Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I pledge allegiance to the clan of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, in principle, with liberty, justice for all.

Item four is public comments or written communication. At this time, members of the public may address the planning commission on any item not already included in tonight's agenda. If you would like to speak, please fill out a speaker card located in the back of the room and submit it to the recording secretary, and we will not be taking any public comment via Zoom. Have we received any public comments or speaker cards for items not on the agenda?

No comments received. However, there is a speaker card Okay. For Adam Musters.

Okay.

Oh, it says item four on here.

Okay. We'll we'll call you when we get to that item. Thank you. Okay. And so with no other public, we'll go ahead and close the public comment. You know? Item five, additions and revisions. There are none tonight. Item 6.1 are the minutes from our last meeting. Any corrections, changes, additions? If not, if I can ask for a motion to accept them.

Go. Go ahead. I can post to accept the agenda. I mean, that's Minutes from 01/20/2026 meeting. Right. Thank you.

I'll offer the second.

Okay. We'll go ahead and vote on our iPads. Okay. It did pass 5000. Thank you all. Okay. Item seven is continue items after the close of the public hearing. We have none. And item eight is a continued item. It is the public hearing on the Orchards development project.

We have a recommendation from staff and a short presentation. So why don't we go ahead and turn it over to Muzi?

Sure. So, in light of my staff report being very short, I'm just gonna stay in my chair if that's okay. But just a reminder, tonight is our continued, meeting on the Orchard's development application. It's the third public hearing that the planning commission has conducted. At the last meeting in January, the commission had requested some additional information and edits to the conditions of approval, which we've incorporated into the attachments this evening for your consideration.

The, applicant doesn't have a formal presentation as well, but they're available to answer any questions that you might have. But, ultimately, tonight, we have a resolution that's been, that was requested at the last meeting that that is attached for the commission's consideration. And with that, that concludes my report this evening. If there's questions of staff, I can certainly take those now, or I know we have some public comment as well.

Yes. Okay. So at this point, if there are questions clarifying what was in the staff report or the project itself and, this is our third public hearing, so, ideally, we've captured the questions from last time and staff has addressed them. So we'll do that first, and I know the applicant is here to answer any questions we might have. So do you have some questions?

Sure. Commissioner Kenjula. Hello. Good evening. So to the staff, I do have one quick question. Similar to the conditions of approval for the park, Do we have any conditions of approval for the affordable housing corresponding to the Orchard's Neighborhood District?

We do. They should be under the heading of affordable housing. There's one there's associated conditions in both the master plan conditions of approval as well as in the neighborhood's conditions of approval. So on the master plan packet page 31, there's a heading under housing that starts the associated conditions related to the master plan on affordable housing. And then in exhibit b, there are conditions under the heading of affordable housing, and I'm just buying myself some time before I find that date.

'43.

Okay. '43.

K. There are some comments that we can I can go over them afterwards?

Afterwards. Afterwards. Mhmm.

After the public comments.

Thank you. Other questions?

Yeah. I have some questions. I know that we had brought it up before at the last planning commission hearing regarding just the improvements that would connect the orchard's development to the existing Bishop Ranch one, and there was a slide that showed a couple of those connections depicting existing sidewalks to be built with related new connection build to be built with orchards. And I looked in the conditions of approval, but I didn't see anything in relation to the improvements, and the timing for when those would be constructed.

So the project that you have in front of you has a master plan component that identifies future connections that the applicant intends to make to connect the project site with the with ultimately the Iron Horse Trail. And so the design guidelines and and identify how pedestrian connections will be made for this project. The development plan itself is focused specifically on the improvements that are being made to the project site of the 92 acres. Objective standards that the city has in place for development applications require improvements that are made on-site related to the project itself. There is no obligation to make those connections other than the fact that the master plan and the design guidelines identify those.

And so the development agreement is typically the document in which you would then address off-site improvements, because development plans are associated just with the project area. But a development agreement will then identify those off-site improvements that are not within the project site area. So the expectation is that as part of the development agreement process, there will be those improvements identified and then timings associated with that.

I'm just kinda thinking this through my head right now. But on the other end, like, typically, if there is, like, a a package that is associated with the development plan in this case, we also capture off-site improvements within the conditions of approval. So we wouldn't do that here even though that's a typical thing that we usually do. We'd save that for the development agreement.

There are going to be certain projects that through, let's say, the sequel process or the traffic operations analysis identify potentially off-site improvements. So those are things like the restriping that's identified in the traffic mitigations. Those are the types of conditions that you would include as part of the conditions for approval because of the obligation of the project to mitigate an issue. The connection to get to Iron Horse Trail is not a development standard that's obligated to a development plan to meet those obligations for off-site improvements. So those are things that generally are negotiated as part of that development agreement, and and that's typically the the difference.

So traffic improvements are generally some of the off-site improvements that you'll see that will get included in conditions. But things like pedestrian connections, as long as the project is meeting the obligations of complete streets, meaning that each house, each, you know, parcel has connections to that that meet the the the city's complete street standards. If those are fulfilled, then the the project can has met their obligations for complete streets.

K. So what if this project doesn't move forward with a development agreement and we don't see Eden Housing and we just never capture the connectivity to Iron Horse Trail?

So the connectivity to the Iron Horse Trail is available through the through Boulder Canyon Road. There is one connection that's that's incorporated there. The applicant has, through the through their design guidelines, have made those commitments to provide those connections. And the design guidelines are adopted as part of this project. And so that is how one would create the obligation is through the perfecting of the match the design guidelines that have been incorporated as part of the project.

Do the design guidelines reference the completion of when those connections should happen?

I don't believe there's a specific time associated with that. It's the twenty year build out period is is the expectation of when those improvements would be made. So during the the twenty year build out of the project, by the time the project closes out, the expectation is that these these connections would be made.

Can we have Stephanie speak to a little bit more about the timing for when she would anticipate that, or is that staff's discretion at this point?

And she she she could if yeah. Okay.

Good evening. Stephanie Hill on behalf of Sunset. In relation to the two sidewalk segments that we're referring to, they're essentially to the east of the property line on Orchard's office. And what we had described at the last planning commission meeting was that those sidewalks would be built in conjunction with the the timing of the residential component on the western side of of the property line just to ensure that everything matches up and is properly aligned. In terms of the southern sidewalk, we would expect that that would be built as part of the Orchard's neighborhood district.

And then the northern sidewalk, we would expect that that would be built as part of the Orchard's mixed use district. Again, just to make sure that we're having everything aligned on on both sides of the property line.

If I could just

just to clarify, you're I think are you asking, just to clarify, the you're walking through Orchards East and you get to the property line where the offices start, and that connectivity is where you're how those two come together? Is that that's the is that the area that you're specifically talking about?

Yeah. I'm specifically concerned about that area just because I I see this every weekday. I myself, you know, go ahead and see that there's two stop signs, especially at the the Northern New Connection build that's next to the mixed use. And people often don't stop and look left. Right?

They just continue right. So there's not adequate pedestrian connectivity, and it's potentially not safe for people to go ahead and pass that way. And that's why I think there has to be some sort of measures that are implemented prior to occupancy of those homes because I know that Heritage Park is coming, that's within the next couple of months. So I would anticipate that people that move into that residential district to the south are gonna wanna use that park. So they're going to walk, and that's the easiest point of connection to get to Heritage Park.

And so that's where my concern is is that I would want for there to be some sort of safe pedestrian access because I know that the residents will use that park given that the Central park won't be built until the mixed use.

And the the segment that we are talking about in that southern section, we're proposing that that's built as part of the Orchard's neighborhood district. And so that southern connection point would connect to the existing sidewalks, which are within the Orchard's office campus. And and we showed at the last presentation the north, south, east, west connection points showing a a lot of different opportunities for pedestrians to access the Iron Horse Trail both to the east as well as to access the Heritage Park improvements, which we'll be opening this spring. We also have improvements that are being done as part of the Heritage Park improvements, including a pedestrian a couple of pedestrian crosswalks that are within that scope of work, which will be completed prior to the park opening this spring. So there are a number of improvements that are happening to the east of the project site that that will in enhance pedestrian access and and safety.

Okay. So that means that the city can rest assured knowing that there will be, you know, a safe pedestrian access from that neighborhood district to Heritage Park and potentially the Iron Horse Trail.

