|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The San Ramon Planning Commission’s most recent meeting extended for nearly two hours earlier this month despite a relatively light agenda as numerous residents took to City Hall to express concerns about a proposed housing project.
The Sept. 16 hearing came during the application review process for the proposed housing project from Toll Brothers, which would demolish the existing tennis facilities and landscaping on the site adjacent to ClubSport with 82 townhomes and seven ADUs.
San Ramon is no stranger to new housing developments amid the city’s ongoing efforts to transform its central core into a mixed-use neighborhood with various housing densities. However, the project on the table earlier this month stands out due to its location on a relatively open hillside on Bollinger Canyon Lane, as well as for its relative density compared to the surrounding neighborhood composed primarily of single family homes.
Even before the study session, the proposed project caught the attention of neighboring residents on social media after a notice was posted for the hearing, with a dozen written comments coming into the city ahead of the Sept. 16 study session. Among those was a letter from Ariel Strauss, an attorney representing the neighboring Siena Hills Homeowners Association.
“Siena Hills owns parcels abutting the proposed project and Bollinger Canyon Lane over which the applicant proposes to access the project,” Strauss wrote. “First and foremost, I want to relay in the clearest possible terms that the Siena Hills has not granted any form of approval to the applicant to use any portion of its project. Nevertheless, the application plans anticipates that a strip of land in the southeast project site will be obtained by quitclaim. The application is not specific in from whom it will be obtained or why.”
Strauss emphasized that Siena Hills HOA members would not be considering granting any request to developers to access that sliver of land or the private road.
In addition, Strauss said that the application for the project contained other “deficiencies,” urging the city to require developers to correct those points and to deem the application incomplete should they fail to do so.
Representatives from Toll Brothers said at the recent meeting that they had received the letter from Strauss, and that it was under review by the company’s legal department.
Other concerns abounded from residents in person at the study session, including those who currently use the tennis facilities at ClubSport that would be demolished under the proposed plan.
“San Ramon already has a shortage of pickleball courts,” said Steve Meritt, a neighboring resident and member of ClubSport. “With all the high density housing that’s going in, it is further overloading the court. Now with this project, it will reduce pickleball capacity, further straining pickleball playability. What is the city or Toll Brothers going to do to increase pickleball capacity? They’re removing this capacity, so is Toll Brothers going to pick up the tab for new pickleball courts? Or is the city going to pick up the tab for new pickleball courts?”
Others expressed frustration with the limited role of the city and resident input in the development of new housing projects under recently implemented state affordable housing laws.
“I do feel helpless about these situations – I mean, I think it’s already a done deal, that you guys have made your decision,” said Marion Curto. “And I’m here just to say that I do think that I’ll put my two bits in. I have concerns for the cars, for the traffic, the congestion – I leave for work at 5:30 in the morning and it’s already building up a little bit.”
“I can’t imagine once this whole system gets going,” she continued. “And people if they actually work and they’re not retired, they’re going to be pulling out onto what roads, I don’t know. And then I worry about the trees on Bollinger Canyon. Somebody’s going to decide, ‘oh, now we’ve overbuilt, now we’ve got to get rid of all those beautiful trees in the median’. And there goes Bollinger Canyon Road, so it’s just one domino effect after another.”
In their own comments following the public hearing, planning commissioners emphasized that while they share residents’ frustration about the more limited role of cities in approving housing developments under current state law, the numerous concerns raised that evening are not going unheard.
“This is by far the most well-attended planning commission meeting I’ve seen in 2025,” said Max Zhang, the most recent appointee to the commission. “Just from the perspective of someone who really believes in democracy, especially local democracy, I want to congratulate you all for organizing. I think that’s really important – I think that’s how we get cities that work for people.”
Zhang emphasized that while city officials’ decision-making powers are limited given the harsh penalties associated with non-compliance with state housing laws, residents should continue to organize and provide input as the project makes its way down the application pipeline.
“I would say in an ideal world, the best outcome we can see is if you guys continue to organize and meet with your neighbors – and that includes ClubSport, who is the landowner in this case and who is getting Toll Brothers and other engineers to build this project – if you guys can have more communication, self-organize, and think from a bigger picture perspective what do we want to see in this neighborhood,” Zhang said. “Because that intersection of Canyon View and Canyon Lakes with Bollinger is a mess. I always get stopped there when I’m going down Bollinger.”
Zhang added that he had in fact been delayed in coming into City Hall that evening due to traffic at the intersection in question – a product, he said, of planning decisions that had been made by the county in the 1980s when that land was still under its jurisdiction.
“I think maybe if the city had done it, we may have done it differently – I’m not too sure – but it’s challenged by these road connectivity issues and these traffic issues,” Zhang said. “And it is only with a larger, more comprehensive plan with community buy-in that we can expect those issues to be resolved.”
The application review period for the proposed project has been ongoing, with the deadline for the city to review it for completion set for Oct. 2. If the application materials are deemed complete, the project would then be subject to the standard public review process at Planning Commission and City Council hearings.
