Pneumonic Plague: The Siberia Case and California's Own Record

LodiEye — October 2026

A laboratory technician in Siberia died on October 2 of a pneumonia that Russian authorities have not identified, and because she worked at an anti-plague research institute, the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention both opened files on the case. The word plague carries six centuries of weight, and it is worth separating that weight from what the disease actually is now. Plague never left California. It lives in ground squirrels and chipmunks across the Sierra and the coastal ranges, it produces a handful of human cases in the state each decade, and it is curable with antibiotics that have been available since the 1940s. It is also the reason Los Angeles saw the last urban plague epidemic in the United States, in 1924, and the last person-to-person transmission of the disease this country has recorded. San Joaquin County sits outside the zone where plague circulates, and no human case has ever been recorded here.

What the disease is

Plague is caused by Yersinia pestis, a bacterium that lives among wild rodents and the fleas that feed on them. Bubonic, septicemic and pneumonic plague are three forms of one disease, not three diseases. Which form a person gets depends on how the bacteria entered the body.

Bubonic plague follows a flea bite and produces the swollen, painful lymph nodes called buboes. It accounts for more than 80 percent of U.S. cases. Septicemic plague is bloodstream infection, with fever and sepsis. Pneumonic plague is infection of the lungs, and it arrives two ways: by inhaling the bacteria, or when untreated bubonic or septicemic infection spreads into the lungs on its own.

Two things make the lung form the one public health agencies watch. It is the only form that passes from person to person, through respiratory droplets. And it moves quickly, with pneumonia developing within roughly 24 to 36 hours. An influenza-like illness with bloody sputum is the warning sign. Without prompt antibiotics, patients progress to respiratory failure and death, and untreated pneumonic plague is almost always fatal.

Transmission requires close, sustained contact. CDC's clinical guidelines estimate that a person with pneumonic plague will on average infect about one other person. That is a different category of contagion from measles or COVID-19.

In the United States, the most common route to a human pneumonic case is not another person. It is a cat. House cats that hunt in country where plague circulates can bring the infection home, and a sick cat with respiratory symptoms can transmit it by droplet to the person handling it. That is how the most recent U.S. death happened.

How it is treated

Before antibiotics, fatality rates across all forms of plague ran between 66 and 93 percent. Sulfonamide drugs in the 1930s changed that, and patients with pneumonic plague who had been considered beyond help began surviving. The disease has been curable for about eighty years.

CDC published updated treatment guidelines in 2021, replacing recommendations a private working group had issued in 2000. The older guidance offered essentially two first-line drugs. The 2021 version widens the list.

Source: CDC, Antimicrobial Treatment and Prophylaxis of Plague, MMWR Recommendations and Reports, 2021.

Timing governs the outcome. Antibiotics need to start within about 24 hours of the first symptoms, which is why clinicians in endemic areas are instructed to treat on suspicion rather than wait for a laboratory result. The Arizona case described below illustrates what happens when the diagnosis arrives late.

For people who have been exposed, CDC recommends seven days of prophylaxis. Exposure means close contact, under six feet and sustained, with a pneumonic patient or animal, or direct contact with infected fluids or tissues. Pre-exposure prophylaxis is not considered necessary for first responders and health care workers as long as standard and droplet precautions hold. Isolation for a pneumonic case uses negative pressure, droplet precautions and N-95 respirators.

Two limits are worth stating plainly. There is no vaccine of proven effectiveness against primary pneumonic plague. And there is no evidence of meaningful antibiotic resistance among the strains circulating in natural foci.

How often it happens in the United States

The United States averages seven human plague cases a year, with a range from zero to seventeen. Since 2000, about fifteen cases have been fatal. The last decade shows no trend upward or downward.

Plague arrived in this country through San Francisco in 1900, on rat-infested steamships. Early epidemics hit port cities. After the last of them, the bacterium moved from urban rats into rural rodent species and became permanently established across the western states. CDC places current cases in two regions: northern New Mexico, northern Arizona and southern Colorado; and California, southern Oregon and far western Nevada.

The high-water mark of the last decade was 2015, with eleven cases across six states by September and three deaths, two of them tied to exposure at Yosemite National Park. Nothing since has come close.

Sources: CDC, Arizona Department of Health Services, New Mexico Department of Health, El Dorado County Public Health.

The Arizona death is the one that matters for understanding the pneumonic form. A young man died in July 2025, and the diagnosis came only after his death. CDC published the case report on October 1, 2026. He had work-related contact with two sick indoor cats, both showing respiratory symptoms consistent with pneumonic plague. It was Arizona's first pneumonic plague death since 2007, in a state that had reported only eight human plague cases in the twenty-five years from 2000 through 2024.

New Mexico carries the highest rates in the country. State health officials reported in June 2026 that a Santa Fe County woman in her fifties had died, the state's first human case of that year. New Mexico recorded three human cases in 2025 and one fatal case in 2024.

How often it happens worldwide

Global plague incidence has fallen sharply over twenty-five years and has been roughly flat for the last decade. WHO published updated figures on September 29, 2026. Between 2019 and 2025, ten countries reported suspected human plague cases and six reported confirmed cases, for a total of 3,847 suspected cases and 423 deaths. That is a case fatality rate of 11 percent. Most cases came from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Madagascar, where plague remains endemic in some areas.

Average annual reported plague cases worldwide, by period

Calculated from WHO totals: 2,334 cases annually on average from 1999 through 2008; 2,886 cases total across 2013 through 2018; 3,847 suspected cases total across 2019 through 2025. WHO notes that plague also occurs in countries that do not report cases, so these figures reflect surveillance capacity as well as disease activity.

Africa accounts for more than 90 percent of global human plague cases. Peru is the other country where the disease is permanently established, though its numbers are small, roughly 40 cases across the 2013 to 2018 period, the same as the United States over that span.

The annual totals move with individual outbreaks rather than with any underlying trend. One year dominates the last decade.

Reported plague cases by outbreak, 2016 through 2023

Source: WHO African Region plague surveillance. Mad. is Madagascar; DRC is the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Deaths by outbreak, in the same order: 26, 238, 9, 1, 31, 19, 7, 15. The 2017 Madagascar epidemic is the outlier on the chart and the reason the case fatality rate varies so widely between outbreaks.

Madagascar's 2017 epidemic is the relevant one for pneumonic plague. It was urban, and roughly 70 percent of its cases were the pneumonic form, which is unusual. Madagascar's near-annual outbreaks are normally bubonic and rural. WHO recorded 2,348 confirmed, probable and suspected cases with 202 deaths, a case fatality rate of 8.6 percent. The outbreak ran through the capital, spread to Seychelles in one traveler, and was brought under control with antibiotics and contact tracing.

California's record

California has the deepest American record of pneumonic plague, and it is where the last person-to-person transmission in the United States occurred.

The disease entered through San Francisco in 1900. Those first outbreaks involved domestic rats, rat fleas and people. The bacterium then crossed into wild rodents, and was first isolated from native ground squirrels and woodrats in California in 1908. That jump created the permanent reservoir the state still has.

Oakland, 1919

A pneumonic outbreak traced to an index patient who hunted and skinned ground squirrels. Thirteen of the fourteen human cases were fatal.

Los Angeles, 1924

A second pneumonic outbreak, thirty-two cases with thirty-one fatal, running from late September to containment in mid-November. The California Department of Public Health ties it to an outbreak among domestic rats, with infected squirrels found near San Luis Obispo County as late as July of that year pointing to squirrels as the original source. This was the last urban plague epidemic in the United States and the last documented human-to-human plague transmission in the country.

The 1924 outbreak is also a difficult chapter in public health history. It centered on Mexican-American residents of the Macy Street district. The disease was not referred to by name even after city health officers confirmed it, and the response involved physically isolating Hispanic neighborhoods from white ones.

After 1924

California has had no primary pneumonic outbreak since. What it has had is occasional secondary plague pneumonia and a small number of cat-associated cases. In March 1984 a Claremont veterinarian developed bubonic plague with secondary plague pneumonia, the first person since 1924 to acquire plague pneumonia in Los Angeles County. One of his patient cats had symptoms consistent with pneumonic plague. CDC noted at the time that since 1959 four veterinarians and one veterinary assistant had confirmed plague infections, and that a veterinarian in Santa Clara County died.

Where plague lives in California now

The California Department of Public Health's plague compendium is the authoritative statement, and it is specific: plague is found in many foothill and mountainous regions of the state but is absent from the Central Valley and the southeastern desert regions. Since 1970, plague-positive rodents have been found in 34 of California's 58 counties. From 1927 through 2019, 63 human plague cases with exposure in California were reported, almost all of them connected to rodent activity in the wild and most commonly to California ground squirrels.

Recent human cases in the state have all been bubonic and all have survived. Two people were exposed in Yosemite in 2015, the state's first cases since 2006. An El Dorado County resident was infected in 2020, likely in South Lake Tahoe. In August 2025 another South Lake Tahoe resident tested positive, probably from a flea bite while camping.

The state runs animal surveillance every year, and the 2024 results are the most recent published. CDPH reported no human plague cases and no domestic pet cases in 2024. It tested 533 wild rodents and 140 carnivores and feral pigs from 31 counties, and detected plague activity in nine: Alpine, El Dorado, Inyo, Lassen, Mariposa, Mono, Plumas, Sierra and Siskiyou.

Share of California specimens testing positive for plague exposure, 2024

Source: California Department of Public Health, Vector-Borne Disease Section Annual Report 2024. Sample sizes: 533 wild rodents, of which 8 were positive across six counties; 140 carnivores and feral pigs, of which 18 were positive across five counties; 669 fleas collected from wild rodents across nine counties, none positive. Carnivores test positive more often because a coyote or bear that eats infected rodents is exposed repeatedly and survives, which makes them useful sentinels for where the bacterium is active.

San Joaquin County

No human plague case of any form has ever been recorded in San Joaquin County. The documented record here is thin, and that is itself the finding.

A U.S. Public Health Service county-by-county survey from the plague-prevention campaign of the early 1900s states flatly that there is no record of human plague in San Joaquin County. Nothing in the state record since has changed that.

There is one historical rodent finding. During the federal ground-squirrel eradication program, Public Health Reports for the week ending January 14, 1911 recorded plague-infected ground squirrels found on January 4 and January 9 of that year at the Hughes ranch, one mile southwest of Ripon. That appears to be the only plague detection in the county in the primary record. It came during the brief window when infected squirrels were spreading outward from the Bay Area, before the valley foci died out.

The county sits almost entirely on the valley floor, inside the zone CDPH describes as free of plague. San Joaquin County does not appear in the state's 2024 plague testing table; no rodents, carcasses or carnivores from the county were submitted that year. The San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District lists plague among the vector-borne diseases within its mandate, and the district participates in other state surveillance programs. In 2024 it submitted four western blacklegged ticks for Lyme disease testing, and four deer mice have been tested for hantavirus across the 2015 to 2024 window, all negative.

The closest confirmed plague activity in recent years is Mariposa County, in the Yosemite area, roughly 90 miles southeast, and El Dorado County in the Tahoe Basin, roughly 100 miles northeast. Both are foothill and mountain habitat. Calaveras and Tuolumne counties, immediately east, submitted samples to the state in 2024 — ten carnivores from Calaveras, and 97 rodents plus four carnivores from Tuolumne — with no positives reported.

One gap in the public record is worth naming. The CDPH compendium maps the 34 counties with plague-positive rodents since 1970 in a figure rather than a list, and that figure is not reproducible from the document's text. Whether San Joaquin is formally inside or outside the 34-county count is therefore unconfirmed from publicly available material.

What this means for people here

The exposure group is people who hike, camp or hunt in the Sierra foothills and above, not people at home in the valley. California ground squirrels are abundant across San Joaquin County, but abundance is not infection, and the county has no record of Y. pestis in its rodent population in more than a century.

The route that has produced pneumonic cases in California and Arizona is worth knowing for anyone who takes an outdoor cat to the foothills or has one that roams there. A cat that catches and eats an infected rodent can develop pneumonic plague and transmit it to the person caring for it. Standard advice from state and county health departments covers the rest: avoid contact with wild rodents dead or alive, keep pets away from rodent burrows, use flea control, and seek veterinary care promptly for a sick pet after a trip to plague country.

The Siberia case

Darya Shipilova, a 28-year-old laboratory technician at the Irkutsk Anti-Plague Research Institute of Siberia and the Far East, was hospitalized on September 29 and died early on October 2. The institute's own materials say it was founded in 1934 to combat plague and later expanded to other dangerous diseases including cholera and anthrax.

Rospotrebnadzor, Russia's consumer and public health watchdog, diagnosed her with pneumonia of unknown etiology. It said tests of biological material found no microorganisms linked to her professional activity, and that no accidents involving pathogenic microorganisms had been recorded at the institute. About 200 contacts were placed under medical observation or isolation. Parts of the hospital where she died were cordoned off, more than 60 colleagues remained isolated inside the institute building, and a mask mandate was imposed at the Irkutsk Aluminium Plant in Shelekhov.

Several things have been reported but not confirmed. The independent Russian outlet People of Baikal reported she may have contracted pneumonic plague from a broken test tube while collecting samples, attributed to unnamed sources close to regional security services. Alexei Tsydenov, head of the neighboring republic of Buryatia, posted that she had died of plague, then edited the post to add the word possibly. On October 6 the Daily Mail reported a second unidentified death at an Irkutsk district hospital; that claim has not been independently confirmed and Russian authorities have not acknowledged it.

WHO spokesman Christian Lindmeier told a United Nations briefing there is no indication of anything resembling a pandemic, and noted that the institute studies dangerous pathogens in a part of Siberia where plague occurs naturally in wild animals. Russia has not requested a WHO expert deployment. On October 6, Russian officials told WHO under the International Health Regulations that no case of plague had been recorded in Irkutsk, in her or in anyone else; that roughly 200 contacts had tested negative for dangerous pathogens; and that medical monitoring of contacts had concluded. WHO rates the risk moderate to low for Irkutsk, low for Russia and very low for Europe. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control reported no secondary cases. A U.S. State Department spokesperson said there had been reports of a fatal case of suspected pneumonic plague in Irkutsk oblast, and CDC said it is monitoring reports while the circumstances remain unconfirmed.

What remains unknown is whether she was infected with plague at all, and if she was, whether it came from the lab or from the wild. Irkutsk sits in country where the bacterium circulates naturally in rodents, so a natural infection is not implausible. Lisa Morici, a microbiologist at the Tulane University School of Medicine, has noted that her death may turn out to be unrelated to her workplace entirely. There is no evidence that any strain involved would resist antibiotics, and no evidence that the institute does biological weapons work.

Two things make the case hard to read from outside. Russian officials have been evasive: one authority issued a travel warning for Shelekhov on October 3 and deleted it less than two hours later, and several Russian media reports on the situation have disappeared from news websites. Mongolia, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan tightened health controls in response.

The most useful signal available is the absence of secondary cases. Pneumonic plague has a short incubation period. More than a week after the death, anyone infected by close contact with her would be showing symptoms. None have been reported.

Sources

• CDC, Antimicrobial Treatment and Prophylaxis of Plague: Recommendations for Naturally Acquired Infections and Bioterrorism Response, MMWR Recommendations and Reports, 2021.
• CDC, Plague: Maps and Statistics.
• CDC, Plague: Clinical Care.
• CDC, Notes from the Field: Fatal Pneumonic Plague — Coconino County, Arizona, July 2025, MMWR, October 1, 2026.
• CDC, Plague Pneumonia — California, MMWR, 1984.
• California Department of Public Health, California Compendium of Plague Control.
• California Department of Public Health, Vector-Borne Disease Section Annual Report 2024.
• El Dorado County, Resident Tests Positive for Plague, August 2025.
• New Mexico Department of Health, New Mexico reports first case of human plague in 2026, June 11, 2026.
• World Health Organization, WHO reports latest global trends in cholera, meningitis and plague, September 29, 2026.
• WHO African Region, Plague in the African Region.
• U.S. Public Health Service, Public Health Reports, Vol. XXVI, February 3, 1911.
• Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Siberian Anti-Plague Institute Staff Isolated After Worker's Death, October 5, 2026.
• PBS NewsHour, How Russia and the world are responding to a possible case of pneumonic plague after lab worker death, October 2026.
• The Conversation, The death of a Russian plague researcher, explained by a microbiologist, October 6, 2026.
• San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District, sjmosquito.org.

LodiEye performs a news-media function for Lodi and San Joaquin County, alongside the Lodi News-Sentinel, Stocktonia, The Sacramento Bee and CalMatters. It reports on public records, government proceedings and matters of community concern, and publishes that reporting for a general readership.

This report was produced with AI assistance under the editorial direction of the founder. AI systems were used in five capacities.

Source Discovery

Locating primary documents, agency publications and contemporaneous news coverage relevant to the subject, including CDC and WHO publications, California Department of Public Health surveillance reports, and historical Public Health Service records.

Credibility Validation

Checking claims against the originating agency or publication rather than secondary summaries, and separating confirmed facts from reported but unverified claims, particularly in the coverage of the Irkutsk case.

Analysis and Synthesis

Comparing figures across jurisdictions and time periods, calculating rates and averages from published totals, and identifying where the public record is incomplete.

Presentation

Drafting, structuring and charting, including the data visualizations in this report.

Final Review

Verification of figures, sources and framing by the editor before publication.

The AI systems used were Claude, from Anthropic, and Perplexity.

Corrections and additions are welcome. Write to editor@lodi411.com.

Data Centers in California: New State Laws, Local Moratoria, and What They Mean for Lodi and San Joaquin County

LodiEye — October 2026

Summary

Data centers are large buildings filled with computer servers that run cloud services and artificial intelligence. California is building them and restricting them at the same time. The California Energy Commission estimates that data centers now draw about 1,000 megawatts, roughly 2 percent of peak demand on the state’s main power grid, and projects about 4,500 megawatts by 2040. Pacific Gas and Electric says developers have asked it to serve 12.7 gigawatts of new data center load, more than twelve times what operates statewide today, though only a small share of those requests have signed agreements.^[1][2][3]

Cities and counties have responded quickly. Monterey Park, Coachella and Calexico have adopted permanent bans, and Alhambra voters decide on one November 3. Three counties and about twenty cities have adopted urgency moratoria, which are temporary freezes on new approvals that state law allows for 45 days and up to two years with extensions. About a dozen more jurisdictions are drafting restrictions. San Jose, Santa Clara, Pittsburg and Vernon continue to permit and build.^[10]

On September 21, Governor Newsom signed seven laws on data centers. Together they require data centers to pay for the grid upgrades and power supply they need, end the shortcuts that let some projects skip state environmental review, require public reporting of energy and water use, and require water supply studies before approval. Most take effect January 1, 2027.^[4][5]

San Joaquin County has no data center applications and no data centers in its unincorporated areas. On September 1 the Board of Supervisors ordered a six-month study and asked its lawyers whether a temporary moratorium would hold up legally. Lodi has no data center rules. A proposal to place one near the White Slough wastewater plant was raised at the City Council in May and withdrawn by June. Lodi’s electric system is the main physical limit on any future proposal.^[11][16]

Status as of October 6

San Joaquin County has not adopted a moratorium. The county said the board would consider a 45-day moratorium in October, and no vote had been reported as of this writing. Oakland’s City Council and the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors were both scheduled to act on moratoria on October 6.

Where California stands

There is no official count of data centers in California. The Energy Commission says the state has more than 200 active data centers and that it does not keep a tally. Industry and commercial directories list between 287 and 296. The differences come from what is counted. Directories include every listed site, while cities count only the larger facilities that needed specific permits.^[1][7]

Most of the existing facilities are in Silicon Valley. San Jose says it has about 20 active sites of the size that requires a city permit. In August the city’s project list showed eight more under review and three recently approved. Several are sized just under 100 megawatts, the point at which state oversight of backup power plants becomes stricter. San Jose is writing uniform standards for these projects and expects to bring them to its City Council in December.^[8][9]

The clearest measure of developer interest is the list of requests utilities receive for new service. PG&E’s list has moved sharply from quarter to quarter. It is better read as a sign of demand than as a forecast of what will be built. At the end of June, only four projects totaling 490 megawatts, or about 0.5 gigawatts, had signed agreements. PG&E’s chief executive told analysts in July that the company expects to serve 1.8 gigawatts of new data center load by 2030.^[2][3]

PG&E data center service requests, mid-2025 to June 2026

Gigawatts of requested load. One gigawatt is 1,000 megawatts. Source: PG&E filings and Utility Dive.

PG&E argues that new data center load, priced correctly, lowers bills for everyone else by spreading fixed grid costs over more sales. The company says each gigawatt could reduce customer bills by 1 percent or more. That is a company projection. Whether it holds depends on the rates regulators set, which is what several of the new state laws address.^[2]

Bans and moratoria across the state

The local response began in the San Gabriel Valley early this year and spread to the Imperial and Coachella valleys, the Bay Area and the Central Valley. Most of these actions came before any developer had filed an application. Many cities found that their zoning codes had no definition of a data center, which in some places meant one could be approved as an ordinary industrial building.

Monterey Park voters approved a citywide ban on June 2 by a wide margin. Coachella’s council banned large data centers on August 26, and Calexico’s adopted a ban on September 16. Alhambra already bars data centers in its office and industrial zones and has placed Measure DB on the November 3 ballot to extend the ban citywide. In Los Angeles County, the planning director issued a memo on September 17 halting very large data centers in unincorporated areas while a permanent ordinance is written.^[26][27][31]

Local actions on data centers in California, by type

Counts of cities and counties as of early October 2026. Many entries rest on a single tracker maintained by a data center industry vendor and have not each been checked against city records.

Not every local government has moved to restrict. Tulare County adopted its moratorium on a 4–1 vote, with one supervisor favoring case-by-case review. San Jose continues to seek projects, and Pittsburg approved a 99-megawatt data center in 2024 that is going forward under a legal settlement described below.^[29][23]

The seven state laws

The package signed on September 21 reversed the state’s position from a year earlier, when the governor vetoed a water-reporting bill and signed only a study of whether data centers shift costs to other ratepayers. That study is due from the California Public Utilities Commission on January 1, 2027.^[7]

What each law does

Source: Governor’s office, Mayer Brown and CalMatters.^[4][5][6][7]

The legislative session ended August 31, so no further state bills are pending this year. No lawsuit against the new laws has been reported. Attorneys who advise the industry expect challenges to specific provisions. In Congress, the House passed a bill on September 16 that asks state regulators to consider making large data centers pay the full cost of the power and grid capacity they add. It does not require them to do so, and it is now in the Senate.^[5][25]

What the courts have decided

The most important rulings so far come from Imperial County, where a developer proposed a campus of about 950,000 square feet and 330 megawatts near the City of Imperial. The county approved an early step, the merging of parcels, without a new environmental study. The City of Imperial and the Sierra Club sued.

