Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

To the October 21 regular meeting of the San Ramon Planning Commission will call to order the meeting at 06:00PM. Item two, roll call. May the recording secretary please conduct roll.

Commissioner Kuznick, commissioner Kunjula

Here.

Commissioner Zane

Here.

Vice chair Avila Here. And chair Albert.

Here. Item three is the pledge of allegiance. Please rise and join me in the pledge. Item four is public comments or written communication. At this time, members of the public may address the planning commission on any item that is not already included in tonight's agenda.

If you would like to speak, please fill out a speaker card located at the back of the room and submit it to the recording secretary, and we will not be taking any public comment via Zoom. Are there any late communications or speaker cards?

I have a speaker card for this item. Greg Carr.

Good evening. Planning commission. Greg Carr, San Ramon resident. I wanted to speak about park space. It it does involve items nine one and nine two, but this is generic.

So that's why I put it on public comments. I would like to see some assessment of the following of the planning ordinance for park space that sets up formulae to determine how much park space you have to do for certain types of development. I confess I can't remember the numbers now, but, you know, look at my gray hair. In in upper ups, you give me a pass. Anyway, I I'm concerned specifically about the development being done by our, you know, neighbor in town, Sunset Development, and others if they would have a problem.

I I would like to see an honest after assessment of each project and how they conform to the park space requirement. I'm not asking for some long blown out assessment, but just go back through the documents and see what we accepted. Or let me say this. What we require in the development agreement versus what's been built. K?

I I I go down where all the, you know, Bishop Ranch, Sunset, your ticky tacky boxes are in Camino Ramon. And, oh, it it they gotta be putting it someplace. I hope it's not on top of a hilltop in some other county. But I would appreciate that. And and I think the people in town, a lot of them who I've talked to, would also appreciate just to know what was asked, what's required, and what's been provided. That's all. And if it's all equals the same, so be it. But I have my doubts. Thank you.

I don't have any more speaker cards for this item, and there is no written public comment for this items.

Great. Thank you so much.

We'll

go ahead and close the public comment. Item five, additions and revisions to the agenda. We have none tonight. Item six is our consent calendar. Item 6.1 are the minutes of the planning commission meeting from 09/16/2025. Do we have any public comments on this item? Amy. Yeah. On the script. Do we have any No. No. We do not. I didn't think so. Okay. Do we have any questions, comments, suggestions on the minutes? If not, can we get a motion to adopt?

Yep. I can move the motion to adopt the meeting minutes

Okay.

From September 16. And

Okay. Do we need a second?

I'll make the second to approve the minutes for 09/16/2025.

Okay. The motion passes four zero zero and one no vote, mister Kuznick. Okay. Item seven, continue items after the close of the public hearing. There are none. Item eight, continue items. There are none in item nine. Item nine is a public hearing. Item 9.1 are revisions to the Bishop branch b r eleven residential development, DPA 2025005, and M X 2025003 at 2301. The proposed development plan amendment is for revisions to the previously approved project based on the concepts of the approved Bishop Ranch affordable housing site development agreement that allows for the transfer of affordable units to the housing.

The underlying approvals and physical design remain in place as originally presented, presented. And I believe we have a staff report by Annalisa who's right there. Great.

Great. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. Before you this evening is a development plan amendment and minor exception applications for the previously approved Bishop Ranch 11 residential development project. As a reminder, the project site is located at 2301 Camino Ramon within the DMU North zone.

And for background here, the planning commission approved the BR 11 residential residential development project consisting of a hundred and ninety five four cell units on March 4. For On September 9, the city council adopted a development agreement that allows the transfer of the affordable housing obligation from the Bishop BR Ranch 11 site to the Bishop Ranch affordable apartment site. And on September 15, the applicant submitted the proposed development plan amendment and minor exception applications. And so the development plan amendment would revise the project to align with the development agreement by removing the on-site construction of affordable units and satisfy the project's affordable housing obligation through land dedication at the Bishop Ranch affordable apartment site located at 2453 Camino Ramon. As a result of removing the on-site affordable units, the project no longer qualifies for state density bonus law parking maximums.

And, therefore, they're requesting the minor exception to allow for the 10% on-site parking reduction from current city parking standards. And so the project was originally approved requiring 15% of the 195 units as affordable. That would result in 29 units, including 10 very low, five low, and 14 moderate income units. But the revised project aligns with the development agreement and will facilitate an increase of 23 units for a total of 52 rental units, including 40 very low and 12 low income units at the Bishop Ranch affordable apartment site. And as mentioned, the minor exception is to allow for a 10 on-site parking reduction.

There will be no physical changes to the project, and it will it will maintain the same 442 parking spaces that were approved on-site. The city council adopted the reduced parking requirements for multifamily units. And under the amendment, the project will exceed new parking spaces the new parking standards by three spaces, and that would be effective November 14. And so with that, staff recommends the Planning Commission receive the staff report, open the public hearing, take public testimony, and if appropriate, adopt the draft Planning Commission resolution number twelve twenty five, including the red line edit to the condition of approval number four, which removes the affordable housing agreement from the development plan amendment. And this is in consultation with the city attorney's office.

