining affordable surplus or obligation at the end of the ten-year period.
Income Levels I
Very Low- typically affordable to households earning up to 50 percent of median income.
Low- typically affordable to households earning between 51 and 80 percent of median income. ,
Moderate- typically affordable to households earning between 81 and 120 percent of median income.
Source: Lodi Redevelopment Agency, Lodi Planning Department, Draft EIR, Wagstaff & Associates.
1
Lodi Redevelopment Agency V-14 Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
H. Housing Goals and Programs
1. Housing Activity Goals and Objectives
In addition to discussion of an agency's progress in meeting its specific affordable housing obligations
under the CRL, an implementation plan must set forth the agency's goals and objectives for affordable
housing during the five years (Section 33490.(a)).
During the five year Implementation Plan period, the Redevelopment Agency will concentrate on
achieving those objectives, which are most applicable to the Agency's affordable housing activities. In
developing its Affordable Housing Program, the Agency has been guided by the Housing Element of the
City General Plan, which is incorporated into the Implementation Plan by this reference.
The Agency is committed to assisting the City in achieving the objectives and policies presented in
Housing Element, including:
• To provide a range of housing types and densities for all economic segments of the community while
emphasizing high quality development and homeownership.
• To encourage the maintenance, improvement and rehabilitation of the City's existing housing stock
and residential neighborhoods.
• To ensure the provision of adequate services to support existing and future residential development.
• To promote equal opportunity to secure, safe, sanitary and affordable housing for all members of the
community regardless of race, sex or other arbitrary factors.
• To encourage energy efficiency in all new and existing housing.
2. Housing Set -Aside Fund Revenues
The primary funding source for the Agency's housing activities will be the 20 percent portion of annual
tax increment revenue deposited by the Agency into its Housing Set -Aside Fund. Table V-8 shows the
deposits into the Housing Set -Aside Fund. Based on the tax increment projections presented in
Chapter IV and Appendix H of this Report on the Plan, the Agency projects that it will deposit
approximately $640,000 into the Housing Set -Aside Fund in the first five years in nominal (or future)
dollars, equivalent to approximately $500,000 in constant 2002 dollars."
is A discount rate of six percent was used to calculate constant 2002 dollars. Refer to Chapter IV for an explanation of translating
nominal dollars to constant 2002 dollars, and the discount rate used.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency V-15 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Table V-8
Annual Deposits to Housing Set -Aside Fund
2003 to 2008
Lodi Project Area
Fiscal
Year
Nominal
Dollars
Constant 2002
Dollars
2003/04
$64,000
$58,000
2004/05
$93,000
$79,000
2005/06
$126,000
$101,000
2006/07
$159,000
$121,000
2007/08
$201,000
$146,000
Total
$6432000
$505,000
"Numbers may not match total due to rounding.
Source: Lodi Redevelopment Agency, Seifel Consulting Inc.
3. Affordable Housing Program and Proposed Five Year Activities
The Housing Program assisted by the Agency complies with Housing Element objectives and policies
referenced above. The Agency's funds will be used in a flexible manner to respond to favorable
development opportunities. The type of financial assistance to be provided may include cost write-down
and gap financing for projects utilizing federal and state grant or loan funds to facilitate design
enhancements, property acquisition, construction and predevelopment. Appropriate uses of these funds
include new affordable rental and ownership housing construction, and assistance to homebuyers with
acquiring affordable housing.
The Agency plans to target its Housing Set -Aside Fund for specific income groups as required by the
CRL. However, the Agency will make every effort to encourage the preservation and development of
housing affordable to a variety of income levels by using the programs described above and applying its
resources in a manner that Meets or exceeds the ten year housing production requirement described in
Section G. By combining various funding sources, and in partnership and collaboration with others
dedicated to the preservation and development of affordable housing, the Agency is confident it will be
able to meet its housing production obligations within the first ten years.
The Agency recognizes the important role of housing programs and activities in its Redevelopment
Program. Consequently, the proposed Housing Program should not be viewed simply as an
implementation procedure for the Agency's stated goals and objectives related to housing, but as a key
element in its overall revitalization efforts. Through the annual budgeting process, the Agency will
translate the housing objectives and programs described in this chapter into specific budget expenditures
using the limited Housing Set -Aside Fund deposits that are expected during the initial Implementation
Plan period.
Schedule for Annual Unit Production
The CRL requires that the Agency formulate annual housing production goals over the first five years.
The annual production goals are targets that the Agency has established. The Agency expects to take
advantage of various opportunities as they are presented and to initiate actions as necessary, consistent
with the CRL and the City's Housing Element, to preserve and facilitate the development of housing for
households whose basic needs are not met by the private housing market. The Housing Program for the
Lodi Redevelopment Project will focus on development of new affordable housing, substantial
rehabilitation of existing housing and promotion of homeownership and renovation.
i
1
L�
H
L
i
Lodi Redevelopment Agency V-16 Report on the Plan ,
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Affordable Housing Development
During the first five years of the project, the Agency will assist in the development of housing (contingent
upon local, state and federal use regulations), affordable to very low and low-income households.
Substantial Rehabilitation
During the first five years of the project, the Agency will emphasize housing rehabilitation by offering
housing rehabilitation loans for single-family homes as well as for rental housing that is occupied by very
low, low and moderate -income households. Utilizing Housing Set -Aside Funds, this program will provide
low interest loans for major housing rehabilitation activities such as roofing and structural improvements.
In exchange for substantial rehabilitation assistance, the Agency would apply an affordability covenant to
ensure the units remain affordable.
Homeownership and Renovation
The Agency will assist low and moderate -income households, utilizing Housing Set -Aside Funds. The
Agency will accomplish this goal by promoting homeownership and offering incentives to developers of
new housing to include affordable units in the development.
Senior Housing Development
The Agency will assist in development of senior development (contingent upon local, state and federal
use regulations), affordable to very low and low-income households.
At this time, based on information and opportunities known to date, the Agency plans to achieve the
following annual housing goals within the Project Area. Table V-9 shows the annual estimate of Agency -
assisted housing units to be produced during the first five years of the plan, assuming a potential Agency
subsidy of $40,000 - $45,000 per unit. If the Agency is able to leverage additional funds, it will produce
more units.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency V-17 Report -on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Table V-9
Estimate of Agency -Assisted Housing Units
2003 to 2008
Lodi Redevelopment Project
Year
1
2
3
4
5
Total
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
New Development
0
0
0
1
2
3
Substantial
Rehabilitation
0
1
2
2
4
9
Total Affordable
Housing Units
0
1
2
3
6
12
4. Estimated Housing Set -Aside Fund Expenditures 2003-2008
The Agency estimates expenditures for housing activities of approximately $.5 million, equal to its
revenues during the first five years.
The Agency plans to target its Housing Set -Aside Fund for specific income and age groups as required by
the CRL, and the Agency will make every effort to encourage the development of housing affordable to a
variety of income levels. By combining various funding sources, and in partnership and collaboration
with others dedicated to the development of affordable housing, the Agency is confident it also will be
able to meet its housing production obligations within the first ten years.
The Agency will provide financial assistance inside the Project Area in proportion to the need, which is
determined using the most recent census data. 16 In other words, at least 40 percent of funds will be spent
on housing affordable to very low-income households, and at least 68 percent will be spent on housing
affordable to very low and low-income households, as shown in Table V-10.
Table V-10
Housing Set -Aside Fund Distribution by Income Category
Five Year Period (2003 to 2008)
Lodi Project Area
Constant 2002 Dollars
The Agency will also provide financial assistance for families in at least the same proportion as the
population under 65 -years bears to the total population of the City. At least 86 percent of the Housing Set -
Aside Fund will be spent on housing that serves households under the age of 65, as shown in Table V-11.
16 Census data is used to determine the proportion or need and, therefore, these percentages are subieet to periodic update.
F,
0
r
Lodi Redevelopment Agency V-18 Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Percent
Share
Tax Increment
Funds
Very Low
40%
$202,000
Low
28%
$141,400
Moderate
32%
$161,600
Total
100%
$505,000
The Agency will also provide financial assistance for families in at least the same proportion as the
population under 65 -years bears to the total population of the City. At least 86 percent of the Housing Set -
Aside Fund will be spent on housing that serves households under the age of 65, as shown in Table V-11.
16 Census data is used to determine the proportion or need and, therefore, these percentages are subieet to periodic update.
F,
0
r
Lodi Redevelopment Agency V-18 Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Table V-11
Housing Set -Aside Fund Distribution by Age Category
Five Year Period (2003 to 2008)
Lodi Project Area
Constant 2002 Dollars
Percent
Share
Tax Increment
Funds
Families: 0 — 65 years of age 86%
$434,300
Seniors: 65 Xears or more 14%
$70,700
Total 100%
$505,000
The Agency will combine the Housing Set -Aside Fund revenue from the Redevelopment Project with
other funding sources devoted to the provision of affordable housing. These other funding sources
include, but are not limited to, Housing Set -Aside funds from other Project Areas, Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, Home Investment Partnership (HOME) funds, California
Housing Finance Agency (CHFA) assistance, the state's Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) programs, low income housing tax credit equity funds, and other creative financing
options such as private sector or foundation contributions.
In conclusion, the Agency's goals stated above will meet its CRL affordable housing production
requirements in the first five years of tax increment collection. The housing production requirements will
be met by affordable units assisted within the Project Area. Furthermore, in accordance with CRL, the
Agency is proposing to assist in the development of units and spend Housing Set -Aside funds by income
category in accordance with need from 2003 to 2008. The Housing Fund will be spent entirely within the
Project Area.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency V-19 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
VI. Method or Plan for Relocation of Families,
Persons or Businesses Who May Be Displaced
This chapter sets forth the general policies for the administration of the relocation program and the
provision of services and benefits to displaced families, individuals, businesses, and community
institutions.
This plan should be considered as general in nature. As recommended in an October 1982 State
Department of Housing and Community Development study entitled "A Study of Relocation and Housing
Development in California Redevelopment Agencies," a comprehensive and detailed plan need not be
developed until relocation is imminent. At that time, a more specific analysis will be prepared, pursuant to
Title 25, Section 6038 of the California Code of Regulations.
A. Statutory Requirements
Section 33352(f) of the CRL requires that a report to the legislative body contain:
A method or plan for the relocation of families and persons to be temporarily or permanently
displaced from housing facilities in the project area, which method or plan shall include the provision
required by Section 33411.1 that no persons or families of low or moderate income shall be displaced
unless and until there is a suitable housing unit available and'ready for occupancy by the displaced
person or family at rents comparable to those at the time of their displacement.
B. Analysis
The Agency anticipates that a minimal number of dwellings would be displaced over the life of the
Redevelopment Plan, although the Agency has no plans to relocate residents or businesses at this time.
Relocation would only be used if it were reasonably necessary to redevelop a property. The Agency
would not commence any reasonably necessary relocation until it has firm commitments from public
funding sources or competent developers that the desired redevelopment of an area will take place in a
timely manner and with the least disruption to existing homes and businesses.
The Agency will establish a method and plan for relocation of families and persons to be displaced in
connection with any Agency project. The Agency relocation policy will comply with CRL Section
33367(d)(7), which requires a redevelopment agency to have a feasible relocation method or plan if the
agency's redevelopment plans are to result in the displacement of any households or businesses in a
project area.
If household relocation becomes necessary, specific relocation plans containing detailed household and
housing availability surveys will be prepared at the initiation of each project. Land assembly involving
relocation will be authorized by the Agency only if the specific relocation plan can ensure the availability
of sufficient suitable and affordable housing units to meet the specific relocation needs created by the land
assembly project.
The Agency will have a feasible method of meeting the relocation needs that may result from
implementation of the Redevelopment Plan.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency VI -1 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
VII. Analysis of Preliminary Plan
In accordance with Section 33322 of the CRL, the City Planning Commission adopted the Preliminary
Plan for the Lodi Redevelopment Project on July 11, 2001.
A. Statutory Requirements
Section 33352(g) of the CRL requires that a report to the legislative body contain:
An analysis of the preliminary plan.
The Preliminary Plan is organized into five elements as required by the CRL. Section 33322 of the CRL
requires that the local planning commission formulate a Preliminary Plan for the redevelopment of each
selected project area, and Section 33324 provides the following directives for preparation of that
preliminary plan:
A preliminary plan need not be detailed and is sufficient if it: .
(a) Describes the boundaries of the project area.
(b) Contains a general statement of the land uses, layout ofprincipal streets, population densities
and building intensities and standards proposed as the basis for the redevelopment of the project
area.
(c) Shows how the purposes of this part would be attained by such redevelopment.
(d) Shows that the proposed redevelopment is consistent with the community's general plan.
(e) Describes, generally, the impact of the project upon the area's residents and upon the
surrounding neighborhood.
B. Boundaries of the Project Area
The Preliminary Plan includes the selected project boundaries of Lodi Redevelopment Project Area.
These boundaries are within the Survey Area for the Lodi Project Area as designated by the City Council
on April 18, 2001.
C. Land Uses, Streets, Population and Building Standards
The Preliminary Plan contains a general statement of land uses, layout of principal streets, population
density, residential unit density, building intensity, and development standards.
1. Land Uses
As a basis for the redevelopment of the proposed Project Area, it is proposed that, in general, the land
uses in the Project Area shall be residential, commercial, industrial, other and roadway rights of way, as
permitted by the City of Lodi General Plan as it currently exists and as it may be amended from time to
time.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency VII -1 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
2. Layout of Principal Streets
As a basis for the redevelopment of the Project Area, the principal streets, as shown on the Figure I-1,
Project Area Boundary Map, include: north of Kettleman Lane, south of Turner Road, east of Ham Lane
and west of Commerce Street.
Existing streets within the Project Area may be closed, widened, or otherwise modified, and additional
streets may be created as necessary for proper pedestrian or vehicular circulation.
3. Population Density, Residential Unit Density, Building Intensity and
Building Standards
Within the confines of the General Plan Land Use designations, there will be a permitted range of
development. Population densities will be consistent with permitted levels in the General Plan although
certain specified areas may see a net increase or decrease in density dependent upon the development
proposed and permitted in that area by the Redevelopment Plan.
As a basis for the redevelopment of the Project Area, the Preliminary Plan proposes that, in general,
building intensities be controlled by limits on: 1) the percentage of ground area covered by buildings
(land coverage); 2) the ratio of the total floor area for all stories of the buildings to areas of the building
sites (floor area ratio); 3) the size and location of the buildable areas on building sites; and 4) the heights
of buildings. The land coverage, sizes, and location of buildable areas should be limited as feasible to
provide adequate open space.
As a basis for the redevelopment of the Project Area, the Preliminary Plan proposes that building
standards should generally conform to the building requirements of applicable state statutes and local
codes.
• Assemble land into parcels suitable for modern, integrated development with improved pedestrian
D. Attainment of Purposes of State Law
This proposed Redevelopment Plan adoption will be undertaken to achieve the following goals in
furtherance of the purposes of the CRL and the City's General Plan.
'
• Eliminate blighting influences and correct environmental deficiencies, including, among others,
buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy to live or work, incompatible and uneconomic land uses,
and small and irregular lots.
• Assemble land into parcels suitable for modern, integrated development with improved pedestrian
and vehicular circulation.
• Replan, redesign, and redevelop areas which are stagnant or improperly utilized.
• Provide opportunities for participation by owners and tenants in the revitalization of their properties.
• Strengthen retail and other commercial function in the Project Area.
• Strengthen the economic base of the Project Area by stimulating new investment.
• Expand employment opportunities.
,
• Provide an environment for social and economic growth.
• Expand and improve housing for low and moderate income persons.
,
• Install new or replace existing public improvements, facilities, and utilities in areas that are currently
inadequately served with regard to such improvements, facilities, and utilities.
,
Lodi Redevelopment Agency VII -2 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
,
E. Conformity with the General Plan
The Preliminary Plan is consistent with the City of Lodi General Plan. The Preliminary Plan proposes a
conforming pattern of land uses and includes all highways and public facilities indicated by the General
Plan. The Redevelopment Plan will include provisions providing that it will remain consistent with the
General Plan as it (the General Plan) is amended from time to time.
F. Consistency of Redevelopment Plan with Preliminary Plan
Since the adoption of the Preliminary Plan, the Agency has developed a more detailed Redevelopment
Plan applying the same general standards, uses, and programs for the redevelopment of the Project Area
as set forth in the Preliminary Plan. In this respect, the Redevelopment Plan reaffirms provisions of the
Preliminary Plan, establishing standards for development and ensuring enforceability of the
redevelopment objectives.
The additions which have been made to the Redevelopment Plan have been designed to clarify and
provide requisite detail as required by the CRL, and are consistent with the adopted goals and objectives
of the Preliminary Plan.
G. General Impacts upon Surrounding Neighborhoods
As the Preliminary Plan states, the principal purpose of the Project is the elimination and prevention of
blight through the assistance and encouragement of public and private rehabilitation and redevelopment
efforts, through selective land acquisition, clearance and disposition for private redevelopment, and
through the provision of new or replacement of existing public improvements, facilities, and utilities
within and serving the Project Area. Direct redevelopment activities should occur only when sufficient
financial resources are available and such action will product effective and immediate redevelopment
results.
The impact of the proposed Project upon occupants of that area and surrounding neighborhoods are, in
general, in the areas of relocation, transportation, traffic circulation, community facilities and services,
environmental quality, cultural resources, employment opportunity, and economic development. Agency
activities in the Project may include property acquisition, minimal relocation of occupants, demolition of
structures, construction of public improvements, and land disposition for private development.
The Environmental Impact Report (E1R), described in Chapter X, discusses the physical impacts of the
proposed Redevelopment Project on area residents in detail. A summary of the impacts of redevelopment
activities associated with the Redevelopment Plan that are addressed in the EIR appears in Chapter XIII
of this report, the "Neighborhood Impact Report."
Lodi Redevelopment Agency VII -3 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
VIII. Planning Commission Actions
At its May 8, 2002 meeting, the Planning Commission is expected to consider the adoption of a resolution
finding the Lodi Redevelopment Plan in conformance with the Lodi General Plan.
A. Statutory Requirements
Section 33352(h) and 0) of the CRL requires that a report to the legislative body contain:
The report and recommendations of the planning commission. (h)
The report required by Section 65402 of the Government Code. (j)
The following sections of the CRL describe the purpose and requirements for review of a redevelopment
plan by a planning commission:
33346. Before the redevelopment plan of each project area is submitted to the legislative body, it
shall be submitted to the planning commission for its report and recommendation concerning the
redevelopment plan and its conformity to the general plan adopted by the planning commission or the
legislative body. The planning commission may recommend for or against the approval of the
redevelopment plan.
33347. Within 30 days after a redevelopment plan is submitted to it for consideration, the planning
commission shall make and file its report and recommendation with the agency. If the planning
commission does not report upon the redevelopment plan within 30 days after its submission by the
agency, the planning commission shall be deemed to have waived its report and recommendations
concerning the plan and the agency may thereafter approve the plan without the report and
recommendations of the planning commission.
B. Analysis
Pursuant to Section 333520), the Planning Commission must make a report and recommendation as to the
conformity of the proposed Redevelopment Plan to the General Plan (Government Code 65402). The
Agency will refer the proposed Lodi Redevelopment Plan to the Planning Commission for its report and
recommendation. The Planning Commission is scheduled to review the proposed Redevelopment Plan for
its conformance with the General Plan as part of its May 8, 2002 actions.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency VIII -I Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
IX. Summary of Public Review of the Proposed
Plan
In accordance with Section 33385 of the CRL, the Lodi City Council formed a Project Area Committee
(PAC) for the Project Area.
A. Statutory Requirements
Section 33385 of the CRL requires a legislative body to form a project area committee (PAC) in either of
the following situations:
(1) A substantial number of low-income persons or moderate -income persons, or both, reside
within the project area, and the redevelopment plan as adopted will contain authorityfor- the
agency to acquire, by eminent domain, property on which any persons reside.
(2) The redevelopment plan as adopted contains one or more public projects that will displace a
substantial number of low-income or moderate -income persons, or both.
Section 33352(1) requires that a report to the legislative body contain a summary of the minutes of the
meetings of the project area committee.
B. Analysis
The City and Agency formed the PAC in accordance with the procedures of Sections 33385 and 33385.5.
The Agency has received extensive public input regarding the proposed Redevelopment Plan, both from
the PAC, and through public meetings and hearings.
1. PAC Formation and PAC Information Meetings
In summer 2001, the City and Agency called for the formation of the Lodi Redevelopment PAC. On
September 5, 2001, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the "Procedures for the
Formation of PAC" and adopted the formation procedures and called for the PAC formation.
The procedures established rules for the noticing and conduct of an election of a nine member PAC,
including members from the following representation categories: residential owner occupants, residential
tenants, business tenants, business property owners, and community organizations. There was no public
opposition to the draft PAC Formation Procedures, and the City Council approved the PAC Formation
Procedures at the conclusion of the public hearing.
On September 15, 2001, the Agency mailed a written notice to all residents, property owners,
businesspersons, and community organizations within the Project Area announcing its intention to form a
PAC. On September 25, 2001, the Agency held a public information meeting to discuss the proposed
Redevelopment Plan, the function of the PAC, the process to elect its members, and opportunities to serve
on it. A copy of the notice of the PAC formation meeting (which was mailed to all property owners and
occupants in the Project Area) is contained in Appendix 1.
On October 19, 2001, the Agency conducted the election of residents, business owners and operators, and
community organizations representatives to the PAC.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IX -1 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
The second PAC meeting was held on December 18, 2001. The minutes of the November 27, 2001
meeting were approved. Due to a scheduling conflict, the meeting time was changed from the second
Tuesday of each month to the third Tuesday of each month. Staff noted that a representative from the
Eastside Improvement Committee would be appointed to the PAC during the January meeting to fill the
vacancy on the committee.'PAC officers were elected. Chuck Easterling was elected to Chairperson.
Eduardo Aguirre and Connie Jauregui were elected to Vice -Chairperson and Secretary, respectively. A
motion was made and adopted to approve the by-laws with the change of meeting dates to reflect every
Third Tuesday and an annual meeting date of December 17, 2002. A presentation was given to the PAC
on the major documents involved in the Redevelopment process, including the Redevelopment Plan,
Preliminary Report, and Environmental Impact Report. Funding sources and required expenditures and
allocations were also discussed. '
Meeting #3
The PAC held its third meeting on January 15, 2002. Meeting agenda items included review of Draft
Redevelopment Plan, Draft Owner Participation Rules and Residential Conservation Areas. The
committee approved minutes of the December 18, 2001 meeting with one minor change clarifying offices
can be held for two years rather than one. The Agency's counsel distributed and discussed the Draft
Redevelopment Plan and the Rules Governing Participation by Property Owners. The Committee raised '
concerns about the use of eminent domain in the Project Area and mentioned that a group was organizing
against it. Staff responded to the concerns and the Agency stated it would exercise diligence and
discretion when using eminent domain. Member Snyder asked if historical elements are given any '
consideration in the Redevelopment process. Staff replied that it can be a factor for Agency participation.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IX -2 Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
'
On November 7 2001 the Cit Council certified the results of the PAC election and directed the Agency
, Y
to consult with the PAC during the Plan adoption process.
'
The PAC Formation Procedures called for the PAC committee to be composed of two residential tenants,
two homeowners, two business tenants, two business property owners, and one community organization.
At the October 19`h election, the eight elected positions were filled. The City Council selected the Eastside
Community Improvement Committee to appoint one of its members as the community organization
representative to the PAC. Ann Larson was appointed by the Eastside Community Improvement
Committee to serve as the community organization representative.
PAC Meetings and Actions
Meeting #1
,
The first meeting of the PAC was held on November 27, 2001. The PAC members and consultants
introduced themselves and established a meeting schedule of the second Tuesday of each month. PAC
roles and responsibilities were discussed, including its primary responsibility of reviewing the
'
Redevelopment Plan and submitting a report recommending the plan be adopted or rejected.
PAC by-laws and two applicable laws to the PAC were discussed. These include The Brown Act, a
California Law regarding open meetings and the Political .Reform Act, which require public officials to
file Statements of Economic Interests and prohibits public officials from using their political position to
influence governmental decisions for personal gain. PAC members were also given an overview of
redevelopment. This included its purpose, potential projects, funding sources, the Plan adoption process
and work completed to date by the Redevelopment Agency.
Meeting #2
The second PAC meeting was held on December 18, 2001. The minutes of the November 27, 2001
meeting were approved. Due to a scheduling conflict, the meeting time was changed from the second
Tuesday of each month to the third Tuesday of each month. Staff noted that a representative from the
Eastside Improvement Committee would be appointed to the PAC during the January meeting to fill the
vacancy on the committee.'PAC officers were elected. Chuck Easterling was elected to Chairperson.
Eduardo Aguirre and Connie Jauregui were elected to Vice -Chairperson and Secretary, respectively. A
motion was made and adopted to approve the by-laws with the change of meeting dates to reflect every
Third Tuesday and an annual meeting date of December 17, 2002. A presentation was given to the PAC
on the major documents involved in the Redevelopment process, including the Redevelopment Plan,
Preliminary Report, and Environmental Impact Report. Funding sources and required expenditures and
allocations were also discussed. '
Meeting #3
The PAC held its third meeting on January 15, 2002. Meeting agenda items included review of Draft
Redevelopment Plan, Draft Owner Participation Rules and Residential Conservation Areas. The
committee approved minutes of the December 18, 2001 meeting with one minor change clarifying offices
can be held for two years rather than one. The Agency's counsel distributed and discussed the Draft
Redevelopment Plan and the Rules Governing Participation by Property Owners. The Committee raised '
concerns about the use of eminent domain in the Project Area and mentioned that a group was organizing
against it. Staff responded to the concerns and the Agency stated it would exercise diligence and
discretion when using eminent domain. Member Snyder asked if historical elements are given any '
consideration in the Redevelopment process. Staff replied that it can be a factor for Agency participation.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IX -2 Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Meeting #4
The PAC conducted its fourth meeting on February 19, 2002. Agenda items included Review of
Preliminary Report, General Comments of PAC and Public Comment. Meeting minutes from
January 15, 2002 were approved with two minor corrections.
The Agency's redevelopment consultant, Seifel Consulting, reviewed the content of the Preliminary
Report, focusing on Chapter 2: Existing Conditions. The consultant described factors of physical and
economic blight including Deficient or Deteriorated Buildings, Factors that Inhibit Proper Use of
Buildings, Incompatible Uses, Substandard Lots, Crime Rates and Residential Overcrowding. The
consultant also explained that the Agency must demonstrate a connection between the blight conditions
and ways in which the Redevelopment Program will mitigate the blight. Member Snyder inquired about
protections for historic buildings within the Project Area and the consultant clarified that a certain process
must be followed for such buildings.
Meeting #5
The fifth PAC meeting was held on March 19, 2002. Agenda items included approval of
February 19, 2002 meeting minutes, Preliminary Report discussion and a review of the Draft EIR and
EIR Schedule.
Staff responded to questions and comments regarding the Preliminary Plan, which was reviewed at the
February 19`' PAC meeting. Staff also discussed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), a
document that assesses the environmental impacts of the Redevelopment Plan, including Land Use
Impact, Noise, Air Quality, Biology, Traffic, Visual Impacts and Wildlife. Staff explained that all of the
impacts noted in the document were mitigable except for Air Quality, which will have a "Significant
Unavoidable Impact." In order for the EIR to be certified and the plan move forward, the City Council
must make a specific finding noting that nothing can be done to offset the air quality condition. The DEIR
is available for public review and comment for 45 days and at the end of this period, April 25`h, the
Agency is required by law to respond to any comments generated. These comments will be compiled with
the draft EIR to become the final environmental report. The City Council will vote for its certification in
June 2002. ,
Meeting #6
The April meeting of the PAC was cancelled. The sixth PAC meeting is scheduled for May 21, 2002.
Copies of the minutes of the PAC meetings are attached in Appendix 1.
2. Other Community Consultations
A public hearing on the proposed Redevelopment Plan is scheduled to take place as the Plan adoption
process continues. The notice of the joint public hearing will be published in the Lodi News Sentinel
newspaper once a week for four consecutive weeks (prior to the joint public hearing) in accordance with
the notice requirements of the CRL. Additionally, notices of the joint public hearing will be sent by
certified mail to each taxing entity and by first class mail to every property owner, business, community
organization and resident in the Project Area, as required by CRL Section 33452.
On May 15, 2002, the City Council and Agency are expected to consider scheduling a June 19, 2002 joint
public hearing on the proposed Plan and authorizing publication and mailing of the legal notice of the
joint hearing. The Agency will respond to comments made at the hearing in writing. All of the comments
made at that hearing, as well as the Agency's response, will be part of the record of adoption of the Plan.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IX -3 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
X. Environmental Review
The Lodi Redevelopment Agency, with the assistance of Wagstaff & Associates, prepared the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Lodi Redevelopment Project Area Plan. This EIR provides
the environmental documentation required by CRL for the Lodi Redevelopment Plan.
The separate EIR document serves as the principal background reference for environmental impact and
mitigation information for the City and Agency's decision -makers during deliberations pertaining to the
Redevelopment Plan. In compliance with Section 33352(k) of the CRL, the EIR is incorporated by
reference into this Report.
A. Statutory Requirements
Section 33352(k) of the CRL requires that a report to the legislative body include the report required by
Section 21151 of the Public Resources Code—the environmental impact report (EIR).
B. Analysis
On March 12, 2002, the Redevelopment Agency released for public review the Draft Environmental
Impact Report (Draft EIR). The document was distributed to all affected taxing entities, the PAC, the
Planning Commission and other entities as required by law. The public review period of the Draft EIR
was March 12, 2001 to April 25, 2002. A public hearing on the document was held on April 24, 2002 at
the regular Lodi Planning Commission Meeting. All written comments received at the public hearing will
be addressed in the Response to Comments Document, which will also show relevant changes to the text
of the Draft EIR.
The Final EIR is scheduled to be transmitted on May 31, 2002 to the City Council, the Planning
Commission and the PAC pursuant to Section 21151 of the Public Resources Code. Comments will be
received on the Final EIR 4t the June 19, 2002 joint public hearing of the City Council and Agency on the
Redevelopment Plan adoption. The certification of the EIR does not constitute approval of the
Redevelopment Project itself, rather, the Final EIR must be certified before any action can be taken on the
Redevelopment Plan.
A summary of the impacts of redevelopment activities associated with the Redevelopment Plan that are
addressed in the EIR appears in Chapter XIII of this report, the "Neighborhood Impact Report."
Lodi Redevelopment Agency X-1 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
XI. Report of the County Fiscal Officer
Pursuant to Section 33327 of the CRL, the Agency advised the Office of the San Joaquin County Auditor,
the State Board of Equalization and all affected taxing entities that it had designated FY 2001/02 as the
base year for the proposed Lodi Redevelopment Plan. In accordance with Section 33328, on
January 14, 2002, the County Auditor issued the Report of the County Fiscal Officer that contains the
base year values for secured and unsecured property in the proposed Project Area for FY 2001/02.
A. Statutory Requirements
Section 33352(1) of the CRL requires a report to the legislative body to contain the county fiscal officer's
report required by Section 33328. The Report of the County Fiscal Officer for the Lodi Redevelopment
Project (33328 Report) is provided as Appendix G.
Pursuant to Section 33352(n) of the CRL, this Report on the Plan must include an analysis of the County
Fiscal Officer's Report (33328 report) that includes a summary of the Agency's consultation, or attempts
to consult, with each of the affected taxing entities, and a response to any of the affected taxing entities'
written concerns about the proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project.. (Summaries of the consultations with
affected taxing entities are included in Chapter XI1, while the analysis of the fiscal report is included in
the next sections of this chapter.)
Section 33328 of the CRL requires that:
The county officials charged with the responsibility of allocating taxes under Section 33670 and
33670.5 shall prepare and deliver to the redevelopment agency and each of the taxing entities, a
report which shall include the following.•
(a) The total assessed valuation of all taxable property within the project area as shown on the base
year assessment roll.
(b) The identifications of each taxing entity levying taxes in the project area.
(c) The amount of tax revenue to be derived by each taxing entityfrom the base year assessment roll
from the project area, including state subventions for homeowners, business inventory, and
similar subventions.
(d) For each taxing entity, its total ad valorem tax revenues from all property within its boundaries,
whether inside or outside the project area.
(e) The estimated first year taxes available to the redevelopment agency, if any, based upon
information submitted by the redevelopment agency, broken down by taxing entities.
69 The assessed valuation of the project area for the preceding year, or, if requested by the
redevelopment agency, for the preceding five years, except for state assessed property on the
board roll. However, in preparing this information, the requirements of Section 33670.5 shall be
observed. The assessed value shall be reported by block if the property is divided by blocks, or by
any other geographical area as may be agreed upon by the agency and county officials.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Xl-1 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
B. Total Assessed Valuation of all Taxable Property within the
Project Area as Shown on the Base Year Assessment Roll '
The FY 2001/02 base year value reported by the County of San Joaquin Auditor for the Lodi
Redevelopment Project is $540,175,192. 1
The State Board of Equalization reported the assessed values of railroads and the non-operating, non -
unitary assessed values of state -assessed property located within the boundaries of the proposed Lodi
Redevelopment Project to be $2,347,706 in FY 2001/02.
C. Identification of Each Taxing Entity Levying Property Taxes
,
in the Project Area
As shown on Schedules III and IV of the County Fiscal Officer's Report, the following taxing entities
were identified in the Project Area:
1. County General
2. Lodi Unified Schools
,
3. San Joaquin County Delta Community College
4. County Office of Education
5. San Joaquin County Flood Control
6. San Joaquin County Mosquito Abatement
7. North San Joaquin Water Conservation
8. City of Lodi
D. Ad Valorem Tax Revenues Derived by Each Taxing Entity
from the Base Year Assessment Roll of the Project Area
As shown in the County Fiscal Officer's Report, the tax revenue to be derived by the affected taxing
,
entities from all properties within the Project Area boundaries for the FY 2001/02 base year is about
$5.3 million. The proportionate share of tax revenue for each affected taxing entity is indicated in
Table XI -1.
'
1
n
Lodi Redevelopment Agency XI -2 Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Table XI -1
Ad Valorem Tax Revenues
Derived from Base Year FY 2001/02
Lodi
The County Fiscal Officer's Report includes the total ad valorem tax revenues for each taxing entity, both
within the Project Area boundaries and the total amount received inside and outside the Project Area.
Based on the revenue estimates, almost three fourths of taxing entities (5 of 8) derive less than
two percent of revenues from Countywide property taxes within the Project Area. The listing below
shows the percentage of total tax revenues derived by each affected taxing entity from properties within
the Project Area.
Table XI -2
Basic Property Tax Revenues
Generated in Project Area and Totals for Taxing Entities
Derived from Base Year FY 2001102
Lodi
Project Area Total Tax %
County General
Tax from
Tax
1.8%
Project Area
Distribution
County General
$1,147,631
21.7%
Lodi Unified Schools
$1,464,269
27.6%
San Joaquin Co. Delta Community College
$205,858
3.9%
County Office of Education
$73,607
1.4%
San Joaquin County Flood Control
$9,028
0.2%
San Joaquin County Mosquito Abatement
$40,545
0.8%
North San Joaquin Water Conservation
$27,129
0.5%
City of Lodi
$868,301
16.4%
Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF)
$1,460,347
27.6%
$1,460,347
$5,296,715
100.0%
The County Fiscal Officer's Report includes the total ad valorem tax revenues for each taxing entity, both
within the Project Area boundaries and the total amount received inside and outside the Project Area.
Based on the revenue estimates, almost three fourths of taxing entities (5 of 8) derive less than
two percent of revenues from Countywide property taxes within the Project Area. The listing below
shows the percentage of total tax revenues derived by each affected taxing entity from properties within
the Project Area.
Table XI -2
Basic Property Tax Revenues
Generated in Project Area and Totals for Taxing Entities
Derived from Base Year FY 2001102
Lodi
Project Area Total Tax %
County General
$1,147,631
$64,928,960
1.8%
Lodi Unified Schools
$1,464,269
$20,310,486
7.2%
San Joaquin Co. Delta Community College
$205,858
$10,938,990
1.9%
County Office of Education
$73,607
$3,999,590
1.8%
San Joaquin County Flood Control
$9,028
$500,467
1.8%
San Joaquin County Mosquito Abatement
$40,545
$2,239,178
1.8%
North San Joaquin Water Conservation
$27,129
$162,214
16.7%
City of Lodi
$868,301
$5,407,579
16.1%
Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF)
$1,460,347
$82,699,269
1.8%
$5,296,715
$191,186,733
2.8%
E. Estimated First Year Taxes Available to the Redevelopment
Agency
The County Fiscal Officer's Report does not provide an estimate of the first year tax increment available
to the Agency. However, based on projections of tax increment revenues contained in Appendix H, the
Agency would receive zero dollars in the first year of the Redevelopment Plan.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency XI -3 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
XII. Summary of Consultations with Taxing
Entities
A. Statutory Requirements
CRL Section 33328 requires an agency prior to publication of a notice of the public hearing on a proposed
redevelopment plan to consult with affected taxing entities with respect to the proposed redevelopment
plan and the allocation of tax increment revenues. Pursuant to Section 33352(n), if, as part of these
consultations, any of the affected taxing entities express written objections or concerns with the proposed
project area, an agency must include a response to these concerns, additional information, if any, and, at
the discretion of the agency, proposed or adopted mitigation measures.
R. Agency Contacts with Affected Taxing Entities
Each of the eight taxing entities affected by the proposed Redevelopment Project was sent a copy of the
following:
• Statement of Preparation of the Redevelopment Plan
• Notice of Preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report
• Preliminary Report on the Plan
• Draft Environmental impact Report
The Draft Redevelopment Plan and the Notice of the Joint Public Hearing are scheduled to be transmitted
in May 2002.
