Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Testing, testing, testing, testing. Testing, testing. Testing, Testing Testing testing. One two Testing one two Testing. Testing.

Testing.

He's not here, but we'll plow ahead, I think, so I could be on time. Okay. All right, and good evening everyone, and welcome to the Planning Commission meeting of 04/09/2026. Take roll. Can you take roll, please?

Chair Hall?

Yeah, present.

Vice Chair Sangornetti? Here. Commissioner Graves is absent. Commissioner Oaks? Commissioner Crowder?

Here.

Commissioner Amin? Here. Commissioner Hernandez? Here. We have a quorum.

Alright. I would ask that if Commissioner Oaks would give the pledge, please. Alright. Okay. We'll move on to the adoption of the consent calendar. We have items three point one and three point two. Do I have a a motion on that discussion? Yes. Commissioner, I'm in.

Yeah, I wanted to pull consent item three point one and three point two.

Okay, we can do that. I'll have to ask because I haven't had many of those happen.

So you'll now that the items have been pulled, you'll just take them individually for discussion and vote as you would on any new business items. So you can now discuss 3.1 and then we'll go through that process and then you'll go and move on to 3.2.

Okay. Okay, well 3.1 is a request for the fourth one year time extension for an approval vesting tentative map for TRA, I'm not sure how to Vine West project site, application P25-two43. Do we have any you still have your mic on? Commissioner Ahmed, do you want to oh, okay. Do we have a comment? Oh,

I just wanted to talk to I had some questions for both of those.

Yes, go ahead. I'm sorry.

For whoever's presenting. I had some

Well, don't have anybody presenting the item. They're not here.

Okay, hang on a second. Jared, do Yes, you yeah, please. She called me and spoke, so I just wanted to So, make what she indicated her express this, her consent, is that she had some questions to ask of the applicant. Now, right now we're considering 3.1, is that correct? Yes,

is that the question? Yes.

So, questions would be related to item 3.1, and if you have questions for on the project, then the applicant is here. And you should be able to speak to the applicant if you have any questions specifically that's preventing you from, say, moving forward and approving it on consent or whatever, making your decision. It's a good thing you get your questions answered now. Okay. So, go ahead with your I'm going have

to open up Okay. To public for discussions. So, since we do have Mr. Hakim here, who I happen to know for a long time, He's representing the applicant.

Yes. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Mike Hakim. 3414 Brookside Road in Stockton. Was there a general question, or do you want me just to respond to Well, think the the justification for the request for the extension? My

question is that I've been researching this for a bit now and I see that this has kind of been going since 2020. It started in 2020. We're now in 2026 and I think I wanted just a little update of what you've been doing because I saw that it kind of said on there that the reason for this ask for another extension is that, know, what's going on within, I forgot the wording, sorry. Kind of the economic times we're living in now. So I just kind of want, if you can go over with me what it is you guys are actually doing since the last extension.

What progress have you made? I don't wanna just kinda, we keep having these and then we're just gonna keep giving extensions on this. But I really wanna kinda know where you are at on the project. When is it gonna start or completion? I know that says you can have up to six. I don't necessarily know that means you get six but I just kinda wanna know because of just the housing that we need now. So if you could help me with that, that would be fantastic.

Great commissioner. I'd be happy to. Mike Hakim again, 3414 Brookside Road in Stockton. I'm gonna be appearing tonight for both Travenia West and East. There is a representative here for East from Steve Harem's office, but I told him I would take the laboring over and make the response to the comments.

By way of brief background, just for some of the background, there's an interplay of the required down payment and gross income to qualify for a loan applicant to qualify for a home loan, and the current interest rates are not very favorable. So, have a disconnect between the gross income on salaries and the economic climate in San Joaquin Stockton as compared to the down payment required and the interest rate requirement for the calculation on how to qualify for a home loan. So, just by brief background, that's been an issue from day one and it's certainly an issue tonight. The cost of the infrastructure for the water sewer and drainage to develop a site is very, very expensive. And unless we can get a developer to market the site and build out for us, we're in a position of having to be in a holding pattern.

Certainly, the developer is in the business of developing the property or selling homes. He's not in the business of holding the property, paying the expenses every month, every year and the taxes with no income. So, it's to our distinct economic disadvantage not to have that project be ready for market. In terms of what we've been doing since last year, we've done it, we're working on our improvement plans with our engineer in the city. So, when the developer steps up and is ready to build the project, because the price point of homes in Stockton is different than the price point of homes in other cities in the county, and that affects our ability to market the property.

So, having said that, since last year, we've been doing our infrastructure plans with the engineer. We've also been coordinating the two projects, east and west, so we share infrastructure. And, they have gone to market twice. I talked to the, excuse me, the owner early this morning. They've been to market twice.

They go to shows where they develop presentations, put the property into play on the market, and reach out to the normal developers that are doing most of the development in San Joaquin County. And they've come close to having two deals, but at the end the developer chose other projects in other cities. So, we lost out to other projects in other cities where there's a higher price point for the homes, as well as a more substantial economic advantage on salaries and wages for down payment and qualification for home interest loan requirements. So, with those brief comments, Madam Commissioner, we would look forward to bringing you a final map and buildable homes. I've been on this project now probably three years before 2020.

So I've been at the table with them for a long time And I can tell you they're very, very aggressive in terms of marketing the property and trying to aggressively get a developer in here to build it out. So, no stretch are we satisfied with what's going on. But because the maps come up every year, we don't have any choice but to protect our investment and come back and ask respectfully for another extension. So, that's what we're asking for tonight. We'll do our best to bring you a project just as very soon as we can.

Thank you for that. The reason I asked this is because everybody knows I'm new to this commission, okay? And I'm just really have been diving into this really every thing that comes to us is a new learning experience for me. I just learned a lot from you just speaking just now. Like it's really hard just if you're not part of this and you're driving around and you see this go up and this and this development and things around you. So that's why it was important for me just to kind of know where you are with this and when we'll hopefully start seeing something there because you know, we do with the general plan have to have a certain amount of housing.

Yes.

And we needed like yesterday. Yes. And I, like I said, I'm trying to now learn from 2020 what you all have to do to get it to the point where we're going to start building on there.

It's a difficult process. It's difficult and it's expensive and it's fraught with peril and delay and delay takes time and time takes money. And believe me, the developer is not happy with sitting on a project. Their corporate investors want to see a return on their investment. So, we face the investment side of our table once a year as well and they're asking for us to perform and we're doing our very best to do that. I promise you that.

Thank you so much. I really appreciate you taking the time.

Have one more question. Vice Chair?

It's just

Samuel Gundy?

For Commissioner Amen and that to add to it. The area in question was part of the 1990 general plan, 35 years old, and that and it's been under development, trying to get developed for years. It wasn't until 2021 that it actually got an approved tentative map. And the infrastructure as Mr. Hakim alluded to is a big cost to these projects.

And an existing project just to the east, which was annexed in 2005, the Canary Park project, was also a 1990 general plan project. And there there's a huge sewer connection that's well over a half a mile to three quarters of a mile away just to get to this, which serves that whole area. So that's a big line. It's awful deep. So the cost of that is astronomical.

Same thing with the water. They've got to get under Bear Creek with the state and federal permits to extend the water line up to meet the city's master plans that are part of the general plan, and make their network of water system and so forth, to meet the general plan requirements and what's already been entitled. And there needs to be cost sharing amongst all the developments out there in order to afford that. Canary Park and this project here and some other projects are all part of a cost sharing that they work on to try to be able to make it affordable just to bring the utilities to this project. We, you know, we gotta remember it's, you know, thirty five year old project that's been actually in the plans.

I worked kind of, not on this one specifically, but I've been working that area for a long time, and it's been going on a long time. There's a lot to do just to get the first 50 homes built, which is always the most expensive.

Thank you.

Mister chairman, the representative for Bear Creek East would like to make a few brief comments, please. Sure. Thank you.

We're open still. Hello. Welcome. Thank

you. Alexander Thomas. I'm here from Steve Haram's office representing the traffic net east. The address for that is 5757 Pacific Avenue Suite 222 here in Stockton. I just wanted to say that all of the economic factors that are affecting the West project are also affecting the East project and East is working closely with West to develop these infrastructure plans and as the commissioner pointed out that's an expensive and time consuming process. So we respectfully request a one year extension. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Well, we'll bring it back. And if we have any other comments. Yes, Vice Chair?

I just want to make a motion.

Or I could have a motion to, okay. Yes, so moved. Do we have a second? Are you moving to, do we have to do both of those separately then?

I would request that you take them separately while the comments were generally to both items because they were individually pooled. For the record, it would be cleanest if you took votes on both, please.

Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second or a comment?

Female I'll second.

Okay. Everyone vote please. I'll let you go ahead and announce it if you want.

Motion passes five to one with Commissioner Oaks recusing. Dissenting.

Dissenting. Okay. Do we have a motion on item 3.2?

I'd make a motion to approve item 3.2.

Okay, do I have a second on that motion?

I'll make a motion to second.

