A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Ramon was called to order on November 14, 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, Senior Planner Charlie Mullen, Senior Planner Debbie Chamberlain and City Clerk Judy Macfarlane

* * * *

After calling the meeting to order Mayor Kinney said the Council had met in closed session pursuant to Section 54956.8 of the Government Code for the purpose of discussing acquisition of the Cortese real property (APN’s 208-260-022 and 208-260-024) and giving instructions to the City Negotiator, Bob Saxe.

* * * *

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

* * * *

Joyce Gunn, San Ramon Librarian, gave a report on the Smithsonian’s "Jazz Age in Paris" exhibit that was recently featured at the library. She said over 13,500 people attended the programs associated with the exhibit. She said the programs would not have been nearly so successful without the assistance of the sponsors.

Ms. Gunn listed all of the sponsors of the "Jazz Age in Paris" programs and recognized and thanked those that were in the audience.

Mayor Kinney introduced Peter Oswald and Marci McGuire of Sunset Development Corporation and read a proclamation recognizing and thanking Sunset as the recipient of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Merit Award for the Bishop Ranch Express Bus Service from the Walnut Creek and Dublin/Pleasanton BART stations.

Mayor Kinney introduced Patricia Boom and gave her a proclamation thanking her for representing San Ramon for the past ten years on the County Connection Board of Directors.

Mayor Kinney read a proclamation recognizing November 15, 2000 as "America Recycles Day 2000" in San Ramon and presented it to Douglas Graver, Chair of the Environmental Affairs Advisory Committee.

* * * *

The City Clerk said the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors had reauthorized the Contra Costa County Library Commission through June 30, 2001. She said a letter was received from Anne Cain, the Contra Costa County Librarian, requesting the City of San Ramon make an appointment to the Commission for that time period. She said the position was advertised and an application was received from Pauline Nolte, noting Ms. Nolte has served as the San Ramon representative on the Library Commission since its inception. It was staff’s recommendation the City Council reappoint Pauline Nolte as San Ramon’s representative to the Contra Costa County Library Commission for a period to run through June 30, 2001.

Cm. Raab’s motion to appoint Ms. Nolte as San Ramon’s representative to the Contra Costa County Library Commission was seconded by Cm. Tatarka and passed 5-0.

* * * *

Christa Freihofner said that she had received an anonymous telephone call from an employee of the Contra Costa Sanitary District stating the District was not telling the truth regarding the recent sewage spill at the Larwin pump station. She said the caller encouraged her to check further into other similar incidents within the District.

Rosalind Rogoff, said she could remember previous sewage spills in that area. She suggested taking the southern part of San Ramon out of Central San's District and hooking them up by gravity to the Dublin San Ramon Services District. She recommended getting rid of the Larwin pump station and getting Central San out of their part of town.

Victor Petersen, spoke about the recent meeting held at PG&E to discuss the Alamo Creek project. He said another meeting would be held at the same location on November 30 to continue discussing the project and he asked the City to post a meeting notice on its web site with a map outlining the project area.

Cm. Raab’s motion to approve the minutes of the October 24, 2000 Council meeting, as amended, was seconded by Cm. Hudson and passed 5-0.

* * * *

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

FINANCE      Register of Demands dated October 17, 24, 27 and November 10, 2000 in the amount of $1,277,753.99

AUDIBLE PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS 

Acceptance of work by Richard A. Heaps Electrical Contractor, Inc., for the installation of audible pedestrian signals 99-00 (CIP 7713) and authorization for the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder’s Office

AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT AGREEMENT NO. M003 TO THE ADMINISTERING AGENCY – STATE AGREEMENT FOR FEDERAL-AID PROJECTS NO. 04-5437 FOR THE CROW CANYON ROAD TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPGRADE PROJECT (CIP 7228)

ACCEPTING SELECT MEDIAN AND ROADSIDE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ALONG VILLAGE PARKWAY, SHAVANO WAY AND TRIANA WAY AND ACCEPTING CERTAIN LANDSCAPE PARCELS OF SUBDIVISION 7883 (PONDEROSA HOMES/PONDEROSA VILLAGE – PHASE I)

BUSINESS LICENSE ORDINANCE 

Introduction of Ordinance – Amending Chapter 1 of Division B-3 (Business Licenses) of the City of San Ramon Municipal Code and set public hearing date for November 28, 2000

* * * *

Mayor Kinney said a letter had been received from Paul Morsen, Director of Administration for Central Contra Costa Sanitary District regarding sewage overflow.

