title
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCES FOR PREZONING AND A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR A PROPOSED 2,241 UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (BEAR CREEK SOUTH) AT 9532 & 10122 NORTH WEST LANE AS WELL AS 2525 & 2575 EAST MORADA LANE, CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION, AND A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF AN ANNEXATION APPLICATION WITH LAFCO
recommended action
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council:
1. Find no further environmental review is necessary under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning); and
2. Adopt an Ordinance for the Prezoning of 16 Assessor Parcel Numbers 120-020-27; -11; -12; -26; -30 (portion of); -31; -32; 120-030-10; -06; -07; -09; 122-010-02 (portion of); -04 (portion of); -05; 124-010-01; -03 and -07 to include Residential, Low Density (RL) zoning, Public Facilities (PF) zoning and Open Space (OS) zoning; and
3. Adopt an Ordinance approving a Development Agreement; and
4. Approve a motion to Deny the Appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of Resolution Numbers 2026-04-09-0501-03; -04, and -05, for three (3) Tentative Maps, in accordance with the findings and subject to conditions in the proposed Resolution; and
5. A Resolution authorizing the filing of an annexation application with the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo).
It is also recommended that the City Manager be authorized to take appropriate and necessary actions to carry out the purpose and intent of the resolutions and ordinances.
body
Summary
The Applicant proposes to develop the Bear Creek South Project, a 2,241-unit residential development on approximately 530 acres northeast of West Lane and Morada Lane. Requested approvals include prezoning, a development agreement, annexation initiation, and denial of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of three tentative maps.
The project site is within the City of Stockton’s (City) Sphere of Influence and designated for Low Density Residential land use in the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan. The Planning Commission approved the project’s tentative maps on April 9, 2026, and recommended approval of prezoning and development agreement by a vote of 5-0 (Sanguinetti - recusal; Graves - absent).
An appeal was subsequently filed by Mary Elizabeth raising concerns related to General Plan consistency, CEQA compliance, parks, infrastructure, and agricultural land conversion. Staff reviewed the appeal and determined the project remains consistent with applicable General Plan Policies, Development Code standards and qualifies for streamlined CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.
Staff recommends approval of the prezoning ordinance, development agreement ordinance, annexation resolution, and denial of the appeal of the approval of the three tentative maps, based on findings provided.
DISCUSSION
Background
The total Project area includes mostly vacant parcels and comprises 530.18-acres and includes Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 120-020-27; -11; -12; -26; -30; -31; -32; 120-030-10; -06; -07; -09; 122-010-04 (portion of); -05; 124-010-01; -03 and -07. This total Project area includes lands that will be developed with residential homes and infrastructure that serves those homes (such as streets and parks), as well as lands that are not planned for development at this time, such as lands set aside in an easement for Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID), and a Street, Service, Drainage, and Development (SSDD) easement.
The Project site is immediately northeast of the intersection of West Lane and Morada Lane. The Project site is bounded on the north by Bear Creek; west by West Lane (an existing regional arterial); on the south by Morada Lane and on the east by the UPRR right of way (Attachment A - Aerial Photo and Location Map).
Uses surrounding the Project area include:
• North by Bear Creek and lands within the City of Stockton known as the Tra Vigne Residential Project currently under development; and
• South by East Morada Lane, existing residential uses with Residential, Low (RL) and Residential, Medium (RM) zoning, as well as Westwood Elementary; and
• West by West Lane, and Ronald E. McNair High School, which has a zoning designation of Public Facilities (PF); and
• East by Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way and residential uses with Residential, Low Density (RL) zoning.
The General Plan Land Use designation for the overall Project site is Low Density Residential, (Attachment B - General Plan Land Use Map).
