Lodi Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee — Regular Meeting

Wednesday, September 23, 2026 — 5:15 p.m.

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

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

Summary

The September 23, 2026 Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) meeting is a single-hearing sitting on a project that has been moving through Lodi's development pipeline since 2023. Item 4a is design and site-plan review for a proposed Maverik convenience store, seven auto and five truck fuel dispensers, and an 8.81-acre commercial lot at 4872 East Kettleman Lane — the southeast corner of Kettleman and South Beckman Road, roughly 350 feet east of the State Route 99 interchange. The Committee's action is quasi-judicial and triggers ex parte disclosure under Resolution No. 2006-31 and campaign-contribution disclosure under Government Code §84308.

The site was annexed into the City by San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) on August 26, 2026. The Committee sits at 5:15 p.m.; at 7:00 p.m. the Planning Commission takes up the linked Use Permit for a Type 21 off-sale alcohol license at the same store (PL2023-042 U), plus an unrelated Tentative Parcel Map at 401 North Ham Lane (PL2026-013). Staff finds no further environmental review is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §15162, relying on the 2025 Maverik Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (State Clearinghouse No. 2024030646). Staff recommends approval subject to the Conditions of Approval in Attachment D.

Meeting Details

Date & Time: Wednesday, September 23, 2026 at 5:15 p.m.

Location: Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240 (in-person)

Zoom Webinar: Meeting ID 818 0090 1564, Passcode 747476, or dial 1‑669‑444‑9171 / 1‑346‑248‑7799

Live Video: youtube.com/CityofLodi

Committee Members: Chair Rosado, Vice Chair Donaldson, and Members Hamilton, Dickens, and Woehl (per the January 14, 2026 minutes in the packet)

Community Development Contact: Administrative Assistant Jessica L. Pagán, (209) 333-6711

Public Comment: In-person at Carnegie Forum; by Zoom during the meeting; by email to sparccomments@lodi.gov received no later than 3:15 p.m. (two hours before the meeting); by mail to Community Development Department, P.O. Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241; or hand-delivered to 221 W. Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240 by 3:15 p.m. day-of.

Appeals: SPARC decisions may be appealed to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council within 10 business days by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk and paying a $300 appeal fee, per Lodi Municipal Code §17.70.050. Only persons who participated in the SPARC review (written or oral testimony, or attendance) may appeal.

Ex Parte and §84308: The public hearing is quasi-judicial. Committee members must disclose ex parte communications on the record and disclose any campaign contributions greater than $250 received in the last 12 months from an applicant, contractor, agent, or interested participant, per Government Code §84308.

Agenda

1. Roll Call

2. Minutes — January 14, 2026 and August 26, 2026

Approval of two sets of minutes. The August 26, 2026 minutes document SPARC's review of Rogers Media electronic message signs on City property. SPARC voted to deny the sign application the same evening the Planning Commission approved the Rogers Media Use Permit for the same signs 3-1 — a procedural precedent worth noting because a parallel SPARC/Planning Commission split is possible on the Maverik file being heard tonight.

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

Individuals are limited to one appearance during this section.

4. Review Items

The item below is quasi-judicial and requires ex parte disclosure per Resolution No. 2006-31.

4a   4872 East Kettleman Lane — Convenience Store with Truck and Auto Fueling Dispensers (Maverik) (PL2023-043 SP)

Consider a site plan and architectural review request to construct a 5,982 sq ft Maverik convenience store, seven auto fuel dispensers (14 car positions), and five truck fuel dispensers (six truck positions) on a 3.59-acre pad within an 8.81-acre parcel at 4872 East Kettleman Lane (APN 061-020-15). Applicant: Anton Kireev, Kimley-Horn and Associates. Property owner: FJ Management, Inc. CEQA: No further review required per §15162 (relies on the 2025 Maverik IS/MND, SCH No. 2024030646). Staff recommends approval subject to the Conditions of Approval in Attachment D.

5. Regular Business

None.

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

7. Adjournment

Agenda posted per Government Code §54954.2(a) at least 72 hours in advance at a publicly accessible location. The September 9, 2026 SPARC meeting was cancelled; the last SPARC action before tonight was August 26, 2026.

Item 4a — Maverik Convenience Store and Fueling Dispensers (PL2023-043 SP)

Application at a Glance

Site: 4872 East Kettleman Lane, Lodi, CA 95240 — Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 061-020-15

Applicant: Anton Kireev, Kimley-Horn and Associates, 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588

Property Owner: FJ Management, Inc., 185 South State Street, Suite 1300, Salt Lake City, UT 84111

General Plan: General Commercial

Zoning: Existing San Joaquin County AG-40 (Agriculture); City-adopted Pre-Zone: General Commercial (GC), effective upon annexation completion

Site size: 8.81 acres total (Maverik on the 3.59-acre western parcel once Tentative Parcel Map PL2026-004 PM is approved by the Planning Commission)

CEQA determination: No further review required, CEQA Guidelines §15162 (relies on the 2025 Maverik Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, State Clearinghouse No. 2024030646)

Staff recommendation: Approve, subject to Conditions of Approval (Attachment D)

Report authors: Senior Planner Tim Kohaya; Community Development Director David Hanham

What SPARC Reviews

SPARC is the City's design and site-plan body, established under Lodi Municipal Code Chapter 17.40. Under §17.40.020, SPARC reviews site layout, building architecture, landscaping, signage, screening, lighting, and consistency with the design standards of the underlying zone. SPARC does not review land-use permission — that is the Planning Commission's role — but its decision on design and site layout is a required approval before building permits can issue. Tonight's action is separate from the Planning Commission's 7:00 p.m. Use Permit hearing on the same store's alcohol sales (PL2023-042 U); both approvals are needed for the project to move forward.

Project History and Sequence of Approvals

The site was in unincorporated San Joaquin County (zoned AG-40) until August 2026. The sequence:

Approvals leading to the September 23, 2026 SPARC hearing. Source: Item 4a staff report, Background section.

Site Setting

The parcel occupies the southeast corner of East Kettleman Lane and South Beckman Road, approximately 350 feet east of the State Route 99 / East Kettleman Lane freeway interchange (Exit 264B). Adjacent uses:

Proposed Design

The convenience store sits in the center of the pad with seven auto fuel dispensers arrayed to the north (14 car fueling positions) and five truck fuel dispensers to the south (six truck fueling positions). Cars and trucks share the single South Beckman Road entrance about 240 feet south of the Kettleman/Beckman intersection; a private drive connects the site back out to Kettleman about 370 feet from the intersection. The truck lane separates from car circulation once inside the site.

Architectural treatment mixes light and dark grey board-and-batten fiber-cement siding with cultured stone wainscot, dark bronze aluminum storefront glazing, and a signature gabled wood-beam roof element between the two entry doors. A parapet screens rooftop mechanical equipment. Building height is 29 feet 1 inch — under the 35-foot GC limit. Fueling canopies are 16-foot clear height with the Maverik red logo as the dominant color; trash enclosures are 6-foot masonry with slat-chain doors.

Landscaping includes 10-foot street planters along Kettleman and Beckman with Cork Oak street trees at 30 feet on center, one shade tree per four parking spaces per LMC §17.32.070.D, and two bioretention basins at the Kettleman/Beckman corner and the private-drive intersection. Site lighting is capped at 20 feet per LMC §17.14.070.A and directed inward.

General Commercial Development Standards (Table B)

Proposed site coverage and building height against General Commercial limits (LMC §17.20). Values shown as a percentage of the maximum allowed. Source: Item 4a staff report, Table B.

Required SPARC Findings

Per LMC §17.40.020(E), SPARC must make findings that the project is consistent with GC design and development standards, does not interfere with neighboring uses or create traffic/pedestrian hazards, maintains orderly commercial development, uses durable materials appropriate to the site, is not detrimental to public health and safety, and has been reviewed for CEQA compliance under §15162. Staff supports all findings.

CEQA — Reliance on the 2025 IS/MND

In July 2025, the City Council adopted an Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2024030646) for the Maverik annexation and pre-zoning. That analysis considered full buildout of the site, including a convenience store and fueling area. Staff applies CEQA Guidelines §15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations) and finds none of the three re-review triggers is met — no substantial changes to the project, no substantial changes to the circumstances, and no new information of substantial importance. No addendum is proposed.

Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) — Carry-Over Mitigations

The Project remains subject to the 2025 MMRP included as Attachment C. The measures that most affect operational and construction sequencing:

Agricultural Resources Measure 1 — Agricultural Conservation Easement or In-Lieu Fee

Before issuance of building permits, the applicant must provide agricultural mitigation land or an in-lieu fee at a 1:1 ratio in northern San Joaquin County, approved by the San Joaquin County Agricultural Technical Advisory Committee. The City's in-lieu fee ordinance (involving the California Farmland Trust) is anticipated for adoption in 2026. In the meantime a signed letter of agreement between the City, developer, and Maverik commits the project to easement recordation or in-lieu payment.

Biological Resources Measure 1 — Nesting Bird / Burrowing Owl / Raptor Pre-Construction Survey

If ground-disturbing work occurs between February 1 and August 31, a qualified biologist must survey no more than seven working days before activity. Buffers: 100 feet for passerines, 300 feet for burrowing owls, 300 feet for raptors. A qualified biological monitor must be on site at initiation of work within those buffers if active nests are identified.

Biological Resources Measure 2 — Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP)

All construction personnel must attend WEAP training prepared and delivered by a qualified biologist before construction begins. Attendance forms must be signed and retained.

Biological Resources Measure 3 — General Construction BMPs

Project limits clearly delineated; 5 mph vehicle speed limit within unpaved limits; closed-container trash disposal removed daily; no deliberate feeding of wildlife; no pets; no firearms; vehicle maintenance in designated staging areas; night lighting shielded and directed downward.

Biological Resources Measure 4 — Crotch's Bumble Bee Survey and Avoidance

Pre-project surveys during the colony active period (April 1 – August 31), three visits at least a week apart, by a qualified biologist meeting a 40-hour experience threshold. If active nests or foraging are detected, at least a 50-foot no-work buffer is established in consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Notable Conditions of Approval (Attachment D)

Notice

Legal notice was published in the Lodi News-Sentinel on September 12, 2026. Five mailed notices were sent to property owners of record within a 300-foot radius, reflecting the site's rural edge, plus notices to interested parties.

Attachments (Item 4a)

• Attachment A — Aerial and Site Map
• Attachment B — Site Plan, Elevations, Floor Plan, Landscape and Lighting Plan
• Attachment C — Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (July 2025)
• Attachment D — Draft Conditions of Approval

Open Issues to Watch — Item 4a

• Two-body coordination the same night. The 5:15 SPARC hearing on the site plan and the 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission hearing on the ABC Type 21 Use Permit are separate discretionary actions on the same building. In August 2026 the Planning Commission approved a Rogers Media Use Permit for signs that SPARC had denied the same evening; commissioners and members in either body can reasonably ask how the two decisions are being coordinated tonight.
• Two contingent findings. The 161.5-foot side-street setback and 0.09 Floor Area Ratio site coverage figures in Table B are conditioned on approval of Tentative Parcel Map PL2026-004 PM. Both remain comfortably compliant either way, but the map is a separate Planning Commission action that has not yet been heard.
• Agricultural mitigation is a letter of agreement, not yet an ordinance. The City's in-lieu fee mechanism (via the California Farmland Trust) is expected in 2026 but is not yet adopted. The project is committed by letter to either recording a 1:1 easement or paying the future in-lieu fee before building permits issue; both the ordinance timeline and the specific easement/fee outcome remain unresolved.
• CEQA §15162 rather than fresh analysis. Staff relies entirely on the 2025 IS/MND. Anyone contesting the project on environmental grounds would need to show substantial changes, new information of substantial importance, or previously undisclosed impacts under §15162(a)(1)-(3). It is a high bar, but SPARC still needs to make the finding on the record.
• Shared South Beckman entrance for cars and trucks. The internal layout otherwise separates car and truck circulation, but the single Beckman entrance handles both. Turning-movement and signage testimony from the applicant would strengthen the record on truck/car conflict potential.
• Adjacent single-family residence on County AG-40. Large-lot single-family homes and cropland sit immediately east and south under County zoning. Site lighting is capped at 20 feet and directed inward, and truck circulation runs along the site's south side, but the lighting/noise/hours record for those neighbors is worth building out — the Conditions of Approval address CPTED design principles generally without adding site-specific dark-sky or delivery-hour restrictions.
• Site-size discrepancy carried over from CEQA. The SPARC staff report cites 8.81 acres; the 2025 MMRP cites 8.61 acres for the same APN. That 0.20-acre difference should be reconciled on the record — it may reflect a right-of-way dedication or a difference in the annexation legal description.
• Two minutes sets on the consent slot. Item 2 lists both the January 14, 2026 and August 26, 2026 minutes. The January 14 minutes were originally scheduled for approval on August 26; residents who want the January record should confirm both minutes packets are attached before the vote.

Linked Planning Commission Agenda — Same Night, 7:00 p.m.

The Lodi Planning Commission meets in the same Carnegie Forum at 7:00 p.m. the same evening. Zoom Webinar Meeting ID 824 8423 0393, Passcode 551089. Written comment to pccomments@lodi.gov is accepted until 3:00 p.m. the day of the meeting.

PC Item 4a — 401 North Ham Lane Tentative Parcel Map (PL2026-013)

Applicant Jeff Gates (owner Olive Branch, LLC) proposes to split one legal lot into two at 401 North Ham Lane, APN 035-330-05, a 10,700-square-foot parcel in the Residential Medium Density (RMD) zone. Staff finds the site is already two legal lots dating to a 1957 conveyance under a single APN, and tonight's request only re-divides the western legal lot into Parcel 1 (5,193 sq ft) and Parcel 2 (5,507 sq ft). Access will come off Neplus Court, not Ham Lane. CEQA is a Class 15 categorical exemption under Guidelines §15315 (Minor Land Divisions). Staff recommends approval. This item is unrelated to tonight's SPARC hearing.

PC Item 4b — Maverik Type 21 ABC Use Permit at 4872 East Kettleman Lane (PL2023-042 U)

Directly linked to tonight's SPARC review. Applicant Todd Meyers of Maverik, Inc. seeks a Use Permit authorizing an ABC Type 21 Off-Sale General license — beer, wine, and distilled spirits for off-site consumption — at the same 4872 East Kettleman Lane store, operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. CEQA is §15162 (no further review, relying on the 2025 IS/MND). Because ABC has determined all Lodi census tracts are overconcentrated, the Commission must also make an affirmative Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) finding under Business & Professions Code §23958.4 before ABC will issue the license. Staff's PCN rationale rests on proximity to the freeway interchange, added retail variety in a corridor with a single competing station, sales tax capture from non-Lodi travelers, and Maverik's prepared-food business model. Staff recommends approval.

Open Issues Across the Two Bodies

• Procedural sequencing. A SPARC denial or continuance would not stop the Planning Commission from acting on the Use Permit later the same evening, but it would leave the site plan unresolved — and any Use Permit becomes moot without site-plan approval. The August 2026 Rogers Media outcome is the recent template for a split.
• PCN discretion. Because the whole city is classified overconcentrated, the Planning Commission has real latitude to add conditions, deny, or require alternate mitigations on the alcohol license. Reasonable evidence to develop: number of existing Type 21 licenses in the census tract, Police Department crime data for the corridor, and empirical food-to-alcohol mix data for comparable Maverik locations.
• Shared CEQA reliance. Both bodies apply §15162 to the same 2025 IS/MND. New information of substantial importance raised at either hearing could affect both findings and would need to be addressed on both records.
• Farmland conversion detail is missing from the current packet. The MMRP calls for an agricultural conservation easement or in-lieu fee before building permits, approved by the County Agricultural Technical Advisory Committee, but the packet does not disclose the acreage of Important Farmland being converted, the mitigation ratio, or the estimated in-lieu payment.
• First application of the January 2024 code amendment for the alcohol overlay. The Council's January 3, 2024 amendment made convenience-store and gas-station uses subject to Use Permits in GC. Maverik's 2023 filings predated that change on the site plan itself; the Type 21 alcohol Use Permit heard by the Planning Commission tonight is the first time the amendment is being applied to a Maverik station in Lodi.

Context from the August 26, 2026 Meeting

The August 26, 2026 minutes up for approval as Item 2 document the last SPARC action of the summer. The Committee reviewed and denied three Rogers Media programmable electronic message signs proposed on City property, including a Highway 12/Westgate site and one near the animal shelter. The same evening, the Planning Commission approved the linked Use Permit for the signs 3-1, Commissioner Woehl dissenting. The Assistant City Attorney clarified that a Planning Commission Use Permit approval does not, by itself, override a SPARC design denial; the applicant would still need SPARC approval to move forward. The precedent — a SPARC design denial and a Planning Commission Use Permit approval on the same evening — is directly relevant to tonight's dual review of the Maverik file.

References

• Lodi SPARC — Agenda Packet, September 23, 2026 (PDF)
• Lodi Planning Commission — Agenda Packet, September 23, 2026 (PDF)
• Lodi SPARC Agenda Center — packets, agendas, and minutes
• Lodi Planning Commission Agenda Center
• City of Lodi Community Development Department
• Lodi Municipal Code, Title 17 (Development Code) — including §17.20 GC, §17.32 Landscaping, §17.40 SPARC and Use Permits, §17.70 Appeals
• California Government Code §65091 — Public Hearing Notice Requirements
• California Government Code §84308 — Levine Act Disclosure of Campaign Contributions
• California Business & Professions Code §23958.4 — Public Convenience or Necessity
• CEQA Guidelines §15162 — Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations
• Maverik Lodi Project IS/MND — State Clearinghouse No. 2024030646 (2025)
• San Joaquin County LAFCO — annexation and sphere of influence
• San Joaquin County Public ArcGIS Map — parcel, APN, and boundary verification
• Community Development Contact: Administrative Assistant Jessica L. Pagán — (209) 333-6711

Prepared for Lodi411 by Don Bradford. AI-assisted analysis with human editorial review against the primary source packet (09-23-26_SPARC_Agenda-Packet.pdf, 250 pp.). Residents are encouraged to consult the linked City of Lodi sources of record and to submit comments to sparccomments@lodi.gov before 3:15 p.m. on the day of the meeting.

Lodi Planning Commission — Regular Meeting

Wednesday, September 23, 2026 — 7:00 p.m.

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

Chair Hicks | Vice Chair Singh | Commissioners Woehl, McNickle, Lydon, Diehl

Summary

The September 23, 2026 Lodi Planning Commission Regular Meeting is a short, two-hearing sitting. Both items are quasi-judicial and require ex parte disclosures under Resolution No. 2006-31. Neither reopens the underlying environmental analysis: staff relies on categorical exemptions and a Section 15162 finding on the 2025 Maverik Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Item 4a is a Tentative Parcel Map to split one lot into two at 401 North Ham Lane in an RMD (Residential Medium Density) infill setting on 10,700 square feet. Staff argues the site is already two legal lots dating to a 1957 conveyance and this action only re-divides the western legal lot. Item 4b is a Use Permit authorizing a Type 21 off-sale ABC license (beer, wine, and distilled spirits) at a proposed Maverik convenience store and gas station at 4872 East Kettleman Lane — 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at a freeway-adjacent parcel that was annexed into the City by LAFCO on August 26, 2026. Because ABC has classified the entire City as overconcentrated with alcohol licenses, the Commission must also make a Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) finding.

Meeting Details

Date & Time: Wednesday, September 23, 2026 at 7:00 p.m.

Location: Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240 (in-person)

Zoom Webinar: Meeting ID 824 8423 0393, Passcode 551089, or dial 1‑669‑444‑9171 / 1‑346‑248‑7799

Live Video: youtube.com/CityofLodi

Commissioners: Chair Hicks, Vice Chair Singh, Commissioners Woehl, McNickle, Lydon, and Diehl

Community Development Contact: Administrative Assistant Jessica Pagán, (209) 333-6711

Public Comment: In-person at Carnegie Forum; by Zoom during the meeting; by email to pccomments@lodi.gov received no later than 3:00 p.m. the day of the meeting; by mail to Community Development Department, P.O. Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241; or hand-delivered to 221 W. Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240 by 3:00 p.m. the day of the meeting.

Appeals: Planning Commission decisions may be appealed to the City Council within 10 business days by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk and paying a $300 appeal fee, per Lodi Municipal Code §17.70.050.

Ex Parte and §84308: Both public hearings are quasi-judicial. Commissioners must disclose ex parte communications on the record and disclose any campaign contributions greater than $250 in the last 12 months from an applicant, contractor, agent, or interested participant per Government Code §84308.

Agenda

1. Roll Call

2. Minutes — August 26, 2026

Approval of the minutes from the August 26, 2026 Regular Meeting. Those minutes are included in the packet and document two approvals: a Housing Authority parcel map at 2001 South Stockton Street (unanimous) and a Use Permit for three Rogers Media electronic message signs on City property (3-1, Woehl dissenting), the latter approved the same evening the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) denied the sign application.

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

Individuals are limited to one appearance during this section.

4. Public Hearings

The two items below are quasi-judicial and require ex parte disclosures per Resolution No. 2006-31.

4a   401 North Ham Lane — Tentative Parcel Map (PL2026-013)

Adopt a resolution approving a Tentative Parcel Map to divide one parcel into two parcels at 401 North Ham Lane. Applicant Jeff Gates; property owner Olive Branch, LLC. CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines §15315 (Class 15 — Minor Land Divisions). Staff recommends approval.

4b   4872 East Kettleman Lane — Maverik Use Permit for Type 21 ABC License (PL2023-042 U)

Adopt a resolution approving a Use Permit authorizing a Type 21 ABC license for the off-site sale of beer, wine, and distilled spirits at a new Maverik convenience store and gas station at 4872 East Kettleman Lane. Applicant FJ Management, Inc. CEQA: No further review required per CEQA Guidelines §15162 (relies on the 2025 Maverik Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, SCH No. 2024030646). Staff recommends approval and a Public Convenience or Necessity finding.

5. Planning Matters / Follow-Up Items

6. Announcements and Correspondence

7. Actions of the City Council

At the August 26, 2026 meeting, staff advised that the LAFCO-approved Maverik annexation would be brought to the City Council in the near future. A verbal Council-actions update from staff is expected under this item.

8. Actions of the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee

Watch for a SPARC update on the concurrent Maverik site-plan application (PL2023-043). SPARC review of the Maverik convenience store and fueling design is scheduled to run concurrent with the Use Permit hearing.

9. Comments by the Planning Commissioners & Staff (Non-Agenda Items)

10. Adjournment

Agenda posted per Government Code §54954.2(a) at least 72 hours in advance at a publicly accessible location. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for October 14, 2026 per staff comments at the August 26 hearing.

Item 4a — 401 North Ham Lane Tentative Parcel Map (PL2026-013)

Application at a Glance

Site: 401 North Ham Lane, Lodi, CA 95242 — Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 035-330-05

Applicant: Jeff Gates, P.O. Box 1171, Galt, CA 95632

Property Owner: Olive Branch, LLC, P.O. Box 1171, Galt, CA 95632

General Plan: Medium Density Residential (MDR) — density range 8 to 20 dwelling units per acre

Zoning: Residential Medium Density (RMD) — allowable density 8.1 to 20 units per acre; allows a range of single-family, duplex, townhome, and multi-family products

Site size: Approximately 10,700 square feet (roughly 0.25 acres). Note: the staff report also cites 0.52 acres in the Project/Area Description; 10,700 sq ft is 0.246 acres, so the 0.52-acre figure appears to be a typo.

CEQA determination: Categorical Exemption, Class 15 — Minor Land Divisions (CEQA Guidelines §15315)

Staff recommendation: Approve, subject to findings and conditions in the draft resolution

Report authors: Assistant Planner Eva Pitts; Community Development Director David Hanham

Background and Setting

The site sits on the west side of North Ham Lane, at the edge between commercial Ham Lane frontage and interior single-family and duplex blocks. Adjacent uses are a single-family home to the north (LDR), a quick-serve restaurant to the south (General Commercial), vacant commercial land to the east (General Commercial), and duplexes to the west (High Density Residential).

A key wrinkle staff highlights: although the county records show a single Assessor's Parcel Number for the property, the staff report asserts the property is actually two separate legal lots that were conveyed separately in 1957 and have remained legally distinct under the Subdivision Map Act ever since. Under staff's reading, the single APN reflects a historical San Joaquin County practice of assigning one parcel number to contiguous properties held under common ownership. The original 1957 deed is included as Attachment B. Tonight's request divides only the western legal lot into two parcels — the eastern lot is not part of this action, and no building entitlement is proposed for either resultant parcel.

Proposed Parcel Configuration

Proposed lot areas versus the RMD 5,000-square-foot two-family minimum; lot-width comparisons appear in the compliance table below. Source: Item 4a staff report, Table B (Lodi Municipal Code §17.18.040, Ordinance No. 1869, adopted May 20, 2020).

RMD Development Standards Compliance (Table B)

RMD sets no minimum lot depth. Both parcels comfortably exceed the 60-foot minimum width for two-family and the 5,000-square-foot minimum lot area. Public Works has reviewed the tentative map and recommends approval subject to standard conditions.

Required Subdivision Map Act Findings

Under Government Code §66474 and Lodi Development Code §17.52.070, a tentative map must be denied if any of eight findings cannot be made. Staff finds all eight findings support approval — consistency with the General Plan; physical suitability of the site; no substantial environmental damage; no serious public health or safety problems; no conflict with public easements; no violation of Regional Water Quality Control Board wastewater requirements; no adverse soil or geologic conditions; and consistency with the Subdivision Map Act, the Lodi Municipal Code, and the RMD development standards.

Conditions of Approval Worth Noting

Planning — Building rights not conveyed

Condition 7 states explicitly that approval of the Tentative Parcel Map does not constitute approval of any building permits, use permits, design review, or other entitlements. Any future development on either parcel will trigger separate review, and Condition 8 notes future RMD development may still be subject to SPARC review.

Public Works — Separate water and sewer per parcel

Each parcel must be provided with its own water service (installed by City forces at the owner's expense) and its own wastewater service from an existing public manhole (installed by the developer's licensed contractor). Onsite parking stalls must be a minimum of 10 ft × 20 ft and cannot encroach into the City right-of-way.

Public Works — Water-rights appointment

The owner and its successors must enter an agreement appointing the City of Lodi as agent for any and all overlying water rights appurtenant to the site, assigning appropriative or prescriptive rights to the City, and allowing the City to charge water-delivery fees. The obligation runs with the land and is a required deed provision on future conveyances.

Utility easements and encroachments

No structures — including building foundations, overhangs, utilities, and trees — may be located within public utility easements, City rights-of-way, or across property lines. On 5,193-square-foot infill lots, that constraint tightens setbacks, driveway placement, and street-tree siting for whatever product ultimately gets built.

Notice

Legal notice was published in the Lodi News-Sentinel on September 12, 2026. Forty-nine (49) mailed notices were sent to property owners of record within a 300-foot radius of the site, per Government Code §65091(a)(3).

Attachments (Item 4a)

• Attachment A — Tentative Parcel Map
• Attachment B — Original Deed (1957 conveyance establishing two legal lots)
• Attachment C — Draft Resolution No. P.C. 26-__

Open Issues to Watch — Item 4a

• Site-size typo. The staff report cites both "0.52 acres" and "approximately 0.25 acres (10,700 square feet)" for the same parcel. 10,700 sq ft is 0.246 acres, so 0.52 acres appears incorrect. Worth clarifying on the record before adoption.
• Address inconsistency in the recommended motion. The Required Motion at the end of the staff report describes the property as "401 North Ham Street" while the rest of the packet says "401 North Ham Lane." A trivial correction, but the resolution language should be tightened.
• Purpose not stated. The staff report does not explain why the applicant is seeking the split now — financing, sale, phased build, or a specific product type. At the August 26 hearing on the 2001 South Stockton Street parcel map, commissioners pressed the applicant on this question; expect similar inquiry here.
• 1957-legal-lots argument. Staff's reliance on two separate 1957 conveyances to characterize the property as already two legal lots is the linchpin of the Subdivision Map Act analysis. Commissioners may want confirmation that the Preliminary Title Report referenced in Public Works Condition 6 supports that characterization.
• Small-lot buildability. Parcel 1 at 5,193 square feet with 117.8 feet of width and only 80.3 feet of depth would be tight for typical RMD product once setbacks, parking, easements, and tree-siting constraints are applied. Any future duplex or townhome build-out would almost certainly return to SPARC.
• Access via Neplus Court, not Ham Lane. The map routes access to a side street; that is common on infill Ham Lane parcels but is worth confirming for turning-movement and driveway-spacing purposes if a two-family product is proposed later.

Item 4b — 4872 East Kettleman Lane Maverik Use Permit (PL2023-042 U)

Application at a Glance

Site: 4872 East Kettleman Lane, Lodi, CA 95240 — APN 061-020-15

Applicant: Todd Meyers, Maverik, Inc., 185 South State Street, Suite 800, Salt Lake City, UT 84111

Property Owner: FJ Management, Inc., 185 South State Street, Suite 1300, Salt Lake City, UT 84111

Zoning: Existing San Joaquin County AG-40 (Agriculture); City-adopted Pre-Zone: General Commercial (GC)

General Plan: General Commercial

Site size: 8.81 acres (the 2025 IS/MND lists 8.61 acres for the same APN — a 0.20-acre discrepancy worth reconciling on the record)

Proposed operation: 24 hours a day, 7 days a week

CEQA determination: No further review required, CEQA Guidelines §15162 (relies on the 2025 Maverik Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, State Clearinghouse No. 2024030646)

Staff recommendation: Approve; make a Public Convenience or Necessity finding

Report authors: Senior Planner Tim Kohaya; Community Development Director David Hanham

What a Type 21 License Authorizes

An ABC Type 21 (Off-Sale General) license is issued to retail stores and authorizes the sale of beer, wine, and distilled spirits for consumption off the premises where sold. Persons under 21 are allowed on the premises. Lodi Municipal Code §17.20.030 permits both on-site and off-site alcohol sales in the General Commercial zone subject to a use permit; §17.40.040(F) sets the findings the Planning Commission must make; §17.40.040(G) authorizes the Commission to impose reasonable and necessary conditions.

The use permit and any Public Convenience or Necessity finding by the City authorize the Applicant to seek a Type 21 license from ABC — they do not, by themselves, allow alcohol sales until the ABC license is actually issued. ABC controls license issuance based on factors including census-tract concentration.

Project History and Sequence of Approvals

The site was in unincorporated San Joaquin County (zoned AG-40) until 2026. The sequence:

Approvals leading to the September 23, 2026 Type 21 Use Permit hearing. Source: Item 4b staff report, Background section.

Site Setting

The site is at the southeast corner of East Kettleman Lane and South Beckman Road, approximately 400 feet east of the Highway 99 / East Kettleman Lane freeway interchange (Exit 264B). Adjacent land uses:

Staff emphasizes Maverik's business model: Maverik gasoline stations are known for a large prepared-food footprint. The floor plan (Attachment E) reflects larger food preparation and service areas than a typical gas-station convenience store. Staff argues this will produce a higher prepared-food-to-alcohol sales mix than typical for a Type 21 site.

Required Findings for Approval

Per LMC §17.40.040(F), staff makes all five required findings:

1. The proposed use is allowed with a use permit within the GC zone and complies with the Development Code.
2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan (General Commercial); the site is not within a specific plan.
3. Location, size, design, and operating characteristics — as conditioned — will not detrimentally impact neighboring land uses, most of which are travel-commercial businesses. Conditions were prepared with the Lodi Police Department.
4. The proposed use is compatible with existing and future land uses in the vicinity.
5. The project has been reviewed under CEQA and the Lodi Environmental Review Guidelines; no further review is required under §15162.

Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) — the Discretionary Call

The whole city is overconcentrated. ABC has determined that all of Lodi has an overconcentration of ABC licenses, which triggers the statutory requirement that the Planning Commission make an affirmative Public Convenience or Necessity finding before ABC can issue the license. Without a PCN finding by the local review authority, ABC cannot approve the license.

Staff's PCN rationale rests on four points: (i) proximity to a major freeway interchange serving travelers and truckers; (ii) added retail variety in a corridor that currently offers a single competing station on the north side of Kettleman; (iii) sales tax revenue from a customer base weighted toward non-Lodi residents; and (iv) Maverik's prepared-food model, which staff expects to produce a favorable food-to-alcohol sales mix.

PCN is where the Commission has the most latitude to add conditions, deny, or require alternate mitigations, because it is a discretionary judgment that the economic and service benefits outweigh the marginal impact of adding another Type 21 license in an already overconcentrated tract.

CEQA — Reliance on the 2025 IS/MND

In July 2025, the City Council adopted an Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2024030646) for the Maverik annexation and pre-zoning. That analysis considered full buildout of the site, including a convenience store and fueling area. Staff applies CEQA Guidelines §15162 and finds none of the three re-review triggers is met — no substantial changes to the project, no substantial changes to the circumstances, and no new information of substantial importance. Because no changes to the IS/MND are needed, staff concludes no addendum is required.

Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) — Carry-Over Mitigations

The Project is subject to the 2025 MMRP included as Attachment G. The measures that most affect operational and construction sequencing:

Agricultural Resources Measure 1 — Agricultural Mitigation Program

Before issuance of building permits, the applicant must provide agricultural mitigation land or an in-lieu fee, approved by the San Joaquin County Agricultural Technical Advisory Committee. The MMRP does not specify the mitigation ratio or acreage in the excerpts available in the packet.

Biological Resources Measure 1 — Nesting Bird / Burrowing Owl / Raptor Pre-Construction Survey

If ground-disturbing work occurs between February 1 and August 31, a qualified biologist must survey no more than seven working days before activity. Buffers: 100 feet for passerines, 300 feet for burrowing owls, 300 feet for raptors. A qualified biological monitor must be on site at initiation of work within those buffers if active nests are identified.

Biological Resources Measure 2 — Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP)

All construction personnel must attend WEAP training prepared and delivered by a qualified biologist before construction begins. Attendance forms must be signed and retained.

Biological Resources Measure 3 — General Best Management Practices

Project limits clearly delineated; 5 mph vehicle speed limit within unpaved limits; closed-container trash disposal removed daily; no deliberate feeding of wildlife; no pets; no firearms; vehicle maintenance in designated staging areas; night lighting shielded and directed downward.

Biological Resources Measure 4 — Crotch's Bumble Bee Survey and Avoidance

Pre-project surveys during the colony active period (April 1 – August 31), three visits at least a week apart, by a qualified biologist meeting a 40-hour experience threshold. If active nests or foraging are detected, at least a 50-foot no-work buffer is established in consultation with CDFW.

Notable Conditions of Approval

The draft resolution includes standard Planning conditions and a supplemental Police-department condition list. The most operationally significant conditions:

Strategic Priority Cited

The staff report cites Strategic Priority 3.B — Position Lodi to maintain a diversified revenue mix — noting that non-Lodi residents will be the majority sales tax revenue source at this location.

Notice

Legal notice was published in the Lodi News-Sentinel on September 12, 2026. Only five (5) mailed notices were sent to property owners of record within a 300-foot radius, reflecting the site's rural edge, plus notices to interested parties.

Attachments (Item 4b)

• Attachment A — Current Zoning Map
• Attachment B — Pre-Zoning Map
• Attachment C — General Plan Land Use Map
• Attachment D — Aerial Map
• Attachment E — Floor Plan
• Attachment F — View of Site
• Attachment G — Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (July 2025)
• Attachment H — Draft Resolution

Open Issues to Watch — Item 4b

• Procedural sequencing with SPARC. Tonight's action would entitle the license; the site plan (PL2023-043) still has to clear SPARC. In August 2026, the Planning Commission approved the Rogers Media sign use permit the same evening SPARC denied that project. Expect commissioners to ask how the two decisions are being coordinated and whether the Use Permit becomes effective before SPARC signs off on the building.
• PCN discretion is the key vote. Because ABC has classified the entire city as overconcentrated, the Public Convenience or Necessity finding is where the Commission has the most latitude. Staff's rationale rests heavily on freeway-adjacent traveler service and non-resident sales tax capture. Reasonable questions: the current Type 21 count in the surrounding census tract, the crime statistics the Police Department relied on when drafting conditions, and empirical food-to-alcohol mix data for comparable Maverik locations.
• Section 15162 CEQA reliance. The 2025 IS/MND analyzed "commercial uses" including a convenience store, but did not separately analyze the cumulative or public-safety impacts of on-site alcohol sales. The §15162 conclusion is defensible but not the only reading; a challenger could argue an addendum was warranted for the alcohol overlay.
• Parcel-geometry mismatch. The staff report cites 8.81 acres; the 2025 MMRP cites 8.61 acres for the same APN. That 0.20-acre difference should be reconciled on the record — it may reflect a right-of-way dedication or a difference in the annexation legal description.
• Farmland conversion detail is missing. The MMRP requires an agricultural conservation easement or in-lieu fee before building permits, approved by the County Agricultural Technical Advisory Committee, but the packet does not disclose the acreage of Important Farmland being converted, the mitigation ratio, or the estimated in-lieu payment.
• Adjacent AG-40 residences. The east and south neighbors are cropland and single-family homes still on County AG-40 zoning. 24/7 operations, fueling activity, delivery-truck traffic, and light spill are the classic edge-of-annexation issues. Conditions address lighting through CPTED but do not include site-specific dark-sky or delivery-hour restrictions.
• Type-21-specific character. The description "distilled spirits for off-site consumption" pushes this beyond the beer-and-wine Type 20 baseline that many gas-station convenience stores operate under, and it is the first application of the January 2024 code amendment requiring use permits for convenience stores and gas stations in the GC zone.
• Tentative Parcel Map PL2026-004 PM. A separate parcel map to split the 8.81-acre parcel into two lots (Maverik on 3.59 acres) is filed but not on this agenda. Commissioners may ask about its schedule.

