Stockton Planning Commission Meeting – March 28, 2024

The Stockton Planning Commission met on March 28, 2024, at 5:30 PM, with all six commissioners present (Commissioner Boparai arrived at 5:33 PM). The meeting included two public hearings, a lengthy informational session on proposed amendments to the recently adopted Industrial Warehouse Development Standards, and public comments on procedural and environmental justice concerns.

Consent Calendar

• No consent items were presented.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Pat Barrett (South Stockton resident) urged the commission to prioritize the health of South Stockton residents over developer interests, criticizing the warehouse ordinance process and the cumulative pollution burden from warehouses, the airport, port, and freeways.
• Esperanza Vielma (Environmental Justice Coalition for Water) highlighted the lack of Spanish translation services at city meetings and on the city website, which excludes a large Spanish-speaking population from participating in decisions affecting their health and environment.
• Jonathan Pruitt (Stockton resident) opposed the Trinity Parkway project, citing excessive fast‑food options, lack of local small businesses, and missed opportunities for family entertainment (e.g., Top Golf, indoor recreation). He also spoke during the warehouse standards discussion, arguing for stronger setback language and against increasing the warehouse size threshold.
• Mary Elizabeth (Stockton resident) raised concerns about the Trinity Parkway project’s consistency with the mixed‑use designation (no housing proposed), the lack of traffic accident data, and the need for a traffic study on the dead‑end Trinity Parkway. During the warehouse discussion, she noted that a 300‑foot buffer could be used for stormwater detention and habitat.
• Angie Hynh (area resident) criticized the addition of Chick‑fil‑A and In‑N‑Out, citing existing traffic and accident hazards on Trinity Parkway, and called for more family‑friendly and locally‑owned businesses.
• Matt Arnez (Holman Investors) submitted a written statement and spoke, arguing that the warehouse ordinance should apply only to projects annexed after December 31, 2023, to avoid penalizing long‑stalled projects within city limits.
• Trevor Smith (TS Planning and Development) supported the solar and truck‑charging additions but opposed the 50% conduit‑ready requirement, noting that the grid cannot yet support large‑scale electric truck charging. He also argued against raising the warehouse size threshold to 400,000 sq ft, as it could exclude smaller local businesses.
• Pandora Crawden (South Stockton resident) expressed that residents feel their health is treated as an inconvenience to warehouse development.
• Jasmine (Stockton resident) urged commissioners to consider the long‑term impact of automation and AI on warehousing as an economic development strategy.

Discussion Items

5.1 – Tentative Parcel Map at 9163 Connie Avenue

Staff presented a proposal to subdivide a single parcel into two residential lots (minimum lot size 5,000 sq ft). The site is in the Wagner Heights subdivision, with low‑density residential zoning. Two public comments were received, one requesting a hearing. The applicant (Navjot Singh) stated the owner plans to build one single‑family home per lot, with an accessory dwelling unit on one lot. Commissioners expressed support for infill housing. No public opposition was voiced. The commission approved the tentative parcel map unanimously.

5.2 – Tentative Map & Design Review at 10505 Trinity Parkway

The project would subdivide a vacant 9‑acre parcel (formerly owned by Sam’s Club) into five lots for retail and service commercial uses: In‑N‑Out Burger, Chick‑fil‑A, Dutch Bros. Coffee, a self‑storage facility, and a mini‑storage facility. The site is within the AG Spanos Business Park Master Development Plan. Staff noted that the project had undergone a traffic study and required off‑site improvements (raised medians, turn restrictions). Public commenters opposed the fast‑food tenants and lack of family entertainment. The applicant explained that the site had been marketed for 10 years with no other viable offers due to high‑tension power lines, making residential or recreational uses infeasible. Commissioners acknowledged the market constraints and approved the tentative map and design review 6‑0.

8.1 – Informational Item: Proposed Amendments to Industrial Warehouse Development Standards

Staff presented six modifications proposed at the December 12, 2023 City Council meeting, based on public comments. The commission provided direction (not a formal vote) on each:

1. Solar installation: Remove the proposed addition (already required by building code).
2. Truck charging: Modify – retain the addition of light‑ and medium‑heavy‑duty truck classifications, but remove the 50% conduit‑ready requirement for truck docking stations.
3. Automobile charging: Remove the proposed modification (duplicative of CalGreen Code).
4. Setback/buffer restrictions: Remove the entire proposed modification (adding a 2:1 setback‑to‑height ratio, prohibiting all truck movement within 300 ft of sensitive receptors, and removing exceptions for zero‑emission vehicles).
5. Size threshold: Increase the applicability threshold from 100,000 sq ft to 400,000 sq ft.
6. Annexation applicability: Add language making the ordinance applicable only to projects annexed after December 31, 2023. Staff will prepare a feasibility analysis and present two ordinances (as‑is and as modified) for a formal recommendation at a future meeting, with a target of City Council action by July 2024.

Key Outcomes

• Resolution 2024-03-28-0501 (Tentative Parcel Map, 9163 Connie Ave.): Approved 6‑0.
• Resolution 2024-03-28-0502 (Tentative Map and Design Review, 10505 Trinity Parkway): Approved 6‑0. Also approved a motion to waive reading of correspondence (6‑0).
• Warehouse Standards Amendments: The commission gave staff direction to develop a modified ordinance reflecting the positions above. A formal vote on the recommendation will occur at a subsequent planning commission meeting.
• Meeting adjourned at 8:22 PM.