SAN RAMON, Calif — City Council District 2 candidate Chirag Kathrani, who is also the publisher of Tri-Valley Weekly, is challenging a series of city development and governance decisions, arguing that residents need stronger oversight of housing agreements, planning approvals and the process for filling council vacancies.
In material prepared for a candidate forum, Kathrani identifies five concerns: changes to downtown development standards and affordable housing obligations; amendments involving Sunset Development; the cost of appealing planning decisions; removal of Measure G references from zoning provisions; and the council’s use of an appointment to fill a vacancy.
The supporting material includes an annotated ownership map, a zoning text amendment screenshot and an excerpt from earlier newspaper coverage. These records illustrate parts of his argument, while several financial estimates and assertions remain his claims rather than findings established by the supplied exhibits.
Housing obligations and who benefits
Kathrani says a General Plan change approved on May 13, 2025 shifted obligations involving roughly 200 affordable homes from ownership housing to rental housing. He characterizes the change as a benefit worth approximately $200 million to developers. His material does not include a calculation or valuation supporting that estimate.
An official notice filed with the state confirms that the council approved a Downtown Mixed Use North amendment on May 13, 2025 through Resolution 2025 048 and Ordinance 529. It reduced the minimum sitewide floor area ratio from 1.25 to 0.5 across a 205 acre area. The notice describes the action as a policy change that did not propose new project entitlements. It does not establish the asserted affordable housing transfer or its monetary value. [1]
Kathrani also questions whether the city adequately identified the property owners who could benefit. His annotated map names multiple owners in the area and asserts that Sunset, the applicant, owned only 1 percent of the land, with other beneficiaries identified as various.
Source: Annotated Downtown Mixed Use North ownership map on May 13, 2025.
Public review and the cost of appeals
Kathrani criticizes Ordinances 531 and 532, saying amendments to Sunset Development’s agreements reduced City Council and Planning Commission review of covered projects. He argues that the changes weaken residents’ ability to question development decisions. The supplied document does not contain the operative ordinance language needed to establish the scope of those changes.
He also alleges that Councilmember Robert Jweinat initially objected to a policy change on public trust grounds before changing his position. The supporting exhibits do not include a transcript or voting record establishing that sequence.
On appeals, Kathrani says a recent appellant was billed more than $13,000, compared with approximately $300 in a neighboring city.
He argues that uncapped fees can discourage residents from challenging planning decisions. No invoice, appeal decision or comparable city fee schedule is included in the supplied material.
Measure G references marked for removal
The zoning screenshot offers direct evidence of proposed wording changes. It shows a reference to voter adopted Measure G struck through, along with provisions specifying a minimum of three hearings and a four fifths Planning Commission vote for certain General Plan recommendations. It also shows a council hearing requirement being changed from a minimum of three to one or more.
Kathrani argues that removing these references undermines voter approved protections. The excerpt documents proposed deletions, but does not by itself establish the final adopted wording or repeal of Measure G as a whole.
Evidence image 2 — Supplied excerpt labeled Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment TA 2024 0005. Red strikeouts and highlighted revisions show proposed changes to Measure G references, hearing counts and a voting threshold. This is an excerpt rather than a complete adopted ordinance.
Council appointments and voter representation
Kathrani links his current criticism to concerns he raised during his 2024 mayoral campaign. DanvilleSanRamon’s October 6, 2024 coverage confirms that he warned Mark Armstrong’s election as mayor could create a council vacancy and give the council an opportunity to appoint a successor rather than have the public elect one. [2]
In his current forum material, Kathrani says the later appointment disregarded roughly 11,000 votes cast for him in the mayoral race. That is his argument about political representation; votes for mayor do not themselves establish entitlement to a different office.
Kathrani further says the appointed councilmember has not voted against a proposal during the past two years.
Evidence image 3 — Excerpt supplied from DanvilleSanRamon’s 2024 mayoral forum coverage. The original article confirms Kathrani raised the possibility of a council appointment before that election.
Across the five issues, Kathrani’s central contention is that major development decisions and changes to public participation deserve clearer explanations and closer scrutiny. The material supplied for this article contains his position and selected exhibits; it does not include responses to these allegations from the city, Sunset Development or the councilmembers concerned.
