Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

engineer, so the terms are not there off the top of my head. But most of our projects, they're dealt with bioretention areas, swales landscape areas even though we can't build within the 100 foot setback creek setback we would be looking at probably utilizing areas like that another question we would have for staff would be utilizing the creek setback for additional parking if it's required in pervious surfaces but from our standpoint we're i'm i'm guessing your question would be would be would we be looking to discharge into the creek

I mean, I just kind of had a question about that since I don't see like any particular area that would be like a detention basin or anything like that. It's pretty tight.

It gets utilized throughout the site. Okay. And in cases where it's exceptionally tight, we can do underground chambers. There's multiple ways to satisfy that.

Yeah, that's expensive.

We calculate a lot of that stuff into the development costs.

And then my last question for you was, so it was previously approved in 2016, obviously under a very different market than we're at now. Why was that not built at the time?

How much time do you have?

Over the years, the project, it becomes...

It becomes a factor of economics, construction costs, availability for funding, partnerships that want to come in. rents in San Ramon and the county and how those factor into the viability of a project. As I mentioned, I think in 2023, we looked at converting this to 100% affordable project. That became an economic factor. I think we were about $20 million short of And the rents for this particular area did not offset those costs to be able to do the project. It's an economic factor. Currently, right now, market rate apartments are not necessarily buildable. And this is what we have analyzed from a feasibility study and one way to provide additional housing to San Ramon based on costs and viability.

Mm-hmm. Okay.

Well, I was part of the project in the very beginning. Well, thank you. Reliving some of those early years. That was when I was first appointed to the commission. They said, you got to come look at this thing. And so long memory of a lot of this. I did have a couple of questions for you. and just what you're thinking. And I do understand this is a concept review. So any of our questions may or may not have an answer tonight. They just may be something that as part of the application gets developed, they'll become answers. So, you know, forgive me if there are questions that you weren't really thinking about. When obviously at once, at one point there was some, you know, retail on the site, you know, and now it's a hundred percent housing. Did, Did you analyze or consider any way to include some mixed use component for this project and this project type, whether it's live work units or home office or anything like that to preserve the commercial nature of the site?

We hadn't for this particular review session. On the previous projects, there are economic factors from an affordability for 100% affordable project that becomes an issue in terms of the use and how you condominium out the project. They don't like the retail spaces and affordable projects. This particular, again, because we're proposing this under the general plan density, And what became an issue for us under the specific plan was, in essence, at 30 units an acre, you have to calculate it based on 2.5 acres, but you have to build that density on 1.8 acres. So it essentially makes it a 37 or 38 acre. units per acre density on that. And then you have to include the retail space in that. And then you have the additional parking requirements for the retail space that you now have to put into a 1.8 acre site. So it becomes that logistical Jenga project problem of trying to get all of these pieces in there. If live work or Office-type spaces were something that would be amendable. I think Rome would be open to it, to taking a look at it. I think our units themselves as townhomes can have flex space in them. I appreciate impact or input and questions like that. And if there is something that will make it easier and more presentable to staff and to the commission, then we are always open to looking at those items.

Thank you. Um, you know, state density bonus and the housing, um, I think I did read that you intend to meet the 15% inclusionary housing ordinance that we have in the city, and then you're going to do something else to qualify for state density bonus, in addition, whether it's lower affordability, higher affordability on some units or more units. Have you gotten far enough along in the process to figure out what you're going to do to actually qualify for the state density bonus?

It's my understanding if we meet the 15%, we are afforded one concession, I'm not sure how many incentives and how many waivers. If we analyze that further and take that 15% and break it down into low, very low, moderate, and hit certain milestones, I believe those concessions and waivers can be increased in number. As I said, If we don't have to use the first concession on getting rid of the mixed use, I'm not really sure there's a whole lot of waivers and incentives. Usually we use them for height, design objectives.

Okay.

Okay. Items like that. So parking, things like that. Okay. I think we meet a lot of the requirements without having to use them.

Sure. And then you mentioned that you're going to, follow the density calculation, the density of the general plan, is your intent to follow the... What do you intend to follow for the rest of the objective building standards and design guidelines, those that are captured in the specific plan or the general plan for this project?

I haven't broken it down that specifically between the two. For us, our main issue is... Density, gross area, net area, parking, things like that. Okay. Objective design standards as an architect. I'm fairly confident we can meet those requirements.

Great.

