Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Ramon Planning Commission, why don't we go ahead and call to order the meeting at 6 p.m. Item two is roll call. According to Secretary, call roll, please.

Commissioner Kuznick. I'm here. Commissioner Conjula.

Here, please.

Commissioner Zeng.

Here.

Vice Chair Avila. Here. And Chair Alpert.

Here. Item three is the Pledge of Allegiance. Please join me. Item four is public comments or written communication. At this time, members of the public may address the Planning Commission on any item not already included in tonight's agenda. If you would like to speak, please fill out a speaker card at the back of the room and give it to our recording secretary. And as practice, we'll not be taking any public comment via Zoom. Do we have any late communication or speaker cards for this item?

I don't have any speaker cards, but we received written public comment from Susie Ferris Inderkum. A copy was provided to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting and is part of the public record.

Great. And that was a question which I think it fits into our agenda to answer that question just when we get to the project. It's a very straightforward question. Okay. So why don't we go ahead and close the public comment. Item 5, additions and revisions. There are none. And... Item 6 is the consent calendar. Item 6.1 are the minutes of our meeting from November 4th. There are no public comments on this item or there are no changes from commissioners. We can get a motion to accept them as presented.

I will move that we accept the minutes of the November 4th Planning Commission meeting.

Second that. Okay.

We'll go ahead and vote electronically. Okay. The motion does pass 5-0-0-0-0. Okay. Item 7, continue items after close of public hearing. There are none. Item 8, continue items. There are none. Item 9 are public hearing new items, and we do have two of them. Item 9.1, a public hearing for Annabelle, which is the Bishop Ranch 12 residential development. And we do have a staff report. But as a reminder, the role of this commission for tonight is to consider the project for approval. So with that, I will turn it over to Lucas for a staff report.

Good evening, Chair Alpert, Commissioners. For your consideration this evening is the Annabelle at Bishop Ranch 12 residential development located at 2 Annabelle Lane. The project site is the northern portion of the parcel 213-131-001. It is approximately 3.57 acres. Its general plan designation is Downtown Mixed Use North, and its zoning designation is also Downtown Mixed Use North. For a bit of background on this, on September 19th, 2024, the zoning administrator approved a minor subdivision application that split this parcel into two. That parcel is still under the process of its subdivision. On June 3rd, 2025, the preliminary housing development and formal development plan and associated applications for this project were submitted. On June 17th, That should say June 17th 2025 the Planning Commission held a study session for this item on August 14th 2025 this project went before the architecture review board for recommendations and comments and October 15th of this year the applications were deemed complete by staff and The project proposes to demolish one existing office building and parking lot area and landscaping. They propose to construct 64 for sale attached multi-family homes, 15% of which will be affordable units. The multi-family units consist of four types, a three bed, three bath of which 19 units will be constructed, four bed, three and a half bath, 27 units. a four-bed, three-and-a-half bath, and one office, nine units, as well as a three-bed, two-and-a-half bath, plus one ADU option. Nine of those will be constructed. All the accessory dwelling units are built into the floor plan. They will be included as part of the project. The applicant will also provide 137 parking spaces on site, which includes 128 garage parking spaces for residents, as well as nine guest surface spaces. This is an image of the proposed site plan on the top of the screen to the West is Interstate 680 to the bottom of the screen to the East is Annabelle Lane as well as the proposed extension to Annabelle Lane. The project is buffered to the North by the current book office park buildings and to the South by the door seat in school. As referenced on the agenda packet on page 12, the project plans were slightly revised to proposing minor shift in the proposed Annabelle Lane extension. This revision was proposed to accommodate proper street intersection visibility as required by the zoning ordinance and the traffic engineer. The red circle to the bottom right will indicate the shift. It's slightly shifted to the east at the bottom of the of the roadway there. Moving forward, this is a rendering of an example eight-unit building elevation. These are, again, multifamily townhome condominium units. All of them will be attached. The architecture is more contemporary style. It includes architectural variation to differentiate the unit types, mostly earth tone for the color palette, and then the pedestrian level will have accent color on the doorways to help differentiate the units as well. In terms of the affordable housing, the city inclusionary housing ordinance requires a minimum 15% or 10 units on site to be sold as affordable units based on the following household income mix. The project will provide 10 for sale affordable units as follows. They will provide three very low units, two low units, and five moderate income units. The proposed project being it provides 5% or three units of the total 10 units for very low income households qualifies this project for state density bonus. There's a bit much going through the state density bonus law and development standards. The project complies with the applicable development standards, except we're allowed through a state density bonus concession waiver or parking limit as follows. The project does qualify from 1 concession and unlimited waivers. They are the project is requesting a concession from the commercial requirement for mixed use projects within the downtown mixed use north zone. They are requesting a waiver to allow for a reduction from the 25 foot side or rear setback from interstate 680. They are requesting a waiver from the city objective design standards for multifamily residential and mixed use development. The roof line requirements under structure standards to see 1 a. They are requesting a waiver to allow a reduction from the minimum garage dimensions of 22 feet for specific floor plans. A requested waiver from the daylight plane requirement under zoning ordinance section D2-15A. And they request to use a state density bonus max parking ratio. The zoning ordinance requires 180 parking spaces for the project, where 137 parking spaces are proposed. And state density bonus allows for a maximum of 132 spaces to be required. So they will be satisfying their parking under state density bonus. ARB review, as mentioned, this project went before the Architecture Review Board on August 14th, 2025 for additional feedback. The ARB recommended approval of the project and provided feedback and advisory design comments. The written response by the applicant for the details proposed for the details and the proposed project revisions were provided to the Planning Commission this evening. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive the staff report and presentation by the applicant, open the public hearing, take public testimony, close the public hearing, discuss and deliberate, and adopt Draft Planning Commission Resolution Number 15-25, approving the project applications.

That concludes my presentation.

The applicant does have their own presentation. I'm available for questions or comments now. Would you like to hear from the applicant first?

Yes, please. Yes.

Good evening, Chair Alpert and Planning Commissioners. On behalf of Sunset Development, I'm Stephanie Hill. We appreciate the opportunity to present our Annabelle redevelopment this evening. As we've discussed in previous meetings, the natural life cycle of office buildings coupled with evolving market conditions and tenant demand requires property owners to periodically reevaluate how sites are used and where reinvestment makes sense. Bishop Branch 12 was the first office building Sunset constructed and laid the groundwork for the broader office development that followed. Today, we are proposing to transition a portion of this site into residential use. The existing building at 1 Annabelle Lane, which is currently home to the Doris Eaton School, will remain, and the 2 Annabelle Lane portion will be redeveloped into a 64-home residential community, offering entry-level for sale homes within Bishop Branch. While this site is located outside of the downtown core and walking, oh, this is, this is the, sorry, this is a preview of our next presentation. There we go. Same intro slide. Same Bishop Ranch land plan. Here we go, Annabelle site connectivity. So while this site is located outside of the downtown core and walking district, connections will improve accessibility for the site. A new sidewalk is proposed along Annabelle Lane to the Norris Canyon and Bishop Drive intersection, providing access to the Iron Horse Trail and surrounding neighborhoods. In support of the city's long-term vision, our site plan includes a road along the eastern edge to allow for a future roadway connection from Annabelle Lane through to Crow Canyon Place. And two transit lines will serve the community, the 95X to Walnut Creek Park and the 35, which connects to the San Ramon Transit Center, Lakeside City Center, and Central Park. The new sidewalk has been designed around the existing bus stop and bus turnaround so that that service is not impacted. Consistent with the broader Bishop Ranch vision, this community supports a diversity of housing types, including market rate and affordable options to serve a range of households in San Ramon. The 64 alley-loaded homes are arranged around landscaped paseos with front doors oriented towards shared walkways to encourage interaction and community. Nine homes include the option for an accessory dwelling unit to support multi-generational living and or opportunities for rental income. Through the design review process with the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, and the city departments, we have incorporated site plan adjustments to improve the pedestrian realm. Generally, all of the buildings have the same architecture with a range of five to nine homes per building. We've moved away from the prominent gables forms that we've used elsewhere within Bishop Branch, shifting to a flatter roof line with integrated vertical elements to emphasize individual homes. Varying front door colors enhance visual interest at the pedestrian level. The architectural review board generally responded favorably to the design and requested a modified railing detail to provide visual interest, which has been incorporated in both the front and rear elevations. On this slide, we've highlighted on the top the initial application, and then on the bottom is the revised plans middle that you all have before you with the railing detail highlighted on the side. And then this is the example of the rear elevation, similarly showing the initial plan on the top, the revised elevation on the bottom, and again highlighting the change in the railing detail. We have removed head and parking internal to the site, which has created opportunities to enhance the landscaping and pedestrian realm. The main community entry is now a gathering place for residents and visitors. The head and parking spaces have been replaced with a plaza, trellis, and park benches, which creates a welcoming neighborhood entry. The head end parking along the western edge has been converted to parallel stalls. This allowed us to shift the bioretention area and add trees along 680. A sidewalk now wraps around building eight and a crosswalk connects the northern quarter to building four. Homes include extended patios with space for tables and chairs creating opportunities for informal gatherings and the internal walkways offer safe areas for kids and pets separate from vehicle traffic. To close, I'd like to summarize how this project aligns with the city's DMU North zoning. Bishop Ranch 12 is not designated as a housing opportunity site, unlike the other sites which you all have seen from Bishop Ranch, and it's required to be mixed use. Although the combination of one Annabelle as commercial with the school, and two and about with residential meets the horizontal mixed use threshold, the blended project would not meet the minimum density requirement of 20 units per acre, which is why we're applying for state density bonus because we can't meet that design objective otherwise. The plan includes 15% onsite affordable housing with 5% reserved for very low income households, qualifying it for state density bonus law, including related concessions, incentives, and waivers. I will not reiterate all of the waivers and concessions. The planning staff has done a great job of outlining them for everyone, but more than happy to answer any questions on those. We appreciate your time and consideration and are happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you. At this time, if the commissioners have questions for either the staff or the applicant. Somebody gets to go first? Yeah.

Well, I appreciate. Thank you so much. It's always good to see you again. It's going to come up the issue of parking. And so I appreciate that we have a mechanism by which we can waiver some of the requirements. But given the proximity of a school parking lot that it IT'S LIKELY TO NOT BE USED IN THE EVENINGS OF THE WEEKENDS. WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT TRYING TO CREATE AN ARRANGEMENT THAT ALLOWED FOR SOME SHARED PARKING WITH DOOR SEAT IN SCHOOL IN NON-SCHOOL HOURS?

So we have not discussed the concept of shared parking between residential and commercial. Ultimately, with the parking plan that we have with two spaces per unit, as well as some visitor parking, we feel very comfortable with the parking as it is. So that's ultimately where we landed with the parking. Okay, thank you.

Thank you for your presentation, Stephanie. I have some questions for you. It seems like you were able to get a more pedestrian-friendly community with some of the sidewalks encompassing all the buildings. But I do have a question regarding why that wasn't carried on the western side of Building 1 and 2. I think that's Building 3 at the northwest corner. I know that there's some sort of easement there. Is that the reasoning why that trail wasn't extended to provide a comprehensive walking path for the whole site?

So we did study that area and it is pretty tight when looking at the requirement for a neighbor fence because we have different uses with residential and commercial adjacent to each other. So there's a fencing requirement, and then we also have the easement area. And it just felt pretty tight where we could put in a sidewalk, but it wouldn't necessarily be the most pedestrian-friendly area. It felt a little bit tight for it to feel like a nice place to walk. it's a 10 foot easement though right you have a 10 foot clearance between the building and the property line correct yes it's a 10 foot clearance and you have a building and a fence in that 10 foot area so we we did study it and felt that it was not the the best location to put that sidewalk

But then why do we have a walking path along the eastern side of building eight and nine? We have like a paseo on the eastern portion of the project.

Are you referring to the Paseo between the buildings on 8 and 9? Or are you referring to the sidewalk along Annabelle Lane?

The sidewalk that's on the east of building 8 and 9. I don't know how else to describe it. THE EASTERN MOST SITE OF THE PROJECT, THERE'S A WALKING. SO WHEN I'M LOOKING AT IT THIS WAY, THE SITE PLAN, SO I GUESS YES, ON THE NORTHERN SIDE, WE FLIP IT DIRECTIONALLY.

I APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATIONS. SO THOSE ARE OUR FRONT DOORS. And so we did think that it made sense to have that paseo and that front door sidewalk. If we look to the sides of Building 1 and 2, you're at the side of those townhomes with a fence. in an easement area so it didn't seem that that was a a space to be activating with that sidewalk whereas when you have those front doors you do have that opportunity where you're meandering and the length is longer and it's connecting more units between those two buildings okay

And can you talk to me about like I didn't see in the landscaping plans or maybe it was briefly mentioned on what you plan on doing for fencing? Is there going to be a six foot wooden fence along the Eaton school boundary and then as well as the property that we saw Brookfield come for at study session?

So currently the city code requires a good neighbor fence if you have different uses that are adjacent to each other. The plans currently have a fence along the property line shared with Doris Eaton given that it's a school. The plans currently have a fence between the adjacent property and buildings eight and nine. So essentially the northern and southern edges if you rotate the plan or east-west if you're looking at the page. If Brookfield moves forward with their residential development, there could be a conversation of do you still need that fence? But currently under city code, it's required because there's an office and a residential use adjacent to each other.

