March 6, 2024 - 5:00 to 7:00 p.m.
LET'S GROW WITH US
Review & discuss alternative amendments
Potential modifications will be presented to
City Council for consideration by July 2024
Robert J. Cabral Agricultural Center
2101 E. Earhart Ave, Assembly Room 2
Stockton, CA 95206
www.stocktonca.gov/ZoningUpdate
Contact:
Community Development Department
Matt Diaz, Advanced Planning Manager
345 N. El Dorado Street, Stockton, CA 95202
(209) 937-8598 - or - [email protected]
For a link and log-in
information to attend
online, use the QR code
or visit the website:
ATTACHMENT C
6 demarzo de 2024 - 5:00 a 7:00 p.m.
LET'S GROW WITH US
Revisar y discutir enmiendas alternativas
Posibles modificaciones se presentarán al
Ayuntamiento para su consideración antes de
julio de 2024
Robert J. Cabral Agricultural Center
2101 E. Earhart Ave, Assembly Room 2
Stockton, CA 95206
www.stocktonca.gov/ZoningUpdate
Contacto:
Matt Diaz, Gerente de Planificación Avanzada
Departamento de Desarrollo Comunitario
345 N. El Dorado Street, Stockton, CA 95202
(209) 937-8598 - o - [email protected]
Para obtener un enlace
e información de inicio
de sesión para asistir en
línea, utilice el código
QR o visite el sitio web:
ATTACHMENT C
Public Workshop
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT:
Modifications to Industrial Warehouse Standards
March 6, 2024
5:00 – 7:00 PM
Robert J. Cabral Agricultural Center
2101 E. Earhart Avenue,
Stockton, California 95206
ATTACHMENT C
City Staff
Moderator: Stephanie Ocasio (CDD Director)
Presenter: Matt Diaz (Planning Manager)
Support: Mike McDowell (Assistant Director)
John Schweigerdt (Building Official)
Secretary: Anson Lihosit (Senior Planner)
Teams: Adriana Guerrero (Executive Assistant)
ATTACHMENT C
Tonight’s Schedule
• Introduction & Background
5:00 – 5:15 PM
• Solar Installation
5:15 – 5:30 PM
• Truck Charging
5:30 – 5:45 PM
• Automobile Charging
5:45 – 6:00 PM
• Setback Restrictions
6:00 – 6:15 PM
• Increase Minimum Size
6:15 – 6:30 PM
• Ordinance Applicability
6:30 – 6:45 PM
• Q/A
6:45 – 7:00 PM
• End of Workshop
7:00 PM
ATTACHMENT C
Workshop Structure
• In order to cover all 6 modifications within the 2-hour block, each will be given a 15-minute session.
• Should a session need less time, that time can be added to another session.
• Each topic will begin with a brief 5-minute summary, followed by a 10-minute open dialogue
• In-Person: Please raise your hands for questions/comments • Teams: Please submit your comments via the Chat feature – Public comments from Teams attendees will be read out loud and responded to by staff.
– The Teams meeting will be recorded.
• Should session time run out, please submit your comment via note card (in-person) or chat (Teams). Staff will follow-up with you. • Additional comments can be made via note cards, on display boards, or contacting staff directly at: [email protected]
ATTACHMENT C
Ground Rules
• Be civil and respectful towards all commentors and attendees. • Do not interrupt others while they're speaking
• To ensure time for the 6 modifications, off-topic questions and comments cannot be discussed during the workshop. Please submit those in writing to the "Parking Lot basket". Staff will follow up with you. • Commentors/Attendees shall not make personal, impertinent, unduly repetitive, slanderous or profane remarks tostaff or the general public, nor utter loud, threatening, personal or abusive language, nor engage in any other conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise unreasonably impedes the orderly conduct of the Workshop.
• Any person who makes such remarks, who utters loud, threatening, personal or abusive language, who is unduly repetitious or engages in extended discussion of irrelevancies, or who engages in any disorderly conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise unreasonably impedes the orderly conduct of the Workshop shall, at the discretion of staff, be asked to leave.
ATTACHMENT C
Background
• In 2022, the City agreed to present new
industrial warehouse ordinance to the City
Council for consideration by 12/31/23.
• Over 20 meetings and numerous
communications from August - October '23:
– Planning Commission Ad-Hoc Committee
– Environmental and Industry Advisors
– Meeting with Residents and Citizens
– Attorney General's Office
– Other Cities with Warehouse Ordinances
– Environmental and Climate Professionals
– Industry Experts (project review)
ATTACHMENT C
Background (con’t)
Tonight’s workshop is to solicit feedback on the six modifications.
Modification analysis must be brought back to Council by July 9th.
Following adoption, based on public comments received, the Council directed staff to explore six (6) modifications to the adopted ordinance.
The City Council considered 3 ordinance options and adopted an ordinance (Option C) on 12/12/23 (effective January 11, 2024).
ATTACHMENT C
Public Comment Source
Clarification for solar installation. Stockton Environmental Justice Advocates (EJA)
Adjustments to truck charging requirements. Stockton Environmental Justice Advocates
Adjustments to
automobile charging requirements.
Stockton Environmental
Justice Advocates
Adjustments to setback standards. Stockton Environmental Justice Advocates
Change the Ordinance to apply to warehouses
400,000 square feet and greater instead
of 100,000 square feet and greater.
Chamber of
Commerce / San
Joaquin Partnership
Change Ordinance to apply to annexation
projects submitted after December 31, 2023.
Holman Investors,
LLC
AWorkshop Materials
Six Potential Modifications
ATTACHMENT C
Solar Installation
Origin: Proposed by EJA
Proposed Modification(s):
“The solar system installation should be done by owners, operators, tenants, or a qualified solar system contractor.” Considerations:
Current processes and standards already require this for entitlements and construction (Building) permit approval.
Possible inclusion in Code for clarification.
ATTACHMENT C
Truck Charging
Origin: Proposed by EJA
Proposed Modification(s): Facilitate future charging stations by expanding the current electric vehicle charging station infrastructure requirement to include light-heavy duty (LHD) and medium-heavy duty (MHD) in addition to heavy-heavy duty (HHD) trucks.
