OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Stockton Planning Commission Meeting - June 24, 2021

Planning CommissionThursday, June 24, 2021
BodyStockton, California
SessionPlanning Commission
DateThursday, June 24, 2021
StatusFILED
Video Record

STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

Transcript — Verbatim
0:03

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the planning commission meeting of June 24th, 2021.

0:09

At this time, I would like to ask the city clerk to please take roll.

0:14

Chair Mallet?

0:16

Present.

0:16

Vice Chair Sangetti?

0:18

Here.

0:19

Commissioner Garcia?

0:21

Present.

0:22

Commissioner Mountain?

0:23

Here.

0:24

Commissioner Risby?

0:25

Here.

0:26

Commissioner Jones?

0:27

Here.

0:27

Commissioner Via Pudua?

0:29

Present.

0:30

We have a quorum.

0:31

Thank you.

0:32

And now I would like to ask Commissioner Mountain to please lead us in the flight salute.

0:43

I pledge an allegiance to the five of the United States of America and to republic under the individual tea and justice for all.

1:04

All right, so agenda item three is the consent agenda.

1:09

Would anyone like to comment on the consent calendar?

1:21

Okay, so no seeing nobody.

1:24

Um could I get a um a motion for the consent?

1:31

I've moved the motion to prove the consent.

1:39

Could everyone please vote?

1:46

Motion passes.

1:48

Thank you.

1:51

And at this time, um move to agenda item four, public comment.

1:57

This section of the agenda is reserved for public comment on anything within the jurisdiction of the commission.

2:04

Um there will be a time limit.

2:07

Do we have any um blue cards or do we have anyone that would like to speak?

2:12

I have no public comment cards, Chair.

2:14

Okay.

2:16

And then moving on to item number five, public hearings environmental assessments.

2:22

Agenda item 5.1 is an initial study addendum to the 2040 general plan environmental impact report, pre-zone tentative parcel map, commission use report permit and design review requests for the proposed retail commercial center development at the southeast corner of East Hammer Lane and Marantha Drive.

2:49

APN 1303013.

2:57

And do we have any um commissioner comments or disclosures?

3:16

Okay, Steph, could you please present?

3:22

Good evening, Chair Maladet and members of the commission.

3:25

Item 5.1 is for planning application number P190718, which is an initial study and addendum to the general plan EIR, pre-zone application, tentative parcel map, commission use permit, and design review request for a proposed commercial retail development on East Hammer Lane and Maranatha.

3:47

The project is located on the south side of East Hammer Lane, just west of 99 and East Maranatha Drive, where the recently approved annexation for the Carmax project is located.

4:00

Also, directly east of the site is the annexation project for the Hammer Hotel, which you recently reviewed a couple weeks ago and approved part of and made recommendations for approval to the city council.

4:17

As with the hotel site, this site is not within the city of Stockton city limits, but with your recommendation of approval, we'll proceed to the city council for consideration for incorporation into the city, and then to LAFCO, which is the local agency formation commission for San Joaquin County.

4:38

This is a street view of the current conditions along the south side of Hammer Lane.

4:43

It is a vacant site with a stoplight pole and signal arm at the southeast corner of East Hammer Lane and Maranatha Drive.

5:00

The site has a current general plan designation of commercial and is surrounded by commercial to the north, south, east, and west.

5:04

And a little further north is general plan designation of residential.

5:11

Also, like the hotel site, this site currently does not have a zoning designation, but with the pre-zone request, the applicant is proposing to zone the site as commercial general, which is CG.

5:28

The process for this project involves the similar steps as the hotel site.

5:32

Prior to the city council meeting, the development review committee will review the annexation request and the city services plan and make a recommendation to the city council.

5:42

Tonight, you will be making a recommendation to the city council for approval of the addendum to the general plan EIR and pre-zoning of the site to Commercial General, as well as making an approval for the tentative parcel map, commission use permit, and design review aspects of the project, which will be pending annexation into the city.

6:02

The city council will either approve or deny the addendum to the general plan EIR, the pre-zone request to CG, the annexation request, and the city services plan.

6:13

If the city council approves all four actions, the community development director will file an annexation application to LAFCO, which will include a justification for this project proposal, the city services plan, environmental document, legal description, and maps, all of which are in your packet.

