Lodi Planning Commission - October 28, 2026
Lodi Planning Commission — Regular Meeting
Lodi411 / LodiEye — Agenda Review
Wednesday, October 28, 2026 — 7:00 p.m.
Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240
Chair Hicks | Vice Chair Singh | Commissioners Diehl, Lydon, McNickle, Woehl
Summary
The Planning Commission has three public hearings on Oct. 28. Two would split lots. The third would let a new cocktail bar, The Wet Cactus, seek a full bar license at 21 N. School Street, in the former Cellardoor space next to the Visitor Center. City staff recommends approving all three.
The bar permit is the contested item. The Lodi Police Department wrote that it "would emphatically discourage the issuance of this permit," citing more than 1,943 calls for service within two blocks over the past year and 24 other alcohol businesses nearby. Staff recommends that the Commission use its power to waive the City's alcohol location limits, but the packet does not measure the site against those limits.
The second lot split covers the 9.8-acre St. John's Episcopal Church campus on South Lower Sacramento Road, which is surrounded by the proposed Westside "F" annexation. Staff says no development is proposed. The Public Works conditions still call for water mains, a street easement for a future Westgate Drive, and a share of a storm basin that hasn't been built.
Meeting Details
Date and time: Wednesday, October 28, 2026, 7:00 p.m.
Location: Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi
Zoom webinar: Meeting ID 824 8423 0393, passcode 551089; by phone at 1-669-444-9171 or 1-346-248-7799
Live video: youtube.com/CityofLodi
Written comment: Email pccomments@lodi.gov, or mail or hand-deliver to the Community Development Department (P.O. Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241; 221 W. Pine St.). Comments must arrive by 3:00 p.m. on meeting day.
Agenda contact: Jessica Pagán, Administrative Assistant, (209) 333-6711
Disclosures: All three hearings are quasi-judicial, meaning commissioners act like judges applying City rules to a specific property. Each commissioner must disclose outside conversations about an item ("ex parte communications") under Resolution No. 2006-31, and any campaign contribution over $250 from a party to the item under Government Code 84308.
Notice: All three hearings were published in the Lodi News-Sentinel on Oct. 17. Mailed notices went to owners within 300 feet: 60 for Peach Street, 22 for Lower Sacramento Road and 37 for School Street.
Agenda
1. Roll Call
2. Minutes
The agenda lists this item but names no meeting and attaches no minutes. The last regular meeting was Sept. 23, when the Commission heard a lot split at 401 N. Ham Lane and the Maverik Type 21 off-sale license on East Kettleman Lane.
3. Comments by the Public (Non-Agenda Items)
Each speaker gets one appearance. The agenda text refers readers to a "Special Teleconference Notice at the beginning of this agenda," but the agenda contains no such notice. The Zoom and comment instructions are at the top of page 1.
4. Public Hearings
4a. 700 Peach Street — Tentative Parcel Map (PL2026-009)
Split one residential lot into two. Applicant: Dillon and Murphy Engineering. Owner: Jacob Neal. CEQA: Class 15 categorical exemption. Staff recommends approval.
4b. 1055 South Lower Sacramento Road — Tentative Parcel Map (PL2026-020 TPM)
Split the St. John's Episcopal Church property (APN 027-050-05) into a 5.0-acre parcel and a 4.5-acre parcel. Applicant: Dillon and Murphy, c/o Joe Murphy. Owner: The Protestant Episcopal Bishop of San Joaquin. CEQA: Class 15 categorical exemption. Staff recommends approval.
4c. 21 North School Street — The Wet Cactus Use Permit (PL2026-021 U)
Approve a Use Permit for a Type 48 license (beer, wine and spirits served on site, plus beer and wine to go) and find that the license serves "public convenience or necessity." Applicant: Bailey Sterni. Owner: Farmers and Merchants Bank. CEQA: Class 1 exemption (existing facilities). Staff recommends approval.
5. Planning Matters / Follow-Up Items
6. Announcements and Correspondence
7. Actions of the City Council
On Oct. 21 the City Council held a public hearing on the Westside "F" annexation and prezoning, which the Commission recommended 5–0 on Aug. 12. Prezoning sets the zoning a property will have once it joins the city. As of this writing, the City's Legistar record shows no Council vote. Staff may report the result here. The outcome affects Item 4b.
8. Actions of the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
The Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) reviews building and site design. None of tonight's three projects has been before it. SPARC's Aug. 26 and Sept. 23 agendas dealt with other projects, and its Oct. 14 meeting was canceled.