One of the things that I did want to mention was we saw Brookfield come before us at a separate study session. And I'm not sure if you're open to this, but potentially having them also do some sort of walking path and being able to connect the two would be, I think, an amenity for the community that wouldn't add, you know, so many costs to make it cost prohibitive. So is that something that you would be open to doing with them in the future?

That is something that we could consider. One of the challenges is just the timeline of where we're at within the design process and where they're at with their design process, but not opposed to doing that or having them look at our plans and seeing how their site plan can line up with our site plan.

Okay. And then there would be no sound wall or fencing along 680. It would just be that line of trees that would provide screening to the highway that's adjacent to them.

That's correct, and we did do an acoustical study, and we have essentially wall typologies that will mitigate the sound from the freeway. So we have enhanced framing details and changes to window typologies so that the noise is attenuated through the building construction, which then doesn't require a sound wall to be developed along the freeway.

Okay.

And then my other question for you was, would one builder be building this entire site? And if so, have you talked to them and are they also going to do similar to what we saw other developers come before us do and have all the affordable housing be transferred over to another area? Or will this project actually build out the affordable for sale units?

This project will have the on-site affordable units. There is no contemplation that affordable units would be shifted. They would all be on-site. We have had discussions with who we think the developer will be for this site, and they will be building the affordable on-site.

Okay. And do you have a particular timeline for when the build-out of the community would be?

That's a great question. And a lot of it depends on the market. This is a much smaller community than some of the other communities that we've presented in the past couple of months. So it should be faster. It follows the same process where the existing building needs to be demolished. Plans need to be approved with East Bay Mud and Central CN and the city and backbone improvement plans need to be approved. And then that needs to be done. And then you can have vertical construction. Generally thinking about where the other communities are that have been approved, I would expect that there's construction, vertical construction at some point in 2027, but I don't want to, given that we're at the end of 2025, so if you have a year to go through the permitting process and do your earthwork and improvements, you're looking at 2027 in terms of a vertical construction start.

Okay. I'm just, I guess, more specifically asking about how long the vertical construction timeline would be, how many years it would take them to build out the site.

I do not have a specific phasing plan if they would build everything at once or how many units they would build in each phase. If we look to timelines for other developers, I would assume it's shorter than what we're looking at just given the size and the scale of the development.

Okay. Another thing that I brought up at the study session, I looked back at my notes to see what was changed. And one of the things I mentioned was providing different color schemes for some of the buildings, but it seems like there's just one color scheme for all of the buildings. Is there a reason why there weren't other color schemes that were allowed for some of the others?

We did discuss having different color schemes versus the uniformity of having one color scheme. And with the different doors at the pedestrian level, we felt that that provided enough variety to really have individuals be able to say, I have the house with the blue door, or my house is the red door house, or here's the green door house. We use that as an opportunity to really differentiate the ground floor and the pedestrian realm, but ultimately chose to keep one uniform architecture and color scheme for the balance of the site.

One of the things that I noticed was that I think before you had the community amenity around the Building eight towards that corner and it was that if I recall correctly that bench that would be surrounding a tree and then we said that you know, can you do something a little bit more and On these plans it shows a trellis with two park benches. Do you feel like that's an adequate community amenity for the site?

We do, and part of what we did through reevaluating the parking was by shifting that community amenity more towards the entryway. It allowed us to add in the sidewalk around building eight that had been a request from the planning commission. And so we were able to improve that area in terms of connectivity in the pedestrian realm. And then by adding the benches and the trellis at the entryway, it does create an opportunity also for drop-off pickup. If you have someone who's coming to your neighborhood, you can meet them at the corner. You can wait for your Uber at the corner. And so we thought that it created a nice opening, welcoming spot for that neighborhood that really creates a sense of place.

One of the things that I was looking at the plans was and in some of the sections showing the bio retention basin and the community amenity I was just kind of curious is there like a fence that would Separate both of these areas. It doesn't seem like it and

We typically wouldn't put a fence around the bioretention. Partially we want it to feel like a larger landscaped area. We don't want people to be walking through it, but there are ways to design it from a landscape perspective where you can have it feel really great and grand without putting in a fence because then it feels like a barrier. So we can design it effectively without putting fences around it.

Yeah. And also, it sounds like it's not a dual base, and so somehow there would be some sort of signage that says it's not some open space to be used. And then the other thing I saw was that there was a 10-foot PG&E easement that went across the site, but it wasn't clear whether or not that would be quit claimed. I just want to make sure that it will be.

Yeah, that would be quick claimed. It's currently existing for service to the building at 2 Annabelle Lane. So when that building is demolished, that PG&E service would be quick claimed.

Okay. I noticed that there were also ADA accessibility Accessibility improvements with some it looks like truncated domes that would allow for someone to cross the street if they were on a wheelchair and I just wanted to make sure like in your signing and striping plans if you're going to have some sort of decorative pavement or cross marks to go ahead and mark that as sort of crosswalk.

So we do have crosswalks that have been added into this plan set, and we've shown them internally to the site. And then within our conditions of approval, there are some striping requirements at the further intersection at Norris and Annabelle, if that's what you're referring to.

So there's like ADA parking on the western side, and there's some truncated domes that kind of show a crosswalk that's connecting to This is really, really small. I just want to make sure that those crosswalks are going to be marked.

Yes, those crosswalks are marked. They weren't marked in the prior plan set, but they have been added where we have a crosswalk marked in this corner, and then we also have a crosswalk marked in this corner. They hadn't been clearly indicated in the initial submission, but they were captured in the resubmission.

Okay, and then my last question is for the park. I know that this goes ahead and meets the open space requirement, and I'm just curious to if you're potentially going to pay out the full park and loo fees for the site that would be required.

So this site does not have an on-site park. The site is pretty tight in terms of how we were able to really focus on providing the number of units. Geometrically, it's a little bit of a challenging site just due to all of the angles and once you account for Annabelle Lane. So we would be complying with the city's park ordinance with paying fees.

Okay. Last one. Sorry. When I was giving back feedback, I did mention like a pocket park and potentially not having one of the units to go ahead and provide that. But I'm assuming that you looked into that and it was not feasible. So you moved over the community. Okay.

That's correct. Okay. Thank you. That's all.

Questions?

So just a couple. Hi, nice to see you, Stephanie. And this regards to the existing plans and the existing Doris Eaton School. So would this eat into half of the parking space for Doris Eaton School?

No. So this would not impact the Doris Eaton school parking. I'm going to do it. Yeah. So, yeah, right here. So everything to the left of the line that I've just drawn is the school, the school parking. And so the line for the development roughly is here. So there's a pocket of parking that is not needed for Doris Eaton, which is included within the one Annabelle Lane parcel. So it will not impact the parking for the school.

So I don't see any ADA-compliant parking spaces there, so they won't be losing any of those as well, so...

No, Doris Eaton will not have any impact to their parking, their school drop off as part of this property line or the development for the residential.

And what would be the, as other commissioners have already asked, what would be the tentative timeline for this building development and what would be the impact of construction on the school itself?

So as I noted, a lot of residential development is impacted and informed by market conditions. And if we were to follow the typical plan development cycle and development cycle in general, What would happen is from now they the developer would work through their construction documents and that includes the plans for the vertical buildings Coordinating everything from where you're putting your toilets and your plumbing lines and then also working with the utility companies so PG&E for electric and you work with East Bay mud for water central sand for sanitary and And so you work with all of those districts to put together your plans, both underground, so everything that supports the development, as well as the vertical piece of it. Typically, that design and permitting process can take 12 to 18 months. Developers will typically advance the earthwork piece, so everything that you don't see when you go to a house, they'll advance that piece first so that they can start working on that while they're finalizing their vertical improvement plans so if we go from today 12 to 18 months you're looking at plan development predominantly in 2026 and then you're looking at construction in 2027 and there was one feedback that we as the commissioners have provided whenever there is a

connectivity between the passage to the next development that was mentioned by Commissioner Berry as well. So would that be something that city has to coordinate? Would that be a better way? Or what would be the, you have mentioned you are willing to look at that, but what would be the right way you think will help that process?

The proposed connectivity would be established through two private roads with public access easements. So it's not something that the city will facilitate. What we are able to do on the city side is to ensure that through these entitlements, the proper mechanisms are put in place through these access easements to allow for that future connection to happen should the developers wish to. Both of them decide. Correct. So we're dependent on the developers, but if we can establish the proper mechanisms, then the connectivity can take place.

Exactly. And that is where I'm leaning towards. I'm trying to get out of Stephanie saying that we are willing to do that and we promise to do that or something like that. Would you be willing to do that, Stephanie?

So as I mentioned with residential developments, a lot of this is market timing. And so part of this is coordination where we are before you this evening asking for approval. And depending on their timeline, if they are six months behind or 12 months behind or 18 months behind, that impacts coordination. So we just need to figure out timing in terms of what can and cannot be done where neither project would want to be delayed and unable to move forward because they're relying upon the other developer to do something.

That's all I have.

Questions still? Okay, just one question. And we talked about it last time. The gate that goes to Crow Canyon Place, are you envisioning that being left available for people to walk over to the shopping center from this project?

So it currently is open during daytime hours. We would expect that that's probably still open. We wouldn't expect that it's open during construction. You don't want people walking through an active construction site. So ultimately with that future development, should Brookfield or a different developer move forward, that would be a natural point of connection between the two communities if both are amenable to that.

It'll be a nice feature for the residents to be able to walk over to the shopping center, and maybe the shopping center will appreciate the new business. Okay. So we'll see. And just to confirm again, and it came up as an aside question, but I just wanted to ask again, unlike some of the recent projects, this will actually have for sale affordable units on site. Is that correct?

Yes, I will affirmatively say this community to Annabelle Lane will have on-site for sale affordable housing.

Great. Thank you. Thank you. No more questions from the commission. Why don't we go ahead and open public comment. Do we have any written speaker?

I don't have any speaker cards, but we did receive written public comment from James Lloyd with Cal HDF, Brian Swanson, and Matthew Gelfand with Californians for Home Ownership.

Great. And I can confirm that we did get those sent to us this afternoon? Okay. So with no speaker cards, why don't we go ahead and... OKAY, LET ME CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT. WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT, AND COMMISSIONER CANGILLA DID HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CITY, AND THEN WE'LL DELIBERATE.

SO THERE WAS AMENDMENT AT NMC THAT ADDRESSED THE ARB Concerns right and they were shown also in the pictures Are they to the satisfaction and all the waivers? I'm pretty sure are Based on the SDVL state density bonus law compliant, right?

Correct the project Outside with the exception to the proposed concessions waivers and parking limits is consistent with the zoning ordinance general and general plan That does include the revisions made as a result of ARB.

And would these 10 units be any impactful to our RENA numbers?

So this city was not designated housing opportunity site, so this would impact our arena in a net positive and not contribute to any additional no net loss. So this would be a surplus of units to our arena count.

So within your presentation, the slide nine shows all the state density bonus loss and development standards that have been asked for waivers, right? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven.

Correct, it does.

So are they seven of them? Are they four of them? That was my question.

Some of these are just statements, but the applicant is proposing one concession, four waivers, and a state density parking reduction, which is its own separate category. So one concession, four waivers, and a parking reduction under state density bonus.

Even the minimum garage dimension, would that be considered waiver?

That is a waiver to the minimum requirements. The city requires a garage to be at least 22 feet wide. They're proposing a width of about 20 feet 1 inch for one of the floor plans, the one that contains the accessory dwelling unit. Only for those floor plans. Correct. Thank you very much.

SO THE RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE DISCUSS AND ADOPT THE RESOLUTION TONIGHT. SO LOOKING FOR FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMISSIONERS ON THE PROJECT.

I CAN PROVIDE MY FEEDBACK. ONE THING THAT I LIKE IS STEPHANIE WENT AHEAD AND COMMITTED TO HAVING THE AFFORDABLE SITE ON SITE, WHICH IS GREAT, AND THAT'S SOME OF THE CRITERIA THAT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE BEEN LOOKING FORWARD FOR. SO THAT'S GREAT NEWS. AND, OF COURSE, BASED ON THE WEAVERS AND WHAT THE COMMISSION CAN DO, BASED ON THE CITY STATE DENSITY BONUS LOSS, WE HAVE TO as they are requesting a waiver for reduction from 25 feet rear or side setback from 680 to 8 1⁄2 feet. I think that's the number they proposed. So, yeah, we have to, I'm okay with that based on that.

Other comments?

I have some feedback. In the project description that the applicant went ahead and provided on packet page 46 regarding Interstate 680, they did two technical studies, one which was air quality and the other one which was for acoustics. The air quality notes minimum efficiency reporting value filters with a rating of 13 And then the acoustic include the higher STC ratings for the window and the door assemblies. And when I was looking at the conditions, I didn't see anything notating that. And I would like to have some conditions that do note those recommendations from both of those technical studies added to the conditions of approval just for. It's something that the project has agreed to comply with and I don't see any net negative in adding it and I've seen other jurisdictions go ahead and Require this and their conditions of approval. So I would also like to go ahead and add those two conditions To make sure that they're carried out Sir proposed wording for those conditions that you would like to see within the resolution. Um, I

We'll leave that to you. Is there any concern by adding two more conditions?

