2. Community Engagement & Annual Work Program — Participate in community outreach and engagement and coordinate with staff to submit an annual summary of activities for Council review.
B. The Committee’s Annual Required work (actions the Committee must complete each year):
1. Community Event – such as park or trail cleanup — In coordination with staff, organize at least one community cleanup.
2. Partnership Exploration — Produce an annual opportunities memo identifying partnership leads for sustainable activities and projects.
3. Annual Review — Prepare and submit the Committee’s annual review summarizing activities and event outcomes.
V: MEMBERSHIP
A. The Committee shall be the following seven (7) members.
Five (5) Residents at-large
Two (2) Alternate residents at-large
B. Consideration of Committee members may include:
• Technical experience in climate-related industries including, but not limited to:
o Air quality, Water quality, Construction/building trades, Economics and Infrastructure, Energy, Transit/Transportation
• Experience as a member of:
o An environmental climate non-profit entity, a San Ramon business, the San Ramon Chamber of Commerce
C. All Committee members must be at least 18 years of age.
D. Committee members are not required to participate or represent any specific organization, committee, commission, council, community group, industry group, and/or commercial group.
E. No Committee member may serve on more than one City Commission, Board, and/or Committee at any one time.
F. Term: After a standard recruitment process by the City Clerk, the City Council may appoint Committee members to serve a four (4) year term. Appointments shall be made by the City Council as follows:
• In even-numbered years, two (2) regular Committee members and one (1) alternate shall be appointed.
• In odd-numbered years, three (3) regular Committee members and one (1) alternate shall be appointed.
5.8.a
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: A: Sustainability Advisory Committee Bylaws [Revision 1] (2025-117 : Adoption of Bylaws for the Sustainability Advisory
G. Persons appointed to the Committee shall continue to serve as members unless one of the following occurs:
• The member’s term on the Committee expires.
• The members voluntarily resign from the Committee.
• The member is absent from three (3) regular meetings within a calendar year (January – December). Three absences in a twelve-month period shall be considered a voluntary resignation.
• The member no longer maintains primary residency within the City of San Ramon city limits.
• The member is employed by the City.
F. In the event of a vacancy on the Committee, the person selected to fill the vacancy shall serve for the remainder of the unexpired term. If fewer than six months remain in the unexpired term, the City Council has the option of appointing a person to serve the remainder of the unexpired term or the unexpired term followed by a full term.
G. All seven seats and shall be appointed by the City Council.
H. Members wishing to resign from the Committee must provide a written resignation addressed to the City Clerk.
VI: COMMITTEE ORGANIZATION
A. The Committee shall elect a Chair and a Vice Chair from among its members following the annual appointment. Term of office is one year. The Chair shall not serve consecutive full year terms as Chair. Elections also shall be held to fill vacancies in these positions as they occur, or as soon thereafter as practical. a. Chair: Shall preside at all meetings of the Committee; decide on all points of order; appoint sub-committee membership; follow up on work of sub-committees; represent Committee to City Council and Commission; and encourage active participation of members. b. Vice-Chair: Shall preside at all meetings in the absence of the Chair.
B. A City staff liaison shall serve as secretary to the Committee. The City staff liaison to the Committee shall keep true and accurate records of all actions of the Committee.
VII: MEETINGS
A. Meetings will be held quarterly at a minimum. Additional meetings may be scheduled by a majority of the Committee, City staff, or the City Council, and must be posted in accordance with the timelines established by the Brown Act.
5.8.a
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: A: Sustainability Advisory Committee Bylaws [Revision 1] (2025-117 : Adoption of Bylaws for the Sustainability Advisory
B. Meetings shall follow the Brown Act Laws for Open Public Meetings, Government Code Section 54950.5, and public input during a public forum shall be established and supported. Standard rules of parliamentary procedure will govern meetings.
C. A majority of voting members shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of action on any issue or agenda item.
VIII: POWERS OF COMMITTEE
A. Committee members may recommend, and the Committee may establish, subcommittees as deemed necessary and as part of an approved work plan.
Subcommittee members shall be appointed by the Committee Chair. Each subcommittee shall elect its own Chair from among its members. Subcommittees may be formed for a single task or established as ongoing standing subcommittees. Their sole purpose is to research, review, and develop recommendations to be presented to the full Committee.
B. Submit recommendations to City staff as approved by the majority of Committee members.
C. Written Correspondence or Verbal Communication: All written or verbal communication made on behalf of the Committee or any of its members to an outside agency, organization, or individual must have the prior consent of the Committee, City staff, and the City Council.
