Stockton council overturns planning commission, approves Jack in the Box drive‑through at Thornton Road amid neighborhood opposition

Stockton — The City Council voted Nov. 4 to approve a pre‑zoning and annexation request to allow a Jack in the Box quick‑serve restaurant with a drive‑through at 9324 Thornton Road, overturning a unanimous planning commission denial that had followed neighborhood opposition.

Planning staff told council the parcel is designated commercial in Stockton’s general plan but lies in an unincorporated county island; the Planning Commission adopted a denial in August after hearing concerns about traffic, noise, lighting and safety and concluding it could not make required findings. Community Development Director Stephanie Ocasio said staff’s original recommendation had been for approval based on code findings but that additional public testimony and the commission’s resolution led staff to present the commission’s denial for council action.

The applicant said the site has been shown as commercial on the general plan since 1978 and described a revised site plan that includes an 8‑foot masonry wall along the residential edge, right‑turn‑in/right‑turn‑out driveway options and a commitment that the restaurant’s front doors would close at 10 p.m., leaving only the drive‑through open later. “We are providing a 10‑foot wall on the east, versus the staff‑recommended 8 foot wall,” the applicant said, and offered shielded downward lighting and right‑in/right‑out circulation to reduce impacts on Wagner Heights residences.

Neighbors urged the council to uphold the planning commission. George Gallegos, who lives across the street, said the corner is already congested and described past collisions: “It’s a 4‑lane highway … It’s going to bring more traffic,” he said. Several residents highlighted the proximity of five schools and said stacked drive‑through lanes, headlights and late‑night traffic would create safety and quality‑of‑life problems.

Council members divided over whether conditions could mitigate the neighborhood’s concerns. Council member Padilla, whose district includes the site, said she supports her constituents’ safety worries and voted with others to affirm the planning commission’s denial. Council member Blauer said the lot has been vacant for decades and that a commercial use was foreseeable. Villapadua and others argued the owner had worked to address concerns and urged the council to approve the project.

After extended debate over specific findings (ingress/egress, headlights, stacking, and the height of perimeter walls), the council approved the project, adopting conditions discussed in the meeting including provisions to limit turning movements and to require shielded lighting and an increased wall height to reduce direct impacts on adjacent homes. The final recorded result was a council majority in favor; council discussion and the vote were contentious and prompted requests for precise conditions to be finalized in the formal resolution.

The planning commission’s findings and the staff report are appended to the council packet; the council’s action directs staff to finalize conditions and to initiate annexation steps with LAFCO. If LAFCO approves annexation the applicant must still satisfy final design, building and permit requirements before construction begins.