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 actual time-and-materials costs, so the deposit is not a fixed maximum price.
Residents generally 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 streamlining changes.
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 may refer an application to the Planning 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 seeking formal reconsideration of an approval must file a citizen appeal and pay the required fee.
Removing automatic Commission review reduces opportunities for residents to address that body before approval. Residents must instead face the expense of appealing afterward. I believe major development deserves meaningful public input before decisions are made.
Sources: Ordinance 531; Ordinance 532.
What I’ll work to change.
Lower, predictable resident 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.
Meaningful review before approval.
I’ll advocate for meaningful public review of major development before approval. I support efficient permitting, but efficiency should work alongside public accountability and an appeals process residents can actually afford.