That that is what we've proposed. That's consistent with what we presented at the last meeting, and and there's a lot of pedestrian infrastructure that does exist within Orchard's Office. And we do acknowledge there are some missing gaps in terms of East West connections between Orchard's Office and the Orchard's neighborhood. And we're proposing that those segments are built in conjunction with the residential, which will be built within the Orchard's neighborhood.

Do you think that you can commit to having that prior to occupancy of those homes? Because at the same time, like, you know, at what building permit. Right?

And so what what we have discussed is we have a lot of different ways that we think that first Orchard's neighborhood could be faced. So there are a lot of different ways that Orchard's neighborhood can be phased, and so we do need to look through which home is delivered first and where is that located within Orchard's community? And those are all pieces that we will be working through with the city, and the city has various plan reviews with the building department and engineering that looks at all of these components that I can't specifically say today. This is the exact dimension and the exact location of this sidewalk that will be developed on this specific date. All of that is something that we work through as we develop the plans for these individual components, which go through a variety of reviews with the city departments to ensure that there's pedestrian safety.

Okay. So we can commit then to prior to occupancy of the first building permit, there will be pedestrian connectivity to Heritage Park?

Yes. We can commit to that.

Is that a condition, Cindy, that we can go ahead and add? Or in the development agreement? Okay.

Yeah. So our expectations, because it's an off-site improvement, that can be incorporated in, through the development agreement as as opposed to, the conditions that are in front of you tonight.

Okay. And then as for and I I think this is back to you, Cindy. In terms of the multipurpose trail that encompasses, you know, this project, at at what point are we looking at that? Is that something also to be in the development agreement, although it is part of the Intrax?

Right. Because the multi purpose trail connects through various districts and both North South and and East West, because of the, as Stephanie mentioned, timing of of the phasing within each of those districts are going to be different. That's something that can be addressed in the development agreement as far as the safe safe and accessible way to get the multiuse trail and and when that the timing of that trail is going to be available with for the project.

And then my last question is regarding the affordable housing. You know, I just kinda want some clarification on I know that Eden is looking at developing the site to the the southwest of the multifamily district, and that development agreement is gonna go ahead and follow our approval. But within this approval that we have here tonight, that staff is saying that, you know, they recommend for approval. Do we have them, like, contributing the BMR requirements here, or is that referenced in the latter? Just because I know that with some of the developments that we've seen Sunset do, there's sometimes where it's a package deal such as b r eight.

We saw the development agreement at the same time as the whole project. Whereas here, it's, you know, behind. So if if Sunset doesn't move forward with having Eden develop that site, does that mean that they are committed to going ahead and having the Intract housing go ahead and have that 15% of affordable units?

Right. So the the commitment that's being made through these conditions of approval is that Sunset will commit to a minimum of 15% and and actually over that percentage based on the the tables that are embedded into the conditions of approval. But it specifically calls out that the neighborhoods district, how many units are associated with that, and then the affordable housing site, specifically how many units are going to be provided with that project. By having those in the conditions of approval, the applicant then is obligated to provide the affordable housing, whether that's Eden as the provider or a different provider if there's no partnership in in the future between between those two groups. But the obligation of the condition for Sunset is still that they would be required to provide the the the units that were conditioned in the project.

And is there any discretion that the planning commission has in having a percentage of those units be within the for sale neighborhood homes, or, you know, do we have our hands tied with HCD and the state in terms of because they're having this obligation, we have no other choice. We have to do it, or else we can risk getting sued.

The obligation for the inclusionary requirement is is not an HCD requirement. It's a city adopted inclusionary housing ordinance requirement. So the 15% must build that's identified in the city's inclusionary ordinance, that's the condition that we've put for each of our projects to be fulfilled to meet the requirements of the inclusionary housing ordinance. Now within the the ordinance, it does give flexibility for how a project can meet that 15% obligation. And that is through instead of in a variety of ways, donation of land, on-site construction, partnerships with an affordable housing provider.

So any of those means of compliance is up to the commission to then evaluate, does the proposal meet the inclusionary housing ordinance and fulfill that requirement by providing the units in the manner that they've proposed. And so that that's the question for the commission is, does the proposal meet the inclusionary housing ordinance requirements?

So in this case here, do we have any discretion to say no?

You you can make findings that the inclusionary housing ordinance, obligation has not been met. They've provided an affordable housing plan that was attached in your December staff report, which details out how that obligations can be met. So that's why the conditions are drafted in the way that they are because, at least up until this point, I haven't heard that that their approach to how they intend to fulfill the inclusionary requirement hasn't been satisfactory.

K. I just you know, at this point, we've seen a lot of Eden projects. Have we approved three so far in the last year or so? It's been two.

We've approved two. One in on Camino Ramon and one, with the Canopy project on Executive Parkway. There is a third application that has been filed, that the applicant Eden Housing is is the applicant on that that they're working on specifically for this orchard's development. Okay. Thank you. Thanks.

Cindy, I think I was hinting towards the same things. I have the same concerns. I know Sunset is going above our 15% guidelines all the way to 16.4 or something they have proposed. But with all good intents aside, economy is something that is in nobody's control. And many of the city council members have also raised a concern about first sale versus individual rented items for the affordable housing, that being one part of it.

I would come back to the same concern. And as I have said in the email earlier as well regarding this, that a portion we are approving the neighborhood's 464 units right now without any affordable housing units. So I want some kind of assurance that I would be looking at that saying, okay. Buy occupancy certificate of 100 or two hundredth unit. There will be affordable housing that will be built.

So that kind of a condition, I'm looking where the city doesn't end up with the land and trying to figure out when and where to build. So that probably, I have raised this concern separately with the city staff as well, and that would be my point that I would like to make even to the city council.

So is there a question for staff to answer? We're clarifying. Are you is your question on what happens if, is that the is that the hypothetical you're posing, or what is your question?

That's a hypothetical, but my concern is we are approving almost three units of Eden housing just within San Ramon within a short period of time. And its feasibility and all that. If everything goes well and good, then it's great for the city. No concerns. But I would like to have some kind of a COA, conditional approval for the neighborhoods, which we are approving today or plan to approve today that is in front of us, wherein we can say, okay.

We are gonna go ahead with the 464 units without any affordable housing that is being built within that neighborhoods, but we would like to see some kind of assurance to the city that affordable housing will be provided. And one of the idea that the fellow commissioner, miss Avela, has brought up is, can you add that 15% last 15% of the units out of the 464 as a condition that they would be building the affordable housing by the time they get to the last 15% of the housing units. That would also work for me. Whatever is the best way forward.

May I ask a follow-up question of staff? It is my recollection that when we have worked through the the two prior Edenhousing projects, pardon me, there was quite an extensive list of obligations and conditions in which Eden had to execute developing this this apartment building. Now isn't it reasonable to think that the city would include the same list of obligations, like, every five years? And if you don't have it for five years, then this can happen, that can happen, this can happen when it comes time to this development agreement for this particular neighborhoods that and for that particular neighborhood's affordable project that those conditions would be similarly included in those development agreements?

Yes. So there is a development agreement that will include the designation of time commitments. But I think beyond that, when you're looking at these conditions of approval and the way that the neighborhood's conditions of approval identify how the project's going to meet the affordable housing requirement, it specifies that prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the neighborhood's district, that the applicant will have an affordable housing plan in place with those specific number of units that they've committed to. And that plan will address exactly how those units are going to be provided through the affordable housing agreement. And that agreement has to be signed before that first building permit gets issued for Neighborhoods District.

That's condition number nine in exhibit b. And that affordable housing agreement instructions can be further refined in the development agreement. If there are some specific instructions that you're asking for the applicant to commit to, that can be included as part of the development agreement. Eden Housing, as the operator, is no longer going to operate there, you can put in a contingency for what happens it is not Eden. Very similar to the two other development agreements that were signed by the city that addresses whether it is Eden or some other builder, Sunset ultimately has made the commitment that those units are going to be fulfilled.

Okay. K. You you have no more questions? I have. You have more questions or comments?

Just one more question.

Questions. So

there was all so all this, we are coming back to different conditions of approval for exhibit a versus exhibit b, both from the perspective of major subdivision and development plan, which is d p 2024006, which corresponds to the Orchard's Neighborhood District as a part of the resolution zero two twenty six. It would be also easy for the fellow for myself and the fellow members, prime commission members, also with the citizens of San Ramon, wherein if we could have separated each and every one of these instead of lumping them together, zero to 26, into one piece, which includes the major subdivision tentative map, which we are all fine with, and the master plan that Stephanie and Sunset have multiple times gone over, which many of them are comfortable with, and environmental review. So what we are trying to do is combine all different pieces of it together, and it would have been very nice if we could have separated them out and gone in a hierarchical way. That would have really helped. And from my objections perspective also, that would have really helped clear out some of the details.

