Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome everybody to the March 3 regular meeting of the San Ramon Planning Commission. And just as a not a warning. We're gonna do great. We do have a new system for running the meetings tonight. Tonight's the first night that the Planning Commission gets to use them, and we will do great. But if we don't, you know, thank you for your patience. K. If I could have the roll call, please.

Commissioner Kuznick? I'm here. Commissioner Kunjula is absent tonight. Commissioner Zeng?

Here.

Vice chair Avila? Here. And chair Albert?

Here. If you could please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge allegiance

to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, on a nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Item item three item 3.1, are there any changes or or additions to the agenda? There are none. Item four is public comment. 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 are not taking any public comment via Zoom. Do we have any written public comment on for this item?

No written public for this item, but I do have speaker cards.

Great. Okay.

Joyce Carr.

Hi, Joyce.

Wait. You're not on. You know? Wait. Wait. Wait.

Hold one sec while I turn the mic on.

There's a button.

Oh, thank you. Okay. Now you can hear me. I have a concern that I that has come up recently. I've had the concern for a number of years and something just came up recently. I was very concerned over the years about the five g cells that were going to be put around the city. In the last week, my husband and I, Greg, were coming home one day driving in our driveway and we looked across the street and there was a light pole with a light at the house across the street. We live on Share Bear Drive. And there were two fellows there and they were measuring the pole. And so we got kind of concerned about that and asked them what they were doing.

And they said that they were doing something to do, they thought, with five gs. So anyway, that was a concern of ours. We've been I've had a lot of information over the years about five gs. There's myths that the radiation isn't dangerous, but the fact is it's been classified possible carcinogen by the government, etcetera. So anyway, to make a long story short, I'm really concerned about this.

I've been dealing with cancer. I have a little grandson he's not little anymore, is he Gary? 11 years old who when he was turning five had cancer. And he comes over to our house often, I'm concerned about that pole, that particular pole on our street across from our driveway having five gs on it. So I just wanted to express my concern and hope that maybe someone will go and research it a little bit and help us by not putting it there.

Thank you. Yes. Mhmm.

Jim Blickenstaff?

Good evening, mister Alpert and my commissioners. Thank you. I'm gonna follow-up a little bit on my discussion with the planning commission a couple weeks ago. I wanted to mention for sure as it's a reality of the housing situation today that the houses they're putting in now, most of them do not have a front or backyard. They don't have their own personal green space unless you call a balcony green space.

Some of them have balconies, but you can't play soccer on it. So what the situation with housing now is they need more green space, parks, and that kind of thing more than ever because of my house. Have a backyard that's pretty okay in the front yard, and it but it goes back thirty some years. They just don't do that anymore. So that's the impetus that makes it really necessary to examine very seriously the city's approach to parks in terms of keeping up with the requirements and recommendations of the general plan.

And that ties into, you know, 6,000 new people coming in on the Chevron property, and and that's 36 acres or so of new parks that should be there. But I don't see that happening, and the fee doesn't seem to be adequate. So what I would suggest is a proactive approach to the extent that you actually call different locations park opportunity sites, you know, because lobbyists in Sacramento are getting all these laws that serve certain interests. But this is a public interest of the citizens of the city, and I think that should be prioritized. And when you do that, you can have staff look into recommendations that are optional that could work, even a bond measure if necessary, but increase the the fee for parks so you actually can buy a park with that fee, find out the actual price going rate to acquire land near the Bishop branch or even in the adjacent areas just to get a concept of what's available in the cost.

Cause if we wait and we don't pay attention to it, the costs will be even higher as the years go by. So, I'm just saying you can eventually formulate a resolution for the council and have it serve the interests of the citizens, the quality of life issue, and that would be parks. Other point I wanna make very quickly is Joyce Carr brought up an issue with five g towers, the EMF emissions, and some people are quite vulnerable to those emissions. She she's an example. Her grandson's an example and they've been through a lot and they they're in a really good remission right now, but anything like this, they're more vulnerable to it.