The Agency consulted or attempted to consult with each of the affected taxing agencies through meetings
and telephone follow-up. The results of the consultations with the taxing entities affected by the
Redevelopment Project are summarized below:
County of San Joaquin
The City began consultation with the County regarding the establishment of a Lodi Project Area prior to
the City establishing the Agency and continued to discuss the proposed plan adoption. Agency staff's last
conversation with the County was with Rich Laiblin of the County Administrator's Office on
January 10, 2002. At that time he did not express any concerns regarding the proposed Redevelopment
Plan.
City of Lodi
The City of Lodi essentially initiated this redevelopment program. The City Manager, who is also the
Executive Director of the Agency, has provided direction since the inception of the establishment of the
Project Area.
Lodi Unified School District
Staff of the Redevelopment Agency have had numerous conversations with representatives of the Lodi
Unified School District. The Assistant Superintendent for Facilities and Planning discussed with the
Agency the impacts of being included within the Project Area. The Agency has received no response
from the Lodi Unified School District.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency XII -1 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Lodi Redevelopment Agency XII -2 Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
San Joaquin Delta Community College
The Agency has received no response from the San Joaquin Delta Community College.
'
County Office of Education
The Agency has received no response from the County Office of Education.
'
San Joaquin County Flood Control
The Agency has received no response from the San Joaquin County Flood Control District.
,
San Joaquin County Mosquito Abatement
The Agency has received no response from the San Joaquin County Mosquito Abatement District.
'
North San Joaquin Water Conservation
The Agency has received no response from the North San Joaquin Water Conservation District.
'
C. Responses to Written Objections or Concerns of the Affected
Taxing Entities
If, before or at the joint public hearing on the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency receives
written objections from the taxing entities, the Agency will prepare and present responses to the City
Council prior to the Council's adoption of the Redevelopment Plan.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency XII -2 Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
XIII. Neighborhood Impact Report
Section 33352(m) of the CRL states that a report to the legislative body must contain a neighborhood
impact report if the proposed project area contains low or moderate income housing. Because the Lodi
Redevelopment Project Area does contain low and moderate -income residential housing, a neighborhood
impact report is required.
This Chapter summarizes the potential impacts on the neighborhoods in the Lodi Project Area, in
accordance with Section 33352(m) of the CRL. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed
Lodi Redevelopment Plan, prepared by Wagstaff and Associates and the Agency, is the source of much of
the information included in this Chapter.
The EIR examined the potential overall effects of the proposed Redevelopment Plan assuming full
attainment of the objectives and activities of the Redevelopment Plan, and resulting full private sector
buildout of the Project Area consistent with the General Plan. (The various environmental impact
analyses in the EIR are based on the assumption that the Redevelopment Program projects and activities
will be highly successful in stimulating improved economic development.) In this way, the EIR avoids
understating the environmental impacts that could occur under the Redevelopment Plan. Actual
development may be less.
A. Statutory Requirements
Section 33352(m) of the CRL requires that this Report include a neighborhood impact report:
If the project area contains low- or moderate -income housing, a neighborhood impact report which
describes in detail the impact of the project upon the residents of the project area and the
surrounding areas, in terms ofrelocation, traffic circulation, environmental quality, availability of
communityfacilities and services, effect on school population and quality of education, property
assessments and taxes, and other matters affecting the physical and social quality of the
neighborhood. The neighborhood impact report shall also include all of the following:
(1) The number of dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate income
expected to be destroyed or removed from the low and moderate income housing market as
part of a redevelopment project.
(2) The number of persons and families of low or moderate income expected to be displaced by
the project.
(3) The general location of housing to be rehabilitated, developed, or constructed pursuant to
Section 33413.
(4) The number of dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate income
planned for construction or rehabilitation, other than replacement housing.
(5) The projected means of financing the proposed dwelling units for housing persons and
families of low and moderate income planned for construction or rehabilitation.
(6) A projected timetable for meeting the plan's relocation, rehabilitation, and replacement
housing objectives.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency XIII -1 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
B. Analysis
The EIR for the Lodi Redevelopment Plan assessed the environmental impacts of the Redevelopment '
Plan and the program of redevelopment activities (sometimes referred to in this Report as the
Redevelopment Program) made possible by and proposed to be undertaken pursuant to the
Redevelopment Plan. The Plan adopts all mitigation measures from the EIR. The following summary of ,
the environmental impact is based in part on the analysis presented in the EIR.
The major Redevelopment Program categories include the following:
,
1. Economic Development
2. Building Rehabilitation, Facade Improvement, and/or Historic Preservation
3. Public Infrastructure and Facilities
'
4. Neighborhood Preservation, Circulation and Landscaping Improvements
5. Site Preparation and Development
,
6. Affordable Housing
For a more detailed description of potential redevelopment activities, please refer to the Redevelopment
'
Plan and Chapters III and V of this report.
The proposed Redevelopment Program emphasizes the elimination of blighting conditions and constraints
,
that interfere with revitalization and conservation of the proposed Project Area by improving the
economic conditions and enhancing residential areas. The direct impact of redevelopment activities will
alleviate blight and promote economic development, residential neighborhood conservation and areawide
'
public improvements. The Redevelopment Program also reflects the goals and policies of the City's
General Plan and economic development studies.
'
The direct impact of redevelopment activities will be to aid in the revitalization of the Project Area. The
,
Redevelopment Program will revitalize areas that exhibit adverse physical and economic conditions;
,
stimulate private investment in Lodi's commercial areas; improve housing conditions and infrastructure in
residential neighborhoods; and provide tax increment funds for the redevelopment activities that are
'
needed to alleviate blighting conditions.
The secondary impacts of redevelopment activities will be to: improve transportation and circulation;
,
preserve and create civic, cultural, and educational facilities and amenities as a catalyst for area
revitalization; upgrade, modernize and expand public infrastructure; revitalize business areas in the
Project Area through business retention, expansion and attraction and tourism promotion; and preserve
'
residential neighborhoods. This growth and stabilization will in turn produce several impacts, which are
discussed in the following sections.
1. Major EIR Findings
One significant, unavoidable impact—an increase in long-term regional emissions for Reactive Organic
Gases and Nitrogen Oxide—was identified in the EIR analyses and findings. Other impacts that were
,
identified as potentially significant could be reduced to less -than -significant levels by inclusion of the
mitigation measures listed in the EIR.
This EIR has been formulated as a program EIR, a type of EIR authorized by Section 15168 of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines for use in documenting the environmental
implications of community general plans, redevelopment plans and other "programs" that involve a series
'
Lodi Redevelopment Agency XIII -2 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
,
of interrelated actions taken by a governmental authority that can be characterized as one project to
achieve an overall program goal. The approach used in preparing the EIR under the "program EIR"
authority was to describe the anticipated broad-based, Project Area -wide and community -wide impacts of
the proposed Redevelopment Plan. The EIR describes the cumulative, aggregate effects of the
combination of anticipated plan -related actions and facilitated development on future Project Area -wide
and community -wide environmental conditions.
In light of the special status of redevelopment plans under CEQA and as interpreted by recent case law
(Friends of Mammoth v. Town of Mammoth Lakes), an EIR must evaluate at a project level, rather than a
program level, each redevelopment activity of the proposed program for which sufficient information is
available with respect to site location, project design, and total buildout to enable and require project -level
evaluation. The proposed Redevelopment Program does not contain any proposed program for which
sufficient location, design, and buildout information is known to date. Thus, all programs and projects
included in the proposed Redevelopment Program were analyzed at a program level consistent with the
State CEQA Guidelines.
2. Relocation
At this time, the Agency has not proposed any redevelopment actions that would result in the
displacement of individuals from their homes. If in the future the Agency were to take action that would
cause displacement, the Agency prior to taking the action, would establish a method and plan for
relocation of families and persons to be displaced in connection with any Lodi Redevelopment Agency
project. The adopted Agency relocation policy will comply with CRL Section 33367(d)(7), which
requires a redevelopment agency to have a feasible relocation method or plan if the agency's
redevelopment plans are to result in the displacement of any households in a project area.
3. Transportation, Circulation and Parking
The transportation system serving the Project Area consists of a network of regional roadways, local
roads, transit services, rail lines, pedestrian and bicycle provisions, and parking facilities.
The Redevelopment Program would improve traffic signalization and traffic circulation at critical
intersections, especially along Cherokee Lane. The EIR states that the increased traffic on surrounding
roadways would be a less than significant impact since intersections would maintain acceptable levels of
services. The increase in transit use generated by the Redevelopment Project -facilitated development
would generate increased demand for some local and interregional transit services, but would not be
expected to have a significant adverse impact on the services.
The Redevelopment Program will encourage alternative transportation by improved bicycle and
pedestrian circulation. Redevelopment would create a comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle network,
providing linkages and improving access to Downtown from the proposed Multi -modal Train Station and
Transit Center. The EIR states that it is expected that additional traffic on existing and planned bicycle
and pedestrian facilities could be accommodated by existing and planned facilities. The Redevelopment
Program includes creating a comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle network, providing linkages and
improving access to Downtown from the proposed Multi -modal Train Station and Transit Center;
providing pedestrian access to the Transit Center; continuing to provide new sidewalks and/or widening
sidewalks in the Downtown, neighborhoods and other areas; and improving street signs and streetlights in
the Downtown, neighborhoods and other areas.
Project -facilitated development may also increase demand for on and off street parking in the Project
Area. However, the increased demand is not expected to cause adverse impacts on parking conditions
Lodi Redevelopment Agency XIII -3 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Project -facilitated construction has the potential for exposing construction workers and future site '
occupants to spills, leaks and other discharges of existing hazardous materials or wastes. In addition,
hazardous substances may be stored, generated, and/or used in association with project -facilitated new
commercial, industrial or other uses within the Project Area. The EIR recommends measures that would
be expected to reduce the potentially significant health and safety impacts associated with potential
exposure to hazardous materials to a less -than -significant level.
b. Population I
The Redevelopment Project could potentially add to population growth in the Project Area. The
Redevelopment Project would be expected to facilitate and encourage improvement to the Project Area
housing stock and, by extension, population growth within the Project Area. The EIR estimates that ,
between the years 2001 and 2020, the Project Area housing total would increase by an estimated 210 units
with the Redevelopment Project (roughly 4.1 percent of the projected Citywide 2001-2020 housing
increase of 5,160 units). This anticipated housing increase and associated population increase would not I in and of themselves constitute a significant adverse environmental impact.
Based on an average household size of 2.56 persons per household, the population increase associated
because the Redevelopment Plan includes provisions for development of parking in Downtown Lodi and
,
along Cherokee Lane. In addition, individual developments facilitated by redevelopment would continue
to be subject to the City's design review and parking requirements.
,
Project -facilitated development may contribute to the existing jobs/housing imbalance in Lodi. The
,
4. Environmental Quality
exacerbate this imbalance, constituting a potentially significant adverse impact. The implementation of all
relevant mitigation measures identified in EIR pertaining to project -related commute period vehicular
'
Redevelopment activities will generally enhance the environmental quality of the Project Area by
improving neighborhoods and facilitating a hazardous materials cleanup program. Achievement of the
basic redevelopment objective of blight elimination, as made possible by the Redevelopment Plan, is, in
itself, a positive environmental impact.
'
a. Hazardous Materials
The City is required by state hazardous materials regulatory agencies to assign or accept responsibility for
cleanup of the groundwater contamination in several areas with contaminated groundwater. Three of four
contamination "hot spots" are partially or completely within the proposed Project Area. The City is
currently involved in litigation with insurance companies representing prior site occupants suspected of
,
earlier contamination. Responsibility for cleanup of suspected groundwater contamination sources will be
determined and cleanup is expected to occur pending a final decision in Iitigation. Most of this cleanup
will occur independently of the Redevelopment Plan. However, remediation may be required on a project
by project basis prior to initiation of any redevelopment -related construction that may have the potential
to disturb or disperse already contaminated groundwater. The proposed Redevelopment Program includes
the facilitation of a hazardous materials cleanup program to aid in any required future site-specific
predevelopment remediation activities.
Project -facilitated construction has the potential for exposing construction workers and future site '
occupants to spills, leaks and other discharges of existing hazardous materials or wastes. In addition,
hazardous substances may be stored, generated, and/or used in association with project -facilitated new
commercial, industrial or other uses within the Project Area. The EIR recommends measures that would
be expected to reduce the potentially significant health and safety impacts associated with potential
exposure to hazardous materials to a less -than -significant level.
b. Population I
The Redevelopment Project could potentially add to population growth in the Project Area. The
Redevelopment Project would be expected to facilitate and encourage improvement to the Project Area
housing stock and, by extension, population growth within the Project Area. The EIR estimates that ,
between the years 2001 and 2020, the Project Area housing total would increase by an estimated 210 units
with the Redevelopment Project (roughly 4.1 percent of the projected Citywide 2001-2020 housing
increase of 5,160 units). This anticipated housing increase and associated population increase would not I in and of themselves constitute a significant adverse environmental impact.
Based on an average household size of 2.56 persons per household, the population increase associated
with 210 additional housing units (538 persons) would be well within the allowable two -percent annual
,
population increase under the City's Growth Management Plan.
Project -facilitated development may contribute to the existing jobs/housing imbalance in Lodi. The
,
projected addition of a substantially greater number of jobs than housing units in the Project Area would
exacerbate this imbalance, constituting a potentially significant adverse impact. The implementation of all
relevant mitigation measures identified in EIR pertaining to project -related commute period vehicular
'
traffic increases and associated project and cumulative transportation system impacts would reduce the
environmental effects associated with project -related incommuting to less -than -significant levels.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency XI114 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
'
Land Use and Applicable Land Use Plans and Policies
Redevelopment under the Redevelopment Program will provide opportunities for the City to enhance its
residential character, stimulate private investment, and promote economic development.
The EIR provides an evaluation of the Redevelopment Program's consistency with the goals and policies
of relevant local and regional plans. Its findings include the following:
• The General Plan goals, objectives and policies would govern all actions set forth in the
Redevelopment Plan.
• The City of Lodi zoning ordinance is intended to serve as a tool for implementing the City's General
Plan.
• The Central City Revitalization Program (Revitalization Program) was adopted as City Council
policy in 1994 and is intended to be a General Plan implementation tool for revitalizing the
downtown, the Cherokee Lane corridor and the East Side residential neighborhood.
• The City's Downtown Development Standards and Guidelines were developed in 1997 as an
implementation tool of the adopted Revitalization Program. The primary purpose of the Standards
and Guidelines is to ensure that high-quality design standards are maintained for all new construction
and rehabilitation projects within the downtown.
• The proposed Redevelopment Plan would establish the land uses set forth in the current and future
City of Lodi General Plan as the permitted uses within the Project Area.
The EIR states that redevelopment -facilitated development in the Project Area would occur primarily as
infill, with no significant change in established community -wide or central area land use patterns. In the
East Side residential neighborhood, existing land use incompatibilities resulting from multi -family
residential uses would be expected to be improved. Infill development and rehabilitation activity would
be expected to foster central area consolidation and nuisance reduction, which would be positive land use
effects.
The EIR also found that in addition to beneficial land use compatibility effects, some redevelopment -
facilitated land use changes could result in adverse land use compatibility impacts. Given the proximity of
some existing, planned and anticipated residential uses to existing and planned commercial and industrial
areas, project -assisted intensification could introduce significant new land use conflicts among specific
residential, commercial, and industrial developments (e.g., traffic, visual, light, noise, parking, odor and
other conflicts). The EIR includes measures to reduce potential land use compatibility impacts to a less
than significant level:
• During City review and prior to approval of individual projects within the Project Area, emphasize
the need to avoid significant new land use conflicts.
• Require assurances to City satisfaction of: (1) adequate land use separation, scale transition, and noise
buffering; (2) creative siting of buildings to avoid conflicts; (3) adequate protections against light,
glare, and shadow impacts; (4) adequate odor control; (5) adequate offstreet parking provisions;
(6) adequate and safe truck access and offstreet loading provisions; and (7) other common measures
warranted to avoid such land use conflicts.
d. Biology
Most of the Project Area is already developed with industrial, residential and commercial uses, and
anticipated new development and intensification would not have a significant impact on the general
vegetation and wildlife habitat values of the Project Area. The remaining undeveloped and
underdeveloped land in the Project Area has already been disturbed by past agricultural and development
activities, limiting its habitat value. Redevelopment -facilitated development would be expected to replace
Lodi Redevelopment Agency X111-5 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Redevelopment program -facilitated building construction and infrastructure improvements in the Project
'
some remaining existing, largely degraded vegetation and wildlife habitats with new structures and
'
landscaping.
Although chances of encountering special -status species in the Project Area are low, redevelopment -
facilitated development may result in impacts on special status species. To reduce biological impacts, the
'
EIR includes the following mitigation measure:
'
• Some suitable habitat for giant garter snake may be present along drainage ditches in the Project
,
Area. If disturbance to suitable giant garter snake habitat (i.e. drainage ditches) is proposed as part of
a redevelopment -assisted development or improvement project, systematic surveys will be conducted
'
before development is approved. If any populations are encountered, an appropriate mitigation plan
,
will be developed, in consultation with affected resource agencies.
of these requirements will reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level.
Redevelopment -facilitated development could affect potential jurisdictional wetland habitat. Some
disturbance of wetlands could be associated with redevelopment -assisted development on vacant or
underused parcels that contain seasonal wetlands or drainage ditches. The EIR requires that, to mitigate
potential wetland impacts, development that would involve modifications to potential wetlands and other
,
waters be coordinated with the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Any required mitigation protocols and associated individual project design modifications will
be incorporated into proposed improvement plans during the initial stages of project review. These
measures would ensure that potential impacts on wetland resources would be minimized and adequate
replacement would be provided, mitigating any potential impact to a less -than -significant level.
,
C. Drainage and Water Quality
The proposed Redevelopment Program includes the implementation of storm drain, wastewater and water
distribution improvements in the East Side neighborhood, along Cherokee Lane and Downtown. These
'
activities will have a positive environmental impact.
As redevelopment -facilitated development in the Project Area would be limited to areas that are already
,
substantially developed, the increment of additional impervious surface (buildings, pavement, etc.) and
related stormwater runoff rate increase would be minimal. In addition, development facilitated by the
project would not be expected to alter surface water drainage patterns or interfere with surface water
flows.
Redevelopment program -facilitated building construction and infrastructure improvements in the Project
Area could further degrade downstream water quality. Associated factors that may contribute to
'
downstream water quality problems include soil disturbance during construction; new impervious
surfaces created with project -facilitated developments and increased vehicle traffic; and herbicides,
pesticides, and fertilizers from new landscaping associated with project -facilitated development. New
'
project -facilitated commercial operations could contaminate surface and groundwater if potential
pollutants are spilled or disposed of improperly.
,
The EIR mitigation measure requires applicants for project -facilitated development requiring a
discretionary City approval to comply with all applicable state, regional and City water quality provisions.
Additional requirements consistent with Regional Water Quality Control Board's (RWQCB)
,
specifications will be imposed for projects involving the grading of more than five acres. Implementation
of these requirements will reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency XIII -6 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
,
L Cultural Resources
Prehistoric Resources
Due to the general nature of the proposed Redevelopment Plan and associated future development
activities, it is difficult to forecast the impact of future project -facilitated development on archaeological
resources. However, it is possible that archaeological sites could be encountered in the Project Area
during construction activities. As included in the EIR, in the event that subsurface cultural resources are
encountered during ground -disturbing activities for construction activity, work in the immediate vicinity
will be stopped and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the find. The discovery or disturbance of
any cultural resources should be reported to the Central California Information Center (CCIC), and if
prehistoric, to the Native American Heritage Commission. Mitigation measures prescribed by these
groups and required by the City should be undertaken prior to resumption of construction activities.
Implementation of this measure would reduce this potential impact to a less -than -significant level.
Historic Resources
The majority of the historic properties in the City of Lodi are concentrated in the Project Area,
specifically in the downtown. Project -facilitated development in the Project Area has the potential to
destroy or substantially degrade historic resources, if these resources are not identified or recognized and
their maintenance, rehabilitation and/or appropriate reuse are not promoted. This impact would be
partially offset by Redevelopment Program assistance for building rehabilitation and historic preservation
through low-interest loans and grant funds. Implementation of the following mitigation measure included
in the EIR and incorporated in the Redevelopment Plan will reduce potential effects on historic resources
to a less -than -significant level.
• Evaluate all future project -assisted public improvement projects and private development projects for
the presence of, and potential impacts on, historic resources. If disturbance of a historic resource
cannot be avoided, implement a mitigation program. Sponsors of projects on sites that contain
unlisted structures 45 years or older shall have a qualified architectural historian prepare a report to
evaluate the suitability of the structure for historic status. If the structure is determined to be eligible
for historic status, the Lodi Planning Commission should determine whether the structure should be
preserved in place, offered for relocation to another site, or documented with photographs and a
report for submittal to a museum or library prior to demolition.
• Alternatively, conduct a single survey of the Project Area. Evaluate any buildings 45 years of age or
older and determine their potential architectural and/or historic significance, prior to any project -
facilitated development.
5. Community Facilities and Services
a. Water
Water Sources
Additional development facilitated by implementation of the proposed Redevelopment Plan and
associated increases in commercial activity, employment, and residential population would result in
increases in the demand for water service. The City is prepared to provide the additional domestic water
necessary for anticipated additional development in this area within the City's existing water entitlements
and distribution systems. However, water table fluctuations due to aquifer overdraft create some
uncertainty regarding available water supply for the City's future needs. Implementation of the following
two City of Lodi General Plan Land Use and Growth Management Element policies would ensure that
project -related impacts on the adequacy of City water sources would be reduced to a less -than -significant
level:
Lodi Redevelopment Agency X111-7 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
• The City will develop new facilities, as necessary, to serve new development in accordance with the
City's Water, Wastewater, and Drainage Master Plans.
• The Citv will assess water, wastewater, and drainage development fees on all new residential,
commercial, office and industrial development sufficient to fund required systemwide improvements.
Water Distribution
The proposed Redevelopment Plan includes implementation of water distribution improvements in the
East Side neighborhood, along Cherokee Lane and Downtown. These activities will have a positive
environmental impact.
The existing water distribution system may not be adequate to serve anticipated new redevelopment -
facilitated development and intensification in the Project Area. The existing water distribution system in
portions of the Project Area, especially in the East Side residential neighborhood, suffers from aged,
deteriorating pipes of varying materials. These pipes may not adequately serve existing development in
the short term or project -facilitated new development in the long term. One specific deficiency noted in
the City's Water Master Plan is the inadequacy of smaller and older lines throughout the City to supply
fire flows. Implementation of the following measure would ensure that project -related impacts on the
adequacy of City water distribution system would be reduced to a less -than -significant level:
• As project -facilitated development takes place over the next 20 years, implement remaining needed
central area water distribution system improvements identified in the City's Water Master Plan.
• Promote water conservation as the Project Area redevelops.
b. Police and Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Service
Implementation of the Redevelopment Plan may lead to an increase in the need for police protection, fire
protection, and emergency medical services, and require the purchase of new equipment or the
construction of new facilities for additional staff. Full buildout of the Project Area would increase
population and the number of businesses in the City of Lodi. However, implementation of the
Redevelopment Plan may provide additional resources to both the Police Department and Fire
Department. Planned building code enforcement, the redevelopment of dilapidated and abandoned
buildings, and new structures would reduce potential fire hazards and provide new buildings that meet all
Uniform Fire Codes and Uniform Building. In addition, improvements to the water distribution system
and traffic circulation will assist with public safety response systems.
Police
Redevelopment -facilitated development and intensification within the Project Area would increase
demands for police service. The City of Lodi Police Department may require additional staffing or
equipment to serve these added demands. Implementation of the following measure would ensure that
project -related impacts on the adequacy of police service would be reduced to a less -than -significant
level:
• The Police Department shall monitor the rate of additional police calls per year associated with the
Project Area and the adequacy of associated response times. As warranted by the monitoring data, the
City shall provide additional officers and facilities (funded through the City's general fund).
Following established City procedures, the Police Department shall also review discretionary
approvals for project -facilitated commercial and residential development within the Project Area.
Fire
Project -facilitated development and intensification within the Project Area would increase demands for
fire protection and emergency medical services. Depending on the type of use, density, and occupancy of
individual project -facilitated developments, the City of Lodi Fire Department may require additional
Lodi Redevelopment Agency XIII -8 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
1
u
r_
staffing or equipment to meet its fire protection goals. Implementation of the following measure would
ensure that project -related impacts on the adequacy of fire service would be reduced to a less -than -
significant level:
• The Fire Department shall monitor the rate of additional fire protection service calls per year
associated with the Project Area and the adequacy of associated response times. If warranted by the
monitoring data, the City shall provide additional firefighters and equipment (funded through the
City's general fund).
• The Fire Department shall also review discretionary approvals for project -facilitated commercial and
residential development within the Project Area.
C. Sanitary Sewer Services
The proposed Redevelopment Program includes implementation of wastewater distribution improvements
in the Eastside neighborhood, along Cherokee Lane and Downtown. These improvements will have a
positive environmental impact.
Sewage Collection
The existing wastewater collection system serving the Project Area may not be adequate to serve
anticipated new development and intensification in the Project Area. The existing wastewater collection
system, especially within the eastern portion of the city, including the Project Area, contains some lines
that are approximately 100 years old. These conditions have resulted in excessive infiltration and inflow
in some areas, especially the East Side residential neighborhood. Much of the infiltration and inflow
problem has been addressed with corrective action completed. An improvement program for the East Side
residential neighborhood is planned for completion over the next 10 years. Implementation of the
following measure would ensure that project -related impacts on the sewage collection system would be
reduced to a less -than -significant level:
• Continue to implement the central area sewage collection system improvements identified as needed
in the City of Lodi General Plan, and the City's Sanitary Sewer System Technical Report, including
the planned improvements to East Side neighborhood collection system. Implementation of these
measures over the next 20 years would reduce project wastewater collection system impacts to a less -
than -significant level.
Sewage Treatment
Redevelopment -facilitated development intensification in the Project Area would increase the demand for
sewage treatment. Sewage collection and treatment facilities are expected to be adequate to serve General
Plan buildout. As required by state law, additional project -facilitated development would be consistent
with the General Plan. No significant impacts related to wastewater treatment were identified in the City
of Lodi General Plan EIR.
d. Parks and Recreation
The proposed Redevelopment Program includes assistance in providing facilities to serve residents in the
Project Area, such as community centers, libraries, and education and training centers. These activities
will have a positive environmental impact.
Park and recreation facilities in the Project Area are already operating at capacity. Redevelopment -
facilitated development and intensification in the Project Area would increase the demand for park and
recreation services. Redevelopment -facilitated population growth'(approximately 538 people) and
employment growth (2,014 jobs) would generate some additional demand for park and recreation services
in the Project Area. Existing Project Area facilities do not have sufficient capacity to accommodate this
additional demand. Implementation of the following measure would ensure that project -related impacts
on parks and recreation would be reduced to a less -than -significant level:
Lodi Redevelopment Agency XIII -9 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Pursuant to CRL Section 33607.5, the Lodi Redevelopment Agency would be required to make statutory
,
• The City shall ensure that at least 1.83 acres of parkland is developed within or convenient to the
Project Area. As project -facilitated buildout takes place in the Project Area, adequate corresponding
park and recreation provisions shall be provided through required dedication of land and/or in -lieu
'
payment of City adopted park and recreation fees.
C. Solid Waste and Recycling
'
The proposed Lodi Redevelopment Plan would increase the production of solid waste. Total estimated
,
waste generation associated with the projected redevelopment -facilitated Project Area growth increments
would be approximately 9,940 tons per year, or 20 to 30 tons per average day. The North County Sanitary
'
Landfill has an estimated 30 years of remaining capacity, sufficient to accommodate solid waste that
'
would be generated by new development associated with the proposed redevelopment project. The EIR
'
did not identify any significant solid waste disposal impacts.
6. School Population and Quality of Education
The EIR estimates that new residential development in the Project Area would result in increase an
'
increase of 93 students in the Lodi Unified School District (LUSD) over the 20 -year buildout period. The
actual effect of this number of new students would depend on future enrollment and capacity conditions at
'
LUSD schools. Existing LUSD schools serving the Project Area may not have sufficient capacity to
accommodate the additional school population generated by project -facilitated residential development.
'
Pursuant to CRL Section 33607.5, the Lodi Redevelopment Agency would be required to make statutory
pass-through payments of tax increment revenue to affected school districts. Statutory Agency pass-
through payments constitute the exclusive payments required to be made by the Redevelopment Agency
to mitigate any significant environmental effect of the adoption and implementation of the proposed
Redevelopment Plan. Implementation of the following measures would ensure that project -related
impacts on schools would be reduced to a less -than -significant level. They would be expected to enable
the LUSD to fund school improvements necessary to accommodate students from project -facilitated
development:
,
• The Lodi Redevelopment Agency shall make the statutory pass-through payment of tax increment
revenue to the LUSD and the San Joaquin County Office of Education pursuant to
CRL Section 33607.5.
'
• The City of Lodi shall require developers in the redevelopment area to pay state -authorized school
impact fees to the extent approved by the LUSD.
• Individual applicants may also choose to enter into agreements with the LUSD to
'
project provide
additional impact fees negotiated with the LUSD.
7. Effect on Property Assessments and Taxes
,
Chapter IV of this Report has already provided an overview of the tax increment financing process
proposed to be employed by the Agency to fund the redevelopment activities described in Chapter III.
'
Under this process, all entities collecting property tax revenues from lands lying within the Project Area
would continue to receive the base year level of revenue from the Project Area at a constant annual rate
during the redevelopment period. Any additional revenues generated by new development in the Project
Area are used to pay the Agency's debts, for low and moderate income housing activities and to pay the
'
statutory mandated pass-throughs to affected taxing entities. Affected taxing entities would continue to
receive annual increases in property tax revenue from other portions of their tax rate areas lying outside of
the geographic boundaries of the Project Area.
,
Lodi Redevelopment Agency XIII -10 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002 ,
If adopted as planned, the Base Year for the Redevelopment Plan would be Fiscal Year 2001/02.
Thereafter, until the end of the redevelopment period, incremental increases in property tax revenues
derived from growth in the assessed value of the Project Area, less statutorily mandated payments to
affected taxing entities, are proposed to be allocated to the Agency to fund the Redevelopment Plan. This
allocation would not occur automatically; the Agency would annually be required to establish the amount
of outstanding indebtedness and file a report with the County Auditor -Controller to demonstrate how the
tax increment revenues were being used to repay debts.
Each entity would continue to receive its property taxes on the Base Year Assessed Value in the Project
Area. Only property taxes generated on the growth of assessed value would be allocated to the Agency.
These revenues are called "tax increment."
Under AB 1290, the Agency is also required to make a set of fixed formula "pass-through" payments to
each entity out of this tax increment. Property tax contributions vary for each entity depending upon the
proportion of their property tax revenues that are generated within the Project Area and upon their
required pass-through payments under AB 1290. Chapter IV describes these payments in detail.
a. Entities Affected
According to the San Joaquin County Controller's Report to Taxing Entities of January 14, 2002, there
are eight different levies on property taxes, not including levies in excess of the one percent
"Proposition 13" limitation to cover debt service on outstanding bonds.`
1. City General Fund
2. County General Fund
3. Lodi Unified Schools
4. San Joaquin Delta Community College
5. County Office of Education
6. San Joaquin County Flood Control
7. San Joaquin County Mosquito Abatement
8. North San Joaquin Water Conservation
Appendix G presents the Auditor -Controller's Report, which lists the taxing entities and levies, and
shows the FY 2001/02 distribution of property tax revenues derived by each taxing entity.
b. Impact
As documented in Chapter II, without redevelopment assistance, the Project Area will continue to suffer
from a multitude of adverse physical and economic conditions that will continue to discourage new
investment and growth in property values. Since the redevelopment activities are expressly designed to
alleviate these conditions and encourage economic growth, it is reasonable to conclude that a significant
portion of the projected growth in property values should be attributed to redevelopment. In other words,
without redevelopment, a major portion of the tax increment revenue would not have been generated in
the first place.
Second, in the case of the non -basic aid school districts or offices, the contributed revenue does not
translate into a direct loss of revenue for local school and community college districts because the state
makes up the difference in property tax revenues that a school or community college district receives with
and without a redevelopment project in place.
The property tax levies above the one percent property tax limitation of Article XII are not considered in the fiscal impact
analysis, as these funds are fully distributed to the entities, which have outstanding bonds.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency XIII -11 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
The Redevelopment Plan's fiscal impacts upon services would be offset by substantial benefits (both ,
physical and fiscal), and would be derived from the planned public improvements, improved housing
stock, increased sales tax revenues, and a revitalized climate anticipated from the Redevelopment Plan.
8. Physical and Social Quality of Neighborhood
a. Air Quality
Construction Activity Air Quality Impacts '
Construction activities facilitated by the proposed Redevelopment Project could generate construction
period exhaust emissions and fugitive dust that could affect local air quality. Implementation of the ,
following measures would ensure that project -related construction impacts on air quality would be
reduced to a less -than -significant level.
• The City shall require that individual redevelopment -facilitated projects within the Project Area
involving new construction shall comply, where applicable, with current San Joaquin Valley Unified
Air Pollution Control District regulations.
• In addition, where appropriate, the City may also require the following: ,
— A limitation on traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph);
— Installation of wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off all trucks and equipment
leaving the site; '
— Suspension of excavation and grading activities when winds exceed 20 mph; and/or
— A limitation on the size of the area subject to excavation, grading or other construction
activity at any one time to avoid excessive dust.
Long -Term Regional Emissions Increases
The EIR determined that emissions resulting from new vehicle trips generated by redevelopment- '
facilitated intensification in the Project Area would, by the year 2020, be expected to exceed the
applicable thresholds of significance for Reactive Organic Gases and Nitrogen Oxides, resulting in a
significant project impact. When this increase in "mobile emissions" is considered cumulatively with. '
possible new industrial "stationary sources" of emissions that could locate within the Project Area, the
total of project -related indirect and direct emissions would also exceed applicable significance thresholds.
The EIR provides that the following emissions control strategies shall be applied to redevelopment
'
program -facilitated development activities within the Project Area:
• Where practical, future development proposals shall include physical improvements, such as sidewalk
'
improvements, landscaping, lighting and the installation of bus shelters and bicycle parking, that
would act as incentives for pedestrian, bicycle and transit modes of travel.
• Employment -generating development projects of 10,000 square feet (approximately 25 employees) or
'
more shall be required to provide secure and weather -protected bicycle and shower/locker facilities
for employees.
• Employment -generating development projects shall provide carpool/vanpool incentives, develop an
,
employee rideshare incentives program, or use other feasible transportation demand measures to
reduce vehicle trip generation.
,
Implementation of these measures would assist in reducing identified project and cumulative impacts on
long-term regional emissions levels. It is estimated that the above measures would reduce regional
indirect emissions by five to seven percent. This reduction would not reduce this impact to a less -than-
'
Lodi Redevelopment Agency XIII -12 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
,
significant level even in the absence of potential industrial emissions. Since no other feasible measures
are available, these identified project and cumulative effects on regional air emissions would represent a
significant unavoidable impact.
b. Noise
At this time, the exact location and nature of development projects facilitated by the proposed
redevelopment plan are not known, and the compatibility of the proposed land uses and the noise
environment on the sites cannot be evaluated. Given existing noise levels in the Project Area, City policy
would require noise impact analysis for many discretionary development applications involving sites in
the area.
Project -facilitated intensification of and changes in land uses in the Project Area could expose additional
people to noise levels exceeding acceptable levels. Noise impacts can be reduced through appropriate site
planning (e.g., setbacks, noise -protected areas), construction of noise barriers, and/or incorporation of
noise insulation features into a project's design as specified in the City of Lodi General Plan. As part of
the future environmental review process for individual projects, new developments facilitated by the
redevelopment plan shall be evaluated. The results of the noise assessments and the measures identified to
reduce noise levels shall be incorporated in the project plans sufficient to meet exterior and interior noise
level standards. All such evaluations shall be completed to City satisfaction by a qualified acoustical
consultant.
To reduce the potential for noise impacts resulting from project -facilitated construction activities, the EIR
recommends implementation of a combination of measures at all construction sites when noise -sensitive
receptors are located in the project vicinity. The combination of measures shall be evaluated on an
individual, project -by -project basis and shall be sufficient to achieve compliance with applicable City
General Plan and/or Noise Ordinance standards at affected receptors.
C. Other Matters Affecting the Physical and Social Quality of the Neighborhood
The Proposed Redevelopment Plan will have a beneficial impact upon the residents, property owners and
businesses in the Project Afea. This will be accomplished by rehabilitating and preserving the residential
neighborhoods, alleviating blighting conditions and removing barriers to development. Implementation of
the Redevelopment Plan will bring about coordinated growth and development, making the Project Area a
more attractive area, which in turn should stimulate reinvestment. More importantly, the Redevelopment
Plan will eliminate blighting influences, which deter and negatively impact the Project Area as a whole.
Through the Agency's involvement in facilitating the rehabilitation of income eligible units, the
redevelopment process will also improve the quality of housing in the project area. Commercial
development projects that will be brought about as a result of redevelopment action will alleviate
blighting conditions, stimulate the local economy and increase the employment opportunities for
surrounding residents. The Agency's proposed commercial fagade improvement program will enhance the
attractiveness and visibility of the existing commercial areas.
C. Impact of Plan on Housing
The Redevelopment Plan would result in an increase of funds available for the development of affordable
housing throughout the City. The Agency will allocate at least 20 percent of the distributed tax increment
revenue to the development, rehabilitation and preservation of housing affordable to qualifying
households. The rehabilitation of deteriorated or vacant structures could constitute a beneficial impact.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency XIII -13 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
The following text addresses the six specific housing data requirements in accordance with
CRL Section 33352(m).