So is your question why is the resolution plus the conditions structured the way it is? Is that the question?

Not the conditions, but the resolutions itself. The resolution zero to 26 includes all different DPs. One is a master plan, and we are approving the master plan along with the neighborhood district, which is a piece of the master plan. So what we are doing is we are doing the entire pie, and then a slice of pie we are approving without knowing the rest of the pie still sitting there. So I I would it would have been very helpful to do the entire picture one time and then bits and pieces separately.

That was my concern, and I wanted to bring that up. So if we could sub split them up, that would be very helpful. Is that is that my question to you is, is there a possibility if we could do that?

I don't believe so. And we've already consulted the city attorney's office, and they're in agreement with the approach to how the resolution is set up. Is that one application for a subdivision has been made, one application for tree removal. There are two development plan applications that are made because there are two separate development plans proposed, One for the larger master plan and then one specifically to the Neighborhoods District. When you're evaluating and approving applications, you have to do that through one resolution.

You can have separate conditions of approval that addresses different conditions for different applications. So if we wanted to separate out separate application conditions just for the tree removal, you could have Exhibit D and say these are conditions just for tree removal. But you would never have two resolutions because there's only one application being made for the project. So the way that it's formatted and the structure for two separate conditions of approval is so that it is very clear as an overall umbrella project for the master plan that there is a commitment to all of these conditions associated with the master plan. And then there are separate conditions associated with the neighborhood's district.

Let's say, for example, you've approved the neighborhood district, and then the applicant decides, I've got another development plan for my mixed use district. And they propose those, and we approve them. And you approve conditions approval for those. If the mixed use were to then come first and then you had separate conditions, if you didn't if if you if you did it in that way, you could never be able to to make sure that they've met their master plan obligations. And then individually, each district's requirements have been met.

You have to separate those out because they're asking for two two different things for their development plan. But the the subdivision of the land is one application. And you can either approve that subdivision or or or modify that subdivision or or deny that subdivision. But there's no way to separate out a resolution because of it being one project.

So I I follow what you are saying, Cindy. So what you are saying is the entire Orchard's is one subdivision, which has a master plan, which is the development plan twenty twenty four zero zero eight.

As well as development plan twenty four zero zero six.

That belongs to the neighborhood district?

Correct. But it's all one subdivision.

So you are splitting the entire Orchard Subdivision or the N 92 Acre into multiple subdivisions. Is that correct?

Into multiple parcels. So it's one subdivision application, one subdivision number. So 969693. 969.

98. Yeah. I I've seen that.

9693. It so it's one subdivision application for one map. That map then creates multiple parcels within the project area.

Yeah. K. Well, you can

answer that. Well Go ahead. Mister Zhang, do you have any clarifying questions at this point?

No. I do not, but thank you, chair.

Okay. Mister Kuznick, do you have any Okay.

We can discuss.

Yeah. Sure. Sure. We're getting to we're getting it.

Let's discuss. Okay. Why don't we go ahead and open public comment? Have we received any written comment on this item?

Written public comment was received from Lucy Bahan and Brian Swanson. These comments are a part of the public record and were provided to the commission prior to the meeting. Okay. We have also received three speaker cards.

Okay. Why don't we go ahead and call the first one? And I can confirm that all of the commissioners do have the written comments that were submitted this afternoon, one at 02:30 and one at 03:38. So we can go ahead and call the first speaker, please.

Adam Musters.

Welcome. You have three minutes, and the time's up there, but I'll kinda wait when we get close. It's hard to

Good evening, commissioners. I'm Adam Masters. I'm a business representative for Sheet Metal Workers Local one zero four. I'm here to I'm here tonight representing over 2,000 Contra Costa households who are members of my union and those families that make their living as electricians, sprinkler fitters, and plumbers. And many San Ramon families are members of our unions.

Over the last twenty five years, we have built over 80% of the housing in the county, including several projects similar to what is being posed by Sunset Development. The project will be a big win for San Ramon and the county with significant economic impacts. We are anticipating the approval of the project and the opportunities for our members to help build this important new development. In addition, a project this size can open up apprenticeships for hundreds of young workers, veterans, at risk use that as well. Sunset development has already had a significant impact to the families of construction workers by employing thousands of union construction workers over the decades to build to renovate, and maintain its commercial buildings.

Millions in construction worker wages have been recirculated into the local community. The economic and fiscal impact analyst assumes that the residential construction workforce will be from our county and that they will be paid area standard wages. For residential projects, this is typically not true without some understanding with the local construction trades. Given this reality, the current assumptions in the project's economic and fiscal impact analysts are not entirely supportive. We're in the process of introducing Sunset development to our residential contractors.

There may be nowhere else in the in the country with as much market share than what our contractors have in the in Contra Costa County. We're hopeful that the use of the local construction contractors we work with, that the economic projection forecast for this for this project may be reached. Thank you for your time. Brian

Swanson.

Hi, Brian. I'll kinda give a wave when we're getting close to three minutes.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Brian Swanson, and I'm a certified planner and resident of Twin Creek South. This is my oral summary of the extensive written public comment I submitted for the record on agenda item eight one, which I ask be incorporated in full. What is before you tonight is not a single short term project. It is a twenty year orchards master plan together with approval of the neighborhood district as the first implementing phase.

Staff's California Environmental Quality Act position is that neither the master plan nor the neighborhood district is peculiar to the site and that the environmental impacts disclosed in this December 2023 certified general plan update environmental impact report remain valid and applicable such that no CEQA review is required beyond section one five one eight three consistency checklist. The record does not support that conclusion. CEQA is not a onetime environmental concurrence that can be stretched across decades, let alone years. The applicant's own phasing shows that the major components are not delivered until years seven, twelve, and '20 with full bailout extending to approximately 2045. Tiering does not eliminate the obligation to confront change baseline conditions, substantial new information, and project specific impacts as they arise.

Most importantly, the applicant's own traffic consultant explicitly states that mitigation must be reassessed after the occupation of each phase because conditions are uncertain and will change. That is not my characterization. That is their written conclusion. Reassessment after each phase is an admission that impacts may differ material materially over time. That contradicts the city's frequent no further review posture for any project, especially a twenty year master plan.

The vehicle miles traveled analysis reinforces this problem. The project does not screen out. At the time of the analysis, the city had no adopted BMT thresholds. The project exceeds the screening threshold absent mitigation. The proposed reductions describe an expected nonenforceable or guaranteed, while the 2040 general plan update EIR found that VMT impacts were significant and unenviable due to uncertainty.

Add to this the post 2023 regulatory and analytical baseline changes including ordinances five, twenty nine, and 34 in the city's June 2025 adoption of the updated Saramond climate action plan and CEQUA GHD thresholds and guidance report and the wave of more detailed Bishop Ranch approvals, it is no longer credible to complain that the 2023 environment the program level environmental impact report fully captures today's cumulative conditions for why you're being asked. I know I'm over time, but this is important. In closing, I need to address process integrity. The city has repeatedly framed planning matters as we only have x number of meetings. Therefore, we must approve it as presented.

That framing is inconsistent and due with due process and with the AICP planner's code of ethics and professional conduct, which requires planners and planning bodies to exercise independent judgment, base decisions on adequate and accurate information, and ensure meaningful public participation in discretionary land use decisions. When statutory constraints are used to pressure acceptance of incomplete or internally inconsistent record, the process shifts from deliberative review to manufactured urgency.

Okay. Can I ask you to wrap procedural question? I wrap up, please.

If the city's stated norm is be prepared and do your homework, that obligation applies to the city first.

Okay. Thank you. If I could ask you that.

Bill did not compel approval of a deficient CECO record. Streamlining is not subs a substitute for due process.

Okay. Thank you, Brian. Can I ask you to please sit down? Paragraph.

I respectfully urge the condition to continue this item, require correction of the sequel record, and establish clear, realistic city based and local based CECL thresholds of significance

Great. Thank you very much.

Together with We've

you have all of this in writing.

Fully enforceable mitigation measures and enforceable expectations covering when and how how environmental review will occur as programs, plans, and projects are approved, including this twenty year master plan and the neighborhood district.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you for your pace.

Okay.

We received a fourth speaker card as well.

Okay. Our third one is?