Okay, second, everyone vote please.

Motion passes five one with commissioner Oaks dissenting.

Okay. We'll move on to the public comment portion. This section is the agenda is reserved to public comment and anything within the jurisdiction of the commission. If a member of the public would like to speak on a specific agenda item, they may do so either here or later when the item is called. Do we have any blue cards?

We have no blue cards, Chair.

Okay. We'll move on to Item 5.1, that is the public, yes, Vice Chair?

I'm gonna be recusing myself in this item. Everybody have a good night.

Okay, thank you. Okay, item 5.1 is a request for a pre zoning development agreement and tentative map for proposed 2241 unit residential development Bear Creek South at 9532 And 10122 Northwest Lane, as well as 2525 And 2527 East Murata Lane. APN numbers 120020270 dash 1101202630310320 and then one APN +1 (200) 301-0060, zero 70, zero 90, one 22, APN 010, and zero zero four. And then portion of zero five, And one two four, zero one zero, one zero zero one, zero zero three and zero zero seven. Okay, that was a mouthful.

I open this up and I would ask for any commissioner comments disclosures at this time. I do have a disclosure. I actually spoke with Mr. Hakim about this particular project. So, I will disclose that fact. So, I will ask Scott, who's already ready at the mic, to present please, sir.

All right. There we go. I'm not gonna read that again.

Thank you.

The fact that it took so long just to read the title is proof that there's a lot going into this project. There's a lot of moving parts, and this our the recommendation and and all the resolutions required for a project of this size are gonna be a little tricky at the end as well. So to start off, this project request is for pre zoning the project to Stockton zoning designations, a development agreement, and tentative maps for each developer as well as a CEQA determination. The applicant in this instance consists of three developers, Bear Creek Family Limited Partnership, which is Klein, Tri Point Homes Holdings Incorporated, and Eight Mile Road Investors LLC, which is our nest. When I refer to the applicant, I'm referring to all three entities.

Together they propose to develop the Bear Creek South Residential Project on vacant parcels immediately northeast of the intersection of West Lane and Murata Lane. The overall project site is adjacent to the city's northern city limits within the city's sphere of influence and within the city's urban services boundary. The total project site area consists of approximately 530 acres and encompasses a total of 16 parcels, which we just had to read number by number. Most of the site, approximately 503 acres, will be subdivided into 2,241 residential lots of varying sizes in conformance with the residential low density zoning standards. The project also includes 54 acres of proposed parks and open space and approximately six acres dedicated to rights of way and easements.

The project site is immediately Northeast of the intersection of West Lane and Murata Lane shown here in all of the highlighted parcels. The site is bounded on the north by Bear Creek, west by West Lane, south by Murata Lane, and on the east by the Union Pacific Railroad right of way. North of the project site is the Trevinier project which was just discussed, and to the south and east are existing residential uses. To the south on the corner of West Lane and Murata is a small commercial area and two schools border the project, Westwood Elementary to the South and McNair High School to the West. The general plan land use designation for the project site is a low density residential.

There are no City Of Stockton zoning designations for the overall project site. However, the site will be pre zoned to take effect when annexation into the Stockton Ton City limits is considered and approved by the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission or LAFCO. The proposed pre zoning includes a combination of residential low density, open space and public facility zoning which is consistent with existing general plan designations and acreages. Parklands will be distributed within the project site in a manner to be accessible to the surrounding neighborhood. The surrounding zoning is a combination of low and medium residential public facilities and commercial.

The Bear Creek South project proposes three tentative maps to subdivide all the project parcels into a a residential development totaling 2,241 residential lots of various sizes and densities, plus additional lots for parks and open space and dedication for rights of way in various easements. As mentioned, there are three developers, Tri Point, Cline and Arnez, each proposing their own tentative map that are purposefully integrated within one another to create a comprehensive residential development. Each of these developers have varying lot or developed developments have varying lot sizes to add variety in the development. There will be approximately 27 acres of open space and 27 acres of public park space. The proposed street network will connect into the greater Stockton community at five access points including three to the South along Murata Lane and two to the West along West Lane.

These connection points will be made up of a combination of minor arterial roads and collective roads. The project includes full frontage improvements along West Lane and Murata Lane. Included in these improvements will be a fully signalized intersection at the northern entry point along West Lane and two fully signalized intersections at south entry points on Murata. While the primary intent of the project is to create residential lots, there are several areas that will be utilized contribute towards the park and open space requirement of the Envision Stockton 2040 general plan. As previously mentioned, there will be about 27 acres of open space and 27 acres of public park space.

There are five proposed parks which provide each neighborhood an opportunity to access these spaces through a network of enhanced walkways referred to as wellness walks. The parks are themed with differing types of uses and amenities within each one to encourage residents to use the wellness walks to explore the opportunities and activities found in each park. Approximately 27 acres of open space is also included within the project site. The open space is utilized for a detention basin in the center park and a linear buffer area along Bear Creek on the north side. The basin will include an enhanced walkway around its perimeter and a linear multiuse trail will be provided along the Bear Creek corridor.

Wellness walks will connect the parks to each other and to the open space area along Bear Creek. These wellness walks are shown on this map in blue. The project area has designated, these wellness walks are designated, on designated streets with enhanced walkways, meaning wider sidewalks and landscaped areas that will encourage pedestrians to walk to parks and to the open space features. Also being provided are enhanced project entries along the access points to the project on West Lane and Murata. These are visual opportunities for making a statement and creating a sense of place.

Here's a breakdown of the different uses and features planned for each park. As you can see, they include a combination of active and passive uses. Active uses include sports fields, disc golf, sports courts, playgrounds, and a dog park. Passive uses includes benches, picnic tables, table games, and landscaped areas. The Bear Creek South residential project is consistent with the Envision Stock ton 2040 general plan and was fully contemplated within the scope of the previously certified 2040 general plan EIR.

Residential development of the Bear Creek South area has been contemplated in multiple prior general plan iterations associated environmental reviews. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21,083.3 and the SECUID Guideline Section fifteen thousand one eighty three, the project does not result in new, peculiar, or more severe environmental impacts beyond those previously analyzed. All applicable uniformly applied development policies, standards, and mitigation measures will be implemented. Accordingly, no additional environmental document is required under the provisions of CEQA. The project also incorporates robust measures to address tribal cultural resources, ensuring compliance with applicable law and consistency with the intent of AB 52.

Speaking of cultural resources, a cultural resource assessment or CRA was prepared in coordination with a representative of the Northern Valley Yokuts who are recognized as the tribe historically and culturally affiliated with the project area and appointed the most likely descendant by Native American Heritage Commission. The Northern Valley Yokuts provide a meaningful input during preparation of the CRA and have reviewed the project requirements pertaining to tribal cultural resources. Based on that coordination, the Northern Valley Yokuts have expressed support for project requirements. The CRA concluded that while the project site has been subject to extensive disturbance for over one hundred and seventy five years of agricultural activity, the potential for buried subsurface resources cannot be entirely discounted. Because AB 52 consultation requirements are triggered only when a lead agency prepares an ND, MND or EIR, additional AB 52 consultation process was not required for this project.

However, early in the project review process the city did circulate AB 52 notification letters because at that time it was evaluating whether an EAR might be required and wanted to invite tribal input at the earliest possible point in the process. The Lizjin Nation requested consultation at that time and the city has engaged in good faith consultation regarding tribal cultural resources with them for over a year now. You have received public comment regarding tribal consultation with the Lizjin Nation. The project requirements have been informed through coordination with the Lizjinn Nation and as previously stated, the local Northern Valley Yokuts, the tribe that historically and culturally is affiliated with the project area. As previously mentioned, the Northern Valley Yokuts have expressed support for the project requirements as they incorporate robust measures to address tribal cultural resources ensuring compliance with applicable law and consistency with the intent of AB 52.

As for zoning, the project site is currently within unincorporated San Joaquin County and will need to be annexed into the city of Stockton. Project lands will be pre zoned primarily as residential low density but will also include open space and public facilities for the parks and open space areas. The zoning will not become effective until the annexation is approved by LAFCO. As outlined in the staff report and resolution, all findings for the pre zoning can be made in the affirmative. A development agreement is also being requested with this project.

A DA is an agreement between a city and a developer that provides certainty for a project's development rules, fees, and timeline and provides the public benefits for a city. Here, the proposed DA included as an exhibit to the accompanying resolution includes term limits that provide for an initial ten year term and an opportunity for the developer to request two additional five year extensions based on achieving specified development milestones for a combined total of a possible twenty years. If approved, the DA locks in the current city public facilities fee rates for ten years from the date the agreement becomes effective. In exchange, the city will receive land at no cost for the neighborhood parks which have a present day value of $4,150,000. The DA also requires the parks to be constructed during development of the site, normally housing developments leave parks till the very end of development.