1. Removal or Destruction of Low or Moderate Income Housing
The destruction or removal of existing housing units is not an objective of the Lodi Redevelopment Plan.
The Agency does not have any current plans that would result in the removal of low and moderate income
housing from within the Project Area.
As indicated in Chapter VI on relocation, at this time, the Agency has no plans to destroy or remove any
dwelling unit that houses persons or households of low or moderate income in the Project Area. Should
any relocation be necessary for residents, a relocation plan will be adopted prior to displacement and
relocation benefits would be provided in accordance with state law.
2. Number of Low or Moderate -Income Persons/Families Expected to Be
Displaced
The Agency does not have any plans that would result in the displacement of low and moderate income
housing from within the Project Area at this time. The Lodi Redevelopment Project does not contemplate
the displacement of any existing housing within the Project Area. A situation may arise where the
rehabilitation of a severely deteriorated or dilapidated unit or units, used as housing, may necessitate the
displacement of current residents. In such instances the Agency will ensure that the relocation will be
undertaken in a manner providing all benefits and resources available under the law. In no event,
however, will there be a displacement of a substantial number of low or moderate -income persons.
3. General Location of Housing to Be Rehabilitated, Developed or
Constructed
The Lodi Redevelopment Project does not contemplate the destruction or removal of any low or moderate
income housing units at this time. If it were to be determined that the acquisition of real property, or the
execution of an agreement for the disposition and development of property, or the execution of a
participation agreement, necessary to further the established goals of the Lodi Redevelopment Plan, will
result in the removal of any units from the low and moderate income housing stock, the Agency shall
adopt by resolution, a Replacement Housing Plan. This Replacement Housing Plan shall include all
elements required by the CRL.
4. Dwelling Units Housing Persons or Families of Low/Moderate Income
Planned for Construction or Rehabilitation, Other than Replacement
Housing
As described in Chapter V, the Agency's housing production requirements will be met through
preserving, improving and increasing the City's supply of low and moderate -income housing.
At least 15 percent of all new or substantially rehabilitated housing units developed within the Project
Area will be affordable to low and moderate income households. The Agency estimates that over the life
of the Redevelopment Plan, about 137 new dwelling units will be developed for low and moderate
income households. Refer to Chapter V for a detailed description of the Agency's housing production
plan.
i
Lodi Redevelopment Agency XIII -14 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002 ,
5. Means of Financing the Proposed Construction or Rehabilitation of
Dwelling Units for Persons or Families of Low/Moderate Income
The Housing Set Aside Fund would provide sufficient funds to adequately provide new affordable
housing units to offset any loss of units in the Project Area.
6. Timetable for Housing Relocation, Rehabilitation and Replacement
The Agency does not have any current plans that would result in the displacement of low and moderate
income housing from within the Project Area. Refer to Chapter V for the current schedule for housing
production in the Project Area. The Agency will meet all statutory time requirements for relocation and
replacement housing as outlined in Chapter VI should any housing units be relocated or replaced.
Due to CRL housing affordability requirements, housing assistance activities in the Project Area would be
expected to result in beneficial housing impacts by providing additional affordable units that would not
otherwise be available without the proposed Redevelopment Plan. The Plan would also help preserve and
improve the quality of affordable housing units by providing assistance for rehabilitation of existing
affordable units.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency XIII -15 Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
Appendix A:
Sources
SOURCES
Draft Redevelopment Plan for the Lodi Redevelopment Project No. 1, Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Lodi, April 2002
Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Plan, SCH #2001102060,
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lodi, March 2002
Preliminary Plan for the Lodi Redevelopment Project No. 1, Planning Commission of the City of Lodi,
June 2001
Market Opportunities and Strategies for the Enhancement of Lodi's Downtown and Industrial Base,
Gruen & Gruen Associates, January 1998
City of Lodi Central City Revitalization Program, Concept Development Phase, Freedman Tung &
Bottomley, 1994
Draft Lodi Multi -Modal Station: Initial Study/Negative Declaration, ESA, March 1996
City of Lodi Financial Plan and Budget, 1999-2001.
City of Lodi General Plan, Adopted Policy Document, March 1991
City of Lodi General Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report, April 1991
City of Lodi General Plan, Policy Document, April 1991
City of Lodi Downtown Development Standards and Guidelines, June 1997
Appraisal of Lodi Multi Modal Station Site, Robert L. Crisp, Inc., August 1995
Proposal for Services Redevelopment Plan and Environmental Documents, Seifel Associates, July 1999
Background Report General Plan Update City of Lodi, January 1988
City of Lodi Draft General plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report, April 1990
City of Lodi East Side Residential Density Study Background Report, Jones & Stokes, November 1986
Engineer's Report for Lodi Central City Revitalization Assessment District No. 95-1, Kjeldsen, Sinnok &
Neudeck, Inc., February 1996
1999-2001 Financial Plan and Budget, City of Lodi
Appraisal of Property Located at 11 West Elm Street Lodi, CA, Duncan, Duncan & Associates, Inc., May
1998
San Joaquin Council of Governments, Staff Report: Preliminary Draft Regional Housing Needs
Allocations, 2001-2008, April 2002.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
San Joaquin Council of Governments:
Rosa Trujillo, San Joaquin Council of Governments
Other Organizations and Persons Consulted:
Industrial/Office/Retail Brokers
Chuck Easterling, Real Estate Broker and PAC member
Elizabeth Rosenquist, Real Estate Broker
Jim Verseput, SSB Realtors
Dave Williams, Dave Williams Real Estate
Elvera Batres, Century 21 Properties Unlimited
Judy Pfeifle, First Commercial Real Estate
Residential Brokers
Wilma Bauer, SSB Realtors
Rose Marie Mendonca, Prudential — Rose Marie Realty
Teresa Williams, KWS Real Estate
John Wagstaff, Wagstaff and Associates, Environmental Consultant
This report was prepared by the Lodi Redevelopment Agency in association with Seifel Consulting Inc.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
San Joaquin County Auditor -Controller -TRA Factors
City of Lodi Sales Tax reports (1993-2000)
,
Historic Sales Tax Trends (from Gruen and Gruen report)
'
Lakewood Mall Sales Tax Report
,
West Kettleman Lane Sales Tax Report
East Kettleman Lane Sales Tax Report
Downtown Commercial District Sales Tax Report
West Lodi Avenue Sales Tax Report
South Cherokee Lane Sales Tax Report
,
North Cherokee Lane Sales Tax Report
Data Sources:
'
Mappine
Baumbach & Piazza, mapping services
,
San Joaquin County Assessor Parcel Maps
8.5"x11"
11"x14"
'
Board of Equalization Valuation Division Maps (poster size)
Lodi Conference & Visitors Bureau. http://www.visitiodi.com/history.html
,
HdL Coren & Cone, Sales Tax Data, 1994-2001.
,
Dataquick, residential sales data.
U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Census Data, http://venus.census.gov/cdrom/lookup.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census Data, www.factfinder.census.gov.
San Joaquin Council of Governments, Population and Research and Forecasting Center,
www.sjcog.org/RFC/population/main-age.htm.
City of Lodi Staff:
'
Dixon Flynn, City Manager
Konradt Bartlam, Community Development Director
,
Jerry Adams, Police Chief, Police Department
Betsy Gandy, Police Department
Tony Goehring, Economic Development Director
Susan Blackston, City Clerk
County of San Joaquin: ,
Adrian Van Houten, Auditor -Controller
Gary Freeman, County Assessor '
Ron Sugimoto, Mapping Division, County Assessor's Office
Edgardo Siojo, Tax Division, County Auditor's Office '
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002 '
Appendix B:
Legal Description of the Project Area
iFiT',
IVa. �'�s��
1�. Fxp. J•3ti�-+� Ji
J\�� ClVI�
ATF OF 'A0
September 3, 2001
JOB NO. 0048
CITY OF LODI
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY
Commencing at a brass disk at the Southwest corner of the
Southeast quarter of Section 12, Township 3 North, Range 6 East,
Mount Diablo Base and Meridian; thence South 11° 03' 40" West
97.99 feet to an angle point on the South line of State Highway
Route No. 12 and the True Point of Beginning; thence along the:
South line of said Highway the following four courses: (1) South
860 52' 18" West, 55.24 feet, (2) South 830 26' 17" West, 500.90
feet, (3) South 84° 34' 39" West, 299.36 feet, (4) North 89° 46'
57" West, 453.16,feet; thence North 03' 15' 30" East, 703.0 feet
to the North line of Tamarack Drive; thence South 86° 41' 04"
West, 10.0 feet; thence North 030 04' 04" East, 67 feet; thence
South 860 41' 04" West, 25 feet; thence North 03° 04' 04" East,
100 feet; thence North 86' 41' 04" East, 25 feet; thence North
030 04' 04" East, 215 feet; thence North 860 22' 04" East, 12.70
feet; thence North 02° 25' 44" East, 329.86 feet; thence North
86° 41' 04" East, 22.86 feet; thence North 030 00' 04" East,
112.7 feet; thence South 86° 41' 04" West, 32.91 feet; thence
North 030 04' 04" East, 36.96 feet; thence North 86° 41' 04"
East, 10 feet; thence North 030 04' 04" East, 252.60 feet more or
less to the North line of Park Street; thence along said North
line and its westerly projection South 860 39' 04" West, 223.11
01" 04' 00" West, 134.80 feet; thence South 89" 31' 30" West,
50.00 feet; thence South 01' 04' 00" East, 10.80 feet; thence
South 890 31' 30" West, 97.30 feet; thence North 010 07, 15"
West, 40.00 feet; thence South 890 31' 30" West, 157.34 feet to
the West line of Fairmont Avenue; thence along the West line of
Fairmont Avenue, South 01° 11' 30" East, 78.00 feet; thence South
89' 31' 30" -West, 219.11 feet to the West line of the CULBERTSON
I
TRACT as filed in Volume 11 of Maps and Plats, page 53, San
Joaquin County Records; thence North 010 11' 30" West, 114.80
feet to the Southeast corner of Lot 29 of the CULBERTSON TRACT;
thence South 89° 31' 30" West, 219.11 feet to the Southwest
corner of Lot 30 of said CULBERTSON TRACT; thence along the West
line of said CULBERTSON TRACT, South 01* 11' 30" East, 161.00
feet; thence South 890 31' 30" West, 259.11 feet to the West line
f of Ham Lane; thence along the West line of Ham Lane, North 01*
11' 30" West, 270.00 feet to the centerline of Lodi Avenue;
thence continue along the West line of Ham Lane, North 010 05,
20" West, 91.14 feet; thence along the North line of Lot 17 of
HUTCHINS HOMESTEAD ADDITION NO. 3 and its westerly project, North
890 33' 37" East, 180.96 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot
17; thence North 010 12' 00" West, 10.00 feet; thence North 890
33' 37" East, 115.96 feet; thence along the West line of Sunset
IDrive, South 01° 19' 00" East, 10.00 feet; thence North 890 33,
37" East, 175.96 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 51 of said
subdivision last described; thence North 01° 26' 00" West, 9.21
feet; thence North 890 33' 37" East, 115.96 feet; thence along
the West line of Fairmont Avenue, South 01" 32' 00" West, 4.21
feet; thence North 890 33' 37" East, 175.96 feet; thence South
feet to the West line of School Street; thence along the West ,
line of School Street the following four courses: (1) North 030
05' 34" East, 417.09 feet, (2) North 030 00' 04" East, 558.90
feet, (3) North 020 54' 29" East, 1322.86 feet, (4) North 030 12'
49" East, 943.28 feet to the South line of Chestnut Street;
thence along the South line of Chestnut Street, South 850 21' 00"
West, 325.78 feet to the southerly projection of the East line of
Church Street; thence along the East line of Church Street, North
020 50' 00" East, 165.00 feet; thence South 85° 21' 00" West,
250.00 feet to the West line of an alley; thence along the West
and South lines of said alley the following three courses: (1)
North 20 50' 00" East, 10.00 feet, (2) North 290 45' 1711 West, '
33.11 feet, (3) South 850 21' 00" West, 495.00 feet to the East
line of Lee Avenue; thence along the East line of Lee Avenue,
South 02' 50' 00" West, 200.00 feet to the
South line of Chestnut
Street; thence along the South line of Chestnut
Street, South 85*
21' 00" West, 301.39 feet to the East line
of Hutchins Street;
thence along the East line of Hutchins Street, South 010 04' 00"
East, 73.86 feet; thence South 89° 31' 30"
West, 944.15 feet;
thence North 010 04' 00" West, 296.40 feet;
thence South 89° 31'
30" West, 57.85 feet; thence South 01° 04'
00" East, 5.00 feet;
thence South 890 31' 30" West, 390.00 feet;
thence South 01' 04'
00" East, 384.80 feet; thence South 890 31'
30" West, 232.00
feet; thence North 1' 04' 00" West, 240.00
feet to the Northeast
corner of Lot 24 of TURNAGE SUBDIVISION as
filed in Volume 11 of
Maps and Plats, page 119, San Joaquin County Records; thence
,
South 89° 31' 30" West, 100.00 feet to the
Northwest corner of
said Lot 24' thence along the East line of
Orange Avenue, North
I 30" East, 10.00 feet, (9) North 01' 19' 00" West, 20.12 feet to
[ the westerly extension of the North line of an alley; thence
Ialong the North line of the alley and its westerly projection the
following five courses: (1) South 870 09' 56" East, 160.03 feet,
(2) South 020 50' 04" West, 3.26 feet, (3) South 87' 09' 56"
East, 50 feet, (4) South 02° 50' 04" West, 6.46 feet, (5) South
i
870 09' 56" East, 520.0 feet to the West line of Pleasant Avenue;
thence along the West line of Pleasant Avenue, North 030 00' 04"
East, 1050 feet to the South line of Pine Street; thence along
the South line of Pine Street North 860 59' 56" West 360 feet to
the southerly projection of the West line of Lee Avenue; thence
along the West line of Lee Avenue and its southerly projection
North 03° 00' 04" East, 960 feet to the North line of Locust
Street; thence along the North line of Locust Street, South 860
59' 56" East, 360 feet to the West line of Pleasant Avenue;
thence along the'West line of Pleasant Avenue, North 030 00' 04"
East, 450.85 feet to the westerly projection of the North line of
Lockeford Street; thence along the North line of Lockeford Street
and its westerly projection South 86° 59' 56" East, 374.90 feet
to an angle point; thence leaving the North line of Lockeford
Street, South 800 27' 13" East, 95.2 feet more or less to the
Northeast corner of Church and Lockeford Streets; thence South
860 59' 56" East, 297.5 feet to the Northwest corner of Lockeford
and School Streets; thence along the West line of School Street
and its northerly projection North 010 33' 50" East, 322.64 feet
to the North line of De Force Avenue; thence along the North line
of De Force Avenue, North 88° 48' 10" East, 28.95 feet more or
less to the West line of School Street; thence along the West
i
West, 50.00 feet, (6) South 89' 31' 30" West, 10.00 feet, (7) 1
North 01° 19' 00" West, 220.00 feet to the North line of Walnut
Street, (8) along the West line of Walnut Street, North 890 31' 1
,
01° 45' 00" East, 5.00 feet to the Northwest corner of Lot 86 of
said subdivision last described; thence North 890 33' 37" East,
115.96 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 86; thence along
the West line of Orange Avenue, North 011 45' 00" West, 24.85
feet; thence North 89' 33' 10" East, 187.60 feet; thence South
O1° 45' 00" East, 25.00 feet; thence North 89' 33' 10" East,
127.60 feet; thence along the West line of Avena Avenue, South
010 45' 00" East, 0.80 feet; thence North 890 31' 30" East,
192.50 feet; thence North 010 45' 00" West, 22.00 feet; thence
North 89' 31' 30" East, 132.50 feet; thence along the West line
of Cresent Avenue South 010 45' 00" East, 24.80 feet; thence
North 890 31' 30" East, 380.20 feet; thence along the West line
of Rose Avenue North 01° 45' 00" West, 60.00 feet; thence North
890 31' 30" East, 230.10 feet; thence along the East line of an
alley South 01° 45' 00" East, 56.70 feet; thence North 890 31'
30" East, 150.10'feet; thence along the West line of California
Street North 01° 45' 00" West, 56.70 feet; thence along the
westerly projection of the South lines of Lots 14 and 6 of Block
,
8 of HUTCHINS HIGH SCHOOL ADDITION as filed in Volume 6 of Maps
and Plats, page 27, San Joaquin County Records, North 890 31' 30"
East, 380.00 feet to the Southeast corner of said Lot 6; thence
along the West line of Hutchins Street the following nine
courses: (1) North 01° 19' 00" West, 50.00 feet, (2) South 890
31' 30" West, 10.00 feet; (3) North 01' 19' 00" West, 50.00 feet,
(4) North 89' 31' 30" East, 10.00 feet, (5) North 01° 19' 00"
West, 50.00 feet, (6) South 89' 31' 30" West, 10.00 feet, (7) 1
North 01° 19' 00" West, 220.00 feet to the North line of Walnut
Street, (8) along the West line of Walnut Street, North 890 31' 1
length of 32.77 feet; thence along the North line of Donner
Avenue and its easterly projection North 890 17' 40" East, 841.11
feet to the East line of Calaveras Street; thence along the East
line of Calaveras Street, South 00' 42' 20" East, 412.49 feet;
thence along a curve to the left having a radius of 20 feet, a
central angle of 90° and an arc length of 31.42 feet; thence
along the North line of Pioneer Drive, North 89° 17' 40" East,
66.79 feet to the Southwest corner of Lot 11 of "LAWRENCE RANCH
SUBDIVISION, UNIT NO. 1" as filed in Volume 13 of Maps and Plats,
page 143, San Joaquin County Records; thence along the West line
of said subdivision last described the following four courses:
(1) South 40° 23' 40" West, 79.64 feet, (2) South 000 42' 20"
East, 104.04 feet, (3) South 82° 45' 10" West, 52.31 feet, (4)
South 000 59' 20" East, 358.00 feet to the Northwest corner of
Lot 20; thence along the southwesterly line of said Lot 20, South
I 610 36' 20" East, 57.38 feet; thence along the West lines of Lots
I 20 through 24 inclusive, South 00° 59' 20" East, 276.44 feet;
thence South 22' 57' 20" East, 53.45 feet to the Southwest corner
of Lot 25; thence along the South lines of Lots 25 through 38
inclusive, North 890 17' 40" East, 818.60 feet to the Southeast
corner of Lot 38; thence North 000 42' 20" West, 840.0 feet to
the Northeast corner of Lot 116; thence along the South line of
Pioneer Drive, North 890 17' 40" East, 366.3 feet to the West
line of Cherokee Lane; thence North 750 58' 31" East, 510.71 feet
to a point on the East line of Beckman Road, said point also
being a point on a curve from which the radial bears South 86°
04' 31" East; thence along the East line of Beckman Road the
following ten courses: (1) southeasterly along a curve to the
i
1
line of School Street the following seven courses: (1) North 00°
27' 40" East, 111.98 feet, (2) South 89° 01' 06" East, 2.71 feet,
(3) North 000 04' East, 801.9 feet, (4) South 85° 34' 58" West,
20.13 feet, (5) North 000 33' 35" East, 395.14 feet more or less
to the North line of Forrest Avenue, (6) along the North line of S
Forrest Avenue, North 860 12' East, 19.46 feet to the West line
of School Street, (7) along the West line of School Street and
its northerly projection North
of Sacramento Street, North 010
00° 11' East,
427.54 feet to
the
ten courses: (1)'North 82° 26' 47" East, 82.11 feet, (2) North
North line of Louie Avenue; thence along the
North line of
Louie
feet, (4) North 89° 26' 30" East, 130.45 feet, (5) North 030 00'
Avenue, North 89° 05' 30" East,
392.45 feet;
thence along a
curve
to the left having a radius of
25 feet, a central
angle of
880
East, 40.00 feet to the centerline of Turner Road; thence along
00' and an arc length of 38.40
feet; thence
along the West
line
05' 30" East, 664.20 feet; thence
North 020 35' 32" West, 105.78 feet to the North line of Turner
Road; thence along the North line of Turner Road the following
ten courses: (1)'North 82° 26' 47" East, 82.11 feet, (2) North
89° 26' 30" East, 8.00 feet, (3) South 820 25' 42" East, 70.71
feet, (4) North 89° 26' 30" East, 130.45 feet, (5) North 030 00'
04" East, 15.03 feet, (6) North 89° 26' 30" East, 100.20 feet,
(7) North 03° 00' 04" East, 15.03 feet, (8) North 890 26' 30"
East, 246.04 feet, (9) South 78° 54' 30" East, 122.53 feet, (10)
North 89° 26' 30" East, 242.59 feet; thence South 0° 33' 30"
East, 40.00 feet to the centerline of Turner Road; thence along
the East line of Stockton Street as delineated on that Map of
"COLONY RANCH" as filed in Volume 24 of Maps and Plats at page
50, San Joaquin County Records and its northerly projection South
'
03° 10' 40" West, 694.37 feet; thence along a curve to the left
having a radius of 20 feet, a central angle of 93° 53' and an arc
i
89° 53' 16" West, 321.23 feet to the centerline of Cluff Avenue;
thence continuing along the South line of Pine Street, South 890
31' 32" West, 673.61 feet to a point of non-tangential curvature;
thence along a curve to the left having a radius of 30 feet; a
central angle of 900 31' 3211, an arc length of 47.40 feet and a
chord that bears South 49° 10' 52" West, 42.62 feet to the most
southerly corner of that property conveyed to the City of Lodi by
deed recorded in Book 3792 of Official Records, page 312, San
Joaquin County Records and the East line of Kelley Street; thence
along the East line of Kelley Street and its southerly
projection, South 01° 09' 47" East, 1200.42 feet to the South
line of the Central California Traction Company Right of Way;
thence along the South line of said Right of Way, North 87' 16,
West, 856.95 feet to the West line of State Highway Route No. 99;
thence along the West line of Highway 99 the following four
courses: (1) South 000 49' 00" East, 29.94 feet, (2) South 03°
51' 12" East, 600.66 feet (3) South 00° 48' East, 3032.54 feet,
(4) South 01° 10' 10" East, 261.88 feet to the North line of the
South half of the Southwest quarter of Section 7, Township 3
North, Range 6 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian; thence North
87° 40' 50" West, 138.24 feet; thence South 0' 35' 30" East, 10.0
feet; thence South 470 19' 10" West, 38.20 feet; thence North 870
40' 50" West, 266.09 feet; thence North 4211 40' 50" West, 38.20
feet; thence North 00 35' 30" West, 10.0 feet; thence along the
said North line last described, North 870 40' 50" West, 252.96
feet to the East line of Cherokee Lane; thence South 61' 45' 43"
West, 192.91 feet more or less to the intersection of the South
line of Poplar Street and the West line of Cherokee Lane; thence
left having a radius of 770.0 feet, a central angle of 24' 29'
,
4711, an arc length of 329.21 feet and a chord bearing South 080
19' 24" East, 325.86 feet, (2) South 200 34' 18" East, 360.71
,
feet, (3) along a curve to the left having a radius of 1970 feet,
a central angle of 06° 01' 42" and an arc length of 207.27 feet,
'
(4) South 26° 36' 00" East, 138.05 feet, (5) South 250 44' 07"
East, 131.90 feet, (6) South 260 36' East, 38.33 feet, (7)
'
along
a curve to the left having a radius of 372 feet, a central angle
28° 58' 30" length 188.12 feet, South 55°
,
of and an arc of (8)
34' 30" East, 157.89 feet, (9) along a curve to the right having
a radius of 178 feet, a central angle of 550 07' 30" and an arc
,
length of 171.26 feet, (10) South 000 27' 00" East, 119.60 feet;
thence South 430
,
45' 12" East, 36.35 feet to the North line of
Lockeford Street; thence along the North line of Lockeford
Street, South 87' 00' East, 1272.54 feet to the northerly
projection of the East line of Cluff Avenue; thence along the
East line of Cluff Avenue and its northerly projection the
following five courses: (1) South 01' 09' 46" East, 331.92 feet,
(2) South 890 48' 44" West, 2.0 feet, (3) South 010 09' 46" East,
128.89 feet, (4) North 890 48' 44" East, 2.0 feet, South 01° 09'
'
46" East, 354.67 feet to the South line of Mounce Street; thence
along the South line of Mounce Street, North 89' 48' 44" East,
289.19 feet to the northerly projection of the West line of
Parcel "A" as delineated on that map filed in Book 7 of Parcel
Maps, page 13, San Joaquin County Records; thence South 010 09'
46" East, 712.42 feet to the intersection of the southerly
,
projection of the West line of said Parcel "A" and the South line
of Pine Street; thence along the South line of Pine Street, North
1
along the South line of Poplar Street the following three '.
courses: (1) South 850 47' 10" West, 617.50 feet, (2) South 00'
36' 30" East, 10.0 feet, (3) South 85* 47' 10" West, 620.30 feet
to the East line of Central Avenue; thence along the East line of
Central Avenue South 00' 36' 35" East, 1160.74 feet to the North
line of State Highway Route No. 12; thence South 00' 37' 30" ,
East, 110.14 feet; thence along the South line of said Highway 12
the following five courses: (1) South 86° 29' West, 44.05 feet,
(2) along a curve to the left having a radius of 3945 feet, a ,.
central angle of 4° 05' 08" and an arc length of 281.30 feet to a
point of reverse curvature, (3) along a curve to the right having
a radius of 5892.19 feet, a central angle of 40 05' 08" and an ,
arc length of 420.15 feet, (4) South 89° 29' West, 592.36 feet,
(5) South 740 33' 28" West, 71.79 feet to the TRUE POINT OF ,
BEGINNING.
Containing 1,184 acres more or less.
1
11
Appendix C:
List of Unreinf orced Masonry Buildings.
Appendix C
Lodi Redevelopment Project
Redevelopment Plan Adoption
LIST OF
UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDINGS
IN DOWNTOWN LODI
April 2002
Prepared by
John B. Dykstra & Associates
for the
City of Lodi
INTRODUCTION
This list of unreinforced masonry buildings was prepared for incorporation in the Report to Council
on the proposed Lodi Redevelopment Redevelopment Project. The list covers only unreinforced
masonry buildings of brick construction. A total of 66 unreinforced masonry buildings have been
identified.
METHODOLOGY
The list was prepared in two stages. The first stage consisted of a review of historic maps of
downtown Lodi prepared and maintained for insurance purposes by the Sanborn Map Company
during the period 1926 to 1960. These maps described the type of construction (brick, reinforced
concrete, or wood frame, for example) of every building in the area. In addition, in many cases the
use of the building was also described. The second stage consisted of a field reconnaissance survey
to verify the continued existence of the buildings.
LOCATIONS OF UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDINGS
The approximate location of buildings identified as being of unreinforced masonry construction are
shown in the map presented as Figure C-1, Location ofUnreinforced Masonry Buildings, Downtown
Lodi.
LIST OF UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDINGS
The list of unreinforced masonry buildings is presented in the pages following the map.
Lodi Redevelopment Project
LIST OF
UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDINGS
IN DOWNTOWN LODI'
April 2002
Block Bounded by Lockeford, Sacramento, Locust, and School Streets (1 Building)
217 N. Sacramento Street
Block Bounded by Lockeford, Main, Locust, and Sacramento Streets (5 Buildings)
200-202 N. Sacramento Street
206-208 N. Sacramento Street
210 N. Sacramento Street
25-27 E. Locust Street (2 buildings)
Block Bounded by Locust, Sacramento, Elm, and School Streets (7 Buildings)
101-107 N. Sacramento Street
5-7 W. Elm Street
21-25 W. Elm Street
27-31 W. Elm Street and 100-106 School Street (corner building)
106A-114 N. School Street
116 N. School Street
118-120 N. School Street
Block Bounded by Locust, Main, Elm, and Sacramento Streets (5 Buildings)
110 N. Sacramento Street
114 N. Sacramento Street
116 N. Sacramento Street
118 N. Sacramento Street
124-126 N. Sacramento Street
1 Building count approximate due to unified facades and other building modifications made over time.
Addresses are those as shown on the Sanborn Maps and may or may not coincide with current addresses.
Page i of 3
. ......... .
LOCUST ST. - -- - -
�� _..__..._ _ '
H '
a U) LOCUST ST.
N '
Q�.. r J - N�j .. ......... .....
f -1 0 j �FO- II, 2
J - -V —,V
a - i to
—A --_.. ........
1►r
_ . _.......I a o '
I N V
ELM ST. F-
_ m
CITY ELM ST.
HALL
_ I 16 . -.--;
PINE ST. - - -
+IN
'
PINE ST
iQ:
_ - 7
:
OAK ST
,
OW 1 � :
WALNUT ST
. I
- ---.- Legend
-- - -- r ----: �--------- _ _ i ;
y APPROXIMATE LOCATION,
UNREINFORCED MASONRY
BUILDINGS '.
TOTAL NUMBER OF
r.. -
-- -...; ---___ ___-, 1 • ! BUILDINGS IN BLOCK
- `- --
-—:
--
' - FEET
_ LODI AVE. --- - ---- -----: �..
SOURCE: Historic maps, Sanborn Map Company, 1926-1960
Locations verified in field. April 2002, John B. Dykstra 8 Associates
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION '
FIGURE C-1: LOCATION OF UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDINGS, DOWNTOWN LODI I
1
Block Bounded by Elm, School, Pine, and Church Streets (7 Buildings) I
106 W. Elm Street
,
7 N. School Street
9 N. School Street
11-13 N. School Street
21-23 N. School Street
,
25 N. School Street
'
107-111 W. Pine Street (partially reinforced with concrete bond beam)
'
Block Bounded by Elm, Sacramento, Pine and School Streets (16 Buildings) I
1 N. Sacramento Street
5-7 N. Sacramento Street
,
9-11 N. Sacramento Street
15 N. Sacramento Street
19-25 N. Sacramento Street
,
27-43 N. Sacramento Street (estimated 3 buildings, unified facades)
'
45 N. Sacramento Street
47 N. Sacramento Street
'
15-17 W. Pine Street
19-21 W. Pine Street (front) '
19-21 W. Pine Street (rear)
23-25 W. Pine Street and 2-4 N. School Street (corner building)
6-12 N. School Street ,
20-22 N. School Street
Block Bounded by Pine Street, Church Street, Oak Street, and Pleasant Avenue
,
(1 Building)
212 W. Pine Street (partially reinforced with concrete bond beam)
Block Bounded by Pine, Sacramento, Oak, and School Streets (13 Buildings)
'
14-20 W. Pine Street
2-12 W. Pine Street and 1 S. Sacramento Street (corner building)
7-9 S. Sacramento Street
11-17 S. Sacramento Street
23 S. Sacramento Street
27-31 S. Sacramento Street
'
41- 43 S. Sacramento Street
15 W. Oak Street
'
17-21 W. Oak Street
Page 2 of 3 1
i
22-28 S. School Street
16-20 S. School Street
14-14A S. School Street
2-6 S. School Street
Block Bounded by Pine, Main, Walnut, and Sacramento Streets (1 Building)
31-33 E. Oak Street
Block Bounded by Pine, Stockton, Oak, and Main Streets (5 Buildings)
112 E. Pine Street (rear, on alley)
32 S. Main Street
18-20 S. Main Street
10-14 S. Main Street
6-8 S. Main Street
Block Bounded by Oak, School, Walnut, and Church Streets (2 Buildings)
110 W. Oak Street
104-108 W. Oak Street and 101-107 S. School Street (corner building)
Block Bounded by Oak, Sacramento, Walnut, and Church Streets (1 Building)
105 S. Sacramento Street
Block Bounded by Walnut Street, School Street, Lodi Avenue, and Church Street
(1 Building)
201 S. School Street
Block Bounded by Walnut Street, Sacramento Street, Lodi Avenue, and School Street,
(1 Building)
221 S. Sacramento Street
Page 3 of 3
Appendix D:
Building Conditions
by Survey Areas and Subareas.
Appendix D
Lodi Redevelopment Project
Redevelopment Plan Adoption
BUILDING CONDITIONS RATINGS
BY SURVEY AREAS AND SUBAREAS
January 2002
Prepared by
John B. Dykstra & Associates
for
Seifel Consultants Inc.
and the
City of Lodi
INTRODUCTION
The Building Conditions Survey
A comprehensive Building Conditions Survey was conducted to evaluate the general condition of
buildings in the proposed Redevelopment Project.' During this survey a total of 3,382 buildings were
rated on a scale of 1 (worst condition) to 5 (best condition). This appendix provides detailed
information on the distribution of building conditions ratings throughout the proposed Project Area.
The tables and maps presented in this appendix summarize conditions in effect at the time of the
Building Conditions Survey which was conducted in March and April 2000 and updated in
September 2001.
Standards
The general standards and criteria used in assessing the physical condition of buildings are
summarized in Table D-1, Building Conditions Assessment, presented on the following page.
DEFINITION OF SURVEY AREAS AND SUBAREAS
A total of eight survey areas have been defined to facilitate the assembly and analysis of data and
the presentation of the results of Building Conditions Survey. In defining the areas, consideration
was given to land uses, age and quality of development, and the presence of logical boundaries (such
as streets). In turn, to provide even greater detail on the distribution of blighting conditions in the
proposed Project Area, these survey areas were then divided into a total of 51 subareas.
The boundaries of the survey areas are shown on Figure D-1, Building Conditions Survey Areas
RESULTS OF THE BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY
The results of the Building Conditions Survey are summarized in Figure D-2, Average Building
Conditions Ratings by Survey Areas. In addition, more detail is provided for each of the eight
survey areas as follows:
■ A map showing the boundaries of each survey area and the subareas that make up the survey
area.
■ A table showing average building conditions ratings for the survey area and the subareas that
make up the survey area.
1 For more detail on the Building Conditions Survey, reference should be made to Section II of the
Preliminary Report.
Page D-1
Table D-1
Building Conditions Assessment
STANDARCS, USED IN ASSESSING BUILDING CONDITI6,w
Specific Standard: The provisions of the California Community Redevelopment Law pertaining to
blight
General Standard: The relative cost of correcting building deficiencies, code compliance problems,
and seismic safety problems to a degree sufficient to ensure a relatively long-
term physical and economic life (i.e., 20-40 years)
Burlditxg
�
I VA E�rivatt..
Corltiitra�llt
a$etftnic
Ratj'rig�I�tttlil%tl>
R
1
Very extensive physical/structural
Very high
Very difficult, if not
deficiencies (often dilapidated)'
impossible
2
Extensive physical/structural
High
Difficult
deficienciesZ
3
General good condition, some
Significant
Possible
deficiencies present3
4
Relatively few deficiencies present4
Low to moderate
Relatively easy
5 1 General excellent conditions I Minor to low I None required
Copyright: John B. Dykstra & Associates 2002
[-ADVERSE PHYSICAL CONDITIONS CONSIDERED
":SIN ASSESSING BUILDING CONDITIONS
Major Adverse Physical Conditions
• General dilapidation (very serious deterioration of
entire structure or major parts thereof)
■ Apparent abandonment (vandalized or boarded up
buildings)
■ Structural failure (cracking or subsided foundations.
sagging walls or roofs, etc.)
■ Structural weakness (buildings without adequate
foundations, substandard construction,
unreinforced masonry walls, etc.)
Other Adverse Physical Conditions
■ Potential seismic weakness
■ Deferred maintenance and neglect
■ Broken windows
■ Peeling or faded paint
■ Sagging porches
■ Dry rot in walls, window frames, door frames,
doors, roof rafters, and trim
■ Deteriorated, damaged, poorly repaired, or
excessive layers of roofing materials
■ Cracks or loose bricks in chimneys
■ Deteriorated, broken, or loose siding materials
■ Deteriorated or broken stucco walls
■ Rusted, deteriorated, or missing roof drainage
gutters or down spouts
■ Faulty wiring or plumbing
■ Old and possibly substandard and hazardous
electrical service
■ Eroded mortar or loose bricks in masonry walls
■ Informal or substandard construction
.. . _-T 't . YunnE-,�-T� tL =:J l-'URNER RD.i
n.
� �-.A_.! x, TURNER,RD
I_L� 7 1 1 �I� I 'EI]`I.L1I.bn.�1:...I-u ! -- -
_,
i � 1 I Full.-
�F ul
n� I�
L7j ' I='�tL
I L
tm-
' E �'
7: �•. 4
1101-
t J r.n I asa■os ..
i
L F=l L,,� t. I^'�� LOCKEFORD ST' 11j"KIiF
I
—_ .--- , -
RP
h Irs;T I 1 i . -
D $7
Lbc� -
; Le�iJ( ❑! x f,2 "� -'-I �: ' �._�2N � J�IL� la b.� 11 W
jI F rp e
O- NI
L.
1 ,. C ... -- _. II - ':: _' <� 'r IS T WI - `
{Z it W _ 1 i II
lyi: i 1 '111 h i jl Fni i4u,
FrV I !).[1 F Y1 L.
�,ll 1 uxxc I- l [I -i i
.: �w, l L suw■� '; I' I 1 1 T I `=j711 n .t 1
J'il
WALNUT
r..._� ^_iIL
�--- s
� T
7:_UPRR
u"�.+}■�►• _ 8 i! „rrr r IAC st_
`5�ir
iiir;�'+it- r �- $ 1 ilr �F•- I ,i
: $ i
t_Z�I"L•...1 I I� �� _.---- 3 ix ..-. ...
"It-
�. i.Lr �l -- � _=1l -__I ___� I�W _
r 1 .�r----F{F F: .i
' NALE RD. t
W
- INWS7AIAL Wy
00
10
LA
pp
U VINE sT
..... ..
