Lodi Planning Commission - August 26, 2026

Lodi
Written By Don Bradford
Lodi Planning Commission — August 26, 2026

Lodi Planning Commission

Wednesday, August 26, 2026 · 7:00 p.m.

Carnegie Forum, 305 W. Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240

Zoom Webinar ID 824 8423 0393 (passcode 551089) · streamed at youtube.com/CityofLodi

Get Directions Add to Calendar (.ics)

Contact: Jessica Pagán, Administrative Assistant, (209) 333-6711. Written comment to pccomments@lodi.gov or the Community Development Department by 3:00 p.m. the day of the meeting.

Summary

A short agenda with two public hearings, both quasi-judicial and both requiring ex parte disclosure under Resolution No. 2006-31, plus Government Code §84308 campaign-contribution disclosure, since both items are discretionary land use permits.

Item 4a splits a City-origin parcel on South Stockton Street so each phase of the 110-unit Lodi Commons at Salas Park affordable senior housing project gets its own building site. Item 4b would let Rogers Media install three programmable LED signs on City land — a program whose staff justification is City revenue that the draft Development Agreement never actually quantifies.

Overview

Agenda items, requested actions, applicants, CEQA determinations, and staff recommendations
Item Action File Applicant CEQA Staff rec.
2 Approve minutes of June 10, 2026 and August 12, 2026 — — — Approve
4a Tentative Parcel Map — split one parcel into two at 2001 S. Stockton St. PL2026-008 TPM Dillon & Murphy (engineer) for Delta Community Developers Corp. Categorical exemption, §15315 (Class 15, Minor Land Divisions) Approve
4b Use Permit — install, maintain, operate three programmable electronic message signs on City property PL2026-002 Rogers Media Company (c/o Valley Outdoor Advertising) Exempt, §15061(b)(3) "common sense" Approve

Both are final Commission actions, not recommendations to Council. Each is appealable to the City Council within 10 business days with a $300 fee under LMC 17.70.050, and only by persons who submitted written or oral testimony or attended the hearing.

Notice for both items was published in the Lodi News-Sentinel on Saturday, August 15, 2026. Item 4a generated 33 notices within 300 feet; Item 4b generated 187 notices across the three sign sites.

Nothing is listed under Planning Matters, Announcements, Council Actions, or SPARC Actions in the packet. SPARC also meets August 26 per the August 12 minutes.

Record-level questions and inconsistencies identified in this packet review, by agenda item. The sign Use Permit accounts for more than half of them.

Item 2 — Minutes (June 10 and August 12, 2026)

Two sets of minutes are up at once because the June 10 minutes were pulled on August 12 at Assistant City Attorney Janelle Krattiger's request and continued without stated reason.

June 10, 2026

Adjourned 7:17 p.m. A single hearing, the 116 W. Lockeford Street parcel split (PL2026-005, Omar Siddiqui / JTS Engineering), approved 6–0 with Lydon absent. Commissioner questions covered emergency-vehicle access, the Public Works easement (which cannot be built on and will stay undeveloped), the absence of parking requirements in Downtown Mixed Use, and confirmation that both resulting parcels stay Downtown Mixed Use. This was Commissioner Eddy's last meeting.

August 12, 2026

Adjourned 8:29 p.m. Five members present, Chair Hicks absent, and two consequential items passed 5–0.