Alcohol License Concentration in Context

Overconcentration: California ABC uses census-tract-level ratios of population to license count to determine overconcentration under Business & Professions Code §23958.4. When a proposed license would be in an overconcentrated tract, the local governing body must make a PCN finding before ABC will issue.

What "public convenience or necessity" means in practice: Case law and ABC practice give local jurisdictions substantial discretion, but the finding should be supported by evidence in the record. For this hearing, the record is the staff report, the applicant's operational testimony, and any public comment. Commissioners typically ask for: number of existing licenses in the census tract, distance to the nearest same-type license, presence of sensitive uses (schools, parks, places of worship) within 600 feet, and Police Department input on crime experience at comparable sites.

Context from the August 26, 2026 Meeting

The minutes up for approval as Item 2 document a 4-member quorum (Chair Hicks, Vice Chair Singh, Woehl, McNickle; Lydon and Diehl absent) and two actions worth carrying forward:

2001 South Stockton Street — Housing Authority Parcel Map

Approved 4-0. The Commission divided a parcel into two lots to enable phased financing for an income-restricted affordable housing project. The applicant (Dillon & Murphy) explained the eastern parcel would be built first with an access easement to the back parcel. A Housing Authority representative confirmed the phased build is driven by low-income housing tax credit sequencing. Staff cited Lodi's 8-year Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) goal of 3,999 units. Construction estimated to start March 2027 if the tax credits come through.

Rogers Media Electronic Message Signs on City Property

Approved 3-1 (Woehl dissenting). The same evening, SPARC denied the sign application. The Planning Commission received the SPARC denial as an appeal and voted to approve three programmable electronic message signs on City property, including a site at Highway 12 and Westgate and one near the animal shelter. Commissioner Woehl objected on safety grounds (proximity to the Westgate intersection) and cited public opposition to visual clutter and light pollution voiced by local architect Pete Rosado and resident Ernest Gibson. The Assistant City Attorney clarified that a Planning Commission approval of the use permit does not, by itself, override the SPARC denial — the applicant would still need SPARC approval to move forward, and the Development Agreement remained unexecuted. The precedent — Planning Commission approving a use permit that SPARC had denied the same evening — is a relevant procedural comparator for tonight's Item 4b, which runs concurrently with SPARC review of the Maverik site plan.

References

• Lodi Planning Commission Agenda Center — packet, agenda, and minutes
• City of Lodi Community Development Department
• Lodi Municipal Code, Title 17 (Development Code) — including §17.18 RMD, §17.20 GC, §17.40 Use Permits, §17.52 Subdivisions, §17.70 Appeals, §17.74 Tentative Maps
• California Government Code §66474 — Findings for Tentative Map Denial
• California Government Code §65091 — Public Hearing Notice Requirements
• California Government Code §84308 — Levine Act Disclosure of Campaign Contributions
• California Business & Professions Code §23958.4 — Public Convenience or Necessity
• CEQA Guidelines §15315 — Class 15 Minor Land Divisions Categorical Exemption
• CEQA Guidelines §15162 — Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations
• Maverik Lodi Project IS/MND — State Clearinghouse No. 2024030646 (2025)
• California ABC — License Type Descriptions (Type 21 Off-Sale General)
• San Joaquin County LAFCO — annexation and sphere of influence
• San Joaquin County Public ArcGIS Map — parcel, APN, and boundary verification
• Community Development Contact: Administrative Assistant Jessica Pagán — (209) 333-6711

Prepared for Lodi411 by Don Bradford. AI-assisted analysis with human editorial review against the primary source packet (09-23-26_PC_Agenda-Packet.pdf, 57 pp.). Residents are encouraged to consult the linked City of Lodi sources of record and to submit comments to pccomments@lodi.gov before 3:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting.

Water Supply and Groundwater in San Joaquin County and Lodi

LodiEye — September 2026

Status, trends, and who carries the risk

Overview

Lodi and eastern San Joaquin County draw on two water systems that behave very differently. One is the Mokelumne River, delivered to Lodi through a 40-year contract with Woodbridge Irrigation District and backed by some of the oldest water rights on the river. The other is the groundwater under our feet, the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin, a 707,000-acre aquifer the state has classified as critically overdrafted, meaning more is being pumped out than is going back in. Roughly half of Lodi's drinking water comes from each.

The near-term picture is stable. Groundwater levels in the subbasin are holding, there is no measurable land subsidence, water quality at the basin scale is within targets, and Lodi has banked more than 53,000 acre-feet of unused river water since 2003. (An acre-foot is about 326,000 gallons, roughly what two or three households use in a year.) The long-term picture is not resolved. The subbasin loses about 89,000 acre-feet of storage a year on average, and the Groundwater Authority's own model says pumping must fall by about 95,000 acre-feet a year to stop the decline. Projects now funded cover about a third of that. The rest depends on a large program to store extra Mokelumne River water underground in wet years, which is still waiting on a state water-rights decision, or on a program to limit pumping that the Authority acknowledges could limit growth.

Four statewide decisions now in motion will shape which of those paths the region takes: the Delta tunnel, the Sites reservoir, the Bay-Delta Plan's flow requirements, and the Colorado River settlement. Dan Walters laid these out in a September 11 CalMatters column, “California's future water supplies depend on the outcomes of four intertwined battles,” which argues that the next few months of decisions on those four fronts will determine how water is managed and allocated for decades, with a governor trying to settle two of them before leaving office. This report takes his statewide framing and follows it down to San Joaquin County and Lodi. Three of the four fronts touch the county directly, and the nearest is the State Water Board's October 28–29 hearing on adopting the Bay-Delta Plan update, which sets the flow rules for the Mokelumne.

The risk is not evenly shared. Groundwater-dependent farms outside the surface-water districts and rural residents on private wells carry the most exposure. City of Lodi water customers carry the least in the near term, with their exposure showing up later as rates and growth limits rather than shortages.

The statewide setting

Where California's groundwater stands

The Department of Water Resources released its Spring 2026 Semi-Annual Groundwater Update in May, drawing on annual reports from more than 250 local groundwater agencies covering about 95 percent of the state's basin pumping. These agencies exist because of the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, or SGMA, the state law that requires overdrafted basins to reach balance by 2040. DWR's summary to the California Water Commission was that near-term conditions are positive to stable while long-term deficits persist.

The Water Year 2025 numbers:

• Pumping came in just under 13 million acre-feet, slightly above the prior year and well above the wet 2023 water year.
• Local agencies reported 1.1 million acre-feet of managed recharge, water deliberately spread on the ground or injected into wells to refill aquifers.
• Statewide groundwater storage fell about 1.5 million acre-feet, the first decline in three years.
• Storage rose north of the Delta and fell in the San Joaquin Valley, which DWR tied to smaller deliveries from the state and federal water projects.
• About 83 percent of statewide extraction is concentrated in the San Joaquin Valley.
• Roughly 71 percent of monitored wells were stable over the past year, and the 2015–2025 comparison shows more gains than losses. The 20-year record still shows persistent decline of about 2.5 feet a year in the worst areas.

DWR's structural point is that each drought drawdown leaves a deficit the following wet years do not fully erase. The 2012–2016 and 2020–2022 droughts both produced sharp pumping increases; the recoveries in 2017 and 2023 recovered only part of the loss.

Local groundwater agencies have listed nearly 2,000 projects and management actions in their plans, about 1,000 of them supply or recharge projects, with a combined potential above 4 million acre-feet. DWR's stated priority is helping local agencies convert that potential into built projects.

The four statewide battles

Walters' column identifies four fronts. Their relevance to San Joaquin County varies.

Colorado River. Decades of conflict over allocation are coming to a head as Lakes Mead and Powell approach operational failure. Nevada has sued over federal interim rules and Arizona has threatened to follow. The county draws nothing from the Colorado. The indirect effect is that Southern California losing Colorado supply increases pressure for Delta exports, which raises the stakes on the tunnel.

Sites reservoir. The State Water Board issued a draft water-rights decision for the 1.5-million-acre-foot off-stream reservoir in early September; the governor wants it settled before leaving office. The county holds no Sites participation. The effect is indirect: new Sacramento Valley storage relieves pressure on the system as a whole.

Delta tunnel. The county is at the center of this fight. Supervisor Steve Ding, representing the Delta district, urged the Delta Stewardship Council in February to reject the state's certification that the tunnel fits the Delta Plan; the bipartisan Delta Caucus has said every affected city and county opposes the project. The Council nonetheless voted six to one in late April to reject the appeals. What remains is the State Water Board's water-rights hearing and a board decision. The tunnel does not touch Lodi's Mokelumne supply. Its exposure runs to the farms on the Delta side of the county, to salt in the western subbasin, and to the levee repairs the county has argued for as the alternative.

San Joaquin River diversions and the Bay-Delta Plan. This is the one that reaches Lodi directly. Walters describes the state pressing San Joaquin Valley farmers to reduce diversions, with mandatory cutbacks in preparation if voluntary offers fall short. He notes the conflict is worsened by “reductions in water farmers can draw from underground aquifers,” and cites projections that supply cuts could idle as many as 900,000 acres of valley farmland. The regulatory vehicle for all of this is the Bay-Delta Plan, which covers the Mokelumne as well as the San Joaquin tributaries, and which comes before the State Water Board for adoption on October 28–29.

The Bay-Delta Plan and the October 28–29 hearing

Two plans on two clocks

The Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan is updated in two phases by river system. Phase 1, for the Lower San Joaquin River and southern Delta, was adopted in 2018 and generally requires 40 percent of unimpaired flow from February through June on the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced. Unimpaired flow means the water that would run down a river if nothing were dammed or diverted; a 40 percent rule means at least that share has to stay in the river. Eight years later it is still tied up in litigation and water-rights implementation. Phase 2 covers the Sacramento River and its tributaries, the Delta eastside tributaries (the Calaveras, Cosumnes, and Mokelumne), interior Delta flows, and Delta outflow. Phase 2 is the one now reaching adoption, and it is the one Lodi's supply sits in.

What the final draft does

The State Water Board released its final draft on August 19, 2026, along with a final staff report responding to prior comments and a final scientific basis supplement for the voluntary agreements. The draft keeps two distinct pathways for those who hold rights to divert water: a voluntary pathway under the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes program (HRL), in which participants meet the standard through a mix of leaving water in the river and building fish habitat, and a regulatory pathway for anyone not in HRL.

The HRL package would restore more than 27,000 acres of aquatic habitat and facilitate about $2.9 billion in restoration and related actions, subject to annual reporting, triennial board review, and a dedicated science program. The Legislative Analyst's Office notes the program would run eight years and could be extended if the Board finds it effective. The Board's own description is that HRL would have regulatory effect and remain under ongoing monitoring and review.

For those who do not participate, or if HRL does not deliver the required results, the regulatory pathway is the enforceable alternative. Its default is 55 percent unimpaired flow, with allowances added in the August draft for watersheds fed mainly by rain rather than snowmelt. If the plan is adopted, the Board has said it will immediately begin developing a methodology to protect flows under both pathways.

Who is objecting

The Bureau of Reclamation filed a sharply worded objection, saying the draft does not honor the 2022 agreement (a memorandum of understanding, or MOU, and term sheet), changes the starting point for measuring how much extra water the voluntary agreements provide, cuts exports through the federal Central Valley Project and State Water Project by 125,000 acre-feet in dry and below-normal years and 175,000 in above-normal years, and sets a 55 percent regulatory default. Westlands Water District, the largest customer of the federal project, withdrew from the voluntary negotiations on September 4, saying the state was moving toward coercion. The public water agencies that signed the 2022 MOU issued a joint statement calling the August release an important step while reserving the right to press for consistency with HRL as originally proposed. The coalition that built the voluntary pathway is now split between staying in and walking out. Environmental groups have argued from the other side that 55 percent is not enough and that HRL lacks accountability.

Timeline and milestones

What happens after adoption

Adoption is the end of the planning process, not the start of enforcement. The sequence that follows runs roughly: review by the state's Office of Administrative Law and approval by the U.S. EPA; the flow-protection methodology the Board has committed to start on immediately; execution of the HRL Global Agreement by participating agencies; and then a separate water-rights proceeding to write the new rules into specific permits and licenses, which is the step that actually changes how much anyone can take from the river. Phase 1 is the cautionary example: adopted in 2018, still not fully implemented in 2026. Litigation should be expected from whichever side loses on the October vote, and possibly from both.

Where the Mokelumne sits

The Mokelumne is small in the system and politically unusual. It contributes about 2.5 percent of total Delta inflow and is the only California river meeting the state's goal of doubling its salmon population, a result East Bay MUD attributes to the 1998 partnership agreement under which it releases added flows and builds habitat. EBMUD joined the voluntary approach in 2022 and is developing implementation agreements describing how Mokelumne contributions will support the Bay-Delta objectives. At the Board's January 2026 workshop, Mokelumne restoration and timed releases were credited with improving spawning capacity and adult returns, with more restoration sites planned through 2026.

That puts the river's largest rights holder inside HRL with a strong record. What is not settled in the public record is whether Woodbridge Irrigation District, North San Joaquin Water Conservation District, or the Mokelumne River Water and Power Authority are HRL parties in their own right, or whether their diversions are covered under EBMUD's contribution. That distinction matters for Lodi more than anything else in the plan:

• If Woodbridge is inside the voluntary pathway, Lodi's 6,000 acre-feet ride with EBMUD's package and the river supply is largely settled for the program's eight-year term.
• If Woodbridge is outside, its licenses face the 55 percent regulatory pathway directly, and the 2018 Woodbridge–EBMUD seniority suit becomes the controlling question about who releases the water.
• MICUP's water-right application 29835, the largest recharge lever in the subbasin plan, needs the Board to approve new wet-year diversions from a river the plan is simultaneously asking to keep more water in.

Why the October hearing is the marker

If the Board adopts with both pathways intact and EBMUD's Mokelumne package inside HRL, the river half of Lodi's supply is on a known footing through the mid-2030s. If adoption slips, or the voluntary side fractures further after Westlands, the regulatory default becomes the operating assumption for every Mokelumne diverter, including Lodi's supplier, and the seniority question moves to the front. Either way, the October vote sets the terms under which the subbasin's groundwater deficit gets closed: by recharging Mokelumne water in wet years, or by curtailing pumping.

October 28–29, 2026 — State Water Resources Control Board adoption hearing, Sacramento

The Board will consider adopting the Sacramento/Delta update to the Bay-Delta Plan, the document that sets flow rules for the Mokelumne River and decides whether its diverters comply through the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes voluntary program or a regulatory default that keeps 55 percent of natural flow in the river. Written comments on the final draft are due September 18. Remote participation has been offered at prior hearings in this process. No other pending decision has as direct a bearing on Lodi's water supply.

The Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin

Governance

The subbasin covers about 1,200 square miles: San Joaquin County east of the San Joaquin River plus smaller pieces of Calaveras and Stanislaus counties. It is managed by the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority, a joint agency formed by 16 local groundwater agencies including the cities of Lodi, Stockton, and Manteca, Woodbridge Irrigation District, North San Joaquin Water Conservation District, Stockton East Water District, and San Joaquin County. DWR approved the subbasin's plan in July 2023 with eight recommended corrective actions, which the Authority addressed in a 2024 plan amendment and a 2025 Periodic Evaluation. The next formal evaluation is due in 2030; the sustainability deadline is 2040.

Overdraft

From the Authority's 2025 Periodic Evaluation, using its updated computer model of the basin:

• Average storage loss, 2019–2023: 89,000 acre-feet per year.
• Total loss over that period: 467,000 acre-feet, or 0.26 percent of roughly 53 million acre-feet in storage.
• Cumulative loss since 1996: about 1.3 million acre-feet.
• Cumulative decline began around 2012, stabilized in the wet 2017–2019 years, and resumed in 2020.
• Sustainable yield, the amount that can be pumped each year without long-term decline: 704,000 acre-feet per year, or 713,000 with climate change.
• Pumping reduction needed to reach zero change in storage: about 95,000 acre-feet per year.
• Contribution from projects already funded and moving (what the plan calls Category A): about 33,000 acre-feet per year.
• Remaining gap: about 62,000 acre-feet per year, to be closed by future projects or the Demand Management Program.

Closing the Eastern San Joaquin Overdraft

Source: Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority, 2025 Periodic Evaluation (Version 3.0 model). Values in acre-feet per year.

Earlier estimates ranged from 37,000 to 90,000 acre-feet; the model has been revised several times and the Authority cautions that figures across reports are not directly comparable. The direction has been consistent: each revision has found a larger gap.

The Authority's plan states plainly that the Demand Management Program “may impact relevant city and county general plans by limiting the amount of groundwater that may be extracted,” with effects on housing requirements, growth, and the local economy. How it would apply to Lodi has not been determined.

Groundwater levels

Levels are generally stable. Of 21 representative monitoring wells, 14 are at or above their target levels. Seven show declining ten-year trends, including the Lockeford 3 Bear Creek well northeast of Lodi. Only one well, in Manteca, has dropped below the level the plan defines as unacceptable, once, in 2022.

The subbasin's defining feature is a pumping depression east of Stockton, a low spot in the water table where decades of heavy pumping have pulled levels down. It deepens in dry years and recovers in wet ones. Groundwater flows from the basin's edges toward it, generally from east to west. Lodi sits on the Mokelumne side, north of the depression, which is the more favorable position.

Dry wells are the human face of the numbers. San Joaquin County logged 106 dry-well reports from the start of Water Year 2020 through 2023, concentrated in the critically dry years of 2021 and 2022. The 2024 amendment added a Domestic Well Mitigation Program.

Subsidence

Subsidence is the sinking of the ground surface as an over-pumped aquifer compacts. Here there is essentially none. Continuous GPS stations show no measurable land-surface decline; satellite radar shows nothing above the 0.2-foot threshold; less than a foot of total subsidence was observed anywhere in the subbasin from 2015 to 2023. This is a significant advantage over the southern valley, where DWR has recorded more than six feet since SGMA passed and rates near Corcoran and El Nido reached a foot a year during droughts. DWR's new subsidence best-management practice, finalized in January 2026, will not require the kind of level-raising that southern basins face.

Recharge and supply projects

Recharge is real but small relative to the deficit. Completed or operating projects:

• Stockton East Water District converted 2,505 acres from wells to surface water, delivering 11,570 acre-feet of river water instead of groundwater, with another 1,135 acres in planning.
• Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District moved 5,000 acre-feet of surface water in 2023.
• Oakdale Irrigation District's out-of-district sales program delivered 4,783 acre-feet to Eastside landowners.
• Oakdale and South San Joaquin irrigation districts approved a ten-year transfer to Stockton East of up to 10,000 acre-feet in critical years and 20,000 in others.
• North San Joaquin Water Conservation District, closest to Lodi, completed the DREAM banking pilot with East Bay MUD (1,000 acre-feet), the Tecklenburg recharge basin (1,500 acre-feet), and Phase 1A of the Lakso recharge basin, an 80-acre DWR-funded project on the north system.
• Lodi's White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility expansion recharged 518 acre-feet in 2023.
• The City of Stockton's Phase 1 recharge basin, sized at 20,000 acre-feet per year, began construction in 2025.

The large future items are all in what the plan calls Category B, meaning not expected to advance within five years:

• MICUP, the Mokelumne Integrated Conjunctive Use Program, which would capture high river flows in wet years and store them underground, built on the Mokelumne River Water and Power Authority's water-right application 29835. Projected at 110,000 to 158,000 acre-feet per year in wet years, with implementation from 2025 to 2040. A petition to amend the application and add underground storage went to the State Board in 2024. This is the single largest lever in the plan, and its fate is tied to what the Bay-Delta Plan allows to be diverted from the Mokelumne.
• Farmington Dam repurpose, 15,500 to 60,000 acre-feet per year, 2030–2050, dependent on a new federal feasibility study.
• West Linden project, 5,000 to 60,000 acre-feet per year, bringing Mokelumne and Calaveras water to the area west of Linden where the water table is lowest.
• City of Lodi surface water facility expansion and delivery pipeline, 4,750 acre-feet per year, scheduled 2030–2033.

Interconnected streams

The updated model shows the Mokelumne losing water to the aquifer upstream of its confluence with the Cosumnes and gaining water downstream. Pumping around Lodi is drawing on the river. The National Marine Fisheries Service filed a formal objection that the plan does not adequately protect salmon and sturgeon habitat from depletion, and the Authority acknowledged that limited data restricted its analysis. Five new monitoring wells were built to fill the gap. This is where SGMA and the Bay-Delta Plan will eventually meet on the ground.

Adjacent basins

The subbasin borders the South American and Cosumnes subbasins to the north, Tracy and East Contra Costa to the west, and Modesto to the south. All had plans deemed adequate except Modesto, which was found incomplete and resubmitted in 2024. Cosumnes matters most to Lodi: it shares the Mokelumne–Cosumnes river system, and the Cosumnes is the stream most often cited statewide as disconnected from its aquifer in summer. Depletion there feeds into the losing reach of the Mokelumne above the confluence.

Water quality and contamination

Salinity

The 2024 plan amendment removed seawater intrusion as a sustainability indicator. The Authority's reasoning is that the state keeps the Delta fresh by releasing reservoir water to hold salt water back at a set point (known as X2), pumping near the Delta is minimal, and measured chloride is low. Chloride, a marker for salt, is now tracked as a water-quality measure instead, with a threshold of 250 milligrams per liter (mg/L). Current readings: 80 percent of chloride samples below 250 mg/L, 94 percent below 500, with higher values confined to the central and western subbasin and not advancing as a front. Total dissolved solids, the overall measure of salts and minerals, are below the 600 mg/L target at most wells; a small number exceed the 1,000 mg/L threshold near Stockton.

The Authority's current position, then, is that the eastward-migrating poor-quality front documented in earlier years is a salinity problem, not a seawater one, and is contained. That conclusion rests on the state continuing to hold the salt line where it is, which is itself a function of Delta operations, tunnel decisions, and flow rules.

Legacy solvents in Lodi

This is the city's largest standing water-quality cost. Nine of Lodi's wells run carbon filtration to remove TCE and PCE, industrial and dry-cleaning solvents that leaked into the aquifer decades ago and spread as plumes under north and central Lodi. PFAS, the so-called forever chemicals used in nonstick and stain-resistant products, has been detected in at least one well, with carbon treatment planned.

Agricultural contaminants

The valley-wide pattern from U.S. Geological Survey studies: nitrate above 2 mg/L is human-caused, from fertilizer and septic systems; it concentrates on the valley's eastern edge where soils are permeable and recharge is fast; and it declines with well depth and groundwater age. Wells near rivers that show a river-water recharge signature carry less nitrate. Both halves of that apply to Lodi. Vineyard country is nitrate country, and the Mokelumne corridor is the mitigating influence. Two soil fumigants once used on farms, 1,2,3-TCP and DBCP, are the other agricultural legacy found across the valley.

Naturally occurring arsenic

About 10 percent of San Joaquin Valley drinking-water wells since 2010 have exceeded the arsenic standard of 10 micrograms per liter, with high values associated with alkaline or low-oxygen conditions underground. USGS trend work found more wells with arsenic falling (16.6 percent) than rising (7.2 percent), because pumping pulls younger, oxygenated agricultural recharge downward. The trade-off is rising nitrate where arsenic falls. Rising arsenic clusters in deeper wells and the valley trough. Deepening a well, the usual response to falling levels, tends to draw older water with more arsenic, uranium, and radium.

What SGMA does and does not watch

The Authority reports no water-quality threshold exceedances and expects none in five years. That statement covers only what the groundwater plan's monitoring network samples: total dissolved solids and chloride. Nitrate, arsenic, solvents, fumigants, and PFAS are regulated through drinking-water and Regional Water Board programs, not the sustainability plan. A clean SGMA report does not mean a clean aquifer.

Lodi's position

Lodi's water system is separate from the county districts. The surface water treatment plant, in service since 2012, treats Mokelumne water purchased from Woodbridge Irrigation District under a 40-year contract for up to 6,000 acre-feet a year through 2047, at a cost of about $1.2 million a year. The plant is designed for 8 million gallons a day and can run at 10. Twenty-eight wells with combined capacity of 35,200 gallons per minute provide the other half.

Three facts distinguish Lodi from most valley cities its size:

1. Banked water. Because Lodi could not use its full allocation before the plant opened, it accumulated 53,534 acre-feet of banked Mokelumne water, nearly nine years of the contract volume.
2. Senior rights. Woodbridge holds among the oldest rights on the Mokelumne. Woodbridge sued East Bay MUD in 2018 over releases, arguing its licenses carry seniority. If the state ever orders diversions cut back, the answer to that question decides who gets cut first, and Lodi's supply rides on Woodbridge's answer.
3. Two independent sources. The river and the aquifer fail for different reasons at different times.

Lodi's exposure runs through three channels. The Mokelumne channel is the Bay-Delta Plan, described above: if Woodbridge's diversions sit inside the voluntary program with EBMUD, the supply is largely insulated; if they sit outside, they face the 55 percent regulatory pathway and the seniority dispute decides who gives up water first. The groundwater channel is the Demand Management Program: Lodi is one of 16 agencies sharing one basin, and the Authority has said the program could reach into growth policy. The cost channel is treatment: solvents and PFAS are already a line item, and the General Plan's expansion of the plant to 10 million gallons a day is projected for 2030–2040.

Risks and trends by sector

Agriculture

Agriculture is the subbasin's largest user, and the 95,000-acre-foot reduction has to come mostly from irrigated land. Exposure splits sharply by location and by access to surface water.

Growers inside surface-water districts (Woodbridge, Stockton East, Central San Joaquin, North San Joaquin's south system) are the most protected. They have a supply that is not groundwater, district infrastructure being modernized with state and federal grants, and a district voice on the Authority board. Their risk is the price of that water and, for Mokelumne districts, the Bay-Delta Plan outcome.

Growers on private wells outside district boundaries — the Eastside groundwater agency area east of Stockton, the area west of Linden where the water table is lowest, the Lockeford–Clements corridor, and county-service-area lands with no district — carry the highest exposure in the county. They pump from the parts of the basin that are declining, they have no surface alternative unless a project like West Linden or the Eastside sales program reaches them, and they are the natural target of any pumping limits the Authority sets. North San Joaquin's new groundwater charge and the Oakdale purchase requirement (a minimum 1.5 acre-feet per irrigated acre when surplus water is available) show the direction: pay for surface water or accept pumping limits.

Delta-side farms face a different risk set: the tunnel's construction footprint and long-term effects on Delta salinity and levee priority, plus the western-subbasin TDS readings already above threshold near Stockton.

Winegrape growers around Lodi sit in between. Drip irrigation has cut their applied water, which is good for the deficit but also cut the incidental recharge that flood irrigation once provided; the Woodbridge district itself made that argument years ago. Vineyards have limited ability to fallow in a dry year the way row crops can, and the cost of a well going dry in a permanent crop is measured in replanting years, not one season's revenue.

Trends: surface-water conversion continuing where districts can deliver it; a shift toward paying for recharge and banking; farmland retirement pressure that the Legislature acknowledged this month by loosening rules on converting preserved farmland to solar; and the Walters-cited projection of up to 900,000 acres idled statewide if flow cuts and groundwater limits land together.

Industry

Lodi's water-using industries are wineries, food processing, and the packaging and logistics operations that support them. Their risk is indirect but not small.

• Discharge. Winery and food-processing wastewater is high in salts and organics. Stricter Regional Board salinity management and the Authority's new chloride threshold make disposal a constraint before supply is.
• Rates and charges. Groundwater agency fees, district charges, and city rate increases to fund treatment and plant expansion land on large users first.
• Growth. The Demand Management Program's potential effect on general plans limits the land and connections available for expansion, which matters for a city pursuing industrial development on its edges.
• Reliability. Industrial customers inside Lodi's system share the city's two-source resilience. Those on private wells in unincorporated areas share the growers' exposure.

Residents

City of Lodi customers carry the lowest near-term risk in the county. Two sources, banked water, senior river rights, and dozens of wells make a supply interruption unlikely. Their exposure is deferred: rates to fund PFAS and solvent treatment, plant expansion, and any Authority cost-sharing; and the growth and housing effects of a basin-wide pumping limit.

Residents in Stockton and the central subbasin live over the pumping depression, where TDS already exceeds threshold at some wells and the city is investing in well rehabilitation and wellhead treatment.

Rural residents on private domestic wells and small community systems face the highest residential risk. Domestic wells are shallower than agricultural wells and go dry first, which is what the 106 county reports in 2020–2023 recorded. They are also the wells most exposed to nitrate on the east side and to arsenic where deepening is the fix. Small systems in Lockeford, Linden, and unincorporated areas have limited ability to fund treatment. The new Domestic Well Mitigation Program is the safety net, and it is untested.

Ranking

Highest exposure to lowest:

1. Groundwater-only farms outside surface-water districts, especially east and northeast of the pumping depression.
2. Rural residents on private domestic wells and small community water systems.
3. Delta-side agriculture, for tunnel and salinity reasons.
4. Winegrape growers and processors around Lodi, whose risk is cost and permanence rather than shortage.
5. Water-intensive industry inside city systems, exposed mainly through discharge rules and rates.
6. City of Lodi residential customers.

What to watch

• October 28–29: the Bay-Delta Plan adoption hearing. Whether the Board adopts on schedule, whether both pathways survive intact, and whether the Mokelumne stays inside the voluntary package. This decides Lodi's river supply and whether MICUP can be built at the scale the subbasin plan counts on. Comments are due September 18.
• Who else leaves after Westlands. If the September 4 withdrawal starts a wider exit from the voluntary negotiations, the 55 percent regulatory default becomes the operating assumption.
• Woodbridge's status under HRL. Whether Lodi's supplier is a party to the voluntary program or outside it, which the public record does not yet make clear.
• The Delta tunnel water-rights hearing. A hearing-officer opinion is expected in 2026.
• The Demand Management Program. How the Authority allocates a 62,000-acre-foot gap among 16 agencies, and whether that reaches Lodi's general plan.
• The Woodbridge–EBMUD seniority dispute. The controlling question if the state ever orders Mokelumne diversions cut back.
• The 2030 Periodic Evaluation. The next point at which the deficit number gets re-run and the state gets a formal look at progress.
• Dry-well counts in the next dry year. The simplest indicator of whether the mitigation program and recharge work are reaching the people most exposed.

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 identified the State Water Board's August 2026 Bay-Delta Plan documents and hearing notice, the Department of Water Resources' Spring 2026 groundwater update and its May 2026 Water Commission briefing, the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority's 2025 Periodic Evaluation and annual reports, U.S. Geological Survey groundwater-quality studies for the San Joaquin Valley, and reporting from CalMatters, Maven's Notebook, and the Legislative Analyst's Office. Perplexity AI was used for initial source discovery and real-time data retrieval; Claude was used for deeper analysis of identified sources.

Credibility Validation: AI cross-referenced claims across multiple independent sources, prioritizing agency documents (State Water Board, DWR, the Groundwater Authority, USGS, the Bureau of Reclamation), then institutional analysis (Legislative Analyst's Office), then news reporting. Multiple AI models were used to independently verify key data points and flag inconsistencies, including the several different overdraft estimates the Authority has published across model versions.

Analysis and Synthesis: Claude Opus and Sonnet assisted in mapping the four statewide water conflicts described by CalMatters onto San Joaquin County's specific supply sources, reconciling the subbasin's storage-loss and pumping-reduction figures across reports, tracing the Bay-Delta Plan's two-pathway structure to its effect on Mokelumne diverters, and building the sector-by-sector risk ranking.

Presentation: Claude assisted in drafting, structuring, and formatting the report for clarity and readability, including the overdraft-gap chart, the Bay-Delta Plan milestone table, the October hearing callout, and the ranked exposure list.

Final Review: Multiple AI models reviewed the completed draft for factual consistency, source attribution accuracy, logical coherence, and balanced presentation. 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. Multi-tool cross-checking across independent models and sources is the primary error-reduction mechanism.

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

• Dan Walters, "California's future water supplies depend on the outcomes of four intertwined battles," CalMatters, September 11, 2026
• Maven's Notebook, "State Water Board releases final draft plan to protect California's Bay-Delta water and wildlife," August 20, 2026
• State Water Resources Control Board, Bay-Delta Plan program page — Final Draft Sacramento/Delta Updates, Final Staff Report, Scientific Basis Report Supplement, and October 28–29, 2026 hearing notice
• Maven's Notebook, "SGMA implementation: DWR updates Water Commission on Bulletin 118, the latest groundwater conditions report, the groundwater trading workplan, and the new subsidence BMP," May 28, 2026
• Department of Water Resources, Spring 2026 Semi-Annual Groundwater Conditions Update (SGMA program page)
• Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority, 2025 Periodic Evaluation of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (November 2024)
• Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority, Water Year 2024 Annual Report and 2024 GSP Amendment
• U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, comment letter on the August 2026 draft Bay-Delta Plan, September 2026
• Westlands Water District, statement on withdrawal from voluntary agreement negotiations, September 4, 2026
• Legislative Analyst's Office, "The Bay-Delta Plan and Voluntary Agreements: Ensuring Effective Legislative Oversight," March 2026
• East Bay Municipal Utility District, Mokelumne River participation in the Bay-Delta voluntary agreements
• San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors, statement on the Delta Conveyance Project consistency certification, February 2026
• U.S. Geological Survey, San Joaquin Valley arsenic and nitrate trend studies and GAMA Priority Basin Project reports
• City of Lodi, Water Supply and General Plan 2025 Update
• Lodi411 / LodiEye, "Lodi's Water Supply Status and Growth Plan" (December 2025) and "Water Infrastructure and Stormwater" (April 2026)

Questions and corrections: editor@lodi411.com

Lodi Finance Committee — Special Meeting

Wednesday, September 16, 2026 — 1:30 p.m.

Carnegie Forum, Large Conference Room, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240

Chair Mikey Hothi | Vice Chair Ramón Yepez | Member Gary Woehl

Summary

The September 16, 2026 Lodi Finance Committee Special Meeting is a compliance-and-treasury sitting with three Regular Calendar items: approve the June 10, 2026 minutes, receive the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ending June 30, 2026, and review a Purchasing Policy redline that adds Federal Transit Administration (FTA) procurement language requested by a recent FTA audit of the Public Works Transit Division.

Total cash and investments at June 30, 2026 stand at $242.0 million — essentially flat year over year, but reflecting a significant rebalancing over the last four quarters into Medium Term Corporate Notes (24.57% of the portfolio, near the 30% policy cap) and out of Municipal Securities and U.S. Treasuries. The Purchasing Policy revisions would be the third Council adoption of the policy in six years and are driven directly by FTA audit findings on the Transit Division.

Meeting Details

Date & Time: Wednesday, September 16, 2026 at 1:30 p.m.

Location: Carnegie Forum, Large Conference Room, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240

Committee Members: Chair Mikey Hothi, Vice Chair Ramón Yepez, Member Gary Woehl

Treasurer: Jamie Bandy, Administrative Services Director

Public Comment: In-person; by email to jbandy@lodi.gov received no later than two hours prior to the meeting; by mail to City Manager's Office, P.O. Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241; or hand-delivered to City Manager's Office, 221 W. Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240 (received no later than two hours prior to the meeting). Emailed, mailed, and hand-delivered comments are included in the official record but are not read aloud.

Agenda

A. Call to Order / Roll Call

B. Regular Calendar

B.1   Approve Minutes — June 10, 2026 (Special Meeting)

The draft minutes record a short meeting called to order at 1:35 p.m. and adjourned at 1:46 p.m. Chair Hothi and Member Woehl were present; Vice Chair Yepez was absent. Also present were Treasurer Jamie Bandy, Budget Manager Jennelle Baker-Bechthold, Accounting Manager Chia Lor, PRCS Director Christina Jaromay, Budget Analysts Howell and Kaur, and Administrative Assistant Monica Calderon.

Two 2-0 votes were taken:

• Approval of the April 15, 2026 minutes.
• Approval of Purchasing Policy changes with three Committee recommendations — raise the City Manager's vehicle-purchase signing authority to $100,000, designate Jamie Bandy as Purchasing Officer, and leave local vendor preference provisions unchanged.

Attachments

• Attachment B.1-1 — Draft Special Meeting Minutes, June 10, 2026

B.2   Quarterly Investment Report — Quarter Ending June 30, 2026

Prepared by Accounting Manager Chia Lor and certified via Adobe Sign by Treasurer Jamie Bandy (August 25, 2026) and Budget Manager Jennelle Baker-Bechthold (August 28, 2026). The report certifies conformity with the Investment Policy adopted June 20, 2024 and states that the portfolio provides sufficient cash liquidity for the next six months of estimated expenditures.

• Total investments (recorded value): $191,007,754
• Cash in bank: $51,037,714
• Total cash and investments: $242,045,468

Attachments

• Attachment B.2-1 — Quarterly Investment Report, Quarter Ending June 30, 2026 (Table 1 summary and four-page detail schedule)

B.3   Purchasing Policy — Federal Funding Language Updates

Report prepared by Budget Manager Jennelle Baker-Bechthold. Following the July 1, 2026 comprehensive Purchasing Policy revision, the Public Works Transit Division underwent an extensive FTA audit. The FTA asked the City to more clearly incorporate federal procurement requirements into the written policy. The recommended action is Committee discussion and direction, with Council adoption anticipated in October 2026.