Cm. Raab said an article in the newspaper regarding this issue quoted Mr. Morsen as stating Central San had made a timely response to the sewage spill. He said the spill was reported at 7:50 a.m. and Central San showed up at 9:40 a.m., almost two hours later. He encouraged the Council to write a letter to Central San stating they did not think a two hour response was timely and they expected something better.

Cm. Hudson said there had been a meeting with Central San that day. He said there was a lot of discussion but nothing to report and they would be meeting again.

Cm. Raab made a motion that Council send a letter to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District stating our displeasure with the timeline and suggesting when similar tests are performed that adequate staff be on hand for such an accident.

Cm. Wilson seconded the motion.

Cm. Tatarka said the letter regarding the spill was sent to the City Manger and not to the residents in the spill area and she would like to make sure in the future the residents are notified.

Cm. Hudson explained that he had asked that the City Manager be notified about the spill and the circumstances associated with the spill and that was why the letter was sent to the City Manager.

The motion passed 5-0.

* * * *

NORRIS CANYON ROAD UPDATE

Senior Planner, Charlie Mullen said on May 9, 2000 Council approved a faux rock retaining wall for Norris Canyon Road and adopted a resolution at the subsequent meeting stating its intent He said as part of the resolution the Council had requested that additional studies be undertaken to determine if there were alternative noise reducing materials available for the retaining wall and road surface that would be feasible, aesthetically appropriate for the roadway and retaining wall surface coverings for this segment of Norris Canyon Road. He continued to say staff had contracted with a noise consultant paid for by the developer to do a noise analysis. He said a memorandum was recently distributed to the Council which included the noise analysis by the consultant and information on asphalt paving surfaces. After summarizing the noise analysis he said it was staff’s recommendation that Council consider the information contained in the memorandum and adopt a resolution containing the following recommendations; 1) that Council receive the noise study dated October 12, 2) that the existing faux rock finish on the retaining wall be retained and not install pyrock or other sound absorbing material and, 3) that the final pavement left on Norris Canyon Road be installed with an asphalt rubber hot mix gap graded and that the installation for the section of Norris Canyon Road west of Bollinger to the city limit would be called a demonstration project, making it clear that it would be considered for this project only.

Mike Clancy, said aspects of the landscape installation had been part of the project discussion over the years and part of the process was that traffic barriers would be installed on the south side of the road. He said after conversation with staff there seemed to be some question as to whether or not this was going to happen. He said he had read the staff report and agreed with the recommendation to install a rubberized hot mix because it was good for picking up the sound off of the tires. He said the residents facing the road were concerned about the engine sound and the sound of the vehicle which has nothing to do with the rubber tires and asphalt surface. He said there is a free standing format available of the product called sound sorb that could be put on the south side of the road that would collect both the reflected and direct noise of vehicles driving up and down the road allowing only a limited amount of sound to pass through. He said he did not see anything in the resolution that would address that sound.

Susan Friedman, said the wall that has been installed in that area meets all of the requirements except noise reduction. She said apparently the rubberized asphalt product has some sound absorbing qualities and she was pleased that this option was being considered. She said she felt the City had not followed proper procedure for the road improvement project because an EIR had never been performed that would identify noise impacts of the project. She said with the perceived discrepancies the residents decided to hire their own noise consultant. She said the residents agreed with the noise consultant recommendation to accept the road paving choice identified by staff and continue to monitor noise levels once the road is reopened to traffic. She said at the point where the road noise exceeds the 60 decibel thresh hold the residents then demand that sound mitigation occur. She urged the Council to accept the rubberized asphalt but as a condition of approval assure the residents that the City of San Ramon will take future responsibility to mitigate the noise on Norris Canyon Road once the 60 decibel thresh hold is exceeded.