6:31

In regards to CEQA, the EIR addendum is the exact same document that you recently reviewed with the hotel project.

6:38

This document provided substantial evidence demonstrating that none of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would occur.

6:46

Thus, no subsequent EIR is required for the city to approve this project because the 2040 general plan EIR sufficiently describes and mitigates to the extent feasible the potentially significant project level and cumulative effects associated with the project.

7:02

The EIR addendum and the mitigation monitoring and reporting plan must be adopted by the City Council before the commission use permit and tentative parcel maps may be issued.

7:16

This project includes development on a 4.32 acre site for retail development of an ARCO AMPM, which includes a fueling station and convenience store, a Sonic Quick Serve restaurant, a Black Bear Diner, and an elite car wash.

7:31

The design review approval is required for all new construction of the uses, and the applicant is also requesting a tentative parcel map to subdivide the parcel into four parcels.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Cultural Heritage Board███████████████████████████27%
Procedural████████████████████20%
Development Agreements████████████12%
Cultural Events███████7%
Engineering And Infrastructure█████5%
Community Engagement█████5%
Public Safety████4%
General Plan███3%
Water And Wastewater Management███3%
Summary of Proceedings

Stockton Planning Commission Meeting - June 24, 2021

The Stockton Planning Commission met on June 24, 2021, at 5:30 PM in the Council Chamber at City Hall. Chair Anne Mallett presided, with all seven commissioners present (Anne Mallett, Jeff Sanguinetti, Gerardo Garcia, Brenda Jones, Xavier Mountain, Waqar Rizvi, Brando Villapudua). The meeting covered a consent calendar, a public hearing for a proposed retail commercial center development, and interviews for the Cultural Heritage Board. The commission recessed briefly for technical issues and adjourned at 6:55 PM.

Consent Calendar

  • 21-0460: Approved minutes from the April 22, May 13, and May 27, 2021, Planning Commission meetings. (Motion 2021-06-24-0301, passed 7-0)
  • 21-0381: Approved a one-year time extension for the Delta Cove Vesting Tentative Map. (Resolution 2021-06-24-0302, passed 7-0)

Public Comments & Testimony

  • For Item 5.1 (Retail Commercial Center): No public comments were made.
  • For Item 6.1 (Cultural Heritage Board Interviews): Two members of the public spoke in support of the candidates. Phillip Merlo, CEO of the San Joaquin County Historical Museum and Vice Chair of the Cultural Heritage Board, endorsed all four present candidates (Tejpaul Bainiwal, Bryan Baldeon, Mary Jo Gohlke, and Matt Holmes), highlighting their qualifications and experience. Robert Holzer, Chair of the Cultural Heritage Board, also endorsed the four candidates and noted the board had not met since December 2020 due to vacancies.

Discussion Items

  • Item 5.1 (Retail Commercial Center at East Hammer Lane & Maranatha Drive): Staff presented a proposal for a 4.32-acre development including an ARCO AMPM fueling station and convenience store (Type 20 ABC license), a Sonic Drive-In restaurant, a Black Bear Diner, and an Elite Car Wash. The project required an EIR addendum, pre-zoning to Commercial General (CG), a tentative parcel map, a commission use permit, and design review. The site is outside city limits and pending annexation. Commissioners discussed stormwater management, sewer/storm drain extensions, reciprocal parking/access agreements, and concerns about car wash proliferation and security. Commissioner Villapudua expressed concern about too many car washes in Stockton and security at similar developments. Commissioner Sanguinetti proposed amending conditions to require the sewer main to extend to the southern property line, storm drain improvements to connect to the future Oregoni system, and a reciprocal parking/access agreement. The applicant’s team agreed to work with staff. A 10-minute recess (6:12 PM to 6:19 PM) was taken. The commission voted 7-0 to approve five resolutions:

