A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Ramon was called to order on October 10, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 2222 Camino Ramon, Mayor Kinney presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmembers Hudson, Raab, Tatarka, Wilson and Mayor Kinney
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Herb Moniz, City Attorney Bob Saxe, Police Chief Brian Lindblom, Parks and Community Services Director Jeff Eorio, Planning Director Phil Wong, City Engineer Joye Fukuda, Transportation Director John Dillon and City Clerk Judy Macfarlane

* * * *

Boy Scouts led Council, staff and those present in the audience in a pledge of allegiance to the flag.

* * * *

The Police Chief introduced Brett Siwy, the new Police Services Technician.

The Parks and Community Services Director introduced Christine Kaehuaea, the new Office Technician at the Aquatic Center.

Mayor Kinney welcomed the new employees and gave them City pins.

* * * *

The City Clerk said four applications had been received for the two vacancies on the Building Inspection Board of Appeals.

By Council ballot Stephen Michael Angelo and Debra Cash were selected.

Cm. Hudson’s motion to appoint Mr. Angelo and Ms. Cash to the Building Inspection Board of Appeals for terms to run through June 2004 was seconded by Cm. Raab and passed 5-0.

The City Clerk said eleven applications had been received for the six vacancies on the Economic Development Advisory Committee. She continued to say the six vacancies fall into three categories, one property or business owner, three residents interested in affordable housing and two residents at-large. She said there were no applications for the seventh vacancy, the Chamber of Commerce position.

On the first ballot Sonja Altemueller, Gregory Elder and Barbara Kuklewicz were selected to serve on EDAC.

On the second ballot William Dunlap and Steven Frew were selected.

The Council selected Kathryn Fisher on the third ballot as the sixth member of the EDAC.

Cm. Hudson made a motion to appoint Ms. Altemueller, Mr. Elder and Ms. Kuklewicz to EDAC for terms to run through February 2002 and Mr. Dunlap, Mr. Frew and Ms. Fisher for terms to run through February 2001 and to direct staff to continue to solicit a Chamber of Commerce nomination.

Cm. Tatarka seconded the motion and it passed 5-0.

Cm. Wilson complimented staff and the volunteers for the superb job they did coordinating the Black and White Ball. He said there were glowing reviews from the 1200 to 1300 people in attendance. He also thanked the restaurants that had donated food for the event.

Mayor Kinney said the Carbo-load was also held that night and this year the event raised over $30,000 for education in the Valley.

* * * *

Donna Kerger, 2740 Canyon Creek Drive, Chair of the General Plan Review Commission, said there was a Commission meeting on Wednesday, October 11 at the Pacific Bell California Room beginning at 7:00 p.m.

Kay Cooper, 69 Fife Court, spoke about the variety of programs held at the San Ramon Senior Center and encouraged all interested seniors to attend.

* * * *

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Cm. Raab’s motion to approve the minutes of the September 26, 2000 Council meeting was seconded by Cm. Hudson and passed 5-0.

* * * *

Cm. Hudson asked that item 8.4, resolution amending the Master List of parking restrictions, be removed from the Consent Calendar for a separate vote.

Cm. Raab’s motion to approve the following Consent Calendar was seconded by Cm. Tatarka and passed 5-0.

FINANCE Register of Demands dated September 18, September 29, and October 6, 2000 in the amount of $2,181,665.30.

AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF BONDS FOR THE CREE COURT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT

AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH KOFF & ASSOCIATES AS CONSULTANTS FOR A CITY WIDE CLASSIFICATION STUDY IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,840

CONTRACT QUARTERLY REPORT

City Manager and Designated Directorates Contract Quarterly Report – July 1 to September 30, 2000

AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2000/01 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO ADD THE GOLF COURSE FENCING PROJECT (CIP 8332) AND AUTHORIZING A PROJECT BUDGET OF $45,000

REJECTING BIDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE OLD RANCH ROAD SLOPE REPAIR PROJECT (CIP 8650)

AUTHORIZING AN ANNUAL LOAN FROM THE CITY’S GENERAL FUND TO THE SAN RAMON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (RDA) FOR OPERATING COSTS AS APPROVED ANNUALLY BY THE AGENCY

APPROVING INSTALLATION OF ALL-WAY STOP SIGN AT THE INTERSECTION OF TALAVERA DRIVE/SANTANDER DRIVE/VALDIVIA CIRCLE

Cm. Raab’s motion to approve the resolution amending the restricted parking master list was seconded by Cm. Hudson and passed 5-0.

REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 2000–65 AND AMENDING THE MASTER LIST (EXHIBIT A) BY ADDING PARKING RESTRICTIONS IN VARIOUS AREAS OF SAN RAMON

* * * *

BUSINESS LICENSE ORDINANCE 

The City Attorney introduced a public hearing for an ordinance that would amend the ordinance code regarding the business license provision to exclude the requirement that an individual renting his or her home be required to obtain a business license.

Mayor Kinney opened the public hearing.

Shirley Alberti, confirmed the amendment to the ordinance meant a person owning a number of rental homes would have to have a business license just as a person owning a duplex, living in one side and renting the other side, would have to have a business license.

The City Attorney said if a person owned a single family home and moved out of the area and rented the home they would not be required to have a business license. He said the business license fee was $25 a year and was a registration type of ordinance.

Cm. Hudson’s motion to adopt the ordinance and waive the reading was seconded by Cm. Wilson and passed 5-0.

EXCLUDING SINGLE DWELLING RENTAL UNITS FROM REQUIREMENT TO OBTAIN BUSINESS LICENSE

* * * *

PG&E TRI-VALLEY PROJECT 

The City Engineer introduced a report regarding the Pacific Gas  and Electric Tri Valley Year 2002 Capacity Increase Project. She said PG&E had determined that there was a need for additional power in the Tri Valley area and in order to meet these future demands infrastructure improvements would be required. After conducting an alternative analysis study PG&E had come up with a preferred alternative which they recommended to the California Public Utilities Commission. She said the preferred alternative involved construction in Livermore, Dublin and Pleasanton and it did not involve any construction within the City of San Ramon. She said PG&E has submitted its application to the California Public Utilities Commission and the CPUC was conducting their own alternative analysis at this time. She said the CPUC had developed their alternatives for study and they would be producing a draft environmental impact report in November for their preferred alternative. She said one of the alternatives the CPUC was considering included the San Ramon substation and staff had issued public information notices to the residents of San Ramon regarding the San Ramon substation alternative. She also said that staff had commented to the CPUC in the environmental phase and under the general proceeding by the administrative law phase.

Christa Freihofner, said while San Ramon, Dublin and Livermore had all worked with PG&E to satisfy their city’s power needs, Pleasanton was the only city that did not want to get the updates to meet their city’s needs. She said Pleasanton feels the current PG&E plan would diminish the environment and destroy their hills because of needed transmission lines in their hills away from residences. She said Pleasanton had hired a law firm to represent them and fight PG&E’s preferred route and bring their power needs through other cities namely Dublin and San Ramon. She said PG&E’s plan was for every city to carry its own burden of updating that city’s present and future needs.

Cm. Hudson asked Ms. Freihofner what the feeling was at the meetings regarding this issue. He also asked if there had been any discussion about a route that would go through the sand quarry or the lakes in Pleasanton.

Ms. Freihofner said Pleasanton felt the reason they were being impacted was because of the Dougherty Valley. She said she had not stayed for the whole meeting and when she left there had been no discussion regarding the sand quarry.

Peter Frech, said he was representing Citizens Concerned About Electromagnetic Fields and his organization supported the City’s opposition to alternative route D2 because they did not see a reason why other cities that need the power but do not want to have the power lines in their city should shift the lines over to a city where the power was not needed. He said the San Ramon substation has excess power and had no need to bring in additional power lines to feed to other communities. He continued to say there would still need to be a connection between the north Dublin substation and the north Livermore substation and they did not see any advantage to installing the additional D2 line.

