Public review & affordable appeals
Your voice shouldn’t
cost thousands.
Residents deserve meaningful input before development is approved and an affordable way to challenge decisions afterward.
What an appeal is and why it matters.
Development decisions affect traffic, neighborhood character, infrastructure, and the people who already live here. Depending on the project and applicable rules, development proposals may be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, or City Council.
Public comment gives residents an opportunity to raise concerns before a decision. For decisions eligible for appeal, an appeal asks another city decision-making body to reconsider that decision. When a project is approved despite residents’ concerns, an appeal provides a formal way to challenge the approval and explain what they believe was overlooked.
Residents deserve clear rules, meaningful public review, and a fair opportunity to question decisions that affect their neighborhoods.
Your voice should not cost thousands.
Exercising that right is expensive in San Ramon. The city requires an initial $1,500 deposit to appeal a Zoning Administrator decision or $2,500 to appeal a Planning Commission decision. The person filing the appeal the appellant is responsible for time-and-materials costs that are later determined by the city, so the deposit is not a fixed maximum price.
Residents have just 10 calendar days to file an appeal and submit the required payment. A substantial upfront payment and uncertainty about the final bill can put meaningful review beyond the reach of ordinary residents.
Source: San Ramon appeal instructions and fees, effective July 1, 2026.
Nearby cities show a more affordable approach.
Walnut Creek lists a $210 fee for an appeal filed by a member of the public who is not the project applicant. Pleasanton charges $349, refunded upon a successful appeal. San Ramon’s deposits are substantially higher and leave residents responsible for unlimited costs determined by the city.
| City | Appeal fee | Important distinction |
|---|---|---|
| San Ramon | $1,500 / $2,500 deposit | Appellant pays time-and-materials costs, determined by the city. The deposit is not a fixed maximum. One appellant was hit with a bill over $10k. |
| Walnut Creek | $210 | Flat fee when the appellant is not the project applicant. |
| Dublin | $258 | Flat fee when the appellant is not the project applicant. |
| Danville | $332 | |
| Pleasanton | $349 | Refunded upon a successful appeal. |
San Ramon’s tradition of public review.
San Ramon has a history of strong public-review requirements for major land-use changes. Voters approved Measure G in 1999, requiring three public hearings before each of the Planning Commission and City Council, plus four-fifths approval from both bodies, for General Plan amendments.
Those requirements established a strong commitment to public scrutiny of changes to the city’s long-term land-use plan.
Source: City explanation of Measure G and General Plan amendments.
What City Council recently changed.
Recently, the City Council has voted to streamline development review. For example, amendments to the CityWalk development agreements for Bishop Ranch place future housing development plans under the Zoning Administrator and remove Planning Commission review.
The Zoning Administrator is an individual city staff official, not a commission of San Ramon residents. The current administrator does not live in San Ramon.
Removing automatic Planning Commission review takes away residents’ opportunity to address that resident body before approval. The Zoning Administrator may refer an application to the Commission, but that decision is at the Zoning Administrator’s discretion. Residents cannot require that referral.
If no referral occurs and neither the Planning Commission nor City Council initiates a call for review, residents’ only route to obtaining formal reconsideration is to file a citizen appeal and pay the required fee. Instead of having an automatic opportunity to be heard before the Planning Commission, residents must pay to challenge the approval afterward.
Public review should happen before approval—not depend on residents paying for an appeal.
Sources: Ordinance 531; Ordinance 532.
Here's what I'll do.
Lower, predictable appeal fees.
I’ll advocate for a lower, predictable resident appeal fee so that asking the city to reconsider a development approval does not require taking on an open-ended financial obligation.
Earlier, clearer project information.
Residents should be able to understand what is proposed, what decisions are coming, and how to participate, with clear explanations of major changes and their potential neighborhood impacts.
Bring back public review meetings.
I’ll work to restore public review meetings before the Planning Commission. Residents should have opportunities to ask questions, raise concerns, and address a commission of San Ramon residents before decisions are made—without having to pay for an appeal to obtain that review.