A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Ramon was called to order on, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, 2222 Camino Ramon, Mayor Tatarka presiding.

PRESENT: Councilmembers Cambra, Dickey, Hudson, Wilson and Mayor Tatarka

ABSENT: None

STAFF PRESENT: Acting City Manager Jim Estep, City Attorney Tom Curry, Police Chief Brian Lindblom, Parks and Community Services Director Jeff Eorio, Engineering Services Director Joye Fukuda, Transportation Services Director John Dillon, Economic Development Services Director April Gray, and City Clerk Judy Macfarlane

* * * *

Mayor Tatarka said Council had met in closed session pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(a) to discuss existing litigation regarding Davidon Homes v. City of San Ramon (#C-01-05093), and no action was taken.

* * * *

Cub Scout pack 841 from Walt Disney School, led Council, staff and those present in the audience in the pledge of allegiance.

* * * *

The Acting City Manager stated the Economic Development Advisory Committee meeting scheduled for June 26^th had been cancelled.

Cm. Cambra stated that Mr. Kinney’s bond measure item would be discussed during. Council Comments.

* * * *

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

The Acting City Manager introduced summer interns Deidre Bolick, Lawrence Fishel, Adam Guise, Andrea Gold, Mollie Hailey, Ambert Ho, Debra Hoekenga, Winston Hsiao, David Maniscalco, Vincent Martorano, Chris Norris, and Brian Weber.

Mayor Tatarka welcomed the summer interns and gave them City pins.

Mayor Tatarka presented a plaque recognizing Ambert Ho for his year of service as student member of the Parks & Community Services Commission.

Mayor Tatarka presented a proclamation thanking Ken Mintz for his 14 years of service on the Parks & Community Services Commission.

Mayor Tatarka presented a proclamation thanking Jim Livingstone for his service on the Planning Commission.

A proclamation was presented to Officer Rich Persson by Mayor Tatarka, in recognition of his contributions to the D.A.R.E. program.

Police Chief Lindblom presented a certificate of recognition to Officer Rich Persson from D.A.R.E. America.

Mayor Tatarka presented framed posters of the cover of the Parks & Community Services Summer Activities Guide to the major sponsors of the Art and Wind Festival, American Express Financial Advisors, Inc., ChevronTexaco, Contra Costa Times/San Ramon Valley Times, KKIQ/ San Ramon Marriott, San Ramon Regional Medical Center and Windemere.

* * * *

CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS

The Parks & Community Services Director stated there were two openings on the Senior Citizen’s Advisory Committee. Applications were received from Colleen Vitalis and Joan C. Ernst. He noted both applicants had been interviewed individually on June 12, 2002.

Cm. Hudsons’s motion to appoint Colleen Vitalis for the term expiring June 2003 and Joan C. Ernst for the term expiring June 2004, was seconded by Cm. Cambra, passed 5-0.

* * * *

Roz Rogoff said she wanted to clarify her previous comments regarding a "shark tank" and presented to Council an article regarding the San Jose Sharks attempt to build practice ice rinks in the surrounding communities. She spoke in support of the City Center with city offices on the south side of Bollinger Canyon Road, and said the community needs a better City Hall with adequate space for offices and Council chamber.

Deborah Yeoman expressed her concern over the treatment some of the Councilmembers have had to endure since they were elected. She said a very vocal minority had been attending the meetings with the sole intent to harass, intimidate and filibuster, and questioned their actions and attire. She stated the local press was biased as well and said the behavior of the vocal minority was preventing other concerned citizens from becoming involved.

Mary Lou Oliver said she was not there to harass or filibuster but asked that an updated City Charter be published.

Dennis Garrison stated that approximately a year ago when he was approached at the local market by a petition solicitor for the directly elected mayor initiative, he had questioned whether this person met the requirements of being a registered voter in San Ramon. He stated upon review of the financial filings for the Citizens Committee for an Elected Mayor, he noticed a probable violation of a FPPC requirement, that expenses had not been listed, instead they had been paid for directly by individual members. He expressed his concern for the non-disclosure and said he had not been able to determine who the petition solicitor was. He said he had been told that copies of the petitions are not public records. He believed that the person collecting those signatures posed as a citizen of San Ramon, and then someone else signed the petition which was clearly a violation of the petition law, or that individual collected those petitions as a resident of San Ramon and then scratched out San Ramon and wrote in some other city which was clearly in violation of the terms of the petition. He asked the Council and the members of the committee who circulated that petition, to see that these documents become public. He said the public had a right to know who collected the signatures.

