San Ramon council lowers minimum FAR in downtown to expand affordable rental housing

The San Ramon City Council on May 13 adopted a General Plan amendment, environmental review and an ordinance that reduce the minimum sitewide floor area ratio in the Downtown Mixed Use North zone from 1.25 to 0.5, a change proponents say will allow more affordable rental housing and opponents say undermines the city’s previously adopted plan. The council approved the measure in a single motion, adopted Ordinance 529 and approved Resolution 2025-048, by a 5-0 vote.

The change affects the DMU North district — roughly a 205-acre area of the city core that includes parts of Bishop Ranch and parcels bounded by Executive Parkway, I-680, Alcosta Boulevard and Norris Canyon Road. Cindy Yee, senior planner for the city, told the council the amendment would lower the minimum FAR from 1.25 to 0.5 while leaving the maximum FAR at 2.75.

City staff and the applicant, Sunset Development, said the reduction resolves an internal inconsistency between the city’s unit-based density standard (20–60 dwelling units per acre) and the FAR requirement that effectively required taller, denser structures to meet the prior minimum. “The 1.25 FAR effectively requires a five-story building,” Stephanie Ho, representing Sunset Development, said, adding that a 0.5 FAR can typically be achieved with three-story buildings and better fits a mix of housing types the city has sought in the core.

Why it matters: council, staff and the applicant said lowering the minimum FAR would expand opportunities to deliver deeply affordable rental apartments rather than for-sale units — housing that can serve more households over time and sometimes include on-site support services. Sunset and its partners told the council that altering the FAR would enable projects that could deliver more very-low- and low-income units. Stephanie Ho said approved plans at Bishop Ranch 7 and 11 included about 385 homes with 15% (58 units) designated affordable; Sunset proposes increasing affordable units to 91, an increase of 33 units. Ho told the council the average revenue gap between a market-rate for-sale unit and an affordable unit is about $700,000 per unit and that the estimated cost to deliver the 91 affordable units is about $60 million; she said federal and state tax credits would be used to address an estimated $20 million funding gap.

Opponents and concerns: speakers at the public hearing urged caution. Brian Swanson, a Twin Creek South resident, urged the council to reject the change, calling it “a unilateral sunset-driven change” that could “undermine community standards” and suggested the amendment could reduce overall residential capacity if not handled carefully. Other commenters questioned whether rental housing would produce the same community benefits as for-sale starter homes and raised procedural and notice concerns.

Council discussion and staff context: staff said Planning Commission recommended approval of the zoning changes. Council members asked for visual and design context: Yee and the applicant compared typical building forms, noting that structures meeting a 1.25 FAR are often 50–70 feet tall (structured parking and five stories) while projects developed at a 0.5 FAR can be three stories (roughly 30 feet). Several council members framed the vote around competing priorities: meeting the city’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligations and creating more affordable housing versus preserving prior General Plan design choices and sales-tax–generating retail opportunities.

Action: Vice Mayor Barros moved to approve the resolution and adopt Ordinance 529; Council member Rubio seconded. The motion carried unanimously. The ordinance and resolution were posted and become effective 30 days after adoption as required by law. Staff noted that specific development proposals still must proceed through the normal planning and entitlement process; the action changed the baseline zoning standards rather than approving any particular project.

What’s next: the amendment changes the city’s zoning code and General Plan text for DMU North; any future projects seeking to use the revised standards will file project-specific applications and required reviews, including any state density bonus requests or objective-standard waivers as applicable. Developers and nonprofit partners indicated they plan to pursue rental affordable projects that would be evaluated through the city’s usual permitting process.

The council’s action revises the baseline zoning framework but does not itself approve a development. Staff said the reduced minimum FAR does not prevent higher-intensity developments: the district’s 2.75 maximum FAR remains unchanged, and property owners may still pursue more intensive projects consistent with the code and any required approvals.