Lodi Planning Commission - August 12, 2026

Lodi

Aug 10

Lodi Planning Commission Agenda — August 12, 2026

Summary

The Lodi Planning Commission meets Wednesday, August 12, 2026 at 7:00 p.m. at the Carnegie Forum, with Zoom and YouTube participation available and written comment accepted at pccomments@lodi.gov until 3:00 p.m. that day. The agenda is short but consequential: two linked public hearings that together set up Lodi’s next major westward expansion — a Phase 4 Development Code overhaul governing annexation, and the 95.3-acre Westside “F” Annexation itself.

This is the Commission’s first meeting since June 10, 2026. June minutes are up for approval. Staff had previously indicated that this meeting would cover an annexation, related code amendments, a car wash, and electronic signs on city property. The car wash and electronic sign items do not appear on the posted agenda.

Meeting Logistics & Public Participation

In person: Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi
Zoom webinar: Meeting ID 824 8423 0393, Passcode 551089; dial-in 1 (669) 444-9171 or 1 (346) 248-7799
Livestream: youtube.com/CityofLodi
Email comment: pccomments@lodi.gov, received no later than 3:00 p.m. the day of the meeting
Mail: Community Development Department, P.O. Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241
Hand delivery: Community Development Department, 221 W. Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240, by 3:00 p.m. the day of the meeting
Agenda contact: Jessica Pagán, Administrative Assistant, (209) 333-6711

Item 4a — Phase 4 Code Amendments (2025-01 Z)

Staff, through Interim Community Development Director Cynthia Marsh, recommends that the Commission recommend Council adoption of File 2025-01 Z, applying citywide and across the Sphere of Influence. It implements direction from Council’s June 9, 2026 Annexation and Growth Management Workshop and codifies General Plan policies that have been applied administratively for more than 16 years.

Summary of new and amended Lodi Municipal Code chapters under Phase 4
New / Amended Code	What It Does
Ch. 15.69 — Agricultural Mitigation Fee	Mitigation Fee Act program requiring 1:1 permanent farmland protection for conversion of Prime, Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland. Fee set by Council resolution from a nexus report, payable at building permit, spendable only within San Joaquin County.
Ch. 15.70 — Parkland Dedication / In-Lieu Fees	Quimby Act (Gov. Code §66477) implementation. Requires 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, with a broader 8 acres per 1,000 open-space target at the master plan level including stormwater basins.
§17.28.040 — PD Overlay	Subordinates Planned Developments to annexation, growth management, and master plan requirements. Explicitly states that deviation from zoning standards “shall not, in itself, constitute a public benefit.”
Ch. 17.77 — Boundary Changes	Two-stage annexation process: a Merit Hearing before any formal application, then full application with 18 submittal categories including CEQA, fiscal, stormwater, traffic, and electric utility analysis. Mandatory prezoning, contiguity, master plan, and Council resolution before LAFCO submittal; 12-month bar on reapplication after denial.
Ch. 17.78 — Williamson Act	Procedures for nonrenewal, cancellation, and City succession to contracts. No development approvals until a contract expires or is cancelled.

CEQA status is exempt under §15061(b)(3) and §15378. Legal notice ran in the Lodi News-Sentinel on July 15, 2026.

Item 4b — Westside “F” Annexation (PL2024-023 A)

Applicant Dobbins Properties LLC seeks annexation of 95.3 acres in 20 parcels plus the Taylor Road right-of-way west of Westgate Drive, bounded by W. Vine St. to the north, W. Kettleman Ln. to the south, and S. Lower Sacramento Rd. to the east, currently zoned San Joaquin County AG-20. Senior Planner Tim Kohaya authored the report. The recommendation is a resolution to Council authorizing LAFCO filing, detachment from the Woodbridge Rural Fire Protection District, prezoning, and direction to submit to LAFCO.

Project Facts

The site is entirely within the Sphere of Influence, adopted 2008, and is the last remaining Phase 1 growth area substantially surrounded by the City on three sides.
Lodi has roughly a two-year supply of entitled residential lots left in Gateway, Reynolds Ranch, and Rosegate — the stated urgency behind the RHNA and Housing Element argument.
45.7 acres of Prime Farmland would eventually convert, triggering 1:1 mitigation administered via the California Farmland Trust.
Three parcels totaling roughly 40 acres carry Williamson Act contracts that the City would succeed to.
The revised boundary, narrowed after a 2025 landowner poll showed opposition along Hilde Lane and eastern Taylor Road, leaves an 11.4-acre unincorporated island, normally disfavored by LAFCO.
CEQA relies on §15183 consistency with the 2010 General Plan EIR and the 2025 Amendment EIR, which redesignated 19.9 acres from Office to Mixed Use Corridor.
Notice published August 1, 2026; 19 notices mailed to owners within 300 feet.
The Project Area contains approximately 15 existing residences across the 20 parcels, making this inhabited territory for annexation protest purposes.

