On Tuesday, the San Ramon City Council denied an appeal of The Orchards project, a proposed 2,510-unit development in San Ramon.
The denial came during a special meeting of the City Council where the council heard an overview of the project, the history of the property and development proposed plans which include demolishing the former Chevron office park and then subdivide the property into three districts on 92-acres for 2,510 residential units over the course of 20-years.
The development proposal came after Sunset Development purchased the 92-acres located at 60001 in September 2022 – it then brought forward The Orchards project at the former “Chevron Park”.
Actions included:
- 2022 to 2023 – Series of study sessions with CC, PC, EDAC, and HAC
- Dec 2023 – City adopted its General Plan 2040 which included a redesignation and rezone of Chevron Park and created the framework for The Orchards Development.
- This included multi-family apartments, stacked flats, townhomes, single-family homes and vertical mixed units.
- A minimum of 125,000 SF of new retail/commercial/entertainment uses
- Centralized park space of 2.5 acres.
- Preservation of the sites heritage oak trees.
In 2024, the formal application of The Orchards, there were 7 applications – 6 were approved by the planning commission in February, including two development plans for 230 single family homes, 138 multi-family townhomes and 58 optional accessory dwelling units (ADU’s).
In total, according to the master plan application, a 20-year development plan, it includes:
- Mixed-Use: 619 dwelling units with 125,000 sq ft of ground floor commercial uses
- Multi-family: 1,465 dwelling units (apts, condo, senior, and/or affordable housing)
- Neighborhood: 368 units of lower density SF homes, townhomes, and 58 optional ADUs
According to the city, their ordinance requires 15% affordable housing requirements, The Orchards will be 16.2% affordable housing.
Although the project was approved by the planning commission on February 3, 2026, an appeal was filed on February 12, 2026 by Brian Swanson – he presented his appeal for approximately an hour.
According to the city, the appeal was analyzed and evaluation and determined to provide no new information that was not previously considered as part of the record of decision. They said the project was consistent with General Plan 2024 and that it will not result in significant effects to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality as documented by the technical studies provided.
After public comments, the council offered their thoughts.
Council Commentary
Mayor Mark Armstrong thanked everyone who spoke as part of the process, including the appellant noting he appreciated he questions in the appeal which helped clarify several aspects of the project. He further highlighted his role was not to determine if the project was “perfect” but whether the city followed proper process – whether the planning commission made an error or if city staff followed the law and process.
“I do believe the city did follow the appropriate law and process and the responses in the staff report point by point within the appeal are adequately explained,” stated Armstrong. “The city did not avoid an environmental review on this project, the environmental impacts on this site were analyzed as part of the general plan 2040 EIR. State law specifically allows projects that are consistent with that plan and density to rely on prior environmental analysis unless there are project specific impacts that are unique to the site. For me, based on the record before us, including the CEQA consistent checklist and technical studies, I am satisfied the city followed the CEQA process appropriately and that there are no new or preocular impacts that would require additional environmental review at this stage.”
He supported the planning commission decision and denied the appeal.
Vice Mayor Marisol Rubio explained there was a specific answer to each item raised in the appeal.
“I tried my best to try and get pinned down what it was specifically that was being sought or missing and the only response I heard were generalities, intuition rather than something specific that merits another EIR being done or additional studies,” explained Rubio who further highlighted after each phase there will be checks and balances to see how things were going.
She explained San Ramon is having an impact of not enough young families in San Ramon, schools not having enough kids, 200 employees discharged because they do not have enough money that depend on LCAP funding—noting the under enrollment.
“If we don’t have an adequate enrollment, our schools will continue to struggle,” stated Rubio said this goes beyond housing and instead focus on greater impacts.
Councilmember Robert Jweinat thanked Swanson for the effort but it came down to lack of information. Although people went through 100’s of pages but it wasn’t 100’s of pages of nothing nor did they have 5 meetings of nothing—but rather a lot of discussion, conversation and debate over it.
He also confirmed that there were 7-applications and revisions of The Orchards.
“What it feels like tonight, we don’t want housing,” said Jweinat. “That was my take on it. Mayor I agree with you. I don’t think there is enough significant evidence to warrant an appeal.”
Councilmember Richard Adler highlighted CEQA and SB 3330 noting the state wanted more housing but the applicant has made a number of changes and number of items the planning commission asked to change and modify, which had been done to his satisfaction.
“I think when you looking at the housing accountability act, if we were to deny this, we have to look at the repercussions s of our actions, if we were to deny this, I think we would be making a mistake,” said Alder. “We have done due diligence.”
Councilmember Sridhar Verose understood the appeal and concerns which the process helps ensure the city and council is accountable. However, he was seeking evidence for each of the points raised—noting many of the points were explained. He also said some of the questions raised were simply not true.
“I don’t see any evidence, we all tried to see what you could provide us, the only thing I keep hearing is whatever work our staff did as well as our consultant did was not substantial but you needed to provided us evidence for each of these,” explained Verose. “I wish I could get more evidence supporting your arguments.”
The council then voted 5-0 to deny the appeal and approve The Orchards project.
To review the full The Orchards project and history, click here.
Related
