William & Susan Fereira
October 12, 2026
To the Members of the City Council
City of San Ramon
7000 Bollinger Canyon Road
San Ramon, CA 94583
Subject: Strong Opposition to Municipal Bond Financing for Private Corporate Development
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing as an owner and taxpayer of San Ramon to express my strong opposition to the proposed use of municipal bond financing to fund the upcoming private corporate development project in our city.
While economic growth is important, shifts in our local economy should not be funded by shifting financial liabilities onto San Ramon taxpayers, nor should municipal mechanisms be leveraged to give private corporations a competitive advantage.
I urge the City Council to reject this financing proposal based on the following critical concerns:
• Financial Risk to Taxpayers: Utilizing municipal mechanisms to back private development exposes the city to unnecessary long-term financial vulnerability. If the project faces delays, economic downturns, or commercial failure, local taxpayers could ultimately bear the burden of stabilizing or subsidizing the infrastructure.
• Diversion of Public Resources: Municipal credit and bonding capacity are precious, finite public resources. They should be strictly reserved for essential public goods that directly benefit all residents—such as upgrading our roads, expanding local parks, funding public safety, and improving public schools— rather than boosting the profit margins of private developers. • Market Distortion: Private corporations should secure their financing through traditional commercial lending markets. Providing taxpayer-backed, lowerinterest financing distorts the local market and sets a troubling precedent that the city will act as a financial backer for private entities.
San Ramon is a vibrant, thriving community because of its balanced approach to fiscal responsibility and high quality of life. Subsidizing private corporate infrastructure undermines these core principles.
I request that this letter be entered into the official public record for the upcoming council meeting, and I strongly urge you to vote NO on any resolution authorizing municipal bond financing for this private development.
Thank you for your time, leadership, and continued service to our community.
Sincerely,
William & Susan Fereira
Tuesday, October 13, 2026
Public comment Council Meeting Agenda Item 9.2
City Council Members:
Requested action
Continue the public hearing and do not adopt Resolution No. 2026-122. No further City-sponsored financing strategy, endorsement, authorization, or implementation for Bella Village Apartments should advance on the present unexplained project categorization, scope, environmental and financing record. Before exercising its available financing discretion, the Council should require a complete, understanding of the scope of the “affordable housing project” and its impact on our RHNA obligations. It is not until Alternative Options and option 2 (on packet page 72/202) that the reader is informed that “…will not issue the Bonds to finance the Project, putting the funding and construction of the affordable housing project in jeopardy.” Why? The associated project records contain different financial quantities. They should be explained together, not treated as interchangeable amounts.
There are many previous and conflicting records which contain different financial quantities and statements regarding this project, the percentage of units and costs associated with them. These issues must be Reconciled to provide an accurate financing history, current budget, and affordability commitments.
Given the significant number of previously approved Affordable Housing projects (including Eden) throughout the city, the public needs to understand clearly how these various projects impact our RHNA obligations, exactly how many units will be affordable, what $$ amounts equate to affordable and how these projects are being approved without solid financial footing.
This is not opposition to affordable housing. It is opposition to making financing the organizing priority while leaving the City Council and public without the information needed to assess the development being financed. Affordable housing should provide healthy, safe, accessible homes, not leave residents to cope with unresolved industrial site, arterial roadway, infrastructure, or mobility constraints. The staff report expressly offers continuation as an alternative. The Council should use it. (Agenda Item 9.2 staff report, packet p. 72.) Sincerely,
Susie Ferris-Inderkum
Resident
Item 9.2. and 5.5 Public Comment
As trying to fulfill their California Dream in using San Ramon as their bank and the Contra Costa County as their kitchen that cooks up all their communist ideas with their comrades in San Francisco, City of San Ramon is in peril of becoming bankrupt in 10 years ridden with crimes and ruled by communist style government who put their political dissidents in mental health and organ harvesting with police service is only available to keep communists in power and everyone in silence going about their miserable and deplorably abominable way of life! Current! I have been uper excited that my audience is super excited about my Historical Tour Walks I read to the oung girls at Glide Memorial, the look and hope that I ee on their innocents faces gives me my everything to keep going. And My son and I are going to be publishing his book of Affim1ation
To iew thi form ubmission online plea e follow the link below:
https://www.samamon.ca.gov/fonn/one.aspx?
objectld=2 l 329641 &conte>.ild= 12608466&retumto= ubmi sions
should identify the actual authority and its limits, rather than leave residents to infer them from a financing resolution.