Prezoning Acreage Discrepancy

The posted agenda and the staff report do not match.

Comparison of prezoning acreage between the agenda cover sheet and the staff report
Zoning District	Agenda Cover	Staff Report
General Commercial (GC)	9.2 ac	9.2 ac
Mixed Use Corridor (MCO)	19.1 ac	19.1 ac
Residential Low Density (RLD)	59.8 ac	49.8 ac
Residential Medium Density (RMD)	7.2 ac	7.2 ac
Public & Community Facilities (PF)	Not listed	10.0 ac

The staff report version totals 95.3 acres and carves out the 10-acre PF site, including approximately 2 acres reserved for a future fire station with a co-located police substation, plus a detention basin with park amenities and a possible community center. The agenda cover appears to have folded the PF acreage into RLD and omitted the PF district entirely.

Proposed prezoning acreage by district, per the Item 4b staff report. Total 95.3 acres.

Process Notes

Both hearings are labeled quasi-judicial, requiring ex parte disclosures under Resolution 2006-31 and Gov. Code §84308 campaign-contribution disclosures over $250. The Merit Hearing process created by Item 4a does not apply to the Westside annexation, because that application was submitted in 2025 and the trigger is the application date.

Commission actions are appealable to the City Council within 10 business days with a $300 fee, filed with the City Clerk under LMC §17.70.050. Only persons who participated by submitting written or oral testimony, or by attending the hearing, may appeal.

Also pending outside these hearings: a Revenue & Taxation Code §99 property tax exchange agreement with the Woodbridge Rural Fire Protection District, negotiated separately from the annexation.

What “Quasi-Judicial” Means Here

A quasi-judicial hearing is one where the body applies existing law to a specific property or applicant, rather than making new law of general applicability. Courts treat these like mini-trials: the decision must rest on the evidentiary record built at the noticed hearing, the parties are entitled to know and rebut everything the decision-makers considered, and commissioners must be neutral.

The practical consequence is the ex parte rule. An ex parte communication is any substantive oral, written, or electronic contact about the merits of a pending matter between a decision-maker and an interested person, occurring outside the hearing — a phone call from a developer, a hallway conversation with an opponent, an email from a neighbor. There is no California statute restricting ex parte contacts with city decision-makers; the constraint comes from procedural due process case law and from locally adopted policies, which is why Lodi has Resolution No. 2006-31. Undisclosed contacts in a quasi-judicial matter are presumptively prejudicial and can support a due process challenge.

By contrast, in legislative proceedings — ordinance adoption, general plan amendments, policy of general applicability — ex parte contact is permitted and commissioners may freely discuss the matter with constituents.

The Item 4a Labeling Question

The August 12 agenda states that “the above items” — plural, covering both 4a and 4b — are quasi-judicial and require Resolution 2006-31 disclosures. That designation is arguably over-inclusive.

Item 4a is a citywide Municipal Code amendment applying to all property within the City limits and areas within the City’s Sphere of Influence, with the City of Lodi as its own applicant. That is legislative action. Item 4b, involving annexation, detachment, and prezoning of 20 identified APNs owned by named parties with Dobbins Properties LLC as applicant, is genuinely quasi-judicial.

Lodi’s own May 27, 2026 agenda used the singular construction, “The above item is a quasi-judicial hearing,” for a single item. The plural here appears to be a boilerplate carryover rather than a considered legal determination. Over-disclosure carries no legal risk, but it blurs the record.

Ex Parte Disclosures in the Packet

The 204-page packet contains no ex parte disclosures. The only reference to the subject is the standing notice on the agenda cover sheet.

This is consistent with the disclosure procedure rather than an omission. Under the process described on the agenda, disclosures are made either in writing to the Planning Commission secretary prior to the hearing or verbally at the time of the hearing, so they appear in the August 12 minutes rather than in a packet assembled and posted days earlier. The June 10, 2026 minutes likewise record no ex parte disclosures, though that meeting’s only hearing was a routine two-lot parcel map.