Just a point of clarification. The studies that were provided include recommendations that are part of the project applications. And so they will be verified at the time of building permit review and issuance. Now, if there's a desire just to add a placeholder in the conditions so that it's there for memorial purposes, If the Commission as a whole feels that's worthwhile, we can come up with some quick language, or you can. It's a pretty basic concept, just meeting the requirements of the noise and sound studies.

Okay.

So.

Pleasure of the Commission. Do we need to add additional conditions here?

I would be, based on the view that they have asked for, from a FROM THE FREEBAY, I WOULD BE INCLINED TO HAVING THOSE CONDITIONS. I AGREE WITH THAT. OKAY.

I SEE NO REASON TO NOT MEMORIALIZE THOSE CONDITIONS. OKAY. DO WE WANT TO?

GO AHEAD. SORRY, CONSENSUS FROM THE?

YEAH, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S THREE.

FELL THERE ARE TWO UP HERE SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S CONSENSUS AND I DON'T FEEL A NEED TO DEVELOP LANGUAGE AT THE DAIS YOU KNOW AND I THINK WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT SO I WILL YEAH DO YOU HAVE SOME IDEAS LUCAS WE WE CAN WORK ON LANGUAGE IT WOULD BE PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE THE APPLICANT CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIRED ACOUSTICAL AND AIR QUALITY REQUIREMENTS

So as amended on the dice.

Okay. Okay. Okay.

I have one more question. I'm really sorry. I know this is the discussion part. And this is me being a former teacher. Is there any provision that we need to, or is there special provisions needed for the construction workers being so close to an elementary or K-8 school? Okay. I know I do a lot of work with youth groups, and there's a lot of very much more intense, strict provisioning around people who are hanging around or even working around children. I don't know if this is our responsibility or not. We don't have an attorney here. We only have one that is filling in for one.

So typically speaking, the construction sites are pretty – cordoned off away from the other uses surrounding them. Um, prior to construction, there's always pre construction meetings that are held, um, with construction staff and, um, rules of, of, of hours and noise disturbance. Um, and, you know, I'm sure, um, a note about special sensitivity with the adjacent land uses including a school next door. And so we generally don't have any conditions that are associated with commingling of construction or workers on site with adjacent. There's just general obligations of the developer for noise adherence and making sure that there's a pointed person on site if there's something that may become an issue that they can direct people to. All right. Okay.

AS YOU BROUGHT UP THAT POINT, CINDY, MY EARLIER POINTING TOWARDS IF THERE IS ANY POTENTIAL BASED ON THE TIMELINES, IF THERE IS ANY POTENTIAL FOR THE DISTURBANCE OF THE SCHOOL, AS THERE IS CONSTRUCTION, NOISE, AVOIDING NOISE IS A VERY DIFFICULT THING. AND WITH THE SCHOOL RIGHT NEXT TO IT, IS THERE ANYTHING COMMISSION CAN DO OR DOES IT fall under some other criteria or some other place.

There are a couple of conditions in the standard conditions for planning that identify hours of noise construction as well as requirements for establishing a noise disturbance coordinator and advance notice that would go out to the neighborhood. that would be required to identify who to direct concerns to that are conditions of approval. And so well in advance of construction starting, there would be advance notice to all of the adjacent land uses.

Through the chair there in that condition, there also is flexibility. If any disturbances arise that there is flexibility to the construction hours at the discretion of the chief voting official.

And I don't mind the commission that we've done this before. We've done construction next to schools, you know, and we've done construction next to daycare on Crow Canyon. We demolished a building and rebuilt it, demolished major construction, and there was daycares all around it. And we ask that they just. be a good neighbor and they tend to do that. So, you know, and so, yeah. Okay. Any other comments on this project? Yes.

Would there be any possibility to have the developer for this make a good faith effort to speak to the developer adjacent that would be redeveloping the site plus or minus however many months to establish a public access easement, like a walking path? Would that be something that the commission would be open to doing?

SO IS YOUR ASK THAT WE DO A CONDITION ON THIS PROJECT THAT WE ASK THEM TO MAKE AN EFFORT TO CHAT WITH THE DEVELOPER OF THE ADJOINING PROPERTY WHEN THEY'RE IDENTIFIED? YEAH. I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.

I DON'T THINK IT'S OUR ROLE TO REQUIRE THAT THEY REACH OUT TO ANOTHER ENTITY AND ANOTHER PROPERTY OWNER. my understanding is that there is some, not coordination, but awareness of each other's building designs, and it's to their own benefit to do that. I don't believe, like, we need to require this in our conditions of approval.

That's fair, that's fair. And it's an unenforceable ask anyways, you know, so it becomes just a...

Through the chair, I might also add that the future project to the north will be coming before the Planning Commission at some point in time, and so you can make your wishes known to them in terms of what you'd like to encourage them to do. But again, it's a little hard to say you shall do this and get positive results.

I think that's why I was saying good faith effort.

Yeah.

Not a requirement, but...

You shall make a good faith effort. And probably Lauren can suggest what would be the right way to present it. Probably with all your experience in the end, Lauren can tell us.

Yeah, I think we should let this one go. And when the projects come forward, I think it's pretty clear that Sunset knows we're interested in connectivity between the two properties. And when Crow Canyon Place comes back before us, I think they'll be clear that we're very interested in the connectivity between the two properties. And that's probably one of the best features of this part of the city. So I think it'll come together. Okay. Other comments? Commissioner Zeng?

Thank you, Chair. I just have a few short comments. First, they're all positive. I'm happy with the on-site affordable units, as other commissioners have mentioned. And I'm glad that we got one extra very low-income unit. I know that's to meet the state density bonus law, but we'll take what we can get. And I'm glad to see the 980s as well, which will help us out a little bit with ARENA. The state density bonus law waivers, as Commissioner Kondula mentioned, mentioned, well, of course, we're required to hand them out. But I've been reassured from staff that they are reasonable asks from an architectural perspective. So I have no issues there. Since we're talking about connectivity, once again, connectivity, I'm a big fan of it like the rest of the commission is. And even though it's hard for us to enforce these things to make them happen, to make two projects that are on different timelines coordinate in this manner, I'm really satisfied with the effort and attention that has been paid towards this. I think that will improve both projects and everyone in the city will be happy with the ultimate result. So Godspeed that we make it happen. And then since this hasn't been mentioned yet, I do want to acknowledge the efforts of the applicant, Sunset, to hold the study session on June 17th of this year, because since this is a multifamily project, it's... It's not required to, well, sorry, I'm mixing things up. The study session is not required. It's something that we do at the city, but it's fantastic when it is done. And then the ARB, the architectural review, because it's a multifamily project, it only has to comply with the objective ODDS. I don't know what the second D stands for. Objective design and development standards. Thank you. So the fact that the applicant came before the ARB on August 14th to get feedback, incorporate those changes, I think that's great. It's a big favor being done to us at the city and to residents to give those two early opportunities for feedback and make the projects better. And I think it really reflects that. sunset has and continues to closely cooperate with us to Make their projects best the best that they can be and and show that they're deeply invested in ceremony in its future So I just want to say I just want to give some kudos for that on the record.

Thank you Okay with no more other comments if I could ask for a motion to adopt the resolution as amended at the dais I

I would like to move that we approve the resolution 15-25 with the amendments that we have provided at the dais.

Great. Is there a second?

Yeah, I can second that.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded. We'll go ahead and vote. Okay, the motion passes 5-0-0. In the past, we have painstakingly gone through the resolution, the conditions of approval, and looked at each one and turned the pages. Rarely have we found anything that we've changed, but I don't want to abandon the process entirely, but I will just look to the right and look to the left. Is there anything that you wish to see changed that is significant or material that we would like to see modified other than what we've already asked tonight and if not we'll go ahead and close this one out you know and allow cindy to spend her read her paragraph okay yeah i think city staff have done a good job here they went through and i couldn't find anything after reading so many pages so

It was a big dig, almost 500 pages this time.

Do you have any things that you've identified, Commissioner Kuznick?

No, I just, you know, my notes included the comment about the shared parking, but so noted in the discussion, and we'll just leave it as it is.

Yeah, in the past for the new commissioners, we would question commas, semicolons, periods, things like that that were... Generally not significant. And we have a city attorney's office that really proofreads those things.

Okay.

Okay. With that, I mean, Ms. D always has a sentence to squeeze in at the end when we've adopted a resolution.

Thank you. Yes, decisions of the planning commission may be appealed within 10 calendar days of the decision by filing the appropriate letter with the city clerk and appropriate filing fee. So clerk's office within 10 calendar days.

Okay. Well, thank you, Sunset. Thank you, staff, for this, and thank you, commission, for working through this one in a quick and expedient manner. Thank you so much. situated for our next one. Okay. Okay, there it is. Okay, this is item 9.2. It's a public hearing for Canopy, the property formerly known as Bishop Ranch 8. It's a residential development. agreement located at 3000 through 5000 Executive Parkway. Tonight the role of the Commission for this item is to consider the project for approval and we also have a development agreement as part of the project tonight and again through the public hearing process to solicit comments and the commission is tasked with recommending, approving or modifying or disapproving the proposed development agreement but it's a reminder for those that when we did a development agreement before we came to come to understand that the role of the commission is TO REVIEW AND TO NOT NEGOTIATE THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT. THAT'S THE POWER OF THE CITY COUNCIL. WE CAN SEND OUR COMMENTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL IF APPROPRIATE FOR RECOMMENDED CHANGING, AND THE CITY COUNCIL, THEY ULTIMATELY WILL APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. SO NEGOTIATING IS NOT UNDERNEATH THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMISSION. AND WITH THAT LONG LEAD IN, WE HAVE ANNA-LISA READY TO DO A STAFF REPORT.

Good evening, Commissioners and Chair Alpert. Thank you for that introduction. So this evening we will be taking a look at the Bishop Ranch 8 canopy residential development project. It is approximately 27 acres and the general plan and zoning designation is downtown mixed use north. And so for background here, the applicant filed a preliminary housing development application along with a formal development plan and associate applications for a 412 unit project on June 3rd of this year. A study session before the planning commission was held on June 17th. And the applicant resubmitted a revised project on August 5th that increased the units in the multifamily from 157 to 161 units for a project total of 416 units. And the Architectural Review Board reviewed the project on August 14th, and applications were deemed complete on October 15th. And so the proposed project would demolish three existing office buildings on site and construct 255 single-family detached homes and a five-story affordable multi-family building consisting of 161 rental units. The multi-family units would include 80 one-bedroom, 41 two-bedroom, and 43 bedroom units, and all units would be affordable aside from the one manager's unit on site. The single-family unit types include 11 three-bedroom, 236 four-bedroom, and eight five-bedroom units, and also includes 128 optional junior accessory dwelling units. And the project as a whole provides 775 parking spaces on site. That includes 80 guest spaces. And here we have the overall site plan. I will let the applicant describe the layout in more detail, but the colors shown demonstrate three separate villages that will contain the single family homes. And the multifamily building is shown in yellow on the corner of Executive Parkway and Bishop Drive. And the open space amenity is shown in the center of the project and will include a pool and community clubhouse. And here we have some examples of the elevations. The single family detached homes will be two and three stories. And I've grabbed some elevations from village one on top and village two down below. Here we have elevation examples for village three, including both the two story and three stories. And here's a rendering of the multifamily building at the corner of Executive Parkway and Bishop Drive. And so in terms of affordable housing, the city's inclusionary housing ordinance requires the minimum of 15% or 62 affordable units for the project, and the project is proposing 15% for the 161 multifamily units, 22.5% of the 255 single-family units, and 16% of the remaining BR1 and BR3 portions of CityWalk, as shown in the table here. And the project will provide approximately 44% or 70 units of the total for very low and extremely low income households, which qualifies for state density bonus. So the project qualifies for density bonus and up to three concessions and unlimited waivers. And the applicant requests a concession for the multifamily parking minimum and meets all other development standards. And the architectural review board reviewed the project on August 14th and recommended final approval. And a copy of the applicant responses are attached to the staff report. And so to revisit some background on development agreements, state law allows for cities to enter into development agreements to minimize uncertainty in the approval and development process. And a development agreement is a voluntary contractual agreement between a property developer and a municipality. These agreements coordinate various aspects of a development project, and they are approved by an ordinance to guarantee certainty and enforceability over time. And so the development agreement was filed with formal project applications, and the scale and affordability levels are intended to address the affordable housing requirements associated with Canopy and the previously approved BR1A and 3A portions of the CityWalk project. The inclusionary housing ordinance allows for alternatives to constructing new affordable units, including land dedication, and allows for modifications to the number of affordable units and structured affordability. And so the development agreement would result in increased number of affordable units and increased affordability. The projects are subject to the 15% inclusionary housing requirements. But under the agreement, the covered units would be increased to 22.5% for the 255 single family units under canopy and 16% for the city walk projects, which represents 24 additional affordable units. And additionally, the multifamily units at Canopy would provide 24 units that would not otherwise be constructed. So in summary, the development agreement would provide a higher level of affordability with additional units at deeper affordability. And it also includes a payment of fees to the city's affordable housing fund in the amount of 3,000 per single family unit at Canopy. The agreement would have a seven year term with a potential five year extension and failure to perform would require the dedication of the site to the city or city designated nonprofit developer. So with that, staff recommends that the Commission open the public hearing, take public testimony, discuss and deliberate, and adopt the Planning Commission Resolution Number 1625, approving the project applications, as well as recommending approval of Resolution Number 1725 to the City Council. And that concludes my presentation, but I do want to note that there is a typo in the affordable allocation table. Specifically, it's table 1, which is packet page 100 in the staff report and packet page number 201 in the development agreement attachment table. So the number of extremely low units for CityWalk will be revised from seven units to eight units, and the total remains the same. So with that, I can hand it over to the applicant unless you had questions now. Okay.