And if it's in a neighborhood, that really gets complicated because there are a lot of children and stuff like that. So I think we wanna be very careful where we select five gs locations. The right of ways, Crow Canyon, San Ramon Boulevard, Bollinger, Dougherty, some right of ways seem to be where you'd wanna prioritize and and there's still a lot of room on the right of ways that haven't been looked at. So I just say stay away from neighborhood situations as as much as you can on five g. Thanks a lot.

Thanks for coming out tonight, Jim and Joyce, and staff is here taking notes. Okay.

I have no other speaker cards.

Okay. With no other speaker cards, we'll go ahead and close the public comment. Moving on to the agenda. Item five is the consent calendar, and item 5.1 are the minutes from the previous meeting from February 3, and item 5.2 is the 2025 general plan annual report. Both of those are on the consent calendar. And have we received written comment from on either of these items?

For item 5.2, received written public comment from Brian Swanson. A copy of the comments were provided to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting and are is available for viewing at the back of the room.

Great. Thank you. And I can confirm that we did receive that. There are no other comments or questions from Seth. If we could ask for a motion to adopt the consent calendar. This is where we're doing it a little bit different, so be patient. Yes.

K. I move that we adopt the item. I move that we adopt the items on the consent as they are written.

I'll second the motion.

Okay. So it's been moved by commissioner Kuznick and seconded by commissioner Avila. So if we could ask the Amy to initiate the vote on her tablets here.

Okay. How did you get yours to come up? Ebony? No.

It's fine. You have to wait for it to pop up.

Give me one moment, please.

Okay. Here we go. Okay. Mhmm. Make sure you click save after you voted.

Okay. Yay. We did our first motion and vote, so the motion passed four zero zero. So congratulations, staff and commission. We're moving forward. Okay. Item six is unfinished business, and there is none. Item seven is new business. It is a major subdivision request for vesting tentative map for a condominium project at 20210 Porter Drive. And for us tonight, the role of this commission is to consider this project proposal, and there is a staff presentation by Lucas Haas.

Thank you very much, chair Alpert and commissioners, for your consideration this evening as major subdivision application 2025Dash0004 for the 202 Hundred 10 Porter Drive commercial condominium project. Subject properties, general plan designation is office. The zoning district is limited office OL, and the subject property itself is approximately 3.72 acres. For some background, this initial site was approved by the San Juan Valley Planning Commission in '2 in 1980 for the two existing administrative office buildings, 202 Hundred And 10 Porter Drive, approximately totaling 64,000 square feet. In 1997, the San Ramon Planning Commission approved the construction of a third building of 9,931 square feet as 220 Porter Drive to the north.

In 2015, the San the San Ramon City Council approved a minor subdivision application that split the existing five acre parcel of 20210, And 220 Porter Drive into two separate parcels. Parcel a is 1.28 acres containing 220 Porter Drive, and parcel b is 3.72 acres containing the subject property for this project of two hundred and two hundred and ten Porter Drive. On December 3, where Malcolm Incorporated, the applicant submitted a proposed major subdivision application for the subject property. And on 01/03/2026, the project application was deemed complete by the city. On 02/10/2026, the applicant submitted revised application materials requesting an increase in the proposed condominium count from 30 to 53 units.

This is an image of the proposed vesting tandem map. This is a one lot subdivision for condominium purposes, so we will not see the breakdown of the condominium plans as part of this application. An analysis of the project, so this project includes a vesting tentative map for condominium purposes to one lot subdivide the existing property to allow up to 53 individual airspace office condominium units. The project does not involve any additional floor area to the existing development or modifications to the existing site plan, parking, or site circulation as part of this application. The project will maintain existing vary existing easements for the joint benefit of the subject property as well as the budding a parcel budding parcel to the North 220 Porter Drive.