Conduit should be provided on the site to serve 50% of the number of truck docking stations. Location of conduit is at discretion of the developer (e.g., truck trailer parking spaces or docking stations.
ATTACHMENT C
Truck Charging (con’t)
Considerations:
Potential to increase future EV charging stations and EV-ready facilities.
Potential added cost for additional spaces.
CALGreen Code currently has EV infrastructure requirements for medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks for warehouse uses.
In addition to the conduit requirements, CALGreen requires upsizing of the electrical service and designated areas for future electrical equipment.
ATTACHMENT C
Automobile Charging
Origin: Proposed by EJA
Proposed Modification(s):
• At least 10% of all passenger vehicle parking spaces
shall be electric vehicle (EV) ready.
• At least 5% of all passenger vehicle parking spaces
shall be equipped with working Level 2 Quick charge
EV charging stations.
• Signage shall be installed indicating EV charging
stations and specifying that spaces are reserved for
clean air/EV vehicles.
ATTACHMENT C
Automobile Charging
Considerations:
• Amendment requests 10% EV ready parking spaces
CALGreen Code currently requires between 16%-40% EV ready spaces
• Amendment requests 5% EV equipped parking spaces
CALGreen Code currently requires between 4%-7% EV equipped spaces
• Amendment includes a maintenance requirement for the EV charging stations
CALGreen Code does not include a maintenance provision related to EVs
• Potential requirement of additional EV charging spaces in limited situations.
• Added cost for additional spaces.
ATTACHMENT C
Automobile Charging
Total Number Of
Actual Parking
Spaces
Number Of
Required EV
Capable
Spaces
% of EV
Capable
Required by
CALGreen
Number Of EVCS
(EV Capable
Spaces Provided
With EVSE)
% of EV Equipped
Required by
CALGreen
0–9 0 0% 0 0%
10-25 4 16%-40% 0 0%
26–50 8 16%-30% 2 4%-7%
51–75 13 17%-25% 3 4%-6%
76–100 17 17%-22% 4 4%-5%
101–150 25 16%-25% 6 4%-6%
151–200 35 17%-23% 9 4.5%-6%
201 and over 20 percent of
total 20% 25 percent of EV
capable spaces ~5%
CALGreen Table 5.106.5.3.1 (% columns added)
ATTACHMENT C
Setback Restrictions
Origin: Proposed by EJA
Proposed Modification(s):
• Add a building setback requirement of 2:1 setback-to- height ratio
• Prohibit any truck (EV or fuel) movement/access within a 300-foot buffer adjacent to sensitive receptors.
• Remove two adopted exceptions pertaining to physical
limitations and zero emission vehicles
ATTACHMENT C
Considerations:
• Impacts to project site design via restrictions to
building placement, parking and access location
options, and what could be located within the
300-foot buffer.
• Would significantly impact site design for
smaller projects and require additional land
area.
• Accelerated annexation requests and resulting
premature conversion of agriculture lands.
Setback Restrictions (con’t)
ATTACHMENT C
GP Industrial Areas (Blue)
ATTACHMENT C
Warehouse Sizes & Required
Land*
➔
Logistic
Warehouse
Size &
Acreage
Needed
* Based on adopted Ordinance language
ATTACHMENT C
Setback Project Example
ATTACHMENT C
Setback Project Example
ATTACHMENT C
Vacant
Industrial
Parcels
Larger than
5.5-acres
(Required for
100,000+sf
development)
ATTACHMENT C
Areas not subject to
300ft buffer
Setback/Buffer Example #1
ATTACHMENT C
Areas not subject to
300ft buffer
Setback/Buffer Example #2
ATTACHMENT C
Setback/Buffer Example #3
Purple= Industrial Designated Land
Hatch= 300 ft Buffer
Stars= Receptor Location
Areas not subject to
300 ft buffers
ATTACHMENT C
Increased Size
Origin: Chamber of Commerce / San Joaquin
Partnership
Proposed Modification: Increase the applicable
minimal size requirement from the adopted
100,000 square feet to 400,000 square feet in
size or greater.
ATTACHMENT C
Increased Size (con’t)
Considerations:
• Smaller facilities (100,000 to 399,999 sqft) would not be subject to the warehouse standards.
• Over the last 7 years, the typical logistics warehouse project measured approximately 420,000 sf
• The last 10 entitled logistics projects measured an average total size range of 700,000sqft to 1,000,000 sf
• Since 2016, 37 building permits have been approved for new warehouses 100,000 sf or greater (average size ±420,000 sqft) • The size required aligns with other City examples provided by the Attorney General’s Office (i.e., Fontana)
• It is anticipated the increase would lessen the impact on smaller facilities and owners (i.e., non-fortune 500 companies). • Minimum lot sizes for new facilities are anticipated to increase from 5.5 acres to 21 acres based on typical lot size needed for facilities of 100,000 and 400,000 square feet in size.
ATTACHMENT C
Annexation Applicability
Origin: Holman Investors, LLC
Proposed Modification(s):
Adopted Warehouse Ordinance standards shall not apply to any new building constructed on property located within the existing City of Stockton City Limits prior to December 31, 2023.
Considerations:
• The standards would only apply to qualifying industrial projects annexed after December 31, 2023.
• Entitled projects that were located within the City Limits prior to December 31, 2023 would be exempt from adopted Warehouse standards under this modification.
ATTACHMENT C
Annexation Applicability
Considerations:
• Standards would only apply to future annexation projects. • Unclear if the request would apply to annexations under the minimum size requirement or annexations approved
but later amended to allow industrial uses.
• Current code already discusses project applicability and “vested” rights of applications when a new standard is
adopted.
• Seems more a policy-driven request on how the City
wishes to utilize the new warehouse standards, than an
additional means to lock in development rights.