Our third one is Greg Carr.

Great. Thank you.

Before you start the clock on me, would you please have staff put up a ground or a, you know, view of the whole project? A slide. A slide that has the green on it. It shows that it build out.

Are you maybe if you could just turn that off real quick until I find this. Okay.

Thank you. Greg Carr's animal resident that despises keyboard in front of his stomach. Okay. Two things. You you bring up a good point.

And what I suggest that all of you do is is require a phasing plan of the individual sections, subdivisions, whatever, to have them show you over five, ten, twenty years, whatever it is, what they plan to build and where. And then you need to have that as a condition of approval because you wanna get affordable housing in early rather than perhaps late. They may have a conflicting view of that because of cash flow. Okay? Alright.

I'm I'm just gonna speak briefly. Well, I'm gonna speak to my three minutes. And please give me a clock some place because we don't yet have the one I asked for up here. So for all I know, hell, I got three minutes left. I I I wanna talk about parks.

There's a a required amount of parks, and it it's it's known to me that the I I will call them linear parks or perhaps more appropriately, you know, call them the barrier parks on the four sides are counted in the park number. Right? Okay. So to me, the way that is is built out needs to be functioning as a park. It shouldn't have NPDS required drainage ponds, aka swales, in the park, as has been done on another park space up the road.

And the design of it should be that it's inviting to people to use as a linear park. People like to take walks, dogs, whatever, and hike around. Have that shown so that the average citizen can see that, well, yeah, they've they have done things to that to make it useful other than overgrown weeds and trees with things falling off the tree. It should be done so that it's it draws people there. And and then as a comp component of that, I think I spoke about this time back.

There should be places where it's widened out, benches for people to stop. And even, you know, decomposed granite pits for the dogs.

So

the the question comes, how do you build out the parks? That would be something you should also ask in addition to the phasing of the subdivision or the sub elements of the whole project. Have them show you that. Because I contend for them, and of course, for the city, it would be wise to get as much of park space in. So when you're selling these things, or if you aren't living in them, you have something to do there instead of have open fields with grass growing up.

Three minutes. So

what's that? So who's the clock person? Oh, okay.

You're a little bit over, but you can

conclude when chair Albert tells you.

No. No. That that's fine. Thank you very much. And I'm sure that Stephanie Hill and her boss would be happy to perhaps work with you and make you happy with what they're going to build because it will benefit them as well as the citizens who choose to live there. Thank you.

Okay. Go ahead and take off that off the screen so I can do the timer, and then we can call our fourth speaker. Perfect. Okay. Our fourth speaker?

Jim Blickenstaff. Great.

Good evening, mister Elfordsen gang, so to I'm here on one of my favorite subjects, a quality of life subject for the residents. It's a comparable amount of parks for the huge amount of people moving in. And it seems to get second shifts after you start focusing on housing opportunity sites and other things that are prioritized by Sacramento lobbyists and lawmakers and developers here. So this would be a focus that the city does just because it's quality of life for the residents. So the priority focus is on the residents, which we don't really see that happening with huge developments going on.

And it's a it's a mitigation that can be tackled by the city. I think it's a doable thing you can do. So very quickly, I'd like to have recommend that the planning commission, as part of approving this, I assume it'll go to the council, that you recommend to the council prioritizing parks. You have certain set pieces that are already in place. You have a little bit of park going into the development, sort of a fraction of what the general plan says.

And then you have fees that can be was developed like this tens of millions of dollars maybe. So you have starting points here and you have sites that are worth looking at, but we have to prioritize it to make it happen. It can't be an afterthought that just happens happenstance and then you you end up with a serious quality of life issue where community park and every place else is too crowded. And that's especially true with the way housing is being built to stay without the front and backyards. So that's my recommendation for you to prioritize that and put it as something in the when you send this to the council, assuming it goes there, that the the parks be a a big part of it in terms of of getting that prioritized.

So it's almost like thinking instead of housing opportunities sites, think of parks opportunity sites. Give it that same status that you are force fed from this Sacramento. And then there are specific sites. I I think one right now would be Mudge. I understand there's a two acre section there. A guy's looking to sell, and you can start doing that kind of thing so it gets on the agenda, so to speak. And then before you know it, you're solving a quality life issue, and and that's that's something you can tackle. Tap traffic. It'll be that's a whole different issue sometimes. So if you would do that, that's that's what I would say. It's it's it can't can't hurt, and it probably will help.

Great. Thank you for your suggestion. Appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you.

Do we have any other speaker cards at this point?

No further speaker cards at this time.

Okay. Why don't we go ahead and close public comment? So we can discuss. And at the end of our discussion, we are either going to decide that we're ready to discuss the resolution or we have specific recommendations or requests to continue the meeting. But let's start with our discussion tonight. You know, if I can have somebody want to go first. Want to Mister Fuze, please?

Okay. So a couple of thoughts on this. We we have now seen this project in in many meetings, in many iterations and many meetings. We have asked questions that have been answered at every turn, and we were also given some really extensive lists of documentations that included your financial analysis documentation, traffic reports, the mitigating factors. We I I feel like I have give been given all the pieces of information that I could possibly need at this point.

And I purposefully brought my I don't know. Probably weighs five pounds. You know, the design standards and the development plan. Because every time I hear someone ask something, I go to my my sheets here, and it's there. There will always be, I think, something that we could quibble over.

But I was also part of both in parks and on the city on the planning staff when we went through CityWalk. The parks commission looked at all that at first take, and then I was appointed to the planning commission, and I got to go through it again. The we have, as a city, looked at these projects in lots of different ways and come to the conclusion that they do in fact represent good design, quality housing, and consistent with what the general plan says, what we sat through in our design standards when planning commission works through that. And when we've walked through all of these documents, you know, the the diagrams do show where there's an interaction, you know, through the parking lot to Heritage Park. It's there.

And if we're saying that this is the document that we're holding their feet to those flames, then those things are in there. So I'm prepared tonight to offer motion that we adopt the resolution as it stands tonight.

Just as a reminder, you know, this is actually the twelfth public meeting that we've had on this project, believe it or not. You know, going back, our first one was a workshop on February 23 in the Fountain Room, and we had a much bigger audience there. Let me just tell you when it got kicked off. So we have seen it 12 times, and it keeps getting, I think, better. The explanations keep getting better.

But with that said, you know, we are still here going through the process and, you know, never to say we're gonna rush through anything. But as a reminder, we have looked at this going on three years now, surprisingly. It's hard to imagine. Me Let look to my left on comments or areas that you feel like we need a little more clarification, if any, tonight. Or, you know, commissioner Zeng, do you have any comments you wish to make at this point?

I'd just like to echo commissioner Kuznick and chair Albert. I believe last meeting, I stated I was ready to vote on this on the resolution on this project. I've not changed my mind since. Okay. Very happy to proceed. Thank you.

I'm just gonna jump in. There was a a suggestion that there'd be a phasing plan included in the in the project. At our last meeting, there was part of the applicant's presentation did include years and quantity of units and when they would be developed. And then I understand that the amenities will be further expanded in a development agreement. But clarify, the package that we received last week, including this applicant presentation, is that considered part of the public record and part of their commitments, or is there an expectation that things that there's something else that's in the.

So it is part of the public record that the applicant has identified that that's their expected phasing of the project. As a number of you know, best intentions and and and project approval doesn't always necessarily equate to a project ultimately being constructed in the timing that that applications have intended. And so the what hasn't been included as part of the request that was made at the last meeting was how do we treat some of these interim areas while they are not under construction. And there's been a condition that's been added on how the treatment of those of those interim phases will will be. The but there hasn't been a plan that's been labeled phasing plan that has been made part of the conditions of this project's approval.

The the way to potentially think about that is that because the applicant is expecting the development of this over a twenty year period and because the approval of the master plan is, you know, development plans and subdivisions have a lifespan on those regardless of, you know, whether they desire to do it as a twenty year plan. Subdivisions are only good for x amount of years. The only thing that then allows for the project to go beyond the life of that subdivision map is going to be a development agreement that's entered into between the applicant and the city if we both choose to move ahead with that. That document is where you would have the expectation through the development agreement of what assurances the city has for when improvements in other amenities will be coming online. So that that's where you'll have some more details about the expectations over that twenty year period even beyond the life of the the current map, what expectations you can have within each phase.