Mayor Kinney said currently Pleasanton receives approximately 40% of its power from San Ramon and he would hate to have someone blame the development in Dougherty Valley when Pleasanton was building a huge business park that would require a lot of electricity. He said the PUC had received the City’s response a month ago and San Ramon representatives would attend all of the Sacramento meetings regarding this issue.

Marcy Unger, thanked the Council for appealing the proposed trunk sewer line and for its support in working against the PG&E PUC alternative. She said when they bought their home five years ago they were told by the realtor the current PG&E lines would be put underground.

Mayor Kinney said he did not feel that was a true statement because to underground power lines was a multi million-dollar project.

Donna Dickey, submitted a speaker card against the PG&E alternative.

The City Manager said the PG&E preferred alternative was the one that was not coming through San Ramon and had been approved by the City.

Lisa Dobry, spoke against the PG&E alternative that would go through San Ramon and said we do not need any more power line wires.

Steve Petrie, said his yard backed up to the PG&E substation. He said he and his neighbors were all very concerned about the proposed improvements to the substation and what the impacts would be as far new wires and towers. He asked who he would contact regarding a noise wall between the row of houses in his neighborhood and the transformers. He said it appeared there had been a wall at one time.

Mayor Kinney said staff would check on this issue and get back to Mr. Petrie.

Al Trocano, said PG&E power lines were his neighbor. He said he was strongly opposed to any expansion of the substation and the wires.

Cm. Wilson said he was adamantly in favor of the PG&E alternative and against the PUC’s alternative. He said the Council has to work with the residents to make sure that the PUC does not assume that they can automatically install power lines anywhere they want without experiencing opposition. He said we have to let them know it is not going to work.

Cm. Raab said he and Mayor Kinney had met with the CPUC a few weeks ago and at time the point was made that the alternative route going through San Ramon was totally unacceptable and that the Council endorsed the PG&E alternative.

Cm. Hudson asked that staff notify Ms. Freihofner and Mr. Frech about any action or meetings regarding this issue.

Cm. Tatarka assured the residents that Council would pursue this issue and do everything possible to keep the PUC alternative out of the City.

* * * *

MODIFICATION OF URBAN LIMIT LINE

The City Attorney said on August 1, 2000 the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors modified the urban limit line that had been established in 1999 through Measure C. He said an urban limit line was essentially a line designating the area within which urban development is anticipated to be allowed and is intended to be approximately 35% of the county with the remaining 65% to be non urban, open space, agriculture and other similar uses. He said Measure C contains a process that allows the Board of Supervisors to modify the urban limit line on a 4/5 vote if one of seven findings can be made. He continued to say in this case the Board made the finding that changed circumstances since 1990 warranted the modification of the line. He said the area of significance as far as San Ramon was concerned was the Tassajara Valley which was formerly within the urban limit line established under Measure C, but was excluded as a result of the Board’s action. He said the majority of the Council felt this would affect the ability of the City to expand the existing sphere of influence into the Tassajara Valley and it would interfere with the ability of the City to plan and control the ultimate development of the Tassajara Valley and for that reason directed that the City of San Ramon challenge the Board’s action in modifying the urban limit line. At the same time the petition was filed with the Court by San Ramon there were four other actions challenging the Board’s action, one by the City of Brentwood and three from private interests. He said the five lawsuits were in the process of being consolidated to be heard as one action and it was expected the hearing would be heard some time late next spring or early summer.

Victor Petersen, said the way this item was listed on the agenda no one would be able to tell from the wording that it referred to a lawsuit filed by San Ramon against the County. He said it was the heart of his presentation that public input had not been solicited on this matter so the Council could find out how the public felt. He said the urban limit line before and after the move remains completely within the county land. He said the new urban limit line does not change or place any restriction on the land currently within the city limits of San Ramon and does not reduce the City’s current sphere of influence boundary. He said it appears to be a waste of the City’s tax dollars because not only are we engaging in a lawsuit that he believed that most San Ramon residents disagreed with but it would use residents’ tax dollars for the county to defend the suit and we are members of the county as well as the City. He said he thought this matter should have been an agendized public item prior to filing the suit. The City Council should want and desire public input on a matter such as this, instead it was decided behind closed doors without public input. He said he saw benefits for the developers and the Tassajara Valley landowners in filing this suit but he could not find any direct benefit for the City’s current residents. He said 11,000 homes are being built in Dougherty Valley and asked if we want to make another Dougherty Valley in Tassajara Valley. He asked the City Council to determine what the public wants before proceeding with the lawsuit. He asked, 1) was the City willing to engage in a type of fact finding to determine the residents’ opinion on this matter, 2) did the 30 day limit on filing the lawsuit prevent the Council from holding a public hearing first, 3) did the Council tell the voters that Measure G was going to cost ½ million dollars before it went to the ballot box and, 4) what benefit would the current residents realize from undoing the County’s preservation of the Tassajara Valley.

