Stockton Planning Commission Meeting - March 10, 2022: Mariposa Industrial Park Annexation Project
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Stockton Planning Commission Meeting - March 10, 2022
The Stockton Planning Commission held a regular meeting on March 10, 2022, from 5:33 PM to 7:09 PM at 425 N. El Dorado St. The primary agenda item was a public hearing on the Mariposa Industrial Park Annexation Project, which included an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), prezone requests, and a Development Agreement for a proposed industrial development on approximately 203 acres (nine parcels) near Mariposa Road. Six commissioners were present (Anne Mallett, Brenda Jones, Brando Villapudua, Jeff Sanguinetti, Xavier Mountain, and Gerardo Garcia), with Commissioner Waqar Rizvi absent. Commissioner Mountain arrived at 5:36 PM.
Consent Calendar
- None.
Public Comments & Testimony
- David Rivas (Carpenters Union Local 152) expressed overwhelming support for the project, noting community benefits including local union labor, apprenticeship programs, and livable wages.
- Raul Hernandez (representing union electricians, plumbers, sheet metal workers, iron workers, and sprinkler fitters) supported the project, emphasizing that Greenlaw Development's partnership with unions would keep construction wages and spending in Stockton.
- Margo Praus (Stockton resident, steering committee member for San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District grants) opposed the project, arguing that large warehouses worsen air quality in already disadvantaged areas and that the fire station commitment does not mitigate health impacts.
- John Pruitt (environmental justice community organizer) via electronic comment raised questions about community outreach, hiring of local residents, the need for a community benefits agreement, and an updated climate action plan. He urged the commission not to adopt the resolution.
- Davis Harper (Stockton resident) via electronic comment expressed concerns about 12,000 daily truck trips worsening air pollution, stating that recommendations from state agencies were minimally addressed in the final EIR, and urged a vote against adoption.
- Mary Elizabeth (Delta Sierra Group) via electronic comment requested that the commission not adopt the resolutions, citing unmitigated environmental impacts, inadequate community notification, and incomplete mitigation measures. She asked for a continuance and public workshops.
Discussion Items
- Staff Presentation: Matt Deeds (Advanced Planning Manager) presented the project details: prezone to Industrial Limited (IL), a development agreement allowing up to 100-foot building heights (exceeding the standard 60-foot limit), a conceptual plan for up to seven buildings totaling 3.6 million square feet, and a Community Facilities District (CFD) to fund a new fire station (and potentially a police substation) with the applicant contributing up to $100,000 for the CFD study and up to $3 million for construction. The EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts, leading to a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) based on economic benefits: an estimated $1.1 million in annual general fund revenue, $6 million in development impact fees, $1.3 million to schools, $580 million in construction economic activity, 7,400 construction jobs, and 3,000 permanent full-time jobs. The project requires future City Council approval, LAFCO annexation, and site plan review.
- Applicant Presentation: Mike Sousa (Greenlaw Development) emphasized project features: emergency vehicle access only from Clark and Marfagoa Roads, a 10-foot wall/berm for noise and air mitigation, dedication of land for Mariposa Road widening, and union labor agreements with eight unions. Chris Austin (DPFG) detailed the economic projections.
- Commissioner Questions and Deliberations:
- Chair Sanguinetti raised concerns about the CFD's perpetuity tax, the sufficiency of the $100,000 study funding if future projects do not participate, and the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and FAA requirements for 100-foot building heights. The applicant clarified that future projects would be conditioned to join the CFD and that ALUC review would occur at the site plan stage.
- Commissioner Mountain asked about the percentage of Stockton residents among the 3,000 permanent jobs; the applicant stated they could not commit to a specific percentage.
- Commissioners discussed the county's late letter, but staff noted that the draft EIR had been circulated since August 2021 and that the county's concerns had been addressed; no new technical information was presented.
- Vice Chair Garcia expressed support, noting no new data contradicted the EIR. Commissioner Villapudua supported the project for job creation.
- Cannabis Ordinance Update: Stephanie Ocasio (Community Development Director) reported that the City Council had adopted option two for the cannabis ordinance, allowing previously denied applicants (based on location waivers within the last 12 months) to reapply.
Key Outcomes
- Motion to waive reading of written correspondence: Carried 6-0 (Mallett motion, Garcia second).
- Motion to adopt Resolution 2022-03-10-0501-01 (recommending City Council adopt the EIR, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) and Resolution 2022-03-10-0501-02 (recommending City Council adopt the prezone ordinance and Development Agreement): Moved by Gerardo Garcia, seconded by Xavier Mountain. Carried 6-0 (Yes: Mallett, Jones, Villapudua, Sanguinetti, Mountain, Garcia; Absent: Rizvi).
- Chair Sanguinetti requested that the applicant and City Council consider a review period for the CFD's perpetuity provision, though no formal amendment was made.
- The commission adjourned at 7:09 PM.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, staff and fellow commissioners. Tonight is March 10th, 2022, already three months into the year. It seems going fast. Anyway, I'd like to take uh tonight's uh regular planning commission here at City of Stockton, 425 North El Dorado Street. Roll call, please. Commissioner Jones. Present. Commissioner Mallet. Present. Commissioner Mountain is absent. Commissioner Risby is absent. Commissioner Via Pudua. Present. Vice Chair Garcia? Present. Chair Sanguinetti. Present. We have a quorum. Thank you. Um first order of business will be the uh pledge of allegiance. Um Vice Chair Garcia lead us tonight. Thank you. Absolutely. Ready? Begin. I pledge allegiance to the flag of United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Okay, just a couple of housekeeping notes. Um this is the first meeting we've had where we've actually had people in the chambers, and so it's kind of new again to us, or to me at least, and that, and so bear with me as I move through this. I'm not used to looking at all these faces. It's a little more different than it is looking at empty seats and that. Um would have been better if you had had stick people sitting there through the period like they do at the ball games. Anyway, so um from uh we're we have an agenda in that. Our first item business tonight will be any public comments. There's blue cards that somebody, if they wanted to speak, could have filled out and they can speak during the public comment period just about on uh any planning related items in that um or if they want to speak on the specific topic item, they can wait until that period of time. So do we have any public comments? We have no public comment cards for general public comment. Okay. And so there is no consent calendar, which was actually the first item. So we'll uh move to item five, which is the public hearing in that, and um we'll open the public hearing, and we'll call for any commissioner disclosures. I I have a disclosure in that since I see none from my fellow commissioners. I did get phone call from two of the proponents of the project from Johnny Ford and from uh Rob Mitchell in that. Um so I just want that to be known. Here comes a fellow commissioner right now. Good evening, Xavier. Is it do you have any disclosure before we start on the public hearing? Yes, I did speak to one of the applicants. Thank you. I also spoke to more. What was that?
openpublica.com