9. Comments by the Planning Commissioners and Staff (Non-Agenda Items)
10. Adjournment
Planning Commission decisions can be appealed to the City Council.
Item 4a — 700 Peach Street Lot Split (PL2026-009)
Application at a Glance
Site: 700 Peach Street, southeast corner of Peach and W. Tokay streets — APN 027-160-04
Applicant: Dillon and Murphy Engineering
Owner: Jacob Neal (the tentative map lists Ryan Neal and Jacob Neal)
General Plan: Low Density Residential
Zoning: Residential Low Density (RLD), Lodi's standard single-family district, with a 5,000-square-foot minimum lot size and 50-foot minimum width
Site size: 13,752 square feet (0.32 acres) in the staff report; 13,808 square feet on the tentative map
Neighbors: Single-family homes on all four sides
Staff: Assistant Planner Eva Pitts; Community Development Director David Hanham
What Would Change
The corner lot holds one house, a shed and a large side yard. The map draws a new north-south line east of the house. Parcel 1 keeps the house at the corner, and the shed comes down. Parcel 2 becomes a vacant lot facing Tokay Street. The map shows no trees being removed.
| Parcel | Area (sq ft) | Width (ft) | Depth (ft) | Street frontage | Use |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parcel 1 | 7,667 | 96 | 80 | Peach and Tokay (corner) | Existing house |
| Parcel 2 | 6,141 | 64 | 96 | Tokay | Vacant |
Source: Item 4a staff report, Table B, and Attachment A tentative map.
Proposed lot area against the RLD minimum
Both parcels clear the 5,000-square-foot minimum. Source: Item 4a staff report, Table B.
Conditions of Approval Worth Noting
Tokay Street frontage and corner ramp
Before the map records, the owner must dedicate a corner street easement at Tokay and Peach and build the Tokay Street frontage of Parcel 1, including a full curb ramp.
Peach Street improvements can wait, with Council approval
Peach Street has no curb, gutter or sidewalk along the property. Those improvements can be deferred through an Improvement Deferral Agreement, but the agreement requires City Council approval. That will come back as a separate Council item.
Utilities and water rights
City crews will install a new water service from Tokay Street to Parcel 2 at the owner's expense. Both parcels get 10-foot public utility easements along the streets. Any structure that sits on the new lot line must be demolished. The owner must sign the City's standard agreement naming Lodi as agent for the property's groundwater rights.
Background
The Commission approves small infill lot splits like this one regularly. It approved a two-lot split at 116 W. Lockeford Street 6–0 on June 10 under the same exemption, and heard a split at 401 N. Ham Lane on Sept. 23. The Class 15 exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) covers divisions into four or fewer parcels in urban areas, as long as services and access already meet local standards.
Open Issues to Watch — Item 4a
- Wrong zoning in the draft resolution. Finding 1 says the site has "Planned Development No. 34 (PD-34) zoning." That is the zoning for the church site in Item 4b. Peach Street is zoned RLD.
- Findings language reads backward. The staff report says the map "shall be denied" if any of eight findings "can be made," then says most of them can be made. Read literally, that requires denial. The Item 4b report uses the correct framing, explaining why the denial findings cannot be made.
- Lot area does not match. The staff report gives 13,752 square feet. The map and the two new parcels total 13,808 square feet, 56 square feet more.
- Which street is the front. Lodi's code makes the shorter street side of a corner lot its front. For Parcel 1 that is Tokay, at 80 feet, not Peach as the report says. The front determines where the house's setbacks are measured. The packet has no setback check for the existing house against the new interior line, which the map shows roughly 8 to 10 feet away.
- Shed versus "structure on the line." The staff report says a shed will be removed. Public Works Condition 3 requires demolishing any structure "overlying the proposed property line." Commissioners can ask whether the shed is the only structure involved.
- Citation mismatches. This report dates Ordinance No. 1869 to May 20, 2020. The Item 4b report dates it to Feb. 20, 2013. The draft resolution also describes the exemption as covering "fewer than four parcels," while the CEQA rule quoted in the staff report says "four or fewer."