Cm. Hudson asked Mr. Petersen what he was trying to accomplish and what would the results be of not having a lawsuit.

Mr. Petersen said he did not feel the Council had received the public’s input on whether or not this was something the public wanted.

Cm. Hudson asked if he believed the citizens of San Ramon do not want to see any more houses in Tassajara Valley.

Mr. Petersen responded he thought the Council should find out what the residents want first. He said the residents he talked to were all happy with the new urban limit line and we all know it may be temporary, it may be 10 years and it may be 20 years and eventually there may be some development out there.

Cm. Hudson said he had not heard Mr. Petersen tell the public that when the County moved in the urban limit line they approved 1387 homes in Tassajara and for the last several years and they have been building in Tassajara and that their level of service already exceeds what we allow in San Ramon. He said the new project on Wendt and the new project on Alamo Creek will bring traffic levels of service above what is allowed in the City’s Dougherty Valley agreement. He said Mr. Petersen had not said one word about the development that was currently occurring.

Mr. Petersen said he could not do anything about the development that was currently occurring and he was asking the City why they wanted to move its sphere of influence out even further to have even more development.

Cm. Hudson said there is no development if the City moves out the sphere of influence. He said with Measure G the City can not make a General Plan Amendment without a 4/5 vote and if it were still with the County or Danville an amendment could be made with a 3/5 vote. He said he had an article from Supervisor Gerber that states the first thing she had done in moving the urban limit line was stop 6,000 houses in Tassajara Valley and in reality the first thing she did was approve 2,000 houses. He said he had received a map from East Bay Regional Park that tells us that Dougherty Valley is 11,000 units and the Council is considering the traffic from that development with every single project that is approved in that area. He said the map also shows that 12,500 homes are planned in the North Livermore Specific Plan but what it doesn’t tell you is that if the CAPP Initiative goes through in North Livermore you can undo the 12,500 homes and it doesn’t say that there were plans for 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50,000 homes out there and 10 million square feet of commercial. He said no one seems concerned about stopping Tassajara but at the same time allow Danville to build there and unilaterally change our traffic patterns.

He said he did not hear Mr. Petersen mention once that they want to keep it two lanes even though we have a written agreement that Tassajara is supposed to be four lanes. He went on to say that he did not see any mention that East Dublin’s General Plan Amendment on 6,900 acres could reach 30,000 homes.

Mr. Petersen asked do we need to put Tassajara Valley in our sphere of influence to make road improvements.

Cm. Hudson asked if it were easier to go to Martinez and get a 3/5 vote as a developer or come to San Ramon and try to get a 4/5 vote and asked which would be easier to get if you want a general plan amendment. He asked if you want to change from agriculture to residential what would you need.

Mr. Petersen asked if the City’s lawsuit is successful can we then eliminate those 1,300 homes.

Cm. Hudson said if the suit is successful we will have control of the traffic patterns out there instead of leaving it so that our neighbors can pick and choose what they want to do and when they want to do it. He said it is more of an impediment to San Ramon if Danville is able to leave five miles of Tassajara two-lanes from the Alameda County border to the Town of Danville then it is for us to get control of it and not allow them to reroute all the traffic onto Bollinger which is already set to have a level of service of D or .90. The projects just approved by the County are .93 or .94 by Danville’s numbers.

Mr. Petersen said nothing Cm. Hudson mentioned has to have the urban limit line moved back out for it to happen.

