Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hey. I'm gonna call the meeting to order. Welcome to the 08/05/2025 regular meeting of the San Ramon Planning Commission. We'll call the meeting to order at 06:00PM. Item two, roll call. May the rate recording secretary please conduct roll.

Commissioner Kuznick?

I'm here.

Commissioner Kunjula?

Here.

Vice chair Avila? Here. And chair Albert?

Here. Item three, pledge of allegiance, please rise.

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

That was the. It's on the form. The her plan is on the form. Okay. Item item 3.1, recognition of Debbie Chamberlain, community development director.

Debbie has done this many times over the years where she's gotten to do a recognition of an outgoing planning commissioner, but it's a first that we get to recognize an outgoing, community development director. So it's great pleasure to congratulate you and thank you for the years of service to the city of San Ramon. And I think the commissioners might have a couple of comments, then I will too. So you've you've experienced this, and you've you've seen us struggle to get through this. So it's our turn. Mhmm. Okay. So,

Debbie, one of the things that has made this job well, it's not really a job. It's a vocation, hobby. It is that the staff has always been very kind and generous with their time and wisdom to share with us as each one of us started in this position as the newest person, and you walked us through. I remember walking this is back when we were over in the office, which is now the current police department, and seeing that giant map. And you said, well, so do you know all these areas?

And it's like, no. She's do you know the names of the shopping center? It's like, am I supposed to? But, anyways, we got through all that. So you have always answered every one of our questions and have explained things kindly and confidently.

And I I don't know how many people currently know the amount of time and effort. You've also served the state of California with what was the League of California cities now known as cows Cal Cities and served as their president the year that we hosted in in San Ramon, the the conference for the planning directors. So you have been a very busy woman, and and we're really the San Ramon will miss your expertise, but we also wish you well and know that you you'll miss us for a little while, but not so much on Tuesdays. But congratulations on a a wonderful career, and and best wishes from me and those of us that, I know. And I know other people have other things to say, but congratulations on a career well done.

Thank you.

So I'll start by saying I am the newest member now. So brief time I've been here. Thank you very much. You have guided me. And believe me, on this council, I had way too many questions.

And we formed a process or a path where I could you could address all the answers before coming here and making myself any fool if I if I can say so. So I I do my best, and thank you very much for all your guidance. It's nice that we had a brief time on this during these council meetings and all the on alternate Tuesdays. So I wish you a wonderful next phase of your career, I would say, because it's never retirement, Adriana. So so congratulations.

And also similar to the previous commissioner, I've known you for about six months now, and I thank you for all your guidance and support and everything that you've done for the city as you've been here for quite some time. And we really appreciate you, Debbie, and I'll you know, we're happy to send you off to retirement and hope you can have fun for the rest of us. I'm a long ways from that, but, yeah, I I I hope that the next chapter of your life goes really well. And thank you for everything that you've done.

And let me just also echo. It's been eight years, and every question has been patiently answered, you know, sometimes even with a smile. I wanna thank you for that. I especially remember fondly attending the Planning Commission Academy, and it seemed like you knew everybody in the room. You know?

And you're always visiting with people and talking to people, and I was super impressed at how well connected you are. You think we're in a silo, but we're not. I did let some of the commissioners know that you were tonight was your last night, but, surprisingly, nobody wanted to come out on a Tuesday night. But, you know, they did they did send their best. So Howard, Dave, Usher, Vicky, Eric, and Rick all are very happy for you leaving, you know, happy for your your your decision to retire.

It's a big it's a big step. And I think you'll you'll find that you're gonna ask yourself in about three months, how did I ever have time to go to work? You know? And all of us that have retired, it's been one of those one of those moments that you're just as busy as before. When did I ever find time in the day?

As a commission, we did want to send you off with a little something. I do remember when we were over at the other building, one day, I think it was Cindy leading the discussion about orchids and that you all were, you know, comparing your quality of your orchids in your office. And so what we decided that would be appropriate so that you could remember your former staff as well as your former office that we would send you off with an orchid that you need to take care of. And I hope that you, it flourishes and blooms and stays healthy as we hope you do too in retirement. So thank you so very much, Debbie.

It has been twenty five years almost, I guess, see and people here. And, you know, you don't get here by yourself. I've had amazing mentors along the way and amazing staff, who have always been there to support me in my decisions, whether they thought it was the right one or not at times. But it's a team that got all of us here, and it's a team, that keeps this commission going. And, you know, at times, we may not agree on what's occurring or what's being presented, but we're always very professional and hope friends at the end of the day.

But it's been a a wonderful journey, ten years at the county before I came here to finish my career. And it's with heavy heart that I'm leaving, but it's it's that time in my life. It's time to move on. And I just wish everyone the best, and I know I will not be too far. And just, you know, anytime you see the staff, they're the ones who do the hard work. So make sure you and give them, you know, a little extra thank you because they do work really hard behind the scenes. So but thank you.

Okay.

We are gonna make you sit through one more meeting with us regardless. Okay. Item four, public comment or written communications. This time, members of the public may address the planning commission on any item not already included in tonight's agenda. If you'd like to speak, please fill out a speaker card at the back of the room and submit it to the recording secretary. We will not be taking public comment via Zoom. Do we have any? I do. Yes. Do we have any?

We have a speaker card here for Johannes Tila.

Great. Thank you. Thank you, Thank

you. I'd like to know what your trick is to retire at 35. You look so young. You're gonna be bored to hell. Believe me. I've tried it three times. It's no fun. Madam chair, wait. How many changes are there? I left I haven't holy grail. Well, congratulations. I did not know this. This effort. I, well, two good people. So congratulations. Santosh, proud of you, buddy, to have you on the thing. My comment is it's more of a question. And I say this with a lot of respect. I saw the last commissioner, the last video that we had, and I went through it. Obviously, I'd be happy to ask Martin on this one.

He's always available to to answer, and I probably will ask him next council meeting. I'll come ten minutes early, but I'm not looking for the legality. It's more of a thought process to me. And this is the what was discussed last week on the sunset. To the best of my understanding, to the best end, if I'm not pleased, all I do is I just listen by video, is how the commissioner the commission, the planning commission is not going to be advising on the sunset project.

Obviously, we have very capable people on it, but the planning commission main purpose is brain knowledge. To me, that's how I see it. You all have nothing to do but look at plans for the city. That's all. That's your job. That's what you're looking here. The commissioners, the council, they have a million things to do. They're not going to be able to deep dive. So if you don't look at it, who's going to look at it? Obviously, we have experts who are very good. Then you will be second layer, and it goes to council. There's be a check and balance to this to this. To me, what really bothered me more than anything else is don't get me wrong. Santos is a good friend of mine. Love him to death.

He's a very brilliant person. But on his second on his second meeting like this to object something single handedly, something did not sit right with me. From a logical leadership perspective, the first two months, you just keep quiet and listen. I know he's very knowledgeable about that. What happened? I know you're not allowed to answer here, but I would love to know what the thought process that went through it, not the legality. I'm not worried about it because this sunset problem sunset every single time there's an issue. I just don't understand. Why can't it run very smooth? I mean, this is not the first real estate project, and it's not that big.

