General Plan Related Issues.
Key point is Sunset is asking to change FAR Ratio from 1.25 to 0.5. which benefits it the tune of over $200M. City had passed its General Plan in 2024 costing $1M + years planning & need SuperMajority
🏗️ DMU-N: Understanding the $200M Switch
To truly understand what's happening in San Ramon right now, we need to rewind a bit. Let’s look at the history, the promises made, and what’s unfolding on the ground.
🌆 What Is the General Plan?
The General Plan is San Ramon's 20-year roadmap — it defines how our city grows and evolves. These are not simple documents — they go through years of public debate, town halls, and cost over $1 million to develop.
This isn't just paperwork — it’s our city’s vision. A well-planned city thrives. An unplanned one? Just look next door — Dublin is often cited as an example of poor planning: traffic congestion, missing community spaces, and patchy development.
We’ve all been told, “San Ramon will be different.”
🏙️ City Walk Vision vs Reality
We were promised a walkable, vibrant downtown — the City Walk Project. Retail, cafes, homes, all close together. Every mayoral debate highlighted this. The FAR (Floor Area Ratio) was set at 1.25 — a sign of dense, urban design.
✅ This went into effect January 1, 2024.
But fast forward to now — what do we see?
🚨 The Case of City Village
City Village, a new 31-acre development, delivered 404 homes with an FAR of just 0.65 — much more suburban in nature.
Why the change?
Developers utilized a legal mechanism known as the Density Bonus, which allows them to increase units if they designate 15% as “affordable.” While this is a common tool, there are growing concerns:
The affordable units are limited in number
They’re often distributed via lottery
There are proposals suggesting these units may be concentrated elsewhere — outside the original development zones
📊 Let’s Look at the Math
Here’s a simplified snapshot of recent projects:
Project Totals:
BR7: 190 units | 29 affordable
BR11: 195 units | 29 affordable
City Village: 404 units | 60 affordable
Total: 789 units | 118 affordable
If the difference in sale price between market-rate and affordable units is approximately $1 million per unit, this represents a value shift of $118 million — largely in favor of developers.
🏚️ Sunset’s Proposal: Shift Affordable Units to Rentals
Sunset wants to build 200+ rental “affordable” units in DMU-S on a 2-acre lot.
Here’s the problem:
Rentals don’t provide ownership.
The monthly discount is about $300 — barely impactful.
And they get to sell high-end units in DMU-N without including affordability.
This isn't about affordability — it’s a paper shuffle to maximize profits.
Sunset’s Argument as per the 3 meetings. Their main concern is they are not able to get financing for further developments beyond BR7 and BR11 which are already approved. When Commissioner Wallis, questioned the ownership they maintained that Sunset owns some parcel but have other partners in the reminder of the parcels which Sunset and companies managed by Sunset and hence they do not need to include their names in the application. Additionally sunset had applied for the 64% of the land which they own but city expanded it to entire DMU-N.
Sunset has said if the FAR ratio is not passed they would not be able to develop beyond BR7 and BR11 plans for which are approved.
🚨 What’s Coming Next?
We’re already seeing proposals for BR8, BR12, BR6, transferring another 100+ units of affordable housing. That’s $200M+ in developer gain, while further eroding city’s long term on livability and vision.
⚖️ Governance Red Flags
🚩 Who Owns the Land?
Sunset owns only 48.24% of DMU-N, but filed the General Plan Amendment solo.
City Manager and Attorney backed them, saying “they own or manage it all.”
Really? That would mean Sunset owns Toyota, KB Homes, Kaiser, Orion REI.
🤨 But there is no mention of them in the application! Below is a short script which shows the city manager and city lawyer response.
Sunset as per previous meeting have acknowledged that they own ~12 parcels under multiple LLC’s but did not seem necessary to add them in the application. Here are the companies that seemed to be owned or connected to Sunset.
Alexander Properties
Clancy Investment Company LLC
Wagoner Holdings LLC
SUNSET DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
SDC 7
🧨 Legal Risk
Changing zoning without notifying other landowners could result in lawsuits against the city. It’s not just shady — it’s risky.
⛔ Community Engagement Concerns
At council meetings, public comment is limited to 3 minutes. When I raised the point that this General Plan was adopted just a year ago and is already being amended, I was cut off.
We must protect space for respectful questioning and thoughtful debate if we want genuine community engagement.
💡 The Ask
This isn’t about halting development — it’s about getting it right.
Let’s protect San Ramon from becoming another case study in missed opportunity. Let’s preserve the shared vision that took years to build — a walkable, inclusive, thriving downtown and protect it from becoming like Dublin.
Let’s hold on to the vision we were promised.
Let’s ask: Who really benefits from these changes?
Sources:
Commissioner Wallis Exhibits Packet:
Joint Commission Meeting Feb 11, 2025
Agenda Packet: https://sanramonca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=3778&Inline=True
Video :
Planning commission meeting March 4, 2025
Agenda Packet: https://sanramonca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=3794&Inline=True
Video :
Planing Commission meeting March 18, 2025
Agenda Packet: https://sanramonca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=3800&Inline=True
Video:
City Council Meeting April 8, 2025
Agenda Packet: https://sanramonca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=3814&Inline=True
Public Comments : https://www.sanramon.ca.gov/common/pages/GetFile.ashx?key=VSk9AZfX
Video :