Those include axe reciprocal access and parking easements as well as public utility easements for PG and E and property maintenance. The applicant intends to establish new CCNRs and maintenance agreements for the purpose of ongoing management of the common areas, parking lots, and building maintenance. And the applicant has specified that existing leases shall remain in place until they expire, at which point the owners may decide to either extend the lease or sell the condo to new buyers who would then occupy the suite. As I prior previously mentioned, the 53 condos and how they'll be split out will be part of the the applicant's condominium plan, which will be properly recorded and filed with the California Department of Real Estate in Contra Costa County. Therefore, staff recommends that the planning commission receive the staff report, open the public hearing, discuss the subject application, and if appropriate, adopt the draft planning commission resolution zero one dash two six, approving the major subdivision application with the recommended conditions of approval.

I am available for questions or comments, and I do have members of the applicant team here available for questions as well.

Thank you, Lucas. Do are there any questions from the commission at this point? Do have any questions on this? Sure.

Alright. Thank you, Lucas. This is for the applicant, however, so you can sit you can stay sitting down. Yes. Please come up. Just one quick question. I'm sure the commission would agree we we want to sort of keep our pulse on the commercial real estate market here in San Ramon. So I'd like to ask, if you could speak a little bit about the impetus for the subdivision and, you know, what kind of businesses you expect to sell the condominiums to. Sure. Sure.

My name is Dan Fiebe. I'm the general partner, excuse me, for Deerwood Investors, the owner. We bought this property in 1993, so I've been there a long time. And my office has been there for thirty two years. So we've been operating it as an office building and continue to do so for all those years and have had good success with the property. As you probably know, office market is going through some tough times. People are tearing them down to build apartments and other residential projects. We've considered that, but we're doing okay. We're 90% leased to tell you how the market's doing. The rents in the last thirty years have not kept pace with expenses.

I'll tell you that. So we don't do quite as well as we did years ago. But, nevertheless, we're doing fine. One of our major tenants is John Muir Health, who's been there for thirty years. You may all know that on the 3rd Floor.

They're gonna continue to be one of our tenants. But on a long term basis, we think that this is a good opportunity for us to add value. This is a kind of a long term thing that may take years and years. But by subdividing it into condos, we can sell off some of the units to people who wanna use them for dentist office and doctor's offices and other uses. And over time, we'll sell off the condominiums, recoup some of our investment there while we continue to market and lease out the remaining units, which we may have for a long time.

As I mentioned, John Muir's gonna be there at least three more years. We have the day care center there. Some of you may know about that. They've been there thirty years. They're not going anywhere either. They've got a long term lease for five more years, but we have vacant units which will sell off over time. If John Muir leaves, we might convert that into some units and sell those off. So I think it's a it's kind of a win win. The tax base will get increased for the city, you know, by some measure. And I think that's kind of the business plan. Oh, and just so you know, the property next door to us at 111 Deerwood Road did the same project, a condominium conversion twenty years ago, Jeff?

No. It's a

2007, almost twenty years ago. And it took quite a few years to sell off those units, and now it's a very successful condominium project. My dentist is in there and, you know, so it's it's a good long term plan. I think it's good for everybody. Great. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions? I

I do have a question. So when I looked at the the map and and the plans, If if they become condos, how do you deal with the restroom facilities if everybody owns their own office?

That doesn't change. It's just like in a regular office building. We have common area restrooms. If somebody wanted to buy a condo and build a new restroom in there, they would go to the building department to get approval, of course, but they could do so. But very rarely do people wanna do that. They're happy with the common area restrooms, and that would continue.

Okay. Thank you. I just wasn't sure how that worked out logistically. Yeah. This is my first office condo question.

Any questions? I'll just ask one question. What does the term airspace condominium mean when I've never seen the word airspace like that. I'm just curious.

You know, I'm not sure what that legal term means. I'm like, maybe Lucas can can but I suppose that a residential condominium is the same. Right?

No. No different.