ATTACHMENT C
Vacant
Industrial
Parcels
Outside of
City Limits
Larger than 5.5-acres
ATTACHMENT C
Next Steps
CONTINUE
OUTREACH
PLANNING
COMMISSION
INFORMATIONAL
DISCUSSION ON
MARCH 28TH
FINALIZE
ANALYSIS OF
MODIFICATIONS
TENTATIVE
PLANNING
COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION
IN MAY 2024
CITY
COUNCIL BY
JULY 2024
ATTACHMENT C
QUESTIONS?
Contact:
Community Development Department
Matt Diaz, Advanced Planning Manager
345 N. El Dorado Street, Stockton, CA 95202
(209) 937-8598 - or - [email protected]
For a link and log-in information to attend online, use the QR code or visit the website:
ATTACHMENT C
Taller público
ENMIENDA DEL CÓDIGO DE ZONAS:
Modificaciones a los Estándares de Almacenes
Industriales
6 de marzo de 2024
5:00 – 7:00 PM
Robert J. Cabral Agricultural Center
2101 E. Earhart Avenue,
Stockton, California 95206
ATTACHMENT C
Personal de la ciudad
Moderadora: Stephanie Ocasio (Directora de CDD)
Presentador: Matt Diaz (Gerente de planificación)
Apoyo: Mike McDowell (Director asistente)
John Schweigerdt (Oficial de construcción)
Secretario: Anson Lihosit (Planificador senior)
Equipos: Adriana Guerrero (Asistente ejecu tiva)
ATTACHMENT C
Horario de esta noche
• Introducción y antecedentes
5:00 – 5:15 PM
• Instalación solar
5:15 – 5:30 PM
• Carga de camiones
5:30 – 5:45 PM
• Carga de automobiles
5:45 – 6:00 PM
• Restricciones de retroceso
6:00 – 6:15 PM
• Aumentar el tamaño mínimo
6:15 – 6:30 PM
• Aplicabilidad de la ordenanza
6:30 – 6:45 PM
• Preguntas y respuestas
6:45 – 7:00 PM
• Fin del taller
7:00 PM
ATTACHMENT C
Estructura del taller
• Para cubrir las 6 modificaciones dentro del bloque de 2 horas, a cada una se le dará una sesión de 15
minutos.
• Si una sesión necesita menos tiempo, ese tiempo se puede agregar a otra sesión.
• Cada tema comenzará con un b
reve resumen de 5 minutos, seguido por un
diálogo abierto de 1
0 minutos.
• En persona: levanten la mano si tienen preguntas o comentarios. • Teams: envíe sus comentarios a través de la función de chat. – Los comentarios públ
icos de los asistentes a Teams se leerán en voz
alta y el per
sonal responderá.
– La reunión de Teams será grabada.
• Si se acaba
el tiempo de la sesión, envíe su comentario a t ravés de una tarjeta de notas (en persona) o por el chat (Teams). El personal se pondrá en contacto con usted.
• Se pueden hacer comentarios adicionales a través de tarjetas de notas, en tableros de exhibició
n o comunicándose con el personal directamente al:
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT C
Reglas básicas
• Sea civilizado y respetuoso con todos los comentaristas y asistentes. • No interrumpas a los demás mientras hablan.
• Para asegurar tiempo para las 6 modificaciones, las preguntas y comentarios fuera de
tema no se pueden discutir durante el taller.
Envíelos por escrito a la "Cesta del estacionamiento". El personal se pondrá en contacto con usted.
• Los comentaristas/asistentes no deberán hacer comentarios personales, impertinentes, indebidam
ente repetitivos, difamatorios o profanos al
personal o al público en general, ni pronunciar lenguaje alto, amenazante, personal o abusivo, ni participar en ninguna otra conducta que interrumpa, perturbe o de otro modo impida injustificadamente la desarrollo ordenado del taller.
• Cualquier persona que haga tales comentarios, que pronuncie lenguaje alto, amenazante, person
al o abusivo, que sea indebidamente repetitivo o
participe en discusiones extensas sobre irrelevancias, o que participe en cualquier conducta desordenada que interrumpa, perturbe o impida de otra manera irrazonablemente la conducta ordenada de el taller, a discreción del personal, se le pedirá al taller que abandone el taller.
ATTACHMENT C
Contexto
• En 2022, la Ciudad acordó presentar una nueva
ordenanza de almacenes indust
riales al Concejo
Municipal para su consideración antes del
31/12/23.
• Más de 20 reuniones y numerosas comunicaciones
desde agosto - octubre '23:
– Comité ad-hoc de la Comisión de Planificación
– Asesores ambientales y de la industria
– Junta con residentes y ciudadanos
– Oficina del fiscal general
– Otras ciudades con ordenanzas de almacenes
– Profesionales del medio ambiente y el clima
– Expertos de la industria (revisión de proyectos)
ATTACHMENT C
Contexto (cont.)
El taller de esta noche es para solicitar comentarios sobre las seis modificaciones.
El análisis de la modificación debe presentarse al Consejo antes del 9 de julio.
Después de la adopción, basándose en los comentarios públicos recibidos, el Consejo ordenó al personal que explorara seis (6) modificaciones a la ordenanza adoptada.
El Concejo Municipal consideró 3 opciones de ordenanza y adoptó una ordenanza (Opción C) el 12/12/23 (a partir del 11 de enero de 2024).
ATTACHMENT C
Seis posibles modificaciones
Comentario público Origen
Clarificación para instalación solar. Stockton Environmental Justice Advocates (EJA)
Ajustes a los requisitos de carga de camiones. Stockton Environmental Justice Advocates
Ajustes a los requisitos de carga de
automóviles.
Stockton Environmental
Justice Advocates
Ajustes a los estándares de retroceso. Stockton Environmental Justice Advocates
Cambiar la Ordenanza para que se aplique a
almacen de 400,000 pies cuadrados y más
en lugar de 100,000 pies cuadrados y más.
Chamber of
Commerce / San
Joaquin Partnership
Cambiar la Ordenanza para aplicar a los
proyectos de anexión presentados después
del 31 de diciembre de 2023.
Holman Investors,
LLC
ATTACHMENT C
Instalación Solar
Origen: Propuesto por EJA
Modificación(es) propuesta(s):
“La instalación del sistema solar debe ser realizada por propietarios, operadores, inquilinos o un contratista
calificado de sistemas solares.”