What is that? 200,000,300 million dollars And the bigger of things is not a big project. Why do we keep stacking in problems, issue out of issue? So I want to make sure I go on the record to see what your processes are leaders. And without you, it makes me concerned. I don't know if the word is concerned, but it doesn't make me happy. It goes straight to the councils. Thank you.

Thank you.

I have no other speaker cards for this item.

Okay. Why don't we go ahead and close the public comment? And item five, additions and revisions to the agenda. We have none. Item six, consent calendar. This is the minutes for the regular meeting of 07/15/2025. Do we have any public comments on this item?

I have no speaker cards or written communication.

Okay. We'll go ahead and close the okay. Commission, questions, suggestions, or a motion, please?

I will move that we accept the consent calendar as noted.

One

second. I'll second that motion. Hey.

K. The the motion does pass for zero zero zero. Okay. Item seven, continue items after closing of public hearing. We have none. Continue items open the public hearing. We have none. And item nine, public hearing two new items. We do have a new item tonight. It's the item 9.1 zoning ordinance text amendment, t a two zero two four dash zero zero zero five, and the environmental two zero two five zero zero six for amendments to the zoning ordinance.

Before I turn it over to staff, just a quick reminder. This is a text amendment. It is the culmination of couple of years of review and discussion by both the planning commission and the city council to address recommended changes to the zoning ordinance, and it was put in place to align with the adoption of the general plan 2040, the housing element, as well as additional technical changes initiated by staff since 2023. So tonight, the goal is to affirm the changes for the city council consideration that have been previously discussed in all of our workshops and and meetings. And at the end, we will be discussing what to do next as next steps.

And with that brief introduction, I will turn it over to Cindy Yee for a presentation. Well,

thank you, chair Albert, and appreciate the opportunity this evening to present the zoning ordinance text amendment. It's a comprehensive city initiated zoning ordinance text amendment throughout the zoning ordinance. There's six divisions, of the of the eight in the zoning ordinance that will be, amended. And so those, amendments have been attached as attachment a to your staff report. And really, the changes as as as you've mentioned are culmination of the last two years of of efforts to, bring our zoning ordinance in line with the adopted general plan as well as the housing element along with technical edits the staff over time see that needs to be initiated.

And so, this text amendment will be applied citywide. And when we first started this effort, after the general plan and housing element were, adopted in 2023, we went through a series of study sessions and, meetings with both the planning commission as well as the city council and and and policy committee. And so a number of these changes that are in the attachment, you'll be familiar with because of of previous presentations that we've had on on the edits that are proposed. Tonight will just be an opportunity for us to provide an overview of the text changes and then any additional feedback that you'd like for us to incorporate and and to receive public comment. And so with that, I'm just going to run through the edits that are being made within each division.

Division D2, some of the key edits that have been made are related to the, definitions and density ranges within the residential district, the updates to the land use tables. There's also objective design and development standard references that are now made within Division D2. And then because of the phasing out of the commercial service and manufacturing warehouse zones, we've now had to, throughout the zoning ordinance, remove the references to those two zoning districts that previously existed. In Division D3, this is the section that has some more specific standards within each zone. We've added references to the various mixed use zones that were originally added in the general plan 02/1940, and so we've added references now into the zoning ordinance.

There's also some additional clarifications that are being made in the recycling standards. There are updates that are being made to the parking standards that is driven by housing element commitments that the city has made and were covered at some previous study sessions with the commission. And we also have updates to the sign ordinance within this division as well. In Division D 4, there's some additional standards associated with specific land uses. These edits include an update to the adult business zoning designation, and these are some topics that have been covered and that we received feedback on at previous planning commission meetings.

We are also removing three sections within Division D 4 that have been outdated or superseded with state law. Those include the child day care facilities, the commercial entertainment facilities, and one of the topics that has been a big one for the commission has been the nonretail uses within retail commercial centers. And there's an a number of study sessions that we've had both with the planning commission as well as the city council to receive direction on on how to proceed with with that particular policy. We've also added a new section to this this division. There's a beekeeping chapter now, and this goes really quite a number of years back where there was some desire to add recreational beekeeping in residential zones.

And so that chapter has been incorporated now into division d four. I did wanna note just a a quick edit. The staff report refers to a 10,000 square foot minimum lot size. Since the last planning commission study session, the direction was to go to 6,000. And so there are is just an edit to to the that you'll see it at your next meeting with the correction to 6,000 square feet instead of 10,000.

And then in division d six, just some additional clarification to to make sure that the the the the structure of the sections are are correct. So that applies to the development plan concept review section of d six. And then moving into division d seven, changes related to noticing requirements that are now required through state law, And then edits that were made to chapter three related to the amendment process for general plan amendments and zoning amendments. This is, again, to address consistency with state law as well as a housing program commitment. And then division d eight is our glossary.

And in the glossary, we've just done some updates of definitions and just clarification. And so that concludes my report this evening. We're hoping to get additional feedback on the edits that are proposed, and then we have, a suggestion for continuation of the public hearing to the next planning commission meeting on August 19. And then if appropriate, direct staff to provide a resolution at at your upcoming meeting so that we can consider that. With that, that concludes my presentation this evening. I'd be happy to take any questions now or wait until after public comment.

Why don't we start with clarifying questions? These are questions just to ask staff to clarify any of the sections if you have any. Know, we'll get to the place where we can make comments after we open the public hearing. Clarifying questions? Mission. Angela.

So I want this to be transparent and open in the public that being a new member, I did have lot of questions. And the city staff, and city attorney were very kind enough to spare hours and hours of their time going through and helping me address each and every one of them. And I want to put that onto the public record saying that, okay, there were tons of questions that were addressed and what they were. I'm just gonna walk through. And many of them were clearly addressed, and many others.

I would bring them up here and from a objective perspective as well. So even before I point out to individual items, I want to bring bring to the notice that within this text amendments, that, principally, I am where I stand so that it becomes easy and the recommendation for the city council also becomes easy. One, I've been of the belief that the nonelected or the appointed planning commission members like me shouldn't have a overriding authority over the city council who have the ultimate power. Like, city council giveth and taketh away. So that's their responsibility.

And I I believe that if there is any addressing or anything that is against that, that should be avoided. And and another point is if there is a measure from the citizens of San Ramon that should overweigh the city council's independent thought unless until they have a supermajority or whatever by law it's agreed upon. So those are my principal beliefs. And and then from the staff perspective, I I wanna say if there is any conflict with any particular measures or any particular. So here, we are dealing with measure g.

If there is any conflict, that should be addressed by city council head on. And if it, comes in upfront or confrontational with the state laws or other things, the city council should take appropriate measures by consulting the city attorney and the city staff who are more knowledgeable across the board and make recommended changes. That's that's basically from a principle wise what I would recommend, rather than, pointing one way or another to make any adjustments or text amendments to the makers. So another point that I want to make is and many of the Citi staff, last couple of meetings I had with them, they they were very kind, and they said, not just for the new members who have joined the planning commission, but also for the education of the folks who are attending these as well as the city of San Ramon. You guys are gonna have a education class wherein you go where you go through all the developments and things like that.