Attachments

• Attachment B.3-1 — Purchasing Policy Redline (federal funding language additions on pages 22-27)

C. Adjournment

Pursuant to Government Code §54954.2(a), this agenda was posted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting at a public place freely accessible to the public 24 hours a day.

B.1 — June 10, 2026 Minutes: Context from Prior Meetings

The June 10 vote closed a policy loop that opened at the April 15, 2026 meeting. On April 15 the Committee (Yepez and Woehl present; Hothi absent) reviewed the Purchasing Policy and Municipal Code, discussed oversight costs and potential external procurement audits, and voted 2-0 to raise the City Manager's general signature authority from $60,000 to $80,000 plus annual CPI rounded to the nearest $100. Vice Chair Yepez asked that all monetary donations continue to require Council approval, with larger monetary donations potentially placed in trust; physical donations remain outside standard budgetary controls. Accounting Manager Lor noted the FCM audit findings tracked the prior year and would be presented to Council on May 6 or May 20.

The June 10 packet then delivered a nine-point comprehensive Purchasing Policy rewrite (last revised May 20, 2022): local vendor preference modeled on Elk Grove, Chico, Concord, San Joaquin County, and Sonoma County (5%, capped at $50,000); formal recognition of the Purchasing Officer role; updated Public Works thresholds ($75,000 and $220,000); the $100,000 vehicle Council-approval trigger; blanket-purchase-order language; strengthened documentation for vendors that declined or did not respond; renewals over $80,000 to Council; and the $80,000-plus-CPI City Manager authority. Council adopted that rewrite effective July 1, 2026 — the baseline the current September 16 draft is amending.

Reaching further back, the Committee's early-2026 arc was pension-focused: on January 27 the Committee approved amendments to the Budget & Fiscal Policies that lowered the pension funded-ratio target from 80% to 70% and set a framework for strategic distributions from the Section 115 Pension Trust, against CalPERS unfunded liability above $181 million; on February 4 the Committee received a Public Agency Retirement Services presentation projecting a combined pension funded ratio near 80% by 2031-32 and introduced the FY 2023-24 ACFR process; and on March 11 the Committee discussed the FY 2027 budget cycle. None of that pension or budget material returns on the September 16 agenda.

Staffing signal: The list of "Also Present" quietly documents the recent turnover in senior finance leadership. Prior 2025 investment reports were signed by James Lindsay as Treasurer/Interim City Manager. The December 31, 2025 report was signed by Christina Jaromay as Treasurer/Interim Internal Services Director. By June 10, 2026 Jamie Bandy signs as Treasurer/Administrative Services Director and Christina Jaromay appears as Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director — a lateral move that coincides with Bandy's designation as Purchasing Officer.

B.2 — Quarterly Investment Report Analysis

Portfolio Composition at June 30, 2026

Portfolio composition by asset class, quarter ending June 30, 2026. Source: City of Lodi Quarterly Investment Report.

Multi-Quarter Trend (December 2024 – June 2026)

The archived Finance Reports on lodi.gov show no March 31, 2026 report; the sequence goes December 31, 2025 → June 30, 2026, a six-month gap. Recorded values in dollars:

Quarterly recorded values for the four asset classes with the largest movement, December 2024 through June 2026.

Items of Interest and Potential Impacts

• Reallocation into Medium Term Corporate Notes. MTN holdings nearly doubled year over year — from $24.1M (6/30/2025) to $46.9M (6/30/2026), a $22.9M / 95% increase. The buildout began in late 2025 and now sits at 24.57% of a 30% policy cap. MTN is the primary yield engine but concentrates the portfolio in bank, insurance, and blue-chip corporate credit risk.
• Municipal runoff. Municipal securities have declined for four consecutive quarters, from $42.2M (12/31/2024) to $23.8M (6/30/2026) — a $18.4M / 44% reduction driven by maturities of low-coupon (1.05%–1.76%) pre-2022 California muni paper that is not being replaced at the same pace.
• U.S. Treasury exposure collapsed. From $3.55M to $0.49M (-86%). Only two Treasuries remain; both mature by year-end. Absent reinvestment, direct Treasury exposure will hit zero.
• Supranationals down 47% year over year ($7.9M → $4.1M); Negotiable CDs drifting sideways.
• LAIF grew every quarter from $48.9M to $52.1M — a deposit-driven trend rather than an active allocation choice; the $75M-per-account statutory ceiling is not yet a binding constraint.
• Money-market swings. MMFs went from $12.5M to $23.4M to $31.6M to $8.6M to $25.7M — normal cash-management behavior around large receipts and transfers, worth flagging so it is not misread as strategy.
• Concentration. LAIF plus demand deposits plus money-market funds equals $128.9M / 53.25% of the total book — a comfortable liquidity posture, arguably rich if higher yields are available further out the curve.
• Reporting cadence. Government Code §53646 requires quarterly reports within roughly 30 days of quarter-end. The absence of a March 31, 2026 report in the archive means the Committee is receiving two quarters of activity at a single sitting — at the outer edge of typical practice.
• Signature governance. The last three quarterly reports carry different Treasurer signatures (Lindsay → Jaromay → Bandy). Continuity of investment strategy through that turnover is not evident from the numbers alone; the MTN buildout began under Jaromay and has continued under Bandy.

B.3 — Purchasing Policy: Federal Funding Language Updates

Trigger and Context

Following the July 1, 2026 comprehensive Purchasing Policy revision (product of the January-June 2026 Finance Committee cycle), the Public Works Transit Division underwent an extensive FTA audit. The FTA asked the City to more clearly incorporate federal procurement requirements applicable to FTA-funded purchases into the written Purchasing Policy. The staff fiscal-impact statement is unusually blunt: without adoption, the City's ability to make FTA-funded purchases and be reimbursed may be affected, with delayed or denied reimbursements, questioned costs, or other FTA corrective action as potential consequences. That converts adoption from a discretionary policy choice into an audit corrective action.

Lodi's Purchasing Policy adoption history: Council adoption August 19, 2020; first revision May 20, 2022; second revision July 1, 2026 (the nine-point rewrite); third revision planned October 2026. Two revisions within four months would be unusually rapid — the driver is explicitly regulatory.

Redline Changes, Page by Page

Pages 22–23 — FTA Requirements for Rolling Stock and Related Equipment

For any procurement funded in whole or in part with FTA funds, the City must comply with applicable FTA requirements, FAST Act §3019, and 49 U.S.C. §5323(u). Departments must identify federal requirements, incorporate them into solicitations and contracts, coordinate with the grant administrator, and retain certifications, federal clauses, approvals, and supporting records. For Lodi, "rolling stock" is the GrapeLine and Vine Line transit fleet.

Page 23 — Buy America Pre-Award and Post-Delivery Reviews

For federally funded rolling stock, the City must complete a Buy America pre-award review before award and a Buy America post-delivery review before acceptance. Buy America requires at least 70% of component costs to be produced domestically and final assembly to occur in the United States. Documentation lives in the procurement file; appropriate staff must be trained.

Page 23 — Cooperative Purchasing Agreements

New language clarifies that piggybacking on another agency's cooperative or intergovernmental contract does not relieve Lodi of the duty to verify federal clauses, certifications, Buy America compliance, and suspension/debarment status. This is a significant tightening — cooperative purchasing is a common shortcut for smaller cities buying transit vehicles under state or joint-powers contracts.

Pages 23–24 — Independent Cost Estimates and Cost/Price Analysis

For federally funded procurements exceeding the Federal Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($150,000 per 2 CFR §200.323), the City must prepare a documented Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) before receiving bids or proposals and perform a written cost or price analysis. This applies to contract modifications too. Documentation supporting the ICE must be retained.

Page 25 — Master Federal Clauses Checklist

The City must maintain and use a Master Federal Clauses Checklist to document that required federal clauses (2 CFR Part 200 Appendix II, FTA Master Agreement) are reviewed and inserted into federally funded contracts before execution. Departments complete and maintain the checklist in the procurement file; staff must be trained on the checklist and on updates to federal procurement procedures.

Page 26 — FTA-Specific Contract Provisions

A red-text preamble in front of the Appendix II boilerplate clarifies that additional FTA-specific requirements may apply to federally funded transit procurements, including rolling stock, and directs departments to consult applicable FTA guidance.

Page 27 — Suspension and Debarment (SAM.gov) Verification

A new red-text version of Appendix II item (H) requires that, prior to entering into any federally funded or federally assisted transaction, the City verify contractors and applicable lower-tier participants against SAM.gov and retain evidence of the search in the procurement file. Staff must be trained.

What Remains Unchanged

Dollar thresholds are untouched: City Manager authority $80,000 plus annual CPI (SF-Oakland-Hayward CPI-U); Department Directors $40,000; formal-bid threshold $80,000; vehicles greater than $100,000 require Council approval. Local vendor preference (5%, capped at $50,000, with the express carveout that it does not apply when federal or state grant funding conditions prohibit it) is preserved. Public Works thresholds ($75,000 and $220,000) are preserved. Records retention remains seven years for successful procurements.

Committee Decision Points to Watch

• Whether the Committee accepts the FTA-driven redline as drafted and forwards it to Council for the anticipated October 2026 adoption, or asks for changes (for example, more explicit training-frequency thresholds or a matrix mapping the Federal Clauses Checklist to specific solicitation types).
• Whether the Committee asks staff to schedule the delayed March 31, 2026 investment report retroactively or clarify going-forward cadence expectations under Government Code §53646.
• Whether the Committee gives any direction on the continued rebalancing away from Treasuries and municipals toward Medium Term Corporate Notes now that MTN sits at 24.57% of a 30%-capped bucket.

References

• Lodi Finance Committee Special Meeting Agenda and Materials, September 16, 2026 (PDF)
• Finance Committee packet — June 10, 2026
• Finance Committee packet — April 15, 2026
• Finance Committee packet — March 11, 2026
• Lodi Finance Committee — official page
• City of Lodi Finance Reports archive
• City of Lodi Finance Reports landing page
• City of Lodi Investment Policy (adopted June 20, 2024)
• Governing statute for the quarterly investment report — California Government Code §53646
• Federal procurement authorities — 2 CFR Part 200 (Uniform Guidance); FAST Act §3019; 49 U.S.C. §5323(u); Executive Orders 12549 and 12689 (SAM.gov)
• Contact: Treasurer Jamie Bandy — jbandy@lodi.gov

Prepared for Lodi411 by Don Bradford. AI-assisted analysis with human editorial review against the primary source packet. Residents are encouraged to consult the linked City of Lodi sources of record.

Lodi City Council — September 16, 2026

Tuesday, September 16, 2026 · Closed Session 6:30 p.m. · Regular Session 7:00 p.m.

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

Zoom Webinar ID 821 7418 0304 · Passcode 123456

Summary

The September 16 meeting is a working session dominated by contract extensions and capital-project authorizations. The AMENDED packet (523 pages) adds one large minutes-approval bundle covering 22 back meetings from March 2024 through August 2026 and moves the Cal Cities voting-delegate appointment from the consent calendar to the Regular Calendar as G.3. No other staff reports were changed from the original release.

The largest fiscal actions on the consent calendar are the on-call well and pump repair authorization ($1.0 million), the after-school Bridge Program contract with Lodi Unified (up to $657,000), the DeBenedetti Park Improvements 2027 bid authorization (~$5.1 million project cost), and the Well No. 8 abandonment change orders ($320,000). The Access Center construction management extension to March 31, 2027 (Bickford Ventures) is the most politically watched consent item.

The Regular Calendar has three items. G.1 is the quarterly Access Center operations, construction, and funding update — the meeting's most substantive policy item — with a Council-feedback request on long-term financial sustainability. G.2 updates the unpermitted food-vendor task force. G.3 is the appointment of a Cal Cities voting delegate for the September 23–25 conference in Anaheim.

Council: Mayor Ramon Yepez, Mayor Pro Tempore Mikey Hothi, Council Members Cameron Bregman, Lisa Craig-Hensley, and Alan Nakanishi. Interim City Clerk Walfred Solorzano.

AMENDED packet — what changed since the original release

• New Consent Item C.1 — Approve Minutes for 22 past meetings (March 2024 through August 2026), adding roughly 176 pages of attachments. Full per-meeting summaries in the appendix below.
• The Cal Cities voting delegate item — previously C.1 — moved to Regular Calendar G.3, so it can be discussed rather than swept up in a single consent motion.
• C.2 through C.17 are unchanged in number and content. G.1 and G.2 are also unchanged.

Closed Session

The Council enters closed session at 6:30 p.m. to discuss two pieces of active litigation before opening the regular session (Government Code §54956.9(d)(1) — existing litigation):

• Christopher Bennitt v. City of Lodi, et al., San Joaquin County Superior Court Case No. STK-CV-UCP-2025-1701 (an unlimited civil petition matter).
• Cindy Lee Leatham v. City of Lodi, et al., San Joaquin County Superior Court Case No. STK-CV-UPI-2024-000324 (a personal-injury case).

The packet does not describe either case in detail. Residents can check case status through the San Joaquin County Superior Court case index.

Presentations (Section B)

The packet includes signed proclamations for each of these ceremonial items:

• B.1 — National Hispanic Heritage Month 2026 (September 15 – October 15) proclamation.
• B.2 — Proclamation declaring October 2026 as National Community Planning Month.
• B.3 — Proclamation declaring September 2026 as National Library Card Sign-Up Month and recognition of the Lodi Public Library Card Art Contest winners.
• B.4 — Constitution Day proclamation.

Consent Calendar (Section C)

The consent calendar has 17 items: one large minutes-approval bundle (C.1) plus 16 action items — resolutions, contract amendments, bid authorizations, and one improvements acceptance. Under Lodi's rules any council member or member of the public may ask that a specific item be "pulled" for separate discussion.

Largest fiscal actions on this consent calendar

Dollar values shown are total contract authority, appropriation, or project estimate as stated in each staff report; none of these items draw on the General Fund.

C.1 — Approve Minutes for 22 Meetings, March 2024 – August 2026 (CLK)

Resolution approving minutes for 22 past meetings — 14 regular meetings and 8 special meetings — spanning March 20, 2024 through August 19, 2026. Each meeting's minutes are attached separately (Attachments 1–22, packet pp. 17–353).

Regular meetings (14): March 20, 2024; April 3, 2024; May 1, 2024; May 15, 2024; August 20, 2025; September 3, 2025; October 1, 2025; October 15, 2025; November 5, 2025; December 3, 2025; December 17, 2025; August 5, 2026; August 19, 2026.

Special meetings (8): September 3, 2024; October 23, 2024; April 15, 2025; September 10, 2025; October 6, 2025; October 22, 2025; October 30, 2025; November 12, 2025; December 16, 2025.

Approving minutes is a routine but legally required step — it certifies the official record of what was said and decided. The size of this bundle reflects a backlog worked down under Interim City Clerk Walfred Solorzano; several of these meetings — particularly the special meetings in October–November 2025 — cover the process that led to former City Manager Scott Carney's removal, the appointments of Interim City Manager James Lindsay and then permanent City Manager Chris Reddig, and the City Attorney and City Clerk recruitments. The full per-meeting summary appendix at the bottom of this guide walks through each of the 22 records. The City's Agenda Center hosts the same minutes online.

C.2 — Bickford Ventures / Division 1 CM Services Amendment No. 2 — Lodi Access Center (CD)

Resolution extending term through March 31, 2027. Bickford Ventures, dba Division 1 Construction Management Services (Lodi), provides construction management, testing, and special investigation for the permanent Lodi Access Center at 710 N. Sacramento Street. Bickford was awarded the CM contract when Bobo Construction was hired to build the shelter in January 2025. The amendment is a term extension only, not a new appropriation. Unforeseen contaminated soils, ADA-compliant slab work, and coordination for a "quiet ward" and respite beds supported by San Joaquin County Behavioral Health all added time to the schedule. Funding source: previously appropriated ARPA-22001 project contracts.

C.3 — Quarterly Investment Report, Quarter Ending June 30, 2026 (IS-FIN)

Receive-and-file item certifying conformity with Government Code §53646 and Lodi's Investment Policy adopted June 20, 2024. Key portfolio figures at June 30, 2026:

• Total investments: $191,007,754
• Cash in bank: $51,037,714
• Total cash and investments: $242,045,468
• Quarterly interest and dividends: $1,929,533 (excludes unrealized market-value change)
• 53.25% of the portfolio held in cash or cash equivalents (safety and liquidity emphasis)

Largest allocations by type: California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) 27.28% ($52.1M), Medium-Term Corporate Notes 24.57% ($46.9M), Money Market Mutual Funds 13.48% ($25.7M), Municipal Securities 12.46% ($23.8M), and U.S. Government Agency Securities 11.42% ($21.8M).

C.4 — Lodi Unified School District CBO Bridge Program Contract, 2026/27 (PRCS)

Resolution approving contract up to $557,000 plus a $100,000 contingency (total not-to-exceed $657,000). Lodi Unified is the recipient of a state After School Education and Safety (ASES) grant funded under Proposition 49 (2002). Lodi's Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services (PRCS) department has been the sub-recipient providing the recreational component for 18 years. FY26/27 sites: Reese, Larson, and Victor Elementary Schools, sites that transitioned from the Expanded Learning Opportunity Program (ELOP) in 2024/25. The contract adds expanded intersession programming. PRCS costs are fully covered by the LUSD payment; revenue account 20073103.57303.

C.5 — DeBenedetti Park Improvements 2027 — Plans, Specs, and Bid Authorization (PRCS)

Resolution approving plans and specs; bid opening November 18, 2026; project estimate $5,100,000. DeBenedetti Park is at 2150 Lower Sacramento Road; the master plan was adopted July 17, 2019. Phase 1–2 scope: new parking lot on Century Blvd., pre-engineered restroom/concession structure, masonry park sign, trash enclosure, underground utilities, ADA paths, lighting, park amenities, irrigation, and landscaping. Funding source: Parks Impact Fee Fund (Fund 437), Project PKCP-2004 — no General Fund.

C.6 — West Locust Alley Mural — Miranda Pelletier and Michelle Martinez Selection ($25,000) (PRCS)

Resolution approving the Lodi Arts Commission's recommendation to select Miranda Pelletier and Michelle Martinez as two of four artists for the alley mural behind the Lodi Police Department, facing the Lodi Library, along West Locust Street between N. Church and N. Pleasant. Theme: "Contemporary Lodi & Its Citizenry." The wall consists of 13 stucco panels, each approximately 6 ft × 30 ft. Cost cap $12,500 per mural, total not-to-exceed $25,000, funded by the Art in Public Places (AiPP) program, CIP AIPP-25001.

C.7 — Lodi Arts Commission Bylaws — Quorum Amendment (PRCS)

Resolution amending the Bylaws so that a quorum equals five members when all nine seats are filled, and four members when eight or fewer are appointed. Recent vacancies have made the current five-member-only rule difficult to meet. The Arts Commission voted unanimously to recommend the change at its August 12, 2026 regular meeting. Those same minutes also reallocate a previously approved $1,750 grant for a Photography Show and discuss the Arts Commission General Marketing Plan and a Council–Arts Commission mixer. No fiscal impact.

C.8 — Alcohol Policing Partnership Grant ($72,080) (PD)

Resolution accepting a Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) grant (Agreement 26-APP15) funding LPD alcohol-enforcement operations from July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027. The Alcohol Policing Partnership (APP) program funds Minor Decoy operations, Shoulder Tap operations, IMPACT inspections (Informed Merchants Preventing Alcohol-Related Crime Tendencies), Trap Door operations, plainclothes and high-visibility enforcement, and trainings. Appropriations: $67,100 overtime, $4,000 special detail materials, $980 Medicare.

C.9 — Crossroads Software Assignment (PD)

Resolution authorizing consent to assignment of the September 19, 2023 Professional Services Agreement with Crossroads Software, Inc. to KAM Software Technologies, Inc., a California corporation doing business as Crossroads Software, Inc. Crossroads has been sold to its employees and requests the assignment. Crossroads provides LPD's e-Citations system and the electronic CHP 180 tow form used by officers. All terms carry forward unchanged; no new fiscal impact.

C.10 — Tobacco Enforcement Contract with San Joaquin County Public Health ($95,940) (PD)

Resolution ratifying (that is, approving after the fact) LPD participation in the Department of Justice Tobacco Grant Program and approving both the underlying contract (SJC Contract ID 26127, not-to-exceed $95,940) and an Amendment 1 extending the contract term for a third fiscal year. The grant funds Minor Decoy operations, unannounced retailer inspections for compliance with the flavor ban, minimum pricing, and signage rules, and quarterly Tobacco Enforcement Education trainings run by the Smoking Tobacco Outreach Prevention Program (STOPP).

C.11 — Quest Media & Supplies Jail Intercom Amendment No. 3 (+$10,000 change-order authority) (PW)

Resolution increasing change-order authority by $10,000, for a combined not-to-exceed of $20,000 on the Lodi Jail Intercom and Door Control System Replacement contract. The Police Department's 2003-era video and intercom system failed in January 2025; parts were no longer available. The remaining work integrates video call-up capability with the intercom system so dispatch sees live video when an intercom is activated. This requires a new, more secure network switch to meet the City's security network standards. No new appropriation.

C.12 — Robertson-Bryan Amendment No. 1 (White Slough UV alternatives, $59,862) (PW)

Resolution amending the August 2025 PSA with Robertson-Bryan, Inc. (Elk Grove) for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility, adding a Ultraviolet (UV) Disinfection System Alternatives Analysis to the aeration-diffuser closeout scope. Existing UV components are no longer manufactured; the analysis will produce a technical memorandum recommending upgrade or replacement paths. Original contract $58,579; amendment $59,862; revised not-to-exceed $118,441. Funding: FY 2026/27 Wastewater Operating Fund (53053003.72450). No General Fund impact.

C.13 — Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Enhancement Project — Plans, Specs, Award Authority ($158,000) (PW)

Resolution approving plans and specs, authorizing advertisement for bids, and delegating award authority to the City Manager for the lowest responsive bidder, with change orders. Estimated total: $158,000, funded from Measure K (San Joaquin County's half-cent transportation sales tax). Primary scope: curb ramps at George Washington Elementary School, Project PWST-26005.

C.14 — 2026–2028 On-Call Well and Pump Repair Project — Specs, Bid Authority, Appropriation ($1,000,000) (PW)

Resolution approving specifications, authorizing advertisement for bids, delegating award authority to the City Manager, and appropriating $1,000,000 for the 2026–2028 On-Call Well and Pump Repair Project (PWWA-23004). An on-call contract is a standing agreement that lets staff dispatch well and pump repair work quickly without re-bidding each task. Bid opening: October 7, 2026. Funded from Water Operating funds.

C.15 — Eaton Drilling Change Orders ($320,000), Term Extension to June 30, 2027, Appropriation (PW)

Resolution authorizing additional change orders of up to $320,000 for the Well No. 8 Abandonment Project with Eaton Drilling Company and extending the contract term to June 30, 2027 (Project PWWA-26004). Scope includes destruction of Well No. 8, a private well at 801/825 N. Stockton Street tied to the Lodi Northern Plume contamination area, and Well No. 19. Additional appropriation of $320,000. Note: the CIP funding table shows two slightly different totals ($619,415 vs $691,415), which the packet does not reconcile.

C.16 — Civil Hydro Tech Amendment No. 1 — PCE/TCE Groundwater Monitoring ($122,160) (PW)

Resolution amending the PSA with Civil Hydro Tech to add another year of groundwater monitoring, sampling, and reporting for perchloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethylene (TCE) contamination and citywide plume management services. Roughly 56 wells are monitored under State Water Board Order R5-2024-0800. Amendment amount: $122,160; matching appropriation of $122,160.

C.17 — Accept Hutchins Street Square Pool Repair Improvements (PW)

Resolution accepting the completed Hutchins Street Square Pool Repair project. Contractor Ichor Restoration; final cost $38,380. Funded by a Hutchins Street Square Foundation donation. Accepting improvements formally closes out the project and starts warranty periods running.

Regular Calendar (Section G)

G.1 — Lodi Access Center and Emergency Shelter Quarterly Update (CD)

This is the meeting's most substantive item. Staff presents the quarterly operations, construction, and funding update for the permanent Lodi Access Center at 710 N. Sacramento Street and requests Council direction on long-term financial sustainability once currently identified operating funds are exhausted. The item explicitly notes that the discussion is not intended to reconsider the City's existing commitments to complete and operate the facility.

Access Center Q4 FY2025/26 activity

Overnight and day-use metrics from the current interim shelter operation.

Operations (interim shelter, Q4 FY2025/26)

• 3,563 overnight stays serving 130 unique clients.
• 6,800 day-use visits serving 316 unique clients.
• 29 housing transitions during the quarter.

2026 Point-in-Time count — Lodi

Point-in-Time count is the federally required annual one-night census of people experiencing homelessness. Lodi's 2026 total is down 40% from 2024.

Construction and permanent facility

• Permanent facility construction completion targeted for late 2026.
• Bickford Ventures construction management extended to March 31, 2027 (Consent C.2).
• Total project cost, prior escalations included, approximately $11.86 million per historical minutes.

Operating model and funding

• Operating agreement with the Operations Management, Inc. (OMI)-led provider team runs through October 31, 2031.
• Estimated first-year operating cost: $1.62 million.
• Emergency Rental Assistance and Homeless-Housing (ERF) Round 5 application for $5,821,200 is pending state review.
• County commitment ties 12 respite beds to the site through September 30, 2045, restricting any future decision to close, sell, or transfer the property.

Council-feedback prompt (long-term sustainability)

Staff seeks direction on: pursuing federal, state, regional, and philanthropic grants (including ERF Round 5); maximizing Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP), Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA), and related funds; supporting OMI donation and foundation efforts; expanding partnerships with the County, the Continuum of Care (CoC), healthcare providers, and nonprofits; evaluating third-party reimbursement (Medi-Cal, CalAIM); exploring whether OMI could assume greater financial responsibility consistent with the operating agreement; identifying City funding if needed subject to future Council appropriation; and considering other strategies Council identifies.

G.2 — Unpermitted Food Vendor Task Force Update (CD)

Receive a presentation on the City's coordinated education-and-enforcement effort on unpermitted food vending, prepared by Senior Community Improvement Officer Jonique Andrews.

Task force composition: Police, Fire, Community Development, Parks Recreation and Cultural Services, Economic Development, City Manager's Office, and other affected departments.

Actions to date:

• Bilingual (English/Spanish) educational pamphlet developed with the Public Information Officer, distributed by Police Patrol Officers and Community Improvement staff during educational contacts and complaint responses.
• Coordination discussions initiated with the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department on procedures for unsafe food and public health concerns.
• Community Improvement staff completed two ride-alongs with the City of Elk Grove Code Enforcement Division to observe their practices.

Next two months: Public education campaign — bilingual pamphlets, a dedicated webpage on Lodi.gov, and a joint social media campaign with the Lodi Police Department — before transitioning to focused enforcement. No fiscal impact.

G.3 — 2026 League of California Cities Voting Delegate (CM)

Appoint a voting delegate and an alternate to represent Lodi at the League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo, September 23–25, 2026 in Anaheim. The General Assembly on the conference's final day acts on statewide resolutions; only registered delegates may vote.

Mayor Ramon Yepez and Council Member Lisa Craig-Hensley are the two Council members attending. The Cal Cities submission deadline was September 1, 2026, but staff has received permission to file the online Voting Delegate form after Council action. This item was on the original packet as Consent Item C.1; the amended packet moved it to the Regular Calendar so Council can discuss the appointment on the record. No fiscal impact.

Ordinances (Section H)

No ordinances are scheduled for this meeting.

Levine Act Disclosure Reminder

Applicants, parties, and their agents who have made aggregated campaign contributions of more than $500 to a Council Member over the past 12 months must publicly disclose that fact — including the amount, contributor names, and Council Member names — either in writing to the Clerk before the item is considered or verbally at the time of consideration.

Appendix — Summaries of the 22 Minutes on Consent Item C.1

Per-meeting summaries covering the 22 sets of minutes attached to Consent Item C.1 for approval on September 16, 2026. Sources: individual minutes documents in the amended packet (Attachments 1–22, pp. 17–353). Roll-call notes indicate absences only.

Minutes by year

Of the 22 meetings, 4 are from 2024, 15 are from 2025, and 3 are from 2026 — reflecting the concentrated special-meeting activity around the Carney removal process and leadership transitions in late 2025.

March 20, 2024 — Regular Meeting

Roll call. All present: Mayor Craig, Mayor Pro Tempore Bregman, Council Members Nakanishi, Hothi, Yepez. Interim City Manager Andrew Keys, City Attorney Janice Magdich Lucchesi, City Clerk Olivia Nashed. No closed-session reportable action.

Consent Calendar. Approved as recommended. Notable actions included adoption of the 6th Cycle Housing Element (Regional Housing Needs Allocation, RHNA, compliance) and authorization of a Proposition 218 solid-waste rate-adjustment noticing process.

Regular Calendar / Ordinances. Awarded a five-year revenue-and-tax administration contract to HdL Companies (~$500,000, 5-0); adopted the 6th Cycle Housing Element update pending Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) certification (5-0); directed staff to move forward with discontinuing weekly "Shirtsleeve" informal sessions.

Civic significance. Housing Element adoption locks in state-mandated RHNA capacity; HdL contract centralizes business tax administration; Shirtsleeve wind-down changes how staff briefs Council in public.

April 3, 2024 — Regular Meeting

Roll call. All present. Interim City Manager Keys. Closed session: Van Guilder workers' compensation claim settlement approved unanimously and reported out.

Regular Calendar. Approved purchase of a Lenco BearCat armored rescue vehicle for the Police Department (~$390,000, 5-0), replacing an aging tactical vehicle. Adopted the Electric Vehicle (EV) charging pilot rate under Option 2 — $1.75 per hour with a $5 idle-time penalty after charging completes (5-0).

Civic significance. BearCat is the largest single Police capital purchase of the year; the EV pilot sets Lodi's first paid public charging structure.

May 1, 2024 — Regular Meeting

Roll call. All present. Closed session (City Manager recruitment): reportable action — Council appointed Scott R. Carney as City Manager (Resolution 2024-71, 5-0).

Regular Calendar. Direction on tenant utility billing responsibility — motion for Option 2 (tenant billed directly with landlord backstop) failed 2-3 (Ayes: Bregman, Yepez; Noes: Nakanishi, Hothi, Craig). Council directed staff to refine Option 1 (landlord-of-record). Adopted revised business license fee schedule aligned to HdL administration (5-0).

Civic significance. Carney's appointment ends Keys' interim tenure and is the leadership decision that dominates the next 18 months of Council history.

May 15, 2024 — Regular Meeting

Roll call. All present. Closed session: Brannon Haro Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) settlement unanimously approved and reported out.

Public Hearings / Ordinances. Certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Lakehouse Mixed-Use Development and introduced Ordinance No. 2025 approving associated zone-map amendments and a development agreement (5-0). Comprehensive rewrite of Lodi Municipal Code (LMC) Chapter 2.04 (Council organization and procedures) approved on first reading (5-0).

Civic significance. Lakehouse EIR certification clears a multi-year entitlement; Chapter 2.04 rewrite is the first significant modernization of Council procedures in years.

September 3, 2024 — Special Meeting (Ceremonial)

Single-item ceremonial meeting — proclamation and community recognition presentation. No Consent Calendar, no closed session, no Regular Calendar action.

October 23, 2024 — Special Meeting (State of the City)

Ceremonial State of the City address; no regular business items.

April 15, 2025 — Special Meeting

Closed-session-focused special meeting on labor negotiations and pending litigation. Reportable actions per the minutes document; no substantive open-session policy actions.

August 20, 2025 — Regular Meeting

Roll call. All present; City Manager Carney presiding. Finance Committee established with Council Members Hothi and Nakanishi appointed. Multiple utility-related and capital acceptances on consent.

Civic significance. First formal standing Finance Committee — later reconfigured in December 2025 and again in August 2026.

September 3, 2025 — Regular Meeting

Regular Calendar. Council voted 3-2 to formally oppose Proposition 50 — Ayes: Bregman, Craig, Nakanishi; Noes: Hothi, Yepez. Amador appointment to the Measure L Citizens' Oversight Committee approved 3-1, with Hothi dissenting.

Civic significance. First recorded 3-2 policy split of the 2025 cycle on statewide-ballot advocacy.

September 10, 2025 — Special Meeting

Closed session — beginning of the LMC § 2.12.050 process regarding the City Manager. No open-session reportable action noted in the minutes.

October 1, 2025 — Regular Meeting

Consent Calendar. Released the Access Center Operational RFP, launching the search for the shelter's long-term operator. Additional Bobo Construction change orders on the Access Center recognized.

Civic significance. The operational RFP is the milestone that eventually produced the OMI-led provider selection.

October 6, 2025 — Special Meeting

Adopted the preliminary resolution under LMC § 2.12.050 beginning the formal process for consideration of the City Manager's removal (5-0). Meyers Nave engaged as outside counsel.

October 15, 2025 — Regular Meeting

Recognition of retiring Public Works Director Charlie Swimley. Introduced Ordinance 2034 (Phase 3 Zoning Code amendments, including tobacco retailer distance and Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) provisions).

October 22, 2025 — Special Meeting

Continued closed-session proceedings in the LMC § 2.12.050 process; no substantive open-session policy actions noted.

October 30, 2025 — Special Meeting

Additional closed-session proceedings on the City Manager matter and appointment of James Lindsay as Interim City Manager to serve during the transition.

November 5, 2025 — Regular Meeting

Adopted the final resolution removing City Manager Scott R. Carney under LMC § 2.12.050. Adopted Ordinance 2034 (Phase 3 Zoning Code amendments) with the ADU section removed for later revision per California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF) comment. Accepted White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Aeration Diffusers and Solids Handling projects.

Civic significance. Closes the two-month LMC § 2.12.050 process; opens the two active Carney v. City of Lodi lawsuits.

November 12, 2025 — Special Meeting

Follow-on personnel and litigation-management items in closed session. Government Claim No. 25-45 filed by Carney acknowledged.

December 3, 2025 — Regular Meeting

Mayoral reorganization. Brief transition through Nakanishi at meeting start, then Yepez elected Mayor and Hothi elected Mayor Pro Tempore. Gillig CNG bus purchase authorized (~$1.75M). Finance Committee membership adjusted — Yepez added in place of Nakanishi.

December 16, 2025 — Special Meeting

Personnel and closed-session items associated with the interim City Manager transition and outside-counsel engagement.

December 17, 2025 — Regular Meeting

Adopted three multi-year public-safety labor contracts (Police Officers Association, Police Dispatchers Association, Fire Mid-Management) for July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2028. Beckman's proposed Measure L ordinance amendment deferred to a full-attendance meeting. Yepez-driven LMC § 2.12.050 amendment (requiring a four-fifths vote for City Manager removal within three months of a Council membership change) set for a January 7, 2026 hearing.

August 5, 2026 — Regular Meeting

Ratified employment of David Hanham as Community Development Director (effective September 7, 2026). Introduced Ordinance 2049 to transfer City Clerk appointment authority from the City Council to the City Manager. Introduced Ordinance 2050 amending the CalPERS contract (employee cost-share reduction). Approved a CityWise Strategies LLC PSA for Development Services Operational Initiative (~$115,000, 4-0). Tree Maintenance contract (Elite Maintenance & Tree Service of Ceres, $616,700 + $100,000 change orders) failed 2-2 — Ayes: Craig-Hensley, Nakanishi; Noes: Hothi, Yepez; Absent: Bregman — and was continued to August 19.

August 19, 2026 — Regular Meeting

New City Manager Chris Reddig's first regular meeting. Appointed Taryn Jones as City Attorney effective September 21, 2026 (5-0). Awarded the 2026-2028 Tree Maintenance contract to Elite Maintenance & Tree Service ($616,700 + $100,000 change orders) 3-2 — Ayes: Bregman, Craig-Hensley, Nakanishi; Noes: Hothi, Yepez — with Bregman citing the City's budget deficit. Repealed and replaced the Finance Committee resolution with expanded membership and revised eligibility. Adopted Ordinance 2049 on second reading, transferring oversight, direction, and control of the City Clerk from Council to the City Manager (4-0; Yepez absent by that vote).

Cross-meeting themes across the 22 minutes

• Carney investigation and removal (Sept 2025 – Nov 2025). From the September 10, 2025 closed-session start through the 5-0 preliminary resolution October 6 to the final removal resolution November 5, the Council spent five meetings (three of them special) working through the LMC § 2.12.050 process. Costs included Meyers Nave outside counsel and Government Claim No. 25-45; two Scott R. Carney v. City of Lodi lawsuits remained active as of August 19, 2026.
• Leadership transitions. Andrew Keys (interim) → Scott Carney (May 2024) → James Lindsay (interim, Oct 2025) → Chris Reddig (permanent, by August 19, 2026). Public Works Director Charlie Swimley retired; Community Development Director David Hanham hired September 2026; City Attorney Taryn Jones appointed September 2026; Interim City Attorney Luebberke and Interim City Clerk Solorzano brought in during the same window.
• Access Center and homelessness infrastructure. Bobo Construction change orders push the Access Center to about $11.86 million total by September 2025; operational RFP released October 1, 2025.
• Finance Committee arc. Established August 20, 2025 (Hothi + Nakanishi); Yepez added December 2025; fully reconfigured August 19, 2026 with expanded membership and revised eligibility to include people who "work or have a business interest in Lodi."
• Downtown Specific Plan and General Plan Update capacity. Council in November 2025 effectively paused the General Plan Update pending Downtown Specific Plan completion, Economic Development Strategic Plan finalization, permanent leadership hires, and updated Municipal Service Review (MSR) cost estimates.
• Housing and zoning. 6th Cycle Housing Element (RHNA) adoption March 2024; Lakehouse Mixed-Use Development EIR certified May 2024; Ordinance 2034 (Phase 3 Zoning Code amendments) introduced October 15, 2025 and adopted November 5, 2025.
• Public safety labor contracts. Three multi-year deals (Police Officers Association, Police Dispatchers Association, Fire Mid-Management) adopted December 17, 2025 for July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2028; CalPERS employee cost-share reduction introduced August 5, 2026.
• Procurement and local-preference tension. Tree Maintenance contract split — 2-2 fail August 5, 2026 (Hothi and Yepez favored rebidding for local labor); reheard August 19, 2026 and awarded 3-2 to Elite Maintenance & Tree Service of Ceres over West Coast Arborists.
• City Clerk reporting change. Ordinance 2049 (introduced August 5, adopted August 19, 2026) transfers oversight, direction, and control of the City Clerk from the Council to the City Manager — a structural change to elected-official support functions.

