San Ramon council questions $4,000–$4,500 appeal deposit after staff cites Matrix fee study

The San Ramon City Council spent the bulk of Monday—s meeting discussing the city—s planning appeal fee structure, including whether a $4,000–$4,500 deposit creates an undue barrier to public appeals.

Community Development Director Lauren Barth told the council the city adopted a deposit-based appeal fee as part of the master fee schedule; the Matrix Consulting Group—s fee/time study estimated the full cost of a typical appeal at "roughly $6,700," Barth said. The current adopted deposits—a lower amount than the study—s maximum—are intended to recover staff time, noticing and overhead rather than be a punitive charge.

Barth explained the difference between the city—s deposit-based system and flat-fee systems used by many neighboring jurisdictions: "A lower flat fee would require either the city or the project applicant to cover any additional costs of processing the appeal," she said, while deposit-based models recover full cost from the appellant and require billing the appellant for overruns.

Council members asked detailed questions about billing and the deposit—s burn rate, how often deposits have been exhausted and billed back to appellants, and whether any appeals had been filed since the fee change. Barth said the matrix study was prepared in 2023 for the FY 2024-25 fee schedule and that the city had not received appeals in the two years since the fee change; she also said the most recent substantial example (the Marketplace appeal) used about 22 staff hours and would have cost in the mid-$7,000 range at current rates.

Public speakers strongly urged change. Greg Carr and other residents said the deposit is an onerous upfront cost that deters ordinary citizens who lack resources; citizen Susie Ferris Cindercomb urged staff to release the full Matrix study and supporting data, asking who filed previous appeals and how often refunds or court costs followed. Jim Blickenstau and other commenters compared San Ramon—s approach to neighboring cities, noting that average citizen costs in a sampled group of 10 jurisdictions were much lower.

Several council members proposed alternatives. Options mentioned included: a lower flat fee for resident appellants, a hybrid: modest flat fee plus a percentage (or 75%) of the underlying application fee as a deposit, a tiered model tied to project scale or proximity/impact, a hardship exemption or retainer approach that permits partial payment within a short window, and partial or full refunding of fees where an appeal is judged successful. Staff and the city attorney cautioned that refund rules would require clear standards for what counts as a successful appeal (upheld, denied with modification, or modified) and suggested any code changes be handled deliberately.

Council directed staff to publish the Matrix Consulting Group study and supporting data, to return with options for: tiered fee structures, hardship provisions, retainer/partial-payment procedures, and refund policy language; and to take the matter to the city—s policy committee and to a council workshop (targeted for January or early February) before any ordinance or fee schedule change. Councilmembers noted that any change to the fee schedule requires two noticed public hearings.

No immediate fee change was adopted at the meeting; the council left the deposit schedule in place while requesting the additional data and policy options.

Key figures and on-the-record quotes

- Staff noted a planning services billable rate of $330 per hour and referenced the Matrix Consulting Group time-and-cost study that put the cost of a typical appeal at "roughly $6,700." (Lauren Barth)

- Several residents argued the $4,000–$4,500 deposit is an access barrier and called for a lower fee or a refund/hardship policy to ensure equity.

What happens next

Staff will circulate the Matrix study and return with specific alternatives (flat fee, deposit hybrids, tiered options, hardship provisions and potential refund language) for discussion at a workshop and policy committee; any fee change would require the council to hold two public hearings and adopt an amendment to the fee schedule.