On September 9, Judge Brooks Anderholt overturned that approval. He found that the county should have completed environmental review of the whole project before approving any part of it, and ordered a full environmental impact report before grading or construction. The developer has said he will appeal.^[20]

A second ruling went the other way. Imperial County had adopted its own moratorium in June. On August 21, Judge Jeffrey Jones ordered the county to set it aside. State law allows an urgency moratorium only when there is a current and immediate threat to public health, safety or welfare, and the judge found the county’s written findings did not show one. The county has said it is preparing a replacement.^[21][22]

The same developer has two other cases pending: a federal civil rights suit against the City of Imperial and several of its officials, and a suit against the Imperial Irrigation District over its refusal to supply water. Neither has produced a ruling.

In Contra Costa County, the Center for Biological Diversity sued Pittsburg over its 2024 approval of a 99-megawatt data center. The case settled in December 2025. The developer agreed to use 100 percent renewable electricity apart from backup generators, to cool with recycled water, to install solar panels and to pay $750,000 into a climate resiliency fund. In return, the group agreed not to oppose the first phase.^[23][24]

San Joaquin County

The county says it has no active data center applications and no data centers operating in its unincorporated areas, and that its code has no rules written for them. Supervisor Robert Rickman, whose district includes Ripon, Tracy, Mountain House and rural south Manteca, brought the issue to the board. On September 1 the supervisors voted 5–0 to have the Community Development Department study the effects of large data centers on water, electricity, farmland, public safety and county finances. The department asked for six months.^[11][13][15]

The board also asked County Counsel whether an urgency moratorium could be legally supported, and to return with one if so. Accounts of that vote differ. The county’s own announcement and Stocktonia both say no moratorium was adopted and that the board would consider one in October. The Lodi News-Sentinel reported that a 45-day moratorium was approved. The county’s announcement is the official record of the action.^[11][12][14]

Anything the county adopts would apply only outside city limits. Each city decides for itself. Stockton’s City Council voted 7–0 the same day to remove data centers from its economic development plan while it holds listening sessions in each district. That vote did not ban data centers or pause them. Stockton already has one, a floating facility on a barge at the Port of Stockton that employs ten people. No data center rules or applications were found in Tracy, Manteca, Lathrop, Ripon, Escalon or Mountain House.^[12]

San Joaquin County and its neighbors

Source: county and city announcements, local news reports and the SAVRN tracker.^{[10][11][12][28]}

With restrictions in place or pending on several sides of the county, developers looking for sites without them may turn to cities here that have large industrial areas and no data center rules. That is a possibility. No applicant has announced such a plan.

Lodi

The Lodi City Council discussed data centers on May 6. Councilmember Cameron Bregman raised the idea of siting one on city-owned land near the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility and said it could bring the city up to $20 million a year. Mayor Ramon Yepez opposed a very large data center for Lodi, and Councilmember Lisa Craig-Hensley described the idea as a low priority. Electric Utility Director Jeff Berkheimer told the council that the distribution system needed to serve a data center at that location does not exist today. By June, after public opposition, Bregman had withdrawn the idea.^[16][17][30]

Lodi has no ordinance on data centers and no moratorium. The subject has come up again in this year’s City Council campaign ahead of the November 3 election.^[30]

The limit set by the power lines

Lodi Electric Utility is owned by the city and buys much of its power through the Northern California Power Agency. Its power arrives over PG&E transmission lines, and those lines can deliver only so much. According to PG&E’s application for the Northern San Joaquin 230 kV Transmission Project, the existing lines can serve about 180 megawatts of local load, and the project would raise that to about 420 megawatts. The Public Utilities Commission approved the project in July. Construction is expected to start in 2028, with the line in service in 2031.^[18][19]

Lodi’s power import limit compared with one data center

Megawatts. A 99-megawatt data center is the size approved in Pittsburg and common among San Jose proposals. Import limits are from PG&E’s project application.

A single data center of 99 megawatts would equal more than half of what the lines can deliver today, before counting the homes and businesses Lodi already serves. Until the new line is in service, a project of that size could not be served. After 2031 the question becomes one of policy and price.

What the state laws change in Lodi

Beginning January 1, 2027, any data center proposed in Lodi would need at least an initial environmental study, even on land where zoning would otherwise allow it outright. The applicant would have to tell the city how much power the project would use and how much noise it would make. Because the city is also the water supplier, the water-use estimates required before a business license would come to City Hall as well. From 2028, the project would need a water supply assessment paid for by the applicant.^[5][6]

The rate laws are different. SB 886 and AB 2383 work through the Public Utilities Commission, which regulates PG&E and other investor-owned utilities. Lodi Electric Utility is not regulated by the commission. Its rates are set by the City Council. Based on published summaries of the laws, protections that keep a data center’s costs off other customers’ bills would have to be written locally in Lodi. The bill text should be read to confirm whether any provision reaches city-owned utilities.^[5][18]

What the Imperial County ruling means for a local moratorium

The ruling against Imperial County’s moratorium turned on its written findings. Public concern about a project was not enough to show an immediate threat. If the county or a city here adopts a moratorium, findings tied to specific local evidence would be easier to defend. Examples include groundwater conditions, Delta water supply, or a documented limit on the power system such as Lodi’s. Dixon and Brawley both defined a data center by size in megawatts and square feet, which gives an ordinance a clear boundary.^[21][28]

The arguments on each side

The Data Center Coalition, the industry’s trade group, says it shares the goal of responsible growth and warns that heavy regulation could send investment to other states. It cites its own commissioned figures showing several hundred thousand California jobs tied to the industry. Cities that welcome data centers point to tax revenue. San Jose estimates $7.5 million to $8.4 million a year in utility tax for every 100 megawatts of load.^[7][8]

Opponents point to water use, diesel backup generators, noise, and the risk that other customers end up paying for grid upgrades. They also note that a finished data center employs few people. The Stockton facility has ten workers. Environmental groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity have used lawsuits to win conditions on projects, and the Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability opposes data centers anywhere in the San Joaquin Valley.^[12][24]

Lawmakers who wrote the new laws say local bans and public opposition changed what was possible in Sacramento. Some supporters say the laws should have gone further.^[7]

Dates to watch

• October 2026: The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors may consider a 45-day moratorium. Moratoria in Calaveras County (October 9) and Riverbank (October 13) expire unless extended.
• November 3, 2026: Alhambra votes on Measure DB. Lodi holds its City Council election.
• December 2026: San Jose’s data center standards go to its City Council.
• January 1, 2027: Most of the seven state laws take effect. The Public Utilities Commission’s study of cost shifting is due.
• Early March 2027: The county’s six-month study period ends.
• January 1, 2028: New data center electric rates are due. Water supply assessments become mandatory.
• 2031: The Northern San Joaquin 230 kV line is scheduled to enter service.

What remains unknown

• Whether San Joaquin County will adopt a moratorium, and what evidence its findings would cite.
• The outcome of the October 6 votes in Oakland and Mendocino County.
• Whether the state’s new rate requirements reach city-owned utilities such as Lodi Electric Utility in any form.
• Whether any developer has approached Lodi, Stockton or other cities in the county since the May discussion.
• The accuracy of local entries that rest only on the industry tracker, including a reported ban in Irwindale that could not be confirmed.
• Whether the developer in Imperial County files an appeal, and how other courts treat moratoria adopted elsewhere.
• How the Public Utilities Commission will design the new rates, which will decide whether data centers lower or raise other customers’ bills in PG&E territory.

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 public record on data centers in California: the Energy Commission’s data center page, PG&E’s quarterly filing, the Governor’s signing announcement, the Public Utilities Commission’s project page for the Northern San Joaquin 230 kV line, county and city announcements, court coverage from Imperial County, and reporting by CalMatters, KQED, KPBS, Stocktonia, the Lodi News-Sentinel and others.

Credibility Validation: Official records were preferred over secondary accounts. Where sources disagreed, as with the September 1 county vote, the disagreement is stated and the official record is identified. Entries that rest only on an industry-maintained tracker are labeled as such. Figures commissioned by the industry are identified as industry figures.

Analysis and Synthesis: AI tools helped connect the statewide laws and court rulings to conditions in San Joaquin County and Lodi, including the limit on Lodi’s power imports and the difference between utilities regulated by the state and a city-owned utility.

Presentation: AI tools assisted with drafting, the tables, the three charts and the HTML layout of this page.

Final Review: The founder reviewed the report for accuracy, tone and local relevance before publication.

Lodi411 describes its methods so readers can judge the work for themselves. Corrections and clarifications are welcome at editor@lodi411.com.

References

1. Primary California Energy Commission — Data Centers.
2. Primary PG&E Corporation — Second-quarter 2026 results, filed with the SEC.
3. News Utility Dive — PG&E says it has 12.7 GW in data center pipeline.
4. Primary Office of the Governor — Data center laws signing announcement, Sept. 21, 2026.
5. Legal analysis Mayer Brown — California’s data center laws, September 2026.
6. Legal analysis Mondaq — California enacts seven data center bills.
7. News CalMatters — Newsom clamps down on California data centers, September 2026.
8. Primary City of San Jose Office of Economic Development — Data centers and large energy project uniform standards.
9. News KQED — San José weighs data center benefits as residents raise environmental concerns.
10. Industry tracker SAVRN — California data center moratorium tracker.
11. Primary local San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors — Announcement on large-scale AI data centers, Sept. 2, 2026.
12. Local news Stocktonia — Stockton residents push back on data centers, Sept. 2, 2026.
13. Meeting summary CitizenPortal — San Joaquin supervisors order six-month study.
14. Local news Lodi News-Sentinel — San Joaquin County puts data centers on hold.
15. Local news Manteca Bulletin — Rickman seeks temporary moratorium on data centers.
16. Local news Lodi News-Sentinel — The data debate powers up in Lodi.
17. Meeting summary CitizenPortal — Lodi council opens preliminary discussion on data centers.
18. Primary California Public Utilities Commission — Northern San Joaquin 230 kV Transmission Project, Decision 26-07-042.
19. Local news Lodi News-Sentinel — Lodi transmission upgrade gets green light.
20. News KPBS — Court overturns approval of Imperial County data center, Sept. 9, 2026.
21. Local news The Desert Review — Imperial County reviews next steps after court sets aside moratorium.
22. Primary Imperial County — Update on data center moratorium, August 2026.
23. Primary City of Pittsburg — AVAIO data center settlement agreement.
24. Advocacy group Center for Biological Diversity — Pittsburg settlement announcement, Dec. 16, 2025.
25. News Utility Dive — House passes ratepayer protection bill.
26. News LAist — Alhambra adds data center ban measure to November ballot.
27. News LA Public Press — Monterey Park votes to ban data centers, June 2026.
28. Local news FOX40 — Dixon City Council imposes 45-day moratorium on new data centers.
29. Local news Valley Voice — Agencies take action after outcry against data center construction.
30. Local news Lodi News-Sentinel via Yahoo News — Bregman backtracks on data centers.
31. Local news Los Cerritos News — Los Angeles County moves to ban large AI data centers in unincorporated areas.

Lodi City Council — Regular Meeting

Wednesday, October 7, 2026 — Closed Session 6:15 p.m. | Regular Session 7:00 p.m.

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

Mayor Ramon Yepez | Mayor Pro Tempore Mikey Hothi | Councilmembers Cameron Bregman, Lisa Craig-Hensley, Alan Nakanishi

Summary

The Council’s only public hearing Wednesday would start the formal annexation of about 96.1 acres on Lodi’s west side, between West Vine Street and Kettleman Lane, west of Lower Sacramento Road. Applicant Dobbins Properties is asking the Council to pre-zone the land for homes, commercial uses, a mixed-use corridor along Kettleman, and a 10-acre public facility site that includes a 2-acre fire station reservation, then send the request to the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), the county board that approves city boundary changes. The packet says staff corrected the acreage figures to 96.1 acres and 19.91 mixed-use acres, but the pre-zoning map printed in the packet still shows the old 95.3-acre breakdown, and the Planning Commission resolution listed as Attachment 6 is missing from the packet.

The Regular Calendar and Ordinances sections are empty. Everything else sits on the Consent Calendar, which the Council approves with one vote unless someone pulls an item. That calendar holds eight sets of minutes reaching back to January 2025, a 180% increase to a planning consultant contract three months into its term, a $240,543 sole-source library software contract, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) purchasing rules, an after-the-fact extension of an expired transit advertising contract, and the Electric Utility’s year-end financial report.

The Electric Utility finished FY 2025/26 with $47.6 million in cash, 160% of its reserve target, but spent about $684,000 more than it took in. Its forecast reserve falls to 119% of target by FY 2029/30 as spending on the 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission connection ramps up, and it assumes 2% rate increases in FY 2029, 2030, and 2031.

The Council meets in closed session at 6:15 p.m. for the City Manager’s initial performance review and two lawsuits filed by former City Manager Scott R. Carney.

Meeting Details

Date and Time: Wednesday, October 7, 2026. Closed session 6:15 p.m.; invocation 6:55 p.m.; regular session no sooner than 7:00 p.m.

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

Remote Viewing and Comment: Zoom webinar ID 821 7418 0304, passcode 123456; phone 1 253 215 8782 or 1 346 248 7799. The meeting also streams on the City’s YouTube channel (@cityoflodi_publicmeetings) and SJTV Channel 26.

Written Comment: Email councilcomments@lodi.gov, mail to City Clerk’s Office, P.O. Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241, or hand-deliver to 221 West Pine Street. Email and hand-delivered comments must arrive at least two hours before the meeting. Written comments go to the Council and into the minutes but are not read aloud.

Public Comment Limits: Five minutes per speaker on non-agenda items, one appearance per person. The Council cannot act on items not on the agenda (Government Code §54954.2).

Interim City Clerk: Elizabeth Haglund. The agenda’s interpreter-request contact is still listed as Olivia Nashed, (209) 333-6702.

Agenda

Closed Session (6:15 p.m.)

• C-2(a) Public employee performance evaluation, Government Code §54957(b): initial review of the City Manager.
• C-2(b) Existing litigation, §54956.9(d)(1): Scott R. Carney v. City of Lodi, San Joaquin County Superior Court No. STK-CV-UWM-2026-0003828.
• C-2(c) Existing litigation: Scott R. Carney v. City of Lodi, No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0044713.

Closed session lets the Council discuss personnel and litigation privately under the Brown Act, California’s open-meetings law. Any reportable action is announced at C-4 when the Council returns to open session.

B. Presentations

B.1 Public Power Week, October 11-17, 2026. Mayor Pro Tempore Hothi presents the proclamation; Electric Utility Administrative Assistant Paige Valim accepts. The American Public Power Association (APPA) theme this year is “Your Community. Your Utility. Your Power.” Lodi Electric Utility (LEU), a city-owned utility serving Lodi since 1910, holds its 30th annual open house on October 15.

B.2 Fire Prevention Week, October 4-10, 2026. Councilmember Craig-Hensley presents. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) theme, “Charge into Fire Safety. Safe Charging Is a Superpower,” focuses on lithium-ion batteries in phones, e-bikes, and scooters. The staff report misspells the presenter as “Craig-Henley,” and the proclamation’s signature date is blank.

C. Consent Calendar

• C.1 Approve eight sets of minutes: January 30, 2025; May 28, 2025; June 3, 2025; June 18, 2025; August 27, 2025; January 28, 2026; July 28, 2026; September 2, 2026
• C.2 BKF Engineers Amendment No. 1, on-call neighborhood and planning services, +$144,000 to $224,000 (Community Development)
• C.3 Purchasing Policy revisions adding FTA procurement requirements (Budget)
• C.4 Sole-source agreement with Civica North America for the Spydus library system, $240,542.96, and $130,660 appropriation (Library)
• C.5 Revised improvement agreement, Blayke-Maisyn Estates, Tract 4163 (Public Works)
• C.6 Addendum No. 1 with San Joaquin County for the Sunnyside water line interconnect (Public Works)
• C.7 LCTOP certifications and authorized agent forms, Free Student Fares (Public Works)
• C.8 Vacate excess Pleasant Avenue right-of-way next to 228 First Street, keeping a utility easement (Public Works)
• C.9 Extend the Valley Outdoor Advertising transit ad agreement through December 31, 2026 (Public Works)
• C.10 Electric Utility FY 2025/26 quarterly financial update, Q3 and Q4 (Electric Utility)

D–E. Public and Council Comments on Non-Agenda Items

F. Public Hearings

F.1 Westside “F” Annexation (PL2024-023 A): resolution to file with LAFCO and detach from the Woodbridge Rural Fire Protection District; introduce an ordinance pre-zoning 9.2 acres General Commercial (GC), 19.91 acres Mixed Use Corridor (MCO), 10 acres Public and Community Facilities (PF), 49.8 acres Residential Low Density (RLD), and 7.2 acres Residential Medium Density (RMD). CEQA determination: Guidelines §15183.

G. Regular Calendar — no items | H. Ordinances — no items | I. Adjournment

The September 2 Council set an October 7 public hearing on the agricultural mitigation fee, parkland, planned development overlay, boundary change, and Williamson Act code amendments. That ordinance does not appear on this agenda, even though F.1 depends on the Williamson Act procedures it would create.

C.1 — Minutes

The Council is still clearing a minutes backlog. On September 2 it approved 26 sets at once; this week’s batch includes minutes 20 months old. Approved minutes become the official record of what the Council decided, so the older sets matter for the Carney litigation, the Access Center, and budget history.

a) January 30, 2025 — Special Joint Meeting with Boards and Commissions

The Council met with members of City boards and commissions from 4:04 to 5:21 p.m. for training by attorney Michael Colantuono on running public meetings: agendas, public comment, decorum, and handling disruptions. The training was informational; no action was taken. The minutes list only then-Mayor Pro Tempore Yepez among Councilmembers present.

b) May 28, 2025 — Special Meeting, FY 2025/26 Budget

Budget staff, led by Jennelle Baker, walked through the enterprise, special revenue, and capital budgets for FY 2025/26. Staff reported the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) had put the Hydrogen Hub project on hold and the Electric Utility had lost a key account. Discussion covered transit, street funding, Harney Lane, and money for homeless services and the Access Center. The Council agreed to redirect a $745,000 skate park appropriation from 2023 to urgent park maintenance while Kofu Skate Park is repaired, discussed cricket fields, and expected a July budget amendment for unallocated capital. A closed session on labor negotiations produced no reportable action. Councilmember Nakanishi arrived at 4:24 p.m.; Councilmember Yepez was absent.

c) June 3, 2025 — Special Meeting, Growth Planning

Staff presented growth options within the Sphere of Influence (SOI, the area LAFCO expects Lodi to eventually serve) and the General Plan update. Discussion noted a 15-year gap since the last Municipal Service Review. Mayor Pro Tempore Hothi relayed developer complaints and asked for monthly meetings with builders. Councilmember Craig-Hensley raised Harney Lane and Highway 99 Measure K funding. Speakers included Greg Costa, Zahd Khan, and Mike Carouba. No action was taken. Councilmember Yepez was absent.

d) June 18, 2025 — Regular Meeting

Closed session. The Council discussed an April 12, 2025 email from the attorney for then-City Manager Scott Carney asserting whistleblower and retaliation claims and requesting a litigation hold, plus the Acting City Manager’s evaluation. No reportable action.

Consent calendar, 4-0 (Nakanishi absent), Resolutions 2025-91 through 2025-104, including:

• ClearGov budget software, three years, $107,955
• 2025 Wildfire Mitigation Plan
• Tree Lodi Residential Shade Tree Program, $233,205 (Resolution 2025-94)
• Backup generators at the Holt facility, $642,600.84; Quest jail intercom, $140,000
• Multi-way stop at Century Boulevard and Scarborough Drive; Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA, state gas-tax) paving; Measure K bicycle claim; $250,000 striping
• SB 1383 biomass memorandum of agreement (state organic-waste law)
• Release of the February 2025 draft internal controls report, waiving the draft-record exemption in Government Code §7927.500
• Set July 16 hearings on the wastewater ENR (construction-cost index) adjustment, the General Plan Subsequent EIR, and the 8.81-acre Maverik annexation

The Antonio Amador Measure L committee appointment was pulled.

Public hearings: CDBG 2025/26 Action Plan (Resolution 2025-105; Community Development Block Grant, the federal housing and neighborhood grant); Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District 2003-1 levy (2025-106); Police military equipment use policy required by AB 481 (2025-107).

Regular calendar: After an Access Center update, the Council repealed Resolution 2023-204, which had authorized a request for proposals for Access Center operations, so the City could partner with San Joaquin County (Resolution 2025-108). It gave the Lodi Chamber of Commerce $35,000 toward forming a downtown Property-Based Business Improvement District (PBID), with reporting but no repayment required, 3-0 with Hothi recused as a downtown business owner (Resolution 2025-109). Staff updated the Council on Turner Road traffic after complaints from residents near Vintage Church. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.

e) August 27, 2025 — Special Closed Session

The Council met on anticipated litigation involving Scott Carney. Adam Lindgren of Meyers Nave reported the Council gave direction to counsel.

f) January 28, 2026 — Special Meeting, Strategic Vision and Protocol Manual (Kirst Hall)

The Council reviewed its Strategic Vision priorities: fiscal health, infrastructure, parks, public safety, economic development, downtown, housing, public well-being, and future financial needs. On the Protocol Manual, the Council directed staff to have the Mayor Pro Tempore become the next Mayor, rotate the offices by district, allow a 4/5 vote to override the rotation, require one year of Council service before serving as Mayor, and have the Mayor Pro Tempore mentored by the Mayor. Staff also reviewed SB 707, the 2025 Brown Act update: remote public comment by Zoom since January 1, 2026 and a meeting-disruption policy due by July 1, 2026. Adjourned 3:46 p.m.

g) July 28, 2026 — Special Closed Session

City Attorney recruitment, 9:07 a.m. to 12:42 p.m. No reportable action. Councilmember Nakanishi absent. City Manager Kara Reddig and Interim City Attorney Luebberke attended.

h) September 2, 2026 — Regular Meeting

Closed session (Bennitt, both Carney cases, Leatham, Interim City Clerk recruitment): no reportable action.

Consent, 5-0, approved 26 sets of minutes and:

• Set an October 7 hearing on the agricultural mitigation, parkland, and Williamson Act code ordinance after Building Industry Association CEO John Beckman asked that it be pulled; City Manager Reddig suggested a workshop first
• Set the October 7 annexation hearing (described then as 95.3 acres with 19.1 mixed-use acres), 4-0 with Bregman recused
• Resolution 2026-183 temporarily delegating Interim City Clerk authority to the City Manager after Walfred Solorzano’s September 17 departure
• Resolution 2026-184, Transportation Development Act (TDA) claim: $2,071,203 Local Transportation Fund and $61,987 State Transit Assistance
• Accepted mold abatement at 2 North Sacramento Street
• Resolution 2026-185, Division 1 construction management Amendment 3 for the animal shelter (Bregman recused)

Public comment covered human trafficking awareness, a concern about automated license plate readers (Nathaniel Atherstone), an unpermitted structure on Jamestown Court, and Randy Stewart’s petition for a charter with an elected strong mayor. Staff reported $2 million in state funding for the Fire Department secured through Assemblymember Heath Flora.