IX: AMENDMENTS
A. Changes to these By-Laws may be proposed by a majority vote of the Committee and are subject to ratification at the discretion of the City Council. The City Council also retains the authority to amend these By-Laws independently of Committee action.
5.8.a
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: A: Sustainability Advisory Committee Bylaws [Revision 1] (2025-117 : Adoption of Bylaws for the Sustainability Advisory
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: November 25, 2025
TO: City Council/City Manager
FROM: Lauren Barr, Community Development Director
By: Lauren Barr, Community Development Director
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 development 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.
Fee History
The appeal fee deposit increased in 2008 from a $350 deposit to a deposit between $500-$2,500 depending on the Development application type 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 for Planning Commission appeals remained at $2,500. Since the fee increase 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 24/25
City Council Goal #2 is to maintain a secure financial base and explore potential fee adjustments to increase financial stability. As part of the FY 24/25 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.
9.2 Packet Pg. 127
The Matrix Fee Study recommended a significant increase in the appeal fee deposits based on the staff time and overhead rates. In response, the Council gave general direction to move toward full cost recovery (where feasible) and approved the concept of establishing an annual cost-ofliving increase for the fees going forward. The Council further directed that those fees that increased greater than 150% be phased in over two years.
The money collected for an appeal is a deposit amount for the anticipated cost of processing 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 (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 development application type being appealed; however, one would expect variation in time spent based on the complexity and the nature of the appeal. 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 approximately $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 eliminates potential delays from pending payments.
Current Appeal Process:
Currently there are two methods to initiate an additional review/appeal of a City land use decision as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Division D7, Chapter 2: Appeals and Calls for Review, both of which result in the reconsideration of the prior project approval(s).
Appeal
An Appeal may be filed by an interested party (resident, special interest group, or the applicant) within the designated appeal period when an appellant believes that the land use decision is flawed or an abuse of discretion, and as such, is inconsistent with applicable City standards. The appellant must file an application with the City Clerk within 10 days of the decision, 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 (Zoning Ordinance Section D7-12).
Call For Review
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 ($6,711 according to the Matrix Group Study), which are essentially the same as would be charged to a third party appellant.
9.2 Packet Pg. 128
Any interested party (resident, special interest group, or the applicant) 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.
Other Jurisdiction’s Fee Structures
Staff conducted an initial survey of how other local jurisdictions have structured their appeal fees and there are several variations on how they are applied.
City Fee / Type Notes:
Bentwood $3,045 /Flat fee Any additional costs paid by General Fund (GF) Concord $99 /Flat fee+$1,540 noticing Additional staff time billed to the project Applicant
Danville $320 /Flat fee $1,280 to reconsider. Any additional costs paid by GF
Dublin $251 /Flat fee residents T&M for
Applicant
Any additional costs for resident appeal paid by
GF T&M applications billed to the project
Applicant
Fremont Deposits: $2,850 Resident (NonApplicant) $5,700 Applicant/3rd party
Pleasanton $345 /Flat fee Refunded with successful appeal Pleasant Hill $453 /Flat fee Council review of
appeal $388 /Flat fee Commission
review of appeal
Applications that are deposits are billed to the
Applicant. Non-deposit application cost covered
by GF
Lafayette $175 flat fee plus a deposit of 75%
of the application fee of the
application type being appealed
Livermore $4,381 Flat fee Any additional costs paid by GF Walnut Creek $210 flat Fee Additional staff time billed to the project Applicant
Fremont has appeal fee deposits between $2,850 and $5,700 depending on who files the appeal.
Lafayette collects a deposit based on 75% of the application fee for the project being appealed.
The other eight (8) cities reviewed have a flat fee for appeals ranging from $99 to $4,381 depending on the appeal.
Among the cities that have flat fees, there are nuances associated with how additional costs for service are addressed. In several cases, any additional costs are billed to the project applicants, while in other cities, additional costs of an appeal are supplemented by the General Fund. Of the cities reviewed, only Pleasanton has a provision for the appeal fee to be refunded if the appeal is successful.
Policy Committee Meeting July 16, 2025
On July 16, 2025, the Policy Committee discussed the current appeal fee process and fee structure.
9.2 Packet Pg. 129
Comments and questions from the Committee included a desire that the process be fair; that there be a structure based on an understanding of the costs associated with staff time to process an appeal; how those additional staff costs are addressed in a flat fee structure; considerations for a lower point of entry for a deposit-based appeal; the value of refunding fees for an appeal with merit; and how the appeal process can address hardship situations.