Item 4b — 1055 S. Lower Sacramento Road Lot Split (PL2026-020 TPM)
Application at a Glance
Site: 1055 South Lower Sacramento Road, home of St. John's Episcopal Church — APN 027-050-05
Applicant: Dillon and Murphy, c/o Joe Murphy
Owner: The Protestant Episcopal Bishop of San Joaquin, a corporation sole
Zoning: Planned Development No. 34 (PD-34), created when the site was annexed in 1999, with an underlying RLD designation that allows up to eight homes per acre
General Plan: Low Density Residential
Site size: 9.81 acres by City records; 9.50 acres excluding street right-of-way
Staff: Assistant Planner Rajnee Johal; Community Development Director David Hanham
What Would Change
| Parcel | Acres | Sq ft | Map dimensions | Existing use | Access |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parcel 1 (west) | 5.0 | 217,800 | About 658 × 331 ft | Vacant; the church's stormwater pond | Future Westgate Drive, or a 24-ft easement across Parcel 2 |
| Parcel 2 (east) | 4.5 | 196,020 | About 598 × 331 ft | 14,252 sq ft church, 1,488 sq ft former church, parking | Lower Sacramento Road |
Source: Item 4b staff report and Attachment A tentative map.
Background: An In-City Parcel Surrounded by the Westside Annexation
The church property is already inside city limits. The farmland around it is not. The Westside "F" annexation would bring about 96 acres between W. Vine Street and W. Kettleman Lane, west of Lower Sacramento Road, into the city. The packet's zoning map shows the land around the church with its proposed zoning: General Commercial to the north, Low Density Residential to the west, and Medium Density Residential and Public & Community Facilities to the southwest. To the south is a pocket of farmland that stays under County control.
The Commission recommended the annexation 5–0 on Aug. 12. Residents and commissioners questioned leaving that County "island" near Taylor Road. Staff explained that LAFCO, the county commission that rules on boundary changes, advised it. Including more than 12 objecting parcels would trigger a protest vote that could sink the whole annexation. The Council's Oct. 21 staff report corrected the project to 96.1 acres and conditioned the annexation on setting aside about two acres for a future fire station.
Proposed Westside "F" zoning around the church site
Acres by proposed zoning district, 96.1 acres total. Source: Oct. 21, 2026 City Council staff report, Westside "F" annexation and prezoning.
The annexation matters because Public Works ties Parcel 1's future street, water main and drainage to infrastructure that depends on the Westside area developing. Public Works also notes that development of the land to the north, which is part of the annexation, would trigger the Lower Sacramento Road frontage improvements deferred on the church property since 2001.
Conditions of Approval Worth Noting
Unless noted, these must be done before or when the parcel map is filed.
Lower Sacramento Road frontage
Curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, streetlights and paving have been deferred under an agreement recorded Dec. 3, 2001. They can stay deferred, but the agreement will then cover both new parcels.
Water mains
The owner must extend the existing 8-inch public water main to Parcel 1's west line and install a 10-inch main along that line. "Depending on the proposed Project," the 10-inch main may have to continue north to Vine Street.
Westgate Drive
The owner must dedicate a 40-foot street easement along Parcel 1's west edge for the future Westgate Drive. "Depending on the proposed Project," Westgate may have to be built north to Vine Street, which could require an easement on the neighboring property to the north.
Storm drainage and the F-3 Basin
The site drains to the planned F-3 Basin, which has not been built. The owner must build a portion of the basin at the northwest corner of Taylor Road and Westgate Drive, or build a temporary basin and pay a proportionate share of the basin, outfall and pump station. Today the church's own pond on Parcel 1 handles drainage for Parcel 2.
Improvement agreement and easements
The City Council must approve an improvement agreement before the map records. Improvements are due within a year, with 10% warranty security. The owner must also:
- Record a shared private storm drainage easement.
- Record a 24-foot access easement across Parcel 2 if Westgate is not built.
- Grant Lodi Electric a 10-foot overhead easement on Parcel 2's north line and a 10-foot public utility easement on Parcel 1's north line.
- Abandon any wells or septic systems.
- Sign the standard water-rights agreement.
Open Issues to Watch — Item 4b
- "No development" versus major infrastructure. Findings 3 and 4 say "no new development or physical alteration of the site is proposed." Yet the conditions call for engineered improvement plans, two water mains, a street dedication, F-3 Basin obligations and a Council-approved improvement agreement before the map records. Commissioners can ask which obligations recording the map triggers and which wait for a real project. They can also ask whether the applicant accepts the conditions, and how "a portion" of the basin will be sized when no building is proposed.
- Does the CEQA exemption fit? Class 15 requires that "all services and access to the proposed parcels are available to local standards." Parcel 1 has no public street and no water main at its west line today. Its access depends on an unbuilt road or a private easement.