Good evening chair Alpert and planning commissioners on behalf of sunset development. I'm Stephanie Hill We appreciate the opportunity to discuss canopy the Bishop branch eight redevelopment since our presentation in June We've refined the base plan based on feedback from the Planning Commission the architectural review board and city departments. I Throughout our public meetings, we've discussed the vision for Bishop Ranch as a mixed-use district that seamlessly integrates office, residential, retail, and landscaping. Canopy, located at Executive Parkway and Bishop Drive, is a key connection point within our land plan, marking the transition from the taller residential communities in CityWalk to the smaller-scale two- to three-story homes envisioned in downtown mixed-use north. The site design and landscaping reinforce connections to adjacent neighborhoods and the broader walking district. The Executive Parkway frontage links canopy to Bartlett Pear Park and the Iron Horse Trail. The 95X bus stop will be relocated from internal to the site to Executive Parkway and will provide service to Walnut Creek Park. And County Connection Route 35 offers access to Dublin Pleasant and BART, as well as key locations within Bishop Ranch. Canopy is envisioned as a walkable neighborhood featuring 416 homes, including 255 for sale single family homes with 128 optional ADUs, as well as 161 unit affordable rental community developed by Eden Housing, the second affordable community within Bishop Branch. The single-family homes are detached two to three stories in height comparable to what is being developed at City Village by Summerhill. The five-story affordable community at Bishop Drive and Executive Parkway reflects the scale of the five to seven-story residential buildings planned across the street in City Walk while thoughtfully transitioning to the two to three-story homes within Canopy. Joining me this evening are members of our project team. We have WHA, the for sale residential architect, Van Dorn, the landscape architect, Steinberg Hart, the multifamily architect, CBG, the civil engineer, and Eden Housing, our affordable housing developer. Given the scale of the community and its associated applications, we'll begin with an overview of the site design and programming and conclude with the affordable housing plan. And with that, I'll turn it over to Robert Lee from WHA, who will provide additional detail on the for sale portion of the community.

Good evening, Chair, Councilman, Commissioners. My name is Robert Lee with WHA Architects and Planning. I'll just go over the three residential village, starting off with Village 1, which consists of 126 homes. They range from 1,880 square feet to 2,600 square feet. They are all three-story single-family homes with two-car garage and up to three to four bedrooms. Of these five floor plans we have, four of them has a ground level bedroom. And of those four bedroom types, three has the option to convert to JADU unit on the ground floor. So this will offer a nice flexibility for different homeownerships and the multi-generation that we see home buyers are kind of demanding in the housing market. The lot sizes are 16 to 2,200 square feet and they're very compact. This represent over close to half of the single family residential of the 255 units. This is an elevation showing different angles of the houses. To the top left, the street view shows the actual rear elevation of those homes with the ground floor JAD unit with a front door that faces the street. We kind of designed this purposely when it fronts onto a street. We don't want to see a wall, but actually have the opportunity to have almost two front doors. The alley on the bottom of it actually shows the front elevation where the garage and the front door is located. That entrance door will lead you up to the second level and the third level of the house. It also has a passageway to the ground floor bedroom on a single level. On the upper right, the street level shows a corner view of the plan for elevation, which has a front door on the side. So it has kind of a different perspective as you face the alley and the street. But we always want to present the front doors onto the street as much as possible. The street view to the bottom shows a three, what we call it, the tri-units, the plan one and plan two. They are the smallest of the five different lots. Plan 1 in the middle, it's on a very small lot. It's about 1,800 square feet. It has minimum backyard, but most of it, they have a private balcony on the second level. So each one of these homes has a second-level balcony. Plan 3, 4, and 5 has a reasonable-sized pocket backyard, whereas the Plan 1 and Plan 2 has very limited yard space on the ground floor. Village 2 is kind of outlined if you see the key map on the lower right-hand side. There's about, I believe, 65 of these homes. The base plan is two stories, and then we have an optional third level that has a bonus room and a covered deck on the third floor. These, all these homes will have a ground floor bedroom plus living kitchen, so that's kind of living on the ground level. On the second level, we'll have three bedrooms for a total of four bedrooms, and each of them will have a two-car garage. They will also have a private backyard as well as a front yard. They do just have a driveway apron versus a full apron, and these are all in a relatively compact lot as well. Then I'll just kind of move to the elevation. The elevation represented here is the two-story plans. We have on the top the two-story, the plan twos, threes, and plan one. These are the three-floor plans. And then the street view on the back is actually what you'll see on Executive Parkway. of the rear elevations where we took great care to enhance the elevation in the rear as well as the front and also kind of faces the internal streets where we offer this opportunity to have the rear to have like an alley loaded where the front doors actually switch from the front to the back. This is Village 3 outlined in the upper right in blue. There's about 64 of these homes, also with a two-story base plan between two-car garage and up to a three-car garage. The three-car garage with Plan 3 will offer a five-bedroom and an opportunity to offer a kind of expanded ADU on the ground floor. That's kind of outlined in the end of the court of the alley. And they're kind of arranged primarily in the six-court cluster. And then we have a few of them kind of facing directly onto the street itself. And that's kind of identified on the key map. These homes will be the base for two stories, around 2,575 square feet, up to 3,190 square feet for the two stories. Then when you go up to three stories, it could get up to 2,900, almost 3,000, up to 3,639 square feet if it was at three stories. The elevation represented here shows you the three plans as a two-story on the upper view, and then on the bottom view shows if it was added the third story, which has the cover bonus room and a cover outdoor balcony. They will include 12 different color schemes, different variety of tones, roof shingle samples, siding samples, front doors, and the variation. This will be applied through all three residential villages with the exception of the multifamily. With that, I'm going to turn it over to our landscape. Thank you.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Zeki Abed, Van Dorn Abed Landscape Architects. As you can see from the overall site plan, we have a few large landscape open spaces in this project consisting of the central greenbelt running through the mid block, a generous wide landscape buffer along Executive Parkway, and an improved meandering sidewalk along Bishop Ranch Drive with random clusters of large tall columnar trees along that perimeter and a meandering sidewalk. The landscape palette, the overall landscape palette, is accentuated by a hierarchy of larger canopy, deciduous and evergreen trees that correspond to the wider primary entry streets. So you can see the two different colors of the trees heading on A Street and B Street. Those are the primary streets. And then a palette of narrower secondary streets in the surrounding loop streets, C and D, and the alleyways. AS WITH OUR INITIAL GREEN BELT CONCEPT, THIS IS THE CENTRAL GREEN BELT. AS WITH OUR INITIAL GREEN BELT CONCEPT, WE STILL RETAIN THE LARGE COMMUNITY GREEN IN THE CENTRAL OPEN SPACE. Two point nine acres, it's almost three acres of open space, so it's pretty nice. But additionally, now, compared to the initial design, we have incorporated a new community clubhouse, a pool and a pool building with restrooms at the southern end anchoring this common open space. And you can see that in the red circled area. adjacent to that where we had the tot lot area in the initial design up on the top it's in blue on the side yards of those residences now it's adjacent to the pool building and it's a more open public space so we've relocated that there it's a nature themed tot lot area and we think it would respond well to the open space and the activity right there at the pool house We responded to the initial Planning Commission comments and DRB hearing comments and have expanded the mini plazas and gathering areas along the Paseo. We've included a variety of amenities such as picnic tables, benches, shade trellises to make them more prominent, basically. And we're going to also have some paving changes in those areas so that it differentiates them from the Paseo as you're walking down it. We've also added four dog activity nodes, pet waste stations, and drinking fountains with the dog bowl. Several large usable lawn areas we have provided for social gathering, sporting, and lounging. These things all remain as before. The central greenway will be planted with a mixture of evergreen, deciduous, and flowering accent trees. And then we'll have layered massings native and or naturalized ornamental shrubs and ground covers that will provide not only visual interest, but a buffer between the more, you know, the public spaces and the residences that are facing that open space. Sorry keep going back and then along executive Parkway we have this this generous 80-foot landscape buffer and in the initial Concept design you see we have a straight typical five-foot sidewalk and in order to sort of Improve the connectivity and and the whole idea of the the larger walking district We were able to expand the sidewalk to six feet pull it away from the street and SO IT PROVIDES A LITTLE BIT MORE BUFFER BETWEEN THE PEDESTRIANS AND THE CARS RUNNING ALONG EXECUTIVE PARKWAY. THE PLANTING REMAINS THE SAME. WE'RE ACTUALLY PICKING UP THE SAME TREES THAT ARE TO THE EAST OF THE SITE ON BR6. SO THERE IS A STREET TREE PALLET THAT'S RUNNING ON BR6 AND THAT WOULD RUN AND CONTINUE THROUGH THIS SITE. SO THERE'S THAT CONNECTIVITY YOU KNOW, IS ENHANCED. WE WIDENED THE SIDEWALK TO SIX FEET, I EXPLAINED THAT ALREADY, AND PULLED IT AWAY FROM THE CURB SO THAT That theme continues as we go around the corner and start heading north. We go around the corner heading north and this is a section through those bioswales and you can see how wide it is. This is actually at Executive Parkway and the Bishop Drive corner at the Eden Affordable Housing Project. The same bioswale and planting theme occurs at this corner, and we've enhanced the plaza to respond better to the architecture. There's been some architectural changes. And we, along Bishop Drive, the nice thing that we've done is in response to, I'm going to go back a couple slides to DRB comments, but on the overall site, initially there was, how do you do that, Stephanie, where you touch the screen?

Real hard, oh yeah, okay.

So we had this initial connection here between Bishop Drive and on the north side of the Eden Housing Project, and we were able to add another connection sort of right here. between those houses and the residential district. So you have, you know, Bishop Drive, and you have this connectivity this way, and then this, you know, we've got this connectivity this way through the site. And then we're also doing, I'm liking doing this. This is kind of fun. Okay.

So those are the sort of the, it's pretty fun.

So that just shows you that we've actually added some connectivity and tried to bring the greater Bishop Ranch walking district and provide people opportunities to come into our site. And the only other thing is the only reason we don't have trees along Bishop Branch Drive is there's, again, a utility easement. So between the meandering sidewalk and Bishop Branch Drive, We're going to have a generous landscape buffer. We do have an eight foot wide sidewalk, which is nice. And along that edge, we're going to have just clusters of random clusters of columnar trees to complement the Eden housing building and to fit in that space. And that's it. Thank you.

I do not know how to erase his drawings. Thank you. Commissioners, Katya McLean with Steinberg Heart. Complementing what Seki was talking about in terms of the connectivity at the pedestrian level, we wanted to have similar connectivity from a massing point of view. So we opened the development to complement the framework of the entire neighborhood. We also started looking at the scale of the single family homes and how would that supplement and complement in the multifamily building. creating perimeter gateways to the neighborhood, and really acknowledging compatibility and the material palette with the single family home and the multifamily. So at the ground floor, Segi mentioned the connectivity on the north side of the multifamily. So we actually shifted the pedestrian walkway not to interfere with the loading area. But the most important part was at the corner of Executive Parkway and Bishop Drive. and A Street because ARB actually asked us to really imagine that connector, that corner as a node. So we actually added a drop-off area, make sure that there's a space, that there may be a food truck that comes there and there's a space that people can congregate, really creating that plaza in that corner. And as Seki mentioned, rather than doing a straight sidewalk, We actually tried to give a little bit more livelihood and a pedestrian feeling to that connection between A Street and Bishop Drive and the walk in the district to the west. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT THE ARB ACTUALLY, ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS APOLOGIZED BECAUSE HE WAS BEING TOO NICE, YOU KNOW, DURING THE ARB MEETING AND COMPLEMENTING THE PROJECT. BUT WE STILL ADDRESSED SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT THEY HAD, PARTICULARLY AT THE PODIUM LEVEL. THIS IS IF YOU'RE LOOKING JUST AT THE PODIUM ABOVE THE GROUND. And they wanted to have some connection in the west end to be able to see the sunset, recognizing that there are very nice views happening across 680, but still providing an opportunity to have a small gathering space on the west end. And in the inside courtyard, making sure that we had enough shading for the playground area and for the gathering areas for the community. These are the initial renderings and the revised renderings. If you can see, it's a little bit hard to tell, but we increase the height of the building by six inches in order to differentiate a little bit more between the corners that are eroding with the main massing of the building. And then moving around at the corner, we also anchor a little bit more the corners on the northwest side of the building that touches the ground rather than keeping the screen throughout.

