San Ramon Planning Commission approves 54-unit Woodside Canyon townhome project

SAN RAMON, Calif. — The San Ramon Planning Commission voted 4-0 on Jan. 7 to approve the Woodside Canyon residential development, a proposal to replace an office building at 18 Crow Canyon Court with 54 for-sale multifamily townhome condominium units and 121 on-site parking spaces.

The approval, in resolution No. 01-25, adopts revised conditions of approval and grants the applicant one density-bonus concession and three waivers from San Ramon Village Specific Plan development standards after staff presentation, a single public speaker in support, and detailed legal analysis from Commissioner Wallace.

The commission’s action matters because the project uses the state density bonus framework to request relief from specified local development standards. Commissioner Wallace led a lengthy on-record explanation of how concessions and waivers differ under state law, citing Government Code section 65915, the Housing Accountability Act’s procedural timetable for completeness notices, and the California Building Code (Title 24, Ch. 11A) accessibility provisions that require at least 10% of units to be accessible. Wallace said a concession is a reduction in site-development standards that “results in identifiable and actual cost reductions,” while a waiver concerns whether enforcing a standard would “physically preclude” construction of the housing as designed. He told the commission it had authority under the city’s adopted density-bonus ordinance to consider and act on those requests at public hearings.

Staff opened the item by describing the project and noting the Planning Commission had continued the item from a Dec. 3, 2024, hearing. A resident, Max of Windermere Ranch, spoke in support, saying, “I wholeheartedly support this project” and urging more housing near the city center. Mr. Hale, identified during the hearing as the applicant’s representative, had supplied written and oral information the commission relied on in deliberations; Commissioner Wallace also told the record he had received an email from Mr. Hale citing the California Building Code section relevant to accessible units and asked that the email be made part of the record.

Commissioner Wallace recommended granting the single concession requested — relief from the San Ramon Village Specific Plan multi-use trail requirement identified in Table C of the applicant’s October 18, 2024 project narrative — on the basis that eliminating the trail would produce “actual and identifiable cost reductions.” He also recommended granting three waivers described in the applicant’s Table D (including an adjustment related to front setbacks and a waiver tied to level-in approaches versus stoop entrances) after explaining that waivers must be evaluated on whether enforcing the standard would physically preclude construction rather than on financial feasibility.

Commissioners reviewed the redlined resolution and conditions at the dais, discussed renumbering of subsections, and agreed that staff and the City Attorney’s Office would confirm legal citations and references to exhibits before finalizing the resolution language. The commission then moved and seconded the revised resolution and adopted it 4-0. The motion as stated on the record referred to project entitlements (DP2024-00002, TRP2024-00008, MJ2024-00001 and Environmental 2024-00001) and adopted exhibit 1 to the proposed resolution with the amendments read into the record.

Votes at a glance - Approval of minutes, Planning Commission regular meeting, Dec. 17, 2024 — Motion to approve minutes carried 4-0 (recorded on the consent calendar). - Resolution No. 01-25 — Adopted 4-0 to approve the Woodside Canyon development at 18 Crow Canyon Court, including the concession and three waivers as described in the staff report and applicant materials.

Next steps and context The item was a continued public hearing from Dec. 3, 2024; the resolution adopted by the commission includes language the commission read into the record describing the concession and waivers and directs staff to finalize the drafting with the City Attorney’s Office. Commissioners noted the Housing Accountability Act’s five-hearing framework and that the city typically reserves a final hearing for the City Council if an appeal is filed. Staff indicated it will verify exhibit and code references before the final signed resolution is issued. The commission also mentioned an upcoming joint City Council–Planning Commission meeting on Feb. 11 on a separate zoning matter (DMU North FAR).