The planning commission is a recommending body for the DA. The approval of the DA is adopted by ordinance based on and containing the findings of fact listed in the Stockton Municipal Code. The project DA is included as exhibit one a to the resolution recommending approval to the city council. This slide has a lot of numbers breaking down acreage, lot count, and lot sizes for all three tentative maps. It's more here reference if specific questions arise, and I'll be going over each map individually.

But as a basic summary, the project as a whole consists of 2,241 single family residential lots with a 5,000 square foot minimum lot size. The project includes 27.7 acres of parks, as well as various on-site and off-site improvements including public streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalk, landscaping, and street lighting. So moving on to each map, first we have the Klein map, it includes two twenty acres of the project, it is the darker shaded area on the map there where you can actually see the streets and the lots. It will be subdivided into 995 single family lots. There is one park proposed entirely within the map as well as a portion of both the Central Basin and of another park.

Across access to the Klein lots would be from both West Lane on the West and Murata Lane on the South as well as from the internal streets connecting to the other maps. As outlined in the staff report and resolution, the Klein map meets all the required findings in the Stockton Municipal Code. Moving on to the Tri Point map, it includes a 172 acres of the project subdivided into 773 single family lots. There is one full park proposed and half of another park that would be constructed with this map. Access to the Tri Point lots would be from Murata Lane to the south as well as the internal streets connecting to the other maps.

Again, as outlined in the staff report and resolution, this map meets all the required findings of the Stockton Municipal Code. And last but not least, we have the Arnez map. It includes 111 acres of the project that will be subdivided into four fifty eight single family lots. There is one park proposed entirely within the map and a portion of the Central Basin as well. Access to these lots would be from West Lane to the west and from the internal street network.

Just like previous two, this map meets all the required findings in the Stockton Municipal Code. An applicant sponsored neighborhood meeting was held on September 10 in compliance with the Municipal Code. The meeting was held at Westwood Elementary School which is located at the intersection of Murata Lane and Kaywood Drive directly south of the project site. There were nine members of the public in attendance as well as the applicant team and city staff. Many had general questions about the overall project, including questions about traffic and parks, but all attendees were in support of the project.

Notice for the Planning Commission public hearing for this project was published in the record on March 19, and mailed notice was sent to all property owners within the 300 foot radius at least twenty days prior to tonight's meeting. Prior to the writing of the staff report, we received one letter from the San Joaquin County Council of Governments regarding the project's incorporation into the multi species habitat conservation program. Since that time, we have received letters from the Sierra Club and the Lizogen Nation, which have been forwarded to the commission. That all being said, this is a lot to read out, so I'm just going to kind of point at it for the most part. Staff recommends the Planning Commission find no further environmental review is necessary under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to public resources code section two zero one eight three point three and the secret guidelines section one five one eight three.

And adopt a resolution forwarding a recommendation to city council to adopt an ordinance for the pre zoning of the 16 assessor numbers listed to residential low density zoning as well as public facilities zoning and open space zoning. And three, adopt a resolution forwarding recommendation to city council to adopt an ordinance approving a development agreement. Four, adopt a resolution approving a tentative map for Bear Creek Family Limited Partnership or Cline, subject to conditions. Five, adopt a resolution approving a tentative map for Tri Pointe Homes, subject to conditions. And six, adopt a resolution approving a tentative map for the Eight Mile Road Investors LLC or Arnez subject to conditions.

And with that, I'm available for any questions.

All right, thank you. I'm sure we have some questions.

I know it was a lot.

But it's a lot, a lot to take in. Any questions from the commissioners? No? Oh, yes, Mr. Oates.

Thank you. Scott, on I can't tell you what attachment it was, but there was one that was 900 pages long. On page one hundred six and one hundred seven that listed a certain criteria, and there were three areas that were inconsistent with the criteria. And I was just wondering if you could speak to those inconsistencies. One of them had to do with all the project being all the appliances, etcetera, being all electric?

You can't.

For questions about this is for the environmental portion, correct?

So you're just okay. So I'm not supposed Yeah. To ask about

for questions of those, there is a person available.

I Did you see the letter from did did you see the letter from the tribe?

Yes.

And did you see their allegation that this does meet the SB 51 status and that the city is not being cooperative?

Yeah, I did read their letter. The city has been in discussions with Liz Chen Nation for well over, not well over a year, but for over a year, attempting to meet with them in various ways. We do have someone who can probably speak more to that than me here. But we

You disagree with their interpretation?

Yes. Mike, do you

want to speak Well, to just wanted to add what I think Scott was alluding to. We do have the applicant and their attorney here representing the project. So if we want to bring the applicant up, I don't know if there's any other questions of Scott. We can wait until

Yeah, thank you.

Questions go to Scott, if there's any further questions. But certainly we'll make sure that's addressed.

Okay. Do we have any further questions for Scott while he's up here? We can always come back to him. I guess not, we'll hear from the applicant. Thank you, Scott.

We'll you

back. We'll bring you back, I'm sure. So, yes. So I don't know if we're gonna have, is there one, do we have multiple people handling each, or is Mr. Hakim handling for the applicant? Okay, we'll just pick someone and we'll do it. Welcome.

Thank you. My name is Trevor Smith with TS Planning and Development. I'm the planning consultant on this. And I apologize, allergies and aging has

been Super to

windy lately. Yes. I get you.

But Scott took my thunder on the parks program, so I'll be able to shorten this up a bit. This is a large multi owner project that required coordination over several years. Four years ago, the three property owners committed to working collaboratively with each other and with the city to move this project through the entitlement process and produce a well balanced project. What you see tonight is a result of that effort and our team is here to talk to the to the specific questions you may have. From a planning perspective, the project is consistent with the general plan.

It represents orderly, well planned development within the city's fear of of influence and can be considered infill. We're surrounded by the city limits. We support the staff report, conditions of approval, and we are committed to implementing all of the project requirements that were in the section one five one eight three write up, including those that are designated to implement the general plan update action plan, action statements, and other laws and regulations as well as to comply with the general plan update EIR so as to mitigate any significant environmental impacts that were previously identified in the general plan update EIR and mitigated by the mitigation measures within that document. This is where I was gonna pivot to the parks. Can you just put up the overall park exhibit that shows the trails and everything?

Scott touched on it all, touched on the d a, the $4,000,000 contribution or dedication of land to build it. Status. Yeah. That's a good one. And and the status quo though, doing business as usual, a builder would or would get a permit, pay the fees, they'd collect park fees, and that lot, one of those five lots would sit there vacant until enough fees were collected and then the city would go build a park.

So the difference here is these guys are willing to step up and do it day one when they start building their phases. A park that's related to the phase that's being built. I wanna touch on the neighborhood meeting. I thought that was important. They loved the parks And after the meeting, I went home and I googled map.

I took 500 acres, our 500 acres, and I put 500 acres South of Murata, all residential, one park in there, Verde Park. So they're excited about it coming across the street. They're excited about the signals coming in because of the safety factor of making that turn on to Murata especially when the sunsets coming in the West and they're driving towards it. It's blinding. So they're excited about those aspects.

There is some flooding in the corner. We're gonna improve the storm water system on Murata in West Lane so that flooding issue will go away for them. So saw the benefits in the project. We're gonna develop and Scott went over that basically from West Lane East and from Murata South. So what that does is our neighbors to the south, they'll see those improvements on Murata sooner rather than later as it's phased out.

And then the other thing I wanna add is in the negotiations with this group, I've been with this group from day one, the owners. They've we meet every week. We're trying to figure out those ways to clear the path and make it most cost effective to get this built and the homes brought here to Stockton. So they have are entering into a private cost sharing agreement. So if something, if one map goes in a phase but they need some a road or a utility corridor on someone else's map, they get it.

It's all gonna be spelled out between the private agreement. It's gonna be on title. So as they sell to other builders, if they sell, everyone knows the game plan to help make it happen and work together. So with that, in closing, this project is consistent with the general plan, provides substantial public benefits, and represents a thoroughly planned addition to the community. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. I guess we'll take questions when we get through both. Okay, we'll come back. Yeah.

Welcome. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Mike Hakim, three thousand four hundred fourteen Brookside Road in Stockton. I'm appearing tonight for Eight Mile Road Investors.

Tonight with me is David Arnez from Eight Mile Road Investors. As we know from the staff report, there are three applicants co requesting entitlements for an overall coordinated project tonight. The request is very specific from staff to you for your recommendation to the city council. It's approval of the sequel one five one eight three exemption also for pre zoning for the annexation, adoption of a resolution for the development agreement, and the approval of four new parks. So, those are four specific requests for your consideration in making your findings and your recommendation to the City Council.

As Trevor indicated, the project will continue furthering the general plan policies which we consider important, and that's for orderly, well planned and balanced development with public utilities brought from the development. This is not a cost to the city, it's a 100% cost to the development. There's no cost to the city for either the infrastructure or the utilities. All of that is borne by the developer in the development agreement. As Trevor indicated, there is five access points along Murata Lane and West Lane for access with fully signalized intersections, which will be helpful for ingress and egress from the project.

