San Ramon planning commission approves Orchards master plan, presses for affordable-housing milestones
Loading...
Summary
The Planning Commission approved Resolution 02-26 to adopt the Orchards master plan and neighborhood district (vote 5-0), while commissioners and residents pressed the developer and staff to lock in timing and milestones for 99 committed affordable units, pedestrian connections, and tribal monitoring requirements.
The San Ramon Planning Commission on Tuesday approved Resolution 02-26, adopting the Orchards master plan and the Orchards neighborhood-district development plan, associated tentative map, architectural review, tree removal permit and environmental review, with a 5-0 vote. Commissioners said the conditions before them obligate the applicant to provide a minimum share of affordable housing and directed staff to seek development-agreement milestones to ensure timely delivery.
Staff opened the continued public hearing and said the packet incorporated changes the commission requested at prior meetings and included a resolution for action. Stephanie Hill, representing Sunset Development, told the commission the project’s design guidelines commit to pedestrian connections and that the applicant can “commit to [pedestrian connectivity] prior to occupancy of the first building permit.” Staff described the project as a 92-acre master plan with an expected 20-year buildout.
Public speakers included Adam Masters of Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, who urged the use of local union contractors and cautioned that without explicit agreements the project’s economic assumptions about local hiring “are not entirely supported.” Brian Swanson, a certified planner and Twin Creek South resident, urged the commission to pause and revisit the project’s environmental analysis, arguing that a 20-year master plan cannot rely uncritically on the 2023 general-plan EIR and saying the applicant’s own traffic consultant recommends reassessment after each phase.
Commission deliberations focused on two core implementation questions: how the project’s affordable-housing commitment is secured, and how off-site improvements and phasing will be enforced. Staff and commissioners clarified that the neighborhood district’s conditions of approval reference an affordable-housing plan and an affordable-housing agreement that must be executed “prior to the issuance of the first residential unit building permit” for the neighborhood district. Staff also said that the master plan tables and conditions commit to a higher-than-required level of affordability overall: across the master plan and associated districts the applicant has committed to roughly 16.2% affordable housing, and staff identified a figure of 99 affordable units constrained into the project’s multifamily component.
Several commissioners said they wanted clearer performance checkpoints in the development agreement so the city can track Eden Housing’s (the proposed affordable-housing operator) ability to secure funding and begin construction. One commissioner framed the concern as a timing risk: if the for-sale neighborhood builds and sells out while the 99-unit affordable project remains unfunded, the city risks delayed delivery of affordable units. Staff and other commissioners replied that the development agreement — a separate application that will be reviewed before it goes to the city council — is the appropriate place to include trigger points, reporting requirements and contingencies.
The commission also accepted three staff-proposed conditions responding to public comment from local tribes: two conditions adopt mitigation language from the general-plan EIR regarding discovery and treatment of cultural resources, and a third condition requires tribal monitoring to be allowed when requested during ground-disturbing activities. Staff said those conditions will be added to both the master plan and neighborhood-district conditions.
Commissioner-level debate acknowledged the trade-off the city has allowed previously: off-site affordable units (built by an affordable-housing provider) can, in some cases, meet the city’s inclusionary requirements while producing deeper affordability. Commissioners who supported approval said the project’s commitments exceed the baseline ordinance; critics asked the council later to consider clarifying the inclusionary-housing ordinance’s rules on off-site transfers and ratios.
After extended discussion and public comment, Commissioner (speaker 4) moved to approve Resolution 02-26 as amended and a second was given; the motion passed with a recorded announcement of a 5-0 vote. Staff reminded the public that planning-commission decisions are final unless appealed within 10 calendar days and that the development agreement will be considered separately by the city council.
What’s next: the development agreement — which staff said will include timing, performance milestones and contingency language — will return later for review and will be forwarded to the council; commissioners asked staff to consider recommending that the city council revisit the inclusionary-housing ordinance’s off-site/ratio language. The commission adjourned at 8:06 p.m.