Okay. And just one point of clarity. Using the city walk master plan as an example, the timing of those improvements is rarely based on the calendar. It's usually tied to a performance standard such as building permits issued. And so the city walk has trigger points throughout the build out of that 4,500 unit plan that once you reach building permit 1,200, you need to do police substation or you need to do whatever requirements there. So we would anticipate that any obligations and trigger points would be tied to the development profile as it goes forward regardless of whether it's year one or year three.

Okay. And as a reminder, we will review the development agreement prior to sending it with our recommendations, comments to city council, and that's what we've done the last few times on this. Okay. Thank you for clarifying. Additional comments? Yes. Mhmm.

So thanks, Chair, for giving the opportunity. I have potentially brought a couple of points that I would like to raise the substandard of concern that relates to the approval. And And my benchmark, just so you guys understand the public as well, is is the project overall beneficial for the city and how beneficial it is? And for both the questions, it is beneficial. No doubt about it.

And the second component is how beneficial is there a is there a scope for better bettering this project? Yes. There is. And that's where I would like to, you know, request couple of comments or couple of concerns that could be added and sent over to the city council just like we have done in previous projects where they could consider them, and they can make their decision as well because they do pay close attention to these points of what we have done, and we have seen the fruitful deliverance of those in our prior meetings. So I would say I I'm not saying we are quilling crippling over small things, which is which is not.

But I I wanna ensure that as a planning commission, I'm I'm making sure doing the justice as a commissioner and for the betterment of the city. And we have seen the orchard spacing scenario that was presented on January 20, which was the first very first page talking over the next twenty years of work they're gonna consider. So all of the plans aside, when there is a saying that we all have plans and when it really comes to it, what happens? We never know. If there is a recession, everything goes down the drain, and we all come back to different standards.

So what I want to ensure is when they are starting the first initial neighborhood district, neighborhood district, we have some kind of assurance for the affordable housing commitments. That is that is the important criteria that I would like to bring to the notice of the council city council. And they consider concrete concretely secured and implemented for that. Even when the portion of just the neighborhood is completed, we have some way the city has some way to ensure there is affordable housing, 15% inclusionary housing somewhere included in that. And we went back and forth on this.

The overall project that was provided here as part of this resolution zero two twenty six includes various different things, which are for my analytical brain, I think, should be sequential or in a way from a coming from a overall picture to the individual components. And I agree with majority of them, but some of them, I think they should have done or at least put it separate, combining the environmental traffic study and the master plan together and then having a a neighborhood district separated out with the multiuse separated out and things. But overall, the development agreement combining all of them together. So that's how it should be put together, and I have seen in other places that that was the plan. But I would say as these decisions are really long term, almost twenty years we are looking ahead, I would really want the city council to consider two things.

One, the implementation of them sequentially as it was proposed together from a phasing scenario perspective. And the second component is having the affordable housing commitment that was done along with the first component of neighborhood district that we could have secured assurances and commitments. So those are the two things I would like to add to the comments for the city council. Thank you.

Through the chair, if I could just clarify, and I think this was also mentioned by the public, so I just wanna make sure that this this point is made clear is that development plans, major subdivisions, tree removal permits, environmental review, those are reviewed and approved through the Planning Commission unless they are appealed or called up for review to the city council. So this evening, if if if, there is an an approval of this project or a decision made on this project, the decision is the final decision unless it's it's appealed. The development the development agreement is a separate application, which has been identified in the public hearing, which is why we can speak about the development agreement this evening. But it's been specifically identified as being deferred for future meeting date. And that the Planning Commission is not making a decision on the development agreement this evening.

The development agreement is the only document that then gets forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. Ultimately, it is adopted by ordinance. So I just wanted to make sure that that point was clear is that any decision that's made on the development plan, that decision is the through the zoning ordinance, that's that's the way that that decisions get made. So I just wanted to make sure that's that's clear. Okay.

In that case, I have to change my strategy and say we should have some kind of conditions of approval for the affordable housing tied down to the completion of the neighborhood district. So that's what I would propose to the chair.

Expand on what you would like to see different than what's in the conditions tonight. And if we need to take a a break while you think about it, we can do that. But there are conditions that obligate the applicant to deliver an affordable housing plan that is acceptable by the issuance of the first permit, I believe I I'm not having in front me right now. So what would you what would you propose seeing different than that?

So as stated in the packet 43 so this was my first question at the beginning of the meeting as well regarding the affordable housing. Yes. In tonight's packet, page page forty three and forty four. That would that would be the exhibit b, conditions of approval for the development plan zero zero six. What I would be looking at this is this is so if we go probably you all have went through this.

So this is more of a general guideline. There are no timelines or anything associated with this similar to how we have done for parks. Are are they tied up tied to any of the residence permits, residential permits, or to any particular phase of the product? They could be triggered. I don't mind where they are until they hit the last 15% of the how homes that are left out of 464 units, they could phase out in whichever way they want.

But to have that condition for the last 15% of the home u units within the they have some kind of a condition for the built of the affordable housing.

Stuff like Do you wanna comment on that? You know?

I would like also like to see if other commissioners have any opinion on that.

There is, like, on on packet page 43 references, like you you said, the affordable housing, and it says prior to the issuance of the first residential unit building permit, the applicant shall have a fully executed affordable housing agreement with the city, yada yada, dated the applicants written affordable housing plan dated 12/04/2025, and it talks about the 100 well, the 99 affordable housing units. But do you wanna see that also tied to if that doesn't go through, then it would be the for sale?

Is that correct?

The for sale for the last fifteen percent or somewhere interim for the neighborhood district, 464 units. Because everything being said good and well, if Aden housing doesn't come through, this is their third project, doesn't come through with their plan, then Citi would be held responsible. Yes. We are we are providing the numbers to Rina, ABAG, and all this HUD. But in the matter of fact or in reality, we wouldn't have those units, affordable housing units anywhere. They will be still in planning.

So I guess you kinda want, like, reassurance. Like, if the affordable housing agreement, the DA doesn't get approved by the city council, then you want something in the conditions to have the neighborhood homes have for sale housing. Like, a condition for okay. The 99 plus one manager, and then if not then, then the for sale 15% of the neighborhood district.

Correct. Some kind of conditions associated.

Would we be able to do that, Cindy?

Because that is part of our inclusionary housing. We are just trying to enforce what's on the book. That's all. Nothing new.

Okay. So I think what's important to remember is that the commitment that's being made in the affordable housing plan, specifically for the Neighborhoods District, is that they're actually providing more than 15%.

16.2%. I I appreciate

it. No. It's actual so 16.2% is the overall master plan for the entire development. So when you combine Neighborhoods District and The Orchard's affordable housing, there's four sixty eight homes associated with Neighborhoods District and Orchard's affordable housing. Of those four sixty eight units, three sixty nine of those are going to be market rate.

So the remainder of those units, the 99, are going to be affordable. 99 out of four sixty eight units is a commitment of over 21%. So you're getting a higher percentage of affordability as well as more units. That's that's the commitment that's being made.

So let me clarify. So I'm probably it's just me better trying to understand. Within the if you have the map or within the neighborhood district, you are saying there are 99 homes that are separated for the affordable housing?

In the Orchard's affordable housing site.

That would be the part of the multifamily district. Right? Somewhere it is shown?

Correct. It's it's on the

North West. Approving that. We are only approving so that's the reason I wanted to separate different pieces of the subdivision or whatever name you are trying to say. So there are three components that we are having for the orchards. One is the neighborhood district, which has 464 units, and the next one is the mixed use that has 619. And the multifamily housing district, 1,465, that includes the 99. No. The neighborhoods doesn't.

The neighborhoods is the three sixty eight plus the 99 affordable and then the one manager's unit. So that's why it's four sixty eight in the neighborhoods because they're counting the one 99 affordable plus one.

But that is not part of the neighborhood district. That is part of the multifamily.

No. It is.

But but per the map, it is technically.

But we have sat here and we've listened to these plans for weeks now. This has always been that the affordable units were going to be located there, that the city allows a developer to assign their affordable units off-site. That technically is off-site. Now this happens to be something where they're going to use a separate, for lack of a better word, vendor to build those apartments. We all liked what Eden was going to do.

We raved that they were a fantastic option. We used to suddenly say, wait. You know, we have to put them into the neighborhood because we don't think Eden's gonna come through feels right now like a real serious sort of, operating in in trying to use my words carefully here.

Okay.

Yeah. Operating outside of where this all of these meetings have gone. And and I don't support that. I'm sorry that I feel animated about it, but but I don't support that. That's not operating with faith.