There was a development review committee and they reviewed the project, made specific recommendations. The developer has agreed to those and the project brings a recommendation from staff for approval tonight to you for your consideration. As Trevor indicated, there was a neighborhood meeting and the neighbors came and met, looked at the plans, but were fairly supportive of the project and especially of the new signals that the developer has to put in. Staff is recommending approval of the fifteen thousand one eighty three exemption and for the three development tentative maps, as well as the four parks. So, with those brief comments, Mr.

Chairman and Commissioners, we are ready to answer questions if you have any. If there aren't any, we would respectfully request the opportunity for a brief rebuttal at the end of the evening if that would be required and or appropriate.

Excellent. Okay. Well Thank you. Thank you. Well, we probably have some questions I'm sure. I see Commissioner Oates reached the first button, so we'll go ahead and lead off the questions.

Thank you very much. So, I'll ask you the question that I asked Scott apparently wrongly earlier. On page one hundred six and one hundred seven of the consistency checklist, there are items related to the scope the twenty twenty twenty twenty two scoping plan specifically does not result in the loss or conversion of natural and working lands, and it says that this project is inconsistent with that. So, I'm confused, and maybe somebody from staff, because I'm told that this project is consistent with the general plan, which I assume means that we anticipated this would be developed, and yet it is inconsistent with the develop with this goal to preserve open land.

Well, as with anything, Commissioner Roakes, that's a very good question. I'll do my best to kind of field the answer. The general plan is a policy document considered the backbone for development and growth and a constitutional mandate for following the approaches set forth by the general plan. The general plan has somewhat conflicting directions in many cases because part of the general plan is to support residential growth and housing of all different types for the populace of the city of Stockton. So on one hand, we're instructed to develop property to comply with our general plan and our housing element.

At the same time, we have a competing interest to protect open space and ag land. Unfortunately, when those conflict, then we dive into the ag mitigation requirements that Stockton's general plan developed to convert residential to convert ag to urban. And there's an Ag conversion mitigation plan that the Sierra Club supported many years ago with the also supported the building industry. And we ended up with a compromise for an ag mitigation fee for development. So, with those brief comments Commissioner Oaks, we have a balance of competing interests and we try to balance as best we can.

But Stockton continues to grow And as Trevor indicated, we're basically an infill project. We're South of 8 Mile Road. So, we haven't crossed the 8 Mile Road Maginot line, if you will. And so, we're trying to develop within the 1990 General Plan and build out the land that's already been destined and designed for development. And that's important because when developers look at a city, they look at the general plan, and they look at what the policies are, and they come forward to you with development that they believe is consistent with it. And staff has also developed support in their findings for consistency with your general plan.

Okay. Thank you for that. Then also, in regards to the use, the other component and I'll make some comments about another one, but I have a question then in regarding to the scoping plan table three of appendix D of the scoping plan. The last item, building carbonization, uses all electric appliances without any natural gas connections and does not use propane or other fossil fuels for space heating, water heating or indoor cooking. This project is inconsistent.

The project is not anticipated to be entirely all electric. Mr. McDowell, can you open that up and Page 107. I'm sorry, what? I'm looking at the I am looking at the consistency checklist report. I believe it's attachment D.

Okay. You have it.

Give me your name again.

Trevor Smith representing the applicant. Yeah. Just the project, the homes will be all electric. The only gas component is the backup generator that we'll need for the storm water basin.

Okay. That's good. Thanks. That that Alright.

That makes sense.

Thank you, I appreciate that. Then, I had a couple of other

Yeah, sure, Thank thank you,

I very much appreciate that. You said the lots are 5,000 square foot, what are the sizes of the houses?

It's a good question. Was gonna pass

it Trevor Smith, I can bring up Jason Cole with Tri Point Homes, but right now it's market driven. They'll range from seventeen, fifteen hundred square feet to 2,000 to 2,500 square feet. So again, it's market driven.

And so 1,700 to 2,200?

Yeah. 17 being below. And

I note that this is another inconsistency I did understand, so I'll ask for some clarification, that this is a low density project. And when I read the beginning, the introduction of this checklist, it said that low density could include duplexes and other missing middle housing if you will. And then I read the response of the applicant to the Sierra Club's letter that said if we had duplexes in the property we would trigger additional environmental review. So which is it,

So

the

So, if let me just say that the project is I'm okay about not having the affordable housing component in there because I think what you do end up doing is you increase the cost for those people who are market rate, and so you actually make the neighborhood less affordable. So I'm okay with that. But I would like to have seen a little bit more diversity in the type of housing that is available in it, in the project.

I completely agree with you. We wanted to. The general plan had the entire 500 acres as low density. We looked at going to smaller lots, but the zoning at the time only allowed a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. So we're as small as we can get. But the zone zone There was a zone change. That number now is 4,000 square feet. These are tentative maps. There is a chance when someone does their improvement plans, they may create some 4,000 square foot lots but then create some 5,500 square foot lots so we don't add any units. So we still fall under this approval.

But in this four year period a lot happened and one of them was the zoning went to 4,000 minuteimums.

Okay. So I just, I wouldn't like to see clusters of duplexes. I'd like to see them mixed in. I lived in Sacramento for many years and I don't think they do it anymore, but all new developments for many, many years had to have duplexes on corner lots. And it creates a really nice neighborhood.

Because as much as I appreciate the parks, I appreciate that they're mainly the way they're set up there, they're primarily an asset for the people who live there. So the benefit of the parks is for the benefit of the people who you're going to sell to or somebody's going to sell housing to. And I just disclose a bias of mine is that while I appreciate while I appreciate and this is not just about your project while I appreciate the quote donation, and I appreciate the building of the infrastructure, infrastructure has a life cycle. And the city of Stockton, and somebody at some point in time is going to be responsible for maintaining that infrastructure and whatnot. That having been said, because, and I just wanted to give you this Sure.

What I'm, you know, sort of what I'm, my findings is, because it's consistent with the plan, it's this side of 8 Mile Road, it's a new project that I hope you'll get off the ground relatively quickly, and despite some of my concerns that I expressed, I am going to vote to approve it. You.

Do we have any other questions for either applicant or three applicants, I should say? Yes. Commissioner Crowder.

I don't know if this is the right time, but I do have questions in regards to and this might be for Scott maybe or if we have a representative from the tribe. I do have some questions in regards to some statements that were made. Who would I refer those to? You wanna try it?

Might be one for Mike too. Might wanna respond.

I read through this and there are some pretty strong worded statements that really stood out, one of which is that there was a statement made in this retort or letter, whatever that you want to call it, that says this is not a mitigation, it is a savage archaeology. Other feasible mitigation measures are available to ensure that Bear Creek Housing Project truly mitigates the impact on yet unknown tribal cultural resources. They also claim that they have not been able to take a tour to verify the archaeology that they assume that is there. And I wanna know, do we have a representative here? Do we have a way to answer if they have gotten to see if there is a village site possibly here?

They're referring to a lot of historical factors that I really want us to take really, really, you know, seriously as far as like there's evidence that contains a small village site, The tribe is requested to visit and observe these sites as soon as possible to provide input into the project planning because there is a great risk that cultural history and information could be lost forever. That's a really strong statement.

It is a very strong statement as far as whether or not they have since been to the site. I can't, we've never

They've never asked you?

We've never denied them the opportunity to come out to Stockton.

And

we have attempted to meet with them multiple times and repeatedly have those meetings have fallen through. And so as far as the, how do I put it, the The language. The imminent nature of their language, the actions have not been quite the same. I I don't wanna speak too much on on someone else's intent or anything of that nature. I'm just speaking to to the facts of of meetings that that have fallen through no fault of the city of

question is is that and I know that you do

And I and I yeah. And I do want to attest that the the local tribe, the Yokuts, have evaluated the measures. They've evaluated the site. They have stated that they are in favor of of this project and that the mitigation measures are sufficient.

Do we know

that if they have have do we know if they've been in talks with the tribe? Do we know

We've been in talks with talks with the Yokuts. Yes.

But I'm saying have the Yokuts been

Have the Yokuts The talking to Yokuts Lizyn, not to have no concerns over what's on the site.

Thank you.

One other thing I'd like to add to what Scott indicated, and possibly we can get somebody up here from the applicant's team, but there was a cultural assessment that was performed for the entire site by a qualified individual responsible for preparing those types of reports, And that was a part of the information sharing of going back and forth of what was discovered during the at least the initial cultural review assessment. So, I think it would be good if we could just hear from the representative from the team that prepared that initial cultural review assessment. Possibly

That sounds like a good idea. Hello. You're that person, I take it.

Good evening. Good evening. Chair Hull, members of the Planning Commission. I'm Alicia Guerra with Buckhalter and I've been advising the applicant team and working with the city on addressing environmental effects associated with the section fifteen thousand one eighty three report and that whole environmental checklist that Commissioner Hull, raised questions about. Or Commissioner Oaks, sorry.