The Parallel §84308 Regime

A separate and distinct disclosure requirement also applies. Under Gov. Code §84308, a commissioner is disqualified from participating in any agenda item involving discretionary land use permits or other entitlements if they received more than $250 in campaign contributions within the preceding 12 months from the applicant, its agents, or any financially interested participant who actively supports or opposes the decision. Both the commissioner and the contributor must disclose the fact, the amount, and the recipient for the official record — in writing to the secretary before the hearing, or verbally at the hearing.

Item 4b has a named private applicant, 20 property owners, and organized landowner opposition documented in the 2025 poll, which makes §84308 materially relevant in a way it was not for the June parcel map.

Disclosures made on the record appear in the August 12 minutes and the meeting recording archived at youtube.com/CityofLodi.

R&T §99: How the Mechanism Works

When territory changes jurisdiction, the underlying 1% ad valorem property tax does not grow; it is reallocated. Revenue & Taxation Code §99 governs which agency ends up with which share.

The Sequence for a LAFCO Annexation

On filing, but before issuing a certificate of filing, the LAFCO executive officer notifies the county assessor and auditor and identifies every agency whose service area or responsibility changes.
The assessor reports assessed valuations and tax rate areas within 30 days; the auditor estimates current-year property tax revenue from the territory and each agency’s share.
Within 45 days the auditor notifies each affected agency of the amount and the allocation factors subject to negotiation.
Agencies then have 60 days to negotiate, extendable to 90 on written request.
Where a special district such as a fire district is affected, the county board of supervisors negotiates on the district’s behalf, after consulting the district board.
LAFCO cannot issue a certificate of filing until adopted resolutions accepting the exchange are presented. Without resolutions there is no complete application and no hearing.
If negotiations fail on a qualified city annexation, §99(e) forces a three-stage escalation: a jointly funded independent fiscal consultant for 30 days, then a mediator for 30 days, then advisory arbitration where each side submits a last-and-best offer for 30 days.

A master property tax transfer agreement under §99(d) can satisfy the requirement wholesale, avoiding parcel-by-parcel negotiation. San Joaquin LAFCo accepts a master agreement as fulfilling the tax-sharing requirement, provided all affected agencies were party to it.

The Woodbridge Rural FPD Situation

The Project Area currently sits in the Woodbridge Rural Fire Protection District, headquartered at 400 E. Augusta St., Woodbridge, under Chief Darin Downey. On annexation, fire service transfers to the Lodi Fire Department, and because the responsible agency changes, the City and the District must negotiate a §99 property tax exchange. The staff report states that the City is participating in those negotiations in good faith as required by State law, and that any agreement will be considered and approved separately from the annexation proceedings.

That separation is procedural, not optional, and it cannot be deferred past LAFCO filing. Under §99(b)(6) the exchange resolutions are a gate on the certificate of filing, so the Commission’s recommendation to direct staff to prepare and submit an annexation application to LAFCO cannot reach a LAFCO hearing until the exchange is resolved. The packet’s own new code language reinforces the point: LMC §17.77.090(I) would make all costs of detachment from rural fire protection districts the applicant’s responsibility.

Existing Framework and Precedent

Existing Lodi and San Joaquin County property tax sharing framework applicable to annexations
Element	Detail
Master agreement	Lodi and San Joaquin County executed an Agreement for Property Tax Allocation upon Annexation via Resolution 2023-08, covering pending and future annexations through July 31, 2029.
Fire-detachment split	For annexations involving detachment from a fire district: 40% City / 60% County of the Annexation Property Tax Base and all incremental growth.
Non-fire-detachment split	20/80, 15/85, or 10/90 City/County depending on when the consolidated fire district was established.
Most-favored-city clause	Lodi’s share cannot fall below that of any other San Joaquin city meeting the same criteria.
Recent precedent	The 2025 Maverik annexation, APN 061-020-15 at E. Kettleman Lane and Beckman Road, also detached from Woodbridge Rural FPD and included a three-party agreement plus an MOU with the District to transition fire service.

Addendum — Open Questions

The following items are not answered in the August 12 packet and represent the principal gaps in the record.

A. Property Tax Exchange (R&T §99)

Whether the 2023 master agreement fully covers this transaction, or whether Woodbridge Rural FPD’s own share requires separate County-led negotiation under §99(b)(5). The master agreement addresses the City/County split, not the District’s baseline allocation.
Whether the county auditor’s notification letter has been issued and the statutory 60-day, or extended 90-day, negotiation clock has started.
Whether the exchange will be executed as a standalone agreement or an amendment to the existing master agreement, and what the resulting revenue split is in dollars.
Whether the roughly 40 acres under Williamson Act contract, which remain at reduced assessment after the City succeeds to the contracts, were netted out of the base-year calculation, and how the eventual step-up on nonrenewal or cancellation is treated.
The applicant’s exposure under proposed LMC §17.77.090(I), which assigns all fire district detachment costs to the applicant, and whether that exposure has been quantified or reduced to an agreement.