    • Resolution 2021-06-24-0501-01: Recommend City Council adopt the EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring Program.
    • Resolution 2021-06-24-0501-02: Recommend City Council adopt the Pre-zoning Ordinance to CG.
    • Resolution 2021-06-24-0501-03 (amended): Approve the Tentative Parcel Map with modified conditions (sewer, storm drain, reciprocal agreement).
    • Resolution 2021-06-24-0501-04: Approve the Commission Use Permit.
    • Resolution 2021-06-24-0501-05: Approve the Design Review.
  • Item 6.1 (Cultural Heritage Board Interviews): The commission interviewed four candidates for four vacancies on the nine-member Cultural Heritage Board. The board has been unable to meet since December 2020. Candidates were: Tejpaul Bainiwal (scholar and community leader), Bryan Baldeon (local resident passionate about culture), Mary Jo Gohlke (local historian and author), and Matt Holmes (homeowner and former National Park Service staff). A fifth applicant, Mr. Vigil, withdrew before the interview. Each candidate answered four questions regarding their motivation, the relationship between historic preservation and economic development (including demolitions), city vs. property owner responsibilities, and availability. Commissioner Mountain recused himself from voting on Matt Holmes due to a personal connection. After scoring, the top four candidates (Bainiwal, Baldeon, Gohlke, Holmes) were selected.

Key Outcomes

  • Consent Calendar: Approved unanimously (7-0).
  • Item 5.1: All five resolutions approved unanimously (7-0) with amended conditions on the tentative parcel map.
  • Item 6.1: Motion 2021-06-24-0601 passed 7-0 to appoint Tejpaul Bainiwal, Bryan Baldeon, Mary Jo Gohlke, and Matt Holmes to the Cultural Heritage Board, forwarding their names to the City Council for final approval.
  • Meeting Adjournment: 6:55 PM.

Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the planning commission meeting of June 24th, 2021. At this time, I would like to ask the city clerk to please take roll. Chair Mallet? Present. Vice Chair Sangetti? Here. Commissioner Garcia? Present. Commissioner Mountain? Here. Commissioner Risby? Here. Commissioner Jones? Here. Commissioner Via Pudua? Present. We have a quorum. Thank you. And now I would like to ask Commissioner Mountain to please lead us in the flight salute. I pledge an allegiance to the five of the United States of America and to republic under the individual tea and justice for all. All right, so agenda item three is the consent agenda. Would anyone like to comment on the consent calendar? Okay, so no seeing nobody. Um could I get a um a motion for the consent? I've moved the motion to prove the consent. Could everyone please vote? Motion passes. Thank you. And at this time, um move to agenda item four, public comment. This section of the agenda is reserved for public comment on anything within the jurisdiction of the commission. Um there will be a time limit. Do we have any um blue cards or do we have anyone that would like to speak? I have no public comment cards, Chair. Okay. And then moving on to item number five, public hearings environmental assessments. Agenda item 5.1 is an initial study addendum to the 2040 general plan environmental impact report, pre-zone tentative parcel map, commission use report permit and design review requests for the proposed retail commercial center development at the southeast corner of East Hammer Lane and Marantha Drive. APN 1303013. And do we have any um commissioner comments or disclosures? Okay, Steph, could you please present? Good evening, Chair Maladet and members of the commission. Item 5.1 is for planning application number P190718, which is an initial study and addendum to the general plan EIR, pre-zone application, tentative parcel map, commission use permit, and design review request for a proposed commercial retail development on East Hammer Lane and Maranatha. The project is located on the south side of East Hammer Lane, just west of 99 and East Maranatha Drive, where the recently approved annexation for the Carmax project is located. Also, directly east of the site is the annexation project for the Hammer Hotel, which you recently reviewed a couple weeks ago and approved part of and made recommendations for approval to the city council. As with the hotel site, this site is not within the city of Stockton city limits, but with your recommendation of approval, we'll proceed to the city council for consideration for incorporation into the city, and then to LAFCO, which is the local agency formation commission for San Joaquin County. This is a street view of the current conditions along the south side of Hammer Lane. It is a vacant site with a stoplight pole and signal arm at the southeast corner of East Hammer Lane and Maranatha Drive. The site has a current general plan designation of commercial and is surrounded by commercial to the north, south, east, and west. And a little further north is general plan designation of residential. Also, like the hotel site, this site currently does not have a zoning designation, but with the pre-zone request, the applicant is proposing to zone the site as commercial general, which is CG. The process for this project involves the similar steps as the hotel site.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com