Victor Petersen, said the project had improved greatly from the original proposal due to the cooperation between the City and the residents but there was still a concern regarding future development. He said it is not acceptable for even a small number of homes to experience increased noise when there is mitigation that can be done to prevent it. He said there wasn’t any discussion in the City’s sound engineering report on potential south side mitigation. He said the residents were happy with the recommendations in the report and the one thing he would ask the Council to agree to, if in fact the noise level does exceed the 60 decibels, that the City would look at south side mitigation to bring the noise level back down to 60 decibels.

Steven White, said his home backs up to Norris Canyon Road and he supported the idea of using hot asphalt rubber mix as sound mitigation. He said he felt there would be a lot more noise on Norris Canyon Road when there is future development. He said he supported the view that the Council ought to consider future mitigation should the noise increase beyond the acceptable level of 60 decibels.

Tom Kreibel, developer, said as the proponent there was really not a lot to rebut and they were ready to move on with the project and get it finished. He said he did not feel additional sound barriers on the south side of the road were warranted. He said he supported staff’s position and the resolution.

Cm. Hudson asked if there was some kind of retaining barrier, not a wall, on the south side so you don’t go into the creek.

Mr. Kreibel responded they had studied the whole topic of traffic barriers on different sides of the street and staff had done a study of where there had been problems over the years for accidents and it turned out there are minor areas and those are mostly in the county. He said where barriers are appropriate they would be installed but it would not be a continuous barrier the entire length of the road. He said while there is no continuous barrier or berm on the south side there is landscaping on the south side of the wall that will be installed as part of the landscape plan.

Cm. Wilson asked in regard to the landscaping and the barriers who is going to determine where the barrier starts and stops.

Mr. Kreibel said they had worked with staff for a period of time to determine the appropriate locations for traffic safety related barriers and the recommended locations are on the plans that have been submitted to the City.

Cm. Wilson asked when was the initial plan as far as where to put the barriers determined.

The City Engineer said what staff did in order to identify the locations as to where the guard rail would go on the south side of the road was to take a look at police accident reports and to plot the location of where the occurrences were and what they found was there were two clusters of where accidents occur. She said the study was done in 1998/99 and based on those findings they made a recommendation to put in guardrails at those two locations. She said the reason why the guardrail was not contiguous along the entire length of the road was because of encroachment into the creek.

Cm. Wilson said he wanted to make sure the residents were comfortable with the placement of the barrier.

Cm. Raab said he was concerned that the sound study was not conducted during the time of normal traffic flow. He said he liked the new asphalt and felt it would be an excellent idea. He said he had no problem with conditioning the project for the developer to conduct additional sound studies over the next couple of years and if the level goes above the 60 decibels then the developer will be responsible for additional sound mitigation on the south side.

Cm. Wilson said he wanted to make sure if by chance in the future the decibel level goes above 60 because of the traffic the City will not be held financially responsible. He said we must be diligent so that everyone knows that when you build in San Ramon you are going to have to accept responsibility not just for today but forever.

Cm. Hudson said what is being discussed is a portion of the road and not development. He said before the Council makes a promise to the residents he wants to make sure we know what we are saying. He said the residents want the City to further mitigate if the decibel level goes over 60 and he was worried about how this would be done and said he did not want to make a promise that we can not keep. He questioned whether or not the development could be conditioned when the road is the issue.

Cm. Raab said he saw this as a good chance to be proactive and he would like to ask the City Attorney if this was a feasible promise. He said there are limits as to what type of sound mitigation can be done on the south side and the residents are aware of that.

The City Attorney said the initial discussion concerned the immediate future if the sound exceeded 60 decibels and to the extent the discussion is about traffic that is generated by this project, in the immediate future he felt that was a possibility. He said the staff report talks about when it happens and that may be 2010 and it is not going to be because this project’s traffic it will be because of the incremental increase of the traffic along that road. He said with the time period the City would not be able to hold this developer responsible to come back and put up any kind of mitigation. He said he would question whether any city would just make a flat out commitment that if sound impacts for whatever reason exceed a certain level that the city will take care of it. He said to the extent that you are looking at the near term so that it is clearly a result of that project then he felt it was reasonable but beyond that he did not.

Cm .Raab said a time limit could be set stating that after the last house is built a study will be done and at that time if the level is above 60 decibels impose the cost on the developer.

