Lodi Planning Commission - May 27, 2026

Lodi
Written By Don Bradford
LodiEye: Planning Commission Agenda — May 27, 2026

Lodi Planning Commission - May 27, 2026

Meeting: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 — 7:00 p.m.

Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240

Get Directions Add to Calendar (.ics)

Overview

The Lodi Planning Commission meets Wednesday, May 27 with a single, consequential public hearing: a top-to-bottom rewrite of Lodi Municipal Code Chapter 9.18, the city's mobile food vending ordinance. Staff is asking commissioners to recommend that City Council eliminate the population-based cap on food trucks (currently roughly 25 citywide), ban mobile food vendors west of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks in the historic downtown core, and add new noise, residential-interface, and operational standards. The packet also asks the Commission to approve the May 13 minutes, which document a unanimous 6–0 recommendation to enter into a Development Agreement with Rogers Media for three city-property electronic message signs.

How to Participate

  • In person: Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi
  • Zoom Webinar: Meeting ID 824 8423 0393, Passcode 551089
  • Phone: 1-669-444-9171 or 1-346-248-7799
  • Email comments: pccomments@lodi.gov (received by 3:00 p.m. day-of)
  • Mail: Community Development Dept., P.O. Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241
  • Hand delivery: 221 W. Pine Street by 3:00 p.m. day-of
  • Stream: youtube.com/CityofLodi
  • Agenda contact: Jessica Pagán, Administrative Assistant, (209) 333-6711

Agenda Order

  1. Roll Call
  2. Minutes — May 13, 2026
  3. Public Comments (Non-Agenda Items)
  4. Public Hearings — Item 4a: Mobile Food Vending Ordinance Amendments
  5. Planning Matters / Follow-Up Items
  6. Announcements and Correspondence
  7. Actions of the City Council
  8. Actions of the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC)
  9. Comments by Commissioners and Staff
  10. Adjournment

Item 4a — Mobile Food Vending Ordinance (Application 2026-004)

This is the only public hearing on the May 27 agenda. The applicant is the City of Lodi, and the action is exempt from CEQA review under Sections 15061(b)(3) (general rule exemption) and 15378 (not a project). Legal notice was published in the Lodi News-Sentinel on Saturday, May 2, 2026.

How We Got Here

At its April 15, 2026 study session, the City Council directed staff to return with amendments to Chapter 9.18 that would eliminate the existing vendor permit cap, strengthen operational and location standards, restrict residential-neighborhood vending, revise hours of operation, and limit mobile food vendor activity within parts of the Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) zoning district.

Today, LMC §9.18.045 caps mobile food preparation units at 1 per 2,800 residents — about 25 vendors citywide based on the California Department of Finance's January 2024 estimate of 68,642 Lodi residents — and produce/seafood trucks at 1 per 20,500 residents. The current waiting list holds approximately 10 qualified vendors, and staff says the cap is driving unpermitted vending. Neighboring jurisdictions including Stockton, Lathrop, and Galt do not use vendor caps.

What Staff Is Recommending

Recommended motion (Interim Community Development Director Cynthia M. Marsh): Adopt Resolution P.C. 26-__ recommending the City Council determine the proposed Ordinance is CEQA-exempt under §§15061(b)(3) and 15378, and approve amendments to Chapter 9.18 covering vendor permit caps, operational standards, residential neighborhood protections, Downtown Mixed Use restrictions, and hours of operation.

Detailed Changes to Chapter 9.18

Code Section Current Proposed Change
9.18.045 — Permit Caps Population-based caps (1 per 2,800 residents for food prep units; 1 per 20,500 for produce/seafood) Entirely repealed
9.18.050(A)(3) — DMU Zone No DMU-specific restriction NEW: Mobile food vendors prohibited west of Union Pacific Railroad tracks; allowed east of tracks
Residential Use Area Move every 10 min, 7 a.m.–8 p.m., 400-ft separation Adds: no operation adjacent to single-family dwellings (except via special event permit); no obstruction of driveways, fire lanes, ADA access; no amplified sound or generator noise audible beyond 50 feet
Commercial Use Area 6 a.m.–12 a.m., move every 3 hrs Adds clause (iv): if within 400 ft of a residential zone, reduced hours 7 a.m.–9 p.m. and no unreasonable noise/activity impacts
Industrial Use Area "Twenty-three hours a day" Changed to 5:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m.; near-residential zone requires 7 a.m.–9 p.m.
9.18.050(B)(10) — Residential Interface (NEW) None NEW: No vending adjacent to single-family parcels; multifamily proximity requires 150-ft setback from structure, no amplified sound, hours 7 a.m.–9 p.m., no interference with residential access/parking
9.18.055 — Operational Standards (NEW) None NEW SECTION: Bars public-nuisance operations and stationary residential-neighborhood sales; caps amplified sound/generators audible beyond 100 feet; queuing must not block ADA/sidewalks; city manager may impose site-specific conditions

Sections 9.18.010 (Purpose), 9.18.020 (Definitions), 9.18.030 (Sales), 9.18.040 (Permits), 9.18.060 (Exemptions), and 9.18.070 through 9.18.150 (operational, sanitation, safety, penalty, and enforcement provisions) are retained substantively unchanged in the clean version.