There are no City of Stockton zoning designations for the overall Project site, however, the application requests prezoning to take effect when annexation into the Stockton City limits is considered and approved by the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). The proposed prezoning includes a combination of Residential, Low Density (RL), Open Space (OS), and Public Facilities (PF) zoning, which is consistent with the existing General Plan designations/densities and acreages. Parklands will be distributed within the Project site in a manner to be accessible to the surrounding neighborhood. The surrounding zoning is shown in Attachment C - Zoning Map.
Project Description
On May 25, 2023, the Applicant filed a development application for all required entitlements to establish the Bear Creek South development, as well as the annexation of abutting parcels (the Project site), located at the northeastern intersection of East Morada Lane and West Lane.
The Bear Creek South Project proposes three (3) tentative maps (Klein, Tri Pointe, and Arnaiz - Attachment D) to subdivide all the Project parcels, which total approximately 530.89-acres, into a residential development of 2,241 residential lots of various sizes and densities, plus additional lots for parks and open space and rights-of-way easement.
Within the Project, there are three (3) developers, Tri Point, Klein, and Arnaiz, each proposing their own Tentative Map that are purposely integrated within one another to create a comprehensive residential development. Each of these developers have varying lot sizes to provide for differentiation in sizes for single-family home styles.
While the primary intent of the Project is to create residential lots, there are several areas that will be utilized to contribute towards the park and open space requirement of the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan. There will be 27.2-acres of open space and 27.7-acres of public park space. Per the General Plan, a total of 35.18-acres of combined parks and open space is required. The Project exceeds that requirement by proposing to provide a total of 54.9-acres of combined parks and open space.
The Project will install on-site and off-site improvements, including public streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, landscaping, and street lighting. All proposed utilities (e.g., water, sewer, storm drainage) will be extended to the subject site from the existing utility network adjacent to the site and comply with the City’s Standard Plans and Specifications.
The proposed street network will connect into the greater Stockton community at five (5) access points, including three (3) along Morada Lane and two (2) along West Lane. These connection points will be made up of a combination of minor arterial roads and collector roads.
As noted previously, the Project will include full frontage improvements along West Lane and Morada 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 along Morada Lane.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The City Council is the Review Authority for Annexation filing, Prezoning, and Development Agreement requests, based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Pursuant to the Development Code, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the requested three (3) Tentative Maps and the Project’s consistency with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An appeal of the Tentative Map approvals was filed and the City Council is the Review Authority concerning the appeal.
Environmental Clearance
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Consistency Determination
The Project site has long been evaluated and designated for residential development at the proposed density under successive General Plans, including the 1990 General Plan, the Stockton 2035 General Plan which was adopted in 2007, and the current Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan, which was adopted in 2018. Accordingly, residential development of the Project site has been long contemplated by the City and was anticipated as part of the City’s long-term land use planning and environmental review efforts.
The City has determined that the Project qualifies for streamlined environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, which apply to projects that are consistent with the development density and land use intensity established by an adopted general plan or zoning for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(a), projects that are consistent with the development density established by an existing general plan for which an EIR was certified “shall not require additional environmental review” except as might be necessary to examine project-specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project or its site.
The Project is consistent with the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential. The proposed Project site density of approximately 4.45 dwelling units per gross acre is below the maximum density permitted under the General Plan (6.1 units per acre based on gross acreage and 8.7 units per acre based on net acreage) and is therefore consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(i)(1).
The City previously certified the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2017052062), which evaluated environmental impacts associated with buildout of the General Plan, including the long planned for and designated low density residential development of the Project site. The Project site has been consistently designated for residential development in multiple prior General Plan iterations, and the type, location, and intensity of development proposed by the Project falls squarely within the scope of development patterns evaluated in the prior General Plans.
Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), the City’s environmental review is limited to determining whether the Project would result in:
• Significant effects that are peculiar to the project or parcel;
• Significant effects not analyzed as significant in the prior EIR;
• Potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR; or
• Potentially more severe significant effects than those analyzed in the prior EIR.
