A Brief Opinion: Why the Kings Ordinance Was Introduced and How Council Member Robert Jweinat Broke Ranks and Abstained—a Historically Unique Moment in San Ramon.
Continued from Parts 1 and 2 of our previous article.
In our last piece, we explained how 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 which put their names on the 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 development agreement update. This amendment would effectively exempt Sunset's CityWalk Master Plan projects from public review under the banner of "streamlining."
The measure cleared the Planning Commission 3–1, with one commission seat unfilled—a vote composition that may itself be illegal under voter-approved Measure G, which requires a supermajority.
At the Aug. 12 meeting, Council Member Robert Jweinat cited public trust as a reason for abstaining from the vote on this ordinance.
On Sept. 6, before the Sept. 9 meeting, this email was sent to San Ramon residents.
"I am writing this as previously when many members wrote to the council and it does make a difference. This issue is similarly critical.
Key context:
Sunset Development Company have applied to amend the development agreement of CityWalk Project to remove planning commission oversight on their projects. effectively removing public oversight. (This is also the affect of referendum we had run, where in 1000’s of you signed including ex-council members on challenging their previous decision, King is now safeguarding his interest by this development agreement update)
As before, the agenda item was taken up very late—around 11:30 PM—which seems to be the “special timing” for controversial decisions.
Attendance & Acknowledgment: Both Pamella Wallace and Suzie Inderkum had left by that time,
Mayor briefly acknowledged written public comments.
What’s at stake: The proposal removes Planning Commission (and potentially City Council) oversight on Sunset projects by shifting approval authority to the Zoning Administrator.
Public trust: Councilmember Robert Jweinat acknowledged the loss of public trust—the first time any council member has done so.
Appeals argument & fees: Councilmember Ms. Rubio responded that “the public always has an option to appeal.” Reminder: Just a month ago, ex-Councilmember Jim Blickenstaff and many community members noted that San Ramon charges $4,500 for an appeal—about 15× higher than nearby cities that charge around $300.
Mayor’s rationale: Mayor Armstrong strongly pushed the idea that the Zoning Administrator has been doing this for years—which raises the question: If that’s true, why is an agreement update needed now?
Process & pace: Other council members quickly closed discussion, and the item is set for approval in September.
State justification questioned: Planning Division Manager Lauren Barr claimed the State of California wants to remove public participation in the name of “streamlining.”
Precedent & scope creep: Ex-Planning Commissioner Eric Wallis warned this isn’t just one agreement amendment—it could expand citywide. Next meeting, there’s also a proposal to remove voter-approved Measure G without returning to voters (reframed as a “text amendment”).
Slippery slope: If voter-approved measures can be rewritten via “text amendment,” don’t be surprised if the City of San Ramon is re-titled “Kingdom of San Ramon.”
Value of Oath: I recently attended the Community Academy where we were told that the value of sworn-in officers is higher—I expect similar loyalty to residents from council members.
Call to action:
Please write to the City Council for the September 9, 2025 meeting to remind members they swore to protect residents’ interests.
Write to cityclerk@sanramon.ca.gov
To Reject Development agreement ordinance 532 and keep public oversight and do not decommission planning commission for the interest of SUNSET.
Here is the video of the topic with subtitles.
Link to ordinance is below.
https://sanramonca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=6806&MeetingID=5207
Summary and video from August 12, 2025:
https://opgov.ai/platform/meeting/san-ramon-city-2025-08-12-Council-Meeting-Regular"
Community came forward:
The community came forward:
Sixty people voiced their concerns to the San Ramon City Council because they saw hope.
The meeting agenda had an item buried in the consent calendar.
"What is a consent calendar?"
A consent calendar is essentially blanket approval.
This item was buried in the consent calendar for blanket approval.
Credit: San Ramon City Council agenda item, Sept. 9, 2025
Another dilemma was that Mayor Armstrong was absent. Therefore, if freshman Council Member Jweinat abstained again, the measure would not pass because of Measure G, a voter-approved law created to protect our open space.
But 60 voters had now written to reject this item, as the email had been sent only to voters.