  • 4a — Growth-management code package. New LMC Chapter 15.69 (Agricultural Mitigation Fee), Chapter 15.70 (Parkland Dedication and In-Lieu Fees), amendments to §17.28.040 (-PD Overlay), and new Chapters 17.77 (Boundary Changes) and 17.78 (Williamson Act Regulations). Staff clarified that a developer, not the City, pays Williamson Act exit costs (payable at once or phased over ten years); that the ag mitigation fee is administered through the California Farmland Trust and is separate from the SJCOG Habitat Conservation Program; that mitigation land must be in San Joaquin County and as close to Lodi as possible; and that the fee scales to prime farmland lost. Councilmember Lisa Craig-Hensley spoke in support but argued the 3:1 park development ratio should be reconsidered against the State's 5:1 ratio as more fiscally responsible — an open question now heading to Council.
  • 4b — Westside "F" annexation. Recommendation that Council authorize annexation of 95.3 acres south of W. Vine Street, north of W. Kettleman Lane, west of S. Lower Sacramento Road; detach from Woodbridge Fire Protection District; pre-zone 9.2 ac GC, 19.1 ac MCO, 59.8 ac RLD, 7.2 ac RMD; and submit to San Joaquin LAFCO. Applicant Dobbins Properties, Inc. (PL2024-023 A), CEQA §15183. Fire Chief Ken Johnson addressed the county island created by the boundary and confirmed two City stations are closer than the Woodbridge station. Staff explained the island exists because more than 12 parcels at LAFCO triggers a protest vote that could deny the whole area and restrict reapplication, and that LAFCO itself suggested the island. Property owners Steve Culbertson and Janie Williams objected to the island and to notification practice; Williams tied her support to the final Williamson Act code language. Dave and Shelly Hedricks supported. Applicant Matt Dobbins clarified the project covers only a portion of the parcels.

Open issues on the minutes

  • Both sets of minutes record the motion language as "recommends that Planning Commission adopt a resolution…" where the substance was either the Commission's own action (June 10 parcel map) or a recommendation to the City Council (August 12 items). This is a recurring drafting error worth correcting on the record before adoption, since the minutes are the operative record for appeal and LAFCO filing.
  • The August 12 motion cites CEQA "Section 15601(b)(3)"; the correct citation is 15061(b)(3).
  • The reason the City Attorney continued the June 10 minutes is not stated. Worth asking on the record.
  • Commissioner Eddy's departure after June 10 leaves the seven-seat Commission short; August 12 seated five. Whether a replacement has been appointed is not addressed in the packet.

Item 4a — Tentative Parcel Map, 2001 South Stockton Street (PL2026-008)

What is being asked

Split one 3.30-acre parcel (143,748 sq ft, APN 062-280-04) into two:

Proposed parcel dimensions
Parcel Area Lot width Lot depth Notes
Parcel 1 1.3 ac / 56,628 sq ft 253 ft 195 ft Runs parallel to the UPRR tracks; site of Building 1
Parcel 2 2.0 ac / 87,120 sq ft 738 ft 105 ft Near S. Stockton St. / E. Century Blvd.; site of Building 2

RHD district minimums are 8,000 sq ft lot area and 60 ft width, with no minimum depth (Ord. No. 1869, LMC 17.22.040, adopted 5-20-2020), so both parcels clear the standards by a wide margin. The two parcel areas sum exactly to the parent parcel.

Applicant of record is Dillon & Murphy (P.O. Box 2180, Lodi; engineering office at 847 N. Cluff Ave., Suite A-2). Property owner is Delta Community Developers Corporation, 2575 Grand Canal Blvd., Suite 220, Stockton. General Plan: High Density Residential (HDR). Zoning: Residential High Density (RHD), 15–35 units/acre.

Surroundings: Industrial self-storage to the north, Open Space park to the south, RLD single-family to the east, UPRR right-of-way to the west.

Background

The split is the plat mechanism for Lodi Commons at Salas Park, a 110-unit affordable senior housing project (PL2024-019 SP) to be built in two phases. Splitting the parcel gives each phase its own legal building site — the standard structure for separately financed tax-credit phases.

