title
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - ENVISION STOCKTON 2040 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, UTILITY MASTER PLAN SUPPLEMENTS, AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
recommended action
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve:
1. Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR);
2. Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan Update;
3. Utility Master Plan Supplements (UMPS).
body
Summary
On October 25, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a staff recommendation for the Planning Commission’s recommendation of approval to the City Council for approval of the Final Environmental Impact Report, Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan Update and Utility Master Plan Supplements. The Planning Commission received a staff presentation that covered the contents of the Planning Commission Staff Report (See Attachment A). The presentation included a summary of community engagement efforts and an overview of the proposed draft Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan Update, Utility Master Plan Supplements, and the Final Environmental Impact Report, inclusive of proposed changes based on comments/input from the community, stakeholders, the Commission, and City Council. The Planning Commission received public comments, deliberated and voted 4-1 (Jobrack dissenting, Mallett and Rizvi absent) to continue the public hearing to the regularly scheduled November 15, 2018 meeting.
For a brief overview, in 2016, the City initiated Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan Update with a commitment to updating the General Plan in a sustainable manner. As a result of robust public engagement, staff received extensive input and guidance from the community, including citizens, stakeholders, the Planning Commission, and City Council. In April 2017, the City Council provided guidance to adopt infill standards using a city core intensification alternative. This infill alternative (referred to as Alternative “C”) has the smallest urban footprint of the three alternatives considered. In July 2017, the City Council directed staff to continue with the Infill Focus Alternative, with some modifications. The modifications by the Council included allowing flexibility for an economic development catalyst project in the Sphere of Influence (SOI) area north of Eight Mile Road along Interstate 5. The recommended General Plan represents the first time in Stockton’s history that the proposed urban footprint is smaller (by approximately 9,000 acres) than the existing, approved General Plan.
On June 26, 2018, drafts of the General Plan Update, Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and related utility master plan documents were released for public review and comment. The 45-day comment period for the EIR ended on August 10, 2018. EIR comments and responses are contained in the Final EIR www.stocktongov.com/envisionstockton.
On November 15, the Planning Commission will receive a presentation which responds to letters received during the two weeks prior to the October 25 meeting, and an overview on specific subject matter requested by the Planning Commissioners to provide greater clarification. Staff recommends that after consideration of the public draft General Plan and any proposed changes, the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve:
• Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR);
• Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan Update; and,
• Utility Master Plan Supplements (UMPS).
The Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan Update, Utility Master Plan Supplements (UMPS), July/August 2018, workshop summaries, and the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), and related findings, statement of overriding considerations (SOC), and mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) can be viewed at: www.stocktongov.com/envisionstockton
DISCUSSION
Background
State law requires each city and county to adopt and periodically update a General Plan that provides a comprehensive, long-range plan for its physical development. The General Plan is important because it contains goals, policies and implementation measures to guide development within the city limit and beyond in a Sphere of Influence where City services may someday be provided. The City’s current 2035 General Plan was adopted in 2007. Since its adoption, significant economic and demographic changes occurred, prompting the City to update its growth and development assumptions.
In 2016, the City initiated Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan Update with a commitment to updating the General Plan in a sustainable manner. This General Plan Update provides guidance for reevaluation of the City’s public infrastructure such as the City’s roadways and water and sewer distribution systems and whether the cost (capital and maintenance) of that infrastructure is sustainable. This update provides an opportunity to revisit and reset the goals, policies, and implementation measures for development in the City limits and for future growth areas where City services may eventually be provided within a Sphere of Influence. Policy guidance is provided to reevaluate level of service goals regarding public infrastructure such as water, sewer and transportation improvements. The level of service goals associated with these particular types of improvements and its relationship to land use growth projections determines the cost of development impact fees associated with the cost of building a home or undertaking a development project.
In April 2017, the City Council provided guidance to adopt infill standards using a city core intensification alternative. This infill alternative (referred to as Alternative “C”) has the smallest urban footprint of the three alternatives considered. In July 2017, the City Council directed staff to continue with the Infill Focus Alternative, with some modifications. The modifications by the Council included allowing flexibility for an economic development catalyst project in the Sphere of Influence (SOI) area north of Eight Mile Road along Interstate 5. The recommended Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan Update represents the first time in Stockton’s history that the proposed urban footprint is smaller (by approximately 9,000 acres) than the existing, approved 2035 General Plan.
Planning Commission Public Hearing Discussion and Response to Comments
This section of the report contains staff recommendations and responses to comments and questions raised by the Planning Commission at its October 25, 2018 public hearing on the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan, Utility Master Plan Supplements, and Environmental Impact Report (EIR), as well as subsequent questions raised by a few of the Commissioners which were submitted via phone and email correspondence.
The second section of this report provides staff recommendations and responses to comments raised in letters submitted during the two weeks prior to the October 25, 2018 hearing.
Planning Commission Comments and Questions
Economic and Education Enterprise Designation
Comment: During the 10/25/18 hearing, Commissioner Davie requested a discussion of the Economic and Education Enterprise designation, in particular to address the public comments regarding this land use designation that were provided during the public comment portion of the hearing, and an explanation of why staff recommends one minor change to the designation in response to public comment.
Response: Please see Attachment A (October 25, 2018, Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff Report with attachments) for a history of the development of the Economic and Education Enterprise designation, how it relates to the recommendations from the Healthy Neighborhoods Collaborative in their June 21, 2017 letter, and a staff-recommended change that clarifies the need for a General Plan Amendment. This staff-recommended change was developed in response to public comments suggesting language confirming that a General Plan Amendment would be required prior to development within this designation.