Okay. And then since we're declaring that, I guess my question, the source of my question is really, you know, it's been deemed that the general plan and the specific plan, you have sort of an option to follow one or the other based on state law. And I was just curious if you'd gotten far enough into thinking to decide what you're going to follow for the design part of it versus the density parts. Clearly the density is going to follow the general plan, you know, but the other, okay. Commissioner Candula asked the question. I don't think he quite asked what I was thinking. There is a pretty big grade change between the road and the property. And it's hard to tell, obviously, on a piece of paper. Is your thinking at the moment that you're going to leave the grade where it is, or are you going to bring the grade up to street level?

Our intention right now with this proposal in terms of the level of time and analysis that we put into it, this is shown as leaving the grade as is.

Okay.

So the corner would rise up, but it does drop fairly quickly, at least down Deerwood. Right. It gets down to grade fairly quickly.

Okay.

Got it. Got it.

Okay. And then you mentioned that I remember this was always an issue going way back. years and years ago um the ability to share the driveway and potentially some parking with windmill farms are you far enough along in the process to actually have an arrangement in place with that has been resolved okay great thank you thank you that's where i'll leave it yes no that that was always a i recall that was quite a thing um And then we asked a little bit, but it'll be more direction than questions at this point. I don't have any other questions for Jim. Okay. Thank you so much. We'll definitely give some feedback. Yeah. I know what you really are here for. Yes. Thank you very much. Okay. Do we have clarifying questions for staff at this point? I do. Again, clarifying questions. We'll have plenty of chance to do comments after our public comment.

So I have a couple of questions on this for staff. And this might require a couple of you here. And this largely has to do with this intersection of the San Ramon Village specific plan versus the general plan. This as a housing opportunity site, it was approved once. So It seems like a bit of a jumble right now. So I need some clarification. So when the original Rome project was approved 2016, not that we're holding them to that one, we had not finished the San Ramon specific plan. Is that correct?

The amendment to the Saruman Village specific plan. So at one point in time when this project, the original development at this site was approved, we were still calling it the Crow Canyon specific plan. And so the Crow Canyon specific plan was adopted in the late 2000s. It was updated in 2020. Okay. I will say there was an amendment that was made in 2017, but ultimately a redesign and update of the specific plan was done in 2020 where we renamed it the Saramone Village Specific Plan. Okay.

And so consequently, at what point in time did this become a housing opportunity site?

It's been a housing opportunity site for at least the last three cycles. So fourth, fifth, and then we're currently in our sixth cycle.

So it was always, well, in the last cycle, at least, you know, it was under the San Ramon Village, previously Crocanian specific plan. I'm just trying to kind of assess which plan we ought to be holding them accountable to the development standards. Because I was part of helping get this specific plan finished and across, you know, yay, it's done. And it seems like if we're just going to say, well, I changed our mind, that that seemingly seems like not a good idea.

So let me just make sure I clarify. Yes. All of the approvals that were done through the 2016 project, those have since expired. And so there is no old project to compare this new one to. Once the applicant chooses to file a formal application, the application that's made at the time of filing, whatever rules that are in place at that point in time is what the development standards, those development standards will apply to this project. So if they file in the next couple of months, most likely the current Ceremony Village specific plan in its current form is what we will review the project against, those development standards. The note in the staff report related to the density is purely related to the ability for a project through the Housing Accountability Act to evaluate density either using the general plan or the specific plan. As far as development standards, the expectation is that height, setback, objective standards that are incorporated into the ceremony village specific plan is what will apply to the project and the project will design in accordance with that specific plan. Because it's a housing opportunity site, there are certain options that the applicant has for things like whether the site is 100% residential or not. That's through the current state law that allows for housing opportunity sites to be 100% affordable. That rule didn't exist before when this project was originally approved in 2016.

Could I just maybe jump in for a second? So the question, I think, behind the question is the general plan calls out specifically the calculation for density to be net acres versus the specific plan that continues to allow gross acreage. And the difference in those numbers is what matters tonight on this.

In the general plan in the zoning ordinance, density is calculated using net density. So the number of units divided by the net acreage is what we use to calculate density. In the Saruman Village specific plan, it uses and it defines density as density. number of units divided by gross acreage. And because of this difference in the specific plan and the general plan zoning ordinance, when the applicant applied his developable acreage of, as we saw when you take out the creek, there's a reduction in the developable area. typically you would net that out and then you would use that in any other project outside of the specific plan area as net density using the developable area this project because the specific plan identifies gross acreage as how you calculate density they would not be able to take out the undevelopable area so that leaves almost you know over three quarters of an acre of land potentially that you have to include in your gross density calculation, which then puts them under the range of what the village center mix use allows. And so because the Housing Accountability Act says that there is not an inconsistency when your general plan and your specific plan have different density allowances. An applicant has the ability to use the density range that the city has adopted either in the general plan or use the density range that's adopted in the specific plan.

