Lodi Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee - October 28, 2026

Lodi
Written By Don Bradford
Lodi Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee — Regular Meeting, October 28, 2026

Lodi Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee — Regular Meeting

Lodi411 / LodiEye — Agenda Review

Wednesday, October 28, 2026 — 5:15 p.m.

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

Chair Rosado | Vice Chair Donaldson | Members Dickens, Hamilton, Woehl

Get Directions Join Zoom Read the Draft Add to Calendar

Summary

Lodi has never had a historic preservation law. On Oct. 28 the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) holds a public workshop on the first draft. SPARC is the five-member committee that reviews the design of commercial and multi-family projects. The committee takes no vote. It gives staff its comments before the draft goes to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council.

The draft would create a local register of historic buildings and districts. Owners would need a permit, called a Certificate of Appropriateness, before changing or demolishing a listed building, and SPARC would decide the larger cases. The draft would also offer Mills Act property tax contracts, a state program that lowers an owner's taxes in exchange for preservation. The draft gives SPARC the final say on those contracts, even though state law gives that power to the City Council. The draft also leaves several basic questions open, including whether owners must consent to designation and whether buildings not yet listed would be covered.

The ordinance carries out a policy the General Plan adopted in 2024. The consultant survey for the new Downtown Specific Plan found six buildings already on state or national historic registers, 118 more that may qualify, and a possible Japantown historic district on North Main Street.

0Public hearings or votes. The only item is a workshop on the draft ordinance.
118Downtown buildings flagged as potential historic resources, none of them evaluated
3 tiersLocal Landmark, Historic District, and Structure of Merit
~$22,000Consultant budget set aside to finish the ordinance

Meeting Details

Date and time: Wednesday, October 28, 2026, 5:15 p.m.

Location: Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi. The building is the former Lodi Carnegie Library, which is already listed in the California Register of Historical Resources.

Zoom webinar: Meeting ID 818 0090 1564, passcode 747476; by phone at 1-669-444-9171 or 1-346-248-7799

Written comment for the meeting: Email sparccomments@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 at least two hours before the meeting, by 3:15 p.m.

Comment on the draft ordinance: The City accepts comments until the ordinance is adopted. Send them to planningdivision@lodi.gov or call (209) 333-6700.

Agenda contact: Jessica L. Pagán, Administrative Assistant, (209) 333-6711

The committee: SPARC has five members who serve four-year terms. One of them is appointed from the Planning Commission. SPARC meets on the second and fourth Wednesdays of the month. The roster above is the one recorded in the committee's Jan. 14, 2026 minutes.

Agenda

1. Roll Call

2. Minutes

The agenda lists minutes but names no meeting and attaches none. The committee last met Sept. 23, when it reviewed the Maverik convenience store and fuel station at 4872 E. Kettleman Lane.

3. Comments by the Public (Non-Agenda Items)

Each speaker gets one appearance.

4. Review Items

None. No project designs are before the committee this meeting.

5. Regular Business — Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance

A public workshop on the draft ordinance, which is marked "Workshop Draft — For Discussion Only." The packet includes the 18-page draft but no staff report, presentation, cost estimate or environmental review determination.

6. Comments by Committee Members and Staff (Non-Agenda Items)

7. Adjournment

A Quiet Year for SPARC

This is only the fifth SPARC meeting this year with an agenda. The City canceled 14 of the 19 regular meetings it scheduled for 2026, including Oct. 14. Each of the other four meetings heard a single design review:

  • Jan. 14: a 44-unit senior townhome project at 1100 W. Lodi Ave.
  • March 11: a 70-foot electronic freeway sign at 1255 S. Beckman Road
  • Aug. 26: electronic message signs on City property, which the committee rejected
  • Sept. 23: the Maverik store and fuel station on East Kettleman Lane
SPARC Regular Meetings in 2026

Source: City of Lodi Agenda Center, SPARC listings for 2026.

Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance

Why Lodi Is Writing One

Lodi has no way today to list a building as historic or to review changes to it. The City's consultants wrote that Lodi "currently has no historic preservation ordinance or formal designation criteria or procedures for local listing." An older building gets historic review only when a project triggers the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the state law that requires environmental review of some projects.

In December 2024, the City updated the Conservation Element of its General Plan. The update directs the City to:

  • adopt a historic preservation ordinance (policy C-P33);
  • establish a Historic Preservation Commission (C-P32);
  • survey and designate historic buildings and districts (C-P30 and C-P31); and
  • evaluate older buildings during environmental review (C-P29).

The new Downtown Specific Plan makes the ordinance a near-term task. Implementation action P-27 reads: "Write and adopt a historic preservation ordinance with assistance from the Site Plan & Architectural Review Committee (SPARC)."