So that was another assurance I received from the city staff. And finally, from principle wise, I I see we have a lot of different zones even within and small changes even though they have the same objective or aim. For example, DMU north versus south. So what I figured was and I mentioned this to the city staff as well. There should be little leeway within that.

So, for example, number of DUs within an acre should be in such a way that the city counts the city council can make a decision or even the city staff can make a decision based on that rather than every time coming back with a small amendment and, having that, addressed within the planning commission. If once it's approved, that that should go through a smooth process. So that's my second thought. If if and any conflict or any particular topic comes up and comes to the planning commission that that needs to be reviewed, that that could as well be voted upon along with the public, comment. So that being said, generally, because this particular public hearing is more of going through the text amendments and zoning ordinances.

And the more I look at it, more I believe it's the direction of the principles where the city wants to go rather than and the adjustments that are being made within this text amendment by the which has been in place since one and a half year or two years that city staff are working on. And I I don't want to make any changes now at this very end or propose anything right now, but I I would refer that to the city council to make sure that they follow some common practices, standard practices across the board. And I also felt that from many of the city staff, they felt it would be nice, to have a uniform or a good standard across various different zones. So with that, I would say there were a lot of questions and individual pages that were addressed, that I have brought up, and the city staff has, addressed all of these. And many of them came down to the numbers, individual numbers.

For example, within the packet, page 19, there were a set of numbers that were changed from 12 to 15 to use for a single family residential RS zone. So those, those individual things, I I think they had multiple meetings, on this planning commission prior to this, and the city staff has worked diligently taking into consideration the direction from the planning commission over the last one and a half year and has made those changes appropriately. So and one thing I also felt from a general perspective, principal perspective, is that the city has made and the city staff and the planning commission has made effort across the board to make sure some of the restrictive ways that were that were not convenient for the that were not so feasible for the businesses, they have made very welcoming for the businesses, and they have ensured that where it would be a longer process, that could take weeks of time, could be implemented within a few days with the permits rather than going through minor use permit requires or use permit requires. They went with the permit use and zoning clearances. So they made this very, very convenient, and I I felt that that was an awesome, nice step across the board.

And there were many pages that we discussed, individual points on page 23, on table two dash four. I'll up all the points that I have raised and that have been addressed on page packet page 26 where the DMU north and the DMU south, even though the purpose of that is very close to the mixed use commercial emphasis, there are some variances, and I felt that it would be nice to have standards. And one of the answers that I have received from city staff was, yes, they would really like to have it standardized. But unless somebody comes up with that request, for example, for DMU North, Sunset has requested a FAR, FAR ratio change from 1.25 to point five, and that has been, that has been allocated. So there are, specific things that, really, needs to be addressed across the board, but the city staff and the process is constrained by their limitations, and somebody needs to come up, with this standardization, and they they are planning to have that right after these amendments.

So moving forward.

Commissioner, yeah, let me just, pause you there.

Yep.

Are there clarifying questions at this point you'd like to ask staff to answer? Because it feels like you're drifting into direction and comments for future consideration.

Just No. I want to bring this to public record that, what was addressed to me in person should also be on the public record. That that's the ultimate goal

of

me going through. And and many of these questions clarifying questions were addressed by the city staff.

Yeah. I I think it it probably is appropriate to ask the if the if you feel like it's important to get the questions and the answers on the public record, actually ask them so then we can then take the public hearing, and then we can come back to making the statements. But I appreciate the the need to, you know, review the questions that you asked, but I don't know that that's necessary at this public hearing. But if there are questions that you would like staff to answer because you felt they were very relevant or very important for the public to know the answer, then I think it'd be best to ask the question again if you'd approach it the way. And before I pour that, mister mister Bar, did you have something also to

No. I I was just going to agree that the first part of this was clarifying questions and then comments and direction Yeah. After the public hearing.

Yeah. Then we could. Yeah. Yeah. Feel free to ask the questions if even if it was asked in directly, if you feel it's an important question to ask for clarifying to the public. Otherwise, we can have our time to make our comments at the end at the at the process.

I did not wear my short shoes today, but I I'm okay.

So There's only four of you.

I do have one clarifying question, regarding the Measure G. So my question, I wanted to clarify this, document from a Measure G. Wanted to understand if the Measure g only corresponded to the general plan 2020, or was it mentioned it only corresponds to general plan 2020, or does it correspond to any future general plan? That would mean that 2030 or 2040 as well or any future going forward.

I see our city attorney standing up, so I'm always gonna defer the mic to him.

Good evening, chair Albert and members of the commission. Just to answer your question, the position of the city is that the general plan that measure g applies to general plan 2020. The actual language of measure g says the general plan adopted pursuant to section five, which is they're referring to your section five of measure g, may only be amended by a four fifths vote of city council, etcetera, and runs through all of the requirements associated with those amendments. But when you look at the general plan adopted pursuant to section five, that is general plan 2020. We've subsequently passed general plan 2030, 2035, and we're now on general plan 2040.

So at at this point, the position of the city is that the that measure g no longer applies to the general plans that we are dealing with today. But what we what does apply is the ordinance that the city council passed in 2006 that that applied the measure g provisions to the rest of the to the rest of the general plans.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I don't have any clarifying questions. But for the record, I did meet with city staff to go ahead and ask a lot of questions that I had pertaining to the changes as well as some of my comments. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Kuchen. Mr. Kuznick.

I I do have a question. K. Bees versus chickens. Yes. Okay. Just just so regulate both. I we do. We do. And I I guess the question is and I know we we already discussed that the it's a 6,000 square feet for for bees, but I wondered why k. So chickens also get a a 6,000 square feet.

Okay. And I'm happy with that. If you go to packet page 21, in the RS land use zoning, the RS square footage starts at 2,900. So I this seems to have some inconsistencies there. So why help me out there. Sure. I mean, other than just saying, like, this is the number we picked.

It's it's a little difficult to understand because there are a variety of RS type zones. So when we refer to RS, RS stands for single family residential. Mhmm. But there's a number of different subcategories within RS. So we have RSD.

We have RS six, ten, 12, etcetera. And and those those hyphens that refer to additional sub zoning within the RS, that refers to the the, size of the lot. K. So duets will tend to be the smaller lots, which used to be 3,500 now going to 2,900, and then 10,000 for the RS 10. So in the RS zone, chickens, bees are allowed in the RS zone, but under the specific site regulations that are addressed in chapter the chapters in division, d four, they specify that not only do you have to have an RS zone or or greater, you also have to have these minimum site standards that apply.

Okay.

So we rely on the tables that tell us whether or not bees keeping of bees or chickens is allowed. And then in the side table, there's a reference to the additional chapter that they should be referring to to make sure that they meet both standards.

Okay. I just I just wanted to see that the the bee enthusiasts were not getting muscled out of, you know, smaller lots. So that's all. Okay. Thank you. Oh, and and the the text amendment, this is minor. On page 19 where it says there's there's a repeated reference to, it looks like, one five four. Is it 15? Is it 14?