I have another question then. So the issue on this really seems to pivot on the question of the creek. So wouldn't it be a reasonable thought to That one of the waivers would be instead of having to abide by, you know, the hundred foot, we ask for a waiver that gives us back, say, 50 percent of that, because then that changes the equation on a whole lot of this. And, you know, I was trying to recall what was the agency that manages creeks. But, you know, why doesn't the Housing Accountability Act allow for that to be a waiver?

Why doesn't the Housing Accountability Act allow for a waiver?

The density bonus, whatever the provision that says you get to ask for waivers.

I think it's so it is a little premature right now because we don't we haven't officially looked at exactly what is being taken out of net. And and so we haven't looked that closely at this concept. So it's difficult for us to say exactly and and to to say that what the. Yeah. ultimate density is for this project. We've done some rough calculations and the applicant has assisted with some information about potential options for their concept. And they have initially identified that they will not be able to meet the density if we're using gross as opposed to net as a calculation. Typically, the one thing that density bonus does not allow you to waive is the density range. We haven't... asked the city attorney's office if you can waive the definition of gross versus net. That's never been a question that we've been asked. But if a project provides enough affordable units, which this project will require just at a minimum 15% through the inclusionary ordinance and potentially depending on the affordability level will also qualify for density bonus. There are typically unlimited number of waivers. Waivers are to any of the development standards that exist in the specific plan. There are a limited number of concessions, but there are waivers of development standards that would include setbacks and restrictions that the city might place on the project that would prevent it from being able to develop the affordable units that it's proposing to do. So at this point, the applicants indicated that they can meet the 100-foot creek setback, which is what the specific plan requires. And so we're we're at a point where the applicant has identified that that's not currently a waiver that they need.

Okay. Go ahead. So it doesn't do that. You ready? Yes, please.

So this was a housing opportunity site. Does that mean that we're like having a net loss? Like, I'm not sure what the site was looked at for like a realistic capacity versus what's proposed now.

I can answer that one. So this project or this opportunity site is identified as a future pipeline project. So at the time that we adopted our housing element in 2022, early 2023, we identified that it was an approved project with 169 units at the time. And because the entitlements had not expired at the time, it currently still is identified in our housing opportunity site as an approved project. If the applicant wishes to amend that and reduce their total unit count, we would just, as part of the typical approval process, because it is a housing opportunity site, we will just have to evaluate what that means in terms of no net loss and make those findings in advance of any action on the project.

So then potentially the city would then have to find more housing opportunity sites to fill in the gap for what we thought this was going to go ahead and build up for versus what they are going for now.

So, yeah, any time where you're having a reduction from what was 169 units to now potentially 45 or any reduction from that, we'll always have to evaluate what that means from the no net loss standpoint and whether or not we still have adequate sites to meet the obligation.

That's like 124 unit loss. And my other question was, the specific plan kind of mentions developers dedicating like a public access easement to permit construction of a multi use trail within like the creek riparian zone. Is that something that the city's like making developers do as these sites continue to be redeveloped?

That is one of the policies that are required for any redevelopment adjacent to the creek area. In the plan, there shows identified locations of where the creek access would be located. So not all parcels, but a number of them have adjacency to the creek. And so there is a potential easement that would be included as part of that redevelopment of any site.

Do we know if there's one for this site in particular?

In the original approvals for the project that had been included as part of the approval back in 2016, because we're still in concept review, the applicant has indicated there may be some ability for them to provide access, but the specific plan does identify the site as one of the potential locations for where access would be granted.

Okay, thank you.

I know earlier we talked about some of the gross versus net. That's the only bigger challenge because of the creek that we have having this discussion. My question is, how much would city staff be guiding the developer on the waivers and concessions that need to be used and how this would be a feasible housing project. How much of a direction would, or how much guidance or direction should or would city provide on that?

Typically with any development project, staff doesn't direct the applicant on waivers, concessions. Our responsibility is when the applicant designs their project to evaluate the specific plan requirements and design, hopefully in accordance with those requirements. The goal is always that we try to reduce as many waivers as possible. I think that's typically the intent of both the applicant as well as the city, right? Because the policy is in place for everybody to follow. There are going to be times where an applicant identifies that there are standards that they cannot meet and they will... identify those typically when they file their applications. If they are requesting a density bonus waiver concession as part of their application, they have to provide us with their affordable housing plan and identify what type of waivers and concessions that they feel that they qualify for. But we typically do not identify ahead of time what things the developer needs to waive. They will have to initiate that conversation with the city through the application that they file.