Public comments about the Economic and Education Enterprise designation at the October 25, 2018, Planning Commission hearing stated that the designation does not align with community input, covers a land area that is too extensive, and would allow too much residential development.
• Alignment with Community Input. As indicated in Attachment A, the City Council directed staff to maintain an urban land use designation in the area north of Eight Mile Road at its July 25, 2017 Study Session on the Envision Stockton General Plan. Prior to providing this direction, the City Council reviewed the community input from the land use alternatives process, which supported Alternative C, the Infill Focus Alternative. The City Council directed that staff proceed with Alternative C, with some minor modifications to promote better access to healthy food and medical care in South Stockton, plus the modification to maintain an urban designation in the area North of Eight Mile Road.
• Land Area. During the July 25, 2018 meeting, the City Council discussed applying the designation to a targeted area that would accommodate a catalyst project, such as a technology company, hospital, or campus, but ultimately directed staff to apply the designation over a larger area to allow flexibility for the locations of potential future projects based on the needs of individual projects.
• Quantity of Residential Development. As discussed in the Final EIR, the Economic and Education Enterprise designation itself does not allow development. Any development in that area would require a General Plan Amendment, and most likely also a Specific Plan, along with project-specific environmental review. The designation is considered a “holding designation” for future development that would undergo additional City review once a development project is identified. Comments about the designation allowing too much residential development are based on the maximum theoretical capacity for development reported in Table 3-3 of the Draft EIR. As explained in the Final EIR and the staff report for the 10/25/18 hearing, the reason that the theoretical full buildout of the General Plan is reported in the Draft EIR Project Description is to explain the methodology that was used to develop the 2040 horizon-year development projections. As explained on pages 3-22 to 3-23 of the Draft EIR, the reported theoretical full buildout values assume that every parcel is developed with the maximum amount of development allowed under the General Plan. Therefore, for all vacant and underutilized parcels, full buildout is estimated by applying the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) and maximum residential density allowed by the designation. That simplified calculation was conducted for the area designated Economic and Education Enterprise, consistent with the rest of Study Area 1 and the other study areas, but such development could not occur without a General Plan Amendment, CEQA review, and LAFCO review.
Furthermore, the Economic and Education Enterprise designation itself limits residential development to that in support of a major job-generator. Any housing would have to be proximate to the job-generator, and housing costs must correspond to the income levels of the jobs generated by the project. The designation does not allow stand-alone residential development.
In summary, staff’s recommendation to maintain an urban land use designation in the area north of Eight Mile Road, within the Sphere of Influence (SOI), is intended to implement City Council direction. In response to public comment, staff has recommended a change to the Economic and Education Enterprise designation to clarify that a General Plan Amendment is required for development in this area.
Clear Boundaries
Comment: During the October 25, 2018, hearing and in a follow-up email to staff, Commissioner Warmsley asked about a strategy for working with the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, and stakeholders on a greenbelt in the area north of Eight Mile Road.
Response: As presented in the staff report and presentation for the October 25, 2018, hearing, the Sierra Club raised the issue of an ag belt between Stockton and Lodi in a memorandum to Mayor Michael Tubbs dated September 20, 2018. In response to this and other public comments on an ag belt or greenbelt between Stockton and Lodi, staff worked with the County to consider potential revisions to Action LU-5.3B. As presented in the staff report for the 10/25/18 hearing (Attachment A to this staff report), staff recommends revising Action LU-5.3B as follows:
Coordinate with San Joaquin County to preserve agricultural land and open space areas in the unincorporated County that contribute to maintaining clear boundaries between cities.
This action, as revised, provides for a separation between Stockton and Lodi, and is consistent with San Joaquin County General Plan Policy LU-1.5, Clear Boundaries, which directs the County to strive to preserve agricultural and open space areas that contribute to maintaining clear boundaries among cities and unincorporated communities. The recommended policy revisions were developed in coordination with County staff. The creation of a greenbelt or ag belt program would be an extensive process that requires participation among the Cities, County, and property owners in the proposed greenbelt/ag belt area. As reported during the public comment period at the October 25, 2018 hearing, the previous attempt by the Cities of Stockton and Lodi and the County to create a greenbelt faltered due to lack of interest by property owners.
To address the challenges presented by the previous greenbelt process, the Planning Commission may consider recommending a change to the action to account for property owners as key stakeholders in agricultural land preservation through the following change (change is shown to the policy, as revised in the staff recommendation):
Coordinate with San Joaquin County and property owners in unincorporated areas to preserve agricultural land and open space areas in the unincorporated County that contribute to maintaining clear boundaries between cities.
Fiscal Impacts of New Development
Comment: During the October 25, 2018 hearing, Commissioner Hull asked how much future development projects will cost the City.
Response: Fiscal impacts of new development to the City are project-specific, including as controlled by provisions of development agreements for a project. Action LU-6.5A requires the preparation of a fiscal impact analysis for large development projects and proposed annexations to ensure a full accounting of infrastructure and public service costs and to confirm whether revenue enhancement mechanisms are necessary to ensure net fiscal balance or better. The action also directs the City to require appropriate fiscal mitigations, when necessary, to ensure the City’s ongoing fiscal health. Action LU-6.5A would ensure that new residential development provide any needed fiscal mitigations to support the City’s fiscal health.