- Frontage on a street that doesn't exist. Staff counts 331 feet of frontage for Parcel 1 along "future Westgate Drive." The draft resolution says both parcels are "adequately served by existing public infrastructure and roadway access."
- What happens to the vacant five acres. The packet does not say what the diocese plans for Parcel 1. Under RLD standards the land could hold roughly 40 homes. A 2023 state law (SB 4) gives land owned by religious institutions a streamlined approval path for affordable housing, but only on sites meeting tests such as at least 75% of the perimeter bordered by urban uses (HCD SB 4 fact sheet). With farmland to the north and west, the site may not qualify today, but that could change as the Westside area builds out.
- Three acreage figures. The report uses 9.81 acres for CEQA, 9.50 acres for the map and 5.0 plus 4.5 acres for the parcels.
- PD-34 plan not in the packet. Staff tested the lots against RLD standards. The PD-34 development plan, which governs the site, is not attached.
- Police items written as suggestions. The Police conditions on cameras, lighting and crime-prevention design use "should" and "recommended" language, on a map that approves no construction. The Commission can make them binding, tie them to future development, or drop them.
- Dependence on land the owner doesn't control. Westgate Drive, the Vine Street water connection and the F-3 Basin all rely on neighboring land, some of it in the pending annexation. The Council's Oct. 21 decision affects how quickly any of that infrastructure can happen.
Item 4c — The Wet Cactus, 21 N. School Street (PL2026-021 U)
Application at a Glance
Site: 21 North School Street, former Cellardoor space next to the Visitor Center — APN 043-033-13
Applicant: Bailey Sterni
Owner: Farmers and Merchants Bank
Zoning: Downtown Mixed Use (DMU), Downtown Specific Plan Subarea A (School Street Core)
Building: 2,985 square feet on a 0.28-acre lot
Seating: 80 — 16 at the bar (four accessible), 56 at tables, 8 in a lounge. The upstairs and downstairs are for employees only.
Food: None proposed
Staff: Assistant Planner Eva Pitts; Community Development Director David Hanham
What a Type 48 License Allows
The California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) issues Type 48 licenses to bars. A Type 48 allows beer, wine and spirits to be served on site and beer and wine to be sold to go. No one under 21 may enter, and food service is not required (ABC license types).
The prior tenant held a Type 2 license. ABC defines Type 2 as a winegrower license, a winery license that allows tasting and sales. A Type 48 would therefore add a new retail bar license downtown. Staff acknowledges that the prior wine bar "does not make the proposed operation equivalent to the prior use."
Proposed operating hours
Opens at 4 p.m. Wednesday through Sunday; closes at 11 p.m., or midnight Friday and Saturday. Source: Item 4c draft resolution, Police Condition 5.
Two Decisions Before the Commission
The Use Permit. Lodi requires a Use Permit for alcohol sales in the DMU district. To approve, the Commission must find that the use:
- meets the Development Code;
- fits the General Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan;
- won't harm public health, safety or welfare;
- is compatible with neighboring uses; and
- has been reviewed under CEQA.
Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN). When ABC considers an area to have too many licenses, it can issue a new one only if the local agency finds the license serves "public convenience or necessity." Staff says the site's census tract is overconcentrated. The Census Bureau's geocoder places 21 N. School in 2020 Census Tract 42.04, where ABC's current table allows two on-sale retail licenses (ABC Census Tract Authorizations). The packet does not say how many on-sale licenses already exist in that tract.
What Lodi's Alcohol Rules Say
Lodi rewrote its alcohol-sales rules, Lodi Municipal Code (LMC) 17.36.230, in the 2025 Development Code update. The update also added a "problem uses" section, 17.36.240, which lists bars and other alcohol outlets (Ordinance 2034 text). The key provisions:
- Sensitive uses, 17.36.230(D)(2)(a): New alcohol outlets generally may not be within 500 feet of a school, day care, park or youth facility.
-
On-sale location tests, (D)(2)(d)(i): Either of two conditions "may be grounds for denial":
- the site is in an area where Police find crime rates higher than the citywide average; or
- it is within 500 feet of another on-sale outlet, or more than four are within 1,000 feet.
- Off-sale tests, (D)(2)(d)(ii): Similar tests apply to to-go sales, which a Type 48 includes.
- Conditions the City can impose: Security cameras, security guards, loitering controls, lighting and limited hours.
The Police Department's Position
Captain Kevin Kent's Aug. 31 letter says the department "would emphatically discourage the issuance of this permit."