Actions: CDBG year-end performance report (CAPER, Resolution 2026-186); appointed Christina Castro Public Works Director effective October 5, 2026 (2026-187); rebid fire alarm monitoring, not to exceed $360,000 (2026-188); adopted Ordinance 2049 amending the CalPERS contract, 5-0. The Council adjourned in memory of Marybeth Jansen Bradford.

Open Issues to Watch — C.1

• Backlog. Minutes from January 2025 are only now coming forward. Lodi has no posted standard for how quickly minutes must follow a meeting.
• The October 7 code hearing is missing. The September 2 minutes set an October 7 hearing on the agricultural mitigation and Williamson Act ordinance. It is not on this agenda, and no continuance notice appears in the packet.
• Typos in the official record. The June 18, 2025 minutes print a resolution number as “20255-102.” Corrections should be made before approval.
• Carney record. The June 18, 2025 and August 27, 2025 minutes record the first closed sessions on the Carney claims; both lawsuits return to closed session this week.

C.2 — BKF Engineers On-Call Planning Contract

Community Development picked BKF Engineers from a pool of firms qualified through a Request for Qualifications. The contract began July 1, 2026 at $80,000, exactly the City Manager’s signing authority, so it never went to the Council. Three months in, staff asks to add $144,000, a 180% increase, for a total not to exceed $224,000.

BKF fills in after the departure of the Neighborhood Services Manager, who ran the City’s federal, state, and local housing grant programs, including CDBG. It also helps manage the Planning Division, because the Deputy Director/City Planner served as Interim Community Development Director for about seven months. A new Community Development Director has since been appointed. Staff cites long-range planning, Development Code amendments, annexations, and current applications. Funding comes from account 27082000.72450.

Open Issues to Watch — C.2

• Contract sized to avoid Council review. An $80,000 starting amount that matches the City Manager’s limit, followed by a 180% increase within one quarter, suggests the need was known in July.
• No hours, rates, or end date. The packet does not show BKF’s hourly rates, how much of the $80,000 is spent, or how long $224,000 is expected to last.
• Grant compliance. If BKF staff administer CDBG, the City should say who signs federal grant reports while the manager position is vacant.

C.3 — Purchasing Policy: Federal Transit Rules

An FTA audit of Lodi’s transit program found the City’s Purchasing Policy, last revised July 1, 2026, did not spell out federal procurement rules. Any purchase paid with FTA money, such as GrapeLine buses, must follow them. The revisions add:

• Rolling stock rules for buses and vans, including Buy America pre-award and post-delivery reviews: more than 70% of component cost must be domestic and final assembly must occur in the U.S.
• A statement that cooperative purchasing (buying off another agency’s contract) does not waive federal checks.
• An Independent Cost Estimate (ICE), the City’s own estimate prepared before bids arrive, and cost or price analysis above the federal Simplified Acquisition Threshold.
• A Federal Clauses Checklist and SAM.gov checks that a vendor is not suspended or debarred from federal work.

Local thresholds stay the same: City Manager authority $80,000, department directors $40,000, adjusted yearly by the San Francisco Bay Area Consumer Price Index; public works up to $75,000 by purchase order, $75,000-$220,000 informal bids, over $220,000 formal bids.

Open Issues to Watch — C.3

• Outdated federal threshold. The policy states the Simplified Acquisition Threshold as $150,000. The federal figure rose to $250,000 in 2018 and to $350,000 on October 1, 2025, per the Federal Acquisition Regulation threshold table. Federal rules let a city set a lower threshold, but the policy presents $150,000 as the federal number.
• Old section numbers. The policy cites 2 CFR 200.318-200.326 using numbering from before the 2024 rewrite of the federal grant rules. Cost and price analysis now sits at 2 CFR 200.324; the policy cites 200.323.
• Undated. The draft’s revision date reads “October XX, 2026.” Fixing these points before adoption avoids a repeat audit finding.

C.4 — Spydus Library System, Sole Source

The Lodi Public Library would replace its TLC integrated library system, the software behind its catalog, checkouts, holds, and patron accounts, with Civica’s cloud-hosted Spydus. The contract covers data migration, training, hosting, backups, security monitoring, support, and two professional service days a year. Staff asks to appropriate $130,660 from Library fund balance built up through FY 2025/26 vacancy and operating savings (account 12090000.72450).

Subscription costs rise 3% a year. FY 2026/27 cost: $130,660 (implementation plus Year 1).

Open Issues to Watch — C.4

• Three years or five? The staff report and resolution call this a five-year, $240,542.96 agreement. Section 2.6 of the contract runs October 31, 2026 to October 31, 2029, three years, with one two-year option. Section 4.17 says the agreement controls over its exhibits, so Years 4 and 5 pricing is not locked in unless the City exercises the option.
• The vendor wrote the sole-source justification. The justification letter is signed by Civica’s Vice President of Sales, dated October 1, 2026, and speaks in the first person about “our requirements.” It names no competing systems the Library evaluated.
• Getting the data out. The contract has no specific exit clause for exporting catalog and patron records in a standard format if the City leaves Civica, beyond the general 10-day document delivery in Section 4.19.
• Liability limits. Civica’s liability is capped at 150% of the prior 12 months of charges, and data-breach liability at $2 million.
• Template details. The pricing proposal says “ex GST,” an Australian sales-tax term; support hours are 8 a.m.-5 p.m. Eastern; exhibit letters don’t match the agreement’s references; the agenda title reads “(240,543)” without a dollar sign.

C.5 — Blayke-Maisyn Estates, Tract 4163

This five-lot subdivision, plus a remainder parcel, sits on the east side of Lower Sacramento Road between Tejon Street and Yosemite Drive (APN 029-060-66). The Council approved the final map August 20, 2025. The developer, the Shah Family Revocable Trust, needs a revised improvement agreement, the contract that guarantees streets, utilities, and frontage get built. The revision adds Dalbir Johal as a second-party guarantor backing the surety bonds and adds the developer’s contractor for insurance purposes. Security stays at $184,400 performance bond and $184,400 labor and materials bond, with 365 days to finish. The lots are annexed into Community Facilities District (CFD) 2007-1, CFD 2007-1 (Public Services), which charges new development an annual special tax to help pay for City services.

Open Issues to Watch — C.5

• The contractor’s name is blank in the agreement.
• Exhibits C (billing) and D (insurance), which the agreement references, are not in the packet.

C.6 — Sunnyside Water Line Interconnect

Sunnyside Estates is a 21-lot county subdivision north of Harney Lane and east of Lower Sacramento Road. Its water system is run by San Joaquin County through the Sunnyside Water and Street Lighting Maintenance District. In 2000 the City agreed to supply Sunnyside with Lodi water through a 10-inch line, under agreement A-00-918 (Council authorization October 20, 1999; signed October 17, 2000). A 40-year U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Utilities Service loan and grant paid for the County’s system, and the agreement stays in force while that loan is outstanding.

Addendum No. 1 has the County replace about 1,600 feet of aging main and build a new 8-inch line to the City’s 8-inch main in Tehama Drive. A second connection “loops” the system so water can reach a hydrant from two directions, improving fire flow and keeping homes in service during a break. The County pays all costs, finishes within one year, pays a $6,760 fee for a 6-inch meter, and keeps paying outside-city water rates. Sunnyside’s original wells have been destroyed, so the neighborhood depends entirely on Lodi water.

Open Issues to Watch — C.6

• Outdated City signature block. The addendum misspells the City Manager as “Kara Redding,” lists Olivia Nashed as City Clerk, and lists Sean Nathan as Interim Public Works Director, though Christina Castro became Director October 5. The County signed in September.

C.7 — Free Student Fares, LCTOP Grant

The Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) is a state program, administered by Caltrans, that spends cap-and-trade money on transit service that cuts greenhouse gases. Lodi uses it to pay for free GrapeLine rides for K-12 students, a program in place since 2019. Students took 97,539 trips in 2025. The FY 2025/26 allocation covers the program through November 2028 and requires no local match. Staff estimates it replaces 136 to 271 car trips a day.

The authorized-agent form names City Manager Kara Reddig, Interim Public Works Director Sean Nathan, and Transportation Manager Julia Tyack. The Caltrans certifications require a dedicated bank account within 30 days of receiving funds, annual activity reports each October 30, a closeout report, and greenhouse-gas reporting under state Air Resources Board guidelines.

Open Issues to Watch — C.7

• The form names Sean Nathan as Interim Public Works Director, a title that changed October 5.
• The October 30 annual report is due three weeks after this vote.

C.8 — Pleasant Avenue Right-of-Way, 228 First Street

Pleasant Avenue’s right-of-way is 70 feet wide, but the street and sidewalk use less than that. Property owner Eric Peters asked the City to give up a 16.6-foot strip, 1,616 square feet, behind the sidewalk next to his parcel at 228 First Street. The City would keep a public utility easement (PUE) over the strip for existing overhead lines and future utilities. The street dates to the 1887 Burr’s Addition map; the City vacated nearby pieces in 1909 and 1957. Staff uses the summary vacation procedure in Streets and Highways Code §8334 and §8334.5, which lets a council vacate excess right-of-way without a public hearing. No fiscal impact.

C.9 — Transit Advertising Contract Extension

Valley Outdoor Advertising sells ads on GrapeLine buses and the City’s 11 bus shelters and pays the City the greater of a revenue share (46% this year) or a minimum annual guarantee (MAG) of $50,000, paid monthly at $4,166.67. The agreement expired September 30, 2026. Amendment No. 2 would extend it through December 31, 2026 on the same terms while the City finishes a new procurement: proposals due October 9, Council award December 2, new contract January 1, 2027. Revenue goes to account 60000000.57321.

Projection column applies the revenue-share percentages in Valley Outdoor’s 2021 proposal to the gross revenue in its own “Estimated Five-Year Cash Flow.” Actual payments came to 78% of that projection.

The City received less than the guaranteed minimum in three of five years. Staff attributes the shortfall to deductions the contract allows, including replacement glass panels at shelters and interior bus ads. The 2021 contract ran October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2024, with two one-year options and a five-year maximum. Amendment No. 1 (November 12, 2024) extended it to September 30, 2025; Extension No. 1 (September 3, 2025) to September 30, 2026.

Open Issues to Watch — C.9

• Past the five-year cap. Section 2.7 limits the agreement to five years including options. The term from October 2021 through September 2026 used all five; this amendment goes beyond that limit.
• Retroactive. The contract lapsed September 30, a week before the vote. The packet doesn’t say whether ads stayed up or payments continued in the gap.
• Stale signature block. Amendment No. 2 lists Walfred Solorzano, who left September 17, as attesting Interim City Clerk.
• Deductions. The packet does not total the deductions that pushed payments below the guarantee. The new RFP is the chance to limit them.
• Vendor proposal language. Valley Outdoor’s 2021 proposal, reprinted in the packet, cites its “great relationship with many of the decisionmakers in Lodi” and says two Councilmembers helped one of its prospective clients. Evaluators of the new proposals should score on revenue and service.

C.10 — Electric Utility Year-End Financial Report

Lodi Electric Utility is a city-owned utility; its customers used about 447 million kilowatt-hours in FY 2025/26. This report covers the year that ended June 30, 2026; the attached exhibit is dated September 2, 2026.

Other revenue fell short because the Council approved a $2.5 million multi-year write-off of delinquent utility accounts, and about $830,000 in Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) credit sales and about $700,000 in cap-and-trade auction proceeds slipped into FY 2026/27. Non-power spending came in low because of vacancies among line workers, metering, and engineering staff. Capital spending reached only 55% of budget: the California Public Utilities Commission’s approval of the 230 kV project came late (about $1.6 million rolls forward) and the Electric Vehicle Master Plan started late (about $883,000 rolls forward). The Utility sent the General Fund $12.1 million in FY 2025/26: a $7.8 million payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) and $4.3 million for City services.

Cash and Reserves

Cash totaled $47,579,404 on June 30: operating and capital funds $30,510,792, public benefits $11,409,715, greenhouse gas $4,848,996, impact fees $1,164,816, solar surcharge $375,133, and a negative $730,048 in the LCFS fund because money moved to EV projects before the state payment arrived. The Council’s reserve target is $29,719,600.

Available cash: FY26 $47,579,404; FY27 $39,134,784; FY28 $39,569,112; FY29 $39,421,568; FY30 $37,911,650. Days of cash: 195, 145, 145, 141, 129.

The forecast assumes all budgeted positions are filled, 230 kV bonds are issued by the end of FY 2027/28 and reimburse earlier project spending, and rates rise about 2% a year in FY 2029, 2030, and 2031. The last base rate increase took effect July 1, 2024.

Capital Plan

Totals: FY26 actual $4,793,814; FY27 budget $6,093,000; FY28 $8,475,000; FY29 $15,335,000; FY30 $16,790,000. The 230 kV Interconnection Project accounts for $33.45 million of the four forward years.

The 230 kV Interconnection Project would build a new 230-kilovolt connection between Lodi’s system and the regional transmission grid. The Utility plans to finance it with bonds in late FY 2027/28.

Rates Compared With PG&E

Lodi rates include the Energy Cost Adjustment (ECA), a pass-through charge for power costs. Residential $0.2298/kWh vs. PG&E $0.3991 (42% lower); commercial $0.2013 vs. $0.3943 (49%); industrial $0.1555 vs. $0.3318 (53%); system average $0.1999 vs. $0.3777 (47%).

Sales totaled 447,093,866 kWh against a 442,897,875 budget, as industrial use beat its estimate by 7%. The Risk Oversight Committee met six times January-June, buying forward power, gas, and resource adequacy capacity, approving the FY 2027 reserve target, and approving Amendment 1 to Transmission Agency of Northern California (TANC) Project Agreement No. 3. The Utility completed its 2026 Wildfire Mitigation Plan and convened an AMI 2.0 working group on next-generation smart meters. Forward hedges cover 86% of expected load in Q4 2026, falling to 68% by Q3 2027, all above the committee’s targets.

Open Issues to Watch — C.10

• $70 million or $51.5 million? The staff report says capital projects total “nearly $70 million over the next 5 years.” The five-year table in the exhibit adds to $51.5 million including FY 2025/26 actuals, $46.7 million for the four forward years. Even with the $3.5 million rollover, the figures don’t reconcile.
• Spending outran revenue. Expenses exceeded revenue by about $684,000, and $1.5 million of the shortfall was one-time timing that comes back in FY 2027.
• Reserves decline. The reserve falls from 160% to 119% of target by FY 2029/30, before 230 kV construction peaks. Staff says reserves are “sufficient through Fiscal Year 2028.”
• Typo. The exhibit prints the impact fee budget as “320.930.”

F.1 — Westside “F” Annexation and Pre-Zoning

Applicant: Dobbins Properties, Inc. | File: PL2024-023 A

Area: 20 parcels plus the Taylor Road right-of-way, about 96.1 acres, bounded by West Vine Street (north), Kettleman Lane/Highway 12 (south), and South Lower Sacramento Road (east); east boundary excludes the county homes along Lower Sacramento Road

Current status: Unincorporated San Joaquin County, county agriculture zoning, inside Lodi’s Sphere of Influence since 2008

Council actions: (1) resolution authorizing a LAFCO application and detachment from the Woodbridge Rural Fire Protection District; (2) introduce the pre-zoning ordinance; (3) direct staff to file with LAFCO

Planning Commission: Recommended approval 5-0 on August 12, 2026 (one vacancy, one absence)

Staff: Contract planner Matt Diaz and Deputy Director Cynthia Marsh

What Annexation and Pre-Zoning Mean

Annexation moves land from county to city control. State law, the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act, requires a city to “pre-zone” land before LAFCO acts, so owners know what city zoning will apply. The pre-zoning must match the General Plan. Annexation would detach the area from the Woodbridge Rural Fire Protection District; the Lodi Fire Department would serve it. Development still needs master planning, subdivision maps, and further public hearings, and the applicant pays the fees.

Proposed Pre-Zoning

The parcel-list total excludes the Taylor Road right-of-way, which accounts for the remaining roughly 0.6 acre of the 96.1-acre area.

Lodi’s 2025 General Plan Amendment redesignated the 19.91 Kettleman acres from Office to Mixed Use Corridor, and its Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) studied the change. Staff relies on CEQA Guidelines §15183, which skips new environmental review when a project matches a General Plan already covered by a certified EIR, unless the site has impacts that EIR didn’t study. The area is Phase 1 of the City’s Growth Management Plan and is bordered by the City on three sides, with water, sewer, roads, and electric lines at its edges.

Fire Station and Public Site

The annexation would be conditioned on reserving about two acres for a future west-side fire station, which staff expects to share a building with a police substation. Building and paying for the station are not conditions of the annexation, and the packet gives no cost or timeline.

Owner Support and the County Island

A 2025 landowner poll, run by the City and the applicant at LAFCO’s direction, found the western properties in favor and the eastern properties, mostly homes along Lower Sacramento Road and Taylor Road, opposed. LAFCO advised cutting the eastern properties out, which leaves an unincorporated county “island” surrounded by Lodi. Staff held a community meeting March 31, the Planning Commission hearing August 12, and a neighborhood meeting at an owner’s home September 16. Commission speakers raised a private easement dispute and asked about joining later annexations.

Williamson Act Farmland

Three parcels totaling about 40 acres, the northern Taylor Road parcels, are under Williamson Act contracts. Under these contracts owners keep land in farming in exchange for lower property taxes; contracts run 10 years and renew automatically each year unless an owner gives notice of nonrenewal. Lodi’s code has never had procedures for taking over these contracts after annexation. Staff says the pending “Phase 4 Code Amendments” would let the City assume, nonrenew, and cancel them. The contracts would stay in place after annexation, and the land can’t be developed until they end. The Attachment 7 map also shows prime farmland on the General Commercial parcel.

Open Issues to Watch — F.1

• The “corrected” map isn’t in the packet. Staff says acreages were corrected to 19.91 mixed-use acres and 96.1 total “as reflected in the corrected prezone exhibit.” The Pre-Zoning Exhibit printed as Attachment 4 still shows 50.2 RLD, 9.6 PF, and 19.1 MCO, which add to 95.3 acres. The ordinance and the map disagree on three of five zones.
• Planning Commission resolution missing. Attachment 6 is listed but not included; the packet jumps from Attachment 5 to Attachment 7. The Council can’t see the conditions the Commission recommended.
• Largest parcel missing from the ordinance title. The ordinance title lists 19 parcel numbers and omits 027-050-01, the 20-acre parcel at 179 E. Taylor Road. Finding C in the ordinance still says “95.3-acre.” The ordinance was approved as to form August 7, before the Commission hearing and the corrections.
• Which county zone? The staff report calls current zoning “AG-20,” the ordinance “AG-40,” and the zoning map legend “AU-20” (Agriculture-Urban Reserve). The ordinance also refers to “West Kettleman Road.”
• The Williamson Act ordinance isn’t here. The code amendments that would let Lodi assume and cancel contracts were set for hearing tonight on September 2 but aren’t on the agenda. The fire station site parcel sits inside the contracted area on Attachment 7.
• Survey map can’t be read. The Attachment 5 poll map is printed in grayscale; “in favor” and “no response” are nearly the same shade, so readers can’t verify which owners supported annexation.
• Property tax split. The packet doesn’t mention the property tax exchange agreement the City and County must negotiate before LAFCO processes the application, or the cost of serving the area.
• Fire district name. The September 2 minutes say “Woodbridge Fire Protection District”; this item says “Woodbridge Rural Fire Protection District.”

References

• City of Lodi, City Council meeting calendar, agendas, and packets (Legistar)
• City of Lodi, Agenda Center
• City of Lodi, Public meetings video channel
• City of Lodi, Lodi Electric Utility
• City of Lodi, Transit (GrapeLine)
• City of Lodi, Bids and RFPs, including the transit advertising solicitation
• San Joaquin LAFCO, Local Agency Formation Commission
• California Department of Conservation, Williamson Act program
• Caltrans, Low Carbon Transit Operations Program
• Acquisition.gov, Federal acquisition threshold changes effective October 1, 2025
• eCFR, 2 CFR 200.324, Contract cost and price
• NFPA, Fire Prevention Week

Prepared for Lodi411 by Don Bradford. Source: City of Lodi City Council agenda packet for October 7, 2026, including staff reports, agreements, exhibits, and minutes.

The FBI Jobs Breach, ShinyHunters, and What It Means for San Joaquin County

LodiEye — October 2026

Summary

In late September 2026, a hacking and extortion group called ShinyHunters said it had broken into FBIJobs.gov, the FBI’s recruiting website, altered the site and stolen sensitive records on FBI employees and job applicants. The FBI first said it was investigating claims of unauthorized activity. It later called the matter a cyber incident and said it was contacting people who may be affected. Internal notices reported by news organizations told employees that names, home addresses, job titles and Social Security numbers were exposed.^[7][11]

Journalists who examined samples of the stolen data reported records tied to real FBI or Justice Department personnel, including family contact information and medical or psychiatric material. That supports the conclusion that a serious theft occurred. It does not prove every claim the hackers have made. Their statements that they took records on nearly all FBI personnel, a large number of applicants, and 2 to 3 terabytes of data in total have not been confirmed in full.^[10][12]

The hackers say they got in through Oracle PeopleSoft, a widely used software package for payroll, human resources and finance, and then moved into other FBI-managed systems. The FBI has not confirmed that account. The claim came during a documented ShinyHunters campaign against a serious PeopleSoft security flaw, one that lets an attacker into a system over the internet without a password. Oracle released a fix on June 10. Google’s Mandiant security unit later documented attackers getting past temporary network blocks at organizations that had not installed the fix.^[3][6]

Two developments followed in the last days of September. Dutch police and the FBI announced that a 24-year-old Amsterdam man, described by the FBI as one of the group’s alleged leaders, had been arrested on September 15, about a week before the FBI breach became public. Separately, ShinyHunters told several news outlets it does not plan to publish or sell the FBI data and called the episode a “marketing campaign.” That statement cannot be verified, and the data remains in the group’s hands. On October 1 the group’s leak site was back online, listing two new corporate targets.^{[9][22][25][26]}

For San Joaquin County, the incident is a reason to check local systems. It is not evidence of a local breach. County documents show the county uses PeopleSoft for human resources and has been working on an upgrade, and older materials describe PeopleSoft-based employee self-service, finance and payroll functions. The county’s current software version, whether the system can be reached from the internet, and whether the June fix is installed are not public.^[14]

Status as of October 2

A serious theft of FBI personnel data is supported by internal notices and by samples that journalists checked independently. The specific PeopleSoft entry path, the claimed 2-to-3-terabyte volume and the final number of affected people remain unconfirmed. ShinyHunters says it will not publish the FBI data, a statement that rests on the group’s word alone. One alleged leader is in custody in the Netherlands, and the group remains active. No publicly disclosed compromise of San Joaquin County systems through this PeopleSoft flaw was identified.