The affordable housing agreement will be covered under the approved development plan for the Bishop Ranch affordable apartments. And that concludes my presentation, so I'm available for questions as well as the applicant.

Okay. Are there any questions, clarifying questions from the commission on this item?

So for this is for clarity for everyone. This project, we have already approved the Eden Housing project, which would substitute all the units that are on-site that have been transferred to Eden Housing. With that, they would lose the ability for automatic reduction in parking space, but the parking spaces did not change. They would be as it is.

That's correct. For the Bishop Branch 11 site. Yes.

For the 11 site. Yeah. And the exception they are asking is for 492 spaces as required earlier to 442 based on the new city council adopted text amendment, which would be reducing the parking requirements for the multifamily units, especially the four bedroom four bedroom units. Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay. Just wanted to clarify. With that, they would meet the city council adopted amendment that would go into effect November 14. This is just a preemptive work. Right?

Correct.

Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thanks.

Other questions? Nope? Okay. Why don't we go ahead and open public comment? Do we have any speaker cards or written communication on this item?

Written public comment was received by Brian Swanson, and I have a speaker card, Jim Blickenstaff. K.

Okay. Jim, do you

wanna wanna speak?

Oh, no. I'm sorry. This was a it was a written comment that we received, you know, in advance. It was an email comment that we received, and we did get that from Brian Swanson. So now we're opening the public comment. So

Good evening, commissioners. I wanted to cover some things that come up as an issue. This is from the public's point of view, concerns we have from our perspective that this is necessarily meshed in the details that you may have between you and the state and other issues that go on. But to the extent that we can react to those in a positive way for the residents, I love to do that. And so what I'm concerned about here is what I call reusing the 11 o nine acres for another mitigation.

And it I there's a land dedication that they talk about, but I don't I don't see any extra acreage. So that's the issue. If it's a land dedication, what is it? But that's almost what you need to add more units because otherwise you're just increasing density, and there's other issues that happen with that, which makes it more different than the rest of the developments. And and if you're adding more units to that that are low income, it makes it isolated from the rest of the development in the city.

And that that means, in some ways, it's undermining inclusion inclusionary housing, And and that that's a big issue. You know? That that integrates low and medium and high income kinda together. And there's a separation that happens physically and mentally if you put all those low units in one area. I don't have to reiterate what happens in other cities with that, but it's generally not good.

And and they feel different and, like I said, isolated. So and the other issue that comes up, if you're using that same 11 o nine acres for a mitigation here, I'm confused because it says that it won't increase the units. So maybe I'm missing a point here, but it either has to increase the units for more affordables for the mitigation of another project or it has to rededicate the units to another project, which you can't do. Mitigation is directly related to the project it's mitigating and you can't mess with them later. So that's a confusing part I'd love to straighten out.

And so I think yeah. I think I covered everything, the key points, but that's just a quick general idea of things that we'd wanna resolve be go before it gets too far down the line. So thank you very much.

Susie Farris Inderkum.

Good evening, commissioners. This is actually directed to both nine dot one and nine dot two. And, my concern is the fact that, originally, it was Sunset Development's request to do the land dedication and move units over there. But one of these now is a different developer. It's not Sunset.

So my concern is I'm wondering how long you're going to allow different developers to take advantage of this little scheme to donate land to it and then rid themselves of having to build any low cost housing. My second concern is that besides these two, you have routinely been allowing developers to ask for a reduction in parking spaces. And that concerns me in that all of those are being built along Camino Ramon, Bollinger Canyon, Norris Canyon Road, all of which have no on street parking. And the more you reduce it, I'm really concerned about where we're gonna end up with all these cars, extra cars, because you know there's gonna be more more people driving in those units than you think. And I would like to just lastly ask that because of these issues, I would really like it if somebody in our community development department could come up with a table for this that would show us how much land was actually dedicated over there and how many units are in there because there's a finite number of units you're gonna build there.

So I wanna make sure the math adds up. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Do we have any other speaker? Greg Okay.

Greg Carr, resident ceremony. I apologize for coming down here tonight because inevitably, with me, this is what happens. But I'm gonna speak anyway on it. The fact that we are allowing Sunset Development Bishop Ranch, whatever you wanna call them, to get a reduction in parking spaces goes against common sense. I think that's a big mistake.

It's gonna overload any available parking or or unauthorized parking elsewhere in the surrounding community on the streets. It is putting your head in the sand for the reality of people in this area because everybody drives. We don't have a bus system that goes to where the job centers are. And I think that shouldn't be allowed. But, of course, I'm sure the state's got something wrapped up where you can't do anything about it, and the developer is allowed to do whatever they want.

The other thing that troubles me is taking affordable housing. Was it 29 units? And we're gonna take them out of one area and then put them all together from other areas into what I would classify as a modern day potential ghetto. That's wrong. That points the finger at the people who are there.