It's just

the legal definition of the space that's owned. It's the confines of the of the unit itself. It's no common area boundaries, etcetera.

My understanding is they understand. They own the inside the four walls of their unit, not the hallway, not the roof, not the outside envelope. Right? That's what needs to do

office conduit? Own their four walls, but then they have the right to use the common area

as in Okay.

You know, contribute to the Yeah. Maintenance of that and that. Okay.

Okay. Anyways, it's interesting.

It's really very similar to a residential condominium.

Great. Okay. Okay. Do we have any written or speaker cards on this item?

No. Not for this item.

Okay. Then we'll go ahead and close the public comment. And if there's any comments to make, otherwise, if we could ask for a motion to adopt the resolution tonight. What we'll do is we'll do a motion in a second. Then if you have any questions or comments on the actual resolution, then we can take those then, Nina.

We have a motion.

I I will move to adopt the resolution number 01Dash26 for the approving the major subdivision application MJ20250004 for vesting tentative map for condominium purposes located at 202 Hundred 10 Porter Drive. Okay.

Is do we have a second? I'll second that. Okay. So we have a motion by commissioner Kuznick and a second by commissioner Zhang. And watch your for oh, I'm sorry. Do we have any any questions or suggestions or any concerns about the resolution? I didn't see anything. It looked fine to me. Mhmm. No? Okay. So we could go ahead and do the vote part of it.

Okay.

And the motion passes four zero zero. Thank you so much for that, Lucas.

Thank you. And through the chair, just a note, decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed within ten calendar days of the decision by filing a letter stating the grounds for the appeal along with the appropriate filing fees in the city clerk's office.

Great. Thank you. Thanks. Okay. At this time, we'll move on to the next item. You know? Page here. Sorry. Item eight is commission reports and staff liaisons. But before that, we have item 8.1 is an overview of the two zero two six California housing legislation item. We do get a staff report from Annalisa who's ready to go.

Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. So this evening, I will will be presenting an overview of some of the housing laws passed by the state that are effective this year. And for a little background here, 2017 marked a turning point for housing in California when lawmakers approved 15 landmark bills to boost new housing construction, including SB 35. In 2024, housing bills continued to address the housing shortage by facilitating more affordable and moderate income housing production and enhancing enforcement of state housing laws.

And in 2025, the governor governor signed over 50 housing bills, including key CEQA related bills and increased penalties for failure to comply with housing legislation. And so tonight's goal is to provide a high level overview of key legislative changes that are effective this year. And so we've highlighted a few of the bills here primarily related to CEQA and increased penalties for failing to comply with state law, and I will go into those in a bit more detail. Beginning with AB 130, which went into effect of June, it creates a new statutory exemption from CEQA review for housing development projects in urban areas that meet certain criteria, including urban infill projects, single family or mixed use developments that are at least two thirds residential, as well as transitional and farm worker housing, and then projects that have a maximum project site of 20 acres and a minimum density of at least 50% of the underlying density requirement. It's noted that the project must be consistent with the general plan and zoning.

And if inconsistencies exist between them, consistency with one is sufficient. And as also applicable, State Density Bonus laws, concessions, waivers and parking do not create an inconsistency. And so mitigation measures are required for sites in very high fire hazard areas and fault hazard zones. And a Phase I environmental assessment is required as a condition of approval for development, and any identified hazardous substance releases must be remediated prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. AB130 also amends the Permit Streamlining Act, and the deadline to approve or disapprove ministerial projects is now within sixty days of a complete application.

I will note that this does not apply to projects under AB 2,011, which include 100% affordable or mixed use income projects on commercially zoned sites. AB 130 also includes a specific Tribal notification requirement. So Tribes must be notified within fourteen days of the application being deemed complete or if the project is deemed complete prior to July 1 within fourteen days of receiving notice that the project is eligible eligible for exemption. And tribes have sixty days from formal notification to request consultation, and the city must initiate a consultation within fourteen days of receiving a request. Also, the consultation must conclude within forty five days of initiation, And certain conditions of approval must be applied to the project unless both the Tribe and applicant agree that they will not be applied, and any enforceable agreement in addition to those conditions must be signed by the applicant, city and the Tribe.