So, unfortunately, with the track changes, the four is actually crossed out. Okay. It's just not visible when it prints

the That's what I figured, but, you know, it's best to ask these things. Okay. Thank you. That I think that was the only one that I really had. Questions rather than discussion topics. So

I do not have any I do not have any questions at this time. Let's open the public comment. First of all, do we have any written public comment or pub speaker cards?

Written public comment was received from by Byron De Eric Hall and Eric Wallace. I don't have any speaker cards for this item.

Okay. Then why don't we go ahead and close the public comment? And now we can make our comments and provide direction to staff, and then we can discuss what our next steps are.

So having sat through the variety of these previous discussions of the general plan, most of this, yes, we're familiar with, and and I've been party to those discussions previously. I will say that I think the the part that has become troublesome has been this latest iteration concerning the measure g. And I know that we have give we have been granted time with the city attorney to to be walked through this and so forth. But it it's still, I find, troublesome. And and I say this because while I can abide by our city attorney's interpretation of the measure applying to general plan 2020, The fact of the matter is the city has subsequently applied the measure g three meetings, four fifths vote to the general plans of 2030 and 2035.

And now we're at 2040. And sudden well, I okay. That's my editorializing. And so in this iteration, we are dropping that out. So the question then is, how did the city attorney and all the other legal minds not step in previously to make this correction if this was egregious?

And and okay, that that all I'll put the question mark there. And I also understand that the difference in the game now is HCD streamlining of of approvals and things that represent an impetus impediment, Sherry, not impetus, impediment to approving development. Yes. I've been on this commission, and I've sat through all of those. So I understand that that is the the new and different.

But I also think that before we we get too far beyond this point that I would like to see us as a deliberative body wrestle a little longer on this topic so that that we have investigated every nook and cranny. And what occurred to me, and this is more to the feedback part, is that I was well, I was in town when we voted on on Measure g. But many, many of our city leaders have lived by measure g. I think our citizens have expected us to live by measure g. So I would like to ask the staff and to consider and to the rest of this body that perhaps this is an opportunity to send this debate to a third legal mind.

Because, yes, I know that there are citizens that have legal expertise that would argue a different thing. I've heard from our city attorney, but I feel like we need a tiebreaker here on on this. So that that's and I'm not a legal mind, but I just have some concerns about this and how this this goes forward. And and I I do have issues with public engagement and what we're tasked to do as the as the planning commission before we then send it to the city council. I understand if I that the that part of the adoption was that the city councils put it into ordinances that made it legally binding.

And what we're saying is, well, they put it in, so we're just not gonna put it back in. And therefore, it will no longer be legally binding. As a non lawyer, that seems a little sketchy. And and I would just like us to prove that we have wrestled on this. And with no disrespect to our city attorney staff, but we we live in a time of of skepticism, you know, that our civic engagement wants more verification with their trust.

And and we have been asked to engage the public trust. So, again, I mean no disrespect, but I just and I've said this many, many times as commissioner. I always ask, what would the average citizen want me to be thinking to bringing up to raising as a concern? So that that was that was part of my discussion and and feedback on where we're going.

I don't know if you'd like me to address point by point or if you want me to wait for everyone to give their comment.

I think we'll I think I'd like to take the topics at one all at once, but let's make sure if there's any other commission or comments specifically related to measure g, then maybe it'd work best if you addressed all of them at once as opposed to

Very good.

Address one, then come back and come back back.

Thank you.

Okay. So as we've talked about, and as the staff report was, there are numerous, numerous updates to this text amendment to the zoning ordinance. So if I could ask your indulgence in staying focused on only the measure g topic so we can wrestle that one completely. And if we have comments on others, we'll have time. But let's just try and do our best to stick to just measure g questions, comments, or if there's additional information we feel we need in order to make a decision on this topic, I think I'd like to try and try and to couch our discussion in those terms.

Thank you, commissioner Kuznick, for going ahead and and speaking about measure g. I think as a newer commissioner, I'm not so familiar with measure g nor have I gone into the depths of reading through it, but it seems like it it does have a long standing history here since it was passed back in 1999. And I I do agree in the sense of, what the recommendation was from commissioner Kuznick on having a third legal mind go ahead and review whether or not and what that text amendment would look like in regards to measure g. I don't want to go ahead and discount that in any in any means, but I I do agree with her on that. And that's all my comments for measure g.

Okay. Thank you. Mister Kangula.

So I'll start by saying changing times. The reason for that is folks wanted to have a certain other citizens of San Ramon wanted to have a certain standards for urban growth, and that has been taken into consideration at that point in time in 1999. And the corresponding work was started in '99. And, of course, there is a unbiased opinion of the, city attorney within that document right now that that states what what needs to be done or what was done. And over the period of time, say, '23 02/2003, the zoning or all these were incorporated into zoning ordinance.

The reason for that was they own not only wanted to take the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law into the zoning ordinance. And they continued that work, and they wanted to propagate to the next decade or two decades or so and so forth. But I understand where the city staff and city attorney are coming from. The times have changed, as I mentioned. And many of the state representatives have thrust new changes into the cities.

And some of them may be in conflict or confrontational with with the measures that were passed by the city or the changes that are implemented. So now they would come back and say, for example, based on the housing element, HCD or somebody, they say, oh, we want all these things to be looked at and changed based on the new state laws. And, appropriately, they could be opposing some of the measure g point of views. And that is absolutely fair. And I I personally believe, as I mentioned earlier, I don't wanna repeat myself, city council give it and take it away.

So they can make these changes. And for them to make those changes, we can they need somebody to push it to them, like the planning commission saying, can you make these amendments or take a look at these amendments? And they can they can make those changes to all of them. But I I agree with the commissioner Kuznick. I really do want to get a third third person point of view.

The reason was yesterday was the first time the chair, Albert, has given me the resolution 99 hyphen 96, which was the was a measure g, and I went through that. And my question corresponding to the earlier to that same point, does this anywhere in any point reflect general plan 2020, or does it move forward? And you have addressed that question. And, of course, you will you will clarify that more along with those guidelines. So my point being, one, we should allow a third person point of view to see where that where they would lead, and two, have the city council clearly go in-depth and weigh in on it.

Because it we can propose some things, and that's absolutely what I was told that we would propose something, and they would deliberate on it, and they would come to a decision. And I agree with that. And with that, I would kneel to mister chair.

Okay. Thank you. I'll reserve my comments, let the city attorney address the comments we've heard so far. Let me just start by saying, at the end of the day, the city attorney represents the city. And there could be different opinions, and two attorneys may have different opinions. But at the end of the day, it's up to the city's attorney to have to feel confident in their analysis and their decision because it will be the city attorney that represents the city should it ever get that far. And so we need to we need to trust the expertise and the analysis performed by the city attorney on on matters such as this that are legal outside of our purview or our expertise. So with that introduction, I'll just defer to mister License.