Transit Funding
Comment: During the October 25, 2018 hearing, Commissioner Davie mentioned the comments from the Sierra Club/Campaign for Common Ground in its letter dated October 22, 2018, regarding transit funding, expressing interest in the idea of requiring that development provide funding to support transit, including for operations.
Response: As indicated in the staff report for the October 25, 2018, hearing (Attachment A to this staff report), as part of the City’s commitments under the 2008 Settlement Agreement, the City has approved a transit gap study and program that involves the transmittal of 100 percent of the City’s Local Transportation Fund (LTF) to the San Joaquin Regional Transit District (RTD) for transit purposes, as they are the acknowledged transit provider in Stockton. The LTF is funded through a countywide quarter-cent sales tax.
The October 22, 2018, Sierra Club/Campaign for Common Ground letter recommends policy changes that would specify that new development would contribute to transit funding. The Sierra Club/Campaign for Common Ground recommended changes are presented below. If the Planning Commission would like to require new development to contribute to transit funding, staff concurs with the recommended policy changes from the Sierra Club/Campaign for Common Ground, with the minor change to strike the proposed text “consistent with the Settlement Agreement” at the end of Action TR-2.2B. The reference to the Settlement Agreement is not necessary to convey the intent of the policy.
Action TR-2.2A: Require major new development to incorporate and fund design features to promote safe and comfortable access to transit, such as a circulation network that facilitates efficient and connected bus travel, clear pedestrian and bicycle routes connecting origins and destinations to transit stops, sheltered bus stops, park-and-ride facilities, and highly visible transit information and maps.
Action TR-2.2B: Support local and regional transit operators by ensuring major new development projects are designed to support transit and provide fair share funding of the cost of adequate transit service and access.
Action TR-2.2C: Request that public transit service providers expand routes and increase frequency and operational hours consistent with current short- and long-range transit planning, with the assistance of new development funding.
Senate Bill 244 analysis
Comment: During the October 25, 2018 hearing, Commissioners Hull and Warmsley asked about changes to Appendix B of the General Plan, which presents an analysis of infrastructure and fire protection services for State-defined “disadvantaged unincorporated communities” within Stockton’s SOI. Commissioners requested more information about the deficiencies and how the City will support efforts to address them. Commissioner Warmsley also sent a follow-up email to staff asking about the distribution of water and drainage infrastructure with regard to this analysis.
Response: Senate Bill (SB) 244 requires that cities identify and describe disadvantaged unincorporated communities that are within their SOIs; analyze water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, and structural fire protection needs or deficiencies; and analyze potential funding mechanisms that could make the extension of services and facilities to identified disadvantaged unincorporated communities financially feasible. The City of Stockton first conducted a SB 244 analysis of disadvantaged communities that are outside the city limit, but within the City’s SOI, and their infrastructure and fire protection needs and deficiencies as part of the process to develop the 2015-2023 Housing Element, which was adopted in 2016. The 2016 SB 244 analysis was included in the Draft Envision Stockton General Plan as Appendix B.
As presented by the General Plan consultant during the October 25, 2018 hearing, after the Draft General Plan was published, staff has identified needed corrections to aspects of the information presented in the SB 244 analysis. Specifically, as part of our recent work on the Interim Sphere of Influence Plan/Sphere of Influence Review for LAFCO, staff has updated the information and findings, primarily related to wastewater and stormwater infrastructure, in the identified disadvantaged unincorporated communities. The changes that are required to update this appendix consistent with the updated analysis are shown in Attachments B and C to this staff report. Therefore, staff recommends that Appendix B be replaced with the updated version in Attachments B and C to this staff report (both a clean and tracked changes version are provided).
To address infrastructure deficiencies in the disadvantaged unincorporated communities, the Draft General Plan includes Action CH-2.3E, which directs the City to work with wastewater and water utilities to seek funding to complete sewer and water systems in areas within the SOI where parcels still rely on septic systems and wells.
Given that the updated SB 244 analysis also identifies stormwater infrastructure deficiencies, staff recommends revising Action CH-2.3E as follows:
Action CH-2.3E: Work with wastewater, water, and stormwater utilities to seek funding to complete sewer, water, and stormwater systems in areas within the SOI where parcels still rely on septic systems, wells, and roadside ditches.
The State does not require the City to budget for infrastructure improvements to address deficiencies, nor is that appropriate at the General Plan level. However, consistent with Action CH-2.3E, the City will work with utility providers to seek funding to complete needed infrastructure improvements in identified disadvantaged unincorporated communities.
EIR Table 3-3
Comment: During the October 25, 2018 hearing, Commissioner Hull asked about Table 3-3 in the EIR, which presents the 2040 development by study area. In a follow-up phone conversation with staff, Commissioner Hull also asked about the row in Table 3-3 that is labeled “outside of study areas,” and questioned where that is geographically and how development numbers within it were derived.