The FBIJobs incident

The public evidence comes with different levels of certainty. This section separates what the FBI has acknowledged, what its internal communications reportedly say, what journalists checked independently, and what ShinyHunters alone claims.

Confirmed or corroborated

• The FBI acknowledged a cyber incident involving FBIJobs.gov and said it had not yet determined whether the point of entry was an FBI system or a supporting third party.
• The application portals were taken offline after the public claim and were still unavailable on September 28.^[27]
• The bureau sent organization-wide communications and advised employees to take added security precautions.
• News organizations authenticated portions of sample data against public records or sources familiar with FBI personnel. One outlet reported receiving a sample covering roughly 5,000 employees.^[7][10][27]
• In a September 29 statement, the FBI said it was working around the clock on the incident and was in regular communication with anyone who may be affected.^[24]

Still alleged

• That a previously unknown PeopleSoft flaw provided the initial access.
• That the attackers moved from the recruiting environment into AWS GovCloud or other FBI-managed systems, including systems the group says hold background-check, medical and investigative information.^[27]
• That the group removed 2 to 3 terabytes and obtained records covering nearly all FBI employees and many applicants.
• That every sampled record originated in an FBI-managed system and not in a connected or third-party environment.
• That the group will not publish, sell or otherwise use the data, as it now says.^[25]

What the available evidence establishes

Source: FBI statements and reporting by AP, CBS News, TechCrunch, NPR and Reuters.^{[7][8][10][12][13]}

Timeline

The FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) warns that ShinyHunters uses large-scale data theft and extortion, following an attack that affected a learning-management system.^[1]

Oracle publishes its security alert for the PeopleSoft flaw, catalogued as CVE-2026-35273, and urges customers to install the fix.^[3]

Dutch police arrest a 24-year-old Amsterdam man on suspicion of participating in a criminal organization, in an investigation into ShinyHunters. The arrest is not made public until two weeks later.^[9][23]

ShinyHunters claims the FBIJobs compromise. The recruiting and special-agent applicant portals become unavailable.

The FBI says it is aggressively investigating and has not determined whether the entry point was an FBI or third-party system.^[7]

Mandiant reports renewed mass exploitation of CVE-2026-35273 across government, health care, education, agriculture, transportation and other sectors.^[6]

Reporting reveals an internal FBI cyber-incident notification and employee exposure. A reported memo says the bureau is operating under a broad worst-case assumption.^[11][12]

ShinyHunters tells news outlets it never intended to publish or sell the FBI data and describes the confrontation as a “marketing campaign.” Dutch police confirm the September 15 arrest.^[24][25]

The FBI and Dutch National Police formally announce the arrest. Brett Leatherman, assistant director of the FBI Cyber Division, calls the suspect one of the group’s alleged leaders, says he and others allegedly breached more than 140 organizations and took at least $70 million in extortion payments since last year, and urges remaining members to contact the bureau.^[9][22][23]

The ShinyHunters website goes offline after the group’s deadline for the FBI to alter or withdraw its May advisory expires. The cause is not disclosed.^[13]

The group’s leak site returns at a new address. ShinyHunters tells Cybernews the outage came from its own upgrades and attacks by rivals, not an FBI takedown. The site lists O’Reilly Automotive and Dexcom as new targets, without sample data, and threatens to publish by the end of Friday, October 2.^[26]

Why the breach matters

The material described in the reporting is valuable for more than identity theft. Home addresses and family details can be used for intimidation or physical targeting. Employment, assignment, medical and psychiatric information can support tailored phishing, impersonation, profiling and attempted recruitment by hostile intelligence services. ShinyHunters now says it will not publish or sell the data. Even if that holds, the group still has it, and samples already shared with journalists and other parties cannot be recalled.^[25]

• Personal safety: Employees and relatives may face harassment, publication of their home details or threats.
• Counterintelligence: Detailed biographical and medical information can identify pressure points and make deceptive approaches more convincing.
• Operational security: Assignment or unit information can reveal relationships and organizational patterns even without case files.
• Long-term fraud: Social Security numbers, addresses and employment histories keep their value after passwords are changed.
• Institutional trust: Limited or delayed disclosure leaves employees and applicants uncertain about the protective steps they need to take.

The known target was the jobs portal. That is not proof that the attackers reached FBI investigative systems. The exposed personnel information is still unusually useful for targeting people, their families and the people they work with.

Who ShinyHunters is

ShinyHunters is a changing cybercriminal brand or cluster, not a stable organization with fixed membership. The name has been associated with high-volume data theft, leak sites and extortion since at least 2020. Google tracks the cluster involved in the PeopleSoft campaigns as UNC6240 and describes it as financially motivated.^[6]

The FBI’s May advisory says the group specializes in large-scale breaches and extortion and may use real or exaggerated access claims to pressure victims. The advisory warns of threatening communications, harassment and, in some cases, swatting, meaning false emergency calls meant to send armed police to a victim’s home. It advises victims not to pay or engage, to preserve evidence and to report activity to IC3 or an FBI field office.^[1]

On September 29, the FBI and Dutch National Police announced the arrest of a 24-year-old Amsterdam man whom the FBI described as one of the group’s alleged leaders. Dutch police said he was arrested on September 15 on suspicion of participating in a criminal organization. That places him in custody about a week before the FBI breach was announced, and the FBI has not tied the arrest to that breach. Dutch police also said the arrest was not part of their investigation into the breach of the Dutch telecom company Odido. ShinyHunters has denied any connection to the man. The group’s return on October 1 with new claims against O’Reilly Automotive and Dexcom indicates it is still operating. Neither claim came with sample data, and neither company had responded publicly when Cybernews reported them.^{[9][22][23][24][26]}

Common access paths associated with recent campaigns

Source: FBI/IC3 and Google Cloud/Mandiant.^[1][6]

The PeopleSoft campaign

Oracle’s June security alert identifies CVE-2026-35273 in the Updates Environment Management component of PeopleSoft Enterprise PeopleTools versions 8.61 and 8.62. PeopleTools is the underlying platform that PeopleSoft applications run on. Oracle rated the flaw 9.8 out of 10 on the standard severity scale and said an attacker with network access, and no login, could compromise PeopleTools. Oracle advised customers to apply the update without delay and warned that blocking network traffic is not a long-term substitute for correcting the flaw. The flaw is also listed in the federal Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s catalog of vulnerabilities known to be exploited in real attacks.^[3][4][5]

Mandiant reported that UNC6240 exploited the flaw between May 27 and June 9, before any fix existed, primarily against higher-education institutions. In September, Mandiant found a renewed campaign in which the group disguised one character in the web address of the vulnerable component, known as PSEMHUB, to slip past firewall rules written to block that exact address. The campaign planted web shells, which are hidden programs that give an attacker continued access, on dozens of systems across higher education, technology, IT services, health care, agriculture, transportation and government.^[6]

This campaign makes the attackers’ PeopleSoft account plausible. It does not prove that CVE-2026-35273 was the FBI entry point. ShinyHunters has described the FBI exploit as a new flaw, while Mandiant’s September evidence concerns an adapted attack on the flaw already fixed in June. Until the FBI or a forensic investigator publishes technical findings, both possibilities remain unproven.

Immediate checks for PeopleSoft operators

1. Determine whether any environment runs affected PeopleTools versions or contains the PSEMHUB application, including test, training, disaster-recovery and forgotten internet-facing instances.
2. Apply Oracle’s CVE-2026-35273 update. Do not treat a firewall rule or path block as a replacement for patching.
3. Disable the Environment Management Hub in multi-server configurations, or remove PSEMHUB in single-server configurations, when it is not required and Oracle guidance permits it.
4. Search WebLogic and PIA logs for /PSEMHUB/, encoded variants such as /%50SEMHUB/, external POST requests to /hub, and unexpected JSP or JSPX files.
5. Inspect PSEMHUB.war and PORTAL.war for web shells, preserve evidence and rotate credentials accessible from the PeopleSoft tier if compromise is found.^[6]

Risk to San Joaquin County

County government

San Joaquin County’s Information Systems Division publicly identified an upgrade of its PeopleSoft Human Capital Management system, the county’s human resources software, and its underlying infrastructure as a budget objective. County benefits materials have also directed employees to PeopleSoft Employee Self-Service. Historical Oracle and vendor materials describe PeopleSoft-based finance, payroll and human-resources functions and remote employee access controls.^[14]

Those records establish that the county uses the product. They do not establish that it is vulnerable today. Public materials reviewed for this report do not show the county’s current PeopleTools version, whether PSEMHUB exists or is exposed, whether the June patch was installed, or whether older descriptions of the system remain accurate. The county has also pursued broader work on its business systems, so historical case studies should not be read as a current network diagram.

Local status as of October 2

No publicly disclosed San Joaquin County compromise through CVE-2026-35273 was identified. The absence of a public report is not evidence that every local system is patched or unaffected.

Cities and local agencies

The county’s local governments have prior experience with disruptive cyber incidents. Lodi suffered ransomware attacks in 2018 and 2019 that affected phones, financial services, the city’s core business software and computer-aided dispatch. The city refused a demand of 75 bitcoins, rebuilt its systems and later strengthened backup and recovery capabilities. A vendor case study says dispatch restoration took four days and a failed backup process caused the loss of one week of business-system data. Because that account is marketing material, it is best read alongside independent reporting and the Civil Grand Jury record.^{[15][19][20][21]}

The 2021–22 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury found that Lodi met eight of nine cybersecurity expectations and operated a strong awareness program with monthly training and quarterly phishing exercises. The one item not met was a completed, current business-continuity plan. The report also found the county itself met eight expectations but lacked a documented ransomware policy at that time. These are 2022 findings, not current assessments. Agencies may have completed or revised plans since then.^[15]

Local cyber incidents and preparedness findings

Source: San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury, Superior Court, U.S. Department of Education, ABC10, WBUR, Stateline and Rubrik.^{[15][16][17][18][19][20][21]}

Schools and colleges

Schools and colleges are particularly exposed because their learning, identity and administrative systems are closely connected. The U.S. Department of Education reported that the 2026 Canvas incident involved unauthorized access to usernames, email addresses, courses, enrollment information and messages, while Instructure, the company that makes Canvas, said it had no evidence that passwords, birth dates, government identifiers or financial data were exposed. Delta College was among the institutions that experienced disruption.^[17][18]

Health care and businesses

Mandiant identified health care, agriculture and transportation among the sectors in the renewed PeopleSoft campaign. All three are important locally. The technical risk depends on a combination of conditions: an affected PeopleTools component, a system reachable from the internet, incomplete patching, and access from the PeopleSoft servers to HR, payroll, student, patient or financial records. Smaller organizations can also be affected through payroll providers, software platforms and other vendors even if they are never targeted by name.^[6]

Residents

• Anyone who applied for an FBI job through the affected portal should follow formal FBI instructions, treat unexpected contacts as suspicious and consider freezing credit with all three nationwide credit bureaus.
• People whose court information may have been involved in the 2024 incident should use the court’s official incident page and identity-protection process.^[16]
• Customers of O’Reilly Auto Parts and users of Dexcom glucose monitors should watch for official notices from those companies. As of October 1 the breach claims against both were unverified.^[26]
• Accurate personal details in a call, text or email do not prove the sender is legitimate. Verify through a known telephone number or official website.
• Use unique passwords and phishing-resistant multifactor authentication where available. Keep in mind that a user’s own login protections do not repair a vulnerable public server.

Actions for local organizations

Within 24 hours

• Inventory every PeopleSoft and PeopleTools instance, including nonproduction and disaster-recovery systems, and record owner, version, internet exposure and patch state.
• Confirm the Oracle June security update is installed and review whether the Environment Management Hub (PSEMHUB) is required.
• Begin targeted log and file-system searches using Mandiant’s published indicators and preserve relevant logs before retention windows expire.
• Notify executive leadership, legal counsel, privacy staff, the cyber insurer and incident-response partners if suspicious activity is found.

Within 30 days

• Map what data each public-facing system can reach and remove unnecessary connections to HR, payroll, medical, financial and law-enforcement records.
• Set alerts for bulk database queries, unusual service-account use and large outbound transfers from administrative systems.
• Require independent verification for help-desk password resets, changes to multifactor authentication, new connected apps and requests made by telephone.
• Review vendor contracts for patch ownership, log access, incident-notification deadlines, evidence preservation and subcontractor responsibilities.
• Verify backups through restoration tests, monitor backup failures and maintain protected recovery copies that production administrators cannot alter.

Questions for governing boards

• What deadline applies when an actively exploited flaw affects an internet-facing government system?
• Who may approve a workaround in place of a vendor patch, and how quickly must that exception expire?
• Which official owns the risk when a department, software vendor, cloud provider and implementation contractor share a system?
• How long are records on unsuccessful applicants, former employees, patients, students and vendors retained, and who approves deletion?
• When were continuity, disaster-recovery and ransomware plans last exercised, as opposed to last updated on paper?

What remains unknown

The FBI investigation and incident response remain active. The points below may change as forensic results, notices to affected people and reports to Congress become public.

• The FBI’s confirmed initial-access method and whether a third-party provider was the entry point.
• Whether CVE-2026-35273, a different PeopleSoft flaw or another weakness was used against FBIJobs.gov.
• The final number of affected employees, former employees and applicants, and the validated volume of data taken.
• The exact systems from which the sampled medical, psychiatric, assignment and family records originated.
• Whether all affected people and Congress have received every legally required notification.
• Why the ShinyHunters site went offline on September 30. The group attributes it to its own upgrades and attacks by rivals; that has not been independently confirmed.
• Whether the group will keep its stated commitment not to publish or sell the FBI data.
• What role, if any, the man arrested in the Netherlands had in the PeopleSoft campaign, and whether further arrests will follow.
• Whether the claims against O’Reilly Automotive and Dexcom are accurate.
• The current PeopleTools versions, exposure and patch status of San Joaquin County and other local PeopleSoft users.

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 public record behind the incident: the FBI/IC3 advisory of May 15, Oracle’s security alert and June patch update, Google Cloud/Mandiant research on the PeopleSoft campaign, reporting by the Associated Press, CBS News, NBC News, TechCrunch, NPR, Reuters and the security trade press, and local records including the county Information Systems Division budget, the 2021–22 Civil Grand Jury cybersecurity report and the Superior Court’s incident notice.

Credibility Validation: Each claim was sorted by who made it and what supports it. Statements by ShinyHunters are treated as allegations unless corroborated by the FBI, a primary technical advisory or independent examination of the data. The Rubrik account of Lodi’s ransomware recovery is identified as a vendor case study and read alongside independent reporting and the Grand Jury record.

Analysis and Synthesis: AI tools helped connect the national incident and the PeopleSoft campaign to documented local use of the same software, and to earlier local incidents, without drawing conclusions about local systems that the public record does not support.

Presentation: AI tools assisted with drafting, the evidence and incident tables, the timeline and the HTML layout of this page.

Final Review: The founder reviewed the report for accuracy, tone and local relevance before publication.

Lodi411 describes its methods so readers can judge the work for themselves. Corrections and clarifications are welcome at editor@lodi411.com.

References

1. Primary FBI/IC3 — “Cyber Criminal Group Attacks Learning Management System,” May 15, 2026.
2. Primary FBIJobs — Applicant Portal FAQ.
3. Primary Oracle — Security Alert risk matrix for CVE-2026-35273.
4. Primary Oracle — June 2026 Critical Security Patch Update.
5. Primary CISA — Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog.
6. Technical research Google Cloud/Mandiant — “ShinyHunters Renewed Mass Exploitation Campaign Targeting Oracle PeopleSoft,” Sept. 25, 2026.
7. News / FBI statement Associated Press/PBS — FBI investigates hackers’ claim, Sept. 22, 2026.
8. News CBS News — Group claims theft of FBI personnel and applicant data, Sept. 23, 2026.
9. News CBS News — Dutch arrest and FBI incident update, Sept. 29, 2026.
10. News / sample review TechCrunch — Initial FBIJobs claim and sample verification, Sept. 22, 2026.
11. News / internal notice TechCrunch — FBI internal cyber-incident notification, Sept. 28, 2026.
12. News NPR — FBI response and personnel concerns, Sept. 29–30, 2026.
13. News Reuters — ShinyHunters site goes offline after deadline, Sept. 30, 2026.
14. Primary local San Joaquin County Information Systems Division — Budget objectives, including the PeopleSoft HCM upgrade.
15. Primary local San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury — “Cybersecurity: Local Defense Against a Global Threat,” 2021–22.
16. Primary local San Joaquin County Superior Court — Cybersecurity incident notice.
17. Primary U.S. Department of Education — Canvas cybersecurity incident alert, updated May 29, 2026.
18. Local news ABC10 — Canvas disruption at San Joaquin Delta College, May 6, 2026.
19. News WBUR/Here & Now — Lodi ransomware response, Aug. 29, 2019.
20. News Stateline — Lodi response, ransom refusal and recovery costs, Feb. 4, 2020.
21. Vendor case study Rubrik — City of Lodi recovery case study.
22. News CyberScoop — Alleged ShinyHunters leader arrested in the Netherlands, Sept. 2026.
23. News BleepingComputer — FBI tells ShinyHunters members to turn themselves in after recent arrest, Sept. 2026.
24. News / FBI statement NBC News — FBI sends warning to cybercrime group after Dutch arrest, Sept. 2026.
25. News Nextgov/FCW — ShinyHunters says it won’t publish FBI data, Sept. 2026.
26. News Cybernews — ShinyHunters claims O’Reilly Automotive and Dexcom breaches, Oct. 1, 2026.
27. News Help Net Security — FBI job portals remain offline after ShinyHunters claims breach, Sept. 28, 2026.

The Kelvin Wave Is Here: What the Tide Gauges Show, From San Diego to Stockton

Lodi411 - October 2026

Based on NOAA Tides and Currents and California Data Exchange Center gauge records through the morning of October 1

Summary

For a month, the 2026 El Niño's Kelvin wave has been reported as something on its way. The tide gauges show it has already arrived. On October 1, water at San Diego ran 1.21 feet above the predicted tide and Los Angeles ran 1.08 feet above it. San Francisco ran 0.79 feet above, and Port Chicago, on Suisun Bay at the mouth of the Delta, ran 0.75 feet above. All four readings were still rising.

Measured against the average of the last three Septembers, the gauges are about 11 inches high in Southern California and 6 to 7 inches high in the Bay and Suisun Bay. The signal has reached the San Joaquin River at Stockton, where the September average stage ran about 3 inches above the previous three Septembers. The September and October 2026 tide readings are NOAA preliminary data. NOAA has not yet completed its quality review, and the figures may shift slightly once it does.

The wave will not flood Lodi. What it does is raise the starting water level for every tide and storm this winter, across the Bay and into the Delta channels that drain the Mokelumne. The winter's highest tides arrive November 24–26 and December 23–25. Researchers expect two to four more Kelvin waves before spring.

What a Kelvin Wave Is, and Is Not

Along the equator, the trade winds normally pile warm water up in the western Pacific. During El Niño those winds weaken or reverse in bursts. Each burst releases some of that water as a slow eastward pulse called an equatorial Kelvin wave (NOAA Fisheries). When the pulse reaches the Americas it cannot continue east. It splits and runs north and south along the coastline as a coastally trapped Kelvin wave, keeping the shore to its right in the Northern Hemisphere (Los Angeles Times).

The wave is a bulge in the upper ocean, not a breaking wave. North Carolina State University marine scientist Dillon Amaya described it as "a bulging of the nearest 20 to 30 kilometers of the ocean that propagates up the coastline." He added: "There's no mass transport here. It's not transporting water. It's transporting a signal, and that signal is an elevated sea state" (ABC7 San Francisco). Swimmers and boaters will not notice it (Los Angeles Times). It is not a tsunami, and there is no moment when it "hits." It raises the baseline the tides ride on, for weeks or months at a time (Yahoo News, via The Sacramento Bee). NOAA puts the typical rise from one wave at 6 to 12 inches (USA Today).

How This Wave Got Here

NOAA's Climate Prediction Center logged downwelling Kelvin waves, the warming kind, starting in December 2025, January 2026, March 2026 and June 2026 (NOAA CPC, September 28 update). The milestones since then:

• March–May: Satellite data showed raised, warmer water moving across the Pacific to just off Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. By May, seas near Peru stood nearly 6 inches above average (Yahoo News, via The Sacramento Bee).
• May–June: Smaller pulses reached California. NOAA research scientist Nate Mantua said those impacts would likely be minor compared with fall and winter (NOAA Fisheries).
• Late August: A larger wave reached the northern tip of South America and turned north (The Guardian).
• September 14: The wave was off Mexico's west coast. The Los Angeles Times estimated about seven days from Cabo San Lucas to San Diego, then two to three days to Los Angeles and two to three more to San Francisco (Los Angeles Times).
• Late September: NOAA research oceanographer Andrew Leising said the wave was "probably just reaching us now" (The Mercury News).

What the Gauges Measured in September

NOAA publishes a predicted tide for every coastal gauge. The predictions come from astronomy alone: the pull of the moon and sun. Anything the gauge measures beyond that prediction is the tide anomaly, or residual. It captures what astronomy cannot: swell, wind, air pressure, river outflow and slow ocean changes like a Kelvin wave. LodiEye computed daily average anomalies from NOAA's six-minute readings at four California gauges. They run from San Diego to Port Chicago, the last NOAA tide station before the Delta.

FIGURE 1. Daily average of observed water level minus NOAA's predicted astronomical tide, in feet, at four California gauges. October 1 covers readings through 9:36 a.m. Pacific time. September 2026 readings are NOAA preliminary data, subject to later quality control. Source: NOAA Tides and Currents water level and prediction records for stations 9410170, 9410660, 9414290 and 9415144. LodiEye calculation.

The chart shows two events. The first is the mid-September bump in Southern California: San Diego peaked at +1.07 feet on September 14 and Los Angeles at +0.99 feet the same day. It lines up with swell from Hurricane Marie. On September 8 that swell, on top of a 6-foot tide, flooded homes on the Long Beach Peninsula and along Dana Point's Beach Road. Laguna Beach, Dana Point and Carlsbad declared local emergencies, and Orange County activated its emergency operations center (Los Angeles Times). The bump faded within a week. The Bay Area gauges showed a smaller, less distinct rise.