And then a decision must be made on the project and a notice of exemption must be filed within thirty days from the Ladder of Conclusion of Consultation or the deadline for sending the Consistency Letter. SB 131 also places additional limitations on CEQA review, and CEQA does not apply to a rezoning that implements an improved housing element, including increases in density and height and parking restrictions. It also limits CEQA review for near miss projects. So for housing projects that would otherwise be exempt from CEQA aside from a single condition, an initial study or EIR is only required to examine the effects caused by the single condition that makes the project ineligible for the exemption. Also, exemptions apply to community serving and infrastructure projects such as day care centers, wildlife risk reduction projects, and public parks.

So the next few bills are related to increased penalties, including AB seven twelve, which requires courts to impose penalties of $10,000 per unit with a minimum penalty of $50,000 if a local agency was advised in writing by either HCD or the attorney general that the agency's action or inaction would violate a housing reform law, which per ABAG includes virtually all laws regarding housing passed by the legislature. The applicant must provide written notice of intent to file legislation at least sixty days in advance. And if the agency violates the same law within the planning period or the housing element is not approved, the fine is increased to $50,000 per unit. So SB seven eighty six clarifies the penalties imposed on housing elements that have been found out of compliance with state law, including unmet deadlines. It also clarifies that if quantified development standards defined in one general plan element are inconsistent with standards in another element, the standards in the most recently adopted element prevail.

And if the local agency does not meet deadlines to adopt amendments identified in the housing element, HCD is to review the agency's actions and determine whether the agency is in violation of the housing element law. And courts are required to apply various penalties for noncompliance, including either suspending the authority of the city to issue various permits or mandating the approval of various permits. Additionally, if housing element is found in violation of the State law, an adequate housing element must be adopted within one hundred and twenty days of a court order and any required rezoning within another hundred and twenty days. So moving along to accessory dwelling units, we have AB eleven fifty four, which governs junior accessory dwelling units and with owner occupancy and short term rental. And so owner occupancy is only required for GED use if the unit has shared sanitation facilities with the existing single family dwelling.

And short term rentals are prohibited in JDUs. And then SB five forty three governs the review process and size standards. So an EDU or JDU application completeness determination, is required within fifteen days after receipt. And we must provide a comprehensive correction list and option to appeal if it's found to be an incomplete application. And regarding interior livable space, it clarifies that the minimum and maximum square footages are measured by interior livable space and further clarifies the definition of livable space.

So with that, I know we've covered a lot this evening. If you're looking for more in-depth information, we do have a link here to the Association of Bay Area Governments page. They offer a lot of technical assistance resources. And that concludes my presentation.

Thanks. Thank you, Annalisa. Do we have questions for Annalisa at this point? Sure. Do have one? Mhmm.

Thank you, Annalisa. That was great presentation. Very comprehensive. To sort of cut to the chase, I'm curious what kind of laws in your opinion are most relevant to Ceramone because I'm looking at some of them like OSB seven eighty six, AB seven twelve. I don't think we're anywhere close to running afoul of those. But where are where do you anticipate things might actually be changing and what kind of projects we'll be seeing or what the city will be doing, if any? Thank you.

We face this with every kind of housing law update, and it's really hard to tell until they've come into practice. A lot of these, you know, we read them, and it feels like they work are gonna have a a lot a huge impact when in reality we get to the details of the bills themselves and discover that there are other limitations that kind of limit the number of applications that we would expect to see based off of the initial reading. So I think with eighty one thirty, for example, that's one of the bigger ones. We'll really need to take a look at applications when we receive them and verify that they comply. But, yeah, that doesn't

But the other ones don't seem to be really on your radar, let's say?

