A Brief Opinion: Why the Kings Ordinance Was Introduced
Continued from our previous article.
In our last piece, we explained how the Sunset — despite not owning the land — successfully lobbied to have the entire vision of the Downtown Mixed-Use (DMU) General Plan Update changed. This maneuver benefited parties like KB Homes, Trumark, and other stakeholders to the tune of an estimated $200 million, none of whom put their names on record. Significant public opposition followed, ultimately leading to a referendum — made possible only because General Plan updates are subject to public visibility.
To prevent future projects from facing the same level of scrutiny, Sunset asked the City Council and Planning Commission to pass a Developer Agreement update. This amendment would effectively exempt Sunset's City Walk Master Plan projects from public review under the banner of "streamlining."
The measure cleared the Planning Commission 3–1, with one commissioner seat unfilled — a vote composition that may itself be illegal under voter-approved Measure G, which requires a supermajority.
Photo Credit : Veritas
The August 12, 2025 City Council Meeting
The matter came before the City Council on August 12, 2025. The meeting ran late into the night, and this item wasn't reached until approximately 11:30 p.m.
Seven residents raised red flags. Brian Swanson's comments were particularly on point.
Credit : Public Comments given by Brian Swanson
The writer also submitted public comments, raising multiple concerns about the amendments — specifically the expanded authority granted to the Zoning Administrator at the expense of the Planning Commission. He questioned what purpose the Planning Commission serves if its oversight is stripped away, noting that a previous Planning Commission meeting had already removed a supermajority requirement and cut meetings from three to one, sharply limiting public input. He pointed out that no examples were provided showing Planning Commission delays had ever warranted streamlining. He strongly opposed Section Two of the amendments and called for its rejection.
Six Other writers raised red flags.
What Council Members Said
Council Member Jweinat raised the central concern directly:
"I have a comment. I just — I know legally and procedurally this is sound. I just have a problem with removing the oversight from the Planning Commission. The optics of it — there's something instinctively not right about this. I just believe it doesn't just change the process; we're also changing policy as well. And that's what I'm struggling with — we're removing a very important oversight, and if the residents see that, then we're going to slowly erode that trust."
Mayor Armstrong responded: "So just for discussion — I don't see any removal of oversight of the Planning Commission."
Council Member Jweinat replied simply: "It's right here."
Councilwoman Rubio suggested residents could appeal the decisions — without acknowledging that appeal fees in San Ramon can be prohibitively high, effectively placing that option out of reach for most residents.
Despite sustained pressure from the rest of the Council, Jweinat ultimately abstained rather than vote in favor.
Credit: City of San Ramon Council Screenshot.
The entire discussion was wrapped in 15 minutes it came around 11:53 pm.
Video: 4:53:50 – 5:08:10
The council set the item to be approved in the next meeting in consent calender. (Denying public second hearing on the topic) (To be continued in part 3)
Other important topic that came to light and was highlighted by public commenter
The Eden Housing Complication
Sunset's offer to pay the City of San Ramon $3,000 per home built by Eden Housing — contingent on Eden securing financing.
The Eden Housing manager confirmed that no funding is currently available, meaning the affordable housing commitment (rental units) may never be fulfilled.
Should Eden fail to deliver, the City would acquire the 2.2 acres of land and assume responsibility for meeting the affordable housing requirement — at an unknown cost to taxpayers.
This is a direct consequence of the Council compromising the General Plan in Sunset's interest.
An AI-generated, unbiased summary of the meeting is available at:
https://opgov.news/platform/meeting/san-ramon-city-2025-08-12-Council-Meeting-Regular
0
0
Comments