B. Fiscal Analysis

No fiscal impact analysis or revenue estimate appears anywhere in the packet, despite the new Chapter 17.77 requiring one for future annexations and §17.77.070(E) making fiscal neutrality or benefit an express evaluation criterion.
No estimate of the net General Fund cost of extending police, fire, water, wastewater, storm drainage, and electric service to the Project Area over the phasing horizon.
No cost figure or funding source identified for the future fire station and co-located police substation on the reserved 2-acre site. The report states that construction and funding occur separately and are not conditions of the annexation.

C. Ex Parte and Conflict Disclosures

Whether any written ex parte disclosures were filed with the Planning Commission secretary in advance of the hearing.
Whether any commissioner has received §84308 campaign contributions above $250 from Dobbins Properties LLC, its agents, any of the 20 property owners, or any organized participant supporting or opposing the annexation.
Whether the quasi-judicial designation applied to Item 4a was a deliberate legal determination or a boilerplate carryover, and whether it alters the disclosure obligations commissioners understand themselves to be under.

D. Annexation Mechanics

Reconciliation of the RLD acreage discrepancy, 59.8 versus 49.8 acres, and the omission of the PF district from the agenda cover sheet — specifically whether the agenda or the ordinance exhibit controls.
How LAFCO will treat the resulting 11.4-acre unincorporated island, given that San Joaquin LAFCo policy disfavors island creation absent a reasonable effort at inclusion.
Whether the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg protest proceedings will clear, given the documented landowner opposition that prompted the boundary revision.
Which Williamson Act resolution pathway — nonrenewal, cancellation, or City succession — the Council will select for the three contracted parcels, and whether the recorded owner agreements required under proposed §17.78.060 have been drafted.
The status of the agreement with California Farmland Trust to administer the agricultural mitigation program, and the per-acre in-lieu fee that will apply to the 45.7 acres of Prime Farmland.
Whether a traffic impact analysis and stormwater technical analysis exist for the Project Area, since §15183 reliance defers project-specific study to future master planning.
The file number inconsistency between the packet designation PL2024-023 A and the City’s published tracking designation 2024-09 A for the same Westside “F” application.
Whether the application will be amended to add a General Plan Amendment and prezoning change for an existing commercial parcel to allow High Density Residential development, an outstanding issue identified in the City’s own project tracking that does not appear in the August 12 packet.

E. Modeling the Westside Outcome Against the 2025 Maverik Precedent

The Maverik annexation is the only recent Lodi annexation involving detachment from the Woodbridge Rural Fire Protection District, and it is the closest available template for how the Westside transaction is likely to be structured and how long it will take. The two projects differ enough in scale and character that the precedent is instructive on procedure and unreliable on timing.

The Maverik Record

Project: An 8.81-acre mixed commercial development with a convenience store and high-volume fueling facility at 4872 E. Kettleman Lane, APN 061-020-15, at Beckman Road. Approximately 9.71 acres including adjacent rights-of-way. Applicant Maverik, Inc., File PL2023-040.
Prezoning: Unzoned to General Commercial (GC) via Ordinance No. 2032.
CEQA: A Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared under CEQA Guidelines §§15070–15075.
Fire detachment: Concurrent detachment from Woodbridge Rural FPD, handled through a three-party agreement among the City of Lodi, Maverik, Inc., and the Woodbridge Fire District, with the City Manager authorized to execute, plus a separate MOU with the District to transition fire service responsibilities.
Council fiscal treatment: The August 6, 2025 Council report recorded Fiscal Impact and Funding Available as “Not applicable.”
Approval path: Planning Commission approval June 2025; Council introduction of Ordinance No. 2032 on July 16, 2025; second reading and adoption August 6, 2025; ordinance effective 30 days after passage.
LAFCO: Submitted to San Joaquin LAFCo in December 2025 as LAFC 12-26, with a public hearing anticipated spring 2026. As of June 2026 the matter remained pending at LAFCO.