Consideraciones:
Los procesos y estándares actuales ya lo exigen para los derechos y la aprobación de permisos de construcción
(construcción).
Posible inclusión en el Código para clarificación.
ATTACHMENT C
Carga de camiones
Origen: Propuesto por EJA
Modificación(es) propuesta(s): Facilitar futuras estaciones de carga ampliando el requisito actual de infraestructura de estaciones de carga de vehículos eléctricos para incluir camiones de servicio liviano-pesado (LHD) y de servicio medio-pesado (MHD) además de camiones de servicio pesado-pesado (HHD).
Se deben proporcionar conductos en el sitio para dar servicio al 50% del número de estaciones de atraque para camiones. La ubicación del conducto queda a discreción del desarrollador (por ejemplo, espacios de estacionamiento para remolques de
camiones o estaciones de atraque).
ATTACHMENT C
Carga de camiones (cont.)
Consideraciones:
Potencial para aumentar futuras estaciones de carga de
vehículos eléctricos e instalaciones preparadas para
vehículos eléctricos.
Costo adicional potencial por espacios adicionales.
CALGreen Code actualmente tiene requisitos de
infraestructura de vehículos eléctricos para camiones de servicio mediano y pesado para usos de almacén. Además
de los requisitos de conductos, CALGreen requiere ampliar el servicio eléctrico y áreas designadas para futuros equipos eléctricos.
ATTACHMENT C
Carga de automóviles
Origen: Propuesto por EJA
Modificación(es) propuesta(s):
• Al menos el 10% de todos los espacios de
estacionamiento de vehí
culos de pasajeros deberán estar
preparados para vehículos eléctricos.
• Al menos el 5 % de todos los espacios de estacionamiento de vehículos de pasajero
s estarán equipados con
estaciones de carga para vehículos eléctricos de carga
rápida de nivel 2 que funcionen.
• Se instalarán señales que indiquen las estaciones de
carga de vehículos eléc
tricos y especifiquen que los
espacios están reservados para vehículos eléctricos/aire limpio.
ATTACHMENT C
Carga de automóviles
Consideraciones:
• La enmienda solicita un 10% de espacios de estacio namiento preparados para vehículos eléctricos
El Código CALGreen actualmente requiere entre 16% y 40% de espacios preparados para vehículos eléctricos
• La enmienda solicita un 5% de espacios de estaci onamiento equipados con vehículos eléctricos
El Código CALGreen actualmente requiere entre 4% y 7% de espacios equipados con vehículos eléctricos
• La enmienda incluye un requisito de mantenimi ento para las estaciones de carga de vehículos eléctricos.
El Código CALGreen no incluye una disposición de mantenimiento relacionada con los vehículos eléctricos
• Posible necesidad de espacios de carga de vehículos eléctri cos adicionales en situaciones limitadas.
• Costo adicional por espacios adicionales.
ATTACHMENT C
Carga de automóviles
Número total de
espacios de
estacionamiento
reales
Número de
espacios
necesarios para
vehículos
eléctricos
% de vehículos
eléctricos con
capacidad
requeridos por
CALGreen
Número de EVCS
(espacios aptos para
vehículos eléctricos
provistos con EVSE)
% de vehículos
eléctricos equipados
requeridos por
CALGreen
0–9 0 0% 0 0%
10-25 4 16%-40% 0 0%
26–50 8 16%-30% 2 4%-7%
51–75 13 17%-25% 3 4%-6%
76–100 17 17%-22% 4 4%-5%
101–150 25 16%-25% 6 4%-6%
151–200 35 17%-23% 9 4.5%-6%
201 o mas 20 por ciento
del total 20%
25 por ciento de
espacios con
capacidad para
vehículos eléctricos
~5%
Tabla CALGreen 5.106.5.3.1 (% de columnas agregadas)
ATTACHMENT C
Restricciones de retroceso
Origen: Propuesto por EJA
Modificación(es) propuesta(s):
• Agregar un requisito de retroceso de l edificio con una relación de retroceso a altura de 2:1
• Prohibir el movimiento/acceso de cualqu ier camión (EV o combustible) dentro de una zona de influencia de 300
pies adyacente a receptores sensibles.
• Eliminar dos excepciones adoptadas relac ionadas con
limitaciones físicas y vehículos de cero emisiones.
ATTACHMENT C
Restricciones de retroceso (cont.)
Consideraciones:
• Impactos en el diseño del sitio del proy ecto a través de restricciones a la ubicación de los edificios,
opciones de ubicación de estacionamiento y
acceso, y lo que podría ubicarse dentro de la zona
de influencia de 300 pies.
• Impactaría signifi
cativamente e l diseño del sitio
para proyectos más pequeños y requeriría área de
terreno adicional.
• Solicitudes de anexión aceleradas y la cons iguiente
conversión prematura de tierras agrícolas.
ATTACHMENT C
Áreas industriales del Plan General (azul)
ATTACHMENT C
Tamaños de almacén y terreno
requerido*
Tamaño del
almacén
logístico y
superficie
necesaria
* Basado en el lenguaje adoptado de la Ordenanza
Tamaño
potencial
(pies
cuadrados)
Cobertura
promedio
Tamaño estimado
del proyecto (pies
cuadrados)
Tamaño
estimado del
proyecto (ac)
ATTACHMENT C
Ejemplo de proyecto de
retroceso
Área:
Perímetro:
ATTACHMENT C
Ejemplo de proyecto de
retroceso
Típico 30 pies
15- Árboles de galón
Propiedad
Línea y propuesta de 10 pies
Pared de sonido
Típico
Casa de
20 pies
50 pies
100 pies 300 pies
ATTACHMENT C
Parcelas
industriales
vacantes
Más de 5.5 acres
(requerido para un
desarrollo de más de
100,000 pies
cuadrados)
ATTACHMENT C
Áreas no sujetas a una zona
de búfer de 300 pies
Ejemplo de retroceso/búfer #1
Morado = terreno industrial designado
Sombreado = Búfer de 300 pies
Estrellas = Ubicación del rec eptor
ATTACHMENT C
Áreas no sujetas a una zona
de búfer de 300 pies
Ejemplo de retroceso/búfer #2
Morado = terreno industrial designado
Sombreado = Búfer de 300 pies
Estrellas = Ubicación del rec eptor
ATTACHMENT C
Ejemplo de retroceso/búfer # 3
Áreas no sujetas a una zona
de búfer de 300 pies
Morado = terreno industrial designado
Sombreado = Búfer de 300 pies
Estrellas = Ubicación del r eceptor
ATTACHMENT C
Tamaño aumentado
Origen: Chamber of Commerce / San Joaquin
Partnership
Modificación(es) propuesta(s): Aumentar el
requisito de tamaño mínimo aplicable de los
100,000 pies cuadrados adoptados a 400,000
pies cuadrados o más.