Credit: City of San Ramon meeting minutes, Sept. 9, 2025
Note: Most importantly, the minutes do not even acknowledge what the public was asking for. This was precisely why we created the Open Governance Platform, where we provide unbiased meeting summaries. It was extremely concerning that so many residents were not respectfully acknowledged for voicing their opposition..
Important Public comments asking to move the item from Consent Calender to Agenda.
Jim Blickenstaff
Requested items 5.12 and 5.13 be removed from the consent calendar for further discussion due to two main concerns: potential financial risk to the city related to affordable housing solutions (specifically Eden Housing not being a guaranteed solution, leaving the city vulnerable after 10 years) and compliance issues with affordable housing regulations (RIS numbers and state strictness under 5.12).
Chirag Kathrani
Thanked Council Member Jweinat for abstaining on items 5.12 and 5.13, especially regarding the removal of public oversight. Stated that over 60 people had written to the council, but their concerns were ignored, eroding trust. Challenged the premise that the Zoning Administrator (ZA) had a better track record than the Planning Commission (PC) in streamlining projects, noting no examples were provided. Criticized ZA meetings for being inaccessible (3 PM afternoons) compared to PC meetings. Highlighted the disproportionately high appeal fee in San Ramon ($4,500 vs. $300 Bay Area average), arguing it hinders public appeal. Asserted the council's duty is to serve San Ramon residents, not Sunset Development.
Alexandra Armandaris Delavo
Identified herself as a San Ramon resident, domestic violence survivor, mother of disabled children, and federal whistleblower in environmental crimes. Urged the rejection of Ordinance 532, which she argued eliminates Planning Commission's public oversight. She recounted her experience at Canyon Village Circle, detailing a 'systemic criminal enterprise' involving dangerous mold (1,293 aspergillis penicylium spores), black mold, fire hazards, unlicensed contractors (CFI Group, license 987604 expired), lack of hazardous material certification, violated stop-work orders, criminal conspiracy, evidence tampering, corporate cover-ups, and retaliation against residents, with municipal code enforcement failing. She linked this to Ordinance 532, asserting that without Planning Commission review, dangerous conditions, corporate crimes, and environmental hazards go undetected, prioritizing profits over public safety. She stated that 400+ units could be affected and requested immediate emergency habitability inspections, stop-work orders, independent environmental testing (at property owner's expense), resident notification, and professional remediation. She also insisted that environmental remediation must precede any cosmetic beautification projects at Canyon Village Apartments. Her time was cut short, but she formally requested the item be placed on the agenda.
Results :
The item was moved from the consent calendar to discussion. (Note that this was a respectful request for a meaningful discussion.)
For reference, here is last week's comic strip explaining his reasoning.
The same Council Member Jweinat who raised concerns about public trust when six people spoke changed his position when 60 people spoke.
Credit: Veritas
At the next meeting, the same Robert Jweinat changed his position, claiming:
Interestingly, Jweinat, who is a lawyer by profession, specifically pointed this out:
*"There was a point here in the argument that measure G would be repealed. That is factually incorrect. Several comments wrongly link Ordinance 532 to Measure G. *In fact, Measure G is a voter-approved initiative protecting hillsides and open space. It cannot be repealed or amended by council action. Only the voters can change it."
Credit : City of San Ramon Youtube Channel
I would like members of the public to email me with their thoughts on whether Council Member Jweinat will stand by his words or change his position, as he did on the ordinance.
Last month, the City of Fremont faced a similar situation: 60 people voiced opposition to the charter city plan. As a result, Mayor Salwan withdrew the proposal. There, 25% favored it; here in San Ramon, 100% opposed it, but the council did not even bother to have a meaningful dialogue.
Why Revisit This Issue a Year Later?
With the election approaching, candidates running for the City Council should explain where they stand on the following issues. The candidates listed below are running in the upcoming election.
1. Mayor Mark Armstrong
During the second vote on Ordinances 531 and 532, you were absent. Had you been present, how would you have voted?
During the first public hearing, you said that the City Council had traditionally not questioned decisions made by the Zoning Administrator. If that was already the established practice in San Ramon, why was this ordinance necessary?