One other question regarding the CEQA. At the environmental review, there are no approvals associated in the earlier question. development approval. Would that be any change this time around or would that be evaluated after the application is submitted?

There are CEQA exemptions that exist. in state law related to housing opportunity sites or, you know, different types of projects that may qualify. We don't make the determination of what the CEQA process is until an application is filed. And then we look at that point in time to see what type of environmental rules may or may not be applicable to the project. The applicant typically also may have some guidance that they provide to the city on what they feel may be the correct CEQA process. We will take those into consideration when they provide that information to us. But CEQA isn't typically determined until after the application is filed.

Only reason I ask is regarding because of the creek that that is very adjacent to the site or flowing into the site. But that evaluation will be done after the application is submitted, which would be shortly.

All right.

Thank you.

Hey, I have no additional questions for staff. They've all been answered. So thank you all. Go ahead and open public comment. Do we have any

public comments no public comment but we do have speaker cards this evening there were two pencils in the back room but the first speaker is elena formosa

Oh, maybe an applicant wants to address. Sorry.

Sorry. Again, Jim Gamble, Home Development. Thank you for the questions and the feedback. I took lots of notes on that. I did want to address one comment and one question that you had, Betty, regarding your RHNA numbers. and the original project that had 169 units. We are aware that this is a 45-unit project. It is less than 169 units. I just wanted to point out that based on the new requirements and the specific plan densities, you can never reach 169 units on this site again. Even with all the density bonuses, if it was 100% affordable, I think we maxed out at 150, 150, 160 units. So there would be a net loss regardless on it. I know not quite as much as 120 units, but I just wanted to make sure that was pointed out as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Why don't we go ahead and our first speaker.

Elena Formosa.

Okay. Okay.

Hi, planning commissioners. I know that there is no way I can change anything. However, I'm just going to air what is on my mind that are of concerns. I'm basically here to defend my citizenship as an American. I have concerns about the builder, have certain units that are three beds and three baths. These type of design are vulnerable to birth tourism and to those military age camouflage uniform wearing communist Chinese illegals. that just recently crossed our border in Texas. Our community is a very enjoyable community for communist Chinese illegals. Literally, they don't have to speak English. We don't know why they're here. They could be affiliated with the PLA. We have very, very anti-American immigration policy in this particular state. That is not something you can address nor I can address. But when I look at these three baths and three beds, I know that there are a lot of communist Chinese and I know that they're everywhere in my neighborhoods. They can buy these type of affordable housing with pure cash. I can guarantee that probably half of these developments are going to be purchased by cash. So then, birth tourism... may be how they can reclaim these type of investments. Every birth tourism that comes into our country, these people, they get money from it. How do you, as our planning commissioners, deter these type of activities or business transactions? abusing Californian affordable housing CEQA laws. I do not see you guys ever request CCNRs to review. If you guys have the ability to check into CCNRs, you could possibly intervene by requiring the board members to be citizens and to be able to pass English comprehension exam in order to become a board member or eventually what happens is that the homeowners who are not Americans then they basically appropriate these HOAs into a little government within our government and you would have no ability to regulate what goes on in there. Eventually, can you imagine our civil war or God forbid, enemies attack our nation, starting from these affordable housing known as HOA governments that you and I have really no controls over because they're private. I would like you guys to please find ways to check into their CCNRs and see if there's any regulation. We can intervene at this point to deter and prohibit birth tourism and illegals that may be military affiliated, as well as lab babies, which they come here, they get sperms, aches, whatever, and then they basically just abuse our laws and policies. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jim Blickenstaff.

Good evening, commissioners. Very briefly, I wanted to touch on a discussion that council had two or three weeks ago about the budget and some difficulties with the future as we convert on a large scale commercial and retail and business to housing because the housing is a net loser on tax revenue. And so that could, I think there was actually a deficit projected and they're already using up the allotment from the last increase pretty much for what they need right now. And I see a problem in the future if we keep just focusing on housing opportunities, if that's going to solve the problem. With comparable to that, you need to have retail opportunities and entertainment opportunities and business opportunities just because it's more of a planning process that's complete. And there's less driving involved the more you have destinations here in the city. But if it's housing opportunity sites almost everywhere, then it backfires. So I'd like to see the connection between... housing opportunity sites, and also the other sites, opportunity sites for park, POS, you know, and opportunities for retail. The city has to take that initiative because the county won't do it for you. And that's just how balanced planning works. And it makes a lot of sense in terms of good planning and also in terms of the tax base. So this project is a little bit example of housing opportunity site. Excuse me, I'm just getting tired of that phrase. It has connotations. It's not necessarily good. I don't mind it. It's just that when you do a smaller project like this, you never see neighborhood parks being put in because the land's so limited. But you need neighborhood parks. I think last I looked, it was four acres per thousand people, or a fraction of that if you have 500, whatever. But it goes to a fee, and then the fee sort of just disappears with something that has to do with maybe... but it doesn't have anything to do with that. I'd like to see a connection with the fee and park opportunity sites that the city is going to focus on with the money and make it dedicated to parks. I'm not even sure it's dedicated to parks, but when you see a fee for small projects and so forth, You don't see a park. So I think we need to make a connection there that solves that problem. And also with the property owners, as you're converting commercial and business to housing, check with the property owners for their opinion if they're doing well there and they want to stay there. That's an important opinion. So let's be a little more proactive on these things, and I think you can end up with a better plan. Thank you.