F.
c ... I
-- {'.�"Y
.. Al
3 I
Legend F tT�
iE
I�i�lY�f� °�
ty PLAR
■ PROJECT BOUNDARY 1 `� -f k -III - _ V
In --�•..... 11 4
"_._-'' I ffLN[4rc Wi
SURVEY AREA BOUNDARY �'
-� II - !
- W
OSURVEY AREA NUMBERI.
N-KETTLEMAN LN - = .........
LN:
I % KETTL
_1 7- '--.
FEET = 1, i F i I i �'{ tNilflr '` -d--
SOURCE: John B. Dykstra & Associates
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION
FIGURE D-1: BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY AREAS
4UfINER R6? LL.rll '4URN 0 R - .
I �
TURNF32,RD
• � J _ .... __� t._.s -- . --1 tit > ��, - - -
\� .I
4—'III �R��
� .. U
_17, am
q _ ORD S7 -
... -71
L R - - i Ll i I ' r , - LOCKEF`- EF—T.
zuro
Lbcue_ I F1 i' t UPR.
-
jfj R
f#'>r
§4 --�--n II 0111 f '
rt
171��t-
_t-ftL'I-ji;�lL�FINE
ST
PI
-� 1NE-
k=� - � Io'TArrh II Is9 F..i
! 1
F. 1 FI
I l ALNVf 3TC: ��r
j' j L - - - _ — '-- - d.,
-- r
1 L�
Fmee,
YlALNUT SL { �L-p- -1� ... F rhi II I
llJf
Ir��� Imo. '�- �lr
L•. 7�_ t .7ii'7M. I—L ' LODI Ave _
R
M1.d 7 1 �Fz'-'� l
- • I I , I tf ' RIM •� e;1
�r I_—I����I �• r. J IFcxmt 11
i �l 7v' " 1 L I 1 1. a
3 8 G 4 yl III LiN L� 71 �' a
ZOI �J.T}a HALE RO. I WOUSTRULL Yn'..., ..
TOKAY 57. _ �j N r I
C. L NI
YIfL.SSIL
(� I
21'. I N 1 - 21
c.
VI3
�r11� 'r I r ._. --- I I , '� - - .r YNiE .ST.
NE ST' I I J t .'r
�. .
VINE Sl. r { 2 � 1 EST -,j
-
... ..,'..._;. ,...,Fri
I S
Legend "-`-L'I-1 �1� �[�7hu�
�•� PROJECT BOUNDARY xrijk� �- 1Il tri
C�
SURVEY AREA BOUNDARYL+-I
Ep
O SURVEY AREA NUMBER * ® Z I -
J
CONDITIONSRATING7 _
U
N : L
KETTLEMAN JEM-LEMAN; LN,
• � I I - - __� _ �rr
_- 1
a Iaoo
t
FEET J -- 4444-
SOURCE: John B. Dykstra & Associates
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION
FIGURE D-2: AVERAGE BUILDING CONDITIONS RATINGS BY SURVEY AREA
n
1
0
Survey Area 1
B. Dvkslre
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION
BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY AREA 1, SUBAREA LOCATION MAP
Lodi Redevelopment Project
BUILDING CONDITION SURVEY
SURVEY AREA 1
Subarea
Building Conditions
Ratings
1 2 3 4 5
Average
Rating
A
10
12
16
2
0
2.25
B
24
38
22
7
0
1.57
C
11
22
18
1
0
2.17
D
0
7
10
4
1
2.95
Totals
45
79
66
14
1
2.25
c:\myfi1es\1odi\bcsurveyarca I R.wpd
rJ
Survey Area 2
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION
BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY AREA 2, SUBAREA LOCATION MAP
Lodi Redevelopment Project
BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY
SURVEY AREA 2
Subarea
Building Conditions
Ratings
1 2 3 4 5
Average
Rating
A
41
52
19
0
1
1.83
B
27
54
21
3
0
2.00
C
53
41
17
2
0
1.72
D
23
24
10
4
0
1.92
E
30
30
10
0
0
1.71
F
21
30
6
0
0
1.74
G
40
52
29
0
0
1.91
H
50
49
14
0
0
1.68
I
24
54
20
2
0
2.00
J
35
44
13
0
0
1.76
K
10
36
9
0
0
1.98
L
18
30
8
2
0
1.90
M
6
17
23
0
0
2.37
N
16
83
64
1
0
2.30
Totals
394
596
263
14
1
1.92
c:\myfilei\lodibcsurveyarea2R.wpd
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Survey Area 3
LODI AVE.
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION
BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY AREA 3, SUBAREA LOCATION MAP
Lodi Redevelopment Project
BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY
SURVEY AREA 3
Subarea
Building Conditions
Rating
1 2 3 4 5
Average
Rating
A
3
10
3
0
0
2.00
B
11
8
1
0
0
1.50
C
6
11
4
0
0
1.90
D
22
25
26
0
0
2.05
Totals
42
54
34
0
0
1.94
i
n
11
1
t
Survey Area 4
Legend
■ ■ ■ ■ SURVEY AREA BOUNDARY
SUBAREA BOUNDARY
N
o Boo
i
au —.: —.. o. y.w. a nssoaaaas
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION
BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY AREA 4, SUBAREA LOCATION MAP I
Lodi Redevelopment Project I
BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY
SURVEY AREA 4
Subarea
Building Conditions
Ratings
1 2 3 4 5
Average
Rating
A,
3
19
11
11
2
2.78
B
31
23
26
0
2
2.01
C
13
25
21
8
1
2.40
D
5
25
29
10
1
2.67
E
15
28
14
1
0
2.02
F
22
21
17
1
0
1.95
G
4
7
5
0
0
2.06
Totals
93
148T123
31
6
2.40
c : \myl i I es\I od i\bcsurveyarea4 R. wpd
i
t
L
11
Survey Area 5
LOCKEFORD ST.
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION
BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY AREA 5, SUBAREA LOCATION MAP
Lodi Redevelopment Project
BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY
SURVEY AREA 5
Subarea
Building Conditions
Ratings
1 2 3 4 5
Average
Rating
A
7
16
0
0
0
1.70
B
34
25
8
3
0
1.71
C
40
72
11
0
0
1.76
D
38
46
16
2
0
1.82
E
37
62
12
1
0
1.79
F
1
4
4
0
4
3.15
G
19
34
14
3
0
2.01
H
32
58
21
1 2
2
2.27
I
39
51
5
0
0
1.64
J
20
50
17
1
0
1.99
Totals
267
421
107
12
6
1.98
c:'unyfi les\lodi\bcsurveyarea5R. wpd
t
11
Survey Area 6
i
I
TURNER RD.
y
+
I
Z
10 -
LOUIE
LOUIE AVE
�
Q
3
0.
LAWRENCE
SCHOOL
I
PIONEER DR.
WI
O
STADIUM
W
N
SOFTBALL
J
cc
I
COMPLEX
W
W
I
(A
O
�
I
W
I
ZUPO
U
FIELD
FESTIVAL
IGROUNDS
I
L
LOCKEFORD ST.
Legend
■ ■ ■ SURVEY AREA BOUNDARY
SUBAREA BOUNDARY
N
of D Soo
N I
N
SOURCE: John B. Dykstra & Associates
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION
BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY AREA 6, SUBAREA LOCATION MAP
Lodi Redevelopment Project
BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY
SURVEY AREA 6
Subarea
Building Conditions
Ratings
1 2 3 4 5
Average
Rating
A
20
41
21
1
1
2.05
B
25
36
7
0
1
1.78
C
4
6
5
1
0
2.19
D
7
8
8
0
0
2.04
Totals
56
91
41
2
1
2.02
c:\myfi l es\lodi\bcsurveyarea6R.wpd
i
i
'I
Survey Area 7
Lodi Redevelopment Project
BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY
SURVEY AREA 7
Subarea
Building Conditions
Ratings
1 2 3 4 5
Average
Rating
A
3
21
18
2
0
2.43
B
18
30
9
3
0
1.95
C
19
48
24
3
2
2.18
D
13
34
18
8
0
2.29
D+
13
19
8
15
1
2.73
Totals
66
152
77
31
2
2.32
c:\myt7iles\lodi\bcsurveyarea7.wpd
i
WATSON ST.
O
J
W
BLAKELYLL
PARK
fL
Q
c�
POPLAR ST.
NYJ
a
z
O
J
�
a
O
F¢F
M-
Z
w
N
()
wo
KETTLEMAN LN.
Legend
SURVEY AREA BOUNDARY
SUBAREA BOUNDARY
N
0 0 1300
ryl I I
N
au—c. JD1111 D. VY..— 6 II 4m.a1B5
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION
BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY AREA 7, SUBAREA LOCATION MAP
Survey Area 8
Lodi Redevelopment Project
BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY
SURVEY AREA 8
Subarea
Building Conditions
Ratings
1 2 3 4 5
Average
Rating
A
6
19
8
1
0
2.12
B
1
10
4
0
1
1.75
C
4
8
2
1
1
2.19
Totals
11
37
14
2
2
2.02
c:\myfiles\lodi\bcsurveyuarea8R.wpd
i
Z LODI AVE.
J
J
Q
:MCA
OH
= 2lA
C)
I
r
Legend
SURVEY AREA BOUNDARY
SUBAREA BOUNDARY
I N
0 0 800
N i i
N
SOURCE: John B. Wkslra & Associates
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION
BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY AREA 8, SUBAREA LOCATION MAP
Appendix E:
List of Code Compliance Problems
Table E -I
List of Code Compliance Problems
Project Area
January - April 2002
This summary identifies Community Improvement Case Activity enforcement actions by the
following categories: (1) dangerous buildings, (2) housing deficiencies, (3) nuisances, (4) zoning
violations, and (5) miscellaneous. The locations of these enforcement actions are shown on
Figure II -5, Code Compliance Problems.
APN
TYPE
DESCRIPTION
04124047
Dangerous Building
Unsecured building and living in trailer.
04302606
Dangerous Building
Building is deteriorated.
04303506
Dangerous Building
Masonry wall is falling
04303514
Dangerous Building
Vacant and unsecured
04307309
Dangerous Building
Roof supports removed during remodeling
04308201
Dangerous Building
Unsecured packing shed
04312404
Dangerous Building
Fire damage
04523014
Dangerous Building
Storing gals of paint in dwelling.
04532004
Dangerous Building
Foundation fall into basement
04716118
Dangerous Building
Vacant unsecured
04716122
Dangerous Building
Vacant and unsecured
04729016
Dangerous Building
Unlivable conditions and drug use in the garage.
04306403
Dangerous Building
Vacant and unsecured
04307214
Dangerous Building
Extensive modification
03308055
Housing Deficiency
Electrical problems not corrected after fire.
04116508
Housing Deficiency
Living without utilities.
04117002
Housing Deficiency
Substandard wiring plumbing
04121017
Housing Deficiency
Living without utilities and living in basement.
04122001
Housing Deficiency
People living in basement, junk debris, loud music, drug activity
04123035
Housing Dt:ficiency
Extreme substandard living conditions
04302605
Housing Deficiency
Illegal living units
04303208
Housing Deficiency
Mold
04307210
Housing Deficiency
Drug, gang, prostitution activity
04307603
Housing Deficiency
Substandard housing
04307609
Housing Deficiency
Severe roach infestation.
04308515
Housing Deficiency
Ceiling is falling down
04308701
Housing Deficiency
Substandard conditions
04308715
Housing Deficiency
No heat
04308809
Housing Deficiency
Lead poisoning
04309011
Housing Deficiency
Refrigerator not working windows can not be open no hot water
04311325
Housing Deficiency
Meter panel damage
04311419
Housing Deficiency
Substandard Housing
04311421
Housing Deficiency
Deteriorated porch
04312210
Housing Deficiency
Living in a commercial building
04314005
Housing Deficiency
Vacant in foreclosure
04314015
Housing Deficiency
Substandard housing
04318006
Housing Deficiency
Occupancy of garage
04320113
Housing Deficiency
Garage conversion
04320114
Housing Deficiency
Substandard housing
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project Appendix E -1 April 2002
Table E -I (cont'd)
List of Code Compliance Problems
Project Area
January - April 2002
APN
TYPE
04320116
Housing
Deficiency
04321042
Housing
Deficiency
04523010
Housing
Deficiency
04523026
Housing Deficiency
04524013
Housing
Deficiency
04706011
Housing
Deficiency
04708001
Housing
Deficiency
04708014
Housing
Deficiency
04708016
Housing
Deficiency
04710027
Housing
Deficiency
04713020
Housing
Deficiency
04714047
Housing
Deficiency
04714051
Housing
Deficiency
04716319
Housing
Deficiency
04719114
Housing
Deficiency
04719232
Housing
Deficiency
04719235
Housing
Deficiency
04719314
Housing
Deficiency
04719320
Housing
Deficiency
04719330
Housing
Deficiency
04719408
Housing
Deficiency
04719408
Housing
Deficiency
04719425
Housing
Deficiency
04721005
Housing
Deficiency
04724017
Housing
Deficiency
04727020
Housing
Deficiency
04731118
Housing
Deficiency
04732211
Housing
Deficiency
04734112
Housing
Deficiency
047341 18
Housing
Deficiency
04734212
Housing
Deficiency
04735106
Housing
Deficiency
04735119
Housing
Deficiency
04735208
Housing
Deficiency
04735208
Housing
Deficiency
04735218
Housing
Deficiency
04735225
Housing
Deficiency
04737031
Housing
Deficiency
04739005
Housing
Deficiency
04739008
Housing
Deficiency
04745028
Housing
Deficiency
04745028
Housing
Deficiency
04905015
Housing
Deficiency
04306701
Housing
Deficiency
04306710
Housing
Deficiency
DESCRIPTION
Unsanitary condition
No elect.
Gas stove leak
Living in basement
Substandard housing
Over occupancy maybe living in basement enclosing carport
Substandard housing
Meter tampering
Deteriroated electrical renovation in progress
Structures are illegally used sperate dwelling units
Extremely unsanitary inside & out.
Living in garage
Living in garage area
Substandard Housing
Substandard housing
Inhabitable condition
Living in garage substandard housing.
No heat substandard conditions
Living in garage
Ceiling is leaking in bathroom, kitchen, and living room.
No utilities
Over occupancy
Substandard housing
No Heat
Living in trailer, stealing power
Living in business and operating business without lie.
Water heater violation
Substandard housing
Substandard housing
Mold, termites, electrical outlets not working
Substandard housing
Trailer w/hook ups a lot of foot traffic all night long.
Covered garage and basement into living quarters.
Living without utilities.
Living w/o utilities.
Unsafe waterheater
Substandard housing
Living in garage
Ceiling is leaking.
Living without utilities since Nov. 20, 2000
Electrical problems
Junk, debris, sewer backs up into clean outs. Pool is green
Living in garage and trailers substandard conditions
Substandard housing
Foundation deteriorated
Ci
F-
L
i
0
CSI
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Report on the Plan ,
Lodi Redevelopment Project Appendix E -2 April 2002
Table E -I (cont'd)
List of Code Compliance Problems
Project Area
January - April 2002
APN
TYPE
DESCRIPTION
04312308
Housing Deficiency
Substandard living conditions
04320101
Housing Deficiency
Deteriorated Building
04320118
Housing Deficiency
Living in basement
04320217
Housing Deficiency
Plumbing problem
04529028
Housing Deficiency
Substandard electric
04531013
Housing Deficiency
Tampered meter
04719235
Housing Deficiency
Living in garage, substandard housing
04722018
Housing Deficiency
SFD Converted into a duplex
04730032
Housing Deficiency
Sub electrical Sub plumbing
04732115
Housing Deficiency
Deteriorated housing
04733010
Housing Deficiency
Kitchen fire
04734109
Housing Deficiency
Dilapidated house
04734129
Housing Deficiency
Substandard housing
04734140
Housing Deficiency
Substandard housing
04734212
Housing Deficiency
Extremely substandard condition outside
04734223
Housing Deficiency
Substandard housing
04735121
Housing Deficiency
Possible illegal additions
04735409
Housing Deficiency
No smoke detector, broken window
04739008
Housing Deficiency
Over occupancy 4 adults 5 Children.
04743030
Housing Deficiency
Electrical outlets smell
04745028
Housing Deficiency
Substandard housing
04721022
Housing Deficiency
Living in shed
04311406
Housing Deficiency
Refrigerator not working
04719112
Housing Deficiency
Raw sewage front of garage
04743047
Housing Deficiency
Heater/air does not work
04311109
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
04730020
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
04320129
Nuisance
Maggots emanating from dumpster
04716116
Nuisance
Extremely unsanitary piles of garbage.
04727024
Nuisance
Raw food, garbage, junk.
04733034
Nuisance
Junk and debris inoperable vehicle
04524019
Nuisance
Extremely raunchy property fire and health hazard
03730019
Nuisance
Operating auto repair business.
04118017
Nuisance
Tall dry weeds
04127456
Nuisance
Tall weeds, mound of dirt, inop-vehicles
04304205
Nuisance
Severe rat infestation.
04306714
Nuisance
Junk, tires in alleyway.
04311301
Nuisance
Refrigerator in view
04311325
Nuisance
Dumping discarded items onto church parking lot.
04312315
Nuisance
Junk and debris
04312424
Nuisance
Dumping in alleyway behind this address of tires, junk, & debris
04314002
Nuisance
Inop vehicles junk
04314017
Nuisance
Stove and Carpet in alleyway
04315008
Nuisance
Accum. junk & debris, inoperable vehicle
04319001
Nuisance
junk and debris
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project Appendix E -3 April 2002
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Report on the Plan ,
Lodi Redevelopment Project Appendix E -4 April 2002
Table E -I (cont'd)
List of Code Compliance Problems
,
Project Area
January - April 2002
'
APN
TYPE
DESCRIPTION
04502011
Nuisance
Barking dog, dog feces.
04705016
Nuisance
Inop-vehicle
'
04706019
Nuisance
Two inoperable vehicles
04711004
04712036
Nuisance
Nuisance
Inpp vehicle
Inop vehicle
,
04713020
Nuisance
Inop-vehicle
04713025
Nuisance
inop-vehicle
04714009
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
'
04714011
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
04714012
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
04714014
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
'
04714026
Nuisance
Inop-vehicle
04714031
Nuisance
inop vehicle
04714037
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
04714046
Nuisance
Inoperable vehicles
,
04714046
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
04715001
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
04715002
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
,
04715003
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
04715004
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
04715007
Nuisance
Inop-vehicle
'
04715014
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
04716109
04716112
Nuisance
Nuisance
Inop-vehicle
Inop-vehicle
,
04716117
Nuisance
Inop-vehicle
04716125
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
04716127
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
04716205
Nuisance
inop vehicle
04716207
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
04716209
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
,
04716214
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
04716311
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
04716312
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
04722003
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
'
04722023
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
04725007
Nuisance
Inop-vehicle
04726006
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
'
04726006
Nuisance
Inoperable vehicle
04726006
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
04726009
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
,
04726009
Nuisance
Inop-vehicle
04726011
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
04726011
Nuisance
Inop-vehicle
04726014
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
04726016
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Report on the Plan ,
Lodi Redevelopment Project Appendix E -4 April 2002
Table E -I (cont'd)
List of Code Compliance Problems
Project Area
January - April 2002
APN
TYPE
DESCRIPTION
04726033
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
04727011
Nuisance
Inop-vehicle
04727020
Nuisance
Inop-vehicle
04727028
Nuisance
Inop-vehicle
04729009
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
04729011
Nuisance
Inop-vehicle
04729014
Nuisance
Inop-vehicle
04729022
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
04730003
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
04730012
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
04730033
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
04731108
Nuisance
Inop-vehicle
04731116
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
04731125
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
04731203
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
04731204
Nuisance
Inop-vehicle
04731208
Nuisance
Inop-vehicle
04731212
Nuisance
Inop-vehicle
04731225
Nuisance
Inop-vehicle
04731403
Nuisance
Tall weeds
04732101
Nuisance
Inop-vehicle
04732103
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
04732123
Nuisance
Inop-vehicle
04732203
Nuisance
Inop-vehicle
04732208
Nuisance
lnop-vehicle
04732216
Nuisance
inop-vehicle
04737003
Nuisance
Inop-vehicle
04739009
Nuisance
Inop-vehicle
04739013
Nuisance
Inop vehicle
04743019
Nuisance
Tall weeds
04713010
Nusiance
Junk, lawn maintenance
04123018
Zoning
Auto repair business cars outside the business.
04307122
Zoning
Living in trailer
04307122
Zoning
Living or sleeping in RV
04307213
Zoning
Abandoned truck bed being occupied.
04321063
Zoning
Employee living at business
04523006
Zoning
Living in vacant unsecured dwelling
04702036
Zoning
illegal occupancy of garage, repair shop in residential zone
04742007
Zoning
Outdoor tire storage
04123003
Zoning
Inoperable vehicle
04123004
Zoning
Inoperable vehicle
04306605
Zoning
Water intrusion & mold in SFR & AptA
04307122
Zoning
Living in RV
04722003
Zoning
Living in RV
04314001
Zoning
Auto repair business in residential area.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Report on the Plan
' Lodi Redevelopment Project Appendix E -5 April 2002
Source: Lodi Community Development Department I
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project Appendix E -6 April 2002
Table E-1(cont'd)
List of Code Compliance Problems
,
Project Area
January - April 2002
'
APN
TYPE
DESCRIPTION
04731403
Zoning
Living in an RV
04311408
Zoning
Roosters
'
04705013
Zoning
5 temp tents non-compliance under Use Permit
04712027
Zoning
Screen over 12 ft.
04719111
Zoning
Parking on lawn
'
04730052
Zoning
Vehicles parked in lawn
04733037
Zoning
Auto repair business in residential area
04744022
Zoning
Auto repair in residential
'
04533004
Misc
Workwithout permits
04702014
Misc
Working without permits.
04715005
Misc
Illegal addition to garage area
,
04722021
Misc
Illegal addition
04905036
Misc
Pouring oil into storage drain
04705008
Misc
Work without a permit
04729001
Misc
Carport without permits
'
04729008
Misc
Addition without permits
04321042
Misc.
Oil and anti -freeze seeping through the base of the building.
04714009
Misc.
illegal addition of carport
,
04716123
Misc.
Illegal additon of a porch covering and flooring.
04744051
04316001
Misc.
Misc.
Without permits
Electric wiring to 43 shed with 3 pad locks on shed.
,
04320101
Misc.
Fence encroaching onto sidewalk
04730028
Misc.
Goats, refuse cans, hanging clothes, inop-vehicle.
04709003
Misc_
Work w/o permits.
,
Source: Lodi Community Development Department I
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Report on the Plan '
Lodi Redevelopment Project Appendix E -6 April 2002
Appendix F:
Photographic Documentation
of Existing Conditions
Appendix F
Lodi Redevelopment Project
PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION
April 2002
Prepared by
John B. Dykstra & Associates
for
Seifel Consultants Inc.
and the
Lodi Redevelopment Agency
INTRODUCTION
This appendix provides photographs and photo captions that illustrate and describe existing
conditions within the boundaries of the proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project.' It is an important
part of the Report to Council.
The photographs were taken in January 2002 and are representative of conditions in effect at that
time.
CONDITIONS ILLUSTRATED IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS
The photographs presented in this appendix illustrate a wide variety of conditions present in the area.
Although many of the photographs document adverse conditions that may be used to support a
finding that the area is blighted and in need ofredevelopment, other photographs illustrate conditions
(such as historically interesting buildings or residences in need of attention) that could benefit from
the use of redevelopment resources (seismic retrofitting and rehabilitation loans and grants, for
example).
Conditions illustrated in photographs include, but are not limited to:
1. Historically and Architecturally Interesting Commercial Buildings. Nearly all of these
buildings, many ofwhich are worthy of enhancement and preservation, are located in Lodi's
downtown core. Many are of brick, unreinforced masonry construction. Some have been
sensitively restored or rehabilitated. However, many others are badly deteriorated or
dilapidated. Deficiencies shown in the photographs include deteriorated walls, peeling paint,
dry rot, and soft mortar and brick erosion. In some cases serious structural problems are
indicated by cracked, damaged, or failing load bearing brick or concrete walls. Buildings
with serious structural problems are considered to be unsafe and hazardous for human
occupancy.
Historically and Architecturally Interesting Residential Buildings. These include
Victorian and post Victorian residences scattered throughout the eastern part of the proposed
Project Area. A number of these residences have been properly restored or rehabilitated.
However, as the photographs clearly illustrate, many homes are badly deteriorated or
dilapidated. In many cases these homes may be considered to be unsafe or unhealthy for
occupancy.
' The conditions identified in the captions for the photographs are based upon an exterior field inspection.
Most are representative of conditions that are obvious and are, to one degree or another, potentially hazardous,
hazardous, unsafe, or unhealthy. In some cases confirmation of the actual extent of such conditions in specific
buildings would necessitate an interior inspection which was generally not performed. The descriptions contained
in the captions have been reviewed and approved for accuracy by the City Community Development Department.
ORGANIZATION
A map showing the approximate location of the photographs is presented on the following page as '
Figure F-1, Photograph Location Map. The photographs themselves are presented on pages 1
through 44.
1
t
ii I
n
3. Deteriorated or Dilapidated Buildings. These include both commercial and residential
structures. Many show evidence of general neglect and cumulative deferred maintenance.
,
Some of these buildings exhibit surface deterioration that may be relatively easy to correct,
with appropriate economic assistance. In other buildings deterioration is more extensive. A
number are dilapidated. In general, dilapidated buildings are considered to be unsafe or
'
unhealthy for human occupancy. However, interior inspections may be necessary to confirm
the extent of dilapidation.
'
4. Abandoned Buildings. There are also a relatively large number of abandoned, apparently
abandoned, or boarded up buildings in the area. These buildings are very likely to be unsafe
'
or unhealthy for human occupancy. However, interior inspections may be necessary to
confirm the extent of deterioration or dilapidation.
5. Buildings Under Rehabilitation. Some of these buildings are badly deteriorated. Other
buildings need only minor attention. In a number of cases rehabilitation seems to have been
going on for many years, indicating that appropriate economic assistance may be necessary
'
to achieve completion.
ORGANIZATION
A map showing the approximate location of the photographs is presented on the following page as '
Figure F-1, Photograph Location Map. The photographs themselves are presented on pages 1
through 44.
1
t
ii I
n
i q
-TURN
TvFINER:RD
�quj Ye,:_,. _._-«:
Gigui
1.7 --j
6 PINE STLu
5
M'IjO
0
A
OAK ST
LAI-
LOCKEFORD ST- --- ....
fj r.
FO DST.
-------
Ti
oil
iff Fal'od t1i
PI
1
f', T OAK S i
OA
ST.
IQ. sat.RE hJ :WALNUT To
WALNUT ST.,
L
:L
1 LODI A—
_7
It
mw
x
0 W
-A. y Fl
TE
Legend
• APPROXIMATE LOCATION
OF PHOTOGRAPHS
L 91
!L_1110 111 E5
REDEVELOPMENT
.Eq -1r -
PROJECT BOUNDARY
J*.q
N
%4
C
0
T 1400
d
IL)
FEET
SOURCE: John B. Dykstra & Associates
up.aR
n 11�
L 91
!L_1110 111 E5
1-d
iT
4
J*.q
['Z5
IQ
rl'7777 __L1
d
IL)
yp.R.R'
p.
U -ho
1,"
i HALE FID.
T
L
L
.7 4 Fill
16!AN
F ---
THURMAtt ST. I
"A
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION
FIGURE F-1: PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION MAP
r
J*.q
['Z5
!I
rl'7777 __L1
1,"
i HALE FID.
T
L
L
.7 4 Fill
16!AN
F ---
THURMAtt ST. I
"A
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION
FIGURE F-1: PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION MAP
Vacant, deteriorated movie theater, West Lodi Avenue
Residence, surface deterioration, South Sunset Drive at West Lodi Avenue
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page
Deteriorated apartment complex, roof and siding deterioration, corner Ham
Lane and West Lodi Avenue
Badly deteriorated siding, detail, apartment complex, Ham Lane and West Lodi
Avenue
Lodi Redeuelopmeot Project
Page 2
Aging and deteriorated building, corner West Lodi Avenue and South Orange
Avenue
Aging and deteriorated residence and garage, West Lodi Avenue, South
California Street
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 3
Vacant, corner property, source of soils and groundwater contamination.
corner South Hutchins Street and West Lodi Avenue
Rear wall, unreinforced brick construction, failure of wall over door, alley
block bounded by West Pine, South Sacramento, West Oak, and South School
Streets
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 4 1
Loading dock, evidence of structural failure, potentially unsafe, rear, 21 South
Sacramento Street
Unreinforced masonry brick buildings, rear, potentially hazardous, block
bounded by West Pine, South Sacramento, West Oak and South School Streets
Dodi Redevelopment Project Nage'
Unreinforced brick building, potentially hazardous, 15 South Sacramento
Street
Serious Mortar and brick erosion, sidewall, potentially hazardous, 15 South
Sacramento Street
1
C
i
Dodi Redevelopment Project Page 6 1
Unreinforced brick building, stucco front, potentially hazardous, at 21 South
Sacramento Street
Serious mortar and brick erosion, potentially hazardous, sidewall, building at
21 South Sacramento Street
Lodi Redevelopment Project Nage
Row of architecturally and historically interesting unreinforced masonry
buildings, potentially hazardous, substantially vacant, North Sacramento Street
between West Elm and West Pine Streets
Adult bookstore, 7 South Sacramento Street
rl
i
i
Lodi Itedevelopment Project Pagie S I
Commercial vacancy, one of many, 7 West Pine Street
Commercial vacancy, one of many, 35 North Sacramento Street
Lodi Redevelopent Project I've 9
t �J
i
Commercial vacancy, one of many, 39 North Sacramento Street
Commercial vacancy, one of many, 13 West Pine Street
i
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 10 I
Dilapidated corrugated metal garage, alley, in block bounded by West Elm,
North Sacramento, West Pine, and North School Streets
Dilapidated concrete block garage, unsafe (failed column), alley, block bounded
by West Elm, North Sacramento, West Pine, and North School Streets
I
Lodi itedevelopment Project higFe II
I
1:
11
Building addition, Styrofoam exterior, badly deteriorated, alley, block bounded
by West Elm, North Sacramento, West Pine, and North School Streets
Dilapidated residence, potentially unsafe and unhealthy, 216 North Church
Street
�7
i
11
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 12 1
Building addition, Styrofoam exterior, badly deteriorated, alley, block bounded
by West Elm, North Sacramento, West Pine, and North School Streets
Dilapidated residence, potentially unsafe and unhealthy, 216 North Church
Street
i
i
Dodi Redevelopment Project Page 12 1
Badly deteriorated residence, 218 North Church Street
Badly deteriorated commercial buildings, corner of West Lockeford and North
Church Streets
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 13
Dilapidated residence, vacant, unsafe and unhealthy, 224 North Stockton Street
Dilapidated metal -clad building, vacant, unsafe and unhealthy, East Elm Street
at railroad track
i
11
i
Lodi Redevelopment Project hge H I
Demolition site, debris accumulation, corner, East Elm and North Main Streets
Old reinforced concrete building, deterioration, broken windows, sagging
canopy, 24 North Main Street
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page. 15
Railroad property, rainwater ponding, abandoned spur tracks, construction
debris, west side North Main Street, between East Elm and East Pine Streets
Architecturally and historically interesting Victorian with structural problems,
potentially unsafe and unhealthy for occupancy, serious deterioration, appears
to be under renovation, adjacent to 424 East Pine Street
Dodi Redevelopment Project Palle 16 1
Underutilized commercial/industrial property, rainwater ponding, opposite 401
North Sacramento Street
Tire shop, deteriorated building, 625 North Sacramento Street
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 17
Deteriorated metal building, 10 Daisy Avenue
Broken windows, otherwise well-maintained industrial/service building, corner
Daisy and North School Streets
1:
J
J
r
Lodi R,edeveiopment Project Page I8 I
Underutilized commercial/industrial site, rainwater ponding, currently used for
truck parking, corner North Sacramento Street and East Turner Road
Abandoned trailers and automobiles, corner of East Turner Road and North
Stockton Street
Lodi Redevelopment Project Ila Ye 19
Dilapidated reinforced concrete industrial building, broken windows,
potentially unsafe and unhealthy, westerly frontage of North Stockton Street,
opposite Lawrence School
Badly deteriorated industrial warehouse building, broken windows, non-
operating vehicles, intersection of Lawrence Avenue and North Main Street
i
1:
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 20 '
Deteriorated buildings, trash and debris accumulation, potentially unsafe and
unhealthy, 315 North Main Street
Illegal dumping, abandoned spur tracks, unhealthy, opposite 316 North Main
Street
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 21
Badly deteriorated apartment building, broken windows, deteriorated siding,
dry rot, ripped screens, corner North Stockton and East Locust Streets
Deteriorated siding, ripped screens, detail, apartment building, North Stockton
and East Locust Streets.
Dodi Redevelopment Project I'agge 22
Abandoned residential garage building, dilapidated, unsafe and unhealthy, alley
in block bounded by East Elm, North Stockton, East Pine, and North Main
Streets
Dilapidated structure, potentially unsafe and unhealthy, rear, 10 North Main
Street
Lodi Redevelopment Project Paige 23
Dilapidated corrugated metal commercial building, sagging roof, potentially
unsafe and unhealthy, East Pine Street at alley between South Main and South
Stockton Streets
Large deteriorated residence, sagging porch, leaning chimney, corner East Pine
and South Stockton Streets
Lodi Redevelopment Project Pave 24 1
Deteriorated residence, sagging porch, broken windows, peeling paint, 15 South
Stockton Street
Broken windows, detail, residence, 15 South Stockton Street
Lodi Wevelopment Project Paas 25
Unreinforced masonry brick building, structural failure, rear wall, unsafe,
adjacent to 130 North Sacramento Street
Burned out apartment, 425 East Locust Street
Lodi Redevelopment Project Paige 2i►
J
L
i
i
i
Badly deteriorated residence, peeling paint, sagging porch, 541 East Locust
Street
Vacant underutilized property, boarded up building, corner North Cherokee
Lane and East Elm Street
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 2;
Architecturally and historically interesting Lincoln School, dilapidated, unsafe
and unhealthy for occupancy, corner South Cherokee Lane and East Pine Street
Small deteriorated commercial buildings, peeling paint, dry rot, corner East
Walnut Street and South Cherokee Lane
L
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 2s 1
6z, Al 'm 130104 luamdolaftapq !P01
anuan'r 1poZ;sn:j STS `,Cq;inaqun pun a3nsun
Sllnliva)od `smopul,t ua3loaq lga.tod luo t; gul�1219s °aauaplsaj pa;n.101.la;ap SIM
aunt aa3loaaq j q;noS pun ;aamS ;nuluM .