As documented in the Section 15183 Consistency Checklist (included as Attachment E), the Project would not result in significant effects peculiar to the Project or Project site or any new or more severe significant impacts beyond those previously evaluated in the Envision Stockton 2070 General Plan EIR. In particular, CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Section 15183 Consistency Checklist provides substantial evidence that the Project is consistent with the General Plan, and that the Project meets the requirements of the statutory exemption defined under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. Based on further examination of the Project and its site, the analysis in Section 15183 Consistency Checklist demonstrates that no such impacts peculiar to the Project or its site would occur. Further, any potential impacts of the Project or the site are addressed through uniformly applied development policies, standards, and existing legal and regulatory requirements (e.g., General Plan policies and actions, along with Federal, State, and local regulations), consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(c).
This approach is consistent with California case law recognizing that CEQA does not require redundant environmental review for projects consistent with previously analyzed plans, including Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Turlock (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 273 and Rominger v. County of Colusa (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 690. Accordingly, no further environmental review is required under CEQA.
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
A Cultural Resources Assessment (CRA) was prepared for the Project to evaluate the potential for historical resources pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, and Tribal Cultural Resources pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21074.
The CRA concluded that while the Project site has been subject to extensive disturbance from over 175 years of agricultural activity, the potential for buried subsurface resources cannot be entirely discounted.
The 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 Most Likely Descendant (MLD) by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The Northern Valley Yokuts provided meaningful input during preparation of the CRA and have reviewed the Project Requirements pertaining to cultural and tribal cultural resources. Based on that coordination, the Northern Valley Yokuts have expressed support for the Project Requirements. These Project Requirements are discussed briefly below.
In addition to the uniformly applied development policies, standards, and regulatory requirements applicable to the Project, the applicant has incorporated a series of Project Requirements into the Project design. These Project Requirements are components of the Project itself and are intended to ensure compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, as well as relevant General Plan policies and actions. For example, Project Requirement No. 6 (PR 6) implements Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan Actions LU-5.2.D, LU-5.2.E, and LU-5.2.F by establishing procedures for the identification, evaluation, treatment, and protection of archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during project implementation. Collectively, the Project Requirements further reduce the potential for environmental impacts and ensure consistency with the City’s existing regulatory framework.
Generally, Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) consultation requirements are codified in Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1 through 21080.3.3 and apply when a lead agency determines that a project requires preparation of specific, enumerated CEQA documents, namely a Negative Declaration (ND), Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), or an EIR.
During preparation of the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the City conducted tribal consultation consistent with Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52). Tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) were notified and invited to consult on the General Plan update and its EIR, and consultation was conducted with those tribes that requested formal consultation. The Lisjan Nation was not included among the tribes notified for the General Plan EIR because it was not identified on the NAHC-provided contact list at that time and had not submitted a written request to the City to receive AB 52 notices pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1(b). The consultation process informed the development of policies and mitigation measures incorporated into the General Plan.
The Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan EIR determined that buildout under the General Plan could result in impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources; however, it concluded that these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of self-mitigating General Plan policies. Specifically, General Plan Actions LU-5.2.D, LU-5.2.E, and LU-5.2.F which require measures such as early identification of Tribal Cultural Resources, consultation with appropriate tribal representatives, worker training, and procedures for the treatment of inadvertent discoveries. These policies were adopted as part of the General Plan and are uniformly applied to subsequent development projects, including the Bear Creek South Project.
Because AB 52 consultation requirements are triggered only when a lead agency prepares a ND, MND, or EIR, and because the City did not prepare an ND, MND or EIR for this Project but rather this Project tiers from the previously certified Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan EIR (2040 GP EIR), under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, additional AB 52 consultation process was not required for this Project. However, earlier in the Project review process, the City did circulate AB 52 notification letters for the Project because at that time it was evaluating whether an EIR might be required and wanted to invite tribal input at the earliest possible point in that process. The Lisjan Nation requested consultation, and the City engaged in good-faith consultation regarding Tribal Cultural Resources.