Thank you, Jim.

Kathy Edwards Reichert.

Hi, my name is Kathy Edwards Reichert. I'm the accountant for Windmill Farms, which is the next door neighbor to this development. I've been there for 30 years. The business has been there for over 50 years. We've seen lots of changes on San Ramon Valley Boulevard in my time. And then since it was built, first it was an unincorporated area, then became the city of San Ramon and so forth. I wanted to comment on Betty's comment about a lot of, traffic accidents happening at san ramon and deerwood since they put in the two lane turn thing i've seen a lot of accidents there also which we didn't see before when there was only one turn lane and it is a very tight u-turn if you have a big suv you cannot make that u-turn from the the most the lane you're supposed to make it so i understand why some cars kind of go out of their lane, but they create a traffic problem. So the other thing I wanted to say is we have a very steep driveway going into Windmill Farms parking area. We see a lot of problems now with If you have a car coming in and a car going out, they can't really see each other with the way the grade is. And so we've seen a few accidents in the past years about that. Before they wanted to increase it for 196 apartments. And when we gave them the easement to continue to use our driveway, we were under the impression it was only going to be for the retail site that was gonna go into the upper part of the parking garage. And the residents that live there were gonna all come in through Deerwood. Now, if we're gonna have 145 units with families coming in and out, there's gonna be a lot of times when people are gonna be coming and going out of that driveway on San Ramon. And I just feel that it's an accident waiting to happen. Thank you. That's all I had to say.

Thank you for coming out.

Hi, it's good to be here. This is my first meeting. I'm also here to talk about the Chinese Communist Party. I'm just kidding. That was a little dry humor for me. I'm actually here to talk about there's an endangered species in that creek that you're developing. I've seen them myself. I'm a very avid wildlife photographer. In the San Ramon Creek at the Crow Canyon Gardens, there's the endangered red-legged frog. They're threatened and they have federal protection. I think that you're going to see a lot of issues with CICA and CISA, California Endangered Species Act. And I just wanted to let everyone know that there are those endangered species there. So that's all for me.

Thanks for coming out.

I have no other speaker cards.

Okay, we'll go ahead and close public comment. And so at this time, The ask of us is to provide feedback to staff and to the applicant on the concept review tonight. And at some point, you know, we also have some questions that staff posed of us. So for the moment, why don't we concentrate on any comments or feedback to staff on that? And then if we haven't hit the answers to the specific questions, we'll come back and do another round of that, if that's okay. Somebody wants to kick us off? Okay, I see everybody raising their hand. So do you want to go first?