  • The Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin lists the development as two buildings, Phase 1 at 55 units and Phase 2 at 55 units, 573–700 sq ft units, with an elevator, a resident community building, and solar sized to offset 100% of common-area and roughly 40% of in-unit electricity (HACSJ).
  • The site is City-owned land between Salas Park and the UPRR tracks; the Planning Commission rezoned the three acres in mid-2024, and Rep. Josh Harder announced $500,000 in federal funding that July for what was then called Salas Park Senior Housing — 110 apartments for about 167 residents in two three-story buildings totaling roughly 96,000 sq ft, restricted to very low-income seniors 55+ (Lodi News-Sentinel).
  • SPARC approved the 110-unit complex on November 13, 2024, then named "Lodi Commons Senior Living, formerly Salas Park Apartments," with an Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (City of Lodi hearing notice).
  • In July 2026 the project received $3 million from the San Joaquin regional housing fund toward 54 affordable homes — one phase (Lodi News-Sentinel); the SJCOG pipeline lists "Lodi Commons at Salas Park," 2001 South Stockton Street, 54 senior rental units, $3,000,000 requested (SJCOG).
  • The project has not broken ground, and the City has indicated the name may have to change to avoid confusion with the existing Lodi Commons Senior Living at 115 Louie Avenue, a 96-unit 1985 community (Lodi411).

Findings and conditions

Staff finds all eight Subdivision Map Act / LMC 17.52.070 findings can be made. The resolution carries eight Planning conditions, eight Public Works conditions, and one Electric Utility condition. The operationally significant ones:

  • Separate water and wastewater services per parcel. Water service installed by City forces at owner's expense; wastewater service from an existing public manhole by the developer's licensed contractor.
  • Public easement dedications recorded with the map: 20-ft water easement along the north property line; 30-ft wastewater and storm drain easement along the south property line; 20–30-ft wastewater easement adjacent to Stockton Street centered on the main.
  • A minimum 24-ft private access easement on Parcel 2 to serve Parcel 1, plus private utility easements as applicable. Existing easements, including the Non-Exclusive Access Easement for 1935 South Stockton Street, must be shown and labeled; no structures — trees included — may encroach.
  • Water rights assignment. The owner must appoint the City as its agent for all overlying water rights appurtenant to the site and assign appropriative and prescriptive rights, as covenants running with the land.
  • Electric Utility: LEU requires a minimum 10-ft PUE running east/west on the south side of both parcels, and states this does not cover all PUEs that may be needed — transformer count and placement require site-specific analysis based on final site plans and electrical load.
  • Approval of the map does not approve any building, use, or design permit; future development stays subject to RHD standards and SPARC review.
  • Fees due within 30 days of final action or the approval is invalidated; judicial review governed by CCP §1094.6.

Open issues and questions for the record

  1. Parcel 1 has no independent street frontage. Finding 2 asserts the site has "adequate size, frontage, and access to adjacent roadways," yet Public Works condition 4.a requires a 24-ft access easement across Parcel 2 to reach Parcel 1. The finding and the condition should be reconciled on the record, and the Commission should confirm the Fire Department has signed off on the easement geometry for apparatus access to Building 1 — the same question Vice Chair Singh asked about the Lockeford Street split in June.
  2. Easement stacking on the south property line. LEU wants a 10-ft PUE east/west on the south side of both parcels; Public Works wants a 30-ft wastewater and storm drain easement along the same southern line. Whether these overlap, nest, or compound into a 40-ft encumbrance affects the buildable envelope for Building 1 and should be clarified before the map records.
  3. Environmental record cites a different file number. Finding 7 relies on "the Initial Study prepared for the proposed senior housing project (PL2023-038 GPA)," while the background section identifies the housing project as PL2024-019 SP and the 2024 SPARC notice identifies the IS/MMRP under PL2024-019 SP. The Commission should confirm which environmental document it is relying on.
  4. CEQA Class 15 prior-division test. Section 15315 requires that the parcel not have been involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous two years. Staff asserts it was not. Given the 2024 rezoning and conveyance of City land for this project, it is worth confirming on the record whether any lot line adjustment or conveyance in that sequence constituted a division.
  5. Drafting errors in the resolution and staff report. The staff report's Public Hearing Notice section says "Legal Notice for the Use Permit was published" — this item is a parcel map. The Figure 2 narrative introduces the "Downtown Mixed Use General Plan land use designation" and then describes High Density Residential. Resolution finding 1 refers to "ARHD zoning designation" and cites LMC 17.18.030 while the staff report cites 17.52.070 and the recital cites Chapter 17.74. Resolution finding 5 says the map "complies with all applicable commercial development standards." None of these are fatal, but a quasi-judicial record with an appeal window should be clean.
  6. Signature block inconsistency. Cynthia Marsh signs Item 4a as "Community Development Director" and Item 4b as "Interim Community Development Director." The minutes use Interim Director / Deputy Director / City Planner. Worth confirming the current title of record.
  7. Timeline and name. Neither the phasing schedule nor the project name change is addressed. With $3M awarded for 54 units in July 2026, whether Phase 1 has secured tax credits and a construction start date is the substantive public question behind this plat action.