- Calls for service: The address itself had zero calls from Sept. 1, 2025 through Aug. 31, 2026. There were more than 1,943 calls within two blocks, including DUIs, intoxicated persons, liquor-law violations, assaults, thefts and disturbances.
- Nearby alcohol businesses: 20 North is across the street, Ollie's is at 22 N. School and Rooted is on the same block at 7 N. School. Police list 21 more alcohol-serving businesses within half a mile.
- Homeless corridor: Downtown is a regular path for unhoused people struggling with addiction as they move between shelters and encampments to the east.
- Food: Bars that serve only alcohol generate more calls than businesses that also serve food.
Staff met with Police and the applicant. Staff then recommended waiving the location limits for four reasons:
- the space has been used for alcohol service before;
- it had no calls for service in the past year;
- its hours can be limited; and
- the conditions can be enforced.
The applicant declined to add food, saying it would change the cocktail-bar concept.
Police Safeguards Versus Draft Conditions
| Police recommendation | Draft condition | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Staff training on security and deterring crime | None | Not included |
| Training on ABC rules | Responsible Beverage Service certification for servers and managers | Partly |
| Interior and exterior cameras, 30-day video | Cameras on entrances, exits and exterior; 30-day retention | Partly (interior not required) |
| Publicly visible video monitors | None | Not included |
| Limit cash at the register | None | Not included |
| Height tapes at exits and an alarm system | None | Not included |
| Exterior lighting and clear sight lines | Lighting at entrances, exits and exterior | Partly (landscaping not addressed) |
| Electronic smart ID scanner | ID-checking procedures | Not included |
| Alcohol stored at the back | None | Not included |
| Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) | None | Not included |
| Code-compliant no-trespassing and no-loitering signs | Staff must discourage loitering and call police when needed | Partly (no signs required) |
| Add food service | None; the applicant declined | Not included |
Source: Item 4c, Attachment E Police letter and Attachment F draft resolution.
How the 12 Police recommendations fared
Counted from the table above. Source: Item 4c, Attachments E and F.
Other Conditions
The proposed hours become binding, and any extension needs an amendment. Alcohol may be served only in approved areas. Amplified outdoor music is banned without separate approval. Nuisance problems can bring the permit back to the Commission for changes or revocation.
The existing sidewalk patio needs a Public Works encroachment permit, liquor-liability insurance and compliance with the City's sidewalk-dining rules, LMC 12.04.425. If the operator does not get the permit, the fencing, tables and chairs must come out of the public right-of-way.
Background and Precedent
Lodi has denied bar licenses over concentration before. A May 19, 2010 Council report on a Type 48 permit with live entertainment found Census Tract 45 overconcentrated. It concluded that, with "similar bar type establishments in the immediate vicinity," a new use offering the same services "is not appropriate" (City of Lodi records). The Commission's most recent alcohol case was the Maverik Type 21 off-sale license on Sept. 23, which relied on ABC's finding that the whole city is overconcentrated.
Open Issues to Watch — Item 4c
- The location tests are never measured. Staff would waive "any applicable location restrictions" without saying which ones apply. The code's crime test compares the area to the citywide average, but Police supplied a two-block call count, not a rate. The packet also includes no count of on-sale outlets within 500 or 1,000 feet, though 20 North and Ollie's appear well within 500 feet. It does not document the 500-foot check for schools, day cares, parks and youth facilities.
- How far the waiver reaches. The waiver clause covers "these restrictions," meaning the crime and proximity tests. The draft resolution waives "any applicable location restrictions." If a sensitive use is within 500 feet, the record should say whether the waiver extends to it.
- To-go sales are not analyzed. The permit would allow beer and wine to go. The off-sale tests, and the option of barring to-go sales, are not discussed.
- "Reuse" is a thin basis. Both the waiver and the PCN finding rest on the former wine bar. That tenant held a winery license, so a Type 48 adds a new retail bar license. The findings never say what public need The Wet Cactus meets that the 24 nearby alcohol businesses do not.
- Most Police safeguards were left out. None of the 12 Police recommendations appears in full. Eight are absent, including the ID scanner, security training, alarm, signage and food service. The code also allows security guards, which are not required.
- Problem-use review not addressed. Alcohol outlets are classified as problem uses under LMC 17.36.240, but the packet has no analysis under that section.
- Patio status. The CEQA exemption and the findings assume the existing sidewalk seating continues, yet the conditions suggest it lacks a current encroachment permit. The patio also does not appear on the floor plan. Commissioners can ask how many patio seats there are, what hours apply, and whether the patio will be part of the ABC-licensed premises.