Diane Schinnerer encouraged every citizen in whatever attire they wish to come to the Council and express whatever opinions they might have. She also requested that the Council meeting be adjourned in the memory of Dean Detweiler who had recently passed away. Mrs. Schinnerer described the many contributions Mr. Detweiler had made to

San Ramon and said he would be missed.

Jim Monroe read from the California Government Code §103 that defined the criteria that may constitute a conflict of interest, focusing on the section that applied to California State or local government official or employees. He described four specific areas and stated that a member of the San Ramon Planning Commission was employed as Vice President of Governmental Affairs for the Northern California HomeBuilders Association. He stated that this commissioner was the chief lobbyist for the largest association of land developers in Northern California and challenged how this person could be in the position of planning commissioner for the City. While he said he was not making any accusation of wrong-doing, he felt a person in that type of position should not have the right to serve on a Planning Commission, especially when they were employed with a salary of probably in excess of $100,000 annually. He said this was totally inappropriate and asked the Council to investigate.

Scott Black said he was upset about the $5,000 excluded from the budget for the tours at Crow Canyon Gardens. He described how beneficial the tours had been in the past and expressed his disappointment that the tours had been cancelled.

Mayor Tatarka read letters from Brenden and Ryan Hanan describing their involvement with Crow Canyon Gardens and expressing their disappointment that some of the programs were to be discontinued.

* * * *

Cm. Hudson’s motion to approve the minutes of the June 11, 2002 meeting as amended was seconded by Cm. Cambra and passed 5-0.

* * * *

CONSENT CALENDAR

Cm. Cambra requested Item 8.9 Resolution No. 2002-76 Approving a 6,804 square foot reduction in the conservation easement located on Parcel "B" of Subdivision 8013 (Circle E Ranch) to allow a lot line adjustment in favor of 12 Majestic Oak Court (Lot 33), be removed for discussion.

Mayor Tatarka stated that item would be addressed as the first item after the Council returned from a five-minutes recess.

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

FINANCE

Register of Demands dated May 31, June 3, 4, 7, 16 and 23, 2002 in the amount of $2,035,277.69

Amending the City of San Ramon’s Classification and Compensation Plans to include the new classification of Executive Assistant and assignment of salary range

Resolution No. 2002-66

Amending the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of San Ramon and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 790 to provide to represented employees benefit enhancements that were previously approved for non-represented employees

Resolution No. 2002-68

Authorizing the Mayor to execute the transfer of control of the cable system franchise from AT&T Broadband to Comcast Corporation

Resolution No. 2002-70

Authorizing the Mayor to execute a consultant contract with Jensen Productions for the graphic design and printing of the City’s General Plan 2020 in an amount not to exceed $46,116

Resolution No. 2002-71

Authorizing the Mayor to execute a contract with Jacobsen & Wack and Crawford Multari & Clark Associates for the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update in an amount not to exceed $100,000

Resolution No. 2002-72

Authorizing the Mayor to execute a consultant contract with Fisher Friedman-Ellerbe Beckett to conduct master planning and related design services relative to the City Center Project in an amount not to exceed $224,000

Resolution No. 2002-74

Authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with P & P Construction, Inc., for the Fiscal Year 2002/03 Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Repair Project (CIP 5360), and miscellaneous concrete repair work for planned City Capital Improvement Projects between July 2002 and June 2003 in an amount not to exceed $125,000

Acceptance of Work

R & R Maher Construction Co. Inc., for construction of the Central Park Storage Facility Improvements Project (CIP 5304) as complete and authorizing the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder’s Office

* * * *

Mayor Tatarka declared a 5-minute recess.

All Councilmembers were present when the meeting reconvened.

* * * *

Parcel "B" of Subdivision 8013

The Director of Engineering Services stated the Planning Commission and staff recommend adoption of a resolution approving a reduction in the conservation easement on Parcel B in Circle Ranch. She said the conservation easement was created as a planning condition of approval when the Circle E Ranch was originally approved. She stated Parcel B was owned by Mr. T. V, Starkweather and there was a segment of Parcel B (48 acres) that adjoined 12 Majestic Oak Court. The property owners, Mr. & Mrs. Don Emerson, had requested that this portion be taken out of the conservation easement so it can be grouped together with their current property through a lot line adjustment. She stated the Planning Commission, at its June 4, 2002 meeting, recognized the incompatibility of the conservation easement within that particular case and assured that this was an unique situation not to be repeated elsewhere.