The Circle Law Group submitted a comment letter on behalf of the Lisjan Nation on March 18, 2026, alleging that the City failed to acknowledge the Lisjan Nation’s concerns regarding potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. The administrative record, however, reflects that the City engaged in an extensive, good-faith consultation process with the Lisjan Nation beginning shortly after issuance of the AB 52 consultation notices on November 8, 2024. Following the Lisjan Nation’s request for consultation on November 13, 2024, City staff promptly provided the Cultural Resources Assessment and participated in numerous communications with tribal representatives regarding the Project, including responding to requests for information, coordinating access to available cultural resource documentation, explaining the confidentiality restrictions applicable to records maintained by the Central California Information Center (CCIC), and scheduling consultation meetings to discuss the Project and potential measures to address tribal cultural resources.
As part of that consultation process, City staff met with representatives of the Lisjan Nation on January 22, 2025, during which the Nation requested additional information regarding the Property and recommended that non-invasive subsurface testing be performed. The City subsequently provided the Lisjan Nation with an updated Cultural Resources Assessment and continued coordinating additional consultation. Although a second consultation meeting was scheduled for August 6, 2025, the meeting was cancelled by the Lisjan Nation while it pursued direct access to confidential CCIC records.
Consultation efforts continued into 2026. On January 28, 2026, City staff and representatives of the Lisjan Nation held an additional consultation meeting to discuss the Project, the revised Cultural Resources Assessment, and proposed Project Requirements addressing tribal cultural resources. Following that meeting, the City transmitted the revised site plan, updated Cultural Resources Assessment, and comprehensive Project Requirements to the Lisjan Nation and expressly requested any comments or feedback by March 16, 2026, in advance of the scheduled Planning Commission hearing.
Consistent with the comments and recommendations received throughout the consultation process, the applicant revised the Project Requirements to strengthen protections for tribal cultural resources. Specifically, the Project Requirements were modified to require non-invasive subsurface testing of the Property and to require the participation of both a Tribal representative and a qualified archaeologist during that testing. These revisions were incorporated into the Project in direct response to concerns raised during consultation and are intended to further ensure the identification and appropriate treatment of any previously unknown tribal cultural resources.
Nevertheless, on March 18, 2026, the Circle Law Group submitted a comment letter on behalf of the Lisjan Nation asserting that the City had failed to acknowledge the Nation’s concerns regarding tribal cultural resources, and on April 8, 2026, one day prior to the Planning Commission hearing, submitted an additional comment letter asserting that the City remained obligated to continue consultation. As discussed below, the administrative record demonstrates that the City engaged in an extensive and ongoing consultation process with the Lisjan Nation, carefully considered the comments and recommendations received throughout that process, and incorporated revisions to the Project Requirements in direct response to those comments.
Overall, the City’s final cultural resources analysis and Project requirements have been informed through coordination with the Lisjan Nation and Northern Valley Yokuts, the tribe that is historically and culturally affiliated with the Project area. As noted above, Northern Valley Yokuts have expressed support for the Project Requirements.
The Project incorporates specific applicant-proposed Project Requirements as conditions of approval that are proposed and designed to ensure consistency with General Plan policies, Federal and State legal requirements, including:
• Subsurface testing;
• Archaeological oversight;
• Tribal participation, as appropriate;
• Worker training;
• Inadvertent discovery protocols consistent with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98; and
• Treatment plans consistent with professional standards.
With adherence to these Project Requirements that are in accordance with the various generally applicable existing legal and regulatory requirements (e.g., General Plan policies and actions, along with Federal, State, and local regulations), the Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts not already identified and addressed in the 2040 GP EIR - consistent with the 2040 GP EIR’s findings regarding cultural and tribal cultural resources. (See 2040 GP Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-18 to 4.5-20.)