If streamlining was necessary, why was there no meaningful dialogue with community members?
Do you believe San Ramon’s appeal fees are reasonable? Should San Ramon residents have access to a fixed appeal fee—similar to the approximately $300 charged in Danville, Dublin, and Pleasanton—rather than a fee with no upper limit?
2. Council Members Marisol Rubio and Richard Adler
The council repeatedly told community members that they could file an appeal if they wanted their concerns to be heard. The council later reduced the initial appeal deposit to $2,500 but left the total cost without an upper limit.
If reelected, would you support establishing a fixed maximum appeal fee?
3. Candidates Paschalis Ntatsos, Emma Chigbu, Jeffery Joh, and Chirag Kathrani
If you had been serving on the City Council when these ordinances were considered:
What would you have done differently?
Would you have voted for or against Ordinances 531 and 532?
Do you believe San Ramon’s appeal fees are reasonable? Would you support a fixed appeal fee—similar to the approximately $300 charged in Danville, Dublin, and Pleasanton—rather than allowing the final cost to remain unlimited?
For more details, here is the video of the Sept. 9 City Council meeting, where people came forward and spoke one after another.
Credit : City of San Ramon Youtube Channel
Here are all the public-comment summaries from OpGov.News/platform, where each meeting is summarized in an unbiased manner that respectfully acknowledges the public speakers.
Here is a summary of the public commenters.
Jim Blickenstaff
Reiterated concerns regarding affordable housing (item 5.12) and the financial risks to the city if Eden Housing is not a definitive solution, potentially leading to unexpected costs after 10 years. Argued that Ordinance 532's exemption of Sunset Development from public hearings is not in the public's interest and urged for alternative mechanisms to ensure public involvement. Also voiced a broader concern about concentrating low-income housing in one area, fearing it could lead to social isolation and disenfranchisement, and stressed the importance of ensuring such housing is compatible and integrated with surrounding communities.
Alexandra Armandaris Delavo
Sought clarification on the definition of "self-haul" for waste, specifically concerning landlords. She then used this point to raise an urgent public safety issue: illegal dumping of mold and hazardous materials into trash bins at Canyon Village Apartments. She asserted this contaminates waterways and poses risks to the nearby Safeway, children, and pets. She presented documented evidence, stated that CFI (the contractor) is not certified for mold remediation, and detailed her complaints filed with various federal and state agencies, including HUD and the California State Licensing Board, as well as a federal whistleblower document. She reported experiencing retaliation and requested the City Council's immediate help, asking for the issue to be placed on an agenda and an ADA advocate for her disability-related communications, as her prior emails to the City Attorney and City Manager had gone unanswered.
Susie Ferris-Inderkum
Voiced strong concerns against Ordinances 530, 531, and 532. She questioned the conflicting use of affordable housing funds (some for Iron Horse Trail improvements under section 6.10 of Ordinance 530). She highlighted the financial risk to the city from Ordinance 531, noting Eden Housing's lack of immediate funding and the 5-10 year window for project completion, potentially leaving the city responsible for RHNA quotas if Eden fails. She vehemently opposed Ordinance 532, which she stated exempts Sunset Development from Planning Commission review, questioning the purpose of having a Planning Commission and a General Plan if such oversight is removed, and demanded that San Ramon residents be given a say in all development.
Lynette Aguzzi
Reminded the council of their oath to protect residents' interests and urged them to reject Development Agreement Ordinance 532. She called for the preservation of public and Planning Commission oversight on all zoning and developments, emphasizing that no special privilege should be granted to Sunset Development.
Dennis Bicker
Urged the council to reject Development Agreement Ordinance 532, stressing the importance of maintaining public oversight. He opposed decommissioning the Planning Commission for the benefit of Sunset Development and asserted the public's right to be heard.
Candy
Demanded that public oversight by both the Planning Commission and the public must remain in the city. She explicitly called for the rejection of Development Agreement Ordinance 526 (likely meaning 532, given the context), opposing any 'special treatment for sunset development.' She urged the City Council to fulfill their duty by representing San Ramon residents' interests, not just developers', and described the current situation as 'unconscionable.'
