Stockton Planning Commission Meeting – January 13, 2022

The Stockton Planning Commission met on January 13, 2022, at 5:30 PM to consider consent items, two public hearings, and receive staff reports. The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:32 PM (per the minutes), though the transcript indicates a recess at 6:45 PM and reconvening at 6:50 PM, creating a time discrepancy.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of Minutes (December 9, 2021): Approved 4-0 (Commissioner Garcia, who had not attended that meeting, voted after watching the video).
• Time Extension for Waterford Square Shopping Center (VTM3-08): Approved a one-year extension for the vesting tentative map at Eight Mile Road and Davis Road via Resolution 2022-01-13-0302.

Public Comments & Testimony

• No public comment was offered during the designated period.

Discussion Items

5.1 – Cannabis Cultivation at 960 East Jefferson Street

Staff presented a proposal for a Commission Use Permit and Design Review to establish a 23,856 sq. ft. cannabis cultivation facility with a 20,160 sq. ft. canopy. The applicant, Gurmit Sani, was a 2020 General Pool Lottery winner. The site is in the IG zone, meets all location requirements (300 ft from residential, 600 ft from sensitive uses), and has no city department concerns. Staff recommended approval. One written comment of “support” was received from a guest user. Commissioner Garcia moved to approve as recommended; motion seconded by Commissioner Rizvi. Vote: 5-0 in favor. Resolution 2022-01-13-0501 adopted.

5.2 – Alcohol License Upgrade at 620 West Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard

The applicant, Quindersing (Sukhi) Singh, sought a use permit to upgrade from off-sale beer and wine (Type 20) to general alcoholic beverages (Type 21) at an existing Shell convenience store and gas station. Staff recommended denial because the site lies in Crime Reporting District 0221, which has crime rates more than 20% above city average, and fails separation/grouping requirements (within 500 ft of an existing off-sale establishment and more than four within 1,000 ft). The applicant and several supporters (including a customer, a banker, and a neighboring business owner) testified in favor, emphasizing the store’s clean record, 42 cameras, minimal police calls, and convenience. Commissioners Mountain, Jones, and Mallett favored denial; Commissioners Garcia and Rizvi opposed denial.

• Motion to Deny (per staff recommendation): Made by Commissioner Mountain, seconded by Commissioner Jones. Vote: 3-2 in favor of denial? (Actually failed: 3 yes (Mallett, Mountain, Jones) and 2 no (Garcia, Rizvi) – motion to deny therefore failed because it needed majority to pass? Wait: The motion was to approve staff’s recommendation to disapprove (i.e., to deny). The vote: Yes – Mallett, Mountain, Jones; No – Garcia, Rizvi. Motion fails 3-2 (since a majority of those present is required, 3-2 is a failure because it didn't get at least 4 votes? Actually with 5 commissioners present, a majority is 3. So 3-2 would be a majority in favor, so motion to deny would have passed? But the minutes say motion failed 3-2. The transcript shows Chair Mallett initially announced “Motion fails, two in favor, three dissenting” then corrected after confusion. The final recorded outcome in minutes is: “Approve adopting a resolution disapproving the request … based on the findings in the proposed resolution. Moved by Xavier Mountain, seconded by Brenda Jones. Vote: Motion failed 3-2. Yes: Anne Mallett, Brenda Jones, and Xavier Mountain. No: Gerardo Garcia, and Waqar Rizvi.” So the motion to disapprove had 3 in favor and 2 opposed, but the motion failed meaning the disapproval was not adopted. This is a voting nuance: the motion was to adopt a resolution of disapproval, which needed a majority (3) in favor. It got 3 in favor, so logically it should have passed. However, the minutes explicitly state the motion failed. Possibly the attorney clarified that the motion required 4 votes? Or there was a misinterpretation. The transcript shows the attorney later suggesting a stalemate and recommending continuation. I will note the discrepancy: the motion to deny received 3 yes votes (majority) but was recorded as failing, leading to a stalemate. To resolve, Commissioner Rizvi moved to continue the item to January 27, 2022, seconded by Garcia. Motion to continue carried 5-0.

Key Outcomes

• Cannabis cultivation use permit approved unanimously (5-0). Appeal period: 10 days.
• Alcohol license upgrade request was not decided; continued to the January 27, 2022 meeting due to a 3-2 vote that did not produce a clear outcome (motion to deny failed despite majority in favor? The minutes record the motion as failing, leading to continuation). The item will be reconsidered with a full commission.

Reports & Commissioner Comments

• Deputy Director Mike McDowell announced the Planning Commissioner Academy (March 16-18, 2022, San Ramon), noting its benefits for training.
• Commissioner Rizvi thanked Commissioner Mountain for organizing holiday fundraising for the Children’s Home of Stockton ($2,500 in gift cards).
• Commissioner Mountain acknowledged Rizvi, Councilmember Warmsley, and others for their support.
• Chair Mallett encouraged attendance at the Planning Academy.

Note on Discrepancy

• The meeting minutes state adjournment at 6:32 PM, but the transcript indicates a recess at 6:45 PM and reconvening at 6:50 PM before adjournment. The official time of adjournment is uncertain.