The City Attorney said while he agreed in concept he did not know whether the last house built was an appropriate time frame. He said if the last home is not built for ten years then we get back to the same problem. He said it would have to be something fairly short term that would mesh with the major part of the project. He said the level of mitigation would have to be proportionate to the developers responsibility.

The City Engineer said she did not have a time frame for when the developer plans to complete the project.

Cm. Raab said it would be his recommendation to set an and/or and say seven years or the last house.

The City Attorney said seven years seems like a long time to him because in that time frame a lot would be happening. He said if the Council wants to do something that we have a reasonable possibility of making stick then he felt it should be a much shorter time frame, more like two years.

Cm. Wilson said this is an area that the Council has not pursued before. He said hopefully this will be explored and everyone will be on the same page with a compromise that will be acceptable to everyone.

Cm. Hudson said there are a lot of people on the road besides the number generated by the development. He recommended removing the issue from the developer and having the City set a timeframe for study and mitigation.

Cm. Hudson made a motion to accept the resolution and set a date two years from today to monitor the sound in the backyard and deal with what we find out.

Mayor Kinney said we have to take into consideration other projects that are going to create traffic. He said if Alameda County approves ten projects between the Alameda County line and Crow Canyon Road this developer cannot be held responsible. He said even if a sound study is done in two years, it would have to be done to track all the traffic coming out of this project and other projects in the area.

Cm. Tatarka said she felt everyone was in agreement that there should be some type of traffic monitoring on Norris Canyon Road but it is going to be hard as to when it will be done and gauging whose responsibility it is.

Cm. Hudson said the Norris Canyon Road residents are extremely capable and savvy of coming in to City Council to make their point. He said he was proposing to the residents that the City be responsible, however it is done, of doing a sound study similar to what was proposed by the residents, in a minimum of two years from today and a maximum of two years six months from today. Set up the sound monitors in their yards and get a new reading two years from now and let the residents talk to the Council about what they want at that time.

Cm. Hudson made a motion that the City Council adopt the resolution and work with the residents to do a sound monitoring study in between 24 and 30 months from the date of the acceptance of the resolution.

Cm. Raab said he would second the motion with an amendment that the cost at least be burdened by the developer on the sound study.

Mayor Kinney said in the report the sound study was listed at $1,500.

Cm. Raab asked why should we as taxpayers should have the burden of the sound study when it is due to development.

Cm. Hudson said he would love to give staff the latitude and say if you can do, do it, but don’t come back to the Council. He said if for some reason staff finds out we can’t require the developer to pay the $1,500 for the survey he would like to go ahead anyway. He said in order to get the second he would amend his motion to include that we ask the developer to pay for the study.

Cm. Raab said the project proponent was in the audience and recommended asking him if he would be willing to pay for the sound study.

The City Attorney said he had some concern about the mechanism that would trigger this condition if it were a mandatory requirement. He agreed it would be helpful to find out from the developer if this is something they would agree to and maybe there could be a sharing of the cost or a dollar limit.

Cm. Raab said it was not his intent that the developer would cover mitigation just the cost of the study.

Mr. Kreibel agreed that the developer would fund the cost of the sound study.

The motion passed 5-0.

REGARDING THE NORRIS CANYON ROAD RETAINING WALL NOISE ANALYSIS REPORT AND PAVEMENT SURFACE STUDY FILED BY HCV & ASSOCIATES, LTD (APPLICANT), NORRIS CANYON ESTATES (FORMERLY WIEDEMANN RANCH)

* * * *

DEIR CAMINO TASSAJARA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 

Senior Planner, Debbie Chamberlain, said the following report was in response to a request from the Council on October 24. She said City comments regarding the draft environmental impact report for the Combined General Plan Amendment Camino Tassajara project as being considered by Contra Costa County focus primarily on compliance with the settlement agreement standards as they relate to the Dougherty Valley and regarding police, fire, parks, child care facilities, traffic levels of service and impacts on city services. She said staff specifically commented that they had some concerns with the project’s compliance with the development agreement and had noted those in the comment letter to the County. She said the comment letter also acknowledged two issues that staff has been working on, 1) the San Ramon Larwin pump station stating we do not support any future connection to Dougherty Valley or connection to that pump station and, 2) staff has been working with EBMUD to site some storage tanks and additional comments related to that had been provided. She said at the Board of Supervisors meeting that day the Board voted to continue the combined public hearing and they directed the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission and the County Planning Commission to consider the project in its entirety which will include the General Plan Amendment, the Rezoning, the Development Plan and the Subdivision Map.