All the Committees’ comments and questions are based on specific pros and cons that ultimately result in trade-offs that the Council can consider. The current deposit fee structure for appeal is fair in that the cost of the services provided by the City are borne by the Appellant. If the Council believes that the current deposit fee structure is not supportive of the objectives of the appeal process, they can look to examples from other cities for a flat fee or hybrid structure with the understanding that those additional city cost must be recovered in different ways. While a lower flat fee is more financially accessible to the general public, it will generally result in the City subsidizing the costs of processing those appeals or passing the cost on to the project applicant.
A higher flat fee will help offset a city’s costs and provide certainty in the total cost to the Appellant when compared to an open-ended deposit.
Several cities designed their appeal fees around the characteristics of the Appellant and or the nature of the application (deposit vs. fixed fee). Under this structure, residents often get a discounted rate, and the applicant/third parties would potentially pay a higher cost. Additional costs can be charged to the project applicants or subsidized by the General Fund which raises fairness questions of whether the project applicants or city residents should be responsible for outstanding appeal costs associated with an individual’s appeal of a project, regardless of the broader view of the community.
The current Call for Review process established in the Zoning Ordinance addresses the desire for relief based on a hardship or need for a lower point of entry for an appeal in that any member of the public can request that a member of the appeal body (i.e. City Council, Planning Commission) initiate a Call for Review (appeal) at no cost to the individual if, in the opinion of any member of the Appeal Body, the request is compelling and has merit for additional discussion. If no one on the Appeal Body feels that the request is warranted, that may suggest that the basis for the appeal may not be compelling and raises the question if such an appeal would be successful. Similarly, a refund for a successful appeal would be an acknowledgement that the basis for the appeal was valid. The City would bear the cost of a successful appeal to presumably correct the prior incorrect decision. Further, this process would support Appellants that have a well-founded argument and discourage appeals based on unsupported or subjective opinions.
Staff Recommendation:
Based on City Council Goal #2, maintain a secure financial base and explore potential fee adjustments to increase financial stability and the FY 24/25 Matrix Consulting Group User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan, Staff recommends that the Council maintain the current structure of deposit-based appeals and the option for a Call for Review by the Appeal Body.
The deposit structure ensures that City costs are recovered while not penalizing the project
9.2 Packet Pg. 130
applicants for challenges to their project based on an Appellant’s concerns. The Call for Review process offers a response for a potential Appellant if the cause for the appeal has merit in the opinion of the Appeal Body member. If there is a desire to lower the deposit amount, that comes with an understanding that additional staff administration would be required in collecting fees throughout the process to ensure that the City is made whole.
The concept of refunding fees for a successful appeal can be structured as an action or finding that is considered as part of the appeal decision on a case by case. It is important to understand that the decisions on an appeal, as a de novo process, are not always a yes or no action and can include modifications to the original approval that are not directly related to the purpose of the appeal. This variability of outcome raises the question of whether or not a refund of an appeal fee is warranted in all cases.
Lastly, if a flat fee is desired, the Council will need to determine what is the appropriate fee, and how much the City is willing to subsidize the appeal process regardless of the merit of the appeal.
Alternatively, if the Council feels it is appropriate to pass on the City costs along to the project applicant, for which the appeal is filed, a fee could include that provision. Any significant change for the current process will likely require additional policy documentation to memorialize the intent and specifics of the desired appeal process.
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 depending on the number of appeals.
NEXT STEPS
Provide direction to staff. Work on the FY 26-27 fee schedule will likely begin in the next few months for consideration by the City Council in the Spring of 2026. Depending on the specific direction, any modifications can be implemented as part of that update.
9.2 Packet Pg. 131
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: November 25, 2025
TO: City Council/City Manager
FROM: Joan Snashall, City Clerk
By: Joan Snashall, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Election of the Mayor Pro Tempore for the City of San Ramon
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends that the City Council select a Mayor Pro Tempore for 2026.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Section A4-2 B Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore of Chapter I Legislative Body, of Division A4 Officers and Employees, of the Municipal Code of the City of San Ramon, states that:
In even-numbered years, the city council shall meet at the regularly scheduled meeting next following the meeting at which the declaration of the election results was made pursuant to Section 10262 or 10263 of the Elections Code and choose one of its members as mayor pro tempore for a one-year term. In odd-numbered years, the city council shall at the first regularly scheduled meeting in November select one of its members as mayor pro tempore for a one-year term.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
None.
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
The City Clerk will notify the appropriate agencies of the selection of the Mayor Pro Tempore for the City of San Ramon.
9.3 Packet Pg. 132