Everybody knows why they're all there. That's not the purpose of it. That's not the social construct which we're supposed to be acting upon as good guardians of what is right in our society. And the fact that Sunset Development and the people that own it and run it have the gall to come to you well, hell, have the gall to go to the planning staff in the first point and ask for that shows they don't have much of a social conscience. Oh, and, oh, by the way, I'm no longer a Democrat as of 2016.

So it's just rubs me the wrong way immeasurably. I don't think that should be allowed. You need to integrate people at different levels in society altogether so that everybody gets a chance to see what's going on top to bottom in the society governed by economics. So I'm disappointed if this goes through, greatly disappointed. And I think it's a pox upon the house of San Ramon If the governance of San Ramon, you're the first line, don't have the courage to say no.

I have no other speaker cards for this item.

Okay. Why don't we go ahead and close public comment? So this project is most of what we're talking about tonight and what we've heard is truly thing is not probably the wrong word, but has been vetted through multiple hearings and city council adoption of the development agreement to allow the movement of affordable housing from b R 11 to dedicated land, and the dedicated land is different land than this project. And it's allowed under our municipal code, and I'm gonna I'm gonna stop and ask staff to fill in the gaps on this. But and it and it's difficult to follow this along, and I'll acknowledge this has been months and months of hearings.

And we've we've had the benefit of sitting through many, many public hearings where we've slowly come to understand and learn the mechanics. It is complicated. It's it's very complicated to acknowledge the public comment that it's hard to follow and understand what are we actually doing, you know, here. And this is, in many ways, the very last step of the process on this specific project, and it goes back well over a year of hearings on this. And so I think I've given staff enough time to gather their thoughts to kind of outline how we got from, you know, years ago, you know, to where we are tonight.

You know? And so I'm sure between Annalisa and Lauren and Cindy, we can answer the questions that you're asking, which are fair questions.

Yeah. I'll just add one more thing before you go ahead. Sorry about that. So I would also ask if Lauren can give little bit of background because the counts commissioners had similar kind of thoughts, went through the whole process of arguments that you, the public, had. And it was it was give and there was given a good amount of thought, and the entire picture was drawn out.

What happened with B R 7, B R 11, B R 183, where the total dedication and the movement of the affordable housing has been moved to Eden Housing Project. So I would really appreciate if you can give a little bit of a background on that as well. Thank you.

K. So the the application that I mentioned is the development agreement that the city council recently adopted in on September 9 that allowed for the transfer of the affordable units to the Eden site, and that essentially allowed for the land dedication that the Bishop Ranch 11 development plan amendment is now coming back to clean up essentially to align with that development agreement. That's really the the mechanism, and this is a cleanup of that to allow allow for that

Thank you.

As approved.

Just to clarify, b r 11, I think one of the one of the speakers, where is this land? It's actually different land than this project. It is a different piece of property. It's the service center on Camino Ramon, you know, the sunset service center. That is going to be converted.

That is the future home the current home of the future Eden Housing project. And so the units are, at a simple level, being tran the affordable units are being transferred from this property to the service center, new property, new project Eden Housing. City council has reviewed and approved that development agreement allowing for this, and there's an awful lot of discussion they've had on why that meets the needs of the community and is an acceptable approach to meeting the inclusionary housing ordinance, which does allow for land dedication. So I'll took learn to turn to Lauren and Cindy to fill in any other details that might be helpful for the public. And, again, as a reminder, that's not the top topic of tonight.

You know, the topic of tonight is cleaning up and aligning the project with all of the previous approvals, but acknowledging that it's a lot of moving parts and steps, and it's worthy of just taking a couple of minutes to fill in those gaps. So, Lauren, Cindy?

Yeah. So I'll I'll just give a little bit more in the history. Part of the reason you're we're seeing this item tonight is just a timing question. The applications that are essentially transferring units away were approved prior to the Eden Housing concept even being floated to the city and the development agreement proposals. And so they were approved under the standards that were in place at the time with the provisions that allowed under state density bonus in terms of concessions and waivers and maximum parking standards.

And so subsequent to those approvals for BR 11, BR seven, the city walk projects, we received this application for a 100% affordable project, Eden Housing. And so part of the advantages in terms of meeting our demand for for arena numbers is the actual number of units that we're getting. We're getting a higher number, higher degree of affordability. There are services provided in the Eden business model or business plan to support the residents. And so there's a lot of advantages in terms of how we can address affordable housing needs for the community and the requirements that come under the state obligation to build affordable units.

In terms of, you know, proximity, all these affordable units are, you know, within a block of where they were originally intended to go as part of the original approvals. And so there is not really an issue with continuity as part of one big community that's making up the core of Bishop Ranch. I don't know, Cindy, you wanna weigh in?