And so I'd like to quickly summarize how canopy aligns with the DMV North zoning. The site is designated as a housing opportunity site, so it's eligible to be developed as 100% residential. Evens community satisfies the inclusionary housing ordinance and qualifies canopy for the state density bonus law, including its associated concessions, incentives and waivers. While the overall project exceeds city parking requirements, we are requesting a parking reduction for the multifamily building as permitted under state and city bonus provisions. The affordable housing program mirrors the already approved terms for the Camino Ramon development agreement. Eden's community will support both the for sale homes within canopy and the first phases of city walk, specifically BR1A and BR3A for up to 493 market rate homes. For general context, this slide shows in red the three sites that are associated with the affordable housing program that we're discussing this evening. For ease of reference, Camino Ramon is supporting Avalon's community at BR3A, so I'll circle that one. So ultimately, this evening, the canopy development would be supporting the apartment community at BR1A. So you can roughly think about each of the affordable communities supporting one city walk development, just for ease of reference. There's a couple of leftover affordable units after that, but you can generally attribute them in that way. During the Camino Ramon Development Agreement process, we reviewed multiple iterations of calculations with the 15%, without the 15%, adding the 15%. And so what we've tried to do is to provide one simple table that shows the income levels under the existing inclusionary housing ordinance, and then what we're proposing through the canopy development with Eden Housing. Particularly of note, we are committing to providing extremely low income homes at 30% area median income. This is the deepest level of affordability as well as the most challenging to deliver. Just for perspective, these homes will serve households earning approximately $33,000 to $48,000 per year, depending upon household size. The table here illustrates the proportional distribution of extremely low, very low, and low-income homes associated with each development under the proposed canopy affordable program. Ultimately, Eden's final financing will dictate the exact ratio of extremely low, low, and very low, but Eden is very comfortable with committing to those 15 extremely low-income homes as part of tonight's proposal. The differences between standalone affordable communities and for sale versus rental affordable homes were discussed extensively during the Camino Ramon development agreement process. And a few key points that we continue to come back through as part of that discussion were The city's arena requirements are based on the total number of affordable homes, not whether they are for sale or for rent. The canopy proposal increases the number of affordable homes tied to the for sale neighborhood by 77% and increases the affordable homes associated with CityWalk by 26%. It also provides deeper affordability than Camino Ramon with the extremely low-income homes, and it includes a $765,000 contribution to the city's housing fund. This is approximately $40,000 for each moderate affordable home that is not being provided and is the equivalent to a 5% down payment for an $800,000 home. Eden Housing is not just a developer. They are long-term partners and stewards. With more than 60 years of experience developing, owning, and operating affordable communities, they consistently deliver high-quality, well-managed homes that integrate seamlessly into surrounding neighborhoods. For commissioners and members of the public, I encourage you to watch last week's City Council meeting. Dixie Baus and Eden's senior leadership team offered an excellent overview of their communities, their mission, and the residents that they serve. And in closing, we believe Canopy delivers a thoughtfully designed neighborhood that advances critical housing goals and provides a meaningful increase in deeply affordable homes. We appreciate your review this evening.

I'm sure the commission has some questions, and I'm going to start with one that... came up and I think Stephanie could probably answer the question. It's come up from public and it's very easy to get confused and the question essentially is to provide a high level summary of the Eden communities that are either approved or in the pipeline and I think names matter you know so you know they're all eden of course but there's eden on camino ramon the og eden for san ramon there's eden on the sunset slash orchards that we all saw last week and then there's the eden as part of canopy and each of them um will be all affordable absent the manager. And they will all be, I think, collecting affordable requirements from various properties. And so that was the lead-in while you kind of gather your thoughts. If you can just give like a 50,000 foot sort of overview of the Grand Three Eatons and what they're doing.

So what I'm going to propose to do is I am going to use the screen to outline the affordable sites and the associated market rate sites. So I'm going to start with Commissioner Alpert, the OG Eden, which is at Camino Ramon. It's 2453 Camino Ramon. It's been approved. It includes two buildings. The first building is a family building, so 120 units. Family building means that over 50% of the units are twos and threes. And it also has an 80-unit senior building. So that's the OGA affordable. This is Eden's Camino Ramon development. And the market rate sites that have their affordable going into the OG Eden. I really like that name. That might stick. We have three developments, and these developments have previously been to Planning Commission, where Planning Commission has approved for the off-site affordable. And so those three sites are BR-11, BR-7, and Avalon Bay. Okay. So those 200 homes that Eden's developing at Camino Ramon, those will support Avalon Bay, BR7, BR11. How am I doing so far? Are we good to go to the second community? Okay. So the second community is the one that we're talking about this evening, and that's Canopy. And so I'm going to circle this one. And I should note that Even Housing is using Steinberg, Hart, Katia on all three of these communities. Steinberg, Hart, award-winning architect. They win prizes left and right for their really thoughtful design, which I hope you saw as part of Katia's presentation this evening. So this Canopy affordable site, it will support BR8, which is directly in that neighborhood. And then roughly it will also be supporting this BR1A related development. So that's Eden's second development at Canopy. Are we ready for number three? And so the third development is within the proposed Chevron Park redevelopment, which we're calling Orchards. And this community has 100 homes in it. And within the development, they've also set aside a portion of the ground floor for childcare, which is something that's really important to provide access to, particularly for families. And what we're proposing here is that this affordable would support the Orchard's neighborhood. CityWalk is not tied to it. It's solely for the Orchard's neighborhood. And then the balance of the affordable for the multifamily and mixed use would be inclusionary housing within those individual developments.

Thank you. Thank you. And that was the question that we received from Susie Ferris Intercom and then Jim Blickenstaff wanted to make sure we did. So hopefully that high level overview kind of summarizes it because this is very, it's easy to get lost in all the meetings and things like that. So thank you for doing that. That was well done. Thank you. So I will now open it up to commissioner questions to the staff or the applicant. I have one. Do you want to go first? Oh, okay. Sure.

And it's really simple. I like the idea that there's a community center and a pool. And the question that arose in my mind was, will this be available to the residents that are in the canopy affordable? Is it considered the whole canopy neighborhood?

So all of this is an integrated neighborhood. There will be an HOA over the entirety of the neighborhood, and that also deals with the surface parking. How is the surface parking being handled, given that Eden's under-parked from a parking perspective, but we're over-parked in terms of collectively within the community. So absolutely, Canopy is part of the neighborhood. Canopy Affordable is part of the neighborhood.

Hi, thank you, Stephanie. A few questions. First, could you go to, I think, to slide three, canopy connectivity? Great, thank you. So I want to go to this one just because it's a little bit more obvious, the connections of the canopy site to adjacent sites. So I appreciate the two connections that were done to Bishop Drive. I think those are great additions. My question is, And this is, of course, in the context of all the connectivity discussion we had regarding Annabelle. I understand that enforcing connectivity is difficult, but could you explain what kind of efforts or considerations you made to try and connect Canopy to City Village and whatever might exist on the Toyota parcel to the north?

So I will start with City Village. And one of the challenges with City Village is there's a pretty substantial grade differential between City Village and the grading for Canopy. And so it's not possible to connect them because of the grade differential. We did look at it. I know city staff has gone and mocked the site. Several of you have probably also walked to the site to see that there is a gap RETAINING WALL ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE, AND DUE TO THE GRADE DIFFERENTIAL, IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO CONNECT THOSE TWO NEIGHBORHOODS. IN TERMS OF TOYOTA, AND I ALLUDED TO THIS BRIEFLY WITH BROOKFIELD, IS THERE'S A TIME IN CONSIDERATION where we absolutely want to encourage connectivity. And so depending on if and when and what Toyota is doing with their property would consider connectivity, but it's challenging to do so in a vacuum.

But the grade is not so much of an issue. I know there's already one or two existing staircases. I don't know who's using them, but that's not an issue for connectivity, right? No.

EDA has an issue with connectivity using stairways, but outside of that, if there are informal connection points, everyone benefits from kind of those secret connection points that give you shortcuts.

Okay, great. My remaining questions are related to affordable housing and RENA stuff. So first, I apologize for looking like a horse in the mouth here, but could you explain how you managed to provide, how you managed to end why you're providing more affordable homes in Canopy than you're required to. I'm especially interested in how you manage to make the increase from 15% to 22.5% affordable units for supporting the single-family homes.

So this is similar to what we agreed to with Camino Ramon. And part of the conversation that occurred with the Camino Ramon development agreement was acknowledging that a for sale affordable home is different than a for sale rental home. And we discussed a lot of the differences. Some would say for sale affordable is a better execution, and some would say affordable rental is a better execution. And ultimately where it came out was to shift that tenure, we agreed to provide more homes because there are also smaller homes that are being provided. With that being said, with affordable rental, one of the things that Eden does is every year those homes are income qualified. With a for-sale affordable home, that income qualification happens once. And so in five years, if someone has a huge promotion, that's great, but they still maintain the benefit of having a for-sale affordable home. Or if they win the lottery, they still have the benefit of that for sale affordable home. There are other considerations with affordable for sale homes where HOAs are not capped year over year. Insurance is not capped year over year. So what may be affordable at the time when they purchase their home, some of those extra costs that come with home ownership increase faster than area median income or than that annual increase that you get with your job. And so there are instances where residents within San Ramon have been unable to afford those increases and have lost their homes because of those costs increasing faster than their incomes. And so that is a consideration as well when you think about is that a good kind of support with that? With Eden Housing, part of their programming, they don't only provide homes to people, they also provide resident services. And Dixie can outline all of the things that they do for the residents in their community, which includes after-school child care, where they help kids with tutoring. They have financial literacy programs. They help with resume writing. They help make sure that people get to doctor's appointments. And so there's some of that security that happens when you're in that managed community that you don't have that same support network when you have that standalone affordable community and a lot of us associate ownership with the ability to create wealth and so homes appreciate and there's a way to essentially build a future with affordable homes exit prices are capped and And so if you buy a very low income home, you sell at a very low income home. So that wealth creation that a lot of people associate with home ownership is not that same vehicle when you have a for sale affordable home.

OK, thank you. That's a very comprehensive and very helpful explanation. A few more questions. The affordable homes in Canopy that are left over, the ones that aren't supporting the single family and the apartment building itself on Canopy, Those leftover homes, they will be enough to support all the remaining units that need to be supported on the related projects. I'm aware that the OG Eden project contributes a few, like a dozen or something units to the related one, and then Canopy will provide the rest. Is that correct?

I WASN'T FAST ENOUGH IN MY SLIDES. SO AS I MENTIONED IN THE PRESENTATION, YOU CAN ROUGHLY THINK OF THE OG CAMINO RAMON SUPPORTING AVALON BAY AND THE CANOPY AFFORDABLE SUPPORTING RELATED. The canopy supports 493 homes and related has 383 homes. So there's about 100 extra homes left over in canopy. There's about 40 extra homes that are left over in Camino Ramon. So in theory, it could support a third phase of CityWalk, but canopy would wholly support related. OG Camino Ramon would wholly support Avalon Bay.

Okay, so it's entirely likely that the city is going to get a lot of extra units through this off-site trading and so on. Okay, great, thank you. Last question I have is about the JADUs, the 128 optional JADUs. So from my understanding, as long as a homeowner elects to have those JADUs built, they will count towards the city's RHNA obligations. Could you offer an estimate of how many JADUs you expect will actually get built?

So that's a great question, and I'm going to revert back to it depends on the market. What we have seen is most homeowners, homebuyers are very interested in the option for an ADU, and they see the optionality to have a place for in-laws to stay or to have friends stay or it can be rental income and so depending on the household type and the family structure there's lots of different ways that those adus are used we typically see that most adus are optioned i don't know if robert has how many do you i'm deferring to the architect to see if he has any better data than i do

Hi. There's no specific data that we know of from the builders that offers GAU, how many actually are taken as for rental versus for personal use. So it would be kind of an interesting question to ask the home builders based on their market availability, any kind of results that's going to occur. But right now there's no specific data that we are aware of a certain percentage.

Is it safe to say ballpark, like over half would elect to build the ADU?

Well, it's hard to say on record. Okay, I won't pin you down too much. Yeah, I don't know if it comes to 45% what will happen.

Okay, perfect. That's all my questions for now. Thank you.

I WOULD THINK THAT IN OUR COMMUNITY, MOST OF THE ADUS WOULD BE EITHER FOR GRANDMA OR, YOU KNOW, YOUR OLDER DENERATION OR THE COLLEGE CHILDREN WHO AREN'T LAUNCHING VERY ASSERTIVELY, SHALL WE SAY, AND NOT GETTING CHARGED RENT.

INDEPENDENTLY.

WELL, THEY NEED HOUSING, TOO, SO I'LL TAKE THAT.

YES.

OKAY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SANG.

Sorry in advance. I have a lot of questions. I'm here for all of your questions.

I might call on some friends to help me There's three villages with different product types that are highlighted village one village two and village three would they be sold to separate builders or Is that something that sunset is entertaining or would this all just be one single builder? I

So as you noted, it could be multiple builders. To date, we've received interest from single builders who would develop the entirety of the three villages.

And do you have an estimated timeline for their vertical construction on how long it would take them to build that out?

So this one is a little bit bigger, given that we have three buildings that are being demolished, and so it's not quite as bite-sized as 2 Annabelle. So if we thought about 2 Annabelle having vertical construction in 2027, you're probably looking at second half of 2027. on this site for construction going vertically, just because there is a larger infrastructure plan when you look at 27 acres versus three acres, and then just the complexity of getting East Bay Mud and Central Sand and PG&E all cooperating and coordinating at once on a larger site just takes a little bit more patience and diligence, but I would assume that you're still looking at that construction in 2027. It just might be the tail end of 27.