Don Emerson described the location of his property in relation to the easement and stated he wanted the lot line adjustment to build a pool and yard for his family.

Cm. Cambra asked if this adjustment was going to be up to the paved path.

Mr. Emerson stated it would be up to five feet off the paved path and there would still be property past the lot line adjustment.

Victor Petersen said he had personally inspected the area and was in favor of the lot line adjustment stating it would be an improvement for the neighborhood.

Cm. Wilson stated he felt this would be a benefit to the community and the surrounding homes.

Cm. Wilson’s motion to adopt Resolution No. 2002-76 was seconded by Cm. Cambra passed 5-0.

Resolution No. 2002-76

Approving a 6,804 square foot reduction in the conservation easement located on Parcel "B" of Subdivision 8013 (Circle E Ranch) to allow a lot line adjustment in favor of 12 Majestic Oak Court (Lot 33)

* * * *

It was the consensus of Council to hear Item 10.2 Pacific Gas & Electric Fiber Optic Telecommunication Project Status Update next.

The Director of Engineering Services stated this project was an integral part of PG&E’s capacity to restore service to customers after a disaster. She introduced Frank Aguilar, PG&E, who made a presentation to Council.

Mr. Aguilar stated PG&E had a mitigation plan to install this fiber optic line that utilized existing underground distribution. He said there was some construction to occur on Camino Ramon between Executive Parkway and Bishop Drive. He said PG&E was very happy that they were able to underground this line for the City and its residents.

Cm. Dickey thanked Mr. Aguilar and PG&E for their efforts and accomplishments.

* * * *

The City Attorney said he had prepared a report that included the legal constraints that exist in changing elections dates, options for various election dates and an option on whether to have the Council adopt a change directly or submit the question to the voters. He stated it was his judgment that an election in San Ramon was a municipal affair and thus governed by the charter rather than by state general law. He stated Council needed to determine the action to take to accomplish this change, and described some of the options.

The City Attorney stated that changing the municipal code could be accomplished in two ways, the Council could do it directly or submit the issue to the voters for their approval. He said the voters could through the initiative process petition the Council to require voter approval. He said the first question Council needed to answer was if they wanted to change the municipal election date. He said he had provided three options, which would be dependent upon when Council wanted the election effective.

Mayor Tatarka stated she had received many speaker cards and requested each speaker keep their comments to no more than three minutes.

Roz Rogoff read a letter from Joe Covello who spoke in support of the change of election year, but said he did not want to see terms extended. Ms. Rogoff then added her own comments saying it was wrong to use this opportunity to extend terms, and it appeared this was a maneuver to trick the voters. She challenged the Council by saying if they really believed in their new direction and had the support of the voters, if their supporters that were present were here to say "put it on the ballot" this would validate it. She questioned why Council wanted to bring this matter before the voters when the decision to fire Herb Moniz, Turner Construction, and other decisions had not been. She encouraged the Council to take the advice outlined in the letter from Mr. Covello. She asked Council to listen to Joe Covello, Diane Schinnerer, Mary Lou Oliver, and Pat Boom, stating they were not power grabbers and had worked for years to make the City what it is today and they don’t want to see it slip away.

Mary Lou Oliver said she had one question about Mr. Curry’s three options regarding the elected mayor in 2003 and the next election 2006 and asked would that require a charter amendment because the charter amendment that describes the elected mayor position does limit it to a two-year term and is very specific about that. She stated you would not be able to have a mayoral term for three years. She agreed that it was to the Council’s advantage to move the election up, shorten their terms, vote in 2002 and give the voters the opportunity to vote for the elected mayor ahead of schedule. She said she wanted to answer the questions of why this was not done before, stating it had been brought up several times by prior Councils but there was never a consensus for shortening terms, nor was there consensus for lengthening terms. She said she felt this was a decision to be made by Council, and not that of the voters.

Mayor Tatarka read a comment card from Debbie Laughlin stating she wanted the Council not to add a year to their term and suggested they do as the previous Council did, shorten their terms by one year if they wanted to go to even year elections.

Scott Miller said he felt there was not any opposition to switching to even year elections, the real question was how to implement it. He felt lengthening terms of incumbents was wrong and it would add an element of confusion to the voters when they have to vote on two elements that seem to conflict. He suggested exploring alternatives with a 2006 implementation and all of the existing terms expire when they are supposed to expire. He felt future terms could be shortened and the incoming candidates would be aware of the shorter term.