References

• City of Lodi Agenda Center — full amended agenda packet (523 pages), staff reports, resolutions, and all 22 minutes attachments.
• City of Lodi Public Meetings YouTube channel — live stream and archived video of Council meetings.
• City of Lodi — official city website.
• San Joaquin County Superior Court — case-status lookup for the two closed-session litigation matters (Bennitt STK-CV-UCP-2025-1701, Leatham STK-CV-UPI-2024-000324).
• League of California Cities — 2026 Annual Conference and Expo, September 23–25, Anaheim, and General Assembly resolutions.
• Lodi Unified School District — Bridge Program information (Consent C.4).
• Contact Lodi411: info@lodi411.com

Lodi Committee on Homelessness — September 10, 2026

Thursday, September 10, 2026 · 2:30 p.m.

LPD Community Room, Lodi Police Department, 215 W Elm St, Lodi, CA 95240

Monthly service-provider and subcommittee meeting · In-person

Summary

The September 10, 2026 Lodi Committee on Homelessness (LCOH) meeting runs the standard monthly service-provider and subcommittee round — with three items that make it worth attending in person. The Community Engagement & Public Relations subcommittee is bringing an LCOH website proposal up for discussion and approval. A roundtable with Rep. Josh Harder is added under Item V, paired with a proposal to move the meeting to October 15, 2026. And a Temporary Pet Fostering Project update now appears as its own agenda item.

The packet's system-wide summary of 16 secured jobs, 21 program transitions, and 43 housing transitions in August (90 / 134 / 255 year-to-date) is labeled DRAFT-Only because HMIS client-ID de-duplication across providers is not yet complete. For August, only Lodi Access Center and Family Promise submitted client IDs — and no duplicates were found between them, the first tangible progress on the reconciliation problem the Data subcommittee has been working since July.

Underneath the routine numbers, Lodi Access Center posted its highest 20-month client volume, Hope Harbor's family shelter reported zero new family intakes because units are full, and AHLM's housing supports is not currently accepting new referrals. The City's application for CalTrans Encampment Recovery Funds — filed to help fund LAC for one year — is the funding thread most likely to resurface in the staff update.

Agenda at a Glance

System-Wide Summary — August 2026 (DRAFT)

The packet aggregates outcomes across five reporting providers. The report is labeled DRAFT-Only because final employment, program-transition, and housing-transition statistics cannot be fully verified without a monthly evaluation of duplicate HMIS client IDs across reporting categories. For August 2026, Lodi Access Center and Family Promise both submitted client IDs, and no duplicate reporting was present between those two organizations.

Source: LCOH August 2026 Subcommittee and Service Provider Reports (DRAFT summary table).

Service Provider Reports (August 2026)

a. Lodi Access Center — submitted by Johnny Coughran

The LAC report is the packet's most detailed, with roughly 40 tracked metrics grouped into eight service categories. Key August 2026 counts:

Case management breakdown

The 128 case-management services in August were composed of: General assistance (6), VA referral (5), mental-health services and referral (18), medical/dental referral (2), substance-abuse services and referral (12), and referral to SJ Cares (2), with the remaining case-management activity captured in the individual client-service categories above.

Client age demographics (324 clients total)

Length of stay and successful exit rates

Outreach (OMI-run)

112 unsheltered individuals were engaged 164 times — 40 newly enrolled in OMI outreach, 23 re-enrolled, 49 continuously engaged, 10 counseled for mental-health issues, 7 referred to Behavioral Health Services. 67% of clients currently enrolled in outreach are experiencing chronic homelessness.

Barriers

• Men's overnight waitlist: 14 individuals turned away
• Women's overnight waitlist: 16 individuals turned away
• 4 individuals were not ambulatory and were referred to St. Mary's recuperative care

LAC total clients — trend, Jan 2025 to Aug 2026

Day-use plus overnight clients per month. August 2026 (Day 221 + Overnight 87 = 308) is the highest point in the 20-month series.

LAC transitions and cumulative savings vs. SJC per-client cost

From January 2025 through August 2026, LAC transitioned 249 clients at an efficiency (savings) of approximately $1.8 million relative to comparable SJC per-client cost, per the packet's LAC chart notes.

b. Hope Harbor Lodi Corps / Salvation Army Family Services Center — submitted by John Narvaez

Anonymous Assists

Program Statistics

Barrier: Family units are still full, and Hope Harbor is having to turn a lot of families in need away. The August minutes recorded a 200% increase in families over the prior two months — Hope Harbor is mostly geared to single clients, and the opening of the new access center is expected to take pressure off Hope Harbor.

• An overnight guest gained full-time employment at the bowling alley; Salvation Army took him to Walmart to buy the non-slip shoes required to start the job.
• Four individuals were brought into the Transitional Living Hand-Up Program — two from Hope Harbor overnight guests, two priced out of the rental market by a dramatic rent increase.
• Collaborated with LAC to get three individuals off the streets and clean enough to enter the pre-program.
• Handed out 5 bus passes and provided 19 guests with transportation to personal appointments.
• One female client entered pre-program but was on SSDI (making her ARC-ineligible), so Jennifer called the Gospel Center Rescue Mission and placed her in their Treatment Program.

c. Family Promise — submitted by Kayla Thompson Powell

Barriers to entry. Family Promise's program requirements — a drug- and alcohol-free environment, a background check with no history of violent crimes, no pets in the shelter program, and at least one child under the age of 18 in current custody — can limit the households the program can accept. No August commentary was submitted.

Family Promise — cumulative housing transitions

205 cumulative housing transitions through August 2026 (≈10 clients per month); strongest recent months were June (28) and July (26) of 2026.

d. Lodi House — submitted by Roya Main

Outcomes: Secured Employment 1 · Transition to Programs 0 · Transition to Housing 0.

• Shelter Program: one mom obtained full-time work and started August 26; one applicant no-showed her interview; one applicant has chronic health conditions preventing work; three applicants are active marijuana users and will reapply after passing drug screening.
• Transitional Program: all residents are maintaining full-time employment.
• Barriers to entry: unable or unwilling to work at least 32 hours per week (1); no-show to program interview (1); active drug use at time of application (3).

e. Agape Love — submitted by Darren Schlack

Weekly meal-service counts across a 5-week August.

No August commentary from Agape Love. (The August 13 minutes carried a correction that the July Agape total was 589 — noted here as historical context, not an August figure.)

f. Adventist Health Lodi Memorial (AHLM) Housing Supports

Prose report, no metric table. Key figures:

• 54 individuals currently enrolled in Housing Trio services — Housing Transition and Navigation Services (HTNS), Housing Deposits (HD), and Housing Tenancy and Sustaining Services (HTSS). Of these, 39 receive HTNS and 15 receive HTSS.
• 5 individuals housed in August; they begin HTSS in September.
• 6 move-ins in August (transition into permanent housing such as an apartment — rehab entries are excluded).
  • 1 approved for security deposit and 6 months of rental assistance through HousingWORKS.
  • 1 applied a Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin (HACSJ) voucher to new housing.
• Income outcomes: 2 participants obtained full-time employment; 1 applied for SSDI and SSI.
• AHLM housing supports is not currently accepting new referrals.

f. LPD Liaison Officer

The packet's contents section does not include a written LPD Liaison report; LPD activity is charted at the back of the packet and the substantive update carried from the August 13 minutes reads:

• LPD is doing increased vehicle-code enforcement and more vehicle towing after warning and a 10-day waiting period.
• The City pays towing companies $1,300 per vehicle against a $20,000 annual budget; one tow tends to prompt others to leave voluntarily.
• The number of RVs has decreased from 30 to 11.

The packet's LPD abatement-postings chart shows a sharp uptick in vehicles towed in July 2026, matching the enforcement push described in the minutes.

Plain-language glossary

Subcommittee Reports

a. Data Enhancement & Metric Analysis

The subcommittee's continuing work — close the HMIS duplicate-client-ID gap so the system-wide summary can leave DRAFT status. August's meeting flagged this as the barrier to a credible cross-agency total. This month's packet is the first cycle in which at least two providers (LAC, Family Promise) submitted client IDs and were confirmed non-duplicative. The subcommittee's stated fallback path is to obtain a consolidated report from HMIS manager John Mendehlsson.

b. Community Engagement & Public Relations

Merger status. The former Community Engagement and Communications & Public Relations subcommittees were merged by consensus in August into Community Engagement & Public Relations. The subcommittee now meets on the last Tuesday of every month at 9:30 a.m. at the Ham Lane Church of Christ.

August work delivered

• Finalized the LCOH PowerPoint presentation with new graphics and a new "collaboration page" leave-behind; LCOH-centric edits corrected the earlier LAC overemphasis flagged in the July meeting.
• Started work on updating and revising the "Homeless Resource" brochure.
• Brainstormed 2027 community events at which the subcommittee would host an LCOH information booth.
• Presentations to City Council and the Lodi Improvement Committee are being scheduled through Kari Chadwick (City of Lodi).
• The August motion connecting the LCOH Facebook page to the LCOH email was approved.

Item III.2.b.1 — LCOH Website; Discussion & Approval (September vote)

The subcommittee is recommending the full committee approve building a dedicated LCOH website, with the following rationale:

1. Create an LCOH identity as a community-led committee, separate from the City of Lodi website.
2. Post a digitized version of the "Homeless Resource" brochure so it stays current.
3. Post agendas, minutes, and information about monthly LCOH meetings.
4. Highlight all organizations that collaborate with LCOH.
5. Post news and developments that pertain to the LCOH mission.

LCOH Facebook — 28-day snapshot

Followers rose from ~215 (Jan 2025) to 612 (Aug 2026); monthly views recovered to ~4,800 in August after a mid-summer dip.

Facebook post spotlight (36 posts in August 2026)

Salvation Army; Grace and Mercy Charitable Foundation; Showered With Love Mobile Showers; Clothed in Dignity; Bread of Life; San Joaquin County (SJCHSA food distribution — 3 posts); Lodi Wellness Center; United Way of SJC (Grit Series); Delta Health Care (Mobile Farmer's Market); Lodi Access Center; LCOH monthly meeting; Community Medical Centers (Medi-Cal renewal); SJC Healthcare Services (Summit); San Joaquin Dental Association (veterans dental clinic); Gravity Church; Office of Supervisor Steve Ding (HUD strategy meeting); Lodi House; Uplift All Foundation; Second Harvest (Mobile Fresh Stops); Second Step Sober Living Homes.

c. SJCoC Meeting

Johnny Coughran will represent Lodi at SJCoC, with the goal of becoming a board member. Chair Hill will attend as needed after David Meyers stepped back due to scheduling. The August minutes also captured a countywide watch item: St. Mary's is asking CoC for a $5M non-compete agreement over two years and the City of Stockton for $10M over two years, on the strength of its 628 beds.

d. Lodi City Council — submitted by Lisa Meyers Hill

The written report states: "Nothing of relevance to the LCOH was discussed at the Regular Meetings of the City Council for the month of August."

September context: the September 2, 2026 Council packet does carry LCOH-relevant material — most notably the FY2024-25 CAPER, which recorded Hope Harbor Shelter Operations at 98% of its 450-person goal ($17,500 CDBG) and Hope Harbor Security Upgrades at 0% of goal ($17,000), and reiterated the Access Center's December 2026 opening target with 100 beds (200 in emergency conditions). That falls outside the August reporting window and will most likely surface in the October Council report.

IV. Update From City Staff

The August update from City staff set the September baseline:

• Reimagined Housing begins housing clients in September after finalizing safety procedures. Client interviews are in progress and some clients will reside in hotels during the waiting period. All referrals will be connected to BHS.
• The City of Lodi has applied for Encampment Recovery Funds — a CalTrans grant — to help fund the LAC for one year.

Both threads will most likely receive September updates: Reimagined Housing intake progress, and any news on the CalTrans Encampment Resolution Fund application. The FY2024–25 CAPER referenced in the September 2 Council packet independently confirms the December 2026 permanent Access Center target and provides the funding backdrop for the CalTrans ask.

V. Roundtable Discussion With Rep. Harder

New item this month. Rep. Josh Harder (CA-9) represents Lodi; the packet flags a proposed change to move the September meeting to October 15 so it can align with the roundtable. If the committee approves the move under Item X, October 15 becomes the next full meeting and September's business — including the website vote — either happens today or is carried to October 15.

VI. Temporary Pet Fostering Project Update

A newly named standing item. Context from prior meetings and provider reports:

• Family Promise's shelter program cannot accept pets — one of Family Promise's four core barriers to entry (drug/alcohol-free program, background check with no violent-crime history, no pets, custody of a child under 18).
• Pet ownership has been flagged in prior LCOH discussion as a barrier keeping unsheltered individuals from accepting overnight beds across providers.

The packet does not include a written report for the fostering project, so the update will be delivered verbally.

VII. Action Items (carried from August)

• David Meyers will work on a more accurate system-wide summary report.
• Johnny Coughran's suggestion that reports be submitted with HMIS ID numbers rather than names is being piloted (LAC and Family Promise submitted for August; no duplicates between the two).

VIII. Non-Agenda Items

None pre-published in the packet for September. (August's non-agenda item was the Lodi Women's Club Laura DeForce Gordon Day on August 15, 2026.)

Cross-Reference: Prior LCOH Meeting (August 13, 2026)

• LAC day-client and overnight numbers were already climbing — Director Coughran attributed it to better LAC/SJCARES outreach and RV abatement, with overnight clients tripling from June to July and case-management and day-client counts nearly doubling. August's LAC totals extend that trend (Day Use 221, Overnight 87).
• Hope Harbor family intake pressure (200% increase over two months) drove the August "0 (Full)" family-intake number that carried into September.
• Adult Literacy Program Development: Library Trustee Christopher Anderson shared plans to set up a GED and literacy program for the homeless community, seeking volunteers; the Gospel Missions Center already runs a similar program.
• CMC Representation: Chair Hill agreed to ask Community Medical Centers to send a representative to LCOH meetings — relevant because Hope Harbor's report shows 66 people treated or seen by CMC at its facility in August.

What to Watch on September 10

1. Website vote (III.2.b.1) — the first standalone LCOH digital identity, separate from the City site.
2. Whether the meeting moves to October 15 to align with the Harder roundtable.
3. HMIS de-duplication progress — whether more than two providers submitted client IDs for the September cycle.
4. CalTrans Encampment Recovery Funds — any update on the City's application to fund LAC operations for a year.
5. Reimagined Housing — first intake since finalizing safety procedures.
6. Hope Harbor family capacity — whether the "0 (Full)" family intake persists.
7. Access Center December 2026 opening — the target referenced in the September 2 Council CAPER; any construction, staffing, or funding updates as the date approaches.

References

• Lodi Committee on Homelessness — September 10, 2026 Meeting Agenda Packet (25 pp.), including August 13, 2026 minutes and August 2026 Subcommittee and Service Provider Reports. Contact: lcohca@gmail.com.
• City of Lodi — Committee on Homelessness (LCOH)
• City of Lodi — City Council · Reference: September 2, 2026 Regular Meeting Agenda (FY2024–25 CAPER, Access Center December 2026 opening target).
• San Joaquin Continuum of Care (SJCoC)
• California HCD — Encampment Resolution Funding Program (context for the City's CalTrans Encampment Recovery Funds application).
• San Joaquin County Health and Human Services — Homelessness Services
• Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin (HACSJ) / HousingWORKS
• Office of U.S. Representative Josh Harder (CA-9)
• LCOH Facebook page

Prepared by LodiEye, the analytical reporting surface for Lodi411. Directed and fact-checked by Don Bradford. Figures reflect the LCOH August 2026 reports as submitted; the packet's system-wide summary is marked DRAFT pending HMIS de-duplication across agencies.

Lodi Improvement Committee — September 8, 2026

Regular Meeting · Tuesday, September 8, 2026 · 6:00 p.m.

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

The night the committee votes on whether to replace itself. Staff contact: Kari Chadwick, CDD Program Specialist, (209) 333-6711. Agenda signed by Cynthia Marsh, Interim Community Development Director.

Summary

This is the most consequential Lodi Improvement Committee meeting of 2026. Three items in a row put the committee's own existence on the table: a redlined bylaws rewrite that would dissolve the Lodi Improvement Committee and replace it with the "Lodi Community Advisory Committee on the City's Strategic Vision," a possible recommendation of that rewrite to the City Council, and a reorganization vote for a temporary Chair and Vice Chair placed at the very end of the agenda, after member comments.

The rewrite is not a housekeeping edit. It would strip the committee's crime, blight, code-enforcement and infrastructure-advocacy mandates; convert membership from seven Council-appointed residents to seven seats filled by other City bodies with the Mayor as automatic Chair; drop regular meetings from monthly to quarterly; tighten removal for absence; and eliminate the committee's own fund account and audit provision.

The meeting also carries a Lodi Committee on Homelessness presentation, catch-up approval of two sets of minutes (July 14 and the one-minute August 11 meeting that died for lack of quorum), the 2026 activities matrix, and November scheduling of the 2027-29 CDBG application overview and NOFA.

Quorum is the live risk. The LIC has failed to conduct business at two of its last four scheduled meetings — June 9 was cancelled outright and August 11 adjourned at 6:01 p.m. with only three members present. The proposed bylaws would deem a seat vacated after two unexcused absences in a year, down from three.

Agenda at a glance

How to participate

In person at the Carnegie Forum; by Zoom webinar ID 880 2451 7154, passcode 191272 (1-669-444-9171 or 1-253-215-8782); by email to LICcomments@lodi.gov; by mail to Community Development Department, P.O. Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241; or hand delivery to 221 W. Pine Street. Written comment must arrive no later than three hours before the meeting, goes to the City Council and into the minutes, and is not read aloud. Watch live on the City of Lodi public meetings channel. Language interpretation and ADA accommodation requests require 72 hours' notice.

What is in the packet

All attachments are bound into the single September 8, 2026 packet PDF. Page ranges below were verified page by page on September 5, 2026.

Total: 24 pages. There is no separate correspondence file in the packet — no letters from residents, agencies or partner organizations. The only written communication is the staff memorandum.

Item 4 — Lodi Committee on Homelessness presentation

The staff memo says only: "Receive presentation from a representative from the Lodi Committee On Homelessness." No presenter is named and no slide deck is attached.

The LCOH is a community stakeholder body — not a Council-appointed commission — that meets at 2:30 p.m. in the Lodi Community Room, with the mission of bringing "people together to collaborate and advocate solutions to homelessness" (City of Lodi homelessness initiatives). Its chair is Lisa Meyers-Hill, who signs as Chairperson and appears in the minutes as "Chair Hill" — the same person, not two members (LCOH January 8, 2026 packet). Lisa Shinn was seated as Vice Chair on July 9, 2026 following Calvin Young's resignation (LCOH July 9, 2026 packet). Agenda requests go to lcohca@gmail.com.

Why this item connects to the LIC's own work: the 2026 goals matrix already assigns Member Mono Geralis a standing task to distribute the LCOH resource flyer and to route newly identified resources back to the LCOH Chair for future editions of the resource guide. This presentation is the natural venue to close that loop and to ask about the flyer's current version and distribution points.

Item 5 — Committee purpose and structure

Central itemThe redline would rename and re-charter the body as the Lodi Community Advisory Committee on the City's Strategic Vision, tied to the eight-priority Strategic Vision the Council originally adopted May 17, 2023 by Resolution No. 2023-98. That resolution was repealed and replaced on March 4, 2026 (item G.3), following a January 28, 2026 special Council meeting at Hutchins Street Square. The revised document is dated February 2026 and lists eight priorities alphabetically — Downtown, Economic Development, Fiscal Health, Housing, Infrastructure, Parks, Public Safety and Public Well-being (March 4, 2026 Council packet; City Council Strategic Vision). Note the arithmetic: eight priorities, but the draft seats only six commission representatives plus the Mayor.

Purposes — struck and replaced (Article II, Section 2)

Every operational, neighborhood-level mandate is replaced by advisory and promotional language. The one concrete retained power is grant scoring — which is how the committee stays attached to CDBG.

What else changes

• Membership (Article III). General membership "open to all persons" is deleted. The new committee is seven voting members: the Mayor or designee, plus one representative each appointed by the Economic Development ad hoc Committee, Lodi Senior Citizens Commission, Greater Lodi Area Youth Commission, Library Board of Trustees, Lodi Arts Commission and Parks & Recreation Commission. The Mayor automatically serves as Chair; the Mayor Pro Tempore is a non-voting eighth member who votes only when presiding.
• Terms. Three years, no more than two consecutive full terms without a one-year break, staggered by the appointing group's original appointment date.
• Transition. Current LIC members serve out their terms, then each seat converts to a body-appointed representative.
• Vacancies and removal. Vacancies filled by the appointing body for the unexpired term; removal by Council for cause, "including unexcused absence from two consecutive regular meetings."
• Officers (Article IV). Only the Vice-Chairperson is elected, annually at the first quarterly meeting. Absence forfeiture tightens from three unexcused meetings to two, with the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore exempt.
• Meetings. From "once a month, on the second Tuesday" to a "consistent quarterly basis established by the Committee (example: April, August, October, and January)." Brown Act coverage is retained.
• Communications. All external communications must route through the Chair in coordination with the City's Public Information Officer and be approved by majority vote. The old fallback allowing the Vice-Chair or a designated Board member to authorize communications is struck.
• Dissolution. Currently the body may be dissolved by Council or by its own Board; the draft leaves dissolution to the City Council alone.

Financial matters — deleted entirely

The current Article V requires all LIC donations, gifts and revenues to flow through the City Finance Department, expenditures to be approved by majority Board vote and signed by an Executive Officer, and the fund account to be audited within the City's annual audit. The clean draft has no Article V equivalent. This is the account Chair Davis asked staff to research the history of on July 14, and that Member Soto said he believed came from member-run donations and fundraisers.

Signature block: the approval-as-to-form line shows Janice D. Magdich struck and John M. Luebberke inserted as Interim City Attorney, with adoption and Council ratification dates left blank for 2026. The current bylaws were adopted by the LIC April 10, 2018 and ratified by Council May 16, 2018; the underlying authority is Resolution No. 2011-173 (City of Lodi boards portal). All bylaws detail above is drawn from the redlined and clean drafts at packet pages 11–21.

Where this came from

At the July 14 meeting Chair Davis said she had a Council update presentation assembled but was "unsure of how to proceed since the direction of the committee is unclear," and asked that the bylaws be agendized. Interim Director Marsh told the committee it could not discuss future plans for the bylaws because that is a Council purview item, but that members could comment when the item reaches Council or contact Council members individually. Ms. Chadwick explained the redline reflects requested changes from an earlier effort that stalled when the members who drafted it left the committee before it reached Council. Member Geralis raised concern that changes might not come back to the committee for comment; Member Soto and Vice Chair Hayre both urged moving the Council update forward regardless.

That is the direct predecessor to Item 5, recorded in the July 14, 2026 minutes at packet pages 3–6. The August 11 meeting, which would have taken it up, collapsed for lack of quorum.

Item 6 — 2026 activities and task assignments

Source: 2026 Goals matrix, packet pages 22–24. The matrix has four headings, and the assignment gaps are the story: eight of the fourteen task lines read "TBD."

1. Informational Updates — Owner: TBD

The July minutes list Member Sharma as owner. Lines: Downtown Specific Plan briefing (Planning Division), due TBD; Community Improvement Division briefing, due TBD; CDBG Funding Awareness & Outreach, owner and liaison both TBD, ongoing.

2. Community Well-Being

• Advance Youth Programs — Owner Dawson Hayre. Youth Opportunity (Youth Commission collaboration, exploring a Lodi Lake event highlighting youth-owned small businesses) and Youth Gang Prevention. Enhanced Youth Programs — TBD. Youth Commission meeting attendance — TBD.
• Animal Services Support — Owner Dawson Hayre, liaison TBD. The July minutes record this owner as Member Davis.
• Environmentally Responsible Community Collaborations — Owner Christine Tran; Earth Day planning with Parks/Rec, Youth, Arts and Tree Lodi.

3. Community Improvement

• Neighborhood Quality & Livability — Owner Mono Geralis; route graffiti, alleyways, blight, lane striping, potholes, medians, lighting, crosswalk functionality, sidewalk obstructions and ADA concerns through the Report-A-Concern form.
• Community Resources — Owner Mono Geralis; LCOH resource flyer distribution.
• City Beautification — Owners Geralis, Tran and Davis. Arts Commission liaison — TBD.

4. Administration, Transparency, Accountability

• City Council Engagement — Owner: all members. First presentation due "August – 2nd meeting," assignee TBD; second presentation due December/January, assignee TBD.
• Public Awareness — Owner Christine Tran; one town hall, online and/or in person, all members assigned, ongoing.

The first Council presentation is now past its own internal deadline with no presenter named, and the presenter identified in the July minutes has not appeared in the July or August roll calls.

Item 7 — Upcoming meeting topics

• October — TBD. The only open scheduling slot, and the practical entry point for public suggestions.
• November — 2027-29 CDBG Application Overview Presentation and NOFA.

The November item matters because Public Services applications run on a rolling two-year cycle, so the 2027-29 round is the next opportunity for Lodi nonprofits. For scale, the 2026-27 cycle opened December 8, 2025 and closed January 27, 2026, advertising "approximately $550,000 in CDBG funds," of which "approximately $310,000 will be available for capital improvement and public infrastructure projects" (City of Lodi CDBG program page). The actual HUD award came in at $665,263 — well above the advertised estimate, and the notice was never updated.

A change from the July minutes: on July 14 the committee slotted September for Bailey Caswell, Rick Freeman of Lodi Adopt-A-Child, and Lynsay Nuss of CPFSJ. The posted September agenda instead carries the LCOH presentation, and October is blank. Those three guests appear to have been deferred without an explanation in the packet — a reasonable question to raise under Item 7.

Item 9 — Reorganization: temporary Chair and Vice Chair

The staff memo says only "Vote for new Chair and Vice Chair." The packet gives no reason for the vacancy, no reference to a resignation, and no explanation of what "temporary" means. The current bylaws set officer elections annually in April; the proposed bylaws move them to the first quarterly meeting. Dawson Hayre was elected Vice Chair on February 10, 2026, and Lyndsy Davis chaired through July 14; Hayre presided on August 11.

Placing an officer election after the possible bylaws recommendation, and after member comments, means whoever is elected may be presiding over a body whose charter has just been recommended for replacement — and under the proposed bylaws, the Chair's seat would belong to the Mayor by right.

The staff memorandum, summarized

From: Kari Chadwick, CDD Program Specialist · Date: September 8, 2026 · Subject: CDBG Updates and Regular Business · packet pages 8–10.

Stated purpose of the LIC: support staff in implementing the five-year Consolidated Plan through outreach, process feedback, and funding and project-priority recommendations to Council; maintain and improve Lodi's quality of life and appearance; and create and implement annual goals.

• Public Services applications are on a rolling two-year cycle; no new round this year.
• The 2026-27 Annual Action Plan was adopted by Council June 3, after a review period running May 2 – June 3, 2026.
• 2025-26 award: $655,037. City guideline allocates 40% of the award net of administration to community-based organizations; HUD caps public services at 15%.
• Four capital applications requested over $419,000; staff recommended partial funding of one. Graffiti Abatement moved to Administration funding ($15,000) after it was determined it could no longer be funded under Capital.
• An LIC ad hoc of three members scored Public Service applications on April 24, 2025; Council approved the allocation June 18, 2025.

Where the money went: 2025-26 versus 2026-27

Sources: September 8, 2026 LIC staff memorandum (2025-26 figures) and the June 3, 2026 Council packet adopting the 2026-27 Annual Action Plan. The 2025-26 column totals $633,000 of the $655,037 award, with $22,037 carried forward to 2026-27 capital.

2025-26 awards as listed in the memo

What the memo does not say

The current year looks different. Council's adopted 2026-27 plan drops Lodi House and the Salvation Army security project entirely, reduces Salas Park from $130,000 to $115,000, and converts the fair-housing line from a $20,000 award to San Joaquin Fair Housing into a $40,000 "TBD" line with an RFP pending and City staff providing the service in-house. None of that appears in the September packet.

CAPER: the draft 2025-26 CAPER public hearing was held September 2, 2026 and the report is due to HUD by September 30. The LIC memo says it was posted for review "starting August 15th"; the Council staff report for the hearing states the period ran August 17 through September 2 at 5:00 p.m. (September 2, 2026 Council packet).

Fiscal impact: HUD's 2026-27 allocation for Lodi is $665,263 — up about $10,226 (1.6%) from 2025-26. The allocation letter arrived April 8, 2026.

Context from prior meetings

February 10, 2026 — The committee adopted its 2026 task list and elected Dawson Hayre Vice Chair, nominated by Member Sharma, on a 5-0 vote with all five members present (Sharma via Zoom). Sharma took both Information Updates ownership and the CDBG liaison role; Davis took Animal Services. Sharma also asked that legal counsel attend future meetings (minutes in the March 10 packet).

April 14, 2026 — Interim Director Marsh briefed the LIC that the Downtown Specific Plan final draft was heading to Planning Commission May 13 and Council June 3, and that HUD's CDBG allocation had risen slightly. Hector Soto was welcomed to the committee at this meeting (minutes in the May 12 packet).

May 12, 2026 — Present: Geralis, Hayre, Soto and Chair Davis; Sharma and Tran absent. Neighborhood Services Manager Jennifer Rhyne told members a July Council presentation would require a PowerPoint agreed at the June meeting — the meeting that was then cancelled (minutes in the July 14 packet).

June 9, 2026 — meeting cancelled. The one-page notice states the agenda could not be posted 72 hours in advance, so the meeting would be called to order and cancelled for lack of a quorum. It is signed by Jennifer Rhyne, Neighborhood Services Manager (cancellation notice).

July 14, 2026 — Full attendance. May 12 minutes approved 4-1, with Chair Davis voting no on her own committee's minutes. Bylaws requested for agendizing; fund-account history requested; Marsh confirmed she is interim only until the Neighborhood Services Manager position is filled permanently. Davis asked what is happening to CDBG "now that Jennifer Rhyne is no longer with the City" — Chadwick confirmed she is still managing the program. Davis said she wants a continuing role in CDBG funding decisions. Adjourned 6:33 p.m.

August 11, 2026 — Called to order by Vice Chair Hayre at 6:00 p.m. with Geralis, Soto and Hayre present, Tran absent. Adjourned at 6:01 p.m. for lack of quorum. The purpose/structure item and the goals matrix rolled forward to September.

Departmental churn behind the agenda

Community Development has been unusually unstable in 2026. John Della Monica retired in February after six years; the City's own record fixes the vacancy date precisely — "On February 24, 2026, the Community Development Director position became vacant" — after which an executive recruitment firm was engaged. Cynthia Marsh has served as Interim Director since. Council ratified David Hanham as Community Development Director on August 5, 2026 (item G.4) at a base salary of $201,619.47, with his term beginning at 7:30 a.m. on September 7, 2026 — the day before this meeting (August 5, 2026 Council packet).

Jennifer Rhyne, the Neighborhood Services Manager who staffed the LIC, prepared the June 3 Council report on the CDBG Annual Action Plan and signed the June 9 cancellation notice, so her departure came after early June. The position remains unfilled. The City Attorney's office is also in transition, which is why the redline swaps Janice Magdich for John M. Luebberke on the approval line.

Who's who

Committee members, per 2026 minutes and the goals matrix

• Lyndsy Davis — Chair through July 2026. Owner or co-owner of Enhanced Youth Programs, Animal Services and City Beautification. Driving the bylaws and fund-account inquiries.
• Dawson Hayre — Vice Chair, elected February 10, 2026. Owner of Advance Youth Programs and, per the matrix, Animal Services Support. Presided over the August 11 meeting.
• Emanuel "Mono" Geralis — Owner of Neighborhood Quality & Livability, Community Resources and City Beautification; the committee's Report-A-Concern and LCOH-flyer conduit.
• Christine Tran — Owner of Environmentally Responsible Community Collaborations and Public Awareness. Absent August 11.
• Hector Soto — Appointed by Council March 18, 2026 as consent item C.5, term expiring March 2, 2028 (March 18, 2026 Council packet); previously a Greater Lodi Area Youth Commission adult advisor.
• Janavi Sharma — Listed in the July minutes as owner of Informational Updates, CDBG liaison and lead on both Council presentations, but does not appear in the July or August roll calls; the September matrix now shows those owners as "TBD."

A seat has been vacant for much of 2026. The City's Lodi Improvement Committee roster page still lists Lisa Hill, Lynsay Nuss, Lyndsy Davis, Emanuel Geralis, Haris Kahn and two vacancies, and still names Jennifer Rhyne as staff contact — it does not match the members appearing in 2026 minutes and should be treated as out of date.

Staff and officials

• Kari Chadwick, CDD Program Specialist — agenda contact, minute-taker, staff report author and current manager of the CDBG program.
• Cynthia Marsh, JD, Interim Community Development Director and Deputy Director/City Planner — signs the agenda; interim role ends with Hanham's arrival.
• David Hanham, incoming Community Development Director, effective September 7, 2026.
• John M. Luebberke, Interim City Attorney — named on the redlined approval-as-to-form line.
• Jennifer Rhyne, former Neighborhood Services Manager — prior LIC staff lead; position vacant.

Organizations named for upcoming or deferred presentations

• Lodi Committee on Homelessness — presenting September 8. Publishes the resource flyer the LIC distributes (LCOH Agenda Center).
• Lodi Adopt-A-Child — deferred. All-volunteer nonprofit serving underprivileged youth, led by president Rick Freeman; its 35th annual Christmas Wish served nearly 1,000 children in December 2025 (Lodi Adopt-A-Child).
• Community Partnership for Families of San Joaquin — deferred. Operates the Lodi Family Resource Center at 118 N. Church Street and was a $29,500 CDBG subrecipient in 2025-26. Lynsay Nuss became Executive Director in June 2026 (CPFSJ).
• Bailey Caswell — deferred. Lodi marketing and communications professional working across local nonprofits including the Downtown Lodi Business Alliance, Lodi Arts and Lodi Open Studios.
• Tree Lodi — named in the 2026 goals matrix as an Earth Day collaboration partner alongside Parks/Rec, the Youth Commission and the Arts Commission.

Three questions that carry the most weight

1. What happens to the LIC fund account? The rewrite deletes the article that created it, governed its expenditures and required its audit — with no successor language, and no historical accounting delivered in response to the July 14 request.
2. Who loses representation under the new membership formula? Replacing seven Council-appointed residents with six commission-designated representatives plus the Mayor removes the direct-resident pathway onto the committee, and the sending bodies include no neighborhood, housing or homelessness-focused entity — even as CDBG grant scoring stays on the committee's plate.
3. Can the committee lawfully recommend, and should it recommend tonight? On July 14 Interim Director Marsh advised that bylaws direction is a Council purview item. Item 5 now asks for a possible recommendation, and Item 9 elects officers afterward. If the recommendation passes with a bare quorum of a body that failed to convene a month earlier, the durability of that vote is a fair question.

References

Primary — meeting record

• LIC agenda packet, September 8, 2026 — agenda, July 14 and August 11 minutes, staff memorandum, redlined and clean bylaws, 2026 goals matrix (24 pages)
• LIC Agenda Center — 2026 packet archive
• LIC packet, August 11, 2026
• LIC packet, July 14, 2026 — contains the May 12 minutes
• LIC cancellation notice, June 9, 2026
• LIC packet, May 12, 2026 — contains the April 14 minutes
• LIC packet, April 14, 2026
• LIC packet, March 10, 2026 — contains the February 10 minutes
• LIC packet, February 10, 2026
• LIC packet, January 13, 2026

City Council records

• Council packet, March 4, 2026, item G.3 — repeals and replaces Res. No. 2023-98, adopts the revised Strategic Vision
• Council packet, March 18, 2026, item C.5 — appointment of Hector Soto
• Council packet, June 3, 2026 — 2026-27 CDBG Annual Action Plan
• Council packet, August 5, 2026, item G.4 — employment of David Hanham
• Council packet, September 2, 2026, item F.1 — 2025-26 CDBG CAPER
• Council Shirtsleeve Session minutes, December 17, 2019 — Lodi Family Resource Center address

City pages and portals

• Lodi Improvement Committee page — roster is out of date
• CDBG program page
• City Council Strategic Vision
• Homelessness initiatives and the LCOH Agenda Center
• Report-A-Concern form
• City of Lodi boards portal — Resolution No. 2011-173
• City of Lodi public meetings livestream

News and organizations

• Lodi News-Sentinel — "Designs on retirement for former architect Della Monica," February 21, 2026
• Lodi News-Sentinel — "Lodi City Council to consider next community development director," August 1, 2026
• Lodi 411 — Lodi Improvement Committee, July 14, 2026
• Lodi 411 — Lodi Committee on Homelessness, August 13, 2026
• Lodi 411 — Lodi City Council, March 18, 2026
• Community Partnership for Families of San Joaquin
• Lodi Adopt-A-Child
• Lodi Open Studios

Contact

• Public comment on this agenda: LICcomments@lodi.gov — must arrive three hours before the meeting
• Committee staff: Kari Chadwick, CDD Program Specialist, (209) 333-6711
• Corrections or tips for Lodi 411: editor@lodi411.com

Prepared by Lodi 411 from the September 8, 2026 Lodi Improvement Committee agenda packet posted by the City of Lodi Community Development Department, with supporting context from City Council and committee packets and local news coverage. Page references are to the combined packet PDF. All links and factual claims were verified against primary City records on September 5, 2026.