Okay, so it would most likely be one builder that's developing all of the for-sale product.

That's what we're hearing, but I'm going to say it depends a little bit on the market. But, yeah, that's what we're hearing.

What about the affordable housing site and when that plans on getting to the vertical construction? Dixie said she's going to go fast, so I'll turn it over to her.

Probably not. The way that I've kind of got this timeline kind of planned out with the other developments is that if we're getting the synergies with both builders and product and delivery time, I'd want to make sure that we're within that one to two year from the other timeline of the other projects. If the finance world stays like it is, help. We might need cookies and bake sales to get there. But I don't think it will. Things are really improving with every quarter. So we are modeling internally a start of construction. SOMETIME WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF THE VERTICAL, I'M SORRY, THE HORIZONTAL CONSTRUCTION FINISHING AS WELL. SO WE WOULD WANT TO GO ALONG THE SAME TIMELINE AND TRY TO GET OUT OF FINANCING AND GO VERTICAL BY 2028. IN A PERFECT FINANCE WORLD.

AND THEN THE O.G.

Well, Dixie wants to start it next year. So that's what we're modeling internally right now.

2026?

Yes. Yes. So the demand is there. The will is there. And we're just shaking the money trees now. But things are really improving out there. But that's kind of how we're modeling internally. Okay.

Another question for you, Dixie. When I look back and I saw this project compared to what we had seen at study session for the orchards, that one was having no parking in a podium style. So what differentiates this one from that other one? Why did the other one lack the podium parking and the affordable housing, like the rents couldn't sustain that, but whereas this one could?

In the back of my mind, I'm also looking at the other one to where they potentially go at the same time. And so I'm doing, like I thought initially I would do all three at the same time. And then said, you're a dreamer. That's not going to happen next year because of the timing of how complicated orchards is. in terms of the acreage and everything. So I don't know where that thought of mine was going. Can you help me get that thing back?

It was about the parking. So for this one, it has it in the garage, and the other one doesn't.

Yeah, so what we did know is that for a 100-unit community, it is much more difficult to finance than at 200 or 160. And so we think that it's going to take a little bit more fundraising on dollars. And so in order to kind of neutralize that to go to a surface parking so that you don't have the podium cost that kind of evens things out to get it back on the same kind of timeline. Because a podium would cost just rough numbers right now. Above ground podium one level is somewhere around $75,000 a space. So that's three, four, four million if I'm counting my fingers and toes right in a savings of what we don't have to raise on that other site. So it's a little bit of a finance whack-a-mole, if you will. But that's sort of kind of what we're keeping in the back of our mind is how do we deliver those on time In the same sequencing that the other two projects are going to go so that we keep a cadence going.

Okay. So is there like a specific sweet spot for this many units works financially for having a podium style garage versus not?

Yeah, it's definitely different than what it was a few years ago. And so if we're going on a podium, what I like is a minimum of 150, 160 homes. And then you want a maximum as well because you have to keep an eye on your height. Like going over into high-rise Not good in terms of cost goes because then you're into concrete and steel construction so it's that it's that kind of sweet spot of no more than five over two if you will five five wood over two levels of concrete podium and that keeps it into that cost factor and Anything above that is getting too big. And so you need to either spread that out or you go higher. And in this case, we don't have either of those options available on that. So we're in this sweet spot on orchards.

Okay. Thank you, Dixie. Stephanie, I have more questions for you. In the development agreement that we have, that's packet page 198, it shows... This is exhibit B, which is the covered sites map. And so it outlines canopy and then city walk. But when you were doing the presentation and kind of showing us answering the chair's question on can you like tell us about what Eden projects are going on? From whatever you know for sale to the rental you said that 1a Was going to be supporting canopy, correct? So that would just be the the site on the east and not related Is that correct? Or did I misunderstand that?

BR1A and related are essentially the same. Oh, sorry. And with BR1A, there's essentially three development parcels within that neighborhood. One development is Belmont Village, which has been constructed. The second is related, which is 383 apartment homes, which has been approved. And then the third parcel is the park, which is under construction. And then BR3A has Avalon Bay, which OG Camino Ramon is supporting. And there are some leftover units with the development of – with canopy supporting – BR1A with related. So BR3A is included in the event that there's a future apartment community that those excess affordable units could support.

Okay, I see. My other question was related to the site planning and what you guys are calling the green belt and not a park. One of the comments that I had at the study session was having that park be one complete cohesive park with no fragmentation. Did you look at potentially doing that or what's your reasoning and why does this work better than having one comprehensive green belt space?

So a large piece of this comes into just circulation and also review with the fire department and making sure that people can enter and exit. And so that was a piece of how we solved for having the roads go through. It deals with hose reach for fire trucks. So we needed to have it be through streets rather than having dead ends.

But we do have a dead end where the clubhouse and the pool house are located.

I think I could help answer some of this. So when we designed the community, the ones in the center that are off this alleyway, the one by the clubhouse is only about three houses deep on each side, so a total of six units. So that doesn't exceed the 150 feet for a fire hose to pull from the street to the last house. The other courts are greater than 150 feet on both sides of the greenbelt. So the fire department would need to drive down the alleyways and through. Plus, we looked at the weekly trash service. Trying to put all those homes' garbage on the main street would be quite a few, especially with three trash cans per homes. So we needed the sanitation department trash truck to drive down those alleys. And they had to drive one way, and they had to come back the other way because the trash service arm is on the right side. So we basically saw the only way to do that, to achieve all that, was to continue that alleyway breakthrough. And that caused the center green to be broken up a little bit. I think we did talk about whether there's opportunity to do a raised walk. I know the civil had an opportunity to look at that. So when the crossing does occur along those alleyways, maybe we could do like a raised walk, which is level and acts like a speed bump. And that could be maybe continuing to look at it, see if that's appropriate or not. So that way we could create a continuous pedestrian walk through that greenbelt, even though there's a little interruption.

Yeah, and I guess it makes it because I see the alley loaded product like the motor court homes that are on the northern side. And those are, you know, four homes deep. And then you also have it four homes deep on the north side of the green belt. But then on the south side, you have it five homes. Right.

So the five on the south is the one that creates the extra depth that we can achieve. So it needed to connect all the way through.

And there's no opportunity to put like a fire hydrant somewhere between that. I mean, I'm just thinking about the street that I grew up and there were fire hydrants that were in the middle of the block.

Yeah. So state fire codes, anything greater than 150 knees of hammerhead or some kind of turning movement at the end of it, if it's a dead end.

Okay. So what about the hammerhead that's next to the clubhouse and the pool house?

That one right here is, am I doing it right? There you go. It's less than 150 feet. There is no hammerhead. It's just a stubbed street that ends. I don't know if there's a way to zoom in or not. So, again, we could continue to expand that, but right now it's basically fire and trash surface.

I guess how is it working on the south side? Because that is a dead end as well there.

Yeah, so that one where we're going to achieve is the fire will be on the main street to the right. And then you'll have 150 foot holes pulled from the fire truck. And then when you park in the back alley where the little tot lot is, that will be measured 150 feet to pull the hose inward to reach those last two houses at the very depth of that thing. So without having multiple streets where the fire truck could turn or provide, so that's the only intersection that we see an opportunity. Maybe the one on the far left, but right now everything else has to be because there's no other streets in front of it. It's a technical issue, but it's stuff we have to look back and forth.

Hello. Ryan Hansen with CBG. These units actually don't qualify for aerial apparatus access requirements, so the fire trucks aren't necessarily going to go down these alleys. So we just need hose pole requirements. So they can go down those alleys, but in the one where it stops, you can get hose pole from B Street, so across.

Which one? Can you highlight where B Street is?

So, for example, the fire truck is here. You can get hose pull that direction or that direction, which doesn't require them to go down those alleys.

And that would just be to serve those two homes at the, but everything else could reach the others.

Right, yeah, these would have access and hose pull around there. We actually did, I'm not sure how to clear this, but we actually originally looked at a fire access or an EVA that cut through here. But it was much more of a constraint to the open space because now you're putting a road or some type of pavement surface, which would obliterate all of those trees, all of the walkways. So in this case, by having just a few pass-throughs, as Robert mentioned, we can look to enhance that walkway, enhance those crossings, make it safe for pedestrians. There's going to be clear sight distance in all directions. So anyone walking down that paseo would see if there was a car coming.

Okay. One of the options that he mentioned was potentially having like a race walkway with like a speed bump. Would that be something that Sunset would be agreeable to doing in order to get people to slow down, especially because I could see like kids wanting to go down the pathway on their bike, and I think that would be a good feature for the project as a whole.

Yeah, that's something we could look into.

Sorry, what's that?

Yeah, we can look into something like that.

Okay. And then I think you answered this before, Stephanie, but there's a whole HOA with the community. So this wouldn't be like a green belt that would be accessible to the public. It's just serving that community since there's the ones that would be paying for the maintenance.

So within Bishop Ranch, one of the things that we're focused on is not putting in a series of fences. And part of what Zeki outlined in his presentation about landscape was we do have these cut throughs where we do want people to. feel welcome to walk through. And so long as it doesn't become a nuisance, we want people to be able to walk and meander and cut through and walk in the walking district. That's a piece that's really important to connecting all of these different neighborhoods that are being developed. Okay.

And then just from what I was looking at the landscaping plants, it doesn't look like there would be like a fence that would separate those single family detached homes. It looks like potentially the patio has a walkway that connects to the main meandering path on the green belt. Is that correct? That's correct.

No private front yards. Thanks, Becky.

One of the things that's noted in the development agreement is having like a clean phase one, like a clean site for Eden to go ahead and build that affordable housing. Great project. And my question is, has the phase one been completed yet for the project? And

Yeah, so the phase one was completed. It's a requirement for any application for development projects. So phase one's been completed, no issues as it relates to environmental contamination. The only thing that we typically see in Bishop Ranch is the prior agricultural uses. Sometimes you can see some things that show up in the dirt, but nothing that precludes or prevents residential development. Sometimes like elevators are also a concern for phase ones And and just as a follow-up to that this corner is parking lot and landscaping right now and so it's not under one of the existing buildings as part of the office development, so elevators May impact other portions of the site, but wouldn't impact Eden's portion of the site given that it's currently landscaping and parking Okay, cool

One of the other items that I wanted to touch on, it was briefly mentioned within the staff report, but I didn't see anything that you referenced was about the environmental path for the project and whether or not an initial study was prepared. I know that it's referenced hearing off the general plan EIR. Can you speak more to the environmental studies that were completed?

City staff, do you want to take that one or do you want me to take that one?

Yeah, so the applicant submitted the acoustical study and the transportation, the traffic study that analyzed the VMT that resulted in the net reduction of VMT compared to the existing office uses. And as part of that analysis, there weren't any mitigation measures that were required. So the project is tearing off of the general plan EIR. and will follow the mitigation measures associated with the general plan EIR.

Was the initial study something that the city prepared or was a consultant, environmental consultant, the one who carried that out?

So First Carbon prepared the general plan EIR. and the mitigation measures associated with that. And so because the project's tearing off of the general plan EAR, there's no additional initial study that needs to be done. We evaluate this project based on how the general plan originally envisioned this site to be developed, and we prepare our analysis and the needs for additional studies or mitigations based off of that.

Okay, so First Carbon did not do an initial study on the project, but they are the ones who wrote the general plan EIR, and it's just a function of the mitigation measures that are within the general plan EIR that the project will be in conformance with.

Correct. So First Carbon did not do an initial study for this particular project. The analysis that was done was tearing off of the general plan EIR and the analysis that was performed there and an evaluation of this project in relation to the larger city EIR that was done in 2023 for the adoption of the general plan.

Okay. The other item that I noticed was in regards to the site to the north, that would be the Toyota parcel. It doesn't look like there's as much landscaping buffer. Is there like a reason to why you guys didn't go ahead and continue the buffer with the trees along the northern side of the project?

So we did look at that, and one of the challenges is that landscape buffer roughly would go to the back of City Village, which we don't have the ability to connect to because of the great differential. And so it was looking at where at kind of the side and back of houses and thinking about does that make sense to put a pathway there so we we didn't put a pathway there because we we don't know if or when or how the toyota site would be redeveloped and then there's not a connection point through along that property line to city village given the grade change sorry i think i may have worded my question incorrectly i'm referring to the landscape buffer just like a trees along the northern boundary not any walkway or anything like that So we do have trees at the end of the alleyways. Okay.

And then on the eastern side of the project, there's not that many trees. It looks a little sparse.

Is there any reason why that's... And that's people's backyards. And so we want to give them the opportunity to use their backyards.

That's their backyards.

Is that space here you're talking about?

Yeah.

This part? These are their backyards right here.

Oh, okay. Oh, so their fronts are not facing the street there?

So the fronts and the garages are facing D Street? Are these the homes? Yeah. Yeah, so those are your backyards with a patio.

Wouldn't the porch face the street?

The front door and the garage are off of D Street.

Okay. There's like, yeah. Small backyards.

Small backyards, and this is where the grade change is to the property next to it. So there's probably retaining walls and all sorts of stuff like that on that property line. Yeah.

My other question was related to some of the engineering service special conditions for the project and it referenced the left turn lane and the median opening on Executive Parkway and how that should be removed and reconstructed to be a continuous median with some landscaping to match the existing median landscaping. So when I was looking at the plans, there is that opening, and you have a condition to modify that. So my thought was, are the entrances just right in and right out, and there's no opportunity for someone to make a left onto Executive Parkway?