Dr. Howard T. Fuller
Called the proposed ordinance 'inappropriate' and 'another example of politicians attempting to trample the community’s voice.' He urged the council to 'Reject Development agreement ordinance 532 and keep public oversight and do not decommission planning commission for the interest of SUNSET.'
Ursula Sexton
Expressed disappointment regarding a late decision in the August meeting and requested that oversight on Sunset projects not be shifted to the Zoning Administrator. She stressed the importance of public involvement, stating that 'passing the power to a corporation or taking away the already approved Measure G from our history and wellbeing are not acceptable.'
Shilpa Singh
As a 12+ year resident, strongly opposed Development Agreement Ordinance 532, stating that 'this last minute development is concerning and reducing public trust in current council.' She recommended rejecting the ordinance to maintain public and Planning Commission oversight, not for the interest of SUNSET.
Kim Dulaney
Urged the council to 'Reject Development agreement ordinance 532 and keep public oversight,' specifically asking them 'Please don't decommission the planning commission in the interest of SUNSET.' She concluded by stating, 'Reject these changes. Keep Planning Commission oversight.'
Glenn Jones
Requested the council 'reject Development agreement ordinance 532 and keep public oversight and do not decommission planning commission for the interest of SUNSET.'
Michael McCormick
Strongly agreed that 'City Planning Oversight is a must!' He argued that Sunset Development is acting in its own best interest, contrary to San Ramon residents' trust in the original 30-year plan, suggesting current development is a 'quick and dirty answer to Anchor clients bailing from California.' He criticized the city for not releasing mid-year data, calling it 'intentional or flaw.' He referenced a detailed email from Chirag Kathrani, reiterating points about the late agenda timing, acknowledged loss of public trust by Council Member Jweinat, the prohibitive appeal fees, questionable rationale from Mayor Armstrong about the Zoning Administrator's long-standing authority, and Planning Division Manager Lauren Barr's 'dubious claim' about state streamlining. He also relayed ex-Planning Commissioner Eric Wallis's warning about setting a dangerous precedent, including the potential removal of voter-approved Measure G. He urged the council to protect residents' interests and quoted the call to action to 'Reject Development agreement ordinance 532 and keep public oversight and do not decommission planning commission for the interest of SUNSET.'
James Conger
Stated that 'Sunset Development has a long history of attempting to manipulate San Ramon for SD's benefit at the expense of the citizens.' As a 37-year resident, he emphasized that 'voters, we expect the city council to be directly involved in all development activity.'
Curtis Johnson
As a San Ramon resident since 1978, he urged the council to 'Reject Development agreement ordinance 532 and keep public oversight and do not decommission planning commission for the interest of SUNSET.'
Amit
Expressed vehement rejection of Development Agreement Ordinance 532. He advocated for maintaining public oversight and opposed decommissioning the Planning Commission for the benefit of SUNSET or any other corporation.
Magali Le Bouder
Reminded council members of their oath to protect residents' interests and strongly rejected Development Agreement Ordinance 532. She urged them 'not to decommission the Planning Commission in the interest of SUNSET or any other single project,' arguing that the decision affects the future of public input and would effectively tell residents to 'sit down and shut up.' She asked the council to reject the changes, keep Planning Commission oversight, and protect the public's right to be heard.
Sally Bryden
Called for the rejection of Development Agreement Ordinance 532, advocating for the retention of public and Planning Commission oversight on all zoning and developments, and opposing any 'special privilege to Sunset.'
Johnny Chan
Requested the council 'Reject Development agreement ordinance 532 and keep public oversight and do not decommission planning commission for the interest of SUNSET.'
Mark Wilfer
Called for the rejection of Development Agreement Ordinance 532, insisting on maintaining public and Planning Commission oversight, and protecting the public's right to be heard against the interests of SUNSET.
Pankaj Arora
Asked the council to reject Sunset Development's request for Development Agreement Ordinance 532 and to maintain public and Planning Commission oversight, emphasizing that the council's duty is to represent residents' interests, not those of any organization.
Melissa Yap
Stated the necessity of maintaining public oversight for all development agreements in San Ramon, particularly Development Agreement Ordinance 532, to ensure residents' interests are considered in future developments.