I would also add that when the Bishop Ranch 11 applications were filed in the 2024, during those public hearings, we had identified that there is a separate project that's currently underway at the Eden site and that there is a potential, as part of this application approval, that the affordable components of this project may change in the future. We were working on numerous applications, including the DMU North modification to the site wide FAR. We are also processing the Eden application for the Camino Ramon Apartments. And there was identification in the staff reports that said should the affordable components of this project move forward and be transferred to the land dedication via the Camino Ramon Apartments, that any modifications to the conditions would then come back to the Planning Commission so that you can have a review of what changes have been made, so that we can close this loop of the transfer of the affordable obligations to the new location at Camino Ramon Apartments and confirm that all of the conditions have been modified so that this project will essentially close the loop on all of the requirements that the city has for inclusionary and for off-site dedication.

Thank you for taking the time to explain that. So the question before us tonight is truly wrapping up the B R 11 project and making it consistent with the approved development agreement. So with that, are there any comments from the commission? If not, then yeah. Let's go.

Okay. So I I wanna give a little bit of background. Commissioners being volunteers, we have similar questions that you do, and have we meet with the staff ahead of time yesterday, and we have hours our long meetings concerns. There is no parking availability on Camino Ramon and within the project, how they are handling that. That that was one of the topics.

And, how the overall count was there. And, Lauren, I have requested, the zoning administrator, Lauren and their team, having the entire table showing us what are the projects, what where the units are being built versus what are the, different number of units from a income level perspective that is moderate, low income, very low income. How do they fit into the entire picture? These questions have come up for us as well, and they were very kind enough to add them in the packet page 22 table one of two, two of two, and three of three. Sorry.

One of three. My correction, please. One of three, two of three, and three of three, which is in page 22, 23, and 24 showing us what are the overall RANA numbers and how how are they being distributed across various different sites. And and I would reiterate the point that the chair has mentioned. This is nothing new.

The city that it went through the this development approval agreements have went through this planning commission as well as been approved by the city council. They are just cleaning up this work and nothing more than that. So with that, I turn it back to Cher.

Sure. I have some comments to make. I guess, overall, I would say that I cannot see a good reason to say no to this amendment and this minor exception. I don't want to be totally redundant and reiterate everything that staff has said, but, you know, this isn't something that we're coming up with off the cuff. This is something that has been in consideration for a while, and a lot of thought has been poured into this.

To to look at it from maybe a bit of a cost benefit perspective because I understand that, you know, some of the people coming before us in public comment are worried about some of the costs or perceived costs and skeptical about the benefits. I think, really, there seems to be some worry about parking, and I would have to say a few things. First, the project has the same number of parking spots as originally proposed. If we were okay with the project back then, I I can't see why we shouldn't be okay with keeping it as it is. Second, prior to today, the project qualified for, you know, the state density bonus law, and so that sort of reduced parking was something we couldn't really contest anyway.

So we have to always keep in mind the constraints that the state is putting on us. Not to say that the parking at this project for for B R 11 won't be adequate. As we know, the city council just last week approved the zoning ordinance text amendment. That would mean that this project, and I believe Annalisa mentioned this in their presentation, this project would exceed the number of parking spaces required under the zoning ordinance. So, you know, if if the council has approved those tax amendments and we feel good about the parking that will be required moving forward from November onwards, then once again, I I feel good about the prod the the parking on this project.

Now to talk about the benefit side of things, and Lauren really alluded to this, you know, we're getting more affordable homes here. The project was originally going to be 24 affordable units on-site, of course. That's close to doubling now with 23 additional. So we're at 52, if I'm doing my math right, 52 affordable homes instead of 29. And that is really important.

We have RENA goals. We have affordable housing goals to meet, and it is difficult it's most difficult to get units that are affordable to the lowest income levels. And these these units will be for just very low and low income households. So I think that deeper affordability is also really good to see. And concerns about the sort of separation of these units or the isolation, I I totally get those.

But, you know, as Lauren said, these units are no more than one block away from the where they originally planned to be. And I would say this project overall, if if you've seen how how Eden if you saw their presentation and and everything about that project, this is a very, very far cry away from the mistakes of urban renewal, from the projects that we've seen, you know, in the sixties, seventies in this country. I am not worried about any sort of separation or that this will be any kind of ghetto, I I think Eden is going to do a fantastic job. And, you know, for comparison, I would say I live out in Dorothy Valley, and I learned just re somewhat recently that every single apartment project you see in Dorothy Valley is actually affordable housing. That was part of the plan to develop Dougherty Valley.

You cannot tell. You cannot tell that's affordable housing. I've been living out there for, you know, ever since I was a first grader. You know this that the apartments are there, but you cannot tell that the residents there are any different. I think there are some fears about the source separation or that we're not doing well by everyone. I think those fears are unfounded. I think I think this project will will work out well. And and once it's all done and dusted, you won't be able to tell the difference. So for for all those reasons, I'm I'm quite supportive of this amendment and minor exception. Thank you. Okay.