In the course of this process, when you're going through a 15,183 process and you're relying on environmental documents that previously were prepared, in this case for the general plan update, We start there with the analysis and what was done at a programmatic level. And based on that analysis, peak consulting, peak archeologists who conducted the cultural resource assessment took that information as well as conducted a literature search, conducted a search with Chris. There's a system where you identify recorded sites both for historic, archeological, and specifically tribal cultural resources. And they used that information to then conduct site investigation of the site. They looked at where were identified and then determined based on that information, based also on consultation with the Northern Yokut representatives who have been actively involved in the city of Stockton and also with other development in the area, they developed a strategy to go and identify whether or not the proposed project would cause any greater impacts.

And when we start with a fifteen thousand one eighty three analysis, the point is to find out if the project was the specific project today with this specific proposal was included in the prior programmatic analysis. So, first, PEAK looked at the prior programmatic analysis then went and did their own review and their own site investigation. And they, I believe, started that analysis sometime in 2022 and conducted further site visits, etcetera, worked with PEEK on this. They went and determined if this specific project was covered in the general plan update EIR. And then based on that, they looked at what were the specific impacts associated with this project at this time based on the proposed design.

And based on that and based on the general plan update which provided for six or seven action statements that basically said if you identify, there is a way to develop this area as long as it doesn't cause any significant impacts on cultural resources. However, future projects have to incorporate those measures that were identified in the general plan update in order to make sure there isn't a significant impact. If you do that, then there is no significant impact. If you don't do that, then there may be a significant impact. And so then the question is, is there substantial evidence that may be a significant impact?

So, PEAK took that information, consulted with the Northern Yokuts because they had been involved in the city's prior efforts in developing those measures and went through the process to advise the CEQA consultant who prepared this report. They said, You need to include these other measures or make sure that the measures in the general plan are incorporated into the project to assure compliance with those requirements. And specifically, project requirement number six and project requirement number seven set forth a process to make sure that once impacts have been confirmed to not be significant based on how the project has been designed, which was our objective here, Then at the time you commence construction or you commence excavation, have a tribal monitor present conduct subsurface investigation at that time to make sure, again, confirm you're not causing any impacts. And that's been the strategy proposed here. And that's why this project fits within the whole rubric of subsequent environmental review under Public Resources Code 21,083.3 which is a statutory exemption and said once you did your CEQA review, you complied with it, you incorporated those measures into your project to be consistent with those requirements, you don't have to do any further environmental review.

And so, the letters that we provided on behalf of the applicant team was to say, yes, we commit to what the city has already done. They use CEQA the way they should and how you all did a great job in your general plan update because you took at that time the information from the Northern Yokuts and other participants in that process to make sure that your action statements and your general plan itself didn't cause any significant impacts. And we, through this specific project, have proposed that the project be designed to make sure we don't have any significant impacts consistent with those requirements. So, Commissioner Crowder, to your question, those were very strong statements from the LizGen Nation and we felt did not actually reflect the substantial evidence in the record because we did what CEQA said to do. The city did what CEQA said to do.

And the other part of this is because we're relying on a statutory exemption. CEQA says you don't have to consult with the tribes at that time under AB 52. But the city said, we have action statements in our general plan update and you still have to participate in informal consultation. So, the team turned around and asked, was invited to participate in that informal consultation, agreed to make revisions to those project requirements to further respond to the List Generation's request for some of the measures. Some of the measures were not feasible.

One of the measures that was not feasible was to go out and do another site visit today without while the site is under active agricultural activities, the resources that are out there, there were no resources that were identified previously through subsurface investigation that were still intact and retained integrity because of the extensive agricultural activities for one hundred and seventy five years. It doesn't mean that the resources may not be there. So our proposal and what was feasible was we will agree to have a tribal representative participate as a monitor as well as an archeologist at the time excavation activities are conducted. All of which again was because the city had said, this is how we're going to incorporate tribal consultation into our general plan even in those instances when it's not formally required from a CEQA standpoint. So, don't know that was I didn't mean to give everybody a CEQA lecture.

But I don't know if I answered

your sorry to

bother them.

I so love a CEQA Yes.

Okay. Me too.

It, you know, it helps me absorb. And I appreciate, and I really do. And I, you actually mentioned things that I wasn't aware of. So, such as, you know, making sure that there is an archaeologist and a tribal monitor there. So, if something is unearthed, you know, we can make sure that we are protecting our historical values. So, I appreciate that. And I love the work that you've done into it. I'm all down. It just, that wording was very strong. I do have one more question.

There was another wording in this letter. It's on page four of five that says, in a March 2026 letter to Stephanie Ocasio, director of community development for the city of Stockton from I'm gonna butcher that, LLP, counsel for TribePoint Homes Inc developer, March 20 letter, which was not sent to the tribe. The developer acknowledges the tribe's request for access to the property to evaluate whether tribal cultural resources will be affected by the project, however, does not provide reasoning for denying such a request. The developer proceeds to discuss the planned use of the on-site monitoring during the development, but such action ignores the request for a site visit and further information regarding the location of cultural resources in the project site and whether the proposed project will avoid the sites. So, guess I'm curious as to they are making an accusation that they did request the site visit and they were denied with if I'm reading this correctly, and please, we all know that I speak my own language some days, so if I'm misunderstanding this, please let me know.

But the way I'm reading it, it's saying that they did request and the developer denied with no reasoning, if I'm not mistaken. And I guess I'm curious as to what the reason for the denial.

Commissioner Crowder, you raise a good question. And I understand why you would ask why did the applicant team deny that request at this point. As I indicated, we thought a more appropriate way of allowing for site access for any member. I mean, anybody can ask to visit the city as staff indicated. There's no reason why you can't go visit a particular area, But, we felt it was more appropriate in this case to not conduct further disturbance of this area and to conduct further investigations at this time and wait until what the action program contemplates under the city's general plan update which the applicants have agreed to through the project requirements which is a tribal monitor and an archeological monitor can come out to the site when actual hand excavation or subsurface excavation is being conducted based on the areas of where resources have been identified.

And so, it wasn't that we said, no, nobody can ever come out to monitor this. What we said was, this is not the time to be doing this at this point because we had about three years just with this project not including prior activities. There were prior, I think there are three recorded sites on this property that have been identified based on prior investigations of the property. So, it's not like people were ignoring the resources. It's that the resources have been identified and characterized and reported to the state. So, we thought it'd be more appropriate to do it at the time you know, before actual excavation and disturbance is occurring.

I appreciate you. Thank you. That answers everything for me.

I appreciate it.

Thank you. Commissioner Ahmed, do have a question for Yes, I do.

I'm gonna piggyback off of my fellow commissioner here. I think all the stuff I've been reading, the,

let's see, I

don't want to tear up their name, but I'm gonna try in anyway. The Lishong, if that's how you say it.

It's a tough one.

Were, if I'm not mistaken, you correct me if I'm wrong, wanting to kind of come to the site pre you guys doing anything. And it also understood that once you guys do really start getting in there and building stuff that there's supposed to be somebody on-site as well. So if there is anything discovered then everything would stop and you would take care of that at that time. I did some digging into them. I understand that they're a newer tribe compared to the Yokuts.

I'm not putting anybody down, but at the same time, I believe that if there is something here where it says that if anybody does come forward, if it's ongoing, anything like that, I feel that they should have that right. Doesn't diminish anything that anybody else did for you, but if they feel they have a vested interest in this, then I would think that you would want them to come and be part of this. I'm not looking at five or six different tribes, it's the one tribe that came and asked for this. And I would hope that they would want to work with the Yokut tribe that came beforehand that you guys had go out there. I think that there can be some common ground where hopefully they can work together because I just, what I'm reading, what I'm hearing just doesn't sit well.

It doesn't, I'm not accusing anybody of anything. I'm just telling you how it's coming across. And maybe emotions are high on their side, I don't know. But I don't think it's something that shouldn't be an ask. If they want to make sure on their own and especially if you want this project to go through as fast as possible.

And I hope that this doesn't go sideways but I would hate for something else to go wrong and then they decide to take other action and then it halts completely. So I'm of the school that it would be great to have them go and do what they need to do. And maybe on that day when you guys are actually going digging everything up, when you really start to build, they are right alongside the other advisors that you have, they have a vested interest in it. Because I did read something where they said they did ask and they were denied and they just weren't given an explanation why. A

lot

of times if maybe you would have said why, I got into an explanation then maybe we wouldn't have had this letter from them. But to just kind of ask her something and then be told no, I kind of maybe can put myself in that position as to like, well, why? Just talk with us. So that's kind of where I'm kind of sitting with this as well that I really wish that they were just considered a little bit more so that they can actually be a part of this project if they feel that their ancestors might be there as well.

Commissioner Ahman, would you like me to address that or

Yeah, I'm sorry. Yeah, guess it was a big long question for

question mark. Sorry.

That's okay. I didn't to presume you wanted me to answer your question here. A couple of things. It's not our place to comment as to other inter tribal relations. So, we did actually propose in our original project requirements that it be a tribal monitor without specifying the tribal representative, whether it was Lishan Nation or Yokuts, or the Northern Yokuts.

