Stockton Planning Commission Meeting – October 26, 2023
Stockton Planning Commission Meeting – October 26, 2023
The Stockton Planning Commission met on October 26, 2023, at 5:30 PM (adjourned at 7:49 PM) at 425 N. El Dorado St., Stockton, CA. All six present commissioners (Anne Mallett, Brenda Jones, Waqar Rizvi, Greg Thompson, Gurneel Boparai, Terry Hull) participated; Rajan Nathaniel was absent. The agenda included consent calendar (minutes approval), public comment, and three public hearings: a cemetery expansion with heritage tree removal, a cannabis microbusiness permit, and a major warehouse development standards ordinance.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of Minutes (Items 3.1): The commission approved minutes from the July 27, 2023 and August 24, 2023 meetings (Motion 2023-10-26-0301-01, vote 6-0). Separately, the August 10, 2023 minutes were approved (Motion 2023-10-26-0301-02, vote 5-0; Commissioner Hull recused as he was absent on that date).
Public Comments & Testimony
- Pat Barrett (community member): Stated that residents near the Mariposa Industrial Park project felt deceived by the city; they had not received adequate outreach or information and feared rezoning and 200‑foot walls. Urged the city to conduct sincere listening sessions.
- Temo Aguilar (Field Representative, Northern California Carpenters Union): Requested the city adopt labor standards requiring state‑sponsored apprenticeship programs and health‑care provisions for construction workers. Cited that 26% of California construction workers lack health insurance and that apprenticeship graduates have zero debt and skilled careers.
- On Item 5.3 (Warehouse Ordinance): 14 public speakers addressed the commission:
- Raul Hernandez (Plumbers & Pipe Fitters Union Local 442): Supported Option C, advising caution to avoid losing warehouse industry jobs and tax dollars to surrounding cities.
- Liz Sutton (Sheet Metal Workers Local 104): Urged approval of Option C, noting the need for environmental standards while maintaining economic feasibility.
- Alicia Valenzuela (community advocate): Criticized the process as not community‑centered, stating the commission did not do enough to include residents. Asked why only 26 measures were considered and why additional measures (e.g., bicycle infrastructure, real‑time emissions monitoring) were not explored. Opposed Option C, preferring a stronger version of Option B.
- Juan Perez (IBEW Local 595): Urged selection of Option C to reduce environmental impacts while keeping projects financially viable.
- Gloria Alonzo Cruz (community advocate): Raised concerns about loading dock setbacks, requesting clarification on whether setbacks are from project property line or sensitive receptor property line. Recommended additional language (adopted from Fontana’s code).
- Nicolas Tamayo (Little Manila Rising): Expressed concern that Option B’s landscaping buffers (40‑foot) would undermine urban forestry progress in South Stockton; urged the commission to pause and revisit options.
- Eric Parfrey (Sierra Club): Opposed Option B entirely, calling it a weakening of the original mitigation measures. Argued that staff’s claims of infeasibility were unfounded. Also criticized the two‑minute public comment limit.
- Margo Praus (Delta Sierra Group): Supported Option A or a stronger alternative, emphasizing climate change and failing air quality.
- Jonathan Pruitt (former Stockton resident): Questioned why only 26 measures were included and argued that the city should incorporate resident ideas. Supported stronger buffers and setbacks.
- Jasmine Leake (Little Manila Rising): Stressed that air pollution causes respiratory illness and that the commission must protect public health. Urged a vote for Option A.
- Trevor Smith (TS Planning and Development, representing industrial developer and farming families): Thanked staff and noted that the 26 measures are just a starting point; additional conditions are always added during project review. Supported the solar compromise and the 40‑foot landscape buffer, but questioned the cost of cool pavement vs. tree canopy.
Discussion Items
- Item 5.1 – San Joaquin Catholic Cemetery Expansion and Heritage Tree Removal (P23‑0092 & P23‑0093): Staff presented a proposal for a ~12‑acre cemetery expansion at 1850 and 1870 Cemetery Lane. Two Valley Oak heritage trees (Nos. 117 and 118) would be removed; the applicant will replace them on a 3‑for‑1 basis with eight 24‑inch box Coast Live Oaks (heritage trees). The cemetery director stated the project is an extension of roads, not a new expansion. The commission unanimously approved the use permit and tree removal permit with conditions (Resolution 2023-10-26-0501, vote 6-0).