Lodi City Hall: Senior Staff Turnover, 2015–2026

LodiEye — August 2026

Overview

Scope. This report covers senior staff turnover at Lodi City Hall from January 2015 through August 31, 2026 — an eleven-year window across the City Manager, City Attorney, Police Chief, Fire Chief, Public Works Director, Community Development Director, Electric Utility Director, Parks & Recreation Director, City Clerk, Library Services Director, Human Resources Manager, IT Manager, Deputy/Assistant City Manager, and Finance division. Where a role's history is short without pre-window context (Library, HR, City Clerk, Community Development), the report reaches back to the late 1990s to give the count meaning. Confirmed appointments taking effect after Aug 31, 2026 — David Hanham (Community Development, Sept 7), Taryn Jones (City Attorney, Sept 21), and Christina Castro (Public Works, Oct 5) — are flagged as scheduled and are not counted in the in-window occupancy totals.

Headline counts (in-window, 2015–Aug 31, 2026). Seven City Managers (one long-tenure permanent from mid-window, one permanent removed after ~10 months of active service, one permanent incumbent, and four interim/acting: Keys, Jaromay, Lindsay, Busch). Three City Attorneys, with Jones scheduled as the fourth. Four Police Chiefs and four Fire Chiefs, all retirement-driven with internal successors. Three Public Works Directors in-window (Sandelin, Swimley, Nathan interim), with Castro scheduled as the fourth. Five City Clerks. Nine people in the Library Services Director chair across the modern span (1997–2026), including six since Anwan Baker's Sept 2018 start. Losses across the Deputy/Assistant City Manager, HR Manager, IT Manager, and Finance division are treated separately in the departmental sections.

The defining episode. The turnover was not spread evenly. From 2015 through early 2023, Lodi looked like a well-run mid-sized California city, with orderly retirements and internal or external successions. Then, in the thirty months from October 2023 to April 2026, Lodi lost or replaced its City Manager, Deputy/Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, Community Development Director, Public Works Director, HR Manager, IT Manager, roughly half of the finance division, and the Library Director — and cycled four interim City Managers (Keys, Jaromay, Lindsay, Busch) through the top job in about a year (Lodi411, "The Leadership Gap"; Lodi411, "Leadership Vacuum").

Peer benchmarking. Against twelve peer California cities in the 50,000–90,000 population band, Lodi ranks at the high-churn end but not the extreme. Turlock (11 City Managers across 16 spells) and Manteca (7–8, including a fall-2019 cluster in which the City Manager and Finance Director were placed on paid leave in September and the Police Chief on paid leave on Wednesday, Nov 13, 2019 — see ABC10) sit above Lodi; Manteca is comparable; Woodland, Napa, Petaluma, Davis and Merced are markedly more stable. Lodi's City Manager count (7) exceeds 10 of 12 peers; its Public Works Director in-window count (3) sits exactly at the peer median.

What is distinctive about Lodi. Two features set Lodi apart from the peer set. First, the breadth of simultaneous vacancies — five senior positions open at once in March 2026. Second, the scandal-driven removal of a sitting City Manager in November 2025, followed by a whistleblower-retaliation lawsuit filed in June 2026 (Stocktonia; Recordnet). Roles with higher turnover than the peer-city norm were City Manager, Assistant/Deputy City Manager, Library Services Director, and City Clerk. Roles that were stable or reformed by retirement rather than dysfunction were Police Chief, Fire Chief, Electric Utility Director, Parks/Rec Director (after 2021), and — until 2025 — Public Works Director.

Method and sources. The report draws on primary Lodi city records (agenda reports, Council minutes, resolutions, employment agreements, and Legistar files), news reporting (Lodi News-Sentinel, Stocktonia, Recordnet, ABC10, Modesto Bee, Turlock Journal, Merced Sun-Star, Yahoo News/Lodi News), the California Secretary of State Roster of Incorporated City and Town Officials (2020, 2021, 2022, 2024, 2025, 2026), and Lodi411/LodiEye reporting. LinkedIn is used only in narrowly-scoped instances for career-chronology corroboration and is flagged in-line where it is the sole source. Facts that could not be confirmed from a fetched primary or news source are marked "n.a." in the tables and enumerated in Section 17 (Documented gaps).

1. City Manager

Seven occupants in roughly eleven years. Four served on an interim or acting basis (Keys, Jaromay, Lindsay, Busch). One permanent hire, Scott Carney, was removed by the Council after ten months of active service.

Lodi City Manager tenure, 2010–2026

Source: Lodi.gov agenda reports, Stocktonia, Lodi411. Values expressed in months of active service.

Lodi411's own reporting characterizes the period as "five occupants of the top role in the thirty months from October 2023 to April 2026" (Lodi411, "The Leadership Gap"). This framing is Lodi411/LodiEye editorial, not language adopted by the City Council itself.

Backgrounds

• Stephen Schwabauer — BA UC Davis; JD UC Berkeley. Private-practice attorney in Stockton before joining Lodi as Deputy City Attorney in 1999. City Attorney 2004–2014, then City Manager. Also carried the Community Development Director title concurrently in 2016–2017 (Apr 2016 agenda report). Twenty-four years at Lodi.
• Andrew Keys — BA and MBA, UC Davis; ICMA-CM. Ten years with the City of Elk Grove (Financial Analyst → Revenue Manager → Accounting Manager → Budget Manager → Interim Deputy City Manager). At Lodi: Deputy City Manager/Internal Services Director (Mar 2017), Interim Library Director (Jun 2021), Interim City Manager (Sept 2023), Assistant City Manager (Aug 2023). Terminated by Carney with ~6 months' severance; final day Nov 26, 2024. Now Assistant City Manager, City of Rocklin (LinkedIn; Roseville Today).
• Scott Carney — BA UC Davis; MSW UC Berkeley; pursuing EdD at University of the Pacific; ICMA-CM. Sixteen-year California state career (DSS, Department of Finance, CDCR Director of Administrative Services), then Deputy City Manager, Stockton 2014–2020, then California DHCS 2021–2024. At Lodi, $291,200 base. Removed Nov 2025 after publicly alleging misuse of public funds; filed a whistleblower-retaliation lawsuit June 4, 2026, represented by Cannata O'Toole & Olson LLP (Lodi411, "Sixteen Months").
• James Lindsay — BA Environmental Studies, San José State University (1988–1992); ICMA-CM. Career: City of Milpitas Permit Center Manager → Planning Manager (2000–2005); KB Home Forward Planning Manager (2005–2007); Metropolitan Planning Group Senior Planner (2007); City of Milpitas Planning & Neighborhood Services Director (2007–2011); City of Saratoga Community Development Director (Oct 2011–Jul 2014); City Manager, City of Saratoga, July 2014 – June 29, 2024 (retirement). Founded Sierra View Partners Aug 2024; served Lodi as a CalPERS retired annuitant at $140/hour; now Interim City Manager, City of Auburn, from July 2026 (LinkedIn).
• Aaron Busch — BA Fresno State (geography/urban planning). Thirty-seven years in government: Rancho Mirage, Roseville, Yuba City, Rancho Cordova; Vacaville Assistant City Manager 2017–2020 and Vacaville City Manager 2020–May 2025 (retired). At Lodi: Feb 28 – Jun 22, 2026 (Lodi411).
• Kara Reddig — BS and MPA, Arizona State. Twenty-plus-year career at the City of Elk Grove, most recently Deputy City Manager over public affairs, community engagement, HR, risk management and District56. Led Elk Grove's 2022 Measure E 1% sales tax (~$34M/yr) and secured $18M+ in state and federal funding. 2025 Career Excellence Award from California Women Leading Government (Lodi newsflash).

2. Deputy / Assistant City Manager

Jordan Ayers was hired by Resolution 2008-234 on Dec 3, 2008 at $145,000 base, effective Dec 15, 2008, succeeding James Krueger (who left Jul 3, 2008) (Dec 3, 2008 agenda report E-05). Before Lodi he spent about 26 years with Sacramento County, most recently as Deputy Director for Administrative and Business Services in General Services. He earned a BS in Business Administration (Accounting/Management Information Sciences) from CSU Sacramento in 1982 (Feb 17, 2016 agenda report I-02). His departure reason and post-Lodi role are n.a. The effective gap between his Nov 15, 2016 last signature and Keys' March 2017 start is roughly three to four months.

Bobby Magee holds an MBA. Deputy County Administrator, San Joaquin County 2003–2012; Foothill Transit Director of Procurement; founder of Moralta Group consulting since 2014, through which he served as an FTA reviewer and adviser to Riverside, Garden Grove, Davis, Daly City and Santa Cruz. Interim Finance/City Treasurer stints at Victorville, Santa Cruz, San Bruno and Incline Village GID before Lodi. A San Bruno employee lawsuit alleging financial mismanagement during his interim tenure there settled for $200,000 (Stocktonia; LinkedIn).

3. City Attorney

Taryn Jones holds a BA in Legal Studies and a BA in Philosophy from UC Santa Cruz, and a JD from UC Hastings (now UC San Francisco College of the Law). She was born and raised in Tracy and has lived in Lodi with her husband for seven years. Her municipal-law career was at the City of Stockton City Attorney's Office: intern while attending law school, deputy city attorney, assistant city attorney (June 2024), and briefly acting city attorney beginning January 13 following Lori Asuncion's resignation. Her areas of specialization at Stockton included government transparency, public records law, land use, and public contracting (Stocktonia Aug 14 2026).

Janice D. Magdich holds a BA in Pre-Law Studies and History from the University of the Pacific and a JD from the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law (1996). California State Bar #188278, admitted June 5, 1997 (State Bar profile). Her employers between 1997 and joining Lodi in 2004 are n.a. She is now General Counsel at the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission in Stockton (CPUC transcript, June 2024).

Katie Lucchesi holds a BS in Agriculture from CSU Chico and a JD from UC Davis School of Law. She began in private practice representing public agencies. She was named in CM Carney's April 2025 allegations; two independent audits found no fraud (City of Lodi; Lodi411, "The Leadership Gap").

4. City Clerk

Five occupants in twelve years — retirement, three departures to other cities, and an interim currently in place. That is above-average turnover for a Clerk role.

5. Police Chief

The single most stable senior position in Lodi across the window. Three retirement-driven successions, and every non-first successor was promoted from within LPD.

Ricardo Garcia is a Lodi native and Tokay High graduate. He joined LPD in 2007 as a patrol officer and rose through detective, watch commander, and support services captain. He led Lodi's first Spanish-speaking citizens' academy in 2023 (LocalNewsMatters).

Sierra Brucia holds a BA in Business Administration and Management from Saint Mary's College of California (2002–2004), an MA in Organizational Leadership from American Military University (2013–2016), and an MA in Education from Humphreys University (2019–2020). She completed FBI National Academy Class 283 in 2022 (LinkedIn). She joined LPD in 1994, left San Joaquin County OES in late March 2025, and relocated out of state; she has been with Edward Jones since September 2025.

Tod Patterson attended New Mexico State University on a football scholarship; the degree and graduation year are not stated. He spent two years with the Solano County Sheriff's Office and briefly Rio Vista PD before Lodi hired him in 1990. He was a captain when named interim chief in 2015 (Council minutes Sept 15 2015). Since his May 1, 2020 retirement he has served as President of the board of the Lodi Police Foundation (Lodi Police Foundation). The LPD training range project he initiated broke ground in August 2026 (Lodi News).

6. Fire Chief

Ken Johnson holds a BS in Fire Administration from Columbia Southern, is a licensed paramedic, and a state fire training instructor. He served 23 years at the Stockton Fire Department (Firefighter → Engineer → Captain → Battalion Chief → Division Chief → Fire Marshal). He is a long-time Lodi resident (City of Lodi Fire page).

7. Public Works Director

Wally Sandelin holds a BS and MS from UC Davis and is a registered civil engineer (Oct 6, 2010 agenda report J-01). His Lodi career is documented from May 3, 2000 as City Engineer (May 3, 2000 agenda report E-14). He was appointed Public Works Director in 2008, succeeding Richard Prima (Mar 1998 – Apr 2008). Pre-2000 career and post-2016 activity: n.a.

Charlie Swimley holds a BS from Sacramento State (1989). He spent six years as a City of Stockton engineer before Lodi, then joined Lodi in 2001 as Senior Civil Engineer, later Water Services Manager (2006), City Engineer, and Public Works Director (2016). His signature projects include the Harney Lane Grade Separation, the citywide water meter program, the Lodi Arch restoration, and Lodi's SB 1383 organics program (Yahoo/Lodi News). Post-retirement role: n.a.

Sean Nathan served as a Lodi engineering intern 2000–2002, then Associate Civil Engineer (2012), Senior Civil Engineer (2016), and Deputy Public Works Director / City Engineer (2023) (Public Works staff directory). He has served as Interim Public Works Director from Nov 7, 2025 through the Aug 31, 2026 reporting cutoff, and is scheduled to return to City Engineer on Oct 5, 2026 when Castro starts.

Christina Castro holds a BS from California State University, Sacramento (2003) and is a licensed professional civil engineer with more than 20 years of public works and engineering experience. She joined the City of Elk Grove in 2022 as Capital Program Division Manager, where she oversaw a five-year capital improvement program of about $450 million and managed more than $35 million in state and federal grant funding. From 2015 to 2022 she served the City of Vacaville as associate civil engineer and later senior civil engineer. She was a senior civil engineer with the City of Dixon from 2006 to 2015, and an assistant engineer with Morton & Pitalo Inc. in Folsom from 2004 to 2006 (Lodi News-Sentinel Aug 30 2026).

Selection process. The Public Works Director recruitment was conducted through Tripepi Smith Talent Solutions. Applications for the first round closed Jan 8, 2026, and the second round was posted May 6, 2026 and closed May 22, 2026, both under Interim City Manager Aaron Busch (Public Works Careers listing; MMASC listing). Kara Reddig started as City Manager on June 22, 2026 and made the final selection of Castro under the City Manager's independent hiring authority. The Sept 2, 2026 Council action was a ratification of an employment agreement already signed on Aug 27, 2026 (Sept 2 2026 agenda).

8. Community Development Director

Two names sometimes attached to this role could not be confirmed against Lodi's records: Bruce Whitaker has no confirmable Lodi connection, and Craig Hoffman was City Planner, not Director (LinkedIn).

9. Electric Utility Director

Jeff Berkheimer holds a BS in Electrical Engineering from UC Davis (1999–2003); no graduate degree is listed (LinkedIn). He spent 15 years at SMUD (Engineering Designer → Distribution System Engineer → Project Manager II R&D → Principal Transmission Engineer → Manager of Distribution Operations Engineering, 2015–2019). He holds multiple patents in smart-meter and distribution analytics, and was concurrently SVP Product at Rhythmos 2022–2023. He runs a utility of ~27,400 accounts and a ~$100M annual budget (TheOrg).

10. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director

Christina Jaromay holds a BA from CSU Sacramento in Applied Ethics and Law, with a minor in Business Administration. She spent 11+ years with California State Parks overseeing concessions, corporate sponsorships and volunteer programs generating $100M+ per year in revenue and in-kind services. Governor Newsom appointed her to the California State Park and Recreation Commission in March 2022. She has secured $12M+ in general fund surplus for deferred maintenance at Lodi Parks (Governor's office).

Cathi DeGroot Johnson served as Deputy Director and Interim Director of PRCS from March 2017 to August 2021, roughly four years and five months. She carried the department through the 19-month vacancy after Hood's retirement, running 29 parks, a 357-acre park system, the 784-seat Hutchins Street Square theater, a $7.2M operating budget, 22 full-time and 200 part-time staff. She left Lodi in August 2021 to become Director of Community Services for the City of San Marino (September 2021 – December 2025), then retired.

Why the PRCS vacancy lasted 19 months

The City retained Avery Associates and ran the recruitment twice. The first attempt closed on Dec 20, 2019 at a $137,015 salary and produced no hire (2019 brochure). COVID-19 hit in March 2020 and the vacancy carried through 2020. A second attempt closed on March 26, 2021 at $151,117 — a 10% salary increase — and selected Jaromay (2021 brochure). The department was covered internally by DeGroot Johnson throughout.

11. Library Services Director

Nine occupants or interim occupants between 1997 and 2026. Since Anwan Baker's September 2018 start alone, eight distinct people (four permanent, four interim) have held the role. Dean Gualco was appointed Interim Library Services Director on January 16, 2013 (Council Report H-01) and continued as Library Services Director through late 2017. Nancy Martinez's last city-record appearances end in late 2012. The 2018 bridge from Gualco to Baker was covered by Jeff Hood, the PRCS Director serving as Interim Library Director.

Library Services Director tenure by name, 1997–2026

Source: records.lodi.gov Laserfiche, Lodi Library Board minutes, Lodi.gov staff directory. Duration in months.

A page at lodilibrary.net referring to a "Beth" as "Director of the Lodi Library from 2019 until 2024" refers to the Lodi Whittier Library in Lodi, New Jersey. It does not apply to Lodi, California (lodilibrarynj.org).

12. Finance / Internal Services / Administrative Services

Independent reporting: roughly half of Lodi's finance division departed between October 2023 and April 2026, and Baker Tilly consultants brought in to backfill accumulated more than $500,000 in billings (Lodi411, "The Leadership Gap"; Steve Mann, "Setting It Straight").

Jamie Bandy holds a BS from Humphreys University and an Executive MPA from Arizona State. She began her public-service career as a Budget Analyst at the City of Lodi, then spent 2013–2022 at the City of Elk Grove (Management Analyst → Financial Analyst II → Revenue Manager), then was Director of Finance at El Dorado Irrigation District before returning to Lodi. She is the third Elk Grove alumnus in Lodi's senior ranks alongside Andrew Keys and Kara Reddig.

The name "Dona Newman" sometimes surfaced in prior compilations refers to a Finance/HR director at the City of Lodi, Wisconsin, not Lodi, California (LinkedIn).

13. Human Resources Manager

Lodi's HR head is a Manager classification, not a Director. In April 2025 the Council declined to reclassify the HR and IT manager posts to deputy-director rank (Lodi News).

14. IT / Information Systems Manager

Carney alleged that a "city technology manager" exceeded purchasing authority in that person's final month — timing that coincides with Buecher's exit (Lodi411, "Sixteen Months").

15. Peer-city benchmark, 2015–August 2026

Primary source is the California Secretary of State's Roster of Incorporated City and Town Officials, downloaded directly for 2020, 2021, 2022, 2024, 2025 and 2026, combined with news-verified timelines. Roster snapshots understate churn (a person appointed and gone between two publication dates never appears), so counts should be read as minimums. Public Works Directors are not carried in the Roster.

City Manager occupants, Lodi vs. peer cities, 2015–2026

Source: California Secretary of State Roster of Incorporated City and Town Officials (2020, 2021, 2022, 2024, 2025, 2026), news reporting from each city.

How Lodi ranks

• City Manager churn. Lodi (7) exceeds 10 of 12 peers, is comparable to Manteca (7–8), and is bettered only by Turlock (11). Lodi is well above the size-appropriate median of 3.
• City Attorney churn. Lodi (3) is at the median. Petaluma, Davis and SLO each held a single City Attorney for the entire 2020–2026 roster window; Turlock, Manteca and Napa cycled through more.
• Police Chief churn. Lodi (4) is high, but every succession was a retirement, not a scandal, with an internal captain promoted each time. This is Lodi's most orderly pattern.
• Fire Chief churn. Lodi (4, including an interim) is comparable to peers; all three permanent chiefs left by retirement.
• Public Works Director churn. Lodi's in-window count is 3 (Sandelin → Swimley → Nathan interim), exactly at the peer median of 3 (peer mean 3.58 from 7, 5, 5, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2). Three peers churned more (Vacaville 7, Tracy 5, Petaluma 5), two peers had 4 (Manteca, Turlock), three churned less (Rocklin, Woodland, Camarillo — 2 each), and four (Merced, Davis, Napa, SLO) sit at the median of 3. Only one peer had an involuntary removal in the window: Manteca's Mark Houghton, fired November 2019. Lodi's Nathan interim (Nov 7, 2025 through the Aug 31, 2026 cutoff) is one of the longer interims among peers. Castro's Oct 5, 2026 arrival, when it takes effect, will make Lodi 4.
• Assistant/Deputy CM, City Clerk, Library Director, HR Manager, IT Manager and Finance division. These are where Lodi's numbers exceed peer-city norms. Nine library directors and interims across the 1997–2026 modern span — or eight in the eight years since Baker — is unusual by any standard. Losing an ACM, City Attorney, Community Development Director, HR Manager, IT Manager, City Clerk and half a finance division in 30 months is unusual by any standard.

What is distinctive about Lodi

1. Simultaneous breadth. In March 2026 the City had five senior positions open at once: City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Administrative Services Director and Public Works Director (Lodi411, "Leadership Vacuum"). Peer cities that lost a City Manager typically kept their other executives.
2. Scandal-driven removal followed by litigation. Lodi, Manteca, Merced and Tracy all removed a City Manager on a divided vote during the window. Lodi is the one where the ex-manager filed a whistleblower-retaliation lawsuit, which is now working through San Joaquin County Superior Court (Recordnet).
3. Statutory hour caps drove two extra interim departures. James Lindsay hit the CalPERS retired-annuitant 960-hour ceiling. Bobby Magee approached the ~1,300-hour part-time cap. In a crisis that lasts longer than a year, these caps mechanically manufacture additional turnover (CalPERS).
4. Structural response in 2026: consolidation. After declining in April 2025 to elevate the HR and IT manager posts to deputy-director rank, the City instead created a single Administrative Services Director classification over Budget, Finance, HR and IT (Lodi411 May 6 2026 agenda).
5. Pipeline patterns. Three senior appointees in the recovery phase came from Elk Grove (Keys, Bandy, Reddig). Two came from Vacaville by way of retirement (Busch as interim CM, Burrus as part-time Economic Development Manager). Reddig then hired Hanham to Community Development.

Wider comparators reported independently by Lodi411 place Lodi in company with Antioch (a 2024 Contra Costa Grand Jury found a 21%+ senior-role vacancy rate and 7 of 11 executives acting or part-time), Stockton (four CM changes 2023–2026, one interim appointment referred to the DA), and California City (six CMs in three years) — cities in acute leadership crisis (Lodi411). Lodi is not at that extreme, but it is not far from it.

16. Notable findings

1. The 30-month executive break, October 2023 to April 2026 (exactly thirty months), is the defining episode. Before it, Lodi looked like a well-run mid-sized California city with orderly retirements. During it, a voluntary CM resignation triggered an interim, a permanent hire (Carney), a public accusation of misuse of funds, a paid-leave suspension, three more interim City Managers, the termination of an Assistant City Manager, and departures across City Attorney, City Clerk, HR, IT, Community Development, Public Works and half of Finance. Turnover continued into May–August 2026 (Bandy, Reddig, Nashed exit, Jones appointment, Castro selection) but is treated in this report as part of the recovery phase, not the 30-month break itself.
2. Cost to the City exceeded $1 million in legal, consulting and interim staffing per the Lodi Chamber of Commerce estimate, including more than $500,000 in Baker Tilly billings alone (Steve Mann, "Setting It Straight").
3. Lodi ran without a dedicated Community Development Director for years. Stephen Schwabauer signed Lodi agenda reports as "Community Development Director" in April 2016 and March 2017, and the City did not formally recruit for the seat until September 2019.
4. The Library is Lodi's highest-turnover senior department. Nine leaders across the modern span, four of them interim, including a Deputy City Manager pressed into service.
5. Andrew Keys is the single most load-bearing figure of the era. He held — sometimes concurrently — Deputy City Manager, Internal Services Director, Interim Library Director, Interim City Manager, and Assistant City Manager between 2017 and 2024. He is also the one senior departure that was an outright termination by a city manager rather than a retirement or resignation.
6. Christina Jaromay carried three senior titles in five years: PRCS Director (Jun 2021–), Acting City Manager (Apr–May 2025), Interim Internal Services Director (2026). She received supplemental compensation for dual-hatting; the specific figure documented in fetched sources is a Feb 2026 addendum raising her PRCS base to $219,390 effective Jan 4, 2027 (Legistar File 26-112).
7. Police and Fire were insulated from the crisis. Both departments had orderly retirement-driven successions with internal deputy interims. Ken Johnson (Fire, May 2021–) and Christina Jaromay (PRCS, June 7, 2021–) are the two longest continuously serving Lodi department heads appointed since 2020.
8. Regional context. In late 2025 the city managers of all eight incorporated cities in San Joaquin County signed a joint letter warning of a "transit disaster" — an unprecedented joint action in which several signatories were interim or newly appointed.
9. Concurrent elected-official scandal. Councilman Shakir Khan was arrested for voter fraud and resigned in 2023; Ramon Yepez was appointed to fill the term and is Lodi's mayor as of 2026 — meaning the executive crisis unfolded against a background of political-office instability as well.
10. Recruitment was outsourced to at least five firms: William Avery & Associates, Mosaic Public Partners, Tripepi Smith Talent Solutions, CPS HR Consulting, and Baker Tilly for interim finance backfill.

17. Documented gaps

The following facts could not be confirmed from a fetched primary or news source. Cells in the tables above read "n.a." for each of these items.

Evidence quality — claim-level legend. This report combines primary city records, news reporting, and, in a small number of narrowly-scoped instances, LinkedIn profiles for career-chronology corroboration. A few date and dollar-figure claims in earlier iterations of this report did not have a fetched primary or news source supporting them and have been either removed or downgraded to "n.a." in this version, including: Berkheimer's exact effective start date, Kirkley's Jan 2019 retirement date, Buecher's Oct 2024 end date, and the Jaromay "~$100,000 salary increase" figure. Rows where LinkedIn is currently the sole source (Kirkley, Buecher) are flagged in-line as such.

Individuals — education, career, or post-Lodi role

• Ricardo Garcia — formal college education. Tokay HS is the only education cited on his LPD chief bio page or in City communications (Lodi News).
• Tod Patterson — degree and graduation year from New Mexico State University (football-scholarship attendance confirmed; degree not stated).
• Jordan Ayers — departure reason and post-Lodi role. No personnel action is indexed in Laserfiche and no matching LinkedIn profile has been located.
• Janice Magdich — employers 1997–2004, between California Bar admission (Jun 5, 1997) and joining Lodi as Deputy City Attorney (Oct 2004). Not listed on her LinkedIn, State Bar record, or any Lodi document.
• Wally Sandelin — pre-2000 employer and post-retirement activity. No pre-Lodi employer is named in any fetched source; no subsequent consultancy, board seat, or interim assignment has been reported.
• Charlie Swimley — post-retirement role. No consulting firm, board seat, interim assignment, or other city role has been reported through August 2026 (Yahoo/Lodi News).

Roles — dates and identities

• Nancy Martinez — exact Library Services Director end date. Bracketed to late 2012 (last mention Dec 19, 2012 agenda report I-01) but no retirement or resignation item is indexed.
• Dean Gualco — exact end dates for the HR Manager (last records appearance Aug 7, 2013) and Library Services Director (last principal-officer listing Dec 20, 2017) roles.
• Joanne Narloch — exact separation date. Position was eliminated in the FY 2005-06 budget; last records appearance is Feb 2, 2005.
• Interim HR Manager, Oct 2013 – Feb 2014 — name. Only the title appears in Oct 2, 2013 agenda report C-11; the individual is not indexed elsewhere.
• Melissa C. Price — exact interim Electric Utility Director start and end dates. Bracketed to ~Jan 2019 through ~Aug/Nov 2019.
• Laurie Montes — official confirmation of the Apr 9, 2025 end date. Only source located is 209 Times (single, non-official; spelled "Montez").

Data sources

• Transparent California year-by-year payroll verification. The site currently covers 2011–2023 and would not cover 2024–2026.

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 accountability 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 identified more than 90 primary and secondary sources across the City of Lodi Laserfiche records repository, Council and Library Board minutes, the California Secretary of State Roster of Incorporated City and Town Officials (2020, 2021, 2022, 2024, 2025, 2026), CalPERS employer bulletins, the State Bar of California licensee database, and news archives from the Lodi News-Sentinel, Stocktonia, Recordnet, Modesto Bee, Merced Sun-Star, Turlock Journal, Tracy Press, ABC10, and CBS Sacramento. Perplexity AI was used for initial source discovery and real-time data retrieval; Claude was used for deeper analysis of identified sources.

Credibility Validation: AI cross-referenced every start date, end date, and reason for departure across multiple independent sources, prioritizing government datasets (Roster of Incorporated City and Town Officials, Lodi.gov records, CalPERS), primary Lodi records (Council agenda reports, employment agreements, resolutions, budget documents), and news reporting. LinkedIn profiles were used only for career-chronology corroboration, never as the sole source for a role transition. Multiple AI models were used to independently verify key data points and flag inconsistencies — three cases where prior compilations were wrong (Nancy Martinez's end date, Dean Gualco's start date, and the "Dona Newman" name from Lodi, Wisconsin) were caught by cross-model verification against Laserfiche source records.

Analysis and Synthesis: Claude Opus and Sonnet assisted in pattern identification across the eleven-year window, framework development for the department-by-department turnover tables, and comparative analysis against twelve California peer cities in the 50,000–90,000 population band. The 30-month executive break framework and the peer-city ranking methodology were developed collaboratively with the editor.

Presentation: Claude assisted in drafting, structuring, and formatting the report for clarity and readability, including the department-by-department table layout, the two inline Kendo charts (Lodi CM tenure and peer-city CM occupant counts), narrative framing of the crisis window, and the documented-gaps register.

Final Review: Multiple AI models reviewed the completed draft for factual consistency, source attribution accuracy, logical coherence, and balanced presentation. 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. Multi-tool cross-checking across independent models and sources is the primary error-reduction mechanism.

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

• California Roster of Incorporated City and Town Officials, 2026 (also 2020, 2021, 2022, 2024, 2025)
• City of Lodi Laserfiche records repository
• Lodi Council minutes (Granicus)
• Lodi Library Board of Trustees minutes and staff directory
• Lodi411, "The Leadership Gap"
• Lodi411, "Sixteen Months"
• Lodi411, "Leadership Vacuum"
• Lodi411, "Who is Aaron Busch"
• Stocktonia: Carney placed on leave (Apr 14, 2025)
• Stocktonia: Council moves to remove City Manager (Oct 7, 2025)
• Stocktonia: Documents detail disputes in Lodi leadership (Jul 17, 2025)
• Stocktonia: Council set to hire Lodi's first female City Manager (May 1, 2026)
• Recordnet: Lawsuit alleges Lodi retaliated against former City Manager (Jul 2, 2026)
• Lodi News: Council declines HR/IT deputy-director reclassification (Apr 2025)
• Lodi News: Jaromay salary increase reporting
• Yahoo/Lodi News: City of Lodi parts ways with Deputy City Manager (Keys)
• Yahoo/Lodi News: Charlie Swimley retires after 24 years
• Yahoo/Lodi News: Council considers Interim City Clerk
• PublicCEO: Jamie Bandy appointment (May 2026)
• Steve Mann, About Town: "Setting It Straight"
• State Bar of California licensee record: Janice Magdich (#188278)
• CalPERS: Retired-annuitant program (960-hour cap)
• Corrections and comments: editor@lodi411.com

Turner Road Safety Report

LodiEye — August 2026

Summary

Turner Road has two separate safety stories. One is the resident-driven fight over crashes, speeding, and turning conflicts near California Street, Edgewood Drive, and Vintage Church. The other is the eastern interchange area at State Route 99 and Cherokee Lane, where the city and Caltrans already completed a major reconstruction project. The report also explains how Turner Road compares with other Lodi corridors, what fixes are on the table, and what Lodi would need to create a formal Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program.

Purpose of This Report

This report documents the current state of traffic safety concerns along Turner Road in Lodi, California, drawing on city records, news coverage, Caltrans project documentation, traffic-engineering literature, and public statements from residents and city officials. It is written as a background report for city officials, staff, residents, and readers following the issue through LodiEye.

1. Turner Road at California Street and Edgewood Drive

The most actively contested safety location on Turner Road is its intersection with California Street, directly across from Edgewood Drive and next to Vintage Church at 444 West Turner Road.

Documented citizen concerns

• Persistent speeding along Turner Road through the residential corridor.
• A repeated pattern of vehicle collisions at the Turner Road and California Street intersection.
• Vehicles leaving the roadway and striking adjacent property, including repeated crashes into the church building.
• Pedestrian safety concerns for residents crossing or walking along the corridor.
• Hazardous turning movements for drivers entering Turner Road from California Street and Edgewood Drive.

Residents pushed this issue onto the public agenda through repeated complaints, media coverage, and a district-level town hall focused on the intersection. That sets Turner Road apart from other Lodi corridors where crashes may be serious but have not produced the same sustained public organizing.

City response to date

City staff previously installed a speed-check sign and increased police patrol emphasis in the area, but residents say those steps did not solve the underlying problem. Public Works Director Charles Swimley Jr. said the city had not settled on a preferred design and would need to choose a project before returning to the council with a funding request.

2. SR 99 and Turner Road Interchange

A second safety concern exists at the eastern end of Turner Road where it meets State Route 99, North Cherokee Lane, and Pioneer Drive. Unlike the California Street hotspot, this area was addressed through an engineering and capital-project process rather than a neighborhood campaign.

Problems identified before reconstruction

• One-way traffic circulation on Cherokee Lane that did not match driver expectations.
• Indirect and confusing routing for vehicles accessing SR 99 from Turner Road.
• Missing bicycle and pedestrian facilities through the interchange area.
• Cut-through traffic near Lawrence Elementary School.

Completed improvements

An $11.2 million reconstruction project completed in December 2023 rebuilt the southbound on- and off-ramps, added a roundabout at South Cherokee Lane, installed a new traffic signal at the Pioneer Drive and Cherokee Lane on-ramp, restored two-way traffic on Cherokee Lane between Pioneer Drive and East Turner Road, and added sidewalks and bicycle lanes.

Map of Identified Locations

Every marker and polygon on the map below is resolved live, in the reader's browser, by Google's own Places and Geocoding services — using Lodi411's API key — from a name or address string, never from a hand-typed coordinate. The named venue (Vintage Church) is resolved with the Places API; street intersections are resolved with the Geocoding API, which handles cross-street queries more reliably than Places does. Click any marker or shaded area for details on this page.

Some locations could not be resolved. Check the browser console for details, and confirm the Places API and Geocoding API are both enabled for this Google Cloud project and key.

Markers: red = citizen-driven safety hotspot, orange = interchange/capital project area, green = comparison corridor. Shaded zones are illustrative boxes drawn around the resolved center point of each area, sized to approximate scale, and are not surveyed parcel boundaries.

3. Affected Segments and Intersections

4. Turner Road Compared With Other Lodi Corridors

Turner Road is not the only Lodi corridor with a crash history. What makes it different is the combination of repeated resident complaints, visible property damage, and direct city council attention.

5. Potential Solutions

California Street and Edgewood Drive approaches

The main fix discussed publicly is a set of channelizing islands, often called pork-chop islands, that would restrict vehicles entering Turner Road from California Street and Edgewood Drive to right turns only. That would cut down the number of conflict points at the side streets, but the design would matter. A poorly designed slip lane can increase turning speed and create awkward pedestrian crossings, while a tighter design with better crossing treatment can reduce conflict.

Other common traffic-calming tools include speed humps, speed tables, lane narrowing, median refuge islands, raised crosswalks, chicanes, and neighborhood traffic circles. Those tools work best on local and collector streets. They are less suited to an arterial such as Turner Road itself, which may require corridor-level design changes instead.

Here is the key distinction for Lodi: the neighborhood side streets and the arterial do not always need the same fix. California Street and Edgewood Drive could be treated through a local traffic-calming framework, while Turner Road itself may require a separate intersection-safety project with engineering review, capital funding, and possibly outside agency coordination.

Interchange corridor

The interchange area has already received the largest fix it was likely to get in the near term. The next step there is monitoring: roundabout performance, signal operations, signage, striping, and whether the restored two-way Cherokee Lane pattern reduces confusion over time.

6. Precedents

Lodi's own precedent

The strongest local precedent is the SR 99 and Turner Road interchange project itself. Lodi and Caltrans spent years planning, funding, and building a full reconstruction after identifying circulation and multimodal safety problems that smaller fixes would not solve.

Caltrans precedent on Kettleman Lane

A lower-cost precedent comes from Kettleman Lane, where Caltrans completed a 2024 safety improvement project based on striping, lane delineation, turn arrows, bike lanes, and pedestrian crossings. That type of project is much cheaper than full reconstruction and can work when the problem is driver confusion more than street geometry.