But because the Northern Yokuts had requested a revision to the measure, I believe that's why the project requirement has changed. So, we were open to having a tribal monitor present regardless of the tribal representative. I think the Northern Yokuts historically, because they have been known as the tribe in this area and the MLD, have really advised applicants. I know our team has in the past looked to that tribe to provide guidance on how to avoid tribal cultural resources, whether it's from the Northern Yokuts or other tribal entities. It hasn't been only for the benefit of their resources, if that makes sense.

Secondly, there are some feasibility issues and some safety issues associated with just sending people out to the field. These are active agricultural fields that have been engaged in active agricultural activities for one hundred and seventy five years. So, it's not so easy to just go out and allow somebody to go visit the property and do some investigation. So, we were trying to do it in a disciplined and a safe way to make sure that it was consistent with and appropriate for the timing of the activities based on that closer to when actual excavation occurred versus doing it now and then, you know, not doing it when grading and disturbance is anticipated. So, and that applied to everybody else, anybody, the other tribal representatives.

And then there also was gonna be an archeological monitor present for that too. So, don't know that I answered your question fully but I appreciate that stakeholders at times want to be able to have special permission to do things. It just doesn't always work when you have other existing activities going on on the property at the same time.

I don't know who this question goes to then. Is there still time for them to be a part of this project or when you start so that they can be there as well? Is there still time for that or is it just no? Who do I ask that to? Don't know who answers that. Are you referring

to as far as monitoring? Like before they start disturbing Because you said that there was going

to from be somebody the Yokutsch tribe and if something does come up, then you know, they'll be notified and be able to take care of that. I'm asking of this tribe, but also be able to do that as well. Can they be a part of it or is it just no because you've only worked with this other tribe all I think this

Alicia had indicated as far as the monitoring, don't think that's I don't recall that ever being an issue. Monitoring during the pre discussion or sorry, the pre development on the site as far as grading, moving disturbance of the surface. I don't think that's been an issue from we've had discussions with the Lizjan Nation representatives and that was part of the discussion.

Right. We only agreed to revise the measure because we got the comment from the Northern Yokut representative to make it specific. But I mean, we could have both. Like I said, our original project requirement proposal was a tribal representative. So, right, tribal monitor to participate.

And again, we were treating everybody equally and it was all with the goal of making sure that when excavation and work is initiated that we confirm that we're not causing disturbance. Which is very different than going out today and saying, Is there something out there or not? Because we already did that process over the years. And so, we were trying to do it to confirm that there is no disturbance.

Okay. Any other questions? I think that answers it. Thank you.

Okay.

Do we have oh, yeah, yeah we're good I think.

Okay, thank you.

Sorry, we're gonna move on to, I was gonna call for communications. We do have communications.

Yes, Michelle Lee.

Hi, good evening everybody, Chairman, Commission. My name is Michelle Lee and I am an attorney for the Confederated Villages of Lishaw Nation. And I hope I can answer some of the questions from our perspective. And I do want to start out by saying it's not our goal to be disruptive here. And we've made that very clear representatives from the developer that we are really here to help.

And, I just want to step back for a second and just say that, you know, this area was inhabited by indigenous people for tens of thousands of years. And, we often forget about it because it seems so far off, like it just was not it never really happened. And, a lot of that is because we don't get taught in school and, you know, it's been very, you know, generalized that it was like this open vast empty place and the gold rush happened and missions were built and suddenly, you know, we have this great state of California. But, there's all these other things that happen in that history. And so, you know, you have a number of tribes that have affiliations with this area, and that's because in our early history of California, some might say it's a pre history right before California, we had a lot of smaller bands and tribes that intermarried, traded, and had civilizations here.

I mean, the estimates of populations California range from between a 3,000,000 people, and so it's a very highly populated area. So, this area in the Central Valley, you know, it's water and there was tremendous amount of wildlife and all of the things that you need for a society to thrive, right? So, and that's why you all love it and you live here because it's a really beautiful place and there's all these resources. And so, indigenous people also were attracted to that. And that's one of the reasons why the tribe has a concern because you see on the top of the map you have the Bear Creek.

And because Bear Creek's right there, that's really sort of a red flag. And also, fact that it's one of the few undeveloped areas and because there are known cultural resources that have been identified. Now, it is true that there are recorded sites, and we don't want to get into too much specifics because we do have confidentiality concerns and that kind of thing. But, the one thing that we do know and we do have some areas where we agree with the developer that yes, there's been a lot of activity on this property for the last hundred plus years. It's been turned, it's been tilled at the surface, but there's a lot that goes on underneath.

And I know from my experience representing tribes in the Sacramento area, you know, we have areas a lot of the times, oh, am I on a timer?

You are out of time. Okay. Yours is pretty important, do we have any other comment cards?

We have none,

sure. Okay. Well, you can speak to this. Assume I can allow her more time.

Yes. She's your first and only speaker.

Yeah. So there Alright. I'll try to be

conflict to extend time.

Let's let's you let's

I didn't realize I was in time.

No. It took your time, but I think this is an important issue to hear. Okay. So we'll go ahead and

extend that time. So we have a lot of people here. When we have a lot of intermarriage. This is really the first I was conferring with my client. I don't know then in our meetings with the developer that we were told that the Northern Valley Yokuts had all of this support.

And I'm a little concerned because we haven't seen anything, like there's not a letter of support from the tribe. And I know that that's a common practice to say, Oh, we met with the tribe and they didn't have any concerns, they support it. So, I'm a little nervous about relying on that statement without something in writing typically when a tribe, a tribal government supports something they show up, they write a letter, they do something that would be in the record. But we hadn't heard of anything about Northern Valley Yokuts prior to like the last couple of weeks. But there is, there are sites there, the thing that stands out in one of them it said, given that the site appears to be proto historic, there could possibly be extensive prehistoric resources that are in good condition below surface.

That's what we're worried about. We don't know for sure what is there, and we want to and the law in AB 52 and SB 18, the Public Resources Code and the Government Code has been amended to try to defer to the experts, defer to the native people who have been here, and defer to the people that do this work. You know, and it's in contrast to archaeology, which archaeology has, it's a field of study, it is not a field of experience. And so, the legislation and the best practices for implementing CEQA has tended to, we've shifted to traditional knowledge and letting the indigenous peoples with expertise speak on their areas. And so, some tribes have more experience in dealing with this than others.

I'm not sure we certainly are interested in conferring with Northern Valley Yokuts and make sure that we are all on the same page, but we don't really know exactly what they said or what they didn't say. We do know that when the general plan was being developed, an updated SB 18 was in place and there was consultation requirements, but unfortunately the way the laws have gone, the non federally recognized tribes, you know, were treated differently. And then it took time for all of the tribes that were not on the contact list to get on the contact list. And you know they don't have a lot of resources so anyway it took time. And at the time the general plan was being done here, the confederated villages of Lishan Nation was not on the contact list and so they were not a part of that consultation process.

And perhaps the other tribes were. But so they didn't have input into the general plan. And since that time, since they've become included in the list, in the contact list, we have consulted with, I don't know, five counties and many jurisdictions incorporate what we consider the best practices and the kind of the more gold standard for how do we work out these issues when cultural resources are there. And, had, you know, we've been around at that time, we would have incorporated different measures into this. And, the goal isn't to stop a project.

We're not trying to stop a project. We're just trying to identify the resources that are there. And, for example, there's other criteria for like a burrowing owl or the Swainson hawk. You know, there's certain scientific methods for how to what you do to avoid them. You go you avoid them during the nesting season.

You observe them and then I guess you move them to another location. For cultural resources, our goal would be to, you know, first of all get on-site, let the people check it out. It is turned land, it disturbed. But, what the tribal people look for, there are certain signatures that they look for with the soil and with its relation to the water and in proximity to other sites, and they can give some really good information. That's what they really want to do.

And then, if there's some areas where they feel that there's maybe a concern, like maybe this is an area where there is a higher likelihood of some buried cultural resources. We could make that recommendation to the developer and then definitely prior to construction. We want this work to be done ahead of when you're like really under the gun and the money's on the table and the developers are gonna lose time if by slowing down. We would like to get ahead of that and you know maybe there could be some archaeological testing. But the mitigation measures that are in the project, it's if findings are made, so this is after something is found, it's not you know like looking and seeing if there's something there and then kind of identifying it and isolating it.

It's saying after we hit something then we are going to there will be a major archaeological data recovery effort and excavation shall be done with backhoe trenching. And that's not what we would want. You know, we really wouldn't want backhoe trenching. We just want different methods. So you have like a range.

So there's a range from ground penetrating radar, which was sort of the least intrusive, and we understand that they don't think that will work and they may be right because of the disturbed soil. And then the opposite extreme is going in with a backhoe when they've already found something. And so there's something in the middle where it's just a little more thoughtful. And that's what we're looking for. We would love to have access to the site.

We would love to sit down and, you know, have an agreement for, okay, well what happens if something is discovered? And there's nothing in writing right now. Don't know. In the documents that I have, it doesn't show the Northern Valley Yokut as having a Okay.

