Home City Council Departments Services Calendar Contact Us Search
San Ramon Memorial Park
Public Services Department


San Ramon LogoPlanning Commission Minutes


May 4 , 2010

A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of San Ramon was called to order by Chair O’Loane at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, May 4, 2010 in the Council Chambers 2222 Camino Ramon, San Ramon.


Present:           Comms. Kerger, Viers, Wallis, Vice Chair Sachs, and Chair O’Loane

Absent:            None     

Staff:  Phil Wong, Planning Director; Debbie Chamberlain, Planning Services Manager; Marc Fontes, Economic Development Director; Roger Peters, Interim City Attorney; Lauren Barr, Senior Planner; Cindy Yee, Associate Planner; Ryan Driscoll, Assistant Planner; Lieutenant Gresham; Luisa Willnecker, Recording Secretary

Audience:     13

 1.        CALL TO ORDER                  

 2.        ROLL CALL

 3.        PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE           



6.1 Minutes from the April 6, 2020 meeting approved




9.1 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Planning the City’s Future – The General Plan 2030 (GPA 09-400-001); General Plan Amendment (GPA 09-400-002) to re-designate the El Nido Property from Parks to Multi-Family High Density Residential and the Draft Climate Action Plan.

Staff Report by:  Debbie Chamberlain; Planning Manager.

Debbie Chamberlain - I will start you out tonight.  Thank you Chair members of the Commission. Tonight is the public hearing on the accuracy and adequacy of the EIR. This public hearing is so that public comment only on the EIR where it is not meant to provide dialogue for response or a conversation on the document. All comments that are provided tonight and those that are received until the close of the comment period on May 19, 2010 will be responded to in the final EIR. We ask speakers when they do speak on the EIR tonight that they focus if the EIR adequately identifies and analyzes the potential impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effect of the project might be avoided or mitigated. We ask that when you do speak that they focus on the comments at hand and do not make general statements that provide better analysis response in the document itself. So tonight Grant Gruber  from Michael Brandman Associates is going to walk you through a little bit of CEQA 101 just as a refresher course for the Commission as we had at our League of Cities conference. That refresher is always great. For the members of the public who might not be familiar with the process and then after that, we will open up the public hearing, take all those comments, close, and we will continue to take written comments until Wednesday, May 19, at 5:00 p.m.

Chair O'Loane - Okay there are speaker cards in the back. If anyone would like to fill one out, and go ahead.

Grant Gruber - Good Evening Chair members of the Planning Commission. My name is Grant Gruber. I’m with the firm of Michael Brandman Associates. We prepare the Environmental Impact Report under contract to the City for the General Plan 2030. We also assisted with city staff for the preparation of the General Plan. Just a few basics here about CEQA. California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA, requires lead agencies to identify, evaluate, and disclose to the public, mitigate to the extent feasible the environmental impacts of proposed land use activities. In this case, the City of San Ramon is the lead agency for the General Plan 2030 EIR.

In CEQA, there are two types of review. One is the project level, which is a specific type of land use activity. It is typically done at a detailed level. An example would be a new shopping center. And the second kind of review is the program level review, which is for a broader plan such as a General Plan update or a regional plan like a regional transportation plan. It is typically done at a broader level and of course, the CEQA guidelines acknowledge that program EIR are going to be more general in scope then a project level EIR. Giving you an overview of the CEQA process today the Notice of Preparation which is the first milestone in the process. This is the formal announcement that lead agencies are preparing an Environmental Impact Report was issued January 14, of this year. There’s a 30-day review period associated with the issuance of the NOP and in the middle of that, a scoping meeting was held on January 28, here in these very chambers. Purpose of the scoping meeting was to solicit public input about the scope of the Environmental Review process. On April 5, the draft EIR was released. There ‘s a 45-day review period associated with that which ends on May 19 and tonight, here on May 4,we have holding a public hearing on the draft EIR to solicit public testimony on the adequacy of the document.

Draft EIR is available in print form at six different locations in San Ramon, including here at the City’s offices, all the community centers, and the two libraries. The draft EIR is also posted on the City’s website available for down load. The City sent Notices of Availability to Agencies, Organizations and individuals on the City’s standard distribution list. Two weeks ago, there was a public for the joint hearing or ahh joint session of the City Council and the Planning Commission about the General Plan 2030. We will give you just a brief overview of the topics covered at that meeting.