;sua .lau.1oa spa;n jopajap luol;an.gsuoa 3jalaq'2ulpllnq luta iatuwoa Anall
�.r .t c, y nuc s cel q r .... ..cvY..�
Dilapidated residence, sagging and broken front porch, peeling paint, dry rot,
potentially unsafe and unhealthy, adjacent to 515 East Lodi Avenue
Boarded up commercial building, badly deteriorated, corner East Lodi Avenue
and South Garfield Street
i
i
i
i
7
Lodi Re(level opined Project Page 30 1
Boarded up commercial building, deteriorated, 505 East Lodi Avenue
Dilapidated house, broken window frames, deteriorated roof, extensive dry rot,
unsafe and unhealthy, opposite 236 East Lodi Avenue
Lodi >Iedevelopment, Project Pilo 31
Dilapidated commercial building, evidence of structural problems (cracked
walls), dry rot, peeling paint, potentially unsafe and unhealthy, 502 East Oak
Street
Evidence of serious structural problems, sagging walls, potentially unsafe and
unhealthy, detail, rear of 502 East Oak Street
t
Dodi Redevelopment Project Page 32 1
Architecturally and historically interesting structure, former creamery, Art
Deco design, circa 1938, deteriorated, 100 South Cherokee Lane
Totally dilapidated residence, unsafe and unhealthy for occupancy, 543 East
Maple Street
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 33
Dilapidated front porch, residence, potentially unsafe, 316 South Sacramento
Street
Badly deteriorated residence, peeling paint, dry rot, potentially unsafe and
unhealthy, 316 South Sacramento Street
0
11
t
i
Lodi R.edevelopu nt Project Page 34 '
Large underutilized property, east side of South Sacramento Street between
Chestnut and West Tokay Streets
Deteriorated residential units, sagging sidewalls and sinking foundation,
potentially unsafe and unhealthy, 602, 604 South Sacramento Street
Lodi Redevelopment Project ��aV i,
Deteriorated commercial garage building, 620 South Sacramento Street
Small worker's cottage, located in industrial area, well painted, side wall
deflection, 1116-1/2 South Sacramento Street
i
1
LI
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 36 1
Badly deteriorated residence, peeling paint, dry rot, missing and deteriorated
gutters, 9 Sierra Vista Place
Badly deteriorated residences, peeling paint, dry rot, broken concrete steps,
potentially unsafe and unhealthy, 802, 804 South Stockton Street
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page, 37
Large underutilized property, prominent corner location, abandoned vineyard,
west side of South Stockton Street at Kettleman Lane
Attractive, solid residence, surface deterioration, 1001 South Central Avenue
i
i
Lodi Redevelopment Project Pane 38 1
Deteriorated cottage and garage, 409 Concord Street
Residence, deteriorated, boarded up, potentially unsafe and unhealthy, 435
Poplar Street
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 39
Deteriorated cottages, 1319-1/2, 1321-1/2 South Central Avenue
Trash accumulation, 1321 South Central Avenue
t
Lodi Redevelopment Project I'affe 40 I
Aging and deteriorated commercial buildings, substandard and congested off -
street parking, 201-225 East Kettleman Lane
Deteriorated cottage, recent paint over deteriorated surface, 307 Watson Street
Lodi','development Project Page, M
Badly deteriorated cottage, potentially unsafe and unhealthy, 219 Cherry Street
Deteriorated residence, 227 Cherry Street
I�
Lodi Redevelopment Project Pale 42 1
Abandoned, dilapidated house, unsafe and unhealthy, 221 Maple Street
Dilapidated house, potentially unsafe and unhealthy, 305 Maple Street
Lodi Redevelopment Project
Boarded up residence, corner South Garfield and East Tokay Streets -
1�
i
Lodi Redevelopment Project Pkge 44 1
Appendix G:
County Fiscal Officer's Report
San Joaquin County Auditor
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
SAN JOAOUIN COUNTY
SCHEDULE OF AD VALOREM TAX REVENUE FROM ALL PROPERTY
WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF EACH TAXING AGENCY
BASE YEAR 2001-02
SCHEDULE IV
Total 191 ,186,733
Per Health & Safety Code Section 33328 (d)
H:Hmydoc\RDA_Project_1-14-02.xIs1Sch4\ems\1 /16/02 SCHEDULE IV
FY2001-02
ENTITY-
TOTAL
FUND
CUR YR
NUMBER
TAXING AGENCIES
REVENUE
01000-01
County General
64,928,960
22104-01
Lodi Unified Schools
20,310,486
23101-01
SJCo. Delta Community College
10,938,990
24101-01
County Office of Education
3,999,590
34100-01
SJCo. Flood Control
500,467
37103-01
SJCo. Mosquito Abatement
2,239,178
41102-01
North San Joaquin Water Conservation
162,214
50502-00
City of Lodi
5,407,579
50997-00
Educ. Rev. Augment. Fd. (ERAF)
82,699,269
Total 191 ,186,733
Per Health & Safety Code Section 33328 (d)
H:Hmydoc\RDA_Project_1-14-02.xIs1Sch4\ems\1 /16/02 SCHEDULE IV
F1
C:Excel\Cityoflodi\RDA_Project_1-14-02.x1s\Sch3\ems\1/16/02
SCHEDULE III '
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
,
SCHEDULE OF TAXING AGENCIES AND AMOUNT OF TAX REVENUE
TO BE
DERIVED BY EACH AGENCY WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA
BASE YEAR 2001-02
'
'
SCHEDULE 111
ENTITY-
FY2001-02
FUND
BASE
NUMBER
TAXING AGENCIES
REVENUE
01000-01
County General
1,147,631
,
22104-01
Lodi Unified Schools
1,464,269
23101-01
24101-01
SJCo. Delta Community College
County Office of Education
205,858
73,607
'
34100-01
SJCo. Flood Control
9,028
37103-01
SJCo. Mosquito Abatement
40,545
'
41102-01
North San Joaquin Water Conservation
27,129
50502-00
City of Lodi
868,301
50997-00
Educ. Rev. Augment. Fd. (ERAF)
1,460,347
,
I Total
5,296,715
,
Per Health & Safety Code Section 33328 (b) and (c)
C:Excel\Cityoflodi\RDA_Project_1-14-02.x1s\Sch3\ems\1/16/02
SCHEDULE III '
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
BASE YEAR 2001-02
(Detail for H&S Code 33328(c)) Tax Rate
Area
(TRA)
001-001
Total Assessed Value (AV) of Affected Parcels 512,968,964
Net AV of TRA
Utility AV
AV of TRA
FACTOR - Total AV of Affected Parcels divided by AV of TRA
ENTITY -
FUND
NUMBER TAXING AGENCIES
01000-01
County General
22104-01
Lodi Unified Schools
23101-01
SJCo. Delta Community College
24101-01
County Office of Education
34100-01
SJCo. Flood Control
37103-01
SJCo. Mosquito Abatement
41102-01
North San Joaquin Water Conservation
50502-00
City of Lodi
50997-00
Educ. Rev. Augment. Fd. (ERAF)
Total
FY2001-02
BASE
REVENUE
001-001
BASE
REVENUE
MULTIPLIED
BY FACTOR
1,957,493,127
(3,090,921)
1,954,402,206
0.26246847
ADJUSTED
BASE
REVENUE
001-001
512,968,964
NEW RDA
TRA
001-
4,165,744.74
1,093,376.65
3,072,368.09
1,093,376.65
5,315,791.80
1,395,227.74
3,920,564.06
1,395,227.74
747,286.87
196,139.24
551 ,147.63
196,1 39.24
267,142.11
70,1 16.38
197, 025.73
70,1 16.38
32,772.50
8,601.75
24,170.75
8,601.75
147,182.58
38,630.79
108,551.79
38,630.79
98,842.76
25,943.11
72,899.65
25,943.11
3,152,053.02
827,314.53
2,324,738.49
827,314.53
5,300,960.10
1,391,334.89
3,909,625.21
1,391,334.89
19,227,776.48
5,046,685.08
14,181,091.40
5,046,685.08
c:Excel\CityotLodi\RDA,-Project_1-14-02.xls\001-001\ems\1/16/02 detail for Sch III
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
BASE YEAR 2001-02
(Detail for H&S Code 33328(c)) Tax Rate
Area
(TRA)
001-003
Total Assessed Value (AV) of Affected Parcels 1,960,294
Net AV of TRA 1,076,762,109
Utility AV (31,723)
AV of TRA 1,076,730,386
FACTOR - Total AV of Affected Parcels divided by AV of TRA 0.00182060
Total
10,901 ,435.78 19,847.17
C:Excel\RDA-_Project\RDA_Project_1-14-02.x1s\001-003\ems\1/16/02
Ir IIIc lr I■r rr rr rr r �■■ r r r Ir -
10,881,588.61 19,847.17
detail for Sch III
r r llllr �■ r r
FY2001-02
BASE
ADJUSTED
ENTITY-
BASE
REVENUE
BASE
NEW RDA
FUND
REVENUE
MULTIPLIED
REVENUE
TRA
NUMBER
TAXING AGENCIES
001-003
BY FACTOR
001-003
001-
01000-01
County General
2,386,349.46
4,344.59
2,382,004.87
4,344.59
22104-01
Lodi Unified Schools
2,944,829.67
5,361 .36
2,939,468.31
5,361 .36
23101-01
SJCo. Delta Community College
414,528.55
754.69
413,773.86
754.69
24101-01
County Office of Education
151 ,761 .48
276.30
151 ,485.18
276.30
34100-01
SJCo. Flood Control
18,239.33
33.21
18,206.12
33.21
37103-01
SJCo. Mosquito Abatement
81 ,977.07
149.25
81,827.82
149.25
50502-00
City of Lodi
1,858,410.69
3,383.42
1,855,027.27
3,383.42
50997-00
Educ. Rev. Augment. Fd. (ERAF)
3,045,339.53
5,544.35
3,039,795.18
5,544.35
Total
10,901 ,435.78 19,847.17
C:Excel\RDA-_Project\RDA_Project_1-14-02.x1s\001-003\ems\1/16/02
Ir IIIc lr I■r rr rr rr r �■■ r r r Ir -
10,881,588.61 19,847.17
detail for Sch III
r r llllr �■ r r
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
BASE YEAR 2001-02
(Detail for H&S Code 33328(c)) Tax Rate
Area
(TRA)
001-013
Total Assessed Value (AV) of Affected Parcels 22,898,228
Net AV of TRA 22,908,340
Utility AV (3,165)
AV of TRA 22,905,175
FACTOR - Total AV of Affected Parcels divided by AV of TRA 0.99969671
ENTITY -
FUND
NUMBER TAXING AGENCIES
01000-01
County General
22104-01
Lodi Unified Schools
23101-01
SJCo. Delta Community College
24101-01
County Office of Education
34100-01
SJCo. Flood Control
37103-01
SJCo. Mosquito Abatement
41102-01
North San Joaquin Water Conservation
50502-00
City of Lodi
50997-00
Educ. Rev. Augment. Fd. (ERAF)
Total
C: Excel\RDA_Project_1-14-02.xls\001-013\ems\i /16/02
FY2001-02
BASE
REVENUE
001-013
BASE
REVENUE
MULTIPLIED
BY FACTOR
ADJUSTED
BASE
REVENUE
001-013
NEW RDA
TRA
001-
49,925.38
49,910.24
15.14
49,910.24
63,699.24
63,679.92
19.32
63,679.92
8,967.25
8,964.53
2.72
8,964.53
3,215.61
3,214.63
0.98
3,214.63
393.27
393.15
0.12
393.15
1,765.11
1,764.57
0.54
1,764.57
1,186.00
1,185.64
0.36
1,185.64
37,614.72
37,603.31
11.41
37,603.31
63,487.44
63,468.18
19.26
63,468.18
230,254.02
230,184.17
69.85
230,184.17
detail for Sch III
Secured
SBE
Total Secured
Unsecured
Total Assessed
Value
LAND
131,249,548
0
131,249,548
249,404
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
ASSESSED VALUE WITHIN PROJECT AREA
IN SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
2000-2001 PRECEDING YEAR
SCHEDULE II
NET
ASSESSED
VALUE
429,407,466
0
429,407,466
79,515,576
131,498.,952 298,794,884 101,100,620 6,079,085 16,392,329 508,923,042
Per Health & Safety Code Section 33328 (f)
C:ExceRRDA_Project-1-14-02.x1s\Sch200-01\ems\1/16/02 SCHEDULE 11
I� �■ I� I� I� >• IIIA � IIIIII� >• II. IIIII� � _ III. � >• Ir ■� I�
HOME -
PERSONAL
OWNERS'
OTHER
IMPROVEMENTS
PROPERTY
EXEMPTION
EXEMPTIONS
284,896,947
33,660,531
6,079,085
14,320,475
0
0
0
0
284,896,947
33,660,531
6,079,085
14,320,475
13,897,937
67,440,089
0
2,071 ,854
NET
ASSESSED
VALUE
429,407,466
0
429,407,466
79,515,576
131,498.,952 298,794,884 101,100,620 6,079,085 16,392,329 508,923,042
Per Health & Safety Code Section 33328 (f)
C:ExceRRDA_Project-1-14-02.x1s\Sch200-01\ems\1/16/02 SCHEDULE 11
I� �■ I� I� I� >• IIIA � IIIIII� >• II. IIIII� � _ III. � >• Ir ■� I�
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
ASSESSED VALUE WITHIN PROJECT AREA
IN SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
2001-2002 BASE YEAR
Per Health & Safety Code Section 33328 (a)
C: Excel\C ityo(Lodi\RDA_P roject-1-14-02. xls\Sch 101-02\ems\1 /16/02 SCHEDULE I
SCHEDULEI
HOME-
NET
ADD
NET
PERSONAL
OWNERS
OTHER
ASSESSED
HOMEOWNER'S
BASE
LAND
IMPROVEMENTS
PROPERTY
EXEMPTION
EXEMPTIONS
VALUE
EXEMPTION
TOTAL
Secured
135,580,849
295,427,571
31,725,394
6,033,003
13,667,942
443,032,869
6,033,003
449,065,872
SBE
2,230,659
74,124
42,923
0
0
2,347,706
0
2,347,706
Total Secured
137,811,508
295,501,695
31,768,317
6,033,003
13,667,942
445,380,575
6,033,003
451,413,578
Unsecured
254,102
21,721,543
68,869,278
0
2,083,309
88,761 ,614
0
88,761,614
Total Assessed
Value
138,065,610
317,223,238
100,637,595
6,033,003
15,751,251
534,142,189
6,033,003
540,175,192
Per Health & Safety Code Section 33328 (a)
C: Excel\C ityo(Lodi\RDA_P roject-1-14-02. xls\Sch 101-02\ems\1 /16/02 SCHEDULE I
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
PER ASSESSOR'S CERTIFICATION 11/19/01 & 01-08-02
FY2001-02
SECURED UNSECURED
TRA TOTAL LAND IMPROV. PER PROP I H.O. EXEMPT OTHER IXMP LAND IMPROV. PER PROP OTHER EXMP
001-001 545,812,495 129,470,136 279,931,650 31,599,241 6,012,003 13,415,764 254,102 20,898,307 66,314,601 2,083,309
001-003 1,967,294 752,868 1,175,399 32,027 7,000 0 0 0 0 0
001-013 23,416,584 5,357,845 14,320,522 94,126 14,000 252,178 0 823,236 2,554,677 0
Total 571,196,373 135,580,849 ########## 31,725,394 6,033,003 13,667,942 254,102 21,721,543 68,869,278 2,083,309
571,196.373
FY2000-01
SECURED UNSECURED
TRA TOTAL LAND IMPROV. PER PROP I H.O. EXEMPT I OTHER IXMP LAND IMPROV. PER PROP OTHER EXMP
001.001 524,996,894 125,374,997 270,153,180 33,538,087 6,065,085 14,073,241 249,404 13,109,522 64,505,232 2,071,854
001-003 1,852,159 719,418 1,098,161 27,580 7,000 0 0 0 0 0
001-013 22,873,109 5,155,133 13,645,606 94,864 7,000 247,234 0 788,415 2,934,857 0
Total 549,722,162 131,249,548 ########## 33,660,531 6,079,085 14,320,475 249,404 13,897,937 67,440,089 2,071,854
549,722,162
C: ExcehC1tyofLodAR0A_ Project- 1-14-02.x1s%grossAV1EMS11116/02
Appendix H:
Tax Increment Projections
Appendix Table 1
Summary of Tax Increment Projections
Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project Area
Summary of Assumptions
Growth Assumptions
2001/02 Secured Assessed Value:
$449,065,872
2001102 State Board Assessed Value:
$2,347,706
2001/02 Unsecured Assessed Value:
$88.761.614
2001/02 Total Assessed Value:
$540,175,192
2001102 Unitary Payments:
$0
Annual Inflationary Adjustment: 2% of Secured AV
59,364
Reassessed Property Assessments: I% of Secured AV
Tax Revenues Remitted to Agency
Development Per Absorption Analysis
59,811,054
Annual Growth in State Board Assessed Value:
0.0`H,
Annual Growth in Unsecured Assessed Value:
0.0%
Annual Growth in Unitary Payments:
0.0%
Tax Increment Generation
98,270,644
Project Adopted between 12/2/01 and 8/20102
TI Available to Agency After Obligations
Property Tax Rate:
41,134,221
Tax Increment Cap:
N/A
County Property Tax Admin Fee:
1.5%
Pass -Through Payments and Net TI for Housing are calculated based on Incremental Tax Revenues.
2,898,984
Sponsoring Community
58,124,848
City receives pass-through
TI Available for Non -Housing Projects
Agency Administration Cost
26.090.860
Cost in FY 2002/03:
$0
Percent of TI to Agency net of Housing and Pass-Throughs:
10.0%
Present Value Discount Rate
1 38,235,237
Present value discounted to 2001/02 at:
5.5%
Tax Increment Projections From 2002/03 Throe h End of Project
Constant
Nominal Dollars
2001/02 Dollars
County Distribution of Basic Incremental Taxes
Incremental Tax Revenues
$290,624,240
$60,721,882
Less: County Property Tax Admin Fee34,
59,364
910.828
Tax Revenues Remitted to Agency
286,264,876
59,811,054
TI Available to Agency After Obligations
Tax Revenues Remitted to Agency
286,264,876
59,811,054
Less: Pass-Throughs to Taxing Entities
98,270,644
18,676,833
TI Available to Agency After Obligations
187,994,233
41,134,221
Projected Use of TI Funds
Agency Administration (Non-Hsg)
12,986,938
2,898,984
TI Available for Housing Programs
58,124,848
12,144,376
TI Available for Non -Housing Projects
116,882,446
26.090.860
Total TI Funds Used by Agency
187,994,233
41,134,221
Subtotal, TI for Housing & Projects
1 175,007,294
1 38,235,237
Cumulative TI for Housing Programs
2011/ 12
1,868,384
1,277,327
2021/ 22
8,548,893
4,114,577
2031/32
21,877,931
7,471,442
2046/47
58,124,848
12,144,376
Cumulative TI for Non -Housing Projects
2011/ 12
4,918,522
3,362,563
2021/22
20,650,259
10,095,888
2031/32
48,895,455
17,229,963
2046/47
116,882,446
26,090,860
Seifel Consulting Inc. T_Tl_Lodi 1_10_02.xls:Summ 4/30102
Appendix Table lA
Tax Increment Projections
Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project Area
(In Future Value or Nominal Dollars)
County Distribution
of Basic Incremental Taxes A enc Obligations Net Tax Increment
(1) 1 (3) (4) (5) (7) Available for
Incremental County Net Taxes Pass- Agency Housing Programs
year Fiscal Tax Admin Remitted Through Admin (8) (9)
(N) Year Revenues* Fee to Agency Payments Expenses Annual I Cumulat
0
2001102
1
11
1
11
I
2002103
0
0
C
C
0
0
C
2
2003/04
321,123
4,817
316,306
64,225
18,786
64,225
64,225
3
2004/05
465,476
6,982
453,494
93,095
27,230
93,095
157,32C
4
2005/06
• 627,666
9,415
618,251
125,533,
36,718'
125,533
282,85
5
2006/07
794,857
11,923
782,9341
158,971
46,499
158,971
441,824
6
2007108
1,005,402
15,081
990,32I
201,080
58,816
201,080
642,905
7
2008/ 09
1,213,9451,418,391
8209
1,195,735'
242,789
71,016
242,789
885,694
8
20091 10
1,418,391
21,2761
1,397,115
283,678
82,976
283,678
1,169,372
9
2010111
1,641,918
24,629'
1,617,289
328,384
96,052
328,384
1,497,755
10
2011/ 12
1,853,145
27,797
1,325,3481:
370,629
108,409'
370,629
1,868,381
11
2012/ 13
2,115,256
31,729
2,083,527
423,051
123,742.
423,051
2,291,436
12
2013/ 14
2,386,513
35,798
2,350,720
522,063
135,135
477,304
2,768,739
13
2014115
2,608,965
39,134
2,569,831
613,020;
143,502;
521,793
3,290,532
1 14
20151 16
2,862,441
42,937
2,819,505
702,016
154,500'
572,488
3,863,OZI
15
2016117
3,145,315
47,180
3,098,136
801,940
166,7131
629,063
4,492,084
16
2017/ 18
3,438,123
51,572
3,386,551
908,892
179,003'
687,625
5,179,708
17
2018119
3,716,834
55,753
3,661,082
1,014,794
190,292;
743,367
5,923,075
IS
2019120
4,048.21C
60,723
3,987,487
1,128,895
204,895
809,642
6,732,717
19
2020/21
4,390,748
65,861
4,324,887
1,254,031
219,271
878,150
7,610,867
20
2021/22
4,690,129
70,352
4,619,777
1,372,586
230,917
938,026
8,548,893
21
20221 23
5,000,599
75,009
4,925,590
1,486,149
243,932
1,000,120
9,549,013
22
2023/ 24
5,336,357
80,045
5,256,312
1,606,489
258,255
1,067,271
10,616,284
23
20241 25
5,683,420
85,251
5,598,168
1,733,373
272,811
1,136,684
11,752,96E
24
2025126
6,045,511
90,683
5,954,828
1,865,247
288,048
1,209,102
12,962,07C
Z5
2026/ 27
6,468,330
97,025
6,371,305
2,011,831
306,581
1,293,666
14,255,736
26
2027/ 28
6,869,479
103,042
6,766,436
2,164,335
322,821
1,373,896
15,629,632
27
2028129
7,224,813
108,372
7,116,441
2,304,240
336,724
1,444,963
17,074,594
28
2029130
7,592,458
113,887
7,478,572
2,438,842
352,124
1,518,492
18,593,086
Z9
2030131
8,006,967
120,105
7,886,863
2,584,730
370,074
1,601,393
20,194,48C
30
2031132
8,417,258
126,259
8,290,999
2,737,685
386,986
1,683,452
21,877,931
31
2032/ 33 ii
8,841,268
132,619
8,708,649
2,892,834
404,756
1,768,254
23,646,185
32
2033/34
9,279,102
139,187
9,139,916
3,101,469
418,263
1,855,820
25,502,005
33
2034/35
9,691,423
145,371
9,546,051
3,308,948
429,882
1,938,285
27,440,29C
34
2035/36
10,116,885
151,753
9,965,132
3,511,990
442,976
2,023,377
29,463,667
35
2036/37
10,555,112
158,327
10,396,785
3,721,124
456,464
2,111,022
31,574,689
36
2037138
11,006,485
165,097
10,841,387
3,936,532
470,356
2,201,297
33,775,986
37
2038139
11,471,399
172,071
11,299,328
4,158,402
484,665
2,294,280
36,070,266
38
2039/40
11,950,261
179,254
11,771,007
4,386,928
499,403
2,390,052
38,460,318
39
2040141
12,443,488
186,652
12,256,836
4,622,31C
514,583
2,488,698
40,949,016
40
204t/ 42
12,951,513
194,273
12,757,240
4,864,753
530,218
2,590,303
43,539,318
41
2042/43
13,474,778
202,122
13,272,656
5,114,470
546,323
2,694,956
46,234,274
42
2043/44
14,013,741
210,206
13,803,535'',
5,371,678
562,911
2,802,748
49,037,022
43
2044/45
14,568,873
218,533
14,350,340
5,636,602
579,996
2,913,775
51,950,797
44
2045/ 46
15,140,659
227,110
14,913,549
5,909,474'
597,594
3,028,132
54,978,928
45
2046/47
15,729,598
235.944
15,493,65411
6.190,533
1 615,720
3,145,920
58 124 848
OTAL
290,624,240
4,359,364
286,264,876
98,270,6441
12,986,938
58,124,848
umulative
To:
2011/ 12
9,341,922
140,129
9,201,794
1,868,384
546,502
1,868,384�tlr
To:
2021122
42,744,464
641,167
42,103,297
10,609,672
2?94,473
8,548,893
To:
2031/ 32
109,389,656
1,640,845
107,748,811
31,542,596
5,432,828
21,877,93115
+s
To:
2046147
290 624,240
4,359 364
286,264 876
98 270,644
12,986,93811
58 124,848
a r.
Based on revenues from Basic Tax Increment (1.0%), exclusive of bond overrides.
Assumptions:
County Admin
Fee as a % of Incremental
Tax Revenues: 1.5%
Pass -Through Payments and Net TI for Housing
are calculated based on Incremental Tax Revenues
Agency Admin
as a % of Tl net of Housing & Pass -Through s:
10%
Tl for Housing Programs as a `Y of Incremental Tax Revenues: 20%
i
Net Tax Increment '
Available for
Ion-Housin¢ Proiects
0 0
169,071 169,071
245,073 414,144
330,466 744,610
418,492.1 1,163,1031
529,344 1,69Z,447
639,142' 2,331,538'
746,7831 3,078,371
864,4701 3,942,841
975,681 4,918,522
1,113,682 6,032,205
1,216,2181 7,248,423
1,191,516 8,539,939
1,390,501 9,930,440
1,500,419 11,430,858
1,611,031 13,041,890
1,712,629 14,754,519
1,844,055 16,598,574
1,973,436 18,572,010
2,078,249 20,650,259
2,195,389 22,845,648
2,324,296 25,169,944
2,455,300 27,625,244
2,592,431 30,217,675
2,759,227 32,976,902,
2,905,385 35,882,287
3,030,514 38,912,801
3,169,114 42,081,914
3,330,665 45,412,580
3,642,805 52,538,261
3,764,364 56,302,624
3,868,937 60,171,562
3,986,788 64,158,350
4,108,175 68,266,524
4,233,203 72,499,727
4,361,982 76,861,708
4,494,624 81,356,332
4,631,246 85,987.578
4,771,966 90,759,544
4,916,908 95,676,452
5,066,198 100, 742,649
5,219,967 105,962,616
5,3 78,348 111,340,964
4,918,522
20,650,259
48,895,455
n
L�
J
Seifel Consulting Inc. T_TI_Lodi 1_10_02.x&:Tl 4130/02 1
Appendix Table 2B
Tax Increment Projections
Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project Area
(In Present Value or Constant 2001/02 Dollars)
* Based on revenues from Basic Tax Increment (1.096), exclusive of bond overrides.
Assumptions:
Present value discounted to 2001/02 at: 5.5%
Seitel Consulting Inc T'_T]_Lodi 1_1D_02.x1s:T1 4/30/02
County Distribution
of Basic Incremental Taxes
Agency Obligations
Net Tax Increment
Net Tax Increment
(l)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(7)
Available for
Available for
Incremental
County
Net Taxes
Pass-
Agency
Housine Programs
Non-Housin Projects
rear Fiscal
Tax
Admin
Remitted
Through
Admin
1
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
IN) Year
Revenues*
Fee
to Agency
Payments
Expenses
Annual
Cumulative
Annual
Cumulative
0 2001/02
1 200Z/03
0
0
Oi
0
0
0
0
0
e
2 2003104
288,513
4,328
284,186
57,703
16,878
57,703
57,703
151,902
151,902
3 2004/05
396,406
5,946
390,460
79,281
23,190
79,281
136,984
208,708
360,610
4 2005106
506,663
7,600
499,063
101,333
29,640
101,333
238,316
266,758
627,368
5 2006107
608,172
9,123
599,050
121,634
35,578
121,634
359,951
320,203
947,570
6 2007/08
7Z9,164
10,937
718,226
145,833
42,656
145,833
505,784
383,905
1,331,475
7 2008/09
834,510
12,518
821,993
166,902
48,819
166,902
672,686
439,370
1,770,845
8 2009/ 10
924,2ZZ
13,863
910,359
184,844
54,067
184,844
857,530
486,603
2,257,448
9 2010111
1,014,097
15,211
998,885
202,819
59,325
202,819
1,060,349
533,922
2,791,370
10 2011/ 12
1,084,888
16,273
1,068,615
216,978
63,466
216,978
1,277,327
571,193
3,362,563
11 2012/ 13
1 1,173,778
17,607
1,156,171
234,756
68,666
234,756
1,512,082
617,994
3,980,557
12 2013/ 14
1,255,264
18,829
1,236,435
274,596
71,079
251,053
1,763,135
639,708
4,620,265
13 20141 15
1 1,300,727
19,511
1,281,217
305,628
71,544
260,145
2,023,281
643,899
5,264,164
14 2015/ 16
1,352,702
20,291
1,332,412
331,751
73,012
270,540
2,293,821
657,108
5,921,272
15 2016117
1,408,891
21,133
1,387,757
359,216
74,676
281,778
2,575,599
672,087
6,593,360
16 2017/ 18
1,459,762
21,896
1,437,866
385,898
76,001
291,952
2,867,552
684,013
7,277573
17 2018/ 19
1,495,827
22,437
1,473,390
408,400
76,582
299,165
3,166,717
689,242
7,966,615
18 2019/20
1,544,254
23,164
1,521,090
430,635
78,160
308,851
3,475,568
703,444
8,670,059
19 2020121
1,587,603
23,814
1,563,789
453,431
79,284
317,521
3,793,089
713,553
9,383,612
20 2021122
1,607,443
24,112
1,583,331
470,425
79,142
321,489
4,114,577
712,276
10,095,888
21 2022/ 23
1,624,503
24,368
1,600,135
482,793
79,244
324,901
4,439,478
713,198
10,809,086
22 2023124
1,643,201
24,648
1,618,553
494,679
79,523
328,640
4,768,118
715,710
11,524,796
23 2024125
1,658,835
24,883
1,633,952
505,924
79,626
331,767
5,099,885
716,635'
12,241,431
24 2025126
1,672,530
25,088
1,647,442
516,033
79,690
334,506
5,434,391
717,213
12,958,644
25 2026/27
1,696,214
25,443
1,670,771
527,570
80,396
339,243
5,773,634
723,562
13,682,206
26 2027/28
1,707,497
25,612
1,681,884
537,973
80,241
341,499
6,115,133
722,171
14,404,377
N 2028129
1,702,198
25,533
1,676,666
542,889
79,334
340,440
6,455,573
714,003
15,118,380
28 2029/30
1,695,562
25,433
1,670,128
544,647
78,637
339,112
6,794,685
707,732
15,826,112
29 2030/31
1,694,910
25,424
1,669,487
547,134
78,337
338,982
7,133,667
705,033
16,531,145
30 2031132
1,688,872
25,333
1,663,539
549,300
77,646
337,774
7,471,442
698,818
17,229,963
31 2032/33
1,681,467
25,222
1,656,245
550,171
76,978
336,293
7,807,735
692,803
17,922,766
32 2033/34
1,672,735
' 25,091
1,647,644
559,099
75,400
334,547
8,142,282
678,598
18,601,365
33 2034135
1,655,985
24,840
1,631,145
565,404
73,454
331,197
8,473,479
661,090,
19,262,455
34 2035/36
1,638,563
24,578
1,613,985
568,813
71,746
327,713
8,801,192
645,713
19,908,168
35 2036/37
1,620,417
24,306
1,596,111
571,266
70,076
324,083
9,125,275
630,685
20,538,85.3
36 2037/38
1,601,622
24,024
1,577,598
572,829
68,444
320,324
9,445,600
616,000
21,154,853
37 2038/39
1,582,251
23,734
1,558,517
573,569
66,850
316,450
9,762,050
601,648
21,756,501
38 2039140
1,562,370
23,436
1,538,935
573,544
65,292
312,474
10,074,524
587,625
22,344,126
39 2040/41
1,542,042
23,131
1,518,911
572,813
63,769
308,408
10,382,932
573,921
22,918,046
40 2041/42
1,521,325
22,820
1,498,505
571,429
62,281
304,265
10,687,197
560,530
23,478,576
41 2042/43,
1,500,275
22,504
1,477,771
569,442
60,827
300,055
10,987,252
547,446
24,026,022
42 2043/44
1,478,941
22,184
1,456,757
566,900
59,407
295,788
11,283,040
534,661
24,560,684
43 2044/45
1,457,371
21,861
1,435,511
563,847
58,019
291,474
11,574,515
522,170
25,082,854
44 2045146
1,435,610
21,534
1,414,076
560,326
56,663
287,122
11,861,637
509,965
25,592,819
45 2046147
1,413 699
21,205
1,392 494
556,375
55,338
282 740
12,144,376
498.D411
26.090,860
[OTAL
60,721,882
910,828
59,811,054
18,676,833
2,898,984
12,144,376
26,090,860,;
-:'
'umulative
j x
#
' U
To: 2011112
6,386,634
95,800
6,290,835
1,277,327
373,618
1,277,32731
3,362,563:
To: 2021/22
20,572,886
308,593
20,264,293
4,932,062
1,121,765
4,114,577
f '
10,095 888
" .,
To: 2031132
37,357,208
560,358
36,796,850
10,181,005
1,914,440
7,471,442
§ a
17,229963:
�y;
To: 2046/47
: 60,721,8821
912M
59,811 ,05
18,676 833
2,898,984
12,144 376
' gu , aka <.,:1
26090.860
* Based on revenues from Basic Tax Increment (1.096), exclusive of bond overrides.
Assumptions:
Present value discounted to 2001/02 at: 5.5%
Seitel Consulting Inc T'_T]_Lodi 1_1D_02.x1s:T1 4/30/02
Appendix Table 3A
Tax Revenues
Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project Area
(In Future Value or Nominal Dollars)
t
i
r
l
J
7
Notes:
First & Second Payments to Agency
Su lemental Payments
Total Basic Tax Revenues
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Secured,
Increase
First &
Supplemental
Supplemental
First &
Supplemental
Unitary
Incremental
Year Fiscal
State Board,
in AV
Second
Secured
Secured
Second
Secured
Payments
Tax
(N) Year
Unsecurd AV
Over Base
Payments
Assessements
Payments
Payments
Payments
Revenues
0 2001/02
540,175,192
1 2002/03
553,647,168
13,471,976
0
4,625,378
0
0
0
0
0
2 2003104
567,523,304
27,348,112
273,481
4,764,140
47,641
273,481
47,641
0
321,123
3 2004/05
581,815,723
41,640,531
416,405
4,907,064
49,071
416,405
49,071
0
465,476
4 2005/06
596,536,915
56,361,723
563,617
6,404,887
64,049
563,617
64,049
0
627,666
5 2006107
613,050,354
72,875,162
728,752
6,610,539
66,105
728,752
66,105
0
794,857
6 2007108
630,099,714
89,924,522
899,245
10,615,674
106,157
899,245
106,157
0
1,005,402
7 2008109
651,495,195
111,320,003
1,113,200
10,074,450
100,745
1,113,200
100,745
0
1,213,945
8 2009/ 10
672,777,363
132,602,171
1,326,022
9,236,960
92,370
1,326,022
92,370
0
1,418,391
9 2010/ 11
693,647,683
153,472,491
1,534,725
10,719,305
107,193
1,534,725
107,193
0
1,641,918
10 2011112
716,417,756
176,242,564
1,762,426
9,071,949
90,719
1,762,426
90,719
0
1,853,145
11 2012113
737,995,874
197,820,682
1,978,207
13,704,948
137,049
1,978,207
137,049
0
2,115,256
l2 2013/ 14
764,638,553
224,463,361
2,244,634
14,188,457
141,885
2,244,634
141,885
0
2,386,518
13 2014115
792,297,595
252,122,403
2,521,224
8,774,123
87,741
2,521,224
87,741
0
2,608,965
14 2015/16
815,095,483
274,920,291
2,749,203
11,323,854
113,239
2,749,203
113,239
0
2,862,441
15 2016( 17
840,899,061
300,723,869
3,007,239
13,807,665
138,077
3,007,239
138,077
0
3,145,315
16 2017/ 18
869,702,521
329,527,329
3,295,273
14,284,993
142,85C
3,295,273
142,850
0
3,438,123
17 Z018/ 19
899,559,378
359,384,186
3,593,842
12,299,262
122,993
3,593,842
122,993
0
3,716,834
18 2019/20
928,027,641
387,852,449
3,878,524
16,968,598
169,686
3,878,524
169,686
0
4,048,210
19 2020/ 21
961,734,606
421,559,414
4,215,594
17,515,429
175,154
4,215,594
175,154
0
4,390,748
20 2021( 22
996,662,540
456,487,348
4,564,873
12,525,523
125,255
4,564,873
125,255
0
4,690,129
21 2022] 23
1,027,299,128
487,123,936
4,871,239
(Z,935,989
129,360
4,871,239
129,360
0
5,000,599
22 2023/ 24
1,058,958,913
518,783,721
5,187,837
14,851,975
148,520
5,187,837
148,520
0
5,336,357
23 Z024/Z5
1,093,167,880
552,992,688
5,529,927
15,349,269
153,493
5,529,927
153,493
0
5,683,420
24 2025126
1,128,558,321
588,383,129
5,883,831
16,167,953
161,680
5,883,831
161,680
0
6,045,511
25 2026/27
1,165,475,254
625,300,062
6,253,001
21,532,897
215,329
6,253,001
215,329
0
6,468,330
26 2027/28
1,208,495,470
668,320,278
6,683,203
18,627,580
186,276
6,683,203
186,276
0
6,869,479
27 20Z81Z9
1,249,470,773
709,295,581
7,092,956
13,185,719
131,857
7,092,956
131,857
0
7,224,813
28 2029/ 30
1,285,823,721
745,648,529
7,456,485
13,597,312
135,973
7,456,485
135,973
0
7,592,458
29 2030/31
1,323,315,321
783,140,129
7,831,401
17,556,581
175,566
7,831,401
175,566
0
8,006,967
30 2031/ 32
1,365,516,022
825,340,830
8,253,408
16,384,961
163,850
8,253,408
163,850
0
8,417,258
31 203Z/ 33
1,407,369,117
867,213,925
8,672,139
16,912,918
169,129
8,672,139
169,129
0
8,841,268
32 2033134
1,450,627,631
910,452,439
9,104,524
17,457,807
174,578
9,104,524
174,578
0
9,279,102
33 2034/35
1,495,275,805
955,100,613
9,551,006
14,041,665
140,417
9,551,006
140,417
0
9,691,423
34 2035/36
1,537,400,799
997,225,607
9,972,256
14,462,915
144,629
9,972,256
144,629
0
10,116,885
35 2036/37
1,580,789,544
1,040,614,352
10,406,144
14,896,802
148,968
10,406,144
148,968
0
10,555,112
36 2037138
1,625,479,950
1,085,304,758
10,853,048
15,343,706
153,437
10,853,048
153,437
0
11,006,485
37 2038139
1,671,511,069
1,I31,335,677
11,313,359
15,804,017
158,040
11,313,359
158,040
0
11,471,399
38 2039/40
1,718,923,122
1,178,747,930
11,787,479
16,278,138
162,781
11,787,479
162,781
0
11,950,261
39 2040141
1,767,757,536
1,227,582,344
IZ,275,823
16,766,482
167,665
12,275,823
167,665
0
12,443,488
40 2041/42
1,818,056,982
1,277,881,790
12,778,818
17,269,477
172,695
iZ,778,818
172,695
0
12,951,513
41 2042/43
1,869,865,412
1,329,690,220
13,296,902
17,787,561
177,876
13,296,902
177,876
0
13,474,778
42 2043/ 44
1,923,228,095
1,383,052,903
13,830,529
18,321,188
183,212
13,830,529
183,212
0
14,013,741
43 2044/ 45
1,978,191,658
1,438,016,466
14,.380,165
181870.823
188,708
14,380,165
188,708
0
14,568,873
44 2045/46
2,034,804,128
1,494,628,936
14946289
19,436,948
194,369
14,946,289
194,369
0
15,140,659
45 2046/47
2.093.114.973
1552 939 781
15:529:398120
020 057
200,201
15.529,398.
200,201
0
15,729.598
TOTAL
x
284,407654
SYS,
6,216,586
284,407,654
6,216,586
0
290,624,240
Cumulativeg
To: 2011( 12}
k,i
8,617 8734
724,05
8,617,873
124,050
0
9,341,922
at 1 stn;s.s
t��
,
To: 2021122
r
40,666 486
2,077,978
40,666,486
21077,978
0L�a
To: 2031( 32s
M3'th' 2L4 S k fai€3 '+w b
105,709 775
y i8` i
s
3,679,881
105,709,775
3,679,881
0
To: 2046( 47
si' i r • € ?