Is that right?

The entrances are actually very close, if not perfectly aligned with the two that are there today. The one in the middle where it says Executive Parkway, that will go away and be closed off. So it's probably just not on this illustrative plan, but if you go to the tentative map sheets, we close it off so it's a continuous median.

Does that connect to the median to the east?

So basically, this median, everything here will just all be closed off until you have this turn in to that entrance. You'll still be able to turn out. they do today and so all these movements will remain the differences is this middle median will just remain closed off okay yeah my concern was that it was only right in and right out and there would be a median throughout the whole

executive parkway, so no one could make a left, and it would just only be right in and right out. Yeah.

Now, this kind of mid-block median today was actually only a left turn in. It wasn't feeding any access points to the south, so closing it off makes a lot of sense.

Okay, yeah, because my concern was that I thought it was all closed, so that would only allow someone to make an entrance into it using a right-hand turn instead of a left-hand turn. The other question, sorry, I have a lot of questions. For the dog amenities that you added, will they be secured or is it just meant for someone with like a leash dog to be able to use those amenities?

We aren't proposing fenced-in dog amenities where it's essentially you're walking along a pathway and you have the ability to stop at the doggy water fountain and you can grab bags and things of that nature. We did discuss back and forth about whether we would do an enclosed dog area, and given the total residential population chose to not do an enclosed dog area, so it's really there's amenities along a pathway that they can access, but it wouldn't be off-leash dog area.

Okay. And my next question is related to the green belt. I know that you mentioned the possibility of having like one builder go ahead and potentially build this whole project. Do you have an idea on their timing for when they would construct the pool house and the club house? Is there like anything? I'm assuming that they would probably aim to have that constructed before their models are complete. Is that the idea?

So it depends on different strategies in terms of which is your first home that's developed and which homes are your model complex. And different developers have different perspectives on whether that would be delivered first, given that it's a capital-intensive amenity versus delivering it later once you have some residents in place. We've received different opinions from multiple developers on whether that would be first, medium, or last in terms of delivery.

Okay, just because my concern was City Village that's next door has a park, and we've seen the delivery of some of those units, but the park has not been built yet. It looks like right now they're building the underground detention chambers. I'm not sure when that park is meant to be completed, but ideally what I've seen some cities do is tie the park together BEFORE THE FIRST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE HOMES SO THAT WAY THE PARK IS FULLY BUILT OUT AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD OR SOMETIMES I'VE SEEN OTHER CITIES WHERE THEY HAVE BY THIS NUMBER OF BUILDING PERMITS YOU SHOULD HAVE THE PARK ESTABLISHED AND, YOU KNOW, ACCEPTED BEFORE THE CITY. SO THAT WAS MY SORT OF CONCERN WAS WHEN WOULD THAT GREEN BELT AND THOSE COMMUNITY AMENITIES BE ESTABLISHED OR WOULD THAT BE AT THE END? That's it. Thanks.

Okay, Mr. Kandula.

I do have three set of questions probably that makes the entire process easy. Concerning the Eden housing and in general to begin with are there any bike paths or anything? associated like that within the canopy development

So we don't have a specific bike lanes within the canopy development, but within all residential neighborhoods, assuming you have slower traffic, you can put your bikes on roads, but we don't have set aside bike lanes within the current plan for the site.

And with respect to Eden Housing, probably what you have done in other locations, you have bike storage places. Do you have something similar to that here?

Yes. But I do want to say we just rolled out our own bike share program as well to where we have now Eden branded bikes that are delivered to our sites for people to use as well. So we're doubling down on bike infrastructure.

Probably you guys can commute between all three Eden housing sites. Exactly.

If I knew how to ride a bike, I would.

But there are 164 biking storage spaces within the multifamily development.

Okay. Somewhere along the same guidelines that you have proposed for the other, close to the mailboxes, close to the front area.

And close to the lobby in order to have security. I don't think that you can see it in the site plan, but it's close to the lobby for security reasons.

Yeah, yeah. And I've seen this picture shows the yellow one closed off, but I think when the architect showed it was open two different ways, the entire Eden Housing project. So that's, yeah. So there are two different entrances for that Eden Housing, right? Rather than one way.

Pedestrian access?

Yeah, pedestrian or access to the building itself.

Correct, so we have a pathway at the top in the north that we're considering that is the connection to the green belt. There's no entrance, there's no pedestrian entrance from that side, that is more for trash and mechanical. We are actually asking, forcing the pedestrian to connect from the node that is developed in Executive Parkway and A Street.

Okay, got it. And I do want to thank Stephanie for pointing out all the advantages of renting versus home buying, and that was one thing, but as you know, I'M JUST, WE ALL SERVE AT THE CITY COUNCIL, BUT WHEN THEIR POINT WAS, YOU WERE THERE AND IN THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS WHEN EIDEN HOUSING PROJECT WAS APPROVED, THEY HAD SOME CONCERNS, OKAY, WE WILL BE DOING THIS, BUT WE MIGHT NOT WANT TO CONTINUE THIS. HAVING ALL THE three-bedroom, four-bedroom homes, individual homes, which are 3,000 square feet, 2,500 square feet. And their comparison to the rental units, which are one-bedroom, 80 of them being one-bedroom, 40 of them two-bedroom, another 40, 41 three-bedroom homes. So we cannot compare apples to oranges. So I understand the point of moving from 15% to 22%, but there could be some hard burn overall from the city council and probably what you guys did was excellent that you have helped through with IRON HORSE TRAIL FOR THE PREVIOUS PROJECT. DO YOU HAVE ANY PLANS, SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THIS ONE I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND BECAUSE CITY IS OFFSETTING ONE WITH ANOTHER. SO I WOULD PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT.

And with response to the Iron Horse Trail, there was commentary about what is the community benefit for existing residents with the proposal for the Camino Ramon development. And When we look at canopy, we look at the substantial improvements to the walking district that are being implemented both along Executive Parkway and Bishop Drive, which does improve the walking district for existing residents. We have 80-foot setbacks along Executive Parkway. We have large trees. We have meandering sidewalks. That is something that someone who's not necessarily living in canopy or the canopy affordable benefits from. And it's the connection to that. It's the bicycle improvements that are being done to the right-of-way. And ultimately, it's connections to CityWalk, where the Lakes District is right across the street in Executive Parkway. not substantial land area of the site that's being dedicated to Committing to building the walking district and the walking district ultimately is a private investment That is occurring that the city is not funding the walking district components of this project and ultimately it does benefit the larger community On that note Will that be dedicated over to the city? So this would be privately owned, privately maintained, and then publicly accessible.

So the walking district is a set of guidelines and the plan when it was adopted. was that as development takes place by private developers, they would be expected to make amenities available. And so this is an example. So all of the amenities, the additional landscaping, the wide buffer, the meandering sidewalks is all part of the walking district plan In comparison to the first Eden, there were amenities there but was not part of it because it's the Iron Horse Trail, and Iron Horse Trail is one of those things that, Everybody owns it. Nobody's in charge of it. So what worked out best in the city council's mind, I think, was to start to build an improvement set of some funds available. So they came there. So, you know, city council can choose to do whatever they choose to do at that when when the development agreement comes before them. But again, our our. OUR SCOPE AND OUR RESPONSIBILITY ON THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS PRETTY NARROW.

THAT IS THE REASON I WOULD LIKE TO ADD COMMENTS AND RECOMMEND THAT CITY COUNCIL TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. AND MY THIRD QUESTION IS REGARDING THE Clubhouse and the pool so we have the entire green belt, but at the very which is capped by Street B if I'm correct It's very small, but I can barely read that B as in Bravo so the entrance would be from Street B is that correct and would there be cordoned off or fencing because normally the pools come with all this closed off, and so that marks the end of the green belt. Is that correct?

So, yes, you are correct, where there are rules where you need to have fences for pools, and there's certain dimensions of how far the fence needs to be from the pool, and that absolutely will be implemented. It will be a safe space where we'll have all the fencing required by state, local best practices. But that would essentially be the end cap of the Greenway, where it has the pool and the clubhouse, and then also has the area designated for the play area for kids.

Yeah, my only question from an architect's point of view, or when it was designed, it might fall in the middle of the house somewhere, that mark or that. fence that encompasses both the clubhouse and the pool. So would that be like people walk back to get to an exit, or is there any other way to get out of that greenbelt?

I believe. I believe – can we zoom in on this? No. Okay.

So – You can just click on the lens button or something.

Anyway, right here we're going to have a – Proposed possibly getting a gate. Yeah, right in here So pedestrians can come up this way and connect in and then you know, obviously from the street So if you're a community if you're living in the community, you can come through the pool You have a fob.

Yeah, and you open the gate and you come in you could come in but you go out from the street be but people who are using the green belt they have to go get back to Is that street?

Yeah There is a connection on the side. It's hard to see. There is a walkway on the bottom here, right? Next to the homes. Let me clear this. 173. Yeah, right down there. There's a walkway. So you're connecting like this. And then you're coming in here, and you're coming this way. That's great. Got it?

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thanks for that. So you can walk through.

Yeah. That was my question.

It would be all this great design, and you have to go back. No, no, no. You can walk through the site. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. That's all I have. That's all. Cheers.

I only had one really quick, easy question for Dixie, maybe. Have you gotten far enough along in the design of this Eden project to know what kind of community amenities you're going to be providing in this building? In this building? Have you gotten some ideas?

I think she's done that.

I'm sure she has.

I'm going to go back to the podium plan, and hopefully I can show you there. Well, at the ground floor, if you see on the right hand side on the revise, that's where the bike storage is. This is the bike storage. This is the main lobby. And at the podium level, there's a community room here. There's an after school here. Sorry. There is a fitness component here. And there's a technology center right here. The community center and the after-school program open to the podium, and there's a covered area in order to provide additional shade, but we feel that that connection throughout all the spaces of the community, it's quite successful.

Great, thank you. Similar to the orchards.

Very similar. The program for each one of the developments, it's fairly similar. The size is actually adequate depending on the number of units for each one. But it's actually very similar to what we propose on the orchards.

No other questions? Why don't we go ahead and open public comment. Yeah. Do we have any, we did get some email written comment, which we did get.

Written public comment was received from James Lloyd with Cal HDF, Brian Swanson, Matthew Gelfand with Californians for Home Ownership. We did receive a speaker card, which I provided to the chair, but the speaker did not wish to speak tonight. And I have no other speaker cards for this item.

OK, why don't we go ahead and close public comment again? Any Commissioner comments? The request of us tonight will be to adopt both resolutions. The resolution approving the project as well as the resolution. Agreeing to send the development agreement up to City Council so they can do their job with it. So I'll start at my left. Do you have any any Commission comments started with Mr. Zhang?

Commissioner Cusnick. Sure. Thank you, Chair. Overall, quite positive. First, I'll talk about the affordable housing. I'm very happy to see how much we're going above and beyond with the affordable housing provision. And sort of related to Commissioner Cusnick's question about will the residents of the apartment building get the same access to the pool house and clubhouse as the residents of single-family homes, it's great to hear that they will and that the whole canopy project is integrated. And then, of course, the JEDUs. I hope as many people choose to option those as possible. I'm quite happy with the terms of the development agreement as well. If I'm understanding it correctly, this is really quite similar to what we did with the OG Eden project. And, you know, the pluses and minuses of that were discussed at length by the city council. So I'm not going to... comment too much on it i will say that the complexity of the arrangement was intimidating at first, but I think now that we're at the tail end of it, we sort of see how it's all shaken out and that ultimately the pluses do outweigh any minuses. So I'm happy with that. I am curious how council will want to, if they want to continue doing this, but that's for them to decide. And then finally, I just want to say, similar to the Annabelle project, thank you for electing to do a study session. Thank you for having an ARB meeting on the apartment, the multifamily component of the project. These things are not necessary, of course, but the fact that you, you know, that Sunset went out of their way to do that is a significant favor to the city and its residents and shows that, you know, They want the project to be good and they want to give residents opportunities for feedback early on the process. So thank you once again for demonstrating clearly that you are invested in ceremony as future. But that's it for me. Thank you. Thank you.

I'll go to my right.

We have seen a number of these now, and I think as we've gone on, the comments are kind of falling into similar categories, and I trust that not every project has to have them all reiterated. So I'll keep mine brief, and it looks like a good project. Thank you.

Okay. Commissioner Vito.

Thank you for coming before us, especially at the study session, to hear our feedback and improve the circulation of the site. I think Eden Housing did a really great job in terms of their architecture and having that flow. I think it's a good balance between what's proposed for the single family units in relation to that. I think it's going to be a great project and offers a lot of amenities. As previously noted, since none of the canopy site will be having for sale product by having the increased affordability as well as a larger share of those affordable units, I think it's a real benefit, especially with the amenities that Eden can go ahead and provide. just two kind of conditions that are similar to what I had initially said for BR 12 was there was those two technical analyses that were completed on the air and also on the noise to just go ahead and add two conditions to ensure that those are picked up on The reason why I ask this is because sometimes when builders are looking at a project, they're reading the conditions and they're not looking very closely at those other technical analyses, and that's not necessarily shared sometimes. So I think it's just like a more streamlined way of notating that and making sure that the developer is aware whoever will build this project. And I would also like to see those raised walkways and seeing how Bishop Branch Sunset Development goes ahead and moves that forward, some sort of traffic calming measure to make sure that there's pedestrian and bike sort of safety as one crosses between that green space I think would be really critical. And overall, that's kind of the extent of my comments. I appreciate all the different elevations for all the different plan types. I think there's a number of different options to choose from. And although those are quite big, in my opinion, from the starting point, so it's something that is compliant with the DMU North District and its meeting and the development standards, aside from the waivers based on state density bonus laws. So it kind of has... planning commission being able to not really deny a project since there's waivers and concessions that can be made from the affordable component. So unless they're on a public safety, you know, standpoint or a health hazard. So that's all. But overall, great, great development.