They they are on our radar, but they're new. So we'll just have to kind of take them as they come and

Understood.

Take a closer look as we've Yeah. Received.

Okay. Not to insinuate that you guys aren't paying attention, of course, just that we'll probably be okay with the other ones. We'll we'll have to see how things play out.

Yeah. And, I mean, we're used to, you know, implementing the general plan policies and housing element policies. And so we're we're continuously checked by HCD for compliance and and ensuring that we're meeting our goals. So we're not you know, to that extent, we're on the right track.

Okay. Perfect. Thank you.

Thanks. Do you have anything? Mhmm.

Are we starting to see projects come in that are using the a b one thirty exemption?

No. We have not received any applications yet.

Thank you. Mhmm. I had I had a question. A b one thirty, it feels like it was sort of two things in one. It had, you know, sort of changes to the CEQUA process, but then it also has almost tied onto it that it's kind of specifies sixty days for application approval, not CEQUA. Did I understand that right?

Yes. So there are those two components to it. And based on the information we've received so far, everyone's a little confused about how the timeline is going to work out, especially with the tribal notification.

Question. Yeah.

Yeah. And so it's been advised at this point that we actually ask the applicant for an extension in advance. We're allowed to have one extension of up to ninety days and not that we would need the full ninety days, but to kind of get that extra leeway given we so from what we can tell, we have kind of conflicting timelines that we need to comply with. Right.

That that was actually my question, so I think you answered it. Because if I just look at the add up the days on the tribal notification page, it could very easily be longer than sixty days.

Right.

Yeah. Got it. Okay. Okay. Well, that's yes.

Are you done? Uh-huh. Sorry. I I I'm gonna ask a question. So on this a b one thirty, I'm looking on page five of the handout. It says mitigation measures are required for sites that verify high fire hazards and fault hazard zones. Is there any follow-up indication of the definition of those items, particularly sensitive to our recent swarms of earthquakes here? And, you know, is this just going to be kind of like you know, if if you don't if you don't like it, you didn't meet it.

We do have, like, maps that will show us which areas are in the high fire severity zones, and we would expect to also receive that information from the applicant and then verify. So they would be required to follow through with mitigation measures.

Through the chair, the city doesn't currently within its city limits have very high fire hazard areas, but they are within the city's, planning area, boundary area. The fault hazard zones are specifically the Alquis Pralow fault zone that exists on the West side of the city. But, again, those have some very specific mitigations that are typical within fault zones to be to begin with. And so you generally are not seeing development within those fault zones. And then additional limitations in terms of building code requirements and and access requirements related to those.

Yeah.

I have one more question. I didn't see. I just found out about this one s B 684 covered in the packet. Do you know anything about that one? That's for projects consisting of 10 or fewer residential parcels that would be ministerially approved so they wouldn't require CEQA is what it seems like.

Is that from 2025?

This is a recent legislation.

I don't remember off the top of my head why we did not include that one.

Okay. Okay. There's no more questions from the commission. Go ahead and open the public comment. Did we receive any written comments on this item?

Yes. We received written public comment from Brian Swanson. A copy was provided to the planning commission prior to the meeting, and a copy is available in the back of the room for viewing.

Great. And

I don't have any speaker cards for this item.

Great. So we will then close the public comment. Any final comments? There is no action required by the commission on this one other than to thank staff for doing it for us. This is always it's always pretty overwhelming to hear the number of changes that are just thrown out at us, and city has to figure out how to deal with it. Any other comments?

I have one actual comment, actually, Betty. I think the reason why we didn't if I remember correctly, 684 requires that those units are 100% affordable. And so I didn't include that one because we don't expect to receive applications for 10 units or less that are a 100% affordable. Thanks.

Okay. Then we'll go ahead and thank you, Annalisa, for this. Thank you very much. It's always a pleasure to see these things. Okay. Okay. This time, do we have any liaison reports?