Other cities' traffic calming programs

Many cities do not treat speeding complaints as one-off problems. They use a standing Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program with written rules, data thresholds, petition requirements, funding rules, and a standard menu of treatments.

7. Active Plans and Policy Context

As of the most recent local coverage, the California Street and Edgewood area does not yet have a final design or a committed funding source. The city still needs to pick a preferred project and bring that project back for a funding decision.

Lodi's broader planning context also matters. The city's General Plan update includes work on transportation policy and Vehicle Miles Traveled methodology, which could shape how future roadway projects are evaluated even though that process will not, by itself, solve the present Turner Road safety issue.

8. Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program

Lodi does not appear to have a codified, criteria-based Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. The Turner Road issue is being handled as a case-specific engineering problem. If Lodi wanted a formal program, it would need written rules rather than ad hoc responses.

What these programs usually include

• A resident request or petition to start the process.
• An eligibility screen that usually limits the program to local and collector streets rather than arterials.
• Traffic counts and speed studies, often using an 85th-percentile speed test.
• Crash-history and pedestrian-risk review.
• A public process for selecting a treatment.
• Construction approval thresholds based on neighborhood support.
• Post-installation evaluation.

What Lodi would need

• A written policy defining eligible street types, speed thresholds, and traffic-volume ranges.
• Engineering warrants, including speed and crash criteria.
• A petition system with clear signature thresholds.
• A dedicated annual budget or waiting-list system for unfunded requests.
• A clear menu of approved devices for different street types.

Turner Road complicates this model because it sits at the boundary between neighborhood side streets and an arterial corridor. A formal traffic-calming program could help with California Street and Edgewood Drive, but the Turner Road arterial segment would still need a separate corridor or intersection study.

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 background 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 identified local news coverage, city material, Caltrans project records, and traffic-calming guidance from federal and municipal sources. Perplexity AI was used for initial source discovery and real-time retrieval; Claude was used to compare and sort the resulting material.

Credibility Validation: AI cross-referenced claims across local reporting, agency project pages, and planning material. For the location map specifically, AI models do not have the ability to independently generate or verify coordinate data; the map was redesigned so that all marker and polygon positions are resolved at runtime by Google's Places and Geocoding APIs using Lodi411's own key, rather than any hand-entered coordinate.

Analysis and Synthesis: Claude Opus and Sonnet assisted in organizing the Turner Road issue into distinct problem areas, separating neighborhood concerns from interchange conditions, and framing what a formal traffic-calming program would require in Lodi.

Presentation: Claude assisted in drafting, structuring, and formatting the report for clarity and readability, including tables, section order, HTML layout, reader-facing explanatory language, and the interactive Google Maps location display with Places- and Geocoding-resolved markers and polygons.

Final Review: Multiple AI models reviewed the completed draft for factual consistency, source attribution accuracy, logical coherence, and balanced presentation. 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. Multi-tool cross-checking across independent models and sources is the primary error-reduction mechanism.

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

• FHWA Traffic Calming ePrimer, Module 7: Traffic Calming Programs and Planning Processes
• City of Woodland Traffic Calming Overview
• City of Millcreek Traffic Calming Program
• City of New Braunfels Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy
• Rancho Palos Verdes Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program Guidelines
• Gainesville Traffic Calming Device and Speed Hump Program
• Lodi411 Editorial Standards and News-Media Status
• editor@lodi411.com

Lodi City Council Agenda — September 2, 2026

Wednesday, September 2, 2026 — Closed Session 6:00 p.m., Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m.

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

Zoom Meeting ID 821 7418 0304 · Passcode 123456

A plain-language overview and item-by-item summary of the City's 253-page agenda packet, including every attachment, the 69 scanned pages, and background research.

Summary

This is a housekeeping meeting rather than a policy meeting, and almost all of it is about who gets to decide things at City Hall. Of the ten action items, six either hand new decision-making power to the City Manager or sign off on decisions the City Manager has already made.

Three things make the meeting notable. First, a record minutes backlog: Consent item C.1 asks Council to approve 26 sets of minutes at once, reaching back to March 6, 2024 — and it is the second such batch in seven weeks, following another 26-set catch-up approved July 15, 2026 that reached back to November 2023. The staff report offers no explanation for the delay.

Second, the City Manager's authority continues to expand. Item C.4 would delegate to the City Manager all personnel and administrative matters for the Interim City Clerk — including appointment and termination — two weeks before the ordinance transferring City Clerk appointment authority from Council to the City Manager takes effect on September 18, 2026. Item G.1 asks Council merely to ratify a Public Works Director the City Manager already selected. Item G.2 would let the City Manager award a contract up to $360,000 without returning to Council.

Third, a federal grant report with weak delivery numbers. The public hearing (F.1) is Lodi's yearly report card to the federal government on how it spent its Community Development Block Grant money — the annual federal grant the City uses for neighborhood improvements, housing, and social services. Lodi was guaranteed $655,037 for the year and spent $282,568.19 of it, and it built none of the 54 affordable-housing units it had set as its annual goal.

Council will also meet privately beforehand on five matters, four of them lawsuits — including two separate 2026 suits by former City Manager Scott Carney and one by Christopher Bennitt.

Who is on the Council

Mayor Ramon Yepez; Mayor Pro Tempore Mikey Hothi; Council Members Cameron Bregman, Lisa Craig-Hensley, and Alan Nakanishi. Agenda posted by Walfred Solorzano, Interim City Clerk. The packet was printed on August 27, 2026 from Legistar, the City's online agenda system.

How this summary was prepared

Every one of the 253 pages was read. Sixty-nine pages are scanned images rather than typed text — the annexation map, the transit funding claim forms, the earlier contract amendments, and the pension exhibit — so those were converted to readable text by software. Every attachment listed on the City's online agenda is included inside this same packet, so nothing linked from the City's site was left out. Where the packet contradicts itself, that is pointed out. Page numbers refer to the stamped page numbers on the packet PDF.

A Short Guide to the Terms in This Agenda

Consent Calendar

A group of routine items approved together in a single vote, with no discussion, unless a Council Member or a resident asks to pull one out and talk about it.

Regular Calendar

Items that get their own presentation, discussion, and vote.

Closed session

The part of the meeting held in private, allowed by state law only for a short list of subjects such as lawsuits, real estate negotiations, and personnel matters.

Resolution and ordinance

A resolution is a Council decision on a specific action. An ordinance is a change to Lodi's permanent city law and normally needs two votes at two different meetings before it takes effect.

Delegate and ratify

To delegate is to hand a decision to a staff member, usually the City Manager, so it does not come back to Council. To ratify is to vote after the fact on something already done.

Minutes

The official written record of what a Council meeting decided. Minutes are not official until Council votes to approve them.

Lodi Municipal Code

Lodi's permanent city law, shortened to LMC in the agenda and in the tables below.

Annexation and prezoning

Annexation brings land outside the city limits into the city. Prezoning decides in advance what may be built there once it is inside.

LAFCO

The San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission, the county-level board that must approve any change to a city's boundary.

Williamson Act

A state program that lowers property taxes on land the owner agrees to keep in farming.

CEQA

The California Environmental Quality Act, the state law requiring governments to study a project's environmental effects before approving it.

Community Development Block Grant

An annual federal grant, abbreviated CDBG, that cities spend on neighborhood improvements, affordable housing, and services for lower-income residents.

CalPERS

The California Public Employees' Retirement System, the state pension plan that covers Lodi's employees.

Fiscal year

The City's budget year, running July 1 through June 30. “FY 2025/26” means July 2025 through June 2026.

Items at a Glance

Closed Session (C-2)

Carney was Lodi's eighth city manager, serving from June 3, 2024 until his termination in October 2025. His counsel filed a whistleblower-retaliation complaint on June 4, 2026 in San Joaquin County Superior Court, alleging he was retaliated against after reporting financial irregularities and misuse of public funds (Stocktonia; The Record). The City's own investigations found control weaknesses but no intentional fraud (LodiEye, "Sixteen Months").

Christopher "Kit" Bennitt is a commercial property developer — principal owner of Stockton-based Empire Real Estate — who also holds property in downtown Lodi. Two Lodi connections appear in public records. He was the applicant on a Lodi use-permit request for a beer and wine license for the Boxcar food court at 216 North Church Street, heard by the Planning Commission on May 27, 2020 (File 2019-023 U; City of Lodi hearing notice). And San Joaquin County listed a Lodi parcel in his name at 214 South Sacramento Street in its March 2026 tax-default auction, with a $64,500 minimum bid; the county's own results sheet marks it redeemed February 5, 2026, roughly five weeks before the sale (San Joaquin County Treasurer-Tax Collector).

Correction and clarification. An earlier version of this summary said Lodi paid Bennitt $1.6 million in April 2023. That was wrong. The payment came from the City of Stockton, not Lodi, and it settled a separate fight over Stockton's Empire Theatre complex on Pacific Avenue, which Stockton shut down in 2017 after evicting nine businesses. A Stocktonia opinion column by Michael Fitzgerald reports Stockton paid him $1.6 million in April 2023 to drop his cross-complaint after six years of litigation — though the same column later gives the figure as $1.2 million, a discrepancy the column does not resolve. That is an opinion column rather than a news report, and the Stockton matter has no established connection to this Lodi case. Nothing in the Lodi packet discloses what this 2025 suit is about.

The Leatham matter is a 2024 personal-injury case; the packet gives no further detail.

Note that item e) is a recruitment closed session for the Interim City Clerk — an appointment that, if C.4 passes, becomes the City Manager's decision rather than Council's.

Consent Calendar

C.1 — Approve 26 Sets of Minutes (packet pp. 8–123)

Prepared by Pamela M. Farris, Assistant City Clerk (part time). The staff report to Council — the City calls these Council Communications — gives this as its entire background: "Attached is a copy of the subject minutes marked Attachment 1 through Attachment 26, respectively" (packet p. 9). The City lists no cost.

Four of the 26 are canceled-meeting notices, one is a State of the City with no formal roll call, and 17 are Special Meetings — which do not carry a Consent Calendar minutes item, part of why the backlog accumulated.

Composition of the 26-set batch. Only six of the 26 are functioning Regular Meetings with business conducted; 17 are Special Meetings, four are cancellation notices, and one is a State of the City address. Source: packet pp. 10–123.

Major Decisions in the Batch: Fiscal and Audit

• June 5, 2024 — Council refused to adopt the FY 2024/25 budget as presented, moving it to June 20, 5–0, while adopting Res. 2024-112 (which carried unspent money forward into the new year, including $100,000 for the Economic Development Strategic Plan, $750,000 for the Downtown Specific Plan, and a $2,884,720 transfer between City funds to cover services in a Community Facilities District, a special assessment area where property owners pay extra for services in their own neighborhood) (pp. 26–27).
• February 11, 2025 — A Finance Division observations report identified Priority One problems: inaccurate CalPERS reporting, payroll reconciliation errors, procurement-card issues, and accounting disclosures to auditors. Council ratified a $55,000 change order the City Manager had already executed with Baker Tilly and added $150,000, total not to exceed $308,900 — 4–1, Yepez dissenting (pp. 41–43).
• February 26, 2025 — Baker Tilly's long-range forecast (Bob Leland) laid out an ongoing gap between what the City takes in and what it spends, and three ways to raise money: bring back the business license tax, raise the hotel tax, or add a local sales tax. A quarter-cent sales tax, the forecast said, would raise as much as the hotel tax and the business license tax combined. Residents spoke at length about the cost of running the Access Center (roughly $2.4 million a year, according to one speaker) and about the City's backup power plant (pp. 44–46).
• July 16, 2025 — The City's audited annual financial report for July 2023 through June 2024 was received and filed with the auditors reporting material weaknesses, the most serious category of accounting control problem, with direction for an accounting review of the utility deposit account, procurement cards, CalPERS reporting, and Amazon business account usage (p. 82). The findings of outside accountant Kevin Harper — no evidence of fraud, but weak controls over City purchasing cards and many questionable transactions — were announced after Council came out of its private session (p. 72).
• August 6, 2025 — A $500,000 Waste Management administrative fee plus a $1.1 million surplus ($1.6 million total) was partly allocated: $200,000 for a pavement condition assessment, $60,000 for alley cleaning, $10,000 for a Hale Park sign, and $10,000 for Maple Street Square landscaping, with the remainder deferred (p. 91). DKG Consultants was hired at not more than $67,500 to address internal-control findings (p. 92).
• July 1, 2026 — Council wrote off $3,007,846.11 in unpaid utility bills dating from 2020 through March 2026, and $313,976.48 in other unpaid bills from 2019 through March 2026 — meaning the City stopped carrying them on the books as collectible (p. 105).

Major Decisions in the Batch: Library

The January 28, 2025 Baker Tilly Library Assessment presented three options — remain independent, merge with Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services, or join the San Joaquin County Library System — and expressly addressed "clarification of the role of City Manager vs. role of the Library Board of Trustees." Lodi was confirmed as the county's only independent library. More than a dozen speakers, including four Library Board Trustees and the Library Foundation's President and Secretary, opposed joining the County system; all four speaking Council Members agreed. Yepez noted a citywide election would be required and would be expensive. Hothi noted late fees had been abolished two years earlier, requiring new funding sources. Craig-Hensley described Council's role as limited to budgeting money and appointing Trustees, and proposed a two-by-two committee with the Board, Foundation, and Friends, which Mayor Bregman supported. Nakanishi asked the City Manager for library funding figures two years before and two years after Measure L. No action was taken (pp. 34–37).

The April 2025 City Manager Crisis

On April 1, 2025, City Manager Carney began reading a prepared statement alleging redaction of staff reports "by the City Attorney and City Clerk contrary to his direction"; Mayor Bregman instructed him to stop, on the ground that the statement had strayed from the subject listed on the agenda — state open-meeting law limits discussion to noticed items (p. 47). A public speaker objected that staff was "not allowed to finish the presentation of information" (p. 49).

On April 9, 2025, outside counsel Adam Lindgren of Meyers-Nave disclosed that Council had considered neither evaluation nor dismissal, had retained counsel to investigate the statements, and had directed that Carney be placed on temporary paid leave, 3–2, with Craig-Hensley and Nakanishi voting no (p. 52). Council further directed that it would meet the following Friday morning to consider who would serve as Acting City Manager.

The City Treasurer Fight — the Most Contested Authority Question in the Batch

Lindsay himself told Council that "the appointment of an Interim City Manager as City Treasurer is not currently permitted within the LMC." City Attorney Lucchesi advised that the code treats the two as separate positions and that an ordinance amendment was needed. Budget Manager Jennelle Baker disclosed that Lindsay and Baker were the only two signers on the City's bank accounts. Accounting Manager Chia Lor told Council she "was a little nervous to step into the position, given the high-profile nature of the position at this time."

After Ordinance 2033 failed, Lindsay maintained that Res. 2025-131 remained valid and that the ordinance was "a code cleanup" — so the City operated with the Interim City Manager also serving as Interim City Treasurer under a resolution whose enabling code amendment had failed (pp. 83–84, 93–94). The office moved out of the City Manager's suite on July 1, 2026, when Jamie Bandy was introduced as Administrative Services Director, Treasurer, and Purchasing Officer (p. 110).

Why the Backlog Exists

The staff report gives no reason. What the record supports:

1. This is one of at least two large catch-up batches. At the July 15, 2026 meeting Council approved a separate set of 26 sets of minutes reaching back to November 1, 2023 (pp. 118–120).
2. Regular Meetings — the vehicle for approving minutes — were repeatedly canceled: April 17, September 17 (too few Council Members present to legally meet), September 24, and October 16, 2024 (pp. 15, 30–32).
3. Special Meetings substituted heavily. Craig-Hensley observed that "Special Meetings are being used as a replacement for Shirtsleeve Sessions as informational meetings" — Shirtsleeve Sessions being the City's informal morning study sessions — and Hothi reported public criticism "regarding the excessive use of Special Meetings" (p. 40).
4. Only three minutes-approval items appear anywhere in the 26 sets before the July 2026 bulk item, each covering a single meeting (pp. 65, 87, 118–120).
5. Severe churn in the offices that produce minutes. Six City Manager configurations, a City Clerk departure requiring a paid interim, a terminated Assistant City Manager, a departing Acting Finance Director, and an interim City Attorney. This batch was prepared by a part-time Assistant City Clerk.
6. The City Clerk's office was itself entangled in the 2025 dispute, and the ensuing investigation, litigation hold, and two lawsuits consumed the same legal and administrative capacity (pp. 52, 60, 117).
7. Craig-Hensley's July 15, 2026 note that "City Manager Reddig will be compiling a list of action items from the minutes to track Council requests through completion" (p. 119) suggests the cleanup is deliberate and under new management.

C.2 — Set October 7 Hearing: Phase 4 Development Code Amendments (pp. 124–125)

Presented by Cynthia Marsh, Interim Community Development Director. Council is asked only to set the hearing.

The package would:

• Add LMC Chapter 15.69, an Agricultural Mitigation Fee — a charge on development that converts farmland, meant to offset the loss
• Add LMC Chapter 15.70, Parkland Dedication and In-Lieu Fees — requiring developers to set aside land for parks, or pay a fee instead
• Amend §17.28.040, the Planned Development Overlay — the zoning tool that lets a large project set its own custom rules
• Add Chapter 17.77, Boundary Changes — the rules for bringing new land into the city
• Add Chapter 17.78, Williamson Act Regulations — rules for land under farmland tax contracts

Environmental review: staff say the changes are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under §15061(b)(3) and §15378. No cost to the City is stated.

Background

Lodi has been rewriting its Development Code in sequential phases, each adopted as a separate ordinance (Plan Lodi). Phase 4 is the annexation and growth-management phase, implementing direction from Council's June 9, 2026 Annexation and Growth Management Workshop (packet p. 101; LodiEye, Planning Commission August 12, 2026).

The new Chapter 17.77 would write a step-by-step annexation process into city law: a public Merit Hearing before the City will even accept an application, a requirement that the proposal match the General Plan and the Growth Management Ordinance (Ch. 15.34), a requirement that the land touch the existing city limits and be prezoned first, environmental, infrastructure, and cost studies, a Council vote before anything goes to the county boundary commission, and master planning meant to stop the city from expanding in disconnected pieces. Chapter 17.78 covers land under farmland tax contracts, which matters directly to item C.3.

The sequencing is worth watching: the Dobbins annexation (C.3) is being set for the same October 7 hearing date as the framework that would govern annexations.

C.3 — Set October 7 Hearing: Dobbins Properties / Westside Annexation, 95.3 Acres (pp. 126–128)

Presented by Cynthia Marsh. Applicant: Dobbins Properties, Inc. File PL2024-023A.

Location: south of West Vine Street, north of West Kettleman Lane, west of South Lower Sacramento Road. Twenty-one assessor parcel numbers (027-050-01 through 027-060-46) plus the Taylor Road right-of-way west of West Drive. The scanned exhibit at page 128 is titled "WESTSIDE ANNEXATION EXHIBIT," City of Lodi Community Development Department.

Proposed prezoning of the 95.3-acre Westside annexation area. Residential districts account for 57.0 acres, or roughly 60 percent of the total. Source: packet pp. 126–128.

The action would also remove the land from the Woodbridge Fire Protection District, shifting fire coverage — and the property-tax money that pays for it — to the City, and direct staff to send the application to the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission, the county board that must approve city boundary changes. Environmental review relies on §15183 of state law, which applies where a project matches an existing plan or zoning already covered by an approved environmental study.

Background and open questions

The Planning Commission took this up August 12, 2026 (LodiEye). Questions still unresolved, based on earlier coverage: the property-tax sharing agreement between the City and the County required by state law (Revenue and Taxation Code §99), the disputed share of fire-district tax revenue with Woodbridge, the Williamson Act parcels that Chapter 17.78 in C.2 would newly regulate, and the absence of any fiscal or revenue analysis in the packet. A file-number inconsistency has also been noted — the packet uses PL2024-023 A while a City tracker has displayed 2024-09 A — and should be confirmed directly with Community Development before publication.

C.4 — Delegate Interim City Clerk Personnel Authority to the City Manager (pp. 129–131)

Presented by James Peavey, Human Resources Manager. This is the most consequential consent item.

The resolution would delegate to the City Manager authority over all personnel and administrative matters for the Interim City Clerk position, expressly including appointment, termination, work assignments, and work priorities. It takes effect on adoption and remains in force until modified or rescinded by Council. Fiscal impact: none.

The gap is the point: the ordinance does not take effect until September 18, one day after the current Interim City Clerk's expected last day. C.4 fills that window by resolution, so the City Manager — not Council — controls the interim appointment continuously. Closed session item e) at this same meeting is the Interim City Clerk recruitment.

Wider context

Under the Lodi Municipal Code the City Manager may appoint and remove department heads except the City Attorney and City Clerk, who were appointed by and served at the pleasure of Council. The August 19 ordinance changed that: the Clerk is appointed by, reports to, and may be removed, promoted, or demoted by the City Manager, with qualifications, duties, and compensation prescribed by the City Manager, while retaining the ability to bring advice and recommendations directly to Council and retaining statutory duties under Government Code §40801 et seq. (LodiEye, August 19, 2026 agenda). Staff justified it as operational efficiency and consistency. The practical result: the City Attorney becomes the only remaining Council-appointed officer.

Personnel chronology behind the item: City Clerk Olivia Nashed, appointed April 2022 (City of Lodi), announced her resignation in late June 2026 with a last day of July 31 (Steve Mann, "Spinning Door"). Council appointed Walfred Solorzano Interim City Clerk by Res. 2026-160 on July 15 at $70.41 per hour, effective July 28 (packet p. 122; Lodi News-Sentinel via Yahoo).

C.5 — Authorize the City Manager to File the FY 2025/26 TDA Claim (pp. 132–166)

Presented by Sean Nathan, Interim Public Works Director. A resolution authorizing the City Manager to file Lodi's annual claim under the state Transportation Development Act — the state law that returns a share of sales-tax money to local agencies for buses, roads, and bike and pedestrian projects — with the San Joaquin Council of Governments, the regional agency that distributes it, and to make minor adjustments before filing.

Allocation of the $2,133,190 FY 2025/26 Transportation Development Act claim. Transit operations and capital together account for 63 percent. Source: packet pp. 132–166.

From the scanned claim forms (pp. 134–165): Lodi has $12,461,079 available in the Local Transportation Fund, of which $10,389,876 has not yet been claimed, and $578,288 is money set aside for streets and roads in earlier years and still unspent. The streets and roads project listed is Pavement Maintenance at $300,000. Contact: Julia Tyack, 209-269-4960, jtyack@lodi.gov. Submitted by Kara Reddig, City Manager; San Joaquin Council of Governments Executive Director Diane Nguyen.

The City reported that it did not meet two of the three performance targets the state sets for transit systems. A state law, Assembly Bill 125, excuses Lodi from those targets through the July 2025 – June 2026 reporting year, so no financial penalty applies. Base fares are $1.25 and $7.00, senior fares $0.60 and $2.00, and monthly passes $44.00 and $22.00. The fleet includes 2018 and 2023 compressed natural gas buses, 2018 compressed natural gas trolleys, and 2024 Ford ARBOC gasoline vehicles. Lodi's transit services — GrapeLine, Dial-A-Ride, and VineLine — are paid for from these dedicated transportation funds, not from the City's general tax revenue.

C.6 — Accept Mold Abatement Improvements, 2 N. Sacramento Street (pp. 167–168)

Presented by Sean Nathan. Formal acceptance of finished work at the City parking garage building, leased since 2006 to the World of Wonder Science Museum. The mold came from failed and aging weatherproofing. Accepting the work starts the clock on the contractor's warranty and final payment.

The work was advertised in January 2026 using the state's simplified bidding process for smaller public projects, set out in the California Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act and available for projects under $220,000. Three bids were opened January 28, 2026; one did not meet the bid requirements and was set aside.

The contract was signed April 20, 2026 with no change orders — no mid-project additions to the price. The City Engineer is directed to file the Notice of Completion, the public record that closes out the job. Funded through Transit Operations.

C.7 — Amendment No. 3, Animal Shelter Construction Management (pp. 169–204)

Presented by Sean Nathan. A resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 3 to the services contract with Bickford Ventures Inc., doing business as Division 1 Construction Management Services of Lodi, for construction management on the Animal Services Facility.

The term has already lapsed; the extension covers project closeout and facility opening. The resolution relies on Council Protocol Manual §6.3q (Res. 2019-223), a standing rule that lets the City Attorney make small wording changes without coming back to Council.

Background

The roughly 12,000-square-foot, $13 million shelter on Auto Center Drive was originally targeted to open in March 2026, then tentatively slated for July 2026 with furniture installation underway. Planned capacity is 37 dog kennels and 30 cat spaces. Extending construction management through October 31, 2026 is the clearest signal in this packet that the opening slipped again.

The signature lines on the earlier amendments (scanned, pp. 170–172) are themselves a compact record of how often Lodi's top officials have changed.

Public Hearing

F.1 — 2025-26 CDBG Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (pp. 205–230)

Presented by Kari Chadwick, Community Development Department Program Specialist. A resolution approving the report and authorizing submission to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Program year: July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026. Lodi's guaranteed federal allocation was $655,037, and the City spent $282,568.19 of it during the year. This is the second year of the City's 2024–2028 Consolidated Plan, the five-year spending blueprint the federal government requires; the one-year plan under it was adopted in June 2025, and the resolution gives the date as June 18, 2025.

The Consolidated Plan's six goals are to improve public and community facilities; preserve and increase affordable housing; support critical public services; encourage fair housing; reduce homelessness; and fund planning and administration.

CDBG activity delivery against goal, 2025-26 program year. Three activities delivered nothing at all, and the affordable-housing goal of 54 units produced zero completions. Source: packet pp. 207–229.

Total persons assisted: 3,437, of whom 1,586 were Hispanic. Affordable housing: goal 54 units, actual 0. Hiring under the federal Section 3 program, which requires grant-funded projects to try to hire lower-income local residents: none reported.

Where the grant money was planned to go, against where it actually went. The City planned to spend 51 percent of it inside the designated target neighborhoods, and spent 20.8 percent there — a 30-point shortfall. Source: packet pp. 207–229.

Housing and Homelessness Context in the Report

The Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin was rated a "Standard Performer" by the federal government and was given a vacant City-owned parcel for Salas Park Apartments — affordable senior housing that gives preference to veterans, on roughly three acres north of Salas Park. The document states 108 units in one place and 110 units in two phases in another.

The Access Center is described as planned to open December 2026 with 100 beds, or 200 in emergency conditions. The existing temporary shelter, opened July 22, 2022 and operated by Outreach Ministries International, serves 49 people overnight and roughly 80 daily. A former hotel was converted into more than 40 housing units in summer 2026 using two state homelessness grant programs, and four units of permanent supportive housing — housing that comes with on-site services — were finished with two more. The countywide street count of people experiencing homelessness, done each January, was carried out in January 2026; the 2022 count was 208. The state's housing target for Lodi, cited in the City's Housing Element, is 1,520 units for low- and moderate-income households.

Two documentation problems worth flagging before publication

1. Comment-period dates conflict. The staff report and resolution state the public review period ran August 17 through September 2, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. A later section of the same report says the notice ran in the Lodi News-Sentinel in English and Spanish, with comments accepted August 15 through September 1, 2026.
2. Unfinished template text. One section of the report still contains blank placeholders reading "[x] comments," and describes Council approval in the past tense even though that vote has not happened yet.

Separately, earlier housing coverage has flagged a disagreement in Lodi's 2025 building-permit counts — a City summary showing 66 against state Department of Housing and Community Development records showing 178 — which matters here because the federal government uses housing-growth figures when it calculates how much block grant money Lodi receives. That gap needs to be sorted out directly with the Community Development Department. It is not a finding that any money was lost.

Regular Calendar

G.1 — Ratify the City Manager's Employment Agreement with Christina Castro as Public Works Director (pp. 231–237)

Presented by James Peavey, Human Resources Manager. Note the framing precisely: Council is asked to ratify an agreement the City Manager entered into. The staff report states that the City Manager selected Castro following an executive recruitment.

Funded from the existing Public Works personnel budget. The signature page at packet page 236 shows Kara Reddig, City Manager; attested by Walfred Solorzano, Interim City Clerk; approved as to form by John M. Luebberke, Interim City Attorney, signed August 27, 2026.

Background

The Public Works Director position has been vacant since November 3, 2025. Charles "Charlie" Swimley, Jr. retired after more than 20 years with the City and nine as director, and was recognized by Council on October 15, 2025 (Legistar File 25-436; Lodi News-Sentinel via Yahoo). City Engineer Sean Nathan — a Lodi native who began as an engineering intern from 2000 to 2002 — was appointed Interim Public Works Director the first week of November 2025 (City of Lodi newsletter, November 7, 2025). Applications for the permanent role closed January 8, 2026, and the position was still counted among five senior vacancies as of March 2026, alongside City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, and Administrative Services Director (LodiEye, "Lodi's Leadership Vacuum"). Nathan is the presenter on four items at this same meeting, indicating he remains interim through September.

Verification note

Christina Castro's identity and background could not be independently corroborated. No City of Lodi announcement, news report, or prior record confirming her selection was located. A LinkedIn profile for a "Christina Castro — Capital Program Division Manager" in Carmichael, California exists but cannot be confirmed as the same person. Treat the biography as unverified until the City publishes an announcement.

Structurally, G.1 follows the model used on August 5, 2026 for David Hanham, Community Development Director (item G.4), whose agreement likewise placed evaluation, discipline, termination, outside-employment approval, and amendment authority with the City Manager and left Council only ratification (LodiEye, August 5, 2026 agenda).

G.2 — Reject All Bids and Re-Advertise: 2026-2029 Citywide Fire Alarm Monitoring (pp. 238–241)

Presented by Sean Nathan. Four actions in one resolution: reject all bids, approve specifications, authorize re-advertisement, and authorize the City Manager to award the contract to the lowest responsive bidder, not to exceed $360,000.

Fire alarm monitoring: the City engineer's estimate, the state ceiling on simplified bidding, the single bid received, the revised estimate, and the spending authority now requested for the City Manager. Source: packet pp. 238–241.

The practical effect: a contract that came in at more than double the engineer's estimate would be awarded administratively, at a ceiling 134 percent above the original estimate, without returning to Council.

Ordinances

H.1 — Adopt Ordinance No. 2049, CalPERS Contract Amendment (pp. 242–253)

Presented by Walfred Solorzano, Interim City Clerk. Waive the second reading and adopt.

No additional appropriations are required. According to the July 1, 2026 minutes, the pension change takes effect October 2, 2026, with the first smaller deduction in the pay period beginning October 12, 2026 rather than July 6, 2026 as first expected. Employees will be paid back for the larger amounts withheld in the meantime (packet pp. 111–114).

Note that "Council Appointees" — the group that includes the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk — receives the same reduction to zero.

Changes to City Manager Roles and Responsibilities: 2026 in Review

The Succession That Created the Vacuum

Reddig, previously Deputy City Manager of Elk Grove, was announced April 29, 2026 as Lodi's first female City Manager (City of Lodi) and appointed at the May 6, 2026 meeting with an effective time of 7:30 a.m. on June 22, 2026 (LodiEye, May 6, 2026 agenda; Citizen Portal). Her salary is $10,000 above Carney's June 2024 contract. Her arrival coincided with Jamie Bandy as Director of Administrative Services at $315,000 including benefits, effective May 12, and as City Treasurer.

Caution on the minutes record

None of the 26 sets in C.1 contains an appointing resolution, employment agreement, or salary for Swimley, Lindsay, Busch, or Reddig. Those actions all fall in gaps — including a seven-and-a-half-month hole between the August 6, 2025 and March 27, 2026 minutes. The minutes are also internally inconsistent about "Interim" versus "Acting" City Manager during Lindsay's tenure, using both titles within the same documents, and they give no first name for Busch.

Structural Changes to the Office in 2026

The Department-Head Model, 2026

Two director agreements in 2026 follow an identical template in which Council's role is ratification and the substantive employment levers sit with the City Manager.

• August 5, 2026, G.4 — David Hanham, Community Development Director. Evaluation at least annually by the City Manager, discipline and termination by the City Manager, any outside job requiring the City Manager's written approval in advance, changes to the contract only in writing between the employee and the City Manager, and a joint public statement if the employment ends. A start-date discrepancy was noted between the staff report, which said September 7, and the agreement, which said September 8, 2026 (LodiEye, August 5, 2026 agenda).
• September 2, 2026, G.1 — Christina Castro, Public Works Director. The same structure, plus six months' severance and City Manager selection of the candidate.

Contract and Signature Delegations, 2026

Administrative award and change-order ceilings delegated to the City Manager across 2026 Council actions. The fire alarm authority sought on September 2 is the largest single administrative award ceiling in the year. Source: 2026 Council agendas and this packet.

What the Pattern Adds Up To

Read across 2026, four distinct movements compound.

1. The City Manager became harder for Council to remove quickly in one respect and easier in another. Ordinance 2045 cut the ordinary removal process to 10 days but imposed a four-fifths supermajority for the 90 days after an election.
2. Appointment power consolidated. Council-appointed officers went from three — City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk — to two, and if C.4 passes the City Manager controls even the interim Clerk appointment before the enabling ordinance is effective.
3. Spending discretion rose. The July purchasing policy set an $80,000 limit the City Manager can spend without Council, rising automatically with inflation and never allowed to drop; item G.2 in this packet would set a single award authority at $360,000.
4. Council's role on department heads shifted from selection to ratification, under agreements in which the City Manager alone evaluates, disciplines, terminates, and amends.

Facts pointing the other way belong in the record too. Treasurer and purchasing duties moved out of the City Manager's office in July 2026 to Bandy as Administrative Services Director, Treasurer, and Purchasing Officer, reversing the contested 2025 arrangement in which the Interim City Manager also held the Treasurer role under a resolution whose enabling urgency ordinance had failed. And the 2025 spending restrictions — the travel policy in Res. 2025-133 and the removal of City purchasing cards — were Council narrowing staff discretion, before Res. 2026-143 partly reversed the card removal.

Open Questions and Verification Flags

1. Christina Castro is unverified. No City announcement, news report, or prior record confirming her selection as Public Works Director was located outside this packet.
2. The public comment period for the grant report is given two different ways — the staff report and resolution say August 17 through September 2, while a section of the report itself says August 15 through September 1. That same section still contains blank "[x] comments" placeholders and describes Council approval as already having happened.
3. Salas Park unit count conflicts within the report — 108 units in one place, 110 units in two phases in another.
4. Animal Shelter agreement date conflicts — Council approved June 5, 2024, but the amendment recitals say the agreement was entered August 2, 2024.
5. Dobbins annexation file number — the packet uses PL2024-023 A; a City tracker has reportedly shown 2024-09 A.
6. No cost or revenue analysis accompanies the 95.3-acre annexation, and the property-tax sharing agreement with the County and the Woodbridge Fire District revenue share are both still unresolved.
7. The July 1, 2026 purchasing thresholds are not stated in the minutes. The $80,000 figure should be confirmed against the adopted policy and resolution, whose number was not captured.
8. The August 19 City Clerk ordinance number and vote tally should be confirmed against the enacted ordinance; the packet gives the adoption and effective dates but not the number.
9. C.1's staff report gives no reason for the minutes backlog. The explanation in this analysis is inference from the surrounding record, not a City statement.
10. The Bennitt case merits are unknown. The case number indicates a 2025 filing. Do not infer a connection to the City Clerk ordinance from the closed-session listing alone, and do not connect it to Bennitt's settled dispute with the City of Stockton — that was a different city and a different property, and no link between the two has been established.

Attachments Analyzed

Every attachment listed on the City's online agenda is included inside the 253-page packet, so the links on the City's site lead to the same documents summarized here.