The second event is the rise that began September 27 and was still climbing on October 1. It appeared at every gauge at once. It pushed San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco to their highest daily anomalies of the period, and Port Chicago to within 0.03 feet of its September 22 high. That fits Leising's timeline. On September 28 Daniel Swain of University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources said ocean levels off Southern California were already about a foot higher because of El Niño (USA Today). The gauges agree. Swell from Hurricanes Polo and Odalys added to Southern California water levels the same week (The Mercury News). The late-September rise is therefore not all Kelvin wave, but the Bay and Suisun Bay gauges, sheltered from that swell, rose too.

Highest readings are in feet above mean lower low water (MLLW), the average of each day's lower low tide and the zero point of a tide chart. The three-September average uses September 2023, 2024 and 2025. September 2023 was itself an El Niño month, so this baseline is conservative. Source: NOAA Tides and Currents. LodiEye calculation.

How 2026 Compares With 1997 and 2015

Any single anomaly reading carries a built-in offset. NOAA's predictions are referenced to the sea level of the 1983–2001 tidal epoch, and the ocean has risen since then. Comparing the same month across years removes the seasonal pattern. The table above shows the remaining offset in recent normal years: about a quarter-foot at these gauges.

FIGURE 2. September monthly average of observed minus predicted water level, in feet. 1997 and 2015 were two of the strongest El Niño years of the modern record before 2026; 2023 was a moderate-to-strong El Niño. Years through 2025 use NOAA verified hourly heights; 2026 uses preliminary six-minute data. Source: NOAA Tides and Currents. LodiEye calculation.

September 2026 is the highest September of the six at every gauge. San Diego ran +0.84 feet against +0.73 in September 2015 and +0.38 in September 1997. San Francisco ran +0.57 feet against +0.50 in 2015 and +0.17 in 1997. Port Chicago ran +0.57 feet against +0.44 in 2015 and +0.14 in 1997. Part of the gap with 1997 is three decades of sea-level rise. Part is timing: in 1997 the coastal signal arrived later, and the bigger anomalies came in winter.

Why the Delta Gauge Matters More Than the Beach

Coastal coverage of the Kelvin wave has focused on beaches, seawalls and rail lines. For Lodi the useful question is what happens inside the Bay and the Delta in winter, when ocean levels, tides and river floods stack on top of each other. The 1997–98 record answers it.

FIGURE 3. Monthly average water above predicted tide, in feet, at San Francisco and Port Chicago during the 1997–98 and 2015–16 El Niño winters, with September 2026 shown for reference. November values and February 2016 were not retrieved and are left blank rather than estimated. Source: NOAA Tides and Currents verified hourly heights. LodiEye calculation.

In 1997–98, San Francisco's monthly anomaly climbed from +0.17 feet in September to +0.99 feet in February. Port Chicago climbed from +0.14 feet to +1.50 feet. Port Chicago sits where the Sacramento and San Joaquin river outflows meet the tide. In a wet February, storm runoff pushing out against the incoming tide raises its anomaly well beyond what the ocean alone would produce. Ocean height from the El Niño adds to that. The 2015–16 winter shows the other outcome. Its fall anomalies were high, but the Port Chicago anomaly fell to under +0.30 feet by December and January. The ocean signal alone did not carry the winter.

The lesson for Lodi: the Kelvin wave sets the floor, and the storms decide the ceiling. In September 2026, Port Chicago's average was already four times its September 1997 level. Any wet winter now starts from that higher floor.

The Signal at Stockton

NOAA has no tide-prediction station at Stockton, but the state's California Data Exchange Center records river stage on the San Joaquin River at Rough and Ready Island, on the Port of Stockton waterfront. River stage is the water-surface height at a gauge. Comparing the same station across Septembers, when river flows are at their annual low and tides dominate the reading, gives a rough local check.

• Average stage, September 2026: 5.11 feet, against 4.97 in 2023, 4.73 in 2024 and 4.81 in 2025.
• Difference: about 0.27 feet, or roughly 3 inches, above the three-year September average.
• Highest September 2026 reading: 7.34 feet, against 7.08 to 7.29 in the three prior Septembers.

Stockton stage also responds to river flow, export pumping and wind, so this is a consistency check, not a clean Kelvin-wave measurement. It points the same way as the Bay gauges, slightly below Port Chicago's September excess of about 0.32 feet, consistent with a signal that weakens as it moves up the Delta (California Data Exchange Center, station RRI).

What Comes Next

No agency issues a formal probability for Kelvin waves. The forecasts that exist come from researchers and from the El Niño outlook that drives the waves:

• More waves: Amaya expects three to four more Kelvin waves this fall and winter, and says Bay Area water levels may not return to normal until spring 2027 (ABC7 San Francisco). Swain expects two or three more (USA Today).
• The driver: NOAA's Climate Prediction Center still gives a greater than 90% chance that this El Niño is very strong through fall and winter (NOAA CPC). CPC's September 10 discussion put the chance of a historic-strength event for October–December at 75% (NOAA CPC). The next discussion is October 8.
• The stacking risk: NOAA's Michael Jacox said Kelvin waves are not always hazardous on their own. They do damage when they coincide with very high tides, storm surge and rain. Jonathan Warrick pointed to January through March as the months with California's biggest storms, largest waves and some very large tides (The Guardian).

King tide dates: California King Tides Project. Reservation date: EBMUD.

The Lodi Focus

The Kelvin wave reaches Lodi only indirectly. The Mokelumne River drains through the North Delta to the San Joaquin and out through Suisun Bay. When the Bay runs high, Delta channels drain more slowly at low tide. Water levels against Delta levees stay higher through each tide cycle. The lower Mokelumne below Thornton feels the tide.

What to watch: a major storm landing during a king tide window while Port Chicago is running half a foot or more above prediction. That combination raises water against Delta levees for reasons that have nothing to do with how much rain falls in Lodi itself. Releases from Camanche are capped at 5,000 cubic feet per second when the flood reservation is encroached (EBMUD). The river's downstream outlet is a Delta whose starting level is already elevated.

None of this changes what residents should do. It changes how early they should do it. Readers can watch the same gauges this report uses:

• NOAA Port Chicago gauge: the Delta-mouth reading, with observed and predicted tides on the same chart.
• NOAA San Francisco gauge: the Bay reading, with observed and predicted tides on the same chart.
• California Data Exchange Center, San Joaquin River at Rough and Ready Island: Stockton's river stage.
• California King Tides Project: the winter's highest-tide dates.
• San Joaquin County flood protection information: evacuation maps and preparedness guidance.
• FEMA Map Service Center: check whether a property sits in a mapped flood zone before the 30-day waiting period on new flood insurance policies runs into storm season.

LodiEye will continue tracking the gauges, the ENSO forecast and the Mokelumne reservation schedule through the 2026–27 water year. Readers with local observations can reach us at editor@lodi411.com.

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 civic climate brief 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 reporting on the 2026 Kelvin wave from the Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, USA Today, ABC7 San Francisco, The Mercury News and The Sacramento Bee, along with NOAA Fisheries and NOAA Climate Prediction Center material.

Data Retrieval and Analysis: Tide anomalies were computed directly from NOAA Tides and Currents observed water levels and astronomical predictions for San Diego (9410170), Los Angeles (9410660), San Francisco (9414290) and Port Chicago (9415144). September 2026 and October 1 values use NOAA preliminary six-minute data. Earlier months use NOAA verified hourly heights against hourly predictions. Stockton stage figures come from California Data Exchange Center 15-minute records for station RRI, compared only within that station. Months that could not be retrieved are left blank, not estimated.

Presentation: AI assisted in drafting, structuring, and formatting the report, including the three inline chart visualizations and the two tables.

Final Review: Multiple AI models reviewed the completed draft for factual consistency, source attribution accuracy, arithmetic, 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.

Sources

• NOAA Tides and Currents: Observed water level, San Francisco (9414290), September 1–October 1, 2026 (same query structure used for 9410170, 9410660 and 9415144, with product=predictions for astronomical tides and product=hourly_height for historical months)
• NOAA Tides and Currents: San Diego station 9410170
• NOAA Tides and Currents: Los Angeles station 9410660
• NOAA Tides and Currents: San Francisco station 9414290
• NOAA Tides and Currents: Port Chicago station 9415144
• California Data Exchange Center: San Joaquin River stage at Rough and Ready Island (RRI), September 2026 (same query used for September 2023, 2024 and 2025)
• NOAA Climate Prediction Center: ENSO Recent Evolution, Current Status and Predictions, September 28, 2026 (Kelvin wave timeline; greater than 90% chance of very strong El Niño)
• NOAA Climate Prediction Center: ENSO Diagnostic Discussion, September 10, 2026 (75% historic-strength probability for October–December)
• NOAA Fisheries: Ocean Indicators We're Tracking for El Niño's Arrival on the West Coast, September 3, 2026
• Los Angeles Times: Kelvin wave poses new threat to SoCal coastal cities, September 14, 2026
• The Guardian: Concern mounts over slow-moving, planetary-scale Kelvin wave heading for California, September 28, 2026
• The Guardian: California rushes to prepare for massive Kelvin wave and predicted sea level rise, September 30, 2026
• USA Today: Powerful planetary wave takes aim at West Coast as El Niño rages, September 29, 2026
• ABC7 San Francisco: El Niño-driven Kelvin wave could raise Bay Area sea levels 1 foot in October, September 18, 2026
• The Mercury News: What is a Kelvin wave, and should we be worried? September 29, 2026
• Yahoo News (The Sacramento Bee): El Niño Kelvin waves pose risks for California, but beware of hype, September 15, 2026
• California King Tides Project: Statewide king tide dates, 2026–27
• EBMUD: EBMUD's Mokelumne River Project in Perspective (flood reservation schedule and 5,000 cfs encroachment release limit)
• San Joaquin County Public Works and OES: Flood Protection Information
• FEMA Map Service Center: Special Flood Hazard Area lookup

Contact: editor@lodi411.com

Measure L Citizens’ Oversight Committee

Wednesday, September 30, 2026 — 6:00 p.m.

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

Chair John Beckman (District 2) | Vice Chair Antonio Amador (District 1) | Members Toni Lish (District 4), Chris Young (District 5) | District 3 vacant

Summary

Lodi’s Measure L oversight committee meets Wednesday to receive a rebuilt draft of the Fiscal Year 2024/25 Measure L Annual Accountability Report. Measure L is the half-cent local sales tax Lodi voters approved in November 2018. The ballot estimated $5.4 million a year. In FY 2024/25 it brought in $9.1 million.

The committee reviewed a draft for this same fiscal year on December 8, 2025. The dollar figures have not changed. Staff has moved the report into the City’s ClearGov budget software and added historical department, General Fund, and staffing sections. The committee takes no action on the report Wednesday; staff will ask for a recommendation to the City Council at the next meeting, more than 15 months after FY 2024/25 closed.

The report shows the Measure L fund spent $208,107 more than it took in during FY 2024/25, its first deficit year. The balance fell to $1,580,709, leaving $124,625 above the required 16% reserve. The new ClearGov version also introduces errors: a summary table drops Parks entirely, the Fire section counts the Library’s Measure L librarian in every year, and several charts labeled “FY25 Expenditures” show budget figures instead of actual spending. FY 2025/26 ended June 30, 2026, but the report includes only that year’s adopted budget, with no actual results or year-end fund balance.

Meeting Details

Date & Time: Wednesday, September 30, 2026 at 6:00 p.m.

Location: Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240 (in person; the agenda lists no remote option)

Agenda Contact: Jamie Bandy, Administrative Services Director, (209) 269-4642

Report Author: Jennelle Baker-Bechthold, Budget Manager

Committee Members: Chair John Beckman (District 2), Vice Chair Antonio Amador (District 1), Toni Lish (District 4), Chris Young (District 5); District 3 is vacant, per the FY 2025/26 roster printed in the report

Staff Reports: On file for public inspection at the Office of the City Clerk, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi

Accessibility and Interpreters: Disability accommodation requests go to the City Manager’s Office at least 72 hours before the meeting. Language interpreter requests go to Jennelle Baker-Bechthold, (209) 333-6722, at least 72 hours in advance. Solicitudes de interpretación: (209) 333-6722, con 72 horas de anticipación.

Committee Authority: Lodi Municipal Code (LMC) §3.30.150(A) directs the committee to review the annual accountability report and report its findings to the City Council and residents. Its review is limited to Measure L revenue and spending after each fiscal year closes; it has no role in writing the budget.

Agenda

A. Call to Order / Roll Call

B. Approve Minutes — January 15, 2026 Special Meeting

Prepared by Administrative Assistant–Confidential Monica Calderon. The January meeting took up Chair Beckman’s proposed changes to the Measure L section of the Municipal Code and voted 3-0 (Young absent) to recommend them to the City Council. Details and corrections below.

C. Receive Draft Fiscal Year 2024/25 Measure L Annual Accountability Report

Receive only. Staff will ask the committee to recommend the report to the City Council at its next meeting, and the Council would accept it at a later date. Strategic Vision 3A (Fiscal Health). No fiscal impact.

E. Adjournment

The printed agenda has no Item D. Agenda posted at least 72 hours in advance under Government Code §54954.2(a).

Item B — January 15, 2026 Minutes

The special meeting ran from 6:03 to 6:26 p.m. Chair Beckman, Vice Chair Amador, and Member Lish attended. Member Young was absent. Budget Manager Baker-Bechthold and Administrative Assistant Monica Calderon staffed the meeting.

Chair Beckman presented the Municipal Code changes he wanted to take to the City Council. The January agenda packet showed the proposal. It would widen the committee’s review from Measure L revenue and spending to “all sales tax expenditures.” It would change the test from spending “for the purposes set forth in this ordinance” to spending “in the spirit of the ballot language presented to the voters.” And it would drop the clause confining the committee to Measure L revenue. Beckman had already presented a letter on the proposal to the City Council on December 17, 2025.

Baker-Bechthold gave a history of Measure L and said the City complies with the current code language. She reviewed historical allocations by department, and the committee received a February 6, 2019 Council Communication on six Measure L-funded positions. Staff’s visual showed eight Measure L-funded Fire positions, two Police positions eliminated “due to MOUs” (memoranda of understanding, the City’s labor contracts with employee groups), and rising salary and benefit costs. The committee voted 3-0 to recommend the amendments. No one spoke during public comment.

Open Issues to Watch — Item B

• Wrong meeting date in the header. The draft minutes are headed “Wednesday, September 30, 2026,” the date of this week’s meeting, not January 15, 2026.
• Wrong minutes approved. The January minutes record approval of the “January 15, 2026” minutes. The committee approved its December 8, 2025 minutes that night.
• The recommendation is not in the record. The motion says the committee recommended “proposed Measure L Municipal Code amendments” but does not state or attach the language. Readers of the official minutes cannot tell what the committee endorsed.
• Motion wording. “The above motion carried Committee Member Amador, seconded by…” omits who moved it. Item lettering jumps from C to F.
• Six firefighters or eight? Staff described eight Measure L Fire positions. The accountability report lists six firefighters for both FY 2024/25 and FY 2025/26.
• What happened next? Nothing in this packet reports whether the City Council has scheduled or acted on the committee’s January recommendation.

Item C — FY 2024/25 Measure L Annual Accountability Report

Report at a Glance

Fiscal year covered: July 1, 2024 – June 30, 2025

Required by: LMC §3.30.140. The report must show (a) revenue collected and (b) the amount and general purpose of spending by category.

Format: New ClearGov layout, 30 pages. It adds 10-year-style department history, General Fund context, and a General Fund position schedule from FY 2019 through FY 2025.

Prior review: A draft for the same year, in the old format, went to the committee December 8, 2025. The revenue, spending, and fund balance figures are unchanged.

Committee action: Receive only; recommendation to Council at the next meeting.

Revenue

Measure L collected $9,100,526 in FY 2024/25, down $130,952 (1.4%) from FY 2024. Staff budgeted $9.2 million, cut the estimate to $8.6 million at mid-year, and finished $500,000 above the revised figure. Tax receipts have now fallen two straight years and sit about $217,000 below the FY 2023 high.

The City’s sales tax consultant, HdL, attributed the drop to weaker sales of autos, building and construction materials, business and industry goods, fuel, and general consumer goods. Restaurants and hotels grew.

Measure L is a transactions and use tax. That means it applies to goods delivered into Lodi, including online orders, and all of it stays with the City. Because of AB 147 (2019), which requires large online sellers to collect the tax, Measure L brought in about 57.2% as much as the City’s 1% share of the base sales tax, even though its rate is half as large.

Total revenue: FY 2019 $1,453,364 (partial year) · FY 2020 $6,762,083 · FY 2021 $8,456,915 · FY 2022 $9,176,719 · FY 2023 $9,340,813 · FY 2024 $9,231,478 · FY 2025 $9,100,526. Source: FY 2024/25 Draft Accountability Report, p. 7.

Interest earnings were $421 for the year on a fund that started with $1.79 million. The report does not say whether Measure L receives a share of the City’s pooled-cash interest.

The report has no receivables schedule. California’s tax agency, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), sends sales tax to cities after a delay, so a June 30 balance normally includes money owed but not yet received. The report does not disclose that amount or the accounting basis for the $9.1 million.

Spending by Recipient

The report presents FY 2024/25 spending three ways: by service type (Table 1), by category (Table 2), and by department (ClearGov tables). Reconciled, they agree on $9,308,633. Police and Fire received 81.9% of it, nearly all for salaries, benefits, and overtime.

Library split derived from the Library department table (p. 25) and Non-Departmental transfers (p. 26). Sources: pp. 8–11, 21–26.

By category, Table 2 lists $7,557,740 for public safety salaries and benefits, $64,253 for supplies and services, $1,269,340 for Parks, $390,186 for the Library, and $27,114 for Public Works. The report states that no Measure L money went toward CalPERS unfunded pension liability, the cost of pension benefits earned in earlier years.

Overtime rose $412,752 (24.3%) to $2,110,204, second only to regular salaries ($3,497,648). Safety equipment spending fell from $105,932 to $41,654 and training from $63,461 to $21,395. The City’s internal liability-insurance charge rose from $155,720 to $212,970.

The report says Measure L funded 31.2 full-time positions and two part-time Community Service Officers. Its highlights page lists 25 police officers, six firefighters, one librarian, one park maintenance worker, and 0.2 of a street maintenance worker, which adds to 33.2. Scheduled maintenance on 467 park trees at Blakely, Henry Glaves, Lawrence, Peterson, Lodi Lake, the Softball Complex, Grape Bowl, and Armory Park is listed as a Measure L result. Before Measure L, the City had no preventive maintenance program for park trees.

Fund Balance

Source: Table 2, p. 9, and Fund Balance, p. 28.

The balance fell 11.6% in one year. The beginning balance checks out: surpluses from FY 2019 through FY 2023 add to exactly $1,788,816, and FY 2024 broke even to the dollar.

Revenue less spending: FY 2019 +$803,143 · FY 2020 +$386,202 · FY 2021 +$450,869 · FY 2022 +$115,169 · FY 2023 +$33,433 · FY 2024 $0 · FY 2025 –$208,107. Source: Comprehensive Measure L Fund Summary, p. 11.

The City’s budget policy requires the Measure L fund to hold a 16% reserve, as the General Fund does. The $1,456,084 reserve equals exactly 16% of FY 2024/25 revenue. The report does not say which base the policy uses. Measured against spending, the requirement would be $1,489,381, and the unreserved balance would be $91,328.

Using the same revenue method, the balance above the reserve was about $311,800 on July 1, 2024. A year later it was $124,625, a drop of about 60%. One more deficit the size of FY 2024/25 would take the fund below its policy reserve.

Open Issues to Watch — Errors in the Draft

• Parks missing from Table 1 (p. 8). The table lists Police, Fire, “Library” at $1,269,340, Street Maintenance, and Miscellaneous. $1,269,340 is the Parks amount. The Library’s $390,186 does not appear, and the listed rows add to $8,918,446, not the $9,308,633 total printed beneath them. The December 2025 draft listed both Parks and Library.
• Library counted inside Fire (p. 21). The Fire section reports FY 2025 spending of $3,129,992. Every other table shows $3,016,496. The $113,496 difference is exactly the Library’s Measure L spending. The same gap appears in FY 2021 ($19,345), FY 2022 ($84,997), and FY 2024 ($86,307).
• Budget shown as actual. The department pie labeled “FY25 Expenditures by Department” totals $9.47 million; actual spending was $9.31 million. It shows Police at $4,395,710 (actual $4,604,293) and Library at $98,970 (actual $113,496). The Fire pie totals $3.49 million while the department pie shows Fire at $3,392,220.
• Negative “ending fund balance” (p. 11). The ClearGov fund summary leaves Beginning Fund Balance blank for every year and labels each year’s surplus or deficit as the Ending Fund Balance. As printed, it shows FY 2025 ending at –$208,107. Table 2 shows $1,580,709.
• Missing year (p. 10). The department table skips FY 2023.
• Percentages and date (p. 9). The narrative says 80.14% went to public safety salaries and benefits and 14.93% to Parks. The table figures give 81.19% and 13.64%. It also describes the fund balance “as of June 30, 2024”; the table is June 30, 2025.
• Typos in the key table (p. 9). The beginning balance prints as “1,7,88,816” and the fund balance as “1,580,709,.27.”
• Position count (p. 27). The positions listed add to 33.2; the text says 31.2.
• Transfers above plan (pp. 28–29). The narrative says Parks received $748,300 for operations plus $400,000 for capital, and the Library $260,060. Actual transfers were $1,269,340 to Parks and $276,690 to the Library, $137,670 more combined. The report does not explain the difference.
• Parks left out of scope (p. 4). The overview lists spending for “Fire, Police, Library, Streets, and Capital.” Parks operations, the third-largest recipient, is not named.

General Fund Context

The new General Fund section argues that Measure L lets other General Fund revenue cover a wider range of City work. Its tables show General Fund revenue of $76.9 million and spending of $69.0 million in FY 2025, down $2.16 million (3.0%) from FY 2024. The biggest drop was Non-Departmental ($4.78 million). Fire rose $1.46 million (10.5%) and the City Manager’s office $493,862 (43.4%).

The narrative gives different numbers from those tables: $80.6 million in spending, a $1.4 million (1.7%) decline, a $4.95 million Non-Departmental drop, and a $1.30 million Fire increase. The pie charts show $76.4 million in revenue and $75.7 million in spending. The percent-change table matches the dollar table for six departments but not for Police (1.2% vs. 1.0%), Fire (7.6% vs. 10.5%), or Non-Departmental (–23.3% vs. –26.1%).

General Fund positions grew from 244.7 in FY 2019 to 289.0 in FY 2025, an increase of 44.3. The schedule’s adjustment column totals 42.7 because Parks shows +2.0 when its own columns go from 24.4 to 28.0. Police grew from 103 to 114 positions, including officers from 47 to 53. Fire grew from 52.6 to 57, including firefighters from 11 to 14. Staff notes that some increases are reclassifications or transfers rather than new jobs.

