|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Discussions about the future of the former Chevron Park site that was vacated by the energy company and reacquired by Sunset Development Company more than three years ago are set to commence once again this week, with the San Ramon City Council poised for a public hearing on an appeal on current plans.
The appeal was submitted to the city on Feb. 12 by Brian Swanson, who has emerged as a vocal critic of the ongoing redevelopment of Bishop Ranch and the city government in general on social media and in written comments to the city council in recent months.
“The appeal, appeal supplement, and appeal exhibits include no new information that would demonstrate that the Planning Commission erred in reviewing and approving the project given the limitations of the HAA, as modified by SB 330, and due process requirements,” division manager Cindy Yee wrote in the conclusion of a staff report contending with each of the eight reasons cited in Swanson’s appeal.
“Based on all the information the appeal provided, and the record of decision, City Staff recommends that the Council deny the appeal,” she continued.
Those reasons in Swanson’s 16-page appeal center largely on the city’s review and approval process for the project, which has been in the wings since the preparation of its current general plan in 2023 and the topic of numerous informational hearings and presentations by Sunset Development at the council and in other venues since then.
Applications for the redevelopment project that seeks to transform the 92-acre former Chevron headquarters into a residential neighborhood with retail and recreation offerings across the street from City Center Bishop Ranch finally made their way to the city late last year.
By that point, the area had been zoned accordingly with Sunset’s early redevelopment plans, which have been eyed as a key component in allowing the city’s housing element to comply with state law by identifying sites for a sufficient number of units to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation target – primarily in Bishop Ranch.
In the appeal, Swanson contends that the San Ramon Planning Commission was mistaken in its approval of the project at the conclusion of the second public hearing on applications on Feb. 3, arguing that an environmental impact review for the site as part of the general plan update is insufficient for meeting California Environmental Quality Act requirements, among other things.
“The City must establish (in the approval record itself, not informally) clear, realistic, enforceable expectations for when additional environmental review will occur as the master plan is phased, districts are entitled, and conditions change – especially for transportation, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise impacts that are directly tied to travel behavior and cumulative development over time,” Swanson wrote in the appeal.
Yee noted that at this point, the neighborhoods set to be built within the project aren’t yet approved for construction but are “designated programmatically and expressly subject to future discretionary entitlements”. She added that the applicability of CEQA would be evaluated at that time and based on the circumstances of the individual projects.
Regarding transportation, Yee noted that Swanson’s appeal “relies heavily” on a recommendation from a traffic operations report for the project that the city reconsider needs for environmental mitigation based on occupancy and travel outcomes in each phase of the redevelopment project, which is set to be built out over numerous years.
That recommendation “does not require that all future operational adjustments be resolved through environmental review”, she added.
“Ongoing traffic monitoring and operational refinements are standard transportation
engineering practices and are routinely implemented through conditions of approval, capital improvement programming, or permit-level requirements without requiring additional environmental review,” Yee wrote.
Swanson contended in the appeal that the traffic report recommendation constitutes a “record” that “acknowledges uncertain thresholds, potentially significant impacts, and mitigation that is not shown to be fully enforceable or effective, especially for a phased, long-term buildout.” According to Yee, the potential traffic impacts of the project, and the phased buildout plan have already been accounted for in the EIR prepared for the 2040 general plan, and do not create a “peculiar” impact.
Yee also pointed to additional CEQA compliance requirements and EIRs that have been or will be prepared for other projects in Bishop Ranch, which are subject to their own application processes and not related to the Orchards’ master plan and neighborhood district development applications that were approved by the city earlier this year.
Despite basing much of his argument on the traffic operations report that was submitted by Sunset for the project, Swanson alleges that the city improperly relied on “applicant-prepared technical studies without demonstrated independent verification undermines impartiality and the City’s duty of independent judgment”, which Yee contended was not the case.
“The City’s Traffic Engineer independently reviewed the methodology and evaluated the Traffic Operations Report and Vehicle Miles Traveled analysis,” Yee wrote. “Multiple rounds of peer review of each document were conducted by the City’s Traffic Engineer, Engineering staff, and Planning staff before the report was finalized. Staff and the environmental consultant’s conclusions are independently formed and based on the accepted technical review of subject matter experts.”
Swanson further alleged that the city failed to meet CEQA requirements regarding potential tribal or cultural resources associated with the site.
“The checklist acknowledges: (1) a response from the Confederated Villages
of Lisjan Nation recommending caution with exempting the project due to proximity to
historic creek systems; and (2) a positive Native American Heritage Commission Sacred
Lands File result indicating potential tribal cultural resources within the project boundaries,” Swanson wrote.
“Those indicators are not resolved by simply reciting that AB 52 consultation is ‘not
required,'” he continued. “For a project involving substantial grading and ground disturbance across a large site, tribal cultural resource protection requires clear, enforceable conditions, culturally appropriate protocols, and transparent documentation of how tribal concerns were addressed in the record.”
Yee maintained that the CEQA consistency checklist prepared for the project’s current phase is not subject to AB 52, and that the law is triggered only by some environmental notices. However, she noted that a general plan amendment which had previously been sought did trigger that notification requirement to local tribes, which garnered a response from the Confederated Villages of Lisjan Tribe.
The request for that amendment was later rescinded, with the consultation continuing despite no longer being legally required. From there, she said the planning commission added conditions of approval that include requiring tribal monitors when requested during any construction activities in areas that might hold cultural resources, halting work immediately and meeting with an archaeologist should cultural resources be uncovered during project work, and developing a mitigation plan.
“Accordingly, the proposed project includes enforceable conditions of approval and cultural resource protection measures,” Yee wrote. “These conditions are designed to ensure that any unanticipated discoveries are treated in a culturally appropriate manner and in compliance with applicable state law.”
In the appeal, Swanson also criticized the city’s appeal process itself, which Yee noted was not relevant to the project at hand.
“The appellant’s concerns on the City’s appeal process, call for review, fairness, and access to records are unrelated to the Orchards Development Project. Changes to the appeal process, calls for review, and perceived fairness of the process can be pursued by the appellant separate from this Project through an amendment to the City’s Zoning Ordinance,” Yee wrote.
While staff are recommending that the city uphold the planning commission’s approval of the applications and reject Swanson’s appeal, conversations about Swanson’s complaints likely won’t end with this week’s hearings. He has filed three petitions for writ of mandate in Contra Costa County Superior Court in recent months, seeking to compel the court to overturn the city’s approval of projects throughout Bishop Ranch, with the latest filed on March 13.
In a media event at Bishop Ranch last week, Sunset Development CEO Alex Mehran Jr. told reporters that he was optimistic that the city council will reject the appeal, and that the company was prepared to fight the current challenges and others that might arise in the courts.
The San Ramon City Council is set to meet at 7 p.m. Tuesday (April 7). The agenda is available here.