Cm. Hudson said by allowing the County to move in the urban limit line they conveniently moved it in to allow 1,300 homes to be built. He said in February when we had an issue about a water tank and where it was going to be placed, the City Manager of Danville said put it on Wendt Ranch. Our County Supervisor and EBMUD said we can’t do that, it would be growth inducing. A water tank is growth inducing but 1,387 homes are not. He said I think you are being a little unfair to the people here when you don’t mention those homes being approved.

Mr. Petersen said the City Council should have held meetings to educate the public on what was happening but the Council approved this lawsuit behind closed doors and it didn’t need to happen that way.

Cm. Raab said 1,200 and some odd homes have not been approved by the County in fact they are holding a meeting this Thursday night in which the public can come and speak about the negative impacts. He said the last he had heard Danville was filing something like a 65 page negative response in regard to the project. He said he knew San Ramon was also responding with letters to the project.

He said he would hope since the project hadn’t been approved that Cm. Hudson would take his emotion against the project and traffic and show up Thursday night and speak before the County Planning Commission and Subregion Planning Commission with the same passion. He said the meeting would be held at Tassajara Elementary School, Thursday night at 7:30 p.m.

Mr. Petersen said whatever small development was allowed as a concession as part of moving the urban limit line in was certainly better than even greater developments.

Cm. Hudson said that was not the only place they moved the urban limit line in. He said when they moved the urban limit line in Tassajara in they moved it out on our border on San Ramon Valley Boulevard and the Elworthy property seemed to have been forgotten. He said the issue was why are we having our neighbors plan our traffic patterns and that is what this lawsuit is about, not houses but control of Tassajara.

Mr. Peterson said I want to make sure we have control of Tassajara to reduce the amount of traffic congestion and that we keep the amount of traffic growth to a minimum.

Cm. Wilson said he would like to thank Mr. Petersen for getting involved so that questions like this would come out to the public. He said the main reason he voted for the lawsuit was so the City would have control. He said the County has control in Dougherty Valley. He asked if the County had given any support to the residents of San Ramon with the sewage issue.

Mr. Petersen responded no.

Cm. Wilson said the County decides what is best for San Ramon. He said he would rather the residents come to the City Council to talk about what goes on in Tassajara. He said the members of the General Plan Review Commission voted 20-5-2 to support the City’s stance in Tassajara and to say we want the sphere of influence.

Mr. Petersen said the vote was not for the sphere of influence, it was for the planning area and I voted for that.

Cm. Wilson said the residents would rather have the City control Tassajara and not the County. He said it is a good thing he knew Mr. Petersen had the best interests of San Ramon at heart otherwise he would say he was a ploy of the County. He said it was quite evident to him the County does not really care. The County builds around the Westside and Dougherty Valley and then San Ramon has to pick up the pieces. He said the Council would not support growth in Tassajara Valley without the infrastructure to support it.

Mr. Petersen said when San Ramon got left out of the process in Dougherty Valley and the County went ahead with development, Dougherty Valley was in our sphere of influence but San Ramon did not have a say in what happened out there. He said having it in our sphere of influence does not guarantee that we have a say at the table.

Mayor Kinney said Dougherty Valley was not in our sphere of influence, San Ramon had a memorandum of understanding with Contra Costa County signed by the Mayor of San Ramon at that time and the Chair of the Board of Supervisors. He said Dougherty Valley was never in our sphere of influence and the only sphere of influence we had was on the Westside. He said the County said with reference to the MOU, it was not worth the paper it was written on. He continued to say the County took $50 million in fees from developers to develop Dougherty Valley and told San Ramon to take a hike and we ended up having to annex it because we know they will come to the City for services. He said Mr. Petersen had made a comment that he knew the majority of the people in San Ramon were opposed to the lawsuit and then said that there had not been any input from the public. He said if we have the sphere of influence in Tassajara Valley LAFCO gets the sphere of influence not the County Board of Supervisors. He said the Council has never said anything about developing Tassajara Valley. He went on to say the Council wants to control Tassajara Valley so that we don’t have another Dougherty Valley. He said this Council wants to have control over our own destiny. He said when San Ramon annexes Dougherty Valley logically the Tassajara Valley is the next area over.