In response to the April 8 letter from the Lisjan Nation and following the April 9, 2026, Planning Commission hearing about the Project, the Project Applicant retained Tremaine Associates, Cultural Resources Consulting, to conduct an independent third-party peer review of the CRA and the City’s Section 15183 Analysis regarding impacts on Tribal Cultural Resources (Attachment F).
The third-party peer review concluded that the measures incorporated into the Project as Project Requirements 6, 7, and 8 are technically adequate and professionally sound. Project Requirement 6 will directly address the most significant archaeological and tribal cultural concerns raised by the site’s resource history and soils conditions. But the third-party review identified and recommended three (3) additional enhancements to further strengthen the efficacy of the Project Requirements. These recommendations include: (1) developing a written Pre-Construction Testing Plan for subsurface testing required under Project Requirement 6 prior to issuance of grading permits; (2) establishing a data recovery as the treatment standard for any significant subsurface discoveries for the treatment plan to be prepared consistent with the SOI’s Standards under Project Requirement 6; and (3) confirm Tribal coordination protocol in Project documentation for clarifying the identity of the Tribal Monitor or Monitors and their respective roles under Project Requirements 6, 7, and 8, which are contained in pagers 5 and 6 of the technical memo prepared by Tremaine Associates which is included with the Applicant’s letter (Attachment F). The City is incorporating these recommended enhancements included in the third-party report prepare by Tremaine Associates as conditions of approval of this Project to further strengthen the efficacy of the Project Requirements 6 through 8.
Overall, the City has consulted with and has provided meaningful opportunities for tribal input and consideration of such input, and no additional consultation is required for this Project under CEQA. Further, implementation of various generally applicable existing legal and regulatory requirements and Project Requirements 6 through 8, and compliance with a condition of approval recommended for inclusion to implement the enhancements recommended by the Tremaine memorandum would ensure that the Project and the site impacts would be consistent with the 2040 GP EIR’s findings regarding cultural and tribal cultural resources.
For additional information and evidence related to these CEQA and Tribal Cultural Resource and tribal consultation issues, please see the recent letter received from the applicant’s counsel (also included in Attachment F).
CEQA Conclusion
The Bear Creek South Residential Project is consistent with the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan and was fully contemplated within the scope of the previously certified 2040 GP EIR. Residential development of the Bear Creek South lands at the proposed density has been contemplated in multiple prior General Plan iterations and associated environmental reviews.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, 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 CEQA. The Project also incorporates robust measures to address cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, ensuring compliance with applicable law and consistency with the intent of AB 52.
Prezoning
Since the Project site is presently located within an unincorporated area of the County of San Joaquin, annexation must occur and be preceded by “Prezoning” through a Zoning Map Amendment. The Project includes a request to Prezone the site to Residential, Low Density (RL) zoning, as well as Public Facilities (PF), and Open Space (OS) zoning (Attachment G - Prezoning Description and Map).
The 2040 General Plan Land Use Map designates the Project site as Low Density Residential (LDR). Pursuant to Table 2-1 (General Plan Relationship to Development Code) of the General Plan, RL, OS, and PF zoning is compatible with the General Plan Land Use designation of Low Density Residential. As reflected in the Proposed Resolution, all necessary findings can be made to support the proposed Prezoning action.
Upon approval of the Annexation by LAFCo, the Zoning Map Amendment would become effective and applicable, and the lands would officially be a part of the City of Stockton.
Annexation
The overall Project site is located within the City’s Sphere of Influence, and the proposed zoning of RL, PF, and OS is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation of LDR. The area proposed for annexation includes all Project parcels, including non-development parcels, including APNs 120-020-260; -270; -300; -310; -320; and a portion of -300; 120-030-060; -070; -090; and -100; 122-010-050; 124-010-010; -030; -070; 124-020-110 and -120 (Attachment H - Annexation Map).