Rosalind Rogoff, South San Ramon Neighborhood Association, said their association’s interest is in the pump station connection where they are proposing to tear down some pump stations on Lawrence Road in order connect the Alamo Creek and the intervening properties to the Dougherty Valley sewer which would then connect to the Larwin pump station. She said she had sent a letter with a map attached and a recommendation to the County planners that they do a complete reversal of the route for the sewer. She said if they are going to have pump stations on Lawrence Road they should build a pump station in Dougherty Valley which is already in the Dougherty Valley EIR and go up the extension of Bollinger, hook it up to the Dougherty Valley sewer and then run it up to Martinez.

Cm. Hudson said no options have been thrown out and he asked Ms. Rogoff to take another look at the possibility she described and to document her ideas.

Cm. Wilson said the staff report regarding this issue was one of the best he had seen during his time on Council.

The City Manager said the motion at the last meeting regarding this issue called for a letter to be sent to Contra Costa County summarizing our concerns. He said it is his assumption that a letter would be sent with the concerns as listed in the staff report.

Cm. Hudson asked that Council send the letter and not take a vote on whether or not we want a project that is currently going through the Planning Commissions. He said we would essentially be telling them that we don’t want homes before any of the Council has seen the final comments. He said he felt discussions ongoing with Central San would be adversely affected if we oppose the project. He suggested sending the letter drafted by staff but not sending a letter that condemns a project that is not even coming before the Council.

Cm. Raab said he did not plan to change his previous motion or vote on this issue.

Cm. Wilson confirmed the staff report outlining the City’s concerns regarding the Alamo Creek project would be sent to the County in the form of a letter.

Mayor Kinney said if Cm. Raab wants to add to that letter the fact that the Council had voted 3-0-2 against the 1387 homes proposed for the Alamo Creek project he would have no problem.

Cm. Raab confirmed that he wanted the motion and the vote to be included in the letter.

The City Manager read the following from the minutes of the October 24 Council meeting "the City Clerk said Cm. Raab’s motion was are you in favor of 1387 homes in the Wendt Ranch project with a letter to follow with Council comments and analysis".

* * * *

MAYORS’ CONFERENCE

Mayor Kinney said the Mayors Conference in Pleasant Hill had a very short business meeting.

* * * *

SWAT 

Cm. Hudson said San Ramon was on the next step to picking up $200,000 for the construction that would occur on Crow Canyon Road between the County line and Bollinger Canyon Road.

* * * *

DSRSD LIAISON MEETING 

Cm. Hudson said representatives from the City of San Ramon and the Dublin San Ramon Services District had met recently and had discussed the possibility of setting up either our own service district or a service district with Central San and using DSRSD because they have the sphere of influence in Camp Parks. He said the meeting was positive and was the first step. He said this idea and others had since been discussed with Central San and the important issue is it was not ruled out by DSRSD. He said unfortunately because of the agreement with the City of Pleasanton DSRSD can not service Dougherty Valley but there are things in the works and they were open to all suggestions.

* * * *

Mayor Kinney said he had received a call from a woman expressing concern about people turning their dogs loose in the park and not picking up after them. The caller wanted to know if the City had an ordinance where the police could cite the owners. He asked staff to research the issue and leave a response on the Council’s voice mail or in the form of a memo.

* * * *

DECEMBER 26 COUNCIL MEETING 

Mayor Kinney said the second Council meeting in December would fall on the day after Christmas and asked the Council what they wanted to do.

Cm. Raab said previously the meeting after Christmas had been cancelled but the week before had been left open for the possibility of discussing any issues that had to be addressed before the end of the year.

* * * *

There being no further business to come before the City, at 9:15 p.m. the meeting adjourned.

Curt Kinney, Mayor
Judy Macfarlane, City Clerk

Home | City Council | City Council Minutes Index