1. The financing decision warrants meaningful scrutiny, not treatment as a formality.
The proposal concerns 131 rental units at 2233 San Ramon Valley Boulevard, formerly Morgan's Masonry. The California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) would issue bonds for LIHTC Advisors, LLC, or an affiliate. The proposed resolution covers financing and refinancing, issuance and reissuance, and broad implementing authority for City officers. The $45 million ceiling is not a $45 million City appropriation or City repayment obligation. That distinction does not make the public approval inconsequential. (Agenda Item 9.2 staff report, packet p. 70; Proposed Resolution No. 2026-122, §§ 1–4, packet p. 74.) The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) public approval process is not confined to repayment mechanics. The governing regulation requires a reasonable opportunity to express views on the proposed bonds and the project's location and nature. It permits reasonable hearing procedures and speaking limits; it does not require additional hearings merely because financing reaches $45 million. Questions about the former yard, residential suitability, surrounding traffic, services, and the development actually being financed therefore belong in this hearing. (26 Code of Federal Regulations § 1.147(f)-1(c)–(d).) The borrower's repayment responsibility does not address environmental compliance, public facility needs, infrastructure maintenance, or ongoing service obligations. The City should distinguish the financing disclaimer from its other lawful responsibilities. Its limited debt exposure is not a reason to limit the explanation of the decision before it. (Agenda Item 9.2 staff report, packet p. 71.)
2. Continue the hearing so disclosure precedes the decision.
I object to resolving this proposed local financing approval at a single sitting on the limited information supplied. The City packet contains a three-page staff report, the proposed resolution, and a vicinity map, but no current sources-and-uses statement, operative entitlement decision, conditions of approval, or project-specific environmental explanation.
That omission from this decision packet does not prove that no relevant records exist elsewhere. (Agenda Item 9.2 staff report and attachments, packet pp. 70–76.) The agenda description raises an additional concern about adequate notice under the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act). On printed agenda page 2, Agenda Item 9.2 identifies the proposed bond issuance, CMFA, LIHTC Advisors, LLC, and Bella Village Apartments, but does not disclose the proposed $45,000,000 financing ceiling. That amount appears in the staff report and proposed resolution, rather than in the agenda description residents use to decide whether to investigate or participate. By comparison, the immediately preceding Item 9.1 expressly identifies its $4,104,085.86 contract limit. Although the transactions differ and the Bella Village bonds are not City repayment obligations, the financing amount remains important information about the public approval being requested. The City should explain why it included the financial limit for one action but omitted it for the other. (Agenda, packet p. 2; Agenda Item 9.2 staff report, packet pp. 70–71; proposed resolution, packet pp. 73–74.) Government Code section 54954.2(a)(1)(A) requires the agenda to contain a brief general description of each item of business. It does not expressly require every financing term or dollar amount to appear, and I am not asserting that omission of the amount automatically establishes a violation. Nevertheless, the description's purpose is to enable interested members of the public to recognize the business under consideration and decide whether to participate. Here, the proposed ceiling and the authorization for issuance and reissuance are material features of the approval. The City should assess whether the agenda adequately communicates that scope, rather than answer this concern solely by pointing to information in the longer attachments. Please obtain the City Attorney's explanation of the agenda's sufficiency and address the omission before final action. (Government Code § 54954.2(a)(1)(A); California Attorney General, The Brown Act: Open Meetings for Local Legislative Bodies, 2003, printed pp. 16–17; proposed resolution, § 2, packet p. 74.) Berkeley Rent Board
Please continue the item and expressly identify the project address, the $45,000,000 ceiling, and the proposed issuance and reissuance authority in the agenda description for the continued hearing, with the applicable advance notice and the availability of the completed return package requested in this comment. Separately, provide the actual TEFRA hearing notice and its publication or posting record. Unlike the Brown Act's general agenda description requirement, 26 Code of Federal Regulations section 1.147(f)-1(f)(2)(ii) expressly requires the maximum stated principal amount in the applicable public notice and approval. I do not infer that the separate TEFRA notice omitted the amount merely because the Council agenda did. The City should demonstrate compliance with that distinct requirement while also providing a clearer Council agenda. ecfr.gov The City's Official Meetings & Notices page lists the hearing notice as posted October 2 and the Council agenda as posted October 7. I am not asserting that residents received only 72 hours' notice. The question is whether the information available before the vote enables meaningful scrutiny of the current financing proposal, rather than merely announcing it. (City of San Ramon, Official Meetings & Notices, October 13 entries.) CMFA also considered Bella Village in August 2025, as discussed below. October 13 therefore should not be described as the only public meeting any agency has ever held on the project.