As the overall Project site is presently located within the jurisdiction of San Joaquin County, the applicant has requested annexation of the Project site into the City of Stockton. Pursuant to SMC Section 16.212.050(E)(1), the City Council is the Review Authority for annexation requests upon recommendation from the Development Review Committee (DRC).
Development Review Committee
Per SMC 16.212.050(C)(1) the Development Review Committee (DRC) is responsible for reviewing and recommending decisions on Annexations, condominium projects, development agreements, master development plans, multifamily projects, planned development permits, precise road plans, sphere of influence amendments and updates, specific plans, street name changes, tentative maps, and utility master plans and major utility extensions.
On March 25, 2026, the DRC reviewed the Project merits of the DA and annexation of the Project site and recommended approval to the Director. If approved by the City Council, the City Manager would be authorized to file an annexation application with the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) and execute the DA.
Development Agreement
A Development Agreement (DA) is being requested with the 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 public benefits for a city.
Here, the proposed DA, included as an Exhibit to the accompanying ordinance in the legislative report, includes an initial 10-year term and opportunity for the Developer to request two (2) additional 5-year extensions based on achieving specified development milestones, for a combined total of 20 years. If approved, the DA locks in the current City Public Facilities Fee rates for 10 years from the date the Agreement becomes effective. In exchange, the City will receive land at no cost to the City for the proposed neighborhood parks (present day value of $4.15 million dollars) that would normally be eligible for reimbursement from the Public Facilities Fee program. The Developer shall only be eligible for receiving fee credits on 50% of the parkland fee within the Project area. Further, construction of any of the parks within an approved Final Map shall commence during site development, benefitting new homeowners early on, as opposed to having an unimproved lot in the neighborhood for a future park that might be constructed many years later.
The approval of a DA is accomplished by the adoption of an Ordinance and shall be based on and contain the findings of fact listed in SMC 16.128.080. The proposed Project DA is included as Exhibit 1A to the Ordinance recommending approval of the DA to the City Council.
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
On April 9, 2026, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed Project request for approval of the three (3) Tentative Maps and recommendation that City Council approve Prezoning of the site and a Development Agreement based on recommended findings provided in the City staff report.
There were three (3) comment letters submitted regarding the Project prior to the Planning Commission hearing. Comments were received from:
1. The Circle Law Group representing the Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation on April 8, 2026 regarding Tribal Cultural Resources and alleging that consultation has been insufficient and should continue, and opining that the Project should not move forward without further review and tribal involvement.
2. The Sierra Club’s - Delta-Sierra Group of the Mother Lode Chapter, on April 7, 2026, regarding providing housing dedicated to low-income households, as well as the inclusion of EV-ready outlets in all homes for electric cars.
3. Mary Elizabeth on April 9, 2026, raising concerns regarding the Project’s alleged inconsistency with multiple General Plan policies; a critique on the expansion into greenfield/agricultural lands; parks and open space calculation standards; infrastructure and public services concerns including alleged outdated public facility fees (PFF); habitat and agricultural conversion; and community planning concerns, with a request to continue/delay the hearing to provide additional analysis and clarification of mitigation measures. Ms. Elizabeth also submitted an appeal which is discussed in the next section.
During the public hearing, comments from the public were received and generally related to Tribal Cultural Resources. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 (Sanguinetti, recusal, Graves absent) to approve the three (3) Tentative Maps (Attachment I - Planning Commission Resolutions), and to recommend that the City Council determine the project is consistent with General Plan and its prior certified Environmental Impact Report, approve a Prezoning, and a Development Agreement.
APPEAL
On April 20, 2026, Mary Elizabeth (Appellant) filed an appeal (Attachment J) of the Planning Commission’s decision citing several areas of concern as discussed in length below. For clarity, the Planning Commission’s formal action was the approval of three (3) tentative maps for the Bear Creek Project; the remainder of their action was advisory and recommendations to the City Council (not considered an appealable decision). Therefore, the only Planning Commission actions available for appeal are the approvals of the tentative maps, which are not explicitly mentioned in the Appellant’s appeal statement.
