Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee - August 26, 2026

Lodi

Aug 23

Lodi SPARC — August 26, 2026

Contact: Jessica L. Pagán, Administrative Assistant, (209) 333-6711. Written comment to sparccomments@lodi.gov, by mail to Community Development Department, P.O. Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241, or hand delivered to 221 W. Pine Street — received no later than two hours before the meeting (3:15 p.m.).

Summary

One review item — and it is the design half of the same Rogers Media electronic-sign package the Planning Commission hears at 7:00 p.m. the same night. SPARC meets at 5:15 p.m., decides placement, height, materials, and pole design for three 78 sq ft LED signs on City land, and the Commission's report is written assuming that approval already happened.

The larger story is timing and record quality. The Development Agreement Council adopted June 3 remains unexecuted and is already being reopened by the applicant. Attachment B is still the March 25 draft, with a blank effective date and a body captioned for two signs. The three site plans state three different sign heights while the report says all three are identical. Sign area at 78 sq ft sits inside a 79.2 sq ft administrative ceiling before counting a 12-inch stainless steel skirt. The pole-width deviation is unquantified in the record. Location 3 sits inside multiple future public reservations, and the mounting type is expressly undecided. Two sites front State Route 12 and no Caltrans approval is discussed. And the January 14, 2026 minutes listed for adoption are not in the packet.

Overview

SPARC agenda items, requested actions, file numbers, applicants, CEQA determinations, and staff recommendations
Item	Action	File	Applicant	CEQA	Staff rec.
2	Approve minutes of January 14, 2026 and March 11, 2026	—	—	—	Approve
4a	Site Plan and Architectural Review — installation, maintenance, and operation of three electronic message signs on City property	PL2026-001 SP	Rogers Media Company (c/o Valley Outdoor Advertising)	Exempt, §15061(b)(3) "common sense"	Approve, subject to conditions in Attachment C

Item 4a is quasi-judicial and requires ex parte disclosure under Resolution No. 2006-31, plus Government Code §84308 disclosure of campaign contributions over $250 in the preceding twelve months. SPARC's decision is appealable to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council, within 10 business days, $300 fee, filed with the City Clerk under LMC 17.70.050 — and only by persons who submitted written or oral testimony or attended the hearing. Notice was published in the Lodi News-Sentinel on Saturday, August 15, 2026, with 187 notices mailed within 300 feet plus notice to interested parties. Nothing is listed under Regular Business.

The timing is the story

SPARC convenes at 5:15 p.m. and the Planning Commission hears the Use Permit for the identical project (PL2026-002) at 7:00 p.m. the same evening in the same room. The Development Agreement sets that sequence deliberately — §2.2 says SPARC "will review and approve" the Project Design Standards, §2.3 says the Planning Commission "will review and approve" the use with a Use Permit. Anyone who wants to be heard on the physical appearance, height, pole design, or placement of these signs has to be at the 5:15 p.m. meeting; by 7:00 p.m. the design question is largely settled.

Open issues and record questions identified in this packet review, grouped by topic. The unquantified pole-width deviation, the still-unexecuted Development Agreement, and Location 3's crowded future footprint drive most of the questions.

Item 2 — Minutes

The agenda lists minutes for "January 14, 2026" and "March 11, 2026." Only the March 11, 2026 minutes are in the packet. The January 14, 2026 minutes do not appear anywhere in the 51-page document. The Committee is being asked to adopt a set of minutes that was not distributed with the agenda — the first thing worth raising at roll call.

March 11, 2026 minutes (adjourned 5:58 p.m.)

Present: Chair Rosado, Hamilton, Dickens, Woehl. Absent: Vice Chair Donaldson. Also present: City Attorney Katie Lucchesi, Interim Director/Deputy Director/City Planner Cynthia Marsh, Administrative Assistant Jessica Pagán.

Public comment

Mike Smith addressed a prior project at 301 E. Pine Street where SPARC had asked that the new building be moved closer to the street. Smith explained the applicant needs to keep the existing building near the street to keep operating while the new one is built at the rear of the parcel, and confirmed the trash enclosure will be moved to the side. Chair Rosado directed the applicant to work with staff; City Attorney Lucchesi confirmed SPARC can only act through reconsideration of the original application or a new application placed on a future agenda. No follow-up on 301 E. Pine appears on this agenda.