The Downtown Mixed Use Restriction — A Closer Look

The new §9.18.050(A)(3) draws a bright-line geographic boundary along the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. Vendors are categorically prohibited west of the tracks within the DMU zone — capturing the historic School Street, Pine Street, and Elm Street pedestrian-retail core — but permitted east of the tracks subject to all other chapter provisions.

Staff justifies the line on four grounds: preserving the pedestrian-oriented character of the historic downtown, reducing competitive conflict with brick-and-mortar restaurants, supporting the broader downtown revitalization framework (the Downtown Specific Plan was anticipated for May 13, 2026 hearing), and providing a simple enforcement boundary for Community Improvement and Police Department staff.

A drafting watch-point: The clause sits within subsection A (public right-of-way), though the staff narrative implies a zone-wide ban that would also reach private property. Special-event-permitted street fairs and state-certified open-air markets remain exempt under §9.18.060.

Issues Staff Identified

  • Public health and safety risks from food prep without inspection or permitting
  • Increased enforcement demand on Community Improvement and Police staff
  • Traffic, parking, and pedestrian access conflicts
  • Noise, litter, lighting, and late-night operational impacts near homes
  • Inequitable conditions for permitted vendors and brick-and-mortar businesses that comply with city rules

Alternatives Available to the Commission

  • Recommend adoption of the resolution with modifications
  • Direct staff to return with a resolution recommending denial
  • Continue the item to a future meeting

Procedural Posture and Sign-offs

Item 4a is a quasi-judicial hearing requiring ex parte communication disclosures under Resolution No. 2006-31. The draft Council ordinance would be signed by Mayor Ramon Yepez, attested by City Clerk Olivia Nashed, with form approval by Interim City Attorney John M. Luebberke, and would take effect 30 days after Council adoption. Planning Commission decisions may be appealed to City Council within 10 business days under LMC §17.70.050, with a $300 appeal fee.

Item 2 — Approval of May 13, 2026 Minutes

The May 13 meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Hicks, with Vice Chair Singh and Commissioners Woehl, Diehl, and Lydon present. Eddy and McNickle were absent. The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.

May 13 Item 4a — Five Window Beer Co. (PL2025-021)

Applicant Charlie Lippert sought a Use Permit authorizing a Type 47 ABC license for on-site sale of beer, wine, and distilled spirits and off-site sale of beer and wine at the existing brewery at 9 West Locust Street, with CEQA exemption under §15301. Staff confirmed alcohol sales should remain incidental to food sales, though no fixed percentage is monitored. Lippert described a recent menu expansion to brunch, plans to expand the beer garden, Monday closures for staff rest, and continued beer production. Approved unanimously, 6–0 (Eddy absent) on a motion by Diehl, seconded by McNickle.

May 13 Item 4b — Rogers Media Electronic Message Sign Development Agreement

The Commission considered a resolution recommending Council adopt an ordinance entering into a Development Agreement with Rogers Media Company to install, maintain, and operate electronic message signs on three City-owned properties, with CEQA exemption under §15061(b)(3). Public Works' Traffic Engineer concerns surfaced because the original locations were approved years earlier and Public Works lacks an in-house traffic engineer. Sign dimensions and design will go through SPARC review later; only the Development Agreement was before the Commission.

Applicants Matt Rogers and Michael Jorgenson confirmed solar power is not currently practical, that City and emergency messages will be conveyed timely via a direct City-access portal, that they have not been hacked and use strong cybersecurity protections, and that the signs do not overhang the public right-of-way. Rogers Media (not the City) will maintain the signs. Public commenter Michael Carouba supported the new Hutchins/East Harney location and praised the traffic study.

Recommendation passed unanimously, 6–0 (Eddy absent) on a motion by Woehl, seconded by Diehl.

Items 7 & 8 — Council and SPARC Updates

  • No City Council meetings in April 2026. The Downtown Specific Plan was anticipated to be heard May 13, 2026.
  • Annexation-related code amendments are forthcoming, with no confirmed date.
  • SPARC actions reported at the May 13 meeting:
    • Dec. 10, 2025 — An apartment complex was changed from affordable housing to market rate.
    • Jan. 14, 2026 — SPARC approved the townhouse project replacing Sunset Theater.
    • Mar. 11, 2026 — SPARC approved a freeway-oriented electronic sign at a Beckman Road Jeep dealership.
  • Commissioners McNickle and Lydon attended the Planning Commissioners' Academy and reported back.

What to Watch on May 27

  • Will any commissioner challenge the DMU west-of-tracks ban? The cap removal expands opportunity for small operators, while the DMU restriction simultaneously closes off Lodi's highest-foot-traffic blocks to those same vendors.
  • Will the drafting ambiguity in §9.18.050(A)(3) get cleaned up? The clause currently sits under public right-of-way standards even though staff narrative implies a zone-wide reach.
  • How will the new 50-foot residential and 100-foot citywide amplified-sound thresholds interact with existing noise enforcement?
  • How will this ordinance align with the forthcoming Downtown Specific Plan?

References & Source Documents

LodiEye is an explanatory journalism publication of Lodi411 LLC. This article was prepared from the official agenda packet and is intended to provide context, not legal advice. Readers should consult the official packet and attend or watch the meeting for the authoritative record.

Don Bradford
Next

The Squeeze: Lodi Between Two Growth Engines