So some feedback on the conceptual site plan that we've been given. I did like the paseos. I see that they're kind of at the center. with the fronts facing one another, and then also on the west side of the project. there is like a sheet that was provided that shows like the pedestrian and vehicular circulation. And some of that pedestrian circulation does show the road and not like a proper sidewalk. Um, I would just like to see some better connectivity for some of the sidewalks. Um, especially since there is that reciprocal access easement, um, The other thing is... Yeah, like I mentioned, you know, kind of a lot of accidents at the intersection. And, you know, Kathy from the public also mentioned that as well. Would just like to see what you can work with with our traffic department and see what potential mitigation that could be and what that access would look like, especially since there's also mention of that reciprocal access easement and like there's some issues grading issues and what can be done to go ahead and make that better especially since there'd probably be a huge number of people that would access off san ramon valley rather than deerwood since to get in from that main entry point on deerwood you just have to go the whole way around since there is that median it just doesn't really lend itself to um you know, good potential access there from San Ramon Valley Boulevard Um, yeah, the other thing that I've known mentioned, like not mentioned, but like noticed at this intersection is that there's like the bike path that has like pretty ample space on San Ramon Valley Boulevard to the north. Um, but as you continue to go down, um, there's still a bike lane there, but then it, it kind of like borders that windmill farms area where people park there. And it's also a bike lane. It's like really narrow. So just kind of looking at that as well. Uh, you know, someone also kind of brought up the three bedroom, three bathroom. And I did notice that there were kind of a lot of three bedroom, three bathrooms, 32 units out of the 45, which I know we don't have any discretion about as a planning commission. Um, but if there's any way that we can kind of like have a, you know, just more units on the smaller side, especially the two bed, two bath, um, just for that smaller square footage and potentially maybe squeeze in a couple more units in there since we are taking kind of a big hit to our unit count. Just some couple of policies that I wanted to point out in the specific plan. One of the policies on page 62, DG 33 states, you know, landscaping on private land near the Cree should be designed to complement existing riparian vegetation. It sounds like that was incorporated in the previous entitlement that was approved, if that can continue to still kind of be the case, where you're looking at native and riparian landscaping, especially adjacent to that creek. If there is any room for vegetation to be planted, I'm not sure. It kind of gets dicey when you talk about riparian corridors and creeks. The other thing was the specific plan also mentioned just new development, taking advantage of the proximity of the creek, opening up views and providing public access to the creek, just how... Cindy mentioned that it was a prior condition of approval and the previous entitlement would also like to see the same thing happen where there is some sort of public access is what it sounds like from the previous entitlement, if that could just carry on forward with this plan as well. And then I mentioned before to you, to the applicant that just would like to see some sort of community amenity. I know it is a small state, so I know there's a limited piece of area that you're working with, but potentially like the creek, like you mentioned. And then it sounds like the red-legged endangered frog was also brought up here. And, you know, just having the proper biologists complete the biological survey to indicate that the project, you know, what that impact would be. making sure to identify that they've looked at that species and there's no impacts, or if there would be, what that mitigation would look like. Yeah, and hopefully continue to work with your neighbors at Windmill Farms. That's all. Thank you.

Thank you, Jen. So, There are four questions that are for the review discussion. So regarding the first one, the alignment with the San Ramon Valley specific plan, removal of commercial component in this is something that is striking as overall From a budget perspective, that would be an impact for the city. So if some of the suggestions that Chair has made, if there could be work-live space or some commercial, that would be the entire street on that San Ramon Boulevard, especially north, is primarily commercial. And if there is any scope for that incorporation, that would be appreciated. Then from a proposal side, from my perspective, I think the grading would be something that needs to be looked at because I have experience being a customer of windmill farms. I've driven multiple times in and out of that parking lot, and people tend to just get on to the San Ramon Boulevard straight from there instead of going through the dairy road. So that could be a problem from a traffic perspective. So a traffic study related would be very, very helpful when you guys bring up the application and the approval process. And of course, I brought up SQL. I didn't realize that there were any endangered species, red-legged frog, but that component would also be helpful. And one thing I do want to bring to notice is If you're going on San Ramon Boulevard north, there is a good bit of a sidewalk that people can walk and there is a bike path. But on the southward, the sidewalk is smaller and there is hardly any space for that. There is a bike path, but there is hardly any space. So I'm really worried that the offset and the entire... How much offset would there be? And if there is any scope for additional extension within the property for any increase of a sidewalk, that would be beneficial to look at. So I don't know how much we can point that out, but that would be a criteria that I'll be looking at from a bike path perspective and a pedestrian perspective. One other point that I would like to make is the way that site has been developed, there is a net loss. And I agree with Commissioner Betty, where if there is any chance for two-bedroom, I wouldn't prescribe two-bedroom. from my point of view, two-bedroom, two-bath or anything like that. But if there is, instead of cramming more three-bedroom, three-bath, if there is chance for more units, that would also be helpful for the project.

So that's all I have.

Thank you. Thank you.