Be sure to take the To confirm, it's clear. Although we're only approving tonight's 368, there are conditions that establish that the additional 99 units will be made available as part of the affordable housing part. And it is part of the neighborhood's district, but I think we're getting ourselves confused by language a little bit. There's going to be additional approvals. It is still part of the neighborhood district.

So in my in my the way I'm thinking about it, just for me, is we are approving an overall master plan. We are being asked to approve the details for the first part of the neighborhood, 368 homes of three housing types, but there's an expectation tied to this condition that there will be an additional approval or a different application for a 100 units of which 99 of them will be affordable that will be allowed to be assigned to or utilized by the 368 we're approving tonight. Fair enough. That is a different DP. And the and the and the Eden Housing will. The Eden Housing

budget. Absolutely.

That that's what Cindy told us is in process right now that we'll be looking at shortly. And then just similar to what we did with the other seven and eleven in an Eden project, we will see an approval come before us to evaluate for an Eden project, 100 units of which 99 will be affordable. Then we will see a development agreement which will tie all of this together, including the timing of when they'll be available and any other commitments that will be need to be tied. And we don't know the nature of the development agreement. It might just be an affordable housing development agreement.

It might be for the entire master plan, but we haven't seen that yet. But, you know, there has been enough discussion that we will see a development agreement. And and to just make sure it's clear, the city will negotiate the development agreement. The planning commission will review it and send it to the city council with our recommendation for comments. And as you correctly said, our comments are very carefully considered by the city council, and the two development agreements have resulted in additional benefits to the city after the city council took a look at it. So, you know, if that clarifies what we're approving tonight versus what we're not approving tonight. Yeah.

I think I just wanna piggyback here is that commissioner, know, he has, you know, gone ahead and seen the city council meetings as I'm aware that other people on this commission have as well, and they have expressed that they would like to see for sale BMRs. Right? That's something that I've gone through city council. Anytime that we've had a project with Eden Housing having the off-site acceptance of the BMRs, they voiced, hey. We would like it to be integrated within the for sale units.

And, you you know, we see the benefits, but, you know, that's kind of our preference. So I think that's where commissioner Khanjula is coming from. Like, okay. Can we, as a commission, think about, okay. What if city council doesn't wanna do the Eden Housing site? Right? Because it it's up to them to approve. So if we can kinda cover all the bases and the conditions, why don't we? Why don't we?

Add a condition.

Why don't we add a condition to, hey. If the city council doesn't accept

Or doesn't have this last 15% of it.

Like, can we rest assured knowing that it will be built in the For Sale Neighborhood 368 District.

Would we need to check with city attorney about creating a a situation where we've agreed one thing and then somewhere along the lines, it's like, whoops. Sorry. We've changed our mind. Because it I I

I don't know it's

I'm feeling that's that's how this is evolving.

I'll pass those notes on to to the city attorney's office. I just wanted to make sure that I made the point of the two separate sets of conditions of approval speak to the two different commitments that are being made from a master plan level and then also from a neighborhood's level. So I I know I've already identified for Neighborhoods District how that commitment is going to be made, and I just want to make sure I'm I'm clear as far as how the master plan and how that will evolve. K? So we've already heard the neighborhood district, their commitment is over 21% of affordable.

It's deeper affordability than what's required for the 15% that our inclusionary ordinance typically requires. The reason that commitment is being made is that in lieu of what traditionally would be the on-site and mix into the neighborhood district, there is an opportunity here to have deeper affordability and more units. And so that is the consideration this evening for the Planning Commission is whether or not the inclusionary housing ordinance is satisfying that this project is satisfying that that obligation and that the commitment through the condition of approval number nine and the ones below it fulfilled the obligations for the inclusionary housing ordinance for the Neighborhoods District. Now separately, you have a master plan that carries over for a twenty year period. While you have a subdivision that's created and you have an expectation of how many units are going to be built there, There's no actual application that will then say, this building will have x units.

This building will have this many units. Rather, you have districts that identify up to how many units are going to be within each district. And as a result of that, you can then identify what percentage of those units at a minimum would be required through the inclusionary housing ordinance. And the affordable housing plan that has been written by the applicant then identifies not only are they going to be meeting that requirement of 15%, but they're going to exceed that. And they're gonna exceed that based on the way that the table in condition number 28 of exhibit A identifies.

Along with the table, it has text that says that they will be committing to rental and for sale housing in those future phases. When those future phases then comes before the city and through the development agreement, That development agreement will then identify, of those units that are being committed, the 16.2%. Of those 16.2%, how many of those are going to be moderate? How many are very low and low income? And then of those, how many of those are going to be for sale and rental?

So there is a commitment that's been made by the applicant through their affordable housing plan and then obligated through the conditions approval that identify an obligation for for sale and rental and how that breakdown of units will be provided for by housing type and affordability.

Is that what what packet page is that on? So the

the affordable housing agreement

one and thirty two.

Yeah. So the there's a condition that references the affordable housing agreement. The affordable housing agreement was provided to us back on December 16. And if I understand what Cindy said, by the conditions as written, the applicant is committing to their affordable housing plan that they've already produced on December 4, and that condition, you know, ties the two together, the obligation and the commitment they put together in the plan that they submitted back in December to the approvals that we're doing tonight.

Okay.

Fisher Alpha just said.

Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. So I think we understand your question, your comments. You know?

Other commissioner comments. You know? So just to kinda clarify here, I think, you know, to commissioner Kundula's point, we cannot add alternative language that would allow for for sale neighborhood district BMRs because that's not what the applicant has proposed. What the applicant has proposed is the Eden site that we will later see. So there is no way that we can add alternative language to condition number nine.

Is that correct? And and I do appreciate, Cindy, when you go in in-depth, but just, like, a yes or no would be pretty helpful

right now. It's at the pleasure of the commission, how you want to structure your conditions, how you want to approve of the project.

Would that require a motion to amend the the COAs?

It would require consensus as to the new language.

Okay.

I think the question we need to answer is do we feel that the conditions as written sufficiently obligate the applicant via the attachments and the references, not necessarily the conditions, to deliver on the affordable housing plan as submitted. You know? If if not, then we we can discuss how we make sure that the conditions sufficiently obligate the applicant to the conditions to the affordable housing plan.

So to the chair's question, I agree that they have provided the affordable housing. That was my very first question. Came into the meeting, asked that. We are only thinking everything goes positive. Like, everything goes everything falls in line. Economy will be great. Eden will be able to provide all this. So what in scenario that something, the city council, somebody somewhere it go the entire chain breaks. There is no other language for conditions of approval. That is the only That

the affordable housing plan is still in effect. If Eden doesn't submit an application, if Sunset doesn't submit a development agreement, if city council rejects the development agreement, my understanding is the affordable housing plan, which obligates the quantity of units that we need more of what they say in the affordable housing plan still has an effect. You know? Does that that's true? Yeah.

But I I guess I have questions here in term of timing. Right? So, you know, I'm kind of a detailed looking at the timeline person. And so I'm thinking, okay. If the development agreement, you know, gets approved, we move forward with Eden Housing. We give the final blessing to city council. They approve it. Okay. And then in that development agreement, we have that up to, what is it, like, five years that they continue to apply for funding. They give us an annual progress on what, you know, kind of progress that they've made with, you know, the tax credits and so forth.

But at the same time, the neighborhood's district is being built. We're starting to get the for sale product. It's starting to get sold. So, you know, we have that horizon for seven years that Stephanie has shared with us from Sunset saying seven years for a build out of that neighborhood's district. But then the affordable has up to five years to get on the ground running. So how do we align that where, okay, if Eden doesn't deliver, if they can't provide that and get that adequate funding, we just lost how many for sale BMR units in the neighborhood district. Does that make sense?

That is

That timing is making sense to everyone.

You actually haven't lost any units. They've been delayed. Again, we can do what if scenarios all we like. We have a set of circumstances and a set of conditions that we're dealing with today. There's a process that we go through.

There's a lot of discretion to negotiate timelines and things as part of the development agreement, but you're not gonna get a perfect scenario that addresses every possible contingency out there. Some projects don't move forward. They get reprocessed as a a different project, and we move on. But the point is we have an opportunity to build a neighborhood, build affordable housing component that exceeds the standards that exist today in our inclusionary standard and would result in a project that was well received in the study sessions and, for all purposes, would be beneficial to the city. And, again, we can discuss what if it doesn't happen, but what if it does?