There are five main components to it the Urban Growth Boundary Adjustment that would occur at three locations. Two on the left side of San Ramon and one in the Tassajara Valley. The Sphere of Influence adjustment, which would be coterminous with the Tassajara Valley adjustment; Review of the Ordinance 197 polices; Land Use Map Amendments; and the two big ones are the North Camino Ramon redesignation of approximately two hundred acres of mixed use, and the other one is the redesignation of the umm 0.7 of an acre El Nido Property from parks to.  I believe it is medium density residential which is on San Ramon Valley Boulevard and, then finally General Plan Elements. Plans and Revisions so policies are revised polices are added the mapping and what not containing in the General Plan is updated. And then in the separate document, a Climate Action Plan was prepared. This is the vehicle by which the City will seek to implement greenhouse gas reduction measures in accordance with State law. Give you an overview on our approach as we prepare the EIR for General Plan 2030. Our objective was to develop a self-mitigated General Plan. In other words, the General Plan would fully mitigated impacts on the environment.

The method by which we saw sought to do this was to establish and develop polices to ensure that future land use activities would either avoid creating significant impacts on the environment, or the polices would have language requiring various procedures and methods and what not to implemented to mitigate these impacts on the environment. We worked with City staff collaboratively to identify potential CEQA impacts and revise or add policies to the General Plan with specific intent of mitigating those impacts. So we have three examples up there on the screen.

The first is the Air Quality Greenhouse Element and this is intended to address all the changes that have occurred to the air quality in Greenhouse Gas legislation in California and also at the Federal level, and also locally with the BAAQMD. This isn’t just your Greenhouse Gas Emissions but also addresses criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants which is like diesel particulate matter, odors, and siting of sensitive receptors such as residential uses or nursing homes and what not in proximity to sources of air pollution and what not.

Second example is a revision to an existing General Plan Element, which is the Open Space and Conservation Element. We looked at the existing policies that addressed issues such as agricultural resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. We found that there is a need really to revise them and also augment with new policies to really address changes that have occurred in the regulatory framework during the past ten years or so, also just address potential future activates which are contemplated by the General Plan.

The third example is the Noise Element, which is also an existing element. But we really saw to revise it to address some issues that really weren’t fully addressed in the General Plan 2020. Such as military activities at Camp Parks and also to address recent developments both in CEQA case law and just our experiences with practitioners with noise, construction noise, pure tones which has come up and roadway nose which has come up and what not.

The summary of the EIR there is 14 topical sections in the EIR that included the Air Quality section, Biological Resources section, Noise, Public Services, Transportation. The EIR evaluated four alternatives to the General Plan. The cumulate effects of the General Plan were assessed  and then other CEQA consideration these are things such as the Appendix F Energy Conservation requirements which has taken more of a prominent role here as a result of Greenhouse Gas legislation in California. Ahh, other things such as growth inducing impacts follow under that category. And so the General Plan 2030 what we concluded was that they can totally mitigate all impacts on the environment with the exception of three significant unavoidable impacts and the first two are really co- linked to each other because it’s essentially the same reason they have the significant unavoidable impact findings. So essentially because what we found is that the General Plan’s growth projections are inconsistent with those contained in the Air Quality Management plan. Not only does that trigger significant unavoidable impact with that impact but also it triggers significant unavoidable cumulative air quality impact.

The second is growth inducement which I will get to in a minute in more detail and that is also a function of population growth. Again, the key issue here is that all three significant unavoidable impacts are based on the fact that the General Plan projects higher levels of employment and population growth than the Association of Bay Area Governments. The reason this is a significant impact is because, ABAG is responsible for regional planning efforts and population projections. So their population numbers are used in a variety of different regional planning efforts such as affordable housing, air quality management, and what not. And so anytime there is an inconsistency with them it constitutes a significant impact. In just ahh, make this point there is no feasible way to rectify this impact other than when ABAG updates their numbers and reflects the growth projections in here that’s about the only time the impact can be rectified. Unfortunately it’s ABAG more, less has a long-standing disagreement, or they used different numbers for San Ramon’s growth projections than San Ramon has done. So it is kind of inheriting inconsistency with San Ramon’s growth projections between the two entitles.

Going back to growth inducement that term has been used a lot. It was used a lot about two weeks ago at the public hearing we just want to clarify what that means in the context of CEQA. Growth inducement in CEQA is essentially unplanned growth that exceeds population growth projections. Ahh and the CEQA guidelines use the example of removing a physical barrier to growth such as extending a sewer main into unserved area that allows new development, but the key issue here is if that was planned development in other words a General Plan had contemplated future development in that area, in that sewer may facilitated growth in that area. That in itself does not mean it’s a significant growth inducing impact. So the point here is just population growth in itself does not mean it is growth inducing. It has to be growth that is beyond what is contemplated by a plan. So that’s what were we come back to this finding here. So the next steps in the CEQA were here tonight to solicit comments in the draft EIR analysis. At the end of the public review period, which is, about two weeks from now City and us will get together and prepare responses to all comments received on the draft EIR. Reponses will be published in a final EIR and made available for public review. And finally, the Planning Commission will take up whether they will recommend certification of the EIR to the City Council and untimely the City Council will consider certification of the document. That concludes my presentation.

Chair O'Loane - Any questions?

Comm. Viers - Ahh yeah I know it is in here. I just, just to clarify for me again, what is the cut of date for input in the EIR the draft EIR.

Grant Gruber - May 19th.

Comm. Viers - May 19th  after that if anything comes in is it ignored or.

Grant Gruber - Typically, we will accept late comments. We also not encourage the public to submit them but from a legal defensibility standpoint, we make a point addressing all comments received essentially up until the public hearing.

Vice Chair Sachs - Umm I’ll like to ask you a question about the growth inducement that which you were speaking about. You said its unavoidable impact and you mentioned the population projections for the City of San Ramon going forward in those of ABAG. I just want to clarify because I did not hear you quite correctly in the General Plan 2030 that we are proposing can you again restate the populations. It, it am I to understand that the City of San Ramon populations are for higher numbers than what ABAG or was it visa versa.

Grant Gruber - No, San Ramon has higher projections than ABAG. That’s longstanding too.

Vice Chair Sachs - Okay, in terms of General Plan purposes, from your experience, doesn’t that tend to benefit the municipalities so that you are planning your housing stock, or workforce housing, your senior housing needs. Umm in kind of a more proactive way I guess that just trying to keep up with the ABAG numbers.

Grant Gruber - I really can’t speak to that. I understand that the Regional Housing allocation process can be very byzantine at times.

Vice Chair Sachs - I wanna talk about this unplanned growth. You, you gave a definition, which was interesting. You said unplanned growth that exceeds population exceptions umm would be a growth inducement. Is there, I am imagining that there is case law about this because people would say well we growth inducement is this it kind of, if you were obviously trying to expand our boundaries not because there is a development in the pipeline just because there are population expectations of growth. But in what you’re, saying here is that if you’re not planning for it and you go out further. I just need you to clarify that and is there a legal definition about that that has been used in case law.

Grant Gruber - I can’t speak to the case law issue; what I can say is that our conclusion about growth inducement is based on that ABAG is regional planning authority in terms of population forecast.

They are just projecting lower population employment growth for San Ramon then what San Ramon’s General Plan does. Again, it has been this way for quite some time it is not new and, to rectify that inconsistency you can’t really arrive at any conclusion other than it is a significant impact. So that’s what the distinction of plan growth and unplanned growth is. ABAG’s what they are contemplating for San Ramon is lower than what San Ramon is contemplating that’s the distinction.

Chair O'Loane - Any there any other municipalities that have the ABAG projections umm higher than San Ramon.

Grant Gruber - I don’t have that information off hand.

Chair O'Loane - Could you find it out?

Grant Gruber - Sure.

Chair O'Loane - Thanks. Other questions?

Comm. Viers - Maybe later but not now.

Chair O'Loane - Okay. We will. Thank you Grant. With that, we will open the public hearing portion. I have two speaker cards at this point I don’t know if anyone else cares to speak. Um just, want to um make a point of basically emphasize what Ms. Chamberlain was saying that um they are looking for specific comments and areas that the staff and the consultants are capable of responding to in some material fashion. So um, ahh I can’t necessary limit what people say at all but please keep that in mind in the course of all of this. So I have two speakers cards here um so were going to lead off with Jim Gibbon

Jim Gibbon - Good evening Planning Commissioners. My name is Jim Gibbon I live at 410 Greg Place. I have two subjects one is the content of the General Plan and the second is the issue of growth inducing. Um, at the last meeting joint meeting I spoke in there was a question posed to me that I would like to give you a list. I mentioned there were four items that were included in the General Plan update from which the EIR is um based on. And um in fact there are 18. We are creating a General Plan update, which is massively changing everything in the City including the size of the City.

And then writing an EIR recommending changing the General Plan so that it makes it legal to do that. So it is not a General Plan to follow for the growth of the City but create the growth of the City projections and then change the EIR and the General Plan to cover for it. And then say that the three main elements that will govern urban sprawl and lead to the ahh the new urbanism, we gonna violate them. There are not attainable. One is growing like the devil, the other is corrupting the air, and the third is making a hell of a lot of noise.

In the General Plan it says don’t do that your saying that is an exception because guess what? Were gonna expand, were gonna grow, and were gonna double the size of the City and to hell with the General Plan. Except that were writing the General Plan. So you cannot come up with three things that your gonna violate while you’re writing it. You should be writing something that says this is how were gonna mitigate not how were gonna get around it. I’m not gonna mention the various different things of the 18 items except for one which really gulls me and is that your actually extending the General Plan. This is a General Plan update it is not a 10 or 20-year extension of the General Plan that was a twenty-year plan.

And um somebody ought to call you on it you can ignore it you can say that it does not matter that you had the right to do anything and as a charter City Council you do have the right to be undemocratic and that’s exactly what I consider this extension of the General Plan. Its one thing to update it it’s another thing to extend it for another 10 years as if you had the right to do that. This issue of expanding the City’s urban boundary lines ahh which by passing this General Plan update you basically authorizing putting on the ballot to elements. One is the expansion of the urban growth boundary and other is the extension of Ordinance 197.

Then the General Plan says that is not growth inducing because that is not planning. You’re not it could that ahh covering Tassajara and covering the hills on the Westside could be protecting those for future preservation not growth inducing. The problem is that in your own General Plan and Dave Hudson  is likes  to speak of this it requires you to develop any property that becomes part of the City’s Urban Growth Boundary.

In the General Plan it says that um that allow the growth develop only within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary and only in accordance with the plan for full urban services police, fire, parks, water, sanitary, street, storm drains, that sounds like urbanism that your basically expanding and mandated by the General Plan policy as Dave Hudson likes to speak to develop it. You are not protecting something that you are mandated to develop. And to say that we are going to expand into the hills or expand into Tassajara Valley and were protecting it from the County violates  the General Plan because it mandates that you develop it, put in services put in roads, put in fire, and put in houses. If you want to do that then you should recognize it in the EIR. If you are basically mandating by your approval of the General Plan update that your gonna move the Urban Growth Boundary then that should be reflected in the EIR by mandate of policy of the General Plan.

You cannot ignore the fact that you are growth inducing and causing um, um greenhouse gas increases, air quality increases, noise increases. You cannot just say that it is beyond your control because guess what if you don’t move the Urban Growth Boundary that is your control. That is your control mechanism not to violate the General Plan, or any of these other things.

These are the sections that mandate you to develop those sections require you to develop anything that comes in to the Urban Growth Boundary so don’t move it and low and behold, we do not violate anything. You don’t have to violate anything you don’t have to violate anything. But your gonna do what you wanna do and we will have to react to that. You have to put these two items on the ballot in November otherwise, you violate the General Plan. Um, I am suggesting to you that will be battle because you are violating the General Plan in order to expand the Urban Boundary, um the Urban Growth Boundary.  By expanding it by not including that development in the General, in the EIR and the effects of the quality of the environment thank you.

Chair O'Loane - Troy Bristol. Anybody else? Are there any other cards?

Troy Bristol - Good Evening. My name is Troy Bristol.  I am the Land Conservationist for Save Mount Diablo and I appreciate the opportunity to speak this evening. Umm, as I stated a few weeks back when I spoke before City Council and Planning Commission save Mount Diablo primary concern is the General Plan update, ahh the proposed Sphere of Influence and Urban Growth Boundary expansion into a little bit over 1,600 hundred acres of the Tassajara Valley to include the Eastside Specific Plan. The EIR does not indentify specific impacts to natural resources, sensitive habit, and agricultural resources. The EIR defers analysis in the Tassajara Valley until such time as a specific plan is developed. Deferral of environmental analysis under CEQA is inappropriate. The Policy requires San Ramon to propose an expansion rather than maintaining or contracting the UGB. Save Mount Diablo is only concerned with the Tassajara Valley.

Chair O'Loane - If you have 100 acres and you build 2 homes verse, 100 homes one is, unsure what is going to happen and how can you analyze this.

Troy Bristol - Save Mount Diablo recognizes programmatic Urban Growth Boundary is at project level and some see it as development. 

Comm. Kerger - It is not at project level.

Troy Bristol - Some foresee development will occur and should be examined in detail.

Comm. Kerger - Expanding the General Plan to 2030 is a requirement by the State.

Roger Peters - State law requires each California city and county to prepare a General Plan. The General Plan needs to address changes attitudes and any changes in the State law.

Comm. Viers - State law requires each California city and county to prepare a General Plan. In addition to the General Plan we have formed these governments, agencies, ABAG, we have one in the south, and they are all over. We all know what ABAG does. They give us our housing numbers and population numbers. If you think they do not hold a heavy hammer just visit our friendly city to the south and see what they are going through for ignoring this. And so we have the State telling us to do a General Plan and we have ABAG telling us we have to plan for “x” amount of housing. In addition to that, we have business that support the housing so it is incumbent upon City Council, the Planning Commission all the support committees and of course the planning staff to work in unison with the citizens in this community and develop a General Plan. That’s what we did with Measure “G” we had thirty-two commissioners and had the City input. So umm, ahh, I am quite offended when someone tells me that what where’re doing is illegal. What we’re doing is exactly what were supposed to be doing. Now you might disagree with the direction but vote against it when it comes out on the ballot.

Because that’s what we’re going to do is put it on the ballot and if it gets voted down, ahh just like last time it got voted in we will be more than happy to follow the direction. But we’re actually doing what were supposed to be doing and, planning takes so long to do and you don’t really understand it until you worked in it as a consultant or as in our position after years and years. You know I sat back the other day and was speaking to my wife and I said look at this stuff I can remember planning this over 10 years ago. The same thing is going to happen 10 years down the line so we need to plan for everything that is going on around us. As far as Tassajara Valley goes, I enjoyed your comments I am sure that Mount Diablo would prefer that nothing ever get built there. And I wish that we had the resources to just rope it off and say okay no more building for eternally and that is going to be a green strip to look at the mountain.

But unfortunately, there are private property owners there. At some point when they get to be my age they want to cash in and sell it out and develop it and they have every right to do so. If they are going to do that that’s when a Specific Plan comes in and that’s when your group, you can work with us and we can say what do we want out there so it does not look like Los Angeles. But if you think that it is never gonna get developed I mean just picture 50 years from now. I want you to project 50 years and that’s Tassajara Valley out there. Do you think it is going to look exactly the same in 50 years as it looks today?

 It’s not we have to plan for something to go out there even if it is nothing which would please everyone so. I think as far as Sphere of Influence go San Ramon has been burnt enough. I agree I disagree with Jim Blickenstaff, ahh, we’ve seen what has happened when we let the County overrule us. So simply what we are trying to do in this instance and the voters can vote on it we need to plan out there 20-30 years. I love to see it all be a Napa Valley vineyard but that’s a pipe dream. But the point I am making is you cannot turn a blind eye when you doing a General Plan, and this is general it’s not specific. And that’s where I disagree with you only in that I understand your point of view and agree with some of the points you did make. However, we’re looking at a programmable a program not a project. The projects will come later and the projects might never get passed first base.

They might be so distasteful they might never get there. But um, I think that at this point you know the General Plan is called the General Plan for a reason and I have been involved in a lot of them that is why I am speaking my peace tonight. Because I cut my teeth on the General Plan so with this Chair, Commissioner here and we have one of our newest member I believe is on the thirty-two Commission ahh General Plan update. So there is a lot of experience up here that has been this way and you know, this isn’t asking for skyscrapers down Tassajara Valley,  or whatever um we pleaded, we pleaded, we pleaded with on that Norris Canyon to move that line so it would be in the City of San Ramon so we can control it and no, they fought and fought and fought and we lost that battle.

 Okay so what happened the same thing as Dougherty Valley, they built under the auspicious of the County much higher, and steeper and denser than we would of permitted. And now they are draining us for our facilities to control them up their and we might as well bring them into the City and make them part of the City. And it just seems like we go around and around with the same problem.

We have a problem we can address it and fix it but because people do not want to move a line this way or that way they actually allow a worse development to go in just to win the battle of a line. And, I am quite tired of it I am fed up with losing the battle of a line and inheriting a project that we could of developed at a much less dense pace. And I think that is the motivation in this Tassajara urban  development line is if it is gonna get developed  at some point in the next 20 or 30 years we wanna have a say. That’s it.

Chair O'Loane - Our principal purpose tonight was to take testimony is that correct.  And um I think we’ve succeeded in taking the testimony that we intended to. We want to thank the members and the public in participating and I think we are ready to Ms. Chamberlain make a comment.

Debbie Chamberlain - We have um, as the Commission told staff many times; the City likes to issue adequate opportunities for the public to provide comments on all of our projects. Um, if it is the desire of the Commission to hold a second hearing just on the EIR only, just to receive comments, not to respond to comments on the General Plan, just to solicit additional testimony on the accuracy and adequacy of the EIR, we can schedule a meeting for Monday May 17 at 7:00 p.m. in these chambers. We will mail notice to those folks who are on our list for this update. That is an option for the Commission. We are still accepting written comments until Wednesday May 19, at 5:00 p.m. but it is an option we would like to present to the Commission at this time for consideration.  You do not have to do it the hearing was noticed on April 5 when the EIR was released with the Notice of Availability and Completion but we always like to provide the additional opportunity if it is the desire of the Commission.

Comm. Kerger - I am a firm believer in having as many as necessary and um again, you look in the audience and you have two people. Well, I am willing to come here again on the 17th if it is two different people. Not that I don’t you two but in addition to you two, I am a saying, I am sorry. But the real problem is that we keep addressing the same people and um, I say okay lets do one more before the 19th um, actually it would be two more correct?

Debbie Chamberlain - No, the Joint Public Hearing on the 18th is on the General Plan only and Climate Action Plan it is not on the EIR.

Comm. Kerger - Alright, well I am available on the 17th.

Chair O'Loane - What’s the ahh you have a comment?

Comm. Wallis - Yeah, I do. The purpose of the meeting tonight was to discuss specific issues with the EIR not the General Plan. It’s been noticed we have two people show up that gave their comments ahh, the written period is opened up until May 19th. I think that is an adequate time for anyone to say his or her peace to do so. I do not think we need to have or should have another meeting on the 17 and two more people in the audience. I think that is a waste of everyone’s time.

Vice Chair Sachs - I prefer it only so that it could be said that we did not do it. And you know, and maybe that is a poor reason but we are giving the opportunity. We have really been dealing with this since last summer going forward on each of these.

Comm. Kerger - How many people are there on our list?

Vice Chair Sachs - Yeah, how many people are on our list?

Debbie Chamberlain - About 225

Comm. Kerger - 225 I mean.

Vice Chair Sachs - I am available

Comm. Kerger - I am available

Chair O'Loane - I know people are available. The question is, is there a point in having it if people can put written comments in for the next two weeks right? I mean that is basically, what it boils down to. So ahh, I agree with Eric I don’t really see the point. Given that people were not closing, were not closing the opportunity to comment. We just ahh, not having people coming up to the dais but there words are written down anyways so I don’t see what difference it makes on that level. Points have been well taken and ahh need to be considered and we will continue to consider things for the next couple of weeks.

Comm. Kerger - I absolutely agree with Comm. Wallis and the Chair and the only reason why I said I am available is because so of the much of a concern out their in the public is to have public hearings. Not written testimony but public hearings so ahh, I, I, and I don’t this to sound bad I never think it is a waste of time if we are convincing one more person out there in our community that what were doing is listening to them. And, ahh taking their option very seriously. Ahh, if I have a passion for it I would be here at every meeting. I am concerned that there not, so I leave it up to the rest of you to decide.

Comm. Wallis - So you agree with us but you disagree with us.

Chair O'Loane - Either you wanna have the meeting or you don’t, You wanna be a tiebreaker Dennis?

Comm. Viers - I’ll be the tiebreaker. No, I don’t. And I will tell you why because I have seen those quarter page or 1/8 page ad or whatever in the paper because I read it religiously. , um I have seen them in public places, I have talked to people, and you know it is the old adage like the City Center. If they don’t want it they show up and if they do want it they don’t show up. I don’t see them breaking down the door, lining the signs out there going this EIR stinks. They have had plenty of opportunity we have done the mailers we have done our due diligence and I just think in a recession.

Chair O'Loane - Are you referring to the Air Quality portion?

Comm. Viers - I want you to know that Harry and I commuted to this meeting tonight. I vote no.

Chair O'Loane - Well then, that is the direction we are going to give and we will ahh, love to hear public comments within the next couple of week. Appreciate it and we will continue to meet with people to hear what their comments are as well. With that we will

Debbie Chamberlain - Ahh, we need a motion.

Chair O'Loane - Look for a motion.

Comm. Kerger - Can I make the motion? I move that we accept all written and oral comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report received to date, and direct staff and the City’s Consultant to prepare the Reponses to Comments document, and close the public hearing regarding said Draft Environmental Impact Report and accept written comments until 5:00 p.m. on May 19, 2010.

Chair O'Loane - Is there a second?

Vice Chair Sachs - I’ll second.

Chair O'Loane - All in favor, ahh do we need to do a roll call? All in favor

Chair O'Loane - Opposed? Motion passes.

Review of the City of San Ramon’s Draft Fiscal Year 2010/11 through Fiscal Year 2014/15 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for General Plan Conformance.  Staff Report: Amy Amiri; Senior CIP Administrative Analyst.

Amy Amiri Senior Analyst  gave a brief background on the Capital Improvement Program. Ms. Amiri stated that the Capital Improvement Program projects are grouped in nine categories that consist of Circulation; Signal; Parks; Landscaping; Drainage; Facilities; Other; Developer and Planning. Ms. Amiri stated that the 5-year Capital Improvement Program was reviewed by the Finance Committee, Parks & Community Services, and Transportation Advisory Committee.

Vice Chair Sachs expressed his concerns about the traffic, signage, parking, and widening of the sidewalk at Country Club Elementary School. Vice Chair Sachs asked if the sidewalk is owned by the City or School District and if it’s maintained by the City or School District.

Ms. Amiri stated that the Fiscal Year 2009/2010 Report includes as a long-term goal the widening of the sidewalk along Blue Fox Way in front of the school. The sidewalk is owned by the City. Staff is coordinating the sidewalk widening with the School District and through grants.

 Comm. Kerger stated that the school board needs to realize the safety issues associated with the parking, traffic, and signage.  

Vice Chair Sachs asked Ms. Amiri for clarification about Henry Ranch Park and its funding and timing of construction.

Ms. Amiri replied that the developer to date has paid $80,000.00 specifically for the design of Henry Ranch Park. The project is scheduled beyond five years due to lack of funding availability.  Ms. Amiri added that the City collects Parkland Dedication Fees which fund the Park Development Fund and are used for improvements and additions to the Parks with the City.

Vice Chair Sachs asked for clarification on the size of the park.

Comm. Kerger replied 15 acres.

Vice Chair Sachs asked if the projection of building the park would be five million dollars.

Ms. Amiri replied yes.

Vice Chair Sachs commented that the developer paid $80,000.00 and no work has been done.

Ms. Amiri replied that the City collects Parkland Dedication fees which fund the Park Development Fund and are used for improvements and additions to the Parks with the City. The developer has paid more than just the $80,000.00

Vice Chair Sachs asked if it is the City’s would be responsible to develop the park.

Ms. Amiri replied yes and currently is unfunded because there are not enough funds in this particular Park Development Fund to construct the park.

Comm. Viers asked for clarification on page eight in the Funding Sources Landscaping and Lighting District section and if these figures are actual funds the City has.

Ms. Amiri replied yes and the City Council will be adopting the budget in May.

Comm. Viers asked if the projects are based on projected revenue sources and was the current recession factored into these projections.

Ms. Amiri replied yes and it needs to be a balanced five-year projection.

Comm. Kerger asked about projects and how they are valued as a priority and programmed.

Ms. Amiri replied that this year seven new projects have been added to the Capital Improvement Program. The projects are evaluated and prioritized by City staff.  The projects are reviewed with regards to safety, the need and funding, availability and programmed accordingly within the Five Year Capital Improvement Program.

Comm. Kerger stated that she was glad to see that the Park Restroom Renovation Project is scheduled for Fiscal Year 2010/2011 and would like to see that Athan Downs Park be the first park completed.

Ms. Amiri replied that the parks scheduled for restroom renovation work during fiscal year 2010/2011 include Athan Downs, Boone Acres, Mill Creek Hollow, Village Green and Old Ranch Parks.

Chair O’Loane asked about the Bollinger Canyon Pedestrian traffic signal project.

Ms. Amiri replied that the city staff will be modifying the timing of the signal so it provides more time to cross Bollinger Canyon Road.

Chair O’Loane asked for clarification on the Bollinger Canyon Road Widening project.

Ms. Amiri replied that staff was able to receive a $382,000 Highway Safety Improvement Program grant to provide intersection pedestrian modification improvements. Ms. Amiri added that staff will continue to look at other funding  sources to complete the remaining portion of the project limits. The work will be coordinated with the widening of Bollinger Canyon Road, which will begin this summer.

Chair O’Loane asked what was requested and spent in fiscal year 2009/2010 and where are we for the current year.

Ms. Amiri replied that 17 million dollars was requested for the 2009/2010 Capital Budget and 75% of that has been spent to date.

Chair O’Loane asked where the remaining of funds go.

Ms. Amiri replied it remains encumbered or will be spent within the next few months.  

Comm. Kerger asked what would happen if the State takes the Redevelopment Agency Funds from the City.

Ms. Amiri replied that the projects funded by the Redevelopment Agency fund have already been allocated and appropriated with bond proceeds and would not be affected.

Chair O’Loane asked Ms. Amiri what does the $200,000 for Stop Gap Repairs provide.  Chair O’Loane further asked what is the City’s current Pavement Condition Index (PCI).

Ms. Amiri replied that the Stop Gap Repairs project provides local repairs to pavement sections until full pavement rehabilitation occurs with the Annual Pavement Management Program.

Chair O’Loane asked what is the anticipated Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for the end of 2010/2011

Ms. Amiri replied 76

Ms. Amiri replied 73.

Chair O’Loane asked what is the target the City is trying achieving.

Maria Robinson Engineering Services Director  replied that the City’s overall target is 75 but with all the work being done, scheduled and completed we are at 76.

Chair O’Loane asked if these are the City’s standards.

Ms. Robinson replied yes.

It was moved by Commissioner Viers and seconded by Commissioner Sachs that the Planning Commission adopts Resolution No. 07-10 finding the Five-Year FY 2010/2011 through FY 2014/2015 Capital Improvement Program in conformance with the City’s General Plan.

AYES:         Comms. Viers, Sachs, Wallis, Kerger, and Chair O’Loane

NOES:        None

ABSTAIN:    None

ABSENT:       None


12.         ADJOURNMENT

There being no further discussion, Chair O’Loane adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.

Respectively Submitted, Luisa Willnecker


We provide efficient delivery of quality public services that are essential to those who live and work in San Ramon.
2401 Crow Canyon Rd, San Ramon, CA 94583 | Map | Phone (925) 973-2560 | Fax (925) 838-3231