Item 4b — Use Permit for three electronic message signs on City property (PL2026-002)

What is being asked

A Use Permit for Rogers Media Company (c/o Valley Outdoor Advertising, 1920 Tienda Dr., Suite 203, Lodi) to install, operate, and maintain three single-sided programmable LED pole signs on City-owned land:

Proposed electronic message sign locations, parcel numbers, zoning, and configurations
# Location APN Zoning / GP Configuration
1 Median on S. Hutchins St., ~285 ft north of S. Hutchins/E. Harney Ln. none (right-of-way) None / Public Right-of-Way Center-mounted single-face pole sign, centered in median, behind the existing Welcome sign
2 City Animal Shelter, 1345 W. Kettleman Ln. 031-040-50 Public/Quasi-Public Flag-mounted sign on the north side of W. Kettleman
3 2800 W. Kettleman Ln., ~40 ft west/southwest of W. Kettleman/Westgate Dr. 058-030-10 Public/Quasi-Public Center-mounted pole sign on the south side of W. Kettleman

Each sign carries 78 sq ft of display area on 9-inch-wide poles. The Hutchins site plan (Faria Engineering, sealed by David L. Faria, PE No. 92432, dated 5/25/2026) describes an 8-ft-high by 12-ft-wide sign with a 16-ft overall height and 9.5 ft to the bottom of the sign face, under the 2022 California Electrical Code and 2022 California Existing Building Code.

Location 1 sits in the median directly in front of single-family homes on Cedar Court (APNs 062-26-039 through -046), adjacent to existing traffic signals, street light, sound wall, utility boxes, and joint pole with guy wires.

Background

  • 2022 code framework. On June 15, 2022 the City Council adopted an ordinance adding LMC §17.34.070(H), creating "Community Electronic Message Signs" on City-owned facilities only: monument, pole, or building-mounted; maximum and brightness standards set; off-site commercial advertising expressly allowed for this sign type; conditional use permit from the Planning Commission and SPARC design review required (City of Lodi File #25-057). This matters because the general programmable-sign rule at §17.34.070(F)(4) restricts content to non-commercial or on-site commercial messages (Ordinance No. 1922 / 2021 PC packet).
  • Pole-sign standards under (H). Maximum height 20 ft, maximum height to the bottom of the LED panel 12 ft, maximum screen size 6 ft high by 12 ft wide (72 sq ft), and the sign support must be at least one-third the width of the sign face; maximum LED brightness 7,500 nits with automatic ambient adjustment (Lodi zoning code, Chapter 3).
  • 2024 RFP. The City issued an RFP on March 18, 2024 (proposals due April 1) for a contractor to design, install, and manage three programmable LED signs — originally two pole signs and one wall sign, with the Harney/Hutchins sign to be a wall sign on an existing 8-ft sound wall, the Animal Shelter a pole sign, and the third at the southwest corner of W. Kettleman/S. Westgate. The RFP standards table listed operating hours limited to 6:00 a.m.–10:00 p.m. unless different hours are established by the conditional use permit, and flagged that an administrative deviation would be needed to reduce the minimum support width (City of Lodi RFP; bid posting).
  • Rogers Media selected. Rogers Media first approached the City in 2022 about a revenue-sharing sign program. A two-sign version reached Council in February 2025 with lease terms of $25,000 per year paid in advance, or 25% of net advertising income, whichever is greater, plus no-fee City display time (File #25-057).
  • Prior Commission and Council actions on the DA. The Commission recommended the Development Agreement on May 13, 2026, unanimously 6–0 (motion Woehl, second Diehl, Eddy absent), with public support from Michael Carouba for the relocated Hutchins/Harney site and the traffic study (Lodi411). Council introduced the ordinance May 6, 2026 and adopted Ordinance No. 2047 on second reading June 3, 2026, effective only after lease execution and at least 30 days after adoption (Lodi411).
  • Design changes since the RFP. Public Works input moved the Hutchins sign farther north from the Harney intersection and into the median to avoid conflicts with traffic control signage and reduce driver distraction, and sign configurations were revised — the Animal Shelter sign, once contemplated as double-sided, is now single-sided, and the Harney/Hutchins wall sign became a median pole sign.
  • Related precedent. In parallel the City is processing the first of a maximum two freeway-oriented electronic billboards under §17.34.070(G) — a 70-ft double-faced pylon with a 376 sq ft LED display at the Lodi CDJR dealership, whose Development Agreement uses the same 7,500 / 500 lumens-per-m² dimming language, a $1,000 annual monitoring fee, a 14-day repair window, and one 8-second City slot per minute (Lodi411).