Mhmm. Okay. If there's no other comments, looking to have a motion to adopt the resolution or something similar, Are they willing to move this along? The ask was to make the motion to adopt resolution twelve twenty five, which just finalizes the B R 11 residential development project to be consistent with the development agreement. I will move. Do we have a second? Yes. That is the staff report concluded. Thank you. As amended. Yes. Eric, do you have a second?

I can second that. To approve.

Okay. So, always, let's take a quick look at the resolution. Do we have any questions, comments, minor changes being cut up? We'll just go very quickly through the resolution. It's very short.

Most of the resolution we have seen with just a couple of additional whereas is added, so we should have all seen this before. So turning the packet page 14, page one of six, any changes on page one, two, three, four, five, or six. Okay. Now there are there is an exhibit a conditions of approval, which consists of five conditions with the one red line update to condition approval four and five as represented in the staff report tonight in the presentation. Again, any changes to that?

Corrections? Seeing no. We can go ahead and take a vote if we could, which have it's been moved and seconded to adopt resolution as amended so we can okay. Okay. The motion does pass four zero zero one.

This is b r 11. We're gonna go on to the next project, b r three a, which is very similar in nature to what we did on b r 11. Similar, but a little bit different. It's a different project. So item 11 or 9.2, again, is a revision to the Avalon Bay Bishop Ranch 3 a apartment project located at 6200 Bollinger Canyon Road.

This is a proposed development plan amendment for the revisions to the previously approved project on the concepts of the approved Bishop Ranch affordable housing site. Development agreement, the city walk development agreement that allows for the transfer of affordable units to the Eden Housing, the same all affordable project we talked about with v r 11. And the underlying approvals and the physical design, again, remain in place as was originally approved by the planning commission and memorialized in the development agreement by the city council. So with that, I will ask Brian to do the staff report on VR 3 A Avalon.

Good evening, chair Albert and commissioners. Yes. This is a very similar agenda item to the previous agenda item, although there are a few differences. So this is for the Avalon Bay B R 3 A apartment project, some revisions to it 6200 Bolinger Canyon Road. The project site is about 5.74 acres. Its general plan designation and zoning designation are the same. City center mixed use. Little bit of background. This site, is part of the city walk master plan that was adopted in September 2020. So the project site is part of the B R 3 A neighborhood.

In June 2024, the commission approved the Avalon Bay B R 3 A part apartment project for 457 units. And as, we've been discussing on September 9, the council approved, the development agreement allowing the transfer of affordable housing obligation for this site, through land dedication to Bishop Ranch affordable apartment site. And the applicant submitted the, development plan amendment in minor exception applications considered tonight on September 18. So the proposed amendment would as the applicant has gone along from their schematic design to their construction level drawings, they've had some minor revisions. They're proposing to reduce the unit count by one to 456 units and also adjust the unit mix a bit as shown in the table on the slide.

And then the project would also align with the development agreement to remove the on-site construction of the affordable housing units and transfer them over to the through land dedication to the Fisher Ranch affordable apartment site or Eden housing site on Camino Ramon. And then as a result of removing those units off-site affordable units off-site, it no longer qualifies for state density bonus law parking standards. And so there is a request for a minor exception to allow a 15% on-site parking reduction from city parking standards. So the project originally was approved with 15% of its 457 units for affordable units. That's 69 units total.

And this proposed project then would facilitate a 17 unit increase for a total of 86 affordable rental units at the Eden Housing site or Bishop Ranch affordable apartment site. In terms of parking, the 50% parking reduction is a 117 spaces on-site reduction. It's also based on the updated unit count and unit mix. The table on this slide shows the number of parking required and proposed. The project will a revised project will maintain the same number of parking spaces in the parking structure, 640 spaces.

And the applicant has submitted a parking study, that's supported by the, city traffic engineer, for their reduction, based on the parking analysis. So the recommendation is to, receive the staff report, open the public hearing, take public testimony, close the hearing, discuss and deliberate, and adopt the draft planning commission res o number 13 dash 25 with some draft conditions that are provided. There is a revision similar to the other one, based on discussions with the, city attorney. Condition four would be amended as shown on the screen to remove the affordable housing agreement requirement. It's not required to implement the proposed amendment.

So I'll turn it over to the commission.

So I do have a question, Ryan. In typically, on and it was included in b r eleven's conditions of approval. The applicant always needs to communicate to prospective buyers or purchasers, how much parking is available so that they they know and they have to implement a parking management plan to ensure that parking is used appropriately. Could you explain in a rental project such as this how the applicant manages parking, you know, in terms of when they sign leases and they communicate, you know, there's not there is a specific number of parking spots. And how does that how does that work in a project such as this? It might be a question for the applicant.

Yeah. I'll I'll start off, and I may turn it over to the applicant. But, yeah, this project is a rental project, so there is more ability than a for sale project to manage day to day, month to month, year to year parking on-site, and it's also unbundled parking concept. So the the parking will be separately separate agreement than the the unit itself, and so there's ability to manage it in that way too. And so I'll give it over to the applicant to give a little more detail on how they'll manage the parking.