The Applicant has prepared a detailed response to the issues raised by the Appellant, which is included in Attachment F.
Appeal Issue A-1: General Plan Consistency
The Appellant states that she believes the Project is inconsistent with various General Plan policies, including those related to preservation of agricultural land, prioritization of infill development, and reduction of vehicle miles traveled.
Staff Response: The Project has been evaluated for consistency with the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan and has been determined to be consistent with the applicable land use designation, density, and policies. The Project site is designated Low Density Residential and is within the City’s Sphere of Influence. While the General Plan includes policies encouraging infill development, it also contemplates planned growth areas within the Sphere of Influence. Staff finds the Project consistent with the General Plan, and the Appellant provides no evidence for her assertion that the Project is inconsistent with the cited General Plan policies.
Appeal Issue A-2: Annexation / Greenfield Development
The Appellant states that she is concerned the Project promotes greenfield development and urban expansion into agricultural areas rather than focusing growth within existing developed areas of the City
Staff Response: The General Plan anticipates a combination of infill and planned expansion to accommodate projected growth. The Project site has long been designated for residential development at an even higher density than is currently proposed for this Project under successive General Plans and was evaluated as part of the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan EIR. Conversion of agricultural land in designated growth areas was anticipated and programmatically analyzed. Staff finds the Project consistent with the General Plan.
Appeal Issue A-3: CEQA/Section15183 Documentation (alleged Checklist Discrepancy)
The Appellant states that she is concerned about alleged discrepancies between versions of the Section 15183 Consistency Checklist and questions whether the environmental review documents provided to decision-makers were complete and accurate.
Staff Response: The referenced documents represent administrative updates to the Section 15183 Consistency Checklist. No substantive changes were made that would alter the conclusions of the environmental analysis. The final version of the checklist is prepared for decision-makers on the Project and constitutes the official environmental record that contains substantial evidence supporting the City’s determination under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. The City’s website has been updated with the 15183 version provided to the Planning Commissioners.
Appeal Issue A-4: Parks and Open Space
The Appellant states that she is concerned that park acreage may not meet General Plan standards and that a storm basin may be improperly counted as parkland.
Staff Response: Parkland requirements are addressed through the City’s subdivision and development review process and are subject to applicable standards and conditions of approval. Consistent with the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan, the Project is required to provide a minimum of 35.18 acres of combined parks and open space. As proposed, the Project includes approximately 27.7 acres of public park space and 27.2 acres of open space, for a total of approximately 54.9 acres of combined parks and open space. Accordingly, the Project exceeds the applicable General Plan requirement by approximately 19.72 acres.
The Appellant’s concern regarding the inclusion of the stormwater basin as parkland is likewise unfounded. The stormwater basin has been specifically designed and approved for joint use as both a drainage facility and recreational open space, consistent with City standards and long-standing planning practice. As such, the jointly used facility is appropriately credited toward the Project’s park and open space obligation.
Appeal Issue A-5: Infrastructure and Public Services
The Appellant states that she feels there is uncertainty regarding stormwater design, mosquito control, and adequacy/timing of infrastructure funding.
Staff Response: The Project will be required to comply with all applicable City engineering standards, stormwater regulations, and vector control requirements at the time of improvement plan approval. Detailed design, including stormwater management, will be reviewed and shall be approved prior to construction. The Project is also subject to applicable development impact fees and infrastructure financing requirements to ensure provision of necessary public services.
Appeal Issue A-6: Habitat Conservation and Agricultural Conversion
The Appellant states that she is concerned that impacts to biological resources may not be adequately addressed and questions how compliance with the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan will be monitored and enforced.