I can give you a a quick summary of the Parks and Community Services meeting. We had a very robust reporting from our various advisory committees, which is always really interesting, and they do such a good job. So I want to offer my thanks and commend them for their service to our city. The library advisory committee reported on various use numbers and so forth. But I also wanna just a comment was followed up in terms of asking the question, have we tracked the number of uses on the Mondays since we restored Monday service from measure n?

I thought that was a a really insightful comment, and I hope that they, in fact, follow-up with that. So it's always good to be able to report back that spending the money for Mondays was was worthwhile. I believe it is, but they did ask the question. We also heard from the citizen senior citizens advisory representative, and they're doing lots and lots of stuff for our senior community, and they're very sensitive to creating programs and opportunities that deal both with diverse needs as some of our seniors are well, they're obviously aging, but they're coming in younger and staying longer at the other end, which is a good thing. But they also have just just different hobbies and interests and so forth, so we're broadening those programs.

The Arts Advisory Council, lots of good stuff in the Arts Advisory. The library also talked about StoryWalk. Sorry, should have mentioned that. And then finally I was really impressed with the report from the Forest Home Farm so forth. Lots of good programs there, lots of stuff.

One of the things that really struck me is, and and this relates to earlier, is they commented there was a a reference to a youngster because they do the educational tours for the third graders. And a youngster pulled a carrot out of the ground and was stunned and amazed that that's where they come from. And it made me think that to to mister Blickenstaff's comment about parks and the lack of green space, that one of the things we might really need to start thinking about as we have more and more of these I shouldn't be off topic here. Housing units, how do we embrace more opportunities for community gardens, more opportunities for people to, in fact, have an opportunity to have a vegetable garden or something? So that that is that.

And then mister Perez Alonso gave a very robust recommendation on the new activity guide. It is pretty cool. Lots and lots of color, so they're very proud of that. So it's it's very exciting and lots of performances coming and so forth. So get your tickets for all fun things. It's great. We're we're really blessed in this town.

K. I'm not officially a liaison, but it's relevant. You know, on last Friday, the chamber hosted a community forum on earthquakes, on the swarm, and it was really kind of cohosted by San Ramon Valley Fire Protection, the Danville Police Department, San Ramon Police Department, the mayor of San Ramon, the mayor of Danville, and a very interesting professor who made her life work on earthquakes. It was held over here at the fountain room. I noted a b c seven, k run four, KTVU two, and KQED all had camera crews there filming it.

The the nutshell is, do the swarms mean anything like the bigger ones on the road? We don't know. You know? One thing she did say with certainty is we live in earthquake country, you know, and there will be a big one. You know? We just don't know when, and we don't know where. And so the final takeaway, you know, is we all just need to be prepared. The video will be available up on the chamber web page and I think also San Juan Valley Fire Protection. So it would be worth the watch if you're like me that you think you're prepared, but after listening to them say what prepared means, I'm not prepared. You know?

And I lived through Loma Prieta, and we thought we got prepared then, but I guess you can't really be prepared enough. You know? So that was what was last Friday. So it was it was really, really well done. Yeah. That, I'll turn it over to staff.

Okay. Our next regularly scheduled meeting is March 17. Currently, I do not have any items for that meeting, so we're expecting actually a cancellation for March 17 at this at this point. We didn't have any items continued this evening, so the likelihood of us having one is is gonna be pretty slim. And then as some of you may have heard, the Orchards project that the Planning Commission approved on February 3 has been appealed to the city council.

We have a tentative date set for April 7 for the Orchard's appeal, which, as the commission may already realize, that that's during one of your regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting dates. And so the expectation is that in lieu of a Planning Commission meeting that evening, we'll be holding a special meeting for the City Council to hear the appeal for the Orchards project. So that's the upcoming schedule for the commission, and we will keep you posted when our next regularly scheduled meeting will occur. Thank you.

Thank you. Any final comments? Otherwise, we'll