Thank you, chair Albert. And to add to that sentiment, it's also the city attorney that has to delegate resources to one legal issue over another. And when it conserves resources to not litigate and there's a way to to circumvent the litigation process, then nine times out of 10, that's the path I'm going to take, and that's what we're doing here. To address the the considerations that were raised by commissioner Kuznick, I think her initial queries, and correct me if I'm wrong, kind of boil down to why now, and why haven't we done this? And why didn't we do this in 02/2006?

Why did they pass the ordinance to begin with? But I I I can't really speak to the council then. I don't believe I personally know any of the council members who voted on it at that time. That was nineteen years ago. But what I will say is that they the intent was to apply these principles that were that were codified in measure g to all subsequent general plan amendments.

And and and they and they did so. And they did so without an issue. And the reason they did so without an issue for nearly twenty years now is or actually over twenty years, is that there was never a conflict between the planning commission's decision and the city council's decision. Now this would have come up years ago had there been because, for example, have if the planning commission would have said would have voted to deny, and then the city council and and there was a project proponent, and then the city council would have voted to approve, then we would have been in a precarious legal position and and subject to litigation from either side. The project proponent would say, well, we didn't get a fair chance to before the city council meeting because we they held three hearings that meant nothing.

We had we held three hearings that we just aired out our grievances with the planning commission, but, ultimately, the city council threw up its hands. And that flies in the face of state law as as we went over, and the fact that it's an illegal delegation of legislative authority. And not only that, but it flies in the face of our own ordinances, which set up the city council as the appeals body for any any grievances against the planning commission's decisions. So what what we have now is a position is is a framework whereby this is the only planning commission decision in, you know, in in all of the decisions that the planning commission can make that is not subject to city council appeal. And so it stands out, and it and it shouldn't because, again, it's it flies in the face of state law.

So the why now is that, yes, we've kind of suspected, or I have, that that this is that we don't have a a legal framework in place. But, again, it's not been an issue, but it was almost an issue with DMU North. We did have a four to one vote. Had it been a three to two vote, we would have been right in we would have been sucked right into that that conundrum. And so we don't want to be in a position where we're vulnerable to challenge from from both sides.

It's it's just not a and and, again, if I'm gonna put the city in a position where I don't waste legal resources on on defending something that's not really defensible, then I'm I'm going to rather put my put my legal money into into what I would say are real issues. As far as the whether

we

should have a tiebreaker decision or a tiebreaker opinion from an outside counsel, Burke Williams and Sorenson is our litigation counsel typically for land use matters. And because Burke Williams and Sorenson would be the counsel that would represent us in court, if we ever had a measure g question, I did pose the question to Burke Williams and Sorenson and asked them whether they agreed that the best way to avoid litigation or the best way to put us in a position to prevail in litigation against the, council or commission decision would be to follow this path, and and they wholeheartedly agree. So we do have that third opinion, and and that opinion agrees with with with staff attorneys. I think that covers the questions. But if there are any others, I'd be happy to.

Thank thank you, Martin. To to close on this, and you can kinda hold hold your thoughts or or offer any other comments, I didn't make comments before. First of all, I think we it's important for us to look at the specific text being changed. You know, there's the myth of measure g that's lived out there forever, and then there's the practical, what are the changes that have actually been put in front of us tonight. The changes do remove the word measure g.

You know, that's a truth statement. But more importantly, the text of the zoning changes that are made does not eliminate the planning commission public hearing process. The public hearing process will continue. And for those of us that have lived through general plan amendment changes or zoning changes, we must have three public hearings. Sometimes we'll start with a joint meeting that counts for one of the city the planning commission meetings, but not one of the city council meetings.

And as you recall, and when we've done some fairly involved complex general plan amendments, usually, one meeting, maybe two is all that's necessary. And we're having a third meeting in all of the resources that get consumed by having a third meeting just to have a meeting just because of what the zoning administration zoning code says. So my reading of this is that it does not eliminate the public hearing process. It does not. And you can correct me if if I'm misreading the the text changes.

It does remove the the words measure g, and it does remove the language of three public hearings and the four fifths vote. But at the end of the day, the planning commission still is is chartered with and tasked with providing feedback and recommendations to city council. The other change that's specifically in the text amendment is it eliminates the I'll call it a legal conundrum that measure g creates by assigning a responsibility to the planning commission that is not proper. You know, the planning commission cannot make an unchangeable decision in advance of the city council. And for those of us that have ever seen the city council call for review or have an appeal filed, it's considered a de novo hearing.

They can just accept the lower body's decision. They can change it, or they can completely rewrite it, but they're allowed they're given that authority and by their position. What measure g said is the city council cannot do that. They can essentially accept what we said with and I think the language someplace was very minor changes, and what that that really gets translated into his text, you know, wordsmithing kinds of things. But you can't change it once we did this, and that's improper legally as written in the staff report and as city attorney has explained.

So for those reasons, you know, we also have a new trigger, which is the housing element, and we have a state agency that's watching over how we're doing things. And it does and it was called out by a third party that this creates a potentially a barrier for fulfilling our housing obligations. So for all of those reasons, I'm comfortable with the language and the amendment changes that have been proposed for this one topic. And so that's kinda where I'm I'm I'm at at this point. If I said anything incorrectly, you'll be certain to correct me.

No. Not at all. I I I would agree with that. And I I I think the only thing I would add was I think there was some mention of the public's expectation when it comes to when it comes to measure g in the process. And I would say that the public's expectation is generally that an appellant or a or a project proponent who who takes his disagreement with the planning commission to the city council, the expectation is that that city council is going to have final say.

And so under under this new process that that we're proposing, all will be a right once again in in terms of in terms of that expectation. Okay.

So unless there are other comments on measure g, I'd like to see if there are any other comments for any of the other sections. Mister Kundula.

So I also want to understand what we are doing here. So we are asking the city council to look at this d seven, basically, second d seven, where the changes have been text amendment changes have been made and so that they can make a decision. That's exactly what we are doing.

Yeah. So at the end of the day, first of all, we'll be we'll be continuing tonight's meeting to our next meeting. But at that point or thereafter, we will be making a recommendation to the city council to review and adopt the proposed text amendments. And

would they be if we have four fifth of the majority vote? If they do not have four fifth vote on their end, would they be able to reject or deny? So even if three members of the council agreed

Yeah. Yeah. We'll let we'll let staff answer your question on three fifths, four fifths. Sure.

The application before you is a text amendment. And in text amendments, the procedure that's established in the the city zoning ordinance is that text amendments are reviewed by the planning commission, and then the planning commission makes a recommendation. It's a simple majority, vote that takes place for text amendments to the zoning ordinance. That, recommendation then gets, provided to the city council for their consideration of the ordinance itself. So the ordinance will then be introduced to the city council as it's written, with any additional comments that the the commission has requested that we insert in.

And the commission, recommendation goes to the city council. City council will hold the introduction ordinance, and then final adoption of the ordinance is the authority of the city councils. And that's also a a simple majority.

Just one clarifying there. So this means that we are removing the supermajority with the simple majority on either of them and then pushing it through. Right?

It's it's removing the fortress vote from the general plan amendment process. So zoning text amendments still continue to be a simple majority. It it's written in the Division D 7 as such. That process for text amendments to the zoning ordinance has not changed. But amendments to the general plan is what's being considered as a modification.

I'll be honest. As commissioner mentioned earlier, this is like playing with words. And I I truly believe in the power of the city council, Steeves, and then even the city attorney is trying everything the best to the interest of the people. He is trying to do the best by the city of San Ramon, but I don't think this is the right way to do it. That's just my feeling. City council can clearly make that decision. And even with a simple majority, they can remove that, and they can do that. That's that's my take on it.

So Okay. Okay. Other comments, mister Husnik, on on the general yeah.

I think you're gonna

I was just gonna ask for some clarification. Did so you're saying that you prefer the simple majority for general plan amendments over the super majority?

On principle, the city council has the power over the plan commission. Yeah. Even the measure g's asked for four fifth of the majority. And and all of the cases for the last twenty six years, we never had to go through this process because we all agreed on what's best for the city, and they all followed. But city council can make that change at any given time because of the new changes to the state law and housing element and head city.

As with times change, they can make that change. And they, even with the simple majority, they can do that. But the way that we are doing, pushing it through text amendment, I'm not comfortable. That's all is my point. I see. Thank you.

Just a clarification. The The the text amendment is the way that you get this information to the city council to make a decision because, again, it's already in the current code that requires the measure g. The revision is what you are forwarding to them to make a final decision on.

And just to add one more note and not to take anybody's, you know, staff job here, But the four fifth vote is only related to general plan amendments. It's not every decision the planning commission makes. It's only and and we have just recently had one because of the DMU North, So it's very current, but it it is a very narrow scope that this applies to. It's not every decision. And we have had projects where we voted on something and that they appealed it.

So And and I'll add that we don't do a whole lot of general plan amendments. I mean, there's maybe one every 18 months or so. It really just depends on what changes are being incorporated. If it's something to do with the house element date, there may be more. But, you know, we rarely have we've had a few just because of the cleanups we've had to do. But

Mhmm. And if and if you read the language of measure g, it's four fifths. It's not super majority. It is four fifths. We cannot pass the general plan amendment today because we only have four sitting commissioners. And if anytime in the future, we have a, commissioner when we have a fifth that for whatever reason is conflicted out, the city is is kinda caught because the language is very precise. It says four zero five. It doesn't say, you know, three fours or something like that. So it's it's cleaning up some things that probably have been there for quite a while. You know?

But to your specific point, the only time that it takes a four fifths by the planning commission and then a seemingly meaningless four fifths vote by the city council under the current terms is for a general plan amendment, not a text amendment change. Those are a simple majority. You jump you can jump up.

I'm just going to make the minor point that if we did only have four commissioners like we do now, we could still pass a general plan amendment with a with a unanimous vote. And so because that would exceed the four fifths requirement, just to clarify.

Additional comments on the general plan amendment measure g or the text amendment for measure g plan amendment g. Yeah.

I have one just kind of follow-up question, Martin. It's related to I know that you had gone ahead and got gotten the advice from the third party legal team, And I'm curious if there's other cities or counties that have a measure like this in place because I I haven't seen anything like this before in a city or a county, so I think it's pretty specific to Yes.

It is. To my knowledge, there's no other city that's done this type of unlawful delegation, and for good reason, because it's unlawful.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. We're gonna pause on measure g. I think we've talked about that quite a bit. Any other quest comments comments at this point? Direction to staff on other elements of the text amendment change.

Sure. So there is some minor changes after these changes that you have pointed out and, Commissioner Kuznik has pointed out some minor changes. Would that have to be brought up again next session? Go ahead.

So as you're aware, there's no resolution before you tonight. So we will be coming back with a resolution, and the corrections that have been highlighted will be redlined in the final version that you make the actual action on to send to the city council.

Commissioner Villa? I

don't have any comments. I think everything that I went ahead and discussed with staff would be incorporated if there were any kind of cleanup items. My one ask was, you know, if there's anything that we can do to be more supportive for, like, middle housing types in the future, but that would take place with the housing element and not through these particular changes.

Okay. And please, Nick.

Yep. Good.

Okay. So now at this point, I did not hear specific questions that would need staff feedback other than a clean document and a resolution. So it's the pleasure of the commission to, first of all, send it to our next meeting. And secondly, is it appropriate based on our discussion tonight and direction? They can come back in one of two ways. We can close the public hearing, and it can be brought back to the commission as a consent item. There where we just adopt the resolution, or we can continue the public hearing and allow for additional comments, feedback, or discussions. So what is the pleasure of the commission on that item?

I would prefer the latter because that was what was proposed by the city staff as well to have this and August 19 meeting. And that's after the August 9 and closing of public hearing that they wanted to go ahead. I'm fine with that. Whatever the Mhmm.

Yeah. I think that it would be best to, as commissioner Kunjula just stated, have it be in the same vein as our tonight's meeting in the sense that if there are any, you know, kind of public comments that we hear it before, and then we just kinda give it one final, like, look through to see if there's any other changes.

Well, I will add. If the commission does close the public hearing and it comes back on a consent calendar, the commission can pull it from consent calendar and discuss it also. Okay. So it's it's at at the discretion of the commission. But if there is some public comment you do wanna take, you can then pull it. But if it says there's no like, tonight, no public comment, then you just move it on the consent calendar just like the minutes are moved.

I I would say that, you know, we're always sensitive to having the opportunity for public comment. But as this goes forward to the city council, that is certainly the the more important body to hear comments from the public on this topic. So I I I'm okay with putting it on the consent calendar. So and, again, we will have to reread it. Right? The whole thing. Okay. Again. Of course, we're gonna reread it. Come on.

So Yeah. Yes.

Would it be feasible to have that third party opinion that a firm law firm that you already have talked to or received there? Would that be fair to ask to include it into our doc consent document for the next meeting? That way, we said we we have done the due diligence, not just the city or the public, but through the third neutral party as

well.

We have a there is there is attorney client privilege between us and and our litigation counsel, and I'd I'd like to preserve that. However, you know, I it's it's in my best interest to reflect exactly what it is that they've advised me distilled into into, you know, something that's consumable for the general public. So I I would rather not, again, rather not breach that that attorney client privilege.

Okay. Okay. With with the understanding that if it comes to us on consent and we'll get the packet on Thursday or Friday, and we'll have the opportunity to pull it for consent, does that and then us pulling on consent is is relatively routine and automatic. It doesn't take it doesn't take much. Any of the commissioners can and has pulled things from consent is my understanding.

He's the majority of the commissioners. Correct.

Right. And tonight, we only have two and two potentially. So I wanna try and see if the commissioner Villa and commissioner Kandula are comfortable if it comes to a silent consent with the understanding that should you know, you ask to have it pulled from consent, you know, and assuming there's a a majority willing, then it can have the same public hearing process if that if you're comfortable with that. Mhmm.

Would it be possible to you know, once we go ahead and see this on consent calendar at the next meeting, would staff be able to, like, highlight in yellow the changes that have been made since there were quite a number? So I just wanna make sure that it's easier for the public to follow as well.