Response: As discussed in the Final EIR and in the staff report for the October 25, 2018 hearing, Table 3-3 in the EIR reports the theoretical full buildout of the General Plan in order to explain the methodology that was used to develop the 2040 horizon-year development projections. Specifically, to estimate the 2040 development projection, a percentage of the full theoretical buildout potential was distributed among the geographic “study areas” defined through the community participation process for the General Plan update. The formatting of Table 3-3 was modified in the Final EIR in order to better demonstrate how the 2040 development numbers were estimated. The only changes made to Table 3-3 in the revised version were to italicize and use a gray font for the columns that provide the background calculations used to estimate the 2040 development, which is shown in black, non-italicized font. A note at the bottom of the table was also added for further clarification. No changes to the content of the table were made. The row labeled “outside of study areas” refers to the geographic areas that are not part of the identified study areas or the approved or pending development projects that are shown in Figure 3-5 of the Draft EIR. Therefore, all areas that are not shown in orange or with red or green hatching in Figure 3-5 of the Draft EIR are the areas to which this row of Table 3-3 refers. The EIR assumes that approximately 1,500 single family units would be developed throughout this area by 2040. The locations of development would be dependent on zoning capacity and market demands.
Approved Development
Comment: In an email following the October 25, 2018 hearing, Commissioner Warmsley asked about existing approved development projects and development capacity, including in south Stockton, and how they relate to new development that could occur under the Draft General Plan.
Response: As shown in Figure 3-5 and Table 3-4 of the Draft EIR, there are numerous approved development projects that have not been constructed. There are also projects that have only been partially constructed, such as Weston Ranch and in southeast Stockton. Such projects are already entitled, and the General Plan would not change those entitlements. Many projects have stalled due to infrastructure constraints and/or market conditions, but market conditions are improving. For example, the Weston Ranch project has infrastructure in place, and both housing and retail developers are in discussion with City staff about moving forward with their projects given the market conditions today. Similarly, in south Stockton, industrially-designated land in the existing and Draft General Plan has seen significant development interest and activity in the last three to four years, a trend that is expected to continue over the next three years.
While the Draft General Plan includes land use designations that allow for other development outside of these approved projects, it would not change their entitlements; project construction depends on decisions by developers based on infrastructure constraints and market conditions, among other factors.
General Plan Implementation
Comment: Following the continued October 25, 2018 public hearing, Commissioner Warmsley asked staff about how to integrate the General Plan back to stakeholders and community members.
Response: The Draft General Plan includes significant changes to the 2035 General Plan both from a process perspective (i.e., a community- and stakeholder-driven process this time) and from significant changes to the land use map (i.e., pulling back urban boundaries). The General Plan also establishes a framework for implementation policies and programs that is more feasible than the 2035 General Plan. The City is already planning a number of post-adoption steps that will ensure the updated Plan is implemented by the City and stakeholders, including the following:
• Preparation of an implementation plan addressing each action in the adopted General Plan.
• Comprehensive rezoning of land use throughout the city to be consistent with the General Plan land use map.
• Detailed infrastructure analysis and revised development impacts fees to right-size infill and new growth fees.
• A comprehensive Development Code update to streamline infill development.
Comment Letters
During the two weeks prior to the October 25, 2018 hearing, staff received three comment letters on the Draft General Plan. Staff recommendations and responses to those comment letters are provided below, as requested by the Planning Commission at the October 25, 2018, hearing.
League of Women Voters
This section provides staff recommendations and responses to the comments contained in the League of Women Voters letter dated 10/8/18 (Attachment D). The League of Women Voters also emailed staff some follow-up questions after the October 25, 2018 hearing; the email is provided in (Attachment E), and responses are also provided below.
Comment: The League of Women Voters letter states that a substantial amount of development is already approved and pending in north Stockton, and expresses opposition to designating the area north of Eight Mile Road as Economic and Education Enterprise. As part of this comment, the League provides information about campus land area needs, listing examples of university campuses ranging in size from approximately 100 to 400 acres, and suggesting that University Park is currently underutilized. The League expresses concern that the Economic and Education Enterprise designation will jeopardize growth and redevelopment of existing infill neighborhoods.
Response: Please see the staff response to the Planning Commission comment about the Economic and Education Enterprise designation above. As explained in that response, staff recommends maintaining the Economic and Education Enterprise designation as shown in the Draft General Plan land use map in order to implement Council direction, including Council’s direction to apply the designation over an area larger than required for one catalyst project in order to allow flexibility for the locations of potential future projects based on the needs of individual projects.
In addition, the Draft General Plan includes numerous policies and actions to promote infill development; the most relevant policies and actions are listed below:
• Action LU-6.1F: Adjust the Public Facilities Fee structure to encourage development in areas where infrastructure is already present and ensure that non-infill pays its fair share of anticipated citywide capital facilities and operational costs.
• Policy LU-6.2: Prioritize development and redevelopment of vacant, underutilized, and blighted infill areas.
• Action LU-6.2A: Implement an infill incentive program that encourages infill through expedited permitting, changes in fee structures, and other strategies.
• Action LU-6.2B: Do not approve future annexations or City utility connections unless they are consistent with the overall goals and policies of the General Plan and do not adversely impact the City’s fiscal viability, environmental resources, infrastructure and services, and quality of life.
• Action LU-6.5A: Require preparation of a fiscal impact analysis for large development projects and annexations to ensure a full accounting of infrastructure and public service costs, and require fiscal mitigations when necessary.
Question: Within Study Area 1 (as referenced in Table 3-3 of the EIR), do you have an estimate of the number of acres south of Eight Mile Road and the number of acres west of Interstate 5 and north of Eight Mile Road?
Response: The area within Study Area 1 that is south of Eight Mile Road totals approximately 1,060 acres. The area within Study Area 1 that is west of Interstate 5 and north of Eight Mile Road totals approximately 1,640 acres.
Question: Are all of the 1,200 multi-family homes and the 39,000 square feet of commercial space shown in EIR Table 3-3 as anticipated to occur before 2040 within Study Area 1 located in the portion of this study area that is south of Eight Mile Road?
Response: Yes.
Sierra Club/Campaign for Common Ground
This section provides staff recommendations and responses to the comments contained in the Sierra Club/Campaign for Common Ground letter dated October 22, 2018 (Attachment F).
Comment: Encourage housing along major corridors and discourage “power centers” at the edge of the city through the following policy/action edits:
Policy LU-1.1: Encourage retail businesses and housing development in mixed-use developments along regional transportation routes and in areas that serve local residents.
Action LU-1.1C: Prohibit the siting of any additional big-box “power centers” at the edges of the city to limit growth inducing impacts to adjacent farmlands. If big-box stores are allowed in the future, require applicants to fund an analysis of economic and blight-inducement impacts of the proposed development on retail businesses in the market area, employment, City revenues and services, and any other relevant economic considerations.
New Action LU-1.1D: Encourage the redevelopment of struggling under-utilized commercial strips into multi-family housing opportunities.
Response: Staff concurs with the recommended text edits provided above, with the exception of the edits to Action LU-1.1C. As described in the Final EIR, Action LU-1.1C, which is already being studied by the City, was included in the Draft General Plan based on consistent community support from neighborhoods in South Stockton that lack access to grocery stores and other large-scale retail. Residents cited the Big Box Ordinance as the cause for the abandonment of a potential big box store project in the area that would have provided needed retail options. Therefore, staff does not recommend striking the first portion of this action. However, if the Planning Commission would like to limit the siting of big-box power centers at the edges of the city, the suggested new text could still be added to the action without conflicting with previous input.
Comment: Ensure that development at the edge of the city does not compete with housing goals for the Downtown through the following new action:
New Action LU-2.2D: Discourage urban development at the edges of the city that would detract from or compete with the housing goals of the Greater Downtown.
Response: Staff concurs with this recommended new action.
Comment: Strengthen the protection of historic resources policy through the following action edits:
Action LU-3.1E: Maintain and periodically update the City’s historical resources inventory and adopt a priority list to protect the most important resources.
Response: Staff concurs with the recommended action edits.
Comment: Delete the 3,800-acre “Economic and Education Enterprise” land use designation from the land use map and retain the designation on lands north of Eight Mile Road in the Agricultural and Open Space designation.
Response: Please see the staff response to the Planning Commission comment about the Economic and Education Enterprise designation above. As explained in that response, staff recommends maintaining the Economic and Education Enterprise designation as shown in the Draft General Plan land use map in order to implement Council direction.
Comment: Revise the existing policy on large-scale development projects and incorporate new action items describing the intent and process if land is to be designated for Economic and Education Enterprise in the future, as shown in the following policy and action edits:
Policy LU-4.1: Encourage large-scale development proposals in appropriate locations that include significant numbers of higher-wage jobs and local revenue generation. Such development may utilize the Economic and Education Enterprise land use designation, if the proposal meets all of the criteria listed under the definition of the designation.
New Action LU-4.1D: The City will consider future amendments to the General Plan for extraordinary growth plans outside the Urban Services Boundary that include significant job generators or public institutions such as a college campus.
New Action LU-4.1E: The Economic and Education Enterprise land use designation may be applied to lands proposed for significant job generators through the amendment process, following completion of a full environmental analysis and a land availability study that concludes there is no other land available for the project within the existing City limits. Approval and construction of the first phase of the job generator must be completed prior to the consideration of any accompanying housing development.
Response: Because the staff-recommended approach would maintain the Economic and Education Enterprise designation on the General Plan land use map, the proposed new Action LU-4.1E would be redundant with the land use map. Therefore, staff does not recommend this new action.
However, the revisions to Policy LU-4.1 and the recommended new Action LU-4.1D would not conflict with staff’s recommended approach to the Economic and Education Enterprise designation, and therefore staff concurs with those recommendations, with a minor wording change to the text of Action LU-4.1D, as follows (edits below are to the text as originally recommended in the letter):
Action LU-4.1D: Consider future amendments to the General Plan for extraordinary growth plans outside the Urban Services Boundary that include significant job generators or public institutions such as a college campus.
Comment: Amend Policy LU-5.3 and Action LU-5.3B to finally establish an Ag Belt between Stockton and Lodi, as shown in the following policy and action edits:
Policy LU-5.3: Actively work to conserve prime agricultural lands outside the City boundaries and Ddefine discrete and clear city edges that preserve agriculture, open space, and scenic views.
Action LU-5.3B: The City, in coordination with San Joaquin County, the City of Lodi, the California Farmland Trust, residents and affected landowners, shall prepare an Agricultural Belt Action Plan that addresses, among other items, how to target the agricultural mitigation fees that are collected by the two cities and the County toward purchasing easements within a defined buffer area between Stockton and Lodi. The location of the Agricultural Belt area shall be identified in a non-parcel specific, general fashion on the Plan Land Use Diagram map.
Response: Please see the staff response to the Planning Commission comment about clear boundaries above. As explained in that response, staff recommends different policy wording based on coordination with San Joaquin County.
Comment: Disallow expansion of the Urban Service Area and annexation unless there is a shortage of developable land and all standards are met, as shown in the following action edits:
Action LU-6.2B: Prohibit Urban Service Area expansion, future annexations or City utility connections unless there is less than a 10-year supply of developable land within the city limits and the expansion is consistent with the overall goals and policies of the General Plan and do not adversely impact the City’s fiscal viability, environmental resources, infrastructure and services, and quality of life.
