(SAN RAMON, Calif.) — A review of San Ramon City Council decisions during 2025 reveals significant changes to development regulations, public review procedures and planning requirements. While the council approved several measures unanimously, the decisions raise questions about how residents can participate in development decisions and hold elected officials accountable.
A Council Seat Filled Without an Election
Following the November 2024 election, Mark Armstrong became mayor with 69.3% of the vote, defeating Chirag Kathrani, who received 30.7%.
Armstrong’s victory created a vacancy in his former District 2 council seat. Rather than conduct a special election, the council voted on December 11, 2024, to fill the position through appointment.
The city received 21 applications, with 16 candidates meeting eligibility requirements. Four finalists were interviewed publicly.
On January 10, 2025, Richard Adler was appointed through a 3–1 vote. Armstrong voted against the selection.
Although the appointment followed an established public process, District 2 voters did not directly elect their replacement representative. The seat is scheduled for election in November 2026. The vote also contradicts claims that Armstrong never votes against council decisions.
Downtown Development Rules Changed
On May 13, 2025, the council unanimously approved changes affecting approximately 205 acres within San Ramon's Downtown Mixed Use–North district.
Ordinance 529 and Resolution 2025-048 reduced the minimum floor-area ratio from 1.25 to 0.5, allowing development with less building floor space relative to property size.
The amendment was requested by Sunset Development Company, a significant property owner in the affected area.
According to the city's environmental documentation, the change did not directly approve individual development projects or increase permitted residential density.
Nevertheless, it modified development standards across a substantial downtown area.
Public criticism has included claims that the change produced a $200 million benefit for developers. Available records reviewed for this report do not establish that valuation.
Determining the financial effects would require independent property assessments and analysis of how the amendment affects future projects.
Planning Commission Review Reduced
On September 9, 2025, the council approved amendments to CityWalk development agreements through Ordinances 531 and 532.
The measures passed 4–0, with Armstrong absent.
Under the revised agreements, certain qualifying housing development plans can receive administrative review by the Zoning Administrator without automatically undergoing Planning
Commission concept review.
Previously, that additional review provided another opportunity for commissioners to examine proposed developments.
The agreements preserve public appeal rights and the authority of the Planning Commission or council to review decisions when necessary.
However, removing routine commission review changes the process through which some projects receive approval.
The city identified housing-approval streamlining as a reason for the amendments.
A key question is how frequently administrative approvals receive additional scrutiny and whether residents receive sufficient notice to exercise their appeal rights.
Measure G and Public Hearing Requirements
Another consequential decision came on October 14, 2025, when the council unanimously adopted Ordinance 534.
The ordinance amended zoning procedures, including provisions governing General Plan amendments.
San Ramon's official website continues to describe Measure G, a voter-approved initiative from 1999, as requiring a four-fifths majority from both the Planning Commission and council, along with three public hearings before each body.
However, the amended municipal code no longer explicitly repeats those numerical requirements in the relevant sections. Instead, it directs the council to hold one or more public hearings.
This discrepancy requires an explanation from city officials.
Importantly, removing language from a municipal code does not automatically repeal a voter-approved initiative. The legal effect of the changes remains a question requiring examination of the original measure, applicable law and the city's legal interpretation.
The Cost of Appealing Decisions
Financial barriers to public participation also deserve examination.
Under San Ramon's July 2025 fee schedule, initial deposits for certain zoning appeals ranged from $4,000 to $4,500.
The city subsequently reduced those deposits.
Effective July 1, 2026, the listed deposits became $1,500 for appeals of Zoning Administrator decisions and $2,500 for covered Planning Commission appeals.
However, appellants may still face additional charges based on actual staff time and materials.
Residents generally have 10 calendar days to file an appeal.
Accountability Beyond Voting Records
These decisions demonstrate that the council made substantial changes to San Ramon's development and approval procedures.
Unanimous voting alone does not establish improper conduct. Nor do streamlined procedures necessarily eliminate public oversight.
The critical questions are whether the changes deliver their stated benefits, how effectively remaining safeguards operate, and whether residents can meaningfully participate before consequential decisions become final.
Clear public explanations, accessible records and measurable outcomes are essential to answering those questions.
---
Disclosure: OpGov.news founder Chirag Kathrani ran against Mark Armstrong in the 2024 mayoral election and is a candidate for the District 2 council seat in 2026.
Primary documents: San Ramon City Council Ordinances 529, 531, 532 and 534; 2024 election results; city environmental filings; and published municipal fee schedules.
0
0
Comments