- The permit runs with the land. A future operator could use the same Type 48 approval. The Commission can consider a review after the first year of operation.
- No clear-out time. Sales stop at closing, but nothing sets when patrons must be gone or when the patio must close.
LodiEye is the original civic-reporting and analysis arm of Lodi411.com, a citizen-run civic data and transparency platform serving Lodi, California and San Joaquin County. LodiEye gathers information of public interest, applies editorial judgment to public records, meetings, and data, and publishes original explanatory reporting for its readers — the work of a newsroom, and a representative of the news media as that term is defined under federal law. Our reporting emphasizes primary sources, public data, and full source transparency so readers can check every claim. LodiEye complements, and does not replace, the other outlets covering this region; for additional reporting on Lodi, San Joaquin County, and the broader region, we also encourage readers to consult the Lodi News-Sentinel, Stocktonia, The Sacramento Bee, CalMatters, and other established news organizations. Our full editorial standards and news-media-status statement is published at lodi411.com/editorial-standards.
This LodiEye report was produced using artificial intelligence tools under the direction and review of the founder. Lodi411 uses multiple AI platforms in its research and publication workflow, including Anthropic’s Claude (primarily Opus and Sonnet models) and Perplexity AI across a variety of large language models offered by each. These tools were used in the following capacities:
Source Discovery: AI-assisted search and retrieval located the Oct. 28, 2026 Planning Commission packet and the Commission's Aug. 12, Aug. 26 and Sept. 23 packets and minutes. It also found the Oct. 21 City Council packet on the Westside "F" annexation, SPARC agendas for Aug. 26 and Sept. 23 and the Oct. 14 cancellation, Ordinance 2034's alcohol-sales and problem-use sections, ABC's census tract authorization table and license-type definitions, a 2010 City Council alcohol permit report, and the state housing department's SB 4 fact sheet.
Credibility Validation: Parcel sizes, conditions, police figures and findings were taken from the staff reports, maps and draft resolutions in the packet and checked against each other. Where the packet's own figures conflict, the report gives each figure and its location. Alcohol rules were checked against the ordinance text, not staff's summary. The site's census tract was confirmed with the U.S. Census Bureau geocoder.
Analysis and Synthesis: Claude assisted in comparing staff findings with code requirements, matching Police recommendations to draft conditions, and identifying open questions for each hearing.
Presentation: Claude assisted in drafting, structuring, and formatting the report for clarity and readability, including the parcel and conditions tables and the four charts.
Final Review: Throughout the process, the editor sets the report's goals, scope, and tone; creates and shapes draft content; reviews and edits the report; integrates independent fact checks; and reviews the AI cross-checks and validations.
Lodi411/LodiEye believes that transparency about how our research is produced — including our use of AI under human direction — strengthens trust with readers and the broader information ecosystem. Readers who spot an error are encouraged to write editor@lodi411.com so we can correct it.
References
- City of Lodi — Planning Commission agenda packet, Oct. 28, 2026 (Items 4a, 4b, 4c)
- City of Lodi — Planning Commission packet, Sept. 23, 2026 (401 N. Ham Lane; Maverik Type 21)
- City of Lodi — Planning Commission packet, Aug. 26, 2026 (June 10 and Aug. 12 minutes, Westside vote)
- City of Lodi — Planning Commission packet, Aug. 12, 2026 (Westside "F" annexation staff report)
- City of Lodi — City Council agenda packet, Oct. 21, 2026 (Westside "F" annexation and prezoning)
- City of Lodi — SPARC agenda, Sept. 23, 2026
- City of Lodi — SPARC agenda, Aug. 26, 2026
- City of Lodi — SPARC cancellation notice, Oct. 14, 2026
- City of Lodi — Ordinance 2034, Development Code update (LMC 17.36.230 alcoholic beverage sales; 17.36.240 problem uses)
- City of Lodi records — City Council agenda report, May 19, 2010, Type 48 use permit appeal
- California ABC — Number of Licenses Authorized by Census Tract
- California ABC — License types (Type 02 Winegrower, Type 48 On-Sale General Public Premises)
- U.S. Census Bureau Geocoder — 21 N. School St., Lodi (Census Tract 42.04)
- California HCD — SB 4 Affordable Housing on Faith and Higher Education Lands fact sheet
- City of Lodi Agenda Center — minutes and Council actions as they post
- City of Lodi Legistar — Oct. 21, 2026 Council meeting item actions