ATTACHMENT C
Tamaño aumentado (cont.)
Consideraciones:
• Las instalaciones más pequeñas (de 100,000 a 399,999 pies cuadrados) no es
tarían sujetas a los estándares de almacén.
• Durante los últimos 7 años, el proyecto típ ico de almacén logístico midió aproximadamente 420,000 pies cuadrados.
• Los últimos 10 proyectos de logística ti tulados midieron un tamaño total promedio de 700,000 pies cuadrados a 1,000,000 pies cuadrados. • Desde 2016, se han aprobado 37 permisos de con strucción para nuevos almacenes de 100,000 pies cuadrados o más (tamaño promedio ±420,000 pies cuadrados)
• El tamaño requerido se alinea con otros eje mplos de ciudades proporcionados por la Oficina del Procurador General (es decir, Fontana) • Se prevé que el aumento reduciría el impa cto en las instalaciones y propietarios más pequeños (es decir, empresas que no pertenecen a Fortune 500).
• Se prevé que los tamaños mínimos de lote para nue vas instalaciones aumenten de 5.5 acres a 21 acres según el tamaño de lote típico necesario para instalaciones de 100,000 y 400,000 pies cuadrados.
ATTACHMENT C
Aplicabilidad de la anexión
Origen: Holman Investors, LLC
Modificación(es) propuesta(s):
Las normas adoptadas de la Ordenanza de almacén no se aplicarán a ningún edificio nuevo construido en una propiedad ubicada dentro de los límites existentes de la ciudad de Stockton antes del 31 de diciembre de 2023.
Consideraciones:
• Los estándares solo se aplicarían a proyectos indu striales calificados anexados después del 31 de diciembre de 2023. • Los p royectos autorizados que estaban ubi cados dentro de los límites de la ciudad antes del 31 de diciembre de 2023 estarían exentos de los estándares de almacén adoptados según esta modificación.
ATTACHMENT C
Consideraciones:
• Los estándares solo se aplicarían a futuro s proyectos de anexión.
• No está claro si la solicitud se aplicar ía a las anexiones bajo el requisito de tamaño mínimo o a las anexiones aprobadas pero posteriormente modificadas para permitir usos industriales. • El código actual ya analiza la aplicab il idad del proyecto y los derechos “adquiridos” de las aplicaciones cuando se adopta una nueva norma.
• Parece más una solicitud impulsada po r políticas sobre cómo la Ciudad desea utilizar los nuevos estándares de almacén, que un medio adicional para asegurar los derechos de
desarrollo.
Aplicabilidad de la anexión
ATTACHMENT C
Parcelas
industriales
vacantes
fuera de los
límites de la
ciudad
Más de 5.5 acres
ATTACHMENT C
Próximos pasos
CONTINUAR
CON EL
ALCANCE
DISCUSIÓN
INFORMATIVA
DE LA
COMISIÓN DE
PLANIFICACIÓN
EL 28 DE
MARZO
FINALIZAR
ANÁLISIS DE
MODIFICACIONES
CONSIDERACIÓN
DE LA COMISIÓN
DE PLANIFICACIÓN
TENTATIVA EN
MAYO DE 2024
AYUNTAMIENTO
PARA JULIO DE
2024
ATTACHMENT C
¿PREGUNTAS?
Contacto:
Community Development Department
Matt Diaz, Advanced Planning Manager
345 N. El Dorado Street, Stockton, CA 95202
(209) 937-8598 - o - [email protected]
Para obtener un enlace e información para asistir en
línea, utilice el código QR o visite el sitio web:
ATTACHMENT C
WAREHOUSE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
PUBLIC WORKSHOP MEETING NOTES
DATE: March 6, 2024
TIME: 5:00 PM – 7:00 PM
PLACE: Robert J. Cabral Agri
cultural Center, 2102 E. Earhart Avenue, Assembly
Room 2, Stockton, CA 95206
STAFF PRESENT: Stephanie
Ocasio, CDD Director; Michael McDowell, CDD Assistant
Director; John Schweigerdt, Building Deputy Director; Matt Diaz, Advanced Planning Manager; Adriana Guerrero, Executive Assistant; Anson Lihosit, Senior Planner.
ATTENDEES: 30 in person.
RE: Proposed Amendments to the
Warehouse Ordinance
City of Stockton Community Devel
opment Department staff met with the public to review and discuss the proposed amendments to the Warehouse Ordinance. Stephanie Ocasio, CDD Director, presented the introduction, schedule and ground rules for the meeting. Attendees were allowed to provide comments in person at the meeting, via message over the Microsoft Teams online chat, in writing on the proposed modifications posters or on a written notecard. Matt Diaz , Advanced Planning Manager, presented the remainder of the presentation over the background history and the proposed modifications to the Warehouse Ordinance. For the meeting discussion, t he modifications were ordered differently in the presentation than the documents online. To save time, the order of the modifications in the presentation were arranged by order of least challenging to most challenging.
Proposed Modification 1: Solar
Installation
“The solar system installation should be done by owners, operators, tenants, or a qualified solar system contractor.”
Considerations:
Current proc
esses and standards already require this for entitlements and construction (Building) permit approval. Possible inclusion in Code for clarification. • No comments were made by the publ
ic.