Cm. Hudson said Cm. Raab was correct when he stated those projects have not been formally approved but in the approvals it includes 5,950 homes that were projected for Tassajara and about 2,000 of those are either built or being proposed with the Wendt and Alamo Creek projects. He said it was also correct that the vote of the General Plan Review Commission was 20-5-2 to add Tassajara into our planning area but one thing that was not mentioned was that prior to that vote the Council had voted 5-0 to put Tassajara in our sphere of influence.

Mr. Petersen said back when the urban limit line was out at the far edge of Tassajara Valley he would have said yes, we have to have that area in our sphere of influence. He said when the County moved in the urban limit line they moved it in the Tassajara area so that it now currently matches our sphere of influence. He said what happened in Dougherty Valley where the County built without San Ramon could not happen right now with the urban limit line where it is because the County cannot approve massive home developments outside of the urban limit line. He said if the urban limit line gets moved back out we are in the position where we would have to apply to LAFCO to get our sphere of influence moved out.

Mayor Kinney said we need local control and the Board of Supervisors can move that line with a 4-1 vote tomorrow. He said two days after the County Board moved in the line Pittsburgh moved it back out.

Mr. Petersen said if that happens then the next day we ask for our sphere of influence to be moved back out. He said we can’t ask while the urban limit line is where it is and that is what our lawsuit says.

Mayor Kinney said it is not a done deal as long as it is tied up in court. He asked Mr. Petersen if he wanted four supervisors telling the Council what to do with land next to the City or did he want this Council or future Councils to decide what happens in the Tassajara Valley.

Mr. Petersen said if it is within our urban limit line he wanted the Council to do it but right now it was outside of our urban limit line.

Mayor Kinney said what you don’t understand is the urban limit line is not a done deal.

Mr. Petersen said if the suit is successful then we will ask to have it put in our sphere of influence. He said he wanted our sphere of influence to be at the edge of the urban limit line as it is now.

Mayor Kinney said that move has not taken place yet because there is a lawsuit.

Mr. Petersen said yes and we are one of the lawsuits trying to undo it. He asked what is the rush.

Cm. Tatarka confirmed Mr. Petersen’s concern with the lawsuit was that there was no public input.

Mr. Petersen said Cm. Hudson had done a good job in trying to educate the public. He asked where was the public hearing when all of these nuances could have been mentioned, the background laid out, the public educated on why the City was doing this and then get public input as to how they feel about this. He said there is a lot of information out there the public needs to know and that hasn’t happened.

Cm. Tatarka asked Mr. Petersen if he were asking the Council to do some sort of survey.

Mr. Petersen said yes, he would like to see some sort of fact finding, to educate the public and then ask their opinion.

Donna Dickey, said one of the reasons she and her neighbors had come to the Council meeting was to hear some dialogue on the urban limit line. She said she welcomed the information she had received and would like more. She said this is very important to all of us because a lot of south San Ramon residents had been impacted by utilities and growth. She commended the City for keeping the residents well informed.

Cm. Hudson asked Ms. Dickey if she had received a copy of the memorandum that stated "The General Plan area will be split between Dougherty Valley Central San tunnel to the Larwin Pump station and the gravity outflow to Sycamore Road. There are 1,279 housing units in Camino Tassajara combined general plan area, of these 323 are Wendt plus 142". He said the short of that statement was of the 1,279 or 1,378 units a little over half of them would be sending their sewage down Estero.

Ms. Dickey said she along with members of her group planned to attend the Thursday meeting to speak to these very important issues.

Cm. Tatarka asked if Ms. Dickey would like to see the City do a survey on the urban limit line or some type of fact finding.

Ms. Dickey said something informational would be helpful but she did not think she was influenced about how other people think. She said the information brought forth at the Council meeting would have been helpful and would have belayed a lot of the concerns prior to the Council voting and before reading it in the paper.

Cm. Tatarka confirmed Ms. Dickey was in agreement that a public hearing should have been held before the vote was taken and she felt the residents would have been ahead if that had happened.