Stephanie Truex
As a 29+ year resident and homeowner, she rejected Development Agreement Ordinance 532 and supported retaining public oversight on all projects within San Ramon, emphasizing that 'The Planning Commission exists for the benefit of San Ramon residents and not for that of Sunset Development.'
Josephine Zepp
As a long-time resident, she urged the council to 'Reject Development agreement ordinance 532 and keep public oversight and do not decommission planning commission for the interest of SUNSET.'
Cynthia Emerson
As a concerned resident, she urged the council to 'reject Development agreement ordinance 532 and keep public oversight and do not decommission planning commission for the interest of SUNSET Development Company.'
Thomas Vogelsong
As a concerned resident, he urged the council to 'reject Development agreement ordinance 532 and keep public oversight.' He emphasized, 'Do not decommission the planning commission which represents the interests of the community. Decommissioning is only in the interest of SUNSET Development Company.'
Harish Rao
Stated, 'Please keep planning commission oversight!! Protect our right to be heard!' His comment was related to agenda item 9.4 but reflects general sentiment for oversight.
Guru Prakash Narayana
As a San Ramon resident, he urged the city council to 'Reject Development agreement ordinance 532 and keep public oversight and do not decommission planning commission for the interest of SUNSET.'
Avtar Singh
Stated, 'Can you Reject Ordinance 532. Keep Planning Commission oversight.'
Zubair Anwar
Expressed concern about Ordinance 532's consequences and urged the council to reject it to preserve Planning Commission oversight, stating it would 'protect public trust and our voices as residents of San Ramon.'
Brad Lawrence
As a homeowner in San Ramon, he urged the council to 'Reject Ordinance 532. Keep the Planning Commission oversight. Protect public trust and residents’ voices!'
William Flood
Urged the council to 'reject 532,' stating that 'The public needs input on all proposals for zoning.'
Amin Yar
Stated, 'we want to reject Ordinance 532. Keep Planning Commission oversight. Protect public trust and residents’ voices.'
Sanjay Keswani
Requested the council to 'Please reject Ordinance 532' and reiterated, 'Reject Ordinance 532. Keep Planning Commission oversight. Protect public trust and residents’ voices.'
Joyce Oshita
As a San Ramon resident since 1996, she voiced her opposition to Development Agreement Ordinance 532, advocating for continued public and Planning Commission oversight on all zoning and developments, and against any 'special privilege to Sunset.'
Janice Fitzgerald
As a homeowner since 2003, she strongly urged, 'REJECT Ordinance 532!' and emphasized the need to 'Keep Planning Commission oversight. Protect public trust and residents’ voices.'
Roberta Mottram
As a resident for almost 50 years, she respectfully requested the city council to reject Ordinance 352 (likely a typo for 532). She criticized San Ramon's transformation with 'too many building of houses and the lack of care,' specifically mentioning businesses being replaced and the negative impact of high-density housing on community quality and local competition (e.g., Safeway). She urged the council to 'listen to the voices of the people who live here and stop just listening to big business and companies who do not care about San Ramon but care about the money they can make.'
Ashoo Gupta
As a resident of San Ramon, she stated, 'Reject Ordinance 532. Keep Planning Commission oversight. Protect public trust and residents’ voices.'
Valerie Davis
Expressed being 'appalled' by her unawareness of Sunset's request to remove Planning Commission oversight. Advocated for 'more oversight,' citing dissatisfaction with the Crow Canyon street widening project as an example. Questioned if 'expediting the job' was sufficient reason to change standard procedures and called for greater transparency.
Dennis Davis
Shared Valerie Davis's concerns and comment. His name was part of the email 'Valerie and Dennis Davis'.
Jim Plewa
As a 35-year resident, he strongly opposed Ordinance 532, criticizing San Ramon's development as a 'travesty' due to the replacement of businesses with 'ugly box type houses' and insufficient infrastructure. He also noted the lack of grocery competition. He demanded the retention of Planning Commission oversight to protect public trust and residents' voices, rejecting the notion that state streamlining necessitates removing public input.