Proposed Modification 2: Truc
k Charging
Facilitate future charging stations by expanding the current electric vehicle charging station infrastructure requirement to include light-heavy duty (LHD) and medium -heavy duty (MHD) in addition to heavy-heavy duty (HHD) trucks. Conduit should be provided on the site to serve 50%
ATTACHMENT C
of the number of truck docking stations. Location of conduit is at discretion of the developer (e.g., truck trailer parking spaces or docking stations.
Considerations:
P
otential to increase future EV charging stations and EV-ready facilities. Potential added cost for additional spaces. (CALGreen Code currently has EV infrastructure requirements for medium - duty and heavy- duty trucks for warehouse uses. In addition to the conduit requirements, CALGreen requires upsizing of the electrical service and designated areas for future electrical equipment.)
• District 2 Cou
ncilmember Dan Wright spoke. There seemed to be a desire to have a commitment to charging. The ordinance should state that as a result of bringing a warehouse into Stockton, they need to increase the charging infrastructure. o Matt Diaz responded. That is what the result of the modification would be. Long Beach, CA and the Gateway Cities have found that the energy capacity to charge one truck may be too great for one facility to handle. They have been pushing these charging facilities to dedicated fuel stations. Fuel stations are better equipped to handle this kind of energy capacity.
• District 2 Councilmember Dan Wright spoke. What we don’t want is the warehouse coming in and somehow the infrastructure isn’t increasing. Another city may be gaining the benefit from the infrastructure gains, even though we have the warehouse in our community and our roads suffer from all the trucks driving on them . I’m not 100% committed that it must be on the warehouse site, but the infrastructure must be within the city.
• Trevor Smith spoke. The Ordinance does require onsite charging for trucks in a designated area where conduit would be run to. As a consultant, I am getting calls from companies that are looking for sites to build future gas stations for electric trucks. They are concerned with PG&E’s infrastructure, not the City of Stockton’s infrastructure .
PG&E cannot support the demand that these future gas stations will require. PG&E needs to get their act together and then the companies will start coming here. • Mike Souza spoke. I was going to say the same thing as Trevor. It is a waste of material and money to put charging on dock doors. That is not where the truck is going to charge.
They will charge at on-site facilities or will go to the future stations. I have also received calls over these uses. PG&E’s infrastructure is very constrained in Stockton. o Matt Diaz responded. Some of the more regional or universal issues may be better for the update of the Climate Action Plan that will begin later this year. This is on our radar.
The modification presented would increase capacity for EV conduits. • Online comment from Mary Elizabeth. This is the problem with 1990’s mitigation fees for roads.
Modification 3: A
utomobile Charging
At least 10% of all passenger vehicle parking spaces shall be electric vehicle (EV) ready. At least 5% of all passenger vehicle parking spaces shall be equipped with working Level 2 Quick charge EV charging stations. Signage shall be installed indicating EV charging stations and specifying that spaces are reserved for clean air/EV vehicles.
ATTACHMENT C
Considerations:
-Amendment requests 10% EV ready parking spaces (CALGreen Code currently requires between 16%-40% EV ready spaces).
-Amendment requests 5% EV equipped parking spaces (CALGreen Code currently requires between 4%-7% EV equipped spaces).
-Amendment includes a maintenance requirement for the EV charging stations (CALGreen Code does not include a maintenance provision related to EVs). -Potential requirement of additional EV charging spaces in limited situations. -Added cost for additional spaces.
• No comments were
made by the public.
Modification 4: Se
tback Restrictions
Add a building setback requirement of 2:1 setback-to-height ratio. Prohibit any truck (EV or fuel) movement/access within a 300- foot buffer adjacent to sensitive receptors. Remove two adopted exceptions pertaining to physical limitations and zero emission vehicles.
Considerations:
-I
mpacts to project site design via restrictions to building placement, parking and access location options, and what could be located within the 300-foot buffer. -Would significantly impact site design for smaller projects and require additional land area. -Accelerated annexation requests and resulting premature conversion of agriculture lands. • Online comment. Coul
d you please state in the chat the existing code section in values? o Matt Diaz responded. It is on the newly adopted ordinance online. Staff will check and clarify later in the meeting.
• Online comment. Were there no regulations for setbacks in terms of warehousing prior to the adoption of the Ordinance?
o Matt Diaz responded in the affirmative. T here were setback requirements for warehouses. If the warehouse wasn’t located adjacent to a sensitive receptor, then the setback was twenty feet. If the warehouse was located adjacent to a sensitive receptor, it was a 1:1 ratio. This would double that requirement for anything next to a sensitive receptor and include a prohibition of any truck movement/parking within that 300-foot area.
• Online comment. Tiered setback standards are possible for different warehouse sizes.
See the City of Riverside, Title 19 standards. It sets different setback distances between 10,000 and 100,000 square foot warehouses.
o Matt Diaz responded. I think we looked at some of that for the original adoption. The 2:1 example came from the Attorney General’s Office. If you want a bigger facility, the larger the setback.
o Stephanie Ocasio responded. I believe that during some of the public hearings our local environmental justice advocates stated that the 2:1 requirement was an acceptable figure.
o Matt Diaz agreed. Yes. There was consensus on the 2:1 requirement. • Online comment. On the acreage map, I didn’t notice all of Mariposa Lake included.
ATTACHMENT C
o Matt Diaz responded. We did our best to identify that. Mariposa Lakes does have some industrial properties, but it has not been subdivided or officially annexed yet. Mariposa Lakes is a potential added industrial designation. There may be changes to that project in the future: potentially an amendment. If so, that project will be reviewed at a public hearing in the future.
• Online comment. Follow up question. Would those potential limits go through the CEQA process?
o Matt Diaz responded in the affirmative. Yes. All annexations require review based on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA is a discretionary review not a ministerial review.
