Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Small Business Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Ramon salon‑suite owner urges fee change, says zoning‑clearance cost deters tenants
Summary
A local small‑business owner told council that zoning‑clearance application fees and per‑suite requirements make it hard for salon‑suite operators to lease to medical‑spa tenants and urged the city to allow an umbrella zoning clearance or reduce fees for subdivided salon‑suite facilities.
Tamara Bollig, a San Ramon small‑business owner who operates Image Studios (a salon‑suite franchise), urged the City Council during public comment on Feb. 11 to change how the city applies zoning‑clearance fees to multi‑suite salon operations.
Bollig said her location is subdivided into 31 individual 110‑square‑foot suites, each licensed separately by individual stylists. When a suite became available she said the franchise expected the city to allow the umbrella business license holder to transfer an earlier zoning clearance; instead she was told the zoning‑clearance application fee had risen from $600 to $835 and that the city treats each licensed suite as a separate application. Bollig said the fee structure and permit process is a “real burden” for very small businesses and argued the city’s one‑page zoning‑clearance form should not require a fee that high.
She asked the city either to allow the umbrella business license holder to cover a salon‑suite location’s zoning clearance or to reduce the per‑suite fee, saying the current approach could amount to thousands of dollars for a single subdivided location. She thanked city staff Lucas Hawes and Ryan Driscoll by name for their assistance but urged a policy change to account for the unique structure of salon‑suite businesses.
City staff did not take action during the meeting but staff later observed that fees reflect a fee‑study approach to the full cost of providing a service.
Ending: Bollig’s remarks were recorded in public comment; staff did not propose an immediate change on Feb. 11. Council and staff discussion later in the meeting focused on larger zoning and retail policy matters rather than this specific fee change.