Sure. Thank you, Ryan. Thank you, commissioners. Joe Kirchoffer with AvalonBay Communities. We are the ultimate developer of the B R 3 A A project. You know, in short, I think Ryan said it well. We would be leasing parking spaces just like we'd be leasing apartments. And so we would be, you know, assigning, you know, for a, you know, a certain apartment that was rented. You know? Generally, there would be an expectation that the the apartment would have at least one car. And then the second or third space, usually only a second, maybe, you know, they would be able to to add that to their, you know, to their monthly lease as they as they desire.

Make sure because this is a little bit new concept for some of us. So when they come into the leasing office to rent a unit, they'll see as an option they could rent a parking spot or not at their choice. Is that how that works? And then is that how it typically would

Generally yeah. So, you know, and and we we included the parking study. It's the the the way that it's set up is slightly different at each of our properties. We don't have exactly, like, the whole program ready for this one because we still need to build the building. But, yes, sometimes we would have a first parking space would be would be free, would be included with the with the apartment rent. Sometimes that would have a charge, and then, generally, there would be a a a charge that would be more for a for a second parking space.

Okay. So there's there's an there's an understanding of how parking works when someone comes into the leasing office because they have to make a choice when they when they rent there. And if they say, I I have seven cars and I collect and there's they would they would know that upfront before they just sign their rent and expecting those they'll be parking there, I guess.

Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. That's I mean, it's I I I think it's a conversation we would have with every every prospective president.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that. Other questions from our commissioners, mister Avila?

Yeah. Sorry. I kinda missed that last part, but I also have a question for you if you can get back up to the podium. Thank you. On the parking study, it says that there's a result in surplus, and that's packet page one zero nine.

So it says the project is likely to generate a parking demand of approximately 502 parking spaces resulting in surplus of 138 on-site parking spaces for guest and 21 on street parking spaces. I guess my question is, how are you going to go ahead and ensure that some of that parking is guest parking within like, when I've been inside apartment complexes, there's only usually a couple guest parking spaces, and have to go ahead and, like, maybe use an app or something and provide some information on your license plate and so forth. So this is telling me that 138 of those parking spaces within the garage complex will be labeled as guests and have some sort of mechanism to ensure that they're only used as guest parking spaces?

No. So they won't be labeled as guests. I think the the parking study and I I left it over there, but I I read it this afternoon. They're looking at how much how much capacity we would expect to have. And so looking at the the usage in the other buildings that we have and, you know, similar locations in the East Bay, you know, that would so the so the residents would have at that 500 something number. The residents would have about that many cars. And then the remaining 100 or so spaces in the garage or in 30 spaces in the garage would be potentially available for guest parking. We would manage it similar to sort of what you sound like you experienced, like, either with an app or something else. You know, residents would sign up and say, hey. I, you know, I have a guest coming.

They're gonna be here for three days. You know? Let them in because we'll have a a gate at the entry to the parking lot. You know? Generally, we would have a license plate reader, like, most likely. So put in your license plate. The gate will open. They'll come for three days, and then, you know, that would that would be the sort of the the the mechanism to manage the guest parking. And so I I would not expect that we'd have a 138 guests all in one day, but that would be, you know, so how sort of how it would work and then how we would make sure that we're, you know, sort of finding that balance of providing guest parking so that residents that live there can have their guests come over while not having sort of the the person you mentioned before who has seven cars park all seven cars in the garage without sort of, you know, some kind of management of the situation.

So do you have I know this is the parking study, but do you have an idea for a ballpark figure on how many of the spaces within the garage will be guest?

I don't think we would label any of them as, like, reserved for guests, but they would be, you know, they would be open open parking. So, yeah, it would be any space that's not otherwise either assigned or or taken by a resident would be available.

Okay.

And then sorry. Just thinking. So the first if someone leases an apartment, the first parking spot is just guaranteed. However, in addition to if you wanna do two or more, it's a monthly basis.

Right. And and so we haven't determined what the the the charge will be for the different spaces. Sometimes the first space would be free. Sometimes there would be a charge. So we haven't decided that yet. But, yeah, we would I don't know that there's, like, any legal reason we have to do this, but as we wanna rent apartments, we're not gonna put ourselves in a position where we oh, wait. We ran out of parking spaces, and now we're renting apartments, but we can't offer you a space. So we will make sure that every apartment has at least one space available that they can that they can use.

Okay. Thank you.

Sure. Thank you, chair. This is for the applicant as well. So sorry. I'm gonna keep you up there a little bit longer.

So thank you for providing the the parking study. It's really interesting to see. Now I know that our city traffic engineer has already peer reviewed this and said everything looks good. So I don't have any concerns about it. I would just like to give you the opportunity if you could to explain a little bit about the methodology of the study, why you're confident in what it says, if there are any projects in you know, some of these projects that are listed in other cities. If if there's a specific project you can compare, you know, this project to here in San Ramon just to to put everyone at ease that the parking's gonna be fine.