• District 2 Councilmember Dan Wright spoke. I would like to add onto that. Any state laws that may pass in the meantime, there are a lot of efforts to make approvals ministerial that increase housing. I would not assume that the state might not throw something down on us that we have no control over.
o Stephanie Ocasio spoke. Would an amendment to the Mariposa Lake approval require another CEQA review?
o Matt Diaz responded in the affirmative. Yes, it would. Even though the EIR was certified by the City Council, it still needs to go to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for approval. They are required to do a CEQA review of it as well.
• Online comment. Are there any ramifications for existing buildings that may have a newly levied buffer location over the top of it? Based on a sensitive receptor; Would it become non-conforming? I.E. along Arch Road?
o Matt Diaz responded. No. The ordinance would not affect existing buildings that were built to code. The same thing goes for entitlements or planning permits that were approved before the adoption of the ordinance, whether they were built or not. o Stephanie Ocasio spoke. That is outlined in the City of Stockton Municipal Code Section 16.04.
Modification 5: I
ncreased Size
Increase the applicable minimal size requirement from the adopted 100,000 square feet to 400,000 square feet in size or greater.
Considerations:
-S
maller facilities (100,000 to 399,999 square feet) would not be subject to the warehouse standards.
-Over the last 7 years, the typical logistics warehouse project measured approximately 420,000 square feet
-The last 10 entitled logistics projects measured an average total size range of 700,000 square feet to 1,000,000 square feet
-Since 2016, 37 building permits have been approved for new warehouses 100,000 sf or greater (average size ±420,000 square feet)
-The size required aligns with other City examples provided by the Attorney General’s Office (i.e., Fontana)
-It is anticipated the increase would lessen the impact on smaller facilities and owners (i.e., non- fortune 500 companies).
ATTACHMENT C
-Minimum lot sizes for new facilities are anticipated to increase from 5.5 acres to 21 acres based on typical lot size needed for facilities of 100,000 and 400,000 square feet in size. • Online comment. I t
hink throughput is an important consideration, not just size. o Matt Diaz responded. That is accurate. There are some examples from other cities that have adopted similar ordinances. The City of Fontana was an example given to us from the Attorney General’s Office. They had a break out range of 100,000-400,000 square feet.
• Online comment. The size required does not align with the City of Riverside, which ranges from 10,000-100,000 square feet, or County of Riverside, 250,000 square feet.
Are there any other examples besides Fontana for the 400,000 square feet? (Follow up:
Throughput is the amount of material of items passing through a system or process, such as output or production.)
o Matt Diaz spoke. Throughput is a more accurate reflection of how you would regulate a facility versus size. We focused on the examples that were given to us for how to regulate logistics warehouses and not all types of warehouses. We should look at the operations for the Climate Action Plans, where you can actually put restrictions on how they operate as opposed to how big they are. There was another example near Fontana that was 400,000 square feet. We talked to an environmental professional down south.
Everyone has a slightly different warehouse market. Ours is similar to the Gateway Cities area.
• Trevor Smith spoke. Where is logistic warehouses defined ? He provided an example of a client, that manufactures a product. Is this a logistic warehouse? He later provided more detail that the client makes soap and has one or two trucks leave the facility a day. o Matt Diaz provided the definition of logistic warehouse and recommended that the client contact the Planning Department. That is a universal definition for logistic warehouses. It would be very difficult to lock down what a logistic is. There are warehouses that have truck movement that take goods and services to other areas. How do we separate that from an Amazon or another large Fortune 500 retailer? • District 2 Councilmember Dan Wright spoke. Are we able to make our own definition? o Stephanie Ocasio spoke. T he definition was directed by the state Attorney General’s Office for the creation of the warehouse ordinance.
o Michael McDowell spoke. The City of Stockton could decide on a definition on our own.
• District 2 Councilmember Dan Wright responded that the definition seems incomplete.
The amount of truck traffic is an important consideration.
Modification 6: Anne
xation Applicability
Adopted Warehouse Ordinance standards shall not apply to any new building constructed on property located within the existing City of Stockton City Limits prior to December 31, 2023.
Considerations:
-T
he standards would only apply to qualifying industrial projects annexed after December 31, 2023.
-Entitled projects that were located within the City Limits prior to December 31, 2023, would be exempt from adopted Warehouse standards under this modification.
ATTACHMENT C
-Standards would only apply to future annexation projects. -Unclear if the request would apply to annexations under the minimum size requirement or annexations approved but later amended to allow industrial uses. -Current code already discusses project applicability and “vested” rights of applications when a new standard is adopted.
-Seems more a policy -driven request on how the City wishes to utilize the new warehouse standards, than an additional means to lock in development rights. • Matt Arnaiz spoke. Wh
ere the city limits were located on the Vacant Industrial Parcels Outside of City Limits map?
o Matt Diaz spoke. The city limits can be very erratic, especially when you get in the southern end.
• Matt Arnaiz spoke. So, there was a big block of purple that is not in the city? o Matt Diaz spoke. Yes. Each project is going to be assessed going forward. Do we want to do this extra layer of added requirements for only specific projects. We are still exploring how to use the ordinance that was adopted.
• District 2 Councilmember Dan Wright spoke. This particular proposal has two competing elements. One is respect for economic development and the plans/investments that people have made in advance to do particular projects. This competes against this idea that we have to mitigate for sensitive receptors. There has to be a sweet spot. We cannot have a policy that says even though you’ve invested tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe more, we are going to implement a new rule after the fact. You must respect both issues.
• Matt Arnaiz spoke. In both agreements : the Sierra Club agreement and the Attorney General’s agreement, it talks about future projects and requirements of new mitigation measures. An existing project that has been annexed into the city already is not subject to new mitigation. I agree with what Councilmember Wright was talking about. I have a property that was annexed in 2008, which I have invested a lot of time and money into to try to get it ready for the market. This is a whole new wrinkle that could set it back, who knows for how long.
o Matt Diaz spoke. He explained the process for different types of projects. He provided the difference between ministerial review and discretionary review. Ministerial review is by-right, objective, a standard review. Discretionary review is subjective, mitigation measures, subject to CEQA review and subject to conditions. In a normal project in the annexation area, all entitlements require discretionary review. They must go through that type of process , no matter what they are proposing. For projects on land that is vacant within the city limits, if you were proposing a new warehouse that is allowed by right by our code: we consider that ministerial. There is no conditional review or CEQA review. It is an objective review of whatever our Code says. The process is what we want to do for sites that do not have vested entitlements. Usually, a vested entitlement has received completeness, noticed for public hearing, or you have an approved project before the code was adopted. This would only apply for anything that does not have an entitlement or building permit on site, that is vacant and within city limits.