Response: Staff does not concur with this recommended change to the action because it would limit the flexibility required to promote economic development in the city. Establishing a threshold of a ten-year supply of development land could deter businesses from locating in Stockton if the available land supply does not meet the specific needs of the business.
Comment: Add an action item to ensure adequate water supply is phased to meet the demands of growth, as shown in the following new action:
New Action LU-6.3D: The City shall ensure that water supply capacity and infrastructure are in place, or planned and financed, prior to granting initial approvals for new development. The City shall pursue approval and construction of the second phase of the Delta Water Supply Project to serve new growth and reduce groundwater withdrawal. However, if Phase 2 is delayed or not approved by the State, the City shall phase or defer the approval of new growth until new surface water supplies are in place.
Response: Staff does not concur with this recommended new action. The first sentence is redundant with Action LU-6.1E, which directs the City to not approve new development unless there is infrastructure in place or planned and funded to support the growth. As explained in the Final EIR, if Phase 2 of the Delta Water Supply Project does not happen, there is still adequate water supply to serve projected development through 2040.
Comment: Strengthen the following land use policy to tie it with climate change goals and add a new action, as shown below:
Policy LU-6.4: Ensure that land use decisions balance travel origins and destinations in as close proximity as possible, and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
New Action LU-6.4D: Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per household by planning new housing in closest proximity to employment centers, improving and funding public transportation and ridesharing, and facilitating more direct routes for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Response: Staff concurs with the recommended policy edits and new action.
Comment: Require major new development to incorporate and fund transit facilities and service, which is required by the Settlement Agreement.
Response: Please see the staff response to the Planning Commission comment about transit funding above. As explained in that response, staff concurs with the recommended action edits.
Comment: Strengthen the following transportation policy and add a new action, as shown below:
Policy TR-3.2: Require new development and transportation projects to reduce travel demand and greenhouse gases, support electric vehicle charging, and accommodate multi-passenger autonomous vehicle travel as much as feasible.
New Action TR-3.2D: Require projected traffic levels of new development to meet the recommended State threshold of 15 percent below baseline VMT per capita through smart growth design and other incentive programs.
Response: Staff concurs with the recommended edits to Policy TR-3.2, with minor text changes, as shown below (edits below are to the text as originally recommended in the letter):
Policy TR-3.2: Require new development and transportation projects to reduce travel demand and greenhouse gases gas emissions, support electric vehicle charging, and accommodate multi-passenger autonomous vehicle travel as much as feasible.
Staff does not concur with the recommended new Action TR-3.2D because it would be redundant with Policy TR-4.3 and Action TR-4.3A, which are listed below:
Policy TR-4.3: Use the threshold recommended by the California Office of Planning and Research for determining whether VMT impacts associated with land uses are considered significant under State environmental analysis requirements.
Action TR-4.3A: Amend the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines to:
• Establish a threshold of 15 percent below baseline VMT per capita to determine a significant transportation impact under the California Environmental Quality Act.
• Identify screening criteria that will streamline certain types of development and/or development in certain areas by not requiring a VMT analysis.
Comment: Consider adoption (not just study) of an inclusionary housing program, as shown in the following action edits:
Action CH-4.1B: Consider adoption of inclusionary housing requirements, in-lieu fee levels, density bonus, modified fee structures, and/or tax incentives to promote the inclusion of a meaningful percentage of affordable units within market rate housing projects.
Response: Staff does not concur with the recommended action edits. The first step towards developing an inclusionary housing program is to conduct a feasibility study, which is directed in the original draft action. In addition, the original action is consistent with the direction provided in the adopted 2015-2023 Housing Element.
Healthy Neighborhoods Collaborative
This section provides staff recommendations and responses to the comments contained in the Healthy Neighborhoods Collaborative letter dated October 22, 2018 (Attachment G).
Land Use
Comment: Add the following new actions under Policy LU-5.2:
New Action: Enforce water conservation measures.
New Action: Coordinate with water agencies and non-profit organizations to promote public awareness on water quality and conservation issues and consistency in water quality impacts analyses.
Response: Staff concurs with the recommended new actions, with a modification to the first action, as shown below (edits below are to the text as originally recommended in the letter):
New Action: Comply with applicable water conservation measures.
Use of the word “enforce” implies that water conservation measures are not currently enforced, which may lead to a misunderstanding with agencies, stakeholders, and citizens.
Comment: Add the following new action under Policy LU-6.2:
New Action: Ensure prioritization of development and redevelopment of vacant, underutilized, and blighted infill areas be considered through strategies such as zoning changes and anti-gentrification methods.
Response: Staff concurs with the recommended new actions, with a minor text change, as shown below (edits below are to the text as originally recommended in the letter):
New Action: Ensure prioritization of development and redevelopment of vacant, underutilized, and blighted infill areas be considered through strategies such as zoning changes and strategies to avoid gentrification.
Comment: Add the following new action under Policy LU-6.3:
New Action: Require a no-idling zone within a 1 to 2 block radius on both sides of streets and side streets of schools locations.
Response: The California Air Resources Board has adopted a statewide no-idling policy. Therefore, this action would be redundant with State law. Staff recommends the following language instead:
New Action: Comply with State requirements that limit the idling of motor vehicles.