• pp. 1–7 — Agenda
• pp. 8–9 — C.1 staff report to Council
• pp. 10–123 — Attachments 1 through 26: the 26 sets of minutes
• pp. 124–125 — C.2 staff report
• pp. 126–128 — C.3 staff report and scanned Westside Annexation Exhibit map, converted to text
• pp. 129–131 — C.4 staff report and resolution
• pp. 132–166 — C.5 staff report, scanned transit and road funding claim forms, converted to text, and resolution
• pp. 167–168 — C.6 staff report
• pp. 169–204 — C.7 staff report, scanned Amendment No. 3 and the earlier amendments, converted to text, and resolution
• pp. 205–230 — F.1 staff report, the 23-page grant performance report, and resolution
• pp. 231–237 — G.1 staff report, employment agreement, and resolution
• pp. 238–241 — G.2 staff report and resolution
• pp. 242–253 — H.1 staff report, scanned CalPERS exhibit, converted to text, and Ordinance No. 2049

References

• City of Lodi, City Council Legistar calendar and agenda packets — primary source, September 2, 2026 Regular Agenda Packet, 253 pages, printed August 27, 2026
• City of Lodi, Legistar File 25-436 — Recognition of Retiring Public Works Director Charles E. Swimley, Jr.
• City of Lodi, Newsflash — Kara Reddig appointed City Manager
• City of Lodi, City Clerk department page
• City of Lodi, City Newsletter, November 7, 2025 — Sean Nathan appointed Interim Public Works Director
• Plan Lodi, Phased Development Code Amendments
• LodiEye, Lodi Planning Commission — August 12, 2026
• LodiEye, Lodi City Council Agenda — August 19, 2026
• LodiEye, Lodi City Council Agenda — August 5, 2026
• LodiEye, Lodi City Council Agenda — July 15, 2026
• LodiEye, Lodi City Council Agenda — May 6, 2026
• LodiEye, Sixteen Months: The Rise, Fall and Lawsuit of Lodi City Manager Scott Carney
• LodiEye, Lodi's Leadership Vacuum: Five Senior City Hall Positions Open
• LodiEye, Lodi Taps Elk Grove's Kara Reddig as New City Manager
• Stocktonia, Former Lodi city manager sues city, alleging whistleblower retaliation — June 17, 2026
• Stocktonia, Documents detail disputes in Lodi leadership — July 17, 2025
• Stocktonia, Lodi faces potential lawsuit as city manager alleges retaliation — May 28, 2025
• Stocktonia, Opinion: A dirty city deal comes to light — June 14, 2023, Michael Fitzgerald, opinion column, concerning the City of Stockton and the Empire Theatre complex
• City of Lodi, Planning Commission public hearing notice, May 27, 2020 — Use Permit File 2019-023 U, applicant Christopher Bennitt, Boxcar food court, 216 North Church Street
• San Joaquin County Treasurer-Tax Collector, March 11–12, 2026 tax sale list and results — item 3, BENNITT CHRISTOPHER J, 214 S Sacramento St, Lodi, redeemed February 5, 2026
• The Record, Stockton Empire Theatre to be fully demolished — November 27, 2023
• The Record, Former city manager sues Lodi over alleged whistleblower retaliation — July 2, 2026
• Lodi News-Sentinel via Yahoo, Lodi City Council to consider interim city clerk
• Lodi News-Sentinel via Yahoo, "It's been a good run": Swimley's work is done
• Steve Mann, Spinning Door
• Citizen Portal, Votes at a glance: key actions taken at Lodi City Council, May 6, 2026

Contact

Corrections, documents, and tips: news@lodi411.com · Lodi411.com · LodiEye

Prepared from the City of Lodi September 2, 2026 Regular Meeting agenda packet — 253 pages, downloaded from the City's Legistar agenda system and printed August 27, 2026 — including software conversion of 69 scanned pages into readable text, plus the published reporting cited above. Packet page citations refer to the stamped PDF page numbers. Items marked as verification flags have not been independently confirmed and should be checked against City records before republication.

ROAD to Housing Act August Update: HUD's First Deadline-Driven Notice, and Westside "F" Moves

LodiEye — August 2026

Overview

As of August 26, 2026, 6.6 weeks after the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act took effect, two things have moved. HUD published its first deadline-driven notice under the law on August 13 — the CDBG–Disaster Recovery allocation formula, with a comment window that closes September 14. And on August 12, the Lodi Planning Commission voted 5–0 to recommend that the City Council approve the 95.3-acre Westside "F" annexation and direct staff to file it with San Joaquin County LAFCo. That file is still awaiting Council action; it is not yet at LAFCo.

The rest of the picture is more mixed than it looked on enactment day. HUD faces 88 separate implementation actions with staffing about 27 percent below FY2025 levels and an existing rulemaking backlog, and outside analysts expect full implementation to take years. Several provisions that are effective in statute cannot be used until federal guidance lands, and Congress has appropriated no new money for the Act's new programs.

This update carries the provision-by-provision breakdown forward, resolves several open questions from the July version against the enacted statute, and adds a section on the Opportunity Zone redesignation that will change the entire §201 conversation before Treasury certifies new zones in Q4 2026. It updates The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act: What It Means for Lodi and San Joaquin County, published July 29, 2026.

Background: The Law and How It Passed

The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act (H.R. 6644) became law on July 11, 2026, without President Trump's signature, as Public Law 119-101. The bill was presented to the president on June 29; Trump demanded Senate passage of the SAVE America Act (S. 3752 / H.R. 7296) — a separate bill requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register, photo ID to vote, and a national voter database — before he would sign. The 10-day constitutional clock ran out and the bill became law by default. It had already cleared both chambers with lopsided margins — 85–5 in the Senate on June 22, 358–32 in the House on June 23.

ROAD stands for Revitalizing, Organizing, Accelerating, and Delivering. The final law spans 12 titles and 60 sections, drawing on more than 60 previously introduced bills. It covers FHA financing, community development grants, manufactured housing standards, environmental review, rural housing, veterans housing, community banking, and institutional investor restrictions. Its primary House author is Financial Services Committee Chairman French Hill (R-AR), with House Financial Services Ranking Member Maxine Waters (D-CA). On the Senate side, the bill originated as a joint proposal from Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott (R-SC) and Banking Committee Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).

An external-numbering note for readers cross-checking sections against other explainers: the Bipartisan Policy Center's earlier summary used an 11-title draft section numbering (in which Build Now was §205 and FHA multifamily was §213), which is why some published summaries disagree with the section numbers used here. All references in this update are to the enrolled 12-title, 60-section text.

Rep. Josh Harder, who represents Lodi, Stockton, and the broader San Joaquin Valley as CA-09, got two of his own bills folded into the final law. He chairs the bipartisan Build America Caucus and has argued for years that the Central Valley's housing deficit — part of what he describes as a national shortfall of 10 million homes — demands federal action at a scale Congress hasn't attempted in decades.

Why This Law Hits Different Here

Relative to coastal California, the San Joaquin Valley faces a smaller land-supply constraint and a larger financing gap. Market rents and sale prices in Lodi and Stockton do not support the construction costs of affordable units without subsidy. Provisions in this law that expand FHA financing, redirect federal grants, or lower manufactured housing costs address that gap directly, without requiring Sacramento to act first — though several of them depend on California acting anyway (see the manufactured housing section below).

Statewide Context

CalMatters housing reporter Ben Christopher published "What the new federal housing bill means for California" on July 10, 2026. His reporting includes useful color: Laura Foote of YIMBY Action called the CDBG performance penalty "a small nudge" for large cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco, while David Garcia of the Terner Center said it has "real implications" for those same cities; Stephen Russell called the bill "once-in-a-lifetime" in a companion newsletter. Christopher also notes that the institutional-investor purchase ban is likely to be muted in California because state-level restrictions already apply, and that the chassis repeal matters more in California than in other states because of local manufactured-housing costs.

What Has Actually Happened Since July 11

Three developments since the original version of this report change how the near-term timeline should be read.

HUD's first deadline-driven notice — August 13

HUD published a Federal Register notice on the CDBG–Disaster Recovery formula (Docket FR-6337-N-02, 91 FR 52314), satisfying the requirement under §504 that it publish the methodologies used to estimate unmet housing, economic revitalization, and infrastructure needs in the most impacted areas after a catastrophic major disaster. The notice seeks additional comment on an earlier request for information, and tells the public that HUD will keep using the formula from its 2025 notice for 2023 and 2024 disaster allocations until a final rule is done.

Comments are due September 14, 2026. San Joaquin County's flood exposure makes the formula methodology a live local question, and this is an open comment window rather than a closed decision.

The statutory deadline for that notice was August 10. HUD published on August 13 — three days late.

Framing note: the July version of this report described the August 13 notice as HUD's first notice under the Act. That was not right. HUD's August 10 non-vacant loan sale notice implemented Title X three days earlier. August 13 is the first deadline-driven action under the Act.

Analysts expect implementation to take years

The National Association of Affordable Housing Lenders and the Center for Affordable Housing Lending published an implementation guide dated July 2026 that counts 125 discrete implementation actions in the law (the group's press release rounds to 124). HUD is responsible for 88 of them, or 70 percent. Congress directed agencies to complete 58 of the 125 — 46 percent — within the first year, and roughly 60 percent of the reports required in the first year are reports rather than program launches. The trade coverage that surfaced the analysis appeared in Smart Cities Dive on August 7 and Multifamily Dive on August 10.

The capacity problem is the harder part. HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research is operating with about 27 percent fewer staff than in FY2025 against a historical benchmark of about four significant final or interim final rules per year, and it entered summer 2026 with a backlog of 54 items on its rulemaking agenda. The nine new rules the ROAD Act requires enter that queue. Two federal courts also blocked HUD's FY2026 homelessness-funding criteria in August, and HUD re-published the FY2026 Continuum of Care NOFO on August 26 — a concrete illustration of what a capacity-constrained HUD looks like.

For local planning purposes, the statutory deadlines listed throughout this report should be read as congressional intent rather than as dates money arrives. Most are not legally enforceable, and no comprehensive GAO or CRS implementation assessment yet exists; NAAHL's guide and the Bipartisan Policy Center's implementation tracker remain the only systematic sources.

Congress has appropriated no new money for the Act's new programs

Every new program authorized by the Act — the Innovation Fund, RESIDE, Pattern Book Grants, PRICE, Whole-Home Repairs, the temperature-sensor pilot — is currently unfunded. The House Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 9170 (FY2027 THUD) on June 3, 34–27, with H. Rept. 119-606, but the bill has not received a floor vote and no Senate THUD bill exists. The bill text does not name the "Innovation Fund," "RESIDE," "pattern book," or "PRICE," and §1202 of the ROAD Act authorizes no new appropriations. CDBG is flat at $3.3 billion, HOME is cut to $500 million (down $750 million). A continuing resolution runs through December 4 (House, passed July 21) or December 11 (Senate, 90–6 on August 8); the House returns August 31 (CRS status table, BPC FY2027 HUD tracker). This is the single most important context for the "authorized but requires appropriations" list below.

Westside "F" cleared the Planning Commission — August 12

The Lodi Planning Commission voted 5–0 on August 12 (with Chair Hicks absent) on a motion by Commissioner Diehl, seconded by Commissioner Woehl, to adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council (1) find no further CEQA analysis is required under Guidelines §15183, (2) approve the annexation and detachment from the Woodbridge Fire Protection District, (3) adopt the pre-zoning ordinance, and (4) direct staff to submit the annexation application to LAFCo. In other words, the Commission did not forward anything to LAFCo — the file goes to the City Council first; only after Council action and Revenue & Taxation Code §99 property-tax-exchange resolutions by the City and County can the application be filed with LAFCo.

The request covers 95.3 acres south of West Vine Street, north of West Kettleman Lane, and west of South Lower Sacramento Road — 20 parcels, verbatim from the staff report. (A parenthetical for the record: the staff-report narrative breaks the parcels out as 5 + 10 + 6 = 21 north/south of Taylor Road; the APN schedule of 20 parcels controls, and the northern boundary is West Vine Street, not Tokay Street as some early coverage said.) Prezoning is 9.2 acres General Commercial, 19.1 acres Mixed-Commercial/Office, 10.0 acres Public Facilities, 49.8 acres Low-Density Residential, and 7.2 acres Medium-Density Residential. The revised boundary intentionally leaves an 11.4-acre unincorporated island, shaped that way at LAFCo's suggestion because exceeding 12 parcels would trigger a protest proceeding. The Lodi News-Sentinel account compresses these steps somewhat.

As of August 26, no Westside "F" item appears on LAFCo's pending-projects list or hearing calendar — the file is still waiting on the City Council.

Separately, Rep. Harder toured a Housing Authority of San Joaquin County project in Tracy on July 28 to highlight the new law — the Tracy Apartments at 301 West Street, a 55-unit first phase (54 one-bedroom units plus one two-bedroom manager's unit) with total financing of about $29.6 million, including about $9.83 million in LIHTC equity from U.S. Bank, and completion expected in mid-2027. Harder's July 28 release does not include dollar figures and does not attribute the project's financing to the ROAD to Housing Act; the tax-credit equity comes through LIHTC, which the Act did not expand. The release quotes HACSJ Executive Director Peter Ragsdale on the Act.

Rep. Harder's Two Provisions

§201 — Increasing Housing in Opportunity Zones Act

Harder led this provision with Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA). It amends 42 U.S.C. 3535 to give HUD discretionary authority to preference projects located in — or primarily serving residents of — federally designated Opportunity Zone census tracts when awarding competitive grants related to housing development or preservation.

This matters because San Joaquin County has 20 designated OZ census tracts — 18 in Stockton, 1 in French Camp, and 1 in Lodi (tract 06077004403, roughly 0.4 miles north of the Lodi Commons redevelopment site, which is not itself in an Opportunity Zone). Before this law, HUD competitive grant money flowed disproportionately to coastal metros. This provision changes the scoring calculus so that distressed inland communities can compete more favorably where HUD elects to use it.

Effective July 11, 2026. HUD's June 3, 2026 PRO Housing NOFO already awards up to 3 points for OZ-focused proposals, but that NOFO predates the ROAD Act and is not a §201 implementation. No post-enactment NOFO reflecting a §201 preference has appeared as of August 26.

Opportunity Zone 2.0 changes the entire §201 conversation

The Opportunity Zone 1.0 designations expire December 31, 2026 (investments made before then remain eligible for benefits through December 31, 2028). OZ 2.0 takes effect January 1, 2027; states must submit nominations by September 29, 2026 for Treasury to certify new zones in Q4 2026. Contiguous tracts are no longer eligible.

California GO-Biz released a draft list of 618 nominations out of 2,469 eligible tracts with public comment open through Aug 28, 2026 at 11:59 pm — two days from the date of this update. The Novogradac state-nomination tracker and the HUD OZ Updates page track both the state and federal timeline. All of San Joaquin County's current 20 OZ tracts — and the Lodi tract used to anchor the §201 argument — are up for redesignation.

§303 — Property Improvement and Manufactured Housing Loan Modernization Act

This provision does two things. First, it raises FHA Title I loan limits for manufactured homes and property improvement. Second, it adds ADU construction as an eligible use for FHA Title I property improvement loans. Previously homeowners could use Title I to repair or improve a home, but not to build a new accessory dwelling unit.

The new statutory maximums are: single-section manufactured home $106,405; multi-section manufactured home $195,322; property improvement (single-family) $75,000; multifamily property improvement $150,000 ($37,500 per unit); manufactured home and lot combination $149,782 (single) / $238,699 (multi); lot-only $43,377. These figures are indexed thereafter.

Lodi's local ADU rules exempt ADUs from Growth Management under existing state law; the practical bottleneck for most homeowners is financing. Whether Title I becomes a mainstream ADU financing tool depends on lender uptake once HUD publishes updated Mortgagee Letters — the FHA mortgagee-letter series ends at ML 2026-10 as of August 26 with no Title I / ADU update posted.

Timing correction

The loan limit increases are self-executing in statute, with an interim indexing method specified in the law until HUD establishes a permanent methodology. But lenders cannot originate at the new limits until HUD issues updated mortgagee letters or guidance, and that has not happened yet. A homeowner who walks into a lender today gets today's limits, not the new ones. The change is real; it is not yet usable.

Deadlines: HUD must develop a permanent indexing method for property improvement and manufactured home loan limits by July 11, 2027. HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research must report to Congress on the cost-effectiveness of off-site construction techniques by the same date.

Lodi's RHNA Position

California's 6th Cycle RHNA plan obligates Lodi to permit 3,909 new housing units over the planning period ending December 31, 2031, with the 8.5-year projection window that produced the allocation beginning June 30, 2023. As of the April 2026 Annual Progress Report submitted to HCD (HCD RHNA Progress dataset), Lodi had permitted 358 units — 9.2 percent of the total target. As of August 26, 2026, the planning cycle is roughly 33.2 percent elapsed. That 24-point gap behind pace is what makes several provisions of this law immediately consequential.

Lodi RHNA Permits by Income Band, 6th Cycle to Date

Source: California HCD 6th Cycle RHNA Annual Progress Report, data through the April 2026 APR submission.

The income-band breakdown is the hardest part of the story. Lodi has permitted zero units in the Very Low Income and Low Income categories — 1,532 households that need to be served by 2031, and not one permit issued. The 37 moderate-income units and 321 above-moderate units are real progress, but the affordable obligation is essentially untouched three years into an 8.5-year cycle.

San Joaquin County's unincorporated-area progress can be read two ways depending on the denominator. Using HCD's RHNA Progress dataset, the unincorporated allocation is 3,695 units and 1,788 have been permitted (48.4 percent). Using SJCOG's 2025 Regional Progress Report, the unincorporated allocation is 8,808 units and 1,788 have been permitted (20.3 percent). Both figures are official; they measure different things (a subset of the RHNA table versus the full unincorporated RHNA figure). Either way, essentially all of the permitted units are above-moderate income; the County's very low, low, and moderate categories all show zero permits, the same as Lodi.

RHNA Pace: Share of Target Permitted Against Share of Cycle Elapsed

Source: California HCD 6th Cycle RHNA Annual Progress Report; cycle elapsed calculated from the projection-period start of June 30, 2023.

Readers comparing these figures against other published percentages should note that share-of-target numbers differ sharply depending on whether the denominator is the full 3,909-unit allocation or a single income band's allocation. The figures above use the full allocation for the total and name the band allocation where one is available.

The CDBG Build Now Mechanism

Section 213 of the enacted law rewires the existing CDBG formula into a performance incentive tied to a national "housing growth improvement rate" ranking. Every entitlement jurisdiction with a growth improvement rate below the national median loses 10 percent of its annual CDBG allocation. Those funds get redistributed pro rata among jurisdictions at or above the national median that also grew by 4 percent or more, whom the statute calls "extremely high-growth recipients." There is no neutral middle band: a jurisdiction is either in the below-median penalty pool or in the at/above-median pool, and only the fastest growers in the at/above-median pool receive bonus payments.

The July version of this report treated the FY2029 vs FY2030 start date as an open question. It's resolved. The enrolled statute is explicit that reallocation begins in the third full fiscal year after enactment. Counting FY2027 as the first full fiscal year after a July 11, 2026 enactment, the third full fiscal year is FY2029, starting October 1, 2028, and the mechanism runs 15 years through FY2043.

Lodi Cumulative CDBG Exposure, FY2029–FY2043

Source: LodiEye calculation from HUD FY2026 Formula Program Allocations and §213 statutory terms. Assumes Lodi's allocation holds at its FY2026 level.

Applied to Lodi's FY2026 CDBG allocation of $665,263, a 10 percent penalty is $66,526 per year. Across 15 years, cumulative exposure is $997,890. That is the amount at stake either as a penalty for finishing below the national median on the housing growth improvement rate or, in mirror form, as a bonus pool share for jurisdictions that finish at or above the median and grow at least 4 percent.

Whether $997,890 is a penalty or a bonus depends on how the national growth improvement rate is measured. Because the bonus is a share of a national pool rather than a fixed reciprocal of the penalty, characterizing the two as symmetric would overreach.

Source: HUD FY2026 Formula Program Allocations. Lodi's CDBG PY2025-26 allocation, in current use, is $655,037 — the $665,263 FY2026 figure reflects a 1.6 percent increase.

September 9, 2026 is the most urgent near-term deadline

That is when HUD must notify every CDBG jurisdiction of its housing growth improvement rate — the first time this metric will ever be calculated. It will tell Lodi and San Joaquin County where they stand nationally before the penalty clock starts.

An important qualifier is that the §213 exemption is conjunctive and narrow. To qualify, a jurisdiction must have both a Small Area Fair Market Rent at or below the 60th percentile of national SAFMRs and a median home value below the U.S. median, or satisfy one of three other tests (rental vacancy rate above the national median, a Presidential disaster declaration in the past three years, or a legal disability preventing local zoning updates). Lodi fails the paired SAFMR/home value test: the last Presidential disaster declaration in San Joaquin County, DR-4699, was declared April 3, 2023 — outside the three-year window; HUD's most recent Stockton-Lodi rental vacancy rate reads 4.1 percent, well below the national median; and California preserves local land-use authority. On present facts, Lodi does not qualify for a §213 exemption. San Joaquin County unincorporated, whose median home value is closer to the U.S. median, is a closer call and worth checking against the final HUD data used on September 9.

The Provisions That Touch This Region

1. Public Land Database (§104)New in this update

Every CDBG recipient must publish a searchable, publicly accessible online database of undeveloped land parcels owned by the grantee.

Effective October 1, 2026, as specified in statute. This is a firm date, not a rulemaking-dependent one, and it applies directly to both the City of Lodi and San Joaquin County. It is also the only provision in the law that produces a public dataset. Lodi has parcel-level GIS capacity through Public Works and Community Development; the work is assembling the inventory and standing up a public interface.

2. Innovation Fund (§208)

The law's largest new competitive grant program. HUD will award between $250,000 and $10 million to local governments and tribes that demonstrate measurable increases in housing supply and have adopted pro-housing reforms — streamlined permitting, by-right development, density bonuses, reduced parking minimums, ADU legalization. Funds can go to CDBG-eligible activities, new affordable construction, infrastructure, or matching funds to unlock water and sewer grants.

Lodi's Growth Management Plan already exempts ADUs from growth caps, and the city has enforceable RHNA production obligations. If Lodi can demonstrate above-median production benchmarks, it becomes a competitive applicant.

Methodology note: §208 (not §213) requires HUD to publish the housing growth improvement rate methodology in the Federal Register at least 90 days before the first Innovation Fund NOFO.

Authorized, not appropriated (see Congress section above).

3. CDBG New Affordable Housing Construction (§204)

For the first time in CDBG history, local governments can direct up to 20 percent of their annual allocation toward new construction of affordable housing, not just rehabilitation. The 20 percent flexibility applies to post-enactment appropriations and is self-executing; HUD is expected to issue a notice to grantees.

Effective July 11, 2026. The City and County can plan now to redirect a share of FY2027 CDBG dollars toward construction. This fills gaps that LIHTC and HOME dollars alone cannot cover.

4. HOME Program Reforms (§501)Settled

Three changes matter locally.

Income eligibility. The law raises HOME income eligibility to 100 percent of area median income for homeownership assistance only. HOME-financed rental housing remains capped at 80 percent AMI, with at least 90 percent of HOME-assisted units in any individual project occupied by households at or below 60 percent AMI. The July version of this report treated the split as an open question. It is settled by the statute.

The practical consequence for Lodi: the higher threshold does not expand the eligible tenant pool at HACSJ's rental senior projects. It widens the band for HOME-funded homebuyer assistance — down payment help, purchase-rehab — to households that previously earned too much to qualify.

Home value cap raised from 95 percent to 110 percent of average area purchase price, which accommodates Lodi's rising costs.

NEPA categorical exemptions, effective on enactment, for infill housing, acquisition of real property for affordable housing, certain rehabilitation, and new construction of 15 units or fewer. This eliminates months of federal environmental review on small infill projects.

Participating jurisdictions may also use HOME funds for housing-related infrastructure — water and sewer lines, sidewalks, roads, utility connections — subject to conditions.

Deadlines: two HUD rulemakings due July 11, 2027, one on the infrastructure flexibility and one on environmental review coordination. A Build America, Buy America implementation review is due January 7, 2027, with updated guidance 90 days later.

5. Manufactured Housing: Chassis Requirement Eliminated (§301)

The law rewrites the federal definition of a manufactured home to remove the permanent steel chassis requirement, a 1974 holdover that the Niskanen Center estimates added $5,000 to $10,000 per unit and blocked two-story designs. The definition change is self-executing as of July 11, 2026.

HUD must issue minimum energy efficiency standards for manufactured homes by July 11, 2027. Revised construction and safety standards are on a separate, longer HUD Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee rulemaking track with no ROAD-Act-specified deadline. States must certify to HUD that their laws treat chassis-free homes on par with traditional manufactured homes within one year of the HUD energy-efficiency rulemaking — ordinarily July 11, 2027, extended to two years for states with biennial legislatures. States that do not certify cannot allow these homes to be built, installed, or sold.

California's §301 vehicle is in play now. SB 996 (Padilla), amended August 20, 2026, directs HCD to adopt regulations conforming state code to the ROAD Act's chassis-free definition by July 1, 2027, with an APA exemption. The bill is in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The California legislative session ends August 31, 2026 — it either passes this week or dies. Until California acts, the per-unit chassis savings do not reach San Joaquin County.

6. FHA Title I Financing (§303)

Covered above under Harder's provisions. San Joaquin County's ReBLD program offers pre-approved ADU designs, fee waivers, and fast-track permits in unincorporated urban areas near Stockton (Country Club, Kennedy, Boggs Tract, Weberstown, and Waverly-Wilma); ReBLD is not available inside Lodi city limits. Once HUD issues implementing mortgagee letters, layering Title I onto ReBLD would open the pre-approved designs to homeowners who currently have no financing path. The program change is not yet operational at the lender counter.

7. Pattern Book Grant Program (§209)New in this update

The July version of this report cited §209 as the NEPA streamlining section. That was wrong. HUD may award grants under §209 to local governments and tribes to select and implement pre-reviewed housing designs — accessory dwelling units, duplexes, townhouses — to streamline affordable construction. Ten percent of total funding is reserved for rural areas, with a five-year adoption window. Recipients report to HUD on their activities, and HUD collects and publishes best practices on selected designs.

This is a closer fit to San Joaquin County's ReBLD design catalog than any other provision in the law. No sunset specified. No funding authorized.

8. NEPA Streamlining (§206)Corrected

The Unlocking Housing Supply Through Streamlined and Modernized Reviews Act expands categorical exclusions across a broad range of federally supported housing activities — public facility repairs, construction and rehabilitation of one to four units, property acquisitions, floodplain and open space purchases, office-to-residential conversions, and larger multi-unit projects. This requires a rulemaking before it operates.

HUD must report to Congress annually for five years beginning July 11, 2028.

A related provision, §205 (BUILD Housing Act), authorizes HUD to treat certain housing assistance as special projects to streamline NEPA compliance and expands HUD's authority to delegate environmental review to states, local governments, and tribes. HUD may implement by Federal Register notice.

9. RESIDE Conversion Grants (§210)

A pilot awarding $1 million to $10 million to local governments converting vacant commercial or industrial buildings to affordable housing. It prioritizes economically distressed areas and Opportunity Zones. Income eligibility runs up to 120 percent AMI with the majority of households at or below 60 percent AMI — a condition omitted from the original version of this report.

Lodi's downtown revitalization work has identified vacant commercial properties with conversion potential. Stockton's OZ-designated downtown areas include commercial structures vacant through multiple economic cycles.

Effectively sunsets September 30, 2031. No funding authorized.

10. Planning and Implementation Grants (§207)

Competitive grants to help cities, counties, and regional planning agencies update regulatory processes, increase inspection capacity, and coordinate housing development with transportation planning. SJCOG and the City of Lodi are both eligible applicant types for work currently funded through city general fund dollars or not at all.

11. PRICE Manufactured Housing Grants (§304)

Reauthorization for seven years of competitive grants for repair, preservation, and improvement of existing manufactured homes and manufactured housing communities, with possible set-asides for tribes and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. HUD must issue regulations establishing selection criteria.

Older manufactured housing parks in unincorporated San Joaquin County — where residents own their homes but rent the land — are the target demographic.

Reauthorized through July 11, 2033. No funding authorized.

12. Rental Assistance Demonstration Cap Increase (§212)Corrected

The July version cited this as §601. For over a decade, public housing authorities have used RAD to convert aging public housing to a funding structure that allows borrowing and private investment for repairs. The program was capped at 455,000 conversions nationwide — a national ceiling that HUD has reported was allocated in full by mid-decade and that housing authorities in Los Angeles and the Bay Area had exhausted their share of. The law raises the national cap by 100,000 units, to roughly 555,000, makes the program permanent, and codifies tenant protections including a mandatory lease and management plan addendum.

HACSJ's aging public housing stock relies on exactly this conversion authority to attract private rehabilitation capital. A higher national cap means less competition for a scarce allocation.

Effective July 11, 2026. Self-executing, though HUD's Office of Public and Indian Housing is expected to update the RAD program notice; no statutory deadline. The most recent notice in the series is Revision 4 / Supplemental 4C dated January 15, 2025, unchanged as of August 26.

13. Choice in Affordable Housing (§405)New in this update

Units financed through LIHTC, the HOME program, or USDA Rural Housing Service programs automatically satisfy Housing Choice Voucher inspection requirements if they passed an inspection within the past year. The provision also allows remote inspections in rural and small areas, lets new landlords request advance inspections, and directs housing authorities to give voucher holders a list of pre-inspected units.

This is operational relief for HACSJ and for Lodi landlords considering voucher participation. HUD is expected to issue implementing guidance.

14. ESG Shelter Cap Waiver (§503)New in this update

Emergency Solutions Grant recipients may request a waiver of the statutory 60 percent cap on spending for emergency shelter beds and street outreach.

Waiver authority runs FY2027 through FY2030. For a county running both a permanent homeless services center and ongoing outreach, this is a direct flexibility question worth putting in front of the continuum of care.

15. CDBG-Disaster Recovery Authorization (§504)Corrected

The July version cited this as §602. Since the mid-1990s, CDBG-DR — the main source of long-term federal rebuilding money after wildfires, floods, and other disasters — has existed only through ad hoc appropriations after each event. The law gives it statutory authorization, establishes a dedicated Long-Term Disaster Recovery Fund in Treasury, creates a HUD Office of Disaster Management and Resiliency, and directs data-sharing agreements with FEMA and SBA to prevent duplication of benefits.

The authorization runs three years and sunsets July 11, 2029 — it is a standing program for that window, not a permanent one, and reauthorization will be its own fight. HUD must issue a proposed rule by January 11, 2027 and a final rule by July 11, 2027. HUD must also conduct annual performance reviews of CDBG-DR grantees and publish status summaries on a public dashboard.

The August 13 formula notice described earlier is the first action under this section. Comments close September 14, 2026. No funding is attached until Congress appropriates dollars in response to an actual disaster declaration.

16. Institutional Investor Purchase Ban (§1001)

The law prohibits any for-profit entity with direct or indirect investment control over 350 or more single-family homes in the aggregate from purchasing additional single-family homes. Penalties run up to $1 million per violation or three times the purchase price, whichever is greater, brought by Treasury through the Attorney General. Penalty proceeds go to HOME program activities beginning in FY2027.

Exceptions cover build-to-rent developments, rent-to-own programs, age-restricted 55+ communities, foreclosure acquisitions, and properties where the buyer commits to substantial rehabilitation. Manufactured homes are exempt. Small landlords are unaffected.

In recent years, institutional buyers competed aggressively in the Central Valley's single-family market, where lower prices delivered higher cap rates than coastal markets. That competition has been a documented factor in price appreciation and reduced first-time buyer inventory in Stockton and surrounding communities.

Treasury may, but is not required to, issue implementing regulations.

17. Smaller Provisions Worth TrackingNew in this update

Whole-Home Repairs Pilot (§202) — grants and forgivable loans to homeowners and landlords for repairs and modifications, delivered through state, local, and tribal programs. Sunsets October 1, 2031. No funding authorized.

Temperature Sensor Pilot (§106) — grants to housing authorities and owners of federally assisted rental housing to install temperature sensors and support compliance with temperature-related housing quality standards. HUD must set eligibility criteria and privacy standards by January 7, 2027. Sunsets July 11, 2029. Relevant to older assisted housing stock in a valley that runs above 100 degrees for weeks at a time.

FHA Small-Dollar Mortgage Pilot (§105) — a pilot expanding access to FHA-backed mortgages under $100,000, including lender incentives, technical assistance, and borrower grants. HUD must establish it by July 11, 2027, with authority expiring July 11, 2029.

FHA Multifamily Loan Limits (§211) — raises statutory maximum loan limits for FHA multifamily mortgages for the first time since 2003 and replaces the old inflation formula with the Census Bureau's multifamily construction price index. This improves the refinancing tools HACSJ and its development partners use to recapitalize aging assisted housing. HUD must report to Congress on the limits by July 11, 2029.

Zoning Guidelines and Task Force (§107) — HUD must publish draft voluntary zoning and land-use guidelines in the Federal Register and establish a task force by July 11, 2028, with final guidelines due July 11, 2029 and a single follow-up report on adoption due five years after enactment. Voluntary, not mandates. (The July version described this as biennial monitoring; the statute specifies one report.) See also NAHB's August 14 explainer.

Point-Access Block Buildings (§102) — HUD may fund pilot projects testing single-stair multifamily buildings and coordinate with the International Code Council on incorporating the standard into the International Building Code. Federal guidelines due January 11, 2028.

Community Investment and Prosperity Act (§203) — raises the cap on bank public welfare investments, including affordable housing, from 15 percent to 20 percent. Self-executing, with supervisory guidance expected from OCC and the Federal Reserve. This expands the pool of local bank capital available to Valley affordable housing deals.

Projects in the Pipeline

Lodi Commons / Salas Park Senior Housing

The Housing Authority of San Joaquin County, Delta Community Developers Corporation (DCDC), and the City of Lodi are co-developing senior affordable housing at Lodi Commons. This is a two-phase, 110-unit project. Phase I is 54–55 units of senior housing on the west portion of the site; a proposed Phase II would add another affordable housing building. The Lodi FY2026–27 Annual Action Plan confirms the Phase I Seniors at Lodi Commons (Salas Park) phase as a City-funded priority, with a LIHTC application targeted for early winter 2026. The August 26 Planning Commission is considering PL2026-008, which splits the 3.30-acre site into a 1.3-acre and a 2.0-acre lot to enable the two-phase structure.

Note on Opportunity Zone status: the Lodi Commons parcel (tract 06077004308) is not in a federally designated Opportunity Zone. The one Lodi OZ is tract 06077004403, approximately 0.4 miles to the north. §201 grant priority therefore does not directly apply to Lodi Commons.

Applicable provisions

• §204 (CDBG new construction) — the City can redirect a share of FY2027 CDBG allocation to construction gap financing. Effective now, contingent on future appropriations.
• §501 (HOME) — the 100 percent AMI expansion applies to homeownership assistance only; rental units at Lodi Commons remain HOME-eligible at 80 percent AMI. A 54–55-unit phase exceeds the 15-unit NEPA categorical exemption threshold, so the streamlined review applies only to smaller components or sub-phases.
• §208 (Innovation Fund) — a competitive grant could capitalize a later phase if Lodi can demonstrate above-median production. Not before late 2027, and appropriations-dependent.
• §211 (FHA multifamily limits) — new higher limits and cost-indexed formula improve refinancing tools for future phases.

Creekside South Apartments Renovation

HACSJ's Creekside South is a 40-unit HUD Section 8 senior complex in Lodi, originally built in 1972, undergoing rehabilitation by Delta Community Developers Corporation (DCDC). The project relies on stacked federal financing. See hacsj.org.

Applicable provisions

• §501 (HOME / NEPA) — rehabilitation is a core HOME-eligible activity, and the categorical exemptions reduce duplicative review.
• §211 (FHA multifamily limits) — updated limits and the new construction-cost index improve the refinancing tools available to recapitalize aging assisted housing.
• §212 (RAD) — a higher national cap means less competition for conversion authority on future rehabilitation work.
• §405 (inspection streamlining) — reduces duplicative inspection burden on voucher-occupied units.

Westside "F" Annexation

Now awaiting City Council action following the Planning Commission's August 12 5–0 recommendation. 95.3 acres, 20 parcels, intended to expand Lodi's residential supply pipeline. The application has not yet been filed with LAFCo — that step requires Council approval and property-tax-exchange resolutions under Revenue & Taxation Code §99.

Applicable provisions

• §207 (planning grants) — a SJCOG and City joint application could fund zoning updates, design catalogs, and General Plan implementation for newly annexed land. Program does not exist until July 2027 at the earliest.
• §208 (Innovation Fund) — successful annexation and subsequent production strengthens Lodi's case as a high-performance jurisdiction under the housing growth improvement metric.
• §206 (NEPA streamlining) — reduces duplicative federal environmental review for infill projects adjacent to previously reviewed parcels, once the rulemaking is complete.

San Joaquin County ReBLD ADU Program

The County's ReBLD program offers pre-approved ADU designs, fee waivers, and fast-track permits in unincorporated urban areas near Stockton. The infrastructure is in place; the missing piece has been a financing pathway for homeowners who can't self-fund or access home equity.

Applicable provisions

• §303 (FHA Title I ADU financing) — statutorily effective, operationally pending HUD mortgagee letters. This remains the most direct benefit for ReBLD participants once the guidance lands.
• §209 (Pattern Book grants) — the closest programmatic match in the entire law to what ReBLD already does. Unfunded.
• §501 (HOME infrastructure) — utility and sewer improvements required to activate ADU lots are now HOME-eligible, subject to conditions and pending the July 2027 rulemaking.

Stockton Opportunity Zone Housing Pipeline

Stockton has 18 designated Opportunity Zones (with additional zones in French Camp and Lodi bringing the county total to 20), including development sites around the Fairgrounds, downtown core, and waterfront, with projects staged and waiting on the right combination of private investment and public subsidy. Because OZ 1.0 designations expire December 31, 2026, this pipeline is now bracketed by California's Aug 28 nomination-comment window and Treasury's Q4 2026 certification of OZ 2.0 zones. Some of Stockton's current tracts may not carry over.

Applicable provisions

• §201 (OZ grant priority) — every competitive HUD grant application for OZ-sited projects becomes eligible for priority scoring.
• §210 (RESIDE) — vacant commercial structures in downtown OZ tracts are prime conversion candidates, once funded.
• §208 (Innovation Fund) — a pre-approved project pipeline positions the city as a fast-building applicant.

Manufactured Housing Communities, County-Wide

Unincorporated San Joaquin County has a higher-than-average share of manufactured housing. Chassis elimination, higher FHA Title I limits, and PRICE preservation grants create a three-layer federal structure that did not exist before July 11 — though the first two require HUD guidance and California certification, and the third requires an appropriation.

Master Timeline

What to Watch, and What to Do

Several provisions operate now without further federal action. Others depend on appropriations that haven't happened, or on rulemakings sitting in a backlogged queue. The distinction matters before anyone spends planning energy. In particular: as detailed above, Congress has not appropriated new money for any of the Act's new programs; the FY2027 THUD bill (H.R. 9170) has passed committee but not received a floor vote, and no Senate THUD bill exists.