Structural Comparison

Comparison of the 2025 Maverik annexation and the proposed Westside F annexation
Factor	Maverik (2025)	Westside “F” (2026)
Area	8.81 ac (~9.71 ac with ROW)	95.3 ac plus Taylor Road ROW
Parcels / owners	1 parcel, single owner-applicant	20 parcels, multiple owners; applicant owns only a portion
Habitation status	Uninhabited commercial parcel	Inhabited — roughly 15 residences
Prezoning	Single district (GC)	Five districts (RLD, MCO, PF, GC, RMD)
CEQA path	Project-specific Mitigated Negative Declaration	§15183 consistency with prior certified EIRs; no new document
Prime Farmland	Not a driving issue	45.7 ac requiring 1:1 mitigation
Williamson Act	Not applicable	3 parcels, ~40 ac, requiring City succession
Code dependency	None	Contingent on Phase 4 amendments adopted the same night
Island creation	None	11.4-acre unincorporated island
Documented opposition	None recorded	Landowner poll opposition drove boundary revision
Fire detachment instrument	Three-party agreement + MOU	Structure not yet disclosed

Projected Timeline

Elapsed months by procedural phase. Maverik figures are observed; Westside figures are modeled from the Maverik intervals adjusted for the Williamson Act succession, the §99 exchange with Woodbridge Rural FPD, and inhabited-territory protest proceedings. The Maverik LAFCO phase is shown at its minimum observed duration and remained open at the time of measurement.

Applying the Maverik intervals to the Westside schedule produces the following projection. Planning Commission action on August 12, 2026, followed by Council introduction and second reading of the prezoning ordinance across roughly two months, places Council adoption near October 2026, with the ordinance effective 30 days later. Maverik took approximately four months from Council adoption to LAFCO submittal; Westside carries three additional prerequisites that Maverik did not — the §99 exchange resolutions, the Williamson Act succession contracts, and the agricultural mitigation agreement with California Farmland Trust — which realistically extends that interval to six to eight months and places LAFCO submittal in the second quarter of 2027. A LAFCO hearing would then follow in late 2027 or 2028.

Where the Precedent Breaks Down

Protest proceedings are the principal divergence. Maverik was a single uninhabited commercial parcel with a consenting owner, so Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg protest was a formality. The Westside area is inhabited territory with multiple owners and documented opposition. Written protest by 25% of registered voters or landowners triggers an election; protest above 50% terminates the proceeding. This is the specific risk LAFCo staff flagged when advising the City to redraw the boundary, and it is the reason the 11.4-acre island exists.
The three-party agreement model does not scale cleanly. The Maverik instrument bound the City, one applicant, and the District. Dobbins Properties LLC does not own all 20 Westside parcels, so either the agreement covers only the applicant’s holdings, or additional owners must be joined, or the City absorbs the detachment cost that §17.77.090(I) would otherwise assign to the applicant.
The “Not applicable” fiscal treatment will not survive at this scale. A single fueling station generating sales tax presents a straightforward fiscal case. A 95.3-acre mixed-use annexation with roughly 400 to 550 potential dwelling units, a fire station obligation, and a detention basin does not. The absence of any fiscal analysis in the Westside packet mirrors the Maverik treatment but conflicts with the criteria the Commission is being asked to adopt in Item 4a the same evening.
Growth allocation capacity is not a constraint. As of May 2026 the City reported 2,079 units available for allocation, comprising 985 Low Density, 628 Medium Density, and 466 High Density. The Westside RLD acreage at 8 units per acre yields a theoretical maximum near 398 units and the RMD acreage yields roughly 58 to 144 units, both well within available allocations.
Sequencing risk runs the other direction. Maverik depended on no pending code changes. The Westside annexation depends on Phase 4 amendments that have not yet been adopted by Council. If Item 4a is modified, continued, or denied, the Williamson Act succession mechanism the Westside annexation relies on does not exist.

Most Probable Outcome

The Maverik precedent suggests the Commission recommends approval and Council adopts, since neither body has recently declined a Woodbridge Rural FPD detachment brought forward by staff. The binding constraints are downstream: the §99 exchange resolutions gate the LAFCO certificate of filing, and the protest proceeding gates completion. The realistic failure modes are not a Planning Commission denial but a protracted §99 negotiation, a LAFCO objection to the 11.4-acre island, or a successful landowner protest — any of which delays rather than defeats the annexation, given that the Project Area has been inside the Sphere of Influence since 2008 and designated Phase 1 throughout.

References

Contacts

Planning Commission comments: pccomments@lodi.gov
Jessica Pagán, Administrative Assistant — (209) 333-6711
City Clerk, appeals — City Hall 2nd Floor, 221 W. Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240, (209) 333-6702
San Joaquin LAFCo — (209) 953-7646

Lodi Planning CommissionMeeting Summary

Don Bradford