Comment: Amend the following land use actions, as shown below:
Action LU-6.4B: Maintain a reasonable proximity and balance (i.e., magnitude) between job generating uses, housing opportunities, and resident services and amenities, including transit and active transportation.
Action LU-6.6B: Participate in the San Joaquin Council of Governments’ (SJCOG) regional planning programs and coordinate City plans and programs with those of SJCOG, including the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, among others, and work with non-profit organizations also engaging in these planning programs.
Action LU-6.7A: Work with community-based organizations to develop and implement a comprehensive and accountable long-term strategy to engage the Stockton community in planning decisions.
Response: Staff concurs with the recommended edits.
Community Health
Comment: Amend the following community health actions, as shown below:
Action CH-1.1A: Plant and maintain appropriate shade trees along all City streets to reduce heat exposure, prioritizing areas of the city with significantly less tree canopy, and provide a buffer between the travel way and bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and provide other amenities like well-marked crosswalks, bulb-outs, and pedestrian-scale street lighting.
Action CH-1.1B: Prepare a parks master plan through an open and engaging process inclusive of community residents that assesses the quality and distribution of existing parks, facilities, and community centers throughout the city relative to the population served (i.e., within a set walking distance) and their needs (i.e., considering age, income, and abilities), and, based on this information, identifies and prioritizes new, renovation, and expansion park and community center projects and describes funding means and timelines.
Action CH-1.2D: Prioritize pedestrian and active transportation improvement projects in low-income/disadvantaged communities that connect residential areas to retail locations that sell healthy food.
Response: Staff concurs with the recommended edits.
Comment: Add the following new actions under Policy CH-1.3:
New Action: Adopt and Implement an Urban Agriculture Incentive Zone (per AB 551) to allow privately-owned vacant property to be productively used for growing food.
New Action: Partner with nonprofits, local farmers and San Joaquin County Public Health Services to conduct public outreach and education to aid in the development of an urban agriculture ordinance
New Action: Identify new potential locations for farmers’ markets in low-income and nutrient deficient neighborhoods, including opportunities to hold markets on publicly owned land.
Response: Staff concurs with the recommended new actions.
Comment: Amend the following community health policies and actions, as shown below:
Policy CH-2.1: Prioritize maintenance of streets and improvement of sidewalks, parks, and other infrastructure in areas of the city that historically have been comparatively underserved by public facilities, including implementation of complete streets where needed, especially in conjunction with infrastructure maintenance and improvement projects.
Action CH-2.1A: When considering parks and infrastructure maintenance and improvement projects, consider the following through an open and engaging process inclusive of community residents:
• Whether the affected community is underserved or disadvantaged.
• What the priority needs of the community are and whether the project would address those needs.
• Whether the project would negatively impact the community, such as through increased exposure to pollutants or displacement of residents or local businesses.
Action CH-2.1B: Provide incentives for rehabilitation or redevelopment of distressed properties that takes into consideration anti-gentrification strategies.
Response: Staff concurs with the recommended edits, with a minor text change, as shown below (edits below are to the text as originally recommended in the letter):
Action CH-2.1B: Provide incentives for rehabilitation or redevelopment of distressed properties that takes into consideration strategies to avoid gentrification.
Comment: Amend the following community health actions, as shown below:
Action CH-2.1C: Develop incentives to promote reuse of distressed areas, such as through re-zoning, permit streamlining, density bonuses, and other appropriate tools.
Action CH-2.1D: Conduct marketing to potential developers to encourage the redevelopment and conversion of distressed commercial strips into housing and mixed-use areas that includes strategies to avoid gentrification.
Action CH-2.1F: Work with transit agencies, non-profit organizations, and communities to maintain and improve transit service in underserved and disadvantaged neighborhoods to connect residents with jobs, shopping, and services.
Action CH-2.2A: Aggressively facilitate the conservation and rehabilitation of older neighborhoods through the following approaches:
• Utilize all federal, State, and local programs for conservation and rehabilitation projects.
• Prioritize older disadvantaged neighborhoods for investment using funds such as the Community Development Block Grants.
• Encourage private investment in older neighborhoods.
• Cooperate in joint public-private partnerships to invest in older neighborhoods.
Action CH-2.3A: Build strong ties with disadvantaged communities to ensure that local residents can make significant contributions to planning decisions through the following:
• Use culturally appropriate approaches.
• Consider the convenience of the timing and locations of meetings to community members.
• Use social media and other communication techniques for those without time to attend public meetings.
• Provide translation services and translated materials when needed.
• Partner with non-profit organizations who are already active within the community.
Action CH-2.3B: Expand efforts to repair and rehabilitate substandard housing in disadvantaged communities, taking into consideration anti-gentrification strategies.
Response: Staff concurs with the recommended edits, with a minor text change, as shown below (edits below are to the text as originally recommended in the letter):
Action CH-2.3B: Expand efforts to repair and rehabilitate substandard housing in disadvantaged communities, taking into consideration anti-gentrification strategies to avoid gentrification.
Comment: Amend the following community health policies, as shown below:
Policy CH-3.2: Encourage neighborhood-serving commercial uses in areas where frequently needed goods and services are not widely available, especially for those areas with no availability within a 2-mile radius.
Policy CH-5.1: Accommodate a changing climate through adaptation, mitigation, and resiliency planning and projects.
Response: Staff concurs with the recommended edits.