Diane Schinnerer stated if the Council truly believed that the election year should be changed, then they should do it that night by City Ordinance. She stated she did not want this issue to be stalled and it was not fair to the citizens to drag this issue out and shorten the time when people may have to be running for election. She felt it was clear that moving to even year elections had unanimous support and it could be accomplished by ordinance. She urged a 5-0 vote by Council to move to even-numbered year elections and to schedule the mayoral election in 2002.

Phil Henry said it appeared this was a fox guarding the hen house situation when the Council was voting to add to their terms. He encouraged the change be made after the next election. He said if you do the right thing, the community will support it.

Harvey Riggs said he felt this issue needed to be reviewed again. He supported moving the elections to even numbered years, and from a policy standpoint, there was going to be a lot of problems. He suggested not rushing to judgment on this issue and to consider letting the voters decide in 2003 what they want to do. If it is successful, he continued, the election year would be changed in 2006. He suggested that during the interim period, a group should be assembled to establish election policy within San Ramon.

Michelle Cowles said this was a very important decision for the Council to make. She said Council was elected to serve their entire term and shortening it was not an option and would be a violation of the trust of the people.

Melody Lundgren said she agreed with Michelle Cowles’ statement, and said she liked the idea of an election in 2003 where candidates would know they were running to fill a three-year term. She said the other option was to do nothing and focus on other City issues.

Bill Meine said great leaders in this nation and city are ones that represent the peoples’ agenda and not their own. He said as Councilmembers of a charter city, this Council had the right and authority to change the dates of the election. He felt Council was elected to support the people and if Council implemented the change and lengthened their term, it would not be right. He told Council to represent the people and if the decision was to change the election date, then their terms should be shortened. He said putting this item on the ballot was a waste of time and money, and would cause confusion. He said Council should exercise their right to take action on this issue.

Sam Lemon stated this was an opportunity for the Council to set a policy that would be universally accepted by the entire City. He said this issue was not a ballot measure, and the form of government in San Ramon was not a democracy, it was a republican form of government, representative government where five people are elected to act on behalf of the people. He stated the Council was elected to make decisions, not take polls. He said the scope of decision was clearly within their responsibility and it should be made now. He stated prior Councils had made the same type of decision before: shortened their terms for the benefit of the City, and said that was what should be done now.

Eric Wallis said the question was when to implement the change in years, and how to accomplish this change. He said there had been three proposals with one being to change the election from 2003 to 2002. The advantage of doing that now would benefit the City with an even-number year election now rather than waiting until 2004. He said it would allow the City to have an elected mayor now instead of waiting until 2004. He said the benefits to having an election year now versus later outweigh the needs of people to run a personal campaign. Mr. Wallis stated the second proposal to extend the terms by one year of each Councilmember (elections in 2004 and 2006) had the drawback of extending terms for longer than they were elected. In addition, he said, it would put off the election of a mayor for an additional year. He continued by saying the third issue was to go forward with the election in 2003 but then run the next election in 2004. He said the core benefits to the City would be all the people who face election in 2003 get to keep their full terms and it would allow the election of a mayor in 2003, and maintain the staggering of Councilmember terms, thus treating every Councilmember fairly. He said each Councilmember elected would serve a three-year term, and then thereafter, four year terms. As an example, he said, Cms. Cambra and Hudson would have their terms shortened by one year, and he did not think it as an unfair trade off. He said if this matter is put on the ballot, then the voters should be able to decide if they want to shorten or lengthen the terms. He said he felt this was a policy making decision that the Council should make themselves.

Mayor Tatarka read a speaker card from Don Schinnerer who supported even numbered year elections with the first one being in 2002.

Carol Rowley said she supported even numbered year elections and each Councilmember should fulfill their normal term. She said terms should not be shortened or lengthened, and terms could be adjusted at the next election. She said this was a decision for the Council to make, not the voters.

Pat Boom said it was very appropriate to change elections to even-numbered years. She spoke of the expectations by voters of their elected officials and said she did not feel lengthening of terms was one of their expectations. She urged the Council to make the decision that night to change to even-numbered year elections starting in 2002.

Mayor Tatarka read a speaker card from Joyce Carr who was in favor of putting on the November 2002 ballot the question, "do the people want to add one year to all City Councilmember terms?"

