City staff presented a review of San Ramon’s appeal fee structure and a 2023 Matrix Consulting Group cost study that estimated a typical appeal costs roughly $6,700 and used a billable planning-services rate of $330 per hour. The adopted fee schedule currently sets deposit-based appeal amounts (zoning-administrator residential appeals at $4,000; higher deposits for commercial and council-level appeals up to $4,500).

Community Development Director Lauren Barth told the council the deposit-based model places the initial cost burden on appellants but allows the city to recover staff time; the council can instead choose flat fees, a hybrid, tiered structure or refund rules for successful appeals. "The study evaluated the time and cost assumptions to determine the full cost...the cost of an appeal at roughly $6,700," Barth said.

Council members pressed staff on several points: how the $330/hour rate was derived, whether deposits have led to fewer appeals since the increase, options for refunding fees when appeals are successful and mechanisms for hardship or lower points of entry. Staff noted the city had no appeals in the two years after the 2023 increases and that past appeals (e.g., Marketplace, Iron Horse Village) had used dozens of staff hours and in one case spurred subsequent litigation.

Residents urged the council to lower or change the deposit structure. Greg Carr said the current deposit and 10-day filing window create a high barrier to participation and asked, "If they should win, why should they get their refund?" Susie Ferris Cindercomb asked the council to publish the full Matrix data and recommended a temporary reduction or waiver while an independent study is commissioned. Jim Blickenstaff and Shirod Kathrani cited peer-city averages and urged using general-fund subsidies or a lower citizen fee to preserve access.

After public comment, councilmembers coalesced around requesting more data and options rather than an immediate fee change. They asked staff to provide a detailed breakdown of the Matrix study, peer comparisons, scenarios for tiered or flat fees, hardship provisions and defined refund criteria (including who would pay refunds and when). Staff said an immediate fee change would require two public hearings but agreed to discuss refund policy through the policy committee and present options at an upcoming council workshop (target: January or early February) ahead of the annual fee-schedule review.

No fee change was adopted at this meeting; council members emphasized balancing cost recovery with public access and requested staff return with specific alternatives for council review.