What if it works out great? You know? We're never considering that aspect of it. Yeah. And we have assurances through the development agreement that there are contingencies. Again, it may not be day one. It may not be day two, but it will happen, and it will be addressed through that process.

And, you know, the what if it doesn't work out comes out to we see B R 1 A, B R 3 A, the city walk that has yet to have apartments developed on it. So we kind of do run into, is this the appropriate time for that market? And given that we already did approve two Eden's housing projects, is the city investing too much into Eden housing? Like

Well, that's not a decision for the planning commission to make. You your discretion is not who builds. You're looking at policy direction based on the zoning and municipal codes in front of you. And just to speak a little bit about CityWalk, you have a project that's gonna be breaking ground in the next two weeks next door to this building. So, again, it wasn't it didn't happen year one, year two, year three, but it is moving forward.

Things happen. Things changes. There are delays. But, ultimately, because of those development agreements in place, they're able to preserve the ability to move those projects forward when the timing is right. So, again, I understand you want perfect assurances of everything, but you have a process that you you need to rely on, and it's a process that that has worked for years.

Many things go very well. I mean, we have lots of of great projects that have been built in the city. We have a very good quality of life. We have connectivity. We have unbelievable open space and parks, but that's all because of the policy direction that has been implemented by this body and the city council. So, again, I I I feel like I'm trying to lecture you, and I don't really want to. But, again, you can't let the idea of a perfect project get in the way of a good project.

Okay. Are there other comments? No. We had at least two commissioners who are ready to move forward with at least a vote on the resolution. And I think we've I felt like we've we've talked pretty extensively on the question of what we'd be looking at tonight.

Does it or does it not obligate the applicant to deliver on an affordable housing plan, which includes the units, whether it's via Eden, the whether it's via some other alternate compliance that will then come back before the public or whether it is for sale on-site, do we feel that the conditions as written sufficiently obligate the applicant so that the city feels comfortable that at the end of the day, we'll end up with the affordable units that we expect. You know, I'm looking to see if you know? Yeah. I feel like I feel like the conditions that we have that we've been talking about do commit sunset and the applicant to deliver on the affordable housing units. And then it will get and then should should the the hypotheticals, you know, come to come to pass, you know, the city will still achieve the affordable housing as outlined in the affordable housing plan.

I would just like to again, and I said I said this earlier, and and I just wanna say it one more time. Yes. We we have already approved two of the Eden housing projects, particularly for when we did the the first one at the service center. I'm sorry. I can't remember the name of it.

It was so that the the two projects eleven and seven could could meet their commitment in a separate way. The city law allows that. The city council, you know, that they are the folks who wrote the law that we all abide by. We're obligated to help projects abide by that. All of us agreed that that was an acceptable way to do that.

We also wrote in, you know, that the contingencies for how this happens. So I'm I'm surprised that this is now causing us such angst over it because as a body, we've already approved it twice, and we didn't have these same angst. And I I it seems unreasonable for us to say to the neighborhood developer that, well, we we've allowed you to do this. You know, we've we've said that's okay. But just in case it doesn't, you can't sell x x number of houses. You have to hold them aside. Wait. Wait. Wait. To see if Eden's gonna come through.

I don't think we have that power. And we can write it in, but I don't think we have that power to do that. And that sounds like how you're portraying this, at least to me. And and I I think, again, I've been we've been five o in approving the Eden Housing to offset on-site below market rates. We've discussed it then. These were not the concerns then. So, again, I'm a little

So can I

flexed? Mhmm.

And and I would like to see us move this this forward tonight. And I think I think most of us are ready to

do that. Love that. And I I believe my criteria is it positive for the city? Yes. But my only condition is what what has been brought. We already approved two Eden housing projects. We can't say that we have done this in the past, and we'll continue to do this. So every new development, we'll continue to build give it to the new Eden housing. So the fourth is okay. Is the fifth okay?

Is the sixth okay? So we can't go we can't say the past is a measure of the current decision. What I'm trying to say is just and Lauren also has brought up a good point. They will do it in year one, 02/03. So I'm only worried from a timing perspective. We will have the 368 we'll have the neighborhood district completed, sold, and we won't have the affordable housing. That is my only simple criteria that I'm still stuck with.

And and I think I think the way that would be addressed is not in the resolution for this project, but in the development agreement. If there are concerns that the commission has that your your hypothetical that we've fully built and sold all of the first 03/1968 with no sign of the '99 affordable for whatever reason, then then what will happen then? And I suspect then one of the one of the things that we can discuss as part of the development agreement is quicker and more frequent checkpoints on how Eden's doing so that if it's going sideways, we don't wait until five years happens, and then all of a sudden, we find that it's not gonna happen. And that could be something that gets worked into the development agreement so that both Sunset, the city city council planning commission all have an opportunity to react if the affordable housing project does, you know, doesn't come to be the way it's anticipated here. But I think don't change the resolution here.

I think I'm I'm in agreement with commissioner Kuznick that if we were to obligate the applicant to hold back 15% or 22% of these 368, that doesn't feel the right answer to the concern. We really do want the all affordable 99 units. We want the 22%. We want the deeper affordability that goes with the 368. What I'm hearing you're concerned about is what if that 99 or that 100 unit project doesn't get approved or Eden stops caring about San Ramon or whatever it is that we don't find ourselves at year seven with no affordable units?

So I think and I think the development agreement is the is the proper place to add the, you know, the tracking so that it doesn't go we don't wake up in year seven and find, oh my gosh. We have no affordable units, and we sold all 368. I think that's that's the place to address that concern. You know? And that's also the place that the city council can weigh in that if they they wanna back up to Eaton or they want something else in place that they can introduce that as a concept.

Right. Not to not to us to introduce how this project is presented to us because it's our job to evaluate and review projects that are delivered, not projects that are not, and redesign the project. So I do want to bring up one additional.

Oh, I was just gonna say that that's a really good point, chair Albert. I I really like that recommendation.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Just for the public, at the dais, we were handed additional conditions of approval to address the the public comment that we received from the tribes, you know, to ensure that tribal monitoring is in place throughout the project. It'll be added to both the master plan and the neighborhood plan as conditions.

And without reading all the language, it essentially takes out of the general plan language on what is always done on all development projects that, tribal monitors will be in place to in areas where with cultural resources of interest to local Native American tribes when requested. If cultural resources are encountered during ground disturbing activities for a project, all work will be halted, and archaeologists would be called in. They would do all of the steps outlined in the general plan to evaluate what's there. And then third, if they are identified, all earth of Suzhou be temporarily suspended. And until the archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance, the appropriate local Native American representative is consulted.

And after consultation with Native Americans, determine that it is a tribal cultural resource, then a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with state guidelines. Now, you know you know, that was at the request of, you know, one of the public comments we got from Liz John Nation. And so as we review and think about what we're going to do tonight, just keep that in mind. But we did get proposed language and essentially just brings into the conditions the general plan policies that are already in existence as well as the mitigation measures that are already part of the EIR that was developed for the area. Very good.

Would these patients just

wanna make sure that that it's clear for the public record that the conditions the there are three additional conditions that staff has provided for the commission's consideration. Two of those conditions are the exact language from mitigation measures for cultural resources that can be found in the general plan EIR. Those are things that are standard practice for any time that there is discovery of cultural resources is that you stop work and you do consultation, and you create a mitigation plan. So it is already standard practice that any time there is construction, those measures are taken, are in effect. The suggestion is that to make it very clear, you can add those as conditions of approval to both the master plan as well as the neighborhood district.

It may seem repetitive, but it will just also provide assurances that work will stop and there will be a mitigation plan put in if there is discovery. The third condition about the monitoring is when there is a discovery, that then if a tribe requests to monitor that they have the ability to do that for when there is grading and earthwork activity that's that's happening. So that that's the third condition that could potentially be incorporated into both sets of conditions if the planning commission chooses?

I think in the abundance of caution and clarity. We've we've added conditions of approval that are general plan policies or they are mitigating monitoring documents, items because we feel they're sufficiently important enough to capture, I think that's a it's a good a good addition. You know? So okay. I think we are probably ready to make a motion.

No. I Go ahead.

Sorry, chair. Albert, before you go, I do wanna make a recommendation to city council, which is that they go ahead and take a look, particularly at our inclusionary housing ordinance and as it relates to the off-site transfer of units. It's something that I think we've battled as a commission and still to this day continue to face that battle. If it could just

be

more explicit within the ordinance itself about what ratios okay. You know, say for instance, the developer's looking at for sale. What is that ratio that they're looking for? Is there a affordability level, and what is the breakdown of those percentages. Because right now, I think we're kind of, you know, be at a a a stance of, well, we have to approve it.