The administrative deviations

Staff, not the Commission, approved two deviations under LMC §17.40.050 Table 4-3:

  • Sign area: 72 sq ft maximum, +10% allowed administratively = 79.2 sq ft; proposed 78 sq ft. This is roughly +8.3%, within the allowance.
  • Support pole width: the code requires the support be at least one-third the width of the sign face. For a 12-ft-wide face that is 48 inches. The proposal is 9 inches — about one-sixteenth of the face width, roughly an 81% reduction from the standard. Staff's stated justification is aesthetic: photo simulations showed the narrow pole reads as a "floating" sign face rather than a dominant vertical structure, screened by existing features and future landscaping.

Development Agreement DA2024-001 (Attachment E)

Key terms as drafted:

  • Term: five years from the Effective Date, with two City-option five-year extensions on 30 days' notice — up to 15 years.
  • Revenue: §5 allows on-site and off-site electronic messages and advertising, but provides that if the contractor obtains all required approvals for off-site advertising, the parties "shall negotiate the percentage of net proceeds" payable to the City and the supporting record-retention requirements before any off-site advertising occurs. No dollar figure or percentage appears anywhere in the draft.
  • City display time: one 8-second Public Service Message per minute, continuous. City supplies copy and artwork; contractor displays within 48 hours of receipt and approval. Unused City time reverts to the contractor.
  • Content restrictions: contractor covenants that advertising will not be political, religious, or sexual in nature, with definitions supplied; the City covenants no alcohol, tobacco, or gambling advertising (non-gaming services of gambling establishments allowed), and reserves the right to object to advertising "detrimental to the image" of the City.
  • Dimming: automatic dimming between sunset and sunrise; maximum 7,500 lumens per square meter daytime, 500 lumens per square meter nighttime.
  • Maintenance and removal: contractor keeps signs free of damage, graffiti, and malfunction and repairs within 30 days of notice; City keeps the property free of weeds, debris, and rodents. On discontinuance, removal within 60 days or $1,000 per calendar day in fines, then a recorded notice of termination. If the City in its sole discretion determines a sign interferes with future development of nearby City property, removal within 60 days of written notice or the City removes and bills the contractor.
  • Administration: annual staff review for continued conformance with §17.34.070(H); 30-day cure period on default; prevailing-party attorney fees; recordation within 10 days of the Effective Date; contractor indemnity surviving termination.
  • Signatories: Aaron Busch, Interim City Manager; Michael Georguson, President, Rogers Media Company Inc.; attest Olivia Nashed, City Clerk; approved as to form Katie O. Lucchesi, City Attorney. Notice address for the contractor is P.O. Box 97, Sausalito; the site plan lists Matt Rogers at a Sacramento P.O. box; the application lists the Lodi Tienda Drive address of Valley Outdoor Advertising.