Staff Response: The Section 15183 Analysis for the Project notes that the Project is required to “continue to comply with the terms of the SJMSCP…and [requires] new development to implement best practices to protect biological resources including incidental take minimization measures and other federal and State requirements and recommendations, that are consistent with the SJMSCP…”
The Project is subject to the requirements of the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), a regional habitat conservation program that provides a comprehensive framework for mitigating impacts to covered species and habitats. The City of Stockton implements its obligations under the SJMSCP through Chapter 13.40 of the Stockton Municipal Code, which requires qualifying development projects to pay applicable SJMSCP development fees. Compliance with the SJMSCP, including payment of the required fees and implementation of applicable program requirements, provides mitigation for impacts to covered biological resources in accordance with the adopted regional conservation program.
With respect to agricultural land conversion, the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report determined that the cumulative conversion of agricultural land associated with General Plan buildout would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. Consistent with the City's adopted mitigation framework, the Project will be required to pay the applicable Agricultural Land Mitigation Fee, which funds the preservation of agricultural lands through conservation easements elsewhere within San Joaquin County.
Appeal Issue A-7: Loss of Neighborhood-Serving Commercial Uses
The Appellant states that she is concerned that the removal or reduction of planned neighborhood-serving commercial uses may reduce walkability, increase vehicle trips, and diminish the creation of a complete community. Appellant is also concerned the Project may increase vehicle miles traveled and associated greenhouse gas emissions due to its location and land use configuration.
Staff Response:
Land use designations and zoning decisions are evaluated based on overall consistency with the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan. While the Appellant expresses a preference for additional neighborhood-serving commercial uses, the Project remains consistent with the applicable General Plan land use designation and implementing policies. The proposed land use pattern, including the location and extent of commercial uses, reflects the development framework established by the General Plan.
The Appellant’s concerns regarding walkability, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), greenhouse gas emissions, and the creation of a complete community were evaluated at the program level in the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report. The Project is consistent with the General Plan’s adopted land use designations and does not result in impacts peculiar to the Project or the site that were not previously analyzed.
To the extent the Appellant raises concerns regarding affordable housing, the Project will contribute to the City’s overall housing supply by providing additional residential units consistent with the General Plan and the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) planning objectives. The Project is not proposed as an affordable housing development, nor is approval of the Project contingent upon the provision of deed-restricted affordable units. Accordingly, the absence of an affordable housing component does not render the Project inconsistent with the General Plan or otherwise provide a basis for denial of the requested entitlements.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
An applicant sponsored neighborhood meeting was held on September 10, 2025, in compliance with SMC 16.88.025. The meeting was held at Westwood Elementary School, which is located at 9444 Caywood Drive in Stockton. There were nine (9) 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. All attendees were in support of the Project.
On May 28, 2026, a public records request was received from Lozeau Drury LLP representing Laborers International Union of North America, Local No. 73, and on May 29, 2026 a communication was received requesting an extension of the hearing to allow receipt and review of biological field survey results for April and May of 2026 for the Project and qualifications of the biologist that conducted the survey. The requested information was provided by the City on June 30, 2026 (See Attachment K).
Notice for the City Council public hearing for this request was published in The Record on June 18, 2026, and mailed notice was sent to all property owners within a 300-foot radius at least twenty (20) days prior. As of the writing of this staff report, no written comments have been submitted.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
Approval of the project would provide additional revenue to the City’s General Fund collected through property taxes and additional revenue to the Development Services Fund collected through building permits. There is no impact to the City’s General Fund or any other unrestricted fund. Costs associated with the proposed design and construction of improvements will be borne by the developer.
Attachment A - Aerial Photo and Location Map
Attachment B - General Plan Land Use Map
Attachment C - Zoning Map
Attachment D - Tentative Maps
Attachment E - CEQA 15183 Checklist
Attachment F - Applicant’s Letter
Attachment G - Prezoning Description and Map
Attachment H - Annexation Map
Attachment I - Planning Commission Resolutions
Attachment J - Appeal
Attachment K - Public Comment (Lozeau Drury LLP) and City Response