Stephanie Ocasi
o completed the presentation describing the next steps in the process including an informational discussion on the March 28, 2024, Planning Commission meeting.
ATTACHMENT C
• Trevor Smith spoke
. Will the March 28, 2024, meeting include a public comment period?
o Stephanie Ocasio spoke. It will be a public noticed meeting, so the public will have the opportunity to comment. There will be a two-minute limit and the Chair will have the option to extend that if they want to. You can provide comments in writing or verbally. • Online comment. The comment about holding land for the future and rules change: If there has not been a project that was approved, the changed rule should apply. Will the workshop be limited to two minutes?
o Stephanie Ocasio spoke. Yes. It is a publicly noticed Planning Commission meeting.
The public comment is limited to two minutes. That is set by the Mayor through the Council Policy Rules and that carries down to the boards and commissions. • Online comment. An additional question over the two-minute maximum for the public comment period.
o Stephanie Ocasio spoke. That was just elaborated on and answered.
Stephanie Ocasi
o closed the presentation. She informed the attendees that they could continue to provide questions/comments to write on a notecard or reach out to Matt Diaz. His telephone and email were provided. A QR code was on the presentation slide that directs to the warehouse documents on the city website.
o Matt Diaz spoke. P
lease sign in on our sign in sheet in the back. You can sign up for email notifications.
• Jazmine Leak spoke. She thanked staff for making the space available for the community to meet and try to understand and develop good policy for people. She stated that she had difficulty with the Microsoft Teams chat and came in person late, due to that. She encouraged people to consider that there are people living in the neighborhoods around the industrial properties in South Stockton. The se people are experiencing health impacts severely (cardiovascular disease and inability to breathe clean air) and over generations. It is a huge problem that we have ahead of us. More development that doesn’t consider that, is only kicking the can further down the road and will be hurting people. I encourage us to think about w hat does a 21 st century
warehouse facility look like? How to protect the people that live there? That may require a deeper level of thinking. I appreciate the comments about the Climate Action Plan process, and I look forward to engaging in that.
• Online comment. The issue with PG&E should be considered a constraint to development.
o Stephanie Ocasio spoke. I think that is consistent with what was said. For the technical issues, we ran through this ahead of time to make sure it worked. I don’t know what happened. I apologize for that.
• Comment from an attendee. Question for the Building Code staff. When was the electric charging Ordinance approved? There being some chargers on-site. o John Schweigerdt spoke. Calgreen code has been required for several years now.
Through state process, every three years that code gets updated. The most recent version was effective January 1, 2023. (2022 version) Within that code, it has minimum
ATTACHMENT C
requirements for EV charging and EV infrastructure. It is something that the state requires; regardless of whether the city adopts it or not. • Follow up comment from the attendee. Are there facilities or projects that were passed, approved or built since then? Are they all going to have chargers? o John Schweigerdt spoke. Yes. Any that were built recently and were subject to th e Calgreen code need to have been EV capable, with the infrastructure. A number of those were required to have a charger. This applies to more than just warehouses. It applies to all new development, subject to Calgreen code. The Calgreen code has additional measures specific for uses like warehouses and grocery stores. o Matt Diaz spoke. The state adopted a new Climate Reduction Plan to be climate neutral before 2045. Several types of professionals that staff has spoken with, have indicated that the state’s new climate goal state is very progressive. The state is still trying to figure out how to act on that reduction target. We are anticipating that the Calgreen building code and air quality districts will be revised in the future to align with the new state projections.
• Online comment. How many chargers has the City required? What about the 2030 goals?
o Stephanie Ocasio spoke. The amount of chargers required would depend on the project size. She asked if the attendee’s second question over goals was in reference to the Climate Action Plan or the 2040 General Plan?
o Matt Diaz spoke. The General Plan is a 2040 projection, for twenty-year growth within the city. The Climate Action Plan was adopted in 2015 or 2016. That Climate Action Plan was completed for the previous General Plan (2035 General Plan) and talked about climate reduction to AB32. This required reductions to 1990 levels. In 2018, the state said we achieved 1990 levels and no longer need to apply AB32. Since 2018, there have been a few governor directives, including carbon neutral by 2045. We can’t rely on our current Climate Action Plan because it is so outdated to what state legislation is right now. As part of our Climate Action Plan update, not only are we going to discuss universal solutions to some of these climate problems and infrastructure problems, but we also have to talk about what else we want to do besides the states’ goals. We are going to begin the process in 2024.
• Jazmine Leak spoke. Maybe we can look at the CalEnviroScreen map as a jumping off point. It shows a number of environmental indicators beyond air quality. We could ground ourselves in where we’re at and where we need to go. This particular ordinance plays a role in shaping these concerns.
o Matt Diaz spoke. That map was included in the General Plan update. There was a small climate action analysis in the General Plan. It determined disadvantaged communities within the city and unincorporated disadvantaged communities in the city. Most of the area around downtown and below are within the disadvantaged communities. o John Schweigerdt spoke. The progression of the state code requirements includes looking at the last code and making additions to it. Now you do have to install a certain number of chargers. That will only show up for projects that were built after January 1, 2023.
• Trevor Smith spoke. We hope that the Climate Action Plan will look at the regional impact of what is coming in through the Altamont and dumping in this valley. The Bay Area’s fingerprint is on our air quality. I hope that is a big part of the plan.
ATTACHMENT C
o Matt Diaz spoke. Hopefully that will be part of it. There is a distinction between air quality and climate reduction. Air quality is regional for non-attainment areas.
The remainer of t
he meeting attendees were able to discuss the proposed modifications with staff or provide comments in writing.
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT C