Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. Welcome, everybody, to the August 19 regular meeting of the San Ramon Planning Commission. We'll go ahead and call to order the meeting at 06:01. May the recording secretary please conduct roll.

Commissioner Kuzenev? Here. Commissioner Kundula?

Here.

Commissioner Zane?

Here.

Vice chair Avila? Here. And chair Albert?

I'm here. Okay. Please rise for the pledge of allegiance. Allegiance to

the flag

of The United States Of America and to We republic for which it stands, One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and rest for all.

Okay.

Item 3.1. We're all very excited to welcome a new commissioner, our fifth now, so we'll be fully staffed. And at this time, we're going to have the swearing in of Max Zhang. So if you want to come down there in the no. You up in front of the at the podium.

And our newly, today only, deputized recording secretary is gonna administer the oath of office.

Please raise your right hand and repeat after me. I, Maxine

I, Maxine.

Do solemnly swear

Do solemnly swear

that I will support and defend

That I will support and defend

the constitution of The United States

the constitution of The United States

and the constitution of the state of California

and the constitution of the state of California

against all enemies all enemies foreign and domestic foreign and domestic that I will bear true faith and allegiance

That I will bear true faith and allegiance.

To the constitution of The United States.

To the constitution of The United States.

And the constitution of the state of California.

And the constitution of the state of California.

That I take this obligation freely.

That I take this obligation freely.

Without any mental reservation

Without any mental reservation.

Or purpose of evasion

Or purpose of evasion.

And that I will well and faithfully

And that I will well and faithfully

Discharge the duties

Discharge the duties.

Upon which I am about to enter.

Upon which I am about.

Congratulations.

Thanks. And this?

Welcome next. Nicely done, and we're thrilled to have you sitting up at the dais with us. Yeah. It's feels like you've been one of us for a few months here now, so it's great to have you up here. Thank you. Item four is public comment or written communications. At this time, members of the public may address the planning commission on any item not already included in tonight's agenda. If you would like to speak, please file the speaker card located in the back of the room and provide it to the recording secretary and will not be taking any public comment via Zoom. Do we have any written comments? Or

Written communication for this item, but I do have a speaker card. Ioannis Telahu.

Great.

Chairman, commissioners, as I was coming down here, was debating, do I speak? Do I keep quiet? Do I speak? Do I keep quiet? I'm not here to comment on any of the work that you do, but first to congratulate Max. You you all picked the right guy for this job in terms of commitment and anything to me. When I see the commissioner, the commission itself, itself, what what I I wanna wanna say is that it's something that I'm very proud of. In terms of diversity, age wise, everything in terms of knowledge, background, I truly believe we have the right commissioners, planning commissioners, because I've been to a lot of cities. I get asked to come, and I get to knowledge. The council, that's a whole different story.

So to me, my encouragement to you is now that you're full, you're all bright. No one is afraid to speak up. Some of you have been long. Some of you have been young, new. Highly encourage you to and you're all nice people. Really outreaching, which is rare. I want to encourage you to always do the right thing, not in some sort of decision, but not be afraid to debate an idea. If you think something is not right, not to be swayed and stand up. So these things, we take some for granted. I sit and I sit on a lot of boards. So I sit this, and you hire people. A year later, they just digress that how did it go. So, may God give you the strengths. Thank you. Keep up the amazing work.

Thank you for that.

Okay. I have no other speaker cards.

We'll go ahead and close the public comment. Item five, additions and revisions to the agenda. We do not have any. Item six is the consent calendar. And tonight, we have two items, 6.1, the minutes of the planning commission from August 5, and resolution number eleven two five recommending approval of zoning ordinance. Do I have any motions, requests? Yeah.

I do. We can go ahead with 6.1. With 6.2, with the text amendments and stuff, I am I'm good with that except for one.

Okay. So are you are you asking to pull item 6.2 from consent? Yes, please. So are you making that motion?

I make the motion Okay.

The consent. There's been a motion to pull item 6.2 from consent, and I think we can go ahead and hit the green button. Is there a second to request that it be pulled from consent? I'll go ahead and make the second to pull pull it from consent, and we'll move it on. K. Go ahead and vote when you can.

Okay.

You got it? Okay. Motion passes five zero zero. We will bring it back on consent. We now need a motion to adopt the consent calendar item 6.1.

I'll make the motion to approve item on the consent calendar six point one minutes of the planning commission, 08/05/2025.

And I will second that.

Okay. The motion passes four zero with one abstention for 6.1. Okay. Moving on. Item seven, continued items after the closing of the public hearing, and I believe that is where we addressed the deferred. Is that or is it later on the agenda? Is that

you can go ahead and do it on on

As part of item seven? Okay. Item seven, the continued items after the close of the public hearing. This was the resolution 11 dot two five recommending approval of zoning text or ordinance text amendment t a two zero two four zero zero five and the environmental review two zero zero two five dash zero zero zero six applications, various amendments to the zoning ordinance. We don't have a staff report. So if there are questions, this is questions. We will open public comment at some point before we close the public comment. If you have specific questions that you wish to have answered, we do have staff and the city attorney here. Questions? Do do you have quest questions, or do you do we go in the home or

off? Yeah.

If you have questions, we wanna do the questions now so that the public have the benefit of hearing your questions. You know? And then we will open then we'll then we'll move forward with opening the public public hearing reopen the public hearing.

Just to be clear, this is questions about the the changes as opposed to comments on

Yes. It is questions that might require clarification that you have. It is not we'll have a chance to make comments for the public record prior to us doing a vote. So it's questions, public comments, close public comments, and then we can make comments. Okay. No questions. No questions like this. Okay. If there are no questions, I'll go ahead. Yeah. Oh, Max.

Sorry. I believe this is a question for the city attorney. So at the August 5 meeting, you mentioned that in 02/2006, the city council passed an ordinance that I believe, if I'm understanding this correctly, extended the provisions of measure g to future general plans. For both my edification and and for the public, could you give a brief summary or overview of the provisions of that ordinance so we're all on the same page?

Yes. The provisions of that ordinance were essentially mirrored those of the initiative, although it did extend and it did change the language somewhat to apply that to all future general plan amendments, not just the the one general plan 2020 that was passed under the initiative.

Okay. Thank you. Any

further questions? Okay. We'll go ahead and open public comment. Do we have any any written communications or speaker cards on this item?

I received written communication from Brian Swanson, but no speaker cards for this item.

Okay. We'll go ahead and close the public comment. Okay. Commission, it's do you have do have any comments before we move forward with the vote? Yes.

Thank you, commission. Thank you, chair Albert. The text amendments, I have been I've learned, is a continuous process that that happens throughout the, throughout the period every regularly to update the zoning ordinance. So I am as earlier mentioned, even in the last time, the reason I pulled this out is I'm comfortable with many of the changes that were done. I'm also comfortable with the reason that is being done, especially for the d seven zoning ordinance.

Page two thirty four, which would fall under chapter three amendments, and it would be d seven nineteen duties of the commission. So specifically to that piece, which would be packet two thirty four for general public, it would be page 10, if I'm not wrong, for this particular document. So the public duties of the commission, a, at the time and place set for the public hearing, the commission shall consider the report of the the zoning administrator and shall hear the evidence for and against the proposed amendment. The commission may continue the public hearing to a definite date definitive date and time without additional notice. The commission shall hold.

So these are, this was the text amendment that is changed. A minimum of three is removed, and public hearings will be held for each general plan amendment. Percent of measure g for amendments of the general plan, a recommendation to the city council shall require four fifth of the vote. So there were some adjustments or changes made to that based on the recommendations from the city attorney, which I personally feel is the right thing to do. As the appointed body, the Planning Commission should not have the say or the final say over that.

The city council, which is the elected body, should have it. But I am not willing to recommend that being in the planning commission, that should be something that should come from the city council instructing the planning commission that this amendment should be made. So I'm okay with the entire outcome of the result but not the process of the result. So for that reservation, I'm I'm a little bit hesitant to go ahead and approve entire thing. If this one piece is something that could be made through city council, I would say that would curb or measure or put into perspective the right way planning commission should look at it and assume the duties, I would be very comfortable, but not by myself making those changes.

Thank

you. Okay. To make sure I understand, you are comfortable with the change that you were your preference would have been that the city council had the opportunity to review the chain the proposed change and then direct us to review the text and the zoning amendment. Is that what what I heard you say?

So just the way it is. So whatever the majority would that should be done in the planning commission, it could be appealed over to the city council, which is which is fair. And that should be the process. It should be held as. But my concern is they have set out a set of duties for the planning commission.

And as a planning commissioner, I do not want to change my duties myself. I want city council to make that proposal and approve that proposal so we can adopt. It is like I I gave an example earlier. It is like being a employee, I don't want to change the duties of the employee. But if my manager says, these are my new duties, I'll adopt that. So that's where I am a little bit hesitant on the process but not on the outcome. Outcome is absolutely right. I agree with it. It's been there for a long time. It shouldn't have. But

Okay.

That's what comes. K?

Okay. We have yeah. Maybe we have to get through this while Martin respond.

If this helps, this we're asking the commission this evening for a recommendation to the council. The final decision will be made by the city council, and that and the direction will be handed down to the planning commission once the council makes that decision.

I understand I understand that process. But as a planning commissioner, I cannot request kindly make this change. It's not me asking them to change my duties. So that piece, if it's just a recommendation, are we gonna vote on this?

You are going to vote on it. You but the vote is to make a recommendation. You will not be voting on your own duties as a planning commissioner. So

I understand, but that's where I stand. And I I want this to come from the city council, and I'm okay with that.

Can I can I offer an interpretation? If I understand what you're asking is if, for example, we made the recommendation that this should go back to the original text and and tell staff that they should include it in the city council's version of this rather than the other way, if if that's what I understand what you're asking for.

Absolutely. If Okay.

So let's let's I'm I'm seeing heads shake, so I'm just I'm just offering that this is my understanding of what commissioner is is is stating. So there let's let's see what what we can go from there.

Martin, do you wanna start, or do you want me to I have a comment on on

Please go ahead.

Okay. So the the process of a ordinance requires the planning commission to make a recommendation to the city council. It's only a recommendation. And so if you were to recommend to remove this this change, that's fine, but it would still end up with the the the city council, and then you'd basically create a process, a duplicate process of coming back through this. They have every ability to to change that recommendation and not make the change that you're concerned about.

And so, again, it's a it's a process question about how to get it to the decision makers. And so this is a recommendation that's coming through from staff to the planning commission to counsel. Counsel is the authority to make the decision, and they can go along with the recommendation or not. And and, again, it it it's not to say that you you can't recommend changes, but it's ultimately their decision to make. And at this point, you know, we've we've already gone through these discussions. And so staff's recommendation is leave it to the council to make the decision that they're authorized to make.

I want to give opportunity to Martin.

Oh.

So if not, I I just have. So city council will not be picking and choosing individual lines and making those changes.

Oh, they can. They they

They can, but, normally, when it comes through that

Oh, so all we could do is we can send our what they will get is they'll get a staff report. They'll get a staff report much like we did with the same red line and the same, you know, documentation that we received on the proposed changes in why with the addition of a recap of the discussion held at the planning commission. So they will have all of the information that we had plus all of the information we created in at the dais on this topic, and it is certainly within their purview and authority to accept some, all change. You know, that's their that's their responsibility to do that. You know?

So That's alright. It's not a it's not a take it or leave it when we send it to them. They get to they get to they get to take some, all, or none. In

that case, I would accept Gene's proposal where it remains the same, and then they can make the change to the duties of their commission. That would also be acceptable for me.

Okay. So they will get a red line version of the document with the original and as well as the proposed changes in addition to the description of the rationale for why it was proposed and the discussion tonight about, you know, what you what you said at the dais. So they will have the benefit of all of that information, you know, at the dais. You know? And we have the staff recommendation for the proposed language. You know? Mhmm. Okay. Are there other comments or comments? Okay. If if not

I would only just point out also that you are being asked to make a recommendation on that specific section, and that specific section deals with planning commission duties. So you're making a recommendation whether you recommend change or not recommend change. So if you know, as a wise man once said in the eighties, if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. So if you, so either way, you're you still have that same dilemma. So if if if this is a text language that you believe should be passed on to the council, then I would I would strongly encourage you to go with that language. Mhmm.

Okay. Thank you, everyone, for your time.

Okay. No. Of course. If I could have a a motion to send the recommendation, including the discussions for adoption of the text amendment to the city council? I

will move that we send the recommendations to the city council.

Okay. Do we have a second?

I'll second that motion. Okay.

It's been moved and seconded. We can

Sorry. Just a point of clarification. There's actually a resolution associated with this. Yeah. So if we could get a recommendation to approve the resolution Yeah. Which includes a recommendation to counsel. So you resolved the issue as to whether or not to vote on this.

But Yes. Yes.

I think we we need an actual motion.

Do I need to do I need to pull the the first motion?

No. I think it's fine because you you're declaring your intent, and then we can just clarify that you're actually taking action on the resolution.

Included in the motion is the resolution adoption of the resolution as we have it.

Okay. So it hasn't moved and seconded. I can go ahead and go ahead and vote. Okay. It Okay. Motion passed four zero one zero. Thank you all for that. You know? And I think we can move on to the next item. Great. Okay. Okay. Item eight or continued items for public hearing, there are none tonight. Item nine, public hearing for new items, there are none none tonight. Item 10 is a nonpublic hearing action item, and there are none.

However actually, I'm messing up on the text here. K. Item 11 is a study session commission study session. So tonight, we do have a study session on a concept review for the Canyon Place residential development. We will have a staff report from Ryan, who's already up there.

But I just wanna before that, just make a reminder to the commission. It's a study session, and it's very early in the process. It's an opportunity for the commission to provide additional feedback on the project to staff and the applicant. You know, the formal applications have not yet been filed for this project, and so there are no detailed analysis has been completed for this proposed project concept. So it's to help the applicant decide how to proceed should should they wish to pursue a project on this site, and the comments of the commission are not binding on the applicant, and the project maybe, probably will, modified if and when it does come back for for actual review. So with that, Ryan?

Good evening, chair and planning commissioners. So this item, as you're discussing, is for a concept review for the Canyon Place residential development located at 3150 To 3180 Crow Canyon Place. As you're just mentioning, I'll briefly touch upon it again. It's a concept review application. It's a voluntary application that applicants can apply for for early feedback from the commission staff and public input prior to formal development applications being submitted.

So the project site is 7.1 acres. It includes four parcels at the end of Crow Canyon Place on the cul de sac. The general plan designation is mixed use residential emphasis, and the zoning designation is mixed use residential emphasis MER. So the existing site was approved by Contra Costa County in nineteen seventy nine, eighty two for the existing office building parking landscape development there. The city was incorporated in July 1983, including these parcels in the area.

And then in more recently, in December 2023, the city adopted the general plan 2040 project, which identified the four, project site parcels as a housing opportunity site, repealed the North Commuter Mound specific plan, and changed the general plan designations general plan designation and zoning to mixed use residential emphasis. So the proposed concept will demolish the existing development, construct a 165 residential units, including 120 for sale multifamily townhomes. There's a mix in three and four bedrooms. There'll also be a forty five four rent below market rate units that would be for income qualified households. It's about 27 percent of the project units proposed, and there's a mix of studio one, two, and three bedrooms in there.

And then there's 20 optional accessory dwelling units in the townhome portion of the project. The project would also include 280 residential parking spaces on-site, and it's to be determined yet at this point on the project plans regarding guest spaces. And they would also subdivide the townhome portion of of the project site. So this being a concept review, there's not a detailed project plans, but there are some elevation perspectives here of some of the townhome product and different views of that examples. And then there's a architectural precedent or example of a potential design for the rental affordable building.

There's not the exact design for this. It hasn't been completed yet, but it's illustrative only. So the staff report has this table which details a number of the development standards for the MER zone and for the project. I'm not going to go through all of these in detail. I just want to touch on a couple of them.

The residential density for the proposed project is 31.1 dwelling units per acre. That's a net density calculation. It's within the 20 to 40 dwelling units per acre requirement for the MER zone. On the next slide here, there's some additional requirements. The project currently has in the concept doesn't meet the city zoning parking requirements.

But, if there is a formal application submitted, they'll have to, provide some additional information on parking, and and whether there's a deficiency and and how they're, complying with it based on local standards or with state law. So the project, as I mentioned, does include 45, for rent affordable below market rate units. The city does have an inclusion housing ordinance. It requires 15% of the project units on-site to be reserved for income qualified households. The two tables here break it out between the townhome for sale project and the rental portion of it.

So it's a total of 25 units, and the concept proposal is proposing more than that, 45. So some more more information when they do submit their formal application will be needed to fully evaluate their affordable housing plan. As it stands now, it would information provided likely be an alternative means of compliance method that would have to be evaluated during the formal application. So there's a couple of concept review discussion questions for the commission to consider, And I'll turn it back over to the commission if you have any questions for me and staff, or we can go to the applicant presentation.

I think I'd like to go to the applicant, first before we ask questions.

Okay. We have, from the applicant team, Emily Boyd and Therese Herder here, to, give a presentation.

Just the arrows? Okay. Perfect. Okay. Great.

Thank you. Good evening and thank you to the Planning Commission for the opportunity to present the concept development plan for Canyon Place Residential. Before we begin, I'd like to extend a warm San Ramon welcome to our newest Planning Commissioners. We look forward to all the Commissioners' insights and as we shape the future of our community here in San Ramon. I'd like to start off by introducing you to our project team.

I am Emily Boyd, the Director of Business Strategies and I am joined by Therese Herder, our Vice President of Acquisitions and Entitlement. We are with Brookfield Residential, the applicant and developer for the project. Also here this evening are Lily Simicella, Associate Principal with KTGY, providing land planning and architecture for the project and Ryan Hansen, Principal with CBG, our civil engineering firm. Other partners include the Pacific Companies on the affordable component and C2 Collaborative providing landscape architecture services. For those not familiar with Brookfield Residential, we're a global real estate development company providing industry leading development capabilities.

We pride ourselves on developing sustainable real estate around the world from office to retail, logistics to multifamily and hospitality to development. Here in Northern California, our offices are located right here in Bishop Branch, where our land and housing team works on projects including the Boulevard in Dublin master plan, West Midway on Alameda Island, Rosewood in Morgan Hill, and River Sound in Napa. And though we love all of our projects for their unique qualities, we are excited particularly at the opportunity to build right here in our own backyard. The Pacific Company, our affordable partner, is equally astute at handling multiple stages of real estate process with an emphasis on providing affordable multi family housing in The Western United States. With over 200,000 units delivered on over 300 projects developed across their portfolio, the current projects in Contra Costa County include the Ashbury in Concord, Walnut Apartments in Danville, and Orbsonia Village in Bay Point.

Canyon Place is on the edge of Bishop Branch area plan and will serve to extend the area's walkability connections to nearby areas planned and zoned for residences, creating a cohesive neighborhood. The project will benefit from the improved infrastructure and proximity to the vibrant mixed use amenities at Bishop Ranch while providing additional housing options, including affordable units. The project is located adjacent to the Commons Office Park and Crow Canyon Commons Shopping Center where Sprouts, Ace Hardware and many of our favorite restaurants are located. The site is currently occupied by four office buildings, which will be replaced by 165 residential units, including 45 affordable apartment homes and 120 townhomes in a variety of configurations that we will look at in more detail in a couple of minutes. The proposed street layout aims to enhance area circulation by breaking up existing large block layout and creating a new through road connection to Norris Canyon via Annabelle Lane for those frequent trips to Target.

We will seek entitlements including tentative map, design review, CEQA certification and development plan approvals utilizing applicable state housing laws including SB three thirty, AB 130 and the California state density bonus law to streamline approvals and maximize affordability. This process supports the city's housing and smart growth goals and helps ensure that the project moves forward efficiently to deliver a mix of affordable and market rate homes in a walkable connected neighborhood. All of the rental apartment units will be designated as affordable, making up 27% to 28 of the total project units. The average income range will be targeted to those making 60% of the area median income. The four level building, designed by KTGY and developed by the Pacific Companies, includes studios, one, two and three bedroom units ranging from four eighty to eleven fifty square feet.

Next, let's have a look at the market rate for sale product. Both townhome products are attached to three stories and have two car garages. These Rowe townhome products, which are a little bit different than the images that Ryan showed in his presentation, we are trying to show a little bit more of the updated elevations on the exterior and we will be open to recommendations on what the Commission would like to see on this. They are what you are familiar to seeing at places like the City Village site and include side by side two car garages ranging in size from nineteen fifty eight to 2,249 square feet, with the largest unit offering an optional accessory dwelling unit with a separate entry that you see there at the bottom right. So that is the Plan three, Floor one, two and three, to give you some concept of what you are looking at there at the bottom.

The interlocking townhome products live very similarly to the row townhomes, but as you can see, Plans one and two are interlocked with that zigzag there rather than having a straight shared wall. Units range from twelve eighty eight to 2,157 square feet, offering price points, garages and bedroom configurations that meet a range of buyers' needs. Lastly, I would like to highlight the community integration and walkable access that this project can offer future residents. In addition to some of the landscape green areas that are on the site proper, Central Park, Lake Annabelle and the under construction City Village Park are all within an easy walk. Or residents could walk to Crow Canyon Commons for groceries, coffee and numerous other shops and restaurants.

A short bike ride connects residents to City Center and the Iron Horse Trail giving access to schools, services, retail and communities throughout the Tri Valley. I, as a San Ramon resident since 2020, last year jumped at the opportunity to move into a new townhome the middle of this exciting transformation. I enjoy the full benefits of living in a walkable neighborhood. I walk to my office, my children ride their bikes to school, and we enjoy easy access to the beautiful parks and retail amenities here in San Ramon. It's a lifestyle that reflects the vision that we're presenting with Canyon Place Residential tonight, one that prioritizes connectivity, community and quality of life and aligns with San Ramon's goals for housing diversity, connectivity and sustainable growth.

That concludes our presentation and we would be happy to take questions and invite feedback from the Commission. Thank you.

Okay. At this time, if you have questions for either staff or the applicant, then we'll take the questions now. Then we'll open the public comment, and then we can, provide any further comments or questions or statements to them at that point. So if somebody wants to start with questions, do you?

It's just a simple one. The the term interlocking townhome is a new one for me. So what is the difference between a row townhome and an interlocking?

Sure. So I'm I'm not sure if this works here on the screen, if you can see that. Can you go back to the slide presentation, please? Thank you. So you can see here how this wall so this is between the Plan one and two. The Plan three and four and actually I could let Lilly answer this as well, but the Plan three and four have the very similar straight walls between the two. The interlocking comes from this zigzag wall separation between the Plan one and two. And in this case, the Plan one has a tandem garage configuration still taking two cars, but in tandem configuration. So that zigzag kind of allows for that.

It is. Okay. That makes sense. Thank you. Sure. Mhmm.

Any other questions, Kelly? Okay. Look at this side. Do you do you want this side back and forth?

This might also be a question for the city traffic engineer, but I just want to get some clarification on this through roadway. First of all, I wanna say it I do like it. Did you consider maybe making that a public right of way? I know that would also require cooperation with the project on B R 12, right, just to the south. But is that something that y'all considered?

So I think that the the current, as proposed in the application, does have it coming through from 1 Annabelle Lane coming all the way through. We did have a conversation with traffic yesterday that talked about some other measures to slow traffic through there and some other configurations. But as it is proposed right now, it comes from this site straight through the 1 Annabelle Lane all the way to the traffic signal at Norris Canyon.

Okay. So public right of way, most likely not possible for this project.

I believe that the roads would still be private, and our civil engineer can chime in on that if you'd like. Private. Yeah.

Okay. Great. And then the city traffic engineer, in the staff report, you mentioned that you prefer that the residential driveways that are currently fronting these the private roads that'll be the through roadway that we prefer not to have driveways warranty. Could you elaborate a bit more on that? Why why do you make that recommendation?

Good evening, commissioners.

Thank you.

Great question. So if it's gonna be a through street, we'd prefer not to have that interaction of vehicles backing out into a a roadway that has that. Understanding, you know, like, this is a residential neighborhood, you know, and and other residential neighborhoods have vehicles backing out of their driveways. I feel that this is gonna have a lot more traffic on it, excuse me, than a general residential roadway because it's gonna be a cut through, you know, from the Bishop Branch area to the shopping center area. So you're gonna have a little bit more traffic than a typical residential road.

K. Thank you. Mhmm. That's it for my questions.

So I'm glad that miss Boyd lives in San Ramon, and she understands. Thank you all the good features that we have within San Ramon, especially the parks and the environmental factors that you appreciate as well. So when you come back I know this is just a proposal, so I'm not gonna comment on it, but just from a direction wise. Two things I want to point out. When you guys come back, I know you have proposed rental units and would like also to see a balance between rent versus own or a sale.

So that could be something that you guys can look at when there is a application or proposal. So that that would be my first comment. The second one is regarding the common areas or the parks. I I don't wanna comment right now, but, hopefully, once this prop application is there, proposal is there, rather and it's great that it's walkable distance to Central Park and other parks. But within the community, are there any spaces or something that you guys are planning that would be a important criteria where you can utilize best utilize by designing?

And third one, it would be great from a planning perspective. And, of course, the architectural board will go through all the applications. This is just my point of view. It would be great to have that connection. I I know in the current proposal, the lane that is connecting is going through some not a straight line, I would put it that way, not a straight line reaching.

But if there is a way, then my vision was, like, looking all the way from one freeway to another freeway. That would make a very great straight line access for any anybody within the neighborhood or BR 12 or somebody who is driving through San Dimon. He would have a parallel access to the freeway. So that would be a very nice thing. And I completely understand, and thanks for bringing this so we can have some early pointers so that you guys can come back to us with the application that city staff and everybody agrees on.

Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Any questions at this point?

Yeah. I have some questions for the applicant. And you mentioned in your presentation how you intend to use density bonus law. I'm assuming that you would use density bonus law to do the parking requirements per I know that's a lot lower. But are there other waivers that you would anticipate using for this development that you foresee now?

Potentially. So I believe that in addition to the the parks and open space waivers, there are other waivers potentially that we could use on this, including the meeting the density allowance. So this is, you know, right at the 31, but that's possible because of some of the paring down of the parking requirements of the open spaces, and those are all waivers that we could potentially take advantage of. At this point, I'm not sure if there's any more detailed ones that we would, but those would definitely be areas within the state density bonus that we would look to take advantage of.

And I I think density bonus I mean, I'm not sure if I'm right or not, Ryan, but I think that looks like gross density instead of net density, I think, is how the state law codifies it. But I think it no matter what, it would be meeting the minimum density requirements just as a side note. The other question that I had was there I know that the city has objective design standards for multifamily product type like this. And since you have two different sorts of product here, the for sale versus the affordable rental, I'm curious to whether you would provide different amenities for each one of those areas or if you would look at collectively combining those two.

So I believe that the affordable apartment building contemplates having some ground floor amenity specifically for the renters there in the affordable unit. That could be a flexible space, that could be a community room or a management office or a learning center or something like that. Other than that, other than the green spaces in the buyer retention area on the site proper, we don't anticipate any other amenities for the for sale component.

Okay. I'm not sure if that just so you know, Emily, like, the the objective design sands design standards go ahead and list, like, an approval. I'm not sure if a bioretention area would necessarily go ahead and be compliant with that. Maybe it has to have some other dual use component to it Okay. Perhaps like a walking path or something like that. But it might be something that you would wanna further investigate just so you know.

Definitely. Ryan actually provided us the checklist for the design the the design standards. So we'll make sure that we're going through that checklist prior to our submittal.

Yeah. Because when we saw for the study session, when we saw the project to the South West of this Bishop Branch 12, I think they were proposing some seating around, like, a an oak tree that they were gonna go ahead and have. But one of the feedback that we gave back to them was perhaps doing a pocket park. Mhmm. I know that in your presentation, you mentioned that it's close in proximity to some of the parks.

I'm not sure if that's, like, a measurement as per the crow flies or whether that's actual, like, walking distance. But when I did measure it, it was, like, closer to a mile away. So my feedback for them was to potentially do a pocket park. But as I understand what you're saying is that you would want to waive the open space requirements per state density bonus.

To the degree that we could and still meet the the required density for the the site. Yes.

Yeah. And and one of the things that Bishop Branch twelve did was they had, like, a walking path that was surrounding the site. So it'd be really good if you guys I think they're kind of at a similar place that you are right now. So if you can sort of kinda connect to that because there is if I look at your site plan correctly, it looks like there is some space to go ahead and have some sort of walking path that could go ahead and traverse the site on the exterior. That would be a really nice connection point, I would think. And I don't think it it would be a significant cost that would render your project infeasible.

Thanks. I'll get that.

And then I was also gonna ask for the ADUs. I'm assuming that you would not go ahead and provide any parking for those potentially, like, optional ADUs.

So those, I believe, would be calculated as part as, again, the overall parking requirement for the site and not have a dedicated parking area for them. If you notice the front of it is still just the two car driveway. So depending on what the use of that ADU is, could be along with the homeowner, but there wouldn't be an additional parking provided specifically for the 80 unit.

Okay. Thank you. Another question that I had was, can you tell me more about the phasing for the project site? Like, when would you anticipate potentially breaking ground on the for sale? And would that also be the same timing as the affordable? I'm just curious about the deliverance of the two different product types.

I am actually not certain on the phasing of that. I'm not sure if anybody on our team she says that that's concurrent.

Okay.

Thank you.

And then in the project description that was shared with us in the staff report, it also mentions the paseos throughout the site. Would you contemplate having paseos on the western side of the townhomes since there would be opportunity for that? Because when I looked at the site plan, the only paseo that I saw was, for Building 16 And 15.

So the Paseos refer to all of the spaces between that aren't sorry I'm not sure if you can see on here oops the areas between the buildings that aren't marked as streets would be Paseo areas. So those would be where you would have the front doors of the homes on green Paseos in between. Okay.

And then the 60% AMI, is that very low, or is that low?

I believe that was in staff's report about what the breakdown was, that that could be further detailed out right now, that that's just what we're targeting is an average of 60%. But that could be a range of affordabilities from lower than the 60% Thank to

you. That was all my questions.

Thank thank you for being here tonight with us. I did I did have some questions. Trying to have to bounce between you and Steph. May I start with with staff? Ryan, this the the zoning is MUR, and it's also a housing opportunity site. So could you, for the education of the commission, kind of extrapolate and explain what that means in terms of MUR and the four and then housing opportunity site, what that allows?

Yes. Yeah. It was briefly mentioned in the staff report. The four project parcels are in the MUR zone zoning district, and it's also a housing opportunity site. So state law does allow an applicant to propose a 100% residential project such as the one here in this concept for housing opportunity sites, including all four parcels. So so it is allowed under state law to go 100% residential land use for this location.

Great. Thank you. So no waiver or concessions required to waive the

Correct.

Okay. Thank you. Affordable housing include inclusionary housing warrants. I think you alluded in your presentation tonight that our inclusionary housing ordinance, does it have we done something similar to this where it's two property types on the same parcel, and how do we think about the 15%? Do we think 15% in the aggregate of the for sale plus rentals, or it doesn't really specify how to how to think about the 15% in that scenario. And, like, there's a second follow on question which you alluded to in the staff report. I'll ask them.

Yeah. I'll pull up my slide here. The inclusionary ordinance requires a a below market rate component for both for sale and rental, and it I broke it out in the tables. Going away. It's going.

There we go.

So the inclusion ordinance requires 18, units in the, for sale product and seven units in the rental. Okay. That would would comprise the 15% of the total project.

Okay. And do ADUs count towards affordable?

No. They do not.

They do not. But they do meet our RINA help towards RINA, I think. And then you mentioned that it's likely that we will be pursuing the alternate means of compliance on this project is what ours at the moment, we're thinking that is. Does that does that entail the likely need for a development agreement to allow that to happen, or how are those in we just went through doing an alternate means of compliance in with Eden, and there was a development agreement. Are you anticipating having something similar with this project?

No. It's not required to have a development agreement for alternate means of compliance. The inclusion ordinance includes a provision for an applicant to propose an alternative compliance method, comp comprising of, you know, various methods, different than what's required here as shown on the slide for this site in this proposal. So a development agreement is not required for that. They can simply propose in their affordable housing plan that alternative compliance. It still would be reviewed by the planning commission during the the project review if it's equivalent to the requirement in the inclusion ordinance. So a development agreement is not required.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. That was my questions on the inclusion. Did have some questions on the Crow Canyon Place to Annabel Lane. I'm sure at some point, Deb is gonna come up and answer. But I think you did you did say that both Annabel Lane and Crow Canyon Place are privately owned roads. Is that right? Yeah. Yeah. Or are they are either of them public or just all private?

Crow Canyon Place is public.

Crow Canyon Place is public. Okay. But Annabel Lane is not. And then Deb already explained the concern around the traffic flow and the the going through the neighborhood as well as the, you know, the concerns about this. So my sense is is that both parties need to cooperate to make this come together, or will the city have to step in via some version of a CIP?

Or could you just explain how the two sides will meet, you know, as opposed I have this vision of the railroads coming across the country. And if the left the east side and the west side didn't talk to each other, they would have missed each other. So perhaps either you or or or Deborah could explain how the city thinks about how this will come together down the road. Maybe I I can start. Okay.

If Deborah or Juan wants to chime in additional information, they can. But, yeah, the city would coordinate the the design, between these two projects for a through road. You know, they're both on private property but would be open to the public to travel through. And so the city is is involved in the coordination design of it. And so the two projects are proposing, at this point, the through road design.

There is not a city requirement. There used to be in the North Community Road specific plan, a requirement for a through road. We no longer have that specific plan. So there isn't a specific requirement from the city. But at the moment, the property owners are proposing a through road.

Okay. There's a grade change between the two properties as well. At least there's is for walking up the through the gate, And the city will coordinate the activities of the two projects to ensure that they eventually come together, and there will be a need to have a walk or something to raise cars. Right?

Yes. Yeah. We'll have our city traffic engineer working with the projects engineers and and and team for both projects. Okay. Making sure there's alignment and Okay. Okay. Need in. And

this and the city is prepared to do this from a staffing resources and all that. Is that fair to say that that's part of the development process and what the city does? Okay. Yes. Okay. Okay. And I did have a couple of questions for the the applicant at this point, if I could. The the ADUs, are those scattered throughout the complex, or are they a certain you know, in certain locations in there? It was hard to tell which are the scattered is okay or clustered is okay. It doesn't have to the exact spot. But yeah.

So right now, they're being proposed as 20 optional ADUs. They fit within the footprint of the plan four. So we're proposing 20 as part of our proposed mix, but really it's optional, so it can be accommodated within the footprint of the plan four.

Got it. Okay. Okay. And then the affordable housing project, and I think you said it's the Pacific Companies that

That's correct.

Is the Pacific own and then operate, build, own, develop, operate, or do they develop and then turn it over to somebody else to manage? How does that how does Pacific I'm just not familiar with how Pacific Companies works.

So I know that we're working with them on several other projects, and I don't know that I've been involved with one that has actually come to operation. And so I'm gonna defer to my colleague.

Okay. Correct.

She she confirms they own and operate.

They oh, okay. Great. Okay. So I assume that what that means is that there'll be on-site man property manager and things like that. And and then as far as the project, and maybe it's soon and maybe it's more of a comment for when you come back, is clarifying the the roles between the HOA and then the the property owner, property manager. You know? And if you kinda have a high level answer, that's great now. Otherwise, we'll just leave that for next time. You know?

Okay. I think I will leave that one till next time.

That's fair. Totally fair.

Totally fair. I think that's it for my questions. I open public comments, is there any other follow-up? These are questions again from the reminder. Questions. Just one quick question. Right

on that page, proposed concept page, project summary. So I just I'm trying to understand where are the entrances. So on the street B

Mhmm.

Is it on Street C? Any homes on Street C entering or exiting?

So no. Where you see the little triangles, those represent parking stalls. So the little inverted triangles. So those are front doors along C Street along the left side. And then the Little Court Streets D, E, And F that are coming up, those are where the garages enter off of those. And then on the other side, on the Paseo side, those would be front doors facing each other on some type of a a greenway.

Okay.

The connection that we were talking about or chair Albert was speaking about was regarding Street C. Right?

Correct.

So some connection between Annabel Lane and Crow Canyon Place, that would be instead of making it turn on a street, some connectivity between Annabel and Crow Canyon Place through Street C in some way, city is gonna coordinate.

That's yes. The Correct.

So as C C Street continues straight down, it would be contiguous straight onto what is now Annabelle Lane and then all the way to Norris Canyon. So it'd pop through there at the bottom of the property line where it shows as kind of a parking lot on the area now.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. At this point, why don't we go ahead and open public comment? Oh oh, I'm sorry. Next. Yeah. One more question, please.

Hi. Just a couple more questions. Given that the area is a mixed use residential emphasis, obviously, housing opportunity site's gonna be a 100% residential. No problem with that. But do you envision sometime in the future, and this might be a while in the future, but do you envision that any of these units could be converted into a sort of home occupation or a live work situation? Is there enough flexibility in the design of the buildings themselves to make that feasible for the future homeowners?

I mean, that would certainly, I think, be a a permit question as well. But there are several of the units that have downstairs living areas. So it's not that it's nothing but garages with the exception of the one tandem unit that doesn't have any Ground Floor living area.

Okay. Great. Thank you. And then one last question. There are, of course, multiple other parcels nearby. So I know you're preserving the easement that leads to the the commons. I I

Office park.

The office park. Yes. What about any future connection to, say, that parcel directly north? I know that's also mixed use residential emphasis or to the the parcel that's currently the twenty four hour fitness in the UPS. Any is that something you've considered?

We would would love to consider it, but it's actually not a part of the project now, so it's under separate ownership. And we couldn't contemplate it as part of the design of the

Yeah.

If that's something where you could reach out to the owners of those parcels, just see if there's a possibility. I think that extra connection would be very valuable for the for this area long term. Thank you. Mhmm.

Okay. At this point, I'll go ahead and open public comment. Always wanna do it. Do we have any, written comments?

We received written communication from Susie Farris Intercom, and I do have two speaker cards before me. Jim Blickenstaff.

K. And I can confirm that the commission did receive a copy of Ms. Intercom's Farris Intercom's memo. Jim.

Good evening, commissioners. The nice thing about a concept in early stages of the planning process is you can get things established early rather than see a mistake and try to fit it in later. And and this is a time to set priorities so you get the direction you want and the outcome you want by early stage effort. That's my theory. First of all, San Ramon's kind of got a park like atmosphere from the business park.

They made an effort and succeeded in getting a lot of setback area for trees and and all kinds of vegetation. So it it kinda looks different than other cities when you when you drive by on 680. It it looks green because of that business park thing they took seriously. And now we have that concept for the all that area East East of the freeway. And I'd like to preserve that.

That's a a broad view of it, and let's keep that going. And the key to that, I think, besides quality planting, is the setbacks. You gotta have room between the street and the buildings themselves to put in green space that that will kinda soften the effects. And and we've done that generally, and I'd I'd hate to see cutting corners on projects where you don't have that space to keep the the trees and things in place and keep that overall view of Sao Ramon that's just a little more natural, a little more green than other cities. So that's a broad perspective on this.

The on the ground perspective would be parks for the amount of people coming in. I believe it'll be a little bit under 500, over 400 people, and you're gonna roughly have three acres of park to account for for the impacts of those hundreds of people that are coming in. And I'd like to see the park issue addressed early on because we seem to have a problem of keeping up with the requirements of the general plan for six and a half acres of parks. And that's a quality of life issue that'll come back to bite you if you're not careful. And this is the time to get serious about it rather than just putting oh, we got a fee, and then when you look at the fee, it never translates to acreage.

So what what did it accomplish? I unless you've got some kind of program you can put in place that demonstrates we're gonna get close to the required acreage in ten or twenty years, you're gonna have a systemic problem of not enough parks and then a serious quality of life issue. So the other thing I I noticed at this stage is parking. If we're getting pressure from the state to cut down on parking and and it makes it more economical for the developer, But in the meantime, that's another quality of life issue. If you don't have the right amount of parking, it gets that crowded effect where you're driving around looking for a parking place and you have guests over for the weekend, who are they gonna park?

You know, it get gets complicated. ADUs will add, jeez, 30 cars maybe. And are we allowing for that impact on parking? So that's something you might wanna look at seriously now as that won't come back to bite you later because it again, it's a quality of life issue. The other thing is architecture.

It helps successfully blend development into the cityscape. Harsh architecture has its own kind of hostility to the environment, if that's the right word, and too much hard colors like blacks and whites and and flat straight walls. It's just not attractive, and then you get that big city look of indifference. Mhmm.

Actually, it

kinda Yeah. So anyway, that's something you could look at now too. We have some examples of good housing that's worked out quite great. So let's let's just wrap up by saying there's a few things to look at. Let's do it now. And one of them, of course, is the setbacks and some green space that blends it in along with quality architecture. That's not a part of the thing that should be ignored much.

Thank you so much. Thank you, Jim. K.

Stuart McDonald.

Hi there.

German and commissioners, my name is Stuart McDonald. I'm with Federal Realty. We are the owners of the Crow Canyon Place Shopping Center Crow Canyon Commons Shopping Center. We've been members of the San Ramon business community for the last two decades. First of all, kudos to Brookfield for pulling off a residential development.

I know it's very challenging in this environment. I know that we're working on several right now ourselves and know how challenging it is, particularly the affordability component. I guess the two comments I would have on the proposal, there's been discussion about the parking ratios. I would be interested in how that is managed internally on their property that people always have more cars than they plan on having. We are concerned about the spillover effect of that on our property and how they intend to manage that and make sure that cars don't end up taking parking spaces from customers.

This the other comment that I would have in there has been some other mention of this with the city's traffic engineer is that the intersection discharging from Crow Canyon Place out to Crow Canyon Road is a very challenged intersection. It has poor alignment. It has heavy traffic outflow. Whether reduction of the business is gonna reduce the parking, but I think it's gonna it it needs to be evaluated how many trips are outflowing and inflowing to the site and passing through that signalized inner intersection. Those are really our only comments, and we welcome a 165 units of potentially, what, 300 more people that could be customers for our shopping center.

So congratulations.

Thank you for coming out tonight. Okay.

I have no other speaker cards.

Okay. We'll go ahead and close public comment. So at this time, if there are any comments or direction to staff and or the applicant, now would be the time to make any comments. Anything? Anyone start?

Thank you very much. A couple of thoughts on on this proposal. And if we could all look at the the preliminary site plan as I'm speaking, it will be helpful. So a couple of things that I would like to offer as my recommendation. So I don't know who's who's doing the slideshow. But alright. I'll just keep talking. So item number one, you have on the let me see if I can get my orientation. Alright. You have the affordable rentals on the right hand of the the site plan.

The question that I have is and offer as my opinion you know, I would see that that would be more suited over on the left hand side of the site plan. And I say that because you the proposal is that the affordable building will be four stories. And it seems to me like it would be advantageous to have your one block, one big block apartment building, four stories on the the freeway side of the of the facility of the site rather than the the smaller single family homes, townhomes. So that's item number one. And it would then add additional sound barrier.

Because of all the things that are gonna be a challenge on this plot, it's gonna be the sound. That freeway noise is quite loud. And so I I would like for you to factor that in. That frees up some of the territory between Street C and the edge of the property that might facilitate this alignment of the road and so forth. The other thing that I find of concern is the if you look at the very bottom of the site plan where it butts up against the adjoining property where you see the little parking stripes, is all the front doors face that way.

I don't know what you envision to be along the property line, but I'm very sensitive to what people have to look at out of their front doors. And and it as we talk a lot about here about creating a sense of neighborhood and a sense of community, well, yes, we love our cars. We love our garages, and it's very convenient to have them, you know, along the street. At some point, it's would be nice. I would love to see us flip those so that the street is at the property line, and then the front doors are more angled into the actual neighborhood.

I just think it makes it feel much more welcoming and and and pleasant. So those are the two big things. I know you have the the very large bio retention portion there up by the cul de sac, and and that will be coming along. But those are some of the things that I find important as we're we're going forward. And since this is our opportunity to give you our dream site planning opinion, there we go.

So those those are the comments that I have. And and I know that you will factor in, you know, little nooks and crannies of of hospital. But I again, I would I would move the apartment building to the left. That gives you opportunity for for sale units on the right hand side that will help with the street. So those are my those are my feedback. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Somebody wanna go second? Sure.

Yeah. I mentioned three things at the beginning. So that of course, regarding the parking and the street alignment and public spaces. So that would be my primary criteria. And if when you guys come back, I I would like to know if there are any trees, heritage trees, or something that already exists in the community if you guys are saving them in any any way because the development and would take a lot of time to have new trees.

So that would be one thing. And, of course, we talked about the way architecturally or the color wise, how these units would look like. And, of course, you living also in San Ramon, that helps you when you walk through Iron Horse Trail. There are many properties with with the colors that that mix and match. And the third important thing is common space and park.

I know you guys are building on that right hand side whatever recycling that would be close to the Crow Canyon Place. Some small patch bio The bioswale. The bioswale.

Yeah. That's the bioswale, the hashed area

Yeah.

At the end of Croke Canyon Place.

So apart from that, there are no other trees. When you come back of course, this is not the final one, but would like to see more of that. And probably, that's been the commission's thought process across the board. And architectural board will have a thorough review of this. So I'm not worried about that right now, but kindly have that ahead of time rather than I I understand the pain after coming back.

And this is great that you guys are coming up with proposal now so that we can give our feedback rather than solidifying it, working with CBG who are also working with many other developers here. That's a very good thing. They will have that sense of uniformity across San Ramon, so that helps. And one last thing I would want to propose is for for the the affordable housing. I I know there have been instances the commission has given waiver for having rental units, but would like to see some first sale affordable units within the community.

So that would be some of the criteria that I'll be looking at. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Thank you. I'd like to repeat what commissioner Conjula said. Thank you for coming here ahead of time and helping us work through some of these issues far before we get into much more final plans and wasting everyone's time and money in that sense. Some things that I I I really like to see the affordable units.

It's great that you guys have went above and beyond just the 15% inclusionary housing ordinance. I think you guys certainly deserve whatever waivers and concessions you'll be entitled to under the state's NC bonus law, so thank you for that. I think connectivity on this project is is crucial. I know you've already invested a lot of effort into this, but this whole area, that's bounded by Crow Canyon, Camino Ramon, Norris Canyon, and 680 suffers from some very severe connectivity issues, and we try to address those through the North Camino Ramon specific plan. Well, not me personally, but I know the city really cared about that.

Of course, that's been repealed for about almost close to two years now. And so it's given the fragmented ownership of this entire area and that sort of rectangular area I mentioned bounded by those four those four roads in the freeway. It's difficult, I understand, to make sure that there's enough connectivity, but I think if we want to achieve our stated objectives, you know, like you mentioned about walkability and accessibility, making sure it's easy for people to get to places, walk around, bike, reach parks and schools. Right now, you know, if you visit the site, you cannot go from this project to the current B R 12, and you can't go really from B R 12 to the JSON 24. Once again, I'm not putting the blame on you.

I know this is this is not your fault necessarily. It's just that there's clearly a need for some coordination, and any outreach that you can do to adjacent property owners to ensure that that you made your best effort to increase the connectivity on this site is would be really well appreciated from my perspective. And I think the through roadway that you're doing is already great. I think there still seems to be a bit of things to be hashed out whether or not we want this through roadway to be more of a thoroughfare where we expect lots of traffic to cut through, or do we want this to be a more slower traffic, pedestrian oriented street? I'll leave the decision up to you and the city traffic engineer to figure that one out.

But as long as there's some coordinated approach, I'm happy with either outcome. And then the last thing sort of related to my my earlier question, because this is a mixed use area, anything that can encourage flexibility of uses, of course, a lot of that is our responsibility in terms of zoning, permitting, etcetera. But, you know, there are many places in San Ramon that were built very inflexibly. My own house, my own neighborhood is one example. And because we're looking at this area that is great freeway access, great road access right in the middle of the city, anything that you can do architecturally or engineering wise to make sure that, you know, these homes could one day in the future be converted to a more mixed use thing.

Anything to encourage that true mixed use walkable neighborhood, that would be greatly appreciated. So thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Villa? In

the similar vein of the other commissioners, I would like you to go ahead and work with our traffic engineer on getting something just a little bit more aligned with our vision for the city, especially looking at the site plan when you have H Street and you had that that affordable rental. I don't know how that would work in terms of, like, okay. You you have people coming out on a street and then H Street. It it just seems like a traffic nightmare waiting to happen. I don't I have no idea how that would work.

So if you can just go ahead and maybe work with our traffic engineer to go over what some more approachable means of access would be to the site, that would be really great. And I do appreciate that you guys are willing to make that connection to Annabel Lane. As mentioned, there is another, housing development that's immediately adjacent to the south, Bishop Ranch 12. So if there can be some sort of, you know, work through with them on potentially that walking path that they have going about their site, I think that would be a really great resource for the community, especially since, you are looking at waiving, community amenities. But I think it it would be something to look at.

And then I would also want to see, you know, if it's possible to have some sort of pocket park for the area, you know, just something that's point five acres or less, just something where people can go ahead and use as a space to gather, especially since these are townhomes. So it's not like they have a lot of access to open space anyway. And the nearest walk is that one mile walk right now at the city village that's currently under construction. But, ideally, through park standards, we do want to have people to have a park within point five miles of walking distance is sort of that magic number that we we hear about. The other thing is that, you know, as I mentioned before, like, potentially having that bioretention be, like, some sort of dual purpose if, for whatever reason, a pocket park would just simply be infeasible.

The other thing that I would want to mention was it's it's kind of unclear, like, based on the site plan that we have. It seems like some of the three streets don't have a sidewalk, especially, like, that southern side. So if there could just be more connectivity in terms of sidewalks, and that doesn't have to be into, the motor courts. But if it's a through street, it would be nice to have some connectivity instead of a sidewalk that just kind of doesn't go anywhere. And since people are gonna be using C Street to go ahead and connect to Crow Canyon Place, it's important to think about the walkability as well in pedestrian safety.

The other thing I wanted to mention was I'm not a particular fan of the architecture. It it's very reminiscent of city village, which is that modern look that looks a little bit aged. In my own personal opinion, I like more of that architecture as we saw in Bishop Ranch 11 that was approved with the gable roofing, and it was sort of a Scandinavian Scandinavian style, more or less. So I I I'm not a fan of that city village type of architecture. So it's take it as a grain of salt, but that's just my own personal opinion.

And that's all that I have. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Well, thank you, commissioners. Most of what is on my list has been said. I think the connectivity from Crow Canyon to Annabel is truly exciting, and do hope to see it. One thing to also consider is I suspect there'll be families living here that may find themselves needing or wanting to go to Iron Horse Middle School.

And so as you're building that through Way, consider that there will be bicycles and pedestrians, not just cars. So ensure that there's sidewalk, and and it's it feels safe to walk, you know, down the road and get there. So just it's not just about cars. Staff will already take on all the things they normally do around affordable housing, inclusionary housing, all of those things there. To echo commissioner Zeng's suggestion on mixed use, did you consider perhaps the ADUs might be configured as live work rather than just strictly live?

And we've done we've done that at other projects. Iron Horse Village comes to mind. Those are ADUs, but they're live work. So it gives an opportunity, and they're sort of starting up as those small commercial sites. When you I'm also I know you're gonna go to the ARB, and they'll always provide comments. I think I'd echo commissioner Villa's suggestions and comments. In your presentation, I think the interlocking design was slightly more interesting to me than just the strict flat roofs. You know? And we've also seen some projects that have been more of a traditional, less modern, you know, modern farmhouse, I think, because sometimes they call it. The ARB will do a much better job articulating this in the planting palette and everything else.

When you do come back, I do think when we get the final site plan or the proposed final site plan to ensure that it's clear how you'll handle EV charging and ebikes and parking and mailboxes and trash cans and all of those things now that, you know, seem to be, you know you know, added, but it's hard to tell where they are. And I can tell you by from listening to the ARB, one of the things that is popping up more and more in design is anticipating the proliferation of e vehicles and making sure that, you know, it's well thought through the number and the size because it's not just a traditional bike rack anymore, and, apparently, you're not allowed to leave those in your living room these days. Commissioner, I've already made comments on the, you know, come out of the staff analysis, you know, the six eighty and noise and how you're gonna mitigate all the noise from the freeway. I think that will come come through with everything. And then anything you can do to highlight the amenities because as as we mentioned, there aren't parks neighborhood parks, and and these don't have, you know, large yards anymore.

So consider, you know, amenities that are scattered throughout, whether it's benches or barbecues or gathering places always makes for a better neighborhood than strictly housing and roads. And lastly, I'll close by thanking you again for coming out, you know, so early in the process. It's not and I hope that our feedback was was helpful, you know, and respectful because we do really do appreciate you coming out this early in the process. It's, you know, the contrast is it's almost final, and then you come before us, and it's really hard to change, and we get that. So thank you again for coming there. I will close by looking to staff and seeing if you had any questions that you also wish to hear from us tonight, or did you get sufficient feedback. You're okay? You're okay? Okay. Well, great.

Well, thank you very much. This was a concept review, so there's no action taken on our part. We do hope to see you soon, you know, and back before us. So thank you again for coming out tonight.

Thank you all for your time and insights. We appreciate it.

Thank you. Mhmm. Okay. At this time, if there are any commissioner liaison reports, interest items I don't know if there's a is there a

No open space, and the parks commission has taken August off.

Okay. Okay. And I did attend a a long ARB meeting the other night the other day. They reviewed two sign ordinances. The one and I'll just I don't remember the name of the shopping centers where Eric Steli is.

The one's being undergoing renovation. There is a master sign program there. And then directly across the street, which I will just refer it to, you know, as the one directly across the street, you know, that's, you know, another master sign program. It's one I do remember because it had a name that was easy to remember, twin twin pine shopping center. So that's the one that has Katie's Corner in it owned by the same same the same same sign as they had two sign programs, but the bulk of the afternoon was spent reviews reviewing the architecture for B R 8 along Executive Parkway, both the single family as well as the multifamily, then also B R 12.

So they provided a lot of comments to the applicant, and at some point, they'll be coming back before the planning commission for approval. Okay. So with that, I'll turn to mister Barr on coming attractions.

Okay. So just to let the commission know, September 2 meeting will be canceled so you can extend out your your Labor Day festivities. We are actually doing a little bit of scheduling change, so we're not clear yet on September 16, but we anticipate some of the other development projects that you've seen coming in the meetings of all of that. So we're gonna try and pin down a few dates. So we're kind of in flux right now. Great.

Thank you. K. And we have no other com