FY 2025/26: Budget Against FY 2024/25 Actual

The City Council adopted the FY 2025/26 budget on June 4, 2025. The report’s FY 2025/26 pages repeat that adopted budget unchanged from the December 2025 draft. That fiscal year closed June 30, 2026, but the report includes no actual FY 2025/26 revenue, spending, or year-end fund balance.

Sources: Table 1 and Table 2 (pp. 8–9, corrected for the missing Parks row) and Table 4 (p. 29).

Police (–$450,803). Measure L-funded officers drop from 25 to 23. That matches staff’s January report that two Police positions were eliminated under labor agreements. The report does not say whether those officers left the payroll or moved to other General Fund money. The answer determines whether the City saved money or shifted the cost to the General Fund.

Fire (–$5,306). Six firefighters plus $1.9 million in overtime to staff all four fire stations. Police and Fire overtime together reached $2.11 million in FY 2024/25, up 24% in one year. A flat Fire budget holds only if Fire overtime stayed near plan.

Parks (–$121,040). $748,300 for operations, including the Park Maintenance Worker added in FY 2024/25, plus $400,000 for capital projects. FY 2024/25 actual transfers ran $121,040 above that same structure.

Library (–$3,646). $260,000 for operations plus about $126,540 for the librarian’s salary and benefits.

Streets (+$12,526). Still 0.2 of one worker. The ballot language lists “fixing potholes/city streets.” Measure L street spending is $39,640 of $8.74 million, about 0.45%.

By category, the FY 2025/26 budget is $7,273,600 for salaries and benefits, $57,200 for supplies, materials, and training, and $1,408,360 in operating transfers. The transfers equal the Parks $1,148,300 plus the Library’s $260,060. FY 2024/25 actual transfers were $1,546,030.

What the Fund Balance Could Look Like

The report gives no FY 2025/26 revenue figure. The two cases below show a range; they are not City projections.

Computed from the report’s FY 2024/25 actuals and FY 2025/26 adopted budget.

Questions for the Committee

• When will the committee see FY 2025/26 actual revenue, spending, and the June 30, 2026 fund balance?
• Will staff fix Table 1, the Fire–Library double count, and the charts showing budget figures as actual spending before the committee votes?
• Is the 16% reserve calculated on revenue or on spending, and what does the adopted policy say?
• Why did Parks receive $121,040 more and the Library $16,630 more than the budgeted transfers in FY 2024/25?
• Were 25 or 23 officers Measure L-funded in FY 2024/25? Does Fire have six Measure L positions or eight?
• Did the two eliminated Police positions leave the payroll, or did the cost move to the General Fund?
• How much of the $2.11 million in FY 2024/25 overtime was Fire, and how did FY 2025/26 overtime compare with the $1.9 million budget?
• Why did the fund earn only $421 in interest on a balance of $1.6 million to $1.8 million?
• What Measure L sales tax was owed to the City but not yet received on June 30, 2025 and June 30, 2026?
• Where do the committee’s January Municipal Code recommendations stand with the City Council?

References

• City of Lodi — Measure L Citizens’ Oversight Committee (agendas, members, meeting schedule)
• City of Lodi Agenda Center — Measure L committee packets and minutes
• City of Lodi Boards and Commissions — Measure L Citizens’ Oversight Committee roster
• City of Lodi Annual Budgets archive (ClearGov budget books)
• City of Lodi — FY 2025/26 Adopted Budget announcement (June 4, 2025)
• City of Lodi — FY 2026/27 Adopted Budget announcement
• City of Lodi — Measure L Annual Accountability Report, FY 2020/21 (prior format)
• Lodi Municipal Code Chapter 3.30 — Transactions and Use Tax (Measure L), including §3.30.140 and §3.30.150
• California Government Code §54954.2 — Brown Act agenda posting
• AB 147 (2019) — Sales and use taxes: remote sellers
• Agenda contact: Jamie Bandy, Administrative Services Director — (209) 269-4642

Prepared for Lodi411 by Don Bradford. AI-assisted analysis with human editorial review against the primary source packet (Measure L Citizens’ Oversight Committee agenda packet, September 30, 2026, 35 pp.). Residents are encouraged to consult the linked City of Lodi sources of record and to review staff reports at the Office of the City Clerk, 221 West Pine Street.

Power Outages in Lodi, 2021–2026: An Update on Records and Causes

LodiEye — September 2026

At a Glance

Lodi Electric Utility (LEU) serves about 28,000 accounts within roughly 14 square miles. Most outages on its system over the past five years were short and local, affecting a few dozen to a few hundred customers for an hour or two.

The two largest events came on back-to-back days in September 2022, and neither started on LEU's neighborhood lines. One was a load cut ordered in error by the regional power agency. The other was a failure of protective relays on one of the three transmission feeds that bring power into the city.

Weather-related outages in Lodi have come mostly from winter wind storms that push branches and debris into overhead lines. Summer heat has mattered mainly through the limits of the transmission lines that feed the city, not through failures of local equipment.

LEU does not publish an annual outage count or standard reliability measures, so a true year-by-year trend can't yet be drawn from public records. This update is built from the events documented in city filings, utility plans, city outage alerts, and news reports.

The Documented Outages

Customers affected in documented Lodi Electric outages, 2021–2026

Sources: City of Lodi CPUC filing (March 2026); Lodi News-Sentinel; ABC10; LEU outage alerts. The September 7, 2022 figure is the city's estimate that about 75 percent of LEU customers lost power at some point during the rotating outages; about 8,700 were out at the peak. The New Year's Eve 2022 storm is not shown because a customer count was not published. Small outages from 2025 and 2026 come from LEU's public alerts and are a sample, not a complete list.

What Caused Them

Wind and trees

This is the most common documented cause. In January 2021, branches that came down along North Sacramento Road cut power to about 9,000 customers for two hours. In October 2021, a wind advisory with gusts near 45 mph brought branches into lines in two neighborhoods south of downtown. The New Year's Eve 2022 atmospheric river brought winds up to 51 mph, flooded streets, and knocked over dozens of trees. In February 2024, LEU Director Jeff Berkheimer reported 3,075 customers out over a weekend storm, with crews responding to seven spots where debris or broken limbs were caught in overhead lines. All power was back before 6:30 the next morning.

These outages share a pattern: winter, wind, overhead lines, and trees. None has been traced to heat or summer demand.

The regional grid

On the afternoon of September 6, 2022, during the statewide heat emergency, a dispatcher at the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), which supplies most of Lodi's power, understood an order from the California Independent System Operator (Cal ISO) as a request to cut 46 megawatts of load across several member cities. Lodi's share was about 5.6 megawatts. Power was shut off for about 45 minutes to 1,372 customers in Park West, Lodi West, Harvest Crossing and Bridgetowne. Cal ISO later said it had not ordered rotating outages that evening.

Equipment failure on a transmission feed

The next evening, September 7, 2022, brought the largest outage of the period. LEU receives power through three 60 kV lines from PG&E that connect at its Industrial Substation, formally the Fred M. Reid Industrial Substation near Lodi and Guild avenues. In the city's testimony to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), the primary and backup protective relays on the Lockeford 60 kV feed both failed, forcing that line out of service. With only two feeds left, PG&E asked Lodi to cut 35 megawatts of load. LEU rotated one-hour outages through the city on a day that reached about 109 degrees.

About 8,700 customers were out at the peak, and the city estimates that about 75 percent of all LEU customers lost power at some point. PG&E cleared the city to restore full load at 10:30 p.m. The city's emergency notification, meant to go out around 4:20 p.m., overloaded its system and did not reach most residents.

Objects in the lines

On February 20, 2026, a cluster of mylar balloons became tangled in overhead lines at the substation at Pine Street and Cherokee Lane around 11:30 a.m. Nearly 8,000 customers lost power. Crews restored all but one circuit within 35 minutes, and everyone was back by 12:14 p.m. LEU specifies covers on overhead transformer and capacitor connections, in part to keep wildlife, foliage and balloons from making contact, but open substation lines remain exposed to this kind of event.

Small outages with no stated cause

Most outages in LEU's public alerts are small and list the cause as unknown at the time of the alert. The recent ones in the table ranged from 51 to 694 customers and from about an hour to four and a half hours. LEU's outage management system assigns a number to each outage, so cause information likely exists internally, but it is not part of the public alerts.

Aging Equipment

The clearest public record of LEU replacing old equipment is its removal of aged, small-diameter solid copper wire, known as #6 copper, from overhead primary lines. LEU replaced it with larger stranded wire with a steel core, which is less likely to break and fall. The utility reported the remaining amount in its annual plan filings.

Old #6 copper wire remaining on LEU overhead lines (feet)

Source: Lodi Electric Utility annual plan filings, 2023 and 2024.

The same filings count "wires down" events, when a primary or transmission wire falls to the ground or onto something else. The numbers are small: one in the year ending October 2020 (a failed connector), two the following year, none from November 2021 through June 2023, and one from July 2023 through April 2024. The filings also note two overhead transformer failures in 2021 and 2022, both traced to failed connection points on the transformer.

At the substation level, city budget documents from 2025 describe replacing older gas- and oil-filled circuit breakers at several substations, noting that worn parts had already been replaced during scheduled maintenance. The utility director's stated priorities include substation modernization and replacing failing distribution equipment before it fails.

The one large equipment failure in the period, the September 2022 relay failure, was on protection equipment for a transmission feed, not on neighborhood lines.

Heat and Load

Heat matters in Lodi mostly because the city's power has to come in over a limited number of transmission lines. PG&E's Lockeford–Lodi system can carry about 194 megawatts under normal conditions and about 152 megawatts if one line is lost. Cal ISO first flagged overloads and voltage problems on these lines more than a decade ago. In testimony to the CPUC, Berkheimer said the city's existing transmission feeds are operating near their limits and that Lodi expects to need 100 to 125 megawatts of additional capacity over the next 30 years.

That was the setting for September 2022. When one feed went out on a 109-degree day, the other two could not carry the city's load, and customers lost power even though LEU's own lines were intact.

Statewide conditions have eased since then. As of September 2026, Cal ISO had not issued a Flex Alert since 2022, which grid officials credit largely to the growth of battery storage.

What Has Changed Since 2022

Local emergency generation. In 2023 the state Department of Water Resources installed 48 megawatts of temporary natural gas generators next to the city's Surface Water Treatment Plant on Turner Road, west of Lodi Lake. The units are for grid emergencies only, are limited to about 300 hours a year, and have an initial term of about five years. Berkheimer said at the time that the plant would likely have avoided the rotating outages of September 2022. NCPA also operates a 27-megawatt peaking plant within LEU's territory.

A new transmission connection. On July 21, 2026, the CPUC approved PG&E's Northern San Joaquin 230 kV Transmission Project. PG&E will build about 10.6 miles of new line, expand its Lockeford Substation, and build a new switching station in Lodi. LEU will build the new Guild Substation between that switching station and its Industrial Substation. The project would roughly double the Lockeford–Lodi system's normal capacity, from about 194 to about 404 megawatts. Construction is expected to begin in 2028, with service planned for 2031.

Trees and lines. LEU tripled its tree-trimming budget between 2020 and 2022 and trimmed or removed about 1,700 trees near its lines between July 2023 and April 2024. Every tree near LEU lines is scheduled for a visit every 18 to 24 months.

What the Public Record Does Not Show

A few pieces of information would make a real trend possible. The first is annual reliability figures for LEU, such as the average number of outages per customer (known as SAIFI) and the average minutes without power per customer (SAIDI); these are the standard measures utilities report to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, but no LEU figures were found in published sources. The second is the cause categories behind outages logged in LEU's outage management system, which would show whether small unexplained outages are mostly animals, equipment, vehicles, or vegetation. The third is a published LEU customer count for the New Year's Eve 2022 storm.

Until those are available, the documented record points to three things: most outages are small and short; the large ones have come from the transmission connection and the regional grid rather than local wear; and the main weather risk to LEU's own lines is winter wind, not summer heat.

Sources

1. City of Lodi — Opening Brief, CPUC Application 23-09-001 (Northern San Joaquin 230 kV Transmission Project), March 20, 2026
2. Lodi Electric Utility — Wildfire Mitigation Plan 2024 (wires-down counts, conductor replacement, underground share, tree work)
3. Lodi Electric Utility — Wildfire Mitigation Plan 2023
4. CPUC — Northern San Joaquin 230 kV Transmission Project environmental review
5. Lodi News-Sentinel — Lodi transmission upgrade gets green light, Sept. 8, 2026
6. ABC10 — Nearly 1,400 customers in Lodi lose power "in error" for an hour, Sept. 6, 2022
7. ABC10 — Power restored after substation loss caused outage in Lodi, Sept. 7, 2022
8. Lodi News-Sentinel — Construction begins on Lodi plant that will serve as backup energy source, May 10, 2023
9. ABC10 — Future outages could be thwarted as new Lodi generator is built, May 2023
10. California Department of Water Resources — Notice of Exemption, Strategic Reliability Reserve, City of Lodi Surface Water Treatment Facility Site
11. Lodi News-Sentinel — Fierce winds whip Lodi, bring down trees and kick up dust, Oct. 12, 2021
12. Lodi News-Sentinel — Atmospheric river on New Year's Eve causes flooding, downed trees and power outages, Jan. 4, 2023
13. Lodi News-Sentinel — Lodi takes a lashing: Thousands lose power, but no major damage reported, Feb. 6, 2024
14. Lodi News-Sentinel — Balloons behind Lodi power outage, Feb. 20, 2026
15. City of Lodi — Special City Council meeting agenda, April 1, 2025 (substation breaker replacement)
16. City of Lodi — Electric Utility
17. LEU outage alerts as republished by PowerOutage.us (May 18, 2025; Feb. 4, Apr. 7 and Apr. 15, 2026)
18. GovTech — How California Avoided Summer Blackouts Amid Record Heat, September 2026
19. LodiEye — Power Outage Analysis for Lodi, California (2020–2025), August 2025

California entered fall under a statewide emergency proclamation and a forecast for one of the strongest El Niño events on record (NOAA outlook). That is not a prediction that Lodi will flood. The local preparedness questions center on storm drains in town, the Mokelumne River corridor through Woodbridge and Thornton, north-Delta levees, and access to the White Slough wastewater plant west of Interstate 5.

Governor Gavin Newsom proclaimed the emergency on September 21. The proclamation itself warns that “very strong El Niño events do not produce uniform statewide outcomes.” This report sets out what each flood scenario would look like around Lodi, which parts can be mapped from official data, which cannot, and what local agencies can finish before the storms arrive.

A Kelvin-wave pulse could temporarily raise coastal and Bay water levels this fall, adding to high tides and storms, according to October 1 reporting by KQED. That coastal estimate is not a flood-depth forecast for Lodi. The Report tab explains the distinction; the Scenario map tab lets residents search an address for mapped context.

• Scenario map
• Report
• Preparedness
• Facilities & gauges
• Bridges
• Sources & data

Coastal context on. No local water-level increment, flood footprint or official value has been changed.

Map data: San Joaquin County GIS (FEMA flood zones, hydrography, reclamation districts, city limits), Caltrans functional classification (2024), National Bridge Inventory (June 2025), CDEC station metadata. Retrieved Sept. 23, 2026. FEMA zones are simplified for web display; confirm any address at the FEMA Flood Map Service Center.

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 report and interactive map were researched and drafted with artificial intelligence tools under the direction of Don Bradford, who set the scope, reviewed the analysis and fact-checked the findings. Lodi411 uses multiple AI platforms in its research and publication workflow, including Anthropic’s Claude and Perplexity AI.

Source discovery and validation: Forecast statements come from NOAA’s own discussions. River thresholds come from CDEC station records. Facility locations were matched to San Joaquin County’s address and parcel locator and screened against the County’s FEMA flood-zone layer. Bridge ratings come from the federal National Bridge Inventory.

Analysis and presentation: The relative-concern ratings, storm sequences, trigger matrix and scenario groupings are LodiEye planning analysis built from the cited sources. Map layers were clipped to the Lodi–north Delta area and simplified for web display; full-resolution files are kept with the source package.

Readers who spot an error are encouraged to write editor@lodi411.com so we can correct it.

Fewer Cattle, Costlier Beef: Twenty Years of the U.S. Beef Industry and What It Means in San Joaquin County

LodiEye — September 2026

The United States started 2026 with 86.2 million cattle and calves, the smallest herd since 1951. Ground beef averaged $6.92 a pound nationally in August. Beef imports are at a record, and two of the four companies that slaughter most of the country's cattle are controlled from Brazil. This report walks through how the industry got here over the last twenty years, from the ranch to the grocery store, and then looks at what those national trends mean for cattle producers, dairies and shoppers in San Joaquin County.

The herd: two contractions and a partial rebuild

The U.S. cattle herd moves in long cycles. Ranchers expand when calves pay well and pasture is good, then sell off cows when drought or costs squeeze them. Over the past twenty years the herd shrank from 2007 to 2014, when high corn prices and the 2011–2012 drought in Texas and the southern Plains forced heavy culling. It rebuilt from 2014 to 2019 after record calf prices in 2014. Then it shrank again from 2019 to today under renewed drought across the Plains and West, higher feed, fuel and fertilizer costs, and higher interest rates.

The number of farms with beef cows fell 15 percent between the 2017 and 2022 agricultural censuses, to about 622,000. Most are small: about four in five have fewer than 50 cows. The average age of U.S. producers was 58.1 in 2022, and that matters here because an older rancher facing record calf prices has a strong reason to sell heifers now rather than keep them to rebuild a herd that will take years to pay back.

Millions of head. All cattle and calves on the left axis; beef cows on the right axis. Source: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, Cattle reports (revised estimates; 2026 is the first estimate).

There are small signs of a turn. Beef replacement heifers, the young females kept back for breeding, rose 1 percent to 4.71 million in January 2026, the first increase in years. A heifer kept back this year does not produce a calf that reaches slaughter until about 30 months later, so industry analysts at CattleFax put the first real increase in fed-cattle slaughter around 2028.

A second supply problem came from the south. Mexico shipped about 1.25 million feeder cattle to U.S. feedlots in 2024. USDA closed the border to Mexican cattle in May 2025 because of New World screwworm, a flesh-eating fly larva, and only the Douglas, Arizona crossing had reopened as of late August 2026, starting at 700 head a day with a plan to rise to 1,300.

How beef moves: ranch to grocery store

The diagram below shows the main steps and where outside supply and ownership enter. Cow-calf ranchers raise calves on grass. Stocker operators and feedlots grow them to finished weight, usually on grain. Packers slaughter and cut them. Retailers and restaurants sell the beef. Imports come in mostly as lean trimmings that are blended with fattier U.S. trim to make ground beef.

Swipe sideways to see the full diagram. Figures are national. Big Four share is of fed steer and heifer slaughter. Sources: USDA NASS, USDA ERS, USDA Packers and Stockyards Division, company filings.

Feedlots

Feeding is concentrated in the Plains. Feedlots with 1,000 or more head held 82.7 percent of all cattle on feed on January 1, 2026. With fewer cattle, feeders have kept animals on feed longer, and carcass weights hit records in 2024 and 2025. Heavier cattle have kept beef output from falling as fast as head counts, but they also produce more fat trim, which raises demand for lean beef to blend into hamburger. That lean beef comes from cull cows, including dairy cows, and from imports. Oklahoma City feeder steers set an all-time monthly record of $355.55 per hundredweight in August 2025, and USDA forecasts about $364 for 2026.

Packers

Four companies, Tyson, JBS, Cargill and National Beef, have bought roughly 80 to 85 percent of fed steers and heifers since 2008. That share has barely moved in two decades. What has changed is who owns the plants and whether they make money. Packers earned very large margins in 2020 and 2021, when COVID-era plant slowdowns backed up cattle and the farmer's share of the retail beef dollar fell below 40 percent. Since 2023 the math has flipped. Cattle cost more than packers can recover from selling beef, and Tyson lost $1.135 billion in its beef segment in fiscal 2025.

Tyson closed its Lexington, Nebraska plant in January 2026, cut its Amarillo plant to one shift, and in August 2026 announced it would close its Joslin, Illinois plant and its Eagle Mountain, Utah case-ready operation and try to sell its Pasco, Washington plant. JBS reported a $427 million loss on North American beef in the first half of 2026.

Adjusted daily slaughter capacity in head per day. Orange marks companies controlled from Brazil: JBS, and National Beef under Marfrig, now MBRF Global Foods. "Other" is about 20 smaller plants averaging 921 head per day. This predates Tyson's August 2026 closures. Source: University of Nebraska–Lincoln Center for Agricultural Profitability, Lexington plant closure webinar, 2025.

Antitrust questions have come back. Tyson and Cargill agreed in January 2026 to pay $87.5 million to settle consumer claims in a long-running price-fixing class action, which a federal judge approved in May 2026. JBS settled earlier. The Justice Department has an open investigation into meatpacker pricing that became public in May 2026. No charges have been filed.

Retail

Ground beef cost about $2.60 a pound in 2006. It crossed $4 in the spring of 2020 and reached $6.92 in August 2026. The Choice beef retail value tracked by USDA passed $10 a pound in October 2025. The split of that retail dollar has shifted. In 2025, ranchers and feeders received a larger share than in most recent years, because cattle prices rose faster than anything else. The packer's margin stayed thin. The gap between wholesale and retail prices widened noticeably in the second half of 2025, and that is the part of the chain now drawing the most political attention.

Dollars per retail pound. Farm value is the retail price times USDA's farmer's share. The packer spread is the farm-to-wholesale spread and the retail spread is the wholesale-to-retail spread. Source: USDA ERS, Meat Price Spreads.

100% ground beef. Blue bars are the U.S. city average. The orange bar is the West census region, which includes California. Values for 2006 and annual 2014 and 2019 are approximate. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Average Price data, series APU0000703112 and APU0400703112.

USDA labeling rules changed on January 1, 2026. Beef can now carry a "Product of USA" label only if the animal was born, raised, slaughtered and processed in the United States. Before that, imported beef that was only cut or packed here could use the label. The rule is voluntary. Mandatory country-of-origin labeling for beef was repealed in December 2015 after Canada and Mexico won a World Trade Organization case against it.

Foreign beef and foreign owners

Imports

Twenty years ago imports mostly filled a narrow need for lean grinding beef. They dipped around 2010 to 2012, when drought-driven cow slaughter put plenty of lean beef on the U.S. market, and then climbed as the herd shrank. Imports hit about 5.4 billion pounds in 2025, roughly 17 percent of total U.S. beef supply. USDA's latest forecast before the August 2026 policy change put 2026 at a record 6.1 billion pounds.

Billions of pounds, carcass weight. Values for 2006, 2011 and 2016 are approximate. 2025 is a USDA estimate. 2026 is USDA's forecast before the August 2026 tariff-rate quota expansion. Sources: USDA ERS Livestock and Meat International Trade Data; USDA forecasts as reported by The Hill.

The biggest change is where imports come from. Brazil had no access for fresh beef in 2006. It gained access in 2016, was suspended in 2017 after an inspection-bribery scandal, returned in 2020, and is now the largest supplier, shipping about 325,000 metric tons in the first half of 2026 despite tariffs. Argentina was shut out after a 2001 foot-and-mouth outbreak, returned in 2018, and in February 2026 had its low-tariff quota raised from 20,000 to 100,000 metric tons.

Millions of pounds, carcass weight. Total 2024 imports were 4,635 million pounds. Canada and Mexico are outside the tariff-rate quota under USMCA. Source: USDA ERS Livestock and Meat International Trade Data.

On August 26, 2026, a presidential proclamation added 300,000 metric tons of low-tariff access for lean beef trimmings, about 661 million pounds, in three batches opening September 1, October 1 and October 31. The access goes to countries without their own quota, which in practice means mostly Brazil and Paraguay. The American Farm Bureau Federation estimated the waived tariffs at about $650 million and noted that calf prices had fallen by $300 to $400 a head over the two months before its analysis. Five days later USDA announced its Ranchers First Initiative, which includes insurance coverage for ranchers who keep heifers back to rebuild herds and loan guarantees for regional processors.

Foreign ownership

In 2006 all four big packers were American-owned. Brazil's JBS bought Swift and Company in 2007, then Smithfield's beef business and the Five Rivers feedlots in 2008. The Justice Department and 17 states sued to stop JBS from also buying National Beef, and JBS dropped that deal in 2009. Brazil's Marfrig bought a controlling stake in National Beef in 2018 and raised it to about 82 percent in 2019. Marfrig merged with BRF in 2025 to form MBRF Global Foods. JBS listed its shares on the New York Stock Exchange in June 2025, with the Batista family keeping about 85 percent of the voting control.

None of this foreign position came from building new plants. It came from buying existing American companies. By plant capacity, about four in ten head of U.S. fed-cattle slaughter capacity is now controlled from Brazil. Foreign ownership of farmland is a separate question. Foreign holdings of U.S. agricultural land reached 45.85 million acres at the end of 2023, 3.6 percent of privately held farmland, but that land is mostly forest and wind or solar leases rather than cattle ranches.

What it means in San Joaquin County

San Joaquin County's cattle business looks different from the national picture in one important way. Most local cattle are dairy animals, so the county feels the beef market largely through its dairies.

A dairy county that also sells beef

The most recent USDA county estimates, for January 2022, counted about 220,000 cattle and calves in San Joaquin County. Of those, about 105,000 were milk cows and about 17,300 were beef cows. The rest were heifers, steers, bulls and calves. California as a whole had 5.05 million cattle and calves on January 1, 2026, fourth among the states.

Head. "Other cattle and calves" is the county total minus milk and beef cows. Source: USDA NASS Pacific Regional Office, California Cattle County Estimates, May 2022.

The county crop report counted about 113,000 acres of pasture and range in 2025, about 101,000 of it unirrigated. Dairies sell beef in two forms: older cows culled from the milking herd, which become lean beef for hamburger, and calves not needed as replacements. That makes national beef prices a real part of local dairy income.

Local cattle sales

The county's cattle and calves were worth $165.0 million in 2025, nearly the same as the $165.6 million in 2024 and up from $129.0 million in 2022. Underneath the flat total, the county's average price rose from $131 to $157 per hundredweight while the number of head sold fell from about 146,000 to 140,000 and total live weight fell about 17 percent. The agricultural commissioner's 2025 report described it the same way: prices increased notably, but inventory declined. That matches the national story of fewer animals selling for more.

Bars show gross value in millions of dollars (left axis). The line shows the county's average price per hundredweight of live weight (right axis); the 2022 price was not collected for this report. Gross value is not net income to producers. Sources: San Joaquin County Agricultural Commissioner, Crop Reports 2023–2025; Escalon Times for the 2022 value.

The county's average of $157 per hundredweight is well below national prices for feeder steers, which were above $350. That gap likely reflects the local mix, which includes many cull dairy cows and young calves that sell for less per pound than feeder steers.

Feed and grazing costs moved in opposite directions

Local feed got cheaper. Alfalfa hay in the county fell from $315 a ton in 2023 to $203 in 2025, and the commissioner's report attributes the drop in hay and silage prices to a supply surplus. That lowers costs for dairies and for ranchers who feed hay. Grazing land moved the other way: the crop report's per-acre value for pasture and range rose from $54 in 2024 to $75 in 2025, with irrigated pasture near $277 an acre.

Alfalfa in dollars per ton (left axis). Pasture and range in dollars per acre, all types combined (right axis). Source: San Joaquin County Agricultural Commissioner, Crop Reports 2023–2025.

Dairies and beef-on-dairy calves

Across the country, dairies have been breeding part of their herds to beef bulls, usually Angus, and selling the crossbred calves into the beef system. Those calves sold for as much as $1,500 a head in April 2026 and around $1,300 in September. The calf income helped dairies through a year when milk prices were low. It also has a cost: fewer dairy heifers are being raised, and replacement dairy cows hit a record average of $3,130 a head in April 2026. With about 105,000 milk cows, San Joaquin County dairies are directly exposed to both sides of that trade. Milk was worth $556 million in the county in 2025, and cattle and calves were worth $165 million.

Where local cattle go

Local sellers use auction yards such as Escalon Livestock Market, which runs weekly sales for beef cattle, dairy cattle and butcher cows, and Cattlemen's Livestock Market in Galt just north of Lodi. The nearest large beef plants are in the southern San Joaquin Valley. In 2024 Central Valley Meat of Hanford bought Cargill's Fresno plant, which processed about 1,600 head a day. Central Valley Meat already owned its Hanford plant, Harris Ranch Beef in Selma, and Harris Ranch Feeding at Coalinga, the state's largest feedlot. California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued over concern that the purchase could lower prices paid to cattle sellers, and the settlement kept the Fresno plant running and protected about 700 jobs for at least 12 months. Cargill and Central Valley Meat were two of the largest San Joaquin Valley processors buying cows culled from dairies. The national concentration story has a local version: dairies and ranchers here have fewer large buyers than they did a few years ago.

Swipe sideways to see the full diagram. Simplified. Herd numbers are USDA county estimates for January 2022. Sources: USDA NASS, San Joaquin County Agricultural Commissioner, Central Valley Meat and California Department of Justice announcements.

Why imports matter to local dairies

Most imported beef is lean trimming used to make ground beef, and that is the same product lean cull cows supply. The August 2026 quota expansion for lean trimmings therefore competes most directly with the beef that San Joaquin County dairies sell when they cull cows. How much it lowers local cull cow prices will depend on how much of the added quota actually fills before November 30 and how much of it would have entered anyway at the higher tariff.

Screwworm

The county's 2025 crop report notes that New World screwworm had not been detected in California. The fly has been confirmed in Texas and New Mexico in 2026. For local producers, the main effect of the Mexican border closure has been through tighter national supplies of feeder cattle and the higher prices that followed.

What shoppers pay

BLS does not publish a beef price for Lodi or Stockton. The closest published figure is the West census region, where 100% ground beef averaged $7.23 a pound in April 2026, above the national average. Nationally, the beef and veal price index was up 9.4 percent over the year to July 2026, while overall inflation was 3.4 percent. The San Francisco-area index, the nearest metro index BLS publishes, showed grocery prices down 3.1 percent in the two months ending in August 2026, with food overall up 3.1 percent over the year. Imported lean trimmings are aimed at ground beef, so any price relief from the August quota change is most likely to show up in hamburger rather than steaks.

What to watch

For the rest of 2026 and into 2027, the national signals that matter most locally are whether heifer retention keeps rising in the January 2027 cattle report, how much of the 300,000-ton lean trim quota fills before it closes on November 30, whether more Mexican border crossings reopen, and whether the Justice Department's meatpacker investigation produces any action. Locally, the 2026 crop report, likely out in the fall of 2027, will show whether cattle prices kept rising faster than the county's head count fell, and the Fresno plant's operation after the settlement period will matter to dairies selling cull cows.

Sources

• USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, Cattle, January 30, 2026, and executive briefing
• USDA NASS Pacific Regional Office, California Cattle County Estimates, 2022
• San Joaquin County Agricultural Commissioner, 2025 Crop Report and 2024 Crop Report
• Escalon Times, County Ag Receipts Top $3.2 Billion Mark (2022 crop report figures)
• Stocktonia, Almonds become San Joaquin County's top crop, September 25, 2026
• USDA Economic Research Service, Meat Price Spreads; Livestock and Meat International Trade Data; Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook
• U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics via FRED, U.S. ground beef average price and West region ground beef average price; CPI, San Francisco Area, August 2026
• USAFacts, What is the average price of beef in the US?
• American Farm Bureau Federation, Knowns and Unknowns on the Presidential Beef Proclamation and Smaller Cattle Herd Creates Market Volatility
• USDA, Ranchers First Initiative announcement, August 31, 2026
• University of Nebraska–Lincoln Center for Agricultural Profitability, Tyson Lexington plant closure webinar
• Oklahoma Farm Report, Tyson Foods shuts down major beef processing plants; Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, US tries to deal with beef imports
• The Hill, How much beef does the US import; Newsweek, America's top beef suppliers; Rio Times, Argentina left out of expanded US beef quota
• Investigate Midwest, More foreign ownership of U.S. beef processors; National Provisioner, The U.S. meatpacking industry: Investment invasion
• MEAT+POULTRY, Central Valley Meat acquires Cargill's beef plant in Fresno; Agriculture Dive, Cargill sells California beef plant; Fresno Bee via AOL, Laid-off Fresno meat-processing workers thrown lifeline after settlement
• Ag Proud, Cattle markets continue adding value to dairy operations and Replacement dairy cow prices hit new record high; Dairy Herd, Beef-on-dairy calf prices cool, but demand holds and Heavy steers and lean cows
• Escalon Livestock Market, market reports; Cattlemen's Livestock Market Galt, market reports

Four Lodi residents were federally indicted on September 23 as members of Varrio Mojado Sureño, a gang that has been in Lodi for years but did not appear in our April report. This report looks at the case, what it changes in that earlier picture, and the other gang-related cases in San Joaquin County since April.

Key points

• Operation Sparkplug, a multi-agency investigation that began in February 2026, ended with a takedown on September 23. A federal grand jury indicted four Lodi men, ages 19 to 25, on a charge of conspiring to traffic firearms.
• Prosecutors say the four sold more than 37 guns through 14 controlled purchases. The federal case alone produced 37 firearms, two ghost guns, three machine gun conversion devices, a suppressor, cocaine and methamphetamine.
• The gang involved, Varrio Mojado Sureño (VMS), is a Sureño set. Our April report described Lodi as almost entirely Norteño. That was incomplete. Lodi Police identified VMS as one of the three most common Sureño sets in Lodi as far back as 2009.
• Since April, the Punjabi Devils founder from Lodi was sentenced to more than five years in federal prison, and Operation Hard Ball brought federal charges against Stockton men tied to India-based crime groups.
• All defendants in pending cases are presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

This report builds on earlier work

It follows our April 2026 report, The New Shape of Gang Activity in San Joaquin County, which laid out five gang ecosystems operating in the county and how each touches Lodi. It relies heavily on Stocktonia News, Greater Stockton's nonprofit newsroom, especially Hannah Workman's September 23 coverage of the Sparkplug announcement, Chris Woodyard and Andrea Baltodano's reporting on Operation Hard Ball, and Aaron Leathley's January reporting on the December 28 killing in Lodi. Readers are encouraged to read the originals, linked in the references below.

What happened on September 23

Federal, state and local agencies announced the results of Operation Sparkplug at a news conference at Stockton Police Department headquarters. The investigation began in February and focused on gun and drug trafficking by members of Varrio Mojado Sureño, or VMS. Agencies used undercover purchases, traffic stops and search warrants to recover weapons and drugs and to identify the people distributing them.

Taking part were the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the Stockton Police Department, the California Highway Patrol, the Lodi and Ripon police departments, and the San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of California is handling the federal case, and the San Joaquin County District Attorney's Office is handling related state cases.

ATF Assistant Special Agent in Charge Alex Buenaventura said investigators learned that VMS members had been involved in illegal gun sales, drug sales, shootings and robberies in San Joaquin County, Sacramento County and the Bay Area.

"Illegal firearms trafficking fuels violence in our communities, and so dismantling these trafficking networks remains one of our highest priorities." U.S. Attorney Eric Grant

The four federal defendants

A Sacramento federal grand jury indicted four VMS members, all Lodi residents. They were arrested the morning of September 23 and were scheduled to make their first appearances in Sacramento federal court on September 24. According to court documents, the four conspired to sell more than 37 firearms through 14 controlled purchases. After Contreras sold the first eight guns, prosecutors say Ramos-Ayala arranged five more sales.

Federal counts by defendant and type of charge

Source: U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of California, September 23, 2026. Each count is an allegation, not a finding of guilt.

The conspiracy charge carries a maximum of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Felon in possession carries up to 15 years, and methamphetamine distribution carries up to life in prison and a $10 million fine. Any sentence would be set by the court under federal sentencing guidelines. Assistant U.S. Attorney Nicole M. Vanek is prosecuting the case.

What was seized

The federal portion of the case produced 37 firearms, two privately made "ghost guns," three machine gun conversion devices, one suppressor, 2 ounces of cocaine and 1 pound of methamphetamine.

The operation as a whole was larger. CBS Sacramento reported 10 arrests in all and, citing ATF, about 75 firearms seized over the full operation, 15 of them on the day of the takedown. At least one other outlet reported a total of 80 firearms. The District Attorney's cases involve attempted carjacking, illegal firearms, high-speed pursuits and other conduct. The names of those defendants have not been released.

Firearms seized in Operation Sparkplug

Sources: U.S. Attorney's Office (federal case); CBS Sacramento citing ATF (takedown day and full operation). The full-operation figure is approximate.

Why it started

Stockton Police Chief Stanley McFadden said the operation was launched in response to a rise in violence in June, when Stockton police investigated seven homicides and eight nonfatal shootings. He said investigators believe some recent homicides may be connected to the people targeted in Sparkplug, and that those links are still under investigation.

The June spike came in a year that has otherwise been lower than last year in Stockton. The city reported 20 homicides through August, compared with 26 over the same months of 2025.

Stockton homicides, January through August

Source: CBS Sacramento, September 24, 2026, reporting Stockton Police Department figures.

Lodi Police Chief Ricardo Garcia said removing illegal guns from the street is an important part of preventing shootings and reducing violence. District Attorney Ron Freitas said the criminal activity uncovered was coordinated and not random, and that his office intends to see that every defendant "faces the consequences the law demands."

What this changes in our April report

Our April report described Lodi's gang landscape as almost entirely Norteño, with two documented active sets, Varrio Centro Lodi (VCL) and Varrio Latino Locos (VLL). That picture left out Lodi's Sureño sets.

VMS is a Sureño set, aligned with the Mexican Mafia, and every federal defendant in this case lives in Lodi. The set is not new here. In 2009, a Lodi Police detective told the Lodi News-Sentinel that the three most common Sureño sets in Lodi were Varrio Mojado Sureños (VMS), the Playboy Sureños (PBS) and the Pobre Side Locos (PSL). The Playboys already appear in the April report as a Stockton set.

The April report also described Sureños pushing into historically Norteño Galt. Taken together, the more accurate description is that Lodi, like most of San Joaquin County, has both Norteño and Sureño sets, and has for at least 17 years.

The December 28 killing on West Harney Lane

The April report mentioned a December 28, 2025 shooting at an apartment complex in the 800 block of West Harney Lane. Stocktonia later identified the victim as Emmanuel J. Lopez, 33, of Lodi. Stocktonia reported that Lopez had been a guest at the November 29 birthday party on Lucile Avenue in Stockton where four people were killed, and that his 9-year-old daughter was shot there and survived.

Lodi Police described Lopez's death as an isolated incident that was possibly gang-related. The Sheriff's Office said nothing indicated the two shootings were connected. Stocktonia reported that Lopez's death was the only homicide in Lodi in 2025. The case remains open, and anyone with information can contact Detective Patrick Backman of the Special Investigations Unit at pbackman@lodi.gov or (209) 333-6727.

Other cases since April

East Pine Street murder retrial

On April 28, a jury again convicted Alejandro Duran Mercado of second-degree murder in the February 26, 2021 killing of Cenobio "Nick" Gallegos on East Pine Street in Lodi. The District Attorney's Office said Mercado believed Gallegos was a rival gang member because he was wearing a red shirt, though Mercado had never met him. Gallegos had no ties to any gang.

Punjabi Devils founder sentenced

On May 11, U.S. District Judge Dale A. Drozd sentenced Jashanpreet Singh, 27, of Lodi, to five years and four months in federal prison for unlawful dealing in firearms and possession of a machine gun. Singh founded the Stockton-based Punjabi Devils Motorcycle Club, which federal prosecutors describe as associated with the Hells Angels. The April report covered his June 2025 arrest, his attempted flight to India, and his February 2026 guilty plea. He remains in federal custody.

Operation Hard Ball

In early July, federal authorities announced the results of Operation Hard Ball, a years-long investigation of three India-based organized crime groups. Stocktonia reported 24 arrests in the U.S. and abroad, 11 of them in California, and 23 search warrants served in Stockton and San Joaquin County.

Two Stockton men, Gurlal Singh, 22, and Sahibdeep Singh, 24, are charged as alleged members of the Jaggu Bhagwanpuria syndicate, with counts including racketeering, drug and gun smuggling, and extortion. Both are accused of trying to sell automatic weapons and grenades in July 2025. In a related indictment, Lawrence Bishnoi was charged with federal racketeering and extortion conspiracy as the alleged head of his organization.

In April, the Jaggu Bhagwanpuria group appeared in our report only as a tournament organizer's suspicion about threats to Kabaddi athletes. It now has federally charged members living in Stockton.

A fourth India-linked group

On July 21, the California Highway Patrol arrested Harmanveer Singh in Stockton. Federal prosecutors accuse him of transporting drugs for the Ravinder Dhanda Organized Crime Group, which they say moved cocaine and methamphetamine in semi-trucks and farm vehicles from Southern California to the Canadian border. That makes a fourth India-based group with an arrest in San Joaquin County, alongside the three in our April table.

2026 timeline

The federal role

Sparkplug was run under Project Safe Neighborhoods, the Justice Department's program for coordinating federal, state and local work on violent crime. The department describes it as a key part of Operation Take Back America, the same federal effort under which the Jashanpreet Singh case moved to federal court.

Our April report ended by asking how Lodi Police would balance local gang work with multi-agency federal cases. Sparkplug is one answer so far. Lodi Police was a partner agency in an ATF-led federal investigation, and the resulting federal case is against Lodi residents.

What this means for Lodi residents

Most Lodi residents will not encounter any of these groups directly, and that part of the April report still holds. A few things are clearer now than they were in April.

Lodi's gang picture includes both Norteño and Sureño sets. The two largest federal gun cases involving Lodi residents in the past year, the Punjabi Devils case and Sparkplug, both came from undercover or controlled gun purchases, and both involved machine gun conversion devices. The Gallegos case is a reminder that people with no gang connection can be hurt by these rivalries. And across the county, federal agencies are now bringing cases against both local street gangs and India-based networks, often in the same months.

Reporting information

Lodi Police Department: (209) 333-6727. Lodi Area Crime Stoppers (anonymous): (209) 369-CRIME or 369crime.com. FBI: 1-800-CALL-FBI or tips.fbi.gov.

References

1. LodiEye. "The New Shape of Gang Activity in San Joaquin County." Lodi411.com, April 19, 2026.
2. Workman, Hannah. "Four Lodi residents federally indicted in San Joaquin County gun, drug trafficking operation." Stocktonia News, September 23, 2026.
3. U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of California. "Coordinated state-federal operation targets drivers of violence in Stockton and Lodi." justice.gov, September 23, 2026.
4. "10 arrested, 75 guns seized in months-long Stockton gang crackdown." CBS Sacramento, September 24, 2026.
5. "4 Lodi gang members federally indicted on firearm, drug trafficking charges." Yahoo News, September 23, 2026.
6. "4 Lodi men arrested for trafficking guns and drugs." FOX40 News, September 23, 2026.
7. "Residents tired of repeated vandalism on Hutchins Street." Lodi News-Sentinel, September 25, 2009.
8. Leathley, Aaron. "Party guest survived Stockton mass shooting. A month later, he is gunned down in Lodi." Stocktonia News, January 7, 2026.
9. San Joaquin County District Attorney's Office. "Jury Reconvicts Alejandro Duran Mercado of Second-Degree Murder in Lodi Shooting Case." sjcda.org, April 28, 2026.
10. U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of California. "Founder of Punjabi Devils Motorcycle Club Stockton Sentenced to over 5 Years in Prison." justice.gov, May 2026.
11. "'Punjabi Devils' motorcycle gang leader sentenced." FOX40 News, May 12, 2026.
12. Woodyard, Chris. "Massive FBI bust of India-based gangs nets 2 Stockton men; 23 local sites searched." Stocktonia News, July 10, 2026.
13. Woodyard, Chris and Baltodano, Andrea. "FBI nabs third suspect in Stockton as part of massive crackdown on Indian gangs." Stocktonia News, July 27, 2026.
14. Singh, Gagandeep. "How gangs connected to India are terrorizing a California immigrant community." CalMatters, April 15, 2026.
15. LodiEye editorial contact: editor@lodi411.com

Now It's 75 Percent: The September El Niño Forecast and the Mokelumne Clock

Lodi411 / LodiEye — Civic Climate Brief — September 2026

Updated with NOAA CPC, ECMWF, EBMUD, and California Data Exchange Center data through September 21

Summary

This brief updates our August 20 report, From Very Strong to Historic, which put NOAA's chance of a record-setting El Niño at 69%. On September 10 the Climate Prediction Center raised that figure to 75% for October through December, and raised the chance of a very strong event in the same three months from 95% to 98%. The weekly warming-adjusted index crossed the very strong threshold in mid-September, which means the event is no longer forecast to be historically large — it is now measured as the strongest on record for this point in its life cycle, with its peak still ahead.

The California side of the forecast also firmed up, with an important local wrinkle. NOAA's September 17 seasonal outlook tilts October–December wet only across the southern half of the state; the signal does not reach the northern San Joaquin Valley until the November–January season and later, where it peaks at a 50–60% chance of above-normal precipitation. NOAA said plainly that it may raise those California numbers on October 15. The European ensemble is already further along: more than a 70% chance of a winter in the wettest fifth of the record, statewide.

The most concrete local development is not atmospheric. It is a deadline. Under the 1962 agreement between EBMUD and the Army Corps of Engineers, Pardee and Camanche Reservoirs must hold between 130,000 and 200,000 acre-feet of empty flood space by November 5. As of the latest state readings the two reservoirs hold about 72,000 acre-feet of space, and current releases are draining the system at roughly a tenth of the rate needed to close that gap. Lodi should expect substantially higher Mokelumne flows through October. That schedule, published and checkable, is the single most useful local indicator of how much room the river has when the storms arrive.

