A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of San Ramon was called to order by Chair DiGeronimo at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, January 3, 2006 in the Council Chambers at 2222 Camino Ramon, San Ramon.

ROLL CALL

Present: Commissioners Viers, Kerger, Patrino, Rhoton and Chair DiGeronimo
Absent: None

Staff: Phil Wong, Planning Director; By Athan, City Attorney; Sara Buizer, AICP, Associate Planner; Luisa Willnecker; Recording Secretary

Audience: 10

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. PUBLIC COMMENTS OR WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
-None-
5. ADDITIONS AND REVISIONS
-None-
6. CONSENT CALENDAR

6.1 Minutes from the December 6, 2005 meeting were approved with modifications.

7. CONTINUED ITEMS –AFTER CLOSING OF PUBLIC HEARING
–None-

CONTINUED ITEMS – OPEN PUBLIC HEARINGS
-None-

9. PUBLIC HEARINGS – NEW ITEMS
9.1 GPA 05-400-001 and RZ 05-600-004 San Ramon Zoning Ordinance; Staff Report by Sara Buizer, AICP, Associate Planner.

Sara Buizer Associate Planner gave a brief summary and stated that the intent of the public hearing is to allow for public input on the proposed changes to the new Zoning Ordinance for the City of San Ramon. Ms. Buizer added that along with the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance there are General Plan text and map amendments as well as zoning map amendments required in order to achieve consistency between the adopted 2020 General Plan and the proposed Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Buizer further added that any properties that were affected or that are impacted by changes either General Plan map amendments, or zoning maps amendment changes did receive a notice of the public hearing and notices were sent to all the focus group participants and notices were also sent to commercial center property managers and all homeowners associations.

Comm. Kerger asked Ms. Buizer if the notice was placed in the Chamber of Commerce newsletter. Mr. Wong replied that the Chamber of Commerce was notified.

Paul Crawford of Crawford, Multari and Clark Associates gave a brief PowerPoint presentation of the draft document going through each article pointing out the changes between the new code and the current code. After reviewing all the changes, Mr. Crawford asked if the Planning Commissioners had any questions. Mr. DiGeronimo replied that the Commissioners had specific questions and wanted to open up the public hearing and would return to Mr. Crawford.

Chair DiGeronimo opened the public hearing.

Brent Tucker – San Ramon asked for clarification on the rezoning changes being presented. Mr. Tucker stated that he currently has an office located at 2723 Crow Canyon Road the property was rezoned to limited office and currently has a 10,000 square foot office building. Mr. Tucker further added that it is his understanding that the term limited office will allow dentistry, general medical, etc.

Ms. Buizer replied that within both administrative office and limited office the City is proposing to allow doctors office as a permitted use, which is different from the current code, which requires a use permit for those types of uses in these zones. Mr. Tucker further added that they have had personal service uses similar to skin care, certified massage therapist and beauty care within this building and asked if the City could allow personal services use within the limited office zone.

Comm. Kerger asked Mr. Tucker where his building was located. Mr. Tucker replied he is located across the street from Home Depot.

Comm. DiGeronimo asked Ms. Buizer if limited office included retail. Ms. Buizer replied that that the use Mr. Tucker was referring to falls under the definition of personal service and in this case, it is not allowed under the current draft code in the limited office zone. It is allowed in the administrative office zone that is being proposed in the code.

Bob DuPont – San Ramon stated his concerns on storage of large recreational vehicles and stated that other items should be included in this section in terms of what should be stored or parked in front of a home. Mr. DuPont further added his concerns on large family daycare and requested a section in the zoning ordinance be added that would cover large family daycare parking requirements and daycare facility requirements.

Leslie Mague – San Ramon stated she has been following the Northwest Specific Plan and stated her concerns on medium and high density housing being proposed. Ms. Mague further stated her concerns on the existing designation changes of the zoning code covering GPA 1, GPA 2, and GPA 3. Ms. Mague further stated that she did not care for high-density housing and the Planning Commission should reconsider these amendments.

Comm. DiGeronimo asked Ms. Buizer to clarify if the designation of the zoning code by law has to be consistent with the General Plan. Ms. Buizer replied it had to be consistent with the General Plan. Comm. DiGeronimo further asked Ms. Buizer if any changes to the area Ms. Mague mentioned that is not consistent with the General Plan. Ms. Buizer replied after reviewing GPA 2, Canyon Park Homeowners Association area mentioned by Ms. Mague, the City is not increasing the allowable density but changing the designation so it accurately reflects the current density of development.

The medium density residential category has a density designation of 6 -14 dwelling units per acre. There are 144 Townhomes on 7 ½ acres which is about 19.2 dwelling units per acre. A medium density residential designation does not reflect the actual development. Multi-family high density residential, which is a 14-30 dwelling units per acre, is the accurate General Plan land use designation that reflects the actual density of development. Ms. Buizer further added the GPA maps are changes where the existing land use designation does not reflect the actual development and the City is trying to correct the map to accurately reflect the density of development in the City and to achieve consistency between the approved General Plan and the new zoning code. Ms. Mague replied that medium density residential by Deerwood Highland would be a single-family house. Multi-family high density residential is an apartment complex. This was her understanding from the General Plan and she asked for clarification.
Comm. Patrino commented that he has spoken to several people regarding the Northwest Specific Plan and nothing has been approved as of yet.

Ms. Mague commented if the City has choices of existing designation why make the changes. Comm. DiGeronimo replied they are required by law to update the zoning code on a regular basis.

Matt Cardenas – San Ramon stated his concerns on recreation vehicles and boats placed behind a fences and not on parked on street areas.

Comm. DiGeronimo asked Ms. Buizer to clarify what the proposed zoning code states about recreation vehicles. Ms. Buizer replied that the current draft zoning code states that storage of trailer, recreation vehicles, and large trucks is prohibited. No trailer, recreation vehicles, and or truck exceeding a capacity of 1 ton, shall be stored or parked within a required front or street side setback area except, in a non-residential zone where limited display areas are authorized for minor use permit approval. A recreation vehicle may be stored within an interior side yard setback if located behind a fence and screened to the maximum feasible by landscaping from the view of the street and adjacent parcels.

Mr. Cardenas asked for clarification. He noted that he owns a 7 x 14 foot long trailer, which only weighs 1960 pounds that can be parked in his front yard because it weighs less than 1 ton. Ms. Buizer replied that this section may need to be clarified and added that a truck that exceeds the capacity of 1 ton and a recreation vehicle of any size would be prohibited to be located in the front or street side.

Comm. Rhoton asked Ms. Buizer if the definition of a recreation vehicle could include a boat. Ms. Buizer replied yes.

Paul Reed – San Ramon stated his concerns on recreation vehicle and added that the streets are not designed for large vehicles as recreation vehicles or boats.

Comm. DiGeronimo closed the public hearing.

Comm. Kerger stated her concerns that the proposed changes to the zoning included the issues that are being discussed at the front counter with the public. Mr. Wong replied that where there are areas of concern, staff has tried to address and simplify them in the draft zoning ordnance. Comm. Kerger added her concerns on the Telecom ordinance regarding new technology, and asked if planning had taken any steps to adopt the language.

Ms. Buizer added at all the workshops the issues that were brought to the Planning Commission were primarily based upon inquiries the planners received at the front counter and the telephone calls from applicants. Ms. Buizer further added that modifications were made to the Telecom ordinance before it was included in the draft-zoning ordinance.

Comm. Rhoton asked Ms. Buizer if the police department was consulted about adult businesses. Ms. Buizer replied that the police department was provided with a copy of the draft-zoning ordinance and staff has not received any comments and that the Planning Department would follow up. Comm. Rhoton asked for clarification under large family day care on "affected person" and did it mean interested person and added if an interested party decides to appeal, they can do so. Mr. Crawford replied that the minor use permit process states public notices will state a hearing will be held only if requested in writing by any interested person before the specified date for the decision.

Comm. Viers requested adding a section to the Recreation Vehicle section of the code where "portable storage pods" would be regulated.

Chair DiGeronimo asked City Attorney By Athan for clarification. City Attorney Athan replied that the City currently prohibits portable storage units and it is regulated by Nuisance Ordinance in the municipal code and is enforced by the City’s code enforcement department.

Chair DiGeronimo asked for clarification on preliminary plan review. Ms. Buizer replied the purpose of this section is to familiarize project applicants, not exempt from CEQA, with City regulations and the concerns of City departments before filing a formal application. Chair DiGeronimo further asked for clarification on limited retail. Mr. Crawford replied limited retail are those uses identified in the land use table in Division 2 of the proposed code. Depending on the zoning district retail uses maybe more or less restrictive.

The motion passed to continue the public hearing to January 17, 2006 by Comm. Kerger the motion was seconded by Comm. Viers.

The motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Comm. Kerger, Viers, Patrino, Rhoton and Chair DiGeronimo
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None

10. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ACTION ITEMS
-None-

11. STUDY SESSION/COMMISSIONER’S ITEMS/STAFF REPORTS
Upcoming Planning Commission meetings.

12. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further discussion, Chair DiGeronimo adjourned the meeting
8:45 p.m.

Submitted by

Luisa Willnecker