CITY OF SAN RAMON
POLICY COMMITTEE
AGENDA
WE PROVIDE EFFICIENT DELIVERY OF QUALITY PUBLIC SERVICES
THAT ARE ESSENTIAL TO THOSE WHO LIVE AND WORK IN SAN RAMON Robert Jweinat, Chair • Richard Adler, Vice Chair
City Hall - Large Conference Room, Second Floor
7000 Bollinger Canyon Road
Regular Meeting
4:00 PM
July 16, 2025
1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time, members of the public are encouraged to address the Committee on any item not already included on the agenda. Comments should not exceed three (3) minutes. No Committee action can be taken at this meeting on issues raised during public comment.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3.1 Policy Committee - Regular Meeting - March 26, 2025
4. NEW BUSINESS
4.1 Discussion of the City’s Appeal Fee Structure
Recommendation: Receive the Staff Report, Discuss and Provide Direction to Staff on the City’s Current Appeal Fee Structure.
Staff Report by: Debbie Chamberlain, Community Development Director
5. POLICY COMMITTEE COMMENTS
6. ADJOURNMENT
I hereby certify the agenda was posted 72 hours before the noted meeting. This agenda is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a). To make a request for disability-related accommodation to participate in the meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office 48 hours in advance of the meeting at 925-973-2539 or [email protected].
Dated: July 11, 2025
2 Policy Committee Meeting – July 16, 2025
ATTENDEE CONDUCT
There will be zero tolerance for any person addressing the Committee making profane, offensive and disruptive remarks, or engaging in loud, boisterous, or other disorderly conduct, that disrupts the orderly conduct of the public meeting. Specifically, it is important for all speakers to adhere to the following guidelines for participation in this meeting:
a. No profanity or obscenity
b. Refrain from personal threats or attacks.
c. Refrain from hateful epithets and demeaning language based on any person’s race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or disability.
d. Respect all people that are present.
At the discretion of the Committee Chair, a speaker may forfeit speaking time for any of the following reasons:
a. Exceeding the allotted time to speak;
b. Yelling, screaming, or other behavior that renders this Committee unable to continue the meeting;
c. Excessive profanity or slander; Specific threats or “fighting words” that incite violence; or d. Speech that is outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the Committee or the specific agenda item in which you are speaking.
While the City of San Ramon ensures the First Amendment rights of its citizens, we do not accept nor endorse any offensive or hateful comments made during our meetings. The City of San Ramon celebrates the diversity of our community, and we strive to be a welcoming and open community for all.
MINUTES OF THE
CITY OF SAN RAMON
POLICY COMMITTEE
March 26, 2025
1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status
Robert Jweinat Chair Present
Richard Adler Vice Chair Present
Also in attendance; Assistant City Manager Scott Koll, City Clerk Christina Franco, and Parks and Community Services Director Kathi Heimann.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3.1 Policy Committee - Regular Meeting - September 25, 2024 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Richard Adler, Vice Chair
SECONDER: Robert Jweinat, Chair
AYES: Jweinat, Adler
3.2 Policy Committee - Special Meeting - October 15, 2024 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Richard Adler, Vice Chair
SECONDER: Robert Jweinat, Chair
AYES: Jweinat, Adler
4. COMMITTEE BUSINESS
4.1 Parks and Community Services Commission Attendance
Staff report and overview was presented by Kathi Heimann, Director, Parks and Community Services Department.
Public comments were received from Bob Peoples and Julia Oseland supporting Ms.
Oseland to remain as a Commissioner on the PCS Commission.
Written public comment was received from Steve Bried and Kyle Levy supporting Ms.
Oseland to remain as a Commissioner on the PCS Commission.
3.1 Packet Pg. 3
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 26, 2025 4:00 PM (APPROVAL OF MINUTES) 2 Policy Committee Meeting – March 26, 2025
The Policy Committee voted to allow Julia Oseland to remain as a Commissioner on the PCS Commission to fulfill her term on the Commission, and thanked Commissioner Oseland for her service to the city and the community.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Richard Adler, Vice Chair
SECONDER: Robert Jweinat, Chair
AYES: Jweinat, Adler
5. POLICY COMMITTEE COMMENTS
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:17 p.m.
3.1 Packet Pg. 4
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 26, 2025 4:00 PM (APPROVAL OF MINUTES) AGENDA #4.1
POLICY COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 16, 2025
TO: Policy Committee/City Manager
FROM: Debbie Chamberlain, Community Development Director By: Lauren Barr, Division Manager
SUBJECT: Discussion of the City’s Appeal Fee Structure
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive the staff report, discuss and provide direction to staff on the City’s current appeal fee structure.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
On April 22, 2025, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2025-036 adopting the Master Fee Schedule for Various Municipal Services for Fiscal Year 2025/26. As part of the public review process, the City Council received public comments, including specific concerns over the cost of Planning Division appeals for development applications. While there were no increases to the appeal fees in FY 25/26, given the public comments, the Council asked staff to revisit the appeal fee structure for discussion.