Mayor Kinney said he would like to ask the Council a question and he would ask it in the form of a motion so that they would have to respond one way or another. He said does this Council have more trust in the County Board of Supervisors controlling our future then they do in this City Council or future City Councils and that would be his motion.

Cm. Hudson seconded the motion.

Mayor Kinney said he would like to know how the Council would vote and do they trust the City Council or do they trust four supervisors from Contra Costa County to decide their future. He said he would like each of the Councilmembers to state his or her preference either yes or no.

Cm. Raab asked the City Attorney if this was legal because it was not an agendized item.

The City Attorney said this was an agendized item but the Council does not have to answer a poll. He said if the Mayor makes a motion and it receives a second, if it is the kind of a motion that can be voted yes or no then there has to be a vote on the motion.

Mayor Kinney said he would amend his motion to ask are you in favor of San Ramon being in charge of any development in the Tassajara Valley.

Cm. Hudson seconded the motion.

Cm. Raab said this was in violation of the spirit of the intent of Measure G. He said we appointed a citizens committee to make the decision. He said former Cm. Athan’s specific intention in proposing Measure G was to remove the Council from this decision. He said if the Council was playing games he would not take part in the game playing.

Cm. Raab left the dais and asked that he be called when the game playing was over and said he would return for the rest of the meeting.

Cm. Tatarka said she felt the reason Mr. Petersen had asked that this issue be agendized was because he felt excluded from the process, meaning that the City Council in closed session voted on something that impacts him and there was not a chance for a public hearing. She said she would like to see the Council and the City actually find out from its residents how they feel about the vote by the County.

Cm. Hudson said that is not so, the General Plan Review Committee was talking about Tassajara in their planning area months ago.

Cm. Tatarka said she felt the Council was entering into a discussion regarding Measure G that we should not be having.

Cm. Hudson said the Council was not discussing Measure G.

Cm. Wilson said the General Plan Review Commission had voted 20-5-2 on this issue. He said whether he liked something or disliked it he would not walk out on Council. He said he was here to work with his fellow Councilmembers. He said he felt a survey would be a waste of time and he was sure if the residents approved or disapproved the phones would be ringing tomorrow. He said the Council was elected to make decisions and they could be held responsible. He said the dialogue with Mr. Petersen was a good way of keeping the residents informed.

Cm. Hudson said he realized he had been abrupt with Mr. Petersen and it was because he had respect for him. He said Mr. Petersen had come before Council on a number of issues. He said he had been closer to this issue because he had been at the meeting when there had been a change recommended to Tassajara Road. He said to Mr. Petersen if the Council wanted to do a General Plan Amendment in Tassajara he would be much more successful coming to the Council trying to get two votes to stop it than he would going to the County or Danville trying to get three votes. He said there is an affordable housing element that is going with the Wendt Ranch and if he believes the project hasn’t already been approved why was Wendt included. He said the urban limit line could have been moved in inside of that, He said this is not a small project and 1,387 homes is more than Gale Ranch. He said the Council did not have the opportunity to make decisions that could be criticized, they were cleaning up someone else’s mess and getting hung for it and he was not going to continue to sit back and just let it happen.

Mayor Kinney repeated his motion to say do you want San Ramon to control the Tassajara Valley, have it in our purview.

The vote on the motion was 3-0-1 (Cm. Tatarka abstained and Cm. Raab was absent).

* * * *

Cm. Raab returned to the dais.

* * * *

MAYORS’ CONFERENCE 

Cm. Hudson said everything was informational at the October 5 Mayors’ Conference and no votes were taken.

* * * *

SWAT 

Cm. Hudson said he was appointed Vice Chair of the South West Area Transportation Committee. He said the only issue that was actually discussed was a Supervisor talking about doing a transportation study for every project that gets built over 50 homes. He said San Ramon already does that.

* * * *

There being no further business to come before the City at 9:33 p.m. Mayor Kinney adjourned the meeting.

Curt Kinney, Mayor
Judy Macfarlane, City Clerk

Home | City Council | City Council Minutes Index