So are we working on the questions or just general comments? Okay. So... I'd like to just kind of start with my concern about the San Ramon Village specific plan. And what really is a key component is this particular corner was one of those really hallmark spots in the development of this plan. It was supposed to be kind of the gateway to more housing, more development in that area. And I'm disappointed that we are opting for just housing only and that there is no commercial in that. And as I'm sitting here listening to my fellow commissioners, and I'm thinking about two things. One is the driveway at Windmill Farms is almost directly across from In-N-Out Burgers, which we know is a hotbed of people and activity all the opening hours. But just picture now having houses at that corner, and now you have kids who are going to run across the street right into In-N-Out Burger. And yes, there will be a sidewalk and a crosswalk, but having been a teacher for 30 years of teenagers... they'll be running across the street. Okay, so there's a concern there. So on that thought is like that corner might be a really great place for something that teenagers like. For example, what comes to mind would be like, you know, a record store. Yes, vinyl is making a comeback. It doesn't have to be a huge square footage, But we don't have enough options for our young people. That might be a great corner to really investigate or something that ties in with windmill farms, you know, something more... organic, you know, additional organic cookware or something. But I really hate the idea of us giving up the commercial component on this corner. It was important. It was one of those really highlighted places in the specific plan. I am pleased that you are developing units that are smaller because I've said for many years on this commission, we don't need the 3,000 square foot housing units. What we need are the 1,200, 1,600 starter homes for families. So I'm really happy for that. And if I could get both, that'd be awesome. I think there's some creativity available for us dealing with the creek. I've offered one thought on this. So I don't think this is a no-go for me, but I'd like to see more. I don't want to just say... Well, it's just really hard and we can't do it. So it's just going to be only housing. My basic premise is that once you put housing in, you're never going back to anything else that that site could be used for. And that includes parks, you know, that includes maybe a bicycle shop, um, on that corner. We don't have one of those in town. So I really hate giving up the idea of the, um, some commercial on that corner. So, um, the density part, okay, we'll work with that. Um, and again, I just, I'm not ready to give up on the San Ramon specific plan. Um, The way it was envisioned, and we spent a lot of time creating that vision for the city of San Ramon. And there's a reason why we create those visions for the San Ramon. It's to say, this is what we think the town needs, and people were in agreement. And yes, times change, but sometimes you also want to hang on to the way you thought this was going to go. So I hope that's helpful and answers the questions. Thank you.

Thank you commissioners for your comments. Trying to start here. There's some guidance for staff when it comes back. We had an awful lot of discussion around general plan, housing opportunity sites, how it all relates. I would like to just get all of that memorialized in the staff report when it comes back, because it was a very big question of all of ours. Under what legal guidance and precedence are we allowed to allow the general plan to dictate the zoning versus the specific plan. So just for completeness, I think that's important that we capture that. Similarly, I think it's important for the staff report to highlight the question of density calculation, just so that there's no question or future. Why is the density a question? Why is, you know, net versus gross? And we talked about it and I think we all understand it tonight, but I also know that in a month from now, we may not quite keep all that in our head. So just to keep it, keep it clear, top of mind. I do think I heard the the answer to one of my questions that a pipeline project that doesn't get built is still a housing opportunity site. And that's what this is. And a housing opportunity site under state law is allowed to be built as a hundred percent residential. We may not love the idea, but then, you know, we're operating under, you know, following state law. So I think it's, it's important that we all keep that in mind. Um, Elimination of commercial uses. While I am sympathetic to the site constraints, the nature of retail and all of the things, certainly I would like to see a little bit of exploration of what options may be available to do a little bit with that, you know, creative a little bit. Sort of the softer things about this, the creek. I understand the 100-foot creek setback, which means we have 100 feet of space in front of the creek that allows us more or less to do something else i hope that we can really take advantage of that as we heard there's no there's not a lot of land there's not a neighborhood park across the street but that 100 feet setback times whatever the number of square feet there that feels like a perfect place to develop walking paths seating areas gazebos gathering spaces all of those things that you know this high density housing project really i think would appreciate So if you choose to come back on that, I would like you to really explore, you know, creatively what we can do with that space as opposed to it's just dirt, you know. I know we probably can't build parking lots and streets on the setback, but we certainly can do, you know, gathering spots. So I would like to encourage that. Okay. parking, we didn't talk about it a lot tonight, but when it comes back, there's a bit of a discrepancy between the staff report and what the zoning ordinance says and what the submission has, and I believe it's parking as required under state density bonus, if that's the route you go, versus what our zoning code says. The number's 90 required in the staff report, 70 required in the applicant submission, and 87 provided. So it takes out all confusion of what is the parking requirement, how many are provided, and where are they. I'd like to make sure that the staff report is clear, including where would guests park, shared parking assumptions, is there shared parking with windmill farms, yes or no, you know, and just make sure that we really do understand where the people that live there are going to park. Site design and placemaking, there's a whole bunch of things here, you know, in the big picture, you know, Chapter four of the San Juan Village specific plan has a lot of details and a lot of what we envisioned for that area to be. We've heard some of the words today, how we activate the corner, how we make it a nice livable community there, pedestrians, gathering spaces, all of those things that we kind of tried to put down an objective design standards in the specific plan. And then when it comes back, if it comes back, we'll always ask for things just to make, just answer the question as part of the plan versus, you know, where's bike racks and bike storage and EV chargers. And are there, is there solar on the roof or how are you meeting all of the green standards of, of today? Um, just make sure the application is complete and I know staff will make sure it is as well. You know, um, I think the most important spot of this project is that corner at San Ramon Valley and Deerwood. We did talk about that being the gateway catalyst site for the entire neighborhood. So while we can't really mandate that you overbuild there or anything like that, we can at least encourage you to do things to make it the high quality destination entrance to this very important part of the city as possible. So you asked for some comments on architecture. I'd like it to look residential, not like an office building. We see a lot of those that get built with flat roofs. And as an architect, I'm sure you can appreciate some of the things that are getting built these days don't look like houses. They look like offices. I already mentioned the high quality and high visibility corner, what you can do to activate the street. I would hope that you would get this in front of the architecture review board. Those guys truly provide phenomenal feedback, and they're familiar with our specific plan and all of the things in San Ramon. So I do hope at some place in the process that it does go before them. And I think, you know, I, for one, you know, we've looked at this vacant lot for a decade now, you know, so it's tough to look at it so long, especially, like I said, I was part of the original process that approved the thing. Didn't know what I was looking at or thinking about at the time, but it kind of resonates back with me because I think we're all kind of excited about the project that got ultimately approved. So there's positive in this, you know, the redevelopment of a vacant site, you know, it does create ownership. I do kind of like the comments of some smaller units. If we can squeeze in some more twos versus threes, I think that would be helpful for a spot like this. know but there are questions that are most of them got answered tonight but i think they'll come back again you know and then when you do the formal application i think that we can capture all of that you know um if you reviewed all the notes um not to you know luckily we won't do this again 16 public hearings or meetings on that first plan you know that was you know it's a different age so you know you won't see us 16 times i guarantee that you know And just as a last round, it is a catalyst project, so we all treat it as an important spot. So as an architect and early in the process, there are opportunities to make this a good neighborhood without breaking the bank because it's so early in the process. And I'll just thank you for taking the time to come for us tonight and do hope that we see you again in the coming months. And before we move on, are there any other comments that... Anybody has, and I'll also look to staff to see if you've gotten sufficient guidance and information for tonight. So any other comments that anybody wants to make at this time? Okay. Well, thank you so much for coming out tonight and spending time with us. We appreciate it. Hopefully we'll see you again soon. Okay. Okay. We will move on. Okay. At this time, we have any updates from committee assignments that we've had? There haven't been a lot of them. Has anybody had any committee meetings that they've been a liaison to recently?