The appeal fee deposit increased in 2008 from a $350 deposit to a deposit between $500-$2,500 depending on the application being appealed. From 2005 to 2008 there were ten (10) Planning Commission appeals filed, and no City Council calls for review initiated. In 2010, the $500 dollar Zoning Administrator appeal fee deposit increased to $1,500 while the other deposits remained at $2,500. Since the fee increased in 2008 until 2023 there have been six (6) Zoning Administrator appeals filed, seven (7) Planning Commission appeals filed, and eight (8) City Council calls for review initiated. This deposit structure for appeals has remained unchanged until the FY 24/25 fee schedule was adopted based on the Matrix Fee Study.
Matrix Fee Study FY 2024/25
City Council Goal #2 is to maintain a secure financial base and explore potential revenue enhancements to increase financial stability. As part of the FY 2024/25 Master Fee Schedule process, the City contracted with Matrix Consulting Group to conduct a User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan. The study evaluated the time and cost assumptions to determine the full cost (direct and indirect) of providing City services based upon the current organizational structure and processes.
4.1 Packet Pg. 5
AGENDA #4.1
The Matrix Fee Study recommended a significant increase in the appeal fee deposits based on the staff time and overhead rates. On April 23, 2024, the Council passed Resolution No. 2024- 051 directing staff to move toward full cost recovery and approved the concept of establishing an annual cost-of-living increase for the fees going forward. The Council further directed that those fees which increased greater than 150% be phased in over two years.
The money collected for an appeal is technically a deposit for the cost processing of the appeal for which staff bills actual time spent to cover City costs. The deposit structure was never intended to subsidize an appeal of a City decision. The Matrix Study indicated a staff cost of $6,711 to process a typical appeal. The fully burdened billable rate for Planning Services is $330 per hour based on time studies for direct planning staff costs as well as indirect citywide overhead for other Departments (i.e. City Clerk, City Attorney, etc.) which are not directly billed to projects. The appeal fee deposits were set at $4,000-$4,500 based on the specific application type as shown in Table 1; however, one would expect variation in time spent based on the complexity of the nature of the appeal. As a fee deposit, where actual costs are charged, Council’s comments related to a fee escalator and phasing fees in over multiple years is not necessary.
Table 1: FY 2025/26 Appeal Fees
Appeal Type Current
Deposit Fee
% Change
FY 2025/26
Zoning Administrator's Decision for Residential Property $4,000 No Change Zoning Administrator's Decision for Non-Residential Property $4,500 No Change Planning Commission Decision for Residential Property $4,500 No Change Planning Commission Decision for Non- Residential Property $4,500 No Change If the appeal incurs additional expenses, the balance due is billed to the appellant to cover actual City costs. If the appeal is quickly resolved or withdrawn, the balance of unspent fees are returned to the appellant. The approximate $4,500 dollar amount provides enough of a deposit to allow for substantial work on the appeal without the need for continued invoicing for charges and eliminate potential delays from pending payments.
Current Appeal Process
Currently there are two methods to initiate additional review of a City land use decision as outlined in Division D7-Chapter 2: Appeals and Calls for Review. An appeal of a land use decision may be filed by an interested party (resident, special interest group or the applicant)
4.1 Packet Pg. 6
AGENDA #4.1
within the designated appeal period, when an appellant believes that the land use decision is flawed, an abuse of discretion, and as such is inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance or other applicable standard. The appellant must file an application with the City Clerk, outline the specific facts that justify the appeal and pay the applicable appeal fee/deposit. Once accepted, staff will process the appeal consistent with established City procedures (Municipal Code Section D7-12).
The second method to review a City land use decision is for a member of the designated Appeal Body (i.e. Planning Commission or City Council) to initiate a Call for Review of the decision of a lower approval authority. The process and materials to initiate a Call for Review are the same as an appeal, except that because this action is initiated by the City Appeal Body, there are no fees collected, and the City is responsible for the costs associated with staff processing the Call for Review. Any interested party may seek support from a member of the Appeal Body by making their case that a prior decision was made in error and that a Call for Review is warranted.
If a member of the Appeal Body feels that additional review is necessary, they can initiate the process within the established appeal period.