Item 4a — the CDJR freeway pylon sign

SPARC approved site plan and architectural review for a 70-foot, double-faced, freeway-oriented electronic pylon sign at 1255 South Beckman Road (Arrow Sign Company, PL2021-008 SP, CEQA §15332 Class 32 infill) 4–0, Donaldson absent. The discussion is directly relevant to tonight's item:

Caltrans controls off-site advertising. City Attorney Lucchesi confirmed Caltrans prohibits off-site advertising for an electronic billboard, that the CDJR sign is "currently not allowed any off-site advertising at all," and that doing so "would require approval from Caltrans." Member Woehl raised the question; Member Hamilton clarified that gambling-establishment advertising is limited to non-gambling activities such as a restaurant or special events.
Traffic distraction. Member Dickens asked about safety; Marsh confirmed all City departments including Public Works, and Caltrans, reviewed the submittal without expressing safety concerns.
The two-sign cap. Member Hamilton asked whether the City has exceeded the maximum of two electronic signs. Marsh clarified the cap applies specifically to freeway-oriented electronic billboards under §17.34.070(G) — not to the City-property signs under (H) that are on tonight's agenda.
Brightness. Applicant Neil Duffy said the sign dims automatically by 20–25% in the evening and can be adjusted further. Woehl asked about lumens; Rosado and Lucchesi pointed to Development Agreement §8.
The wrong City logo. Hamilton asked about the logo; Lucchesi confirmed the logo in the approved design is not the current City of Lodi logo, and that the Development Agreement references the design that includes it. Whether that was ever corrected is not reported here.

Committee and staff comments

Marsh reported no pending SPARC application for the WOW Museum on Sacramento Street; the Lakehouse project is in building permits, residential before hotel, with no major design changes so far and minor changes handled administratively. Lucchesi advised that built-versus-approved noncompliance should be reported and may become a code enforcement case. A food truck and storage container project on Sacramento Street is under pending litigation. Marsh confirmed SPARC review of residential projects is triggered at triplex or larger, except single-family homes in a large subdivision. Marsh also reported the City is drafting a historic preservation ordinance that will add a SPARC review requirement; Hamilton requested member training, which Marsh said would follow completion of drafting with consultant help.

Open issues on the minutes

The January 14, 2026 minutes are not in the packet. They cannot be meaningfully adopted sight unseen. If they were previously distributed, that should be stated on the record; if not, the item should be continued.
The motion and agenda language misidentifies the applicant. Both the March 11 minutes and tonight's agenda describe the item as the "request of the Site Plan and Architecture Review Committee ('SPARC') for approval of…" — SPARC is the decision-maker, not the requester. The applicant is Rogers Media (tonight) and Arrow Sign Company (March 11). This is the same category of drafting error that runs through the Planning Commission minutes in the 7:00 p.m. packet, and it appears verbatim in the staff report's REQUEST line.
Two agenda headings for the same thing. Tonight's agenda calls Section 4 "REVIEW ITEMS" while the March 11 minutes call it "PUBLIC HEARINGS," and the staff report has a "PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE" section. For a noticed quasi-judicial hearing with a 10-business-day appeal window, the record should consistently describe it as a public hearing.
The wrong-logo question from March 11 was never resolved on the record. Tonight's item includes photographic simulations and a "Materials and Colors" section but no discussion of City branding on the sign faces, even though the City gets one 8-second public service message per minute on all three signs.
Committee composition. March 11 seated four of five members. Nothing in the packet indicates whether all five will be present, which matters because three affirmative votes carry the item.

Item 4a — Site Plan and Architectural Review, three electronic message signs (PL2026-001 SP)

What is being asked

Approval of the site placement, sign design, materials, colors, and overall visual compatibility of three single-sided, pole-mounted programmable LED signs on City-owned land. Property owner is the City of Lodi; applicant is Rogers Media Company c/o Valley Outdoor Advertising, 1920 Tienda Dr., Suite 203, Lodi.