They have had meetings.

The Parks Commission has had meetings, but I'm sorry, I have nothing to report. Fair enough. I have not watched the recordings. I was out of town. I didn't watch the recording.

I attended the TAC meeting, Transportation Advisory Committee meeting. They were discussing some radar speed signs out on Doherty Valley. They got some money. They talked about a couple of locations out that way. One's, I think, in front of your house on Doherty. or Bollinger. And then that was primarily that they had some things that are kind of re-reviewing some of the schools and traffic at schools. So that was the only one that I had, and there was nothing else that was, I think.

Well, I will piggyback on your comment that if you are driving on Crook Canyon Road, they are actively working on the center left turn, U-turn, that we put as part of the Iron Horse Village, which is making traffic just delightful again. But that's in process. And those houses are going up quite quickly if you've not been over in that area.

Yes. And then Commissioner Kuznick and I attended the grand opening of the Heritage Park over there in front of Belmont Village. If you haven't been over there, take a look. It is a really nicely done park. Yeah. Okay, I'll turn to staff and see if you have any

Great, thank you. Our next meeting is scheduled for June 16th, but I do not have items ready to go for June 16th. So it's likely we will cancel that meeting. We'll send out a cancellation shortly for that. We will potentially have a item ready to go for the July 7th meeting and potentially also a staff year in review that we typically do at that time of the year when the chair and the vice chair changes, changes hands. So whenever that next meeting is likely July 7th, we'll also have a year in review with that.

Do we have any timeframe for getting a fifth member of the commission replacing our newly appointed Our new city employee that left us. Congratulations to Max, by the way.

At the last city council meeting, they asked to agendize it as a matter initiated to discuss the process for filling the vacancy. So more to come. All right.

Thank you. And if I could, I'm going to trade hats for the few remaining people. So Saturday, June 13th, the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District is having their 80th birthday celebration. We are demonstrating the trucks, tools, equipment. Educational exhibits, toilet racers. They're like go-karts, but with toilets. Free food and ice cream. Tours of the treatment plant, interactive games, and plenty of surprises. So we're very excited about it. I have more information. Happy for you to join us. Tell your friends. It should be a lot of fun. And just think, every time you use your facility... Thank your sanitary district. I'll just leave it in the clean version. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, we'll go ahead and we'll adjourn our meeting at 7.40 p.m. Thank you all. Good night.