However, an earlier preliminary financing action does not establish that San Ramon residents have had a meaningful opportunity to review the current $45 million proposal. (CMFA, August 29, 2025 minutes, Item 12(hh), PDF p. 5; Item 12 heading, PDF p. 2.) The agenda states that the Council will distribute written comments received after the twohour cutoff the following day. Thus, a written response to substantial information first supplied at the hearing could reach the Council only after its vote. Oral participation remains available, so that fact alone does not establish a violation. However, it does provide a practical reason to continue deliberation when material explanations arrive for the first time that evening. (October 13 agenda, participation instructions, packet p. 4.) Please publish the complete return package and written responses at least 14 days before the continued hearing, provide accessible participation, and permit further comment on material new information before final action. Written responses and an organized record are requested decision aids; I do not claim the Ralph M. Brown Act automatically requires every requested matrix. Do not close the process on the premise that an oral assurance at the hearing has resolved a question residents have not had time to examine.
If staff or the applicant asserts an urgent financing deadline, identify the actual award condition, expiration date, extension options, and consequences of the requested continuance. A documented deadline deserves consideration. A general warning that delay could jeopardize housing does not provide those facts or eliminate the continuation option staff expressly presented. (Agenda Item 9.2 staff report, packet p. 72.)
3. Reconcile the financing history, current budget, and affordability commitments.
The following records contain different financial quantities. Explain them together; do not treat them as interchangeable amounts. The California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC) and California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) records add important information that is not summarized in the City's report.
Record and date Amount What the record describes
CMFA minutes, August 29,
2025; Resolution No. 25-401,
Item 12(hh)
Up to
$35,000,000
Preliminary declaration of intent for
Bella Village; not proof of completed
issuance.
CMFA minutes, PDF pp. 2 and 5.
CMFA Bella Village staff report,
August 29, 2025
$67,166,055 Proposed construction financing
sources and uses.
CMFA report, PDF p. 127.
CDLAC/CTCAC report CA-26-
481, May 12, 2026
$64,695,657 Application stage project cost and
financing presentation.
State report, pp. 3–4.
CDLAC final award list, June 22,
2026; updated September 3,
2026
$18,240,960 Total allocation for application 26-
481, shown as 2025 carryforward.
CDLAC final list, p. 1.
Proposed City Resolution No.
2026-122, October 13, 2026
Up to
$45,000,000
Outstanding principal ceiling under
the proposed plan of finance.
Proposed resolution, § 2, packet p.
74. The $35 million preliminary amount and $45 million proposed ceiling differ by $10 million.
That does not establish a $10 million increase in construction cost. The two historical budget totals also differ and should not be used as a verified current budget. Explain changes in financing structure, acquisition arrangements, eligible costs, construction and permanent financing, and the scope of each authorization.
The earlier CMFA budget separates tax-exempt, taxable, and recycled bond proceeds, deferred amounts, and tax credit equity. Publish the current sources and uses, identify what the City's ceiling covers, and distinguish committed financing from anticipated sources. Do not treat a volume cap allocation, bond authorization, project budget, and tax credit amount as separate cash receipts. (CMFA, August 29, 2025 Bella Village staff report, PDF p. 127.) Disclose current developer and financing fees, issuance expenses, reserves, contingencies, environmental investigation and cleanup allowances, off-site improvements, and funding for continuing compliance. Explain material changes from the earlier submissions and whether necessary resident protections are funded, deferred, or omitted. Identify any refinancing, reissuance, or replacement debt steps already contemplated.