Sure. Yeah. So I don't and and I don't have it in front of me, but I know that it it lists, you know, something like 10 or 12 other other buildings in I think they're all in the East Bay. I believe the one that's not on there is the one we most recently opened, which is sort of what I think about this. That's what gives me the most comfort. It's a very similar building in Dublin right near West Dublin BART Station. If you're driving down 580, it's the big Avalon building on the the left if you're going east. So that's 499 apartments, so just about 500 apartments. It has very similar parking garage. It's parked at almost exactly the same ratio at about 1.4.

It's been open for somewhere between eighteen months and two years. Just about two years at this point. And so it's it's fully leased, and we're having no issues with parking. You know, there's ample guest parking available. There's ample parking for the residents. So, yeah, we're very comfortable that this ratio is is plenty for for for this number of homes.

Okay. Great. Thank you. Sure.

And just one quick question right there. So good. I I didn't know. I remember that I will unbi right next to the mall on the Dublin Boulevard. You take a ride if you're going east.

And if you're on the freeway, if you're going east, you look at the left, and I I remember that place. But I've been to that apartment one time, and I I parked in the nearby mall and went there just but doing a similar comparison. We don't have for this particular site, there is no street parking or no availability. Do you foresee anything that is a spillover or availability similar to that? Because if someone doesn't have the parking parking garage key, or maybe they don't have the lady who is coming for the first time. Where do you foresee they will land up with these So

we do have 21 parking spaces around so not on Bollinger or Camino Ramon, but on the new Inside. The new Loop Street. That will have 21 spaces. Okay. So there will be some capacity there. And we you know, those the the folks you're describing are are our prospective residents. That's who we want to lease apartments to. So we've been very careful in the planning of that street to make sure that there is ample parking near the leasing office, sort sort of obvious to say, here. Come here. Park here.

This is the this is the front door. And so trying to make that very intuitive and and easy for people to use. You know, outside of that, I mean, I think there's you know, beyond that 21, if there's ever 21 people looking for that same parking at once, yes, I guess, theoretically, there would be they would be looking for a a space somewhere

else. Okay. Thank you.

Sorry. One last quest question here. Is looking at the parking study, it gave two pay spaces per unit for the two and three bedroom units. And I guess since, you know, you you're Avalon representing Avalon Bay and you build apartments For the two bedrooms, are you tending to go ahead and see people that are more so needing the two parking spaces more than the one since now people, you know, with the work from home situation, people like that separation between the bedroom and one office space, and sometimes that would pertain to just having one car per

It's a two bedroom. It's it's I think that ratio is the city's parking ratio, not not from the study. But

Oh, this this is this is our new Oh, okay.

Yeah. But it is the the demographics of who's, you know, who's renting a two bedroom or a three bedroom apartment, you know, we see a fair number of kids who wouldn't be drivers. We see couples. We see roommates. Lots of people you know, certainly plenty of people that commute by car, but a lot of people that commute with bikes or transit or that work from home. And so there really is a a very broad range of, I guess, sort of types of people who want a a a two bedroom. Yeah. Exactly.

Keith. Oh, yep.

Sorry. I'm I'm holding you there. So Okay.

I'm

Do you so you brought up a good point. Like, San Ramon is very bike friendly. Do you have any bike parking spaces allocated or anything

We do. I Charlie will know the exact number. I do not have the exact number memorized. But, yes, there's a number of bike spaces both sort of publicly available outside so that, you know, visitors are coming and locking bikes, and then secured bike spaces inside sort of bike parking rooms inside the building as well.

There's a total of 66. It's on packet page one zero six.

That's all numbers.

Project data. Yeah.

Oh, yeah. Charlie Charlie gave me the thumbs up. She has 66. That's all.

Okay. Why don't we go ahead and open public comment? Do we have any

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. Speaker cards or written communications?

Written public comment was received from Brian Swanson and. I don't have the speaker card for this item.

Okay. And just to confirm that we did all receive the written public comment in advance and have all looked at it. With that, I'll go ahead and close public comment. And at this time, the ask from the staff report is to discuss and, if appropriate, adopt the resolution as amended on tonight's presentation. Do we have any comments before we go ahead? I can go first. You wanna go first? Okay.

Oops.

Sorry. Go ahead. So

one point that was brought up is the Gibson has provided the parking study. And, clearly, in my conversation with the staff yesterday, the the the staff transportation engineer has, reviewed that and, to the satisfaction of San Ramon ordinance and standards. I I wanna ensure that he is comfortable, and he say, he has provided his review and is in agreement with that.

We do have, our, city traffic, staff role available to, give us comments.

Thank you.

Good evening. Can you please repeat the question?

So AvalonBay has provided Gibson Transport Consulting their entire memorandum and their traffic parking study associated with that. And based on the San Ramon ordinance, that is if I remember correctly, so it would be for a studio and one bedroom. It's one part 1.25. And, for two and three bedroom, it's 2.25 that is gonna be implemented as of November 14 tax amendment. Would that meet all the standards from a city ordinance perspective?