Commissioner Kandula.

Yeah, I'll reiterate many of the points that other commissioners have brought about. And I do want to thank both Stephanie and Eden Housing for coming here and bringing this up. As we go along, the number of Eden Housing projects are growing in San Ramon. Probably that may be a good thing. I'll leave the comment and ask the city council. I'll put that burden on them to have that measure of rent versus what their thought is and how they want to bring that up. That would be an important note for them to make that decision. I also want to officially enter saying that I would like to see – I know – It's not apples to oranges. It's a comparison of apples to oranges moving the affordability from individual homes with 3,000 square feet to the affordable housing units, which are one-bedroom and two-bedroom. So one good thing. that I have seen with this project is the architect, that the way the green belt is put together. So that is a little bit unique, and I have seen one similar project in Gale Ranch in San Ramon, which looks pretty good. So I hope this one also turns out to be great with everybody being able to use that green belt with good sunlight, and it feels more spacious instead of looking at that ENTIRE COMMUNITY AS VERY CLOSE WITHOUT ANY SPACES, THIS GREEN BELT ADDS A LOT OF COLOR AND AMENITIES TO THE RESIDENCE, WHICH IS GOOD. I'M HAPPY WITH THE BIKE SITUATION AND EVERYTHING FROM A WAVERS PERSPECTIVE, I UNDERSTAND BASED ON THE ZVL, WE HAVE TO DO THAT AND I'M IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH THAT. I'M OKAY WITH ALL OF THIS AND I REALLY LIKE THIS PROJECT OVERALL LOOKING AT THE WAY IT HAS BEEN SPREAD OUT, THE ARCHITECT THAT HAS BEEN WORKED ON. THANK YOU.

GREAT. SO I THINK THE WAY THAT MAKES SENSE IS THAT WE PROCESS THE TWO RESOLUTIONS SEPARATELY, 1625 AND 1725. SO WITH THAT, IF THERE'S A MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 1625 WITH THE TWO ADDITIONS, IF THERE'S A MOTION.

AND THE THIRD ONE, JUST RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL TO LOOK AT IT, HAVE A CLOSER LOOK, VERY SIMILAR TO THE EARLIER.

SO THAT WOULD BE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, NOT THE PROJECT?

NOT THE PROJECT, YES.

Okay, so we're going to stick to 1625 first. And so if I can get a motion to adopt resolution.

Okay, I will move that we adopt resolution 1625 with the amendments that reference the acoustical study and the air quality study as part of permitting.

Is there a second?

THROUGH THE CHAIR AND ALSO THE ADDITIONAL CONDITION RELATED TO THE RAISED CROSSWALKS.

SO NOTED, INCLUDING THE RAISED CROSSWALKS.

AND THAT ONE I THINK IS THAT IF APPROPRIATE OR IF ACCEPTABLE BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OR PLANNING STAFF, I DON'T WANT TO COMMIT ANYTHING ON THE DEUS OF A REDESIGN OF THE ENGINEERING WITHOUT JUST TONIGHT JUST BECAUSE WE THINK IT SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD THING. WITH THE PROPER LANGUAGE, I THINK I'M FINE WITH ADDING THAT IN THERE. OKAY. SO IS THERE A SECOND?

YEAH, I'LL SECOND THAT.

OKAY. MOTION, COMMISSIONER KUZNICK.

SECOND, COMMISSIONER ZHANG.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND VOTE. Okay, the motion does pass 5-0-0. The second resolution is resolution 17.25, which is the development agreement. And again, what we're actually resolving and sending forward is that it's consistent with the inclusionary housing ordinance, that it is consistent with the general plan and the housing element, and the affordable site development agreement is consistent with all provisions of Division 6 the zoning code and that the affordable site will not be detrimental to health, safety, and general welfare. And as a reminder, this is exactly the same development agreement with some labels changed in it, but it's the same essential terms that we saw with the original one. And I don't know that if we would like to encourage the city council to look at the specifics of it I don't think that belongs in the resolution or in the conditions of approval I think if anything the comments from the planning commission can show up in the staff report accompanying the

Yeah, any commentary from the commission or wish lists we can put in the staff report as opposed to in the resolution so we'll be aware of what the commission's needs are.

Thank you. Thank you for that, Lauren. So with that, I think we're ready to entertain a motion on Resolution 17.

Sorry, I just wanted to remind you that there would be a change to that affordable allocation table in the development agreement. YES, THANK YOU.

OKAY, CORRECT THE TYPO. THAT'S CORRECT. THANKS, ANA-LISA. YES, YES, YES, YES. OKAY. SO IF I COULD HAVE A MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 17.25 AS CORRECTED TONIGHT IN THAT ONE TABLE.

I WILL MOVE THAT WE ADOPT RESOLUTION 17-25 WITH THE CORRECTION AS NOTED.

Perfect. Is there a second on that one? Once again, I will second that. Thank you, Commissioner Zhang.

Before the vote, could you just clarify the comment that you'd like to be passed on to the council? We understand it's not a revision to the resolution, but we want to make sure there's consensus on the messaging that would go to city council.

Yeah, my point would be to look at it closer, similar to the Eden Housing OG, which are a name you would like to call, next to the BR-7. And while looking at the existing Eden Housing, which has been, again, a rental versus a sale for sale homes, COMPARED AGAINST THE MULTIPLE THREE AND FOUR BEDROOM INDIVIDUAL HOMES TO THE RENTING OF THE ONE BEDROOM AND TWO BEDROOM APARTMENTS.

I'M NOT SURE I'M HEARING A SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO COUNCIL.

CAN I TAKE A SHOT AT IT? YOU'RE ASKING, I BELIEVE YOU'RE ASKING THE CITY COUNCIL TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE RATIOS FOR THE FOR SALE, ESSENTIALLY THE RATIO BETWEEN THE FOR SALE TO THE RENTAL, WHETHER THAT'S APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE NEGOTIATION THAT TOOK PLACE WITH THE CAMINO RAMON PROJECT. FAIR ENOUGH. CLOSE ENOUGH? YEP.

OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. Lauren for interpreting. Okay, so we've had a motion. We've had a second.

I think we're ready to vote now.

Unless I missed the vote somehow. OK, the motion passes five zero zero zero. Thank you all. And Missy will read her sentence now.

Thank you. Decisions to the planning commission within 10 calendar days of decisions by filing a letter stating the grounds for the appeal, along with the appropriate filing fees with the city clerk's office.

Thank you all for these two items and we appreciate you spending the evening with us tonight. I'm sure we'll see you soon again. Okay, thank you. So we can go ahead and wrap up our meeting for tonight. Item 10, non-public hearing action items. There are none. Item 11, study session commissioner liaison reports and staff items. Does anybody have any liaison reports. I know Commissioner Kuznick has been studying carefully.

Yes, and I will try to make this brief. I watched the Parks and Community Services meeting of last week. And the major focus was on two large topics. The first of all was reviewing the trails master plan. This is the county assessment done using our website and interactive links. The goal of the master plan was to create connections between neighbors and open spaces to enhance the Iron Horse Trail, especially in regards to shade widening and multi-use. to enhance existing trails, specifically more loops with trail signage. And then also the important desire was access points within neighborhoods, which included then new trail heads that people could access the parks. For the parks and community service people, the next step is prioritizing these goals, these desires, creating an action plan, identify funding, develop construction standards and minimum standards, and then identify specific alignment with the plan. So a lot to do for that. So they also suggested that early in 2026, THEY WOULD LIKE TO MOVE SOME TRASH CANS OR REALIZE THAT MORE TRASH CANS ARE NEEDED ON THE TRAILS. AND THAT THERE SHOULD BE A STRONG RELATIONSHIP WITH EXTERNAL GROUPS, SPECIFICALLY LIKE PLANNING COMMISSION, HOAs AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND THEY'RE STILL LOOKING TO CREATE A SYSTEM OF SPONSORSHIPS. think that that is not, I don't think they're being as fruitful in that as they had hoped. The other big topic of the Parks Commission was the co-sponsorship role within the city. Now, even having been a Parks Commissioner, I was not familiar with the term co-sponsorship. Basically, it is the term used for all of the athletic groups that use our fields and parks and pools and so forth. They are considered a co-sponsor group. So there was a lengthy review of WHAT IS THE CRITERIA FOR CO-SPONSORSHIP, WHICH AGAIN WAS SURPRISING BECAUSE IT INCLUDES THINGS SUCH AS YOUR GROUP MUST HAVE A MINIMUM OF 100 PARTICIPANTS. YOU HAVE TO BE ESTABLISHED FOR THREE YEARS ALREADY. IS IT AN EMERGING SPORT OR NOT? THERE ARE ALSO SOME SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS DEALING WITH THE PERCENTAGES BOYS TO GIRLS. and they have to comply with safety documentations, budget checks, et cetera. Now, having said all that, the current plan for allocating fields and facilities still seems to work pretty well. It doesn't satisfy everybody. BUT IT STILL SEEMS TO WORK PRETTY WELL. THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE IS HISTORICALLY WE USED TO HAVE TO ALLOCATE FIELDS FOR FOOTBALL AND CHEER, AND NOW WE'RE ALLOCATING FOR CRICKET AND SOMETHING ELSE. I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T WRITE IT DOWN FAST NOW. SO 50% OF ALL THE TRI-VALLEY PITCHES ARE HERE. We've lost three diamonds and three soccer fields and added three pitches. So it's a pretty big swing for the city of San Ramon. And with all big swings, I think there are some growing pains. And so it's been a hot topic in the Parks and Community Services, which then bubbled over into or bubbled out from CITY COUNCIL MEETING. SO THAT'S THE REPORT. IT WAS, AGAIN, QUITE LONG AND VERY DETAILED, AND THERE WAS LOTS OF QUESTIONS, LOTS OF PUBLIC COMMENT. I'M NOT SURE EVERYBODY CAME AWAY FEELING SATISFIED, BUT THEY DID GET A VERY THOROUGH EXPLANATION OF THE SITUATION. SO THANK YOU. THAT'S MY REPORT.

GREAT. THANK YOU.

THAT WAS THREE HOURS IN THE CAR ON YOUTUBE SATURDAY.

WOW.

TIME WELL SPENT.

I'm glad you did it safely.

So I attended the last city council meeting. There were two topics. The first one Stephanie already mentioned was a really well-done presentation on Eden Housing. It was not a specific project. It was really about all of the what is and who is and how does Eden Housing do what they do. So I would suggest that we all watch it at some point, you know. The second item was a follow-up to the Climate Action Task Force that one of their final chores was to make a recommendation to City Council on what they should do now that the Climate Action Plan was adopted. And they did. They made a recommendation that there be a Sustainability Advisory Committee. And they met. They talked about what the responsibilities might be. things like how often they should meet and the makeup of the committee. And that was translated into a draft set of bylaws and charter, and that came before the city council, who did adopt... um, the recommendation. And so we now have a sustainability advisory committee and given the holidays, I think that recruiting, et cetera, will probably, you know, commence after the first of the year. So, but I might be wrong on that one. It was, it was a, it was a pretty animated discussion on that as well. So that was the, one of their advisory committee meeting. ARB did not meet recently. Um, BUT I DID WANT TO CALL OUT THAT THE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE IS MEETING ON THURSDAY. WE DO HAVE RESPONSIBILITY AS LIAISONS TO THAT COMMITTEE. THEY'LL MEET THURSDAY AT 6 P.M. HERE. NOT HERE. DOWN THERE USUALLY. SO I THINK, COMMISSIONER CONGILLA, YOU'RE THE PRIMARY AND COMMISSIONER AVILA, YOU ARE THE BACKUP. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE SOMEBODY AVAILABLE TO ATTEND. Okay. Perfect. Perfect. Thank you. They're usually very good committee meetings. And there were really no other liaison reports that I'm aware of. No. Okay. So I'll turn to Ms. Yee and Mr. Barr to let us know what's up.

Okay, so next regularly scheduled meeting would have been December 2nd, but it looks like we have a break in items ready for the commission, and so we're going to cancel the December 2nd meeting and expect that we should have items for December 16th, but happy Thanksgiving, and there will be no packet arriving at your doorstep Thanksgiving week.

Terrific. Thank you, everybody. And since we have no meeting, I'll just remind everybody that Tuesday, December 2nd, is Giving Tuesday. So find a charity of your choice and do something good for people on Giving Tuesday. So with that, I'll go ahead and adjourn the meeting for tonight. Thank you all. Very good work. Very productive meeting. And we were relatively efficient. So let's adjourn at 8.52 tonight. Okay. Good night, everybody.