The affordability descriptions also changed: CMFA's 2025 report described 30–60 percent of area median income (AMI), while the May 2026 state report describes 30–80 percent, with 130 restricted units and one unrestricted manager's unit. Both describe 55-year affordability.
These are different published descriptions, not proof of unlawful weakening. Identify the binding unit-by-unit restrictions, rent and utility allowance framework, duration, monitoring agency, and remedies for noncompliance. (CMFA, August 29, 2025 Bella Village staff report, PDF pp. 126 and 128; CDLAC/CTCAC, Project Staff Report CA-26-481, May 12, 2026, pp. 1–2.) The May 2026 state report anticipated construction beginning in October 2026 and completion in August 2028. That forecast does not establish that work has begun. Provide the actual permit, financing, construction, and occupancy status, and identify which decisions remain open. The City report's statement that CMFA "awarded bond financing" should tie to the precise action, amount, conditions, and date, rather than conflating preliminary intent, allocation, final authorization, and closing. (CDLAC/CTCAC, Project Staff Report CA-26-481, May 12, 2026, pp. 1–2; Agenda Item 9.2 staff report, packet p. 70.) Finally, disclose the City's expected share of the issuance fee and any other public financial participation. The current City report anticipates a payment to its General Fund but does not quantify it. The City should make that expected benefit transparent and consider it separately from environmental adequacy, affordability, and service readiness. (Agenda Item 9.2 staff report, packet pp. 71–72.)
4. Produce the actual entitlement and environmental decision record.
The City's August 1, 2024 Current Project List identifies Architectural Review application AR 2024-0002 as approved for 131 affordable units on 2.99 acres. A separate preliminary housing development (PHD) entry, PHD 2024-0003, describes the project as by right.
February 5, 2024, is in the date filed column, not an identified approval date field. The October 13 vicinity map instead labels the site AR 2022-0002. Reconcile these identifiers and establish whether the current borrower is financing the same approved project, a successor application, or a modified development. (City Current Project List, August 1, 2024, PDF pp. 15 and 19; Agenda Item 9.2 vicinity map, packet p. 76; prior use identified at p. 70.) Provide the operative decision, approval date, approved plans, conditions, application history, current ownership and borrower identity, applicable zoning and objective standards, and any approved departures from development standards. Identify the governing environmental determination or the supported explanation why a particular approval was not subject to CEQA. A project list entry is not a substitute for the actual decision.
Ministerial projects are exempt under CEQA Guidelines section 15268. The City should therefore identify the legal basis and eligibility record for any ministerial treatment rather than either reopening a lawful approval or assuming that the words "by right" resolve every later action. The CEQA Guidelines are the regulations in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. (CEQA Guidelines § 15268; 2026 compilation, printed p. 329.) Explain the treatment of the housing entitlement, demolition, grading, off-site improvements, utility connections, and this financing authorization separately. The agenda's general list of CEQA provisions does not supply an item-specific explanation. Identify the City's and CMFA's respective roles and the particular non-project, ministerial, statutory exemption, categorical exemption, or prior review basis invoked. (October 13 agenda, packet p. 1.) The relevant commitment question is what this resolution and its delegated authority actually authorize. I do not contend that every preliminary financing discussion is project approval.
Explain how the proposed action remains within established approvals and preserves any environmental review still required before a further commitment. (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15004, 15352 and 15378.)
5. The General Plan's VMT override does not establish Bella Village's environmental adequacy.
Through Resolution No. 2023-132, adopted December 12, 2023, the City certified the General Plan 2040 Environmental Impact Report (GP 2040 EIR) and adopted related findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC). Its findings retain significant and unavoidable operational and cumulative VMT impacts after mitigation. The SOC accepts identified residual impacts; it does not make them insignificant or eliminate applicable mitigation. (Resolution No. 2023-132, Exhibit 1, findings printed pp. 27–30 and 42–43; City adoption documents.)
The GP 2040 EIR contains cumulative analysis. My objection is the absence of a demonstrated, current explanation connecting that analysis to the development, transportation system, and implementation conditions relevant here. The General Plan's employee-based VMT finding does not, by itself, establish a significant impact from this residential project. Identify the proper residential metric, applicable screening, and analysis actually relied upon. (Resolution No. 2023-132, Exhibit 1, findings printed pp. 27–30 and 42– 43; City adoption documents.)
If section 15183 and Public Resources Code section 21083.3 are invoked for a discretionary action, identify the assessment of peculiar project or parcel effects, previously unexamined significant effects, off-site or cumulative effects, and substantial new information about greater severity. If prior project review is invoked under sections 15162 and 15164, identify that document and the applicable subsequent review determination. A later date alone does not require a new EIR; a generalized consistency assertion does not supply the necessary explanation. (Public Resources Code § 21083.3; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162, 15164 and 15183.) The adopted TRA-2 measure addresses project characteristics, transportation demand management, and physical design measures, with applicability and timing provisions. Identify the portions applicable to Bella Village, the basis for any supported screening exclusion, and the obligations actually secured in the project's conditions and monitoring record. (General Plan 2040 adopted findings, Mitigation Measure TRA-2, printed pp. 28–29.)
6. Provide a current cumulative setting and reconcile related transportation assumptions.
Provide a dated comparison showing how relevant City Walk, City Village, Iron Horse Village, Bishop Ranch 7, Bishop Ranch 11, Orchards, and other material redevelopment is represented in the analysis relied upon. Distinguish occupied uses, vacancies, demolition, active construction, approved but unoccupied development, and reasonably foreseeable proposals.
Do not double count a master plan and its implementing projects. Identify which assumptions remain valid, which changed, and where any required evaluation appears.
The transportation comparison should identify material relationships with San Ramon's Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) and Communications Infrastructure project; Countywide Smart Signals; the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's (CCTA's) Innovate 680 program, including Coordinated Adaptive Ramp Metering (CARM); and the California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans') State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) ramp metering and Traffic Operation Systems (TOS) work. Include relevant Interstate 680 (I-680), arterial, transit, and trail changes affecting Bella Village's travel or construction setting.
These are requests to establish analytical coverage, not a claim that every regional project is part of Bella Village. Examine both directions of reliance: which transportation improvements and travel reductions did housing assume, and which housing and occupancy assumptions did transportation projects use? Identify studies, forecast years, network scenarios, geographic coverage, construction schedules, and responsible agencies. Separate functional project components from distinct projects whose effects may combine.
Include the Bollinger and Crow Canyon Road Iron Horse Trail (IHT) overcrossings, the San Ramon and Danville double-tracking proposals, and the Bicycle and Trails Master Plans to the extent the relied upon travel assumptions depend on them. Distinguish existing facilities from future facilities, funding requests from awards, and conceptual connections from enforceable delivery commitments. Do not credit a future network benefit without identifying how and when it becomes available.
Do not simply sum per-capita or per-employee efficiency ratios. The City's adopted findings distinguish those metrics from absolute VMT and explain how a supported efficiency threshold can address cumulative VMT. Apply the correct method and substantiate its assumptions.
Local construction, air quality, noise, drainage, and access need their own appropriate geographic and temporal assessment. (General Plan 2040 adopted findings, printed p. 30.)
7. Test VMT screening and claimed reductions against the actual housing and access commitments.
Identify any affordable housing, low VMT-area, transit, or other screening route relied upon, its criteria, and evidence that the approved and financed development satisfies them.
Recognize a supported screen; this comment does not require a full numerical model for every screened project. The relevant question is the methodological basis, including affordability restrictions where relied upon, not the label alone.
Where travel assumptions or claimed reductions matter, address work, school, shopping, medical, service, and visitor trips, including relevant cross-county destinations. Identify existing and committed transit service, operating hours, accessible paths to stops, safe crossings, bicycle connections, and the timing of improvements. Do not assume that income level or proximity to a route means every necessary trip is practicable without a car.
The May 2026 state scoring sheet credits transit proximity and nearby amenities. Review that favorable information; don't ignore it. Provide the underlying locations, route measurements, service evidence, and dates, and explain how they relate to actual safe and accessible travel from the project. Financing program amenity points do not, by themselves, resolve the condition of every intervening crossing or connection. (CDLAC/CTCAC, Project Staff Report CA26-481, May 12, 2026, scoring sheet, p. 6.) The same meeting Bicycle Master Plan Update leaves the northern San Ramon Valley Boulevard facility choice dependent on a corridor study and the Deerwood Road protected intersection proposal dependent on further study. Identify the Bella Village frontage and offsite improvements that are actually required, funded, and scheduled before occupancy. A future bicycle map line is not an operating protected route. (Item 9.3, Bicycle Master Plan, internal p. 114; packet p. 196, projects 12A and 12B.)
For any credited transportation demand management (TDM) measure, identify the binding requirement, responsible operator, funding, start date, performance metric, reporting, verification, and corrective action. Distinguish enforceable reductions from vacancy, remote work assumptions, or general aspirations. Explain current staffing and oversight, including any transfer of responsibilities to the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC), through work plans and performance records—not assumptions that a committee change either ended or successfully replaced the work.
8. Explain the updated CAP, GHG thresholds, and continuing implementation obligations.
The Council adopted the updated Climate Action Plan (CAP) and CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Thresholds and Guidance Report on June 10, 2025, through Resolution No. 2025- 073. The guidance distinguishes consistency with demographic and land use assumptions from compliance with applicable CAP measures, and separately addresses quantitative analysis and construction emissions. Identify the applicable approach, checklist, supporting evidence, analysis year, and enforceable commitments for the financed development and any present action to which the framework applies. (City CAP adoption announcement; Resolution No. 2025-073, June 10, 2025; Adopted CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance Report, Chapters 4–6, printed pp. 20–32.)
I do not assume this 2025 framework automatically applies retroactively to a 2024 ministerial entitlement that has already been approved. Explain the chronology, any subsequent changes or approvals, and the requirements that remain enforceable. Separately, before endorsing further financing, obtain a current account of how the development supports or affects the City's climate implementation program.
Use consistent transportation, occupancy, construction, energy, and land use assumptions across the record. Identify who delivers each relied-upon improvement, its funding and timing, and whether its claimed benefit has already been counted elsewhere. Do not equate adopting a CAP or financing housing with delivering the infrastructure and programs needed to achieve a claimed reduction.
9. Demonstrate residential suitability at the former masonry yard and arterial frontage.
The City identifies the former Morgan's Masonry use. Its vicinity map places the site along San Ramon Valley Boulevard, with Deerwood Road to the south, Omega Road to the west, and I680 farther east, among surrounding commercial and industrial-type development. The map is not to scale; it does not establish exposure distances, contamination, measured noise, or a health risk conclusion. It does establish why this financing decision needs an intelligible sitespecific record. (Agenda Item 9.2 staff report, packet p. 70; Agenda Item 9.2 vicinity map, packet p. 76; prior use identified at p. 70.)
Provide the historical use assessment and available Phase I environmental site assessment, and explain any findings that require Phase II sampling or further investigation. Address, where relevant, soil, soil gas, groundwater, tanks, stored materials, fill, building materials, and neighboring properties. Identify the responsible regulator, required cleanup, clearance criteria for residential use, and continuing restrictions. Former masonry use is not proof of contamination; reuse of previously developed land is not proof of residential suitability.
Explain construction protections for demolition, excavation, material handling, dust, runoff, truck routes, equipment emissions, noise, vibration, and concurrent nearby work. Identify how potentially affected neighbors, workers, and later occupants will be protected, and who will inspect, document, and correct noncompliance.
Separately, demonstrate how the actual design protects future residents and outdoor common areas from surrounding roadway and industrial operations. Provide the relevant noise, air quality, exposure, and design analyses, and identify any necessary setbacks, building arrangement, ventilation, filtration, acoustical treatment, and protected outdoor space.
Where continuing operation or replacement of protective systems is relied upon, disclose the maintenance standard, responsible owner or manager, inspection, funding, and resident complaint process.
Distinguish project-generated or exacerbated effects from exposure to existing conditions, and identify the applicable CEQA, building, cleanup, public health, or financing due diligence standard for each issue. I am requesting the actual legal and technical basis, not treating every existing condition as automatically requiring a new CEQA document.
Identify surrounding lawful uses and their relevant loading, delivery, operating hour, noise, and truck access characteristics. The issue is not whether housing near any industrial use is categorically unacceptable. It is whether this design and location provide demonstrably suitable homes, usable daily services, safe access, and compatibility with continuing neighboring operations. Affordability should not lower the standard of care owed to residents.
10. Establish public service capacity, accessible connections, and delivery before occupancy.
Identify the actual water, wastewater, storm drainage, fire protection, emergency medical, school, parks, and other service providers for these parcels. Provide their relevant capacity determinations, conditions, needed improvements, and delivery schedules. Do not substitute a generic citywide service description for the applicable parcel and development record.
For any applicable environmental review, explain treatment of the physical effects of required new or expanded facilities and infrastructure, emergency access, and circulation hazards.
Separately disclose staffing, operating, maintenance, and fiscal responsibilities as readiness issues. This comment does not treat a budget concern alone as an environmental impact, and it does not accept a bond repayment disclaimer as a service-capacity analysis.
Provide a coordinated construction and access plan covering San Ramon Valley Boulevard, Deerwood Road, and Omega Road, including pedestrian and bicycle continuity, transit stops, emergency response, and overlapping roadway or redevelopment work. Identify accessible routes through construction and at occupancy, not merely accessible features within the buildings.
For necessary improvements or protective measures not yet complete, identify the binding completion trigger, financing, responsible party, verification, and available enforcement under lawful conditions. Explain what must be delivered before residents move in. An unspecified future public project should not be treated as an assured remedy for an immediate access or service deficiency.
11. Correct the resolution and confine delegated authority to the explained transaction.
The proposed resolution contains an apparently unrelated recital about maintaining vendor service continuity and avoiding a lapse between agreements. Section 1 would declare the recitals true. Remove that recital unless staff can identify its relevance and supporting facts; also correct the misordered TEFRA expansion and the "CFMA" reference in the staff report.
Those drafting errors do not alone prove invalidity, but an adoption document should accurately describe the action. (Proposed Resolution No. 2026-122, packet p. 73; Proposed Resolution No. 2026-122, §§ 1–4, packet p. 74; Agenda Item 9.2 staff report, packet pp. 70 and 72.)
Section 2 approves issuance and reissuance over time, using an outstanding principal ceiling.
Explain which series, refundings, reissuances, and financing periods are contemplated; what the ceiling limits; and when a changed amount, borrower, project, or transaction would require renewed approval or notice. I am not asserting that every refinancing needs another hearing. I am requesting the limits of the authorization actually sought. (Proposed Resolution No. 2026-122, §§ 1–4, packet p. 74.)
Section 3 permits City officers to execute documents and take actions they deem necessary or advisable to implement the resolution. Narrow that language to the specific financing approval. It should not silently authorize additional City assistance, guarantees, changes to the housing project, waiver of conditions, or environmental determinations not presented to the Council. (Proposed Resolution No. 2026-122, §§ 1–4, packet p. 74.) Requested limitation: "This resolution is limited to the public approval of the described plan of finance. It does not amend or expand land use approvals, waive applicable project conditions or environmental requirements, authorize additional City financial assistance or repayment obligations, or independently approve construction. City officers' implementing authority is limited accordingly. Any further action requiring Council approval shall return through the applicable noticed procedure."
This proposed limitation safeguards any later approval, not a substitute for the requested continuance or for demonstrating a lawful environmental basis. Any revised resolution should identify the exact approval being granted and the remaining decision points.
12. Require an indexed return package and substantive responses before a continued hearing.
Direct staff, in coordination with CMFA and the applicant, to return with one publicly accessible package containing the reconciled financing chronology and current sources and uses; current affordability commitments; the actual entitlement and by-right authority; the approved versus financed project comparison; the applicable environmental determinations and their demonstrated coverage; current cumulative, VMT, and climate information; site investigations and resident protections; service and access commitments; and a corrected, appropriately limited resolution.
For each material issue, identify the source document, date, page, conclusion, and responsible official. Existing studies may answer the question when their scope and continuing applicability are demonstrated. Where staff considers a requested study or determination unnecessary, identify the legal and factual reason. A general assurance that the project is compliant, affordable, or previously approved is not a response to a specific missing record or implementation question.
Publish the completed package and written responses before the continued hearing. If substantial new information is first presented at that hearing, provide a further meaningful opportunity to examine and comment on it before deciding. Maintain accessible, readily identifiable links with the Agenda Item 9.2 record.
Requested Council direction: Continue the public hearing; withhold adoption of Resolution No. 2026-122 and further City advancement of this financing plan pending the return of the record and completion of applicable legal requirements; and use the City's lawful authority to resolve identified environmental, site suitability, service, and implementation deficiencies before financing support proceeds. Continue the investigations and other lawful work needed to supply the missing information.
13. Include the complete comment in the City and CMFA records.
Please provide this comment to all Council members and include it with the hearing and financing record. Section 4 of the proposed resolution identifies Ronald E. Lee of Jones Hall LLP as the counsel through whom the certified resolution is to be forwarded to CMFA. Please also forward this comment and the substantive responses through that project-specific channel. (Proposed Resolution No. 2026-122, §§ 1–4, packet p. 74.) For CMFA and Mr. Lee: Please retain this comment in the Bella Village financing and approval record, circulate it to the assigned financial adviser and appropriate reviewing officials, confirm receipt, and identify the responsible CMFA adviser by name and email. Please identify any remaining CMFA decision dates and the opportunities for public comment before those decisions.
This comment concerns the current financing and project-readiness decision. It does not ask the Council to adjudicate pending litigation, assume another proceeding's entire record is incorporated here, or assert that a new comment reopens or extends an earlier deadline. It preserves the environmental, cumulative impact, public service, site suitability, and public participation objections stated here.
San Ramon should explain the current transaction, establish the applicable environmental and resident protections, allow informed public review, and only then decide whether to approve further financing support.
Respectfully submitted,
Brian C. Swanson, AICP
San Ramon Resident, Voter, and Taxpayer
Citation convention: "Packet" identifies the printed pages of the October 13, 2026 Council packet. Bicycle Plan pages use the Plan's internal numbering. Other sources use their own printed or PDF page numbers. Other sources use their own printed or PDF page numbering.
Linked and cited records are not represented as newly attached exhibits or as the complete project record.
The City Council regular meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 13, 2026.
The regular meeting agenda is available at,
https://sanramonca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/16/files/agenda/3722 View the Meeting:
1. In person
2. Livestream on YouTube: www.sanramon.ca.gov/YouTube
3. Livestream on the City’s Website: https://sanramonca.portal.civicclerk.com
4. Livestream on Zoom: https://cityofsanramon.zoom.us/j/99065730313 Meeting ID: 990 6573 0313 Provide Public Comment:
1. In person, by submitting a request to speak card to the City Clerk.
2. By Zoom, using the “Raise Hand” feature to request to speak.
3. Dial in by phone 1(669) 900-6833, using *9 to “Raise Hand,” and *6 to unmute.
4. By email to [email protected], indicating “Public Comment” and the corresponding “Agenda Item #” in the subject line.
Written comments received up to two hours before the meeting will be provided to the City Council and posted online in advance of the meeting at https://sanramonca.portal.civicclerk.com under the meeting date. Comments received after the cutoff will be provided to the Council the following day and posted online as noted above. Written comments will not be read aloud.
Technology Disruption:
If there is a disruption in technology that prevents remote participation, the meeting will be paused for up to one hour while the City works to restore service. If service cannot be restored, the City Council may adjourn or continue the meeting, following the City’s adopted Technology Disruption Policy.
Update your subscriptions, modify your password or email address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page. You will need to use your email address to log in.
If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please contact [email protected] or visit subscriberhelp.govdelivery.com.
This service includes a Public Alert System for San Ramon. Subscribers will receive real-time Public Safety and Emergency Alerts both via email and wirelessly. In order to receive these time-sensitive emergency notifications, you MUST subscribe to the service. To subscribe, please click here. For wireless alerts, text message and data rates may apply. This service is provided to you at no charge by City of San Ramon.
City of San Ramon | 7000 Bollinger Canyon Road, San Ramon, CA 94583 | (925) 973-2500 | www.sanramon.ca.gov Item No. 9.3 Public Comment