What Changed in September

NOAA Raised Both Probabilities

The Climate Prediction Center's September 10 diagnostic discussion kept the El Niño Advisory in place and moved both of the numbers this series has been tracking. The chance of a historic event during October–December — defined as a three-month RONI of +2.5°C or higher, a level that would exceed every El Niño in the record back to 1950 — rose from 69% to 75%. The chance of a very strong event in the same season rose from 95% to 98% (NOAA Climate Prediction Center, as tabulated by The Watchers). The headline synopsis is unchanged in wording and stronger in substance: greater than a 90% chance of a very strong event during Northern Hemisphere fall and winter 2026–27, with El Niño expected to keep strengthening through the end of the year.

Two terms, one report

RONI is the Relative Oceanic Niño Index. It measures how much warmer the central Pacific is than the rest of the tropical ocean, which strips out general global ocean warming and leaves the El Niño signal itself. It generally reads lower than the traditional index, so the 75% historic probability is calculated on the conservative scale, not the flattering one.

Very strong is the highest official strength category, set at a three-month index of +2.0°C or above. Historic is the threshold NOAA introduced in August at +2.5°C or above. "Super El Niño," which appears in much of the national coverage, is not an official category at all.

The ocean measurements behind the revision came from August. The monthly Niño index values were +1.8°C in Niño-3.4, +2.5°C in Niño-3, and +3.4°C in Niño-1+2, the coastal South American waters — each a further rise from July's +1.4°C, +1.7°C, and +2.9°C. Sea surface temperature anomalies exceeded +3.0°C across the eastern equatorial Pacific. Subsurface anomalies remained above +10.0°C at depth, the thermocline stayed deeper than average, and both Southern Oscillation indices remained negative. One index went the other way: Niño-4, in the western part of the monitoring region, fell to +0.1°C, leaving the warmth concentrated sharply toward the eastern Pacific and the South American coast.

On September 14, CNN reported that the latest weekly RONI value had reached 2.0°C above average, crossing the very strong threshold and making this the strongest El Niño on record for its stage of development — the first event ever tracked with the warming-adjusted index, which NOAA implemented in February (CNN). The distinction matters for how this report reads: in April this was a probability, in July a fact, in August a record forecast. In September it is a record measurement with its peak still months away.

FIGURE 1. Official CPC probability that the three-month RONI reaches +2.0°C or higher — the very strong category — for nine overlapping seasons, from the September 2026 issuance. Season labels use first letters of the three months (OND = October–November–December). Source: NOAA CPC official ENSO strength probabilities, issued September 2026.

Read left to right, Figure 1 is the schedule of this winter. The event is near certain at very strong strength from September through January, holds a 75% chance through December–February, and then falls off quickly — 39% for January–March, 5% for February–April, and effectively zero by spring. Lodi's exposure is therefore front-loaded into the period that also carries the Mokelumne flood reservation and the winter's highest tides. The event does not linger into a second wet season; the pressure lands in a roughly four-month window.

The Model Ensemble Has Not Backed Down

As of publication, the IRI/Columbia plume still showed its August 19 issuance, so the standing model picture is the one described in our last report: 25 of 26 models forecasting a very strong event for October–December, 15 of them at or beyond +3.0°C — past the top of the IRI's own intensity scale, which stops at +2.0°C — and strong-to-moderate conditions persisting through March–May 2027 with little sign of a transition away from El Niño before spring (IRI). The World Meteorological Organization's late-August update put the likelihood of El Niño persisting through February 2027 at near 100% (WMO). Nothing in the September cycle walked any of this back.

The Official California Signal, and Where Lodi Sits in It

NOAA's Own Map Does Not Reach Lodi Until November

NOAA issued its updated seasonal outlook on September 17, and the fine print is the part that matters here. For October–December, above-normal precipitation probabilities are enhanced from the southern half of California east-northeastward across the Four Corners and Great Plains — a footprint that does not include the northern San Joaquin Valley. From November–January through February–April, the wet signal extends across California, reaching a maximum of 50–60% odds of above-normal precipitation near the coast and extending as far north as central Oregon. NOAA added that the California probabilities may be increased in the next seasonal outlook once the latest model runs are reassessed (NOAA CPC seasonal outlook discussion, September 17, 2026). The next issuance is October 15.

For readers in Lodi, that is a useful calibration rather than a letdown. The official federal forecast currently says the strongest wet tilt arrives here after the calendar turns toward the new year, not in October. It also says, in NOAA's own words, that the number is more likely to go up than down next month. The April report described the northern San Joaquin Valley as sitting near the hinge of El Niño's rainfall geography. Five months of forecast revisions later, the hinge is still visible — it has simply moved from a question of whether Lodi gets wet to a question of when in the winter it does.

The European Ensemble Is Further Out Front

The ECMWF seasonal ensemble updated for September and, according to UCLA and National Center for Atmospheric Research climate scientist Daniel Swain, continues to show a very strong tilt toward wet conditions across the entire U.S. southern tier, including all of California. The figure he highlighted: greater than 70% odds of a winter substantially wetter than average, meaning the 80th percentile or wetter. He called it the strongest seasonal-scale predictive signal he has seen in California (Daniel Swain, September 6, 2026).

The gap between a European model at greater than 70% for a top-quintile winter and a NOAA map at 50–60% near the coast is not a contradiction. They measure different things — one the odds of an unusually wet winter, the other the odds of any above-normal total — and NOAA's product is deliberately conservative and revised monthly. The practical reading is that the two are converging, and NOAA has told readers which direction its next revision is likely to move.

The Mokelumne Clock: A Published Deadline, Fifteen Days Past Its Start

The most actionable local development this month has nothing to do with sea surface temperatures. It is a flood-space schedule that began running on September 15 and expires on November 5.

Under the March 19, 1962 agreement between EBMUD and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EBMUD must begin creating flood-control reservation — deliberately empty storage — in Pardee and Camanche Reservoirs in mid-September each year. The mandatory Rain Flood Reservation starts at zero on September 15, increases uniformly to a maximum of 200,000 acre-feet by November 5, and is held through March 15 before declining to zero by May 31. The requirement can be met in any proportion between the two reservoirs, and a portion is transferable upstream to PG&E's Salt Springs and Lower Bear reservoirs by formula, which is why EBMUD describes the November 5 obligation as a range: between 130,000 and 200,000 acre-feet, depending on how full the upstream reservoirs are at the time (EBMUD, "EBMUD's Mokelumne River Project in Perspective").

What "flood reservation" means in plain terms

A flood reservation is empty space held on purpose. The reservoir gives up water it could have kept in order to have room to catch a storm and release it slowly, instead of passing a surge straight down the river. On the Mokelumne, that empty space is the primary flood protection for Lodi, Woodbridge, and Thornton, because no levee-reconstruction capital project comparable to Stockton's is underway on this corridor. The trade is explicit: water released in October is water the system no longer has, purchased as insurance against January.

The Arithmetic as of This Week

State readings show Camanche holding 352,780 acre-feet on September 17 and Pardee holding 190,288 acre-feet on September 20 (California Data Exchange Center daily storage for CMN and PAR). Against maximum capacities of 417,120 acre-feet at Camanche and 197,950 at Pardee, the system currently carries roughly 72,000 acre-feet of empty space — against a November 5 requirement of 130,000 to 200,000.

FIGURE 2. Empty storage in the Pardee–Camanche system compared with the November 5 flood-reservation requirement. "Available now" is combined capacity (615,070 acre-feet) minus latest reported storage (543,068 acre-feet). The requirement is a range because a portion of the reservation is transferable to PG&E's upstream reservoirs by formula. Sources: California Data Exchange Center; EBMUD. LodiEye calculation.

That leaves a gap of roughly 58,000 to 128,000 acre-feet to shed in 46 days, or about 1,260 to 2,780 acre-feet per day. Camanche's outflow in mid-September ran between 295 and 315 cubic feet per second, and net storage was declining by only about 230 acre-feet per day. At one cubic foot per second equal to roughly 1.98 acre-feet per day, closing the gap on schedule implies releases rising to somewhere in the range of 800 to 1,600 cubic feet per second and holding there through late October — three to five times the current rate.

FIGURE 3. Camanche Reservoir monthly storage for 2026 with the September 17 daily reading, shown against the Camanche storage levels that would leave 130,000 and 200,000 acre-feet of combined system space given Pardee's September 20 reading of 190,288 acre-feet, which leaves Pardee itself nearly full and only about 7,700 acre-feet of space. Because the reservation may be split between the two reservoirs and partly credited upstream, these bands are indicative of the system obligation rather than a Camanche-specific limit. Sources: California Data Exchange Center monthly storage; EBMUD. LodiEye calculation.

Three caveats belong with those figures. The reservation can be satisfied at either reservoir, so Camanche's own curve is only part of the picture. Upstream credit at Salt Springs and Lower Bear can pull the obligation toward the 130,000 end. And EBMUD operates to this schedule every year and knows it better than any outside observer — the drawdown may already be planned for October rather than September. What the numbers establish is not a failure but a magnitude: the Mokelumne has to move a lot of water past Lodi in the next six weeks, and the amount is published, dated, and checkable.

The agreement also defines what happens if storms fill that space anyway. When the reservation is encroached upon, releases from Camanche are to be limited to 5,000 cubic feet per second insofar as possible, and the rate of change is capped at 1,000 cubic feet per second per two-hour interval. Those two numbers are the practical ceiling and ramp rate on the Mokelumne during a flood fight, and they are worth knowing before a storm rather than during one.

What This Means Downstream

Higher October releases are not a hazard in themselves — they are the system working as designed. But they change what residents along the river will see. Expect noticeably higher flows through Woodbridge and past Lodi Lake during a month when the channel is usually quiet, and expect Woodbridge Irrigation District operations to interact with them: WID's principal diversion right of 300 cubic feet per second runs through October 31, after which its entitlement drops to 114.4 cubic feet per second for the November–January period (Woodbridge Irrigation District). The practical consequence is that the same reservoir releases will translate into more water in the lower river after October 31 than before it.

Everything Else That Moved This Month

Tenmile Slough Is on Schedule

The Tenmile Slough levee reach behind Brookside in west Stockton — the first constructed segment of the Lower San Joaquin River Project and the reach San Joaquin County has described as the most critically deficient among those slated for improvement in the Central Valley system — is targeting completion by the end of October. San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency executive director Darren Suen's assessment: "It's looking good." The work, underway since April 2025, rebuilds roughly a mile of levee with an impermeable slurry wall and rock-armored slope. It is the leading edge of a program to rebuild 24 miles of Stockton levees protecting 71,000 acres, 264,000 residents, and about $21 billion in property, at an estimated $2 billion and a completion horizon of 2039 depending on funding (Stocktonia). For this winter, one reach finishes weeks before the wet signal arrives and the remaining 23 miles do not.

The King Tide Dates Are Now Published

Our August report said the winter's highest-tide calendar would publish this fall. It has. The California Coastal Commission lists statewide king tides for November 24–26, 2026, December 23–25, 2026, and January 21–22, 2027, noting that Northern California locations may also include December 22 and January 20 or 23 (California King Tides Project). These are the dates to cross-reference against storm forecasts. Tidal influence reaches well inland into the Delta, and elevated base water levels during a storm are part of the flood-risk arithmetic rather than a coastal curiosity. All three windows fall inside the period Figure 1 shows as near certain for a very strong event.

The State's Preparations Are Split Between Concrete and Paperwork

Southern California's agencies are spending the pre-season on physical capacity. Los Angeles County is removing as much as 1.3 million cubic yards of sediment from mountainside reservoirs and debris basins this year to restore flood-catching room, work its assistant deputy public works director describes as critical ahead of the season (Los Angeles Times).

In Sacramento, the fight is procedural, and it is the one with the most direct bearing on San Joaquin County's long-term water position. The state wants to route storm flows into depleted aquifers rather than watch them run to the ocean, and permitting is the bottleneck. Groundwater supplies roughly 40% of California's water in normal years and closer to 60% in dry ones. After the 2023 executive order waiving some environmental rules, water managers diverted more than 400,000 acre-feet underground — and the state's groundwater still sits about 40 million acre-feet below its level two decades ago. Assembly Bill 2026, which would have extended streamlined recharge permitting to temporary floodwater diversions, passed the Assembly unanimously and was held in Senate Appropriations. A coalition of local officials from Orange to Tulare County has asked the governor for an urgent executive order (Politico California Currents).

For a county whose aquifer is in documented overdraft, that is the difference between a wet winter that is only a flood problem and one that is also a recharge opportunity. Karla Nemeth, the former Department of Water Resources director now leading the Association of California Water Agencies, offered the state's summary: California is "as ready as we can be," with more work to do to save the water for a drought. She also noted that DWR's next Central Valley Flood Protection Plan, due in 2027, will include a vulnerability index for the first time, on the premise that lower-income residents carry disproportionate flood risk (Politico California Currents).

The Calibrated-Caution Section, One Month On

The April report's core warning has not expired: a strength label describes the ocean, not California's rainfall, and 2015–16 remains the case where historic strength produced an ordinary northern-California winter. Three points still deserve weight against the forecast.

First, the geography in NOAA's own current outlook does not put the northern San Joaquin Valley in the enhanced-precipitation footprint until November–January. Second, most of California's costliest flood years since 1950 did not occur during El Niño events; flood disasters require storm timing and intensity, not a seasonal tilt. Third, the historical impact maps were calibrated against a cooler planet, and an event outside the observed envelope carries real uncertainty in both directions — the same point Swain has made repeatedly.

What September changed is the balance of what is knowable. The atmospheric forecast remains probabilistic. The Mokelumne flood reservation is not. One is a 75% chance; the other is a dated obligation with a published number attached, and it can be checked against state gauge readings any day of the week. When a forecast is uncertain, the most useful local reporting moves toward the parts of the system that are not.

The Lodi Focus

1. The Mokelumne System

The action item from this month's reporting is a single habit: read the storage numbers. Pardee and Camanche daily storage is published by the state and free to check. Between now and November 5, the question is whether combined empty space climbs from roughly 72,000 acre-feet toward the 130,000–200,000 acre-foot requirement, and how fast. If it does, the Mokelumne enters winter with its designed buffer. If it lags, the system carries less absorption room into exactly the months Figure 1 identifies as near certain for a very strong event. Either way, expect higher October flows past Lodi Lake than the month usually brings.

2. Vineyards

Harvest is underway under the conditions flagged in our last two reports: warm nights, elevated humidity, and an active Eastern Pacific tropical season that runs through November 30. Late-season rain during picking remains the classic risk to old-vine Zinfandel quality, and sorting capacity is the variable that decides how much of that risk turns into loss. Looking past this crush, the ECMWF winter signal points toward a 2023-style spring as the planning template for 2027: deep soil moisture, mildew pressure, and aggressive canopy work. Decisions about drainage and spring canopy plans are cheaper to make in October than in February.

3. Urban Flood Exposure and Insurance

Flood insurance carries a 30-day waiting period. A policy purchased in late September is active before the November king tides. One purchased when the first atmospheric river appears on the forecast map is not. With NOAA now at 75% on a record event and 98% on a very strong October–December, this is the decision that most rewards acting early and cannot be recovered later.

Stockton's structural exposure is unchanged: a single 100-year levee system protecting more than 129,000 residents and roughly $16 billion in property, with Delta islands sitting 10 to 25 feet below sea level behind aging levees, and 23 of 24 miles of planned improvement still ahead. What September adds is precision about timing. The king tide dates are known. The reservation deadline is known. Residents in lower-lying neighborhoods near the Mokelumne can put evacuation-route familiarity and an insurance review on the calendar this month rather than treating them as winter tasks.

Practical Steps for Lodi Residents

• Check whether your property sits in a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area at msc.fema.gov.
• Decide on flood insurance now — the 30-day waiting period means a September policy covers the November tides and a November policy does not.
• Know your evacuation route: San Joaquin County maintains maps through its flood protection information page.
• Sign up for San Joaquin County Office of Emergency Services alerts; the county proclaimed September as National Preparedness Month and publishes advisories through its OES press-release index.
• Watch the Mokelumne yourself: daily Pardee and Camanche storage and the Corps' Camanche release-change report are both public.
• Mark the king tide windows — November 24–26, December 23–25, January 21–22 — and check the storm forecast against them.
• Growers: confirm sorting capacity and harvest labor contingencies, and revisit drainage and spring canopy plans before winter rather than during it.
• Clear gutters, downspouts, and yard drains before the first storms, not after.

LodiEye will continue tracking ENSO forecast updates, the Pardee–Camanche reservation schedule, and regional flood preparedness through the 2026–27 water year. Readers with local observations to share can reach us at editor@lodi411.com.

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 civic climate brief 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 primary and secondary sources for this update, including NOAA Climate Prediction Center's September 10 ENSO Diagnostic Discussion, the CPC official RONI strength-probability table issued September 2026, the CPC seasonal outlook discussion of September 17, the standing August 19 IRI/Columbia plume, Daniel Swain's September commentary on the ECMWF ensemble, EBMUD's published description of the 1962 Corps flood-control agreement, California Data Exchange Center gauge records for Pardee and Camanche, the California King Tides Project calendar, and reporting from Stocktonia, the Los Angeles Times, Politico, CNN, and WMO.

Credibility Validation: The strength forecast was cross-referenced across NOAA CPC, IRI/Columbia, WMO, and ECMWF via published expert analysis, prioritizing government forecast products, institutional analysis, expert commentary, and news reporting in that order. The September escalation was verified against CPC's own discussion and probability table, distinguishing the greater-than-90% fall-winter very-strong statement from the 98% October–December figure and the separately defined 75% historic probability at RONI +2.5°C. Reservoir storage figures were taken from state gauge records rather than third-party aggregators after two aggregator values were found to disagree with the official readings.

Analysis and Synthesis: The flood-reservation gap analysis in Figures 2 and 3 is a LodiEye calculation combining EBMUD's published reservation schedule with California Data Exchange Center storage and outflow records, with the method and its limitations stated inline. AI assisted in carrying the April report's three-system Lodi risk framework — the Mokelumne water supply chain, the vineyard economy, and urban flood exposure — forward against the September forecast, and in integrating the published king tide calendar and the state recharge-permitting question into the local picture.

Presentation: AI assisted in drafting, structuring, and formatting the report, including the three inline chart visualizations and the consolidated winter date table.

Final Review: Multiple AI models reviewed the completed draft for factual consistency, source attribution accuracy, arithmetic, 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.

Sources

• NOAA Climate Prediction Center: ENSO Diagnostic Discussion, September 10, 2026 (El Niño Advisory; greater than 90% very strong for fall–winter; 75% historic for October–December at RONI +2.5°C; August Niño index values; next discussion October 8)
• NOAA Climate Prediction Center: Official ENSO strength probabilities, issued September 2026 (very strong probabilities by season: ASO 77%, SON 97%, OND 98%, NDJ 93%, DJF 75%, JFM 39%, FMA 5%)
• NOAA Climate Prediction Center: Seasonal outlook discussion, September 17, 2026 (OND enhanced precipitation from the southern half of California; NDJ through FMA extends across California at 50–60% maximum near the coast; California probabilities may be increased next issuance; next outlook October 15)
• The Watchers: NOAA raises historic-strength probability to 75% for October–December 2026 (month-over-month comparison of the 69%/95% August figures with the 75%/98% September figures)
• CNN: Weekly RONI reaches 2.0°C, crossing the very strong threshold (September 14, 2026)
• IRI / Columbia Climate School: ENSO forecast, August 19, 2026 issuance (25 of 26 models very strong for OND; 15 models at or beyond +3.0°C; conditions persisting through MAM 2027)
• World Meteorological Organization: El Niño/La Niña Update, August 2026 (near 100% likelihood of persistence through February 2027)
• Daniel Swain: September 2026 ECMWF seasonal ensemble update (greater than 70% odds of a winter at the 80th percentile or wetter across California)
• EBMUD: "EBMUD's Mokelumne River Project in Perspective" (March 19, 1962 Corps agreement; rain flood reservation from zero on September 15 to 200,000 acre-feet by November 5, held through March 15; 130,000–200,000 acre-foot November 5 range depending on PG&E upstream storage; 5,000 cfs release limit and 1,000 cfs per two-hour ramp when encroached; Camanche capacity 417,120 acre-feet, Pardee 197,950 acre-feet)
• California Data Exchange Center: Daily storage for Camanche (CMN) and Pardee (PAR) — 352,780 acre-feet September 17 and 190,288 acre-feet September 20, 2026
• California Data Exchange Center: Daily Camanche outflow (295–315 cfs, mid-September 2026)
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District: Camanche release-change report
• MokeWISE Appendix G, Water Supply Availability Analysis (200,000 acre-foot system flood-control requirement November 15–March 15; up to 70,000 acre-feet transferable to PG&E's Salt Springs and Lower Bear reservoirs)
• Woodbridge Irrigation District: Diversion rights (300 cfs February 1–October 31; additional 114.4 cfs for the November–January period)
• Stocktonia: Tenmile Slough levee work targeting completion by the end of October 2026 (24-mile program; 71,000 acres, 264,000 residents, $21 billion in property; roughly $2 billion program cost; 2039 horizon)
• San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency: Lower San Joaquin River Project (second and final Tenmile Slough construction season)
• California King Tides Project: Statewide king tide dates — November 24–26, 2026; December 23–25, 2026; January 21–22, 2027
• Los Angeles Times: L.A. County removing up to 1.3 million cubic yards of sediment from dams and debris basins ahead of the El Niño winter
• Politico California Currents, September 16, 2026: The race to put El Niño underground (groundwater 40% of supply and 60% in dry years; more than 400,000 acre-feet recharged after the 2023 order; groundwater still 40 million acre-feet below two decades ago; AB 2026 held in Senate Appropriations)
• Politico California Currents, September 18, 2026: Karla Nemeth interview ("as ready as we can be"; Central Valley Flood Protection Plan due 2027 with a first vulnerability index)
• San Joaquin County Office of Emergency Services: Press-release index (September 2026 National Preparedness Month proclamation)
• San Joaquin County Public Works and OES: Flood Protection Information
• FEMA Map Service Center: Special Flood Hazard Area lookup
• Lodi411 / LodiEye: "From Very Strong to Historic: The August El Niño Forecast and What It Means for Lodi" — August 20, 2026
• Lodi411 / LodiEye: "Before the Storms: Where Flood Protection Stands in Lodi, Stockton, and the North Delta" — August 21, 2026
• Lodi411 / LodiEye: "Strongest El Niño in 140 Years? What the April Forecast Means for San Joaquin County and Lodi" — April 22, 2026

Contact: editor@lodi411.com

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.