Gregg Carr said he did not support shortening of terms and felt this was a political ploy. He felt that this decision should be made by the voters and asked Council to put it on the ballot to ask the question "do you want to keep the same or do you want to add an additional year?"

Jim Hansen said he was in favor of moving the elections to even numbered years and for Council not to lengthen their terms.

Christa Freihofner said it did not make a difference whether elections were held in even or odd numbered years. She said if people are going to vote, they will vote. She said she felt Victor Petersen’s intentions were good, and that this issue was being pursued by a group of citizens that want to shorten certain Councilmembers’ terms. She further stated that because of the sewer line issue, she expected the Councilmembers who were elected to remain in office until this project was completed. She commented that it costs the same amount of money to run for a two-year term as it does for a four-year term.

Victor Petersen said he was championing this issue because no one else would. He said this issue was not a political football, and the Councilmembers were not elected for five years, nor were they elected for three years. He said this was an issue that must be decided by the voters and not a decision for the Council to make. He said the people who vote should be allowed the opportunity to decide when they want to vote. He agreed with the City Attorney’s observation that placing the issue on the ballot for shortened terms was not practical, and suggested the even numbered election year issue be decided first then hold an election.

Donna Kerger said she wanted people to do their job and to do it right. She said she did not feel that this was an issue to be debated for months and months and wanted Council to make their decision that night.

Mayor Tatarka read e-mails from the following San Ramon citizens:

Tina Kramer stated it was time to change to even numbered year elections, however she was not in favor of lengthening terms.

Bill and Aleta Schnaitter expressed support to change elections to even years and for Council to make the decision and not incur additional expenses by putting this on the ballot. They were not in support of lengthening terms, and Councilmembers should accept a shorter term as has been done in the past.

Don and Jill Birnbaum were in favor of changing the election to even years, and did not want the City to incur additional expenses of putting it on the ballot. They stated Councilmembers should accept a shorter term and they were not in favor of the extension of terms.

Paul Nestler and Mary Morales expressed support to change San Ramon elections to even years, and did not want the City to incur extra expense of putting this issue on the ballot. They stated Councilmembers should accept a shorter term and were not in favor of extending any Councilmember’s term.

Mayor Tatarka declared a short recess.

All Councilmembers were present when the meeting reconvened.

Mayor Tatarka asked the City Attorney to respond to the questions.

The City Attorney responded to Mary Lou Oliver’s question regarding the Charter amendment for option three, saying the Charter, in establishing a directly elected mayor, states "the first election for the directly elected mayor shall occur at the next election when there are three Council seats up for election", which would be whenever the next municipal election is held. He said it did specify a term of two-years for the mayor and did not believe that because it specifies a two-year term that would prevent an impediment to either a lengthening or shortening as a one time shot.

Mayor Tatarka said there were three questions before the Council that evening. She established it was the consensus of Council that the elections should be moved to even numbered years. She said the next question was whether Council was going to make the decision or if it should go to the voters.

Cm. Hudson said he wanted to correct a few minor things and one being that when Joe Covello’s term on DSRSD was extended, Joe’s vote was the one vote opposing the extension of terms. He made the observation that while everyone was in favor of changing to even numbered year elections, there was a clear division on the process to be used. He said when he talked with residents of the City, they were under the impression that the election for mayor would be occurring this November, the same time we would be voting for governor. He said it was in the best interest of the City that Council make this decision.

Cm. Hudson’s motion to move even year elections to 2002 for the first election of Mayor and the two City Council seats was seconded by Cm. Wilson.

Cm. Cambra asked the City Attorney the legality of holding an even year election and have people running on the same ballot when you have not established the fact there will be even year elections.

The City Attorney stated if Council decided to start even numbered year elections that year, the way to implement that decision would be by direct Council action. If it was decided to submit the issue to the voters, you could not have both a voter approval of even numbered year elections and an election of the candidates on the same ballot.

Cm. Wilson stated he felt it was imperative to second Cm. Hudson’s motion because all options should be explored whether he agreed with them or not. He stated his support to do whatever it would take to get the people out to vote, and if that meant moving to even numbered year elections, then so be it. He stated the question was not who was right, but what was right, and it was imperative that we do whatever we can to enable the Council to do what they were elected to do. He was totally opposed to the lengthening of terms and said there were many more important items that needed the Council’s attention and action.

Mayor Tatarka asked if they wanted the Council to make this decision or let the voters decide.