Don't mean to cut you off. I've given you I do have to have I need to stay on topic. And you are on topic. However, we are not timing you now. So I would say that we can this will probably give us further discussion. I do appreciate you interjecting. We weren't sure that you were here to respond to your letter. So I think that's helpful to understand. This is I will say this is a tentative MAP, meaning the beginning of the process. They will have to get to a final MAP stage. They still have to go we are not going to approve a lot of this has to go to counsel. So you'll have your opportunity at counsel level as well. So but I would want to have Mike respond maybe to some of those comments or maybe the applicant respond to some of your questions

I just because have maybe one we could

point if I could,

and then I'll sit down. So the main concern that we have is just the recommendation, the finding that no further environmental review is necessary because we think there is additional information that wasn't considered in SB18 in the general plan EIR because it wasn't really known, and then there was an AB52 consultation because we weren't on the list. But we do think that the consultation is ongoing, the requirement under SB18, and since this is a general plan EIR that we're tearing off of, we think that that consultation requirement is in place. And we just want to make sure that the resources are studied properly and we would ask that that study be done prior to the finding of approving the environmental. Thanks.

Okay. Appreciate your comments. Thank you. Yeah, let's get a response from the applicant. You are allowed to Okay.

I'll talk fast. A couple of things. Project requirement number six already says, prior to the beginning of construction work, subsurface testing would be conducted. That's what I was talking about with my CEQA lecture. It is supposed to be done and the tribal monitor and archeological monitor would be present.

We also didn't say exclusively backhoe trenching. What we said was or other appropriate excavation techniques such as hand testing or hand excavation, all based on the sensitivity of the resource. So, there are other ways, as Ms. Lee indicated, but we contemplated that so it's not just strictly backhoe trenching. And it's not a matter of doing the subsurface excavation when you see something.

The proposal was to do it before there was any ground disturbance, figure out what's out there and make sure that there isn't any disturbance caused by the project. And then, during construction, have somebody present if a resource is inadvertently discovered and hit at that point. And then, one other thing I would want to say is the beauty of statutory exemptions is that by law, you don't do more CEQA when you already did CEQA. And in this case, you've done CEQA a lot of times on this property because this property has been planned for single family residential development for a really long time. And in fact, every general plan update you've done, this was identified for residential development.

You included it in that programmatic analysis. You included the same features in the action programs to address and to make sure that there aren't any impacts that would occur with the development. So, what CEQA says is once you've done it, you don't have to keep doing it unless as I said at the beginning of my little CEQA presentation, you have a peculiar impact that your new project is causing. Well, that's not the case here because we did what the city told us to do which was take our action programs, agree to implement them and be consistent and the law presumes people are gonna comply with the law, not break it. So, we agreed to do that and to incorporate those measures into this project to make sure that the project avoids any impacts to these resources.

So I understand in a perfect world, you would know exactly what's out there for anything. It'd be biological resources or hazardous materials conditions or archeological conditions or tribal resources. But our plan is designed so we're avoiding the impact and we're confirming that we're avoiding the impact when the development occurs to make sure that we're not causing a peculiar impact associated with this project. So, doing another CEQA document is not gonna change the answer because there are no significant impacts because we did what the city said to do in its general plan update. And we can't turn around and use a different statutory framework like AB 52 or SB 18 at this point because the project doesn't require a general plan amendment.

And because we're doing a statutory exemption and we don't have to do more CEQA review because the law says that. So, I understand it would be nice to study things some more, but we did our best to study it with the information and the substantial evidence we have now. And we have a way of making sure that we're not going to cause impacts associated with this project in the future. So, don't know if anybody has further questions.

No. I think you've answered the questions. Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

I had a question for Mike actually real quickly. Was there written communications from the other tribe? Was there written communications about From the other tribe? From the Yoguts? Yeah, is there something in writing for that? I was just curious because that was one of the remarks made. Okay, I was just curious. Scott can answer that question. I just wanted to answer that.

Yeah,

see there must have an email from Ms. Perez from the Northern Yokuts, who is listed as the most likely descendant that we used to contact with that tribe and who explicitly stated that she is in support of the measures that have been put in place.

Okay. That was my question. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Well, I will get back to a little business. I didn't we did have communications that we skipped over. Correct? And then I just needed to have it was sent to us.

Yeah.

And I wanted

Because they were not included in advance with the packet, I think that would be appropriate to waive the reading.

Okay, that was where I was going with that. You knew where I was headed. So, okay, do we need to take a motion on that waiving of the reading? Okay, so we had communication. We had a lot of it, but and we do not want to read that if we can into the record. So if I could get a motion to go ahead and and take that information without having to waive the reading of that, I would appreciate it.

I'll I'll move waiving the reading of it.

Thank you, guys. Second, please.

I'll second.

Okay. Everyone vote on that, please.

Motion passes, five zero, with vice chair absent and commissioner Graves absent.

Okay. Well, I will close the public hearing portion of the meeting and I will bring it back to my fellow commissioners because I'm sure we'll have some comments, questions and or a motion. I will entertain all of the above. So, but this is our time to we haven't spoken enough, but it's our time to speak some more. So, Commissioner Crowder.

So, I wanted first of all, we all know that I am the one that is going to scream the loudest about affordable housing, but I do actually, believe it or not, everybody take a big breath, I actually believe that project would not benefit from a low income portion that is written into our general plan. So everybody take a big breath. I know some of us have had interactions quite a few times, so, you know, I appreciate the work that went into this. And when I saw those parks, my face lit up. I I was in love.

I love some green space. You know, coming from the South Side, that green space is amazing to me. I also wanted to give kudos to the fact that the EV infrastructure is going to be recognized and taken care of as well. Also, I know that we have met a few times on the other side of the dais in regards to environmental impacts. So, I appreciate that.

I think that's amazing. I do love this project. I would love to have a market rate, but I do think that I love the project. I love how it's set up. I like the amount of work that has gone in.

I like the dedication that you all have put into acknowledging that there is very robust discussion. I almost said a different word, but I think robust might be better in regards to the land and what could possibly be. I think my only takeaway would be is that I might ask that maybe we can work a little harder at building that connection with the tribe. I would say their name, but I am so horrible. No one asked me to say any names.

I'm not good. I I know that the Yolkhoats are very invested into, you know, Northern California, the city of Stockton, and I know that this tribe is very new, and I would like to see that we incorporate them and include them as much as we do our already existing historically found tribe. So if there is a way to be able to work a little closer with them and make them feel included, make them part of this, I would truly appreciate that. But I love the parks. Love the parks.

You guys did good, I love the parks. So that's my only takeaway. I think as far as this goes is that we're dealing with a very sensitive issue when you're dealing with a newly found tribe, a newly recognized tribe. They want to feel heard, they want to feel seen, and they have every right to. They have just as much right to the land and to the resources as any of the rest of us. So that would be my only ask is if that's something that could maybe happen, but it's not a deterring factor for me. I want you guys to know that I am very excited about what this project is gonna bring. So, thank you.

Commissioner, I'm in.

There are other issues I have as well. I'll skip the tribal, I'll save that for the end. I'm also concerned just about a project this big, traffic to the area, impact to schools, elementary all the way up to high school. There's already like a lot of congestion and I am very much concerned about that. Know once again, should be concerned about that, but then once again, we do need more housing.

So, you know, we're gonna have to, I guess, kind of weigh that. I think the only thing that is keeping me from this approval, the parks are great, it was a great presentation, but I just feel that, I don't know, that I would love for this just to come back to us if they can go and speak with these other people and see what it is they have that they're talking about when she spoke here today. And I just would really just like to see a little bit more of them working together and just not feeling, you know, that they're kind of being left behind regardless of when they came into this or didn't come into this, they're here now. And for me, yeah, the project is great but I just think that that one part for me, I'm having a really hard time with that one part that they really, I would really want them to be a part of this and I'm just not really comfortable that they would be part of this or going to be included with this. I'm just not sure.

So, I just don't know about my approval at this time.

Okay, thank you. Any other comments, questions? I will make a comment myself. I certainly appreciate the concern of the tribe, most recent tribe coming in and wanting access to the site. This

is

a tentative map. This is a long process. It will go from us. We're only doing part of the process. So we're going to approve the tentative maps and the rest of it, we're just recommending body. So it's going to go to the council if we make a motion here. But I think we need housing. This is an infill project as far as I see it. It's going to be developed. It's gonna be residential. That's what's in it's been in the plan for since the nineties. We need the housing. I love the publics, the open spaces. I think they're gonna be nice, obviously. If all the tribes are involved in that process.

I think that will probably happen, but I can't speak to that. But I I think it's too valuable of an infill project not to get done, and I absolutely am going to support it. So that is my my point on it. I realize there any time you take raw land and build on it, you're going to have to deal with issues, whether it's tribal burial grounds or environmental issues, but we need those resources. That's that's the only my comment. So, yes, Commissioner Oates.

Just a point of order. Do we need a motion for each resolution separately or can we take them all at once?