284.4 654
x '
6,216,586
284 407 654
6,216,586
0
t
i
r
l
J
7
Notes:
First & Second Payments are based on the I% basic tax rate applied to the Increase in AV Over Base.
Supplemental Secured Assessments include reassessed property and new development.
Supplemental Secured Payments are based on the 1% basic [ax rate applied to the Supplemental Secured Assessments
'
Unitary payments are
estimated to escalate at an annual rale of: 0%
Seifel Consulting Inc. T_TI_Lodi 1_10 02.xls:Tl 4/30102 1
Appendix Table 3B
Growth in Assessed Value
Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project Area
(in Future Value or Nominal Dollars)
--
Growth
in Secured i iessed Value
Total Secured
State Board
and Unsecured
AV
(2)
Grov:
Rates
(8)
(9)
(1)
(3) (4)
(7)
(10)
(5)
(6)
Secured
Inflationary
Reassessed New
Secured
State
Unsecured
Secured,
'ear Fiscal AV
Adjustments
Property Development
Annual
Average
Board
AV
State Board,
N) Year
Assessments Assessments
Annual
Unsecurd AV
0 2001] 02 449,065,872
8,981,317
4,490,659 C
449,065,872
2,347,706
88,761,614
540,175,192
1 2002103 462,537,848
9,250,757
4,625,378 C
3.00%
3.00%
462,537,848
2,347,706
88,761,614
553,647,168
2 2003/04 476,413,984
9,528,280
4,764340 0
3.00%
3.00%
476,413,984
2,347,706
88,761,614
567,523,304
3 2004/05 490,706,403
9,814,128
4,907,064 C
3.00%
3.00%
490,706,403
2,347,706
88,761,614
581,815,723
4 2005/06 505,427,595
10,108,552
5,054,276 1,350,611
3.00%
3.00%
505,427,5951
2,347,706
88,761,614
596,536,915
5 2006/07 521,941,034
10,438,821
5,219,410 1,391,129
3.27%
3.05%
521,941,0341
2,347,706
88,761,614
613,050,354
6 2007108 53B,990,394
10,779,808
5,389,904 5,225,770
3.27%
3.09%
538,990,394
2,347,706
88,761,614
630,099,714
7 2008109 560,385,875
11,207,718
5,603,859. 4,470,592
3.97%
3.21%
560,385,875
2,347,706
88,761,614
651,495,195
8 2009/ IC 581,668,043
11,633,361
5,816,680 3,420,279
3.8N-
3.2911,1
581,668,043
2,347,706
88,761,614
672,777,363
9 2010/ 11 602,538,363
12,050,767
6,025,384: 4,693,922
3.59%
3.32%
602,538,363
2,347,706
88,761,614
693,647,683
10 2011/ 12 625,308,436
12,506,169
6,253,084' 2,818,865
3.78%
3.37%
625,308,436
2,347,706
88,761,614
716,417,756
11 2012/131 646,886,554
12,937,731
6,468,8661 71236,083
3.45%
3.37%
646,886,554
2,347,706
88,761,614
737,995,874
12 2013114 673,529,233
13,470,585
6,735,292 7,453,165
4.12%
3.44%
673,529233
2,347,706
88,761,614
764,638,553
13 2014115 701,188,275
14,023,765
7,011,883 1,762,240
4.11%
3.49%
701,188,275
2,347,706
88,761,614
792,297,595
14 20151 16 723,986,163
14,479,723
7,239,862 4,083,992,
3.25%
3.47%
: 723,986,163
2,347,706
88,761,614
815,095,483
15 20161 17 . 749,789,741
14,995,795
7,497,897; 6,309,768
3.56%
3.48%
749,789,741
2,347,706
88,761,614
840,899,061
16 2017118 778,593,201
15,571,864
1,785,932 6,499,061•
3.84%
3.50%
1 778,593,201
2,347,706
88,761,614
869,702,521
17 2018/ 19 808,450,058
16,169,001
8,084,501 4,214,761
3.83%
3.52%
1 808,450,058
2,347,706
88,761,614
899,559,378
18 2019/ 20 836,918,321
16,738,366
8,369,133 8,599,415
3.52%
3.52%
836,918,321
2,347,706
88,761,614
928,027,641
19 2020121 870,625,286
17,412,506
8,706,253
3.55%
870,625,286
2,347,706
88,761,614
961,734,606
20 2021122 905,553,220
18,111,0164
9,055,532
3.57%
905,553,220
2,347,706
88,761,614
996,662,540
21 2022/23 936,189,808'
18,723,796
9,361,898
3.56%
936,189,808
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,027,299,128
22 2023124 967,849,593
19,356,992
9,678,496
3.55%
967,849,593
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,058,958,913
23 2024/ 25 1,002,058,560
20,041,171
10,020,58E
3.55`Yo
1,002,058,560
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,093,167,880
24 2025/ 26 1,037,449,001
20,748,980
10,374,49C
3.55%
1,037,449,001
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,128,558,321
25 2026/27 1,074,365,934
21,487,319
10,743,659
3.55%
1,074,365,934
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,165,475,254
26 2027/28 1,117,386,150
22,347,723
11,173,861
3.57%
1,117,386,150
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,208,495,470
27 2028/29 1,158,361,453
23,167,229
11,583,615
3.57%
1,158,361,453
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,249,470,773
28 2029/30 1,194,714,401
23,894,288
11,947,144
3.56%
1,194,714,401
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,285,823,721
29 2030131 1,232,206,001
24,644,120
12,322,06C
3.54%
1,232,206,001
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,323,315,321
30 2031132 1,274,406,702
25,488,134
12,744,067
3.54%
1,274,406,702
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,365,516,022
31 2032/ 33 1,316,279,797
26,325,596
13,162,79E
3.53%
1,316,279,797
2,347.706
88,761,614
1,407,389,117
32 2033/34 1,359,518,311
27,190,366
13,595,183
3.52%
1,359,518,311
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,450,627,631
33 Z034/ 35 1,404,166,485
28,083,330
14,041,665
3.52%
1,404,166,485
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,495,275,805
34 2035/36 1,446,291,479
28,925,830
14,462,915
3.50%
1,446,291,479
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,537,400,799
35 2036/37 1,489,680,224
29,793,604
14,896,802
3.49%
1,489,680,224
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,580,789,544
36 2037/ 38 1,534,370,6301
30,687,413
15,343,706
3.47%
1,534,370,630
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,625,479,950
37 2038/39 1,580,401,7491
31,608,035
15,804,017
3.46%
1,580,401,749
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,671,511,069
38 2039140 1,627,813,802
32,556,276
16,278,13E
3.45%
1,627,813,802;
2,347,706
88,761,6141
1,718,923,122
39 2040/41 1,676,648,216
33,532,964
16,766,482
3.44%
1,676,648,216
2,347,706;
88,761,6141
1,767,757,536
40 2041142 1,726947,662
34,538,953
17,269,471
3.42%
1,726,947,662
2,347,706'
88,761,6141
1,818,056,982
41 20421 43 1,778,756,092
35,575,122
17,787,561
3.41%
1,778,756,092'
2,347,7061
88,761,6141
1,869,865,412
42 2043/ 44 1,832,118,7751
36,642,376
18,321,18E
3.40%
1,832,118,775,
2,347,706]
88,761,614;
1,923,228,095
43 2044/45 1,887,082,3381
37,741,647
18,870,823
3.40%
1,887,082,338
2,347,7061
88,761,614!
1,978,191,658
44 2045/ 46 1,943,694,8081
38,873,896,
19,436,948
3.39%
1,943,694,8081
2,347,706
88,761,614,
2,034,804,128
45 2046/47 2,002,005 653
40 040113
20 020,057 0
3.00%
3.38%
2,002 005 653
2,347.706
88 761614
2.09M 14,973
C71AL z e ,
a...." 139.661,925;
"i
?:.,, s
�.t A'1�<':
'umulativeg
n
To: 2011/12 23
a z'
`
To: 21( Z2 ,8166
81,80819
To: 2031132 $ 132,049,180
£
x
To: 2046/ 139,661 925
Assumptions:
Annual Inflationary Adjustment: 2% of Secured AV State Board Annual Increase: 0%
Reassessed Property Assessments: 191, of Secured AV Unsecured AV Annual Increase: 0%
Development Per Absorption Analysis
Seifel Consulting Inc. T_TI_Lodi 1_10_02.xls:Tl 4/30/02
Appendix Table 4
New Development Schedule
Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project Area
(In Present Value or Constant 2001/02 Dollars, unless otherwise noted)
Future value based on 2001/02 values escalated annually at: 3%
L
J
C
Seifel Comuulttng luc. T_TI_Ludi 1_10_02.xis:Devt 4/30/02 1
Residential,
RetaiXfDining
Commercial
Heavy
Warehouse/
Total
Vacant Land
Commercial
Office
Industrial
Light Industrial
Assessed Value
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(7)
(8)
Incremental
Incremental
Incremental
Incremental
Incremental
Constant
Escalated to
Year Fiscal
Assessed Value
Square
Assessed Value
Square
Assessed Value
Square
Assessed Value
Square
Assessed Valuf
2001/02
Nominal
(N) Year
Units
( 150.000 unit)
Feet
55 SF
Feet
90 'F
Feet
($60 'F)
Feet
($50/SF)
Dollars
Dollars
0 200 L/ 02
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 2002/ 03
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2 2003104
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3 2004105
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4 2005/06
8
1,200,000
0
0
0
0
1,200,000
1,350,611
5 2006107
8
1,200,000
0
0
0
0
1,200,000
1,391,129
6 2007/ 08
8
1,200.000
16,300
896,500
12,000
11080,000
201000
1,200,000
0
4,376,500
5,225,770
7 2008/09
8
1,200,000
17,000
935,000
0
25,000
1,500,000
0
3,635,000
4,470,592
8 2009/ 10
8
1,200,000
0
0
25,000
1,500,000
0
2,700,000
3,420,279
9 2010/ 11
8
1,200,000
0
0
25,000
1,500,000
17,950
897,500
3,597,500
4,693,922
10 2011/ 12
8
1,200,0000
0
0
17,950
897,500
2,097,500
2,818,865
11 2012/ 13
8
1,200,000
34,000
1,870,000
14,000
1,260,000
0
17,950
897,500
5,227,500
7,236,083
12 2013/ 14
8
1,200,000
34,000
1,870,000
14,000
1,260,000
0
17,950
897,500
5,227,500
7,453,165
1.3 2014/ 15
8
1,200,000
0
0
0
0
11200,000
1,762,240
14 2015/ 16
8
1,200,000
0
0
25,000
11500,000
0
2,700,000
4,083,992
15 2016117
8
1,200,000
0
15,000
1,350,000
25,000
1,500,000
0
4,050,000
6,309,768
Ili 20171 18
8
1,200,000
0
15,000
1,350,000
25,000
1,500,000
0
4,050,000
6,499,061
17 20181 19
8
1,200,000
0
0
22,500
1,350,000
0
2,550,000
4,214,761
18 2019/20
8
1,200,000
34,000
1.870,000
14,000
1,260,000
0
14,425
721,250
5,051,250
8,599,415
19 2020/ 21
8
1,200,000
33,500
1,842,500
14,000
1,260,000
0
14,425
721,250
5,023,750
8,809,176
20 2021/ 22
8
1,200,000
0
0
0
14,425
721,250
1,921,250
3,469,991
21 2022/ 23
8
1,200,000
0
0
0
14,425
721,250
1,921,250
3,574,09L
22 2023124
8
1,200,000
0
0
25,000
1,500,000
0
2,700,000
5,173,479
23 2024125
8
1,200,000
0
0
25,000
1,500,000
0
2,700,000
5,328,684
24 2025/ 26
9
1,350,000
0
0
25,000
1,500,000
0
2,850,000
5,793,463
25 2026/ 27
9
1,350,000
17,000
935,000
15,200
1.368,000
25,000
1,500,000
0
5,153,000
10,789,238
26 2027/ 28
0
17,000
935,000
20,000
1,800,000
0
14,425
721,250
3,456,250
7,453,719
27 2028129
0
0
0
0
14,425
721,250
721,250
1,602,105
28 20291 30
0
0
0
0
14,425
721,250
721,2501,650,168
29 2030/ 31
0
0
0
25,000
1,500,000
14,425
721,250
2,221,250
5,234,521
30 2031132
0
0
0
25,000
1,500,000
0
1,500,000
3,640,894
31 2032/ 33
0
0
0
25,000
1,500,000
0
1,500,000
3,750,121
32 2033/ 34
0
0
0
25,000
1,500,000
0
1,500,000
3,862,624
33 2034135
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34 2035/ 36
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35 2036/ 37
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36 2037138
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37 2038139
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
38 2039140
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39 2040141
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40 2041/42
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
41 2042143
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
42 2043144
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43 2044/45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44 2045/46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45 2046/47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
178
26,700,000
202,800
11,154,000
133,200
11,988,000
392,500
23,550,000
187,200
9,360,000
82,752,000
139,661,925
Cumulative
To: 201111256
8,400,000
33,300
1,831,500
12,000
1,080,000
95,000
5,700,000
35,900
1,795,000
18,806,500
23,371,166
To: 2021/ 22
136
20,400,000
168,800
9,284,000
98,000
8,820,000
192,500
11,550,000
115,075
5,753,750
55,807,750
81,808,819
To: 2031/ 32
178
26,700,000
202,800
IL,154,000
133,200
11 11
342,500
20,550,000
187,200
9,360,000
79,752,000
132,049,180
To: 204b 47
178
26,700,000
202 800
t 1154 000
133 200
I l 988 000
39Z,500
23,550,000
187,200
9,360,000
82 752000
139 661 925
Future value based on 2001/02 values escalated annually at: 3%
L
J
C
Seifel Comuulttng luc. T_TI_Ludi 1_10_02.xis:Devt 4/30/02 1
Appendix Table 5A
Pass -Through Payments to Affected Taxing Entities
Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project Area
(1n Future Value or Nominal Dollars)
ERAF Adjusted Levies
[A] The City's pass-through is based only on the first tier of the ABI 290 pass-through. Its shares of the second and third
tiers are retained by the Agency.
Seifel Consulring Inc T_TI Lodi 1_10 02.xls:PThru 4/30102
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
City
County
Lodi
San Joaquin
County
San Joaquin
San Joaquin
North
ERAF
Total
General
General
Unified
Delta Comm.
Office of
Cty Flood
County
San Joaquin
Pass-Throughs
Fund"'
Schools
College
Education
Control
Mosquito
Water Cons.
year Fiscal
(N) Year
Leve: 1639%
Levy: 21.67%,
Levv: 27.64%
Leve: 3.89`:6
Levy: 1.39%+
Leve 0.17%,
Levy: 0.77%,
Levy: 0.51%
Levv: 2751%
Levy: 100.00%,
0 2001/ 02
1 '_002103
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20031 04
10,528
13,915
17,755
2,496
893
109
492
329
17.707
64,225
3 20041 05
15,261
20,171
25,736
3,618
1,294
159
713
477
25,667
93,095
4 20051 06
20,579
27.199
34,703
4,379
1,745
214
961
643
34,611
125,533
5 20061 07
26,060
34.444
43,947
6,178
2,209
271
1,217
814
43,830
158,971
6 2007) 08
32,964
43,568
55,588
7,815
2,794
343
1,539
1,030
55,439
201,080
7 2008109
39,801
52,605
67,119
9,436
3,374
414
1,858
1,244
66,939
242,789
8 2009/ 10
46,504
61,464
78,422
11,025
3,942
484
2,171
1,453
78,212
283,678
9 2010111
53,833
71,150
90,781
12,763
4,563
560
2,514
1,682
90,538
328,384
10 20111 12
60,758
80,304
102,460
14,405
5,151
632
2,837
1,898
102,185
370,629
11 2012/ 13
69,352
91,662
116,952
16,442
5,879
721
3,238
2,167
116,639
423,051
12 20131 14
78,245
113,115
144,324
20,290
7,255
890
3,996
2,674
151,275
522,063
13 20141 15
85,539
132,822
169,468
23,825
8,519
1,045
4,692
3,140
183,970
613,020
14 20151 16
93,849
152,105
194,071
27,284
9,756
1,197
5,374
3,596
214,785
702,016
15 2016117
103,124
173,755
221,695
31,168
11,144
1,367
6,139
4,107
249,442
801,940
16 20171 18
112,724
196,928
251,262
35,324
12,631
1,549
6,957
4,655
286,862
908,892
17 20181 19
121,862
219,874
280,538
39,440
14,102
1,730
7,768
5,198
324,282
1,014,794
IS 20191 20
132,726
244,596
312,081
43,875
15,688
1,924
8,641
5,782
363,581
1,128,895
19 20201 21
143,957
271,709
346,675
48,738
17,427
2,137
9,599
6,423
407,365
1,254,031
20 2021122
153,772
297,396
379,449
53,346
19,075
2,340
10,507
7,030
449,671
1,372,586
21 20221 23
163,952
322.002
410,844
57,760
20,653
2,533
11,376
7,612
489,419
1,486,149
22 20231 24
174,960
348,076
444,111
62,437
22,325
2,738
12,297
8,228
531,317
1,606,489
23 2024/ 25
186,339
375,567
479,188
67,368
24,088
2,954
13,268
8,878
575,721
1,733,373
24 2025/ 26
198,211
404,140
515,645
72,493
25,921
3,179
14,278
9,553
621,827
1,865,247
25 20261 27
212,073
435,900
556,168
78,190
27,958
3,429
15,400
10,304
672,408
2,011,831
26 2027/ 28
225,225
468.943
598,327
84.118
30,077
3,689
16,567
11,085
726,303
2,164,335
27 2028/29
236,876
_ 499,256
637,004
89,555
32,022
3,928
17.638
11,802
776,161
2,304,240
28 20291 30
248,929
528,420
674,214
94,786
33,892
4,157
18,669
12,491
823,283
2,438,842
29 2030/31
262,520
560,030
714,545
10,456
35,919
4,406
19,785
13,238
873,831
2,584,730
30 2031/ 32
275,972
593,170
756,829
106,401
38,045
4,666
20,956
14,022
927,625
2,737,685
31 20321 33
289,873
626,786
799,720
112,431
40,201
4,931
22,144
14,817
981,932
2,892,834
32 2033134
304,228
671,991
857,396
120,540
43,100
5,286
23,741
15,885
1,059,302
3,101,469
33 2034135
317,747
716,945
914,754
128,603
45,984
5,640
25,329
16,948
1,136,999
3,308,948
34 2035136
331,696
760,938
970,884
136,495
48,805
5,986
26,883
17,988
1,212,315
3,511,990
35 2036137
346,064
806,250
1,023,699
144,623
51,712
6,343
28,484
19,059
1,289,891
3,721,124
36 2037138
360,863
852,922
1,088,248
152,994
54,705
6,710
30,133
20,162
1,369,794
3,936,532
37 2038/39
376,106
90,995
1,149,584
161,618
57,788
7,088
31,831
21,299
1,452,094
4,158,402
38 2039/40
391,806
950,509
1,212,759
170,499
60,964
7,477
33,580
22,469
1,536,863
4,.386,928
39 2040141
407,977
1,01,509
1,277,830
179,647
64,235
7,879
35,382
23,675
1,624,175
4,622,310
40 2041142
424,633
1,054,039
1,344,853
189,070
67,604
8,292
37,238
24,916
1,714,107
4,864,753
41 2042/43
441,789
1.108,144
1,413,887
198,775
71,075
8,717
39,150
26,195
1,806,736
5,114,470
42 2043144
459,460
1,163,8731
1,484,992
208,772
74,649
9,156
41,118
27,513
1,902,145
5,371,678
43 2044145
477,661
1,221,2741,558,230
219,068
78,331
9,607
43,146
28,870
2,00,415
5,636,602
44 2045/46
496,408
1,280,397
1,633,665
229,673
82,123
10,073
45,235
30,267
2,101,634
5909,474
45 2046/47
515,717
1.341,293
1711 363
240.597
86.028
10.552
47,386
31,707
2,205.889
6:190,5331
TOTAL
9,528,522
21,292,151
27,166,767
3,819,318
1,365,646
167,500
752,229
503,323
33,675,189
98,270,644
Cumulative
To: 2011/ 12
306,238
404,820
516,512
72,615
25,965
3,185
14,302
9,570
515,129
1,868,384
To: 2021/ 22
1,401,437
2,298,782
2,933,027
412,348
147,440
18,084
81,214
54,341
3,263,00
10,609,672
To: 2031/32
3,586,493
6,834,286
8,719,902
1,225,912438,341
53,764
241,448
161,555
10,280,896
31,542,596
To: 2046/47
9,528,522
21,292,151
27,166,767
3,819,318
1,365,646
167,500
752,229
503,323
33,675,189
98,270,644
[A] The City's pass-through is based only on the first tier of the ABI 290 pass-through. Its shares of the second and third
tiers are retained by the Agency.
Seifel Consulring Inc T_TI Lodi 1_10 02.xls:PThru 4/30102
Appendix Table 5B
Pass -Through Payments to Affected Taxing Entities
Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project Area
(In Present Value or Constant 2001/02 Dollars)
JAI The City's pass-through is based only on the first tier of the ABIZ90 pass-through. Its shares of the second and third
tiers are retained by the Agency.
Present value discounted to 2001/02 ac 5.5%
i
11
t
Seifel Consulting Inc. T_TI_Lodi 1_10_02.xls:PThru 4130/02 1
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(25)
(26)
City
County
Lodi
San Joaquin
County
San Joaquin
San Joaquin
North
ERAF
Total
General
General
Unified
Delta Comm.
Office of
Cty Floud
County
San Joaquin
Pass-Throughs
Fund`
Schools
College
Education
Control
Mosquito
Water Cons.
Year Fiscal
(N) Year
Levy: 16.39%
Levv: 21.67'X,
Levy: 27.64%
Levy: 3.89`X,
Levv: 1.39%
Levy: 0.17%
Levy: 0.77%
Luvy: 0.51%
Lew: 27.57`X,
C 20011 02
1 Z002/ 03
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2 2003/04
9,459
12,502
15,952
2,243
802
98
442
296
15,909
57,703
.3 2004105
12,997
11,178
21,917
3,081
1,102
135
607
406
21,858
79,281
4 2005106
16.612
21,956
28,013
3,938
1,408
173
776
519
27,938
101,333
5 2006( 07
19,940
26,354
33,626
4,727
1,690
207
931
623
33,536
121,634
6 2007/ 08
23,907
31,597
40,315
5,668
2,027
249
1,116
747
40,207
145,833
7 2008109
27,361
36,162
46,140
6,487
2,319
284
1,278
855
46,016
166,902
8 2009110
30,302
40,050
51,100
7,184
2,569
315
1,415
947
50,963
184,844
9 2010111
33,Z49
43,945
56,069
7,883
2,819
346
1,553
1,039
55,919
202,819
10 20111 12
35,570
47,012
59,983
8,433
3,015
370
1,661
11111
59,822
216,978
II 20121 13
38,484
50,864
64,898
9,124
3,262
400
1,797
1,202
64,724
234,756
12 20131 14
41,156
59,496
75,912
10,672
3,816
468
2,102
1,406
79,568
274,596
13 2014/ 15
42,646
66,220
84,490
11,878
4,247
521
2,339
1,565
91,720
305,628
14 20151 16
44,350
71,880
91,712
12,894
4,610
565
2,539
1,699
101,501
331,751
15 2016/ 17
46,192
77,831
99,305
13,961
4,992
612
2,750
1,840
111,733
359,216
16 2017/ 16
47,860
83,612
106,681
14,998
5,363
658
2,954
1,976
121396
385,898
17 2018/ 19
49,043
88,487
112,902
15,873
5,675
696
3,126
2,092
130,506
408,400
18 2019120
50,631
93,305
119,048
16,737
5,984
734
3,296
2,206
138,694
430,635
19 2020/ 21
52,052
98,244
125,350
17,623
6,301
773
3,471
2,322
147,295
453,431
20 2021122
52,702
101,926
130,048
18,283
6,537
802
3,601
2,409
154,115
470,425
21 2022/ 23
53,262
104,606
133,467
18,764
6,709
823
3,696
2,473
158,993
482,793
22 2023/ 24
53,875
107,181
136,753
19,226
6,874
843
3,787
2,534
163,606
494,679
23 2024/ 25
54,.387
109,618
139,862
19,663
7,031
862
3,873
2,591
168,037
505,924
24 2025/ 26
54,836
111,808
142,656
20,056
7,171
880
3,950
2,643
172,032
516,033
25 2026/ 27
55,613
114,308
145,846
20,504
7,332
899
4,038
2,702
176,328
527,570
26 2027/ 28
55,983
116,562
148,722
20,908
7,476
917
4,118
2,755
180,532
537,973
27 2028/ 29
55,809
117,627
150,081
21,100
7,544
925
4,156
2,781
182,867
542,889
28 2029/30
55,591
118,006
150,567
21,168
7,569
928
4,169
2,790
183,857
544,647
Z9 2030/31
55,570
118,547
151,254
21,265
7,603
933
4,188
2,802
184,972
547,134
30 2031/ 32
55,372
119,016
151,853
21,349
7,634
936
4,205
2,813
186,122
549,300
31 2032/ 33
55,129
119.205
152,094
21,383
7.646
938
4,211
2,818
186,748
550,171
32 2033/ 34
54,843
121,139
154,562
21,730
7,770
953
4,280
2,864
190,959
559,099
33 2034/35
54,294
122,505
156,305
21,975
7,857
964
4,328
2,896
194,280
565,404
34 2035/36
53,723
123,244
157,248
22,107
7,905
970
4,354
2,913
196,350
568,813
35 2036/ 37
53,128
123,775
157,925
22,202
7,939
974
4,373
2,926
198,024
571,266
36 2037138
52,511124,114
158,358
22,263
7,960
976
4,385
2,934
199,327
572,829
37 2038/ 39
51,876
124,274
158,562
22,292
7,971.
978
4,390
2,938
200,287
573,569
38 2039140
51,224
124,269
158,555
22,291
7,970
978
4,390
2,938
200,929
573,544
39 2040141
50,558
124,111
158,353
22,263
7,960
976
4,385
2,934
201,274
572,813
40 2041/42
49.879
123,811
157,971
22,209
7,941
974
4,374
2,927
201,344
571,429
41 2042143
49,189
123,380
157,421
22,132
7,913
971
4,359
2,917
201,161
569,442
42 2043144
48,489
122,829
156,719
22,033
7,878
966
4,339
2,904
200,743
566,900
43 2044/45
47,782
122,168
155,875
21,914
7,836
961
4,316
2,888
200,106
563,847
44 2043/46
47,068
121,405
154,901
21,777
7,787
955
4,289
2,870
199,273
560,326
45 2046 47 1
46,3
120 549
153,809
21,624
7,73Z
948
4,259
2,850
198,254
556 375
TOTAL
1,990,852
4,046,681
5,163,181
725,881
259,548
31,834
142,965
95,659
6,220,232
18,676,833
Cumulative
To: 2011112
209,395
276,756
353,115
49,644
17,751
2,177
9,778
6,542
352,169
1,277,327
To: 2021/22
674,511
1,068,622
1,363,461
191,686
68,540
8,407
37,753
25,261
1,493,821
4,932,062
To: 2031/32
1,224,808
2,205,903
2,814,523
395,688
141,483
17,353
77,932
52,145
3,251,169
10,181,005
To: 2046147
1,990,852
4,046,681
5,163,181
725,881
259,548
31,834
142,965
95,659
6,220,232
18,676,833
JAI The City's pass-through is based only on the first tier of the ABIZ90 pass-through. Its shares of the second and third
tiers are retained by the Agency.
Present value discounted to 2001/02 ac 5.5%
i
11
t
Seifel Consulting Inc. T_TI_Lodi 1_10_02.xls:PThru 4130/02 1
Appendix I:
Project Area Committee (PAC)
Minutes and Public Notices
Noticia de Reunibnes Publicas y Liamada Para Voluntarios Para Servir Como
Miembros En el Comit6 de Reconstrucci6n en Lodi
Proyecto Numero Uno
Damos noticia que el Consejo Municipal (City Council) de Lodi y la Agencia de
Reconstrucc16n de la Ciudad de Lodi estan contemplando adoptar el Plan de
Reconstrucci6n para le Primer Proyecto de la Agenica de Reconstrucci6n.
En conexi6n con la adopci6n del Plan de Reconstrucci6n, el Consejo Municipal (City
Council) de la Ciudad de Lodi ha determinado la necesidad de establecer el Comite de la
Area del Proyecto ("PAC") que va ser compuesta de duenos de casas, inquilinos, duenos
de negoicios y representates de organizaciones en la comunidad que seran afectados en la
Area del Proyecto. Miren el mapa que esta incluido. El Consejo Municipal (City
Council) y la Agencia de Reconstrucci6n los invita a asistir a las siguientes reuni6nes en
conexi6n de la formaci6n del PAC:
Fecha, Tiempo y Lugar Proposito
25 de Septiembre Cita de Informaci6n para hablar
7:OOPM del Plan de Reconstrucci6n; establecer las
First Baptist Church funciones y hablar de la oportunidad de
Primera Iglesia Bautista servir en el PAC; establecer los requisitos
19 S. Central Ave. para servir en el PAC.
Lodi, CA 95240
16 de Octubre
7:00 PM
Carngie Forum
305 W. Pine St.
7 de Noviembre Una Reunion Publica del Consejo Municipal
7.00 PM para anunciar los resultados de la eleci6n
Caingie Forum y confirmar los miembros del PAC.
305 W. Pine St.
E1 PAC es un grupo de duenos de casas, inquilinos, duenos de negocios, y representates
de organizations comunitarias. Este grupo dara comentarios sobre el Plan de
Reconstrucci6n que esta propuesto y dari recomendaciones al Consejo Municipal (City
Council) y la Agencia de Reconstrucc16n.
Si usted vive en la Area del Proyecto, es dueno de un negocio o es miembro de una
organizaci6n comunitaria, por favor asiste a una de las citas o reuniones ya mencionadas.
l
r.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETINGS AND CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS TO SERVE AS
MEMBERS OF THE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE FOR THE LODI
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LODI are contemplating the adoption of a Redevelopment Plan
(the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Lodi Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Project").
In connection with the proposed adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, the City Council has
determined the need for formation of a Project Area Committee ("PAC") to be composed of
volunteer residential owner -occupants, residential tenants, business owners, and representatives
of existing community organizations from the proposed Project Area, shown on the attached map.
The City Council and the Redevelopment Agency invite you to attend the following public
meetings and hearing in connection with formation of the PAC:
Date, Time and Location
Purpose
September 25, 2001 Public Informational meeting to discuss
adoption of the Redevelopment Plan; the
7:00 p.m. establishment of, functions of and opportunity
First Baptist Church to serve on the PAC; and the eligibility
19 S. Central Avenue requirements for PAC members.
Lodi, CA 95240
October 16, 2001 PAC election.
7:00 p.m.
Carnegie Forum
305 W. Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
November 7, 2001 A public meeting of the City Council to
announce election results and confirm the
7:00 p.m. members of the PAC.
Carnegie Forum
305 W. Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
The PAC is a group of citizens who are residential owner -occupants, residential tenants, business
owners, and community organization representatives who will review the proposed
Redevelopment Plan for the Lodi Redevelopment Project No. 1 for the purpose of providing
advisory recommendations to the City Council and Redevelopment Agency relating to the
adoption and implementation of the Redevelopment Plan.
If you reside in the Project Area, own and operate a business within the Project Area or are a
member of a community organization serving the Project Area shown on the attached map and
are interested in serving your community, please come to the meetings outlined "above. Persons
who wish to participate in the redevelopment process but who are not interested in serving on the
PAC are also welcome to attend.
Redevelopment, .doc
Project Area Committee Members
Lodi Redevelopment Project
Residential Owner Occupants
Laura Mayate-DeAndreis
Deane Savage
Residential Tenants
Connie Jauregui, Secretary
Virginia Snyder
Business Owner Tenants
Chuck Easterling, Chairperson
Eduardo Aguirre, Vice Chairperson
Business Owner -Property Owners
Sunil Yadav
Beth Griffin Latta
Community Organization
Ann Larson, Eastside Community Improvement Committee
The PAC consists of 9 members. Eight PAC members were elected by Project Area residents on
October 19, 2001. Ann Larson, representative from the Eastside Community Improvement
Committee, was appointed by the Eastside Community Improvement Committee. The City Council
selected the Eastside Community Improvement Committee to appoint one of its members as the
representative frorn a local community organization.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Report on the Plan
Lodi Redevelopment Project April 2002
MINUTES
City of Lodi
Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project
Proposed Area Committee (PAC)
Meeting 1
November 27, 2001 r
7:00 to 9:00 PM
Carnegie Forum Large Conference Room ,
305 W. Pine Street
Lodi, CA
ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Eduardo Aguirre, Chuck Easterling, Beth Griffin- '
Latta, Connie Jauregui, Laura Mayate-Deandreis, Deane Savage, Virginia
Snyder
MEMBERS ABSENT: Sunil Yadav and Eastside Improvement Committee
Representative
INTRODUCTION
Community Development Director Bartlam introduced himself to the Committee. He noted that
he was also the Deputy Executive Director for the Redevelopment Agency. He introduced Dave
Beatty and Ethan Walsh from the law firm of McDonough, Holland & Allen who is the agency's
legal counsel. Each member introduced themselves and stated their interest in being a member of
the committee.
REVIEW OF PAC ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Ethan Walsh reviewed some of the responsibilities and the role of the Project Area Committee
(PAC) in the Redevelopment process. PAC's role is to serve as an advisory committee for the
Redevelopment Agency. All PAC members represent people within the project area, the
Redevelopment Agency wants to hear their input and views on the entire process. The members
of the City Council are also members of the Redevelopment Agency, which is done for legal
purposes. The PAC Committee and the City Council will be working interactively during the
Redevelopment Agency process. The City Council members are required to consult with PAC
,
members concerning policy matters that deal with the planning provision of residential facilities
for residents that could be displaced by the project or other policy matters affecting residences
and businesses within the project area. Under Redevelopment Law, the Redevelopment Agency
is required to consult with the PAC committee and solicit their input on issues related to the
project area. They will continue to consult with the Committee for at least 3 years after the plan
adoption is completed and as projects are going on within the project area. One of the primary
roles that the Committee will play is that the Redevelopment Agency is required to submit the
Redevelopment Plan to the Committee for review. Once the Committee has reviewed the draft
document, a report must be prepared along with a recommendation on whether the plan should be
adopted or not. Community Development Director Bartlam noted that the plan would be
prepared by him and the consultant staff that the City has hired to prepare the document. The
Committee will have input throughout the preparation of the document and have the opportunity
to vote for or against the final document. If the committee votes to approve the Plan, it will need
a majority vote. If the committee recommends against the Plan, the Agency will have to adopt it
by a two-thirds vote.
City of Lodi
Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project
Proposed Area Committee (PAC)
Meeting 1
November 27, 2001
7:00 to 9:00 PM
Carnegie Forum Large Conference Room
305 W. Pine Street
Lodi, CA
1. INTRODUCTION
?. REVIEW OF PAC ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES
• By -Laws
• Brown Act and Statement of Economic Interest
• PAC Responsibilities
3. OVERVIEW OF REDEVELOPMENT
• Begin discussion of redevelopment goals and objectives
• Begin discussion of proposed projects (housing and non -housing)
• Hand out Preliminary Plan
4. FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE
5. VACANCIES
6. GENERAL COMMENTS OF PAC
7. PUBLIC COMMENT
8. ADJOURNMENT
Materials Available at Meetin¢:
Meeting Agenda
Certified PAC Election Results
By -Laws
Brown Act
Statement of Economic Interest
Preliminary Plan with insert map of Proposed Area
Guide to Redevelopment
Materials on Display:
Project Area Map (large)
Feasibility Report Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project
Community Redevelopment Law: Article 6.5 and Sections 33347.5 and 33366.
PAC Formation Procedures as adopted by Lodi City Council.
PAC Election Procedures as adopted by Lodi City Council.
Ms. Mayall reviewed potential redevelopment projects in the Project Area. Each project would
help to alleviate conditions of blight and would work in coordination with Lodi's existing Central
,
City Revitalization Program. Some of the projects included economic development, building
rehabilitation and fagade improvement, public infrastructure and facilities, circulation and
landscaping improvements, site preparation and development, and affordable housing. A
document will be brought before the PAC showing what blighted properties are in the area, what
should be done to these properties, and how the PAC is going to proceed with the project.
Ms. Mayall reviewed the steps in the Plan adoption process. The steps were:
,
1) Project Area Designation (City Council adopts Survey Area)
2) Preliminary Plan (Statement of purpose and scope of a redevelopment program)
'
3) Formation of Project Area Committee (Project area committee is elected)
4) Preliminary Report on the Redevelopment Plan (Technical document designed to inform the
community about the proposed Redevelopment Project)
5) Environmental Impact Report (Environmental impact analysis for project area.
'
6) Redevelopment Plan (Conclusion of consultation with taxing entities, the environmental
review and community participation process)
7) Report to City Council (Information needed to adopt the Redevelopment Plan)
,
FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE
The PAC decided the meetings would be held the 4`h Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. Due to
the upcoming Christmas holiday, the next meeting of the PAC was scheduled for
December 18, 2001.
GENERAL COMMENTS OF PAC
Virgina Snyder felt the Redevelopment Agency was exciting and she has been waiting for a
program like this for a long time. '
A question was asked if additional properties could be added to the already approved Project
Area. Community Development Director Bartlam replied that the same process in approving the
first Project Area would have to be used again if additional properties were to be added or another
Project Area could be created to cover the additional properties.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
,
Respectively Submitted,
Lisa Wagner
Administrative Secretary
Community Development Director Bat -dam stated the process would probably take 6 to 7 months.
They currently are in process of drafting an outline of the Plan and hopefully will have it
available for review by the January meeting. He was hopeful that the final document would go to
the City Council for adoption by June 2002. After the Plan is adopted, the Committee would
probably meet on an as needed basis.
Ethan Walsh briefly reviewed the by-laws, which will help facilitate future meetings. The by-
laws set forth an organization for the PAC and gives rules and guidelines on the Committee's
operations.
Mr. Aguirre asked if there would be other project areas other than Project Area No. 1?
Community Development Director Bartlam responded that historically other agencies would
name their project areas. Lodi did not want to put a name on the Project Area because it could
become confusing over time. It's possible that there may be a Project Area No. 2; but not at this
time.
Community Development Director Bartlam introduced Hilde Mayall from Seifel & Associates.
Sefiel & Associates have been retained by the Agency to assist staff in preparing the documents
necessary for adoption of the Plan.
Ethan Walsh then reviewed two specific laws regarding the PAC. The Brown Act, a California
law regarding open meetings, states that Project Area meetings are open to the public and an
agenda must be posted prior to the meeting. Next was the Political Reform Act, which is the
Conflict of Interest Law in California. It requires certain public officials to file Statements of
Economic Interests and further prohibits public officials from using their political position to
influence governmental decisions or for personal gain. The Attorney General's
Opinion No. 99-304, allows the members who own property in the Project area to render advice
so that they have the broad perspective that the Legislature intended when it adopted the PAC
requirements. Once the Plan is adopted, the PAC will review specific projects and if one of the
members owns property nearby, that member would have to abstain from the vote. City Council
members who own proberty in the Project area will be disqualified from participating in the
project from the start. After the Plan is adopted, any member of the City Council who was
disqualified from voting on the Plan can participate in individual decisions as long as their
property is not located within the specified distance to the subject property.
OVERVIEW OF REDEVELOPMENT
Hilde Mayall explained that the primary goal of the Redevelopment Plan was to alleviate physical
and economic blighting conditions in the Project Area by improving the area's economic base and
preserving and enhancing residential areas. A feasibility study was conducted on the Project
Area this past Spring. The study addressed what was in the area, existing conditions, what type
of businesses may be located in the area, and what income the area may generate.
The primary funding source for most redevelopment projects will be tax increment revenue
generated by increased property values in the project area. Taxes will not be increased in the
area, and the tax increments collected will be given back to the Agency. Tax increment revenues
would be used to leverage private funds as well as other public funds. Ms. Mayall estimated that
over the life of the project (45 years) $150,000,000 (20 % for housing and 80% for non -housing
redevelopment activities) would be generated in the Project Area. The Agency will be allowed to
use a certain percentage of the monies for their administrative costs.
F
MINUTES
City of Lodi
Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project
Proposed Area Committee (PAC)
Meeting 2
,
December 18, 2001
7:00 to 9:00 PM
Carnegie Forum Large Conference Room
305 W. Pine Street
Lodi, CA
ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Eduardo Aguirre, Chuck Easterling,
Connie Jauregui, Laura Mayate-Deandreis, Deane Savage, and Sunil
Yadav
MEMBERS ABSENT: Beth Griffin -Latta, Virginia Snyder, and
Eastside Improvement Committee Representative
OTHERS PRESENT: Konradt Bartlam, Community Development
Director, Hilde Myall, Seifel Consulting Inc.
INTRODUCTION
Community Development Director Bartlam noted that a representative from the Eastside
Improvement Committee would be appointed to the PAC (Project Area Committee) at
their upcoming meeting of January 10, 2002.
MINUTES
The minutes of November 27, 2001 were unanimously approved as mailed.
MEETING PLACE AND TIME
Originally, the PAC had arranged to meet the second Tuesday of each month. Due to a
scheduling conflict, the large conference room is not available at that time. It was
decided that the meetings would be held the third Tuesday of each month in the large
conference room at the Carnegie Forum.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
'
Chairperson: Chuck Easterling
Vice -Chairperson: Eduardo Aguirre
Secretary: Connie Jauregui
ADOPTION OF BY-LAWS
Chairman Easterling chaired the meeting from this point. It was noted that if a member
has 3 unexcused missed meetings within a 6 -month period, they will be terminated from
City of Lodi
Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project
Proposed Area Committee (PAC)
Meeting 2
December 18, 2001
7:00 to 9:00 PM
Carnegie Forum Large Conference Room
305 W. Pine Street
Lodi, CA
1. INTRODUCTION
2. MINUTES
3. MEETING PLACE AND TIME
4. ADOPTION OF BY-LAWS
5. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
• Chairperson
• Vice -Chairperson
• Secretary
6. VACANCIES
7. OVERVIEW OF REDEVELOPMENT
• Major Documents
• Overview of Tax Increment Financing
• Discussion of Goals and Objectives
• Discussions of Projects and Activities
• Review of Agency Eminent Domain Process
8. GENERAL COMMENTS OF PAC
9. PUBLIC COMMENT
10. NEXT MEETING OF THE PAC
H. ADJOURNMENT
MAC SHARED: Working Files:Lodi Redevelopment:PAC:PAC_Mtg_2_Dec:Meeting2agenda.doc
Currently, the County gets most of the property taxes collected. With the Agency in
place, funds currently collected by the County and distributed to other taxing entities
(special districts & Lodi Unified School District) will be redirected to the Lodi
Redevelopment Agency.
Member Aguirre asked what the impact might be to the other agencies that use to get a
bigger share of the taxes. Ms. Myall replied that the different taxing entities are very
concerned. The Financial Report will reflect the impacts. The Committee should be
aware that the other entities will not lose money they currently receive, but rather earn
less of future revenues.
To Redevelopment Agency cannot spend the money just on anything. It has to be
identified in the thin scope of the goals and objectives in the Redevelopment Program.
The Redevelopment Program is a response to the blight that exists in the Project Area.
During the first 5 years there is not much growth likely in the Project Area. During those
first 5 years the Agency can borrow money to accomplish its goals from projected tax
increments. After 5 years there should be enough increment to project a steady income
which the Agency can bond against. Tax increment financing is defined as using future
tax increment to do more projects to generate more tax increment. Any business the
Agency is doing currently is being funded by the City and will have to be repaid.
Ms. Myall gave a brief account of what the 20% for affordable housing could be spent
on. It is meant to be spent on low to moderate income (up to 120% median) housing. A
law was passed last October requiring that monies be spent in proportion to the current
housing needs in the area. The San Joaquin Council of Government determines the
projection of housing needs by income. Agencies must show progress towards these
goals. ,
Mr. Bartlam stated that an investment into a catalyst project usually will draw more
businesses to the area. The Agency should look at projects as not necessarily being a 10
or 12 percent return on the investment, they should look at the return as an investment for
the next project.
Chairman Easterling asked how the Agency could have an impact on a whole residential
block that is blighted. Mr. Bartlam replied that the Agency could offer rehabilitation or
grant loans to the properties. There would have to be some investment from the owner to
show that they are willing to upgrade and maintain their property.
Ms Myall stated that Eminent Domain is a tool that the Agency can use to accomplish the
goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan. Eminent Domain enables the Agency to
assemble parcels if the need arises. The overriding authority is the Agency who can
assemble private property for a public purpose. State Law interprets public purpose as
the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan. The first option would always be
that the Agency purchase the property from a willing seller.
J
7
J
n
Li
t
t
1
L�
Ll
the Committee. It was suggested that all members have a list of the other members'
phone numbers and addresses so they are able to communicate with one another.
Chairman Easterling asked if one of the members were to resign, would another person
be reappointed or would an election need to be held. Mr. Bartlam replied it would
depend on how much time is left within the realm of scope. If a vacancy were to occur in
the next couple months, then an election would need to be held.
It was noted that at least 5 members would need to be present for a quorum.
Each member can serve for three years or until the PAC is terminated. Offices can be
held for two years. The annual meeting will be held the third Tuesday of December
2002.
A motion was made by Member Savage, Member Jauregui second, that the By -Laws be
approved with the change of meeting dates to reflect every third Tuesday of each month
and that the annual meeting date be December 17, 2002. The motion was approved
unanimously.
VACANCIES
The only vacancy noted was the one being held for a member of the Eastside
Improvement Committee. A member will be appointed to the PAC at the next Eastside
Improvement meeting of January 10, 2002.
OVERVIEW OF REDEVELOPMENT
Hilde Myall presented an overview of the major documents involved with the
Redevelopment Agency.
The Redevelopment Plan spells out the powers of the Agency, the program, the By -Laws,
and the Preliminary Report. The Technical Analysis document evaluates financial
feasibility and projects tax increment.
The Preliminary Report is the draft that will go before the City Council. It acts as the
evidence tosupport the Redevelopment Plan. It will be submitted with the
Redevelopment Plan to the City Council.
The Environmental Impact Report will be out January 2002 for review and comment by
the PAC. It will be circulated for 45 days for public comment, and then the final draft
will be produced incorporating all comments received. It will accompany the
Redevelopment Plan.
The Redevelopment Plan will be funded by tax increment revenues. The tax increment
will be growth over the base year assessed value. The revenue generated will go the
agency and will fund the program. Certain obligations will need to be paid from these
funds. By State Law twenty percent (20%) will have to go towards affordable housing.
The other 80% will be for non -housing needs.
NEXT MEETING OF THE PAC
The next meeting was confirmed as January 15, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the large conference
room of the Carnegie Forum.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectively Submitted,
Lisa Wagner
Administrative Secretary
City of Lodi
Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project
Proposed Area Committee (PAC)
Meeting 3
January 15, 2002
7:00 to 9:00 PM
Carnegie Forum Large Conference Room
305 W. Pine Street
Lodi, CA
1. INTRODUCTION
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 18, 2001
3. DRAFT REDEVLOPMENT PLAN
4. DRAFT OWNER PARTICIPATION RULES
5. GOALS & OBJECTIVES DISCUSSION (CONTINUED)
• Residential Conservation Areas
6. GENERAL COMMENTS OF PAC
7. PUBLIC COMMENT
8. NEXT MEETING OF THE PAC
9. PUBLIC COMMENT
10. ADJOURNMENT
Materials available at meeting:
Meeting Agenda
Minutes from December 18, 2001 PAC Meeting
MAC SHARED: Working Files:Lodi Redevelopment:PAC:PAC_Mtg_3_Jan:Meeting3agenda.doc
Id
Ll
MINUTES
City of Lodi
Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project
Project Area Committee (PAC)
Meeting 3
January 15, 2002
7:00 to 9:00 PM
Carnegie Forum Large Conference Room
305 W. Pine Street
Lodi, CA
ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Eduardo Aguirre, Chuck Easterling,
Connie Jauregui, Ann Larson, Beth Latta -Griffin, Deane Savage,
Virginia Snyder and Sunil Yadav
MEMBERS ABSENT: Laura Mayate-Deandreis
OTHERS PRESENT: Konradt Bartlam, Community Development
Director, Ethan Walsh, and Dirk Happee
INTRODUCTION
Chairman Easterling introduced Ann Larson who is the Eastside Improvement
Committee representative.
MINUTES
The minutes of December 18, 2001 were approved as mailed with one minor change
clarifying that office$ can be held for two years rather than one year.
DRAFT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
Mr. Bartlam introduced Ethan Walsh the Agency's counsel. Mr. Walsh handed out
copies of the Draft Redevelopment Plan and the Rules Governing Participation by
Property Owners to each member.
First he covered the Draft Redevelopment Plan (DRP). The Redevelopment Plan is the
fundamental document governing the Redevelopment Agency's activities within the
Project Area. It serves as the Agency's charter, establishes long term goals, grants the
Agency certain powers, and places specific limitations on the authority of the Agency.
The Plan is a long-term document and stays in affect for 30 years.
The Redevelopment Agency is granted specific powers by the Redevelopment Plan.
Those powers include, acquire property through eminent domain and convey it to a
private party for development, authorization for the Agency to construct public
improvements within a project area, establish land use controls, and the ability to finance
its activities through a variety of sources. The agency can resell land to private entities
for fair reuse value as oppose to fair market value.
Member Snyder stated that a group is organizing a campaign that is in opposition to
eminent domain. She asked if there was some sort of agreement that could be reached
with the group. Mr. Bartlam replied that they would be opposed whether eminent domain
was a factor or not. He has invited them to the PAC meetings, but they have not attended
any meetings. He also shared that over the last 20 years, the City had obtained few
properties using eminent domain..
Member Yadav asked the members if they had ever experienced property taken by
eminent domain. He has been a victim of eminent domain, and spoke strongly against it.
Chairman Easterling responded that discretion would need to be used and if eminent
domain proceedings are used, it will probably be in a blighted property situation. The
Agency will exercise diligence when using eminent domain.
Member Snyder asked if there is more opposition when a property taken by eminent
domain and is resold to a private party rather than a public agency. Mr. Bartlam replied
that it depends on the project. Usually there is less opposition if the project is going to
benefit the community whereas an affordable housing project is more likely to raise
opposition. He noted that it's usually easier to acquire commercial business properties
because they can determine the value of the property and loss of future business value.
When it comes to an individual's property, it's more of an emotional loss, which is harder
to compensate.
Mr. Walsh noted specific powers granted to the Agency by the Redevelopment Plan. The
Agency cannot incur debt beyond 20 years after the adoption of the Plan. The duration of
the Plan is 30 years from the date of adoption. The Agency may not receive tax
increments beyond 45 years from the adoption of the Plan. The Plan sets the maximum
amount of bonded indebtedness that can be outstanding at one time. Twenty -percent
(20%) of the tax increment received by the Agency must be used for low and moderate
income housing. The agency may not use its power of eminent domain beyond 12 years
from the date of the adopted Plan. A question was asked if the 12 years could be
extended. Mr. Walsh responded that the original PIan would have to be amended and
would have to go through the entire approval process to demonstrate that there still was
existing blight and why the extra time is needed.
Other requirements set forth in Redevelopment Law are: 1) The Agency establish rules
for the participation in redevelopment of the Project Area by owners and to establish
preferences to business tenants for reentry within the redeveloped Project Area. 2) The
Agency is required to assist people, business concerns and others displaced by the Project
in finding other locations and facilities. 3) The Agency is required to make relocation
payments to those parties effected. Mr. Bartlam clarified that the relocation fees are not
only for eminent domain acquisition but also for residential and commercial situations as
well, and the Agency has an obligation to relocate tenant and incur the costs associated
with the relocation. He noted that sometimes the relocation charges are greater than the
property acquisition.
t
i
1
DRAFT OWNER PARTICIPATION RULES
The Community Redevelopment Law and the Redevelopment Plan require that the
Agency adopt rules governing owner participation prior to approval of the Plan. The
rules are meant to explain how the Agency will encourage and allow owner participation
in the redevelopment of the Project Area. The Owner Participation Rules allow that
owners shall be given reasonable opportunity to participate in redevelopment by: 1) A
property owner can retain all or portion of their property and develop and improve the
property in accordance with the goals of the Plan. 2) A property owner can acquire
adjacent property or other properties within the Project Area and develop or improve that
property according the Plan. 3) A property owner can sell their property to the Agency
and purchase other property in the Project Area. There are specific limitations on owner
participation. They are: 1) The land uses proposed by the property owner need to be
appropriate for the property and consistent with the City's General Plan and the
Redevelopment Plan. 2) The construction, widening, or realignment of streets, as well as
the construction of expansion of other public improvements will not involve owner
participation. 3) The ability of the owner to finance the acquisition or development in
accordance with the Plan. 4) The need or desire of the Agency to assemble land within
the Project Area in order to create more efficient and marketable commercial and
industrial parcels may prevent the owner from redeveloping their property in the manner
they desire.
Next was a discussion regarding Conforming owners. This is a provision to give
property owners assurance that their property is safe of being acquired by the Agency.
This section allows the Agency to determine that certain property within the Project Area
meets the requirements of the Redevelopment Plan and that the owners will be permitted
to remain as conforming owners without entering into an agreement with the Agency. If
an owner wants to carry out redevelopment of their property, and the owner either wants
agency assistance or further assurance that their property will not be condemned by the
Agency after the property owner makes improvements in accordance with the Plan, the
owner can obtain Agency assistance or protection against condemnation through an
owner participation agreement with the Agency.
The Owner Participation Rules additionally include the requirement that the Agency can
not acquire real property when the building on that property is going to be continued with
its present form and use without the consent of the owner, or the Agency needs to impose
certain controls, limitations or restrictions on the property pursuant to the Plan, and the
owner refuses to participate in the redevelopment of the property in the manner required
by the Plan. Mr. Bartlam stated that the Agency's goal of investment is different than a
private individual's goal. The Agency's return is sometimes in the form of bringing new
jobs into the project area and it's hard to put a dollar amount on the benefit. Finally, the
Agency will give a reasonable preference to business occupants who desire to remain in
the Project Area to allow those business occupants to continue operating in the Project
Area.
A question was asked that after the Plan is approved, if a business wants to do a project
within the Project Area without Agency funding and the project does not conform to what
has been approved in the Plan, does the Agency have a say in the matter? Mr. Bartlam
responded "no" the Redevelopment Plan from an Agency standpoint needs to conform to
the General Plan also, therefore it will not be approved.
Virginia Snyder asked if any consideration is given to historical elements. Mr. Bartlam
replied that if it's important enough, it could be a trigger for Agency participation. He
noted that downtown businesses have done improvements with the help of financial
assistance from the City.
GOALS & OBJECTIVES DISCUSSION (CONTINUED)
Residential Conservation Areas. Mr. Bartlam explained that Residential Conservation
Areas are not typically used in project areas. However, he felt it was a good idea since a
portion of the Project Area is single-family residential. Residential Conservation Area
adds a little more certainty to property owners within those discreet areas, that the
Agency won't come in and condemn property and the Residential Conservation Area can
spell out under what circumstances properties can be condemned.
GENERAL COMMENTS OF PAC
None
PUBLIC COMMENT
Chairman Easterling noted that in the future, this is where the Public will be invited to
make their comments.
NEXT MEETING OF THE PAC
The next meeting will be held February 19, 2002.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectively Submitted,
Lisa Wagner
Administrative Secretary
11
fl
City of Lodi
Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project
Project Area Committee (PAC)
Meeting 4
February 19,2002
7:00 to 9:00 PM
Carnegie Forum Large Conference Room
305 W. Pine Street
Lodi, CA
1. ROLL CALL
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 15, 2002
3. REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY REPORT
4. GENERAL COMMENTS OF PAC
5. NEXT MEETING OF THE PAC
6. PUBLIC COMMENT
7. ADJOURNMENT
Materials available at meeting:
Meeting Agenda
Minutes from January 15th, 2002 PAC Meeting
Preliminary Report
MAC SHARED: Working Files:Lodi Redevelopment:PAC:PAC_Mtg_4_Feb:Meeting4agenda.doc
ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Eduardo Aguirre, Chuck Easterling, Beth
Griffin -Latta, Connie Jauregui, Ann Larson, Laura Mayate- ,
Deandreis, Deane Savage, Virginia Snyder and Sunil Yadav
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Konradt Bartlam, Community Development
Director, and Hilde Mayall, Seifel & Associates.
MINUTES
The minutes of January 15, 2002 were approved with a correction to reflect that Beth '
Griffin -Latta arrived late, but did in fact attend the meeting. Another correction was
made to the title of the minutes to show "Project Area Committee" rather than Proposed
Area Committee." '
REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY REPORT
Mr. Bartlam noted that the Preliminary Report is a required document that must be
published. It outlines the proposed goals and objectives of the project area, it shows the
anticipated financing structure, and it sets out the initial definition of blight, both '
economic and physical blight that exists in the project area. The preliminary report is a
review document, not in its final form, and will likely have some comments made by the
PAC, members of the public, and taxing entities who have received the report for their
review and comment. Mr. Bartlam would like to get the document to a point where it's
factually correct, but generally agreed upon by a variety of different people.
Mr. Bartlam noted that there would not be a meeting in March 2002 because he will be
out of town. He will be sending the Draft Environmental Impact Report to the PAC
members, which is a State -mandated document. The document will be very technical and
will address environmental issues.
Hilde Mayall started with Chapter 2, Existing Conditions, of the Preliminary Report.
Under the California Community Redevelopment Law (CRL), a proposed project area
must be both urbanized and blighted. Mr. Bartlam added that the concept of an urbanized
area is one where development has already taken place, there's not a lot of vacant or
agricultural land.
A question was asked whether the current ground water contamination would have an '
effect on projects in the area. Mr. Bartlam replied that contamination is included in the
'
City of Lodi
Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project
Project Area Committee (PAC)
Meeting 4
February 19, 2002
7:00 to 9:00 PM
Carnegie Forum Large Conference Room
,
305 W. Pine Street Lodi
Lodi, CA
'
ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Eduardo Aguirre, Chuck Easterling, Beth
Griffin -Latta, Connie Jauregui, Ann Larson, Laura Mayate- ,
Deandreis, Deane Savage, Virginia Snyder and Sunil Yadav
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Konradt Bartlam, Community Development
Director, and Hilde Mayall, Seifel & Associates.
MINUTES
The minutes of January 15, 2002 were approved with a correction to reflect that Beth '
Griffin -Latta arrived late, but did in fact attend the meeting. Another correction was
made to the title of the minutes to show "Project Area Committee" rather than Proposed
Area Committee." '
REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY REPORT
Mr. Bartlam noted that the Preliminary Report is a required document that must be
published. It outlines the proposed goals and objectives of the project area, it shows the
anticipated financing structure, and it sets out the initial definition of blight, both '
economic and physical blight that exists in the project area. The preliminary report is a
review document, not in its final form, and will likely have some comments made by the
PAC, members of the public, and taxing entities who have received the report for their
review and comment. Mr. Bartlam would like to get the document to a point where it's
factually correct, but generally agreed upon by a variety of different people.
Mr. Bartlam noted that there would not be a meeting in March 2002 because he will be
out of town. He will be sending the Draft Environmental Impact Report to the PAC
members, which is a State -mandated document. The document will be very technical and
will address environmental issues.
Hilde Mayall started with Chapter 2, Existing Conditions, of the Preliminary Report.
Under the California Community Redevelopment Law (CRL), a proposed project area
must be both urbanized and blighted. Mr. Bartlam added that the concept of an urbanized
area is one where development has already taken place, there's not a lot of vacant or
agricultural land.
A question was asked whether the current ground water contamination would have an '
effect on projects in the area. Mr. Bartlam replied that contamination is included in the
document as an influence and will have some negative effect on potential resale and
value of property.
Ms. Mayall noted that there are definitions of physical and economical blight that are
used within Chapter 2. Adverse Physical Condition types include deficient or
deteriorated buildings, factors that inhibit proper use of building or lots, incompatible
uses, and substandard lots. Adverse Economic Conditions include depreciated values or
impaired investments, economic indicators of distressed buildings or lots, lack of
neighborhood commercial facilities, residential overcrowding or problem businesses, and
a high crime rate. Under the Assessment of Existing Conditions heading, the Standard
for Assessment describes the methodology used to determine the physical and
economical blight assessment of each property. A total of eight survey areas were
defined within the Project Area. A comprehensive Building Conditions Survey was
conducted within these survey areas and photographic documentation was also collected
and incorporated into the Preliminary Report.
Getting in to more detail, Ms. Mayall noted an Adverse Physical Condition dealing with
Earthquake Hazards. This condition was included in the report in the event ground
shaking from an earthquake outside the Project Area would cause damage to the
structures. It was noted that un -reinforced masonry buildings have proved to be
hazardous during an earthquake. Within the downtown commercial area, there are
several old unreinforced masonry buildings. Some are likely to be hazardous in the event
of an earthquake.
Deficient or Deteriorated Buildings, Age of Buildings. The consultant looked at the
age of the building stock in the project area. Within the Project Area they found
deteriorated residential structures, unoccupied, dilapidated, and abandoned residential
structures, Residenti4l Structures with Informal and Potentially Substandard
Construction, Small deteriorated residential units located on narrow alleys, structurally
unsound residential structures, deteriorated commercial structures, old, badly deteriorated
hotel buildings in downtown on Main and Sacramento Streets, an abandoned theater
building on Lodi Avenue, a large, dilapidated, and abandoned school on Cherokee Lane,
large un -reinforced masonry brick buildings, commercial structures with informal and
possibly substandard construction, and unoccupied and apparently abandoned
commercial structures.
The Building Conditions Survey outlines the methodology used as the consultant went
through each building and how the building was evaluated. A Building Conditions
Assessment was done for each building in the Project Area. The evaluation was based on
a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being that the building is in excellent condition. The idea is that if
an area is physically blighted, the average rating of buildings will be 2.5 or less.
Factors That Inhibit Proper Use of Buildings or Lots. Some of the factors show up as
physical as well as economic. Some factors noted were 1) Properties that suffer from
soils and groundwater contamination 2) Properties that are adjacent to deteriorated,
vacant or abandoned buildings 3) Lots of small size or irregular shape that are difficult to
Public Improvement Deficiencies. You can use redevelopment funds to help fund
public improvement deficiencies. Some of the deficiencies noted were 1) Deteriorated
pavement surfaces 2) Unpaved or poorly paved alleys 3) Narrow alleys that have '
substandard access 4) Aging and inadequate storm drainage systems 5) Lack of public
community facilities and 6) Parking inadequacies. Also, the East Side neighborhood
contains aging, obsolete and inadequate wastewater utilities. I
Economic Conditions that cause a Reduction of, or lack of, proper use of the
Proposed Project Area. There are four categories of economic blight. 1) Depreciated '
values or impaired investments 2) Economic indicators or distressed buildings or lots 3)
Residential overcrowding and 4) High crime rate. These blight conditions were
evaluated by field survey, talking with people (City staff and public), and technical
documents and data from public and private agencies.
Summary of Observed Economic Blight. Deteriorated residences, boarded -up
'
develop 4 Pro located next to the railroad Commercial and residential lots
) Properties 5 )
lacking adequate parking; and 6) Commercial uses that are impacted by fast moving
traffic.
Incompatible Uses. Some of the factors are 1) residential near the railroad 2)
'
Residential uses in close proximity to active industrial or packing plant uses; and 3)
'
Commercial and residential located adjacent to dilapidated or abandoned buildings.
'
Substandard Lots. Over the years, a large number of lots have become substandard to
'
economic development. Examples given were residential lots fronting onto an alley,
small commercial lots in the downtown area along School Street, small and difficult to
,
develop commercial lots along Cherokee Lane, and small lots in commercial and
industrial areas that are substandard to modern economic use.
Public Improvement Deficiencies. You can use redevelopment funds to help fund
public improvement deficiencies. Some of the deficiencies noted were 1) Deteriorated
pavement surfaces 2) Unpaved or poorly paved alleys 3) Narrow alleys that have '
substandard access 4) Aging and inadequate storm drainage systems 5) Lack of public
community facilities and 6) Parking inadequacies. Also, the East Side neighborhood
contains aging, obsolete and inadequate wastewater utilities. I
Economic Conditions that cause a Reduction of, or lack of, proper use of the
Proposed Project Area. There are four categories of economic blight. 1) Depreciated '
values or impaired investments 2) Economic indicators or distressed buildings or lots 3)
Residential overcrowding and 4) High crime rate. These blight conditions were
evaluated by field survey, talking with people (City staff and public), and technical
documents and data from public and private agencies.
Summary of Observed Economic Blight. Deteriorated residences, boarded -up
'
commercial and residential buildings, vacancies, and other observed physical and
economic conditions provide substantial evidence of depreciated values and impaired
investments. Adverse economic conditions observed were deteriorated or poorly
maintained commercial properties, vacant ground floor commercial spaces, vacant
second floor spaces in the downtown area that lack elevators, underutilized properties,
large number of lots that are likely to be substandard to economic development.
'
Outmoded, obsolescent buildings, commercial buildings with marginal occupancy, and
deteriorated, dilapidated and abandoned residences.
'
Depreciated Values or Impaired Investments. This section documents the presence of
depreciated or stagnant property values or impaired investments in the Project Area by
reporting on the 1) Poor economic performance of retail businesses 2) Residential sale
prices below comparable city properties 3) Lodging establishments with lower revenues
per room as compared to establishments outside the Project Area, and 4) presence of
hazardous materials. Stagnant sales tax receipts in the Project Area are an indicator of
'
depreciated values and impaired investments within the Project Area. Single family
homes on the eastside tend to be older and smaller than newer homes that are being built I
on the outskirts of town. Two bedroom homes sold for 53 percent less in the Project
Area compared to other areas in the City. The Project Area contains poor quality
multifamily housing, in addition to higher density housing. The lodging establishments
in the Project Area tend to be very small, budget -class motels. Sixteen of the eighteen
lodging establishments are located within the Project Area. Hazardous materials pose an
unknown risk and for those who wish to invest and develop property. The remediation of
toxic or hazardous waste is frequently costly and a major financial disincentive to
reinvestment or development.
Economic Indicators of Distressed Buildings or Lots. Most lease rates for commercial
and industrial space in the Project Area are lower than in other parts of Lodi and the
surrounding area. Commercial lease rates in the Downtown area are 30 to 50 percent
lower than other retail centers in Lodi. Office lease rates are from 60 to 75 percent lower
in the Downtown area than other areas of Lodi. Abnormally high vacancies and
commercial space in the Downtown area exists. The Infeasibility of Private Sector to
Rehabilitate Properties section evaluates impaired investment in terms of private
investor's ability to rehabilitate deteriorated, older buildings while achieving a reasonable
return on investment. During a field survey, several areas of under-utilized properties
were identified.
Residential Overcrowding. The data used was from the 1990 U.S. Census. The Project
Area was divided into renter and owner households and showed that there was
overcrowding in both categories.
A High Crime Rate. Information will be forth coming from Police Department
Conclusion for Economic Blighting Conditions. Based on findings, there is a necessity
for redevelopment given the presence of economic and physical blight. This blight
demonstrates a burden on the community meaning that private investment acting alone
without public assistance in the form of redevelopment is not enough to turn it around.
Redevelopment Program Description. The PAC must demonstrate a connection
between what the blight conditions are and how the Redevelopment Program will
correspond to correcting the blight. The chapter is set up to note the deficiencies to be
corrected, and then a description on how the proposed activities in the Project Area will
help remedy the deficiencies. The areas to be addressed within the Project Area will be
split into the following six categories: 1) Economic Development 2) Building
Rehabilitation, Fagade Improvements, and Historic Preservation 3) Public Infrastructure
and Facilities 4) Neighborhood Preservation, Circulation and Landscaping Improvements
5) Site Preparation and Development and 6) Affordable Housing.
Member Snyder asked about demolishing or rehabilitating historic buildings within the
Project Area. Ms. Mayall replied that if the building is of a certain age, they have to go
through a certain assessment before the building could either be demolished or
rehabilitated.
Proposed Methods of Financing and Feasibility. The intent of this chapter is to layout
all the potential funding sources to the Agency and see if the sources are adequate enough
to achieve the Redevelopment Program. The conclusion was that the funding sources are
inadequate and therefore the tax increment revenue that comes from redevelopment is
necessary to implement the Redevelopment Program. It also delineates how financing
will be done if the funding sources are inadequate. It will be financed through tax
increment revenue over the 45 -year life of the project. The projection of revenue is
subject to change, since it is being projected over a long period of time.
Tax Increment Financing: The Primary Source of Funding. This section explains
what the financial impact will be to taxing entities' revenues. The tax increment
projections are only estimates and the actual tax increments may be higher or lower than
anticipated. The Agency must use the tax increment revenues to fulfill certain
obligations. The assessed value of the Project Area is projected to grow by over
$154 billion during the 45 -year tax increment collection.
The appendices contain a list of sources that were used to prepare the document, a legal
description, which is a State requirement, Building Conditions by Survey and Subareas,
photographic documentation of blight, County Fiscal Officer's Report, and Tax
Increment Projections.
NEXT MEETING OF THE PAC
The next PAC meeting will be held March 19, 2002
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Respectively Submitted,
Lisa Wagner
Administrative Secretary
ni
i
i
i
C
F�
1
i
City of Lodi
Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project
Project Area Committee (PAC)
Meeting 5
March 19, 2002
7:00 to 9:00 PM
Carnegie Forum Large Conference Room
305 W. Pine Street
Lodi, CA
1. ROLL CALL
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19, 2002
3. REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY REPORT
4. REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR)
5. GENERAL COMMENTS OF PAC
6. NEXT MEETING OF THE PAC
7. PUBLIC COMMENT
8. ADJOURNMENT
Materials available at meeting:
Meeting Agenda :
Minutes from February 19th, 2002 PAC Meeting
Draft EIR
MAC SHARED: Working Piles:Lodi Redevelopment:PAC:PAC_Mtg_5_Mar:Meeting5agenda.doc
ROLL CALL
City of Lodi
Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project
Project Area Committee (PAC)
Meeting 5
March 19, 2002
7:00 to 9:00 PM
Carnegie Forum Large Conference Room
305 W. Pine Street Lodi
Lodi, CA
MEMBERS PRESENT: Eduardo Aguirre, Chuck Easterling, Beth
Griffin -Latta, Connie Jauregui, Ann Larson, Laura Mayate-
Deandreis, Deane Savage, Virginia Snyder and Sunil Yadav
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Konradt Bartlam, Community Development
Director
MINUTES
The minutes of February 19, 2002 were approved with a correction noted that there
would not be a PAC meeting in April.
REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY REPORT
Mr. Bartlam asked if there were any questions or comments regarding the Preliminary
Report, which was reviewed at the last PAC meeting. Member Savage asked how
HOME funds and the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG)
connected with the Redevelopment Program. Mr. Bartlam responded that every year
through the CDBG, $750,000 is granted to the City and the Council allocates a majority
of those funds to construction projects, primarily located on the eastside, which is
considered a target area. HOME funds totaling $200,000 can only be used for housing
programs (i.e., owner -occupied rehabilitation and down payment assistance) and can only
be granted to those who are income eligible. The two programs (Redevelopment &
HOME funds) will work together to enhance the Project Area.
A member asked when the report mentions "the eastside neighborhood" what area does
that mean? Mr. Bartlam responded that the eastside neighborhood is anything residential
in the Project Area.
Member Savage stated the only way a community can grow is from within and people
should be able to get the training and education to better themselves, which in return will
improve the neighborhood. Mr. Bartlam noted that within the report on page III -9 under
Public Infrastructure and Facilities it states "Assist in providing facilities to service
residents in the Project Area, such as community centers, libraries and education and
training centers."
1
i
i
11
1
Member Easterling asked if it was possible to use tax increment financing to help in the
clean up of infrastructure environmental issues. Mr. Bartlam responded that Agency
funds could help with the clean up costs.
REVIEW OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
According to the California Environmental Qualities Act (CEQA) whenever a public
agency considers a development project, it must assess the environmental impacts of that
project. The Redevelopment Plan was assessed at a broad base level. The document
attempts to assess what the impact of carrying out the plan would be. The document is
required for public review and comment for 45 days. The items required to be assessed
include Land Use Impact, Noise, Air Quality, Biology, Traffic, Visual Impacts, and
Wildlife. The impact must be identified, analyzed, and then mitigated to offset the
negative impact that might occur. In the dedevelopment Plan case, it is a built
environment, and the Agency isn't looking for a great wholesale change. Most of the
Project Area has already been analyzed when the General Plan was done 10 years ago.
Most of the impacts noted in the document were mitigable. These impacts can be dealt
with through program implementation to be "Less than Significant." The "Air Quality"
impact was the only item considered being a "Significant Unavoidable Impact." San
Joaquin Valley is located in a non -attainment area. The air quality within the valley is
below Federal standards. In order for the EIR to be certified and the Plan to move
forward, the Council needs to make a specific finding relative to air quality impacts.
There is nothing that can be done to offset the air quality condition. The finding will
state the impact is significant; however it is unavoidable.
After the finish of the public comment period (April 28`h), by law, the Agency is required
to respond to any comments generated. Comments received and addressed will be
complied with the draft EIR to become the final environmental report and will move onto
the City Council for certification sometime in June 2002.
A question came up regarding "traffic calming" measures. Mr. Bartlam responded that
the idea of traffic calming is to try to get the neighborhood back to a neighbor as opposed
to being a main thoroughfare. The City uses traffic measures such as landscaped medians
and narrower streets to control traffic speeds. Lodi Avenue is in the Project Area, the rail
road tracks are set to be removed and the street will be reconstructed with a possible
landscaped median.
Member Snyder mentioned the numerous accidents at the intersection of Lockeford and
Cherokee Lane. Mr. Bartlam explained that the intersection was confusing and the turn
lanes were not striped properly. He suggested that a left -turn arrow be installed at the
intersection to help alleviate the problem.
GENERAL COMMENTS OF PAC
The next meeting of PAC will be May 21, 2002. Mr. Bartlam noted that at this meeting
the Redevelopment Plan and Draft EIR will be wrapped up and packaged so that the
committee can see how all the information fits together. He will be providing the
Committee with a counter -document to support a document that was delivered to each
member reflecting negativity towards redevelopment.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Respectively Submitted,
Lisa Wagner
Administrative Secretary
Ee le Shila rides Between
Redevelopment and Cults
Personality changes
Dramatic shifts of values or beliefs
Inability to make decisions without consulting a cult
i leader or guru
✓ New vocabulary
j Sudden use of a new ideology to explain everything
Black and white, simplistic reasoning
Insistence that you must do what theyare doing
' Symptoms of Cult influence, by Brad Sagarki "
httpJ/www.workingpsychology.00"vptJ 6f.b ml
MORR'Conference `
Son Dkmo VEAV
._
Deprogramming the Cult to End
Destructive Redevelopment Practices
Activists have been responsible for abaiing
destructive redevelopment proposals
Including the public in private -public partnerships
• Giving PACs more than a merely advisory role
• Requiring the public to approve all redevelopment
bonds by the same majority as for school bonds
MORR Conference
Findings from Los Altos
Private -public partnerships exclude the public
Redevelopment creates blight in order to fix it
Redevelopment tends to benefit private partners and
harm those whom it is touted as helping
Decision -makers tend to reject data that disagree with
their private partners' unsupported claims
MORR Conference
COMMENTARY
TUW*, AM 23.2002
Redevelopment: It's too often misapplied
California cities continue to embrace redevelopment as if there were no
down- sides for city taxpayers. Redevelopment law allows cities to use
eminent domain to acquire private properties and to float debt to pay for
new subsidized retail and hotel projects.
Much debate goes on about the use and abuse of eminent domain, and
about redevelopment debt. Those debates and the examination of
redevelopment agency finances need to continue.
But there are other drawbacks to redevelopment, which often do not
make it into the debate. For instance, last year the Legislature passed S.B.
975, which requires that prevailing wages - i.e., union wages - be paid on
any private construction project that receives any type of subsidy or tax
break.
With the preponderance of redevelopment, which by its nature grants
government privileges to anyone who builds within the rapidly expanding
redevelopment zones, more private construction projects must pay higher
wages. This means taxpayers must pay more to subsidize any sort of
redevelopment deal and the state gets further ability to regulate private
businesses.
Another new law, S.B. 588, creates a government committee, union -
dominated, empowered to look at the payrolls of companies involved in
these public-private deals, with an eye toward catching any potential
violations in the wage rates that are paid.
Not only does the law give Big Brother an even more intrusive ability to
monitor private companies, but it gives an interested party - organized
labor - access to addresses of non-union employees for the purposes of
union organizing. Non-union contractors feared union harassment of
employees at home, but succeeded in assuring that at least the names and
Social Security numbers of the non-union workers would be blacked out.
State legislators say they have a right to impose these mandates when
state money is involved, and it's hard to argue against that point. But with
redevelopment becoming so pervasive, many more projects will be
considered public. It's just another way that a seemingly helpful tool can
be harmful.
Sunday, March 24, 2002 WC The Star i � ` -z' COMMENTARY
More. cities win
han lose
by sharing sales taxes
MUNOM BILL: Dividing
revenue based on housing
construction, not just retail
sales, makes sense.
In a world where cities are strapped
for money and houses are money -
losers as tax producers, it's not
surprising that
everybody in Ventura
County wants to play
the sales tax game.
Most cities in the
county don't produce
very much housing,
but they're all
jockeying to get more
retail stores inside
w�SIN their borders. The
reason is simple:
FRURW Cities get sales tax
♦ revenue based on
dons where the stores are,
not where the
shoppers live. That's why you see so
many stores lined up along "Sales Tax
Canyon" on Highway 101. Every city
wants to grab retail customers off the
freeway.
Darrell Steinberg, a Democratic
assemblyman from Sacramento, wants to
change the sales tax game so that cities
focusing on retail sales get less money.
and cities Mat fixv on people and
housing get more. Steinberg's bill, AB
680, is the talk of the state Capitol. It
would change the formula — for
metropolitan Sacramento only — so that
some sales tax is distributed based on
population growth and housing
construction, not just retail sales that
occur in each jurisdiction.
The idea of forcing cities to share
sales tax revenue is usually political
suicide — not just in Sacramento but
everywhere else in the state, including
Ventura County. Cities don't trust the
state to keep its promises about financial
matters, even if they would come out
better as a result. And tax -rich cities
have a lot of lobbying power and usually
squash any tax -sharing schemes.
But to everybody's surprise,
Stemb wes bill is actually gig
somewhere. Despite opposition from
politicians in the Sacramento suburbs,
AB 680 has passed the Assembly, It may
not make it through the Senate, and even
if it did, there's very little chance that
Gov Gray Davis would sign such a
controversial bill in an election yeah
Nevertheless, Steinberg's persistence
has put tax -sharing on the political radar
screen — and it's lamely to stay there.
Sooner or later, a bill requiring local
governments to share sales taxes will
wind up on the governor's desk.
So, what does all this mean for cities
in Ventura County? After all, the amount
of sales tax money our cities gets is
vastly different, ranging from 19 million
Wyear far Thousand Oaks down to
$500,000 a year for fort Hume m
To test this out, Solimar Research
Group analyzed what would happen if the
Steinberg bill were applied to Ventura
County.
The Steinberg bill appfies only to
future growth in sales tax revenue. For
that money only, the bill essentially
replaces the current system — giving all
the money to the city where the retail
transaction took place — with a different
method
One-third of the growth in future
sales tax revenue is still given to cities
based on where retail transactions take
place. But one4hird would be given to
cities based on their total population, and -
the final third would be given to cities
(according to the traditional retail sales
formula) only if they meet certain
regional housing targets.
If they fall short of those targets, the
money would be held back and used for
countywide projects of various sorts.
(Some in Sacramento are challenging the
housing requirement, since it involves
allocating local sales tax based on
performance rather than a fixed formula.)
In essence, then, Steinberg's idea
provides cities with an incentive to
generate more housing and more retail
sales together. If their retail sales are
increasing fast, they can still get most of
the sales tax revenue — if they are also
building more housing. And if they build
How the Steinberg bill would affect
Ventura County
E Current system
(Per capita sales tax revenue under
■ SteinbergProposal
different scenarios)
■ No housing"
Camarillo
f
4
Fillmore
+
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Sante Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
,
0 b 40 60 U
Whirs
110 120 146 109 100
Source: Sohmair Reswrh Group calculations based on prawislons of AS 680, Cerisus
data and Controller's Frnanclal Reports
more housing, of course, their population
will go up, meaning they'll get more of
the funds allocated by population as well.
In our analysis, we looked at how the
Steinberg bill would have affected all of
Ventura County's cities in the year.2000,
assuming its provisions had been in place
for 10 years. That means that all of the
increase in sales tax in the county — a
total. of $24 million, or a 45 percent
increase — would have been allocated
under the Steinberg formula.
The chart accompanying this column
shows the results. The chart shows how
many sales tax dollars each city did
receive under the current system, what
they would have received under the
Steinberg proposal assuming they hit the
targets, and what they would have
received under the Steinberg proposal if
housing targets were not hit.
Assuming every city meets the
housing targets — that's the gray bar in
the middle — almost every city wins
under the Steinberg bill. The only cities
that lose are Camarillo and Thousand
Oaks, cities whose sales tax bases have
mushroomed in the last 10 years. (For
Oxnard, it's a wash.) Essentially, what
happens under this scenario is that about
$23 million out of a total pool of $77
million is taken away from Camarillo and
Thousand Oaks and given to the other
jurisdictions. The biggest winners are
the county, which would get $900,000,
and Ventura, which would get almost
$600,000.
If all the cities miss the housing
target, obviously, it's a different story.
Under this scenario, about $8 million is
withheld from the cities. Under this
scenario, by far the biggest laser is
Thousand Oaks, which would see a loss
of $4.6 million. Other major losers are
Camarillo and Oxnard, which would each
lose close to $2 million. The winners
would be the county, which would gain
$800,000, and Santa Paula, which would
gain $200,000, as would Port Hueneme.
Ventura and Fillmore are also winners.
It's interesting to see that the
Steinberg bill doesn't create a clear-cut
set of winners and losers. Rather;
different types of cities are affected
differently. Really aggressive sales -tax
cities with an upscale population — like
Thousand Oaks and Camarillo — would
be the biggest losers, but they can
reduce their losses if they keep building
housing.
Older cities like Ventura, Santa Paula,
Port Hueneme and Fillmore are winners
no matter what because they are
growing slowly in all ways — retail sales,
housing and population — and the bulk
of their tax base was built long ago.
Cities like Oxnard, Moorpark and Sinn
Valley fall in the middle: Their sales tax
base has gown rapidly, but they are
building housing and adding population
even faster because of growing families.
The Steinberg bill probably won't
become law for Ventura County. But
sooner or later, some change will oo=
As our results show, there's no one -
size fits -all answer for our communities
because they're so different. Maybe our
local politicians should get together and
talk about the best way to split up the
pie around here before Assemblyman
Steinberg or someone else in
Sacramento does it for them.
— WsWiarn Fulton of lexhrsa is publ"w of tke
California Plax"V & Dadopment Report and
President of Sotaxar Research Group A short
research report based on die. Steinberg a
available at wwwsolunar His book, "Ike
Rductant Metropolis, "wk eantaim a dkofff
on Ventura County sales -tax wars, gray be
purchased at unwa cy-droom.
r
rr
h
.w.
.:.: .'
r
_
r
fON:
4
+
xox�
�1�bYfF
y rs..........
n/
k
-:
h
.w.
.:.: .'
r
_
f >?f f
f r
+
f
yp�
k
l liana Berliner
Executive Summary
ae•
Eminent domain is the poor of government to force people from their family homes, to destroy their businesses.
It is a despotic power, and America's Founders placed limits on the condemnation power in the Fifth Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution. Governments may condemn only for "public use," as well as paying just compensation. All 50
state constitutions also limit condemnations to those for public use. Yet government increasingly uses the eminent
domain power to condemn property for private uses. Acting more like real estate agents than public servants, govern-
ment agencies form unholy alliances with developers in order to force the rightful owners off of their property.
In this report, we bring together the 10 most egregious uses of eminent domain for private purposes from 1998 to
2001. These 10 are just the tip of an iceberg. We selected them from more than 100 that have come to our atten-
tion, yet there are many others we do not even know about. Indeed, in 1998, the head of the Council for Urban
Economic Development estimated that cities undertake roughly 80 projects per year for private businesses that
involve condemnations,' and each project could involve more than one condemnation. Many owners cave in to pres-
sure and settle. Others resist condemnation in court, but the legal decisions are unpublished. Still others receive
minimal news coverage or coverage only from local papers that do not survive in electronic form. For example, we
could find few details on a mobile home park for fixed4ncome senior citizens that was condemned for a private mall
project that fell through in Garden Grove, California.2 We are thus regretfully certain that there are many other con-
demnations from this time period that are as offensive and improper as the ones listed in this report.
These ten low points of eminent domain abuse include:
s Removing an entire neighborhood and the condemnation of homes for a privately owned and operated office
park and other, unspecified uses to complement a nearby Pfizer facility in New London, Connecticut
• Approving the condemnation of more than 1,700 buildings and the dislocation of more than 5,000 residents
for private commercial and industrial development in Riviera Beach, Florida
• A government agency collecting a $56,500 bounty for condemning land in East St Louis, Illinois, to give to a
neighboring racetrack for parking
• Replacing a less-expensive car dealership with a BMW dealership in Merriam, Kansas
• Condemning a building in Boston just to help the owner break his leases so that the property could be used for
a new luxury hotel
• Seizing the homes of elderly homeowners in Mississippi and forcing them and their extended families to move
in order to transfer the land to Nissan for a new, privately owned car manufacturing plant, despite the fact that
the land is not even needed for the project
• Taking the building of an elderly widow for casino parking in Las Vegas, claiming it was blighted but without
ever even looking at the building
• Improperly denying building permits to a church in New Cassel, New York, then condemning the property for
private retail as soon as it looked like the church would begin construction
• Condemning 83 homes for a new Chrysler plant in Toledo, Ohio, that was supposed to bring jobs but ended
up employing less than half the projected number because it is fully automated
• Forcing two families (along with their neighbors) to move for a private mail expansion in Hurst, Texas, while
spouses were dying of cancer
I Dean Starkman, "Take and Give: Condemnation is Used to Hand One Business Property of Mother," Wall Skeet Journal, Dec. 2,
1998, at Al.
2 Tiffany Horan, 1400 million mall; theme park floated," Orange County Register, March 7, 1998, at Al; Jon Hall, "There Goes the
Neighborhoods," OC Weekty, March 6, 1998.
iiovt:�!Keri'r
EMINENT DON DOMAIN
March 2002 1
2 March 2002
New London, Connecticut
one
The New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a private nonprofit organization, has been trying for
more than three years to take the property of seven homeowners in the Fort Trumbull area of New London in
order to construct privately owned office buildings and other, unspecified uses, that will complement the new
Pfizer global research facility nearby.3 The Fort Trumbull neighborhood was a close-knit community of
approximately 80 homes and a few small businesses. Among those slated for condemnation are the homes
of the Derys and Cristofaros. Wilhelmina Dery is 83 years old and lives in the house where she was born.
Her son, daughter-in-law, and their children live next door. In comparison, the Cristofaro's mere 40 year
tenure seems short. This will be the second Cristofaro family home condemned for a private redevelopment
project. The first one was supposedly condemned for a seawall but in fact became part of an office com-
plex. When the family moved, they brought the trees that they had planted next to their old home and have
grown a beautiful garden around them at their Fort Trumbull home.4
3 Laura Mansnerus, 'Testing Limits of Land Use as Owners Refuse to Let Go," The New York Times, July 23, 2001, at 61.
4 Kathleen Edgecomb, "Fat residents: 'You can't call a home a home here'," The Day, Dec. 21, 2000.
5 lzaskun E. Larraneta, "Neer London, Conn., Development Group Accused of Pushing too Hard for Pfizer," The Day, Aug. 14, 2001.
6 David Herszenhom, "Residents of New London Go to Court, Saying Project Puts Profit Before Homes," The New York Times, Dec.
21, 2000, at 65; Isaskun Larraneta, "Eminent domain trial resumes today," Theft.com, Aug. 13, 2001.
t v61RK=T
EMWI
DOseIAI�
The former head of theNLDC,
Across from the Fort Trumbull residential community was an aban-
Claire Gaudiani,
doned U.S. Naval research facility. No one objected to the replacement of
the abandoned facility with a luxury hotel (for visitors to Pfizer) and upscale
explained "we all have to
housing (for Pfizer employees). They only objected when it became clear
sacrifice." It Seems she
that the NLDC planned to replace their working-class, waterfront communi-
meant that the home-
ty with offices for businesses related to Pfizer. The NLDC added insult to
owners would sacrifice,
injury by exempting the Italian Dramatic Club, a politically well-connected
while the private devel-
membership club, while razing every home around it,5
open in the project would
Rather than doing the condemnations itself, the City of New London
benefit•
delegated its eminent domain power to the NLDC, a private organization,
The former head of the NLDC, Claire Caudiani, explained "we all have to sacrifice." It seems she meant that
the homeowners would sacrifice, while the private developer in the project would benefit Seven homeown-
ers filed suit, and the case went to trial in mid -2001.6 As of March 1, 2002, no decision has been issued.
3 Laura Mansnerus, 'Testing Limits of Land Use as Owners Refuse to Let Go," The New York Times, July 23, 2001, at 61.
4 Kathleen Edgecomb, "Fat residents: 'You can't call a home a home here'," The Day, Dec. 21, 2000.
5 lzaskun E. Larraneta, "Neer London, Conn., Development Group Accused of Pushing too Hard for Pfizer," The Day, Aug. 14, 2001.
6 David Herszenhom, "Residents of New London Go to Court, Saying Project Puts Profit Before Homes," The New York Times, Dec.
21, 2000, at 65; Isaskun Larraneta, "Eminent domain trial resumes today," Theft.com, Aug. 13, 2001.
t v61RK=T
EMWI
DOseIAI�
Riviera Bead, Florida
now
City Council members voted unanimously to approve a $1.25 billion redevelopment plan with the authori-
ty to use eminent domain to condemn at least 1,700 houses and apartments and dislocate 5,100 people.
The city will then take the property and sell the land to commercial yachting, shipping, and tourism compa-
nies. The plan also would move Route 1 and replace a city park with an enlarged harbor. The proposal still
needs the state's approval. If it occurs, it will be one of the largest exercis-
City Council members es of eminent domain in the United States.7
voted unanimously to Many of the residents are descendants of Bahamian conch fishing fami-
approve a $1.25 billion lies. They, as well as others, do not want to give up their homes.$ Riviera
redevelopment plan with Beach is one of the last remaining areas for affordable waterfront homes in
the authority to use eml- Florida. As many as 150 boat -related businesses could be put out of busi-
nent domain to condemn ness. The Maritime Industries Association of Palm Beach County has
at least 1,700 houses expressed concerns, after being contacted by one of the potential condem
and apartments and dig- pees, Martin Murphy of Cracker Boy Boat Works. His boating service has
locate 5,100 people. been there for decades and cannot relocate. The American Indian
Movement also is keeping an eye on the project, because some of the
development will take place on the remains of an ancient village. Also
scheduled for demolition as part of the plan is Riviera Beach's last redevelopment project. After putting in
nearly $1.9 million in public money, the city has decided the commercial development at Spanish Courts is
a flop. According to city officials, it just wasn't a big enough project. According to Riviera Beach officials, if
they spend much more money and displace thousands of residents, then the project will really take off. 10
7 Scott McCabe, "Residents Vow to Fight Riviera Pian," Palm Beach Post, Dec. 17, 2001, at 1 B.
8 ld.; Scott McCabe, "Riviera Approves waterfront Project,' Palm Beach Post, Dec. 20, 2001, at 1B.
9 Jim Di Paola, "The Path of Progress", CHAink Online, Jan. 30, 2002.
10 Scott McCabe, "Riviera Beach Set to Say 'Adios' to Spanish Courts," Palm Beach Post, Feb. 19, 2002. at IA.
s0VOW*" r
EMINENT DOMAIN
March 2002 3
4 March 2002
East SL LAt11S, Illinois
■■
In 1999, the Southwestern Illinois Development Authority (SWIDA) began the process of condemning 148
acres belonging to National City Environmental and reselling it to Gateway International Motorsports Corp. for
a parking lot to accommodate visitors to large race events. Gateway had previously tried to purchase the
property, but the owner didn't want to sell,"
So Gateway went to the offices of SWIDA. It picked up an application for SWIDA to use eminent domain
and paid the $2,500 application fee for condemnation for "private use." 12 (SWIDA's lawyers must have for-
gotten to tell the agency that property may be condemned only for "public use" under the U.S. and Illinois
constitutions.) For private condemnation, SWIDA requires the private beneficiary to reimburse SWIDA ibr the
value of the condemned property and also charges a percentage as a commission. 13 For the Gateway con-
demnation, SWIDA would receive $56,500,14 more than its appropriated budget that year. SWIDA officials
also got free tickets to Gateway events.
There was no pretense that the property was blighted. It was just property that Gateway wanted, that it
wasn't able to buy, and that SWIDA procured for it for a substantial fee. The nest SWIDA could do was claim
that the condemnation served a public purpose because Gateway would bring money into the city through its
racing events. The owner was not convinced and opposed the condemnation in court.
The case has gone through a series of reversals. First, the trial court approved the condemnation, but
the Illinois Appellate Court rejected it in stinging language.15 The Illinois Supreme Court then reversed
again, 43, in sharply divided opinions.ls Within two months, the Illinois Supreme Court granted rehearing,
agreeing to reconsider the case.17 A decision is still pending as of March 1, 2002.
11 Daniel C. Vock, "Quick Take OK For Commercial Use: Court," Chicago Law Bulletin. April 19, 2001. at p.l.
12 Southwestern Illinois Dev. Auth. v. National City Environmental, LLC, 2001 III. LEXIS 478, *4 (III. Apr. 19, 2001).
13 Id. at *4 and *5.
14 grief of Institute for Justice and The Heartland Institute Amici Curiae, Southwestern Illinois Dev. Auth. v. National City
Environmental, LLC, Docket No. 87809, Supreme Court of Illinois.
15 Southwestern Illinois Dev. Auth. v. National City Environmental, LLC, 710 N.E.2d 896 (III. 1999).
16 Mike Fitzgerald, "Illinois Supreme Court Upholds Seizure of Land for Motorsports Firm's Parking," Belleville News Democraf; April
20, 2001; Southwestern Illinois Dev. Auth. v. National City Environmental, LLC, 2001 Ill. LEXIS 478 (til. Apr. 19, 2001).
17 "Court Will Rehear Case Involving Taking Land For Raceway," The Associated Press State & Local Wire, June 4, 2001.
iativm----------W -
EMIRNT DOMAIN
Merriam, Kansas
In 1998, the City of Merriam condemned William Gross's property, which he leased to a used car dealer-
ship, so that Gross's neighbor, a BMW dealership, could expand.18 The city sold Gross's property to Baron's
BMW for the same price they paid Gross and gave Baron $1.2 million in taxancrement financing to build a
new BMW dealership and add a Volkswagen dealership. The City Council
The City Council said the said the project served the public interest because the city would make
project served the public $500,000 per year in sales tax revenues from the BMW and Volkswagen
interest because the city dealerships.
would make $500,000 This is hardly Kansas' first foray into condemnations for private parties.
per year in sales tax rev- In 1998, the state took 150 homes for the Kansas International Speedway,
enues from the BMW and the Kansas Supreme Court ruled in favor of the takings when 30
and Volkswagen dealer- homeowners tried to fight.19
ships" As if it weren't bad enough to replace a used car dealership with a new
car dealership, Gross had proposed using the site for a Mitsubishi dealer-
ship, which would have raised the site's yearly tax revenue from $40,000 to $150,000. The city refused. It
wanted the BMWs. Gross depended on the income from his dealership for his retirement income.Z0 He lost
his property and his business, but the citizens of Merriam were less than pleased. At the next election, vot-
ers responded by ousting half of the city council.21
18 Dean Starkman, "Take and Give: Condemnation is Used to Hand One Business Property of Another," Wall Street Journal, Dec.
12, 1998, at Al.
i9 John T. Dauner, & Steve Nicely, "Speedway Wins High -Court Test; Ruling Approves Condemnation Powers, 125 Percent
Valuation," The Kansas City Star, July 11, 1998, at p. Al; State ex rel. Tomasic v. The Unified Government of Wyandotte
County/Kansas City, Kansas, 962 P.2d 543, 554 (Kan. 1998).
20 Tim Baxter. "Court Sets Pace on Baron Case; Setting Value on Land Being Condemned Could Take Months," The Kansas City
Star, Sept 5, 1998, at p. 1.
21 Martin Wooster, "Government as Land -Grabber," Arnwican Enterprise, June 1, 2001, at p. 57.
law
6*veRx ._.--
EI 11900MAIN
March 2002 5
Boston, Massachusetts
man
The Boston Redevelopment Authority JBRA) plans to seize a 14 -story, 110 -year-old granite and sandstone
Ames Building, in order to break the leases with the building's tenants. The Intercontinental Hotel bought
the property in 1998 and wants to convert the building into a boutique hotel.22 Inconveniently, the building
happened to have tenants. Two of them—the D'Angelo sandwich shop and the Taylor & Partners architectur-
al design firm --didn't want to move. D'Angelo's lease ran until 2012, and Taylor's until 2003.23 In other
words, the landlord wants to get out of its longterm lease agreements. Typically, such disputes can be han-
dled by buying out the tenant, simply waiting until the lease is up, or paying whatever penalties are stated in
the lease agreement itself. Eventually the architectural firm settled, but the sandwich shop brought suit.
But the owner has politically powerful friends and has managed to get the government to intervene in this
utterly private dispute.za So the BRA is condemning the building, which automatically breaks the leases.
That way, the owner won't have to pay the penalties or reimburse the tenants for what they lose. instead,
the owner gets off nearly scot-free, and then the BRA will transfer the property right back to the same owner,
minus those pesky leases, for development as the Intercontinental Hotel.
Tenants fare particularly poorly in condemnations. Business tenants usually expend a significant amount
of money customizing their space, installing fixtures, and building their business in that location. When a
condemnation occurs, leases are broken, and the tenants get little or no reimbursement for their losses and
relocation expenses. Many, if not most, condemned businesses never reopen.
22 Sarah Schweitzer, "BRA Plan to Seize Building Spurs Suit," The Boston Globe, July 28, 2001, at Al.
23 Id.
24 Paula Restuccia, "Hub Zoning Code Causes Contention," The Boston Herald, Jan. 25, 2002, at RE39.
6 March 2002
EMINENTADOMAIN
Canton, Mississippi
Mississippi would not ordinarily be a contender for the Top Ten abusers of eminent domain. Up until
2000, Mississippi almost never condemned property for the benefit of private parties. However, in 2000,
Mississippi passed the "Nissan Act." It authorized the State to pour money and incentives into a future
Nissan manufacturing facility. And it gave the Mississippi Major Economic impact Authority (MMEIA) the
power to condemn property for the new facility.25
After pressuring most owners to sell, the MMEIA condemned three homes in 2001 in order to transfer
the land to Nissan. Andrew Archie is in his late 60s, diabetic, and in poor health. He has lived on the land
since he was eight years old. He lives there surrounded by his wife, chil-
But the MMEIA wants to dren, and other family members. His children, including Lonzo Archie,
save face with future who owns one of the other homes being condemned, have never lived any
developers, so that the where else. The condemnation will require 15 Archie family members to
' move.26
next time it promises to
take someone's home for
The MMEIA also is condemning the home of Percy and Minnie Bouldin,
private development, the
who have lived in their home for more than 40 years and raised their 13
developer will believe
children there. Percy did much of the construction of their house with his
the MMEIA will follow
own hands.
through' Amazingly, both Nissan and the former head of the MMEIA have publicly
admitted that the project will go forward even if Nissan can't get the Archie
and Bouldin homesteads. The three properties constitute a tiny portion of the overall area -28 acres at the
southern end of the project out of 1,400 acres. But the MMEIA wants to save face with future developers,
so that the next time it promises to take someone's home for private development, the developer will believe
the MMEIA will follow through.27
The Archies and Bouldins are close friends, and both families challenged the constitutionality of con-
demning their homes. The trial court ruled against them on July 26, 2001, but the Mississippi Supreme
Court stayed the condemnations until A could hear the case in mid -2002.28
25 See Record in Percy Lee Bouldin and Minnie Pearl Bouldin, at al., v. Mississippi Major Economic Impact Autha *,, Case No.
2001 -CA -01296 (Mississippi Supreme Court).
26 Timothy R. Brown, "State files for eminent domain to grab land for Nissan Project," Associated Press, Feb. 9, 2001.
27 David Firestone, 'Black Landowners Hold Ground in Mississippi," The New York Times, Sept. 10, 2001.
28 Heath A. Smith, "Nissan Land Hearings Delayed," The Clarion -Ledger, Oct. 1, 2001.
EMINNDOMAIN
March 2002
Las Vegas, Nevada
When John Pappas died, he left his widow, Carol, a commercial building in downtown Las Vegas, intend-
ing that its rents would provide for her retirement.29 On December 8, 1993, the Las Vegas Redevelopment
Agency served Mrs. Pappas with notice that it was condemning her properties. The purpose of the condem-
nation was to transfer the land to a consortium of eight casinos for construction of a parking garage.30
Among the 15 legal documents she received that day was one stating that she had 30 days to respond.
Unbeknownst to Mrs. Pappas, however, there was a hearing in only seven days to decide whether the agency
would get immediate possession of the property. Mrs. Pappas did not know about the hearing and did not
attend. The Judge granted title to the agency, and the buildings were promptly demolished. Later, the Judge
recused himself because he had invested in one of the casinos that was to acquire the property.
The case has been in litigation ever since. In 1996, a district court judge ruled that the condemnations
were unconstitutional and illegal. In a harshly worded 65 -page opinion, the judge found that the agency had
"set itself up as an entity only unto itself." The court found that the agency ignored many statutes and pro-
cedures. For example, the supposed justification for the condemnation was that the area was blighted.
However, the surveys of the area revealed no blight, and in fact, no one had even surveyed Mrs. Pappas'
block.31
On March 29, 2000, the Nevada Supreme Court threw out the city's second too -early appeal and warned
the city's attorneys against providing further "misleading" information.32 After a series of judges recused
themselves for accepting campaign contributions from casino interests, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled
that campaign contributions did not disqualify judges.33 The case then returned to the trial courts for vari-
ous further proceedings on other issues. It is finally heading up to the Nevada Supreme Court and will prob-
ably be heard in 2002.
29 "The Pappas Dispute," Las Vegas ReviewJkurnal, Sept. 3, 2000, at 2D.
30 Steve Sebelius, "It Was Worth Trying, Anyway," Las Vegas ReviewJoumal, Aug. 27, 2000, at 11
31 City of Las Vegas Downtown Redevelopment Agency v. Pappas, Case No. A327519, Opinion on Motion to Dismiss (July 3, 1996).
Many of the facts in this section are taken from the court's ruling.
32 Mike Zapler, "Settlement talks between city, family stalled," Las Vegas RWew-Journal, April 11, 2000, at I B; "Misleading the
Court," Las Vegas Review -Journal, April 11, 2000, p. 68.
33 Ed Vogel, "State's high court rules judge can stay on redevelopment case," Las Vegas Review;loumal, Aug. 19, 20DO at AB; City
of Las Vegas Downtown Redevelopment Agency v. Eighth Judicial District Court (Nev. 2000).
- ...__ .
,rases`.
co�BRjC1 -----------
The .,
I& DO N
Mardi 2W`L
New Cassel, New York
St. Luke's Pentecostal Church, led by Pastor Fred Jenkins, had been saving for more than a decade to
purchase property and move out of the rented basement where it holds services. It bought a piece of prop-
erty on Prospect Avenue to build a permanent home for the congregation.34 Before purchasing the property,
it obtained a list of exactly what it would need to do to get all the permits for the building. After the pur-
chase, the building department denied the permits for insufficient parking, an issue never mentioned before.
After successful litigation to acquire the parking variance, the North Hempstead Community Development
Agency condemned the property. Unbeknownst to both St. Luke's and the previous owners, the building had
been slated for condemnation. No one had bothered to tell St. Luke's during the discussions about the
building permits or when it was struggling to get the parking variance. The head of the agency even testified
against the parking variance but never mentioned that St. Luke's was wast-
When
astWhen St. Luke's tried to ing its time and money because he planned to condemn the property.
object to the condemn-
tion, the NHCDA argued,
St. Luke's conducts extensive community outreach, including paying for
members funerals, helping the homeless, providing heating oil to needy
successfully, that St.
families, and it had planned to open both a church and daycare facility on
Luke's had lost its oppor-
the new site. The church property was condemned for private retail devel-
tunity to object in 1994,
opment.
before it had even
bought ther0 When St. Luke's tried to object to the condemnation, the NHCDA argued,
p successfully, that St. Luke's had lost its opportunity to object in 1994,
before it had even bought the property. New York has a 30 -day window for
objecting to condemnations, and the window happens right after the agency approves a redevelopment plan,
often long before the condemnation actually takes place. After title passed to the agency, St. Luke's discov-
ered that the time limit had never applied, because the condemnation was under an exception. Now St.
Luke's is trying to get the first court to return the property.35
Other owners have been tripped up by New York's requirement that future condemnations be challenged
before they occur. Bill Brody's commercial buildings in Port Chester, which he painstakingly renovated over
six years, have been condemned for a parking lot for a Stop N' Shop,36 And William and Bill Minnich's fami-
ly woodworking business will be condemned for parking for a Home Depot in Harlern.37 Both owners would
have challenged the condemnation but did not know about New York's procedures and missed the brief win-
dow. They brought a federal lawsuit challenging these procedures, but it was dismissed and is now on
appeal.38
34 Victor Manuel Ramos, "In North Hempstead: A Spiritual Homecoming Deferred; Redevelopment claims dreams of church's build-
ing," Newsday, Feb. 4, 2001.
35 Mami Soipcoff, "North Hempstead Bulldozes Constitutional Rights The Westbury Times, Feb. 22, 2002.
36 "How the eminent domain bulldozer created a private -property backlash," Goveming, Jan. 2001, at 26; Mami Soupcoff. "NY Gov't
Land Grab," New York Post, December 18, 2000; Len Miniace, "U.S. judge extends ban on condemning property," The Jo=al
News, Dec. 16, 2000.
37 J.A. Lobbia, 'East Harlem Suit Challenges Eminent Domain Property Rights and Wrongs," Village Voice, Dec, 26, 1999.
38 Minnieh v. Gargano. Case No. 01-9219 (2d Cir., filed Oct. 18, 2001).
itL''-'---
EMIONT DOMAIN
March 2002 9
Toledo, Ohio
■■
In 1999, the city of Toledo condemned 83 homes to make room for expansion of a Daimler -Chrysler
Jeep manufacturing plant Even though the homes were well-maintained, Toledo declared the area to be a
slum. Threatening to leave town otherwise, Chrysler asked for and
received $232 million in state and municipal aid for its new plant Using
In 1999, the city of Toledo
$28.8 million loaned to the city by HUD, Toledo paid for relocation of the
condemned 83 homes to
property owners and used eminent domain to acquire the homes of
make room for expansion
those who resisted its offers. Toledo had hoped to repay the loan
through increased tax revenue from the expected 4,900 -person Chrysler
of a DaimlerChrysler Jeep
workforce. However, the new plant that Jeep built was fully automated,
manufacturing plant.
assembling cars by laser -guided robots without much human participa-
Even though the homes
tion. in total, the new plant employs only 2,100 workers.39
Were well-maintained,
Other Ohio cities are anxious to get on the eminent domain bandwag-
Toledo declared the area
on. The city of Akron recently proposed an urban renewal project in East
to be a slum.
Akron that would condemn houses and businesses for the benefit of a
Mercedes-Benz deaiership.40 One of the homes is owned by a Korean War
veteran and his wife, who have
lived there for 30 years. Nearby Richfield also is in the process of condemning homes and businesses for
transfer to a private developer to develop commercial propelty.41
39 Gideon Kanner, "The New Robber Sams," National L.J., May 21, 2001, at A19.
40 Julie Wallace, "Residents Blast Plan for Ganley Expansion," Akron Beacon-Joumal, Dec. 11, 2001, at D1; Editorial, "Should City
Aid Land Deals for Private Business?," Akron Beacon Journal, Nov. 28, 2001, at A15.
41 Resolution No. 103.2001 of the Council of the Village of Richfield, Summit County, State of Ohio (passed on Oct. 2, 2001).
it64ff>Riii'�`-'
20 March 2002
EMINENT DOMAIN
Hurst Texas
The city of Hurst, Texas, agreed to let its largest taxpayer, a real estate company, expand its North East
Mall and thus increase its sales and property tax revenue. There happened to be 127 homes in the way, but
that didn't deter the City. Under the threat of eminent domain, almost all the homeowners sold their proper-
ty. Ten did not, and brought a Iawsuit.42 The Lopez, Duval, Pmhs, and Laue families had each owned their
homes for approximately 30 years. Others had been there for more than a
In court, the owners pre- decade.43
sented evidence that the A Texas trial judge refused to stay the condemnations while the suit was
land surveyor who ongoing, so the residents lost their homes 44 Leonard Prohs had to move
designed the roads for while his wife was in the hospital with brain cancer.45 She died only five
the map had been told days after their house was demolished. Phyllis Duval's husband also was
to change the path of in the hospital with cancer at the time they were required to move. He died
one road to run through one month after the demolition. Of the ten couples, three spouses died
eight of the houses of and four others suffered heart attacks during the dispute and litigation.46
the owners challenging In court, the owners presented evidence that the land surveyor who
the condemnations. designed the roads for the mall had been told to change the path of one
road to run through eight of the houses of the owners challenging the con-
demnations.47 The case ground on through litigation, and with no final
decision ever issued, the owners finally settled in June 2000. Until the settlement, they had received no
compensation at all for the loss of their homes. All are still upset at what the city did to them.48
42 "10 Residents Under Siege by Proposal for Big Mali," New York Times, May 18, 1997, at A16.
43 Jennifer Packer, "Fighting for home; settlement allows mall expansion, to the sorrow of residents," Dallas Morning News, July 2,
2000, at IS.
44 "Texas Judge Clears Way for Expansion of Mall," New York Times, May 24, 1997, at A9.
45 Eric Felten, "Kiss Your House Good -Bye," Reader's Digest, March 2001.
46 Jennifer Paciaer, "Fighting for home," supra fn. 43.
47 Kendall Anderson, "Hurst accused of altering road plan; City denies changing course to allow for condemnations," Dallas Moming
News, June 26, 1997, at 1G.
48 Jennifer Packer, "Fighting for home," supra fn. 43.
�venNx>tan"�Rr;
EMINENT D4MAiiV
March 2002 11
Conclusion
Most people would be shocked to discover that governments across the nation are taking individuals' homes
only to transfer that property to a favored business or neighbor—or that businesses are often being con-
demned so that another business can take their property and make a larger profit. Yet in the past few years,
governments across the country have taken private homes and businesses to replace them with other pri-
vately owned single businesses, malls, industrial developments and upscale housing. These "Top Ten" abus-
es are just a fraction of the many abuses of eminent domain throughout the nation. Under our Constitution,
property rights are not conditioned on the whim of those with financial and political influence. Nor should
they be sacrificed just so municipalities can put more money in their coffers. The time has come to. end the
abuse of eminent domain for the benefit of private parties, and the Castle Coalition will be at the center of a
nationwide effort to resist the types of abuses catalogued in this report.
gni ?�?'T-T� --
i:2 March 2002
EMiN�NT DOMAIN
The Castle Coalition is a nationwide network of property owners and community
activists that seeks to prevent government and private parties from taking private property
through eminent domain for private use. Although the federal and state constitutions limit
condemnations to "public use," governments at every level increasingly use condemna-
tions to benefit politically and financially powerful private parties. This report, The Ten
Worst Abuses of Eminent Domain, 1998-2002, by Institute for Justice Senior Attorney
Dana Berliner, describes 10 of the most egregious eminent domain abuses in recent
years. This repos: will be followed by a report describing the more than 100 recent uses
of eminent domain for private parties.
The organization takes its name from the principle that everyone's home (or business)
should be their castle -a place where they are safe and free from abusive government
power. The Castle Coalition is a project of the Institute for Justice. For more information,
visit www.casfecoaltion.org.
Citizens Fighting Eminent Domain Abuse
www.CasdeC*alition.org