Cm. Hudson said the motion was for Council to make that decision.

Cm. Dickey stated she was elected for a two-year term and will serve her two-year term. She stated the voters could decide in the election if she were to continue or not. She said she was not in favor of shortening or lengthening her term and reiterated that she would serve her two years. She advocated putting this on the ballot for the voters to make the decision.

Cm. Cambra asked the City Attorney if Council proceeded with making the decision, could that ordinance be overturned by a future Council.

The City Attorney confirmed that a decision made by the Council could be overturned by a future Council. He continued by saying a voter approved matter could only be overturned by the voters.

Cm. Cambra declared that this was an opportunity to give the residents of San Ramon a chance to see that democracy really works and the responsibility to make that decision should be up to the voters.

Cm. Wilson thanked Mr. Wallis for his proposal. He asked Cm. Hudson for his thoughts on the reasoning for his motion.

Cm. Hudson said he felt that Council was doing things backwards and the issue that should be going before the voters was whether or not they want to vote when they change the year back, which was part of Mr. Petersen’s initiative. He said Council could approve that motion, and still put a ballot measure before the people to decide if in the future they want to change by election. He said the City had an Elected Mayor measure that had passed with 77% of the vote, which made it clear "at the next municipal election… with three city Council seats" that we would be electing a mayor. He emphasized with the major election in 2002 he did not want to have to explain to the resident’s that Council had just changed it to 2004. He said the people have a right to vote for the elected mayor this year. He stated the motion was still standing and if Council wanted to put a measure on the ballot, it should be a separate issue.

Mayor Tatarka asked the City Attorney if that were something Council could do.

The City Attorney said Council can, by adopting an ordinance or directing him to bring back an ordinance, change the election date on its own. He said if the Council gave him further direction to put a measure on the ballot, covering a variety of topics including Cm. Hudson’s suggestions, it would be put on the ballot for an election starting "some time in the future." He said if the people voted for it, it could only be changed by the people.

Mayor Tatarka inquired if Cm. Hudson had a particular date in mind.

Cm. Hudson replied November 5, 2002 was the next election date. He stated after the motion he just made, this could be accomplished by the same process that has always been done. He strongly stated that the residents of San Ramon believe the selection of mayor was coming up for election this year, and that was what his motion would accomplish.

Cm. Cambra remarked that the people he had spoken with understood very clearly that we would be voting for a mayor in 2003 and expressed his doubts that there was an impression that the mayor was going to be voted for this year.

Cm. Wilson asked Cm. Hudson to clarify his quoted statistic of "77%."

Cm. Hudson said it was 77% of a very small number.

Mayor Tatarka said this was a very difficult, but simple decision. She felt that even numbered year elections were wanted and needed by this community for many years. She said the decision should be made by the voters, and explained the voters of this City vote in even year elections at a phenomenal rate compared to the odd year elections. She voiced her feelings that since the voters elected this Council, they should have the vote in extending or shortening terms. She said in order to increase voter participation, there had to be some sacrifice, and not everyone was going to agree on shortening or lengthening terms and this decision should be made by the voters. She said it should be a very simple question this November, "do you want even year elections and in doing that it would extend the existing Council terms". She said this decision was long overdue and it takes great political courage to make that statement.

Mayor Tatarka asked for a roll call vote.

The motion failed 2-3 (Cms. Cambra, Dickey and Mayor Tatarka dissenting).

Mayor Tatarka advised Council the next decision to be made is when the first election would be to go for voter approval.

Cm. Cambra said he did not feel that the issue had been decided. He clarified it had been decided that Council did not want to do this by ordinance, but the question remained if we are going to do this at all, and if we send this to the people.

Cm. Hudson said he supported putting the measure on the ballot in 2003, which would shorten the terms of the people who are elected with terms expiring 2006, and his and Cm. Cambra’s terms would be up in 2004.

Cm. Dickey said each Councilmember should be able to serve his or her entire term. In 2003, she said the candidates at that time would know they would be running to fill a three-year term. She stated again that she did not support shortening or lengthening terms and wished to serve the term her constituency voted for. She expressed her support for placing this item on the ballot in 2003 where voters know they would be electing someone for only three years.

Cm. Cambra disagreed stating we have an opportunity now in an even year to put before the voters the maximum exposure that we want instead of the poor turnout we have experienced. He stated to move it to 2003 would mean another low voter turn out.

Cm. Cambra’s motion to take this issue to a vote, this year, was seconded by Mayor Tatarka.

Cm. Hudson asked for clarification on "what issue."

Cm. Cambra said asking the residents of this City to vote on whether they want even numbered year elections and putting it on the ballot in 2002.

Cm. Hudson said "with the results" being…

Cm. Cambra stated he was not talking about results, he was taking the items, one at a time, 2002 to the voters, that was the motion.

Cm. Hudson again asked what was the result they were voting on. He stated Cm. Cambra was talking about extending terms.

Mayor Tatarka referred to the staff report and asked the City Attorney to explain.

The City Attorney stated he had provided an option to either have the Council decide on this or have it placed on the ballot for voter approval which would state that the next municipal election would be November 2003. He said that is when the election would normally have been held and would have the result that anyone currently serving would have anticipated. He continued by saying the election after 2003 would then go to even numbered years. He indicated that there were two options: 1) they can either start in November 2004, which would shorten some terms or 2) they could start in November 2006 which would lengthen some terms. He indicated that those were two options. He said the general option was to hold the next election in November 2003, but the subsequent election would be in an even year 2004 or 2006. He advised that would be dependent on a decision to shorten or lengthen some terms.

Cm. Wilson said he felt Council was creating a problem and as long as the voters and candidates know before what the terms are, it would not matter.

The City Attorney explained that any option could be pursued; they could be done singly, or in any combination. He said if Council put more than one question on the ballot, the question, assuming that it were favorably voted on, receiving the greater number of votes, would win.

Cm. Cambra said his motion was to put the issue before the voters in November 2002, in an effort to maximize voter turnout. He said the City Attorney could draft other options, and the Council would have time to consider them, but he wanted to get this issue out of the way.

Cm. Hudson asked if they could put a measure on the ballot that states, "we will change to even year elections" and include on that ballot a list of candidates.

The City Attorney stated the Council could adopt an ordinance changing the election date to November 2002. He said the Council could also put a measure on the ballot that affects subsequent elections. He said what can’t be done was to put on a measure that was going to affect the 2002 election. He said Council could put a measure on the ballot in November 2002 for the citizens to decide or they change the election date now, and have the election for candidates occur in November 2003. He stated what could not be done was to put a ballot proposition on for voter approval in November 2002 and the same time without Council action, have the candidates run in November 2002.

Mayor Tatarka verified the municipal election date has to be changed first before the election for candidates.

Cm. Dickey asked how this would affect Cm. Cambra and Hudson’s terms of office.

The City Attorney said under the context of changing the election to 2002 right now, by ordinance, the three terms that would have been up in 2003, would have to stand for election in 2002.

Cm. Dickey questioned further if this goes to the people for a vote as suggested by Cm. Cambra in November 2002 to take change to even year elections, could that be applicable for the people who would run in 2003 to 2006. She asked how do we handle the even year election for the Councilmembers who terms are up in 2005, as effectively everyone would be up on 2006.

The City Attorney stated a proposition could be placed on the November 2002 ballot, offering some combinations of when the change would occur. One option, he said, would be the next election would be held in 2003 and an election immediately thereafter in 2004. Option two would be to hold the next municipal election for candidates in 2003, and the election thereafter would be in 2006. He noted a 2004 election would shorten terms, the 2006 would lengthen terms. He said in either event, the voters would have decided that issue, and there would have been an election in 2003 which would not have shortened terms that already exist.

Cm. Hudson made an amendment to the motion to include the verbiage in the staff report, "delayed change" and add following "next election," "in 2002." The motion died for lack of a second.

Mayor Tatarka asked for a roll call vote on Cm. Cambra’s motion.

The motion passed 4-1 (Cm. Hudson dissenting).

Cm. Cambra requested the City Attorney list the available options. He inquired since the July 9^th meeting had been cancelled, whether there was adequate time for preparation of documents to get it on the ballot.

The City Attorney advised that since the Council voted to formally place this item on the ballot, he would bring back a resolution which would contain options where terms are extended and/or shortened, but would not affect the current Council. The voters would know in 2002 what action they were voting on.

Cm. Wilson said he hoped there would be a comfort level for all Councilmembers when the options for the possibilities had been presented and expressed his desire for this to be a unanimous decision.

Cm. Hudson said he was acting on behalf of what he thought was the majority of the people. He said he did not want this to become an election issue. He suggested that the July 9^th Council meeting be reconsidered and not wait until the 4^th Tuesday of July to re-address this matter.