You can take them all at once.

All right.

You're I'm to take it on?

I'm going take it on. Okay. I'll move approval of the resolutions for the Bear Creek project as it was called by the chair.

One point of clarification just because it wasn't mentioned, this is including the changes reflected in the around the bench memo, correct?

Yes, including the changes from the memo. See, I wanna take this here. Dated 04/07/2026.

Okay. Thank you. Do we have a second? If not oh, go ahead.

I'll second. Okay.

Okay. Everyone vote please.

Motion passes four one with Commissioner Amendesenting and Vice Chair and Commissioner Graves being absent.

Okay. The only final appealable decision is on the PC approval of the tentative maps. Any parties that wish to appeal this decision may do so within ten days of this commission's decision pursuant to Stock Municipal Code Section 16.100.20. Thank you. And we'll move on to new business, which we don't often have new business, Mike. I know that drives the Vice Chair crazy. One of

these days.

Someday we're going give him some new business. So I'll be excited when that day happens. And unfinished business and all those things too. Maybe take a moment here to let our thank you and good luck to you all. Okay.

Unfinished business, that's right, I'm at seven. So there's no unfinished business I presume or is there? None. Okay. So then my favorite part of the meeting always, Mike, section eight which would be reports communications. Oh no, yeah, and informational items from you.

Right. What do we got? Gosh. You don't have

to have any.

It's bit of a Did I? Sure.

I flustered you. You didn't think I'd ever get to you probably on. So I I barely myself here. You don't have to have anything. So I'm gonna say no comments at Okay. This point in

Well, that's fine.

That's fine.

Are there any questions that you might have for me? I did distribute out business cards that you wish to have, because I realize that you have Mr. Crowder wanted

some cards. Think she didn't get them.

Yeah, and I just heard. So, I know our staff went through the effort of trying to email out Okay. If anybody else

I still have cards from

There's this is not the end.

Four years ago.

So, if you decide that you might want some, by all means, the city can provide them because it makes sense. You're out there in the community working with your constituents in your district or even the at large position, it's like it makes sense for them to have a contact at the Planning Commission level, obviously City Council as well.

You bet. Yeah, definitely. Okay. Well then again, another one the fun parts of the meeting, the Commissioner comments. So do we have any yes. Commissioner Crowder, I see you you should be right. We're just going right for it.

I didn't know which button to put.

You don't know by now which button

which launch I was getting all excited.

Yeah. Okay.

I actually have some and I don't know if this is even possible, and I'm sure Scott will be happy to tell me if it is or not. Mhmm. When we hold community meetings and, you know, we've all discussed the 300 foot notice and how farther and everything else. Here's my question. When you're dealing with a large neighborhood and you know you've sent out, let's say, a thousand, okay, and you have five people show, is there something we can implement that says that if that turnout is less than a certain percentage of what we've mailed, could we request that we have a secondary community meeting to try and get more because Increase engagement.

Yep. Yeah. Right. So Yeah. So I can tell you right now. If I hold a meeting, like, I have I have a community meeting being held on on Saturday. If I get 10 people, I'm gonna be excited. However, those 10 people are gonna go back and say, guess what I learned, and you didn't go. And now I'm gonna have another 400 people coming at me saying, can we have another one? Why can't we have another one?

I wanna know too. I wanna ask questions too. You see, so I'm curious as if it's possible, can we implement something that if there is a because we have a record of we put out a thousand notices and two people showed.

Right. And and theoretically, we can put kind of whatever you want in the code, but I would, make the comment that when people like a project, no one shows up. When people don't care, no one shows up. When people do care, everybody shows up. So so the the lack of engagement is almost an endorsement of the project by the people that are noticed.

It's the way it kinda works out in public meeting. I've I've been involved in public meetings in all sorts of different places. I'm out the foothills, in richer communities, in poorer communities, and it always turns out exactly the same whether you're in the valley or or in the hills or in the city or in the country. If there's a project that is non controversial to the populace, no one comes. And you might get a few more people showing up at a later meeting just to because they wanna talk about it, but at the same time, if you in the public meeting, you're handing out these materials with your information on it, and if people are really interested, they'll they'll email you, they'll call you, which does happen, sometimes.

But a good example being, the project off Hall Avenue that that came last year. You know, that one had a huge community meeting. And the subsequent Woody project is the north that we just had a meeting not too long ago for that as well, that had a huge meeting because those people were engaged, they had legitimate concerns, and they got word out and made sure people showed up. So I don't think lack of engagement is necessarily a bad thing. It's just a nature of projects that don't have a large impact on people or don't perceive to have a large impact on people.

So to follow that up, we're still mailing to the owner of the property, correct?

Right, yeah.

So in that retrospect, if we are mailing to the owner of the property and when you're dealing more with let's say units on the South Side versus units on the North Side where your market rate, they're homeowners versus Western Ranch, downtown, know, Van Buscarga area, a lot of those homes are possibly rented. So the tenants of those homes aren't getting those notices. So if you were to hold a meeting, let's say in Western Ranch, and the turnout was low, would it not, I'm gonna use a real fancy word, behoove us to do a secondary meeting because the tenants of the rented homes may not have been aware or have received the notification from the home owner.

Right. I I completely understand that logic. I would and I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Yeah, no. Do. And it's affluent not richer. Sorry, had to.

So the devil's argument or whatever the word for that is. What is the term? Devil's advocate.

Yes, Sorry.

For that would be if we're only noticing landowners because that's what's in code and they aren't getting the notice they don't show up at the first meeting why would they show up at the second?

Because it's the owner that has the notice and not the renter.

Right. So, how would the renter get the notice for the second one?

By word-of-mouth from what happened at the first meeting. I can play semantics

all I I come But at the same time, my my my original And and again, I'm just playing devil's advocate No.

No. And I understand.

At the same time that my original argument would apply where the people in the community that do receive the notice Mhmm. If it's something consequential to their neighborhood would get out the word that there's this public meeting. Yeah. And so Understood. Sort of thing. Now, I I do appreciate the the desire to notice tenants as well as landowners, and that is going to be in our on our code update. So moving forward, this will almost be kind that

meeting will

be will

be a moot point. It isn't right now. But it it will become in a few months. And

I understand, you know, that there's also the cost situation because you have to pay the staff to go back out for a second half. And I understand all of that. Right. I was just curious.

There's and there's a time issue with it all, because you don't wanna do If you do a community community meeting meeting too early, you don't have enough information for the people, so you wanna wait later in the project. And then if you need to do multiple, all that does is push out your hearing dates

Mhmm.

And then people are waiting months and months longer to get to their approvals. Right. And so that's that's kind of a hard situation to be in as well.

And and like I understand both sides of the coin. I was just curious. It popped in my brain when I saw that

Yeah. And and I and I think

for this large and I mean, obviously, it was a robust conversation in regards to tribal land and I have to admit, I was a little disappointed not to see a Northern Yakult representative.

And again, when people are okay with a project, they tend not to show up. That's kind of the thing. We, like, we see this all the time. In here, we go through a lot of projects and people just kinda like, and then we don't get anybody coming to meetings. We got like four people in the audience.

I think we

I'll hold my own. I know.

Know. Go ahead. I'm sorry.

No. No. No. You're okay. I just I just wanted I saw the nine and

it's Right. And I think a lot of a lot of these concerns will be resolved with our future code update to notify tenants. I think that's a very good trajectory that we've taken from direction from you. So, we appreciate that very much.

Yeah, and that's what, I was gonna chime in and say that very thing. I you appreciate a butts, you. Commissioner Amin.

Yeah, was gonna just piggyback last year, was October ish, September, that was one of the things that I asked staff to look at. Increasing that 300 to, I think I said 700,

but

then you guys came back with 500.

Landed on five.

Yes, okay, I had a compromised 200. Just the fact that when the people did come that time, only three of them had the way that the neighborhood was structured, only three of them received the notice but because they're such a tight knit old school neighborhood, everybody found out. They had a lot of, you know, Ms. Kravitz that just told everybody. Yeah, and one of the things we talked about at a couple of additional meetings was the fact that, and I've also talked about this at city council as well, is that and it's, they know that it's a problem, they've talked about it.

The fact that you are sending these notices to the business owner and not just for residents, but if there's a business owner and something's going into that shopping center or around them, only the owner of the building gets, we want the businesses that are functioning. It's the same for households. If we're gonna send something to the owner of the house, we also have to make sure we're sending something to the people that are actually gonna be affected living in the house. So I know that that is hopefully getting close down the road. It's been talked about since last year but I think that that would alleviate that. And I'm not saying that's gonna make more people come. No. But at least hopefully we know more people are getting notified that something might be happening in their area.

Excellent, thank you. Any other comments? Anyone else? No other comments? Okay. I don't have any comments either actually. I will make a motion for us to adjourn. That was the phrasing I was looking for if anyone wants to second it. Second. Okay, we'll take a vote on that.

Motion passes five zero.

Thank you. I stumped you Michael Mike tonight.