Laurie Plewa
Shared Jim Plewa's concerns and comment. Her name was part of the email 'Jim & Laurie Plewa'.
MPower
Demanded the rejection of Ordinance 532 to maintain Planning Commission oversight, protect public trust, and residents’ voices. They vehemently urged the council 'not to surrender the city of SR to outsiders and capitalists whose only objective is to reap profits without any regard for the community and standards upon which the city was built.'
L. A. Nichols
As a long-time resident, he called for the rejection of Development Agreement Ordinance 532 to maintain public and Planning Commission oversight, opposing special interests for Sunset. He asserted that 'this city is moving downhill at a rapid rate, the local government will be held accountable,' and urged the council to 'Have a backbone' and not emulate national governance.
Anonymous
Objected to the ordinance, believing it serves Sunset Developers' interests. Criticized the proliferation of houses, lack of city care, and transient nature of residents, many of whom are from 'over seas companies and nationalities.' Stated the city has grown 'too big' without effective city government and demanded rejection of Ordinance 532 to keep Planning Commission oversight and protect public trust and residents’ voices.
Charles Follett
As a concerned citizen, he 'strongly endorse[d] continuation of Planning Commission oversight for all Sunset development plans' and therefore rejected Ordinance 532.
Dawne Shelton
Acknowledged being 'hamstrung by state politics/policies/laws regarding high density housing' but insisted on the necessity of Planning Commission oversight, calling its abolition 'self-defeating.' She urged the council to reject Ordinance 532, maintain Planning Commission oversight, and 'Protect public trust and residents’ voices.'
Hema Vembar
As a long-time San Ramon resident, she expressed disapproval of Ordinance 532 and requested its rejection, advocating for the retention of Planning Commission oversight to 'Protect public trust and residents’ voices.'
Olga Follett
Requested the council to 'Reject Ordinance 532,' emphasizing the need for Planning Commission oversight 'especially for Sunset Developers, but for all projects.' She stated, 'We want public input and oversight you are our representatives,' and urged them to 'Protect public trust and residents’ voices.'
Donna Carvalho
Plead with the council to 'PLEASE deny passage of this bill,' emphasizing that 'Planning Council oversight and public participation are ESSENTIAL to the City and its citizens, now and moving into the future. Please protect us!'
Tonyan
Stated, 'Reject Ordinance 532. Keep Planning Commission oversight. Protect public trust and residents’ voices.'
David Elbogen
Submitted two identical comments simply stating, 'Reject Ordinance 532. Keep Planning Commission oversight. Protect public trust and residents’ voices.'
Donna Van Sant
Expressed 'strenuous objection' to the proposed removal of Sunset Development Corp. oversight from the city’s planning committee. She asserted the planning council's need to be aware of all city project work and deemed consolidating oversight to one staff position 'unacceptable.' She indicated her need to become 'more involved in city business and not expect people to do their jobs appropriately.'
Shri Nandan
Stated, 'My vote. Please Reject Ordinance 532. Keep Planning Commission oversight. Protect public trust and residents’ voices.'
Becky J. Kolberg
Encouraged the council to 'reject Development Agreement Ordinance 532 and keep public oversight and keep planning commission oversight on all zoning and developments, with no special privilege to Sunset Development.' She referenced the Planning Commission's objections to the proposed changes and stated that passing the ordinance would be 'like telling residents we have no legal voice. You have no legal right to do that.'
John A. Kolberg
Shared Becky J. Kolberg's concerns and comment. His name was part of the email 'Becky J. and John A. Kolberg'.
Chip Kirby
Expressed difficulty finding information on Ordinance 532 and described Mr. Kathrani's claims as not fully corroborated by his findings, but still concerning. He understood the ordinance to facilitate transferring affordable units to the Eden Housing Project, allowing other Bishop Ranch projects to avoid their affordable housing requirements. He questioned Sunset Development's motives ('follow the money') and the wisdom of concentrating all affordable housing in one location, fearing it might create 'stigma' rather than promoting integration within diverse demographic environments. He submitted these questions before the final vote, seeking clarification and public consideration.
0
0
Comments