On June 3, City staff asked the Council to amend the City's contract with RRM Design Group, the downtown plan consultant. The amendment uses about $137,000 left in the existing contract and adds no new money. It sets aside "approximately $22,000 in continued historic preservation and adaptive reuse support, including completion of the Historic Preservation Ordinance," and extends the contract through June 30, 2027.

What the Downtown Survey Found

GPA Consulting prepared the Historical Resource Inventory for the downtown plan. The plan area has about 413 parcels, bounded roughly by Pleasant Avenue, De Force Avenue, Washington Street and Lodi Avenue. GPA walked or drove every street, photographed buildings at least 45 years old, and checked state records.

It found six buildings already listed on state or national historic registers:

  • the Lodi Arch (Mission Arch)
  • Hotel Lodi
  • the Southern Pacific depot
  • the Lodi Armory
  • the Carnegie Library
  • City Hall

GPA also flagged 118 potential historic properties across 130 parcels, along with one potential district: "Lodi's Japantown Historic District, along N. Main Street between E. Elm Street and E. Oak Street." GPA did not evaluate any of those properties in depth to decide whether they actually qualify.

Downtown Specific Plan Area: Historic Resource Inventory

Source: GPA Consulting, Historical Resource Inventory, in the June 3, 2026 City Council packet. Parcel counts are approximate.

What the Draft Would Do

The draft adds a new Section 17.36.260, "Historic Resources," to the City's Development Code. It also amends Table 4-1, the chart showing which official or board decides each type of permit.

Three kinds of historic designation

Designation Types in the Draft
Type What qualifies
Local Landmark A property that still has its historic character ("integrity") and meets at least one of four criteria, the same ones the National Register uses: important events, important people, notable architecture or the work of a master builder, or the potential to yield historical information
Historic District A connected area with a concentration of historic buildings that, taken together, still conveys its history. Buildings inside are classed as contributing or noncontributing.
Structure of Merit A lower tier for buildings of local importance, such as a "geographically recognizable landmark or visual feature," that don't qualify as landmarks

A building less than 50 years old could be listed only if the Council finds it has "exceptional significance." The City would keep two lists: a Historical Resource Inventory of surveyed buildings, and a Local Register of designated ones. The draft says participation is "voluntary."

Permits for changes: Certificates of Appropriateness

  • Minor certificates. The Community Development Director decides minor work, including repairs, window and door changes, signs, accessibility upgrades, screening of equipment, and additions not visible from the street.
  • Major certificates. SPARC decides everything else, including demolition and relocation.
  • No certificate needed. Routine maintenance, interior work, repairs with matching materials, landscaping and emergency repairs.
  • Permits on hold. The City would not issue a building or demolition permit for covered work until the certificate is approved.
  • The approval standard. Work must follow the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, the federal guidelines for treating historic buildings. Work that meets them would count as causing no "substantial adverse change" under CEQA.

Mills Act tax contracts

Owners of Local Landmarks and of contributing buildings in a district could apply. The contracts follow state law: they run at least 10 years, renew automatically, require City inspections, and can be canceled if the owner doesn't keep the terms.

Hardship, demolition and enforcement

  • Economic hardship. An owner could ask for relief by showing that preservation isn't financially feasible. SPARC would recommend and the Council would decide.
  • Demolition. Demolition "may be justified" in any one of four cases:
    • the building has lost its historic character;
    • it is an unfixable safety hazard;
    • the City has approved a hardship; or
    • demolition would make way for a project with "substantial public benefits" and no reasonable alternative exists.
  • Enforcement. The Director could stop work and order corrections or reconstruction. "Demolition by neglect," meaning letting a building decay until it is lost, would be a violation.
  • Removal. Taking a building off the register would require Council approval and a finding that it no longer has its historic significance or character.

Who Would Decide

Draft Table 4-1: Historic Decisions
Decision Director SPARC Planning Commission City Council
Minor Certificate of Appropriateness Decides Appeal Appeal Appeal
Major Certificate of Appropriateness Recommends Decides Appeal Appeal
Economic hardship Recommends Recommends None Decides
Local Register listing None Recommends None Decides
Landmark, district or Structure of Merit None Recommends None Decides
Mills Act contract Recommends Decides Appeal Appeal

"Appeal" means the body hears appeals of an earlier decision. Source: draft ordinance, pp. 16–17.

Roles in the Six Historic Decisions

Counts each body's role across the six historic decision types in draft Table 4-1.

The Planning Commission's only role in individual historic cases would be hearing appeals. It will still review the ordinance itself and send a recommendation to the Council.

Open Questions for the Workshop

  1. Who approves Mills Act contracts. State law says "the legislative body of a city" may contract with an owner (Gov. Code § 50280). In Lodi, the legislative body is the City Council. The draft table gives SPARC the final decision and leaves the Council only appeals.
  2. The cost of the tax breaks. The draft sets no yearly cap on the number of contracts or on the property tax given up, and no application fee. It includes no estimate of the cost to the City, the county or the schools.
  3. Who can get a Mills Act contract. State law extends the program to properties on the National Register or any official state or local register (Gov. Code § 50280.1). The draft limits contracts to Local Landmarks and district contributors. Hotel Lodi and other buildings already on state or national registers would not qualify unless the City lists them locally, and no Structure of Merit would qualify.
  4. SPARC in place of a preservation commission. General Plan policy C-P32 calls for a Historic Preservation Commission. The draft gives the job to SPARC and sets no preservation qualifications for members. Lodi could become a Certified Local Government, the status that opens state preservation grants, but certification requires "an historic preservation review commission by local ordinance" (California Office of Historic Preservation). The draft defines the program but never uses it.
  5. Owner consent. The draft calls participation "voluntary." It doesn't say whether owners must agree to a listing, who else can apply, or what share of owners must agree before a district is created. It also doesn't let an owner who volunteered later withdraw unless the building has lost its historic character.
  6. Unlisted buildings. The draft defines a historical resource as any property that meets the criteria "regardless of formal designation." It lets the Director decide whether a request "involves a Historic Resource," and it holds permits for "work subject to this Section." Read together, those provisions could reach the 118 downtown buildings the survey flagged. The ordinance should state plainly whether an older building that isn't listed needs a certificate.
  7. Housing projects. For housing projects, state law requires a city to decide whether a site is historic when the application is complete, and that decision holds for the life of the project (Gov. Code § 65913.10). The draft doesn't address that rule.
  8. What a certificate covers. The list of covered work names alterations only for Structures of Merit, the lowest tier. The next paragraph requires a certificate for any work on a landmark, a Structure of Merit or a district contributor. The draft also lists economic hardship as a type of certificate, but the Council decides hardship cases.
  9. SPARC's role is described two ways. One section says SPARC "will approve requests and forward recommendations to the City Council." The table gives SPARC final decisions on major certificates and Mills Act contracts but only recommendations on listings.
  10. Demolition findings. Approval requires "all" of the listed findings, and the first one says the work must not harm the building's significance. No demolition can meet that test. A separate section then allows demolition if any one of four conditions applies, including the broad "substantial public benefits." The draft needs one clear standard for demolition.
  11. Paperwork for small jobs. Every application, even for a sign or a window, would need a "maintenance and preservation plan." The Director's review list includes "the public benefits of the proposed contract," wording that belongs to Mills Act review.
  12. The inventory and the register. The section titled "Local Register" describes the inventory, and it calls adding a building to the inventory "voluntary." The draft doesn't adopt the downtown survey or commit to the citywide survey that policy C-P30 calls for.
  13. Enforcement. Demolition by neglect applies only when an owner "intentionally" lets a building decay, which is hard to prove. The draft sets no minimum maintenance standards and no penalties specific to historic buildings.
  14. Fees and notice. The draft lists no fees. It doesn't say whether every owner in a proposed district would receive a mailed notice.

What Comes Next

Ordinance Schedule
Step Timing
Public draft open for comment Now until adoption
SPARC workshop Oct. 28, 2026
Planning Commission recommendation hearing "Anticipated Fall 2026"
City Council adoption hearing "Anticipated Winter 2026"

Source: Plan Lodi, Phased Development Code Amendments page.

The Planning Commission meets in the same room at 7 p.m. that night. Its agenda has no historic preservation item, but the "Actions of the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee" slot lets staff report on the workshop.

Track the Ordinance

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 following:

  • the Oct. 28, 2026 SPARC packet and draft ordinance;
  • SPARC's 2026 agendas, cancellations and minutes;
  • the June 3, 2026 City Council packet, which contains the Downtown Specific Plan, GPA Consulting's Historical Resource Inventory, the 2024 Conservation Element policies and the RRM contract amendment;
  • the Plan Lodi ordinance schedule;
  • the state Office of Historic Preservation's Certified Local Government guidance; and
  • the Government Code sections on Mills Act contracts and historic determinations for housing projects.

Credibility Validation: The decision roles came from the rendered pages of draft Table 4-1, not from extracted text. Survey counts, General Plan policies and contract amounts were taken from the Council packet pages that contain them. Each legal point was checked against the statute's text. The committee roster comes from the Jan. 14, 2026 minutes because the City's committee page does not list members.

Analysis and Synthesis: Claude assisted in comparing the draft's text with its own review-authority table, with General Plan policy, and with state Mills Act, housing and Certified Local Government requirements, and in identifying open questions for the workshop.

Presentation: Claude assisted in drafting, structuring, and formatting the report for clarity and readability, including the designation, decision and schedule tables and the three 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

Prepared for Lodi411 by Don Bradford.

Don Bradford
Next

Living in Vehicles: About 660 People in San Joaquin County, No Direct Count and No Legal Place to Park