- Item 5.2 – Cannabis Microbusiness at 1807 Navy Drive (P23‑0062): Staff presented a request for a commission use permit for a cannabis microbusiness (retail storefront, distribution, cultivation) in an existing industrial building. The business would operate 7 days a week (retail: 9 AM–8 PM; distribution/cultivation: 8:30 AM–5 PM), employ ~27 full‑time workers plus 24‑hour security. The applicant (Samuel Jackson, a Stockton equity lottery winner, with partners Ray Rana and Ryan Mears) noted the project meets all location/setback requirements, is miles from the nearest retail cannabis facility, and would generate tax revenue. All commissioners who disclosed contacts (Thompson, Hull, Mallett, Boparai) stated they met with the applicant or counsel but remained impartial. The permit was approved unanimously (Resolution 2023-10-26-0502, vote 6-0).
- Item 5.3 – Warehouse Development Standards Ordinance (Ordinance Amending Title 16): Staff presented three options (A, B, C) derived from settlement agreements with the Sierra Club and California Attorney General (stemming from the Mariposa Industrial Park project). The ordinance would apply to new logistics warehouses ≥100,000 sq. ft. and include measures on building design, landscaping, solar, EV charging, setbacks, etc. After extensive discussion and public testimony, the commission voted to recommend Option C (industry‑reflected standards) to the City Council. The motion (Resolution 2023-10-26-0503) also included a CEQA finding of exemption (Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15183). The vote was 6‑0; Commissioner Boparai had voted against waiving the reading of written correspondence earlier (5‑1) but voted yes on the final resolution.
Key Outcomes
- Minutes Approved (two motions, both carried).
- San Joaquin Catholic Cemetery Expansion & Heritage Tree Removal – Approved 6‑0.
- Cannabis Microbusiness (Zaza Boys, 1807 Navy Drive) – Approved 6‑0.
- Warehouse Ordinance Recommendation – The commission recommended Option C to the City Council by a vote of 6‑0. The ordinance will now proceed to the City Council for final action by the December 31, 2023 deadline.
- Next steps: Staff announced that due to holiday schedules, only two Planning Commission meetings remain in 2023 (November and December). Commissioners were encouraged to attend.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Planning Commission meeting of October twenty sixth, twenty twenty-three. At this time, I would like to request the city clerk's office to please take roll call. Commissioner Jones. Commissioner Mallett? Present. Commissioner Hall. Present. Chair Risby? Present. Vice Chair Nathaniel is absent. Commissioner Thompson? Present. Commissioner Bapari? Present. We have a quorum. Thank you. At this time I would like to ask Commissioner Jones to please lead us at the pledge. Agenda item number three, consent. The three items of the consent are the minutes from July twenty-seventh, August tenth, and August twenty-fourth, twenty twenty-three planning commission meeting. Um I believe Commissioner Hell, you had a Yes, I was absent on August tenth, so I did not review the video. Move by Commissioner Hull, seconded by Commissioner Thompson. Please vote. Is there a motion? I'll make a motion to approve the planning commission meeting minutes from the meeting of August 10th, 2023. Moved by Commissioner Mallet, second by Commissioner Jones. Please vote. Motion passes five with 5-0 with Commissioner Hull recusing himself. Thank you so much. At this time, we move to agenda item number four, public comments. This section of the agenda is reserved for the public. For the comments on anything that is within the jurisdiction of this planning commission. If a member of the public would like to speak on a specific agenda item, they may do it now, or they can wait till the item is being presented. Are there any general public comments? Yes, Chair. First, we have Pat Barrett. Out of the 200 homes that they had knocked on, 43 people, 43 homes had showed up, over 60 people showed up. The take that I got from this was that they had been deceived by the city of Stockton when City of Stockton reached out because they did not get the appropriate interaction and information back. One of the greatest concerns was they were worried that their lands were going to get rezoned and taken away from them. One of the other worries was that they're gonna wake up and they're gonna see 200 foot walls surrounding their houses. English is their second language. And uh I think the city of Stockton really needs to think about this and and reach out even deeper and harder. This was a listening session that was the first one that we had with them. And the bottom line was they never had a listening session prior to the Mariposa. They never had listening sessions from this uh concern we have right now. Um, and although the city has said oh we've had listening sessions with the community. I'm part of that community. I have not sat down with the listening session. They have not sat down with the listening sessions. So I think we need to really stop, look around and say what are we doing to folks out there and have some sincere outreach and listening sessions with them. Thank you, Pat.
openpublica.com