The City Attorney stated he could draft sample resolutions within that time frame and described the options.

Cm. Hudson asked if this was the direction the Mayor wanted, putting two options on the ballot for the voters to decide.

The City Attorney said that he would prepared three resolutions, one would have 2003/2004, the second would have 2003/2006, and the third would present both of those questions for approval. He said if there were any other options that could accomplish the Council’s objectives, he would present them as well. He assured the Council they would have something to adopt at their next meeting.

It was consensus of Council to hold a meeting on July 9, 2002 and the election issue would be the only item on the agenda.

* * * *

The Economic Development Services Director stated the Environmental Affairs Advisory Committee recommended approval of funding for the composting demonstration project in the amount of $5,000. She stated the 2001/02 Program of Services included $15,000 for the mini-grant program and this was the first grant application. She stated the funds were to be used for a site at Crow Canyon Gardens. She introduced Kathy Southern who was a master gardener at the site, to assist with any questions.

The Director answered Cm. Dickey’s question stating she did not know the exact amount but the City does pay less than $500 annually for Valley Waste Management services.

Ms. Southern replied to Cm. Wilson’s concerns over the location of the composting site stating it would be away from the restaurant and not near the apartments.

Cm. Wilson stated Crow Canyon Gardens are important to the City and he did not want the contract negotiations with Crow Canyon Institute to interfere with the programs and the Gardens. He expressed his support for the garden and described his personal involvement and support during the past several years.

Ms. Southern responded to Mayor Tatarka‘s questions stating that the compost would be used by the gardens to help fertilize the plants. She said the essence of the program was to teach people how to compost within their own environment. She stated the grant would enable tours for children on how and why to compost. She said she was an organic gardener and compost was essential to effectively garden organically.

Linda Wilgus said this project was the brainchild of Betty Nostrand and was something they had needed for a long time.

Cm. Cambra’s motion to approve the resolution was seconded by Cm. Wilson passed 5-0.

Approving Environmental Mini-Grant Application submitted by Crow Canyon Institute for a composting demonstration site at Crow Canyon Gardens in the amount of $5,000

* * * *

The City Attorney said this was an implementation of various and lengthy agreements that had resulted in the settlement of the lawsuit and would set-up a schedule for the annexation of this property into the City. He stated this would not change anything that had been agreed to prior and recommended approval.

Cm. Dickey’s motion to approve the resolution was seconded by Cm. Hudson and passed 5-0.

Authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with Windemere BLC Land Development Company providing for the annexation of the Windemere Ranch Development (Dougherty Valley)

* * * *

Cm. Cambra inquired of Council if there needed to be any further discussion on an issue that was originally discussed at the June 11, 2002 meeting regarding a bond measure to be placed on the November 2002 ballot that was originally discussed at the June 11, 2002 meeting.

It was agreed that until there was detailed clarification from Curt Kinney as to what he had in mind, the issue had been addressed.

Cm. Hudson stated the issue was not just Mr. Kinney’s bond measure. He said since we are proceeding with a new design for the City Center, we should immediately start on issues of financing. He suggested that a study group be established to gather information.

Cm. Wilson stated as soon as everyone is in place, the Finance Committee will concentrate on this topic, specifically, how the City is going to pay for the City Center and they would present their findings to Council at that time.

Cm. Cambra stated the budget for the City Center will be reviewed, however, it is still premature to move forward.

Cm. Dickey stated we have consultants on board to lead us and we will keep the public informed as well. She stated it was premature to put anything before the voters.

Cm. Cambra stated we should let Fisher-Friedman, the City Center consultants, establish their estimates.

* * * *

Cm. Dickey announced there would be a County Connection rate increase beginning the second week in August.

* * * *

Cm. Wilson reminded everyone of the City’s 4^th of July events.

* * * *

Cm. Hudson stated the Council needed to have a policy that whenever there is an alternate for San Ramon on a regional committee, we need to be proactive to have our own Councilmembers serve as that alternate.

* * * *

Mayor Tatarka encouraged the use of the City web site to stay apprised of the 4^th of July activities.

She said she had attended the U.S. Conference of Mayors and would be disseminating information obtained to the other Councilmembers.

* * * *

There being no further business to come before the City, at 10:45 p.m. Mayor Tatarka adjourned the meeting in memory of Dean Detweiler and Mauricio Gonzalez.

Signed:

Nancy Tatarka, Mayor
Judy Macfarlane, City Clerk