Alternative Appeal/Fee Structures
As part of the appeal fee adoption process, public comments suggested that the current fee is too high and that there is an opportunity for a lower fee or perhaps a tiered structure based on a fee for residents and another fee for applicants/third parties. Staff have done an initial survey of how other local jurisdictions (10 cities) have structured their appeal fees and there is no discernable pattern. Fremont has appeal fee deposits between $2,850 and $5,700 depending on the appeal.
Lafayette collects a deposit based on 75% of the application fee for the project being appealed.
The other six (6) cities reviewed have a flat fee for appeals ranging from $138 to $4,266 depending on the appeal. Of the cities reviewed, only Pleasanton has a provision for the appeal fee to be refundable if the appellant wins.
Deposit vs. Flat Fee
Generally, the fees are structured as a deposit or a flat fee. The cost levels vary from a few hundred dollars to several thousand dollars. The appeal fee deposits are typically larger and are intended to promote cost recovery for staff time. A lower flat fee is more financially accessible to the general public and will tend to encourage more appeals and result in the City subsidizing the costs of processing those appeals. A higher flat fee will help offset a city’s costs and provide certainty in the total cost, as opposed to an open-ended deposit. Depending on the number of appeals, variation in project complexity and processing time, there will likely be some averaging in the costs to the City over time with a higher flat fee. Additionally, in the case of housing projects, appeals may result in delays in the production of housing which is contrary to State policy. That is not to say that a housing project appeal is never valid, but such delays can be problematic if based on opinion rather than valid verifiable technical standards outlined in local code or State law. As such, there is a high bar for housing project and a meaningful deposit helps to ensure that appellants are confident and serious in their objections.
4.1 Packet Pg. 7
AGENDA #4.1
Tierd Fees for Residents/Applicants/Third Parties
Another concept is to vary the appeal fee based on the characteristics of the Appellant. The premise would be that residents get a discounted rate, and the applicant/third parties would potentially pay a higher cost. While subsidizing appeal fees for residents is consistent with a resident service model, there are questions of equity and fairness. Local businesses, employees, and property owners (while technically not residents) are part of the community, and one might question if they should be treated differently. Further, one resident’s concern over a project may not reflect the broader view of the community and the costs incurred represent a cost to all residents through the impact on staffing resources and budget that could otherwise be utilized for the community as a whole
Refund Fee for a Successful Appeal
Lastly, there is the concept of refunding the appeal fee if an appeal is successful. This option has some appeal in that there is acknowledgement that the basis for the appeal was valid and appropriate given that the appeal was successful. The City would bear the cost of a successful appeal to presumably correct the prior incorrect decision. By contrast, a failed appeal would be seen as unnecessary use of City resources and require complete payment by the appellant.
One challenge to this type of provision is that appeals are often not a simple yes or no question. Appeals are treated as De Novo hearings and are not limited to the prior record of decision and the appeal body can consider any new relevant information in rendering a decision. As such, an appeal of an approved project requesting a denial, may still be approved and modified to address a specific issue not necessarily related to the specific appeal. A question to consider, “Does the fact that the project was modified, but not denied on appeal, suggest that the appeal was warranted and is therefore subject to a refund of appeal fees?” This would either require that the appeal body make a specific finding that the fee should be refunded or require additional policy direction as to what specific criteria would trigger an appeal fee refund.
Summary
Any decision to revise the current appeal fee structure will need to consider the potential impacts of financially subsidizing the appeal process. The City’s current appeal fee deposit structure is intended to promote cost recovery for staff time and resources. While the potential costs of an appeal are potentially significant, it requires that an appellant be thoughtful in bringing an appeal rather than acting simply on a difference of opinion. This is particularly true when associated with housing projects. State law has limited local discretion in denying housing projects and a prolonged process, yet, even if denied may put the City at risk of additional challenges from HCD and/or the State Attorney General as a local barrier to housing production.
Potential regulatory concerns aside, under the current process, anyone with concerns over a City decision can raise their concerns with the appropriate Appeal Body members and request
4.1 Packet Pg. 8
AGENDA #4.1
that they initiate a Call for Review. The costs associated with a valid Call for Review are then borne by the City, while still providing a potential remedy for the concern at hand.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
Uncertain at this time. If there is a shift to a subsidized flat fee or refunding fees, the City costs of processing appeals will not be fully recovered and represent a cost to the City. The fiscal impact would depend on the number of appeals filed and the number of appeals filed will likely be influenced by the cost of the appeal. The current deposit-based fee structure addresses City cost recovery concerns while also allowing public remedies through the Calls for Review process, when warranted.
NEXT STEPS
Provide direction to staff.
4.1 Packet Pg. 9