San Ramon council adopts CityWalk development agreement amendments after debate over planning‑commission oversight

The San Ramon City Council voted 4‑0 on Sept. 9 to adopt amendments to development agreements covering Bishop Ranch parcels and the CityWalk master plan, measures intended to clarify administrative procedures for future housing approvals.

Council member Junet, speaking at length before public comment, said the ordinance does not eliminate review and that “oversight is not eliminated. The ordinance 5 32 does not abolish planning commission or city council oversight.” He cited San Ramon Municipal Code d 6 23 c and described appeal rights and deferral authority for the zoning administrator as part of the existing process.

The measures amend a set of development agreements to allow certain administrative approvals by the zoning administrator (ZA) and to formalize application of the city’s housing‑element streamlining program for Bishop Ranch Parcel 1A and 3A. Supporters, including some council members, said the changes align the city with state housing law and reduce legal exposure to challenges that could arise if the city does not apply objective streamlining provisions to qualifying housing projects.

Opponents during public comment said the shift would reduce public oversight of major projects and flagged practical barriers to ZA review. Shirok Kathrani, a resident who submitted multiple public comments, said higher‑level review would be harder to access and noted the city’s appeal fee, saying, “Our council should has sworn in to serve the people of, San Raymond, not the Sunset development,” and calling the appeal fee “4,500” compared with regional averages residents had cited.

Other public commenters urged the council to retain planning‑commission hearings for large projects. Jim Blickenstaff asked that items 5.12 and 5.13 be pulled from consent for additional discussion, citing potential financial risk and affordable housing compliance. Staff and council members responded that the ZA authority is long‑standing in the code, that appeals to the planning commission and city council remain possible, and that the specific ordinance applies only to CityWalk entitlements rather than making a citywide change.

Council members also discussed specific drafting language. Council member Rubio asked whether a phrase saying the developer “may enter into a parking agreement with the office complex at BR‑15” could be tightened to ensure the city can secure required overflow parking; staff and other council members said the code contains a mechanism to require a parking management plan if needed.

After public comment, the council opened the public hearing on the CityWalk items, closed it following testimony, and then moved to adopt the ordinances by roll call. The motion to adopt Ordinance 5‑31 (amendment to the Bishop Ranch Parcel 1A development agreement) and Ordinance 5‑32 (amendment to the CityWalk development agreement for Parcel 3A) passed 4‑0 with Mayor Mark Armstrong absent. Several council members urged residents to contact council offices with questions and warned against misinformation circulating on social media.

The ordinances update how certain development plan amendments and future housing projects are processed under the CityWalk master plan; the council and staff said the changes formalize a practice they said is already permitted by the municipal code and required for consistency with state housing laws.

Votes at a glance: - Ordinance 5‑31 (Amendment No. 2 to citywide development agreement regarding Bishop Ranch Parcel 1A, ADA 2025‑001): adopted, roll‑call vote 4 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain (Mayor absent). - Ordinance 5‑32 (Amendment No. 3 to the CityWalk development agreement regarding Bishop Ranch Parcel 3A, ADA 2025‑0002): adopted, roll‑call vote 4 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain (Mayor absent).