You know, that's what's come before us, and we've agreed to it. We we like the project. But I think we also have to think what does city council want since they've all appointed us to serve. So I'm just kind of looking out for what is their direction to us moving forward and how they wanna see the off-site transfer of units since it doesn't it's pretty generic.

If I go turn to staff about the mechanics of that process to send a message.

I mean, the direction to the commission is to follow the policy documents that have been approved by this body as well as the city council. If there is a desire to revisit any of the particular standards that are in place within the city, that's something the city council can put on their work plan priorities for staff to undertake. But, again, that's at the discretion of the city council, or it can also be initiated when there's a need to to modify those things at at a staff level. But, again, it's it's just a a process that we have to go through. But at the end of the day, we have to follow the guidelines that are in place.

If you don't like the standards, you have to go back and change the standards. And so if there's something that needs additional clarification, we can take that under advisement and look at it.

Yeah. I I think it does need additional clarification.

Thank you. Agreed.

Okay. I'd like to make a motion that we approve resolution number zero two dash two six, approving the orchard's master plan and neighborhood district development project, including tentative vesting tentative map, development plans twenty twenty four zero zero six, development plan twenty twenty four zero zero zero eight, architectural review, a tree removal permit, and the environmental review.

As amended. And

and the amendment that we got through the dais tonight.

Okay. So we've we've seen the conditions. The the resolution itself is the first time we've seen that tonight, but we did look at the two sets of conditions, although they were changed slightly, very slightly, when our last meeting this one. But what I'd like to propose is that we take a look and see if there's anything in the resolution that needs discussion or modification, and that would be packet page 12 through it's a lot of resolution. Packet page 26.

You know? The first half of it is the standard whereas is. You know? You know? And then the resolution itself starts on packet page 16, page five of 15. Again, we are,

excuse me, through the chair. Was there a second on that motion?

I don't believe so. No.

I don't recall hearing one, and and, really, there should be a motion and a second before you have discussion.

Yes. Okay. There's a second at the dais? I'll second that. Okay. Thank you, Lauren. Okay. Okay. Now we can discuss the resolution before us. You know? You know? Okay. Comments or clarifications for the resolution itself?

So the page the page page 17, page six of fifteen, zero to 26 conditions of so the map, does it need any update? Or because there were additional connections towards the east, two of them.

So those are the ones the arrow's pointing north. The the little map is rotated. So the east is the top of the page there. Those three those three purple arrows, those the green and two purples.

Oh, okay.

The the consist so

Yeah. They're

What you're what you're referencing are this is the diagram from the general plan. It's not the Orchard application. This is the diagram from the general plan. Okay.

So this could change with the this changes with the Orchard plan. Right? Austria, Orchard, Masterplan. Or

No. We're not doing a general plan amendment. This is just identifying that is the Orchard's project consistent with the general plan. This diagram was inserted so that for ease of reference of whether or not this project is conforming to the general plan direction.

Thank you. Okay.

Additional clarifications? Okay. Seeing none, exhibit a is the master plan conditions of approval. They were modified slightly based on our comments at the last meeting. Specifically, condition 16 was highlighted that sunset will continue to maintain the property that's not being built.

You know, that's hunting. K. Folks, moment to glance through this before we jump to exhibit b. Exhibit b is the condition approval specifically around the development plan, architectural review, major subdivision tree move environmental for the Orchard's neighborhood district. At the commission's request on packet page 44, we did add the specific details of the mitigations related to the traffic study.

It was previously referenced of the document that now is included explicitly. And those are the three changes to the intersection of Sunset and currently known as Chevron Drive. Okay. And another recommended addition is packet page 55, and that was that the project is compliant with noise and air quality standards, you know, recognizing from commissioner Villa that we are abutting the freeway. Okay.

Not seeing any. I'd like to just call for a vote then. It's been moved by mister Kuznick and second commissioner Zhang so if we can take a vote. The resolution motion passed five zero zero zero. This time, Cindy has a comment to make.

Yes. The obligatory decisions of the planning commission may be appealed within ten calendar days of decisions by filing a letter stating the grounds for the appeal along with the appropriate filing fee in the city clerk's office.

Okay. And then I think we we also encouraged a couple of comments to the city council. The inclusionary housing ordinance might be time to revisit the off-site and then the development agreement to include sufficient milestones to ensure the city and Eden is on track for success. Okay. Thank you for the thank you all for the Thank you all for the discussion.

Sure. Just a quick so what would be presented to the city council?

I'm gonna leave that to staff to send the message on the need for potentially updating the inclusionary housing ordinance, you know, the proper avenue and mechanism to communicate that, you know, to them. You know? The development agreement is something that we will see, but we did suggest that frequent milestones or checkpoints be included in the development agreement. And I'm sure after this discussion, if it's not adequate, we'll make recommendations before it goes to city council. We can't assume that.

And the zero two twenty six that we have actioned on today, there wouldn't be any mention of that to the city council. Right?

Correct. As as Cindy explained to us, the city council has delegated land use decision authority to us. So the decision of the planning commission is final unless appealed or called for review, but there's not a formal mechanism that will be sent to the city council with our discussion. Although, if I know if I I can imagine they do tend to watch what we do, so they will know. Yeah. It won't be a surprise, I mean, what our discussions were. Yeah.

Thank you. Mhmm.

Okay. We can move on to the agenda. So item nine is public hearing new items. We have none. Nonpublic hearing action items. We have none. Study sessions, commissioner liaison reports, and interest items, staff reports. Study anybody attend any committee or other commission meetings that have things to share here? Nope. On the side. And

I went ahead and attended the open space advisory meeting that was yesterday on 02/02. And overall, the the committee discussed at length what their charge would be and went ahead and agreed on their charge and forwarded that over to city council for their review.

Right. Thank you. And staff updates.

So at this time, I do not have any items for the February 17 next regularly scheduled planning commission meeting. So I'm going to operate under the assumption that we'll go ahead and cancel that meeting for lack of items. Our next regular scheduled meeting would be March 3, and we've got a few things that we're working on for staff presentations and projects for for March 3.

Great. Okay. Thank you, Sydney.

So I'm gonna ask chair. We normally get the agenda on Friday. So how is the agenda being fixed, or how do we come up with the agenda? Is there a preview that the commissioners would get, say, week before what could be added or what could be moved. Is there a way that commissioners have a say in it, or we just look at it look at the agenda on Friday? How does it work?

So past practices that, you know, staff will give us at meetings tonight, you know, kind of a heads up on what's on the agenda, but we're giving the agenda the seventy two hours in advance when it becomes public. And I think to do otherwise would cause all sorts of issues, you know, specifically around, you know, making it public, but I will let, you know, staff answer the question as well.

Maybe he's

I'm not sure I actually understand the question. You're wanting a preview of what's coming, or you wanna add input into what's on the agenda?

It would be the

input. Well, you can talk through the you know, the chair can recommend things to come come forward, but we we we would set this a schedule based on staff's ability to be able to provide that information. Okay.

Okay. That that's fair. Are there some specific things that you would like to see in the future, Jed, or just

I just want to positive question. More proactive rather than reactionary because we are tending to read all of this over the weekend. Okay.

Yeah. So if there's a new item that we wish to discuss, then this is the time to bring it up. And if I think there's a majority of the commission that's interested in seeing a topic, you know but again, you know, that'll let staff know, and they can add it to their work plan. And, you know, it may not be the next meeting. It depends on their workload. As far as getting information about a specific project in advance of when it's released to the public, yeah, that we won't Yeah. We won't see that.

There's also certain obligations that state law has for processing times and commitments that we've made in our zoning ordinance as well as at a certain point in time when a project has submitted all of their application materials, that there is an obligation within a certain amount of time that the Planning Commission needs to take those items up. There is for projects, those aren't gatekept by the by the city or staff. It there's an obligation that we make a decision on an application once it's filed and within a certain reasonable amount of time, and state law dictates that depending on, you know, the type of application it is when that decision has to be made.

Okay. So Thank you. Okay. I wanted to check before printing the agenda, does any of the commissioners have input that would have been very helpful.

Sure. Sure. Okay.

Okay. Seeing no other comments, I'm gonna go ahead and adjourn our meeting tonight at 08:06PM.

Thank you.