Use Permit conditions of approval (Attachment F)

Planning conditions include indemnification, strict compliance, and: referral back to the Commission for review, modification, or revocation under LMC 17.76.070 if traffic safety, operational, maintenance, nuisance, or public safety problems arise; standing for the City Council, Police Department, Commission, or staff to request such a hearing at any time; amendment required for substantial changes to location, dimensions, height, or operating characteristics, with minor modifications delegated to the Community Development Director; fees within 30 days; brightness capped at 0.3 foot-candles over ambient; static minimum eight seconds with instantaneous transitions and no serial messages; no flashing, blinking, fading, scrolling, dissolving, or animation; automatic ambient brightness controls; content changeable only via secure password-protected connection; operation per §17.34.070 and DA2024-001; and DA2024-001 must be fully executed within one year of Use Permit approval or the approval is void.

Building requires a building permit under the 2025 California Building Code. Police recommends a surveillance camera system retaining 30 days of video, maintained illumination and sight lines, and CPTED design.

Open issues and questions for the record

  1. The City's revenue is undefined. The staff report's Public Benefit section and Strategic Priority section both rest the case on advertising revenue "supporting the City's fiscal health without requiring public investment," and the resolution recites that the DA establishes "revenue sharing." The draft DA contains no rent, no percentage, and no minimum — only an agreement to negotiate a share of net proceeds later, and only if off-site advertising is approved. The 2025 two-sign version of this deal carried a floor of $25,000/year or 25% of net advertising income, whichever is greater. The Commission should ask on the record what happened to that floor, what the current expected annual revenue is, and who negotiates and approves the eventual percentage.
  2. Off-site advertising is the whole business model and it is not yet approved. W. Kettleman Lane is State Route 12 and both Kettleman sites front it. Off-site commercial advertising along a state highway implicates the California Outdoor Advertising Act and Caltrans permitting, which is presumably what DA §5's "all required approvals" refers to. If off-site advertising is never approved, the signs revert to on-site/non-commercial content, the revenue share never triggers, and the City has three LED structures in its right-of-way for up to 15 years with no revenue. The Commission should ask for the status of any Caltrans encroachment or outdoor-advertising permits.
  3. A 9-inch pole against a 48-inch standard was approved administratively. Table 4-3 administrative deviations are the 10% tool used for the sign-area increase; using the same mechanism for an approximately 81% reduction in required support width is a materially different act, and the justification offered is aesthetic preference rather than the "special circumstances" a variance normally requires. The Commission is being asked to find in finding 1 that the project "complies with all applicable provisions" through those deviations. It is fair to ask on the record which subsection authorized the pole-width deviation, what percentage reduction it permits, and whether a variance heard by the Commission was the correct path.
  4. No hours of operation are conditioned. The City's own RFP recited a 6:00 a.m.–10:00 p.m. limit "unless different hours established by conditional use permit," and §17.34.070(F)(1) directs the Commission to consider intensity of light and frequency of message change as part of use permit review. The draft conditions set brightness, dwell time, and dimming but impose no curfew, and the DA contemplates continuous operation. With Location 1 in a median directly fronting Cedar Court residences and Location 3 across from PD-41 single-family homes and the future 12 West Apartments, an hours condition is the obvious residential-protection tool and its absence should be explained.
  5. Two incompatible brightness metrics. The Use Permit conditions cap brightness at 0.3 foot-candles over ambient (an illuminance measure taken at a distance, consistent with Lodi's long-standing sign code language). The DA caps 7,500 / 500 lumens per square meter. Lumens per square meter is lux — illuminance, not luminance — while the code's underlying standard for these signs is expressed in nits (candela per square meter). Three different units across the governing documents is an enforcement problem. Staff should be asked which metric the City will actually measure, at what distance, and under what conditions.
  6. The Development Agreement number is inconsistent. The recommendation, resolution conditions 13 and 14, and Attachment E's substance all use DA2024-001; the staff report's Development Agreement section says DA2004-001. Prior Lodi411 reporting also used DA2024-001. One number should be corrected before adoption.
