Planning Commission Meeting of March 13, 2025: Ad Hoc Committee Formation, Minutes Approval, and Training
Planning Commission Meeting of March 13, 2025: Ad Hoc Committee Formation, Minutes Approval, and Training
The Stockton Planning Commission met on March 13, 2025, at 5:30 PM and adjourned at 7:32 PM. The meeting included approval of past meeting minutes, public comments, establishment of an ad hoc committee to review the draft Development Code Ordinance, and two training presentations from the Deputy City Attorney and Community Development Department. All votes were unanimous except where noted.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of Minutes: The commission approved minutes from three prior meetings. The January 23, 2025, minutes were approved 4-0 (Commissioner Graves recused himself because he had not watched or read the meeting). The February 13 and February 27, 2025, minutes were approved 5-0.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Dan Richardson (1220 N Pershing Avenue, city resident) congratulated new commissioners and urged the commission to conduct thorough reviews of proposed projects rather than "rubber stamping" approvals. He cited a recent cannabis facility that met technical guidelines but was later stopped by the City Council, emphasizing the need for community impact assessments.
- Jason Smith (1330 Acre Village Apartments) introduced himself, noting personal hardships following the deaths of his parents in 2020. He did not address a specific agenda item.
Discussion Items
- Establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee (Item 6.1): The commission considered Resolution 2025-03-13-0601 to form a three-member ad hoc committee to review the pending draft Development Code Ordinance (Title 16). Staff explained the code update began in 2021 and aims to make the code more user-friendly, align with state law, and streamline housing development. The housing element components must be adopted by June 2025 to avoid losing grant funding. Chair Sanguinetti noted the code is about 2.5 inches thick and the committee would require significant time commitment. He stated he would chair the committee initially but might step aside later for newer commissioners. Commissioner Hull and Vice Chair Muetzenberg volunteered. The resolution, naming Chair Sanguinetti, Vice Chair Muetzenberg, and Commissioner Hull, was approved 5-0.
- Training Presentations (Informational Items 8.1 and 8.2):
- Deputy City Attorney Zoey Merrill presented on the legal framework for planning commissions, including property rights, police powers, quasi-judicial vs. quasi-legislative actions, conflicts of interest, the Brown Act, public comment rules, and the role of findings. She emphasized that commissioners must disclose ex-parte contacts and avoid serial meetings or social media deliberation. She also noted that anonymous public comment is permitted, and the chair has authority to impose reasonable time limits and address disruptive attendees.
- Planning Manager Scott Spear and Senior Planner Arturo Carrasco presented on planning policy implementation, covering the general plan, zoning, development code, ministerial vs. discretionary permits, and the application review process. They clarified that ministerial approvals are checklist-based and rarely come before the commission, while discretionary approvals require findings supported by evidence. They noted that decisions are often based on the code and that staff can elevate applications to the commission if needed.
Key Outcomes
- Ad Hoc Committee Formed: Resolution 2025-03-13-0601 passed 5-0, establishing a three-member committee (Sanguinetti, Muetzenberg, Hull) to review the draft Development Code Ordinance and facilitate future discussions before the full commission. The housing element portion must be finalized by June 2025 to meet grant requirements.
- Minutes Approved: Minutes from January 23, February 13, and February 27, 2025, were approved as described in the Consent Calendar.
- Training Completed: Both presentations were informational only; no action was taken. Commissioners expressed appreciation for the training and noted increased clarity on legal obligations and procedural rules.
- No Public Hearings or Unfinished Business: Items 5 and 7 were skipped as there were no relevant agenda items.
- Commissioner Comments: Chair Sanguinetti, Commissioner Amen, and Vice Chair Muetzenberg thanked staff for their work and the training.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening, everybody. Tonight is a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of City of Stockton held on March 13th, 2025. Roll call, please. Chair Sanguinetti. Present. Vice Chair Mudzenberg. Here. Commissioner Graves. Present. Commissioner Hall. Present. Commissioner Bopari is absent. Commissioner Eamon. Present. We have a quorum. Okay. So our first item of business here is there any public comments? You want me to take. Oh, I okay. Pledge allegiance. Yeah. It's on your agenda. Sorry. So I'm gonna have uh come Commissioner Amen lead the Pledge Allegiance. Ready begin. I think allegiance to the five of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands. Under comment invisible justice for all. Thank you. Okay. So um public comments, please. Next up is uh consent, the consent calendar. Yeah, well, we're gonna publicly want to do public comment for the public comments first since there's somebody here and first up here. He doesn't have to stay for everything. First up, we have Dan Richardson. Yeah, I just wanted to come and can you state your name and address for us, please. Dan Richardson, 1220 North Pershing Avenue. Okay. Yeah, um, city resident. Um I just wanted to come. It's the first meeting I've been able to attend since the new board members have been uh or commissioners have been appointed, and uh I just want to congratulate all of you. Um the only thing I wanted to add to that comment was um that I hope that in the future when we get proposals for approval of new businesses within the city of Stockton, uh new building permits, that type of thing that come before the planning commission, that we don't just accept that it meets the guidelines within the city. Uh we had an issue with a cannabis uh facility that wanted to open on my side of town, and fortunately city council saw better uh to stop that from opening. It met technically the guidelines of the city to be within 600 feet of a school, thousand feet of another dispensary, etc. etc. But that area already had two storefronts in it, and we didn't need a third, um, to be honest with you, and that got stopped. Um again, uh what I'd ask is that we don't just rubber stamp what comes before the commission, that the commission looks at it in detail to make sure it's the right thing for Stockton. It's the right thing for the community that it's going to be located in. Um I lived in cities around Northern California that the planning commission approved things like elevation of buildings so that your storefronts were um uniform within a given district, you know, that they looked good for the city, they attracted other businesses to come, things like that. Um so I it's not a criticism of anybody or the commission.
openpublica.com