Operating now, no appropriation needed

• OZ grant priority authority on HUD competitive applications (§201)
• CDBG 20 percent construction set-aside (§204)
• HOME NEPA categorical exemptions for projects of 15 units or fewer (§501)
• HOME home value cap increase to 110 percent (§501)
• Manufactured home chassis definition change, federal side (§301)
• RAD cap increase (§212)
• Bank public welfare investment cap increase to 20 percent (§203)

Statutorily effective but awaiting federal guidance before anyone can use them

• FHA Title I loan limits and ADU eligibility — needs HUD mortgagee letters (§303)
• Chassis-free manufactured homes — needs HUD standards and California certification (§301)
• NEPA categorical exclusion expansion — needs rulemaking (§206)
• HOME infrastructure eligibility — needs rulemaking (§501)
• HCV inspection streamlining — needs HUD guidance (§405)

Authorized but requires appropriations

• Innovation Fund, $200M/year (§208)
• RESIDE Conversion Grants (§210)
• Planning and Implementation Grants (§207)
• PRICE Manufactured Housing Community Grants (§304)
• Pattern Book Grants (§209)
• Whole-Home Repairs Pilot (§202)
• Temperature Sensor Pilot (§106)

Near-term items for local officials

1. City of Lodi and San Joaquin County: begin assembling the §104 undeveloped-land inventory. October 1 is a statutory date with no rulemaking in front of it, and the format question — searchable, publicly accessible, online — has a real lead time.
2. City of Lodi Community Development: pull the September 9 HUD housing growth improvement rate notification the day it publishes and compare against RHNA production. This sets CDBG penalty or bonus exposure, and also determines whether Lodi qualifies for any of the §213 exemptions.
3. San Joaquin County: the CDBG-DR formula comment window closes September 14. County flood exposure makes the allocation methodology a live local interest.
4. HACSJ and City of Lodi: amend CDBG program statements to include a construction set-aside under §204 authority, effective FY2027.
5. San Joaquin County ReBLD: hold Title I marketing until HUD issues implementing mortgagee letters, then update program materials. Announcing availability early would send homeowners to lenders who can't yet originate at the new limits.
6. SJCOG: begin assembling data for an Innovation Fund pre-application. Identify Lodi, Stockton, and unincorporated areas that can demonstrate above-median production and adopted pro-housing policies.
7. HACSJ development team: for pending HUD competitive grant applications, document Opportunity Zone overlap of project sites and beneficiary communities to strengthen scoring under §201.

California Needs to Act

The manufactured housing chassis provision requires California to certify to HUD by July 11, 2027 that state and local codes treat chassis-free homes on par with traditional manufactured homes. States that do not certify cannot allow these homes to be built, installed, or sold. SB 996 (Padilla), the California vehicle for that certification, was amended August 20, 2026 and sits in Assembly Appropriations with the legislative session ending August 31, 2026. If SB 996 dies this week, the California response reverts to normal HCD rulemaking on a slower timetable, and the $5,000 to $10,000 per-unit savings will not reach San Joaquin Valley buyers on the timeline the federal law contemplates.

What Changed in This Update

Newly added in this update: §104 public land database, §105 small-dollar mortgage pilot, §106 temperature sensor pilot, §107 zoning guidelines, §202 whole-home repairs, §203 bank investment cap, §209 pattern book grants, §211 FHA multifamily loan limits, §405 inspection streamlining, §501 HOME homeownership expansion (settled), §503 ESG waiver, §1001 institutional investor ban, and dedicated sections on Congressional appropriations, HUD capacity, and OZ 2.0 redesignation.

Removed: unsourced claims that HUD must commit to a CDBG-DR funding decision within 15 days of a disaster declaration; unsourced claims about Stockton price appreciation; the claim that the Valley has no shortage of land or zoning flexibility; the assertion that Lodi ADUs can be built "without City Council approval" (correct framing: they are exempt from the city's Growth Management allocation); and the framing of the §213 penalty and bonus as symmetric.

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 update 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 identified roughly 25 sources covering the enacted statute and its implementation — the Bipartisan Policy Center implementation tracker and section-by-section brief, the House Financial Services Committee summary, Congressional Research Service report R48732, the Federal Register notice of August 13, 2026, HUD FY2026 formula allocation tables, California HCD RHNA annual progress report data, the National Council of State Housing Agencies HOME analysis, trade coverage from Multifamily Dive, HousingWire, and Planetizen, and local reporting from the Lodi News-Sentinel, Tracy Press, and Rep. Harder's office. Perplexity AI was used for initial source discovery and real-time data retrieval; Claude was used for deeper analysis of identified sources and for the Federal Register and statutory-text review.

Credibility Validation: AI cross-referenced claims across multiple independent sources, prioritizing in this order: primary statutory text (the enrolled H.R. 6644, Public Law 119-101) and Federal Register notices; government datasets (HUD allocation tables, California HCD APR data, HCD RHNA Progress dataset, SJCOG progress reports); institutional analysis (Bipartisan Policy Center, Congressional Research Service, NCSHA, NAAHL, Holland & Knight, NAHB); and news reporting. Multiple AI models were used to independently verify key data points and flag inconsistencies. For this update, the cross-check pass surfaced and corrected substantive errors including the section-number map, the FY2029 (not FY2030) §213 start date, the settled homeownership-only reading of the HOME 100% AMI expansion, the conjunctive structure of the §213 exemption, the West Vine Street (not Tokay) northern boundary of Westside "F", the Planning Commission's action (a Council recommendation, not a LAFCo filing), the corrected identity of DCDC as Delta Community Developers Corporation and hacsj.org as the HACSJ domain, the 20 (not 19) county OZ tract count and the fact that the Lodi Commons site is not itself in an OZ, and the accurate financing figures for Rep. Harder's Tracy Apartments tour (~$9.83M LIHTC of ~$29.6M total; not attributable to the ROAD Act).

Analysis and Synthesis: Claude Opus and Sonnet assisted in comparing the July 29 version of this report line by line against the enacted statute and implementation trackers, mapping each of 26 covered provisions to named local projects, and sorting provisions into a three-tier operational framework — effective now, statutorily effective but awaiting federal guidance, and authorized but unappropriated. Claude also assisted in calculating the §213 cumulative CDBG exposure figure ($66,526/year × 15 years = $997,890) and in reconciling HCD and SJCOG denominators for County unincorporated RHNA progress.

Presentation: Claude assisted in drafting, structuring, and formatting the report for clarity and readability, including the three Kendo data visualizations, the master implementation timeline table, the pipeline project case studies, and the expanded corrections table comparing this update against the July version.

Final Review: Multiple AI models reviewed the completed draft for factual consistency, source attribution accuracy, logical coherence, and balanced presentation. This August 26 revision also incorporates a structured document-review audit that examined every factual claim in the report line by line against primary sources; the corrections above reflect that audit. 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. Multi-tool cross-checking across independent models and sources is the primary error-reduction mechanism.

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

• Primary statute & enrollment
• GovInfo — Enrolled H.R. 6644 (21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, as enrolled)
• GovInfo — Public Law 119-101 (21st Century ROAD to Housing Act)
• Congress.gov — H.R. 6644, 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act (bill status & vote records)
• Congressional Research Service — ROAD to Housing Act of 2025 (R48732)
• House Financial Services Committee — Section-by-Section Summary
• Federal implementation (Federal Register, HUD)
• Federal Register — Notice on CDBG-DR Formula, August 13, 2026
• Federal Register — HUD Notice of Sale of Non-Vacant Loans, August 10, 2026
• Federal Register — PRO Housing NOFO, June 3, 2026
• HUD — FY2026 CPD Formula Program Allocations
• HUD — Opportunity Zones Updates
• HUD — Mortgagee Letters (through ML 2026-10)
• Institutional analysis
• Bipartisan Policy Center — ROAD to Housing Act Implementation Tracker
• Bipartisan Policy Center — Inside the Deal: What's in the Final 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act
• Bipartisan Policy Center — FY2027 HUD Appropriations Tracker
• NCSHA — Key Changes to HOME in the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act
• NAAHL — 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act Implementation Guide (July 2026)
• NAHB — ROAD Act and Land Use, August 14, 2026
• Holland & Knight — 21st Century ROAD to Housing Bill Becomes Law (August 2026)
• NAHRO — House Advances FY2027 HUD Funding; ROAD Act
• CRS — Appropriations Status Table (FY2027)
• Enterprise Community Partners — Inside the Monumental 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act
• North Carolina Housing Coalition — Early Analysis
• Niskanen Center — The Manufactured Home Chassis Requirement
• News coverage
• Multifamily Dive — For local governments, full benefits of ROAD Act could take years, August 10, 2026
• Smart Cities Dive — Local governments, HUD, and the ROAD to Housing legislation, August 7, 2026
• Smart Cities Dive — HUD homelessness federal grants lawsuit
• Planetizen — Analysis: ROAD to Housing Act could take years to implement
• HousingWire — How ROAD to Housing aims to boost supply and cut red tape
• HousingWire — 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act becomes law without Trump signature
• NPR — Housing Affordability Bill Becomes Law Without Trump's Signature
• CalMatters (Ben Christopher) — Here's What the Federal Housing Bill Means for California, July 2026
• CalMatters — "Once-in-a-Lifetime" Federal Housing Bill Newsletter
• CalMatters Digital Democracy — SB 996 (Opportunity Zone conformity)
• California data & policy
• California Open Data — RHNA Progress Report, 6th Cycle
• SJCOG — 2025 RHNA Progress Report
• GO-Biz — California Opportunity Zones
• Novogradac — Opportunity Zones Legislation Tracker
• Local Lodi and San Joaquin County
• Rep. Josh Harder — Harder's New Housing Laws Building More Homes in the Valley, July 28, 2026
• Tracy Press — Harder's new housing laws support local senior project
• HACSJ — Tracy Apartments (55-unit senior project)
• Lodi News-Sentinel — Lodi looks to expand: 95 acres west of Lower Sacramento Road
• City of Lodi — Planning Commission Agenda, August 12, 2026 (Westside F)
• City of Lodi — Planning Commission Agenda, August 26, 2026 (PL2026-008)
• Plan Lodi — Housing Element
• Plan Lodi — City Expansion Projects
• HACSJ — Lodi Commons (110-unit two-phase, DCDC)
• HACSJ — Creekside South Apartments
• San Joaquin County — CDBG/HOME Entitlement Programs
• San Joaquin County — ReBLD Program
• San Joaquin LAFCo — Projects Under Review
• Advantage Stockton — Opportunity Zones
• Redfin — Lodi, CA Housing Market
• Zillow — Lodi Home Values
• Prior LodiEye reporting
• LodiEye — The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act: What It Means for Lodi and San Joaquin County (July 29, 2026)

Corrections and questions: editor@lodi411.com · Lodi411.com · Editorial Standards

The Blue Zones Project: What Lodi Was Buying, and Why It Stopped

LodiEye — August 2026

Overview

In March 2025, assessors from Blue Zones LLC toured Lodi. It was the field portion of a readiness study San Joaquin County had announced two months earlier. No findings were presented, no report was posted, and the county did not publicly account for the outcome until a spokesperson answered a newspaper columnist seventeen months later.

That explanation — no city sponsorship, no local funding commitment — is accurate. The public record adds four things to it: a $10,000 contract signed at staff level under delegated authority, an order of magnitude below what entry assessments sell for elsewhere; a Lodi City Council that was never asked to vote; a public health plan running a $100 million reinvestment program whose board never took the matter up; and an assessor that was, during the assessment, a wholly owned subsidiary of the corporation that owns Adventist Health Lodi Memorial.

In March 2025, a team from Blue Zones LLC spent time in Lodi. Their analysts came through town and, by one local account, visited nearly 60 places, including parks, schools, healthcare centers and downtown spots (Lodi News-Sentinel). The visit was the field portion of Blue Zones Ignite, a readiness and feasibility assessment San Joaquin County had launched publicly two months earlier.

Then it stopped. There was no public presentation of what the assessors found, no readiness report posted, and no announcement that the effort had concluded. Eighteen months later, the Blue Zones page for the engagement is still frozen in early 2025 — present tense, events "Coming Soon," no report (bluezones.com).

San Joaquin County spokesperson Katie Piper eventually explained the outcome to a Lodi News-Sentinel columnist: Lodi was not selected for a full-scale Blue Zones project because after the preliminary assessment there was no identified city sponsorship or local funding commitment to support it, and unlike counties where Blue Zones initiatives are sustained by foundations, nonprofits or managed care plans, no local entity was ready to take on that role (Lodi News-Sentinel, August 22, 2026).

That explanation is accurate. It is also incomplete in a way worth working through, because the sponsorship requirement is not a Lodi problem. It is the defining feature of the product, and the institution best positioned to meet it in Lodi was, during the assessment, the parent company of the assessor itself.

What the Blue Zones Project actually is

Two different things travel under the same name. One is Dan Buettner's demographic claim about five regions where people appear to live unusually long, including Loma Linda. The other is a commercial product line. Communities buy the second thing.

The product comes in three phases. Ignite is the entry assessment — a readiness and feasibility study with a site visit, focus groups, and a written report. Activate is a middle tier focused on policy work. The Blue Zones Project is the full implementation phase, delivered in partnership with Sharecare and a regional sponsor, described by the company as publicly supported, privately funded, and running three to ten years (Blue Zones). Certification is a designation earned within the Project phase if targets are met, typically after three to five years (Sharecare). Sharecare's current operational role is less clear than it once was — the company was taken private by Altaris in October 2024, and recent Blue Zones contracts have been signed directly with Blue Zones LLC rather than with Sharecare.

Implementation work runs in three lanes.

Policy. Smoking ordinances, complete streets, bike lanes, sidewalks, park and public space design, safe routes to school, food and menu policy, and — importantly for Lodi — alcohol policy. Blue Zones Project's own policy page describes the model as optimizing "the built environment and food, tobacco, and alcohol policies" (Blue Zones Project). This is the durable part; an ordinance outlives the contract.

Places. A designation program. Restaurants, worksites, schools, grocery stores and faith organizations apply and are certified Blue Zones Project Approved after meeting a point threshold. Blue Zones' own measurement framework sets sector-specific targets — 50 percent of schools, 25 percent of the workforce (Blue Zones, PDF) — and a community-level participation target of 15 percent, as reflected on Riverside's project placemat (City of Riverside, PDF).

People. Individual pledges, walking groups, purpose workshops, cooking classes.

A local team runs the work, with an executive director and staff paid out of sponsor funds.

Who owns it

On April 8, 2020, Adventist Health acquired Blue Zones. The Roseville-based nonprofit health system made the purchase the first step in creating a Well-Being Division and installed Blue Zones CEO Ben Leedle as division president (Adventist Health). Adventist Health operates hospitals across the Central Valley, including Adventist Health Lodi Memorial (Adventist Health Central Valley).

That structure held through the entire San Joaquin engagement. The Blue Zones team that walked Lodi in March 2025 was, at that moment, a wholly owned subsidiary of the corporation that owns Lodi Memorial. Neither launch announcement disclosed the relationship.

The ownership changed earlier this year. Dan Buettner said he "bought back controlling interest in Blue Zones" in 2026 to focus on the Blue Zones Project work (ABC News, July 11, 2026); reported sale prices differ by outlet — about $78 million in one account (STAT), around $80 million in another (ABC News) — and Adventist Health has not confirmed a figure. Buettner never fully stepped away from the brand; he is still listed as Founder and Chairman (Blue Zones), his son Danny Buettner Jr. is executive vice president and chief development officer (Blue Zones), and Adventist Health described him as an active brand ambassador after the acquisition. The buyback landed against a hard year for the seller: Adventist Health posted a net loss of $78.4 million in 2024, and in August 2025 restructured about 300 corporate roles at its Roseville headquarters, citing anticipated Medicaid cuts (Becker's Hospital Review).

What it costs

Public records from other communities give a usable range.

The original Beach Cities contract in 2010 was a $1.8 million commitment from Beach Cities Health District to Healthways for the pilot, structured as three $600,000 annual payments (Manhattan Beach staff report, PDF; BCHD Budget 2013-14, PDF). When the pilot ended, BCHD budgeted about $78,000 a month — roughly $46,000 in salaries for a team expanded from two employees to eight and a half, plus $32,000 for community outreach — to run the program in-house (BCHD Budget 2013-14, PDF). Today BCHD pays roughly $110,000 a year to license the Blue Zones brand, "with the freedom to use the Blue Zones brand without directly working with Blue Zones staff" (Center for Health Journalism).

In Iowa, Wellmark Blue Cross paid Healthways $25 million for a five-year demonstration; the launch named ten communities and fifteen were ultimately selected from 85 applicants (Blue Zones; The Gazette). Galveston is the current template: on March 28, 2025, UTMB signed a Master Services Agreement with Blue Zones for an Ignite assessment. That agreement was later amended to $500,000, up from $200,000, and neither the original nor the amendment required governing-board approval because both fell inside UTMB's delegated authority. The original was procured through an "Exclusive Acquisition Justification," not a competitive bid. The full $9.5 million project, running March 15, 2026 through December 14, 2030, is what the University of Texas regents actually approved (UT Regents consent agenda, PDF; UTMB).

Two collapses are more instructive than the successes. In Yakima, Washington, the Blue Zones cost estimate rose from $6 million to $9 million; the payors and managed-care organizations expected to fund it never committed, the health district's own contribution on the record was an $8,000 investment, and its steering committee unanimously tabled the project in July 2018 (Yakima County Board of Health, PDF). In Charleston, South Carolina, a roughly $10 million five-year project fell through when neither the hospital system nor the Blue Cross plan committed. MUSC's Anton Gunn: "We didn't have a complement of organizations who could make the investment in Blue Zones." Buettner: "I'm not sure if this community is right for a Blue Zone, quite honestly." Under half of the required money was ever raised (Charleston Regional Business Journal, PDF).

Blue Zones itself declines to name a price range. When a reporter asked, spokesperson Naomi Imatome-Yun said only that costs "vary widely depending on population size, length of the project, sectors we will be working in," and the reporter "was never told a straight figure" (New Republic). The range shows up anyway in actual contracts:

Sources for each row: Walla Walla County, PDF; San Joaquin County delegated authority log; The Daily World; Center for Health Journalism; KPBS; PHCD, PDF; UT Regents, PDF; Brevard NewsBeat; Yakima County, PDF; Charleston Regional Business Journal, PDF; Center for Health Journalism.

What an entry assessment sells for, and what Lodi's cost

Source: Walla Walla County; San Joaquin County delegated authority log; The Daily World; KPBS; Peninsula Health Care District; UT System Board of Regents.

Entry assessments cluster between $150,000 and $500,000. Lodi's $10,000 is an order of magnitude below the low end of that cluster, and only twice the price of a single presentation. That figure alone raises a question the assessment product line does not readily answer: what does $10,000 buy in a market where the entry-tier price averages a quarter-million dollars?

Exiting has a price too. When Iowa's demonstration ended, Cedar Rapids, Marion, Iowa City, Waterloo, Mason City and Muscatine all dropped or lost certification because they had to start paying to keep using the brand and the network (The Gazette; New Republic). Waterloo's manager put it plainly: "They wanted us to pay to continue to have the blue zone certification, but we really couldn't do that." Brevard, North Carolina's $3 million run ended in March 2023 without maintaining certification (Brevard NewsBeat). Blue Zones Project Hawaii wound down operations at the end of 2024 (Blue Zones Hawai'i).

That is the pattern to read the California record against: an outside sponsor funds the first term, and when it ends, the community is asked to pay to keep the brand.

The California record

Beach Cities, 2010 to present. Redondo, Hermosa and Manhattan Beach ran the world's first Blue Zones Project — Albert Lea, Minnesota was a 2009 test site first — and were certified in 2016, sponsored by the Beach Cities Health District (BCHD press release, PDF). The project is credited with helping secure $8.1 million in transportation funding for bike paths and infrastructure and with Hermosa Beach's 2012 Living Streets Policy, described as the first of its kind in the U.S. (Blue Zones Project results; Patch).

Salinas and Monterey County, 2018 to 2025. Brought in by Salinas Valley Health, Taylor Farms and Montage Health, expanded countywide in 2021, and certified in August 2025 as the first Blue Zones county in California (California County News). Boston University researchers ran a 2019 baseline with follow-ups in 2021, 2023 and 2025. Reported "thriving" rose from 59 to 66 percent; exercise three or more days a week rose about 10 percent; 42 percent fewer residents reported high cholesterol; overall well-being moved from 63.2 to 66.9 (Monterey County NOW). Financial well-being was the only element that fell, from 63.7 to 60.3. Blue Zones puts the economic figure at more than $392 million in avoided medical and lost-productivity costs over six years since the 2019 launch (KION).

Bakersfield, 2022 to present. Launched September 2022 by Adventist Health, Blue Zones LLC, California Resources Corporation and the City of Bakersfield (Adventist Health Policy Association). Output to date includes a Tobacco Retailers License Ordinance, a Complete Streets Ordinance, a trilingual pedestrian safety campaign, 18 eateries carrying 89 designated dishes, 3,500 students reached through school programs and 4,600 employees in worksite programs. McKinley Elementary became Bakersfield's first Blue Zones Project Approved school of any kind in fall 2023, and North High became its first approved high school in March 2024 (Kern County Superintendent of Schools; Kern County Superintendent of Schools). The City of Bakersfield still carries a "Blue Zones Citywide Wellness Initiative" line in its ARPA recovery plan, with $1.33 million cumulative expenditure and an end date of December 31, 2026 (U.S. Treasury, PDF).

Yuba-Sutter, 2021 to 2026. Implemented through Adventist Health sponsorship and certified on August 5, 2026 after five years. More than 12,600 residents took part — over 15 percent of the regional population — through walking groups, purpose workshops and plant-based cooking classes. More than $6 million in aligned grant funding was raised (Blue Zones certification release). The return argument the sponsor is buying is specific and comes from Blue Zones itself: each one-point increase in well-being corresponds to roughly a 2 percent reduction in emergency-department visits and hospital utilization, and about a 1 percent reduction in total health costs. Two agricultural Sacramento Valley counties, no coastal tax base.

Upper Napa Valley, 2021 to 2024. St. Helena and Calistoga certified on October 30, 2024 as the first certified Blue Zones community in Northern California, sponsored by Adventist Health (PR Newswire).

Lake County, 2021 to 2026. Clearlake, Lakeport, Kelseyville and Lower Lake certified on June 17, 2026 with Adventist Health sponsorship, with $7.2 million in aligned grant funding, 24 approved worksites, 15 schools and 6,600 students engaged (Blue Zones).

Mendocino County, 2021 to present. Adventist Health sponsorship. Blue Zones' own community list still shows Mendocino County as in progress rather than certified (Blue Zones 2025 update, PDF). Documented milestones are organization-level — first approved restaurant (December 2022), County of Mendocino approved worksite (2024), Adventist Health Mendocino Coast worksite approval (November 2024) — rather than a full community designation.

Tuolumne County, 2021 to March 2026. Adventist Health–sponsored five-year project that closed at the end of March 2026 with no certification announced (myMotherLode). It is the piece of the Adventist California record that gets left off the marketing copy: a full-term project that ended without the designation.

Riverside County, 2024 to present. The coalition model. A five-year public-private partnership the Riverside City Council endorsed in August 2024 with a $208,300 city sponsorship contribution described as "one percent of total Blue Zones Certification program costs" (City of Riverside, File 24-2217) — implying a roughly $20.8 million program. Kaiser Permanente alone committed $10 million (Kaiser Permanente); IEHP's board materials cite "$36+ million in funding secured" (IEHP governing board packet, PDF). Funders are IEHP, the IEHP Foundation, Molina Healthcare, Eisenhower Health, Kaiser Permanente, Riverside University Health System-Public Health, the county and the city, with five initiatives announced simultaneously in Riverside, Banning, Coachella, Palm Springs and Mead Valley — though the public launches actually ran from November 2024 through January 2026, and Mead Valley is a policy-focused Blue Zones Activate rather than a full Project. No single institution had to carry it.

Petaluma, 2023 to present. Sponsored by the Healthy Petaluma District and Foundation (Healthy Petaluma). Its 2023 Discovery Phase named three policy areas: built environment, food systems, and alcohol.

Sacramento County, 2023 to 2024. The state selected Sacramento to pilot Blue Zones Activate as an Alzheimer's prevention initiative, an outgrowth of the Governor's Task Force on Alzheimer's, with UC Davis Health as partner and an explicit intent that it serve as a blueprint for other California communities (UC Davis Health). Contemporary news coverage reported $1.7 million in state funding (CBS Sacramento), while county staff materials describe a $1.6 million, 21-month dementia pilot award and a separate $700,000 Blue Zones contract (CHEAC presentation, PDF). Nine focus neighborhoods were named in November 2023, including Del Paso Heights, Meadowview and Arden-Arcade, citing a ten-year life expectancy gap inside county borders (KCRA).

In August 2024, after contracting Blue Zones for a six-month analysis, the county declined to proceed with the multi-year initiative. The reasons are on the record. The proposed transformation phase in North and South Sacramento would have been a $19.5 million project over roughly five years. Sponsorship talks with managed care plans, universities and foundations ran into "budget realities for governments and local organizations," the state dementia grant ended June 30, 2024, and the decision was made by the county-led coalition — no Board of Supervisors vote was located (CHEAC presentation, PDF; Hospital Council). A year later, Blue Zones' own network map still listed Sacramento County as "Planned" (Blue Zones 2025 update, PDF).

Full-project price tags: what was funded, and what was not

Source: Brevard NewsBeat; UT System Board of Regents; Yakima County Board of Health; Charleston Regional Business Journal; Center for Health Journalism; CHEAC; City of Riverside File 24-2217.

Currently assessing. San José, San Mateo County through the Peninsula Health Care District, San Marcos with TrueCare and Gary and Mary West PACE, and El Dorado Hills sponsored by Marshall Medical Center. None has converted to a project. Peninsula held its community assessment readout on August 18, 2026, framed around "what these insights could mean for the future of a potential long-term Blue Zones partnership" (PHCD).

What the evidence rests on

Outcomes are measured almost entirely through the Gallup National Health and Well-Being Index — formerly the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index — which captures perceptions across five elements: career (previously called "purpose"), social, financial, community and physical (Gallup). It is a self-report instrument, not clinical or claims data. Monterey's cholesterol figure, for instance, is residents reporting high cholesterol, not lab values.

Blue Zones points to Riley et al., "Can a collective-impact initiative improve well-being in three US communities?", published in BMJ Open in 2021, as the primary peer-reviewed source for project outcomes (BMJ Open). The paper is not an independent evaluation. Five of its nine authors work for the paying agency or the delivery vendor — three from Beach Cities Health District, including BCHD's own Blue Zones project director, and two from Sharecare — and the paper states that Sharecare "performed the acquisition and stewardship of the data" (PMC). The competing-interests statement does not disclose these arrangements as competing interests, and the funding statement says no specific grant was received. The authors defend the design openly: "we intentionally included individuals who were on-the-ground in the Beach Cities … on the study team." Their own listed limitations include response bias, seasonal survey differences in the Beach Cities cohort, questions of generalizability from a "relatively affluent and homogeneous" population, and "plausible rival explanations … other efforts and trends external to BZP could have contributed."

Gallup's own language about the Beach Cities is more careful than the marketing: the area's good health is "likely in part the result of" Beach Cities Health District efforts, of which sponsoring Blue Zones was "one important aspect" (Gallup). The same Gallup article's $182.4 million annual savings figure is not observed spending — it is modeled from assumed per-person costs applied to 94,216 adults, and Gallup discloses that "the Beach Cities survey was funded by the Beach Cities Health District." Gallup's own analyst on the work, Dan Witters, has said the initiative had no official control cities, that people already high in well-being were more likely to know about it and showed the biggest gains, and that the life-expectancy figures cited alongside it came from the Blue Zones team, not Gallup (New Republic). That is a reasonable caveat to carry. Communities able to raise seven figures of health system money for a wellness contract tend to be improving anyway.

Separately, the underlying longevity research is contested. Demographer Saul Newman received the 2024 Ig Nobel in Demography for work arguing that extreme-age records are driven substantially by clerical error and pension fraud, and that in countries with good vital registration, remarkable longevity correlates with poverty and worse health (UCL). His paper has not been formally peer-reviewed or published; Newman has said it went through nine rounds of review at BMJ Public Health (STAT, May 2026). Austad and Pes published a response in The Gerontologist in 2025 that reframes the claim as being about the share of a population aged 90 or older rather than the count of supercentenarians (PMC). Blue Zones disputes Newman's work and maintains a page arguing "the blue zones are real and scientifically proven," while conceding that Okinawa "is now accurately described as a historic blue zones area" (Blue Zones fact check). That dispute concerns the demography of the original five zones. It is logically distinct from whether the commercial Blue Zones Project improves outcomes in American cities, and the Project has to be judged on its own evaluation record rather than on Okinawa.

Why it did not move forward here — the paper trail

Piper's answer describes the outcome. The structure behind it is now visible in the record.

In every California community that reached implementation, the sponsor was a health institution: a health district in the Beach Cities and Petaluma, hospital systems in Monterey, a health plan coalition in Riverside, and Adventist Health in Bakersfield, Yuba-Sutter, Mendocino, Lake, Tuolumne and Upper Napa Valley. Not once a municipal general fund. Charleston, Yakima and Sacramento are what happens when a project has to be assembled without one of those institutions committing.

San Joaquin's Ignite launched in January 2025 with the county's Public Health Services, the Community Health Leadership Council of San Joaquin, Health Plan of San Joaquin, Health Net and the City of Lodi (San Joaquin County; PR Newswire). Two managed care plans were in the room at the assessment stage and neither converted to sponsor. Riverside assembled seven payers; Monterey assembled three.

The contract that was, and the contracts that weren't

The county paid nothing to Blue Zones on the public record. It received $10,000 from Health Net, LLC, signed on November 13, 2024 by county Public Health under delegated authority, "to support the comprehensive Blue Zones preparedness assessment project for Lodi for period 10/01/2024 through 04/30/2025" (San Joaquin County delegated authority log, PDF).

Four things follow from that single line.

The money came into the county, not out. Health Net paid; the county did not appropriate its own funds.

The engagement was contractually over on April 30, 2025 — one month after the March site visit and sixteen months before the county publicly acknowledged the outcome.

The Board of Supervisors never voted on it. The amount fell under the delegated-authority threshold, so it was signed at staff level and surfaced only in November 2025, buried as one line inside an accept-and-file report covering 1,631 delegated-authority items for the year (November 18, 2025 packet). An exact-phrase search of the county's legislative portal for "Blue Zones Ignite" returns no results.

No contract with Blue Zones LLC appears in the county record at all. Whatever Blue Zones was paid, and by whom, is not in the county's files. The most likely candidates are Health Net directly and the Community Health Leadership Council of San Joaquin; both are private and neither has published a figure.

That mechanism is not unique to San Joaquin. Galveston's Ignite MSA was signed the same way — under UTMB's delegated authority, not competitively bid, and later amended from $200,000 to $500,000 without ever going to the University of Texas regents (UT Regents consent agenda, PDF). What is unusual about San Joaquin is the size of the number.

The Lodi City Council was never asked

The county launch release quoted Lodi Mayor Cameron Bregman saying Lodi was "honored to be the first city in our county." A search of Lodi's Legistar system across November 2023 through August 2026 returns no matters titled with Blue Zones, well-being, or longevity. The single trace in the entire council record is from the February 5, 2025 regular meeting, under "Comments by the City Council Members on Non-Agenda Items": "Mayor Bregman … provided comments regarding Lodi participating in the Blue Zones Pilot Program led by San Joaquin County" (county attachment, city minutes compilation).

The body that would have had to authorize the "city sponsorship or local funding commitment" Piper says was missing was never asked to vote on it. There is no staff report, no resolution, no budget item, no memorandum of understanding.

Health Plan of San Joaquin's board never discussed it

The plan was a named launch partner and is a public entity, but its Health Commission never took the matter up in any recorded session. All 66 Health Commission agendas and minutes for 2024 through 2026 were pulled from the plan's board agenda page and searched. There are no matches for "Blue Zone."

The plan runs a $100 million, three-year community reinvestment program (Health Plan of San Joaquin). Its published grant list, totaling roughly $49.5 million in commitments across five categories, funds a different feasibility study — "SJ Be Well" — and lists no Blue Zones recipient. The mechanism to sponsor exactly this kind of work existed, was funded at nine figures, and was used for something else.

Adventist Health does not appear in the public record on this engagement

Adventist Health is absent from every checkable part of the record. Not a named partner in either launch release. Not in any Board of Supervisors document. Not in any Lodi city record. Not in Health Plan of San Joaquin's board minutes or its published grant list. No statement of any kind in its own newsroom.

The community benefit documents are where the absence becomes explicit. These are the IRS-required reports the hospital publishes.

The 2025 needs assessment was published in the same year the assessor — Adventist's own subsidiary — was walking Lodi. Its stated priorities are access to care, health conditions, and mental health. Blue Zones is not among them. The commitment language appears only in the 2026 strategy, approved by the hospital board and the Adventist Health system board on April 23, 2026 — a year after the engagement had already ended for lack of exactly that commitment. The line carries no dollar amount, no named partner, and no timeline, and its verb is "support efforts to establish," not lead, fund, or sponsor.

For scale: California's Department of Health Care Access and Information reports Adventist Health Lodi Memorial's total community benefit spending for calendar year 2025 at $52,300,232 (HCAI). The Health Net contribution that funded the Lodi assessment is about 0.02 percent of that. Adventist Health Lodi Memorial's president is Brooke McCollough (Adventist Health Lodi Memorial), who also chairs the Lodi District Chamber of Commerce board — the organization whose staff hosted the assessors' tour.

Whether Adventist Health was approached and declined is still not on the record. But the record can now be stated precisely: the company doing the assessing was owned by the corporation that owns Lodi Memorial; that corporation reported $52.3 million in community benefit spending for 2025; its own 2025 needs assessment does not mention Blue Zones; and its only written Blue Zones commitment was made a year after the assessment ended, with no budget attached.

The contract fight nobody has connected

There is a chronology worth putting in the record without asserting cause. On March 11, 2025 — the same month Blue Zones assessors were touring Lodi — Adventist Health served Health Plan of San Joaquin with notice of contract termination for Adventist Health Lodi Memorial hospital, its clinics and physician network, and its home care arm, affecting 216 hospital, 2,193 physician and 16 ancillary members, and asking to renegotiate rates. The dispute was resolved on June 25, 2025 with no termination (Health Commission minutes, April 30, 2025, PDF; Health Commission minutes, June 25, 2025, PDF). In August 2025, the plan's community reinvestment committee list included a $1 million general grant request from Adventist Health, purpose not stated in the minutes (Health Commission minutes, August 27, 2025, PDF).

So during the exact window when a local sponsor had to step forward — contract term October 2024 through April 2025, site visit in March — the two institutions best positioned to be that sponsor were fighting over reimbursement rates for the Lodi hospital. No document links the dispute to the Blue Zones outcome. The chronology is a matter of record.

The county's own promise didn't happen

The launch release said the assessment "will complement the County's Community Health Needs Assessment and Community Health" improvement plan. The county's 2025 needs assessment, published in April 2025, contains no Blue Zones mentions (SJC CHNA 2025, PDF). The 2026-2028 Community Health Improvement Plan, published in July 2025, contains none (SJC CHIP, PDF). So do the Public Health Services strategic plan and the health equity action plan. The stated integration never occurred.

The county said nothing publicly

There is no county press release, staff report, board presentation or web page announcing the outcome. The county's only public accounting came from its press office, in response to a newspaper column, seventeen months after the money ran out. Katie Piper is a public information officer for San Joaquin County, not a Public Health Services program lead — so the department that signed the contract has not itself spoken publicly on the record about why the work ended.

The convener has no discoverable existence

Blue Zones' own launch release named the Community Health Leadership Council of San Joaquin — not the county — as the co-launching partner. What can be verified about it: its executive director is Nadeja Steager, in the role since July 2022, who is concurrently a project manager at California Consulting (California Consulting); its contact address in its own outreach materials is an outlook.com account.

There is no website, no bylaws, no membership roster, no agendas or minutes, no IRS nonprofit registration, and no financial statements. The organization presented as the convener of a countywide health initiative has no discoverable governing documents and is not itself a plausible funder of a multi-year Blue Zones Project. That sharpens Piper's line about no local entity being ready.

The alcohol lane

Alcohol policy is a standard Blue Zones policy lane. Petaluma named it as one of three priority areas in its 2023 Discovery Phase. Riverside's project is actively championing changes to the city's Social Host Accountability Ordinance and cites its own "Blue Zones Project Riverside Discovery Report, Alcohol Policy, November 2024" (Blue Zones Project Riverside). Parkland-Spanaway, Washington lists alcohol policy as a certification pillar.

The tension was in the Lodi coverage from day one. Mayor Bregman's own quote in the county release was "I wouldn't be surprised if drinking Lodi wine is part of the solution." The Lodi News-Sentinel's launch story took up the wine and alcohol question directly, noting the January 2025 Surgeon General advisory on alcohol and cancer risk alongside the Loma Linda comparison (Lodi News-Sentinel, January 23, 2025). Because no report was ever published, there is no way from public documents to know what Blue Zones assessors found or recommended about alcohol in Lodi. That absence is itself worth noting in a city whose economy is built on wine.