Yeah. You stole the words right out of my mouth. I've already started a new, document for August 19, and they highlight the track changes in yellow, All the comments that were received and and additional edits that are proposed will be shown in highlights in that in that attachment.

Okay. Okay. So I'm getting a sense that you're comfortable taking receiving it on consent with the understanding of what that means. Okay. Okay. So if I could ask for a motion to close the public hearing, We need a motion and a vote to do that. Is that correct? Mhmm.

It'll be a motion to close the public hearing and direct staff to bring back a resolution for adoption on August 19.

What Debbie said on her last meeting.

With the amendments.

The amendments as discussed. Okay. I

I move that we

Close public hearing.

Close public hearing and direct staff to produce the track changes with the corrections and additions as we have noted in today's meeting for our August 19 meeting.

K. We're highlighting in yellow. I can second that.

I've got Thank you. It's removed and seconded.

We're all voting for yellow. Okay.

Okay. The motion does pass four zero zero. We will revisit this on August 19. Thank you all for the discussion. Thank you city attorney for spending the evening with us. Thank you. Okay. At this at this point, we're gonna move on to item 10. This is a nonpublic hearing action item. Item 10.1, the marketplace public art project, 200 To 490 Montgomery Street, with the parcel numbers as listed on the staff report. And tonight, we have a staff report from Annalisa. Welcome.

Good evening, chair. Good evening, commissioners. We have the marketplace murals public Art for your consideration this evening. The proposed public art consists of two murals located at the Marketplace Shopping Center, and they were previously reviewed by the Architectural Review Board and the Arts Advisory Committee. The ARB reviewed the location and compatibility with the surrounding architecture during their January 9 meeting and recommended final approval.

And the Arts Advisory Committee reviewed the content of the murals during two meetings that were held February 19 and June 18. And the Arts Advisory Committee recommended approval of the final proposal that's before you this evening. The recommendation is to receive the staff report and the presentation by the applicant. And if approved, adopt resolution number ten twenty five to approve the public art. And we have Michael Birch on behalf of the applicant who is here to present the artwork, and we're both available for questions.

Hello. My name is Michael Birch. I represent Scott AG up in Sonoma County. We are a multidisciplinary design group that, engages in signage, wayfinding, artworks, and many different, community minded resources with developers like TRC who are looking to enhance and improve the overall character of their projects. The marketplace project is undergoing a broader renovation with updated paint colors, reimagine storefronts, landscaping, many things.

We came in to really add that last bit of jewelry in terms of signage and updating some artworks. We brought in our creative team to work on the artworks there. We've had I will I wanna I wanna emphasize before we start. This is our fifth meeting, I think, with Citi between the AC. It has been a very collaborative process.

It has been engaging. There has been a great deal of input from the committees and commissions that has driven the final result. It's one of those processes that can seem arduous on one level, but it's actually improved the project dramatically as far as we're concerned. TRC, Scott, Cecilia, and have been really open to working with us and and coming up with a creative solution, a public art project, not a commercial art project, and, they've given us the resources to be able to do that. Am I just using the open mouse.

Perfect. Thank you. So we ended up with two, two murals, and I'm going to this guy. Okay. Great.

Oh, great.

Perfect direction. Beautiful. Thank you. We ended up selecting two locations in the center of the project, very visible to all of the all of the traffic that comes and goes. Trader Joe's there.

We had two very large canvases to work with, and we really wanted to create something impactful and meaningful to the community. We developed two very large scale murals, similar in terms of really rich, strong tones and bold combinations, but different from one another in terms of their basic colors. We wanted to highlight local natural character and landscape. Mount Diablo, which we know has been pictured many, many times, is a really iconic piece of the natural landscape of the valley. We added over the course of the discussion, we really added much more of the range, of the mountain range, and not just Mount Diablo.

So we really kind of took on a whole evening sunset appearance to to the first mural. One of the one of the real winning additions later in the mural was the addition of the moon. One piece of these murals that's interesting is we we wanted to do more than just connect on the level of artwork or or having sort of an Instagram moment or spot. We wanted to really engage the community. So we added, in both cases, a historic reference to what the content of the mural is.

And what we're planning on doing, and we've got basically something plugged in for each mural right now, we're planning on working with the Museum of the San Ramon Valley to bring a historic document from their collection to the mural, highlighting in a real basic, if you want to just read what's on the screen or on the plaque, and then having the QR code to bring this up to speed. We had originally, with the Mount Diablo mural, we had included a poem, and the poem was somewhat challenging. It was somewhat interesting. We wanted to see what TRC's stomach for that was and what the AAC's stomach was, we all came to the decision that the historic approach was a better one, a little less controversial. And then I go and grab the first article that I find at the Museum of San Ramon Valley, and it includes some archaic language.

So we are the archaic language that you're reading on the screen now, we will be cleaning up and working with the Museum of San Ramon Valley to make sure that we work with a document that's true to them, but we think reflects more current traditions. So I just want to make that comment about where this landed as we made some final revisions after the last meeting, and we intend to correct that. The plaques are cast stainless steel with embossed lettering, so they're very permanent. This is not a two or three year sort of fade out. This is a permanent, you know, historical grade plaque.

And there it is in the context of a photo drop in, and you can see the plaque. You can understand the scale. It it just and it's a really great opportunity and sort of a pause in the in the shopping center in terms of all the different elements there. Second second piece, we we we love the Iron Horse Regional Trail. We love the bridge.

I think that one of the things that I love about this image is that this is really something that I think people drive under and past all day and don't maybe necessarily understand that this is a very current day addition to something that is a very, very long running, like since the late eighteen hundreds, important part of the community, and that's the Iron Horse Regional Trail. So we use the opportunity with the plaque to take the Museum of the San Ramon Valley's history and just put a basic paragraph up to start, and then you can hit the QR code and you can really understand what that is over time and how far that extends. People use that trail now. They have other opportunities to see, interpretive information about the trail in other places, but we wanted to, in the context of this local gathering spot, this community based location, to be able to do the same thing. Again, bold colors, bold color combinations, but different than the Mount Diablo mural.

In both cases, we like the idea of maintaining the use of the brick and the block as texture. You know, we're not trying to hide anything. We don't want to cover the walls and paint murals. We love the idea of the way that the brick interacts with the color here. And I think that that we've got the context shot here and get it in scale and and get a feel for that. So it again, it's been a wonderfully collaborative process with staff and the ARB and the AAC, and we're happy to land here tonight and ask you to comment and hopefully approve the artwork.

Thank you for that. Why don't we go ahead and do public comment first before we have commissioner questions tonight? This one? Do we have any public comments written or otherwise?

I have no written public comment or speaker cards for this item.

Great. We'll go ahead and close the public comment. Do we have any questions or comments? We'll kinda combine them. This is pretty straightforward.

Just a quick question on the the type of paint we're using. Nothing says right on me than a wall that already has artwork on it.