So I think the parking study shows that on an average, 1.15 has been allotted for the number of units. But we the city traffic engineer has reviewed and accepted their methodology. And so as far as the the new adopted zoning ordinance for parking requirements, that should we cannot we won't know. Actually, we won't know as of now. But in the parking study, it says that, you know, should there be not enough parking, you know, they they suggest other ways on how to recoup parking, which is basically leasing of some of these spaces in in the garage.

K. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other comments? You wanna finish off your comments at this time?

Yeah. I also want to bring to notice that both the earlier nine point one and nine point two are similar but slightly different. They're asking for a 15% exception. I want to make sure if it goes over 15%, it's a variance, and less than 15%, it's a exception. So minor exception. So so so they are asking for a minor exception in this case. Yep. Okay.

Any other final comments from commissioners at this point? Otherwise, we're move on to discuss and deliberate the resolution.

Sure. Yeah. So my comments are gonna be very similar to the previous agenda item. You know, if we want to look at this from a little bit of a cost benefit perspective, reasonable concerns about parking, I'd say people can have. But once again, this is the same amount of parking spaces as originally approved, 640 unit garage and, well, 21 guest parking spaces.

Used to be 22, but we're also going from 457 units to 456. So washes out. So, you know, if we approve the project back then, which was last year, I believe, June, then I don't see why we shouldn't be okay with this moving you know, staying exactly the same. And, you know, the provided parking study, thank you once again for providing that. If our city traffic engineer says it looks good and, you know, just from looking at it myself and from your testimony of, you know, how are similar projects doing, you know, two years the the Avalon project near West Dublin.

If it's two years after the fact, after there's after occupancy and there's still plenty of spaces, and this is a project that's very similar to what we're going to see here in San Ramon, I once again, I don't see why we should be worried about parking. And I don't think I have to reiterate anything about the parking management strategies. Glad to see the unbundled parking, very smart strategy to allocate a scarce resource, which is parking spaces and not force anyone to to pay for a parking space they don't need. And, also, if someone has more cars, if they if they need the space, then give them the option to do so. So that and all the other parking demand management strategies, I I have I have full confidence in.

To think about the benefits, you know, why are we that's really the affordable housing perspective. That's why this whole development the larger development agreement that was approved on September 9 exists. We're seeing more units at the end of the day, 69 affordable homes to 86, and they're still they're still all at this very low income and low income affordability. So, you know, given Ceremon's, of course, legal obligations to to build units to meet arena and just the moral obligations we have to build housing for more people, I see this as a win. So, overall, I I can't see a reason to to say no, and I I see a few reason quite a few reasons to say yes to this amendment and minor exception.

So thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Villa, you have any comments this morning? No? No? Okay. No? Okay. With no further comments and I get a sense that we're okay moving forward to talk about the resolution, may I have a motion to adopt place? Resolution number thirteen twenty five as amended tonight. Is there a motion at the dais?

I'll make a motion to approve resolution third, 13Dot25. 13Dot25.

As amended. As amended. As amended. Okay. May I have a second? I'll second that. Okay. Why don't we quickly take a look at the resolution again? It's a very short resolution. Most of the resolution itself, we have seen as all of the whereas is with the exception of a couple since we actually adopted the approved the project in the first place.

So that would be packet page 63 through packet page 69. There are no questions or corrections on this. Okay. And then packet page 70 are the conditions of approval. And note there was the strikeout on special condition number four, removing the sentence that something shall be developed because it has been developed. So now is the city attorney catch. So we have no questions on this. May we have a roll a vote, please? K. Okay.

K. Miss mister Zhang, you seconded. Great. K. The resolution does pass four zero zero one, and we will move on to the next agenda item.

Through the chair, just to note that, the action of the planning commission, does run a ten day appeal period, and so, that is available for the public ten days from from this this evening.

Great. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We can now move on to item 10, nonpublic hearing action items. There are none tonight. Item 11 are study sessions, commission liaison reports, and interest items slash staff reports. First of all, has any of my commission fellow commissioners attended any of the advisory committee meetings since our last meeting? I don't know that there was you did. Okay.

I've attended the last transportation advisory committee meeting where they had a couple of items which were approved. And I'm trying to pull up their exact points, and it was a pretty smooth meeting. And they they have approved the existing study, and I think they had no other concerns with that study, so they went ahead and approved unanimously all of them. And that was the only meeting I have attended. And the following meeting, the recent meeting, they have it has been canceled.

Okay. With no others, we'll turn to Lizi.

Okay. Upcoming attractions, November 4 is our next planning commission meeting. We have two items that are currently scheduled for that evening. We have the Bishop Ranch 7 development plan amendment, very similar to what you saw this evening, but now with the application for Bishop Ranch 7. And then we have a study session expected for the affordable housing component of the Orchard's development application.

They've filed a, preliminary housing development application for 100 units within the Orchard's development. And so as standard practice, prior to the thirty day, completeness, will be holding holding a planning commission study session.

Great. Thank you. And with no other questions or