Proposed sign locations, parcels, land use designations, heights, and mounting types
#	Location	APN	GP / Zoning	Height	Mounting
1	Median strip, South Hutchins Street, ~285 ft north of S. Hutchins/E. Harney Ln.	None — public right-of-way	None / Public Right-of-Way	16 ft	Center-mounted, behind existing "Welcome to City of Lodi" sign, centered in median
2	City Animal Shelter, 1345 W. Kettleman Ln.	031-040-50	Public/Quasi-Public	14.5 ft	Flag-mounted, 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	16 ft	Center-mounted, south side of W. Kettleman — may be converted to flag-mounted depending on future sound wall

Each sign has 78 square feet of display area on a nine-inch-wide pole. The support poles are intended to create a "visually minimized 'floating' sign face appearance."

Adjacent land uses

Adjacent land uses at each of the three sign locations
Location	North	South	East	West
1 — Hutchins median	LDR/HDR, PD-10 and PD-4 — single-family and condominiums	Mixed Use Center and County parcels — vacant land	LDR, PD-10 — single-family	Commercial/HDR, PD-4 — shopping center
2 — Animal Shelter	Open Space — Kofu Park	Mixed Use Corridor, PD-15 — shopping center	Mixed Use Corridor — nursing home and community services center	MDR, PD-33 — single-family
3 — Kettleman/Westgate	Mixed Use Corridor and County parcels — vacant land	LDR, PD-41 — single-family	Commercial, C-C — gas station	HDR, PD-41 — vacant, future site of 12 West Apartments

All three sites abut or face residential zoning. The Location 1 site plan identifies the specific homes: APNs 062-26-039 through 062-26-046, Lots 246–253 of Tract No. 1218, addresses 414 through 471 Cedar Court, with existing houses, driveways, and a pool mapped directly across the sound wall from the median.

Background and project history

2022 — the code was written for this deal. Rogers Media approached the City in 2022 about a revenue-sharing opportunity to put electronic message signs on City property. At the time the LMC did not allow them. Planning staff and the City Attorney's office then prepared amendments creating "Electronic Message Signs on City Property" at LMC §17.34.070(H) — a new sign category for City-owned property that permits electronic message boards, sets maximum size and brightness standards, allows commercial messages for off-site businesses, and requires both a Use Permit and SPARC review. The staff report states this plainly: the amendments were prepared "in an effort to pursue this opportunity in Lodi." Council adopted the amendment on June 15, 2022 (City of Lodi File #25-057).
March 2024 — RFP. The City sought a partner to develop electronic message signs on City sites; Rogers Media was selected. The RFP contemplated three signs — originally two pole signs and one wall sign — and listed operating hours of 6:00 a.m.–10:00 p.m. unless different hours were established by the conditional use permit (City of Lodi RFP; bid posting).
January 8, 2025 — first Planning Commission recommendation. The Commission recommended Council approve Development Agreement DA2024-001 for two locations: a single-sided wall sign near the northeast corner of S. Hutchins/E. Harney, and a double-sided pole sign at the Animal Shelter.
Public Works forced the redesign. Staff review found the proposed wall sign near S. Hutchins/E. Harney could visually conflict with existing traffic control signage and distract motorists. Public Works recommended moving it north, away from the intersection, into the median. After evaluating electrical availability, Rogers Media relocated it ~285 feet north as a single-sided pole sign behind the Welcome sign, and changed the Animal Shelter sign from double-sided to single-sided.
The third sign came back. Rogers Media asked to reintroduce the 2800 W. Kettleman Lane location, which was in the original RFP but not in the January 2025 agreement. After consultation with Public Works and Lodi Electric Utility about long-term plans for the site — "including potential future substation facilities" — the third sign was added back.
March 25, 2026 — second Planning Commission recommendation. The revised agreement and three-sign proposal returned to the Commission, which again recommended Council adopt an ordinance entering the Development Agreement (Lodi411).
June 3, 2026 — Council adoption. Council approved the Development Agreement by Ordinance No. 2047 after a public hearing; the staff report states the ordinance "went into effect thirty (30) days later on July 3, 2026." Council introduced it May 6 and adopted on second reading June 3 (Lodi411).
Still unexecuted, and already being renegotiated. As of the report date the Council-approved Development Agreement has not been fully executed, and "subsequent to the approval of the Development Agreement by the City Council, the Applicant has proposed additional potential amendments to the Agreement," which "will be brought to the Planning Commission and City Council at a later date."
Related precedent. The City is separately processing the first of a maximum two freeway-oriented electronic billboards under §17.34.070(G) — the 70-ft CDJR pylon SPARC approved on March 11, with a $1,000 annual monitoring fee and the same 7,500/500 lumens-per-square-meter dimming language (Lodi411).

Design details in the record

Sign faces. 10 mm LED displays approximately 6 ft 5 in high by 12 ft wide, frameless on three sides, with a 12-inch stainless steel skirt along the bottom of each face.
Structure. Each sign is a steel pole anchored to a reinforced concrete footing roughly 24 inches in diameter and 8 feet deep. Final structural design and engineering go through the building permit process.
Elevations on the site plans (Faria Engineering, David L. Faria, PE No. 92432, sheets dated 5/25/2026): Location 1 — 6.5 ft × 12 ft face, 9.5 ft to bottom of face, 16 ft overall; Location 2 — 6.5 ft × 12 ft face, 8 ft to bottom, 14.5 ft overall, east-facing, sited within a 10-ft Lodi Electric easement limit; Location 3 — 6.5 ft × 12 ft face, 9.5 ft to bottom, 16 ft overall, 11 ft from existing sidewalk, shown behind a future sound wall, inside an 8-ft future City landscape right-of-way and adjacent to a 37.14-ft future Caltrans right-of-way.
Landscaping. Only Location 3 gets landscaping at the base, "in accordance with Public Works requirements." The report states explicitly: "Landscaping is not required for the other two locations."
Location 3's future is crowded. The report states the City is proposing "a electric substation and a water treatment facility within the vicinity of the proposed sign," and that the W. Kettleman sound wall will be extended eastward toward the Westgate intersection and "may influence the ultimate design (center-mounted versus flag-mounted) of the sign."

The administrative deviations

Staff — not SPARC, and not through a variance — approved two deviations under LMC §17.40.050:

Sign area. The code caps electronic message sign area at 72 sq ft; Table 4-3 allows an administrative increase of up to 10 percent (79.2 sq ft). Each proposed sign is 78 sq ft.
Pole width. Deviations were approved "to allow sign support poles that are narrower than the minimum pole width required by LMC Section 17.34.070.H." The staff report gives no number for the required width, no number for the percentage of the reduction, and no citation to the subsection authorizing it. The justification offered is aesthetic: the reduced width "results in a more visually attractive and less obtrusive sign design," minimizing visual prominence and creating "the appearance of a floating sign panel face rather than a dominant vertical structure." The published code standard requires the support to be at least one-third the width of the sign face — 48 inches for a 12-foot face (Lodi zoning code, Chapter 3). The proposal is 9 inches, roughly an 81 percent reduction. The City's own 2024 RFP anticipated that an administrative deviation would be needed to reduce the minimum support width (City of Lodi RFP).

Height is not an issue: §17.34.070(H) allows 20 ft overall and 12 ft to the bottom of the LED panel; the proposals are 14.5–16 ft overall with 8–9.5 ft to the bottom of the face.

Development Agreement DA2024-001 (Attachment B)

Attachment B is labeled "Development Agreement Reviewed by PC on March 25, 2026" — the reviewed draft, not an executed instrument. Its terms:

Term: five years from the Effective Date upon full execution, with two City-option five-year extensions on 30 days' notice — up to 15 years.
Revenue (§5): on-site and off-site electronic messages and advertising are allowed; if the contractor obtains all required approvals for off-site advertising, the parties "shall negotiate the percentage of net proceeds" paid to the City, plus record-retention requirements, before any off-site advertising occurs. There is no rent, no percentage, and no minimum anywhere in the document.
Dimming (§6): automatic dimming between sunset and sunrise; 7,500 lumens per square meter daytime, 500 lumens per square meter nighttime.
Maintenance (§7): contractor keeps the signs free of damage, graffiti, and malfunction and repairs within 30 days of notice; the City keeps the property free of noxious weeds, grasses, debris, and rodents.
Removal (§8): on discontinuance, removal and restoration within 60 days, or fines of $1,000 per calendar day; then a recorded notice of termination.
Public benefit (§9): up to one 8-second Public Service Message per minute, continuous. The City supplies copy and artwork; the contractor displays within 48 hours of receipt and approval and is not responsible for producing or substantially modifying copy. Unused City time reverts to the contractor. Public Service Messages expressly exclude anything with a direct and tangible economic benefit to a private for-profit party.
Display limitation (§10): the contractor covenants that advertising will not be political, religious, or sexual in nature — each defined at length, with "political" reaching any position "associated with or having to do with activities or affairs of a government (local, state or federal), politician, or political party." The City covenants no alcohol, tobacco, or gambling advertising (non-gaming services of gambling establishments allowed) and "reserves the right to object to any other advertising that may be considered detrimental to the image" of the City, on written notice, with the contractor to "endeavor to cooperate" unless removal breaches an existing contract or lease.
Administration: annual staff review for conformance with §17.34.070(H) (§12); 30-day cure on default (§13); prevailing-party attorney fees (§14); recordation within 10 days of the Effective Date (§27).
Conflicting use (§23): if the City develops nearby or adjacent property and, in its sole discretion, determines the Project will interfere with future development — design, construction, safety, reliability, operation, maintenance, or access — the contractor must remove the sign entirely within 60 days of written notice and restore the site, or the City removes it and bills the contractor.
Indemnification (§24) survives termination. Notices (§26) go to Rogers Media, ATTN: Matthew Rogers, P.O. Box 97, Sausalito, CA 94965.
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.

Findings SPARC must make (LMC 17.40.020(E))

The design and layout would (a) be consistent with the development and design standards of the applicable zoning district; (b) not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments and not create traffic or pedestrian hazards; (c) maintain and enhance attractive, harmonious, orderly development; and (d) provide a desirable environment through good aesthetic use of durable materials, texture, and color.
The development (a) would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to nearby properties; and (b) has been reviewed in compliance with CEQA and the Lodi Environmental Review Guidelines.

Staff's supporting analysis rests on: consistency with §17.34.070(H) as modified by the deviations; the 285-foot relocation as the answer to traffic safety; consistent design, materials, colors, and proportions across all three locations; reduced-width poles minimizing visual prominence; Location 3 landscaping; durable materials for long-term outdoor use; departmental review plus building permits; and the §15061(b)(3) exemption.

Conditions of approval (Attachment C)

Planning Division: (1) applicant must sign and return the Acceptance of Conditions — approval is not final until the signed copy is on file; (2) broad indemnification of the City against any action challenging the approval, including CEQA and Planning and Zoning Law claims, with City-approved defense counsel and reimbursement of City costs; (3) development per the site plan and elevations approved August 26, 2026, with modifications only per LMC Title 17, Articles 2 and 3; (4) compliance with all terms of the approved Development Agreement; (5) automatic dimming, 7,500 lumens/m² daytime and 500 lumens/m² nighttime; (5, second) DA2024-001 must be fully executed within one year of SPARC approval or the approval is void; (6) if the approval is not exercised within two years it expires, with written extension requests due at least 10 days before expiration.

Building Division: (1) a building permit is required; submittals must comply with City of Lodi Building Regulations and the currently adopted 2025 California Building Code.

There are no Public Works, Electric Utility, Fire, or Police conditions.

Open issues and questions for the record

The design SPARC is approving may not be the design that gets built

Location 3's mounting type is explicitly undecided. The staff report says the Kettleman/Westgate sign "might be converted to a flag-mounted sign based on the location of the future sound wall." Center-mounted versus flag-mounted is a fundamental architectural difference — it changes the silhouette, the relationship to the pole, and the viewing geometry. SPARC's condition 3 requires development per the approved elevations, and the Planning Commission's parallel Use Permit conditions require an amendment for substantial changes to configuration. Approving a design with an acknowledged alternate outcome invites exactly the built-versus-approved noncompliance problem Member Hamilton raised on March 11. The cleanest fixes are to approve both configurations expressly, or to condition Location 3's final mounting on a return to SPARC.
Location 3 sits inside land reserved for other public purposes. The site plan shows the sign within an 8-foot future City landscape right-of-way and adjacent to a 37.14-foot future Caltrans right-of-way, behind a future sound wall, on a parcel where the City is proposing an electric substation and a water treatment facility. Development Agreement §23 lets the City order removal at its sole discretion within 60 days if the sign interferes with any of that. The Committee should ask what the substation and water treatment timelines are, whether Caltrans has been asked about a structure in a future right-of-way reservation, and whether it is sound design review to place a permanent 16-foot structure on the most conflicted of the three parcels.
The landscaping premise contradicts itself. The Project Summary says "Landscaping at the base of each sign will be installed in accordance with Public Works requirements." The Landscaping section and finding 1c say landscaping applies only to Location 3 and "is not required for the other two locations." Finding 1c leans on landscaping to support harmonious development. The Committee should establish which is correct — and note that there is no Public Works condition of approval in Attachment C to enforce the landscaping the finding relies on.

The pole-width deviation is unquantified in the record

SPARC is asked to find compliance with a standard the report never states. The report tells the Committee the poles are "narrower than the minimum pole width required by LMC Section 17.34.070.H" without stating the required width, the proposed width in relation to it, the percentage of the reduction, or the subsection that authorizes an administrative deviation of that magnitude. Table 4-3 is cited only for the 10 percent sign-area increase. The published standard requires the support to be at least one-third of the face width — 48 inches for a 12-foot face — against a proposed 9 inches. Finding 1a asks SPARC to certify consistency with the zoning district's standards "subject to the approved administrative deviations." A committee cannot make that finding on the record as written. Ask for the number, the authorizing subsection, and the maximum reduction that provision permits.
The 78-square-foot figure may understate the sign. The code caps area at 72 sq ft; the administrative ceiling is 79.2 sq ft; the proposal is stated as 78 sq ft. But the Materials section describes a display of about 6 ft 5 in by 12 ft — roughly 77 sq ft of LED — plus a 12-inch stainless steel skirt across the bottom of each face. If sign area is measured to the outside of the cabinet including the skirt, the face is closer to 7.5 ft by 12 ft, or about 90 sq ft, which is well past the 79.2 sq ft administrative ceiling and would require a variance rather than a deviation. Ask staff to state on the record how area was measured and whether the skirt is included.
Structural design is deferred entirely. A nine-inch pole carrying a 78 sq ft face 16 feet in the air on a 24-inch by 8-foot footing is unusual, and the report defers final structural design and engineering to the building permit. That is normal practice, but the aesthetic justification for the deviation — a "floating" panel — depends on the pole staying nine inches. If engineering requires a larger pole or bracing, the entire basis for the deviation and for finding 1c disappears. A condition returning the item to SPARC if the pole dimension increases would protect the finding.

Sign plan documents do not match the staff report

The three site plans state three different sign sizes. Under Scope of Work, Location 1 says "Install new 8' H by 12' W sign," Location 2 says "6' H by 12' W," and Location 3 says "7' H by 12' W" — while all three elevations show a 6.5 ft by 12 ft face and the staff report says all three are identical at 78 sq ft. Finding 1c rests on "a consistent architectural design, materials, colors, and proportions across all three locations." These are the drawings SPARC's approval will incorporate by reference under condition 3.
Parcel numbers are inconsistent across the record. Location 2 is APN 031-040-50 in the staff report, the Development Agreement, and the conditions, but the site plan title block reads "Kettleman Lane - APN 031-04-021." Location 3 is 058-030-10 in the staff report and conditions, 058-03-010 on the site plan, and 058-030-010 in the Development Agreement. The Development Agreement is to be recorded against these properties.
One engineer's stamp appears expired. The Location 2 sheet shows David L. Faria, PE No. 92432 with expiration 06-30-2025 in both the stamp block and the title block, while the Location 1 and Location 3 sheets show 06-30-2027. The Location 2 drawing was plotted 5/25/2026. This is likely a stale drawing template rather than a licensure problem, but a corrected sheet should be in the file before approval.
Location 3 is described three ways and Location 1 two ways. Location 3 is "approximately 40 feet west" of Kettleman/Westgate in the agenda, request line, and conditions; "approximately 40 feet southwest" in the project summary; and "near the southwest corner" elsewhere. Location 1 is "285 feet north of South Hutchins Street/East Harney Lane" in most places and "285 feet north of East Harney Lane" in the conditions. The Development Agreement's recorder caption reads "285 feet north of South Hutchins Street and East Harney Lane."
Minor drawing errors. The Location 2 sheet labels a "10' Lodo Power and Light Easement" (Lodi Electric Utility), and two sheets cite "Santa Joaquin County Records." The applicant address differs by sheet — P.O. Box 19681, Sacramento on Location 1; P.O. Box 97, Sausalito on Locations 2 and 3 — with the application itself listing Valley Outdoor Advertising on Tienda Drive in Lodi.

The governing agreement is unsigned and already being reopened

SPARC is approving design standards under an agreement the applicant wants to amend. The report discloses that after Council adoption the applicant "has proposed additional potential amendments to the Agreement," to be brought to the Planning Commission and Council later. The Committee should ask what the proposed amendments are. If they touch sign count, location, size, or the revenue provisions, approving the design tonight locks in the visual package before the deal's terms are settled.
The Attachment B draft still says two signs and has a blank Council date. The recorder caption reads "FOR THREE PROGRAMMABLE ELECTRONIC SIGNS" while the first line of the body reads "DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TWO PROGRAMMABLE ELECTRONIC SIGNS," with the sentence immediately after referring to three. §2.1 recites in past tense that the Council "held a hearing… and voted to approve the Agreement" with the date left blank, even though the report states Council acted June 3, 2026. §22 contains a duplicated "Bankruptcy. Bankruptcy." heading and an apparently truncated sentence, and §8 ends with a stray apostrophe. This is the instrument to be recorded against City property.
Two accounts of when the ordinance took effect. Tonight's report says Ordinance No. 2047 "went into effect thirty (30) days later on July 3, 2026." Contemporaneous reporting on the Council item described effectiveness as conditioned on execution of the lease and at least 30 days after adoption (Lodi411). If effectiveness depends on a lease, and the agreement remains unexecuted, the ordinance may not in fact be operative — and the lease itself is not in this packet or the Planning Commission's. Ask which is correct and where the lease stands.
The two staff reports for the same project tell different histories. The Planning Commission's PL2026-002 report for tonight's 7:00 p.m. hearing recites the RFP and the unexecuted agreement but omits the January 8, 2025 recommendation, the March 25, 2026 recommendation, the June 3, 2026 Council adoption, the July 3, 2026 effective date, and the pending amendment request. It also numbers the project PL2026-002 while this one is PL2026-001. A person reading only the Commission packet would not know Council has already acted or that the applicant is seeking changes.

Revenue, advertising authority, and enforcement

The revenue justification has no number behind it. The Strategic Priorities section says the program "supports the City's fiscal sustainability goals by generating revenue from advertising opportunities on City-owned property," and the Development Agreement section says the agreement establishes "revenue-sharing provisions." Attachment B contains no rent, no percentage, and no minimum — only an agreement to negotiate a share of net proceeds later, contingent on off-site advertising approval. The two-sign version that reached Council in February 2025 carried a floor of $25,000 per year paid in advance, or 25% of net advertising income, whichever is greater (City of Lodi File #25-057). SPARC's charge is design, not finance — but fiscal sustainability is the stated basis for the project, and the Committee is entitled to ask whether the public benefit it is being told about actually exists in the document.
Caltrans is the unresolved gatekeeper, and SPARC has already been told so. On March 11 the City Attorney told this same Committee that Caltrans prohibits off-site advertising for an electronic billboard and that any off-site advertising "would require approval from Caltrans." West Kettleman Lane is State Route 12, and two of the three signs front it. Development Agreement §5's "all required approvals" points at exactly that. Tonight's report does not mention Caltrans once. Ask whether any Caltrans encroachment or outdoor-advertising permit has been sought for Locations 2 and 3, and what the signs display — and what the City earns — if the answer is no.

Conditions and CEQA

The conditions have two conditions numbered 5. Dimming and the one-year Development Agreement execution deadline share the number. In a document the applicant signs to accept and the City later enforces, the numbering should be corrected before adoption.
Three different brightness units govern one project. SPARC's conditions and Development Agreement §6 use lumens per square meter (an illuminance unit — lux). The Planning Commission's Use Permit conditions for the same signs cap brightness at 0.3 foot-candles over ambient (also illuminance, different unit, measured at a distance). The underlying code standard for these signs is expressed in nits — candela per square meter, a luminance unit that is not convertible from either of the others without knowing surface and geometry. Ask staff which number the City will actually measure and enforce, and with what instrument.
No hours of operation, and no encroachment permit condition. The City's own RFP recited a 6:00 a.m.–10:00 p.m. limit unless the conditional use permit set different hours; neither SPARC's conditions nor the Commission's impose a curfew, and the Development Agreement contemplates continuous operation. Location 1 is a sign in a public median facing eight mapped single-family homes on Cedar Court. Separately, a private structure in the South Hutchins Street right-of-way ordinarily requires an encroachment permit and Public Works sign-off; no such condition appears.
The CEQA determination is mislabeled and thinly supported. The report calls the project "Categorically Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)" — §15061(b)(3) is the common-sense exemption in Article 5, not a categorical exemption from Article 19, and the difference matters because the common-sense exemption requires certainty that there is no possibility of a significant effect. The stated basis is that these are improvements on previously developed sites. Location 1 is a landscaped median, not a developed site; two of three sites face residential zoning across the street; and there is no light-spill, glare, or nighttime-luminance study in the record. Finding 2b and the recommended motion both depend on this determination.
No traffic or sight-distance study is attached. The safety analysis in finding 1b consists of the fact that Location 1 was moved 285 feet north at Public Works' request. Location 1 remains in a median among an existing traffic signal, street light, monument boxes, aboveground and underground utility boxes, a joint pole with guy wires, and the existing Welcome sign — five illuminated or visually competing objects in one field of view. Ask whether Public Works reviewed the final median location and the other two sites in writing, and whether that memo can be made part of the record.
Kofu Park is not discussed. Location 2's northern frontage is Open Space — Kofu Park, with the skate park and tennis courts mapped on the site plan roughly 35–40 feet from the proposed sign. The sign faces east toward West Kettleman, but park-facing spill and the effect on evening park use get no analysis.

Practical notes for residents

The design hearing is at 5:15 p.m., not 7:00. Comment in person at the Carnegie Forum, by Zoom (ID 818 0090 1564, passcode 747476), or by email to sparccomments@lodi.gov received by 3:15 p.m. — two hours before the meeting, not three.
SPARC controls how these signs look and where exactly they sit. The Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. controls whether the use is allowed and how it operates — brightness, dwell time, revocation. Different questions, different meetings, same night.
SPARC's decision is appealable to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council within 10 business days for $300, filed with the City Clerk — but only by people who submitted written or oral testimony or attended the hearing. Participating tonight is what preserves the right to appeal.
Anyone who has given more than $250 to a SPARC member in the past twelve months, and any member who received it, must disclose under Government Code §84308 before this item is heard.

References

Primary source: City of Lodi Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Agenda Packet, August 26, 2026 — agenda and notices; March 11, 2026 draft minutes; Staff Report PL2026-001 SP with Figures 1 through 4D and Tables A–C; Attachment A detailed site plans and design elements (Faria Engineering sheets 225070, 223065, 225060, all dated 5/25/2026); Attachment B Development Agreement reviewed by the Planning Commission on March 25, 2026; Attachment C draft Conditions of Approval. Cross-referenced against the City of Lodi Planning Commission Agenda Packet for August 26, 2026 (Staff Report PL2026-002, Use Permit).

Contact: Jessica L. Pagán, Administrative Assistant, City of Lodi Community Development Department, (209) 333-6711 · sparccomments@lodi.gov · P.O. Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241 · youtube.com/CityofLodi

Site Plan And ArchitectureMeeting Summary

Don Bradford