Comment: Add the following new action under Policy CH-5.1:
New Action: Coordinate with relevant agencies and non-profit organizations to promote public awareness and readiness on natural disaster related emergency preparedness.
Response: Staff concurs with the recommended new action.
Comment: Amend the following community health action, as shown below:
Action CH-5.2C: Expand educational and outreach efforts to promote recycling by residents of multi-family housing, businesses, and schools.
Response: Staff concurs with the recommended edits, with a minor text change, as shown below (edits below are to the text as originally recommended in the letter):
Action CH-5.2C: Expand educational and outreach efforts to promote recycling by occupants of multi-family housing, businesses, and schools.
Transportation
Comment: Amend the following transportation action, as shown below:
Action TR-1.1A: Direct truck traffic to designated truck routes that facilitate efficient goods movement and minimize risk to areas with concentrations of sensitive receptors, such as schools, for example by disallowing truck routes to pass directly on streets where schools are located, and vulnerable road users, like pedestrians and bicyclists.
Response: Staff concurs with the recommended edits, with a modification, as shown below (edits below are to the text as originally recommended in the letter):
Action TR-1.1A: Direct truck traffic to designated truck routes that facilitate efficient goods movement and minimize risk to areas with concentrations of sensitive receptors, such as schools, for example by disallowing any new truck routes to pass directly on streets where schools are located, and vulnerable road users, like pedestrians and bicyclists. The modification would apply the policy to new truck routes; existing truck routes have been established.
Comment: Amend the following transportation action, as shown below:
Action TR-1.1E: Work with local school districts to enhance pedestrian crossings near schools crossing enhancements like stop signs within a two-mile radius of schools, encourage activities like a walking school bus, and create educational programs that teach students bicycle safety.
Response: Staff concurs with the recommended edits, with a modification, as shown below (edits below are to the text as originally recommended in the letter):
Action TR-1.1E: Work with local school districts to enhance pedestrian crossing enhancements like stop signs within neighborhoods around schools, encourage activities like a walking school bus, and create educational programs that teach students bicycle safety.
A two-mile radius would cover an extensive area; enhancements targeted to the neighborhoods around schools would more effectively target school-related pedestrian activity.
Comment: Amend the following transportation action, as shown below:
Action TR-2.1A: Require safe and secure bicycle parking facilities to be provided at major activity centers such as public facilities, employment sites, schools, and shopping and office centers, along with showers and lockers for major employment sites.
Response: Staff does not concur with the recommended edits because the City lacks jurisdiction over schools. Schools are built under the jurisdiction of the State Architect.
Comment: Add the following new action under Policy TR-2.1:
New Action: Maintain and implement the City of Stockton Safe Route to School plan.
Response: Staff concurs with the recommended new action.
Comment: Amend the following transportation policies and actions, as shown below:
Policy TR-2.2: Connect housing and employment development in areas with good transit access through open and inclusive processes where appropriate.
Action TR-2.2B: Obtain input from community residents, relevant non-profit organizations, and local and regional transit operators on major new development projects to ensure projects are designed to support transit and provide adequate transit service and access.
Response: Staff concurs with the recommended edits.
Comment: Add the following new action under Policy TR-2.2:
New Action: Support efforts to electrify buses.
Response: Staff concurs with the recommended new action.
Comment: Amend the following transportation actions, as shown below:
Action TR-3.1B: Where feasible and appropriate, reduce the width of existing streets using bulb-outs, medians, pedestrian islands, shade tree landscaping, appropriate signage, and similar methods, while not jeopardizing emergency response.
Action TR-3.1C: Preserve right-of-way for transit and bicycle uses when designing new roadways and improving existing roadways, and ensuring adequate and clear signage.
Response: Staff concurs with the recommended edits.
Safety
Comment: Amend the following safety policy, as shown below:
Policy SAF-4.3: Coordinate with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District and non-profit organizations to promote public awareness on air quality issues and consistency in air quality impacts analyses.
Comment: Amend Figure 6-1 to match the colors and scale of the CalEnviroscreen map when viewed online.
Response: Staff concurs with the recommended edit to the figure, recognizing that the data would not change - what would change is the way the data is shown (Attachment H).
Accountability
Comment: Add a table or reference to which agency or department is responsible for implementing each of the actions in the General Plan.
Response: Please see the staff response to the Planning Commission comment about the General Plan implementation above. As explained in that response, the City is already planning a number of post-adoption steps that will ensure the updated Plan is implemented by the City and stakeholders, including through preparation of an implementation plan addressing each action in the adopted General Plan; the implementation plan will specify the party responsible for implementation of each action.
Present Situation:
The Planning Commission will receive a staff presentation on the proposed draft Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan Update, Utility Master Plan Supplements, and the Final Environmental Impact Report. This presentation will include proposed changes based on comments/input received from the community, stakeholders, the Commission, and City Council. After consideration of the public draft General Plan documents and proposed changes, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve:
• Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR); and
• Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan Update; and
• Utility Master Plan Supplements (UMPS).
Attachment A - October 25, 2018, Planning Commission Staff Report with Attachments
Attachment B - Appendix B - SB 244 Analysis - Clean Version
Attachment C - Appendix B - SB244 Analysis - Track Changes Version
Attachment D - LWV October 8, 2018, Letter
Attachment E - LWV October 29, 2018, Email
Attachment F - CCG/Sierra Club October 22, 2018, Letter
Attachment G - Healthy Communities Collaborative, October 22, 2018, Letter
Attachment H - Revised Figure 6-1