  7. The Development Agreement is titled for the wrong number of signs. The recorded-document cover page says "FOR THREE PROGRAMMABLE ELECTRONIC SIGNS," but the first line of the agreement body reads "DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TWO PROGRAMMABLE ELECTRONIC SIGNS" — a leftover from the 2025 two-sign version. This document is to be recorded against City property.
  8. Sequencing and the unexecuted agreement. DA §2.1 recites in past tense that the Council "held a hearing… and voted to approve the Agreement" with the date left blank, while §§2.2 and 2.3 say SPARC and the Planning Commission "will review and approve." Council in fact adopted Ordinance No. 2047 on June 3, 2026, effective only after lease execution. The staff report says the DA is still not fully executed. So the Commission is approving a Use Permit for a project whose governing agreement is approved but unsigned, whose design has not yet been through SPARC, and whose effectiveness depends on a lease that is not in this packet. The one-year execution condition is the safeguard; the Commission should ask what is holding up execution, whether the separate lease has been negotiated, and whether it will be brought forward publicly.
  9. Content restrictions on government property raise a First Amendment question. DA §10 bars advertising that is "political" or "religious" by definition, and reserves the City's right to object to anything "detrimental to the image" of the City. Content-based and viewpoint-adjacent restrictions on advertising space the government owns and leases out are the classic litigation exposure in municipal billboard programs, and the "detrimental to the image" clause is standardless discretion. The indemnification condition shifts defense costs to the applicant but does not cure the underlying risk. Worth asking whether the City Attorney has evaluated the clause against current sign-code case law.
  10. CEQA "common sense" exemption for three illuminated LED structures. Section 15061(b)(3) requires certainty that there is no possibility of a significant effect. Two of the three sites are directly across from residential zoning, and the record contains no light-spill or nighttime-glare study. The staff report notes landscaping screening for Location 3 will be installed by the City only "when the sound wall along West Kettleman is extended to the intersection" — an uncommitted future action. The Commission may want the mitigation-by-landscaping premise substantiated or removed from the findings.
  11. Location 3 is described three different ways. "Approximately 40 feet west of West Kettleman Lane/Westgate Drive" in the agenda, request, and resolution; "approximately 40 feet southwest" in the project description; "near the southwest corner" in the attachment list. The APN is written 058-030-10 in the staff report and resolution and 058-030-010 in the Development Agreement. For a recorded document and an appealable quasi-judicial approval, the legal description should be internally consistent.
  12. Traffic safety analysis is asserted, not attached. The report states the Hutchins location was relocated in response to Public Works input and that the remaining locations "have been reviewed," but no traffic or sight-distance study is included as an attachment. A commenter praised "the traffic study" at the May 13 hearing; the Commission should confirm what document that was and whether it covers all three sites, particularly the median installation among an existing signal, street light, and Welcome sign.
  13. The Animal Shelter site is adjacent to Kofu Park. Location 2's north frontage is Open Space / Kofu Park with the skate park and tennis courts shown on the site plan. Park-facing illumination is not discussed.

Practical notes for residents

  • Comment in person at the Carnegie Forum, by Zoom, or by email to pccomments@lodi.gov received by 3:00 p.m. August 26.
  • Both items are appealable to the City Council within 10 business days of the decision, with a $300 fee, filed with the City Clerk under LMC Chapter 17.70 — but only by persons who participated by written or oral testimony or by attending the hearing. If you care about either item, participating now is what preserves standing.
  • Anyone who has given more than $250 to a Commissioner in the past 12 months, and any Commissioner who received it, must disclose under Government Code §84308 before these items are heard.

Sources and References

Primary: City of Lodi Planning Commission Agenda Packet, August 26, 2026 (agenda, June 10 and August 12, 2026 draft minutes, Staff Report PL2026-008 with Attachments A–B, Staff Report PL2026-002 with Attachments A1–A3, B1–B3, C1–C3, D1–D3, E, F).

Secondary sources

Meeting contact

Jessica Pagán, Administrative Assistant, Community Development Department, City of Lodi — (209) 333-6711. Written comment: pccomments@lodi.gov.

Don Bradford
Previous

Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee - August 26, 2026
Next

Before the Storms: Where Flood Protection Stands in Lodi, Stockton, and the North Delta