Stockton Planning Commission Meeting - October 9, 2025

The Stockton Planning Commission held a regular meeting on October 9, 2025, at 5:31 PM. The primary item was a public hearing on the proposed South Stockton Commerce Center, a large industrial development. Staff requested a continuance to allow time to review late-submitted technical comments. After public testimony limited to the continuance issue, the commission voted 5-1 to continue the item to the November 13, 2025 meeting. Commissioner comments also touched on noticing practices, tobacco/alcohol licensing, and the Ask Stockton app.

Consent Calendar

• No consent items were on the agenda.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Mary Elizabeth (Stockton resident) opposed the continuance, arguing that the lack of a site-specific plan and end user makes environmental impact analysis impossible. She urged denial of the project and criticized the city's use of overriding findings to avoid mitigation.
• Anthony Carroll (field representative, Carpenters Local 152) supported the continuance, citing the need to review technical letters regarding construction-related greenhouse gas emissions and workforce standards.
• Julie Dunning supported the continuance, stating the project would generate over 22,000 daily vehicle trips (17,000 car and 5,500 truck trips) in an already overburdened community. She noted the city is developing a climate action plan that should align with such decisions.
• Matthew Lester (Stockton resident) supported the continuance, highlighting that South Stockton is in the top 10% of California communities for pollution burden, with some tracts in the top 1%. He urged the commission to prioritize neighborhood needs over warehouse development.
• Eric Parfrey (retired city planner, Sierra Club) supported the continuance but stressed the project's scale—425 acres, 6 million square feet—and that it is ill-defined. He warned that without a thorough review, a lawsuit is likely.
• Pat Barrett (Stockton resident) opposed the extension, citing personal health impacts from poor air quality in South Stockton, which has a life expectancy 10 years lower than the north side. He urged denial of the project.

Discussion Items

• Staff Recommendation: Mike McDowell, Assistant Director of Community Development, reported that the city received multiple lengthy technical comments late in the week, including one totaling 334 pages. Staff believed a continuance to November 13, 2025 was necessary to thoroughly review comments and provide written responses, ensuring all information is transparent and on the record.
• Applicant Position: Trevor Smith, consultant for the property owners, supported the continuance and noted the team is already working on detailed responses.
• Commissioner Deliberation: Commissioners discussed the need for adequate time to review the complex technical comments. Commissioner Crowder asked about the appropriate forum for raising questions; it was agreed that questions could be submitted to staff and would become part of the record. Commissioner Amen expressed concern that the project might be postponed repeatedly; she ultimately voted against the continuance.

Key Outcomes

• Motion 2025-10-09-0501: To continue the South Stockton Commerce Center item (Application No. P20-0024) to the November 13, 2025 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was made by Chair Sanguinetti, seconded by Vice Chair Muetzenberg.
• Vote: 5-1 in favor. Yes: Derek Graves, William Muetzenberg, Jeff Sanguinetti, Pandora Crowder, Jazmine Hernandez. No: Yolanda Amen. Absent: Terry Hull (excused).
• The continuation ensures that all public comments, staff responses, and commissioner questions will be addressed at the November 13 hearing, where the merits of the project will be discussed.

Commissioner Comments

• Commissioner Amen requested improved noticing practices for public hearings; staff agreed to provide an informational overview at a future meeting.
• Chair Sanguinetti noted upcoming development code revisions that could incorporate changes to noticing requirements.
• Commissioner Crowder asked about the appropriateness of requesting a report on tobacco and liquor retailer locations. Staff clarified that tobacco is not a land use under the development code, but alcohol is. The city council is currently directing work on a tobacco ordinance. She also praised the Ask Stockton app for its responsiveness and suggested expanding its capabilities.