Yeah. No. We we're using we're using enamel paints, exterior grade enamel paints, and the and and they're this is tried and true for murals of this type. We've done these before. It's industry standard. As well, I I think it's embedded in the conditions somewhere, but it's been discussed from the beginning. We're gonna be graffiti proofing these, and the developer has, you know, agreed as an ongoing annual maintenance to update that coating so that it stays permanent. And if there's graffiti, we can address it and have very little damage to the mural, if any. So

To the left. Any questions, comments?

So you Scott has already answered my question. Graffiti proofing and maintenance. That was my Great.

Great. Okay.

Have a couple questions.

Yep.

When would you anticipate going ahead and getting started on these paintings? Would they occur at the same time, and how long would it take?

They'll be done in less than a week. Oh. I mean, it time it it but probably about two months from now.

Oh, nice.

Yeah. I mean, this is we've pegged this date. We've wanted to get this started. We're trying to catch up to the tail end of the renovations so that we can all step back and look at what we've done, but we'd hope to have them completed within two months. It'll take about a week to get them done.

Okay. And then are there any other murals that would be proposed in the marketplace, or is this just the two?

Just the two to start. We had another option opportunity in the way of a a location, but we really I think it became clear with the with the AAC. We wanted to concentrate the the the two pieces and have them have some real impact and not feel like we were sort of taking every wall space and creating something. I think that the opportunity exists in the future to to add. We'd like to see how the community responds. I think this is gonna be a really unique and interesting addition to the center. So

Okay. And then just as a clarification, it sounded like you were gonna work with the Museum of San Ramon Valley to go ahead and update the plaques and Yes. Give them whatever article it is that they're looking. Okay. And then just one final comment is for the plaques, like, you sorry.

Right now, this is item 10. But would there be a way to, like, move some of those, like, a little bit to the left or out? So it's since I studied design in some aspect, there's, like, a little bit that kinda bothers me where I'm like, can we move, like, the plaque where there's the over crossing, like, out of the the blue and into the brick just shifted a little bit left.

You know, we had we had several discussions

About the plaque. Okay.

Very precisely with the AAC in the last meeting. Okay. We we got way in the weeds. And, I mean, I'll take you there. All good. It's all good. Because I'm

not gonna undo anything that they did. I just didn't know if there was some

Not to gang up with you, but we had, like, 10 artists and designers

Okay.

Who all had an opinion on where the plaque went.

Okay. Leave them. We're there.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Can I

can I ask a a follow-up question?

Yeah.

On the the image of the the bridge, the I see little people drawn in.

Yeah. We we we went through several versions of how many figures.

Slide shows two little people. Our picture shows people in a bicycle.

Yeah. And I don't know if if it that same image is showing. It might just be the resolution on the screen.

Okay.

What you're looking at may be more accurate with the two, like, two small figures to the left and one to the right and one bicycle.

Okay.

And we wanted to we we were trying to bring some life and and and just a little you know, this this piece really sort of sits between being very figurative

Mhmm.

Or being modestly figurative but more abstract. Right? And we just wanted to bring that tiny bit of figurative character into it so that it was clear. And and I have to say that after this extensive discussion in the last AEC meeting, I'm driving in here tonight. I'm racing to get here at six to hear about measure g, which was fascinating. And and there was a bicycle leaning right against the rail, just perfectly placed, and two people on the bridge. And I thought, wow. That is weird. It was just it was very funny. So

Thank you. Well well, thanks for the description. Also Good luck. Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you.

And thank you for being sensitive to the the wording on the plaque. I appreciate that. That makes sense. A lot of sense. Fun fact, the original public art were tiles, and my daughter's fifth grade class created a tile, and we visited that tile every time we went to the marketplace for years. And so, you know, we managed to salvage the tile when they were building Trader Joe's. So, you know, that that very special. So I think this is a good replacement. So our ask for tonight is to adopt the resolution, ten dash twenty five. It's rather straightforward. I don't think we need to go line by line on this, but if there are any questions or comments or clarifying suggestions, let's go ahead and throw those out. Otherwise, I'd like to ask for a motion to adopt resolution ten two five.

Yeah. Motion to adopt the ten two five.

May we have a second, please?

I'll second that motion. Okay.

Great. Thank you both. K. The motion passes four zero, and thank you all for your session. Thank you for spending the evening with us on measure g. You know? Well, as you know, we'll be back in two weeks to you know, with a when there's a chance. So

Not lost on me.

Great. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay. Item 11, study sessions, commissioner liaison reports. Has anybody attended a liaison report? Liaison?

I have a report from the parks and community services. They met in July, and their first item was that there's no August meeting. They reviewed the summer concert series, and and I was at the last one. It was great fun. And if people haven't done that, you should be doing that. I think they also mentioned that one of the concerts was on a Friday, so they're they tested that out to see how that went. The dive in movies and pool party for the middle schoolers, I think they've done that. Let's see. K. They recognized the the and installed new people.

Okay. Now the bulk of their meeting was about public art. They are installing two murals in the Dougherty Station Art Building, and one is a design called dancing for our lives. It looks it looks kind of like a mosaic and very bright colors. And then in the that would be in the South Stairwell.

And in the North Stairwell, it's called Expressway, which has a more graphic look at cars and and movement in in the 680 Corridor and how it's brought changes to the city, which but it was a really, really long discussion and a lot of and a lot of comments from the art arts advisory board, which I thought was gonna be humorous. But they worked very thoroughly on that. Okay. The rec managers report, summer camps are up. There they also recommended that there's new artwork in our city gallery, so please check it out.

It's just always fun when you come come around and see new artwork. I was at the senior center today. They have new artwork. They are trying to keep muds cleaned up. Muds.

They mentioned the bridge opening. They also Julia commissioner commented on the open space report that there's a new Doherty GAD geological hazard area, and that they are working on a master trails master plan. And that July was parks and recreation month, so we missed it. Six six hundred nine people ran in the July 4 run. I was number six zero nine. No. Just kidding. But I did run.

Any other advisory meetings? So staff, you know, on deck.

Okay. As you're aware, we will be coming back on the nineteenth with tonight's zone text amendment for consideration and adoption. We also are anticipating a concept review application for a initial review of a potential project for 3150 Through 3180 Crow Canyon Place. Those are the Cranbrook Buildings just north of Bishop Branch 12, kind of back behind Crow Canyon Commons. And, so there's some concepts floating around for, housing in that area, and they're just looking for some initial feedback from the commission.

We anticipate that September 2 will likely be canceled, and then we are looking at, Bishop Ranch 8, Bishop Ranch 12, and the Orchards in the later this fall. We're gonna pick some specific dates, and we'll be able to update you next time on that.

Great. Okay. And one last item, the application for the fifth planning commissioner closed last week. City council make a decision on how to make the choice, and maybe by our next meeting, we'll have one, maybe not. I don't know. So we might have a fifth commissioner, which will be terrific to have. So

Can I comment on on just a technical thing? Part of watching the the parks is that they had the swearing in of the the commissioners. And I know with our last two that it's been done outside of our meeting. And I I wondered if we could maybe go back to that tradition so that it becomes something that is more a little more revered and noteworthy.

Well, I will say yes.

Yes. On your way out the door. No. Thank you. Leave a note for the next person. Thank you.

Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay.