San Ramon planning commission approves Annabelle at Bishop Ranch 12 with 15% on-site affordable units
Loading...
Summary
The San Ramon Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the Annabelle at Bishop Ranch 12, a 64–home for-sale development at 2 Annabelle Lane that includes 15% on-site affordable units and several waivers under the state density bonus law; commissioners asked staff to memorialize acoustical and air‑quality study recommendations in project conditions.
The San Ramon Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the Annabelle at Bishop Ranch 12 residential development, adopting Resolution No. 15‑25 as amended to memorialize technical-study compliance. The project, proposed at 2 Annabelle Lane, would demolish an existing office building and construct 64 for‑sale attached homes on roughly 3.57 acres and provide 10 on‑site affordable units (15% of the total).
Staff planner Lucas summarized the application and entitlement history, saying the proposal “includes 64 for sale attached multifamily homes, 15% of which will be affordable units,” and that the applicant seeks relief using the state density bonus, including “1 concession, 4 waivers, and a parking reduction.” The development would provide a mix of unit types, accessory dwelling unit options, and 137 on‑site parking spaces under the density‑bonus parking reduction.
On behalf of the applicant, Stephanie Hill of Sunset Development said the proposal would transition part of Bishop Ranch 12 to for‑sale housing while retaining the adjacent Doris Eaton School. “We are proposing to transition a portion of this site into residential use,” Hill told the commission, describing paseos, sidewalk connections to transit, and an internal plaza created by converting some head‑in parking.
Commissioners pressed the applicant on parking, site connectivity, fencing along the school boundary, noise mitigation from nearby Interstate 680, and the project's construction timeline. The applicant confirmed the school’s parking would not be reduced and that all affordable for‑sale units would be provided on‑site. Staff and the applicant said building design and construction measures informed by an acoustical study would be used in lieu of a freeway sound wall.
Several commissioners asked staff to add a condition to the resolution that memorializes the air‑quality and acoustical study recommendations. Lucas said the studies are part of the project application and would be verified at building‑permit review, and agreed to draft placeholder language to ensure compliance prior to permit issuance.
A motion to approve Resolution No. 15‑25, as amended on the dais to reflect the technical‑study compliance language, was moved and seconded and passed 5‑0. Staff reminded the public that Planning Commission decisions may be appealed to the city clerk within 10 calendar days of the decision.
Next steps: the approval is final at the commission level but is subject to the appeal period; technical compliance will be checked during building permit review and by plan‑reviewing agencies including East Bay MUD and the local sanitary district.
